Chemical Company Acquitted of Exposing Montana Town to Toxic Asbestos

The W.R. Grace chemical company and three of its executives did not knowingly contaminate a tiny Montana mining town with asbestos, the toxic material linked to a deadly form of lung cancer, then engage in a cover up of the crime, a federal jury has ruled.

W.R. Grace, one of the nation’s biggest chemical products companies, had been charged with exposing residents of Libby, Montana – a community of about 2,500 residents — to asbestos from the Zonolite Mountain vermiculite mine. The company owned and operated the mining operation from 1963 until 1990.

More than 200 residents of Libby have died from mesothelioma and other diseases linked to asbestos exposure and hundreds more have developed non-deadly symptoms. Mesothelioma is a rare but aggressive form of cancer caused when asbestos fibers are ingested and become lodged in the linings of the lungs, heart, abdomen, and other internal organs.

Jurors Reject Criminal Charges

Concluding a trial in federal court, jurors unanimously ruled today that W.R. Grace was not criminally liable for releasing clouds of asbestos that floated over and into Libby. The U.S. government had charged the company with knowingly spreading toxic asbestos into Libby then engaging in a cover up to hide the crime.

Government attorneys claimed the company officials knew as early as the 1970s that asbestos from the mine was harming residents of nearby Libby. But company officials countered while they knew of the potential for danger, they were working to reduce the risks in compliance with federal laws for the handling of mining materials.

Witness Problems Sink Government’s Case

The case against W.R. Grace was dealt another blow when a star witness, a former company official who said he and others intentionally hid their knowledge of the asbestos danger, was found to have ties to the government’s lawyers and investigators on the case.

The expert’s testimony was excluded from the trial and jurors were ordered to ignore it in terms of some defendants and treat it with “great skepticism” in considering the charges against other defendants.

No related posts.