December 30, 1998
Letters to the Editor
The Boston Globe
Box 2378
Boston, MA 02107

To the editor:
Scott Allen, in his article on Woburn's environmental problems ("Movie Brings Toxic Tragedy Back to Life," December 27), quoted from a 1993 article I wrote for the Boston Phoenix in which I asserted that W.R. Grace & Company had become "one of Woburn's model corporate citizens." Allen quoted me accurately and within context, making it clear that I was referring to Grace's cooperation with government authorities in cleaning up contamination for which it had been found responsible. I continue to stand by that observation.

However, I am disturbed by Grace's current public-relations campaign aimed at discrediting the movie A Civil Action and the 1995 book by Jonathan Harr on which it was based. Grace, on both its Web site and in press materials, makes use of my "model citizen" soundbite as though it were some sort of blanket absolution. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, in 1986 a US District Court jury found unanimously that Grace, through its own negligence, had contaminated two of Woburn's drinking-water wells with poisonous industrial solvents. Although Judge Walter Jay Skinner set that verdict aside, he did so only because the jury -- to no one's surprise -- provided contradictory answers to Skinner's convoluted, highly technical written instructions. Yet even those contradictory answers made it clear that the jury believed the families' lawyer, Jan Schlichtmann, had essentially proven his case against Grace.

Unfortunately Schlichtmann, lacking the financial resources to move ahead with a retrial, was forced to settle for $8 million, with Grace refusing to concede any wrongdoing on its part. Thus the Woburn families Schlichtmann represented were denied the apology they had long said was one of their principal aims. Today Grace, by continuing to insist that chemicals dumped on its property never polluted the wells, does a disservice to the jury and to the families. I would not characterize Grace's current stance as that of a "model corporate citizen."

Dan Kennedy
Staff writer
The Boston Phoenix

(From What is a "model corporate citizen"? at http://home.earthlink.net/~dkennedy56/woburn_model.html)

What is the issue that Dan Kennedy is addressing?

• Is Grace & Co. a "model corporate citizen" overall?

What is the conclusion that he draws regarding this issue?

• I would not characterize Grace’s current stance as that of a "model corporate citizen."

Summarize the reasoning he gives to support this conclusion?

• Grace's current public-relations campaign aimed at discrediting the movie A Civil Action and the 1995 book by Jonathan Harr on which it was based is a poor way of apologizing to the families victimized by their actions.
• A jury in 1986 had concluded that two of Woburn’s drinking water wells had been contaminated by Grace.

Ambiguous words and phrases, Value and Descriptive Assumptions:

Is there any new information about the Wells G & H area that wasn't known at the time of the trial or covered in A Civil Action?
Yes, there is a substantial amount of new information, and it is all supportive of Grace's view in 1986 that it did not contaminate Wells G & H. For example:

1. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that Wells G & H drew no water from the Aberjona River. Grace contended that 50% of the water from Wells G & H came from the Aberjona. Shortly after the trial ended, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) completed its own study. USGS concluded that 50% of the water from Wells G & H came from the Aberjona River, meaning the river could definitely have served as a pathway for contamination. Not only was this finding contrary to the plaintiffs' assertions, it also invalidated the plaintiffs' conceptual model of groundwater flow.
2. At the trial, the plaintiffs asserted that Grace and Beatrice were the only potential sources of the contamination which led to the closure of Wells G & H in 1979. Grace contended that there were other potential sources. In 1988, EPA identified five potential sources of contaminants . Of the five, Grace is the farthest from Wells G & H and has the least contaminated property.
3. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that the chemicals which led to the closure of the wells in 1979 were the only substances polluting the wells. Grace contended that other contaminants might well have been present. Since the late 1980s, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), under a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, has been studying the Aberjona River Watershed. This MIT study has uncovered substantial concentrations of chromium and arsenic (substances not related to Grace's activities) in Aberjona River sediments and peat bogs in the Wells G & H area. MIT researchers trace the history of that contamination back to the early part of the 20th century. MIT continues to work on both the environmental and toxicological aspects of Woburn.
4. At the trial, the plaintiffs contended that large amounts of chemicals were disposed on the Grace property and that groundwater moved quickly on this site. Grace contended that the amount of disposal was small and groundwater moved slowly. In the seven years that Grace has operated a groundwater recovery and treatment system, it has extracted--from the most heavily contaminated portions of its property--less than five gallons of contaminants, the least amount recovered by any remediation system operating in the entire Wells G & H area. Furthermore, all of the new boring information, uncovered through the installation of more than 30 groundwater wells since 1986, is consistent with Grace's conclusion that groundwater moves slowly on its property.

• Did W. R. Grace & Co. contaminate wells G and H?

• New evidence supports W. R. Grace & Co.’s 1986 conclusion that they did not contaminate wells G and H.

• The plaintiff’s conceptual model of ground-water flow was invalidated by the discovery that 50% of the well’s water came from the Aberjona.
• There were five other possible contaminators located closer to the wells.
• The wells were contaminated with substantial quantities of other materials that Grace did not use at it’s plant.
• Grace’s clean-up effort has extracted only 5 gallons in 7 years of toxic chemicals from the most heavily contaminated section of its property.
• The new boring information from 30 new wells is consistent with the conclusion that water moves slowly off of the property.

• Substantial amount
• Substantial concentrations

• Rationality leads to answers.
• Time will tell.

• Substantial information means enough to make a significant difference in the case.
• Substantial quantities suggests enough to make a significant difference in the case.
• Since 50% of the water in wells G & H came from the river, thus proving incorrect the plaintiff's model, the lack of proof proves Grace innocent.
• The other contaminators were the only ones who contaminated the wells, rather than W. R. Grace.
• That pumping only 5 gallons of contaminants in 7 years of operation of a groundwater recovery system is a good indication that the ground was not very contaminated, and thus did not contaminate the wells.
• The fact that water moves slowly kept it from contaminating Wells G & H.

Fallacies, Quality of Evidence, Rival Causes:

Explain what is wrong, if anything, with the reasoning in the following examples (fallacies):

• Corporate polluters should all be severely punished by taking money away from them because clearly by taking money away from corporate polluters they will be chastised.
• The EPA should do nothing in the Woburn wells G & H case because the project is so huge that no one will ever be able to clean it up completely.
• The problem with Woburn is that either they will win the trial or the whole problem will again be forgotten.
• The government is full of a bunch of liars and therefore should not get involved in the water pollution problems in Woburn.
• Grace & Co. never polluted Woburn’s wells G & H because the polluted ground water moved too slowly off of it’s property to reach the wells in before they closed.
• Corporations should never pollute the earth. Therefore, when I moved to Woburn and began drinking the water, I assumed that it was safe.
• Woburn citizens are many intelligent citizens. The town of Woburn has many companies that pollute the ground. Therefore the corporate polluters should be punished in order to protect the victimized citizens.
• Jan Schlictman should have never been allowed in the courtroom because when he went to Hawaii he considered drowning himself.

Evaluate the quality of evidence:
A report completed by an independent company HSI Geotrans which was hired as an expert witness for W. R. Grace & Co. claims that the water moved too slowly off of Grace’s property to reach the wells. Thus W. R. Grace & Co. should be absolved of all charges which implicate it in the contamination of wells G & H.

W. R. Grace & Co. should be absolved of charges indicating that they contaminated Wells G & H.

HSI Geotrans issued a study indicating that they did not contaminate the wells.

The quality of the evidence here is questionable given the nature of the relationship between W.R. Grace and HSI Geotrans. HSI was hired during the trial to do a study and basically prove Grace innocent. There is a certain bias here that must be addressed before the evidence can be taken as valid. A quote from the EPA or another, truly independent organization would be useful.

Anne Anderson who’s son died of Leukemia was one of the first people to suspect that there might be a problem in the water supply. According to her, the only connection that between the many local leukemia cases was their water supply. Therefore, the water supply must have been the cause of the leukemia cases.

The water supply caused the deaths due to leukemia.

Anne Anderson saw the water supply as the only connection between the victims in the area.

Anne Anderson’s opinion is going to clearly be biased. She is searching for a reason to attribute hers and others’ deaths to something tangible. Furthermore she is not an expert. She probably knows little about water supplies and pollution in a scientific sense. The idea that she was one of the first people to suspect a problem in the water doesn’t help much either, since that doesn’t make her knowledge any more expert. Thus the writer really needs some more evidence to reach this conclusion.

Dealing with W. R. Grace & Co. is like dealing with a brick wall, its really big and tough to break down all at once, but if you remove one brick the whole wall will come tumbling down. The Woburn case, even though it may only cause the expenditure of a relatively small amount of money, will force strain the infrastructure of the corporation sufficiently that the whole company with collapse.

The strain on the company due to the Woburn case will cause the collapse of the company.

W. R. Grace is like a brick wall that can be destroyed by the removal of just one brick.

This analogy seems rather questionable. Few companies ever fall apart due to one problem as the analogy of one brick suggests. If the analogy of the brick wall is used, perhaps the idea of one brick at a time might be more appropriate although it certainly would not lead to the same conclusion.

Rival Causes

The ice on the Aberjona river was much higher than the water below it when the pump test on well G began. Therefore, the water that supplied wells G & H came from the river.

The water supply for wells G & H came from the Aberjona

The water dropped below the level of the ice in the Aberjona during pump testing.
Other possible and probable causes:

• The water flow coming from up stream became less when the pump testing began.
• The air between the ice and the river was filled with helium causing the ice to rise.
• The water supply was secretly being pumped away by corporate executives from Beatrice foods.

Deceptive Statistics, Omitted Information, Reasonable Conclusions

The United States, a democracy, should create tougher laws to protect innocent victims of corporate pollution because the citizens say so. According to one survey 87% of those surveyed felt that corporate polluters should be punished. Furthermore in another survey of a town in Massachusetts nearly 97% of citizens felt that if at all polluting companies should be driven from the country.

Keep in mind – the small town in Massachusetts was Woburn.

The statistic that 87% of those surveyed felt that corporate polluters should be punished leaves a lot of open questions. For example: Who exactly was surveyed? If the survey was done on a bunch of environmental groups the results were certainly be skewed. Secondly, the response is ambiguous. How should the corporate polluters be punished? The idea that they should be punished could mean that they might need to pay out $500 as a fine or mean that they should be taken completely out of business.

The second survey is also skewed in that it only represents one town, Woburn. The United States is made up of a lot of towns. This town is perhaps one of the hardest hit by environmental pollution. It’s no wonder that 97% feel that polluting companies should be sent away. A similar survey in an idyllic town somewhere else full of corporate executives might result in contrasting results.

Omitted information

All 25 physicians surveyed suggest that TCE causes cancer.

What possible information is missing?

• Were the 25 physicians paid to say this?
• Who surveyed them?
• Were they selected for this purpose?

Reasonable conclusions

According to test results, much of the soil in Woburn contains more that the recommended daily dose of lead. This is very dangerous to children who may ingest the dirt. Therefore, citizens of Woburn should move from the area to the mid-West where there is less lead.

Other conclusions:

• A massive clean-up effort should be made in order to remove the lead from the soil.
• The soil that is contaminated with lead in Woburn should be paved over with a harmless substance such as plastic so that children cannot get at the soil.
• Warnings should be posted around town about the dangers of ingesting lead so that mothers and fathers can remember to keep their children from eating the contaminated soil.