101 1 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE OF FLORIDA 2 SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE ) 3 OF FLORIDA; ROTH FARMS, INC.; and ) WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC., ) 4 ) Petitioners, ) 5 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3038 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 6 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 7 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 8 FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC., ) UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION; ) 9 and NEW HOPE SOUTH, INC., ) Petitioners, ) 10 vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3039 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) 11 DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) of Florida; et al., ) 12 Respondents. ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 13 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE ) ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS; ) 14 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., ) and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC., ) 15 Petitioners, ) vs. )DOAH Case No. 92-3040 16 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT ) DISTRICT, an agency of the State ) 17 of Florida; et al., ) Respondents. ) 18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x 100 Southeast 2nd Street 19 Miami, Florida March 18, 1993 20 9:10 a.m. - 5:50 p.m. 21 DEPOSITION OF SAGAR V. KRUPA 22 VOLUME II - P.M. SESSION 23 Taken before RICHARD BURSKY, Registered 24 Professional Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large, pursuant to Notice of 25 Taking Deposition filed in the above cause. 102 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 1:15 p.m. 3 (A letter dated March 5, 1993 from Robert 4 H. Blank, was marked Krupa Deposition Exhibit 3 for 5 identification) 6 MR. NETTLETON: Just for the record, we 7 have marked as Exhibit 3 the letter dated March 5, 8 1993 from Mr. Blank to R. Benjamin Reid which has a 9 list of certain documents on it. We will come back 10 to that later in the deposition. 11 BY MR. NETTLETON: 12 Q. I would like to try and pick up where we 13 were before we broke for lunch. 14 Dr. Krupa, can you tell me what effects if 15 any wind flows could have on the phosphorus 16 composition of atmospheric deposition? 17 A. Wind flows literally speaking can not have 18 effect on the phosphorus composition. It can have 19 effect on what and how much falls into a sampler. 20 And the phosphorus composition is already in the 21 particles that fall. 22 Q. When you were referencing the various 23 meteorological conditions that can affect sampling 24 you also mentioned turbidity? 25 A. Turbulence. 103 1 Q. Turbulence. Would that be the same effect 2 as the wind flow? 3 A. Let me clarify a little bit further. 4 Wind flow influences the type of particles 5 that will fall into a sampler. It depends on in what 6 particles phosphorus is present. So wind flow 7 influences the particles, not their chemistry. It 8 influences the deposition. 9 If you have high turbulence it will tend 10 to favor large particles. 11 Q. When you say favor, what do you mean? 12 A. Deposition, favor the deposition of large 13 particles because it will settle faster. 14 But then if you have turbulence, to move, 15 the particles may reentry back into the atmosphere 16 and so this goes like a puddle jumping up to some 17 point. 18 Q. When you said high turbulence, did you 19 mean high wind would affect the larger particles? 20 A. High winds on the surface, and the swirl 21 because of the temperature flux and that causes 22 turbulence. 23 Q. And turbulence then creates the 24 reentraining of the particles into the atmosphere? 25 A. Correct. 104 1 Q. Does that also affect resuspension of 2 particles from the ground into the -- could that 3 affect the sampling in that sense? 4 A. That's what I mean, resuspension of 5 particles. 6 But remember, it is not the wind flow at 7 the upper height, it is wind flow closer to the 8 surface. 9 Q. Have you personally participated in the 10 installation of any deposition sampling equipment? 11 A. Certainly. I was involved not only in 12 designing my own sampler but also in making sure it 13 works. 14 Q. Other than with regard to your own 15 sampler, have you been involved in the actual 16 installation of commercially available sampling? 17 A. The first time my site was operated at 18 Lamberton I was there. 19 Q. But I mean were you personally involved in 20 installing the equipment? 21 A. You mean poured the concrete and put the 22 machine on there, no. It was done by a concrete 23 pourer. Unfortunately my talents don't go into 24 concrete pouring. 25 Q. Excuse my ignorance maybe of the sampling 105 1 equipment but is there any requirement of calibrating 2 the equipment or setting it up in a certain 3 particular manner? 4 A. Once the site criteria are satisfied there 5 is no real calibration in ADP type sampler other than 6 the measurements have to be calculated like site 7 operators measuring pH, for example, he has to 8 calibrate the pH meter to get the reading. 9 Similarly if he is measuring some other 10 variable in the fold to calibrate the measuring 11 equipment, the collection equipment itself is pretty 12 much self-contained. 13 Q. Other than the site selection itself, are 14 there any other steps that are taken, once the site 15 is selected, to ensure that the sampling station is 16 set up to provide a representative sample of the 17 deposition? 18 A. According to criteria all sites relatively 19 follow the same protocol. They sample on a 20 particular day of the week, the sample is processed 21 in a specific way, all of them, the same way, shipped 22 to the central analytical laboratory who then through 23 a number of checks make sure that the quality is 24 maintained. 25 Q. What particular criteria are involved in 106 1 actually setting up the station itself? 2 A. As I indicated to you, you should not be 3 close to a gravel road, you should not be close to an 4 obstruction, preferably should be away from local 5 sources, things of that nature. 6 Q. Again, that seems to be more the site 7 selection itself. What I am asking about is, is 8 there any criteria concerning or safeguards or 9 anything that you take once the site is selected and 10 the station is put there to avoid any interferences 11 that might otherwise occur other than site selection 12 which you have already done? 13 A. I can't think of any at this point. 14 Q. When you were talking, when we just talked 15 about what you were referring to, the NADP sites. 16 A. Yes. 17 Q. Is there any criteria that you use 18 yourself that the NADP does not follow? 19 A. The objective of the NADP is quite 20 different, quite different from my objective and my 21 research. 22 My research objective was more into 23 physical chemistry of ions in solution. So I used a 24 whole set of different criteria that are not really 25 pertinent to NADP's objective which is to look on a 107 1 national basis, national weight basis how atmospheric 2 deposition affects or affected land surface 3 ecosystems and surface waters. 4 My objective was more from a chemistry 5 viewpoint to understand the dynamics of 6 precipitation. Therefore I used a whole set of 7 criteria like refrigeration, sequential sampling 8 stratified within a given rainfall, in certain places 9 I purposely put a sampler down for a source of sulfur 10 dioxide. 11 In another case I put it directly in the 12 path of ammonia that I knew was coming from feed lots 13 and other activity, cattle feed lots, pigs. So my 14 objectives were totally different. 15 Q. I guess my question is more directed to, 16 are there any safeguards that you take with regard to 17 setting up your stations with the understanding of 18 whatever your objectives might be, to ensure that you 19 get a representative sample of the atmospheric 20 deposition in the area you are sampling. 21 A. At the moment, I can't think of any. 22 Q. When you were talking about locating the 23 sites, is the criteria to locate them away from point 24 or non-point sources? 25 A. One of them, in the NADP. 108 1 Q. One of them meaning what? 2 A. One of the objectives you said, I am a 3 little bit confused whether you are referring to my 4 research. 5 Q. No, I am referring to NADP right now. 6 A. NADP, one of the objectives is to get away 7 from local influences, namely either point or 8 non-point sources. 9 I think it might be helpful for you to 10 realize the objective, the goal of the NADP is 11 geographically at the contiguous United States scale 12 and my research objective was like a pin in that it 13 is only like 40 square miles, maybe. 14 Q. In your cases, such as the feed lot 15 situation, you are actually attempting to measure 16 point sources then, is that right? 17 A. I am trying to understand the chemistry, 18 like, for example, if there was sulfuric acid in 19 solution, if you injected ammonia into the same 20 solution, the sulfuric acid would essentially be 21 neutralized in the atmospheric sense into ammonium 22 sulfate. Feed lots contribute ammonia so I am trying 23 to understand the dynamics of how ammonia and 24 sulfuric acid react in droplets when they were being 25 removed from the sky to the ground. That is one 109 1 objective. 2 Q. Let's say, if your objective of one of 3 your research projects is the cause and effect 4 relationship between a particular element or compound 5 and a vegetative change of some nature, would it then 6 be your objective to set up your sampling sites so as 7 to essentially measure the localized sources of 8 whatever parameter you are measuring? 9 A. There are different sampling designs. And 10 you fit a particular sampling design to optimize the 11 information you can get to meet the objective. 12 So there is no single recipe that you can 13 apply for all times to all problems and say, I will 14 get the answer, no. 15 Q. Have you personally been involved in 16 actually taking the samples from the sites? Did I 17 discuss this? I think I might have raised this 18 before. 19 MR. BLANK: You did. 20 Q. I am talking now beyond just the NADP, 21 though. 22 A. In my network, I have lots of times 23 collected samples when I am short of people. 24 Q. Have you learned anything in the process 25 of actually physically collecting the samples as to 110 1 how to maybe change something that you have been 2 doing in the past to correct a problem that maybe has 3 arisen? 4 A. Let me put it this way, I as a scientist 5 have certain things I follow. I don't do field work 6 unless I first test whether a system works or not. 7 And I keep testing it until I have perfected the 8 method before I go to the field with it. 9 The rain sampler that I used which is 10 published in Atmospheric Environment, I had five 11 prototypes of it before I ever put it in the field in 12 a network, small scale network. So when I get to the 13 point in general, most of the time, there is very 14 little that we have not already foreseen and 15 corrected. 16 Q. Have there been occasions, though, where 17 something has occurred in the field -- 18 A. Absolutely. I have seen one of my rain 19 samplers being shot at by kids and bullets went right 20 through so we went and put bulletproof shielding 21 around them, sure. I still have the plate in my lab 22 as a souvenir. 23 Q. What about, say, less vandalism type 24 problems, I mean actually -- 25 A. Mechanical failures, we have had PC boards 111 1 fail on us, we have had sensors fail on us. And each 2 time we have attempted to find the error and replace 3 the necessary parts. 4 Q. Have you personally inspected any of the 5 deposition sampling stations that exist in South 6 Florida? 7 A. No, sir. 8 Q. Do you anticipate doing that at any time 9 in the near future? 10 A. As of this moment I don't because nobody 11 has invited me back. 12 Q. Is there a general consensus in the 13 scientific community concerning a particular type of 14 sampling device that should be used to measure, say, 15 dry deposition? 16 A. No. Again, this goes to the level of 17 technical complexity you want to get into and the 18 deposition you want to get into. 19 There is no consensus. The only general 20 opinion you will hear from most scientists is if you 21 are into dry deposition monitoring use more than one 22 technique at the same time. 23 Q. What about for wet deposition? 24 A. Again, it depends on the complexity. If 25 your idea, if your objective is to establish 112 1 long-term trends, the NADP type of thing is quite 2 suitable. But if your objective is to understand the 3 kind of things that I'm studying, the NADP sample is 4 totally unsuitable. 5 Q. When you say it is unsuitable, that is 6 because the type of research you are engaged in is a 7 more time intensive frequency type -- 8 A. More precise, more accurate, better 9 understanding of what really is happening. 10 Q. How is the accuracy increased? 11 A. It depends upon how much air exchange 12 occurs between the atmosphere and the sample even 13 after it is collected and supposedly closed with a 14 lid, it depends on how tight that lid is, for 15 example, how much dead volume is there between the 16 sample in the container and the top of the container, 17 empty space there is, because gas exchange occurs 18 between the atmosphere and the liquid phase. 19 It depends on the sampling duration. If 20 you sample once a month and let the sample sit in the 21 field, what you are seeing is a dead sample. It is 22 not the sample that fell down. 23 All this will change the accuracy of the 24 results. 25 Q. Prior to this case, Dr. Krupa, have you 113 1 ever testified as an expert before? 2 A. Yes, sir, five times. 3 Q. Can you tell me what those five times 4 were? 5 A. Yes, sir. If you refer to page 14 in 6 Exhibit 1, item No. 3, state air quality hearings for 7 the Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry, 8 1981. 9 Q. First of all, what area of testimony you 10 were providing there? 11 A. This was the hearing process on 12 reexamination of the state air quality standards for 13 predominantly SO2 and ozone and my testimony for the 14 Minnesota Association of Commerce and Industry was on 15 the effects of sulfur dioxide on plants relative to 16 Minnesota. 17 Q. Were you retained by any particular group 18 to provide that testimony? 19 A. Minnesota Association of Commerce and 20 Industry. 21 Q. What conclusions did you testify about? 22 A. The conclusion was whether there was risk 23 of crops in Minnesota to the then ambient 24 concentrations of SO2. And the conclusion there was 25 no evidence for it at that time. And in fact, the 114 1 air quality regulation in Minnesota at that time was, 2 need not to be more stringent than the US EPA. At 3 that time Minnesota had a .25 parts per million three 4 hour average for sulfur dioxide and the US EPA 5 national ambient air quality standard is .5 parts 6 per million for three hours average. The conclusion 7 was that the .5 part per million three hour was quite 8 satisfactory for Minnesota. 9 Q. So your testimony then would be in favor 10 of raising the regulatory limit in the Minnesota -- 11 A. To comply with the federal standard. 12 Q. The second listed item where you referred 13 to as expert witness on crop loss, can you tell me 14 what that was about? 15 A. Yes. It is the same hearing, this time 16 however I was representing, I was testifying on 17 behalf of the state for ozone air quality standard. 18 And this is the final culmination of the grant I got 19 from the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 20 that we discussed earlier this morning. 21 Q. What were the opinions you expressed in 22 your testimony? 23 A. This is the product of the modeling that 24 we briefly talked about this morning on ozone and 25 crop loss. I believe it is grant number -- 115 1 MR. GRIMSHAW: Page 5, five from the top. 2 A. Five from the top. Thank you. 3 It is the culmination of that work on 4 behalf of the state Pollution Control Agency and the 5 modeling exercise showed that the prevalent ambient 6 concentrations in Minnesota at that time on crop 7 growing conditions for ozone was not a major factor 8 in causing significant yield loss. 9 Q. The third item? 10 A. The third item was as a witness on behalf 11 of a utility company. 12 Q. Utility company? 13 A. Yes. Northern States Power Company. I 14 provided background testimony towards an expansion of 15 their existing power plant on which I worked for 10 16 years. The grants I received on emissions and 17 impacts on crops, that was the same power plant. 18 Q. Did you conclude in your testimony you 19 presented there that the sulfur dioxide was not 20 causing any adverse effects on vegetation? 21 A. It was a review of 10 years of my work, 22 previous 10 years on the first two units of the power 23 plant. The summary as I indicated this morning, I 24 was unable to demonstrate adverse effects on crops in 25 the vicinity of the power plant. 116 1 Q. When you say you were unable to conclude, 2 were you doing some type of statistical analysis to 3 determine whether there was an effect? 4 A. I established 48 permanent field sites 5 relative to the power plant, sampled the same plots 6 repeatedly for foliar sulfur accumulation twice a 7 summer, visually inspected them four times a summer 8 which is the total of our growth season, and did 10 9 year stepwise trend analysis to see whether there is 10 any accumulation of any elements that were measured 11 in this foliage that are beyond the normal range of 12 those elements for this foliage and I was unable to 13 find an accumulation. 14 Q. Is it that you were unable to find an 15 accumulation or a statistically significant -- 16 A. There was no statistical trend. 17 Q. Going back to your previous testimony on 18 the ozone, I believe you indicated that there was no 19 significant effect on crop yield. 20 A. On a state-wide scale. 21 Q. Was there in fact some effect, though, if 22 not significant? 23 A. Yes. I believe in one study that we did 24 we found a four percent yield loss on soybean at the 25 study site which is a hundred by hundred. In other 117 1 words, I would not bother to extrapolate the data 2 statewide. 3 Q. Would you agree that there can be effects 4 even in the absence of a statistically significant 5 finding of trend? 6 A. Highly possible but most scientists in my 7 field won't allow me to publish a paper if I said 8 that in writing. 9 Q. In your opinion, Dr. Krupa, is a 10 year 10 period of record a good time period within which to 11 measure a statistical trend? 12 A. No. 13 Q. What time period would be optimal? 14 A. I can not answer that because I've never 15 had opportunity to find out what I would get if I 16 went past 10 years because money has always been a 17 limiting factor. 18 Q. Is there any minimum level that in your 19 opinion you would need as a period of record to 20 establish -- 21 A. No, sir, if I am looking at global warming 22 it would take a million years and I don't have a 23 magic recipe, the logical and prudent thing to do is 24 to keep doing it until you start seeing symptoms of 25 trend and then follow them through until you confirm 118 1 the symptoms. 2 Q. When you say follow them through, what do 3 you mean? 4 A. Further beyond the preliminary indication 5 of a symptom of a trend, you want to go past for 6 several more years and say, yes, in fact the trend is 7 real. 8 Q. And if you go past it several more years 9 and the trend appears to be continuing -- 10 A. Then I think it is highly possible 11 mathematically, the same as the global warming 12 people, to be able to give predictions. 13 Q. How many years do you think you need to, 14 before you get to that first cutoff where you say you 15 need to do some more? 16 A. I have no idea. If I had the experience 17 of once going to the point, maybe I will be able to 18 tell but I have never done it. 19 Q. In the long-term effects site at Minnesota 20 how many years is planned for that? 21 A. This particular study? 22 Q. Right. 23 A. It is history. 24 Q. I am sorry? 25 A. It is history, the study is over. 119 1 Q. How long was the period of record? 2 A. I believe eight years, as I recollect. 3 Q. The fourth area, fourth time you presented 4 expert testimony, crop loss, is that the same public 5 hearing? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. And that would be essentially the same -- 8 tell me what your conclusions were that you 9 presented. 10 A. This was the modeling of ozone data for 11 Minnesota and possible impacts on crops. The types 12 of crops that were grown in Minnesota at that time in 13 the geographic areas where it was grown were not 14 necessarily within the so-called ozone impact area. 15 Therefore the conclusion was that given the ambient 16 ozone concentrations at that time, there was not a 17 great -- there was not a possible risk of crop loss 18 for those crops. 19 Q. There was not a possible risk? 20 A. There was not a great risk for those 21 crops. 22 Q. Am I correct you were testifying on behalf 23 of the utility company again? 24 A. No. 25 Q. No. 120 1 A. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, they 2 are the people who funded that study. 3 Q. And the fifth time you referred to? 4 A. It was in 1986, and I just see it is 5 somehow omitted in this version. You might want to 6 insert, it is a 1986, I participated in the Minnesota 7 state acid deposition hearings. It was the same 8 hearing at which Dr. Lefohn participated also. 9 Q. Were you testifying on behalf of any 10 particular agency or industry? 11 A. Utility industry. 12 Q. I am sorry? 13 A. The utility industry. 14 Q. What were the conclusions that you 15 expressed during your testimony? 16 A. This, the testimony that I gave at the 17 time was based on my own personal research and I 18 essentially fractionated the rainfall composition and 19 nature into three categories, based upon their 20 chemical composition, namely, high amount of sulfate, 21 high amount of nitrate, low amount of nitrogen -- 22 hydrogen and the amount of ammonia. 23 And based on that I was able to separate 24 the rainfall in Minnesota into three classes. Class 25 1 had very high sulfate, very high nitrate and 121 1 relatively high hydrogen, and a low ratio of ammonia 2 to hydrogen; class 2 had very low -- I shouldn't say 3 very low, relatively low sulfate, relatively low 4 nitrate, relatively low hydrogen, intermediate amount 5 of ammonia; class 3 had high amount of sulfate, high 6 amount of nitrate, low amount of hydrogen, high 7 amount of ammonia. 8 Doing back trajectory analysis which is an 9 analysis which follows the patterns of events from a 10 point A to point B, I found that class A rainfall for 11 Minnesota was regulated by wind movement from the 12 Ohio River Valley which is generally considered to be 13 a high source air for sulfur dioxide and NOX, class 2 14 type rainfalls were predominantly regulated by air 15 flows directly to the north of us, Manitoba, 16 Saskatchewan area where there is nothing to speak of 17 sourcewise, and Class 3 was governed by moisture 18 coming from the Gulf of Mexico with the air parcels 19 moving straight up along the Great Plains into the 20 Midwest. 21 And therefore the conclusion was if air 22 parcels ordinarily from high source areas are part of 23 the cloud production and if those areas have very 24 high amounts of mixes of precursors and not enough 25 ability to neutralize those precursors you can have 122 1 high sulfate, high nitrate, high amount of hydrogen. 2 The class 2 indicates because you have no 3 big sources to speak of and you have relatively low 4 amounts of sulfate and nitrate, intermediate amounts 5 of ammonia which essentially neutralize, you have 6 intermediate case. 7 Class 3 is essentially caused by high 8 pressures to the east of Minnesota, it picks up all 9 the pollution and the moisture from the Atlantic 10 seaboard through the Gulf of Mexico and while 11 transported through the great plains is neutralized 12 by agricultural activities including ammonia so you 13 have high sulfate, high nitrate yet not enough 14 acidity. 15 And that was the gist of my testimony. 16 The importance of that is to show that different 17 rainfalls are governed by different chemical and 18 meteorological processes. Therefore if you are 19 trying to establish a standard based upon kilograms 20 per hectare, it will not really reflect the 21 importance of both the biological reactivity and 22 effectivity of the rainfall and the source of that 23 particular problem. 24 It is, I believe, sir, published in paper 25 No. -- let me go back here -- paper No. 57 on page 123 1 28, sir. 2 Q. What data were you relying on for purposes 3 of the testimony you gave in that case? 4 A. The data I collected was in a refrigerated 5 rain sampling network with co-located impactor 6 samplers. I was sampling the refrigerated rain 7 samples and right next to it I had an aerosol 8 sampler. 9 This is part of research network I had. 10 Q. That was collecting both wet and dryfall? 11 A. Yes, sir, not with the same sampler. 12 Q. I don't want to repeat myself, but what 13 was the period of record of those samplings? 14 A. If I remember correctly, sir, and I don't 15 recall clearly, but it might be three years. 16 Q. During that three year period were there 17 any unusual meteorological type events which could 18 have affected the sampling? 19 A. It is highly possible and also improbable 20 because if there were unusual events occurring, you 21 would not be able to separate the chemistry into 22 three clear categories. 23 Q. I understand you collected your data 24 concerning the various compounds and elements through 25 your samplers. What was your source of data for the, 124 1 essentially the meteorological conditions? 2 A. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 3 Administration's data bank at Asheville, North 4 Carolina. 5 Q. Did that also involve some type of 6 statistical correlation? 7 A. No, sir, it was meteorological modeling. 8 NOAA, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric 9 Administration has a model that they have developed 10 which any tax paying citizen can get. It is called 11 branching trajectory model, and the model requires 12 input of meteorological variables across the country. 13 One obtains that from Asheville by paying $68 or so 14 in the past, apparently the price went up to 200 or 15 something now. 16 And you get help from a meteorologist that 17 knows the subject and you model the branching 18 trajectory which essentially tells you where a 19 particular, at a particular time an air parcel 20 started and what path it took to end on top of your 21 sampler roughly. 22 Q. Do you have any opinion as to the validity 23 or, I guess validity is the word, of the NOAA model? 24 A. At the time I did the work that was the 25 best model available according to some meteorologist 125 1 that I consulted. 2 Q. Is there a better model available today 3 that you are aware of? 4 A. Apparently the Canadian Environment Canada 5 has a model. The difference between the two models, 6 sir, is the NOAA's branching trajectory model is 7 based upon temperature ridges -- no, pardon me, 8 NOAA's model is based on pressure ridges while the 9 Canadian model is based on temperature ridges. 10 Q. What is the difference? 11 A. Given the gross scale it does not affect 12 the results, it is simply saying I got a better model 13 which maybe in a shorter grid may be more sensitive. 14 The models I was using were looking at almost half 15 the continent or half the United States. At the time 16 it was the best one available to me. 17 Q. Was there any uncertainty analysis 18 involved in, concerning potential error ranges in the 19 model? 20 A. I think perhaps it will serve well for me 21 if I tell you these models are probably several 22 counties wide in their trajectory. When I say 23 straight line, don't imagine it is running over this 24 building. That's not what I am talking about. 25 Any time you do atmospheric modeling you 126 1 are probably looking at three, four counties in 2 width. The idea even if you have a four county wide 3 air corridor, where does it originate from. 4 Q. Just so the record is clear, I don't know 5 that a county is a uniform thing, can you give that 6 more in area of miles or kilometers? 7 A. Let us say a hundred kilometers wide. 8 Also, I would like to point out that there 9 are better models. As everything else in this 10 country, it is driven by money. If I had super 11 computer I could certainly run a much better model. 12 Q. Have you ever been involved in any similar 13 work of attempting to locate sources of various 14 constituents in the atmospheric deposition? 15 A. Yes, sir. I have been involved sort of, 16 as a cooperator, if you want to call it in the 17 Alberta government industry acid deposition program 18 and one of the things we are still trying to resolve 19 is high ozone concentrations in the Canadian Rockies. 20 We don't know the source for that ozone at this 21 point. It is ongoing effort that I am involved with. 22 Q. Any other instances? 23 A. I can not offhand recollect. 24 Q. Have you ever done any such work in 25 Florida, for instance? 127 1 A. No, sir. 2 Q. In your testimony did you propose any 3 particular acid rainfall standard as being 4 appropriate? 5 MR. BLANK: What testimony are you 6 referring, to counsel? 7 Q. The 1986. 8 A. No, sir, I have never been in favor of 9 kilograms per hectare standard. 10 Q. Why is that? 11 A. Because there are certain biological 12 receptors that are affected by other types of things. 13 In other words, there must be more than just kilogram 14 per hectare standard if there is going to be one. 15 Q. How would you go about approaching this? 16 What is the best approach in your opinion to regulate 17 acid rain? 18 A. Regulations, sir, is different from 19 standard. You asked the question about the standard 20 and/or regulation? 21 Q. Let's ask about standard. 22 A. Standard to me should have enough 23 flexibility, in other words, certainly apparently, I 24 am not an aquatic person so I can not answer any 25 questions on that subject. And I am not a soils 128 1 person so I can not answer that either. 2 Apparently from what I hear kilograms per 3 hectare is a relatively good approach to soils and 4 aquatic system. On the other hand I as a crop person 5 would like to see a standard that says, so many units 6 of pH, pH units can not be exceeded more than so many 7 times for a growing season as an addition, if there 8 is going to be a standard. 9 Q. What is the distinction you make between 10 standard and regulation? 11 A. I am not a legal person. 12 Q. I am just wondering why you had the 13 problem with the terms. 14 A. Regulation means you are regulating the 15 emissions, my interpretation is. Standard means you 16 are saying you have set a concentration or something 17 in the atmosphere or in the biosphere that you can 18 not exceed. 19 Q. In any of these five cases you have 20 mentioned so far did you ever provide any deposition 21 testimony prior to the hearing? 22 A. No, sir. 23 Q. I believe on page 15 of Exhibit 1, the 24 last item under that heading it also references 25 expert testimony on global climate change. 129 1 A. That was in Germany, that was not, I don't 2 know how you understand this, I was going to explain 3 that to you. 4 About a year ago 30 of us were invited to 5 Germany and the parliament of Germany had a 6 subcommittee that wanted to hear us tell them what we 7 knew about global climate change on the crops and 8 forests. It was not a legal, or I don't know the 9 term. It is like a Congressional hearing, if you see 10 the analogy. 11 Q. Were you invited to testify at that 12 proceeding? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. What was the subject matter of your 15 testimony? 16 A. Global climate change. 17 Q. What did you conclude? 18 A. On crop responses to global climate 19 change, primarily ozone, ultraviolet B radiation, 20 carbon dioxide and their interactions. 21 Q. What was the substance of your testimony 22 as far as the global changes occurring as a result of 23 the ozone and -- 24 A. The uncertainty attached to any 25 predictions of changes are as high as any predictions 130 1 I can make as to what will happen, therefore, at the 2 present time we are sort of shooting in the dark. 3 Just for a clarification, sir, I found it 4 interesting the way they run the protocol. We were 5 sitting 30 of us like in an auditorium and they were 6 sitting there and one person read us a series of 7 questions and each time if you had an answer you just 8 raise your hand. That's why I did not present that 9 particular thing as a legal issue. 10 Q. Did you raise your hand during the 11 proceeding? 12 A. Yes, sir. Also I would like to state, 13 anyway, I will be going there week after next to 14 testify again. 15 Q. In the same type of proceeding? 16 A. Yes, sir. 17 Q. What is the subject matter of that 18 testimony? 19 A. Carbon dioxide. 20 Q. Prior to any of your testimony in these 21 cases did you provide any prefiled testimony? 22 A. I am finding it hard to recollect. If I 23 may have a minute to think about it. 24 I really can not answer that. On a couple 25 of occasions I did submit written statements to the 131 1 people who asked me to testify. How they legally 2 managed the document, that I don't know. 3 Q. Have you ever been deposed before like we 4 are doing here today? 5 A. No, sir. 6 Q. When we started out this morning you 7 wanted to make the record clear that you were here as 8 a consultant as opposed to a representative of the 9 university, is that right? 10 A. Yes, sir. 11 Q. How much of your time do you spend in 12 consulting? 13 A. Legally at the university we are allowed 14 to spend one day per every seven days including 15 weekends. And so far I would have spent about five 16 days in the last twelve months, six days, maybe. 17 Q. Are you talking about specifically for 18 this case? 19 A. Specifically for this case, five, and I 20 would have spent one or two days on another air 21 quality issue I have been working on. 22 Q. For this particular case? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. My question was a little more general than 25 that. Just in general over a period of a year -- 132 1 A. Over the last 10 years I would have 2 consulted about four to five days a year. 3 Q. How does most of your consulting work get 4 to you? 5 A. Without having to be, how do you say it, 6 inflating my ego. 7 Q. It is all right. 8 A. I do not seek business. It has become a 9 tradition that even grants come to me. So when 10 people have a problem they think I know something 11 about they usually call me. And if I like to do it 12 or if I feel I can help I get in, otherwise I say, I 13 don't want to. 14 It is the same way grants are working for 15 me now. 16 Q. The work you do under grants, is that 17 considered university work or consulting? 18 A. The money goes directly to the university. 19 As appropriate the university takes overhead up to 43 20 percent, I understand. The remaining is placed in 21 the university account to which I can charge towards 22 conducting the research for which the money was 23 given. 24 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record. 25 (Discussion off the record) 133 1 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record. 2 BY MR. NETTLETON: 3 Q. Dr. Krupa, when were you first contacted 4 concerning providing services for this particular 5 case? 6 A. I was contacted by Dr. A.S. Lefohn of the 7 A.S.L. & Associates. 8 Q. When was that? 9 A. I understand sometime, I have to 10 recollect, perhaps in the last part of last year. 11 Q. November, December? 12 A. Somewhere in there. I have been so busy, 13 I don't remember. 14 Q. Do you have a specific contract concerning 15 your services that you are providing? 16 A. Yes, I have a specific contract with 17 A.S.L. & Associates. 18 Q. Do you have a contract with any other 19 persons relating to your services for this case? 20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. Who pays your fee? 22 A. The A.S.L. & Associates. 23 Q. Would you tell me how you are being 24 compensated? 25 A. Yes, I am compensated for the number of 134 1 hours I put in plus travel, lodging and boarding 2 expenses. 3 Q. What is your hourly rate? 4 A. $85 an hour. 5 Q. Do you charge more for testimony time? 6 A. I have not looked into that avenue so far. 7 Q. Have you worked with Dr. Lefohn in other 8 situations such as this involving litigation? 9 A. The only other situation that I have been 10 involved with is where Dr. Lefohn actually worked 11 with me in testifying for the acid deposition hearing 12 in Minnesota. That was 1986. 13 MR. NETTLETON: Off the record. 14 (Discussion off the record) 15 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record. 16 BY MR. NETTLETON: 17 Q. With regard to your services in this case, 18 what specifically have you been asked to do? 19 A. I was specifically asked to assess the 20 sampling methodology and the analytical methodology. 21 Q. You say assess the sampling methodology, 22 what are you referring to, what methodology for what? 23 A. Sampling dry deposition, wet deposition. 24 Q. I assume you are referring to the 25 methodology that is being used or has been used by 135 1 the South Florida Water Management District? 2 A. Correct, sir. 3 Q. When you say to assess the analytical 4 methodology, what are you referring to? 5 A. To look and review the analytical 6 methodology for phosphorus. 7 Q. Again, is that related solely to dry and 8 wet deposition? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. Am I correct that also refers to the 11 analytical methodology also used by the South Florida 12 Water Management District? 13 A. Yes, sir. 14 Q. Have you been asked to do anything else? 15 A. Yes, sir, I was asked to find and 16 coordinate a report on the transport of Saharan dust. 17 Q. What is the first word, find? 18 A. To find someone and coordinate their 19 compilation on the Saharan dust transport question. 20 Q. Have you been asked to do anything else? 21 A. To my knowledge, no, at the moment. 22 Q. With regard to these three areas, was it 23 Dr. Lefohn who asked you to do each of these? 24 A. Yes, sir. 25 Q. Have you been requested by Mr. Blank's 136 1 firm or anyone in the agricultural industry in South 2 Florida to undertake any additional activities? 3 A. No, sir, not at the moment. 4 Q. Can you tell me what materials you have 5 been provided? 6 A. As far as the work that I conducted on 7 sampling and analytical aspects I was provided by a 8 document of Mr. Grimshaw and coworkers, I was 9 provided a copy of the document by Mr. Grosser, 10 memorandum to Ms. Cheesman, I believe, and I was 11 provided a copy of the A report from the US 12 Geological Survey by Nilles and coworkers, I was 13 provided a copy of the quality assurance manual of 14 the South Florida Water Management District, I was 15 provided a copy of an internal report by Hydrologic 16 Associates, and I can not recall at the moment 17 without looking at something if I have omitted any 18 other documents. 19 Q. What would you need to look at? 20 A. A list of what I have in my file 21 somewhere. 22 Q. Do you have a list? 23 A. If I can look at the file, I do, yes. 24 Q. Do you have it with you? 25 A. At my hotel. 137 1 Q. I think in a sense I pretty well covered 2 the major ones. 3 Q. The internal report by Hydrologic 4 Associates -- 5 MR. BLANK: Can I have just a moment? 6 MR. NETTLETON: Sure. 7 (The witness and his counsel confer off 8 the record) 9 A. I also received three voluminous documents 10 called the SWIM Plan and I choose not to swim in it. 11 Q. Have you reviewed the SWIM Plan? 12 A. I looked at it. I am afraid I didn't read 13 every page. 14 Q. With regard to the internal report by 15 Hydrologic Associates, did that have appendices to 16 it? 17 A. It is relatively voluminous and I also 18 just -- I believe the letter that Mr. Blank managed 19 to find this afternoon pretty well tells you the ones 20 I seriously paid attention to. 21 Q. Do you recall who the primary author on 22 the Hydrologic Associates report was? 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Who were these terms provided by? 25 A. Some of it came from the A.S.L. & 138 1 Associates and some of it came from Peeples, Earl & 2 Blank at the instructions of Dr. Lefohn. 3 Q. Do you recall when you received this 4 material? 5 A. They were trickling at various stages. I 6 lost count. 7 Q. Do you recall when the last time is you 8 received any material? 9 A. I believe March 4 telling me about this 10 deposition. 11 Q. Other than that, I mean actual reports or 12 memos or anything? 13 A. I do not recall receiving anything in the 14 recent weeks. 15 Q. Have you requested any additional 16 materials of any type? 17 A. No, sir. 18 Q. Any additional data or reports or 19 anything? 20 A. No, no, sir. 21 MR. BLANK: Could we take just a short 22 break? 23 MR. NETTLETON: Sure. 24 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 25 after which the following proceedings 139 1 were had) 2 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record. 3 BY MR. NETTLETON: 4 Q. Other than the materials we have discussed 5 that were provided to you, have you reviewed any 6 other materials with regard to the work you have been 7 asked to do in this case? 8 A. The materials that I reviewed are the ones 9 that are listed in the memorandum you received from 10 Mr. Blank today. They were the primary results of 11 the review I performed. 12 Q. You are referring to Exhibit 3, what has 13 been marked as Exhibit 3? 14 A. Yes, sir, Exhibit 3. 15 Q. Other than the items that are listed on 16 Exhibit 3, have you reviewed any other materials? 17 A. Primarily based upon 20 years of 18 experience in my head, I have resource, a lot of 19 resource. 20 Q. I guess my question is more, though, have 21 you actually gone back and pulled some research 22 report that you prepared in the past in order to -- 23 A. No, sir. 24 Q. Has any information been provided to you 25 orally by anybody? 140 1 A. I consulted three people, two of whom were 2 not made aware of this deposition and one person was 3 made aware of this deposition. 4 I had one conversation with Mr. Bowersox, 5 B O W E R S O X, regarding the status of the dry 6 deposition monitoring in NADP. I wanted to verify 7 whether my conclusion on time scale was correct or 8 not. 9 I had a conversation with a Dr. George 10 Rehm. This was concerning the solution properties of 11 phosphorus. Neither of those gentlemen were made 12 aware of this deposition. 13 And the third person I talked to, he is a 14 Dr. Walter Lyons, Forensic Meteorology Associates, 15 Ft. Collins, Colorado, who is aware of this 16 deposition. He is a meteorologist and helped me to 17 understand the Sahara dust transport phenomenon. 18 Q. How many conversations did you have with 19 Dr. or Mr. Bowersox? 20 A. Mr. Bowersox, once. 21 Q. When was that? 22 A. About, I would think, a month ago perhaps. 23 Q. What institution is Mr. Bowersox 24 associated with? 25 A. He works for the Illinois State Water 141 1 Survey. 2 Q. Located in? 3 A. Champagne, Illinois. 4 Q. You stated you talked to him about the 5 NADP monitoring? 6 A. Yes. I receive annual reports every year. 7 And I misplaced one of the reports and I asked him 8 whether the information that I had was the right one 9 or not. 10 Q. And that was concerning dry deposition? 11 A. The number of sites. 12 Q. What was the information you were trying 13 to confirm? 14 A. I was trying to confirm what were the 15 total number of NADP sites, what were the total 16 number of NADP dry deposition sites, because back 17 some years ago when I was very active with NADP we 18 decided that we did not want to continue dry 19 deposition monitoring in NADP and it was left as an 20 option to certain people if they wanted to do so, 21 please go right ahead but the network itself does not 22 wish to continue. So I just wanted to know how many 23 were left. 24 Q. Do you recall what the number of sites 25 were? 142 1 A. Yes, there are approximately 200 total 2 NADP sites of which there are only 17 now that 3 monitor dry deposition. 4 Q. Did you discuss anything other than the 5 number of monitoring sites with Mr. Bowersox? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. Did you keep any notes of your 8 conversation with him? 9 A. No, because it simply confirmed what I 10 already knew. 11 Q. Who is George Rehm associated with? 12 A. The University of Minnesota. He is an 13 extension soils nutritionist. 14 Q. How many times did you speak with him? 15 A. Once. 16 Q. When was that? 17 A. Also about a month ago. 18 Q. Did you keep any notes of your 19 conversation with him? 20 A. No, sir. 21 Q. What information did he provide you? 22 A. He didn't provide me anything. He 23 actually made me feel stupid and I left. I tried to 24 go and ask him to teach me some solution chemistry of 25 phosphorus. 143 1 And he told me he was a wrong person to 2 talk to about it. And then he says, you should know 3 better than to come here and ask me. 4 And I felt stupid and left. 5 Q. Did he tell you who you should be talking 6 to? 7 A. No. He thought there was a book somewhere 8 but he said he couldn't find it. 9 Q. Sounds like a very friendly coworker. 10 When you say solution properties of 11 phosphorus, what do you mean? 12 A. I just wanted to know the equilibrium for 13 insoluble phosphorus and soluble phosphorus because I 14 am not a phosphorus chemist. Ions in water change 15 their states from soluble to insoluble back and forth 16 depending on what they are, and I just want to know 17 basics of solution chemistry and I didn't get any. 18 Q. Are you still pursuing that? 19 A. No, sir. I think I will stop my education 20 in solution chemistry for now. 21 Q. Am I correct you never found the book with 22 the answer? 23 A. No. He is an extension person and he is 24 not a researcher. I don't mean if I found the 25 book -- 144 1 Q. I mean you yourself, have you found any 2 information? 3 A. No, sir. 4 Q. When did you talk with Dr. Walter Lyons? 5 A. I have talked to him several times simply 6 because I was asked to compile this information and 7 he helped me essentially, he did the work. 8 I talked with him periodically over the 9 last three months. 10 Q. Have you kept notes of your conversations? 11 A. Only in the form of memorandums either to 12 him or to me. 13 Q. Correspondence or letters? 14 A. Correspondence, yes. 15 Q. What information has he gathered for you? 16 A. He has gathered the information on Saharan 17 dust transport, essentially the frequency of 18 occurrence. 19 Q. Is this information in the form of 20 published literature? 21 A. No, sir, it is in the form of a draft 22 report. 23 Q. Whose report is it? 24 A. I compiled a report based upon Dr. Lyons' 25 submission of information to me. He gave me a draft, 145 1 I edited and incorporated that into my draft report. 2 Q. So you are preparing a report concerning 3 the Saharan dust transport? 4 A. I am not preparing a report. I am 5 incorporating the draft given by Dr. Lyons. I am not 6 a meteorologist. 7 Q. You are incorporating it into a report you 8 are preparing? 9 A. To A.S.L. & Associates that I am obligated 10 to submit. 11 Q. What conclusions did Dr. Lyons reach in 12 his draft report concerning the transport of the 13 Saharan dust? 14 A. From what I gather, I did not read every 15 page of it because it is not my subject area, but 16 nevertheless, from what I understand, he thought that 17 the most frequent transport occurs in the month of 18 July. 19 Q. Did he do any independent research? What 20 is he basing his report on? 21 A. I understand he bases his report on 22 compiling data from various people who have the data. 23 Q. He has not done his own independent 24 research, though, to collect the data? 25 A. I need a clarification. Research to me is 146 1 probably different from what you think. 2 Q. Are you aware whether he has done his own 3 sampling or data collection? 4 A. He did not collect any data. He 5 essentially compiled the data from others and 6 synthesized it. 7 Q. Is Dr. Lyons' report focusing on any 8 particular geographic area as to where the Saharan 9 dust is being transported to? 10 A. From what I gather it is primarily in the 11 Miami region. 12 Q. Do you recall any quantification he has 13 provided in his report as to the amount of Saharan 14 dust? 15 A. Not off the cuff. I received it just a 16 few days ago and I have not had an opportunity to 17 look at what's in it completely. 18 Q. Do you recall, is he also looking at the 19 phosphorus content of that Saharan dust? 20 A. To my knowledge at this moment, no. 21 Q. Is Dr. Lyons or anyone else to your 22 knowledge looking at the transportation of dust or 23 other such particles from anyplace other than the 24 Saharan desert into the South Florida area? 25 A. To my knowledge, at the moment, no. 147 1 Q. Is Dr. Lyons under contract with you? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. Is he under contract with A.S.L.? 4 A. No, sir, he is under contract with me. 5 Q. Is that a written contract? 6 A. Yes, sir. 7 Q. How is Dr. Lyons being compensated? 8 A. A.S.L. & Associates paid me or will pay me 9 a lump sum, hopefully, of which a share will be 10 divvied to Dr. Lyons. 11 Q. Is he charging you an hourly rate? 12 A. No, sir, it is a fixed price contract. 13 Q. What is the fixed price? 14 A. $4,400. 15 Q. You indicated you just received a draft 16 report from him? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Do you know when the final report will be 19 due from him? 20 A. After I have had an opportunity to read it 21 and provide my comments. 22 Q. Is anybody else reviewing that report? 23 A. At the moment, Dr. Lefohn perhaps will be 24 reviewing it. 25 Q. Have you forwarded that report to the, the 148 1 draft report to Dr. Lefohn? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. When did you do that? 4 A. I believe the late part of February, early 5 March. 6 Q. Has he provided you any comments on it? 7 A. He provided me an edited version. 8 Q. An edited version? 9 A. Yes. 10 Q. When did you receive that? 11 A. March 4. 12 Q. Pursuant to your contract with A.S.L. is 13 there a specific deadline when your work, your total 14 work is to be completed? 15 A. We have not discussed that but it would be 16 my belief that it will be expediated by Dr. Lefohn. 17 Q. What does that mean? 18 A. I mean soon after this we get to go home 19 and work on it, clean it up. 20 Q. I am not referring only to Dr. Lyons but 21 to your report. 22 A. Mine as well. 23 Q. Have you provided Dr. Lefohn a draft of 24 your report? 25 A. Yes, sir. 149 1 Q. Is that the same thing you are referring 2 to -- 3 A. The contract I had from Dr. Lefohn 4 required me to do two tasks. One is to provide 5 myself the sampling methodology and analytical 6 methodology we talked about and the task B required 7 that I find someone who could provide me information 8 on the Saharan dust transport. 9 I found Dr. Lyons with whom I have worked 10 in the past often and he in turn provided a draft 11 report to me which I was supposed to consolidate with 12 my own report and hand Dr. Lefohn one single report. 13 That is what I have done, draft. 14 Q. And it is that single consolidated draft 15 report that you received back edited by Dr. Lefohn on 16 March 4, is that right? 17 A. Yes, sir. 18 Q. Are you familiar with any rainfall or 19 deposition data that was collected by Hendry, 20 Brezonik and Edgerton? 21 A. Only in the context of their citations in 22 the literature. I have never seen any data per se. 23 Q. Do you know Dr. Brezonik? 24 A. He is a member of the University of 25 Minnesota faculty of engineering. 150 1 Q. Have you ever discussed obtaining that 2 data from him? 3 A. No, sir, I had no reason to. 4 Q. You mentioned in your earlier testimony 5 concerning materials that were provided to you, a 6 quality assurance manual from the South Florida Water 7 Management District. 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. Can you be more specific as to what that 10 was? 11 A. It was essentially a letter, memorandum 12 from Mr. Grosser to Ms. Cheesman with attachments. 13 The main attachment was a document written by I 14 believe Ms. Leucroft-Manzano and Scott, does it make 15 any sense, 1992, and then another document written by 16 Vidal and Pychnowski, I believe, 1990, and then I 17 received a second compilation essentially containing 18 the same information. On it, it says SFWMD and I 19 quickly went through it but felt that both were 20 somewhat similar. 21 Q. I guess I am a little confused. Is the 22 quality assurance manual, your reference, is that the 23 same thing as the Grosser memo with the attachments? 24 A. There were two sets, first I got the 25 Grosser memo with the attachments. Then I got a 151 1 separate compendium with a huge cover on it which 2 says SFWMD quality assurance. And after flipping 3 through that I found that much of what is in it is 4 the same thing that was attached to the Grosser memo. 5 Q. Do you recall what the manual, was there a 6 date on it? 7 A. Not to my knowledge at the moment. 8 The Grosser memo does have a date on it, 9 as you are probably aware, 1993. 10 Q. The Nilles et al. air report from USGS, 11 what does that deal with? 12 A. It deals with comparison of co-located 13 samplers, namely the reproducibility of a given 14 sampler and its ability to collect deposition. And 15 so you co-locate more than one sampler of the same 16 type and see how close you can come in results 17 between two of the same type. 18 Q. What did the Hydrologic Associates report 19 concern? 20 A. I am afraid I am unable to tell you 21 because I did not read it too closely at this moment. 22 Q. Do co-located samples provide accuracy and 23 precision information? 24 A. Not that I recall. The only point that I 25 was interested in was the ability to measure 152 1 chemicals and the conclusion drawn in that co-located 2 sampler report is, as the concentration of individual 3 elements reach their detection limits the 4 corresponding error increased. That was the only 5 statement I was interested in in that paper. 6 Q. Can you tell me what you have done as far 7 as accomplishing what you have been asked to do? 8 A. I primarily looked at the methodology used 9 for dry deposition sampling, wet deposition sampling, 10 how the data were obtained. That was roughly the 11 width of my analysis. 12 Q. What did you review for purposes of 13 determining the methodology that was used? 14 A. Primarily the paper, draft paper by 15 Grimshaw et al. and to a limited degree the paper by, 16 memo by Grosser, Mr. Grosser, and also to a limited 17 degree the two papers by Dolske and Gatz and the one 18 paper by Stevens, and one quotation from Davidson and 19 Wu, one page xerox that you presently have. 20 Q. You mention that you have prepared a draft 21 report that has been submitted? 22 A. Yes, sir. 23 Q. Prior to the preparation of that draft 24 report have you prepared any preliminary reports? 25 A. No, sir. 153 1 Q. Any progress reports? 2 A. No, sir. 3 Q. Prior to the preparation of your draft 4 report had you communicated orally with anyone 5 concerning your conclusions? 6 A. A.S.L. & Associates, Dr. A.S. Lefohn. 7 Q. When did you first provide him orally with 8 your conclusions? 9 A. I did not provide conclusions, I touched 10 base with him about what progress I am making, 11 because as a contractor he wanted to make sure I was 12 on the ball. 13 Q. Have you done any computer analysis in 14 your work? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. Have you used any -- 17 A. I would like to modify it by saying I once 18 did a hand held calculator regression. 19 Q. What did you do that for? 20 A. I did that to verify some data in, I 21 believe, the table No. 3 in Stevens et al. 22 Q. Were you able to verify it? 23 A. I wanted to calculate the data and see 24 what I find. If I may check that I can tell you 25 which table exactly -- 154 1 Q. We will probably get to that so you can 2 hold off if you want. 3 A. All right. 4 Q. It seems like a very plodding process but 5 I will get you that eventually. 6 A. That's all right. I was right. 7 Q. Have you used any other type of scientific 8 or technical equipment to either gather or analyze 9 any information? 10 A. Could I get a clarification on that? 11 Q. What do you need clarified? 12 A. Some of the terms you use are things that 13 I am not used to. Scientific equipment, technical 14 equipment, are you saying did I use a typewriter? 15 Q. Other than like telecommunication type 16 things, telephones and fax machines or whatever, I am 17 talking about scientific instrumentation, I guess, of 18 any type. 19 A. Like a sampler? 20 Q. Right. 21 A. No, sir. 22 Q. Anything else that you have done other 23 than review the materials and prepare your reports? 24 A. No. 25 Q. Has anyone other than Dr. Lyons assisted 155 1 you in any regard with the work you are doing? 2 A. No, sir. Only a word processing secretary 3 to type it. 4 Q. You haven't had any grad students or 5 anything like that helping you? 6 A. No, sir. 7 Q. Any other scientists? 8 A. No, sir. 9 Q. With regard to your assessment of the 10 sampling methodology by the South Florida Water 11 Management District for wet and dry deposition, can 12 you tell me what opinions you have reached? 13 A. Yes, sir. There are a number of 14 uncertainties attached to the dry deposition side of 15 the sampling. Similarly, there are a number of 16 uncertainties attached to the wet side of the 17 sampling. 18 At this point I can not tell you what the 19 amount of the uncertainty is on either side. Those 20 are the three main conclusions. 21 Q. When you say three conclusions, that is 22 there are uncertainties on the dry deposition, there 23 are uncertainties on the wet deposition and you can't 24 reach a conclusion or quantify the uncertainty? 25 A. At this moment. 156 1 Q. With regard to your assessment of the 2 analytical methodology for phosphorus in wet and dry 3 deposition by the South Florida Water Management 4 District, can you tell me what opinions you have 5 reached? 6 A. I was confused by the parts of 7 documentation I received from the memo of Mr. 8 Grosser. This might be a matter of language but I 9 was confused. 10 Mr. Grosser in his memorandum to Ms. 11 Cheesman, I understand, states that sampling handling 12 occurred the day after it was collected in the field 13 but in the laboratory, and in a later section of the 14 attachment of Leucroft-Manzano and Scott, I 15 believe -- I am getting confused with this, excuse 16 me -- I believe those are the two that said they did 17 the filtration in the field. I am confused where it 18 was done. 19 The analytical technique itself, if 20 followed according to the American Public Health 21 Association, I don't have anything to grind, it is 22 accepted nationally, I have nothing to grind, but I 23 do have problems understanding what was really done. 24 Q. The problems you are expressing, that has 25 to do with where the filtering was done? 157 1 A. Well, yes, because if, from what I gather, 2 and I am not trying to be facetious, apparently there 3 were organic matter in the samples all the way from a 4 bullfrog down to a piece of plant leaf, these are 5 sources of phosphorus. The longer they sit in the 6 water the more you have biogenic phosphorus. So I am 7 not certain how much of the phosphorus is 8 anthropogenic versus biogenic. 9 Q. When you are talking about filtration, 10 what are you referring to? 11 A. The standard procedure, whatever it is 12 worth, according to American Public Health 13 Association, is to quantify the insoluble phosphorus, 14 you filter an aliquot of sample through a 0.45 15 micrometer filter. This does not guarantee that all 16 suspended matter is gone but it is a subjective 17 method. 18 Q. And that filter is designed so as to allow 19 the, what would be the particulate phosphorus in the 20 atmosphere to pass through? 21 A. It will allow phosphorus in the particles 22 below four and a half microns to pass through. 23 Everything above four and a half microns would be on 24 the top of the filter trapped. 25 Q. Again, excuse my ignorance of the area but 158 1 what was that size, four -- 2 A. .45. 3 Q. .45 microns, do you find phosphorus 4 suspended in the atmosphere greater than .45 microns? 5 A. Smaller or greater? 6 Q. Greater. 7 A. Oh, certainly. 8 Q. Tell me what the procedure, the accepted 9 procedure is for, I guess, taking a sample from the 10 sampling station to the lab, what how does that work? 11 A. In terms of soluble I would not use that 12 technique, I would use ion chromatography. For total 13 I would use digestion which apparently the SFWMD does 14 fine. I wouldn't use this procedure for soluble to 15 begin with. 16 If you would refer to the method itself as 17 defined in the manual, the standard methods manual 18 16th edition of the American Public Health 19 Association, you will see there one page under 20 phosphorus it says, .45 micrometer filtration is a 21 convenient method but does not guarantee the absence 22 of suspended particulates. 23 Q. Tell me why under the standard method you 24 are eliminating the suspended particulates. 25 A. If you are interested in total it would 159 1 allow the suspended, if you are looking for soluble, 2 suspended is a non sequitur. 3 Q. I need to back up again, though. 4 You started off by saying you were 5 confused by the Grosser memo because it indicated 6 that sample handling occurred the day after 7 collection? 8 A. In the field, yes. 9 Q. When you say sample handling, what do you 10 mean? 11 A. That's when, if I understand right, the 12 frogs were removed and filtration occurred; unless I 13 have to imagine the English language, that's what it 14 says. 15 On the other hand, the other part of the 16 attachment says the filtration occurred in the field, 17 which is okay. So I am really confused whether the 18 frogs disappeared in the field or the laboratory. 19 Q. I want you to assume that the sample 20 handling or filtration occurred in the field. Do you 21 have an opinion concerning that particular 22 methodology? 23 A. I do in the sense that as the manual says, 24 filtration through .45 does not guarantee that 25 suspended, fine suspended particulate phosphate is 160 1 not included in the analytical procedure because any 2 type of hydrolysis would involve some release of 3 suspended matter. 4 So the method itself says to limit, points 5 to the limitation in the manual. 6 Q. Am I correct that your concern here 7 relates only to analysis directed toward soluble 8 phosphorus? 9 MR. BLANK: Could you be more clear with 10 your question, counselor? Are you talking about the 11 particular subject matter you have been discussing in 12 the last couple of minutes? I am confused by your 13 term "concern" here. 14 Q. The opinion you just expressed concerning 15 that the filtration does not guarantee that 16 particulate less than .45 microns -- 17 A. No, that is only one issue, sir. I am 18 confused what was really done with the sample. 19 Q. I understand that. I want you to assume 20 the filtration occurred in the field, though. 21 A. I hate to say this. I am unable to 22 imagine that because I know -- I don't know what was 23 the truth. 24 Q. I know that. I want you to assume it 25 occurred in the field and then you have indicated 161 1 that assuming that, you are still of the opinion that 2 there are problems because the filtration does not 3 guarantee that suspended particulate of less than .45 4 microns does not get into the sample? 5 A. There is a degree of uncertainty. I don't 6 know what that degree is. 7 Q. I understand that. 8 A. That's what I mean. If it was filtered in 9 the field, sir, probably the uncertainty would be 10 less. If it was filtered in the laboratory probably 11 there would be more uncertainty. 12 Q. But did you previously indicate that the 13 filtration only applies with regard to when you are 14 measuring soluble phosphorus? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. So am I correct that this problem of 17 filtration does not affect analysis for total 18 phosphorus? 19 A. I don't know. I never analyzed frogs when 20 they were incubating for a day. I am sorry, I am not 21 trying to be funny, I apologize. The point is it is 22 an important consideration. Organic matter contains 23 phosphorus. The longer you allow the organic matter 24 to soak in the water, I don't know how much of that 25 comes out. 162 1 Q. What you are talking about if I am 2 understanding you correctly is contamination of the 3 samples? 4 A. Yes, sir. 5 Q. I guess, is that your primary concern, is 6 the contamination by these -- 7 A. Only on the analytical side. 8 Q. Only, sorry? 9 A. Only on the analytical side issues that 10 you ask. 11 Q. As opposed to what? 12 A. Sampling side issues. 13 Q. You are not concerned with contamination 14 with regard to the sampling side issues? 15 A. Oh, yes, I am concerned about how you 16 sample to begin with. I thought you were trying to 17 ask the question about the analysis side which is the 18 chemistry. 19 If your intent is to find out about the 20 sampling, that is a whole new issue. 21 Q. No, no, I am coming back to that. I am 22 still trying to get clarified on what your opinion is 23 concerning the analysis side. 24 A. My opinion, sir, concerning the analysis 25 side is very clearly stated on page 14 of Grimshaw et 163 1 al. where they say that the quality control and 2 quality assurance procedures were inadequate as 3 performed by the field personnel so I guess I am just 4 essentially supporting Mr. Grimshaw's observation. 5 Q. Maybe this is just a misunderstanding on 6 my part of where you draw the line. 7 Am I correct then you don't have a problem 8 with the actual laboratory analysis that is being 9 conducted, it is just what might be in the samples to 10 start with? 11 A. The laboratory analysis that was 12 performed, if correctly interpreted, is according to 13 the standard methods of the American Public Health 14 Association. I have no problems with that. 15 Q. I guess what has confused me, you have 16 classified these as analysis and I still see them as 17 sampling problems. 18 A. Yes. See, sample to me is something you 19 gathered first. Analysis, after you gathered it you 20 have analyzed it. 21 Q. On the third area you were asked to find 22 someone and coordinate a report on the transport of 23 Saharan dust, and that's pretty much what we 24 discussed with regard to Dr. Lyons, is that correct? 25 A. Yes. He was under subcontract and he is 164 1 the best judge of what he did. 2 I can not speak for him because I am not 3 familiar with that subject. 4 Q. What will your role be with regard to 5 reviewing his report and incorporating it into yours? 6 A. I know enough fundamental high school 7 level meteorology if you want to call it to ask him 8 pertinent questions to clarify, the same as, for 9 example, you are asking. 10 Q. I was thinking the same thing. 11 MR. BLANK: Did you say impertinent 12 questions? 13 THE WITNESS: No, asking him pertinent 14 questions. 15 Q. I believe you said that there is no intent 16 to have Dr. Lyons' report reviewed by anyone else 17 other than yourself and Dr. Lefohn? 18 A. At the moment that is the case. 19 Q. Can you tell me what pertinent questions 20 you might have with regard to -- 21 A. The other day in passing I saw a page that 22 said haboob. I don't know what a haboob is. I 23 thought it was a Mideastern name. But it turns out 24 there is a meteorological meaning to it which I don't 25 know. I will ask him what a haboob is. 165 1 Q. Let's go back to the uncertainties with 2 regard to the sampling for dry and wet deposition. 3 Can you tell me specifically what 4 uncertainties you are talking about? 5 A. Yes, sir. On page 8 and 9 I believe of 6 Grimshaw et al., draft publication, they point out 7 the difficulties of using bucket samplers for 8 sampling dry deposition. 9 The xerox copy of page 160 of the acid 10 precipitation book edited by Adriano and Salomons 11 that you received today, the last paragraph on that 12 page pretty well summarizes the analysis of the 13 bucket sampling system by Davidson and Wu. This is 14 one of the most comprehensive reviews on dry 15 deposition sampling, et cetera, prepared recently. 16 The aerodynamic characteristics of the 17 bucket sampler are not well understood. 18 Q. I am sorry, you said -- 19 A. Aerodynamic characteristics, namely the 20 relationship between what is falling in the bucket 21 and the wind flow, this type of thing. 22 And secondly, once enough dust has fallen 23 into the bucket the surface acts as a resistance to 24 further deposition of other particles and nobody 25 knows how that is altered. That is another 166 1 uncertainty. 2 And the most important uncertainty is the 3 reentrainment of large particles and biological 4 debris. 5 And because of the wind flow 6 characteristics of the bucket, many feel that the 7 bucket sampler data can not be related to natural 8 surfaces, be they soils, vegetation, lakes, rivers, 9 whatever. 10 So there is a lot of concern. And because 11 of this, in 1984 the NADP scientists like myself 12 decided we did not want to spend money providing 60, 13 70 whatever dollars per sample analysis and therefore 14 we did not want to continue the dry deposition 15 program. 16 At that time the committee of course 17 decided that the freedom is theirs so if anybody 18 wants to continue they can do so. So out of in 19 excess of 200 sites in NADP there are only 17 sites 20 where this is being continued. 21 That is the basic summary. And because of 22 this concern, EPA through the Illinois water survey 23 did a major intracomparison study, namely they all 24 went to a single location and used five different 25 surface type samplers to determine whether they are 167 1 comparable or not. And when they did that, 2 consistently the bucket sampler came with higher 3 deposition values than any of the other types of 4 samplers, sometimes as much as an order of magnitude 5 higher. 6 Now, what is not clear in the report or 7 anywhere else is that was only one study. It was 8 done at one location. And therefore the meteorology 9 at that location is not representative of the 10 meteorology of another location. 11 As you asked this morning, counselor, even 12 with my basic knowledge of meteorology, the 13 meteorology of Illinois has nothing to do with the 14 meteorology of Florida in terms of similarities. 15 Therefore I am not sure the data could be 16 extrapolated to the Florida scenario. 17 Therefore, since there is no other 18 intracomparison data for this geographic location the 19 uncertainty attached to the sampling itself is 20 unknown because we don't know what it is doing. 21 And compounding this is the statement by 22 Mr. Grimshaw et al. on page 14, again, I think, about 23 the problems of quality assurance. 24 Therefore I really don't know what the 25 data means. 168 1 Q. Am I correct that everything that you just 2 testified about concerned dry deposition? 3 A. So far, yes. 4 Q. One of the items you mentioned was that as 5 the deposition collects in the bucket it can have 6 some effect on the continued collection. 7 A. That's highly particle size dependent. 8 Q. Can you describe that? 9 A. Resistance is usually towards smaller size 10 particles. Coarse particles, essentially you might 11 imagine them as bricks falling down, their terminal 12 velocity can be almost instantaneous in the 13 atmosphere. So even this is a possibility, nobody 14 has actually calculated the resistance and studied it 15 but one assumes that it is possible it will be a 16 resistance. 17 And my feeling at this moment about that 18 matter is that even if the resistance that would not 19 be sufficient to stop coarse particles from falling, 20 it may slow down some of the smaller particles. 21 Therefore, ultimately when you do collect the sample, 22 it may not be truly representative of what would 23 normally fall down. 24 Q. I apologize, doctor, but I am still a 25 little confused. Why -- 169 1 A. May I take a few minutes and perhaps 2 explain to you the physics of particles fallout? 3 Q. Okay, if that will help. 4 A. Maybe this will help. I want to help you 5 so you are following what I am saying. 6 The particles that are very big, normally 7 somewhere in the order of two micrometers or higher, 8 these are called coarse particles. They sediment to 9 the ground by gravitational force. 10 What these particles do is, you must 11 imagine in your own mind like you asked me to 12 imagine, imagine zillions of molecules outside this 13 window are floating in the air including the oxygen 14 molecules. 15 These big particles have to come through 16 this maze of particles. So when they are coming 17 through the maze of particles they are rubbing 18 against the little ones. This causes friction. 19 It is the frictional force and this 20 frictional force may either speed up or slow down the 21 fall, freefall of these particles. 22 When the frictional force is equaled by 23 the gravitational force or force of gravity, it is 24 called terminal velocity. Then the speed becomes 25 constant. That's how coarse particles fall. 170 1 Nevertheless, there is a resistance of the 2 medium through which it is falling. That resistance 3 is proportional to the density of the particle. And 4 more importantly, the square of the size of the 5 particle. 6 So coarse particles fall very rapidly. 7 Fine particles don't fall very rapidly, simply 8 because the resistance has a greater effect on them 9 than the coarse particles 10 So if you had a bucket and all these 11 coarse particles fall down fast, which they do, and 12 then you have gases in the atmosphere and particles 13 absorb gases and so perchance some of these gases are 14 absorbed by particles, essentially they grow in size. 15 And bigger the size the greater the resistance. 16 Therefore, the fine particles would be 17 slowed down much more than the coarse particles. 18 Therefore, if the resistance changes the sampler may 19 preferably collect more coarse particles and less 20 fine particles. 21 Q. I guess where I am getting lost is why is 22 it the sampler collects less than what would normally 23 fall without the sampler there? 24 A. Because in the normal atmosphere you don't 25 have this resistance operating as a third variable. 171 1 Q. What is the third variable? 2 A. The coating on the bucket. 3 See, there is what is called a surface 4 resistance, there is what is called an atmospheric 5 resistance. Surface resistance is changing. 6 Q. What you are talking about is surface 7 resistance? 8 A. Yes, sir. 9 Q. Do you -- 10 A. People suspect there is but nobody has 11 measured it. 12 Q. I ask you do you have an opinion within a 13 reasonable degree of scientific certainty as to what 14 the surface resistance, what effect that would have 15 on dry deposition? 16 A. If I were to only express my guess or 17 estimate or not even estimate, a feeling, I would 18 think that probably the longer the bucket stands out 19 the greater would be its preference to pick up coarse 20 particles as opposed to fine particles. That is a 21 feeling. I can not prove this or disprove this. 22 Q. Do you know whether any research has been 23 conducted to attempt to quantify that? 24 A. No, sir. 25 As I indicated to you, this methodology 172 1 has not been in vogue since about 1984 or 1985. 2 Q. What effect would that have on, again, 3 assuming we want to measure the amount of total 4 phosphorus in dry deposition, what effect would the 5 surface resistance have as far as biasing the sample? 6 A. I only know of one study that I could 7 potentially infer from at the moment and that is the 8 study by Stevens and coworkers, table No. 3, you will 9 see that the phosphorus in fine particles are as 10 important as in the coarse particles. 11 Therefore, it is my feeling at the moment 12 that the more the coarse particles that fall in the 13 bucket, the less it would exclude the fine particle 14 phosphorus -- the more it will exclude the fine 15 particle phosphorus, pardon me, the more it will 16 screwed the fine particle phosphorus. 17 Q. Does that have a tendency to bias the 18 sample toward a higher or a lower phosphorus 19 concentration? 20 A. I do not know, sir. That's what I said. 21 I do not have a feeling on which direction or what 22 the uncertainty would be because nobody has done it 23 before. 24 Q. So it could go either way? 25 A. It is possible. 173 1 Q. You stated that many in the scientific 2 community have these various reservations about 3 collection of dry deposition and that's why NADP 4 eventually did away with it in 1984, is that right? 5 A. Yes, sir. 6 MR. BLANK: We are referring to bucket 7 collection now, counselor, is that correct? 8 Q. I am talking about the collection of dry 9 deposition. 10 A. No, no, bucket collection was what was 11 terminated in 1984. And since then NADP had not had 12 an alternate program. 13 Q. Am I correct then everything we have been 14 talking about concerning your opinions concerning dry 15 deposition relates only to collection or sampling 16 through bucket as opposed to some alternative 17 sampling method? 18 A. I have not had an opportunity to examine 19 the results of alternate sampling methods so I am 20 unable to comment about them. 21 Q. With regard to alternatives to bucket 22 sampling, do you have any opinion of whether these 23 same problems would exist or would not exist? 24 A. In a purely common sense, if you have 25 particles of size separation you do not have this 174 1 problem. In other words, if you have a sampler that 2 collected particles by size, you don't have this 3 problem. 4 Q. And the problem you are referring to is 5 the surface resistance problem? 6 A. Yes. 7 Q. You mentioned earlier a NADP experiment 8 where they took five different samplers. 9 A. US EPA Illinois water survey cooperative 10 experiment. 11 Q. Are the results of that experiment 12 published somewhere? 13 A. Yes, sir. There are two papers as 14 exhibits here and I understand that Mr. Grimshaw 15 cited those several times in the draft manuscript, 16 Dolske and Gatz 84A and Dolske and Gatz 84B. 17 Q. Those are the ones referenced in Exhibit 3 18 as items 2 and 3? 19 A. Yes, sir. 20 Q. I believe you stated that that particular 21 experiment occurred in Illinois? 22 A. Yes, 15 miles I believe southwest 23 approximately of Champagne, Illinois in a grass 24 field. 25 Q. Do you have an opinion concerning a more 175 1 appropriate method to collect dry deposition? 2 A. I can only say how I have done it, because 3 in order to have an opinion I had to conduct an 4 experiment and compare all the alternatives, which I 5 have not done. 6 Q. Am I correct that the method that you have 7 used to collect dry deposition in your opinion is 8 more appropriate than the bucket collection method? 9 A. For the objectives I had for the 10 particular study in time, yes. 11 Q. Do you feel that the method that you have 12 used, and I assume by that we are talking about the 13 sampler that you invented? 14 A. No, sir, that is the wet side. 15 Q. I am sorry? 16 A. The dry side there are either commercially 17 available or custom made equipment available at the 18 present time to look at dry deposition. 19 Q. Tell me what methods you have used to 20 collect dry deposition. 21 A. In one study I used what is called as a 22 dichotomous sampler, dichotomy, dichotomous sampler 23 which allowed me size separation of approximately two 24 micrometers, in other words I was able to collect all 25 the particles greater than two micrometers in one 176 1 fraction and I collected all the particles below two 2 micrometers in another fraction to study the type of 3 acid deposition work I was doing in the 4 Minnesota-Wisconsin area. 5 I also used what is called as a combined 6 annular denuder/filter pack method which is one of 7 the most sophisticated methods available to collect 8 dry deposition as far as I know. And this was used 9 in the Alberta government industry acid deposition 10 research program. 11 Q. Have you used any other methods? 12 A. In the early days the bucket until 1984. 13 Q. The first alternative method you mentioned 14 was the dichotomous -- 15 A. Dichotomous sampler. 16 Q. Does that work through a series of 17 filters? 18 A. No. What it does, these are called also 19 as virtual impactors. What they do is they allow you 20 to sample the coarse particles in virtual inertia, in 21 other words, they don't allow the particle to change 22 its velocity of deposition by providing additional 23 momentum, so if you imagine a box within a box, the 24 first box essentially allows particles to fall down 25 mostly due to gravity. And the air and the rest of 177 1 the particles that are not trapped by gravitational 2 force are split by what are called slits and they 3 come down to another stream and fall down on the next 4 filter. The top filter collects all the large 5 particles and the small particles are collected in 6 the bottom filter. So essentially it is a two-stage 7 filter separating particles above and below two 8 micrometers in size. 9 Q. And the advantage of that filter over the 10 bucket is it in your opinion eliminates the surface 11 resistance we talked about? 12 A. And also a bias because the bucket, the 13 falling is only to the gravitational force. In the 14 case of impactor when the coarse particles are 15 falling primarily it is the gravitational force, the 16 fine particles are being sampled at a known velocity 17 like one liter a minute perhaps or less. 18 Q. How does that reduce the bias? 19 A. The coarse particles and the fine 20 particles are not in the same stream. 21 Q. I apologize, doctor, but I don't 22 understand how that affects the bias. 23 A. The question is not even involved because 24 the principle of sampling is totally different. In 25 the case of the bucket, gravity is the only one that 178 1 is operating on what you find in the bucket. In the 2 case of the impaction device, it is not just the 3 gravity, the external force of succeeding at a set 4 rate separates the fine particles away from the 5 coarse particles so you sample both sets of particles 6 with more certainty close to a hundred percent. 7 Q. What I don't understand is how, what does 8 the separation of the particles have to do with -- 9 A. With the resistance? 10 Q. No, I understand that. 11 A. Okay. Because as the resistance increases 12 on the surface, the amount of small particles falling 13 down is reduced progressively. 14 Q. Right. 15 A. And you are only collecting the big 16 particles. So you are biasing your sampling towards 17 the big particles and ignoring the small particles. 18 Q. I see. 19 A. And phosphorus is found in both particles 20 sizes. 21 Q. How long has the dichotomous -- 22 A. Dichotomous, you can call it two-stage 23 sampler, make life easier for you, two-stage sampler. 24 Q. How long has that been available? 25 A. God, since I have been at the university, 179 1 probably close to early seventies. 2 Q. The second one you mentioned, the combined 3 annular denuder/filter pack method, what are the 4 advantages of that one over the bucket method? 5 A. The combined annular filter pack method is 6 a very unique system that allows simultaneously to 7 sample certain gaseous pollutants combined with the 8 sampling of fine particles. It avoids all coarse 9 particles or tries to anyway. Nothing is absolute. 10 So, you see, there is a difference that 11 has a different application than the two-stage 12 impactor. That's why I said you have to decide what 13 your objective is in selecting the type of sampler. 14 Q. The combined annular et cetera method 15 then, am I correct that does not collect coarse? 16 A. No, it is removed because the annular 17 denuder/filter pack system was designed primarily in 18 the context of understanding acid, production of acid 19 molecules in the air. So what it does, just so you 20 are comfortable, it is up front what is called a 21 cyclone which essentially allows the coarse particles 22 to condense and get trapped, then what is left behind 23 in the screen is the gaseous material, gaseous 24 pollutants and fine particles. And there is a series 25 of tubes and these tubes allow the air to have a 180 1 laminar flow. The walls of the tubes are coated with 2 different chemicals that trap the gases. For 3 example, certain types of chemicals are coated to 4 trap acid gases, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and 5 so on. 6 Another tube contains a coating of another 7 material that will allow the trapping of alkaline 8 gases like ammonia. 9 Then the filters allow the collection of 10 nitric acid vapor and all the fine particles. 11 By doing this you get a better handle on 12 all the acidic and acidifying pollutants in a given 13 area, if that is your interest. 14 Q. Then in your opinion that method would not 15 be appropriate for collecting dry deposition for 16 purposes of measuring total phosphorus? 17 A. I can not say -- could you reword that, 18 please? 19 Q. Sure. Let me break it down. 20 You earlier testified, I believe, that 21 based upon the Stevensson -- 22 A. Stevens. 23 Q. Stevens material, that there is phosphorus 24 contained in both fine and coarse particles, is that 25 right? 181 1 A. Yes. 2 Q. And that they are both equally important 3 in measuring total phosphorus, is that right? 4 A. Yes. 5 Q. Am I correct that the combined annular 6 denuder/filter pack method which eliminates the 7 coarse particles would not be appropriate then for 8 measuring total phosphorus in the dryfall? 9 A. Not totally true. Usually what people do 10 is instead of throwing the material away in the 11 cyclone you simply use it. That is the coarse 12 fraction. 13 Q. So this method, although it separates out 14 coarse particles they are still available for 15 measurement? 16 A. Correct. 17 What is critical for you to realize is, it 18 all depends on the position of what you are trying to 19 achieve. And if your objective is measuring 20 quantities of chemicals that are relatively small in 21 concentration you should never ever try to put 22 everything into one technique. There should be more 23 than one technique to corroborate what you've got. 24 Q. Does the scientific community still accept 25 bucket collection methods for dry deposition as a 182 1 valid method of collection? 2 A. There is always a minority that might 3 agree to something. But from what I understand as of 4 today, most scientists that are atmospheric oriented 5 people do not accept the bucket as a method. 6 Q. But would you say a respected minority of 7 scientists in the field would accept bucket method? 8 A. I wish I could answer but I have not taken 9 a poll. 10 Q. You indicated that there are still some 17 11 NADP sites that are still collecting dry deposition? 12 A. Yes. From what I gather no one has given 13 me a straight answer. From what I gather it is for 14 historical purposes to maintain records. 15 Q. And they are continuing to use the bucket 16 method? 17 A. Yes, sir. From also what I gather they 18 are all located only in three states. 19 Q. Which states are those? 20 A. At least two of them I know, one 21 apparently is North Carolina and the other one is 22 Colorado. I don't remember the third one. 23 Q. Are there additional collection methods 24 for dry deposition other than the other two 25 alternatives we have discussed? 183 1 A. I can only tell you as I have said this 2 morning, by category. I don't have a compilation of 3 all methodology. There are books that contain it. 4 But I've not physically done it myself. I can only 5 provide the answers on three or four major categories 6 or classes of equipment you can go to. 7 Q. How long has the combined annular 8 denuder/filter pack method been in existence? 9 A. Approximately since about 1982, 1983, 10 somewhere in there. 11 Q. What is the most common method for 12 collecting dry deposition today? 13 A. I don't know about the networks, but in 14 terms of most scientists that I respect, they collect 15 with an impaction technique of some sort. 16 Q. In the 1970s time period what was the most 17 common method of collecting dry deposition? 18 A. I am afraid I can't answer you because at 19 that time I was not really concerned with this 20 problem. 21 Q. What about in the 1980s? 22 A. Researchers continued, the ones I respect, 23 continued to use impaction devices. 24 Q. Were any researchers you respected using 25 bucket collection during the 1980s? 184 1 A. Not in atmosphere chemistry, in biology, 2 yes. 3 Q. What is the difference? 4 A. Atmosphere chemists study the fine tuning 5 of the atmospheric processes. Biologists generally 6 do something without knowing what the corresponding 7 respect they need to give to the atmospheric 8 processes. 9 Biologist are afraid of chemists and 10 physicists and they don't also want to deal with 11 complicated instrumentation as much as possible. 12 Q. Using the impaction methods of collecting 13 dry deposition, are there still uncertainties 14 involved? 15 A. I am sure there are always uncertainties 16 involved with everything. Nothing is absolute. And 17 as we said this morning, what if a PC board failed. 18 Q. Has there been any attempt to quantify the 19 differences in uncertainties between the impaction 20 device and the bucket collection device? 21 A. If they did, I am not aware of it. 22 Q. Do you know what the most common method 23 used in the scientific community for collecting dry 24 deposition for the purpose of measuring total 25 phosphorus is? 185 1 A. I am not familiar with the literature. 2 Q. Do you know when these problems that you 3 have discussed with the bucket method were first 4 realized by the scientific community? 5 A. Do I know? 6 Q. Right. 7 A. It all depends what a community is as a 8 community of one I knew before I started there were 9 problems, purely in theory. 10 Q. Why did the NADP use the bucket method 11 when they set it up if all these problems were known? 12 A. They were looking for something simple and 13 inexpensive. They wanted to start something that 14 will catch fire and grow. 15 So rather than to muddy the water and 16 complicate it so bad before anybody can get on line 17 and scare them away, they wanted to start with the 18 most simplistic technique available. 19 And automatically because of the concern 20 for acid rain and biological effects, most people in 21 NADP are biology oriented people. Very few of the 22 atmosphere oriented people were participants in the 23 design at NADP. Therefore they let it go until 24 people could find out that it is not working and let 25 them decide to drop it. 186 1 Q. Did you voice these concerns back in the 2 1978 time period when the system was being set up? 3 A. Yes, sir. And if I may share with you, I 4 was the brunt of a lot of problems for a while. 5 Q. Meaning what? 6 A. My colleagues wouldn't talk to me. 7 MR. BLANK: Can we take another short 8 break? 9 MR. NETTLETON: Sure. 10 (Thereupon, a brief recess was taken, 11 after which the following proceedings 12 were had) 13 MR. NETTLETON: Back on the record. 14 BY MR. NETTLETON: 15 Q. I would like to move to the second aspect 16 of your opinion on the sampling assessment and that 17 concerning wet deposition. 18 Can you tell me what uncertainties you 19 find with regard to the wet deposition sampling? 20 A. I find three areas of uncertainty. One is 21 termed spatial uncertainty in this case. The other 22 one is temporal uncertainty. And the third one is 23 procedural uncertainty. 24 Q. Can you tell me what you mean by spatial 25 uncertainty? 187 1 A. This particularly refers to a piece of 2 work Mr. Grimshaw and coworkers have done where they 3 have essentially taken the concentrations of 4 orthophosphate in the Florida District samples and 5 correlated it to the total phosphorus essentially 6 what is called as a regression analysis, and then 7 applied it to the national atmospheric deposition 8 program wet samples. 9 Precipitation is known to vary 10 significantly in space. You can find very 11 significant, for instance, in composition of 12 precipitation in a matter of kilometers, sometimes. 13 Therefore the uncertainty is how can you take a set 14 of data collected at locations that are very 15 different from the locations where the NADP sampling 16 is occurring in Florida unless somehow you can prove 17 there is no uncertainty in doing this. That is the 18 spatial uncertainty. 19 Q. Am I correct then that it is your opinion 20 that you can not take the data from the District 21 sampling stations and compare that to data collected 22 at the NADP sampling stations because of the distance 23 between the stations, is that -- 24 A. That was not what Mr. Grimshaw did. Mr. 25 Grimshaw took -- developed a relationship between the 188 1 soluble phosphate and the total phosphate using a set 2 of data collected at a set of locations and applied 3 that to a set of data collected at another set of 4 locations. 5 Q. You are saying that you can't take the 6 ratio developed with regard to orthophosphorus and 7 total phosphorus from one location and transfer that 8 to another location, is that -- 9 A. He did not take the ratio and apply. He 10 developed a relationship, mathematical relationship 11 saying, if there is two units, one unit of 12 orthophosphate, there is two units of total 13 phosphate, if there is two units of orthophosphate, 14 there may be three and a half units of total 15 phosphate, he developed a relationship. And he did 16 this with a set of data collected in one set of 17 locations and applied it to establish a similar set 18 of data -- relationship with data collected at a 19 totally different location. And this causes 20 uncertainty. It is mathematically inappropriate. 21 Q. Why is it mathematically inappropriate? 22 A. It is like me saying, Miami has a thousand 23 native Americans and 10,000 immigrants from Cuba, I 24 counted ten Cubans in Minneapolis, therefore there 25 must be at least 10,000 native Americans. That is 189 1 not -- that is not the way mathematics works. Linear 2 mathematics does not work that way. 3 And in distance there is variability of 4 the chemistry of the rainfall. 5 Q. Am I correct that what you are stating is 6 that because of the variability in the rainfall over 7 different locations spatially, that you can't take a 8 relationship that exists at one location and use that 9 at another location? 10 A. To predict. 11 Q. Are you familiar with the spatial 12 variability of rainfall in Florida? 13 A. No, sir. 14 Q. Then what are you basing your assumption 15 on that there is this variability that prevents using 16 the relationship among these locations? 17 A. The famous assumption that is used to say 18 that climate varies in various places, precipitation 19 is a climatic process. 20 Q. Have you seen any data concerning the 21 spatial variability of total phosphorus or 22 orthophosphorus in rainfall among various sites in 23 Florida? 24 A. Yes, sir. There is a table in Mr. 25 Grimshaw's paper on spatial variability in 190 1 orthophosphorus. And it shows non-normal 2 distribution. 3 Q. Do you know what the spatial variability 4 was as revealed in that data? 5 A. I only looked at the table in the 6 manuscript that I received. If I remember correctly 7 there was significant variability in space. I did 8 not memorize the numbers but the conclusion there was 9 variability. 10 Q. By significant, what types of variability 11 are you talking about? 12 A. I don't remember. It could be 95 percent, 13 99 percent, I don't know. 14 Q. Anything else you are referring to with 15 regard to spatial uncertainty? 16 A. No. 17 Q. Tell me what you mean by temporal 18 uncertainty. 19 A. Okay. In establishing the regression with 20 the South Florida Water Management District, Mr. 21 Grimshaw et al. used data from 1986 to 1992, I 22 believe. But in drawing the extrapolation to the 23 NADP data they utilized 1978 to 1985. 24 Q. I am sorry, what years? 25 A. 1978 to 1985. 191 1 Q. What type of uncertainty does that create? 2 Why does that create uncertainty? 3 A. Rain composition varies from year to year. 4 In all the data I have looked at, I am not that 5 familiar with Florida, in all the data that I have 6 looked at over all these years I have found year to 7 year variability in chemical composition at any 8 number of locations I have looked at. 9 Q. In what type of magnitude? 10 A. I can not off the cuff say but there are 11 published literature on it. 12 Q. Are you familiar with the variability from 13 year to year in Florida rainfall with regard to total 14 phosphorus or orthophosphorus? 15 A. No, sir. 16 Q. Is there anything else with regard to the 17 temporal uncertainty? 18 A. No, sir. 19 Q. The third area you mentioned was 20 procedural uncertainty. What do you mean by that? 21 A. In drawing the relationship in the SFWMD, 22 Grimshaw apparently stated in their paper combined 23 data of refrigerated samples between '86 and '89 and 24 nonrefrigerated samples between '89 and '92. 25 Q. Refrigerated from '86 to '89 and 192 1 nonrefrigerated from '89 to '92? 2 A. Yes, sir. 3 Q. And why does that create uncertainty? 4 A. Because there is evidence to show that 5 non-refrigerated samples tend to have lower soluble 6 phosphorus and other essential elements. 7 Q. What evidence are you referring to? 8 A. There is data available in the published 9 literature including some unpublished work that my 10 group has done. There are at least four publications 11 that talk about essential elements, in those cases, 12 nitrogen. 13 Q. With specific regard to, I believe you 14 testified the evidence shows that non-refrigerated 15 samples have lower soluble phosphorus, is that right? 16 A. That's right. 17 Q. Is that over any particular time period of 18 holding time? 19 A. No. These are in our network. These are 20 in our network of refrigerated samples collected in 21 the three year program in Minnesota where we compared 22 nonrefrigerated to refrigerated samples and all the 23 essential elements decreased in the nonrefrigerated 24 because of a number of reasons. 25 Q. What are the reasons? 193 1 A. We suspect the main reason is microbial 2 consumption. 3 Q. Have you done anything to verify that 4 suspicion? 5 A. No, sir. 6 Q. Is it anything more than a suspicion at 7 this point? 8 A. The cause is the suspicion, the cause is a 9 suspicion, the loss of essential elements including 10 phosphorus is not a suspicion. 11 Q. Anything other than microbial consumption 12 that you suspect? 13 A. I think it is highly possible that there 14 might have been conversion of soluble to total. 15 Q. How does that conversion occur? 16 A. Simply because when the ions from one form 17 go to the other form the equilibrium changes. 18 Q. What causes that transformation? 19 A. Simple physical chemistry. 20 Q. Is there any loss of the phosphorus? 21 A. I do not know. 22 Q. Would you expect there to be any loss of 23 the total phosphorus between refrigerated and 24 nonrefrigerated? 25 A. At the moment, most likely not. 194 1 Q. Referring to the Grimshaw data, if there 2 was such a significant effect between the 3 refrigerated and the unrefrigerated, can you explain 4 why such a good coefficient of termination for that 5 data existed? 6 A. It could be purely coincidental. 7 Q. Do you have any other explanation other 8 than coincidental? 9 A. It is a statistical analysis. What more 10 can I say. 11 Q. Have you done any analysis of the data 12 yourself to verify the statistical correlation? 13 A. Can I get a clarification, please? 14 Q. What do you want clarified? 15 A. Which data are you talking about? 16 Q. The data in the Grimshaw. 17 A. I do not have access to the raw data from 18 Mr. Grimshaw so I have not done any computation. 19 Q. If you had the data is there anything you 20 could do with it to verify any of these conclusions 21 you have expressed? 22 A. That's a surprising question because I had 23 not thought about it up to this point. 24 Q. Has Dr. Lefohn given you any indication 25 whether or not he has the data? 195 1 A. He has said he had received some data but 2 never explained to me what that data was. 3 Q. You did not think it was necessary to look 4 at the data to render your opinions? 5 A. To raise the flag of uncertainty did not 6 require recomputation. 7 Q. Anything else with regard to the 8 procedural uncertainty other than the combination of 9 the refrigerated and unrefrigerated samples? 10 A. Yes, the other point of uncertainty is the 11 way in which the data was treated. 12 Q. What do you mean by the way in which the 13 data was treated? 14 A. According to the draft paper by Mr. 15 Grimshaw, apparently for all the samples where there 16 were concentrations below the minimum level of 17 detection, a value was substituted equal to the 18 minimum level of detection. 19 Q. Is it correct that by doing that that 20 would bias the results towards higher phosphorus 21 levels? 22 A. I can not say that without looking at the 23 entire data base, sir. 24 Q. Would you expect that? 25 A. That too I can not say because it depends 196 1 on the frequency. 2 Q. Is it possible that it could have the 3 effect of biasing it toward lower phosphorus? 4 A. Equally possible. 5 Q. How could that happen? 6 A. If there were only a few missing data, 7 that means most of the numbers were above detection 8 so you only replaced a few data points. 9 Q. How would that lower the number? 10 A. Pardon me, if for example, there were a 11 lot of missing data and only a few measured data then 12 it would -- please reword again. I think we are in 13 the wrong. 14 Q. Is there any possibility that by 15 substituting the detection limit for missing or 16 non-detected levels, that that could lower the actual 17 final number? 18 A. No. But that is not the normal procedure 19 to use. 20 Q. Okay. 21 So if anything, that would bias the number 22 upward, is that r