US v. John Emerson Tuma – Trial – Day 2 – Morning Session
The trial got off to a relatively slow start. As a juror was late in showing up, Judge Stagg took up a few housekeeping matters, ruling on the admissibility of some of the exhibits.
The trial then began again in earnest. The government called Wayne Mallet to the stand. Mr. Mallet testified that he has known and worked with John Tuma for over twenty years and did consider him a friend. Mr. Mallet did enter into a proffer agreement with the government which was initially explored by the government’s lawyer. Essentially, it was a fairly standard proffer agreement in which Mr. Mallet acknowledged that he had not been offered and deals for his truthful testimony. Mr. Mallet then testified that he began working with John Tuma in 1995 through the time he and John Tuma were fired in October 2007. Mr. Mallet testified that initially the plant received four-to-five waste water trucks a day. The plant then got permission to accept E&P waste for treatment and that is when the facility started receiving 30-to-40 trucks a day and then upwards of 100 trucks per shift. Mr. Mallett testified that he was initially a truck driver but that he was then promoted to plant manager. He acknowledged that he received no training to be the plant manager.
Mr. Mallet testified that John Tuma was in charge of the facility and knew everything that went on in the facility. He testified that he and John Tuma talked at least once or twice a day and that John Tuma was at the plant almost every day. Mr. Mallet demonstrated on an exhibit the routes a truck would use coming into the facility. He testified that John Tuma would pay incentives to employees to unload more trucks, sometimes $100.00 for each employee on site, paid in $100 bills.
Mr. Mallet the testified regarding discharges to the City of Shreveport and to the Red River. Mr. Mallet testified that although the facility was allowed to discharge from Tank B1 to the City POTW, the facility actually discharged from another tank and discharged untreated water. The independent lab would come out and sample Tank B1 and once the results came back, the facility would not discharge from Tank B1 but would discharge from another tank. Mr. Mallet stated that the water in B1 was either well water from on-site or City water and was not treated waste water. As the City would put in new safeguards, John Tuma would find a way to bypass it. When the City put a meter on the line, the facility would discharge until the meter amount was reached and would then disconnect or bypass the meter. Mr. Mallet testified that the facility would only discharge from Tank B1 when someone showed up to observe a discharge. When asked why that occurred, Mr. Mallet stated that it was done “so we would be legal at the time.” He also testified it was done on the orders of John Tuma. When the City would show up, he would switch from whatever tank he was discharging from to Tank B1 to give the impression that the facility was discharging from the correct tank. Once the City put in a new compositor (under lock and key), the facility would discharge from Tank B1 only (the clean well water) to the City and everything else would go to the Red River.
Mr. Mallet testified that the facility discharged to the Red River on a daily basis. He also testified that he would go to the Red River several times a day to look for an oily sheen on the water. If he saw and oily sheen, he would squirt Dawn dishwashing soap on it to disperse the sheen. Mr. Mallet testified that the facility discharged from every tank to the Red River, all on the orders of John Tuma.
Mr. Mallet testified that the Port Tanks were used for storage of untreated waste water. The samples collected from the Port Tanks were done at a location set up by John Tuma which would actually be clean water.
When the USEPA showed up in June to undertake some sampling, Mr. Mallet testified that he faked a pump cavitation so no samples could be collected. Again, he testified that he did so on the orders of John Tuma. When a written explanation was requested, Mr. Mallet testified that he provided false information in the write up.
Mr. Mallet acknowledged that he drank on the job and on occasion smoked marijuana on the job. He also testified that his motivation to testify was that he wanted to clear his conscience.
John Tuma’s lawyer began his cross-examination at about 10:40 a.m.
The cross has focused on poking holes in Mr. Mallet’s testimony that no treatment ever took place. Mr. Mallet did admit that there was phased separation in that oil was skimmed off and sludges were disposed of at landfills. Mr. Tuma’s lawyer did a god job of outlining at least some treatment took place and tried to shake Mr. Mallet’s testimony that none of the treatment process worked. In fact, at one point during cross, Mr. Mallet testified “We were putting on a dog an pony show.” Mr. Mallet testified that when CCS showed up to see the facility, the employees were merely pretending to run the facility’s systems. When asked how that could be, Mr. Mallet stated that he never talked to anyone from CCS before the acquisition and that John Tuma did all the explaining.
Mr. Mallet did admit on cross hat he was upset with John Tuma after he got fired and call John Tuma seeking help. Mr. Mallet denied that he asked John Tuma to get him a lawyer. Mr. Mallet then testified that CCS provided him with a lawyer after he gave a statement to CCS during its internal investigation.
Mr. Mallet was steadfast in his testimony that there was no treatment in light of new and additional equipment being installed at the facility.
Mr. Mallet was also asked what employees were in on the discharges, responding to questions regarding several former employees. Mr. Mallet testified that certain employees, along with John Tuma tried to get the facility to operate correctly but could never get the system to work. The cross examination then reconfirmed that it was only well water or city water that went into Tank B1.
The morning session concluded with several questions regarding the City’s manway near the facility going through a number of photographs of the facility to assist the jury in orienting itself at the facility.
The morning session concluded at 11:50 a.m.
More later.
As always, please feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com
WDJiii