Sorry for the delay, we had some technical issues.
This is a guest post from Bruce Pasfield, with Alston & Bird.
Friday afternoon resumed the direct of John Tuma. As the first order of business, the judge granted Mr. Tuma’s previous request allowing limited direct examination to explain the operability of the treatment system to refute testimony from company employees who said it was a sham. Mr. Boren then led Mr. Tuma through a diagram showing the different steps of the treatment process and how each step worked and what treatment it provided. Mr. Tuma claimed that the treatment system worked as expected. Mr. Boren then guided Mr. Tuma through a meticulous (or painstakingly slow
depending on your point of view) review of pictures and diagrams of the river discharge line from the point it went through the flow meter and compositor to the point where it left the property. Mr. Tuma testified that it would have been impossible for the employees to have introduced untreated wastewater to that line at any point past the flow meter and compositor. Mr. Boren also attempted to use a replica of the valve that controlled discharges to the city to establish that it could not have been tampered with by employees in order to discharged untreated wastewater. Judge Stagg denied this request because of differences in the replica and the actually valve. Mr. Tuma did say that if the valve had only been partially open, he did not think it would have been possible to discharge the quantities of untreated wastewater that the employees claimed they had discharged.
Mr. Boren then guided Mr. Tuma through a diagram that Mr. Tuma had created showing the intended flow of the recirculation line. Mr. Tuma explained that the recirculation line had not been completed but that when finished, it would have allowed the company to recirculate wastewater from a point past the flow meter back into the treatment system either to the beginning of the treatment process or to intermediate points. Mr. Tuma explained that the two pipes that had been welded together in the raised pipe rack allowed for this recirculation. Mr. Tuma also said at the time he left the company, there was no cap on one of the recirculation pipes and that without the cap water would have run out the end of the pipe. Mr. Tuma said that if an employee had used the recirculation system before it was complete, wastewater put through the system would have wound up on the ground. Mr. Tuma said that he had not instructed Cage to put wastewater through the recirculation system prior to its completion and that Cage understood the treatment system well enough to do his job.
After Mr. Boren finished working Mr. Tuma through the intricacies of the treatment system, he began asking him about his response to USEPA inspector AuBuchon’s inspections. Mr. Tuma explained that when he first returned to the plant to respond to AuBuchon’s June inspection, he tried to get the plant up and running. He explained that he had not been ignoring AuBuchon’s presence in the office for an hour and a half as much as he was trying to get the treatment system working. Mr. Tuma then allowed it would have taken him half a day to actually get it up and running.
Mr. Tuma’s direct testimony was completed by the end of the day. Mr. Tuma’s cross examination is expected to start Monday morning.
More later.
As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.
WDJiii