500 FILE NEW SUIT AGAINST LOCKHEED.

Byline: Lee Condon Daily News Staff Writer

More than 500 residents filed a suit Monday against Lockheed Martin, alleging the same type of health and property damage claims that netted their neighbors a total of $60 million in a confidential toxics settlement with the aerospace giant earlier this year.

The lawsuit filed in Burbank Superior Court lists nine causes of action, claiming that historic emissions from the company's former aircraft manufacturing plant harmed residents' health and lowered their property values.

Lockheed officials could not be reached for comment Monday, but have said none of the operations at the plant, known as B-1, ever posed a health risk to residents.

The company, without admitting liability, agreed to a $60 million settlement this summer with 1,357 residents who claimed that the plant's operations had affected their health and property.

After the Daily News disclosed the details of the settlement Aug. 4, Lockheed and the mediator, retired appellate court Justice John Trotter began an investigation of how the deal became public and half the payments were held back until the inquiry can be completed.

Allan Sigel, a Westwood attorney who filed the lawsuit, said the plaintiffs' case will focus on the company's historic emissions of the carcinogen, hexavalent chromium, and will claim that the company committed ``fraud and deceit'' by not notifying residents at the time it was released.

``Defendants . . . had a duty to warn plaintiffs and others of the dangers and the damages which would result from the discharge of hexavalent chromium, TCE (trichloroethylene), PCE (perchloroethylene), and other toxic substances into the atmosphere and the environment surrounding the (plant) and the gravity of the risk of injury,'' according to the suit.

``If plaintiffs' medical providers had been informed earlier of such toxic contamination, many of (the) plaintiffs' ailments could have been properly diagnosed and treated at the earliest possible stages.''

The suit alleges that the company tried to cover up the levels of hexavalent chromium and other chemicals discharged from the plant, to avoid both personal claims and cleanup costs.

The suit claims that residents already are suffering from, or are at risk to suffer in the future from cancer, respiratory problems, autoimmune deficiencies, reproductive problems, birth defects, chronic headaches and other problems.

This is the second major toxics lawsuit to be filed against Lockheed Martin. In late August, Los Angeles lawyer Patrick Grannan filed a class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Lockheed, alleging property damages and seeking a medical monitoring program for residents who missed out on the $60 million settlement.

Sigel said he has been overwhelmed by the response from the community to his suit.

``We have been astounded by the number of people who complained of cancer in their family,'' Sigel said. ``We have whole families where everyone in the family has cancer.''

Sigel said his suit's focus on emissions of hexavalent chromium at the Lockheed plant is similar to a recent $333 million settlement by Pacific Gas & Electric, the nation's largest investor owned utility, with residents in Hinkley, Calif. Sigel represented some of those plaintiffs who claimed they got cancer from toxics used by the company.

``Lockheed introduced into the environment a known carcinogen, Chromium 6 (hexavalent chromium),'' Sigel said. ``It's one of the deadliest carcinogens. We believe they were aware of the carcinogen they were using and the harm it could cause and didn't tell the community.''

He said he'll also argue that property devaluations resulted from the toxic contamination.

``The property values in Burbank have plunged as a consequence of the environmental damage in this community,'' he said.

Sigel said nearly 1,000 people have signed up for his suit and eventually will be added to the pleading. Others also could join, he said, estimating an eventual liability claim of about $1 billion against the company.

He said he decided not to file the suit as a class action because the plaintiffs are claiming personal injury, which courts are reluctant to lump together in class-action lawsuits.

Joyce McEntire, one of the plaintiffs, said she raised her family just a quarter of a mile away from the B-1 plant, living on Rees Street for 31 years. She said she, her husband and children all had health problems when they lived in Burbank.

``I had to have a hysterectomy when I was only 37,'' she said. ``My husband had to have thyroid surgery.''

When Lockheed settled with the residents in August - without a lawsuit ever being filed - there was no finding that hexavalent chromium or any other toxic chemical caused any of the cancers or other illnesses in the area.

Lockheed did pay larger sums, up to $300,000, to families who had members die of cancer.

Trotter said hexavalent chromium was the primary toxic driving the settlement. In addition, some settlement dollars were given out based on alleged exposures to trichloroethylene and perchloroethylene in drinking water.

Among the evidence that Trotter reviewed during the mediation was a 1989 health risk assessment for the B-1 plant which concluded that emissions of hexavalent chromium contributed 86 percent to the total cancer risk, which was estimated at 180 per million additional cancers among residents receiving a maximum exposure over a lifetime.

Both sides argued over ``causation'' - what evidence would be required to prove a link between disease and exposure - before Trotter, and while he issued no ruling, he ``made it clear to both sides that the issue was a close one,'' according to a Nov. 13, 1995, memo to residents from their attorney David B. Casselman.

Lockheed has declined to comment on the memo or the arguments that dealt with causation.

Hexavalent chromium, which is created as a byproduct during chrome plating, stainless steel manufacturing and paint production has been linked in medical studies to lung cancer.

A state epidemiological study done in 1995, found no higher incidence of cancer was found in a neighborhood near the B-1 plant than what would be expected statistically.

Sigel said he expects the case will be fought based on a smaller ``representative'' group of the plaintiffs.