DEPOSITION

881129

PAPADOPULOS, S.

DOJ

2

EXAMINATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs. Case No.

CIV-86-1401-P

ROYAL N. HARDAGE, et al.,

ADVANCE CHEMICAL CO., et al.,

vs.

ABCO, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Washington, D.C.

Tuesday, November 29, 1988

The deposition of STAVROS PAPADOPULOS, called

for examination by counsel for Plaintiff in the

above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice, at 601

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., convened at 9:35 a.m., before

Cathy Jardim, a notary public in and for the District of

Columbia, when were present on behalf of the parties:(())

APPEARANCES:

On Behalf of the Plaintiff:

BRUCE C. BUCKHEIT, ESQ.

U.S. Department of Justice

Land and Natural Resources Division

Washington, D.C.

On Behalf of the Defendants:

KENNETH N. MC KINNEY, ESQ.

McKinney, Stringer & Webster, P.C.

City Center Building

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73102(())

....................C O N T E N T S..................

.......................... EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR

WITNESS....................PLAINTIFF......DEFENDANT..

STAVROS PAPADOPULOS........260 - 348................

........................EXHIBITS....................

NUMBER............................FOR IDENTIFICATION

..Papadopulos Exhibit................................

..........1................................309......

..........2................................313......

..........3................................317......

..........4................................319......

..........5................................326......

..........6................................330......

..........7................................334......

..........8................................337......

..........9................................348......

........ 10................................352......

........ 11................................355......

........ 12................................381......(())

P R O C E E D I N G S

Whereupon,

STAVROS PAPADOPULOS

was called for examination by counsel for the and

having been first duly sworn by the notary public, was

examined and testified as follows:

EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF:

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Could you state your full name for the record?

A. My name is Stavros Papadopulos.

Q. This is a continuation of a deposition that we had this summer. Is that correct, sir?

A. That is correct.

Q. At that point in time you had not finished the work that you were planning to do in support of your testimony in the Hardage case. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Have you completed your work now?

A. We have completed our work.

Q. Is there any additional analysis or evaluation of the existing data that you contemplate doing between(()) now and the time of trial?

A. There may be some review of other data.

Q. What data are you thinking of now?

A. I depended quite a lot on data and analysis prepared by others so I would like to review and make sure I agree with all the analysis.

Q. So you are saying you may go back over the analyses performed by others?

A. By others, right.

Q. What work have you done since the time of your deposition this summer?

A. We have prepared the report which was a combination of offers -- my firm primarily took the responsibility of assembling the report and putting it together. We analyzed packer test data collected by ERM and presented that in a report as an appendix to the main report. We also prepared modelling report which gives more details on the regional simulation.

Q. Did you conduct additional computer runs?

A. There were two additional computer runs.

Q. Are they both of the regional model?

A. Yes.(())

Q. Did you perform any additional computer runs with the local model?

A. There were some additional local runs done by Steve Larson.

Q. What parameters were varied in the additional regional ones that you did?

A. There was one additional run in which the hydraulic conductivity of the lower strata underlying the Hardage site was increased by an order of magnitude.

Q. Is this the type of the bison shale?

A. The strata below the bison shale.

Q. This is what we call in the saline zone?

A. The saline zone and also the zones we referred to as strata five and six in the report.

Q. Why did you do that, why did you choose to vary that parameter?

A. The vertical permeability of the units between -- which comprise strata four and five is considerably dependent on the result of hydraulic conductivity within those units so we in the sensitivity analysis, we looked at what if the hydraulic conductivity of those units were one order of magnitude higher.(())

Q. And what did you determine?

A. That increased as we expected, increased the vertical permeability.

Q. Of stratum four?

A. Of stratum four, yes.

Q. Did you perform any additional runs where you looked at the sensitivity of the assumptions that you made with respect to the horizontal and vertical permeabilities of stratum four?

A. Not any additional runs. In the previous runs that we had provided to you we had looked at ten to the minus eight and ten to the minus nine for the resulting permeability.

Q. Did you perform any runs where you looked at ten to the minus seven centimeters per second for the value of the permeability?

A. I don't recall. I would have to look.

Q. Did you at any time compare the computed groundwater flow to streams from your regional model with the stream flow data that is in the regional literature that we talked about last time?

A. No.(())

Q. I think you indicated that you did two additional regional runs. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And one of those was to vary the permeability in stratum five by an order of magnitude?

A. Five and six.

Q. What was the other additional run?

A. The other one is a dipping bed case. We had provided you with a dipping bed case before but in that case we had -- we still had the groundwater divide as being the edge of our model. When we dip the beds, with regional dip, the lower strata would sub crop the Walnut Creek area which is farther to the north of our regional model area. So we extended the model all the way to the Walnut Creek and for the dipping case, where the lower beds sub crop, to give you Walnut Creek.

Q. What were the additional computer runs that were done with the local model?

A. It was local model runs that were primarily for design of the recovery system and they use a much higher vertical permeability for stratum four.

Q. What was the purpose of that?(())

A. We were directed by our client and members to use a given permeability.

Q. Was it for purposes of worst case analysis of cost of pumping?

A. Worst case analysis.

Q. But of cost of pumping or of something else?

A. We are not involved in the cost issue.

Q. Do you know why they asked you to perform this particular analysis?

A. I don't know. I wasn't here really when that particular run was done.

Q. Other than possibly looking at the cost of pumping, what else would that change in parameter do for you, what would it enable you to examine?

A. Would have been to examine whether reversals of gradient would occur if we had a higher permeability.

Q. Did grading reversal occur below the top of stratum four?

A. It is my understanding that it occurred.

Q. Throughout the containment area?

A. Throughout the containment area but Mr. Larson is really the one to see on that. He is able to give you(()) more details.

Q. In your local modelling, are you able to determine where along the sides of the walls, that is to say, where aerially the gradient reversals occur

A. At -- I am not clear on the question.

Q. If you maintain the water levels on the inside of the containment area below those water levels on the outside of the containment area, at some point along the walls you will have flow inward?

A. That is correct.

Q. And at some point further away from the wall area you will have whatever the regional groundwater flow is?

A. Yes.

Q. So at some point aerially, spatially out from the wall you will have a groundwater divide. Is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. Are you able to locate that groundwater divide for us?

A. The way the local model was constructed, we would not be able to do that.(())

Q. Do you have an opinion as to where that reversal might occur?

A. On the northern end of the wall it will not occur because the gradient is already towards the south. East and west and to the south, should be within a few hundred feet. That is an estimate. As I said, the local model was not suited to determine that.

Q. Could it be as little as a few inches outside the wall on the east, west and south sides?

A. I would doubt it.

Q. What other work have you performed since our last deposition on this case?

A. No work other than what I have mentioned.

Q. Did you attend any meetings of the expert panel or others?

A. Yes.

Q. How many meetings?

A. One or two.

Q. Did you spend any time reviewing the reports and opinion sheets furnished by the government for its witnesses?

A. No -- I should qualify that. I have seen some(()) of them.

Q. Did you spend any time reviewing the modelling efforts prepared by Mr. Prickett and others on behalf of the government?

A. No.

Q. Do you know who did, if anyone?

A. Steve Larson.

Q. Which witness's opinion sheets did you review?

A. I think I saw Jack Robertson's.

Q. Did you disagree with any of the opinions expressed by Mr. Robertson?

A. A number of Jack Robertson's opinions were on the geo-chemistry and those were beyond my area of expertise. I am trying to recall any that I disagreed with. It has been several months ago. I don't recall any.

Q. How was the expert panel report prepared?

A. We had primary responsibility for the section on rate of groundwater movement, hydrologic issues. John Cherry had the responsibility and provided us with input for the geochemical aspects of it. We made some editing type work. Dick Pattisick was responsible for(()) photo-linear interpretations. Jim Mitchell provided some input on mineralogy and hydraulic conductivity on core samples. Danny Majer, M-A-J-E-R, provided a report on the seismic work which we summarized. Those were the major ones. Gordon Bennett in our office was the primary individual responsible for putting it together.

Q. Did you each comment on the sections of the report prepared by others?

A. I wouldn't say comment but we reviewed those sections. If we had questions we asked for clarifications and in an attempt to resolve any different interpretations we had.

Q. Were comments sought from the attorneys working for the steering committee on this case with respect to the report?

A. There were comments by attorneys but felt the report was primarily a technical report and the responsibility of the technical people.

Q. Was it Mr. Bennett then who wrote the executive summary?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you today have an opinion as to how much(()) DNAPL, that is all capitals, may be present in the area above stratum two underneath the barrel mound?

A. There was about five feet of DNAPL found by the investigation on the barrel mound.

Q. Has anyone within the expert panel prepared an estimate of the quantity of DNAPL that that five feet may represent?

A. I may have done some calculation. I don't remember but what I did was compare 100 feet by 100 feet -- or five feet with about 20 percent equal to about one feet so 22,500 cubic feet or something like that.

Q. What percentage of the overall amount of those kinds of chemicals that was deposited at the site do you feel still remains above this stratum two; in other words, are most of the chemicals still remaining at the site or are they mostly gone or what is your view?

MR. MCKINNEY: Is the question what is the percentage in the barrel mound?

MR. BUCKHEIT: In stratum two?

MR. MCKINNEY: Anywhere?

THE WITNESS: I haven't made a calculation.

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:(())

Q. How about in stratum two in the area of the barrel mound?

A. I haven't made a calculation estimate what remains above stratum two.

Q. How about comparing the amount of chemicals in the area above stratum two to the quantity of chemicals that may be below stratum two in the area bounded by the containment zone?

A. There is the sludge amount, obviously.

Q. Is that above or below stratum two?

A. It is above stratum two. Of course there is dissolved contaminant within the groundwater and in terms of free space the only one I know is the B-13 RA DNAPL.

Q. Has anyone provided any analysis or offered any opinion to your knowledge as to the quantities of DNAPL that are below stratum two?

A. No.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to the quantity of DNAPL that may be below stratum two?

A. I don't have an opinion on the quantity.

Q. Have you reviewed the DNAPL extraction system that is proposed currently by the Hardage Steering(()) Committee as part of the remedy at this site?

A. I have seen the document which proposes the DNAPL collection system.

Q. What is your understanding of what that system entails?

A. My understanding is it entails a series of horizontal drains to be drilled underneath the mound for draining the DNAPL and correcting it a 20 foot space.

Q. Have you or anyone else -- let me ask you this first. Did you participate in the design of that system?

A. No.

Q. Do you know who did?

A. Document in which I saw it was prepared by ERM.

Q. Do you know whether Mr. Larson participated in the design of that?

A. He did not.

Q. Have you formed an opinion as to how efficient such a system would be in removing the NAPL that is present under the barrel mound?

A. It may not remove all of the DNAPL but will definitely cause the DNAPL levels to decrease. Obviously between two drains there has formed some kind of --(())

Q. Have you formed an opinion as to the percentage of NAPL that may be removed by such a system?

A. No, I haven't.

Q. Have you reviewed the remedy that has been selected by EPA in its record of decision?

A. Reviewed in the context of understanding what is being proposed.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to -- do you have an opinion concerning that remedy?

A. In what context?

Q. I guess to ask the question a much simpler way, what is wrong with EPA'S remedy?

A. There are some shortcomings in my opinion. One of the shortcomings I feel is the presence of DNAPL. I mentioned B-13. There may be other B-13s that may go undetected and the EPA remedy would not address those at all.

Q. Is it your understanding that the remedy proposed by the Hardage Steering Committee would necessarily surround the NAPL that has been located in the area of well B-13?

A. It is my understanding it will.(())

Q. Any other shortcomings for EPA'S remedy?

A. The other shortcoming would be that groundwater in the vicinity of the site is contaminated and the source control remedy proposed by EPA does not address that issue at all at this time.

Q. You understand that EPA is developing a second operable unit remedy?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an understanding of what that remedy would entail?

A. Not at this stage.

Q. Do you have an understanding of what areas that remedy is intended to address?

A. Areas in terms of location?

Q. No, in terms of subject area?

A. Groundwater contamination, off site groundwater contamination.

Q. Let's go back to the shortcomings of the first operable unit remedy. I think you have indicated two so far. Any others?

A. Within my area of expertise those are really the two main ones.(())

Q. Then the second operable unit remedy, EPA provides, say, a pump and treat scheme to capture the contaminated groundwater, including the groundwater that is contaminated by the NAPL in the area of well B-13. Would that address your concerns about EPA'S remedy?

A. Not totally because DNAPL also have a tendency of migrating and extend the area of higher contamination beyond the present quote unquote source areas.

Q. And what would you do to address that as part of the second operable unit remedy?

A. Well, obviously one can address it by groundwater pumping, but that groundwater pumping for the off site area, if that is going to be the intended remedy, for justified remedy, would involve larger quantities of groundwater pumping and the presence of DNAPL outside -- within the groundwater environment will require very long periods of pumping large quantities of groundwater for treatment.

Q. Any other shortcomings that you see with the EPA first operable unit remedy?

A. Not from the hydrologic point of view. There is some concern, of course, with RCRA vault. I have(()) heard experts express opinion on the durability of the line of materials.

Q. Are there any shortcomings that you see in the remedy proposed by the Hardage Steering Committee?

A. Still in the EPA area of second operable unit or area outside the containment area still would be -- issue to be addressed.

Q. If the containment zone doesn't capture all of the NAPL that may be present at the site would we still have a similar problem --

A. We would have a similar problem if all DNAPL is not captured -- or contained.

Q. How long would the HSC remedy have to be operated?

A. For a very long time.

Q. Essentially forever?

A. Correct.

Q. Do you know how long the steering committee has proposed to operate the pump and treat system?

A. I don't remember any time specifics. I may be wrong on that.

Q. If you shut off the pumps at the end of 30(()) years, of interior pumping, would the remedy subsequently fail?

A. Not immediately but if you shut off the pumps -- may eventually fill up the system and reverse the gradients. Whether that means complete failure depends on the quantities that will be left at the time within the enclosure and the mass fluxes that may occur and the impact of the mass fluxes.

Q. You indicated earlier that these DNAPLs have a tendency to migrate horizontally. Is that correct?

A. May have a tendency to.

Q. Does the slurry wall serve as a complete barrier to such horizontal migration?

A. Yes.

Q. Of DNAPL?

A. Yes.

Q. The DNAPLs cannot pass through the slurry wall?

A. There was some compatibility tests made and permeability tests made by DNAPL and it showed that the wall had very low permeability.

Q. But even with low permeability you will have some flow through the wall?(())

A. But at the same time you will have inverse hydraulic variants and the gradients across the short wall are going pretty steep and they could maintain DNAPLs at a pretty high density.

Q. I think you just said they could. Are you suggesting you performed an analysis that suggests that it would?

A. I haven't performed an analysis but the analysis that I performed was that in order to penetrate environment of different permeability there has to be a build up of DNAPLs until you exceed capillary pressures when you exceed one permeability to another. Within this enclosure there will be a continued extraction system with the wells so I find it very improbable that DNAPLs would accumulate sufficiently to overcome the capillary pressures before they get --

Q. Have we been provided this analysis?

A. The analysis you have been provided -- you have been provided an analysis in terms of the calculations I made with the vertical migration.

MR. BUCKHEIT: Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)(())

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Did you perform a calculation of horizontal migration and the gradients that you believe would be established within the wall?

A. No.

Q. I think you all have estimated that there is something like 200,000 gallons of NAPL underneath the drum mound. Does that sound about right?

A. Yes, that is about right.

Q. If just two or three gallons of DNAPL per year escaped your containment area, wouldn't that be enough to contaminate all of the groundwater passing under the site to part per mill levels?

A. Yes.

Q. And is it your view that you feel confident that the system proposed by the HSC will in fact prevent even two or three gallons of NAPL from leaving the site per year?

A. The remedy provides for the DNAPL in the barrel mound. What we have found in the barrel mound is that the DNAPL has not moved, in the very upper part of the stratum one and has not migrated any farther down in the(()) last fifteen years or so. So it is highly improbable that you will have farther migration to paralyze it and to create conditions where DNAPL might escape from the containment area. Now one cannot say unequivocally that there may not be any DNAPL escaping.

Q. Well, if this two or three gallons of DNAPL per year were to escape, then the second operable unit would have to function basically for as long as the site contained significant amount of contaminants?

A. That is correct.

Q. If you lost this two or three gallons a year you would be pumping the second operable unit for as long as you would under EPA's approach. Is that not correct?

A. That may not be correct because two or three gallons a year, obviously there is much more DNAPL in the barrel mound area, where it may be two or 300 gallons. In the B-13 area there is obviously more than two or three gallons so there may be areas within the containment area that is more than two or three gallons and the time to remove completely by this solution, a larger amount of DNAPL may not be as short as the one required to remove two or three gallons that may escape(()) occasionally.

Q. Depending on the performance of the wall then one may or may not have to pump, the second operable unit, the area between Kreeger mound and the site for as long or longer than the EPA area?

A. I am sorry?

Q. We are looking at the effect of the second operable unit and a comparison between EPA'S first proposed operable unit and the HSC proposed first operable unit. Is it correct that depending on the performance of the wall in preventing NAPLs from escaping one might have to pump as long or longer with the HSC remedy as with EPA'S remedy?

A. One may.

Q. Are there models, computer models that are designed for evaluating flow through fractures as opposed to flow through porous media?

A. There are some.

Q. Did you employ any such models in your modelling efforts at the site?

A. Most of such models require a clear definition of the factual patterns within areas. Such a definition(()) is not really physically possible from this areas where fracture flows are occurring so the applicability of those type of models is questionable except for hypothetical fracture patterns.

Q. Have you formed an opinion as to whether the DNAPL that is found in the area of well B-13 flowed downward through stratum two in order to get where it is today?

A. Must flow through stratum two to be where it is today.

Q. Is it fair to say that stratum two is not impenetrable to DNAPLs?

A. Yes.

Q. Have you formed an opinion as to whether the HSC DNAPL collection approach can be as efficient in removing NAPLs as the EPA proposed excavation approach?

A. I have not formed an opinion on that one.

Q. At a number of points in your report, I believe this is the portion prepared by Papadopulos and Associates, I believe a median value was specified as opposed to some form of mean?

A. Sorry?(())

Q. In a number of the reports or portions of the reports I believe the median value was chosen?

A. Yes.

Q. As opposed to an arithmetic mean or geometric mean?

A. Yes.

Q. Can you tell me why you selected median values as opposed to mean values?

A. The reason we selected the median was because there were a wide range in the hydraulic conductivities determined for a given layer. When you have a wide range, when you use the arithmetic mean that is dominated by the larger variants and the median is the more appropriate means of expressing the average conditions within there.

Q. It is my understanding that if I can make an analogy between performance of a system where you have different permeabilities within a layer, that it will act much as a number of resisters in parallel, if we can make the leap to electricity and that the geometric mean is the appropriate way of analyzing data where we have different segments within a layer with any different(()) permeabilities. Am I incorrect in that?

A. When the permeabilities are in the same order of magnitude, that may be a good approach, but when the hydraulic conductivities are different by several orders of magnitude, that approach tends to bias the hydraulic conductivity toward the higher ones. That is not a true representation of the hydraulic properties of the median as compared to the medium where we are saying 50 percent of the values are higher and 50 percent are lower so there is an equal chance of having a higher permeability or lower permeability than that median value.

Q. Well, the median value didn't specify the value where you have an equal chance of being above or below it, does it?

A. The median value is a value which 50 percent of the data is higher, and 50 percent is lower. So in terms of the chance, essentially you have value where the chance -- if you have a large enough sample, 50 percent of the sample should be larger.

Q. Isn't that when we get to the land of probability, what we normally call the mean -- is it not true, sir, that the mean is the number where you are into(()) large enough samples where you can talk about probability, 50 percent of the values should be above it and 50 percent should be below?

A. No. Because if I take three numbers, ten, 25 and one, my mean would be mean -- my mean would be 12 and I have two values larger than 12 and one lower.

Q. But your probability the next time of landing higher than 12 would be 50 percent, would it not?

A. Now we are getting into statistics and you are going beyond me.

Q. Is there any journal articles or other sources that you could point me towards which discuss the use of the median value as opposed to the forming of a mean in treating this kind of data?

A. Not that I recall off the bat.

Q. What additional packer tests were done since the summer?

A. Packer tests were conducted on four new dip holes, were installed and four slant holes.

Q. And what were the results of those additional packer tests?

A. Well, there are a very large number of packer(()) tests and I don't remember all of the numbers.

Q. Generally how did they affect your opinion?

A. They have not really affected much my opinion because my opinion was already formed when I had some ideas of what the results were, although they were not completely finalized and when we finalized the results, I didn't see any results there which would change my opinion.

Q. Weren't there some values in stratum four as high as ten to the minus six centimeters per second for conductivity?

MR. MCKINNEY: By packer tests, you mean?

MR. BUCKHEIT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: By packer tests in stratum four, no.

I am sorry, I should qualify that. I would like to differentiate between stratum four and what I call the massive part of stratum four which is elevations 960 to 1020; above an elevation of 1020 there may have been some --

Q. I am sorry?

A. Above an elevation of 1020 there might have(()) been some ten to the minus six.

Q. Do you know whether the HSC remedy proposed to take the slurry wall down to elevation 1020?

A. It is my understanding it does.

Q. Did you perform any analyses with some of the higher numbers that were seen for conductivity in your modelling or elsewhere, to look at the worst case and see whether the situation -- what the situation might look like with an assumed conductivity of say ten to the minus six for stratum four?

A. We don't have any data which would support an average value of ten to the minus six for stratum four.

Q. I know. I am suggesting a worst case.

A. When I say stratum four, 960 to 1020, most of our values that were there were less than ten to the minus eight or ten to the minus nine.

Q. I take it then your answer is you did not do any such analysis?

A. I did not use any ten to the minus six. I would have to check on the documents but I don't -- I think we made a ten to the minus seven but not ten to the minus six.(())

Q. Did you review the Golder test data?

A. I looked at the results of the Golder test data.

Q. Did you look at the quote "skin" close quote analysis?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Performed by Golder?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Was that analysis complete and in your possession before Papadopulos and Associates did its skin analysis?

A. Their report was complete before our report was complete but our analysis were in process at the time that Golder report was not released yet.

Q. Were you aware of the Golder results before you started the Papadopulos analysis?

A. No. When we started -- but during, yes.

Q. Is it fair to say that the Golder analysis showed generally positive skin effects while the Papadopulos analysis showed generally negative skin effects?

A. That is correct.(())

Q. Who performed the analysis for Papadopulos and Associates?

A. The analysis was performed by Dr. Jean Drolet, J-E-A-N, D-R-O-L-E-T, and I would like to point out that Dr. Drolet had not even seen the Golder report when he did the analysis. He was just given the task of here is the raw data, analyze it.

Q. Did he develop the procedure that was used to analyze it for Papadopulos?

A. There were several procedures which were used for analysis in the Papadopulos report.

Q. For skin effect?

A. Yes. He developed the type curves for assessing what kind of shapes test data might have, either positive or negative skin effects.

Q. Can you explain to me the difference in procedures used by Golder and Company compared to Papadopulos and Associates for evaluating for skin effect?

A. The test conducting -- the packer test conducted by ERM are a completely different type of tests than the tests conducted by Golder. The ERM packer tests(()) were primarily measuring flow rates during the test whereas the Golder tests included tests where the pressure change after the initial sudden change in pressure -- the time change of the pressure was used for analysis.

What was the original question? Could you repeat the question?

MR. MCKINNEY: Difference in procedures between the two methods of analysis.

THE WITNESS: The methods are completely different. The analysis within is based on Jacob Lohman method --

Q. The Papadopulos Associates used that Jacob Lohman method?

A. Yes. Whereas Golder used part of the Papadopulos method.

Q. So Golder used the Papadopulos method and Papadopulos used the Lohman method?

A. Yes. But the appropriate method for each type of test was the method that was used.

Q. My understanding -- was that for skin effect by the way -- I want to limit this to skin effect.(())

A. No. I am not talking about skin effect. I am talking about basic method of analysis.

Q. Let's go back to skin effect. Who did the skin effect analysis for Papadopulos and Associates?

A. Mr. Drolet.

Q. And what procedures did he use to evaluate for skin effect?

A. Starting with the basic Jacob Lohman solution, he generated type curves of what would happen if you have an area immediately around the borehole which may have a higher permeability or a lower permeability than that of the formation.

Q. And what procedures did he use to generate those type curves?

A. He used a radial flow model.

Q. I am sorry --

A. Radial flow model.

Q. Which model?

A. It is an RZ radial flow model that we have in-house. There is not a particular name to it.

Q. Mr. McKinney, I think we would like to get ahold of that, if we can.(())

MR. MC KINNEY: All right.

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Then what did he do after he generated the type curves?

A. Then he evaluated how the -- the shape of those curves and based on that he formed some opinions. Now what he can say about skin effects, based on the shape of the curve --

Q. And if I am following the analysis that was in your report, he concluded that one could not necessarily detect positive skin effects by the methods he used?

A. That is true.

Q. But that if he felt he could see negative skin effects he would therefore rule out positive skin effects?

A. That is correct.

Q. A negative skin effect is when during the early stages of the packer test greater water than one would anticipate from the type curves escapes. Is that correct?

A. Greater water than one would expect on the basis of the formation permeability.(())

Q. So we have to know the formation permeability first?

A. No.

Q. How do we figure out that we are losing greater amounts of water than the formation permeability?

A. Well, when you first start beginning injecting the water, the first horizon or the first permeability that water sees is the permeability of the skin so the rate of injection is controlled by the permeability of the skin for an initial period.

Then as the water moves further out and hits the formation, then the rate of injection is controlled by the permeability of the formation. So if the -- we have negative skin affect the rate of injection at the beginning; it is larger than that that would have occurred if the permeability of the formation extended all the way to the borehole but then starts beginning to decline and when it starts to decline, creates a slope which is steeper than a slope where the permeability of the -- than the slope that would occur if there is no skin effect or if there is positive skin effect.

Q. To form an analogy, if we have a two inch(()) thickness of sand and then a six inch thickness of concrete, the water will escape into the sand relatively quickly and then start slowing down and move towards the curve that one would expect to see for the concrete?

A. That is correct.

Q. Do we know what is beyond the concrete?

A. I am sorry --

Q. This curve that we have generated, does that tell us what is beyond the concrete?

MR. MCKINNEY: I don't understand. Are you saying you are assuming there is a six inch thickness of concrete and then do the curves tell you anything about the materials outside of the six inch concrete?

MR. BUCKHEIT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: I am still not clear because he put first the sand and then put six inches of concrete. What would happen if we had three layers?

MR. BUCKHEIT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: We haven't looked at that case really.

MR. MC KINNEY: Actually your question was can you tell whether there is a third layer from the test(()) itself.

MR. BUCKHEIT: That is a good question too.

MR. MC KINNEY: Not necessarily are there three layers but can you tell whether there is or is not a third layer.

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Let me backup.

A. I haven't given thought to that.

Q. The positive skin effect will have two inches of concrete and then six feet of sand and we find we can't say much about whether we have a positive skin effect or whether we just have concrete because it has -- the flow rates are dominated by the concrete. Is that correct?

A. Initially it would be the concrete but there will be a deviation from the concrete's permeability -- there will be a flattening in the curve, a flattening of the curve so it moves toward the sand curve outside the concrete.

Q. But the positive skin effect is very difficult to see because the change in the shapes of curves is very small. Is that correct?(())

A. No. The reason it is difficult to see is because a flattening can also be caused by other factors.

Q. And what are those factors?

A. It could be leakage -- in packer tests we are assuming a certain thickness of the testing and assuming that the flow is completely resulting in that. If we have flow in three dimensions, that leakage may also cause a flattening of the curve even if we don't have a skin effect, if we have the curve and we have leakage into the adjacent layers, that also could cause a flattening of the curve.

Q. And the flattening of the curve is associated with a positive skin effect?

A. Also a positive skin effect.

Q. What factors cause the negative skin effect?

A. The negative skin is an enhancement of the permeability in the immediate vicinity of the borehole; may be during the procedure it may have fractured or loosened things in the immediate vicinity of the borehole and created a higher permeability by borehole damage.

Q. If you smeared some of the surface with drilling -- just by use of the tool, would that create a(()) positive or negative skin effect?

A. You smear the surface with what?

Q. Either the use of drilling mud or just the tool passing through the rock?

A. It all depends, if the formation is more permeable than the drilling mud or less.

Q. Let's look at our stratum four area at the site. Would you expect to create a positive skin effect or a negative skin effect?

A. All the results of the testing show that it would create a negative skin effect.

Q. How do we understand the difference between the Golder results and the Papadopulos results?

A. Well, since that report was released, I had the opportunity to look at it a little closer.

Q. I am sorry?

A. I had an opportunity to look closer at the Golder report, especially at those values where a much higher permeability was indicated by having skin factors of two orders of magnitude. I just briefly looked at it yesterday, actually and there may be some problems with their analysis.(())

Q. With the method of analysis or with the raw data?

A. With the method of analysis.

Q. Have you determined that there are problems with the method of analysis?

A. Well, I went and looked at the dimensions and the sheets of paper which is referred to as the basis of their analysis --

Q. Can you spell that?

A. Monech, M-O-N-E-C-H, and Shay; and that paper makes a very strong argument that when you are doing pressure pulse tests, and you have skin effects, they say it is very difficult, almost impossible to determine the formation permeability.

Q. So you think that the Golder folks had difficulty determining the formation permeabilities and therefore couldn't properly evaluate skin effects?

A. I think so. I don't think they were properly evaluating the skin effects.

Q. Have you talked to the people at Golder who did the analysis?

MR. MCKINNEY: You mean about this point?(())

MR. BUCKHEIT: Yes, sir.

THE WITNESS: I have expressed concerns about positive skin effects to Ray Pearson before, but I never had the opportunity until very recently to look myself at that data and see whether I would analyze it the same way or not.

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Do you plan to do additional work with respect to those questions?

A. Yes. I probably will have to look at it more carefully and also talk to Ray Pearson more about it.

Q. Has anyone outside of Papadopulos and Associates evaluated the procedures that Dr. Drolet used to evaluate skin effect?

A. The report was sent to other members of the panel for their review and comments.

Q. Has the procedure that he used been published in any technical journal?

A. No.

Q. Has it be made available to the scientific community at large?

A. We are planning to do it.(())

Q. Paper in progress?

A. Paper in progress.

Q. Some of the skin effect flattening that you saw in some of the packer tests, could that be caused by a permeable fracture in contact with the test zone of the boring?

A. I am sorry.

Q. Could some of the skin effect flattening that you saw in some of the packer tests be caused by a permeable fracture in contact with the testing zone of the packer test?

A. Do you mean flattening?

Q. Yes. Would that show as a negative skin effect?

A. Steepening shows a negative effect.

Q. If there were an open fracture in contact with the test zone of the boring, would that show as a negative skin effect?

A. It would show as a negative skin effect only if the fracture is of very limited extent.

Q. How long were these -- the packer tests that you are using in your analysis, run for?(())

A. The lengths varied for the different tests. There were some that were as long as two hours, more than two hours.

Q. And others ran as short as?

A. We listed the length of each test in our analytical report.

Q. What determined your choice of how long to run the test?

A. I have to make clear, I didn't run the tests. ERM ran the tests.

Q. Do you know what determined how long ERM ran the tests?

A. No.

Q. If you don't know how thick a positive skin is, how do you know you ran the test long enough to be able to see it in your analysis?

A. The negative skin effect typically is shown by a slope which is steeper than one and a half -- than half slope. If you don't have any skin effect, the slope would be one half at the beginning of the test and then flattening of the curve. The negative skin effect was apparent -- is apparent when you have a slope which is(()) steeper than .5. So the length of the test does not have anything to do with identifying negative skin effect. If you see a slope --

Q. I asked about positive skin effects. That is why I am interrupting you.

A. How long the test should be?

Q. Yes.

A. It should be pretty long, really -- actually for determining positive skin effects you need a much longer test than for the presence of negative skin effects.

Q. Do you know whether the tests that were run were run long enough to actually see the positive skin effects?

A. Most of the tests had a negative skin effect right at the beginning so that ruled out positive skin effect there.

The ones which did not show a negative skin effect were very few in number. Most of them were able to analyze them with Jacob Lohman because during the test duration the data stayed on the type curve and did not show any deviations toward a flattening except in cases(()) where the injection rate was very small and we had made an analysis on determining that -- of the reliability of the flow rate measurements.

In most cases those flow rates where the flattening occurred were below the reliability of those measurements.

Q. I am a little bit curious about your statement when you say if you have a negative skin effect that rules out a positive skin effect. Could you explain that for me, please?

A. Well, you either have an enhancement of the permeability in the immediate vicinity of the borehole, which is a negative skin effect or you have a reduction in the permeability in the immediate vicinity of the borehole which is a positive. So if your data indicates you have an enhancement in the permeability, that automatically rules out that we have a reduction.

Q. Couldn't you have both? Couldn't you have some surface roughness and then behind that an area, say -- say you were depositing drilling mud?

A. Within the test interval, which is let's say ten or 20 feet, it may very clearly be some sections(()) there which may have positive skin and some sections which have negative, but if I get for the test interval a response which looks like a negative skin effect, that means that effectively within that section I have more area with negative skin effect than I have with positive skin effect.

Q. I am thinking even within just a given square inch, couldn't you have an ability to absorb more water right on the very surface of it, say, rock or mud had dried out because the borehole has been opened and once you separate that outer layer you get to the real skin.

Couldn't you have both an early acceptance and then a later blockage and then on into the rock structure?

A. It is possible but very unlikely, when you are talking about a process where -- we have some swelling clay --

Q. The surface is going to dry out --,?

A. The surface may dry out but before the test is conducted you fill the hole with water. So the beginning of the test is not the first time you are introducing water. If moisture is to have an effect that(()) should have happened already before you start the test.

Q. If you had some surface roughness on your skin, some extra pore is the in the skin area, couldn't you have an effect where you could fill those voids and then get to the real skin?

A. Are we still talking about a three layer system?

Q. I guess.

A. I have to say it is probable but I fail to see the mechanism by which you would create something like that. You are enhancing permeability in a rock like that; an enhancement of the permeability means probably you created some fracture in the immediate borehole area. I don't see how you would fracture in the front and then deposit mud cake in the back of it. You can hypothesize but it is just a hypothesis.

Q. Does any of the data you looked at tell you anything about the thickness of the skin you are looking at, whether positive or negative?

A. No.

Q. I think you gave us the name Ray Pearson. Was it Ray Pearson who supervised this project for Golder?(())

A. Yes. Not the ERM packer tests but the Golder tests.

Q. Why was Golder brought into this project in the first instance?

A. I think their thinking there on the panel overall was that we are dealing with low permeability materials and that we should -- most of the testing methodologies are developed for more permeable formations.

When you have low permeability formations, testing becomes much more complicated and it is obvious with all of the results of the tests we have conducted there. So we thought that it would be appropriate to try more than one method of testing and one member of the technical committee was Charlie Spires, which was with Golder Associates, and he suggested they run pressure packer tests, and I said, yes, that is a good idea, let's bring them in so we can see if we have similar results.

MR. BUCKHEIT: Why don't we take a short break.

Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

(Brief recess.)(())

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Are you familiar with the allegations that have been made that certain EPA contractors fractured the bedrock in stratum four during some testing exercises?

A. Stratum four?

Q. Yes.

A. Yes.

Q. What is your opinion as to whether that contractor did in fact fracture the bedrock down at stratum four?

A. It is apparent some hydrofracturing has occurred there. Whether the hydrofracturing extends to stratum four or not, that I am not clear on.

Q. Do you know whether anyone went back after that event to determine the long term effects of that occurrence on the geology, hydrology of stratum four?

A. I missed the first part of the question.

Q. Do you know whether anyone went back after the reported events to determine the long term effects on the geology and hydrology of the area that may have been affected by this occurrence?

A. I remember discussions about doing some kind of(()) testing to address the issue, but whether those tests have been done or not, I am not familiar.

Q. Well, if EPA'S contractor basically changed the situation down in stratum four since the time -- the data that you are relying on was gathered, how sure are you that the situation today is as it was on the day that you formed your opinions?

A. I wasn't too much involved in that particular aspect, but I remember to have seen some document by Golder Associates, geotechnical engineer, whose opinion was that no vertical fracturing through stratum four, as well as I may recall, has occurred.

Q. This is the same company whose views you discount on the skin effect?

A. Yes.

Q. And you think they have written a report saying that no vertical fracturing into stratum four has occurred?

A. I don't know if it was a report or it was just a letter report. I seem to recall seeing some document which addressed the issue.

Q. If there is horizontal fracturing within(()) stratum four, wouldn't that affect the inputs, for instance, into your modelling efforts by increasing the horizontal permeabilities?

A. Yes, if there is horizontal fracturing it would increase permeabilities but it won't affect the present modelling efforts -- or the results of the present modelling efforts.

Q. Do you know whether this Golder opinion, if that is what it is, is based on additional work at the site after this fracturing event was to have taken place?

A. I really don't recall.

Q. Was there any fracturing that occurred during the Golder testing?

A. Fracturing occurring during the testing?

Q. Occasioned by the testing?

A. Not that I remember.

Q. I believe in your opinions -- maybe we should have this marked as Papadopulos Exhibit 1 --.

(Papadopulos Exhibit No. 1 was

marked for identification.)

BY MR. BUCKHEIT:

Q. Opinion six, you indicate that the remedy(()) proposed by HSC is superior to that proposed by EPA for the Hardage site. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. What criteria were you using to determine that the HSC remedy is superior?

A. The remainder the opinion states that HSC deals with a large portion of the groundwater contamination immediately rather than second operable unit, for one.

The second, as I mentioned earlier, the fact that the HSC remedy would immediately take care of any DNAPLs that may be within the wall, containment wall.

Q. Are you familiar with the requirements of the various statutes that affect the remedy that may be selected for a Super Fund site?

A. Not fully familiar with all of the details.

Q. Are you aware that the statute, Super Fund amendments and reauthorization act, provides for a preference for permanent remedies?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you consider the HSC remedy to be a permanent remedy?

A. Yes.(())

Q. And that is because it is to be operated forever?

A. The EPA remedy also has to be operated forever.

Q. Is it your understanding that EPA proposes to incinerate the DNAPLs that it excavates from the barrel mound?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you have an opinion as to whether that would, in effect, permanently destroy the majority, the vast majority of the hazardous chemicals that are found on-site?

A. If the barrel -- the DNAPL found in the barrel mound constitutes the majority much the DNAPLs in the site, that would be a good statement.

Q. But you don't have a view as to whether the barrel mound contains the majority of the chemicals on-site?

A. I don't.

Q. Which proposal goes further towards destroying wastes on-site, the EPA proposal or the HSC proposal?

A. EPA proposal.

Q. Do you have a view as to which remedy more(()) nearly approaches the preference suggested by Congress for permanent remediation?

A. I don't think it is clear which one really addresses it better because the question in my mind would be the EPA remedy proposes to excavate and incinerate those source areas where there was known to have contaminants in existence, but that does not guarantee that all of those will be removed.

Q. I think I noted one change in your opinion list from your earlier list where you have changed the calculated accumulation of dense free face materials and your earlier comment was at least several tens of feet and now it is reduced down to several feet.

Can you explain to me -- first of all, is that correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. And secondly, why you vary your views in that regard?

A. My earlier calculations were made without having the benefit of actual data on the properties of the DNAPLs. Since that earlier opinion we got actual data and calculations that were revised using actual data(()) from the DNAPLs that were found at the site.

Q. Let me furnish you with what will be marked as Papadopulos Exhibit 2 and ask you to identify it.

(Papadopulos Exhibit No. 2 was

marked for identification.)

THE WITNESS: Yes. This is the revised calculations of DNAPL thickness.

Q. Where did you get the figures that you employed?

A. From the McWhorter report which is listed in documents.

Q. What are the three figures that go into your calculation?

A. Actually in this particular calculation only the density and the surface tension, interfacial surface tension.

Q. Did Mr. or Ms. McWhorter report the density and surface tension for materials gathered from two different wells?

A. Yes. One was the B-13 DNAPL and the other was from the MB-12, which is the barrel mound DNAPL.(())

Q. Are the surface tension and density related for a given set of chemicals?

A. Not really.