By Michael Santarini, EE Times
December 4, 2003 (9:28 p.m. EST)
URL: http://www.eetimes.com/story/OEG20031204S0040
SANTA CLARA, Calif. — An expert in the methods used to perform chemical analysis testified that he found faults in the methods IBM used in testing the air quality of its San Jose, Cottle Road Manufacturing facility, as the IBM chemicals trial continued here today.
Bart Simmons, who formally works as the director of the Hazardous Material Labs in the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, was hired by plaintiffs to examine, as a consultant analytic chemist and industrial hygiene expert, the methods IBM chemists used when testing air quality in the Cottle Road facility.
Simmons, qualified early in his testimony by the court as an expert in chemical analysis, testified in detail about the procedure, equipment, and testing analysis methods commonly used to identify chemicals in air samples.
Simmons testified that during the discovery portion of the case, IBM handed over to plaintiffs and he in turn examined around 1,500 to 2000 documents, mostly lab notebooks, relating to air quality test measurements taken by Cottle Road chemists from 1967 and 1997, encompassing the years the two plaintiffs in the case worked for IBM.
Simmons testified that the among those documents were many test cases in which IBM chemists tested the air quality in various IBM buildings for chemicals such as acetone, xylene, toluene, benzene, among other chemicals commonly used on the manufacturing floor.
Simmons testified that although he reviewed all the test cases provided by IBM that none of them were complete enough — there was not enough documentation, especially of peak chemical levels — to allow him to draw any conclusions about the analysis results found by IBM chemists during the years the plaintiffs worked for IBM.
During the early part of his testimony, Simmons described that air quality tests were performed by drawing samples through a charcoal tube sensor connected to a vacuum/suction type machine placed in a given worker's environment or by placing a 3M chemical badge sensor near the breathing area of given worker.
The chemicals captured in either the charcoal tube or badge were then placed in test tubes, liquefied and with a syringe injected into a machine called a gas chromotograph, testified Simmons.
He explained that gas chromotograph had to be set up to give readings for specific chemicals. Simmons testified that the machine had to be calibrated to match known standards for proper detection of the levels of a given chemical. A proper calibration he said was crucial for accuracy and that any sample level detected above a blank tube level (charcoal tube placed in a room but doesn't have air forcibly pulled through it) for a given chemical, is typically further analyzed as a possible hazard.
But Simmons testified that in the documentation he examined he could only find 10 calibration curve graphs that show the gas chromatograph was calibrated accurately by IBM lab technicians.And, testified Simmons, none of those ten graphs showed they were thorough enough to get accurate readings from the gas chromatograph.
He noted that only two standards points were plotted on nine of the calibration graphs and three points plotted on one of the graphs to come up with a curve representing the machine had been calibrated accurately to detect accurately levels of a given chemical. He argued that there should have been several points plotted on each graph to come up with an accurate standards curve to calibrate the gas chromatographs.
To further assert to the jury that IBM methods for testing were faulty, he noted on one test case from April of 1986 where IBM chemists tested one building's air samples for acetone, xylene, toluene, benzene and other chemicals.
Simmons testified that although benzene level samples were taken for the report, and according to Simmons registered higher than blank tube levels in that test case, the IBM lab technicians did not further analyze the benzene levels or at least no documentation was provided showing they analyzed benzene levels.
And Simmons testified that in no instance did he find among the test cases provided any analysis of benzene levels, even though IBM chemists tested and subsequently found benzene in the air. After the hearing, plaintiff's attorney Richard Alexander told EE Times that he had Simmons examine benzene levels in the documentation because any sign of significant levels of benzene in the air is a "sign of bigger problems." Alexander said that future experts will clarify the danger signs of benzene and what levels of benzene cause cancer.
During cross-examination, Robert Weber, attorney for IBM, questioned Simmons at length on the conclusions Simmons drew from his examination of the documents. Weber got Simmons to agree that benzene levels can be found in the air just about everywhere.
Simmons agreed that very slight traces of benzene would even be found in the courtroom but he noted the levels would be too minute to detect even with the gas chromatographs used by IBM, as benzene levels in the court would likely be found in parts per billion as apposed to parts per million.
Weber also asserted that if IBM's methods were faulty that it meant that the data from IBM studies and used the previous day by Dr. Nicas to quantify the amount of chemicals in the plaintiffs work environment were faulty. Simmons testified to that question that the raw sampling data recorded by IBM in the test cases could be used to draw accurate conclusions for other purposes.
Weber also asked if Simmons knew that IBM's Cottle Road labs had been certified by the Ameican Industrial Hygene Association (AIHA) and maintained that certification through 1997 and beyond by passing AIHA's proficiency analytical testing (PAT). In that testing explained Weber, AIHA sent IBM blind samples and IBM chemists had to find chemicals and analyze the levels accurately to maintain AIHA certification.
Simmons testified that simply because IBM past the certification doesn't mean they used proper methods all the time and IBM chemists may have paid special attention to the PATs.
Weber also asked Simmons if there are standards for how long companies should keep test results or documentation for air quality. Simmons testified that there are no government requirements or even industry standards for how long chemists should hold onto documentation.
Simmons further testified under cross-examination that none of the examples he critiqued explicitly in his testimony today were in direct regard to buildings the two plaintiffs in the case had worked.
Plaintiffs are expected to call an expert in clean room ventilation systems when the trial resumes Monday, December 8th.
Copyright 2003 - CMP Media
