UM Grace Case

 According to defense attorney David Bernick, W.R. Grace has always been a good dancing partner for the government: always following the government’s lead and never more than a step behind.

The defense finished its cross-examination of industrial hygienist and former Grace toxicology coordinator Steve Venuti Thursday morning by trying to show that as government regulations changed to more severely regulate asbestos, Grace changed as well.

Bernick presented a series of Grace memos that showed the company changed its practices to comply with new Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards implemented in the 1980s. Venuti was party to these developments and testified that Grace’s changes in handling, processing and treating the Libby vermiculite were successful in meeting OSHA standards.

“So, you’d call this a success story,” Bernick asked, and Venuti agreed.

In 1986, OSHA changed its regulations to reduce the permissible exposure levels (PEL) for asbestos. The PEL was reduced from 2 fibers per cubic centimeter to 0.5 fibers per cubic centimeter.

Although it didn’t take a toxicologist to see that handling dry vermiculite was a dusty process, research and testing did reveal that dust could be reduced by treating the product. The company experimented with applying water and soybean oil to the vermiculite as binders, or surfactants.

A binder or surfactant is applied to reduce a substance’s friability, or dusty nature. The soybean oil and water applied to the Libby vermiculite were intended to adhere to the tremolite fibers to keep them from becoming airborne. The expansion plants and expanded products were notoriously dusty and of particular concern to the company.

With binder applied to the vermiculite, Grace’s test results complied with OSHA standards. And Venuti, as part of Grace’s research and toxicology team, analyzed this data.

Bernick asked Venuti whether after “these binders were in place, the expanded products were in compliance with the new PEL?”

Venuti said they were, that the expanded products showed dust emissions below the OSHA standard. Bernick established that while Venuti was with the company, the company lived by the letter of the law.

“By the time you left the company,” Bernick said, “the company was in compliance with the then-existing regulations.”

And Venuti reaffirmed Grace’s compliance with the law.

Defense attorney Robert Frongillo also briefly cross-examined Venuti. Frongillo said that his client Robert Bettacchi, a Grace executive charged with endangering company workers, sought consultation from Venuti on reducing workplace hazards.

Frongillo presented a document that showed Grace had requested Venuti’s input, after Venuti had left the company, on reducing occupational health risks. Because the company sought the counsel of Venuti, Frongillo said, it’s clear that Bettacchi and the company had concerns for their workers and took steps to ensure their safety.

Shortly before the lunch recess, the prosecution began its redirect examination of Venuti. But government attorney Kris McLean had a hard time asking Venuti a question without objections from the defense. Molloy sustained most of these objections and appeared frustrated with the prosecution.

The prosecution’s redirect examination must be different from their direct examination, Molloy said.

“Please recognize your obligations,” Molloy said to the prosecution. “Be cognizant of the rules. And you will not get any witness to argue your case for you.”

– Will Grant (posted 1:55 p.m.)