This happened a long time ago but it is still being litigated, the PCBs are still sitting on the bottom of the Coosa River and the massive environmental catastrophe in addition to the human toll is relevant today.
Monsanto in Alabama
How did Monsanto avoid a pollution crackdown in Alabama?
Published June 18, 2003
Documents obtained by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and a review of court records show that a federal cleanup agreement between Monsanto and the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) changed significantly in Monsanto’s favor just seven days after Administrator Christine Todd Whitman received a “briefing” she had requested on the company’s PCB pollution in Anniston, Alabama.
The Anniston “partial” consent decree would govern how the community would be cleaned up after decades of ongoing pollution from Monsanto’s former PCB operations at its chemical plant in this small Alabama community.
The term “partial” indicates that the consent decree merely seeks a study of the contamination, not an actual cleanup.
This term is rarely, if ever, used by EPA, another reason why this agreement is so unusual.
One leading scientist has labeled Anniston “the most contaminated place on earth.”
The Anniston cleanup agreement is pending final approval in federal court, which could come at any time.
Anniston's local citizen group, Community Against Pollution and Environmental Working Group have written a letter to Administrator Whitman once again seeking to learn the details of the deal the Agency cut with Monsanto.
EWG has sought for more than 15 months to understand how the consent decree was written, and by whom. EWG has asked which Monsanto officials had any role in negotiating or drafting it with federal officials, specifically at EPA headquarters.
These inquiries, under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, have been met with a pattern of resistance and non-answers from Administration staff members, including those in Administrator Whitman’s office.
Among the few documents obtained through the FOIA requests was a heavily-redacted memo indicating that Administrator Whitman requested and received a 45-minute “briefing” on the Anniston situation days after a state jury found Monsanto liable on all counts, including negligence, wantonness, nuisance, suppression of the truth, trespass and outrage.
Outrage is a rarely successful tort claim that under Alabama law describes conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
Court documents show that within a week after Whitman’s meeting, a key change was made to the Anniston consent decree that was highly favorable to Monsanto.
The very existence of the consent decree became public only after a Monsanto employee admitted as much under oath in an Alabama courtroom later that month.
The topics of discussion for Whitman’s meeting were redacted from the memo EWG obtained.
EWG assumes that the meeting covered the consent decree discussions that were then underway because the document indicates that an unnamed Department of Justice official was present. Given the presence of a Justice Department official, it appears that the March 6 “briefing” was more of a decision-making meeting, not just an update for Whitman on the situation as it had unfolded to that point.
The change made to the consent decree subsequent to Whitman’s meeting was a major one, and it was highly unusual.
The change essentially blocked a nearly certain state-ordered cleanup of the actual pollution source and substituted not a federal cleanup, but a federal study. Historically, the Agency has pre-empted state toxic waste cleanup authority in order to catalyze action in cases where state regulators were proving sluggish or taking no action.
The change made to the Anniston consent decree, so soon after Whitman’s meeting, essentially traded pending state action for federal inaction regarding one of the most polluted places — and some of the most polluted people — on Earth.
The nature of the change made sometime after Whitman’s March 6, 2002 meeting also stands in direct contrast to the Administration’s oft-stated philosophy of further devolving execution and enforcement of federal anti-pollution laws to state governments.
Whitman and other EPA officials have repeatedly stated that the Anniston consent decree was the product of career, regional office staff. That characterization of the decision-making does not square with the fact that the consent degree changed so significantly shortly after the joint EPA-DOJ meeting Whitman had requested.
Moreover, in trial testimony that very month, a key environmental official with Solutia (formerly Monsanto) stated he had been to a number of meetings in Washington during negotiations on the consent decree.
Published on Environmental Working Group
The Anniston “partial” consent decree would govern how the community would be cleaned up after decades of ongoing pollution from Monsanto’s former PCB operations at its chemical plant in this small Alabama community.
The term “partial” indicates that the consent decree merely seeks a study of the contamination, not an actual cleanup.
This term is rarely, if ever, used by EPA, another reason why this agreement is so unusual.
One leading scientist has labeled Anniston “the most contaminated place on earth.”
The Anniston cleanup agreement is pending final approval in federal court, which could come at any time.
Anniston's local citizen group, Community Against Pollution and Environmental Working Group have written a letter to Administrator Whitman once again seeking to learn the details of the deal the Agency cut with Monsanto.
EWG has sought for more than 15 months to understand how the consent decree was written, and by whom. EWG has asked which Monsanto officials had any role in negotiating or drafting it with federal officials, specifically at EPA headquarters.
These inquiries, under the Federal Freedom of Information Act, have been met with a pattern of resistance and non-answers from Administration staff members, including those in Administrator Whitman’s office.
Among the few documents obtained through the FOIA requests was a heavily-redacted memo indicating that Administrator Whitman requested and received a 45-minute “briefing” on the Anniston situation days after a state jury found Monsanto liable on all counts, including negligence, wantonness, nuisance, suppression of the truth, trespass and outrage.
Outrage is a rarely successful tort claim that under Alabama law describes conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”
Court documents show that within a week after Whitman’s meeting, a key change was made to the Anniston consent decree that was highly favorable to Monsanto.
The very existence of the consent decree became public only after a Monsanto employee admitted as much under oath in an Alabama courtroom later that month.
The topics of discussion for Whitman’s meeting were redacted from the memo EWG obtained.
EWG assumes that the meeting covered the consent decree discussions that were then underway because the document indicates that an unnamed Department of Justice official was present. Given the presence of a Justice Department official, it appears that the March 6 “briefing” was more of a decision-making meeting, not just an update for Whitman on the situation as it had unfolded to that point.
The change made to the consent decree subsequent to Whitman’s meeting was a major one, and it was highly unusual.
The change essentially blocked a nearly certain state-ordered cleanup of the actual pollution source and substituted not a federal cleanup, but a federal study. Historically, the Agency has pre-empted state toxic waste cleanup authority in order to catalyze action in cases where state regulators were proving sluggish or taking no action.
The change made to the Anniston consent decree, so soon after Whitman’s meeting, essentially traded pending state action for federal inaction regarding one of the most polluted places — and some of the most polluted people — on Earth.
The nature of the change made sometime after Whitman’s March 6, 2002 meeting also stands in direct contrast to the Administration’s oft-stated philosophy of further devolving execution and enforcement of federal anti-pollution laws to state governments.
Whitman and other EPA officials have repeatedly stated that the Anniston consent decree was the product of career, regional office staff. That characterization of the decision-making does not square with the fact that the consent degree changed so significantly shortly after the joint EPA-DOJ meeting Whitman had requested.
Moreover, in trial testimony that very month, a key environmental official with Solutia (formerly Monsanto) stated he had been to a number of meetings in Washington during negotiations on the consent decree.
Published on Environmental Working Group
Source URL:
http://www.ewg.org/reports/whitman
http://www.ewg.org/reports/whitman
Monsanto is widely referred to as the "most evil company on the planet"and has one sole lobbyist in Alabama: Stephen E. Bradley, former Chemical Waste president of the notorious Emelle toxic waste dump.
Page 8 of 84 State of Alabama Ethics Commission 2010LobbyistsPDF
KEY PLAYERS IN THE CASE:
Citizens of Anniston
The health of this group of individuals is at the heart of this battle.
The citizens of Anniston believe they have been directly affected by the PCBs produced by Monsanto and as a result, are experiencing a wide variety of adverse health affects. Over 3,000 Anniston residents have rallied against Monsanto filing suit alleging they knew about the PCB contamination they were causing and failed to take corrective action.
The health of this group of individuals is at the heart of this battle.
The citizens of Anniston believe they have been directly affected by the PCBs produced by Monsanto and as a result, are experiencing a wide variety of adverse health affects. Over 3,000 Anniston residents have rallied against Monsanto filing suit alleging they knew about the PCB contamination they were causing and failed to take corrective action.
Citizens Against Pollution (CAP)
CAP, also known as the West Anniston Environmental Justice Task Force, is a group of citizens who have joined in a collective effort to fight Monsanto. This group has become a vehicle through which the citizens are able to directly influence change. Members of CAP aided in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) investigation by collecting soil samples. It was also this group that formally asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take some type of action in regard to Anniston's PCB contamination.
CAP, also known as the West Anniston Environmental Justice Task Force, is a group of citizens who have joined in a collective effort to fight Monsanto. This group has become a vehicle through which the citizens are able to directly influence change. Members of CAP aided in the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) investigation by collecting soil samples. It was also this group that formally asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take some type of action in regard to Anniston's PCB contamination.
Mars Hill Missionary Baptist Church
As the membership of this church was the first to be approached by Monsanto officials about selling their property, this offer brought the issue of PCB contamination to the forefront in Anniston. It was through negotiations between Mars Hill and Monsanto that many local residents learned the situation that was taking place in their backyards. The members of Mars Hill were the first to file suit against Monsanto.
Monsanto/Solutia.
For many years Monsanto produced PCBs in Anniston.
Now they are at the center of a battle accusing them of knowingly contaminating Anniston's air, soil, and water with PCBs and failing to protect the local residents.
Monsanto contends that once they were made aware of the contamination, they implemented swift and effective plans to stop the releases, repair the damage that had already occurred, and protect the citizens (Kaley II, 2000).
Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM)
Although they ultimately ordered Monsanto to begin an extensive cleanup in Anniston, many felt that the ADEM was also involved in the PCB cover-up. Further, several people believed that the ADEM fought to keep the Environmental Protection Agency from making Anniston a clean-up priority (Opinion, 2000).
As a result of the lawsuits and the public outcry, Monsanto conceded that much of the PCB contamination in Anniston was caused by their facility (Kaley II, 2000). Consequently, parts of West Anniston were declared a public health hazard due to PCB pollution (Bouma, 2000). The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) ordered Monsanto to begin a major clean-up effort.
This led to Monsanto demolishing buildings on the contaminated land, laying plastic tarps, and covering them with clean soil. According to Monsanto estimates, they have contributed more than $30 million toward the clean-up in Anniston (Kaley II, 2000).
A substantial amount of these monies were used to acquire residential land and provide these homeowners with relocation funds equaling approximately twice the appraised value of their property (Kaley II, 2000).
Although many residents did accept the relocation offers, there are still numerous residents who refuse to leave the only place they have known and a place their families have lived for generations. As such, these people are still being exposed to high levels of PCBs.
Additionally, downstream waterways are being assessed for human health and environmental impacts. To the dismay of many animal rights activists, Monsanto has proposed that some of the land be converted into a wildlife refuge.
During efforts to settle with Monsanto, Mars Hill Missionary Baptist Church was divided into two factions;
- One supporting the action against Monsanto
- The other contending that those who were making decisions regarding the case were doing so without the proper authorization.
Ultimately, after on-going litigation between these two groups Mars Hill was awarded $2.5 million and a new church van (Supreme Court of Alabama, 2000). Another church, Bethel Missionary Baptist, was given relocation funds and was able to build a new sanctuary on a site outside of the contaminated area (Kaley II, 2000).
The lawsuits filed by the residents of Anniston are still pending in court. There are no clear indications as to when a decision will be handed down.
A document created by Robert G. Kaley II (2000), Director of Environmental Affairs for Solutia, states that more clean-up plans are on hold pending state and federal approval.
As of September 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency had initiated the process to qualify Anniston as a Superfund clean-up site.
As EPA officials state that they are very early in the Superfund evaluation, it may be months before a decision is made (Raeke, 2000).
(**Editor's note see intro for how badly this was handled by the EPA and what influenced it.)
Although PCB production was banned at the Anniston plant years ago, the Anniston facility is still a functional chemical plant.
Currently the plant produces products including polyphenyls which include biphenyl, and paranitrophenol (PAP) which is used to make acetaminophen, a non-aspirin pain reliever.
Many residents are fearful that, in years to come, these supposedly safe chemicals will be at the heart of yet another environmental drama.
Only time will tell.
TABLE 1. SELF-REPORTED HEALTH CONCERNS OF ANNISTON RESIDENTS
Reported Health Concerns | Number of Reports |
Cancer | 50 |
Cardiovascular Problems | 46 |
Respiratory Problems | 43 |
Skin Problems | 22 |
Endocrine Problems | 18 |
Birth Defects/Learning Disabilities | 14 |
Immune Problems | 12 |
Neurological Problems | 11 |
Headaches | 9 |
Blood Problems | 7 |
Eye Problems | 6 |
Kidney Problems | 6 |
Infections | 5 |
Reproductive Problems | 4 |
Fatigue | 4 |
Prostate Problems | 1 |
Total | 258 |
ATSDR Health Consultation 2000
TABLE 2. RANKING BASED ON HEALTH RISK
Health Risks | Percentage Range for US Counties(scale: 0-30% cleanest counties; 40-60% average; 70-100% dirtiest counties) |
Added cancer risk from hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) | 80-90% |
Non-cancer risk from HAPs | 80-90% |
Number of people living in areas where cancer risk from HAPs exceeds 1 in 10,000 | 80-90% |
Number of people living in areas where non-cancer risk from HAPs exceeds 10 | 40-50% |
Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard, 1990
TABLE 3. 1997 RANKINGS OF MAJOR CHEMICAL RELEASES
Releases | Percentage Range for US Counties(scale: 0-30% cleanest counties; 40-60% average counties; 70-100% dirtiest counties) |
Total environmental releases | 70-80% |
Cancer risk score (air and water releases) | 70-80% |
Non-cancer risk score (air and water releases) | 90-100% |
Air releases of recognized carcinogens (cancer causing agents) | 30-40% |
Air releases of recognized developmental toxicants | 70-80% |
Air releases of recognized reproductive toxicants | 60-70% |
Environmental Defense Fund Scorecard, 1997
TABLE 4. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT FOR PERSONS 18 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER
Level of Educational Attainment | Number of Persons Attaining |
Less than 9th grade | 4,187 |
9th to 12th grade, no diploma | 6,606 |
High-school graduate, includes equivalency | 7,971 |
Some college, no degree | 5,179 |
Associate's degree | 1,129 |
Bachelor's degree | 2,414 |
Graduate or professional degree | 1,355 |
United States Census, 1990
TABLE 5. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT BY RACE FOR PERSONS 25 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER
Level of Attainment | White | Black |
Less than 9th grade | 2,641 | 1,299 |
9th to 12th grade, no diploma | 3,348 | 2,236 |
High-school graduate, includes equivalency | 4,245 | 2,505 |
Some college, no degree | 3,271 | 1,082 |
Associate's degree | 635 | 351 |
Bachelor's degree | 1,888 | 337 |
Graduate or professional degree | 1,128 | 214 |
United States Census, 1990
Judge hears arguments in PCB settlement dispute
