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.


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> 



YES:

  • school teacher (Miriam Schwartz)
  • Mayor (Ali Sahin)
  • Graduate student (Majid Sahin)
  • Lawyer A (Vadim Shteyler)
  • Victim A (Neyra Azimov)
  • Lawyer B (Adiba Ishak)
  • Doctor (Haran Ratna)
  • Environmental Protection Specialist (Nicole Babushkin)
  • EPA (George Papadopoulos)
  • Contractor (Colette Salami)

NO:

  • Grace’s Environmental and Health safety Officer (Miriam Harari)
  • Long time Grace worker (Charissa Cheung)
  • Lawyer (Nickeitta Leung)
  • Grace’s CEO (Jonathan Lin)
  • Production Manager (Alessandro Alempijevic)
  • TBA (Salim Hasbini)
  • TBA (Kyulee Seo)

JUDGES:

  • Bushra Wazed
  • Ilya Ryvin
  • Alexandra Chudner
  • Chinemerem Eze

MODERATOR:

  • Jonathan Chang