Abarca, et. al. vs. Merck & Co., et.al.

Filing 937

Amended Questions for Federal Rule of Evidence 706 Experts Regarding Air Modeling signed by Judge Oliver W. Wanger on 11/18/2010. (Figueroa, O)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ABARCA, RAUL VALENCIA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCK & CO., INC., et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

1:07-cv-0388 OWW DLB AMENDED QUESTIONS FOR FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 706 EXPERTS REGARDING AIR MODELING

The following questions are submitted by the Court to Federal Rule of Evidence 706 experts regarding air emissions. INSTRUCTIONS As Court appointed experts, you are being asked to provide written responses to the following questions in a report directly submitted to the Court. The purpose of your appointment is to

assist the Court in determining whether or not the methodology and assumptions employed by the experts in the materials submitted to you was in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles. Please state any reasons that support the opinions you have reached. /// QUESTIONS 1

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

1.

Was Sears' use of USEPA AP-42 Section 13.2.1 (paved

road emission factor) in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles for calculating hexavalent chromium and arsenic fugitive dust emissions at the Site? 2. Did the Sears model account for rainfall at the Site in

compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 3. Were Sears' assumptions regarding forklifts and their

use at the Site in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 4. Were Sears' assumptions about silt loading at the Site

in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 5. Were Sears' assumptions about hexavalent chromium and

arsenic particle size at the Site in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 6. Were Sears' assumptions about the periods and hours of

operations of the wood treating activities at the Site in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 7. Were Sears' assumptions about the drippage accumulation

of hexavalent chromium and arsenic on the surface at the Site in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 8. Were Sears' assumptions about the valence state of

hexavalent chromium at the Site in compliance with generally 2

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

accepted scientific standards and principles? 9. Was Sears' assumption of 27 percent emissions to the

air of hexavalent chromium and arsenic in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles? 10. Are there generally recognized standards and practices

for validating and confirming the accuracy and reliability of an air model? 11. Were all the assumptions, data, and inputs utilized by

Sears to reach her opinions, in compliance with generally accepted scientific standards and principles?

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 18, 2010

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER United States District Judge

3

PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com