UM Grace Case

EPA on-site coordinator Paul Peronard endured two and a half hours of questioning only to be told he would not be allowed to testify on any scientific information or give his opinion.

The defense lawyers tag-teamed against Peronard for the majority of the time, trying to chip holes in both his expertise and his credibility. Peronard appeared weary or perhaps frustrated, at times stroking his forehead as he listened and squinting at the computer monitor when asked to view some piece of evidence. But if the defense hoped to wear him down, it appeared that they failed.

Peronard testified that he had worked as the on-site coordinator for the Libby contamination from 1999 to 2004. He was replaced by Jim Christiansen but returned again from 2006 to 2008 after Christiansen left. He submitted his first referral to the criminal investigations division of the EPA in 2000. The resulting conversation with an investigator was very short, only about 10 minutes, and he never heard anything afterward. He made another more formal report to criminal investigations in 2004, after the completion of the Libby civil case.

Peronard said the main thing that prompted his 2000 referral was the discrepancy between the responses given by Grace on an official questionnaire (104E) and the data found in the documents they had to surrender regarding the concentration of asbestos fibers in the air. He was also compelled to file by input from Libby residents. 

In both cases, when the defense questioned his motive, he said he made the referrals as both an EPA employee and as a concerned citizen. When the defense attempted to demonstrate that he had ulterior motives in his official capacity for trying to push a criminal investigation, he said, “If you think there’s a crime, anyone can make a referral.”

The defense focused on the time between 2001, when Peronard was documented as discussing the criminal aspect with others, and 2004, when he finally filed again. They asked if he had collected samples during that time in support of a criminal case and he said no. Asked if he has been working “hand-in-glove” with the prosecution, he denied it although he has spent a lot of time preparing for the case.

Finally, they tried to get Peronard to say that, based upon communications within the EPA, people had been trying to couch their language during that time so as to support a criminal charge against Grace. But the defense attorney’s language itself was so couched that Peronard had to ask him to repeat the question twice. At last the attorney translated, “Were you doctoring the books anywhere else in the government?” Peronard had no trouble understanding that and said he couldn’t speak for anyone else.

Peronard remained courteous in his answers and tried to be clear. Any iffy responses were redeemed when finally the prosecution questioned him and had him reiterate specific points that had been muddled by the defense’s questioning.

Molloy asked him about his documented anger toward the fact that the government let certain issues fall through the cracks, which lead to the tragedy in Libby. Peronard’s honest answer seemed to satisfy Molloy as did most of the testimony he gave. While Molloy agreed that Peronard was not a scientist and therefore would not be allowed to testify on scientific details, he was found credible in spite of the defense’s efforts. He will testify as an expert in being an on-site coordinator.

- Laura L. Lundquist