1 (Pages 1 To 4)

MONTEGUT, III, JAMES
8/8/2008
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 1 ALSO PRESENT:
IN RE: KATRINA CANAL BREACHES CIVIL ACTION
2 JOSEPH E. BEARDEN, III, ESQ.
CONSOLIDATED LITIGATION NO. 05-4182 K2 3 LAURA ROUGEAU, ESQ.
JUDGE DUVAL
PERTAINS TO: MRGO AND ROBINSON 4 JULIA CRONIN, ESQ.
(No. 06-2268) 5 WILLIAM D. TREEBY, ESQ.
Deposition of JAMES A. MONTEGUT, III, 6
given at the McKernan Law Firm, 8710 Jefferson
Highway, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70809, on 7 PRESENT VIA I-DEP:
August 8th, 2008.
8 ERIC GOLDBERG, ESQ.
9 CHRIS ALFIERI, ESQ.
10 SCOTT GASPARD, ESQ.
11 DEBRA S. CLAYMAN, ESQ.
12 BRIAN RYCKMAN, ESQ.
13
REPORTED BY:
JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR 14 VIDEOGRAPHER:
GILLEY DELORIMIER (DEPO-VUE)
CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 1 Page 3
1 APPEARANCES: 1 EXAMINATION INDEX

2 REPRESENTING THE PLAINTIFFS: 2
3 BRUNO & BRUNO 3 EXAMINATION BY: PAGE
4 (BY: L. SCOTT JOANEN, ESQUIRE) 4
5 855 Baronne Street 5 MR. JOANEN .................................6
6 New Orleans, Louisiana 70113 6 MR. LEVINE ...............................146
7 504-525-1335 7
8 8 EXHIBIT NO. PAGE
9 REPRESENTING THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: 9
10 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 10 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 ....................... 9
11 TORTS BRANCH, CIVIL DIVISION 11 Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 .......................60
12 (BY: PAUL LEVINE, ESQUIRE) 12 Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 .......................62
13 (BY: DAN BAEZA, ESQUIRE) 13 Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 .......................93
14 P.O. Box 888 14 Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 ......................109
15 Benjamin Franklin Station 15 Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 ......................139
16 Washington, D.C. 20044 16
17 202-616-4289 17
18 18
19 REPRESENTING THE U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. 19
20 CORPS OF ENGINEERS, OFFICE OF COUNSEL 20
21 (BY: DAVID DYER, ESQUIRE) 21
22 7400 Leake Avenue 22
23 New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-3651 23
24 504-862-2843 24
25 25
Page 2 Page 4
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285
8/8/2008
1 STIPULATION 1 A. Two or three. This being the third or

2 IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and 2 fourth.
3 among counsel for the parties hereto that the 3 Q. Have they been recent depositions?
4 deposition of the aforementioned witness may be 4 A. No.
5 taken for all purposes permitted within the 5 Q. Were they depositions that involved
6 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in accordance 6 personal injury or contract disputes, things of
7 with law, pursuant to notice; 7 that nature?
8 That all formalities, save reading 8 A. Contract disputes with the Corps of
9 and signing of the original transcript by the 9 Engineers.
10 deponent, are hereby specifically waived; 10 Q. So you understand the procedure.
11 That all objections, save those as to 11 Basically, I'm here to ask you questions. I'm
12 the form of the question and the responsiveness 12 going to ask you to let me finish my question
13 of the answer, are reserved until such time as 13 before you begin your answer so that the court
14 this deposition, or any part thereof, is used 14 reporter can get that down. You understand
15 or sought to be used in evidence. 15 that.
16 16 A. Yes. Sounds fair.
17 17 Q. Also, it's very important that you
18 * * * 18 answer yes or no or give a verbal response and
19 19 not nods of the head and shakes of the head
20 20 because the court reporter may not get it down
21 21 accurately. It's important that what is said
22 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR, 22 here today is taken down accurately because
23 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State 23 others may be reviewing this at a later date
24 of Louisiana, officiated in administering the 24 and they will be interpreting what was said and
25 oath to the witness. 25 if it's unclear it can cause confusion later.
Page 5 Page 7
1 JAMES A. MONTEGUT, III 1 You understand that.

2 6190 Tezcuco Court, Gonzales, Louisiana 70737 2 A. I understand that.
3 70118, a witness named in the above 3 Q. Also, too, I have to as always tell
4 stipulation, having been first duly sworn, was 4 you that this is a deposition pursuant to the
5 examined and testified on his oath as follows: 5 Rules of Civil Procedure, so you've been sworn
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 6 to tell the truth the same as if you were in
7 Q. Mr. Montegut, my name is Scott Joanen. 7 court. You understand that, as well?
8 I'm an attorney for the MRGO PSLC. That's the 8 A. Yes, I do.
9 plaintiffs that have brought suit against the 9 Q. If at any time you don't understand my
10 Corps of Engineers and WGI for damage they 10 question, just ask me to repeat it. I'll be
11 allege for the floodwalls falling down in the 11 glad to do so. Either I'll rephrase it or I'll
12 Lower Ninth Ward. 12 have the court reporter read it back. Okay?
13 The reason we're here today is because 13 A. Okay.
14 your name has appeared on a number of documents 14 Q. I'm not one to really hold people's
15 and I understand you to be being involved in 15 feet to the fire so if you want to take a break
16 the project that became known as Task Order 26 16 for any reason I'm glad to do so, although I
17 or the remediation work at the East Bank 17 would ask if you can to be patient with me and
18 Industrial Area. So we're here to ask you some 18 try and allow me to get as close to the noon
19 questions. 19 hour before we break as we can. I would like
20 A. Okay. 20 to get you out of here as quick as possible.
21 Q. Have you ever given a deposition 21 Okay?
22 before? 22 A. Sounds fair.
23 A. Yes, I have. 23 Q. The first thing I would like to do
24 Q. How many times have you given a 24 just for a matter of bookkeeping, I've marked
25 deposition? 25 for Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, this is the Amended
Page 6 Page 8
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
8/8/2008
1 Notice of Deposition, it's the Third Amended 1 Q. And what was the first job you took?
2 Notice of Deposition, which is piece of paper 2 A. I took a job with the Corps of
3 that tells everybody that we're asking you to 3 Engineers as a civil engineer.
4 be here today and testify. We'll put that into 4 Q. Let me ask you, because I've not ever
5 the record. 5 taken an engineering class, what qualifies you
6 Mr. Montegut, let me ask you first 6 with a BS in engineering with a mechanical
7 just for some background information. From 7 option to qualify for a job as a civil
8 where are you from; where were you born and 8 engineer? Had you taken sufficient classes to
9 raised? 9 get your BS in engineering to qualify as a
10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 1 was marked for 10 civil engineer job title?
11 identification and is attached hereto.) 11 A. Part of the engineering curriculum
12 A. Born and raised in New Orleans. 12 that I took had certain civil engineering
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 13 courses, like soil mechanics, things like that,
14 Q. Okay. Where did you go to high 14 dynamics, statics, those type of courses that
15 school? 15 are typically found in a civil engineering
16 A. Brother Martin. 16 curriculum. Apparently when I applied the
17 Q. What year did you graduate? 17 Corps of Engineers determined that that was
18 A. 1970. 18 sufficient qualifications to be hired as a
19 Q. After Brother Martin, did you continue 19 civil engineer. And of course I've been
20 with your education? 20 there -- well, until I retired I was there for
21 A. Yes. I attended University of -- 21 thirty some odd years, so I would like to think
22 well, at the time it was LSUNO, but now it's 22 that they thought it was sufficient
23 the University of New Orleans. UNO. 23 qualifications.
24 Q. Okay. And how far did you progress in 24 Q. I understand. When you entered the
25 your education? 25 Corps in 1974 as a civil engineer, was there a
Page 9 Page 11
1 A. I got a Bachelor's of science degree 1 particular branch that you were assigned to?
2 in engineering. 2 A. Actually, you know, we need to back up
3 Q. At the time, when you get a BS in 3 maybe just a little bit, because my career at
4 engineering was there any focus or specialty 4 the Corps started prior to my graduation as an
5 within the engineering field that you were 5 engineer.
6 achieving? 6 Q. Okay.
7 A. At that time, at UNO, there wasn't a 7 A. For about a year and a half prior to
8 civil, mechanical, electrical designation, they 8 my graduation I was working as a student for
9 had what was referred to at that time at UNO as 9 the Corps of Engineers.
10 an option. And I graduated with a mechanical 10 Q. Okay.
11 engineering option. You know, I haven't looked 11 A. And so really, when I graduated it was
12 at my diploma in a thousand years, but if you 12 more of just a rollover from a student position
13 would read the diploma, it says, bachelor of 13 into a civil engineering position. So when I
14 science in engineering with a mechanical 14 actually started at the Corps of Engineers I
15 option. 15 was working as a student in their engineering
16 Q. Okay. Did you take any formal 16 division, what they called back then the
17 education after achieving your BS in 17 engineering systems and programming branch
18 engineering? 18 where we wrote a lot of computer programs to do
19 A. No, I did not. 19 engineering type calculations.
20 Q. And what year did you receive that 20 Q. And so while you were at the civil
21 Bachelor of Science? 21 engineer student program function, you were
22 A. 1974 or '5. 22 actually doing engineering calculations and
23 Q. Upon graduating from LSUNO, did you 23 things of that nature?
24 enter the workforce? 24 A. Yeah. Working more with what was
25 A. Yes. 25 referred to as a technician, doing more
Page 10 Page 12
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
8/8/2008
1 technical type work, doing, um -- you know, 1 section that did the computations to determine
2 being assigned work by an engineer to do 2 the pay quantities. As you probably know,
3 certain calculations, computations and work on 3 typical Corps contracts are based, are let to
4 drawings, things like that. 4 contractors and they're paid usually by unit
5 Q. When you became a full-time employee 5 priced items, and typically in dirt work like
6 with the Corps, did your job responsibilities 6 levees or dredging, they're paid by the cubic
7 change and, if so, how so? 7 yard. It's called a firm fixed price contract.
8 A. To some degree. Switching from maybe 8 In order to make payment to those contractors
9 analyzing computer data at the time to when I 9 as they complete the work and as they progress
10 became an engineer to actually writing computer 10 through it, they have surveyors that go out and
11 programs to perform certain calculations. 11 survey cross-sections of the whatever, the
12 Q. And what would have been your title at 12 levee or the channel, and the computations
13 that time? Civil engineer? 13 determine the cubic yardage. So we worked
14 A. Yeah. Civil engineer. 14 in -- I worked in the section that did those
15 Q. And how long did you stay in the 15 computations.
16 position of civil engineer? 16 Q. And how long did you remain in that
17 A. Until my retirement. 17 job capacity?
18 Q. The job position that you were in 18 A. Probably I'm going to say until about
19 originally in 1974 upon taking a full-time 19 1992, so about fifteen years, roughly. '78 to
20 employment, how long did you stay within that 20 '92; fourteen, fifteen years.
21 job function? Roughly. 21 Q. Was there, during this time period up
22 A. Yeah. 22 until 1982, where the construction division in
23 Q. We're going to move pretty quickly 23 essence loaned you out to a division such that
24 through this. 24 you were doing work on levees in other areas
25 A. Four or five years, yeah. 25 outside of New Orleans region?
Page 13 Page 15
1 Q. At the end of the five-year period, 1 A. Not as I recall, no.

2 what were the new responsibilities that you 2 Q. So it would be fair to say as a
3 undertook? 3 summarization that from the time you entered
4 A. I switched from what was then the 4 the construction division up until about 1992,
5 engineering division to construction division, 5 you were focused primarily on works within the
6 and actually, the duties were somewhat similar 6 New Orleans region?
7 when I first went to work in construction 7 A. Yes. Yes. Absolutely.
8 division. I was still writing programs. I 8 Q. During that time period, did you have
9 think they hired me because I had obtained a 9 to attend any courses or further education,
10 certain amount of programming knowledge and 10 seminars, dealing with geotechnical issues,
11 expertise, and they had a position open for 11 subsoil strata, things of that nature?
12 duties such as that, and that's how I 12 A. Yeah. No. No.
13 transferred over into the construction 13 Q. During the time -- let me get your
14 division. 14 history first. In 1992, you switched job
15 Q. And both the time when you entered in 15 roles. What was your next function for the
16 1974 and then switching over to the 16 Corps?
17 construction division, that was within the New 17 A. I switched -- stayed within
18 Orleans District? 18 construction division but switched from what's
19 A. Yes. Yes. All of my employment with 19 called upstairs in the construction division to
20 the Corps has been in the New Orleans District. 20 the area office, which was the New Orleans area
21 Q. When you transferred into the 21 office. New Orleans District has two area
22 construction division, what types of things 22 offices under its jurisdiction, the New Orleans
23 were you involved with constructing? 23 area office and the Lafayette area office.
24 A. Levees, um -- different -- dredging of 24 Q. And you were in the New Orleans area
25 different channels. Primarily worked in a 25 office?
Page 14 Page 16
4 (Pages 13 to 16)
8/8/2008
1 A. Yes. That's correct. 1 hazardous toxic and radioactive waste--

2 Q. And what was your role for the New 2 A. Yeah. It was what was classified as a
3 Orleans area office? 3 Superfund site.
4 A. I was project engineer. 4 Q. And who were some of the contractors
5 Q. And could you describe what that 5 that were involved in that Bayou Bonfouca?
6 entailed? 6 A. It was the IT Corporation was the
7 A. It entailed oversight of various 7 prime contractor. I think C.F. Bean was a sub
8 construction projects. In my case, they were 8 at that time, and they were primarily
9 typically dredging type projects, an occasional 9 responsible for the dredging work. Actually,
10 levee depending on workload. But I was 10 as I think back a little bit now it was IT and
11 primarily, in my case, dredging, um -- that 11 OHM. I can't remember what the letters stood
12 related to the contract administration of a 12 for, but there was actually a joint venture
13 particular project that may require a 13 with those two companies.
14 contractor to furnish a dredge to dredge the 14 Q. You know this already, but in the East
15 Mississippi River, at the time the MRGO or, you 15 Bank Industrial Area, Morrison Knudsen and
16 know, just any type of navigable waterway. 16 later Washington Group was engaged through a
17 Q. How long did you stay in that job 17 task order pursuant to the TERC, the total
18 function or role? 18 environmental restoration project.
19 A. You know, it's kind of getting a 19 A. Right.
20 little bit fuzzy now but I'm going to say about 20 Q. Was the Bayou Bonfouca engagement of
21 three or four years. 21 IT and/or OHM also a task order pursuant to a
22 Q. And in approximately 1995 or 1996 when 22 TERC contract? If you know.
23 your role changed, what was your next role for 23 A. The original contract for Bayou
24 the government? 24 Bonfouca was not a TERC contract as best I can
25 A. I was assigned to the Bayou Bonfouca 25 remember. There was additional work decided to
Page 17 Page 19
1 project out in Slidell which was a hazardous 1 be performed at Bayou Bonfouca to clean up
2 waste cleanup project. 2 Southern Ship, which was another site that
3 Q. Did that involve dredging or was that 3 during the course of the original Bayou
4 just a soil remediation? 4 Bonfouca project they discovered additional
5 A. It involved both. 5 creosote further down the bayou and the EPA got
6 Q. And that was the creosote plant they 6 with the Corps and they decided to clean that
7 had up there? 7 site up, as well. And that particular site was
8 A. That's correct. 8 accomplished with a TERC contract. IT
9 MR. LEVINE: 9 Corporation had a contract with Tulsa District,
10 What plant? 10 a TERC contract with Tulsa District.
11 MR. JOANEN: 11 Q. Were you engaged with the work at
12 Creosote. The junk they put on 12 Southern Ship pursuant to the TERC?
13 the telephone poles so the termites 13 A. Yes.
14 don't eat it. 14 Q. Is that the first time you became
15 A. The coating of a timber piling, a wood 15 familiar with the processes of the TERC?
16 preservative. It's a black wood preservative. 16 A. Yes.
17 You know, telephone poles, mother nature 17 Q. To your understanding, are there
18 doesn't make them black. 18 different reporting requirements, in your
19 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 19 involvement, regarding pay and things of that
20 Q. How long were you with that project? 20 nature with the TERC as opposed to other
21 A. Until its completion. I want to say 21 contracts which you had said were firm fixed
22 like 1999, somewhere up around in there. 22 price type contracts?
23 Q. Would the Bayou Bonfouca project be 23 MR. LEVINE:
24 considered an HTRW site, by that, in reference 24 Objection. Vague, compound.
25 in previous depositions and documents as a 25 You can answer.
Page 18 Page 20
5 (Pages 17 to 20)
8/8/2008
1 MR. JOANEN: 1 with that work, with that project. Um -- this

2 I'm sure y'all have talked about 2 led to a virtual stack of literally
3 this already, but a lot of times he 3 approximately this high, about a foot high of
4 will object to things, and that's for 4 his monthly submission, where everything that,
5 us to discuss with the judge later as 5 like I said, that he -- expense that he
6 to whether it's maybe utilized later. 6 incurred, every time sheet for every employee
7 Unless he tells you not to answer, 7 who worked on that project for that period,
8 which he may -- I usually don't ask 8 month, would have to be included in that
9 those types of questions, but if he 9 submission and have to be reviewed to
10 does instruct you not answer you 10 substantiate.
11 wouldn't. But unless he does, you 11 Q. Would you be the person that would be
12 give me the answer. Okay? 12 reviewing that --
13 You remember the question? 13 A. Yes, I would.
14 A. No. Please repeat it. 14 Q. -- in the Bayou Bonfouca --
15 (Whereupon the previous question was 15 A. Yes. Yeah. For ease of maybe
16 read back.) 16 clarification, let's refer to Bayou Bonfouca as
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 17 being the original firm fixed price and
18 Q. Did you understand the question? 18 Southern Ship as being the TERC.
19 A. You said with regards to reporting. 19 Q. Fair enough. For the Southern Ship
20 Q. Right. 20 part, was that the first time that you become
21 A. I don't -- 21 involved in such a process where these
22 Q. Maybe I'm showing my hand a little bit 22 voluminous expenditure reports and receipts
23 here, but in reviewing a lot of documents I 23 were provided?
24 understand that you were involved with the 24 A. Yes.
25 oversight of payments and the requests for 25 Q. Why is it, if you know, that the Corps
Page 21 Page 23
1 payments from WGI. 1 would have you reviewing those as opposed to an

2 A. Right. 2 accountant, a bookkeeper who would run that
3 Q. So I'm trying to get the background as 3 little machine?
4 to your understanding of what the TERC was back 4 A. Yeah. Um -- probably because I was
5 then in contrast to what was the firm fixed 5 there on site and would be more familiar with
6 price contracts, and that will lead me to 6 what was being spent and why it was being spent
7 understand more of what your vernacular is 7 and could probably make a better determination
8 about this so that I can ask you questions 8 if it was justifiable or not. Um -- but I
9 regarding the WGI project that he won't be 9 agree with what you're saying, yeah, maybe a
10 objecting to the whole time we're getting 10 lot of times I kind of felt like an accountant.
11 through it. So that's why I'm asking the 11 Q. Was the review of these that you were
12 question. 12 doing, were they with an eye towards being
13 Are there any differences in 13 necessary from an engineering perspective, or
14 reporting, to you and to your involvement, than 14 just your understanding of how an engineering
15 in a firm fixed price contract? 15 project has to take place?
16 A. Yes. There were significant 16 MR. LEVINE:
17 differences in the way payments were evaluated, 17 Objection. Vague.
18 or the requests for payments were evaluated. 18 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
19 Q. And what were some of those? I don't 19 Q. If you understand the question.
20 mean to cut you off. I'm sorry. 20 A. Well, you're saying from an
21 A. The major difference being that under 21 engineering perspective.
22 the TERC, being a cost reimbursable contract, 22 Q. Right. To run an office, for example
23 the contractor was obligated to provide 23 this law office, you don't need to be a lawyer
24 substantiation or proof, records, if you will, 24 to necessarily run an office. You got to know
25 of every expenditure he made in conjunction 25 you got to pay your people on a certain day and
Page 22 Page 24
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
8/8/2008
1 have the lights on, electricity and pens and 1 involved with from 1999 when the Southern Ship
2 paper and things of that nature. Same with an 2 project ended up until the time you became
3 engineering project, I would guess, not being 3 involved with Task Order No. 26 which I believe
4 an engineer, you need to run an office, however 4 is also 2001?
5 there may be certain functions that only an 5 A. I was involved -- well, I went back as
6 engineer may understand the necessity for. And 6 a project engineer in the area office for a
7 so my question was improperly worded. It 7 time on the dredging work, and I was also
8 probably was now that I think about it. Was 8 involved for a period of time, maybe
9 the role that you played focused more on the 9 approximately twelve months, um -- on what was
10 necessity of the financial outlays geared 10 called the west bank asbestos remediation
11 toward understanding how the engineering 11 project, which was another EPA funded -- I
12 process, the engineering project took place? 12 believe it was a Superfund site. Don't hold me
13 MR. LEVINE: 13 to that. But it was a similar type of a
14 Same objection. 14 cleanup.
15 A. I don't know how to answer that. 15 Q. And where was that located?
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 16 A. It was all over the west bank of New
17 Q. Fair enough. If I can figure out a 17 Orleans, or Jefferson Parish, in the New
18 better way to ask it I'll come back to it 18 Orleans area. It wasn't a site, per se, it was
19 later. 19 literally at residences. People had come
20 How long were you involved in that 20 across this asbestos-containing material, and
21 Southern Ship project? 21 we went from, you know, location to location,
22 A. The whole time, from beginning to end. 22 door to door, if you will, to remediate those
23 It was a couple of years I guess, maybe a 23 sites.
24 little less. 24 Q. Were you --
25 Q. Do you know when about it ended? 25 A. Excuse me. Things are kind of
Page 25 Page 27
1 A. Around about 2000 -- 2000, yeah. I 1 clicking into this old brain where the memory
2 want to think around 2000. No, I'm sorry. It 2 is kind of fogged. In addition to that, I also
3 ended in 1999. I'm kind of confusing my times 3 worked on the Agriculture Street remediation
4 a little bit here because the Bayou Bonfouca 4 project, which was another EPA lead funded
5 didn't last until '99, the first phase of it, 5 Superfund type project that -- the Corps was
6 that original phase, it probably lasted until 6 doing work for EPA in that regard as far as
7 about '97. And then Southern Ship kind of came 7 managing the work and overseeing the contracts,
8 in on the -- you know, piggybacked in on the 8 the TERC contracts for EPA.
9 back end of it, and it ran from roughly '97 to 9 Q. And was your role similar as it had
10 '99. 10 been on the Southern Ship --
11 Q. When was the first time that you 11 A. Yes.
12 became involved in the project that we'll refer 12 Q. -- where you would review the
13 to as the Task Order 26 project which was the 13 documentation, make sure that was justified?
14 work that was performed on the East Bank 14 A. Yes.
15 Industrial Area of the Industrial Canal? 15 Q. If you felt that something was not
16 A. When was the first time I became 16 justified, what would be the steps that you
17 involved? 17 would take to resolve the issue?
18 Q. What year, if you recall? 18 A. It would depend on the issue. Um --
19 A. It was whenever they mobilized to the 19 if it was -- if it was an issue that was of a
20 site. That's typically when I become involved 20 contractual type nature, I would probably
21 in a project, when the contractor is ready to 21 consult with the contracting officer. If it
22 mobilize to the site. So I believe, if memory 22 was of a technical nature, then I would consult
23 serves me right, it was early in the year of 23 with the technical folks, um -- you know,
24 '01. 24 construction manager, project manager. Not
25 Q. Do you recall what projects you were 25 that the project manager would be -- have the
Page 26 Page 28
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
8/8/2008
1 technical responsibility, but he could get the 1 manner, basically, that us taxpayers were
2 person that could assist you in resolving your 2 getting value for the money that we were
3 issue. 3 spending.
4 Q. Were you involved with any of the 4 Q. How did you first find out that you
5 development of the 1997 MRGO and connecting 5 were going to be -- or how does one with your
6 channels lock replacement evaluation report? I 6 credentials become involved in a project like
7 understand a guy by the name of Dicharry may 7 this? Does the Corps evaluate who's available
8 have been -- 8 and assign people or do you actually apply for
9 A. Oh, Dicharry. 9 that position, for that project?
10 Q. He may have been heavily involved in 10 A. No. There was no application process
11 the overseeing of that report. 11 or formal announcement, to my knowledge, of
12 A. I was not involved in that. 12 this job. It was conveyed to me through my
13 Q. Also regarding this East Bank 13 chain of supervisors, through my management,
14 Industrial Area, there was a design memorandum 14 that when, you know, the project that I was on
15 called the DDR or DDM 1. Were you involved in 15 at the time, probably Agriculture Street
16 the development of that? 16 finished, that I was going to go on over and
17 A. No. 17 start working on the EBIA job, as you call it.
18 Q. It was a 1999 report? 18 Q. Were there any other people in the
19 A. No. 19 Corps that were your peers, such that if there
20 Q. They also had associated with this 20 were two projects going on simultaneously they
21 project, it was going to be to replace the lock 21 would fulfill the role that you would play on
22 in the Industrial Canal -- 22 one project on that other second project?
23 A. Correct. 23 A. I don't know. I mean, I wasn't
24 Q. -- which then led to them -- I 24 privileged to know what management's thinking
25 understand they needed to develop that 25 was. That would be a better question to ask
Page 29 Page 31
1 temporary bypass channel, and that's what led 1 maybe my boss or somebody in management.
2 to the cleanup of the East Bank Industrial 2 Q. On the EBIA project, who was your
3 Area. But in 2000, there were two reports 3 boss?
4 developed about lateral protection, they were 4 A. I got to think back now, but, um -- it
5 going to drive sheet pile to I guess protect 5 probably changed, but when it started, at the
6 the neighborhoods when they put the lock in. 6 outset, it was probably -- it would have been
7 Were you involved in the development 7 John Fogarty. Not the singer. Not that he
8 of that report? I think there was also an 8 could sing anyway.
9 alternative report, too. They were both dated 9 Q. Was there anyone at the Corps that you
10 2000. 10 felt you could turn to to talk about issues
11 A. No, I was not. 11 that were unique to the job role that you
12 Q. When you first became involved in 2001 12 played on the projects?
13 with Task Order No. 26, what was your 13 MR. LEVINE:
14 understanding of what your job responsibilities 14 Objection. Vague.
15 were going to be? 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
16 A. Similar to what they had been on 16 Q. Do you understand my question?
17 previous jobs, um -- project engineer was the 17 A. This don't mean I can't answer --
18 title, um -- and with the responsibility for 18 MR. LEVINE:
19 overseeing the work that Washington -- in this 19 You can answer unless I instruct
20 particular case Washington Group was going to 20 you not to answer.
21 be performing out there, and with a primary 21 A. Oh.
22 focus on ensuring that they were spending money 22 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
23 correctly. And by correctly, I mean that the 23 Q. Unless he says don't answer, you'll be
24 work that they were doing was being 24 able to answer.
25 accomplished in an efficient and an effective 25 A. So who was my go to guy? Is that what
Page 30 Page 32
8 (Pages 29 to 32)
8/8/2008
1 you're asking me? 1 Q. In your initial introductions to the

2 Q. Right. 2 project, what was your understanding of what
3 A. Lee Guillory. 3 the scope of the project was going to be?
4 Q. Was he your go to guy before 2001 when 4 A. Very similar to what you had stated
5 you got involved? 5 earlier in that this was going to be the
6 A. Lee Guillory was the construction 6 precursor to coming in and dredging a bypass
7 manager on Agriculture Street as well as -- I 7 channel. And the disposal material -- or the
8 call it IHNC, you call it EBIA. 8 disposal site where this dredge material was
9 Q. I call it IHNC. 9 planned to go wasn't capable or wasn't
10 A. Yeah. 10 authorized, whatever the correct term would be,
11 Q. And so Lee Guillory is one, if you had 11 to receive contaminated dredge disposal, so
12 an issue come up during the course of your 12 before you could dredge it and dispose in this
13 workday and you were on the fence on which way 13 site it had to be remediated. And I hesitate
14 to go with it, you would go to Lee Guillory and 14 to use the word cleaned, because cleaned
15 kick the ideas around with him? 15 implies contamination free. It had to be
16 A. Yeah. How does this sound, Lee, type 16 remediated which, to me, and the way it was
17 thing. Now if it was a contractual issue, I 17 always explained to me, is that remediation is
18 may go to the contracting officer. 18 something that you do to lessen or to improve
19 Q. That's someone within the Corps? 19 but not necessarily clean. If you clean
20 A. Yes. 20 something, you know, you clean your plate, you
21 Q. On the task orders, was the 21 can go eat on it again. But if you remediate
22 contracting officer someone that -- I'm sorry. 22 it, you might just scrape it off and put it in
23 On the TERC issues, was the contracting officer 23 the dishwasher or something. So it was to
24 someone that was up in Tulsa that you would 24 remediate the site in preparation for the
25 have to turn to or was there someone locally 25 dredging of this bypass channel. And part of
Page 33 Page 35
1 that you would turn to? 1 that remediation also included the demolition
2 A. No, the contracting officer, to my 2 work, obviously.
3 recollection, was always in Tulsa. 3 Q. That was going to be my next question.
4 Q. When you first became involved in the 4 The project was going to involve both
5 IHNC project, were you introduced to all the 5 remediation and demolition. Was your function
6 players for Morrison Knudsen and ultimately 6 going to be focused both on the remediation
7 Washington Group? 7 aspect and the demolition --
8 A. I was introduced to certain people. 8 A. Oh, yes.
9 Now, whether they were all the players, I mean, 9 Q. -- aspect?
10 when you're new to a project how do you know? 10 To your knowledge, what was the scope
11 Q. That leads to my next question. How 11 of the demolition when you first got involved?
12 was it that you first became introduced to 12 A. It was to remove all of the structures
13 these people? Was there a formal meeting that 13 that were on the site. Those structures --
14 you were involved with, or was it just a walk 14 above ground structures, consisting of various
15 around where you're actually just saying, 15 buildings, um -- the majority to my
16 hello, how you doing? 16 recollection were like tin type constructed
17 A. I think I was invited to one of the 17 buildings, something that you would typically
18 meetings that they had in Tulsa when the 18 have seen maybe back around in the 1940s
19 Washington guys were going to be there, and I 19 construction, you know, style, motif, if you
20 sat strictly as an observer to the meeting and 20 will, in an industrial type setting. That was
21 just to maybe get a feel, put a face with a 21 primarily what the demolition work involved.
22 name type thing. 22 Removing any concrete slab, foundation
23 Q. Okay. 23 slabs that were under these buildings and any
24 A. That's what I recollect as being how I 24 foundation pilings that were supporting those
25 first came to know some of these guys. 25 slabs. And basically, removing everything from
Page 34 Page 36
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
8/8/2008
1 the site. We used to always kind of remark to 1 question. It's compound, it's
2 ourselves that this was one of the few Corps of 2 confusing.
3 Engineers sites that when it was done there 3 MR. LEVINE:
4 would be nothing to show. You know, there 4 Objection. Vague,
5 would be no ribbon cutting ceremony to open a 5 mischaracterizes the evidence.
6 new lock or a flood gate or some type of 6 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
7 structure or levee. There was nothing there 7 Q. Okay. To solve that, what I'll tell
8 other than a lock the gate and go home. 8 you is, in 1999 --
9 Q. We do know that there were some 9 A. See, I feel like I shouldn't answer a
10 subsurface structures that would have to be 10 question like that.
11 removed. When you first got involved in the 11 Q. Maybe you shouldn't. I'm trying to
12 project, did you have an understanding of what 12 make this easy to go through quickly and not
13 subsurface structures would have to be removed? 13 have to go through this whole box of stuff.
14 A. Well, just through discussing it with 14 But in 1999, a task order was issued and
15 the Washington guys and with Lee who had been 15 ultimately a direction was given to Morrison
16 working on the project, and, you know, I guess 16 Knudsen to perform certain works. When you
17 from the inception of the design portions of 17 refer to a scope of work, are you referring to
18 it, um -- that's how I learned about it, you 18 what the Corps was telling the contractor to do
19 know. 19 or were you referring to what the contractor
20 Q. Were there any documents that were 20 developed to tell the Corps what they were
21 assigned to you to review to understand the 21 going to do?
22 project? And by assigned I mean they said go 22 MR. TREEBY:
23 read this so you get up to speed? 23 Object to the form of the
24 A. Um -- not as I recall, no. 24 question.
25 Q. Were there any documents that you 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
Page 37 Page 39
1 sought out to review to educate yourself about 1 Q. You can answer. He doesn't represent
2 the project and the scope of the work that was 2 you.
3 to be performed? 3 A. The second thing what you said, what
4 A. I probably reviewed the scope of work. 4 Washington 's work plan said they were going to
5 I believe there were several documents involved 5 do.
6 with that, the work plans and things of that 6 Q. That's all I'm trying to get to is
7 nature. 7 right there. Thank you.
8 Q. When you say scope of work, just so 8 Had you been involved in the
9 that we're on the same page, as I understand 9 development or review of any documentation that
10 what you're saying there was a scope of work 10 led to the drafting of this project or the
11 that could be produced by the Corps telling the 11 project work plans?
12 contractor what to do. Is that what you were 12 A. No.
13 referring to as the scope of work? Or in this 13 Q. To your recollection, were you
14 particular project we know that the Corps 14 involved in the review of pay proposed work
15 advised WGI or Morrison Knudsen to develop 15 plans prior to them being accepted and being
16 certain work plans that ultimately became the 16 the final document that would be relied upon to
17 guide, initially, as to what work would be 17 perform the work at the East Bank Industrial
18 done. 18 Area?
19 MR. TREEBY: 19 A. Not that I can recall, no.
20 Object. 20 Q. To your knowledge, was -- what was the
21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 21 deepest excavation that was considered to be
22 Q. When you say scope of work, what were 22 taking place at the IHNC when you first became
23 you referring to? 23 involved?
24 MR. TREEBY: 24 A. I don't think we knew. You know, I
25 Object to the form of the 25 think by nature of a TERC job you don't really
Page 38 Page 40
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
8/8/2008
1 know -- you don't really know an exact scope of 1 that I recall, Alex Brogna.
2 work. That's why it's -- the TERC works well 2 Q. Would they report to you?
3 in that setting because it allows you some 3 A. Yeah. We shared a job site trailer,
4 flexibility contractually in that the 4 so. They were on one end of the trailer, I was
5 contractor can work and you don't have to give 5 on the other.
6 him specific objectives to bid on. He's not 6 Q. I was --
7 bidding on excavating down three feet and three 7 A. It was a pretty close arrangement.
8 hundred cubic yards. He's bidding on cleaning 8 Q. I was thinking more on the lines of
9 up the job, and you're agreeing to pay him his 9 hierarchy, chain of command type thing.
10 expenses plus, you know, an agreed-to profit 10 Did they report to you --
11 or, you know, award fee, as they called it, for 11 A. I was not their official supervisor in
12 his efforts. So I don't know that that would 12 that I didn't do any performance appraisals, I
13 even be significant. 13 couldn't -- you know, I couldn't approve leave
14 Q. Do you recall approximately when it 14 or anything like that. I was not their --
15 was that physical labor actually took place at 15 technically not their supervisor. But I was
16 the IHNC? 16 what was referred to as a team leader, and so
17 A. When they mobilized to the site, um -- 17 if they had an issue as it related to the job,
18 you're talking about when Washington Group 18 they had a problem, say, with the job, then yes
19 started physical labor at the site. 19 they would come to me. But was I their
20 Q. (Nods affirmatively.) 20 supervisor? No.
21 A. Um -- again, I'm going to say early of 21 Q. How much interaction did you have
22 '01, maybe January of '01. 22 personally with the members of the contractor
23 Q. And that's when you became involved? 23 WGI and Morrison Knudsen?
24 A. Yes. Right. You know, because 9/11 24 A. Well, that depends on who you're
25 was in '01, right? This is how I -- sorry, 25 talking about at Morrison Knudsen or WGI. I
Page 41 Page 43
1 guys, this is how I got to remember things. 1 had daily contact with the guys that were out
2 But 9/11 was in '01, so it was before 9/11 2 on the site.
3 because we were out there for 9/11. And it was 3 Q. And who were those people?
4 in the winter, so it was probably January of 4 A. Phillip Staggs was one. He was the
5 '01. 5 primary guy. Earlier on in the project, there
6 Q. When mobilization first started, was 6 was another gentleman Dennis -- I can't
7 your role to review the documentation that was 7 remember --
8 being produced by Washington Group or at that 8 THE WITNESS:
9 time Morrison Knudsen perhaps, to determine 9 You remind me of him.
10 what they should be paid? 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
11 A. If you're referring to the stack of 11 Q. O'Connor? Dennis O'Connor? Does that
12 documents -- 12 name sound right?
13 Q. Yes, sir. 13 A. Yeah.
14 A. -- yeah. 14 THE WITNESS:
15 Q. Did you have any other job 15 In fact, I thought you were
16 responsibilities out there? 16 Dennis when you got out the car.
17 A. Well, as project engineer you had 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
18 other responsibilities, yeah. I mean, we 18 Q. What type of involvement would you
19 had -- there were some inspectors, some Corps 19 have with them, would it be where you'd have to
20 quality assurance representatives out there 20 ask them questions about what their solutions
21 that reported to me. 21 were, or was it more along the lines of what
22 Q. And who were they, do you remember 22 actual physical labor was taking place?
23 their names? 23 MR. TREEBY:
24 A. They were different from -- you know, 24 Object to the form of the
25 they came in and out. Alvin Clouatre was one 25 question.
Page 42 Page 44
11 (Pages 41 to 44)
8/8/2008
1 MR. LEVINE: 1 computations, perhaps we in the office did some

2 Same objection. 2 computations that involved excavations on an
3 A. Both. If I had any question or issue 3 I-wall project, but other than that no.
4 with something that was going on out there, 4 Q. Did you ever develop any expertise
5 they would be the first two guys that I would 5 regarding the issues of underseepage with flood
6 go to. 6 walls?
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 7 A. Thirty-three years of experience on
8 Q. Can you give me some examples of some 8 the job. Now, other than that, no.
9 of the things that you would take issue with? 9 Q. And you do understand what I mean by
10 A. If in my opinion they were doing 10 underseepage of a floodwall?
11 something that was not efficient, maybe -- as 11 A. You're talking about seepage, water
12 an example, not to say that this happened, but 12 traveling underground.
13 just to use as an example, maybe they were 13 Q. Yes, sir.
14 working on a particular project to dig a hole, 14 A. Passing underground and maybe, yeah,
15 let's say maybe I felt that they may have had 15 causing damage, causing erosion, whatever.
16 too many people or too much equipment or the 16 Q. Yes, sir.
17 wrong type of equipment to accomplish the job, 17 A. Yes.
18 I would have -- I would never -- it was never 18 Q. When you first got involved with the
19 my policy to go out to the, you know, to the 19 project in early 2001, were there any
20 people actually doing the work, to the 20 discussions between you and Lee Guillory and
21 laborers, if you, and question them. I would 21 any of the people at WGI regarding potential
22 always go to Phillip or to Dennis and say, hey, 22 for underseepage?
23 you know, I was just out at the site and I saw 23 A. Not to my recollection.
24 ten guys trying to dig a hole the size of this 24 Q. If that type of discussion would have
25 table, and you had three backhoes and seven 25 taken place, would that have been the type of
Page 45 Page 47
1 dump trucks out there. Obviously I'm 1 thing that would have taken place on the site,
2 exaggerating here. 2 or would that be something that would take
3 Q. Sure. 3 place more in an office setting higher up the
4 A. But that's what -- issues of that 4 chain of command, perhaps, in the planning
5 nature. I always tried to emphasize efficiency 5 phase?
6 and also being effective in what you do. By 6 MR. TREEBY:
7 effective, I mean doing the right things as 7 Object to the form of the
8 opposed to just -- you know, you can be very 8 question.
9 efficient, but if you're doing the wrong thing 9 A. It could have happened either case.
10 you're not being very effective. So. 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
11 So, um -- those were primarily -- and 11 Q. And your testimony was you don't
12 early on it was always something that I wanted 12 recall that those discussions took place --
13 to establish with my relationship with the 13 A. Not in my presence, no.
14 contractor, that efficiency and being effective 14 Q. At any time in the course of your
15 was very important. Safety of course is always 15 presence on this project, was the issue of
16 the Number 1 priority, but efficiency and 16 underseepage discussed with members of the
17 effectiveness is probably a 1A priority. And 17 Corps and members of the contractor?
18 that's what I wanted to impress upon -- 18 A. Not to my recollection.
19 Q. In your work in the past working with 19 Q. To your knowledge, were any directives
20 levees, had you ever performed any development 20 given to the contractor -- I'll just refer to
21 of I-walls -- 21 them as WGI -- to the contractor while you were
22 A. No. 22 involved with it to not do anything that would
23 Q. -- as a flood control project? 23 damage the levee or the floodwall?
24 A. No. Perhaps when -- if we go back to 24 MR. LEVINE:
25 the time when I was working with the 25 Objection. Vague.
Page 46 Page 48
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
8/8/2008
1 A. Please repeat that. 1 Q. I said to your knowledge.

2 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 2 A. To my knowledge, no.
3 Q. To your knowledge, while you were 3 Q. To your knowledge, was anyone assigned
4 involved with the project were any directives 4 by the Corps of Engineers as a Corps employee
5 given to WGI to not perform any works that 5 to understand the stratigraphy of the soils at
6 would damage the floodwall? 6 the East Bank Industrial Area and the
7 A. Not to my recollection. 7 composition of the soils?
8 Q. Do you recall whether there was any 8 MR. LEVINE:
9 directives that no works would take place 9 Objection. Compound.
10 within 15 feet of a floodwall? 10 A. Not to my knowledge.
11 A. Not -- you're saying directives. No, 11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
12 I have to say no, because I'm not aware of any 12 Q. To your knowledge, was there anyone
13 directives. 13 that was WGI employee that was expected to
14 Q. Were you, in the course of -- and I 14 understand the composition of soils and the
15 use the term supervise in a very loose sense, 15 composition and stratigraphy of the soils in
16 but when you go over and look at the project, 16 the East Bank Industrial Area?
17 do you recall whether there were any works that 17 MR. LEVINE:
18 were taking place within 15 feet of the 18 Compound.
19 floodwall that you would have had to stop and 19 A. I don't know what WGI assigned people
20 tell them they couldn't do that? 20 to do.
21 MR. LEVINE: 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
22 Object to form. 22 Q. Was there a geologist that you would
23 A. Do I recall of any occurrences of 23 go to that was a WGI employee, if you had any
24 that? 24 soils concerns?
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 25 A. I would go to Dennis or Phil. Who
Page 49 Page 51
1 Q. Uh-huh. Yes, sir. 1 they would go to was up to them.

2 A. No. 2 Q. How about a geotechnical -- let me ask
3 Q. And how long did you stay out at the 3 you first, do you understand what a
4 IHNC project? 4 geotechnical engineer is?
5 A. Until-- the whole time that Washington 5 A. My understanding would be someone
6 was mobilized on site. 6 who's knowledgeable in foundations or
7 Q. And that was until 2005, right? 7 subsidence or seepage, things like that.
8 A. Yeah. Something like that. 8 Q. Would that be the field that you
9 Q. Did you as the team leader and project 9 consider yourself an expert in?
10 engineer ever review the soil stratigraphies of 10 A. No.
11 the East Bank Industrial Area to understand 11 Q. Was there someone that would be either
12 what the layers were and the makeup of those 12 a geotechnical engineer or someone who was
13 layers, soil layers? 13 knowledgeable in the foundations work assigned
14 MR. LEVINE: 14 to WGI, the project by WGI?
15 Objection. Compound. 15 A. Could have been. There again, I don't
16 A. No. 16 know.
17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 17 Q. To your knowledge, was any surveys
18 Q. To your knowledge, did Lee Guillory 18 done while you were out at the project to
19 ever study the stratigraphy of the soils to 19 determine what the soil stratigraphies were?
20 understand the composition of the soils? 20 A. There were some sampling done,
21 MR. LEVINE: 21 borings, soil borings, things of that nature,
22 Objection. Calls for 22 to determine the level of contamination, to
23 speculation. 23 identify contaminated areas and the extent of
24 A. Yeah. I don't know what -- 24 the contamination. To me, that's a
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 25 geotechnical type of a, you know, study or
Page 50 Page 52
13 (Pages 49 to 52)
8/8/2008
1 survey. 1 Q. As the project progressed into 2002,

2 Q. Were those the studies that were done 2 there was an understanding that there would be
3 in 2002 by Materials Management Group? 3 the need to do some fairly deep excavations
4 A. Yeah, they did some of them. I 4 below ten feet, one of which was the removal of
5 believe there was another company that took 5 the sewer lift station. Do you recall that?
6 some borings, as well. 6 A. Do I recall the sewer lift station
7 Q. Were you involved in the supervision 7 being removed?
8 of those projects? 8 Q. Yes, sir.
9 A. Those companies were subcontractors to 9 A. Yes.
10 Washington, um -- it was never, ever my policy 10 Q. Or the little project that would be
11 to go directly to a subcontractor. I always 11 involved with removing that subsurface
12 worked through the prime. If I had an issue 12 structure.
13 with something a subcontractor was doing I 13 A. Yeah. The activity.
14 would address it with Washington and give them 14 Q. What was the scope of your involvement
15 the opportunity to, um -- solve the problem. 15 in that distinct project?
16 Q. The results of these borings, did you 16 A. Well, that was I guess an activity.
17 ever have the opportunity to review them? 17 You know, to me a project was the overall
18 A. I never asked to review them. I went 18 project from mobilization to demobilization,
19 by what Washington said the results were. They 19 but that was an activity within the project was
20 were -- in my eyes, they were the, for lack of 20 to remove that lift station.
21 a better word, experts, and that's what they 21 Um -- I don't recall how it was
22 were hired to do. Excuse me. That was one of 22 accomplished contractually, if there was a
23 the things they were hired to do. 23 modification issued to do that work, if it was
24 Q. Sure. As part of your job 24 part of the original work, I don't recall. But
25 responsibilities at the IHNC, did you have any 25 as far as the accomplishment of the work, I was
Page 53 Page 55
1 interaction with George Bacuta? 1 there on a daily basis and I witnessed some of
2 A. George Bacuta. I'm familiar with who 2 the work. I wasn't out there, you know, from
3 you're referring to. He came out to the site 3 starting time to quitting time, but, you know,
4 occasionally for a visit. Generally, he came 4 I was out there. I was curious, for one thing,
5 with Lee Guillory. And other than just having 5 just to see what a sewer lift station looked
6 cordial type discussions with him and maybe 6 like when you pulled it out. I had never seen
7 giving him an update on what was occurring at 7 one out of the ground before. So --
8 that particular time, I didn't really have any 8 Q. To your knowledge, the plan that was
9 dealings with George. 9 developed to remove that lift station, was that
10 Q. That would be my question. He, at his 10 already in place before you came on site, or
11 deposition, indicated that he was a soils 11 was that developed as the project was ongoing?
12 geochemist for the project. My question would 12 To your knowledge.
13 be was he someone that was at the site 13 A. You know, I really don't know. I
14 regularly such that you would have interaction 14 guess it never -- it was never something that I
15 with him? By regularly, I mean multiple times 15 thought was significant as to when it was
16 a week. 16 developed. I don't recall participating in the
17 A. No. 17 development of that plan.
18 Q. The work that he was performing, was 18 Q. My next question was, it's my
19 that the type of work that would have been 19 understanding that a plan was developed to
20 information funneled through you? 20 accomplish that activity, to use your word
21 A. No, it's my understanding that George 21 activity. My question was going to be, were
22 was involved with the what I call the up front 22 you involved in the development of that plan to
23 work, the preliminary work, the work that was 23 accomplish that activity?
24 done and accomplished prior to me arriving on 24 A. Not that I recall.
25 site. 25 Q. The engineering that would be involved
Page 54 Page 56
14 (Pages 53 to 56)
8/8/2008
1 in removing that subsoil structure, would that 1 I wasn't going to attach, but
2 be the type of thing that you as the project 2 I'll be glad to.
3 engineer and team leader would have expected to 3 MR. BAEZA:
4 be involved with? 4 You'll be marking this as
5 A. You know, if you would tell me when 5 Exhibit 10, or --
6 that plan was developed -- you know, if it was 6 MR. JOANEN:
7 developed when I was on site I was involved 7 If you want to attach it, I'll
8 with it. If it was developed prior to January 8 mark it as an exhibit.
9 of '01, I wasn't involved with it. 9 MR. LEVINE:
10 Q. It was in 2002. I'll give it to you. 10 Attaching it as 2.
11 A. If it was in '02, then yeah, I was 11 A. Well, I'm not going to read it all,
12 involved with it. I don't remember it. I 12 but just from, you know, looking over it here
13 guess that's what I'm trying to answer. 13 real quickly, it's what, um -- it's what
14 Q. Let me ask you while I'm looking for 14 Washington 's subcontractor, apparently Hamps
15 it -- 15 Construction, prepared to submit to Washington
16 A. Well, you don't have to -- I mean, I 16 to explain to them this is how we plan to
17 think I've kind of answered it. If it was post 17 accomplish the removal of the lift station.
18 '01, then yeah, I was involved with it. If it 18 Probably what happened was Washington in turn
19 was prior to that, the answer would be no. 19 transferred -- or transmitted this to us and we
20 Q. To your knowledge, was any soil 20 looked at it and made comments to it.
21 stratification studies done in relation to that 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
22 engineering study to accomplish that activity? 22 Q. My question is, when you say we looked
23 A. I don't know. That work was 23 at it, I know you're referring to the Corps --
24 accomplished by Washington -- WGI and their 24 A. Yes.
25 subs. Um -- the engineering -- if what you're 25 Q. -- but my question is more specific.
Page 57 Page 59
1 calling the engineering, if you're referring to 1 Did you look at it? And would this be
2 the design of the cofferdam that was put there 2 the type of thing that you would look at from
3 to brace the excavation, that was all done by 3 an engineering perspective and say it will work
4 Washington Group or their subcontractor who I 4 or maybe there's a more efficient way to do it?
5 don't recall at the time who that was. But I 5 If you recall whether you were involved in any
6 don't know what they did to design that. I 6 of those tasks.
7 know it had to be stamped by a licensed 7 A. Yeah. I don't recall.
8 engineer. We wouldn't put somebody and I know 8 Q. I'll be glad to mark this as Exhibit 2
9 Washington wouldn't put somebody down in a hole 9 since we're referring to it.
10 that was a braced excavation that wasn't 10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 was marked for
11 designed and, you know, certified to be 11 identification and is attached hereto.)
12 structurally sound by a capable and competent 12 A. '01, that was seven years ago. I
13 licensed engineer. 13 don't remember what I had for breakfast
14 Q. To show you just -- the date of this 14 yesterday.
15 was October 19, 2001. This is referenced as 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
16 WGI 48621, called Lift Station Removal Plan 16 Q. There also was another excavation
17 Revised. 17 further up in the northern part of the IHNC
18 A. Uh-huh. 18 which was referred to I guess informally by a
19 Q. And I'll just show it to you just to 19 lot of people as the wedding cake structure.
20 show you the date. And my understanding -- my 20 Do you recall that excavation and the
21 understanding is that this is the one that was 21 subsurface structure?
22 utilized. 22 A. I recall it. I think I'm the one who
23 MR. LEVINE: 23 named it the wedding cake.
24 WGI 48621 through WGI 48630. 24 Q. Really.
25 MR. JOANEN: 25 A. Yeah.
Page 58 Page 60
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
8/8/2008
1 Q. Good deal. 1 up a computer somewhere and run a program

2 A. There's a story behind that, but -- 2 that's going to spit out some numbers and say
3 Q. The need to remove this anchor 3 yeah or no. Um -- no, I didn't do that. But
4 foundation was discovered as the project was -- 4 if I would have felt that it needed that, I
5 A. Yeah. Subsequent to the mobilization 5 would have passed it on to Lee Guillory for him
6 on site. 6 to determine who needed to perform that task.
7 Q. And it was I guess then understood by 7 Q. Do you recall whether in fact in
8 both the Corps and WGI that a specific plan had 8 looking at this you felt the need for that and
9 to be developed to accomplish the activity of 9 you passed it on to Lee Guillory?
10 removing that wedding cake structure, correct? 10 A. I don't recall, but for something like
11 A. Correct. 11 that I would have to say that I would have
12 Q. And I'll show you what I'll mark as 12 passed it on for Lee to look at.
13 Exhibit 3. And this is WGI 37607 through WGI 13 Q. Do you recall whether having any
14 37615. It's a Draft Work Plan dated 14 interaction with Lee Guillory about the
15 August 2001. (Tendering.) My understanding, 15 engineering efficiency of this plan?
16 whether correct or incorrect, is that this was 16 A. No, I do not.
17 a work plan that ultimately was utilized to 17 Q. Do you recall having any conversations
18 accomplish the activity of removing it. 18 with Lee Guillory about the engineering
19 And my question to you will be the 19 specifications about this plan?
20 same as it was for this lift station removal 20 MR. LEVINE:
21 plan: Were you involved in the analysis of 21 Objection. Vague.
22 this work plan to determine its engineering 22 A. No, I don't.
23 parameters, and then also, although it's 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
24 somewhat of a compound question, the efficiency 24 Q. On this plan that involves the
25 of the plan? 25 excavation of the wedding cake structure,
Page 61 Page 63
1 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 was marked for 1 there's indication here that there would need
2 identification and is attached hereto.) 2 to be, of course, backfill into the hole.
3 MR. LEVINE: 3 Correct?
4 I'm going to make the objection 4 A. Correct.
5 now that you pointed it out for me. 5 Q. All right. Were there specifications
6 I'm also objecting to the vagueness of 6 regarding the backfill that would have been
7 the question. But go ahead. 7 included in this plan?
8 MR. JOANEN: 8 A. Specifications as to what, as to the
9 Okay. Just trying to move things 9 amount of the backfill, the application of the
10 along as quickly as possible for you. 10 backfill?
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 11 Q. Good question. I guess I'll first say
12 Q. Were you involved in the engineering 12 what type of materials would be put back into
13 analysis of this plan on behalf of the Corps of 13 the hole?
14 Engineers? 14 A. The hole, um -- that structure, that
15 A. If reading through the plan and 15 wedding cake, was not a contaminated structure,
16 looking it over to determine if it looked like 16 that I know of. Um -- the material that was
17 it was going to work, if it was feasible, if it 17 excavated to expose it was placed back in the
18 didn't have anything that was really, um -- 18 hole. So we basically, you know, dug it out
19 unsafe, you know, obviously unsafe, inherently 19 and put the same dirt back in.
20 unsafe, um -- if that's what you mean by 20 Q. Okay. But when you take a structure
21 engineering analysis, then yes. If there was 21 out -- do you know how much -- if you make a
22 something in here that required some type of 22 rectangular box which will encompass the scope
23 calculations, some type of analysis, like me 23 of the excavation, it was going to include both
24 being an engineer when you used the word 24 the soils that surround the structure you
25 analysis, I think somebody has got to go crank 25 remove and the solid structure. Do you know
Page 62 Page 64
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
8/8/2008
1 how much -- what percentage of that excavation 1 Q. For all the materials that were
2 rectangle the wedding cake structure 2 removed from the IHNC, was all the material
3 incorporated? 3 that was put back all from the borrow pit, or
4 A. You're talking about the makeup fill. 4 was there any soils or sand brought in,
5 MR. LEVINE: 5 imported?
6 Right. 6 A. What they call imported materials?
7 A. You're talking about makeup. 7 MR. LEVINE:
8 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 8 Objection. Vague, compound.
9 Q. I'm trying to get to that, correct. 9 A. I remember at the end of the job, to
10 A. Yeah. What percentage did the makeup 10 do final grading and final dressing we brought
11 fill constitute as opposed to the overall 11 in material to do that. That was -- I believe
12 thing? I don't know. You know, it was a 12 that was sand. River sand.
13 fairly large excavation they had to do to get 13 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
14 access to it, to get machines on it and break 14 Q. During this time period of 2001-2002,
15 it up and remove it. I'll hazard a guess and 15 it's not your understanding that any sand was
16 say maybe it was 25 percent of, you know, the 16 imported to utilize in the backfill operations.
17 amount of material excavated, meaning that 17 MR. LEVINE:
18 75 percent of the material went back into the 18 Objection. Vague.
19 hole. The makeup fill was probably coming from 19 A. I don't remember. Can I ask you a
20 our borrow site there that we had on site. 20 question?
21 Q. Do you know for a fact whether there 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
22 was any specifications regarding where the 22 Q. Talk to your lawyer. I'm glad to --
23 makeup fill would come from? 23 yeah.
24 A. It would be in there. 24 A. What's the concern with this sand?
25 Q. Would that have been anything that you 25 Q. I'm just asking about the
Page 65 Page 67
1 would have been involved with as the project 1 specifications of the project, that's all.
2 engineer? 2 A. Okay.
3 A. As far as what? Approving it? 3 Q. That's all I'm asking.
4 Q. Sure. Or establishing or approving 4 To your knowledge, was there any sand
5 the specifications. 5 utilized in the backfill operations of the
6 A. Yeah, that was something that I would 6 wedding cake structure?
7 be involved with. 7 A. I don't recall.
8 Q. Do you know whether in fact sand was 8 Q. If there was sand utilized or was not
9 an approved backfill material as the makeup 9 utilized, would that have been a charge that
10 fill? 10 would have been associated with the project?
11 A. I don't -- I don't really recall. You 11 A. Oh, yeah.
12 know, we were using the material that came from 12 Q. If there was a charge associated with
13 the -- on site, you know, from the borrow pit 13 the project, would that have been something
14 on site. 14 that you would have reviewed?
15 Q. The McDonough borrow pit? 15 A. Yes.
16 A. Yeah. I don't recall that being sand. 16 Q. That would have been in that stack of
17 Q. Do you recall whether any sand was 17 documents?
18 sent -- was brought to the site to be utilized 18 A. Yeah. Right.
19 in backfill operations? 19 Q. Is there a cover sheet for that stack
20 MR. LEVINE: 20 of documents, and if so, what would be your
21 By site, you mean the wedding 21 term for it?
22 cake structure? 22 A. Transmittal letter.
23 MR. JOANEN: 23 Q. Would the transmittal letter summarize
24 Any of them. 24 what the supporting documentation --
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 25 A. No, the transmittal letter was
Page 66 Page 68
17 (Pages 65 to 68)
8/8/2008
1 generally just a one or two sentence document 1 Q. Going back to these work plans for the
2 that said, you know, attached herewith is the 2 specific activity, in dealing with the lift
3 invoice backup data for the month of blah, 3 station do you know whether there was any
4 blah, blah, you know, in the amount of a 4 specifications regarding the compaction of the
5 million dollars. 5 backfill once the subsurface structure was
6 Q. I have seen that there are things 6 removed?
7 called I think daily quantity reports? Were 7 A. I believe there was some, um --
8 you involved in the development of those? 8 statement to the effect that they had to
9 A. No. Those were something that 9 compact it with the bucket of the machine or
10 Washington Group probably, um -- accumulated 10 the excavator. Um --
11 and tallied up, kept track of, and probably 11 Q. Were you involved in the approval
12 they attached them as part of their QC -- their 12 process of that specification of the work plan,
13 daily QC report which they submitted to us, to 13 the compaction specification?
14 our, um -- quality assurance representatives, 14 A. Well, it's not -- as I recall, it's
15 our inspectors. And then they, in turn, did a 15 not a separate specification, it's probably a
16 report of their own and attached it to 16 paragraph in that document that you're holding
17 Washington 's QC. report. So you had a QA 17 there, or a couple of sentences of the
18 stapled to a QC that went in the file on a 18 paragraph that addresses how they're going to
19 daily basis. 19 compact it.
20 Q. Would you have reviewed those QA/QC 20 Q. Was there any testing of the
21 reports, and I understand that was Mr. Clouatre 21 compaction?
22 and Brogna preparing those -- primarily 22 A. No. Can I say something here?
23 preparing those. Would that be the type of 23 MR. JOANEN:
24 think that would have reviewed on a daily 24 You want to talk to your attorney
25 basis? 25 first.
Page 69 Page 71
1 A. I would review them. Not necessarily 1 MR. LEVINE:

2 on a daily basis. I would review them when 2 We'll talk at a break.
3 they submitted them to me. 3 (Brief recess.)
4 Q. Would there be a scheduled interval in 4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
5 which they would be submitted to you? 5 Q. You wanted to say something?
6 A. They tried to maybe give me a week 's 6 A. Yeah. Based on the line of your
7 worth at a time. You know, like today is 7 questioning, it seems like you have a concern
8 Friday, maybe they would give -- on a Friday 8 about the backfill material that was used in
9 they would give me that week 's worth of 9 these excavations and, um -- some question as
10 reports, um -- that sort of thing. 10 to maybe if that backfill could have induced
11 Q. And what was your review of those 11 some type of a seepage, caused some type of, I
12 reports entail? 12 forget the term you used, but --
13 A. Generally, when I'm looking at those 13 Q. Underseepage.
14 reports I'm looking for comments that they may 14 A. -- underseepage. Yeah.
15 have made -- there's a few little -- it's a 15 Q. Right.
16 form. The report is a form and there are a few 16 A. I'd like to explain a little bit my
17 little boxes on that form -- areas on the form 17 thought process --
18 that pertain to controversial issues that the 18 Q. Sure. Sure.
19 inspector may have encountered with the 19 A. -- and maybe why I think you guys
20 contractor, so my primary focus was on if there 20 might be missing the boat a little bit on it.
21 were any controversial issues that occurred on 21 Q. I look forward to your insight.
22 that particular day, in which case I would go 22 A. Yeah. I tend to approach things from
23 and ask and find out, you know, what happened 23 a practical nature. Thirty-five years of
24 or what the problem was and what was the 24 experience have kind of taught me that that's
25 solution. 25 the best way to go most of the time.
Page 70 Page 72
18 (Pages 69 to 72)
8/8/2008
1 And if you stop to think about this 1 been there. It was in a deteriorated state
2 for a minute, as far as the backfill I'm 2 when it was removed.
3 talking about, what my thought process was is 3 The lift station is basically a
4 that a Proctor is good, you know, it proves 4 pipe -- it's a large diameter pipe with pumps
5 something, it shows that compaction was 5 in it, valves and ladders to get down into it,
6 achieved. But I didn't need a Proctor, I had 6 all encased in a -- I want to think that that
7 other things in my favor here that didn't make 7 was a metal pipe. Over the years, being
8 it necessary to spend our taxpayers' money on a 8 exposed to a brackish water in the Industrial
9 Proctor. Because chances are if I would have 9 Canal, that thing was deteriorated
10 gotten a Proctor, you guys would be here asking 10 substantially. You don't think that was a
11 me why I didn't take two Proctors or three 11 seepage -- a source for potential seepage?
12 Proctors. What I had in my -- you know, I 12 So we were out there remediating the
13 guess the luxury that I had was two things; I 13 site. What we did, regardless of what the
14 had the luxury of time on my side because this 14 backfill was -- and I honestly don't recall
15 job was -- I believe you said it was in '01 or 15 what it was, but regardless, if it was sand, at
16 '02 at this time. 16 the very worst what we put back was every bit
17 Q. Yes, sir. 17 as good as what we took out. Because you had
18 A. We were still going to be on site for 18 this deteriorating structure, vessel, in the
19 another two to three years. Washington wasn't 19 ground that was just holding dirt around it
20 going anywhere. I had them under contract, 20 loosely.
21 under a cost reimbursable contract. And if we 21 There was a lot of sand that came out
22 had a problem with any of these backfill 22 of that hole for the, um -- for the lift
23 operations it would have been nothing -- that's 23 station because that's typical construction
24 a poor choice of words -- it would have been 24 practice -- whenever you put a pipe or
25 quite simple for me to direct them, as 25 something in the ground, a conduit, you
Page 73 Page 75
1 contracting officer 's representative, to 1 typically lay a bed of sand down so that when
2 correct deficient work and to go in and to do 2 it rests it's supported consistently. If you'd
3 whatever it took, probably just add fill 3 put clay and it was balls of clay like bricks,
4 material. And it would have been very easy to 4 it would point load the structure and, you
5 notice if there was a problem because material, 5 know, pushing on it harder in one spot than
6 over time, it will achieve a certain amount of 6 another and it would tend to cause breakage.
7 compaction on its own. Rain and just elements, 7 So to avoid that, an engineering solution to
8 natural vibrations, would cause the material to 8 that is to lay a bed of sand, set it down in
9 settle and compact on its own. Had it -- if it 9 sand as a kind of like a cushion almost,
10 were not compacted properly, the area that was 10 something that will conform uniformly around
11 excavated would have subsided and there would 11 the vessel and support it. They do that in
12 have been a depression or a hole in the ground 12 tanks, whenever they put down underground
13 at that site. It would have been very simple 13 tanks. You do that in -- you know, whenever
14 to notice that and to direct Washington to go 14 you're laying a utility line or a sewer line,
15 back and fix it. So that was my thought 15 an electrical line or whatever, you always put
16 process at the time. 16 gravel or some type of a material like that to
17 If you want to be concerned about 17 support it evenly.
18 seepage, you have to consider what was removed 18 Talking about utility lines, we
19 from the site. We were talking about a slab 19 removed numerous utility lines. They were
20 that, I don't know, it may have been cracked up 20 running all over the place out there, from
21 and damaged in some sort of a way. The lift 21 front to back. By front I mean from Surekote
22 station that you referred to earlier, that was 22 Road being the front of those properties to the
23 an abandoned lift station that had been 23 back being the canal of those properties.
24 there -- I don't know, it might have been there 24 Numerous utility lines, waterlines, um -- there
25 before the levee. I don't know how long it had 25 was no natural gas back there. Sewer lines,
Page 74 Page 76
19 (Pages 73 to 76)
8/8/2008
1 electrical lines. Um -- we removed all of 1 the sheet pile tips did not exceed -8 to
2 that. You don't think that was potential 2 -10 feet?
3 seepage problem waiting to happen? 3 A. I have no idea what the sheet pile
4 I mean, you had all of these trenches 4 tips were.
5 that were dug with deteriorated conduit and 5 Q. If I showed you a document that was
6 whatnot in it laid with sand in the trenches. 6 produced by WGI that said the sheet pile tip
7 I mean, we remediated all of that. 7 went down to -25 feet and would therefore cut
8 So if you want to consider harm that 8 off any groundwater flow down to that level,
9 we did, okay, give us credit for the good that 9 would you have any reason to believe that is
10 we did. And that's my point. My point is is 10 correct or incorrect based upon your
11 that what was done out there was remediation. 11 understanding of the actual facts?
12 I wasn't a cleanup, it was a remediation. And 12 A. No, I base my belief of it on whether
13 when we left that site it was better than when 13 it was stamped by a professional land surveyor
14 we drove up to it because of that. 14 or a licensed engineer.
15 Thank you for listening. 15 Q. If you're the project engineer and WGI
16 Q. No. The sheet pile that was beneath 16 gives you a document that they produce that
17 the floodwall at the East Bank Industrial Area, 17 indicates that the sheet pile tip depth was
18 IHNC -- 18 -25 feet, would you have any reason to question
19 A. Yeah. 19 it?
20 Q. -- do you know how far down it 20 A. If it was -- no, if it was stamped by
21 reached? 21 a professional engineer or a licensed land
22 A. No. 22 surveyor.
23 Q. The Corps of Engineers says it reached 23 Q. Do you believe that was necessary for
24 down to about -8 feet, per the design. 24 them to have it stamped by a professional
25 A. Elevation -8. 25 engineer or licensed land surveyor?
Page 77 Page 79
1 MR. LEVINE: 1 A. Well, I think that's the only way you

2 Objection. 2 can make it a legal document.
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 3 Q. Were there documents produced by WGI
4 Q. And then when it was measured after -- 4 that the Corps relied upon that were not
5 you know where the south breach occurred, which 5 stamped such as you said they need to be?
6 is near where the Saucer site was? 6 A. Um -- you know, I can remember taking
7 A. No. 7 surveys, or not me taking surveys, but I can
8 Q. You know where the Saucer site was -- 8 remember surveys being taken that may not have
9 you know that IHNC was divided into six 9 been stamped, but I know that they were done by
10 distinct sites? 10 a professional land surveying company. So in
11 A. Yeah. That's portion closest to the 11 that context, yes, I think there would have
12 Claiborne Avenue bridge. 12 been some situations where they submit
13 Q. Yes, sir. And then you had the Boland 13 documents that weren't stamped, but knowing
14 site was the northern part? 14 that they came from a licensed company it's the
15 A. Correct. 15 equivalent in my mind to it being stamped.
16 Q. At the Boland site, that's adjacent to 16 Q. Was WGI considered a licensed company?
17 where one of the breaches occurred that flooded 17 A. Their company was licensed, and I'm
18 the Lower Ninth Ward? 18 sure they had professional engineers and land
19 A. Unh-unh. 19 surveyors on the payroll. If not, I'm sure
20 Q. You're familiar with that? 20 they knew where to go hire them.
21 A. Yeah. 21 Q. Was it your understanding or your
22 Q. And then the southern breach was 22 expectation that the project engineer knew that
23 adjacent to the Saucer site? 23 they would be the ones to handle those
24 A. Okay. 24 obligations?
25 Q. Do you have any reason to believe that 25 MR. TREEBY:
Page 78 Page 80
20 (Pages 77 to 80)
8/8/2008
1 Objection vague; those 1 A. No. One of the, um -- I guess

2 obligations. 2 requirements -- requirements is a bad word, but
3 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 3 one of the principles of a TERC contract is
4 Q. You the ones you just referred to in 4 that the money has to be there before the
5 your previous answer. 5 contractor is allowed to do the work. I can't
6 MR. TREEBY: 6 direct them to go do something, commit the
7 He didn't refer to any 7 government to funds -- I can't do it because
8 obligations in his previous answer. 8 I'm a COR. But the contracting officer can't
9 A. Repeat the question, please. 9 do something to commit -- or have them go do
10 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 10 work that funds aren't available to pay them
11 Q. As the project engineer, was it your 11 for.
12 expectation that WGI would go out and get the 12 Q. Who would actually write the check to
13 proper stamps? 13 WGI when they would submit an invoice?
14 MR. TREEBY: 14 A. That's a good question. I don't know.
15 Objection. Vague. 15 It wasn't me. What I would do is I would
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 16 review the invoice for completeness, and then
17 Q. Either of a professional engineer or 17 when I was satisfied that the invoice, that
18 that they would do it themselves. 18 there were no issues -- typically what would
19 MR. TREEBY: 19 happen is I would question a few things, send
20 Objection. Vague. 20 it back to WGI, and then they would rectify
21 MR. LEVINE: 21 those costs that I would question, resubmit it,
22 Objection. Compound. 22 and then we would prepare a form -- I forget
23 A. I would think if I requested them to 23 the number of the form, but it was a form that
24 get it stamped, yes, they would. 24 our finance and accounting folks would use to
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 25 cut the check. I don't even think there was a
Page 81 Page 83
1 Q. But that wasn't my question. 1 check, per se, cut. I think it was an
2 A. I was willing to pay for it. 2 electronic funds transfer probably into one of
3 Q. Well, was there a time during the 3 their bank accounts.
4 course of this project where the Corps was not 4 But once I've signed that invoice, I
5 able to met their financial obligations to keep 5 would give it to Lee Guillory, he would in turn
6 the project moving? 6 forward it to the paying office, the finance
7 A. I'm thinking. I'm thinking back. I 7 center, and I want to think it was in
8 mean, there was a time when funding levels were 8 Millington, Tennessee. I think for some reason
9 below what was originally anticipated, but we 9 Millington, Tennessee shoots out in my mind as
10 always meet our financial obligations. We 10 being on that form as the address of where to
11 worked closely with Washington Group on things 11 send the invoice to.
12 or measures to take to make sure that we would 12 Q. Just so I understand, the steps I
13 meet those financial obligations. But with the 13 guess would be that you would review WGI 's
14 approval of the contracting officer and the 14 invoice submission --
15 project manager, we scaled back from time to 15 A. Right.
16 time on operations to ensure that we would have 16 Q. -- make sure it met the standards that
17 enough money. And that kind of goes back to 17 you required.
18 what I was saying toward the beginning of this 18 A. Right.
19 discussion, this deposition, one of my biggest 19 Q. Once it met your standards you would
20 concerns, one of my biggest responsibilities, I 20 forward it to Lee Guillory; is that correct?
21 felt, was to make sure that any work that was 21 A. That's correct.
22 done we had the money to pay for it. 22 Q. And then Lee Guillory at that point
23 Q. Did you ever have an understanding 23 would approve it? Is that correct?
24 that WGI felt that they had advanced in their 24 A. No, um -- Lee never signed it. I
25 work further than they were being paid? 25 signed it. Once I signed it, it was approved
Page 82 Page 84
21 (Pages 81 to 84)
8/8/2008
1 for payment. Um -- in that particular sense -- 1 it was less easy -- it was less difficult.
2 we didn't really have a fax machine out on the 2 Because Agriculture Street, for
3 office, so I would give it to Lee who would fax 3 example -- the west bank, for example, we were
4 it -- or Fed Ex it. I think he Fed Ex'd it. 4 literally working in people's front and
5 We never really that had type of a setup. I 5 backyards, and you had to please the public
6 gave it to Lee just to expedite it. 6 with varying, I guess, expectations as to what
7 Q. Would there be communication between 7 they should get in return for the work. You
8 the New Orleans District and the Tulsa office 8 know, just the public relations, the
9 to effectuate payment? 9 coordination of that was difficult.
10 A. I don't know. Nothing that I did 10 That wasn't present on this job, per
11 along those lines. Now, if maybe Lee did 11 se. I mean, we weren't working in people 's
12 something -- probably what he -- as a minimum 12 backyards. So.
13 what he would have done is probably faxed them 13 Q. Other than working on the canal and
14 a copy of the forms. Not the twelve-inch stack 14 the tank car issue where they had to remove it,
15 of backup documents, but, you know, the little 15 what other activities at that work site would
16 four or five pages of forms. 16 lead you to believe that it was more difficult
17 Q. So if in fact there were communication 17 than others that you have worked on in your
18 between the New Orleans District and the Tulsa 18 experience?
19 District relative to payment of WGI 's specific 19 A. I can't think of any.
20 invoice, it would have taken place between 20 Q. In your relationship --
21 individuals other than you; is that correct? 21 A. Washington might tell you that working
22 A. Yeah. That's not to say, though, that 22 with me was difficult.
23 if someone in Tulsa had an issue or had a 23 Q. I'm building up to that. My question
24 question that they wouldn't necessarily pick up 24 to you was what was -- in your dealings with
25 the phone and call me. But typically the 25 Washington Group, what was your analysis of
Page 85 Page 87
1 standard operating procedure would have been 1 whether they thought this was a difficult
2 for them to work through Lee. Lee was kind of 2 project or not?
3 the liaison, I guess, between the field and the 3 MR. LEVINE:
4 technical and the other district elements. I 4 Objection. Calls for
5 believe his official title was like 5 speculation.
6 construction manager or something. Something 6 A. Yeah.
7 along those lines. Not that it matters. 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
8 Q. Of the projects that you worked on for 8 Q. I'm saying what's your analysis. I
9 the Corps, how would you rate them as -- how 9 don't want you to speculate about what you
10 would you rate the IHNC project as -- relative 10 think, I want to know what you actually thought
11 difficulty, would you find that a difficult 11 in your analysis.
12 job? 12 A. Personally, it didn't matter to me
13 A. In some ways. In other ways I think 13 what they thought, if they thought the job was
14 it was probably average. Um -- 14 difficult or not. What mattered to me was that
15 Q. In what ways did you think it was more 15 they did it.
16 difficult than some of the others that you 16 Q. Well, you as the project engineer can
17 worked on? 17 tell whether they're getting along easily or
18 A. Primarily because it was along the 18 they're having some technical issues that need
19 bank of the canal and you had some marine work 19 to be addressed.
20 involved. They had to remove a pier, a dock. 20 A. Oh.
21 They had -- we discovered at some point that 21 Q. And so in your analysis, did you think
22 there was a, um -- a sunken railroad tank car 22 that they were having an easy job of it or was
23 that had apparently fallen off of a barge and 23 it a difficult job?
24 was in the canal and had to be removed. In 24 MR. LEVINE:
25 those respects, um -- in other respects, um -- 25 Same objection.
Page 86 Page 88
22 (Pages 85 to 88)
8/8/2008
1 A. I never got the impression from them 1 excavations first, scooping up the soils, is
2 that they were in over their heads or that they 2 there any special technical experience you need
3 stumbled upon something that they didn't know 3 to have to scoop that first five feet up?
4 what to do or who to call or who to hire to fix 4 A. No.
5 a problem. No. They were top notch. 5 Q. The deeper excavations, when we go to
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 6 the wedding cake structure and the sewer lift
7 Q. In your analysis of removing the 7 station, other than having the specialized
8 aboveground structures, the sheds that had the 8 machinery to get down deep into there, is there
9 forties motif -- 9 any specialized technical experience that needs
10 A. Yeah. 10 to be hired by the Corps to get that hole dug?
11 Q. -- was that a hard job? Anything any 11 A. Yeah. Um -- you are getting into a
12 competent demolition contractor couldn't do? 12 little bit more technical issues there because
13 A. Yeah. I don't -- if I recall 13 you've got a cofferdam involved so you've got
14 correctly, Washington, you know, subbed that 14 to drive the sheet piling, you know, to
15 out to a demolition guy. 15 construct the cofferdam, you've got welding
16 Q. Same with concrete slab removals; 16 involved, you've got pile driving involved. I
17 nothing difficult about that? 17 guess at that point it becomes a question do
18 A. They may have self-performed the slab 18 you consider that complicated? Um -- it's more
19 removals, you know. If I recall correctly, I 19 complicated than having a backhoe there with a
20 think that was Washington 's forces that did 20 bucket on it and a guy on back of the backhoe
21 the slab removals. 21 digging three feet deep, you know.
22 Q. That's not rocket science, right? You 22 Q. Do you think that the driving of the
23 put a chisel hammer on it, break it up and put 23 cofferdam and tack welding the walers is a
24 it on a truck and get rid of it; right? 24 complicated activity such that Washington Group
25 A. Any caveman can do it. 25 would have difficulty with it?
Page 89 Page 91
1 Q. Done it myself. 1 A. No. There again, though, Washington

2 MR. LEVINE: 2 Group did not self-perform those activities,
3 I'm not so sure about that. 3 they subbed it out.
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 4 Q. The actual lifting of the sewer lift
5 Q. The excavations that are done, the 5 station, do you know whether Washington Group
6 removal of the soils around the subsurface 6 did that themselves or whether they
7 structures, obviously you have to have a 7 subcontracted it out?
8 specialized machinery there which is a backhoe 8 A. I don't recall.
9 or something like that. Was that anything that 9 Q. The wedding cake structure, I know
10 requires extraordinary technical experience? 10 that wasn't just lifted out, it was broken up.
11 A. No, but I'm not real sure what you 11 A. Right.
12 mean by the removal of the soils around the 12 Q. Was that anything that was a
13 subsurface foundation. 13 complicated activity that Washington Group did
14 Q. Scooping -- when you build a cofferdam 14 themselves?
15 you got to scoop the soils up to lift the thing 15 MR. LEVINE:
16 out? 16 Objection. Compound.
17 A. You're back to talking about 17 A. Um -- you know, I'm a little fuzzy on
18 cofferdams now. 18 that. I remember the actual removal of it, and
19 Q. I'm talking about excavations, right. 19 like you said, they had to break it up with a
20 Well, let's talk about the shallow excavations 20 hammer. They actually had a big iron cube in
21 they did. Originally, they were planning on 21 the middle of the thing that had to be cut up
22 only removing -- 22 with a torch.
23 (Off the record.) 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
24 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 24 Q. Uh-huh.
25 Q. If you want to talk about the shallow 25 A. I want to think Washington did some of
Page 90 Page 92
23 (Pages 89 to 92)
8/8/2008
1 that work. They didn't do the construction of 1 Q. My question to you, as the project
2 the cofferdam, though. 2 engineer, what in your observation would lead
3 Q. They subbed that out. 3 this guy Dennis O'Connor, who is one of the
4 A. Yeah. 4 senior guys on site, to feel that working in
5 Q. I'm going to show you an E-mail 5 the East Bank Industrial Area in New Orleans,
6 that -- so you understand where this comes 6 Louisiana is harder than working in Iraq?
7 from. In this litigation the Washington Group 7 MR. LEVINE:
8 has produced reams of documents that I've had 8 Objection. Speculation.
9 the pleasure of going through. 9 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
10 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 was marked for 10 Q. I'm asking about your observations.
11 identification and is attached hereto.) 11 A. Well, you know, anybody who's good at
12 A. God love you. 12 what they do as a professional has -- be it a
13 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 13 football player or a dancer or an engineer or a
14 Q. And this is one from Dennis O'Connor, 14 lawyer, anybody who's good at it, has a way, a
15 someone that you knew of, and it was from 15 knack to make something that's very difficult
16 Dennis O'Connor to Richard Lesser. 16 for the average person to appear to be very
17 Do you know who Richard Lesser is? 17 easy. If you're sitting down watching a
18 A. The name is familiar, but -- I mean, 18 football game or a golf match, you watch these
19 he's familiar in the sense that he was a 19 guys perform, and they'll catch a football
20 Washington employee. 20 that's flying 60 yards in the air, or kick a
21 Q. Uh-huh. I'll let you read it but I'm 21 football, or hit a golf ball three hundred and
22 going to just read it into the record. This is 22 fifty yards right down the middle of the
23 dated August 2nd, 2005. And it says, a month 23 fairway. You go try to do that. I try to do
24 or so ago I was asked what I thought of working 24 it every day playing golf and I can't come
25 in Iraq. I responded by saying, "I've been on 25 close. So what I'm trying to say is, a true
Page 93 Page 95
1 harder jobs, I've dealt with tougher problems. 1 professional can take the difficult and make it
2 Of course, I was referring to the EBIA. The 2 appear easy. So maybe I didn't know everything
3 people that worked on the EBIA should be 3 Dennis O'Connor had going on and all of the,
4 congratulated. I always thought that the 4 you know, balls he had to juggle to make it
5 company failed to understand the difficulties 5 look easy to me. Um -- if he felt it was
6 this particular project presented. 6 difficult, then I'm kind of glad in a way,
7 Nonetheless, thanks for letting me know that 7 because that means I pushed him and got a good
8 the job got finished and no one shot the 8 job out of him, in a way. In another way, I'm
9 Montegut. My thanks to the folks that I was 9 somewhat, you know, sad that he was glad nobody
10 privileged to work with, you know who you are 10 shot me. But that's okay. I'm glad nobody
11 (now get over it)." And it's signed by him, 11 shot him in Iraq.
12 electronically, I guess, as a project manager 12 Q. I guess the question that I have that
13 for the Middle East Construction Program. And 13 pops in into my mind on this is if the
14 I'll read that, it's WGI 262190. 14 difficulties that he's referring to were in
15 MR. LEVINE: 15 getting paid, that's different than the
16 Do you have any more copies? 16 difficulties that he's experiencing in actually
17 MR. JOANEN: 17 performing the labor to accomplish the tasks.
18 No. 18 Correct?
19 MR. LEVINE: 19 MR. LEVINE:
20 Is there a question pending? 20 Objection. Speculation.
21 MR. JOANEN: 21 MS. CRONIN:
22 I'm going to ask a question but I 22 Speculation.
23 want him to look at it before I ask a 23 A. Correct.
24 question. 24 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 25 Q. And we have already gone through this
Page 94 Page 96
24 (Pages 93 to 96)
8/8/2008
1 when we went through the various tasks that you 1 the same paragraph it talks about this deal
2 were asking them to perform; they weren't 2 with the devil, and it indicates that the logic
3 overly complicated, correct? 3 is that it was easy to reassign office pukes
4 A. Taken on an individual analysis, yeah, 4 and if we left the site we might not be called
5 it's not complicated to dig a three-foot hole 5 back.
6 with an excavator, no. 6 Did you ever hear of anyone at WGI
7 Q. And as you said, the time constraints 7 make those comments to you? And I'll show you
8 were not that overbearing because they had a 8 just a page.
9 number of years to be out there, correct? 9 MR. LEVINE:
10 A. That's correct. 10 Are we going to attach --
11 Q. So it would appear to me that the 11 MR. JOANEN:
12 difficulties that they had were getting paid. 12 If I give them all to him.
13 And of course every big corporation, the reason 13 A. No. I never did.
14 they're out there is to -- 14 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
15 A. Make money. 15 Q. And this just -- like I said, it's
16 Q. -- get paid. 16 obviously -- it's something that was being
17 MR. LEVINE: 17 worked on by WGI with angry comments from WGI
18 Objection. Speculation. 18 people, as I understand it. You also see up
19 MS. CRONIN: 19 here where it says upside-down. Obviously
20 Speculation and 20 there's some overlying concepts that were on
21 mischaracterization. 21 this guy 's mind.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 22 A. Yeah. I'm kind of curious what
23 Q. While you were the project engineer 23 upside-down means. I don't know. I know what
24 for this project, did you ever hear anyone at 24 it is to be upside-down on a car loan.
25 WGI refer to this project as an upside-down 25 Q. Well, that's what instigated my
Page 97 Page 99
1 project? 1 questions to you, since you're the finance --

2 A. No. 2 there's a financial interaction through you, to
3 Q. Have you ever in your experience as an 3 see if you understand what they're talking
4 engineer with the Corps of Engineers heard of a 4 about here.
5 project being an upside-down project? 5 And again, on the second page, it's
6 A. I don't know what that means. 6 WGI 57506, they have in quotes, upside-down,
7 MR. LEVINE: 7 that's the table of contents, but they have a
8 Did you mark that last document? 8 whole section on that.
9 MR. JOANEN: 9 Moving into Section 1.1.0 which is the
10 Yeah. It's 4. 10 introduction, there's some amendments in here,
11 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 11 and it's difficult to read but my understanding
12 Q. At any time while you were a project 12 of what this says, this report -- and I can't
13 engineer on this project, did you hear someone 13 read the word, it starts with a C -- the
14 from WGI comment that they had made a deal with 14 problem of subcontracting Washington Group 's
15 the devil during funding? 15 core competence and its detrimental effect on
16 A. No. 16 Washington Group 's long-term business
17 Q. Did you ever hear someone from WGI say 17 interests. The bottom of that second
18 they made a deal with the devil during -- 18 paragraph.
19 regarding the interruptions; i.e., all funds 19 MR. LEVINE:
20 went to maintain on-site staff? 20 Core competence, that's spelled,
21 A. No. 21 so the record is clear, that's C-O-R-E
22 Q. I'll show you -- this is a document -- 22 not C-O-R-P-S.
23 again it's produced by WGI. It's WGI 57505 23 MR. JOANEN:
24 through 57523. I'm sorry I only have one copy. 24 Good point.
25 I didn't think we would get into this. But in 25 (Off the record.)
Page 98 Page 100
25 (Pages 97 to 100)
8/8/2008
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 1 abilities, would that be the type of thing that
2 Q. Have you had a chance to look at that? 2 you would get involved with? Or maybe someone
3 A. Yeah. 3 else, perhaps it would be Lee Guillory and not
4 Q. While you were the project engineer, 4 you.
5 did you ever hear anyone at WGI say to you that 5 A. Yes. Yes. And I think it would be
6 they had subcontracted out tasks which fell 6 me.
7 within their core competence? 7 Q. Okay. Did you -- and if I asked the
8 A. No. 8 question before, I apologize. Did you observe
9 Q. Were there any discussions between you 9 any such difficulties that WGI was having with
10 and Dennis O'Connor or anyone else that would 10 its subcontractors such that you did get
11 indicate that the things that they were doing 11 involved?
12 were difficult and that they were outside of 12 A. Yes.
13 the scope of their core competence? 13 Q. And what issues were those? Or what
14 A. Not as I recall, no. 14 activities?
15 Q. Did Dennis O'Connor or anyone else 15 A. As I recall, MMG was performing soil
16 involved with the management of the project on 16 borings to determine contamination levels.
17 site say to you that they were concerned about 17 Um -- the performance, in my opinion, was
18 the issues that they were having at the East 18 inefficient due to the fact that while the
19 Bank -- at the IHNC would be detrimental to 19 people on the ground were working hard and
20 their long-term business interests? 20 doing the best they could, the equipment that
21 A. Not that I recall. 21 they were utilizing was just too small to work
22 Q. Were you familiar with any WGI 's 22 effectively and efficiently in the large scope
23 difficulties at the Tar Creek project? 23 of the borings that they had to do. If I
24 A. None whatsoever. 24 recall correctly, they may have had to do three
25 Q. I'm sorry? 25 hundred and some odd borings. Maybe more, I
Page 101 Page 103
1 A. None whatsoever. 1 don't know. But let's just say for the sake of
2 Q. Were you familiar as the project 2 discussion they had to do 365 borings. Um --
3 engineer with any difficulties that WGI was 3 it was my observation when they were out there
4 having with its subcontractor MMG which is 4 initially that it would take them, based on my
5 Materials Management Group? 5 recollection, in excess of a day to complete
6 A. I'm thinking. There were some issues 6 one boring. And we're talking about a boring
7 with MMG early on in the project as it related 7 that may be ten feet deep, twenty feet deep.
8 to their efficiency in accomplishing certain 8 They had -- the borings were varying in depth,
9 activities. Whether that caused difficulties 9 some were ten, some were twenty. It didn't
10 with Washington I can't speak to that. 10 take a whole lot of complicated arithmetic to
11 Q. If Washington were having difficulty 11 figure out that they would be out there at that
12 with that, would that be something that you 12 rate for well over a year. And it was not
13 would have been brought in on? 13 through a lack of effort from the people. It's
14 A. I think that that would be something 14 not that the people were, you know, taking a
15 you'd have to ask Washington. That would be a 15 break every five minutes or anything like that,
16 decision they would have to, um -- make if they 16 they were out there doing the best they could.
17 wanted to bring me in on a difficulty they were 17 So I went to Dennis and expressed my
18 having with a sub that I was unaware of. 18 concerns over the amount of time this was
19 Q. I guess that was a bad question. 19 taking, and I said that in my estimation we
20 If you realized that -- as the project 20 would come out cheaper in the long run to get a
21 engineer, in your responsibilities at the 21 larger drill rig out there, one that could
22 project, if you realized that WGI was having 22 really drill and go and collect a sample and
23 some difficulties and you knew from observation 23 maybe do two or three holes a day as opposed to
24 and experience that it was because one of their 24 point something. At first I believe Dennis was
25 subs was not performing to the best of their 25 reluctant because there were certain, um --
Page 102 Page 104
26 (Pages 101 to 104)

8/8/2008
1 maybe agreements or arrangements that they had 1 Had we been working in my backyard or
2 with MMG that I wasn't privy to, that I don't 2 your backyard or somebody's backyard, MMG would
3 want to be privy to, that I had no business 3 have probably been the person for the job. But
4 being privy to as contracting officer's 4 on a 32-acre site like we were out in, you
5 representative. What they did, arrangements 5 know, in an industrial type site where you're
6 they made with their subcontractors was within 6 going to encounter trip hazards, wasps, bees,
7 their own business discretion as far as I was 7 you know, just elements, they weren't the
8 concerned. I was only concerned about the 8 people for the job.
9 efficiency with the people that they put on the 9 Q. Do you remember when it was that MMG
10 site. 10 was replaced?
11 And to a lesser degree, I was 11 A. No. I mean shortly after all of
12 concerned also somewhat from a safety 12 the -- I can't recall how many holes they
13 standpoint, because when they first came out, 13 completed or what, but --
14 as I recall, it was kind of like this time of 14 Q. Do you remember the name of the
15 year, it was hot, and some of the folks that 15 company that replaced MMG?
16 they had out there, although they tried very 16 A. No, it was a drill rig company -- the
17 hard they were not typical field worker, they 17 guy on the crew we called him Jaws. I can
18 were more office people. And I consider myself 18 remember Jaws, but I can't remember the name of
19 an office person. I can't go out and 19 the company. I'm sorry.
20 physically do what it takes in this type of a 20 Q. Do you remember whether MMG was
21 climate to accomplish a day's worth of work. 21 replaced only to perform the physical labor of
22 And I felt, based on my experience, that some 22 drilling the hole, or were they also replaced
23 of the people in that crew were like me. I 23 to do the analysis of the soils?
24 expressed that to him, too. 24 A. I don't remember. My concern was only
25 And we went, we had discussions, we 25 in regards to the physical, um -- collecting or
Page 105 Page 107
1 had disagreements over it, and eventually the 1 the drilling, you know, the borings.
2 decision was made to replace that operation 2 Q. That was somewhat my next question.
3 with another company. And I even at the time 3 Would that have been the type of task
4 expressed to Dennis that my only interest was 4 that you would have had to familiarize yourself
5 getting it done efficiently, if he wanted to 5 with as a project engineer to know whether the
6 give MMG the opportunity to sub it out to -- 6 company that was doing the soil testings and
7 you know, if they didn't have a bigger rig in 7 analyzing those borings was in fact MMG or a
8 their equipment inventory, if they wanted to 8 replacement?
9 sub out a bigger rig, it didn't matter to me as 9 MR. TREEBY:
10 long as we got better than a hole a day because 10 Objection. Vague.
11 we couldn't live with that. I couldn't afford 11 A. It kind of goes back to my answer
12 to -- I couldn't justify -- I mean I could 12 about the professional engineer. You know, as
13 afford it, but I couldn't justify, in my mind, 13 long as it was a company that did that kind of
14 the overhead cost of the other field personnel 14 thing and was a certified lab or whatever the
15 waiting for this process to, you know, be 15 designation of -- a Corps approved lab, I had
16 accomplished. 16 no preference.
17 So anyway, long story short, we 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
18 replaced them. Washington replaced them. 18 Q. From my amateur point of view it seems
19 Because if I recall correctly, MMG chose not to 19 to me that George Bacuta who was the soils
20 sub the work out. And the other company came 20 geochemist would be the one more integrally
21 in and they performed, um -- to an efficiency 21 involved in that type or part of the project.
22 level that I would expect a drill rig crew to 22 A. Yeah. Right. Yeah.
23 perform and accomplish, you know, a pace of 23 MR. LEVINE:
24 production that you would typically expect for 24 Object.
25 a job of that magnitude. 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
Page 106 Page 108
27 (Pages 105 to 108)

8/8/2008
1 Q. In this report, it indicates a 1 MS. CRONIN:

2 statement that says -- and this is part 1.0 -- 2 I understand what you're saying.
3 I'm sorry, 1.1, Subsection B, and it's on WGI 3 And I understand the writing on the
4 57516. It indicates that importantly, although 4 document is the project completion
5 Washington Group staff did not have sufficient 5 report, but the writing on the
6 oversight capacity, Washington Group 6 document -- what you're referring to
7 nonetheless defended its subcontractor's 7 is the writings on the document, and
8 technical decisions. 8 that's a different thing than making
9 Do you know whether in fact that is 9 the witness think that this is the
10 true? 10 project completion document that was
11 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 was marked for 11 submitted to the Corps. This is a
12 identification and is attached hereto.) 12 document that has handwriting on it
13 A. Could you read that again for me? 13 which is what you've been asking
14 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 14 questions about.
15 Q. I'll show it to you right here. It 15 MR. TREEBY:
16 talks about -- I'll read the line that predates 16 You're asking questions about
17 it. 17 handwriting; right?
18 A. But what is the context of this? 18 MS. CRONIN:
19 Q. I'm trying to -- it's from -- 19 Which is from WGI 's files, not
20 MR. TREEBY: 20 something that was given to the Corps.
21 Let the witness look at the 21 MR. JOANEN:
22 document so he can understand it. 22 I think the record will indicate
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 23 that I explained to him originally
24 Q. I'll show it to you. (Tendering.) 24 that this was something produced to
25 This page. It says -- 25 me, it was something that was produced
Page 109 Page 111
1 A. Oh, this is project completion report. 1 on WGI with their little stamp on
2 Q. It's the same -- 2 there. I did nothing more than that.
3 A. This is part of the project completion 3 Therefore I'm asking him questions
4 report -- 4 about the content of it, if he has any
5 Q. Yes, sir. 5 information about that. I think
6 A. -- which was done -- 6 that's what I led him to believe.
7 Q. And so this sentence -- 7 If I led you to believe something
8 MS. CRONIN: 8 different, I apologize.
9 I would like to stop and look at 9 But I thought that's what I led
10 the document because I think the 10 him to believe.
11 witness thinks -- he just said it's 11 MS. CRONIN:
12 part of the project completion 12 It's my understanding at this
13 document. I don't know if that's 13 time he has a different understanding.
14 accurate. 14 MR. JOANEN:
15 I don't understand, but I 15 I don't know anything about this,
16 don't -- 16 I think your people have testified
17 MR. JOANEN: 17 they don't know what it is, so that's
18 It's a document that you guys 18 why I'm asking the questions.
19 produced. 19 MS. CRONIN:
20 MS. CRONIN: 20 I was just concerned if he had a
21 I understand it's a document I 21 misunderstanding at this point about
22 produced, but -- 22 which document he was looking at,
23 MR. JOANEN: 23 that's all.
24 I'm asking him questions based 24 MR. JOANEN:
25 upon information in that production. 25 And I understand you have a joint
Page 110 Page 112
28 (Pages 109 to 112)

8/8/2008
1 defense agreement. If y'all want to 1 A. No.

2 go outside and talk -- 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
3 MS. CRONIN: 3 Q. Were you aware as a project engineer
4 No. Thank you. 4 of any issues wherein Washington Group felt it
5 MR. TREEBY: 5 was necessary to defend its subcontractors
6 Scott, were you reading 6 technical decisions?
7 handwritten stuff? Is that what you 7 MR. LEVINE:
8 were reading? 8 Same objection.
9 MR. JOANEN: 9 MR. JOANEN:
10 No, that was actually the 10 What is the objection?
11 typewritten part. I was asking him 11 MR. LEVINE:
12 that part. 12 Ambiguous and vague.
13 MS. CRONIN: 13 MR. JOANEN:
14 I apologize for the 14 Were you aware?
15 misunderstanding. I wasn't looking at 15 MR. LEVINE:
16 it, I was just trying to make sure we 16 You're asking to know about
17 were all on the same page. 17 defending the subcontractors'
18 MR. LEVINE: 18 technical decisions. There's multiple
19 Where were you reading from, just 19 subcontractors in the project and this
20 to make sure? 20 is only speaking about one of them.
21 (Off the record.) 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
22 MR. LEVINE: 22 Q. Okay. Were you aware of any instances
23 Do you have a question pending? 23 where the Washington Group defended
24 You're just asking him to read it? 24 subcontractors' technical decisions to the
25 MR. JOANEN: 25 Corps of Engineers?
Page 113 Page 115
1 I was asking him a question if he 1 MR. LEVINE:

2 knew about any of those issues as the 2 Same objections.
3 project engineer. 3 A. You know, the way I would look at it
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 4 is is that I had a contract with Washington
5 Q. So my question to you, and just so 5 Group, not with MMG or any of their other
6 that you understand, obviously I wasn't at the 6 subcontractors. I really wasn't that
7 site while WGI was doing all of their work, and 7 concerned. I mean, I would expect Washington
8 just in reviewing the things that have been 8 Group to defend any position that the
9 produced in this litigation it leads me to have 9 subcontractor did, be it, you know, from a
10 certain questions, and I'm just telling you 10 labor standpoint or a time management
11 background from which I ask the question, and 11 standpoint or from a technical standpoint,
12 the question is from a document that was 12 because they would want to do that because they
13 developed apparently by WGI which indicates 13 had their contract with me. And they saw it
14 that they're putting in a report that 14 as -- the contractor's subcontractor was really
15 Washington Group staff did not have sufficient 15 their agent, essentially them. They were
16 oversight capacity, Washington Group 16 responsible for him.
17 nonetheless defended its subcontractors' 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
18 technical decisions. 18 Q. Would you have had the expectation,
19 My question to you is, as the project 19 when you said they had the contract with you,
20 engineer in involvement with this IHNC project, 20 that they would analyze the subcontractor's
21 were you aware of any difficulties Washington 21 technical evaluations?
22 Group was having in supervising their 22 MR. LEVINE:
23 subcontractors? First question. 23 Objection. Calls for
24 MR. LEVINE: 24 speculation.
25 Objection. Ambiguous, vague. 25 A. What do you mean by technical
Page 114 Page 116
29 (Pages 113 to 116)

8/8/2008
1 evaluations? 1 A. I don't know.

2 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 2 Q. Do you know whether it should have
3 Q. If you are the contractor -- if you're 3 been?
4 the Corps of Engineers and you have, like you 4 MR. LEVINE:
5 said, a contract with Washington Group and you 5 Objection.
6 were expecting them to perform certain 6 MR. JOANEN:
7 technical evaluations and you know they're 7 Which is?
8 going to subcontract it out -- 8 MR. LEVINE:
9 A. Uh-huh. 9 Speculation.
10 Q. -- would you expect, as the person 10 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANN:
11 paying for the service to WGI, expect them to 11 Q. Do you know whether it should have
12 review what their subcontractor did as opposed 12 been?
13 to just passing it on to you without looking at 13 MR. LEVINE:
14 it? 14 Calls for speculation.
15 MR. LEVINE: 15 MR. JOANEN:
16 Objection. Same objection. 16 I'm asking, do you know?
17 A. I don't know. It's -- really, to me, 17 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
18 it's immaterial because the way I look at it is 18 Q. Do you know?
19 MMG is Washington Group. If I have a problem 19 MR. TREEBY:
20 with something that it so happened that MMG was 20 Same objection.
21 doing, I wasn't going to go discuss it with 21 A. Whether the Corps of Engineers should
22 MMG, I was going to go resolve the problem with 22 have reviewed that document?
23 Washington Group. You know, it's not, hey, 23 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANN:
24 Washington Group, you know, MMG has got a 24 Q. Whether this should have been
25 problem. It's, hey, Washington Group, you have 25 forwarded to the engineering division for
Page 117 Page 119
1 a problem. The problem is, in this particular 1 review?

2 case, MMG. What are you going to do to fix it? 2 A. I think I would know whether it should
3 Or what am I missing that I'm seeing it 3 be forwarded or not, yes.
4 incorrectly? So yeah, they would have to 4 Q. Should it have been or not?
5 defend it. 5 MR. LEVINE:
6 Q. Was the Corps taking the engineering 6 Same objection.
7 evaluations that were being done by Washington 7 A. The lift station?
8 Group and its subcontractors and forwarding 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
9 those to the engineering department for review? 9 Q. (Tendering.)
10 MR. TREEBY: 10 MR. TREEBY:
11 Objection. 11 What page are you looking at in
12 MR. LEVINE: 12 that report?
13 Objection. Compound. 13 MR. LEVINE:
14 A. I guess I don't exactly know what you 14 This is Exhibit 2.
15 refer to as engineering evaluations. 15 MR. JOANEN:
16 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 16 That's different.
17 Q. Technical considerations regarding any 17 MR. LEVINE:
18 engineering that was done on the site. For 18 Let the record reflect that the
19 example, I'll go to this -- this lift station 19 witness is looking at Exhibit 2.
20 removal plan. 20 A. I would have forwarded this to Lee
21 A. Uh-huh. 21 Guillory for him to take a look at and leave it
22 Q. Do you know whether as a project 22 up to him to decide if it was something that
23 engineer when this was produced by WGI it was 23 was so technical in nature that it would
24 reviewed by the engineering division of the 24 require further review by technical staff.
25 Corps of Engineers? 25 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
Page 118 Page 120
30 (Pages 117 to 120)

8/8/2008
1 Q. This -- the excavation of the concrete 1 don't see a question.

2 anchor foundation blocks, that was prepared by 2 MR. LEVINE:
3 WGI by a subcontractor. 3 There's no question yet.
4 A. Uh-huh. 4 MR. JOANEN:
5 Q. Was that -- 5 I'm giving him the context for
6 A. That other one was prepared by a 6 the question. Thank you for pointing
7 subcontractor as well. 7 that out.
8 Q. Which you would expect WGI to defend 8 MR. TREEBY:
9 the technical considerations. 9 I want to make sure he doesn't
10 A. Right. But from my viewpoint, once it 10 start answering before you ask a
11 was presented to the Corps, it was WGI 11 question.
12 presenting it, it wasn't the subcontractor at 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
13 that point. 13 Q. And me giving you some background
14 Q. This document right here which we've 14 information, does this give you any reason to
15 marked as Exhibit 3, would you expect that this 15 understand what the use of the term upside-down
16 document be forwarded to the engineering 16 would be in relationship to the IHNC project?
17 division of the Corps of Engineers for 17 MR. TREEBY:
18 evaluation prior to the activities taking 18 Objection. Calls for
19 place? 19 speculation.
20 A. Again -- 20 A. No. I still don't know what
21 MR. LEVINE: 21 upside-down means.
22 Objection. 22 MR. LEVINE:
23 A. Again, it's the same response. If it 23 Let the record reflect that
24 was something in here that I felt questionable, 24 earlier I think you called this the
25 then I would have given it to Lee Guillory, 25 project completion report. And so we
Page 121 Page 123
1 asked him to take a look at it and make a 1 had a further dispute about that.
2 decision as to whether or not it should go 2 So --
3 further. 3 MR. JOANEN:
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 4 It's called a project completion
5 Q. So you'd have relied upon his 5 report.
6 expertise as the higher ranking official at 6 MS. CRONIN:
7 that time? 7 Yes, but you haven't established
8 A. As the liaison, just to be familiar 8 any foundation for the document.
9 with the organization well enough to know who 9 MR. LEVINE:
10 to send it to, what office would have the 10 There's a whole bunch of
11 expertise to review that document, yes. 11 handwriting on it, so it's not the
12 Q. In this same -- going back to this 12 project completion report. It's a
13 what was defined as the project completion 13 document labeled as the project
14 report, the bottom of Page WGI 57516 indicates 14 completion report --
15 that they should insert a time line, 2000, 15 MR. JOANEN:
16 2001, and it says this is possibly a good place 16 Right.
17 to use the phrase "upside-down." And then the 17 MR. LEVINE:
18 next sentence says, note when changes in 18 -- but this is clearly not the
19 approach occurred. 19 project completion report that was
20 And I'll show you, it's on the bottom 20 provided to the Corps of Engineers
21 in the handwriting. (Tendering.) 21 from WGI.
22 A. What's the question? 22 MR. JOANEN:
23 MR. TREEBY: 23 Well, I will also tell you that
24 I don't see a question. I'm 24 in the context of a 30(b)(6)
25 looking at what you've said and I 25 deposition we had a inquiry about all
Page 122 Page 124
31 (Pages 121 to 124)

8/8/2008
1 project completion reports, we were 1 familiar with or aware of?

2 advised by WGI counsel there is no 2 MR. LEVINE:
3 such thing as a project completion 3 Objection. Speculation.
4 report, it's a technical completion 4 A. What I did in the way of processing an
5 report. 5 invoice or, if you will, paying WGI, was if
6 MS. CRONIN: 6 they presented an invoice or an expense, a
7 That's correct and that's not it. 7 receipt, if you will, for a cost that I could
8 MR. JOANEN: 8 recognize, I would check it off and go on. The
9 I'm not asking about the 9 only time I questioned a cost would be is if
10 technical completion report. I'm 10 there was something that I didn't recognize.
11 asking about this document. 11 Could have been I forgot about it. Could have
12 MS. CRONIN: 12 been I just didn't remember. I'd go contact
13 But you haven't established any 13 Dennis or Phil or maybe one of their
14 foundation for that document. 14 accountants, as you say, up in Denver, and
15 MR. JOANEN: 15 maybe they would clear it up for me. Um --
16 I'm not introducing it into 16 maybe they would say, oh, you know what? That
17 evidence. I'm asking the witness -- 17 goes on another job, you know, we mixed it up.
18 MR. TREEBY: 18 Sorry, take it out.
19 The witness has said he 19 But once that process was completed
20 doesn't -- he can't answer your 20 and once everything in that invoice was, you
21 question. And it is calling for 21 know, satisfactory to me and I was confident
22 speculation, it's about handwriting 22 that it was a justifiable cost for this EBIA
23 he's never seen before. I think 23 project, I signed it and processed it on.
24 that's really all we need to say. 24 Um -- what I would do, if I got a
25 MR. LEVINE: 25 stack of invoices and I knew it was going to
Page 125 Page 127
1 Can you just ameliorate it by 1 take me two weeks, three weeks to go through
2 calling it Exhibit 5 from here on out? 2 that, I would process the invoice. I wouldn't
3 MR. JOANEN: 3 hold up their payments. And the agreement I
4 Exhibit 5. 4 had with them was that if anything subsequent
5 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 5 came out that was a questionable cost that we
6 Q. I'm not going to read all of this, and 6 had to at a later date back out, they would
7 I'm just trying to get an understanding of what 7 back it out. And I think you can probably see
8 this upside-down terminology is. This is Page 8 instances of that.
9 WGI 57518, and I'll ask you to just look at the 9 So it was never my intent to, you
10 whole page. I'm not going to even read it or 10 know, use that as a stick or a punishment or
11 evaluate it, and see if that does anything to 11 anything like that. I always tried, whenever I
12 jog your memory or give you any insight as to 12 was presented an invoice, to get it, so to
13 what upside-down means as it relates to this 13 speak, off of my desk and into the processing,
14 IHNC project. 14 um -- cycle within two or three days.
15 MR. TREEBY: 15 The Corps has a policy, as far as I
16 Object to the reference of jog 16 know they still do, prompt payment act, to pay
17 your memory since this witness has not 17 a contractor within 14 days of him submitting a
18 indicated he's ever seen this before. 18 correct invoice. I don't think we ever had a
19 A. So the question is what now? 19 situation where we didn't meet that. And
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 20 charges that turned out to be, you know,
21 Q. Well, here they're talking about 21 incorrect were always backed out on a
22 substantial additional costs. Would that lead 22 subsequent invoice.
23 you to believe that there's an issue with costs 23 Beyond that, what's -- what I read on
24 and that the upside-down scenario referred to 24 that page you just gave me, it relates
25 in this Exhibit 5 is something that you were 25 apparently to some internal type of, um --
Page 126 Page 128
32 (Pages 125 to 128)

8/8/2008
1 situation that WGI had with subcontractors or 1 of transparency allowed the project 's pace to
2 maybe had certain feelings about subcontractors 2 exceed available funding on two occasions.
3 that they never, ever expressed to me. 3 Do you know of any instances where the
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 4 project 's pace exceeded available funding?
5 Q. As the project engineer, what does the 5 A. No. If I did I wouldn't have allowed
6 term to recast the property's performance 6 it to proceed.
7 criteria mean? 7 Q. The next paragraph, I'm going to show
8 A. Yeah. I read that and I wondered what 8 it to you in a second, says, in response to the
9 that meant myself. I don't know. 9 project outpacing available funding, and it
10 Q. As the project engineer, what does it 10 says the client -- scratched out with Jones
11 mean when it says acquiring raw data from the 11 written in next to it -- demanded near realtime
12 analytical laboratory which was recast to 12 evaluations of expenditures as a way to track
13 obtain measurements sufficient to propose that 13 project development and prevent future work
14 the site met the state 's closure criteria? Do 14 flow interruptions.
15 you know what that means, as the project 15 Do you know of any work flow
16 engineer? 16 interruptions that took place?
17 MR. LEVINE: 17 A. You mean like had to shut down because
18 Objection. Speculation. 18 we ran out of money type thing?
19 A. I'm not real sure what it means. 19 Q. That's why I'm asking you the
20 Um -- I would sure like to know who wrote that 20 questions. That's why I came up here. I don't
21 and maybe they could better explain than I 21 know if there were, but I'm asking you as the
22 could. 22 project engineer were there any work flow
23 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 23 interruptions?
24 Q. I'd like to know who wrote it, too, 24 A. Like I had said earlier, you know,
25 but they won't tell me. 25 when funding started to slow down we had to
Page 129 Page 131
1 MR. TREEBY: 1 match that funding pace with our work pace, so
2 You haven't asked. So you're not 2 we throttled back and reduced the pace that we
3 representing it correctly, Scott. 3 had originally anticipated performing at.
4 A. But if you want me to respond to what 4 Q. And do you know of any instances where
5 I think it would mean, collecting raw data from 5 the project was outpacing available funding?
6 the lab would be they went back to the lab and 6 A. No. Like I said, if I did we would
7 started over from scratch because apparently 7 have had to have taken corrective action.
8 somebody had made a mistake in processing -- 8 Q. There's a handwritten note in here,
9 taking the raw data and processing it into an 9 I'm going to show you this after, it says
10 interpretable form. So that's what they did, 10 Montegut came up with his version that
11 they went back to the lab, got the raw data so 11 convoluted things no one could understand.
12 that they could start from scratch and 12 I'm going to ask you -- the question
13 reperform the analysis so that they could have 13 is, was there a procedure in place for
14 a valid set of data that the LDEQ, the 14 invoicing and funding that was changed as the
15 Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, 15 project developed?
16 would accept and issue the NFFAT, whatever 16 A. A procedure in place that changed.
17 those letters were, which was basically the 17 Not as I recall.
18 LDEQ 's blessing that the site was clean and 18 Q. Were there any changes that you made
19 you could go forward with the next phase of 19 to the invoicing and funding procedure?
20 your project, that being the construction of 20 A. Not that I recall.
21 the new lock. 21 Q. If there were changes, would they be
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 22 indicated in any documents as a directive or a
23 Q. Moving on to Page WGI 057520, 23 written document that would say we want you to
24 Section 7.1, there is an indication here -- 24 do things different now?
25 this is not handwriting, this is typed -- lack 25 MR. LEVINE:
Page 130 Page 132
33 (Pages 129 to 132)

8/8/2008
1 Objection. Speculation, 1 the Corps Tulsa District from assign the work
2 hypothetical. 2 to one of its CEC contractors.
3 A. I don't know. I can't recall. 3 Do you know what a CEC contractor is?
4 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 4 A. No. And I wasn't aware that the devil
5 Q. Moving on to the next page, I think I 5 was an employee of the Corps.
6 may have asked you this question already, this 6 Q. There's a statement in here, the
7 is on Page 57522, on Part 6.0, under project 7 handwritten statement that indicates that
8 achievements, Number 1. It says, client 8 significant environmental remediation -- we
9 regards Washington Group's technical 9 completed a significant environmental
10 performance as superior. And then handwritten 10 remediation job in spite of the fact the
11 under there it says don't even mention Tar 11 environmental staff had atrophied to the point
12 Creek, why should we? 12 of being nonexistent.
13 Have I asked you, do you know anything 13 Do you recall any times while you were
14 about their involvement with the Tar Creek 14 the project engineer where the environmental
15 project? 15 staff had atrophied to the point of being
16 A. Yeah. 16 nonexistent?
17 MR. TREEBY: 17 A. No. That could possibly be referring
18 Objection. Asked and answered. 18 to there was nobody on site at a particular
19 A. Yeah. You did, and I said no. 19 point maybe toward the end of the project, but
20 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 20 that doesn't mean that there wasn't people
21 Q. I apologize. I'm not meaning to waste 21 available back in their main office to call
22 your time. 22 upon if needed.
23 On the last page, 57523, under the 23 Q. Do you know whether they were calling
24 conclusions and recommendations, the statement 24 upon people in the main office?
25 for conclusions that's typed in here says 25 MR. LEVINE:
Page 133 Page 135
1 Washington Group is at risk whenever it 1 Objection. Calls for

2 subcontracts its core competence, particularly 2 speculation.
3 where sufficient oversight by Washington Group 3 A. No.
4 is precluded by a project budget or misguided 4 MR. JOANEN:
5 corporate strategies. And then handwritten 5 I'm asking if he knows.
6 under there Number 1 says the project was set 6 MR. LEVINE:
7 up upside-down. 7 I understand what you're asking.
8 Would you understand what that would 8 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
9 mean, a project being set up upside-down? 9 Q. I want know if you know as you sit
10 MR. TREEBY: 10 here today whether --
11 Objection. Asked and answered. 11 A. No, I do not.
12 MR. LEVINE: 12 Q. Do you know as you sit here today
13 Same objection. 13 whether in fact the Washington Group was
14 MR. JOANEN: 14 utilizing geotechnical engineers to evaluate
15 No, this is different because 15 their work and the work the subcontractors were
16 this is set up upside-down, not being 16 doing?
17 upside-down. 17 A. No.
18 MR. LEVINE: 18 Q. Do you know in your experience with
19 Po-tay-to, po-tah-to. 19 the TERC that the TERC requires that they have
20 A. I wasn't involved in the setup of the 20 geotechnical engineers assigned to the project?
21 project. 21 A. No. I don't know that.
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 22 Q. You want to look at this?
23 Q. And then there's another handwriting 23 (Tendering.)
24 written on here, it says deals made with the 24 (Off the record.)
25 devil during funding interruptions prevented 25 MR. TREEBY:
Page 134 Page 136
34 (Pages 133 to 136)

8/8/2008
1 Oh, the same document? 1 with WGI, that the 1997 report on groundwater
2 MS. CRONIN: 2 flow information indicated the influence of
3 The document with handwriting on 3 structures present at the time on the shallow
4 it that he's never seen before and 4 groundwater flow.
5 he's asking him to interpret it. 5 Are you familiar with that?
6 MR. JOANEN: 6 (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 was marked for
7 I'm not asking him to interpret. 7 identification and is attached hereto.)
8 I'm asking him questions. I'm telling 8 A. (Shakes head negatively.)
9 him the basis from which I developed 9 MR. LEVINE:
10 my questions. 10 You got to answer yes or no.
11 MR. LEVINE: 11 A. No. I'm sorry.
12 And this particular page is WGI 12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
13 57523. 13 Q. Are you familiar with the concept that
14 Do you have a question? 14 subsurface structures can affect the migration
15 MR. JOANEN: 15 of subsurface groundwater?
16 I just felt it was unfair to not 16 A. Yes. I think that's kind of related
17 show it to him when I asked him 17 to what I was discussing earlier when we were
18 questions about it. I'm just trying 18 talking about seepage. All of the structures
19 to be fair to the guy. I asked him do 19 that we removed probably improved the potential
20 you want to look at it. He could have 20 for seepage.
21 told me no. 21 Q. Do you know whether in fact the 1997
22 MR. LEVINE: 22 design memorandum showed the pre-remediation
23 I'm just asking if you have a 23 groundwater flow flowed both towards and away
24 question about the document you just 24 from the Industrial Canal?
25 showed him. 25 A. No.
Page 137 Page 139
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 1 Q. I'll mark this as Exhibit 6. In this

2 Q. I'll make this easy: As the project 2 same E-mail, and I'm going to show it to you in
3 engineer, were you involved in the analysis or 3 just a second, it says that the current
4 evaluation of groundwater flow? 4 groundwater flow taken by WGI in May and June,
5 MR. JOANEN: 5 2005, points to flow away from the canal as
6 Objection. Vague. 6 opposed to going both ways in 1997.
7 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 7 A. Uh-huh.
8 Q. As an engineer, do you know what 8 Q. Do you, as project engineer, have any
9 groundwater flow is? 9 reason to disagree with such a report?
10 A. I'm not real sure. 10 MR. LEVINE:
11 Q. As an engineer, do you know what 11 Objection.
12 subsurface groundwater flow is? 12 A. I'm not really familiar with it, so I
13 A. I'm familiar with terms like, you 13 don't know how I could possibly disagree or
14 know, groundwater flowing in an aquifer or 14 agree with something I'm not familiar with.
15 wells, water wells, things of that nature. 15 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
16 That's groundwater. 16 Q. The final portion of the E-mail back
17 Q. You were the project engineer at the 17 and forth indicates that regarding other
18 IHNC project. Were you involved in the 18 information on the groundwater across the
19 analysis of subsurface groundwater flow? 19 floodwall, the geotech map showed that the
20 A. No. 20 levee/floodwall along the east side of Surekote
21 Q. I have E-mail communications from 21 Road had sheet pile the goes down to -8 feet
22 George Bacuta to Richard Lesser cc'ing Lee 22 NGVD. This information is contained in that
23 Guillory -- and I'll show you this in a second, 23 USACE 1997 design memorandum report, Appendix
24 it's WGI 262218 -- wherein George Bacuta is 24 C, Volume 5 of 9. WGI/MMG should have a copy
25 indicating to Richard Lesser, Richard Lesser 25 of this report. (Tendering.)
Page 138 Page 140
35 (Pages 137 to 140)

8/8/2008
1 My question to you, in relation to 1 it to be in the QC, the quality control report.

2 that, were you as the project engineer involved 2 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
3 in the analysis of groundwater flow across the 3 Q. Would the indication in a quality
4 floodwall at the IHNC? 4 control report that sand was brought onto the
5 A. No. 5 site on a particular date, would that have been
6 Q. Do you as a project engineer know why 6 something that you would have known of or have
7 there would be groundwater flow across the 7 been concerned with in reviewing those QC-QA
8 floodwall at the IHNC? 8 reports?
9 MR. LEVINE: 9 MR. LEVINE:
10 Objection. 10 Same objection.
11 MR. JOANEN: 11 A. Not as a matter of routine, no. I
12 What's the basis of your 12 mean, you know, it was a delivery of sand, a
13 objection? 13 load of sand. The way that the site was laid
14 MR. LEVINE: 14 out, my trailer -- all the trailers were right
15 He says he wasn't involved with 15 there by the front gate, and you were pretty
16 it. How is he going to know it? 16 aware of when a dump truck was rolling through.
17 Lacks foundation. 17 So it wouldn't -- you know, you obviously
18 MR. JOANEN: 18 wouldn't know that it was five or ten or one,
19 That's a different question. 19 but you would know that on that particular day
20 MR. LEVINE: 20 they probably had some material brought in.
21 Lacks foundation. 21 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
22 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 22 Q. Would the sand that was brought in,
23 Q. You can answer. 23 would that be included as a cost that you would
24 A. No. 24 review?
25 (Brief recess.) 25 MR. LEVINE:
Page 141 Page 143
1 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 1 Objection.

2 Q. Just a last couple of follow-up 2 A. Yeah. I would fully expect Washington
3 questions and we'll finish, Mr. Montegut. The 3 to submit that in their monthly invoice for
4 delivery of outside materials for backfill, if 4 whatever period that it would have been brought
5 there were to be sand brought, those are the 5 in on. They certainly weren't going to give it
6 types of materials or the type of things that 6 to the government.
7 would be documented in the reports prepared by 7 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN:
8 WGI, is that correct? 8 Q. When you say -- originally when you
9 MR. LEVINE: 9 got involved in this deposition you said that a
10 Objection. Hypothetical. 10 lot of the fixed cost contracts were by how
11 A. I would expect that they would, yeah. 11 much material was either removed or brought in.
12 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 12 Was the materials that were being
13 Q. If the quality -- is quality assurance 13 brought into this job site under a fixed cost
14 report done by WGI or the Corps? 14 type payment scenario?
15 A. Corps. 15 A. No. It was cost reimbursement. So if
16 Q. So the quality control is the WGI 16 they paid $100 for a load of material, then we
17 document. 17 reimbursed them $100.
18 A. Right. 18 Q. By the time that you left the project
19 Q. If sand is brought onto the site, 19 in 2005, had the physical labor completed at
20 would that be included in the quality control 20 the IHNC?
21 report or the quality assurance report? 21 A. Yeah. The last day that I was there
22 MR. LEVINE: 22 we literally locked the gate and walked away.
23 Same objection as before. 23 Drove away.
24 A. It might actually be in both, but if 24 Q. And that was before Hurricane Katrina,
25 it were going to be in only one I would expect 25 correct?
Page 142 Page 144
36 (Pages 141 to 144)

8/8/2008
1 A. Yes. 1 government that if we -- since this

2 Q. Have you had any discussions with any 2 deposition was noticed both in MRGO
3 engineers at the Corps of Engineers or 3 and Robinson, our choices were to ask
4 associated with the IPET team that did the 4 all the questions we needed to, we had
5 investigation of the floodwall failures at the 5 an agreement with Mr. Bruno previously
6 IHNC? 6 that for these depositions we would
7 A. No. 7 not need to do that, and if we needed
8 Q. When did you retire? 8 to take them later we would arrange it
9 A. February of this year. 9 at a mutually convenient time to
10 Q. Have you undertaken of your own 10 continue the deposition. So I just
11 volition to review the IPET report that 11 wanted to confirm that agreement and
12 discussed the failures at the Lower Ninth Ward? 12 that we're reserving our right to ask
13 A. No. 13 this witness questions, if necessary,
14 Q. Do you know of any communications 14 later.
15 you've had with some of your colleagues, or now 15 MR. BEARDEN:
16 former colleagues, at the Corps about the IPET 16 Lake Borgne Levee District also
17 report? 17 joins.
18 A. No. 18 MR. LEVINE:
19 Q. Have you formulated any of your own 19 We'll read and sign.
20 personal opinions about the conclusions of the 20
21 IPET report? 21
22 MR. LEVINE: 22
23 Objection. Lacks foundation. 23
24 A. No, I've never read it, so I mean I'm 24
25 not familiar with it, so therefore no 25
Page 145 Page 147
1 conclusions. 1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE

2 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 2
3 Q. I have no other questions. Someone 3 I, JAMES A. MONTEGUT, III, do
4 else may. 4 hereby certify that the foregoing testimony was
5 (Brief recess.) 5 given by me, and that the transcription of said
6 EXAMINATION BY MR. LEVINE: 6 testimony, with corrections and/or changes, if
7 Q. Mr. Montegut, I just have a few 7 any, is true and correct as given by me on the
8 questions for you. I'm going to hand you 8 aforementioned date.
9 what's been labeled as Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 9
10 which for the record is WGI 57505 through WGI 10 ______________ _________________________
11 57523. Do you know what this is? 11 DATE SIGNED JAMES A. MONTEGUT, III
12 A. I've never seen it before today. Only 12
13 by the title here project completion report. 13 _______ Signed with corrections as noted.
14 The date September 5 is after I was involved -- 14
15 after I had stopped being involved in the 15 _______ Signed with no corrections noted.
16 project. 16
17 Q. Do you know whether this document was 17
18 transmitted from WGI to the U.S. Army Corps of 18
19 Engineers? 19
20 A. I do not know. 20
21 Q. I have no more questions. 21
22 MR. TREEBY: 22
23 For Washington Group, we are 23
24 reserving the right pursuant to the 24
25 agreement with Mr. Bruno and with the 25 DATE TAKEN: August 8th, 2008
Page 146 Page 148
37 (Pages 145 to 148)

8/8/2008
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 I, JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR,
3 Certified Court Reporter in and for the State
4 of Louisiana, do hereby certify that the
5 aforementioned witness, after having been first
6 duly sworn by me to testify to the truth, did
7 testify as hereinabove set forth;
8 That said deposition was taken by me
9 in computer shorthand and thereafter
10 transcribed under my supervision, and is a true
11 and correct transcription to the best of my
12 ability and understanding.
13 I further certify that I am not of
14 counsel, nor related to counsel or the parties
15 hereto, and am in no way interested in the
16 result of said cause.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 ____________________________________
24 JOSEPH A. FAIRBANKS, JR., CCR, RPR
25 CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER #75005
Page 149
38 (Page 149)
8/8/2008
Page 150
A action 1:4 132:7 105:1 announcement 84:23

abandoned activities 87:15 Agriculture 28:3 31:11 approved 66:9
74:23 92:2 102:9 31:15 33:7 answer 5:13 84:25 108:15
abilities 103:1 103:14 121:18 87:2 7:13,18 20:25 approving 66:3
ability 149:12 activity 55:13,16 ahead 62:7 21:7,10,12 66:4
able 32:24 82:5 55:19 56:20,21 air 95:20 25:15 32:17,19 approximately
aboveground 56:23 57:22 Alex 43:1 32:20,23,24 17:22 23:3
89:8 61:9,18 71:2 ALFIERI 3:9 39:9 40:1 27:9 41:14
Absolutely 16:7 91:24 92:13 allege 6:11 57:13,19 81:5 aquifer 138:14
accept 130:16 actual 44:22 allow 8:18 81:8 108:11 area 6:18 16:20
accepted 40:15 79:11 92:4,18 allowed 83:5 125:20 139:10 16:20,21,23,23
access 65:14 add 74:3 131:1,5 141:23 16:24 17:3
accomplish addition 28:2 allows 41:3 answered 57:17 19:15 26:15
45:17 56:20,23 additional 19:25 alternative 30:9 133:18 134:11 27:6,18 29:14
57:22 59:17 20:4 126:22 Alvin 42:25 answering 30:3 40:18
61:9,18 96:17 address 53:14 amateur 108:18 123:10 50:11 51:6,16
105:21 106:23 84:10 Ambiguous anticipated 82:9 74:10 77:17
accomplished addressed 88:19 114:25 115:12 132:3 95:5
20:8 30:25 addresses 71:18 ameliorate anybody 95:11 areas 15:24
54:24 55:22 adjacent 78:16 126:1 95:14 52:23 70:17
57:24 106:16 78:23 Amended 8:25 anyway 32:8 arithmetic
accomplishing administering 9:1 106:17 104:10
102:8 5:24 amendments apologize 103:8 Army 2:19
accomplishment administration 100:10 112:8 113:14 146:18
55:25 17:12 AMERICA 2:9 133:21 arrange 147:8
accountant 24:2 advanced 82:24 amount 14:10 apparently arrangement
24:10 advised 38:15 64:9 65:17 11:16 59:14 43:7
accountants 125:2 69:4 74:6 86:23 114:13 arrangements
127:14 affect 139:14 104:18 128:25 130:7 105:1,5
accounting affirmatively analysis 61:21 appear 95:16 arriving 54:24
83:24 41:20 62:13,21,23,25 96:2 97:11 asbestos 27:10
accounts 84:3 afford 106:11,13 87:25 88:8,11 APPEARANC... asbestos-conta...
accumulated aforementioned 88:21 89:7 2:1 27:20
69:10 5:4 148:8 97:4 107:23 appeared 6:14 asked 53:18
accurate 110:14 149:5 130:13 138:3 Appendix 93:24 103:7
accurately 7:21 agent 116:15 138:19 141:3 140:23 122:1 130:2
7:22 ago 60:12 93:24 analytical application 133:6,13,18
achieve 74:6 agree 24:9 129:12 31:10 64:9 134:11 137:17
achieved 73:6 140:14 analyze 116:20 applied 11:16 137:19
achievements AGREED 5:2 analyzing 13:9 apply 31:8 asking 9:3 22:11
133:8 agreed-to 41:10 108:7 appraisals 43:12 33:1 67:25
achieving 10:6 agreeing 41:9 anchor 61:3 approach 72:22 68:3 73:10
10:17 agreement 113:1 121:2 122:19 95:10 97:2
acquiring 128:3 146:25 and/or 19:21 approval 71:11 110:24 111:13
129:11 147:5,11 148:6 82:14 111:16 112:3
act 128:16 agreements angry 99:17 approve 43:13 112:18 113:11

8/8/2008
Page 151
113:24 114:1 95:16 107:2,2 believe 26:22 108:7

115:16 119:16 avoid 76:7 backyards 87:5 27:3,12 38:5 born 9:8,12
125:9,11,17 award 41:11 87:12 53:5 67:11 borrow 65:20
131:19,21 aware 49:12 Bacuta 54:1,2 71:7 73:15 66:13,15 67:3
136:5,7 137:5 114:21 115:3 108:19 138:22 78:25 79:9,23 boss 32:1,3
137:7,8,23 115:14,22 138:24 86:5 87:16 bottom 100:17
aspect 36:7,9 127:1 135:4 bad 83:2 102:19 104:24 112:6,7 122:14,20
assign 31:8 143:16 BAEZA 2:13 112:10 126:23 box 2:14 39:13
135:1 59:3 beneath 77:16 64:22
assigned 12:1 B ball 95:21 Benjamin 2:15 boxes 70:17
13:2 17:25 B 109:3 balls 76:3 96:4 best 19:24 72:25 brace 58:3
37:21,22 51:3 bachelor 10:13 bank 6:17 19:15 102:25 103:20 braced 58:10
51:19 52:13 10:21 26:14 27:10,16 104:16 149:11 brackish 75:8
136:20 Bachelor's 10:1 29:13 30:2 better 24:7 brain 28:1
assist 29:2 back 8:12 12:2 40:17 50:11 25:18 31:25 branch 2:11
associated 29:20 12:16 19:10 51:6,16 77:17 53:21 77:13 12:1,17
68:10,12 145:4 21:16 22:4 84:3 86:19 106:10 129:21 breach 78:5,22
assurance 42:20 25:18 26:9 87:3 95:5 Beyond 128:23 breaches 1:4
69:14 142:13 27:5 32:4 101:19 bid 41:6 78:17
142:21 36:18 46:24 barge 86:23 bidding 41:7,8 break 8:15,19
atrophied 64:12,17,19 Baronne 2:5 big 92:20 97:13 65:14 72:2
135:11,15 65:18 67:3 base 79:12 bigger 106:7,9 89:23 92:19
attach 59:1,7 71:1 74:15 based 15:3 72:6 biggest 82:19,20 104:15
99:10 75:16 76:21,23 79:10 104:4 bit 12:3 17:20 breakage 76:6
attached 9:11 76:25 82:7,15 105:22 110:24 19:10 21:22 breakfast 60:13
60:11 62:2 82:17 83:20 basically 7:11 26:4 72:16,20 BRIAN 3:12
69:2,12,16 90:17 91:20 31:1 36:25 75:16 91:12 bricks 76:3
93:11 109:12 99:5 108:11 64:18 75:3 black 18:16,18 bridge 78:12
139:7 122:12 128:6,7 130:17 blah 69:3,4,4 Brief 72:3
Attaching 59:10 130:6,11 132:2 basis 56:1 69:19 blessing 130:18 141:25 146:5
attend 16:9 135:21 140:16 69:25 70:2 blocks 121:2 bring 102:17
attended 9:21 backed 128:21 137:9 141:12 boat 72:20 Brogna 43:1
attorney 6:8 backfill 64:2,6,9 Baton 1:12 Boland 78:13,16 69:22
71:24 64:10 66:9,19 bayou 17:25 Bonfouca 17:25 broken 92:10
August 1:13 67:16 68:5 18:23 19:5,20 18:23 19:5,20 Brother 9:16,19
61:15 93:23 71:5 72:8,10 19:23 20:1,3,5 19:24 20:1,4 brought 6:9
148:25 73:2,22 75:14 23:14,16 26:4 23:14,16 26:4 66:18 67:4,10
authorized 142:4 Bean 19:7 bookkeeper 24:2 102:13 142:5
35:10 background 9:7 BEARDEN 3:2 bookkeeping 142:19 143:4
available 31:7 22:3 114:11 147:15 8:24 143:20,22
83:10 131:2,4 123:13 bed 76:1,8 Borgne 147:16 144:4,11,13
131:9 132:5 backhoe 90:8 bees 107:6 boring 104:6,6 Bruno 2:3,3
135:21 91:19,20 beginning 25:22 borings 52:21,21 146:25 147:5
Avenue 2:22 backhoes 45:25 82:18 53:6,16 103:16 BS 10:3,17 11:6
78:12 backup 69:3 behalf 62:13 103:23,25 11:9
average 86:14 85:15 belief 79:12 104:2,8 108:1 bucket 71:9
backyard 107:1

8/8/2008
Page 152
91:20 car 44:16 86:22 channel 15:12 closest 78:11 competence

budget 134:4 87:14 99:24 30:1 35:7,25 closure 129:14 100:15,20
build 90:14 career 12:3 channels 14:25 Clouatre 42:25 101:7,13 134:2
building 87:23 case 17:8,11 29:6 69:21 competent 58:12
buildings 36:15 30:20 48:9 charge 68:9,12 coating 18:15 89:12
36:17,23 70:22 118:2 charges 128:20 cofferdam 58:2 complete 15:9
bunch 124:10 catch 95:19 cheaper 104:20 90:14 91:13,15 104:5
business 100:16 cause 7:25 74:8 check 83:12,25 91:23 93:2 completed
101:20 105:3,7 76:6 149:16 84:1 127:8 cofferdams 107:13 127:19
bypass 30:1 35:6 caused 72:11 chisel 89:23 90:18 135:9 144:19
35:25 102:9 choice 73:24 colleagues completeness
causing 47:15,15 choices 147:3 145:15,16 83:16
C caveman 89:25 chose 106:19 collect 104:22 completion
C 100:13 140:24 CCR 1:24 5:22 CHRIS 3:9 collecting 18:21 110:1,3
cake 60:19,23 149:2,24 civil 1:4 2:11 5:6 107:25 130:5 110:12 111:4
61:10 63:25 cc'ing 138:22 8:5 10:8 11:3,7 come 25:18 111:10 122:13
64:15 65:2 CEC 135:2,3 11:10,12,15,19 27:19 33:12 123:25 124:4
66:22 68:6 center 84:7 11:25 12:13,20 43:19 65:23 124:12,14,19
91:6 92:9 ceremony 37:5 13:13,14,16 95:24 104:20 125:1,3,4,10
calculations certain 11:12 Claiborne 78:12 comes 93:6 146:13
12:19,22 13:3 13:3,11 14:10 clarification coming 35:6 complicated
13:11 62:23 24:25 25:5 23:16 65:19 91:18,19,24
call 31:17 33:8,8 34:8 38:16 class 11:5 command 43:9 92:13 97:3,5
33:9 54:22 39:16 74:6 classes 11:8 48:4 104:10
67:6 85:25 102:8 104:25 classified 19:2 comment 98:14 composition
89:4 135:21 114:10 117:6 clay 76:3,3 comments 59:20 50:20 51:7,14
called 12:16 15:7 129:2 CLAYMAN 70:14 99:7,17 51:15
16:19 27:10 certainly 144:5 3:11 commit 83:6,9 compound 20:24
29:15 41:11 CERTIFICATE clean 20:1,6 communication 39:1 50:15
58:16 69:7 148:1 149:1 35:19,19,20 85:7,17 51:9,18 61:24
99:4 107:17 certified 1:25 130:18 communicatio... 67:8 81:22
123:24 124:4 5:23 58:11 cleaned 35:14,14 138:21 145:14 92:16 118:13
calling 58:1 108:14 149:3 cleaning 41:8 compact 71:9,19 computations
125:21 126:2 149:25 cleanup 18:2 74:9 13:3 15:1,12
135:23 certify 148:4 27:14 30:2 compacted 15:15 47:1,2
Calls 50:22 88:4 149:4,13 77:12 74:10 computer 12:18
116:23 119:14 chain 31:13 43:9 clear 100:21 compaction 71:4 13:9,10 63:1
123:18 136:1 48:4 127:15 71:13,21 73:5 149:9
canal 1:4 26:15 chance 101:2 clearly 124:18 74:7 concept 139:13
29:22 75:9 chances 73:9 clicking 28:1 companies 19:13 concepts 99:20
76:23 86:19,24 change 13:7 client 131:10 53:9 concern 67:24
87:13 139:24 changed 17:23 133:8 company 53:5 72:7 107:24
140:5 32:5 132:14,16 climate 105:21 80:10,14,16,17 concerned 74:17
capable 35:9 changes 122:18 close 8:18 43:7 94:5 106:3,20 101:17 105:8,8
58:12 132:18,21 95:25 107:15,16,19 105:12 112:20
capacity 15:17 148:6 closely 82:11 108:6,13 116:7 143:7
109:6 114:16

8/8/2008
Page 153
concerns 51:24 86:6 93:1 116:14 59:23 61:8 46:15 48:14

82:20 104:18 94:13 130:20 contracts 15:3 62:13 77:23 49:14 64:2
conclusions consult 28:21,22 20:21,22 22:6 80:4 82:4 86:9 82:4 94:2
133:24,25 contact 44:1 28:7,8 144:10 91:10 98:4 97:13
145:20 146:1 127:12 contractual 108:15 111:11 courses 11:13,14
concrete 36:22 contained 28:20 33:17 111:20 115:25 16:9
89:16 121:1 140:22 contractually 117:4 118:6,25 court 1:1,25
conduit 75:25 contaminated 41:4 55:22 119:21 121:11 5:23 6:2 7:13
77:5 35:11 52:23 contrast 22:5 121:17 124:20 7:20 8:7,12
confident 127:21 64:15 control 46:23 128:15 135:1,5 149:3,25
confirm 147:11 contamination 142:16,20 142:14,15 cover 68:19
conform 76:10 35:15 52:22,24 143:1,4 145:3,16 cracked 74:20
confusing 26:3 103:16 controversial 146:18 crank 62:25
39:2 content 112:4 70:18,21 correct 17:1 credentials 31:6
confusion 7:25 contents 100:7 convenient 18:8 29:23 credit 77:9
congratulated context 80:11 147:9 35:10 61:10,11 Creek 101:23
94:4 109:18 123:5 conversations 61:16 64:3,4 133:12,14
conjunction 124:24 63:17 65:9 74:2 creosote 18:6,12
22:25 continue 9:19 conveyed 31:12 78:15 79:10 20:5
connecting 29:5 147:10 convoluted 84:20,21,23 crew 105:23
consider 52:9 contract 7:6,8 132:11 85:21 96:18,23 106:22 107:17
74:18 77:8 15:7 17:12 coordination 97:3,9,10 criteria 129:7,14
91:18 105:18 19:22,23,24 87:9 125:7 128:18 CRONIN 3:4
considerations 20:8,9,10 copies 94:16 142:8 144:25 96:21 97:19
118:17 121:9 22:15,22 73:20 copy 85:14 98:24 148:7 149:11 110:8,20 111:1
considered 73:21 83:3 140:24 corrections 111:18 112:11
18:24 40:21 116:4,13,19 COR 83:8 148:6,13,15 112:19 113:3
80:16 117:5 cordial 54:6 corrective 132:7 113:13 124:6
consistently 76:2 contracting core 100:15,20 correctly 30:23 125:6,12 137:2
consisting 36:14 28:21 33:18,22 101:7,13 134:2 30:23 89:14,19 cross-sections
CONSOLIDA... 33:23 34:2 corporate 134:5 103:24 106:19 15:11
1:5 74:1 82:14 corporation 130:3 cube 92:20
constitute 65:11 83:8 105:4 19:6 20:9 cost 22:22 73:21 cubic 15:6,13
constraints 97:7 contractor 17:14 97:13 106:14 127:7,9 41:8
construct 91:15 19:7 22:23 Corps 2:19,20 127:22 128:5 curious 56:4
constructed 26:21 38:12 6:10 7:8 11:2 143:23 144:10 99:22
36:16 39:18,19 41:5 11:17,25 12:4 144:13,15 current 140:3
constructing 43:22 46:14 12:9,14 13:6 costs 83:21 curriculum
14:23 48:17,20,21 14:20 15:3 126:22,23 11:11,16
construction 70:20 83:5 16:16 20:6 counsel 2:20 5:3 cushion 76:9
14:5,7,13,17 89:12 117:3 23:25 28:5 125:2 149:14 cut 22:20 79:7
14:22 15:22 128:17 135:3 31:7,19 32:9 149:14 83:25 84:1
16:4,18,19 contractors 15:4 33:19 37:2 couple 25:23 92:21
17:8 28:24 15:8 19:4 38:11,14 39:18 71:17 142:2 cutting 37:5
33:6 36:19 135:2 39:20 42:19 course 11:19 cycle 128:14
59:15 75:23 contractor's 48:17 51:4,4 20:3 33:12 C-O-R-E 100:21

8/8/2008
Page 154
C-O-R-P-S decisions 109:8 8:4 9:1,2 54:11 40:9 46:20 140:13

100:22 114:18 115:6 82:19 124:25 56:17,22 69:8 disagreements
C.F 19:7 115:18,24 144:9 147:2,10 131:13 106:1
deep 55:3 91:8 149:8 devil 98:15,18 discovered 20:4
D 91:21 104:7,7 depositions 7:3,5 99:2 134:25 61:4 86:21
D 3:5 4:1 deeper 91:5 18:25 147:6 135:4 discretion 105:7
daily 44:1 56:1 deepest 40:21 DEPO-VUE diameter 75:4 discuss 21:5
69:7,13,19,24 defend 115:5 3:15 Dicharry 29:7,9 117:21
70:2 116:8 118:5 depression difference 22:21 discussed 48:16
damage 6:10 121:8 74:12 differences 145:12
47:15 48:23 defended 109:7 depth 79:17 22:13,17 discussing 37:14
49:6 114:17 115:23 104:8 different 14:24 139:17
damaged 74:21 defending describe 17:5 14:25 20:18 discussion 47:24
DAN 2:13 115:17 design 29:14 42:24 96:15 82:19 104:2
dancer 95:13 defense 113:1 37:17 58:2,6 111:8 112:8,13 discussions
data 13:9 69:3 deficient 74:2 77:24 139:22 120:16 132:24 47:20 48:12
129:11 130:5,9 defined 122:13 140:23 134:15 141:19 54:6 101:9
130:11,14 degree 10:1 13:8 designation 10:8 difficult 86:11 105:25 145:2
date 7:23 58:14 105:11 108:15 86:16 87:1,9 dishwasher
58:20 128:6 delivery 142:4 designed 58:11 87:16,22 88:1 35:23
143:5 146:14 143:12 desk 128:13 88:14,23 89:17 disposal 35:7,8
148:8,11,25 DELORIMIER deteriorated 95:15 96:1,6 35:11
dated 30:9 61:14 3:15 75:1,9 77:5 100:11 101:12 dispose 35:12
93:23 demanded deteriorating difficulties 94:5 dispute 124:1
DAVID 2:21 131:11 75:18 96:14,16 97:12 disputes 7:6,8
day 24:25 70:22 demobilization determination 101:23 102:3,9 distinct 55:15
95:24 104:5,23 55:18 24:7 102:23 103:9 78:10
106:10 143:19 demolition 36:1 determine 15:1 114:21 district 1:1,2
144:21 36:5,7,11,21 15:13 42:9 difficulty 86:11 14:18,20 16:21
days 128:14,17 89:12,15 52:19,22 61:22 91:25 102:11 20:9,10 85:8
day's 105:21 Dennis 44:6,11 62:16 63:6 102:17 85:18,19 86:4
DDM 29:15 44:16 45:22 103:16 dig 45:14,24 135:1 147:16
DDR 29:15 51:25 93:14,16 determined 97:5 divided 78:9
deal 61:1 98:14 95:3 96:3 11:17 digging 91:21 division 2:11
98:18 99:1 101:10,15 detrimental diploma 10:12 12:16 14:5,5,8
dealing 16:10 104:17,24 100:15 101:19 10:13 14:14,17,22
71:2 106:4 127:13 develop 29:25 direct 73:25 15:22,23 16:4
dealings 54:9 Denver 127:14 38:15 47:4 74:14 83:6 16:18,19
87:24 department 2:10 developed 30:4 direction 39:15 118:24 119:25
deals 134:24 118:9 130:15 39:20 56:9,11 directive 132:22 121:17
dealt 94:1 depend 28:18 56:16,19 57:6 directives 48:19 dock 86:20
DEBRA 3:11 depending 17:10 57:7,8 61:9 49:4,9,11,13 document 40:16
decide 120:22 depends 43:24 114:13 132:15 directly 53:11 69:1 71:16
decided 19:25 deponent 5:10 137:9 dirt 15:5 64:19 79:5,16 80:2
20:6 deposition 1:10 development 75:19 98:8,22 109:22
decision 102:16 5:4,14 6:21,25 29:5,16 30:7 disagree 140:9 110:10,13,18
106:2 122:2

8/8/2008
Page 155
110:21 111:4,6 108:1 effect 71:8 26:3 27:2 51:4 62:14

111:7,10,12 drive 30:5 91:14 100:15 engaged 19:16 77:23 80:18
112:22 114:12 driving 91:16,22 effective 30:25 20:11 98:4 115:25
119:22 121:14 drove 77:14 46:6,7,10,14 engagement 117:4 118:25
121:16 122:11 144:23 effectively 19:20 119:21 121:17
124:8,13 due 103:18 103:22 engineer 11:3,8 124:20 136:14
125:11,14 dug 64:18 77:5 effectiveness 11:10,19,25 136:20 145:3,3
132:23 137:1,3 91:10 46:17 12:5,21 13:2 146:19
137:24 142:17 duly 6:4 149:6 effectuate 85:9 13:10,13,14,16 ensure 82:16
146:17 dump 46:1 efficiency 46:5 17:4 25:4,6 ensuring 30:22
documentation 143:16 46:14,16 61:24 27:6 30:17 entail 70:12
28:13 40:9 duties 14:6,12 63:15 102:8 42:17 50:10 entailed 17:6,7
42:7 68:24 DUVAL 1:6 105:9 106:21 52:4,12 57:3 enter 10:24
documented DYER 2:21 efficient 30:25 58:8,13 62:24 entered 11:24
142:7 dynamics 11:14 45:11 46:9 66:2 79:14,15 14:15 16:3
documents 6:14 D.C 2:16 60:4 79:21,25 80:22 environmental
18:25 21:23 efficiently 81:11,17 88:16 19:18 130:15
37:20,25 38:5 E 103:22 106:5 95:2,13 97:23 135:8,9,11,14
42:12 68:17,20 E 3:2 4:1,1 effort 104:13 98:4,13 101:4 EPA 20:5 27:11
80:3,13 85:15 earlier 35:5 44:5 efforts 41:12 102:3,21 108:5 28:4,6,8
93:8 132:22 74:22 123:24 either 8:11 48:9 108:12 114:3 equipment
doing 12:22,25 131:24 139:17 52:11 81:17 114:20 115:3 45:16,17
13:1 15:24 early 26:23 144:11 118:23 129:5 103:20 106:8
24:12 28:6 41:21 46:12 electrical 10:8 129:10,16 equivalent 80:15
30:24 34:16 47:19 102:7 76:15 77:1 131:22 135:14 ERIC 3:8
45:10,20 46:7 ease 23:15 electricity 25:1 138:3,8,11,17 erosion 47:15
46:9 53:13 easily 88:17 electronic 84:2 140:8 141:2,6 ESQ 3:2,3,4,5,8
101:11 103:20 east 6:17 19:14 electronically engineering 10:2 3:9,10,11,12
104:16 108:6 26:14 29:13 94:12 10:4,5,11,14 ESQUIRE 2:4
114:7 117:21 30:2 40:17 elements 74:7 10:18 11:5,6,9 2:12,13,21
136:16 50:11 51:6,16 86:4 107:7 11:11,12,15 essence 15:23
dollars 69:5 77:17 94:13 Elevation 77:25 12:13,15,17,19 essentially
door 27:22,22 95:5 101:18 emphasize 46:5 12:22 14:5 116:15
Draft 61:14 140:20 employee 13:5 24:13,14,21 establish 46:13
drafting 40:10 EASTERN 1:2 23:6 51:4,13 25:3,11,12 established
drawings 13:4 easy 39:12 74:4 51:23 93:20 56:25 57:22,25 124:7 125:13
dredge 17:14,14 87:1 88:22 135:5 58:1 60:3 establishing
35:8,11,12 95:17 96:2,5 employment 61:22 62:12,21 66:4
dredging 14:24 99:3 138:2 13:20 14:19 63:15,18 76:7 estimation
15:6 17:9,11 eat 18:14 35:21 encased 75:6 118:6,9,15,18 104:19
18:3 19:9 27:7 EBIA 31:17 32:2 encompass 118:24 119:25 evaluate 31:7
35:6,25 33:8 94:2,3 64:22 121:16 126:11 136:14
dressing 67:10 127:22 encounter 107:6 engineers 2:19 evaluated 22:17
drill 104:21,22 educate 38:1 encountered 2:20 6:10 7:9 22:18
106:22 107:16 education 9:20 70:19 11:3,17 12:9 evaluation 29:6
drilling 107:22 9:25 10:17 ended 25:25 12:14 37:3 121:18 138:4
16:9

8/8/2008
Page 156
evaluations 134:22 136:8 expectation face 34:21 49:10,18 55:4

116:21 117:1,7 138:1,7 139:12 80:22 81:12 fact 44:15 63:7 77:24 79:2,7
118:7,15 140:15 141:22 116:18 65:21 66:8 79:18 91:3,21
131:12 142:1,12 143:2 expectations 85:17 103:18 104:7,7 140:21
evenly 76:17 143:21 144:7 87:6 108:7 109:9 fell 101:6
eventually 106:1 146:2,6 expected 51:13 135:10 136:13 felt 24:10 28:15
everybody 9:3 examined 6:5 57:3 139:21 32:10 45:15
evidence 5:15 example 24:22 expecting 117:6 facts 79:11 63:4,8 82:21
39:5 125:17 45:12,13 87:3 expedite 85:6 failed 94:5 82:24 96:5
Ex 85:4 87:3 118:19 expenditure failures 145:5,12 105:22 115:4
exact 41:1 examples 45:8 22:25 23:22 fair 7:16 8:22 121:24 137:16
exactly 118:14 excavated 64:17 expenditures 16:2 23:19 fence 33:13
exaggerating 65:17 74:11 131:12 25:17 137:19 field 10:5 52:8
46:2 excavating 41:7 expense 23:5 FAIRBANKS 86:3 105:17
EXAMINATI... excavation 127:6 1:24 5:22 106:14
4:3 6:6 9:13 40:21 58:3,10 expenses 41:10 149:2,24 fifteen 15:19,20
18:19 21:17 60:16,20 63:25 experience 47:7 fairly 55:3 65:13 fifty 95:22
24:18 25:16 64:23 65:1,13 72:24 87:18 fairway 95:23 figure 25:17
32:15,22 38:21 121:1 90:10 91:2,9 fallen 86:23 104:11
39:6,25 44:10 excavations 47:2 98:3 102:24 falling 6:11 file 69:18
44:17 45:7 55:3 72:9 90:5 105:22 136:18 familiar 20:15 files 111:19
48:10 49:2,25 90:19,20 91:1 experiencing 24:5 54:2 fill 65:4,11,19,23
50:17,25 51:11 91:5 96:16 78:20 93:18,19 66:10 74:3
51:21 59:21 excavator 71:10 expert 52:9 101:22 102:2 final 40:16 67:10
60:15 62:11 97:6 expertise 14:11 122:8 127:1 67:10 140:16
63:23 65:8 exceed 79:1 47:4 122:6,11 138:13 139:5 finance 83:24
66:25 67:13,21 131:2 experts 53:21 139:13 140:12 84:6 100:1
72:4 78:3 81:3 exceeded 131:4 explain 59:16 140:14 145:25 financial 25:10
81:10,16,25 excess 104:5 72:16 129:21 familiarize 82:5,10,13
88:7 89:6 90:4 Excuse 27:25 explained 35:17 108:4 100:2
90:24 92:23 53:22 111:23 far 9:24 28:6 find 31:4 70:23
93:13 94:25 exhibit 4:8,10,11 expose 64:17 55:25 66:3 86:11
95:9 96:24 4:12,13,14,15 exposed 75:8 73:2 77:20 finish 7:12 142:3
97:22 98:11 8:25 9:10 59:5 expressed 105:7 128:15 finished 31:16
99:14 101:1 59:8 60:8,10 104:17 105:24 favor 73:7 94:8
108:17,25 61:13 62:1 106:4 129:3 fax 85:2,3 fire 8:15
109:14,23 93:10 109:11 extent 52:23 faxed 85:13 firm 1:11 15:7
114:4 115:2,21 120:14,19 extraordinary feasible 62:17 20:21 22:5,15
116:17 117:2 121:15 126:2,4 90:10 February 145:9 23:17
118:16 119:10 126:25 139:6 Ex'd 85:4 Fed 85:4,4 first 6:4 8:23 9:6
119:17,23 140:1 146:9 eye 24:12 Federal 5:6 11:1 14:7
120:8,25 122:4 expect 106:22,24 eyes 53:20 fee 41:11 16:14 20:14
123:12 126:5 116:7 117:10 E-mail 93:5 feel 34:21 39:9 23:20 26:5,11
126:20 129:4 117:11 121:8 138:21 140:2 95:4 26:16 30:12
129:23 130:22 121:15 142:11 140:16 feelings 129:2 31:4 34:4,12
133:4,20 142:25 144:2 feet 8:15 41:7 34:25 36:11
F

8/8/2008
Page 157
37:11 40:22 foot 23:3 Friday 70:8,8 geotech 140:19 117:22 118:19
42:6 45:5 football 95:13,18 front 54:22 geotechnical 122:2 127:8,12
47:18 52:3 95:19,21 76:21,21,22 16:10 52:2,4 128:1 130:19
64:11 71:25 forces 89:20 87:4 143:15 52:12,25 God 93:12
91:1,3 104:24 foregoing 148:4 fulfill 31:21 136:14,20 goes 82:17
105:13 114:23 forget 72:12 fully 144:2 getting 17:19 108:11 127:17
149:5 83:22 full-time 13:5,19 22:10 31:2 140:21
five 13:25 85:16 forgot 127:11 function 12:21 88:17 91:11 going 7:12 13:23
91:3 104:15 form 5:12 38:25 13:21 16:15 96:15 97:12 15:18 17:20
143:18 39:23 44:24 17:18 36:5 106:5 29:21 30:5,15
five-year 14:1 48:7 49:22 functions 25:5 GILLEY 3:15 30:20 31:5,16
fix 74:15 89:4 70:16,16,17,17 funded 27:11 give 7:18 21:12 31:20 34:19
118:2 83:22,23,23 28:4 41:5 45:8 35:3,5 36:3,4,6
fixed 15:7 20:21 84:10 130:10 funding 82:8 53:14 57:10 39:21 40:4
22:5,15 23:17 formal 10:16 98:15 131:2,4 70:6,8,9 77:9 41:21 45:4
144:10,13 31:11 34:13 131:9,25 132:1 84:5 85:3 56:21 59:1,11
flexibility 41:4 formalities 5:8 132:5,14,19 99:12 106:6 62:4,17 63:2
flood 37:6 46:23 former 145:16 134:25 123:14 126:12 64:23 71:1,18
47:5 forms 85:14,16 funds 83:7,10 144:5 73:18,20 93:5
flooded 78:17 formulated 84:2 98:19 given 1:11 6:21 93:9,22 94:22
floodwall 47:10 145:19 funneled 54:20 6:24 39:15 96:3 99:10
48:23 49:6,10 forth 140:17 furnish 17:14 48:20 49:5 107:6 117:8,21
49:19 77:17 149:7 further 16:9 111:20 121:25 117:22 118:2
140:19 141:4,8 forties 89:9 20:5 60:17 148:5,7 122:12 126:6
145:5 forward 72:21 82:25 120:24 gives 79:16 126:10 127:25
floodwalls 6:11 84:6,20 130:19 122:3 124:1 giving 54:7 131:7 132:9,12
flow 79:8 131:14 forwarded 149:13 123:5,13 140:2,6 141:16
131:15,22 119:25 120:3 future 131:13 glad 8:11,16 142:25 144:5
138:4,9,12,19 120:20 121:16 fuzzy 17:20 59:2 60:8 146:8
139:2,4,23 forwarding 92:17 67:22 96:6,9 GOLDBERG
140:4,5 141:3 118:8 96:10 3:8
141:7 found 11:15 G go 9:14 15:10 golf 95:18,21,24
flowed 139:23 foundation game 95:18 31:16 32:25 Gonzales 6:2
flowing 138:14 36:22,24 61:4 gas 76:25 33:4,14,14,18 good 61:1 64:11
flying 95:20 90:13 121:2 GASPARD 3:10 35:9,21 37:8 73:4 75:17
focus 10:4 30:22 124:8 125:14 gate 37:6,8 37:22 39:12,13 77:9 83:14
70:20 141:17,21 143:15 144:22 45:6,19,22 95:11,14 96:7
focused 16:5 145:23 geared 25:10 46:24 49:16 100:24 122:16
25:9 36:6 foundations generally 54:4 51:23,25 52:1 gotten 73:10
Fogarty 32:7 52:6,13 69:1 70:13 53:11 62:7,25 government
fogged 28:2 four 13:25 17:21 gentleman 44:6 70:22 72:25 17:24 83:7
folks 28:23 85:16 geochemist 74:2,14 80:20 144:6 147:1
83:24 94:9 fourteen 15:20 54:12 108:20 81:12 83:6,9 grading 67:10
105:15 fourth 7:2 geologist 51:22 91:5 95:23 graduate 9:17
follows 6:5 Franklin 2:15 George 54:1,2,9 104:22 105:19 graduated 10:10
follow-up 142:2 free 35:15 54:21 108:19 113:2 117:21 12:11
138:22,24

8/8/2008
Page 158
graduating 50:18 54:5 head 7:19,19 hundred 41:8 incorporated

10:23 63:5,9,14,18 139:8 95:21 103:25 65:3
graduation 12:4 84:5,20,22 heads 89:2 Hurricane incorrect 61:16
12:8 103:3 120:21 hear 97:24 98:13 144:24 79:10 128:21
gravel 76:16 121:25 138:23 98:17 99:6 hypothetical incorrectly
ground 36:14 guy 29:7 32:25 101:5 133:2 142:10 118:4
56:7 74:12 33:4 44:5 heard 98:4 incurred 23:6
75:19,25 89:15 91:20 heavily 29:10 I indicate 101:11
103:19 95:3 99:21 hello 34:16 idea 79:3 111:22
groundwater 107:17 137:19 hereinabove ideas 33:15 indicated 54:11
79:8 138:4,9 guys 34:19,25 149:7 identification 126:18 132:22
138:12,14,16 37:15 42:1 hereto 5:3 9:11 9:11 60:11 139:2
138:19 139:1,4 44:1 45:5,24 60:11 62:2 62:2 93:11 indicates 79:17
139:15,23 72:19 73:10 93:11 109:12 109:12 139:7 99:2 109:1,4
140:4,18 141:3 95:4,19 110:18 139:7 149:15 identify 52:23 114:13 122:14
141:7 herewith 69:2 IHNC 33:8,9 135:7 140:17
Group 19:16 H hesitate 35:13 34:5 40:22 indicating
30:20 34:7 half 12:7 hey 45:22 117:23 41:16 50:4 138:25
41:18 42:8 hammer 89:23 117:25 53:25 60:17 indication 64:1
53:3 58:4 92:20 hierarchy 43:9 67:2 77:18 130:24 143:3
69:10 82:11 Hamps 59:14 high 9:14 23:3,3 78:9 86:10 individual 97:4
87:25 91:24 hand 21:22 higher 48:3 101:19 114:20 individuals
92:2,5,13 93:7 146:8 122:6 123:16 126:14 85:21
100:14,16 handle 80:23 Highway 1:12 138:18 141:4,8 induced 72:10
102:5 109:5,6 handwriting hire 80:20 89:4 144:20 145:6 industrial 6:18
114:15,16,22 111:12,17 hired 11:18 14:9 III 1:10 3:2 6:1 19:15 26:15,15
115:4,23 116:5 122:21 124:11 53:22,23 91:10 148:3,11 29:14,22 30:2
116:8 117:5,19 125:22 130:25 history 16:14 immaterial 36:20 40:17
117:23,24,25 134:23 137:3 hit 95:21 117:18 50:11 51:6,16
118:8 134:1,3 handwritten hold 8:14 27:12 implies 35:15 75:8 77:17
136:13 146:23 113:7 132:8 128:3 important 7:17 95:5 107:5
Group's 133:9 133:10 134:5 holding 71:16 7:21 46:15 139:24
guess 25:3,23 135:7 75:19 importantly inefficient
30:5 37:16 happen 77:3 hole 45:14,24 109:4 103:18
55:16 56:14 83:19 58:9 64:2,13 imported 67:5,6 influence 139:2
57:13 60:18 happened 45:12 64:14,18 65:19 67:16 informally 60:18
61:7 64:11 48:9 59:18 74:12 75:22 impress 46:18 information 9:7
65:15 73:13 70:23 117:20 91:10 97:5 impression 89:1 54:20 110:25
83:1 84:13 hard 89:11 106:10 107:22 improperly 25:7 112:5 123:14
86:3 87:6 103:19 105:17 holes 104:23 improve 35:18 139:2 140:18
91:17 94:12 harder 76:5 94:1 107:12 improved 140:22
96:12 102:19 95:6 home 37:8 139:19 inherently 62:19
118:14 harm 77:8 honestly 75:14 inception 37:17 initial 35:1
guide 38:17 hazard 65:15 hot 105:15 include 64:23 initially 38:17
Guillory 33:3,6 hazardous 18:1 hour 8:19 included 23:8 104:4
33:11,14 47:20 19:1 HTRW 18:24 36:1 64:7 injury 7:6
hazards 107:6 142:20 143:23

8/8/2008
Page 159
inquiry 124:25 145:5 IPET 145:4,11 62:8,11 63:23 42:15 43:3,17

insert 122:15 invited 34:17 145:16,21 65:8 66:23,25 43:18 45:17
insight 72:21 invoice 69:3 Iraq 93:25 95:6 67:13,21 71:23 47:8 53:24
126:12 83:13,16,17 96:11 72:4 78:3 81:3 67:9 73:15
inspector 70:19 84:4,11,14 iron 92:20 81:10,16,25 86:12 87:10
inspectors 42:19 85:20 127:5,6 issue 28:17,18 88:7 89:6 90:4 88:13,22,23
69:15 127:20 128:2 28:19 29:3 90:24 92:23 89:11 94:8
instances 115:22 128:12,18,22 33:12,17 43:17 93:13 94:17,21 96:8 106:25
128:8 131:3 144:3 45:3,9 48:15 94:25 95:9 107:3,8 127:17
132:4 invoices 127:25 53:12 85:23 96:24 97:22 135:10 144:13
instigated 99:25 invoicing 132:14 87:14 126:23 98:9,11 99:11 jobs 30:17 94:1
instruct 21:10 132:19 130:16 99:14 100:23 jog 126:12,16
32:19 involve 18:3 issued 39:14 101:1 108:17 John 32:7
integrally 36:4 55:23 108:25 109:14 joins 147:17
108:20 involved 6:15 issues 16:10 109:23 110:17 joint 19:12
intent 128:9 7:5 14:23 18:5 32:10 33:23 110:23 111:21 112:25
interaction 19:5 21:24 46:4 47:5 112:14,24 Jones 131:10
43:21 54:1,14 23:21 25:20 70:18,21 83:18 113:9,25 114:4 JOSEPH 1:24
63:14 100:2 26:12,17,20 88:18 91:12 115:2,9,13,21 3:2 5:22 149:2
interest 106:4 27:1,3,5,8 29:4 101:18 102:6 116:17 117:2 149:24
interested 29:10,12,15 103:13 114:2 118:16 119:6 JR 1:24 5:22
149:15 30:7,12 31:6 115:4 119:15,17 149:2,24
interests 100:17 33:5 34:4,14 items 15:5 120:8,15,25 judge 1:6 21:5
101:20 36:11,21 37:11 I-DEP 3:7 122:4 123:4,12 juggle 96:4
internal 128:25 38:5 40:8,14 I-wall 47:3 124:3,15,22 JULIA 3:4
interpret 137:5 40:23 41:23 I-walls 46:21 125:8,15 126:3 June 140:4
137:7 47:2,18 48:22 i.e 98:19 126:5,20 129:4 junk 18:12
interpretable 49:4 53:7 129:23 130:22 jurisdiction
130:10 54:22 55:11 J 133:4,20 16:22
interpreting 56:22,25 57:4 JAMES 1:10 6:1 134:14,22 JUSTICE 2:10
7:24 57:7,9,12,18 148:3,11 136:4,8 137:6 justifiable 24:8
interruptions 60:5 61:21 January 41:22 137:15 138:1,5 127:22
98:19 131:14 62:12 66:1,7 42:4 57:8 138:7 139:12 justified 28:13
131:16,23 69:8 71:11 Jaws 107:17,18 140:15 141:11 28:16
134:25 86:20 91:13,16 Jefferson 1:11 141:18,22 justify 106:12,13
interval 70:4 91:16 101:16 27:17 142:1,12 143:2
introduced 34:5 103:2,11 Joanen 2:4 4:5 143:21 144:7 K
34:8,12 108:21 134:20 6:6,7 9:13 146:2 Katrina 1:4
introducing 138:3,18 141:2 18:11,19 21:1 JOANN 119:10 144:24
125:16 141:15 144:9 21:17 24:18 119:23 keep 82:5
introduction 146:14,15 25:16 32:15,22 job 11:1,2,7,10 kept 69:11
100:10 involvement 38:21 39:6,25 13:6,18,21 kick 33:15 95:20
introductions 20:19 22:14 44:10,17 45:7 15:17 16:14 kind 17:19 24:10
35:1 44:18 55:14 48:10 49:2,25 17:17 30:14 26:3,7 27:25
inventory 106:8 114:20 133:14 50:17,25 51:11 31:12,17 32:11 28:2 37:1
investigation involves 63:24 51:21 58:25 40:25 41:9 57:17 72:24
59:6,21 60:15 76:9 82:17

8/8/2008
Page 160
86:2 96:6 104:14 106:7 lab 108:14,15 leave 43:13 49:21 50:14,21
99:22 105:14 106:15,23 130:6,6,11 120:21 51:8,17 58:23
108:11,13 107:5,7 108:1 labeled 124:13 led 23:2 29:24 59:9 62:3
139:16 108:5,12 109:9 146:9 30:1 40:10 63:20 65:5
knack 95:15 110:13 112:15 labor 41:15,19 112:6,7,9 66:20 67:7,17
knew 40:24 112:17 115:16 44:22 96:17 Lee 33:3,6,11,14 72:1 78:1
80:20,22 93:15 116:3,9 117:7 107:21 116:10 33:16 37:15 81:21 88:3,24
102:23 114:2 117:17,23,24 144:19 47:20 50:18 90:2 92:15
127:25 118:14,22 laboratory 54:5 63:5,9,12 94:15,19 95:7
know 10:11 12:2 119:1,2,11,16 129:12 63:14,18 84:5 96:19 97:17
13:1 15:2 119:18 120:2 laborers 45:21 84:20,22,24 98:7 99:9
17:16,19 18:17 122:9 123:20 lack 53:20 85:3,6,11 86:2 100:19 108:23
19:14,22 23:25 127:16,17,21 104:13 130:25 86:2 103:3 113:18,22
24:24 25:15,25 128:10,16,20 Lacks 141:17,21 120:20 121:25 114:24 115:7
26:8 27:21 129:9,15,20,24 145:23 138:22 115:11,15
28:23 31:14,23 131:3,15,21,24 ladders 75:5 left 77:13 99:4 116:1,22
31:24 34:10,25 132:4 133:3,13 Lafayette 16:23 144:18 117:15 118:12
35:20 36:19 135:3,23 136:9 laid 77:6 143:13 legal 80:2 119:4,8,13
37:4,9,16,19 136:9,12,18,21 Lake 147:16 lessen 35:18 120:5,13,17
38:14 40:24 138:8,11,14 land 79:13,21,25 lesser 93:16,17 121:21 123:2
41:1,1,10,11 139:21 140:13 80:10,18 105:11 138:22 123:22 124:9
41:12,24 42:24 141:6,16 large 65:13 75:4 138:25,25 124:17 125:25
43:13 45:19,23 143:12,17,18 103:22 letter 68:22,23 127:2 129:17
46:8 50:24 143:19 145:14 larger 104:21 68:25 132:25 134:12
51:19 52:16,25 146:11,17,20 lasted 26:6 letters 19:11 134:18 135:25
55:17 56:2,3 knowing 80:13 lateral 30:4 130:17 136:6 137:11
56:13,13 57:5 knowledge LAURA 3:3 letting 94:7 137:22 139:9
57:6,23 58:6,7 14:10 31:11 law 1:11 5:7 let's 23:16 45:15 140:10 141:9
58:8,11 59:12 36:10 40:20 24:23 90:20 104:1 141:14,20
59:23 62:19 48:19 49:3 lawyer 24:23 levee 15:12 142:9,22 143:9
64:16,18,21,25 50:18 51:1,2,3 67:22 95:14 17:10 37:7 143:25 145:22
65:12,12,16,21 51:10,12 52:17 lay 76:1,8 48:23 74:25 146:6 147:18
66:8,12,13 56:8,12 57:20 layers 50:12,13 147:16 liaison 86:3
69:2,4 70:7,23 68:4 50:13 levees 14:24 15:6 122:8
71:3 73:4,12 knowledgeable laying 76:14 15:24 46:20 licensed 58:7,13
74:20,24,25 52:6,13 LDEQ 130:14 levee/floodwall 79:14,21,25
76:5,13 77:20 known 6:16 130:18 140:20 80:14,16,17
78:5,8,9 80:6,9 143:6 lead 22:6 28:4 level 52:22 79:8 lift 55:5,6,20
83:14 85:10,15 knows 136:5 87:16 95:2 106:22 56:5,9 58:16
87:8 88:10 Knudsen 19:15 126:22 levels 82:8 59:17 61:20
89:3,14,19 34:6 38:15 leader 43:16 103:16 71:2 74:21,23
91:14,21 92:5 39:16 42:9 50:9 57:3 LEVINE 2:12 75:3,22 90:15
92:9,17 93:17 43:23,25 leads 34:11 4:6 18:9 20:23 91:6 92:4
94:7,10 95:11 K2 1:5 114:9 24:16 25:13 118:19 120:7
96:2,4,9 98:6 Leake 2:22 32:13,18 39:3 lifted 92:10
99:23,23 104:1 L learned 37:18 45:1 48:24 lifting 92:4
L 2:4 5:1

8/8/2008
Page 161
lights 25:1 72:21 94:23 65:4,7,10,19 66:15 84:19 129:14

line 72:6 76:14 96:5 101:2 65:23 66:9 McKernan 1:11 metal 75:7
76:14,15 109:21 110:9 making 111:8 mean 22:20 middle 92:21
109:16 122:15 116:3 117:18 management 30:23 31:23 94:13 95:22
lines 43:8 44:21 120:21 122:1 31:13 32:1 32:17 34:9 migration
76:18,19,24,25 126:9 136:22 53:3 101:16 37:22 42:18 139:14
77:1 85:11 137:20 102:5 116:10 46:7 47:9 Millington 84:8
86:7 looked 10:11 management's 54:15 57:16 84:9
listening 77:15 56:5 59:20,22 31:24 62:20 66:21 million 69:5
literally 23:2 62:16 manager 28:24 76:21 77:4,7 mind 80:15 84:9
27:19 87:4 looking 57:14 28:24,25 33:7 82:8 87:11 96:13 99:21
144:22 59:12 62:16 82:15 86:6 90:12 93:18 106:13
litigation 1:5 63:8 70:13,14 94:12 106:12 107:11 minimum 85:12
93:7 114:9 112:22 113:15 managing 28:7 116:7,25 129:7 minute 73:2
little 12:3 17:20 117:13 120:11 manner 31:1 129:11 130:5 minutes 104:15
19:10 21:22 120:19 122:25 map 140:19 131:17 134:9 mischaracteri...
24:3 25:24 loose 49:15 marine 86:19 135:20 143:12 97:21
26:4 55:10 loosely 75:20 mark 59:8 60:8 145:24 mischaracteri...
70:15,17 72:16 lot 12:18 21:3,23 61:12 98:8 meaning 65:17 39:5
72:20 85:15 24:10 60:19 140:1 133:21 misguided 134:4
91:12 92:17 75:21 104:10 marked 8:24 means 96:7 98:6 missing 72:20
112:1 144:10 9:10 60:10 99:23 123:21 118:3
live 106:11 Louisiana 1:2,12 62:1 93:10 126:13 129:15 Mississippi
load 76:4 143:13 2:6,23 5:24 6:2 109:11 121:15 129:19 17:15
144:16 95:6 130:15 139:6 meant 129:9 mistake 130:8
loan 99:24 149:4 marking 59:4 measured 78:4 misunderstan...
loaned 15:23 love 93:12 Martin 9:16,19 measurements 112:21 113:15
locally 33:25 Lower 6:12 match 95:18 129:13 mixed 127:17
located 27:15 78:18 145:12 132:1 measures 82:12 MMG 102:4,7
location 27:21 LSUNO 9:22 material 27:20 mechanical 10:8 103:15 105:2
27:21 10:23 35:7,8 64:16 10:10,14 11:6 106:6,19 107:2
lock 29:6,21 luxury 73:13,14 65:17,18 66:9 mechanics 11:13 107:9,15,20
30:6 37:6,8 66:12 67:2,11 meet 82:10,13 108:7 116:5
130:21 M 72:8 74:4,5,8 128:19 117:19,20,22
locked 144:22 M 4:1 76:16 143:20 meeting 34:13 117:24 118:2
logic 99:2 machine 24:3 144:11,16 34:20 mobilization
long 13:15,20 71:9 85:2 materials 53:3 meetings 34:18 42:6 55:18
15:16 17:17 machinery 90:8 64:12 67:1,6 members 43:22 61:5
18:20 25:20 91:8 102:5 142:4,6 48:16,17 mobilize 26:22
50:3 74:25 machines 65:14 144:12 memorandum mobilized 26:19
104:20 106:10 magnitude matter 8:24 29:14 139:22 41:17 50:6
106:17 108:13 106:25 88:12 106:9 140:23 modification
long-term main 135:21,24 143:11 memory 26:22 55:23
100:16 101:20 maintain 98:20 mattered 88:14 28:1 126:12,17 money 30:22
look 49:16 60:1 major 22:21 matters 86:7 mention 133:11 31:2 73:8
60:2 63:12 majority 36:15 McDonough met 82:5 84:16 82:17,22 83:4
makeup 50:12

8/8/2008
Page 162
97:15 131:18 24:24 35:19 note 122:18 142:23 143:10 officer's 105:4
Montegut 1:10 70:1 85:24 132:8 144:1 145:23 offices 16:22
6:1,7 9:6 94:9 necessary 24:13 noted 148:13,15 objections 5:11 official 43:11
132:10 142:3 73:8 79:23 notice 5:7 9:1,2 116:2 86:5 122:6
146:7 148:3,11 115:5 147:13 74:5,14 objectives 41:6 officiated 5:24
month 23:8 69:3 necessity 25:6,10 noticed 147:2 obligated 22:23 oh 29:9 32:21
93:23 need 12:2 24:23 number 6:14 obligations 36:8 68:11
monthly 23:4 25:4 55:3 61:3 46:16 83:23 80:24 81:2,8 88:20 110:1
144:3 63:8 64:1 73:6 97:9 133:8 82:5,10,13 127:16 137:1
months 27:9 80:5 88:18 134:6 observation 95:2 OHM 19:11,21
Morrison 19:15 91:2 125:24 numbers 63:2 102:23 104:3 okay 6:20 8:12
34:6 38:15 147:7 numerous 76:19 observations 8:13,21 9:14
39:15 42:9 needed 29:25 76:24 95:10 9:24 10:16
43:23,25 63:4,6 135:22 observe 103:8 12:6,10 21:12
mother 18:17 147:4,7 O observer 34:20 34:23 39:7
motif 36:19 89:9 needs 91:9 O 4:1 5:1 obtain 129:13 62:9 64:20
move 13:23 62:9 negatively 139:8 oath 5:25 6:5 obtained 14:9 68:2 77:9
moving 82:6 neighborhoods object 21:4 obviously 36:2 78:24 96:10
100:9 130:23 30:6 38:20,25 39:23 46:1 62:19 103:7 115:22
133:5 never 45:18,18 44:24 48:7 90:7 99:16,19 old 28:1
MRGO 1:7 6:8 53:10,18 56:6 49:22 108:24 114:6 143:17 once 71:5 84:4
17:15 29:5 56:14,14 84:24 126:16 occasional 17:9 84:19,25
147:2 85:5 89:1 objecting 22:10 occasionally 121:10 127:19
multiple 54:15 99:13 125:23 62:6 54:4 127:20
115:18 128:9 129:3 objection 20:24 occasions 131:2 ones 80:23 81:4
mutually 147:9 137:4 145:24 24:17 25:14 occurred 70:21 ongoing 56:11
146:12 32:14 39:4 78:5,17 122:19 on-site 98:20
N new 2:6,23 9:12 45:2 48:25 occurrences open 14:11 37:5
N 4:1,1,1 5:1 9:23 14:2,17 50:15,22 51:9 49:23 operating 86:1
name 6:7,14 14:20 15:25 62:4 63:21 occurring 54:7 operation 106:2
29:7 34:22 16:6,20,21,22 67:8,18 78:2 October 58:15 operations 66:19
44:12 93:18 16:24 17:2 81:1,15,20,22 odd 11:21 67:16 68:5
107:14,18 27:16,17 34:10 88:4,25 92:16 103:25 73:23 82:16
named 6:3 60:23 37:6 85:8,18 95:8 96:20 office 2:20 16:20 opinion 45:10
names 42:23 95:5 130:21 97:18 108:10 16:21,23,23,25 103:17
natural 74:8 NFFAT 130:16 114:25 115:8 17:3 24:22,23 opinions 145:20
76:25 NGVD 140:22 115:10 116:23 24:24 25:4 opportunity
nature 7:7 12:23 Ninth 6:12 78:18 117:16,16 27:6 47:1 48:3 53:15,17 106:6
16:11 18:17 145:12 118:11,13 84:6 85:3,8 opposed 20:20
20:20 25:2 nods 7:19 41:20 119:5,20 120:6 99:3 105:18,19 24:1 46:8
28:20,22 38:7 nonexistent 121:22 123:18 122:10 135:21 65:11 104:23
40:25 46:5 135:12,16 127:3 129:18 135:24 117:12 140:6
52:21 72:23 noon 8:18 133:1,18 officer 28:21 option 10:10,11
120:23 138:15 northern 60:17 134:11,13 33:18,22,23 10:15 11:7
navigable 17:16 78:14 136:1 138:6 34:2 74:1 order 6:16 15:8
near 78:6 131:11 notch 89:5 140:11 141:10 82:14 83:8 19:17,21 26:13
necessarily 141:13 142:10

8/8/2008
Page 163
27:3 30:13 131:1,4 132:1 117:13 26:14 38:3 91:16 140:21

39:14 132:1,2 patient 8:17 46:20 106:21 piling 18:15
orders 33:21 page 4:3,8 38:9 PAUL 2:12 performing 91:14
organization 99:8 100:5 pay 15:2 20:19 30:21 54:18 pilings 36:24
122:9 109:25 113:17 24:25 40:14 96:17 102:25 pipe 75:4,4,7,24
original 5:9 120:11 122:14 41:9 82:2,22 103:15 132:3 pit 66:13,15 67:3
19:23 20:3 126:8,10 83:10 128:16 period 14:1 place 24:15
23:17 26:6 128:24 130:23 paying 84:6 15:21 16:8 25:12 40:22
55:24 133:5,7,23 117:11 127:5 23:7 27:8 41:15 44:22
originally 13:19 137:12 payment 15:8 67:14 144:4 47:25 48:1,3
82:9 90:21 pages 85:16 85:1,9,19 permitted 5:5 48:12 49:9,18
111:23 132:3 paid 15:4,6 128:16 144:14 person 23:11 56:10 76:20
144:8 42:10 82:25 payments 21:25 29:2 95:16 85:20 121:19
Orleans 2:6,23 96:15 97:12,16 22:1,17,18 105:19 107:3 122:16 131:16
9:12,23 14:18 144:16 128:3 117:10 132:13,16
14:20 15:25 paper 9:2 25:2 payroll 80:19 personal 7:6 placed 64:17
16:6,20,21,22 paragraph peers 31:19 145:20 plaintiffs 2:2 6:9
16:24 17:3 71:16,18 99:1 pending 94:20 personally 43:22 Plaintiff's 4:10
27:17,18 85:8 100:18 131:7 113:23 88:12 4:11,12,13,14
85:18 95:5 parameters pens 25:1 personnel 4:15 8:25 9:10
outlays 25:10 61:23 people 24:25 106:14 60:10 62:1
outpacing 131:9 Parish 27:17 27:19 31:8,18 perspective 93:10 109:11
132:5 part 5:14 11:11 34:8,13 44:3 24:13,21 60:3 139:6 146:9
outset 32:6 23:20 35:25 45:16,20 47:21 pertain 70:18 plan 40:4 56:8
outside 15:25 53:24 55:24 51:19 60:19 PERTAINS 1:7 56:17,19,22
101:12 113:2 60:17 69:12 87:11 94:3 phase 26:5,6 57:6 58:16
142:4 78:14 108:21 99:18 103:19 48:5 130:19 59:16 61:8,14
overall 55:17 109:2 110:3,12 104:13,14 Phil 51:25 61:17,21,22,25
65:11 113:11,12 105:9,18,23 127:13 62:13,15 63:15
overbearing 133:7 107:8 112:16 Phillip 44:4 63:19,24 64:7
97:8 participating 135:20,24 45:22 71:12 118:20
overhead 106:14 56:16 people's 8:14 phone 85:25 planned 35:9
overly 97:3 particular 12:1 87:4 phrase 122:17 planning 48:4
overlying 99:20 17:13 20:7 percent 65:16,18 physical 41:15 90:21
overseeing 28:7 30:20 38:14 percentage 65:1 41:19 44:22 plans 38:6,16
29:11 30:19 45:14 54:8 65:10 107:21,25 40:11,15 71:1
oversight 17:7 70:22 85:1 perform 13:11 144:19 plant 18:6,10
21:25 109:6 94:6 118:1 39:16 40:17 physically plate 35:20
114:16 134:3 135:18 137:12 49:5 63:6 105:20 play 31:21
O'Connor 44:11 143:5,19 95:19 97:2 pick 85:24 played 25:9
44:11 93:14,16 particularly 106:23 107:21 piece 9:2 32:12
95:3 96:3 134:2 117:6 pier 86:20 player 95:13
101:10,15 parties 5:3 performance piggybacked players 34:6,9
149:14 43:12 103:17 26:8 playing 95:24
P passed 63:5,9,12 129:6 133:10 pile 30:5 77:16 please 21:14
P 5:1 passing 47:14 performed 20:1 79:1,3,6,17 49:1 81:9 87:5
pace 106:23

8/8/2008
Page 164
pleasure 93:9 prepared 59:15 privy 105:2,3,4 114:9 118:23 88:2,16 94:6
plus 41:10 121:2,6 142:7 probably 15:2 production 94:12 95:1
point 76:4 77:10 preparing 69:22 15:18 24:4,7 106:24 110:25 97:23,24,25
77:10 84:22 69:23 25:8 26:6 professional 98:1,5,5,12,13
86:21 91:17 presence 48:13 28:20 31:15 79:13,21,24 101:4,16,23
100:24 104:24 48:15 32:5,6 38:4 80:10,18 81:17 102:2,7,20,22
108:18 112:21 present 3:1,7 42:4 46:17 95:12 96:1 108:5,21 110:1
121:13 135:11 87:10 139:3 59:18 65:19 108:12 110:3,12 111:4
135:15,19 presented 94:6 69:10,11 71:15 profit 41:10 111:10 114:3
pointed 62:5 121:11 127:6 74:3 84:2 program 12:21 114:19,20
pointing 123:6 128:12 85:12,13 86:14 63:1 94:13 115:3,19
points 140:5 presenting 107:3 128:7 programming 118:22 122:13
poles 18:13,17 121:12 139:19 143:20 12:17 14:10 123:16,25
policy 45:19 preservative problem 43:18 programs 12:18 124:4,12,13,19
53:10 128:15 18:16,16 53:15 70:24 13:11 14:8 125:1,3 126:14
poor 73:24 pretty 13:23 73:22 74:5 progress 9:24 127:23 129:5
pops 96:13 43:7 143:15 77:3 89:5 15:9 129:10,15
portion 78:11 prevent 131:13 100:14 117:19 progressed 55:1 130:20 131:1,4
140:16 prevented 117:22,25 project 6:16 131:9,13,22
portions 37:17 134:25 118:1,1 17:4,13 18:1,2 132:5,15 133:7
position 12:12 previous 18:25 problems 94:1 18:20,23 19:18 133:15 134:4,6
12:13 13:16,18 21:15 30:17 procedure 5:6 20:4 22:9 23:1 134:9,21
14:11 31:9 81:5,8 7:10 8:5 86:1 23:7 24:15 135:14,19
116:8 previously 147:5 132:13,16,19 25:3,12,21 136:20 138:2
possible 8:20 pre-remediation proceed 131:6 26:12,13,21 138:17,18
62:10 139:22 process 23:21 27:2,6,11 28:4 140:8 141:2,6
possibly 122:16 price 15:7 20:22 25:12 31:10 28:5,24,25 144:18 146:13
135:17 140:13 22:6,15 23:17 71:12 72:17 29:21 30:17 146:16
post 57:17 priced 15:5 73:3 74:16 31:6,9,14,22 projects 17:8,9
potential 47:21 primarily 14:25 106:15 127:19 31:22 32:2 26:25 31:20
75:11 77:2 16:5 17:11 128:2 34:5,10 35:2,3 32:12 53:8
139:19 19:8 36:21 processed 36:4 37:12,16 86:8
po-tah-to 134:19 46:11 69:22 127:23 37:22 38:2,14 prompt 128:16
Po-tay-to 134:19 86:18 processes 20:15 40:10,11 42:17 proof 22:24
practical 72:23 primary 30:21 processing 127:4 44:5 45:14 proper 81:13
practice 75:24 44:5 70:20 128:13 130:8,9 46:23 47:3,19 properly 74:10
precluded 134:4 prime 19:7 Proctor 73:4,6,9 48:15 49:4,16 properties 76:22
precursor 35:6 53:12 73:10 50:4,9 52:14 76:23
predates 109:16 principles 83:3 Proctors 73:11 52:18 54:12 property's 129:6
preference prior 12:4,7 73:12 55:1,10,15,17 propose 129:13
108:16 40:15 54:24 produce 79:16 55:18,19 56:11 proposed 40:14
preliminary 57:8,19 121:18 produced 38:11 57:2 61:4 66:1 protect 30:5
54:23 priority 46:16 42:8 79:6 80:3 68:1,10,13 protection 30:4
preparation 46:17 93:8 98:23 79:15 80:22 proves 73:4
35:24 privileged 31:24 110:19,22 81:11 82:4,6 provide 22:23
prepare 83:22 94:10 111:24,25 82:15 86:10 provided 23:23

8/8/2008
Page 165
124:20 36:3 39:1,10 quotes 100:6 recall 16:1 26:18 refer 23:16
PSLC 6:8 39:24 44:25 26:25 37:24 26:12 39:17
public 87:5,8 45:3,21 48:8 R 40:19 41:14 48:20 81:7
pukes 99:3 54:10,12 56:18 radioactive 19:1 43:1 48:12 97:25 118:15
pulled 56:6 56:21 59:22,25 railroad 86:22 49:8,17,23 reference 18:24
pumps 75:4 61:19,24 62:7 Rain 74:7 55:5,6,21,24 126:16
punishment 64:11 67:20 raised 9:9,12 56:16,24 58:5 referenced
128:10 72:9 79:18 ran 26:9 131:18 60:5,7,20,22 58:15
purposes 5:5 81:9 82:1 ranking 122:6 63:7,10,13,17 referred 10:9
pursuant 5:7 8:4 83:14,19,21 rate 86:9,10 66:11,16,17 12:25 43:16
19:17,21 20:12 85:24 87:23 104:12 68:7 71:14 60:18 74:22
146:24 91:17 94:20,22 raw 129:11 75:14 89:13,19 81:4 126:24
pushed 96:7 94:24 95:1 130:5,9,11 92:8 101:14,21 referring 38:13
pushing 76:5 96:12 102:19 reached 77:21 103:15,24 38:23 39:17,19
put 9:4 18:12 103:8 108:2 77:23 105:14 106:19 42:11 54:3
30:6 34:21 113:23 114:1,5 read 8:12 10:13 107:12 132:17 58:1 59:23
35:22 58:2,8,9 114:11,12,19 21:16 37:23 132:20 133:3 60:9 94:2
64:12,19 67:3 114:23 122:22 59:11 93:21,22 135:13 96:14 111:6
75:16,24 76:3 122:24 123:1,3 94:14 100:11 recast 129:6,12 135:17
76:12,15 89:23 123:6,11 100:13 109:13 receipt 127:7 reflect 120:18
89:23 105:9 125:21 126:19 109:16 113:24 receipts 23:22 123:23
putting 114:14 132:12 133:6 126:6,10 receive 10:20 regard 28:6
P.O 2:14 137:14,24 128:23 129:8 35:11 regarding 20:19
141:1,19 145:24 147:19 recess 72:3 22:9 29:13
Q questionable reading 5:8 141:25 146:5 47:5,21 64:6
QA 69:17 121:24 128:5 62:15 113:6,8 recognize 127:8 65:22 71:4
QA/QC 69:20 questioned 113:19 127:10 98:19 118:17
QC 69:12,13,17 127:9 ready 26:21 recollect 34:24 140:17
69:18 143:1 questioning 72:7 real 59:13 90:11 recollection 34:3 regardless 75:13
QC-QA 143:7 questions 6:19 129:19 138:10 36:16 40:13 75:15
qualifications 7:11 21:9 22:8 realized 102:20 47:23 48:18 regards 21:19
11:18,23 44:20 100:1 102:22 49:7 104:5 107:25 133:9
qualifies 11:5 110:24 111:14 really 8:14 12:11 recommendati... region 15:25
qualify 11:7,9 111:16 112:3 40:25 41:1 133:24 16:6
quality 42:20 112:18 114:10 54:8 56:13 record 9:5 90:23 regularly 54:14
69:14 130:15 131:20 137:8 60:24 62:18 93:22 100:21 54:15
142:13,13,16 137:10,18 66:11 85:2,5 100:25 111:22 reimbursable
142:20,21 142:3 146:3,8 104:22 116:6 113:21 120:18 22:22 73:21
143:1,3 146:21 147:4 116:14 117:17 123:23 136:24 reimbursed
quantities 15:2 147:13 125:24 140:12 146:10 144:17
quantity 69:7 quick 8:20 realtime 131:11 records 22:24 reimbursement
question 5:12 quickly 13:23 reams 93:8 rectangle 65:2 144:15
7:12 8:10 39:12 59:13 reason 6:13 8:16 rectangular related 17:12
21:13,15,18 62:10 78:25 79:9,18 64:22 43:17 102:7
22:12 24:19 quite 73:25 84:8 97:13 rectify 83:20 139:16 149:14
25:7 31:25 quitting 56:3 123:14 140:9 reduced 132:2 relates 126:13
32:16 34:11 reassign 99:3

8/8/2008
Page 166
128:24 removed 37:11 149:1 responsible 19:9 41:24,25 44:12

relation 57:21 37:13 55:7 reporting 20:18 116:16 46:7 50:7 64:5
141:1 67:2 71:6 21:19 22:14 responsiveness 65:6 68:18
relations 87:8 74:18 75:2 reports 23:22 5:12 72:15 84:15,18
relationship 76:19 77:1 30:3 69:7,21 restoration 89:22,24 90:19
46:13 87:20 86:24 139:19 70:10,12,14 19:18 92:11 95:22
123:16 144:11 125:1 142:7 rests 76:2 108:22 109:15
relative 85:19 removing 36:22 143:8 resubmit 83:21 111:17 121:10
86:10 36:25 55:11 represent 40:1 result 149:16 121:14 124:16
relied 40:16 80:4 57:1 61:10,18 representative results 53:16,19 142:18 143:14
122:5 89:7 90:22 74:1 105:5 retire 145:8 146:24 147:12
reluctant 104:25 repeat 8:10 representatives retired 11:20 risk 134:1
remain 15:16 21:14 49:1 42:20 69:14 retirement River 17:15
remark 37:1 81:9 representing 2:2 13:17 67:12
remediate 27:22 reperform 2:9,19 130:3 return 87:7 Road 76:22
35:21,24 130:13 requested 81:23 review 24:11 140:21
remediated rephrase 8:11 requests 21:25 28:12 37:21 Robinson 1:7
35:13,16 77:7 replace 29:21 22:18 38:1 40:9,14 147:3
remediating 106:2 require 17:13 42:7 50:10 rocket 89:22
75:12 replaced 106:18 120:24 53:17,18 70:1 role 17:2,18,23
remediation 106:18 107:10 required 62:22 70:2,11 83:16 17:23 25:9
6:17 18:4 107:15,21,22 84:17 84:13 117:12 28:9 31:21
27:10 28:3 replacement requirements 118:9 120:1,24 32:11 42:7
35:17 36:1,5,6 29:6 108:8 20:18 83:2,2 122:11 143:24 roles 16:15
77:11,12 135:8 report 29:6,11 requires 90:10 145:11 rolling 143:16
135:10 29:18 30:8,9 136:19 reviewed 23:9 rollover 12:12
remember 19:11 43:2,10 69:13 reserved 5:13 38:4 68:14 Rouge 1:12
19:25 21:13 69:16,17 70:16 reserving 146:24 69:20,24 ROUGEAU 3:3
42:1,22 44:7 100:12 109:1 147:12 118:24 119:22 roughly 13:21
57:12 60:13 110:1,4 111:5 residences 27:19 reviewing 7:23 15:19 26:9
67:9,19 80:6,8 114:14 120:12 resolve 28:17 21:23 23:12 routine 143:11
92:18 107:9,14 122:14 123:25 117:22 24:1 114:8 RPR 1:24 5:22
107:18,18,20 124:5,12,14,19 resolving 29:2 143:7 149:2,24
107:24 127:12 125:4,5,10 respects 86:25 Revised 58:17 Rules 5:6 8:5
remind 44:9 139:1 140:9,23 86:25 ribbon 37:5 run 24:2,22,24
removal 55:4 140:25 142:14 respond 130:4 Richard 93:16 25:4 63:1
58:16 59:17 142:21,21 responded 93:25 93:17 138:22 104:20
61:20 90:6,12 143:1,4 145:11 response 7:18 138:25,25 running 76:20
92:18 118:20 145:17,21 121:23 131:8 rid 89:24 RYCKMAN
removals 89:16 146:13 responsibilities rig 104:21 106:7 3:12
89:19,21 reported 1:23 13:6 14:2 106:9,22
remove 36:12 42:21 30:14 42:16,18 107:16 S
55:20 56:9 reporter 1:25 53:25 82:20 right 19:19 s 3:11 5:1 40:4
61:3 64:25 5:23 7:14,20 102:21 21:20 22:2 59:14 69:17
65:15 86:20 8:12 149:3,25 responsibility 24:22 26:23 70:6,9 74:1
87:14 REPORTER'S 29:1 30:18 33:2 40:7 84:13 85:19
87:11 89:20

8/8/2008
Page 167
99:21 100:14 10:21 89:22 sense 49:15 85:1 93:5 98:22 57:7 61:6
100:16 101:22 scoop 90:15 91:3 93:19 99:7 109:15,24 65:20,20 66:13
111:19 129:14 scooping 90:14 sent 66:18 122:20 131:7 66:14,18,21
130:18 131:1,4 91:1 sentence 69:1 132:9 137:17 73:18 74:13,19
sad 96:9 scope 35:3 36:10 110:7 122:18 138:23 140:2 75:13 77:13
safety 46:15 38:2,4,8,10,13 sentences 71:17 showed 79:5 78:6,8,14,16
105:12 38:22 39:17 separate 71:15 137:25 139:22 78:23 87:15
sake 104:1 41:1 55:14 September 140:19 95:4 99:4
sample 104:22 64:22 101:13 146:14 showing 21:22 101:17 105:10
sampling 52:20 103:22 serves 26:23 shows 73:5 107:4,5 114:7
sand 66:8,16,17 Scott 2:4 3:10 service 117:11 shut 131:17 118:18 129:14
67:4,12,12,15 6:7 113:6 set 76:8 130:14 side 73:14 130:18 135:18
67:24 68:4,8 130:3 134:6,9,16 140:20 142:19 143:5
75:15,21 76:1 scrape 35:22 149:7 sign 147:19 143:13 144:13
76:8,9 77:6 scratch 130:7,12 setting 36:20 signed 84:4,24 sites 27:23 37:3
142:5,19 143:4 scratched 41:3 48:3 84:25,25 94:11 78:10
143:12,13,22 131:10 settle 74:9 127:23 148:11 sitting 95:17
sat 34:20 se 27:18 84:1 setup 85:5 148:13,15 situation 128:19
satisfactory 87:11 134:20 significant 22:16 129:1
127:21 second 31:22 seven 45:25 41:13 56:15 situations 80:12
satisfied 83:17 40:3 100:5,17 60:12 135:8,9 six 78:9
Saucer 78:6,8,23 131:8 138:23 sewer 55:5,6 signing 5:9 size 45:24
save 5:8,11 140:3 56:5 76:14,25 similar 14:6 slab 36:22 74:19
saw 45:23 section 15:1,14 91:6 92:4 27:13 28:9 89:16,18,21
116:13 100:8,9 130:24 shakes 7:19 30:16 35:4 slabs 36:23,25
saying 24:9,20 see 39:9 56:5 139:8 simple 73:25 Slidell 18:1
34:15 38:10 99:18 100:3 shallow 90:20,25 74:13 slow 131:25
49:11 82:18 122:24 123:1 139:3 simultaneously small 103:21
88:8 93:25 126:11 128:7 shared 43:3 31:20 soil 11:13 18:4
111:2 seeing 118:3 sheds 89:8 sing 32:8 50:10,13 52:19
says 10:13 32:23 seen 36:18 56:6 sheet 23:6 30:5 singer 32:7 52:21 57:20
77:23 93:23 69:6 125:23 68:19 77:16 sir 42:13 47:13 103:15 108:6
99:19 100:12 126:18 137:4 79:1,3,6,17 47:16 50:1 soils 50:19,20
109:2,25 146:12 91:14 140:21 55:8 73:17 51:5,7,14,15
122:16,18 seepage 47:11 Ship 20:2,12 78:13 110:5 51:24 54:11
129:11 131:8 52:7 72:11 23:18,19 25:21 sit 136:9,12 64:24 67:4
131:10 132:9 74:18 75:11,11 26:7 27:1 site 18:24 19:3 90:6,12,15
133:8,11,25 77:3 139:18,20 28:10 20:2,7,7 24:5 91:1 107:23
134:6,24 140:3 self-perform shoots 84:9 26:20,22 27:12 108:19
141:15 92:2 short 106:17 27:18 35:8,13 solid 64:25
scaled 82:15 self-performed shorthand 149:9 35:24 36:13 solution 70:25
scenario 126:24 89:18 shortly 107:11 37:1 41:17,19 76:7
144:14 seminars 16:10 shot 94:8 96:10 43:3 44:2 solutions 44:20
scheduled 70:4 send 83:19 84:11 96:11 45:23 48:1 solve 39:7 53:15
school 9:15 122:10 show 37:4 58:14 50:6 54:3,13 somebody 32:1
science 10:1,14 senior 95:4 58:19,20 61:12 54:25 56:10 58:8,9 62:25

8/8/2008
Page 168
130:8 119:14 123:19 135:6,7 65:2 66:22 23:9 84:14

somebody's 125:22 127:3 STATES 1:1 2:9 68:6 71:5 submit 59:15
107:2 129:18 133:1 2:10 75:18 76:4 80:12 83:13
somewhat 14:6 136:2 statics 11:14 91:6 92:9 144:3
61:24 96:9 speed 37:23 station 2:15 55:5 structures 36:12 submitted 69:13
105:12 108:2 spelled 100:20 55:6,20 56:5,9 36:13,14 37:10 70:3,5 111:11
sorry 22:20 26:2 spend 73:8 58:16 59:17 37:13 89:8 submitting
33:22 41:25 spending 30:22 61:20 71:3 90:7 139:3,14 128:17
98:24 101:25 31:3 74:22,23 75:3 139:18 subs 57:25
107:19 109:3 spent 24:6,6 75:23 91:7 student 12:8,12 102:25
127:18 139:11 spit 63:2 92:5 118:19 12:15,21 Subsection
sort 70:10 74:21 spite 135:10 120:7 studies 53:2 109:3
sought 5:15 38:1 spot 76:5 stay 13:15,20 57:21 subsequent 61:5
sound 33:16 stack 23:2 42:11 17:17 50:3 study 50:19 128:4,22
44:12 58:12 68:16,19 85:14 stayed 16:17 52:25 57:22 subsided 74:11
Sounds 7:16 127:25 steps 28:16 stuff 39:13 113:7 subsidence 52:7
8:22 staff 98:20 109:5 84:12 stumbled 89:3 subsoil 16:11
source 75:11 114:15 120:24 stick 128:10 style 36:19 57:1
south 78:5 135:11,15 STIPULATED sub 19:7 102:18 substantial
southern 20:2,12 Staggs 44:4 5:2 106:6,9,20 126:22
23:18,19 25:21 stamp 112:1 stipulation 6:4 subbed 89:14 substantially
26:7 27:1 stamped 58:7 stood 19:11 92:3 93:3 75:10
28:10 78:22 79:13,20,24 stop 49:19 73:1 subcontract substantiate
speak 102:10 80:5,9,13,15 110:9 117:8 23:10
128:13 81:24 stopped 146:15 subcontracted substantiation
speaking 115:20 stamps 81:13 story 61:2 92:7 101:6 22:24
special 91:2 standard 86:1 106:17 subcontracting subsurface
specialized 90:8 standards 84:16 strata 16:11 100:14 37:10,13 55:11
91:7,9 84:19 strategies 134:5 subcontractor 60:21 71:5
specialty 10:4 standpoint stratification 53:11,13 58:4 90:6,13 138:12
specific 41:6 105:13 116:10 57:21 59:14 102:4 138:19 139:14
59:25 61:8 116:11,11 stratigraphies 116:9,14 139:15
71:2 85:19 stapled 69:18 50:10 52:19 117:12 121:3,7 sufficient 11:8
specifically 5:10 start 31:17 stratigraphy 121:12 11:18,22 109:5
specification 123:10 130:12 50:19 51:5,15 subcontractors 114:15 129:13
71:12,13,15 started 12:4,14 Street 2:5 28:3 53:9 103:10 134:3
specifications 32:5 41:19 31:15 33:7 105:6 114:17 suit 6:9
63:19 64:5,8 42:6 130:7 87:2 114:23 115:5 summarization
65:22 66:5 131:25 strictly 34:20 115:17,19,24 16:3
68:1 71:4 starting 56:3 structurally 116:6 118:8 summarize
speculate 88:9 starts 100:13 58:12 129:1,2 136:15 68:23
speculation state 5:23 75:1 structure 37:7 subcontractor's sunken 86:22
50:23 88:5 129:14 149:3 55:12 57:1 109:7 116:20 Superfund 19:3
95:8 96:20,22 stated 35:4 60:19,21 61:10 subcontracts 27:12 28:5
97:18,20 statement 71:8 63:25 64:14,15 134:2 superior 133:10
116:24 119:9 109:2 133:24 64:20,24,25 submission 23:4 supervise 49:15

8/8/2008
Page 169
supervising take 8:15 10:16 technical 13:1 terminology 62:25 69:7,24

114:22 24:15 28:17 28:22,23 29:1 126:8 72:19 73:1
supervision 53:7 45:9 48:2 49:9 86:4 88:18 termites 18:13 75:6,10 77:2
149:10 64:20 73:11 90:10 91:2,9 terms 138:13 80:1,11 81:23
supervisor 43:11 82:12 96:1 91:12 109:8 testified 6:5 83:25 84:1,7,8
43:15,20 104:4,10 114:18 115:6 112:16 85:4 86:13,15
supervisors 120:21 122:1 115:18,24 testify 9:4 149:6 87:19 88:10,21
31:13 127:18 128:1 116:11,21,25 149:7 89:20 91:22
support 76:11 147:8 117:7 118:17 testimony 48:11 92:25 98:25
76:17 taken 5:5 7:22 120:23,24 148:4,6 102:14 103:5
supported 76:2 11:5,8 47:25 121:9 125:4,10 testing 71:20 110:10 111:9
supporting 48:1 80:8 133:9 testings 108:6 111:22 112:5
36:24 68:24 85:20 97:4 technically Tezcuco 6:2 112:16 120:2
sure 21:2 28:13 132:7 140:4 43:15 Thank 40:7 123:24 125:23
46:3 53:24 148:25 149:8 technician 12:25 77:15 113:4 128:7,18 130:5
66:4 72:18,18 takes 105:20 telephone 18:13 123:6 133:5 139:16
80:18,19 82:12 talk 32:10 67:22 18:17 thanks 94:7,9 thinking 31:24
82:21 84:16 71:24 72:2 tell 8:3,6 39:7,20 thereof 5:14 43:8 82:7,7
90:3,11 113:16 90:20,25 113:2 49:20 57:5 thing 8:23 33:17 102:6
113:20 123:9 talked 21:2 87:21 88:17 34:22 40:3 thinks 110:11
129:19,20 talking 41:18 124:23 129:25 43:9 46:9 48:1 third 7:1 9:1
138:10 43:25 47:11 telling 38:11 56:4 57:2 60:2 thirty 11:21
Surekote 76:21 65:4,7 73:3 39:18 114:10 65:12 70:10 Thirty-five
140:20 74:19 76:18 137:8 75:9 90:15 72:23
surround 64:24 90:17,19 100:3 tells 9:3 21:7 92:21 103:1 Thirty-three
survey 15:11 104:6 126:21 temporary 30:1 108:14 111:8 47:7
53:1 139:18 ten 45:24 55:4 125:3 131:18 thought 11:22
surveying 80:10 talks 99:1 104:7,9 143:18 things 7:6 11:13 44:15 56:15
surveyor 79:13 109:16 tend 72:22 76:6 12:23 13:4 72:17 73:3
79:22,25 tallied 69:11 Tendering 61:15 14:22 16:11 74:15 88:1,10
surveyors 15:10 tank 86:22 87:14 109:24 120:9 20:19 21:4 88:13,13 93:24
80:19 tanks 76:12,13 122:21 136:23 25:2 27:25 94:4 112:9
surveys 52:17 Tar 101:23 140:25 38:6 42:1 45:9 thousand 10:12
80:7,7,8 133:11,14 Tennessee 84:8 46:7 52:7,21 three 7:1 17:21
switched 14:4 task 6:16 19:17 84:9 53:23 62:9 41:7,7 45:25
16:14,17,18 19:21 26:13 TERC 19:17,22 69:6 72:22 73:11,19 91:21
switching 13:8 27:3 30:13 19:24 20:8,10 73:7,13 82:11 95:21 103:24
14:16 33:21 39:14 20:12,15,20 83:19 101:11 104:23 128:1
sworn 6:4 8:5 63:6 108:3 22:4,22 23:18 114:8 132:11 128:14
149:6 tasks 60:6 96:17 28:8 33:23 132:24 138:15 three-foot 97:5
systems 12:17 97:1 101:6 40:25 41:2 142:6 throttled 132:2
taught 72:24 83:3 136:19,19 think 11:21 14:9 timber 18:15
T taxpayers 31:1 term 35:10 19:7,10 25:8 time 5:13 8:9
T 4:1 5:1,1 73:8 49:15 68:21 26:2 30:8 32:4 9:22 10:3,7,9
table 45:25 team 43:16 50:9 72:12 123:15 34:17 40:24,25 13:9,13 14:15
100:7 57:3 145:4 129:6 57:17 60:22 15:21 16:3,8
tack 91:23

8/8/2008
Page 170
16:13 17:15 transcript 5:9 Tulsa 20:9,10 76:1 83:18 21:18,24 22:7
19:8 20:14 transcription 33:24 34:3,18 85:25 106:24 24:19 25:6
22:10 23:6,20 148:5 149:11 85:8,18,23 29:7,25 32:16
25:22 26:11,16 transfer 84:2 135:1 U 37:21 38:9
27:2,7,8 31:15 transferred turn 32:10 33:25 U 5:1 47:9 50:11,20
42:9 46:25 14:13,21 59:19 34:1 59:18 Uh-huh 50:1 51:5,14 52:3
48:14 50:5 transmittal 69:15 84:5 58:18 92:24 69:21 84:12
54:8 56:3,3 68:22,23,25 turned 128:20 93:21 117:9 93:6 94:5
58:5 67:14 transmitted twelve 27:9 118:21 121:4 99:18 100:3
70:7 72:25 59:19 146:18 twelve-inch 140:7 109:22 110:15
73:14,16 74:6 transparency 85:14 ultimately 34:6 110:21 111:2,3
74:16 82:3,8 131:1 twenty 104:7,9 38:16 39:15 112:25 114:6
82:15,16 97:7 traveling 47:12 two 7:1 16:21 61:17 123:15 132:11
98:12 104:18 TREEBY 3:5 19:13 30:3 um 13:1 14:24 134:8 136:7
105:14 106:3 38:19,24 39:22 31:20 45:5 17:11 23:1 understanding
112:13 116:10 44:23 48:6 69:1 73:11,13 24:4,8 27:9 20:17 22:4
122:7,15 127:9 80:25 81:6,14 73:19 104:23 28:18,23 30:17 24:14 25:11
133:22 139:3 81:19 108:9 128:1,14 131:2 30:18 32:4 30:14 35:2
144:18 147:9 109:20 111:15 type 11:14 12:19 36:15 37:18,24 37:12 52:5
times 6:24 21:3 113:5 118:10 13:1 17:9,16 41:17,21 46:11 54:21 55:2
24:10 26:3 119:19 120:10 20:22 27:13 53:10,15 55:21 56:19 58:20,21
54:15 135:13 122:23 123:8 28:5,20 33:16 57:25 59:13 61:15 67:15
tin 36:16 123:17 125:18 34:22 36:16,20 62:18,20 63:3 79:11 80:21
tip 79:6,17 126:15 130:1 37:6 43:9 64:14,16 69:10 82:23 100:11
tips 79:1,4 133:17 134:10 44:18 45:17 69:14 70:10 112:12,13
title 11:10 13:12 136:25 146:22 47:24,25 52:25 71:7,10 72:9 126:7 149:12
30:18 86:5 trenches 77:4,6 54:6,19 57:2 75:22 76:24 understood 61:7
146:13 tried 46:5 70:6 60:2 62:22,23 77:1 80:6 83:1 undertaken
today 6:13 7:22 105:16 128:11 64:12 69:23 84:24 85:1 145:10
9:4 70:7 trip 107:6 72:11,11 76:16 86:14,22,25,25 undertook 14:3
136:10,12 truck 89:24 85:5 103:1 91:11,18 92:17 unfair 137:16
146:12 143:16 105:20 107:5 96:5 102:16 Unh-unh 78:19
told 137:21 trucks 46:1 108:3,21 103:17 104:2 uniformly 76:10
top 89:5 true 95:25 128:25 131:18 104:25 106:21 unique 32:11
torch 92:22 109:10 148:7 142:6 144:14 107:25 127:15 unit 15:4
TORTS 2:11 149:10 typed 130:25 127:24 128:14 UNITED 1:1 2:9
total 19:17 truth 8:6 149:6 133:25 128:25 129:20 2:10
tougher 94:1 try 8:18 95:23 types 14:22 21:9 unaware 102:18 University 9:21
toxic 19:1 95:23 142:6 unclear 7:25 9:23
track 69:11 trying 22:3 typewritten underground UNO 9:23 10:7,9
131:12 39:11 40:6 113:11 47:12,14 76:12 unsafe 62:19,19
trailer 43:3,4 45:24 57:13 typical 15:3 underseepage 62:20
143:14 62:9 65:9 75:23 105:17 47:5,10,22 update 54:7
trailers 143:14 95:25 109:19 typically 11:15 48:16 72:13,14 upside-down
transcribed 113:16 126:7 15:5 17:9 understand 6:15 97:25 98:5
149:10 137:18 26:20 36:17 7:10,14 8:1,2,7 99:19,23,24
8:9 11:24

8/8/2008
Page 171
100:6 122:17 view 108:18 92:1,5,13,25 63:25 64:15 109:3 111:19

123:15,21 viewpoint 93:7,20 100:14 65:2 66:21 112:1 114:7,13
126:8,13,24 121:10 100:16 102:10 68:6 91:6 92:9 117:11 118:23
134:7,9,16,17 virtual 23:2 102:11,15 week 54:16 70:6 121:3,8,11
upstairs 16:19 visit 54:4 106:18 109:5,6 70:9 122:14 124:21
USACE 140:23 volition 145:11 114:15,16,21 weeks 128:1,1 125:2 126:9
use 35:14 45:13 Volume 140:24 115:4,23 116:4 welding 91:15 127:5 129:1
49:15 56:20 voluminous 116:7 117:5,19 91:23 130:23 137:12
83:24 122:17 23:22 117:23,24,25 wells 138:15,15 138:24 139:1
123:15 128:10 118:7 133:9 went 14:7 27:5 140:4 142:8,14
usually 15:4 W 134:1,3 136:13 27:21 53:18 142:16 146:10
21:8 waiting 77:3 144:2 146:23 65:18 69:18 146:10,18
utility 76:14,18 106:15 wasn't 10:7 79:7 97:1 WGI/MMG
76:19,24 waived 5:10 27:18 31:23 98:20 104:17 140:24
utilize 67:16 walers 91:23 35:9,9 56:2 105:25 130:6 whatnot 77:6
utilized 21:6 walk 34:14 57:9 58:10 130:11 whatsoever
58:22 61:17 walked 144:22 59:1 73:19 weren't 80:13 101:24 102:1
66:18 68:5,8,9walls 47:6 77:12 82:1 87:11 97:2 WILLIAM 3:5
utilizing 103:21want 8:15 18:21 83:15 87:10 107:7 144:5 willing 82:2
136:14 26:2 59:7 92:10 105:2 west 27:10,16 winter 42:4
U.S 2:19 146:18 71:24 74:17 113:15 114:6 87:3 witness 5:4,25
75:6 77:8 84:7 116:6 117:21 we'll 9:4 26:12 6:3 44:8,14
V 88:9,10 90:25 121:12 134:20 72:2 142:3 109:21 110:11
vague 20:24 92:25 94:23 135:4,20 147:19 111:9 120:19
24:17 32:14 105:3 113:1 141:15 we're 6:13,18 125:17,19
39:4 48:25 116:12 123:9 wasps 107:6 9:3 13:23 126:17 147:13
63:21 67:8,18 130:4 132:23 waste 18:2 19:1 22:10 38:9 148:1 149:5
81:1,15,20 136:9,22 133:21 60:9 104:6 witnessed 56:1
108:10 114:25 137:20 watch 95:18 147:12 wondered 129:8
115:12 138:6 wanted 46:12,18 watching 95:17 we've 121:14 wood 18:15,16
vagueness 62:6 72:5 102:17 water 47:11 75:8 WGI 6:10 22:1,9 word 35:14
valid 130:14 106:5,8 147:11 138:15 38:15 43:23,25 53:21 56:20
value 31:2 Ward 6:12 78:18 waterlines 76:24 47:21 48:21 62:24 83:2
valves 75:5 145:12 waterway 17:16 49:5 51:13,19 100:13
various 17:7 Washington way 22:17 25:18 51:23 52:14,14 worded 25:7
36:14 97:1 2:16 19:16 33:13 35:16 57:24 58:16,24 words 73:24
varying 87:6 30:19,20 34:7 60:4 72:25 58:24 61:8,13 work 6:17 13:1,2
104:8 34:19 37:15 74:21 80:1 61:13 79:6,15 13:3 14:7 15:5
venture 19:12 40:4 41:18 95:14 96:6,8,8 80:3,16 81:12 15:9,24 19:9
verbal 7:18 42:8 50:5 116:3 117:18 82:24 83:13,20 19:25 20:11
vernacular 22:7 53:10,14,19 127:4 131:12 84:13 85:19 23:1 26:14
version 132:10 57:24 58:4,9 143:13 149:15 94:14 97:25 27:7 28:6,7
vessel 75:18 59:14,15,18 ways 86:13,13 98:14,17,23,23 30:19,24 36:2
76:11 69:10,17 73:19 86:15 140:6 99:6,17,17 36:21 38:2,4,6
vibrations 74:8 74:14 82:11 wedding 60:19 100:6 101:5,22 38:8,10,13,16
VIDEOGRAP... 87:21,25 89:14 60:23 61:10 102:3,22 103:9 38:17,22 39:17
3:14 89:20 91:24

8/8/2008
Page 172
40:4,11,14,17 writing 13:10 11:21 13:25 16:14 98:10

41:2,5 45:20 14:8 111:3,5 15:19,20 17:21 1995 17:22 48621 58:16,24
46:19 52:13 writings 111:7 25:23 47:7 1996 17:22 48630 58:24
54:18,19,23,23 written 131:11 60:12 72:23 1997 29:5 139:1
54:23 55:23,24 132:23 134:24 73:19 75:7 139:21 140:6 5
55:25 56:2 wrong 45:17 97:9 140:23 5 4:14 10:22
57:23 60:3 46:9 yesterday 60:14 1999 18:22 26:3 109:11 126:2,4
61:14,17,22 wrote 12:18 y'all 21:2 113:1 27:1 29:18 126:25 140:24
62:17 71:1,12 129:20,24 39:8,14 146:9,14
74:2 82:21,25 $ 504-525-1335
83:5,10 86:2 X $100 144:16,17 2 2:7
86:19 87:7,15 X 4:1,1 2 4:11 59:10 504-862-2843
93:1 94:10 # 60:8,10 120:14 2:24
103:21 105:21 Y #75005 1:25 120:19 57505 98:23
106:20 114:7 yard 15:7 149:25 2nd 93:23 146:10
131:13,15,22 yardage 15:13 2000 26:1,1,2 57506 100:6
yards 41:8 95:20 0 30:3,10 122:15 57516 109:4
132:1 135:1
95:22 01 26:24 41:22 2001 27:4 30:12 122:14
136:15,15
yeah 12:24 13:14 41:22,25 42:2 33:4 47:19 57518 126:9
workday 33:13
13:22,25 16:12 42:5 57:9,18 58:15 61:15 57522 133:7
worked 14:25
19:2 23:15 60:12 73:15 122:16 57523 98:24
15:13,14 23:7
24:4,9 26:1 02 57:11 73:16 2001-2002 67:14 133:23 137:13
28:3 53:12
33:10,16 42:14 05-4182 1:5 2002 53:3 55:1 146:11
82:11 86:8,17
42:18 43:3 057520 130:23 57:10
87:17 94:3
44:13 47:14 06-2268 1:8 20044 2:16 6
99:17
worker 105:17 50:8,24 53:4 2005 50:7 93:23 6 4:5,15 139:6
55:13 57:11,18 1 140:1
workforce 10:24 140:5 144:19
60:7,25 61:5 1 4:10 8:25 9:10
working 12:8,15 2008 1:13 148:25 6.0 133:7
63:3 65:10 29:15 46:16 60 4:11 95:20
12:24 31:17 202-616-4289
66:6,16 67:23 133:8 134:6 6190 6:2
37:16 45:14 2:17
68:11,18 72:6 1A 46:17
46:19,25 87:4 25 65:16 79:7,18 62 4:12
72:14,22 77:19 1.0 109:2
87:11,13,21 26 6:16 26:13
78:11,21 85:22 1.1 109:3 7
93:24 95:4,6 27:3 30:13
88:6 89:10,13 1.1.0 100:9 7.1 130:24
103:19 107:1 262190 94:14
91:11 93:4 10 59:5 79:2 70113 2:6
workload 17:10 262218 138:24
97:4 98:10 109 4:14 70118 6:3
works 16:5 139 4:15
99:22 101:3 3 70118-3651 2:23
39:16 41:2 14 128:17
108:22,22 3 4:12 61:13 70737 6:2
49:5,9,17 146 4:6
118:4 129:8 62:1 121:15 70809 1:12
worst 75:16 15 49:10,18
worth 70:7,9 133:16,19 30(b)(6) 124:24 7400 2:22
142:11 144:2 19 58:15 32-acre 107:4 75 65:18
105:21 1940s 36:18
144:21 365 104:2 78 15:19
wouldn't 21:11 1970 9:18
58:8,9 85:24 year 9:17 10:20 37607 61:13
12:7 26:18,23 1974 10:22 11:25 37615 61:14 8
128:2 131:5 13:19 14:16 8 77:24,25 79:1
143:17,18 104:12 105:15
145:9 1982 15:22 4 140:21
write 83:12 1992 15:19 16:4 4 4:13 93:10 8th 1:13 148:25
years 10:12

8/8/2008
Page 173
855 2:5
8710 1:11
888 2:14
9
9 4:10 140:24
9/11 41:24 42:2
42:2,3
92 15:20
93 4:13
97 26:7,9
99 26:5,10

1 (Pages 1 To 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 (Pages 1 To 4)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 (Pages 1 To 4)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MONTEGUT, III, JAMES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

1 APPEARANCES: 1 EXAMINATION INDEX

1 STIPULATION 1 A. Two or three. This being the third or

1 JAMES A. MONTEGUT, III 1 You understand that.

1 Q. At the end of the five-year period, 1 A. Not as I recall, no.

1 A. Yes. That's correct. 1 hazardous toxic and radioactive waste--

1 MR. JOANEN: 1 with that work, with that project. Um -- this

1 payments from WGI. 1 would have you reviewing those as opposed to an

1 you're asking me? 1 Q. In your initial introductions to the

1 MR. LEVINE: 1 computations, perhaps we in the office did some

1 A. Please repeat that. 1 Q. I said to your knowledge.

1 Q. Uh-huh. Yes, sir. 1 they would go to was up to them.

1 survey. 1 Q. As the project progressed into 2002,

1 Q. Good deal. 1 up a computer somewhere and run a program

1 A. I would review them. Not necessarily 1 MR. LEVINE:

1 MR. LEVINE: 1 A. Well, I think that's the only way you

1 Objection vague; those 1 A. No. One of the, um -- I guess

1 Q. Done it myself. 1 A. No. There again, though, Washington

1 project? 1 questions to you, since you're the finance --

26 (Pages 101 to 104)

27 (Pages 105 to 108)

1 Q. In this report, it indicates a 1 MS. CRONIN:

28 (Pages 109 to 112)

1 defense agreement. If y'all want to 1 A. No.

1 I was asking him a question if he 1 MR. LEVINE:

29 (Pages 113 to 116)

1 evaluations? 1 A. I don't know.

1 a problem. The problem is, in this particular 1 review?

30 (Pages 117 to 120)

1 Q. This -- the excavation of the concrete 1 don't see a question.

31 (Pages 121 to 124)

1 project completion reports, we were 1 familiar with or aware of?

32 (Pages 125 to 128)

33 (Pages 129 to 132)

1 Washington Group is at risk whenever it 1 Objection. Calls for

34 (Pages 133 to 136)

1 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 1 Q. I'll mark this as Exhibit 6. In this

35 (Pages 137 to 140)

1 My question to you, in relation to 1 it to be in the QC, the quality control report.

1 EXAMINATION BY MR. JOANEN: 1 Objection.

36 (Pages 141 to 144)

1 A. Yes. 1 government that if we -- since this

1 conclusions. 1 WITNESS' CERTIFICATE

37 (Pages 145 to 148)

A action 1:4 132:7 105:1 announcement 84:23

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

113:24 114:1 95:16 107:2,2 believe 26:22 108:7

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

91:20 car 44:16 86:22 channel 15:12 closest 78:11 competence

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

concerns 51:24 86:6 93:1 116:14 59:23 61:8 46:15 48:14

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

C-O-R-P-S decisions 109:8 8:4 9:1,2 54:11 40:9 46:20 140:13

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

110:21 111:4,6 108:1 effect 71:8 26:3 27:2 51:4 62:14

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285

evaluations 134:22 136:8 expectation face 34:21 49:10,18 55:4

Johns Pendleton Court Reporters 800 562-1285