1
1 STATE OF FLORIDA
DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
2
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE OF
3 FLORIDA, INC., ROTH FARMS, INC.,
AND WEDGWORTH FARMS, INC.,
4
and
5
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.,
6 and UNITED STATES SUGAR
CORPORATION,
7
and
8
FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
9 ASSOCIATION, LEWIS POPE FARMS,
W. E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC., and
10 HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,
11 Petitioners,
12 vs. CASE NOS. 92-3038
92-3039
13 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT 92-3040
DISTRICT,
14
Respondent,
15
and
16
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF
17 FLORIDA, the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
18 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION,
19 FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY, and
SIERRA CLUB,
20
Intervenors.
21 _____________________________/
22 DEPOSITION_OF_DR._TAMAR_BARKAY
__________ __ ___ _____ ______
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
2
1 Deposition of DR. TAMAR BARKAY taken by the
2 attorney for Petitioners at 224 East Government Street,
3 Pensacola, Florida, on April 4, 1994, commencing at 1:00
4 p.m., before Lacy Leitch, Registered Professional Reporter
5 and Notary Public.
6
APPEARANCES
___________
7
FOR THE PETITIONERS: GARY P. SAMS, ESQUIRE
8 Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
Post Office Box 6526
9 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
10 FOR THE RESPONDENTS: JOHN LIPSHULZ, ESQUIRE
U.S. Department of Justice
11 Post Office Box 663
Washington, D.C. 20044-0663
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
3
1 INDEX_OF_WITNESSES
_____ __ _________
2
3 DR. TAMAR BARKAY PAGE
____
4 Direct Examination by Mr. Sams 6
5 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 122
6 SIGNATURE OF WITNESS 124
7
8 INDEX_OF_EXHIBITS
_____ __ ________
9
10 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE
___________ ____
11
12 1 Curriculum Vitae 7
13 2 Note to Mr. Lipshulz 10
14 3 Re-Notice of Taking of Deposition 11
15 4 Memorandum, Subject: Region IV 18
16 5 Handwritten notes dated May 21, 1991 26
17 6 Document on United States Department
18 of the Interior letterhead 30
19 7 Document dated June 11, 1991
20 from Robert E. Menzer to Scott McMoran 31
21 8 General Description of Project 32
22 9 Document entitled "An Investigation
23 on the Contribution of Naturally
24 Occurring Mercury to the Mercury
25 Contamination in the Florida Everglades" 35
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
4
1 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE
___________ ____
2
3 10 Handwritten Notes 43
4 11 Handwritten notes dated 1/24/92 44
5 12 Letter dated 2/18/93 to Dr. Mike Soukup 47
6 13 Document entitled Methylation and
7 Demethylation Processes in Soil
8 Sediments from the Florida Everglades 51
9 14 Document entitled Methylation and
10 Demethylation in Soil Sediments
11 from the Florida Everglades 58
12 15 Letter dated January 30, 1993
13 to Dr. Jerry Stober 61
14 16 Letter dated July 27, 1993
15 to Bob Johnson 65
16 17 Handwritten notes dated 8/17/93 67
17 18 Raw Data from August 31, 1993 Sampling 73
18 19 Handwritten notes dated 10/6/93 82
19 20 Document dated 10/21/93 83
20 21 Letter dated November 2, 1993 to
21 Dr. Curt Richardson from Tamar Barkay 84
22 22 Graphs 88
23 23 Notes dated November 20-21 89
24 24 Handwritten notes dated 12/1/93 93
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
5
1 PLAINTIFF'S PAGE
___________ ____
2 25 Document dated 12/8/93,
3 Titled Calibration 93
4 26 Document entitled Calibration, dated
5 12/9/93 94
6 27 Document dated 1/25/94 entitled
7 Results:Calculations 95
8 28 Document entitled Levels
9 Encountered During Processing 98
10 29 Letter dated November 23, 1993
11 to Curtis Pollman from Tamar Barkay 99
12 30 Document, Page Nos. 263 - 265 101
13 31 Mercury Analysis of Soil in August 101
14 32 Document entitled Methylation
15 of Hg(II) 102
16 33 Document entitled Cases Deleted
17 Due to Missing Data 102
18 34 Document entitled Adjusted
19 Squared Multiple R 103
20 35, 36 No Exhibits marked
21 37 Document entitled Regression 103
22 38 Document, Regression Analysis 104
23 39 Document entitled Microcosm
24 Simulating Mercury Cycling 104
25 In a Contaminated Pond
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
6
1 WHEREUPON,
2 DR._TAMAR_BARKAY
___ _____ ______
3 was called as a witness and after having been first duly
4 sworn, was deposed and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. SAMS:
7 Q State your name for the record, please.
8 A Tamar Barkay.
9 Q Are you employed by the Environmental
10 Protection Agency?
11 A Yes.
12 Q What is your business address, please?
13 A 1 Sabine Island Drive, Gulf Breeze, 32561.
14 Q Dr. Barkay, my name is Gary Sams. I
15 represent the Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida
16 and two individual farm corporations. I am taking your
17 deposition in this case for the purpose of making as
18 complete a record of our discussion as I can. I will try,
19 therefore, to ask clear questions, but if they are not
20 clear, especially to you as a scientist, please indicate
21 so that I have the opportunity to correct my questions or
22 make them clearer; that way the record will reflect a true
23 conversation.
24 A Okay.
25 Q Dr. Barkay, I would like to show you, first,
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
7
1 a document that I'll ask the reporter to mark Exhibit No.
2 1, and ask if that's a current copy of your CV?
3 A Yes, I think it is. It is pretty much, yes.
4 (Curriculum Vitae was marked by the
5 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 1,
6 hereto attached.)
7 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you give me a brief
8 description of the nature of your responsibilities for EPA?
9 A I am with the microbic ecology and
10 biotechnology branch. It is the environmental research
11 laboratory here in Gulf Breeze. It is part of the office of
12 research and development in the EPA.
13 I am a staff scientist there. My title is
14 research microbiologist, and I am in charge of performing my
15 own research, which comes to answer the needs of the agency.
16 Q How long have you been employed at Gulf Breeze?
17 A Since December of 1984.
18 Q Have you been employed in the same capacity
19 since 1984?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Same job responsibilities?
22 A Yes.
23 Q I notice that you received your Ph.D. in
24 microbiology at the end of 1980; is that correct?
25 A Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
8
1 Q What positions did you hold between that time
2 and the end of 1984 when you went to work for EPA?
3 A I spent a little over a year and a half at the
4 Weizmann Institute in Israel, the biochemistry department,
5 as a postdoctoral fellow. And then I spent a little over
6 two years as a postdoctoral fellow at the University of
7 California, at Irvine.
8 Q Besides the work that you have done in
9 connection with the Everglades during the last three or four
10 years, have you done other work with the examination of
11 mercury cycling in the environment?
12 A I have done some work in a contaminated site in
13 Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
14 Q What was the nature of your work in regard to
15 the Oak Ridge site?
16 A The work in Oak Ridge is a project that evolved
17 over a long period of time. It started with looking at very
18 basic responses of the microbic community in the site, to
19 mercury, and then it evolved into a more applied project
20 where we looked at actually the possibility of using
21 microbial activities for remediation of the site.
22 Q How long did your work last in connection with
23 the Oak Ridge site?
24 A I can't remember exactly when we started.
25 Q Approximately the number of years?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
9
1 A 1987, possibly, and it's still going on. And I
2 have a long-time collaboration there.
3 Q Have you conducted other examinations of
4 cycling of mercury in the environment?
5 A No. That's pretty much it.
6 Q How would you describe your field of expertise?
7 A I think I am a microbiologist who really is
8 working in the interface between the organismal level and
9 the environmental level. That is -- I can't say I'm an
10 expert -- but aware, and use what we know about the
11 molecular biology, the genetics, the biochemistry of
12 microbial transformations of mercury. And I am asking
13 questions which are pertinent to the fate of mercury in the
14 environment, and how these microbic processes are involved
15 in the actual cycling of -- geochemical cycling of mercury.
16 Q Have you published any papers regarding the
17 interface between organisms and the environmental levels, as
18 it pertains to mercury in the Everglades?
19 A No.
20 Q Have you published on that subject, in relation
21 to your Oak Ridge work?
22 A Yes.
23 Q And are all those publications listed on your
24 CV?
25 A Yes, I believe so. I haven't looked at it in a
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
10
1 while.
2 (Note to Mr. Lipshulz was marked by
3 the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit
4 No. 2, hereto attached.)
5 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would like to show you a
6 document that I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit
7 No. 2, and ask you if you recognize that document?
8 A Yes, I believe that's a note I wrote to Mr.
9 Lipshulz.
10 Q In writing that note, what did you regard as
11 the project in South Florida?
12 A Basically, everything that I have done, and
13 records that I collected that I, myself, wrote, or my staff
14 did, with regard to the work in South Florida.
15 Q Regarding mercury in the Everglades?
16 A Yes, exclusively. I'm not involved with
17 anything else.
18 Q Have you ever been involved with any other work
19 regarding mercury in South Florida?
20 A No.
21 Q Have you ever been involved with any other work
22 regarding the Everglades?
23 A No.
24 Q I would like next to show you a copy of
25 actually the renotice of the taking of your deposition
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
11
1 today. I'll ask the reporter to mark that as Exhibit No. 3.
2 (Re-Notice of Taking Deposition was
3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
4 Exhibit No. 3, hereto attached.)
5 Q (By Mr. Sams) Did you receive a copy of this
6 notice?
7 A I don't remember. I don't recall seeing it.
8 Q I would like, if I may, to ask you to examine
9 it starting on the fifth page. Actually, the list with
10 which I'm concerned begins on Page 4.
11 A Okay; 4.
12 Q Do you remember seeing this list?
13 A Documents to be produced?
14 Q Yes.
15 A No.
16 Q I think then I will go through and ask you just
17 a little bit about these various items. The first item, of
18 course, you have produced, and we have already marked that
19 as an exhibit.
20 If you could turn to the second item, please,
21 and examine that description. Have you produced all the
22 documents in your files which are described in that item?
23 A It says, "relating to parameters affecting the
24 release of mercury from soils of the Florida Everglades." I
25 don't recall having any of those. I mean it would be
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
12
1 easiest for me to say yes to you but --
2 Q I understand, but I appreciate the more
3 complete answer. Thanks.
4 Item 3, do you have any documents of that
5 description?
6 A Yes. And I believe the answer is yes; I gave
7 you all I had.
8 MR. SAMS: Let me ask your counsel for the
9 U.S., have you provided a privilege list, or are any
10 withheld on grounds of privilege?
11 MR. LIPSHULZ: No. Actually, I don't know if
12 all this needs to be on the record.
13 (Off the record discussion.)
14 MR. LIPSHULZ: We had just been discussing some
15 of the procedural aspects of the document production.
16 We have not withheld any documents, as privileged,
17 and it is misunderstanding that while Dr. Barkay has
18 not seen this document, perhaps, I think that she
19 went over the categories of documents with someone
20 from my office.
21 Q (By Mr. Sams) With that understanding, and
22 using this primarily to jog your memory, do you have
23 documents fitting the description of No. 4?
24 A Let me look at the language I need to --
25 Q Unfortunately, this is the language of lawyers
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
13
1 writing these.
2 A The answer is yes. I don't see the difference
3 between three and four that much.
4 Q Item 5, it may again be essentially the same
5 question.
6 A Yes.
7 Q Is it, in your mind?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And you have produced the documents that you
10 have?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Item 6?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Item 7?
15 A May I ask you a question? I assume that this
16 analysis, reports and data, that relates to my work. I have
17 reports that other people have written, that I didn't submit
18 to you. They are open to the public.
19 Q This is particularly with regard to Item 7?
20 A Yes. You see, like other people -- Dr.
21 Delfino, in Gainesville, have done work. I have his
22 reports. I didn't send them to you. I didn't think that
23 that is what you needed.
24 Q If you could identify for me, by memory at
25 least, the other items that you remember as fitting within
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
14
1 this category, but that were not provided.
2 A You know, basically I have had a lot of
3 documents that's part of my work to read, that helps me to
4 design my own work, which it gives me the information that I
5 need, which is written by other people -- that was written
6 by other people. Dr. Delfino's report is one of them. I
7 have a report from the Duke Wetland Center about the work
8 there. I have several enormous reports from the Water
9 Management District. It provides me with the background
10 information needed to do my work.
11 Q Have you maintained notes on those copies?
12 A Well, I usually am writing in the book, as I
13 read it, those things that are pertinent to me.
14 MR. SAMS: Why don't we go off the record a
15 second.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 MR. SAMS: Counsel for the United States has
18 indicated that in the category we have just been
19 discussing, that is, general works of the witness
20 that she has relied on, including those where she has
21 made specific annotations, that the U.S. is willing
22 to provide copies. The petitioners, at this point,
23 would simply state that there may be a need to have a
24 further deposition upon examination of those, but
25 that is by no means a foregone conclusion. It would
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
15
1 be necessary to see the notes to judge whether any
2 further questions are necessary.
3 MR. LIPSHULZ: So the record is clear, what
4 documents, specifically, are we talking about?
5 MR. SAMS: Apparently, there are a number of
6 documents specifically referencing the Everglades,
7 that the witness has maintained copies of, and I
8 guess it is those documents that we would like to get
9 copies. Obviously, if they are not copies on which
10 she has made notes and which are known to counsel for
11 the U.S. as being ones that we otherwise have, I
12 would be willing to accept that representation from
13 you, in lieu of obtaining a copy of the document. We
14 are not interested in copying everything that might
15 be in the witness's library.
16 MR. LIPSHULZ: We'll look into it.
17 Q (By Mr. Sams) Item No. 8, were there any
18 documents in your possession?
19 A I don't think so.
20 Q Item No. 9; maps, graphics and other
21 references.
22 A I don't think that I provided anything. As far
23 as I remember, I did not provide any maps.
24 Q Are there maps in your possession which reflect
25 where data were sampled?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
16
1 A Yes.
2 Q I think that is probably very critical to our
3 needs.
4 A It would be easier than the documents.
5 Q Can you indicate about how many maps, or what
6 volume you think we are talking about, Dr. Barkay?
7 A A map, I think one page, the map of the
8 sampling sites.
9 Q Would that be only one page related to only one
10 sampling incident?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Or are there any multiple sampling incidents?
13 A There were multiple sampling incidents, but I
14 think that the greater body of the information comes from
15 one place.
16 Q One map?
17 A Yes.
18 Q I guess what we would request there is if there
19 are additional maps reflecting additional information, we
20 would like those. I won't ask you for all of Item No. 10,
21 although was the one article that you provided us intended
22 to be responsive to that?
23 A Yes. It's truly the only one that I have.
24 It's the -- the analysis of the environmental samples is not
25 a major part of my work; hasn't been until recently.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
17
1 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record a second.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 MR. SAMS: Let the record reflect that Counsel
4 have discussed the provision of documents, and that
5 counsel for the U.S. has agreed to provide them by
6 expedited delivery as soon as possible, with a target
7 of, say, the middle of next week, and not to stand on
8 the close of discovery as any impediment to providing
9 those documents.
10 MR. LIPSHULZ: I believe that's accurate.
11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Dr. Barkay, during a period
12 beginning in 1991 did you perform work regarding the
13 methylation and demethylation of mercury in Everglades
14 soils?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Could you describe, in general, the nature of
17 that work?
18 A What we do is that we measure the potential of
19 the microorganisms in the soil to methylate inorganic
20 mercury and to degrade methylmercury.
21 Q I am going to show you a series of documents
22 that I will ask you to identify, and indicate for me, if you
23 will, how they relate, if they do, to that work.
24 A Okay.
25 MR. SAMS: The first one I'll ask the reporter
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
18
1 to mark as Exhibit No. 4.
2 (Memorandum, Subject: Region IV, was
3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
4 Exhibit No. 4, hereto attached.)
5 Q (By Mr. Sams) Does this document relate to
6 that work? It is actually a series of document.
7 A Yes.
8 MR. LIPSHULZ: You might want to flip through
9 to see what else is in there.
10 A Yes. The question was if I recognize it?
11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Yes, and do these documents
12 relate to that work?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Was this a proposal for authorization to
15 perform the work, that you have described?
16 A This was a proposal to do the work, yes.
17 Q Was that work funded in accordance with the
18 request?
19 A Let me check. It was funded at a lower rate
20 than the request.
21 Q What was the amount for which it was funded?
22 A As far as I remember, it was 50K.
23 Q I see in the last line of the cover sheet,
24 $50,000. Was that the funding?
25 A Yes; as far as I know. I am not usually part
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
19
1 of the financing of these things.
2 Q Turning to the third page in, is that an
3 accurate description of both the problem and the approach to
4 the problem that was undertaken?
5 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about the
6 Objectives and Description of Problem sections?
7 MR. SAMS: Right; followed by Approach,
8 Experimental Design and so on.
9 A I would say that it's a broader description
10 than what was actually done.
11 Q (By Mr. Sams) Which portion of work was not
12 actually done?
13 A I need to look at it. The part that was done
14 is the methylation and the demethylation work. It was done
15 only in soil samples, so far. We have not gotten to work
16 with water samples, and we have not done any volatilization
17 studies in South Florida.
18 Q I take it from the nature of your answer that
19 that is still true; that work only was done with soil
20 samples?
21 A That's right.
22 Q Not water or volatilization?
23 A That's right.
24 Q Has the work on methylation and demethylation
25 that was described in the document we just looked at,
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
20
1 Exhibit No. 4, has that work been completed?
2 A I need to read to see exactly what was
3 proposed.
4 MR. LIPSHULZ: Take all the time you want to to
5 read the document. It's perfectly okay.
6 A Okay. Could you follow with me in the
7 document?
8 Q (By Mr. Sams) Certainly.
9 A For Experimental Design, the mercury analysis,
10 we have analyzed mercury and speciated it in soil -- in some
11 soil samples. We have done total mercury analysis in water.
12 And the methods that were used are listed here pretty much.
13 We have done specific rates of mercury
14 methylation and methylmercury demethylation in several soil
15 samples; not in water samples.
16 As I mentioned, we have not done any mercury
17 volatilization rates. We have not gotten to it. Yes.
18 That's all.
19 Q You say you have measured total mercury in
20 water?
21 A Yes, we have.
22 Q What was the purpose of that part of the work?
23 A Just to get some background information about
24 the systems that we are working with. That's it.
25 Q Are the data from that work included in
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
21
1 documents you have furnished us?
2 A As far as I remember, I made a copy of it.
3 It's in a very -- it has not been included in any formal
4 presentation. It's a handwritten note, but I believe I made
5 a copy of it.
6 Q Have you formed any preliminary conclusions
7 about the systems that you're working with, based on the
8 total mercury in water that you have measured?
9 A I don't have the numbers in front of me, but as
10 far as I remember, they weren't any higher than what we
11 usually find in fresh water, which is a part per trillion
12 range.
13 Q When you say "what you usually find in fresh
14 waters," what is the range of data with which you are
15 familiar and on which you base that observation?
16 A I am familiar with what other people find in
17 other sites where such studies are performed; in the seepage
18 lake up in the north in Sweden; in some water reservoirs;
19 pretty much the background concentration of mercury in
20 natural waters. It's at about, I would say, anywhere below
21 picogram per liter to a few picogram per liter, which is a
22 part per trillion range.
23 Q From where did you obtain the mercury samples
24 in water, that you analyzed?
25 A We collected those samples at the Water
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
22
1 Conservation Area 2A where we do our soil work. We
2 collected the water at some of the same sites where we took
3 soils.
4 Q Did those sites include canal locations?
5 A No.
6 Q Marsh locations?
7 A Marsh.
8 Q Were they all marsh sites?
9 A Yes. That's within Water Conservation Area 2A.
10 Q Is that the only location -- that is, Water
11 Conservation Area 2A marsh sites -- from which you obtained
12 water samples and analyzed them for mercury?
13 A Yes.
14 Q I show you next a set of handwritten notes, and
15 ask you if you can identify those, Dr. Barkay?
16 A It's probably notes that I have taken -- I
17 recognize my handwriting -- during some meeting.
18 Q Is the date on these notes May 21, 1991?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Would that have been on or about the time that
21 you proposed to commence the methylation and demethylation
22 work in the Everglades?
23 A There is no way in the world that I could give
24 you a correct answer on that, because the way things work, I
25 have had the idea for a long time, and I have tried to
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
23
1 obtain funding in different places, and I don't recall when,
2 exactly, things started falling into place.
3 Q Do you recall when you initially obtained the
4 samples that you analyzed for methylation and demethylation?
5 A I know that the first set of samples I got was
6 done in July of 1991.
7 Q Do you recall who was present at the meeting or
8 conversation of which you took these notes?
9 A I know John Huckabee must have been there. I
10 have been to so many meetings regarding this, there is no
11 way for me to remember who was there.
12 Q Who was -- is it John or Joan Huckabee?
13 A John Huckabee from EPRI. I just see that I
14 took some notes that he -- he attended a lot of these
15 meetings.
16 Q Were these first set of comments attributable
17 to him?
18 A It must have been.
19 Q What was your purpose in meeting with EPRI on
20 this --
21 A I don't remember what meeting it was. I
22 really -- I can't say what it was. It's possible, you
23 know -- at first, when I looked at it, I saw it's notes that
24 I took during the meeting, but it's very possible that these
25 are notes that I took at my desk when I talked with John on
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
24
1 the phone.
2 Q Do you know who made the observation "too much
3 stress on atmospheric deposition"?
4 A Without considering other possible sources, I
5 don't know who made it. It could be either John made it, or
6 it could be my thoughts to what John said.
7 Q In other words, your paraphrasing of what he
8 said?
9 A Many times when I discuss things with people it
10 evokes a response in me, and I don't -- I can't say whether
11 that's what he said, or he said something that made me think
12 of this conclusion either one.
13 Q Did you discuss with Mr. Huckabee your proposed
14 methylation and demethylation studies?
15 A Probably. I don't recall specifically
16 discussing it with him, but I am sure I discussed this
17 project with him or other people at EPRI.
18 Q What was the purpose, if you know, of EPRI's
19 involvement?
20 A I don't even recall that there was any
21 involvement.
22 Q How did it happen that -- how did it come about
23 that you were discussing that work with them?
24 A I work with EPRI. EPRI does a lot of mercury
25 work. EPRI funded my Oak Ridge studies. I have very
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
25
1 routine interaction with EPRI people. Actually -- this
2 is -- it's really not John that I interact with that much.
3 Q What is the reference to either hydrology input
4 or, perhaps, absence of hydrology input? I can't tell
5 whether hydrology input falls under absence of or stands
6 alone as a topic.
7 A I don't remember what it relates to.
8 Q Do you remember what the phrase, conflict of
9 interest, related to?
10 A No, no. I think that these were taken during a
11 meeting that we had here with him in the lab in Gulf Breeze,
12 where John Huckabee and Don Procella came to visit us.
13 Q Dr. Porcella is also of EPRI?
14 A Yes. I remember -- I think that it could be.
15 Q Do you remember a discussion concerning
16 conflict of interest?
17 A No, I don't remember any details of what was
18 discussed or what my comments, here, related to. I'm sorry.
19 Q What kind of interest did EPRI express in the
20 methylation/demethylation project?
21 A They really didn't have any specific interest.
22 At that time the work in Florida was just getting organized
23 and they explored the possibility of -- they were looking
24 into how to carry out their work in South Florida. So
25 that's why they came here, to see if they could do it
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
26
1 through our lab. That, I think, was the purpose of the
2 visit.
3 Q Were you concerned about your lab having a
4 conflict of interest?
5 A I don't -- I don't remember what it was. If it
6 will come to me, I'll tell you, but I don't remember what it
7 was. Possibly -- I mean anything I say would be just a pure
8 guess.
9 Q Perhaps I could ask you, if you can, to recall
10 what led to the next note after conflict of interest?
11 A I think what the issue was, that they were
12 looking for a person to lead the effort in South Florida.
13 Based on experience in their big project in Wisconsin, they
14 had the experience that it is a good thing to have one
15 person who is the head of the project, and they were looking
16 for a person, and our lab couldn't come up with that person.
17 If you ask me now why it is that our lab never got to be
18 involved in the study in a big way, that's probably the
19 reason.
20 Q I don't think we have marked this as an
21 exhibit, have we?
22 (Handwritten notes dated May 21, 1991
23 were marked by the reporter as
24 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 5, hereto
25 attached.)
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
27
1 A I think, to be truthful, the conflict of
2 interest may have something to do with the fact that EPRI is
3 private industry and we are EPA. That could have been it.
4 I don't remember that as specifically to this comment, but
5 it's a general problem which we have to deal with in all our
6 work.
7 Q I notice below the line that appears on that
8 page, identification of ENP project. What is that a
9 reference to?
10 A That's Everglades National Park.
11 Q Was EPRI offering, potentially, to fund work
12 concerning the Everglades National Park work?
13 A No, they weren't offering. All they said was
14 they thought they would have money to support the work in
15 South Florida.
16 Q On the second page of the notes, I notice the
17 last phrase says, "wetlands mercury, Everglades, a site to
18 look at it." Do you recall what that --
19 A I don't recall anything, but I think it may be
20 it's a note that I wrote to myself based on the discussions
21 that was going on, that the Everglades could be a good site
22 to study this problem. That's all.
23 Q Are these notes all from the same time period,
24 or are they from a series of times?
25 A I believe that these notes are all from the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
28
1 meeting in -- maybe what's on the last page, at the bottom,
2 is something that I wrote for myself, following that
3 meeting.
4 Q Has EPRI funded any of your lab's work in
5 connection with mercury in the Everglades area?
6 A No.
7 Q Has any other private organization funded any
8 portion of your lab's work in connection with such work?
9 A No. I want also to say I don't know -- on the
10 last page, here, there is something that is my handwriting,
11 but does not -- it's not -- it's probably a copying error.
12 It's those numbers on the left.
13 Q They don't relate to the text.
14 A Yes. I believe probably the documents got
15 copied together.
16 Q Thank you for pointing that out. In the last
17 section of the final page of the notes, I see -- I will
18 point to my copy, if I may -- some notes that are difficult
19 to read. Can you read the notes that appear on the third
20 and fourth lines below the solid line separating the page?
21 A "What was shown in the Everglades regarding
22 phosphorus;" is that what you mean?
23 Q Yes.
24 A Water is provided from the management areas,
25 include rainfall and agricultural runoff, and there is a P
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
29
1 there to indicate that agricultural runoff may contain
2 phosphorus.
3 Q What is the last -- the reference in the last
4 two lines of the page?
5 A Ron's sampling sites.
6 Q Yes.
7 A "Is the high total phosphate site anaerobic.
8 We want to study anaerobic soils."
9 Q What is the content and meaning of that note?
10 A It's my mind working. It's a question that I
11 posed to myself regarding the samples that we got from Ron,
12 or at that time that we were planning to get from Ron.
13 Q Ron Jones?
14 A From Ron Jones.
15 Q Florida International?
16 A Yes, FIU. I just made a note to myself that I
17 should ask Ron about it.
18 Q Did you ultimately ask that question and
19 determine the answer?
20 A Yes. I determined the answer. I don't
21 remember if I asked him. As soon as I saw the sample I knew
22 the answer.
23 Q And what was that?
24 A It was anaerobic.
25 Q Let me ask you to examine another document,
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
30
1 which I'll ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 6.
2 (Document on United States Department
3 of the Interior letterhead was marked
4 by the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit
5 No. 6, hereto attached.)
6 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you recognize those
7 documents?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Is the work described in the scope of work
10 attached to the form, essentially the same work that was
11 already discussed when we talked about the prior exhibits?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Did this relate to getting Department of the
14 Interior Park Service approval for that work?
15 A No. I believe that was something else.
16 Q What was the purpose of this document?
17 A It was transferring the money to the
18 department, to the park.
19 Q What money was being transferred to the park?
20 A The $50,000 that we got from Region IV.
21 Q And it was being transferred to the park?
22 A Yes.
23 Q For what purpose?
24 A To pay for the work.
25 MR. SAMS: Mark as the next exhibit.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
31
1 (Document dated June 11, 1991 from
2 Robert E. Menzer to Scott McMoran, was
3 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
4 Exhibit No. 7, hereto attached.)
5 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you another document
6 which is marked as Exhibit No. 7, and ask you if that
7 relates to the same work?
8 A Yes.
9 Q What was the purpose of this set of documents?
10 A This is the setting up the agreement with the
11 Park Service. It was done through a mechanism called the
12 Interagency Agreement. The Interagency Agreement --
13 basically, I think that the previous exhibit was the actual
14 transfer of the money, where this was the administrative
15 arrangement.
16 Q Within that document there is a memo dated May
17 17, 1991.
18 A Yes.
19 Q From C. R. Cripe.
20 A Yes.
21 Q Is that someone who works at EPA Gulf Breeze?
22 A Yes.
23 Q I note in the second paragraph there is a brief
24 mention of the nature of the project, and then the second
25 sentence says, "a particular emphasis is placed on the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
32
1 possible relationships between environmental alterations and
2 a net production of methylmercury."
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you know what environmental alterations
5 meant in the context of the proposed work?
6 A I think what it probably meant was to -- see,
7 the underlying principle of our work is that the nutrient
8 enrichment, the eutrophication process has affected
9 production of methylmercury, and I believe that is what he
10 probably meant.
11 Q Do you know whether any other environmental
12 alteration was examined by the proposed work?
13 A No. I know that that was the only thing that
14 was examined.
15 Q Was any consideration given to involving other
16 environmental alterations such as, hydro period?
17 A Not in our project, no.
18 Q I would like to show you a document which I'll
19 ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 8, and ask if you
20 can recognize that document, please. I realize that it's a
21 bad copy, but actually, we received it that way.
22 (General Description of Project was
23 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
24 Exhibit No. 8, hereto attached.)
25 A Yes. That's, again, just a general description
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
33
1 of the project.
2 Q I notice in the third paragraph, the middle
3 sentence says, "preliminary assays showed a greater
4 potential --"
5 A Just a second.
6 Q Third paragraph.
7 A Okay.
8 Q Middle sentence says, "Preliminary assays
9 showed a greater potential for methylation and eutrophic
10 anaerobic, as compared to aerobic sediments from the
11 Everglades."
12 A Yes.
13 Q What are the preliminary assays being referred
14 to there?
15 A They refer to three samples that were sent to
16 me in July of 1991 by Ron Jones, and the samples -- there
17 were three samples. One was from a highly eutrophied soil.
18 One was from an intermediate -- that is, it was a sample
19 from an area that was going through the eutrophication
20 process. And the third was a controlled soil from
21 unimpacted area.
22 Q Who identified those three soils so as to
23 characterize them that way?
24 A Ron did.
25 Q Did he provide you with data showing the basis
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
34
1 on which he characterized those soils?
2 A No.
3 Q Do you know if he had tested those soils?
4 A I don't know.
5 Q Do you know the locations from which those
6 soils were obtained?
7 A No. I could guess, based on the way he labeled
8 them.
9 Q How were they labeled?
10 A I don't remember how they were labeled, but
11 from the ways that they labeled them, by looking at the map
12 of the hydrological system down there, I figure that they
13 came from area that is just on the northern boundary of the
14 park. The marking corresponded to some designation of
15 structures. There was, I believe, a sample that was marked
16 S12, but I have no confirmation that that is, indeed, from
17 where they came from.
18 Q How did you identify from preliminary assays,
19 the greater potential for methylation?
20 A I remember that -- I think the numbers must be
21 there somewhere, but when we provided the samples with
22 inorganic mercury, the samples that were eutrophied produced
23 much more methylmercury than others.
24 Q Were those samples taken from marsh locations,
25 if you know?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
35
1 A I don't have any idea.
2 Q Do you know whether they were taken from within
3 canals or --
4 A They were highly organic.
5 Q What does that suggest to you?
6 A It could have been bottom of the canal. It
7 could be wetland. I'm not familiar with that area. I
8 don't --
9 Q Do you know what depth he took them from?
10 A I have no idea.
11 Q I will show you the next document, which I'll
12 ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 9.
13 (Document entitled "An Investigation
14 on the Contribution of Naturally
15 Occurring Mercury to the Mercury
16 Contamination in the Florida
17 Everglades" was marked by the reporter
18 as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 9, hereto
19 attached.)
20 Q (By Mr. Sams) And I will ask you whether those
21 numbers that are on the third page relate to these samples?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Is this report the only written report that you
24 issued on those three soil samples?
25 A No.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
36
1 Q Are those three soil samples the basis for the
2 numbers on the third page?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Are any other samples involved in arriving at
5 those numbers?
6 A No.
7 Q I notice on the third page in the paragraph
8 below the table, which starts "most strikingly," that it
9 says a methylation/demethylation ratio could not be
10 determined for the pristine sample. Was it your conclusion
11 that there was not methylation occurring in the pristine
12 sample?
13 A I'm not sure what is written here, but I take
14 it to mean that it was below the level that we could detect.
15 Q What was the level of detection for the
16 sampling techniques you were using?
17 A I don't remember. I mean it's something that
18 can be figured out but --
19 Q What preliminary conclusions did you reach
20 based on this work?
21 A That there could be something in our hypothesis
22 regarding stimulation of the formation of methylmercury in
23 eutrophied soils.
24 Q I take it that was a preliminary conclusion
25 supporting the continued work with the hypothesis?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
37
1 A That's right. Three samples is just --
2 Q Are three samples incapable of forming a final
3 conclusion?
4 A No. I mean I'm even embarrassed to say it was
5 enough to form preliminary suggestions.
6 Q Did you arrive at any other preliminary
7 conclusions based --
8 A Based on these three samples?
9 Q Yes.
10 A I don't think so.
11 Q Did you form any impression of whether
12 methylation or demethylation was dominant in nutrient
13 enriched soils, based on this work?
14 A Well, obviously if you look at the number, you
15 can see that the eutrophication has also enriched the
16 breakdown, increased the breakdown of methylmercury. I
17 think that both are just a result of a more active microbial
18 community. I think one of the things that we -- I don't
19 know if we wrote it down, here, but one of the ideas that
20 came out from looking at these three samples, that possibly
21 the increasing methylmercury formation was a transitory
22 event; that is, as a sample is eutrophied there is an
23 increase in methylation, but later on, as the process of
24 eutrophication continues, the degrading organisms take over
25 and break down more methylmercury. That's a scientific
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
38
1 point. I don't know if it's of interest to you.
2 Q How would you define transience for me, in the
3 sense that you just articulated?
4 A As an ecosystem going through the process of
5 eutrophication, there would be a period of time when we have
6 an increase in methylation, and there will also be an
7 increase in demethylation, but the increase in methylation
8 is more pronounced. And as time goes on, the demethylators
9 will keep on increasing, and the methylators don't increase
10 that much anymore. So the net result is that there is less
11 methylmercury in the environment.
12 If you think about methylmercury, the amount of
13 methylmercury that we find in a sample is always the result
14 of its formation and of its degradation, and that's what
15 comes into play here.
16 Q Might it, with sufficient research, be possible
17 to define a time dimension or a phosphorus concentration
18 dimension of that transience, so that one could gauge the
19 extent over a broad environment?
20 A Yes. If we look at the reservoir studies,
21 which is basically where eutrophication was connected to
22 methylmercury formation, in those reservoirs, after
23 approximately 30 years, people start seeing declining
24 methylmercury. The idea is that as the amount of oxidizable
25 organic matter is being depleted, the effect on microbial
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
39
1 activities is being alleviated or reduced.
2 Q What microbes are primary in this function?
3 A We don't really know that -- we really don't
4 know. I would say that in environments with high salt
5 concentrations, it is definitely done by organisms which
6 reduce sulfate. There is some evidence that this is also
7 the case in fresh water environment. There is absolutely no
8 idea what organisms are involved, specifically in South
9 Florida.
10 Q When you referred to the work concerning
11 northern reservoirs that you are familiar with, were you
12 suggesting that we know that 30 years would be the period
13 in, say, the Everglades, over which demethylation might
14 outweigh methylation?
15 A No, not at all. There is no way of knowing
16 that.
17 Q Is the manner and the extent to which
18 methylation might outweigh demethylation, or vice versa,
19 something that's capable of being studied in the short term
20 within the Everglades?
21 MR. LIPSHULZ: Object to form. I don't know
22 what you mean by short term.
23 Q (By Mr. Sams) Of a few years or even a shorter
24 period than that.
25 A Do you mean in terms for how long this --
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
40
1 Q I'm really asking in regard to the nutrient
2 enrichment problem that has been identified. Is it possible
3 to study that problem with whatever are the known parameters
4 of it, and attempt to assess whether methylation is
5 outweighing demethylation, or vice versa, as a result of
6 that enrichment?
7 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about in South
8 Florida, as a whole?
9 Q (By Mr. Sams) In the Everglades.
10 A You're not specifically asking me if we can do
11 short-term experiments to find out for how long this is
12 going to affect the system.
13 Q No. I'm really asking do we know at present
14 whether --
15 A Those studies can be done within a much shorter
16 period of time, a few years time, I think; two or three
17 years. I'm afraid to say -- like with research, you never
18 get things done as fast as you say you would, but I would
19 say that clear answers can be obtained in a framework of a
20 few years, easily.
21 Q Are you familiar with the concept of storm
22 water treatment areas?
23 A Very superficially.
24 Q Do you understand the concept of having
25 artificial marsh-like areas created in formerly farmed
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
41
1 lands?
2 A Yes.
3 Q And through that, storm water would be passed
4 prior to exiting the Everglades agricultural area. Are you
5 familiar with that concept, in general?
6 A Yes, very little; but I know what you are
7 talking about.
8 Q It may be sufficient for purposes of my next
9 question.
10 A I read the things that the Water Management
11 District puts out a few weeks ago about it.
12 Q Would the same length of time, say, two or
13 three years, be necessary to study whether the methylation
14 or the demethylation of mercury would be more likely to
15 occur in those areas?
16 MR. LIPSHULZ: I object to the form.
17 Q (By Mr. Sams) You can go ahead and answer.
18 The areas I'm referring to are the storm water treatment
19 areas.
20 A That depends on how long the eutrophication
21 process takes, and I don't know how long that takes.
22 Q Would the degree of flooding be a factor to
23 consider there, also?
24 A You mean the amount of water going through the
25 system.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
42
1 Q Yes; and more particularly, however, the
2 maintained water level within those systems.
3 A I would say the water level, I am not sure in
4 terms of depth. That, I'm not sure. What's going to be
5 important, though, is how fast, for how long the water is
6 retained in the system.
7 Q Why will that be important?
8 A It's simply a matter of dilution.
9 Q Dilution of what?
10 A We think -- we have quite a bit of evidence
11 that most of the methylation activity is in the water
12 sediment interface. So if the water stays longer over a
13 given surface of sediment, there is more -- there is a
14 higher concentration of mercury that has the time to invade
15 the sediment into the water.
16 I would like to say here, it's very important,
17 that these things have been studied elsewhere, and we don't
18 know -- in the South Florida systems there may be some
19 special conditions which may modify these rules. But what
20 we know from aquatic systems, in general, is that
21 methylation occur in the water sediment interface, or very,
22 very proximal to it. So you see -- do you understand what I
23 am saying?
24 Q Yes. I'm with you so far. I am just thinking
25 of my next question. To help me understand that, how would
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
43
1 you contrast that with similar soils where the water level
2 is allowed to rise and to fall periodically, and in general,
3 not to exist above the soil surface -- that is, the water
4 level not above the soil surface for long periods of time?
5 A You mean there are periods of dryness?
6 Q Yes.
7 A I think that here, we may have an added effect
8 of washing.
9 Q Is there the same effect of methylation at the
10 water/soil interface, regardless of whether the water level
11 is higher or the soil surface is above the water level?
12 A I believe that with the temperature that we
13 have in South Florida, exposure to soil is probably not very
14 active in anything. You see, if you have the water going
15 down below the surface it means that it's -- that the
16 surface of the soil is left to dry. With the temperature in
17 South Florida there's probably very little microbial
18 activity there at all, but it needs to be looked at because
19 we have organisms called thermophiles, and they may be
20 active.
21 Q What is --
22 A They are microorganisms that are specifically
23 adjusted to living in high temperatures. It needs to be
24 looked at.
25 (Handwritten notes were marked by the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
44
1 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
2 10, hereto attached.)
3 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you the next
4 Exhibit, No. 10, and ask you if you recognize those notes?
5 A Yes.
6 Q I notice near the bottom, reference to
7 quantitation and speciation of mercury, parentheses, I
8 suppose, R. Jones. Do you recall what that reference is to?
9 A I believe that we were talking about the
10 different analyses that were needed to do our work, and the
11 mercury analysis is important. And what it means is that we
12 were relying on Ron Jones to do these assays.
13 Q Did he have the capability, the laboratory
14 capability to analyze mercury in January of 1992?
15 A I don't know, but I know that he was working on
16 it.
17 Q Working on mercury or working on developing the
18 laboratory?
19 A That he was developing the laboratory.
20 Q At that point in time, early 1992, was it your
21 understanding that he would have that responsibility?
22 A Yes.
23 MR. SAMS: Mark at Exhibit No. 11.
24 (Handwritten notes dated 1/24/92 was
25 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
45
1 Exhibit No. 11, hereto attached.)
2 Q (By Mr. Sams) I show you next Exhibit No. 11,
3 and ask if you could refer to this portion of the page. I
4 assume this was a meeting at Everglades National Park, was
5 it?
6 A Yes; that's right.
7 Q What did that meeting involve?
8 A It involved the people that are listed at the
9 top, and we were doing it to get the work coordinated and
10 started.
11 Q In the reference to Ron facilities, what does
12 it mean, PS analytical?
13 A It means that it's a certain instrumentation to
14 analyze mercury, and I believe that as we were discussing
15 it, he was telling us that is what he was setting up in his
16 lab.
17 Q What is the reference to "question" following
18 that notation, if you can recall?
19 A I don't specifically recall what that was at
20 that time. I know I remember being concerned that the
21 specific instrument wasn't going to be -- to have the
22 sensitivity needed for the analysis that was needed.
23 Q Do you know whether that's the instrument that
24 he ultimately obtained?
25 A I don't know.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
46
1 Q What instrument was it that was the topic of
2 the discussion?
3 A It's a spectral photometric device. We have
4 since purchased it ourselves, so we use it now. You asked
5 me how it works?
6 Q Has it been satisfactory to do the type of
7 work?
8 A It is satisfactory for soil. It does not have
9 the sensitivity to do water; not in our hands. It may be
10 that he was able to get better performance.
11 Q What was the reference to "clean lab" just
12 below that reference?
13 A I think that he was preparing a clean lab, and
14 you must know what that means.
15 Q Do you know anyone else in the United States
16 who has been able to get the necessary level of performance
17 from the machine in question, or the equipment in question?
18 A I don't know, but analytical chemistry is my
19 very weak part. So I know Ron is a whiz with instruments,
20 and it's likely that he could improve on what the company
21 provides.
22 Q Was the meeting at the Everglades National Park
23 prior to actual sampling in the field?
24 A This was at the time when I got the people to
25 work on this project here, and that was after the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
47
1 preliminary work which we discussed, was done, and it was in
2 preparation for sampling.
3 Q I show you the next document which the reporter
4 will mark Exhibit No. 12, and ask if you can identify that
5 document, please?
6 (Letter dated 2/18/93 to Dr. Mike
7 Soukup was marked by the reporter as
8 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 12, hereto
9 attached.)
10 A Yes, I wrote it.
11 Q (By Mr. Sams) You wrote this document?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Was this following the field work?
14 A Yes; some field work. I would say that was
15 following the work that was done with Ron Jones.
16 Q You mean the three samples?
17 A The three samples, and there were a few more
18 samples that came later on. You will see on the table,
19 there were two sets of samples which we received in the
20 summer of -- one set of samples which we received in the
21 summer of '92.
22 Q Did you split those samples for purposes of
23 this analysis?
24 A What do you mean by split?
25 Q I see on the table the notations Summer 1992,
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
48
1 beside S12D and S12C.
2 A Yes.
3 Q And then again --
4 A If you look at incubation temperature, you will
5 see that the same samples from the summer of '92 were
6 incubated at two different temperatures.
7 Q Did you do the same work on these samples that
8 you had done on the ones from the summer of 1991?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Was that the same basic dosing experiment?
11 A Yes.
12 Q And --
13 A By the way, you asked me about limit of
14 detection. Those numbers which are marked here are less
15 than those of the limit of detection.
16 Q Thank you. Were these results consistent with
17 your first set of results from the summer of 1991?
18 A Somewhat.
19 Q To what extent did they differ?
20 A I think you can see that the limit of detection
21 was much higher. We didn't get the same sensitivity. But
22 nevertheless, the sample S12D, I'm not sure if it's -- S12D
23 is a highly enriched one. We got some methylation activity,
24 whereas, the other samples did not. I mean we couldn't
25 detect any methylmercury formation.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
49
1 Q What do the columns mean that say percent
2 methylated and percent demethylated?
3 A That's a percent of the substrate that we added
4 to the sample.
5 Q Are the critical factors the rate of
6 methylation and the rate of demethylation?
7 A Not in the way that these experiments are done.
8 Q What are the critical factors here?
9 A The critical factor is in the comparison
10 between different samples.
11 Q And?
12 A That is, if you had M to D higher in the
13 samples, it had more phosphorus than in the sample that had
14 less phosphorus. That's what tells you something.
15 Q What does that tell you?
16 A That tells you that there is a potential for --
17 that the potential for accumulation of methylmercury is
18 higher in the sample that contains more phosphorus.
19 Q Is that possible to make that comparison with
20 any of the 1992 sampling?
21 A You mean 1992 and 1991?
22 Q Well, I meant 1992 versus 1991. It appears to
23 me that you have methylation to demethylation ratio for each
24 in 1991, but it appears that that is not the case for 1992.
25 A Because two of the samples, the methylation
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
50
1 activity was below the level of detection. The only thing
2 you can say for the date of 1992 was that the most
3 eutrophied sample methylated enough to seed the others were
4 below limit of detection. It is not a very strong argument
5 if you consider that the difference between that sample that
6 have active, which is S12D, was only about seven times
7 higher than the limit of detection. So it is weak.
8 Q You say "not a strong argument." Would it need
9 to be, say, an order of magnitude greater to call it strong?
10 A Yes. Look at the data for '91. See, we are
11 talking about a difference here of a factor of thousand,
12 between 0.008 to 9.
13 Q Show me where I should look.
14 A If you look here, see; if you compare these
15 two.
16 Q So you are comparing the third line, the
17 control, or what Dr. Jones said was the unaffected
18 environment, or the unenriched environment.
19 A I compare my limit of detection. Where I
20 don't -- where we don't see activity, we don't call this
21 zero. We say that it is less than our limit of detection,
22 so that's what I compare it to.
23 Q Did anything occur during the experiment with
24 the 1992 soil samples to cause you to alter your preliminary
25 conclusions that you had reached from the 1991 samples?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
51
1 A No.
2 MR. SAMS: I will show you next a document
3 which I'll ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit
4 No. 13.
5 (Document entitled Methylation and
6 Demethylation Processes in Soil
7 Sediments from the Florida Everglades,
8 was marked by the reporter as
9 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 13, hereto
10 attached.)
11 Q (By Mr. Sams) It appears to be a paper
12 entitled Methylation and Demethylation Processes In Soil
13 Sediments from the Florida Everglades by Kavanaugh and
14 Barkay. Do you recognize this document?
15 A Yes.
16 Q When was this document written? Was it written
17 following the 1991 or the 1992 samples, or at some other
18 point?
19 A It was written following the 1992 samples.
20 Actually, I believe that this is -- this is just a more
21 extended version of Exhibit No. 12, so this is dated
22 February of '93. This must have come out about the same
23 time.
24 Q On Page 7 in the table, I see a reference to an
25 estuarine sediment sample.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
52
1 A Yes.
2 Q What is that reference?
3 A This was a control sample that we included
4 because activities of the samples from the Everglades was so
5 low, so we wanted to include a sample that we knew had high
6 activity so we could just be confident that our assays were
7 working.
8 Q So this was an attempt to test your method; not
9 to --
10 A That's right.
11 Q Not to take a soil that was analogous to the
12 Everglades?
13 A That's right. It's what you call a positive
14 control.
15 Q Did you determine through the use of the
16 positive control that the assays were working?
17 A Yes.
18 Q If I can refer you to Table 5 -- first, Table 4
19 and then Table 5. What is being illustrated by those
20 tables?
21 MR. LIPSHULZ: Are you talking about Table 4 in
22 this case, or both 4 and 5?
23 Q (By Mr. Sams) I was referring to both 4 and 5.
24 They appear to differ in temperature, the 20 degrees and 30
25 degrees centigrade that I think you made a distinction about
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
53
1 earlier.
2 A Yes. So your question is what they mean?
3 Q Yes.
4 A I'm not sure. See, with biological activities,
5 you normally expect an increase in activity with
6 temperature, which is -- with pure enzyme systems you double
7 the rate with every 10 degrees of increase in temperature.
8 I think that this was an attempt to see the effect of
9 temperature on the methylation activity. You can see that
10 we, indeed, got an increase in activity with an increase of
11 10 degrees in temperature. It wasn't exactly a factor of
12 two, but there was an increase.
13 You can't expect a mixed system like this to
14 behave like a pure enzyme. That is not the way it's going
15 to happen.
16 Q But in general, the increase in temperature did
17 produce roughly the kind of effect that you would have
18 predicted?
19 A Yes. With the S12D, which is the most
20 contaminated sample, we got a little over doubling the rate,
21 if you can call it rate. And the same for all samples.
22 S12C, it was a little more than doubled, and the control
23 sample increased by a factor of three.
24 Q I would like to refer you to Page 11, the
25 second paragraph, or the paragraph at the bottom of the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
54
1 page. The fourth sentence reads, "The demethylation rate
2 was almost twice as high in sediment samples containing a
3 high concentration of phosphorus (impacted site 12D)
4 compared to either sediments with an intermediate
5 concentration (S12C) or control samples."
6 Does that -- what does that mean, to use my
7 layman's form of question?
8 A Well, it means that -- I mentioned that before,
9 that what happens when you have eutrophication, you have an
10 enrichment in organisms that degrade organic matter. That's
11 the meaning of eutrophication. And apparently, when you
12 enrich with those organisms, you also enrich for the ability
13 to demethylate mercury. The same is true for methylation,
14 or so it seems to be, or maybe.
15 Q At the top of the next page is a statement,
16 "From the results obtained so far, using the above
17 experimental method, demethylation rates in sediment are
18 higher than methylation rates. This should result in no net
19 methylmercury accumulation."
20 What is the basis for that statement?
21 A It's wrong.
22 Q It is wrong?
23 A I believe that Mrs. Kavanaugh -- Dr. Kavanaugh,
24 who was working on this project, put this sentence in. It
25 does not -- I'm responsible for this document, because my
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
55
1 name is on it. However, those assays that we do, do not
2 tell you anything about what happens in the soil in terms of
3 the rates. The rates that we observed here are irrelevant
4 to the rates of these processes as they occur in the soil;
5 therefore, this conclusion is wrong.
6 Q That's because this was a dosing experiment
7 rather than an in situ?
8 A Rather than tracer amount.
9 Q Tracer amount?
10 A See, we flooded the system with our substrates.
11 That's why I keep referring to the potential rates. These
12 are not real rates.
13 Q Could you look at the conclusions which begin
14 on that page, and tell me whether you are in agreement with
15 each one of them. I believe there are five enumerated. If
16 you would just take them conclusion by conclusion.
17 A Okay. The first one actually says what I just
18 tried to explain. You see it says, amount of added mercury,
19 and that is true. Let me see the number before I say it is
20 true. Okay. If we look at Table 3, amount methylated for
21 sampling No. 1, I assume it's S12D. I don't know that.
22 Yes. That's D. So in 10 milliliter we had 7.1 nanogram of
23 methylmercury form and 20 degrees -- I'm sorry -- we had 24
24 in 20 milliliter, so that's slightly higher demethylated.
25 Q In which instance?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
56
1 A We look on Table 3, Samples 1, 2, 3, S12D
2 samples, the most eutrophied samples, three replicates of
3 these samples, the mean was 7.1, but this was for 10
4 milliliter of sample. And I compare it with Table No. 4,
5 which is demethylation at 20 degrees. For S12D, we have
6 24.33 in 20 milliliters. So if I multiply 7 by 2, I get 14,
7 yes. So that statement is true for S12D. I don't see
8 numbers here -- okay.
9 For S12C in the control, we had no methylation
10 at all. This is on only the 1992 samples, so that that is
11 true then.
12 Q What about the second conclusion?
13 (Recess)
14 THE WITNESS: I just want to say that this
15 document is a draft document which was later on
16 modified. I do not agree with a lot of what's in
17 there, in this document.
18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you disagree with the data
19 that's in the document?
20 A No, but some of the conclusions and the
21 statements, I don't agree. I think that as we discussed I
22 made it -- I made it clear. Where you asked me about
23 specific points, I made it clear where I agreed and where I
24 did not agree. I don't have any problem with those
25 statements.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
57
1 Q Returning to the conclusions, I think we had
2 covered the first conclusion.
3 A Yes.
4 Q Do you agree with the second one?
5 A Let me read it carefully. I agree with the
6 first sentence. I disagree with the second.
7 Q Why do you disagree with the second sentence?
8 A Because we cannot conclude, based on this data,
9 that the phosphorus concentration in the sediment did not
10 affect methylation. First of all, we didn't have
11 measurement of the phosphorus concentration in the sediment.
12 And second of all, the fact that with these three samples,
13 the data -- there is no data to support it.
14 Q All right.
15 A First, because we didn't have numbers for
16 phosphorus concentration; second of all, we had one sample
17 that we think had more phosphorus based on information
18 provided by Ron Jones. And in this sample we saw
19 methylation, where in the other two, we didn't. So the data
20 certainly does not support the statement that phosphorus
21 does not affect methylation.
22 Q It seems to say phosphorus concentration in the
23 sediment does seem to affect --
24 A Okay.
25 Q Were you misreading it?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
58
1 A I was misreading it. But even reading it
2 correctly, still, I don't --
3 Q You don't think it's sufficient to form a
4 conclusion?
5 A That's right. I'm sorry.
6 Q Conclusion No. 3.
7 A Yes, I agree with that, and I agree with 4.
8 Q Conclusion 5?
9 A Yes.
10 Q I will show you another version of this
11 document, on which there are handwritten comments, and I'll
12 ask the reporter to mark that as Exhibit Number 14.
13 (Document entitled Methylation and
14 Demethylation in Soil Sediments from
15 the Florida Everglades was marked by
16 the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit
17 No. 14, hereto attached.)
18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Are those your handwritten
19 notes?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Are these corrections which you made to the
22 previous document, which was Exhibit 13?
23 A I believe so, yes.
24 Q Are these changes which you found necessary for
25 the document to be accurate?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
59
1 A These changes are those that I found necessary.
2 I'm not sure that after the changes the document is
3 accurate. I would have to read it to really answer that.
4 Q Was the document ever retyped taking into
5 account these changes?
6 A I have a very vague recollection of what
7 happened, but I seem to remember that we did; that it was
8 retyped. And as far as I remember, what happened was that
9 the document was prepared by Dr. Kavanaugh, the document
10 which is exhibit No. 13. I then went through it and
11 corrected it. I also have some recollection that we added
12 the data from '91, which is not included in either one of
13 these, and sent that out.
14 I believe that Dr. Kavanaugh, on her own, sent
15 the first version to Jerry Stober. But as far as I know,
16 the corrected version is what went out to other people.
17 Q Would you have a copy of the corrected version
18 among your papers?
19 A Apparently, if you didn't get it, I didn't have
20 it in my files. I may have it on a disk.
21 MR. SAMS: Could we ask you to try to produce
22 that corrected version or the disk? We'll accept it
23 in either form. I think the instructions on the
24 Notice to Produce probably so indicated. But in any
25 event, if there does exist a corrected version, I
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
60
1 would like to get it on the same timetable as the
2 other documents we discussed earlier.
3 MR. LIPSHULZ: Okay.
4 Q (By Mr. Sams) Dr. Barkay, on Page 11, near the
5 top, there is what appears to be an incomplete reference
6 following the sentence which reads, "Therefore, the toxic
7 effect of added mercury is difficult to determine." There
8 appears the marginal notation, "However, others, Gilmore and
9 Henry, 1991, have," and then it doesn't include the thought.
10 Do you recall what the thought was in case we have
11 difficulty locating the final version?
12 A Let me read this. What happened here, I
13 started correcting the document by hand and then I continued
14 on the computer. I'm guessing. It relates to the fact that
15 possibly, by adding as much mercury as we added, we
16 inhibited activity. And probably in that paper by Gilmore
17 and Henry, they used a much higher concentration of mercury
18 and they didn't see any inhibition. That might -- that's
19 the way my logic works.
20 Q You just don't have a specific recollection?
21 A That's right.
22 Q Did you make a proposal for further mercury
23 research in the Everglades during 1992?
24 A I am not sure. I think we tried to obtain
25 continuous support from Region IV.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
61
1 Q Were you successful in obtaining that support?
2 A No.
3 Q What reason was given you for the failure of
4 Region IV to support?
5 A They just decided to support something else.
6 Q Let me show you a document that I would ask you
7 if you recognize, dated January 30, 1993 to Dr. Stober?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Were you one of the authors of that document?
10 A Yes.
11 MR. SAMS: I will ask the reporter to mark that
12 as Exhibit No. 15.
13 (Letter dated January 30, 1993 to Dr.
14 Jerry Stober, was marked by the
15 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
16 15, hereto attached.)
17 Q (By Mr. Sams) Was this a set of comments
18 following a meeting in Tallahassee on the draft interagency
19 plan of study, of which Dr. Stober was one of the authors?
20 A This was, I believe, a response to a document
21 that we were asked to review; the document that was written
22 by Dr. Stober.
23 Q If I could refer you to the third paragraph.
24 A Yes.
25 Q What was the suggestion being made there? It
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
62
1 may be more than one suggestion.
2 A I think that this was just a comment that we
3 made to what we thought he should add to his proposal, I
4 believe.
5 Q Was it a suggestion that hydrological regimes
6 needed to be studied in addressing changes in the
7 Everglades?
8 A Yes.
9 Q That may affect the dynamics of mercury
10 species?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Why were you suggesting to include hydrological
13 regimes?
14 A Probably because we thought that it could
15 possibly have some effect on mercury accumulation. I don't
16 think that it had been brought up by other people many times
17 before.
18 Q Do you know whether ultimately the study that
19 grew out of Dr. Stober's effort proposes to include the
20 effects of hydrological regimes?
21 A I don't know.
22 Q On the second page of the letter, under the
23 paragraph referring to Section 7.4.2 and 7.5.2, I see
24 references to methylation by humic substances and by
25 photochemical transformations as ones you were suggesting.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
63
1 A Yes.
2 Q What was the basis for those suggestions?
3 A The basis is there is documentation in the
4 literature that these processes form methylmercury from
5 inorganic mercury.
6 Q Did you have reason to suspect that those might
7 be effective processes in the Everglades?
8 A Do we have a reason?
9 Q Yes.
10 A I think that because of the high concentration
11 of organic matter and probably humic material, it's
12 something that ought to be looked at.
13 Q What about photochemical transformations?
14 A Are you asking me what I feel about it?
15 Q Yes. Would they be significant in the
16 Everglades?
17 A I don't know. It's something that has
18 really -- well --
19 Q Go ahead.
20 A It has been shown in a test tube type
21 situation. I don't know how much it really -- the
22 environmental effect, I don't know.
23 Q Have you done additional work in connection
24 with the Duke Wetland Center's study transects in WCA 2A?
25 A Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
64
1 Q How did that opportunity arise? Did you
2 request that opportunity?
3 A No. I initiated it.
4 Q By contacting the Duke Wetland Center?
5 A Yes; by contacting Curt Richardson.
6 Q What was your purpose in doing so?
7 A To do my work.
8 Q When did you make that contact?
9 A Last -- late spring or early summer.
10 Q Had anyone asked you to make that contact?
11 A No.
12 Q I will show you a copy of a letter
13 that appears to be from you to Bob Johnson dated July 27,
14 1993.
15 A Yes.
16 Q Is that in reference to the work we are talking
17 about now?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Just so that I can orient myself, during the
20 latter half of 1993 was there any continuation of the work
21 that you had done during 1991 and 1992 concerning cores?
22 A No.
23 Q So this was a separate effort?
24 A Well, it depends on what you call a
25 continuation. Basically, this was a continuation.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
65
1 Q You saw this as a continuation of that same
2 inquiry?
3 A That's right.
4 Q Did you obtain any more cores following the
5 summer 1992 cores from Dr. Jones?
6 A No.
7 Q Did you obtain them from any other source
8 except the study in WCA 2A?
9 A No. In November of 1993, I, myself, went to
10 the western part of the Everglades and collected some
11 samples.
12 Q Was that the Fakahatchee Strand?
13 A Yes.
14 (Letter dated July 27, 1993 to Bob
15 Johnson was marked by the reporter as
16 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 16, hereto
17 attached.)
18 Q (By Mr. Sams) Does this description accurately
19 portray the work that you ultimately did?
20 A Let me see. We did nutrient analysis, not as
21 it is detailed here, but we got total nitrogen, and we got
22 total phosphorus, and we got total carbon; in retrospect,
23 that's what we really needed at the stage of study, rather
24 than what's listed here. We didn't get any physical
25 chemical parameters. As you will notice when you read
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
66
1 through it, it just -- these are all suggestions. And I
2 wrote these for the purpose of getting a response from Bob,
3 who is operating the sampling equipment.
4 Q When you say you got total nitrogen, total
5 phosphorus and total carbon, are those data you received
6 from Duke?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Those were the only data you received from Duke
9 on nutrients?
10 A That's right; and total hydrogen. Okay. Now,
11 we did total mercury and methylmercury in this specific
12 sampling. In the August sampling we did it only in
13 sediments. Something went wrong with the water sampling, so
14 we got this.
15 Q Who did the sediment analyses for you?
16 A It was done by Erwan Saouter, in my lab. We
17 did, again, microbial activity, as listed here, by the
18 mineralization of glucose, and we did mercury specific
19 microbial activities.
20 Q Did you do any other work in addition to what
21 is listed here?
22 A No.
23 Q I would like to show you a set of notes and ask
24 if those are your notes?
25 A Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
67
1 (Handwritten notes dated 8/17/93, were
2 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
3 Exhibit No. 17, hereto attached.)
4 Q (By Mr. Sams) Were they taken in connection
5 with the WCA 2A sampling?
6 A Yes.
7 Q I see on the first page of notes, dated August
8 17, '93, the statement that two sites were reached, C6
9 unenriched, and 4C, intermediate degree of eutrophication.
10 A It's C4, actually.
11 Q I said it backwards.
12 A No, I wrote it backwards.
13 Q According to whose numbering system?
14 A Duke's.
15 Q And who identified that for you, that C6 was
16 unenriched?
17 A The background information that I have of
18 nutrient measurements in the soil indicates so, and the Duke
19 people that were there, also.
20 Q Is the same answer true for C4 regarding the
21 identification of the intermediate degree of eutrophication?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Do you recall the phosphorus levels -- or let
24 me ask it this way to shorten this exercise. Were those
25 listed among the documents that you provided us?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
68
1 A Yes.
2 Q How many sample sites were there from which you
3 collected samples?
4 A In August?
5 Q During this study.
6 A I think we did four sites, but one site, 4C, or
7 C4, we took a sample from both the sawgrass bed and from the
8 slough. So if you look through the data later on, you will
9 see that C4 slough.
10 Q Were all the samples collected during August of
11 1993?
12 A What do you mean by all?
13 Q All of the ones in connection with the work on
14 WCA 2A transects?
15 A No. There was another sampling in December.
16 Q In December.
17 A Yes.
18 Q Was that done at the same four sites?
19 A It was done along the same transect. In
20 addition, we also took samples from transect A. You have to
21 know that sampling depends on your ability to get to the
22 sites, so possibly there were sites we couldn't get to in
23 August that we could in December, and vice versa. So I
24 can't say for sure that it was exactly the same sites. We
25 do the best we can.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
69
1 Q On the bottom of the second page of these
2 notes, which happens the bear the date August 23, 1993, I
3 will show you my copy where I have marked it. I see this
4 statement, "water samples were collected at Gate C, which is
5 the inlet to the area, and at the outlet gate; thus, samples
6 represent a before and after retention of water in 2A."
7 A Yes.
8 Q Then I believe the next sentence says, "If
9 there is net methylmercury formation, the inlet samples
10 should contain more --
11 A Methylmercury.
12 Q -- than the outlet. Is that a reversal?
13 A Well, that's a very naive view of the
14 situation. I think that at the time when I did that, my
15 assumption was that water was coming in through the gates in
16 the north and going out through the gate in the south.
17 However, that's totally -- it now seem it's totally
18 arbitrary. Sometimes the water flows in reverse. It's all
19 managed by the Water Management District, and they do
20 different things at different times.
21 Q Just to understand the thought pattern, taking
22 the change in your understanding as a given, it says, "If
23 there is net formation the inlet should contain more
24 methylmercury than the outlet." Should not that be
25 reversed?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
70
1 A Yes, you are right.
2 Q I just wanted to be sure it was just a matter
3 of inverting the thoughts.
4 A Yes. You have to realize that these are not
5 strictly written for myself.
6 Q I understand. I wanted to try to understand
7 them better.
8 A That's what the thought was. If methylmercury
9 is formed as the water flows through the system -- we talked
10 about it -- then you will have more methylmercury coming
11 out.
12 Q On the next page, I notice near the bottom a
13 reference, and the next page happens to have No. 39 at the
14 top.
15 A Yes.
16 Q Again, I will point, if I may, to the
17 statement. "The medium to be added is artificial marsh
18 water."
19 A Yes.
20 Q What was the source of the artificial marsh
21 water?
22 A It's Ron Jones' recipe. We got it from him
23 when we worked with him, and there's also literature
24 references where you can find it.
25 Q As I understand it, all the samples you got, at
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
71
1 least, during August were sediments -- only not water
2 columns -- at least the only ones that you could analyze
3 were.
4 A Yes.
5 Q Did you obtain water column samples in
6 December?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And were they satisfactory for analysis?
9 A We got numbers which seemed to be clean.
10 Q By clean, you mean what?
11 A By clean, I mean that the blanks are okay,
12 which gives me confidence in the numbers that we got. In
13 the world of mercury, that doesn't mean much.
14 Q Is that because of the difficulty of analyzing
15 for mercury?
16 A Yes; at this level.
17 Q At the bottom of the page which has 42 at the
18 upper right-hand corner, I see a question -- probably a
19 question to yourself -- "Do 10 milliliter slurries in 250
20 milliliter container remain anaerobic?"
21 A Yes.
22 Q What was the question there?
23 A You see, like when we do the work, we make the
24 assumptions that these are anaerobic processes, and it's
25 known in anaerobic microbiological work that, that the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
72
1 larger the head space relative to the volume of the sample,
2 the harder it is to maintain it anaerobic. It's harder.
3 And I was concerned with it, because this was a modification
4 of the procedure that we used before, and we checked for it.
5 Q Did it turn out to be a problem?
6 A No.
7 Q What conclusions, if any, did you form as a
8 result of your August sampling and analysis?
9 A I think we got some very interesting
10 observations which, again, were preliminary and prompted the
11 additional sampling in December.
12 One of them was that there was a negative
13 correlation between the amount of mercury and the amount of
14 total phosphorus in the soil. And although there were only
15 four samples included in the analysis, there was a strong
16 correlation, an inverse correlation, I should say. That was
17 one conclusion. The other was that it seemed that the
18 methylation to demethylation ratio was directly related to
19 the total phosphorus concentration.
20 Q How was that related? It was --
21 A We did the methylation/demethylation as we
22 determined the ratios as we did with the earlier samples and
23 then we did regression analyses to correlate it with total
24 phosphorus in the soil, and again, we got a positive
25 correlation in this case; that is, the more phosphorus there
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
73
1 was in the soil, the higher was the methylation to
2 demethylation ratio.
3 Q Were those results found for both the
4 intermediate and the heavily nutrient enriched sites?
5 A I believe so. I have to say that in the oldest
6 samples we didn't get good results for the most highly
7 eutrophied samples.
8 Q Why didn't you get good results?
9 A The methylation data was too variable. I did
10 try to correct it later on. You probably have it in the
11 documents that are coming. But it's -- I don't know if I
12 can really trust that. To be conservative, I would say we
13 didn't get the numbers, or number.
14 (Raw Data from August 31, 1993
15 Sampling, was marked by the reporter
16 as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 18, hereto
17 attached.)
18 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you another set of
19 documents that I have asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit
20 No. 18.
21 A Yes.
22 Q I'm not sure whether all of these belong
23 together or not.
24 A This is the raw data.
25 Q And is it the raw data from the August 31
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
74
1 sampling?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Does it appear that all these papers relate to
4 the August '93 --
5 A No, one of them is December. The last three
6 pages are December 1993.
7 Q Let me ask you specifically about what appears
8 to be No. 298 in the lower right-hand corner.
9 A Yes.
10 Q Does that document belong with the August --
11 A Yes.
12 Q -- analysis?
13 A Yes.
14 Q I notice there under Conclusion, it says,
15 "Based on tests for significance of the regressions
16 performed on this data set, phosphorus concentration does
17 not adequately explain methylation and demethylation in soil
18 sediments from WCA 2A." Is that --
19 A This is report that was written by Dr.
20 Kavanaugh to me.
21 Q I see.
22 A I think that she did analyses on her own, which
23 apparently showed that.
24 Q I see. So this is Dr. Kavanaugh's writing?
25 A Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
75
1 Q Do you agree or disagree with that conclusion?
2 A I will have to look at the numbers. I can't
3 say. I have done, myself, some analyses along this line.
4 What we look at is the ratio between the methylation and
5 demethylation. Looking at each one of them individually
6 rarely makes sense.
7 Q Did she look at them individually?
8 A Yes. I have done a similar analysis, and I
9 believe that I didn't see any significant relationship,
10 either.
11 Q What is heterotrophic activity?
12 A Heterotrophic activity is a degradation of
13 complex organic matter, and incorporation of -- let's leave
14 it at that. It's a degradation of complex organic matter by
15 microorganisms.
16 Q What does the fact that, as she saw it at
17 least, that heterotrophic activity and plate counts
18 significantly correlate with methylation and demethylation
19 activities mean? What does that tell us?
20 A What it tells us is that -- heterotrophic
21 activity is a general activity of microbic communities. So
22 if they correlate, it means that there is -- that the
23 methylation and demethylation may be driven by just general
24 activities of the microbial community. The plate counts are
25 irrelevant in my judgment.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
76
1 Q She goes on to say, "Stimulation of bacterial
2 growth (numbers), activity, and methylation/demethylation
3 processes, are not related to the phosphorus concentration
4 in the sediment." Do you agree with that conclusion?
5 A I haven't looked at the specific data very
6 carefully. So I really -- I can't comment, really.
7 Q And is Dr. Kavanaugh a co-worker at Gulf
8 Breeze?
9 A She used to be.
10 Q When did she no longer occupy that role?
11 A Her fellowship ended at the end of December.
12 Q What was her specialty area?
13 A She got her Ph.D. She was a postdoctoral
14 fellow. She got her degree at VPI, Virginia Polytechnic
15 Institute. I think she worked there at the civil
16 engineering department, on phosphorus process by bacteria.
17 Q It appears that she, at least, came to the
18 conclusion that "the hypothesis that inputs of phosphorus to
19 WCA 2A increases methylation and demethylation activities is
20 rejected." Did you examine her conclusion?
21 A I examined the data, myself, and I believe you
22 have those documents. Well, after all the work that I have
23 done, I agree with it.
24 Q You agree with this?
25 A I seem to agree the new data which is coming
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
77
1 out now from the December seems to support that.
2 Q Were her conclusions reached after the August
3 sampling?
4 A Yes.
5 Q But before the December sampling?
6 A Yes.
7 Q The second page farther in --
8 A Table 1.
9 Q Page No. 299.
10 A Yes.
11 Q As stated at the bottom -- I'm sorry -- 300.
12 A Okay.
13 Q What is that table? Is that the table of
14 results from the August sampling exercise?
15 A Yes; which was, again, prepared by Dr.
16 Kavanaugh.
17 Q Do you have any reason to believe that that is
18 an inaccurate summary of the results?
19 A No.
20 Q Looking on into the document at page No. 305,
21 which appears to be the correlation between total phosphorus
22 and total mercury.
23 A Yes.
24 Q What is the environmental significance of that
25 correlation, if there is any?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
78
1 A Well, it means that in soils that have been
2 eutrophied, that there is less mercury. The concentration
3 of mercury is lower.
4 Q And does that suggest or infer a conclusion
5 about why that occurs?
6 A Well, it is an interesting observation, which
7 calls for a forwarding hypothesis to explain.
8 Q Do you have such a hypothesis that you have
9 formed?
10 A There are two possibilities that we are
11 examining. One is the possibility that in the runoff
12 water -- water conservation area, there is something that
13 mobilizes mercury out of the soil. And the second
14 possibility is that in the eutrophied areas we have
15 increased peat accretion, because of the increased growth of
16 plant material in response to the nutrients, and it's a
17 dilution effect.
18 Q In the first -- did you call it a forwarding
19 hypothesis?
20 A Yes; to put forward a hypothesis.
21 Q In the first of the two hypotheses, that
22 something mobilizes the mercury out of the soil in the
23 runoff water, what work is being done to examine that?
24 A We have -- nothing has been done. We were
25 basically -- based on the results from August, we collected
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
79
1 another set of data to further confirm this observation, so
2 that we felt that we should do that before we go into depth
3 of examining this possibility. The second hypothesis of
4 peat accretion is tested actually, right now, by taking
5 sediment cores, dating them and calculating the rate of peat
6 accretion, and relating that to mercury concentration.
7 Q Where is that work being done?
8 A It is done in collaboration between the Duke
9 people and myself. We are doing the mercury analysis of
10 cross sections, and they are doing the phosphorus analysis.
11 They actually have done it, and other organics, as well.
12 Q Did the December data confirm the correlation
13 between total mercury and total phosphorus in soils?
14 A I have done -- the statistics of it is worked
15 out right now. I have done a very superficial type analysis
16 just for my own curiosity, and it seems to be holding. It's
17 not as strong. We don't get an R square of .95. Rather, we
18 get an R square of .82. It's still pretty good for
19 environmental samples.
20 I mean this is my playing a little bit with the
21 statistical packages on my computer. The professional
22 statistician is looking at it right now. He may come up
23 with different numbers, and his numbers are to be trusted;
24 not mine.
25 Q Is there inference in the first -- is an
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
80
1 element of the first hypothesis, the thought that increased
2 total phosphorus may lead to methylation in any way?
3 A No. It's also not the total phosphorus. Total
4 phosphorus is just like marked eutrophication has occurred.
5 In case there has been mobilization of mercury, it may not
6 be due to phosphorus at all.
7 Q Are you aware that in northern lakes, higher
8 mercury concentrations in fish have been found in waters
9 that are oligotrophic and lower in --
10 A Yes.
11 Q And lower mercury concentrations in fish, in
12 lakes that are eutrophic?
13 A Yes.
14 Q What is your understanding of the reason for
15 that phenomenon?
16 A Oh, boy. I think that there are many different
17 factors which interact here. I think the oligotrophic lakes
18 are mostly acidified lakes. In this case, there are some
19 processes where lower pH effect -- causes increases in the
20 methylmercury production -- in methylmercury production. In
21 eutrophied systems where there is more organic matter, and
22 people have observed a decrease in methylmercury formation,
23 they are attributed to complexation between the organic
24 matter and the mercury, so that mercury is not available for
25 methylation.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
81
1 Q Is it possible in a eutrophic system to have a
2 greater mass of methylmercury but a lower concentration of
3 mercury in fish?
4 A In eutrophied systems, more -- larger
5 concentrations of mercury --
6 Q Larger amount of methylmercury, but a lower
7 concentration of mercury in fish tissue?
8 A I assume so, yes. There may be a dilution
9 factor. People talk about the dilution factor.
10 Q Is that sometimes called biodilution?
11 A Yes. You see, there's -- fish accumulate --
12 never mind. It's irrelevant.
13 Q I think you said that the last three pages of
14 Exhibit No. 18 actually relate to the December of '93
15 sampling?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Can you tell me what we can conclude, if
18 anything, from Pages 307 through 309?
19 A 307 is plotting of the M to D ratios for the
20 December samples, versus the total phosphorus in the soil.
21 Obviously, there is no relationship. I mean, you can't see
22 any correlation. I haven't done statistics. It's a plot
23 that I created on the computer. The statistics have to be
24 done in order for me to state -- however, if you compare
25 this with 305, you see very clear -- as we look at it, you
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
82
1 can see that there is a relationship. We don't have it
2 here.
3 Q All right.
4 A 308 and 9 is just the compilation of the data
5 for the December samples. At the time that I sent you this
6 material, that is what I had. This is all the data that I
7 had for these samples.
8 Q And 309 is by --
9 A It's just one table, 308 and 309.
10 Q I see. You have to put 308 to the right of
11 309?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And then read across?
14 A Yes.
15 MR. SAMS: Mark this, please.
16 (Handwritten notes dated 10/6/93 were
17 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
18 Exhibit 19, hereto attached.)
19 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you another set of
20 documents that appear to be from your notes. In the lower
21 right-hand corner are numbers 17 through 30, and in the
22 upper right-hand corners have varying numbers, but at least
23 these were submitted to us together. I will ask if you can
24 identify those documents which are marked Exhibit No. 19?
25 A Yes. They are from my notebook.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
83
1 Q What are these documents related to?
2 A These are -- let me see what all it includes.
3 These are experiments that were done basically to improve on
4 the processing of samples. You have to do a certain amount
5 of work before the field assays make sense, and I did some
6 of this here. You have to optimize the assays.
7 Q In December, when you -- I guess these were
8 done between the August and the December sampling events; is
9 that correct?
10 A Yes, and they were done with samples that were
11 collected in August.
12 Q When you did mercury in water samples, in
13 December --
14 A Yes.
15 Q -- were those filtered or unfiltered samples?
16 A Those were unfiltered.
17 Q You did not take filtered samples?
18 A No.
19 Q Why did you take unfiltered?
20 A Because we could not come up with a clean
21 filter; clean -- that is, we could be assured that there was
22 no mercury contamination.
23 MR. SAMS: Mark this as the next exhibit.
24 (Document dated 10/21/93 was marked by
25 the reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
84
1 No. 20, hereto attached.)
2 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would like to show you a
3 single document that I have asked the reporter to mark as
4 Exhibit No. 20, and ask you if that is a document that you
5 received from the Duke Wetland Center, at least as it
6 existed before the handwriting?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What were they submitting to you? Were these
9 their results for carbon, nitrogen, hydrogen and total
10 phosphorus?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Did you accept these values at face value?
13 A Yes. I think that later on they found that
14 they reversed two numbers, and we corrected it.
15 Q Are the handwritten comments yours?
16 A Some of them are mine. I just added the total
17 mercury analysis.
18 Q From your raw data?
19 A Yes.
20 Q And whose are the other markings?
21 A Erwan Saouter, who did the mercury analysis.
22 MR. SAMS: Mark this, please.
23 (Letter dated November 2, 1993 to Dr.
24 Curt Richardson from Tamar Barkay, was
25 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
85
1 Exhibit No. 21, hereto attached.)
2 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you another document
3 that I have asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit 21, and
4 ask you if this is your final analysis of the August
5 sampling?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Are all of these conclusions correct to the
8 best of your judgment?
9 A With the exception that the data for A1/4 is
10 questionable.
11 Q Why is that questionable?
12 A Well, that's the sample that initially we
13 didn't get good results from the methylation assays, and
14 then I repeated it later on, and I used the numbers that I
15 got later on for this analysis. I am not totally convinced
16 that I could have done that; so just to be conservative.
17 Q You state that.
18 A Yes.
19 Q You indicate on this second page of the letter,
20 that in your opinion, "we may have gotten a very interesting
21 and exciting story here."
22 A Yes.
23 Q What is it that you found interesting and
24 noteworthy about these data? What is the story to which you
25 are referring?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
86
1 A It's the story of the effect of eutrophication
2 on, first of all -- effect of eutrophication on the
3 methylation versus demethylation, and the inverse
4 relationship between the soil mercury and phosphorus
5 concentrations.
6 Q What is it that is interesting about the
7 methylation/demethylation relationship?
8 A I think if this -- if the numbers that are
9 presented here in this figure, if we could repeat it --
10 well, I don't think we repeated it in December. At that
11 time I thought if we could repeat it, that clearly showed
12 that our hypothesis regarding the effect of eutrophication
13 on the potential to form methylmercury was correct.
14 Q But in fact, it did not repeat -- at least, not
15 repeat well.
16 A As far as I can tell from -- the December data
17 is stronger. There are more samples. We also have the
18 Fakahatchee Strand samples, which are our control samples,
19 and it doesn't seem that conclusion -- as I said, the
20 statistics is done now. I don't know yet how it's going to
21 look, but it doesn't look like it worked as well this time.
22 In other words, it may have been a fluke because of the
23 small number of samples.
24 Q What were the water levels at the time of these
25 August samples?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
87
1 A They were low.
2 Q What were they at the same sites by comparison,
3 in December?
4 A They were higher. I am a total layman as far
5 as the hydrology of this area is concerned. It looked
6 higher. We could get to more sites with the air boat.
7 Q In August?
8 A In December.
9 Q In December. Were the samples, themselves,
10 taken from sediments beneath waters?
11 A No. All the samples were submerged.
12 Q They were submerged?
13 A All of the samples, yes. They were flooded.
14 Q Was that true at both the August and the
15 December sampling dates?
16 A Yes. We can't get to sites unless there's
17 enough water for the air boat.
18 Q Was any attempt made to measure water levels?
19 A No, not as far as I know.
20 Q What is the significance of a correlation
21 between soil total phosphorus and glucose mineralization?
22 A What this shows is that in the more eutrophied
23 samples, we had less mineralization of glucose.
24 Q What is environmentally significant about that?
25 A It's a total mystery to me. You would expect
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
88
1 to see the opposite. Glucose mineralization is a poor
2 measure of microbial activities in anaerobic systems.
3 Q You say it is a poor measure?
4 A Yes.
5 Q But if anything, you would expect to see the
6 opposite of the trend that was gotten?
7 A Yes.
8 MR. SAMS: Mark this as the next exhibit.
9 (Graphs were marked by the reporter as
10 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 22, hereto
11 attached.)
12 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you next, graphs,
13 which I will ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit 22. These
14 graphs are pages 252 through 260. What are these graphs?
15 A They are graphs that Dr. Kavanaugh generated
16 from the data that we collected in August of '93. I believe
17 that they go with the analysis that we had in previous
18 documents.
19 Q Would these, then, be her regression lines and
20 so on?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Do you have any reason to doubt the accuracy of
23 these?
24 A No.
25 Q Do they show anything interesting?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
89
1 A Not to me. Possibly, on Page 255 there is an
2 inverse relation between demethylation and heterotrophic
3 activity.
4 Q What is the point of interest there?
5 A Because that would mean that the organisms that
6 demethylate mercury are not heterotropes.
7 Q What is the significance of that?
8 A That may suggest that demethylation is carried
9 out by specialized groups of microorganisms. The data is
10 not -- you see that there are five data points. Again, it's
11 like with all the rest of our work, it's so preliminary, the
12 number of samples is so small, that I wouldn't even put a
13 hypothesis forward without repeating it with a larger number
14 of samples.
15 MR. SAMS: Mark this.
16 (Notes dated November 20-21 were
17 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
18 Exhibit No. 23, hereto attached.)
19 Q (By Mr. Sams) Exhibit No. 23 appears to be
20 another set of pages from your notes.
21 A Yes.
22 Q Are these related to your later Fakahatchee
23 Strand --
24 A Yes.
25 Q And I believe you said earlier that that was a
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
90
1 separate exercise?
2 A Yes.
3 Q I see -- these all came together, but I see
4 that Page 33 relates to sampling in WCA 2A. Are these just
5 sequential pages from your notes?
6 A Yes. Well, as you can see, I went on two
7 sampling trips, one immediately after the other.
8 Q Are the data from Fakahatchee Strand among the
9 data that you have provided to us?
10 A Yes.
11 Q How did you identify the strand as a place
12 which you could treat as a control site, which has not been
13 affected by nutrients from agricultural runoff?
14 A By discussion with the rangers who work there,
15 and we analyzed the samples.
16 Q What points of interest, if any, did you
17 develop from your analysis of those samples?
18 A It's too early to really say, because the final
19 analysis is not completed. However, I think they are
20 extremely important to give us an idea of what is the
21 natural range of our different measurements that we take in
22 Water Conservation Area 2A.
23 For example, if we look at the sites in 2A, and
24 they have a hundred nanogram of mercury per gram of soil,
25 well, is it a background concentration to the Everglades, is
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
91
1 it above, is it below, that gives me a kind of a reference
2 point of the Fakahatchee Strand samples.
3 Q Have you been able to make that comparison and
4 form a preliminary opinion?
5 A As far as I remember. I think you have copies
6 of the data. It's about the same range.
7 Q That's -- did you only take mercury samples at
8 Fakahatchee?
9 A No. We took the whole.
10 Q The whole set?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Including phosphorus, nitrogen, et cetera?
13 A And carbon.
14 Q Does seeing that the Fakahatchee Strand data
15 are in the same range as the WCA 2A data, in turn, lead you
16 to any conclusions with regard to your observations in WCA
17 2A?
18 A Does it make a difference?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Well, it gives me a degree of confidence that
21 what we see in 2A is about what is typical to this
22 ecosystem, as far as mercury is concerned. I don't remember
23 other ones. I need to look at the data.
24 Q But as far as mercury is concerned --
25 A As far as I remember, it was about the same
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
92
1 range of concentration.
2 Q In the sediments?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Did you take water samples in Fakahatchee?
5 A No.
6 Q How many gradients were covered? I'm now
7 looking at Page 33, still within Exhibit No. 23. How many
8 transects were --
9 A We did a full transect of C, again, and then we
10 took the two extreme sites in A.
11 Q Transect A?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And you took it at each end of A?
14 A Yes, and a quarter on A6.
15 Q Then you took the full transect on C?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Both of those according to Duke?
18 A Yes. These are the established sites.
19 (Recess)
20 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you a stack of
21 documents, if I may, that --
22 A This is my famous notebook.
23 Q And we will have the reporter mark it as the
24 next exhibit.
25 (Handwritten notes dated 12/1/93 were
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
93
1 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
2 Exhibit No.24, hereto attached.)
3 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you tell me, Dr. Barkay,
4 what these documents are? I would like to have a general
5 description that covers all of the different kinds of pages
6 that are in here. Are these your raw data from the December
7 sampling?
8 A Yes. Actually, there are still some -- 38 is a
9 description of the sampling sites which were taken right
10 there in Loxahatchee. Then 39 --
11 Q By Loxahatchee, you mean WCA 2A?
12 A Yes. Loxahatchee is where we stayed.
13 Then 39 through 75 are pages from my notebook,
14 where we describe a preliminary experiment that we did with
15 the samples that we collected in December, and then the
16 actual analyses of those samples.
17 Q Are you saying the actual analyses are also
18 covered in the pages leading through 75 or are they
19 following Page 75?
20 A Well, actually -- the data is what comes after
21 75. First, you have 7 and 6; 7 and 8 are just the way we
22 did the calculations, and then everything that is afterwards
23 is the data.
24 MR. SAMS: Mark this.
25 (The document dated 12/8/93 titled
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
94
1 Calibration, was marked by the
2 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
3 25, hereto attached.)
4 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would like to ask you to
5 identify the documents that are Exhibit No. 25, which I have
6 just handed you.
7 A This is a water analysis of the water samples
8 that we collected.
9 Q I see the word "calibration" underlined. What
10 is the significance of that underlying? Is the first page
11 calibration?
12 A Yes. These are standards that created a curve
13 of concentration versus response.
14 Q And the second page?
15 A And the second page is analyses of the samples.
16 I believe there was one additional sample.
17 (Document entitled Calibration, dated
18 12/9/93 was marked by the reporter as
19 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 26, hereto
20 attached.)
21 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you another document
22 that I have asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 26.
23 It's dated a day later, December 9, '93.
24 A Yes.
25 Q What does that document involve?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
95
1 A It's a repeat analysis of the same sample.
2 Q Did I understand --
3 A Actually, two samples were repeated and one was
4 new.
5 Q Which two were repeated?
6 A A6 and C1.
7 Q And which one was new? Was that A1/4?
8 A C6.
9 Q C6.
10 A C6 and A1/4.
11 Q Were both new?
12 A Yes. They weren't analyzed on the previous
13 date.
14 Q These are the results of the December sampling
15 of that on which you have relied; is that correct?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Were there any problems with those results or
18 were you satisfied that they were satisfactory?
19 A I am satisfied with them. They are good. I am
20 not sure what they mean, that's why I haven't done much. If
21 you can look at the analysis that was repeated day after
22 day, the numbers are pretty close.
23 Q Let me show you another document which I will
24 ask the reporter to mark as Exhibit No. 27.
25 (Document dated 1/25/94 entitled
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
96
1 Results:Calculations was marked by the
2 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
3 27, hereto attached.)
4 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would ask you to identify
5 Exhibit No. 27, which appears to be dated January 25, 1994.
6 Do you recognize that?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What is that document, or is it multiple
9 documents?
10 A This is a soil analysis. The people who
11 analyze -- do the soil analysis now, have compared two
12 different procedures for the preparation of the samples.
13 That's what it is.
14 Q Who are the people doing the analyses?
15 A Well, we have a chemistry support group in our
16 lab.
17 Q Are these soil samples from the WCA 2A?
18 A Well, I think that this could be one of the
19 Fakahatchee strand samples.
20 Q Would you have a way to look at the other
21 exhibit and identify whether that was correct?
22 A These are just -- I guess you would call this
23 quality assurance. This is some statistical analysis that
24 was done on soil analyses data, but I'm not sure what data,
25 what samples, or what it means.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
97
1 Q Is it your belief that it relates somehow to
2 other samples that we have looked at?
3 A Not knowing exactly what -- you know what I
4 think those pages are, these are a printout from the
5 analysis. That is what it is. So then the girl who did it
6 took the numbers from here. This was what the instrument
7 generates, and then she listed the numbers here, the numbers
8 here.
9 Q Have you analyzed these data?
10 A Well, consequently, they did a much more
11 organized calibration study, and we came to some
12 conclusions. And that was a very preliminary attempt on
13 their part to select a method of digestion.
14 Q So you say there has been a much more --
15 A Yes, yes.
16 Q A different calibration study was done.
17 A Yes. See, the youngsters sometimes mix
18 things -- two things were done here, comparing two methods
19 and all the spiking that is recovery experiments, basically
20 we couldn't learn anything from it and therefore, we
21 repeated it.
22 Q From this quality --
23 A Assurance analysis.
24 Q Quality assurance analysis.
25 A Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
98
1 Q All right.
2 MR. SAMS: Mark this.
3 (Document entitled Levels Encountered
4 During Processing was marked by the
5 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
6 28, hereto attached.)
7 Q (By Mr. Sams) Let me show you another document
8 which I have asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit 28, and
9 ask you if you can identify these documents? You may need
10 to go through them page by page.
11 A I believe that these -- okay. It's a bit all
12 mixed together, all relevant to the work in the December
13 sampling. The first page 231, I believe is analysis on the
14 significant -- it's just statistical analysis of water
15 concentrations, total mercury in water samples. So is the
16 next page. Then you have again, 233 is, again, the same
17 table which we have already looked at before, which is all
18 the data that I had available from the December sampling at
19 the time when I sent the material to you.
20 I believe that 234 through 237 is statistical
21 analyses of data, and of demethylation and methylation
22 potential rates. I think this is just to show the
23 significance between sites.
24 Q Explain that just a moment, if you could. What
25 do you mean by significance between sites?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
99
1 A If you want to do any type of correlations, I
2 know very little about statistics, but to me, you first have
3 to find out the differences between the sites, the
4 measurements. Let's say, if we look at 234, demethylation
5 potential, did we have significant difference between the
6 sites that we analyzed. Otherwise, it doesn't make any
7 sense of doing correlations. They are all the same.
8 Pages 238, are just draft summaries of the data
9 through 246 -- are just draft summaries of the methylation
10 and demethylation data for December. And 247 to 249 are,
11 again, copies of how the calculations were done.
12 Q Going back for the moment to 233, I see one
13 correction for site C1. Is that the one that I believe you
14 mentioned earlier that was corrected?
15 A Well, no, this is a different sampling time.
16 The corrected -- I talked about the August analysis. I'm
17 not --
18 Q The numbers which appear in handwriting are the
19 correct numbers?
20 A Yes, I believe so.
21 MR. SAMS: Mark this as the next exhibit,
22 please.
23 (Letter dated November 23, 1993 to
24 Curtis Pollman from Tamar Barkay was
25 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
100
1 Exhibit No. 29, hereto attached.)
2 Q (By Mr. Sams) I would like to show you two
3 pages which I have asked the court reporter to mark as
4 Exhibit No. 29.
5 Page 261, the first page of this exhibit, seems
6 to be a letter from you to Curtis Pollman. Could you
7 describe what the subject of that letter was?
8 A I would love to. This was an attempt on my
9 part to collect samples at nutrient removal areas. I knew
10 that Curtis was organizing a sample trip of the analytical
11 chemistry group, Gary Gill and Bill Landing, and I just
12 wanted for them to collect samples for me at the same sites
13 where they did the chemistry for methylation and
14 demethylation.
15 Q Did you receive a response to that request?
16 A Yes.
17 Q What was the response?
18 A That he was very willing to do it, but I needed
19 to get permission to do it, and that didn't work out.
20 Q Were the samples ever collected?
21 A No. I don't know if they went. I don't know
22 if they went out or not.
23 Q But none were collected for you?
24 A No. Basically, I couldn't obtain a permit to
25 collect the samples.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
101
1 Q What is the next page after that?
2 A This is still part of the August sampling.
3 This is values of the dry weight of the samples that we used
4 in our methylation/demethylation assays that Dr. Kavanaugh
5 prepared, and gave it to me.
6 Q And this was from which sampling, then, August?
7 A In August.
8 (The document, Page Nos. 263 - 265,
9 was marked by the reporter as
10 Plantiff's Exhibit No. 30, hereto
11 attached.)
12 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will show you another document
13 which I have asked the reporter to mark as Exhibit 30. It
14 appears to be Page 263 through 265, if they belong together.
15 A Yes. This is data for a -- this is the data
16 of -- all the data for August samples. It's a compilation
17 for everything that we did.
18 (Mercury Analysis of Soil in August
19 was marked by the reporter as Exhibit
20 No. 31, hereto attached.)
21 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you identify what's been
22 marked as Exhibit No. 31?
23 A Yes. This is a mercury analysis of the soil
24 sample that we collected in August. That is total mercury
25 and methylmercury.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
102
1 Q And where did you say the methylmercury
2 analysis was conducted?
3 A In our lab.
4 (Document entitled Methylation of
5 Hg(II) was marked by the reporter as
6 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 32, hereto
7 attached.)
8 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you describe for me,
9 please, the document that's been marked as Exhibit 32?
10 A I created this, that's for sure. It's just how
11 we did the assays. I believe these are August samples,
12 technical details of how it was done, et cetera, et cetera.
13 And these methylation assays, I prepared these. It's a
14 summary of the data.
15 (Document entitled Cases Deleted Due
16 to Missing Data was marked by the
17 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
18 33, hereto attached.)
19 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you identify Exhibit No.
20 33?
21 A This is statistical analysis of the August
22 data.
23 Q I see --
24 A This is a regression analysis of the different
25 things.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
103
1 Q I see at the top, the entry, one case deleted
2 due to missing data. What was that case, if you happen to
3 know?
4 A I'm not sure. I'm not very -- I'm not sure.
5 I'm not very fluent as far as the computer program is
6 concerned. I mean I can use it somewhat, but not very
7 effectively, I guess. That's why I always have
8 professionals look at it.
9 (Document entitled Adjusted Squared
10 Multiple R, was marked by the reporter
11 as Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 34, hereto
12 attached.)
13 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you identify Exhibit No.
14 37 for me, please?
15 A It's, again, statistical analysis. In this
16 case, it is a test that was done to determine the
17 significance of difference between the sites.
18 Q Was that done on the August data?
19 A Yes.
20 MR. SAMS: Please mark this.
21 (Document entitled Regression was
22 marked by the reporter as Plaintiff's
23 Exhibit No. 37, hereto attached.)
24 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will ask you about the next
25 Exhibit, No. 37.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
104
1 A This is again a regression analysis of August
2 data.
3 MR. SAMS: Mark this.
4 (The document, Regression Analysis,
5 was marked by the reporter as
6 Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 38, hereto
7 attached.)
8 Q (By Mr. Sams) I will ask you about 38.
9 A It's the same.
10 Q Also August data?
11 A Yes. We have not gotten to this point. We are
12 just now doing the December data.
13 MR. SAMS: Mark this.
14 (Document entitled Microcosm
15 Simulating Mercury Cycling in a
16 Contaminated Pond was marked by the
17 reporter as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.
18 39, hereto attached.)
19 Q (By Mr. Sams) Finally, I show you Exhibit No.
20 39, and ask you to identify that, if you would, please.
21 A This is manuscript that we -- I don't know
22 what it is.
23 MR. LIPSHULZ: This is something -- No. 362 is
24 something from an entirely different case, which got
25 mixed in with the copying. It has nothing to do with
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
105
1 Dr. Barkay, so my suggestion would be simply to toss
2 that out.
3 MR. SAMS: Your representation is that it has
4 nothing to do with mercury or phosphorus in the
5 Everglades?
6 MR. LIPSHULZ: Not at all; not unless there is
7 some CERCLA connection or something.
8 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you recognize the document,
9 Dr. Barkay?
10 A You asked for a paper where we did analyses of
11 mercury in environmental samples, and that's it.
12 Q And this is the work that you did at the pond
13 in Oak Ridge?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Are any of the techniques -- let me ask this
16 differently. Are the techniques that you explained in this
17 paper similar to the ones that you have used in connection
18 with the Everglades work?
19 A Yes, some.
20 Q Which of those are similar to the work that you
21 have described in connection with the Everglades?
22 A The water analysis of the December samples was
23 done by methods that are described here. The soil analysis
24 of August samples are also done by the methods described
25 here.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
106
1 Q The paper, itself, is essentially an
2 explanation of the technique, with its focus being the Oak
3 Ridge --
4 A Well, not really. There is another paper which
5 I'm not an author on, just about the technique.
6 Q I see.
7 A But the technique was used here.
8 Q Are you satisfied that the techniques you have
9 used to both collect and analyze the August and December
10 samples were accurate and reasonably free of error?
11 A As far as mercury analysis is concerned?
12 Q Yes.
13 A Yes.
14 Q As I understand it, you relied on the work of
15 others for the analysis of the other parameters except
16 perhaps for the Fakahatchee Strand data.
17 A For mercury analysis?
18 Q No; for everything but mercury, is that
19 correct? Did you rely --
20 A No. The only analyses that were not done in my
21 lab are the work that was done by the Duke people, which are
22 the inorganic in soils, which are total phosphorus,
23 nitrogen, carbon and hydrogen.
24 Q That was done by them for both the August and
25 December --
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
107
1 A Yes. All of rest of it was done in my lab. I,
2 personally, was not involved in mercury analysis, and I'm
3 not involved with it at all. I myself, did methylation and
4 demethylation assays.
5 Q Those are the dosing experiments?
6 A Yes.
7 Q And you did those with respect to both the
8 August and December?
9 A I did -- methylation, I did all of them; and I
10 did the demethylation for the December samples.
11 Q Who did the demethylation for August?
12 A Dr. Kavanaugh.
13 Q Did you also do methylation and demethylation
14 experiments on the Fakahatchee?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And you did both of those, yourself?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Are those final data in the papers we looked
19 at?
20 A Yes. Those are final data. The analysis is
21 not complete yet.
22 Q When do you expect to have the analyses for the
23 Fakahatchee and the December 1993 WCA 2A work completed?
24 A When is your deadline?
25 Q In the normal course of events, when would you
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
108
1 expect to have it completed?
2 A Someone who works with me is doing it right
3 now. I would like to -- after he's done I would like to
4 take it by a professional statistician that works in the
5 lab, and then it will be done when he gives the approval --
6 two weeks.
7 Q At this stage, do you have any overall
8 preliminary conclusions regarding the relationship of
9 eutrophication and mercury methylation and demethylation in
10 the Everglades?
11 A If I consider my superficial analysis --
12 preliminary analysis of the December '93 data, I would say
13 that there is no relationship. Again, there's one more
14 thing that I would like to try before I reject this
15 hypothesis.
16 Q What is that?
17 A I would like to collect samples at the nutrient
18 amendment sites in Water Conservation Site 2B.
19 Q Whose nutrient amendment sites?
20 A That's Curt Richardson's experiment.
21 Q And what is it you would like to --
22 A What they have down there, is that they
23 enclosed some two meter by two meter boxes of the wetland,
24 and they have been adding nutrients now for three years, and
25 so they have artificially eutrophied, in a controlled way,
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
109
1 the sediment. I would like to obtain samples from there and
2 test them again, before I reject -- I totally reject them.
3 Also, I would like to say that all the data
4 sets together have to be analyzed. It's unfortunately the
5 situation where the statistics will either confirm or reject
6 the hypothesis. Looking at the data, superficially, I don't
7 see that I can say that eutrophication has affected
8 potentials for methylation of mercury.
9 Q Is that contrary to your general expectation as
10 a scientist?
11 A I mean it rejects the hypothesis which drives
12 this project. I try not to have expectations, as a
13 scientist.
14 Q Is that result consistent with your readings of
15 the literature?
16 A It's consistent with some things. For example,
17 you mentioned that in eutrophied lakes there is less mercury
18 accumulation than in oligotrophic lakes, in lakes that have
19 low nutrients. On the other hand, it is contrary to the
20 reservoir studies. Mercury is just a very complex
21 interaction in the environment.
22 Q Do you have any thoughts at this point of how
23 one might reconcile the reservoir studies appearing to lead
24 to one conclusion, and the other result?
25 A No, you can't compare. I mean these are
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
110
1 different situations. I believe that what the Everglades
2 needs is extensive sampling schedules with -- if you look at
3 similar studies that have been done by other people, there
4 are many more samples taken over the different seasons of
5 the year, different geographical locations. Our study is so
6 limited that I would not draw any conclusion, one way or
7 another.
8 Q When you say that additional work is needed, is
9 that the work we discussed earlier, and I believe you've
10 described as a few years or --
11 A Yes.
12 Q Or something on that order?
13 A Yes. There are a lot of things that need to be
14 done. That's not the place to discuss it.
15 Q Do you have any other work planned at present
16 in regards to nutrients and their effect on the rates of
17 methylation and demethylation in the Everglades?
18 A Well, I would like to be able to continue the
19 work along the phosphorus gradient. We really need to sit
20 down with all the data from the December sampling the same
21 way we did with the August sampling, and define the goals of
22 the continued work. There is no support for this work, so I
23 don't know how we're going to proceed.
24 Q Do you have in mind any work concerning the
25 influence of sulfates in the Everglades?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
111
1 A If someone gave me a lot of money, I would
2 do -- I would look at sulfate, as well as other things.
3 Q Why would it be desirable to look at sulfate?
4 MR. LIPSHULZ: Objection. She didn't state it
5 would be desirable.
6 Q (By Mr. Sams) Why would you look at sulfates
7 if you had enough money?
8 A You see, sulfate reducing bacteria, that we
9 mentioned earlier today, are the ones implicated in
10 methylation of mercury in saline environments, and possibly
11 in fresh water environments. So there is a connection
12 there.
13 Q Do you know whether the Everglades are a high
14 or low sulfate system?
15 A I don't know.
16 Q Do you know if anybody has done any work in
17 that area?
18 A I think so, but I just don't remember the
19 numbers, and I don't recall any specific data.
20 Q Who would have done the work?
21 A I think possibly the Duke Wetland Center people
22 have looked at it.
23 Q Do you know if Ron Jones has done any work in
24 that area?
25 A I don't know. Normally, in a fresh water
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
112
1 system, it's low in sulfate, but it may be different there.
2 Q Are you familiar with any work that anyone else
3 has done to measure rates of methylation and demethylation
4 in the Everglades?
5 A Not really. Gary Gill is a graduate student
6 who did a little bit of work which was really a very nice
7 experimental design, and she didn't see any methylation.
8 She just looked at methylation, but she didn't see any.
9 Q Didn't see methylation?
10 A No.
11 Q What was, in general, the design of that
12 experiment?
13 A Well, they got a high specific activity
14 inorganic mercury, and she took sediment water cores from
15 different sites, and she added that high specific activity
16 inorganic mercury to the water of the cores, and then over
17 time she withdraw samples and extracted methylmercury, but
18 she didn't get any.
19 Q No methylation?
20 A That's right. The substrate was quite old.
21 Q Are you familiar with any work besides your
22 own, in regard to the Everglades, which specifically
23 examines the effect of nutrient addition on rates of
24 methylation and demethylation?
25 A I am not familiar at all. I know that Ron
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
113
1 Jone's group was supposedly preparing to do this work, but
2 I'm not in touch with them.
3 Q You don't know of any work he's done in that
4 area?
5 A No.
6 Q From an environmental perspective, if you know,
7 why is it interesting to examine the effect of nutrient
8 addition on rates of mercury methylation and demethylation?
9 A You mean from the scientific point of view?
10 Q From the environmental impact point of view.
11 A Well, I think that because if this is
12 contributing to the formation of methylmercury in the
13 Florida ecosystem, maybe by managing, we can alleviate some
14 of the problem.
15 Q Is the problem the accumulation of mercury in
16 higher organisms?
17 A In fish, yes.
18 Q Do you regard that as a problem for the
19 Everglades?
20 A I regard it a problem to public health.
21 Q I'm sorry?
22 A I regard it a problem to public health.
23 Q In the Everglades?
24 A Also, possibly to wildlife.
25 Q Are you speaking now with reference to the
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
114
1 Everglades?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you know whether, or have any idea whether
4 methylmercury demethylation is an abiotic or a biotic
5 reaction in the environment?
6 A I think it is both.
7 Q Do you have any impression at this point
8 whether it's both, or more one than the other in the
9 Everglades?
10 A No. We haven't done comparisons between
11 aerobic and anaerobic degradation of methylmercury. I
12 expect it to be fairly active under aerobic conditions,
13 based on what I know about this process.
14 Q Do you consider the Everglades an oligotrophic
15 system, at least, in general?
16 A I'm too little to consider this thing, but
17 that's what I hear. That's what the experts tell me.
18 Q Would you agree that nutrient addition and
19 eutrophication that might result in the Everglades could
20 lead to decreased bioaccumulation of mercury in fish tissue?
21 A Do I agree that it could?
22 Q Yes.
23 A Yes.
24 Q At this stage, do you know whether it would or
25 would not?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
115
1 A No, I don't.
2 Q Based on what I think you've described as only
3 a preliminary conceptual understanding of the STAs do you
4 have any preliminary opinion of how their operation might
5 affect the methylation/demethylation ratio for mercury?
6 MR. LIPSHULZ: Object to the form of the
7 question.
8 A I don't know. I mean if we had clear results
9 with our gradient study supporting the hypothesis that
10 eutrophication promotes accumulation of methylmercury, I
11 could say one way or another. But since it doesn't seem to,
12 then I have to say that I don't know.
13 Q (By Mr. Sams) If there were such a clear
14 result as I think you said might have been indicated by the
15 August data, what would be your opinion?
16 MR. LIPSHULZ: Again, I object to the form.
17 A My opinion would be that there is a chance that
18 there would be an increase in methylmercury as the water is
19 retained in these sites. It would definitely justify
20 testing for it, checking for it.
21 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do we have enough scientific
22 understanding at this point to know whether the STAs, storm
23 water treatment areas, will be a net source or a sink for
24 mercury?
25 A I don't think so, no.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
116
1 Q Are you familiar with any work on the
2 management of systems like the storm water treatment areas,
3 for the prevention of mercury methylation?
4 MR. LIPSHULZ: Again, I have to object to the
5 form.
6 A No, I am not, on an ecosystem level, that is.
7 Q (By Mr. Sams) Do you think that our
8 understanding of the effect of the storm water treatment
9 areas on mercury cycling -- that is, methylation and
10 bioaccumulation, is well enough understood to proceed with
11 their construction?
12 MR. LIPSHULZ: I object to the form. All of
13 these questions are clearly calling for speculation.
14 A I know so little about those STAs, if that's
15 what you call them, that I can't answer.
16 Q (By Mr. Sams) Could you give me at least a
17 short outline of the type of additional research that you
18 would recommend so as to be able to confidently predict the
19 effect of the STAs on mercury cycling?
20 A It seems to me that to start with a mass
21 balance type approach would be needed; that is an inventory
22 of what goes in and what goes out in terms of concentration
23 and speciation of mercury.
24 Q When you say goes out, do you mean leaves the
25 system?
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
117
1 A Yes.
2 Q Are those the general outlines around which you
3 would structure the study?
4 A It's really not my area. I'm a microbiologist,
5 but if you ask me what would be the most beneficial approach
6 to examining how those STAs are going to affect mercury
7 speciation, I think that that is what I would recommend.
8 Q Do your data include any data from Dr. Jones on
9 the original '91 and '92 samples showing the amount of
10 phosphorus or phosphate?
11 A No.
12 Q Do you know what form the mercury was in those
13 sediment samples that Dr. Jones furnished?
14 A We never analyzed them for mercury, and if he
15 did, he didn't report it to me.
16 Q I may have asked you this question -- forgive
17 me if I have. The soil samples, I believe you stated,
18 appeared to be within the range of what is normal for
19 mercury content. Were the rates of mercury methylation that
20 you found in the Everglades samples that you have seen,
21 within the range of normal, if that's a way you can address
22 it?
23 A Within the potential rates, with the dosing
24 experiments?
25 Q Yes.
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
118
1 A I would say that they were high, but they were
2 definitely within the range that was observed in other
3 places.
4 Q Are you referring now -- well, to which samples
5 are you referring when you make the statement that they were
6 high?
7 A The samples that we got from the eutrophied
8 soils in the '90, '91 samples.
9 Q '91 and '92?
10 A '91, just '91; those three samples. The
11 activity in the samples that, according to Ron Jones, were
12 high in phosphorus, was high, but well within the observed
13 range. I have not done the comparison yet for the samples
14 that we got later on from water conservation 2A. It's my
15 feeling that it is true for them, too, but I have not done
16 the comparison, so I can't really say.
17 Q What is your sense at this point for whether
18 the methylation rates you determined in the lab are likely
19 to represent those actually occurring in the Everglades?
20 A Highly unlikely. No way -- you know, like,
21 really, this analysis is so limited by the way it is done.
22 It's really very little we can say.
23 Q Is mercury behavior in wetlands well understood
24 by people working in the areas of mercury and/or wetlands?
25 A I think that we are beginning now to have an
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
119
1 understanding.
2 Q Is it less so than in other types of water
3 bodies; for example, lakes?
4 A I think that the seepage lakes are better
5 understood because more work has been done there. You have
6 to realize that good, reliable analysis of mercury has only
7 become available in the last five to eight years, so there
8 really hasn't been time to do much work yet.
9 Q When you say that the behavior of mercury in
10 wetlands is beginning to be better understood, are there
11 certain fundamental principles governing mercury behavior in
12 wetlands that you can point to and say that most workers or
13 students of the problem would ascribe to those principles?
14 A I can't say that. I am actually not totally
15 aware of all the results that the people are getting without
16 the studies, I don't have a comprehensive knowledge of what
17 is happening there.
18 Q Is it true that given our ability now to
19 analyze or speciate mercury, that a great deal of work is
20 being done in the field of mercury speciation in wetlands at
21 present?
22 A I believe that most of the work that I am aware
23 of is the work that is done in the experimental lake area in
24 Canada, and it's a big project. It's not all focused on
25 mercury, but the mercury part of it is quite big. I believe
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
120
1 the Swedes are doing similar work. That's what I am aware
2 of.
3 Q You found different results in your August and
4 December 1993 samplings?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Is there a seasonal factor that might account
7 for the difference of results?
8 A I couldn't say that, based on two samples --
9 based on two sampling times.
10 Q Is that something that you would want to look
11 into?
12 A Yes. Part of a more comprehensive sampling
13 protocol would be to go out at least maybe four times a year
14 and do that type of analysis for at least a year or two to
15 see if there are any seasonal patterns of the samples.
16 MR. SAMS: That concludes my questions.
17 Thank you.
18 MR. LIPSHULZ: I don't have any questions.
19 (WHEREUPON, the deposition was concluded.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
121
1 CERTIFICATE_OF_OATH
___________ __ ____
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA
4 COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA
5 I, Lacy Leitch, Registered Professional
6 Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida,
7 do hereby certify that DR. TAMAR BARKAY was duly sworn by
8 me.
9 WITNESS MY HAND AND SEAL this 8th day of April,
10 1994.
11 _________________________________
Lacy Leitch
12 Notary Public - State of Florida
My Commission Expires 10-12-95
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
122
1 CERTIFICATE_OF_REPORTER
___________ __ ________
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA )
4 COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA )
5
6 I, LACY LEITCH, Registered Professional Reporter and
7 Notary Public at Large in and for the State of Florida,
8 hereby certify that pursuant to notice heretofore filed,
9 there came before me on the 4th day of April, 1994, at 1:00
10 p.m., at Pensacola, Florida, the following-named person, to
11 wit: DR. TAMAR BARKAY, and I did stenographically report the
12 foregoing deposition; that the deposition is an accurate
13 computer-aided transcription of my stenotype notes of the
14 testimony given by the witness; that by stipulation of
15 counsel, all objections except as to the form of the
16 questions were reserved until the time of trial.
17 I further certify that I am neither attorney or
18 counsel for, nor related to or employed by, any of the
19 parties to the action in which this deposition was taken,
20 and further that I am not a relative or employee of any
21 attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, or
22 financially interested in the action.
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
123
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and
2 affixed my official seal, this 8th day of April, 1994
3
4
5 __________________________________
LACY LEITCH
6 Registered Professional Reporter and
Notary Public, State of Florida
7 My Commission expires October 12, 1995
8
9 STATE OF FLORIDA
10 COUNTY OF ESCAMBIA
11
12 The foregoing certificate was acknowledged
13 before me this 8th day of April, 1994 by Lacy Leitch,
14 who is personally known to me.
15
16 ________________________________
17 Notary Public - State of Florida
My Commission No.
18 My Commission Expires
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
124
1 I, DR. TAMAR BARKAY do hereby certify that I
2 have read the preceding pages and that they are correct with
3 the following exceptions:
4
5 PAGE_NO. LINE_NO. CORRECTION
____ ___ ____ ___ __________
6
7
8
9
10
11
__________________________
12 DR. TAMAR BARKAY
13 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me
14 this _____ day of April 1994 by DR. TAMAR BARKAY, who is
15 personally known to me or who has produced _________________
16 _________________________________________________ (type of
17 I.D. produced) as identification.
18 Oath given/oath not given.
19
20 (Signature) _____________________
21
22 (Name printed or typed) _______________________
23 Notary Public in and for the
state of _______________,
24 county of ______________
25 My commission expires:
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LACY LEITCH & ASSOCIATES - REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTERS