The TCE Blog
Trichloroethylene is everywhere. It causes cancer and other serious health problems. People deserve better protection.

HOME ABOUT ARCHIVES CONTACT

Friday, March 21, 2008

NRDC and Dickson residents file TCE lawsuit over landfill (TN)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, March 21, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
We learn this by way of the Environment News Service:
The Natural Resources Defense Council and two residents of Dickson, Tennessee have filed a lawsuit against the Dickson County and city governments. They allege that trichloroethylene, TCE, an industrial chemical disposed at the Dickson Landfill that has been linked to neurological and developmental harm and cancer, poses an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health and the environment.

Dickson, a town of some 12,000 people is located about 35 miles west of Nashville. [map]

The Dickson County Landfill, 74 acres off Eno Road, sits within 500 to 2,000 feet of approximately 40 homes, most owned by blacks. This community group is fighting to rid their area of contamination from the Dickson County landfill.

One African American family in particular, the Holts, a family of black landowners, has been especially harmed by the chemical. Many Holt family members are struggling with cancer and other illnesses, and two of its members are plaintiffs in this lawsuit.

The environmental group and Sheila Holt-Orsted and Beatrice Holt allege that TCE pollution has seeped beneath the landfill to underlying groundwater and has spread through a large area of Dickson County.

TCE contamination has rendered water from wells and springs as far as two to three miles from the landfill unfit for human consumption, the plaintiffs claim.

Polluted spring water is flowing directly into the West Piney River, a fishing stream and a major source of drinking water for the Water Authority of Dickson County. Several square miles of Dickson County have been recognized as an ‘imminent threat’ area by the county.

TCE contamination above drinking water limits, and orders of magnitude above U.S. Environmental Protection Agency screening levels for drinking water, has been found in at least one well even beyond that threat area.

In some areas, this TCE contamination may be growing worse, the plaintiffs claim, but the city and county have not done anything to remove the contamination.

"Some two decades after TCE was first detected in nearby drinking water sources, those responsible have not even fully characterized the present extent and likely future spread of the contamination. Defendants have, in effect, surrendered the ground and surface water of Dickson County to the slow spread of an invisible and toxic chemical," the complainants said in a statement.

The complaint asks the Court to require the defendants to investigate the present extent and future spread of TCE contamination from the landfill in the soil, surface water, and groundwater of Dickson County; to remediate and abate TCE contamination.

Holt-Orsted has undergone six surgeries and chemotherapy for breast cancer. The Holts originally filed lawsuits in 2003 and 2004, naming the city and county of Dickson and the state of Tennessee, and claiming the family was a victim of negligence that resulted in their cancers and other health problems.

Attorneys for the county and state deny the claims in the earlier lawsuits.

An article [entitled Deadly Tenessee Two-Step Pushes Leaky Landfill Away from Officials' Homes] by Robert Bullard, director of the Environmental Justice Resource Center at Clark Atlanta University in Atlanta, Georgia, gives background and detailed water test information.

3 toxic site clean-ups in Rochester/Brighton (NY)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, March 21, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Though the meetings announced in this article have since passed (the article was originally dated March 10), this Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article highlights 3 separate site clean-ups that are under way:
Costly taxpayer-financed plans to address toxic-chemical contamination in residential pockets of northeast Rochester and central Brighton will be detailed at separate public meetings this week.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation has scheduled a meeting for Tuesday evening to discuss a $1 million proposal to remove tainted soil and take other steps to address contamination at a now-closed business at Fernwood and Portland avenues in northeast Rochester.

The DEC first learned in 2000 that Preferred Electric Motors had spilled solvents and other potentially harmful materials in the course of its work refurbishing electric motors. Trichloroethene (TCE), tetrachloroethene (PCE) and other solvents are contaminating groundwater near the former business, prompting the state to install ventilation systems in two homes to guard against the build-up of toxic vapors.


Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Camp Lejeune attorneys have stopped taking new cases (NC)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, February 19, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Several readers have informed us of difficulties they have had in reaching the Camp Lejeune plaintiffs' lawyers that we mentioned in previous posts. We have recently learned why. According to the Anderson Pangia website:
Anderson Pangia & Associates, together with liason counsel Kevin Persio, continues to aggressively prosecute cases on behalf of those injured as a result of the water contamination at Camp Lejeune. However, due to limited resources and the need to focus on cases best positioned to test the legal and scientific issues in the litigation, please note that NEITHER ANDERSON, PANGIA NOR MR. PERSIO ARE ACCEPTING NEW CAMP LEJEUNE CASES AT THIS TIME. Please check this website periodically as this status may change. Thank you for your patience.
At this time, we are not aware of any other firms who have agreed to represent Camp Lejeune plaintiffs. We are, however, keeping our ear to the ground. We will provide an update here if we learn of any other firms getting involved. If you would like to be alerted directly when we learn more, drop us a quick note with your email address via the contact link above or send an email to tceblog [at] gmail.com.

Thursday, February 7, 2008

2nd wave of IBM TCE lawsuits filed (NY)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, February 7, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
According to the Press & Sun-Bulletin (NY):
A second wave of legal claims seeking damages from IBM Corp. related to pollution in Endicott has been filed in state Supreme Court in Binghamton, bringing the total to more than 240 plaintiffs, with more on the way.

The 82-page document representing 151 property owners and residents was filed electronically late Friday afternoon by Philip Johnson, an attorney with the Vestal law firm of Levene Gouldin & Thompson. Johnson is part of a team of seven law firms representing more than 1,000 clients in the massive toxic tort case against IBM seeking more than $100 million in damages for a range of hardships related to the pollution. They include cancer and other illnesses, property devaluation, loss of business, medical expenses and related monitoring, and hassles of dealing with the pollution.

The first wave of claims, representing 94 plaintiffs, was filed early last month.
Read the full story here.

TCE attorneys
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, February 7, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
According to Brooklyn Law School's Journal of Law and Policy:
Given the inability or unwillingness of the nation’s regulatory apparatus to address workplace hazards, litigation by [...] workers is a logical alternative. In fact, it may be the only means of compelling employers to protect their workers.
Not only is this true of workers, but it is true of communities as well.

Given the inability or unwillingness of the nation’s regulatory apparatus to address residential contamination and exposure hazards, litigation by TCE-impacted residents is a logical alternative. In fact, it may be the only means of keeping people safe from future harm.

In that spirit, and in support of TCE-impacted workers and residents nationwide, we have added a new feature to our right-hand sidebar: the names of (and links to) law firms that represent plaintiffs in TCE cases. Please note: The cities indicate where their practice is based, however many of these firms handle cases nationwide.

If you have questions about finding a TCE attorney, please fee free to contact us.

If you are an attorney who handles TCE cases (including toxic torts) and would like your firm listed, please let us know.

-----

[For search engine purposes: Toxic Torts]

Thursday, January 31, 2008

McCullom Lake cancer lawsuits multimedia presentation (IL)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, January 31, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Northwest Herald (IL) has created an outstanding multimedia presentation that tells the story of the McCullom Lake cancer lawsuits. And boy, what a way to tell the story!

They include video interviews with plaintiffs and with attorneys for both sides, map of the contamination area, documents associated with the lawsuit (including an important expert report from Redpath's Dr. Sidney Finkelstein that we will highlight at another time) and more.

For those interested in McCullom Lake, the causal connection between brain cancers and TCE/vinyl chloride/chlorinated solvent exposure, and legal actions for personal injuries caused by chlorinated ethylenes, we highly recommend you check it out.

Warning: The title of the presentation is "Coincidence or Cluster?" We believe this is a poorly-chosen title and it does not properly reflect the main issue in these suits. The main issue, as we understand it, is whether or not the defendants' chemicals caused the individual plaintiffs' cancers. Whether McCullom Lake's cancers can be considered a cancer cluster is a red herring. So please ignore the overly simplistic title, but do check out the presentation.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

EPA settles with defendants re: Groveland Superfund site (MA)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
According to EPA's recent press release:
Release date: 01/25/2008

Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017

(Boston, Mass. - Jan. 25, 2008) - The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts on January 9 entered a settlement agreement (Consent Decree) for the 850 acre Groveland Wells Nos. 1 and 2 Superfund site in Groveland, Mass [see map]. Settling with the United States, on behalf of EPA, is Groveland Resources Corp. and Valley Manufacturing Products Co.

Under the terms of the agreement, the Settling Defendants will pay 100 percent of the Net Sale or Net Lease Proceeds in the event their property on the Site is sold or leased to reimburse the United States for costs incurred at the site. The Settling Defendants will also be required to impose certain deed restrictions or institutional controls on the Site in order to protect EPA's cleanup actions at the site.

The Groveland Wells Site is located within a residential area in the southwestern part of the Town of Groveland. Valley Manufactured Products Co. manufactured screw products as well as metal and plastic parts from 1963 until 2001. The site is contaminated primarily with trichloroethene (TCE) which was used to clean (degrease) finished parts. TCE was released into the ground from a variety of sources including, underground storage tanks, underground disposal systems and intentional dumping. The Groveland site was added to EPA's National Priority List in September 1983. EPA has been conducting cleanup actions at the site that address the contamination in the soil and groundwater.

Contamination and litigation in Rialto (CA)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
In 1997, the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin, a source of drinking water to tens of thousands of San Bernardino County residents, was found to be contaminated by TCE and perchlorate. According to EPA, "the contamination has forced the closure of numerous public drinking water supply wells and caused hardships for Rialto, Colton and neighboring areas dependent on the basin for their drinking water." Ever since, the City of Rialto has attempted to treat the contaminated wells, remediate the perchlorate and TCE, and also recover costs for its efforts from a number of potentially responsible parties (PRP's).

In a 2005, when EPA granted the affected cities more than $400,000 towards the cost of clean-up, the San Bernardino Sun (CA) explained why this money was "just a drop in the bucket":
It costs more than $1 million to install perchlorate filters on a well, and about $500,000 a year for maintenance.
...
Fontana Water Co. General Manager Mike McGraw said the city spent about $3 million to set up treatment for two contaminated wells.
...
[Colton] has spent more than $4 million to date treating three wells for perchlorate, Medina said. He wouldn't rule out a rate increase.
...
Rialto is suing the Department of Defense and 42 of its contractors, as well as fireworks manufacturers, for perchlorate contamination. One defendant, B.F. Goodrich, gave $4 million to the cities and district.

Rialto has spent about $7.6 million on legal fees and cleanup. It is treating two of its wells for perchlorate contamination.
Fast forward to 2008. After spending nearly $20 million trying to "hold dozens of suspected polluters responsible," Rialto has just fired their city attorney (Bob Owens, who allegedly was quarterbacking Rialto's strategy for recovering costs from other polluters) and is facing significant uncertainty as it prepares to determine what's next.

Meanwhile, on the City of Rialto's website, in addition to tracking the latest clean-up/lawsuit news and developments, the following declaration appears:
The City will continue to provide the citizens of Rialto with clean, safe, and affordable drinking water. It will also pursue parties that are responsible for the perchlorate pollution to pay for the clean up of the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. It will repay Rialto’s ratepayers for the costs incurred in forcing the polluters to clean it up.

Henry Garcia, City Administrator
As always, we'll try to keep you posted.

Paper: A Fifty-State Survey of Medical Monitoring...
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
In researching a recent court decision in a TCE case (more on this later), we stumbled across this paper [PDF] from the William Mitchell Law Review, Vol 32, Issue 3, 2006. Written as guidance for the Minnesota Supreme Court, it reviews the legal concept of medical monitoring and identifies states where this claim is allowed in absence of physical injury or illness:
In “toxic tort” lawsuits, or claims brought as a result of exposure to hazardous substances, a typical plaintiff “alleges he has developed a disease because of exposure to a toxic substance negligently released by the defendant.” In some cases, however, the plaintiffs “seek to recover the costs of long-term diagnostic testing and medical examinations, which they claim are necessary to detect latent diseases or ailments that might later develop as a result of toxic exposure.” This novel theory of recovery is frequently labeled “medical monitoring.” Plaintiffs bringing claims for medical monitoring “seek post-exposure, pre-symptom recovery for the expense of periodic medical examinations to detect the onset of physical harm.” Plaintiffs who bring actions seeking the establishment of a medical monitoring fund may not suffer any current physical injuries and often do not even exhibit symptoms of disease as a result of their alleged exposure.

States That Allow Medical Monitoring in the Absence of Present Physical Injury

State
Authority
Arizona Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp., 752 P.2d 28 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987)
California Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 863 P.2d 795 (Cal. 1993)
Colorado Cook v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 755 F. Supp. 1468 (D. Colo. 1991)
Connecticut Martin v. Shell Oil Co., 180 F. Supp. 2d 313 (D. Conn. 2002)
District of Columbia Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 746 F.2d 816 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
Florida Petito v. A.H. Robins Co., 750 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
Guam Abuan v. Gen. Elec. Co., 3 F.3d 329 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1116 (1994)
Illinois Lewis v. Lead Indus. Ass’n, 793 N.E.2d 869 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003)
Montana Lamping v. Am. Home Prods., Inc., No. DV-97-85786 (Mont. 4th Dist. Ct. Feb. 2, 2000)
New Jersey Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson, 525 A.2d 287 (N.J. 1987)
New York Patton v. Gen. Signal Corp., 984 F. Supp. 666 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)
Ohio Day v. NLO, 851 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Ohio 1994)
Pennsylvania Redland Soccer Club, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Army, 696 A.2d 137 (Pa. 1997)
Utah Hansen v. Mountain Fuel Supply, 858 P.2d 970 (Utah 1993)
West Virginia Bower v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 522 S.E.2d
The article goes on to identify states where medical monitoring is not allowed absent a physical injury and also those states where the issue has not yet been decided (or where no test has been articulated).

Read more in Note: A Fifty-State Survey of Medical Monitoring and the Approach the Minnesota Supreme Court Should Take When Confronted with the Issue by D. Scott Aberson [PDF].

Friday, January 25, 2008

Updated Endicott Contamination Map
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, January 25, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Ok, well, not exactly. But we realized our old link to the map is no longer active. And we noticed lots of people arriving here while looking for a map of the plume/contamination area.

For now, this'll have to do. It's a map of the location of the offending IBM facility provided by NYS DEC:



Click the link or the pic for a better version at the source. If we find a better map, we'll update it here.

AVX backs down, will not threaten residents with retaliatory suit (SC)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, January 25, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
John Gilbertson, AVX Corp.'s chief executive officer, said Thursday his company will not seek money from residents of a neighborhood where the manufacturer has contaminated groundwater with a toxic chemical.
Read it here in the Sun News.

Wednesday, January 23, 2008

SLAPP - Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP's) are by nature retaliatory lawsuits. They are designed to stop people from speaking out or taking action. As Wikipedia tells us:
This form of litigation is frequently filed by organizations or individuals to intimidate and silence critics or opponents by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense so that they abandon their criticism or opposition. The acronym was coined in the 1980s by University of Denver professors Penelope Canan and George W. Pring [
Canan and Pring, cited by Wikipedia as coiners of the phrase, describe typical targets of these suits in their book, SLAPPs: Getting Sued for Speaking Out:
Our study confirms that these suits are a growing legal threat for concerned Americans who speak their minds on issues of importance to their communities, state, or nation:
  • every citizen who takes a stand on a public concern;
  • everyone who has ever been tempted to 'fight city hall';
  • everyone who has ever worked in a political campaign;
  • everyone who has ever felt like speaking up on a neighborhood issue;
  • everyone who supports a cause;
  • everyone who has ever stepped on powerful toes
  • everyone who cares if "government by the people' works in America.
Despite the potential initial shock value of a SLAPP, we learn from the Florida Specifier that SLAPPs are a poor strategy choice for industrial facilities facing citizen suits:
What not to do

One reaction to avoid when confronted with a citizen suit is filing a "strategic lawsuit against public participation." These SLAPP suits are legal actions that companies file against environmental groups or individuals that have no merit, and are instead filed to intimidate the plaintiffs into leaving the facility alone. If one of the plaintiffs happen to be a large national environmental group, such a lawsuit is not going to accomplish anything.

A long time ago, the national environmental groups adopted policies of never backing down to SLAPP suits. Even for small groups, their lawyers have likely been through the drill before and know that the only option is to continue to fight. In addition, the environmental community has considerable resources available to defend SLAPP suits and usually rallies around these situations. There is also the fact that SLAPP suits are an anti-democratic, bully tactic.
Something tells us AVX didn't get this memo.

By the way, 26 states have anti-Slapp statutes in place. South Carolina is not one of them.

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

BusinessWeek on IBM lawsuit and vapor intrusion nationwide
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
BusinessWeek's Steve Hamm is starting to get it:
[T]he case [against IBM] already stands as a warning for communities and businesses elsewhere. During America's industrial heyday, TCE was a commonly used solvent for degreasing machinery. Only in recent years has the vaporous form of the chemical been recognized as a threat. It could be present in thousands of former industrial sites, where TCE vapors can pool under foundations and seep into basements.

The Environmental Protection Agency has concluded that such vapor pollution could be a problem in 852 of its Superfund cleanup sites. "We think this is a big issue that could affect communities' health," says Mary Mears, an EPA public outreach officer.

Charleston City Paper blasts AVX legal move (SC)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
In a blog entry entitled "AVX Corporation hoping to screw over innocent South Carolinians," staff writer Stratton Lawrence writes:
What dirt bags. If there was ever a case to bring back public shackles and rotten fruit style ridicule, it’s with the scum behind this lawsuit.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

AVX to court: Myrtle Beach land owners should pay (SC)
by Neil Fischbein on Sunday, January 20, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
File this under questionable legal tactics: According to The Sun News (Myrtle Beach, SC), AVX filed recent court documents seeking to stick residents and other property owners, some of whom have sued AVX, with part of the tab from AVX's TCE investigation and clean-up:
The electronics manufacturer filed a proposed amended complaint last week in federal court that would make those property owners subject to federal laws that require shared liability for environmental contamination.

That means property owners living near AVX could be forced to pay the manufacturer a prorated share of whatever amount AVX spends for "investigations, containment, removal or mitigation of the contamination at the properties," according to the proposed complaint.

That amount could be measured in the millions of dollars.

AVX also wants property owners to pay "interest at the maximum rate allowable by law" for any amount they might owe to the manufacturer.

A judge has not made a ruling on the proposed complaint.

Gene Connell, a lawyer representing property owners near AVX's headquarters at 801 17th Ave. S., said the proposal is an unconscionable scare tactic.

"It's audacious that AVX would try to blame its pollution on the poor people who've worked all their lives for their homes," Connell said. "These are innocent landowners."

[...]

AVX, in its proposed complaint, wants a federal judge to rule that contamination has not damaged any property near the manufacturer's headquarters because the TCE eventually can be removed from the groundwater.

[...]

AVX also wants a judge to rule that property owners are entitled to no compensation for any possible damage to their land or property values resulting from the contamination.
Though we're reluctant to play armchair legal quarterback without seeing the court-filed documents (yeah, we'll do it anyway), we'd say the first part of the complaint, the move to pin costs on property-owners, may be designed to discourage public participation in litigation against AVX (almost as if to say, "Hold us accountable and you'll literally pay for it.")

The latter two issues, that no property was damaged and that owners aren't entitled to compensation for certain damages, sound to us like they depend on questions of fact that a trial must ultimately decide. But we are not attorneys nor familiar with all the applicable facts or laws in this case, so really, what do we know?

Read the full story at MyrtleBeachOnline.com.

Friday, January 18, 2008

IBM's response to Endicott lawsuits (NY)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, January 18, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
"As we explained to plaintiffs' lawyers before they filed this case, these suits have no basis in science or law, and IBM will defend itself vigorously," company spokesman Michael Maloney said in a statement.
Read more in the Poughkeepsie Journal (NY).

Nearly 1,000 in Endicott sue IBM for TCE-related harms
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, January 18, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
In early January, the first of several anticipated lawsuits was filed against IBM. 94 plaintiffs filed suit in NY State Supreme Court in the County of Broome, all asserting that IBM was responsible for vapor intrusion by TCE that caused them harm. Nearly 1,000 plaintiffs are expected to file in the coming months. Read the full story in the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin (NY).

Along with the story, the paper has a handy PDF link to the complaint (aka lawsuit document) that was filed. From the complaint, we learn that a number of different attorneys and firms are representing the plaintiffs. They include (profiles and homepages linked where available):

LEVENE, GOULDIN & THOMPSON, LLP
By: Philip C. Johnson. Esq.
450 Plaza Drive
Vestal, New York 13850
(607) 763-9200

WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
Ellen Relkin, Esq.
180 Maiden Lane - 17th Floor
New York, New York 10038-4925
(212) 558-5500

FARACI LANGE, LLP
Stephen G. Schwarz, Esq.
400 Crossroads Building
2 State Street
Rochester, New York 14614
(585) 325-5150

WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY
Gerald J. Williams, Esq.
1617 J.F.K. Boulevard - Suite 800
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 557-0099

LAW OFFICES OF HENRY GLUCKSTERN
Henry Gluckstern, Esq. (outdated profile)
41 Park Road
Maplewood, New Jersey 07040
(973) 763-0998

BEEMER & BEEMER
John Barry Beemer, Esq.
114-116 North Abington Road
Clarks Summit, Pennsylvania 18411
(570) 587-0188

MASRY AND VITITOE
Nancy S. Eichler, Esq.
5707 Corsa Avenue - Second Floor
Westlake Village, California 91362
(818) 991-8900

Wednesday, January 16, 2008

State action against AAR Manufacturing continues (MI)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
A recent story on Cadillacnews.com reminds us that the lawsuit filed by the state of Michigan DEQ against AAR Manufacturing is still lumbering through the court system:
The list of groundwater contaminants in a state of Michigan lawsuit against a Cadillac manufacturer can increase, Wexford County Circuit Court Judge Bill Fagerman ruled Wednesday.

Assistant attorney general Kathleen Cavanaugh sought an amendment to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality’s complaint against AAR Manufacturing in Cadillac.

The lawsuit, which has been ongoing for years, attempts to comply AAR to investigate two releases of trichloroethylene, or TCE, from degreasing units.

The amended complaint includes a list of contaminants along with an obsolete gasoline additive, MTBE, and other petroleum products.

The complaint also sought to enforce investigation of any other chemicals that might be discovered between now and when the lawsuit is settled should the court rule in favor of the DEQ.

AAR attorney Joseph Kuiper argued it’s late in the game to add new complaints.

"It’s always been about TCE," Kuiper said.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. State action against AAR Manufacturing continues (MI)
  2. DEQ sues Wexford AAR over compliance failures and uncontrolled TCE migration (MI)

Thursday, August 2, 2007

Senators Clinton, Dole, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Kerry propose TCE legislation (D.C.)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, August 2, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Big day in the TCE world today, marked by 1 word: LEGISLATION.

Okay, maybe two words: PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Today, Senators Clinton, Dole, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Kerry introduced a bill that proposes to:
Amend the Safe Water Drinking Act to protect the health of susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants, and children, by requiring a health advisory, drinking water standard, and reference concentration for trichloroethylene vapor intrusion, and for other purposes.
Cited formally as the "Toxic Chemical Exposure Reduction Act of 2007" (get it? "TCE Reduction Act"?) the Senators have proposed that EPA revise the national standard for allowable TCE levels in public drinking water, create a national standard for allowable TCE in indoor air, and enforce nationwide monitoring and cleanups based on these new standards. All of this is proposed to occur within the 3-18 months of the bill's enactment.

Since the details of the bill are interesting and worth comment, we'll post them here shortly. For now, we'll say this: We think this bill, if passed and enforced, could go a long way towards better protecting the public from TCE.

Of course, if the EPA chooses to or is forced to play politics, we also envision ways that they could still stagnate change even if the bill is passed…

As we said, more to come from us on this. Meantime, you can download the full bill here.

Lastly, we are in the process of contacting Senators from our home state, Connecticut, to ask for their support for this legislation. We strongly urge readers to contact their state Senators as well.

(If any readers do contact their Senators for support, please consider letting us know the kind of feedback you receive. If we’re able to keep track of whom has pledged their support, we’ll keep readers posted by running updates on this blog. What could possibly be more exciting?)

UPDATE: For the official press release from Senator Clinton announcing the proposed legislation, see here.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Hall and Hinchey introduce companion to Senate's TCE legislation (NY)
  2. A peek inside the Toxic Chemical Exposure Reduction Act
  3. Senators Clinton, Dole, Boxer, Lautenberg, and Kerry propose TCE legislation (D.C.)

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Lodi contamination settlement near end; cleanup moves ahead (CA)
by Neil Fischbein on Thursday, June 28, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
From two Friday's ago, the Lodi News-Sentinel (CA) ran this story:
As litigation from Lodi's groundwater contamination case comes to a close, cleanup has already begun.

News-Sentinel reporter Matt Brown recently discussed the status of the remaining litigation and the cleanup with City Attorney Stephen Schwabauer.

In 1989, officials discovered that the groundwater in some areas of Downtown was contaminated with the chemicals PCE and TCE, which are used as industrial solvents and in dry cleaning. The chemicals spread out to five different plumes in the city's groundwater.

In the mid-1990s, the city's outside attorney, Michael Donovan, crafted a plan to sue insurance companies of local businesses, including the News-Sentinel, for their role in the contamination. After a number of negative court rulings, the City Council in 2004 fired Donovan and City Attorney Randy Hays.

The city has since sued Donovan for fraud and malpractice, and Donovan has countersued, claiming the city owes him millions in legal fees.

The city has sought to settle out of court with the parties responsible for the contamination.
Read the interview here.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Citgo trial on dirty air tests federal law (TX)
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, June 23, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Houston Chronicle (TX) reports:
A jury will resume deliberations Monday in a criminal air pollution case that accuses Citgo Petroleum Corp. of knowingly breaking federal air quality laws at its Corpus Christi refinery.

Lawyers presented final arguments on Friday after a grueling and technical trial that began May 18. Jurors deliberated Friday afternoon, then went home for the weekend.

The case specifically involves allegations that open-air storage tanks at Citgo's East Plant refinery emitted illegal amounts of benzene, which research has linked to cancer. More broadly, however, the case tests criminal enforcement of the Clean Air Act.

Although other criminal indictments under the act have resulted in guilty pleas, the Citgo case is the first to go to trial alleging emissions violations, prosecutors said.

"The question is whether companies like Citgo, who blatantly violate the law over a period of time, will be held accountable," said Justice Department lawyer Howard Stewart, lead prosecutor in the case.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Control Chief Corp. implicated/reaches settlement re: Lewis Run contamination (PA)
by Neil Fischbein on Sunday, June 17, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Bradford Era (PA) reports:
The Department of Environmental Protection has named a third responsible party in the contamination of the ground near drinking water sources in Lewis Run.

The Control Chief Corp. signed the agreement that it will pay a total of $110,000 to the state's Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act Fund that settles their liability in the contamination.

[...]

This is the third company the DEP has reached settlements with - the others are McCourt Label and Tronox, formerly known as Kerr-McGee.

[...]

From 1978 to 1998, Control Chief, which has its headquarters in Bradford, owned property in Lewis Run and operated an electronic equipment manufacturing facility.

When another company bought the property and an environmental assessment was conducted, chlorinated solvents typically used as degreasing agents were found in the soil and groundwater. The chemicals included tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE) and cis-1,2-dichloroethylene. The situation has resulted in the borough having to hook up to Bradford City water to supply its residents with safe drinking water.

Tarbell said the DEP is not actively pursuing additional responsible parties at this time.
Read the full story here.

Wednesday, June 13, 2007

Camp Lejeune: Who to contact for more information? (NC)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
As a result of Tuesday's press and hearing, we've received a number of emails from affected Marines and their families, all asking the same question: How can I learn more?

As we've posted previously, at least two websites have emerged that are run by former Camp Lejeune marines and their families: Also, the attorneys at Anderson Weber & Pangia have agreed to represent exposure victims and their families in a lawsuit against the responsible parties. Certainly, they know much more about the situation. (Note: Those of you who arrived here looking for information about the Camp Lejeune class action lawsuit should contact them.)

Of course, the ATSDR maintains a Camp Lejeune website with answers to Frequently Asked Questions and the Marines have their own website as well (note: As of this posting, it appears the Marines website is offline - maybe too much CL traffic?).

In addition, we've been covering developments in the CL story for the past two years now. You can read our entire history of Camp Lejeune posts here (click link, keep scrolling down).

Finally, in case these links don't provide the necessary information, we are attempting to determine who is best positioned to field specific questions about CL and the water contamination there. We will either report back here, or email privately to those folks who have contacted us. To be alerted when we determine a better point of contact for Camp Lejeune information, please feel free to contact us directly.

June 14, 2007 Update: For folks looking to complete a Form 95 or looking for assistance with it, please see here.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Associated Press articles re: Camp Lejeune and TCE/PCE
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Rita Beamish from the Associated Press has written three articles that are running in papers around the world today:

Camp Lejeune Water Under Scrutiny
The former residents, who together seek nearly $4 billion, believe their families were afflicted by water containing industrial solvents before the Marines shut off the bad wells in the mid-1980s.

Dates Important in Water Contamination
Key events in the contamination of drinking water at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.

Solvents in Water Present Perils
Industrial solvents known as TCE and PCE are known health hazards, but the amount of exposure that can cause harm is subject to debate.

Update (June 13):

Congress investigates tainted water at Marine base by Kimberly Hefling
The government Tuesday disclosed results from a new study the same day lawmakers listened to emotional testimony from families about cancers and other illnesses they blame on tainted tap water at the sprawling base.

Monday, June 11, 2007

Hearing tomorrow re: Camp Lejeune; Webcast available (DC, NC)
by Neil Fischbein on Monday, June 11, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Camp Lejeune hearing begins tomorrow. You can watch/listen via webcast here. It appears the witness list for the hearing has been revised. The updated witness list includes:

Panel I

Mr. Jerome Ensminger
North Carolina

Dr. Mike Gross
Texas

Mr. Jeff Byron
Ohio

Panel II

United States Marine Corps

Major General Robert C. Dickerson, Jr.
Commanding General
PSC Box 20005
Camp Lejeune, NC 28542-0005

Accompanied by Ms. Kelley A. Dreyer
Environmental Restoration Program Manager
Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (I&L)
2 Navy Annex
Washington, DC 20380-1775

United States Navy

Ms. Pat Leonard
Director
Office of the Judge Advocate General
Claims, Investigations, & Tort Litigation (Code 15)
1322 Patterson Avenue, Suite 3000
Washington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5066

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease registry

Thomas Sinks, Ph.D.
Deputy Director
National Center for Environmental Health/ATSD
Mail Stop E-28
1600 Clinton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333

Accompanied by Frank Bove, Sc.D.
Senior Epidimiologist (sic)
and
Morris Maslia
Environmental Engineer

Panel III

Mr. Peter J. Murtha
Director
Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
U.S. Enviornmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvanie Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460

Accompanied by Mr. Tyler Amon
Special Agent
Criminal Investigation Division

Mr. Franklin Hill
Director, Superfund Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Maria G. Crosse, Ph.D.
Director, Public Health and Military Health Care Issues
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street, NW, Room 5K21
Washington, DC 20548

Friday, June 8, 2007

New contact information for law firm helping Camp Lejeune exposure victims (NC)
by Neil Fischbein on Friday, June 8, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Recently we have been advised of new contact information for the law firm that is serving as national legal counsel for claims arising from water contamination and exposure to VOC's at Camp Lejeune:

Anderson Weber & Pangia, PLLC
Offices in Washington, DC and Greensboro, North Carolina
Greensboro Contact information:
PO Box 4405
Greensboro, NC 27404
Office number: 336-299-7735
Fax: 336-299-7740
E-mail: Jweber@awplawfirm.com


JAN 22, 2008 UPDATE: We are told this info is outdated. We are seeking confirmation of new contact details and will post them as soon as we have them

Sunday, May 13, 2007

Foster Wheeler class action lawsuit settled? (PA)
by Neil Fischbein on Sunday, May 13, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
From The Citizens Voice (Wilkes-Barre, PA) on May 11:
A class-action lawsuit against Foster Wheeler Corp., stemming from a trichloroethylene contamination in Mountain Top groundwater, has been tentatively settled, according to legal notice advertisements running in the Citizens’ Voice this week.

The preliminary approved settlement requires the company to pay $1.64 million for administrative costs, attorneys’ fees and to class members, the legal notice says. More than 50 property owners could have been affected by the contamination, which was discovered in 2004.

TCE, which was used as a degreaser by the company at it’s Crestwood Industrial Park plant, has been linked to cancer as well as kidney, liver and nerve damage, according to various studies.

Homeowners in the contaminated area have fought for tax relief on their now contaminated property. The Luzerne County Board of Assessment Appeals recently gave the homeowners an abatement of a third of their property taxes through 2010.

Anyone living in the contaminated area in Wright Township from Aug. 1, 2004, to April 16, 2007 qualifies to receive part of the settlement.

Members of the class action suit did not want to comment on the case at this point. Their attorney could not return repeated phone calls to his Philadelphia-based office.

The terms of the settlement still have to be approved by the District Court at a hearing scheduled August 6.

For more information call the class action help line at 1-866-963-9976 or visit the Web site, www.martinfosterwheelerclassaction.com. The site has not worked the past two days, but should be functioning by the end of the week, administrators said.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Press conference to be held re: Shannon class action (Can)
by Neil Fischbein on Monday, March 26, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Thanks to Charles Veilleux, the attorney handling the recently-approved class-action lawsuit in Quebec on behalf of Shannon residents, we have learned there will be a press conference regarding the case this week:

When: March 28, 2007 at 10:00 a.m.
Where: MORENCY, SOCIÉTÉ D'AVOCATS 400-3075, Chemin des Quatre-Bourgeois, Québec (Québec) G1W 4X5
For more information: Charles Vellieux, by phone at (418) 651-9900 or email at cveilleux@morencyavocats.com.

Thanks for keeping us posted, Charles. Congratulations on the recent class certification. Best wishes to you, your team, and residents of Shannon.

Shannon class-action lawsuit for TCE exposure approved by court (Can)
by Neil Fischbein on Monday, March 26, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
Thanks to CPEO for this tip:
Montreal Gazette (Quebec, Canada)
March 25, 2007

A Quebec Superior Court judge has allowed residents of Shannon to launch a class-action lawsuit against the Department of National Defence and SNC Tech over drinking water that was contaminated with trichloroethylene, or TCE.

Residents are seeking several hundred million dollars in damages for health problems they blame on the industrial solvent.

The residents charge that during the 1950s, Shannon's underground water table was contaminated with TCE used at the adjacent Canadian Forces Base Valcartier. Health Canada says TCE is a potential carcinogen.
Read the full story here.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Reader question: Lawsuits re: TCE poisoning from Hill AFB?
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, March 24, 2007 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
A reader recently sent us the following question:
Were there any class action lawsuits brought against the DOD around 1983-1986 for TCE poisioning at Hill AFB, Utah?
While we are unaware of any such lawsuits being filed, others may know more. If so, please contact us...or leave a comment.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Reader question: Lawsuits re: TCE poisoning from Hill AFB?
  2. Hill AFB cancer study near completion (UT)

Sunday, October 8, 2006

Approval granted to DEP to inspect Bayonne site (NJ)
by Neil Fischbein on Sunday, October 8, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Jersey Journal reports
With the consent of the court, the state Department of Environmental Protection can now enter a Bayonne industrial property to check out suspected contaminants such as trichloroethylene, chloromethane, methylene chloride and acetone whose source is still a mystery to the DEP.

But DEP says it'll likely take until December before it's ready to tackle the job.

The DEP sought judicial help after it alleges it tried - since late last year - to get an OK from the owners of the 14-acre Duraport Realty site on East Second Street to get onto the property.

The two sides were due in court earlier this week, but the hearing was canceled after they reached an agreement to allow the DEP to inspect the site.
Read the full story.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Approval granted to DEP to inspect Bayonne site (NJ)
  2. DEP goes to court over toxic site in Bayonne (NJ)

Saturday, October 7, 2006

Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)
by Neil Fischbein on Saturday, October 7, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) has released a video about the brain cancer investigation/study of Pratt & Whitney workers in CT.

Though the video suggests various chemicals may have been at play, the investigation has focused on exposure to TCE.

See the video here. Also be sure to visit Worked to Death for more on the P & W investigation and study.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Video: Brain cancer stalks Pratt & Whitney workers (CT)
  2. Annual family/public meeting - Pratt and Whitney brain tumor study (CT)

Wednesday, October 4, 2006

Update: Solvents at issue in recent CSX lawsuits/verdicts
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
We've learned that the solvents at issue in both the Williams and Hensley cases against CSX Railroad were trichloroethylene (TCE), trichloroethane (TCA), perchloroethylene a.k.a. tetrachloroethylene (PCE), mineral spirits, and carbon tetrachloride.

Thanks to Ken Sales of the Sales and Slattery Group (attorneys for the plaintiffs in both cases) for this confirmation.

DEP goes to court over toxic site in Bayonne (NJ)
by Neil Fischbein on Wednesday, October 4, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Jersey Journal (NJ) reports:
The state Department of Environmental Protection is taking a Bayonne property owner to court tomorrow to clean up the site of suspected contamination.

Deputy Attorney General Adam Phelps will ask state Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Olivieri, sitting in Jersey City, to give the DEP the green light to access a 14.5-acre site on East Second Street, between Hobart and Ingham avenues, owned by Duraport Realty One, Two and Three, LLC.

The property supports a bulk receiving and trans-shipment facility, according to a city official who asked not to be named.

The complaint, filed Aug. 21, alleges that the property owner's "unwillingness to give DEP and its contractor(s) access to the Duraport property is delaying DEP's performance of a site investigation, the completion of which is essential to remediating the contamination at and from the Duraport property."

Toxins found at the site and in surface water runoff in the Kill Van Kull, as listed in the complaint, include trichloroethylene (TCE), perchloroethylene (PCE), vinyl chloride, arsenic and thallium, all in amounts that exceed DEP's cleanup criteria.

DEP's Ed Putnam, assistant director of remedial response, said yesterday that under a 1998 agreement the property owner had agreed to do a remedial investigation, but he said, DEP terminated that agreement last November after the owner failed to live up to the agreement.

Putnam said the Duraport land is adjacent to the old Standard Tank parcel, where contaminants have also been found in the groundwater, and "we've always been back and forth as to where (the toxins) were coming from." Even now, Putnam conceded, "we don't know the source."
Read the full story.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. Approval granted to DEP to inspect Bayonne site (NJ)
  2. DEP goes to court over toxic site in Bayonne (NJ)

Tuesday, October 3, 2006

$5 million verdict for a former CSX Railroad employee (TN)
by Neil Fischbein on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 [Permalink] [0 Comments]
The Chattanoogan (TN), which was launched Sept. 1, 1999 and bills sitself as "as one of the first full-service web-only daily newspapers in the country", provides this breaking news report:
A Hamilton County Circuit Court jury has returned a $5 million verdict for a former CSX Railroad employee.

The jury in the courtroom of Judge Jackie Schulten deliberated two and a half hours before bringing in the verdict in favor of Thurston Hensley, 67.

The jury found that Mr. Hensley had contracted both asbestosis and toxic encephalopathy through his work for 33 years as an electrician at the railroad yards at Corbin, Ky.

It was claimed that he had to handle both as