Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 1 of 9

Exhibit 15

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 2 of 9

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

SEVENSON ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., Plaintiff,
V~S.

) ) )
) No. 02-CV-0527A

SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.,

) )
Defendant,

) )

APPEARANCES"

MR. KEVIN A. SZANYI., MR. TODD~M. SCHIFFMACHER, Attorneysfor the plaintiff
MR. GEOFFREY D. KRESSIN, MR.~ MARK S. GRAHAM, Attorneys for thedefendant ALSO PRESENT" MR. JOHN P. FRANZ DR~ ERNEST F. STINE

DEPOSITION OF ANTHONY R. SHEERAN AUGUST 11,2004

HARPER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS P. O. BOX 1484 KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37901 TELEPHONE (865) 546"8640

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 3 of 9

4

I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1o 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

DEPOSITION

The deposition of ANTHONY R~ SHEERAN, taken by notice, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, before Walter E. Harper, Jr., Shorthand. Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of Tennessee at Large, on the ]Ith day of August, 2004, at the law offices of Luedeka, Neely.& Graham, 1871 Riverview Tower, Knoxville, Tennessee. It is agreed that the reporter may swear the witness, that he may take the deposition in machine shorthand, and reduce his notes to typewritten form. All objections except as to the form of the question are reserved until the time of hearing. Formalities astocaption, certificate, and transmission are expressly waived.

18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ANTHONY R. SHEERAN,

having been .first duly sworn, was examined and deposed as follows:

H~R.PER & ASSOCIATES -

COURT REPORTERS

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 4 of 9

5

MR. SZANYI: You'll need to mark down the start time and the stop time, because we have anagreement for two seven-hour days, as I understand. Is that right, Counsel? MR. GRAHAM: Yeah, we do. We may have -~ we'll see how it goes, but. we may have to take into consideration when we started the deposition and the reasons why the deposition start time is delayed. We'!l try to work with you as best we can within reason. MR. SZANYI: I've gotlike 11-25.

(Deposition start time" 11:25 A.M.)
EXAMINATION

BY MR.
Q..

SZANYI" Good morning again. Good morning. We met briefly.
My name is Kevin Szanyi, and

A.

Q.

I represent Sevenson Environmental Services in this case. I'm going to. ask you some. questions today. If:you don't understand my questions, just tell me, and I'll be happy to repeat the question or rephrase the question as best I can. All right? A. Q. Yes. .When you give me a response today, we'll need
COURT REPORTERS

HARPER & ASSOCIATES -

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW
1

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 5 of 9

you to give us an audible interest response, a. '"yes" or a "no", instead of shaking your head or saying¯ "uh-huh" so

3

we can"put, it down on paper. Do you Understand that? A. Correct. If you need to take a break just tell me, and

5 6

Q.
A. Q.

we'll accommodate you. Thank you. Currently are you employed~ sir? Yes. Wheredo you work? Shaw Environmenta!. What's your current title or¯position? I'm the Shaw Environmental project manager

9 10
11 12 13

A. Q. A. Q. A.

for the. Colonie FUSRAP site. 15
16

How long have you worked for Shaw as opposed to.IT? A. Probably about two years and afew months.

17 18
19

Since May of '02. Q.. As I understand it from documentation, before

~.o
21

that were you ~mployed by IT Corp or IT -- some IT entity? A. I~'m not sure I understand the question. Prior to working for Shaw, who Was your

23

Q..

employer? 25 A. IT Corporation.
COURT REPORTERS

HARPER & ASSOCIATES -

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW 1

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 6 of 9

92

So yOU know that much, that the water is more than the acid; correct?

3 4 5 6 7

A.

Yes. Can you give me.your best estimate? Is it. Five to one?

Q.

two to one? Three to one? Four to one? Ten to One? MR. KRESSIN: Objection.. I don't measure it.

9 10 !1 1~. 13 14 !5 16

I know that. That's why I'm asking for an estimate. A. Just your best estimate. I couldn't guess it. No ballpark at all? No ballpark. Is the soil measured in terms of its weight

Q.
A.

Q.

before it goes into the pug mill and then when Jrcomes out of the pug mill? MR. KRESSIN: Objection. Compound question.
Ao .

Would you rephrase the questfon? Sure. I want to know if you measure or weigh

~.0 ~.1 2~. ~.3 ~.4 ~.5

what's being put into the pug mill and what comes out of the pug miil to determine what you've added to it in terms of volume? A. Q. No, we do not. If you don't weigh it, do you try and measure
COURT REPORTERS

HARPER & ASSOCIATES -

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 7 of 9

93

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

the change in volume in some other way? A. Q. No, we do not. Do you know as you sit here today what

volumetric expansion takes place as a result of being treated through the pug mill and the addition of acid and water? A.
NO.

8
9
"I 0

Q.
A.

Is there some volumetric expansion? We don't measure it. Iassume that you would agr~.e that there has

Q.

II. 12 13 14 15 16 17
18

to be .some since you're adding water and acid; correct? A. Q. I would disagree with that"statement.. All right. So you don't necessarily agree

that there's any volumetric expansion? correct. Sticking again with the same documen[ for the pile that's been designated 86-87, that says "at 40 GPM". Is that.what it says? A. On the line adjacent to what is the pile

19

2O
21 22 23 24 25

number being, processed,.yes. Okay. And again, to the right of that, when you talk about 98-99, it says "100 TPH". A. Q. I see that. I'm wondering why did this person, Mr. Dufek,

express pile 86-87 in gallons per minute and pile 98-99
HARPER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS'

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 8 of 9

99

i
2 3 4 5 6 7

after it comes out of the pug mill? A. Q A. Q. A.
Q. A.

No. It's tested before it goes ini right? Correct. Why isn't it tested on the way out? No need to.
Why? Because the radiological criteria is se~ on

8

the first sample. 10

¯

Do you know if the treatment process ~ffects or lowers the radiological levels?

12

A. Q.

I do not No one's ever tested that to find out? We've never tested that. Does all the soil that goes through the pug

14

A. Q.

16 ]7

mill have some level of radioactive material in it? A. Q. Yes. Have you ever heard that this particular

treatment ~process that you are using actually lowers

2O

radioactive levels? A. I'm-aware of that, yes. And if the decision to send it to different

22 23 24 25

Q.

facilities is driven in part by the level of radioactive material in the soil, why wouldn't you want .to test it after it goes through the pug mill to get an accurate
HARPER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS

Case 1:05-cv-01075-TCW

Document 61-14

Filed 07/02/2007

Page 9 of 9

100

I 2 3

reading before sending it on?
no

We have an accurate reading at the. front. But again, you just told me that you are

4
5 6 7

aware that [hat. reading may change after it goes through the pug mill; right? A. lowered. Let me Clarify. YOU said the readings are I interpretgd that to mean the leachability of

8
9

the radioactivity is lowered. The radioactivity levels do not change. You can't make it disappear. Q. A. So the leachability changes? That's my understanding from one of the

i0
11" 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1'9

alleged pat.ents. " Q. In any event, to your knowledge, it's never

been tested post.pug mill?. A. That's correct. What is the current rate per ton for disposal at U.S. Ecology, if you know? For the Colonie material? Correct. $71.50 per loose cubic yard. Does that include shipping to U.S. Ecology? Absolutely not. There is also shipping costs? Correct. Do you know what those are presently?
HARPER & ASSOCIATES COURT REPORTERS

2O
21 22 23 24 25