Original Huffington Post Article

A Pentagon deal to grant one of America’s largest military contractors immunity from harming soldiers and civilians in Iraq was a unique arrangement, according to Army Secretary John McHugh.

As previously reported in Huffington Post and the Oregonian, taxpayers may be on the hook to compensate more than 150 military veterans who claim that a Halliburton subsidiary knowingly exposed them to cancer-causing chemicals in Iraq.

As part of a lawsuit filed by 26 Oregon National Guard soldiers who claim that they suffered health problems through exposure to hexvalent chromium while patrolling a water treatment plant near Basra in Iraq, it was revealed that contractor Kellogg Brown Root demanded and received legal immunity in return for taking over the $7 billion project in 2003.

In the wake of the disclosure in early August, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) demanded some answers about the deal, including whether other military contractors have been granted similar immunity deals.

On Tuesday, McHugh responded to Blumenauer, explaining that KBR has not asserted its claims under the contract’s indemnification clause. And he added that no other Army contract with KBR, which most recently was awarded a $2.8 billion deal from the Pentagon, contains such a deal.

McHugh added that “no other Army contracts awarded since 2001 to other companies for services provided in a contingency operation contain indemnification provisions.” McHugh explained that the Army considers the use of such provisions “only in extraordinary circumstances involving unusually hazardous risks.”

And McHugh explained that “no congressional notification was provided in connection” with the indemnification provision.

AR-M550U_20100831_162827

Original Huffington Post Article

Original Article at Huffington Post

Veterans 1, KBR O

It is time once again to tune in to the latest epsiode, oops, I mean development, of the long running farce, oops, I mean legal case, involving KBR and Oregon National Guard soldiers.

Yeterday there was significant pro-veteran ruling in the Oregon KBR Qarmat Ali litigation.

I have previously written about this and open air burn pits KBR ran on dozens of U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan in February, April and June.

In a 29-page ruling the federal district court in Oregon considered the motion by KBR and co-defendants Overseas Administration Services, Ltd. and Service Employees International, Inc. to dismiss the suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and rejected it.

U.S. Magistate Judge Paul Papak wrote that on March 3, 2003 – before combat operations began in Iraq – the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers entered into a “Restore Iraqi Oil” (RIO) contract) with KBR. Under it, KBR and its subsidiaries agreed to provide services to the U.S. military in connection with efforts to restore the infrastructure underlying the Iraqi oil industry. Also under the RIO contract, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued various “task orders” for KBR to perform. Combat operations in Iraq began on March 19, 2003. On March 20, 2003, the Corps of Engineers issued “Task Order 3,” which governed the services to be provided by KBR and its subsidiaries at Qarmat Ali and other facilities. Under Task Order 3, the U.S. military would declare a given worksite to be “benign” before KBR would begin operations there.

A lot depends on what you mean by “benign.” In a footnote the judge wrote:

The parties dispute the meaning of the term “benign” for purposes of Task Order 3. According to the deposition testimony of Robert Crear (retired Brigadier General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and of Gordon Sumner (retired U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contracting Officer and regional director of contracting), “benign” referred to freedom from combatant activity and from nuclear or chemical weapons, and did not foreclose the possibility of environmental hazards, including hazardous (but not weaponized) chemicals. Support for this interpretation can be found in the provisions of Task Order 3, which suggest that pronouncement of a site as “benign” did not, for example, foreclose the need for environmental assessment. Nevertheless, defendants take the position that a “benign” designation necessarily meant freedom from known hazards, including environmental hazards, and support for defendants’ position may also be found in the language of Task Order 3, which indicates that a facility must be cleared of environmental and industrial hazards before it may be pronounced “benign.” Because I do not find this issue to be material to the analyses I am called upon to undertake in connection with the political question doctrine, the government contractor defense, or the combatant activities exception, the parties’ dispute over the definition of “benign” need not be resolved at this stage of these proceedings.

In the underlying facts portion of his ruling the judge wrote:

Task Order 3 provides that KBR was responsible for providing the Corps of Engineers with an environmental assessment of any facility in which it undertook operations. The obligation to provide such assessments included the obligation to report and evaluate any environmental hazards. According to Sumner’s and Gen. Crear’s deposition testimony, KBR was not merely permitted but required under Task Order 3 and the RIO contract to take all necessary precautions to safeguard personnel who might potentially be exposed to environmental hazards at worksites, including the wearing of protective gear and/or the closing down of operations at any unsafe site.

In his analysis the judge noted that the defendants argue that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction by operation of the political question doctrine, by operation of the so-called “government contractor defense,” and by operation of the combat activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. For background on this see my January post.

The parties dispute the meaning of the term “benign” for purposes of Task Order 3. According to the deposition testimony of Robert Crear (retired Brigadier General of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and of Gordon Sumner (retired U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contracting Officer and regional director of contracting), “benign” referred to freedom from combatant activity and from nuclear or chemical weapons, and did not foreclose the possibility of environmental hazards, including hazardous (but not weaponized) chemicals. Support for this interpretation can be found in the provisions of Task Order 3, which suggest that pronouncement of a site as “benign” did not, for example, foreclose the need for environmental assessment. Nevertheless, defendants take the position that a “benign” designation necessarily meant freedom from known hazards, including environmental hazards, and support for defendants’ position may also be found in the language of Task Order 3, which indicates that a facility must be cleared of environmental and industrial hazards before it may be pronounced “benign.” Because I do not find this issue to be material to the analyses I am called upon to undertake in connection with the political question doctrine, the government contractor defense, or the combatant activities exception, the parties’ dispute over the definition of “benign” need not be resolved at this stage of these proceedings.

In the underlying facts portion of his ruling the judge wrote:

Task Order 3 provides that KBR was responsible for providing the Corps of Engineers with an environmental assessment of any facility in which it undertook operations. The obligation to provide such assessments included the obligation to report and evaluate any environmental hazards. According to Sumner’s and Gen. Crear’s deposition testimony, KBR was not merely permitted but required under Task Order 3 and the RIO contract to take all necessary precautions to safeguard personnel who might potentially be exposed to environmental hazards at worksites, including the wearing of protective gear and/or the closing down of operations at any unsafe site.

In his analysis the judge noted that the defendants argue that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction by operation of the political question doctrine, by operation of the so-called “government contractor defense,” and by operation of the combat activities exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. For background on this see my January post.

The judge proceeded to detail other cases where district courts have found the political question doctrine inapplicable to tort actions brought against government contractors in the military context.

In regard to KBR’s claims that various legal tests argue in favor of applying the political question doctrine he wrote that he found their arguments unpersuasive. He wrote, “the matter fundamentally at issue here is defendants’ performance of its contractual obligations to the government and to the plaintiffs rather than the advisability of any governmental policy-related decision.”

But the guts of the decision, which is undoubtedly giving all PMC legal counsels’ nighmares, is this:

Defendants here assert that their “provision of engineering and logistical support services at Qarmat Ali” took place pursuant to the specifications of a contract with the government, and that they did not exceed their authority under those specifications. On this basis, defendants argue that they were merely “executing the will of the United States” and are entitled to the benefits of derivative sovereign immunity. The evidentiary record belies both of defendants’ assertions.
The rationale underlying the government contractor defense is easy to understand. Where the government hires a contractor to perform a given task, and specifies the manner in which the task is to be performed, and the contractor is later haled into court to answer for a harm that was caused by the contractor’s compliance with the government’s specifications, the contractor is entitled to the same immunity the government would enjoy, because the contractor is, under those circumstances, effectively acting as an organ of government, without independent discretion. Where, however, the contractor is hired to perform the same task, but is allowed to exercise, discretion in determining how the task should be accomplished, if the manner of performing the task ultimately causes actionable harm to a third party the contractor is not entitled to derivative sovereign immunity, because the harm can be traced, not to the government’s actions or decisions, but to the contractor’s independent decision to perform the task in an unsafe manner. Similarly, where the contractor is hired to perform the task according to precise specifications but fails to comply with those specifications, and the contractor’s deviation from the government specifications actionably harms a third party, the contractor is not entitled to immunity because, again, the harm was not caused by the government’s insistence on a specified manner of performance but rather by the contractor’s failure to act in accordance with the government’s directives.

Assuming without deciding that the Ninth Circuit would apply the government contractor defense to the provision of the kinds of services KBR contracted to provide in Iraq under RIO and Task Order 3 [...] – analysis of the RIO contract and of Task Order 3 fails to establish that the defendants’ actions alleged to have caused plaintiffs’ injuries were taken in direct compliance with any “reasonably precise” government directive. Quite to the contrary, defendants were contractually obliged to perform an environmental assessment of Qarmat Ali and to report any environmental hazards to the Army Corps of Engineers. Defendants were under no contractual obligation to put their employees or
third parties providing security in connection with defendants’ operations into situations involving the risk of environmental harm, to refrain from requiring employees or third parties to use appropriate protective gear and clothing when placed into such situations, or to withhold material information regarding such risk from persons placed into such situations.

Moreover, assuming arguendo that the government’s specifications regarding defendants’ obligations in connection with operations to be performed in an environmentally contaminated worksite were sufficiently precise to trigger the defense, plaintiffs have offered evidence tending to establish that the defendants violated those contractual duties, by failing to report the contamination at Qarmat Ali and by permitting the Oregon National Guard to perform duties at the site without appropriate protective gear.

Because defendants did not conduct operations at Qarmat Ali in accordance with precise government specifications and without independent discretion as to the manner in which the operations were to be performed, defendants are not entitled to the government contractor defense. See Hanford Nuclear, 534 F.3d at 1000. Defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore denied to the extent premised on the government contractor defense.

In other words, the “we were just following orders” defense is looking even lamer than ever.

Original Article at Huffington Post

Federal Judge Paul Papak in the United States District Court for Oregon today entered an order rejecting KBR and Halliburton’s demands for immunity for their conduct exposing Oregon National Guard soldiers to dangerous toxins at their Qarmat Ali project in southern Iraq in 2003.

The order ( 00132958.PDF) rejected the government contractor’s claims that they were entitled to dismissal of all claims against them, regardless of how serious their knowing misconduct was or the impacts on the men serving at Qarmat Ali, under the “political question doctrine”, “derivative government immunity” and “combatant activities” claims.

In a detailed, fact-specific analysis of KBR/Halliburton’s motion, Judge Papak found that none of the claims for immunity were supported by the actual evidence of KBR/Halliburton’s responsibilities for both conducting appropriate site analysis from “the get-go”, as confirmed in sworn testimony of the former commander of Task Force Restore Iraqi Oil (RIO), Gen. Robert Crear, and protecting all the men at their work site, including the soldiers providing security, from the sodium dichromate (also known as hexavalent chromium) that KBR’s own documents confirmed totally contaminated the site.

In recognizing that the law was clearly on the side of our veterans who served at Qarmat Ali, Judge Papak also rejected KBR/Halliburton’s attempt to shield all their activities in Iraq from legal scrutiny of any kind.

Aside from the importance to the Oregon veterans and the other men knowingly exposed at Qarmat Ali, Judge Papak’s opinion is also important for its refusal to simply accept KBR/Halliburton’s use of carefully selected (and incomplete) documentation and affidavits secured by KBR/Halliburton’s lawyers outside the mandatory US government requirements for securing evidence by any litigant.

Many times KBR/Halliburton has been able to convince courts to simply accept their version of the facts as true, without allowing any scrutiny of the factual record presented by KBR/Halliburton. In requiring a careful review, including sworn depositions of Gen. Crear and representatives of KBR to be considered, Judge Papak’s ruling went a long way towards helping reveal the true facts of what KBR/Halliburton did at Qarmat Ali.

Oregon Judge Opinion Rejects KBR Immunity Motions

Please visit Oregonlive.com for full story

Published: Monday, August 30, 2010,
Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian

A federal judge ruled Monday that a lawsuit by Oregon Army National Guard veterans against war contractor Kellogg Brown & Root can proceed.

The decision makes the federal court in Portland the apex of a legal battle that stretches from Oregon to West Virginia, and from Indiana to Texas, over who is responsible for exposing American soldiers to a known cancer-causing chemical early in the Iraq war.

Already, the Oregon case has opened a window into the government’s unprecedented use of private companies in Iraq and the lucrative contracts that have remained secret until now.

Beginning in May 2003, hundreds of U.S. and British troops guarded KBR workers as they worked to restore Iraqi oil flows. At a decrepit Qarmat Ali water treatment plant, piles of a toxic orange-yellow powder stained the soil, water and walls.

The powder was a rust-fighter, sodium dichromate, which contains hexavalent chromium. Exposure to 40 micrograms of hexavalent chromium per cubic meter — about the size of a grain of salt in about a cubic yard — has shown a high increase in lung, stomach, brain, renal, bladder and bone cancers

In 2009, 26 Oregon Guard veterans sued KBR, claiming its managers downplayed or dismissed the presence of the chemical.

U.S. District Magistrate Paul Papak denied KBR’s second motion to dismiss the suit. His fact-finding refutes three of KBR’s long-time assertions. He found:

KBR brought additional sodium dichromate to Qarmat Ali in June 2003, stored and worked with it. KBR has consistently claimed the chemical was left by Iraqis after Saddam Hussein’s overthrow.

KBR knew of the sodium dichromate before most of the soldiers ever arrived, warning a subcontractor — but not the U.S. military or soldiers — that areas of the water plant were contaminated. The Oregon Guard weren’t notified of the chemical until August 2003, two months after they had guarded employees at the plant.

KBR was contractually obligated to provide an environmental assessment at Qarmat Ali and report hazards. KBR says the Army was responsible for the assessment.

David Sugerman, the Portland consumer attorney representing the veterans, said, “We are very pleased.”

KBR spokeswoman Heather Browne said in an email, “We are disappointed with the ruling and we are in the process of reviewing the decision.”

Troops from four states and Britain claim they suffer health problems as a result of the exposure. At least two soldiers who were exposed to the chemical have died of cancer.

Earlier this summer, KBR attorneys moved to dismiss the Oregon case for lack of jurisdiction. They argued that the contractor was “merely executing the will of the United State.” They also claimed that KBR was acting as a combatant during wartime, and should receive the same legal protection the military.

But in a 29-page opinion, Judge Papak found that KBR’s work restoring Iraqi oil was a foreign policy goal rather than a combatant activity.

“The defendents operations were more akin to restoring the battlefield to productive use after the battle has ended than to aiding warriors to swing the sword,” Papak wrote, citing another case law in denying KBR’s claim.

Details of the 2003 Restore Iraqi Oil contract have already raised congressional concern. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., has written the Secretary of the Army demanding details of the agreement because American taxpayers — and not KBR — would pay if the war contractor is found to have harmed Oregon veterans.

There have been several important developments in the fight to uncover KBR’s conduct in knowingly exposing the men at KBR’s Qarmat Ali project to dangerous toxins.  But first, it is with great sadness that all of us express our condolences to Sabrina and the McManaway family on Mark’s passing.  The Indiana/Texas lawsuit was brought in Mark’s name, and we will continue the fight in his name and for his family and the men with whom he served.

Recent developments in a number of areas:

Discovering the truth: KBR has made several bids to block discovery into their actions at Qarmat Ali.  KBR has filed yet more motions to dismiss the suits, and as part of those motions, they have asked that all discovery be blocked while the judge considers the motions.  However, at a hearing on July 9, 2010, United States District Judge Vanessa Gilmore in Houston federal court rejected KBR’s demand that all discovery be blocked and its managers not be required to testify under oath about what they knew about the hazards to the men at Qarmat Ali, when they knew it, and what KBR management should have been doing from the beginning of KBR’s project to protect our soldiers, British troops, and the men actually on the ground at Qarmat Ali doing the work.  Even after that ruling, KBR has refused to comply with its discovery obligations, so another hearing with the Court may be necessary.

Oregon Hearing on KBR’s Immunity Claims: At a hearing on July 12, 2010 before Judge Paul Papak in federal court in Oregon, the Court heard KBR’s demand for immunity for any misconduct at Qarmat Ali. KBR asserted that it was engaged in “combatant activities” during the routine work of site inspection and restoration of Iraqi Oil over many months, as well as entitled to “political question doctrine” immunity as an agent of the United States Army.  Judge Papak was able to hear about the June testimony of retired Brigadier General Robert Crear, the Corp of Engineers officer in overall command of Task Force Restore Iraq Oil (RIO), who confirmed that Project RIO was neither a combat nor combat support tasking.  More significantly, recently uncovered internal KBR documents confirmed that KBR was told at the outset of the need to advise the Army immediately of hazards at any of the work sites, including Qarmat Ali, and Gen. Crear confirmed that KBR was entrusted with the direct responsibility for both identifying hazards at Qarmat Ali, including sodium dichromate, and ensuring that all the men at the site were properly notified and protected by KBR at KBR’s project.  Judge Papak has in the past ruled swiftly on motions, and we are hopeful we will receive a decision on these motions within the next 30 to 60 days.

KBR’s “indemnity” demands for a bail out from the taxpayers: Recent testimony from KBR lawyer Christopher Heinrich has revealed that after securing the “no bid” contract KBR in March 2003, KBR demanded “full indemnification”, or taxpayer bailout, of any responsibility of KBR for any misconduct causing death or injury to our soldiers, Coalition forces, and civilian workers at KBR’s projects.  KBR made this demand after entering into the “no bid” contract, and apparently refused to honor its obligations to the government and the men and women serving in Iraq unless the government acceded to their demands.  This revelation has led to calls in Congress for answers about whether KBR actually made such a demand of the Pentagon, whether it was added-on after the fact to the no-bid contract, and whether anyone on behalf of the United States has agreed with KBR’s demand for reimbursement of any and all costs, including attorneys’ fees in justifying its conduct at Qarmat Ali.

VA Qarmat Ali initiative: The United States Department of Veterans’ Affairs has announced a new initiative at clinics in Oregon, Indiana, West Virginia, and other facilities providing care to impacted soldiers to more appropriately screen, document, and address the health effects on our soldiers.

West Virginia: The Court in the West Virginia suit dismissed the case there on the grounds that KBR does not do enough business in that state to exercise jurisdiction there.  This essentially is the same ruling that the Indiana judge made.  While we disagree with this ruling, we anticipate joining the West Virginia soldiers to the Houston suit shortly.

Occupational Health News Roundup

Category: Confined Space @ TPH • Occupational Health & Safety
Posted on: July 22, 2010 4:42 PM, by Liz Borkowski

The Oregonian’s Julie Sullivan has been following the story of the National Guard troops who were exposed to the carcinogen hexavalent chromium at the Qarmat Ali water plant in Iraq – which contracting giant KBR was tasked with rebuilding. (Oregonian stories are here; also see our past posts on the subject here, here, and here.) Now, Sullivan reports, US Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon has sent a “sharply worded” letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates asking for details about an immunity deal that KBR reportedly struck with the Department of Defense. Twenty-six Oregon Army National Guard veterans who were stationed at Qarmat Ali are suing KBR in the US District Court in Portland, claiming the company knowingly or negligently exposed them to a carcinogen; word of KBR’s immunity agreement came from a deposition in the case:

But during a June 22 deposition in the Portland case, Chris Heinrich, a Texas attorney for KBR, revealed his company had performed contingency planning in 2002 that identified hazards in the Iraqi oil fields, well before the invasion.After KBR had signed its no-bid Restore Iraqi Oil contract and as the coalition invasion was taking place in March 2003, Heinrich said he went to the Pentagon himself to demand immunity for KBR’s restoration work. Heinrich told Army officials that KBR refused to do the job unless granted “broad coverage.” KBR required that the U.S. Treasury — taxpayers and not the contractor — pay for any property damage, injury or death of any soldier or civilian working at a KBR site. That applied even if the harm resulted from KBR negligence.

“We proposed some language that we preferred to have in terms of the indemnification,” Heinrich said, adding that the agreement was typed up during that single meeting with an Army attorney. Heinrich said an amended contract was signed shortly afterward by the secretary of the army — at the time Tom White — or someone at the “secretariat level.”

In his letter to Secretary Gates, Blumenauer requests that DoD provide a copy of its contract with KBR, a list of other contractors granted indemnification, and information about the taxpayers’ financial burden resulting from indemnity agreements. He also asks “whether Congress was notified when the Department entered into contracts that burdened US taxpayers with the risk and legal responsibility for the actions of private contractors.” (Full text of the letter is here.)

Visit Oregonlive.com for full story

Published: Thursday, July 22, 2010, 8:23 PM     Updated: Friday, July 23, 2010, 7:52 AM

Julie Sullivan, The Oregonian

The Department of Veterans Affairs is launching a Qarmat Ali registry to aggressively track and treat veterans exposed to a cancer-causing chemical in Iraq in 2003.

The national surveillance program will register hundreds of National Guard members who served at the Qarmat Ali water- treatment plant, looking for health problems associated with hexavalent chromium exposure, such as asthma and lung cancer.

The monitoring is a victory for nearly 300 Oregon Army National Guard members and for Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore. Wyden proposed such a registry March 22 after veterans with breathing and skin problems told him in an emotional meeting in Portland that VA staff did not understand the hazards of their assignment.

Ross William Hamilton/The Oregonian Senator Ron Wyden reacts as former Oregon Guard Sgt. Larry Roberta (cq) begins to cough at a February press conference. Wyden said he was so distressed by the veterans' concerns he asked the VA in a March letter to create a registry.

“This is a concrete step forward,” Wyden said. “But it is only a step.” He wants the VA to go further and presume a service connection that will increase access and benefits.

The program is more a medical monitoring program than a confirmation of health problems. The VA does not presume a veteran who served at Qarmat Ali is ill — nor that any specific diseases are linked to serving there.

But the Qarmat Ali Medical Surveillance program will standardize medical exams nationwide, focusing doctors’ attention on lung cancer and other related problems and help direct treatment. Among the steps: ear, nose, throat, lung and skin exams as well as regular chest X-rays, said Dr. Victoria Cassano, director of radiation and physical exposure for the VA’s Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards.

Cassano said the registry connects veterans to a local coordinator and creates a long-term study group. She outlined the details to congressional staff and others Thursday, though the VA has not formally announced the program.

Oregon Democrats Reps. Earl Blumenauer and Kurt Schrader, and U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, all issued statements praising the new registry.

By Brian Bowling
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Wednesday, July 21, 2010

Download audio file (OPB_ThinkOutLoud_0715.mp3)

Larry Roberta is one of 21 Oregon Army National Guard soldiers who have filed a lawsuit against the military contractor Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR). The lawsuit concerns the soldiers' exposure in Iraq to hexavalent chromium, a chemical referred to by some as "Iraq's Agent Orange". The veterans claim it has caused them numerous health problems. Six years after returning home from Iraq, the once-healthy Roberta is unable to walk, and also suffers from chest pain, migraines and high blood pressure.

Lawyers for KBR argue that the federal government, not the company, is responsible for compensating the sickened soldiers. 

In fact, recently released documents show that in 2003 KBR told the Pentagon that it would not provide contracting services in Iraq unless the Army covered the potential costs of any soldier injured or killed working on a KBR project. The U.S. District Court judge is now deciding whether or not the case should proceed.

Have you been following the KBR trial? Are you a war veteran, or a family member of one? Have you served as a contractor for the military?

Despite warnings that a spate of nosebleeds among guards was caused by hexavalent chromium, engineering firm Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR) allegedly covered up the “extreme ­danger”.

The firm blamed the conditions on dry desert air or a sand allergy, a court heard.

When a civilian medic raised concerns, he was flown out of the country, it was claimed.

KBR was then owned by Halliburton, the American conglomerate tasked with plugging the Deep Horizon oil well before the fatal explosion last month, which killed 11 workers.

Former RAF Sgt Andrew Tosh and six comrades from 26 Squadron had been deployed to the Qarmat water plant to guard civilian contractors.

The father-of-two is suffering from skin and chest problems he says were caused by hexavalent chromium.

Iraqi workers fleeing the allied invasion are thought to have deliberately scattered the substance, used as an anti-corrosive in pipes, around the site .

Even limited exposure can provoke lung, stomach, brain, prostate, bladder and bone cancers, which can take up to 20 years to develop . The RAF men have joined nearly 100 Americans in a class action law suit against KBR for gross negligence and legal ­malice.

 “If I knew then what I know now I would not have gone on the site and would not have taken my men in there,” said Mr Tosh, 44, from his home in Lincoln last night.

“I believe KBR management misled the militaries of the US and the UK.

“Too many of the men who served at Qarmat Ali were sick whilst there or became ill later. This cannot be coincidental.”

Texas-based KBR made ­billions of dollars through US government “no-bid contracts” in Iraq after the 2003 invasion.

It received an extra bonus for the speedy restoration of Qarmat Ali plant which supplied water to oil fields near Basra.

Two US guards at the plant have died of cancers “attributable to their exposures in whole or in part to their exposures at Qarmat Ali”, alleged the lawsuit filed in West Virginia this week.

Many more have contracted illnesses ranging from persistent rashes and nose bleeds to tumours, it added.

Court papers say KBR’s south Iraq health safety environment officer was told about the contamination on site in May 2003 but nothing was done to protect workers or clean up the site .

By August, 60 percent of ­people at Qarmat Ali showed symptoms of acute poisoning, including continuous bloody noses (a symptom of hexavalent chromium poisoning known as “chrome nose”) spitting up blood, coughing, irritation of the nose, eyes, throat and lungs, and shortness of breath.

Ed Blacke, an American civilian medic based at Qarmat Ali, discovered bags of sodium dichromate, which contains hexavalent chromium, had been opened and their contents spread all over the plant.

He was flown out of Iraq after raising his concerns at a staff meeting.

KBR denied it was responsible for the presence of the toxic chemicals at the site and said it would “vigorously” defend all the cases.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman said: “An Army Environmental Monitoring team conducted a survey in ­September 2003 and found that there was a limited risk that ­personnel had been exposed to some levels of sodium dichromate earlier in their duties.

“The personnel affected were ­identified and the fact of possible exposure was recorded in their medical records.”