Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 1 of 31

1 2 3
4

indicates that Step 1 was not needed for the composite sample and that Step 2 was critical in lead fixation." " Do you see that? Yes. Do you recall this particular project? I remember the project. I don't remember the details of it.. Do you have any reason to dispute what's stated here in regard to the fact that this ended up being a single-step treatment? Well, back then, my guess is that we were still looking at gypsum and phosphoric, and when you say Step 1 is not needed and Step 2 is, it was probably phosphoric alone. That's my best guess, and I'd have to see the treatability data. Well, if we have no further information with regard to this particular project at this time, do you have any reason to dispute the correctness of this, that -Yeah. I would -- it states that they needed Step 2, and I wouldsay that that's probably phosphoric acid. And that would have been a phosphoric acid in a single step that contained phosphate and sulfate ions? A. That's my best guess at this time. Might have been the other way around, but I don't think so. Turn to the next page at the end of the -- which is PAL0073, it says, "The optimum dose of treatment chemical in a single step was determined and recommended for full-scale 205

5
6 7

8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Q. 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 2 of 31

1 2 3 4 5
6 7

treatment." Where are you reading now? At the last paragraph at the end. Okay~ Is that also a single-step using phosphoric acid? Which job is this one? New Hampshire?' I remember this one. This says New Hampshire, but it also says down there~ PRP Superfund sitein Virginia. What was your question again? This indicates it was.a single-step process; correct? Probably phosphoric, but I don't know the answer to that. I assume it was. Did you ever use any treatment chemical in a single step in the MAECTITE treatment process other than ph0sphor~c acid? Sometimes we'd just use gypsum. You think this was gypsum? That's what I don't know the answer to. That's why I said I. wasn't certain. How would I determine? I would need to' get the results from what they. did in the lab. I don't believe this ever went to full-scale, so those project results -- same thing with the one back here. Where was it? Which one were we talking about, another one that was single-step back here? This previous page. It says Step 1 was not needed and Step 2 was critical?

8
9

I0
ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

206 .

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 3 of 31

1

A. Q.

Yeah. Aga±n, I don't know. Okay.. On Page 70, PAL0074, in the last paragraph, there's a reference to.the MAEPRIC concentrate?

2
3

4 5
6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14

A. Q. A. Q.

Yes. What is that? That's phosphoric acid as it's delivered to the job site. If you look at Page 77, the next to last paragraph that talks about all treatment, the second to the last sentence of that paragraph, says, "All treatment operations in the hot zone took place in Level C protective equipment." Do you see that?

A. Q. A.

Yes. What's a hot zone? Contaminated work area on a contaminated piece of property in a project site.

15
16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24
Qm

Q. A.

Contaminated with what? Whatever the contaminants were on the job site. I would assume lead, but I don't know that. Probably lead.

Q. Any radioactive material? A. No. That doesn't mean radioactive. No, this means -- hot zone ms an exclusion zone where people cannot, go without personal protective equipment. Level C is respiratory protection. What is D008 soil? It's a hazard classification associated with a waste product 207

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 4 of 31

1

that leaches lead in excess of fivemilligrams per liter.

2
3

It's toxic -- toxically, hazardous. Its toxicity causes it to

be hazardous~ and that's the classification that the EPA puts on that waste. D008 is a characteristically hazardous waste for lead.

4 5
6 7 8 9 I0 II 12
ia

Mr. Yost, did you have an opportunity to review the documents that we sent to you to look a~? I read a lot of them. I didn't get to read all of them. Did you read the RMT documents? I did. Tell me what you understand the RMT process to have been in those documents. RMT. Yes. They. use phosphoric acid to render a slurry~of scrubber product ash material to a nonhazardous level as defined by EP TOX. And the PH of that material was all alkaline again, so You're talking the General Motors, Defiance?

13
14 15 16 17 18 19

very Similar to O'Hara. I was curious, though, that they did have an awful lot of leachable lead in their total leads in their sediment stuff, but when they looked at their water that was separated from the material, it didn't show any results, so it's very possible they could have washed a lot of ~the lead out into the water that they generated.~ Can't show that it didn't do that. Did you understand from reading the RMT report that the
2O8

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 5 of 31

1 A.

treatment included treatment of sludge from a basin? Yeah, and it was a scrubber product sludge, cupola top,

3 4 ~5
6 7 A. Q.

which, if you look at the PHs, it's all hydroxides again, and it was EP TOX. Do you understand that in the project they also treated the first foot of soil from the basin? They said they dug it up. They said there was some clay in

8
9

there, but I never saw any -- everywhere I saw results in the lab, data for that said that the soils were not ~impacted, so I don't know. I didn't see any specific data on soil. But if it had leachable lead and they used phosphoric acid at a high PH, it probably rendered it nonhazardous by EP TOX. Q. This would be, as far as looking at the claims like we did before with the -~ A. Again, with respect to O'Hara, as I said, it's very similar

I0
ii 12

13
14 15 16 17

to O'Hara. They use high PH, it was an ash product material..

The only difference would be the water content, and therefore

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Q. A. Q.

their hydroxide system of phosphate, which is very similar to O'Hara, which I'm surprised O'Hara didn't look. at that, but that's a different issue. Where does it say in the RMT material that it was a high-PH material? In the lab data. was that from the addition of lime?

It was in the raw data there that was there. The lowest PH]
209

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 6 of 31

1 2

saw that had a failing TCLP lead was 8.3. I'm sorry? The lowest I¯think I saw was around a PH of eight. And the

4 6 7 8 9
I0 ii 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Ao Am

source of all that lead was from a scrubber ash and their cupola operations, and that is typically an alkaline material. So it's a scrubber gas product, same as O'Hara. ¯ But once again, there's nothing in the claims of the ~asserted patents that would exclude their application to a material that contains some lime or hydroxide component? Whose asserted~patents? Whose -Sevenson patents. There's nothing -- say that again, now. We went through the claims before. Remember some examples, Claim i, Claim 12 of the 982 patent, and we looked at the O'Hara patent, and we talked about whether the O'Hara process would infringe. Okay. In my opinion it would. If Sevenson makes that claim, that's¯ up to them. Now, the RMT process, i assume, would be the same? I would say the same, if it was my opinion, because again, they're hydroxide. They're not -- they're not -- the O'Hara patent and if¯you want to look at the RMT patents, which are Stanforth, they teach hydroxide and phosphate. I'm not talking about the RMT patents. I know,¯ but what I'm saying is that those are two patents
210

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 7 of 31

1 2
3
Qo

that are similar to each other which are far different than what Sevenson teaches. I'm talking about What RMTdid in this project. We can mark these project materials as a collective exhibit. They treated their lead --

4
6

MR. GRAHAM: THE WITNESS: MR. SZANYI: things at once.

One second. They treated their, lead -Wait. She can't do two

7 8 I0
ii 12 13 14

(Exhibit No. 20 marked for identification.) THE WITNESS: I'm trying to get done so we can get out of here. MR. SZANYI: We're~going to get out of here no matter whether we're done or not, so don't worry about it. What were you saying about hydroxides? Both O'Hara and RMT's technologies and what ~heir.project in Defiance, Ohio, is, show that lead can be rendered nonleachable under~ EP TOX using phosphates and hydroxide.

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24 2[

That's what they both show, and that's what they did in those projects. The Sevenson patents, again, don't care what the PH is, and they have a phosphate/sulfate system. There is a place there.where the two can overlap.. Now, whether~that's infringement or.not, I think it is and they probably think it 211

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 8 of 31

1 2 3

is towards this patent, bmt that's not my. call whether it is or isn't. Now, the RMT..project, though, that was done at Defiance-Yes. --they did not add any alkaline to the material; correct? It was already in it. And they treated it in a single step with phosphoric acid; correct? Yes. If I remember, they pumped it into the pipe of a flue they were pumping. Where do your claims talk about the manner in which the material is contacted? It doesn't. I'm just talking about that's where it was added. You asked about where they put it and I said that's wher.e they add it. My question is, if the RMT process was carried out today, would it not infringe at least those claims that we talked aboutbefore that the O'Hara patent would infringe? Say that one more time. If the RMT process that's described that took place at Defiance was carried out today, would it not infringe the claims that we talked about of the 982 and the other patents of ~the same reasons that we talked about for the O~Hara patent? In my opinion, they would. They'd passed -- they'd passed 212

4 5
6 7

8
9

i0
Ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19

20
21 22 23 24

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 9 of 31

1 2 3 4
Qo

the leachability test. They added sulfate and they added phosphate. And that's all it takes? That's all it takes. But they also use the O'Hara patent, which was -- which was what they reported and showed in the data that it was hydroxide and it was phosphate. Now, we also sent you, I believe, a report on a New . Hampshire-Yes. --project. I did. This is what we'll mark Exhibit 21. Interim Report. of Eighmy. (.Exhibit No. 21 marked for identification.) Did you have a chance to read that?

~5
6

7 8
9 i0 Ii 12 13 14

15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
io

Eighmy? Is that how it's pronounced? I think you pronounce the E-i-g-h-m-y as Eighmy [A-me]. .What is your interPretatio~ of the process that was used in that project?

Again, I can't remember all the details on it, but I believe he was looking at municipal incinerator ash~ material that was amended and unamended with phosphates and he subjected it to the Various~run-on/run-off solutions of water, and I can't remember all that was done to it. I'd have to go back and 213 .

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 10 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IO II 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

look at it.in great detail, but again, it was an ash material and the PH was elevated, so he was following the Wheelabrat0r or O'Hara patents, and I believe also he was looking at, if I'm not mistaken, the EP TOX, but I'dhave tO-go back and look. Once again, the claims that we looked at don't contain any limitations that would exclude a material on the basis of its PH; correct? O'Hara's claims do exclude PH ranges. No. I'm talking about the Sevenson claims. They don'tinclude or exclude. And so, like the RMT process, the process described by Eighmy, which uses a phosphoric acid that contains sulfate impurities, would infringe the claims of the Sevenson patents for .the same reasons we talked about? That's my opinion, yes. I mean, that's -- they don't: know they did because they're in hydroxide. Going back to the RMT, I don't know if you got that comment. I think this one -- and I don't remember reading the part of what happened here, butunder the RMT work in Ohio, it's very possible because the fluid content was so high that some of that lead was carried Out in the water, versus staying in the solid, the total lead out of the solids, it wouldn't necessarily be leachable, so that couldn't be determined from that data. And I didn't get to read that about this in here. Again, I 214

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 11 of 31

1

don't remember. Did you -notice also in the Eighmy report in the description

3
4 5 6 7
io

of the test cell that the bottom of the cell contained a layer of sand? Well, the drainage mat.erial, I remember, let the fluids out. It was collected and then tested, for collection of the LeachAid? Yeah. It's usually to let water flow out of it. They pull the water through the sand and they put a tap in it, I understand it, and pull the water through it.
Qo

8
9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17
io

Correct. That was put in there, and then they put the treated material on top and the untreated material on top. Just a very -didn't treat it necessarily. Well, let me ask you, would not some of the phosphoric acid from the treated material infiltrate the sand? Could have. I don't know that it did or didn't. So you couldn't dispute, if someone else testified that it did, you have no basis to dispute that?~ If they had data that showed.it would, I would believe it more. Well, the treated material is sitting on top of Sand and water is percolating down through there~ carrying leachable

18
19 20 21 22

24 25

lead, are you saying that at least one molecule of it did not infiltrate the sand? 215 ¯

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 12 of 31

1 2 3 4 5
6 7

no

If it contained leachable lead, it would have gotten in the sand. Along with the phosphoric acid? If the phosphoric acid was leaching out, ~yes If phosphoric acid wasn't leaching,~ no, it wouldn't. Well, did you also have an opportunity to review the Nriagu papers, that we sent to you? Not entirely, but I did. Briefly. I didn't finish them all and I read a couple of them. Had you seen these before? No, I had not. What was your impression of these papers? They were very interesting. He had some good information about the formation of lead phosphate compounds and solubiiity products, and his conclusion was.that that technology was critical and important for natural situations and natural settings and possibly could lead to the formation of work within the human bodi¯es. And our patents, I understand, are being ¯generated that are leading to that. They're precipitating and¯forming invetro -- precipitating cartilage and joints out of a phosphate system. The other thing he taught was PH was again the solubility issue on what forms were soluble and what were not in natural systems. Does he not teach that lead phosphates are highly stable in acidic environment.s? 216

8
9

I0
II 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 13 of 31

1

Yes. Does he.not also teach --

3

Acidic environments meaning low PH, which means low hydroxide. and high hydronium ion. He doesn't teach in hydronium ion and the acetate ion, which is acetic acid. Does he not mention specifically highly acidic solutions? Highly ~acidic is alkaline. Low acid is acid. He does mention both. But he doesn't talk about TCLP fluid, which is the acetate. Looking.at hydronium ion and acetate versus

4 ,5 ~6
7

8 I0
II 12 13 14

hydronium ion, he didn't talk about it. Chlorides, for

example, he said lead phosphate ch!orides are very stable, so that would be hydro.chloric acid. He doesn't get into that. He doesn't teachthat. He teaches chloride, buthe. doesn't teach acid other than acidi.ty. He doesn't teach which acids. MR. SZANYI: I think our seven hours are
up.

15
16 17

MR. GRAHAM: What do you show? THE COURT REPORTER: Let.me look back at our breaks. (Discussion off the record.) MR. SZANYI: I just want to say on the record, we just had a discussion with the Court reporter, who said we started at 8:55, went until 5:1.0. We took three

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

breaks, One for i0 minutes, the next one for i0 minutes, the next one for an hour and eight minutes. That's an hour and 217

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 14 of 31

1 2

28 minutes .of break. Is that correct? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SZANYI: Okay. And so now that means

4 5

we have 13 minutes left, but I'm saying go ahead and take 20 minutes until 5:30 and then we"regoing to end and stop. That will be more than seven hours. So go ahead. MR. GRAHAM: And we're going to finish the deposition.

6 7

9 I0
II 12 13 14

Exhibit No. 22 marked for identification.)

So we've got Exhibit 22, which is the Nriagu papers here that we sent you to look at. Did you have an opportunityto review these? I lo.oked at them; it's got enough for the intense chemistry and formulas in here that I didn't really sit down and digest what they were saying.. Did you look at the solubility charts? Briefly. Do you know how tointerpret those? To some degree. Figure two on. Page 321 that has the solubility of various lead phosphates-Mm-hm (answers affirmatively). --as a.function of PH. How do you interpret that?

15
16 17

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

218

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 15 of 31

1 2 3

At

That as the PH increases., the solubility decreases. How about F±gure 1 on the previous page? Figure -- I'm looking at Figure 2 a second. I can't make a general statement because you've got two different curves here on that, so as one drops the other increases. So you're not able to draw any conclusions from -Well, it depends on a specific mineral. Does Nriagu not teach that lead phosphates are highly stable in the environment? ¯ In the environment? Yes, he does. Does he not also teach a manner of rendering lead materials

~4 ~5
'6 7

8

12 13

nonleachable is to reacting with phosphates? Nonleachable is defined by what solvent? Water? Yes, he does.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

On Page 323, again, we're talking about the Nriagu document that is Chapter I0, Formation and Stability of Base Metal Phosphates in Soils and Sediments. Page 323. Okay. Beginning Figure 3, depicts the phase relationship for uranium-bearing lead phosphates
Yes. How do you interpret that? Depicts the phase relations of uranium-bearing -- talking about uranium phosphate and its phase relations and various PH arrangements.. He's teaching PH, very similar to what I

Do you see that?

219.

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 16 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6
7

suppose O'Hara and RMT teach. If you move down the page to the end of the paragraph before the last paragraph -There's "UO2 phosphates very Stable." Yeah. The sentence beginning, "The great stabilities of UO2 bearing phosphates, it is here suggested that the formation of these compounds may be one of the processes which~ demobilize uranium in sedimentary environments." A. Q. A. I don't see that. Do you see that? My eyes jumped. Bearing phosphates hitherto not been In soils and sediments. Okay.

8
9

I0
ii 12 13 14

considered in the dis -- something of forms of uranium in soils and sediments. And then the next sentence? "It .is here suggested that the formation of.these compounds may be one of the processes which demobilize uranium in sedimentary environments." Does that not teach that a way to immobilize or reduce the leachability of uranium radioactive materials is to react them withphosphates? No. It says, "The great" -- I don't know what that word is after "the great." "Stabilities of uranium-bearing phosphates have not been considered...suggest that the formation of these compounds may be a process which demobilizes." So that could naturally; it could be
220

15
16 17 18 19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 17 of 31

1 2 3 4

otherwise. But it's under natural conditions, thus natural PHs in s.oils and sediments. It doesn't talk about TCLP. It's natural conditions, which are sedimentary environments. Is that-Sediments and soils.

6 7 8 9 i0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17
Qm

--not the aim of treatment of uranium-bearing materials for leachability, to try to put them in a stable form in the enwironment so that they won't leach? That's what he's doing. That's not what we did. So you're not trying to make them so they're nonleachable when they are placed in the environment? MR. SZANYI: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: Well, we're talking about in a landfill condition. Look at our fluids that we were teachingto,~ they weren't natural waters. Well, we did talk about ground waters, I guess. Right. We basically did it and showed that it does work. Did he not foretel! that here? Uranium-bearing phosphates. Again, it's in sediments and soils, so .... He didn't talk about ground water. He didn't

18
19 20 21 22 23 24

talk about acidic PHs. He didn't talk about de:ionized water. So it's a different setting, different solubility, different chemistries~ The fluids are different that you're using as a solvent. If you go up above, he talks about 221

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 18 of 31

1
2

natural waters. (Exhibit No. 23 marked for identification.)

3 4 5 6
7

Let me have you look at another document that's been marked 23. Can I add one more thing on this? sure. He doesn't teach anything about using sulfates and phosphates to generate -- he just talks about phosphates, So we actually did it and we had to use sulfates to make it happen. Okay. If he did talk about sulfates, would that change your view of what he teaches? No, because it's still in natural waters and natural .sediments.
Qo

8
9 i0 ii 12 13 14

15
16 17

If he teaches the stability of sulfates and phosphates, lead sulfates and lead phosphates through a range of PHs? Well, again, the PHs are not what we teach. We teach in the presence 0f the TCLP fluids, which is of acetic acid. We talk about -- and I can't remember. I'd have to go through all the patents. So ~you say that Nriagu doesn't predict what you say is your invention because he doesn't mention sulfates, lead sulfates? He doesn't mention soluble sulfates.
222

18
19

2O
21 22 23

24 2S

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 19 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17
Ao

Okay. Doesn't mention -You don't think he does? My opinion. I just don't want you to say that we've agreed with you, because I happen to know what's in there. Maybe you didn't see it, but it's in there. I haven't read it, so I don't know. But secondly, you say he doesn't talk about the stability of these materials at low PHs? No. I said PHs are relevant. I was talking about the acetic acid that's used in the TCLP test He's also talking about the natural waters, sediments and when to use the word, sediments and soils and sedimentary conditions. In that one sentence~he's talking about in soils and sediments, so those -- you know, that doesn't have an acetic acid. So he would have to mention the acetic acid-Well, that's ---to predict -To look at the solubility. --what you say your invention is? Yeah. The PH -- a PH of two of acetic acid and a PH of two of hydrochloric and a PH of.two of citric acid, you're going to have different solubilities. Assuming you're putting that same compound equivalent to all three of them, you're going
223.

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 20 of 31

1
2

to have different solubility of those. So it depends on what acid and what the ions are.

3
4

Q. Those PH logs or tables that he has, if it turns out that
those were with acetic acid PH, how would that change your opinion? A. I'd have to look at the fluid he used and what test he used tosee what it did, because again, we're look at the TCLP TOX test. Q. A. Q. A. As I understand it, there are two types of TCLP fluids? Yes. And one uses a PH of approximately five? 4.93 maybe.

5
6 7

8
9 I0 II I~

13
14

Q. Right.
A. Something like that.

15
16 17

Q. And the other uses a PH of a much lower PH?
A. Q.

2.8.
So why would you not be able to look at the PH charts in Nriagu and determine or predict the solubility of the lead phosphates from those tables?

18
19

20
21 22 23 24

A.

Well, that's why nobody can predict results of the TCLP or the EP TOX test because it's also the physical tumbling associated with it. It's the filtration of it, the size of the filtration and the particle that's filtered out and left in the fluid. It's the duration. It's the relativity of the weathering that's assembled as it's simulated in the test.
224

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 21 of 31

1

Q. A. Q. A.

Okay. So it's not the same. it's different. Exhibit 23 to -I've got one here. now? Yeah. It's the Kim paper. Page 23? Did you read that? Did I read this one? .I don't know if I read this one or not. I remember the name. Can I look at it for a few seconds just so I can get familiar with what it says if I did read it. I I don't remember reading this in detail. I saw it, but Disclaimer.~ Is that what I'm looking at

2
3

4 5
6 7

8
9

I0
ii 12

I don't know if I read it. I kind of went on because I looked at what itwas saying and I just didn't have time to 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25
Qo

dig into it. Something for Department of Energy. I'd have to take a look at it and spend some time to really understand it, but maybe I can answer it. Well, the two rad patents we've talked about, the 367 and 608, I. don't remember what their exhibit numbers were, but what I wanted to ask you is if this process would infringe those clai.ms or the process that's talked in this paper, which, as I understand it, and you can tell me if you have a different interpretation, teaches radioactive materials with phosphates, .including phosphoric acid-Well, I don't know what the results are.
225 .

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 22 of 31

1 2 3 4

--would render the material nonleachable? I don't have the answer to that, because I see they leached it here with.tap water and.calcium chloride. How they did another test, I don't know. Well, where in your rad patents do they talk about how much the leachability has to be decreased? I don't think we did. So why would this paper not infringe the claims of those rad patents? I'm just saying that they use the tap water and a calcium~ chloride solution, and I don't know that they reduce

5
6

7 8
9

12 13 ~4 15

leachability in other fluids like what we looked at. We looked at ground water. We looked -Where in the claims of those two patents does it require that you read the leachability of a particular fluid? I don't know. I'd have to lo0k. I don't know what it says.

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2g

It just reduces the leachability. I think. says? Correct. If you look at Page 5 -When was ~his? I don't have a date on this. MR. SZANYI: MR. KRESSIN: and it was done in 1991, so... THE WITNESS:

Is that what it

There's no date on this one. i looked at the conference

Well, they did say here

that it's fairly high in mobility under neutral acidic soil

226

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 23 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6

conditions. If you would look at Page 5, perhaps it would help. The page numbers are written at thebottom. The~section that begins, "Effective phosphate solution PH." It talks about using a phosphoric acid. It's buffered at PHs 6, 7 and 8. That"s in that paragraph? Yes. "Using phosphoric acid." Well, right there they're saying phosphoric acid is buffered

9 10 11 12

at 6, 7 and 8, so it's got to have hydroxide in it to get the PH up that high, so again, they're teaching somewhere to what falls into O'Hara and RMT. And where did the claims in the rad patents exclude a process that would be carried out at these PH values?

14 15

They don't. That's what these folks teach here. We teach no PHs. It's irrelevant. PH is moot. This thing goes on to say, "The treatments of the phosphate

17

solutions at all PH levels reduce the leachability of 90Sr in comparison with the untreated control soil column."

19 20 21_ 22 23

Where .are you looking? I'm sorry. Where are you reading from? In the middle of the paragraph~ Page 5?. Yes. I'm assuming it means all PH studies that they ran it at, 6,

25

7, 8 and 9.

227 .

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 24 of 31

1

All right. It says, "The treatments of the phosphate solutions at all PH levels reduced the leachability of 90St ' in comparison to the untreated control soil column." Okay. "Soil columns treated with phosphate solution at higher PH had lower leachability." Do you see that?
io

2
3 4

5
6 7

That supports the hydroxide culture as well. Once again, wherein your rad claims would one find this process to be excluded? Where would we.find it to be excluded? Again, we don't inclu~de it either. Would this phosphoric acidthat was used here not inherently include both phosphate and sulfate ions? It would, but this includes hydroxide. Where do your claims exclude hydroxide? Where do they exclude hydroxide? In the rad patents. We don't exclude it, but we're not including it. We teach sulfate and phosphate. So one would not -They're teaching hydroxide here, again, with .phosphate. One would not.avoid those claims or escape infringing those claims by adding a hydroxide; correct? Well, what they're doing here is they've understood that hydroxide is important or they wouldn't have changed the PH.

8
9

i0
II 12 13 14

15
16 17

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

228

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 25 of 31

If they felt sulfate was important, they would have had it analyzed for that and looked at different ratios, so they are talking phosphate with hydroxide presence, is what they're 4 teaching. That's what they're .talking about. Now, whether it's an infringement or not on our patent, as you asked, I 6 7 would say it would be if they had phosphoric acid, but that's my opinion. As I understand this, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, they have soil that contains strontium-90, a radioactive material, and they're treating it with phosphoric acid to reduce the leachability, correct?
io

8
9

i0
Ii 12

Not totally correct, because they're also adding hy.droxide to it. I didn't say that~was the only thing they were doing. You haveto look at it. You can't exclude that.

13
14

16 17

How does that affect whether it reduces the leachability? The higher the hydroxide content is consistent.with what Nriagu said and the other folks we looked at, O'Hara and the others, that constituents that are typically considered by the culture ~of engineers and ~treatment people is that metallic.hydroxide and also radionuclide hydroxides are fairly insoluble. That's the culture. That's a consistent theme that most engineers and treatment-people !ook at. We're one of the first to show phosphate and sulfate difference than hydroxide. This shows hydroxide. They 229 .

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 26 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25
Am

isolated hydroxide by affecting the PH enduring it. So they've isolated at different levels and they've showed that -- they treated with the phosphate. The more hydroxide you add, the more insoluble it becomes. But Sevenson and you .are taking a position in this ease that any phosphoric acid that would be used would contain some amount of sulfate; correct? That's correct. And this process that's described in this paper used phosphoric acid; correct? That's correct. And treated soil containing radioactive material; correct? That's correct. And the result was a reduction in the leachability of the radioactive material; correct? It did, but it also had PH changes and high PH. And where -They're teaching hydroxide/phosphate chemistry. That's what they're teaching here. They're not teaching anythingabout sulfates. Where in the claims of the tad patents does it say that you cannot increase the PH? We don't teach PH one way or the other. It's not What we teach. These people are teaching PH. O'Hara's teaching PH. RMT folks are teaching PH. We teach sulfate/phosphate. We
230

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 27 of 31

don't care what PH is.Qo

So your claims don't exclude any process based on what the PH was?

3
4
io

We don't care what the PH is. MR. SZANYI: have now? THE COURT REPORTER: 5:36. MR. SZANYI: Okay. Do you agree we've That's it. What time do you

5
6

7 8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 record then?

gone for more than seven hours? THE COURT REPORTER:
Yes.

MR. SZANYI: Can we put this on the It's now 5:36 and we started at 8:55,. which

means we've gone for eight hours and 40 minutes. We've taken three breaks according to the court reporter's Calculations for one hour and 28 minutes, so we're over seven hours, and Ms. Court Reporter, do you agree? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SZANYI: Are you putting your response down on that transcript? THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. MR. SZANYI.: All right. We're all done. Thanks very much. MR. GRAHAM: Well, ¯i'm not done until I'm through. MR. SZANYI: Well, you are through for 231.

18
19

2O
21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 28 of 31

1
2

today, because more than seven hours have~ transpired. MR. GRAHAM: Well, let the record reflect, MR. SZANYI: I'm not finished talking right now. More than~ seven hourshave transpired according to the court reporter. We stayed for an extra I0 or 15 minutes because you were in the middle of a document and I didn't want to stop you, out of courtesy to you. We t~01d you ahead of time that we were going to spend Seven hours today. You knew that.~ If you wanted more time -MR. GRAHAM : And I told you right then--

3 4 5
6 7

8
9

i0
Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17

MR. SZANYI : I haven't finished talking. MR. " GRAHAM : MR. KRESSIN: MR. SZANYI: --I wasn't agreeing to that. Let him finish. Let me finish talking,

please. And if you wanted more than seven hours for this deposition, the time to arrange that was prior to today by calling the magistrate or making a motion or asking for additional time, and that never transpired. We've now gone for more than seven hours and we're done. If you wanted more time, the time to get that was before we came to Seattle, and you can't reach the Court because it's now almost 9 p.m. in Buffalo. MR. KRESSIN: Okay. And just for the record, we told Mr. Szanyi before this deposition started
232

18
19 20 21 22 23 24

25

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 29 of 31

1 2

this morning when he could have called the magistrate and filed a~ objection to us going more than seven hours by half an hour or a few minutes t0~get this thing concluded, that thatmay occur, and he didn't take it upon himself at that point to call the magistrate to object to us going more than seven hours. MR. SZANYI: I told you at the beginning of the day I was not allowing more than seven hours. There was no -MR. KRESSIN:
well.

3
4

5
6 7

8
9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

I told you our position as

MR. SZANYI: MR. KRESSIN: clear. MR. SZANYI:

Well, there was no -Our position was itotally

And so was mine.

MR. KRESSIN:~ You know that Mr. Yost was appearing here wearing two hats. MR. GRAHAM: And note for the~record that

Mr. Yost and Mr. Szanyi have left the deposition before we have declared it to be finished. (Signature reserved.) (Deposition adjourned at 5:38 p.m.)

2O
21 22 23 24

25
233 .

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 30 of 31

1 2

3
4 I, KARL W. YOST, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that I have read the foregoing transcript of my deposition; that I have made such corrections as noted herein, in ink, initialed by me, orattached hereto; that my testimony as contained herein, as corrected, is true and correct.

5
6

7 8
9 I0 ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

EXECUTED this (City),

day of

, 2004, at (State).

KARL W. ¥OST

2S
234

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 67-8

Filed 08/13/2007

Page 31 of 31

2 3

4 5
6 7

STATE OF WASHTNGTON ) I, Kellie A. Smith ) ss CCR SMTTHKA225J5 a County of Pierce duly authorized Notary ) Public in and for. the State of Washington residing at Tacoma, do hereby c~ztify:

8
g

That the foregoing deposition of F~%I~7~W. YOST was taken before me and completed on October 7, 2004. and . thereafter was transcribed under my direction; that the deposition is a full, true and complet~ transcript o£ the t~st~mony of said witness, including all quust$ons,.answezs, objections, motions and exceptions; Tha[ the witness, before examination, was by me duly sworn to testify, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and that the witness reserved the z'igbt of silgnature; That ~ a~ not a relative, ~nlployee, attorney or counsel of.any party to this action or relative ~r employee of any such attorney or counsel and that I am not financially interested in the said actiom or the outcome thereof; That I am herewith securely sea]ing the said deposition and promptly delivering the same to Attorney MARK IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official sea] this 2-~%~ day of

io iI

13
14

15
16 17

20 21 22 23 2,1 25 Notary Publi~ in and for the State of Washington, residing atTacoma.

235