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. 5560 Alameda Street, St. Paul, Minnesota, 12 55126. 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 atmosphere. Similarly the production of sulfate 7 particles in the atmosphere is correlated to 8 temperature and radiation. 9 So therefore on days when you have high 10 ozone you tend to have high sulfate because both are 11 driven by the same mechanism of temperature and 12 light. 13 Q. Can you tell me what effects if any 14 temperature would have on the phosphorus composition 15 of atmospheric deposition? 16 A. No, sir, because I have not studied the 17 literature on the relationship of temperature and 18 phosphorus. 19 Q. Can you tell me what effect if any 20 humidity would have on the phosphorus composition of 21 atmosphere deposition? 22 A. Depending on what size fraction the 23 phosphorus is presented in the atmosphere, it may be 24 possible that humidity would increase the rate of 25 deposition on one set of particles and slow down the