Kingston Questions and Answers

No.

On December 22, 2008, a coal ash spill occurred at the TVA Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant in Kingston, Tennessee when a containment dike failed.

After the spill, the TVA contracted with Jacobs to provide program management services and to assist TVA with the fly ash recovery project.

TVA hired various other contractors to perform the post-spill cleanup, removal and recovery of fly ash at the Kingston Site.

That is a question Jacobs has been asking itself, especially because the plaintiffs in the litigation about the clean-up were not Jacobs employees. Jacobs did not directly manage or supervise the plaintiffs, because they were employees of the other contractors on the project who were directly responsible for the health and safety of their workers.

In 2009, TVA hired Jacobs to provide program management services to assist TVA with the clean-up. Under the direction of TVA, Jacobs administered the site safety plan as directed by the EPA, the Tennessee Department of Environmental Conservation, and TVA. TVA took the lead and undertook the time-critical removal actions, with the EPA's On-Scene Coordinator approving all actions in consultation with the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

Jacobs did not generally manage or supervise the employees working on the site, and the other contractors who employed those workers were responsible for their safety.

The case is currently pending in federal court in Knoxville. In September 2021, the federal district court overseeing the case asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to decide whether the provisions of Tennessee’s Silica Claims Priorities Act apply to the Plaintiffs in these cases. As of September 21, 2022, the Tennessee Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision.

Several lawsuits involving workers from the Kingston Site and Jacobs were combined for purposes of a first phase of trial to determine whether there was a legal basis to proceed against Jacobs. In the first phase, the jury found that the case could proceed to the second phase because, according to the jury, Jacobs' conduct was "capable of causing" certain injuries. The jury did not decide that Jacobs' conduct caused any of the worker plaintiffs' alleged injuries—only that its conduct, in general, had the potential to cause certain injuries. While Jacobs disagrees with these findings, there was no finding in the first trial that any injury claimed by any plaintiff is actually connected to the Kingston Site, or to anything that Jacobs allegedly did. That issue would be resolved at phase 2 trials, if any take place. Jacobs is confident that the evidence presented at any such trial will show that plaintiffs’ health conditions were not connected to the fly ash at the Kingston Site and instead had other causes (e.g., smoking).

Jacobs believes the jury got it wrong, because the evidence did not support any of its findings. Further, because the jury failed to make findings about what Jacobs specifically did that was "capable of causing" certain injuries, there will be a violation of the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution if there is a second phase of trial.

Jacobs does not believe the case should proceed to the second phase because, among other reasons, the Seventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution will necessarily be violated if it does. But if the case goes forward, the second phase of trials will decide whether Jacobs' conduct actually caused any of plaintiffs' alleged injuries.

Jacobs is confident that if there are phase two trials, the evidence will show that nothing that Jacobs allegedly did actually caused any injuries that plaintiffs claim. Jacobs is confident that the evidence will show that plaintiffs health conditions were not connected to the fly ash at the Kingston Site and instead had other causes (e.g., smoking).

Jacobs takes pride in working on some of the world's toughest challenges and stands by its work at the Kingston Site.

Yes. There is already evidence demonstrating that certain workers' alleged illnesses had other causes.