1
1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA
2
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE )
3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and )
WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., )
4 )
Petitioners, )
5 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038
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 vs. )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, )
vs. )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 Southeast 2nd Street
19 Miami, Florida
March 18, 1993
20 9:10 a.m. - 5:55 p.m.
21
DEPOSITION OF SAGAR V. KRUPA
22 VOLUME I - A.M. SESSION
23
Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered
24 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for
the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of
25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause.
2
1 APPEARANCES
2 ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS FLORIDA SUGAR CANE
LEAGUE, INC., UNITED STATES SUGAR CORP., and
3 NEW SOUTH HOPE, INC.
4 PEEPLES, EARL & BLANK, P.A.
One Biscayne Tower - Suite 3636
5 Two South Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33131
6 BY: ROBERT H. BLANK, ESQ.
7
ON BEHALF OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
8
POPHAM HAIK SCHNOBRICH & KAUFMAN, LTD.
9 4100 International Place
100 Southeast 2nd Street
10 Miami, Florida 33131
BY: PAUL L. NETTLETON, ESQ.
11
12 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-INTERVENOR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
13
STEPHEN G. BARTELL, ESQ.
14 United States Department of Justice
Environmental and Natural Resources Division
15 General Litigation Section
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
16 Washington, D.C. 20004
17
ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
18 REGULATION
19 KEITH C. HETRICK, ESQ.
Assistant General Counsel
20 Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
21 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400
22
PRESENT:
23 JIM GRIMSHAW
24
25
3
1 INDEX
2 Witness Direct Cross Redirect
SAGAR V. KRUPA
3
By Mr. Nettleton: 4 -- 237
4 By Mr. Bartell: -- 229 --
By Mr. Hetrick: -- 233 --
5
6 EXHIBIT PAGE DESCRIPTION
7 1 6 A CV of Dr. Krupa
8 2 99 A letter dated February 25,
1993 from Mark T. Kobelinski
9
3 102 A letter dated March 5, 1993
10 from Robert H. Blank
11 4 201 A document entitled
Memorandum, to Maxine Cheesman, from
12 Larry Grosser, dated January 15, 1993
13 5 202 A document entitled Phosphorus
Concentration in Rain and Atmospheric
14 deposition in Florida, USA, by
Herbert J. Grimshaw, et al.
15
6 207 A document entitled Acidic
16 Precipitation, Volume 3, Sources,
Deposition and Canopy Interactions
17
7 209 A document entitled Chapter 7,
18 Field Intercomparison of Sulfate Dry
Deposition Monitoring and
19 Measurement Methods: Preliminary
Results
20
8 209 A document entitled Methods
21 for the Measurement of Gaseous and
Particulate Sulfur Dry Deposition,
22 Field Intercomparison Studies, pages
214 through 225
23
9 214 A document entitled Sampling
24 and Analysis of Atmospheric Sulfates
and Related Species
25
4
1 Thereupon --
2 SAGAR V. KRUPA
3 was called as a witness and having been duly sworn,
4 was examined and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. NETTLETON:
7 Q. Sir, could you state your name for the
8 record, please?
9 A. My name is Sagar V. Krupa.
10 Q. What is your current address?
11 A.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
13 Q. Is it Mister or Doctor?
14 A. Doctor.
15 Q. Dr. Krupa, my name is Paul Nettleton. I
16 am an attorney representing the South Florida Water
17 Management District. I am going to be taking your
18 deposition today and asking you some questions.
19 If at any time you do not understand one
20 of my questions or it doesn't make sense to you, can
21 you please tell me and I will attempt to rephrase it
22 so that what you answer is the question I am asking,
23 okay?
24 A. Thank you. I will.
25 Q. What is your current position?
5
1 A. I am employed at the University of
2 Minnesota as a professor of plant pathology.
3 However, I would like to be on record as having
4 stated that I am not here to represent my employer.
5 I am here as a private consultant.
6 Q. Can you give me the benefit of your
7 educational background?
8 A. My undergraduate education was primarily
9 in biology. I was born in India. My bachelor of
10 science degree was in botany. I also received a
11 master of science degree in botany also from India.
12 Then I received a master of science degree
13 in plant pathology from the University of Wisconsin,
14 Madison.
15 Then my further education occurred in
16 Uppsala, Sweden where I received a degree similar to
17 a master's in physiological botany. My Ph.D. degree
18 although listed as physiological botany, was in the
19 faculty of natural science and mathematics.
20 Q. What does that mean?
21 A. In the Swedish system departments do not
22 grant diplomas but the faculty consisting of a number
23 of departments confer the diplomas. And the
24 physiological botany department I was in was part of
25 the faculty of natural science and mathematics.
6
1 Q. What type of mathematics were you involved
2 with?
3 A. I was not involved in mathematics. My
4 thesis was on plant chemistry.
5 MR. NETTLETON: Mark that, please.
6 (A CV of Dr. Krupa was marked Krupa
7 Deposition Exhibit 1 for identification)
8 BY MR. NETTLETON:
9 Q. Dr. Krupa, I am showing you what has been
10 marked as Exhibit 1. Am I correct that this is your
11 CV or resume?
12 A. As of September 1992.
13 Q. I was going to ask you that. Have you
14 created an updated resume since September 1992?
15 A. Yes, sir.
16 Q. What is the most recent resume that you
17 have created?
18 A. January 1993.
19 Q. Can you tell me what differences or what
20 additions would exist on the January 1993 that do not
21 appear on the September 1992 CV?
22 A. There would be additional entries on
23 university activities, like committee work.
24 On reference No. 81 in my publication list
25 on page 30, sir, is no longer in press as appears. I
7
1 believe it is in volume 104/105 of that journal.
2 Q. What type of university activities have
3 been added?
4 A. Like, for example, I've taught one more
5 course since September.
6 Q. What course is that?
7 A. It is called Disease Theory No. 2, Ecology
8 and Physiology of Root Soil Microorganism
9 Interactions.
10 Q. Looking at your educational degrees, can
11 you tell me why you got a second master's?
12 A. I was looking for something that excited
13 me. Botany did not particularly enthuse me so I was
14 looking for a niche to go to.
15 Q. Would you turn to page 3 of your exhibit
16 under grants?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Under --
19 MR. BLANK: Counsel, we are on page 3 of
20 Exhibit 1 now?
21 MR. NETTLETON: Of Exhibit 1, right.
22 Q. I would like to go through these grants
23 here and ask you starting with the first one, with
24 the Northern States Power Company, essentially what
25 conclusions you reached as a result of that research.
8
1 A. That the, this related to the power plant
2 that was newly built and it was one of the most
3 advanced power plants in the country at that time.
4 And I was interested in looking at the impacts of
5 sulfur dioxide on crops and native vegetation around
6 the power plant.
7 The conclusion was that the power plant
8 emissions were not high enough to cause adverse
9 effects. In fact, the sulfur dioxide emissions were
10 low enough to essentially fulfill the requirements of
11 the plants for sulfur because most of them were
12 growing in sulfur deficient soils.
13 Q. So you found that the sulfur dioxide that
14 was emitted from the power plant was actually a
15 benefit to the plants?
16 A. Benefit in the sense of the requirement.
17 I did not see an increase in yield because at that
18 time the farmers were fertilizing and they could stop
19 doing that.
20 Q. The second grant, the State of Minnesota
21 Environmental Quality Council, what did that involve?
22 A. At that time there was concern of
23 long-range transport of ozone into Minnesota from
24 upland states. And the Environmental Quality Council
25 wanted to know whether ozone that was prevalent in
9
1 Minnesota at that time was capable of causing crop
2 loss.
3 Q. What conclusions did you reach in that
4 research?
5 A. The preliminary conclusions showed that
6 with soybean there could be anywhere from five to
7 eleven percent of yield loss at the particular
8 location where I conducted the study.
9 Q. You say preliminary conclusion. Did you
10 ever reach a final conclusion?
11 A. I tried to. A tornado took it away, two
12 times in a row.
13 Q. The next grant on there, the open-top
14 chamber investigations, can you tell me what that was
15 about and what conclusions you reached?
16 A. That was the system that came from the
17 first grant, I built a bunch of chambers that
18 disappeared in 20 seconds while I was watching them.
19 Q. I am sorry, when you say the first grant,
20 did you mean the Minnesota Environmental Quality
21 Council grant?
22 A. Yes. The first one I did preliminary
23 studies with chambers successfully. Then they gave
24 me additional money and wanted to improve the quality
25 of the data I was collecting and two times in a row
10
1 tornadoes came two times in a row and took it away.
2 Q. Would that also be the next listed grant
3 there?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. That is the second tornado?
6 A. Yes. I lost count, I have to tell you.
7 Q. Were you able to, before the tornado took
8 away your equipment, were you able to gather any data
9 to do any analysis at all?
10 A. Only about 20 days worth of the growth
11 season.
12 Q. That was not enough to reach any
13 conclusions?
14 A. No.
15 MR. BLANK: Did you answer?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, I did, no.
17 BY MR. NETTLETON:
18 Q. You do have to answer out loud.
19 A. No.
20 Q. Moving to page 4, the first listed grant,
21 impact of copper-nickel mining, can you tell me what
22 conclusions you reached in that research?
23
24 A. This was a preimpact study so there are no
25 conclusions to speak of. And the copper-nickel
11
1 mining did not occur in Minnesota because the
2 companies involved changed their mind not to mine so
3 essentially I was collecting background information
4 on the trace metal accumulation in plants.
5 Q. What type of trace metals?
6 A. Iron, manganese, copper, zinc.
7 Q. Anything else?
8 A. Phosphorus, sulfur.
9 Q. How were you going about collecting that?
10 A. Certain number of plots were established
11 within the area of interest and we tagged certain
12 species within those plots. Once a month we went and
13 sampled the foliage, brought the foliage back and
14 analyzed them for various elements.
15 Q. How were they analyzed?
16 A. The metals were analyzed by combination of
17 techniques called atomic absorption spectroscopy and
18 also inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy.
19 Phosphorus was analyzed by colorimetry, sulfur was
20 also analyzed at that time by colorimetry.
21 Q. What species of phosphorus were you
22 looking at?
23 A. We were looking at total phosphorus.
24 Q. Did you do any fractionation of the
25 phosphorus?
12
1 A. No, sir.
2 Q. Am I correct that all you were doing was
3 collecting samples to determine background and you
4 never reached any conclusions as to what the copper-
5 nickel mining impact would be on that?
6 A. That's correct. This was a time when
7 Minnesota was interested in providing economics to
8 the northeastern part of Minnesota which was
9 impoverished and therefore they were interested in
10 copper-nickel mining, but that never occurred because
11 the companies involved did not pursue it.
12 Q. Was it anticipated that copper-nickel
13 mining would have an effect on total phosphorus
14 regimes in the area?
15 A. No, sir. I was primarily looking at trace
16 metals as a tracer for copper-nickel mining and
17 invariably when plants elevate various metals,
18 phosphorus concentration may go up. So we were just
19 looking to see for the future.
20 Q. The next grant, the ozone plant species in
21 Minnesota, can you tell me what that was about?
22 A. I think it is a typo. Ozone effects on
23 plant species in Minnesota.
24 Q. Okay.
25 A. It is a Graduate School of Minnesota grant
13
1 so I can buy a piece of equipment to monitor ozone.
2 Q. The next, US National Park Service, role
3 of disease in the environmental and ecological
4 management of parks, can you tell me what that
5 involved and any conclusions you reached?
6 A. This was -- this relates to a national
7 park in Minnesota that was created roughly at the
8 same period as I got the grant known as the Voyagers
9 National Park, and again there was no previous data
10 in the general area on air quality or species
11 sensitivity to potential air pollutants. So again
12 much of the work I did was to collect background
13 information over several years.
14 Q. What type of background information?
15 A. I monitored ozone, I monitored sulfur
16 dioxide. Again, I defined plant species that may be
17 sensitive to ozone and to sulfur dioxide and plant
18 material was sampled for archiving and future
19 analysis if required.
20 Q. What plant species were you analyzing?
21 A. I did not analyze, I was simply
22 cataloging.
23 Q. What plant species were you cataloging?
24 A. Mountain ash, white ash, green ash, white
25 ash, maple, white pine, red pine, native species like
14
1 Columbine, C O L U M B I N E.
2 Q. Were you measuring total phosphorus?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. Any species of phosphorus?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. Did your work for that particular grant
7 involve collection of any deposition information?
8 A. Rainfall on a preliminary scale.
9 Q. Did you come to any conclusions an as a
10 result of your research or was it just a collection
11 of background?
12 A. Just a collection of background.
13 Q. What parameters in the rainfall were you
14 measuring?
15 A. Most of the anions namely sulfate,
16 nitrate, phosphate, chloride, fluoride, most of the
17 cations such as calcium, magnesium, potassium,
18 sodium, ammonium.
19 Q. Did you measure any orthophosphorus or
20 total phosphorus?
21 A. We measured soluble phosphorus which is
22 equal to orthophosphorus.
23 Q. Were you looking at only wetfall or also
24 dryfall?
25 A. At that time only wetfall.
15
1 Q. What kind of ranges of orthophosphorus
2 were you finding?
3 A. They were all below the detection limit.
4 Q. What was the detection limit?
5 A. At that time about 6 ppb.
6 Q. The next grant refers to effects of air
7 pollutants on vegetation, can you tell me what that
8 was?
9 A. That was money for a workshop. US
10 Environmental Protection Agency at that time had at
11 that time what they call plant damage workshops and I
12 was funded to organize one of those workshops.
13 Q. Other than organization, did you have any
14 substantive input to the workshop?
15 A. I taught one part of the workshop.
16 Q. What was your area?
17 A. The effect of sulfur dioxide and ozone on
18 plants.
19 Q. What was the thesis of your talk?
20 A. It is simply to educate people who are
21 regulators, industry personnel, public, how to
22 diagnose injury on plants if it occurred and what
23 type of injury will occur, when will it occur, that
24 type of thing. It was a diagnostic course.
25 Q. Was that specifically related to sulfur
16
1 dioxide and ozone?
2 A. My part was. There was a battery of
3 teachers.
4 Q. The next $400 grant, just briefly tell me
5 what that was.
6 A. To augment the 2,500 from a scientific
7 society.
8 Q. Can you tell me what conclusions or what
9 you did with regard to that grant?
10 A. I paid for people to come, airfare and
11 hotel bills to come and teach the course.
12 Q. Next one is another EPA effects of
13 sulfuric acid aerosol on vegetation, can you tell me
14 what that research involved and the conclusions you
15 reached?
16 A. Yes. This was part of the automobile
17 catalytic converter program.
18 At that time the US EPA was very concerned
19 that the catalytic converter would be a major source
20 of acid sulfate. And they were looking for someone
21 to look at the effects of these particles, which are
22 predominant less than one micrometer in size as to
23 how it impacts vegetation.
24 So we built an exposure facility where we
25 generated the aerosol or the particles, and studied
17
1 to see whether it will cause any adverse effects on
2 plants.
3 Q. What conclusions did you reach?
4 A. At the concentrations we were using which
5 was two to three orders of magnitude higher than what
6 was predicted, the plants did not respond.
7 Q. What was the predicted level?
8 A. Approximately up to 20 micrograms per
9 cubic meter.
10 Q. In that research what was the length of
11 exposure?
12 A. These were short-term exposures, at
13 relatively high concentrations such as milligrams per
14 cubic meter because it is extremely difficult to
15 maintain a steady state of aerosol concentration in a
16 chamber. And no one at that time had done it so we
17 were sort of pioneering the path, if you wish to call
18 it.
19 Q. When you say two to three times order of
20 magnitude, am I correct that's 20 to 30 times the
21 anticipated levels?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. The next item on there is the CPA/UPA high
24 voltage transmission line, et cetera. Can you tell
25 me what that involved and what conclusions you
18
1 reached?
2 A. This was a study mandated by the state
3 Environmental Quality Council. And the utilities
4 were required to do this because at that time a
5 number of citizens were concerned that high voltage
6 transmission lines that were planned to be
7 constructed from North Dakota into Minnesota would be
8 a source of ozone because of discharge of corona by
9 the high voltage power lines.
10 And therefore they commissioned my group
11 to determine whether the power lines in fact will
12 generate sufficient ozone to be of concern to effects
13 on animals that are in the fields and also effects on
14 crops.
15 Q. What conclusions did you reach as a result
16 of your research?
17 A. After five years of looking for the needle
18 in the haystack the conclusion was that these power
19 lines which were approximately 435 kilowatts AC/DC
20 lines were producing about maybe 1 to 2 ppb ozone.
21 Q. Did you conclude whether or not that had
22 any effect on either vegetation or animal life?
23 A. To answer the question directly, 2 ppb is
24 even difficult to measure with a machine at that
25 time.
19
1 Q. I assume you did not find any effect,
2 then?
3 A. Yes, sir.
4 Q. The next item, the open top chamber field
5 study to evaluate pollutant effects on plants.
6 A. This was another attempt to deal with the
7 chamber based research and this was in fact the
8 second time when the chambers disappeared.
9 Q. That was the same as the one on the
10 previous page?
11 A. On the previous page, the first time I got
12 the grant I was successful in completing it. And the
13 second time I got the grant for an expanded study it
14 blew away.
15 Q. So there were no conclusions able to be
16 reached as a result of that?
17 A. No.
18 Q. The next item, the Union
19 Carbide/Department of Energy studies on emissions
20 from coal gasification.
21 A. This was a study initiated by the Oakridge
22 laboratory under the guidance of the Department of
23 Energy.
24 At that time the Department of Energy was
25 interested in coal gasification as an alternate
20
1 source of energy.
2 The University of Minnesota campus at
3 Duluth, Minnesota decided to convert their heating
4 system from their original system, whatever that was,
5 to a coal gasification system.
6 So the Oakridge National Laboratory which
7 was run by Union Carbide at that time gave me a grant
8 to collect samples but not to analyze them. So we
9 collected particulate samples and made gas
10 measurements and turned the data over to Oakridge
11 National Laboratory, in other words, we provided the
12 services.
13 Q. What kind of collection methods were being
14 used?
15 A. For dry deposition we used what is known
16 as a virtual impactor, for wet deposition we used an,
17 I believe, and I don't remember, but I believe it was
18 an Aerochem Metrics sampler, and as for the gases
19 they were measured primarily by continuous monitoring
20 instruments.
21 Q. What parameters were you measuring or
22 sampling for?
23 A. As far as gases, if I remember correctly,
24 it was sulfur species, such as sulfur dioxide,
25 hydrogen sulfide, I believe, oxides of nitrogen,
21
1 ozone and I believe we might have also looked at
2 hydrocarbons. As for the particulate matter was
3 concerned we sampled for polyaeromatic hydrocarbons
4 and I believe we also sampled for polychlorinated
5 biphenyls and with the virtual impactors we primarily
6 monitored for normal components in dry deposition.
7 Q. Were the samplers set up so as to measure
8 any phosphorus species or total phosphorus?
9 A. If the phosphorus was present in the
10 particulate matter it will be measured, yes.
11 Q. But am I correct you weren't involved in
12 the analysis of any of the samples?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Do you know whether that, one of the goals
15 was the look at phosphorus or not?
16 A. I do not know, sir.
17 Q. The next one is the effects of air
18 pollutants on Minnesota vegetation. Tell me what
19 that grant --
20 A. Which one are we talking about, please?
21 Q. Three up from the bottom on page 4.
22 A. I am an employee of a land grant
23 university, that simply means the university was
24 created under the Morrill Act, Land Grant Act of
25 1876. That means I have to serve the agricultural
22
1 industry of Minnesota as part of my job. Therefore
2 75 percent of my responsibility is under the land
3 grant system and only 25 percent of my responsibility
4 is for teaching.
5 As part of that, every five years we have
6 to write what we will do and for that they give me
7 $5,000 every year and that's what it is.
8 Q. Is the purpose of this program to assist
9 or improve agricultural practices?
10 A. In my case, not. There are other faculty
11 that would be involved in that.
12 My responsibility is to look at the
13 environmental impacts, primarily air pollution.
14 Q. The next grant for Northern States Power
15 Company, renewal, is that --
16 A. It is the renewal of the power plant
17 impacts that was originally cited I believe on page
18 3, grant number one.
19 Q. When we discussed that one and you gave me
20 your conclusions, was your conclusion at the end of
21 the entire project or --
22 A. Correct, sir.
23 Q. The next one is the Union Carbide grant
24 renewal. Is that --
25 A. The same as the previous one for
23
1 collecting samples and providing the services.
2 Q. Turning to page 5, the first item, the
3 United Power Association grant, can you tell me what
4 that was?
5 A. Yes. United Power Association built a
6 power plant on the Missouri River at a place called
7 Coal Creek in North Dakota. And they simply wanted
8 to collect background information of accumulation of
9 elements in plants growing in the vicinity as
10 background data for future need, if it arose.
11 Q. Did that involve any analysis of impacts
12 of any activity on the background?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. Did you look at contents of deposition in
15 that regard?
16 A. Not in this particular project, no.
17 Q. The next item is the Minnesota Power &
18 Light terrestrial vegetation studies. Tell me what
19 that was about.
20 A. This was another example of a terminated
21 study.
22 Minnesota Power & Light wanted to build a
23 power plant at a location in northern Minnesota
24 called Floodwood Brookston. And before they could
25 get on line towards building it the mining industry
24
1 in Minnesota died. Therefore, there were no need for
2 any additional power. Therefore, the power plant was
3 never built.
4 Again, it was another example of
5 collecting background information towards developing
6 an environmental impact statement if the power plant
7 was built and operated.
8 Q. The next item refers to the NADP. Can you
9 tell me what that involves?
10 A. This particular program, it is called
11 National Atmospheric Deposition Program, it is a
12 national program that primarily these days is
13 involved in collecting precipitation samples for
14 looking at deposition of ions in precipitation.
15 Initially when it was started it was
16 started as a project under the directors of the
17 agricultural experiment stations of this country. In
18 order to start such a project you have to have a
19 number and since the north central division directors
20 were the ones to start this, it is labeled as NC 141.
21 Over the years it has expanded across the
22 entire nation and now it is called the National
23 Atmospheric Deposition Program which now has further
24 grown into what is called as National Trends Network.
25 Q. What was the purpose of the grant?
25
1 A. Each side had to pay for its own sampling
2 on chemical analysis. I administered one site in
3 Minnesota that belonged to the experimental station.
4 Q. And that was for collection of deposition?
5 A. Weekly precipitation samples, initially
6 for some period dry deposition samples but on the
7 long run primarily wet deposition samples, shipment
8 to the central analytical laboratory for chemical
9 analysis.
10 Q. Where are the samples shipped to?
11 A. Illinois State Water Survey in Champagne,
12 Illinois.
13 Q. How long was dry deposition measured, over
14 what time period?
15 A. At that particular site, if I go back, we
16 looked between 1979 and perhaps early 1984.
17 Q. So 1979 to 1984 was dry deposition?
18 A. Roughly. I do not remember the exact
19 time.
20 Q. And wet deposition has been collected from
21 1979 to date?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. What has been your experience with regard
24 to that sampling station? What have you personally
25 been involved in?
26
1 A. I primarily administer the sampling site.
2 The site is remote in the sense it is about two hour
3 drive from the university campus. And it is at one
4 of our branch stations known as Lamberton, Minnesota.
5 It is the only station we operate on our experiment
6 station funds.
7 Q. Why is the station in a remote area?
8 A. It's agricultural. When I say remote I do
9 not mean to say in the middle of a forest. What I
10 mean, there are no urban centers in the vicinity to
11 speak of, large urban centers to speak of. It is
12 predominantly an agricultural area which to us in
13 Minnesota is a key economic factor.
14 In addition, the person who at that time
15 was the director of that station was very excited
16 about getting involved in this work.
17 Q. Who decided where the station should be
18 located originally?
19 A. There was no one individual. I was the
20 representative of the University of Minnesota and I
21 asked my director where I could get help. He told me
22 of this person who was director at Lamberton would be
23 a very exciting person to work with.
24 And after looking at the topography and
25 the nature of the terrain, I choose to put it in
27
1 Lamberton.
2 Q. What criteria were you using to site the
3 sampling station?
4 A. At that time the primary criteria we used
5 was flat terrain, away from urban areas, relatively
6 high precipitation within the state.
7 Q. Why was it located away from urban areas,
8 why was that a criteria?
9 A. Because I as a member of agricultural
10 experiment station must answer to agriculture.
11 Q. In siting the location was there a concern
12 or was one of the criteria to try to site it in a
13 place which would have the least amount of impact
14 from urban activities?
15 A. No, sir. Yes. I am sorry. I did not
16 understand.
17 Yes, to get away from urban activity.
18 Q. Was one of the purposes to have it be
19 representative of deposition over agricultural areas?
20 A. One of the criteria was to see, yes, how
21 much deposition occurs in one of our major
22 agricultural parts of the state.
23 Q. When you say you were primarily the
24 administrator, what does that mean?
25 A. As part of the north central 141, one
28
1 scientist from the experiment station must serve on
2 the technical committee of the program. And since I
3 was the person in the experiment station involved
4 with air pollution related matters, I was assigned as
5 the representative of our experiment station to the
6 technical committee of the overall program.
7 Since the site was not where I was, I was
8 essentially administering it at Lamberton in terms of
9 sample gathering equipment maintenance, sample
10 shipment, that type of thing.
11 Q. Have you actually visited the site
12 yourself?
13 A. Yes, sir, many times.
14 Q. Have you been involved in any of the
15 sample collection at the site personally?
16 A. Physically, no.
17 Q. Have you been present when samples have
18 been collected?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. Who generally is responsible for the
21 sample collection?
22 A. The sample collection is done by the plot
23 supervisor at the branch station.
24 Q. In your opinion has that site been
25 successful?
29
1 A. The NADP requires auditing of sites. They
2 send one or two individuals from the technical
3 committee to each site at random basis to determine
4 whether the site in fact qualifies under the guidance
5 of NADP requirements. And that site has qualified.
6 Q. Does NADP have their own set of criteria
7 for sites?
8 A. NADP is a consortium of people like me.
9 Yes, there is a book that gives the guidelines on
10 quality control/quality assurance.
11 Q. You are talking about quality control/
12 quality assurance, but what about site location?
13 A. Siting criteria are also defined.
14 Q. How often is the site audited?
15 A. I am unable to answer that question at
16 this point because I do not have the statistics on
17 hand.
18 Q. How is an audit accomplished?
19 A. Audit is accomplished from what I gather
20 in two different ways.
21 One is to actually, what is called as a
22 site visit to determine the site location and
23 performance are satisfactory, the other one is done
24 at the chemical analysis laboratory to determine the
25 integrity of the samples by looking at their
30
1 chemistry.
2 There are personnel, full-time personnel
3 involved at the analytical laboratory that do this.
4 Q. You identified two different areas, the
5 first one was kind of a site inspection. What do
6 they look for on a site inspection?
7 A. They look for obstructions, they look to
8 see whether there are any major industrial sources in
9 the vicinity, they look to see whether there are
10 gravel roads and highways in the vicinity, that type
11 of thing.
12 Q. Is it important to do these site
13 inspections in order to be able to determine the
14 representativeness of the samples being collected?
15 A. One of the criteria, yes. I would like to
16 add by saying in Minnesota that is not the only NADP
17 site, it is the one site that I administer.
18 Q. Have you been involved in any of the other
19 sites?
20 A. I know the people who run those sites
21 because they are my colleagues.
22 Q. In your opinion is the analytical lab that
23 is being used to analyze the samples qualified?
24 A. You will be pleased to know that I was one
25 of the three who selected that lab to be the NADP
31
1 analytical laboratory.
2 Q. I assume that means you believe they are
3 qualified, then?
4 A. Initially just to complete the picture,
5 there was a four person committee appointed by NADP
6 to evaluate various analytical laboratories for their
7 capability. I was one of the members of that four
8 person committee and we did site visits to all the
9 laboratories that qualified as the best and we
10 selected the Illinois Water Survey.
11 Q. What criteria were you looking for?
12 A. What type of personnel they had in the
13 laboratory, how knowledgeable they were in analytical
14 chemistry, what type of equipment they had, how clean
15 were their facilities, how were they managed, how
16 efficiently can they deliver the data.
17 Q. What type of personnel did they have on
18 staff?
19 A. At that time there was a set of personnel
20 that no longer are there. There is only, I believe,
21 two people left from that original visit we made back
22 in 1978 are still there.
23 Q. Do you recall, what are their names?
24 A. The ones that disappeared or the ones that
25 are --
32
1 Q. No, the ones that are still there.
2 A. The person that is still there is Dr. Don
3 Gatz, Donald Gatz is one of them, and I can not
4 recall who the other person is. It could have been a
5 person by the name of Mr. Bowersox.
6 Q. In your opinion are Dr. Gatz and Dr.
7 Bowersox well qualified in their field of analyzing
8 rainfall constituent?
9 A. I would like to correct that by saying it
10 is Mr. Bowersox and Dr. Gatz.
11 Q. I am sorry.
12 A. Neither of them actually do the analysis.
13 They are the ones that, if you wish to call it,
14 examine the output, Mr. Bowersox does.
15 As far as Dr. Gatz is concerned, he is a
16 senior scientist there and I am not exactly sure what
17 he does in this regard.
18 Q. Have there been continuing audits of the
19 University of Illinois laboratory to determine
20 whether they are still up to your standards or not?
21 A. First of all, again, it is not the
22 University of Illinois laboratory.
23 Q. I am sorry.
24 A. Illinois Water Survey Laboratory.
25 I am not aware of it because of my
33
1 academic duties my role in NADP has become very
2 minimal in the last eight, nine years.
3 Q. Do you know whether there is a continuing
4 audit of the laboratory?
5 A. I am sorry, I am unable to answer that at
6 this point.
7 Q. Do you know what the overall purpose of
8 the NADP is?
9 A. Yes. Inasmuch as I am required to submit
10 every five years a work plan to my experiment
11 station, the NADP also submits a project proposal
12 every five years for renewal. And it has changed
13 somewhat over the years.
14 But in the initial period the primary
15 objective was to look at the inputs of beneficial and
16 toxic chemicals from the atmosphere on to land and
17 surface waters to establish a historical record, how
18 long-term changes may occur.
19 Q. Why was the NADP concerned with siting
20 criteria?
21 A. NADP is a network of monitoring sites and
22 one of the fundamental requirements of collecting
23 good data is to have a set of criteria where to
24 locate your sampling site.
25 Q. I guess I am still not clear on why or the
34
1 purpose of the siting criteria itself. Why is one
2 area chosen over another area? Why is that
3 important?
4 MR. BLANK: I object to the form of the
5 question. You have two questions there, counselor.
6 MR. NETTLETON: I will restate it then.
7 BY MR. NETTLETON:
8 Q. I think I have asked this before and I am
9 just not sure I understand the response. What is the
10 purpose of the siting criteria?
11 A. The purpose of the siting criteria is to
12 allow one to sample at a geographic location that
13 would provide a relatively dependable data without
14 interferences extraneously that cause artifacts.
15 Q. Is that the same as essentially attempting
16 to get the most representative samples?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. What kind of interferences are you
19 normally concerned about or is NADP concerned about?
20 A. Let me backtrack a little bit and perhaps
21 straighten out this issue.
22 Originally when NADP was brought on line
23 individual scientists were allowed to find the best
24 location they can to do their sampling. The site
25 selection criteria committee is another committee
35
1 that grew with time as NADP grew and at subsequent
2 times when criteria were established the site visits
3 were made and, for example, if my siting was not
4 acceptable, then I would have been asked to move it
5 to an acceptable location.
6 It did not happen in my case simply
7 because the site we have is within our branch station
8 and there are no known interferences of what would be
9 deposited by local influences.
10 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record for a
11 second.
12 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
13 after which the following proceedings
14 were had)
15 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record.
16 BY MR. NETTLETON:
17 Q. Dr. Krupa, in your experience with NADP
18 are you aware of any sites that have had problems
19 with interferences?
20 A. From what I gather, after the site
21 selection criteria were developed and the committee
22 started looking at sites, apparently there were sites
23 that were not acceptable according to the guidelines.
24 But at this time I do not know which sites they are.
25 Q. Are those proposed sites that never became
36
1 sites or they were already sites and they found
2 problems with them?
3 A. They were apparently sites that were
4 already in operation and that they found problems
5 with. But again, at this time I can not tell you
6 which ones they are.
7 Q. Do you know if any of those were in
8 Florida?
9 A. At this point I do not know.
10 Q. What types of problems were being
11 experienced, what interferences?
12 A. Apparently some sites were very close to
13 gravel roads, some sites apparently were in the
14 middle of a feed lot, animal feed lot, and some sites
15 perhaps were too close to buildings, this type of
16 things.
17 Q. Have you been personally involved in
18 either administering or assisting in the sampling or
19 administration of any other NADP sites other than the
20 NC 141?
21 A. No, sir. That's the only site that is
22 financed by the experiment station. The other sites
23 in Minnesota do not belong to the experiment station.
24 One belongs to the program of what is known as
25 Long-Term Ecological Research Center Program of the
37
1 National Science Foundation at one of our preserves
2 that is administered by another faculty member.
3 And a third site belongs to the US Forest
4 Service located in northern part of the state.
5 Q. Where is the NSF site located?
6 A. It is located within 40 minute drive of
7 the campus in St. Paul.
8 Q. Have you looked at the data that has been
9 collected from that site?
10 A. I have looked at them because I get annual
11 reports every year, but I have not analyzed them.
12 Q. One of the interferences you mentioned was
13 having the site too close to buildings. How does a
14 building affect that?
15 A. A building causes obstruction particularly
16 if the rain arrives at an angle. A building also
17 causes turbulence.
18 The rule of thumb normally is you should
19 site them one and a half times the height of the
20 building away.
21 Q. Do you know what the cost per NADP site
22 is?
23 A. I have not calculated according to the
24 inflation rate, sir, because I have lost track of
25 what that is.
38
1 However, I would estimate that the sampler
2 would cost a matter of $2,500 or at least did when I
3 did it and site operation cost maybe in the order of
4 2 to $3,000 if the power and such are not available.
5 And the sampling, sample costs a matter of $86 a
6 sample presently.
7 Q. When you say $86 per sample, what does
8 that include?
9 A. Per week to collect the sample, not
10 shipment cost, strictly chemical analysis cost is
11 $86.
12 Q. That includes also your cost of
13 collection, the manpower cost?
14 A. No, sir, that's the reason why we have it
15 located at a branch station, because we have a person
16 who is already our employee that will provide the
17 manpower.
18 Q. Let's move to the next grant, the
19 Minnesota and Wisconsin power suppliers group, acidic
20 rain monitoring network. What is that?
21 A. One of the earliest interests I have had
22 since going to Minnesota in 1972 is to look at the
23 chemistry of the atmosphere. And at that time I was
24 looking at various sampling systems present or
25 available commercially, I was not satisfied with the
39
1 systems available for the kind of work I wanted to do
2 which was primarily basic research.
3 And therefore I spent two years developing
4 a very advanced sampling system for rainfall.
5 This sampling system is known as a
6 refrigerated sequential automatic precipitation
7 sampler. The sampler is made completely of teflon,
8 which is inert. It is refrigerated. And it samples
9 in sequence various depths of individual rainfall.
10 In other words, I could sample the first one inch,
11 next one inch, sequentially so I can study the
12 chemistry of removal of chemicals by precipitation.
13 And this equipment was built under the
14 grant, one of the power company grants, who later
15 asked me to develop an independent network using the
16 sampler. And so for about four years I collected
17 data on sequential precipitation chemistry in
18 Minnesota. And that's what that grant is about, that
19 is part of the program.
20 Q. The device you described, is that what is
21 listed on page 35 of your CV?
22 A. Let me see.
23 Q. At the bottom.
24 A. Yes. And I also refer you to page 26,
25 reference No. 34.
40
1 Q. Okay. Reference No. 34 on page 26, what
2 does that report contain?
3 A. It contains the design of the sampler and
4 the principles involved in the functioning of the
5 sampler.
6 And I believe, if I remember it also
7 contains one table of an example set of data.
8 Q. What did you find as a result of using
9 this network data? What were your conclusions?
10 A. My conclusions are, at least in the
11 geographic area I was working with, there were a
12 number of different sources for the acidity of
13 rainfall.
14 Initial parts of the rainfall are
15 predominantly composed of large particulate matter
16 washed down by rainfall. And as progressively the
17 rain depth increases, the concentration of the
18 soluble elements decrease.
19 Q. Let me back up a second. What parameters
20 were you measuring in this network?
21 A. Most of the anions that would elute by a
22 technique called ion chromatography. This is a rapid
23 procedure that will give substances such as
24 phosphate, chloride, fluoride, sulfate, nitrate,
25 nitrite, the cations, namely the metals were analyzed
41
1 again by inductively coupled plasma spectrometry
2 which would give you a suite of some 20 metallic
3 elements.
4 Q. Was total phosphorus measured?
5 A. No, sir, only soluble phosphorus.
6 Q. That would be equivalent to
7 orthophosphorus?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Your testimony referred to identifying the
10 sources of the acidity. How would you identify
11 sources?
12 A. I do not understand the question.
13 Q. I thought I understood you to say that as
14 part of this network analysis or analysis from the
15 data collected in the network that you were able to
16 identify the sources of the acidity in the
17 atmosphere.
18 A. I was able to identify the categories of
19 sources of acidity in solution. The acidity in
20 solution known as pH is the amount of free hydrogen
21 that is in solution at a particular time.
22 The theory was the acidity must come from
23 strong mineral acids such as sulfuric acid, nitric
24 acid.
25 There is also another component of
42
1 rainfall, what are called as weak acids. At the time
2 when I did this research people did not think that
3 weak acids were important.
4 By doing this research the conclusion we
5 drew in Minnesota was that weak acids had as much a
6 role as strong acids.
7 Q. So by source then you are referring to the
8 particular element or compound as opposed to the
9 location where it came from?
10 A. Correct.
11 Q. Is that network still in operation?
12 A. To my knowledge, no.
13 Q. What period of time was it operating?
14 A. I believe somewhere -- I am trying to
15 think -- I think it was operating for approximately
16 three years.
17 Q. What time period, though?
18 A. Early eighties. I can not recall the
19 exact dates.
20 Q. Do you recall the levels of soluble
21 phosphorus that you were finding?
22 A. At this point without having to go back to
23 the records, no, sir.
24 Q. Do you recall whether it was above or
25 below detection limits?
43
1 A. I am afraid it has been too long. I do
2 not recall at this time.
3 Q. When you refer to weak acids, what do you
4 mean?
5 A. We ultimately performed additional
6 analysis to determine what they were and found they
7 were primarily organic acids of small molecular
8 weight.
9 Q. Do you know where they came from in the
10 sense of what produced the weak acids?
11 A. At least in the case of formic acid -- it
12 is the same acid that makes you sting when an ant
13 bites you -- at least in the case of formic acid, one
14 of the major mechanisms for its production is what is
15 called as photochemistry.
16 It is the same type of reaction that
17 produces ozone, namely precursors in the atmosphere
18 are driven by sunlight to ultimately lead to formic
19 acid. The other types of acids, namely larger
20 molecular weight acids, most likely are because of
21 organic matter.
22 Q. Does that include pesticides?
23 A. I am afraid I can not answer that question
24 because I am not knowledgeable in pesticide
25 chemistry.
44
1 Q. What precursors are you referring to?
2 A. In the case of formic acid, carbon
3 monoxide, water vapor and hydrocarbon.
4 Q. The next item on here is the Minnesota
5 Pollution Control Agency air pollutants and crop loss
6 assessment.
7 Before we get to that let me back up.
8 What geographic area was this network?
9 A. It was relatively narrow. One sampling
10 site I believe was in northern Minnesota, several of
11 them were in central Minnesota and one was in the
12 western border of Wisconsin to Minnesota.
13 Q. How many sampling sites were there?
14 A. About six approximately.
15 Q. Do you know what geographic area in square
16 miles or whatever that would cover?
17 A. I am afraid I can not tell you that except
18 to say it is a hundred square miles bigger than
19 former West Germany.
20 Q. Okay, I can understand that comparison.
21 A. The reason, I have a project in Germany
22 and I compared Germany to Minnesota.
23 Q. What was the overall purpose of the
24 network?
25 A. Primarily to understand about the nature
45
1 of precipitation chemistry and the basis of acidic
2 rain in Minnesota.
3 Q. Were you determining effects of acidic
4 rain on vegetation or biota?
5 A. No, sir, it was strictly an atmospheric
6 chemistry project.
7 Q. The results of your monitoring, what did
8 it reveal as far as how acidic the deposition was?
9 A. Minnesota is not known to be a place of
10 high acidic precipitation. The acidity of
11 precipitation was somewhat higher in the southern
12 part of the state and became lower as you progress
13 further north. That's about roughly the conclusion.
14 Q. Any particular ranges of pH?
15 A. Yes. If I remember correctly,
16 approximately in the order of about 4.82 to as high
17 as 5.7.
18 Q. Moving to the next grant, air pollutants
19 and crop loss assessment, can you tell me what that
20 is and what you did there?
21 A. This was a project that was funded by the
22 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. They wanted my
23 group to provide an estimate of crop loss in
24 Minnesota caused by ozone.
25 Q. What conclusions did you draw as a result
46
1 of that project?
2 A. That the ozone concentrations were not
3 sufficiently high to cause crop loss across the
4 state.
5 Q. Do you recall what the levels of ozone
6 were?
7 A. At this time, no, sir.
8 Q. Were you measuring anything other than
9 ozone in your sampling in that research?
10 A. It was a modeling effort, it was not a
11 field study. It was to look at existing data
12 retrospectively to determine whether there was a
13 potential for yield loss.
14 Q. Do you know whether the Minnesota
15 Pollution Control Agency precludes or prohibits
16 biomass burning in Minnesota?
17 A. To my knowledge, I do not know.
18 Q. You don't know one way or the other?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The --
21 A. I can, however, comment in a different
22 direction, namely, Minnesota biomass burning is not
23 practiced because in the wintertime there is no crop
24 so the crop is plowed under and let the snow do the
25 job.
47
1 Q. In the modeling exercise that was done,
2 who created the model that was used?
3 A. Our group developed the models.
4 Q. I am sorry?
5 A. Our group developed the models.
6 Q. Can you describe to me what the model was?
7 A. In a basic sense, these models are simply
8 a collection of different growth stages of a
9 particular crop by time period and then taking the
10 actual ozone data for those time periods to see how
11 well they fit with the growth characteristics of the
12 plant.
13 It is a time series model and it is called
14 stochastic in nature because it accounts for the
15 randomness of the biological behavior.
16 Q. Can you tell me how biomass burning would
17 affect the atmospheric chemistry?
18 A. It depends on the nature of the biomass
19 burning. For example, in California biomass burning
20 is one of the major causes for smog and biomass
21 burning can also be compared to perhaps oil well
22 fires in Kuwait. The result was high ozone and smog
23 production.
24 Q. Does biomass burning increase the amount
25 of phosphorus in the atmosphere?
48
1 A. I am unable to answer that because I have
2 not seen any data.
3 Q. Would you expect that to occur?
4 A. That too I am unable to answer because I
5 do not know what fraction the phosphorus would be and
6 how much would be.
7 Q. The next grant, the evaluation of ozone in
8 the Twin Cities, can you tell me what that was about?
9 A. This was related to a reexamination of the
10 ozone air quality standards for Minnesota.
11 And the Twin Cities is the largest urban
12 center in entire Minnesota and it was considered to
13 be a major source of NOX, oxides of nitrogen and
14 hydrocarbons.
15 And we did a study where a group of
16 scientists flew aircraft up wind and down wind from
17 the Twin Cities to determine the potential for ozone
18 production and we measured on the ground
19 simultaneously the ground truth what the aircraft
20 data might predict.
21 Q. Am I correct, 3M funded that research?
22 A. Correct.
23 Q. Did you reach any conclusions as a result
24 of the research?
25 A. The conclusion was under certain very
49
1 specific set of conditions there can be an increase
2 in ozone production in the urban plume but because
3 there are no other new major sources down wind from
4 the urban plume within relatively short distance the
5 plume effect disappears.
6 Q. Why was 3M concerned with this research?
7 A. At that time 3M was considered to be a
8 major source for hydrocarbons in the entire state.
9 Q. The next grant, the regional rain
10 chemistry network, can you tell me what that is?
11 A. It is the same one as the previous one
12 essentially.
13 For your help, these are listed by the
14 year so that the same title may show up later on for
15 another year. They are not new grants but we list
16 them that way.
17 Q. So that is the same as the acid rain
18 monitoring network?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. The next one is the University of
21 Minnesota agricultural experiment station.
22 A. Again, it is an additional funding under
23 my job description for that period.
24 Q. And that is for the NADP?
25 A. Yes, the NADP.
50
1 Q. Was there a specific project that was
2 involved with that particular funding or was it just
3 continuing monitoring?
4 A. Just continuing monitoring.
5 Q. The Northern States Power Company grant
6 renewal, that's just a continuation?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. The next one is referred to as the S34
9 study. What is that?
10 A. After the tornadoes pretty well took care
11 of me, I decided not to pursue the idea of using
12 chambers. So instead I decided to do what is called
13 a chamberless open air study.
14 So in this case what I did was to look at
15 the plume dispersion of the power plant, locate
16 several sites where the plume would have the optimum
17 impact and at those sites artificially introduced a
18 crop to see how the crop will accumulate sulfur from
19 the air and from the soil. And that is the gist of
20 that study.
21 Q. What conclusions did you reach?
22 A. It reaffirmed the same conclusion I drew
23 in the previous study, namely, the requirements of
24 sulfur for the plant could be largely helped out by
25 the deposition from the atmosphere.
51
1 Q. How did you determine where the plume
2 would have its major impact?
3 A. I had the help of a consulting
4 meteorologist who did what is known as a diffusion
5 model for the plume, and based on that he predicted
6 what would be the locations where the plume would
7 have the maximum impact at the ground level.
8 Q. Who was that?
9 A. His name is Mr. George McVehil.
10 Q. Who is he associated with?
11 A. He is a consultant.
12 Q. With who?
13 A. He has his own company, Monnett & McVehil.
14 Q. Where are they located?
15 A. Englewood, Colorado.
16 Q. The next grant refers to the University of
17 Minnesota agricultural experiment station.
18 A. It is the same as the NADP IR-7.
19 Q. Next one, University of Minnesota chemical
20 and biological soil PCBs?
21 A. This was a rather embarrassing situation
22 where the university inherited land after the Second
23 World War from the Army and someone who was disposing
24 of transformers had disposed PCB into the ground and
25 the university ended up with the bill to clean up the
52
1 PCB. And so they wanted to explore alternatives of
2 cleaning up PCB in the soil.
3 We explored various alternate procedures
4 and provided advice and then the university went and
5 hired a contractor, a major contractor who is now
6 cleaning it up.
7 Q. Those transformers disposed of, were they
8 askarel or just contaminated mineral oil?
9 A. I don't know, all I know, this soil
10 contains 5,000 parts per billion PCBs.
11 Q. Is that currently a Superfund cleanup
12 site?
13 A. I do not know.
14 Q. Did you find any PCBs in the wet or dry
15 deposition?
16 A. I have never looked for it, sir.
17 Q. I am curious as to that grant. After the
18 reference to the PCBs it also has USDA/CSRS NADP data
19 analysis.
20 A. I think it is a typo, the fonts got mixed
21 up there.
22 Q. So that is a separate grant?
23 A. Thank you for the computer, yes.
24 Q. Is that second part of that, is that just
25 a continuation of the monitoring grants?
53
1 A. No, this was a competitive grant that I
2 received to look at the exposure characteristics of
3 sulfur dioxide of alfalfa biomass, developing models.
4 It is essentially a model development project.
5 Q. Can you describe the model that you
6 developed?
7 A. It is a time series model. It is what is
8 called a spectral coherence analysis approach. It is
9 a statistical approach.
10 Q. Can you describe for me how the model
11 predicts?
12 A. The model simply tries to couple the
13 nature of variance of air pollutant in atmosphere and
14 then says which type of variance would fit best with
15 the variance in the crop growth on the ground during
16 the same period. So if you imagine a wave of water,
17 two waves following the other, trying to analyze how
18 much the waves match each other in direction, in the
19 amplitude and in the height.
20 Q. What is the purpose of the modeling
21 exercise?
22 A. It is a basic research to developing
23 future better predictive capabilities for air
24 pollution impacts on crops.
25 Q. What effects are you measuring, in the
54
1 growth?
2 A. In this case you measure height growth
3 every week and then the final harvest.
4 Q. What you do you mean by final harvest?
5 A. Take the, cut the chute system which is
6 the commercially valuable system and measure the dry
7 weight of that as biomass.
8 Q. Did that involve the collection of any
9 samples or was that using existing data?
10 A. It involved air quality measurements for
11 SO2 and it involved biological measurements of the
12 plants.
13 Q. Any other parameters other than SO2?
14 A. There were meteorological stations
15 co-located with the sites that we selected therefore
16 I was able to tap into the meteorological variables.
17 Q. Was total phosphorus or soluble phosphorus
18 measured?
19 A. I'm unable to give you the exact answer,
20 but if inductively coupled plasma spectrometry had
21 been used for this purpose, phosphorus would be one
22 of the elements that would automatically come out in
23 the output as total phosphorus.
24 Q. Page 6, almost through the grants, the
25 first listed one.
55
1 A. That is the one I think that the font, on
2 page 6 is the one I just explained, the first one.
3 Q. Is the one on page 5 that is included
4 inadvertently in the other one, is that a different
5 study or are they the same thing?
6 A. I think it is wrongly cited. The PCB was
7 funded by the Minnesota regions. The USDA/CSRS
8 should not even be there. It is a lower line. It is
9 continuation of NADP.
10 Q. What you just described, though, is the
11 first grant on page 6?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. What about the second grant, is that
14 something different?
15 A. The second was to look at SO2 with ozone
16 to see whether ozone will also provide us a similar
17 set of data as a verifier.
18 Q. What conclusions did you draw?
19 A. Ozone actually turned out to be a better
20 predictor than SO2 because ozone occurs continuously
21 while SO2 occurs only sporadically at measurable
22 levels.
23 Q. Predictor, are you referring to predicting
24 growth?
25 A. Yes, sir.
56
1 Q. The final grant that is listed there, can
2 you tell me what that is?
3 A. It is a critical literature analysis to
4 determine the relevancy or the comparison between
5 what happens in the ambient environment and what
6 happens when people conduct studies in closed
7 environment, because scientists have been very
8 concerned about the dissimilarity between doing
9 experiments in chambers and then saying that may
10 happen outside.
11 So we were trying to analyze the
12 literature, the full literature to determine what are
13 all the differences in the two types of approaches.
14 Q. What conclusions did you reach?
15 A. A growth chamber experiment should stay in
16 the growth chamber and the real world should remain
17 in the real world.
18 Q. Can you give me an example of the
19 differences you found?
20 A. Yes. The literature search -- I am also
21 to blame sometimes, we tend to view the world as a
22 very simple thing. And simply because we don't want
23 to deal with complex issues we tend to perform
24 experiments with a single variable at a time. In
25 other words, we control all the other variables and
57
1 vary only one variable of interest at a time.
2 In the real world there is no such
3 control. Variable means it varies. And therefore
4 you can not take results from the growth chamber and
5 even come close to talking about its relationship in
6 the real world.
7 Q. So as a result of that research am I
8 correct that you are of the opinion that you can not
9 extrapolate the results from a chamber experiment to
10 real world experience?
11 A. Yes, sir.
12 Q. The items listed under special grants, are
13 those additional research projects?
14 A. No, sir. For example, the Electric Power
15 Institute grant, 15,000 is to conduct an
16 international conference at Banff, Alberta, Canada.
17 The second one, the US Environmental Protection
18 Agency does also for the same conference as another
19 stakeholder in a conference.
20 Those are the type of grants they are.
21 Q. What was your role in those conferences?
22 A. I was the co-chairman.
23 Q. What was the purpose of the Banff
24 international conference?
25 A. To bring in scientists from multiple
58
1 disciplines, the top ones in the whole world, exactly
2 60 to 80 of them, all expenses paid, and ask them to
3 assess the quality of the science. It has been
4 published as a book. If you look at page 35, I
5 believe, it is No. 5.
6 Q. No. 5, on page 35?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Were any conclusions derived out of that
9 conference?
10 A. It is not a conference to make
11 conclusions, but to provide an assessment of what we
12 know, what we don't know, what the deficiencies in
13 the methodology are and what we need to do to correct
14 those deficiencies.
15 Q. Can you tell me what specific problems
16 were discussed that needed to be refined, required
17 refinement?
18 A. Methodology for sampling precipitation,
19 methodology for sampling dry deposition, methodology
20 for sampling gaseous pollutants, meteorological
21 modeling of pollutants are dispersed and deposited,
22 terrestrial vegetation effects, terrestrial ecosystem
23 effects, some of those topics were discussed.
24 Q. What were the problems associated with
25 sampling for deposition?
59
1 A. I would like a clarification of that
2 question.
3 Q. Let's say wet deposition.
4 A. The problems are that rain is an extremely
5 dilute highly unbuffered solution, very unstable.
6 Therefore, pains need to be taken to preserve the
7 integrity of the rain sample that one would like to
8 collect.
9 Q. So preservation of the sample?
10 A. Chemical, preservation of its chemical
11 integrity is very critical.
12 Q. Any other problems discussed with regard
13 to wet deposition?
14 A. Yes. Many biological receptors do not
15 respond on an integrated basis, in other words,
16 although in some cases this may be very valid with
17 plants, anyway, a crop that grows for a hundred days,
18 for example, in Minnesota and dies after a hundred
19 days, does not respond to the average of hundred days
20 of rain chemistry but responds to the noise within
21 that average if there was truly a heavy wet acid
22 deposition when the plant is flowering, the flowers
23 most likely may die.
24 So one of the concerns are the merits and
25 deficiencies of collecting cumulative samples versus
60
1 individual samples.
2 Q. I need you to explain some of that for me.
3 Let me back up. Biological receptors, what do you
4 mean by that?
5 A. Plants, crops, trees in this case, and
6 soils.
7 Q. Am I correct what you are saying is that
8 the extreme events can cause effects and therefore
9 you need to be able to measure the extreme and -- let
10 me back out of that.
11 Can you explain to me what you meant by --
12 A. Yes, I will.
13 The response, for example, of crops, it is
14 like a bankbook, a bank account. You have credits in
15 a bank and you have debits in a bank. If debits
16 exceed the credit you get a pink slip from the bank
17 saying you are broke. If your credits exceed your
18 debits you get an application for a Visa Gold card.
19 This is how a plant responds.
20 When, for example, you take a pollutant,
21 it doesn't matter, any toxic pollutant to the plant,
22 if it occurs in high enough concentrations over
23 sufficient duration, that essentially will cause
24 stress to the plant. This is analogous to the
25 debits.
61
1 But if these periods of stress are farther
2 apart from each other, two periods of stress, the
3 plant has the ability in between to compensate and
4 repair, that's the credit part.
5 But if the stress keeps occurring closely
6 together repeatedly, the plant would never be able to
7 recover, then it would essentially be affected
8 adversely.
9 So if you, for example, measured, took
10 only one reading, complete reading over a whole
11 month, it has completely masked the periods of stress
12 so essentially you get a straight line which is not
13 truly reflective of the amplitude.
14 Q. Do you have an opinion as a result of that
15 of how often samples must be taken to give a true
16 representative idea of what is occurring?
17 A. Depends on the pollutant. If it is a
18 gaseous pollutant, gaseous pollutants change
19 continuously based on turbulence and diffusion.
20 In most of the works I have done I have
21 started with two-minute data for gaseous pollutant as
22 a starter. I might have averaged them into an hour
23 if I did not see a need for it but to get hourly
24 average you should have enough sampling points within
25 the hour and some people may go for five minutes, I
62
1 have gone as low as two-minute samples.
2 Q. Any other problems discussed with regard
3 to the sampling of wet deposition?
4 A. Certainly the chemical analytical
5 techniques at that time when this conference was
6 held, the technology was not at the same level
7 obviously where it is now. So the idea is to
8 continuously every so many years be able to reassess.
9 And we had talked about having another conference
10 now, about 10 years from the previous one to see
11 where we are.
12 It is a continuous process of growth.
13 Q. Has that second conference been held?
14 A. We are looking for money, sir.
15 Q. With regard to the first item, you
16 reference the preservation of the samples to preserve
17 the biological integrity or chemical integrity. How
18 can that be done?
19 A. One of the simpler ways is to refrigerate
20 the sample. Some people have used chemical
21 preservatives. I do not go for that because chemical
22 preservatives may offer interference in your
23 analysis. I prefer the refrigeration system, myself.
24 And that was the reason why I took pains to develop a
25 refrigerated system.
63
1 Q. Again, with regard to wet deposition, let
2 me broaden the question beyond what was just
3 discussed at the Banff conference to any other
4 problems that you are aware of concerning sampling of
5 wet deposition.
6 A. Without an opportunity to cogitate,
7 because it is a rather broad question, I'm unable to
8 answer that at this point.
9 Q. So at this point you can't think of
10 anything other than the three we have discussed?
11 MR. BLANK: Objection. That is not what
12 the witness stated.
13 You can go ahead and answer the question,
14 Doctor, if you can.
15 Q. You can still answer.
16 A. I realize, but I have to cogitate.
17 Q. Are you still cogitating?
18 A. No. I mean, this is going to take more
19 than a few minutes because the question is so broad.
20 Q. Can you tell me some of the problems that
21 have been identified at the Banff conference or
22 otherwise with regard to dry deposition?
23 A. The question is, the dry deposition
24 measurements are going to be highly dependent upon
25 the objective for why you are monitoring or measuring
64
1 dry deposition. The level of science at the
2 conference was such, the starting point for dry
3 deposition measurements were impaction type devices,
4 that was the starting point and the finishing point
5 was on continuous non-destructive measurements
6 directly in the atmosphere.
7 Q. I need you to explain to me, what do you
8 mean by impaction devices?
9 A. There are several types of devices for
10 collecting samples for analysis. The simplest is
11 what is called the filter type samplers. Simply that
12 is collecting a mass of particulate matter on a
13 filter of your choice using a flow of some speed of
14 your choice, namely using a vacuum pump. That's the
15 simplest device.
16 The next level of devices are called
17 impaction devices. These are devices that also
18 collect particulate matter on a solid surface but
19 size separate them into large particles and small
20 particles at a known velocity of air flow which when
21 adjusted could essentially lead to inertial
22 deposition of particles on surfaces. That's the next
23 level of sophistication.
24 The third level of sophistication, if you
25 like, are in situ nepholometers. They have
65
1 nepholometers that actually can measure the
2 particulate mass in the atmosphere by looking at the
3 atmospheric turbidity.
4 Q. Is that particular item able to identify
5 the different species of compounds in the mass?
6 A. No, it does not. This is the reason why
7 it is usually advisable to use more than one method,
8 one, actually, if you wish, for actually quantifying
9 what's in the air and then for quantifying what the
10 chemical composition of what that air mass is.
11 Q. Other than those three, is there an
12 increasing level of sophistication, is there another?
13 A. If there is, I am not aware of it.
14 Q. Am I correct the first two, the vacuum
15 through the filter and the impact surface area, are
16 those the two that you would use to determine the
17 actual constituents of the air?
18 A. I am not sure I would use at this point
19 the filter method because it has too many
20 uncertainties in the technology. If I were doing a
21 simple study of deposition I would probably choose an
22 impactor device.
23 Q. That type of device allows you to actually
24 collect the various parameters that you are measuring
25 for?
66
1 A. Depending on the type -- there are a
2 number of devices that are commercially available.
3 Depending on whose model you are choosing, based upon
4 a person's objective, you can get to a number of
5 things.
6 For example, you can get size separation
7 which is very important in the sense when you are
8 dealing with large particles or small particles. And
9 once they are collected on a medium that is inert,
10 you can then use a non-destructive analytical
11 techniques, if you like, to see what is on the
12 surface of the filter in terms of chemistry.
13 Q. Can you describe for me what you mean by
14 non-destructive?
15 A. Like for example, x-ray analysis or
16 neutron analysis. These are obviously radioactive
17 material related techniques that actually scan the
18 surface of the particle and depending on their energy
19 properties using a computer code will convert them
20 into actual chemical elements that the particle
21 contains and then knowing the mass of those particles
22 you can calculate what microgram per cubic meter of
23 the particulate matter is present.
24 To clarify further, sir, non-destructive
25 technique means you are not destroying the sample.
67
1 Q. You discussed various mechanisms for
2 collecting dry deposition. What types of problems
3 have you experienced with regard to the sampling of
4 dry deposition?
5 A. Personally I have not experienced too many
6 problems because I've always used impactors of one
7 type or another in my research work. I have also not
8 seen too many problems because I have used
9 non-destructive techniques in most cases.
10 Where I had to use a destructive technique
11 I essentially cut the filter or the collection medium
12 into two pieces, saved one piece for posterity and
13 used the other piece for the destructive analysis.
14 So I have not experienced a great degree of problems,
15 sir.
16 Q. Are you aware of any problems with regard
17 to the representativeness of the materials collected
18 in the dry deposition as to the actual atmospheric
19 content?
20 A. First of all, there is what is called a
21 replication. In the approaches that I have used we
22 collect, for example, a given site perhaps up to 40
23 to a hundred samples at the same location, look at
24 the same chemical composition to see whether there
25 are any artifacts we should know about.
68
1 That's one way of determining whether in
2 fact what you are collecting is representative of
3 what is in the air mass, is to be able to repeatedly
4 sample the air mass and show the homogeneity.
5 Q. When you say you sample at the same
6 location, are you talking about the same sampling
7 mechanism or different sampling mechanisms in the
8 same geographic location?
9 A. An impactor placed at one location stays
10 there and collects sample, let us say, either on a
11 daily or a weekly basis for an entire season or
12 period of interest that we may be interested in. In
13 our case most of us have been interested in the
14 summer because in the winter I don't believe I get
15 too many people to climb the ladder to do research.
16 So May to October is most of the work that
17 we do. We have monitored through the period
18 repeatedly at several locations but in each location
19 to determine that the variability in the air mass is
20 relatively homogeneous and variability between
21 locations is heterogeneous.
22 Q. So you take, I think you said 40 or so
23 samples or replicates at the same location?
24 A. As an example, sir. It could be more. If
25 I take a 24 hour sample, it could be a 24 hour sample
69
1 40 times.
2 Q. I guess I am still confused on how this
3 physically works. Obviously you can't be taking the
4 same sample on the same impactor more than one at a
5 time, is that right?
6 A. It can be done but I have not done it,
7 sir.
8 Q. So when you say you are taking 40 samples,
9 they aren't simultaneously being taken, are they?
10 A. Theoretically they are sequential days and
11 that is one of the ways to determine whether the air
12 mass is homogeneous or heterogeneous. If it is
13 heterogeneous it causes us to go to the next level of
14 research.
15 Q. So when you are talking about the
16 replicates, I apologize but I am still a little
17 confused, when you are talking about the 40 or so
18 replicates as the example, are you talking about 40
19 replicates or samples taken on a single day?
20 A. No, sir, 40 replicate samples taken at
21 same site on multiple days.
22 Q. What type of variability do you normally
23 see?
24 A. Not a whole lot if you select your sites
25 correctly. The kind of work I have done, sir, is to
70
1 look for variability between locations because
2 different locations are impacted by different types
3 of sources. So my interest has been to look at the
4 variability between sites rather than within the
5 site.
6 So by carefully looking at the meteorology
7 for the season to make sure the wind shifts don't
8 occur in great degree, you are relatively safe in
9 believing that the air mass that is coming will
10 always roughly arrive in the same direction and
11 therefore since you already know the kind of sources
12 that are up wind, when you look at the samples, the
13 variability between these samples is invariably very
14 low. This is another example of how to select a site
15 for measurement.
16 Q. You had mentioned, though, I believe you
17 stated if you were to discover variabilities higher
18 than you would expect, then you would move to the
19 next level of research. What level would be involved
20 there?
21 A. For sure I would want to couple it with
22 meteorology. On a daily resolution I would probably
23 fractionate my data on daytime/nighttime, so I would
24 ultimately collapse this to the point where I know
25 why that variability occurred before.
71
1 Q. I refer you to page 6 of Exhibit 1, the
2 special grant under Alberta Government and Industry
3 Acidic Deposition Research Program.
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Would you tell me what that was?
6 A. The Alberta government and industry
7 jointly created a research program on acidic
8 deposition for a total of $5 million between
9 approximately I believe 1985 and 1988. And they
10 invited me to serve as the science advisor to this
11 program.
12 It turned out in the last six months of
13 the program that it required my full-time assistance
14 so they gave the university $30,000 for them to put
15 in an account to for me to conduct research at my
16 choice, no strings attached.
17 So that $30,000 is, $30,000 is for my time
18 for six months I spent in Calgary, Alberta helping
19 them to write the final report which is published on
20 page 35, Exhibit 7 -- Exhibit 1, pardon me, page 35,
21 item 7.
22 Q. The next grant in there with regard to
23 BMFT Germany, can you tell me what that is?
24 A. Should I first read that in German for
25 you?
72
1 Q. I skipped it.
2 A. BMFT stands for the ministry for science
3 and technology of the government. I have a
4 cooperative project presently on line in Germany.
5 The project relates to the past, present and future
6 carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere and
7 how they affect ecosystems. $10,000 was given to me
8 as a pilot towards designing a basic program for
9 this.
10 Q. Designing a program to determine the
11 effects?
12 A. Of past, present and future carbon dioxide
13 concentrations on ecosystems.
14 Q. Has that project been designed yet?
15 A. I have just finished designing it. In
16 about ten weeks I believe I will be freighting with
17 Lufthansa four tons of equipment to Germany.
18 Q. Do you have any hypotheses going into
19 that?
20 A. Yes, sir. It is an interesting basic
21 science. If you look at all the media and the
22 literature if you wish, depending on the kind of
23 literature you read they talk about increases in
24 carbon dioxide levels into the year 2050, how the
25 concentration level would go up to perhaps 600 parts
73
1 per million or whatever as part of global warming and
2 how it will affect crops.
3 Now, one of the gaps in our knowledge, we
4 don't know how plants adapted to changing carbon
5 dioxide, let's say, after the Second World War to the
6 present. If you knew how they came from the past,
7 immediate past to the present, you can predict with
8 more confidence how we will go from the present to
9 the immediate future. This has never been done under
10 a field setting.
11 So what we are trying to do is we have
12 developed equipment at Minnesota that will uniquely
13 create this atmosphere in an open environment, as I
14 indicated to you I am not in the growth chambers, in
15 an open environment and we will essentially be able
16 to mimic in native grassland as to what
17 physiologically could have happened to it in 1950,
18 compared to the present and then we will mimic what
19 happens in the future.
20 Q. Am I correct what you are doing is you are
21 trying to go backwards in time to collect data that
22 was never collected or to --
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Can you tell my how you are doing that?
25 A. Well, in principle, because we are in the
74
1 process of developing a patent for this because it
2 has never been done before. In principle it is an
3 array of vent pipes that will actually, using
4 micrometeorological theory vent into the set space of
5 an open field, an atmosphere that we can regulate
6 using engineering scrubber type devices to create the
7 atmosphere of the past.
8 Q. This sounds like a rather expensive
9 experiment. Is it?
10 A. Yes, sir, by the time this experiment is
11 done we compute -- we believe we will be doing it for
12 five years at least -- and by the time we are done
13 with this we believe that the German granting agency
14 agencies would have pumped in about five million
15 bucks.
16 Q. What is the geographic area of your study
17 site?
18 A. These arrays, as we call them, they are
19 five meters in diameter and create ten of these at
20 the same site.
21 Q. Are they all the same ecosystem or are
22 they different types of ecosystems?
23 A. In Germany the government by the law, for
24 every so many acres of land in cultivation, so many
25 acres of land must be left as natural. These are
75
1 called natural grasslands.
2 If you have an opportunity to fly over
3 Germany you can see this always green in color
4 between the cultivated land. We are going to utilize
5 one of those lands. That means those lands have been
6 grass, I don't know how long in the past, they will
7 be the same in the future.
8 Q. How are you determining what the
9 atmospheric conditions were in the past?
10 A. We are only interested in the chemical
11 atmosphere, namely we know roughly what the carbon
12 dioxide concentration was in 1880, we know what the
13 ozone concentration was approximately in 1880. We
14 know what the NOX concentration was approximately
15 around the turn of the century.
16 By varying this gases you automatically
17 change the temperature of the canopy because these
18 are greenhouse gases. Therefore we do not have to
19 control what mother nature gives you, simply modify
20 it and measure it well so you know what the plants
21 are being exposed to. From there on it is good
22 stuff.
23 Q. How do you know what the levels were in
24 the 1880s?
25 A. There are historical records in the
76
1 publications. They did not use modern technology,
2 although they used perhaps by our standards primitive
3 technology, the data is still there.
4 Q. Previously we were talking about
5 variability in your measurements in Minnesota. How
6 do you measure variability between sites?
7 A. I think you may want to help me out in
8 what context are you asking this question. Are we
9 talking about CO2 or are we talking about something
10 else?
11 Q. Let's take CO2 as an example. How do you
12 test for the variability between the sites?
13 A. We measured CO2 at two locations in
14 Alberta as part of the Alberta government industry
15 acid deposition study. We measured them continuously
16 around the clock at both sites.
17 We looked at every two-minute data and we
18 created a whole series of statistics to see the
19 properties of these data and then looking at data we
20 progressively determined what the variance between
21 the two sites are by looking at what is called as a
22 fine mesh frequency distribution analysis.
23 Q. Is that a statistical analysis?
24 A. Yes, sir. The assumption is, we were able
25 to calibrate and maintain both instruments with equal
77
1 performance, which we did.
2 Q. I am trying to figure out how to phrase
3 the question, but in determining the amount of
4 variability, was there a specific statistical
5 confidence level you were using?
6 A. Yes. In the case of CO2 we use a 95
7 percent confidence interval, in some other cases we
8 have used 99 percent.
9 Q. With regard to any of the compounds or
10 elements that you are measuring, did you use anything
11 less than a 95 percent confidence level?
12 A. As far as I recollect at this point, no.
13 Q. Did you test for the significant
14 difference of the mean of your frequency
15 distribution?
16 A. I do not use means, sir. When the data is
17 non-normally distributed you should not be using
18 mean, you should be using the medians and the
19 percentiles.
20 Q. Is it correct then that you do not
21 transform the data?
22 A. No, sir, because I can explain the
23 distribution without transformation because there are
24 powerful statistical models available that will
25 account for why a piece of data is non-normally
78
1 distributed. Transformation will allow you to
2 normalize it but it can not help you to explain what
3 the normalization did.
4 Q. The final special grant item, Environment
5 Canada, would you just tell me what that involves?
6 A. Yes. I have been cooperating as you know
7 by now quite a bit in Alberta. It is my second home.
8 I have a colleague who works at Alberta
9 Research Council in Calgary, Alberta. He received a
10 grant from Environment Canada Atmospheric Environment
11 Service of Toronto to do retrospective analysis of
12 the existing ozone crop loss data to see whether the
13 present Canadian air quality standard for ozone is
14 satisfactory or not. So I helped him to do the
15 analysis.
16 Q. Who is this colleague you are referring
17 to?
18 A. He is, rather than, I will simply refer to
19 item No. 7 on page 35, Dr. A. H. Legge.
20 Q. You said he is with the University of
21 Alberta?
22 A. He is with the Alberta Research Council.
23 Q. Sorry.
24 Drawing on your background of research in
25 the ozone area, can you tell me what effects ozone
79
1 will have, assuming elevated concentrations?
2 A. On what, sir?
3 Q. On vegetative --
4 A. Let me put it this way. Ozone is a
5 greenhouse gas in the lower atmosphere. That means
6 in the lower atmosphere ozone will participate in
7 warming of the temperature of the atmosphere closer
8 to the ground.
9 At the same time, ozone is also a filter
10 for solar ultraviolet radiation.
11 At the same time ozone is also very toxic
12 to crops and forests.
13 So if one were to increase ozone at the
14 ground level, one should not be studying ozone alone
15 but one should be studying what changes in the other
16 variables, radiation, temperature, carbon dioxide.
17 Therefore at this point I am unable to give you an
18 answer for the question because ozone does not
19 operate by itself on anything.
20 Q. You said ozone is toxic to crops and
21 vegetation.
22 A. It has the potential, it has the
23 toxicological properties, but I did not say it is
24 causing toxicity to the crops and vegetation right
25 now across the country.
80
1 Q. Is there a particular level that must be
2 reached before it becomes toxic?
3 A. Yes, sir, California South Coast Air Basin
4 is a perfect example south of Los Angeles in the San
5 Bernardino mountain range. The ponderosas have been
6 declining for years because the ozone concentrations
7 in California are very high. The present standard
8 for ambient air quality for ozone by the EPA is 120
9 parts per billion not to be exceeded more than once
10 per year, one hour, and obviously their standard
11 considered what the level or what the risk level is.
12 Q. What is the toxic effect?
13 A. Depending on the concentration and the
14 duration of exposure, like if I were to expose
15 sensitive plant species let's say, to 20 -- pardon
16 me -- .2 ppm, let us say, for three hours, it will
17 cause enough injury on the foliage that you can
18 visually see within three, four days.
19 On the other hand, if you go into a field
20 condition you may not or may see those type of
21 symptoms, yet it is possible that you may get a crop
22 production reduction, yield reduction. So those are
23 the two types of impacts, for example, you can see.
24 Q. What types of symptoms are you referring
25 to, what do you see?
81
1 A. Again, depends on plant species. If I was
2 to look at tobacco, there are sensitive varieties of
3 tobacco that are now obsolete, they are not grown any
4 longer because they can not grow them in the farther
5 north of here. They produce what is called weather
6 fleck. And if I had known that I could have looked
7 at one of the tobacco shops and sometimes you can
8 find this.
9 Q. Is that the reason that tobacco is not
10 grown further north now, because of the ozone?
11 A. Yes, sir. The variety was so sensitive
12 simply it could not survive. It is also same in
13 Riverside, California, there are a certain variety of
14 edible beans that can not be grown any longer because
15 they simply can not tolerate it.
16 Q. Does your research reveal that this is an
17 increasing problem or a trend exists in the ozone
18 levels?
19 A. In my opinion, in our country I think
20 there is no clear increase in trend per se because I
21 think over the last five or more years there has been
22 better transportation based controls than in the
23 past. But the real problem is that in most
24 developing nations -- California, for example, Los
25 Angeles, used to be the capital for ozone since I
82
1 almost started science. But no longer is it even in
2 the top five because Mexico City; Baghdad, Iraq;
3 Cairo, Egypt; Tokyo; they all have Los Angeles beaten
4 hands down.
5 Q. What effect does sulfur dioxide have on
6 vegetation?
7 A. Very analogous to ozone because it is also
8 a gaseous pollutant. And no longer is sulfur dioxide
9 considered to be a major problem per se. It is only
10 of concern in the context of acid rain.
11 As a gas over the last 10 years in my
12 experience I have never been able to see sulfur
13 dioxide induced injury on plants, at least where I
14 have looked.
15 Q. Is crop yield generally the best parameter
16 to use to evaluate cumulative effects of atmospheric
17 pollutants in your opinion?
18 A. Certainly from a sociological and economic
19 point of view yield obviously is the best criterion.
20 Q. I am sorry?
21 A. Food production is the key criterion. I
22 think it is equally important to realize that yield
23 may or may not be depressed, but some other process
24 in the plant can be depressed. For example, if you
25 are dealing with something like radish, you may not
83
1 see any effect on the chute and yet you may have a
2 depression on the roots and that is the useful part
3 in radish.
4 In another plant you may have depression
5 of the roots and not affect the chute until later but
6 in the end it is the consumed product that one is
7 interested in.
8 Q. In your experience what is the most
9 sensitive parameter affecting yield?
10 A. Probably photosynthesis.
11 Q. When you mention photosynthesis do you
12 mean net or gross photosynthesis?
13 A. Net photosynthesis.
14 Q. In your previous testimony you were
15 describing your role under the land grant and I can't
16 remember the act, was devoted 75 percent to
17 agricultural. Can you just give me a summary of what
18 you have found as to the effects of air pollutants on
19 agricultural crops?
20 A. A summary I can give you in a broad sense
21 on a tentative basis is that I believe that ozone is
22 the most important pollutant in the United States as
23 far as crops are concerned. And I believe, however,
24 that the conclusion must be tempered by the fact that
25 we do not know the joint effects of elevated CO2 and
84
1 ozone at the same time and therefore any conclusion I
2 will -- I can offer is based on highly limited
3 knowledge.
4 Q. Dr. Krupa, have you done any research in
5 the Everglades before?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Have you done any research specifically
8 directed at wetlands?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Prior to your involvement in this
11 particular case had you done any research relating to
12 phosphorus content of deposition?
13 A. Yes, sir, phosphorus is not a unique
14 pollutant that occurs in the atmosphere all by
15 itself. When I study the chemistry of aerosols,
16 phosphorus is part of the composition of those
17 aerosol particles.
18 Q. How does it relate to your aerosol
19 research?
20 A. In terms of the fact that in order for me
21 to account for the composition of the aerosol, one of
22 the interests I have had is what is the composition
23 of aerosols that are long range transported versus
24 what is the composition of aerosols that are local.
25 In order to do that I have to analyze and
85
1 obtain as many elemental signatures as I can. And
2 phosphorus was part and parcel of that total
3 analysis.
4 Q. How is phosphorus used to assist you in
5 determining long range versus local source?
6 A. Phosphorus per se does not assist me in
7 doing that, but in order to obtain a mass balance of
8 the chemicals in those particles I have to include
9 everything I can find to account as much as I can.
10 Q. Other than accounting for the mass
11 balance, have you utilized data on phosphorus of any
12 species in any of your research?
13 A. Not as a tracer, no.
14 Q. What about for some other purpose?
15 A. I have used it towards looking to see --
16 one of the things that will happen to plants when
17 they undergo stress, they will mobilize phosphorus.
18 And I have used it in those terms to see if the
19 phosphorus levels goes up in a sensitive recipient
20 that it indicates that the plant is undergoing
21 stress. So phosphorus is used as a tracer for that
22 purpose.
23 Q. Are you talking about phosphorus in the
24 plant tissue?
25 A. Yes, sir.
86
1 Q. How does phosphorus in the plant tissue
2 indicate the stress that the plant is undergoing?
3 A. The primary function of phosphorus in
4 plants is to participate in energy reactions. The
5 energy that drives all the reactions in the plant is
6 driven by phosphate bonds. So phosphorus is
7 required.
8 When a plant undergoes stress it is like,
9 for example, if I were to get a cut here, your body
10 will attempt to heal that cut, it will pain a little
11 first, to heal it, turn into this scab and fall off.
12 Similarly when plants have undergone
13 stress, for example in the foliage, the plant will
14 try to bring in the energy and the carbon to repair
15 that stress. So if there are stresses that are
16 relatively local in nature in the plant material, one
17 of the indicators would be phosphorus increases in
18 that particular organ.
19 Q. So you use that as a measurement of the
20 stress that the plant is undergoing?
21 A. As an indicator of the stress, yes.
22 Q. Have you used any data concerning either
23 total phosphorus or soluble phosphorus or any other
24 species of phosphorus in wet or dry deposition for
25 any purposes in your research?
87
1 A. As I indicated to you, most of the
2 measurements we have made, the phosphorus
3 concentrations are virtually below detection limits.
4 And therefore we did not consider in our studies
5 phosphorus as a major variant.
6 Q. When you were talking about using
7 phosphorus for mass balance, are you referring to
8 molar balance?
9 A. As equivalence if it is in solution.
10 Q. Can you give me an idea of what the
11 detection limit for phosphorus has been over the time
12 period of your research from the seventies forward?
13 A. It has varied a great deal. In fact, I
14 believe Mr. Grimshaw pointed that out in the context
15 of NADP.
16 I don't remember the page number but he
17 and his colleagues have gone through the history from
18 I believe 2 micrograms per liter to 4 to 6 to 20, in
19 that order.
20 With ion chromatography which will measure
21 soluble phosphorus which is one of the more modern
22 techniques which is what we use, we can pretty well
23 measure phosphorus very reproducibly in the order of
24 4 ppb.
25 Q. That is currently?
88
1 A. It can go below that but the noise level
2 goes up. There are modifications it can make in the
3 ion chromatograph that get you down possibly to the
4 rate of 1 to 2 ppb but we pretty well left ours with
5 4 ppb with ion chromatography.
6 Q. Is that to your knowledge the best
7 technology available for measuring the low levels of
8 phosphorus?
9 A. It is the best technology available for
10 measuring soluble phosphate. There are better
11 techniques for measuring phosphorus, not as
12 phosphate. The element phosphorus can be measured
13 beautifully by using x-ray analysis.
14 Q. Would that be total phosphorus?
15 A. It will be the element phosphorus,
16 whatever form it is in.
17 Q. What level can x-ray get down to?
18 A. X-ray can go, high powered x-ray can go to
19 close to one nanogram which is about a billionth of a
20 gram per square centimeter, somewhere in that order.
21 Q. You have lost me on that. I have been
22 trying to keep up with all the units I see and I have
23 never heard that one.
24 MR. GRIMSHAW: N to the minus nine.
25 A. See, the problem, this is the problem,
89
1 different techniques are meant for different purposes
2 and they express them in different units.
3 Q. When you were talking about 4 parts per
4 billion you were referring to orthophosphate or
5 soluble phosphate?
6 A. Soluble phosphorus. Because one of the
7 problems with ion chromatography is you can not put
8 on them highly acidic solutions and things like that
9 because it will destroy the column. So you have to
10 produce very weak solutions and so you use soluble,
11 readily soluble solutions to do that kind of
12 analysis.
13 Q. How did you measure phosphorus in the
14 stressed plant tissue that we discussed earlier?
15 A. Total phosphorus digested because once it
16 enters the plant, unless you use some terrific
17 procedures you can not separate them and we haven't
18 used those procedures.
19 Q. Is there a specific method?
20 A. Standard method of the American Public
21 Health Association.
22 Q. What method do you use for measuring
23 phosphorus in wet chemistry?
24 A. Ion chromatography.
25 Q. Would that be the same for dry deposition?
90
1 A. No. For dry deposition we use x-ray
2 microanalysis.
3 Q. Again, I want to back up.
4 You were talking about detection limits
5 for soluble phosphate. In your experience what are
6 the detection limits, let's talk currently, with
7 regard to measuring total phosphorus?
8 A. I can not answer that question because I
9 have not really measured total phosphorus in
10 particulate matter in solutions other than plants.
11 Q. Do you have any familiarity with what the
12 detection limits historically have been for total
13 phosphorus?
14 A. No, sir.
15 Q. What detection limits have you seen in
16 your experience in measuring total phosphorus in
17 plants?
18 A. It may be as high as several ppm.
19 Q. Can you quantify that a little closer for
20 me?
21 A. Not off the cuff because I have not looked
22 at the data for some time. I can not give you the
23 exact numbers.
24 Q. Several ppm, are we still talking about 4
25 parts per billion?
91
1 A. No, we are talking more closer to 50, 60
2 parts per million.
3 MR. BLANK: I am sorry, did you say in
4 your last answer billion?
5 THE WITNESS: Pardon me, 50, 60 parts per
6 million.
7 MR. BLANK: Per million?
8 THE WITNESS: Yes.
9 BY MR. NETTLETON:
10 Q. Not per billion?
11 A. Per million in the plant tissue total.
12 Q. Why is the detection limit so high?
13 A. It is not the detection limit that I was
14 talking about. I thought you asked me what was the
15 highest concentration --
16 Q. No, no. I am sorry, we misunderstood each
17 other.
18 A. Okay.
19 Q. My question is what is the lower detection
20 limit for total phosphorus which you are familiar
21 with in your analysis of plant tissue total
22 phosphorus?
23 A. Oh, in the early days it was probably in
24 the order of 10 to 20 ppb.
25 Q. Do you know what it is currently?
92
1 A. I have not done phosphorus analysis in the
2 last eight or nine years.
3 Q. When you say early years, what are you
4 referring to?
5 A. Somewhere around 1975 to 1985.
6 Q. What types of plants have you looked at
7 total phosphorus in?
8 A. It would be beyond my ability to remember
9 because we have looked at so many species of native
10 vegetation in Minnesota.
11 Q. Is it native vegetation as opposed to
12 crops or both?
13 A. The crop species are relatively few
14 because we don't grow too many crops in Minnesota, it
15 is soybean, corn, alfalfa, possibly potato, perhaps
16 some wheat and that's about roughly the range.
17 Q. Do they grow rice up there?
18 A. No, sir, too cold.
19 Q. What native species?
20 A. It is beyond my ability to answer that
21 question because there are possibly about four pages
22 of it over the years. But just a give you some
23 example things like green ash, maple, red pine, white
24 pine, probably some honey locust or something like
25 that.
93
1 Q. Have you done any testing of total
2 phosphorus in aquatic plants?
3 A. I can not recollect.
4 Q. Are meteorological conditions important
5 with regard to the collection of a representative
6 sample of atmospheric deposition?
7 A. Yes, sir.
8 Q. Are you familiar with the meteorological
9 conditions that Florida experiences and specifically
10 South Florida?
11 A. Only in a general way. I am not a
12 meteorologist and my meteorology is probably exactly
13 the same as everyone who follows the weather channel.
14 Q. Are you familiar enough with it to know
15 whether the meteorological conditions of South
16 Florida are similar or substantially different than
17 those that exist in Minnesota?
18 A. My understanding of synoptic meteorology
19 is, yes, Florida is very different from Minnesota.
20 Q. What specific meteorological conditions
21 are important with regard to collecting a
22 representative sample in atmospheric deposition?
23 A. First of all, I do not believe meteorology
24 can be controlled by man, so therefore in
25 micrometeorological theory deposition are things like
94
1 wind flows, turbulence, temperature, humidity, all
2 this will make a difference in the integrity or the
3 nature of the sample you collect.
4 Q. I am trying to remember what you said. I
5 think you named three ideas.
6 A. I gave some examples, sir, of things like
7 wind flow, turbulence, temperature, humidity, whether
8 it is day or night are some examples of
9 micrometeorological variables that will influence the
10 nature of the deposition.
11 Q. Can you tell me how humidity affects the
12 deposition?
13 A. Yes, sir. Particles in the atmosphere
14 exist in three size classes, and without complicating
15 further the science I will simply call the smallest
16 size class as nuclei. The second size class is
17 called fine particles. And the third class of
18 particles are called coarse particles.
19 And fine particles tend to accumulate
20 moisture around them and therefore they become
21 hydroscopic. If they hang in the air long enough
22 they cause visibility problems, haze. On the other
23 hand if they don't, they act as coagulants for other
24 molecules falling down and helping particle growth,
25 as an example of the role of humidity.
95
1 Q. How does temperature affect sampling?
2 A. Temperature will oxidize the samples if
3 there were reduced chemicals in the atmosphere. For
4 example, ozone production in the atmosphere is
5 correlated to the radiation and the temperature of
6 the atmosp