 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyd v. Allied Signal12/30/2004
that of the first series of isopleths, such as, for example, five minutes after the original hour.
Dr. Sajo specifically criticized the defense expert's use of another dispersion model, CALPUFF, as being inappropriate to address the physics of gases that start their dispersion as heavier than air. His major criticism was that the defense expert misused one part or module of another model designed to analyze heavy gas dispersion, the HGSYSTEM model, in order to justify the improper use of CALPUFF to complete his analysis. Although the CALPUFF model admittedly allowed for more precise use of meteorological data at five-minute intervals in calculating the sigma theta for wind direction changes, it was imply not designed to analyze the behavior of a heavy gas such as BF sub3 , according to Dr. Sajo, and was "totally inapplicable" to analyze the incident at issue. He further explained that there are six recognized classes of stability (or how readily gas plumes will disperse), and that there is a general correlation between the sigma theta and the stability classes. He admitted that he did not use one of the stability classes as an input variable in his modeling, but instead used what he felt to be a more precise measure of stability, the inverse Monin-Obukhov length. However, he testified that when he used a different heavy-gas dispersion model, ALOHA, capable of utilizing the particular stability class used by the defense expert, the results corroborated with the original results obtained from the SLAB model, but with much higher concentrations of BF sub3 and longer plume duration.
Under cross-examination, Dr. Sajo explained that his analysis was based upon the BF sub3 emission being reduced by the average water absorption rate of 32 % estimated by Dr. Wilkins, and he admitted that he did not undertake an analysis using the maximum absorption rate of 63 %. He also admitted that he derived the Monin-Obhukov stability measure from a chart, rather than calculating it directly from the available meteorological data. However, he emphasized that although the accuracy and precision of meteorological data is one of the factors to be considered in selecting an appropriate dispersion model, it is not a primary factor, as compared to the physical characteristics of the gas upon release.
The plaintiffs also presented the opinions and conclusions of William T. Lowry, Ph.D., a toxicologist, by means of his narrative report. In preparing his report, he reviewed medical records and depositions of certain claimants (including two of the class representatives eventually appointed), as well as the incident reports of the Baton Rouge Fire Department, the Louisiana State Police, and DEQ. He described in his report the three principal avenues of exposure to BF sub3 (inhalation, absorption through the skin, and eye contact), and the various signs and symptoms of exposure to BF sub3 and its byproducts after it hydrolyzes: hydrogen fluoride, hydrofluoric acid, and fluoboric acid.
Dr. Lowry concluded that the symptoms and injuries supported by medical documentation were consistent with exposure to BF sub3 or its byproduct compounds, and that it was reasonably that the symptoms and injuries were associated with the exposure, based upon their development shortly after the incident.
Defendants' Expert Testimony and Reports
The defendants presented the testimony of Gale Hoffnagle, a certified consulting meteorologist and expert in the fields of meteorology, air quality modeling, and atmospheric chemistry. He explained that the white vapor visible to witnesses and depicted in a videotape was BF sub3 hydrate. In selecting the CALPUFF model for use in his analysis, Mr. Hoffnag
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|