1
1
2
STATE OF FLORIDA
3 DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
4
SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE
5 OF FLORIDA, a Florida Agricultural CASE NOS. 92-3038
Cooperative Marketing Association; 92-3039
6 ROTH FARMS, INC.; and WEDGWORTH 92-3040
FARMS, INC.,
7 and
FLORIDA SUGAR CANE LEAGUE, INC.;
8 UNITED STATES SUGAR CORPORATION,
and
9 FLORIDA FRUIT AND VEGETABLE
ASSOCIATION; LEWIS POPE FARMS;
10 W.E. SCHLECHTER & SONS, INC.;
and HUNDLEY FARMS, INC.,
11 Petitioners,
12 vs.
13 SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT
DISTRICT, an Agency of the State
14 of Florida,
Respondent,
15
and
16
MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF
17 FLORIDA; THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA;
THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
18 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;
THE FLORIDA WILDLIFE FEDERATION;
19 THE FLORIDA AUDUBON SOCIETY,
and THE SIERRA CLUB,
20 Respondent-Intervenors.
__________________________________/
21
DEPOSITION OF KEVIN BOEHMER
22
23
ACCURATE STENOTYPE REPORTERS, INC.
24 100 Salem Court
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
25 (904) 878-2221
1-800-934-9090
2
1
2
3
4 ___________________________________________________________
5
DEPOSITION OF: KEVIN BOEHMER
6
7 TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF: Respondent-Intervenor USA
8
DATE: Monday, March 14, 1994
9
10 TIME: Commenced at 9:30 a.m.
Concluded at 3:50 p.m.
11
12 LOCATION: 315 South Calhoun
Tallahassee, Florida
13
14 REPORTED BY: TERRY WILHELMI, CSR
Notary Public in and for the
15 State of Florida at Large
___________________________________________________________
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
1
2 APPEARANCES:
3
REPRESENTING THE SUGAR CANE GROWERS COOPERATIVE,
4 ROTH FARMS, and WEDGWORTH FARMS:
5 GARY P. SAMS, ESQUIRE
Hopping, Boyd, Green & Sams
6 123 South Calhoun
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
7
8 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
9 LISA B. HOGAN, ESQUIRE
Assistant United States Attorney
10 Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
11 Third Floor
Miami, Florida 33l32
12
13 ALSO APPEARING:
14 Gene Duncan
Dr. Ron Jones
15
* * * * *
16
17
18
19
I N D E X
20
21 WITNESS PAGE
22 KEVIN BOEHMER
23 Direct Examination by Ms. Hogan 5
24
25
4
1 E X H I B I T S
2
NUMBER DESCRIPTION PAGE
3
4 Boehmer Exhibit 1 Notice of Deposition 7
Boehmer Exhibit 2 Resume 77
5 Boehmer Exhibit 3 Designation of Witnesses 79
Boehmer Exhibit 4 5-25-93 Proposal 110
6 Boehmer Exhibit 5 8-13-93 Memorandum 119
Boehmer Exhibit 6 Technical Memorandum 12-3-93 121
7 Boehmer Exhibit 7 1993 Actual Data 122
Boehmer Exhibit 8 8-19-93 Work Plan 126
8 Boehmer Exhibit 9 Field Book 132
Boehmer Exhibit 10 Second Field Book 134
9 Boehmer Exhibit 11 Technical Memorandum 10-13-93 135
Boehmer Exhibit 12 12-20-93 Telephone Record 140
10 Boehmer Exhibit 13 2-18-94 Memorandum 140
Boehmer Exhibit 14 Technical Memorandum 10-29-93 142
11 Boehmer Exhibit 15 Notes from Project File 144
Boehmer Exhibit 16 2-8-94 Memorandum 147
12 Boehmer Exhibit 17 9-22-93 Memorandum 152
Boehmer Exhibit 18 2-10-94 Memorandum 152
13 Boehmer Exhibit 19 10-27-93 Telephone Record 153
Boehmer Exhibit 20 10-4-93 Telephone Record 157
14 Boehmer Exhibit 21 10-13-93 Memorandum 157
Boehmer Exhibit 22 8-19-93 Fax 158
15 Boehmer Exhibit 23 5-16-93 Telephone Record 159
Boehmer Exhibit 24 11-1-93 Telephone Record 160
16 Boehmer Exhibit 25 8-23 Memorandum 161
Boehmer Exhibit 26 9-27-93 Telephone Record 164
17 Boehmer Exhibit 27 Technical Memorandum 10-29-93 167
Boehmer Exhibit 28 Technical Memorandum 9-30-93 169
18 Boehmer Exhibit 29 Technical Memorandum 10-29-93 170
Boehmer Exhibit 30 12-3-93 Memorandum 170
19 Boehmer Exhibit 31 Technical Memorandum 9-30-93 171
Boehmer Exhibit 32 Technical Memorandum 9-30-93 171
20 Boehmer Exhibit 33 Technical Memorandum 9-30-93 172
Boehmer Exhibit 34 Technical Memorandum (undated) 172
21
22
23
24
CERTIFICATE OF OATH 175
25
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 176
5
1 PROCEEDINGS
2 The following deposition of KEVIN BOEHMER was taken
3 on oral examination, pursuant to notice, for purposes of
4 discovery, and for use as evidence, and for other uses and
5 purposes as may be permitted by the applicable and
6 governing rules. Reading and signing is waived.
7 * * *
8 Thereupon,
9 KEVIN BOEHMER
10 was called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, was
11 examined and testified as follows:
12 DIRECT EXAMINATION
13 BY MS. HOGAN:
14 Q Mr. Boehmer, my name is Lisa Hogan and I
15 represent the United States. We are here to talk to you
16 today to discuss your expected testimony at trial and the
17 opinions that you hold in this matter. I'm going to ask
18 you a series of questions, if you don't understand my
19 question, please let me know. When you answer, we will
20 assume that you have understood the question, okay?
21 A Okay.
22 Q Can you state your full name for the record?
23 A Yes, it's Kevin Patrick Boehmer.
24 Q Can you give us your home address and your work
25 address and your home telephone number and your work
6
1 telephone number?
2 A Sure. My home address is 31 Earl Street in
3 Kitchener, Ontario and my home phone number is area code
4 (519) 744-3509. I work at CH2M HILL in Waterloo, Ontario.
5 The address there is Suite 600, 180 King Street South,
6 Waterloo, Ontario. The number there is (519) 579-3500.
7 Q What is your position?
8 A I am an environmental planner.
9 Q What does that encompass, what do you do?
10 A In general, an enviromental planner is an
11 integrator of the various disciplines in the context of our
12 company. I would run projects that, for example, have
13 engineers, hydrologists, hydrogeologists, and I would be in
14 charge of integrating that data in a planning context, so
15 in other words, taking engineering data and interpreting it
16 into an a doable plan.
17 Q We sent you a notice of taking deposition duces
18 tecum which stated that your deposition was going to be
19 taken here today at 9:00. Attached to the notice was a
20 list of documents that we requested that you produce for
21 your deposition and I would like to go through each of the
22 items that's listed to make sure that the documents that we
23 asked you for were in fact produced. Do you have a copy of
24 your notice with you?
25 A I --
7
1 Q Is that it that Mr. Sams has?
2 MR. SAMS: It is a copy. If you like, he can
3 look at it while I do.
4 MS. HOGAN: Why don't we mark this as the first
5 exhibit to your deposition.
6 (Boehmer Exhibit 1 marked for identification.)
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q The first thing that we asked you for was a copy
9 your curriculum vitae or similar document, if it has been
10 updated since your designation as an expert. Have you
11 produced that document?
12 A Yes, I have.
13 Q That's the document that you handed me this
14 morning?
15 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
16 Q The second item that we asked you for, we wanted
17 a list of all technical, professional, or scientific
18 publications, reports, articles, monographs, thesis, or
19 similar documents in which you were identified as author or
20 co-author, related to the Everglades research, the water
21 quality assessment, EAA development, evaluation of
22 phosphorus removed alternatives, and generally accepted
23 engineering practices. Have you produced all the documents
24 that are responsive to that?
25 A Yes.
8
1 Q Do you have any published material, any
2 published articles?
3 A No. In the technical literature?
4 Q Correct.
5 A No.
6 Q The third item is a copy of each technical,
7 professional, or scientific publication, report, article,
8 monograph, thesis or similar document in which you were
9 identified as an author or co-author, related to Everglades
10 research, to include all drafts, edited copies, reviewers'
11 comments and the final version. Have you produced all
12 those documents?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Have you authored any articles?
15 A No.
16 Q Item number 4 asks for all documents relating to
17 research done in the Florida Everglades and the Everglades
18 Agricultural Area for the period 1975 to date, including
19 but not limited to the EPA, the ENP, the LNWR and the
20 WCA's. Have you produced all documents responsive to that?
21 A Yes.
22 MR. SAMS: Let me just object for clarity of the
23 record to the form of the question. I think it was
24 clearly intended to mean those documents of the
25 witness, it really reads more broadly to ask for all
9
1 documents relating to research in the Everglades and I
2 don't think this witness has attempted to do a general
3 canvass, he has just simply provided those things
4 which are within his possession.
5 MS. HOGAN: Okay, that's our understanding.
6 BY MS. HOGAN:
7 Q Item number 5 is all documents relating to
8 research done in the Everglades Protection Area or the
9 Everglades Agricultural Area as defined in the March 13,
10 1992 Everglades SWIM plan, including field notes,
11 photographs, lab analyses, et cetera.
12 A Yes.
13 Q These photographs that were produced, these are
14 the only photographs --
15 A Yes.
16 Q -- that you possess regarding the EAA or your
17 testing?
18 A Um-hum.
19 MR. SAMS: Let me clarify there. I think after
20 Dr. Shannon's deposition, we were asked just to
21 provide copies of the ones that the you had
22 specifically requested be copied. There may have been
23 others in that folder that the U.S. reviewed and
24 elected not to have copies, but the ones that were
25 marked as exhibits to Dr. Shannon's testimony have
10
1 been copied and have been provided.
2 MS. HOGAN: At Dr. Shannon's deposition, I did
3 attend, only these 43 photographs were produced, are
4 you saying that there are photographs in addition to
5 these that we have?
6 MR. SAMS: If those are all of them, then those
7 are all of them. I thought perhaps they had been
8 selected.
9 BY MS. HOGAN:
10 Q So these are the only photographs that have been
11 taken that you have reviewed?
12 MR. SAMS: Can we go off the record a second?
13 MS. HOGAN: Sure.
14 (Discussion off the record.)
15 MR. SAMS: My recollection from what Gary Perko
16 told me, was that there were some greater number, of
17 which the U.S. wanted 43, and those are the 43.
18 MS. HOGAN: These 43 we actually marked as
19 exhibits to his deposition, but there were additional
20 photographs that you produced, but you did not produce
21 them today?
22 MR. SAMS: No, but we can if that's problematic.
23 They are at my office.
24 MS. HOGAN: Yes, I think we would like a copy of
25 all photographs that have been taken, not just the
11
1 ones that were made exhibits to Dr. Shannon's
2 deposition. Can you get those to us by tomorrow or is
3 it possible to get them to us today?
4 MR. SAMS: I will be able to get them to you
5 today, I just have to go back to the office and bring
6 them back.
7 MS. HOGAN: Okay, good enough.
8 BY MS. HOGAN:
9 Q Can you look at number 6 and read that?
10 A Yes.
11 Q You produced all documents responsive to that
12 request?
13 A Um-hum.
14 Q The same with item number 7, have you produced
15 all documents responsive to that request?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Item number 8, same question?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Item number 9?
20 A Yes.
21 Q Item number 10? Okay, item number 10 asks for
22 all laboratory notes, notebooks, hard copies of materials
23 on computer disks, including unpublished research results
24 related to the Everglades research, whether conducted
25 personally or by others. At the deposition this morning,
12
1 you handed us a disk, is this the only other disk that
2 hasn't been produced, is there any other documentation?
3 A That's it, but I notice here it says hard copies
4 of materials on computer disk, hard copies haven't been
5 provided in all cases, just computer or disk versions.
6 Q Is there a hard copy version of this disk?
7 A No, we haven't printed it out. Similarly, with
8 my spread sheet files, I just work with them on the
9 computer and printout summary tables, so those tables would
10 be included in the documents, but the actual entire spread
11 sheet you likely don't have hard copies of.
12 Q But we do have your disk?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Item number 11, have you produced the documents?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Item number 12?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Item number 13?
19 A Yes.
20 Q Item number 14?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Can I ask you a question, when was this disk
23 made, the one that you produced today?
24 A I received that from the District, I believe
25 last Thursday.
13
1 Q Item number 15?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Item number 16?
4 A Yes.
5 Q Item number 17?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Item number 18?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Item number 19?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Item number 20?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Item number 21?
14 A I was not a member of the SAGE committee.
15 Q Did you review any of the documents that were
16 produced within that?
17 A They were produced, yes.
18 Q Do you remember any documents specifically that
19 you reviewed?
20 A No, it would have just been a component of
21 putting together the project file, but not for any specific
22 task that I undertook.
23 Q Item number 22?
24 A Yes.
25 Q Item number 23?
14
1 A Yes.
2 Q Item number 24?
3 A Yes.
4 Q Item number 25?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Which documents relating to the review of any
7 designated witnesses have you reviewed?
8 A I guess I was thinking about Earl's deposition,
9 I have reviewed that, whether that fits under number 25 or
10 not, I'm not sure.
11 Q Have you reviewed any other documents that fall
12 within this category?
13 A That's the only one I was thinking of.
14 Q Item number 26?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Item number 27?
17 A Again, just in the sense that --some of these
18 are a bit fuzzy to me, but in the sense of looking at
19 Earl's correspondence and documents that he acquired at
20 SAGE and putting together the project file that's been
21 submitted.
22 Q Item number -- where were we, 27?
23 A 28.
24 Q Okay, item number 28?
25 A Yes.
15
1 Q Item number 29?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Item number 30?
4 A Yes.
5 Q When you came in this morning, Counsel handed me
6 another set of documents that were not previously produced,
7 why weren't these documents produced before today?
8 A It was an oversight on my part. The project
9 file, as I said, is set up in my office and it includes
10 most of Earl's historical file and my file since I started
11 undertaking activities last summer. When I received the
12 comments from our draft technical memoranda, I filed them
13 in another place beside my computer until such time as I
14 was going to use them and they didn't go directly into the
15 project file, so when I was preparing the boxes to send
16 down to Gary Perko, they were left out.
17 Q Are you aware of any other documents that
18 haven't been produced, any other files that you would have
19 filed someplace else?
20 A No, I'm not.
21 Q So you have produced all documents, to your
22 knowledge, that are responsive to the notice?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Have you ever had your deposition taken before?
25 A No, I haven't.
16
1 Q Have you ever participated as a witness in any
2 other lawsuit?
3 A No.
4 Q Have you been a party to any other lawsuit?
5 A No. I'm at your mercy.
6 Q You are aware that Dr. Shannon's deposition was
7 taken on March 4th and 5th, 1994, correct?
8 A Yes.
9 Q Did you discuss with him how his deposition
10 went, what questions were asked?
11 A Yes, in a general sense.
12 Q What did you discuss?
13 A We discussed primarily the broad areas of his
14 testimony.
15 Q What were those areas?
16 A From my understanding, they were historical
17 trends of the EAA loadings, from the EAA loadings,
18 treatment alternatives, comparison of treatment
19 alternatives and, thirdly, just sort of a general
20 engineering approach to solutions in the area.
21 Q So he generally told you what questions were
22 asked of him and what his responses were?
23 A No, we didn't discuss specific questions. We
24 discussed just, you know, how our work really related to
25 his testimony.
17
1 Q But he did not discuss with you what his
2 responses were?
3 A In some cases, he did, yes.
4 Q Then you also mentioned that you read his
5 deposition in preparation for your deposition today?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Do you know when you read that deposition?
8 A Yesterday.
9 Q And you reviewed the exhibits that were attached
10 to the deposition?
11 A Yes, I did.
12 MS. HOGAN: At Dr. Shannon's deposition, he
13 produced several photographs which I believe were
14 marked as Exhibit 19 to that deposition and I would
15 like to make these exhibits to this deposition, but we
16 only have this one copy. Are you going to retain the
17 originals, these original photographs?
18 MR. SAMS: It was my understanding that the
19 originals were actually to be made exhibits to the
20 Shannon deposition.
21 MS. HOGAN: So are we giving them to the court
22 reporter today or are you taking them back?
23 MR. SAMS: If that's a correct understanding. It
24 can be done that way, however, you have requested
25 blowups and we need some record of the numbers on
18
1 individual things in order to have the blowups made.
2 MS. HOGAN: We will do that during the break,
3 we'll just put the same number on each of these
4 documents so that I know which ones to order.
5 MR. SAMS: Yes. The problem is that I think
6 all we have left then may be negatives, and if that's
7 so --
8 MS. HOGAN: Then you will need the originals
9 back?
10 MR. SAMS: Yes.
11 MS. HOGAN: Okay.
12 BY MS. HOGAN:
13 Q Mr. Boehmer, I'm going to hand you some
14 photographs and can you identify these photographs for me?
15 MR. SAMS: Let me go off the record and ask you
16 something, if I may.
17 MS. HOGAN: Yes.
18 (Discussion off the record.)
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q Can you identify these photographs, Mr. Boehmer?
21 A Sure. This photograph was taken at Site A as
22 referred to in our first technical memorandum, which would
23 have been the Glades Farm.
24 Q And this has been marked on the back as
25 photograph number 1, Exhibit Number 19 to Earl Shannon's
19
1 deposition taken March 4, 1994. Did you take these
2 photographs?
3 A Yes, I did.
4 Q What does this photograph represent, this first
5 photograph?
6 A This is a photograph of some jar testing that we
7 did on the site the first day we were in the field. This
8 would be just raw canal water with some ferric sulfate
9 added to it and shaken up and then we just visually inspect
10 the flocculation activities that took place within that
11 sample.
12 Q What is a jar sample? That is a jar sample?
13 A This is a jar sample, yes. It's just -- it's
14 trying to determine what chemical dosages would be
15 appropriate to start your experiment with, so it's sort of
16 like a first cut, gross estimation.
17 Q Do you know how much of a dosage you used in
18 this photograph?
19 A I wouldn't be able to say specifically, but it
20 looks to me like it would have been a high dosage, because
21 you can see distinctly the settling out of the floc in the
22 bottom. In some of the dosages that we ended up using, we
23 didn't need such a concentrated dosage, the filtration unit
24 was able to remove the solids without such a
25 distinguishable settling.
20
1 Q About what dosage do you feel has been used here
2 of the ferric sulfide?
3 MR. SAMS: If you know.
4 A I couldn't say. We were all over the board that
5 first day with dosages.
6 BY MS. HOGAN:
7 Q What's the second picture, picture number 2?
8 A This is a shot again of the Site A sampling
9 location. It just shows you the equalization tank at the
10 front end of the process where the raw water would have
11 been pumped into this tank and then continued this way
12 through the process.
13 Q So the water comes in through this green hose?
14 A No. The water would come in through the back
15 side here where you can't see, this would be an overflow
16 hose here.
17 Q What is this red hose?
18 A The red hose would be the compressor hose, the
19 air compressor, gas powered air compressor was down at this
20 end of the site and the hose would have connected from it
21 up to the microfiltration unit.
22 Q What is this tan looking box that has number 923
23 on it?
24 A That housed the Co-op's automatic sampler that
25 they used as part of their early baseline monitoring
21
1 program.
2 Q What is this in the background, this little
3 thing that's projecting?
4 A That's at the location where the Co-op pulled
5 their samples from.
6 Q And what is this green stuff that's in the water
7 or on top of the water, what is that?
8 A I'm not sure. It was an algal growth of some
9 kind that had built up in the canal.
10 Q Was there another filter in front of this?
11 A Yeah, there is a trash rack that comes right
12 through here that blocks this growth from entering, well,
13 some of it from entering the suction side of the pump
14 house.
15 Q Does that mean that some of the trash comes
16 through?
17 A It would trap gross objects. The trash rack is
18 probably about half a foot in separation.
19 Q Let's move to the picture that's marked with
20 number 3 on the back of it, can you describe that picture
21 for me?
22 A Yes. This was taken at Site A and it's a shot
23 of one of the four pumps at that site, on the suction side.
24 Q Site A is this 923, that's Site A?
25 A Yeah, that's the Co-op's numbering system, 923.
22
1 Q What farm did this take place on?
2 A Glades main farm.
3 Q The next picture is picture number 4?
4 A Yes. This would have been taken at Site B, the
5 Flor-Ag Farm, and it shows the system process, most
6 components of it. This was our equalization tank at that
7 site, the water would have been coming into the side.
8 Q This is the white container?
9 A Yes. This would have been an overflow -- excuse
10 me, this is the inflow right here, so you see there is a
11 strainer right here that strained out some gross material.
12 Inflow here. This is the caustic addition tank.
13 Q That's the smaller white tank?
14 A Yes.
15 Q What's that little meter on the top of it?
16 A That's a metering pump so you can control the
17 flow of caustic into the process. That would have entered
18 the system right after outflow from this tank.
19 Q Through that white hose, the large white hose?
20 A Yeah, through this teflon tube.
21 Q Okay.
22 A It would have continued down this length of
23 pipe. The next input would have come from this yellow tank
24 and that's the ferric sulfate, it comes again through a
25 metering pump into the system here. This tub here was set
23
1 up as a flocculation tank.
2 Q The green tub?
3 A Yes. This is a mixer that is just affixed to
4 the top of these two PVC pipes and it hangs into the tank
5 and mixes the solution. The outflow from that tank goes
6 directly into the microfiltration unit and then you can't
7 see very well, but the backwash would come off the back of
8 the unit here and generally be collected in this tub.
9 Q Okay.
10 A And there would also be a hose where the
11 filtrate came out at that end also.
12 Q And where would that go?
13 A That would come, you can just barely see on the
14 left hand side here, that green hose. Now, when we were
15 just running the system and weren't testing, we just
16 discharged the green hose back into the canal, but during
17 an actual testing period, we could dislodge that green hose
18 and collect a sample directly from the back of the machine.
19 Q And the next picture is picture number 5?
20 A This was taken at Site B, the Flor-Ag site, it's
21 just another angle. You see the intake comes up this green
22 hose through the strainer into the equalization tank and
23 you get a better shot here of the caustic addition tank.
24 Q What is a caustic?
25 A A caustic is a solution with a -- such that you
24
1 can adjust the pH of the process water.
2 Q What chemicals are in the caustic?
3 A That would have been sodium hydroxide based.
4 Q So you have sodium hydroxide, which would be
5 your caustic, and then you have the ferric?
6 A No, the ferric comes --
7 Q Oh, that's in the yellow?
8 A Yeah, down in a little bit.
9 Q All right, this is picture number 6?
10 A This is a picture of the flocculation tank
11 primarily. This would have been where the ferric sulfate
12 was added just upstream of this tank and you see the mixer
13 here that's hanging it to that component.
14 Q You used the same equipment at each site?
15 A There was some minor changes in process at the
16 two sites, we learned sort of as we went along.
17 Q What changes did you make?
18 A Well, for example, this flocculation tank was
19 only used at the second site and we were just -- at the
20 first site we had an in-line rapid mixer, which is only
21 about half a foot long and the same diameter as this PVC
22 pipe, and we tried to have it do the same thing as this
23 flocculation did, but basically just testing out a
24 different piece of equipment to do the same sort of job.
25 We used that for a few test runs at Site A, we removed that
25
1 and didn't use any flocculation step for some of the test
2 runs at Site A and for some of the test runs at Site B.
3 Then our last few test runs at Site B, we added this step
4 so that we could judge the results from that.
5 Q Which one did you find was better?
6 A We essentially found that we didn't need a
7 flocculation step, that there was enough contact time
8 between the chemical and the water just within the PVC
9 piping, that we didn't recognize a noticeable improvement
10 in filtrate water quality using this.
11 Q The next picture is picture number 7?
12 A This is a shot at Site B, the Flor-Ag site, from
13 a different angle. This is, if we move this way, this is
14 the back of the -- the back end of the microfiltration unit
15 and this would have been the filtrate discharge. This is
16 the other technician that was on site with me, Mr. Van
17 Dokas, from our Waterloo office. We have the coagulant
18 addition tank here, flocculation tank, caustic addition
19 tank, equalization tank.
20 Q What are these red tanks in the back?
21 A Those are gasoline containers that we used for
22 our air compressor and generator that we had off in the
23 background here.
24 Q Okay, picture number 8?
25 A This is a shot of two of the pumps at Site A at
26
1 the Glades Farm on the discharge side, in other words, our
2 sample would have been collected on the other side of these
3 pumps.
4 Q This is the back side?
5 A Yeah, the back side.
6 Q Photograph number 9?
7 A This photograph would have been taken at Site A,
8 the Glades Farm, and it shows three sample bottles. This
9 would have been taken during our first day when we were
10 undertaking system setup and jar testing activities and we
11 just collected samples from three points in the system and
12 took a photograph of it just to show that, I guess, the
13 visual difference in the water quality primarily between
14 the raw infiltrate and the backwash sample.
15 Q That's at the first site?
16 A That's at the first site.
17 Q Next should be photograph 10?
18 A Yes. This is a picture of the microfiltration
19 unit at Site A and it's just a close up picture of one side
20 of the unit.
21 Q What size is that unit?
22 A This is a two gallon per minute unit.
23 Q Okay.
24 A This would be where the water was entering the
25 system right there.
27
1 Q Okay. Photograph number 11?
2 A This is a picture taken at Site A, just another
3 angle of the unit. See the incoming water here, this would
4 have been filtrate exiting here and the backwash hose is
5 coming out this side here.
6 Q That's the green hose that's going in the back?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Photograph number 12?
9 A This photo is taken at Site A and shows the
10 system for a number of test runs where we had the
11 equalization tank, some coagulant addition here, and this
12 would have been one that I was mentioning before where the
13 in-line mixer was removed from the system, so it just went
14 directly into the microfiltration unit.
15 Q Photograph number 13?
16 A This picture was taken at Site A and it's
17 looking at the suction side of the pump houses, so our
18 system would have been set up over here.
19 Q To the right of the photograph?
20 A That's right. You can see our pump sitting
21 right on the bank here and that would have been collecting
22 the raw water sample.
23 Q Do you know what these yellow barrels are for?
24 A I'm not certain. I assume that they control the
25 vegetation in the canal somehow, but it's just intuitively,
28
1 I never talked to anyone there as to their exact purpose.
2 Q Photograph 14?
3 A This photograph was taken at Site A and is very
4 similar to one several back, where during our testing
5 activities, I just took a shot of these three labeled
6 bottles.
7 Q To show the difference?
8 A Yeah, just show the difference in turbidity
9 basically.
10 Q The backwash water is darker than the raw water?
11 A Yes.
12 Q That's because of the addition of the ferric
13 sulfate?
14 A Yeah, and it has more particulate matter
15 suspended.
16 Q And this is the water with the ferric sulfate
17 added, the one that you have labeled as filtrate?
18 A Filtrate, yes. It's with it added, but then
19 it's removed, some of it's removed through the process and
20 this is the water that emanates.
21 Q This is the end water?
22 A That's right, that's the end product.
23 Q After it's gone through the filtration?
24 A Yes.
25 Q This is what it looks like when it comes in, the
29
1 second one is the final product, and then the third one is
2 the backwash?
3 A That's right.
4 Q Photograph number 15?
5 A This is a shot that was taken at Site A and it's
6 just an overhead look at the equalization tank and the
7 system setup there.
8 Q How do you know that it's Site A?
9 A I remember taking it. To get you oriented, this
10 would be where the raw water was coming into the tank, so
11 the canal would have been running this way and this would
12 have been the feed of the process to the microfiltration.
13 Q All right, photograph number 16?
14 A This was taken at Site A and it's a shot from
15 the other side of the canal, taking a look at the process.
16 Q What is this thing that's hanging there?
17 A That's a Co-op's apparatus that they have their
18 sampler hanging from the bottom of that.
19 Q But you had your own?
20 A We had your pump set up here, you can't see it
21 very well, but the hose goes through here, our sample was
22 collected off the end of this yellow rope here in the
23 middle of the canal.
24 Q This is photograph number 17?
25 A Yes. This is somewhat similar to the last
30
1 photograph taken from the other side of the canal, it shows
2 you our pumping location, our work area, and Mr. Jim
3 Vickers from Memtec, who was on site for the first three or
4 four days of the program.
5 Q Who is this person with the purple shirt?
6 A That would have been Van Dokas, my colleague out
7 in the field.
8 Q He is employed with you?
9 A Yeah, he works for CH2M of Waterloo.
10 Q What is this?
11 A That would have been a Co-op staff gauge where
12 they can monitor the level of the canal water.
13 Q Photograph number 18?
14 A Again, this is very similar to the last two. You
15 can see here where we collected our backwash down the bank.
16 Q What did you do with that backwash afterwards?
17 A It was discarded back into the canal. Where we
18 drew our samples, or where the pump was anyway, you can see
19 the equalization tank, ferric tank and Jim standing over
20 the actual microfiltration unit.
21 Q Okay, photograph number 19?
22 A This is a shot of the microfiltration unit from
23 another angle. This shows --
24 Q At which site?
25 A This is at Site A. This is the opposite side of
31
1 the ones the previous photographs have been showing and
2 this gives you an indication of where the backwash exits
3 the microfiltration unit, this is where the water enters
4 and this would be the filtrate, the final effluent water.
5 Q Photograph number 20?
6 A This is the end of -- one of the ends of the
7 microfiltration unit and there's various controls along
8 here that an operator would use. We only worried about a
9 couple of them in our application, but this one primarily
10 is the filtrate valve where it would exit the system.
11 Q What would the other ones be used for?
12 A Well, one of them is an exhaust valve, if excess
13 air builds up in the system, you can bleed the excess air
14 out of it. Another one, I believe, controls this internal
15 break tank in the system and it just turns the valve on and
16 off, whether you want to use that. I'm not sure what the
17 fourth one is. The two we were primarily interested in
18 were the filtrate stream and the exhaust valve. If there
19 was an air build up in the system, we could manually
20 exhaust that air.
21 Q Photograph number 21?
22 A This was taken at Site A and it shows Van Dokas
23 at the back of the machine. It's a side view again. This
24 would be the incoming water, this would be where we would
25 monitor the pH of the water as it entered the machine.
32
1 Q What, that red tube?
2 A In this little jar here there is a little probe
3 into it.
4 Q Okay.
5 A I'm not sure what Van is doing back there.
6 Q Okay, photograph 22?
7 A This is looking, I guess, at what you could call
8 the front end of the machine. The water enters, this would
9 be the compressed air hookup right here.
10 Q That's the red tube?
11 A The red hose, yes. This valve, as I showed you
12 on the last picture, we could control, we could sample the
13 incoming water for pH on a continuous basis. That would be
14 the backwash stream there.
15 Q The green tube?
16 A Yeah, that's right. Then that's likely the
17 filtrate hose we can see going through the grass there.
18 Q Okay, photograph 23?
19 A This was taken at Site A and it shows the pump
20 discharge -- the discharge location from one of the four
21 pumps that were there when they cranked up the pumps for
22 us.
23 Q Do you know how many gallons of water are
24 released through the pump?
25 A Well, those four pumps are rated at 15,000
33
1 gallons per minute and I'm not sure if they were cranked to
2 capacity.
3 Q So this doesn't show a full capacity pump?
4 A It could have been full capacity, I'm not
5 certain. They turned them on for us, but I'm not sure if
6 it was at the rated capacity or not.
7 Q Okay, photograph number 24?
8 A This is the same as the last picture. I believe
9 -- I can't say for certain, it could be the discharge from
10 the same pump or another one of those four.
11 Q Okay, photograph number 25?
12 A This photo was taken at Site A and this was
13 taken during a condition where we had that in-line flash
14 mixer installed, you can see it right in the center here,
15 that joined the two PVC tubes. So we have our equalization
16 here, caustic addition here, those are combined to run
17 through this pipe. The ferric sulfate is added just prior
18 to that static mixer and then this mixer under pressure
19 from water is supposed to flash mix those three different
20 ingredients such that it comes through here into the
21 microfiltration unit.
22 Q In the back there are two, I guess, pumps?
23 A The boxes?
24 Q Yes. One says 923 and the other one says what,
25 927?
34
1 A Yes.
2 Q So which location were you at?
3 A We were at both locations. These are just Co-op
4 housings for their field equipment, they are just internal
5 Co-op numbers.
6 Q But do you know which number applied to where
7 you were?
8 A Yeah. Well, I'll try and explain what's
9 happened here. This locked box, 923, houses the Co-op's
10 automatic sampler, which collects samples from the canal as
11 part of their early baseline program. 927 did house some
12 instrumentation for another experiment the Co-op was doing
13 internally, that I understood was a time versus flow series
14 over an extended period of time through the canal, but was
15 unrelated to early baseline monitoring activities. I have
16 since been told that that never got off the ground, there
17 was technical glitches and they have since dis -- what's
18 the right word, they have torn apart 927, it doesn't exist.
19 But this was just a internal Co-op monitor -- or as far as
20 I know, a numbering system anyway for their different
21 instrumentation throughout their farms.
22 Q Was it running while you were there, number 927?
23 A Not to my knowledge.
24 Q Photograph number 26?
25 A This was taken at Site A and looks at the
35
1 process again from the starting point. It was taken while
2 the flash mixer was in-line and we have Van hovering over
3 the microfiltration unit.
4 Q What kinds of things would he be doing at this
5 unit?
6 A Well, routinely we would be monitoring the
7 differential pressures across the machine, just making sure
8 that things were functioning as they should have been in
9 terms of the pressure between incoming and exiting water,
10 basically just making sure that things were running
11 smoothly.
12 Q About how long were you at this site in terms of
13 hours per day?
14 A Probably on average, about 10 hours per day.
15 Q And did it run consistently through that time,
16 were you filtrating?
17 A On average, I would say that of those 10 hours,
18 we left for lunch usually for an hour and there was some
19 system setup and shut down at the beginning and end of each
20 day, so I would probably take off about three of those
21 hours per day, three or four. There's various little
22 things that we had to do while it wasn't running.
23 Q About how many gallons of water do you think you
24 sent through the system per day?
25 A Per day, well, if we assume that there was
36
1 probably five to six hours of running time per day at two
2 gallons per minute, that would mean 120 gallons per hour.
3 Q So you're saying that you ran the system for
4 five hours a day, but you may have been out there for 10?
5 A That's right.
6 Q So you ran a total of 120 gallons?
7 A On average. I mean, some days were different
8 than others, we had to collect a different number of
9 samples.
10 Q So it could have been less or more?
11 A Yes.
12 Q Just depended on what you were doing?
13 A Yeah.
14 MR. SAMS: Let me interject, I think the witness
15 really testified it was 120 gallons an hour and the
16 last interchange may have implied that it was 120
17 gallons a day. You may wish to clarify that.
18 BY MS. HOGAN:
19 Q What is it?
20 A It's 120 gallons per hour while the system was
21 running.
22 Q And approximately five hours a day?
23 A I would say over the length of the job, that
24 that would be a fair assumption.
25 Q This is at Site Number 1?
37
1 A That's at Site Number 1.
2 Q What about for Site Number 2?
3 A Site Number 2 would have been pretty well the
4 same. If anything, I would say that we ran it for a little
5 longer period of time, perhaps six hours a day at Site B,
6 because we had learned from our experiences at Site A in
7 terms of system setup and how to get the system running
8 quicker and those sorts of things, so we were able to run
9 it a little longer.
10 Q How many gallons per minute did you say?
11 A Two gallons per minute, on average. That's the
12 nominal flex rate, so again, it could very slightly over
13 that, but that's the rate that it's designed for.
14 Q Okay, photograph 27?
15 A This is taken at Site B and this would have been
16 taken from the other side of the canal from which we were
17 set up.
18 Q And you took all these photographs?
19 A As far as I can remember, I took them all. Now,
20 Van might have taken one or two if the camera was up for
21 grabs.
22 Q But you only had one camera out there?
23 A Yes. From this photo, we can see similarly --
24 Q Did you videotape it?
25 A No, we didn't. This is a similar flotation
38
1 instrument where the Co-op would have been collecting the
2 early baseline data from and we collected our samples from
3 the same apparatus in the center of the canal, we follow
4 that in here to the equalization.
5 Q That's different than the first test, because
6 you collected it from your own apparatus at Site A, you
7 collected the samples from your own apparatus?
8 A No, we hung off their apparatus also, I believe
9 -- or no, we hung off the trash rack, but essentially it
10 was in the same position relative to their sampling
11 location.
12 Q But is the water that you are receiving in this
13 photograph coming from their sampler or is it coming from
14 your sampler?
15 A It's coming directly from the canal in fairly
16 close proximity to where they are collecting their
17 samples. It comes into the equalization tank and then this
18 would have been a situation before we had constructed that
19 flocculation step that I showed you previous, so all we
20 have here is the caustic addition, ferric sulfate addition,
21 microfiltration unit. That is Van Dokas, again, standing
22 beside there.
23 Q This blue container is what, the backwash?
24 A That's the backwash container, yes.
25 Q What about this red container over there?
39
1 A That would have just been liquid refreshment.
2 Q Okay, photograph 28?
3 A This is a shot of the pump house at Site B and
4 this was from the discharge side of the pump house, so we
5 had set up diagonal down in there somewhere.
6 Q Okay, to the right?
7 A Or to the other side of the canal, to the front
8 side, around the front side of the pump house.
9 Q Okay, photograph 29?
10 A This is the suction side of the pump house at
11 Site B. We would have been set up on the same side of the
12 canal from where this photograph was taken, just upstream a
13 little bit.
14 Q Okay, photograph 30?
15 A This was taken at Site B and it's a picture of
16 the process prior to adding the flocculation step. It
17 shows the equalization, caustic addition, pre-strainer
18 unit, the ferric addition point microfiltration unit,
19 backwash collection tank.
20 Q What is this in the top right corner?
21 A This?
22 Q Um-hum.
23 A I believe that was a solar energy panel that was
24 set up such that it could drive these auto samplers during
25 certain times. I am not sure of the efficiency or how
40
1 often they used it, but that was my understanding of what
2 it was.
3 Q Okay, photograph 31?
4 A This is taken at Site B, it shows the process
5 from another angle, the backwash tank, this would have been
6 the filtrate coming down this way.
7 Q The green?
8 A Yeah, the brighter green hose.
9 Q What is that on the back?
10 A That's the air compressor and then next to it
11 would have been the generator.
12 Q Okay, photograph 32?
13 A This is another angle of the same process. You
14 can see here better the compressor, the generator which
15 drove some of this equipment, caustic addition,
16 equalization, ferric sulfate, microfiltration unit itself.
17 Q Next is photograph 33?
18 A This was taken at Site A and this just shows you
19 what was inside lock box 923 and --
20 Q What is that?
21 A That, to my understanding, is an auto sampler
22 and that collects the concentration samples for the early
23 baseline program. We really had nothing to do with that on
24 site, the only reason I took a picture of that is the other
25 consultants who were undertaking that work happened to be
41
1 on site the same day.
2 Q Oh, so it was open?
3 A So it was open, yeah.
4 Q Who were they?
5 A I'm not sure who they were.
6 Q Do you know what company they were with?
7 A I don't.
8 Q Were these other consultants out there the
9 entire time you were out there?
10 A No. They were in and out in about a half hour
11 or so. They just opened it up and collected their sample,
12 I believe their sample, and went off to another site.
13 Q Did they ask you what you were doing?
14 A No. They weren't inquisitive at all.
15 Q Okay, photograph 34?
16 A This is a photo of two staff from KBN
17 Engineering who, at the end of one of our days, did some
18 sampling to see what microfiltration were due to mercury.
19 Q Who were those people?
20 A This is John Good and Jane, I can't recall
21 Jane's last name.
22 Q Were they out there the whole time that you were
23 out there?
24 A No. This was at Site A and they were there for
25 two or three days. Most of those days they spent just
42
1 waiting for us to finish our work so they could do theirs.
2 It was very difficult to schedule how long our work was
3 going to take prior to actually going out and doing it, so
4 there was a lot of standing around on their part for a
5 couple of days, and then when we were satisfied that our
6 work was completed, then we let the unit run and they were
7 able to do whatever sorts of sampling they wanted.
8 Q Oh, they used your unit to gather their samples?
9 A To process their samples. What they did was
10 they collected effluent from our unit, but their raw water
11 sample they collected through this procedure. They had
12 their own sampling protocol for mercury which they
13 followed, so they would have collected all our samples by
14 themselves in special sample bottles, et cetera, and this
15 additional raw water sample.
16 Q Why did they need your effluent?
17 A Well, I think that they were interested to see
18 if they found mercury, for example, in their raw water
19 sample, what the effluent mercury level was like and to see
20 if they could make any determination if microfiltration
21 altered that concentration at all.
22 Q So they ran their tests all the days that you
23 ran your tests?
24 A No. They only ran their tests the last day, and
25 from my recollection, probably two or three hours periodic
43
1 junctures during that total time they collected samples at
2 various points during or along the process.
3 Q Did they collect different samples, meaning that
4 the samples were different as to how much ferric sulfate
5 you had added?
6 A No. What we did was we set the ferric sulfate
7 dosage, I believe at our final dosage, which would have
8 ended up being between five and six milligrams per liter,
9 and we let that run continuously through the system while
10 they were doing their work.
11 Q So they just collected bottles with that same
12 concentration?
13 A Yeah. But now that I think of it, I think that
14 it was likely at the two milligram per liter, two to three
15 milligram per liter dosage.
16 Q At a lower dosage?
17 A At a lower dosage, because by that point we had
18 determined -- I would have to check my field notes, but
19 from recollection, I think that at that point we were
20 fairly confident that that dosage was doing what we wanted
21 it do. That was the whole key, so that we could run it at
22 our optimum dosage for them, so I'm pretty sure that we
23 cranked it back to a lower dosage while they were doing
24 their work.
25 Q And then what did they do with the samples that
44
1 they collected?
2 A I'm not sure, they just drove off with them.
3 Q They haven't reported back to you?
4 A No.
5 Q So you don't know whether or not your process
6 has any effect on the mercury?
7 A No, I don't. As Earl said in his deposition, he
8 received one set of data from KBN and now I have seen that
9 set, but I couldn't tell you what those numbers say today,
10 I never had a good look at them, but I knew that that
11 existed once upon a time.
12 Q Okay, are they going to report back to you the
13 results or is what they gave you all that they are going to
14 give you?
15 A Yeah. They were working, from my understanding,
16 they were working for the Co-op and I was never of the
17 understanding that we were going to use their results in
18 any of our reports. They were responsible for their own
19 reporting.
20 Q So you haven't seen the results of their tests
21 and they are not going to bring it back to you? That's two
22 questions. You haven't seen the results of their tests?
23 A I have seen a fax copy of the results of their
24 tests.
25 Q Did you produce that for us?
45
1 A I don't know where it is, it's in Earl's files.
2 MS. HOGAN: Do you know if that was produced to
3 us, Mr. Sams?
4 MR. SAMS: I don't, I haven't reviewed those
5 files.
6 MS. HOGAN: If you haven't, could you check this
7 afternoon during lunch to find out if that was
8 something we received?
9 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 BY MS. HOGAN:
12 Q You said you have seen a fax?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you know from whom and to whom?
15 A No. Earl had it in his hand one day.
16 Q Do you know when it came in?
17 A It would have been shortly after this program.
18 Q Was it a one page document or a two page
19 document?
20 A One page.
21 Q Are you going to do any testing on your own to
22 find out what effect microfiltration has on mercury?
23 A Not to my knowledge. We're -- my understanding
24 is we are generally focusing on nutrient removal
25 capabilities and mercury is out of our area of expertise.
46
1 Q Okay, photograph number 35?
2 A This was taken at Site A, looking up the canal
3 -- excuse me, down the canal. This would have been where
4 our system was set up here, the backwash tank. It looks
5 like we are preparing for an afternoon rain shower there.
6 Q Oh, with the blue cover?
7 A Yes, the tarp.
8 Q Did it rain while you were out there?
9 A At Site A not as often as Site B. I think I can
10 remember maybe a couple of times very late in the afternoon
11 it rained at Site A. At Site B, it was fairly punctual,
12 late in the afternoon, it came down.
13 Q The rain?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Would you test during that time while it was
16 raining?
17 A No.
18 Q Did you test after the rain?
19 A Yes, on some occasions.
20 Q Is that reflected in your notes --
21 A Yeah.
22 Q -- at what point your tests were taken, whether
23 it's raining or not?
24 A Yeah.
25 Q Does it reflect how long it rained?
47
1 A I'm not sure if they are that specific. It
2 probably would have just said -- it might have, short,
3 heavy downpour, something of that nature.
4 Q Was it a heavy downpour?
5 A In some cases it was, yes.
6 Q About how long did it rain everyday punctually?
7 A Well, it varied. I mean, I think some days it
8 probably rained for a half hour, an hour, some days it
9 could have rained longer.
10 Q When it rained, did you have to change any of
11 the levels of the chemicals that you were using?
12 A No.
13 Q Did it have an effect on the water that was
14 being taken in?
15 A Yeah, we found more suspended solids in the
16 water following the heavy rain.
17 Q So what adjustments, if any, did you make, or
18 did you not make any adjustments?
19 A We didn't make any adjustments.
20 Q What is this red sign up there?
21 A That's a buried cable sign, "Danger, buried
22 cable" sign. I don't know what that is, could be, you
23 know, potentially it could be electric running through to
24 the auto sampler, I'm not sure.
25 Q How many days were you at Site A?
48
1 A At Site A, if memory serves, five days.
2 Q And how many days were you at Site B?
3 A Site B, three days.
4 Q So when you were at Site A you're saying for
5 five days, about how many of those days did it rain?
6 A I would have to check my notes.
7 Q And at Site B it rained everyday?
8 A At Site B it rained everyday. The pumps were
9 operating from the time we got there until the time we
10 left.
11 Q Let's go to the next picture, that's number 36?
12 A This is a shot at Site A, the process, Van
13 taking some --
14 Q You didn't take any pictures when it was
15 raining?
16 A No, we ran for cover. This is Van taking some
17 notes probably of the pressures that I was mentioning
18 before of the unit.
19 Q Okay, photograph 37?
20 A This is Van doing some testing in the back of
21 the van. We had a portable pH temperature conductivity
22 unit and also a portable chlorimeter, which gave us some
23 field numbers for iron and phosphorus concentrations that
24 we found at the certain points in the stream, so we would
25 do, for example, when we --
49
1 Q When you say at certain points in the stream?
2 A I really meant to say in the process. For
3 example, those bottles I was showing you before, raw
4 infiltrate, backwash, we could get an initial reading in
5 the field on those numbers. And similarly, I think more
6 importantly was the iron dosage that before we would run
7 any test run or collect any samples, we could confirm the
8 dosage that we were actually adding to the stream.
9 Q All right, well, who is this person?
10 A Van Dokas.
11 Q What is his position, what does he do?
12 A He is a senior field technologist with our firm.
13 Q What's your position?
14 A I am an environmental planner.
15 Q So who coordinated this testing, I mean, under
16 whose direction?
17 A Earl Shannon was the ultimate coordinator,
18 project director.
19 Q Who was in charge of it while you were out in
20 the field?
21 A Technically I was probably in charge of the
22 field activities, but in reality we worked very closely.
23 Van has some good experience in pilot work, so a lot of the
24 details, you know, the actual plumbing and such, he was
25 extremely helpful.
50
1 Q Had you done this type of testing before, pilot
2 testing?
3 A No, I hadn't.
4 Q Was this your first field testing --
5 A No.
6 Q -- that you had participated in?
7 A No.
8 Q So this was your first what kind of a test, I'm
9 sorry?
10 A It was the first pilot scale treatment testing I
11 had done.
12 Q That you had done?
13 A Um-hum.
14 Q Ever?
15 A Ever.
16 Q And he is an employee with CH2M HILL?
17 A Yes.
18 Q I'm trying not to mix up those letters.
19 Photograph 38?
20 A This was taken at Site A and shows the four pump
21 houses on the suction side.
22 Q Let me go back to this picture with Van, you
23 were taking photographs, what did you do out on the site?
24 A I collected samples. Van was basically in
25 charge of these field monitoring units, but other than
51
1 that, I would have monitored the pressures, I would have
2 collected samples and I would have helped configure the
3 system, I would have been on the phone to headquarters
4 every once in a while.
5 Q Okay, photograph 39. How many other people
6 were out there with you?
7 A It varied. The first day we had some support
8 from our Deerfield Beach office, two fellows were out there
9 to help us get the equipment out and running.
10 Q Do you know what their names are?
11 A Sure, Steve Lavinder and Troy Lyn.
12 Q What's Steve's position?
13 A He is the project -- they are both project
14 engineers.
15 Q And they were there for the?
16 A They were there for the first day.
17 Q To set it up?
18 A Right, along with Jim Vickers of Memtec, who
19 manufactures the unit. He was there for most Site A
20 activities. He wasn't there the final day when we took the
21 system apart and packed it up to move to Site B, but from
22 recollection, he was there the other days.
23 The other person that was there was Jim Lozier
24 of our Gainesville office. He came in the second day and
25 half of the third day. He is an engineer also who
52
1 specializes in membrane technology and who had some
2 familiarity with this unit.
3 Q He had used it before or something?
4 A Yeah.
5 Q In connection with what?
6 A Some other -- another job of his.
7 Q Was it related to the Co-op?
8 A No.
9 Q Who was it related to, on behalf of whom?
10 A It was in Florida, Reedy Creek. I'm not sure
11 who the client was.
12 Q Who else was out there?
13 A Oh, there was two Co-op staff that were
14 sometimes out there, sometimes not, Joel Arieta and David
15 Mahoney, who are, I'm not sure of their exact positions,
16 they are in charge of maintaining all the early baseline
17 equipment and a lot of the field procedures that are going
18 on out there, so they were very helpful in terms of running
19 out to get us any supplies or anything that we needed.
20 Q They were there the whole time?
21 A Off and on, you know, they would usually meet us
22 on the site in the morning to see if there is anything we
23 needed or they would drop back every couple of hours just
24 to check that we hadn't fallen into the canal or something.
25 Q Were there any other people out there?
53
1 A No. Once in a while there would be people
2 driving by, Co-op employees, but those were the sort of
3 corps group that had any knowledge of what was going on.
4 Q Do you know if any employees or people connected
5 with the Sugar Cane League came out to observe what you
6 were doing?
7 A Not to my knowledge. Actually I think the
8 District staff -- the reason I'm a bit fuzzy on this is
9 because I was told that a couple of District staff were
10 going to come and have a look at what we were doing, but I
11 can't say conclusively whether they ever showed up or not.
12 Q District meaning whom?
13 A South Florida Water Management District. I have
14 a fuzzy recollection that they did drop out for a half hour
15 and just sort of walk around.
16 Q What day was that?
17 A I don't know.
18 Q At what site?
19 A That would have been at Site A.
20 Q Did you have a fuzzy idea of who they were?
21 A No.
22 Q Do you have a fuzzy idea of maybe how many
23 people there were, two people or one person?
24 A No.
25 Q Men or women?
54
1 A (Witness shakes head negatively.)
2 Q No?
3 A No.
4 Q All right, let's move on to the next photograph,
5 photograph number 40?
6 A This was taken at Site A and this is a picture
7 of the process, it would have been on the first day. The
8 reason I say that is these buckets here with this
9 instrument sticking out, it looks like it was part of our
10 jar testing activities the first day.
11 Q The buckets were part of the jar testing?
12 A Yeah. We would have collected a large sample
13 quantity in there and probably just flocculated it by hand
14 with that rapid mixer to see if we could discern any
15 settling out after adding the ferric.
16 Q About what time would you start everyday?
17 A We would be on site by probably 8:00 in the
18 morning.
19 Q And then you would leave at what time?
20 A Depending on the rain, there was some days that
21 if it was looking very ominous around 4:30 or 5:00, we
22 would have left for the day. Other days where we would
23 have sat out the rain and worked until 7:30 or 8:00. If it
24 was perfect weather, we probably would have left around
25 6:00, 6:15.
55
1 Q Photograph 41?
2 A This is a picture from site A and this is Jim
3 Vickers and Jim Lozier. This would have been again during
4 the jar testing stage -- excuse me, that would have been on
5 the second day, I believe, that we were doing this jar
6 testing, the first day was just setup. That's about it, it
7 looks like we have the system set up and we're just trying
8 to determine appropriate dosages.
9 Q Okay, photograph 42?
10 A This was taken at Site A, it would have been
11 standing on that walkway across the canal, looking down the
12 canal, would have been the staff gauge that we saw
13 previously at the sampling location for the Co-op's early
14 baseline samples.
15 Q So their sample was taken from the middle of the
16 canal?
17 A Yeah, it would have been roughly the middle.
18 Q And your sample was taken from the side of the
19 canal?
20 A No, it was also taken from the middle, but a
21 couple of feet downstream from the location.
22 Q Your pump was just set up on the side of the
23 canal?
24 A That's right.
25 Q And photograph 43?
56
1 A This is a similar shot taken from the walkway,
2 it would have been looking toward the side of the canal
3 where we were set up, it shows the staff gauge and the
4 sampling location. It looks like it was taken early in the
5 morning or late in the afternoon, because our generator and
6 air compressor are covered with the tarp.
7 Q So you would leave them out there at night?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And just cover them?
10 A Yes.
11 Q And then you would cover them while it rained?
12 A Um-hum.
13 MS. HOGAN: During lunch we will make the
14 numbers correspond to the copies that you have given
15 me.
16 MR. SAMS: The numbers should be on the back of
17 the copies.
18 MS. HOGAN: Oh, sure, great.
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q Mr. Boehmer, how long have you done work on
21 behalf of the Sugar Cane Growers Co-op?
22 A Personally?
23 Q Yes.
24 A Since last June.
25 Q Last June of '93?
57
1 A Yes.
2 Q Had you ever done any work with them before or
3 for them before?
4 A No, I hadn't.
5 Q And the work that you did for them was in
6 connection with your employment with CH2M HILL?
7 A That's right.
8 Q How did you become involved with working with
9 them in June of 1993?
10 A I was approached by Earl Shannon to provide
11 support in some of the activities that he was undertaking
12 with them.
13 Q Had you analyzed any data that was related to
14 the Co-op farms before that time or reviewed any documents
15 relating to the Co-op or the EAA before June of 1993?
16 A No, I hadn't.
17 Q So your first experience with the Co-op or with
18 the EAA was in June of 1993?
19 A That's right.
20 Q And Dr. Shannon just approached you and asked
21 you what?
22 A Well, he asked me what my schedule was like over
23 the next few months and I said that I would likely have
24 some time and he approached me about getting involved with
25 a body of work that he was getting going.
58
1 Q What was the nature of that work, did he explain
2 that to you, what he would be doing?
3 A Yeah. In the initial stages, we had discussed
4 preparing a report for the Co-op which compared different
5 treatment alternatives or mitigative treatment
6 alternatives.
7 Q Treatment for what?
8 A Treatment for phosphorus. So you know, the
9 first few days, that's what I did when I started with the
10 SWIM plan and started to work my way a little bit through
11 the literature from that, but I think Earl has made
12 available a draft table of contents that he put together
13 for the Cooperative, probably last July, outlining some of
14 the areas that we discussed and that's what I initially was
15 working toward.
16 Q Toward?
17 A Toward helping draft some of those sections of
18 the report that Earl was going to prepare for the Co-op.
19 Q Regarding the SWIM plan?
20 A Regarding the SWIM plan and alternatives that he
21 felt could achieve some of the same goals and objectives.
22 Q What aspects of the SWIM plan did you look at?
23 A In those initial days, I basically looked in a
24 cursory sense at the planning document, the front end
25 document, just to get a general big picture view of the
59
1 situation. I didn't analyze in depth any particular
2 components of it.
3 Q And then what did you do?
4 A I, from recollection, the next step was
5 beginning to prepare the microfiltration field program.
6 Q You said that Dr. Shannon was going to prepare a
7 report, I guess, regarding the SWIM plan, so was that going
8 to be pro SWIM plan or just analyzing what it was all
9 about?
10 A It was my understanding that it was going to
11 discuss alternatives in addition to the SWIM plan perhaps
12 that weren't addressed in the SWIM plan, but were working
13 towards some of the same goals.
14 Q Was it a critique of the SWIM plan?
15 A That wouldn't have been my impression. I think
16 it would have been more presenting other alternatives.
17 Q And what alternatives were you going to look at
18 or was he going to look at?
19 A I think the primary ones were microfiltration,
20 direct filtration and Best Management Practices, they are
21 part of the SWIM plan, but I guess a combination of those
22 technologies.
23 Q What was your involvement, what did you do with
24 that aspect, looking at the alternatives, what were you to
25 do?
60
1 A Well, the way it worked out, I helped Earl
2 develop a field program for microfiltration and I carried
3 that out and then I supported Earl in the subsequent
4 technical memoranda that emanated from that program.
5 Q When you say you developed a field program, what
6 was that, what did that encompass?
7 A Well, it encompassed determining where in the --
8 at what process points, for example, we would want to
9 collect samples from. It would have included lining up the
10 field equipment, the rental and such. It would have
11 included liason with the laboratory, just basically
12 organizing all the different angles that would get that
13 program in place.
14 Q What was his theory as to what microfiltration
15 could do, what were you hoping to prove?
16 A Well, I think that we were hoping to prove that
17 microfiltration was an alternative in the sense of either
18 -- well, an alternative to other technologies in terms of
19 the water quality that it produced and in an economic
20 sense, that the cost of implementation would be comparable
21 to some of the other alternatives.
22 Q And those alternatives would have been what?
23 A STA's and direct filtration, apparently.
24 Q Did you draft any materials for Dr. Shannon?
25 A Yes, I would have drafted materials for him.
61
1 Q What types of materials did you draft?
2 A I would have drafted technical memoranda, which
3 we would work fairly closely on the verbal level,
4 discussing the content and such of technical memoranda, but
5 I would have put together a first draft for Earl to work
6 with.
7 Q And did you produce the materials that you
8 drafted for Dr. Shannon today?
9 A Yes.
10 Q So any materials that you drafted for Dr.
11 Shannon, you have produced?
12 A Yes.
13 Q What other work have you done or are you doing
14 on behalf of the Co-op?
15 A That's the extent of my involvement since June
16 '93 in the work I just described.
17 Q Have you done any work on behalf of the Florida
18 Sugar Cane League or U.S. Sugar?
19 A No, I haven't.
20 Q Are you aware of any of the studies that they
21 are conducting regarding phosphorus removal in the EAA?
22 A No, I'm not.
23 Q Have you had any contact with them as to the
24 results of the work that you have done, have you prepared
25 any reports for them or to them?
62
1 A No.
2 Q Are you aware of whether they have received any
3 copies of the work that you have done, the technical
4 memoranda that you have produced?
5 A I'm not aware that they have.
6 Q Have you approached them about doing any
7 microfiltration studies or further testing for them?
8 A No, I haven't.
9 Q They were originally contacted, though, in
10 connection with your first proposal, correct?
11 A That's right.
12 Q So you did have some kind of contact with them?
13 A Well, not me personally. That was before I got
14 involved on the project that that proposal was presented to
15 them, from my understanding.
16 Q You didn't have anything to do with that
17 proposal, setting that up at all?
18 A Not the original proposal, no, I didn't.
19 Q The second proposal that's been proposed, has
20 there been a second proposal?
21 A There's been a letter proposal, a very brief two
22 page proposal, I believe, that was sent to the Co-op.
23 Q Do you know whether that was sent to the League
24 as well, if they had been asked to participate with that?
25 A It's my understanding it wasn't.
63
1 Q Do you know whether they will be asked to
2 participate, has there been discussion about that?
3 A There's been no discussion that I have been
4 privy to.
5 Q Can you summarize for us your education after
6 high school?
7 A Sure, I did a four year honours degree in the
8 bachelor of environmental studies, majoring in geography,
9 at University of Waterloo from '80 to '84. And during 1991
10 and -- '91/92, I returned to do my master's in regional
11 planning and resource development.
12 Q So you have a B.S.?
13 A B.E.S. and M.A.
14 Q And the B.E.S. is in what?
15 A Bachelor of environmental studies.
16 Q Then you returned to do master's work?
17 A Yes, in 1991.
18 Q And has that work been completed?
19 A Yes, it has.
20 Q And you have a master's in what?
21 A Master of arts in regional planning and resource
22 development.
23 Q And you got that in 1991, you completed that in
24 1991?
25 A Yeah, but I wouldn't have gone to my graduation
64
1 ceremony until 1992.
2 Q Have you done any other studying, any other
3 graduate work after 1992?
4 A No.
5 Q Have you begun any Ph.D. work, any doctoral
6 work?
7 A No, not in a formal sense.
8 Q Then can you summarize your work experience for
9 us, where you have worked, what you have done?
10 A Sure. Following my undergraduate degree, I
11 worked for Environment Canada, which is our Federal
12 Department of Environment, on a contract basis, for two
13 contract terms, so I would guess six to eight months, where
14 I did some water quality work primarily. I coordinated the
15 day-to-day water quality network for some rivers that we
16 were monitoring up in northern Canada, did some basic
17 laboratory work in preparing bottles and that sort of
18 thing, compiling data. When that contract ran out, I found
19 employment with ChemViron Consultants, which was the
20 predecessor to CH2M HILL.
21 Q What year was that?
22 A That was 1985, I believe. That was Earl's
23 company, which was later bought out by CH2M HILL in, I
24 don't know, '86 or '87, so I began working for them at that
25 point. When I started off with CH2M HILL, I worked in the
65
1 hazardous waste division and was primarily involved in site
2 investigations where we were undertaking remedial
3 investigation -- or contamination assessment/remedial
4 investigations of various properties that had environmental
5 problems.
6 Q Where were those properties located, all in
7 Canada?
8 A I actually spent one winter in Florida at our
9 Deerfield Beach office as sort of a company exchange
10 program, where I worked on the site in Riviera Beach.
11 Q What types of contamination were you looking at?
12 A At that site in particular?
13 Q Um-hum.
14 A It would have been volatile organic compounds,
15 if I remember correctly, it was trichloroethylene.
16 Q Where does that come from, where do those toxics
17 come from?
18 A It came from an industrial process just handling
19 procedures.
20 Q And what kinds of water were these toxics -- or
21 was it water, was it contamination of land or what?
22 A It was ground water that they were concerned
23 about.
24 Q In what area of Florida, what specific are?
25 A Riviera Beach is just north of Deerfield Beach.
66
1 It's in Broward, I believe. It's just north of West Palm
2 Beach.
3 Q Did it affect the Everglades or the wetlands
4 area at all, do you know?
5 A No. It was, from my understanding, was a
6 localized problem.
7 Q And then in Canada, what bodies of water did you
8 study toxic dumping or whatever?
9 A Well, my work --
10 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
11 BY MS. HOGAN:
12 Q You can go ahead and answer.
13 A My work in hazardous waste and hydrogeology
14 primarily was on similar issues where it would have been
15 contamination primarily of ground water resources, so in
16 that sense they were quite localized.
17 Q Lakes and rivers?
18 A No, more recently I have been involved in some
19 water shed planning jobs where we certainly do examine the
20 water quality of lakes and rivers of water sheds in
21 Ontario.
22 Q What's a water shed, how is that different from
23 a lake or a river?
24 A A water shed encompasses land area also,
25 basically a drainage unit, so any land that would drain
67
1 into a river or a lake would be a water shed of that river
2 or lake.
3 Q So initially you studied toxic dumping or the
4 effect of toxic chemicals when you began to work with Dr.
5 Shannon's predecessor company to CH2M HILL, correct?
6 MR. SAMS: Object to form.
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q Well, tell me --
9 A Most of the work was for clients who had a
10 potential environmental problem with a piece of property,
11 so our job would be to identify if there was any problem,
12 characterize the extent of that problem if it existed, and
13 then to present remedial alternatives.
14 Q What kinds of alternatives did you present?
15 A Well, it would depend, it would be very site
16 specific on the circumstances and the characterization of
17 the problem if it existed.
18 Q Did you remedy it mainly with chemical
19 treatment?
20 A No, I wouldn't say that.
21 Q How would -- what alternatives would you
22 present, what are some of the alternatives that you would
23 have presented?
24 A Well, depending on the job, there could be
25 physical treatment. There could be just digging it up and
68
1 moving it somewhere. There could be treatment in situ,
2 where you would inject some sort of well into a
3 contaminated area of ground water and withdraw that water
4 for treatment at surface. There would be situations where
5 we would recommend bio-remediation, drop some sort of bugs
6 into the well to neutralize the problem if there was one.
7 So it would really be a menu of options and it would be
8 really up to the client to decide what -- the client and
9 the regulators to decide which option was best for them.
10 Q Did you ever propose microfiltration as a
11 remedy, as an alternative?
12 A No, not in any of the jobs I have been involved
13 in.
14 Q Then what else did you do for that company, what
15 other kinds of work did you do?
16 A Well, as I said, my first four or five years
17 with them I worked in hazardous waste and hydrogeology, so
18 I would have been concerned with those sorts of jobs. When
19 I came back after doing my master's, I started with our
20 water resources and planning group. When I have been
21 working for that group, I have basically been working on I
22 guess three sorts of jobs.
23 One was an investigation of communal wastewater
24 treatment systems, which are municipal wastewater treatment
25 systems, but on a smaller scale for rural communities or
69
1 for subdivisions. My role was basically to examine
2 experience across North America with the use of these
3 systems and document some advantages and disadvantages of
4 the different processes, in an effort to help our local
5 government come up with a policy on the adoption of these
6 systems.
7 The other area that I have been working in more
8 lately is the water shed planning, as I briefly touched on.
9 My role in those jobs is really as an integrator, as we
10 were discussing before, where I have a number of technical
11 experts doing various scientific studies on the water
12 shed. My role would be to take a look at future land use
13 scenarios in that water shed in concert with the technical
14 information and try to come up with some recommendations
15 for policymakers as to areas that look suitable for
16 development or areas that perhaps should be protected from
17 development to varying degrees.
18 A third area is why we are here today.
19 Q What have you done in this area?
20 A In this area, I have primarily been involved as
21 a support person for Earl on the microfiltration field work
22 and the subsequent memoranda that emanated from that work.
23 Q And this has been your first experience with
24 microfiltration?
25 A Yes.
70
1 Q So are you learning as you're going along, is it
2 something that you could have had training in?
3 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
4 A I am constantly learning in any job and I'll be
5 learning until I retire, I think it's just the nature of
6 our business. There are no, from my understanding, there's
7 no university courses in microfiltration that I could have
8 taken.
9 BY MS. HOGAN:
10 Q Is this considered a new technology?
11 A You know, talking to colleagues in my office, I
12 think it's considered an emerging sort of technology.
13 Q Are there other companies around the country,
14 around the world, that are using this type of technology or
15 are you --
16 A I would have to say yes. I know from the Memtec
17 literature that they have some 300 installations around the
18 world and I know those aren't all ours.
19 Q Do you know if they are being used for wetlands
20 such as the Everglades, things like that?
21 A I couldn't say.
22 Q Who else has been working in this
23 microfiltration area with you?
24 A Generally what has happened is I -- up until the
25 last couple of weeks, it's been Earl and I in our office
71
1 exclusively, and the way that it would function, as I
2 suggested earlier, was that we would work very closely in
3 coming up with a draft document, which then Earl would be
4 the ultimate reviewer from in our office. At that time, we
5 would send that document to our client and also to two
6 internal CH2M HILL reviewers, one in Deerfield Beach, one
7 in Gainesville, and they would get their review comments
8 back to us at that point. That's what was brought in this
9 morning.
10 Q So the microfiltration that you're working on
11 now, has that been the only microfiltration study that CH2M
12 HILL has been engaged in?
13 A No. I believe that we have been engaged in more
14 -- or other studies. I know Jim Lozier has experience with
15 the equipment from our Gainesville office.
16 Q And he has used the equipment where or the
17 technology where?
18 A I know of one case is the Reedy Creek job, but
19 that's about the extent of my knowledge.
20 Q Do you know if the results or memoranda that
21 were or could have been generated in that project have been
22 produced, did you produce that information?
23 A I'm not sure what has been produced. I have
24 never seen anything produced from that study.
25 Q Or for other studies?
72
1 A Or for other studies, yeah.
2 MS. HOGAN: Do you know if any kind of
3 information on your prior microfiltration studies for
4 CH2M were produced in the course of this litigation,
5 Mr. Sams?
6 MR. SAMS: I don't know.
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q You said Reedy Creek?
9 A Yeah.
10 Q Would that have been for the removal of
11 phosphorus or what would it --
12 A I believe it was for phosphorus, but I'm not 100
13 percent sure of the context of the job.
14 Q Who headed that study up?
15 A Jim Lozier, I believe, in our Gainesville
16 office.
17 Q Do you know if Dr. Shannon worked with Mr.
18 Lozier on that study?
19 A I'm not certain what the relationship was.
20 Q Have you done any work with Mr. Lozier?
21 A He was out on site for about one-and-a-half days
22 at Site A, having a look at what was going on while we were
23 there.
24 Q Have you had the benefit of any of the results
25 of his tests to help you with what you have been trying to
73
1 do?
2 A No, just the benefit of his knowledge when he
3 was on site. He, I guess you could say sort of headed up
4 the jar testing activities while he was there, so just the
5 benefit of his experience.
6 Q Have you reviewed any reports or data of any of
7 the other experts or consultants that have been listed by
8 the Florida Sugar Cane League?
9 A I haven't seen their list.
10 Q What information, if any, have you reviewed on
11 the EAA or any of the studies that have been done?
12 A I have used various documents in helping to
13 draft our technical memoranda, but I would hesitate to use
14 the word review. Usually my job was to go into those
15 documents and extract data from them that looked applicable
16 to our work, but in the sense of sitting down and digesting
17 what was in there, it was never really part of my duties.
18 Q Whose documents or data did you use in the
19 preparation of your work?
20 A Burns & McDonnell, their mediated plan document,
21 I believe, of November '93, which summarized a lot of the
22 existing data, I used for some of our work. Brown &
23 Caldwell's work on filtration and BMP's was used. For our
24 rainfall phosphorus concentration work, we used a draft
25 report that Dr. Walter had produced, which compiled some of
74
1 that data. Those are the only three that come to mind
2 now. We used some previous CH2M HILL documents from the
3 late '70's to do some comparitive analysis, but other than
4 -- those were probably the primary ones.
5 Q Those four?
6 A Yeah.
7 Q Four or five. Did you produce that early CH2M
8 HILL data that you relied on to do comparisons, is that
9 part of the information that you produced?
10 A Which data are you referring to?
11 Q You're saying that you looked at some early data
12 that had been taken in the 1970's by your company?
13 A Oh, no, I didn't have a hand in that at all.
14 Q So how did you know what that data consisted of,
15 what did you look at?
16 A Well, Dr. Shannon was an integral part of
17 collecting that data while he worked in Gainesville, I
18 believe, so he directed me in many cases towards the data
19 that he thought appropriate to our studies, but if he
20 hadn't, I would have just perused them.
21 Q So where is that data contained?
22 A It's contained in the reports.
23 Q Where is the original data?
24 A I don't know.
25 Q But you remember looking at it, because you used
75
1 it?
2 A No, I was referring to the data in the report,
3 tables in the report.
4 Q In what report, because now I am confused?
5 A In the late 1970's CH2M HILL reports.
6 Q So there are reports that you have looked at?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Have you produced those reports?
9 A I believe we have, yes.
10 Q Those were the only -- the four areas, the Brown
11 & Caldwell, your company's previous reports, and the other
12 two sources are the only sources that you used to review?
13 A I wouldn't say the only sources. I would have
14 to peruse the technical memoranda probably once more
15 thoroughly, but those are certainly the major sources.
16 Q Are all the sources that you used cited in the
17 memoranda that you produced?
18 A They are, but there isn't a full reference,
19 there is only the author's name and year.
20 Q Is there any other information that you used in
21 the preparation of your report that's not listed in the
22 report, any other sources that you may have used?
23 A No, I tried to be careful about sourcing things.
24 Q Have you reviewed any reports or data or
25 opinions of any of the expert witnesses or consultants that
76
1 were listed by the United States government?
2 A No, other than Earl's deposition, I really
3 haven't.
4 Q What do you consider your area of
5 specialization?
6 A Environmental planning.
7 Q And what does that encompass again?
8 A An environmental planner is a specialist-
9 generalist. You have to know -- you have to have a firm
10 understanding of all the technical disciplines and also
11 socioeconomic disciplines and be able to integrate that
12 knowledge. I like to think of it as sort of having a good
13 look at --
14 Q A general knowledge of everything?
15 A Well, not of everything. Being able to look at
16 the big picture and move beyond sort of a technical
17 specialty. That's what I'm trained to do, you know, a lot
18 of my previous work experience for CH2M HILL has been doing
19 little technical tasks that any of the engineers would have
20 done, but in terms of my own education and career
21 aspirations, it is really as an environmental planner.
22 Q Do you consider yourself an expert in
23 microfiltration?
24 A No.
25 Q Or its capabilities?
77
1 A I wouldn't say that I'm an expert, but I
2 certainly would be willing to talk about the results, you
3 know, our experiences and results of our field program.
4 Q Of the program that you conducted?
5 A That's right.
6 Q Just that specific program?
7 A Yes.
8 Q But you have had no other experience in any
9 other areas or bodies of water, with the use of
10 microfiltration, other than the five day study that you
11 conducted?
12 A That's right.
13 (Boehmer Exhibit 2 marked for identification.)
14 BY MS. HOGAN:
15 Q I'm going to hand you a document that we have
16 marked as the next exhibit to your deposition, Boehmer
17 Number 2, could you identify that for me?
18 A Sure. This is a copy of our standard CH2M HILL
19 resume that we keep on file at our office.
20 MS. HOGAN: I'm going to take a moment to read
21 this, since we just got it this morning.
22 MR. SAMS: Is there any coffee around here?
23 MS. HOGAN: I'm sure there is. Do you want to
24 take a break in a couple of minutes and get some
25 coffee?
78
1 (Discussion off the record.)
2 BY MS. HOGAN:
3 Q I guess it's the second paragraph of your
4 resume, it says you are, "Responsible for all project
5 activities, including the identification, bench-scale
6 testing, technical evaluation and cost/benefit analysis of
7 various alternatives. Measures examined included on-farm
8 Best Management Practices, regional storm water retention
9 areas (constructed wetlands) and physical/chemical
10 treatment technologies."
11 Did you do all of those, you have done all of
12 those?
13 A Well, the language might not be the best
14 language, but you have to recognize that these C.V.'s are
15 used to win jobs, so sometimes they oversell things a
16 little bit. However --
17 Q What's oversold here?
18 A Well, it might sound like I'm running the show,
19 whereas I'm not, but in a certain sense, I have done all
20 these, you know, I really have done these through our three
21 technical memoranda. The only wording I would probably
22 quibble with is "responsible for all project activities,"
23 because ultimately that was Earl's responsibility, but
24 certainly I supported him in undertaking those activities.
25 Q So you prepared a cost/benefit analysis of the
79
1 regional storm water retention area?
2 A Well, it probably wouldn't qualify in an
3 economist's eyes, but we did some cost comparisons among
4 other technologies, yes.
5 Q And the same thing with the physical and with
6 the chemical treatment technologies?
7 A Yeah. In our second memorandum, we did produce
8 a table which compared the technologies from a cost
9 perspective.
10 Q You did that?
11 A Well, I drafted it for Earl.
12 Q We received a designation of expert and fact
13 witnesses of Petitioners, Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of
14 Florida, Roth Farms, Inc., and Wedgworth Farms, Inc., and
15 you were listed as an expert witness.
16 MS. HOGAN: Can we mark this as the next
17 exhibit?
18 (Boehmer Exhibit 3 marked for identification.)
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q It says here under, "Subject Matter of Expected
21 Testimony: Microfiltration pilot testing conducted in the
22 EAA under the supervision and direction of Dr. Earl
23 Shannon." Is that going to be the area of your testimony
24 at trial?
25 A That's my understanding, yes.
80
1 Q So you won't be testifying into any other areas
2 other than the microfiltration pilot testing conducted in
3 the EAA?
4 MR. SAMS: That hasn't been finally concluded.
5 May I see the document?
6 MS. HOGAN: Yes.
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q What other areas will you be testifying to?
9 A My understanding was that I would be testifying
10 with regards to the pilot program and any technical
11 memoranda that ensued from that program.
12 Q Will you be -- what will the substance of your
13 testimony be, what will you present at trial?
14 A I imagine I would present the methods and
15 results of our pilot study.
16 Q You're going to describe what you did when you
17 went out there from day-to-day in the EAA?
18 A I don't know if I would describe from
19 day-to-day. I would probably describe in broader terms the
20 methodologies that we used and the final results.
21 Q What are the methodologies that you used?
22 A Well, just I describe the different process
23 components, for example, that we put together in a fashion
24 that we felt appropriate to the test, what they were, what
25 some of the different dosages that we tried were, and what
81
1 the ensuing results were.
2 Q Are the results that you came to contained
3 within all of the technical memoranda?
4 A Yes.
5 Q So you will just be testifying basically to what
6 you have already produced in the technical memoranda, what
7 you did while you were there, the different dosages that
8 were used?
9 A That's right.
10 Q Are you going to demonstrate the system for the
11 court?
12 A I'm not certain. I guess that depends on the
13 proposal that was recently forwarded to the Co-op and if
14 they want to go ahead with it. If they did go ahead with
15 it, I have heard there is a possibility that there would be
16 a chance for a demonstration.
17 Q If they don't go forward with the proposal, are
18 you going to set up the microfiltration unit the way it had
19 been set up before?
20 A I'm not sure, it's never been discussed in my
21 company.
22 Q So you will present the results of the testing
23 by what, just describing what you did when you were out
24 there?
25 A Yeah. I hadn't really thought about what
82
1 presentation methods I would use, but the substance would
2 be that study.
3 Q Have you discussed what the presentation will
4 be, what is your understanding of what you have been asked
5 to do?
6 A We haven't discussed what the presentation will
7 be.
8 Q What do you expect that the presentation will
9 be, how would you present it?
10 MR. SAMS: Object to the form. Also object to
11 the extent the witness is being asked for a legal
12 conclusion.
13 MS. HOGAN: No, I'm not asking for a legal
14 conclusion, I'm asking what he is going to testify to
15 at trial and how he is going to present the results of
16 his pilot testing.
17 BY MS. HOGAN:
18 Q That's the understanding that I'm trying to get
19 from you, you're saying you have no idea as to what you are
20 going to do, you haven't discussed it with anyone?
21 A I wouldn't say no idea, we have the substance,
22 which is the technical memoranda, what happened out there.
23 The presentation tools we haven't discussed with anybody,
24 whether we want to use photographs and overheads or -- I
25 just couldn't say.
83
1 Q But you are saying that there were some
2 discussions that if the proposal was accepted, that you
3 would use that as a demonstration, so you did have some
4 discussions as to what kind of demonstration you would
5 present for the court?
6 A That's right. It's been -- I have heard that
7 there could be an opportunity for a demonstration.
8 Q And from whom have you heard that?
9 A I have heard that from Dr. Shannon.
10 Q In the course of what?
11 A In the course of just day-to-day conversations.
12 Q Discussing what would be presented at trial?
13 A No, probably in the context of the proposal.
14 Q So you were talking about the proposal and he
15 said what?
16 A He said we may have to go out there and
17 demonstrate it for the judge.
18 Q Okay, so you plan to present the results of the
19 pilot study by what, going through your technical
20 memoranda?
21 A I think that everything we would want to present
22 is contained within those technical memoranda. I don't
23 know if I would go through it in the same fashion it was
24 written or not, but certainly all the substance is in
25 there.
84
1 Q Are you going to talk about anything that's not
2 contained in the technical memoranda?
3 A No.
4 MR. SAMS: Just for the record, this witness
5 hasn't been told, nor has anybody sought to delineate
6 precisely what questions will and won't be asked of
7 him at the hearing. I think he will answer what he is
8 asked.
9 MS. HOGAN: Well, then I guess the more
10 important question is, we are entitled to know as to
11 what subjects he is going to testify to, and all that
12 you have listed on this designation is,
13 "Microfiltration pilot testing conducted in the EAA
14 under the supervision and direction of Dr. Earl
15 Shannon," so to simply tell me that he hasn't been
16 advised as to what he is going to testify to, that
17 doesn't meet the full disclosure requirements.
18 MR. SAMS: I think the document will speak for
19 itself.
20 MS. HOGAN: I think it will, too. It's obvious
21 we don't know what areas he is going to testify to and
22 neither does he, that's the point of this deposition.
23 We now have a witness that says I don't know what I'm
24 going to testify to, what areas I'm going to testify
25 to.
85
1 MR. SAMS: The question of what areas he will
2 testify to has been identified and he pointed you more
3 than once to the documents that disclose the areas.
4 He is unable to answer at this time precisely what
5 questions will be asked.
6 BY MS. HOGAN:
7 Q So the only area that you are testifying to will
8 be the memoranda, the technical memoranda that you
9 produced?
10 A That's my understanding, yes.
11 Q You don't know whether or not you will do an
12 actual demonstration of the microfiltration process?
13 A No, not conclusively.
14 Q But you anticipate that you will give a
15 demonstration, you could be one of the persons to give a
16 demonstration on how the process works?
17 A The potential exists.
18 Q Okay, we will have to come back to that.
19 Have you conducted any other microfiltration
20 studies in the EAA?
21 A No.
22 Q What aspects of the pilot microfiltration
23 testing will you testify to at trial?
24 A I would have to say potentially any aspects --
25 all aspects, certainly on the face of it, aspects that were
86
1 discussed in our memoranda, but if people have other
2 questions about the program, then I would be willing to try
3 and answer those also.
4 Q What is your opinion as to the ability of
5 microfiltration use in the EAA?
6 A Well, based on the results of our pilot study, I
7 think that they are very encouraging. It's demonstrated
8 that the potential exists for further investigation,
9 certainly.
10 Q You believe that microfiltration should be used
11 for the removal of all of the phosphorus in the EAA?
12 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
13 A I think that it could certainly form part of a
14 solution to phosphorus loads emanating from the EAA.
15 BY MS. HOGAN:
16 Q What percentage of the phosphorus in the EAA do
17 you believe could be removed through the use of
18 microfiltration?
19 A It's hard for me to say, I mean, I think that's
20 contingent on identifying more conclusively hot spots that
21 exist out there and I certainly wouldn't want to hazard to
22 guess about ultimately what percentage could be removed.
23 Q What is a hot spot?
24 A A hot spot is -- I don't know if it's been
25 defined in quantitative terms. It's a concept that relies
87
1 on the fact that when we analyzed the early baseline
2 results from the Co-op, we found one site in particular
3 that was substantially head and shoulders above the rest of
4 the sites in terms of loads that were being pumped off site
5 and it's Earl's opinion, and from my limited experience I
6 would have to agree with him, that it seems that that
7 experience is likely to be repeated across the EAA where
8 there is a certain level of farms or a certain -- sorry, a
9 subset of farms that are pumping far more than the vast
10 majority of the farms.
11 Q So a hot spot is what?
12 A A hot spot would be a farm that pumps above
13 average loads of phosphorus.
14 Q And what's an above average load of phosphorus,
15 what is that?
16 A Well, we will have to wait until we can
17 determine the average from the data.
18 Q So anything above the average, you would
19 consider a hot spot?
20 A No, substantially above average.
21 Q What is that, in quantifiable terms?
22 A I haven't tried to quantify it.
23 Q So you don't know what a hot spot is?
24 A I know what the concept of a hot spot
25 application is.
88
1 Q What would you assume would be the average
2 tonnage of discharge of a hot spot, what does your average
3 hot spot look like?
4 A I can only speak from the single hot spot where
5 we did our testing, that being Site B, and on our third
6 tech memo, we estimated that they might discharge on the
7 order of 11 metric tons.
8 Q That's a hot spot?
9 A That would be an example of a location, I think,
10 that we're thinking is a hot spot, yeah, and the tonnage
11 that is coming off that piece of land in '93.
12 Q So you have only identified one hot spot?
13 A I would say that we have identified one hot spot
14 within the data set supplied to us by the Co-op of their
15 farms that participated in the early baseline monitoring
16 program. The only other hot spot that I'm aware of is a
17 farm that Earl has some knowledge of and that's the Hundley
18 Farm, I think that we're considering that to be a hot spot
19 also from the data that we have seen.
20 Q What is its discharge level?
21 A I couldn't say.
22 Q Is a hot spot a commonly used scientific term?
23 A I don't know.
24 Q Is it something that -- is it a term that you
25 are just using to describe farms that have a phosphorus
89
1 loading above these average amounts?
2 A Yeah, I think it's a term that's used to
3 describe a farm that discharges significant amounts of
4 phosphorus into the system.
5 Q Is it a term that you have created at CH2M HILL?
6 A Not anymore than -- no.
7 Q Where else has that term been used?
8 A Hot spot?
9 Q Yes.
10 A I don't know offhand.
11 Q But you don't have a definition of what a hot
12 spot is?
13 A I have a qualitative definition.
14 Q That is what?
15 A A farm that contributes significantly greater
16 contributions of phosphorus to the system than the majority
17 of farms.
18 Q And that's the definition of a hot spot?
19 A According to me.
20 Q And so you propose to what, remove phosphorus
21 from farms that fall within that definition of a hot spot?
22 A No. I think the approach that we're taking is
23 that it makes sense to isolate those farms and try and
24 minimize the phosphorus that leaves those farms at the
25 point at the pump station, at the point where it leaves
90
1 their property and enters another property, canal,
2 whatever.
3 Q About how many farms are there in the EAA?
4 A Farms in the EAA, I believe 200, in the low
5 200's.
6 Q What percentage of the farms do you believe are
7 hot spots within the entire EAA?
8 A It would just be speculation. I haven't had a
9 chance to have a look at the early baseline data for the
10 whole EAA, so --
11 Q But you will look at that data?
12 A I think we're planning on looking at that data,
13 yes.
14 Q Will you testify as to that data at trial?
15 A I believe Earl or myself would be testifying to
16 that, yes.
17 Q Are you going to be testifying as to EAA
18 nutrient runoff data?
19 A Only in the context of the early baseline data
20 set.
21 Q Are you going to be testifying as to historical
22 and recent trends in EAA phosphorus data?
23 A I would have to say no. I think that my area of
24 testimony, if at all, would certainly be centered on the
25 '93 early baseline data.
91
1 Q When will you complete your analysis of that
2 data?
3 A It's hard to say. We just received the cleaned
4 up data set from the District late last week and we have
5 somebody working on it as I speak, so I think that we could
6 conceivably generate a first cut of area loadings by farm
7 within the next month. That's our goal anyway.
8 Q So by what date?
9 A I'm sorry, what was the question?
10 Q By what date? It's March 14th now, so when will
11 you have analyzed, I guess, this early baseline data?
12 MR. SAMS: I object to the form of the question.
13 A Within the next month or so.
14 BY MS. HOGAN:
15 Q So by April 14th?
16 A I couldn't say an exact date, I can't predict
17 these things. When you're working with large data sets,
18 there is a million and one things that can pop up to block
19 your path.
20 Q Will you complete your analysis before April
21 25th?
22 A I would certainly hope that we could complete
23 our loading analysis before that date, yeah.
24 MS. HOGAN: Mr. Boehmer is obviously going to
25 have to be produced again for deposition. He is
92
1 unable to tell me anything that he is going to be able
2 to testify to, that he will be called to testify to.
3 MR. SAMS: Well, I would disagree strongly as to
4 the second point that you just made there. He has
5 already pointed you in the direction of the technical
6 memoranda and their contents and their conclusions, so
7 to pretend that he hasn't said anything about that is
8 a mischaracterization of the record.
9 It's quite clear and has been clear since Dr.
10 Shannon's deposition, that there were delays in
11 obtaining a usable data base with a party similarly
12 aligned to your client and they have made the
13 disclosure that they can about their intent to work
14 promptly and efficiently with that data base. You
15 will have to take whatever position in regard to that
16 that you ultimately decide you need to take. I do
17 not, however --
18 MS. HOGAN: He is clearly going to have to be
19 produced again.
20 MR. SAMS: I do not, however, agree with your
21 assertion on the record at this deposition that he has
22 not told you any area in which he will testify and I
23 would take the position that if you don't inquire
24 about the technical results at this time, you have
25 waived your opportunity to did that.
93
1 MS. HOGAN: Well, I certainly intend to go into
2 the technical aspects, but it's my understanding that
3 that's all that he knows that he will be testifying
4 to, or at this point can tell me that he will be
5 testifying as to, but he is also saying that he is
6 going to be testifying as to EAA nutrient runoff data,
7 but he is saying it's going to take him a month or so
8 to be able to review the data, so he is obviously
9 going to have to be produced again if he is going to
10 testify to those areas at trial.
11 If there are other areas other than what you
12 have listed in this designation, that needs to be
13 updated as soon as possible, so that we are not hit
14 with a surprise at trial, so we have an honest
15 understanding of what Mr. Boehmer is going to be
16 testifying to. Otherwise --
17 THE WITNESS: Well --
18 MS. HOGAN: -- it would be our position that he
19 would not be allowed to testify to it.
20 BY MS. HOGAN:
21 Q What were you going to say?
22 A Nothing. Perhaps I misled you with the last
23 comment when I said -- when you asked about EAA runoff
24 data. Now, the only way that I could see myself getting
25 involved in that is similar to the situation I'm in now, as
94
1 a support person for Earl, that when we go through and
2 analyze that data, if we come up with some conclusions,
3 ultimately he is going to be the one presenting them. Now,
4 if you want my testimony as to the preparation of those,
5 that's fine, but ultimately it will be Earl Shannon who I
6 think will be our expert or considered our expert person on
7 EAA runoff data.
8 Q So you will not be testifying to that, in that
9 area?
10 MR. SAMS: I object, I think we are really going
11 around in circles. The witness has said what he is
12 going to look at.
13 MS. HOGAN: First he said yes, then he said no.
14 MR. SAMS: He said he will support Dr. Shannon,
15 he will answer questions as necessary. I think you
16 are at this point just twisting his words.
17 MS. HOGAN: No, at this point I'm trying to
18 figure out what areas he is going to be called as an
19 expert to testify to. Your designation says,
20 "Microfiltration pilot testing conducted in the EAA
21 under the supervision of and direction of Dr. Earl
22 Shannon," that's what your designation says, so I am
23 asking if he is going to testify as to nutrient runoff
24 data, historical trends, EAA phosphorus data, I'm just
25 trying to get a straight answer.
95
1 A Okay, I would say no, I'm not.
2 BY MS. HOGAN:
3 Q Have you done an analysis of phosphorus loading
4 in the EAA?
5 A No.
6 Q Have you looked at any of the early baseline
7 data information that's come in?
8 A I have looked at the early baseline data that
9 the Co-op has produced for us directly.
10 Q Have you come to any conclusions based on that
11 data?
12 A Conclusions in terms of?
13 Q What a hot spot is, how many of them there are?
14 A No.
15 Q Which ones would use microfiltration?
16 A I would think, it would be my opinion that
17 within the data set that the Co-op sent us of their 46
18 farms, that there would be one hot spot.
19 Q That's the only data that you have looked at
20 regarding phosphorus levels in the EAA, just those 46 Co-op
21 farms?
22 A Yes.
23 Q Will the early baseline data contain information
24 from all the farms?
25 A All participating farms.
96
1 Q About how many farms will that be?
2 A I believe it's in the order of 140.
3 Q That will include League farms as well?
4 A I'm not sure what the composition of that 140
5 farms is. It's all the farms that are participating in the
6 early baseline program is how I understand it.
7 Q What is that, like approximately 60 percent of
8 the total farms, or you don't know?
9 A I know that was what Earl said during his
10 deposition.
11 Q What, the 60 percent, but you don't know?
12 A I don't know.
13 Q So is it your theory that hot spots can be
14 removed through microfiltration?
15 A Well, I don't think they can be removed, they
16 can certainly be reduced.
17 Q To what, do you have a certain level that you
18 are trying to reduce them to?
19 A Well, our pilot program showed that we can get
20 filtrate total phosphorus levels of 20 to 30 PPB.
21 Q I don't know if I asked you this before, but do
22 you have an idea of approximately what percentage of
23 phosphorus in the entire EAA comes from hot spots?
24 A No, I would have to say that it's too early for
25 me to make that judgment. I would want to look at the '93
97
1 record for all the farms.
2 Q About how many tons of phosphorus do you believe
3 can be removed from the EAA with microfiltration per year?
4 A Again, it's too early for me personally to give
5 you a number for that.
6 Q According to your resume, you have been involved
7 in costing analysis for microfiltration or alternative
8 methods for removing phosphorus, correct?
9 A Yes.
10 Q Have you calculated how much it should cost to
11 remove a hot spot through microfiltration, do you have an
12 idea?
13 A Well, we did a conceptual costing of the hot
14 spot at Site B, the Flor-Ag site, and I believe we came up
15 with $8.8 million capital costs and in the order of
16 $300,000 a year operation and maintenance costs for
17 establishing a microfiltration facility at that site.
18 Q One site?
19 A At one site.
20 Q How long do you believe it's going to take to
21 identify all the hot spots within the EAA?
22 A Well, I think we can take a good first cut at it
23 once we analyze the '93 early baseline data.
24 Q And you should be able to do that, you said, in
25 a month?
98
1 A But I said first cut at it. I'm not sure what
2 level of work would be involved in between that point and
3 the point where you affirmatively got up and said you are a
4 hot spot. I mean, there's probably a little bit of
5 additional monitoring work you might want to do between
6 those two points.
7 Q About how long would that take?
8 A Again, I would be deferring to Earl's deposition
9 and I believe he said 12 to 18 months in total.
10 Q Will each hot spot have its own microfiltration
11 unit?
12 A Not necessarily. It depends on the physical
13 location. There is a chance that if two farms identified
14 were adjacent, that you might be able to couple the
15 systems, but if they are not, then yes, they would.
16 Q About how much water do you believe is going to
17 be treated on average at each site?
18 A Again, that's difficult for me to say without
19 seeing the flow data for '93. I know our site, Site B, our
20 conceptual design designed at 12.5 million gallons a day
21 capacity, running for 150 days per year, so you would have
22 to do the math there. That would be a guesstimate of the
23 treated flow at that site.
24 Q Will the filtration system run constantly, every
25 minute of every day?
99
1 A I don't think so. I mean, conceivably it could,
2 but it would certainly, from a cost standpoint, be
3 advantageous to only run it when your equalization basin
4 necessitated that it be run.
5 Q Are you going to run it every month of the year?
6 A I couldn't say. I mean, obviously during the
7 wetter parts of the year, we would be running more
8 continuously than the drier parts, but on a month-by-month
9 basis, I couldn't say.
10 Q Do you anticipate times when it wouldn't run,
11 when it would be down?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Is that factored into your cost model or is your
14 cost model based on it running continuously every day?
15 A No, it's based on it only running for certain
16 periods of time.
17 Q What's that period of time?
18 A We assumed 150 days.
19 Q Out of the year?
20 A Out of the year.
21 Q So each unit would run for 150 days out of the
22 year?
23 A Well, you would have to look at the flow
24 characteristics from each site. That's just for the
25 Flor-Ag Site B that we use that as a design number.
100
1 Q So the cost would go up if you ran it for more
2 than 150 days?
3 A Well, certain costs would go up, certain costs
4 would go down, but overall, what you are looking at is a
5 unit that would have to be designed around a larger flow
6 number, which I think in the case of microfiltration, that
7 you find that the capital costs are the big costs, so you
8 would want to minimize that number if you could.
9 Q The period of time that it would flow, is that
10 considered a capital cost?
11 A No. The capital cost would refer to equipment
12 costs to the structures in the actual system, the initial
13 hardware that you need to get out on the site.
14 Q What are the costs associated with the running
15 of the unit, if the other ones are only permanent capital
16 costs?
17 A Those would be termed operation and maintenance
18 costs and they cover such things as energy, chemicals that
19 are required, staff that you need to run the system.
20 Q So those costs would go up if you ran it more
21 than the 150 days that you have estimated?
22 A Um-hum.
23 Q Are the costs of land included in that costing
24 model that you mentioned before?
25 A No. We assumed that there would be -- the land
101
1 would be owned by the farmer who owned it now, that there
2 would be no exchange of land.
3 Q What nutrients are removed from the water with
4 microfiltration?
5 A Well, based on the results of our testing, I
6 mean, we targeted phosphorus and certainly found that with
7 appropriate coagulant dosages, it removed a large portion
8 of the phosphorus.
9 Q What other nutrients are removed in addition to
10 phosphorus?
11 A Well, the only other nutrient that we looked at
12 was nitrogen, we had some slight removals in total kjeldahl
13 nitrogen.
14 Q So you are saying it removed nitrate?
15 A No, total kjeldahl nitrogen, it removed
16 slightly.
17 Q Did it remove nitrate?
18 A We didn't test for nitrate.
19 Q Are you familiar with the term marsh quality
20 water?
21 A In a general sense, yeah.
22 Q Do you believe that the water that will be
23 treated through microfiltration will be considered marsh
24 quality water?
25 A The concept of marsh quality water, I think is
102
1 really beyond the area of my expertise. I wouldn't be able
2 to make a judgment one way or the other.
3 Q What chemicals will have been added to the water
4 during microfiltration?
5 A Ferric sulfate.
6 Q That's the only chemical that will be added?
7 A Yes.
8 Q What about that coagulant?
9 A The caustic?
10 Q The caustic.
11 A We found that based on the low levels of ferric
12 sulfate that we needed to add, that we didn't have to
13 adjust for pH. Now, if we went to a full scale pilot, you
14 know, there is the potential that caustic would have to be
15 added, but during our testing we found that we didn't need
16 it.
17 Q So there is a potential that you would add
18 caustic?
19 A A potential exists on the full scale, it would
20 depend on the incoming water quality, but based on the
21 results of our testing and we were at a hot spot at the
22 second site, we didn't require it.
23 Q What type of a caustic is added? What is a
24 caustic?
25 A Sodium hydroxide.
103
1 Q So that would potentially be added in addition
2 to the ferric sulfate?
3 A Yeah, but based on the results of our study,
4 unlikely.
5 Q Any other chemicals, would there be any other
6 chemicals added?
7 A To the stream?
8 Q Yes.
9 A No.
10 Q What about organic polymers?
11 A Based on the results of our study, we didn't
12 require any polymers.
13 Q Have you done any studies to find out whether
14 the treated water will be harmful to the marsh?
15 A Not specifically. We included a couple of
16 parameters in our study that we felt would be of interest
17 from a marsh perspective, I suppose, but we weren't
18 mandated specifically to look at that issue, no, we were
19 focusing on phosphorus removal.
20 Q So you don't know whether or not it will be
21 harmful to the marsh, you have not done studies to
22 determine that?
23 A I couldn't say conclusively, no.
24 Q And you said you did some studies with some kind
25 of parameters, what were those studies?
104
1 A As part of the sampling program, we analyzed for
2 other parameters such as iron and molybdenum and reactive
3 silica micronutrients to see what the effect of the process
4 was on those.
5 Q Did you add those nutrients and then see if they
6 were removed?
7 A No. Just we analyzed the difference from when
8 we drew the water from the canal to when it exited the
9 system, the difference in the concentration.
10 Q The iron, the silica, and the molybdenum?
11 A Yes, but we added iron to the system through the
12 ferric sulfate, too, but the other two parameters weren't
13 touched, so to speak, except through the microfiltration
14 unit.
15 Q What were your results?
16 A Well, in terms of iron, we found that at the
17 dosages that we used, the iron that was coming out of the
18 filtrate stream had concentrations that were lower than the
19 average influent concentrations. The degree to which they
20 were lowered depended on the dosage that we added. With
21 molybdenum and silica, I believe -- it would help if I
22 looked at the analytical tables, but the removals that we
23 saw were very small, there certainly wasn't a significant
24 removal of those parameters.
25 Q What about the pH, was there a change in the pH?
105
1 A Some slight change, but from adding the ferric,
2 at the higher dosages of ferric, it would bring the pH down
3 slightly, but nothing --
4 Q What dosage would that be, what's considered a
5 high dosage?
6 A Well, during our test runs, up in the range of
7 14, 15 milligrams per liter. At Site B, we may have seen
8 the pH fall 0.2 pH units, something in that order, but
9 nothing that we would consider major.
10 Q You said you came to an optimum dosage level?
11 A Um-hum.
12 Q That was what?
13 A At Site A, the way that we defined optimum was
14 basically to reach the .05 milligrams per liter target, and
15 at Site A, I think we determined that around 2 milligrams
16 per liter ferric sulfate could achieve that goal. At Site
17 B, it would have been in the neighborhood of 8 to 10
18 milligrams per liter.
19 Q Did either of those optimum points have an
20 effect on pH?
21 A I would have to take a look at the data. There
22 might have been, at the 8 to 10 level, there might have
23 been a slight depression.
24 Q After the treatment, there was -- well, actually
25 backwash is produced?
106
1 A Right.
2 Q What does the backwash consist of?
3 A Backwash consists of the particulate matter
4 that, as the raw water moves through the system, the
5 membrane filters out particulate matter that's above a
6 certain size, then at a certain point, the filtrate valve
7 is shut and the particulate matter that has built up is
8 forced off that membrane with the air and water and then
9 that is referred to as backwash.
10 Q What will be done with that backwash?
11 A What was done with it?
12 Q No, what will be done with it?
13 A Assuming that the microfiltration was
14 implemented?
15 Q Um-hum.
16 A Well, we, in our memoranda, I think, determined
17 that we could return it to the agricultural fields, return
18 it to the system.
19 Q Do you believe that the backwash added to the
20 wetland area would be marsh ready, I mean?
21 A Well, it would be going, I think that we assumed
22 it would be going back to sugar cane fields, so it would be
23 going back to the agricultural system.
24 Q Have you done studies to find out whether or not
25 that backwash would be harmful to the agricultural system?
107
1 A No.
2 Q To the plants and vegetation?
3 A Not specifically as part of this study. That
4 judgment was Earl's judgment from his engineering
5 experience and I think that he has noted that as part of a
6 full scale pilot study, that we would have to better
7 characterize the equality of the backwash.
8 Q But for now it's your intention to put that back
9 in the EAA?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether nitrate
12 will be removed during microfiltration?
13 A No, I don't.
14 Q Do you have an opinion as to whether elevated
15 nitrate levels will have an adverse effect on the marshes?
16 A That's beyond my area of expertise.
17 Q Well, do you have an opinion as to whether
18 elevated nitrate levels are harmful in general?
19 A In certain contexts, yes, they are.
20 Q Does microfiltration remove methyl mercury?
21 A I have no idea, other than of course Earl's
22 deposition, and he suggested that from the data that he
23 saw, it didn't. That's my only -- that would be the basis
24 of any information I would have on that matter.
25 MS. HOGAN: It's about 12:00 now, would you like
108
1 to take a lunch break at this time?
2 MR. SAMS: That's fine.
3 (Brief recess taken.)
4 BY MS. HOGAN:
5 Q Mr. Boehmer, are you familiar with the basic
6 engineering standard process?
7 A Yes, I am.
8 Q What is that?
9 A It's a concept that you move through a project
10 using scales of technology.
11 Q What's the lowest scale?
12 A Inspection scale.
13 Q What are the other scales?
14 A Generally it's a bench scale, pilot scale, full
15 scale.
16 Q What's the difference between the scales?
17 A The difference between the scales is how close
18 that scale is to your ultimate full scale system.
19 Q What do you attempt to accomplish during a bench
20 scale?
21 A Bench scale testing, you would attempt to gather
22 some data on the predicted outcome of the particular
23 technology that you are experimenting with on some of the
24 inputs that you need to put into that technology, what
25 sorts of levels or dosages of certain inputs that you would
109
1 require in a preliminary sense.
2 Q Then the second scale is what, the pilot scale?
3 A Pilot scale.
4 Q What do you seek to accomplish in a pilot scale?
5 A Pilot scale you would generally take prototype
6 technology into the field, under actual field conditions,
7 either in terms of, for example, the input water would be
8 from a field or physically actually do the experimenting
9 field, such as we did, and again, you would be refining
10 those things that you learned in the bench scale process,
11 trying to characterize inputs into the system, trying to
12 refine levels of inputs you are putting in and again taking
13 a look at the output.
14 Q Is there another scale after that one?
15 A Full scale would be when you went in and
16 designed and built the actual ultimate system.
17 Q How long would pilot microfiltration testing
18 need to be run before it's moved to a full scale operation?
19 A I would think in the order of probably the
20 minimum would be three months, something like that, you
21 know, three to six months, within that range, I think,
22 would be optimum.
23 Q Then from that point, you would move to the full
24 scale?
25 A Yeah, from that point then you would move on to
110
1 start designing a full scale system.
2 Q At Dr. Shannon's deposition, we marked this next
3 document as Deposition Exhibit Number 4 and I'm going to
4 ask you if you can identify this document?
5 A This document appears to be the original
6 proposal from the spring of '93 that was made to Flo-Sun,
7 U.S. Sugar, and the Co-op, from CH2M HILL, for a
8 microfiltration pilot test.
9 Q Would you consider the test that you
10 participated in to be a pilot scale test?
11 A Yeah.
12 Q Or is that more of a bench test?
13 A It's at the front end of a pilot test, I was
14 going to say somewhere in between the two, but it's really
15 a pilot scale test in that we are in the field, but the
16 duration of it is not such that I think you could move to
17 final design from that length of period of data.
18 MS. HOGAN: We will mark this as the next
19 exhibit to your deposition.
20 (Boehmer Exhibit 4 marked for identification.)
21 BY MS. HOGAN:
22 Q This original proposal dated May 25, 1993 was
23 sent to Flo-Sun, U.S. Sugar, and the Co-op, from Dr.
24 Shannon. Did you participate in the preparation or the
25 structure of this proposal?
111
1 A No, I didn't.
2 Q I think towards the end on page 13, they list
3 the key project team members, and you're not listed on
4 here. Is there a reason that you weren't included in the
5 development of this proposal?
6 A I would say the reason probably was that I was
7 full-time on another job at that time.
8 Q You became involved on this project in --
9 A In June.
10 Q -- June of 1993?
11 This original proposal, the original cost was
12 for $253,600, but the actual pilot test that you conducted,
13 the cost for that was approximately $40,000, am I right?
14 A I think in that neighborhood, yes.
15 Q So this proposal was scaled back considerably?
16 A Yes, it was.
17 Q Are you familiar with this proposal?
18 A I haven't read it lately.
19 Q But at some point in time you have read it?
20 A I have leafed through it, yes. I am not
21 familiar intricately with it.
22 Q This initial proposal called for a 10-week run
23 of the test, the pilot test, but you actually ran your test
24 for three days at Site 1 and two days at Site 2, correct?
25 A The actual testing component of it, yes.
112
1 Q August 26th, 27th and 28th at the first site and
2 30th and 31st at the second site?
3 A Right.
4 Q Page number 4 of this original proposal lists
5 objectives of the pilot study; you actually conducted the
6 pilot study?
7 A The subsequent pilot study.
8 Q If you could, I would like for you to go through
9 these objectives and tell me if they were accomplished in
10 the pilot study that you conducted.
11 A Um-hum.
12 Q The first one says, "Demonstrate that
13 microfiltration can consistently meet the target phosphorus
14 concentration goal of .05 milligrams per liter on a
15 selected source water during non-pumping conditions
16 (non-rainfall periods)." Was that objective accomplished
17 during your pilot study?
18 A Yes, I believe it was.
19 Q The second objective was, "Determine the ability
20 of the microfiltration process to operate at increased flux
21 and loading rates for brief periods (two to four days)
22 while still providing desired water quality in response to
23 the effects of rainfall events within the EAA (evaluate the
24 peak hydraulic conditions during storm water pumping
25 periods)." You were not able to accomplish this, correct?
113
1 A I agree, no, we didn't increase the flux rate.
2 Q Now, the third objective was, "Quantify and
3 characterize solids produced by the microfiltration process
4 and determine feasibility of land application of the solids
5 within the EAA." Were you able to accomplish that
6 objective?
7 A Not in the sense -- no. We did some
8 quantification and characterization work, but it was very
9 preliminary. I think a full scale subsequent pilot project
10 would certainly address that more thoroughly.
11 Q Which solids did you quantify and characterize?
12 A Well, the backwash solids just on a gross scale.
13 Q The next objective was, "Verify the advantages
14 associated with the mobility and minimal operator
15 requirements of the microfiltration process." Were you
16 able to accomplish that objective?
17 A No.
18 Q The next one, "Assess the effect of
19 microfiltration treatment on micronutrients present in the
20 selected treatment area water."
21 A No. Our list of parameters that we analyzed for
22 probably six or eight parameters only, so there wasn't an
23 extensive work done on micronutrients, it was targeted at
24 phosphorus removal primarily.
25 Q The next one was, "Develop use scenarios for
114
1 microfiltration within the EAA and provide cost estimate
2 (s) for each scenario." Were you able to do that?
3 A Yes, we did do that in our subsequent memoranda,
4 the second and third one. We did provide a conceptual cost
5 estimate for microfiltration at one of our piloted sites
6 and in the third memoranda we did develop a couple of
7 alternative scenarios for microfiltration application in
8 the EAA and did some comparitive costing also.
9 Q And the final objective was, "Identify
10 additional study needs associated with the use of
11 microfiltration within the EAA."
12 A We -- I think that we have learned from our
13 experience, additional study needs haven't been documented,
14 it's just something that this subsequent proposal would
15 address.
16 Q What additional study needs do you feel are
17 necessary?
18 A Well, I think that the duration of the work has
19 to be for a lodger period of time and in addition to the
20 scale up, we need to get a larger system up there for a
21 longer period of time and to build a data set of
22 performance data. Those are the primary ones. In
23 addition, characterizing the quantity and quality of
24 backwash, backwash disposal issue, would be another one
25 that we would focus in on in a subsequent pilot study.
115
1 Q Anything else, any other study needs?
2 A Those would be the key ones.
3 Q On page 6 of Exhibit 4, there is a list of tasks
4 which were to have been accomplished during the test. I'm
5 going to read this list as well and see if those were
6 accomplished.
7 A Okay.
8 Q The first one is, "Develop POS for the MF pilot
9 test." What is a POS?
10 MR. SAMS: Let me just object, although I think
11 it's perfectly curable. I think the witness has
12 testified that there was this proposal and then a
13 subsequent study and I assume you are asking which of
14 the objectives of this proposal were accomplished by
15 the subsequent study. It wasn't clear whether we were
16 talking about a study pursuant to this proposal or
17 these elements pursuant to the further study. If we
18 can just make that once, clarifying for the record, I
19 think it would cure the ambiguity I perceive.
20 BY MS. HOGAN:
21 Q What is a POS?
22 A I'm not familiar with that acronym, but I assume
23 that it's develop a proposal.
24 Q Was that accomplished?
25 A Well, we did develop a letter proposal for the
116
1 subsequent pilot program.
2 Q And that's the one dated what, February 8, 1994?
3 A No. This would have been in reference to the
4 work that we have already done out -- sorry, that we have
5 already completed. When we did our work out there, we
6 didn't use this proposal.
7 Q Right, but I'm wondering if these tasks were
8 accomplished during the work out in the field?
9 A Um-hum, right.
10 Q Were you able to identify optimum conditions for
11 phosphorus precipitation and removal?
12 A Yes.
13 Q For the site that you studied?
14 A For the site we studied, with the equipment that
15 we used.
16 Q But not for the entire EAA?
17 A No. We have identified the optimum conditions
18 at the scale that we utilized and we reduced those
19 conditions when we went to a larger scale, but I wouldn't
20 design a full scale system from those optimum conditions.
21 Q Task number 3, "Configure, lease, and install a
22 mobile microfiltration pilot test system." Have you done
23 that?
24 A Yes.
25 Q So you have a mobile microfiltration pilot test
117
1 system?
2 A Well, we rented one from a supplier.
3 Q So other than being able to rent the Memtec
4 equipment, that's what you're considering mobile?
5 A Yeah, I think -- oh, okay. In this proposal,
6 there is, I believe, a concept that we might be able to
7 move a microfiltration plant, so to speak, ultimately from
8 location to location. I think that idea has subsequently
9 been dropped.
10 Q The next task is, "Operate microfiltration
11 system, develop baseline test data, and test at variable
12 phosphorus and hydraulic loadings." Were you able to
13 accomplish that task?
14 A Part of it. We didn't test it at different
15 hydraulic loadings, we had a constant flux rate.
16 Q So which part did you accomplish?
17 A We operated the microfiltration system, we
18 developed some baseline data, and that data was tested with
19 variable influent phosphorus loadings -- concentrations,
20 excuse me.
21 Q How did you test it at variable phosphorus
22 loadings?
23 A Well, the two sites had different influent
24 concentrations. At Site A, the influent phosphorus was
25 quite a bit lower concentration than Site B's.
118
1 Q That's what you mean by variable?
2 A That's how I would interpret it, yes.
3 Q The fifth task is, "Perform micronutrient impact
4 analysis."
5 A I would say that other than the three parameters
6 that I mentioned this morning, that we have haven't done
7 this task to a great extent.
8 Q And the three parameters were what?
9 A Reactive silica, molybdenum and iron.
10 Q Task number 7, "Select and cost full-scale
11 microfiltration treatment options."
12 A We skipped 6, did you want to go back?
13 Q Oh, I'm sorry. Task number 6, "Quantify and
14 characterize solids generated during the pilot study."
15 A We did this again at a small scale, but it's
16 something that we would address in a subsequent pilot
17 study.
18 Q What solids did you quantify and characterize?
19 A The backwash solids.
20 Q Task number 7, "Select and cost full-scale
21 microfiltration treatment options."
22 A Yes, we did select and cost a full-scale MF
23 system at our second site.
24 Q And then task 8, "Prepare project test report."
25 A Yes, we completed that.
119
1 Q What is -- that was one of the memoranda that
2 you --
3 A Yes, that would -- I would interpret that to be
4 our first two technical memoranda.
5 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
6 you if you can identify that for the record?
7 A Yes. This is a memorandum that I sent to Mr.
8 Jeff Ward on August 13, '93, identifying some preliminary
9 test sites that we were looking at.
10 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark as that as the
11 next exhibit to your deposition.
12 (Boehmer Exhibit 5 marked for identification.)
13 BY MS. HOGAN:
14 Q According to this memorandum, you have
15 identified Flor-Ag Corporation Station 633 and Wedgworth
16 Farms Station 875, were you responsible for selecting these
17 sites?
18 A In consultation with Earl, yes.
19 Q Why were these sites selected?
20 A We looked at the data and decided that our
21 approach would be that we would choose one station that had
22 a so-called average phosphorus concentration with regards
23 to the SIA group of farms, and the second station that we
24 wanted to do our pilot at would be a station that exhibited
25 relatively high phosphorus concentrations.
120
1 Q So which one is the average station?
2 A That was the Wedgworth Farms, number 2.
3 Q Do you know what the phosphorus loading was at
4 the Wedgworth Farms that you would have decided that it was
5 an average?
6 A Not offhand, but I would think it would be in
7 the neighborhood of 100 to 150 PPB.
8 Q So you said you looked -- you selected it
9 from the data that you have, what data were you referring
10 to?
11 A That would have been early baseline monitoring
12 data that the Co-op had sent to us for their farms from
13 January probably through the end of July.
14 Q Of 1993?
15 A Yes.
16 Q And the criteria that you used was what to
17 select these?
18 A The criteria was twofold. On one hand it was
19 the concentration data that had been exhibited and,
20 secondly, it was logistical, that we had put dots on the
21 map and tried to choose two farms that were relatively
22 close and had access and such.
23 Q I'm going to hand you another document that has
24 been previously marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 7 to
25 Dr. Shannon's deposition and ask you if you can identify
121
1 that document?
2 A This looks to be a copy of what I have been
3 referring to as our third technical memorandum, dated
4 December 3, 1993. It discusses the application of
5 microfiltration in conjunction with BMP's throughout the
6 SCGC.
7 Q This document was prepared by you and Dr.
8 Shannon?
9 A That's correct.
10 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark this as an
11 exhibit.
12 (Boehmer Exhibit 6 marked for identification.)
13 BY MS. HOGAN:
14 Q On page 12 of Exhibit 6, in the third paragraph,
15 it states, "Using extrapolated 1993 early baseline
16 monitoring program results, it is estimated that the SCGC
17 is discharging approximately 23.3 (no rainfall correction)
18 to 17.0 (rainfall corrected) tons of phosphorus per year
19 through its pump structures, whereas it's allowable loading
20 target (total yearly extrapolated flows at 0.050 milligram
21 per liter phosphorus) is approximately 4.6 tons per year."
22 You further estimate on page 13 that the cost per acre to
23 reduce the phosphorus discharges to within allowable limits
24 would be $40.64 per acre, per year. Do you see where I am?
25 A Yes. I am a bit cut off on my photocopy, but I
122
1 have got most of it.
2 MR. SAMS: If that's the exhibit copy, you
3 probably need a better one, because the left margin is
4 cut off.
5 MS. HOGAN: Let's mark a different one then.
6 (Court reporter complies.)
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q On what we have now remarked as Exhibit 6, on
9 page 13 you estimated that the cost per acre would be
10 $40.64?
11 A Yes.
12 Q That's a combination of microfiltration and
13 BMP's?
14 A Yes.
15 Q Let me hand you another document that was
16 previously marked as Exhibit 17 to Dr. Shannon's deposition
17 and ask you if you can identify that document?
18 A Yes. This is a compilation of data derived from
19 the Co-op's 1993 early baseline data and it determined the
20 total tonnage and area loadings for 1993.
21 Q This is the actual data?
22 A That's right.
23 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark that as the
24 next exhibit to your deposition.
25 (Boehmer Exhibit 7 marked for identification.)
123
1 BY MS. HOGAN:
2 Q In Exhibit Number 6, you had estimated that the
3 discharge was approximately 23.3 tons, but the actual data
4 shows that the discharge for 1993 was 37.88 tons?
5 A Um-hum.
6 Q Have you done updated figures on the costing now
7 that you have actual data?
8 A No, we haven't.
9 Q But you would expect for the cost to go up
10 because of the increase in the phosphorus?
11 A Well, it might go up, it might go up a little
12 bit, but you know, I would have to run through it. We
13 might have to size the unit a bit. Based on '93 data, the
14 unit may be sized a bit larger, but I haven't run through
15 the calculations.
16 Q What accounts for your estimate being off?
17 A Likely the actual rainfall that was experienced
18 out there from September through December. Our
19 extrapolations were based on the rainfall that was
20 experienced during CH2M HILL's previous work in 19 -- in
21 the late '70's, and we just extrapolated out from that
22 data, so the intention was always there that once we had
23 the full year's data set, to go back and analyze that in
24 the same context.
25 Q Are you saying that the 37.88 tons is comparable
124
1 to the 17 tons rainfall corrected estimate that you made or
2 is it comparable to the 23.3 no rainfall corrected?
3 A No, it's not comparable to either. These were
4 based on extrapolated data, the extrapolation was based on
5 total rainfall throughout the year and what portion of that
6 rainfall is usually experienced from January through the
7 end of August and, for example, if that was half the
8 rainfall of the year, then the next four months would have
9 doubled the total flows. That's just an example. This
10 rainfall correction within this document is another issue,
11 that's dealing with a quantity of phosphorus that is input
12 to the farm through precipitation.
13 Q So you believe that your number is off because
14 there was more rain than you had expected in 1993?
15 A That's my belief, yes.
16 Q In Exhibit Number 4 of your deposition, the
17 original proposal, the original proposal envisioned a six
18 month pilot study beginning in June and ending in November
19 and it stated that in order to develop a data base on
20 microfiltration performance under standard operating
21 conditions, you would need to test it for eight weeks,
22 which would have been approximately 56 days. Then you were
23 going to run it for two more weeks at an increased flux and
24 loading in response to and concurrent with local rainfall
25 events for an additional 14 days. So you were going to run
125
1 it for a total of 70 days under the original May 25, 1993
2 proposal. How many gallons of water would have been run
3 through the system during that 70 day period?
4 A I would have to use a calculator, I'm not sure
5 offhand.
6 Q How many gallons of water was actually run
7 through the unit that you tested, per day?
8 A I believe this morning we estimated what, on
9 average five hours a day and the unit was running at two
10 gallons per minute.
11 Q So what was that?
12 A That would be 120 gallons per hour, so roughly
13 600 gallons per day.
14 Q Do you believe that the data that you obtained
15 from that five day run is actually enough of a basis to
16 begin a comprehensive program to remove phosphorus from the
17 EAA using microfiltration?
18 A No. I believe it's a good basis to go to a
19 larger pilot scale system. I think we need to take that in
20 terms of that.
21 Q I'll hand you another document and ask you if
22 you can identify that for us?
23 A Yeah. This is a work plan prepared by Steve
24 Lavinder in our Deerfield Beach office, dated August 19,
25 1993. This was a working copy, I should add, it was an
126
1 internal CH2M HILL draft that was going back and forth at
2 the time.
3 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark this as the
4 next exhibit to his deposition.
5 (Boehmer Exhibit 8 marked for identification.)
6 BY MS. HOGAN:
7 Q On the first page of this document underneath
8 "Remarks", it says in the second sentence, "It looks like
9 we have a problem with the budget." What did he mean by
10 that, "It looks like we have a problem with the budget."?
11 A What was meant by that is Earl gave Steve
12 instructions to try and develop a program around an upset
13 budget, and that upset budget, I think, was $25,000 to
14 $30,000, somewhere in that neighborhood, and when Steve sat
15 down and tried to put together the nuts and bolts of what
16 had to be done, he found that he was getting very close to
17 that upset number.
18 Q The third sentence says, "We could possibly
19 reduce the laboratory expenses by limiting the analyses
20 sent to Gainesville." What does that mean?
21 A Well, it just means that the analytical budget
22 was a big ticket item within that work plan and that if we
23 scaled back on the number of samples that we did collect,
24 that would be one way that we could bring the budget down.
25 Q So to limit the amount of testing that was going
127
1 to be done out in the field?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Then further down in the paragraph, it says, "We
4 could also reduce the budget if we can get the work done in
5 five days or less." So how many days had the set up budget
6 envisioned for the work to have been done -- or the upset,
7 I can't remember the term that you used to describe the
8 budget?
9 A Yeah, the upset limit, it's just the maximum.
10 I'm sorry, what was your question?
11 Q My question was, he says, "We could also reduce
12 the budget if we can get the work done in five days or
13 less," so how many days had been originally envisioned?
14 A It looks as though in his rough copy at the
15 back, he has looked at eight days in the field.
16 Q So it was scaled back even further?
17 A He is suggesting that we could think about
18 scaling it back further if we wanted to take that tact.
19 Q And then you in fact did only run the test in
20 the field for five days?
21 A We were -- yes. We were in the field for a
22 longer period of time, but during that time, there was set
23 up, jar testing and switching sites and then take down at
24 the end, so that accounts for the extra days, but we only
25 sent analyses to the laboratory on five days.
128
1 Q There are handwritten notes throughout this
2 document, is this your handwriting?
3 A On page 2?
4 Q On page 2.
5 A That's my handwriting, yes.
6 Q On page, I guess 4, at the top there is a fax
7 document, it says P.O., is that your handwriting as well?
8 A Yes, it is.
9 Q Then on page 5, is that your handwriting?
10 A Yes.
11 Q Then on page 6, on this graph, is that your
12 graph, these figures?
13 A Steve Lavinder prepared this, as far as I know,
14 from the Deerfield Beach office.
15 Q What about these notes on the very bottom, these
16 handwritten notes, is that yours?
17 A It looks like mine.
18 MR. SAMS: Just for clarification, Counsel, I
19 think you are looking at a table rather than a graph
20 as such.
21 MS. HOGAN: Okay, a table, but there is
22 handwritten notes down at the bottom.
23 BY MS. HOGAN:
24 Q And, Mr. Boehmer, you are saying that's your
25 handwriting?
129
1 A Yes.
2 Q Let's go back to page 5, there is a paragraph
3 that says, "During each test, water quality data will be
4 collected from the feed water, microfiltration filtrate,
5 and the backwash water. The following data summarizes the
6 number of samples that will be collected during each test
7 condition." Then it has a table that lists different
8 Parameters and you have a Number of Samples table and then
9 you have a Field or Lab Analysis table, so does this mean
10 that you ran two samples to test the temperature and then
11 two samples to test the apparent color, this is what you
12 had planned to do?
13 A Yeah, this was just preliminary thinking. What
14 this would refer to is that during one test condition
15 basically there was four points in the process from which
16 we could sample. There was the raw water in the canal; the
17 feed water, that's what we referred to as water after any
18 chemical addition, but before microfiltration; there's the
19 filtrate water, which was the final effluent; and there was
20 the backwash water. So of those four points, during one
21 test run, that would have referred to we would do
22 temperature at two of those locations or any other
23 parameter.
24 Q Can you read your handwriting, what this says
25 from the top down, just the handwritten notes, what they
130
1 say?
2 A Um-hum. The first one where KEMIRON is circled,
3 it says "Retain sample for subsequent analysis."
4 Q And then the little arrow says?
5 A "Add now one metal scan on ferric sulfate."
6 Q Then above the Number of Samples line, what is
7 that?
8 A It says, "By 6."
9 Q What does that mean?
10 A I think that I was just trying to determine what
11 the total number of samples may have been if those were the
12 number that we were doing on each condition.
13 Q And then the two 5's listed under Number of
14 Samples are circled and then there is a question mark out
15 to the side, what is that notation next to it?
16 A It says, "2 in FL," which I assume I was meaning
17 filtrate, and 1 in backwash.
18 Q Then off to the left there is another
19 handwritten notation?
20 A Yeah, half of it is blotted out, but I think it
21 says, "Check B & C," which would have been Brown &
22 Caldwell.
23 Q Then off to the right there are other
24 handwritten notes?
25 A Yeah. It looks to be, "Duplicates of P, $5,800,
131
1 filtrate, later to lower detection."
2 Q Then down at the bottom you circled "8 to 12
3 hours" and then there is an arrow going down, what does
4 that mean, that handwritten notation?
5 A "Storm event pumping 4 to 5 hours." It was just
6 a question that I was going to run by Earl, did we need to
7 run continuously for that long a period.
8 Q And you proposed that you run it, instead of 8
9 to 12 hours, that it only be run 4 to 5 hours?
10 A Yes, I was going to run that idea by him,
11 yes.
12 Q What did he think about that idea? Did you run
13 it by him?
14 A Yeah, we discussed that, but -- yeah, we
15 discussed it and that's essentially what we did.
16 Q So you reduced it from 8 to 12, to 4 to 5, I
17 believe that's what you said earlier?
18 A Let me backtrack.
19 Q Okay.
20 A This is saying that when all is said and done
21 and we have determined the optimum dosage, that we would
22 leave the equipment at that dosage and run the unit for 12
23 hours straight and monitor throughout that period. We
24 never ended up doing that. We ran a series of test runs at
25 each site at different dosages and sampled from those
132
1 different dosages, but we didn't undertake, when all was
2 said and done, to run the machine for a whole day at that
3 dosage.
4 Q So each dosage was run approximately how long
5 continuously?
6 A Well, during the test condition, it would have
7 been run from a half hour to an hour.
8 Q So when you obtained what you consider your
9 optimum condition, how long did you run it at that level or
10 at that dosage?
11 A It would have been the same period of time.
12 Q Then down at the bottom, it says, "John Good,
13 KBN, contact re mercury."
14 A Um-hum.
15 Q So was he one of the people that came out and
16 sampled?
17 A Yes.
18 Q From KBN?
19 A Yes.
20 Q I'm going to hand you a packet of documents and
21 ask you if you can identify those documents for us?
22 A These are copies of our field notes.
23 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark that as the
24 next exhibit to the deposition.
25 (Boehmer Exhibit 9 marked for identification.)
133
1 BY MS. HOGAN:
2 Q Are these your field notes or everybody who was
3 out there?
4 A Anybody who was out there would have had access.
5 Primarily it would have been Van and I that did most of the
6 writing in this, I believe.
7 Q So as you look at it now, you recognize your
8 handwriting and who is the other person?
9 A Van Dokas. Yeah, I could tell the difference, I
10 believe.
11 Q So you two are the only people that entered
12 these notes into this?
13 A Yeah. There might have been one or two
14 calculations that Jim Vickers and/or Jim Lozier used these
15 books for, but as I said, I think it's primarily Van and
16 I's writing.
17 Q Down at the bottom of the document is a Bates
18 stamp number, can you turn to DES 0001424?
19 A Um-hum.
20 Q Can you read what it says in that bottom
21 paragraph?
22 A "All reactive P readings to this point are
23 really P04 (ortho-phosphate). Conversion equals 0.326 to
24 get total reactive P."
25 Q Is this your handwriting?
134
1 A Yes.
2 Q Are you saying that there is a conversion rate
3 for total phosphorus?
4 A Well, the phosphorus readings that you see in
5 these notes are from a portable machine that we had in the
6 field and up to this point of our notes, we never realized
7 that there was a conversion from the value the machine read
8 to the actual value and that's where that came from.
9 Q So you had to convert all of your readings?
10 A That's right.
11 Q I'm going to hand you another set of documents
12 and ask you if you can identify those as well?
13 A Yes. These are from a second field book that we
14 had on site. At the back end there's some loose sheets
15 from our field work also.
16 Q And these were prepared while you were in the
17 field --
18 A Yes.
19 Q -- conducting the tests?
20 MS. HOGAN: Okay, I would like to mark that as
21 the next exhibit to the deposition.
22 (Boehmer Exhibit 10 marked for identification.)
23 BY MS. HOGAN:
24 Q I'm going to hand you some documents that were
25 previously marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 5 to Dr.
135
1 Shannon's deposition and ask you if you can identify those
2 documents or that document for me?
3 A Yes. This looks to be our first technical
4 memorandum on the microfiltration pilot work, dated October
5 13, 1993.
6 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark that as the
7 next exhibit to your deposition.
8 (Boehmer Exhibit 11 marked for identification.)
9 BY MS. HOGAN:
10 Q You drafted this memorandum regarding the pilot
11 study results with Dr. Shannon?
12 A I drafted it for him, yes.
13 Q On page 13, under Test Conditions, the Test
14 Conditions paragraph, it says, I think in the third
15 sentence, it says, "However, because the canal pumping was
16 simulated and not in response to a rainfall event, the
17 pumps could not be operated for an extended period of
18 time. Because some microfiltration system fouling occurred
19 when the pumps were turned on (i.e. increased turbidity
20 negatively affected flow-through rates in the in-line flash
21 mixer), only one test run at Site A was carried out during
22 canal pumping." What is fouling, what does that mean?
23 A Fouling was a term that we used to describe an
24 effect that was experienced in the small metal flash mixer
25 that we were looking at this morning, and with the more
136
1 turbid water, there seemed to be some sort of break in the
2 flow through that device and it was causing some problems
3 in our backwash and our backwash cycle, so after that
4 occurred, we removed that flash mixer.
5 Q How much water was going through the system at
6 that time?
7 A Well, it would have been drawing water in at two
8 gallons per minute.
9 Q So there was fouling at two gallons per minute?
10 A With the in-line flash mixer in-line, yes.
11 Q So do you anticipate that that would continue to
12 be a problem if you use that in-line flash mixer?
13 A If it was used, it probably would be a problem,
14 but I note that at Site 2, with the far higher phosphorus
15 concentration and far more turbid waters, that we didn't
16 use an in-line flash mixer and got good results.
17 Q Why did you use the in-line flash mixer to begin
18 with?
19 A Well, we were -- originally we thought that we
20 would likely need more contact time between the chemicals
21 and the water before it went through the filtration system.
22 It's generally something you find with a direct filtration
23 system, that you need a flocculation step, chemical contact
24 time, but we found through our experiment that that really
25 didn't have a bearing on the water quality coming out of
137
1 the system.
2 Q Was that because you used a higher dosage of the
3 ferric sulfate?
4 A I don't think so, because we received or we
5 experienced good results at relatively low dosages.
6 Q On page 26 of this exhibit -- I'm sorry, page
7 23, under Alkalinity and pH, okay, it says, "At both sites,
8 alkalinity appeared to be relatively unaffected by the
9 microfiltration process with some slight increase being
10 noted during test runs where pH control was used. During
11 test runs with ferric sulfate addition and no pH control,
12 samples generally showed a slight reduction in alkalinity
13 (less than 10 percent) due to the alkalinity demand of the
14 ferric hydroxide. Some slight pH depression (less than
15 0.25 units) was also noted when ferric sulfate was added
16 without pH control, particularly at higher ferric sulfate
17 dosages (Site B)."
18 Do you anticipate that this will continue to
19 happen throughout your testing, that it will continue to
20 lower the pH through the microfiltration of the water?
21 A If I could just jump back to these tables for a
22 second. If I could refer you to table 1.3 on page 15, you
23 will note that test run 11 had a ferric sulfate dosage of
24 7.8 milligrams per liter, the pH was constant throughout
25 the process.
138
1 Q Okay.
2 A But when we moved down to the next highest
3 dosage that we tested, 14.8, that's where we found the
4 slight depression. Between 7.8 and 14.8 is the optimum
5 condition on the basis of these test results and when we
6 plot a regression line of the conditions that we found,
7 these graphs back here, we're guessing that it's closer to
8 8 than 14, 8 to 10 milligrams per liter, so based on these
9 results, conceivably there could be a slight depression,
10 but on the other hand, there may not be. It's something
11 that the pilot testing would obviously look at.
12 Q And have you examined whether a lower pH will
13 have an adverse effect on the marsh?
14 A No, no, not within the study we haven't.
15 Q On page 1 of that same exhibit, under Study
16 Objectives, it says, "The determination of optimum
17 operating conditions and precise process design criteria
18 was beyond the scope of this preliminary study." Is that
19 determination encompassed within the study that you have
20 subsequently proposed, the February 18, 1994 proposal?
21 A I would say yes, that a pilot study of that
22 scale would be aimed at determining those things.
23 Q On page 26 of Exhibit 11 under the Conclusions
24 table, the second to the last dot says, "Only during test
25 run 5 and test run 12 did test water pH's seem
139
1 significantly lowered because of chemical addition." Had
2 you done other tests with those same levels where pH wasn't
3 lowered say at Site A?
4 A No, no, that would be relative to the other
5 tests at those sites.
6 Q I'm going to show you another document, can you
7 just identify that document for us?
8 A Yes. This is a telephone conversation that
9 occurred of mine, dated December 20, '93, following a
10 conversation with Steve Lavinder.
11 Q What is this concerning?
12 A This is concerning the budget for the
13 microfiltration pilot study that we undertook. Steve was
14 handling the billing for that particular piece of our work
15 through the Deerfield Beach office, with Earl as the final
16 signatory, so it was administered through Deerfield, but
17 Earl was the project manager. After we completed what we
18 told the Co-op to be our fine billing for that part of the
19 job, an extra charge of $1,400 came through the system and
20 Steve just wanted me to run it by Earl whether we could
21 charge the Co-op for that money as part of the program or
22 whether we wanted to treat that expense in some other
23 fashion.
24 Q It says here, "Are there any possibilities to
25 pass this back to Memtec." How was this resolved, what did
140
1 you end up doing?
2 A We ended up eating the cost. As soon as I
3 mentioned this to Earl, he said forget it.
4 MS. HOGAN: Can we mark that as the next
5 exhibit?
6 (Boehmer Exhibit 12 marked for identification.)
7 BY MS. HOGAN:
8 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
9 you if you can identify that document?
10 A Yes. This is a memorandum authored by Earl
11 Shannon that I was copied on, dated February 18, 1994.
12 Q What is it?
13 A This is a letter proposal for a pilot
14 microfiltration study for the Co-op.
15 MS. HOGAN: Can we mark this as the next exhibit
16 to Mr. Boehmer's deposition?
17 (Boehmer Exhibit 13 marked for identification.)
18 BY MS. HOGAN:
19 Q Is this the proposal that we have been referring
20 to throughout the day as the subsequent pilot test?
21 A Yes.
22 Q It appears that this proposal envisions a six
23 month test period from May 1st to October 31, 1994 and the
24 scale factor would be approximately 1/20 the scale of the
25 full scale system that was sized for the Flor-Ag site and
141
1 the total cost for the six month study appears to be
2 $120,400 -- excuse me, $120,540, correct?
3 A Yes.
4 Q This proposal, unlike the initial proposal in
5 October, I believe, doesn't have a lot of detail to it, so
6 can you tell me what the scope of this proposal would be?
7 A Well, I wasn't a part of putting this together,
8 but my understanding of the subsequent pilot work would be
9 that it would encompass a lot of the same sorts of
10 activities that we undertook on the first test run, but at
11 a larger scale and for a longer duration. Essentially
12 there would be more -- because it's a larger scale system,
13 we would have to undertake some construction work and the
14 system setup activities would certainly be more complex and
15 there would be a monitoring program, obviously associated
16 with it, and in all aspects it would be of greater scale.
17 Q This pilot test, do you believe will render the
18 information necessary to determine whether to take this to
19 full scale implementation in the EAA?
20 A I believe that's what the objective of it would
21 be.
22 Q This would be a six month study and the
23 construction of the temporary equalization basin and these
24 other characteristics that are mentioned, they would be
25 sufficient to determine whether or not this should be taken
142
1 to full scale?
2 A I believe so, yeah.
3 Q And the other test that you conducted before was
4 not able to give you that information necessary to evaluate
5 whether or not microfiltration should be taken to full
6 scale?
7 A I don't think we would want to make that hurdle.
8 Q Let me hand you another document which has been
9 previously marked as Deposition Exhibit Number 6 to Dr.
10 Shannon's deposition and ask you if you can identify that
11 document?
12 A Yes. This is the second technical memorandum
13 that we produced in our series of microfiltration
14 memoranda, authored by Earl Shannon and myself, dated
15 October 29, 1993.
16 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark that as the
17 next exhibit to your deposition.
18 (Boehmer Exhibit 14 marked for identification.)
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q I would like to ask you to turn to page 14,
21 underneath Conclusions, it says, "By operating the
22 microfiltration system when equalization basin capacity
23 exists, O & M costs may be significantly reduced." Can you
24 explain what that means?
25 A Yes. It actually says, "By not operating", not
143
1 "By operating."
2 Q Excuse me, "By not operating," you're right.
3 A Yeah, the point of this conclusion is that the
4 equalization basin exists to equalize the flow of water and
5 until such a time as the equalization basin is at capacity,
6 there is no real need to run the treatment unit. When it
7 is at capacity, then you would run the unit out the other
8 end, but it's suggesting that you let the water build up in
9 that basin until such time that the capacity doesn't
10 exist. At the same time, it would have -- you would have
11 the opportunity to draw irrigation water from that basin
12 during dry periods.
13 Q About how much land would be needed for the
14 equalization basin?
15 A I think it was on the order of 500 and something
16 acres at this site, on the order of 540 acres at the
17 Flor-Ag site.
18 Q And how big was the Flor-Ag site, what
19 percentage of the Flor-Ag site would this 400 -- 540 acres
20 encompass, what percentage of the total --
21 A What percentage of the total?
22 Q -- acreage?
23 A Nine to 10 percent.
24 Q I'm going to hand you another set of documents
25 and ask you if you can identify what they are?
144
1 A These are various notes and calculations from my
2 project file.
3 Q These are all your notes?
4 A Well, these are my notes, there's some
5 photocopied material in here also that I used as reference
6 material.
7 Q But you did all of these calculations?
8 A I'm only halfway through here, but I have done
9 them all so far. These would have been notes from my
10 technical files, backup to the three technical memoranda.
11 Okay, yes, these are all mine.
12 MS. HOGAN: We will mark that as the next
13 exhibit to your deposition.
14 (Boehmer Exhibit 15 marked for identification.)
15 BY MS. HOGAN:
16 Q I asked you earlier today what, if any, data you
17 relied on in preparing your results of your cost analysis.
18 As you were going through these documents, did you come
19 across any data sources that you hadn't mentioned
20 previously?
21 A Do you want me to go through again? I think the
22 primary one stands, it's primarily the Brown & Caldwell BMP
23 and direct filtration work and the Burns & McDonnell
24 mediated plan document, in addition to the late 1978 CH2M
25 HILL report.
145
1 MR. SAMS: Were you asking him to refresh his
2 memory?
3 MS. HOGAN: Yes.
4 MR. SAMS: Go ahead and look through it and
5 refresh your recollection, based on those documents,
6 to see if you would add anything.
7 A Okay, some of the microfiltration capital and
8 operation and maintenance costs came directly from a Memtec
9 quotation they provided us with. It's in the appendices of
10 the second technical memorandum. This is a Burns &
11 McDonnell April '93 Recommended Effective Areas of STA's
12 report. This is the Engineering News Report with some
13 costing information. This land use information would have
14 been deriven from District data that summarized permits, I
15 believe it came from permits, the percentage of the area in
16 vegetable and sugar for various permit holders.
17 BY MS. HOGAN:
18 Q That's document number, what is the document
19 number at the bottom?
20 A DES 0001369.
21 I didn't use these numbers, but they came from
22 other sources, these numbers on DES 0001389, came from
23 Everglades System Research Division, Department of
24 Research, on a diskette sent by the District. This
25 rainfall data on DES 0001390 was provided to us through, I
146
1 believe it was KBN Engineering, another one of the Co-op's
2 consultants. The originator of it was from Dr. Walker's
3 spread sheet files.
4 Q You're saying you did not use that information
5 in your analysis?
6 A No, we used Burns & McDonnell.
7 Q Why didn't you use their information?
8 A Well, we just felt that the other number was
9 more representative in the Burns report.
10 Q Why?
11 A I'm not sure why. We tried to use existing data
12 that was I guess you could say commonly accepted, and they
13 had summarized a lot of the data that was out there in
14 their November '93 report, and the number I'm talking about
15 is the average total rainfall across the EAA, so we just
16 used the same assumptions that everybody else has been
17 using.
18 Q Okay.
19 On your C.V., which I believe was Exhibit 2, we
20 noted that on the second paragraph, it said you are,
21 "Responsible for all project activities, including the
22 identification, bench-scale testing, technical evaluation
23 and cost/benefit analysis of various alternatives. Measures
24 examined included on-farm Best Management Practices,
25 regional storm water retention areas (constructed wetlands)
147
1 and physical/chemical treatment technologies."
2 So you are familiar with the costs associated
3 with some of the other alternatives that have been proposed
4 for reducing phosphorus in the EAA, right?
5 A Yes, we did a cost comparison among some of
6 those technologies.
7 Q I'm going to hand you a document and ask you if
8 you can identify that document?
9 A This is a memorandum authored by Earl Shannon to
10 Eric Schubert, dated February 8, '94.
11 MS. HOGAN: I would like to mark that as the
12 next exhibit to your deposition.
13 (Boehmer Exhibit 16 marked for identification.)
14 BY MS. HOGAN:
15 Q Did you participate in developing these figures
16 and these amounts for this memorandum?
17 A Yes, these numbers were deriven from our second
18 technical memorandum, the costing exercise that we went
19 through in that memo. This memo is, as I know it, authored
20 by Earl, but they look to be the same numbers.
21 Q It says in the second paragraph, "Until we
22 actually identify the hot spots assume that the facilities
23 at all locations are identical i.e.:," then let's drop down
24 to the bottom component, it says, "Size of the farm served
25 by facility is 5,760 acres." So was this model derived
148
1 from the Flor-Ag site?
2 A It looks as though he has used those numbers,
3 yes.
4 Q To build the model, this model or this cost
5 estimate?
6 A I'm not sure what cost estimate you're talking
7 about.
8 Q Well, this memo discusses how much it would cost
9 to install a microfiltration facility, correct?
10 A Um-hum.
11 Q The size of the farm that's served by the
12 facility is 5,760 acres, correct?
13 A Correct.
14 Q And that's approximately the same size as the
15 Flor-Ag Farm that you looked at?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Then it says, "Land removed from production at
18 start up (land permanently" -- not land, let me say that
19 again. Then it says, "Land removed from production at
20 start up (permanently out of production) is 540 acres."
21 A Um-hum.
22 Q That's the same figure that we were discussing
23 previously, correct, about how many acres you would need
24 for the equalization basin?
25 A Yes.
149
1 Q We were discussing the Flor-Ag site at that
2 time?
3 A Yes.
4 Q So approximately 10 percent of the land on the
5 farm would have to be devoted to the microfiltration
6 process?
7 A Given, yeah, given the assumptions we made in
8 that memo, that's correct.
9 Q And you are familiar with the costs associated
10 with the implementation of the storm water treatment areas,
11 correct?
12 A I'm familiar with the costs that were presented
13 by Burns & McDonnell.
14 Q It's my understanding that the total acreage of
15 land in the EAA is approximately 475,000 acres, does that
16 comport with your understanding?
17 A I thought it was closer to 525.
18 Q So it's --
19 A 525,000.
20 Q Okay. Approximately 10 percent of that land
21 would be set aside for STA's, correct?
22 MR. SAMS: Object to the form of the question.
23 BY MS. HOGAN:
24 Q You can go ahead and answer.
25 A Would be set aside for STA's?
150
1 Q Right, land would be used for STA's.
2 A I would have to look at my notes.
3 Q You are not familiar with the percentage of land
4 that would be used for STA's in the entire EAA?
5 A In a rough sense. I believe that's proposing
6 around 40,000 acres of land.
7 Q So that's approximately 10 percent of the total
8 acreage, correct?
9 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
10 BY MS. HOGAN:
11 Q Correct?
12 A It's a little less than 10 percent.
13 Q It's about 9 to 10 percent?
14 MR. SAMS: It's verifiable by arithmetic. I
15 don't think the witness should have to sit here and
16 guess that it's more or less than 9 percent.
17 DR. RON JONES: 7.6.
18 A Okay, 7.6.
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q So actually the land that would be used for
21 microfiltration, the land that would be needed for
22 microfiltration, is comparable to the land that would be
23 needed for an STA, correct?
24 MR. SAMS: Object to the form of the question.
25 A That's not correct.
151
1 BY MS. HOGAN:
2 Q That's not correct; why isn't that correct?
3 A No, well, it is correct, roughly.
4 Q It is correct?
5 A (Witness nods head affirmatively.)
6 Q You have to say yes for the record, you can't
7 just nod, so is it correct?
8 A What's the question?
9 Q The amount of land is approximately the same
10 that would be used for an STA as would be used for
11 microfiltration, approximately 10 percent of the land?
12 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
13 A No, I'm sorry. The total acreage for the STA's
14 we determined to be in the neighborhood of 40,000 acres. If
15 we look at 10 hot spots by 540 acres, that's 5,400 acres,
16 so if you are talking about equalization basin sizing
17 versus STA total sizing, the equalization basins represent
18 about 10 percent of the total areas of STA's.
19 Q You're saying that the land used for the
20 microfiltration is only 10 percent of the land that would
21 be needed for STA's?
22 A Assuming there is only 10 to 12 hot spots at 540
23 acres each.
24 Q Okay, but the percentage -- all right, I'll come
25 back to that.
152
1 I'm going to hand you another document and ask
2 you if you can identify what that is?
3 A Yes. This is a memo that I authored to Earl
4 Shannon on September 22, 1993.
5 MS. HOGAN: I want to mark this as the next
6 exhibit to your deposition.
7 (Boehmer Exhibit 17 marked for identification.)
8 BY MS. HOGAN:
9 Q Are these the figures that you used in costing
10 the cost of microfiltration?
11 A No. These figures were drawn directly from the
12 Memtec literature.
13 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
14 if you can identify that document?
15 A This is a memorandum authored by Earl Shannon,
16 sent to Eric Schubert on February 10, 1994.
17 MS. HOGAN: We are going to mark this as the
18 next exhibit to your deposition.
19 (Boehmer Exhibit 18 marked for identification.)
20 BY MS. HOGAN:
21 Q And what is the subject of this memo?
22 A It's my understanding that Mr. Schubert is
23 undertaking some sort of economic analysis of a scenario
24 that includes microfiltration.
25 Q Who is Eric Schubert?
153
1 A I couldn't tell you specifically who he is,
2 other than that they are doing a full scale economic
3 analysis.
4 Q Do you know what company he is with?
5 A No.
6 Q When you say they, who is they?
7 A Well, I'm not sure if it's -- I use they in the
8 sense that I'm assuming it's a firm rather than a person.
9 Q Did you participate in developing any of these
10 figures, any of these numbers?
11 A No, I didn't.
12 Q Down at the bottom, the last sentence says, "I
13 trust that this information is satisfactory for your
14 model." Do you know what model they are referring to?
15 A No, I don't.
16 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
17 you if you can identify that document?
18 A Yes. This is a telephone conversation note of
19 mine referring to a conversation I had with Jeff Ward on
20 the 27th of October, '93.
21 MS. HOGAN: We are going to mark this as the
22 next exhibit to your deposition.
23 (Boehmer Exhibit 19 marked for identification.)
24 BY MS. HOGAN:
25 Q The first line of this says, "What is an
154
1 appropriate number for loss of production numbers?" What
2 does that mean, what are you referring to?
3 A When we were going through our costing exercise
4 for technical memorandum number two, we wanted to attach
5 some numbers to that area of land which would have to be
6 taken out of production and what sort of profits could we
7 attach to that acreage, so I phoned Jeff Ward to ask him if
8 he had any information in that regard or, if not, if he
9 could direct me towards the appropriate information.
10 Q And did he do that?
11 A Yeah, he sent me a U.S. Department of
12 Agricultural, something along those lines, report on the
13 sugar industry, which outlined the numbers we were after.
14 Q Did you produce that document?
15 A Yeah, it should have been in my files.
16 Q And it's a report from the Department of
17 Agriculture?
18 A Well, it probably would have only been a fax, he
19 probably would have attached a page to a fax, from the
20 report.
21 Q Do you know about when you sent this off?
22 A This would have been -- this is what, October
23 27th, and from recollection, I would be searching my
24 communications file somewhere around the 28th or 29th you
25 will probably find it.
155
1 Q But you produced that document?
2 A To the best of my knowledge, I did.
3 Q Even though it was in your communications file,
4 you produced that as well?
5 A That file was produced.
6 Q So what were the appropriate numbers for the
7 loss of production?
8 A It's in the second memorandum and from memory I
9 believe it was $240 per acre, per year.
10 Q That's revenue loss or profit loss or is that
11 one and the same?
12 A I would have to double check the document, I
13 believe it's profit.
14 Q Do you know how much revenue loss?
15 A No. If I could, could I check the document,
16 because I am wondering whether it was revenue or profit?
17 Q Sure.
18 A Okay, revenue.
19 Q It's revenue, 250?
20 A 240 per acre, per year.
21 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
22 you if you can identify it?
23 A Yes. This is a telephone conversation record
24 emanating from a call that I had with Jim Vickers of Memtec
25 on October 4, '93.
156
1 Q Item number 3 says, "Mention that pilot study
2 did not address (by design) potential effect that polymer
3 may have on P removal." What does that mean?
4 A This conversation was as a result of our draft
5 first tech memo and Jim's comment was that we should pull
6 this point out as an important finding from our work, the
7 fact that we didn't need polymer or any polymers to reach
8 our target water quality goals, whereas direct filtration
9 did require it.
10 Q Now, for each site that you would have a
11 microfiltration unit on, would you have to address the
12 machine for different turbidity and different phosphorus
13 level and color?
14 A Well, your coagulant dosage would have to be
15 optimized for each site.
16 Q So each site would have its own special setting?
17 A So to speak, in terms of coagulant dosages, it
18 would, yes.
19 Q And the water from different sites won't be the
20 same during the year, correct, depending on what's being
21 done on the land?
22 A That's correct.
23 Q Does that affect the cost of microfiltration,
24 having to go in and readjust the equipment to deal with the
25 different changes that would occur throughout the year?
157
1 A Well, I think that by constructing the
2 equalization facility, you could probably get a pretty good
3 idea as to the relative concentrations that you would find
4 that would pass through the system, so you would be able to
5 optimize it using that technique.
6 MS. HOGAN: Let's mark that as the next exhibit.
7 (Boehmer Exhibit 20 marked for identification.)
8 BY MS. HOGAN:
9 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
10 if you can identify that one?
11 A Yes. This is a memo that I sent to KBN
12 Engineering on October 13, '93, requesting some spread
13 sheet files of Dr. Walker's.
14 MS. HOGAN: Okay, we're going to mark that as
15 the next exhibit to your deposition.
16 (Boehmer Exhibit 21 marked for identification.)
17 BY MS. HOGAN:
18 Q Have you interpreted Dr. Walker's data?
19 A No, I haven't.
20 Q They just sent you the information that you
21 requested and you haven't done anything with it?
22 A That's right.
23 Q What do you anticipate gaining from that data?
24 A I have -- I couldn't really tell you. At the
25 time, KBN supplied us with a long listing of spread sheet
158
1 files that they had obtained and asked if we were
2 interested in any and Earl went through and just checked
3 off ones that looked remotely interesting and we received
4 them and then we haven't done anything with them.
5 Q Was that information supplied with your
6 production request?
7 A I'm not sure if it has been. It's on diskette,
8 I can certainly get it to you.
9 Q But you haven't done any analysis of the data
10 provided?
11 A No.
12 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
13 you if you can identify it?
14 A Yes. This is a memorandum that I faxed to KBN
15 Engineering on August 19, 1993.
16 MS. HOGAN: We will mark that as the next
17 exhibit to your deposition.
18 (Boehmer Exhibit 22 marked for identification.)
19 BY MS. HOGAN:
20 Q Has Dr. Pollman participated at all in your
21 microfiltration project?
22 A No, not other than that I discussed this
23 morning, that they were on site for a couple of days to do
24 their own sampling once our work was completed.
25 Q Why did you send this to Dr. Pollman?
159
1 A I sent this because we were preparing to leave
2 for the field to give them a sense of what our logistics
3 looked like and how they might fit into our program in
4 terms of timing.
5 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
6 if you can identify it?
7 A This is a telephone conversation note of mine
8 from a call with Joel Arieta on the 16th of the eighth
9 month, '93.
10 MS. HOGAN: We're going to mark this as the next
11 exhibit to your deposition.
12 (Boehmer Exhibit 23 marked for identification.)
13 BY MS. HOGAN:
14 Q The first paragraph states, "Flor-Ag site has no
15 on-line flow meter, they use logs, et cetera, has auto-
16 sampler." If you don't have an on-line meter, are your
17 measurements accurate?
18 A I would have to double check what system they
19 do use, but there would certainly be other ways to
20 determine the flow through differential heads of the two
21 sides of the pump house, pump on/off times in duration of
22 pumping together with a pump curve that you could do that
23 work.
24 Q But you don't know what system?
25 A I don't have -- no, I don't know specifically.
160
1 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
2 if you can identify it?
3 A Yes, this is a telephone conversation record
4 from a conversation with Joel Arieta on November 1, 1993.
5 MS. HOGAN: We are going to mark that as the
6 next exhibit to your deposition.
7 (Boehmer Exhibit 24 marked for identification.)
8 BY MS. HOGAN:
9 Q What are these notes used for, what did you use
10 these for?
11 A In the preparation of our memos, I needed to get
12 some more specific information from Joel as to their
13 sampling protocol for the early baseline program. In some
14 of the data that the Co-op had provided me with, I had some
15 questions as to some farms where it looked like there might
16 have been duplicate, not duplicate records, but they would
17 have -- there would be no records, there would be a station
18 number, but there would be a lack of data for that station.
19 Q Item number 4 says, "Rain Gauges, growers
20 responsible for reading/reporting to SCGC," so your
21 rainfall -- then it says, "Data only as good as growers'
22 numbers." What does that mean?
23 A Well, we saw quite a bit of variability in the
24 rainfall numbers through the first set of data they sent us
25 through August and I asked Joel as to the responsibilities
161
1 for collecting that rainfall data and he told me that it
2 was up to the individual farmers to monitor their rain
3 gauge on a daily basis and report those numbers, so
4 obviously the data that got to the Co-op in terms of rain
5 was only as good as those farmers were diligent in doing
6 that duty.
7 Q You said you saw a lot of variability, what did
8 you mean by variability?
9 A Well, there was a couple of farms with very low
10 numbers that in a geographic sense were close to farms with
11 large numbers.
12 Q So what effect did that have on your analysis of
13 the phosphorus content that's due to rainfall?
14 A We didn't use those numbers, we used Burns &
15 McDonnell average numbers.
16 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
17 you if you can identify it?
18 A This is a telephone conversation note on a
19 memorandum pad, dated August 23rd.
20 MS. HOGAN: We will mark that as the next
21 exhibit to your deposition.
22 (Boehmer Exhibit 25 marked for identification.)
23 BY MS. HOGAN:
24 Q This call is from whom?
25 A This would have been from myself to Cathy
162
1 Durrell at the Co-op.
2 Q It says, "Re: Pre-baseline monitoring data, EAA,
3 Cathy Durrell, talk to her first, from SCGC," I guess this
4 means environmental coordinator?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Okay, "Has been negotiating with South Florida
7 Water Management District." What do you mean negotiating?
8 A Negotiating in the sense of liaison.
9 Q Regarding what?
10 A Regarding acquiring a full set of early baseline
11 monitoring data.
12 Q Down at the bottom it says, "District happy with
13 quality data, not so happy with flows." What does that
14 mean?
15 A I'm not sure. It must have been a comment that
16 she made to me during that conversation, but I haven't
17 heard or discussed it since.
18 Q Am I reading that word right, is that quality
19 data?
20 A Yes.
21 Q So what do you think that she was referring to,
22 what was the context of the discussion?
23 A The context was the early baseline data that we
24 were trying to get a hold of. I would only be speculating
25 as to what she was talking about. It could have been the
163
1 data base program that they were using and how clean or
2 dirty the data was in the sense that from my conversations
3 even with the District, I guess there was some problems
4 with their recording this year from the different
5 participants in terms of the quality of the data they
6 enter, quality of data they forwarded, basically the data
7 management skills of the farm.
8 Q And their information comes from the farms, are
9 they gathering the data themselves?
10 A In the Co-op?
11 Q Yes. Well, you are asking for --
12 A The information emanates -- I was trying to get
13 information on participating farms that weren't members of
14 the Co-op, so it was suggested to me by Earl that I give
15 Cathy a call and ask her what the proper protocol would be
16 to request that data, since she was the Co-op's liaison
17 person with the District, and then she suggested that I
18 contact Mr. Paul Walen directly for it.
19 Q So then it says, "NB, all participants of South
20 Florida Water Management Program."
21 A Yeah, that was just a note to myself that -- or
22 it was a note to distinguish it from the data that we were
23 receiving directly from another party at the Co-op, of just
24 the Co-op's data. What we were after was the data from
25 other participants in the program outside of the Co-op.
164
1 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
2 you if you can identify it?
3 A This is a telephone conversation note written by
4 myself following a conversation with -- or excuse me, it
5 was with regards to a voice mail message that I left Steve
6 Lavinder on September 27th and his subsequent call back to
7 me.
8 MS. HOGAN: We are going to mark that as the
9 next exhibit to your deposition.
10 (Boehmer Exhibit 26 marked for identification.)
11 BY MS. HOGAN:
12 Q Down at the bottom it says, "He wouldn't think
13 of showing District," what's that last word?
14 A Et cetera.
15 Q What does that mean?
16 A This was following our field program when we
17 were drafting up our first technical memorandum and in the
18 previous conversation with Steve, he had said something to
19 me about showing the results to the District.
20 Q The results of what?
21 A I had assumed the pilot program, but I had
22 assumed wrong, I later found out. I'm not sure what the
23 context, if I misheard or was daydreaming or what, but when
24 I got off the phone, I thought about it and talked to Earl
25 about it and we felt it inappropriate to show the District
165
1 before our client had even seen the data, so I gave Steve a
2 call back to just verify that and he confirmed that I was
3 hearing the wrong thing in the previous conversation and
4 that he wouldn't be showing that data at this point to the
5 District directly.
6 Q You misheard him, what was he referring to?
7 A I can't remember.
8 Q But it wasn't the results?
9 A No, it wasn't. I had misconstrued something he
10 said to me that he was going to take the results over to
11 the District, but it had nothing to do with that in the
12 end.
13 MS. HOGAN: Let's take about a 10 minute break.
14 (Brief recess taken.)
15 BY MS. HOGAN:
16 Q Mr. Boehmer, have you received a response to the
17 February 18, 1994 proposal?
18 A To my knowledge, we haven't.
19 Q Will your cost estimates that you prepared be
20 used by Mr. Luke, who is conducting economic feasibility
21 studies?
22 A I'm not familiar with Mr. Luke.
23 Q So you don't know whether your cost estimates
24 will be used by him?
25 A No, I don't know.
166
1 Q This morning Mr. Sams gave us these documents
2 and so I would like to -- which had not previously been
3 produced and which I'm told were responsive to both your
4 and Dr. Shannon's deposition duces tecum. I'm going to ask
5 you if you can identify this document?
6 MR. SAMS: I don't know who told you that they
7 were responsive to --
8 MS. HOGAN: They are not responsive?
9 MR. SAMS: -- Dr. Shannon's. These were
10 presented as documents that were in the possession of
11 Mr. Boehmer, but not in the project files. I didn't
12 represent whether or not Dr. Shannon had these in his
13 possession.
14 MS. HOGAN: Oh, all right, so these documents
15 weren't in Dr. Shannon's possession?
16 THE WITNESS: No, they were in my possession.
17 MR. SAMS: I don't believe so, but just to be
18 absolutely 1,000 percent clear, when we realized that
19 these documents had been overlooked, it was late
20 yesterday afternoon and Dr. Shannon had to go to the
21 office and find them pursuant to Mr. Boehmer's
22 instructions of where to look, then he handed them to
23 a clerk who faxed them to my office last night, so for
24 that fleeting moment they were in Dr. Shannon's
25 possession, but in fact, these were found in Mr.
167
1 Boehmer's office.
2 Did I state that correctly?
3 THE WITNESS: That's accurate.
4 BY MS. HOGAN:
5 Q Can you identify the document that I have just
6 handed you?
7 A Yes. This is a draft copy of our October 29th
8 technical memorandum and it's been marked up by a couple of
9 our employees in Deerfield Beach.
10 Q The first sheet of this document is what?
11 A This would have come back to me attached to the
12 draft document.
13 MS. HOGAN: I'm going to mark that as the next
14 exhibit to your deposition.
15 (Boehmer Exhibit 27 marked for identification.)
16 BY MS. HOGAN:
17 Q So this draft October 29th memorandum was sent
18 to Mr. Lavinder for comments?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q And then there is various places where
21 handwritten notes have been made?
22 A Um-hum.
23 Q Are these all of Mr. Lavinder's notes?
24 A My understanding is that some of them are Mr.
25 Lavinder's and some are Mr. Steve Gong, who is an engineer
168
1 in our Deerfield Beach office.
2 Q So these are comments from two people?
3 A Yes.
4 Q On page 6 of this exhibit, I guess actually if
5 you counted it, it would be page 7, but on the bottom of
6 the page it says page 6, do you know whose handwriting this
7 is?
8 A I would suggest that the one at the bottom is
9 Mr. Gong's and the one at the top is Mr. Lavinder's, but
10 they would have to verify that for me.
11 Q The comment up at the top says, "Should land
12 value be included plus or minus 500 acres at plus or minus
13 $5,000 per acre," so in your cost analysis for the cost of
14 microfiltration that we discussed in Exhibit 16 to your
15 deposition where it says a total installed capital cost of
16 $8.81 million, that doesn't include land acquisition costs,
17 correct?
18 A Correct.
19 Q And so presumably Mr. Lavinder asked the
20 question as to whether that should be included, the land
21 acquisition costs?
22 A Um-hum.
23 Q And obviously it was determined that it
24 shouldn't?
25 A No, our thinking was that this was a conceptual
169
1 costing for the Flor-Ag Farm and there would be no land
2 changing hands.
3 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
4 if you can identify it?
5 A Yes. This is a draft copy of our first
6 technical memorandum dated September 30th.
7 MS. HOGAN: I'm going to mark that as the next
8 exhibit to your deposition.
9 (Boehmer Exhibit 28 marked for identification.)
10 BY MS. HOGAN:
11 Q There is handwriting throughout this document,
12 do you know whose handwriting this is?
13 A I understand it's Steve Lavinder, Steve Gong and
14 Albert Muniz, all from our Deerfield Beach office. In the
15 original document, I believe there's color coding that got
16 lost in the photocopying.
17 Q Oh, as to whose comments belong to whom?
18 A Yes.
19 Q There are various copies of photographs
20 throughout this document?
21 A Um-hum.
22 Q Where are the originals of those photographs?
23 A Are they not included?
24 Q That's what I'm asking you, are these
25 photographs the same as the photographs that you produced
170
1 before?
2 A They should be in that set.
3 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
4 you to identify it?
5 A This is a draft version of our October 29th
6 second technical memorandum, with comments from Jim Lozier
7 of our Gainesville office.
8 MS. HOGAN: We will mark that as the next
9 exhibit to your deposition.
10 (Boehmer Exhibit 29 marked for identification.)
11 BY MS. HOGAN:
12 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
13 if you can identify that document?
14 A Yes. This is a copy of a memorandum that I sent
15 to Steve Lavinder, Deerfield Beach office, and his
16 handwritten notes on the memorandum that he returned to me.
17 MS. HOGAN: We're going to mark this as the next
18 exhibit to your deposition.
19 (Boehmer Exhibit 30 marked for identification.)
20 BY MS. HOGAN:
21 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
22 you if you can identify it?
23 A Yes. This is a draft copy of our September 30th
24 first technical memorandum, marked up by Jim Lozier of our
25 Gainesville office.
171
1 MS. HOGAN: Okay, we will mark that as the next
2 exhibit.
3 (Boehmer Exhibit 31 marked for identification.)
4 BY MS. HOGAN:
5 Q I'm going to hand you this next document and ask
6 you if you can identify it?
7 A This is a draft version of our September 31st
8 technical memorandum, marked up with Steve Lavinder's
9 comments, from our Deerfield Beach office.
10 MS. HOGAN: We will mark that as the next
11 exhibit to your deposition.
12 (Boehmer Exhibit 32 marked for identification.)
13 BY MS. HOGAN:
14 Q I'm going to hand you another document and ask
15 you if you can identify that?
16 A Yes. This is a draft copy of our first
17 technical memorandum, dated September 30th, and it's marked
18 up with comments from Albert Muniz and John Curtis of our
19 Deerfield Beach office.
20 Q You said that the original of one of these
21 documents was color coded as to whose comments came from
22 whom?
23 A Yes, I believe in most cases they were, I can't
24 guarantee in all cases.
25 Q So your originals can tell us whose comments
172
1 belong to whom?
2 A Yes.
3 MS. HOGAN: Let's mark that as the next exhibit
4 to your deposition.
5 (Boehmer Exhibit 33 marked for identification.)
6 BY MS. HOGAN:
7 Q I hand you another document and ask if you can
8 identify that for the record?
9 A Yes. These are several pages from our first
10 technical memorandum that Jim Lozier marked up. This was
11 the second time that he had looked at a second draft.
12 Q So these are Jim Lozier's?
13 A Lozier, from the Gainesville office, yes.
14 MS. HOGAN: All right, we will mark that as the
15 next exhibit to your deposition.
16 (Boehmer Exhibit 34 marked for identification.)
17 BY MS. HOGAN:
18 Q Have you had any prior experience studying
19 wetlands or marshes, other than the five day pilot test you
20 conducted in the EAA?
21 A Not in any great detail. Wetland work has came
22 into play on several of these water shed planning studies
23 that we discussed this morning, but it wouldn't be my
24 responsibility, for example, to analyze the wetland system,
25 it would be to use the results of someone else's work.
173
1 Q What specific wetlands have you studied or were
2 part of this work?
3 A These would be wetlands in Ontario.
4 Q Do they have a name, are the bodies of water
5 identified by any name?
6 A Yes, they have names, I couldn't name them all
7 right now, though. These would be provincially significant
8 wetlands, but certainly not on the scale of the Everglades.
9 This would be localized wetlands systems.
10 Q Did I ask you about how many gallons a day of
11 backwash will be produced at a typical microfiltration
12 site?
13 A I'm not sure.
14 MR. SAMS: Object to the form.
15 A We haven't, I don't think, determined what a
16 typical site would be. That would be something again that
17 the next pilot study would investigate. We made rough
18 calculations as to the amount of backwash that was produced
19 during our pilot work.
20 BY MS. HOGAN:
21 Q In the February 8, 1994 memo from Earl Shannon
22 to Eric Schubert where they proposed costs associated with
23 the size of the farms served, that was 5,760 acres, about
24 how many gallons of backwash would be produced at that size
25 of a facility?
174
1 A I couldn't say for certain, I would have to
2 perform a calculation.
3 MS. HOGAN: I have no further questions for you
4 at this time, however, if you intend to testify as to
5 the results of the early baseline data and form
6 opinions as to that which would be presented at trial,
7 we would need to depose you again. Thank you very
8 much.
9 (Deposition concluded at 3:50 p.m.)
10 * * * * *
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
1 CERTIFICATE OF ADMINISTERING OATH
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA:
4 COUNTY OF LEON:
5
6 I, TERRY WILHELMI, Certified Shorthand Reporter
7 and Notary Public in and for the State of Florida at Large:
8 DO HEREBY CERTIFY that on the date and place
9 indicated on the title page of this transcript, an oath was
10 duly administered by me to the designated witness (s)
11 before testimony was taken.
12 DATED THIS _______ day of _______, 1994.
13
14
15 _____________________________
TERRY WILHELMI, CSR
16 100 Salem Court
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
17 (904) 878-2221
18
19
20 My Commission Expires: June 13, 1994
21
22
23
24
25
176
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2
3 STATE OF FLORIDA:
4 COUNTY OF LEON:
5
6 I, TERRY WILHELMI, Certified Shorthand Reporter,
7 do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken
8 before me at the time and place therein designated; that my
9 shorthand notes were thereafter translated under my
10 supervision; and the foregoing pages numbered _______
11 through _______ are a true and correct record of the
12 aforesaid proceedings.
13 I FURTHER CERTIFY that I am not a relative,
14 employee, attorney or counsel of any of the parties, nor
15 relative or employee of such attorney or counsel, or
16 financially interested in the foregoing action.
17 DATED THIS _______ day of _______, 1994.
18
19
20 ________________________
TERRY WILHELMI, CSR
21 100 Salem Court
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
22 (904) 878-2221
23
24 SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME, THIS_______DAY OF
__________,1994, IN THE CITY OF TALLAHASSEE, COUNTY OF LEON
25