Case Study: Ethylene Dichloride (EDC) Pipeline Leak
Baron & Budd successfully represented more than 850 workers injured by exposure to ethylene dichloride (EDC) and other contaminants in Lake Charles, Louisiana as a result of the negligent and reckless conduct of Conoco, Inc., Condea Vista Chemical Company, and a number of contractors that caused one of the largest chemical spills in U.S. history.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that EDC is "... reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen..." in its "Report on Carcinogens," Tenth Edition, Carcinogen Profiles 2003. Other public health agencies list EDC as a probable human cancer-causing agent and the State of California lists EDC as a chemical "known to the state to cause cancer." In addition, EDC exposure can result in serious and permanent damage to the heart, central nervous system, liver, kidneys, lungs, gastrointestinal system, eyes, and skin, and commonly results in depression, memory loss, and adverse personality changes.
In 1984, Condea Vista Chemical Company purchased Conoco Inc.'s vinyl chloride monomer plant in Lake Charles. Conoco, then a division of E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, allowed landlocked Condea Vista to use Conoco's docks on the Calcasieu River to receive large barge shipments of EDC. Those shipments were transported through a pipeline that was owned and maintained by Conoco to Condea Vista's holding tanks located at the plant several miles away. And, when not transporting shipments of EDC, Condea Vista dangerously used the EDC pipeline as additional storage space for the chemical.
The EDC pipeline was built in 1947 and had an underground section approximately 5,000 feet long. In July 1990, Condea Vista sought permission to increase the amount of EDC being transported through the pipeline. Conoco responded that due to the pipeline's poor condition, the high failure risk, and the probability of other problems -- including the risk of leaks -- Condea Vista had to first replace the pipeline with a new, above-ground pipeline at Condea Vista's expense. Condea Vista began constructing the new pipeline, but halted construction in July 1993 until Conoco consented to a new dock use agreement. Notwithstanding the substantial risk of failure, Condea Vista continued using the old EDC pipeline during the negotiations.
In the summer of 1993, Louisiana state officials detected high EDC levels in the Calcasieu estuary. It was not until March 31, 1994, however, that the public learned that EDC was leaking from the Conoco dock facility and the EDC pipeline. By that time, millions of pounds of EDC had escaped. Conoco contended that only 1.6 million pounds of EDC leaked over an eight-day period.
Others estimate the amount to be between 19 and 47 million pounds over an eight-month period. Because at least 1.6 million pounds of EDC reportedly was recovered from the soil alone during the initial cleanup phase, Conoco's self-serving estimate was clearly understated. Likely only a fraction of the EDC was ever recovered.
After the leak was discovered, workers employed by Conoco, DuPont, Condea Vista and numerous contractors were sent to clean up the EDC spill site and to resume construction of the new above-ground EDC pipeline. However, these workers were neither properly trained nor provided with appropriate equipment to protect them from exposure. And, they were not warned of the extreme danger they faced due to the very high levels of EDC present at the spill site. Those men and women exhibited a host of painful and life-threatening health problems. This all occurred because the defendants chose to minimize the extent of the spill and the danger at the site and then attempted to quickly and cheaply clean up a dangerous substance with which they had no experience.
On behalf of these injured workers, Baron & Budd pursued and successfully resolved claims against Conoco, Condea Vista, DuPont, Allwaste Environmental Services of Louisiana, Inc., Professional Industrial Maintenance, Inc., and R.W. Equipment Co. We are pleased to have achieved justice for our clients, and it is our hope that companies like this will strive to prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future.
Results Depend on the Facts of Each Case
