STEPHEN CLAY ROE

4/17/2008 Page 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION PERTAINS TO: MRGO-ROBINSON

CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-4182 "K" (2) JUDGE DUVAL MAG. WILKINSON

FILED IN: 05-4181, 05-4182, 05-5237, 05-6073, 05-6314, 05-6324, 05-6327, 05-6359, 06-0225, 06-0886, 06-1885, 06-2152, 06-2278, 06-2287, 06-2824, 06-4024, 06-4065, 06-4066, 06-4389, 06-4634, 06-4931, 06-5032, 06-5155, 06-5159, 06-5161, 06-5162, 06-5260, 06-5771, 06-5786, 06-5937, 07-0206, 07-0621, 07-1073, 07-1271, 07-1285

Videotaped Deposition of WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL BY STEPHEN CLAY ROE, 14054 West Cornell Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, taken in the offices of Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, 877 Main Street, Suite 1000, Boise, Idaho 83702, on Thursday, the 17th day of April, 2008.

JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS

800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4/17/2008
Page 4

APPEARANCES: LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH M. BRUNO (BY: JOSEPH M. BRUNO, ESQ. SCOTT JOANEN, ESQ.) 855 Baronne Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 PLAINTIFFS LIAISON COUNSEL LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, MITCHELL, ECHSNER & PROCTOR (BY: MATT SCHULTZ, ESQ.) 316 South Baylen Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32591 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS JONES, DAY (BY: ADRIAN WAGER-ZITO, ESQ. DEBRA CLAYMAN, ESQ. JULIA CRONIN, ESQ.) 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20001 ATTORNEYS WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIVISION TORTS BRANCH (BY: JEFF EHRLICH, ESQ. RICHARD STONE, ESQ.) Post Office Box 888 Benjamin Franklin Station Washington, D.C. 20044 ATTORNEYS FOR UNITED STATES

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Page 3
1 2 3 4 5

STIPULATION It is stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for the parties hereto that the deposition of the aforementioned witness is hereby being taken under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for all purposes, in accordance with law; That the formalities of reading and signing are specifically not waived; That the formalities of certification and filing are specifically waived; That all objections, save those as to the form of the question and the responsiveness of the answer, are hereby reserved until such time as this deposition, or any part thereof, may be used or sought to be used in evidence. * * * * ROGER D. JOHNS, RDR, CRR, Certified Court Reporter for the State of Louisiana, officiated in administering the oath to the witness.
Page 5
INDEX PAGE Bates numbered WGI-000005 through 09....... 16 38704...................................... 65 WGI-38769.................................. 65 038742..................................... 73 WGI Number 2............................... 81 Document 3................................. 94 WGI page number 4......................... 100 WGI-5 to 9................................ 101 WGI-67877................................. 141 67884..................................... 142 WGI-81976................................. 142 WGI-2..................................... 160 WGI-3..................................... 164 WGI-40963................................. 166 WGI-4..................................... 166 5......................................... 173 6......................................... 192 WGI-81181 and WGI-81191................... 206 WGI-081191................................ 210 WGI-47665 in seriatim to 47761............ 215 WGI-245973................................ 225 WGI-246010................................ 225

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIDEOTAPED BY: Brad Fischer I-Dep, Inc. REPORTED BY: ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, CRR, RDR, CSR Certified Court Reporter State of Louisiana

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

2 (Pages 2 to 5) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 6

4/17/2008
Page 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

VIDEO OPERATOR: Today is Thursday, April 17th, 2008. The approximate local time is 10:46 A.M. The location is Hawley, Troxell, Ennis and Hawley in Boise, Idaho. This is case number 2005-CV-4182, entitled In Re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation. This is the 30 (b)(6) deposition of Stephen Roe. Will the Counsel for all present identify yourselves for the record. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Andrea Wager-Zito, Jones, Day, for Washington Group. With me is Debbie Clayman, Jones, Day; and Julia Cronin will be present shortly. MR. EHRLICH: Jeff Ehrlich for the United States. MR. STONE: Richard Stone for the United States. MR. SCHULTZ:
Page 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

number 11, which currently includes all project documents. So that also has been limited to specific types of documents. MR. BRUNO: Okay? MS. CLAYMAN: Okay. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Good. VIDEO OPERATOR: Please swear the witness. STEPHEN CLAY ROE, 14054 West Cornell Avenue, Lakewood, Colorado 80228, after being duly sworn, did testify as follows: EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Good morning, Mr. Roe. A. Good morning. Q. I take it you're not from Boise. You're from Colorado? A. No, I'm a Colorado boy. Q. Well, thanks for being with us this morning. Appreciate it. What I would like to do first, if
Page 9

Max Schultz with the Levin, Papantonio firm for the Plaintiffs. MR. JOANEN: Scott Joanen for the Plaintiffs. MR. BRUNO: And Joseph Bruno, Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel. Okay. We obviously have a new witness, and so I will ask for Counsel to be so kind as to identify the next individual selected by the Washington Group to appear in response to this 30 (b)(6) notice and to share with us on the record the particular paragraphs on Exhibit A that you are here to speak to us about. MS. CLAYMAN: Okay. Washington Division of URS, formerly Washington Group International, designates Stephen Roe to testify regarding topics 7 through 17 of the 30 (b)(6) notice and 62 and 63. We also have reached an agreement with Plaintiff's Counsel on topic

you don't mind, is learn a little bit about you. Okay? A. Okay. Q. First of all, by whom are you employed? A. Washington -- or Washington Division of URS Corporation. Q. All right. And what is your title today? A. Right now I am a Senior Project Manager with the company. Q. What generally does a Senior Project Manager do? A. Manages projects. Q. Okay. I like it simple. A. I'm a simple guy. Q. Would that include projects like Task Order number 26? A. Yes. Q. Okay. For how long have you been employed by URS and/or its predecessor companies, Washington Group International and/or Morrison Knudsen? A. 18 years. Since '89. Q. All right. You have been designated

3 (Pages 6 to 9) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 10

4/17/2008
Page 12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to talk to us about paragraph 7, so let's just start there. A. Okay. Q. We have asked about the submissions prepared by I guess then it was Morrison Knudsen clearly. Right? A. Yes. Q. All right. Broadly indicating interest and/or efforts to obtain a contract known as the TERC. So first, what was your job at that general period of time? And, of course, what I am referring to is the period of time which would embody number 7. A. Okay. Well, number 7 talks to TERC Task Order 26, and I think originally we were asked to look at the site and prepare a proposal in the June, 1999 time frame. At that time I was Program Manager of the Tulsa TERC contract. Q. Okay. Before we even get another -I'm a little confused. MR. BRUNO: I thought that you guys told me that the witnesses today had no knowledge specifically to 26.
Page 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

aware of the opportunity to do any work on Task Order 26? A. Formally in writing, I know it was June, 1999. Now, I am positive we were notified, you know, by phone, you know, months before that. Q. Sure. A. But I don't remember when. Q. All right. When the information is conveyed to Morrison Knudsen, is it known at that time as 26, or does it have some other -A. No. Q. -- descriptor? A. No, in fact, sometimes I remember their RFPs would have "Statement of work, task order" blank. Q. I see. A. Because, you know, we're already up to 26. Sometimes we might have been looking at another job at another locale, and they always wanted to go in sequential order. So sometimes the -Q. All right. We have learned this morning that there was at least one other company who had succeeded in getting the TERC
Page 13

MS. WAGER-ZITO: No, that was Anne Veigel. MR. BRUNO: Okay. So we are -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Mr. Roe is here. MR. BRUNO: So we are going into 26 as well. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Absolutely. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Fair enough. MS. CLAYMAN: He is only 26. MR. BRUNO: Only 26. All right. Okay. Thanks. I'll have to go down a different path now, reorient my thinking as they say. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, let me back up, because I started with a different thought. So let me get oriented to where you are. A. Okay. Q. When did the company first become

contract and that, you know, that company would obviously then have an opportunity to do certain work. The sequential numbering, do you know whether or not the sequential numbering referred to the task orders accomplished by Morrison Knudsen, or were these sequential numbers related to any work done by either you or the other company pursuant to the TERC? A. Only Morrison -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. I believe that misstates this morning's testimony. MR. BRUNO: How? MS. WAGER-ZITO: You said "the TERC". Two companies were awarded "the TERC". MR. BRUNO: Right. MS. WAGER-ZITO: There were different TERCs. MR. BRUNO: I know there were. MS. WAGER-ZITO:

4 (Pages 10 to 13) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 14

4/17/2008
Page 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

One company got one TERC, one company got the other TERC. MR. BRUNO: Oh, then I misunderstood. I thought she said -- I thought I learned -- That's good. That's helpful, because I got confused by the testimony this morning. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I thought that there was more than one company who was awarded the TERC. That's incorrect? A. They were two, I think, identical contracts. Q. But they were identical? A. I think so. Yeah. Q. Then my impression of what I heard this morning is accurate. A. Right. And, in other words, they had an option -- and when they -- Well, I am kind of going into what Anne was supposed to cover, but they had a thought process going in that for certain customers or military installations they would use one; and then for the others, they would use the other.
Page 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. What they gave us, which was typical of any task orders, they will give you an RFP letter, request for proposal, signed by the contracting officer and then a statement of work. And the statement of work in essence lists the work elements, a little description of the site, a little description of the work to be performed, and in some cases they'd have other supplemental information like wage determinations if -- you know, if you had to comply with the Davis Bacon and that sort of thing. Q. Okay. A. But in essence the RFP letter and the statement of work is the important stuff. Q. I'm going to show you a document which has been Bates numbered WGI-000005. MR. BRUNO: This is really just document 5, isn't it? Do I have to say all of those zeros? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Not for my benefit. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Good.
Page 17

Q. I see. A. They didn't have us compete with each other, in other words. They would pre-decide, "Okay, New Orleans, let's evaluate whether that should go to the other one or to Morrison Knudsen". Q. I got you. A. In this case they said Morrison Knudsen. Q. I understand. A. So then it's just a matter of us negotiating with the Corps on it. Q. So let's get to the sequential numbering then. Am I correct in assuming, then that the 26 refers to the 26th contract that Morrison Knudsen did? A. The 26th task order under the contract. So they're sort of like subcontracts, but still under the original umbrella contract clauses, terms and conditions. Q. All right. So in June, '99, what exactly does Morrison Knudsen receive from the Corps that would describe the work that would ultimately be called 26?

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. So this is Bates numbered WGI-5 in seriatim to 9. Show you this document and see if you recognize it. A. Yeah. This is the statement of work. So 1 June '99, that must have been the original. You can see where, like I said, there was a blank there and looks like somebody kind of typed in "0026" for the task order number. So, like I said, there's a cover letter that conveyed this to me from probably John Weatherly or Earline Smith. And then this is the statement of work on which we based a proposal. Q. Okay. Now, your reference to a cover letter from somebody, that's somebody within your company? A. No, it's from our client, the Corps of Engineers. Q. All right. So they knew to send this directly to you? A. Right. Q. All right. And your job at that time was what? A. Program Manager.

5 (Pages 14 to 17) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 18

4/17/2008
Page 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. WAGER-ZITO: Are you going to mark this, Joe? MR. BRUNO: I wasn't planning on it because we have got Bates number references. I don't like to just waste paper. But if you do, we can mark it. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Fine. MR. BRUNO: Good. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I am going to ask you this with trepidation. What does a Program Manager do other than manage programs? A. Okay. A program in this case is multiple projects. Okay? So you can see on the TERC we had at least 26 projects within the program. And within the TERC at any given time there might have been, you know, anywhere from one to ten going on at one time. Q. Okay. A. And I -- the Program Manager was responsible -- There were project managers or task order managers assigned to each one of
Page 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

requirements. And, you know, there is section 3, "Project requirements", that talks about, you know, demolition and remediation, and it talks about generating a comprehensive report recommending the scope and duration of the remediation. So they're asking us in essence to, under our contract to define the requirements by which this work would be done. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. As I appreciate it, the TERC itself is the document that establishes the method of compensation of Morrison Knudsen; right? A. Yes. Q. And it describes generally the process by which you're expected to accomplish what's described in that document you're looking at; right? A. It establishes some of the guidelines and requirements -Q. Okay. A. -- by which you -- Yes. Q. All right. Now, are you familiar
Page 21

these projects who reported to me. Q. Right. Do I gather from your testimony that you were the manager of the TERC? A. Yes. Q. Would you agree with me that the scope of work is defined in paragraph number 1 under "General"? I apologize for us not having multiple copies, but there's only so much paper you can carry on an airplane. A. Well, no, I would not. Q. All right. Identify for me all of the paragraphs on that piece of paper which identify the scope of work. MR. EHRLICH: Is this the same Bates number? MR. BRUNO: Yes, sir. MR. EHRLICH: That you numbered from the exhibit? THE WITNESS: Well, the whole document needs to be considered, because what we're driving towards is defining

with the TERC and its requirements? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you know whether or not the TERC requires the contractor, Morrison Knudsen, in the process of evaluating the site in order to prepare the work plan, to assess whether or not the proposed work may damage people or property? A. No, I am not aware of that requirement. Q. All right. Do you know if that is a general -- Do you know if Morrison Knudsen, in the process of drafting work orders under the TERC, did that? That is, evaluated the work that it expected to do for the purposes of ascertaining whether or not the proposed work would damage people or property? A. That was not part of the scope or the -- the -- I mean, that's not mentioned in here. Q. Right. A. It's typically they're asking you to clean up a site or study a site or investigate, you know, the contaminants on the site --

6 (Pages 18 to 21) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 22

4/17/2008
Page 24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Right. Sure. A. -- for the purposes of removing them. Q. Right. So let me see if I can understand. Clearly the remediation would require Morrison Knudsen to put people and equipment on a particular site; right? A. Right. Q. All right. And there's always the potential for harm to people or property when you're undertaking that kind of activity; right? A. Right. Q. All right. So what, if anything, does Morrison Knudsen do or did it do back then, in 1999, to ascertain whether or not the work that it was contemplating might cause some harm to people or property? If it did anything at all. It may have done nothing. I don't know. A. Well, if you were to look at the plans that we developed, they're -- you know, there's a site safety and health plan that addresses worker safety, working around heavy equipment; there's a perimeter air monitoring
Page 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

responsible contractor Morrison Knudsen is concerned whether or not its work activity may damage people or property off site? Isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I mean, for example, like things like pile driving -- You guys do pile driving, don't you? A. No. Q. You don't do pile driving? Do you remove piles? A. Do we move pile? Q. Remove. A. We tend to subcontract the work. Yeah, we tend to subcontract those activities. So in the sense that our subs do it, yes, we do it. Q. All right. Well, just because you subcontract the work doesn't mean that you just turn a blind eye to what your subcontractors do. I know you guys don't do that, -A. No. Q. -- do you? A. No.
Page 25

plan -Q. Right. A. -- for -- you know, to make sure that contaminants aren't getting out into the community. I think it also addressed noise. You know, you got these various work plans to address those sorts of concerns. Q. All right. And who decides to include those considerations? Is that something Morrison Knudsen does as a responsible contractor? A. Yes, in conjunction with the Corps' requirements and their approvals. These plans are all submitted to the Corps and then they review them and approve them. Q. All right. But as I appreciate it, it's Morrison Knudsen who has the first responsibility of drafting the work plan; right? A. Yes. Q. So it decides what it's going to consider in the context of the potential for harm to persons or property; right? A. Yes. Q. All right. And certainly as a

Q. No, I didn't think so. So you have some interest in ascertaining whether or not your subcontractors might do damage to folks who are off site; right? A. Sure. Q. Of course. A. I mean, yeah. Q. Okay. You have some interest. A. We don't have a reputation like we have by, you know, turning a blind eye to our own workers or the public we're working around. Q. That's exactly my point. It's not a hard issue. Okay. Let's see if I can determine whether there's some kind of a line that gets drawn by you in the context of the way you answered the question, because you did tell us that there are quality control plans in place with regard to things like worker safety. Right? Do you remember telling me that? A. Yeah, there are work plans -Q. All right. A. -- in place.

7 (Pages 22 to 25) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 26

4/17/2008
Page 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. What I want to do is I want to see if Morrison Knudsen makes any distinction between the quality control with regard to their worker safety folks on the site versus people or property off the site. Does the quality control plan to which you make reference in your answer include taking precautions to protect people or property off site? A. Yeah, we -- Actually, it's not the quality control plan. It's the site safety and health plan. Q. Site safety and health. Okay. A. And we put a fence around -- You know, we have -- the whole site is considered an exclusion zone. So we put a fence around it. We have security guards at the gate. So we do air monitoring, noise monitoring, these sorts of things. Q. All right. A. So, you know, the thing is, is keep people off the site and there won't be, you know, -- That's how we control that. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO:
Page 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

We can mark it. MS. WAGER-ZITO: But he needs to have one to review. MR. BRUNO: Make a copy. MR. SCHULTZ: I've got an extra one. MR. BRUNO: It's got a different Bates number on it, though. MR. SCHULTZ: June 1, '99? MR. BRUNO: Well, it's the same document. It's got different Bates numbers on it. MS. CLAYMAN: He'll use that one. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Whatever you say. THE WITNESS: Or we can trade. Whatever. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Doesn't matter to me.
Page 29

Can I have that back, please? MS. WAGER-ZITO: (Counsel hands document to Counsel). EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. This document says in paragraph 1 "The contractor shall furnish all services, materials, supplies, labor, and travel as required in coordination --" I'm sorry, "in connection with the coordination and technical review of site documents for the remediation and demolition of the east bank of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal between Claiborne Avenue and Florida Avenues from the IHNC east to the floodwall." Now, the reference to site documents, are those site documents already in existence? A. The site documents I believe are those listed in the back of that statement of work. Those are the ones provided to us. Q. Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Joe, I don't have a problem with you not marking this as an exhibit. MR. BRUNO:

A. You can see the "Government furnished information", item 6. These are the documents that they provided to us and allowed us to review, and we excluded or reviewed those. Q. All right. Well, just for my understanding, the paragraph says "review of site documents". How do we know what the site documents are? Is that something that's defined by the TERC? A. No, they're listed right here on the statement of work. Q. Well, I know. I am not trying to be persnickety about it, but I don't see anything that says site documents. How do we know what a site document is? A. It says "One copy of the following site documents --" Q. That's fair enough. A. "-- for the contractor's technical review". Q. So the site documents have the little dot next to each of them under 6. A. Correct. Q. All right. Now, it says "technical

8 (Pages 26 to 29) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 30

4/17/2008
Page 32

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

review". So could you help me understand what is the nature of the technical review of the site documents that we have now identified? A. The nature of the review is to take that -- the knowledge in these reports to direct our focus towards this recommendations report, which will in turn direct our focus to what activities we as a contractor will do for the Corps on the site -Q. Okay. A. -- during the long-term remediation. Q. Well, the thing that's got me confused is that we know that this is a remediation contract, the TERC is a remediation contract, -A. Right. Q. -- which in my mind means you're removing toxins and the like. A. Right. Q. Right? But we know that this contract ultimately called for the removal of more than just the toxins on the site. Right? A. Right.
Page 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

ultimately pursuant to Task Order 26 Morrison Knudsen, later Washington Group, went below the surface and removed piling and removed locomotives and all kinds of other things that would not ordinarily be characterized as the removal of toxins. Isn't that true? A. Well, even the piles, you know, had creosote treating and stuff like that. Q. Right. A. But sure, you know, the site itself, you know, apparently in the Corps' judgment, had enough contamination to want to deal with it with this contracting mechanism, with the HTRW contracting mechanism. Q. Well, I understand that, but I mean the documents clearly reflect that the reason for the removal of the piling and these other structures was so that when the Corps came back to dredge the area for its use as an auxiliary canal, that the tools that they were contemplating using wouldn't run into these structures. Isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. All right. And all I am driving at is that's not generally environmental
Page 33

Q. I mean we removed -A. Structures. Q. Structures. A. Concrete. Q. Exactly. And I am trying -A. Right. Q. -- to understand how the TERC in Task Order 26, to the extent it did, moved from the remediation of the toxic materials to the removal of these structures, the -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- concrete stuff and the piling and all of that business. A. Well, these structures had materials like asbestos, lead-contaminated -- you know, lead-based paint, lighting ballast with mercury. So in the process of demolishing the buildings there was a lot of dealing with waste, you know, segregating different types of waste to go to different types of facilities, you know. A steel salvage yard could take the steel. But you don't want to be sending them the asbestos and so forth. Q. Again, I understand that. But let me just ask it this way. We know that

remediation as contemplated by the TERC. That's something a little bit different. Isn't that true? A. No, I think in the environmental remediation world a lot of decontamination, demolition of buildings is a fairly significant part of that. Removal of tanks, you know, underground storage tanks is a common remediation activity. Q. Well, that's true. A. So whether it's oil or gas or toxics, whatever. Q. All right. That's true, but that's not my question. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Recall, please, that I suggested, and I could be wrong, but I am just -- all I can do is read the documents. The documents seem to reflect that the reason for the removal of some of these structures, not all, was to allow for the Corps to come back and dredge this area for the use of this space as an auxiliary canal. And the reason why the structures had to be pulled was so that their excavating devices wouldn't be damaged in the

9 (Pages 30 to 33) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 34

4/17/2008
Page 36

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

course of that excavation. Is that a fair statement of that work or not? A. I already answered that question. Q. I didn't -- I missed it. A. I said yes, that is -- that was their ultimate intent. Yes. Q. Well, as regards that ultimate intent, that's not typical environmental remediation. That is, removing structures to make way for a dredge. Isn't that true? A. The Corps of Engineers had criteria by which they could use this contracting mechanism. They evaluated it, they determined it was a good match, they picked up the phone, they called us, they had us out to the site, they provided this statement of work, and here we are. Q. I understand all of that. And I am not suggesting that anybody did anything wrong. I am just trying to get an answer to a very simple question. A. I am not at liberty to judge whether it was an appropriate use or whether it is or isn't hazardous waste work. In my mind -Q. That wasn't the question.
Page 35

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. In fact, it even talks about, I forgot, TH whatever it is. I've got it written down here somewhere. MS. WAGER-ZITO: HT. THE WITNESS: Hazardous toxic radiological waste. HTRW. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I mean, it says it right here. "The total remediation of hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste." Those are words that somebody chose to stick in this contract. Right? A. Right. Q. Right. And again, I am not suggesting anybody did anything wrong here. I am just saying that the removal of the piling and stuff and the structures to make way for an excavating device is a little bit outside of the general purposes, or I shouldn't say "purposes", God forbid, of what is generally contemplated by a TERC. Right? That's all I am driving at. A. You know, -Page 37

A. -- it is a mixture. Yes, there was remediation work and yes, there was some non-contaminated stuff that we dealt with. That's true. Q. That wasn't the question. A. Okay. Q. I wasn't asking you to comment on the philosophy, the correctness, the appropriateness of anything. A. Okay. Q. Okay? I was just trying to get a frame of reference. That's all. A. Okay. You're trying to give -Q. Don't be so defensive. It's okay. Okay? I am not here to trick you. I just want to know if -- We have established, I think pretty clearly, the documents are a mile high, the central focus of the TERC was environmental remediation, the removal of toxins. MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Isn't that true? A. Yes.

MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection, asked and answered. THE WITNESS: -- I would really need to look at the original TERC statement of work. I don't know if it talked about demolition of structures and that sort of thing. Possibly it did. I haven't reviewed that document in quite some years. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. So you just don't know. A. Right. Q. Fair enough. Can you tell me whether or not the document that's in front of you describes the removal of piling and structures for the purposes of allowing dredging equipment to dig a separate channel? Can you tell me whether or not that's included in this statement of work? And if it is, just show me where it is. A. I don't think it specifically -- I don't see it in here, that it specifically mentions removal of piles. Q. All right.

10 (Pages 34 to 37) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 38

4/17/2008
Page 40

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Just remediation and demolition. Q. All right. Now, I think you've testified that it's the site documents that really give you a great deal of insight in terms of what it is that you're going to do. Right? A. Well, they give you the insight on what's there now. Q. What's there now. Okay. Now, because the document, we have just agreed, doesn't really talk about removal of structures for the purposes of dredging, these documents that are referenced in this particular piece of paper are there to help you to have some understanding of the remediation component of the work. Isn't that true? A. Yes. And the structures. Q. All right. As they relate to remediation. A. Right. Q. But not as they relate to digging a canal; right? A. Right. Q. And so we see things like "1992,
Page 39

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

developing your work plan? A. Well, is it okay for me to speculate? Because I haven't read these documents. I can speculate that if, you know, they tested drums, they tested containers, hopefully, you know, there's somewhat of an inventory and discussion of what's in those things. Q. Yes. A. You know, in order for us to prepare a plan, a schedule, and an estimate to do this work, you really got to get into the quantities of the various materials, where that material is going to go off-site as far as a disposal facility, a recycling facility. So we're looking for information in which to base an estimate -Q. All right. A. -- and to develop these plans. Q. All right. Let's just walk through the rest of them very quickly. I just want to ascertain that each of these things regards only the environmental remediation component. That's where I am going here. A. And structures.
Page 41

land use history". What information might you gather from a document like that in the context of this remediation contract? A. That, I assume, would discuss the various marine activities, or the businesses that occupied that so you could get an idea of what their operations were and what sorts of things they might have left behind. Q. Okay. Fair enough. And the next one, "Assessment of potential hazardous toxic and radiological wastes"? A. Yeah, this one I remember reading the summary. It had to do with the soil gas investigation. An original inves- -- kind of a visual and high level contamination investigation. I think they collected quite a few samples. Q. All right. And did you have some understanding of why the samples were collected? A. For purposes of determining soil contamination primarily. Q. Okay. And the next one, "IHNC drums and containers testing, collection, disposal"? How might that assist you in

Q. In connection with environmental remediation and not dredging. A. Right. Q. Okay? So we could perhaps short-circuit this if you want to just look at each of them and see if there's any one of these documents referred to as site documents which gives information on anything other than remediation of the site and/or the structures on the site. MR. EHRLICH: Do you have another copy of that document you're asking him about? (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) THE WITNESS: Where are you? On page 7 now? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. I was just frankly trying to avoid going through each dot. We can do it either way. I was going to let you just look at them, but we can take them one at a time. A. You know, I'm not an expert on these documents. What we did is we assigned two individuals to New Orleans -- Well, one

11 (Pages 38 to 41) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 42

4/17/2008
Page 44

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

already worked there for a subcontractor, MMG, and then we moved Dennis O'Connor down there, our project manager, and they reviewed these documents. And there's a good synopsis or, you know, summary of each of them in the recommendations report. So, you know, it's mostly conjecture on my part, is by reading the title and saying what I would think would be in the reports. I don't know if that serves your purpose or if it's the best thing to do, but -Q. Well, I would like to know, though, from your perspective as the project manager what your expectation would be. You would expect that these documents would be reviewed by whoever you assigned them to. Right? A. Right. Q. And I am just trying to get a handle on an understanding of the scope of the work. Would you agree, and I think that this has already been established, but to put it to bed, these one, two, three, four, five pages of materials don't say anything about removing structures for the purposes of assisting the Corps in its dredging activities of the
Page 43

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

dump these documents and then it's Dennis and Jim Blazek's job to go to work reviewing these documents and putting together a plan, an initial recommendations report of the scope and magnitude of this effort. Q. Well, is it all important for you as the contractor to have some understanding of what it is that the Corps intends to do with the site so that you can assess the degree to which perhaps demolition is necessary? A. Well, they told us pretty much, you know -- other than the way you put it, that "Ultimately we're going to put a bypass channel and that this area is going to be dredged out." I don't think we heard much more than that. But they would say stuff like, "Gee, we need these things -- you know, we want to go down" I think it was 36 feet or something, so there were some criteria provided by the Corps that was put into the recommendations report as to how deep they may be dredging and that sort of thing. Q. Okay. Well, that's where I am going. When do you believe you understood that the Corps intended to dredge the site for
Page 45

proposed relief canal that they were going to build. A. Well, these five pages direct us to develop the recommendations report to do the remediation and demolition that will be required, including, and I am reading now, "In addition to reviewing the site documents, the contractor shall prepare a comprehensive report recommending the scope and duration of the remediation and demolition that will be required, including any data gaps that may need to be filled by sampling and other investigations." The top of page 6. Q. Okay. A. So remember, it's -- it's not just these documents. We're out there walking around the site with the Corps and they're saying, "Okay, see that there? You know, here's -- here's what we need to do, you know. See those piles? They got to go. Guess what? You know, there's sunken barges out there. Go read about them. You know, maybe they're discussed in this report," you know. So they're walking around telling us what they know about the site. And then they

let's just say generally a canal without much more than that, just keep it simple? Was that part of this process? A. Yes. I'm sure when we did the first site walk they told us, you know, the big picture. Q. All right. A. You know, "This is a big navigation project and you're one of -- one of the first out of the chute as far as the contract to begin the process of being able to improve that navigation channel." Q. All right. So you think you also knew then how deep they wanted to go? A. Yes, I think that that was discussed as part of the recommendations report. Q. All right. Now, do you think it's 36 feet? A. I saw that somewhere in reviewing the recommendations report. Something about, you know, piles, you know, when they pull the piles, if -- I can't remember the context of the 36 feet, but I saw that somewhere. Q. Right. Well, I mean, that's kind of where my confusion comes into play. Because

12 (Pages 42 to 45) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 46

4/17/2008
Page 48

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

if you want to create a space 36 feet below, let's use sea level as our datum, and you know you got piles down there, there's two ways you could go. You could either pull the pile or you could cut the top off. Right? A. Well, yeah, you'd rather pull it. Q. Well, that's where I am going. I mean, are those -- is that -- Maybe I am crazy. Is that an option? A. Right. We were requested by the Corps to pull them. Okay? Q. To pull them? A. Now, if they break off, you know, in the recommendations report there's some discussion -- basically the Corps kind of provided us with the spec, if you will, that if the thing breaks off, then you locate that thing, and I imagine there were some -- you try to indicate how deep it was where it broke off so that when those guys come around dredging, they know they're about to hit this thing. And so there was a GPS or a survey, you know, requirement to identify the exact location of anything broken off and left if it were above 36 feet. I think that's what it
Page 47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that time. Do you know whether or not Morrison Knudsen had done any work in Louisiana up until that time? A. I can't think of anything, but, you know, it's a big company. It's been around since 1895. Q. I understand. Yes. A. If we hadn't done work in Louisiana, I'd be shocked. Q. You would be shocked. But you have no personal knowledge? A. I can't -- Nothing jumps out on me that I can remember in my 20 years. Q. Okay. But it is true that Morrison Knudsen had done no work under the TERC in Louisiana? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you know if any inquiry was made? I mean, you know, within the company, "Hey, guys, we're going to Louisiana. Anybody in the company have any specialized knowledge about working in Louisiana, the politics or whatever, good bars to go to, et cetera"? Things like that? MS. WAGER-ZITO:
Page 49

was. Q. Okay. I meant to ask you this before and I should have. Had you guys done any work in Louisiana before this 26? A. On the TERC? No. Q. Had you -MS. WAGER-ZITO: I'm sorry, when you say "you guys", you mean all of Washington Group? MR. BRUNO: Yes. THE WITNESS: You mean Washington Group? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. I meant -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Or MK? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Well, -A. Oh. Well, certainly. Yeah, I mean. Q. -- let me clarify the question for the record in fairness to Counsel. All right. Let's go back to 19- -- was is 1999, I think June, 1999, you're Morrison Knudsen at

Compound question. THE WITNESS: Well, -MR. BRUNO: It's compound, I'll admit. THE WITNESS: -- we did happen to have a relationship with MMG, who is an 8-A subcontractor, and that was one of the benefits we felt was provided by this very small business, was that they knew the local -- they knew the local businesses, the politics, the good places to go eat, if you will. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Good. A. So yeah, they helped us. Q. All right. Tell me, who is MMG? A. Materials Management Group. Q. Okay. A. And they were a small business at the time we used them. They probably had 15, 20 employees. Q. All right. Did you have a personal relationship with any of the folks in that

13 (Pages 46 to 49) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 50

4/17/2008
Page 52

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

particular company at that time? A. Well, as a result of this project I developed a personal relationship with their principal. Q. Okay. What was the principal's name? A. Paul Lo. Q. L? A. L O. Q. L O? A. Yeah. Q. That's easy to spell. Before, what was the relationship with, with either you or Morrison Knudsen with this company before the Task Order 26? A. Well, I had -- I was wondering that myself, how we got on to them. Because my relationship with them started about the time this RFP came out. When we went down there, I walked the site with Paul Lo and then we started brainstorming how we were going to -how we were going to work this project together. But before that, the company -- You know, the government is very keen on involving small local businesses, disadvantaged
Page 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

explain to you. Of course, with the -- with vertical construction, you know, the Corps can give you drawings. They can give you, you know, your traditional specifications. They can give you everything that's going to define everything down to the gnat's eyebrow. But when you're working below the ground or you're dealing with contamination, you don't know if it's, you know, 6,000 cubic yards or 60,000. Then what they do is they use this cost plus, cost reimbursable contracting strategy where they provide you with a statement of work, you provide them with a proposal, work plans, and then as you get in and start doing the work, you -- You're continually refining and defining the requirements and the scope of work as you go along. Q. Right. Okay. A. So the recommendations report was the first step in that process. So what we did was we wrote the report and then, you know, tried to define quantities and durations. We did a lot of discussions with local companies knowledgeable in pulling piles, you know, pulling sunken barges out of
Page 53

businesses, so we had set up a Mentor Protege agreement with them, which was -- is a government-sanctioned program where large business helps support a small business. What the large business gets out of that is goals, you know, towards your goals and also you don't have to compete for work. So we didn't have to compete, you know, -- We could just say "MMG is going to be our partner" and the Corps said "Good enough, cost reimbursable, you know, as long as you do your job and making sure the money's well spent" and so that was the relationship in a nutshell. Q. All right. So when you received this document, which is Bates number 8 -- I forgot what it is, the first number. MS. WAGER-ZITO: 5 to 9. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. 5 to 9. What exactly do you do? You got it now. What's the first thing you do? A. Well, like I say, you walk the site, you talk to the Corps, you know, you get an understanding not only -- I don't know how to

the ground. Starting figuring out, you know, who the companies were who could support us in this who really had the knowledge. Q. Okay. But before you wrote the report, I gather you went down to the site? A. Yes. Q. Is it fair to say that's one of the first things you did? A. Yes, about the same time this thing came out (indicating), we went to the site, we walked the site, -Q. All right. A. -- talked to the Corps. Q. You don't recall how it was that Mr. Lo was contacted, but he was contacted? A. Yes. Q. All right. A. Yes. Q. All right. Do you recall about -A. Well, we had made a decision before that that they would, you know, partner with us in this effort. Before this RFP came out, we had already determined that this was a good match to use this company that we'd already enlisted as a potential subcontractor; it's

14 (Pages 50 to 53) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 54

4/17/2008
Page 56

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

right in their back yard. Q. All right. So clearly then you had some knowledge before the paper came to you that there was going to be work done in New Orleans. A. Yes. Q. Okay. And so I guess that's the phone call that you made some reference to. You know about the work that's contemplated, so you guys start thinking about who you're going to partner with down there, and that's how ultimately Mr. Lo was selected? A. Yes. Q. All right. Now, who went to New Orleans with you? A. It was just me. Q. Just you? A. The first time. Q. And who did you meet with from the Corps, if anyone? A. I don't even remember, other than John Weatherly. I think it had -- Probably was Lee Guillory. Q. Help me with the spelling if you don't mind. Weatherly is -Page 55

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. A. They're mostly a scientific environmental type firm. Q. Okay. Do you know if Mr. Lo had any knowledge about the soils and, you know, the kinds of marsh or deposits that might be encountered in, you know, digging around the location of this Task Order 26? A. That, I don't know. Q. Okay. When you guys went down there, obviously you observed that you were going to be doing work near a body of water; right? A. Right. Q. It's pretty obvious. It's right out there. Did you have any understanding about the quality of the soils in Louisiana in or around bodies of water like the one that you saw when you went to the Inner Navigation Canal? A. No. Q. All right. Did you know whether or not there was a flood control structure in the vicinity of that site? A. We knew the -- You know, we saw the
Page 57

A. Q. A. Q. A. Y.

Weather like the weather. All right. W E A T H E R L Y? L Y. Good enough. And then Guillory is G U I L L O R

Q. All right. Do you know whether or not Mr. Lo had any experience doing any excavating work before you guys partnered up with him? A. I believe they had done some small, you know, remediation-related excavation work. Q. Okay. Actually, that makes me think. What was Mr. Lo's business? What -Did he focus on a particular kind of work? A. Environmental remediation. Q. Oh, so he was a remediation? A. Yes. Q. He was focused on remediation as well? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. It wasn't just an ordinary contractor building stuff? A. No. Not at all.

concrete floodwall structure. Q. Okay. Did anybody say anything to you at all about it other than it's there? A. To me, no. Q. All right. A. Not really. Q. Were you told anything at all about what you could or could not do near that wall? That is, within a certain proximity of that wall? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Can I just clarify, Joe? MR. BRUNO: Yes, ma'am. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You're talking about this visit? MR. BRUNO: Yes. MS. WAGER-ZITO: That first visit? MR. BRUNO: Oh, yeah. THE WITNESS: No, on that visit -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

15 (Pages 54 to 57) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 58

4/17/2008
Page 60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. No, I'm sorry, let me get you focused. That visit, you're walking the site, -A. Okay. Q. -- you're there with Weatherly and the other gentleman, Guillory. A. And it's almost nine years ago. So I don't remember. Q. "I don't remember" is a perfectly reasonable answer. A. Yeah. Right now I don't remember any concerns. And to me, it was something that kind of kept us removed from the neighborhood, you know, to the south. And I didn't think of it as much more than that. Q. All right. Did you -- Well, let me ask you this question. Do you have any -- I mean, you know, you're coming from a different place in the country -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- than New Orleans. Right? A. Right. Q. There's a big difference between Denver and Boise and New Orleans. Wouldn't you agree?
Page 59

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

sheet pile went? A. I did see a section in one of the documents, it was probably one on here that had a little teeny sketch and I saw some sheet pile going down eight feet. Q. All right. A. So apparently it was something that was in there kind of, "Oh, by the way," but I think -- I think that sketch was really there for a different purpose. It was -- You know, I don't think it was there to get into the construction of the flood levee and wall. Q. I understand. All right. So can we agree that the Corps did not say to you "Listen, Morrison Knudsen, we, the Corps, we're real worried about this flood control structure. You need to be careful, you need to do this"? They did not say that to you in any way; right? MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. On that first visit. That's where we are. A. No, not that I can remember.
Page 61

A. Yeah. Right. Q. All right. And I am wondering if you had any understanding about the importance of flood protection to the people of the city of New Orleans. Is that -A. Personally? Q. Yes. Back then. A. No, we felt like that was the Corps' job. You know, -Q. Right. I understand. A. -- that's what they do. Q. We thought so, too. But anyway, so really, as you walked on the site, you have no particular understanding of the degree to which that floodwall had any impact on flood protection other than it was simply there? Is that fair enough? A. From my standpoint, yes. Maybe the guys down there might have. Q. Did the Corps give you a set of plans so that you would have some understanding of how that thing was made? That is, that floodwall? A. Not that I am aware of. Q. Did the Corps tell you how deep the

Q. All right. Now, did you understand at that time whether or not it was necessary or appropriate to obtain any permits in order to work near that flood control structure? A. In that initial meeting? Q. Yes. A. I don't recall permitting being discussed. Q. All right. Now, in the TERC, the contractor is responsible to get permits if a permit is required. Right? A. Yes. Q. All right. What does Morrison Knudsen do to figure out what permits may be necessary when they're about to get into something like this Task Order 26? A. Pick up the phone, start calling the authorities. Q. Okay. A. Which was done as part of the recommendations report process. Q. All right. And -A. And talk to your client, the Corps, as far as what they know. In a lot of cases on the TERC, you're working on Super Fund

16 (Pages 58 to 61) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 62

4/17/2008
Page 64

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

sites and you're not required to have permits at all on those, as long as you meet the requirements, the set of requirements. But there was quite an effort put in to identifying the permits needed for this job. Q. All right. There was quite an effort, you said. First of all, who was in charge of that effort? A. Dennis O'Connor. Q. Dennis O'Connor. Okay. MR. BRUNO: Is he going to be here? Is he going to be a rep? MS. WAGER-ZITO: He is no longer with the company and he is not going to be a rep. MR. BRUNO: Fair enough. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Phil Staggs is going to do the rest of the 30 (b)(6). EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. You had mentioned these gentlemen's names in the past and I neglected to ask you what their job titles were.
Page 63

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. These two guys? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Do you have any input into the report? A. I believe I reviewed it, but I was not very involved in this. It was being done out of New Orleans. I was in Denver. They were competent. They were, you know, in very close cooperation with the Corps. So the Corps was happy, so I was as well. Q. All right. Now, you did mention -Of course, you know you've got to be careful about what you say because it gets you into trouble, but you said there was this effort, I think you said a big effort to make inquiry about the permits. A. Yes. Q. All right. Tell me what you know about that. A. Well, I know that a lot of permits were obtained. Okay? There were permits that you had to get to knock down the buildings. There were permits you had to get to enter the various sites, you know, because it was turned over from the Port to the Corps. There -Page 65

A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), okay. Q. What was Mr. O'Connor back then? A. He was the actual project manager in charge of this Task Order 26. Q. Dennis O'Connor. And the other gentleman's name was Jim Blazek? A. Jim Blazek, B L A Z I K. Q. Z I K? A. Z I C. MS. CLAYMAN: B L A Z E K. MR. BRUNO: That's unfortunately an unfortunate name in my past. But anyway. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. He doesn't work for Adams and Reese, does he? What was Jim Blazek's title back then? A. I think we termed him the Environmental Manager. Q. All right. Who actually writes the recommendation report? A. Those two individuals.

Storm water discharge permit. Hot work permits. Quite a few different permits were obtained. Q. All right. Would you do me a favor and take a look at the recommendation report, which -- For the record, I am going to show you a document which has been Bates numbered by Washington Group International as Bates number 1 -- I'm sorry, that's the I in WGI -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Skip the zeros. MR. BRUNO: Okay. 38704 is the first number in seriatim to WGI-38769. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Take a look at it and see, first of all, am I correct, is that the report? I don't want to give you something wrong. A. This is it. Q. Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Well, take the time you need to look through to make sure it's the right one. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

17 (Pages 62 to 65) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 66

4/17/2008
Page 68

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. That I didn't alter any of the type faces. A. This is December 2nd. I believe that was the final version. You know, the Corps reviewed these things, you know. We might have had a couple of iterations before we got to this point. Is there a particular page I am supposed to go to? 69? Q. Yes, but I want to make sure your Counsel is satisfied that you looked at it carefully enough to say to me that's the right one. I trusted you before, but we've got the right document? All I wanted to know is if you could help me find where to look. MS. CLAYMAN: That -MR. BRUNO: That's what? MS. CLAYMAN: Can I? THE WITNESS: (Witness hands document to Counsel.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 67

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

report, period. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. But anyway, all I am trying to do is see if you can help me find the section that deals with the permits. A. Okay. Q. If you can. I mean, you know, tell me, you know, what I need to do to find it or direct me or -- I appreciate that very much. And if it's not in there, if it's somehow incomplete, we'll go and get a complete report. A. Okay. It's section 5.1.4, "Permitting procedures". Q. 5.1.4. Okay. MR. EHRLICH: What's the Bates number to that page? THE WITNESS: The page is -MR. EHRLICH: I don't have a copy of it. MR. BRUNO: No, neither do I. MR. EHRLICH:
Page 69

Q. December -A. December 2nd. Q. Let's you and I get back to business and they can do their thing. All I want to do is could you help me find the section -MS. CLAYMAN: It's not a complete copy. MS. WAGER-ZITO: It's not a complete copy, Joe. That's the point that we're making. And that's why I asked him. It's not that I don't trust you, it's not that I think you're slipping things in there. That might happen later. But just for the record, this is not a complete copy of the recommendations report. MR. BRUNO: All right. MS. WAGER-ZITO: So don't ask him to say that it is. MR. BRUNO: I never said that, used the word. All I said was is this the

It's not being marked as an exhibit, so I just want to follow it along as I go. MR. BRUNO: If it was marked as an exhibit, I don't know how it would help you in any way in looking at it since it's not in front of you. MR. EHRLICH: WELL, when the deposition was over, we would have a deposition with an exhibit attached to it and it would be more complete. MR. BRUNO: You would also have a deposition that's about eight feet high. I'm happy to do it if you want. It's your call, man. MR. EHRLICH: It's 30 pages. MR. BRUNO: No, it's the first of many, many documents. If you want to attach it -- Guys, I have no qualms about attaching everything. It's just that

18 (Pages 66 to 69) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 70

4/17/2008
Page 72

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

we have a huge amount of paper and we're going to end up with something that's unwieldy. MS. WAGER-ZITO: It's more to the point I think right now that they don't have something to look at. MR. EHRLICH: I just want to know what page you're reading from. You are asking him questions about a document that you didn't make copies for Counsel and so I just want to know what page it is. MR. BRUNO: No, I didn't and I don't think it's my job to make copies for you. If you want me to, I'm happy to. I can't do your work for you. MR. EHRLICH: How do I know what document you're going to use when you're asking the questions? MR. BRUNO: You know what? I don't either
Page 71

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

No, I just got it now. MR. BRUNO: Well, no one's denied you that opportunity, have we? You didn't -MR. SCHULTZ: Are we off the record? MR. EHRLICH: All I did was ask for it. I got it -MR. BRUNO: No, you didn't ask for it. You made a comment about attaching it, and I am like happy to attach it if that's what you want. MR. EHRLICH: No. MR. BRUNO: That's not what you said. I have got the record right here. MR. EHRLICH: I asked for a Bates number. MR. BRUNO: You got it. MR. EHRLICH: Right now I've got the document.
Page 73

and that's part of the process, because I never know. I can never know what documents you're going to use. I don't know what documents they're going to use. I do my best. Okay? MR. EHRLICH: But you know what documents you're going to use. MR. BRUNO: I have thousands of pages of documents. I even have a hard drive with about 50,000 documents on it. I have no idea where I am going to go with this thing. So no, I am not going to make copies of everything just because it's something we can do. MR. EHRLICH: Then all I ask is for the opportunity to look at the document that you are using to ask the question. MR. BRUNO: And you have had that opportunity. MR. EHRLICH:

MR. BRUNO: No, you got the Bates number and now you want the document. I'm happy to do that for you, too. MR. EHRLICH: No, you're wrong. I've got the document. I'm still waiting for the Bates number. MR. BRUNO: No, no, you're wrong. No, we got the Bates number. We now got to get the document. THE WITNESS: Let me answer his question. MR. BRUNO: The record says it right here. THE WITNESS: The Bates number is 038- -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Thank you. A. 038742. MR. EHRLICH: Well, -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Thank you.

19 (Pages 70 to 73) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 74

4/17/2008
Page 76

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. EHRLICH: -- now, the problem is that the document I have is a different Bates number. MR. BRUNO: Gosh, another problem. MR. EHRLICH: Not your problem, but -THE WITNESS: Maybe I should take a bathroom break. MS. WAGER-ZITO: It's section 5.1.4 in the document. MR. EHRLICH: Thank you. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Do you need to take a break really? Because you can take a break when you need to. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes, it's my rule and it's also close to lunch. Let me just -- Let me just find the section and then we can break for lunch.
Page 75

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: I haven't done that yet. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. What is your expectation of the completeness of this paragraph? In other words, do you think that what we have described here are all of the permits that may be required? A. It says "expected to be as follows". That doesn't convey a whole lot of certainty to me. Q. Right. So there may be more? A. Yes. Possibly. Q. Do you know what the nature of the Levee Board permit was? A. No. Q. Okay. But that's something I should ask to Mr. -A. Staggs. Q. -- O'Connor. Right? No, I mean I didn't mean to answer for you. But you told me O'Connor and Blazek wrote the report. A. Right. But O'Connor was the one that we mentioned is no longer with the company, so our company representative is
Page 77

MS. CLAYMAN: He said it was. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. MR. BRUNO: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I am going to give him my copy. MR. BRUNO: All right. MS. WAGER-ZITO: And you are not going to say that because I gave him my copy which may have highlighting on it that I have waived work product privilege. MR. BRUNO: No, I won't. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Because I want him to read it. MR. BRUNO: I understand that. I won't do that to you. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yet.

going to be Phil Staggs. Q. Okay. MR. JOANEN: He's designated. MS. CLAYMAN: He's designated. THE WITNESS: But I am designated to talk about this issue. So go ahead. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, do you know what kind of permit had to be obtained from the Levee Board? A. Yes. They -- Counsel has provided me with some backup on that. And it turned out that there wasn't a permit required from the Levee Board. Q. What backup did you look at that made that suggestion? A. I looked at a number of letters, emails. There was a couple of letters where Dennis O'Connor -- Well, there was phone calls first and then the Corps, between Dennis and Mr. Spencer I believe it was with the Orleans Levee District.

20 (Pages 74 to 77) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 78

4/17/2008
Page 80

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. When did you see these documents? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Every one of these documents has been produced to you. MR. BRUNO: No, I know. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I just didn't want you -THE WITNESS: Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: -- to think that he looked at things that you do not have access to. MR. BRUNO: No, I didn't suggest that at all. We just got some documents from the Levee Board the last couple of days which seem to belie that. That's why I am pulling them out. In fairness to him, I want him to see them, but that's why I am asking "when did you see these documents". EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Was it recently or a long time ago? A. Recently.
Page 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

application. So he sent them a letter, you know, kind of laying out the plans of what we would be doing with the fence and the mowing and such close to the wall there, and then I think he was supposed to copy then -- what was it, the Department of Transportation? And I believe a gentleman with the Corps, a different department of the Corps than who we were dealing with, and -- but the Corps' position, you know, I saw notes when we had our original -- some meeting in '99, there was uncertainty as to whether we would need to get this permit. And that is because the Corps has a perpetual easement to work along these levees. And ultimately that was the Corps' feeling on this, was that "No, Washington Group, you're okay. You let the guys know what you're up to. You provide them the information. You don't need to proceed with formal permit ap." Yeah. Q. I am going to hand this to you. It doesn't have a Bates number. And because it doesn't, I do want to ask Counsel for the courtesy of making some copies for folks because they may not have this. I am going to
Page 81

Q. All right. Did you see the documents that were produced by the Orleans Levee District? A. Yes. Well, I -Q. Are you sure? A. Yeah, I think I saw a "No exceptions memorandum" or something like that. Q. Right. And I am curious because -A. "No objections". "Letter of no objections", something like that. Q. Well, actually, where I am confused is that these documents seem to suggest that a permit was not only required, but requested. And I am happy to show these to you and you can look at them over the break. In fact, there's even a document dated December 29, 2000 which says "Permit request, form of no objection". So I guess what I need to ask you first is what -- upon what do you base your belief that no permit was required? A. I discussed it with Dennis O'Connor and he was told by the Corps to provide the Orleans Levee Board District with information regarding our activities in the vicinity of the floodwall and not to request a permit

attach this as WGI Number 2. Take a look at it first. Did you see that document? A. I saw this document yesterday for the first time. Q. All right. So clearly at least the Levee Board thought that you guys were seeking a permit. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Isn't that true? A. I don't know. It's -- It's -- The literal interpretation of this was that, you know, they -- they referenced the letter dated November 7th, 2000 and then go on to say "Requesting permission for the subject project". But my understanding is the intent of the November 7th letter was to provide information of what we were up to, not to request a permit. And it doesn't say "Request a permit." It says "Requesting permission". So, --

21 (Pages 78 to 81) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 82

4/17/2008
Page 84

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. A. -- you know, it seems like we were providing notification as the Corps instructed us to do, and they were taking that as, you know, requesting permission. Q. All right. This is probably a good time to break, as I have a lot of questions about this area and so we might as well just take our lunch break now. Unless you would prefer -A. Okay. Q. -- not to. I always let the witness be the boss. A. No, I think it's a good time to break. Q. Let me just mark that before we get off the record. I didn't put the number on it. All right. MR. BRUNO: Break for an hour? MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's fine. It's pretty much almost exactly 12:00. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.)
Page 83

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

been designated, I wanted to suggest -- to see if we could get through this quickly, I guess we cannot, but here's the question. I just warranted to clarify, if I understood your testimony correctly, once the TERC has been signed and executed, all right, with regard to your work on Task Order 26, -A. Okay. Q. -- all right? It wasn't necessary for you guys to bid or express an interest in that work; that was a component part of the TERC. Is that accurate? A. We -- Yes. We did not have to compete with another party to get the work. We -- When you say we didn't have to express an interest, maybe that's what confused me. Q. Okay. A. Okay. Q. Fair enough. A. I don't think we ever told the Corps, "No, we don't want to do your work, we don't want to work with you on this job." Q. Well, that's -A. But -- No, whenever they came up with something, we were happy to go take a
Page 85

VIDEO OPERATOR: Going off the record, it's 12:02. (Recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 1:02. We are now back on the record. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Good. I trust everyone had a decent lunch. Let's get back on to the record. Mr. Roe, if you'll look at paragraph number 7, which is the first of the paragraphs for which you have been designated, see if we can't sort of get through these quickly. As I understood your testimony, once the TERC was executed by Morrison Knudsen for the Corps, it wasn't necessary for you to either indicate an interest or obtain the contract to do Task Order 26. Correct? A. I am not sure I am following that question. Can you repeat or restate that? Q. Sure. I'll just read it. If you will look at paragraph number 7, which is the first of the paragraphs for which you have

look and get involved. Q. Do I understand, Mr. Roe, that within the TERC that you could decline work? A. I suppose you could, but it might not go over real well with the Corps if you did it. Q. That's good. I am simply asking questions based upon what you're telling me. Okay? I just assumed some things that perhaps I shouldn't have, but what you're saying to me is if the Washington Group was not interested in, for example, Task Order 26, the way you interpreted the TERC, WGI could say "We're not interested." Is that accurate? A. To my knowledge, yes, I think we could -- If we were asked to do something that the company just flat out for whatever reason, you know, like whether it be a liability or we didn't have the adequate resources or the right expertise or whatever, -Q. Okay. A. -- we could tell them that. I don't see why not. Q. Well, was there a process whereby, when you were notified by the Corps in this

22 (Pages 82 to 85) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 86

4/17/2008
Page 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

instance by phone of the fact that they were contemplating some work, that there was some internal review or process by which you would answer the question, well, do we want to do this work or not? A. No. No. By exception, we -- you know, we always wanted to do the work. Q. Okay. A. I'm just saying under the contract, the way you phrased your earlier question, "Would you be required to do it whether the company had any business doing it or not," I'd think we could, you know, tell the Corps this is not appropriate or whatever. Q. Well, that wasn't the question, which is where we're getting into difficulty. I didn't ask you whether you were required to do the work. The question was whether you were required to indicate in the form of, you know, a bid or some -A. Oh. Q. -- interest in order to get the work. A. Oh, yeah. Absolutely. We were required -- There's no way they could give us
Page 87

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Just think of it as a big umbrella. Q. Right. A. And it has a contract and it has modifications, primarily modifications like, okay, you have done your first four years. Now we're going to give you a three-year extension to the TERC. Okay. You have finished your second three-year extension. Now we're going to give you another three years. So those are the umbrella. Then there's task orders 1 through 26. Or maybe we got up to 28 or whatever. Within each task order, that's kind of like a mini contract. You can also have modifications to provide more funding or -Q. Right. A. -- authorize additional work. Q. And I guess where I am getting confused is that, you know, the phone rings, the Corps is calling and they say "We want you to do some work in the Industrial Canal or the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal in New Orleans," which then prompts you to review, for example, a statement of work. Right? A. Correct.
Page 89

a contract without us first giving them a proposal. We had -- Okay. Let me explain. They give us the RFP, which we discussed. Then we price it out. We estimate the resources, being the labor, the subcontracts, the other direct costs, you know, travel costs, in this case office costs, computers. We price it all out, we list our assumptions, we talked about the basis of the estimate and we negotiated that. And once they feel that we're giving them a fair estimate, it's not a hard money commitment to do the work for that price; it's an estimate going in, then you negotiate it, they issue the task order or the task order mod and authorize that additional funding. Q. Well, is there a new contract? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. THE WITNESS: No, it's a mod -- There's -- This is kind of complicated. There's an umbrella of the TERC. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right.

Q. Y'all get paid for that, don't you? A. Not on an original task order. No. Q. Okay. When do you get paid? What is the first work for which you will be paid in the context of a task order or work order? A. That's a good question. The original proposal for a new task order is non-reimbursable. In other words, you don't get paid for it. But once you negotiate that and they issue you that task order, then you can open that task order, you can start billing the Corps against it. Q. Okay. A. And -- And from that point on, when they say, "Okay, do more work on it," like the arsenic investigation, go do an arsenic investigation", go write the work plans was the -- You know, if you look at this the way it unfolded, first was the recommendations report. The original task order. Then you had the mod to do the arsenic background investigation. Then you had another mod to write the six or so work plans. And then another big negotiation to do the actual remediation part of it, the demolition

23 (Pages 86 to 89) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 90

4/17/2008
Page 92

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

remediation. And from that -- those proposals, we already had staff billing to these task orders, and typically we go ahead and charge the effort to estimate the next phase to the client under the task order. Q. Okay. I am just -- You need to help me. A. Yeah. Q. At what point in this process -Let's just take it one at a time. The statement for work, it comes to you. A. Okay. Q. Does somebody bill for its review? A. No. Q. Okay. The drafting of the recommendation report, does somebody bill for its drafting? A. Yes. Q. All right. So it's somewhere in between those two activities that the billing begins? A. The only thing not billed was the original proposal and the initial site visits and all the stuff leading up to that task order. Once the task order is in place, you
Page 91

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

report is written? A. Yes, because, if you recall, the original task order statement of work said, -Q. Ah. A. -- "Okay, your first task is to do this recommendation report". Q. Ah. A. So we put together an estimate, okay, we're going to have two guys in New Orleans and computers and blah, blah, blah, and they're going to be there for three months writing this report. Okay? Q. Okay. A. Negotiate it, issue the signed task order, I sign it, "Okay, guys start to work. Get after it." Q. Okay. And the reason I got confused is, and it's my fault, but when we first talked about the statement of work, I believe you said it came to you guys and that task order number was blank and at some point in time it got a number. A. Right. But it was blank because what if we were also putting in a proposal for a job on a different site and that one got
Page 93

know, we use a contractor who likes to make profit on work. Q. Sure. A. We will do the work that we're paid to do. We're not going to do additional items that we're not paid to do. So we're pretty well focused in on doing what the Corps wants us to do at that point. And if they don't feel it's cost effective, then we will, you know -- In some cases they would tell us "We don't think you need this sort of position on site" even though we had it in our proposal. They might say we don't need that guy; we would take it out of our proposal. We wouldn't staff it. We have never gotten in a situation where, oh, we think we need it, we'll put it on and we just won't bill you for it. We only want to work what we get paid for basically. Q. I know this is clear, but I think I'm struggling a little bit. I think you said you start billing when the task order is issued, and I am just trying to figure out when that is. I mean, for example, is the task order issued before the recommendation

approved before this one? Okay. Q. Exactly. But what I am trying to understand is, is when the piece of paper comes to you with the blank number on it, is it a task order? A. No. It's just a request for proposal. Q. Exactly. A. Or a task order number to be determined. Q. When does it become a task order is what I am trying to figure out. A. Okay. When this document that's called the task order, standard government form (indicating) -Q. What is what -A. That's not it. Q. Fair enough. A. Do we have an example that would show? Q. I don't know. I don't know what the documents are so I can't say. A. It's a government form signed by the contracting officer. I sign it as basic -Q. Is this it (indicating)?

24 (Pages 90 to 93) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 94

4/17/2008
Page 96

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Right. Q. Okay. A. And now, this most likely, you know, references that stage of work. Q. All right. A. And references, you know, stuff like that. So this is the task order. Q. Forgive me. I don't know the ins and outs of how you guys do work. I'm struggling with mounds and mounds of paper. So I have to plead I'm doing my best. A. Yeah. Q. But would you -- For the record, is there a Bates number on the bottom of that document that we can read into the record? A. Yes. It's five zeros and 3. Q. Okay. So it's document 3? A. Document 3. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: You want to look at it? MS. WAGER-ZITO: It just doesn't make sense to me, because I thought we had 5 to 9 before.
Page 95

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

So the -MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's also incomplete. I mean, it's part of the task order. MR. BRUNO: I don't know what's incomplete or complete, as you must know. I cannot possibly know what's a complete document and is not a complete document. What I have is a production of about a zillion documents. I'm pulling them out, I'm trying to understand them. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. If you see anything that I put in front of you that's incomplete, just tell me. A. Okay. Q. And if you need to see more pieces of paper to assist you in answering a question, please tell me. But I don't claim to know what's complete. I have never suggested on this record that a document is complete. Nothing. It's not been a part of my question. Okay? A. Okay.
Page 97

MR. BRUNO: We do. I didn't do the Bates numbering. Don't get mad at me. MS. WAGER-ZITO: This is part of -MS. CLAYMAN: Yes. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Okay. MR. BRUNO: We're together? MS. WAGER-ZITO: We're together. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Document number 2, take a peek at that; that's the transmittal letter for the task order? A. Yes. Right. Q. Okay. Terrific. A. Just saying "I signed it, this is coming back at you." Q. Just trying to get the sequence -A. No problem. Q. -- if you don't mind. May I have that? Thanks.

Q. In fairness to me. A. Okay. Q. Now. To get to where I am trying to go, this appears to be dated -- Well, is it dated? Let's see. Where is there a date? Date of order. July 12th, 1999 appears to be the date. And then, of course, we go back to the statement of work that has a date on it of June 1, 1999. So, frankly, not a lot of time passes between the issuance of the written statement of work and the issuance of the actual work order. Right? A. In this case, that's right. Yes. Q. All right. In other cases may there be -A. Maybe a little more, but that's typical, because, you know, the -- they're in a hurry to get going. Q. Sure. A. They give you a statement of work, you take a week or two or three to turn the proposal around. And then if they're motivated, they can negotiate that within a week or two. Sometimes it may take two or three months if they're not very motivated.

25 (Pages 94 to 97) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 98

4/17/2008
Page 100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. Now, is it fair for me to conclude -A. That's distracting. I had a cell phone in my pocket. It distracted me. I wanted to get it away from me. Q. That's fine. So July 12, 1999 is when you're able to be paid for your work. Right? A. Right. Q. Okay. Now, the next thing that happens is, and maybe I'm wrong, did you go to New Orleans after you received the work order? If you can remember. Or before? A. Well, I went to New Orleans before we prepared the proposal. Okay? Now, I made a number of trips to New Orleans, but it's not that important when I went to New Orleans, because I wasn't the guy doing the work per se on Task Order 26. It was Mr. Blazek and Mr. O'Connor. And I can't remember exactly when Dennis arrived in New Orleans to sit down with Jim and start working on that report, but it must have been very shortly after the task order was awarded. Because they hit the ground running fast.
Page 99

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

is. I am going to hand you WGI page number 4. And then a second -A. Okay. Yeah. What you're -- What you've got there is part of the task order. So if you give me item 3 back, I want to show you the complete task order. Q. All right. A. This is the task order. This form (indicating). Q. Page -A. Which is some government form such and such, DD-1155. Q. And it's Bates number 3 for the record. A. Okay. Then this is the work -- This is a little summary of the work. "The work performed under this task order shall be in accordance with the attached scope of work dated June 1st, 1999." Remember, that's the one that was also attached with the RFP letter. Q. Is that (indicating)? A. That's -- Exactly. Q. Counsel has got it right there? MS. WAGER-ZITO:
Page 101

Q. You have referenced proposal and recommendations and, again for the record, I want to see if we're not talking about the same pieces of paper. The report is the recommendation report? A. Yes. Q. Has that also been referred by you as the proposal? A. No. Q. What's the proposal? A. The proposal? I guess we'd have to show you one. Q. Okay. A. Proposal. Show him the proposal? Q. I think we can agree that the recommendation report is dated December 12 -December 2, 1999. Well, let me show you. A. I think it's proposal 76. It would have been a cover letter signed by me. It would probably have went in like June 9th or something like that. It was pretty short order after we received the request for proposal. Q. Well, let me just show you the document and maybe you can tell me what this

WGI-5 to 9. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. WGI-5 to 9. Good. A. So you got this and then you have got the summary of the pricing, the estimated cost which comes from our proposal as negotiated with the Corps, and then the third item they talk about is the wage determination. Are you familiar with Davis Bacon? So what it's saying -- And in this case it had no relevance whatsoever because we weren't working on site doing construction. But if we were, this is what you've got to pay your folks (indicating), this is a minimum, to comply with Davis Bacon wage determinations. Q. Okay. A. Okay? Q. All right. A. And let's see if there's anything else. "The effort described in the attached scope of work shall be completed not later than 11 November 1999". So just a quick statement about the schedule. Q. All right. A. Okay? So that is your initial

26 (Pages 98 to 101) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 102

4/17/2008
Page 104

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

contract to do your task order work in New Orleans, with the scope being "generate that recommendations report". Okay? This did not -MS. WAGER-ZITO: This is not the proposal. THE WITNESS: -- quote any site work. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I know. I am not there yet. Okay. But we were -- I thank you for that, because I am trying to understand the proposal. A. Okay. Q. Having seen this, does it appear that the proposal pre-dates this? A. Absolutely. Because the proposal -Without the proposal, you wouldn't have these numbers (indicating). You wouldn't have negotiated the proposal. So you can't -- you can't -- They would never give you a task order and tell us, "Okay, you do the work and here's how much it's going to cost." They want you to determine how much it's going to cost. They will do an independent estimate. Then you negotiate it, come to agreement.
Page 103

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: He's talking about a subsequent proposal when he says it's a large document. THE WITNESS: Not for this recommendations report. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Again, please know that I don't know all of the words that you use to describe all these documents. You're very familiar with it. You have been doing this for a long, long time. This is all very, very new to me and I am trying to create a record which will allow somebody who doesn't know what you do to understand how you do these things. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively), okay. Q. All right. So let me ask the question again. The document which gives the Corps some idea of the cost, you have referred to it as a proposal. A. Yes. Q. Does it contain anything more than your estimate of the costs?
Page 105

They roll the agreed costs, cost fee, in other words, your profit, and then the total. Okay? So the proposal is a necessary predecessor of every task order and -- and almost every mod. Q. You wrote the proposal? A. I worked -- I tended to be very involved in proposals, but I worked with Jim and Dennis on the proposal. Q. All right. Now, as I said, I don't know the documents. They're voluminous and I don't know if I can pull out the proposal or not. Is it -- How many pages is it? Roughly. I am not holding you to a precise number. I am just trying to get a handle on what I am looking for. A. On this one, it might have been 10, 20 pages. Q. All right. A. We have the proposal to actually do the work, you know, all the demolition remediation up and down the bank. It was about that thick (indicating). Okay? Q. Okay. So it was a large document? A. Yes.

A. Sure. It usually has an introduction, then it's got basis of estimate. It talks about all the information available that was used to generate the proposal. Then it also talks about any assumptions we had to make in lieu of having well-defined information. And then we have a -- either an Excel spreadsheet or some sort of cost estimation program generated, printout of the costs, and then we'll have a section that talks to the schedule. Q. Now, do I understand by your testimony that this work order -- you I think called it a contract; right? A. Task order. It's a task order and it in essence is a contract document for the task order itself. Not for the umbrella contract. Q. Okay. A. Okay? Q. Now, insofar as an understanding that one may want to get by looking at these documents relative to the scope of work contemplated by the work order, what would that person look at in this stack of

27 (Pages 102 to 105) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 106

4/17/2008
Page 108

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

documents? A. They would look at the statement of work, but also they should look at the proposal as well. Q. All right. They should look at the statement of work. As well as the proposal. Right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Now, if I wanted to find out all of the specifications given to you in order for you to create the proposal by the government, okay, where would I look? A. In the statement of work. The statement of work or the specifications requirements, if you will. Q. Okay. A. And also the government-furnished information which is listed in the statement of work. There's a little section called "Government-furnished statement of work". Q. We have gone through that. A. Yes. Q. I want to see if we can agree on the following. A. Okay.
Page 107

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Yes. Yes. A. Well, first of all, I don't understand why we would do that if the Corps wasn't paying us to do it or -- I mean, that wasn't what they asked us to do. I guess if we wanted to take on a science project out of curiosity or something, that scope of work wouldn't exclude it, but it certainly wouldn't have been sanctioned by the Corps of Engineers for us to do that. Q. Well, in fairness to the record, what sanctioned is what you tell the Corps you believe needs to be done. Right? Isn't that true? A. And -- And what they believe we should be doing. Q. All right. A. Both. It's both. Q. It's a collaboration? A. Yeah, it's a collaboration. That's a good word. Q. All right. Now, do you believe -and this is really factual, because you have talked a little bit about subsequent mods, or I should -- It's short for modification.
Page 109

Q. All of the specifications prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and given to you in order for you to do your projection is contained in this document which is WGI-5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, or references other documents which contain additional information to assist in understanding those specifications? MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is that accurate? A. Yes. Q. All right. Is there anything in these specifications which prevented Washington Group International in investigating whether or not the proposed work would affect the flood control structure in the area of the proposed work? Period. MR. EHRLICH: Question. THE WITNESS: Is there anything that would exclude us from doing that? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

A. Right. Q. All right. I just want to make certain that the business of removal of structures below the surface of the ground that was not related to remediation, but related to preparing for the dredging of the channel, okay, do you believe that this statement of work includes specifications to accomplish that task? MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Excuse me? MS. WAGER-ZITO: You can answer. THE WITNESS: No, the -- What they ask you to do, asked Washington Group to do is help develop the recommendations report. In other words, they're asking us to develop a recommendations report to evolve to develop these specifications that are going to be used for the subsequent site work, whether it be remediation, demolition

28 (Pages 106 to 109) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 110

4/17/2008
Page 112

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

or whatever. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Well, that's not really the question. Okay? We have already agreed that this document tells you what the Corps wants you to do in a very general sense. Right? A. Right. Q. And what you would do in response to this is you develop this recommendations report. Right? A. Right. Q. All right. Now, what I am driving at is, obviously this piece of paper has to have some general scope. I mean, for example, if for no other reason, you know you're working in New Orleans and not in Gretna or Harahan. Right? You have to have some -A. Right. Q. -- notion of where the work is going to be and the general nature of the work. That's what I am driving at. A. Yeah. And it describes -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Let him finish his question.
Page 111

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

part of the data gathering, as well as the pile of documents. But nothing's as good as walking the site, with the Corps saying "See this barge here? You know, see all of this crud along the bank? See this, see that? It all goes, gentlemen. It's all got to go." Q. All right. A. Okay. So now subsequent to that scope of work and that recommendations report, later on the Corps put out another statement of work that basically said, "Okay, now you do need to go remediate the site. You do need to go remove piles. You do need to remove wharves. You do need to removal sunken barges, tear down the buildings as well as do the re- -- the soil remediation and deal with all the waste," so forth. Q. I am confused. How is that different from the work described by the initial statement of work, if it's different at all? A. The initial statement of work encompassed -- If you look at that task order, it was for about 100,000 bucks. Okay? Q. Right.
Page 113

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. And so the question is, do you agree with me that this document, since you have already told me it contains all of the specifications that you got from the government, okay, before you prepared your recommendation report, does it include a description of the work regarding the removal of these subsurface structures as a component of the Corps' intended purpose in dredging that area? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. You can answer. THE WITNESS: That particular scope does not say a whole lot, to be honest with you. I mean, it says, "Okay, your first task on this new task order is go write a recommendations report." EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. A. Now, remember they have also walked us around the site. "Hey, we want you to do this, this, this, this, this." That was a big

A. 100,000 bucks buys you that little report. Okay? It doesn't buy you cleaning up the whole site. Okay? So then that's what the mods are for. Okay? You want -- Okay. We did the report. What's next? Arsenic investigation. RFP, proposal, task order mod, go do the arsenic investigation. Okay. "We're done with that. Now what?" Work plans. Okay. RFP, proposal, task order mod, go write the work plans. Okay? So now the -the requirements are mounting. We have got these scopes, we have got the requirements report, or the recommendations report. We have got the work plans. We have done the arsenic. As we go along, we just build and build our knowledge of this site. We also identify any concerns and data gaps in the reports. Q. Whose idea was it to do the arsenic investigation? A. You know, the arsenic investigation, I don't know whose idea it was. I don't know whether it was the Corps or Washington Group. The issue there is you tend to have to clean up the soil to a certain level.

29 (Pages 110 to 113) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 114

4/17/2008
Page 116

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Right. A. And if I remember correctly, arsenic was something that was used in the Mississippi farmlands, and so the sediments and stuff along there had a higher arsenic level. So they didn't want you -- You know, they wanted to kind of find out what a reasonable background for soils that already existed there was as opposed to man-made additional arsenic contamination. So that was the intent of that investigation, was to set a clean-up standard for subsequent efforts of clean-up. The Corps was pretty sophisticated, though. Q. All right. Now, the recommendation report for the demolition and site preparation, does it include work to remove the subsurface structures which need to be removed as a part of this future dredging project? Or is that one of those later modifications? A. Well, if you look in the table of contents, you can see all the items of remediation that we were, you know, told we were going to go do are itemized and discussed in this document.
Page 115

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

debris, vegetation removal. Talk about above-ground contamination. This is what I was referring to earlier. Asbestos, PCBs, lead, fluorescent light bulbs, creosote timbers. Talk about structure demolition, barges. The recap, which is in essence the soil remediation down to a certain level. Clean-up level. The Jourdan Street wharf removal. You know, all of these things, certain -- you know, how you go about finding things underground, obstructions, geophysical survey, grid trenching. Again, the soil remediation. When you dig a certain amount of contaminated soil, then you do what's called confirmatory sampling. Excavation and recap. All of these things -- So all the elements of the work that we were told we needed to do were touched on in section 5. Q. Well, yes. And in section 5 it describes the structures that you were supposed to remove. A. (Witness nods head affirmatively.) Q. That's all listed. A. Yes. Q. In fact, 5.6, it talks about the
Page 117

Q. Okay. A. Now, this is stuff that we understood to be activities that we will take on under this task order. We didn't talk in terms of other activities by the Corps or other entities afterwards. Q. That's fine. So where do I look to find out what you thought you were doing? A. Okay. Under section 5, "Recommendations", it talks about mobilization, talks about the work plans we're going to develop, so we got the project work plan. The waste management plan. Storm water pollution prevention plan. Sampling analysis plan. Contractor quality control plan. Site safety and health plan. I know they added at least one other, a hurricane preparedness plan. Then we talk about kind of the site layout. You know, where we're going to have lay-down, where we're going to have decontamination facilities, where we're going to have the office trailers. You know, generally how we're going to set up the site to do the work. Then we talk about disconnecting utilities, talk about trash,

barges that are submerged and you need to remove. Right? A. Right. Q. Does it talk about the sheet pile -I'm sorry, does it talk about the piling? A. I sure thought it did. 5.5, part of the structure demolition. Q. Okay. Does it give you some indication of -- It tells you how far below the ground you have to go; right? A. The contractor will remove all pilings down to 36 feet below mean water level. Q. All right. Now, so this -- it's pretty clear that this recommendation plan describes the work of the removal of the structures that may have been below the surface of the soil; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And the only place that you would have gotten some understanding of the Corps' interest in doing that is through the words of the original statement of work and words that came out of the Corps engineer representative's mouth when you walked the

30 (Pages 114 to 117) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 118

4/17/2008
Page 120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

site. Right? A. Right. Q. Okay. So all of the specifications that you guys received from the United States Army Corps of Engineers with regard to the removal of the subsurface structures came from either the work order or your conversation with that gentleman who walked the site with you. Isn't that true? A. In regards to developing the original work recommendations report, that is the extent. Q. Okay. A. And then, you know, like I said, as we developed these documents, then more and more requirements, specifications, whatever you want to call them, were developed and reviewed and approved by the Corps as we went along. Q. All right. Did the Corps, either at the time of that site walk-through, I am going to call it, -A. Okay. Q. -- or maybe some other site walk-through or some telephone conversation or
Page 119

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. CLAYMAN: Excuse me. We designated Phillip Staggs to talk about all work plans and this falls under the scope of work plans. MR. BRUNO: No, you're not going to dictate to me what falls under the scope of. MS. CLAYMAN: Well, I just -MR. BRUNO: You have an opinion, you have an objection, you can make an objection which is reasonable and fair, and I recognize your objection. MS. CLAYMAN: Great. MR. BRUNO: But I am not going to allow you to characterize the deposition. I am not going to do that to you and you're not going to do that to me. Fair enough? MS. CLAYMAN: Fair enough. You're done.
Page 121

through any communication whatsoever, up until the time that WGI submitted their recommendations report, okay, did the United States Army Corps of Engineers tell you that whenever anyone intended to dig within 300 feet of the center line of a flood control structure an engineering analysis was required in order to assess whether or not that excavation may have impact on the flood control structure? Did they tell you that? A. Me personally? No. Q. Well, no, unfortunately you're WGI today. A. Yeah. Q. You got the hat on. A. Okay. Q. Did the Corps tell Washington Group International that? A. I don't know. Q. Okay. A. I have not -- not investigated that. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You don't -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That's fair. WGI doesn't know.

MR. BRUNO: I recognize your objection and I encourage you to make all the objections you want. MS. CLAYMAN: Thank you. MR. BRUNO: We have said that all during the week. You get yelled at if you don't object. And that's true. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let's see. Where was I? Forgive me. I lose my train of thought. Let's see. Boom. All right. Now, the reason I ask you the question is because you told me before the lunch break that when it came to permitting and so forth, you did your best, you got on the phone, you know, you started making inquiries about the need for permits; right? A. Right. Q. Okay. And certainly if there was a need for some kind of engineering evaluation of excavations near a flood control project,

31 (Pages 118 to 121) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 122

4/17/2008
Page 124

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you would have expected the United States Corps of Engineers to tell you that. Isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Did anyone at the Corps of Engineers, up until the point in time when this December 2 recommendations report was drafted, tell you that under-seepage was an issue to be considered when working around a flood control project? A. No. Not that I am aware of. Q. All right. Has the Washington Group International, and forgive me, it's a broad question I know, so what it is, worked around flood control projects in the past before? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Before December 2, 1999? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. MR. BRUNO: Okay. Thank you, Counsel. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Answer.
Page 123

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

have them constructed, maintained. So our assumption was that the Corps had taken care of all of that. They hired us to knock down buildings and pull out piles and remediate soil. Q. All right. A. They didn't hire us for engineering expertise on flood control. Q. Wasn't the -- I'm sorry, forgive me. I didn't mean -- I wanted to let you finish your answer. A. That's it. Q. All right. Wasn't the purpose of the permitting from the Orleans Levee District specifically to ascertain whether or not the proposed work would affect the flood control structure there? That's why the permit was necessary? MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. THE WITNESS: I don't know why. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 125

A. Oh, I can answer it. MS. WAGER-ZITO: He is not going to discuss that. You can answer that question. It's not one of the categories, but you can answer if you know. THE WITNESS: MK has built dams. That was part of our legacy here, building dams and stuff. But this was a remediation contract. That was our scope. That was our charter. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. Do I gather from your answer that the scope of the contract -- I'm sorry. The fact that it's remediation is what dictates whether or not you're going to consider the potential impact of the remediation on a flood control structure? Is that what you're testifying to? A. I was testifying that the scope was not for us to investigate the flood control structure. Our customer, the Corps of Engineers, are the ones who design flood control, maintain flood control, contract to

Q. Okay. It's logical then that all of that being so, that there's nothing in the recommendation report whatsoever that describes any proposal to investigate or analyze the soils in or around the flood control structure to ascertain whether or not the proposed work may have a negative impact on that flood control structure. Right? A. Right. Q. Okay. The bottom line is the Washington Group International really didn't do anything to ascertain whether or not the work that it proposed to do or the work that it in fact did would have any negative impact on flood control -- the flood control structure that was near the site. Right? A. Right. Because it wasn't in our scope to do so. Q. Okay. Can I conclude, since you guys wrote the recommendation report, that the recommendation report includes all of the specifications for the scope of the work contemplated to be done by Washington Group in order to accomplish Task Order 26? A. That's not a valid conclusion.

32 (Pages 122 to 125) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 126

4/17/2008
Page 128

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Because you said all of the specifications. Q. That was the question. If I am wrong, tell me I am wrong. That's why I asked the question. A. Yes. You -- That is wrong. Q. All right. Thank you. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes, you're wrong. THE WITNESS: Yes, you're wrong. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. It's easy. This is really -- It sounds complicated. It's real easy. No, that's wrong. Okay. Where might I find all of the specifications for work contemplated to be done by Washington Group International? Where are they? A. All over those numerous boxes you were describing. Q. All right. A. Because you have got the work plans discussed in here (indicating), more requirements. Those things are signed off by the Corps. As we got on site and started
Page 127

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

that they can absorb this, they have enough funding to deal with it or they don't. If they don't, then it could trigger another modification. Q. Okay. A. It could even trigger a proposal. Okay. "Give us a proposal to remove the tank." You know, "here it is." Here's another mod. Okay. Go do the tank. So all along the way, you know, because it's -there's so many unknowns on a site under the ground or even aboveground in these structures when we're walking around the site. Half the time you couldn't even get in the buildings. Q. Right. A. So, you know, a lot of the requirements and work planning evolves as you go along. Another element is when you bring your contract -- subcon- -- Again, we didn't have -- We didn't direct hire the work. In other words, we hired local companies to do the actual hands on, run the heavy equipment and do the -- knock down the buildings or whatever. When those companies were brought
Page 129

digging around or poking around or doing grid trenching or geophysical, if we found other obstacles or unknowns, then we had this thing called a contractor information request, which is essentially a heads up to the Corps, hey, we encountered something unique or unknown or, you know, it's basically something we hadn't accounted for in our work planning or in our costing of the job, so we notify the Corps, "Here's the situation." I believe I saw one, they ran into a 1,000 gallon underground storage tank or something and said, "Okay, we need to get it out. Here's our recommendation," present it to the Corps; the Corps has a guy on site called the contracting officer's representative who has the authority to make technical direction to proceed or to agree with that approach, but he doesn't have authorization to bring us in more funding. Q. Right. A. So then that guy's got to go to Tulsa, the contracting officer, and say, "Okay, a CIR was raised. We see a need for -- to do this additional work," and then we'd get in a situation, Washington Group projects

on site, they always did a preparatory inspection before the work started. And in a lot of cases they had to do work plans as well. So if it was a demolition guy, those are the real experts. You know, more so than Washington Group in what equipment they're going to use, what techniques they're going to use, what they're going to do to mitigate dust, noise, stuff like that. So they do a work plan; they do a preparatory inspection where the Corps would attend. Everybody agrees it's a valid approach or, if they don't, they make corrections. And so you have kind of got this ongoing approval process for each discrete element of work as you work through it. It's also a safety thing called an activity hazard analysis, that you're always looking to do an activity hazard analysis before you start work to make sure you thought of all the things that could, you know, result in an unsafe situation. So I guess my point is, the culmination of the specifications is kind of a rolling, you know -- it's an evolving thing. But everything is done in collaboration, as

33 (Pages 126 to 129) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 130

4/17/2008
Page 132

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you said earlier, with the Corps and using their approval process. Q. The activity hazards analysis sounds awfully like what I, frankly, have more experience with, which is a process hazard analysis, whereby you don't make a change to the process until you make certain that the change is not going to adversely affect the process. Is it that kind of a thing? A. Yes, similar. I'm working in the process industry now. But activity hazard is more construction oriented. "Hey, before you go digging in there, have you cleared all the utilities?" Process hazard analysis is more looking at flow sheets and trying to figure out all the possible scenarios if this valve fails or that valve fails. But it's a similar concept. Q. All right. Help me understand. At some -- You have got this recommendation report which describes, you know -- Let's just take something, gridding. When do you reach the point of the work where you have to prepare another set of, or I should say a more detailed set of specifications or work and the
Page 131

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Is it geography? A. The recommendations report doesn't get into the costs, for one thing. Q. Okay. A. It's more like a thing to reach mutual agreement with the Corps on the scope and the -- what would be a reasonable schedule to get this accomplished. The proposal gets more into the costs and the assumptions that back up the costs. It's the basis for them, you know, being able to award additional funds for us to proceed on the work. Q. Okay. I guess I am a little confused. Is this just a step in the process to the point where you actually are doing the work? Or is what you just described a radical change from what you thought you were doing? A. No, it's just a step in the process. Q. That's what I thought. Okay. So there's really no -- In terms of the scope of the work, it's just you guys knew from the beginning that you were going to do the work necessary to allow the Corps to dig a channel. Right? That's it. Isn't that true?
Page 133

like? A. Well, in the case of this project, when we finished that report along about, what was it, October or September of 2000, the Corps provided us with a new request for proposal, the new statement of work that said, "Okay, now we want a proposal for the whole -- basically the whole enchilada, if you will, the whole up and down the -- up and down the canal. Do the whole thing." And they told us, "Now, look, we don't have the money to give you the whole -- all the work," because they were getting money in bits and pieces. But they wanted us to take a shot at estimating the entire job, which we did, and we negotiated that proposal in October of 2000. Okay? And it borrowed heavily on the recommendations report as the basis of our -that's our knowledge base of what the work would encompass going forward. Q. All right. Just help me understand. What is the difference between that and this recommendation report (indicating)? A. Well, the proposal --

A. Yeah. Well, conceptually we knew that there was their objective. Our objective was basically to do the remediation according to their specs. Q. Well, so that in terms of the difference between the recommendations report and -- what did you call the next larger document, which is more detailed? What's its correct title? A. Well, I called it a proposal. Because the first -Q. The second proposal. A. Yeah. Well, actually it was the -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Actually, no. THE WITNESS: It was like the fourth proposal. Okay? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. That's why I need your help. Okay. A. Little bite-size chunks. Okay. We do the recommendation report. Then we do the arsenic investigation. Then we do the work plans. Then they say, "Okay, now we want you to estimate the whole job." We put together a

34 (Pages 130 to 133) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 134

4/17/2008
Page 136

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

proposal. It was on the order of $20 million. And we included quotes from subcontractors, we included all of the costs. See, the recommendations report doesn't get into costs. Q. Right. A. It's cost -- It's a scope schedule, not cost. Cost is strictly a contract thing between us and the Corps. So the proposal is we're -- we use that as a scoping tool, plus, you know, vendor quotes, any other information you can gather to price the thing out. Q. All right. Well, so really the next -- as the next document is a document whose most important purpose was to allow the Corps to understand how much this work was going to cost. A. That's correct. Because most of these -- the deliverables, if you will, of a task order like that recommendations report and the work plans were -- were provided to the Corps as deliverables. You know, "Here's what you paid us to do." Whereas the proposal is more of a scope -- you know, it's more of a contract document -Page 135

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

there's another person that's going to be deposed to discuss this issue. Maybe if you wouldn't mind for me -- reading it just for me to understand from your perspective what you think you have to offer on this subject rather than me trying to attack it. A. "All project documents, including, but not limited to, plans, specifications, surveys, modifications, design memoranda, investigations, engineering investigations, environmental impact studies, supplemental environmental impact statements, High Level Plan studies, proposals, work orders, change orders, requests for payments, et cetera for the East Bank Industrial Area TERC that regard or concern the East Bank Industrial Canal from 1999 until present." I guess -MS. WAGER-ZITO: You read it. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I have been told that Phil Staggs or Stagg? Staggs. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Phil Staggs. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:
Page 137

Q. All right. A. -- to establish the costs and the basis of the costs. So there's a lot of, you know, -- That's where you get into assumptions as far as quantities. You know, it's hard to estimate something if you don't know how much. Q. Well, of course. What is the real difference with regard to the specifications in that document as opposed to the specifications in this recommendation report? A. Well, it talked about all the elements like we discussed in section 5 of the recommendations report. Q. Yes. A. You need to do all of these. Q. All of these things. Various elements of work? So they're really the same. Just in that subsequent report, there's a costing out of these items; right? A. In the proposal. Q. Yes. A. Yes. Q. All right. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Now, paragraph 11 is an area where

Q. Staggs. As I said, I know he is going to talk about it, but I was given to understand by Counsel that you may have some information on this subject. I don't know. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I am going to ask Debbie to tell you what she thinks the agreement was as to which part of this -MR. BRUNO: Okay. That's fair. MS. WAGER-ZITO: -- Mr. Roe is going to do and which part Mr. Staggs, with an S, Joe, was going to do. MR. BRUNO: Okay. MS. CLAYMAN: Right. My understanding, this list of environmental impacts, environmental impact statements, et cetera, we had already told you we don't -- aren't aware of any of those things, and Mr. Staggs will say that. In terms of proposals, work orders, change orders, Mr. Roe is here

35 (Pages 134 to 137) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 138

4/17/2008
Page 140

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

to address that. In terms of plans and specifications for the actual work done on the field, that will be addressed by Mr. Staggs. MR. BRUNO: Okay. All right. Fine. MS. CLAYMAN: He's more of the business guy. Staggs is the field. MR. BRUNO: I got you. All right. I got you. Why don't we do it this way. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let's move to 12; I think it'll back into it. Can you tell us -- First of all, you have talked about -- you have used the word "Mod" in the course of your testimony today. Let's see if we can't for the record get a definition of what mod or modification means. And the context would be when you need a piece of paper. Okay? A. Okay. In common vernacular, a mod is in essence a change order. Q. Right.
Page 139

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the end of the project. Q. Okay. Did you also take note of the direction of the flow of the water underground, whether it was moving away from the canal or into the canal or going both ways? A. No, that would have required routine, you know, monitoring on a routine basis; and my understanding was we just kind of installed these wells and sampled them at the end of the job, sent the data off and said it looks good and -Q. Right. If the water had been flowing both ways in the beginning of the project, and the water was flowing one way at the end of the project, would that have any significance at all to you as a project manager? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. He can answer. THE WITNESS: No, not really. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Are you able to identify -- Let me ask you this. How many
Page 141

A. Okay. So if you need more scope, more funding, more schedule, this is the mechanism to do that. Q. All right. And generally can I assume from your testimony that you need to do a written change order when you want more money? A. In the case of this contract, either the Corps would already initiate a change, like, "Hey, we want them to do an arsenic investigation --" So it's like any other job. The client could initiate a change or the contractor could. And the contractor's vehicle to do that was the contractor information request form, which was basically a change notification type of document. Q. All right. A. Okay? Q. Now, one of the things that you guys were monitoring was the groundwater because of the potential for contamination as a result of this work. Is that not correct? A. Yes, there was some limited groundwater. We put in a number of wells, and my understanding is we only sampled them at

modifications to the contract were there? Do you know? MS. WAGER-ZITO: To Task Order 26? MR. BRUNO: You're right. Task Order 26. THE WITNESS: Lots. There's a log somewhere. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Another technical term. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Lots is cool. I'll take it. A. Yeah, I think we were up to 6 or 7 by the time I left the project. By the end there was many because of the incremental funding nature of the job. They could only give us so much money at a time to do the demolition remediation work. Q. Well, if I could just get you to take a look at this document. And if this is a document that we can adopt to identify all the mods, that'll short-circuit this. Let me show you WGI-67877 in seriatim to 81976? I'll sorry. To 67884. Okay. I see. No it's not in seriatim. Forgive me. Let me do it

36 (Pages 138 to 141) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 142

4/17/2008
Page 144

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

again. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Please. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. The first document is in seriatim WGI-67877 to 884. And then we found one more which is another Bates number, WGI-81976. Okay. Let me just take a look at that and see if this doesn't reflect all of the modifications. A. Well, the first thing I would look at is the date. This is April of 2004. I think we finished the project May of 2005. So given that, there may be more mods subsequent to this, but I see this talks about mod number 44. So that's even more than I would have envisioned. So there were at least 44 mods. Q. All right. But you can't confirm to me by looking at the document -- I was just trying to find a way to put a beginning and an end on this. Is there -A. There is -- If you were to get the very -- Well, it's an administrative task that could be done. We could find out what the last mod was. It's probably in the reams of
Page 143

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the work plans and the costs? A. Yeah, I think that's pretty accurate. Basically those mods and predecessor proposals attempted to develop the knowledge base, develop the plan, develop the estimated costs as best you could do without, you know, going out and digging around the site. Q. All right. A. Now, they wasn't all funded at that point. Q. Did each of these mods include specifications? A. Each mod included a statement of work, I believe. Q. All right. So to that extent contained, even if there are specifications that were already in existence, they contained some specifications? A. Yes. Q. So in terms of specifications where I would look, I would look at the recommendation report, I would look at the modifications, I would look at the proposal. Is there any other place for me to look in
Page 145

boxes somewhere. Because we did have administrative people keep track of all of that in Denver. Q. All right. Did you do any investigation to ascertain how many modifications there were in connection with your preparation for this testimony? A. No. Q. Thanks. All right. When did the actual work begin? I mean, you know, spades in the ground? A. On-site work? Q. Yes. A. The fencing I believe started before we actually had access to the site in November of 2000. The actual access where we were allowed to enter the site was January, maybe February, 2001. And that's when we pulled in our trailers, secured the site, and began our work. Q. Okay. Is it fair for me to conclude then that the modifications that may have pre-existed the day that you got on the site were all modifying the project documents and finalizing the -- insofar as they finalized

order for me to identify the specifications that were prepared by the Washington Group International? A. The work plans. Remember, that we developed I think under mod 3 or 4. There's a number of work plans. Also the -- you know, additional requirements were developed by subcontractor work plans in these initial preparatory, you know, quality assurance reviews. Q. Well, the mod wasn't necessary for you to draft the work plan; right? A. Yes. If you look on -- on that document, look under mod 3 or 4, one of them -Q. Okay. That's where I was looking. A. -- said "Okay, go write the work plans." Q. Let's see. "Mod 3, WGI NT". What's NT? A. International. Q. Oh, okay. "Was awarded mod number 3 on June 30th, 2000. The scope of work for this mod was covered in proposal number 96, dated May 31, 2000 for the development of work

37 (Pages 142 to 145) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 146

4/17/2008
Page 148

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

plans and subcontracting plans and services." That just gives you the go ahead to draft the work plans; right? A. Right. Q. Okay. Mod 4 is "The scope of work for this mod was covered in proposal number 106, revision 1, dated September 26, 2000, for additional funding to continue with the procurement process, revising and finalizing the work plans and other technical requirements in preparation for the project." So we're just continuing to evaluate the work plans? A. Yes. I think that mod was basically to bridge us because they hadn't gotten site access and we had to continue our efforts. So it was to provide additional funding for us to continue getting ready to mobilize to the site. Q. Okay. So the specifications, to the extent that they exist, they're going to be embodied in the work plans; right? A. Yes, and those statements of work and the proposals. Q. Well, those are what the work plan
Page 147

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Is there any other place I should look? A. Yeah. The statements of work, -Q. Okay. A. -- the recommendations report, and then if the work plan, if they encountered other situations, you -- the CIRs, -Q. Right. A. -- the preparatory inspection documentation is where your really rubber hits the road, because then you're bringing your subs on and they're telling you what equipment they're going to use and, you know, the real detail. Q. All right. Now, again I have to ask this question again because we got all of these additional possible sources of specifications. You would agree with me that none of the specifications prepared by the Washington Group at any time in connection with the work performed on the water side of the Lower Nine levee pursuant to Task Order 26 contained any consideration for the safety or integrity of the floodwall that is located in that vicinity. Isn't that true?
Page 149

is based on; right? A. The work plans are based on, you know, -- Yeah. I mean, the recommendations report, the statement of work and whatever else that you can gather to meet the objective of the plan, you know. There's kind of a general work plan, but then you have other like quality control, safety, so, you know, it's -Q. Right. But all of that flows from a work plan that's based upon the initial, you know, -A. Well, yeah, it's based on the knowledge of the site, the knowledge of the work to be performed -Q. Sure. A. -- and the knowledge of the discipline developing it. In other words, the safety plan, you're going to want you your safety experts putting that plan together. Q. Well, insofar as where I would go to find out what you were going to do and how you were going to do it, I would look at the work plans, wouldn't I? A. Yes.

A. I don't believe they addressed that situation. Q. All right. You may have already addressed this, but we talked about water; and there were some documents that do describe the flow of water below the surface of the work area. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Did you all do any hydrology or hydraulics analysis in connection with the waters below the surface of the work site? A. Only at the end of the job as part of the recap requirements. They needed to do a groundwater sampling and a hydraulic analysis of the permeability of the soils to classify the water into -- you know, and I am not a hydrologist by any means, but to determine what class of aquifer it was. So they did a slug test and they also took samples and sent them to a lab for permeability, and apparently they found that the soils were very tight clay. There wasn't a whole lot of hydraulic conductivity. And because of that, the aquifer, if you call it an aquifer, was not classified by the State as

38 (Pages 146 to 149) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 150

4/17/2008
Page 152

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

a drinking water aquifer, which, if it were, then that would bring in a more stringent set of analytical or water quality parameters. But apparently the water in essence complied with the standards for the type of aquifer that it was, so it was -- my understanding, it was a one time deal where we installed 12 wells, we slug tested two of them, sampled them all, sent some samples off to a lab. So it was kind of an end of the deal, check the water, you know; things turned out pretty well, so that was that. Q. Okay. MR. BRUNO: We have been going for about an hour and 15 minutes. Let's take a little break. THE WITNESS: Okay. VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 2:17. We're now off the record. (Recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 2:28. We're now back
Page 151

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. Where did you go during the break to get the information about the number of mods so I can -A. Well, the Counsel had that information in their file. Q. Did you look at some paper? Or did you -A. Yeah, we looked at the last monthly report. Remember, you had one you showed me that went up to 44. They had one that was -Q. Right. A. -- whatever, a year or more later than that. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Would you be kind enough, Counsel, to give me the Bates number? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Eventually. I mean, not right this second. MR. BRUNO: Oh, no, no, not this second. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. No, We can give you that. Yes.
Page 153

on the record. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. You wanted to clarify something? A. Yes, I wanted to clarify for the record that the mods -- two things regarding the mods. One is that there were 60 total mods, which was very unusual for a TERC task order. The reason there were so many was because the Corps didn't have all the funding to do this -- This was a big job, very big job for the TERC. You know, 20 million may not sound like a lot, but we were being funded in, you know, smaller chunks. So that's why we had a lot of mods. And the other thing I wanted to clarify, I misspoke. There was not a statement of work attached to every single mod, because most of the mods for the incremental funding just referenced back to the August, 2000 statement of work. It was the one I referred to as the big enchilada, the big proposal that we did. Because almost all the work was covered under that proposal. They just had to fund it in increments as they got the funding.

MR. BRUNO: When you get the chance. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes, we can give you that Bates number. MR. BRUNO: All right. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And the information about the work orders not being attached to every single mod, that came from Counsel as well? MS. WAGER-ZITO: And that -THE WITNESS: Well, no, I knew that. I think I just misspoke on that question. I knew that not every single mod had to have a statement of work. Up until the point we did the big one, I think they tended to have a statement of work. But after that, they didn't. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Okay. During the pendency of this project, did you know that the United States Army Corps of Engineers had guidelines for

39 (Pages 150 to 153) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 154

4/17/2008
Page 156

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

work proposed near or within a federally constructed flood control project? MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form. THE WITNESS: No. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did you know that the United States Army Corps of Engineers defined something called a critical area of a flood control project as being generally the area from 300 feet riverward to 500 feet landward of a flood control project center line? MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did you know that? A. No. Q. Did you know that local sponsors are responsible for controlling all construction which occurs within the critical area, that is, that 300 to 500 feet? Did you know that? A. No. MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form.
Page 155

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Fair enough. Yes, I have got it here. "Did the Washington Group International conduct any review of any Corps of Engineers engineering manuals or technical manuals or the like to ascertain whether or not there were Corps recommendation or guidelines about working within the critical area of a flood control project?" THE WITNESS: No. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Specifically have you ever reviewed Engineering Manual 1110-2- -- Well I think it's -- The manual is 11 -- 1110 of the United States Army Corps of Engineers. A. No. MR. STONE: Let's have that attached as an exhibit. MR. BRUNO: What do you want to attach? MR. STONE: The manual, 1110-2.
Page 157

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did you know that the Corps of Engineers provides engineering review to ensure that any work within or near the flood control unit does not reduce the level of protection and to ensure the continued integrity of the flood control system? Did you know that? MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. THE WITNESS: No. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did Washington Group International conduct any review of any Corps of Engineers engineering manual, technical manual or the like to ascertain whether or not there were Corps recommendations or guidelines about working within the critical area of a flood control project? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Wait one second. I'm sorry, I just lost something there. Can you read that back? MR. BRUNO:

MR. BRUNO: I am not reading from that, in fairness to you. I am reading from those Kansas City guidelines. MR. STONE: You don't have the manual here? MR. BRUNO: No. MR. STONE: Okay. But it's Kansas city guidelines; right? MR. BRUNO: Yes. MR. STONE: Okay. MR. BRUNO: All right? I have shown you these before. I'll be happy to give you a copy if you would like. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. MR. STONE: The problem is you're not telling the witness it's Kansas City guidelines. You're treating him as if

40 (Pages 154 to 157) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 158

4/17/2008
Page 160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

he should know there are certain guidelines -MR. BRUNO: No, I'm not. I am asking him whether he knows. When he says he doesn't know, it doesn't really matter, does it? And that's my point. MR. STONE: Okay. MR. BRUNO: Okay? And don't get me into all the testimony I got on this very subject by your Corps of Engineers witnesses in the New Orleans District office of the Corps. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now, let's talk about the permit. Do you know why the Orleans Levee District was even mentioned as a potential permitter in the recommendation report? A. Because we were working so close in vicinity to it, it was logical that that would be one of the bases that we should look to cover.
Page 159

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Corps and we jointly agreed to keep them informed, let them know what we were up to. Q. All right. Do you think that the Washington Group got the information about the Levee District from the Corps or do you think that the Washington Group just knew that because of its past business experiences? A. I think because of discussions with the Corps. Q. All right. Now, I had previously indicated that I was going to mark something as WGI-2. I am just going to withdraw and renumber it. So I am going to mark this document as WGI-2. This is for the record. This is for you. MS. WAGER-ZITO: He'll look at the official one. MR. BRUNO: There you go. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I'll take this one. Thank you. MR. BRUNO: And you guys -- Thanks, Counsel, for making the copy. MS. WAGER-ZITO:
Page 161

Q. You'll have to forgive me. You said "to it". What do you mean by "to it"? A. To the levee, the floodwall. Q. All right. Did the Washington group International recognize that the Orleans Levee District was the local sponsor for that flood control project? A. I don't have personal knowledge of that. I don't know if the guys on site did. Q. Well, unfortunately, again you're wearing the WGI hat today. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. So did WGI know whether or not the Orleans Levee District, based upon your previous testimony, was the local sponsor of the flood control project which was in the vicinity of the work contemplated by Task Order 26? A. I don't know. Q. Now, but I think you've testified that, quote, it made sense to communicate with the Levee District because of the location of the flood control project as it related to the work contemplated by Task Order 26; right? A. And because we discussed it with the

You're welcome. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right, now. So first of all, have you ever seen the document? A. Yes. Q. And I think you have already testified the first time you saw it was within the last few days in preparation for your testimony today? A. That's right. Q. All right. And who's Bobby Smith? A. Bobby was one of our superintendents on site that worked for Dennis, or actually more accurately for Phil Staggs. Q. All right. Now, the subject of this letter says "Levee Board permits and notifications". A. Yes. Q. All right. It says here that "WGI contacted the Levee Board to inquire about permits and notifications required for demolition and remediation work. Washington Group International will be performing at the East Bank Industrial Area of the Inner Harbor Navigation Canal under contract United States

41 (Pages 158 to 161) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 162

4/17/2008
Page 164

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Army Corps of Engineers". Now, do you have -do you know why Mr. Smith contacted the Levee Board other than, of course, what is referenced hereby Mr. O'Connor? A. No, this pretty well sums it up. Just to inquire what notifications they needed. Q. All right. Now, does this describe the work that is going to be done by the Washington Group in connection with Task Order 26? A. Yes, in a summary form. This -This is I think an attempt to kind of give a sweeping overview of the whole work to be done on this thing. Q. Would you agree with me that this description does describe, to the extent that it relates to the flood control project, all of the work contemplated -- I'm sorry, not all of the work, but very generally describes the work to be done in proximity to the flood control project? A. Yes. Q. Now, it refers to enclosures, which we can't figure -- Again, we have no way of
Page 163

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Right. Q. The next letter in this batch I'm going to mark as WGI-3. One for you. You can take off that yellow thing. MR. BRUNO: One for you. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Thank you. MR. BRUNO: One for you guys. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. The first question is have you ever seen this before your preparation for the deposition? A. Yes, I believe the first time I saw it was at lunch time, though, today. Q. Okay. The question was did you see it before your preparation and your answer is "Yes, I saw it at lunch." So that can't work. A. Preparation for the second half. How's that? Q. All right. Well, you didn't see it yesterday. How about that? The first time you saw it was today?
Page 165

calculating what's complete and what's not complete. Do you know what enclosures were included with this letter? A. No, I don't. MR. BRUNO: And, Counsel, not today, but I would really appreciate if you would identify what you believe to be the complete document. MS. CLAYMAN: Sure. MR. BRUNO: Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now, would you agree with me that this letter does not indicate where, as it relates to the flood control project, this work is to be done? A. I would agree and -- you know, it's likely the enclosures have maps or drawings. Q. Right. From which one could deduce the proximity -A. Right. Q. -- of the work to the flood control project; right?

A. No, I don't believe I did. That's correct. Q. You have already said Dennis O'Connor is the project manager; right? A. Right. Q. All right. Are you aware of the need to contact -- to have contacted the Port of New Orleans for permission to do anything? A. They -- Yeah, I -- or speaking on behalf of our company, sure, yes, we had to contact them. Q. All right. And this seems to say that there's -- this is a permit. It says in paragraph 6 that "The granting of this permit to your company". A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Do you know what this permit gives your company the permission to do? A. No, I can only assume because I haven't had time to digest this document. Q. Okay. A. It says "Includes continuing field work required to demolish above-ground structures, remove debris from the site, remove and dispose of contaminated soils, and

42 (Pages 162 to 165) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 166

4/17/2008
Page 168

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

prepare the site for future dredging operations in order to facilitate the lock replacement project". So that sounds like, again, a pretty accurate but sweeping overview of the work we were going to do. Q. All right. And if you would look at paragraph number 8 at WGI-40963, it says that "Your company shall be responsible for any damages to Board property caused by the actions, negligence, or fault of your company's employees, subcontractors, agents, representatives or servants". Do you see that? A. Yes, I do. Q. All right. Do you know what the Board property was? Or I should say where was it located? A. No, I thought the property had been turned over to the Corps of Engineers from the Port of New Orleans before we worked on it. Q. All right. Let's go to the next document, which is I think WGI-4. MR. BRUNO: I'll give this to you, Counsel. MS. WAGER-ZITO:
Page 167

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

and this is a step in that process, the form of no objection. Q. All right. So the first thing we know is, is that it's from the State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development; right? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And it's not a permit. It just is an indication of a no objection. Right? A. Right. Q. Now, look at paragraph 1. A. Okay. Q. "Any damage to the levee/floodwall caused by the construction, operation and maintenance of the facility be repaired by the applicant at their expense and to the satisfaction of the Levee Board". Okay? A. Okay. Q. Now, did you recognize that WGI had an obligation not to damage the levee or floodwall that was in proximity to the work site? A. Yes. Q. Now, would you agree that consistent
Page 169

Thanks. MR. BRUNO: Counsel. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to throw it at you. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Have you seen this document before? A. Yes, I saw this before in preparation. Q. All right. Is this a lunch time "saw"? A. No. This was -Q. Or yesterday "saw"? Two days ago "saw"? A. This was last week. Q. Last week? Okay. Good. Wasn't far apart. But before last week had you ever seen it? A. No. Q. All right. Do you know what this is? A. Yes. It's been explained to me it's a -Q. Oh, by whom? A. By Counsel as explaining their process by which they go about the permitting,

with an obligation not to damage is the necessity of an assessment to determine whether or not the work contemplated might damage the floodwall? A. As far as, you know -- No, we -- we thought that this meant, you know, ramming a truck into it or, you know, something like that. Q. All right. Despite whatever these words may mean to anybody else on the planet, -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- you did not understand these words to mean damage from below the surface of the earth? A. No. Q. All right. Do you have any understanding as to whether or not excavations near a floodwall may in fact damage a floodwall? Does WGI know that? A. Does WGI know that? Q. Yes. A. I'm sure there are individuals within the company with that expertise who would have that knowledge. Yes.

43 (Pages 166 to 169) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 170

4/17/2008
Page 172

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Okay. So the answer is that WGI understands that excavations below surface work may, not will, may affect levees or floodwalls; right? A. Right. In general. We're not talking specific to this situation. Q. Right. Because you have already told me that you all didn't undertake the investigation. A. Right. Q. You have already said that. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Now, what I need to ask you, though is, do you believe that this permit request suggested to WGI that they do in fact undertake an evaluation to see whether or not the proposed work may damage the floodwall? A. No, we didn't interpret it that way. Q. Okay. Do you agree with me that somebody else might interpret it that way? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. THE WITNESS: Again, we felt like our job was -- we were being brought on as the
Page 171

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

there doing maintenance on the -- you know, mowing and such. They were aware of what we were up to and -- but we did not find any record that this notification was made. Q. Where is Dennis? A. Dennis is near San Diego. He just retired. Q. When's the last time you talked to him? A. Last Thursday. Q. Okay. So he assisted in your preparation? A. Yes. Q. All right. And I take it that obviously that you were -- you had some time to prepare with the lawyers. Your lawyers in the room; right? A. Yes. Q. How long did that take? A. Oh, we spent probably six hours between phone calls and yesterday. Q. Okay. I'm going to mark the next exhibit -- And this is the one that I had incorrectly suggested I would mark Number 2. I'm now going to remark it as -Page 173

people who knew how to knock down the buildings and remediate the soils. So as a remediation effort, not -- not an evaluation of hydrology and hurricane situations and their impacts on floodwalls. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. A. Or -- Or what effect pulling a pile would have. We assumed that, you know, the Corps' -- that's their expertise. Q. Would you look at paragraph two. A. Okay. Q. You see where it says "The Levee District will be --" No, I'm sorry, it doesn't say "will be". "That the Levee District be notified upon completion of the demolition activities so that an inspection and an approval of the levee condition may be made." Okay. Do you know, sir, whether that ever occurred? A. We asked Dennis O'Connor that question and we do not think that notification was made. His point was that, you know, they were there -- you know, the Levee District was

MS. WAGER-ZITO: 5. MR. BRUNO: 5. Okay. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. When you were visiting with the lawyers, was that when Mr. O'Connor was on the phone? A. We made a special call to Dennis with one of the -- one of the lawyers. Q. Okay. All right. A. She facilitated getting the two of us together to talk. Q. Did you talk in the presence of the lawyer? A. Yes. Q. Did Mr. O'Connor speak in the presence of the lawyer? A. Yes. Q. All right. The next document. MR. BRUNO: This is 5. MS. WAGER-ZITO:

44 (Pages 170 to 173) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 174

4/17/2008
Page 176

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Thanks. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Now, have you seen this letter before? A. Yes. Q. When is the first time you saw it? A. Yesterday. Q. Yesterday. A. This particular letter -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Just wait for him to ask you a question. THE WITNESS: Okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let me give you this one. It's got a staple on it just for ease of the Court Reporter. How about that? MS. WAGER-ZITO: You're so thoughtful. MR. BRUNO: I'm taking care of my man here. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. You were about to say something.
Page 175

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

this document would have become a permit if it had been signed by the Washington Group and returned to the Levee Board? A. It appears as so. Looking at the sign-off on the last page, or at least it's concurrence with the terms and -- yeah, there's a paragraph, "This permit is granted based upon" blah, blah, blah. Q. Right. A. So that's what this appears to be. Q. Now, do you know -- Well, you had the conversation with Mr. O'Connor. Based upon -- Well, does WGI know why this letter was not signed? A. Two reasons. There's a lot of language in here that our Counsel would not sign up for as far as -MS. WAGER-ZITO: I'm not going to let you testify to -THE WITNESS: Yeah. MS. WAGER-ZITO: -- any advice of Counsel. THE WITNESS:
Page 177

MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. Ask him a question. MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Well, I thought -- You weren't saying something? A. I saw it yesterday. It was provided by the attorneys. Q. I'm sorry. I thought you had something else to add. All right. Anyway, you -- do you know what this is? A. Well, it's a letter, it's unsigned, and apparently it did not exist in our files on site, but it appears to be either a permit or a permit application or something of the sort. Q. Okay. A. It says that we requested permission, which is true. But it was more of a notification. We didn't really request them to send us an application for a permit. Q. All right. Would you have any facts which would tend to dispute the statement that

Okay. So legal Counsel within our own organization and the fact that the Corps basically said "Don't worry about it, we're -- we have got a permanent situation with these guys." EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. I need to qualify what you just said. Okay? A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Are you answering based upon your view today or are you telling me what WGI thought back in '01? A. Back in '01. Q. So in '01, it's your testimony that legal Counsel would have said "We don't want to sign this"? A. They did say that. Q. They did? Oh, okay. I didn't -All right. So that you had the letter? A. Dennis said he had -- he -- His recollection that it was more of an application form or something. But it might have been this letter for all I know. He couldn't remember exactly what it was. Q. All right. Well, but in fairness,

45 (Pages 174 to 177) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 178

4/17/2008
Page 180

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

it's been suggested that legal Counsel rejected something. Is it likely, based upon the indemnity language that appears on page 2 and 3, that this is what legal Counsel rejected? MR. EHRLICH: Object to the form. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Object. THE WITNESS: Something in the language they objected to, yes. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. Well, is it WGI's position that it had this letter or it did not have this letter? Let's just do it that way. MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's fine. THE WITNESS: It's our position that we had this language and -MS. WAGER-ZITO: No, the question was did we have this letter. THE WITNESS:
Page 179

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

addressed to Mr. O'Connor. How else would it get here? MS. WAGER-ZITO: It came from OLD's files. We don't have it in our files. MR. BRUNO: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. The witness just said that WGI's taking the position that it had the letter. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Are you going to recant that testimony? MS. WAGER-ZITO: No, I don't believe that's what the witness just said. THE WITNESS: What I said is we had some language provided by the OLD that was forwarded by Dennis to our Counsel in Denver and they -MS. WAGER-ZITO: And I don't want you to testifying as to what Counsel said to him.
Page 181

Did we have this letter? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. This letter. This letter. I have to ask the question. A. Yes, we'll assume we did. Q. Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Well, -MR. EHRLICH: I think you can ask him about the conversations and they can instruct him not to answer. The privilege has been waived as far as -- I think we have a good argument it has -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Well, let me just establish some of the fundamentals. I'm a baby step kind of guy. So at least we recognize, we'll agree on the record that this letter was received by Dennis O'Connor. Right? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. That misstates his prior testimony. MR. BRUNO: Well, I mean, the letter is

THE WITNESS: Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You can said that he forwarded it to her and you can say what we did as a result of that, but not the in between. THE WITNESS: Okay. Or what we did not do as a result of it. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Or what we did not do as a result of it. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. And I am not there. I don't really care about the Counsel. I am trying to just nail down the darn letter. Okay? A. Okay. Q. I mean, if we look at it, -A. It -Q. -- there's a whole page of words here. A. Yeah. Q. It's not likely that somebody could just remember all of this stuff. It's highly

46 (Pages 178 to 181) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 182

4/17/2008
Page 184

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

likely, is it not, that the document was given to somebody in Legal? Right? A. Yes. Q. I mean, based upon -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. -- all that you know. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. MR. BRUNO: Counsel, let's not play games. MR. WAGER-ZITO: I'm objecting for the record, Joe. MR. BRUNO: On what grounds? What are they? MS. WAGER-ZITO: That you haven't established a foundation that -MR. BRUNO: I just did. MS. WAGER-ZITO: -- that this letter -- No, you are trying to see if this letter, as opposed to some document, and you are
Page 183

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And isn't that likely what occurred? A. The only reason we're not sure is we didn't find this document in our files. Q. I understand that. But -- I understand you don't have it, but, you know, life can't always be quite that specific. A. Right. Q. Isn't it highly likely that, given that this piece of paper as it sits on the desk in front of you, because it asks for a signature, not from Mr. O'Connor, but from the Washington Group, okay, that nobody in your company's going to sign a letter like this without giving it to the Legal Department for their approval? Right? A. That's true. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection, calls for speculation. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Is that speculation? Is -- are you -MS. WAGER-ZITO: You're asking him to speculate.
Page 185

misstating his prior testimony. MR. BRUNO: Whatever. We'll let the jury figure it out. Okay? MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's fine. MR. BRUNO: You play that game with them, I'm happy. All right? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. So Counsel's suggestion that there may be, must be, must be, not maybe, some other piece of paper with all of this language that somebody felt compelled to give to the Legal Department because it contained the language, not within the context of why the language would need to be reviewed in the very first instance. That's what Counsel wants to suggest. I am trying to be reasonable about this and say clearly the letter asks for somebody to sign a piece of paper. Right? And clearly your company's not going to sign a piece of paper until your Legal Department signs off on it. Isn't that reasonable? A. Yes.

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Are you just speculating now that if somebody in your company says to you, you know, a letter like this -- I want to know if this is speculation or if you know this to be absolutely the way you guys do business in Washington Group International. If somebody gives you a document like this and says "I want you to sign it," do you have to speculate as to whether or not to give it to Legal, or do you know in fact that you are required to give it to Legal? MS. WAGER-ZITO: A letter like this or this letter? MR. BRUNO: A letter like this. MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's a different question. MR. BRUNO: No, it's not. No, it's not. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Fine, Joe. MR. BRUNO: It's not.

47 (Pages 182 to 185) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 186

4/17/2008
Page 188

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MS. WAGER-ZITO: Make your record. MR. BRUNO: Yes, I am making my record and you are making yours. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is it speculation, sir? Would you have to speculate? Would you have to look at the sky and say, "Hmm, should I send this to Legal or should I sign it?" I mean, come on. What's the answer? Is it speculation? A. No. No. Q. Of course not. A. The project manager would want to send it to Legal. Q. Of course. And Mr. O'Connor would want to send something like this to Legal as well. Isn't that true? A. Yes. Q. All right. And, in fact, when you spoke to Mr. O'Connor, he told you that Legal was asked their opinion on this letter. Didn't he tell you that? A. No. Q. He didn't tell you that? What did
Page 187

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: That's okay. I want -- The record needs to reflect this is the WGI position on this letter. I want to know it and I want it confirmed. Okay? MS. WAGER-ZITO: I didn't tell him not to answer. THE WITNESS: Yeah, you're asking me to kind of speculate between absolutely certainty and -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. No, no, no. A. -- no, he didn't at all. Q. I said isn't it highly likely that this is the letter that was transmitted to Legal. And if your answer is no, that's fair. But based upon all you know about the letter, about the context, about your conversation with Mr. O'Connor, isn't it true that it's highly likely that this is the letter that was sent to Legal? A. It's possible. Q. All right. Now, this letter
Page 189

he tell you? A. That he couldn't remember exactly the form of the document that he sent to Legal. Q. Okay. So it's a document at least. Right? A. Right. Q. It's not verbal, it's a document. Fine. A. He never called it a letter. Q. All right. He called it a document. A. And we asked him, "Well, what was this letter?" And he -- or "What was this document? Was it a permit application?" I asked. He couldn't remember exactly. Q. All right. Based upon that conversation, your review of this letter, how sure are you that this letter was given to Legal? A. I can't answer that question. Q. You can't. You have no way to even just guess; right? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection.

references a letter of no objection from the United States Army Corps of Engineers dated April the 6th, 2001. Do you know whether or not such a letter exists? A. Yes. Q. Okay. I haven't seen that. Have you seen that one? A. I have seen it. It was one of the documents we reviewed last week. Q. All right. Well, we don't have it? MR. JOANEN: I don't know. MR. BRUNO: We have it? MR. JOANEN: I don't know. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You do have it. MR. BRUNO: Scott -- I know we have it -- I know we have it in the world. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I'm not going to blame it on Scott. MR. BRUNO:

48 (Pages 186 to 189) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 190

4/17/2008
Page 192

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Wait, wait, wait. If it's one of 800 millions documents, you're probably absolutely correct. MS. WAGER-ZITO: We did not produce 800 million documents to you. MR. BRUNO: You count them. MS. WAGER-ZITO: How many documents did we produce? MR. BRUNO: How many? MS. CRONIN: We produced 136,000 pages and another 300,000 pages and -MR. BRUNO: There you go. In my world, that's 800 million documents. It might as well be a billion. MS. CRONIN: That's a big difference between -MR. BRUNO: No, not in my mind, not when you have to read them.
Page 191

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

MR. BRUNO: Thank you, Scott. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. I'll mark yours before I give it to you. A. Okay. Q. This is Number -MR. EHRLICH: 6. MR. BRUNO: Thanks. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is that the letter? MR. EHRLICH: Which letter? MR. BRUNO: The one to which he made reference, dated April 6, 2001, indicating a no objection from the Corps. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Is that it? A. Okay. Yes. Q. All right. You'll see paragraph C? A. Yes.
Page 193

MS. CRONIN: I know. MR. BRUNO: You read them? MS. CRONIN: Yes, sir. MR. BRUNO: Ouch. MS. WAGER-ZITO: And you can't hire her. MR. BRUNO: Well, let's talk. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. Let's see. Do you recall what the letter dated April 6, '01 says, other than no objection? A. I recall it being similar to the one that we just looked at from the Department of Transportation. They also had no objection. Q. All right. Now, you have also suggested, based upon -- Okay. Never mind. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Looks like we do have it.

Q. Also says "Any damage to the levee/floodwall resulting from the applicant's activities is repaired at the applicant's expense." A. Okay. Q. All right. Now, you'll recall I asked you a series of questions about similar language in the -- in the letter from the Port of New Orleans. Did you assume that this sentence referred to physical damage to that part of the floodwall which is sticking out of the earth? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And you did not take this language to mean potential damage to the floodwall from below? A. No. Q. All right. Now, to follow up with -- You gave us some tidbits of information about your conversation with Mr. O'Connor about needing or not needing a permit. Would you share with us what you learned about that subject? A. Well, ultimately in this time frame, with all of these letters, Dennis went to the

49 (Pages 190 to 193) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 194

4/17/2008
Page 196

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Corps and discussed it with them and -- and they put his mind at ease that we're okay, "We have got this perpetual easement to work here. Don't worry about getting the permit." Q. All right. Now, do you know what Dennis said to the Corps to describe the scope of the work that was contemplated on the, you know, on the water side of the floodwall? In other words, do you know, did he tell you in his conversation with you whether he told the Corps whether they were going to excavate or not excavate? A. Well, the Corps that I am referring to are the client people who are intimately familiar with this project as well. They helped us develop the work plans basically. They helped -- They weighed in with their comment response on the recommendations report. They weighed in with their comments on the work plan. So they were intimately familiar with what we were going to be doing. Q. All right. Well, let me just ask you a few questions about that. We have had a chance to take some Corps employees and we have learned a little bit about their
Page 195

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

but clearly the projects they worked were remediation type projects and it was -- As you can see here, we have got a letter from the Corps of Engineers, you know. This is Operations Division. Okay? So yes, there's a lot of different, you know, organizations within the New Orleans Corps, but the one we dealt with was different than the one that wrote this letter. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. A. I guess that's the point. Q. Well, we have learned, for example, that the Operations Division has within its ambit of responsibility a permitting section. And then there's another section which is in charge of projects like the navigation lock expansion project and that they're different from each other. A. Okay. Q. But you're telling me you have no real knowledge of how they're organized or how they were organized back in the 2000-2001 time
Page 197

organizational structure. Do you know anything about the organizational structure of the New Orleans District of the United States Army Corps of Engineers? A. Not a whole lot. A little bit. Q. I guess I should have asked before I asked that question, there are lots of offices of the Corps. Which particular office of the Corps would have been the office that would have reviewed all of these proposed work orders and other documents that we have been talking about all morning long? A. The -- Well, -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection, vague. You can answer it. THE WITNESS: In Tulsa they had an HTRW group. So they had a specific group. Now, in New Orleans, I apologize, I am not that sure. The guys we dealt with were environmental type people like, you know. I mean, their charter was remediation. So I don't know if it was an HTRW group within New Orleans,

frame; right? A. Not -- Not a real in-depth, no. Q. Would you remember any names in particular of Corps employees in the New Orleans office that you, the WGI, would have worked with in either with regard to this permit or any of the approvals? A. As far as the people we dealt with on our project, it was Lee Guillory and Jim Montegut. Jim was kind of the on-site guy, the contracting officer's representative. And Jim was more kind of the engineer out of the office. I mean Lee Guillory. I'm sorry. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You said Jim and Jim. THE WITNESS: Yeah, Lee Guillory was the engineer out of the office. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. Okay. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. So anyway, Dennis is talking to somebody at the Corps, or do we

50 (Pages 194 to 197) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 198

4/17/2008
Page 200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

know who he's talking to? A. Well, Lee Guillory is I believe the one that he was primarily discussing on this issue. Q. Okay. And this was all in 2000? A. Yes. Well, that was -- When this was going on, we have an email from Lee when we were in the summer of -- Well, this is 2001 time frame here. Early 2001 when things were really getting cranked up on site. Q. Right. But you hadn't -A. But before -- the summer before when we were doing the sampling, which is the first thing we were actually allowed on site to start drilling holes, Lee sent us -- Lee sent Dennis an email saying "Don't worry about the levee permit. We have got a perpetual easement on them." Q. So you think -- Have you seen that email? A. Yes. Q. Okay. So there's an email from Guillory to O'Connor and it says "Don't worry about the permit"? A. Something to that effect, yes.
Page 199

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

part of the work. I wasn't there. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. So I'll ask somebody else that. All right. Did you ever come to any information about the soils being really bad in that area? A. Bad in terms of what? Q. In terms of the work that you were all were doing, excavating, putting up cofferdams and the like, how it really made the work more difficult generally. A. No, I left the project, but -- in May of '01. But up until that time, no, I never heard of any issues. Q. All right. Help me. We'll have to look through the documents to find the email. Did you give me a date on this email? A. Summer of 2000. Q. Summer of 2000? A. Right. I would estimate July, something like that. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Counsel, do you have access to
Page 201

Q. Now, in 2000 you all haven't dug the first hole. Right? A. Only to collect these samples, you know. Q. You really didn't start pulling piling and digging the holes to pull out the lift station until much later. A. Right. In the 2001 time frame -Q. 2001? A. -- is when the real site work got going. Q. And you didn't really have a chance yet to do any of the geotechnical investigation of the soils to ascertain whether or not your cofferdams are going to work right or not? That hadn't happened yet? A. Right. Q. And it was before you all found out that soils were so bad you had to kind of change the way you were going to do the cofferdams; right? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Objection. THE WITNESS: Well, I'm not familiar with that

that? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Do I have access to it right now? MR. BRUNO: No, no, no. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. MR. BRUNO: In the world. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You have it. It was -MR. BRUNO: I'm sure I do. I'm sure I do as I've told you. Would you mind giving me a copy? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Oh, we'll give you a copy. MR. BRUNO: All right. Thanks. All right. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Put it on the list. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Do you know if the issue of permitting was ever revisited after this

51 (Pages 198 to 201) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 202

4/17/2008
Page 204

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

business of the language being reviewed by the Law Department, by WGI? A. According to my discussion with Dennis, it was pretty well put to bed in this time frame of April, 2001 as far as the levee permit. That was -- That was the end. Q. All right. I am a little bit curious to know why it would be if in the summer of 2000, Guillory says to O'Connor, "Don't worry about a permit" that O'Connor would write the letter to the Levee Board after having received that email. That is the sequence of events, isn't it? A. Yes. But the letter was sent to the Levee Board to provide them with information and so they knew the activities we'd be doing on site and in the vicinity, and also I guess there was some discussions about, you know, mowing along the wall, the floodwall. And so there was discussion, there was this fear of keep these guys informed, but they took that to be, okay, well, now we need to send them this permit application or whatever. So -But that wasn't the intent. Q. All right. Well, I understand
Page 203

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. Why not? A. -- you know, why not. But it wasn't. MR. BRUNO: Before I take a break, let me look at the notice real quick. (Whereupon a discussion was held off the record.) MR. BRUNO: What is 60? I did mark them. Typical. 60, page 2. 62 and 63? MS. WAGER-ZITO: 62 and 63. THE WITNESS: The groundwater investigation? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes. A. We already talked about -Q. We have already talked about it. A. Yeah. Q. I think what you have told me is that you -- the only groundwater testing you did was at the end of the project, and you have described that to me. Did you do any other groundwater testing?
Page 205

that. But O'Connor took -- still felt compelled, despite all of that, in other words, -A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. -- O'Connor now knows that the Corps doesn't really care about a permit. He's written the Levee Board, quote, "putting them on notice". He's received, if not the letter, some piece of paper that has some words on it that he feels compelled to send to Legal -A. Right. Q. -- for them to evaluate in order for him to sign another piece of paper. A. Uh-huh (affirmatively). Q. Why would he do all of that, if you know, if he's been told don't bother with permits in the first instance? MR. EHRLICH: Object to form. THE WITNESS: Well, if I was going to put myself in his mind, if it were an easy matter of, yeah, we'll sign the thing and Legal agreed to it, then -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO:

A. Not that I am aware of, no. Q. And you all didn't use any potentiometric surface maps, did you? A. We, from the limited data that we had, the report did draw up a potentiometric surface map. What I looked at it, you know, I kind of felt like, you know, you got a bunch of wells going this way (indicating) it's kind of hard to -- not a whole lot of data points to draw it, but there was an attempt to draw it, yes. Q. But the purpose of that exercise was to address the environmental issues as they relate to water contamination; right? A. Yes. Q. But they would tell you something about water flowing below the surface, would they not? A. Yes. Q. And they did tell you that water was flowing away from the canal landward, didn't they? A. It appeared, yeah, that there was higher levels closer to the canal than -- than to the floodwall.

52 (Pages 202 to 205) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 206

4/17/2008
Page 208

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. And -A. And -Q. -- to be specific, let me show you WGI-81181 and WGI-81191. See if that -- Those are two different documents that happen to have a staple. Don't ask me why. MR. JOANEN: I stapled them together. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. There you go. A. Okay. Q. Have you seen either of those two documents before? A. Yes. Q. Was the first time during your preparation for this deposition? A. Yes. Q. All right. Do you know if the measurements of the flow were below eight feet? A. You mean the water levels? Where the water levels -Q. That is the flow of water which is being referenced. It says "The current groundwater flow information taken by WGI in
Page 207

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

So you get various levels apparently. Q. The question was, at what depth was this measurement taken? A. Well, what you do when you install a well down to a certain depth, and I would have to look at the boring logs to figure out how deep we installed it, you go down with a little probe. When it hits the water level, it beeps and then you measure that and you convert it to your feet above sea level. So you -Q. Do you know -A. You measured the water level at which it was, and it seemed like the levels that I saw were in the 1 to 3 or minus -- I don't know. Minus 3 below sea level. It was -- It was sea level plus or minus 3 feet, something like that. Q. All right. Just for completeness, it says "Note that the 1997 report Groundwater Flow Information, open paren, actually the groundwater data, which collected in 1993/1992, question mark, close paren, indicate the influence of the structures, open paren, foundation of buildings, canal
Page 209

May-June of '05 points to a flow away from the canal." That sentence in particular, -A. Right. Q. -- that's describing some groundwater movement. A. We didn't measure flow. We measured water levels in the wells. So if you have a higher water level in a well that's further away from the wall than another one that's closer to the wall, that would indicate, you know, a pressure gradient or a flow gradient to go towards the wall. That's all. Q. Okay. I understand that. But regardless -A. And this was just one snapshot in time. And when I looked at the data, it was kind of surprising that -- I was surprised that there -- there was a significant variation. You know, I would have thought that being that close to the canal, you know, everything would be pretty close to the level of the water in the canal. But I guess these soils are very tight and so there's not a whole lot of conductivity between the canal and the soils between the canal and the bank.

drainage, et cetera, close paren, present at that time on the shallow GW flow". Now, that just sounds to me like somebody is measuring groundwater flow. But your testimony is they're not measuring groundwater flow; they're just able to interpolate the data to come up with a flow? A. Interpret the gradient, yes. Q. So they're not measuring groundwater flow? A. Right. A potentiometric surface is just like a map of -- you know, like a topographic map of the water table. Q. And do you know what the purpose of this information as conveyed by this email, August 3, '05, is? A. Apparently it -- it had something to do with determine this dilution factor. The DF. And to be honest with you, it didn't make a whole lot of sense to me, the DF-1 versus DF-16. And -Q. Okay. A. -- to be honest -- Yeah, I think that was the context. That if you read this, it talks about if it's flowing one way, you

53 (Pages 206 to 209) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 210

4/17/2008
Page 212

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

can use a DF of 1; if you it's going the other way, you use a DF of 16. But unfortunately, -Q. There it is. A. -- I probably don't understand it any better than you do without talking to Mr. Lesser. Q. Absolutely not. That's why we have experts. A. Yeah. Q. If you look at the next page, if you don't mind. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Well, the next page of what we have may be different than what you were looking at. MR. BRUNO: WGI-081191. I thought I handed you a document. I'm sorry. MS. WAGER-ZITO: You took it back. MR. BRUNO: Oh, I did? Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: I gave him mine of 81, but I do
Page 211

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Denver. Q. Did you confirm that he's the gentleman that wrote that sentence? A. No. I didn't ask about that sentence. Q. All right. Do we know who wrote that sentence? A. No. Q. All right. So why did you call Mr. Bielicki on the phone? A. Because I was asked to testify on this report. Q. Oh, all right. A. So I wanted to learn as much as I could in a short period of time to be able to discuss it. Q. All right. Well, it says on this piece of paper "The data indicate that groundwater flows eastward from the canal. The large embayment on the north end of the site is likely due to large volume of soils removed during remediation of Boland Marine." Okay? First of all, what is an embayment? A. I don't know. When I looked at the map there was kind of a lobe or something
Page 213

not have 91. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. All right. I am going to show this to you then. It says "Post NFAA TT groundwater characterization report, Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, East Bank Industrial Area", and then it says AI-1398. At the bottom it says "Washington Group International", page is page, August, '05 and I think I already gave the Bates number. A. Okay. Q. And I have got the area that I want to ask you about highlighted. A. Okay. Q. Do you know what that is? A. Yes. We looked at that report yesterday and we actually contacted the geologist who drilled the wells and helped prepare the report. Q. First, what is the report? A. The report is the final groundwater investigation report to satisfy the recap, the Louisiana State Environmental folks. Q. Okay. And who did you contact? A. Ed Bielicki is our geologist back in

where the groundwater level kind of, instead of following lines, it kind of took a jog. Q. Well, it says "The large embayment is due to the large volume of soils removed." Is it a hole? MS. WAGER-ZITO: It's "likely due to". THE WITNESS: Yes. You know, that's where you're digging out contaminated soil -EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Sure. A. -- and you're replacing it with backfill from the site. But not necessarily compacting it, you know, to a state in which it was prior to the -Q. Before it was excavated? A. Before. Before. Q. Right. A. Because again, the Corps, you know, every -- you know, they weren't too concerned about putting up a building on this site so that there wasn't a stringent compaction requirement.

54 (Pages 210 to 213) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 214

4/17/2008
Page 216

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. All right. So the gentleman that you spoke to, so that I can sort of, you know -- he -- he's the fellow who just -- who did -- took the well -- who drilled the wells? Just help me understand. What is his role with this report? A. His role was to -- I think he and a chemist, Rich Lesser -- and both of these individuals have since left the company -basically planned and implemented this little assessment. They worked with the driller. Ed actually, as the holes were drilled, he logged the soils. He created also a well log, you know, of the actual monitoring well, collected the samples. Then we have a chemist who deals with the lab and deals with the data. And those two individuals, between the chemistry and the geology, you know, put together the report. Q. Okay. You have given us some idea that you have some understanding of why the water would move, because the soil wasn't compacted enough. Does that come just from your experience of working with the company all of these many years?
Page 215

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Okay. The recap submittal report criteria document, June, 2000. Q. Okay? A. Okay. Q. And the particular page that I am going to direct you to is page number 25, paragraph 4.2. And just read it over for me and then I'll ask you some questions about it. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Joe, I'm happy to have him do that. Just so you know, Mr. Staggs was indicated for recap reports. If you want to ask him if he knows -MR. BRUNO: I am not really asking about -you will find that I am not asking about recap. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Okay. MR. BRUNO: I am asking, very candidly, about sheet pile depth. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Okay.
Page 217

A. No, that was just my interpretation of what they meant by that sentence that you -- you read me. Q. Okay. A. That since the soil was disturbed in essence, it wasn't in its native position and that might have caused kind of an anomaly of the water levels in that area. Q. All right. Let's take a little break and see if we are done. A. Okay. VIDEO OPERATOR: The time is 3:32. We're now off the record. (Recess.) VIDEO OPERATOR: All right. The time is 3:40. We're now back on the record. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Mr. Roe, let me show you this document. It is Bates numbered WGI-47665 in seriatim to 47761. I'm going to hand you the rest of it, but I am going to show you the cover sheet first so I can direct you to the page that I am interested in.

MR. BRUNO: Which is referenced. MS. WAGER-ZITO: That's fine. Again -MR. BRUNO: No, I am not interested. THE WITNESS: 4.2 you said; right? EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Yes, sir. A. Okay. Q. All right. Do you see there a description of a sheet pile wall part of the flood control project? A. Yeah. It talks about the reaching a depth of at least 25 feet. Q. Right. And do you remember you and I discussing early on in the deposition where you looked at a document which suggested a sheet pile depth of eight feet? A. Eight feet -- Actually, I guess it was eight feet below sea level. Q. Exactly. Do you believe that the 25 feet referenced here is equal to the eight feet below sea level?

55 (Pages 214 to 217) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 218

4/17/2008
Page 220

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. I don't know. I might come to that assumption -Q. Do we know? A. -- if the documents are accurate. Q. Yes. Okay. That would mean, let's see now, -A. This -Q. -- that the -A. It doesn't -- something doesn't seem right. Q. No, you would have to be about ten feet below sea level right where the water is, which is kind of hard to say. But anyway, it does say 25 feet deep; right? A. Yeah. Q. All right. And, of course, there is no -A. But I thought I saw a sketch that said eight feet below sea level. Q. Oh, I know. A. And the site is pretty darn close to sea level, I believe. Q. Right. Exactly. In any case, are you aware of Washington Group International believing that the sheet pile tip at the
Page 219

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Q. I understand. Even if it's only limited to that. Let's assume -A. Correct. Q. -- that it's limited to nothing more or less than recap. Okay? A. Okay. Q. The paragraph seems to suggest that the sheet pile is acting as a barrier or a dam in the context of something that relates to recap. And all I am just asking you is, would you agree with me that if that depth is somehow related to its ability to block water going from one side to the other, then it's a good idea to ascertain what the correct sheet pile tip depth is. Wouldn't you agree? A. It's probably not necessary for the purposes of just doing these tests to find out if it's a drinker water aquifer or not a drinking water aquifer. Q. Okay. A. Invariably geologists, when they plot this data, they're going to have to make some sort of statements about it, and that's probably what they were doing, is, you know, trying to draw some conclusions from what the
Page 221

floodwall was 25 feet as opposed to eight? Or do you think it's the eight that you made reference to? A. I can only be aware of what I just read. Q. Okay. A. This was written by -- by our guys, Dennis and Jim. Q. They both signed off on it, didn't they? A. So -- Yes. Q. All right. Well, let's see. There's also a discussion in that paragraph about the fact that the sheet pile cuts off water movement. Right? A. That's its purpose, I assume. Q. Okay. And obviously if you -there's some confusion about the depth of the sheet pile tip and somebody's thinking that it's cutting off the flow of water, then somebody kinds of needs to figure it out to make sure they got the right information. Don't you agree? A. Well, again, we're only looking at it from the standpoint of the recap.

map was telling them. Q. Well, at least as relates to paragraph 62, which you have been designated to talk about, would you agree with me that to the extent that a sheet pile blocks underwater flow, which is what 62 is about, -A. Right. Q. -- if somebody thinks it's 25 and is drawing conclusions about underwater flow based upon that assumption and in fact it's not 25 feet, then it needs to be reevaluated? Wouldn't you agree? A. Not necessarily. Whether it's 25 or eight below sea level, it would still have the effect of, you know, -- You know, if the Corps keyed that into some sort of formation that would, you know, be less permeable to where, you know, maybe it wouldn't matter if it's 25 or eight, you know, for the purposes of what we're up to. Q. Well, did the Corps use 25 or eight? A. I don't know. Q. Did you use 25 or eight? A. Again, it wasn't really pertinent to the job that we set out to do on the site. It

56 (Pages 218 to 221) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 222

4/17/2008
Page 224

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

just happened to come up in the context of potentiometric surface and what the data may be telling you. I think they're more concerned about, you know, when they talk about point of compliance and the point of -of exposure, you know, they're -- they're trying to figure out if you have contaminants on the site, which way are they going to end up. It's going to end up in the canals they said. Q. Right. Would you be surprised to learn that one of the documents which forms a part of those site specific documents that you got references the 25 feet? A. No, I wouldn't be too surprised. Q. I'm sorry, I had it backwards. Rather, eight feet, not 25 feet. Let me show you. This is Mississippi River Gulf Outlet, new lock and connecting channels, Appendix C, part 2. Sampling and analysis report, SAR, phase 2-A-2, HTRW investigation Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, prepared by the Foundation and Materials Branch and Hydraulics and Hydraulic Branch Engineering Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District,
Page 223

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

All right. Let me just ask you about preparing for the deposition and we can wrap this thing up. How many -MS. WAGER-ZITO: I don't know if you put those Bates numbers in the record. I may have missed it. MR. BRUNO: Would you like me to? Just to be absolutely certain, the document which has the title "Mississippi River Gulf Outlet new lock and connecting channels", Appendix C, part 2, sampling and analysis report, open paren SAR, close paren, phase 2-A-2, HTRW investigation, Inner Harbor and Navigation Canal, northeast bank canal disposal side, New Orleans, Louisiana, prepared by the Foundation Materials Division -- I'm sorry, Branch, and Hydraulics and Hydraulic Branch, Engineering Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District, has Bates number WGI-245973 and the
Page 225

1993. MR. EHRLICH: And this is specifically referencing the work -MR. BRUNO: The statement of work. MR. JOANEN: That was provided. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Look at page 2. See if you can't just confirm that it makes a reference that the sheet pipe tip is eight feet, not 25. A. Okay. Well, that's consistent with the document I saw yesterday. Q. Right. A. This document you just gave me, I don't recall seeing it before. Q. All right. Who would have drafted, if you know, the recap statement report -recap submittal report? A. Jim Blazek was the main guy dealing with recap and his MMG folks. He had some other individuals helping him with that back in the office. Q. All right. Thank you.

second page, which we showed the witness, is page 29 of the report, which is WGI-246010. All right. Good? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. Thank you. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Let just ask a few more. Now, you were asked by your company to act as a corporate designee in the context of this deposition. Right? A. Right. Q. All right. And they showed you the paragraphs that they wanted you to speak to. Right? A. Yes. Q. All right. What I would like to know is what you did to prepare. Again, I am doing this because as the designee, I want the record to reflect the degree to which you made an investigation, if any -A. Yeah. Q. -- in responding to my questions. So first, when did you learn that you were going to be the corporate designee?

57 (Pages 222 to 225) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 226

4/17/2008
Page 228

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. Oh, geez. Within the last month. Q. Okay. When is the first time that you met with anyone in order to address the areas for which you would be testifying? A. Two weeks ago I believe I had a conference call with these three ladies. Q. All right. And how long did that call take? A. An hour and a half, two hours. Q. And did you have in front of you the Notice of Deposition so that you could reference the paragraphs? A. Yes. Q. All right. Did you indicate to them what subjects you felt familiar with, or were you directed to be the witness for a particular paragraph? A. It was the latter, but I also, you know, expressed any -- You know, they asked me also, you know, "Do you feel comfortable with these? Do you have knowledge of these areas?" Q. So it was more like you were elected, but -A. So a little of both. Q. But you had maybe -Page 227

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

in connection with his preparation for the deposition. You can just do it by Bates numbers if you want. MS. WAGER-ZITO: All documents he was shown you already have. If any documents refreshed his recollection, then we can produce those to you, but otherwise -MR. BRUNO: No, no, that's not the point. MS. WAGER-ZITO: The compilation that we put together for him is privileged. MR. BRUNO: No, it's not. You must be kidding. You are helping the witness to prepare for a 30 (b)(6) corporate witness deposition and you're selecting the documents that you want him to look at and then act as a corporate rep, and you're telling me that I can't have that? We'll address that with the Court. So your position is that you will
Page 229

A. Yeah, I had a little bit to say in the matter. Q. Okay. I'm hearing you. All right. Now, and in that call were you -was anybody on the call not employed by WGI other than the lawyers? A. No. It was just me on the call. Q. Just you. All right. Now, did you do any investigating yourself, looking for documents, reading documents, calling folks on the phone, in order to prepare yourself for coming here today and acting as the corporate representative? A. Well, I was sent some documents because, you know, I long since purged my files. Q. Sure. A. The company purged their files, you know. But, you know, I was sent some of the documents that we have been through today and others, and I did review some of those. Q. All right. MR. BRUNO: Let me ask Counsel to produce the documents that the witness was shown

not give me the documents that you showed the witness in preparation for this deposition. Correct? MR. EHRLICH: If he's been refreshed. MS. WAGER-ZITO: No, no, no, no. I said if they refreshed, we will give them to you. MR. BRUNO: Okay. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Absolutely. MR. BRUNO: So you will at least undertake some analysis -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. MR. BRUNO: -- on the refreshing business? MS. WAGER-ZITO: Yes. MR. BRUNO: Will you do a privilege log so we can make life easier for the Judge? MS. WAGER-ZITO:

58 (Pages 226 to 229) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 230

4/17/2008
Page 232

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A privilege log of what? MR. BRUNO: Of the documents that I have requested that you produce. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Then why don't I give you the documents if we're going to put them on a privilege log, Joe? MR. BRUNO: Well, I would think that's the way to do it, but if you want to put it under seal, I don't care. MS. WAGER-ZITO: We will take this -MR. BRUNO: The Judge has to have something to look at, you know. MS. WAGER-ZITO: We will take this under advisement and I don't know that we need to keep this fight in front of the witness. MR. BRUNO: I know. I would give you mine. I could care less. But apparently you
Page 231

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Right. And that was done at your suggestion or was that done at Counsel's suggestion? A. Counsel's suggestion. Q. All right. Did you call anybody on your own that you felt would help you prepare for today? A. No. Q. Now, when you were on the phone with Mr. -- Please forgive me. MS. WAGER-ZITO: Bielicki. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Bielicki. Is he employed by WGI today? A. No. Q. Was he employed by WGI when you spoke to him on the phone with Counsel present? A. No. Q. All right. Anybody else? Did you call anybody else at the behest of Counsel? A. No. Q. All right.
Page 233

have some concern about showing me documents that you showed the witness to prepare for a 30 (b)(6) deposition notice, which is extraordinary, but that's okay. EXAMINATION BY MR. BRUNO: Q. Did you pull any documents yourself? A. No, like I said, the documents had been purged from our -- you know, they're off-site. Q. A simple question, yes or no. Did you pull -A. No. Q. How easy is that? A. No. Q. Okay. Now, did you call anybody on the phone? We know you spoke to Mr. O'Connor. Right? A. Right. Q. And you also called the gentleman -MS. WAGER-ZITO: Mr. Bielicki. THE WITNESS: Mr. Bielicki.

MR. BRUNO: With that, thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your time. I really do. THE WITNESS: Okay. MR. BRUNO: And your patience with us. THE WITNESS: All right. VIDEO OPERATOR: This concludes the deposition. The time is 3:55. We are now off the record. * * *

59 (Pages 230 to 233) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

STEPHEN CLAY ROE
Page 234
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

4/17/2008

WITNESS'S CERTIFICATE I, STEPHEN CLAY ROE, read or have had the preceding testimony read to me, and hereby certify that it is a true and correct transcription of my testimony, with the exception of any attached corrections or changes. _____________________ (Witness' Signature) ____________ DATE SIGNED DEPONENT PLEASE INITIAL ONE: _____ Read with no corrections _____ Read and correction sheet attached DATE TAKEN: APRIL 17, 2008

Page 235

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE I, ROGER D. JOHNS, RMR, RDR, CRR, Certified Court Reporter, do hereby certify that the above-named witness, after having been first duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did testify as hereinabove set forth; that the testimony was reported by me in shorthand and transcribed under my personal direction and supervision, and is a true and correct transcript, to the best of my ability and understanding; that I am not of counsel, not related to counsel or the parties hereto, and not in any way interested in the outcome of this matter.

ROGER D. JOHNS CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER STATE OF LOUISIANA

60 (Pages 234 to 235) JOHNS PENDLETON COURT REPORTERS 800 562-1285

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful