HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-00989
j
)
~
~
~
-4-0
\.
\l
--Q
~
~
d
~ '
N
~
~
~
\l
~
~
VI
()
1 )
Q/
i
...
t~
-
, -
:)
c:.j:
-
BLANK ROM": COMISKY & McCAULEY LLI'
BY: DAVID N, ZlmIlANI>..:LAAlt. ESQUIIU:
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 31923
JOliN J. MONS":":S, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO, 57966
ONE LOGAN SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103
(215) 569-5500
ATTORNEYS FOR I'LAINTIFF
CARLOS R. LEFFLER. INC.,
225 East Main Street
Rlehland, PA 17087-0278
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC. INC.
369 East Park Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17101
.JURY TRIAL I>EMANDED
qF- crfq ~,,~
Defendant.
NOTICE TO DEFEND
You have been sued in eourt, If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a wrillen appearance personally or by allorney and filing in writing with the
court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against you, You are warned that if you
fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the
court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or
relief requested by the plaintiff, You may lose money or property or other rights important to
you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE, IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP,
.. . '. .
CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
2 LIBERTY AVENUE
CARLISLE PA 17013
(717) 249 3166
\....J_.vv_uv
\
'-..,
"
facility for pctrolcum products on Locust Point Road in Ncw Kingslown, Cumhcrlallll County,
Pcnnsylvania, which has a mailing address of 236 Locust Point Road, Mechanicshurg,
Pennsylvania 17055,
2, Defendant Herbert, Rowland & Grubie, lnc, ("HRG") is a professional corporation
organized pursuant to the laws oflhe Conllnonwealth of Pennsylvania with ils principal place of
business at 369 East Park Drive in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101, HRG provides engineering
consulting and design services,
II, ,Jurisdiction and Venue
3, This Court has jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 42 Pa, C,S,A, 9 530 I, jj~,
4, Venue is proper pursuant to Pa,R,Civ,p, 1006, because this cause of action arises out
of an occurrence at Lefl1er's bulk storage facility located in New Kingstown, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania,
III, Statement of Facts
5, In April, 1988, Leffler purchascd a bulk storage facility for petroleum products on
Locust Point Road in New Kingstown, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, At the time of
purchase, the New Kingstown facility consisted of live above-ground storage tanks ("ASTs") , an
office and a loading rack, Each AST was surrounded by a series of earthen dikes which fonned
individual containment cells,
6, After purchasing the New Kingstown facility, Leffler decided to renovate and expand
the storage capacity of the facility by removing two of the existing ASTs and replacing them
with two new, larger ASTs,
2
40 C,F,R, * 112,7(e)(2)(ii),
II. HRG was well aware of the federul design requircmcnts for petroleum products hulk
storage facilitics in Octoher, 1988 because IIRG assigncd onc of its cnginccrs, Dehoruh A,
Gingrich, to pcrfoml thc neccssary calculations to dcmonstrutc that thc containmcnt arca
dcsigncd by HRG had the requisite capacity to hold the contents of thc largest storage tank at the
New Kingstown facility plus sufficient freeboard, HRG submitted these calculations for the
"required containment volume" to Silver Spring Township in support of Leffler's application for
a zoning variance on October 25, 1988,
12, In 1988, prior to Leffler's rcnovation of the New Kingstown facility, a pipe for an
abandoned water well projected from an earthen benn located within the tank faml,
13, HRG was aware of this abandoned well bccausc the well was featured on thc Site
Plan prcpared by HRG, Upon infonnation and belief, Robert C, Gmbic, P,E" a principal of
HRG and a registered professional engincer, actually inspected the New Kingstown facility and
noted the prescnce of the well pipe prior to the preparation of the Site Plan,
14, HRG's design for the new containment area at New Kingstown, as reflected in its Site
Plan, called for the removal ofthe bcnn containing the abandoned well. However, HRG's Site
Plan did not provide any instmctions with respect to the well, HRG did not take any action to
ensure that this well would be properly capped and sealed prior to commencement of the
renovation work,
15, At no time did HRG advise Leffler of any risk associated with locating an unlined
containment area over and around an abandoned well bore,
4
r ,
I
[,
"
"
16, Thc Zoning Hcaring Board for Silvcr Spring Township gruntcd Lcrncr's application
i '
for a zoning vurillncc for the New KingstolVn facility during u public mceting on Deccmbcr 7,
1988, Deboruh A, Gingrich ofHRG rcprcscntcd Lcrner utthis mccting, During this mccting,
/.
~ I
the Bourd questioned thc intcgrity ofthc cxisting contllinmcnt dikes, Thc BOllrd subsequcntly
conditioncd its upprovul of Lcrner's vuriuncc on Lerncr's improvcmcnt ofthc dikes, HRG
kncw, or should huvc known, tlllltthc diked contllinmentllrcll wus II criticlll component of thc
fllcility,
17, Construction of the ncw contllinmcnturell designed by HRG beglln in JlInullry, 1989,
,
18, On Februllry 2, 1997, Lerner cxpcricnced II fuel oil spillut its New Kingstown flleility
in which lIn cstimllted 45,000 to 65,000 gllllons of fucl oil escllped fromll storugc tllnk into thc
diked contllinment area surrounding the tank fann,
19, The dikcd containment arca had sufficicnt volumc to contain this spill in its entirety,
20, However, during the removal of the spillcd fuel oil from the containment area, Leffler
discovered the abandoned well bore under the surface of the containment area, This well bore,
which ran to a depth of approximately 280 feet, lIlIowed approximlltely 30,000 gallons of fuel oil
to escape into the groundwater underlying the site,
21, The contamination of the groundwater by the fuel oil which escllped from the
containment area substantially increased the costs oCthe work undertaken by Leffler to remediate
the oil spill, As of September 18,1997, Leffler had incurred costs attributed to the monitoring
and remediation of the groundwater contamination in excess of$122,OOO, Leffler continues to
incur costs, because the monitoring and remedilltion work is not yet completed,
5
COlllltl
NCl!lh:cllcc
22, Paragraphs I throllgh 21 of the Complaint arc incorporated hy reference as if fully set
forth herein,
23, BRa had the duty of designing the containment area at New Kingstown in
accordance with good engineering pructices and the applicable federal regulations, all of which
required that a diked containment area for a petroleum storage facility be sufficiently impervious
to contain spilled oil,
24, BRa breached this duty by designing a diked containment area with an earthen floor
over and around an abandoned well bore without taking any measures to ensure that the well
would be properly capped and scaled, BRa designed this containment area and represented that
it would be sufficiently impervious to contain spilled oil despite its knowledge of the existence of
the well bore,
25, BRa was aware, or should have been aware, that the presence of an abandoned well
bore within and under the unlined, earthen floor of the containment area represented a latent
defect in the integrity of the containment area which foreseeably could facilitate the
contamination of the underlying groundwater in the event of an oil spill,
26, BRa's Site Plan should have identified the well as a prospective hazard to the
integrity of the containment area and contained an instruction that the well be properly capped
and sealed to present the possibility of spilled oil from entering the well bore,
6
27, But for the existcnce of the well bore within and under the cart hen floor of the
containmenturca, all of the oil relcascd during the Fehruary 2, 1l)lJ7 spill incident would havc
rcmaincd inthc containmcnt arcaand would have bccn recovercd by Lefflcr's spill rcsponsc
forccs,
28. As a rcsult of HRG's ncgligcncc in dcsigning the containmcnt arca at thc Ncw
Kingstown facility ovcr and around an abandoncd well borc, Lcffler has incurred significant
costs in monitoring and rcmcdiating thc contamination of the groundwatcr at thc sitc, Lcfflcr is
continuing, and will continuc, to incur costs for monitoring and rcmcdiation work, Lcfflcr would
not havc incurrcd any ofthcsc costs but for HRG's ncgligcncc,
WHEREFORE plaintiff Carlos R, Lcfflcr, [nc, dcmands thatjudgmcnt bc cntercd against
the defcndant, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, [nc" for all costs incurrcd to datc by Lcffler in
monitoring and remcdiating the fucl oil contamination of thc groundwatcr at its Ncw Kingstown
facility, Moreover, the Court should enter an order dcclaring HRG liablc for all of Leffler's costs
of monitoring and remediating the groundwater contamination at New Kingstown incurred in the
future, Additionally, the Court should award Leffler its costs, allorneys' fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem equitablc and just.
Count II
NCl1ligcncc Pcr Se
29, Paragraphs [ through 28 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein,
7
. '
30, HRG expressly represented in its Site Plunthat "all tank and site facilities shall be in
uecordunce with Title 40 -- Protection of the Environment, Chapter I -- Environmental Protection
Agency, Subchapter D -- Water Programs Subpart 112 -- Oil Pollution Prevention",
31, The applicable federal regulations provide that a diked containment urea should be
"sufficiently impervious to contain spilled oil", 40 C,F,R, * 112,7(e)(2)(ii),
32, HRG violated the applicable federal regulations by designing an unlined, diked
containment area around an abandoned well bore, HRG's containment area was not "sufficiently
impervious to contain spilled oil" because it was reasonably foreseeable that spilled oil could
seep through the earthen floor of the containment area and enter the groundwater through the
well bore,
33, But for the presence oCthis well underneath the earthen floor of the containment area,
the oil released during the February 2, 1997 spill incident would not have entered the
groundwater underlying the New Kingstown facility,
34, As a result ofHRG's negligence ~~, by failing to design the containment area at
New Kingstown to be "sufficiently impervious to contain spilled oil", Leffler has incurred
significant costs in monitoring and remediating the groundwater contamination, Leffler is
continuing, and will continue, to incur costs for groundwater monitoring and remediation work,
Leffler would not have incurred any of these costs but for HRG's negligence Illl! g,
WHEREFORE plaintiff Carlos R, Leffler, Inc, demands that judgment be entered against
the defendant, Herbert, Rowland & Grubie, Inc" for all costs incurred by Leffler to date in
monitoring and remediating the fuel oil contamination oCthe groundwater at the New Kingstown
8
facility, Morcovcr, thc Court should cntcr IIn ordcr declaring BRG liahlc for 1111 of Lcrner's costs
of monitoring and rcmediating thc groundwatcr contaminational New Kingstown incurrcd inthc
future, Additionally, the Court should aWllrd Lerner its costs, 1I110meys' fccs and such other
relief as the Court may decm equitable IInd just.
Count III
Failure to Warn
35, Paragraphs I through 34 of the Complaint are incorporated by reference as if fully set
forth herein,
36, Lerner retained HRG, in part, to provide professional engineering services with
respect to the renovation of the New Kingstown facility, HRG's services in this regard included
the design of a new diked containment area to surround the expanded tank fann,
37, HRG knowingly designed the new containment area around an abandoned well, The
well was featured on HRG's Site Plan, Upon infonnation and belief, Robert C, Grubic, P,E" a
principal ofHRG and a professional engineer, observed this well during an inspection of the
facility prior to the drafting ofHRG's Site Plan,
38, As professional engineering consultants, HRG knew, or should have known, that the
presence of an abandoned well bore within and beneath an unlined, earthen-floored containment
area represented a latent defect in the structural integrity ofthe containment area,
39, Notwithstanding HRG's engineering expertise, HRG failed to wam Leffler ofthe risk
represented by the well bore under and within the containment area,
9
"
40, As II result of!-lRG's fnilure to wam Lerner of this risk, the well wns not properly
enpped nnd scaled during the construction of the new eontninment nren, nnd the structnral
integrity ofthe containment area wns compromised,
41. But for !-IRG's fnilure to wam Lerner of this risk, the well would have bcen properly
enpped IInd scaled, nnd the oil which escaped during the February 2, 1997 spill incident would
not have entered the groundwater underlying the New Kingstown fncility,
42, As a result of !-IRG's fnilure to wnm Lerner of the risk represented by the abandoned
well bore under and within the containment nren, Lerner has incurred significnnt costs in
monitoring and remediating the groundwater contnminntion, Lerner is continuing, and will
continue, to incur costs for groundwater monitoring and remedial nctivities, Lerner would not
have incurred any of these costs but for !-IRG's failure to warn of this risk,
WHEREFORE plaintiff Carlos R, Lerner, Inc, demands that judgment be entered against
the defendant, Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc" for all costs incurred by Lerner to dnte in
monitoring and remediating the fuel oil contamination of the groundwater at the New Kingstown
facility, Moreover, the Court should enter an order declaring HRG liable for all of Lerner's costs
of monitoring and remediating the groundwater contamination lit New Kingstown incurred in the
10
.
.
future, Additionally, the Court should award Lerner its costs, attorneys' fees and such other
relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY LLP
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
Carlos R, Lerner, Ine,
Dated: February 1$ ,1998
11
.......;.:,.
.,..
0"
:<i:
I=-,
UJ~.
c..~t-,
[t:'L
~)'"
.., \."
E?I;.~'
-Ii!
G:-l"
i-:
U.
o
"
O'
....,
a-.
--
~;
-1.-:::
-r-
:.:1
'I: _
t......
, ~ :....1
" .~', ~
~ <~:~
~.-~ u..
':)
U
,'")
N
c.::.~
loJ
W-
en
0'
fl !V
~
\f") \ '
'Q'<")
~
~
~ ~ 1"\'1 ('
! ~ rn "I>
..:::::3- \
~ ,(""
r-i
~
ci ~c:J
~ I
,
.........:l
.'. to:
',~'" ,
'_"o'l",' i' l..j'
G(::.:ii':.
. i...", '. . ...' \., ~ '1 :
'f.. i_.J.L,j",;i;.'
;_:l,~i~L~.;.;,;.i:, .0~;~i,-~,.!;;:;':""-_.,~I~""'_...i.-:2~-.;.____..~ __~._'"~~
.-
i j EX:L',sJ0':"J~:"';"~ L;\ ;', to
t.,i.~jUl'~~JJ.~_
n.
T L ,.:_1 ~II .j ~~ i'; 1 ';. n j,7
~';l+:"-l .l..ll,
Nfl..:) L("".i.II\c1 .:_"JJ.}'i.....()(fl .;cc":'ddl..liU
.'
t(, ld-"', ;::,J,/S. ;"^:j~'';' i,'_" ;');:I'-~;.:
(j.ll""k.l~.:nc ~'~"ul.::~ll ,:-jHu ,UI4lJ:U,j' ti~q UIIi' ....lU1.Ut
n'::ln:\.:'d
:;:uhILI\r~LI.:~ L1EI.jB Le,
".'
J.itl.,
j.;..' L\.~':jU '~::11;_.
~_ '~, '<1:1. C ;
rl::,I';!:iLh I
but. ~i'~1;;'j lji),J1Jl.t::.. t.u ~.IJ'~:Jt..:'
~l. ....:.;;. :";d~ll.'tlJ_l.:;i:.
ft.;! UIC't;'L'1.Dl"l;'
I i J..:.~m
dl::'};:) :;.i, :;,,~..j
t 11;::
lJ L
L.'l\UF'H III
Cl....Ullty,
F.::nnsyl'l.J.fi.Lci.
;.;;1Ic'.I:
. J..J.
t '~f ,;~ I~::. '.,; .;: i. h ~:o .... i t. t 1 i n ~~ U i'1.l2ldiliU~
[in
;J I_I" 1 ';)':/';;"
lrJl.':'O: (,i.l'iCIc, Old;;.; -ill 1 C'L'~~"J_pl of
n:;.ll'j:'h
I.-h;;] j :':~;j,:.-.hcd rc.'~:ul ft ':.i. 1:'1,;;
LJAUFH in
(;'.IIJnl,/, I t:-lin~~;y.l\-'diJ.l;;;.
SJ~c:-iiIPs C0sL~:
:,', '_d~) / .~
__'3'. ~~?: ~~
n. r1.iJlllu._ 1.1.llL", .,;~'J"fl
L',:)( ;':r'tl;t~1
g~:~: ,_l~~ l ~:l; 'J ,", t~.
.c,id Uphl.L l_,ovn i~ 'l
1:,;... .
~-'.
':',~G~ L;L.t\l~h Hui';l':; Cl);'j Lii;.~r:'l ;-::CL-.\UL.E'i
l./,.::i,. U)/ 1 (f)~;;
:;;'.1';,;' i'l c.:i~ld sut....cr.i.iJ.Jd tu b;"~'j,cce n;('
, , _. (') ~"'" 'c. i -n.. J)
'_ll...;.. 0._.__7____ ">"/ ~ .lL\-f(..'~___
1 'C) __'fJ___ i\. i>.
..______0_ ~__C_,)l~-1L.Ot'1i~----
':::=:'~ ;'l-_It.;l'_'il;__-\"'~I,::/'
.
III The Court of Common Picas of Cumbcl'lund COllnty, Pcnnsylvunia
Carlos R. Leffler. Inc.
vs,
r-
~\:
,
Herbert. Rowland 5 Grubic, Inc.
No, 98-989 CIvil
19_
"
Now, 2/25/98
Dauphin
19_,1 SHERIFF OF CUi\IUERLAND COUNTY, PA do hereh~' depullzelhe Sheriff of
Counly 10 execule lhls Writ, Ihls depulullon helng mude Ullhe rellueslund risk of Ihe Plulnllff,
(
.~ !
I
r~"".<"-::/~e
Sheriff of Cumherlund Coun!)', I'll,
\.
,
Affidavit of Service
Now,
wllhln
upon
al
hy banding 10
attesled copy of Ihe origlnul
Ibe conlenls Ihereof,
19
tat
o'clock
1\1, served the
ulrue und
und mude known 10
i
,
\
.
I
,i
So answers,
Sheriff of
Coun!)'.l'u,
~
I
,
COSTS
Sworn und suhscrihed hefore
me chis d..tyor
19_
SERVICE
MILEAGE
AFFIDA VIT
s
s
.
,
"
orFICE or p'r. S/lnllFi'
clnJt~ 'I' l'ITY
H~R 9 II 39 AM '90
GiHi,Ll;lLC
PENHS YLYMII^
;
..
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS R, LEFFLER, INC.,
Plaintiff
NO, 98-989
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
HERBERT, ROWLAND & ORUBIC, INC"
Dcfcndant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO REI'LY
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plcad to thc within Answcr and Ncw Mattcr twcnty
(20) days from thc datc of scrvicc hcrcof or a dcfault judgmcnt may bc cntcrcd against you.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS R, LEFFLER, INC"
Plaintiff
NO. 98-989
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBlC, INC.,
Dcfendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER
1-4, Admitted,
5. Admitted,
6. Admitted to thc cxtent thalthc avcrmcnts of paragraph 6 arc consistent with thc
rcnovation work actually pcrformcd by the Plaintiff.
7, Admittcd in part and dcnicd in part. It is admittcd that Dcfcndant agreed to
perform ccrtain engincering scrviccs for thc Plaintiff as wcll as to rcprcsent thc Plaintiff bcfore
,
\
,
I
the zoning hearing board and the Township Board of Supervisors for thc purpose of obtaining
approval of thc modifications to thc cxisting facility, To the cxtentthnt paragraph 7 avers a ncw
"
design or anything othcr than minor modifications in accordance with thc scopc of work attached
hereto and marked Exhibit E, thosc pleadings arc denied,
8. Denied, Thc Defcndant performed scrviccs over an cxtcndcd period of time
resulting in the production of a "sitc plan" datcd Octobcr 18, 1988 and signcd on October 25,
1988 by Robert C, Grubic, a Professional Enginccr Iiccnscd to practicc cnginccring in thc
Commonwealth of Pcnnsylvania, The rcmaining avcrmcnts of paragraph 8 rcgarding what is
contained on the sitc plan, a copy of which is attached hercto and markcd Exhibit B are denied
i
I
I"
1--,
I '
\
to the extent that they are inconsistent with the said site plan or do not accurately state the full
extent of the contents of the site plan,
9, Admilled in part and denicd in part, II is admillcd that the words quoted in
paragraph 9 of the Plaintiff's Complaint were contained on the site plan along with numerous
other words and it is specifically averred that a portion thereof cannot be read separately to
allegedly convey the meaning of the language used on the site plan, The rcmaining averments
of paragraph 9 are admilled,
10, Admilled in part and denied in parI. II is admillcd that the language set forth in
paragraph 10 of the Plaintiff's Complaint does constitute a portion of the part 12 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, 40 C,F,R,* 112,I(a), etC' By way of further answer it is averred that
the regulation is in excess of 60 pages in length and all of it must be read conjointly.
11. Admilled,
12, Denied, As set forth in both the site plan prepared by the Defendant (Exhibit B)
and the drawing of the existing facility provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and dated May
2, 1988, the only well referred to on the plan was an existing well that the Plaintiff advised
Defendant was still operating and in use, To the best of the knowlcdge, information and belief
of the Defendant, there were no "abandoned wells" as averred in paragraph 12 of the Plaintiff's
Complaint, and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
13, Denied in part and ad milled in parI. To the extent that the averments of
paragraph 13 continue to refer to an "abandoned" well, they are denied, The averments
regarding an examination and inspection of the site by Robert C, Grubic are admillcd,
2
14, Denied, On the contrary, as set forth at various places herein, to the best of the
knowledge, information and belief of the answering Defendant there was no abandoned well on
the property, The well referred to in the site plan provided to the Defendant by the Plaintiff as
well as the site plan for the reeonstruction prepared by the Defendant for the Plaintiff referred
to a "water well" which, since the Plaintiff had advised the Defendant was a working and
existing water well, was reasonably assumed by the Defendant to be properly capped and
impervious to the entry of any oil or oil products in the event of a spill.
15. Admitted, By way of further answer it is admitted that at no time was the
Defendant aware of the existence of any abandoned well bore and proof to the contrary is
determined at trial.
16, Admitted,
17, Admitted,
18, Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the averments of paragraph 18 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
19, Admitted,
20, Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the averments of paragraph 20 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
21, Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the averments of paragraph 21 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
3
and proof thereof is demandcd at trial. By way of further answer it is averred that monitoring
and remcdiation work are always required by applicable fedcral rcgulations following a spill of
oil or oil products,
COUNT I
22, The responscs to paragraphs I through 21 hercinabove am incorporated herein by
reference thereto,
23, Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that the Defendant had a duty
to perform all engineering work in accordance with good engineering practices and applicable
federal regulations, The remaining averments of paragraph 23, to the extent that they paraphrase
some or all of the applicable federal regulations referred to by the Plaintiff arc denied to the
extent that they connict with those applicable federal rcgulations or fail to fully and completely
slate the terms or conditions thereof,
24, Denied, On the contrary, it is averrcd that at alltimcs during the design of the
facility, the Defendant had been advised by the Plaintiff that the water well in question was an
existing operating well and the Defendant reasonably and prudently assumed that it was properly
capped and impervious to any oil or oil products,
25, Denied, The averments of paragraph 25 constitute speculation as to a duty that
was not assumed by the Defendant who had no knowledge that there existed an abandoned well,
was not advised that there existed an abandoned well on the premises, and was, to the contrary,
advised by the Plaintiff that there was an cxisting operating water well on the premises which
4
the Defendant reasonably and prudently assumed 10 be properly cappcd and impervious to the
entry of oil or oil products that might be spilled,
26, Denicd. As sct forlh al numcrous places hereinabove, the Defendant was not
aware of the existence of an abandoncd well and proof to the conlrary is demanded at trial.
27, Denied, After rcasonable investigation, answcring Dcfcndant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the avcrmcnts of paragraph 27 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
and proof thercof is demandcd at trial.
28, Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the averments of paragraph 28 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
and proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer it is averred that remediation
and monitoring are required in any spill and proof that remediation and monitoring required in
this matter were any different based on the existence of an abandoncd underground well is
demanded at trial. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that the Defendant was in any way
negligent as alleged in paragraph 28 of Ihe Plaintiff's Complaint,
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully prays your Honorable Court to award
judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff on the cause of aetion declared in Count I of the
Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT II
29, The responses to paragraphs 1 through 28 hereinabove are incorporated herein by
reference thereto,
30, Admitted,
5
31, Denied, The averments of paragraph 31 constitute a paraphrase and quotation of
a portion of the applicable federal regulation, the entirety of which is pleaded in respunse
thereto,
32. Denied, On the contrary, as set forth at numerous places hereinabove, the
answering Defendant was not aware nor had been advised of the existence of an underground
well and proof to the contrary is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is averred that
answering Defendant was aware of the existence of an existing operating water well and proof
to the contrary is demanded at trial.
33, Denied, After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowledge as to the truth or falsity of the averments of paragraph 33 of the Plaintiff's Complaint
and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
34, Denied, The averments of paragraph 34 of the Plaintiff's Complaint constitute
a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, To the extent that the
averments of paragraph 34 of the Plaintiff's Complaint are pleadings of fact, and without
waiving the above objection, they are denied for reason set forth more fully at various places
herein and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully prays your Honorable Court to award
judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff on the cause of action declared in Count II of the
Plaintiff's Complaint.
6
COUNT III
35, The responses to paragraphs I through 34 hereinabove are incorporatcd herein by
reference thereto.
36, Denied, On the contrary, the purpose of the agreement between the parties is as
set forth in that agreement which is a written agreement and speaks for itself,
37, Denied as set forth at numerous places hereinabove,
38, Denied, The averments of paragraph 38 are based on faets specifically denied by
the Defendant and no such duty can exist absent those facts,
39, Denied, There existed no known underground abandoned well and the answering
Defendant had no concomitant duty, therefore, to warn Plaintiff of any dangers.
40, Denied for the reasons set forth at numerous places hereinabove,
41. Denied for reasons set forth at numerous places hereinabove,
42. Denied for reasons set forth at numerous places hereinabove,
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully prays your Honorable Court to award
judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff on the cause of action declared in Count III of the
Plaintiff's Complaint.
NEW MATTER
43, The design of the containment area prepared by the Defendant for the Plaintiff,
which design admittedly contained all of the spill which the Plaintiffs allege, contained berms
surrounding the various tanks of no higher than five feel.
7
44, The intent of the berms amI the reason for their existence is to contain any spill
of oil or oil products in a controlled area from which it could be removed without further
damage.
45, At the time of the design, the well head extended above the live foot level of an
existing berm,
46, The design was such that the well head would extend above the level of any
projected spilltbat would remain within the berm,
47, On May 13, 1988, Deborah Gingerich, an employee of the Defendant asked to
work on tbe project, met at the facility with John Byler, an employee of the Plaintiff and
authorized to speak on behalf of the Plaintiff,
48, Mr, Byler specilically advised Ms, Gingerich that Lerner wished to continue to
use the existing well. A copy of Ms, Ging.:nch's notes taken on that date is attached hereto and
marked Exhibit C,
49, The scope of services undertaken by the Defendant was completed in January of
1989 and the file was closed prior to construetion,
50. Tbe Defendant has no knowledge as to whether the well head was damaged,
broken or removed during the course of construction and whether or not the well was
subsequently covered over creating the situation alleged by the Plaintiff,
51. If, at some time after the termination of the services of the ,Defendant on this
project in January of 1988, the well head was subsequenlly covered up, the Plaintiff knew or
by the exercise of reasonable care should have known of its existence and should bave taken
8
stcps on its own tu asccrtain whcthcr ur not remedial wurk uught to be undertaken to properly
cap thc well.
52. It is unknown whether any of the uil that is alleged to have escaped from the
containment area actually escaped through any abandoned or existing well dwelling and proof
thereof is demanded at trial,
53, All of the remcdiation and monitoring performcd by the Plaintiff as a result of the
spill would bave bccn required to havc been performed by the Plaintiff regardless of the
existence of an abandoned well borc, The Plaintiff knew of the existcnce of the well at all times
relevant hereto,
54. The Defendant performcd no furthcr review of the construction of the
modifications to the existing facility nor of the maintcnance of facilities after January of 1989,
55, The Plaintiff retained full and completc responsibility for monitoring and
maintaining its facility in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations,
56. Defendant is aware of no modifications to the facility after it left the project in
January of 1989 and proof that the work on the facility was performed in accordance with the
plan prepared by Defendant is demanded at trial.
Respectfully submitted,
STETLER & GRIBBIN
Date: ~jtd(('~
9
':- .... r::
IT, Lr.
~l; >:
,--.
U~~:! r. :~ .'? "-I.
<.. (::~ ~J :>
EC ..' 0:
.L.,. ~J'. ".~ ~'2
'T) =
l.' C:'
OJ '.' u:
UJ l ,--.} .."/:"-:
till; ,,,' -..
C~ ;/It.a
'," c.....
j:.: <U: :,.';!C:t.
IJ. .~
<T.l :::>
(.") 0'1 U
, ,
:.
z
-
I'l
I'l
-
I>:
()
Ii9
I>:
III
..:l
l;;
ti
~ ~ !
~ $ ~ ~
i ~ ~ I
~!l :I
~
. -
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS R, LEFFLER, INC.,
Plaintiff
NO. 98-989
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBlC, INC"
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please substitute the original Verification attached hereto for the photocopy previously
attached to the Answer and New Matter of HRG in the within matter and attach as Exhibit Band
C the Exhibits attached hereto,
Respectfully submitted,
STETLER & GRIBBIN
Date:
L!,l6(~
VERIFICATION
I hereby certify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter arc true
and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, This Verification is made only
as to the factual averments contained therein, and not to legal conclusions and averments
authored by counsel in his capacity as attorney for the party or parties hereto, I understand false
statements herein arc made subject to the penalties of 18 I'a, C,S, *4904 relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities,
Date: 4- /-;:r-5'6
~~
Robert C, Grubic, ,Ii
Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc,
,
'.I
!Xl
:E
~
fr'
',-'
. ~ .,.
--
~~'-I
.. s., I
, . .1,.....
HERBERT, ROWLAND
& GRUBIC, INC,
4099 Derry Street
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17111.2239
(717) 564-1121
Jon
011[[' NO
0'
CALCUlA no bY
I)Ar[
ClltCKto nv
DATI!
BeALl!
'''''''';-"1''''') ........ \ ~o"""""-' \0,'\<::....... ct""\ c., \'..., '\...=0;:;.-::;;,-.....-"3
'5 -\3-85
. ~'-'-" ""X..'-'-'''''~__o.... ~..-.-..--:.,o;-~o"
l-'\'~,c:,<-... "'- ~~..-.-.... "":s;:c....:.." ""_
~ ~""'-.. ~C> '0.,-:..... ~ <=.. \-~C.L.,~ --"""I'c::=;
~ ='---'f""tc.""'- ..,.,-..... v-... ,"'\<::-...... ~=~..--, ,n",\
~, -c..,..:, ~ -.- '. <-<'\ ~'-'= '\ c>,., -,-co-, \.::S
l~ <:....<.:lo-.-...,. -;-0 "Y=-........~ C::. ~.........."c....... """"''<0-::;
~',~ "2:.0,== """""", "='=-<::"ov--.-..=- ~.....<:::>":::.<::-.-.,~
..... ---
,~ .::. ,.. ,= ,== ""\ e-.., \..-=. ""'\::= 'c=Co.--.-.. "'"- ~'_:'" c. , "
8" ~=-., ~= -...-.--......~_ ?=-<-<'\~ ~,y.=- .,. ,~~
"0 ~\ L...
~, . ()-e~ "."....,'<:..~
.
--1'3' .....0.,,-.,2::,. \ ts' ..........,'\-..-...,
LJ-'
'\ ,6== ,== -=-=='v-..,
~'---<:-.... "",', ....
"'16--,
\=>'--'~ '""\ ~~ ~-=-~\::- ~""""c:.~ <::.. ~......-c-.,,~......"':
~,
'.. ..... .;,
. ...'3~'1 \
0)::e,51_c:-.:_<;;:~_._ <________
<--<':>0.-.,""\ .""'= . c:...~,"\ ,.,.,___~ ~ <-:::>""=- ~,-::s,
./
--=......... '~ ~=---'""'~""'--
O~..... q"'l\>t=- .......'00=-. \.....~ ~Oc:."" - ~O~..........
(~ ."A",,,,,,O<)~,,,,,,, '\
-,c:-.,)'...-.. - ,,~, A "'C\.....-.,
G~""" . ~~o'>=- ""-':""\'-=-
":'r6' '. ~\ "<--=- A":-<=-=- ~s ~c:.. ""o=-. "~"''''=:_ -:c:r-.o"o~"!..~
.'"'\'0 "-c-;-"o'....... --~'~,.... =s;;.)"'~""~_:::,""" ~."....,,,-
l.--c.- .~"n=-,,,,,, --.,~ ~,\l"....'"
~~-\"--o,~"'" c........o::..c.~ ~c-.."- .....=<::..0........ """'""...... ..... ".
\' Q-.:::- ..\,..~.........1)c.-_ .'\t::=::I~_c-~.,~-. 0.-:> .........-c.~' ~
c:....:::>",:::>",,- 'Z..,--.~ <-.::><:'o>=.- ~o ,-=___',_:---.
'P..>c'"S=- =-0;;:. '\"'e>-,'s:-G ~. e" ~,~.....,=---
----..---
"
\0,
:.,~
t~.
~,
~~C"'''' c;)-..., ':-~-.'-" ~~,~~
<:: C"" _ ~ '
,Jc::.~a<:.'c... .,.~ 0, ~c::."",,,,,- .__0
'O''.r\_' -c::::.oc............., ~.\ ~
-cr l,~J_
~~r-,...., ~-=,...
1>' -.. ....,;:.,..:
',',. ...'-.'....:. "',
~ en '.,
\i', I.
"
i-:' ,':: : ~ I .:'
11l( !
('\. . , ., "
r\:I-,' n.. ,
" r' I
(;~ ~.> r-I "
(-1' , ,...;
I.r)"
r}ll,. r.. ... ..
, '.J
j.~ .0, r. 0 .....
..... ...:
II. C''''; ~)
(.J u' ,)
z
-
lQ
lQ
-
'"
t:l
G9
'"
III
..l
f-o
III
f-o
V)
H~
:s ~ :S
~ a ~ ~
s ~ n
~ t:; cl ~
o :i 0: /I:
~!l :.f
~
\
44. Admilled.
45. PlaintifTis without knowledge or infonll11tion sufficient to fomlll belief as to the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 45 of defendant's New Maller, llnd therefore, these avennents arc
denied. By way of further response, the Site Plan prepared by HRG specifically instructed that
the benn containing the well be removed, but did not contain any instructions addressing the
disposition of the well.
46. Denied. The Site Plan prepared by HRG specifically instructed that the benn
containing the well be removed, but did not contain any instructions addressing the disposition of
the well.
47. Admitted that on or about May 13, 1988, Mr. Byler met with an engineer employed
by HRG, Deborah Gingrich, to discuss the renovation ofthe New Kingstown bulk storoge
facility.
48. Denied that Mr. Byler advised Ms. Gingrich that Leffler wished to continue using
any operating well located in the containment area. By way of further response, the Site Plan
subsequently prepared by HRG specifically instructed that the benn containing the well be
removed, but did not contain any instructions addressing the disposition of the well. Leffler's
renovated facility utilized public water service.
49. PlaintifTis without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to fonn a belief as to the truth
of the allegations of paragraph 49 of defendant's New Matter, and therefore, these avennents arc
denied.
2
\.
56. Plaintiff will proffer evidence at trial demonstrating that the work at the New
Kingstown facility was completed in accordance with the instructions contained in the Site Plan
prepared by HRG.
4
'.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Carlos R. Lerner, Inc. demands that judgment be entered against
the defendant, Herbert, Rowland and Grubic, Inc., for all costs incurred to date by Leffler in
monitoring and remediating the fuel oil contamination ofthe groundwater at its New Kingstown
"
facility. Moreover, the Court should enter an order declaring HRG liable for all of Leffler's costs
of monitoring and remediating the groundwater contamination at New Kingstown incurred in the
future. Additionally, the Court should award Leffler its costs, allorneys' fees and such other
BLANK RO COMISKY & McCAULEY LLP
,'i~~/M~
D VID N. ZEEHANDELAAR, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 31923
JOHN J. MONSEES, ESQUIRE
Allorney I.D. No. 57966
One Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 569-5500
(
'---..
BY:
relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted,
1
,
I
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Carlos R. Leffler, Inc.
Dated: May 26,1998
5
IS.14 FROH.BBHD0SaaaS
1010403
PAGE a/a
VF.RIFICA TION
,\,1
,
\
,
I, John E. Byler, in my capacity as Executive Vice President of Carlos R. Leffler,
, .,
Inc., the plaintiff corporation in this action, hereby verify that the statements made in PlaJntiff's
Response to the Defendant's New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
infonnation and belief. I Wlderstand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties
"
~,
,
/:
pursuant to the provisions of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904.
<;
'~
. BYLER
,
Dated: May _ 1998
\
,
I
j
':\
5
DEe 2 2 1998.,~
\Y'
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.,
.
,
.~ t
(:
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 98-989
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this _ day of
,199_, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion to
Compel Defendant to Answer Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents, and defendant's response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiffs motion is
GRANTED. Defendant Herbert, Rowland & Grubie, Inc. shall answer all of plaintiffs discovery
requests, without objections, within twenty (20) days ofthe entry of this Order.
By the Court:
, J.
BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY U.P
BY: DAVID N. ZEEIIANDELAAR, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 31923
JOHN J. MONSEES, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 57966
ONE LOGAN SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 569-5500
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 98-989
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC, INC.
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT TO ANSWER
PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND REOUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff, Carlos R. Leffler. Inc. ("Leffler"), by its undersigned attorneys, respectfully
submits this motion to compel defendant Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. ("HRG") to answer
plaintiffs first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. In support of its
motion, plnintiffalleges as follows:
1. On June 30, 1998, Leffler served HRG with its first set of interrogatories and requests
for production of documents. A copy of the transmittalletler is attached as Exhibit A.
2. HRG did not respond to Leffler's discovery requests within thirty days as required by
Pa.R.C.P. 4006 and fonncr Pa.R.C.P. 4009. Moreover, HRG did not request an extension of
time in which to answer Leffler's discovery requests.
'f
~ '
'.
3. By letter dated August 18, 1998, counsel for Leffler wrote counsel for HRG to inquire
about HRG's ovcrduc discovcry rcsponscs. A copy of this Icttcr is attachcd as Exhibit B.
4. Counsel for HRG subsequently telephoned counsel for Leffler and stated that he had
not received Lcfflcr's discovery requests.
5. On August 20, 1998, Leffler served another copy of its discovery rcqucsts to HRG's
counsel by certified mail, return receipt rcqucstcd. A copy of the trnnsmittallettcr is attach cd as
Exhibit C.
6. Leffler subsequently received thc ccrtified mail rcturn receipt which reflected that
Leffler's discovery requests wcrc delivered to the office of HRG's counsel on August 24, 1998.
A copy of the return rcceipt is attached as Exhibit D. HRG did not answer Lcfflcr's discovery
requests within thirty days after the delivery of the second copy ofthe discovery requests.
Moreover, HRG never requested any cxtension oftime in which to answer Leffler's discovery.
7. Since sending the second copy ofits discovery requests, Leffler has made repeated
inquiries by mail and telephone to HRG's counsel about obtaining HRG's answers to Leffler's
discovery. Copies of letters sent to HRG's counsel on October 23,1998 and November 13, 1998
are attached as Exhibit E. Despite Leffler's repeated queries, defendant HRG has failed to
provide any answers or documents responsive to plaintiffs discovery requests.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. respectfully requests that the Court enter
an Order requiring defendant HRG to answer all of Leffler's outstanding discovery requests,
2
BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY LLP
BY: DAVID N. ZEEHANDELAAR, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 31923
JOHN J. MONSEES, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 57966
ONE LOGAN SQUARE
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 569-5500
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 98-989
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC, INC.
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff, Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. ("Leffler"), by its undersigned attorneys, respectfully
submits this Memorandum of Law in support of it motion to compel defendant Herbert, Rowland
& Grubic, Inc. ("HRG") to answer plaintifrs first set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents.
I. Statement of Facts
On June 30, 1998, Leffler served HRG with its first set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents. HRG did not respond to Leffler's discovery requests within thirty
days as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4006 and fonner Pa.R.C.P. 4009. Counsel for HRG subsequently
infonned counsel for Leffler that he never received Leffler's discovery requests. Leffler then
served another copy of its discovery requests upon HRG's counsel by certified mail, return
HRG clected to ignore its discovery obligations. HRG has no valid excuse under the Rules for
failing to answer Lerner's discovery requests, which have been overdue for months.
Pa.R.C.P. 4019 authorizes a court to issue an appropriate order against a party which fails
to comply with its discovery obligations. Given the defendant's inexcusable tardiness in
responding to Leffler's discovcry requests, the Court should order dcfcndant to answer the
discovery rcquests without asscrting any objcctions. It is well-settled as a matter of law that a
party waives any objections to discovcry requests when the party responds to discovery in an
untimely manner. ~ Lane v. Hartford Accident and IndemnitY Co.. 6 D.&C.4th 537
(Dauphin Co. 1990); Burda v. Cesare, 50 D.&C.3d 354 (Luzerne Co. 1988).
III. Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, plaintiff Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. respectfully requests that
the Court enter an Order requiring dcfendant HRG to answer, without objections, all of Leffler's
outstanding discovery requests within twenty (20) days from the entry of the Order.
Respectfully submitted,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Carlos R. Leffler, Inc.
Dated: December 18, 1998
3
111
:I::
.Q
~
t
~
.
f
,
:
.
~
.
g
@
~NK ROME COMISK(.:!c MCCAULEY LLP
,.-
(
"
e.HO,.""" II' L.."
P,,,,,J.1(vIl,,i,,
N,w ltrff;!
D,loIU1""
M",,,t,,,,J
W,U},;tll,on.DC
FIc"iJJI
'\i
( \
L
I
I'
I
I ~
(!
a
I
I
I i
;ftl. i
I
JOHN J. MONSEES
01"" 01.1 PA.."
(215) 569-5705
Dirttl Dill' F,u:
(215) 569-5694
Em.1I AU,,,,,
Monsees@BlnnkRome.Com
August 18, 1998
John J. Sylvanus, Esquire
Stetler & Gribbin
138 East Market Street
P.O. Box 2588
York, PA 17405
...
.'
i
j
Re: Carlos R. Leffler. Inc. v. Herbert. Rowlllnd & Grubic. Inc.
]
I
"
Dear Mr. Sylvanus:
I note that defendant's llnswers to Plaintiffs First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents are well overdue. Please advise me as to when I may expect the
defendant's answers to these discovery requests.
1
I
,
I
/~ tru~y yo'urs, ./f~1
. I 7 I ~~ /" .
. tL. I"-I?' '
! I /.
'--I '-....:. ! /r~
;fOHN J. jONSEES
l
i
~
!
One LOB.n Square. Phil.delphi.. Pennsylv.ni. 19103.6998 Phnne: 215.569.5500 Fa: 215.569.5555
\
c
-
:c
:E
d1
t
.
oj
f
i !
\ .
.
~
.
~
.
@
w
~
.c
:c
~
ii
r
BLANK ROME COMISI
& MCCAULEY UP
Curtl,/"r1dtLilftI
/'"". 'JIv.,,,;,,
Ntr~ I",,}
Dt/oIrI""
4U"'JI""J
W",hin.clIJn,DC
FI.,iJ.
JOHN J. MONSEES
D;,I(I Di,J/Ph.,,,,:
(2\ S) 569.S70S
Dirttt Di"IFdX:
(2\S) S69.S694
Em.it AJJrr",
Monsees@BlankRome.Com
... ...... ...."'...
~"V"".IIIU,,"& 1,,), 1.I~u
VIA TELECOPY/FIRST CLASS MAIL
John J. Sylvanus, Esquire
Stetler & Gribbin
138 East Market Street
P.O. Box 2588
York, PA 17405
Re: Carlos R. Lerner. Inc. v. Herbert. Rowland & Grublc. Inc.
Dear John:
Despite repeated inquiries to your office, I still have not heard from you with respect to the
defendant's answers to Leffler's outstanding discovery requests.
Unless you promptly advise me as to when defendant's answers will be forthcoming, I expect
to file a motion to compel with the Court without furth notice.
/
(:ry "
One Losan Square. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19103.6998 Phun" 215.569.5500 Fax, 215.569.5555
... ('01 ~
~ IJ"'.
\- (f. ::}4:
~Q ( ,,,-.
) ,.;~ ..,... c)~?
U -:i:
J",:.L. f;) -;:J
(~[' .",/ ~-
- .~-.'1.f1
tI. N ..1;,:
u...... r"'.'.
['t\:;td U it,leD
r:.: \..<.1 11\(.1.0
c;.1 ....l"~
1I. [1'~ ?
0 0' D
. ,. .
This Ordcr shall bccomc final tcn days aftcr thc mailing ofthc notice of the entry of the Order
to the parties unless cithcr party filcs a written dcmand with the Prothonotary for a hearing de novo
before the Court.
Copies dclivcrcd to parties on -10 rrrT~l:1y.
Consented:
10l.~Cj.c)8
Plaintiff/Petitioner
Defendant/Respondent
DRO: R. J. Shadday
cc: Petitioner and Respond~
Rebecca Huhges, Esq. -.;; .
. ~ ,>1,...J4.J
Tim Engler, Esq.
IZ/30/98
Plaintiff/Petitioner's Attorney
Defendant/Respondent's Attorney
J.
>- If) b.
pO; '"
i::.~ Co-
t-' .,:l...~
,.., I..)..:..:
'.U:'
t.)i' .,.. ,-.)~::;'
...:~
!;'. C- -~1~2
(.~}~
,::'1:' <::> :";~ (.11
'" :1:,:
" ;y%
...J C0 l!_I)U
~J~ U.l ,(.1.l..
u.. ::!:
\' :::> Ii
() (:;) U
8.
: IN Tim COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc.
V
Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.
: NO. 98-989 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, April 11, 200~, counsel having failed to call the abovc case for trial,
the case is stricken from the April 30, 2001 trial tcnn. Counsel is dircctcd to rclist the case when
ready.
By thc Court,
John J. Monsees, Esquire
David N. Zeehandelaar, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
"
C.O~:\e..<;, ~O-.Jd L\-l:;).-O\
John J. Sylvanus, Esquire
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
bb
I). Dcl\:ndant prcparcd a singlc druwing (Exhihit 3) which it suhmillcd to thc
Township and which was approvcd by thc Township on Dcccmhcr 8. 1988.
10. Thc approval was lhrwardcd to Dcl\:ndant hy Icltcr from thc sccrctary to thc
Board by Ccrtiticd Mail datcd .January 10. 1988.
II. Neithcr thc Plaintiff's lilcs nor thc Dcl\:ndant's tilcs contain any documcnts
rcl\:rcncing any work by Dcl\:ndantancr that approval nor any communication
bctwccnthc partics ancr that approval.
12. Plaint i IT did not commcncc construction untilancr llpproval was commcnccd.
13. Thcrc mc no documcnts that indicate that PlllintilTadvised Del\:ndllntofthc
commcnccmcnt of construction nor that Plaintiff requested that Del\:ndnnt
perllll'll1 any services on its behalf during construction.
14. Thc dl'tlwing prepared by Del\:ndant shows the well to be fully enclosed in a
ncwly contigured earthen herm.
15. Neither the dl'llwing produced hy Plaintiff nor the druwing produced by Dcl\:ndant
indiClllC thatthc well was to be abandoned.
16. Neithcr Plaintiff nor Dcl\:ndant produccd any document indicating tlllll Plaintiffat
any timc advised Del\:ndantthat it intendcd to abandon the well nor that it
rcqucsted thc Del\:ndantto perform any scrvices with regard to the ahandonment
of the wcll.
17. Therc is nothing in any documcnt in the lilcs ofcither party to indicate that. al any
timc. thc Iilcility was servcd by nnother well.
18. At somc time ancr the complction of the work by Del\:ndant. thc wcll was
apparcntly abandoned and len. uncapped and unsealed. within the containmcnt
nrea llnd not within an earthen bcrnl.
The Spill
19.
On Fchruary 2. 1997. employees of Plainti IT allowcd thousands of gallons of
petrolcum product to eSCllpe into the contninmcnt area.
1
, ,
, 1
, I
20. During thc initial c1can up ofthc spill. the abandoncd well was discovered inthc
containmcnt and it was detcrnlined that a large volumc of the pctrolcum product
has cntered into the subsurface aquifer through the abandoncd well.
21. PlaintilT has incurred signiticant costs to clean up thc product in the aqllil\:r and to
monitor the level of product in the aqlli 1\:1'.
,
,
I'.
i
\"
, '
,
Clml'lFlCATE OF SEltVlCE
I eerlil)' lhul I served the ultuehed Moliollthr SUl11l11ury .Judgl11ellt hy regllllll' l11uiloll
Ed Swichlll'. Esq.
Blunk ROl11e COl11isky & MeClIuley
One Loglln SqulIre
I'hiludclphiul'a 19103.6998
being eounsclorrceord 1'01' I'luilllirrby regular 11111iloll April 30.2003.
>.
u;
~:.
UJr:1
~?2 "
:--:--.,
r)l-
J.(
'--
W.J',_~
:;:!
'-- ~i:
1-.
lL,
o
0'
('~
'"
(.:
/
t~~
. -~ '"S
....::t:
<);:J
,,~
"-1'(/)
--j2
Cl.: -.-
]'ufu
,0(1.
,.
.,.,
:::1
U
o
(;..
'-0
I
>-
~:J:
:-.::
"")
o
i
.
.. --Jl.,... ... -'"
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC..
PluintilT
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
I
I
!
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
HERBERT ROWLAND &
GRUI3IC, INC.,
Dcrcndllnt
NO. 98-0989 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 91h dllY orMIIY, 2003, upon considcrution or Dclcndllnl's Motion
To Compel, a Rulc is hcrcby issucd upon Plaintirrlo show causc why thc rclicrrcquestcd
should not bc grantcd.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days ofscrvice.
BY THE COURT,
\ '
Edward Swichar, Esq.
BLANK, ROME, COMISKY &
McCAULEY
Onc Logan Squarc
Philadelphia, PA 19103-6998
Attorney for Plaintirf
. ~_. -/d 5.0'i.0..3
,u-F r'...................
Q...
1
I
!
,
John J. Sylvanus, Esq.
2757 Primrose Lanc East
York, PA 17402
Attorney for Derendant
:rc
,
, ,
,
~"",.
. .. ...,"" "':<1 ..:' '~., ~ -
.... ....
IN TilE COlJlrl' 011 COMMON PLEAS
ClIMIIEIU.ANI> COllNTY PENNSVLV,\NIA
CAI~LOS I~. LEIII"LEI~ INC.
\'.
CIVIL ACTION-LA W
NO. 9H-9H9
IIEIUJElrI', IHlWLAND &
GIUJBIC. INC.
Motion to Compcl
AND NOW. this 30'h day of April. 2003. comes the Defcndant who respectfully prays
your Honorable Court to issue an Ordcr compelling the PluinlifTlo respond 10 previously
scrved und overdue discovery llverring in support thereof:
1.
By letler dutcd Dcccmber 9,2002. Intcrrogutories were served on counsel for the
Pluintiff(Exhibits 1 and 2).
2. By letler dated February 11,2003. counsel for Defendant referenced un em'lier
acknowledgment of receipt of the Interrogatories and an Ulllllet promisc 10
respond (Exhibit 3).
3. On February 21. 2003. the undersigned again wrote to counsel l'i.1r PlainlilTand
asked for rcsponses to the discovery.
4.
To date. no answers hllVC been served.
5.
The date for filing objections to discovery has long since pussed.
WHEREFORE. Defendant respcctfully prays your Honorable Court to Ordcr the
Plaintiff to file full and eomplcte Answers to the Interrogatorics within 10 days of
the datc of service of the Order or suffer such sanctions as arc appropriuh:.
April 30. 2003
,\,
( \
I'
i \
/1
'~ i
)
I,
\
,
.
1
,
1
(
,
~~~,.
. .
/..
,
"\1
( ';
~, f
i'
,.
I ~ '
~/:
'11 ,
)
I
;, J
::.~ !
I
I
I
li
ii
I'
I,
J'rlljcct: This shnlllllcan the work undertaken. to whnlever extent, by Dcfcndalll
f-lerhcrt, Rowland &. Gruhic during 1988 and in conjunction with the acquisition hy
PJaintiffofthe filcility, liS thllttcrll1 is dcfincd hcrcin and with l1lodiliclltions to be made
thcrcnftcr.
.'ncllily: Thc pctrolcul11 storugc facility located in New Kingstown, Cumberland
County, Pcnnsylvanians shown in the drnwing, as that tcrm is dcfincd herein.
Drawing: Thc single drawing of thc facility dated 10-18-88 and idcntified as
SITE PLAN for Ncw Kingstown Terminal, shect I of J signcd and scaled by Robert C.
Grubic.
Construction: Any work performed in thc modification of the facility at any time
after its acquisition by Plaintiff.
Note: To the extent that there arc any tcrms used in thesc Interrogatorics that may not be
c1car, you arc not thereby relieved of your responsibility to answer those Jnterrogatories
and that lack of clarity shall not serve as the basis for an objection. You arc requircd to
provide your undcrstanding of the meaning of that term and answer the Interrogatory
based on that understanding.
INTERROGATORIES
I. Do you allege and intend to prove at thc trial of this case that the negligence of
the Defendant as alleged by you was a causal factor in the release of petroleum
product into thc containment area at the facility that occurred on February 2,
1997?
1
.'\
\
i
I
2. If your answer to Interrogatory I is yes, identify each and every witness whom
you propose to call at the trial of the case who will testifY that the negligence was
a causal factor.
(
I
~'
I
j"
- 2-
. .
20. Identify each witness whom you propose to call atthc trilll of this case who will
testify as to any of the filets sct forth in your rcsponsc to Interrogatory 19 and identify
each and every documcnt or other item of physical evidence that you intend to produce
which identifies such approvals and the procedure and individullls cmployed by Leffler to
obtain it.
I,.
:~I
{ "
~\ '!
L~
~
II
! ( I
a
l
...
,
21. Do you intend to introduce any evidencc at the trial of this case that shows contact
by anyone from Leffler to anyone at HRG in which it is stated or implied that HRG failed
to perfonn one or more duties which it assumed with regard to any of these approvals and
that Leffler was seeking HRG to complete its services.
.
I
,
I
22. If your response to Interrogatory 21 is in the aflinnative, identify all such
evidence that you propose to introduce and each and every witness whom you propose to
call in order to identify such evidence.
j
23. Do you have any evidence that anyone from HRG ever spoke with, contacted
received information from or transmitted infonnation to anyone at Leffler other than
John Byler?
(
- 8 -
I.
I
I
i
28. Do you allegc and intend to provc thot the notcs idcntified as Gingerich No.2 at
the dcposition of Dcborah Gingcrich wcre not produced by Dcborah Gingerich on or
within u day or two of May 13, 1998?
'\'
( ..
~.,
L;
~;,
\ '
i
29. If your response to Interrogatory 28 is in the affirmative, identifY cach and every
documcnt or thing that you intend to introduce at thc trial of this case which you believe
will tend to show that they were produced at some other time or by some other person
and each witness whom you proposc to have testifY that the notes were produced by some
other pcrson or at somc other time.
,
30. Did Lefflcr ever refuse to pay in full any statemcnt or invoice submitted by HRG
to Leffler?
31. If your response to Interrogatory 30 is in the affirmative, identify each and every
individual whom you propose to have testify regarding any such unpaid invoice.
I
I
"
!
32. If your rcsponse to Interrogatory 30 is in the affirmative, idcntify specifically each
and every invoice or portion of invoicc that was not paid and each and every other
document or physical thing that you propose to introduce at the trial of this case and that
you contend provcs or tends to prove the non payment.
- ]0-
43. If your response 10 Interrogutory 41 is in the negotive, identify eoch witness who
willteslily us to on)' correspondence 01' other communiclltion to HRG regllrding the
litilurc of HRG to ohtllinllny pions othcr thlln from Silver Spring Township. Identify any
exhibit thot YOII intend to introduce showing thot such communiclltion occurred.
,1
44. In your response to Rcqucst for Admission 37, you rcfused to admit that thc
drnwi ng shows the ncw bcrnls to be constructcd to be identificd by the use of darker lines
thlln the cxisting berms. Do you intend to call any witness at the trilll of the case who will
testify that the wcll shown on the HRG drawing is not tidly surroundcd by a combination
of new and existing berms?
45. If your response to Interrogatory 44 is in the affirmative, identify each witness
and provide a detailed synopsis of his or hcr testimony as it relates to the interpretation of
thc meaning of the benns as they are shown on the drawing.
46. Identify any exhibits that you propose to introduce that you believe proves that the
well as shown on the HRG drawing is not to be totally encompassed by a benn if
constructed in Ilccordance with the HRG plan.
- 13 -
47. In your rcsJlonsc to Rcqucst for Admission 42, you stutcd that "HRG was rcquircd
to maintain ovcrsight of the constmction ofthc facility und the facility's compliance with
thc provisions of the plan and all applicable statutes, regulutions and/or ordinances."
Idcntif)' each witncss whom you will call to testify that I-IRG had thcsc responsibilities.
For each such witness provide a detailed synopsis of his or her testimony.
48. Identify each exhibit that you intend to introduce at the trial of this case that you
believe proves or tends to prove that HRG assumed such duties.
49. Do you have any witnesses who will testify that any employee or subconsultant of
HRG was on site at any time during any construction that Leffler ever undertook at the
site? For each such witness, provide a detailed synopsis of his or her testimony.
50. Identi fy every exhibit that you intend to introduce at the trial ofthis case that you
believe proves or tends to prove that one or more employees or subconsu1tants ofHRG
was at the sitc at any time during any construction work that Leffler undertook at the site.
- 14-
55: Identity cach und cvcry filet witness whom you proposc 10 cull ul thc triu! of this
casc. For cach such witncss, providc currcnt or lust known home and busincss uddrcsscs,
tclcphonc numbcrs and cmploymcnt. Additionally, to thc extent not alrcady donc herein,
provide a dctailcd synopsis of each witncsscs testimony and a list of cach exhibit that you
proposc to have cach witness idcntify.
Decembcr 9, 2002
--
('
. 5 hn J. Sylvanus
lorney at Law
2757 Primrose Lane
York Pa ] 7402-8896
Attorncy for Defendant
- 16-
John J. Sylvanus
Attorlley at Law
2757 '}'nlll1,'.'" J~all(! 'East
\f(III: '}'a. 17.402
'}'/ill//(' ;'/i' i'41 5871
fll.\' .,.'774' (j896
jj~ I iI \I'!!! ~_l!~(:m1h'Jl;.\
I keemher (). 2002
Ed Swicli:lI. Esq.
Blnnk R0111e Comisky & McCnulcy
One Log:1lI Squnre
I'hilndclphiil I'll 19103-6998
I~c:
Lerner v. HRG
1\1.1' File No: 9157
Dear Ed:
\h:eks ago you nnd I spoke on the phone and you indicated Ihill you 1I'0uld he
discussing with you,' client its settlement demand and intentions \I ilh regard to this case. I
have not heilrd from you since then. In the meantime, I have reeeil'ed sped lie and linn
direction 1'1'<1111 my carrier to conclude this case as soon as possihle. ivly i1d.iuster has. not
surprisinf!ly or unexpectedly, expressed distinct dissatisfaction wilh m)' allol\inf! this
malleI' (0 IIH'\'e nt a faster pace. I am therefore compelled to do whal I Cilll to resolve this
case as so. '11 as I rcasonnhly can.
. '1 '., I hat end I enclose a lengthy and comprehensive set of Illlerrogatories Ihal
follow up . III my curlier discovery. I would request that responses he prodded within the
stutulOril~ required time frame. In addition, as you are aware, I hild previou';ly sl'l'ved
Interrogalllries, Requests for Production and Requests for Admissi"ll. While I have
received lUII'l'I'ified responses, along with lengthy und non spceilk oh.ieeli"lls to Ihem, I
must hal',' Ihem updated and verified so that I can file any Motion thai I feel may be
necessary regarding the Objections.
,
I \\ould also like to schedule the deposition of Robert 5Ie\\:u.t. sonldime this
month or Ile\\. I have not enclosed a notice of deposition, but will do so \\hen we can
agree on a d:lle and time. I would be willing to travel to Richland 10 take this deposition.
Additionally. Ihe enclosed discovery seeks the identity of your witnesses. '1" date you
have identified only Byler, Stewart and John Storb, your expert, as witnesses. In order to
speed up this process, I would ask that you provide me with the names or auy other
witnesses whol11 you propose to call at trial and get their dates of availahilily so Ihal I can
depose th"l11 as well.
- I -
.\;
.
, .,
,\
,
,
,
(.
I
,
'\
,
!
j
\
Ed Swll'llul'
J)l'l'l'llIhl'I'l),211112
,
.~
I
t :
(11In' I hllve completed Ihe discovel'Y, I will be filing II MlIlionlill' S"'IIIIW')'
.1UdglllclI1 hascd, 1I11ellst in pllrt. 011 the Economic Loss Doctrillc. Y<I!II' e1aillh 111\' till,tlll'
cost ofl"'llIcdillliollllnd lIrc in tort only. I bclie"e tllllt thcy lIrc l'Icurly hurrcd by Illal
theory. '1 hl'1'c Illay be othcr hascs liS well, once I finish the disco\'cl')'.
IlIlhe illterim, let me kllow il'you hlll'c allY mlditiollal disclI\'(~ry thai ~ Oil \\ollld
like to conclude. 1 I' your client is interested ill sclllcmclll.Ictme knoll'. 1IIIIILcl'tainthut
illY c1icnl and cllrricr will be rcasonllblc olllhe issue ofscUlclllCI1I. althoug.h dl':ll'l)' thl'
positionlhal yours has tllkcn is OllC to which we bclievc to be unrcasonabk.
I
I I
Cc:
Robcrt C. Grubic
Brian R. Frisoli
Claim No: AE-IG9917-Rl
S~;t,rIY,
J:~; S,I",",,,
I look l'orwllrd to henring from you. As I indicated, my carrier is c~ 11\:mel)'
unhappy with me for allowing this casc to drng on as long liS it has IInd I sillll'ly cllnnol
eOlltinue to do so. Thus, I would rcqucst that you respond to disco"ery in a lilnely manncr'
lIlld with ohjcctiolls that are specific.
I r you have any questions or comments, plcasc callmc and 1 will di',l'IISS Ihem
with YOII.
j
-2-
-,""
It
'1
I
I
j
l'
r
3
Ell Swlehlll'
"'l'~I'UI"'~' t I. 211113
I onCI' this for you as additionlllllmlllunition in your IIllempttocllnvinec your
cllrricr liS tll the vllluc of the cllse. Y OUI1lIlY feci frce to use it liS you sc,' Ii I. Ilowcwr. it is
my Ii 1'111 opinion thlll the rellsonllblc value of this case is dctermincd hy 111,' IIIW tOil grcat
extent. Addilionully, liS YOUllnd I huvc discussed, und liS IlIlllicipnle till' discover)'
responses will show, Ihc only liability cvidcncc Ihut you hllvc is till' Byler testilllony und
the single IIRO drawing. There is no documentary cvidencc 111111 I huw ',,','nto juslify
uny of the c1uims that Byler und Lerner huve made regarding the extenl lIi'thc sel'\'iecs
supposedly contracted for with my client. There is no evidence tlmtllR( j', fllilurc to
perform any of those services Iriggered uny contact or complllinl hy IIn:' \ne ut Lerner.
As to the "other well", there is no evidence, other than Byler's 1,"limony, that
such a well existed. The only well shown onllny drnwing is that show 11 nllthc drawing
givcn by lIyler to BRG und shown on the HRG drawing. Deb Gingericl, lI'illtestilY that
this was the lI'ell that Byler told her wus to be used ufter the modilieati"'h werc
completcd. In fuet, that well wus shown us u working well on thc only dl'"wing produccd.
Your own expert, John SlOrh, agrecs hI his report thut the dru\\il1l' shows thc wcll
encased in the recontigured benn. While he refers to regulations enacted long aner the
work ofHRG was completed regarding the impermeability of tIll' herlll 11Iaterials, there is
no evidence. other than perhaps Byler's testimony, that would even iml'l.lthatllRG hud
any such responsibility. Instead we have Storb and other professional "I1~'inecrs employed
on a regular hasis by Leffler with regard to their facilities thcrealier 1I11l1 ahsolutely no
documentary evidence that there was even any contact between Leml'l 'ill" HRG
between January of 1989 and the claimleller from you prior 10 Ihe lilil1O' 1If" this lawsuit in
1998.
Ifwc arc to seule this lawsuit, I believc that IIU ofthcse Ihclors 11':::.1 he takcn into
IIceount. While we mode an offer some time ago, significant evidl'llce Iw:, ,omc to light
regarding th~ hasis of the claim and I do not know ifit remains op~n, !\dditinnully, if
YOllr discovcry rcsponses providc additional evidence, we will IInolY/" il ..Ild rcacl
oppropriatdy.
Plcase get back to me as soon liS YOll can. If you have any ~\id,'",~ other than
Byler's testimony, plcasc let me know.
Cc: Brian R.Frisoli
Claim No: AE-1699l7-R 1
'.
- 2-
f"\
,...,
,:',
I
'\
{;
t'
;.;r
"
.;
. .
"
John J. Sylvanus
AIIOI'IlCY at Law
\'
, \
2757 'l'l'iIIl/'IlSr' [,1111' '[ast
Ijorlj 'j'd, 1;./0:2
'1 'Ii ""l' 71;- {,/I :;"'71
fdX 717 (./1 (;"'!I(;
.U~!H~~2.:;.v.,11 ,I HI.I.IJ~l
"
, '
~
I
I:~h\'lwr~ _' 1, 2003
Ed Swirl!:II, Esq.
Blank J{II"'" Comisky & lvlcCnuley
One LOg'"1 SLJuurc
I'hilndcll'hi:t I'n 19103-G9')8
J{e: 1."''111'1'\'. IIRG
l\1~ File Nil: 9157
Dcnr Ed:
'1'11:1111; you for your fuxed I11cssuge of the 19th. I npprcciak II,,' difficully IIl:tt you
ure eXl'cri,'"dng with YOllr currier. However, my carrier is gelting il11l'nticnland Inecd to
huve nctillJl, I will be filing a Motion for Suml11ury Judgment bel"I\' I Ill' cnd ni'lhh
month. Ii'I .III not have the uppropriutc responses to the discovcry III IIll'n. I will h,'
l<lI'ced to "",1; the ussislnnce of the COlin to obtain them. While IIVIII',jU hopclullhal
YOlll' carri,'1 "ill litce reality und we cun selllc this CllSC cheuply and I ":t"lIlahly. 11111151
ncverthek'", do whntl CllnlO llssuage my lldjuster who, I mllst nol,', i, nlltl'l~:t,,'.Ilhal I
huvc nlh"" '.I this cnse to drug on for so I11llny years.
\\'hil,' lunderstnnd thut we would both prefllr to settle this ,':t';,'. I rCllIniu
IIncolll'il1<'.'"llhut your carrier is going 10 llllo\\' this. In the intcril11, ,he' l':t,~ r"llI:,ill-, wry
milch aliI,' :tlld we must move it forward.
Ii' ~'\JI have llnything new to offer to me by WllY Ofll scllkllll'<11 I'"sili"ll IIlllhe
pllrt ofy"u! ,'arrier, lei ml' know. Otherwise I look forward to r,on,i, ill;: .Ii'cI" "I:,
rcspnns~'
/'
- 1 .
(i~:~
>- 0,
cr. ?=
j"; <-;
~:
tlIC'! ~ P,l'
f. ;:~ ~ --' ~~
! ~
(~, ' I:". .--'~C
r);j
C';, \0 :;".:;
I.;i:' I
- . ."1;'"
L.~ ! ,... (1'-.;.
" : . . !..' ji'~;
. ~~,jt'l..
-.
" -..
CJ I', ::)
,:::> (J
."IoOIJ1'.....'u
-_.>-
~,,-.~
._'~".
/'
/
/
~
'~-<1
<t<
"'-
,
"
"'-
/'
o
:,~ :""CH
(-"J 0
.....
....'.
,!,"p
EXI:~ r
PIF: '-" I':
MI\i'!' "'l')
Sy':"." "'\
,_...-
\,
. \
" \
\--
EX I ':IT.
IK TANK
44'0IA.
10,000 BBL.
;. ~ FUEL OIL
~".
.... i 'i~~.:-" .
"\"~; '. I ,~.
1',1:1. ,,',,'
l
\
\
/
L
,,' "t.~5_.~.~~ ,'---' / ,,)
~~:~-,_. ._~. .. .
" ," ,-- - ___ -'. \ :BOTTOM
- _~ _.--. \LMntNG'ftAC!S
. .-'...,-.-' --~.- \ \
\...-~ \,
\"\~- "
\ '
\\..---1'
-.::-l:-' -,
...,...,
'!
..;,;.. '
,
.~
j
'{
~,
i
i
1
~
'I ,/
__L'
I,
i
I
~
\
~
I
\
.
'~'
/"
...../
....I\~,
\',~ '
-------
"~'/"
\ " .... ._-
\' -..-<",.
~---~-
.
,.,
";;.'
'.l,;
._--
...--
~,~
:.;~
.'1\1
.----'
----
"
"'.........
-IS;
-~J"
'1'~
~
~
,
;,
-~,
\
i
'\{:;',
. ,..~.l.
,.<"
_,h
,
<,
~"
/-!
/'
;., 'i: ;,;,;~.:.:
.....
I
,
'.-'-:>
. ~!~.
'.;)"
;<
.~
,-,to
-,
I
,
I
i
,
i
i
I
;
i
I
,
I
I
I
j
,
I
I
\
I
I
./
/
......~
J:!"
M
IC S
&
/'
...
--
r-- --
-~Ii-oiDcl
-C-'iI-olP:J
I' ..
-e'll-OllXl
I' II
-G~~r
PUMP
SYSTEM
EXIST.
O SWITCH
GEAR PAD
"
EXISTING RACK CAR PUMP OFF LINE
-
-
. EXISTING A.R. SIDING
c
o
o
o
o
o
o
'J
o
o
o
o
a
o
tI
o
o
(
_C':J I -T E. P L _~~ 1,,1
.:?c:, ~ LE.: f"'~,-O'
..~~.....
"- -.
E.XI '='T.
!SK TANK
~~' DIA.
20,000 BBL.
REgUlAR-
6iesel
o
JOU____,~ --
HERBERT, ROWLAND
& GRUBIC, INC,
4099 Derry Street
HARRISBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17111-2239
(717) 564.1121
8ItF,l!.t tlO _"_ _.'
GI
CAt.CULATCD f1V_
D'\lf.
CII[CKt!J 11'1'__
fl^lr
SC;M.E.. .
..-
--- I '
. ~_""CJ. ...........)
~."....., ,,=,_,~\ :.:: ,C~
..r":.-'"
,,:'1\
-..,....-::.', ~ "(':.~'.'l I (
h,..... ..
-r;;,__._
,;.,.,
,AI--:
'::'-.
.,C:: \
/ - '-~'
~.:"-'
-
'""'" ' ...,e....
/~ ~:;,\-'I
-:;.,~C>~__
.,\~l..~(""'\........~ ':C~'-f:::~"',
" ,<-.-:-, "c .
-.
'\''''(-:-,. ..~.~~-;-_ .e::,,_ ')
'.
...'..r....
......1....._.
.~.."....~
l'ROOI.C1X!-l@:"@..f_Go:'....V... Ill" !,C.ll,'~";;',1 ':.. ,~" I ~XI"I~"
. ,
.~
STORB INCORPORATED
\1
( \
L
I
1/;
if \0.
r'
(,
\ '
Engineering Consul/ants, Com/rlle/ioll MC1I1ogors
~
oliO NORTH EASTmi'ROAD WILLOW GROVE. PA 19QqO-2511
Tolophono' (215) 657,6695 . Facsrmlo (215)657,7695
ENGINEERING REPORT
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC. VS. HRG INC.
WATER WELL CONTAMINATION AT
PETROLEUM STORAGE TERMINAL
NEW KINGSTON, PENNSYLVANIA
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHIP, CUMBERLAND COUNTY
August 3, 2000
'"
,
The following represents an Engineering Analysis of the
Retention of an existing Water Well within an earth dike
field which contains five (5) large, above ground, vertical
1
I
,
!
steel storage tanks wherein fuel oil, kerosene and diesel
fuels are stored.
j
(
I. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE:
I was retained by Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. to render my
Professional Opinion on the following questions:
a. Is retention of a water well or any other type of
direct access to ground water within an earth
1
Exhibit 4
Enginecri.ng Report - CurIos R. Leffler, Inc. 1/3. HRG, Inc.
New Kinguton, Pennsylvania
dike field containing petroleum products a Good
Engineering Practice?
b. If an Engineer did design a Diked Containment
Area around a Water Well, what advice, if any,
should the Engineer provide to the Operator of
the Petroleum Storage Facility?
II. PROFESSIONAL QUALIFICATIONS:
Professional qualifications of the undersigned to
prepare this Report are contained in the enclosed
Curriculum-Vitae, Exhibit II.
I I I. MATERIALS REVIEWED:
a. Book titled " Groundwater and Wells" - 2nd Edition
by Fletcher G. Driscoll, Ph.D dated 1989 - Third
Printing. Book contains American ~later ~lorks
Procedure for abandonment of test holes,
partially completed wells and completed wells.
2
i
'!
Engin.)oril\CJ Report - Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. 'IS. BRG, Inc.
Ne~1 Kings~:on, Pennsylvania
IV. SITE FACTS:
This Petroleum Storage Terminal is one that was
purchased by the C. R. Leffler Co. in 1988. Based
upon my review of the HRG Site Plan and depositions
noted above, HRG was hired to prepare plans to remove
and reshape new earth dikes (BERMS) and remove (2)
existing tanks so that two (2) additional 1,500,000
gallon fuel oil tanks could be constructed within a
new, combined, earth dike field.
V. ANALYSES OF HRG SITE PPAN, SHEET #1, DATED OCTOBER 15,
1988 AND COMMENTARY:
I reviewed the Site Plan dated October 18, 1988
prepared by HRG, Inc., 4099 Derry Street, Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania which outlines the proposed construction
of two (2) new, 1,500,000 gallon above ground steel
fuel oil tanks, the removal of two (2) existing tanks
and alteration of the existing earth dike walls to
remove existing berms and install new earth dike walls
5
F.ngineerinq Report - Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. VS. HRG, Inc.
New Kingston, Pennsylvania
Association Procedure - Appendix 18.8 - Exhibit
III-a.) .
SEAL
John W. Storb, P.E.
PA Reg. Prof. Eng. No. PE-003l11-E
11
1(1_1,1
I,'. .1 11\\' I I II \ ,_ t I \\ t I
" .
. .....
\ 1'1'1' Nlll' IX Il
"":1111111111111'111 III 11"1 11111.", 1'll1li:lIl) ('III11\1Il'Il'" \\,,'Ih. :111" (OI1l(lI"II'd \\ ,,11,
';'. ,:;':~l:t)(h-':':':~
See, 1" 1 (il'l1eral
Abandoned "".1 holt.., InlludIl1!lle,;t wells. uncompleled welh. and (ornpil.'lt'd wells
sha II be sea led
13 1,1 Need 111I \('01, III: "I 11'('//\:
I Eliminate phYSical hazard
2, Prevent C0l11anllnall0n or groundwater
3. Conserve Yield and hydroslalic head of aquifers
4, Prevcnl II1lermll1gllng or desirable and undesirable waters.
13,1.2 Res/oralloll "t geologIcal conditions. The guiding principle 10 be rollowed
by the contraclOrlnlhc leallng orabandoned wells is the restoration. as rar as reasible.
of the controlling geological conditions that existed before the well was drilled or
constructed.
Sec. 13.2 Scaling Requllemenls
A well shall be measured for depth before it is scaled to ensure freedom from
obstructions that may Inlerrere with effective sealing operations.
13.2.1 Liner'Plpe rell1o\'al, Removal orliner pipe from some wells may be necessary
to ensure placement of an effective seal.
13.2.2 Exception to removing /iner pipe. Irthe liner pipe cannot be readily removed.
it shall be perforated 10 ensure the proper scaling required.
13.2.3 Scaling mater/als and placement. Concrete, cement grout. or neat cement
shall be used as primary scaling materials and shall be placed from the bonom upward
by methods that will avoid segregation or dilution of material.
Sec. 13.3 Records or Abandonment Procedures
Complete accurate records shall be kept of the entire abandonment procedure to
provide detailed records for possible future reference and to demonstrate to Ihe gov-
erning state or local agency lhat the hole was properly scaled.
13.3,1 Depths sealed The depth of each layer of all sealing and backfilling materials
shall be recorded,
13,3.2 Quan/1/I' 01 lI'allng material used. The quantity of scaling materials used
shall be recorded, Measurements of static water levels and depths shall be recorded
13,3.3 Changes rerorded. Any changes in the well made during the plugging. such
as perforating casing. shall be recorded in detail.
(Reprinted/rom A WW~ Standard for Water Wells. A WWA A 100,84. by permission.
Cop.vrtgh/r<) IWI4, Till' lll/('r/can Water Works Association.)
Exhibit I.ll-a.
lO
I':,
i
I
'"
r
>- i'=
0:; N
".
-. N ;.~
USP ;;.:>;
r:. ..;~
Fr' \ .,... >\2
,: f1 ~ '- ::.:
ell (:~j W (;};;J
0'1"- . \- r;.J
.YL' ) '",.
a:..l!,J >- Ffj?o
.J. oe:
~.. .,- ,qo..
l::i - -:
M :::>
0 u
..
BLANK ROME LU'
BY: EDWARD I. SWICIIAR
J.D. NO. 15175
BY: MARK L. RHOADES
1.0. NO. 8064]
One Logan Square
Philadelphia, PA 19]03
(215) 569-5500
Allonleys for Plaintiff
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc.
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Plaintiff,
vs.
NO. 98-989
HERBERT, ROWLAND & GRUBIC, INC. :
Defendant.
PLAINTIFF, CARLOS R. LEFFLER, INC.'S
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff, Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. ("Leffler"), through its allonleys, files this response to
the Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Defendant, Herbert Rowland and Gmbic, Inc.
("HRG") and answers as follows:
1. Denied as stated. The mailer arises out of the negligent professional engineering
services provided by Dcfendant to Plaintiff.
2. Denied. While no wrillen contract between the parties has been produced in
discovery, whether there was an agreement between the parties, either oral or in writing, is a
conclusion of law to which no response is required.
3. Admillcd.
I 035B6.006O-l1211 54721 v 1
,
4. Denied. While it is mlmilled thlll Plllintiffdesired to modify IInd mid slorngc
cupucity to the fucility, it is spccificlllly denicd thlll Plllintiffprmluccd the drnwing showing the
intended rcconfigllrntion oflhc fllcility IIllllchcd to thc Motion 115 Exhibit I.
5. Denicd. The drnwing IIllllchcd 10 tbe Motion liS Exhibit I is a documcnt which
speaks for itsclf.
6. Dcnied. While Robcrt C. Grubic ("Grllbic"), II principal ut HRG und Deborah
Gingrich ("Gingrich") met with John Byler ("Byler"), thcn an officer of Leffler, at the New
Kingston Site in IIpproximately MIlY of 1988, it is spccifically denicd that the date of the meeting
was on May 13, ]988 and that Gingrich WIlS an "Enginccr in Training." Gingrich was, in fact, un
unliccnscd employee of HRG who was cntrusted with pCrfOnlling the engincering work that led
to the losscs which scrve as the basis for the Complaint in this case. See page II of the
Dcposition of Deborah Gingrich taken March 31, 2000, indicating that she was not a licenscd
engineer and pages 20, 24-31, 38-40 and 44 regarding her title IInd the work for which Gingrich
was responsible on the project. 1
7. Denied. The notes allached as Exhibit 2 are documents whieh speak for
themselves.
8. Denied as stated. While approval from the Silver Spring Township ("Township")
was required, Defendant was responsible for, inter alia. obtaining this approval on behalf of
Plainti ff.
I The Deposilion oCDehomh Gingrieh withoul exhibits, 10 ken March 31, 2000, is attached herelo as Exhibil"A."
2
I035B6.006O-l/2115472lvl
9. Denied liS stilted. It is IIdmilled thllt Defendllnt prepared Exhibit 3 and submilled
it to the Township. It is denied Ihat Defendllnt prepared a singlc drawing und it is fllrther denicd
that the Township approved the drnwing on December 8, 1988.
10, Admilled.
] I. Dcnicd as stated. While it is admitted that no docllments or communicutions
between thc partics rcfcrcncing any work pcrfonncd by Dcfcndants following thc Township's
approval havc been produeed during discovcry, thc deposition testimony of Bylcr indieates that
Defcndant had obligations to Plaintiff that continlled past thc datc ofthc Township's approval.
Sec pages 32-33 and 48-49 of the Deposition of John Byler taken May 21, 2002, indieating
HRG's obligations to cnsurc that any work was completed in accordancc with HRG's drawings.2
12. Admillcd.
13. Denied as stated. Whilc it is admilled that no documents havc bccn produccd in
discovery which indicatc that Plaintiff advised Dcfendant ofthc commenccmcnt ofeonstruction
nor indicating that Plaintiffrequested that Dcfendant perfonn any serviccs on its bchalfduring
construction, thc dcposition testimony of Byler indicates tbat Dcfcndant had obligations to
Plaintiff that continued past thc datc ofthc Township's approval and thc start of construction.
Scc Exhibit "B" at pagcs 32-33 and 48.49.
14. Dcnicd. Thc drawing prcparcd by Dcfcndant (Exhibit 3) is a documcnt that
spcaks for itsclf. By way of furthcr rcsponsc, tbc drawing prcparcd by Dcfcndant (Exhibit 3)
indicatcs that the carthcn benllS adjaccnt to thc wcll area wcrc to be rcmovcd with thc notation
"Rcmovc Bcnn." Scc Exhibit 3 allllchcd to HRG's Motion.
'The Deposition or John Dyler wilhoul exhibits, 10 ken May 21, 2002, is attaeh.d hereto as Exhibit "D."
3
103586.006O-l/211 54721 vi
15. Dcnied. It is spccificlllly denied tlllll PllIinti ff produced IIny drnwing to
Dcfcndant. By WilY of furthcr IInswcr, thc drnwing or drnwings preparcd by Dcfcndllntarc in
writing and speuk for thcmselvcs.
16. Dcnied liS stlltcd. Thc Dcfendant's obliglltions to account for thc protection of thc
wcll dcpictcd on Exhibit 3 lire controllcd by standards of carc applicablc to profcssional
cnginccrs, as wcll as stututcs and rcglllations which arc idcntified, in part, in "Gcncral Notc 8" on
Exhibit 3. It is admillcd that Plaintiff did not indicutc to Dcfcndant any intcntion to ubandon thc
wcllas dcpictcd on Exhibit 3 becausc Plaintiff was not using thc wcll at thc time ofthc
rcnovations to thc Fucility. Sec Exhibit "B" at pages 23 and 28 indicating that thc well that
served thc Faeility was not thc wcll depicted on Exhibit 3.
17. Dcnied as stated. Whilc therc urc no docllmcnts in thc files ofcithcr party to
indicate that thc facility was scrvcd by unothcr wcll, the testimony of Byler unequivocally
indieutes that the facility was served by another well and this testimony has not been
contradicted. See Exhibit "B" at pages 23 and 28 indicating that the well that served the Facility
was not the well depicted on Exhibit 3.
18. Denied as stated. The well depicted on Exhibit 3 was no longer used by Plaintiff
at the time of the renovations to the Facility. See Exhibit "B" at pages 23 and 28 indicating that
the well that served the Facility was not thc well depictcd on Exhibit 3. By way of further
responsc, the drawing prcpared by Dcfcndant (Exhibit 3), did not provide sufficient measures to
ensure that the well would be properly cappcd and scaled to make it sufficiently impervious to
spillcd petrolcum.
19. Dcnicd as statcd. On Fcbruary 2, 1997, Plaintiff expcrienccd a fuel oil spill at its
New Kingston facility in which an estimatcd 45,000 to 65,000 gallons of fuel oil escaped from a
4
I035B6.006O-l/2115472lvl
storugc tunk into the diked contllil1l11cnt urcll surrounding the tunk runn. By way of further
response, beclluse of the profcssionalnegligcncc of HRG in failing to dcsigna contuinmentarea
tbut wus sufficiently impervious to spilled petroleum, approximately 30,000 gallons of fuel oil
escuped into tbe groundwater underlying the Facility.
20. Denied as stated. During the removal of the spilled fuel oil from the containment
urea, Plaintiff discovered the abandoned well bore under the surface of the containment area.
This well bore, which ran to a depth or approximately 280 feet, allowed approximately 30,000
gallons of fuel oil to escape into the groundwater lInderlying the Facility.
21. Admilled. By way of further answer, Leffler continues to incur costs associated
with the clean up and monitoring of the Facility.
22. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself.
23. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself.
24. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself. It is specifically
denied that the Complaint does not allege property damage as a result of the negligence ofHRG.
25. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself. By way of further
answer, this allegation constitutes a conclusion ofIaw and therefore no response is required.
26. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself.
27. Denied. This allegation constitutes a conclusion ofIaw and therefore no response
is required.
28. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself. By way of further
answer, this allegation constitutes a conclusion of law and therefore no response is required.
29. Denied. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law and therefore no response
is required. By way of further answer, the Economic Loss Doctrinc does not apply because, inter
5
103SB6.006O-l/21154721 vi
ulia, the Pluintiffsuffcred property damage duc to thc ncgligence of Plaintiff and becausc thc
Complaint ullcgcs, and Plaintiff will provc, that Dcfcndants violatcd thc standards of curc
applicable to profcssional cnginccrs, thcrcforc, slating a claim for profcssional mulpracticc.
30. Dcnicd. This allcgation constitutcs a conclusion of law and thcrcfore no rcsponsc
is rcquircd.
31. Denicd. This allcgation constitutcs a conclusion of law and thcrefore no rcsponsc
is rcquircd.
32. Admillcd.
33. Dcnied. This allcgation constitutes a conclusion of law and therefore no response
is required.
34. Denied. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law and therefore no response
is required.
35. Denied. The Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself. By way of further
answer, this allegation constitutes a conclusion of law and thcrefore no response is required.
36. Denied. This allegation constitutcs a conclusion of law and thcrcfore no response
is required.
37. Dcnied. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law and therefore no response
is required.
38. Admilled.
39. Denied. The expert report of John W. Storb is in writing and speaks for itself.
40. Denied. Thc Complaint is in writing and speaks for itself. By way of further
answer, this allcgation constitutcs a conclusion of law and therefore no response is required.
6
103586.006O-l/2115472\ vi
...-,'--
"'.<
:q':<
t::=
'10,9
..~
~.
,-
Mr'
">,
, .
CARLOS R. LEFFLER,
INC. ,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
vs.
Civil Action - Law
No. 98-989
HERBERT, ROWLAND &
GRUBIC, INC.,
Defendant
Deposition of:
DEBORAH GINGRICH
Taken by
Plaintiff
Date
March 31, 2000, 10:00 a.In.
Place
Harrisburg Hilton Towers
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
By
Susan L. Petrilla, Notary Public
Registered Professional Reporter
APPEARANCES:
BLANK, ROME, COMISKY & MCCAULEY, LLP
By: JOHN J. MONSEES, ESQ.
For - Plaintiff
STETLER & GRIBBIN
By: JOHN J. SYLVANUS, ESQ.
For - Defendant
f1/.ll/S I' Ald.l/CAS /11:/'OII'f1NG SE:IlI'IC/:./NC.
n"'i5I",JX 717.2.J6.IJ6l1 1"Ut.4. 717-8-1,'j.6-1'8 I'A '.SOO-2U.9.J17
3
EXIIIDITS
Gingrich Deposition
Exhibit Numbers
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Marked Idelltified
Letter dated November 10,
1988, Goshorn to Gingrich
62
76
Handwritten notes titled
"Leffler Pl. Comm. Mtg."
dated 11-10-88
62
77
Handwritten notes titled
"Margaret from Silver
Spring Township Called"
dated 11-11-88
62
79
Letter dated November 14,
1988, Gingrich to Silver
Spring Township Board of
Supervisors
62
80
Handwritten notes re
meeting preparation
62
81
Letter dated November 23,
1988, Gingrich to Byler
62
82
Handwritten notes titled
"Zoning Hearing Bd. Mtg.
for Carlos R. Leffler, Inc.,
New Kingston Terminal"
dated 12-8-88
I
,
,
62
83
Letter dated December 8,
1988, Gingrich to Byler
62
85
Record of Telephone
Conversation dated 12-9-88
62
87
Letter dated January 10,
1989, Lebo to Bayler, with
attachments
62
88
Handwritten notes titled
IIKeefersll
62
93
/'11./115 (, Mrl.IIC,15Ilrl'O/lflNG 5t:1l1'ICI:. INC.
Iljfrr;s'Ill'.~ 717.2.16-(}62.1 \'tIrk 117.S.,.,.6.HH 1'" '.8fHl.2Jl.!I.117
1
2
3
4
5
EKam./Monoees - GIngrIch
5
DY MR. MONSEES:
Q.
Do YOll know?
A.
I belIeve they are, yes.
MR. SYLVANUS:
I wasn't certaIn.
BY MR. MONSEES:
6
Q.
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
A.
11
12
13
Q.
14
A.
15
Q.
16
17
18
19
20
21
A.
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
Ms, Gingrich, have YOll ever given a deposition
before?
Yes, I have.
Under what circumstances?
It was when I was employed by HRG approximately
seven, eight years ago.
I can't recall the
exact year.
So you're familiar with the procedures?
Yes, I am.
.
I
,
I
I'll be asking YOll questions today.
If you
!
don't understand any of my questions, please
ask me to rephrase it, and I'll be happy to do
so.
If at any time you'd like to take a break,
just let us know, and we'll take a break, if
I
:
you don't understand a question, let me know.
Okay, very good.
Are you on any medication today that would
affect your ability to recall facts?
Alka-Seltzer Plus, but I don't believe that
will affect my ability.
/'IUll.~ /, M<"I.lICAS /If/'WlrING s/:/lI'/Cf./NC.
""rrM",r,~ 717.2.11i."62.1 rl,,1 717.H-I.,.Ii-IIH 1',1 '-S(J(I.2.lJ.11.127
,
,
1
2
A.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
8
3
Q.
independent contractor?
No.
Do you have a current resume?
Yes.
Not with me.
4
A.
Would you make that available to me?
Yes.
When did you start working for HRG?
In October of 1985.
What position did you hold at that time?
5
Q.
I believe the title was project manager.
I'm
6
A.
not absolutely certain.
Did you have any other jobs before HRG?
Yes, yes.
Let me rephrase that for you.
From your
\
,
I
7
Q.
college graduation until you became employed
!
8
A.
with HRG, did you have any other jobs?
Yes, I worked for Derry Township over in
Hershey as an engineering technician from June
of '84 to September of '85.
I
t
;~
:, f
" .
;!.
i! "
II
L
i
9
Q.
What type of work did you do in that job?
I worked under the township engineer.
I helped
10
A.
him with review of sUbdivision and land
development plans that were submitted to the
township for approval.
I did some surveying
11
12
Q.
work with him.
I did construction inspection
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
17
A.
18
19
20
Q.
21
A.
22
23
24
25
FlLlLlS [. MeLLlC,lS I/U'D1I'f'/NG sr/lI'/cr,/NC,
U,trrisllllJX i,7-216-flti2,} \"lfk 717-8-1.';-&118 ,." 1-800-211.9327
1
2
3
4
o.
5
6
fl.
7
0,
8
9
fl.
10
0,
11
12
fl.
13
14
15
16
17
o.
18
fl.
19
o.
20
fl.
21
22
23
24
25
Kxnm./Monnees - Gingrich
9
on Lhllll' l'ondwlIY lm(H'ovoment project that they
hlld tlVtll'Y YUill:, IIlld uome code enforcement
I'tlflPOlllllhllltloll, also.
Did YIlII do IIny work with regard to structural
dUIII'Jn?
No,
I,
II
'I
Did YOll do any work with regard to bulk storage
potrolollm facilities?
No.
What type of work did you do for HRG when you
started as a project manager?
When I started and through the whole time I was
there, I did subdivision and land development
work, which would be preparing subdivision and
land developments for clients, both residential
and commercial and industrial developments.
What were your responsibilities in that role?
In the beginning?
Yes.
In the beginning, I was more a project manager.
i
I
W
I
I worked directly under Bob Grubic. The
company was fairly small when I first started.
find I would do design work, night meeting
attendance, meeting with clients.
That's
pretty much it.
/'lUllS /, Ald.UC'\S IlfI'OII.,.,Nr. S/:/lI'ICf.INC.
".mid",rg 717.!.Il1.lJIi2J \'11I1. 717.HH.tHIS 1'..\ '.HIHI.2.11.'J.127
1
11.
2
Q.
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
18
19
20
Q.
21
22
A.
23
Q.
24
25
A.
Exom.!Monseoo - Gingrich
No, I don't.
Do you recall doing any other projects for
Leffler while you were employed by HRG?
Not that I recall, no.
Throughout the entire time when you were
working for HRG, were you a licensed
professional engineer?
No, I was not.
Is there an examination required to get such a
license?
Yes, there is.
Did you ever sit for it?
NO, I did not.
Did you ever have any other titles at HRG other
than project manager?
Yes, my title changed -- I can't tell you what
year
to associate director of land and water
resources, which I worked directly under Al
Brulo, who was the director of that division.
When you assumed that responsibility, did you
continue to work for Mr. Grubic?
Yes.
what were your responsibilities in that
position?
Basically, the same as I had before.
It
"".IlIS & A1d.IIC,IS /le/'OllTlNG sml'/ce./Nc.
IlllrrlsllUrg 7'7.2.16.062.1 \'urk 717.8-1.1).(,.1'8 II" 1-S00-2U-9J27
1 1
.
;
.,
,
(:
1
2
3
Q.
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
A.
8
Q.
9
A.
10
Q.
11
A.
12
Q.
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
19
20
21
22
23
24
Q.
25
A.
Exam,!Monsees - Gingrich
which was Cellular One at the time.
AT&T
Wireless since that point.
YOll were an independent contractor when you
left HRG?
For six months, yes.
And YOllr client was AT&T?
Cellular One.
Cellular One?
Yes.
Did you have any other clients at that time?
No, I did not.
Besides the New Kingston project that you
worked on for HRG for Leffler, did you ever
have an opportunity while employed by HRG to
work on a project involving a bulk storage
plant for petroleum products; that is, a tank
farm?
I believe I worked on something on Eisenhower
Boulevard.
I forget
There's a tank farm on
Eisenhower Boulevard up by the Marriott,
Again, I don't recall who the owner was or
exactly what we did for that, but I recall that
a little bit.
Eisenhower Boulevard, where is that?
That's in the Swatara Township at the Exit 1
I'lLlUS & Mcl.llCIlS Iil:l'OnnNG Sl:IlI'ICI:.INC.
lI,mis'",,>: 717-2.16-0623 l'ttrk 717.Sl5-fHIS 1'(11-8110.213-9.127
13
\
f
I
).
~.
,~
!J
. . ,
"
'i,
,tl
; ',~
: 'I
,! .'/,
:; i
i I
i.
1
2
A.
3
Q,
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
8
A,
9
Q.
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
14
A.
15
16
17
18
19
A.
20
21
22
23
24
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
visited New Kingston?
18
No,
Do you recall if you were accompanied by anyone
from HRG when you visited the facility?
No, I don't.
Do you recall if you met anyone from Leffler
when you visited the facility?
No.
So all you can remember today is that you
visited the facility at least once?
That's correct, yes.
And you can recall no other details about that
site visit?
No,
MR. SYLVANUS: You asked one of those
negative questions; you can recall nothing else
about that, and she said no.
MR. MONSEES:
Let's clean that up.
I recall nothing else about it.
MR. SYLVANUS:
Just so the record is
clear.
MR. MONSEES:
I appreciate that, thank
you.
BY MR. MONSEES:
25
Q.
What is your recollection of what Leffler
flLlIIS It Me/.IIC,IS 1l/:I'O/l'flNG St:llI'ICt:.INC.
IIltrtislm'X 717.;!J6.1162J \'jl,k 717.845.6"'8 ",\ 1-$01'.2.13.9.127
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
1
What were some of YOllr other responsibilities
Q.
2
on this project?
3
Well, it would have been coordinating with the
A,
4
surveyors and then taking that field
5
information and coordinating with the person
6
that did the drafting on it to prepare the plan
7
showing the existing conditions.
And I believe
8
I also did the grading for the revised berm.
9
And then again working with the drafting people
10
to put those contours on the plan, working on
11
getting the plan in compliance with what the
12
municipality wanted to see for approval.
13
Did you actually communicate with
Q.
14
representatives in the municipality?
15
I can't recall talking to them specifically,
A.
16
but that's what I normally do.
17
Do you know if Mr. Grubic had any
Q.
18
responsibility for communicating with Leffler
19
during this project?
20
I don't know if he did talk with Leffler during
A.
21
it.
I don't know ~hat.
22
Do you recall who at Leffler you would have
Q.
23
communicated with about this project?
24
I don't recall it, but from looking over the
A.
25
items from the file, I see that we did meet
F/I./US C, McLUCAS Ilf/'O/ITING Sf/lV/Cf,/NC.
IIllrr;sl",,,, 717.2.16.062.1 rcltA; 717.tU5.6-WJ ",\ ,.800.2.1.1.9J27
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
A.
8
Q.
9
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
14
A.
15
Q.
16
A.
17
Q.
18
A.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
22
23
Q.
24
25
A.
Exam,!Monsees - Gingrich
2 1
with a John Dyler at the beginning of the
project.
If I wOllldn't have seen that, I
wOllldn't have recalled who I met with, no.
Q.
You have no specific recollection, other than
having reviewed a document, that you met with
Mr. Byler?
No, I don't.
Do you recall anyone else that you may have
communicated with at Leffler about this
project?
No.
Did you review documents to prepare for today's
deposition?
Yes.
What did you review?
I reviewed documents that were supplied to me.
SUpplied to you by whom?
By Mr. Sylvanus.
Do you recall what you looked at?
Yes, I looked at numerous plans and numerous
meeting notes
or some meeting notes and
letters from the file.
Did you look at a copy of Leffler's complaint,
which was filed in this lawsuit?
No, I did not.
Have not seen that.
flLll/S & MeLl/CM 1/E:I'DIITlNG Sf/ll'ICL',INC.
IIllrrisllllrg 717.236.0623 "1",1,- 717-8.,,;-6-118 /'11 1.80U.2J3.9J27
1
Q.
2
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
Q.
18
19
A.
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
23
A.
24
Q.
25
A.
Bxom./Monsees - Gingrich
lIovo you soen 0 copy of IIRG' 13 onswe): to the
complaint in this action?
No, I have not.
Did you ever see any draft answers prepared by
HRG?
No.
Did you see a copy of the discovery requests
that were propounded by Leffler to HRG in this
lawsuit?
No.
Do you understalld what I mean by discovery
requests?
Yes.
Did you see any draft discovery request
responses prepared by HRG?
No.
How long did you meet with Mr. Sylvanus to
review these documents?
Approximately an hour.
And where did you meet?
At my home in Middletown.
It's also my office.
When did you meet?
Yesterday.
We
Did you -- I'm sorry.
I was just going to say, we also met back in
flLlIIS & McI.IIC,IS/U;I'O/IT/NG SE/lI'/cr./Nc.
J/llrrishurg 717.216-(1621 l'tlrk 717.8.U.6H8 "" '.800-233.9J27
22
,1
..
1
2
Q.
3
A.
4
5
Q.
6
7
A.
8
Q.
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
A.
13
14
Q.
15
A.
16
17
18
19
Q.
20
21
22
23
A.
24
Q.
25
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
December before Christmas.
How long did yotl meet then?
Approximately an hour again.
It was jtlst otlr
initial meeting.
When did you meet in December? Excuse me.
Where did YOll meet in December?
Also at my house.
And how long did you spend with Mr. Sylvanus at
that time?
Approximately an hour.
Did he show you any documents at that time?
He had a few documents with him then at that
time.
What did he show you?
A plan, the plan that was prepared by HRG for
the project.
There possibly could have been
other ones, also, other 8-1/2 by 11 documents
from the file.
This December meeting and the meeting
yesterday, are those the only two meetings
you've had with Mr. Sylvanus about this
lawsuit?
Yes.
Have you had any meetings with Mr. Grubic since
this lawsuit was filed?
/'lUllS I; Ald.IIC,IS IlC/'OIIT1NG SCllI'/CC,/NC.
IIiIrrMlllrg 717.2.16.062.1 )'11(1 7IN~4,i.6-U8 "" 1-800.21.1-9.127
23
1
A.
2
Q.
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
A.
9
10
11
12
Q.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
A.
20
Q.
21
22
23
24
A.
25
Q.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
On this lawsuit?
Yes.
No.
Have YOll had any occasion to speak with
Mr. Grubic about this lawsuit?
No.
Not at all?
I have seen him, but, no, I've....
possibly
just a passing comment about it, but nothing
specific, no. We did not go over any
information, no.
I'd like to go through some of the tasks that I
believe HRG performed while doing this New
Kingston project for Leffler.
When you were working on this project, did
you conduct any research as to the regulatory
requirements applicable to petroleum tank
farms?
Not that I'm specifically aware of, no.
You have no recollection of obtaining a copy of
any federal regulations that might be
applicable to a tank farm while you were doing
this project at New Kingston?
No, I don't.
Do you have any recollection of reviewing any
flI.1l1S & Md.lICAS IIEI'orITlNG SE/II'ICI:, INC,
"",",sburg 717.2.16-0621 \'lIrk 7INU5.6-1'S 1'(\ 1-800.23.1.9.127
24
1
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
applicable state requirements pertaining to
2
petroleum tank farms while YOll did this project
3
in New Kingston?
4
A.
No, not specifically, no.
5
Q.
Do you know if anyone else at HRG would have
6
been responsible for reviewing any regulatory
7
requirements for petroleum storage tank farms
8
during this New Kingston project?
9
MR. SYLVANUS:
Object to the form.
You
10
may answer.
11
A.
No, I don't.
I don't know if anyone else did
12
or was responsible to do it.
13
BY MR. MONSEES:
14
Q.
Would that have been a job that you would have
15
assigned someone at HRG to do, to undertake
16
that regulatory requirement research?
17
MR. SYLVANUS:
Object to the form of the
18
question.
You may answer.
19
A.
I don't believe so, because, again, our
20
responsibility was to obtain municipal approval
21
for site work.
22
BY MR. MONSEES:
23
Q,
The municipality in question at the New
24
Kingston site was Silver Spring Township.
Is
25
that correct?
fiLIUS {f Me/.IIC,IS /lr/'O/lrlNG sml'/cr, /NC.
IIllrrisburg 717.216.0621 h'rA. 7J7.S".'j.6-IJlI 1Jt\ I-HfJlJ.21.1-9.J27
25
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
1
MR. SYLVANUS:
I'm going to note an
2
objection.
When you say applicable regulations
3
in all of these questions, YOll're referring to
4
any federal or state regulations specifically
5
referring to petroleum tank farms as opposed to
6
zoning regulations and that kind of thing.
7
that correct?
8
MR. MONSEES:
Right.
Let me tighten it
9 up.
10 BY MR. MONSEES:
11
During any of the conversations you may have
Q.
12
had with Mr. Grubic during the New Kingston
13
project, did the issue of federal or state
14
regulations which might be applicable to the
15
project ever come up?
16
No.
A.
17
MR. SYLVANUS:
Again, I want to note the
18
same objection.
You're saying federal or state
19
regulations.
There may be state land use
20
regulations that may have been applicable that
21
may have been reviewed, but not specifically
22
related to petroleum tank farms or storage
23
facilities. There is a dichotomy there, but.
24
MR. MONSEES:
I'll break it down.
25 BY MR. MONSEES:
m.lllS [f MeLIIC,IS 1U:I'OIfHNG SC/IVIC/:,/NC.
IIllrrishu'X 717.216-(J62J \'urk 717.8-1.').6-1'8 ,." 1.81H).2.1.1.9.l27
27
Is
1
Q.
2
3
4
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
14
15
16
17
A.
18
Q.
19
20
21
22
A.
23
Q.
24
25
A.
'r'
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
I'
f
~\:
,
28
During any conversations you ever had with
Mr. Grubic about the New Kingston project, did
the issue of the applicability of federal
~
,
)
J
regulations relating to petroleum storage tank
farms ever arise?
Not that I recall.
I have the same question with regard to state
regulations applicable to petroleum storage
,
tank farms.
Did the issue ever come up between
you and Mr. Grubic?
Not that I recall.
Did you ever have any occasion during the New
Kingston project to consult with a lawyer about
\
,
I
any regulations pertaining to petroleum storage
tank farms that might be applicable to the New
i
,
Kingston project?
Not that I recall, no.
Do you know if anyone else at HRG would have
contacted a lawyer about regulations concerning
petroleum storage tank farms during the New
~
I
Kingston project?
I'm not aware of anyone contacting.
As far as you know, Mr. Grubic didn't make any
contact with a lawyer about that?
As far as I know, he didn't.
,
nuus [, MrI,UC'\s 11/:I'O/ITING SUlI'/C/:, INC.
IIllJTisll"r.~ 717-2.16-(162) l'mk 717.S~5.6-l18 ,." '-ljmJ-l.11-9J27
1
Q.
2
3
.,
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
14
A.
15
Q.
16
17
A.
18
Q.
19
20
A.
21
Q.
22
23
24
25
A.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
29
How about contacts with any other type of
professionals, such as engineers?
Did you have
any occasion to consult with an engineer that
was not employed by HRG with respect to the New
Kingston project?
Not that I recall.
Do you know if anyone else at HRG consulted
with an outside engineer during the New
Kingston project?
No.
Did you have any contact with anyone from the
pennsylvania Petroleum Association during your
work on the New Kingston project?
Not that I recall.
Do you recall contacting the EPA with any
questions about the New Kingston project?
No.
By EPA, I mean united States Environmental
Protection Agency.
Not that I recall.
So you had no occasion to contact the
Environmental Protection Agency while you were
working on the New Kingston project.
Is that
correct?
Not that I remember.
fII.1US C, Mrl.UC,IS Ilrl'OIlllNG S!:IlVICr,INc.
IIl1rr;5"u", 717.2.16.(162.1 ,"url: 7,7.Hti.fi.I,S I'A '-HOO-2lJ.9.127
1
A.
2
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
31
\:
That was told to liS by the client at our
initial meeting with them,
3
BY MR. MONSEES:
"
( .
~!
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
A.
10
Q.
11
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
23
24
25
And your source for that information is a
J
I:
docllment you recently reviewed?
That's correct, yes.
Did you have any understanding as to why the
client had that request?
No.
~
Did you understand that to be some sort of
requirement that derived from some type of
government regulation?
I assumed that.
Were you told that?
,
\
,
I
I don't recall.
Why did you assume that?
(
,
Well, I assume if there was a requirement that
they were, you know, stating a requirement that
was required by someone.
I guess it could have
been just required by Leffler, but I assumed it
was required by some other entity.
!.
.
"
I
Were there any other requirements that you
assumed were part of the project at New
Kingston?
MR. SYLVANUS:
Object to the form.
/'II./U5 {, M"'.UCA5/lC/'0l1'f/NG 5/:/l1'ICI:,/NC.
IIIIrr;sllllrx 717.2.J6.0ti2J \'llrk 717-t1-4.')-&l18 '1,\ 1.8011.2.1.1.9.127
1
A.
2
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
other than obtaining the municipal approval,
no.
3
BY MR. MONSEES:
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
A.
9
Q.
10
A.
11
Q.
12
A.
13
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
18
Q.
19
20
A.
21
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
HRG sent a crew of surveyors out to survey the
site at New Kingston?
Yes.
Who was on that survey crew?
I don't know.
How many people were involved in that?
I don't know.
What was the purpose of that site survey?
Well, the purpose was to locate all existing
conditions at that site.
Do you recall anything about the results of
that survey?
The data would have been used to prepare the
base plan for the project.
And you were the person who prepared the base
plan.
Is that correct?
A drafter would have drawn up the base plan
from the survey field notes.
Did you have any input into the drafting of the
site plan?
I don't recall specifically.
I could have been
involved in checking it against the survey
fU.lUS f, Md.UCtlS 1U:I'lJlrnNG S[lU'ICI.',INC.
IIllrrislJUtX 717.2I1j.lIti1.1 )'11,1 717.H~,'i.MIS I''' '.81111.21.1.1J.127
32
Exam.!Mollsees - Gingrich
1
wOllld have been -- The surveyors come in with
2
their information, the drafters draft it onto
3
the plan, and then on that same plan, YOll would
4
superimpose the changes to the plan.
So it's
5
not a separate plan, it's just existing
6
conditions that you start out with before you
7
would add proposed changes to the site.
8
There could be a base.
There could be an
9
existing survey plan that was kept separately.
10
But, in this case, what I reviewed yesterday
11
was the existing conditions with the proposed
12
conditions superimposed on top of that.
13
Q.
Which, as far as we understand, has beell
14
referred to as the site plan?
15
A.
Correct.
16
Q.
So the base plan is actually something
17
different than the site plan.
Is that right?
18
A.
I don't know if there is a separate base plan
19
in this instance.
The base plan is on the site
20
plan.
You know what I'm saying?
It would have
21
been prepared -- It would have shown existing
22
conditions before the proposed were placed on
23
that.
24
Right.
So it would have been a separate
Q.
25
document or chart?
fII.1t1S (, M"'.tlC,IS IlU'/I/(HNG SWV/CI:,/NC.
"'lrriJl'ur,'<C 7J7.1.ltt.fHi2.1 rill" 7'7.H.n.'~IH 1',\ ,.Hl.IO.2J.1.9.127
35
I
I
i
"\,I
I \
;
';J
1
2
Q.
3
4
A.
5
6
7
Q.
8
9
A.
10
11
12
Q.
13
14
A.
15
16
17
Q.
18
19
A.
20
21
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
Q.
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
superimposed on top of it.
What was the proposed work which was
superimposed on the site plan?
The proposed work was removal of some tanks,
installation of new tanks and regrading of the
berm on the site, the earthen berm on the site.
Who was responsible for developing that work
that was shown on the site plan?
I was the one that directed the drafters to
show where to put the proposed tanks and the
existing tanks that were removed.
You were the person at HRG who designated where
the new tanks were to be located?
I was the person at HRG, yes, but we were told
by the client where they were to be located and
which tanks were to be removed.
Did the client tell you what modifications to
the containment berms were to be made?
Yes, they wanted to remove all the small berms
and make it one continuous large berm around
the outside of the tank farm.
And when you generated the site plan, did you
follow those instructions?
To my knowledge, yes.
Did the work that you did at New Kingston with
f1/,/US & MeLIIC,lS IlCl'O/frtNG SCRI'ICC.INC.
Illrrrisl",'X 717.2.16.(1623 \'mol. 717.84.;.6418 "/\ '.800-233-9.127
37
EKam.jMonsees - Gingrich
39
1
Q.
Do you recall what the results showed when you
2
did this calculation for the containmont
3
volume?
4
A.
No.
5
Q.
Do you recall if your calculation led you to
6
conclude that the containment volume would be
7
sufficient to hold spilled oil from the larger
8
tank in the facility?
9
A.
I don't recall that, but I assume it did.
10
Q.
Do you recall if anyone at HRG checked your
11
work as far as that calculation of the
12
containment volume?
13
A.
I don't recall.
14
Q.
Would that have been something someone at HRG
15
would have been responsible for at the time you
16
were employed by HRG?
17
A.
Yeah, because everything that went out of the
18
office was checked.
19
Q.
Was there a procedure in the office at that
20
time for having work checked?
21
At some point, HRG did develop a formal written
A.
22
checking procedure.
I'm not sure what year
23
that was or if that was in place at the time.
24
If it wouldn't have been the formal written
25
procedure, it was more or less a verbal
rtI.1l1S (, ""tIlC,IS 1lE:/'O/ff'lNG scen'Ia, INC.
Ildrrisllll'X 717.2.t6.11tiJ~1 \'Ilrl.: 7IN~"5.6.UH II" ,.HUlJ.21.1.9.127
\.
I
1.\:
,
, I
I
,
,
),
~ '
Exam,/Monsees - Gingrich
40
1
something that was to be done.
2
Q.
When youieft HRG, they had a formal written
3
procedure for checking work?
4
Yes, they did.
A.
5
MR. MONSEES:
I'd like to make a request
6
for that written procedure, John.
7
MR. SYLVANUS:
I will check into it.
I'll
8
produce it if it's available.
I presume it is.
9
I don't know whether it was, again, in effect
10
at the time of this work, but I certainly don't
11
have an objection.
I'll look into it.
12
BY MR. MONSEES:
13
Ms. Gingrich, would it be fair to say that you
Q.
14
were the person responsible at HRG for creating
15
the site plan?
16
A.
Yes.
17
Were you assisted by anyone in the creation of
Q.
18
the site plan?
19
Yeah, again, surveyors to get the field
A.
20
information, whoever drafted or drew up the
21
plan, and then, of course, the final check on
22
the plan by Bob Grubic.
23
Anyone else involved?
Q.
24
Not that I recall.
A.
25
As far as the surveyors, their participation in
Q.
fII.llIS C< Md.lIC,IS 11I:/'0I/l'ING SE:r.I'/CI:./NC.
II,,"isllUrg 7,7.216.lJti2.1 \'1,,4 7,7-S.f.'i.t).lIS 'I" HWO-2JJ-9J27
.
,
.1,
,
j
'1
,
I
,
,
,
1
Q.
2
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
A.
10
11
Q.
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
Q.
18
19
20
A.
21
Q.
22
23
24
A.
25
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
After you had created the site plan, it was
reviewed by Mr. Grllbic.
Is that correct?
That's correct, yes.
Did Mr. Grubic have any revisions to the site
plan?
I don't recall that.
Do you recall if Mr. Grubic had any input as
far as the development of the site plan?
other than revisions he might have had, I don't
recall.
But as you sit here today, you can't recall if
he had any revisions?
No, I don't.
Do you recall if the site plan went through
another draft stage?
I don't recall.
As part of the New Kingston project, did HRG
draft an erosion and sedimentation control
plan?
I don't recall.
Do you recall if that was part of the work that
HRG was retained by Leffler to do with respect
to New Kingston?
It typically would have been a part of the
municipal approval, but I don't recall doing it
fII.lUS I' .\kl.UCAS IIU'CllfflNG SE:IlI'ICl:,/NC.
",,,,isllll',1( 717-2.1Ii.llli2.J rllr" 7,7.S.,:i.M'S '1,\ ,./illlJ.2J.1.9J27
43
1
2
Q.
3
4
5
A.
6
7
8
Q.
9
10
A.
11
12
13
Q.
14
15
16
A.
17
Q.
18
19
20
A.
21
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
Q.
Exom./Monsees - Gingrich
f':
,
44
specifico1ly on this site.
If it had been done at the New Kingston
\
project, who at HRG would have been responsible
/~
,
/
)
for drafting that plan?
I would have been responsible for the design of
it and then again someone to draft or draw it
L
onto the plans.
What about any type of narrative or text for an
erosion and sedimentation control plan?
,
Typically, that was prepared also with the plan
itself, a narrative.
I don't recall it
specifically.
Who at HRG would have been responsible for
drafting that narrative if it was done for the
.
.1
,
I
New Kingston project?
That would have been me, also.
Did you have any role in the preparation of the
actual applications to Silver Spring Township
for the New Kingston project?
I don't recall, bllt I would have most likely
been the one to prepare those.
~
,
i
Is there someone else at HRG who would have
been involved in preparing those applications?
Most likely, no.
How would you have prepared those applications?
I
I
it,
nUlls I< Md,lIC,IS IIt:1'OII.,.,NG S/:/lI'IC/:,/NC.
1I.",;s/",rg 717.2.11,.(112) l'IIIA 717.HH.(HiS 1',\ I-SIIII.2.1.1.~.J!7
1
A.
2
3
4
Q.
5
A.
6
Q.
7
8
9
A.
10
Q.
11
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
18
19
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
23
24
25
F.xam./Monsees - Gingrich
I don't understand.
what do you mean how?
would have gotten the application from the
township a~d filled it out and submitted it.
On behalf of the client?
Correct.
Do you have any recollection about drafting an
application for Leffler with respect to New
Kingston?
No.
Did you attend any zoning hearing board
meetings with respect to the New Kingston
project?
Yes.
Did you attend any meetings of the Silver
Spring Township board or municipal authority?
Yes.
I don't recall specifically what meeting
I was at, whether it was zoning or planning or
how many, but I know I did attend meetings for
the project.
Were you accompanied by anyone from HRG?
Not that I recall.
Do you recall being accompanied by anyone from
Leffler?
A.
Not that I recall.
Q.
What was the purpose of attending those
1'Il.ll/S," Ald.l/CAS W:I'OIlTlNG srlll'Ice, INC.
IIllrrishur:.: 7'7-2.16.062.1 )'lIfk 7J7.tH5-~JH P,\ '.800.2.1.1.9.127
45
I
EKam./Monsees - Gingrich
47
!.\~
1
Q,
I don't want to mischaracterize your testimony,
2
so correct me if I'm wrong, but you believe
\ .,
3
that you visited the New Kingston site at least
.
,
,
.
4
once?
)
~ i
5
A.
I believe I did, yes.
6
Q.
But you don't know if you visited it more than
.1
7
once?
8
A.
No, because I don't recall a specific visit,
11
that you saw during the visit, correct, other
9
no.
10
Q.
And you don't recall anything about the site
12
than the fact that there were storage tanks
13
there?
14
A.
Correct, nothing specific.
I
,
I
15
MR. MONSEES:
I'd like to have marked as
16
Gingrich 1 a copy of what is labeled site plan
17
for New Kingston terminal, dated october 18,
18
1988.
19
(Gingrich Deposition Exhibit No. 1
20
produced and marked for identification.)
21
BY MR. MONSEES:
22
Q.
I'd like you to take a look at that, .Ms.
23
Gingrich.
Ms. Gingrich, have you seen this
24
document before?
25
A.
Yes, I have.
/'lUllS C, MrUICAS 1U:I'O/IHNG SfIll'ICC, INC,
"'Irrlsllllr,'{ 717.216-062.J rink 7'7.8.15.&IIH 1',\ '-8fJO-2.1.1.9.127
1
Q.
2
A.
3
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
10
11
A.
12
Q.
13
14
15
A.
16
Q.
17
18
A.
19
Q.
20
21
22
23
24
A.
25
.....'
I'
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
48
Would you identify it, please?
'/
Yes, this is the site plan that was prepared
"
;
,
,
for the project we're talking about.
Is this document the only document which
constitutes the site plan?
Yes.
In other words, there are no other narrative
reports or memoranda that are included with
this document that we could call it the site
plan?
Not that would be called the site plan, no.
This is the document that you created, this
site plan? We've talked about a site plan that
I
.
I
you created. Is this, in fact, the document?
Right.
l
(
Me and others at HRG, yes.
The "others" being the surveyors and the drafts
people?
Correct, yes.
I'd like to direct your attention, Ms.
Gingrich, to what's entitled general notes on
~.
the right-hand side of the site plan.
What is
the source of that information that was listed
under the heading general notes?
Well, each different note would have a
different source or a different reason for
~
nUlls & Ald.IIC,IS Ilfl'OIl1.,NG Sflll'ICL~ INC.
IIllrrlsllll'S 717.2.16.062J \'ctrk 717.H~,~'(HJ8 1',\ '.8oo.2JJ.9127
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
1
being on there.
2
Q.
If you could go through the list of general
3
notes and identify the source for the
4
information for each note, if you would?
5
A.
Source is hard to -- Well, the Note 1 is
6
regarding the site area.
That's just stating
7
the site area of the property.
8
Q.
Is that something that the surveyors would have
9
generated?
10
A.
That's something that -- I don't know if it
11
came from a surveyor off the deed or if it was
12
calculated by the survey.
I'm not sure
13
specifically where it came from.
14
Q.
How about Note 2?
15
A.
Note No. 2 is on the yard piping.
I don't
16
recall specifically why it was put on there or
17
where that -- you know, what the source of the
18
note is.
19
Q.
Okay.
Note No.3?
20
A.
3 is regarding property boundary information
21
taken from another plan, and that would have
22
just been a note we put on because we didn't do
23
a property survey.
We were just surveying the
24
existing conditions on the site.
So we're
25
saying we obtained the property boundary from a
HUllS & McLlIC,IS Ilrl'OllrING SfIlI'lCr./Nc.
IIII"'sllll'X 717.236.0623 \'llrk 717.8-15.6-118 1',11.8lHJ.2U.9J27
49
'"'
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
1
plan by others.
50
2
4 is zoning district.
That's just a note
3
on what the zoning district at the site is.
4
And 5 is tax map parcel.
Again, just
5
stating the tax map parcel of the property.
6
6, purpose of the plan, is to show the
7
removal of two tanks and the addition of two
8
tanks.
Again, just stating the purpose of the
9
plan for the municipal approval.
10
7 is talking about piping and piping
11
supports, and I don't recall specifically, you
12
know, why that note is on the plan.
13
And 8 has to do with tank and site
14
facilities. Again, I don't recall specifically
15
where that note came from.
16
Q.
Do you have any familiarity with the official
17
regulatory requirements applicable to bulk
18
storage facilities; that is, 40 CFR, Part 112,
19
oil pollution prevention?
20
A.
No, I don't.
21
Q.
Do you recall referring to that at all during
22
the New Kingston project?
23
A.
No.
24
Q.
Other than what's shown on this site plan, did
25
you provide Leffler with any other instructions
i'lL/US I' Md.UCAS 1/I.'I'OII11NG Sflll'ICt; INC.
Illlrri51lll'X 717.2.16."62.1 l'Clrk 717.Sl.1.tj..U8 1',\ '.800.23.1.9.127
1
2
3
A.
4
5
A.
6
7
8
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
!j 1
with regard to the work that was to be done at
the facility?
No.
MR. SYLVANUS:
Object to the form.
There would have been the -- probably would
have been an erosion and sedimentation control
narrative, which more fully describes how E & S
measures should be addressed at this site.
9
BY MR. MONSEES:
10
Q.
11
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
17
A.
18
Do you recall any other information that would
have been provided by HRG with respect to the
work that Leffler wanted to do at the site?
No.
Do you recall if HRG issued any type of
warnings to Leffler about the work that they
proposed to do at the site?
No.
MR. SYLVANUS:
Object to the form.
19
BY MR. MONSEES:
20
Q.
21
22
23
24
25
Did HRG provide Leffler with any other
instructions about the design of the
containment area other than what was shown on
the site plan?
A.
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Q.
I direct your attention back to the site plan,
m.lUs /:, MeHIC/IS rIEI'O/fflNG S[/II'ICI:,INC.
IllmisllUrg 717.2.16.1162.1 \'tlrk 717.8-15.6"'8 J'/\ J.8UO.2.1.1.9.127
".,U
1
2
3
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
11
12
A.
13
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
18
Q.
19
A.
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
23
24
25
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
Ms. Gingrich.
I'm going to point out to you
52
approximately in the center of the facility as
depicted on the site plan a notation of water
we 11.
Do you see that?
Yes, I see that.
Did you ever see this well when you were at the
site?
No, I don't recall seeing it, no.
Do you have any recollection of this well being
discussed when you were working on the New
Kingston project?
Before I would have reviewed the file, I did
not have any, no.
You're referring to your file review as of
yesterday?
Correct.
Or as of December when we first
talked about it.
That would be you and Mr. Sylvanus?
That's correct, yes.
That was December of 1999?
Yes.
You have no recollection of any discussions
about this well during the course of the New
Kingston project?
MR. SYLVANUS:
Your question is
f1UUS & McLUC,IS nCNlRrlNG Srrll'/CE./NC.
"",rlsllllrg 717.236.062.1 \'",1.- 717.8-15.6-118 1',\ '.800.2.13-9.127
1
2
3
Exam./Monseos - Gingrich
coffeo today.
MR, SYLVANUS:
Have sarno orange juice.
It's very good.
4
BY MR. MONSEES:
5
Q.
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
11
A.
12
13
14
Q.
15
A.
16
Q.
17
18
A,
19
Q.
20
21
A.
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
Q.
Ms. Gingrich, do you know the compensation
arrangement HRG had with Leffler for the New
Kingston project?
No.
Typically on projects that you worked on for
HRG, was your time charged on an hourly basis?
I'm not sure it was typical.
I mean, there
were obviously two types of contracts, hourly
with the client or lump sum.
What was your hourly rate in 1988?
I have no idea.
Did you keep time sheets on the projects you
were working on?
Yes.
Do you recall what Mr. Grubic's hourly rate
would have been in 1988?
No.
More than mine.
I would hope.
Do you recall about how many
hours you spent on this project?
No, I don't.
Now, you mentioned that you gave a deposition
nUlls [, Md.lIC,IS Illl'0I1.,.,NG S/:/iVICL,INC,
1I11";slllltX 7'7.2.16.062.1 l'lItk 7'7-S",1-fHlS ,." ,.800.2].1.9.127
57
1
2
A,
3
Q,
4
A.
5
Q.
6
A.
7
8
9
10
Q.
11
A.
12
Q,
13
A.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.".
Bxam,jMonsees - Gingrich
511
before?
Yes.
In a case involving HRG?
Yes, that's correct.
what did that case relate to?
Oh, it related to a property survey that we did
in South Whitehall Township outside of
Allentown and the location of a township line
that bisected the property.
Was HRG a defendant in that lawsuit?
Yes.
What was the claim?
Well, the basis of the lawsuit was there was a
'\
,
I
tall concrete monument inscribed with the
township names on both sides. And we located
j
that monument and utilized that for the
township boundary line bisecting the property
we were surveying. And, in reality, supposedly
the townships up there don't honor that
physical township line, they honor some paper
'1
{
line from years and years ago.
I'm not sure I answered your question
right, but that was basically the basis of the
lawsuit, was that we had honored a physical
location of the township line and the townships
~
nUlls & Mel.lIC/IS 1ll:I'OlfnNG SI:lIVICI',lNC.
Ildrrisllurg 717-2J6-lJ62J \'ork 7J7.M5.6.JIH ,." '.HOU.2J.1.9.J27
1
2
3
4
5
Q.
6
A.
7
8
9
10
Q.
11
A.
12
13
14
Q.
15
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
Q.
19
20
A.
21
22
23
Q.
24
A.
25
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
59
did not honor it.
It went through approval.
The township was approved,
The township never
caught that the township line was supposedly in
the incorrect spot,
The plaintiff party in the suit was a township?
No, it was a developer who was trying to
develop the land.
And, ultimately, more of the
property ended up in one township as opposed to
what we had shown.
So is it fair to say it was a boundary dispute?
I guess basically.
The dispute was over the
location of the township line, monumented
versus a paper line.
And HRG had done the surveying work involved?
That's correct, yes.
How did the suit, how was it resolved?
It was settled in court.
Were you involved in supervising the surveyors
in that project?
Again, I didn't really supervise the surveyors
because they had their own supervisors, but I
worked with them on that project.
Were you the project manager?
Unfortunately, yes.
MR. MONSEES:
Off the record.
I'IUllS [, MrWCAS 1l/:I'O/ll'lNG SE:/lI'/CE:, INC.
U",,'sllll'X 717.2.16.062.1 \'m&. 717.H".~.6-IIH "A '.8otl.2.1J.9327
1
2
3
Q.
4
5
A,
6
Q.
7
8
9
A.
10
Q.
11
12
A.
13
Q.
14
15
A.
16
17
Q.
18
A.
19
20
Q.
21
A.
22
Q.
23
A.
24
25
ElCDm,jMonseos - Gingrich
60
(Diocuooion held 0([ tho record.
DY MR. MONSEES:
Have you given any other testimony in any other
cases involving HRG as a defendant?
No.
Are YOll aware of any other lawsuit other than
this one currently pending involving HRG as a
defendant?
No.
You don't have any financial interest in HRG
today, do yoU?
No.
Are any members of your immediate family
currently employed by HRG?
My fiance works there, but he's not my
immediate family.
What does your fiance do for HRG?
He's a structural engineer.
He's head of their
structural engineering department.
Have you talked to him about this lawsuit?
Yes.
What have you discussed?
Not as an employee of -- I mean, I haven't
talked to him as an employee of HRG, just __
I've just gone over just in basic discussions
nUlls I" MrWCAS IWPDlITlNG sr/ll'/cr,/Nc.
IIllrrlsllur;.: 717-2.16.(/62.1 l'",k 717.84,lj.""'8 '.11 '.SIHJ.2.U-9J27
1
A.
2
3
4
Q,
5
6
7
A.
8
Q.
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
A.
19
Q.
20
A.
21
22
23
24
Q.
25
A.
Exam./Mollsoes - Gingrich
63
That wOllld have been Mr, Byler saying that
Leffler wanted to continlle to use the exIsting
well, if possible.
Do you have any recollection of Mr. Byler
asking you if it was possible to lIse the well
at New Kingston?
No.
Do you have any recollection of any advice that
you gave Mr. Byler in response to that qllery?
No.
I'd like to show you a document, a one-page
document on a Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.
form entitled, record of telephone
conversation. We've marked it was Gingrich No.
3.
If you could take a look at that, please.
Ms. Gingrich, have you seen this document
before?
Yes.
What is it?
It's a record of telephone conversation.
It's
dated May 17th, 1988.
It has the job number at
the top, and it has numerous entities and their
phone numbers written below it.
Is the handwriting yours?
Yes, it is.
/'lUllS [, McI.lIC'\S 11I:I'Cl/l'fING S/:/lI'/Cf,INC.
IIl1rrislturx 717.2.1ti.f1Iill \'lIrk 717.8".~-fI.IJtl 1',\ ,-lilm.2.U-!J.127
1
Q.
2
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
16
A.
17
Q.
18
A.
19
20
21
Q.
22
23
A.
24
Q.
25
65
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
Do you have any recollection of speaking with
anyone from the Pennsylvania Petroleum
Association during this project?
No, no.
There's a reference to -- below that to
Environmental Protect Agency, Volume 38, No.
237.
Do you see that?
Yes, I do.
Is that in your handwriting?
Yes.
Do you have any recollection of looking at that
reference?
No, I don't.
Can you read what's written below that cite to
Volume 38, No. 237?
It says something prevention.
Could that read oil pollution prevention?
It looks like oil something prevention.
Yes,
it looks like oil something.
Spill or
pollution possibly, prevention.
Do you have any recollection as to why you
would have written these notes?
No, I don't.
I'd like to turn your attention to what we've
marked Gingrich No.4, which is a one-page
/'11./115 {, Mr/.IIC,15 /U:I'OIfflNG 5CI1V/CC,INC,
Illlrrjsllll~ 717.2.16.1162.1 \'mL 7'7-8..5.&U8 "A 1-8oo.2.lJ-9.127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1\.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Exam,/Monsees - Gingrich
66
record of telephone conversation form.
I'd
like YOll to take a look at that, Ms. Gingrich.
Have you seen that document before?
Yes.
What is it?
This is a record of telephone conversation. It
says the project is Leffler. Has the job
number. The date is May 18, 1988. It says
name of person called or calling was
Pennsylvania Petroleum Association.
Is the handwriting on this form yours?
Yes, it is.
Do you recall taking a call from anyone with
the Pennsylvania Petroleum Association during
the New Kingston project?
No.
Looking at this form, does this refresh your
recollection of taking such a call?
No, I don't specifically recall it, no.
Do you know a Don Welcomer?
No.
Do you have any recollection of speaking with
Mr. Welcomer about the New Kingston project?
No.
After Mr. Welcomer's name, there's a
/'lUllS '" Mcl.l/CAS 1lt:I'CJIl'flNG SI:llI'ICt:, INC.
Jlllrrishurg 7l7.2.Jti.IJ62J \'1,,1717.84.').6.,'8 I'A '.800-23.1-9.127
1
2
3
A.
4
Q.
5
6
A.
7
Q.
8
9
A.
10
Q.
11
12
A.
13
Q.
14
A.
15
16
Q.
17
18
A.
19
Q.
20
21
A.
22
Q.
23
A.
24
Q.
25
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
handwritten phrase, call this engineer, he can
help.
Do you see that?
I see that, yes.
Is that referring to the individual, John
Storb, below that?
I don't know if
I don't know,
Do you have any recollection of speaking to a
Mr. Storb during the New Kingston project?
No, I don't.
There's a reference there to SPCCM dash EPA
plan?
I see.
Yes, I see that.
What does that stand for?
I don't know what SPCCM is.
I assume EPA is
Environmental Protection Agency.
What's the significance of EPA plan, do you
know?
No, I don't know.
On the signature line at the bottom of the
form, there are initials, D.A.G.
Yes.
Are those your initials?
Yes, it is.
Do you have any recollection of filling out
this form?
/'II.IlIS (< .lfrl.t/C,IS W:I'OlIHNG SCllI'/CI:./NC.
Illlrrislmr'g 7,7.2Jtj.(162.1 \'tIrk 7'7-8-1.1.6-118 1',11.80(1.21.1-9.127
67
1
A,
2
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
11
12
A.
13
Q.
14
15
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
Q.
19
20
21
A.
22
Q.
23
A.
24
25
Q.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
No.
I'd like to tllrn your attention now to what
we've marked Gingrich No.5.
This is another
Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc. record of
telephone conversation form.
Have you seen this document before, Ms.
Gingrich?
Yes.
Let's take a step back for a minute.
The
documents that I've shown you in the last few
minutes, Nos. 2 through 5.
Yes.
I've asked you if you've seen these documents
before, and you've answered, yes, I believe?
Yes.
Did you last see them yesterday?
Yes.
How about what we've marked as Gingrich No.5,
did you see that yesterday as well, the
document before you now?
I believe so.
What is this form or this document?
Again, it's a record of telephone conversation
on June 20th, 1988 with John Byler.
The handwriting on the form, is that your
/'II./tlS t, M..LtlC<I5/WI'O/l1'ING S/:/lI'lCC, INC,
II11rrililturg 717.2.16-1162.1 \'mk 717.8l,'j.&l18 1',\ I.Hoo.2.).1.9.127
68
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
70
.\:
,
1
locations are not suitable and telling him
2
we'll continue to work on it and submit it to
3
the township in the near future.
,
"
'~ I
)
I'
I
4
Q.
I thought I understood you to testify that
5
Leffler told you where to put the tanks.
This
6
suggests that HRG, in fact, selected the tank
7
locations?
8
MR. SYLVANUS:
object to the form.
9
A.
No.
I believe they provided us with a plan
.
10
showing the locations.
This would have been
11
again just confirming that everything was fine
12
the way we were showing it.
13
BY MR. MONSEES:
14
Q,
I'd like to show you what I've marked as
I
,
I
15
Gingrich No.7, which is four pages of
j
,
16
handwritten notes on HRG graph paper.
I'd like
17
you to take a look at this, please.
18
Ms. Gingrich, is this your handwriting on
19
this document?
20
A.
Yes, it is.
21
What is this document?
Q.
22
This was when I was calculating out the
A.
23
volume -- the containment volume that was
24
provided on our plan with the revisions to the
25
containment berms.
/'lUllS C, Mrl.lICAS /WI'OIlTING SI:Ill'/CC,INC.
Jlllrrisllllrg 717-2.16.062.1 }',,,I.- 717-8~5.6U8 ",l '-8oo-23J-9J27
1
Q.
2
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
14
A.
15
16
17
Q.
18
19
A.
20
21
Q.
22
23
24
25
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
71
Did you generate any other documents during
your calculation of the required containment
volume?
I don't remember.
There's a space at the top right of the form
which reads, quote, checked by, unquote.
Do
you see that?
Yes, I do.
The blank after that is empty, is it not?
Yes, it is.
What is HRG's usual practice -- Strike that.
What's the function of that line on this form
checked by?
It's for the person that checked the
calculations to attach their initials to it and
a date that it was checked.
The blanks on this form are empty.
What does
that signify?
It would signify that it was not checked by
anyone.
I'd like to turn your attention to what I've
marked Gingrich No.8, which is a one-page copy
of a letter on HRG stationery, dated October
20, 1988, to the Cumberland County Soil
Conservation District from Deborah A. Gingrich.
I'IUlIS [, Me/.lIC,IS Ilr/'OIIHNG sr/lVIcr,INC.
IIllrrisll/l'X 717.216.tlti21 \'lIfA. 717.H-IS.iHIH 1',\ '.800.2.13.9.127
1
Q.
2
A.
3
Q.
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
8
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
A.
13
Q.
14
A.
15
16
17
Q.
18
A.
19
Q.
20
21
A.
22
Q.
23
24
25
A.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
73
Did YOll see it yesterday?
Yes.
Prior to yesterday, did you have any
recollection of this?
No.
Looking at it today, does it refresh your
recollection as to whether HRG prepared an
erosion and sedimentation control plan
narrative report?
Yes.
Yes, we did.
Did you prepare this report?
I don't recall specifically.
I believe I did.
What's the purpose of this report?
"I
.'\
,
,
The purpose would be that it was required by
the conservation district for E & S approval of
,
,
,
;,
If
il
II
I
t
h
f
."
':,
"i:'
j'.i,
I'!
.'1
the plan.
What is E & S approval?
Erosion and sedimentation control.
Do you recall if there were any problems with
this report?
No.
I'd like to direct your attention to the first
page of this report, the section marked No. II,
Soils.
I see it.
I
i..
"
HLlIlS C< Md.IIC,IS IICl'OllnNG SLllI'ICE, me.
Ilarrisl'"rg 717.2J6."62.1 }',Irk 717.HH.6.HS I'A I.SOO.2JJ.9J27
1
A.
2
Q.
3
4
5
6
7
8
A.
9
Q.
10
11
12
A.
13
Q.
14
15
A.
16
Q.
17
A.
18
19
20
21
22
Q.
23
24
A.
25
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
79
No.
\:
,
I'd like to show YOll what was marked as
, '/.
Gingrich No. 13, which is a page of handwritten
notes.
I'm sorry, Ms. Gingrich, before you get
/t'
, I
,
into this new document, could you take a look
I,
at the one I just showed you, which would have
been I think 11 or 12?
12.
12, yes.
Did I ask you if that was your
handwriting?
Is that your handwriting on
Gingrich 12?
Yes, it is.
Okay, thank you.
Now, if you would look at No.
13. Ms. Gingrich, is this your handwriting?
Yes, it is.
What is this document?
This appears to be notes that Margaret from
Silver spring Township called on November 11th,
1988.
And it's talking -- It seems that she
listed the conditions of plan approval from the
previous night's meeting.
Why was Margaret from Silver Spring Township
calling you?
She was calling to tell us what changes had to
be made to the plan and the resubmission date
/'lI.lUS & ^,cLUC,IS Ilfl'OIfrlNG srIIVler.INC.
IlllrrislJurx 717.236.062.1 )'lIrk 7,7.SlS.6-U8 fJA '.800.23.1.9.127
1
2
3
Q.
4
5
A.
6
Q.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
A.
14
Q.
15
A.
16
17
18
19
Q.
20
21
22
23
A.
24
25
Q.
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
so that we got it back in time for the next
80
meeting.
Were you the person at flRG in charge of making
these changes?
Yes.
I'd like to show you what I've marked as
Gingrich No. 14, a copy of a one-page letter on
HRG stationery, dated November 14, '88,
addressed to the board of supervisors, Silver
Spring Township, from Deborah A. Gingrich.
Ms. Gingrich, is that your signature at
the bottom of the letter?
Yes, it is.
What is this document?
\
,
I
This would have been transmitting 10 revised
sets of the New Kingston terminal plan back to
;
,
,
the township for the board of supervisors'
approval.
Seeing this letter, does it refresh your
recollection about your work to get Leffler's
plan approved by the Silver Spring Township
i
authorities?
Seeing the letter, yes.
I see I had to make
these changes to get the plan approved.
Do you recall anything else about the status of
fII./lIS [, MeLlIe,lS 11I:l'ClIfflNG SI:/lI'/C/:,/NC.
"'lrrisl,urg 717.2Jti./Jfi21 \'lIrl. 717.S".'i.64IH '1,\ '.HOO.21.1.1J.J27
;.\
I'
Exam./Monsees - Gingrich
84
1
Kingston terminal project, for the approval of
2
it, on December 8th, 1988.
And it states that
3
the board recommended approval with three
4
contingencies.
5
Q.
What were those contingencies?
6
A.
One, that the existing tanks and facilities, as
7
well as the new tanks, be approved by the state
B
fire marshal and DER.
Two, that an evergreen
9
screen, evergreen tree screen be installed
10
along Locust Point Road.
And, three, that the
11
premises be cleaned up immediately.
12
Q.
Do you recall what was going on at the premises
13
that required immediate cleanup?
14
A.
No.
15
Q.
Do you have any recollection of the condition
16
of the premises at New Kingston at this period
17
of time?
18
A.
No.
19
Q.
Do you recall if the state fire marshal ever
20
approved the new tanks and facilities at New
21
Kingston?
22
A.
No, I don't.
23
Q.
Did HRG do anything to obtain the state fire
24
marshal's approval for Leffler?
25
A.
No, other than fill out as much of the
r1I.1US (, ,\feLl/C/IS 1l!:I'Ol((/NG St:III'/Cf,/Nc'
Ill/rrisllllrg 717~2.tti.lJti2.1 \'urk 7J7.8,t~.tHIH I'" '.80(1.21.1.9J27
1
Q.
2
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
A.
8
Q.
9
A.
10
Q.
11
12
A.
13
Q.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
A.
21
Q.
22
A.
23
Q.
24
25
A.
Exam.!Monsees - Gingrich
Do you -- Strike that.
Do you have any
recollection of working to obtain DER approval
for Leffler at New Kingston?
No.
Do you recall having any other conversations
with Tim McGuigan?
No.
Do you know who Tim McGuigan was?
No.
Do you recall having any prior contact with Mr.
McGuigan prior to this discussion?
No, I don't.
I'd like to show you a copy of what we've
marked as Gingrich No. 20.
It's a cover letter
and the zoning hearing board findings of fact
and order.
I'd like you to take a look at
that, Ms. Gingrich.
Have you seen this document before, Ms.
Gingrich?
Yes.
I take it you saw it yesterday?
Yes.
Do you have any recollection of seeing it back
in 1989?
No.
i'lL/US & McLlICAS IIEI'OIITING SEIII'ICE, INC.
lIarrisl",rg 717.2.16.0623 Yurk 717.8<15.6418 I'A '-800-233-9327
88
1
2
3
4
A.
5
Q.
6
7
8
9
10
A.
11
Q.
12
13
14
A.
15
Q.
16
17
18
19
20
A.
21
Q.
22
23
A.
24
Q.
25
Exam.!Monseeo - Glngrich
A.
Yes, I see that.
Q.
Did anyone else accompany you from IIRG at this
meeting?
Not that I recall.
'furning to the next page, Item No. 11.
Do you
have any recollection of the zoning hearing
board expressing concern about the condition of
the dikes or berms at the New Kingston facility
during the meeting?
No.
Do you have any recollection about the board
expressing concern about the state of repair
and maintenance of the facility?
No, I don't.
Do you recall any expression by the board of
concern that the leaking of fuel oil at the
facility could cause groundwater contamination
because of the condition of the dikes at the
premises at the time?
No, I don't recall that.
Do you recall the dikes being a concern at all
to the board at this meeting?
No.
I'd like to turn your attention to Page 4 of
the findings of fact of the zoning hearing
l'lI.IUS I' M..l.UCAS /!1:/'Olfl'ING Sl:IlI'ICf. INC.
1I11rrisl"".lf 7l7'Z.1li-lJIi2J l'lIrl.: 717-S.,.,.ft.lIH "(ll-StHl.2lJ-9J27
90
Exam./Monooeo - Glngrich
1
board.
Do you see Item No.3 there?
91
i
2
A.
Yes.
3
Q.
Do you recall any discussion by the zoning
4
hearing board about the applicable federal
5
regulations for the New Kingston facility?
6
A.
No, I don't.
7
Q.
You would agree with me that the fact that they
8
cited the regulations at No.3 indicates that
9
this was a concern to the board?
10
MR. SYLVANUS:
I'm going to object and
11
direct the witness not to answer.
12
MR. MONSEES: On what grounds?
13
MR. SYLVANUS: On the grounds that you're
14
asking what somebody else intended by putting
15
it in here in the discussion.
YOU've got to
16
ask them what their areas of concern were, not
17
this witness.
18
MR. MONSEES:
Well, I may.
19 BY MR. MONSEES:
20
Q.
But let me ask you, Ms. Gingrich, you would
21
have received a copy of the zoning hearing
22
board's decision.
Correct?
23
A.
Yes.
24
Q.
And you would have reviewed it when you
25
received it.
Correct?
m./Us" McLUC,IS Uf/'OUnNG Sf/ll'ICI.~ INC.
"l'rr;~lmrg 717.2.16-lJli2J \'I"A. 717.8-15-6.1111 1''' '.S(JO.2.lJ.9J27
. ,
1
Q.
(;;Xam./Monllou/I - Oln<J1 I.c:h
Do you recall havlng any dlnGu/I/llon/l with
95
\!
2
anyone at IlRG about Ilnl.llq thll l:lllltolnmont 01:00
3
at New Kingston?
..
,
,
4
A.
No.
(.
,
5
MR. MONS(;;ES:
'('hat' Il all
havo.
'J'hank
6
you very much.
7
EXAM I NA'J' I ON
8
BY MR. SYLVANUS:
9
Q.
Ms. Gingrich, I havo a fow questions.
In all
l
10
the documents that you've referred to today in
11
which your handwriting was ldentified by you,
12
were those documents prepared by you at or
13
about the time that you were working on this
14
project?
')
.1
,
I
15
A.
Yes.
16
Q.
You have not prepared since you left HRG or
j
,
,
17
since this lawsuit has been filed any documents
18
that have been shown to you today as exhibits?
19
A.
'fhat's correct, I have not.
I have not
20
prepared any.
21
Q.
Now, you were asked in reference to Exhibit No.
22
11 about
I believe you were asked about the
~
I
23
sentence in there that talks about obtaining
24
appropriate and necessary local, state and
25
federal permits before construction.
mws I< M"'.U("I.~ I/U'll/InNI; SUlI'1C1:,INC.
".ml.I/lux 7'7,],1/1.1/1,11 \'1"1. ;,7.Hn.M'S ",II.HUfJ.2.U.9.127
\
l~xal1l.!Sylvanu/l - Glllgrlc.:h
1
you to allk you to do any wOI:k with rogard to
2
obtainillg any of these additional approvals?
3
A.
No.
4
Do you know whether Leffler obtained any of
Q.
5
these additional approvals that are referred to
6
in this opinion order?
7
No, I don't.
A.
8
Do you recall either Mr. Byler or anyone else
Q.
9
at Leffler ever raising any issues with you or
10
with anyone else, to your knowledge, at HRG
11
regarding the failure of HRG to perform the
12
services that you understood you had agreed to
13
perform -- excuse me -- that you understood
14
that HRG had agreed to perform with regard to
15
this facility?
16
A.
No.
17
Do you know whether Leffler paid HRG's invoice
Q.
18
for these services?
19
A.
No.
20
Did Mr. Grubic or anyone else at HRG ever bring
Q.
21
to your attention any dissatisfaction by
22
Leffler regarding the services provided with
23
regard to this facility?
24
A.
No.
25
MR. SYLVANUS:
I think that's all I have.
I'IUUS {, AkUIC,IS W:l'lllfI'lNG SEIlI'/CE, INC,
IIClrrisl1urg 7'7.2.16-tlti2J rtl,l 717.8.,.;-(.-1,8 "~It 1.800-2.13.9327
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Exal1l./Monsees - Gingrich
(Whereupon, the deposition was concluded
100
at 12:15 p.m.)
flLlIlS I' Alc1.UCIIS UEI'0I1HNG Sl:I!I'/CI:, INC.
IIllrrlslJUrg 717.2.16-062.1 rllrl.: 7'7.8.,5.6"'8 ,I,l ,.SIJ/J.2.1.l.9.J27
en
~
.c
:c
an
, .
In The Matter Of:
Carlos R. Leffl.et; Inc. o.
Herbert, Rowland & Grubic, Inc.
john E. Byler
May 21, 2002
Filius & Mclucas Reporting Service, Inc.
1427 East Market Street, York, PA
4309 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA
(717) 845-6418 or (717) 236-0623
. .
Original Fllej/J052102.PRN, 56 Pages
Mln.U.scrijJl@ File ID: 2546081150
Word Index included with tbis Min-U-Script0
, ,
\
(
'-arlOS 1(. l.clllcr, IItC. v.
I'crhcrt, uowJand & Gnlhlc, Inc.
IN 11110 COUIII OF COMMON l'l[A!l
OF CUMIIEIlIANll COUNIY, pl:NNnYI.VANIA
CNILOU II. U:nUI1,INC,
I'llIhltll.
. CtiM Action. tow
VII. . NuuilOt 00.000
IIEllnmT, nOWI.ANll ^ OI1UIIIC,
INC..
llolondanl ,
Dopa,"Io" 01; JOliN E. UYLW
Tokonby
Dolo
Plaeo
: ()olonc.Jant
: Moy 21, 2002, '2;50 p.m.
: McNeos Wallaco & Nutlck llC
100 Plno SUool
Uantsburg. Ponmyt./nnla
Reportor : Oklnd.1 S. Trov"z
Rogfslorod Profossionnl Ropor1or
Nolory Public
APPEAIlANCES:
IlLANK ROME COMISKY ^ McCAULEY LLP
ny: MARK L nHOADES, ESOUIRE
For. PklloUI'f
JOHN J. SYLVANUS, ESQUlnE
For. Colondan!:
McNEES WN.U\CE Ii NUI1ICK UC
Oy: RICHARD H. FRIEOMAN, ESQUIRE
For. Tho Dopononl
1'1 INDEX
I') WITNESS
p) JOHN E. OYLER
1'1 Oy Mr. Sylvanu.
15) By Mr. Rhoados
16'
111
18'
(91
110'
Ill)
112)
1131
I'"
1'51
I16J
112]
lIB)
119)
(20)
12'1
( 1221
\..
.......; 1231
12"
125'
Examination
3,51
48
Filius & Md.ucas Ucportlng Scrvicc, Inc.
Jonn 1\. uYlcr
May 2J, 2002
1'1 STIPULATION
1'1 I' Is hcrch)' Nllpl1l:IICd hy allll alllol1l1
1" mlll1scl for Ihc rcsl'ccllve 'lanles th:1I
"1 scalirlll, ccrtllk:lllol1, :lIId l1Ihlll arc herehy
1'1 walvcd; a,"1 allohjcclllll1s excel'l as to Ihe
101 forlllof Ihe '1l1cSlloo arc reserved wthe tlllle
I" of Irlal,
18'
IU' JOliN E. IlYLHlI, called as II witness, hclnll
110' dilly sworll,leNllfied as follows:
1111 EXAMINATION
1121 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1131 Q: Mr.llyler, wOllld YOII state YOllr full name ami
I'" address for Ihe record. please,
115' A: JohnE,lIyler, 2830 Kissel HlIIlload,
1101 L:IllCaSler, Pennsylvania,
112] Q: Mr,lIyler, my name Is John Sylvan liS, and I
IIBI represent lIerhen, lIowland & Grublc In a
119' lawsuh thaI \V'dS hrou!:ht by ('.arlos II. Leffler
120' a!:alnstllerben, lIowland & Gruble. You are
1211 here hy a!:reement.
1221 MR. SYLVANUS: Off the record.
1231 (Discussion off the record.)
124' BY MR. SYLVANUS:
125' Q: We're here to take your deposition to determine
Pogo 4
Pogo 2 III whal you m1Y know about certain of the facts In
I') this case, Have you ever had a deposition
13) ",ken before?
I" A: Yes,
15' Q: How many limes?
10) A: I'd say three or four maybe.
111 Q: So you're pretty much familiar with lhe ground
18' rules. I'll just spend a minute or two going
'8' overthem, . _
110' One, we have a stenographer taking down
1111 everythin!: we say, and she can only tlke down
1121 one of us at a time. So you're goln!: to have
1131 Illlisteo to my questioo and not answer It
114' untilI'm finished. Likewise, I will try not
lIS' co imerrupt your answer umll you're finished,
116' Secondly, she cannot take down a nod of
117] the head or a shrug of the shoulder or
118' interpret unclear language, So your answers
1'9' will have to be clear and III the polnt,/f the
1;,>0) answer is a yes or no answer, it will have to
12" be yes or no and not sume other unclear
1221 deslgnatioo.ls thalunderslllod?
123' A: Yes,
124' Q: Now, Is there any reason why you would nol be
125' able as we sit here today III understlnd and
Min-U.Script0
(3) - Page 4
Pnuo3
1'1 'ms~er lilY IlllesrlooslO Ihe heslof YOllr
r>1 ahlllty, sllch as prescrlpllolI medlC'Jtlollor
131 IIIl1ess or 'my other reasoll?
1'1 A: No,l'lIIollmedlcatloll slllce yestcrday
151 afternooo, bill II's IlIst all allllblotlc,
101 Q: It's 1I0tbhlg Ihal affects YOllr ahlllty Illthlllk
rn or arreClS YOllr ahlllty III form YOllr allswers?
1'1 A: J hope not.
IVI Q: Al any time YOII feel YOlllleed a break or 11151
IIOJ want 10 lake a break alld gel "I' and w.llk
1"1 anmnd, please ask me.alld we'll jllsllake as
112) 10llg as YOlllleed.
11'1 We hope 10 gellhls done today. So I will
P'I gel slarted rlghl away,
1'51 VOII are cllrrently employed by Carlos It,
1'6) Leffler?
117] A: No.
1"1 Q: All rlghl. Dy whom are YOII employed?
110' A: I'm self-employed,
1201 Q: Whalls Ihe nalure of YOllr bllslness?
1211 A: Iteal estate. II goes IInder Ilyler Management
1221 Company, LtC,
1231 Q: And how long have YOII been self.employed as
12'1 Dyler Managemenl, LLC?
[2SJ A: Three or folIC years.
III Q: Before thaI by whom were YOII employed?
r>1 A: Carlos Leffler, Incorpornled.
(3) Q: How long were YOII wilh Carlos Leffler.
I') Incorpornled?
IS) A: Twenty'lhree years.
15) Q: ThaI would have been Slanlng In Ihe laIC '70s?
rn A: Ves.
1'1 Q: Whal was your initial position when YOII were
IVI hired by the Leffler compallY?
IIOJ A: When I was aClually firSl hired, I was in Ihe
1"1 malnlenance department, Basically whal lhal
1"1 was, to do piping work, tank work, IInderground
1131 and aboveground.
I") Q: When did you graduale from high school,
I'S) Mr, Byler?
lIB] A: Pardon?
1'7] Q: When did you graduate from high school?
1"1 A: Slxty.four,
110) Q: Old YOII go 10 college after thaI?
(20) A: No.
(21) Q: Have YOII ever gone to college?
rn) A: No.
1231 Q: Do you have any specialized tmininll beyond
12'1 high school?
1251 A: The only spcclalized tmininlll had, I lOok a
Page 5 - Page 8 (4)
Pogo 5
Pogo 6
Carlos It. Leffler, Inc. v.
Herbert, Itowland &: Gntblc, Inc.
Pogo 7
III few bllleprhll courscs alld thlllllS, YOII kllow.
111 cYcnln~'i.
1'1 Q: You said you were firsl hlrcd hy l.crOer IlIthc
1'1 IItllotclI'lI1ce department III dopll'lllll work alld
15) t:lllk work, W'IS Ihal ,uolle f'lclllty or over
151 several facilities?
In A: Quite a few different f'ldllties,
I" Q: Was It spedfied with allY of them, or W.IS II
11>1 all of the J.erner f:.c1l1tles?
110) A: It W.IS haslcally all of Ihe l.cffler facilities,
1"1 Q: Ilack 011 Ihal time whell you were or11l1llally
11'1 hired, how many facilities would they have had,
I") approximately?
1"1 A: Wllh Ihe stations alld Ihe hulk plants and
IISI Sluff, I'd say maybe 40, 50,
I") Q: All rlghl. Tell me your job progression
Iln Ihrough your period at Leffler,
I") A: Ilaslcally, I was In Ihe, like I say,
I") maintenance department, J went out with the
(20) guys to do tank work and everything to learn
1"1 Ihe business basically. as Ihey say, from Ihe
I22l ground up, Then I think J was oUllhere for
123) about a year. year and a half.
12') Then from there I went under - I was
(25) assislantlo a guy by lhe name of Colonel Itoot
Pago 8
I') Ihal was aClually tolally head of Ihe
I') maintenance depanment.ln olher words, he
(3) would putlhe guys out on Ihe job, lelllhem
I') which jobs to do, and I was his assislant at
IS) Ihallime,
16) Q: Was Ihal an office job?
[7J A: Office and field.
('1 Q: When you say office and field, when you went
fllI oUlln Ihe field. you.uo longer did aClual
IIIl) work? Vou supervised?
1111 A: Itighl.
II') Q: Was Ihere a tllle 10 that position?
1131 A: NOI really. I didn't really have a lille at
l"llhallime.
lIS] Q: How long were you in IlIat position?
lIB] A: I tillnk il was aboullWo years, and Ihen after
117] Ihall was made executive vice president,
118! Q: And when were you made execUlive vice
1181 president?
1201 A: I don'l recalllhe exacl dale, bUllaler in Ihe
12'1 '70s.
1221 Q: How long did you remain as execlllive vice
1231 president?
1241 A: Ilhink about 18 years.
1'5) Q: During Ihe period of lime lhal we're going 10
Min-V-Script€>
Filius &: McLucas Iteporting Service, Inc.
. .
Carlos H. 1.eIlJer, Inc. v.
Herbert, Howland & GOIblc, Inc.
(
III he dlscU"lnll rellardlrlll the nCllnlslllun of Ihc
1'1 New KlrlllslOn facility lllld Ihe 1II0dlfiC:lllons
PI done lOll wllhlnthe first year or so nfter
"1 Ih'lI nCl(nlslrlon, yon were exeeulive ,'Ice
"1 president?
1'1 A: Yes.
11I C: As execllllve vice presldelll - Wcll, slncc you
"1 were there for 18 yenrs, did yonr joh cllnnlle III
1"1 nil dnrlng II1Ill lime or did yon have fairly
1101 much the snme resJlOnslhllllleS?
1111 A: Prelly much the snme.
'''1 C: Whnl were Ihose responslbllllles?
1"1 A: Ilnslcally, I was In chnllle of anychlng 10 do
1"1 wilh malmenance, nnychlng III do wlrh new
1"1 builds, If II was mlnl.markels or lermlnnls or
IIGI an office bnllding,Also J was In chnllle of
11'1 our Insurnnce depnnmem as fnr ns - We hnd
IIGI an Insurnnce girl III ere, bUll was In challle of
,'01 Ihe pricing nnd going over Ihal wilh Insurnnce
/201 ngents, Then il's/usI general manngemem, you
12'1 know. I shared il wilh one of Ihe other guys,
122J C: To whom did you reJlOn?
1231 A: To Cnrlos Leffler allllal c1me,
12<1 C: He was Ihe presidem?
1251 A: Yes,
(
Pngn 9
Pngo 10
II) C: ThaI was Ihe entire lime Ihnl you were Ihere as
121 execuclve vice pre5idem?
PI A: I reJlOned 10 Cnrlos Leffler, yes,
"1 C: Did you leave Leffler fromlhe JlOsillon of
1'1 execuclve vice president, or did you ever have
"1 anolher lille?
11I A: Wilh Carlos R. Leffler. il was executive vice
"1 presidem, yes.
f9I C: So when you lefl, you were executive vice
lID) president?
1111 A: Yes.
11'1 C: How many employees, approximately, did Leffler
1"1 have when you became executive vice pres Idem
1"1 In lhe laIC '70s?
1151 A: Allhal time I would say maybe four or five
1'61 hundred,
11'1 C: LeI'S sny in 1988. Would Ihnl hnve changed?
IIGI A: Yes, We boughl quile a few Iruck SlOpS which
I'OJ were under Ihe Leffler name,Allhe peak of
/201 Ihal. we had maybe 2,000 employees,
1211 C: When you say allhe penk, would Ihat have been
I22J aboul 1988?
1231 A: Maybe laler Ihnn thaI. Maybe in the early
1"1 '90s,
1"1 C: Whal role did you play in Ihe actual
,(
'-
NUus & Mclucas Rcportlng Service, Inc.
John I!. Hyler
May 21,2002
Pngn 11
III llClIlIlsllionofthe Ncw Kiugsllln fnclllry?
1'1 A: I rClllemh,,, 1I0lnll with Cnrlos Leffler 111111
PI nCIlIaIl)' looklr," ntlhe tcrllllnnl, lllld Ihcnl
1'1 know I 'VlIS nt sClllelllclll hecllllse I MIs also
1'1 secrclary nnd I slllned SOlllC of the pllpers,
161 C: Wns Mr.l.efner Ihc onc who nClloli:lled Ihc
1'1 prlcc llllllnl;lde Ihe dccblonlll purchasc Ihc
"1 facility?
10' A: Ycs,
1101 C: W..s Mr, Leffler Ihe m.1jorlty sharcholder In
1111 19K11?
'''1 A: Ycs.
'''1 C: I>Id you own Lefflcr slOck In J 9Kl1?
1"1 A: Ycs,
1151 C: Wh..1 was your pcrcentage of ownership?
1161 A: Maybe a Ita If of one percem or somclhlng, Very
11'1 low at that lime.
11'1 C: Mloor. Do you currcmly own aoy Leffler slOck?
1101 A: No.
/201 C: So your recollection of your involvcmcmln Ihe
1211 aClUal nCl(ulsltion of lhe Ncw Klngslon sltc was
'''1 simply )'ou wcm with Mr. Lefflcr one limc 10
1231 look aliI and you allcnded selllemcm?
1"1 A: Ycs,
1"1 C: Therc wcrc some modifications made to Ihe
Pogo 12
III facility soon aflcr acquisllion, ThaI included
121 adding somc addilionallanks. Whal pan or
13/ whal rolc did you play in ellher Ihc decision
"1 10 ch..nge Ihc facility and add lhose tanks or
1'1 Ihc aClllal addition of Ihe lanks?
161 MR. RHOADES: Objecclon 10 Ihe form,
I7J IIlI! you can answcr.
"1 A: 1 would h..vc gOI, you know, somcbody 10 draw up
191 Ihc plans for !I and Ihc piping and Sluff, and
1101 Ihcn 1 would have met wilh the different people
1"1 to explain whal we want and 10 have the plans
1121 drJwn up and lhcn giving 1110 the contractors.
1131 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
'''1 C: Had you evcr panicipated In another projecl
IISI for Lefflcr in which c1lere was a modification
1161 10 an existing f..cilllY like this where tanks
11'1 wcrc added?
'''1 A: Ycs.
IIGl C: And wherc would lhal have becn?
/201 A: 1 know 1 was involved in Macungie, We had a
(>11 lermlnallherc and onc in Ncw Holland and one
1"1 in Sinking Springs and Ilhlnk In Tuckenon.
1?31 C: Were YOlllhe pcrson who was rcsJlOnsible for
1"1 dccidinll what cnginccr was going 10 draw up. as
(>51 you said,lhe plans?
Min-U-Script0
(5) Page 9 - Page 12
JOlin II. uYlcr
~!'Y 2~, ~002
III A: YC3.
PI 0: Had YUII cvcr wnrkcd with Ilcthcrt, ltowl;ulIl.'I<
1'1 Grllhlc Ilrlur ll> Ihl3pmlcct?
1'1 A: I think I did, 11111 I c:IIl't rccall .IIlY
151 31'CclnC3. Wc u3n:.lly IIscd thc Cnl\lncCr3 that
101 WCft, III thc arCll, .111111 c:IIl't say spccll1cally
PI wc did.
1'1 0:))11 YOII havc lIOY rccollcctlon of nt.klnll contact
IVI with IIIlG rCllaftllnll this ntlltcr?
liD! A: I remcmhcr c:.lllngthcm and tclllnll thcm that
1111 wc w:tntto gct approvals for wmc t:lIlk work.
1'21 0:))0 YOII rcmcmhcr what - Strlkc that,
1"1 YOII s:tld that YOII rccall call1nllthcm .Ind
1"1 tclllngthcm you wAntcd appro",.ls for tank
1"1 work. Is that what YOII just tcstincd to?
1"1 A: Ycs,
1'71 0: What approvals are you talking abolll?
1"1 A: J would glvc It to an englnccr basically to
1'01 draw thc thing up and gct thc approvals through
1201 the township or sometimcs through DEI' or EI'A or
1211 whoevcr was the agency thaI took care of It.
1221 It dcpcnds what you wcre doing,
1231 0: Wcre you famlllar with what rcgulatlons and
12'. laws were applicable to maintaining a pctroleum
1251 storage and dispensing facility?
III MR. RHOADES: Objcctlon to form.
121 A: I would say some, you know. I wasn't - No.1
1'1 didn't know evcrythlng. allthc rules and
1'1 rcgulatlons,
151 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
II) 0: Old Leffler cmploy any profcsslonal englnccrs
111 at that tlmc?
1'1 A: No.
IOJ 0: Do you recall whether or not you prcparcd or
110] had preparcd or slgncd a writtcn contract wilh
1111 Hcrbcrt. Rowland & Grublc?
1121 A: Not that I recall. We did not sign a contract.
(131 0: Do you recall whethcr or not you wcre givcn a
1"1 vcrbal quote as to thc proposcd cost of thc
1151 work tl,at URG was going to do? Dy lhc way.
III) whcn Il1se URG.lmean Hcrbcrt, Rowland &
117) Grublc,
IIBI A: Right, I can't specifically rccall If wc had a
1'9. writtcn agrccmcnt becausc somctlmcs - a lot of
1201 times wc would do work on a tlmc.and.malcrial
12'1 basis,
1221 0: Lct mc rcstatc the qucstlon.lt IUd nol dcal
1231 with whcthcr or not lherc was a wrlttcn
(241 agreement. I'm asking you whether or not you
125. rcceived a vcrbal quote as to thc price,
Pogo 13
Pogo 14
\.arlOs It. l.clllcr, Inj:. v.
Hcrbcrt, nowland 8t Gnlblc, Inc.
POoo 1G
III A: Nut th:1I1 recall.
1'1 0: Wonhl YOII havc hecnthc p,'rsun resllun31blc fur
131 rcvlcwlnll and approvlnll :IIlY Involccs that wunld
1'1 havc comc In fmmHcrbcrt, Itowland & (irnhlc on
151 thlsloh?
1'1 A: Ycs.
171 0: Do yon spcclneally rccallthosc Invoices?
1'1 A: No.Jdon't.
191 0: Dn yun havc any rccollcctlon as wc sit here
1191 tod:.y aSll> whcthcr or not - cxcusc me - as
1111 to thc amount of thc Involccs that wcrc scnt?
1''1 Strlkc lhat.
1131 Do you have any specific recollection as
1"1 wc sit here today as to how much Leffler was
1"1 hilled by H1lG for the work that It did on thc
1"1 New King.'tontennlnal?
117) A: No.1 don'l.
119' 0: Mr,lIyler, I havc here - And I did not 01.1ke
1191 copl"s of this. J know that everyone has It,
1201 II'S simply a picced,together drawing. and
1211 that's really all It is, I'm going to ask YOII
1221 - And It has the URG logo and the
1231 professional scal for Robcrt C, Grublc on it.
12'1 I'm jllst going to ask you to take a look at it
1251 and tellmc If you rccognlze It and have seen
Pogo 16
1'1 it beforc,
121 A: Yes, It does look IIkc a plan that we wOllld
131 havc worked off of,
1'1 0: Do you recall evcr having seen any other plans
151 or dr.lwings prepared by URG with regard to the
1'1 Ncw Kingston facility or on this project?
111 A: NOl that J recall,
('1 0: Were therc, In fact. other plans and drawings
IVI that were prepared hy. others for the New
IIOJ Kingston facility for thc changes that are
1111 shown on here. the changes In the berms and the
11'1 addition of the tanks?
1131 MR, RHOADES: Objectlon to the form,
1141 You can answer.
1151 A: Can you clarify to me? Are YOII talking about
1161 the piping work and the tanks themselves or the
1'7) bcrm work?
1'91 MR, SYLVANUS: I'll wilhdraw thc qucstlon,
1191 That was an overly broad question.
1201 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1211 0: Did Lefflcr hire somcone else to design and
[221 installthc tanks?
1231 A: Yes,
12'1 Q: And did those pcrsons prcparc drawings?
1251 A: Thcy wOllld have done the piping drawings and
Pagc 13 - Pagc 16 (6)
Min-U.Scripttll
Filius & McLucas neporting Scrvicc, Inc.
c
, ,
CarlON It. l.cffler, Inc. v.
Herbert, Howland &: Gmblc, Inc.
(
III the - Well,llIuess the lank wuuld have - I
I~ Ihlnk 1'lsherTank hulltlhe Hmks.They wuuld
1'1 have IIllllhe speclficlltluus lIndlhe dlOlwlulIS
I'J fur Ihe lank Ihemselves.llIlI sumehudy else
151 wuuld have lIctually dooe Ihe plplnll I;IYIllIIW
1'1 the ImullnlllOlek allll unluadloll and loadhlll
111 pipes,
181 Q: Do you recall who did Ihal?
1111 A: If I recall, h W,IS SlOrh IlllIl did It on this
IIOJ job site,
1"1 Q: Do you recall anyhody else preparlnll any
112) drawings?
'''I A: Nut that I recall, no,
I"J Q: Would you have been the person responslhle for
11'1 advising H/tG what new tanks were going to be
11'1 placed and where you wallled them to be placed?
IIn MR. RHOADES: Objection 10 form,
IIBI A: Yes, along whh Carlos Lefner,l meao him and
IIOJ I woold have went up there, He woold have
"'" said, This Is probably the place we should put
11'1 the new tanks,
I22J
1231 Q: Do you know If Mr, Lefner ever met with anyone
1"1 (rom H/tG?
1151 A: I can't answer (or him, 00,1 don't know,
BY MR. SYLVANUS:
(
III Q: I'm jost asking If you know.
I2J A: No, I don't know.
PI Q: I'm correclthat Mr, Lefner has passed away?
~I A: Yes.
151 Q: Do you remember meeting with anyone (rom H/tG at
1'1 the New Klngslon site?
111 A: I remember - I don't remember speeUics, but
18' I'm sure I would have met one o( their people
191 at the job site 10 show lhem, you know, where
1101 the job site Is and basically what we walllto
1"1 do.
112) Q: Ilutls It your tesllmony today you have no
I"J specUie recollection o( that meeting?
1"1 A: NOI specUically because, you know, I did a 101
IISI o( projects, But I'm sure I met somebody
1"1 there.
117) Q: In your preparallon (or Ihls deposition, did
IIBI you review any o( the trJnscripts o( IIlher
1"1 depositions lakellln this case?
1"01 A: Depositions (rom other people?
1"1 Q: From uther people in this case,
I22l A: No,
1231 Q: Docs the lIame Deh Gingrich sound (amiliar?
1"1 A: Yes. Now I recall, yes.
1151 Q: Whalls your recollectiollo( Deh Glllgrich?
Filius &: McLucas Rcportlng ServJce, Inc.
John E. lIyJcr
May 21, 2002
Pogo 17
Pogo 10
III A: My recolh.cllulI whh her W,IS wc wuuld h'lYe mel
1'1 unlhe loh she, lInd I wuuld have wid her what
PJ we ,v,ml aodwld her haslcally IU dlOlw
1'1 everythlug up alldllet everythlnll "I 'proved,
151 Q: Ilu yun have :my slleclfic recollectlun u( that.
1'1 ur Is that what yuu Just helleve th:u yuu wuuld
I'J have dune :ulhe thlle?
1'1 A: That's wh:ul believe J would have done,
IUI Q: You dun't have any specific recollection?
1101 A: No, 1101 time o( day or what day I would have
II II met her or all)1hlngllke that,llutl remember
112) lalklnglO her quhe a (ew times.
1"1 Q: Do you have allY specific recollection as to
1"1 what yuu told her had to be done by way o(
IISI approvals?
1"1 A: No,
II~ Q: Arc you aware o( anyone else (rom Lefner
I"J ehher speaking with Deb Gingrich uver the
119l phone or meeting with her at the she or
1"01 anywhere else?
1211 A: Nut specUically, no,
ITlI Q: Do you have any specUic knowledge o( anyone
1231 else (rom Lefner meeting with or talking to
I"J /toben C, Grublc?
12S1 A: Not that I can remember. no.
Pogo 18
III Q: Do you have any recollection o( anyone (rom
12) Lefner meeting with or talkIng to anyone al
131 Ii/tG, olher than you talking to Deb Gingrich and
1'1 10 whoever you s)lOke with at the time you
151 called to make the arntngemenls?
151 A: Not specifically, no,
111 Q: When you say not specUically. do you have some
151 general belle( that someone clse (rom Lefner
1111 may have -. -
1101 A: The general belief would be the guys that would
1"1 aCllllllly do some o( the work would have talked
1121 to them,l would think.
I13J Q: When you say Ihe guys who would have done some
1"1 o( the work, would those be Leffler employees?
1151 A: Some o( them, yes, Some o( them would have
1"1 heen the excavalOr, I would think.
I'~ Q: Who was the excavator?
IIGI A: Pat Aungst and Son,
1'91 Q: What employees o( Lefner do you believe may
1201 have spoken with one or more persons at H/tG?
1211 A: I don't know I( - See,l don't remember thc
1221 specific people lhat were on this job. So I
123J can't Rive l'on specific names.
12<1 Q: Prior 10 Ihe actual stan o( construClion on
1251 the modifk31ions 10 the New Kingston (acility,
Min-U.Script0
(7) Page 17 . Page 20
Pogo 20
'\
,
I
!
.~
I
, [
~
John E. nyJcr
M:,y 21, 2002
III how nL1ny Il/IIes wOllld YOII h:lve :lcl\l:llIy heeo :It
1'1 Ihal f'lclllly?
1'1 A: lIefore cnllstrucllolI st:lrted?
141 Q: Yes.I/IIe'/II YOII've already Icstllled IIl:lt YOII
III met Deb Gllll\rlcll Ihcre, and YOII :llre:ldy
1'1 teslllled thnt YOII weill 1111 with C:lrlos Leffler,
f7I A: I wOllld 5:1Y six or elllhl times ntlyhe, hec'/IIse
III we did 50me loadlnl\ rJck work also,
fDI Q: 11lere's un :lonolallonln Ihe dmwlnll that s:lYs
11111 Woller well, and Ihere's some yellow hlllhllghl
1111 00 that there. Do YOII see thalunnol:lllon?
11'1 A: Yes,
1131 Q: Do you remember a well being onlhe slle?
1"1 A: J remember a well bclng on the slle, bUIll was
1161 a well we were uslnll al the lime whleh was over
11'1 by the little omce building.
11'1 Q: Where on Ihls dmwing Is the llllle omce
Ill) building?
liD! A: J don't - Here,
l20I Q: You're palming to the far lefl or weSI
(211 ponlon-
(22J A: Nonhwesl.
(23) Q: Northwest ponlon oflhe propenyl
(24) A: Yeah,
(2S] Q: Is there a well shown onlhere anywhere?
1'1 A: Not that I can see. no.
f2I Q: Do you remember seeing anOlher well on thIs
P) propenyl
14) A: Yes,
IS] Q: And approxlmalely where was that well?
1'1 A: II was In tills area here, OUl in from of lhe
f7I Uttle omce building.
II) Q: I'm correct thaI lhere Is no well shown on tills
fDI drawing in thaI location?
liD) A: No.
Ill) Q: I'll withdraw thaI question.
1121 Is there a well shown on Ihls drawing In
113) the location where you recall lhat olher well?
1"1 A: NOI on this drawing, no,
liS] Q: Old you ever bring 10 Ihe allemlon of HRG Ihe
11'1 fact tllallhere was no well In Ihallocallon
11'1 shown on this drawing?
1111 A: No, I did nOl,
110) Q: Did YOll ever lell anyone from HRG Ihal lhere
(2OJ was In fact a well al lhallocation?
(21) A: NOllhal1 can recall, no,
(22J Q: Do you ever recall sedng any drawing al all
(23) lhal showed a well inlhallocalion?
(241 A: I don'l knlJw - NOI specifically. no,
(21) Q: The waler well thaI Is shown on Ihe dmwlnll, do
Page 21 . Page 24 (8)
Carlos It. Lefflcr, Inc. v.
Hcrhcrt, Uowland & Gnahlc, Inc.
Pogo 2 t
III ynll kllnw 'IS we sll here Ind:lY whether prior tn
"I this conslfllcllonth:ll WJS:ln :lclive well?
131 A: No, rlln that I know nf, bec:lllse Ihe :lcllve well
"I WlIS over by the Illtle omce,
1'1 Q: Did YOll ever brlnll to the ullemlon of :lnyone
1'1 :It III\G Ihe f:lcllhallhal well WJS :lbandoned?
f7I MR, RHOADES: We're now lulklng abollt Ihe
181 well Ihal Is on Ihe drnwlng?
,0' MR, SYLVANUS: I'm sorry,
1101 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1111 Q: The one Ih:llls shown on Ihe drawing, ynll're
1121 saying YOII do not recall Ihal II WJS aclive;
1131 correct?
1"1 A: IIlghl,
III) Q: Is II YOllr recollection Ihallt had been
IIBI :lbandoned prior 10 conclusion?
1''1 MR. RHOADES: LeI me object 10 Ihe form,
I"/ You can answer.
1"1 A: I dldn'l re:lllze Ihere was a welllhere.
120) BY MR. SYLVANUS:
(21/ Q: Do you recall giving 10 HRG a copy of an
1221 earlier drawing Ihat showed a well In Ihe same
(23/ locallon?
(2'1 A: No, I don 'I,
121) Q: Are you familiar with - Strike Ihat.
Pago 22
III Were YOll familiar allhe lime of the
(21 acquislllon of Ihls propeny and the work Ihal
PI was done In accordance wilh tllese plans with
I') any laws or regula lions in Ihe Conunonwea1th of
15/ Pennsylvania regarding Ihe capping or
'GI abandonmem of wells?
f7I MR. RHOADES: Objection to the fonn,
IGI Dut you can answer.
(Il) A: Could you repeat Ihe question, please.
110) BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1"1 Q: Al tile lime of this projecI, lhe acquisition of
112) Ihe New KlngslOn facllily and the Inllial work
'''llhere, were you aware of the exlSlence of any
1141 laws or reglllatlons in Pennsylvania regarding
1151 Ihe capping or abandonment of wells?
1"1 MR. RHOADES: Same objeclion,
117J But you can answer.
IIG' A: I know that. YOII know, when a well was OUl of
I'OJ IIse. when YOII pulled Ihe pumps oUI you were
1201 supposed 10, Ilhink, grollllhem wllh somelhing
121) or Illllhem with concrele, I should say.
f221 I BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1"1 Q: Was it YOII who relalned I'at Aungsllo do Ihe
12'1 excuvutlon on Ihls project?
125' A: Yes,
Min-U-Script0
Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
Pogo 23
Pago 24
\
,
I
I
I
~,
I
\
, .
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. v.
Herhert, nowJand &: Gnlhlc, Inc.
(
III Q: lIad yuu wurlced wllh Mr.AuulIS! hefure?
I~ A: Yes,
131 Q: IJld yuume<<:1 wllh him allhe slle?
I" A: 11"11I'1 specl/lcally recall 1 wuuld haye mel
1'1 him IlIlhe slle.lle 11I111111 have l"lIle W uur
1'1 urnce, or Imlllhl have welllW his uf/lce,1
m can't recI,1I slleclllclllly wheuI I\llve hlmlhe
I" prlllls If we woold have juslll1el althe ofllce
IVI or uUlhe job site,
I'OJ Q: Wheu yoo said youl\o1ve hlmtlte prillls, what
1111 prluts did you give him?
II~ A: I would have gave him a set of prlllls like
113) Ihls,
I'" Q: You've alrelldy testl/led tllllt you dou't recall
1"1 seeing llny other drawlnl\5 fromllRG, Who clse
110) produced Ihe other prillls that would have heen
II~ pan of that set of prinlS?
1"1 MR. RHOADES: Objeclion to the form.
IIOJ A: Ag:J1n.1 don't understand,
I20J BY MR. SYLVANUS:
(21) Q: You jusl lestllled Ihat you would have IIlven
I22J Mr,Aungst a set of prints.
1231 A: Yeah, probably from lhls set here or approvals
12'1 or whatever,
1251 Q: This 15 one drawing,
(
c
III A: IUght,
1'1 Q: And you've already testified that you don't
131 recall seeing any olher drawings from H/lG.
1'1 A: IUght,
151 Q: Maybe I'm wrong, Uut when you say II sel of
1'1 drawings. J presuppose that that's more than
(7) one drawing.
18' A: .No. J'm sorry, J meant this print J would
IOJ have pve to Pat Aungsl or a copy of II. I
111'1 Q:(\vJlatspecific discussions do you recall wilh
III) Mr.Aungst regarding this water well?
I'?J A: J don't ever remember discussing that wilh Pat
1131 Aungst,
1"1 Q: Do you know what was done with thaI water well
I") during the conslrllClion Mr,Aungst did?
110' A: No, J don't.
II~ Q: Now, atlhe time lhls drdwlug was made and
"81 before Mr.Aungst began his work, the wellhead
1"1 for tllal well extended up above the lap of lhe
I2<lI berm, did It nOlI
(21) A: J can't recalllhal.
[22J Q: I have a set of intcrrog.1lorics and requests
1231 for production of documents thlll were served
""I in, J believe, 1998 hy me on Plalmiff, The
1251 first thing I'm going to ask is if-
Filius &: McLucas ReportJng Service, Inc.
Pngo 25
raga 26
John I!. llyJer
May 21, 2002
Paoa 27
III MR, SYLVANUS: Well, could I lIu uff Ihe
1:'1 record u ~cCOl1(I?
III MR, FRlEOMAN: Yes,
1'1 (Illscussiuuoff Ihc rccurd,)
1'1 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1'1 Q: Mr.llyler,lhl' /lrsllhlulI J'mllolrll1lll ask you
I~ Is we haye II yerlllcatlouof resJlOuses 10
1'1 discovery here with a slguature oult oyer your
"'I uluue.I'm golullw ask you If - 11'5 a
1101 phowcollY uf II f:IX. So If you can't recognize
1111 It, Ihal'sliue, Do you recogulze thai as
I'?J helug your slllulllllre?
1131 A: Yes, thai would he my slgnalllre,
1"1 Q: All rlllht. Do )'ou recall golnll over with
1"1 either Mr, Zcehandelaar or Mr, Monsees
1"1 discovery by way of Interrogatories and
111) relluesls for )lroduction of documellls sometime
1"1 back In 1998?
I'OJ A: Yes, Ilhlnk I recalllhat.
I?OJ Q: I'mllolng to refer you 10 Number 13 and ask you
1?l1 to read Ihe response lhal'slhere,
Inl A: Numher 13?
1131 Q: Yes, the very lap,
1"1 MR. RHOADES: /lead the question too.
I") (Pause,)
raga 28
III BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1'1 Q: You've read lhat response given back in 1998.
13J Do you -
I" MR, FRIEDMAN: May J see thai?
151 MR, SYLVANUS: You cenalnly may. J
1'1 apologize.
I1J I'll wall until your counsclls/lnished
fSI reading it.
19J . - BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1'01 Q: 1>0 you recall as we sit here today whether or
1111 not - Strike Ihat.
1171 Doesthi, refresh your recollection In any
1131 way or change your prior answer as to whether
1"1 or nOl lhal wellhead extended above the berm?
IISI MR. RHOADES: Objection 10 tile form,
1101 BUl YOII can answer.
II~ A: Extended higher Ihan the berm that was there?
1181 MR. SYLVANUS: Yes, I mean If you don't
1'01 recall, you don'l recall.
I?OI A: No, I honestly can't recall thaI,
1211 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
Inl Q: Youlcstilied earlier today Ihat YOII don't know
1131 whelher Ihat well was working or not althe
12"1 time.
12!.1 A: It was never working as far as ] know.
Mln-U.Script@
(9) Page 25 - Page 28
JUUU &:.. "')'l~l
Tt?~y 21, ~002
III Q: 1'lIIgohlg \ll show YOlllhe sallie responses,
PI Inlermgalllry Nllmher J() allhe 1111'. ,""1 a5k YOII
131 10 read Ilml and Ihe answer,
1'1 (I'aose,)
ISI Q: Having read Ihe resJxlllse Ihal OIpparemly YOII
1'1 verlOed 10 Illlermll'lIory NOlllher J() In 19911,
III does Ihal refresh YOllr recollecllon 015 III
1'1 whelher or nollhOlI WJS OIn operJtlnll well 'II
IVIlhellme?
I'OJ A: J Ihlnk where J gOI mixed liP, Ilhlnk I was
1"1 tllklng abolll this well. J never knew Ihal
1121 well to be opernlive,
1131 Q: Well, okay. Interrogatory Nomher J 0 says -
1"1 and I'll read the Orsl pan of It - Was Ihe
1'&1 well referred 10 in Exhlbll II anached 10 and
I'OJ made a pan ofllle defendanl's new maner and
1171 as referred to In Exhibit 48 of Ihe new
III' matter....
1101 And J will represent 10 yoo Ihat Exhlbll II
1201 Is a copy of this plan that YOII have In front
12'1 of you, and the only waler welllhal we've
1221 identified on there Is that one.
123) A: That's true.
12') Q: So Is It your testimony today Ihal YOII believe
12&1 your answer was In regard 10 Ihe welllhalls
It) not shown on tllere, or don't YOII know?
PI MR. RHOADES: Objection 10 tile form.
131 Jlut you can answer.
1'1 A: I don'l know!f I. YOII know, didn'llook allhe
1&1 pian righl and just look for granted that It
I') was the well over by Ihe office.Allhough, YOII
(7) know, J see that's marked waler well and Ihe
(I) other one Isn't.
IVI BY MR, SYLVANUS:
ItD) Q: When you saw this plan prior to Ihe
1"1 construction beginning, did YOII know Ihal the
1121 water well that Is marked waler well on Ihere
113) was going 10 be within tile containment area?
I") A: J don't recall seeing waler well written on
1'&1 that.
1'&1 Q: Is it your lestlmony loday Ihal YOII simply do
1'71 not recall having even seen there was a water
1"1 well there on this plan?
1'01 A: Not origln:llly. YOII know, I Jllst can't recall.
1201 Q: So !fyou don't recall having even known Ihal
12'1 there was a water well lhere,l lake it YOII
1221 didn't have any discussions with Mr,Allngst
123) about how that well was to be hOlndled in the
[2.) construction.
(2S) MR. RHOADES: Ohjectilln Illlhe form.
Page 29 - Page 32 (10)
Pooo 29
Pogo 30
l.arIOS 1(. LCHler, Inc. 'I.
Hcrbcrt, Rowland &: GrnbJc. Inc.
Pooo 31
III Ihll YOII C,III answer,
1'1 A: Not Ih,n I cOIn recOIII.
131 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1'1 Q: And YOII don'l recOllllllvlng him any
1'1 cllnstrllcllon docllments Ih,nlndlC'Jled any
1'1 delalls or specll1cOlllons on how 111011 well was
171 10 he lmndled?
18J MR, SYLVANUS: Ohjectlon 10 the form,
IDJ 11111 YOII l...n answer,
I'D) A: I Ihlnk the only plan J would have given him
1111 wOllld hOlve heen Ihls one,
1121 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
113) Q: Do YOII recall any dlscusslon.~ you might have
1"1 had with HRG regarding IIlat well?
liS) A: Not that well, no,
118) Q: Mr. Dyler.1 served a second set of discovery
It71 on I.dflerback In MOlY of200J,and J received
1"1 responses that are IInverlOed In Seplember of
1"1 200J. Did YOII meet wllh Mr. Swlchar sometime
"'" lasl year to prepare responses to that
12'1 discovery?
1221 A: Last year?
123) Q: Yes.200!.
I") A: Yeah,l think I - 1 don't recall his n:lme,
(25) hilt I tllked 10 somebody.
Pogo 32
III Q: YOII mel with somebody from Dlank Rome?
PI A: Yeah,
131 Q: In relJllest for admlsslon number 2. J asked
1'1 Lerner 10 admltthe following, quote,
1&1 Plaintiff retllned HRG to perform engineering
I'J work in 1988, end qllote.
(7) The answer was admltted In pan and denied
I') In pan. The reason given Is the following,
101 <)uole. Lerner reralned.HRG 10 perform
liD) additlon:ll services, Inclllding but nol limited
1"1 10 Ihe obtllning of all necessary approvals for
1121 lhe work 10 be performed according to the plan.
113) end qllole,
I") Is lhat your recollection?
IISI A: As much as I can recall, yes,
1161 Q: What addhion:ll services was HRG to perform
1'71 beyond oblalnlng a permlt from Sliver Spring
1"1 Township?
I'DI A: I know when we IIse an engineer, you know - My
(2'0) idea of an engineer is to, of course, do the
(21) drJwings, get the permits, and make sure
1221 everything Is done 10 Ihe specifications.
123) Q: So was it your understanding Ihal HRG was
1"1 sUJlJlosed 10 have some conslnlctlon phase
1251 responsibility on Ihls project?
Min.U-Sc:ript0. FUius &: McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
, ,
(
(
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. v.
lIerbert, RowJantl & Gnlble, Inc.
P"uo 33
III A: As far as luuklulI 'II hand seelnll Ihal h was
1'1 done rlllht, I wuuhl say yes,
1'1 Q: Uo yuu have 'lilY reeulleellun uf ha\'lnll
I" dlseussluns whh 'lIIyune "tlllIG rell,mlhlll Ihelll
1'1 h:lYlulI eUIISlruellullphase respulIslhllhles.
1'1 whether II he supervlslnll or Inspeelllllll
m A: NOI specllically, no,
1'1 Q: Uo you rec,,1I ever seehll1 "lIyone fnllllllllG 'II
JIll the she durlllll conslnlctluo?
1101 A: Myself, no,
1111 Q: Do you know of anybody who ever saw "lIybody
1121 from HIlG "nd told youtl"'l they saw illIG Ihere
1131 durlnll construction?
I'" A: I c"n't recall, no,
1"1 Q: Old you do "nythlng to follow up with HIlG afler
1'61 the conSlnlctlon began to "sk them If they were
117) performing any Inspections or supervision and
1.61 If not why not?
11'1 MR. RHOADES: Objection 10 Corm,
I"OJ A: I just can't recall thaI.
1211 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1221 Q: Do you recall whether you got any bills Crom
1231 HIlG at any time aCler constnlctlon beg:tn?
12'1 A: I wouldn't know that,
12'1 Q: Do you recall wrillng any Iellers or callinll
c.
I" anyone Crom HIlG compl"inlng thaI they did 1I0t
121 perform any COnSlnlCllon phase aClivilies?
131 A: No.
1'1 Q: Wh"l other approv"ls did you believe were
151 necessary Cor thIs project. this constnl~"tion
IOJ project? Did you know what they were?
17) A: J knew some oC them, you know, We had to go
16' through the Slale to gel approvals, through the
JIll 10wnship.1 don'l know If DEI' or the fire
11'1 marshal were involved in lhat,
1111 Q: When you say through the stale. do you mean
1'2] DEP?
1131 A: Yeah. I don't think it was called DEI', I
'''I think it was fire marshal b"ck lhen,
1"1 Q: HRG never did that; is thaI correcl?
1"1 A: They wouldn't have done the lire marshal
117) permil. no, because that was Cor the actual
1"1 tank itself,
11'1 Q: What other approv"ls did youlhink HRG was to
('20) be geuing?
1211 A: They would have been respunsible Cur gelling
1221 lhe lownshlp permits,
1231 Q: Is Ihat all1
12'1 A: Yes, I'm sure Ihal was all they were
1"1 responsihle Cor.
Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
John I!. Dyler
May 21, 2002
PROO 35
III Q: I had asked you e:nller "bolll whether you were
1'1 aware of anyolw fnllutelrler having CUIII"ct
1'1 with "nyone fnllnllltG.,uul yuu were nul sure.
1'1 Yuu did .ml know uf:lllyune,
1'1 In re<Juest fur adml55lunllumber 6, I "sked
1'1 Ihls, I asked thaI terrier :ulmh this
1'1 sl"telllenl, Quule. the unly persoll Cnlllll.drler
1'1 whu h:ul "ny conl"el with anyone fmm HIlG was
I_I John lIyler, clld (IUole.
1101 Thai was denied, The response was,
till I.crrler stales on Inforn~1lion and bellef Ihat
112] illiG had colllaCl with other on.she Leffler
1131 per5llnnel during 115 retention, end quote.
I'" I know you're not here as a representallve
1"1 oC I.cffler, sol can't ask you If there's
I'OJ anyone else at Lemer that knows this, Jlut I
117) just want 10 verify once "gain. You're not
1"1 aware of any contact by anyone Crom Lemer
1.01 with "nyone CromllRG other than yourself?
1201 MR, RHOAOES: Objection,l believe that
1211 misstaleS his prior testimony, I think he
1221 leslified there may have been people but he
1231 just eouldn'l recall who Ihey were,
12'1 MR, SYLVANUS: May have been. I'm asking
12'1 IC he's aware orany,
Pogo 34
III BY MR. SYLVANUS:
121 Q: Do you have any knowledge oCanyone Crom
1'1 I.cffler who had any eontact wilh anyone Cnlm
1'1 HRG?
1'1 A: Not a person I can name, no.
161 0: Were you the Individual who contacted
m Pennsylvania American Water Company and
161 arranged to have public water service delivered
JIll to the Cacilil)(? -
1101 A: I don't know If I would have been the specific
1II1 person, you know, to contlct them.
1'2] Q: Do you recall when lhe first eoncact was made
1131 with Pennsylvania American Water Company?
1"1 A: No.
1"1 Q: Do you know whether that first contact was made
t161 with Pennsylvania American Water Company beCore
117) the last dale on which Leffler performed any
1161 services Cor - HRG performed - Withdraw that
IIDI question.
1201 This question probably doesn't make sense
1211 since you don'l recall whelher you were the
1221 person 10 contlclPennsylvania American, but
1231 I'll ask you whether you know ICthe first
1"1 conlaCI wilh Pennsylvania American Waler
1"1 Company oecnrred on a date beCore the last time
Min-U-Sc:ript1lil
(11) Page 33 - Page 36
Pogo 36
Pogo 37
III IIRG performed allY ~ervlcc~ on thl~ rOlclllty for
121 Leffler.
PI MR, RHOADES: OhJectlon to form.
1'1 \Iut you COlli OIn~wel',
1'1 MR, SYLVANUS: If youunder~l:IlId.
101 A: J have 110 Idea,
111 MR, RHOADES: You have 110 IdeOl of Ihe
I"I answer 10 Ihe qoestloll or -
(1lI A: J have 110 Idea If II would have bee II before or
IUllafier,
1"1
117] c: III resJ10lIse 10 reque~1 number J 4 - Alld I'll
1"1 read Ihe requesl, No one OIl Lerner ever
1"1 advised anyone of HRG Ihallhe well WdS 10 be
1151 abandoned OIl any time in Ihe future.
I'OJ The resJ10nse contains, among olher
117] stalemenlS - And J will read them all If your
1111 counsel wanlS. BUI il says,The well wilhln
1'01 the contalnmenl area was abandoned prior 10
1201 Lerner purchasing Ihe facility.
12'1 Now, thaI contradictS directly with Ihe
1221 resJ10nse that you earlier Indicated you
1231 verified saying thaI you believe the well was
1241 active. Do you know today as we sit here
1251 whether or nOI that was an active well atlhe
BY MR. SYLVANUS:
II) time this plan was drawn up on October I B,
1"'1 J9BB?
PI MR. FRIEDMAN: 1 objecl. J Ihlnk Ihere's
141 a semantic problem Ihat's happening here,ll
151 has 10 deal with active and abandoned, A well
101 an be active but nol abandoned bUI not used,
111 So there's son of a third J10ssiblUty here.
III MR. SYLVANUS:l'lI wltbdraw the question.
(1lI MR. FRIEDMAN: 1 JUSI wanllO make sure
I'OJ you _ The use of abandonment, you're using it
1"1 differently than John has.
112) MR. SYLVANUS: J'1I withdraw iI, and 1
II.! undersund,
1'41 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1'51 C: Request number 22 says, HRG performed no
IIOJ engineering or otller work in connection with
117] those modifications and did not prepare any
1"1 construction drawings or documenlS for lhat
1'01 work, end quote.
1201 The resJ10nse is, Denied. Lerner states
12'1 on information and belief tlmt HRG did prepare
1221 construction drawing~ for tile modificOltlon of
1231 containment facility, end quote.
1241 Again, I just want to clarify this
12'1 resJ1Onse, which Is unverified. You OIre not
Page 37 - Page 40 (12)
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. v.
IIcrbcrt, Itowland & Groblc, Inc.
Pogo 39
III n\ViUC tOlloay nor were you ever n\V;uc uf the
111 exlSlence of OIn)' dr.,wln~ th:ulll\G prep:lfed whh
1'1 reward to Ihls prolect uther than Ihe une
1'1 thOlt's In rrollt of you?
1'1 A: NOI th:ul recOllI,
101 MR. SYLVANUS: ))0 you want 10 tOlke a
111 bre:.k?
III (Ilecess taken.)
\111 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1'0\ C: There are wllOlt OIre called gellernlllotes 011 lhls
1111 drnwillg over 011 the righl.hand ~lde.There are
11>1 c1~ht of lhem.))o you know whelher you or
1"1 OInyolle else OIt Leffler provided tbe speclfie
1141 languOl~e for OIny of those to HRG to be placed
1"1 on this drnwlng?
1101 MR. RHOADES: Objection 10 Ihe form,
117] A: I lhlnk maybe we would have supplied a deed 10
1"1 them 10 show the OIcreage or something, and J
1\01 told them what size lanks we want 10 build. J
1201 don't know whal else we would have shown Ihem,
12'1 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
rnl C: I'm looking specifically at Number B.lhe
12'\ language that'S In Note Number B. Do you know
12'1 whether you or anyone else from Lerner
12'1 provided that language to HRG?
pago 38
III A: Not that I know of, no.
121 C: How about Number 7?
1'3\ A: No.
1'1 C: You don't know or-
1'1 A: I don't recall that we would have gave them
(61 those, no.
111 C: And the last one of Ihose that J want to ask
1"\ about Is Number 2,
(1lI A: I couldn't recOlll1f we gave Ihem thaI note or
1101 not.
Ittl C: Now, after the constrUction that was - Ihe
1121 excavation and the grading tI,at Mr,Aungst
1131 performed, was the water well that Is shown on
1141 here _ was tllere any J1Onlon of a well or a
lIS! wellhead protruding above the surface of Ihe
I\OJ ground?
117] A: 1 don't recall that.
1101 C: Do you rccall at any time after the
1101 constmctlon was completed noticing whether or
120\ nol there WdS a well or a wellhead or anything
12'1 penaining to a well protruding above tile
1221 sllrfOlce IIf the ground?
1231 A: Inside the dike area, no.
12'1 C: No, you don't recall; or no, Ihere was none?
1"1 A: I don't recall.
Page 40
.!:
Min.U.Script0
FIlIus & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
, ,
CarJos R. Leffler, Inc. v.
lIerbert, Rowland & GmbJc, Inc.
POUo 41
(.
III MR. FRIEDMAN: OCf the record n second.
I?I (Illscu..lon off Ihe record.)
1'1 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1'1 Q: I presume )'OU have some recollection of the
1'1 splllllmt occurred here In 1997,
1'1 A: Yes,
171 Q: Jlow did youlc:lrlI ahout th,lt?
"1 A: I Kill a phoue call, I don't recall the cxact
191 person's II:lllle, hnlllhlnk It would have beeu
IIOJ from the termlnal.llutl rememher gelllug a
1111 phone cnll saylnglhal the lOlnk overfilled.
11'1 Q: J>ld you gellhat call :It home or at the office?
1"1 A: I think It was al home. I don't recall
1"1 elClctly.
1"1 Q: Old you Immediately go 10 the site?
1"1 A: No,
11'1 Q: What did you do In response 10 learning of lhe
1"1 spill?
1"1 A: What did I personally do?
l20I Q: Yes,
12'1 A: I would bave called lIob Slewart or whoever WoIS
1221 in charge of our envlronmenlal allhat time,
1231 and he would have called some olltside firm, I'm
12'1 sure.
I25J Q: Did Leffler, to your knowledge, have an SPCC
(
Pogo 42
C.,
III plan In place for this plane at the lime of
121 tbatsplll?
131 A: I would think we bad SPCC plans for all
('1 locallons,
(~ Q: llut you're not certain?
1'1 A: Not specifically. I would say no.
171 Q: Leffler was sued at one poine in clme by tbe
1'1 United Slates Environmental Protection Agency
191 for ilS failures 10 have SPCC plans in place,
I'OJ was it not?
1111 A: I'm not surc it was because they weren't In
11'1 place or iflhey weren't updated.
1"1 Q: Wben was the first time after tbe spill tbat
1"1 you visited the site?
1"1 A: I think it migbt have been a couple weeks
IIG} aflerwards, I'm not sure.
117) Q: What was the purpose for your having visited
1"1 the slle at lhat time?
1"1 A: Just to see how bad the spill would have been,
1201 Q: Do you recall how many gallons of product were
1211 spilled as we sit here today?
1221 A: Not exactly, no,
Inl Q: Approximately?
1"1 A: I tblnk it was approxlm:lle1y 150,000 gallons.
1251 I'm not sure.
FlIius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
John I!. Ilyler
May 21,2002
Pogo 43
(II Q: Jlow IIIl1ch 'ViIS recovered fmm the conl.lllmelll
1'1 area, III the best of your recullectlon?
PI A: It seems like thirty, forty Ihollsand K'llIons
1'1 I'm remembering.
1'1 Q: At sOllie poilu :\fler thai spill, you hecame
1'1 'I\Volle of Ihe existence of all abandoned well
1'1 where Ihls alllllll,ltlon of Wolter well Is 011 the
1'1 plans?
1'1 MR. RHOAOES: Ohjectlon to the form.
1101 A: IUgh!.
1111
1"1
1"1 A: If I recall correclly. one of tbe guys polneed
1"1 Il out to me.
1"1 Q: What specifically did he poine out to you?
1"1 A: That there's a well tbere that was lIever
117) abandoned,lthink he said, or something in
1"1 that form,
1191 Q: Was there anything that you could see by
1201 looking at Il?
1211 A: I V'.guely remember when be showed me or we
1>21 wIked about it. Of course. everything was
1231 very wel wllh oil and gas. So I might havc
1"1 stood away from it,lIut I vaguely remember
1251 seeing a pipe sticking up with a little cap on
BY MR. SYLVANUS:
Q: Tell me how you found out about that.
Pogo 44
111 It, What I mean by a cap. like wilh three
1'1 screws on the side,
1'1 Q: Uke a dome cap?
1'1 A: No. Like a flat cap, you know. lbat filS down
IS) over.
1'1 Q: Was there anything sticking out of that cap?
171 A: Not that I recall, no.
IBI Q: There wasn't like a garden hose or sometblng
'91 sticking out of that pipe?
(101 A: NOl that I recall.
1111 Q: Am I correct that yourtestimony Is you do not
1"1 recall ever having seen tbat pipe sticking out
1"1 of lhe ground with the cap on it prior to
1"1 sometime after the splli?
1'51 A: Yes. lhat's the first lime I can remembc:r.
1161 Q: Who at Leffler was the person in charge of the
117) cleanup?
1"1 A: 1I0b Stewart would have been In charge of not
1191 specifically cleanup but gelling somebody to
I2<lI clean it up or notifying tbe right agencies.
1211 Q: How do you spell his name?
12'1 A: S-T.E.W.A.R.T.
I7.lI 0: S-T.E.W.A.R.T?
12'1 A: Yeah, Ilob Stewart.
12'1 0: Do you know if be's slill wilh Leffler?
Min-U.Seript0
(13) Page 41 - Page 44
John E. Byler
May 21,2002
III A: Nu, uUllhal1 knuw, I'd 5ay nu, he'5 nUl whh
I?I Lerner,
1"1 Q: Du yuu kunw where Mr, SleMIn IIve5?
1'1 A: Nu,l knuw Inlhe vlclnhy,lIlchl;md,
1'1 l'ennsylV:lnla.
1'1 Q: Is he rellred fmm Lerner?
171 A: Nu, lie wuli<5 fur anlllher firm,
1'1 Q: Whu dues he work fur?
11II A: G1en-Gery Brick J Ihlnk he luld me,
1'01 Q: Does he wuli< In IhclrYuli< plan!?
Itll A: 1 don'l knuw If II'S Ihe LeesJlon urYuli<
1121 Jllant, J'm not sure.
(13) Q: What W2S his )lOslllon whh Lerner allhe lime
1"1 of this sJlIll?
115) A: Ilhlnk his Iltle would have been vice
1181 presldem. No, no. He was never vice
(11) presldem. He W2S In charge oCanythlng 10 do
1"1 with - what am 1 trying 10 think of! -
lID) envlronmen121 or sJllllage ur anything to do
l20I with the cleanups,
(21) Q: Would he have been the )lCr5un at Leffler
1221 res)lOnslble for making sure the SPCCs were
1231 prepared and kept up to dale?
12'1 A: At tllat time, yes.
(25J Q: Would he have been the Jlerson at that time who
III W2S res)lOnslble for comrnctlng wllh someone 10
I?I prepare Ihe SPeC and keeJlII UJlIO date?
1"1 A: Yeah. Now. I'm 12lklng aboullhe lime Ihls
('1 haJlpened.
(5J Q: 1997 or there -
181 A: Yeah, yeah.
l1J Q: Who was in charge of thaI back in 1988, 1989?
181 A: We really dldn't have anybod)'.1 would have
11II been the guy to leU Jlrobably my secrerary 10
1101 gel some outside firm to take care of il.
Itll MR. RHOADES: Did you say '88 or '98?
1121 MR. SYLVANUS: Eighty-cighl.
1131 BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1"1 Q: Was Mr. Slewan wllh Lernerin 1988, J 989?
(15) A: Yes.
1'81 Q: What was his )lOsltlon back then, if yuu recall?
(11) A: Wall a mlnule.l'm sorry, Whal dale did you
1.01 say?
1101 Q: J know I'm swllchlng -
l20J A: Nlnely-clghl?
1211 Q: No. Elghly.elgln,
1221 A: No, no, Dob Slewan wasn'l with us al Ihal
1231 time.
12') Q: 1 a)lOlogize.1 am switching back and fonh,
12') MR. SYLVANUS: arc the record,
Page 45 . Page 48 (14)
Carles R. l.effler, Inc. v.
Herbert, Rowland & GnlbJc, Inc.
-POgO ~~l'l
1'1
131 0: Mter Ihe 51'111. there MIS an iuvesllll'lIlnn uf
1'1 the spill perfnrmed hy, , helleve. DI!I: a
1'1 persnn hy the nallle nf Ilohln Yerner, Du yuu
1'1 rememher lIIeellnll whh nr lalkhlll111 a Ilnhln
m Yerner?
I'J A: Nn,ldun'l.
1'1 0: Jln ynn rememher ever having seen ur reviewed a
tlol repun prepared hy Ihe DEI' fCWlrdlng Ihls
1111 spill?
1121 A: Imlllhl have wellluver il with Jlob Slewan ur
1131 sumelhlnll, bill he wnuld have he en the one Ihat
1"1 wnuld have wemuver II with DEI' or DER. J
1"1 Ihlnk h was DER allhal time,
1161 Q: Allhe lime uf Ihls spill, whal WlIS Dale
111) Stairs' )lOsltlun?
1"1 A: Ilhlnk he MIS Ihe manager al the New Klngslun
1"1 terminal.
l20J 0: How long had he been Ihe manager Ihere?
1211 A: Specific years, 1 dun'l know, J don't know if
1221 he WdS there when we buughl il or nOI.1 don'l
1231 remember.
12'1 Q: Did you hire Ihe former m.1nager?
1251 A: Ilhlnk allhe time we boughl the lerminal we
Pogo 47
(Discussion off Ihe record,)
BY MR, SYLVANUS:
Pogo 46
Pogo 46
III kepllhe same people lhere.1 kind of remember
I2llhal,
131 0: You bought it from Aero all?
1'1 A: Ilhoughl we boughl il from)ohn Arnold, but
I') thaI could have been a sub-name or something.
1'1 0: I a)lOlogize, You did buy il from Arnold.
171 Arnold bought it from Aero,
('1 A: Okay.
19J MR. SYLVANUS: Thill'S aliI have.
IIOJ MR, FRIEDMAN: Can you just give us a
1111 couJlle minutes?
1121 MR. SYLVANUS: Oh, sure,
1131 (Recess raken,)
1"1
1"1
1"1 0: Mr. Uyler, you Jlreviously lestlfied that IIRG
1'1) was res)lOnslble only for gelling Jlermlcs from
1"1 Ihe lUwnshlp for the approval of the work at
1"1 Ihe New KingslOn facililY. Do you remember
(201 Ihal lestlmony?
1211 A: Yes.
I22J 0: Did lIRG have any res)lOnslblllty for ensuring
1>31 Ihal the work done allhe New Kingslon facility
1"1 was in compliance wllh DEP and/or EPA
11>51 regulations?
EXAMINATION
BY MR. RHOADES:
Min-U.Script@
Flllus & McLucas Reporting ServJce, Inc.
\,
,
.1
;,
,
Carlos R. Leffler, Inc. v.
Herbert, Rowland & Gnlblc, Inc.
(
III MR, SYLVANUS: Ohjcclllllhc form.
I~ A: Yeah, hecause Ihelr prim Is wh:1I we wlluhl have
1'1 suhmlned Illlhe relllllalllry allellcles, :lIId II
1'1 would Imve Imd Illl",ve heen rlllht as far aSlhc
1'1 dike areas alld everylhlllll clse,
1'1 BY MA, RHOADES:
m Q: Also YOII previously lestl/1ed In resllllllse III
1'1 some of Mr, Sylvalllls's qllesllolls ahoutthe
IV! slams of Ihe well Indicated on the illiG
1'01 drnwlnll. Specl/1cally. a couple of lernt, were
1111 Ihrown aroulld Ihatl'm Ilot sure arc clear UII
II" the record as 10 the meanlnll of Ihose lerut',
11'1 Specl/1c,lIly, you used Ihe wurd ahandoned and
1"1 wells Ihal arc nOlln lise,
11'1 TIle welllhal's Indicated on Ihc illIG plan
11'1 within Ihe cOlllalnmelll area,ls Ihal - Slrike
1171 Ihe question.
1"1 AI the time Lerner purchased the New
IIOJ Klngslon faelllty. what was the SIal us of lhe
(201 welllndlcaled on Ihe HRG dl"Jwlng?
1211 A: It was never In use as far as I know, II W'JS
1221 not abandoned, bllt nOlln use,
(231 Q: When you say It's not abandoned, what do you
12'1 mean?
12'1 A: Well,l think abandoned Is like a regulalOry -
(
(,
III that you have to /111 It with slurry or
121 concrete or somelhing to 1Ot.1l1y fill the hole
1'1 up.
1'1 Q: Was that done at the time Lerner purchased lhe
1'1 New Kingston facility?
1'1 A: No,
11I Q: When did you learn that was not dune?
1'1 A: When the 011 weill down the well awhile afler
I9J the spill.
1"1 Q: I want to turn to some questions you were asked
1111 about your answers to the first set of
II~ illlerrogatories In which YOII responded 10 a
1131 question regarding tbe St.1tus of the well,At
1"1 the time you had answered those
1"1 illlerrogalories, which well were YOII referring
116J to In your answer?
1171 MR. SYLVANUS: ObjeClIO the form,
1"1 A: The well behind the office.
1"1 MR. RHOADES: Off the record for a second,
f201 (Discussion off the record,)
1211 BY MR. RHOADES:
1221 Q: Mr,lIylcr, the answer to llllerrogalOry Number
\231 10 you just teslitied was based on the well
12'1 next to the office; correct?
I?'I MR. SYLVANUS: Object 10 the form,
Filius & McLucas Reporting Service, Inc.
Pogo 49
Pogo 50
John I!. Uyler
May 21, 2002
Pogo 51
III A: Yes,
I~ BY MR, RHOADES:
1'1 Q: Alld II WoIS jllsl 'I mistake Ihat yuu did 1II11
1'1 realize thaI the hllerroll'lIory W'JS askillll y"u
1'1 III describe the stalllS IIf the well depicted un
1'\ Ihe dr.lwhlll?
m MR. SYLVANUS: Ob)eclIII Ihe form,
1'1 A: Nu,l think I, you know, just read Ihroogh
IOJ Ihem :lIId answered some questions, 1 didn't
1'01 actually look allhe prilll,
1111 MR, RHOADES: J don't think I have any
II" other l)uestlons,
1131 EXAMINATION
1"1 BY MR, SYLVANUS:
1"1 Q: Mr.lIyler. what is a berm as In reference to
1'6J this drawing and In reference 10 this facility?
II~ A: I would lake this as the berm,
116J Q: I mean describe for Ihe record whal a berm Is,
I'OJ 10 your IInderslandlng.
(201 A: Well. It's designed to hold the biggest tank
1211 that's In the field, BUl, basically, It might
1221 be, just estimating, elght.foot bollom with
(231 din; and the din comes up and makes like a
1241 half moon out around.
1251 Q: Like essentially a din wall surrounding the
Pogo 52
III containment area?
121 A: Yeah. din wall.
I'} Q: The berms that were at the fadUty when
1'1 Lcmer purchased II in 1988, are they shown on
1'1 here, on tills drawing?
161 A: I would say yes, I don't know If all of them
11I are there. But, yeah, it shows some of the
1'1 existing ones.
191 Q: And It sltows the waler well In a berm?
1101 A: If you can define lhatas a berm, because II
I'" actually - You know, It's a dOlled line on
II~ one side and a solid line on the other side.
il'l Q: I mean as II existed at the time before any
1"1 work was done.
IISI A: Oh, before any work was done. I don't know
1"1 because I don't know what It looked Jike right
I'~ at that point,
1"1 Q: There were no berms over by where this other
lID} well was by the office, were there?
f201 A: Not that I know of.
(211 Q: In fact, there are elevations shown on this
1221 drJwlng,And it was l)uite flat over there,
123) wasn It it?
(2'1 A: I would say yes,
12'1 Q: Yet yuu misunderstood the question In
Min-U-Script@
(15) Page 49 . Page 52
John n. Byler
May 21, 2002
Carlos R. I.effler, Inc. v.
Herbert, RowJand & Gnlblc, Inc.
Pogo 53
III Q: Did I.erner nlso hnve to 5uhmlltank dr.lwlnll-'
'" :llld plplulldr.lwIIlIlS?
PI A: Yes.
I" Q: IlliG dldn'lprepnre nny pip hili drJwhlll-';
I') correcl?
I') A: Notthntl kllow of,
II) MR. SYLVANUS: l'hnt's nil I hove,
"I (Whereulllll1, the dellllshlon conduded at
!V) 2:2511.111,)
lID)
Ill)
1"1
1"1
1"1
I")
I")
1111
I")
I")
I20J
1211
1221
(23)
12')
12')
Pooo 55
1'1 Jlllerro!:Olllry Numher 13 whenll<lld, Do you
12) contend Ihalthe :lvermelll of Defend'lIIt ns sel
PI fonh IlIl'arJllrJph 45 of Ihe new II~Uler of Ihe
I') defelldalll was III error alld the wellhe:ul did not
1'1 extend allenst five feet nhove the level of nil
"I exlslhlll herm?
m Your answer, While the wellhe:ul vlslhly
I" extended ahove the surface of the hllerlor herm
IVI wllhlnlhe laok fnrm In J 988, Lerner lIever
I'OJ measured the nCl1Iallength of the wellhead.
Ill) So you mlsllllerpreted that III thlllk II W,IS
(12) this wclllhnt was aver In the f1:It orca and
"" nOlthls welllhal was In the berm?
I") MR. RHOADES: ObJecllon to form,
I") BY MR. SYLVANUS:
1'0) Q: Js Ihat what your tesllmony Is today?
I'll A: Yes.
1'0) Q: Now, you testified also In response to
110) questions by Mr, KllOades thal,ln addition to
1201 having respooslblllty far getting approval from
12'1 the Sliver Spring Township, Leffler hod some
1221 responslblllty with regard ta EPA aod DEP
(23) approvals, Is thai what you testified to?
12'1 MR. RHOADES: Objection to the form,
1251 A: Could you repeal Ille quesllon, please.
Pogo 54
III BY MR, SYLVANUS:
121 Q: l\hoades asked you - Slrike tl131,
pr If I am correct, when J asked you, you
I') leSlified thai lhe only approval lhal HI\G was
IS) responsible for obtaining wilh regard 10 Ihls
10) project was from Sliver Spring Township, Is
m thai what you testlJied to In response to my
101 quesllonlng?
!VI A: As for as aelual permits. yes,
lID) Q: You also lestified then when Mr, KllOades asked
II" you thai HI\G had some responsibility with
112) regard 10 DEP and EPA approvals: is thai
1131 correct?
1'" A: No,Whatl mealll hy thaI, Ihatlhe plan hod 10
lIS) be correct for Leffler ta submilto DEP,
1'" Q: Did Leffler submlllhls plan 10 DEP?
1111 A: I would say yes,
1'0' Q: Did DEP approve It?
IIDI A: As for oS I remember, allhough I can'l
(20) specifically soy they didn't make us change
1211 anything,
1221 Q: You're nol :lware of any documellls Ihal
1231 currelllly Cxisllhal would indlcale Ihnl DEI'
12" required changes?
(25) A: No,
. -
Page 53 - Page 55 (16)
Min-U-ScripW
Fll1us & McLueas Reporting Service, Inc.
.".
Carlos R. Lefflcr, Inc. v. John I!. nyJcr
lIerbcrt, ltowJanll & Gmhlc, Inc. May 21, 2002
1 2-;;:\H:'i,6 ollached 29: I ~ 20:~; 3.1: 13; 39: 10;11 :21, currently ~:15; 11:18;
nctlvllles H:2 ollended 11:2.\ 2.\; 13:10,13; n:2~ 5-1:2.\
ncluoI8:9; 10:2~; 11:21; ollenllon 22:15; 23:5 come 25:5 ------
( 13 27:22 12:~; 20:2.1; :H:17; 53:11I; Aungst 20: 18; 2,1:2:1; con 1:11; 12:7; 1(0:11,15; D
150,00012:21 5,1:9 25: 1,22; 26:9, II, 13, 15, 19:25; 22: 1,21; 23:18;
1838:1 ecluolly 6: 10; 8: I; 11:3; 18; 30:22; 10:12 21:8,17;28:16;30:3;31:1, Dole 17:16
198810:17,22; 11:11, 13; 17:~; 20: II; 21: I; 51 :10; averment 53:2 2, 9i 32:15i36:5i 37:-1;
32:6; 38:2;16:7,11; 52:1; 52:11 aware 19:17; 21: 13; 35:2, 38:6; 14: 15; 18:10; 52:10 date 8:20; 36: 17, 25;
53:9 edd 12:1 18,25; 39:1, I; 13:6; 5.1:22 cop 13:25;11:1. 3,1.6,13 15:23;16:2,17
198916:7, J4 added 12:17 away 5:11; 18:3;13:24 copping 24:5,15 day 19:10, 10
199711:5;16:5 adding 12:2 awhile 50:8 core 13:21;16:10 deal 14:22;38:5
199826:21;27:18;28:2; addition 12:5; 16:12; Carlos 3:19; 5:15;6:2,3; Deb 18:23,25; 19:18;
29:6 53:19 .B 9:23; 10:3,7; 11:2; 17:18; 20:3;21:5
additional 12:2;32:10, 21:6 deciding 12:21
2 16 case 1:2; 18: 19, 21 decision II :7; 12:3
oddross 3: 11 Bock 7:11; 27:18; 28:2; cortaln 4:1;12:5 deod 39:17
2,000 10:20 admission 32:3; 35:5 31:17; 34:11;16:7,16,24 cerlalnly 28:5 Dalendant53:2, 1; 29:16
admit 32:4; 35:6; 32:7 bod 42:19 certlllcatlon 3:1 dellne 52:10
200131:17,19,23 advised 37: J4 based 50:23 change 9:8; 12:4; 28:13; delivered 36:8
28303:15 Basically 6:11;7:10,18, 54:20; 10:17; 16:10,11;
2:25 55:9 advising 17:15 54:24 denied 32:7; 35: 10; 38:20
Aero 48:3,7 21;9:13; 13:18; 18:10; charge 9:13.16. 18; DEP 13:20; 34:9,12,13;
19:3;51:21
4 effects 5:6,7 basis 14:21 41:22;44:16,18;45:17; 17:4,10,14;48:24;53:22;
ollernoon 5:5 beceme 10:13;13:5 16:7 54:12,15,16,18.23
allerwards 42:16 clorlly 16:15;38:21 departmenl 6: II; 7:4,
407:15 Again 25:19;35:17; began 26:18;33:16,23 clean 14:20 19;8:2;9:17
beginning 30: II
S 38:24 behind 50:18 cleanup 41:17,19;45:20 depends 13:22
against 3:20 clear 4:19; 49:11 deplcled 51:5
agencies 44:20; 49:3 belleI20:8, 10; 35:11; college 6:19. 21 deposition 3:25; 4:2;
38:21
507:15 agency 13:21; 4 2:8 berm 16:17;26:20;28:11, Colonel 7:25 18:17;55:8; 18:19,20
agenls 9:20 17i51:15, 17,18; 52:9, 10; Commonwealth 24:4 DER 47:14.15
(' 7 agreement 3:21; 14:19, 53:6,8,13; 16:11; 52:3, 18 Compeny 5:22; 6:9; 36:7, describe 51:5,18
24 besI5:1;13:2 13. 16,25 design 16:21; 51:20
70s 6:6;8:21; 10:14 along 17:18 beyond 6:23; 32: 17 complaining 34:1 designation 4:22
Although 30:6; 54:19 biggest 51 :20 compleled 10:19 details 31:6
8 American 36:7. 13. 16, billed 15:15 compliance 48:24 determine 3:25
22,21 bills 33:22 concluded 55:8 different 7:7; 12:10
among 3:2;37:16 Blank 32:1 conclusion 23:16 differently 38:11
8816:11 amount 15:11 blueprint 7: I concrete 24:21; 50:2 dike 40:23; 19:5
and/or 48:21 connection 38:16 directly 37:21
9 Bob 41:21;14:18, 24;
annotellon 21:9, 11;43:7 16:22; 47:12 conslructlon 20:24; dirt 51:23, 23, 25; 52:2
answered 50:14; 51:9 bollom 51 :22 21:3;23:2; 26:15; 30: II, discovery 27:8,16;
90s 10:21 antlbiollc 5:5 boughllO: 18; 47:22. 25; 24; 31 :5; 32:21; 33:5, 9, 31:16,21
9816:11 apologize 28:6; 16:24; 18:3,4,7 13,16,23; 34:2, 5; 38:18, discussing 9:1; 26:1~
48:6 break 5:9, 10; 39:7 22;40:11.19 Discussion 3:23; 27:4;
A apparently 29:5 Brick 45:9 contact 13:8;35:2,8, 12, 41:2;47:1; 50:20; 26:10;
applicable 13:21 bring 22: 15; 23:5 18; 36:3,11, 12,15,22, 30:22; 31 :13; 33:1
approval 48:18; 53:20; 24,6 dispensing 13:25
abandoned 23:6, 16; 54:4; 13:11, 14, 17, 19; broad 16:19 containment 30:13; documents 26:23;
37: 15, 19; 38:5, 6; 13:6, 19:15; 25:23; 32:11; 34:4, brought 3:19 37:19; 38:23; 43:1;19:16; 27:17; 31:5;38:18; 54:22 ,
17;49:13,22,23,25 8,19; 53:23; 54:12 build 39:19;9:16; 21:16, 52:1 dome 44:3 I
abandonment 24:6, 15; approve 54:18; 19:4 18;22:7;9:15 contains 37: 16 done 5:13;9:3; 16:25;
38:10 approving 15:3 built 17:2 contend 53:2 17:5; 19:7.8, 14;20:13;
ability 5:2,6,7 approximately 7:13; bulk7:14 contracI14:1O,12;46:1 24:3; 26: 14; 32:22; 33:2;
able 4:25 10:12; 22:5; 42:23, 21 business 5:20; 7:21 controclors 12:12 34:16;48:23; 50:4,7;
above 26:19; 28:14; area 13:6; 22:6;30:13; buy 48:6 contradicts 37:21 52:14,15
40:15,21;53:5,8 37:19; 40:23; 43:2;49:16; BYLER 3:9,13,15,17; copies 15:19 dolled 52: II
aboveground 6:13 52:1; 53:12; 49:5 5:21,2.1; 6:15; 15:18; 27:6; copy 23:21; 26:9; 29:20 down 4:10. II, 16;44:4;
(. accordance 24:3 Arnold 48:4, 6,7 31:16; 35:9; 18: 16; 50:22; correctly 43: 13 50:8
according 32:12 eround 5:11; 19: II; 51:15 cost 14:11 draw 12:8,24; 13:19;
acquisition 9:1.4; 11:1, 51:2.j counsel 3:3; 28:7;37:18 19:3; 15:20; 21:9,17; 22:9,
21; 12:1;24:2. II arranged 36:8 C couple 42:15;18:11; 12,14,17.22,25;23:8.
acreage 39:18 11,22; 25:25; 26:7.17; r,
arrangements 20:5 49:10 39:2,11.15;49:10,20;
active 23:2,3,12;37:24, osslslonl 7:25; 8:,1 call11 :8,11,12; 3:9; course 32:20; 13:22; 7:1 51:6,16;52:5.22
Fillus & McLucas Itcportlng ScrvJcc, Inc. Min.U.Scriptal> (1) 13 . draw
John I!. nylcr
May 21, '2002
drawings 16:5,8,21,25:
17:3,12: 25:15: 26:3, 6:
32:21; 38:18, 22: 55:1,2,1
drawn 12: 12: 38: I
dulY3:lll
[Juring 11:25: 9:9: 26: 15;
33:9,13;35:13
E
earlier 23:22; 211:22: 35:1;
37:22
earlv 10:23
eight 21:7;39:12
eight-loot 51:22
Elghty-elght16:12,21
either 12:3; 19:18; 27:15
elevstlons 52:21
else 16:21; 17:1, II:
19:17.20,23; 20:8; 25:15;
35:16; 39:13, 20, 21;19:5
employ 11:6; 5:15.18:
6:1
emploYlles10:12,20;
20:14.19
end 32:6, 13; 35:9.13;
38:19.23
engineer 12:24; 13:18;
32:19.20,5:38:16; 13:5:
14:6
ensuring 48:22
entire 10:1
environmental 41:22;
12:8:15:19
EPA 13:20; 18:21; 53:22;
51:12
error 53:1
essentially 51:25
estate 5:21
estimating 51:22
even 30:17,20
evenJngs 7:2
everyone 15:19
exact 8:20: 11:8
exactly 41:11;12:22
EXAMINATION 3:11;
18:11;51:13
excavation 24:24;10: 12
excavator 20:16.17
except 3:5
excuse 15:10
executive 8:17, 18, 22:
9:4,7; 10:2,5,7.9.13
Exhibit 29:15, 17.19
exist 51:23; 52:13; 12:16:
52:8; 53:6
existence 24:13; 39:2:
43:6
explain 12:11
extend 53:5; 26: 19:
28:14,17: 53:8
drawings - marshal (2)
F
'acllltles 7:6, 7, 9, Ill, 12
'aclllty 7:5; 9:2: 11: I. 8;
12:1,.j,16; 13:25j 16:6,
Ill: 211:25; 21:2: 2.\: 12:
36:9;37: I, 211; 38:23;
,18: 19. 23; 49: 19: 50:5:
51:16;52:3
lact 16:11: 22: 16,211: 23:6;
52:21; 4:1
lallures 12:9
lalrly 9:9
'amlllar 4:7: 13:23: 18:23;
23:25; 24:1
lor 9:17; 21:20: 28:25;
33: I; 49:1, 21; 54:9, 19
larm 53:9
lox 27:lll
leel5:9
leet 53:5
lew7:I,7; 10:18; 19:12
lIeld8:7.8,9; 51:21
IlIIng 3:4
111I24:21;50:1,2
line 27:11
IInlshed 1:14,15; 28:7
lire 34:9,14,16
IIrm 41:23;15:7;46:10
Ilrst 6:10: 7:3; 9:3; 26:25:
27:6:29:14;36:12,15,23;
42:13;44:15; 50:11
Fisher 17:2
lits 44:4
live 111:15; 53:5
Ilot44:4; 52:22; 53:12
lollow33: 15; 32:4,8;3:10
lorm 3:6: 5:7; 12:6; t4:1;
16:13; 17:17; 23:17; 24:7:
25:18; 28:15; 30:2, 25;
31:8; 33:19;37:3; 39:16;
43:9,18;49:1;50:17.25;
51:7; 53:14,24
lormer 47:24
lorth 46:24; 53:3
lorty 43:3
lound43:12
lour 1:6;5:25: 10:15
FRIEDMAN 27:3; 28:1:
38:3,9;41:1;18:lll
Iront 22:6; 29:20: 39:1
lu1l3:13
luture 37: 15
G
gallons 12:211, 24;13:3
garden 44:11
gas 43:23
gave 25:7, 10, 12; 26:9;
40:5,9
generoI9:211; 211:8, 10:
.\9:ICI
Gingrich 111:2.\, 25:
19:18: 211:3: 21:5
g1r19:18
given 11:13;25:21:28:2;
31:lll;32:8
giving 12: 12; 23:21; 31 :.\
Glen.Gory 15:9
goes 5:21
grading 111: 12
groduate 6: 14, t7
gronted 30:5
ground 4:7;7:22:411: 16,
22:44:13
grout 24:211
Grublc 3:18, 211: 13:3:
14:11, 17; 15:4,23; 19:21
guess 17:1
guy 7:25; 16:9
guys 7:211: 8:3;9:21;
20:10,13;13:13
H
hall 7:23; 11:16; 51:24
handled 30:23;31:7
happened 46:1
happening 38:4
heod 4:17: 8:1
Herbert 3:18, 20; 13:2:
14:11,16;15:4
hereby 3:2.4
high 6:14, 17. 24
higher 28:17
hlghllght21:lll
Hili 3:15 ,
hire 16:21: 47:24: 6:9,10:
7:3,12
hold 51:20
hole 50:2
Holland 12:21
home 41:12, 13
honestly 28:20
hope 5:8, 13
hose 44:8
HRG 13:9: 14:15,16;
15:15,22;16:5; 17:15,24;
18:5; 211:3,20; 22:15, 19:
23:6,21; 25:15; 26:3;
31:14;32:5,9,16,23;
33:418,12,12,15,23;
34:1,15,19;35:3,8,12.
19:36:1,16;37:1, H;
38:15,21;39:2, H, 25;
48:16,22;49:9,15,20:
54:4, II; 55:4
hundred 10:16
I
Idea 32:211;37:6, 7, 9
Identified 29:22
Carlos It. l.cfllcr, Inc. V.
IIcrhcrt, ItClwlal\(1 &: Gnthlc, Inc.
IIInoos 5:.\
Immedlatolv 11: 15
Included 12: 1
Including 32: III
Incorporotod 6:2,1
Indlcato 54:23: 31:5;
37:22: -\9:9, 15, 211
Individual 36:6
Inlormatlon 35:11; 38:21
Initial 6:6: 21:12
Inolda 10:23
Inspoctlng 33:6
Inopectlono 33:17
Inoto1l16:22
Insuranca 9:17, 18,19
Intorlor 53:8
Intorpret4:18
Interrogatories 26:22;
27:16; 5ll:12, 15
Interrogatory 29:2.6,
13; 50:22; 51:4; 53:1
Interrupt 4:15
Investigation 47:3
Invoices 15:3,7, II
Involved 12:20;34:10
Involvement 11:20
J
Job 7: 16;6:3, 6; 9:8; 15:5;
17:11I; 18:9, 10: 19:2;
20:22; 25:9
Jobs 8:1
JOHN 3:9,15,17; 35:9;
38:11;18:1
K
keep 46:2
kept 45:23; 48: I
klnd48:1- -
Kingston 9:2; 11:1. 21;
15:16; 16:6, 10; 18:6;
20:25; 24:12; 17:18;
18: 19, 23: 49:19: 50:5
Kissel 3:15
knew 29:11; 34:7
knowledgo 19:22; 36:2;
41:25
known 30:20
knows 35:16
L
Lancaster 3: 16
language 1:18;39:11,
23,25
last31:2ll, 22; 36:17,25;
411:7
late 6:6; 10:11
later 8:2ll; 10:23
laws L\:24; 24:1, I~
InwsuU 3:19
layout 17:5
learn 7:2ll: 41 :7; 511:7;
11:17
least 5;1:5
leavo Ill:,1
Leesport 45: 11
Lelller 3: 19; 5: 16;6:2, 3.
9;7:3,9,10,17;9:23;
10:3,1,7,12,19; 11:2.6.
10,13,18,22; 12:15: H:6;
15:14; 16:21; 17:18. 23;
18:3; 19:17,23;20:2,8,
14, 19; 21 :6; 31:17; 32:1.
9;35:2,6,7, II, 12,15,16,
16;36:3,17;37:2,13,211;
38:20; 39:13, 21; 41 :25:
12:7;44:16,25;45:2,6,
13,21; 46:14;49:18;50:4;
52:4; 53:9, 21; 54:15, 16;
55:1
left 10:9; 21 :20
length 53:lll
letters 33:25
level 53:5
Llkewloe1:14
limited 32:10
line 52:11, 12
listen 4:13
IIl1le 21:16.17;22:7:23:1;
43:25
lives 45:3
LLC 5:22,24
loading 17:6,6; 21:8
location 22:9, 13, 16,20,
23; 23:23;12:4
logo 15:22
long 5:12, 23;6:3;8:15.
22; 47:20
longer 8:9
look 11:23; 15:24; 16:2;
30:1; 51:10; 52:16; 11 :3;
33:1;39:22;43:20
lot 11:19;18:1~
low n:17
M
Macungle 12:20
maIntaining 13:24
maintenance 6: 11; 7:4,
19; 8:2;9:14
majority 11:10
makes 51:23
making 13:8; 15:22
Management 5:21, 21;
9:2ll
manager 47:18,20, 21
many 4:5;7:12; 111:12:
21:1:42:20
marked 30:7,12
marshal 31:10. 14, 16
Min.U-Script0 Filius &: Md.ucas Rcportlng Service, Inc.
Carlos It. Leffler, Inc. v. John Ii. Ilyler ,
Herbert, Rowland & (inlhlc, Inc. May 21,2002 I"
mailer 13:9: 29: 16,18; Number 27:211,12; 29:2, Pnt 21l:18:2'1:2.\;2/o:9, 12 price II :7; t-l:2~ H:7, Ill, t2:~6:16
53:3 6, 13:32:3;3~:5;:\7:12: Pou... 27:25: 29:~ pricing 9: 19 received 1~:2~;3t:17 \i
,
mey ~:I; 20:9, 19: 28:~, 5; 38: I~: 39:22, 2.\: ,10:2, 8: peak Ill: 19. 21 print 26:8;,19:2: 51:llI: Recess 39:8; ~8: 13 ,
C 31:17;35:22, 2~ 51l:22; 53: I Pennsylvnnla :\:16; 25:8, III, 11,12,1(,,17,22 recognize t 5:25; 27: Ill,
maybe~:6:7:15: 1ll:15, - :lot:'i, I~: ~(i:7, Li, 1ft, 22. prior 13:.1: 21l:2~; 23: I, II
21l, 23, 23; 11:16;21:7: 0 2~: ~~:5 16; 28:U; 3l1:lll; ,\5:21; recollecllon 11:2l1: 13:8;
26:5; 39: 17 people 12:llI; 18:8.211. 37:19;H:U 15:9,13; 18:13.25: 19:1,
menn 1~:16: 17:18:21:~: object 23: 17; 38:3: ~9: 1; 21: 211:22;35:22:,(8: I probnbly 17:21l: 25:23; 5,9,13:20:1;23:15;
28:18;3~:11:~~:1;~9:2~; 5l1: 17.25; 51:7 porcentll:16 36:21l: ~6:9 28:12; 29:7; 32:11: 33:3: ..
51 :18; 52:13: ~9:12 problem 38:~ ~1:1:13:2 .,
ObJecllon 12:6; 11: I: percontnge II: 15 ,
mennt 26:8:5~:1" 16:13; 17:17; 2":7.16: perform 32:5, 9, 16: 3":2: produced 25: 16 rocord 3: U, 22, 23; 27:2, ( !
meuured 53:10 25:18; 28:15: 30:2, 25: 32:12;36:17.18;37:1; product 12:20 ~:O:I, 2:16:25:17:1;
medlcnllon 5:2," 31:8: 33:19; 35:211: 37:3; 38:11; ~lI:l3: "7:~; 33:17 producllon 26:23; 27: 17 "9:12; 511:19, 20: 51:18
moet25:3:31:19; 18:5, 39:16;13:9; 53:1". 21;3:5 perled 7:17: 8:25 prolesslonall~:6; 15:23 recovered 13:1
13; 19:19, 23; 20:2:"7:6 obtaining 32:11, 17;5~:5 permit 32:17;3~:17; progression 7: 16 rolor 27:20: 29:15.17
met 12:10: 17:23; 18:8, occurred 36:25: 11:5 32:21; ]1:22: 18:17; 5~:9 proJect 12:1"; 13:3; 16:6; relerence 51:15,16
15; 19:1,11;21:5; 25:",8; October 38: 1 person 12:23; 15:2; 2":11,2.1; 32:25; 3":5, 6; relerrlng 50:15
32:1 0" 3:22,23; 16:3; 27:1,1; 17:14;35:7;36:5,11,22: 39:3: 5~:6; 18:15 relresh 28: 12; 29:7
might 25:5,6;31: 13; "1:1,2: "6:25;17:1; 50:19, H:16;~5:21, 25:"7:5; property 21:23: 22:3: rogerd 16:5;29:25;39:3;
12:1 5;13:23; ~7:12: 51 :21 20 0:9: 16:21;20:20 2":2 53:22; 51:5, 12:9:1; 13:9:
mlnl.markets 9:1 I 0"lce8:6,7,8:9:16: personellY11:19 proposed 11:14 2~:5. 14;26:11;31:U;
Minor 11:18 21:16,17; 22:7; 23:~; 25:6, personnel 35: 13 Protecllon 12:8 33:1; ~7:10; 50:13
6,8: 30:6; ..1:12; 50: 18,
minute 1:8:46:17;"8:11 2~; 52:19 pertaining 40:21 protruding ~o: 15,21 regulallons 13:23: I ~:4;
misinterpreted 53: II 01113:23; ..8:3; 50:8 petroleum 13:2~ provided 39: 13. 25 24:", I~; "8:25
misstates 35:21 on.slte 35:12 phose 32:2"; 33:5; 3~:2 public 36:8 ragulatory "9:3, 25
mlstnke 51:3 phone 19:19;..1:8.11 pulled 2":19 remain 8:22
once 35:17 remember 11 :2; 13: 10.
misunderstood 52:25 One ":10,12:7:5;9:21; photocopy 27:10 pumps 2":19 12; 18:5,7,7; 19:11,25;
n"xed 29: 10 11:6,16.22: 12:21.21; pleced.together 15:20 purchase t 1:7;..9:18; 20:21; 21:13.1~; 22:2;
modlflcallon 12:15; 18:8; 20:20; 23: II; 25:25; pipe 13:25:4~:9, 12; 17:7 50:":52:" 26:12:~1:10;43:21, 2~;
38:22; 9:2; II :25; 20:25: 26:7; 29:22; 30:8: 31 :11; piping 6:12; 7:1; 12:9; purcheslng 37:20 ....:15;..7:6,9.23:48:1.
( 38:17 37: 13; 39:3; "0:7; ~2:7; 16:16,25; 17:5; 55:2. ~ purpose "2: 17 19; 5~:19;"3:~
Monsees 27:15 43:13;"7:13; 52:12 plnce 17:20; ~2: I, 9. 12: put8:3; 17:20 repeat 2":9; 53:25
moon 51:2~ ones 52:8 17:16,16: 39:11 report 9:22; ~7:10: 10:3
more 20:20; 26:6 only ~:1I;6:25;29:21; Plaintiff 26:2~; 32:5 Q represent 3:18; 29:19
much ~:7;9:10.11; 31: 10: 35:7; "8: 17; 5~:" plnn 16:2; 29:20; 30:1. 10. representetlve 35:1~
15:1~;32:1 I; ~3:1 operellng 29:8 18; 31:10: 32:12: 38:1; Quite 7:7; 10:18; 19:12: request 32:3; 35:5:
Mysell33:1O operallve 29:12 ..2:1: 19:15: 5~:1", 16: 52:22 37:12,13;38:15;26:22;
orlglnnlly 7:11:30:19 12:9, II. 25; 16:~, 8: 2":3: quote 1":1",25;32:",6, 27:17 {
N othars 16:9 "2:3,9: "3:8 required 54:24 ,
plnnt42:1;..5:1U,12; 9,13;35:7,9,13;38:19,
out 7: 19, 22; 8:3, 9; 22:6; 23 reserved 3:6
24:18,19;"3:12,14.15; 7:1" respecllve 3:3
nnme3:13,17;7:25; "~:6,9.12;51:2~ piny 10:25; 12:3 R responded 50:12
10:19; 18:23; 27:9; 31:2"; outside 0 :23; "6: 10 plensa 3:1"; 5:11;2~:9;
36:5; 41:9; ~4:21; "7:5; over 4:9;7:5;9:19; 19:18; 53:25 response 27:21; 28:2;
20:23 21:15;23:4;27:8,14;30:6; point ~:t9: 42:7; 13:5.15; rack 17:6; 21:8 29:5; 35:10; 37:12,16,22;
38:20, 25; 41: 17; 49:7:
nnture 5:20 39:11;....:5;..7:12.1~; 52: 17;"3: 13; 21:20 reed 27:21, 2"; 28:2; 53:18; 54:7; 27:7; 29:1;
necessery 32:t 1;3..:5 52:18,22; 53:12 porllon 21:21, 23;40:1" 29:3,5.14; 37:13,17; 31:18,20
need 5:9, 12 overfilled 41:11 position 6:8; 8: 12, 15; 51 :8; 28:8 responsibilities 9:10,
negotlnted 11:6 overly 16:19 10:~; ..5:13; "6:16;"7:17 Real 5:21 12;33:5
New 9:2,14; t 1:1,21; own 11:13,18 possibility 38:7 renllze 23:19; 51:~ responnlbllhy 32:25;
12:21; 15:16; 16:6,9: ownership II: 15 preparallon 18:17 renlly 8:13, 13; 15:21; ..8:22; 53:20, 22; 5":11
17:15,21; 18:6;20:25: prepnre 16:2";31:20; "6:8 responnlble 12:23; 15:2;
2~:12;29:16, 17: ..7:18; p 38:17, 21; ~6:2: 55:"; 1~:9. renson ":2": 5:3; 32:8 17:1"; 34:21.25;"5:22;
48:19,23; "9:18; 50:5; 10; 16:5,9: 39:2; ..5:23; receIl8:20: 13:", 13: 46:1;..8:17;54:5
53:3 "7:10 1":9.12,13,18; 15:1,7; restate 14:22
nelll 50:2" p,m 55:9 preparing 17: II 16:4,7; 17:8,9, 11, 13: retnlned 24:23; 32:5, 9
Nlnety-elght 16:20 papers 11:5 prescrlpllon 5:2 18:2~: 22:13, 21, 22; retenllon 35:13
nod":16 Paragraph 53:3 president 8:17, 19,23; 23:12,21;25:",7, I"; rellred 45:6
(. none ~0:2~ Pardon 6:16 9:5,7, 2~: 11I:2.5,8, Ill, 26:3,10,21; 27:14,19; review 18:18;..7:9; 15:3
nor39:1 part 12:2; 25:17; 29:1~, 13;~5:16, 17 28:10,19,19,20:30:1".
1',19,20; 31 :2,4,13,24; RHOADES 12:6; 1":1;
Northwesl 21 :22, 23 16; 32:7, 8 presume H:" 32:15; 33:8, I". 20, 22, 25; 16:13; 17:17; 23:7,17;
Note 39:23; ~0:9; 39: I 0 participated 12: ,.. presuppose 26:6 35:23; 36:12, 21: 39:5; 2~:7, 16; 25:18; 27:2";
noticing "0:19 parties 3:3 prolly ":7: 9: II "0:5,9.17,18,2",25; 28:15; 30:2, 25; 33:19;
nolllylng H:21l passed 18:3 previously ~8:16:49:7 "\:8,13;"2:20:4]:13; 35:20; 37:3, 7; 39: 16;"3:9;
Filius & McLucas Itcporllng ScrvJcc, Inc. Min-U-Scrip\(ii) (3) matter - RHOADES
John E. Dyler
May 21, iZ002
~6: II: ~8: 15; ~9:6; 50: 19,
21: 51:2, II: 53:1~.19, 2..:
H:2.1O
Rlchland ~5:~
rlght5:1~,18;7:16;8:11;
1~:18; 23: I~: 26:I,~:
27: H: 30:5; 33:2: 43: 10;
~~:20; ~9:~; 52:16
rlght.hand 39: II
Rond3:15
Robart 15:23: 19:2~
Robin ~7:5, 6
role 10:25: 12:3
Rome 32:1
Root 7:25
Rowland 3:18,20; 13:2;
I~:II, 16: 15:~
rules ~:8; 1~:3
sign H:12; 11:5; I~:IO
signature 27:8, 12, 13
Sliver 32:17; 53:21; 5~:6
simply II :22; 15:20;
3U:16
Sinking 12:22
sit ~:25; 15:9, H; 23:1:
~8:IO; 37:2~; ,12:21
site 11:21; 17:1Il; 18:6,1),
10; 19:2,19;21:13, I~;
25:3,5,9; 33:9; ~ I: 15;
~2:1~, 18
six 21:7
Shlty.lour6:18
size 39:11)
slurry 5U: I
solid 52:12
somebody 12:8; 17:~:
18:15: 31:25: 32:1;~~:19
someone 16:21; 2U:8:
~6:1
sometime 27:17;31:19;
~~:I~; 13:20; 1~:19
Son 2U:18
soon 12:1
sorry 23:9: 26:8: ~6:17
sor138:7
sound 18:23
SPCC ~ 1:25; ~2:3, 9:
~6:2; ~5:22
speaking 19:18
specialized 6:23, 25
speclllc 15:13; 18:13:
19:5.9, 13,22: 2U:22, 23:
26: 10: 36: 10; 39: 13:
~7:21; 13:5; 18:7
speclllcally 13:6; 1~:18;
15:7; 18:1~; 19:21;20:6,7;
22:24; 25:~, 7; 33:7; 39:22;
~2:6; 43:15; ~~:19;~9:1O,
13; 5~:20
specifications 17:3;
31 :6; 32:22
specified 7:8
spell ~~:21
spend ~:8
spill ~ 1:5, 18: ~2:2,13,
19; ~3:5;~~:1~:~5:1~;
~7:3,~, II. 16; 50:9;~2:21
splllage~5:19
spoka 20:~
spoken 20:20
Spring 32: 17; 53:21;
5~:6: 12:22
Stairs ~7: 17
start 20:2~; 5:1~; 21:3;
6:6
stata 3:13;3~:8.1I;
35: II; 38:2U; 42:8
statement 35:7; 37: 17
stations 7: I ~
status '19:9, 19; 50: 13:
51:5
stenographer 4: III
s
50 T.E-W-A-R-T ~~:22, 23
same 9:10,11: 23:22;
2~:16: 29:1:~8:1
saw 30:10;33:11, 12
saying 23:12; 37:23:
~I:II
schooI6:14.17,2~
screws ~~:2
saaI15:23: 3:~
second 27:2: 31:16;~1:1:
50:19
Secondly ~: 16
secrelary II :5: ~6:9
seeing 22:2,22:25:15;
26:3: 30:14: 33:1, 8: ~3:25
seems 43:3
aelf-employed 5: 19. 23
semantic 38:~
sense 36:20
senl15: II
September 31: 18
aerved 26:23: 31: 16
service 36:8: 32:10,16:
36:18: 37:1
set25:12,17, 22, 23;
26:5,22;31:16: 50:11:
53:2
settlemenl II:~. 23
several 7:6
shered 9:21
shareholder 11:10
shoulder 4:17
show 18:9;29:1;39:18;
22:23: 23:22; ~3:21; 52:7.
9
shown 16:11:21:25;
22:8,12,17,25:23:11;
30:1: 39:20;40:13; 52:4,
21
shrug 4:17
slda 39:11:44:2: 52:12,
12
R1chland . Zcehandclaar (4)
Stowart41:21;4~:18, 201;
~5:3: ~6:1~, 22; 47: 12
sticking 13:25; 4~:6,1),
12
stlIl4~:25
stipulated 3:2
STIPULATION 3:1
stock 11:13, 18
stood 43:2~
stops 10:18
storaga 13:25
Storb 17:9
Strike 13:12; 15:12;
23:25: 28:11: 49:16; 5~:2
stull 7:15; 12:9
sub-name ~8:5
submIt5~:15. 16; 55:1:
~9:3
sued 42:7
supervised 8: 10
supervising 33:6
supervision 33:17
supplied 39:17
supposed 2~:20: 32:24
sure 18:8, 15;32:21;
34:24: 35:3; 38:9; ~1:24:
42:11, 16, 25:~5:12. 22;
48:12; ~9:11
surface 40: 15,22: 53:8
surrounding 51 :25
Swlcher31:19
switching 46:19, 24
sworn 3:10
SYLVANUS 3:12,17,22,
2~; 12:13: 14:5: 16:18,20;
17:22; 23:9,10, 20: 2~:IO,
22; 25:20: 27:1, 5; 28:1,5,
9,18,21:30:9;31:3,8,12;
33:21; 35:24: 36:1; 37:5,
II;38:8,12,1~;39:6,9.
21:~1:3;43:11: 46:12,13,
25;~7:2;~8:9.12;~9:1:
50:17.25; 51:7,14; 53:15;
5~:1; 55:7;~9:8
T
talked 20:11:31:25;
~3:22
talking 13:17: 16:15:
19:12,23: 20:2. 3: 23:7;
29:11;46:3:47:6
tank6:12;7:5, 2U; 13:11,
I~; 17:1, 2, 4: 34:18;
~I:II; 51:2U; 53:9; 55:1;
12:2,4,5,16; 16:12, 16,
22; 17:2, 15,21:39:19
telling 13:IU.I~
terminal 11:3; 12:21:
15:16;41:1ll; ~7:19, 25;
9:15
terms ~9:.IU, 12
tesmled 3: 10; 13: 15:
21 :4, 6; 25:14, 21; 26:2;
Carlos It. Leffler, Inc. v.
Herbert, ltowJand & Grnblc, Inc.
28:22; 35:22; ~8:16; ~1):7;
50:23: 53:18, 23; 5~:~. 7,
10
tesllmony 18:12;29:2~;
30:16; 35:21;014:11;
.1H:20; 53:16
third 38:7
thirty ~3:3
thought ~8:~
thouaand 43:3
three 4:6; 5:25; 4~:1
thrown 49: II
tlme.and.mslerlall~:20
times ~:5; 1~:20; 19:12;
21:1,7
title 8: 12,13: 10:6; 45:15
today ~:25; 5:13; 15:10,
H; 18:12; 23:1; 28:10, 22;
29:2~; 30:16: 37:24: 39:1:
42:21; 53:16
told 19:2.3, 1~;33:12;
39:19;~5:9
took 6:25: 13:21;30:5
top 26:19;27:23:29:2
totelly 8:1;5U:2
township 13:20:32:18;
3~:9, 22: 48: 18: 53:21;
5~:6
training 6:23, 25
transcripts 18:18
trial 3:7
truck 10:18
trua 29:23
try 4:14
trying ~5:18
Tuckerton 12:22
turn 50:10
Twenty-three 6:5
two ~:8;8:16
u
unclear 4:18; 21
under 5:21;7:2~; 10:19
underground 6:12
understood ~:22
United ~2:8
unloading 17:6
unverified 31:18;38:25
up 7:22; 12:2~: 29:10;
50:3
updated ,12:12
use 14:16;2~:19;32:19;
38:10:49:1~, 21, 22
used 13:5: 38:6; 49: 13
using 21:15:38:10
usually 13:5
v
vaguely 43:21. 24
verball~:I~, 25
verlllcatlon 27:7
verllled 29:6: 37:23
verily 35:17
vice 8:17,18, 22;9:.1, 7;
10:2,5.7,9, 13; ~5:15, 16
vicinity ~5:~
visibly 53:7
visited ~2:14, 17
w
walt 28:7; ~6: 17
waived 3:5
walk 5:10
wall 51 :25; 52:2
wants 37:18
water 21:10; 22:25;
26:11 ,14; 29:21; 30:7,12,
12, 1~.17, 21; 36:7, 8,13,
16,24;40:13;43:7; 52:9
way 14:15; 19:14;27:16;
28:13
weeks 42:15
wellhead 26:18; 28:14;
40:15, 20;53:~, 7,10
wells 24:6, 15;49:14
weren't 42:11, 12
west 21:20
wet 43:23
Whereupon 55:8
withdraw 16:18; 22:11;
36:18;38:8,12
within 9:3: 30:13: 37:18;
49:16: 53:9
wltnesa 3:9
word ~9:13: 8:2
work6:12.12:7:4, 5, 20;
8:10: 13:11.15: 14:15, 2U:
15:15: 16:16, 17; 20:11,
14;21:8:24:2,12:26:18;
32:6,12:38:16,19;45:8,
10: ~8:\8, 23: 52:14,15:
13:2: 16:3: 25:1; 28:23, 25;
45:7
writing 33:25
wrll1en 14:10,19.23:
30:14
wrong 26:5
y
year 7:23. 23; 9:3; 31:20,
22: 5:25;6:5:8:16, 2~:9:8;
47:21
yellow 21:10
Yerger ~7:5, 7
yesterday 5:~
York ~5:IO, II
z
Min-U.Saipt0 Filius & McLucas Iteportlng Service, Inc.
Zeehandelaer 27:15
(,
~....,
>- C") ~
c;-. .::r
j:'~ a. 7~t.~
10
L11)-:" .-
<..<:-; .'.- '.)";;.c'
P.'--- ..:r. :~:l2
J.. Jt:
~R ".
i N ;'~I f/~
\ u. .:::;,::
~IU .~
rL::t.: u::: ~~ :t~
.... ....,
IL ..:r
C:~
0 = (,)
'"
~.
~