Approximately 250 plaintiffs have filed class action complaints against KBR alleging that they have been injured as a result of exposure to smoke emanating from waste disposal burn pits operated by KBR at military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan. All of these lawsuits have been consolidated before the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (In Re KBR, Inc. Burn Pit Litigation, 8:09-MD-02083-RWT) and are currently pending before that court.
As KBR has explained in its court filings, the plaintiffs' key allegations against KBR are contradicted by the facts relating to KBR's provision of waste disposal services in Iraq and Afghanistan. Set forth below are a listing of the key allegations plaintiffs have made in their complaints against KBR followed by the actual facts that contradict these allegations. All of this information has been previously stated by KBR in its legal filings with the Maryland District Court. KBR invites anyone seeking more information and details regarding this lawsuit or KBR's waste disposal services to review its publicly available court filings as well as the April 28, 2010 Department of Defense Report to Congress on the Use of Open-Air Burn Pits By the United States Armed Forces.
Allegation: KBR operates all burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Fact: Although KBR provides burn pit services at some sites in Iraq and Afghanistan, the majority of the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan are operated by the Army. Most of the plaintiffs in the lawsuits allege injuries from exposures to burn pits that KBR never serviced or operated.
Allegation: KBR designed and operated the burn pit at Joint Base Balad (formerly known as Anaconda).
Fact: Although the Balad burn pit was the largest one in Iraq and has been the subject of much Congressional, military, and media scrutiny, KBR never designed, serviced, or operated this burn pit. The majority of the plaintiffs allege injuries due to exposure to smoke from the Balad burn pit.
Allegation: Although incinerators are a safer method of waste disposal, KBR elected to use burn pits instead of incinerators to increase its profits.
Fact: KBR has no authority to decide the method of waste disposal at any military base in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military, not KBR, decides what method of waste disposal will be used at a base based on strategic, tactical, financial, and resource considerations. As the Department of Defense has noted, the military, after analyzing available options and risks, often elects to use burn pits for waste disposal in theater because they offer the most secure, effective, and expedient method of waste disposal in a combat environment where disposal at off-site landfills would place soldiers and contractor personnel at risk of enemy attack.
In addition, because KBR's contract with the military is a cost-reimbursement contract, KBR does not make more profit when ordered by the military to use a burn pit instead of an incinerator.
Allegation: KBR placed burn pits on bases at locations where prevailing winds brought burn pit smoke into nearby soldiers' living and working quarters.
Fact: The military, not KBR, decides where on a base to locate a burn pit. The military, not KBR, also decides the location of living and working facilities for base personnel.
Allegation: KBR elected to burn items in burn pits that are known to generate toxic smoke such as plastic bottles and medical wastes.
Fact: The military, not KBR, decides what items can be disposed of in a burn pit. For example, the military instructed KBR to dispose of plastic bottles in the burn pits because that was the only viable means of disposing of the huge volume of plastic bottles used by military and contractor personnel in theater. Similarly, the military instructed KBR to dispose of medical waste in burn pits at sites where the military had not directed the installation of a medical waste incinerator to handle such wastes.
Allegation: KBR burned items that the military had prohibited from being disposed of in burn pits.
Fact: KBR complied with all military directives regarding what items could not be disposed of in a burn pit. As the Department of Defense has noted, the amount of solid waste produced at military bases in Iraq and Afghanistan equals, if not exceeds, the total amount of solid waste generated at fixed military installations in the United States. Given this enormous volume of waste generated in theater, the possibility that a prohibited item occasionally made its way into a burn pit cannot be excluded. Nonetheless, the evidence supports the conclusion that KBR complied with the military directives regarding the items that could be disposed of in the burn pits it operated.
Allegation: KBR operated burn pits in violation of the provisions of its contract and military regulations.
Fact: At all sites where KBR provides burn pit services, the company does so in accordance with the relevant provisions of its contract with the military and operational guidelines approved by the Army.
Allegation: The military should be operating burn pits instead of contractors like KBR.
Fact: At most bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the military itself operates burn pits and, prior to the creation of the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), burn pits were always operated by military personnel. Thus, at bases where the military has decided to use burn pits but contracted with KBR to service those burn pits, KBR is doing exactly what the military would be doing if LOGCAP did not exist and is performing under the direction and control of military commanders in the field.
