UM Grace Case

 The government produced evidence through Paul Peronard’s testimony today to support the conspiracy charge in Count I, and the obstruction of justice charges in Counts V and VI. While not necessarily explicit, the government’s themes were the ways W.R. Grace & Co. impeded and obstructed justice.

The prosecution first offered Goverment’s Exhibit 714, a map littered with colored dots: red dots, showing areas of residential and/or business contamination; yellow dots, showing W.R. Grace & Co. areas of contamination; and green dots, showing no asbestos contamination. With this exhibit, the government encouraged Peronard to expand on the breadth of the EPA’s investigation, response, and clean-up efforts.

After presenting the map and listening to Peronard’s elaboration on the EPA’s efforts, the government switched gears and focused on how W.R. Grace & Co. may have impeded or obstructed those efforts. The government introduced Government’s Exhibit 629, the EPA’s second CERCLA 104(e) Request For Information, and W.R. Grace & Co.’s responses dated February 22, 2000. Stated in interrogatory style and essentially a request for production, the EPA’s 104(e) Request sought information about the history of Grace’s policies, procedures, testing, storage, access to, and exposure records of any vermiculite and tremolite asbestos. Peronard testified that he relied on Grace’s answers to initiate the EPA investigation, to identify priorities, and to focus on heavy traffic areas with high vermiculite and tremolite concentration.

The government identified several specific 104(e) questions and responses that will be crucial to the jury’s decision on the conspiracy and obstruction charges. First, the prosecution focused on the EPA’s question of whether W.R. Grace knew that there was tremolite in the vermiculite ore. The exhibit showed Grace’s answer; yes, the company was aware of that when it bought the mine in 1963. However, it also stated that the average concentration of tremolite after the vermiculite ore was milled and concentrated was 1% or less.

Second, the government focused on a question regarding the availability of vermiculite concentrate to the public. The response, written by Alan Stringer, stated that Grace had donated vermiculite mill coarse tailings for use in making the Libby High School running track. Peronard testified that he relied on this answer and was surprised when he discovered W.R. Grace & Co. had additionally placed vermiculite mill coarse tailings at the Libby Junior High School running track and at the Plummer Elementary School ice skating rink.

Additionally, the government showed the EPA’s question of whether many people left work with dust on their clothes. W.R. Grace & Co. replied “No.” Grace employees did not “regularly” leave the mine with vermiculite or tremolite dust on their clothes. They had company issued coveralls and on-site laundry services. Additionally, a 1979 company brochure stated workers should clean their clothing. Peronard testified that W.R. Grace & Co.’s response delayed his efforts to identify workers and families who had been exposed.

In the same sequence, the government focused on a question regarding the action taken by W.R. Grace & Co. to prevent the transfer of dust from the mill to the home. Specifically, the Government concentrated on Rainy Creek Rd., the road to the mine. W.R. Grace & Co. had replied that it treated Rainy Creek Rd. However, Peronard testified that in 2000, he drove up Rainy Creek Rd. and found that Grace had failed to control the dust. Moreover, he testified that W.R. Grace & Co. had used the tailings to de-ice and “sand” the road. Peronard stated that W.R. Grace & Co.’s reply delayed the EPA’s response to this area, because the EPA had not identified Rainy Creek Rd. as a top priority.

The government closed the morning testimony by showing the EPA’s question regarding whether W.R. Grace & Co. had ever gathered air and environmental media sampling information. The reply stated, yes, but the sampling was limited. Peronard testified he later found additional pre-existing data from W.R. Grace & Co., which it had failed to disclose.

The government will most likely expand on the information found in Exhibit 629 in an attempt to show that Grace delayed and obstructed the EPA and its investigation.

                                                                                  — Audrey Schultz