US v. John Emerson Tuma – Day Six – Morning Session
The government began the cross-examination of John Tuma during the morning session. Overall, the focus of the cross-examination appeared to address inconsistencies with John Tuma’s explanation of the treatment process, piping at the facility, and the investigation of the allegations of unlawful discharges in light of the testimony of prior witnesses. Specifically, the government began a running list of prior witnesses whose testimony directly contradicted that of John Tuma, who were then referred to as witnesses who John Tuma believed were “mistaken” or “liars.” The manner of showing these inconsistencies appeared effective, as the list grew when John Tuma was asked to explaining why a particular prior witness’ testimony did not support his explanation of how the ARKLA facility was run under his leadership.
Specific areas of inquiry by the government focused on the discrepancies with ARKLA’s report of analytical samples and discharges to the City POTW. Ms. Griffing walked Mr. Tuma through several examples of reports that he filed with the City of Shreveport where the analytical submitted before discharge did not match the City’s own grab samples for the same discharge. Ms. Griffing also walked Mr. Tuma through additional examples where observed discharge times from the facility did not match the reported time for discharge by ARKLA.
The government also attempted to discredit Mr. Tuma’s contention that is was not possible to unlawfully discharge to the Red River because of the configuration of piping in the facility and Mr. Tuma’s assertion that the outfield to the Red River was capped. Using the prior testimony of various ARKLA employees (and Republic Contractor employees) the government established that Mr. Tuma’s contentions were contradicted by several other witnesses who have already testified. In short, it’s their word against his.
The government also took issue with John Tuma’s own diagram that was presented Friday during direct testimony to explain the fused three-inch and six-inch lines welded together by E.A. Rowe. Mr. Tuma contended that the pipes were purpose-built to allow re-circulation of treated wastewater for further “polishing” before discharge from the facility. When presented with the prior testimony of E.A. Rowe that he had never created such a pipe in his many years as a welder, Mr. Tuma responded that the type of weld was common in the industry. The government, however, demonstrated that there were not any written plans for such pipe in the various records subpoenaed by the government, to include CCS’s documents and Republic Contractor’s document.
The government spent some time also addressing the USEPA’s inspection of the ARKLA facility in April 2007 and June 2007. The government confronted Mr. Tuma with the prior testimony of Wayne Mallet and Cody Tuma who testified that Mr. Tuma had instructed them on matters to interfere with AuBuchon’s attempts to witness a discharge to the Red River during the June 2007 inspection. The previous testimony of Wayne Mallet and Cody Tuma was that they were instructed to fake a pump cavitation by Mr. Tuma, and Cody Tuma was instructed to open valves at the Port tanks to explain the untreated wastewater stored in those tanks. Mr. Tuma’s explanation was that both Mr. Mallet and Cody Tuma lied during their respective testimony and that any such actions were not directed by him, as he was out of the country at the time on business. Mr. Tuma also testified during cross-examination that Mr. AuBuchon’s description of the USEPA’s two inspections were inaccurate.
The government passed the witness, and the Court recessed the proceedings for lunch.
More later.
As always, feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com.
WDJiii