Name: Sophia Eze

CHC 3

 

                                    LIBBY Vs. W.R. GRACE & Co.

 

  TREMOLITE ASBESTOS IN THE VERMICULATE MINED AT LIBBY.

 

Evaluation of The Case.

 

After listening to the opening arguments of both sides, it became apparent that they both have convincing arguments.

 

The testimony given,

 

AGAINST       W.R.GRACE & Co.

 

 Due to the testimony given by Nicole Babushkin (Environmental Protection Specialist <Region 8>) :

 

-         Grace owned the company from  1963 – 1992

-         Grace Executives were aware of the situation by 1970.

-     Through product testing Grace found out.

-         Grace did not turn out its results by the Toxic Substances Control Act to the EPA.

-         Grace obstructed National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health from investigating the health implication of the asbestos

 

Health Effects To The Workers and Libby Residents

Federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry find (Summer, 2000) : 18% of residents have lung abnormalities already.

30% are susceptible to lung cancer.

 

 

 

Arguments for W.R.GRACE & Co.

 

Nickeitta (Lawyer) argues all they are guilty of is of taking up a faulty company.

 

In 1963, Grace purchased the mine from Zonolite. They were later made aware of the problems

 

She argues that they then did all they could to alleviate the problem. Including giving the workers annual x-rays and banning smoking. They oiled the road to the mine etc. The State Board of Health approved of the company after conducting inspections and the

Company filed a notice under section 8(e) of the Toxic Substances Act.

Also she highlights the fact that the asbestos dust level was within the

Permissible Exposure Limits by the Mine Safety and Health  Association

 

 

(Miscellaneous / Additional reading of accounts)

Jonathan Lin (Grace CEO) says he is as outraged as the Libby community that the EPA did not alert the company on time of an issue so serious.

 

My Questions.

 

Well after listening to the opening statements of both sides, and my fellow judges went over their review questions, I was content to ponder the facts of the matter already presented. I was particularly interested in Vadim’s counter argument and requested to review his presented sample evidence A (Collete Salame’s paper).

 

This proved to be quite helpful in showing me some hard facts that negate Grace Company’s claim.

Some of these facts are that:

 

1)      Even though Grace Company indeed conducted x-rays on their employees, they hid the facts from the employees themselves and never turned over the result to them. They also hid the results they found from the safety and helth organizations.

2)      Just as the Johns Manville’s company, they hid the fact that their product contains significant amount of  asbestos. They also avoided putting the required safety labels.

 

 

The case is still being heard. It is still in court. So far these are my notes. I have not gotten to any conclusive decision.

 

<END>