Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - Toxic Substances

Exxon Contaminates NYC Water

Paul Thomson — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 08:30:00 GMT

Exxon Mobil was found guilty of contaminating groundwater in New York City with M.T.B.E., a substance that makes gas burn cleaner, but also dissolves easily into water. Although health risks from consuming M.T.B.E. are unclear, it causes the water to have an odor and taste so bad that the water is not drinkable! NYC asked for compensation for construction of several water treatment plants to make well water in Queens drinkable. The city was awarded $105 million. A New York Times article quotes the city's head lawyer, Vic Sher, who said the decision "sends a clear signal that juries have no tolerance for big oil companies whose products pollute drinking water and that these companies have an obligation to take steps to make sure this kind of pollution doesn’t happen."

Unfortunately, Exxon refuses to take responsibility for the pollution. They continue to deny that the M.T.B.E. contamination was caused by them, regardless of the fact that 23 other oil companies have made settlements with the city. Although the money will help prevent citizens from having to pay for the water treatment, it's too bad that Exxon disregards our environment and the health of their customers. Water is a precious resource and we--including Exxon--must take care of it!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Paul Thomson

Toxic Water Is Major Problem In US Cities

Greg Webb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 21:32:54 GMT

Residents in an area near Charleston, West Virginia have started to avoid contact with tap water after scabs began developing on their arms, legs and chests where the bathwater, which is polluted with lead, nickel and other heavy metals, caused painful rashes. The residents also began complaining of increased health problems, such as losing the enamel on their teeth, gall bladder diseases, fertility problems, miscarriages and kidney and thyroid issues. Tests have shown tap water contains arsenic, lead, magnesium, barium and other chemicals at concentrations that federal regulators say could contribute to cancer and damage to the kidneys and nervous system. A survey of more than 100 residents conducted by a nurse, who was hired by a lawyer representing a resident in a lawsuit regarding the dangerous water quality, indicated that as many as thirty percent of people in this area have had their gallbladders removed, and as many as half the residents have significant tooth enamel damage, chronic stomach problems and other illnesses.

The contamination began when nearby coal companies began pumping sludge, or leftover liquid used to wash coal of its impurities, into the ground, contaminating ground water. According to state reports, the companies injected about 1.9 billion gallons of waste into the ground since 2004; millions of gallons were also dumped into lagoons. These injections have contained chemicals at concentrations that pose serious health risks and break not only the federal law but state laws as well. Sometimes these amounts exceeded the imposed limit by as much as one thousand percent. Due to the dangers posed by the water, two hundred and sixty people sued nine nearby coal companies, accusing them of putting dangerous waste in local water supplies. It is very hard to hold a company responsible, however, since it is hard to tell what company put which contaminants in the ground and caused the most problems. As required by state law, some of the coal companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping illegal concentrations of chemicals, the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps, into the ground; state regulators did not punish the companies, however, for breaking these pollution laws, nor were they warned that their activities had been noticed. When asked why the illegal activity had been ignored, West Virginia officials said the issue was accidently overlooked but their studies suggest the contamination would not have affected drinking water in the area.

This pattern is unfortunately not limited to West Virginia. According to a study in the scientific journal Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, an estimated 19.5 million Americans become ill each year from drinking water that contains parasites, bacteria or viruses. This figure does not include illnesses caused by contaminants or toxins. About forty years ago, Congress passed the Clean Water Act as a way to force polluters to disclose the toxins they dump into bodies of water and to give regulators the power to fine or jail offenders. Many states also passed their own versions of the law, though an extensive report by the New York Times showed violations of the act have risen steadily across the nation. For example, since 2004, manufacturing plants, chemical factories and other workplaces have violated water pollution laws more than half a million times. This number only accounts for violations reported by the companies themselves; illegal violations would increase the figure dramatically. These violations include failure to report emissions to dumping toxins that regulators fear may cause birth defects, cancer and other illnesses. Though some of the violations were minor, about sixty percent of the polluters were deemed in “significant non-compliance”, meaning their violations were the most serious kind, for example dumping cancer-causing materials into the water. The report also showed that only three percent of the polluters have faced punishment from either the state or the Environment Protection Agency (EPA), which can prosecute polluters when states fail to act. The EPA has faced scrutiny following the dissemination, through leaks and the Freedom of Information Act, of memos labeled “DO NOT DISTRIBUTE”, which showed federal regulators were aware that more than thirty states had companies that were violating pollution laws. Another memo showed the EPA was aware that the “states’ personnel lack direction, ability or training” to levy fines large enough to deter and punish polluters. Still, other memos explained that the agency was not going to correct the problems out of fear that it would risk its relationships with the states.

Many state and federal legislators claim they had no idea the pollution was so widespread and have vowed to make appropriate changes. In one controversial case in West Virginia, however, a state official attempted to close polluted mines and was then fired from his job, creating a bureaucracy clambering for job security. Since this time, hundreds of workplaces in West Virginia have violated pollution legislation without paying fines. Six current and former employees said their enforcement efforts had been undermined by bureaucratic disorganization, a departmental preference allowing polluters to escape punishment if they promise to try harder, and a revolving door of regulators who leave for higher-paying jobs at the companies they once regulated. Many state officials are defending their efforts, pointing out that there has been a ten percent increase in the number of cease-operation orders issued by regulators from 2006 to 2008.

Since it is difficult to determine what pollutants cause diseases like cancer, it is impossible to know how many illnesses are caused by water pollution or the contaminants’ role in the health problems of specific individuals. However, concern over contaminants are great enough that the EPA and Congress regulate more than one hundred pollutants through the Clean Water Act and strictly limit ninety-one chemicals or contaminants in drinking water through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Lisa P. Jackson, the new EPA administrator, has acknowledged the fact that despite the Clean Water Act’s many successes, the nation’s water does not currently meet public health goals. She also recognizes the enforcement of water pollution is very low, but has made it one of her top priorities to strengthen water protections and pressure states to enforce the law; state officials claim they are doing all they can with the limited resources provided.

Though the number of regulated facilities has more than doubled in the last ten years, many state enforcement budgets have remained basically flat when adjusted for inflation. For example, in New York, the number of regulated polluters has almost doubled to 19,000 in the last ten years, but the number of annual inspections has remained about the same. Limited state budgets are only part of the problem. The New York Time’s investigation also found that in states, such as West Virginia, with powerful industries, the companies lobby for and are awarded relaxed regulation. State officials also point out that water pollution statistics include minor, non-life threatening infractions, such as failing to file reports.

The New York Times research was turned into a database, and can be accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/toxicwaters. That research showed an estimated one in ten Americans have been exposed to drinking water that contains hazardous chemicals, including carcinogens, or fails to meet a federal health benchmark in other ways; wells, which are not typically regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, are more likely to contain dangerous contaminants than municipal water systems. The research also showed that last year, forty percent of the nation’s community water systems violated the Safe Drinking Water Act once. The violations ranged from failing to maintain proper paperwork to allowing carcinogens into tap water. Therefore, more than 23 million people received drinking water from municipal systems that violated a health-based standard. Following this study by the Times, West Virginia officials have declared a statewide moratorium on issuing injection permits and told some companies that regulators were investigating their injections.

Lawmakers and environmental activists claim the best solution to the problem is for Congress to hold the EPA and states accountable for their failures. They also believe the Clean Water Act should be expanded to police other types of pollution, such as farm and livestock runoff, since they are largely unregulated and the government should give state agencies more resources. Many experts do not believe major change will happen, however, until there is a large public outcry.

Unfortunately, the people usually affected by these polluters, these large, powerful, corporate interests, are people who do not have the means to combat the power and money arrayed against them. That is precisely why, in many instances, the polluters located and dumped in the locations they did - because they believed they could get away with the behavior. And, in many cases, they have gotten away with it, with the exception of a slap on the wrist - a fine that amounts to little more than lunch money for many of these corporations.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

EPA Declares Public Emergency Due To Asbestos At Montana Mine

Greg Webb — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:23:05 GMT

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared its first-ever “public emergency,” stating the federal government will give $6 million to the health authority in Lincoln County, Montana to provide medical care to people who were sickened by asbestos from a mine. The money is intended to pay for what insurance will not, and cover the medical bills of people without insurance. The declaration applies to the towns of Libby and Troy, where for decades workers in the town mined for vermiculite, a mineral used in insulation. Unknowingly, the workers were poisoning themselves because the vermiculite contained a toxic form of asbestos, which the workers carried home on their clothes.

Although the two towns’ combined population is only 3,900, the Department of Health and Human Services estimates about 500 residents have asbestos-related illnesses such as lung cancer and asbestosis. A department spokesperson estimates fifty new cases are diagnosed every year, including some in family members who never stepped foot in the mine. Senator Jon Tester of Montana claims no family in the area has escaped exposure.

The EPA’s announcement came about six weeks after a Montana jury acquitted the chemical company W.R. Grace and three of its executives on charges that they withheld important information regarding the dangers of the mine. W.R. Grace ran the mine from 1963 until it closed in 1990, though vermiculite had been removed from the mine since the early 20^th century. Although the Department of Health and Human Services has spent about $46 million in the past ten years for diagnostic screening programs and paying to improve health care, the new $6 million is to be given directly to patients.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Provision In Obama’s Spending Bill Strengthens Chemical Disclosures

Greg Webb — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 13:22:04 GMT

In a little-noticed provision of President Obama’s spending bill, companies will now have to provide more detailed disclosure of the toxic chemicals they release into the environment. This measure overturns a 2006 regulation passed by President Bush that eased the requirements for almost six hundred chemicals and will affect oil refineries, chemical manufacturers, automakers and electronic manufacturers nationwide. It restores the previous standard, established by law in 1986, which requires all facilities to inform the public about any chemical releases that total five hundred pounds a year or more, as opposed to Bush’s two thousand pound threshold. Because of their high number of chemical plants, New Jersey and California are the states most affected by the change. Under the Bush rule, more than 3,500 facilities did not have to report detailed information about their toxic chemical emissions and waste management practices.

Officials from the affected industries estimate that they spend $650 million a year obeying the current requirements. They argue the changes put in place by the Bush administration lowered their regulatory burden without posing a danger to Americans’ health and the new measure may impose substantial compliance costs. Environmental activists, on the other hand, argue that the provision is important because it gives companies incentive to decrease toxic emissions and helps provoke communities to mobilize for a cleaner environment.

The previous law, referred to above, was signed into law by President Reagan. If it was OK for Reagan, why was it bad for Mr. Bush? The law was not broken before, so it is not broken now that President Obama seeks to reinstate it. Corporate interests, i.e., big money, had the ear of the previous administration, and that is the reason Mr. Bush reversed Mr. Reagan.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Number of Hospital-Acquired Drug-Resistant Bacteria Growing

Greg Webb — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 08:00:00 GMT

More strains of drug-resistant bacteria have been cropping up, rivaling the superbug MRSA that has been making recent headlines. Anicetobacter baumannii, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Klebsiella pneumoniae belong to category of bacteria called “gram-negative.” These bacteria are difficult to fight because they are wrapped in a double membrane and harbor enzymes that chew up many antibiotics.

While some drugs are still available to treat MRSA, the drugs used to treat gram-negative bacteria are becoming ineffective. Antibiotics known as carbapenems have been the drug of last resort for gram-negatives, but the bugs have developed a way to make an enzyme that dissolves the drugs.

As the best drugs fail, doctors are turning to more dangerous, toxic drugs to treat the infections such as colistin, which side effects include kidney damage and deafness.

Infections from these three bugs are not reportable by law, but voluntary reports in 2002 identified 104,000 gram-negative infections that were resistant to at least some antibiotics. That same year, there were 102,000 MRSA infections reported.

Gram-negative bacteria are harmless to healthy people but infect already-damaged tissue. They enter the body by way of ventilator tubes, catheters, open wounds and burns, causing pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and bone, join and bloodstream infections.

Drug-resistant Pseudomonas caused the death of Brazilian beauty queen Mariana Bridi, who died of sepsis after doctors tried to contain the rampaging infection by amputating her feet and hands and removing her kidneys.

These three gram-negative strains, along with Escherichia coli are among the six leading causes of infections in hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare settings. Resistant strains are on the rise throughout the United States.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Supreme Court To Consider Bankruptcy Court’s Power Due To Asbestos-Related Lawsuits

Greg Webb — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 08:00:00 GMT

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider reinstating a $500 million settlement of asbestos-related lawsuits against the Travelers Company Inc.. This settlement would prevent any further lawsuits from being filed against Travelers arising out of the company’s extensive relationship with Johns Manville Corp., which was once the world’s largest producer of asbestos.

Asbestos was used in the 1970s for insulation and fireproofing material. According to federal health agencies, exposure can increase the likelihood of lung cancer, mesothelioma and other health ailments. Travelers Company Inc. has been named in numerous lawsuits claiming it tried to conceal the dangerous health effects of asbestos. The company has argued that the lawsuit claims should come from a trust set up by Johns Manville in the 1980s, which was approved by a federal bankruptcy judge; money for the trust came largely from insurers. Travelers agreed to settle with several plaintiffs as long as federal courts made it clear that they would not face similar lawsuits in the future. The 2nd United States Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reversed lower-court approval of the agreement, stating a bankruptcy judge does not have the authority to act so broadly. In March, the justices will consider the question of the bankruptcy court's power.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Air Outside of Schools Nationwide May Contain Toxic Chemicals

Greg Webb — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 08:00:00 GMT

Toxic chemicals pollute the air outside of hundreds of thousands of schools around the nation, threatening the health of the students at those locations, according to an analysis by USA TODAY.

outside air samples showed high levels of chemicals coming from the plastics plant across the street. The Ohio EPA found that the risk of getting cancer there was 50 times higher than what is considered acceptable by the state.

industrial pollution on the air outside schools across the U.S., they found that 435 other schools appear to have even worse air quality than Hitchens. The model USA TODAY used is a computer simulation that predicts the path of toxic chemicals released by companies. The Environmental Protection Agency has never undertaken that task.

manganese, a metal that can cause mental and emotional problems after long exposures, nickel, which can harm lungs and cause cancer, and other toxic gases and metals.

harmful to adults, the effect on children is not as clear. Children are more susceptible to the dangers of chemicals in the air because they breathe more air in proportion to their weight than adults do, and their bodies are still developing. Most children spend years at school, but the long-term effects of the chemicals are still unknown.

cancer several years after graduating. Seventeen have reached legal settlements with petrochemical plants located less than one mile from the school. The plants released butadiene for decades, sometimes so much that it formed sweet-smelling clouds over the roads near the school.

pollution models that could help identify schools in danger of high levels of toxic chemicals, but the Agency has not used the models to look for these “toxic hot spots.”

Risk-Screening Environmental Indicators, estimates how toxic chemicals are dispersed and in what quantities. USA TODAY plotted the location of schools to rank them based on the likelihood of chemicals in the air outside. USA TODAY noted that some schools and/or companies may have moved or closed, and some may have opened, since the EPA collected the data.

safety standards for adults in the workplace, there are no such regulations for schools, said Ramona Trovato, the former director of the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection.

butadiene more than four times higher than the state’s standards. In 1999 another investigation was initiated by the Commission on Environmental Quality.

Workers monitoring the air reported dizziness, nausea, and “facial numbness.” A third report in 2003 found butadiene levels up to 120 times higher than the state’s standards. Once the state prompted the plants to upgrade their equipment, the levels of butadiene dropped sharply. However, the Commission never spoke with school officials about the results.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Federal Judge OKs Exxon Oil Spill Payment Of $151 Million

Greg Webb — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:36:20 GMT

A federal judge has stated that the thousands of Alaskan fishermen and other plaintiffs involved in the Exxon Valdez oil spill lawsuit should receive their portion of the punitive damages. The judge, H. Russel Holland, ordered the release of $151 million of the $383 million settlement stemming from the lawsuit that took place over twenty years ago. The remaining $232 million will be distributed later.

Under the agreement, $383 million was to be distributed to over 33,000 commercial fishermen and others who sued Exxon in 1989 after the crude oil spill in the Prince William Sound. A jury in 1994 awarded the plaintiffs $5 billion. The Supreme Court, however, reduced the award to $507 million. It is now being debated whether Exxon should have to pay interest, which would add an estimated $488 million. The plaintiffs attorney expects the money to be delivered sometime this week.

Exxon has already been given a huge discount by the Supreme Court when the Court eliminated the vast majority of the punitive damages. Paying interest to the fisherman seems fair, given Exxon's strategy of delaying this matter for nearly 20 years. Such a strategy should not be rewarded by allowing Exxon to avoid interest payments. Let's hope the interest debate is so decided.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Supreme Court Decreases Damage Award in Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Disaster

Greg Webb — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 21:00:40 GMT

The Supreme Court has decreased the punitive damage award in the Exxon Valdez disaster from $2.5 billion to $500 million. The Court, however, split on the decision of whether or not punitive damages should be awarded at all, which leaves the appeals court decision ruling Exxon liable. The decision to decrease the damage award could have broader implications for constraining the amount of money a court can order businesses to pay. Plaintiff attorneys, on the other hand, say this decision will apply solely to cases involving maritime law.

Exxon Valdez was the worst oil spill in United States history. This disaster occurred when a supertanker dumped eleven million gallons of crude oil into Alaska ’s Prince William Sound , polluting 1,200 miles of coastline and killing hundreds of thousands of animals. In 1994, a jury ordered Exxon to pay $5 billion in punitive damages, though a federal appeals court cut that award in half in 2006. Exxon further asked the Supreme Court to get rid of the punitive damage settlement altogether since the company already paid $3.4 billion to clean the area and compensate Native Alaskans, landowners and commercial fishermen. The Court has since ordered the 33,000 victims who filed a claim against the company to receive $15,000 each. The $15,000, however, does not account for any emotional-distress damages.

Supreme Court Justice David Souter wrote for the court saying punitive damages could not exceed what Exxon had already paid to compensate the victims for their economic losses, $507.5 million. This amount is equal to only four days of the company’s profit from last quarter. Souter also stated the Valdez case involves reckless action that was profitless for the company and a penalty should be reasonably predictable in its severity. In a dissenting opinion, however, Justice John Paul Stevens supported $2.5 billion in punitive damages, pointing out that Congress has yet to impose restrictions in such situations. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg also dissented, claiming the court was engaging in lawmaking. She claims the decision by the Court should have been left to Congress. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5856419.html

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Nuclear Plant Contractors Ordered To Pay Damages

Greg Webb — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 20:23:17 GMT

Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International Corp., two companies that were contractors at the now defunct Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant, have been ordered to pay $925 million to residents who claimed plutonium contamination from the facility has endangered their health and devalued their property. The lawsuit, filed by a group of homeowners, affects up to 13,000 people who owned land close to the former plant when it shut down in 1989 due to safety violations. It claimed the companies purposely mishandled radioactive waste and then proceeded to cover it up. Violations documented by state and federal officials included the outdoor storage of barrels of waste oil and solvents that were contaminated with plutonium. State health officials believe some of these barrels leaked and contaminated the surrounding soil, which later blew downwind.

Judge John L. Kane ordered Dow to pay $653 million and Rockwell to pay $508 million in compensatory damages. However, he capped the amount to be collected at $725 million. Rockwell and Dow were also instructed to pay exemplary damages of $111 million and $89 million, respectively. Dow has denied any wrongdoing and is seeking an appeal, while Rockwell, which has been partly purchased by Boeing Co., said it had no liability for the site. Judge Kane ordered Boeing responsible for Rockwell’s portion of the judgment. Both companies’ spokesmen have claimed the Department of Energy has agreed to be responsible for any judgment costs or settlements. So far, the federal government has spent $7 billion dollars to clean up the area and turn it into a wildlife refuge. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-ap-rocky-flats-lawsuit,1,3366946.story

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb