|
HEADLINES
MTBE case uncertain hope for utilities
Editor's Note: See link below to comment on this article.  | | Leaking fuel storage tanks are a major source of MTBE ground and water contamination. Photo USEPA |
Anyone who's worked with a water utility knows that MTBE and safe drinking water just don't mix.
Well, actually, they do, and that's the problem. MTBE, or methyl tertiary butyl ether, has a peculiar chemical make-up that allows it to mix very well in water, but it also sticks to dirt. That means that if gas treated with MTBE gets into the ground where groundwater is also found, the result is that the chemical may contaminate the water for a millennium or longer. "Because groundwater moves slowly there could be thousands of problems around the country that we don't even know about yet," said Anthony Aufdenkampe, a research scientist at the Stroud Water Research Center. "And once it's in the ground it will stick to the minerals pretty well; so it can take centuries to flush out." MTBE has several other peculiar qualities that make it much worse for providers of safe drinking water than even the gas it supplemented. It migrates much further than gas, and unlike gas it won't just float to the surface so that it can be more easily removed. And it makes water smell like turpentine, even at levels below 50 parts per billion (50 µg/L). ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded company in the world, was hoping that a parallel trend of court awards against gas companies had stopped migrating. So, ExxonMobil decided to take a stand in court, hoping to convince a jury that it was not responsible for the MTBE that had seeped into the well water in the New York borough of Queens. But like MTBE itself, the trouble continued to spread and ExxonMobil lost the case in October after an 11-week trial. A jury decided the oil company should pay $104.7 million for the cleanup. That amount is less than the $250 million the city wanted, but more than ExxonMobil would have had to pay under a settlement agreement reached in 2003. In that agreement, 23 other oil companies combined paid $15 million. ExxonMobil decided not to join that settlement with New York City's Department of Environmental Protection. The case was being watched closely because there are dozens of similar suits pending around the country. "This is an important result for cities and water utilities everywhere. It makes clear that even the biggest corporation in the world must protect drinking water and pay to clean it up when their products pollute it," says Victor Sher of Sher Leff, a San Francisco law firm that specializes in suing oil and gas companies on behalf of water utilities. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said the case shows that no company, no matter how deep its pockets, can afford to ignore the consequences of its environmental actions. "The fact that Exxon Mobile has gotten away with poisoning the ground near the Newtown Creek for so long is a true injustice to the people of New York, but I am glad that they will finally pay their share to make up for this wrong," Schumer said. For its part, ExxonMobil says that no larger conclusions can be drawn from the case. A spokesman says that the company believes that in the New York City case it was not one of those that contributed to the contamination of those wells, so it is currently exploring appealing that verdict. ExxonMobil told AWWA that the company believes that all companies should clean up any messes they are responsible for and that it is working to prevent any future problems and clean up any spills that are the fault of the company. "We take our environmental responsibility seriously," said Kevin Allexon, a spokesman for the company. He would not comment on how that verdict might affect negotiations with other water providers around the world, but said in general that ExxonMobil will defend itself when it thinks it is not responsible. And for water providers, the verdict does not mean they can hope for quicker settlements for their own MTBE cases. Oil companies and litigators both say that each case and each situation is unique, and the only agreement from all sides is that this will be an issue for many years to come. Additional AWWA Resources
Scott Yates, Contributing Editor
Posted: 11/24/2009
Comments
| 
