Defense experts dismantle the private analysis of Stratvs waters: "We put what the client says"

Two technicians from the laboratory hired by Rosa state that it is "impossible to know" where the samples they analyzed came from, because BTL provided them. Furthermore, they deny Duchemín's version of another previous report carried out by this company, which he decided to "trust," according to him.

June 22 2020 (19:19 WEST)
Defense experts dismantle the private analysis of Stratvs waters: "We put what the client says"
Defense experts dismantle the private analysis of Stratvs waters: "We put what the client says"

The Stratvs case trial has resumed this Monday after the forced break due to the state of alarm, and it has done so with the declaration of seven experts, two of them requested by the defense of the former manager of the Island Water Council, José Juan Hernández Duchemín. However, although the defense intended to use these testimonies to deny that there was contamination in the winery's wastewater, based on reports prepared at the time by a private laboratory, the statements have confirmed the total absence of control over these discharges.

"It is impossible to know where the sample was taken. The data is given to us by the company," declared one of the two technicians who worked in that laboratory as an agricultural engineer, Miriam Bautista, who explained that in other cases the laboratory itself goes to collect the samples. However, here it was BTL Lanzarote who brought the water in a two-liter plastic bottle, and they simply analyzed it, without knowing where it came from.

"We put what the client tells us," said the head of the laboratory service, Marisol Orgaz, who has a degree in Chemical Sciences. Orgaz signed those reports, but when questioned by both Hernández Duchemín's lawyer and Juan Francisco Rosa, she insisted on emphasizing that she only analyzed a sample brought by the client, in this case BTL Lanzarote, and therefore cannot confirm where that water came from.

 

The Council ordered monthly analyses that were never carried out


Before these three analyses, the case file contains another one carried out in 2008 by the Island Water Council itself, which did confirm the existence of polluting parameters. In fact, initially Hernández Duchemín informed BTL Lanzarote that the winery's purification system did not comply with the regulations and informed them that in order to grant the legalization of the discharges, they should install a purification system. However, when Rosa requested a provisional authorization shortly after, Duchemín reported favorably.

That permit established that monthly analyses should be carried out to "guarantee the quality of the water," but the Council never went to take new samples or carry out any further inspections at the facilities. It was Juan Francisco Rosa himself who provided a total of three analyses to the Council - not even on a monthly basis - but carried out by a private laboratory that cannot even prove where that water came from. In fact, their reports indicated that the sample had been "provided by the petitioner." Furthermore, when that provisional permit expired, the Council did not take any measures and the winery continued to operate for years, until it was closed by court order, as a precautionary measure within this case.

 

A project to "comply with regulations" that was never executed


In his statement as an accused during the first days of the trial, Hernández Duchemín justified his actions by clinging to a report from this same private laboratory, but its scope has also been questioned by the defense's own expert, who was the one who prepared it. According to Duchemín, that report provided by Rosa "stated that they were already treating the discharges and that BTL had commissioned the installation of a treatment plant," and he claimed that this is why he decided to "trust" and report favorably to the granting of a provisional authorization.

However, when his lawyer asked one of the experts about this point, she categorically denied it. "A study was done to improve the quality of the water, but work was not actually done. Only a proposal was made," Miriam Bautista specified. "Nothing was installed. Only the equipment that would be needed for that water to comply with current regulations was technically designed," she reiterated, making it clear that the water did not comply with those regulations, and that the works that Rosa had committed to carry out, which included the installation of a treatment plant, were never undertaken. "They neither bought it from us nor commissioned it from us," the expert stated, insisting that that report was only a proposal for a project that they never executed.

 

"The water was very loaded and the amount of solid had to be reduced"


Regarding the supposed "treatment" of the water that, according to Duchemín, was reported in that report, the technician has also denied it. In fact, she specified that the only thing that is recorded in her opinion is that a chemical treatment had to be done at the time of taking the samples. "The water was very loaded and what was done was a treatment to reduce the amount of solid, in order to be able to take the sample," she specified. Afterwards, with that analysis that they did take, they prepared a proposal "to do a complete treatment," "so that the final effluent would comply with the regulations," but that project was never executed.

Later, when Rosa requested a provisional authorization based on that private report, the same laboratory carried out other analyses, but with samples provided by the property. "When a client brings us the sample, we put what the client tells us. There is a big difference when we collect the sample or when the client brings it," said the expert who did those analyses.

In this regard, Rosa's lawyer has argued that it was not the winery's property that provided the samples, but the two technicians have referred to the reports that indicate otherwise. "The client is BTL Lanzarote," "an invoice is made in their name", they indicated.

Most read