The following post is courtesy of Bruce Pasfield, at Alston & Bird.
The jury was selected – six men and six woman. The forts witness was then called in the environmental crimes trial of U.S. v. John Tuma. Tuma has been charged in five count indictment alleging conspiracy, clean water act and obstruction charges related to his operation of a wastewater treatment plant that serviced the oil and gas industry in Shreveport, Louisiana. The government and defense provided opening statements that had widely divergent views of the evidence of the alleged illegal discharges. AUSA Mignonne Griffing contended that the case against Tuma was in essence a fraud case in which Tuma had, for profit, illegally discharges untreated exploration and production (E & P) waste to the Red River. Griffing indicated that testimony about the illegal discharges would come from three former plant employees including John Tuma’s son, Cody Tuma (who recently plead guilty to a CWA offense). Tuma’s attorney, James Boren contended that the three plant employees where bald face liars when it came to the allegations of illegal discharges. Boren told the jury that Tuma had spent a considerable amount of money purchasing treatment equipment for the plant and that the plant had treated wastewater as intended.
First to the witness stand was USEPA inspector, Ken AuBuchon. AuBuchon explained that he had inspected the facility in April 2007 and found inconsistencies in the treatment process flow and in paperwork surrounding the discharges. The inconsistencies caused him to do an unannounced follow-up inspection in June 2007 in which he attempted to observe a discharge of the wastewater. AuBuchon stated that during the second inspection he encounter additional inconsistencies and was not able to ever observe a discharge. AuBuchon explained that his initial attempts to observe the discharge were unsuccessful because the plant experienced a malfunction with a pump that was used to pump the treated water to the discharge pipe. In opening statement, AUSA Griffing had argued that the pump problem was faked by plant employees at the direction of John Tuma to prevent AuBuchon from observing a discharge. When questioned, AuBuchon stated he had no knowledge of whether the pump problem had been faked or not. AuBuchon stated that later attempts to observe a discharge were thwarted because, according to Cody Tuma, a valve to the tank with the treated water to be discharged had been left open and had inadvertently contaminated with partially treated waste water that could not be discharged.
On cross-examination, Boren painstakingly went through the inconsistencies that AuBuchon had noted in his report. Boren brought out that many of these inconsistencies were based on conversations that AuBuchon had with Cody Tuma and Wayne Mallet, another plan employee that is expect to testify in the government’s case tomorrow.
More later.
As always, please feel free to contact me at walter.james@jamespllc.com
WDJiii