101
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. - 5:50 p.m.
21
DEPOSITION OF SAGAR V. KRUPA
22 VOLUME II - P.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.
102
1 AFTERNOON SESSION
2 1:15 p.m.
3 (A letter dated March 5, 1993 from Robert
4 H. Blank, was marked Krupa Deposition Exhibit 3 for
5 identification)
6 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, we
7 have marked as Exhibit 3 the letter dated March 5,
8 1993 from Mr. Blank to R. Benjamin Reid which has a
9 list of certain documents on it. We will come back
10 to that later in the deposition.
11 BY MR. NETTLETON:
12 Q. I would like to try and pick up where we
13 were before we broke for lunch.
14 Dr. Krupa, can you tell me what effects if
15 any wind flows could have on the phosphorus
16 composition of atmospheric deposition?
17 A. Wind flows literally speaking can not have
18 effect on the phosphorus composition. It can have
19 effect on what and how much falls into a sampler.
20 And the phosphorus composition is already in the
21 particles that fall.
22 Q. When you were referencing the various
23 meteorological conditions that can affect sampling
24 you also mentioned turbidity?
25 A. Turbulence.
103
1 Q. Turbulence. Would that be the same effect
2 as the wind flow?
3 A. Let me clarify a little bit further.
4 Wind flow influences the type of particles
5 that will fall into a sampler. It depends on in what
6 particles phosphorus is present. So wind flow
7 influences the particles, not their chemistry. It
8 influences the deposition.
9 If you have high turbulence it will tend
10 to favor large particles.
11 Q. When you say favor, what do you mean?
12 A. Deposition, favor the deposition of large
13 particles because it will settle faster.
14 But then if you have turbulence, to move,
15 the particles may reentry back into the atmosphere
16 and so this goes like a puddle jumping up to some
17 point.
18 Q. When you said high turbulence, did you
19 mean high wind would affect the larger particles?
20 A. High winds on the surface, and the swirl
21 because of the temperature flux and that causes
22 turbulence.
23 Q. And turbulence then creates the
24 reentraining of the particles into the atmosphere?
25 A. Correct.
104
1 Q. Does that also affect resuspension of
2 particles from the ground into the -- could that
3 affect the sampling in that sense?
4 A. That's what I mean, resuspension of
5 particles.
6 But remember, it is not the wind flow at
7 the upper height, it is wind flow closer to the
8 surface.
9 Q. Have you personally participated in the
10 installation of any deposition sampling equipment?
11 A. Certainly. I was involved not only in
12 designing my own sampler but also in making sure it
13 works.
14 Q. Other than with regard to your own
15 sampler, have you been involved in the actual
16 installation of commercially available sampling?
17 A. The first time my site was operated at
18 Lamberton I was there.
19 Q. But I mean were you personally involved in
20 installing the equipment?
21 A. You mean poured the concrete and put the
22 machine on there, no. It was done by a concrete
23 pourer. Unfortunately my talents don't go into
24 concrete pouring.
25 Q. Excuse my ignorance maybe of the sampling
105
1 equipment but is there any requirement of calibrating
2 the equipment or setting it up in a certain
3 particular manner?
4 A. Once the site criteria are satisfied there
5 is no real calibration in ADP type sampler other than
6 the measurements have to be calculated like site
7 operators measuring pH, for example, he has to
8 calibrate the pH meter to get the reading.
9 Similarly if he is measuring some other
10 variable in the fold to calibrate the measuring
11 equipment, the collection equipment itself is pretty
12 much self-contained.
13 Q. Other than the site selection itself, are
14 there any other steps that are taken, once the site
15 is selected, to ensure that the sampling station is
16 set up to provide a representative sample of the
17 deposition?
18 A. According to criteria all sites relatively
19 follow the same protocol. They sample on a
20 particular day of the week, the sample is processed
21 in a specific way, all of them, the same way, shipped
22 to the central analytical laboratory who then through
23 a number of checks make sure that the quality is
24 maintained.
25 Q. What particular criteria are involved in
106
1 actually setting up the station itself?
2 A. As I indicated to you, you should not be
3 close to a gravel road, you should not be close to an
4 obstruction, preferably should be away from local
5 sources, things of that nature.
6 Q. Again, that seems to be more the site
7 selection itself. What I am asking about is, is
8 there any criteria concerning or safeguards or
9 anything that you take once the site is selected and
10 the station is put there to avoid any interferences
11 that might otherwise occur other than site selection
12 which you have already done?
13 A. I can't think of any at this point.
14 Q. When you were talking, when we just talked
15 about what you were referring to, the NADP sites.
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Is there any criteria that you use
18 yourself that the NADP does not follow?
19 A. The objective of the NADP is quite
20 different, quite different from my objective and my
21 research.
22 My research objective was more into
23 physical chemistry of ions in solution. So I used a
24 whole set of different criteria that are not really
25 pertinent to NADP's objective which is to look on a
107
1 national basis, national weight basis how atmospheric
2 deposition affects or affected land surface
3 ecosystems and surface waters.
4 My objective was more from a chemistry
5 viewpoint to understand the dynamics of
6 precipitation. Therefore I used a whole set of
7 criteria like refrigeration, sequential sampling
8 stratified within a given rainfall, in certain places
9 I purposely put a sampler down for a source of sulfur
10 dioxide.
11 In another case I put it directly in the
12 path of ammonia that I knew was coming from feed lots
13 and other activity, cattle feed lots, pigs. So my
14 objectives were totally different.
15 Q. I guess my question is more directed to,
16 are there any safeguards that you take with regard to
17 setting up your stations with the understanding of
18 whatever your objectives might be, to ensure that you
19 get a representative sample of the atmospheric
20 deposition in the area you are sampling.
21 A. At the moment, I can't think of any.
22 Q. When you were talking about locating the
23 sites, is the criteria to locate them away from point
24 or non-point sources?
25 A. One of them, in the NADP.
108
1 Q. One of them meaning what?
2 A. One of the objectives you said, I am a
3 little bit confused whether you are referring to my
4 research.
5 Q. No, I am referring to NADP right now.
6 A. NADP, one of the objectives is to get away
7 from local influences, namely either point or
8 non-point sources.
9 I think it might be helpful for you to
10 realize the objective, the goal of the NADP is
11 geographically at the contiguous United States scale
12 and my research objective was like a pin in that it
13 is only like 40 square miles, maybe.
14 Q. In your cases, such as the feed lot
15 situation, you are actually attempting to measure
16 point sources then, is that right?
17 A. I am trying to understand the chemistry,
18 like, for example, if there was sulfuric acid in
19 solution, if you injected ammonia into the same
20 solution, the sulfuric acid would essentially be
21 neutralized in the atmospheric sense into ammonium
22 sulfate. Feed lots contribute ammonia so I am trying
23 to understand the dynamics of how ammonia and
24 sulfuric acid react in droplets when they were being
25 removed from the sky to the ground. That is one
109
1 objective.
2 Q. Let's say, if your objective of one of
3 your research projects is the cause and effect
4 relationship between a particular element or compound
5 and a vegetative change of some nature, would it then
6 be your objective to set up your sampling sites so as
7 to essentially measure the localized sources of
8 whatever parameter you are measuring?
9 A. There are different sampling designs. And
10 you fit a particular sampling design to optimize the
11 information you can get to meet the objective.
12 So there is no single recipe that you can
13 apply for all times to all problems and say, I will
14 get the answer, no.
15 Q. Have you personally been involved in
16 actually taking the samples from the sites? Did I
17 discuss this? I think I might have raised this
18 before.
19 MR. BLANK: You did.
20 Q. I am talking now beyond just the NADP,
21 though.
22 A. In my network, I have lots of times
23 collected samples when I am short of people.
24 Q. Have you learned anything in the process
25 of actually physically collecting the samples as to
110
1 how to maybe change something that you have been
2 doing in the past to correct a problem that maybe has
3 arisen?
4 A. Let me put it this way, I as a scientist
5 have certain things I follow. I don't do field work
6 unless I first test whether a system works or not.
7 And I keep testing it until I have perfected the
8 method before I go to the field with it.
9 The rain sampler that I used which is
10 published in Atmospheric Environment, I had five
11 prototypes of it before I ever put it in the field in
12 a network, small scale network. So when I get to the
13 point in general, most of the time, there is very
14 little that we have not already foreseen and
15 corrected.
16 Q. Have there been occasions, though, where
17 something has occurred in the field --
18 A. Absolutely. I have seen one of my rain
19 samplers being shot at by kids and bullets went right
20 through so we went and put bulletproof shielding
21 around them, sure. I still have the plate in my lab
22 as a souvenir.
23 Q. What about, say, less vandalism type
24 problems, I mean actually --
25 A. Mechanical failures, we have had PC boards
111
1 fail on us, we have had sensors fail on us. And each
2 time we have attempted to find the error and replace
3 the necessary parts.
4 Q. Have you personally inspected any of the
5 deposition sampling stations that exist in South
6 Florida?
7 A. No, sir.
8 Q. Do you anticipate doing that at any time
9 in the near future?
10 A. As of this moment I don't because nobody
11 has invited me back.
12 Q. Is there a general consensus in the
13 scientific community concerning a particular type of
14 sampling device that should be used to measure, say,
15 dry deposition?
16 A. No. Again, this goes to the level of
17 technical complexity you want to get into and the
18 deposition you want to get into.
19 There is no consensus. The only general
20 opinion you will hear from most scientists is if you
21 are into dry deposition monitoring use more than one
22 technique at the same time.
23 Q. What about for wet deposition?
24 A. Again, it depends on the complexity. If
25 your idea, if your objective is to establish
112
1 long-term trends, the NADP type of thing is quite
2 suitable. But if your objective is to understand the
3 kind of things that I'm studying, the NADP sample is
4 totally unsuitable.
5 Q. When you say it is unsuitable, that is
6 because the type of research you are engaged in is a
7 more time intensive frequency type --
8 A. More precise, more accurate, better
9 understanding of what really is happening.
10 Q. How is the accuracy increased?
11 A. It depends upon how much air exchange
12 occurs between the atmosphere and the sample even
13 after it is collected and supposedly closed with a
14 lid, it depends on how tight that lid is, for
15 example, how much dead volume is there between the
16 sample in the container and the top of the container,
17 empty space there is, because gas exchange occurs
18 between the atmosphere and the liquid phase.
19 It depends on the sampling duration. If
20 you sample once a month and let the sample sit in the
21 field, what you are seeing is a dead sample. It is
22 not the sample that fell down.
23 All this will change the accuracy of the
24 results.
25 Q. Prior to this case, Dr. Krupa, have you
113
1 ever testified as an expert before?
2 A. Yes, sir, five times.
3 Q. Can you tell me what those five times
4 were?
5 A. Yes, sir. If you refer to page 14 in
6 Exhibit 1, item No. 3, state air quality hearings for
7 the Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry,
8 1981.
9 Q. First of all, what area of testimony you
10 were providing there?
11 A. This was the hearing process on
12 reexamination of the state air quality standards for
13 predominantly SO2 and ozone and my testimony for the
14 Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry was on
15 the effects of sulfur dioxide on plants relative to
16 Minnesota.
17 Q. Were you retained by any particular group
18 to provide that testimony?
19 A. Minnesota Association of Commerce and
20 Industry.
21 Q. What conclusions did you testify about?
22 A. The conclusion was whether there was risk
23 of crops in Minnesota to the then ambient
24 concentrations of SO2. And the conclusion there was
25 no evidence for it at that time. And in fact, the
114
1 air quality regulation in Minnesota at that time was,
2 need not to be more stringent than the US EPA. At
3 that time Minnesota had a .25 parts per million three
4 hour average for sulfur dioxide and the US EPA
5 national ambient air quality standard is .5 parts
6 per million for three hours average. The conclusion
7 was that the .5 part per million three hour was quite
8 satisfactory for Minnesota.
9 Q. So your testimony then would be in favor
10 of raising the regulatory limit in the Minnesota --
11 A. To comply with the federal standard.
12 Q. The second listed item where you referred
13 to as expert witness on crop loss, can you tell me
14 what that was about?
15 A. Yes. It is the same hearing, this time
16 however I was representing, I was testifying on
17 behalf of the state for ozone air quality standard.
18 And this is the final culmination of the grant I got
19 from the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
20 that we discussed earlier this morning.
21 Q. What were the opinions you expressed in
22 your testimony?
23 A. This is the product of the modeling that
24 we briefly talked about this morning on ozone and
25 crop loss. I believe it is grant number --
115
1 MR. GRIMSHAW: Page 5, five from the top.
2 A. Five from the top. Thank you.
3 It is the culmination of that work on
4 behalf of the state Pollution Control Agency and the
5 modeling exercise showed that the prevalent ambient
6 concentrations in Minnesota at that time on crop
7 growing conditions for ozone was not a major factor
8 in causing significant yield loss.
9 Q. The third item?
10 A. The third item was as a witness on behalf
11 of a utility company.
12 Q. Utility company?
13 A. Yes. Northern States Power Company. I
14 provided background testimony towards an expansion of
15 their existing power plant on which I worked for 10
16 years. The grants I received on emissions and
17 impacts on crops, that was the same power plant.
18 Q. Did you conclude in your testimony you
19 presented there that the sulfur dioxide was not
20 causing any adverse effects on vegetation?
21 A. It was a review of 10 years of my work,
22 previous 10 years on the first two units of the power
23 plant. The summary as I indicated this morning, I
24 was unable to demonstrate adverse effects on crops in
25 the vicinity of the power plant.
116
1 Q. When you say you were unable to conclude,
2 were you doing some type of statistical analysis to
3 determine whether there was an effect?
4 A. I established 48 permanent field sites
5 relative to the power plant, sampled the same plots
6 repeatedly for foliar sulfur accumulation twice a
7 summer, visually inspected them four times a summer
8 which is the total of our growth season, and did 10
9 year stepwise trend analysis to see whether there is
10 any accumulation of any elements that were measured
11 in this foliage that are beyond the normal range of
12 those elements for this foliage and I was unable to
13 find an accumulation.
14 Q. Is it that you were unable to find an
15 accumulation or a statistically significant --
16 A. There was no statistical trend.
17 Q. Going back to your previous testimony on
18 the ozone, I believe you indicated that there was no
19 significant effect on crop yield.
20 A. On a state-wide scale.
21 Q. Was there in fact some effect, though, if
22 not significant?
23 A. Yes. I believe in one study that we did
24 we found a four percent yield loss on soybean at the
25 study site which is a hundred by hundred. In other
117
1 words, I would not bother to extrapolate the data
2 statewide.
3 Q. Would you agree that there can be effects
4 even in the absence of a statistically significant
5 finding of trend?
6 A. Highly possible but most scientists in my
7 field won't allow me to publish a paper if I said
8 that in writing.
9 Q. In your opinion, Dr. Krupa, is a 10 year
10 period of record a good time period within which to
11 measure a statistical trend?
12 A. No.
13 Q. What time period would be optimal?
14 A. I can not answer that because I've never
15 had opportunity to find out what I would get if I
16 went past 10 years because money has always been a
17 limiting factor.
18 Q. Is there any minimum level that in your
19 opinion you would need as a period of record to
20 establish --
21 A. No, sir, if I am looking at global warming
22 it would take a million years and I don't have a
23 magic recipe, the logical and prudent thing to do is
24 to keep doing it until you start seeing symptoms of
25 trend and then follow them through until you confirm
118
1 the symptoms.
2 Q. When you say follow them through, what do
3 you mean?
4 A. Further beyond the preliminary indication
5 of a symptom of a trend, you want to go past for
6 several more years and say, yes, in fact the trend is
7 real.
8 Q. And if you go past it several more years
9 and the trend appears to be continuing --
10 A. Then I think it is highly possible
11 mathematically, the same as the global warming
12 people, to be able to give predictions.
13 Q. How many years do you think you need to,
14 before you get to that first cutoff where you say you
15 need to do some more?
16 A. I have no idea. If I had the experience
17 of once going to the point, maybe I will be able to
18 tell but I have never done it.
19 Q. In the long-term effects site at Minnesota
20 how many years is planned for that?
21 A. This particular study?
22 Q. Right.
23 A. It is history.
24 Q. I am sorry?
25 A. It is history, the study is over.
119
1 Q. How long was the period of record?
2 A. I believe eight years, as I recollect.
3 Q. The fourth area, fourth time you presented
4 expert testimony, crop loss, is that the same public
5 hearing?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And that would be essentially the same --
8 tell me what your conclusions were that you
9 presented.
10 A. This was the modeling of ozone data for
11 Minnesota and possible impacts on crops. The types
12 of crops that were grown in Minnesota at that time in
13 the geographic areas where it was grown were not
14 necessarily within the so-called ozone impact area.
15 Therefore the conclusion was that given the ambient
16 ozone concentrations at that time, there was not a
17 great -- there was not a possible risk of crop loss
18 for those crops.
19 Q. There was not a possible risk?
20 A. There was not a great risk for those
21 crops.
22 Q. Am I correct you were testifying on behalf
23 of the utility company again?
24 A. No.
25 Q. No.
120
1 A. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, they
2 are the people who funded that study.
3 Q. And the fifth time you referred to?
4 A. It was in 1986, and I just see it is
5 somehow omitted in this version. You might want to
6 insert, it is a 1986, I participated in the Minnesota
7 state acid deposition hearings. It was the same
8 hearing at which Dr. Lefohn participated also.
9 Q. Were you testifying on behalf of any
10 particular agency or industry?
11 A. Utility industry.
12 Q. I am sorry?
13 A. The utility industry.
14 Q. What were the conclusions that you
15 expressed during your testimony?
16 A. This, the testimony that I gave at the
17 time was based on my own personal research and I
18 essentially fractionated the rainfall composition and
19 nature into three categories, based upon their
20 chemical composition, namely, high amount of sulfate,
21 high amount of nitrate, low amount of nitrogen --
22 hydrogen and the amount of ammonia.
23 And based on that I was able to separate
24 the rainfall in Minnesota into three classes. Class
25 1 had very high sulfate, very high nitrate and
121
1 relatively high hydrogen, and a low ratio of ammonia
2 to hydrogen; class 2 had very low -- I shouldn't say
3 very low, relatively low sulfate, relatively low
4 nitrate, relatively low hydrogen, intermediate amount
5 of ammonia; class 3 had high amount of sulfate, high
6 amount of nitrate, low amount of hydrogen, high
7 amount of ammonia.
8 Doing back trajectory analysis which is an
9 analysis which follows the patterns of events from a
10 point A to point B, I found that class A rainfall for
11 Minnesota was regulated by wind movement from the
12 Ohio River Valley which is generally considered to be
13 a high source air for sulfur dioxide and NOX, class 2
14 type rainfalls were predominantly regulated by air
15 flows directly to the north of us, Manitoba,
16 Saskatchewan area where there is nothing to speak of
17 sourcewise, and Class 3 was governed by moisture
18 coming from the Gulf of Mexico with the air parcels
19 moving straight up along the Great Plains into the
20 Midwest.
21 And therefore the conclusion was if air
22 parcels ordinarily from high source areas are part of
23 the cloud production and if those areas have very
24 high amounts of mixes of precursors and not enough
25 ability to neutralize those precursors you can have
122
1 high sulfate, high nitrate, high amount of hydrogen.
2 The class 2 indicates because you have no
3 big sources to speak of and you have relatively low
4 amounts of sulfate and nitrate, intermediate amounts
5 of ammonia which essentially neutralize, you have
6 intermediate case.
7 Class 3 is essentially caused by high
8 pressures to the east of Minnesota, it picks up all
9 the pollution and the moisture from the Atlantic
10 seaboard through the Gulf of Mexico and while
11 transported through the great plains is neutralized
12 by agricultural activities including ammonia so you
13 have high sulfate, high nitrate yet not enough
14 acidity.
15 And that was the gist of my testimony.
16 The importance of that is to show that different
17 rainfalls are governed by different chemical and
18 meteorological processes. Therefore if you are
19 trying to establish a standard based upon kilograms
20 per hectare, it will not really reflect the
21 importance of both the biological reactivity and
22 effectivity of the rainfall and the source of that
23 particular problem.
24 It is, I believe, sir, published in paper
25 No. -- let me go back here -- paper No. 57 on page
123
1 28, sir.
2 Q. What data were you relying on for purposes
3 of the testimony you gave in that case?
4 A. The data I collected was in a refrigerated
5 rain sampling network with co-located impactor
6 samplers. I was sampling the refrigerated rain
7 samples and right next to it I had an aerosol
8 sampler.
9 This is part of research network I had.
10 Q. That was collecting both wet and dryfall?
11 A. Yes, sir, not with the same sampler.
12 Q. I don't want to repeat myself, but what
13 was the period of record of those samplings?
14 A. If I remember correctly, sir, and I don't
15 recall clearly, but it might be three years.
16 Q. During that three year period were there
17 any unusual meteorological type events which could
18 have affected the sampling?
19 A. It is highly possible and also improbable
20 because if there were unusual events occurring, you
21 would not be able to separate the chemistry into
22 three clear categories.
23 Q. I understand you collected your data
24 concerning the various compounds and elements through
25 your samplers. What was your source of data for the,
124
1 essentially the meteorological conditions?
2 A. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
3 Administration's data bank at Asheville, North
4 Carolina.
5 Q. Did that also involve some type of
6 statistical correlation?
7 A. No, sir, it was meteorological modeling.
8 NOAA, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
9 Administration has a model that they have developed
10 which any tax paying citizen can get. It is called
11 branching trajectory model, and the model requires
12 input of meteorological variables across the country.
13 One obtains that from Asheville by paying $68 or so
14 in the past, apparently the price went up to 200 or
15 something now.
16 And you get help from a meteorologist that
17 knows the subject and you model the branching
18 trajectory which essentially tells you where a
19 particular, at a particular time an air parcel
20 started and what path it took to end on top of your
21 sampler roughly.
22 Q. Do you have any opinion as to the validity
23 or, I guess validity is the word, of the NOAA model?
24 A. At the time I did the work that was the
25 best model available according to some meteorologist
125
1 that I consulted.
2 Q. Is there a better model available today
3 that you are aware of?
4 A. Apparently the Canadian Environment Canada
5 has a model. The difference between the two models,
6 sir, is the NOAA's branching trajectory model is
7 based upon temperature ridges -- no, pardon me,
8 NOAA's model is based on pressure ridges while the
9 Canadian model is based on temperature ridges.
10 Q. What is the difference?
11 A. Given the gross scale it does not affect
12 the results, it is simply saying I got a better model
13 which maybe in a shorter grid may be more sensitive.
14 The models I was using were looking at almost half
15 the continent or half the United States. At the time
16 it was the best one available to me.
17 Q. Was there any uncertainty analysis
18 involved in, concerning potential error ranges in the
19 model?
20 A. I think perhaps it will serve well for me
21 if I tell you these models are probably several
22 counties wide in their trajectory. When I say
23 straight line, don't imagine it is running over this
24 building. That's not what I am talking about.
25 Any time you do atmospheric modeling you
126
1 are probably looking at three, four counties in
2 width. The idea even if you have a four county wide
3 air corridor, where does it originate from.
4 Q. Just so the record is clear, I don't know
5 that a county is a uniform thing, can you give that
6 more in area of miles or kilometers?
7 A. Let us say a hundred kilometers wide.
8 Also, I would like to point out that there
9 are better models. As everything else in this
10 country, it is driven by money. If I had super
11 computer I could certainly run a much better model.
12 Q. Have you ever been involved in any similar
13 work of attempting to locate sources of various
14 constituents in the atmospheric deposition?
15 A. Yes, sir. I have been involved sort of,
16 as a cooperator, if you want to call it in the
17 Alberta government industry acid deposition program
18 and one of the things we are still trying to resolve
19 is high ozone concentrations in the Canadian Rockies.
20 We don't know the source for that ozone at this
21 point. It is ongoing effort that I am involved with.
22 Q. Any other instances?
23 A. I can not offhand recollect.
24 Q. Have you ever done any such work in
25 Florida, for instance?
127
1 A. No, sir.
2 Q. In your testimony did you propose any
3 particular acid rainfall standard as being
4 appropriate?
5 MR. BLANK: What testimony are you
6 referring, to counsel?
7 Q. The 1986.
8 A. No, sir, I have never been in favor of
9 kilograms per hectare standard.
10 Q. Why is that?
11 A. Because there are certain biological
12 receptors that are affected by other types of things.
13 In other words, there must be more than just kilogram
14 per hectare standard if there is going to be one.
15 Q. How would you go about approaching this?
16 What is the best approach in your opinion to regulate
17 acid rain?
18 A. Regulations, sir, is different from
19 standard. You asked the question about the standard
20 and/or regulation?
21 Q. Let's ask about standard.
22 A. Standard to me should have enough
23 flexibility, in other words, certainly apparently, I
24 am not an aquatic person so I can not answer any
25 questions on that subject. And I am not a soils
128
1 person so I can not answer that either.
2 Apparently from what I hear kilograms per
3 hectare is a relatively good approach to soils and
4 aquatic system. On the other hand I as a crop person
5 would like to see a standard that says, so many units
6 of pH, pH units can not be exceeded more than so many
7 times for a growing season as an addition, if there
8 is going to be a standard.
9 Q. What is the distinction you make between
10 standard and regulation?
11 A. I am not a legal person.
12 Q. I am just wondering why you had the
13 problem with the terms.
14 A. Regulation means you are regulating the
15 emissions, my interpretation is. Standard means you
16 are saying you have set a concentration or something
17 in the atmosphere or in the biosphere that you can
18 not exceed.
19 Q. In any of these five cases you have
20 mentioned so far did you ever provide any deposition
21 testimony prior to the hearing?
22 A. No, sir.
23 Q. I believe on page 15 of Exhibit 1, the
24 last item under that heading it also references
25 expert testimony on global climate change.
129
1 A. That was in Germany, that was not, I don't
2 know how you understand this, I was going to explain
3 that to you.
4 About a year ago 30 of us were invited to
5 Germany and the parliament of Germany had a
6 subcommittee that wanted to hear us tell them what we
7 knew about global climate change on the crops and
8 forests. It was not a legal, or I don't know the
9 term. It is like a Congressional hearing, if you see
10 the analogy.
11 Q. Were you invited to testify at that
12 proceeding?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. What was the subject matter of your
15 testimony?
16 A. Global climate change.
17 Q. What did you conclude?
18 A. On crop responses to global climate
19 change, primarily ozone, ultraviolet B radiation,
20 carbon dioxide and their interactions.
21 Q. What was the substance of your testimony
22 as far as the global changes occurring as a result of
23 the ozone and --
24 A. The uncertainty attached to any
25 predictions of changes are as high as any predictions
130
1 I can make as to what will happen, therefore, at the
2 present time we are sort of shooting in the dark.
3 Just for a clarification, sir, I found it
4 interesting the way they run the protocol. We were
5 sitting 30 of us like in an auditorium and they were
6 sitting there and one person read us a series of
7 questions and each time if you had an answer you just
8 raise your hand. That's why I did not present that
9 particular thing as a legal issue.
10 Q. Did you raise your hand during the
11 proceeding?
12 A. Yes, sir. Also I would like to state,
13 anyway, I will be going there week after next to
14 testify again.
15 Q. In the same type of proceeding?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. What is the subject matter of that
18 testimony?
19 A. Carbon dioxide.
20 Q. Prior to any of your testimony in these
21 cases did you provide any prefiled testimony?
22 A. I am finding it hard to recollect. If I
23 may have a minute to think about it.
24 I really can not answer that. On a couple
25 of occasions I did submit written statements to the
131
1 people who asked me to testify. How they legally
2 managed the document, that I don't know.
3 Q. Have you ever been deposed before like we
4 are doing here today?
5 A. No, sir.
6 Q. When we started out this morning you
7 wanted to make the record clear that you were here as
8 a consultant as opposed to a representative of the
9 university, is that right?
10 A. Yes, sir.
11 Q. How much of your time do you spend in
12 consulting?
13 A. Legally at the university we are allowed
14 to spend one day per every seven days including
15 weekends. And so far I would have spent about five
16 days in the last twelve months, six days, maybe.
17 Q. Are you talking about specifically for
18 this case?
19 A. Specifically for this case, five, and I
20 would have spent one or two days on another air
21 quality issue I have been working on.
22 Q. For this particular case?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. My question was a little more general than
25 that. Just in general over a period of a year --
132
1 A. Over the last 10 years I would have
2 consulted about four to five days a year.
3 Q. How does most of your consulting work get
4 to you?
5 A. Without having to be, how do you say it,
6 inflating my ego.
7 Q. It is all right.
8 A. I do not seek business. It has become a
9 tradition that even grants come to me. So when
10 people have a problem they think I know something
11 about they usually call me. And if I like to do it
12 or if I feel I can help I get in, otherwise I say, I
13 don't want to.
14 It is the same way grants are working for
15 me now.
16 Q. The work you do under grants, is that
17 considered university work or consulting?
18 A. The money goes directly to the university.
19 As appropriate the university takes overhead up to 43
20 percent, I understand. The remaining is placed in
21 the university account to which I can charge towards
22 conducting the research for which the money was
23 given.
24 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record.
25 (Discussion off the record)
133
1 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record.
2 BY MR. NETTLETON:
3 Q. Dr. Krupa, when were you first contacted
4 concerning providing services for this particular
5 case?
6 A. I was contacted by Dr. A.S. Lefohn of the
7 A.S.L. & Associates.
8 Q. When was that?
9 A. I understand sometime, I have to
10 recollect, perhaps in the last part of last year.
11 Q. November, December?
12 A. Somewhere in there. I have been so busy,
13 I don't remember.
14 Q. Do you have a specific contract concerning
15 your services that you are providing?
16 A. Yes, I have a specific contract with
17 A.S.L. & Associates.
18 Q. Do you have a contract with any other
19 persons relating to your services for this case?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. Who pays your fee?
22 A. The A.S.L. & Associates.
23 Q. Would you tell me how you are being
24 compensated?
25 A. Yes, I am compensated for the number of
134
1 hours I put in plus travel, lodging and boarding
2 expenses.
3 Q. What is your hourly rate?
4 A. $85 an hour.
5 Q. Do you charge more for testimony time?
6 A. I have not looked into that avenue so far.
7 Q. Have you worked with Dr. Lefohn in other
8 situations such as this involving litigation?
9 A. The only other situation that I have been
10 involved with is where Dr. Lefohn actually worked
11 with me in testifying for the acid deposition hearing
12 in Minnesota. That was 1986.
13 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record.
14 (Discussion off the record)
15 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record.
16 BY MR. NETTLETON:
17 Q. With regard to your services in this case,
18 what specifically have you been asked to do?
19 A. I was specifically asked to assess the
20 sampling methodology and the analytical methodology.
21 Q. You say assess the sampling methodology,
22 what are you referring to, what methodology for what?
23 A. Sampling dry deposition, wet deposition.
24 Q. I assume you are referring to the
25 methodology that is being used or has been used by
135
1 the South Florida Water Management District?
2 A. Correct, sir.
3 Q. When you say to assess the analytical
4 methodology, what are you referring to?
5 A. To look and review the analytical
6 methodology for phosphorus.
7 Q. Again, is that related solely to dry and
8 wet deposition?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. Am I correct that also refers to the
11 analytical methodology also used by the South Florida
12 Water Management District?
13 A. Yes, sir.
14 Q. Have you been asked to do anything else?
15 A. Yes, sir, I was asked to find and
16 coordinate a report on the transport of Saharan dust.
17 Q. What is the first word, find?
18 A. To find someone and coordinate their
19 compilation on the Saharan dust transport question.
20 Q. Have you been asked to do anything else?
21 A. To my knowledge, no, at the moment.
22 Q. With regard to these three areas, was it
23 Dr. Lefohn who asked you to do each of these?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Have you been requested by Mr. Blank's
136
1 firm or anyone in the agricultural industry in South
2 Florida to undertake any additional activities?
3 A. No, sir, not at the moment.
4 Q. Can you tell me what materials you have
5 been provided?
6 A. As far as the work that I conducted on
7 sampling and analytical aspects I was provided by a
8 document of Mr. Grimshaw and coworkers, I was
9 provided a copy of the document by Mr. Grosser,
10 memorandum to Ms. Cheesman, I believe, and I was
11 provided a copy of the A report from the US
12 Geological Survey by Nilles and coworkers, I was
13 provided a copy of the quality assurance manual of
14 the South Florida Water Management District, I was
15 provided a copy of an internal report by Hydrologic
16 Associates, and I can not recall at the moment
17 without looking at something if I have omitted any
18 other documents.
19 Q. What would you need to look at?
20 A. A list of what I have in my file
21 somewhere.
22 Q. Do you have a list?
23 A. If I can look at the file, I do, yes.
24 Q. Do you have it with you?
25 A. At my hotel.
137
1 Q. I think in a sense I pretty well covered
2 the major ones.
3 Q. The internal report by Hydrologic
4 Associates --
5 MR. BLANK: Can I have just a moment?
6 MR. NETTLETON: Sure.
7 (The witness and his counsel confer off
8 the record)
9 A. I also received three voluminous documents
10 called the SWIM Plan and I choose not to swim in it.
11 Q. Have you reviewed the SWIM Plan?
12 A. I looked at it. I am afraid I didn't read
13 every page.
14 Q. With regard to the internal report by
15 Hydrologic Associates, did that have appendices to
16 it?
17 A. It is relatively voluminous and I also
18 just -- I believe the letter that Mr. Blank managed
19 to find this afternoon pretty well tells you the ones
20 I seriously paid attention to.
21 Q. Do you recall who the primary author on
22 the Hydrologic Associates report was?
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Who were these terms provided by?
25 A. Some of it came from the A.S.L. &
138
1 Associates and some of it came from Peeples, Earl &
2 Blank at the instructions of Dr. Lefohn.
3 Q. Do you recall when you received this
4 material?
5 A. They were trickling at various stages. I
6 lost count.
7 Q. Do you recall when the last time is you
8 received any material?
9 A. I believe March 4 telling me about this
10 deposition.
11 Q. Other than that, I mean actual reports or
12 memos or anything?
13 A. I do not recall receiving anything in the
14 recent weeks.
15 Q. Have you requested any additional
16 materials of any type?
17 A. No, sir.
18 Q. Any additional data or reports or
19 anything?
20 A. No, no, sir.
21 MR. BLANK: Could we take just a short
22 break?
23 MR. NETTLETON: Sure.
24 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken,
25 after which the following proceedings
139
1 were had)
2 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record.
3 BY MR. NETTLETON:
4 Q. Other than the materials we have discussed
5 that were provided to you, have you reviewed any
6 other materials with regard to the work you have been
7 asked to do in this case?
8 A. The materials that I reviewed are the ones
9 that are listed in the memorandum you received from
10 Mr. Blank today. They were the primary results of
11 the review I performed.
12 Q. You are referring to Exhibit 3, what has
13 been marked as Exhibit 3?
14 A. Yes, sir, Exhibit 3.
15 Q. Other than the items that are listed on
16 Exhibit 3, have you reviewed any other materials?
17 A. Primarily based upon 20 years of
18 experience in my head, I have resource, a lot of
19 resource.
20 Q. I guess my question is more, though, have
21 you actually gone back and pulled some research
22 report that you prepared in the past in order to --
23 A. No, sir.
24 Q. Has any information been provided to you
25 orally by anybody?
140
1 A. I consulted three people, two of whom were
2 not made aware of this deposition and one person was
3 made aware of this deposition.
4 I had one conversation with Mr. Bowersox,
5 B O W E R S O X, regarding the status of the dry
6 deposition monitoring in NADP. I wanted to verify
7 whether my conclusion on time scale was correct or
8 not.
9 I had a conversation with a Dr. George
10 Rehm. This was concerning the solution properties of
11 phosphorus. Neither of those gentlemen were made
12 aware of this deposition.
13 And the third person I talked to, he is a
14 Dr. Walter Lyons, Forensic Meteorology Associates,
15 Ft. Collins, Colorado, who is aware of this
16 deposition. He is a meteorologist and helped me to
17 understand the Sahara dust transport phenomenon.
18 Q. How many conversations did you have with
19 Dr. or Mr. Bowersox?
20 A. Mr. Bowersox, once.
21 Q. When was that?
22 A. About, I would think, a month ago perhaps.
23 Q. What institution is Mr. Bowersox
24 associated with?
25 A. He works for the Illinois State Water
141
1 Survey.
2 Q. Located in?
3 A. Champagne, Illinois.
4 Q. You stated you talked to him about the
5 NADP monitoring?
6 A. Yes. I receive annual reports every year.
7 And I misplaced one of the reports and I asked him
8 whether the information that I had was the right one
9 or not.
10 Q. And that was concerning dry deposition?
11 A. The number of sites.
12 Q. What was the information you were trying
13 to confirm?
14 A. I was trying to confirm what were the
15 total number of NADP sites, what were the total
16 number of NADP dry deposition sites, because back
17 some years ago when I was very active with NADP we
18 decided that we did not want to continue dry
19 deposition monitoring in NADP and it was left as an
20 option to certain people if they wanted to do so,
21 please go right ahead but the network itself does not
22 wish to continue. So I just wanted to know how many
23 were left.
24 Q. Do you recall what the number of sites
25 were?
142
1 A. Yes, there are approximately 200 total
2 NADP sites of which there are only 17 now that
3 monitor dry deposition.
4 Q. Did you discuss anything other than the
5 number of monitoring sites with Mr. Bowersox?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Did you keep any notes of your
8 conversation with him?
9 A. No, because it simply confirmed what I
10 already knew.
11 Q. Who is George Rehm associated with?
12 A. The University of Minnesota. He is an
13 extension soils nutritionist.
14 Q. How many times did you speak with him?
15 A. Once.
16 Q. When was that?
17 A. Also about a month ago.
18 Q. Did you keep any notes of your
19 conversation with him?
20 A. No, sir.
21 Q. What information did he provide you?
22 A. He didn't provide me anything. He
23 actually made me feel stupid and I left. I tried to
24 go and ask him to teach me some solution chemistry of
25 phosphorus.
143
1 And he told me he was a wrong person to
2 talk to about it. And then he says, you should know
3 better than to come here and ask me.
4 And I felt stupid and left.
5 Q. Did he tell you who you should be talking
6 to?
7 A. No. He thought there was a book somewhere
8 but he said he couldn't find it.
9 Q. Sounds like a very friendly coworker.
10 When you say solution properties of
11 phosphorus, what do you mean?
12 A. I just wanted to know the equilibrium for
13 insoluble phosphorus and soluble phosphorus because I
14 am not a phosphorus chemist. Ions in water change
15 their states from soluble to insoluble back and forth
16 depending on what they are, and I just want to know
17 basics of solution chemistry and I didn't get any.
18 Q. Are you still pursuing that?
19 A. No, sir. I think I will stop my education
20 in solution chemistry for now.
21 Q. Am I correct you never found the book with
22 the answer?
23 A. No. He is an extension person and he is
24 not a researcher. I don't mean if I found the
25 book --
144
1 Q. I mean you yourself, have you found any
2 information?
3 A. No, sir.
4 Q. When did you talk with Dr. Walter Lyons?
5 A. I have talked to him several times simply
6 because I was asked to compile this information and
7 he helped me essentially, he did the work.
8 I talked with him periodically over the
9 last three months.
10 Q. Have you kept notes of your conversations?
11 A. Only in the form of memorandums either to
12 him or to me.
13 Q. Correspondence or letters?
14 A. Correspondence, yes.
15 Q. What information has he gathered for you?
16 A. He has gathered the information on Saharan
17 dust transport, essentially the frequency of
18 occurrence.
19 Q. Is this information in the form of
20 published literature?
21 A. No, sir, it is in the form of a draft
22 report.
23 Q. Whose report is it?
24 A. I compiled a report based upon Dr. Lyons'
25 submission of information to me. He gave me a draft,
145
1 I edited and incorporated that into my draft report.
2 Q. So you are preparing a report concerning
3 the Saharan dust transport?
4 A. I am not preparing a report. I am
5 incorporating the draft given by Dr. Lyons. I am not
6 a meteorologist.
7 Q. You are incorporating it into a report you
8 are preparing?
9 A. To A.S.L. & Associates that I am obligated
10 to submit.
11 Q. What conclusions did Dr. Lyons reach in
12 his draft report concerning the transport of the
13 Saharan dust?
14 A. From what I gather, I did not read every
15 page of it because it is not my subject area, but
16 nevertheless, from what I understand, he thought that
17 the most frequent transport occurs in the month of
18 July.
19 Q. Did he do any independent research? What
20 is he basing his report on?
21 A. I understand he bases his report on
22 compiling data from various people who have the data.
23 Q. He has not done his own independent
24 research, though, to collect the data?
25 A. I need a clarification. Research to me is
146
1 probably different from what you think.
2 Q. Are you aware whether he has done his own
3 sampling or data collection?
4 A. He did not collect any data. He
5 essentially compiled the data from others and
6 synthesized it.
7 Q. Is Dr. Lyons' report focusing on any
8 particular geographic area as to where the Saharan
9 dust is being transported to?
10 A. From what I gather it is primarily in the
11 Miami region.
12 Q. Do you recall any quantification he has
13 provided in his report as to the amount of Saharan
14 dust?
15 A. Not off the cuff. I received it just a
16 few days ago and I have not had an opportunity to
17 look at what's in it completely.
18 Q. Do you recall, is he also looking at the
19 phosphorus content of that Saharan dust?
20 A. To my knowledge at this moment, no.
21 Q. Is Dr. Lyons or anyone else to your
22 knowledge looking at the transportation of dust or
23 other such particles from anyplace other than the
24 Saharan desert into the South Florida area?
25 A. To my knowledge, at the moment, no.
147
1 Q. Is Dr. Lyons under contract with you?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. Is he under contract with A.S.L.?
4 A. No, sir, he is under contract with me.
5 Q. Is that a written contract?
6 A. Yes, sir.
7 Q. How is Dr. Lyons being compensated?
8 A. A.S.L. & Associates paid me or will pay me
9 a lump sum, hopefully, of which a share will be
10 divvied to Dr. Lyons.
11 Q. Is he charging you an hourly rate?
12 A. No, sir, it is a fixed price contract.
13 Q. What is the fixed price?
14 A. $4,400.
15 Q. You indicated you just received a draft
16 report from him?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Do you know when the final report will be
19 due from him?
20 A. After I have had an opportunity to read it
21 and provide my comments.
22 Q. Is anybody else reviewing that report?
23 A. At the moment, Dr. Lefohn perhaps will be
24 reviewing it.
25 Q. Have you forwarded that report to the, the
148
1 draft report to Dr. Lefohn?
2 A. Yes, sir.
3 Q. When did you do that?
4 A. I believe the late part of February, early
5 March.
6 Q. Has he provided you any comments on it?
7 A. He provided me an edited version.
8 Q. An edited version?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. When did you receive that?
11 A. March 4.
12 Q. Pursuant to your contract with A.S.L. is
13 there a specific deadline when your work, your total
14 work is to be completed?
15 A. We have not discussed that but it would be
16 my belief that it will be expediated by Dr. Lefohn.
17 Q. What does that mean?
18 A. I mean soon after this we get to go home
19 and work on it, clean it up.
20 Q. I am not referring only to Dr. Lyons but
21 to your report.
22 A. Mine as well.
23 Q. Have you provided Dr. Lefohn a draft of
24 your report?
25 A. Yes, sir.
149
1 Q. Is that the same thing you are referring
2 to --
3 A. The contract I had from Dr. Lefohn
4 required me to do two tasks. One is to provide
5 myself the sampling methodology and analytical
6 methodology we talked about and the task B required
7 that I find someone who could provide me information
8 on the Saharan dust transport.
9 I found Dr. Lyons with whom I have worked
10 in the past often and he in turn provided a draft
11 report to me which I was supposed to consolidate with
12 my own report and hand Dr. Lefohn one single report.
13 That is what I have done, draft.
14 Q. And it is that single consolidated draft
15 report that you received back edited by Dr. Lefohn on
16 March 4, is that right?
17 A. Yes, sir.
18 Q. Are you familiar with any rainfall or
19 deposition data that was collected by Hendry,
20 Brezonik and Edgerton?
21 A. Only in the context of their citations in
22 the literature. I have never seen any data per se.
23 Q. Do you know Dr. Brezonik?
24 A. He is a member of the University of
25 Minnesota faculty of engineering.
150
1 Q. Have you ever discussed obtaining that
2 data from him?
3 A. No, sir, I had no reason to.
4 Q. You mentioned in your earlier testimony
5 concerning materials that were provided to you, a
6 quality assurance manual from the South Florida Water
7 Management District.
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Can you be more specific as to what that
10 was?
11 A. It was essentially a letter, memorandum
12 from Mr. Grosser to Ms. Cheesman with attachments.
13 The main attachment was a document written by I
14 believe Ms. Leucroft-Manzano and Scott, does it make
15 any sense, 1992, and then another document written by
16 Vidal and Pychnowski, I believe, 1990, and then I
17 received a second compilation essentially containing
18 the same information. On it, it says SFWMD and I
19 quickly went through it but felt that both were
20 somewhat similar.
21 Q. I guess I am a little confused. Is the
22 quality assurance manual, your reference, is that the
23 same thing as the Grosser memo with the attachments?
24 A. There were two sets, first I got the
25 Grosser memo with the attachments. Then I got a
151
1 separate compendium with a huge cover on it which
2 says SFWMD quality assurance. And after flipping
3 through that I found that much of what is in it is
4 the same thing that was attached to the Grosser memo.
5 Q. Do you recall what the manual, was there a
6 date on it?
7 A. Not to my knowledge at the moment.
8 The Grosser memo does have a date on it,
9 as you are probably aware, 1993.
10 Q. The Nilles et al. air report from USGS,
11 what does that deal with?
12 A. It deals with comparison of co-located
13 samplers, namely the reproducibility of a given
14 sampler and its ability to collect deposition. And
15 so you co-locate more than one sampler of the same
16 type and see how close you can come in results
17 between two of the same type.
18 Q. What did the Hydrologic Associates report
19 concern?
20 A. I am afraid I am unable to tell you
21 because I did not read it too closely at this moment.
22 Q. Do co-located samples provide accuracy and
23 precision information?
24 A. Not that I recall. The only point that I
25 was interested in was the ability to measure
152
1 chemicals and the conclusion drawn in that co-located
2 sampler report is, as the concentration of individual
3 elements reach their detection limits the
4 corresponding error increased. That was the only
5 statement I was interested in in that paper.
6 Q. Can you tell me what you have done as far
7 as accomplishing what you have been asked to do?
8 A. I primarily looked at the methodology used
9 for dry deposition sampling, wet deposition sampling,
10 how the data were obtained. That was roughly the
11 width of my analysis.
12 Q. What did you review for purposes of
13 determining the methodology that was used?
14 A. Primarily the paper, draft paper by
15 Grimshaw et al. and to a limited degree the paper by,
16 memo by Grosser, Mr. Grosser, and also to a limited
17 degree the two papers by Dolske and Gatz and the one
18 paper by Stevens, and one quotation from Davidson and
19 Wu, one page xerox that you presently have.
20 Q. You mention that you have prepared a draft
21 report that has been submitted?
22 A. Yes, sir.
23 Q. Prior to the preparation of that draft
24 report have you prepared any preliminary reports?
25 A. No, sir.
153
1 Q. Any progress reports?
2 A. No, sir.
3 Q. Prior to the preparation of your draft
4 report had you communicated orally with anyone
5 concerning your conclusions?
6 A. A.S.L. & Associates, Dr. A.S. Lefohn.
7 Q. When did you first provide him orally with
8 your conclusions?
9 A. I did not provide conclusions, I touched
10 base with him about what progress I am making,
11 because as a contractor he wanted to make sure I was
12 on the ball.
13 Q. Have you done any computer analysis in
14 your work?
15 A. No, sir.
16 Q. Have you used any --
17 A. I would like to modify it by saying I once
18 did a hand held calculator regression.
19 Q. What did you do that for?
20 A. I did that to verify some data in, I
21 believe, the table No. 3 in Stevens et al.
22 Q. Were you able to verify it?
23 A. I wanted to calculate the data and see
24 what I find. If I may check that I can tell you
25 which table exactly --
154
1 Q. We will probably get to that so you can
2 hold off if you want.
3 A. All right.
4 Q. It seems like a very plodding process but
5 I will get you that eventually.
6 A. That's all right. I was right.
7 Q. Have you used any other type of scientific
8 or technical equipment to either gather or analyze
9 any information?
10 A. Could I get a clarification on that?
11 Q. What do you need clarified?
12 A. Some of the terms you use are things that
13 I am not used to. Scientific equipment, technical
14 equipment, are you saying did I use a typewriter?
15 Q. Other than like telecommunication type
16 things, telephones and fax machines or whatever, I am
17 talking about scientific instrumentation, I guess, of
18 any type.
19 A. Like a sampler?
20 Q. Right.
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. Anything else that you have done other
23 than review the materials and prepare your reports?
24 A. No.
25 Q. Has anyone other than Dr. Lyons assisted
155
1 you in any regard with the work you are doing?
2 A. No, sir. Only a word processing secretary
3 to type it.
4 Q. You haven't had any grad students or
5 anything like that helping you?
6 A. No, sir.
7 Q. Any other scientists?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. With regard to your assessment of the
10 sampling methodology by the South Florida Water
11 Management District for wet and dry deposition, can
12 you tell me what opinions you have reached?
13 A. Yes, sir. There are a number of
14 uncertainties attached to the dry deposition side of
15 the sampling. Similarly, there are a number of
16 uncertainties attached to the wet side of the
17 sampling.
18 At this point I can not tell you what the
19 amount of the uncertainty is on either side. Those
20 are the three main conclusions.
21 Q. When you say three conclusions, that is
22 there are uncertainties on the dry deposition, there
23 are uncertainties on the wet deposition and you can't
24 reach a conclusion or quantify the uncertainty?
25 A. At this moment.
156
1 Q. With regard to your assessment of the
2 analytical methodology for phosphorus in wet and dry
3 deposition by the South Florida Water Management
4 District, can you tell me what opinions you have
5 reached?
6 A. I was confused by the parts of
7 documentation I received from the memo of Mr.
8 Grosser. This might be a matter of language but I
9 was confused.
10 Mr. Grosser in his memorandum to Ms.
11 Cheesman, I understand, states that sampling handling
12 occurred the day after it was collected in the field
13 but in the laboratory, and in a later section of the
14 attachment of Leucroft-Manzano and Scott, I
15 believe -- I am getting confused with this, excuse
16 me -- I believe those are the two that said they did
17 the filtration in the field. I am confused where it
18 was done.
19 The analytical technique itself, if
20 followed according to the American Public Health
21 Association, I don't have anything to grind, it is
22 accepted nationally, I have nothing to grind, but I
23 do have problems understanding what was really done.
24 Q. The problems you are expressing, that has
25 to do with where the filtering was done?
157
1 A. Well, yes, because if, from what I gather,
2 and I am not trying to be facetious, apparently there
3 were organic matter in the samples all the way from a
4 bullfrog down to a piece of plant leaf, these are
5 sources of phosphorus. The longer they sit in the
6 water the more you have biogenic phosphorus. So I am
7 not certain how much of the phosphorus is
8 anthropogenic versus biogenic.
9 Q. When you are talking about filtration,
10 what are you referring to?
11 A. The standard procedure, whatever it is
12 worth, according to American Public Health
13 Association, is to quantify the insoluble phosphorus,
14 you filter an aliquot of sample through a 0.45
15 micrometer filter. This does not guarantee that all
16 suspended matter is gone but it is a subjective
17 method.
18 Q. And that filter is designed so as to allow
19 the, what would be the particulate phosphorus in the
20 atmosphere to pass through?
21 A. It will allow phosphorus in the particles
22 below four and a half microns to pass through.
23 Everything above four and a half microns would be on
24 the top of the filter trapped.
25 Q. Again, excuse my ignorance of the area but
158
1 what was that size, four --
2 A. .45.
3 Q. .45 microns, do you find phosphorus
4 suspended in the atmosphere greater than .45 microns?
5 A. Smaller or greater?
6 Q. Greater.
7 A. Oh, certainly.
8 Q. Tell me what the procedure, the accepted
9 procedure is for, I guess, taking a sample from the
10 sampling station to the lab, what how does that work?
11 A. In terms of soluble I would not use that
12 technique, I would use ion chromatography. For total
13 I would use digestion which apparently the SFWMD does
14 fine. I wouldn't use this procedure for soluble to
15 begin with.
16 If you would refer to the method itself as
17 defined in the manual, the standard methods manual
18 16th edition of the American Public Health
19 Association, you will see there one page under
20 phosphorus it says, .45 micrometer filtration is a
21 convenient method but does not guarantee the absence
22 of suspended particulates.
23 Q. Tell me why under the standard method you
24 are eliminating the suspended particulates.
25 A. If you are interested in total it would
159
1 allow the suspended, if you are looking for soluble,
2 suspended is a non sequitur.
3 Q. I need to back up again, though.
4 You started off by saying you were
5 confused by the Grosser memo because it indicated
6 that sample handling occurred the day after
7 collection?
8 A. In the field, yes.
9 Q. When you say sample handling, what do you
10 mean?
11 A. That's when, if I understand right, the
12 frogs were removed and filtration occurred; unless I
13 have to imagine the English language, that's what it
14 says.
15 On the other hand, the other part of the
16 attachment says the filtration occurred in the field,
17 which is okay. So I am really confused whether the
18 frogs disappeared in the field or the laboratory.
19 Q. I want you to assume that the sample
20 handling or filtration occurred in the field. Do you
21 have an opinion concerning that particular
22 methodology?
23 A. I do in the sense that as the manual says,
24 filtration through .45 does not guarantee that
25 suspended, fine suspended particulate phosphate is
160
1 not included in the analytical procedure because any
2 type of hydrolysis would involve some release of
3 suspended matter.
4 So the method itself says to limit, points
5 to the limitation in the manual.
6 Q. Am I correct that your concern here
7 relates only to analysis directed toward soluble
8 phosphorus?
9 MR. BLANK: Could you be more clear with
10 your question, counselor? Are you talking about the
11 particular subject matter you have been discussing in
12 the last couple of minutes? I am confused by your
13 term "concern" here.
14 Q. The opinion you just expressed concerning
15 that the filtration does not guarantee that
16 particulate less than .45 microns --
17 A. No, that is only one issue, sir. I am
18 confused what was really done with the sample.
19 Q. I understand that. I want you to assume
20 the filtration occurred in the field, though.
21 A. I hate to say this. I am unable to
22 imagine that because I know -- I don't know what was
23 the truth.
24 Q. I know that. I want you to assume it
25 occurred in the field and then you have indicated
161
1 that assuming that, you are still of the opinion that
2 there are problems because the filtration does not
3 guarantee that suspended particulate of less than .45
4 microns does not get into the sample?
5 A. There is a degree of uncertainty. I don't
6 know what that degree is.
7 Q. I understand that.
8 A. That's what I mean. If it was filtered in
9 the field, sir, probably the uncertainty would be
10 less. If it was filtered in the laboratory probably
11 there would be more uncertainty.
12 Q. But did you previously indicate that the
13 filtration only applies with regard to when you are
14 measuring soluble phosphorus?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So am I correct that this problem of
17 filtration does not affect analysis for total
18 phosphorus?
19 A. I don't know. I never analyzed frogs when
20 they were incubating for a day. I am sorry, I am not
21 trying to be funny, I apologize. The point is it is
22 an important consideration. Organic matter contains
23 phosphorus. The longer you allow the organic matter
24 to soak in the water, I don't know how much of that
25 comes out.
162
1 Q. What you are talking about if I am
2 understanding you correctly is contamination of the
3 samples?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. I guess, is that your primary concern, is
6 the contamination by these --
7 A. Only on the analytical side.
8 Q. Only, sorry?
9 A. Only on the analytical side issues that
10 you ask.
11 Q. As opposed to what?
12 A. Sampling side issues.
13 Q. You are not concerned with contamination
14 with regard to the sampling side issues?
15 A. Oh, yes, I am concerned about how you
16 sample to begin with. I thought you were trying to
17 ask the question about the analysis side which is the
18 chemistry.
19 If your intent is to find out about the
20 sampling, that is a whole new issue.
21 Q. No, no, I am coming back to that. I am
22 still trying to get clarified on what your opinion is
23 concerning the analysis side.
24 A. My opinion, sir, concerning the analysis
25 side is very clearly stated on page 14 of Grimshaw et
163
1 al. where they say that the quality control and
2 quality assurance procedures were inadequate as
3 performed by the field personnel so I guess I am just
4 essentially supporting Mr. Grimshaw's observation.
5 Q. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding on
6 my part of where you draw the line.
7 Am I correct then you don't have a problem
8 with the actual laboratory analysis that is being
9 conducted, it is just what might be in the samples to
10 start with?
11 A. The laboratory analysis that was
12 performed, if correctly interpreted, is according to
13 the standard methods of the American Public Health
14 Association. I have no problems with that.
15 Q. I guess what has confused me, you have
16 classified these as analysis and I still see them as
17 sampling problems.
18 A. Yes. See, sample to me is something you
19 gathered first. Analysis, after you gathered it you
20 have analyzed it.
21 Q. On the third area you were asked to find
22 someone and coordinate a report on the transport of
23 Saharan dust, and that's pretty much what we
24 discussed with regard to Dr. Lyons, is that correct?
25 A. Yes. He was under subcontract and he is
164
1 the best judge of what he did.
2 I can not speak for him because I am not
3 familiar with that subject.
4 Q. What will your role be with regard to
5 reviewing his report and incorporating it into yours?
6 A. I know enough fundamental high school
7 level meteorology if you want to call it to ask him
8 pertinent questions to clarify, the same as, for
9 example, you are asking.
10 Q. I was thinking the same thing.
11 MR. BLANK: Did you say impertinent
12 questions?
13 THE WITNESS: No, asking him pertinent
14 questions.
15 Q. I believe you said that there is no intent
16 to have Dr. Lyons' report reviewed by anyone else
17 other than yourself and Dr. Lefohn?
18 A. At the moment that is the case.
19 Q. Can you tell me what pertinent questions
20 you might have with regard to --
21 A. The other day in passing I saw a page that
22 said haboob. I don't know what a haboob is. I
23 thought it was a Mideastern name. But it turns out
24 there is a meteorological meaning to it which I don't
25 know. I will ask him what a haboob is.
165
1 Q. Let's go back to the uncertainties with
2 regard to the sampling for dry and wet deposition.
3 Can you tell me specifically what
4 uncertainties you are talking about?
5 A. Yes, sir. On page 8 and 9 I believe of
6 Grimshaw et al., draft publication, they point out
7 the difficulties of using bucket samplers for
8 sampling dry deposition.
9 The xerox copy of page 160 of the acid
10 precipitation book edited by Adriano and Salomons
11 that you received today, the last paragraph on that
12 page pretty well summarizes the analysis of the
13 bucket sampling system by Davidson and Wu. This is
14 one of the most comprehensive reviews on dry
15 deposition sampling, et cetera, prepared recently.
16 The aerodynamic characteristics of the
17 bucket sampler are not well understood.
18 Q. I am sorry, you said --
19 A. Aerodynamic characteristics, namely the
20 relationship between what is falling in the bucket
21 and the wind flow, this type of thing.
22 And secondly, once enough dust has fallen
23 into the bucket the surface acts as a resistance to
24 further deposition of other particles and nobody
25 knows how that is altered. That is another
166
1 uncertainty.
2 And the most important uncertainty is the
3 reentrainment of large particles and biological
4 debris.
5 And because of the wind flow
6 characteristics of the bucket, many feel that the
7 bucket sampler data can not be related to natural
8 surfaces, be they soils, vegetation, lakes, rivers,
9 whatever.
10 So there is a lot of concern. And because
11 of this, in 1984 the NADP scientists like myself
12 decided we did not want to spend money providing 60,
13 70 whatever dollars per sample analysis and therefore
14 we did not want to continue the dry deposition
15 program.
16 At that time the committee of course
17 decided that the freedom is theirs so if anybody
18 wants to continue they can do so. So out of in
19 excess of 200 sites in NADP there are only 17 sites
20 where this is being continued.
21 That is the basic summary. And because of
22 this concern, EPA through the Illinois water survey
23 did a major intracomparison study, namely they all
24 went to a single location and used five different
25 surface type samplers to determine whether they are
167
1 comparable or not. And when they did that,
2 consistently the bucket sampler came with higher
3 deposition values than any of the other types of
4 samplers, sometimes as much as an order of magnitude
5 higher.
6 Now, what is not clear in the report or
7 anywhere else is that was only one study. It was
8 done at one location. And therefore the meteorology
9 at that location is not representative of the
10 meteorology of another location.
11 As you asked this morning, counselor, even
12 with my basic knowledge of meteorology, the
13 meteorology of Illinois has nothing to do with the
14 meteorology of Florida in terms of similarities.
15 Therefore I am not sure the data could be
16 extrapolated to the Florida scenario.
17 Therefore, since there is no other
18 intracomparison data for this geographic location the
19 uncertainty attached to the sampling itself is
20 unknown because we don't know what it is doing.
21 And compounding this is the statement by
22 Mr. Grimshaw et al. on page 14, again, I think, about
23 the problems of quality assurance.
24 Therefore I really don't know what the
25 data means.
168
1 Q. Am I correct that everything that you just
2 testified about concerned dry deposition?
3 A. So far, yes.
4 Q. One of the items you mentioned was that as
5 the deposition collects in the bucket it can have
6 some effect on the continued collection.
7 A. That's highly particle size dependent.
8 Q. Can you describe that?
9 A. Resistance is usually towards smaller size
10 particles. Coarse particles, essentially you might
11 imagine them as bricks falling down, their terminal
12 velocity can be almost instantaneous in the
13 atmosphere. So even this is a possibility, nobody
14 has actually calculated the resistance and studied it
15 but one assumes that it is possible it will be a
16 resistance.
17 And my feeling at this moment about that
18 matter is that even if the resistance that would not
19 be sufficient to stop coarse particles from falling,
20 it may slow down some of the smaller particles.
21 Therefore, ultimately when you do collect the sample,
22 it may not be truly representative of what would
23 normally fall down.
24 Q. I apologize, doctor, but I am still a
25 little confused. Why --
169
1 A. May I take a few minutes and perhaps
2 explain to you the physics of particles fallout?
3 Q. Okay, if that will help.
4 A. Maybe this will help. I want to help you
5 so you are following what I am saying.
6 The particles that are very big, normally
7 somewhere in the order of two micrometers or higher,
8 these are called coarse particles. They sediment to
9 the ground by gravitational force.
10 What these particles do is, you must
11 imagine in your own mind like you asked me to
12 imagine, imagine zillions of molecules outside this
13 window are floating in the air including the oxygen
14 molecules.
15 These big particles have to come through
16 this maze of particles. So when they are coming
17 through the maze of particles they are rubbing
18 against the little ones. This causes friction.
19 It is the frictional force and this
20 frictional force may either speed up or slow down the
21 fall, freefall of these particles.
22 When the frictional force is equaled by
23 the gravitational force or force of gravity, it is
24 called terminal velocity. Then the speed becomes
25 constant. That's how coarse particles fall.
170
1 Nevertheless, there is a resistance of the
2 medium through which it is falling. That resistance
3 is proportional to the density of the particle. And
4 more importantly, the square of the size of the
5 particle.
6 So coarse particles fall very rapidly.
7 Fine particles don't fall very rapidly, simply
8 because the resistance has a greater effect on them
9 than the coarse particles
10 So if you had a bucket and all these
11 coarse particles fall down fast, which they do, and
12 then you have gases in the atmosphere and particles
13 absorb gases and so perchance some of these gases are
14 absorbed by particles, essentially they grow in size.
15 And bigger the size the greater the resistance.
16 Therefore, the fine particles would be
17 slowed down much more than the coarse particles.
18 Therefore, if the resistance changes the sampler may
19 preferably collect more coarse particles and less
20 fine particles.
21 Q. I guess where I am getting lost is why is
22 it the sampler collects less than what would normally
23 fall without the sampler there?
24 A. Because in the normal atmosphere you don't
25 have this resistance operating as a third variable.
171
1 Q. What is the third variable?
2 A. The coating on the bucket.
3 See, there is what is called a surface
4 resistance, there is what is called an atmospheric
5 resistance. Surface resistance is changing.
6 Q. What you are talking about is surface
7 resistance?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Do you --
10 A. People suspect there is but nobody has
11 measured it.
12 Q. I ask you do you have an opinion within a
13 reasonable degree of scientific certainty as to what
14 the surface resistance, what effect that would have
15 on dry deposition?
16 A. If I were to only express my guess or
17 estimate or not even estimate, a feeling, I would
18 think that probably the longer the bucket stands out
19 the greater would be its preference to pick up coarse
20 particles as opposed to fine particles. That is a
21 feeling. I can not prove this or disprove this.
22 Q. Do you know whether any research has been
23 conducted to attempt to quantify that?
24 A. No, sir.
25 As I indicated to you, this methodology
172
1 has not been in vogue since about 1984 or 1985.
2 Q. What effect would that have on, again,
3 assuming we want to measure the amount of total
4 phosphorus in dry deposition, what effect would the
5 surface resistance have as far as biasing the sample?
6 A. I only know of one study that I could
7 potentially infer from at the moment and that is the
8 study by Stevens and coworkers, table No. 3, you will
9 see that the phosphorus in fine particles are as
10 important as in the coarse particles.
11 Therefore, it is my feeling at the moment
12 that the more the coarse particles that fall in the
13 bucket, the less it would exclude the fine particle
14 phosphorus -- the more it will exclude the fine
15 particle phosphorus, pardon me, the more it will
16 screwed the fine particle phosphorus.
17 Q. Does that have a tendency to bias the
18 sample toward a higher or a lower phosphorus
19 concentration?
20 A. I do not know, sir. That's what I said.
21 I do not have a feeling on which direction or what
22 the uncertainty would be because nobody has done it
23 before.
24 Q. So it could go either way?
25 A. It is possible.
173
1 Q. You stated that many in the scientific
2 community have these various reservations about
3 collection of dry deposition and that's why NADP
4 eventually did away with it in 1984, is that right?
5 A. Yes, sir.
6 MR. BLANK: We are referring to bucket
7 collection now, counselor, is that correct?
8 Q. I am talking about the collection of dry
9 deposition.
10 A. No, no, bucket collection was what was
11 terminated in 1984. And since then NADP had not had
12 an alternate program.
13 Q. Am I correct then everything we have been
14 talking about concerning your opinions concerning dry
15 deposition relates only to collection or sampling
16 through bucket as opposed to some alternative
17 sampling method?
18 A. I have not had an opportunity to examine
19 the results of alternate sampling methods so I am
20 unable to comment about them.
21 Q. With regard to alternatives to bucket
22 sampling, do you have any opinion of whether these
23 same problems would exist or would not exist?
24 A. In a purely common sense, if you have
25 particles of size separation you do not have this
174
1 problem. In other words, if you have a sampler that
2 collected particles by size, you don't have this
3 problem.
4 Q. And the problem you are referring to is
5 the surface resistance problem?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. You mentioned earlier a NADP experiment
8 where they took five different samplers.
9 A. US EPA Illinois water survey cooperative
10 experiment.
11 Q. Are the results of that experiment
12 published somewhere?
13 A. Yes, sir. There are two papers as
14 exhibits here and I understand that Mr. Grimshaw
15 cited those several times in the draft manuscript,
16 Dolske and Gatz 84A and Dolske and Gatz 84B.
17 Q. Those are the ones referenced in Exhibit 3
18 as items 2 and 3?
19 A. Yes, sir.
20 Q. I believe you stated that that particular
21 experiment occurred in Illinois?
22 A. Yes, 15 miles I believe southwest
23 approximately of Champagne, Illinois in a grass
24 field.
25 Q. Do you have an opinion concerning a more
175
1 appropriate method to collect dry deposition?
2 A. I can only say how I have done it, because
3 in order to have an opinion I had to conduct an
4 experiment and compare all the alternatives, which I
5 have not done.
6 Q. Am I correct that the method that you have
7 used to collect dry deposition in your opinion is
8 more appropriate than the bucket collection method?
9 A. For the objectives I had for the
10 particular study in time, yes.
11 Q. Do you feel that the method that you have
12 used, and I assume by that we are talking about the
13 sampler that you invented?
14 A. No, sir, that is the wet side.
15 Q. I am sorry?
16 A. The dry side there are either commercially
17 available or custom made equipment available at the
18 present time to look at dry deposition.
19 Q. Tell me what methods you have used to
20 collect dry deposition.
21 A. In one study I used what is called as a
22 dichotomous sampler, dichotomy, dichotomous sampler
23 which allowed me size separation of approximately two
24 micrometers, in other words I was able to collect all
25 the particles greater than two micrometers in one
176
1 fraction and I collected all the particles below two
2 micrometers in another fraction to study the type of
3 acid deposition work I was doing in the
4 Minnesota-Wisconsin area.
5 I also used what is called as a combined
6 annular denuder/filter pack method which is one of
7 the most sophisticated methods available to collect
8 dry deposition as far as I know. And this was used
9 in the Alberta government industry acid deposition
10 research program.
11 Q. Have you used any other methods?
12 A. In the early days the bucket until 1984.
13 Q. The first alternative method you mentioned
14 was the dichotomous --
15 A. Dichotomous sampler.
16 Q. Does that work through a series of
17 filters?
18 A. No. What it does, these are called also
19 as virtual impactors. What they do is they allow you
20 to sample the coarse particles in virtual inertia, in
21 other words, they don't allow the particle to change
22 its velocity of deposition by providing additional
23 momentum, so if you imagine a box within a box, the
24 first box essentially allows particles to fall down
25 mostly due to gravity. And the air and the rest of
177
1 the particles that are not trapped by gravitational
2 force are split by what are called slits and they
3 come down to another stream and fall down on the next
4 filter. The top filter collects all the large
5 particles and the small particles are collected in
6 the bottom filter. So essentially it is a two-stage
7 filter separating particles above and below two
8 micrometers in size.
9 Q. And the advantage of that filter over the
10 bucket is it in your opinion eliminates the surface
11 resistance we talked about?
12 A. And also a bias because the bucket, the
13 falling is only to the gravitational force. In the
14 case of impactor when the coarse particles are
15 falling primarily it is the gravitational force, the
16 fine particles are being sampled at a known velocity
17 like one liter a minute perhaps or less.
18 Q. How does that reduce the bias?
19 A. The coarse particles and the fine
20 particles are not in the same stream.
21 Q. I apologize, doctor, but I don't
22 understand how that affects the bias.
23 A. The question is not even involved because
24 the principle of sampling is totally different. In
25 the case of the bucket, gravity is the only one that
178
1 is operating on what you find in the bucket. In the
2 case of the impaction device, it is not just the
3 gravity, the external force of succeeding at a set
4 rate separates the fine particles away from the
5 coarse particles so you sample both sets of particles
6 with more certainty close to a hundred percent.
7 Q. What I don't understand is how, what does
8 the separation of the particles have to do with --
9 A. With the resistance?
10 Q. No, I understand that.
11 A. Okay. Because as the resistance increases
12 on the surface, the amount of small particles falling
13 down is reduced progressively.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. And you are only collecting the big
16 particles. So you are biasing your sampling towards
17 the big particles and ignoring the small particles.
18 Q. I see.
19 A. And phosphorus is found in both particles
20 sizes.
21 Q. How long has the dichotomous --
22 A. Dichotomous, you can call it two-stage
23 sampler, make life easier for you, two-stage sampler.
24 Q. How long has that been available?
25 A. God, since I have been at the university,
179
1 probably close to early seventies.
2 Q. The second one you mentioned, the combined
3 annular denuder/filter pack method, what are the
4 advantages of that one over the bucket method?
5 A. The combined annular filter pack method is
6 a very unique system that allows simultaneously to
7 sample certain gaseous pollutants combined with the
8 sampling of fine particles. It avoids all coarse
9 particles or tries to anyway. Nothing is absolute.
10 So, you see, there is a difference that
11 has a different application than the two-stage
12 impactor. That's why I said you have to decide what
13 your objective is in selecting the type of sampler.
14 Q. The combined annular et cetera method
15 then, am I correct that does not collect coarse?
16 A. No, it is removed because the annular
17 denuder/filter pack system was designed primarily in
18 the context of understanding acid, production of acid
19 molecules in the air. So what it does, just so you
20 are comfortable, it is up front what is called a
21 cyclone which essentially allows the coarse particles
22 to condense and get trapped, then what is left behind
23 in the screen is the gaseous material, gaseous
24 pollutants and fine particles. And there is a series
25 of tubes and these tubes allow the air to have a
180
1 laminar flow. The walls of the tubes are coated with
2 different chemicals that trap the gases. For
3 example, certain types of chemicals are coated to
4 trap acid gases, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and
5 so on.
6 Another tube contains a coating of another
7 material that will allow the trapping of alkaline
8 gases like ammonia.
9 Then the filters allow the collection of
10 nitric acid vapor and all the fine particles.
11 By doing this you get a better handle on
12 all the acidic and acidifying pollutants in a given
13 area, if that is your interest.
14 Q. Then in your opinion that method would not
15 be appropriate for collecting dry deposition for
16 purposes of measuring total phosphorus?
17 A. I can not say -- could you reword that,
18 please?
19 Q. Sure. Let me break it down.
20 You earlier testified, I believe, that
21 based upon the Stevensson --
22 A. Stevens.
23 Q. Stevens material, that there is phosphorus
24 contained in both fine and coarse particles, is that
25 right?
181
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And that they are both equally important
3 in measuring total phosphorus, is that right?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Am I correct that the combined annular
6 denuder/filter pack method which eliminates the
7 coarse particles would not be appropriate then for
8 measuring total phosphorus in the dryfall?
9 A. Not totally true. Usually what people do
10 is instead of throwing the material away in the
11 cyclone you simply use it. That is the coarse
12 fraction.
13 Q. So this method, although it separates out
14 coarse particles they are still available for
15 measurement?
16 A. Correct.
17 What is critical for you to realize is, it
18 all depends on the position of what you are trying to
19 achieve. And if your objective is measuring
20 quantities of chemicals that are relatively small in
21 concentration you should never ever try to put
22 everything into one technique. There should be more
23 than one technique to corroborate what you've got.
24 Q. Does the scientific community still accept
25 bucket collection methods for dry deposition as a
182
1 valid method of collection?
2 A. There is always a minority that might
3 agree to something. But from what I understand as of
4 today, most scientists that are atmospheric oriented
5 people do not accept the bucket as a method.
6 Q. But would you say a respected minority of
7 scientists in the field would accept bucket method?
8 A. I wish I could answer but I have not taken
9 a poll.
10 Q. You indicated that there are still some 17
11 NADP sites that are still collecting dry deposition?
12 A. Yes. From what I gather no one has given
13 me a straight answer. From what I gather it is for
14 historical purposes to maintain records.
15 Q. And they are continuing to use the bucket
16 method?
17 A. Yes, sir. From also what I gather they
18 are all located only in three states.
19 Q. Which states are those?
20 A. At least two of them I know, one
21 apparently is North Carolina and the other one is
22 Colorado. I don't remember the third one.
23 Q. Are there additional collection methods
24 for dry deposition other than the other two
25 alternatives we have discussed?
183
1 A. I can only tell you as I have said this
2 morning, by category. I don't have a compilation of
3 all methodology. There are books that contain it.
4 But I've not physically done it myself. I can only
5 provide the answers on three or four major categories
6 or classes of equipment you can go to.
7 Q. How long has the combined annular
8 denuder/filter pack method been in existence?
9 A. Approximately since about 1982, 1983,
10 somewhere in there.
11 Q. What is the most common method for
12 collecting dry deposition today?
13 A. I don't know about the networks, but in
14 terms of most scientists that I respect, they collect
15 with an impaction technique of some sort.
16 Q. In the 1970s time period what was the most
17 common method of collecting dry deposition?
18 A. I am afraid I can't answer you b