FRESNO,
Calif. (AP) — A federal jury on Thursday found
that a former subsidiary of the drug maker Merck & Co. contaminated the air
and water in a central California
subdivision, potentially exposing thousands to a cancer-causing chemical.
In a verdict in
U.S. District Court in Fresno, the jury decided that hazardous levels of
hexavalent chromium leaking from a manufacturing plant spread into the air
where residents of Merced’s Beachwood subdivision could have been exposed to
them for 25 years.
Jurors also
found that residents could have been exposed to the chemical — which was made
famous in the film “Erin Brockovich” — through water in an irrigation
canal, where they swam and fished, and through floodwaters, which flooded the subdivision
in 2006 and picked up contaminated soil from the plant.
The jury, which
heard more than two months of testimony and deliberated for two days, found
that the neighborhood’s public water supply was not contaminated by hexavalent
chromium from the now-shuttered plant.
The Baltimore
Aircoil plant, which manufactured cooling towers, used the chemical to
pressure-treat wood from 1969 to 1991. Merck, which owned Baltimore Aircoil
until it sold it in 1985 to Amsted, is leading the remediation effort at the
plant. The plant was closed in 1994.
Baltimore
Aircoil Co., Amsted Industries Inc. and Meadowbrook Water Co., which operated
the subdivision’s water well, are also defendants in the case.
Merck officials
acknowledged during the trial that hexavalent chromium contamination occurred
but denied that any of it left the confines of the plant at levels that could
have harmed the health of residents. Merck first found hexavalent chromium at
the plant site in 1984 and was issued a violation in 1987. But according to
documents, the company did not start remediation until 1991.
“The air
is really the most significant pathway when it comes to hexavalent chromium
contamination, because the inhalation of the chemical is so dangerous,”
said attorney Mick Marderosian, who represents 2,000 plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
“It’s a 1,000 times more potent than ingestion through drinking water. And
it impacts many more people.”
Marderosian
said the verdict sends a message about corporate responsibility.
“Companies
should not conduct themselves like this,” Marderosian said. “When
they impact the environment, they should do the right thing. In this case they
didn’t and the jury picked up on that.”
In a statement,
Merck officials said they were pleased the jury found no contamination present
in the drinking water, but added that the company would appeal the other parts
of the verdict.
“We
strongly disagree with the jury’s findings regarding air or flood water
contamination, which are contrary to actual testing data collected at or near
the former BAC-Pritchard facility,” said Stephen Lewis of Barg Coffin
Lewis and Trapp, LLP, outside counsel for Merck.
A new jury will
now be called to determine which of the 2,000 individual plaintiffs were
actually harmed by the chemical exposure and to determine punitive damages.