Q Have you made any effort to analyze the destruction and removal deficiencies obtained at TOCDF on the agent by-products rather than the pure agent?
A In the declaration, no, sir.
Q All right. Now, you did offer some analysis of the various percentages of agent versus impurities and their impact on the destruction efficiency of agent. I take it you reviewed the data available on the concentration of agent versus nonagent in the material in the weapons at TOCDF?
A No, sir, I did not. Those were assumed agent concentrations as an example. This is an example of the impact of the percent agent--the actual percent agent on the DRE calculation.
Q I understand. so you don't really know what the percentage of agent versus other by-products or impurities might be at TOCDF?
A No, I do not except what I heard in testimony this week.
Q All right. You make a statement that neither a facility worker nor member of the public nor the environment was harmed in this incident. Do you see that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Are you basing that conclusion that no one was harmed on your own expertise or someone basically told you that and you are repeating it?
A Basically what I heard in my discussions at the facility.
Q They told you no one was harmed?
A Yes.
Q You are not offering that as an expert opinion?
A No.
Q Now, I note you didn't say no one was exposed. Is there a reason why you didn't say no one was exposed?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Do you know whether or not anyone was exposed?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Do you know what level of agent exposure a human being might be harmed in any way?
A Could you rephrase that?
Q I could repeat it.
A Okay.
Q Do you know what level of nerve agent or mustard agent exposure a person might be harmed in any manner?
A I am not a health professional, but I am aware of the, for example, the TWA--no, I better not answer that question. I am not a health professional.
Q Now you note here that pressure did not go positive in any area during this incident. Is your basis for that opinion that someone told you it didn't go positive or have you some firsthand knowledge that it didn't go positive?
A Discussion with the people at the facility, sir.
Q Now, are you aware that the pressure dropped below their limiting conditions of operation during that incident?
A I was aware that the pressure had dropped to a low level, but I was not aware of that.
Q All right. Now, you give some discussion about the filter blower failures there. Are you meaning to offer the opinion that you're speaking in this paragraph to all failures of filter systems at TOCDF that have occurred?
A No sir, that relates to my interpretation of the documentation that I had. In particular, the bulleted list of items from our journal. And then going to the particular reference page in the Millar journal, I found that it appeared to respond to one particular motor failure, and that is what I am responding to.
Q Have you conducted a review for purposes of this declaration or your testimony of all filter system failures at TOCDF?
A No, sir, I have not.
Q Are you aware that there have been others?
A I am not sure how you are defining filter system failures.
Q Are you aware of any other problems with the operation of filter systems at TOCDF in your discussions with personnel there?
A Yes, sir...
Q ...Now, it's a fair reading of your opinion there, isn't it, that the results that you reviewed do, in fact, confirm the presence of GB agent in at least two of those samples and that the only question regards the quantity present and not whether GB itself is present or not?
A No, sir.
Q That's not a correct reading of this paragraph?
A No.
Q All right. Let me refresh your memory. You say that two positive results--let me backup. "Stack sampling data shows two particulate filters out of the five tested with positive results for GB agent," citing the test results. "The two positive results, however, are both below the level of quantification. The values below the level of quantification have a lower confidence that the quantity of GB," not the identity, but the quantity of GB "detected is accurate." do you see that?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now, what is unfair about my characterization of that statement?
A Could you repeat the characterization?
Q I will. Isn't it true that this paragraph expresses the opinion that the test results you reviewed showed the presence of GB and that the only question is regarding the quantity?
A Sir, I am not a sampling analytical specialist nor am I an analysis statistician.
Q I appreciate that.
A So that statement simply reflects the point that those levels were below the level of quantification and therefore the quantity of that number is not necessarily accurate.
Q I understand. so you're clarifying your opinion, I appreciate that, so point out that you are offering no opinion on whether the identification of the chemical per se was accurate, merely that the level of quantification issue addresses the quantity?
A Yes.
Q All right. Now, did you review those results enough to note that the authors of the analysis report noted there were some difficulties in the quantification that might result in underreporting of the quantity?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Those difficulties included the concern that the extraction--there might have been some difficulties in extraction and that there might be some destruction of the agent on the filter because of the pH level?
A Yes. It appeared to me that those are speculative hypotheses, although I did not talk to the gentlemen involved about the statements.
Q So what made you think they were speculative if they were provided by the authors of the testing?
A The way it was written.
Q The way it was written? You didn't inquire to confirm that?
A No, sir.
Q Now, if the agent is actually being destroyed on the sampling media as referenced in that document prior to its extraction, would you have any way of knowing how much agent was originally present in the filters?
A Not without a study to determine what was happening.
Q Now, the next paragraph or two under dioxin emissions text in paragraph 20, you make a reference to a draft proposed EPA dioxin emissions standard under RCRA; is that correct?
A Yes, sir.
Q You note that when it's finalized it will do certain things, which I take it means it's not yet finalized?...
A ...No, it is not finalized.
Q Have you reviewed yourself the not yet finalized EPA dioxin reassessment document?
A No, sir. I have looked at parts of it. I have not reviewed it.
Q Have your reviewed the newest version of chapter eight?
A The newest version?
Q Yes.
A You are not talking about the original document?
Q No, sir.
A No, sir, I have not.
Q Now, you offer the opinion that the TOCDF dioxin emissions would be below this standard when it's implemented. Are you offering merely an opinion of compliance or are you meaning to say that the level of dioxin emission at TOCDF is safe?
A I am saying that the level of dioxin emission at TOCDF will be below, are below the 0.2 proposed standard.
Q That's a compliance opinion, not a safety opinion?
A That's a compliance opinion.
Q Now, what dioxin data for TOCDF did you review to make this opinion?
A Our deburn.
Q When was that?
A The activation furnace system. I cannot remember the date. I believe it was in 1996.
Q All right. Anything further? That was the complete data set--
A Oh, the data set. I also reviewed some JACADS statements relative to item 22, sir.
Q I am referring now to TOCDF.
A No, that's the only data I reviewed.
Q You reviewed one set of data for one of the five combustion units?
A That was the only dioxin data available from TOCDF.
Q That's what I am trying to clarify.
A Yes.
Q All right. Have you not seen any data on dunnage incinerator emission from TOCDF?
A No, sir, I have not. It has not been done yet.
Q Well, sir, it's not that obvious. Are you an expert in regulatory compliance?
A Yes, I consider myself to be an expert in regulatory...
Q ...My question is, do you know how much dioxin might harm a person if they were to --
A I am not a health professional.
Q That's my question. Have you reviewed the state of Utah's work on the risk assessment to see what their conclusion was on the safety of dioxin emissions for an infant?
A No sir, I have not.
Q Now, what laboratory performed the dioxin test analyses that you reviewed for TOCDF?
A I don't know.
Q I take it then, you wouldn't know whether it was an EPA approved laboratory or not?
A No, sir, but I would assume because it's part of a program that the Utah DEQ is overseeing that it would approved.
Q I understand. You didn't check that out?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q Now, in reviewing the dioxin data that--apparently this one data set on the deactivation furnace for TOCDF, was there an attempt on that data to identify dioxin-like compounds other than the corrugated dioxins, corrugated furans and the PCBs?
A No, sir, there was not.
Q Are you aware that there are other dioxin-like compounds?
A I am aware that there are other dioxin-like compounds, of course, sir. What do you mean?
Q Are you aware of that?
A I am aware that there are compounds.
Q That's the first question. Are you aware that other dioxin-like compounds such as the sulfur analogies of the dioxins and/or furans have been found in combuster emission?
A ...I am not aware of any sampling data for dioxin-like compounds and in particular sulfur analogues from hazardous waste combustion system incinerators or rapid quench systems like the TOCDF system has, the TOCDF facility has.
Q I understand. Now, you understand, don't you, that the rapid quench system is designed to minimize some dioxin-like chemical formation and not to eliminate them?
A It minimizes them, yes.
Q Now, you note further down the paragraph that the uninterruptible power systems are also tested during the planned power shutdowns, but you don't actually say what they are uninterruptible power sources for. What do these uninterruptible systems power?
A I can't give you a complete list on that, but I think one of the main purposes is the computer system in the control. room, to keep that operating. When the emergency generators are tested, the UPS or uninterrupted power system automatically comes on within that test. So it's a combined test of both systems.
Q Now, you understand, don't you, that there's no uninterruptible power source for the devices that control the pollution control of the
incinerator or the incinerator itself, including the fuel and agent peaks, if you know?
A The diesel generator system takes care of that, to my knowledge.
Q Is that an uninterruptible system?
A No, there's a slight lag.
Q That's my question. Now--
A That will not lead to emissions, however.
Q That was not my question. Emissions. Okay. Now, let's follow up on that point. At the bottom of this paragraph you say, "During this unplanned outage," and you are talking about an unplanned power outage that occurred at TOCDF?
A Yes, sir.
Q "During this unplanned outage, the emergency generators and ventilation system worked well or very well and there was no release of agent." Now you used the word release, and I am only going to use the word emissions. But apart from release or emissions, was there or might there be agent migration?
A I don't know if there is agent migration. I didn't ask the specific question at the time. The impression I got from the gentleman I was discussing this with was that everything worked very well, and I believe if there had been a migration he would have mentioned it to me. And if there had been a migration, I believe we would all know about it.
Q Now, were you here in the courtroom today when Mr. Kurkjy testified that there was certain information that he learned for the first time in the courtroom today?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you are trusting the people who told you to tell you everything you need to know as far as accuracy?
A Yes, I am.
Q Is it fair to say that prior to offering this opinion that you did not yourself conduct a comprehensive review and mapping of the cracks at TOCDF?
A Yes, sir, that's correct. I visited the site where the crack had been.
Q You visited the site where what?
A Where the crack had been?
Q The crack?
A Yes, the one that was referenced in item 26.
Q I see. So I take it you were not shown the documents that had drawings of the location of the cracks?
A No, sir, I did not ask to see them.
Q I understand.
A I did not know that they were available.
Q I understand. Now, you say here in this paragraph an opinion that goes beyond this one crack in this one incident, and you say you do not believe the facility has shoddy construction or has been inadequately designed, but you offered that opinion without reviewing the mapping of the cracks; is that correct?
A No, sir, that's an experiential opinion in my experience.
Q When you say no, sir, is that no in response to my particular question?
A Yes.
Q My question was, did you offer this opinion without viewing the maps of the cracks?
A I thought--maybe I heard wrong. I thought you said something else.
Q I apologize. I don't believe I did. So in response to that question--
A Would you restate that?
Q I will. In offering this opinion that you believe the facility is not a shoddy construction or inadequate design, you had not prior to offering this opinion reviewed the mapping of the cracks?
A No, sir.
Q No, you had not reviewed the--
A No, I had not reviewed the information.
Q You go on to say, "The decontamination fluid contained no detectable agent." Do you know the detection limit for those tests?
A No, sir, I do not remember.
Q All right. do you know the testing methodology or equipment used?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Can you say the same about no detectable concentrations of agent by-products?
A Can I say the same?
Q Can you same that the decontamination fluid contained no detectable amounts of agent by-products?
A I do not know.
Q Now, regarding this issue and the issue above it in your affidavit, migration of agent, it would be true, would it not, that if liquid could pass through a crack, that vapor formation could also pass through?
A Vapor formation?
Q Agent, nerve agent, could vapor form?
A Could do what?
Q Pass through a crack if liquid could pass through?
A If liquid could pass through then vapor could pass through, yes.
 CWWG Home Page |
Contact us: Chemical Weapons Working Group Kentucky Environmental Foundation P.O. Box 467 Berea, KY 40403 phone: 859-986-7565 fax: 859-986-2695 For comments about this WWW page contact Lois Kleffman. |