The Charleston Gazette (WV) has reported in an 6/27/09 article that seven members of the West Virginia National Guard who guarded a water plant in southern Iraq in 2003 have filed a lawsuit in federal court claiming that the contractor in charge of the project knowingly exposed them to a highly toxic chemical.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in federal court in West Virginia's Northern District, accuses KBR Inc., a former Halliburton subsidiary that has been awarded billions of dollars' worth of no-bid contracts in Iraq, of not telling soldiers that they were being exposed to sodium dichromate.
That chemical contains hexavalent chromium, described in the lawsuit as "one of the most potent carcinogens and mutagenic substances known to man."
When the West Virginia Guardsmen and American civilians working in the area began displaying symptoms of hexavalent chromium poisoning, including "chrome nose," or nasal bleeding, KBR managers told them that it was a byproduct of the "dry desert air," or perhaps they were "allergic to sand," the lawsuit contends.
Thursday's action follows similar lawsuits filed on behalf of members of Guard units from Oregon and Indiana who also served at Qarmat Ali, near Basra, while KBR repaired a water plant facility that pumped water into oil wells for smoother flow.
"The [Guard members] were repeatedly told that there was no danger on site, even after KBR managers knew that blood testing of American civilians exposed onsite confirmed elevated chromium levels," the lawsuit states.

Overview
Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) compounds are a group of chemical substances that contain the metallic element chromium in its positive-6 valence (hexavalent) state. Occupational exposures to Cr(VI) occur during the production of stainless steel, chromate chemicals, and chromate pigments. Cr(VI) exposures also occur during other work activities such as stainless steel welding, thermal cutting, chrome plating,
NIOSH considers all Cr(VI) compounds to be potential occupational carcinogens. An increased risk of lung cancer has been demonstrated in workers exposed to Cr(VI) compounds. Other adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include dermal irritation, skin ulceration, allergic contact dermatitis, occupational asthma, nasal irritation and ulceration, perforated nasal septa, rhinitis, nosebleed, respiratory irritation, nasal cancer, sinus cancer, eye irritation and damage, perforated eardrums, kidney damage, liver damage, pulmonary congestion and edema, epigastric pain, and erosion and discoloration of the teeth.
Cr(VI) compounds vary in solubility from those that are readily soluble to those which are practically insoluble in water. In 1975 NIOSH documented the carcinogenic effects of water-insoluble Cr(VI) compounds. The NIOSH 1988 testimony to OSHA on the air contaminants standard recommended that all Cr(VI) compounds, regardless of their degree of solubility in water, be considered occupational carcinogens.
NIOSH Draft Criteria Document Update
The NIOSH draft document “NIOSH Criteria Document Update: Occupational Exposure to Hexavalent Chromium” is currently being revised based on comments received during the public review and peer review comment periods. This draft document provides a review of the available literature and an update of NIOSH policies on occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium compounds including an assessment of: (1) critical animal, human, and in vitro studies on occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium; (2) relevant quantitative risk assessments about occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium; (3) appropriate methods for sampling and analysis of hexavalent chromium compounds in the workplace; (4) basis for the NIOSH revised Recommended Exposure Limit for hexavalent chromium compounds; and (5) other NIOSH recommendations for protecting workers from occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. The draft NIOSH document, public comments, and peer review comments received are available on the site http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/hexchrom

Is this a new topic? Or do we have an age old situation being reborn?

In the days to follow we shall see several articles dealing with unneeded exposures to the troops. The lessons learned in the past decades should have tipped off those using compounds to check them out for chemical hazards.

Trade Names of Chromic acid (CrO3): Chromic anhydride, Chromic oxide, Chromium(VI) oxide (1:3), Chromium trioxide. Then the synonyms of chromates or chromium(VI) compounds such as zinc chromate vary depending upon the specific compound. Symptoms are including irritation respiratory system; nasal septum perforation; liver, kidney damage; leukocytosis or increased blood leukocytes, leukopenia or reduced blood leukocytes, eosinophilia; eye injury, conjunctivitis; skin ulcer, sensitization dermatitis; this is a potential occupational carcinogen.

Exposure routes of this chemical is inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact. Target organs are blood, respiratory system, liver, kidneys, eyes and the skin. The cancer sites are the lungs[lung cancer].

When products used by troops start causing drastic illness and even proven to be cancer causing and still used, something is wrong. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the International Agency for Reseach on Cancer (IARC), and the EPA have determined that chromium(VI) compounds are known human carcinogens. In workers, inhalation of chromium(VI) has been shown to cause lung cancer. Chromium(VI) also causes lung cancer in animals. An increase in stomach tumors was observed in humans and animals exposed to chromium(VI) in drinking water.

However Chromium(III) is an essential nutrient that helps the body use sugar, protein, and fat. The problem is in breathing high levels of chromium(VI) which can cause irritation to the lining of the nose, nose ulcers, runny nose, and breathing problems, such as asthma, cough, shortness of breath, or wheezing. The concentrations of chromium in air that can cause these effects may be different for different types of chromium compounds, with effects occurring at much lower concentrations for chromium(VI) compared to chromium(III).

Now we also know that sperm damage and damage to the male reproductive system has also been observed in laboratory animals exposed to chromium(VI).

How many other hazards are going to laid upon our troops?

Knowing that sperm damage and damage to the male reproductive system has also been observed in laboratory animals exposed to chromium(VI). We should remember the results of untested chemical used in Vietnam, the chemical known as Agent Orange.

OSHA has detailed reports and results of the studies, thus strict work rules were created in industry, however the military and their contractors in foreign lands are exempt from OSHA rules.

NIOSH considers all Cr(VI) compounds to be potential occupational carcinogens. An increased risk of lung cancer has been demonstrated in workers exposed to Cr(VI) compounds. Other adverse health effects associated with Cr(VI) exposure include dermal irritation, skin ulceration, allergic contact dermatitis, occupational asthma, nasal irritation and ulceration, perforated nasal septa, rhinitis, nosebleed, respiratory irritation, nasal cancer, sinus cancer, eye irritation and damage, kidney damage, liver damage, pulmonary congestion/edema, as well as epigastric pain.

Only the perforated eardrums, and erosion and discoloration of the teeth are not similar to the complaints we saw from the herbicide exposure in Vietnam and other selected areas.

Workers who breathe hexavalent chromium compounds may be at increased risk of developing lung cancer. Breathing high levels of hexavalent chromium can irritate or damage the nose, throat, and lungs. Irritation or damage to the eyes and skin can occur if hexavalent chromium contacts these organs in high concentrations or for a prolonged period of time. Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium occurs from inhalation of dusts, mists, or fumes containing hexavalent chromium, as well as eye and skin contact with hexavalent chromium.

There seem to be some similarities of the chemicals used in the 1960's to very early 70's and the toxins of the 2000's. All forms of hexavalent chromium are regarded as carcinogenic to those exposed. The risk of developing lung cancer increases with the amount of hexavalent chromium inhaled and the length of time exposed. Studies of workers in chromate production, chromate pigment, and chrome electroplating industries employed before the 1980s show increased rates of lung cancer mortality.

DAVE B

Great article and super research...I read and follow your articles and posts, and this exposure you wrote about gave pause to me because of its complexity and the relationship of sorts you made with AO exposure in Vietnam. Now a question comes to mind that you might have insight on and that is..You mention that 7 National Guardsmen filed a lawsuit... (1) Are they seeking "Class Action Status"? and (2) Because they may theoretically be in the service..are they? and if so, do they have standing in the court, or must they first separate?

Eres Tu!
Freddy
FOUNDING MEMBER OF THE DVG
aka Private No Rank

According to the news release in the Charleston Gazette Houston Texas attorney Michael P. Doyle and Weirton West Virginia attorney Michael G. Simon filed the lawsuit on behalf of plaintiffs Dale Gallaher of Kansas City, Kan.; Robert Wilson of Dunbar West Virginia; Russell Powell of Moundsville West Virginia; Andru Keller of Middlebourne West Virginia; Eric Heid of Rocky Mount, N.C.; John Headley of Paden City West Virginia; and Bradley Ebert of Wheeling West Virginia.

The lawsuit also named the firms Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. and KBR Technical Services Inc., two Delaware corporations that it claims were created to accumulate profit, and Overseas Administration Services Ltd. and Service Employees International Inc., both incorporated in the Cayman Islands, as defendants.

The West Virginia Guardsmen have various respiratory ailments, but no cases of cancer have been confirmed. Again striking similarities to the herbicide reports of the 1960's and 70's.

The Gazette reported "(T)he No. 1 most important goal for these cases, bar none, is ensuring that these soldiers get ongoing evaluation and treatment for conditions resulting from their exposure," he said."

We know that exposure increases cancer risk dramatically. Anyone exposed to sodium dichromate requires routine, regular, specific evaluations to have the better survival rates.

In April a news release from U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., stated the Department of Defense alerted the West Virginia National Guard in November 2008 about possible exposure to sodium dichromate during its deployment in the Basra area in 2003.

Rockefeller wrote letters to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Department of Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki in April, expressing concern for the identification, notification and treatment of members of the 1092nd Engineering Battalion believed to have been exposed.

Gates' and Shinseki's responses were not available Friday.

"The thing that we're really concerned about is, five to 10 years after exposure, cancers start popping up," Doyle said. "These Guardsmen, they went there for us, and they end up now having these problems."

Apparently these are individaul cases, not class action.

More from the Charleston Gazette

6/27/09 in part...

"Larry Roberta's every breath is a painful reminder of his time in Iraq. He can't walk a block without gasping for air. His chest hurts, his migraines sometimes persist for days and he needs pills to help him sleep.

James Gentry came home with rashes, ear troubles and a shortness of breath. Later, things got much worse: He developed lung cancer.

David Moore's postwar life turned into a harrowing medical mystery: nosebleeds and labored breathing that made it impossible to work, much less speak. His desperate search for answers ended last year when he died of lung disease at age 42.

What these three men - one sick, one dying, one dead - had in common is they were National Guard soldiers on the same stretch of wind-swept desert in Iraq during the early months of the war in 2003.

These soldiers and hundreds of other Guard members from Indiana, Oregon and West Virginia were protecting workers hired by a subsidiary of the giant contractor KBR Inc. to rebuild an Iraqi water treatment plant. The area, as it turned out, was contaminated with hexavalent chromium, a potent, sometimes deadly chemical linked to cancer and other devastating diseases.

No one disputes that, but that's where the agreement ends.

KBR denies any wrongdoing

Among the issues now rippling from the courthouse to Capitol Hill are whether the chemical made people sick, when KBR knew it was there and how the company responded. However, the debate is about more than this one case; it has raised broader questions about private contractors and health risks in war zones.

Questions, says Sen. Evan Bayh, who plans to hold hearings on the issues, such as these:

"How should we treat exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals as a threat to our soldiers? How seriously should that threat be taken? What is the role of private contractors? What about the potential conflict between their profit motives and taking all steps necessary to protect our soldiers?"

A question I have asked for years. Also have made a few suggestions to no avail.

LET THESE CONTRACTORS PROVIDE THEIR OWN SECURITY IN A COMBAT ZONE

THIS IS GETTING PAINFULLY CLOSE TO DOW CHEMICAL, THE GOVT AND THE VETERANS WHO KNEW NOTHING..AGENT ORANGE !!

RONCO IS RIGHT, WHY WERE WE, ARE WE WATCHING THEIR BACKS WHILE THEY RAKE IN ALL THE MONEY..SADLY A SOLDIER WILL ALWAYS BE THE CHEAPEST BUT THE BEST SECURITY YOU'LL EVER SEE FOR THE MONEY

Eres Tu!
Freddy

LET'EM SPEND SOME OF THEIR GD PROFITS ON THEIR OWN SECURITY...

OR ELSE, PLAN A FEW BILLION FOR FUTURE TREATMENTS FOR OUR VETERANS INTO THEIR COST PLUS BUDGETS...

THESE LOW-LIFE FUGGIN SUB-HUMANS SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED BY NAME IN A NATIONAL PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN

Follow up on Guardsman Roberta’s fellow soldiers

Six years later, and after law suits have been filed against KBR for their alleged failure to test for the substance at a contaminated oil facility, the Army has finally notified Guardsman Roberta’s fellow soldiers that they too may have been exposed to the same toxic chemicals.

We posted this story June 28th. Now we still do not know what will come of Larry Roberta and his fellow soldiers. A bigger question is how many other soldiers, or Iraqi civilians will develop similar lung disorders?

This is one of many reported cases of respitory disfunction to come out of Iraq or Afghanistan. On top of the fact the particles they breathe in that environment, contributes to lung problems for asthmatics or those with COPD. Thus having large “Burn pits” close to camps most likely contribute to some disorders.

If you or someone you know has returned from Afghanistan or Iraq and are suffering from medical problems which may be caused by chemical exposure, please seek, or urge them to seek medical attention at the closest VAMC. You only have one year for presumtive consideration to file a claim with the VA. That one year clock begins at separation from service. If you suspect you may have an service related condition, first go to the VAMC and get the examination, then talk to a VSO.

VA Healthcare for OEF/OIF is priority for five years, it began with a two year limit then increased to five years in 2008.

KEEP UP THE IMPORTANT WORK, DAVE

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see why Hexavalent chromium was there to begin with?

It's sad to think that our government allowed this to happen yet again.

I was exsposed to one of the agents due to clearing the barrels of it comming out of Alabama depot. I only have a small exposure, but we were never told it was a problem to check the barrels for contraban.I still wonder how many others got it also. But we were never notifed.

I just don't get it. Once more someone dropped the ball.

Mainedawg: "Maybe I missed it, but I don't see why Hexavalent chromium was there to begin with?

It's sad to think that our government allowed this to happen yet again."

Great question.

Outstanding point which is well made!

quote:

Workers who breathe hexavalent chromium compounds may be at increased risk of developing lung cancer. Breathing high levels of hexavalent chromium can irritate or damage the nose, throat, and lungs. Irritation or damage to the eyes and skin can occur if hexavalent chromium contacts these organs in high concentrations or for a prolonged period of time. Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium occurs from inhalation of dusts, mists, or fumes containing hexavalent chromium, as well as eye and skin contact with hexavalent chromium.

There seem to be some similarities of the chemicals used in the 1960's to very early 70's and the toxins of the 2000's. All forms of hexavalent chromium are regarded as carcinogenic to those exposed. The risk of developing lung cancer increases with the amount of hexavalent chromium inhaled and the length of time exposed. Studies of workers in chromate production, chromate pigment, and chrome electroplating industries employed before the 1980s show increased rates of lung cancer mortality.