Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00388-108/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, et al., 

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

FRANKLIN COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, 

 Defendants.

1:07-CV-0388-OWW-DLB

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND

ORDER RE: BAC DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY

JUDGMENT; DAUBERT MOTIONS

I. INTRODUCTION.

This lawsuit arises out of a now-closed cooling tower

manufacturing facility (the “BAC site”) that pressure treated wood

and was operated by entities formerly owned by the BAC Defendants

(“BAC”).1

 Plaintiffs, current or former residents of residential

neighborhoods (“Beachwood”) near the BAC Site,2

 allege that two

contaminants from the BAC Site migrated from the treating area via

groundwater, surface water, surface soil, private well, and air

1 The BAC Defendants include four separate entities: (1) Merck

& Co; (2) Amsted Industries, Inc.; (3) Baltimore Aircoil Company,

Inc.; and (4) Track Four, Inc.

2

 The former BAC Site is located at 3058 Beachwood Drive,

Merced, California.

1

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 1 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pathways to locations where plaintiffs were exposed to them.3 Also

named as defendants are various municipalities, water districts,

and developers, including the Franklin County Water District,

Merced Irrigation District, the City and County of Merced, and the

Meadowbrook Water District.4

Before the court for decision is BAC Defendants’ motion to

summarily adjudicate Plaintiffs’ tenth, twelfth, thirteenth, and

fourteenth causes of action. According to Defendants, Plaintiffs

have failed to present any admissible evidence of actual exposure

to contaminants from the BAC site, via any pathway, which was

required under “Phase 1” of the Court’s “Order Modifying Scheduling

Conference Order.” (Doc. 540.) The first phase of discovery was

to focus on “whether contaminants from the former [] BAC Site,

Franklin County Water District or the April 2006 Flood have ever

reached any location where plaintiffs could have been exposed to

them, and if so, when such contaminants arrived, how such

contaminants arrived at the location, how long they were present,

and at what levels they were present.” (Id. at 1:14-1:28.) By

this motion, the BAC Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have not met

their “Phase 1” or “general exposure” burden, entitling them to

partial summary judgment.

Plaintiffs opposed the motion on July 1, 2010, submitting over

3,000 pages of documentation and 168 exhibits. Plaintiffs’

3

 The BAC Defendants motions to summarily adjudicate the

surface water and surface soil pathways are decided by separate

Memorandum Decision. 

4 All of these defendants have separately moved for partial

summary judgment on grounds that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate

exposure, i.e., satisfy their “Phase 1” burden.

2

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 2 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

opposition is founded on their claim that they have presented

“substantial evidence” in the form of expert opinion and analysis

to show that contaminants migrated from the BAC facility to

Plaintiffs’ homes and/or properties. Plaintiffs further argue that

the BAC Defendants’ motions to exclude certain expert testimony

fail because their criticisms go to its weight, not its

admissibility. 

Oral argument on the BAC Defendants’ motions was held on

October 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15, 2010, during which the parties

presented argument and evidence relevant to the Phase 1 pathway

exposure issues. The parties were permitted to introduce expert

testimony on key scientific issues, namely the methodologies and

assumptions used to model contamination via the groundwater and air

pathways. The testifying experts were examined by counsel for

Plaintiffs and Defendants, as well as the Court.5

On October 22 and November 1, 2010, the parties were advised

the Court intended to appoint independent experts under Fed. R.

Evid. 706 to assist in the understanding and resolving the complex

scientific disputes over groundwater and air modeling. The

analysis included determining concentration levels of hexavalent

chromium and/or arsenic in Meadowbrook Well No. 2 and surrounding

areas (i.e., monitor networks and private wells), as well as the

assumptions/calculations underlying the air model. The Fed. R.

Evid. 706 Experts were appointed on October, 26. 2010 (Kenneth D.

Schmidt, Ph.D. - groundwater) and November 1, 2010 (Chatten Cowherd

5 The parties submitted final supplemental briefs on the

pathway exposure issues October 19th and 20th, 2010. (Docs. 864-

65, 867.) 

3

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 3 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Jr., Ph.D. and Richard Countess, Ph.D. - air).6 The parties and

the Court jointly prepared a list of questions for the experts,

which were transmitted to the experts in early November. The

independent expert reports were submitted to the Court on November

22, 2010.7

The Fed. R. Evid. 706 experts were examined by the Court and

parties on December 2, 3, and 15, 2010. Rebuttal testimony was

permitted on a limited basis.8 

The Rule 56 motions were submitted for decision following

summation arguments on December 28 and 29, 2010.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND.9

The facts underlying this case are summarized in the Court's

previous Memorandum Decisions in this case, filed on November 13,

6 A formal and comprehensive nominating process, in which the

parties fully participated, was followed in each instance. 

7

 Drs. Countess and Cowherd prepared a joint expert report.

(Doc. 942.) 

8

 On December 2, 3, 15, and 28, 2010, Plaintiff’s groundwater

and air experts, Mr. Douglas Bartlett and Ms. Camille Sears

provided rebuttal testimony to the specific criticisms raised in

the Fed. R. Evid. 706 expert reports. 

9 The following background facts are taken from the parties'

submissions in connection with the motions and other documents on

file in this case. The parties have filed various objections to

the evidence submitted in support of their adversary's motion for

summary judgment and to exclude expert testimony. In deciding the

motions, no inadmissible evidence was considered, including

improper expert opinion under Rules 26 and 37 of the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. Evidentiary rulings were made in open court as

expert testimony was presented.

4

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 4 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008, May 18, 2009, and July 15, 2009, in brief:10 approximately

2,100 Plaintiffs seek damages relating to two occurrences: (1) an

April 2006 flood; and (2) alleged long-term contamination released

from the former site of a cooling tower manufacturing facility

operated by entities formerly owned by the BAC Defendants. The

now-closed facility, which is the alleged source of contamination,

is located in Merced, California, approximately 1,600 feet

southwest from Meadowbrook Well No. 2 (“MWC-2"), which was the

primary well supplying domestic water to the Beachwood community,

until it was taken out of service in March 2008. Plaintiffs allege

that MWC-2, which was operated by the Meadowbrook Water District,

was contaminated by hexavelant chromium and total chromium in the

well and from the aquifer, which drew on the contaminated plume

during times of high water production, and exposed Plaintiffs to

contaminants.11

It is further alleged that the remaining defendants

contributed to Plaintiffs’ exposure to carcinogens and/or toxins

based on their operation of a nearby drainage system (City and

County of Merced), a collection system and ponds (Franklin County

Water District), and an irrigation canal (Merced Irrigation

10 See, e.g., Valencia v. Merck & Co., 2009 WL 2136384 (E.D.

Cal. July 15, 2009); Abarca v. Franklin County Water Dist., 2009

WL 1393511 (E.D. Cal. May 18, 2009); Affholter v. Franklin County

Water Dist., 2008 WL 4911406 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2008). 

11 Meadowbrook operates five wells in Merced, California, two

of which are located within a half-mile of the BAC Site, MWC-2 and

MWC-4. 

5

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 5 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

District).12 According to Plaintiffs, these municipalities and

water districts were “direct participants” in the contamination

based on their location and significance to the local community’s

water supply.

A. History and Remediation of BAC Site

From 1969 until 1984, the BAC Site housed a cooling tower

manufacturing facility and BAC-Pritchard, Inc., the operator/owner,

used pressure-treated wood to make cooling tower frames.13 The wood

was treated in an on-site cylindrical vessel (retort), using two

different solutions. Specifically, from 1969 until 1980, the wood

was treated with a solution of chromium, copper, and arsenic

(“CCA”). In 1980, BAC-Pritchard stopped using arsenic and instead

used a solution of acid, copper, and chromium (“ACC”). BACPritchard ceased treating wood at the site in May 1991 and the

facility was closed in early 1994.14 

The BAC Defendants acknowledge that elevated levels of

hexavelant chromium and arsenic were discovered at the BAC Site as

early as 1986. That same year, BAC Defendants hired an

12 These entities are referred to as the “Public Entity

Defendants.”

13 Merck and Amsted were indirect parents of BAC-Pritchard,

which was a subsidiary of Baltimore Aircoil Company (“BAC”). From

1970 to 1985, BAC was a subsidiary of Merck. In 1985, Merck sold

its interest in BAC to Amsted Industries, Inc. 

14 BAC-Pritchard, Inc. was dissolved in September 1993. 

However, the parent company, BAC, owned the Site until 2001 when it

was transferred to Defendant Track Four, Inc., a subsidiary of BAC. 

Track Four, Inc. owned the Site from February 2001 until July 2002,

when it was sold to Santa Fe Aero Vista, LLC. Santa Fe Aero Vista,

LLC is not a party to this lawsuit.

6

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 6 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

environmental consultant to investigate and implement a number of

remedial measures associated with contamination at the Site. The

retained consultant found elevated levels of hexavelant chromium

and arsenic in the soil at the BAC Site. Subsequent consultants

found hexavelant chromium and arsenic in groundwater beneath the

Site and in a stormwater pond located on the southeastern portion

of the Site.15

In 1991, IT Corporation, a remediation consultant hired by

Merck and Amsted, completed a “clean closure” of the storm water

pond. The closure involved excavating contaminated soil from the

pond and disposing of it at a landfill under the supervision of the

California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”). In

1993 and 1994, IT Corp., under the supervision of the Regional

Water Quality Control Board (“RWQCB”), installed a pump-and-treat

groundwater remediation system to control migration of contaminants

beneath and off of the Site and to remove hexavelant chromium and

arsenic from groundwater. IT Corp. continued to expand and modify

the groundwater treatment system through 2005. 

In 1994, as part of the cleanup efforts, IT Corp. prepared a

health risk assessment for the BAC Site. According to BAC

Defendants, the health risk assessment employed “conservative

exposure assumptions” to protect public health and was premised on

the fact that no further remediation would take place. Based on

these assumptions, IT Corp. determined that contamination at the

15 A 16-inch pipe connects the stormwater pond to the adjacent

El Capitan irrigation canal, owned by Defendant Merced Irrigation

District (“MID”). When the pipe is open, water can flow to or from

the pond and the canal. The pipe is the focus of the “surface

water” pathway.

7

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 7 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Site created a cancer risk of two in one million (ratio of

2:1,000,000). The BAC Defendants assert that the DTSC employs a

ratio of one in one million (1:1,000,000) to determine whether

additional remediation should be performed.16

IT Corp.’s risk assessment did not evaluate the risk posed by

the Site in the past (pre-1994), but looked prospectively at the

future risk the Site might create if no further remediation was

performed. IT Corp.’s risk assessment determined that if soils in

the area of the former pressure-treating system were excavated or

capped, that would “effectively eliminate the exposure pathways

(and subsequent risk).” In 1996, IT Corp. completed excavation of

contaminated soil from the area of the former pressure-treating

system and installed a four-inch thick asphalt cap over the entire

area. The BAC Defendants maintain that the excavation and cap

“effectively eliminated the risks identified in the 1994 risk

assessment.” 

Additional remediation at the BAC Site was performed in the

mid to late-2000's by Arcadis, Inc., an environmental consulting

firm to the BAC Defendants, which was paid $17 million to complete

the cleanup of the BAC Site. This included excavation of the

contaminated soil beneath the asphalt cap installed in 1996. Once

the soil was removed, Arcadis re-paved the exposed soil. Arcadis

also treated the groundwater with methanol to convert the

hexavelant chromium to the more benign trivalent chromium. T h e

groundwater treatment is expected to be completed within a few

16 BAC Defendants contend that the EPA considers risks in the

range of one in ten thousand to one in one million (1:10,000 to

1:1,000,000) as “acceptable.”

8

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 8 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

years, at which point the BAC Site will be monitored by the RWQCB 

until its final closure.

BAC Defendants assert that they have spent approximately $39

million remediating the BAC Site.

B. RWQCB Involvement - 2007

In 2007, the RWQCB announced the availability for public

review of a revised cleanup plan for the BAC Site.17 According to

the BAC Defendants, the RWQCB solicited comments from the community

and held an informational meeting to discuss the status of the BAC

Site remediation. Following the public comment period, in May

2007, the RWQCB published a “fact sheet” regarding remediation of

the Site, which purportedly expressed the RWQCB’s opinion that

contaminants “posed no health risk to residents in the vicinity of

the Site.” The BAC Defendants assert that the RWQCB’s “fact sheet”

expressed several additional opinions re: the BAC Site:

1. Groundwater supply wells in the vicinity of the

Site have been tested and have not been impacted

by the pollution associated with the former BAC

facility;

2. Impacted groundwater is not being used for

drinking water supply; and

3. The Site is currently not a threat to public

health.

(Doc. 677-2 at 7:4-7:7.)

17 The RWCQB’s “Fact Sheet,” issued in February 2007, provides

a “summary of the cleanup plans, site history, the contaminant[s]

present, and opportunities for public involvement.” (Doc. 787-35.) 

9

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 9 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. 2009 RWQCB Briefing to Senator Dianne Feinstein

On January 15, 2009, the RWQCB provided a “briefing paper” on

the BAC Site in response to an inquiry by Senator Diane Feinstein. 

(Doc. 725-4.) The brief “provide[d] a description of the

environmental conditions at the site, as well as a summary of the

regulatory actions and cleanup responses taken at the site to

address hexavalent chromium contamination.” (Id.) In the brief,

the RWQCB summarized its regulatory involvement, which commenced in

1987, and concluded that “[b]ased upon a thorough review of all of

the data currently in the Central Valley Water Board’s files, Board

staff believe that the public is not being exposed to harmful

levels of hazardous substances originating from the BAC site.”18

Key details of the RWQCB’s briefing are summarized as follows:

* In 1989, the Board determined that sediments in a

storm water pond at the BAC site were contaminated

with hexavalent chromium. The Board required the

BAC Defendants to excavate the pond and further

remediate the pond area. Storm water monitoring

indicates that the BAC Defendants’ remedial actions

were effective in reducing total chromium levels in

the storm water that was discharged from the site to

below California’s MCL for total chromium in

drinking water of 50 ppb.

* In 1992, the U.S. EPA conducted an investigation to

18 The RWQCB specifically concluded: “[I]n accordance with the

Central Valley Water Board orders and directives, Merck first began

to address the pollution at the BAC site in the early 1990's. As

part of the cleanup, Merck began pumping and treating groundwater

contaminated with hexavalent chromium in 1994 and continues to do

so. Merck proposed an accelerated cleanup plan in 2006, and the

Central Valley Water Board approved implementation of the plan in

2008. The groundwater plume is monitored by a network of

monitoring wells, which show that water supply for the nearby

Beachwood neighborhood have not been impacted by pollution from the

BAC site. Testing of the water supply wells themselves shows that

the hexavalent chromium levels are at or very near background

levels.” (Doc. 725-4 at pg. 4.) 

10

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 10 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

determine if the site warranted actions pursuant to

the federal Superfund law (“CERCLA”). Based on its

evaluation, the EPA recommended that no further

remedial action under CERCLA was required because it

found no hazardous substances were detected in

drinking water wells or private wells and no

designated water intakes or fisheries within 15

miles. RWQCB notified residents of the BAC

Defendants’ cleanup activities through public

notices and a fact sheet.

* In 1993, under the regulatory oversight of the

RWQCB, a groundwater monitoring extraction system

was installed. The system commenced operations in

1994 and was regulated pursuant to a permit issued

by the Central Valley Water Board. The system was

active in January 2009 and has extracted and treated

over 2,200 gallons of water. It has removed over

5,400 pounds of hexavelant chromium from that water.

* Merck installed a network of 65 monitoring wells

that are used to measure the extent of hexavelant

chromium pollution in the groundwater. A thorough

review, conducted by Board staff, of the sampling

and analyses results form the monitoring well

network has determined that pollution from the BAC

site has not impacted drinking water supply wells in

the vicinity of the BAC site. Testing of the water

supply wells indicate that hexavelant chromium

levels are consistent with background levels for the

area.19

* In 2000, RWQCB staff reviewed and concurred with the

BAC Defendants’ reports, which indicated that no

domestic supply wells were impacted by pollution

originating from the BAC site.

* RWQCB staff believes storm water discharges from the

site since the cleanup of the pond occurred in 1991

do not present a significant risk for exposure to

the public of hazardous contaminants because: (1)

wood treating operations ceased in 1991; (2) all

significant sources of hexavelant chromium have been

eliminated [and] are not exposed to storm water

drainage from the site; (3) soils and sediment in

the storm water pond that were contaminated with

hexavelant chromium have been excavated and disposed

off site; (4)total chromium concentrations have

consistently been below the drinking water standard

19 The brief noted that “hexavelant chromium is naturally

occurring in many geologic formulations in the Central Valley.” 

(Doc. 725-4.)

11

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 11 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for total chromium.

(Doc. 725-4 at pgs. 2-3.)

The RWQCB’s briefing contained a detailed review of the

groundwater pollution and cleanup at the BAC Site:

Groundwater at the site is located about 40 feet below

the ground surface. Hexavalent chromium has seeped

into the groundwater, which has migrated away from the

area of release with the flow of the groundwater, which

is generally to the north. Seasonal migration of

contamination to south, beneath a small portion of the

Beachwood neighborhood has also occurred [...]

The contamination has remained confined to the upper

regions of the groundwater due to the occurrence of a

clay layer at about 90 to 100 feet below the ground

surface. The clay layer has helped to prevent the

migration of contaminants to deeper levels that serve

as the drinking water supply for the local community.

The two nearby drinking water supply wells owned by the

Meadowbrook Water Company, which provided water to the

Beachwood neighborhood, take water from deeper

groundwater zones. The closest well to the BAC site,

MWC-4, draws water from a depth 210 feet below the

ground surface and is below the clay layer. To ensure

shallow groundwater is not pumped into the drinking

water supply, the well is sealed with cement grout to

200 feet below ground surface. A second supply well,

MWC-2, takes it water from more than 140 feet below the

ground, but the well is older and the depth of the seal

against shallow groundwater entering the well is

unknown. MWC-2 is no longer in service. Monitoring

wells emplaced between the hexavalent chromium plume

and the two supply wells indicate that the plume has

not reached the location of the supply wells in

groundwater situated above and below the clay layer.

The community’s drinking wells, MWC-2 and MWC-4, have

been tested a number of time and hexavalent chromium

levels in the wells are within the expected background

concentration range for hexavalent chromium.

(Id. at pgs. 7-8.)

The RWQCB attached a table summary of water supply well data

for hexavalent chromium from public water supply systems near the 

Beachwood neighborhood, specifically, Meadowbrook Water Company,

12

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 12 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the City of Atwater and Winton Water District.20 All of the

Meadowbrook wells tested within background levels, including MWC-2

and MWC-4. The RWQCB noted: “For comparison purposes, a number of

supply wells for the City of Los Banos, located approximately 25

miles southwest of the site, contain higher levels of hexavalent

chromium [than the three closest public water supply systems].”

In its “closing observations,” the RWQCB stated that “the

public is not currently being exposed to harmful substances

originating from the BAC Site,” and that the cleanup actions

“appear reasonable under the circumstances and the cleanup is

proceeding in a satisfactory manner.” (Id. at pg. 12.)

D. Plaintiffs’ Response to BAC Site History/Remediation

Plaintiffs do not specifically dispute the BAC Defendants’

recitation of the BAC Site history, including the remediation and

RWQCB involvement, rather they take issue with the testing data

used to support the BAC Defendants’ motions. In particular,

Plaintiffs argue that the data from the monitoring wells and MWC-2

Well is unreliable and/or inaccurate for the following reasons,

among others: (1) the monitoring wells are too shallow; (2) the

use of “selective” and/or “interval sampling”; and (3) the “honor

system” employed by the Meadowbrook Water District lacks the

necessary formalities to assure accurate records. Based on these

factors, Plaintiffs’ groundwater modeler, Mr. Douglas Bartlett,

allegedly excluded portions of the sampling data from his modeling

20 The RQWCB obtained the public well data from the Department

of Public Health. (Id. at pg. 10.)

13

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 13 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and analyses. The exclusion, if any, of the MWC-2 and monitoring

well testing data is heavily disputed among the parties and forms

the basis for BAC Defendants' motion to exclude Bartlett's expert

testimony and model. 

Plaintiffs also allege that several public entities, including

the RWCQB and Defendants Meadowbrook Water District, Merced

Irrigation District, and Merced County conspired with the BAC

Defendants to: avoid collecting data from the MWC-2 Well, hide

documents from third parties, and conceal the true danger/risk of

the contaminants at or near the BAC Site. In particular,

Plaintiffs contend that the BAC Defendants “conceal[ed] from the

Regional Board [RWCQB] and plaintiffs [] the Arcadis groundwater

modeling findings concerning the impact of MWC-2 on the

contaminated plume.” Plaintiffs further allege: “The draft report

addressing [Arcadis’] model which was to be submitted to the

Regional Board in December of 2007, was altered by Merck by

deleting references to the findings of the model and by deleting a

graphic illustration of contaminants flowing from the BAC directly

into MWC-2.” 

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND.

On March 8, 2007, Plaintiffs commenced this civil action

against the current public entity defendants, alleging property

damage caused by the April 2006 flood. (Doc. 1.) On September 13,

2007, in the second amended complaint, Plaintiffs named Merck &

Co., Inc., Amsted Industries, Inc., Baltimore Aircoil Company, and

Track Four, Inc. as Defendants in this action. (Doc. 35.) The

operative complaint, the eighth amended complaint, was filed by

14

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 14 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs on March 26, 2010. (Doc. 633.) The eighth amended

complaint alleges ten claims against the BAC Defendants: (1)

violation of 42 U.S.C. 6972(a)(1) [RCRA]; (2) violation of 42

U.S.C. 6972(a)(1)(b) [RCRA]; violation of 33 U.S.C. 1311(a) [CWA];

(4) violation of 33 U.S.C. 1342(a) and (b) [CWA]; (5) negligence;

(6) trespass; (7) nuisance; (8) wrongful death; (9) fraud and

deceit; and (10) civil conspiracy. 

On March 23, 2009, BAC Defendants filed a “Motion for Case

Management Order Re: Exposure” to “compel plaintiffs to make a

prima facie showing of exposure.” (Doc. 355.) The motion was

denied on July 6, 2009, however, on August 12, 2009, the Court

established a multi-phase trial plan in which case-wide exposure

issues were to be tried first (“Phase 1”), before general medical

causation (“Phase 2”) and plaintiff-specific exposure and causation

(“Phase 3”). The August 12, 2009 "Order Modifying Scheduling

Conference Order" provides, in relevant part:

Discovery and expert disclosures shall be conducted in

phases. Phase 1 shall focus on the issue of general

exposure; that is, whether contaminants from the

former [] BAC Site, Franklin County Water District or

the April 2006 Flood have ever reached any location

where plaintiffs could have been exposed to them, and

if so, when such contaminants arrived, how such

contaminants arrived at the location, how long they

were present, and at what levels they were present. 

(Doc. 540 at 1:14-1:28.)

On June 1, 2010, BAC Defendants moved for partial summary

judgment on Plaintiffs’ state law tort claims for personal injury

and property damages, i.e., Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence

(Claim X), trespass (Claim XII), nuisance (Claim XIII), and

15

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 15 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wrongful death (Claim XIV).21 (Doc. 677.) According to Defendants,

Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that

any plaintiff was exposed to contaminants allegedly released from

the former BAC Site located in Merced, California. BAC Defendants

argue that since there is no contamination evidence, there is no

genuine issue of material fact on the threshold issue of causation.

In support of their motion, BAC Defendants submit: (1) a

Memorandum of Points and Authorities (“Memorandum”); (2) a

Statement of Undisputed Facts in Support of its Motion; (3) the

declarations of attorney R. Morgan Gilhuly and experts Scott

Fendorf, Daniel B. Stephens, John L. Wilson, and Paolo Zannetti;

and (4) separate motions to exclude the testimony of Plaintiffs’

groundwater expert, Douglas Bartlett, and air expert, Camille

Sears. 

Plaintiffs opposed the motion on July 1, 2010, submitting over

3,000 pages of documentation and 168 exhibits.22 Plaintiffs oppose

21 Defendants Merced Irrigation District and Merced County

joined BAC Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on June

29 and August 13, 2010. (Docs. 772 & 813.)

22 Attached to Plaintiffs’ opposition are the “rebuttal”

declarations of experts Frank Agardy and Patrick Sullivan. 8787 Dr.

Agardy, a purported soil and groundwater expert, opines that

Camille Sears incorporated several of Agardy’s opinions in her

calculations of historical air borne contaminants. The substance

of Dr. Agardy’s declaration is to undermine Dr. Fendorf, BAC

Defendants’ air borne expert, who opined that “any chromium in the

[wood treating solution - CCA or ACC] solutions that had reacted

with the wood would not be in the hexavelant form but would instead

be in the trivalent form.” In his rebuttal declaration, Dr. Argady

explains that “treated wood can contain [hexavelant chromium] after

treatment” and, more importantly, Dr. Fendorf’s conclusions are

mistaken because “his analysis purposefully ignores the liquid

released from the treated lumber that have not ‘reacted with

wood.’” According to Dr. Argady, these releases are a source of

16

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 16 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

summary judgment on grounds that they have “substantial evidence”

supporting their contention that “contaminants from the BAC

facility have historically migrated from the [BAC] facility via

groundwater, surface water and air pathways to locations were

exposed to them and at levels which could cause harm.” In

particular, Plaintiffs argue that Sears and Bartlett’s expert

testimony is admissible and creates “competing expert opinions as

to the migration of the contaminants from the BAC facility.” 

According to Plaintiffs, Sears and Bartlett’s expert opinions, by

themselves, are sufficient to withstand a Rule 56 challenge.23

BAC Defendants filed their reply briefs on August 13, 2010.24

(Docs. 834 & 835.)

IV. LEGAL STANDARD.

Summary judgment/adjudication is appropriate when "the

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any

affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material

fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The movant "always bears the initial

responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its

hexavelant chromium at the BAC Site.

23 In addition to a global opposition memorandum, Plaintiffs

separately opposed the BAC Defendants’ motion to exclude the

testimony of Dr. Bartlett, (Doc. 776), and Camille Sears, (Doc.

781).

24 Following oral argument on October 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15,

2010, the parties were requested to provide supplemental briefing

on the pathway exposure issues. The parties submitted final

supplemental briefs on October 19 and 20, 2010. (Docs. 864-65,

867.)

17

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 17 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate

the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v.

Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265

(1986) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Where the movant will have the burden of proof on an issue at

trial, it must "affirmatively demonstrate that no reasonable trier

of fact could find other than for the moving party." Soremekun v.

Thrifty Payless, Inc., 509 F.3d 978, 984 (9th Cir. 2007). With

respect to an issue as to which the non-moving party will have the

burden of proof, the movant "can prevail merely by pointing out

that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving

party's case." Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984.

When a motion for summary judgment is properly made and

supported, the non-movant cannot defeat the motion by resting upon

the allegations or denials of its own pleading, rather the

"non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as otherwise

provided in Rule 56, 'specific facts showing that there is a

genuine issue for trial.'" Soremekun, 509 F.3d at 984. (quoting

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250, 106 S. Ct.

2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986)). "A non-movant's bald assertions or

a mere scintilla of evidence in his favor are both insufficient to

withstand summary judgment." FTC v. Stefanchik, 559 F.3d 924, 929

(9th Cir. 2009). "[A] non-movant must show a genuine issue of

material fact by presenting affirmative evidence from which a jury

could find in his favor." Id. (emphasis in original). "[S]ummary

judgment will not lie if [a] dispute about a material fact is

18

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 18 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

'genuine,' that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury

could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson, 477

U.S. at 248. In determining whether a genuine dispute exists, a

district court does not make credibility determinations; rather,

the "evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and all

justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor." Id. at 255.

V. DISCUSSION.

A. Introduction

Defendants move for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’

negligence, trespass, nuisance, and wrongful death causes of

action. Defendants’ claim there is no evidence of exposure via any

pathway, i.e., groundwater, private domestic wells, surface water,

air, or soil. Plaintiffs oppose each facet of Defendants’ motion,

arguing that their expert evidence clearly shows that “contaminants

from the BAC have historically migrated from the facility via

groundwater, surface water, and air pathways to locations were

plaintiffs were exposed to them and at levels which could cause

harm.” (Doc. 792 at 1:6-1:9.) 

The substance of the parties’ briefing, more than 5,000 pages

of argument and expert/scientific reports, focuses on two pathways,

groundwater and air. As to these pathways, Plaintiffs support

their Phase 1 exposure burden with the testimony of Douglas

Bartlett, groundwater hydrologist (groundwater modeler), and

Camille Sears, meteorologist (air modeler). Defendants move to

exclude these expert opinions and testimony pursuant to Federal

Rule of Evidence 702 and two United States Supreme Court cases,

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 and Kumho Tire

19

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 19 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). In particular, Defendants

challenge Bartlett and Sears’ expert testimony on grounds that it

cannot pass Daubert’s “gatekeeping” requirement.

B. Daubert Legal Standard

Rule 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony.

Pursuant to Rule 702, a witness qualified as an expert in

“scientific ... knowledge” may testify thereto if: “(1) the

testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony

is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the

witness has applied the principles and methods to the facts of the

case.” Fed. R. Evid. 702.

The trial court acts as a gatekeeper to the admission of

expert scientific testimony under Rule 702. Daubert, 509 U.S. at

579-580. The court must conduct a preliminary assessment to “ensure

that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted is not

only relevant but reliable.” Id. at 589. This two-step assessment

requires consideration of whether (1) the reasoning or methodology

underlying the testimony is scientifically valid (the reliability

prong); and (2) whether the reasoning or methodology properly can

be applied to the facts in issue (the relevancy prong). Id. at

592-93; Kennedy v. Collagen Corp., 161 F.3d 1226, 1228 (9th Cir.

1998).

Reliable testimony must be grounded in the methods and

procedures of science and signify something beyond “subjective

belief or unsupported speculation.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590. The

inferences or assertions drawn by the expert must be derived by the

scientific method. Id. In essence, the court must determine

20

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 20 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

whether the expert's work product amounts to “‘good science.’”

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1315 (9th Cir.

1995) (“Daubert II”) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593). In

Daubert, the Supreme Court outlined factors relevant to the

reliability prong, including: (1) whether the theory can be and has

been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review; (3)

the known or potential rate of error; and (4) whether the theory or

methodology employed is generally accepted in the relevant

scientific community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94. The Supreme

Court emphasized the “flexible” nature of this inquiry. Id. at

594. As later confirmed in Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S.

137 (1999): “Daubert's list of specific factors neither

necessarily nor exclusively applies to all experts or in every

case. Rather the law grants a district court the same broad

latitude when it decides how to determine reliability as [the

court] enjoys in respect to its ultimate reliability

determination.” Id. at 141-42.

The relevancy, or “fit,” prong requires that the testimony be

“relevant to the task at hand, ... i.e., that it logically advances

a material aspect of the proposing party's case.” Daubert II, 43

F.3d at 1315 (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 597). Relevancy requires

opinions that would assist the trier of fact in reaching a

conclusion necessary to the case. See Kennedy, 161 F.3d at 1230.

The Daubert analysis focuses on the principles and methodology

underlying an expert's testimony, not on the expert's conclusions.

Daubert, 509 U.S. at 595. However, the Supreme Court has cautioned

that “conclusions and methodology are not entirely distinct from

one another.” General Elec. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). 

21

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 21 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

As such, “[a] court may conclude that there is simply too great an

analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered.” Id.

Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires

the admission of opinion evidence connected to existing data “only

by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Id.

C. Pathway # 1 - Air 

Plaintiffs allege that soil contaminated with hexavelant

chromium and/or arsenic was transported to their homes or

properties via wind and other airborne pathways. To satisfy their

Phase 1 burden on the air pathway, Plaintiffs submit: (1) the

expert testimony of air modeler Camille Sears (air exposure for the

years 1969-1993); and (2) a 1994 Risk Assessment completed by IT

Corp (air exposure post-1993 years). 

Defendants contend that summary judgment is appropriate with

respect to any air pathway because Plaintiffs’ expert’s testimony

is inadmissible under Daubert. Specifically, Defendants move to

exclude Ms. Sears’ testimony on grounds that: (1) she is not

qualified to perform soil calculations; (2) her entire emission

scenario is flawed and lacks scientific reliability; and (3) her

input parameters are scientifically unsound. As to the Risk

Assessment, Defendants assert that it has no evidentiary value

because “it was based on a hypothetical scenario that never

occurred , and it does not purport to accurately calculate actual

exposure or risks.” (Doc. 677-2 at 23:18-23:19.) To support their

Daubert motion, Defendants rely on the declaration and testimony of

Dr. Paulo Zanetti, an air modeler, and Dr. Scott Fendorf, a

22

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 22 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

chemist. Both these experts opine that Ms. Sears’ model is

scientifically unreliable.

Plaintiffs rejoin that Ms. Sears has performed similar soil

calculations in modeling air dispersion, her emission scenario is

well-accepted in the air modeling community and the dispute over

her input parameters bear on the weight of the opinion rather than

on its admissibility.

1. Fed. R. Evid. 706

Based on the extent of the dispute between the parties'

experts and the complexity of the scientific issues presented by

air modeling, the Court retained two independent experts, Chatten

Cowherd Jr., Ph.D. and Richard Countess, Ph.D., under Fed. R. Evid.

706, to assist in the understanding and analyzing the air pathway

dispute.25 Drs. Countess and Cowherd prepared a joint expert

report, submitted on November 22, 2010. (Doc. 942.) The joint

independent expert report and the opinions contained therein are

discussed in the context of Defendants’ criticisms of the air

25 Under Ninth Circuit law, “district courts enjoy wide

latitude to make Rule 706 expert appointments.” Monolithic Power

Systems, Inc. v. O2 Micro Intern. Ltd., 558 F.3d 1341, 1348 (9th

Cir. 2009). In Monolithic Power, the Ninth Circuit stated that it

"perceive[d] no abuse of discretion [in appointing a 706 expert] in

this case where the district court was confronted by what it viewed

as an unusually complex case and what appeared to be starkly

conflicting expert testimony." Id. citing Walker v. Am. Home

Shield Long Term Disability Plan, 180 F.3d 1065, 1071 (9th Cir.

1999) (finding no abuse of discretion in Rule 706 appointment where

the scientific evidence was "confusing and conflicting" and the

appointment "assist [ed] the court in evaluating contradictory

evidence about an elusive disease of unknown cause").

23

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 23 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

model.

2. Supplemental Briefing & Fed. R. Evid. 706 Experts

The parties filed supplement briefing concerning the air

expert reports on November 29, 2010. The supplemental arguments

mirror those advanced in the parties’ earlier briefing, however,

Plaintiffs reiterate that “the FRE 706 reports serve only to

confirm the grave concerns plaintiffs have repeatedly expressed to

this Court related to these Daubert proceedings.” Plaintiffs

contend that the Court “may be tempted to act as a trier of fact by

weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of factual and

scientific assumptions made by the experts.”26 They further assert

that the air model disagreements “go to the weight of their

opinions, and not their admissibility.”

Defendants rejoin that the 706 expert reports “confirm[] that

Plaintiffs’ groundwater and air models contain serious

methodological flaws, including faulty assumptions unsupported by

science or facts, and are not reliable.” Responding to Plaintiffs’

“weight” arguments, Defendants assert that if Ms. Sears’ expert

report is either unreliable or irrelevant, it is inadmissible.27

26 Plaintiffs' concerns are unsound. There is no “temptation”

to weigh facts, rather the Supreme Court requires that the trial

court act as a "gatekeeper" to the admission of expert scientific

testimony under Rule 702. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 579-580. Daubert

commands that district courts conduct a preliminary assessment to

“ensure that any and all scientific testimony or evidence admitted

is not only relevant but reliable.” Id. at 589.

27 BAC Defendants correctly distinguish Elam v. Alcolac, 765

S.W.2d 42 (Mo. App. 1988), the primary case relied on by Plaintiffs

concerning the lack of data to establish exposure, i.e., why

24

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 24 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

An inadmissible report cannot create a disputed issue of fact. BAC

Defendants also include a string citation to a number of federal

cases holding that, under Daubert, an expert opinion cannot be

“based on assumptions of fact without evidentiary support, or on

speculative or conjectural factors.” 

3. Testimony/Model of Camille Sears (1969-1993)

Plaintiffs designated Sears as an air pathways expert who will

opine on whether Plaintiffs’ homes were exposed to significantly

elevated air concentrations of hexavalent chromium and arsenic.28

Sears’ declaration specifies she has worked in the air quality

field since January 1982, following her graduation from the

University of California at Davis (M.S. and B.S. degrees in

atmospheric science). Prior to forming her own consulting firm in

1992, Sears worked as a private air consultant/scientist (Dames &

Moore, URS Consultants) and Air Toxics Program Coordinator (Santa

Barbara Air Pollution Control District). Sears has been a

testifying expert for twenty years, since 1990, and provided air

modeling testimony in California Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

v. Interstate Non-Ferrous Corp., No. 97-CV-5016-OWW-LJO, an

modeling is needed in this case. Elam, however, is factually

distinguishable as the defendant in that case was required to

conduct monitoring but refused to do so. Moreover, an unpublished 

twenty-two year old decision from a state appellate court is not

binding on any federal court. 

28 In her expert report, Ms. Sears states that she was “asked

to analyze and characterize the air dispersion of particulates from

fugitive dust emissions sources at the former BAC-Pritchard site,

located in Merced, California.” (Doc. 785-2, Expert Report of C.

Sears, at pg. 4.)

25

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 25 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

environmental contamination case involving, among other things, the

alleged air dispersion of dioxin-containing ash released from

incendiary operations at a smelting site in Mojave, California.

According to her expert reports, declarations, and testimony,

Sears’ followed a three-step process. First, she calculated air

concentrations and surface deposition of hexavelant chromium and

arsenic resulting from the BAC site based on “widely-accepted air

dispersion modeling techniques.” Second, she input these

calculations into an air flow model endorsed by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency called AERMOD to determine if

Beachwood residents were exposed to particulates from fugitive dust

emissions sources at the former BAC site. Third, she provided

opinions re: whether, from 1969 to 1993, areas surrounding the BAC

facility were exposed to elevated air concentrations of arsenic and

hexavelant chromium.

Sears built her model by extrapolating data from chromium at

the BAC site, in a treating solution that was released to the

ground at the retort area where it entered the soil, and that this

exposed solution in and on the soil was later disturbed by forklifts driving on the site. She offered the following opinions of

exposures caused by the BAC facility wood storage area emissions:

• During the period 1969 through 1993, areas

surrounding the BAC facility were exposed to

significantly elevated air concentrations of

hexavalent chromium;

• During 1969, and the period 1991 through 1993,

areas surrounding the BAC facility were

exposed to elevated air concentrations of

hexavalent chromium, but not as high as 1970

through 1990;

26

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 26 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

• During the period 1969 through 1983, areas

surrounding the BAC facility were exposed to

significantly elevated air concentrations of

arsenic;

• During 1969, and the period 1981 through 1983,

areas surrounding the BAC facility were

exposed to elevated air concentrations of

arsenic, but not as high as 1970 through 1980;

• During the period 1969 through 1983, areas

surrounding the BAC facility were exposed to

increased arsenic surface deposition levels;

• During the period 1969 through 1993, areas

surrounding the BAC facility were exposed to

increased hexavalent chromium surface

deposition levels. 

(Doc. 781 at 5:21-6:9.)

Defendants move to exclude these opinions because her

testimony rests on a number of unsupported assumptions about the

chemical and physical properties of soils at the Site during the

relevant time period (1969-1993). According to Defendants, Sears

is unqualified to make these assumptions because she “is an

atmospheric scientist and meteorologist, not an expert in

chemistry, geology, geochemistry, or soil science.” In addition,

as part of her calculation of fugitive emissions, Sears allegedly

employed an improper EPA emission technique, namely the paved road

emission scenario (AP-42, § 13.2.1). The flawed assumptions,

enumerated below, relate solely to Sears’ “emission rate”

calculations:

1. Valence - Sears assumes that all of the chromium that

dropped from treated wood at the BAC site was hexavalent

chromium;

27

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 27 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2. Particle Size - She assumes the contaminated dust was

comprised of particles that were less than 10 microns in

diameter, making them small enough to blow off the site;

and

3. Accumulation - She assumes that one year’s worth of

drippage accumulated and remained on the surface of the

site, in the form of dust that is 90 percent pure

(900,000 parts per million) chromium and arsenic. 

Defendants contend that these assumptions are demonstrably

false and Sears does not have the expertise to make them. To

support their Daubert motion, Defendants rely on the declaration

and testimony of Dr. Paulo Zanetti, an air modeler, and Dr. Scott

Fendorf, a chemist. Dr. Zanetti disputes Sears’ use of the EPA’s

“paved road” emission scenario and, critically, the assumption that

drippage would accumulate and remain on the surface of the wood

storage area in the form of dust at a concentration of 900,000

parts per million. Dr. Fendorf opines that chromium does not drip

off only in hexavalent state and, assuming it did, the chromium

particles would be at least 100, not 10, microns in size. 

Sears responds first to Defendants’ claims that she is

unqualified to calculate fugitive dust emissions from a wood

processing facility:

While this is the first time I have calculated fugitive

dust emissions from a wood treating facility, the

principles involved are no different than any other

paved surface fugitive dust source. Furthermore, I

have calculated air emissions of hexavalent chromium

28

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 28 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dozens of times - from cooling towers, annealing

operations, chrome plating and anodizing, surface

coatings (including primers and pigmented - paints),

welding operations and cold fire combustion. I also

have experience calculating air emissions of arsenic -

from combustion sources, fugitive dust and mining

activities.

(Doc. 785 at ¶ 15.)

On October 7, 2010, the second day of Daubert hearings, Sears

testified that while she lacks formal “soil science” training, she

has calculated air emissions in a number of environmental

contamination cases and teaches a class in chemistry:

First of all, I heard [defense counsel] say that I had no

education in chemistry or geology or soil science. That's

-- that's never anything that I've said. I have taken a

number of chemistry courses and I've been involved in a

number of soil analyses over the years. I've taught

chemistry to air toxic students through the UCSB

extension as part of my air toxics class. I never said

I had no education in chemistry. And I don't believe

it's correct for [defense counsel] to say so.

Over the last 30 years, which is the time that I've been

doing these types of analyses, I've been involved in the

use of chemistry on a weekly basis. It's part of the job

experience. You don't need to be a chemist or a

geologist, soil scientist or geochemist to calculate air

emissions from basically soil releases or surface

releases of dust. 

On the contrary, Dr. Fendorf, who they offer as their

expert on this issue, I don't believe has ever calculated

air emissions, or at least I did not see any of his

qualifications stating that he has ever calculated air

emissions.

(RT, Oct. 7, 2010, 257:7-257:25.) 

Ms. Sears detailed her experience calculating fugitive air

emissions during counsel's direct examination on October 13, 2010. 

Ms. Sears’ air emission experience, which is quite extensive and

includes review of industrial sites and hexavalent chromium, rules

29

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 29 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

out any characterization of her as “unqualified” in the field of

calculating air emissions:

Q. Ms. Sears, are you qualified to calculate air

emissions?

A. Yes, I believe so.

Q. And why do you feel that you're qualified to do that?

A. Well, first, I want to correct -- or give my viewpoint

on the issue of whether a meteorologist is qualified

to calculate air emissions. We heard testimony last

week that Ms. Sears is a meteorologist and atmospheric

scientist and therefore she's not qualified to

calculate air emissions. I believe that's untrue.

First of all, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists,

we need to take all the chemistry, all the physics

that basically any engineer would take. And basically

the rest of it is real world experience. I started

calculating air emissions in 1983. I was hired by the

Santa Barbara county air pollution control district as

an air pollution engineer. And my job was to calculate

emissions, not only for permitting purpose, but also

for fee calculations. Our district became a fee based

entity, which the fees were generated by the amount of

emissions that companies emitted. 

And during that time, when I was at the air pollution

control district, not only did I calculate emissions

for a number of different sources, I also had to

develop what we called emission estimating techniques,

or EETs for many sources for which we never calculated

emissions before.

Q. Let me ask you just on this subject. What types of

emissions did you calculate when you were with the

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District?

A. I was just about to answer that. Thanks. The types of

emissions I would calculate were generally by the --

I'll do it by type of pollutant. Originally in the

early '80s, the only thing we dealt with would have

been called criteria air pollutants. And those are

pollutants for which there were ambient air quality

standards. For example, nitrogen dioxide, sulphur

dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and particulate matter

were the ones where we would calculate emissions. 

And for ozone, we would calculate emissions of

volatile organic compounds as well. Later in the '80s,

when air toxics, we also called non-criteria

30

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 30 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pollutants became the focus of regulation, we had to

calculate air emissions of essentially all the toxic

chemicals that you can think of from every source in

the district. And those would include oil and gas

processing facilities, excuse me, medical device

manufacturers, diatomaceous earth mining facilities,

we had Casmalia class one landfill. We had mining

operations. There were no end to the different types

of sources that we had to calculate emissions from.

There's several hundred different facilities I was

responsible for calculating air emissions.

Q. And give us an example as to how you did calculate the

emissions at that time.

A. Well, I -- I could think of a lot of them. However,

the type of emissions that -- the type of sources that

we would generally deal with for air toxics, you might

think of as an oil and gas processing facility. And we

had offshore and on shore components, stationary and

mobile sources. So we had to identify all the emission

sources for all the different pollutants and then

quantify them using emission calculation methods.

Sometimes we did source testing. And other times,

like I said, we have to use what we call emission

factors. And again, for many of these sources, for

air toxics, none of these emission factors existed. We

had to develop them. And I was on the committee for

the State of California, the criterion guidelines

regulation committee, which established a number of

emission estimating techniques or EETs for air toxics.

Q. And how many cases have you testified in either a 

courtroom like this or in state court or an

administrative hearing, wherein you have rendered

opinions and testimony on the calculation of air

emissions, Ms. Sears?

A. About 15 cases. And I outlined them in my opposition

declaration. So about 15 cases where I testified and

where I've actually calculated emissions that went

into my model.

Q. And what experience do you have in calculating air 

emissions of hexavalent chromium?

A. Over the years, probably starting in the late '80s, I

calculated air emissions of hexavalent chromium dozens

of times from cooling towers, where zinc chromate was

added as an -- vis-à-vis an anti-corrosion compound.

Calculated hexavalent chromium emissions from chrome

anodizing and chrome plating operations, both hard

chrome and soft chrome. And also from sparging, which

31

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 31 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is air injection into chrome plating operations.

Q. Now, in terms of the central valley of California

here, what experience do you have in evaluating the

impact of hexavalent chromium in the air here in the

central valley of California? Which is where the BAC

plant is located.

A. Okay.

Q. Former BAC plant.

A. I'll answer that. But I also want to say I've also

calculated hex chrome emissions from a number of

surface coating operations, such as spray painting and

aircraft refurbishing and that type of thing. Certain

coatings, zinc chromate, strontium chromate, lead

chromate have hexavalent chromium in the formulation.

Now, as far as the Central Valley goes, I have

calculated emissions from cooling towers. This was

from a case where the emissions were in the past. And

we calculated -- or I calculated hexavalent chrome

emissions. And then I modeled these emissions and

calculated the air concentrations. And then we were

also involved in looking at the background levels of

hexavalent chromium in the central valley, basically

in the '90s. Because that's when we had data. And so

I've had quite a bit of experience looking at the data

from the hexavalent chrome in the air from Stockton,

Modesto, Fresno, Bakersfield, the site where the Air

Resources Board was collecting this data in the 1990s.

Q. What experience -- there was some mention last week by

[defense counsel] about your background or lack of

background in regard to the chemistry of air

pollutants. Do you remember that testimony? 

A. I do.

Q. What is your experience in regard to the chemistry of

air pollutants, Ms. Sears?

A. Well, again, I want to say that, again, I'm a

meteorologist, and I would never say I'm a chemist,

but I would never say I don't have any education in

chemistry. I do. And -- but I -- and again, a lot of

it, though, is on the job training in the last 30

years since I graduated with a masters from UC Davis.

And essentially what you have to think of is that when

you're looking at air toxics, toxic air pollutants,

you need to know something about the chemistry of

these chemicals. You know, chlorinated alkanes,

32

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 32 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

chlorinated alkines, valence of metals, all these

different things come into play as well as the

reactivity of volatile organic compounds in ozone

formation. All these are issues that we have to deal

with consistently in the air pollution field. And so

it's a matter of needing to know certain details of

the chemistry, but not having to be a chemist to do

so.

Q. So let me ask this more specifically. What is your

education, training and background in regard to the

subject of understanding the chemistry of air

pollutants?

A. Well, I've taken the basic, you know, again, I'm not

a chemist, but I've taken the basic freshman,

sophomore chemistry classes. And essentially I was an

atmospheric physicist in -- at Davis, that was my

specialty. I wasn't an air modeling student at UC

Davis. And so we dealt a lot with the issues of

electricity, magnetism, electromagnetic issues, that

would deal with individual compounds as well. And

again, after I graduated and became working in the air

toxics field, I had to refresh my memory and, you

know, go back into dealing withal canes, al keens, al

kinds, air mat I can hydrocarbons and so forth and how

all these compounds relate to each other. So again,

I'm not a chemist, but I'm not a completely ignorant

chemistry either.

Q. In the opinions that you have rendered in other cases

and in other courts, have your opinions included the

subject of chemistry in regard to air pollutants?

A. Yes. I can give you some examples.

Q. Why don't you do that.

A. One case that I was working on, it was a federal court

case. It was Akee versus Dow, it was in Hawaii. It

dealt with soil fumigants. And the soil fumigants

were applied to pineapple fields on the island of Oahu

from 1946 to -- 1946 to 2001. I calculated air

emissions from volatilization of Dibromochloropropane,

ethylene dibromide, 1,3-trichloropropene,

1,2-dichloropropane, and epichlorohydrin from 319

pineapple fields for 56 years. And, of course, the

defendants' experts challenged everything I did. They

didn't file any motions to exclude any testimony, they

just disagreed with me [....]

(RT, Oct. 13, 2010, 560:12-567:4.)

33

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 33 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Camille Sears is qualified to offer the testimony about how to

calculate fugitive air emissions from a former wood-treatment

facility. She has substantial experience in the air emission

field, having calculated air emission rates for over twenty years

in and around Northern and Central California. Sears has

calculated fugitive air emissions for public and private employers

and has experience with industrial sites and a variety of harmful

pollutants, including hexavelant chromium. By education and

experience, Ms. Sears is qualified to opine on air emissions,

analysis and modeling in this case and her calculations can be

challenged through cross-examination and presentation of contrary

evidence. See Robinson v. GEICO General Ins. Co., 447 F.3d 1096,

1106 (8th Cir. 2006)(“Gaps in an expert witness's qualifications or

knowledge generally go to the weight of the witness's testimony,

not its admissibility.”). 

Defendants take an overly-narrow view of the degree of

expertise necessary to calculate fugitive air emissions in the

context of air modeling. An air modeler, who is also an

experienced atmospheric scientist and meteorologist, does not need

to have a “sub-specialty” or advanced degree in chemistry or soil

science before that person has sufficient qualifications to perform

air emissions. Defendants cite no authority for such a

proposition. Rather, Rule 702 only requires that an expert possess

"knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" sufficient

to "assist" the trier of fact, which is "satisfied where expert

testimony advances the trier of fact's understanding to any

degree." See Ms.Lauria v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 145 F.3d

34

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 34 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

593, 598 (3rd Cir. 1998) (holding trial court abused its discretion

by excluding testimony simply because the trial court did not deem

proposed expert to be the best qualified or because proposed expert

did not have the specialization that the trial court considered

most appropriate); see also United States v. Newmont USA Ltd., No.

CV-05-020-JLQ, 2007 WL 4856859, at 2 (E.D. Wash Nov. 16, 2007) (in

a mining enterprise case, holding that although the expert “is a

historian, as opposed to an expert in the specific areas of

‘corporate organization’ is not disqualifying in this case, as his

background appears to provide sufficient expertise upon which his

opinions, as a general matter, are based.”). Ms. Sears has engaged

in the field of air modeling and analysis as a regulator and expert

for over twenty years. She has worked on sites that have toxic

dust emissions. She satisfies Rule 702's foundational standards

and her testimony will assist the trier of fact.29

Defendants next argue that Ms. Sears’ entire emission scenario

is flawed and lacks scientific reliability. According to Dr.

Zanetti, Ms. Sears’ flawed methodology begins and ends with her use

of the “paved road” or “parking lot” emission scenario, AP-42 §

13.2.1. Dr. Zanetti opines that there is no scientific basis to

model the paved portions at the BAC Site because they do not

29 Cf. Ponca Tribe of Indians of Okla. v. Continental Carbon

Co., No. CIV-05-445-C, 2009 WL 4547612, at 5 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 16,

2009)(“The Court agrees that Mr. Hamlin is unqualified to offer

opinions as an expert in interpreting aerial photographs. He has

had no training in this area and only a minimal amount of

experience doing such work. In addition, even if he were qualified,

his opinions in this area would be of limited relevance. His

testimony would not aid the Court any more than would simply

looking at the photographs.”).

35

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 35 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

qualify as “roads.” Rather, according to Dr. Zanetti, the proper

emission scenario in this case is the EPA equation for unpaved

surfaces. The selection of AP-42 as an emission scenario was fully

developed during defense counsel's direct examination of Dr.

Zanetti on October 14, 2010:

A: In Ms. Sears' scenario, she did all the work by

herself, my understanding, she developed this new

theory, she developed emission rates, she applied the

AERMOD model. She applied the AP-42 equations.

Certainly she has the capability to select an AP-42

equation and to use it. The problem is is this the

correct methodology? It's not a question of her

lacking the mathematical skills to use those

equations, the question is is the equation or the

methodology appropriate [...]

I tried to summarize in a way that is easy to

understand, my reading of Ms. Sears' work in this

case. And in particular, the emission scenario. So

there are seven points. And I can start giving a

brief description.

Q. Okay. Before you do that, if you would, please,

explain to us all what you mean by the phrase

"emission scenario."

A. An air pollution model is a computer program that

requires basically two main inputs. The emissions

and the meteorology.

Q. The emission?

A. The meteorology, like the wind speed, the wind

direction, the temperature. So these are the two main

inputs. Emission and meteorology. And the results

will be the concentration data in the community. So

the meteorological data are generally easy to

collect. There are airports all over the United

States providing meteorological data, like wind

speed, wind direction that we can collect easily. So

generally this is not a big task. But the emission

calculation is often a major task and that has

enormous consequences in air pollution modeling

application because if the emissions are incorrect,

the concentration will be incorrect in the same

proportional amount.

Q. Okay. So emission scenario refers in the BAC case to

36

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 36 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

what?

A. In Ms. Sears' theory, she is considering emissions

from paved surface in the wood storage area. So task

number one is my description of her work, that for

the period '69 to 1993, she assumes that contaminated

liquid, liquid contaminated with heavy metals,

arsenic and chromium 6, is dripping from the treated

wood in the wood storage area and this liquid will

drip over -- or this paved surface of the wood

storage area. That's step number one.

(RT, Oct. 14, 2010, 703:8-707:2.) 

Dr. Zanetti argued that there was insufficient “road traffic”

at the wood treatment area to support Ms. Sears’ selection of the

emission scenario for paved roads. He also argued that AP-42

explicitly states that the AP-42 formula should not be applied to

“stop and go” traffic:

A: And she is using the AP formulas for road traffic. 

And this formula has been used many, many times [...]

so this formula has been used by hundreds of times all

over the world. It's a simple formula.

Q. But it's used for, you said, road traffic?

A. Road traffic. And my comment is that, first of all, I

look at the picture of the wood storage area. There

is no road.

Q. Okay.

A. First of all. Second, there is a picture of, in the

AP-42 document, which I have in my files, and it shows

a road with traffic. And no forklifts in the traffic,

of course. This formula is designed for calculating

emissions from traffic, not for forklifts. I don't

think I ever seen, and I don't think Ms. Sears has

cited one literature study where this formula has been

applied to forklifts. And in order to apply to

forklifts, you need really to stretch enormously the

assumption that are inherent in the development of

this formula. 

The most important one is the speed. The formulas was

developed for vehicles that travel with an average

speed, average, between 10 miles per hour up to 60

miles per hour, if I remember correctly. But 10 is the

37

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 37 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

main one. There is no way you can claim a forklifts

have an average speed of 10miles per hour. It's stop

and go. It's --

Q. Does AP-42 apply to stop and go traffic?

A. No. It explicitly say, the formula that Ms. Sears 

applied, the formula should not be applied for stop

and go traffic. So it is very questionable, the use of

AP-42 for forklifts. And again, the most important

thing, there is no literature support for doing that.

I haven't found one single study.

(RT, Oct. 14, 2010, 715:15-717:1.) 

During counsel’s re-direct examination on October 14, 2010,

the fourth day of Daubert hearings, Ms. Sears testified that AP-42

is appropriate in these circumstances given the lack of an emission

scenario for forklift use at industrial sites: 

A: Now, I think it's important to describe that -- the

process that I used to calculate the air emissions

from the fugitive dust, the treated wood storage

area. I used an EPA factor. It's from a document

called AP 42, which is number 42 in an air pollution

document series prepared by US EPA. And it's a

compilation of emission factors. Which are techniques

used to calculate air emissions from various types of

activities.

And in this case, Section 13.2.1 deals with fugitive

dust from paved roads or parking lots. It's a

technique that can be used to any paved road or

parking lot. There's nothing unique about fugitive

dust coming off a paved surface area at a wood

treatment plant or a treated wood storage area paved

surface. It's the same technique.

And I used that same technique scores and scores and

scores of times. I've used it for refineries, I've

used it for oil and gas processing facilities, for

steel mills, for quarries, or battery recycling

plants. The list goes on. I've done it scores and

scores of times. And there is a very simple, I think,

a very simple determination based on my experience

that it would also apply to this facility.

Q. You mean the type of surface from which fugitive dust

would be sitting upon and then emitted through some

38

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 38 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

type of activity?

A. Right. What happens is that you have an amount of

surface dust on the surface of the soil. That then

can be released into the air due to mechanical

disruption by vehicular tires, mainly. And the

vehicle doesn't matter, it's the weight of the

vehicle that matters.

The fact that Ms. Sears used a different algorithm to

calculate fugitive air emissions than Dr. Zanetti does not render

her unqualified nor does it suggest her emissions scenario is

invalid. Rather, based on the current record, her emissions

scenario is relevant, admissible, and can be challenged through

cross-examination and presentation of contrary evidence. In this

Circuit, an expert's decision to use one form of scientific

methodology over another goes to the expert's credibility rather

than the admissibility of the testimony. See, e.g., United States

v. Garcia, 7 F.3d 885, 889-90 (9th Cir. 1993). This is such a

case. 

In addition, the Fed. R. Evid. 706 air experts, Drs. Countess

and Cowherd, agree that there is a scientific basis to use AP-42 as

an emission factor equation in this case. The relevant portion of

the joint expert report provides, in relevant part:

We believe that Sears has made reasonable scientific

judgment in selecting the paved road equation to project

emissions from forklift traffic in the TWSA. The errors

associated with applicability problems (low speed, “stop

and go” motion) are probably small compared with errors

and uncertainties associated with other items in her

analysis as detailed below. If a separate equation were

available for application to stop and go activity, it

would be advisable to use it.

(Doc. 942, pg. 12.)

39

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 39 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Contrary to Defendants’ contentions, the application of the

“paved road” emission scenario was within Ms. Sears’ realm of

expertise as an air modeler and meteorologist. She has selected

emission scenarios and calculated fugitive emissions for over

twenty years. Ms. Sears has the expertise to use scientific

judgment that AP-42 was the most accurate emission scenario for the

former-BAC Site. This is especially true given the lack of a

scientific algorithm designed explicitly for the types of

industrial use and emission estimates required in this case. Dr.

Zanetti’s contention that only “unpaved surfaces” at the BAC site

can be modeled is unreasonable given the 706 experts’ contrary

opinions. He offers no alternative to his unpaved model, citing

only the “lack of scientific literature” to support Ms. Sears’ AP42 emission scenario.30 

The review of Sears and Zanetti's expert reports and

deposition/hearing testimony, as well as the opinion of the Court’s

Fed. R. Evid. 706 experts, demonstrate that although the use of

AP-42 to calculate fugitive emissions from the wood storage area of

the former-BAC Site is sharply disputed, a disagreement over

methodology is left to the adversary process and the trier of fact. 

The methodology here is not comparable to that found unreliable in

In re Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc. Litigation, 2000 WL 1842779

(N.D. Tex. 2000), a case excluding an air modeler’s expert

testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.

30 Given the unique facts of this case, Dr. Zanetti’s refusal

to model over 95% of the alleged source area on the basis of a

“complete match” is puzzling. 

40

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 40 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants’ remaining arguments focus on the total mass

calculation and the input parameters of Sears’ model, i.e.,

drippage accumulation, the particle size, valence/purity of the

contaminant and silt loading values. However, several of these

inputs are functions Dr. Agardy’s total mass calculation, which is

not challenged and admissible:31

Rather than estimate the amount of hexavalent chromium

and arsenic at the former BAC wood storage area, I

calculated the amount of elemental material contributing

to silt loading (in grams per square meter) based on Dr.

Agardy’s drippage calculations. Dr. Agardy’s

calculations are not subject of a motion to exclude

[...] [Dr. Agardy’s] drippage calculations were

conservative because they were limited to the chromium

levels found in treated wood storage area soils. These

levels could only have result from drippage of the Cr VI

[hexavalent chromium] from treated wood that

subsequently entered the soil. My calculation did not

take into account the amount of contaminants that never

entered the soil.

(Doc. 785, C. Sears Decl., at ¶ 50.)

The majority of Dr. Agardy's opinions are proper as they

relate to the use of chemicals and chromium at the BAC site. These

figures were a basis for Sears’ model and are properly supported by

Agardy's qualifications and expert reports. However, in his “new”

declarations, (Docs. 782 & 955), Agardy opines on subject matter

outside of his expertise: chemistry. Agardy is not qualified to

opine on the conversion rates between Chromium III and Chromium VI. 

31 Experts commonly rely on material prepared by others to

develop their findings and ultimate conclusions. See Banks III, 75

Fed.Cl. at 304; see also United States v. Smith, 869 F.2d 348, 355

(7th Cir. 1989) ("[I]t is well settled that expert witnesses may

rely on material commonly used by others in the field, even if

those materials were prepared by others."). 

41

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 41 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

A review of his declaration reveals that Agardy simply quotes from

several leading chemistry treatises and hornbooks, without

establishing his own expertise to do so. Agardy’s opinions on the

chromium conversion are questionable. He is, however, qualified to

opine on the total chromium mass at the former-BAC Site.

The final dispute concerns the scientific reliability of

Sears’ input parameters: the drippage accumulation; the silt

loading values;32 the valence/purity of the contaminant;33 and the

particle size (10 microns vs. 100 microns). Sears contends that

her input parameters conform with well-recognized scientific

principles. She asserts that the input parameter calculations are

based on her scientific knowledge, experience and familiarity with

air modeling, as well as a review and analysis of historical

information at the BAC Site, Dr. Agardy’s chromium drippage

calculations, USEPA air pollution emission factors for paved roads,

environmental and wind data from the site, and a review of pictures

of the BAC Site and industrial vehicles used at the site.

Defendants rejoin that these four input parameters lack scientific

32 Sears defines “silt loading” as the “amount of silt, which

is on this 200mesh or less than 75 micrometers in diameter.

Measured per square meter of surface. And the units are usually in

grams per square meter. And it's a standard input to paved road

fugitive dust emissions.” (Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 168:8-168:12.)

33 Sears defines “valence” as “for hexavalent chromium, it's

plus 6. For chromium trioxide you've got the valence of both

chromium and oxygen. You've got three oxygens, those are going to

be two minus each. And then you've -- so you've got three oxygens

that's minus 6. To balance it out, you need a plus 6 from the

chromium. So chromium, trioxide, the valence of the chromium is

always going to be plus 6.” (Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 179:9-

179:16.)

42

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 42 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reliability and are inadmissible to generate a factual dispute. 

Drs. Countess and Cowherd’s Fed. R. Evid. 706 expert report

provides a starting point to analyze the dispute over the input

parameters. The Fed. R. Evid. 706 expert opinions are reproduced

below, contrasted with the Daubert testimony of Ms. Sears. The

expert report and opinions of Drs. Countess and Cowherd cast

considerable doubt on Ms. Sears’ silt loading, valence,

accumulation and particle size inputs. Under Rule 702 and

Daubert, however, the proper analysis is not whether some of the

inputs can be questioned, but whether Sears’ testimony is relevant

and reliable, and whether the methods and principles upon which she

has relied in forming her opinion have a sound basis in science. 

In this case, a comparison of the relevant expert opinions

demonstrates a reasonable scientific dispute over input parameters

and scientific principles. 

First, Drs. Countess and Cowherd’s independent expert report

characterizes Sears’ silt loading value as “seriously flawed”:

Sears’s assumptions about silt loading are seriously

flawed. There is no precedent for assuming that the

silt loading is comprised almost entirely of Cr +6

[hexavelant chromium] and arsenic. Sears should have

based her estimates of silt loading on chromium trioxide

and arsenic pentaoxide as well as (at the very least)

deterioration of the asphalt pavement that would produce

particles in the silt size range.

(Doc. 942, pg. 15.)

On December 2, 2010, on direct examination, Sears explained

that her silt loading values comported with “standard modeling

43

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 43 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

practices”:34

Q. With respect to the assumptions and the input

assumptions with respect to silt loading, why do you

believe that the technique, the method you used and

the assumptions you utilized were in keeping with

generally accepted standards and principles?

A. Again, the silt loading values that I used were based

on Dr. Agardy 's drip calculations. Which I believe

he performed correctly. And I talked to him about

them. There was just no black box that was handed to

me the day I ran the model. We had a lot of

communication. The generally accepted standard and

approach is to use a steady state value. Even when

you're modeling short - term air exposures. I've been

reviewing dozens, like I said, of these coal fired

power plant permit applications, steel plant, pig iron

plant applications and they all use the same steady

state value. And I'll give another example. 

I recently was asked by the California Attorney

34 In her declaration, attached to Plaintiffs’ opposition,

Sears reinforced her core assumptions and the steady-state silt

loading value used in her model, which was the subject of extensive

disagreement between the parties:

Defendants attack my steady-state silt loading value. 

For plant operating years, I have assigned a steadystate silt loading value equal to the yearly drip rate. 

I did not accumulate the silt loading value after a

number of years of wood treating drippage, even though

that is a possibility. The steady-state silt values I

used for hexavalent chromium and arsenic at the former

BAC site are entirely consistent with the steady-state

silt loading values I have used in every USEPA paved

surface fugitive dust emission calculation that I have

performed. I’ve also reviewed these same emission

calculations made by dozens of industrial source

consultants, and I cannot think of one instance where

steady-state silt loading values were not used [...] I

believe the steady-state silt loading values I

calculated are reliable and represent a better method

than simply estimating the otherwise unknowable value

that once existed at the former BAC facility. 

(Id. at ¶ 52-53.)

44

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 44 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

General's office to help them review potential

proposition 65 case. The issue was hexavalent

chromium and arsenic from fugitive dust at the Lehigh

Cement Plant in Cupertino. They wanted to know

whether they should intervene because some citizens

had filed a 60 day notice of requirements to warn

under Proposition 65. 

So they asked me to look at it. The producer of this

report was a AMEC Geomatrix, which has been a

consultant to Merck in other matters in this case. 

And they did the exact same approach that I'm talking

about. They -- even though there was an existing

site, they didn't measure the silt loading. They

estimated it. They estimated what it would be based on

the average for a cement plant. They could have

measured it.

But the key point is that they used a steady state

value for the life of the exposure assessment to run

70 years. And that's generally accepted scientific

standards and practice for silt loading. You don't

vary it. To do so would be beyond that, to do so

would be holding me to basically unprecedented and

unnecessary standard. Unnecessary because we're

calculating long-term average emission rates.

(Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 173:14-175:1.)

With respect to the “accumulation” factor the Fed. R. Evid.

706 experts provide, in relevant part:

Sears’s assumption of a one-year accumulation period is

unreasonable because it assumes that no losses such as

runoff from the paved surface due to rainfall occur

during that period. Because of the solubility of the

contaminants in original form, any precipitation would

undoubtedly cause the contamination to wash off the

paved surface and/or penetrate the thin layer of asphalt

into the soil below the paved surface, so that the

equilibrium time would be much shorter, especially

during the rainy season. Our review of Merced Municipal

Airport precipitation records from 1948 to 2006 (Court

Exhibit A-17, Folder Q) indicates that the wettest

months are November through April with 5-10 days per

month with at least 0.01 in. of precipitation. During

this six-month period there are 3-6 days per month with

at least 0.1 in. of precipitation, and an average of one

day per month with at least 0.5 in. of precipitation.

The driest months are May through October with an

average of one day per month with at least 0.01 in of

45

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 45 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

precipitation. Thus, we conclude that a more reasonable

accumulation period would range from one month to six

months for the six-month period May through October, and

a maximum of several weeks for the six-month period

November through April.

(Doc. 942, pg. 17.)

Although the one-year accumulation rate is allegedly

unreasonable, Sears testified at the Daubert hearings that her

figure was an “average” and that “it’s going to vary from year to

year”: 

A: Accumulation, I think, is one of the defendants'

words that popped up in their motion, Daubert

motion. I think they're very related. So if you're

going to talk about accumulation, I'll wait until

you get do that point [...] 

Accumulation is really another word for silt

loading. It's how much of this material is on the

surface of the paved parking area, paved driving

area of the treated wood storage area.

As I acknowledge in my reports, it's going to vary

from year to year. It's going to vary from time to

time. However, in AP-42, the emission rates are

generally almost [steady state], I can't think of

even one time where an industrial source emission

rate was modeled anything other than steady state.

Q. What does that mean?

A. It doesn't change.

Q. Okay.

A. You use an average. And the -- what I did in the

Daubert hearing and it's described in more detail in

my declaration, is that I showed that the silt

loading, and in this case chromium that I used in

grams per square meter over the life of the project,

22 years, when mixed into the underlying soil

matches remarkably close to the measured chromium

levels, seen in 1999. 

And so it shows to me that the input that I used,

which is really just trying to explain how the

chromium got into the level and the soil down below

46

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 46 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

is entirely reliable. And the issue of it varying

from month-to-month or year to year, since we're

calculating long term cancer risk exposures, that's

the end result of these things. The month-to-month

exposures don't matter. Because these are long-term

exposures that cause the health effects.

(Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 172:9-173:10.)

 Drs. Countess and Cowherd also characterize Ms. Sears’

particle size values as “seriously flawed":

Sears calculated the silt loading as consisting of 90%

contaminants combined with only 10% soil. Even if

virtually all of the contaminants on the surface

consisted of particles smaller than 75 microns,

emissions from the surface would span a wide range of

particle size. Only emissions of particles smaller than

about 30 microns are normally categorized as suspended

particulate matter. The emissions of airborne particles

in specified particle size ranges including PM10 can be

estimated using the AP42 equation. AP42 indicates that

the PM10/PM30 ratio in the emissions generated by

vehicle travel on paved surfaces is 0.19. Because the

PM10 emissions encompass a particle size range extending

from less than 1 micron up to 10 microns, it is

problematic to assume PM10 emissions can be represented

as 5 micron particles in the dispersion process. In

addition, because the settling tendency of particles

increase with particle size, the ratio of contaminant

lost by deposition from the emission plume to that

remaining airborne across the community would be much

larger than that estimated by Sears [...]

Sears’s assumed particle size for airborne hexavalent

chromium and arsenic particle is seriously flawed.

(Doc. 942, pg. 15.)

With respect to Drs. Countess and Cowherd’s particle size

criticisms, Ms. Sears responds:

A. Particle size is an input for deposition, the fallout

of particles from the plume as the air travels off

site. Typically particles -- deposition is not

calculated in most anti-air quality impact analysis.

But not to include it would tend to overestimate the

air impacts. So I included the particle size for dry

deposition to basically properly account for the

47

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 47 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

plume depletion that takes place due to material

falling out.

Q. Did AP-42 mandate that particle size be included as

a factor?

A. No. It's not an input in AP-42 at all. It's an input

to AERMOD, which is the dispersion model.

Q. If it wasn't in A P-42, why is it that you made

certain assumptions regarding particle size?

A. I made the particle size analysis to account for

plume depletion in running the air dispersion model.

And the -- you don't need to know the particle size

distributions in AP-42, emission calculations. All

you need are the silt loading. You need to know the

vehicle weight, the vehicle miles traveled. Now --

and the K factor we've been using for PM10 or PM30.

And I think this is where I strongly disagree with

the 706 air experts. They said that my particle size

for dry deposition was seriously flawed. Now, I

thought, well, how could they say that? Even Dr.

Zannetti, from questions from [defense counsel] said

that my analysis was fine. Because he understands, I

believe, that it's not a sensitive input.

Q. Why isn't it a sensitive input?

A. I ran sensitivity analysis in my -- and it's

discussed in my Rule 26 report. Again, I'm modeling

PM10. That's what we're -- that's what we're limiting

here to, because those are the size particles that

cause inhalation or get into the lungs. That cause

the problems from the hexavalent chromium exposure.

It's the small particles. So I limited the exposure

to that size. 

Generally, we don't have particle size distributions,

we don't have measurements. Again, we don't have

measurements from this plant at all because it

closed 20 years ago and no one ever took the time to

measure the data back then. So I said, okay, I've

done a lot of this before. I -- five microns is --

is -- I've used it before and it's not been any

problem. But just to make sure, I'll look at two and

a half, I'll look at seven and a half. I'll look at

a combination of 2.5, 5 and 7 and a half microns. And

then see what effects that has on the impacts.

Trivial. I actually did an analysis where I didn't

even include any particle sales for dry deposition at

all. It increased the impacts, air impacts by about

15 percent.

48

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 48 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

So if anything, including the particle sizes tends to

lower the air concentrations. And so I thought, okay.

I've done this sensitivity analysis, it's trivial. I

never expected anyone to have any problem with it.

And I thought it was interesting that they -- that

these 706 air experts disagree with both Dr. Zannetti

and myself, who I believe have had more air modeling

experience.

Q. Again, with respect to particle size, based upon

everything you testified, you believe that your

approach was well within generally accepted standards

for that part of the project?

A. Yes, I do. And I took it a step beyond and did the

sensitivity analysis and the probability distribution

and an uncertainty analysis. I covered all the basis.

(Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 176:2-179:5.)

Drs. Countess and Cowherd are critical of the assigned valence

values:

Agardy states that one should be concerned with the

amount of amount of Cr+6 in drippage not whether Cr+6 is

converted to Cr+3 in treated wood. Sears assumes that

100% of the Cr in the material that drips on to the

ground is Cr+6 based on her discussions with Agardy.

This is reasonable for freshly dripped CCA or ACC

preservative and drippage that doesn’t come into contact

with organic material, or iron - or sulfide - containing

soil deposited on a paved surface. Furthermore, there

is no disagreement between the experts for both parties

that Cr+6 in the treated wood can be converted to Cr+3

as the treated wood ages. Thus, if there is any

transfer to the ground of sawdust created from cutting

treated wood or crystallized preservative formed on the

outside of treated wood, the paved surfaces at the plant

will contain Cr+3 from these sources as well as Cr+6

from drippage. [Note: The shallow soil samples from the

TWSA indicated that most of the chromium in the soil was

present as Cr+3; the Cr+6/Cr ratio for these samples

before correcting for background was 0.0051.]

Sears’s assumption that 100% of the Cr in the

preservative that drips on to the ground is Cr+6 is

reasonable for fresh deposits but not for preservative

that has been in contact for several weeks or longer

with soil deposited on a paved surface.

(Doc. 942, pg. 18.)

49

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 49 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ms. Sears rejoined that her valence value conformed to

scientific values and, in any event, the value “subject to an

overall emission rate calculation uncertainty analysis” to account

for variability:

Q. What is your understanding of what criticism the 706

report had of your input assumptions with respect to

valence?

A. They were concerned that, as I understand it, that

the assumption that I made, the input that I made of

100 percent hexavalent chromium was only valid for

fresh deposits of chromium trioxide. And over time,

there would be some degradation, some reduction to

trivalent form. And in the -- on the surface of the

paved road area of the treated wood storage area.

Q. Do you disagree with that?

A. I do.

Q. Why?

A. For a number of reasons. And they're outlined in

number 8. Now, I've been intimately involved in

developing the risk assessment guidelines for the

State of California since 1989, 1990. That time

frame. And I prepared hundreds of these risk

assessments, many of them, scores of them included

hexavalent chromium. The standard process is not to

convert hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium in

these risk assessments. And I discussed that in the

California Air Resources Board and the California

office and environmental health hazard assessment

procedures. The only time that you account for a

reduction of hexavalent chromium to trivalent is

under certain soil conditions, where you have the

measured data to predict, to calculate how that

conversion will take place.

We don't have that here. For two reasons. One, we're

talking on the surface of the paved area, of the

treated wood storage area. And second, they don't

have any other data underground to calculate that

conversion process. Not that I know of. And again,

underground is not my concern. I'm concerned about

the top level of the paved area and the treated wood

storage [...]

But again, as I talked about earlier [] we have the

50

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 50 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1994 IT Corporation Data Gaps study measurements of

hexavalent and total chromium in the top one foot

underneath the treated wood storage area that shows

that accounting for background, Dr. Agardy's lower

background, the hexavalent chromium to total chromium

ratio is still about 80 percent. Three years after

they stopped treating.

So if it's 80 percent hexavalent chromium in the soil

three years after they stopped using it, where,

underneath the soil it would be under to leaching --

again, hex chrome is more soluble than trivalent, so

it would tend to disappear more than the trivalent

would and tend to go to lower levels.

And in the soil, that's where you have, if any,

capability of reduction from hexavalent to trivalent.

But after three years, if you're still seeing such

a high hex chrome to total chrome ratio, what other

conclusion can you draw than it was basically 100

percent during the time that the plant was operating?

Another thing to consider too is that this wasn't a

one-time dump of chromium trioxide on the soil. This

was constantly being replenished. Every day they were

treating more wood, every day there was more

drippage. So that silt loading is constantly being

replenished with fresh chromium trioxide. But the

706 air experts say unquestionably 100 percent

hexavalent. So I think my assumption of 100 percent

hexavalent, if I did anything other than that, would

be inconsistent with California risk assessment

guidelines and would be inconsistent with the data

[...]

And again, all of these things are subject to an

overall emission rate calculation uncertainty

analysis that I did to account for any variability

and sensitivity of these parameters. I was very

careful. I covered all these basis. And I'm

surprised that the 706 air experts didn't look at the

same data that I did.

(Rough RT, Dec. 2, 2010, 179:17-183:6.)

The comparison between the relevant expert opinions

demonstrates that a reasonable scientific disagreement exists among

the experts. Ms. Sears input parameters raise a host of serious

concerns, but do not strip the model of all scientific reliability. 

51

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 51 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

See, e.g., Renaud v. Martin Marietta Corp., 749 F. Supp. 1545, 1552

(D. Colo. 1990)(“Most of these alleged methodological flaws,

however, must be considered by a jury when evaluating the weight to

be given to the opinions, rather than by the Court in making the

preliminary assessment concerning the admissibility of a given

opinion.”)(citations omitted). Such a dispute goes the credibility

and the weight of the opinions, not admissibility.

Sears’ allegedly flawed drippage accumulation calculation is

illustrative. Defendants argue that Sears has no basis to given an

opinion that a year’s worth of drippage will accumulate at the

surface; such a value contradicts reality as it assumes no

disturbance or rainfall at the BAC site. On this point, Defendants

submit the testimony of Dr. Fendorf, an expert in chromium and

arsenic and a geochemist. Fendorf opines that hexavalent chromium

is highly soluble in water and any significant rainfall dissolves

hexavalent chromium at the surface and carries it into the soil.

Ms. Sears testified that the figure “is entirely reasonable”

and supported by proper science, in addition to being an “average”

accumulation rate. In this Circuit, the opposing party to a Rule

56 motion need not establish a material issue of fact conclusively

in its favor. It is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute

be shown to require a jury or judge to resolve the parties'

differing versions of the truth at trial.” First Nat. Bank of

Ariz. v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 290; Hopper v. City of

Pasco, 248 F.3d 1067, 1087 (9th Cir. 2001). A jury could consider

the parties' competing expert testimony and reasonably conclude

that chromium did not dissolve into the soil but stayed on the

52

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 52 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

surface, reinforcing Sears’ testimony (and her drippage

calculation). The determination of the credibility and weight of

the expert's conclusions should be reserved for the trier of fact. 

The particle size dispute provides an additional example of a

scientific factual dispute. Dr. Zanetti, an air modeler retained

by Defendants, testified that the “five micron [size] [i]s not a

problem,” while Dr. Fendorf, another defense expert, stated in his

declaration that “the chromium-arsenic salt particles that would be

left behind by that evaporative process would not be in the size

range that Ms. Sears assumes [...] [i]nstead, they would be

sand-sized particles greater than 100 microns in diameter.” (Doc.

722-1 at ¶ 5-7.) Drs. Cowherd and Countess provide yet another

opinion, that it is “problematic to assume PM10 emissions can be

represented as 5 micron particles in the dispersion process”

because the PM10 emissions encompass a particle size range

extending “from less than 1 micron up to 10 microns” and “the

settling tendency of particles increase with particle size.” In

the scientific community, experts reach different conclusions from

each other, however, reasonable differences in scientific

evaluation are not a basis for exclusion. See Daubert I, 509 U.S.

at 596 (“[v]igorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary

evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the

traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible

evidence”). 

Having observed the experts at the Daubert hearing under

intensive cross-examination by counsel, it is clear that the

current dispute over Ms. Sears’ calculations should be determined

53

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 53 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by the trier of fact, not by the Court on a motion to exclude. In

re Scrap Metal Antitrust Litig., 527 F.3d 517, 529 (6th Cir.

2008)(the “rejection of expert testimony is the exception rather

than the rule.”)(citation omitted). The decision to view Sears’

differing analytical inputs as weaknesses in her analysis are a

matter of weight rather than admissibility and thus properly a

subject of argument and jury judgment. There is an insufficient

showing of unreliability to exclude Ms. Sears’ entire air model. 

Finally, Defendants support their motion with a citation to

air quality samples taken during excavation activities at the BAC

site in 2007 and 2008. According to Defendants, Arcadis excavated

the contaminated soil from the former retort area and installed

four monitoring stations to detect any dust that might blow off the

site during the excavation. Arcadis allegedly did not detect any

chromium or arsenic-containing dust at the monitoring stations. 

This evidence, however, does not prove/disprove Sears’ testimony

concerning the air pathway for the years 1969-1993. Rather, it is

one of many facts that may presented to the jury on the Phase 1

issue of whether soil contaminated with hexavalent chromium and/or

arsenic was transported to Plaintiffs’ homes or properties.

4. Risk Assessment (post-1993 years)

Plaintiffs claim that the 1994 Risk Assessment demonstrates

that Plaintiffs in the Beachwood neighborhood were exposed to

unacceptable airborne risk factors. Merck produced the Risk

Assessment of the BAC site pursuant to an order from the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control. Plaintiffs allege that the

54

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 54 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Risk Assessment satisfies their Phase 1 burden for the post-1993

years:

[W]ithin this Risk Assessment, is confirmation of

completed pathways with regard to airborne particles

exposing residents to contamination via wind, dust, home

gardens and home grown fruits and vegetables. 

Notwithstanding this knowledge of a completed pathway of

airborne exposures to these residents, the Merck

defendants made no effort to determine whether or not

such exposures could have existed prior to 1994, and

specifically in relation to the BAC facility when it was

in operation. Indeed, there is no evidence that the

Merck defendants at any time performed or even requested

permission to perform any testing of residential soil,

residential home gardens, residential fruit trees, swab

samples of attics or indoor locations, or other sampling

or testing which would have confirmed whether these

vulnerable residents had been exposed to airborne

contaminants during the operational history of the

plant. This risk assessment shows unacceptable risk

factors to plaintiffs in the Beachwood neighborhood.

(Doc. 792 at 26:3-26:19.)

Plaintiffs do not respond to the Defendants’ string citation

of authorities holding that “risk assessments are intended to

provide conservative estimates of risk and offer a wide margin of

protection for human health [thus] federal courts have refused to

accept their results as evidence of causation.” See, e.g., Rhodes

v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 253 F.R.D. 365 (S.D.W.V. 2008);

see also Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 265 F.R.D. 208, 226 (E.D. Pa.

2010) (collecting cases).

In their motion for partial summary judgment, Defendants

summarized the key portions 1994 Risk Assessment and the reasons

why federal courts have excluded such risk assessments to

demonstrate causation/exposure:

Plaintiffs contend that the 1994 risk assessment

provides evidence of exposure to wind-borne dust for the

55

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 55 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

years 1994 to the present, but this contention has no

merit for at least two independent reasons. First, the

risk assessment assumed that nothing further would be

done to clean up the Site in the years after 1994 (and

indeed that the old asphalt on the Site would degrade,

exposing soil to the air). However, in 1996, Merck and

Amsted excavated contaminated soil from the retort area

and installed a four-inch asphalt cap over the entire

area around the location of the former pressure-treating

facility. The risk assessment specifically noted that

this remedial measure would “effectively eliminatethe

exposure pathways (and subsequent risk).” Thus, even if

one assumed that the risk assessment could somehow be

used to predict exposure in the years after it was

written, the risk assessment predicted that with a cap

over the retort area, there would be no exposure and

therefore no risk.

Second, as the risk assessment repeatedly makes clear,

it intentionally overestimated potential exposures and

risks in order to be protective of human health:

• “The risk numbers are considered overestimates of

the potential risks . . .”;

• “This assessment employs a health-protective bias

that leads to the overestimation of risks

rather than realistic evaluation or an

underestimation”;

• “To minimize the effect of uncertainties in the

evaluation, each step is biased towards

health protective estimations. Because each

step builds on the previous one, this biased

approach should more than compensate for risk

assessment uncertainties. In addition, these

calculations do not represent currently

existing or expected future exposure or health

risks. Rather, they are estimates of potential

risk only if all of the conservative

assumptions are realized.”

In short, the risk assessment was based on a

hypothetical scenario that never occurred, and it does

not purport to accurately calculate actual exposures or

risks.

(Doc. 677-1 at 22:15-23:19.)

In Rhodes v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Co., 253 F.R.D. 365 

(S.D.W.Va. 2008) the court held that risk assessments were of

56

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 56 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“limited utility” in a toxic tort case based on the risk

assessment's distinct regulatory purpose: 

Risk assessments have largely been developed for

regulatory purposes and thus serve a protection function

in providing a level below which there is no appreciable

risk to the general population. They do not provide

information about actual risk or causation. See Bernard

D. Goldstein & Mary Sue Henifin, Reference Guide on

Toxicology in Federal Judicial Center Reference Manual

on Scientific Evidence 413 (2000). “Because of their

appropriately prudent assumptions when there are limited

data, risk assessments intentionally encompass the upper

range of possible risks.” Id.; see also Sutera v.

Perrier Group of Am. Inc., 986 F.Supp. 655, 664 (D.Mass.

1997) (rejecting regulatory standards as a measure of

causation because the purpose of regulatory standards is

to “reduce public exposure to harmful substances.”)

(quoting Allen v. Pa. Eng'g Corp., 102 F.3d 194, 198

(5th Cir.1996)); O'Neal v. Dep't of the Army, 852

F.Supp. 327, 333 (M.D.Pa.1994) (determining that risk

figures based on the EPA's upper-bound estimates for

another chemical are “appropriate for regulatory

purposes in which the goal is to be particularly

cautious [but] overstate the actual risk and so, are

inappropriate for use in determining whether medical

monitoring should be instituted.”).

Id. at 377.

Rhodes concluded:

Because a risk assessment overstates the risk to a

population to achieve its protective and generalized

goals, it is impossible to conclude with reasonable

certainty that any one person exposed to a substance

above the criterion established by the risk assessment

has suffered a significantly increased risk

Id. at 378.

Rhodes’ reasoning is sound. Here, the express purpose of the

1994 Risk Assessment was to provide a regulatory body, the DTSC,

with conservative estimates of risk and provide a wide margin of

protection for human health. It does not establish general

exposure. It is not particularized nor does it include an

57

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 57 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

identifiable risk of exposure to the Beachwood residents. 

Plaintiffs have not provided any legal authority finding a

Risk Assessment relevant to the issue of general exposure. 

Plaintiffs do not address the case law or why/how the Risk

Assessment is relevant to prove actual causation to appreciable

levels of contaminants from the BAC site. Under the reasoning of

Rhodes and Gates v. Rohm & Haas Co., 265 F.R.D. 208 (E.D. Pa.

2010), the motion for partial summary adjudication is GRANTED as to

the 1994 Risk Assessment, which does not establish general exposure

or otherwise satisfy Plaintiffs’ Phase 1 burden as to the air

pathway.

5. Conclusion on Air Pathway

The qualifications of Plaintiff's air model expert, Camille

Sears, and the reliability of her methodology and assumptions are

materially at issue in this case. Drawing all inferences in favor

of the non-movant, Ms. Sears' testimony presents a scientific

dispute not resolvable as a matter of law. Defendants’ Daubert

motion is DENIED and that portion seeking to adjudicate air

contamination is also DENIED.

With respect to the 1994 Risk Assessement, Defendants’ motion

for partial summary judgment is GRANTED. The express purpose of

the 1994 Risk Assessment was to provide a regulatory body, the

DTSC, with conservative estimates of risk and a wide margin of

protection for human health. It does not establish general

exposure or otherwise satisfy Plaintiffs’ Phase 1 burden as to the

air pathway.

58

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 58 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Pathway # 2 - Groundwater/MWC-2

The parties’ groundwater pathway arguments focus on whether

contaminants from the BAC site reached Meadowbrook Well No. 2, the

only well alleged to have been contaminated with chemicals from the

BAC site. As explained above, scientific sampling was performed at

MWC-2 by Meadowbrook Water District from 1964 to 2007. Monitoring

was then performed by Arcadis, an environmental consultant (2007-

2009). It is undisputed that MWC-2 was taken out of service in

March 2008. A material dispute exists as to the reliability and

accuracy of the sampling data from the network of monitoring wells35

and several extraction wells36 near the BAC Site.37

Plaintiffs offer the expert testimony of Douglas Bartlett, a

hydrologist and groundwater modeler who opines that hexavelant

chromium from the BAC Site entered and contaminated the water

35 The EPA defines a monitoring well as: “A well used to obtain

water quality samples or measure groundwater levels.” See

http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/mterms.html (last visited Dec. 29,

2010). Monitoring wells are denoted herein with a “MW #”.

36 According to the EPA’s website, extraction wells are

“discharge well[s] used to remove groundwater or air.” See

http://www.epa.gov/OCEPAterms/eterms.html (last visited Dec. 29,

2010). More specifically, extraction wells are installed to “clean

the groundwater and control the migration of contaminated water.”

Cross Petroleum, Inc. v. United States, 54 Fed. Cl. 317, 324 (Fed.

Cl. 2002). Monitoring wells are denoted herein with a “EW #”.

37 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 11, introduced on December 28, 2010,

demonstrates the importance of the monitoring and extraction well

data to the analysis: “Data relied upon and testimony related to

Bartlett’s opinions regarding modeled results compared to observed

data [...] EW 4 sampling data is consistent with the model [] EW 5

is sampling data is consistent with the model [] MW 23 had its

first high level (450) in June 2008 [....]”.

59

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 59 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

pumped by MWC-2 for at least a period of twenty-five years. 

According to Bartlett’s groundwater model, hexavelant chromium

reached the MWC-2 in mid-1972 in concentrations exceeding 10 ug/l. 

MWC-2’s contamination levels allegedly increased between 1972 and

1994, reaching a peak value of 389 ug/l in June 1994. From that

point on, according to Bartlett’s model, hexavelant chromium

concentrations decreased. Critical to satisfying the Phase 1

burden, Bartlett reports that hexavelant chromium was present in

MWC-2 in excess of the federal (100 ug/l) and state (50 ug/l)

Maximum Contaminant Level (“MCLs”) for more than twenty years.

According to Defendants, Bartlett’s testimony and groundwater

model are inadmissible for a number of reasons but primarily

because he excludes 46 years of sampling data (49 tests) from the

MWC-2 and 16 years of sampling data from monitoring wells

surrounding the BAC Site. Characterizing Bartlett’s model as

“contradicting reality,” Defendants claim that Plaintiffs “have

produced no data, documents, or percipient witness testimony that

could establish exposure to hexavelant chromium or arsenic from the

BAC Site through MWC-2 water, and the results of analyses of water

from MWC-2 refute plaintiffs’ claims that such exposure occurred.” 

(Doc. 677-2 at 10:13-10:16.) Defendants assert that the actual

testing data shows that total chromium concentration at MWC-2 never

exceeded 12 ug/l, less than one quarter of the MCL for total

chromium. Defendants also argue that MWC-2 never captured

hexavelant chromium beyond background levels.

Defendants do not dispute that Bartlett is qualified to serve

60

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 60 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

as an expert on groundwater modeling.38 Bartlett has been employed

in the fields of hydrogeologic movement and soil investigation

since 1977, focusing on groundwater contamination since 1984. 

Bartlett’s employment history includes working as a consultant with

Dames & Moore in Denver, Colorado from 1977 through 1989. In 1989,

Bartlett moved to Phoenix, Arizona, where he managed several

groundwater contamination projects for Dames & Moore. Several of

these projects involved CERCLA remediation and groundwater

modeling, including what is referred to as the “Motorola 52nd St.

CERCLA site.” In 1999, Bartlett left Dames & Moore to form the

consulting firm “Clear Creek Associates.” As a principal at Clear

Creek, Bartlett provides groundwater modeling services to private

and public entity clients throughout the United States. 

According to his original and rebuttal reports, filed pursuant

to Federal Rule 26(a)(2), Bartlett provides the following opinions:

(1) the BAC Defendants’ wood-treating operations introduced 12,913

pounds of hexavelant chromium to the groundwater over a twenty-five

year period;39 (2) from the BAC site the hexavelant chromium

migrated, pursuant to an established pathway, to MWC-2 and was

extracted from that well with pumped water; and (3) Bartlett

predicts that hexavelant chromium concentrations exceeded 50 ug/l

38 Bartlett obtained his M.S. and B.S. degrees in geology from

Colorado State University (1984 & 1977).

39 This “mass” chromium calculation is taken from Dr. Agardy’s

calculation, i.e., Dr. Agandy's opinion that a total of 12,913

pounds of chromium was released from the BAC Site during the

relevant time period. BAC Defendants do not separately move to

strike Dr. Agardy’s opinions under Daubert.

61

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 61 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in mid-1975 and peaked at 389 ug/l in June 1994.

Bartlett’s relies heavily on the fact that his model is based

on and derived from an earlier groundwater model developed by

Arcadis, an environmental remediation firm contracted by Merck. 

According to Bartlett, the Arcadis’ model evolved from a previous

model created by IT Corp. in the 1990's. Arcadis, however, revised

IT’s model in the following ways: (1) expanded the model domain to

include MWC-2 and nearby wells; (2) incorporated seasonal pumping

from nearby production wells, including MWC-2 and Bernardo Dairy

Well; (3) expanded the number of “well layers” to simulate various

hydrogeologic strata at the site; and (4) hydraulic conductivity

distribution was set in “uniform” layer mode based on slug tests,

aquifer tests by Shaw, and specific capacity data. Arcadis ran the

model in “steady-state” mode, which, according to Bartlett, is

“essentially a point-in-time prediction rather than a prediction

over a time period.”

Bartlett’s groundwater model makes a number of significant

changes to the Arcadis model. According to Bartlett, these

revisions were necessary because the “Arcadis model did not

adequately simulate MWC-2 operations.” Below is a summary of

Bartlett’s revisions and the reasons thereto:

1. Layering/Cell Exposure - The Arcadis model was

based on a 20 foot by 20 foot size calculation

cells, with five layers simulated (94,875/cell). 

Bartlett increased the cell size to 50 feet by

50 feet and added two more layers to the model

(to account for well depth); one representing a

“finer grained horizon” from 95 to 105 feet

(Layer 6), the other representing the bottom

portion of the aquifer from 105 to 140 feet

(Layer 7). Bartlett also imported actual

elevations for each of the seven layers. In

62

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 62 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contrast, Arcadis assigned model uniform

elevations (flat layers).

2. Hydraulic Conductivity - Bartlett opines that

Arcadis underestimated the ease with which water

can move through pore spaces or fractures at or

around the BAC site, i.e., hydraulic

conductivity. According to Bartlett, the

figures were “low by a factor of at least 2.” 

The hydraulic conductivity rate for the seven

layers was adjusted to account for this

discrepancy. Bartlett also assigned the

vertical layer a value ten times less than the

horizontal layer to reflect the decrease in

permeability (caused by interbedded fine grained

layers).

3. Boundary Conditions/Groundwater Flow - Bartlett

explains that these factors “required extensive

revision” because Arcadis’s model was run in

steady-state mode to reflect a single year,

2005. To evaluate groundwater flow over a

number of years, Bartlett ran his model

“transiently and boundary conditions [were]

changed over time to reflect changes in regional

groundwater conditions.” The most critical

change to the boundary was to assign a “general

head boundary,” which allowed the predicted head

adjacent to the boundary cell to vary during the

simulation depending on what stressors were

introduced. According to Bartlett, GHB is a

“better boundary condition for simulating

pumping wells near a boundary because it

essentially allows the model to predict an

expanding cone-of-depression outside of the

model domain and the model does not

inadvertently introduce flow balance errors.” 

With respect to groundwater flow, Bartlett

submits that flow shifted in the northerly

direction in the early 1990's (from a

predominately westerly and southwesterly

direction in the 1960's through early 1990's). 

GHB cells were assigned to “all four model

boundaries” because the regional flow pattern

changes dramatically throughout the simulation

period (1969 to 2008, westerly/southwesterly to

northerly). 

4. Groundwater Pumping - Groundwater pumping was

assigned to model domain wells known to

intersect shallow strata representing one of the

seven model layers. Bartlett noted that two

wells, MWC-2 and the Bernardo well, lacked seals

63

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 63 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

immediately above the casing perforations and

thus both wells are capable of pumping shallow

groundwater above the highest perforations. The

vertical movement of groundwater through the

open annulus between the steel casing and

borehole wall allows the free flow of pumped 

water to the bottom of the well. In addition,

extraction and recharge wells were installed at

the site in the early 1990's and are included as

part of Bartlett’s simulation. 

5. Stress Periods - A stress period is defined as

a period of time when all boundary conditions

including pumping wells, recharge wells, and

boundary cells are unchanged. A stress period

is further broken down into time steps that the

model solves sequentially to predict changes in

the model during the stress period. In the case

of the revised model, stress periods were

assigned the length of one month. A total of

four model runs were needed to complete a

simulation from 1969 through 2008.

Bartlett adopts several of Dr. Agandy’s expert opinions to

complete his chromium transport simulations. First, Bartlett

acknowledges that other areas of the BAC Site may have contributed

as chromium source origins, however, he adopts Dr. Agandy’s opinion

that the retort area was the primary source area. Second, Bartlett

incorporates Dr. Agandy’s opinion that a total of 12,913 pounds of

chromium was released into the groundwater between 1969 and 1991,

when the BAC facility closed. Bartlett then reports that the

appropriate source of chromium in the groundwater model is based on

the following factors: (1) hexavelant chromium was discharged at

the surface and a portion was carried to groundwater by the natural

infiltration of rainwater; (2) the hexavelant chromium required no

more than one year to migrate to the water table; (3) the

calculated total release of chromium occurred evenly between 1970

and June 1991; and (4) taking into account natural precipitation

64

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 64 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in the source area (1.14 inches x 22,500 sf = 16,000 gal/year). He

also refutes Dr. El-Shoubary’s “adsorption” theory, arguing that

Dr. Argady’s total chromium analysis takes into account any and all

adsorption determinants.

BAC Defendants move to exclude Bartlett’s testimony on grounds

that his opinions ignore actual data in favor of unsupported

modeling. They note that hexavelant chromium was measured 40 times

in MWC-2 but never exceeded 2.5 micrograms per liter (ug/l or parts

per billion) and that total chromium was measured 74 times but

never exceeded 12 ug/l. In contrast, Bartlett’s model predicts

concentrations of hexavelant chromium up to 582 ug/l at MWC-2

during this same time period (1964 to 2009). BAC Defendants submit

the following sampling from MWC-2, interposed with the relevant

MCLs:

Date Result Cal MCL Fed MCL

5/12/64 Trace -- --

8/74 ND < 10 -- --

1/27/75 Trace -- --

3/1/80 ND < 5 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

4/30/80 ND < 5 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

3/19/86 ND < 5 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

6/9/87 ND < 10 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

1/22/90 ND < 10 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

6/90 ND < 10 50 ug/l 50 ug/l

12/31/92 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

3/9/93 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

12/21/95 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

65

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 65 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2/7/99 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

5/3/01 12.0 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/13/01 2.0 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

2/12/02 12.0 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

2/12/02 1.0 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

3/11/05 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

2/27/07 2.1 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

2/27/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

5/15/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

5/16/07 1.8 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/18/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

10/16/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

10/16/07 1.6 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

11/19/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

12/18/07 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

1/16/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

2/22/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

3/21/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

5/29/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

6/30/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

7/30/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

8/20/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/18/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

10/23/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

11/21/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

12/23/08 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

1/09/09 1.8 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

1/20/09 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

3/19/09 ND < 3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

8/06/09 ND < 10 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

66

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 66 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8/11/09 2.3 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

8/18/09 2.5 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

8/25/09 2.1 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/1/09 1.8 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/08/09 1.9 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/15/09 2.2 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

9/22/09 1.8 50 ug/l 100 ug/l

In their motion, BAC Defendants raise a number of specific

objections to Bartlett’s justifications for excluding the historic

sampling data from his groundwater model. BAC Defendants’

objections, which are supported by the expert declarations of

Daniel B. Stephens and John L. Wilson, are summarized as follows:

1. Bartlett’s model is hostile to sampling from: 

(1) “monitoring wells” around the BAC site; and

(2) MWC-2 from 2007 onward. Bartlett and/or Dr.

Laton admit that this data is valid and

reliable. However, Bartlett’s model predicts

appreciable levels of hexavelant chromium in

these areas. 

2. Defendants contest Bartlett’s predictions

regarding the size of the groundwater plume. 

Defendants note the inconsistency between

Bartlett’s prediction - the BAC Site is “clean”

by 2004 - and his modeling data, which predicts

high levels of chromium in 2004 and beyond. 

They also point out that the plume was not

observed in upgradient monitoring well sampling.

3. Bartlett represents that the sampling data is

unreliable because hexavelant chromium is

“complex” and may appear/ disappear in a well. 

Defendants aver that Bartlett fails to identify

a similar circumstance where a compound’s

variability invalidated a single year of

monitoring. Defendants further argue that the

same fact - variability - annuls Bartlett’s

model.

67

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 67 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. According to Bartlett, the infrequency of the

sampling renders it unreliable. Defendants,

however, respond that Bartlett’s predictions

conflict with every single sample taken at MWC-2

over a 46-year period. Bartlett’s model is also

inconsistent with the data from MWC-23, the

closest monitoring well. There is simply no

harmony between Bartlett’s model and any sample

taken from MWC-2 or any monitoring well.

5. Bartlett suggests that when the well was pumping

at lower rates, the water may have flowed away

from MWC-2. However, Defendants argue that

pumping rates were not incorporated into his

groundwater model and Bartlett testified at his

deposition that “there was not enough

information” to know whether low pumping rates

impacted chromium levels.

6. Bartlett argues that the samples were unreliable

based on “chain of custody issues,” however, he

does not know whether the wells were sampled

properly and has no evidence to suggest they

were falsified. BAC Defendants respond that the

“data was reported by Meadowbrook to the []

Department of Health and have been produced from

the State’s files.”

BAC Defendants rely on the opinions and modeling of Daniel B.

Stephens and John L. Wilson to challenge Bartlett’s testimony. 

Stephens and Wilson believe, based on their model and observed

conditions, that chromium contamination from the BAC site did not

reach MWC-2. Their model predictions are inconsistent with

Bartlett’s model, which Wilson characterizes as “invalid” and

violating the basic premise of expert modeling: merging existing

data with model assumptions. As to Bartlett’s critiques of and

modifications to the Stephens/Wilson model, Wilson responds:

Bartlett changed our model by accelerating the rate at

which contamination reached groundwater and the manner

in which pumping was simulated. Mr. Bartlett’s

68

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 68 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

revision of our model predicts hexavelant chromium

concentrations in MWC-2 that are higher than the

observed concentrations, and the modeled plume has

shape that is quite different than the observed plume. 

Because the revised model conflicts with the observed

data, it too is invalid [...]

If a groundwater model is to be used to predict the

concentrations of contaminants in a well, then a key

test of that model is whether it is consistent with

data observed in the field. The Bartlett model fails

that test.

(Doc. 677-7 at ¶¶ 6-7.)

Daniel B. Stephens’ declaration, supporting BAC Defendants’

motion for summary judgment, mirrors the positions taken by Mr.

Wilson in his declaration. (Doc. 697 at ¶¶ 4-15.)

Plaintiffs dispute BAC Defendants’ characterization of

Bartlett’s modeling and his decision to exclude the sampling at and

around the BAC Site, including MWC-2's sampling data. In opposing

BAC Defendants’ motion and expert arguments, Bartlett declares that

his model “incorporated the work of other Merck consultants and was

based on sound, state-of-the-science analysis.” He also reaffirms

his original position that MWC-2 was contaminated with

concentrations of chromium in excess of the MCL for a period of

twenty-five years. 

Bartlett’s 23-page declaration, an extension of Plaintiffs’

36-page opposition brief, focuses on the decision to exclude the

sampling data as an input into his groundwater model. Bartlett

declares that the sampling was disregarded for the following

reasons: (1) the samples “appear to be taken” during periods of low

pumping; (2) lack of documentation concerning how the samples were

collected; (3) the deeper portions of the well were not screened;

69

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 69 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and (4) the pulsating nature of the chromium movement combined with

the fact that, since 1993, regional groundwater flow is to the

northwest. These criticisms are not made in Bartlett’s original

expert report, submitted to the BAC Defendants on December 9, 2009.

Bartlett’s supplemental declaration repeats his criticisms of

the Wilson/Stephens groundwater model. Specifically, Bartlett

theorizes that chromium travels much more rapidly in the aquifer

than either model anticipates and that the monitoring system

did/does not adequately sample the deep portion of the aquifer:

The monitoring system is essentially a two dimensional

(shallow aquifer only) and does not inform the

investigator regarding the deep portion of the aquifer. 

How can one evaluate a large, three-dimensional aquifer

system if the data only reflect[s] the shallowest few

feet of the system? We are essentially being asked to

evaluate a three-dimensional problem with twodimensional data.

The predictions of our three-dimensional model should

not be limited by the poorly planned monitor well

system that was installed at the BAC site by the entity

responsible for the contamination. Dr. Stephens (and

other contracts that have worked at this site) have

portrayed concentrations in groundwater by contouring

the data from the BAC monitor wells. These portrayals

are limited to the shallow aquifer and ignore the

deeper aquifer because there is essentially no data to

contour the deep aquifer.

(Doc. 777 at ¶ 8.)

This is puzzling in view of Bartlett’s hearing testimony that

the source of contamination is not from the deep aquifer below 140

feet, but rather is in the shallow aquifer. 

According to Bartlett, the Wilson/Stephens model “does not

simulate what has been observed at the BAC site.” Bartlett

specifically cites sampling from offsite well M&A-1 in July 1992,

70

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 70 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

which measured 1,300 ug/l.40 The Wilson/Stephens model predicted

less than 6 ug/l. As to the most critical area, MWC-2, Bartlett

argues that the model under-predicts chromium contamination and

“[Wilson] should apply his criticism of the Bartlett Model to his

own model.”

Bartlett’s supplemental declaration purports to reinforce the

scientific basis for his model and the exclusion of MWC-2's

sampling data. According to Bartlett, the historical operation and

construction of MWC-2 is not sufficiently documented to allow for

scientifically-accurate groundwater (and flow) modeling. Bartlett

also responds to Stephens’ criticisms concerning “background

concentrations of chromium in regional groundwater.” Given the

importance of chromium background concentrations to the instant

inquiry, the relevant portion of Bartlett’s supplemental

declaration is reproduced in its entirety: 

Dr. Stephens claims in his declaration that MWC-3 and

40 According to the exhibits submitted by Plaintiff on December

28, 2010 (BATES # MER00015037), M&A-1 was a “monitoring well

installed by All America Trenching on June 9, 1992 [] the well was

drilled to 55 bgs [and] screened from 35 to 55 bgs.” M&A-1 is the

closest well to the BAC Site, located approximately 250 feet

southwest from the facility. It is one of the furthest monitoring

wells from MWC-2, approximately 1,100 feet north. In addition,

according to the same exhibits, monitoring well M&A-2 was installed

by All America Trenching on December 22, 1992 “as part of a

continuing environmental investigation of an underground storage

tank leak at the off-site market.” 

It is undisputed that M&A-1 and M&A-2 had several high

chromium readings immediately following installation. Although

M&A-1 and M&A-2 were located furthest from the facility and “M&A

Market’s environmental investigation [wa]s unrelated to the

activities at the BAC-Pritchard facility,” Mr. Bartlett relies

heavily on these wells to establish that MWC-2 was contaminated

with chromium above the MCLs during the relevant time-frame.

71

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 71 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MWC-5, two other Meadowbrook Water Company production

wells ‘provide good examples of the background

concentrations of chromium in regional groundwater.’ He

cites that MWC-3 had a detection of 14 ug/l in 2001 and

MWC-5 (which replaced MWC-3 in 2002) had a measured

hexavelant CR concentration of 3.6 in 2002. These wells

were immediately adjacent to each other and are located

about 1 mile due west of the BAC site. Contrary to Dr.

Stephens’ opinion, we believe that these data suggest

that MWC-3 was impacted by chromium from the BAC site

and that this detection substantiates the results of

modeling that I completed as part of this case.

The [RWQCB] recognizes that the background concentration

of total chromium in groundwater at the BAC site is 6

ug/l. This value is based on an analysis that IT

Corporation performed for Merck [...] Clearly the

measurement of 14 ug/l in MWC-3 exceeds the background

by a factor of more than 2. Dr. Stephens, in his Cottle

declaration, dated March 2009, believed that the

background total chromium concentration ranged from 4 to

6 ug/l. However, in his deposition, Dr. Stephens

changed his opinion and claimed that background

concentrations of total chromium were greater than 12

ug/l [...]

We conclude that the measurement of chromium in MWC-3 is

an indication of just how far chromium from the BAC site

has traveled in this aquifer system. The value measured

in MWC-3 suggests the Bartlett model underestimates the

dispersal of chromium to the west of the BAC site.

(Doc. 777 at ¶¶ 11-12.)

The BAC Defendants, in their reply, assert that there is an

unexplained analytical gap between Bartlett’s model and the actual

data. Defendants argue that there is no evidence of low-pumping at

MWC-2, rather there were several months where the well pumped more

than 20 million gallons (above average); that “pulse” movements

cannot explain nearly 46 years of near non-detect results; 

Bartlett’s theory that the monitoring wells are too shallow to

detect the hexavalent chromium plume is wrong because he predicts

high concentrations at depth and in the shallow zone; testing of

72

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 72 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the “deep” wells near the BAC site - DW-1 and DW-2 - were nondetect when sampled in 1991 and 1992. Bartlett’s model, however,

predicts chromium concentrations in excess of 5,000 ug/l at those

wells, contrary to the actual sampling. At the hearing, Bartlett

rationalized the differences by opining that data from the

monitoring wells failed to detect chromium in the shallow aquifer,

presumably at 60 to 150 ft bgs. 

Defendants’ final reply argument is that even assuming,

arguendo, that there is a valid scientific objection to the pre2007 sampling data, Plaintiffs fail to reconcile Bartlett’s

groundwater model with: (1) post-2007 MWC-2 data; and (2) the data

from the BAC Defendants’ monitoring well network. Bartlett’s model

is contrary to almost all observed data, California Department of

Public Health statutes and test results, and DTSC findings after

remediation efforts, all of which concluded hexavelant chromium was

not present at levels in excess of the MCL.

Based on the magnitude of the dispute between the parties’

experts and the complexity of the groundwater issues in this case,

the Court retained, under Fed. R. Evid. 706, an independent expert,

geohydrologist Kenneth D. Schmidt, Ph.D., to assist in the

understanding and analyzing the dispute in the groundwater pathway

issues.41 Dr. Schmidt’s expert report, submitted on November 22,

41 In the appropriate case, typically if the evidence consists

of complex scientific evidence, the Ninth Circuit has found that

Rule 706 allows the court to appoint a neutral expert. See

Students of Cal. School for the Blind v. Honig, 736 F.2d 538, 549

(9th Cir. 1984), reversed on other grounds by 471 U.S. 148 (1985)

(“[Rule] 706 allows the district court to appoint a neutral expert

on its own motion, whether or not the expert is agreed upon by the

73

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 73 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2010, disagrees with Mr. Bartlett’s model. The substantive

divergence being Schmidt’s opinion that a substantial relatively

impermeable clay layer - the “Corcoran clay” - exists beneath MWC-2

(and other wells near the BAC site) at approximately 92 feet.42

Based on his review of the original well driller’s log, the

electronic logs (“e-logs”) and his extensive professional

experience working in the Merced area and Central Valley

geohydrology, Dr. Schmidt believes that MWC-2 is an open-bottomed

well, with a “blank casing” landed in the clay layer (at

approximately 92 feet).43 The impact and effect of these conditions

is that MWC-2 primarily drew uncontaminated water the deep aquifer

parties.”).

42 The Arcadis report also notes a clay layer. Bartlett’s

December 2, 2010 supplemental declaration provides, in relevant

part:

Based upon my review of the reports and opinions of Dr.

Richard Laton and Marvin Glotfelty, as well as numerous

historical documents related to this site, I do not

believe that the Corcoran clay or other confining clay

layer is present at MWC-2. It is my opinion that the

lithology is completely interconnected with the uppermost

units and therefore all groundwater is interconnected.

(Doc. 958, ¶ 5)(emphasis added).

Bartlett modified his testimony at the hearing to acknowledge

that there is clay present, but it is not a continuous impermeable

layer. 

43 According to Dr. Schmidt, in “order to successfully complete

an open-bottomed well, the casing must be landed in clay.” (Doc.

941 at pg. 14.) The clay layer acts a “seal” and only water from

below the clay layer can be “tapped.” This is directly disputed by

Bartlett who opines water enters MWC-2 from the shallow aquifer

through the unsealed annulus and slots in the casing.

74

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 74 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

below the Corcoran clay layer, not the upper aquifer, i.e., there

is minimal hydraulic connectivity between the upper and lower

aquifers. Because Bartlett believes that the upper aquifer is

contaminated, Dr. Schmidt’s conflicting opinion puts in material

the “source and extent of contamination” in MWC-2.

Bartlett vehemently disagrees. In his testimony on December

15 and 28, 2010, he testified that MWC-2 primarily drew water from

the upper aquifer above the non-continuous clay layer. Bartlett

contends that there is no evidence of an “annular seal” in the 2009

video log or, separately, the gamma ray log.44 Because there is no

annular seal and slots in the well’s casing, water from the upper

aquifer flowed into the well, i.e., there was nothing to prevent

the downward flow of contaminated water. It is Bartlett’s opinion

that the water pumped at MWC-2 contained contaminated water from

the upper aquifer. This opinion is contrary to Dr. Schmidt’s

independent expert report.

Dr. Schmidt offers a number of additional contrary opinions to

support his conclusion that Bartlett’s model is unreliable and

inaccurate:

1. To form his opinion on the annular seal, Bartlett

relies too heavily on Plaintiff’s other experts, Mr.

Glotfelty and Mr. Laton, and completely ignores the

language of the original driller’s log. Bartlett

also misunderstands or is unfamiliar with: (1) openbottomed wells; (2) video logs; and (3) Central

Valley hydrogeology.

2. Bartlett does not adequately address the “water

44 According to Bartlett, the video log was taken in September

2009. (RT, Dec. 15, 2010, 28:1.) It is undisputed that MWC-2 was

out of service in 2009, i.e., the well was in a static “no-pumping”

condition.

75

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 75 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

budget,” instead assuming it is constant or one

(inflows = outflows).

3. Bartlett’s hydraulic connectivity values (between

the contaminated plume and MWC-2) are too high. 

Bartlett assumes uniform hydraulic connectivity,

which overstates actual movement (clay layer, low

permeability). He used specific capacity data which

is ten times more than the hydraulic connectivity

values derived from the slug tests.45

4. Bartlett’s revisions to the earlier IT and Arcadis

models were not comprehensive enough and did not

take into account their limited

purpose/hydrogeology.

5. Insufficient flow model calibration. Bartlett only

considered the historical water level changes, not

the direction of groundwater flow in the different

layers (including the strata below the Corcoran

Clay). Bartlett offered new opinions about

direction of groundwater flow.

6. Insufficient transport model calibration. 

Bartlett’s model is did not match the representative

results of actual monitoring for a number of monitor

wells or the MWC-2 in the southerly area. In

addition, there were two open-bottomed wells at the

BAC site, which tapped groundwater below the

Corcoran clay or its equivalent. Sampling results

for these wells indicated very low concentrations of

total chromium. Bartlett’s model conflicts with

this observed data.

7. Schmidt believes that there was a gasoline leak near

the M&A Market during the relevant time period. 

According to Schmidt, the gas leak induced a

chemical reaction, converting a portion of the

hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium. This was

not addressed by either party.

(Doc. 941 at pgs. 4-25.)

45 A slug test is an aquifer test where water is quickly added

or removed from a groundwater well, and the change in hydraulic

head is monitored through time, to determine hydraulic connectivity

and field permeability. See generally Champion Laboratories, Inc.

v. Metex Corp., No. 02-5284-WHW, 2009 WL 2496888, at 11 (D. N.J.

Aug. 13, 2009).

76

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 76 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Dr. Schmidt’s ultimate opinion is that “the Bartlett model

cannot be used to determine the historical chromium concentrations

in water pumped from MWC-2.” (Id. at pg. 25.) According to Dr.

Schmidt, his opinion was based on a number of factors, but

“primarily [] due to [] the use of values for hydraulic

conductivity that are too high [and] the assumption of too much

water from above the Corcoran Clay being pumped from MWC-2.” (Id.)

Dr. Schmidt’s opinions were the focus of argument and

testimony on December 3, 15, and 28, 2010, at which time Bartlett

presented rebuttal testimony. Bartlett opined that Dr. Schmidt’s

opinions were incorrect and reiterated that there was no evidence

of an annulus seal, i.e., there was groundwater movement between

the upper and lower aquifers at MWC-2 (MWC-2 primarily drew water

from the contaminated upper aquifer). During his testimony,

Bartlett played portions of the 2009 video log, pausing the video

to provide commentary at critical points. Bartlett noted that at

92.8 feet bgs he observed the actual bedrock (alluvial formation)

outside of the steel casing, evidence of an absence of a casing. 

Bartlett also observed a number of corrosion holes in the steel

casing, which allegedly allowed the water to move freely from the

upper aquifer.46

With respect to the presence of a clay layer, Bartlett opined

that no layer exists because, at 98.4 feet, “I can look through the

46 Bartlett agreed with Dr. Schmidt’s opinion that MWC-2 is

open-bottomed. (RT, Dec. 15, 2010, 25:6-23:16.) Bartlett,

however, opined that water can also be drawn from slots in the

liner and unsealed annulus, i.e., the draw is not limited to the

water from the bottom of the well hole. 

77

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 77 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

casing and see if there is no seal. There is a bore hole wall. 

And quite a large gap, probably several inches.” (RT, Dec. 15,

2010, 23:3-23:5.) Bartlett also argued that the gamma ray log

supported the lack of a continuous and thick clay layer beneath

MWC-2. Whether a “substantial” continuous clay layer exists

beneath at MWC-2 is heavily disputed between Dr. Schmidt and Mr.

Bartlett. 

With these parameters of the dispute, the parties’ arguments

are addressed in the context of Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and

the Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert, 509 U.S. 579, and Kumho

Tire Co., 526 U.S. 137. 

1. Bartlett Groundwater Model - In or Out?

The seminal dispute between the parties is whether Bartlett

properly excluded the MWC-2 and monitoring well data from his

groundwater model. Plaintiffs state that the BAC defendants’

Daubert motion is fundamentally improper because they are

challenging the “results” of the model, not the methodology. 

According to Plaintiff, such a challenge falls outside Daubert’s

ambit and must be determined by the trier of fact. Plaintiffs

further argue that the sampling data and any model excluding that

data are not necessarily inconsistent. Rather, “defendants have

cited to no authority that somehow such data trumps expert opinion

on these issues or that such data is required in addition to expert

opinion and analysis in order for plaintiffs to meet their burden

at trial”: 

[W]hile defendants claim the alleged testing results

78

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 78 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from MWC-2 should be the ‘reality’ by which the Bartlett

model must be judged - it is readily apparent that this

issue as to what constitutes ‘reality’ is at the heart

of this litigation. Such an argument further

presupposes the superiority of the alleged testing data

from MWC-2 over the conclusions of the Bartlett model. 

The Bartlett model and Bartlett's opinions however

challenge the accuracy and representativeness of the

alleged data from MWC-2. 

(Doc. 776 at 2:16-2:22.)

Defendants rejoin that they are not challenging Bartlett’s

conclusions per se, rather they dispute the inconsistencies between

Bartlett’s model and the actual sampling data. According to

Defendants, Bartlett’s model is inherently unreliable because: (1)

his model contradicts and ignores all of available field testing

data; (2) Bartlett developed his model without reviewing the data

and then, when it was brought to his attention, simply ignored the

data; (3) Bartlett’s model departs from well-recognized groundwater

modeling protocol because it is not calibrated to actual well

monitoring data; and (4) Bartlett failed to perform a sensitivity

analysis on his model, another breach of well-recognized modeling

protocol. These reasons allegedly disqualify Bartlett’s model

under Rule 702 and Daubert. 

Citing Ramsey v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 111 F. Supp. 2d

1030, 1037 (N.D. Ind. 2000), and In re TMI Litigation, 193 F.3d

613, 671 (3d Cir. 1999), amended on other grounds, 199 F.3d 158 (3d

Cir.), cert. denied, 530 U.S. 1225 (2000), BAC Defendants argue

that "[m]odel-based opinions are of no value to a trier of fact

where they are contrary to real world data." In Ramsey, the court 

framed the relevant legal inquiry as follows: “The issue before the

79

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 79 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

court isn’t whether Dr. Haitjema’s [Plaintiff’s groundwater expert]

analysis is more probably correct than incorrect - the Ramseys are

entitled to have that issue decided by a jury rather than a judge -

but rather whether the opinion testimony that encompasses his

analysis is admissible into evidence.” 

Ramsey’s facts and reasoning provide a starting point.47 In

Ramsey, Plaintiffs attempted to rely on groundwater modeling to

prove groundwater contamination. Specifically, Plaintiff attempted

to demonstrate that TCE contamination from a rail yard migrated

north to Plaintiffs’ off-site well. Plaintiffs’ well was tested

twice during the relevant time-frame, and no contamination was

found. Additionally, two upgradient wells (between the rail yard

and well) were similarly negative for contamination. The Ramsey

court stated that the upgradient wells had been sampled twelve

times, and no contamination had been found in any of those wells.

The Ramsey Plaintiffs submitted the testimony of Dr. Haitjema,

who opined that groundwater modeling demonstrated that

contamination reached the Plaintiffs’ well during the years 1983 to

1998. Dr. Haitjema’s model directly conflicted with sampling

results, and Defendants moved to strike the testimony under

Daubert. In response to Defendants’ motion, Dr. Haitjema argued

47 Determining whether proffered testimony is scientifically

reliable can be a considerable challenge for a trial judge. See

Bitler v. A.O. Smith Corp., 391 F.3d 1114, 1121 n.1 (10th Cir.

2004). “This requirement will sometimes ask judges to make subtle

and sophisticated determinations about scientific methodology and

its relation to the conclusions an expert witness seeks to offer -

particularly when a case arises in an area where the science itself

is tentative or uncertain [....]” Joiner, 522 U.S. at 147-48

(Breyer, J., concurring). 

80

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 80 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that his model was valid because: (1) groundwater contamination

provides a “snapshot of contaminant occurrences” and is inherently

unreliable because contaminants “move along different pathways at

different rates and at different times.”; (2) his model

incorporated an EPA consultant’s model, who was retained at an

earlier time to investigate possible contamination near the rail

yard; (3) the allegedly contaminated well tapped from the same

depth as a contaminated well to the south (towards a rail yard);

and (4) contamination from the rail yard would vary spatially and

temporally. 

Ramsey decided that none of Dr. Haitjema’s arguments

established the reliability of his model or the opinion that

appreciable rates of TCE reached the Plaintiffs’ well. The Court

held that although Dr. Haitjema’s methodology passes the Daubert

inquiry with “flying colors,” the “record identifies no scientific

principle on which Dr. Haitjema based the critical last step of his

analysis - that the uniform ‘non-detect’ results of well testing,

not only of the Ramseys’ well but also wells to the south, don’t

affect the conclusion that TCE [] from the rail yard entered the

Ramsey’s drinking water.” The Court further explained the basis

for excluding Dr. Haitjema’s model under Daubert:

[U]se of the groundwater flow model as a comparatively

accurate predictor of the general direction of VOC

migration doesn't support a finding of reliability when

the model is used to support an opinion that VOCs

traveled from one point (anywhere on the rail yard) to

a specific second point (the Ramseys' well) despite lack

of support in years of actual testing [...]

the critical link to the Ramseys' causal chain isn't

simply that Dr. Haitjema is right (and the others wrong)

about whether TCE or CC14 from the rail yard reached the

81

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 81 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Ramsey property - the point to which the other

references in Dr. Haitjema's supplemental report seem

pertinent - but rather whether those substances reached

the well from which Amanda Ramsey's drinking water was

taken. That water was tested, as was water from the

wells to the south of her well - twelve tests in all,

over the course of eight years - and none of those tests

detected such substances.

Id. at 1037.

The Ramsey court concluded:

The court struggles to avoid the superficially logical

conclusion that those substances would have been

detected in at least one of those twelve tests had they

reached the Ramsey well: the law of evidence allows

scientists to give expert testimony in court precisely

because what science knows to be true is not always

intuitive, and may even appear illogical to the

non-scientist. Still, it seems that reliable

methodology would, as suggested by Mr. Weaver's report,

involve further examination after some number of tests

revealed no VOCs. The requisite number of negative tests

might be greater than one or two, or perhaps even

greater than twelve, but this record provides no basis

for the court to find that methodology based on reliable

principles simply allows all twelve tests to be

discounted in their entirety.

Many cases decided under Daubert have excluded opinion

testimony from experts who ignored facts or

considerations that must be considered under methods

based on reliable principles. See, e.g., United States

v. Crotteau, 218 F.3d 826, 833 (7th Cir. 2000); Virginia

Vermiculite Ltd. v. W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., 98 F.Supp.2d

729 (W.D. Va. 2000). Dr. Haitjema didn't ignore the

non-detect tests. He explained why those tests didn't

prove that TCE never reached the Ramsey well. But the

record contains no explanation as to how any scientific

principles support the contrary opinion in the face of

eight years of non-detect results in and immediately

around the Ramsey well.

Id. at 1037-38.

Ramsey has facial similarity to this case: the expert argued

that his “methodology is well-accepted in the [groundwater] field”

and that “other modeling studies support his conclusions about the

82

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 82 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

general directions of groundwater movement [around the site].” Id.

at 1034. Similarly, Bartlett argues that the MODFLOW methodology

is well-accepted in the field, which it is,48 and that the Arcadis

model supports the general directional movement, which it generally

does. As demonstrated by the Ramsey opinion, however, allegiance

to portions of accepted scientific protocols, but not others, is

not dispositive of the Daubert inquiry. The Third Circuit

explains: “[u]nder Daubert, any step that renders the expert's

analysis unreliable [...] renders the testimony inadmissible [...] 

[t]his is true whether the step completely changes a reliable

methodology or merely misapplies that methodology." Mitchell v.

Gencorp Inc., 165 F.3d 778, 782 (10th Cir. 1999). Bartlett’s model

is on the razor’s edge of that standard. He has now offered

explanations why the testing results are not reliable: (1) the

monitoring wells are too shallow and do not intercept the

48 Bartlett's base methodology satisfies Daubert’s reliability

and relevancy inquiries. Bartlett employed the industry-standard

MODFLOW computer program to simulate groundwater flow and to

calculate the rate at which hazardous substances migrated from the

BAC Site. MODFLOW was formulated by the United States Geological

Survey, is sanctioned by the EPA, has been peer-reviewed, and is

considered a standard model that is acceptable and commonly used by

hydrogeologists. The use of MODFLOW by groundwater experts has

been approved by a number of district courts throughout the United

States and its base use in this case is not disputed. See, e.g.,

Aero-Motive Co. v. Becker, No. 1:99-CV-384, 2001 WL 1698998, at 2-3

(W.D. Mich. Dec. 6, 2001) (describing MODFLOW as a “widely-used,

well-tested particle-tracking model[] that ha[s] been subjected to

peer review and [is] commonly accepted in the hydrogeologic

community.”).

According to Defendants, Bartlett’s use of MODFLOW is not the

problem. Rather, Bartlett’s groundwater flow model is unreliable

and inaccurate because he fails to employ “standard modeling

protocol.”

83

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 83 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

contaminated aquifer; (2) groundwater reliability is not accounted

for; (3) test methods and test results are suspect and not

objectively confirmable; and (4) there is infrequent testing of

MWC-2.

The comparisons between this case and Ramsey do not end there. 

The Ramsey expert justified his model’s predictions, accepting the

non-detect field data, by opining that the “degree of groundwater

contamination downgradient from the rail yard [] would vary

spatially and temporally,” and “in nearly every case in which he

ha[d] been involved, ‘discrepancies’ have been found between

expected pathways of contaminants and data from wells.” Id. 

Plaintiffs in this case similarly state: hexavalent chromium is so

chemically unbalanced and unstable (and subject to pulses) that it

cannot be tested; and the data is unreliable due to pumping

irregularities and variability; and inadequate documentation by

Meadowbrook. Assuming, arguendo, that those criticisms have merit,

there is a scientific, practical, and logical expectation that at

least one of the data points from MWC-2 - from the years 1964 to

2009 - would have been positive for hexavelant chromium, if

Bartlett’s model was reliable and accurate. Borrowing from

Ramsey’s language: “[the Court] struggles to avoid the

superficially logical conclusion” that hexavelant chromium would

have been detected at MWC-2, at actionable levels, at least one

time during the relevant time period.

During oral argument on December 29, 2010, Plaintiffs’ counsel

sought to distinguish Ramsey by stating that Ramsey only dealt with

“true non-detects.” In this case, there are many (many) MWC-2 and

84

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 84 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

test well non-detects significantly lower than the MCL (3-10 ug/l). 

There is, however: (1) data from the early 1990's that other, more

distant wells - extraction and monitoring - were more contaminated;

and (2) a 2008 sample from MW-23 shows a high chromium hit of 450

ppb. Plaintiffs reason that Ramsey is distinguishable based on the

“‘true’ non-detect” nature of the sampling data; a single reading

above non-detect level deprives the case of any analogous impact.49

To understand this argument it is necessary to profile the

observed data from MWC-2 and the monitoring/extraction wells and,

more importantly, describe how it was analyzed/used during the

different stages of Plaintiffs’ case, i.e., first in the expert

reports, second, in summary judgment declarations, and last, in the

post-trial hearings (Daubert and rebuttal to 706 experts). A close

review of these documents and testimony reveals several

inaccuracies and/or unexplained assertions in the Bartlett model

(and his testimony). Such a determination, however, is inherently

based on credibility, which is the function of the trier of fact.

Bartlett testifies in December 2010 that he did consider all

of the test data. Defendants argue that Bartlett’s minimization of

this data necessarily raises the question whether the Bartlett

model was “calibrated” and tested according to well-established

modeling protocol. The consideration of the MWC-2 and

49 The analytical gap between Bartlett's predictions and the

actual data is more pronounced than in Ramsey. Here, Bartlett's

model conflicts with more than 100 samples from MWC-2 and nearby

monitoring wells (i.e., MW-23). In contrast, Dr. Haitjema's model

conflicted with twelve non-detect samples in Ramsey. Bartlett’s

model predicts chromium concentrations of chromium at MWC-2 as high

as 582 ug/l, 230 times more than ever recorded at that well.

85

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 85 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

monitoring/extraction well data is considered in the context of the

calibration arguments.

According to well-recognized groundwater modeling principles

and the undisputed expert testimony in this case, an expert must

test or “calibrate” a model to align the model predictions with

field observations.50 See, e.g., Mary P. Anderson and William W.

Woessner, “Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow and

Advective Transport.” According to this treatise, among others,

the larger the disconnect, the greater need to validate or

“calibrate” the groundwater model. As explained by one federal

district court, "[c]alibration is the adjustment of parameters of

a model's geometry or input parameter values in an effort to match

model outputs to observed conditions." Chitayat v. Vanderbilt

Assoc.’s, No.03-5314-DRH-MLO, 2007 WL 2890248, at 3 (E.D.N.Y. Sept.

27, 2007). 

Defense counsel’s direct examination of Dr. Stephens on

October 6, 2010 provides a starting point to analyze whether

Bartlett’s model employs flawed methodology, specifically, whether

Bartlett improperly excluded/ignored relevant field data so that

his model “predicted” higher concentrations of hexavelant chromium

at MWC-2. Stephens believes that Bartlett omitted, without

scientific justification, several fundamental modeling steps that

50 The degree of variance between Bartlett’s model and the well

data requires a factual foundation to decide the truth of

Bartlett’s grounds for minimizing most of the observed test data. 

This credibility determination will bear on the ultimate

admissibility of the model. The Court reserves the right to

exclude the model after hearing the evidentiary foundation for the

model at trial.

86

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 86 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

are built into the modeling protocol to ensure scientific

reliability:51

Q. Are there what we might call essential elements of a

model that those of you in the field and in Exhibit

B would look to to conduct a reliable and valid

model?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. What are those elements?

A. In this modeling protocol, one of the first steps is

to establish clearly the purpose of the model. The

second step would be to develop a conceptual model.

Q. What does that mean?

A. The conceptual model is where you get to look at all

the field data, you assemble all the field data

that's available regarding the geology, regarding the

climatological conditions, regarding pumping rates,

the locations of rivers and streams, the construction

of wells, et cetera. You get all that data together

and you form in your mind a framework as a

hydrogeologist and your understanding of the

subsurface and what's moving into it, what's moving

out through the pores and into wells or streams, et

cetera.

Q. Okay. What's the next step?

A. The next step is to select a computer code, a

mathematical model that you're going to use to

capture that concept about the behavior of the

hydrogeologic system.

Q. Okay. Next.

A. And the next step would be to design the model.

Meaning in the case of a numerical model, how many

elements or cells the model will have, how many

layers, how large an area, how deep the model will

go, et cetera.

Q. Okay. Next.

A. And the next step is to calibrate the model.

51 Dr. Stephens asserts the omitted steps are “calibration,

sensitivity analysis, and validation.”

87

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 87 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Q. What is calibration? Uh, please, go ahead.

A. Calibration is probably one of the most important

parts, one of the most important steps in the

process. In the protocol among all the steps.

Calibration is a crucial one. And this is one in

which the model is run based on your initial

understanding of the hydrogeology, the conceptual

model. You run the numerical model and then you make

a calculation of, let's say, the contaminant plume.

And you compare the contaminant plume to the observed

data. 

Q. When you say the observed data, are you talking about

measured data?

A. That's correct. Yes.

Q. Like monitoring well analytical data?

A. Yes. The plumes that one might draw from those

point-wise measurements in the monitor wells.

Q. So when you -- when you construct a model and go to

this calibration step and you look at a plume, you

overlay that plume that you've modeled with existing

data. What if it doesn't match?

A. Then if it doesn't match, the next step would be to

go back and revisit your conceptual model. Something

wasn't quite right with your assumption. Something

didn't quite behave as you expected it to. The

geology wasn't right. They had the layers too thick,

they were too permeable, not permeable enough. The

well was pumping too much, it was pumping too little,

you started the contaminant source too soon, too

late, depending on whether the plume was larger or

smaller than what was measured or observed. So you go

back and revisit all the assumptions and revise your

conceptual model and then make another forecast. And

this is an iterative process, typically until you get

a good agreement, a reasonable agreement for whatever

your goal is. It's got to be consistent with what

your goal is. So you get a reasonable agreement to go

forward with a prediction.

Q. Okay. And what's the next step after you've

calibrated the model and evaluated it, the output of

that model, against the measured data? What's the

next step?

A. The next step typically, it's kind of coupled with

the calibration stage. That's typically the

88

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 88 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

sensitivity analysis, where you try to understand

what is the most important -- or what is the most

important factors that are affecting my outcome.

That's the -- some adjustments you might make to,

let's say, pumping rate or permeability to see how

that might affect the size or shape of the plume.

Just to get your understanding of what is the most

important information and what type of uncertainty is

associated with your understanding about that

information. So you get a good estimate of -- a good

expectation or at least intuitive feel for the

reliability of your results.

Q. Okay. And after the sensitivity analysis or analyses

are completed, what's the next step?

A. Another step typically is called verification or

testing, in which you run the model that you feel is

calibrated to the best of your ability. Then you

might make a prediction to compare the model against

a different data set that you have available from

what you used to calibrate the model.

Q. Okay. And is that the last step?

A. Well, another step would be getting toward the

prediction into the future, let's say, if you're

trying to make a forecast of the future condition,

that you make some predictions then with more

confidence. There then could be other steps, such as

validation. That would be, let's say we made a

prediction with a model two years ago and now today

we have a result that we can use to compare against

what the model predicted when we ran it two years ago

and see if, in fact, that happened. That will be a

validation step.

Q. Did you have the opportunity to read the deposition

testimony of Mr. Bartlett?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Did Mr. Bartlett testify whether he did or did not

calibrate his transport model?

A. He did not.

Q. He -- just so the record is absolutely clear. He

testified on the subject and testified that he did not

calibrate his transport model?

A. That's correct. He did not calibrate his transport

model, my understanding is what he said in his

89

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 89 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

deposition.

Q. Did -- do you recall whether he testified whether he

did a sensitivity analysis?

A. I don't believe he could have done a sensitivity

analysis without calibrated -- without going through

the calibration step.

Q. If he testified that he did not do a sensitivity

analysis, would that be consistent with your

understanding?

A. Yes.

(RT, Oct. 6, 2010, 124:20-129:9.)

Defendants argue that Bartlett, armed with this knowledge and

without scientific justification, elected not to “test” his model

against field data revealing an absence of hexavelant chromium at

or near MWC-2. The result, according to Defendants, is a model and

opinion that is inherently unreliable and only connected to

existing data “by the ipse dixit of the expert.” See Joiner, 522

U.S. at 146.52

Plaintiffs suggest that Bartlett’s model conforms to wellrecognized groundwater methodology because he calibrated the “flow”

portion of his model and, critically, used his “professional

judgment” to exclude chromium concentration data from MWC-2 and the

monitoring wells, i.e., the “transport” component. 

Bartlett’s model consisted of two components: “flow” and

“transport.” The “flow” portion models groundwater flow in

saturated and unsaturated zones around the target site, including

52 It is undisputed that Bartlett did not conduct a sensitivity

analysis. A sensitivity analysis is performed on a calibrated

model to “establish the effect of uncertainty.” Bartlett claims

that a sensitivity analysis is not required because his model is

based on the Arcadis model, which performed a sensitivity analysis. 

90

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 90 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

confined, unconfined and perched aquifers. The “transport” portion

models the supply or source of the chemical to groundwater,

focusing on mass per unit of time (entering the groundwater). The

flow and transport components work synergistically to assist the

modeler in estimating whether a contaminant entered the groundwater

table and, if so, whether the contamination migrated from the

source to off-site locations. 

Plaintiffs’ argument has some support in the record. They

rely on the Anderson and Woessner treatise which annotates the

calibration, calibration sensitivity analysis, and model

verification steps as follows:

5. Calibration. The purpose of calibration is to

establish that the model can reproduce field-measured

heads and flows. During calibration a set of values

for aquifer parameters and stresses is found that

approximates field-measured heads and flows. 

Calibration is done by trial-and-error adjustment of

parameters or by using an automated parameter

estimation code.

6. Calibration Sensitivity Analysis. The calibrated

model is influenced by uncertainty owing to the

inability to define the exact spatial (and temporal)

distribution of parameter values in the problem

domain. There is also uncertainty over definition of

boundary conditions and stresses. A sensitivity

analysis is performed in order to establish the

effect of uncertainty on the calibrated model.

7. Model Verification. The purpose of model

verification is to establish greater confidence in

the model by using the set of calibrated parameter

values and stresses to reproduce a second set of

field data.

While Bartlett specifically delineated “field-measured heads

91

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 91 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and flows,”53 there is no mention of calibrating the “transport”

portion of the model to observed concentrations of contaminants

from specific wells or monitoring well networks. However,

according to the California EPA’s groundwater investigation

manual,54 titled "Ground Water Modeling for Hydrogeologic

Characterization,” both the flow and transport components of the

model must be calibrated to field data:

Calibration is the iterative process of adjusting the

parameters in the model, such as hydraulic connectivity,

transmissivity and dispersivity, so the model adequately

approximates the real ground water system. This is

accomplished by comparing the model results to a set of

field observations. The calibration data set should

include measurements over the lateral and vertical extent

of the model area. For a flow model this data will often

consist of water level measurements from monitoring wells

and piezometers. Calibrations to observed hydraulic head

gradients, rather than head measurements is more

difficult, but may be more representative for problems

dealing with flow velocity and transport. Contaminant

concentrations measured in ground water samples will be

used to calibrate a contamination transport model. The

calibration data set, including all data point locations

(monitoring wells, etc.) and the values of potential head

or contaminant concentration that are being used for

calibration, should be specified in the professional

report.

California EPA, Ground Water Modeling for Hydrogeologic

Characterization (Oct. 15, 2010, 9:35 p.m.),

http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/upload/SMP_Groundwater_Modelin

53 It is undisputed that the “field-measured heads and flows”

concern water level data and the “flow” model, not the transport

model or the chromium concentration levels.

54 The California EPA manual was first cited by the Court, not

the parties. It was thereafter referred to by the parties during

post-trial hearings concerning the reliability of the Bartlett

groundwater model.

92

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 92 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g.pdf.

Although these two authoritative sources do not provide a

definitive answer on the issue of “calibration,” i.e., whether

well-established groundwater modeling protocol requires an

identical calibration of the “transport” and “flow” models, it is

undisputable that calibration is a "critical" and "valuable" step

that ensures that model simulation matches the field observation to

a reasonable degree.55 

55 The importance of calibrating model results to actual data

is not limited to the field of groundwater modeling. In a number

of different contexts, Federal Appellate Courts throughout the

United States have emphasized calibrating/harmonizing model

predictions with actual data to ensure reliability. See Eleven

Line, Inc. v. North Texas State Soccer Ass'n, Inc., 213 F.3d 198,

206-8 (5th Cir. 2000) (In the antitrust context, stating that a

plaintiff may prove damages [...] so long as the estimates and

assumptions used rest on adequate data [however] the evidence of

actual injury [in this case] impermissibly consists of estimates

based on assumptions that are based on estimates and

assumptions.”); Inland Empire Public Lands Council v. Schultz, 992

F.2d 977, 982 (9th Cir. 1993) (in the NEPA context, the Forest

Service's findings were not arbitrary or capricious because "[t]he

agency constructed mathematical models to predict increases in

runoff and stream flows as a function of acres logged and rate of

regeneration following logging [...] [i]t conducted extensive field

investigations to calibrate and verify its models.") (emphasis

added); Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d 1188, 1199

(6th Cir. 1988) ("The plaintiffs carefully devised, calibrated, and

tested their model, based upon physical data generated by

Velsicol's own consultants, to determine the physical and chemical

characteristics beneath the landfill."); Ohio v. United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 784 F.2d 224, 226 (6th Cir. 1986),

reaff'd, 798 F. 2d 880, 881 (6th Cir. 1986) (EPA acted arbitrarily

in using a model to set emission limits "without adequately

validating, monitoring, or testing its reliability or its

trustworthiness in forecasting pollution [...]"); Boucher v. U.S.

Suzuki Motor Corp., 73 F.3d 18, (2nd Cir. 1986) (excluding expert

testimony under Rule 702 because the testimony was “not accompanied

by a sufficient factual foundation” and the “expert's projection

93

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 93 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendants focus on Bartlett’s evolving rationalization for

his approach to “testing” the transport portion of the groundwater

model, originally excluding all of the data from MWC-2 data and

monitoring well network.56 Defendant are correct that Bartlett’s

current position is not completely consistent with his expert

report or his deposition testimony. Although Bartlett’s testimony

is contradicted in some respects, the credibility of a witness is

an issue for the jury. See, e.g., Bourns, Inc. v. Raychem Corp.,

331 F.3d 704, 714 (9th Cir. 2003). 

For instance, in his expert report, submitted on December 9,

2009, Bartlett devotes more than twenty-four pages to his revisions

of the Arcadis model. The “model calibration” section spans

nineteen lines and is limited to a discussion of the “flow”

component:

The revised Arcadis model was constructed to simulate

measured water level data from the monitor well network. 

As discussed, the general head boundaries were set to

reflect the regional and local water levels. The purpose

of this modeling exercise was to revise the existing

Arcadis groundwater model to properly simulate the

influence of well MWC-w. The comparison of model

simulated and observed water levels is illustrated on

Figures 5 through 10 and in Appendix B.

thus was based on assumptions about Boucher's employment prospects

that represent a complete break with his work history.”). In each

of these cases, the Court has recognized the impact of calibration

on the model integrity.

56 During his April 7, 2010 deposition, Mr. Bartlett stated: 

“As I said, the transport part of the modeling is not calibrated.”

(Bartlett Dep., April 7, 2010, 115:20-115:21) (emphasis added). 

Bartlett further testified: “In other words, we don’t directly

compare concentrations in the model, predicted concentrations to

the model observations. We are using, because we have to, a

professional judgment.” (Id. at 115:21-115:25.) 

94

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 94 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Figure 5 illustrates a comparison of model simulated and

measured water level data for the fourth simulation

period (1996 through 2008). Table 8 displays general

model calibration statistics for the 1996 to 2008

simulation.

Figure 6 illustrates the locations of wells for which

hydrographs were prepared. These hydrographs (figure 7)

compare measured water levels with model simulated values

for nine wells across the model domain. In general, the

response of the water levels simulated by the model is

similar to the measured values during the course of

seasonal changes in pumping at well MWC-2. These

hydrographs suggest that the assumption that well MWC-2

draws groundwater from all seven model layers is

reasonable. The overall impacts of pumping at MWC-2 are

about 2 to 4 feet of change in water levels over the

course of a year. This is clearly reflected in the

simulated water levels.

Figures 8 through 10 display the simulated water levels

and residual error (measured value minus simulated

value). In general residual values are low, with most

less than 2 feet. These results suggest the model is

well calibrated, with overall errors of less than 2 feet.

(Doc. 777-2, Bartlett Export Report, pgs. 25-26.)

Missing from the this discussion, headed “Model Calibration,”

is any mention of calibrating the “transport” portion of the

groundwater model or any reason not to calibrate it.57 In

57 Section 10 of Bartlett’s expert report - “References

Consulted” - catalogues the documents/data reviewed by Bartlett and

his staff. On December 28, 2010, Mr. Bartlett acknowledged that

this section did not reference a number of reports and data from

environmental/groundwater consultants retained by the BAC

Defendants, including IT Corp., Dames & Moore and Kleinfelder. 

Bartlett asserted that they were incorporated by reference to

another expert’s report, in particular, Dr. Laton’s report. (Rough

RT, Dec. 28, 2010, 28:5-31:6.) As to the omission of the

Kleinfelder data taken from monitoring wells installed in 1983 and

sampled in 1986 - showing non-detects at the BAC site - Bartlett

testified that “[w]hat I discussed in my report related to the

modeling that was done, the construction of the model, the Arcadis

– I focused on the Arcadis work because that’s where we were

developing the model from.” (Id. at 50:9-50:12.) It is undisputed

that the Kleinfelder data is inconsistent with Bartlett’s

95

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 95 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

addition, under the“Results” section, Bartlett states:

When comparing the predictions of the transport model to

observed concentrations of chromium in the monitoring

and extraction well network, any variance can be

explained as a result of the highly mobile

characteristic of hexavalent chromium when moving

through the groundwater and the heterogeneity of the

aquifer itself. Taking all of this into consideration,

it is my opinion that the prediction[s] of this model

are within the realm of scientific certainty and

demonstrate the amounts of hexavelant chromium over time

present in Meadowbrook Well No. 2

(Id. at pg. 32.)

Notably absent from these two sections, and the entire expert

report, is any mention of the MWC-2 data from the years 1964-2007.

Not one sample is mentioned. There is also no indication in the

report that the MWC-2 sampling data was deficient because of

infrequent testing, poor record-keeping, pumping irregularities,

flow variations, or human error. These observations were only

identified by Bartlett over three days of testimony in the Fed. R.

Evid. 104 hearing. In view of the importance of the MWC-2 data to

prediction of chromium concentrations at 5,000 to 40,000 ppb at the

BAC site in 1986. In response to this large discrepancy and why he

excluded the 1986 data, Bartlett stated: “I took the [Kleinfelder]

data into account as I evaluated the results of the model and

compared not only that data, but all of the data. I, as a

scientist, am obligated to look at all the data and decide, in

terms of the – both the space and time element fo that piece of

data, as to whether it is representative [...] [a]nd looking at all

of the data going forward in time as more information was

collected, it was my opinion that the earlier data from these early

shallow wells [the Kleinfelder wells] was not representative.”

(Id. at 50:18-50:25.) Bartlett further clarified on December 28,

2010 that he “made no use of” the Kleinfelder data. There is no

mention of the Kleinfelder data in Bartlett’s expert report or any

reason to exclude it. Bartlett’s justifications to exclude the

Kleinfelder data were provided for the first time on December 28,

2010.

96

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 96 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

this model’s reliability and whether contamination reached MWC-2's

lower aquifer, these initial omissions - and lack of explanation -

raise material credibility issues.58

Two additional concerns are raised by the omission of the MWC2 data from Bartlett’s expert report that impact his credibility

but do not exclude his testimony under Daubert. One, Defendants

assert that the MWC-2 data was not mentioned in the expert report

because Plaintiffs’ counsel did not make the data available to

Bartlett prior to building his model or, alternatively, he received

the data but did not review it prior to modeling.59 Defendants

maintain that such oversight invalidates the groundwater model. 

Two, Bartlett’s reliance on the water level data from the

California Department of Water Resources and the U.S. Geological

Survey - to calibrate the “flow” component -, conflicts with his

later assertion (after the expert report) that the MWC-2 sampling

58 Bartlett now offers these reasons for excluding the MWC-2

data, which appeared for the first time after Bartlett’s expert

reports. In contrast to his expert report, which mentions none of

these alleged foundational deficiencies, Bartlett now opines that

the data “lacked information as to who drew the samples, when they

were drawn, what testing methods were employed and other missing

underlying lab data which undermine the data’s credibility.” This

post hoc challenge to the credibility of the well data, required to

be tested pursuant to a state statutory water quality monitoring

regime, with confirmation by an independent laboratory testing and

California Department of Health Services confirmation by a

geohydrologist who is unlicensed in and unfamiliar with California

well testing and public water quality standards is puzzling.

59 This may have been the result of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’

failure to prove all the data or a choice by Dr. Bartlett not to

utilize the data. (See, e.g., Bartlett Dep., April 7, 2010,

115:20-115:21)(“As I said, the transport part of the modeling is

not calibrated.”).

97

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 97 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

data is unreliable because it lacks “chain of custody”

documentation. Chain of custody evidence is a legal inquiry

relevant to authenticity of underlying subject matter. Normally it

goes to weight not admissibility of evidence.

Bartlett’s alleged lack of awareness of the MWC-2 data was

developed during cross-examination on October 7, 2010: 

Q. Now, the book talks about gathering data. Do you

agree with me that before embarking on preparation of

the model, all data should be considered? [...]

A: Yes []

Q. Before preparing your expert report, which I'll -- if

I remember it correctly, it was December 9th, 2009.

Or was it December 2nd? It was early December.

A. Early December.

Q. 2009. Before preparing that expert report, you never

asked Mr. Marderosian for Meadowbrook 2 data; did you?

A. No. We had the data. And we looked at it. It was in

our database. My staff looked at it. I -- I know

where you're going to go with this because it was a

misstatement in my deposition. But I want to make

sure it's clear to the Court that, in fact, we did

have the data. We did evaluate it. We were aware that

the data from MWC-2 showed low or no concentrations

predicted. I'm sorry. Measured. 

Q. Referring to your deposition, so that the Court is

aware of what you're referring to as the

misunderstanding. On page 124, line 21.

"Question: So I am understanding that

correctly, it was the Wilson and

Stephens reports that tipped you

off to the fact that there was

more data than just the Arcadis

2007/2008 data?”

"Answer: Yes. That is correct."

And that's been changed from "yes, that is correct"

to "No, that is not correct. My office had previously

been provided with the Arcadis data along with the

records from the previous California State of

98

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 98 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

California Drinking Water Program related to

Meadowbrook 2. The Stephens and Wilson reports

contained information that was not referenced in the

records found in the State of California Drinking

Water Program System or the Arcadis data."

Isn't it true, Mr. Bartlett, that though you're now

testifying that your offices had the Meadowbrook 2

data, you personally had not seen that data before

preparing your model and your expert report in

December 2009?

A. Our effort in this model was a team effort. There was

several staff involved. I was part of that team. We

-- my colleague, when I got back from my deposition,

reminded me that he had shown me this data. We had

discussed it. I had forgotten that at the time of

this deposition. This is several months after the

expert report was issued.

Q. So your testimony now is that you had reviewed it

prior to preparing the model and your expert report?

A. We were aware of it, yes.

Q. You had reviewed it? Not aware of it.

A. I had not seen the actual analytical sheets. Is that

what you're referring to?

Q. The chemical concentration data that was reported in

those sheets or the sheets themselves.

A. The data that we had was in a printout from the

Department of Health Services, I believe.

Q. Staff saw it. You didn't. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You received those data, those Meadowbrook 2 data in

March of 2010; isn't that correct?

A. I don't specifically recall. You mean as far as the

data sheets that go with the output from the

Department of Health Services?

Q. Yes.

A. I don't recall, Mr. Barg, I'm not sure.

Q. Okay. Referring to your deposition again, page 135,

line 4.

99

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 99 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Question: And when did you receive those

documents that you have in your

hand, Exhibit 230?" And I'll

represent to you that's the

Meadowbrook data that's referred

to on pages 133 and 134 [...]”

“Answer: This would have been early, looks

like probably early March.”

“Question: 2010?”

“Answer: Yes. The narrative reports were

issued, I think, in late

February, so that would have been

the first time I would have seen

anything as far as reported

values. And I don't recall

whether Dr. Wilson or Dr.

Stephens reports have the backup

attached to them, they may have.

I just don't recall."

WITNESS: Now, I believe this is referring to data prior

to 1990. MWC data prior to 1990. We did not

have at the time the model was constructed.

COUNSEL: Okay. So you obtained those data in March of

2010. That's four months after your December

expert report. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And more than four months after you completed your

model; correct?

A. That sounds about right [...]

Q. When you received the assignment from Mr.

Marderosian, you knew that the assignment concerned

possible contamination of a municipal supply well;

correct?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you knew, based on your experience in working

with suppliers of water, municipal water suppliers,

that such wells were routinely tested for chemical

constituents; correct?

A. Yes.

100

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 100 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(RT, Oct. 7, 2010, 168:15-173:9)(objections omitted)

In this Circuit, Bartlett’s deposition and court testimony are

subject to impeachment, not exclusion. Assessing the credibility

of a witness is properly left to the jury. Whether Mr. Bartlett

did not receive or consider the data is a disputed fact based on

Mr. Bartlett’s assertion that the data was received and reviewed by

his staff and considered in relation to the model’s formulation. 

Mr. Bartlett testified he knew that municipal wells underwent

extensive testing and public compliance regulation, but he did not

personally analyze/review the data prior to his model’s completion. 

Nor was the data an any reason for excluding it mentioned in his

expert report. The reasonableness of Mr. Bartlett’s handling of

the data ultimately present credibility issues for the jury.

The second area is Mr. Bartlett’s review of and reliance on

the water level data from the California Department of Water

Resources and the USGS. According to his expert report, Bartlett

used this data to calibrate the “flow” component of his groundwater

model. (Doc. 777-2, pgs. 25-26.) Specifically, during oral

argument on October 7, 2010, Bartlett explained that he calibrated

his flow model with sampling data from the California Department of

Water Resources and the USGS: 

There is quite a bit of water level data collected in

these monitoring wells over all these years. They

basically begin when the first monitor wells were

installed in [the] 1986 time period. 

And then the water level data was used to calibrate the

flow part of the model. So it's very important, of

course, to get the flow components calibrated. And the

way we do that is we make model runs and then compare the

measurement of water levels to the prediction. And then

we do a statistical evaluation of the water level that --

101

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 101 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the observed water level versus what the model predicts

and do a statistical evaluation, which would include

something called the percent root mean squared error. 

And in this case, that worked out to about 7 percent once

we have the flow part of the calibration completed.

(RT, Oct. 7, 2010, 397:1-397:15.)

This data was downloaded from the internet without any

foundational or chain-of-custody documents. Bartlett now claims

that the MWC-2 sampling data is unreliable because it lacks the

same foundational support:

Q. For the flow model, the flow portion of your model,

you relied on water level measurements, water level

data from various sources. Correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And water level data is not contamination data, it's

not chemical concentration data, it is the level of

the groundwater above mean sea level; correct?

A. Yes, it's measured in a monitor well converted to

elevation.

Q. Okay. And I think you testified that you obtained such

water level measurement data from the California

department of water resources and the US geological

survey.

A. As well as the on site data that was provided from

both IT and Arcadis.

Q. Yes. Okay. Now, in what form were the water level data

that you received from the department of water

resources and US geological survey? That is to say,

was it narrative, was it in tables, was it in maps,

was it in diagrams? What was the form?

A. My staff obtained that from online database sources.

I wasn't directly involved in downloading that, so I

can't speak specifically to the form of the database.

But it was an online database source.

Q. Okay. So you don't know the form that it took; that

is, whether it was tabular, map, diagram, narrative?

A. I don't.

102

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 102 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Q. Some of the water level data dated back to the 1960s

and '70s that you obtained from -- I'll just say DWR

and USGS.

A. Yes.

Q. Now, how are water level measurements obtained in the

field? How do you go about that?

A. You take a water level sounder to a well. You put the

instrument down the well and find out where the water

level is. Measure that distance and convert it to

elevation.

Q. Okay.

A. Knowing the elevation of the point at which you're

doing the measuring from.

Q. Okay. And the rest is just arithmetic?

A. Yes.

Q. So it sounds like the two components of the water

level measurement are, one, the water level measured

in that well. And, two, the precise location of that

well location.

A. Yes.

Q. Who actually performed the water level measurements

that were reflected in the department of water

resources water level data?

A. It's a compilation. I could not say.

Q. Did the data that was obtained on line indicate the

name of the person or entity who collected that water

level measurement?

A. I do not know.

Q. Who determined the precise location where the water

level data was measured for the department of water

resources?

A. I don't know.

Q. And who was it that conveyed the information about the

water level measurement and its location to the

department of water resources?

A. I don't know that either.

103

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 103 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Q. How do you know that the water level measurement data

that you received from the department of water

resources was accurate, both in terms of measurement

and location?

A. Well, often we'll plot out the data and it's often

that we find data points that don't seem to match. We

don't always use them. If they fit the regional

pattern and it makes intuitive sense, then based on my

professional judgment I feel it's a valid point, then

we'll use it. But otherwise we may not use it. I'm not

aware that there's any points like that in this case.

We did -- did screen out some data points that we

could not reconcile with the regional water level

pattern because, in this case, we weren't concerned

about local small variations in the water level

pattern. We're looking at the bigger picture and

what's going around the model domain.

Q. Did the water level measurement that you relied on

from the department of water resources include water

level measurements from municipal supply wells?

A. I -- I'm not exactly sure. Possibly.

Q. And you relied upon these water level measurement data

from the department of water resources and the US

geological survey without knowing who conducted the

test, who conducted the -- not only the measurement,

but the location information and who conveyed that to

the department of water resources. You relied on that

anyway?

A. Yes, that's correct.

Q. Even in the old data, the 1960s and '70s data.

A. Yes.

(RT, Oct. 7, 2010, 420:8-423:18) 

Although Bartlett now argues that the MWC-2 data lacks the

requisite foundation, he fully accepts the water level data without

knowing anything about the foundation for that data. Bartlett

offered little explanation why he distrusts the State of California

water quality test data for MWC-2. There is a similar lack of

clarity or justification why Bartlett calibrated the “flow”

104

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 104 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

component of the groundwater model but not the “transport”

component.60

The next dispute is whether Bartlett’s selective use and/or

exclusion of monitoring and extraction well data invalidates the

groundwater model. On December 28, 2010, Plaintiffs introduced

Exhibit No. 11, a catalogue of citations to the December 15, 2010

testimony to support their groundwater arguments, in response to

the Dr. Schmidt’s independent expert report. On the

monitoring/extraction well dispute, this document provides, in

relevant part:

DATA RELIED UPON AND TESTIMONY RELATED TO BARTLETT’S

OPINIONS REGARDING MODELED RESULTS COMPARED TO OBSERVED

DATA:

* There is no question that the data shows chromium

concentration under the Beachwood Neighborhood [...]

* EW 4 sampling data is consistent with the model

[...] 

* EW 5 is sampling data is consistent with the model

[...]

* M&A sampling data is consistent with the model [...]

* The shallow depth of the off site monitoring wells

is critical to evaluating the model because they are

inadequate to evaluate the full 3 dimensional

characteristics of the aquifer - this has been the

problem all along with this site [...]

60 The Court in Dwyer ex rel. Dwyer v. Secretary of Health and

Human Serv., No. 03-1202-V, 2010 WL 892250, at 148 (Fed. Cl. Mar.

12, 2010), stated: “An occasional misstatement of a study might be

expected in any expert's analysis of such complex issues [...] A

scientist might well pick data from many different sources to serve

as circumstantial evidence for a particular hypothesis, but a

reliable expert would not ignore contrary data, misstate the

findings of others, make sweeping statements without support, and

cite papers that do not provide the support asserted.”

105

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 105 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

* MW 23 had its first high level (450) in June 2008. 

This is consistent with the drawdown theory since

this occurred once MWC-2 was turned off in March of

2008 and contamination began to rise with water

levels [...]

* The historical low levels in MW-23 can be explained

by the shallow nature of monitoring well - only 58.5

feet deep and therefore only skimming the 8 feet of

the aquifer [....]

(Pl.’s Exhibit No. 11, Dec. 28, 2010, 3:22-4:11.)

On December 28, 2010, Bartlett explained that the true problem

in this case is the “misleading” monitoring well network. It is

Bartlett’s position that the contaminated water is “below” the

monitoring well network, i.e., the monitoring wells screen at

shallow depths:

[A]s I’ve stated on several occasions through these

hearings, the –- problem with just contouring data and

not evaluating what the data is telling you s that you

can be misled. And I think that’s what’s happening

here. We’re being misled by the monitoring well

network. Because the monitoring well network is too

shallow, the –- and as you get closed to MWC-2, they’re

very shallow. The contamination resides beneath the

existing monitoring system. 

(Rough RT, Dec. 28, 2010, 72:19-73:2.)

Bartlett, however, supports his model predictions with the

citations to these same “shallow” monitoring wells. In particular,

he relies on the “high hits” from MW-23 and MW-24 in June 2008 to

establish the presence of chromium contamination in MWC-2 in 2008

(and prior to 2008).61 He also relies heavily on data from a number

61 Bartlett testified at the Daubert hearings that his model

was “conservative” based on a comparison between observed

concentrations at two extractions wells (EW-4 and EW-5) and his

“model predictions” at MWC-2 during certain points in time. For

106

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 106 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of extractions wells near the BAC site, over 1,000 feet away from

MWC-2:

The data that was obtained from MW-23, MW-24 [in 2008]

showed concentrations as high as 450 parts per billion.

Other concentrations were observed in wells farther to

the north from this location. The Beachwood

neighborhood data support the model. I want to make

that perfectly clear. The problem and crux of the

problem for this site is the monitoring well system is

inadequate to properly characterize the site.

(Id. at 66:9-66:16.)

Bartlett further explained the impact of the MW-23 and MW-24

“high hits” on his model:

So those spikes [in MW-23 and MW-24] mean something to

me. They’re telling me there’s contamination there. 

And in the case of MW-23, it was —- it was first –- that

high peak was observed in June of 2008. That well was

taken off line in March of 2008. And in October of

2008, MW-24 also saw a spike.

And so I would related the occurrence of that spike to

the succession of operations at MWC-2.

(Id. at 71:1-71:6.) 

Defendants, however, contend that this is one example of

Bartlett’s “selective” incorporation of observed monitoring well

data, i.e., he incorporates the few data points that “fit” his

example, in 2001, Bartlett testified that EW-4 observed data showed

chromium concentrations of 3,150 ppb, “much higher than what we

predicted at Meadowbrook Well No. 2 [...] the hexavelant chromium

value [at MWC-2] would have been roughly in this area here, which

is about 50.” (Rough RT, Dec. 28, 2010, 149:12.) It is undisputed

that the two extraction wells used for comparison are located more

than 1,000 feet north of MWC-2 and that several monitoring wells

are located between the extraction wells and MWC-2. Besides the

June 2008 “hit” at MW-23, Bartlett did not compare the observed

concentrations at the monitoring wells with his model’s predictions

(at MWC-2).

107

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 107 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

model predictions to the exclusion of all others. Any data that is

inconsistent with his model predictions is excluded based on his

“professional judgment.” MW-23 is illustrative of this criticism. 

As explained, Bartlett specifically relies on the 450 ppb sampling

in June 2008, which Dr. Schmidt testified was an outlier, and

excludes the (many) non-detect chromium observations at MW-23

(before and after June 2008):

DATE RESULT

March 1994 < 10

June 1994 14.9 T

July 1994 12.8

August 1994 8.1

Oct 1994 4.8

Nov 1994 <3

Dec 1994 5.4

Feb 1995 3.1

April 1995 < 3

July 1995 7

Oct 1995 < 3

Jan 1996 3.1

April 1996 3.2

July 1996 < 3

Oct 1996 < 3

Jan 1997 < 3

April 1997 < 3

July 1997 < 3

Oct 1997 < 3

Jan 1998 < 3

108

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 108 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

April 1998 < 3

August 1998 < 3

Oct 1998 < 3

Jan 1999 < 3

April 1999 < 3

July 1999 < 3

Oct 1999 < 3

Jan 2000 < 3

Apr 2000 < 3

July 2000 < 3

Oct 2000 < 3

Jan 2001 < 3

April 2001 3.9

August 2001 < 3

Oct 2001 < 3

Jan 2002 < 3

April 2002 < 3

July 2002 < 3

Nov 2002 < 3

Jan 2003 < 3

May 2003 3.7

Sep 2003 3.6

Nov 2003 < 3

Feb 2004 < 3

April 2004 < 3

July 2004 < 3

Oct 2004 < 3

Jan 2005 3.5

May 2005 < 3

August 2005 4.1

109

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 109 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Nov 2005 4.3

Feb 2006 1.9 J

May 2006 2.3 J

Nov 2006 2.2 J

August 2007 < 3

Sep 2007 < 3

Oct 2007 < 3

Nov 2007 3.8

Dec 2007 < 3

Jan 2008 < 3

Feb 2008 < 3

March 2008 < 3

Jun 2008 450

July 2008 53

Aug 2008 9.5

Sep 2008 6.2

Nov 2008 (7) 2.0 (hex)

Nov 2008 (24) 8.2

Dec 2008 18

Bartlett opines that the “spike” of 450 ppb in June 2008 was

a result of the MWC-2's being taken off-line, i.e., the cessation

of pumping activities at MWC-2 increased the water levels in MW-23

and other monitoring wells so that the chromium plume was fully

present in the first layer (50 feet bgs). However, the abeyance of

pumping at MWC-2 does not fully address the inquiry in view of:

(1) MW-23 was screened to approximately 58 feet bgs (chromium

should be present in portions of the second layer); (2) the low

chromium observations in August, September, November, and December

110

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 110 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2008; and (3) there were periods of low pumping at MWC-2 prior to

June 2008, however, there was not a single observation above

actionable levels (specifically, above 14.9 total chromium).

Despite the arguments to the contrary, Bartlett’s opinions

concerning the monitoring well network represent a factual

scientific dispute to be determined by a jury. If Bartlett is to

be believed, the monitoring well network was too shallow; the

network screened the upper well, missing the chromium

contaminations present in the lower layers. Although less

persuasive, Bartlett states that the MWC-2's being taken off-line

in March 2008 allowed the actual chromium contamination to be

observed at monitoring well depths in June 2008. The present

showing is marginal to demonstrate that the monitoring well data is

“misleading” or otherwise scientifically objectionable (and not

considered). At trial, Plaintiffs must demonstrate clear

scientific justification to omit the monitoring well data,

including the fourteen years of non-detects (1994 to 2008) and the

restoration of low chromium observations at MW-23 immediately

following the June 2008 hit. If such evidence is not developed,

Mr. Bartlett’s testimony is subject to the Court’s reserved

authority to strike it under Fed. R. Evid. Rules 104, 203, 206,

403, and 702.

The same scrutiny applies to the decision not to calibrate or

“test” the model predictions to the field data from MWC-2, which

reveal non-detect chromium levels for thirty years. Although the

BAC Defendant’s Daubert motion is denied without prejudice, subject

to a reservation to strike the testimony at trial, Mr. Bartlett, on

111

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 111 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

December 28, 2010, clarified that in his professional judgment the

MWC-2 data was unreliable based on its infrequency, not chain of

custody or other foundational deficiencies. His December 28, 2010

testimony raised a second concern, that the model is barred under

Daubert’s reliability prong because there is an absence of a known

or potential rate of error:62

Bartlett: So at MWC-2, we would expect to see

something similar to what we observed in

various monitoring wells at the site where

you had quite a bit of variability over

time.

The Court: And the reason we don't is because there

aren't enough samples.

Bartlett: Correct.

D’s Counsel: So a graph of Meadowbrook 2 should look

like the graph of Extraction Well 4 with

some spikes and some lower concentrations

and some spikes and some lower

concentrations?

Bartlett: Yes.

D’s Counsel: Okay. Well, let's look at your Figure 22.

Isn't this a graph of Meadowbrook 2

predicted concentrations from your model?

Bartlett: Yes.

D’s Counsel: The red are the concentrations; correct?

Bartlett: That's correct.

D’s Counsel: It's not coming and going in spikes; is it?

It's showing continuous contamination?

62 See, e.g., Boyd v. City and County of San Francisco, 576

F.3d 938, 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing the rate of error

standard). Defendants also argue that the Bartlett model does not

survive the “peer review” element of the Daubert inquiry given Dr.

Schmidt’s expert report. As discussed, however, those opinions

present a factual scientific dispute concerning the presence of a

continuous clay layer and annular seal in MWC-2. 

112

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 112 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Bartlett: Well, I would disagree. There are some

spikes, there are some jumps in it. In

general, it's not as severe as you might

expect or as indicated in some of the

monitoring wells.

D’s Counsel: But you're showing contamination in

Meadowbrook 2 continuously, not coming and

going. Correct?

Bartlett: Yes. And as I've explained, the model is -- simulates a -- well, there's simplifying

assumptions in it, so the concentrations

that we're seeing are -- they're accurate

to the degree that they're illustrating

what could potentially have occurred at

MWC-2 over time.

The Court: If we take this figure and we start in --

let's start in 1975 where it gets close to

a thousand micrograms per liter. Then we

should have hits that are somewhere

proximate to that range for the next 20,

actually would be 30 years, to 2004,

because there isn't any reduction in the

model. And yet, even though we don't have

many, we have a 1980, a 1989, a 1990, 1993,

'95, 2001 and 2002, it gets to about the

9th, that you observed and none of those

are even remotely within that range.

Shouldn't they be showing somewhere in this

range?

Bartlett: Not necessarily, Your Honor. Because, as I

pointed out, there are -- there's more

variability than the models simulate in the

real world. And that's a function of the

simplification we'd have to make to the

model. And the predictions of the model.

So --

The Court: And so could we say, then, that that makes

this model, at least in terms of its

predictive ability, a guesstimate as

opposed to an estimate? Because, of

course, it doesn't show us anything that is

remote to reality. Just looking at the

model. You have to use your real world

experience and knowledge. The model doesn't

give you any of it [...] 

In other words, why do we not see even one

113

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 113 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

test data observation that shows above the

MCL for chromium in a 30 year period?

Bartlett: My answer to that is frequency. Frequency

of sampling. It's very infrequently

sampled. And as we indicated, there's only

nine samples collected.

The Court: But if it's there at that level, wouldn't

you have at least one?

Bartlett: Not necessarily, Your Honor.

The Court: Then this depiction, if you will -- and I'm

not arguing, I just want to understand.

This depiction ought to show the spikes up

and down, where it goes down to less than

1,000, even less than 100. It shouldn't

show what looks like -- almost like a bell

shaped curve.

Bartlett: Well, the model as we've been going

through, the data, you can see there are

concentrations in the aquifer. They are

high. And so if you compare the observed

concentrations in monitor wells, this is

not unreasonable in that the potential for

concentrations in excess of 500 micro grams

per liter in that well is demonstrated by

the model.

The Court: If you were to do a statistical evaluation,

a probability analysis that you would get

not one hit that would be at a level that

the model is supposed to predict, what

would that be?

THE WITNESS: I couldn't say. I don't know.

(Rough RT, Dec. 28, 2010, 176:7-179:21.)

Although a close call, a scientific factual dispute remains

whether the MWC-2 field data is a true reflection of chromium

concentrations at MWC-2 during the relevant time-frame. According

to Bartlett, he “considered” the MWC-2 field data, but ultimately

concluded it was unreliable based on testing infrequency. The BAC

Defendants point out that these alleged justifications were absent

114

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 114 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

from his expert report and conflict with his deposition testimony

and “review” of the USGS water level data. These arguments bear

directly on Bartlett’s credibility as a scientist and his knowledge

and review of documents/data prior to composing his expert report.

While Bartlett’s justifications are late-developing, his review of

the data was an exercise of professional judgment and cannot be

decided as a matter of law. Whether this evidence was properly

excluded under the guise of “professional judgment” is in total

dispute. It must be weighed and decided by the trier of fact.

There is an additional controversy giving rise to the

existence of a disputed issue of scientific material fact. Mr.

Bartlett and Dr. Schmidt, the Court’s independent expert, dispute

the source for well water for MWC-2 and, critically, the presence

and extent of Corcoran clay layer beneath MWC-2. Bartlett says

there is a non-continuous clay layer at approximately 90 feet bgs

and that the primary water source for MWC-2 is the contaminated

shallow aquifer above 90 feet. Bartlett also opines that water

enters the well through the open annulus above the well casing and

through holes in the casing. Dr. Schmidt opines that a relatively

impermeable Corcoran clay layer at 88 to 94 feet bgs acts as a

barrier and MWC-2 draws its production water from a deeper,

unconfined and uncontaminated aquifer. The scientific opinions on

the breadth/expanse of the clay layer are conflicting and

susceptible of at least two reasonable interpretations. These two

contrasting views from scientists represent a factual scientific

dispute, an issue that a jury must decide.

Under Daubert, a partially-calibrated model may not be

115

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 115 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

scientifically sound. In the groundwater context given that field

observations play such a critical role in ensuring reliability,

calibration is scientifically important. See, e.g., Natural

Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Muszynski, 268 F.3d 91, 102 (2nd

Cir. 2001) ("If the model is not closely calibrated, [i.e., if an

agricultural use of land, for example, contributes significantly

more than the expected amount of phosphorus to the adjoining water

body], regulation of phosphorus concentrations in the reservoirs

becomes an uncertain matter."). A half-calibrated model is, by

definition, inadequately calibrated and excluded under Daubert. 

See Mitchell, 165 F.3d 778, 782 ("Under Daubert, any step that

renders the expert's analysis unreliable [...] renders the

testimony inadmissible.").

Plaintiffs contend that the BAC Defendants’ Daubert motion

fails because Defendants challenge the “matters clearly going to

the weight of the[] testimony and not the admissibility of the[]

testimony under Rule 702 and Daubert.” (Doc. 792 at 1:17-2:2.)

Under Daubert, however, any scientifically required step that

renders the expert's analysis unreliable renders the testimony

inadmissible. This is true whether the step completely changes a

reliable methodology or merely misapplies that methodology.

Bartlett’s failure to calibrate his entire model to field data is 

premised on the alleged unreliability of the MWC-2 well test data

and the monitoring well data. This is a highly risk-laden choice.

If Plaintiffs cannot prove the unreliability of the well water

quality (metals) test data, their groundwater expert and modeler

has left them without an alternative explanation and justification

116

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 116 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for the existing model or an alternative model. Daubert does not

prohibit proof of this theory, but will still exclude the Bartlett

model. This must be determined at trial.

Two federal cases analyzing the admissibility of expert

groundwater modeling under Rule 702, City of Wichita, Kansas v.

Trustees of APCO Oil Corp. Liquidating Trust, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1040

(D. Kan. 2003) and Sterling v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 855 F.2d

1188, are instructive. 

In City of Wichita, 306 F. Supp. 2d 1040, the City brought a

private CERCLA action against potentially responsible parties,

seeking contribution for prior response costs and declaration of

responsibility for future response costs. Id. at 1107. Prior to

trial, defendants moved in limine to bar the testimony of Michael

J. Smith, the City's expert witness regarding groundwater modeling.

Id. The motions were denied without prejudice to reassertion in

post-trial submissions. Following an eight-week bench trial on the

CERCLA issues, defendants renewed and supplemented their motions to

exclude Smith’s trial testimony. Id. 

The Court “decline[d] to credit the majority of Smith's

testimony because it ‘fail[ed]’ to meet the requirements of the

Federal Rules of Evidence and applicable case law.” Id. The

expert used three proprietary codes: DYNFLOW for the flow

component, DYNTRACK for the contaminant transport, and CHAIN, a

government model, to analyze contaminant transport when there is

degradation of the contaminants. The Court analyzed the utility

and application of computer modeling to groundwater modeling:

Computer modeling is an accepted and, in appropriate

117

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 117 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

circumstances, reliable method for use in determining

groundwater flow and contaminant transport in an aquifer,

and to evaluate the effectiveness of remedial

alternatives. This is especially true when there is

extensive and overlapping contamination from multiple

sources, where contamination cannot be traced entirely to

a specific source and when the extent of contamination is

difficult to determine by ‘field methods’ such as

geoprobing and drilling test wells. Nevertheless, even in

the best of circumstances, a model is only an estimate and

the accuracy of the estimate depends to a considerable

extent on the data selected for use in the computer model,

the quality and reliability of that data and, of course,

the skill of the modeler. Smith acknowledged that

modeling results are not a perfect match to actual

conditions but rather an approximation of what happens in

reality. He conceded that his modeling techniques and

methodology are not based on any specific guidelines or

standards, but rather on his ‘professional judgment.’

Id. at 1108.

The Court described the calibration process as “a reasonable

fit to the field data,” Id. at 1109, and found that Smith took

considerable leeway in his “professional judgment,” which resulted

in the Court giving “Smith's testimony and his modeling [...]

little weight”:

Examples of field data include source locations and

degradation rates of the contaminant, in this case

chlorinated solvents, which degrade from PCE to TCE to DCE

to VC. If the area of contamination or “plume” simulated

by the model does not match the area defined by field

data, the modeled plume can be “truncated” to, in effect,

eliminate any areas where the model says there is

contamination but the field data says there is not.

However, apparently using his ‘professional judgment,’

Smith did not always ‘truncate’ areas where the model

showed contamination but the field data did not. He

acknowledged, for example, that his model at APCO was not

consistent with reality because it modeled contamination

north or upgradient of APCO which was not confirmed by

field data. Yet he did not truncate that area. The

effect of this use of ‘professional judgment’ was to

allocate contamination to APCO which APCO could not have

caused.

118

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 118 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Id.

In this case Bartlett has rejected and explained the field

data based on the exercise of “professional judgment.”

In Sterling, 855 F.2d 1188, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the

denial of a motion to exclude a groundwater model on the basis that

“district court carefully considered the plaintiffs' model,

including its components and the data it utilized.” Id. at 1199. 

Sterling considered a class action against a chemical manufacturer

for personal injuries and property damage allegedly caused by

contaminant exposure from its chemical waste burial site. Judgment

was entered in favor of plaintiffs. On appeal, the corporation

attacked the plaintiffs' expert model as unreliable because it

failed to utilize all of the relevant domestic well data. The

Sixth Circuit disagreed, finding that the failure to incorporate

selected well samplings conducted after 1978 did not invalidate the

model and conclusions based on the model:

In 1978, the EPA tested nineteen of twenty-two domestic

wells (not including four USGS wells) for chemical

contamination. After 1978, only one of the five wells

from which the representative plaintiffs drank or

otherwise used water and seven of the nineteen remaining

wells were ever again tested. Data showing the level of

chemical contamination of these remaining wells was

available only upon a limited and sporadic basis. While

the plaintiffs did not incorporate these post-1978 well

samplings into their model, they thoroughly reviewed and

utilized the data to confirm the water table contour

component of their model. Plaintiffs also did not utilize

soil column studies, such studies having been abandoned by

Velsicol itself and found non-credible by the district

court. However, the plaintiffs utilized all other

relevant data including, but not limited to, the 1964 Rima

Study, the 1978 Sprinkle Study, the data generated by the

State of Tennessee in 1970, all the information generated

by AWARE, and all of the monitoring information by

Velsicol, the State of Tennessee, and the EPA. Because

the district court carefully considered the plaintiffs'

119

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 119 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

model, including its components and the data it utilized,

we cannot say that it erred in using the model in

concluding that Velsicol's chemicals contaminated the

plaintiffs' wells as early as 1970.

Id.

These two cases demonstrate the level of scrutiny that must be

applied to the Bartlett model. First, like the expert in City of

Wichita, Bartlett exercised his professional judgment to depart

from the field data, which revealed that there was no hexavalent

contamination at that MWC-2 well, at that time. Bartlett’s use of

his professional judgment resulted in an allocation of hexavalent

chromium contamination at MWC-2 that manifestly deviated from the

field data. Scientific reliable methodology, as described by Mr.

Stephens and the authoritative treatises, suggests further

examination after some number of tests revealed no hexavalent

chromium contamination at MWC-2 or the nearby monitoring wells. 

Although it is undisputed that modeling is not an exact science,

the sheer volume of non-detects followed by a lack of calibration

or adjustment raises serious concerns.

Sterling is distinguishable from this case. There, the expert

excluded truly “irregular” testing data, however, the expert

calibrated his model to the EPA’s testing in 1978, as well as the

remaining scientific studies and monitoring data. The exclusion of

the post-1978 data was supported by scientific principles. Neither

of those steps were taken in this case. 

Plaintiffs next distinguish Ramsey, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1030, and

the other groundwater modeling cases cited by the BAC Defendants on

grounds that those cases did not involve challenges to the

120

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 120 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

reliability of the underlying data. Plaintiffs argue that the

factual dispute on the data’s reliability creates a triable issue

of fact over the issue of groundwater contamination in the

Beachwood neighborhood. See Ralston v. Smith & Nephew Richards,

Inc., 275 F.3d 965, 970 n. 4 (10th Cir. 2001) (the proponent of

expert testimony bears the burden of showing that its proffered

expert's testimony is admissible). Plaintiffs proffer several

arguments to support of their position. 

Plaintiffs first argue that the sampling data was properly

excluded from its expert’s model because there was insufficient

documentation and Defendants “lack credibility” with respect to

“information related to the MWC-2 site.” In particular, Plaintiffs

contend that Defendant Meadowbrook’s sampling data is untrustworthy

because it was conducted pursuant to the “honor system”:

[P]rior to 2007 all the sampling of MWC-2 which was

submitted to the state, was performed by Meadowbrook

under the "honor system." Clearly the maintenance of an

illegal well is hardly indicative of a company who

should be trusted under the "honor system." Further,

Meadowbrook is the same entity which had previously been

reprimanded for using a "pool kit" to sample its wells

- again hardly indicative of a company concerned about

abiding by proper sampling protocol. The complete lack

of expected and required supporting documentation which

should accompany this alleged data, coupled with this

conduct by Meadowbrook completely undermines any sense

of reliability to this data. Certainly, plaintiffs and

their experts are well justified in viewing the

scientific reliability of this "honor system" sampling

from Meadowbrook with great skepticism.

(Doc. 792 at 4:4-4:17.)

Plaintiffs further theorize that BAC Defendants, specifically

Defendant Merck, engaged in a “conspiracy to destroy and/or

manipulate the BAC site sampling records”:

121

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 121 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs focused investigation in this litigation has

uncovered a strategic, well-organized and methodic

approach by the Merck defendants to impede the ability

of any future litigant to establish exposure to

contaminants from the BAC facility. The Merck

defendants’ strategically avoided the collection of

contemporaneous offsite data and did not provide the

residents surrounding the BAC Facility with any

information which would have placed them on notice of

the need to collect such data themselves. The Merck

defendants knew that with the passage of time, the

ability to obtain such critical and contemporaneous

exposure data would be forever lost to plaintiffs. The

avoidance of the collection of this data was clearly

designed to protect defendants in any future litigation

by forcing plaintiffs to forensically reconstruct

exposure to contaminants and then accuse plaintiffs of

having no evidence to support their claims. This conduct

by the Merck defendants raises genuine issues of fact

concerning the reliability and credibility of their

evidence submitted in support of their motion, and

certainly precludes any argument that plaintiffs should

be precluded from proceeding with their claims due to

the lack of evidence that the Merck defendants

themselves should have collected. 

Finally, the Merck defendants piously warn this court as

to efforts by plaintiffs to somehow “distract” the court

from issues that are relevant to their pending motions. 

This defensive statement is no doubt aimed at the

arguments related to the egregious conduct of the Merck

defendants in relationship to the manipulation and

control of information made available to the public

through state and federal agencies concerning this

contaminated site. The Merck defendants no doubt have

grown accustomed to dominating and controlling all the

information related to the site, and plaintiffs’ close

scrutiny of their conduct is both threatening and

unnerving to the defendants.

(Id. at 6:7-7:9.)

The allegations of improper documentation and conduct are

based on hindsight and not supported by any specific facts.63

63 Plaintiffs cite United States v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co.,

Nos. 06-CR-0065-DMS; 07-CR-0484-DMS, 2009 WL 4824489 (S.D. Cal.

Aug. 31, 2009) to support their “inadequate testing” arguments. 

That case is factually distinguishable. First, it involved with

122

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 122 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs fault the RWCQB for not instituting special procedures

for consultants paid by the allegedly offending-entities. They

criticize RWQCB’s uniform sampling standards, as far back as 1964,

including the documentation requirements at the monitoring site,

lack of state personnel at the site, and means of authentication. 

Plaintiffs, however, overlook the fact that identical sampling

evidence has been relied on in a number of federal court cases,

including City of Fresno v. United States, --- F. Supp. 2d ----,

2010 WL 1662476 (E.D. Cal. April 22, 2010), Santa Clara Valley

Water Dist. v. Olin Corp., 655 F. Supp. 2d 1066 (N.D. Cal. 2009)

and Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. East Bay Regional

Park Dist., 135 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2001). Plaintiffs have

cited no legal authority holding that sampling authorized and then

certified by the RWQCB is unreliable, otherwise lacking

credibility, or that it is subject to manipulation by independent

testing laboratories or state employees who certify testing

results. The MWC-2 intervals in this case are criticized for not

meeting the tri-annual testing frequency called for by State

regulations.

allegations of criminal violations of the asbestos NESHAP work

practice standards. Those standards specify the government is

required to prove absestos content - an essential element of the

charge - through: (1) a representative sample; and (2) a specified

test method, as prescribed by the federal regulations. In San

Diego Gas & Elec. Co., the government's experts did not satisfy

NEHSAP's standards and the evidence was excluded. No similar

criminal statute applies in this case. Second, the Court noted

that "the Government should be held to precise evidentiary

standards before evidence of this nature is admitted and Defendants

are subjected to criminal exposure." Id. at 9. This is not a

criminal case.

123

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 123 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Here, the samples collected at MWC-2 and monitoring wells at

or near the BAC site were tested and/or verified by the RWQCB. At

the time the samples were taken, they complied with the RWQCB’s

scientific and chain-of-custody requirements. There is no

evidence, other than argument, to show otherwise. An attack on all

samples ever collected and/or verified by the RWQCB is without

support in the record. In addition, Plaintiffs’ allegations of a

Merck-led conspiracy at the BAC site are speculative and

unsupported by any factual citations. To create a genuine issue of

disputed fact on the Phase 1 issues, the disputed conduct must be

based on facts not argument. 

Plaintiffs levy a number of non-scientific attacks on the

entities/agencies involved in collecting and verifying the data in

an attempt to prove a Merck-led conspiracy. Specifically,

Plaintiffs characterize the RWQCB for being “over-worked and

understaffed” and Meadowbrook Water Company as a “small and

unsophisticated water company.” At the same time, Plaintiffs note

Merck’s size, corporate status, and alleged experience with

environmental disputes. These arguments are all disputed.

Second, Plaintiffs refer to the supplemental declaration of

their groundwater expert, Mr. Bartlett, to argue that there is a

triable issue on the global groundwater issue because there is an

alleged dispute over the reliability of sampling data from MWC-2.

In his supplemental declaration, Bartlett opines:

I argue [...] that [] water quality data from well MWC-2

is both suspect and not representative of the historical

concentrations of chromium that were pumped from this

well. The data collected by Meadowbrook Water Company

prior to 2007 is not properly documented; there are no

124

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 124 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

records concerning how or where the samples were

collected, who collected the sample, the operating

condition of the pump in the well, the quality

assurance/quality control data from the laboratory, the

name of the lab that did the analysis, etc. 

(Doc. 777 at ¶ 5.)

Bartlett is not licensed in California and there is no record

evidence that he has an expertise in California water sample

collection and water quality assurance formalities required by the

State of California. It is unknown if he has ever personally taken

or observed sampling at groundwater, domestic, or monitoring wells

in California or any other state. Second, he takes inconsistent

positions concerning the validity of data provided to the RWQCB and

there is a dispute whether he had personal knowledge of the MWC-2

data prior to building his model. As discussed above, none of MWC2's alleged foundational deficiencies are delineated in his Rule 26

expert report.

 Following the October 15, 2010 oral argument, Meadowbrook

Water Company was directed to produce the relevant foundational

documents, i.e., the company’s laboratory records for the relevant

time periods, authenticated by a declaration from its custodian of

records. (Doc. 863.) Meadowbrook Water Company complied with the

request on October 20th by filing Constance Farris’ declaration and

attaching the lab results. In her declaration, Ms. Farris states

that she maintains the business records of Meadowbrook Water

Company and the laboratory results were kept in the ordinary course

of business. These laboratory results are summarized as follows: 

125

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 125 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Well Collection/

Test Date

Sampler Lab Reading (Chr.

VI)

MWC-2 Aug. 1974 Signed by R.

Brooks

Merced

County ND < 10

MWC-2 March 19,

1980

Signed by M.

Banuelos

Twining

Labs, Inc. ND < Cal ML

MWC-2 June 9,

1987

P. Espinosa Cal. Water

Labs ND < 10

MWC-2 Jan. 3,

1990. 

D. Adams Cal. Water

Labs ND < 10

MWC-2 March 9,

1993

T. Stevens APPL.,

Inc. ND < 10

MWC-2 Dec. 21,

1995

T. Stevens APPL.,

Inc. ND < 10

MWC-2 Feb. 17,

1995

T.

Stephenson

BSK

Laboratori

es, Inc.

ND < 10

MWC-2 Sep. 13,

2001

MWC - BSK

Laboratori

es, Inc.

2.0 ppb

MWC-2 Feb. 12,

2002

MWC BSK

Laboratori

es, Inc.

Total Chrom

(12 ppb)

Chrom IV (1

ppb)

MWC-2 March 11,

2005

MWC BSK

Laboratori

es, Inc.

Total Chrom

(ND)

MWC-2 March 2,

2007

BC

Laboratories

BC

Laboratori

es

Total Chrom

(ND , 3.0)

Chrom IV (1.8

and 1.6 ppb)

MWC-2 12 samples

(May 15,

2007 to

Sep. 18,

2008)

Arcadis Arcadis Total Chrom

(ND)

Chrom IV (2.1

ppb)

The declaration of Ms. Farris and the attached sampling

126

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 126 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

records rebut the quality control criticisms and other alleged

foundational deficiencies, however, they indicate that Meadowbrook

did not produce well samples a tri-annual basis, the regulatory

standard. 

2. Conclusion on Groundwater Pathway

The degree of variance between Bartlett's model and the well

data requires a factual foundation to decide the truth of

Bartlett's grounds for minimizing most of the observed test data.

This credibility determination will bear on the ultimate

admissibility of the model. The Court reserves the right to

exclude the model after hearing the evidentiary foundation for the

model at trial. 

The BAC Defendants’ Daubert motion is DENIED subject to the

express reservation described in detail in this Memorandum

Decision. If proceedings during trial ultimately reveal that

Bartlett’s model is not supported by a proper scientific

foundation, it will be subject to a motion to strike at trial under

Daubert. 

Because a scientific factual dispute remains as to the

admissibility of the Bartlett model, which was proffered to

demonstrate chromium contamination via the groundwater pathway

(specifically, in MWC-2 from 1969 onward), that portion of the

motion for partial summary judgment is also DENIED without

prejudice. 

E. Pathway # 3 - Private Wells

127

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 127 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The BAC Defendants argue that summary judgment is proper

because Plaintiffs have provided no evidence of contaminant

exposure via the private well pathway.64 In particular, Defendants

assert that “neither plaintiffs nor their experts have produced a

shred of sampling data to show that there was any elevated

concentration of any contaminant in any private well used for

drinking water at any time.”

Defendants include a water sampling history in their motion,

(Doc. 677-1), but a more specific “private well” fact recitation is

required:65 Defendants assert that two offsite well surveys were

conducted by consultant IT Corp., the first in 1992. This survey

was conducted under the supervision of the RWQCB in the Beachwood

neighborhood immediately after the discovery of off-site

contamination at the M & A Market, which is located across Santa Fe

Drive from the BAC Site. In carrying out the survey, BAC and IT

searched public records and walked door-to-door through the

northeast portion of the Beachwood neighborhood looking for private

domestic wells. Most of the wells were shallow and dry. The

survey found only one well in use at 2942 Elm Avenue. The well

water was tested and no hexavalent chromium or arsenic were found. 

The results were provided to the county and homeowners, and those

homes that were not already connected to the Meadowbrook system

were connected at BAC expense.

64 The terms “private well” and “domestic wells” are

synonymous.

65 This summary is based on a review of the parties’ briefing

and arguments advanced at the December 29, 2010 hearing.

128

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 128 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In 1999, IT Corp. conducted a second well survey under the

supervision of the RWQCB. They surveyed a well to the north of the

BAC Site because the groundwater flow had shifted to the north

(north was then the downgradient direction of flow). The second

survey also included a door-to-door survey to confirm the presence

of abandoned or active wells. Two active domestic wells were

identified and tested. According to Defendants, background

concentration levels of hexavalent chromium were detected in one of

the wells (3.9 ug/l). The second well contained no detectable

levels of hexavalent chromium. Arsenic was not found in either

well. 

According to Defendants, these facts demonstrate that 

concentrations of hexavalent chromium and arsenic in domestic wells

were at or below background concentrations and well below the state

MCL for chromium (50 ug/l).

Plaintiffs rely on the expert testimony of Richard Laton, a

purported expert in the field of hydrology and hyrdogeology. Laton

opines that domestic wells utilized by plaintiffs have been

impacted by chemicals of concern from the former BAC facility

resulting in significant pathways of exposure to those plaintiffs;

and given the detections in the monitoring well network, “it is a

scientific certainty that hexavalent chromium and chromium reached

residential wells in the Beachwood neighborhood.” (Doc. 778 at ¶

8.) 

Dr. Laton next opines that the monitoring well data

sufficiently establishes that contamination reached several

domestic wells in the Beachwood neighborhood:

129

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 129 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

While the Merck defendants attempt to use the lack of

monitoring well data to justify their opinion that no

private well contamination existed, the lack of data

should not be interpreted as a lack of contamination. 

Given Merck’s failure to implement a sufficient

investigation of the private/domestic wells surrounding

the BAC facility, the Court must consider the limited

data that was available in surrounding wells and the

Bartlett model confirming the contamination in the

private/domestic wells. Further, many of these wells had

been taken out of service by the time the contamination

was discovered in the M & A monitoring well. There is no

indication that Merck undertook a comprehensive effort to 

sample the wells prior to abandonment.

(Id. at ¶ 10.)

Although Dr. Laton’s criticisms concerning the “failure to

investigate” add nothing to the Phase 1 inquiry, his comments

concerning the Bartlett model are significant. According to

Plaintiffs, the monitoring well data, together with the Bartlett

model, establish that MWC-2 and the private domestic wells drew

water from the same contaminated plume:

And let’s not forget that prior to their discovery of

off site contamination in 1992, let’s not forget that

there is no off site data that we located or that

existed between 1969 and 1992. That’s a 23-year period

of time that th[e] plume, according to Doug Bartlett and

Richard Laton, my hydrologist, who has not been

challenged in this case. They are of the opinion that

the plume existed prior to June 9, 1992, when the M& A

Market well detected the presence of hexavelant at eight

times drinking water level, at 400 part per billion. 

The significance, as Mr. —- Mr. Bartlett said was the

very first day, it showed 400 parts per billion. Ergo,

the plume could very well have been there prior to that

period of time.

(Rough RT, Dec. 29, 2010, 89:18-90:7.)

There is some merit to Plaintiffs’ position. Although it is

Plaintiffs’ burden to establish private well contamination, that

proof requires admission - and acceptance - of the Bartlett model. 

130

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 130 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

The Bartlett model is relevant to a degree, because it suggests

that MWC-2, the monitoring wells, and the domestic wells drew water

from the same contaminated plume causing injury to the well users

and the community. At the same time, however, Plaintiffs have a

proof problem. Despite their arguments concerning the lack of

sampling and alleged “plume” sharing, neither Dr. Laton nor Dr.

Bartlett identify a specific private well allegedly containing

hexavalent chromium or arsenic during the relevant time-period. 

Nor do they identify a specific concentration of contamination

allegedly present in any private well. 

There is a proper approach to this evidence and how to present

it to the jury, particularly in view of its dependence on the

Bartlett model. It has been previously determined that Bartlett’s

testimony is conditionally admissible, subject to a motion to

strike. The same conditions applies to the surface water pathway. 

If Bartlett’s model and testimony are ultimately inadmissible at

trial, the modeling evidence showing domestic well contamination

will also be excluded.66

The nature and extent of the “shared plume” remains in

dispute. To date, however, Plaintiffs have not provided evidence

except argument and hyperbole addressing Merck’s alleged corporate

66 There is a sharp dispute over the depth and reliability of

the monitoring well network. Bartlett excludes most of the

monitoring well data, characterizing it as flawed and inaccurate. 

The Defendants disagree, arguing that Bartlett’s exclusion of the

data has no scientific basis and reflects his model’s lack of

scientific reliability. Whether the exclusion of the monitoring

well data is a “function of a scientist’s professional judgment” is

a subject for trial. 

131

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 131 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

misconduct and failure to provide environmental notice. Plaintiffs

failed to prove the BAC Defendants’ lack of diligence and corporate

misfeasance during the Daubert hearings. It was marginally

relevant, at best.

The BAC Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment on the

private well pathway is DENIED subject to the express reservations

described in this Memorandum Decision. Plaintiffs must make a

particularized showing of private domestic well contamination based

on admissible evidence.67

VI. CONCLUSION.

For the reasons stated:

1) Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude Sears’ air model is

DENIED; 

2) Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with

respect to the 1994 Risk Assessment; 

3) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED with

67 In their opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs’

state:

In future plaintiff-specific phases, plaintiffs will

provide evidence related to specific domestic wells

from which a specific plaintiff was exposed and at what

levels. 

(Doc. 792 at 23:3-23:15.)

Defendants argue that this an express acknowledgment of

Plaintiffs’ failure to meet their Phase 1 burden, i.e., Plaintiffs

have no evidence concerning the level of contamination from the

domestic well pathway. However, for the reasons explained in this

Memorandum Decision, this in part depends on conditionally

admissible evidence. 

132

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 132 of 133
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

respect to the air pathway;

4) Defendants’ Daubert motion to exclude Bartlett’s ground

water model is DENIED, subject to exclusion at trial as

discussed in this Memorandum Decision;

5) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to

the groundwater pathway is DENIED, subject to the

admissibility of Bartlett’s groundwater model; and

6) Defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to

the private well pathway is DENIED; subject to the

admissibility of Bartlett’s groundwater model.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated January 5, 2011 /s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

 United States District Judge

133

Case 1:07-cv-00388-DOC-SAB Document 982 Filed 01/05/11 Page 133 of 133