Summary of W.R. Grace Debate #1


Lawyers and Witnesses that Spoke and their position:

Vadim- lawyer prosecution; Representative of the people of Libby, Montana

  • Grace Co has been slowly poisoning Libby for over 3 decades.
  • Grace Co destroyed environment, lives, ignoring sanctions by the EPA and federal government
  • Asbestos found in vermiculite causes asbestosis, lung cancer,and other health issues.
  • Dangers known since the 1990s.
  • Environment saturated with asbestosis
  • Company eager to withhold info from people
  • Mislabeled their product
  • Improperly labeled the material
  • Concealing effects
  • Attics have asbestos without people knowing
  • Asbestos shipped to over 40 countries
  • Grace Co. recompense: giving money, medication and gym membership is not adequate enough

Nicketta- lawyer defense

  • Grace was unaware of asbestos when buying mine from the company Zonolite; Grace just invested in a faulty company and when he found out about bad effects he took measures to reduce them.
  • Epa not quick enough to act in reporting asbestos levels
  • Not only company using asbestos at the times
  • Asbestos not banned until 1989
  • Research was done during this time period; people became more aware of the hazardous effects
  • It took many measures to reduce dust levels; these measures were taken by Grace Co.
  • Posted signs, payed for health care
  • After shutting down in 1990 took measures in cleanup of Libby

Nicole- EPA against

  • Knew of contamination in 1980s
  • Instead of using money they concealed the problem
  • Profit motive
  • High rates of death

Salem- correspondent with MSHA

  • MSHA was the main organization that performed inspections 2 times a year
  • All those years except once, the company passed inspection
  • No reasons to close the mine due to the high MSHA limit

Alessandro - production manager

  • MSHA is in accordance with the health act
  • Standards set of what is safe and what isn’t were properly adhered by Grace Co.
  • After inspections finished in 2000 determined that MSHA was not inspecting properly
  • MSHA should have lowered the permissible exposure level
  • Tests to see how high the levels are- used phase contrast microscopy, new method, transmission microscopy would have been more accurate.
  • Employees that conducted asbestosis had no knowledge of asbestos
  • MSHA failed to check levels of take home contamination- check levels of asbestosis in homes
  • Grace followed guidelines that MSHA set themselves
  • 1964 company implemented an annual x ray procedure for employees who worked there over 20 years

Summary:

Lawyer Vadim argued on behalf of the residence of Libby, Montana that the measures taken by the Grace Company was not enough. Lawyer Nicketta argued for the Grace Company that the actions taken by Grace Company were acceptable and at or above standard to the regulations and to the severity of the situation.  Three witnesses were called, one by the accusing side, and two by the opposing side. Both sides questioned all three witnesses. Several issues were brought to light and raised.

Issues and/or Descrepencies:

  • Defendent and Prosecutor: How extensive was the research done during the 30s and 60s? Did they know of the precautions one had to take under asbestos.
  • Defendent: asbestos - In 1989, it was known that it was hazardous in the 1970s (internal research by grace). Why did Grace provide x-rays and med checkups rather than precautionary materials (ie clothing)?
  • Defendant: Grace implemented health programs in the 60s, however they did not provide the clothing or health advisory warnings. There seems to be a conflict or discrepancy of whether Grace Co knew that there was asbestos present at the site at the time of the purchase. Can this been cleared up?
  • Prosecution: Clarify what sanctions has been ignored from the EPA?
  • Defendent: Is Grace Company suggesting that the previous company Zonolite Company should be held responsible?

Judges Feedback on New Format:

  • “debate” and/or “mock trial” was more organized than the previous debates. It tested whether one was really knowledgeable regarding the topic or not.
  • I think the mock trial is going pretty well for now. I think the lawyers are doing a good job considering how challenging their roles are. My view on judging is that I don’t think I should interfere too much unless I feel something needs to be cleared up or that the discussion is going off-topic.
  • After each witness presents his or her information, the judges should only be allowed to ask questions that would clarify any issues or ideas brought up by the witness.
  • The head judge should stop the cross-examining lawyer from bringing up issues that the witness did not address. There is no way that witness will have the knowledge pertaining to that question.
  • It might also be a good idea to allow other witnesses to step in and address questions being asked by a cross examining lawyer, although this might make things a bit complicated.
  • People need to speak up a bit.
  • All sides spoke well, but timing still needs improvement.

Leave a Reply