1 QUENTIN JERRY STOBER
2
3 Having first been duly sworn, testified as follows:
4
5 CROSS EXAMINATION
6
7 BY MR. SAMS:
8 Q Dr. Stober, would you state your full name
9 please.
10 A I'm Quentin J. Stober.
11 Q And by whom are you employed?
12 A USEPA.
13 Q In what office?
14 A The Environmental Services Division, Ecological
15 Support Branch.
16 Q Is that located in Athens, Georgia?
17 A Athens, Georgia.
18 Q My name is Gary Sams. I'm a member of the firm
19 that represents the Florida Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative,
20 Wedgworth Farms and Roth Farms in the proceeding in which
21 we're taking your deposition. If I ask you any questions that
22 need clarification before you can answer them, I'd appreciate
23 it if you would do that so that the record we make today is
24 clear. Dr. Stober, let me show you what I will ask the
25 reporter to mark as Exhibit 1.
3
1 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked
2 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.)
3 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
4 Q Is that document a copy of your current r sum ?
5 A Yes, it is.
6 Q Can you recall the date as of which this r sum
7 was prepared?
8 A I would say it's approximately nine months old.
9 Q Describe for me in general terms, if you would,
10 your responsibilities with EPA.
11 A I'm the regional fisheries expert, primarily
12 focused on contaminants in fish, and as of the last three
13 years have been the point person for mercury problems in the
14 region as well as the project leader for the Everglades
15 mercury study.
16 Q In a general sense, could you describe the
17 problems of mercury in the region. Do they involve the
18 entirety of Region IV?
19 A Well, there -- there is some concern within the
20 region that as we get more and more fish sampling from state
21 to state in the region, that it's not localized to the state
22 of Florida. It is being discovered in South Carolina, North
23 Carolina, probably -- well, it's also been discovered in the
24 state of Arkansas and north Louisiana, so we're concerned that
25 as the rest of the states fill in with data, that they'll find
4
1 similar problems with mercury.
2 Q Is it possible to generalize on the types of
3 areas within the states that you named that there appears to
4 be a mercury problem?
5 A No. I don't think it's possible to generalize
6 at this point in time.
7 Q Does most of the work that's developed data
8 relate to water bodies?
9 A Most of the data so far relates to streams in
10 the southeast.
11 Q Based on the data that are available so far,
12 does it appear that Florida has a greater mercury problem than
13 the other states which you mentioned?
14 A I think that if you look at the data available
15 -- Florida has more available data. They've studied the
16 potential problem more thoroughly than other states, so I
17 think if you compared it with the other seven states in the
18 region, it may look like they have a problem of greater
19 magnitude, but I'm not convinced that that would be the case
20 if we had similar data from all other states.
21 Q Do the data showing mercury in fish tissue in
22 Florida that you have seen show higher levels than similar
23 data for the other states?
24 A No, I don't think they do. I haven't seen the
25 data from South Carolina, but the telephone conversations
5
1 indicate that they're in the same order of magnitude as the
2 Everglades.
3 Q Can you make similar comparisons for North
4 Carolina, Arkansas and northern Louisiana?
5 A Roughly.
6 Q What are those comparisons?
7 A Well, they're -- they're above one part per
8 million in large-mouthed bass and some of them are -- are much
9 higher than that like two or three on occasion; and bowfin are
10 another species that are -- are routinely high.
11 Q Does that knowledge cause you as a scientist
12 with regulatory responsibilities to arrive at any preliminary
13 conclusions or -- well, I'll stop there, preliminary
14 conclusions?
15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the
16 form.
17 A No. I don't think we have any conclusions at
18 this point; we've got some concerns.
19 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
20 Q What are your concerns?
21 A That -- that we're dealing with a global
22 contaminant that may be exacerbated by local hot spots.
23 Q How do you define, in general terms, the
24 concept of the local hot spot?
25 A Well, where you may have a high concentration
6
1 of people or industry or both that could accelerate the loss
2 of mercury into the atmosphere.
3 Q Have you seen other data from the other states
4 which you mentioned suggesting that mercury problems there
5 might be similar to those in the Florida Everglades?
6 A In a -- yes, in a general nature they're
7 similar.
8 Q What are those data that -- besides mercury
9 levels in fish tissues?
10 A Oh, that's all that it's limited to is strictly
11 fish tissue concentration.
12 Q Is EPA to your knowledge planning to do any
13 special studies of this problem in the southeast?
14 A Well, yes, there are some early indications
15 that they'll be some studies done, but they're very early in
16 the stages of planning.
17 Q At this stage, what kinds of studies are in the
18 early planning stages?
19 A Well, mainly of getting state -- existing state
20 data together in a comprehensive database.
21 Q Is that an effort for which you have overall
22 responsibility?
23 A Well, it -- only in more or less promoting the
24 idea, but there is no real responsibility yet because the
25 project is still in the very formative stages.
7
1 Q For how many years have you been working in the
2 area of contaminants in fish for EPA?
3 A Oh, approximately ten years.
4 Q Has that period included mercury throughout the
5 ten years as one of the contaminants?
6 A Off and on, yes, as one of them.
7 Q Prior to that ten-year period, what were your
8 responsibilities at EPA?
9 A Well, I didn't work for EPA for approximately
10 18 years, in between an initial three-year period and then the
11 last seven years or so. I was a university professor in
12 between.
13 Q So your ten-year answer really covered your
14 entire period with EPA?
15 A Well, or an agency that eventually evolved into
16 EPA.
17 Q What were the areas in which you taught while a
18 university professor?
19 A Oh, I taught water quality courses, but
20 primarily my -- my focus was on research, environmental
21 research dealing with various fisheries problems.
22 Q Did it include the study of contaminants
23 substantially throughout that --
24 A Most of the time not.
25 Q What was the thrust of --
8
1 A Nuclear power plant sighting, related studies
2 -- environmental studies related to power plant sighting,
3 hydropower problems like pump storage, entrainment of fish,
4 screening problems, sighting of power-generation facilities.
5 There was another sort of body of work that I carried on on
6 marine toxicology.
7 Q When you use that term, are you referring to
8 toxicology to salt water species?
9 A Right.
10 Q At the present time -- let's give that a time
11 frame, say during the last 12 months, approximately what
12 percentage of your time, Dr. Stober, is spent on the subject
13 of mercury problems in south Florida?
14 A Oh, I guess about 95 percent.
15 Q Is that primarily related to the R-EMAP study
16 that is in the early stages?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Do you have primary responsibility for that
19 study on EPA's behalf?
20 A Yes, I do.
21 Q How long have you had that responsibility?
22 A Well, officially, probably a month.
23 Q Unofficially, if that's the proper way to ask
24 you --
25 A About three years.
9
1 Q Would the same 95-percent estimate that you
2 gave me a moment ago for the last 12 months apply to that
3 three-year period?
4 A No. It probably would be about half time in
5 '92 and ten percent of my time in '91.
6 Q In general terms, Dr. Stober, what are your
7 responsibilities for the R-EMAP study?
8 A Well, primarily at this point in time it's been
9 planning the study program.
10 Q Is that study program now under way?
11 A Yes. It was initiated last September with the
12 first cycle of canal samples.
13 Q How long do you expect that study program to
14 continue?
15 A Well, the R-EMAP proposal is written for a
16 two-year period, so it would go through FY '95.
17 Q Do you anticipate that, in fact, it will
18 continue longer than the two years?
19 A I would anticipate it would, yes.
20 Q Why do you have that anticipation?
21 A The complexity of the problem.
22 Q If the data that you've seen to date suggest
23 that the problem may exist at a similar order of magnitude in
24 other states of the southeast, why is there particular focus
25 on the south Florida area for the study of mercury contamination?
10
1 A Well, I think it's because it was discovered
2 first.
3 Q Any other reasons?
4 A Well, it's got high public concern.
5 Q Any others?
6 A Those are mainly it.
7 Q Are there any features of the Florida
8 Everglades, or the south Florida area more broadly, that would
9 make that an area of special focus from a scientific
10 standpoint?
11 A Well, I think it's -- from a scientific point
12 of view it's got a lot of attributes that make it a
13 particularly interesting place to study the problem. It's got
14 a large ag. area, it's got a lot of people associated with
15 south Florida in an urban area, it's a highly-prized
16 ecosystem, there's a lot of water involved in the system, so
17 from a number -- and atmospherically it's an interesting -- it
18 has some interesting attributes that make scientific study
19 quite challenging and a perfect place to try to model.
20 Q Let's follow up, if we may, on that last
21 comment first. What are its atmospheric attributes that make
22 it challenging and a particularly interesting place to model?
23 A Well, I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but
24 there are sources in the urban area that are discharging to
25 the atmosphere, and they -- the question is how much is
11
1 discharged and stays into the global -- goes into the global
2 background, how much is falling on the Everglades as part of
3 the wet\dry deposition, and that's basically what the FAM
4 study is trying to determine. So I think it has a
5 predominantly east-to-west flow from the urban area across the
6 Glades and high rainfall, a wet and a generally dry season, so
7 I think it could have utility in allowing us to eventually
8 develop atmospheric models that could be particularly useful
9 for other parts of the world.
10 Q What is it about the high rainfall level that
11 makes it interesting?
12 A Well, you can -- it presupposes that with high
13 rainfall you can wash more material out of the air.
14 Q What is it about the existence of wet and dry
15 seasons that make it particularly interesting?
16 A Well, not anything that's unique but the fact
17 that there are wet and dry seasons in the system and that may
18 help to unravel the cycling problems that are part of what
19 we're trying to drive at in the mercury problem.
20 Q What are the cycling problems that are being
21 focused on?
22 A Well, the forms of mercury, where it exists,
23 its distribution, processes by which it goes from one form to
24 another make it a very difficult element to study.
25 Q I believe just before that area, which I guess
12
1 I'll call atmospheric interest, you mentioned that there's a
2 lot of water involved. Could you indicate why that makes it
3 an interesting area to study for mercury contamination?
4 A Well, you may see the cycling occur at a more
5 rapid rate than if you compared that to an arid area.
6 Q Anything else?
7 A No, I'll leave it at that for now.
8 Q Are you aware that it's an area that has what
9 is sometimes called a managed hydroperiod?
10 A Yes.
11 Q What does that concept mean to you?
12 A Well, it means that you're trying to move water
13 from an area where you might want it dry or might want it wet
14 under artificial conditions depending on what the need is.
15 Q Does that fact provide a matter of interest for
16 the study of mercury contamination in the area?
17 A Yes, it does. That's one of the prime issues
18 in the Everglades ecosystem, a very difficult one to study
19 directly.
20 Q Why is that a difficult issue to study
21 directly, Dr. Stober?
22 A Well, because you -- you have to have some
23 place where you can manipulate the water under experimental
24 conditions and on the scale. It's almost impossible to do
25 that without just monitoring over time to see what in fact was
13
1 done.
2 Q Just so I can understand the point you were
3 making, were you saying that in essence because the
4 hydroperiod is managed to meet certain needs, it's therefore
5 difficult to manipulate it in a experimental sense?
6 A That's -- that's what I'm saying.
7 Q Are there any opportunities that you or others
8 have identified for manipulating the hydroperiod in the
9 Everglades in an experimental sense?
10 A The ENR might offer some opportunities, but --
11 Q Is that the Everglades Nutrient Removal
12 Project?
13 A Nutrient Removal Project, yeah. But I think
14 that is still subject to question whether or not the water
15 can, in fact, be controlled.
16 Q What question is that subject to?
17 A Well, how it was constructed.
18 Q Could you explain to me what its construction
19 has to do with whether the art -- the water level in it can be
20 artificially controlled?
21 A Well, whether the dikes are permeable or
22 nonpermeable and the latter would, of course, be a
23 prerequisite for controlling the manipulations like you'd like
24 to have them.
25 Q Have any other opportunities to experiment with
14
1 the manipulation of the hydroperiod been identified?
2 A None that I know of.
3 Q In the absence of such opportunities, did I
4 understand your response to indicate that it would then be
5 necessary to observe field data under differing conditions and
6 attempt to correlate those data statistically, is that a --
7 A That's our present approach with the R-EMAP.
8 Q You indicated that another factor that made the
9 south Florida area of particular interest for study of mercury
10 contamination is that it's a highly-prized ecosystem. To what
11 were you referring there, Dr. Stober?
12 A Well, it's an internationally-known wetland,
13 the Everglades ecosystem and Everglades National Park, and
14 both within the United States and outside the United States
15 almost anybody that knows anything about famous wetlands and
16 parks has heard of the Everglades; so from that standpoint
17 it's a well-known area. And people, whether they've been
18 there or not, have either seen pictures or heard about it.
19 Q Do the ecological values for which it's highly
20 prized relate directly in your mind to the need to study the
21 causes and effects of mercury contamination?
22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form.
23 A Can you restate it?
24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
25 Q What are the elements of the Everglades
15
1 ecosystem that are -- particularly make it interesting for the
2 study of mercury contamination?
3 A Well, I guess I'd say the elements are a large
4 expanse of wetland that's more or less undeveloped, formerly
5 abundant populations of wildlife, unspoiled habitat more or
6 less. Those are the kinds of things that if you wanted a
7 semi-wilderness experience, you could expect to still get a
8 taste of that there.
9 Q You mentioned another fact area that is making
10 it an interesting area for study had to do with urban area. I
11 take that to mean the urban area nearby?
12 A Well, that's -- I didn't mean that that was a
13 plus, but things being as they are, that's obviously -- a
14 concentration of five and a half million people or thereabout,
15 that we need to ask questions about how are they impacting the
16 system, and that's the -- the juxtaposition of the Everglades
17 with the high concentration of people I think is the important
18 point.
19 Q I think you also mentioned a large ag. area.
20 By that were you referring primarily to the Everglades
21 agricultural area?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Why is that a matter making it an area
24 interesting for study?
25 A Well, it's farmed and farmed fairly
16
1 intensively; and with farming operations, there are certain
2 things that can happen to water quality or habitat or movement
3 of water.
4 Q Let me show you a document that I will ask the
5 reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 2 and ask if you recognize
6 that document?
7 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked
8 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 for identification.)
9 A Yes.
10 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
11 Q Dr. Stober, were you a member of the Mercury
12 Technical Committee that issued this interim report?
13 A Yes, I was.
14 Q How did you come to be involved in what appears
15 to be a state report?
16 A Well, there was -- there's a variety of people
17 here that are both within and outside of various agencies,
18 universities, electric power research institute, there's a --
19 basically, this group of people were brought together under
20 the governor's Mercury Task Force to do what they could to
21 develop a state of what needed to be done or a plan -- a
22 general plan of what needed to be done to address the mercury
23 issue in the state of Florida. I was the Region IV
24 representative.
25 Q As a scientist, are you concerned about the
17
1 levels of mercury existing in Florida from a public health
2 standpoint?
3 A Well, on my job I normally deal with ecological
4 issues, but being the region's fisheries expert, you can't
5 avoid the public health concern. So I deal with that mainly
6 straight across the board from the knowledge of what
7 contaminant levels are either acceptable to EPA or FDA, if the
8 case may be appropriate.
9 Q What levels of mercury contamination in fish
10 tissue are acceptable or unacceptable to the EPA?
11 A Well, up until a few months ago, we deferred to
12 FDA action level of one part per million in fish. About -- I
13 guess it was September 1993, we issued a guidance document for
14 assistance to the states on sampling and analysis of fish
15 tissue, and in that guidance document we have a screening
16 level value of .65 parts per million.
17 Q What is a screening level?
18 A Well, that's a level where the agency would
19 become concerned that it's exceeding public health -- well,
20 it's entering into -- if you exceed that level and the
21 consumption rate that it's based on, then we would be
22 concerned that human health is in -- at higher risk.
23 Q Are you familiar with the Florida levels of
24 mercury concentration in fish tissue that are treated as
25 thresholds of regulatory concern?
18
1 A Are you referring to the advisory levels that
2 Florida uses?
3 Q Is there a .5 and also 1.5 in --
4 A Yes.
5 Q -- Florida that you're familiar with?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is the .5 a screening level?
8 A No, that is a Florida structured advisory.
9 What it tells you, that below .5 there is no concern for
10 consumption irregardless of whether you're male or female,
11 young or old. What it also tells you, that if you're a
12 pregnant female or a young child and you're eating fish
13 between .5 and one and a half that you only have one meal a
14 month that you can consume fish at those levels. And then if
15 you're consuming fish above one and a half parts per million,
16 no person whether they're young, old, male or female should
17 consume those fish, and that's a typical risk-based state
18 advisory.
19 Q Are you aware that levels of mercury in fish
20 tissue greater than 1.5 have been found at points in the
21 Florida Everglades?
22 A Yes.
23 Q How widespread do you understand that problem
24 to be within the Everglades?
25 A Well, that's part of the objective of the
19
1 R-EMAP study. Currently, the only database is the Florida
2 large-mouthed bass state database and that's focused on
3 canals. It appears that the highest concentrations found in
4 bass as well as bowfin and a few other species would focus on
5 the east-central part of Water Conservation Area Three and
6 extending into Everglades National Park.
7 Q Are those areas, the east-central portion of
8 Water Conservation Area Three-A --
9 A Right.
10 Q -- and Everglades National Park the ones in
11 which the most elevated --
12 A Highest concentrations occur.
13 Q Were you in general accord with the statements
14 made in this Mercury Technical Committee Interim Report dated
15 June 28, 1991?
16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you referring to the report
17 as a whole or any particular part of it?
18 MR. SAMS: The report as a whole.
19 A What was the question, whether I'm in general
20 accord with it?
21 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
22 Q Yes.
23 A Yeah. I think I can say I'm in general accord
24 with the report given the fact that it was developed by a
25 committee in an intensive three-day workshop.
20
1 Q If I can refer you to page ix, small Roman
2 numeral nine, at the top.
3 A (Witness complies with request of Counsel.)
4 Q In particular, I refer you under site-
5 independent research to the second paragraph there. Do you
6 have any recollection of why it was chosen by this committee
7 to recommend the level of focus that's shown there on rapid
8 oxidation of peat deposits, flooding sugar cane fields,
9 burning vegetation, flooding new highly biodegradable
10 vegetation, etcetera?
11 A Repeat the first part of your question.
12 Q Why, if you recall, did the committee recommend
13 those particular areas of focus?
14 A Well, I -- as I recall, the committee was
15 trying to think through this process of how to study the
16 mercury cycling problem, and this is simply a list of things
17 that might be affecting mercury cycling, and it's neither all
18 inclusive or -- or even doable (phonetic) in some cases, so I
19 think it represents the thinking of the committee at the time
20 and that's all I'd say about it.
21 Q Was there focus particularly by the committee
22 on the effects of the Everglades agricultural area on the
23 mercury contamination problem?
24 A No. I think it was an even-handed approach.
25 You may not surmise this from this list, but I think the
21
1 governor's Task Force really had a state-wide focus and it
2 wasn't to focus on agriculture in particular.
3 Q Is it a fair summary of the document that the
4 primary priority identified was the Everglades Wetlands
5 System?
6 A Yes, it was.
7 Q And is it a fair reading of the document that
8 those enumerated items to which I drew your attention a moment
9 ago were the particular focus of site-specific research
10 recommendations?
11 A Well, they were the best guess at the time.
12 Q If you were to revisit this same subject at the
13 present time knowing what you know now, would you have the
14 same recommendation --
15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: With regards -- I'm sorry, I
16 didn't mean to interfere.
17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
18 Q -- as a member of the committee?
19 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you referring specifically
20 to site-independent research or the general conclusions
21 of the report?
22 MR. SAMS: Both. I can split them apart, but
23 the focus is really on two things, the priority given
24 the Everglades and then the site-specific focus.
25 A Okay, what was the first part of your question?
22
1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
2 Q Based on what you know now having the benefit
3 of a little over two years further information, would you as a
4 member of the committee still recommend -- and I'll break the
5 question up -- a priority focus on the Everglades as was done
6 in this document?
7 A Yes. I think it is fair to say that that would
8 still be a priority.
9 Q Would it be the prime priority as you would see
10 it in Florida?
11 A Well, given the fact that the highest levels of
12 mercury in fish occur in the Everglades ecosystem, that would
13 be my prime consideration.
14 Q Okay. Then essentially I'm asking you the same
15 question with respect to the recommended site research that is
16 in the paragraph on page small Roman numeral nine that I've
17 previously referred you to.
18 A Well, I think we -- in the intervening time
19 we've gotten much more sophisticated in our approach, and even
20 though these may suggest interesting things that need to be
21 studied, I think the R-EMAP approach that we're taking now
22 that looks at the entire Everglades ecosystem is -- is the
23 best approach to at least initiate the Everglades study with
24 these particular items coming later in terms of process
25 studies or at least later things to look at.
23
1 Q Why is it better in your judgment to look at
2 the entire Everglades ecosystem first before getting to these
3 individual processes?
4 A Well, it's truly -- well, in fact, our
5 preliminary analysis of our first cycle of canal data
6 indicates that if you study any subsection of the Everglades
7 ecosystem, you could completely misconstrue what's going on in
8 terms of mercury cycling, changes in water quality, and how
9 they interact with each other. And that's why it's important
10 to scope it the way we have so that you can see the entire
11 system and how it changes from one end to the other. And
12 that's opposed to process studies which necessarily have to be
13 on a smaller scale, but if you didn't start with the big
14 picture, you wouldn't know where -- where to focus your
15 process studies, so I think that's -- that's the benefit that
16 you see or that we see in our R-EMAP study plan.
17 Q Is it fair to paraphrase that explanation as
18 follows: We really need to understand scientifically how the
19 Everglades cycles mercury before we can focus on specific
20 processes that may or may not affect mercury contamination in
21 particular ways?
22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the form.
23 A Can you restate it?
24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
25 Q Really what I'm asking you is whether you're
24
1 saying that before focusing on particular processes as
2 reflected on the page of the document that we've referred to,
3 it's necessary to understand how the ecosystem works?
4 A Well, not necessarily all the ins and outs of
5 how it works, but, for example, the extent and magnitude of
6 the two essential species of mercury, total mercury and
7 methylmercury, in the system. And then based on that kind of
8 data that covers a large geographic area, then focus your
9 process studies. And of course, an essential part is where to
10 do the process studies, and that's a real problem because you
11 just can't do them everywhere, you can't control water the way
12 you want to control it everywhere. So it is a problematic
13 issue of where to do the process studies so that the way we
14 are initiating the R-EMAP is doing what is doable and in the
15 same instance determining the extent and magnitude.
16 Q Are you aware that Dr. Ron Jones has also made
17 some efforts at measuring ethyl mercury --
18 A Yes.
19 Q -- in the Everglades? You mentioned, I think,
20 total and methylmercury as the two --
21 A Uh-huh (affirmative).
22 Q -- primary forms or some such --
23 A Particularly because that's what our study plan
24 calls for. Ron has just recently come on this discovery, and
25 we're obviously going to explore that farther.
25
1 Q On Arabic numeral page 17, there's mention
2 under rationale of the mercury contamination problems found in
3 hydro-electric reservoirs. Do you agree that factors that
4 might cause mercury contamination in such reservoirs are also
5 present and may have similar effect in the Florida Everglades?
6 A I would only say there's a loose relationship.
7 Some of the same processes may occur, but a new hydro-
8 reservoir is a much different situation than we see in the
9 Everglades.
10 Q If reservoirs are created in the Everglades,
11 take as an example the Stormwater Treatment Areas that are
12 proposed in the swim plan of the state, is it possible that
13 those reservoirs could have similar mercury contamination
14 effects?
15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Objection, calls for
16 speculation.
17 A Can you rephrase it?
18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
19 Q Are you familiar with the Stormwater Treatment
20 Areas proposal under the swim plan for the Everglades?
21 A I've heard of it, but I haven't spent much time
22 thinking about it.
23 Q Are you aware of how they are to be
24 constructed?
25 A Not in any detail.
26
1 Q Do you whether they're to hold water in a
2 manner similar to any created pond or reservoir?
3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form.
4 A Well, really it's hard to answer that kind of a
5 question because there's water all over the whole system to
6 start with, so I don't know what you're referring to.
7 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
8 Q Do you know whether they will pond water, that
9 is, the Stormwater Treatment Areas?
10 A Well, I -- I would guess they would, but the
11 details I'm not familiar with.
12 Q Are you aware that our clients -- my clients
13 have raised the concern of whether those water bodies may, in
14 fact, be subject to the reservoir effect and cause mercury
15 contamination?
16 A I've heard that.
17 Q Have you given any concern to that -- or any
18 consideration to that possibility?
19 A No, I really haven't. I've been focused on the
20 R-EMAP approach to the entire Everglades and I haven't focused
21 on Stormwater Treatment Areas at all.
22 Q What are the factors that give rise to mercury
23 contamination problems in reservoirs?
24 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form.
25 A Can you be more specific?
27
1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
2 Q Do you know what the factors are that give rise
3 to mercury contamination problems in newly-created reservoirs?
4 A Well, the main factor is the inundation of
5 terrestrial vegetation.
6 Q Are there other particular factors that need to
7 be present in order for that effect to occur?
8 A Oh, the existence of low pH may promote
9 methylation, but basically it's the presence of high organic
10 matter dissolved in other ways.
11 Q If I could, Dr. Stober, draw your attention to
12 the first complete paragraph on page 18. Does the EMAP work
13 being undertaken now by EPA involve comparisons such as those
14 which are referred to in this paragraph?
15 A Not directly at the present time, but once the
16 data is collected, there's some possible comparisons that
17 might be made.
18 Q I notice on page 19, in the first complete
19 paragraph of that page, it says this study should be carried
20 out for a minimum of six years and then it goes on, I guess,
21 to describe three two-year periods. Is that recommendation
22 similar to the EMAP study?
23 A We will accomplish -- if the R-EMAP study is
24 conducted for that length of time, it would -- it would
25 establish a statistically-sound monitoring database over those
28
1 periods of years, but this refers to special treatments and
2 that is not a part of our study plan.
3 Q In other words, this gets into the hydrologic
4 manipulation that we discussed awhile back?
5 A Right. And again, the question is where do you
6 do that.
7 Q Has EPA given any thought to possibly doing
8 that in a Stormwater Treatment Area or cell of a Stormwater
9 Treatment Area?
10 A Not to my knowledge. There's been no
11 discussions.
12 Q Do you think that it would be scientifically
13 valuable to do that if an area could be identified to perform
14 those particular studies?
15 A I think you could do some credible science as
16 long as the area in question is properly designed and there's
17 a complete study plan worked out in advance so that even
18 before you build it, you -- you know how you're going to study
19 it and there's none of this rush to judgment and trying to do
20 something quick and dirty. I think this is a comp -- very
21 complicated problem we're trying to address, and if it's
22 approached carefully, I think you could do something
23 meaningful.
24 Q I think I asked you earlier whether EPA had any
25 plans to design such a study. Let me come back to that
29
1 thought just a moment. My recollection is you said they do
2 not at present.
3 A Uh-huh (affirmative).
4 Q Are you in contact with state agencies that are
5 also involved with the mercury contamination problem in the
6 Everglades?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Do you know whether any of them are proposing
9 to do any such studies as the ones referred to during the
10 second and third two-year periods on this page?
11 A The only agency that might be considering
12 similar studies would be the South Florida Water Management
13 District. At least to my knowledge that's the only agency.
14 Q What is information known to you that suggests
15 they might be doing so?
16 A Well, there's -- there are in-house efforts to
17 develop a mercury study plan for the ENR project.
18 Q Have you been consulted in regard to those?
19 A Yes.
20 Q By whom were you consulted?
21 A Larry Fink.
22 Q What in particular did Mr. Fink indicate to you
23 the South Florida Water Management District might be
24 interested in doing?
25 A Well, he -- he has not specifically finished
30
1 his study plan, but his charge, I think, was to write a study
2 plan for the ENR for mercury, and he was simply going to push
3 that up through the management structure.
4 Q Has he provided you any draft material related
5 to such a study plan?
6 A Very incomplete draft material. The study plan
7 has never been completed at this point in time.
8 Q Do you know why it hasn't been completed at
9 this point in time?
10 A No, I don't.
11 Q Is that reflected among the documents from your
12 files that you brought here today?
13 A Yes. In one file appears the incomplete study
14 plan.
15 Q Would you be able to identify that for me
16 please?
17 A Uh-huh (affirmative).
18 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record a second.
19 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off record.)
20 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
21 Q Dr. Stober, I'd like to show you another set
22 that actually consists of four documents which I will ask the
23 court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 3. That'll be a
24 composite exhibit.
25 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked
31
1 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 for identification.)
2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
3 Q And I would ask you if you recognize those
4 documents?
5 A I recognize three out of the four.
6 Q Okay, which of those, sir?
7 A The one by Ron Jones.
8 Q That's the first document?
9 A The first one. The second one I don't believe
10 I've ever seen. I've seen the third one and the fourth one.
11 Q Dr. Stober, was Ron Jones' document, the first
12 one, one that he submitted to EPA?
13 A Yes. He gave it to me. I don't know whether I
14 was the initial recipient of this document, but in beginning
15 to discuss mercury with him, this is one of the documents that
16 I was furnished.
17 Q If I could, I'd like to refer you to the first
18 paragraph of the document. This project should be considered
19 along with the project proposed by Dr. Tamar Barkay of the
20 USEPA ERL Gulf Breeze. Her project on the rates of mercury
21 transformations along with the research contained in this
22 proposal should provide answers to many of the questions
23 dealing with the sources and mechanisms of mercury
24 contamination in the Florida Everglades. With reference to
25 that paragraph, do you recognize the third and fourth
32
1 documents as being related in the manner that Dr. Jones
2 described in that paragraph to his work?
3 A I think the third and fourth documents probably
4 are the result of what he's referring to here regarding Tamar
5 Barkay's research.
6 Q Okay, sir. If I could, before leaving this
7 document, I'd like to refer you to a couple of things in it.
8 Particularly, I'd like to refer you to the second page.
9 Unfortunately, I don't think they're numbered. If I may point
10 down here to a sentence that begins with the word flooding, I
11 wonder -- can you tell me whether you agree with his assertion
12 that flooding of soils in the Everglades system also cannot be
13 the cause of mercury contamination since the net effect of the
14 last century has been to drain these soils for agricultural
15 production?
16 A And the question is whether I agree with it or
17 not?
18 Q Yes sir.
19 MR. LIPSHULTZ: You can read the para -- the
20 context if that's going to be helpful to you.
21 MR. SAMS: Yes, you certainly can.
22 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Go off the record a second.
23 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.)
24 A I think I generally agree with the statement in
25 the context he made it.
33
1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
2 Q Did you read following that his statement that
3 soils of the Everglades are unusual in their characteristics;
4 first, they are composed of neutral peat and are not highly
5 reduced anaerobic even though they are flooded for most of the
6 year?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Do you also agree with that statement?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you have an understanding of why the
11 Everglades soils are not highly reduced even though flooded
12 for most of the year?
13 A Well, I think the understanding at this point
14 in time is rudimentary at best, but the fact that the more or
15 less undisturbed wetland soils in the Everglades are circum-
16 neutral and essentially composed of sweet peat, which is not
17 anaerobic in its nature, points out the fact that the
18 Everglades wetlands are a unique system.
19 Q What does circum-neutral mean?
20 A The pH is around seven.
21 Q What characteristics define what you referred
22 to as sweet peat?
23 A You don't notice a proliferation of H2S when
24 their soils are disturbed indicating that, you know, the
25 environment in the soils are -- is not a reducing environment.
34
1 Q If I can refer you to the next page near the
2 top, did Dr. Jones discuss with you the hypothesis that he
3 proposed there?
4 A In that first little paragraph?
5 Q Yes sir.
6 A Yeah, we've discussed that.
7 Q Is that in fact a hypothesis that's being
8 examined in the EMAP or R-EMAP study?
9 A Yes. That will be examined as a specific part
10 of our transect studies.
11 Q Which transects are you referring to when you
12 say that this will be studied as part of the transect studies?
13 A Well, they're basically four transects in our
14 study plan. One of them crosses the Loxahatchee Water
15 Conservation Area 1 from general east to west through the
16 center. One transects the Cattail area and Water Conservation
17 Area 2 where there have been nutrient gradients previously
18 identified. The third transect is the lower end of Water
19 Conservation Area 3 starting at the Tamiami Trail and going
20 directly north for a few kilometers into Water Conservation
21 Area 3. And then the fourth one is the other end of that line
22 which would go south into the north part of Everglades
23 National Park.
24 Q To date, has any data been gathered on those
25 transects?
35
1 A None yet at all.
2 Q When is that effort expected to commence?
3 A First of April.
4 Q When are those data proposed to be analyzed?
5 A Well, as soon as the samples are collected,
6 they'll be taken to analytical labs; and the analysis probably
7 would not be forthcoming from the labs for at least three
8 months.
9 Q Is that the normal length of time that the same
10 number of samples would ordinarily require?
11 A Yes. In fact, it may take longer. In this
12 instance, more soil analyses will be required and they take
13 longer to analyze.
14 Q Is it expected that one of the transects will
15 be analyzed first?
16 A At the present time, there are no priorities on
17 any particular one being first.
18 Q In general, how will the data from those
19 transects be used to either confirm or dispute this
20 hypothesis?
21 A Well, the transects have already been sampled
22 previously for nutrients in -- as parts of other studies.
23 We're simply going to go back and repeat the nutrient sampling
24 and then add total and methylmercury analysis in water, soil
25 and fish, you know, wherever they occur and -- and simply look
36
1 for relationships to the nutrient curve.
2 Q Did you discuss the additional corollaries
3 listed by Dr. Jones beneath the hypothesis?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Is any effort currently underway to address the
6 first of those?
7 A No.
8 Q Is any effort planned for doing so?
9 A Not at this time.
10 Q Beyond this paper, has any been proposed?
11 A None to my knowledge.
12 Q If I could turn your attention then to the
13 second corollary. Do you know whether that corollary
14 concerning lack of proper maintenance is under study?
15 A Well, I don't know anything about maintenance
16 of canals, but our R-EMAP study is designed to sample the
17 canals in a probablistic sampling strategy so water, sediment
18 and fish are the three media that are sampled at each station
19 along with the conventional -- wide array of conventional
20 water quality measurements. Whether it has to do with
21 maintenance is immaterial. We're simply trying to understand
22 the distribution and extent of mercury in canals.
23 Q If I could turn you to the third paper. Can
24 you summarize for me in short-hand form, if that's possible,
25 your understanding about what Dr. Barkay's findings showed?
37
1 A The way I understand her studies, she had some
2 Everglades soils, samples that were collected, and they were
3 in -- taken from different sites that had differed
4 concentrations of phosphate, and she did some
5 methylation/demethylation experiments on them. And as far as
6 I understand the results, they indicated that slight nutrient
7 enrichment promoted methylation to occur, and then as nutrient
8 levels increased, demethylation was a predominant process that
9 was occurring. So that there is a relationship to nutrient
10 amount, but it can either, depending on the concentration, be
11 stimulating methylation or demethylation.
12 Q What is your understanding of the two levels of
13 eutrophication or nutrient contributions, if you will, that
14 you described, I guess, as small versus eutrophication?
15 A What is my understanding of that?
16 Q Yes. What would -- what did you mean in terms
17 of when you referred to small nutrient additions or whatever
18 phrase you used?
19 A Well, the reason why I phrased it the way I did
20 is because there are very limited amount of data here, very
21 few number of experiments, and to parameterize these results
22 by specific concentrations of nutrients is premature in my
23 estimation.
24 Q If I could, Dr. Stober, I'd like to refer you
25 to the fourth and final document in this composite exhibit.
38
1 Am I correct in surmising from the data at the top of the
2 first page that it was transmitted to you in this form by Dr.
3 Barkay?
4 A Yes, I think it was.
5 Q Is this report also referring to the results of
6 the same study that we just looked at as Document Number 3 in
7 this composite exhibit?
8 A To the best of my knowledge it is.
9 Q And does that include the summary table at the
10 end of the third --
11 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I think that we're mixed up on
12 documents. Are you talking about the fourth -- Jerry
13 was looking at the -- Jerry was still looking at the
14 attachments to the letter.
15 A Well, this is what I call the fourth.
16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Yeah, you're looking at -- it's
17 stapled differently on Jerry's copy.
18 MR. SAMS: Okay, I apologize.
19 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
20 Q You were looking at the document entitled
21 methylation and demethylation processes in soil sediments --
22 A Oh, I see, it's all stapled together.
23 Q -- from the Florida Everglades?
24 A Well, see, I got this in two installments.
25 This document here you've got stapled as one.
39
1 Q I see.
2 A So I thought -- they came to me at different
3 times.
4 Q All right, sir. Is it your understanding that
5 then the one that you've corrected me and called Document 4
6 relates to Document 3?
7 A That's correct.
8 Q I was going on to ask essentially the same
9 question about what we'll now describe as Document 5 in this
10 composite exhibit.
11 MR. LIPSHULTZ: And just for purposes of
12 clarity, that's the one that has a fax transmittal memo
13 notation at the top.
14 MR. SAMS: Appears to, yes.
15 A And the question is whether it's still the same
16 study?
17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
18 Q Yes sir.
19 A I think it's part of the same study. It's
20 probably the earliest -- well, I don't see a date on there,
21 2-27 -- no, that's not. I can't tell. I don't know whether
22 it's part of the same study or not, but I -- I suspect it's an
23 early version of some of the preliminary work that she did.
24 Q Do you know whether Dr. Barkay has done any
25 other work on this subject in regard to the Everglades?
40
1 MR. LIPSHULTZ: What subject?
2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
3 Q The subject being demethylation and methylation
4 of mercury?
5 A To my knowledge, she hasn't done any other work
6 in relation to the Everglades, but she is a noted mercury
7 expert primarily from her work at Oak Ridge.
8 Q Although preliminary, do you regard these
9 results as scientifically interesting?
10 A Yes, I do.
11 Q Why is that?
12 A Well, it's some of the early work that points
13 the direction that needs to be researched to understand the
14 demethylation/methylation process.
15 Q Does it suggest, in fact, that demethylation
16 could outweigh methylation in the circumstances studied?
17 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to the form of the
18 question.
19 A No, I don't think it suggests that at all.
20 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
21 Q If you look at the final page of the last
22 document, now I'm calling it the fifth document, it appears to
23 show for waters being eutrophied a methylation rate of 4.5, a
24 demethylation rate of 5.4. I assume the numbers following
25 each of those may be the standard deviation or some such
41
1 thing, but I'm not sure; do you see that?
2 A Yes.
3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you asking whether he agrees
4 with that characterization or not?
5 MR. SAMS: No, not yet.
6 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming)
7 Q But now I will. Do you agree with that
8 characterization of these numbers?
9 A No. I wouldn't particularly put too much
10 weight one way or the other. I think they point out that
11 there's an interesting relationship here, but there is
12 obviously too few data to draw any solid conclusions.
13 Q I noticed under -- or on the row called
14 eutrophied, it shows a methylation rate of 2.7 and a
15 demethylation rate of 7.8. Does that not indicate, at least
16 based on these preliminary studies, a greater rate of
17 demethylation --
18 A Well, it does --
19 Q -- than methylation?
20 A It does indicate that, but it's still too small
21 a study and a small a database to draw any lasting
22 conclusions. I think it's merely an indication of things that
23 need to be further researched.
24 Q Is that why you would reject my suggestion that
25 it shows under these circumstances demethylation may dominate
42
1 over methylation?
2 A Well, yes, I think it's premature to suggest
3 this reaction going one way or the other on the basis of one
4 experiment.
5 Q To your knowledge, has anyone proposed to go
6 forward with further experimentation based -- examining these
7 same subjects?
8 A I believe Tamar has proposals, and to my
9 knowledge at the present time, they're largely unfunded at
10 this point.
11 Q When were those additional proposals made?
12 A Well, I think within the last year she may have
13 put one together, but then I haven't received it directly so
14 -- I've just heard through other folks that she was developing
15 a proposal, and whether or not it's complete or ready to go
16 out to anywhere -- to a funding source I don't know.
17 Q Do you know of anyone else doing work to follow
18 up on this particular work?
19 A The only other ORD laboratory that has
20 expressed some interest in this is the Athens ORD Lab; but
21 there again it's been general discussions, nothing specific,
22 only indicating to me that they were interested in process
23 studies and I have not seen the proposals.
24 Q Do you regard this work as having lower
25 priority than the other work which is now scheduled under the
43
1 EMAP transect studies?
2 A Not necessarily. The EMAP studies are going
3 forward because we have been ident -- have been able to
4 identify source -- a source of funding from EMAP. The process
5 studies are proceeding at a slower rate because we have to
6 find different sources of funding for those. And as a result,
7 it looks like we have prioritized against process studies but
8 that, in fact, is not true. It's simply the funding sources
9 that are available.
10 Q Is there any other reason why that work, the
11 continuation of the Barkay inquiry, is not proceeding?
12 A That's the primary one that I know about, lack
13 of funding.
14 Q Are there secondary ones?
15 A No, I don't think there are.
16 Q With whom have you discussed these results of
17 the Barkay study?
18 A Mainly in the office.
19 Q With whom?
20 A Oh, Dale Hicks, Dan Scheidt and Ro