By Matthew T. Marin, Esq., member of the American Association for Justice and Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker
Contact Us for a Free Taunton, MA EtO Cancer Claim Evaluation
Taunton, MA — Free Case Review
The Question Is Your Address, Not Your Town.
Two streets in one neighborhood can fall on opposite sides of the line. We check your actual address against EPA’s own model — and tell you either way.
The figures on this page come from EPA’s air-toxics modeling and the facility’s own reported releases, not from us. No claim is decided by a map — it turns on the address, the years, the diagnosis and the law of the state.
Did you live or work near an ethylene oxide plant?
Answered 24/7 · Free and confidential · No fee unless there is a recovery. Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery.
Partners
Matthew T. Marin & Stefanie A. Murphy
Super Lawyers® honorees · American Association for Justice members
Every ethylene oxide inquiry gets a personal review — and an honest answer either way, free and without obligation.
This page is attorney advertising and legal information, not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Marin & Murphy Law Firm is licensed in Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut and South Carolina; a matter in another state would be handled with, or referred to, a lawyer licensed there. Prior results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Every claim is evaluated case by case, on its own facts.
If you or a loved one lived or worked near the Professional Contract Sterilization (PCS) facility at 40 Myles Standish Blvd in Taunton, Massachusetts, and have been diagnosed with certain cancers, you may have questions about potential links to ethylene oxide (EtO) emissions. As a Massachusetts-based law firm with experience in environmental mass torts, we’re here to provide educational information on ethylene oxide lawsuit Massachusetts options and offer free consultations to help you explore your options for a PCS Taunton cancer lawsuit.
What EPA’s own records show about the Taunton plant
The federal record for this facility is thin, and we will not pretend otherwise. Professional Contract Sterilization has filed ethylene oxide air releases in only four years — 38 pounds in 1992, then 140 in 2022, 132 in 2023 and 97 in 2024, 407 pounds in all. EPA’s 2019 model puts this census tract at about 1.8 in a million from ethylene oxide, roughly 8% of its modelled air-toxics cancer risk, behind formaldehyde at about 11.5.
A gap in the federal record is not proof a plant was not using ethylene oxide. A facility files a Toxics Release Inventory report only if it has the equivalent of at least ten full-time employees and manufactures or processes more than 25,000 pounds of the chemical, or otherwise uses more than 10,000 pounds, in that calendar year. Below those thresholds it files nothing. That is the honest reading of the thirty-year gap in this record: it tells you what was reported, not what was used.
Which is why, on this facility more than most, the answer turns on your own address and dates rather than on a table. If you lived nearby and have one of the diagnoses being accepted, ask — and we will tell you what the record supports rather than what it does not.
The two figures come from different EPA programs and neither is derived from the other: the pounds are what the facility itself reported to the Toxics Release Inventory, while AirToxScreen is modelled from EPA’s National Emissions Inventory. Neither dataset measures what any one person breathed at any one address, and neither decides a claim. They describe what was reported and what EPA models — which is where an honest inquiry starts, not where it ends. Sources: EPA Toxics Release Inventory (facility ID 02780PRFSS40MYL); EPA AirToxScreen 2019, risk by air toxic and by source type.
The other facilities on the federal record
We pulled EPA’s release history and modelled tract cancer risk for every facility below, one at a time, from EPA’s own databases. The first column is the plant’s own census tract. The second is the highest tract whose centre lies within four miles — because at several of these sites the model does not peak at the plant. It peaks in a neighbourhood nearby, and the difference is not small. They are not close to each other, and that is the point: the same litigation covers plants whose records differ by three orders of magnitude.
| Facility | The plant’s own census tract | Highest tract within four miles | Where that tract is | Ethylene oxide’s share of it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Becton Dickinson, Covington GA | 347.9 | 347.9 | the plant’s own tract | 90.9% |
| Sterigenics, Vernon CA | 21.1 | 172.8 | 0.3 mi away | 84.9% |
| Sterilization Services of Virginia, Henrico VA | 57.9 | 161.9 | 1.6 mi away | 84.0% |
| B. Braun, Allentown PA | 46.7 | 46.7 | the plant’s own tract | 62.7% |
| Boston Scientific, Coventry RI | 46.2 | 46.2 | the plant’s own tract | 71.8% |
| Steris-Isomedix, Spartanburg SC | 43.1 | 43.1 | the plant’s own tract | 57.2% |
| Covidien, North Haven CT | 4.8 | 12.5 | 1.0 mi away | 36.8% |
| Professional Contract Sterilization, Taunton MA | 1.8 | 2.1 | 2.2 mi away | 9.8% |
| Steris-Isomedix, Northborough MA | 0.4 | 1.2 | 2.1 mi away | 5.3% |
Both columns are EPA AirToxScreen 2019. The first is a point query at the facility address; the second is the highest value among tracts whose published centroid lies within four miles, each confirmed by a second query against EPA’s service by feature id. A modelled tract figure is not a measurement of what any person breathed, and it does not establish that any facility caused any illness.
Covidien’s North Haven plant is the one site here whose two records diverge most: 77,492 pounds reported released to air across 38 filing years since 1987, against a modelled tract figure in the single digits. The release record and the modelled risk are different measures and they do not have to agree.
If the plant nearest you is not on this list, it may still be one we are looking at — the list of facilities being accepted changes, and we track more than we have written pages for.
Was your address inside the area?
Most people who lived near a sterilizing plant never knew it was there. There is nothing to see from the road, ethylene oxide has no smell at the concentrations that matter, and the emissions numbers sit in a federal database almost nobody reads. So the honest starting point is not do I have a case. It is: was my home inside the area, and is my diagnosis one of the ones being accepted?
Three things decide that.
- Where you lived. Distance is measured street to street from 40 Myles Standish Boulevard in Taunton, not by town or ZIP code. Two streets can sit on opposite sides of the line, so it is worth asking even if you are unsure.
- How long. The cases currently being accepted in this litigation generally require about a year of living in the area, after the plant began operating. Every claim is evaluated case by case, on its own facts and on the evidence available to pursue a claim at that particular site. The emissions figures on this page are the public record; they are not a list of which years count, and at some sites the two do not line up. Tell us the years you lived there and we will tell you where they fall.
- Your diagnosis. Leukemia and lymphoma are the diagnoses most consistently accepted. Others are assessed individually, and some are not being accepted at all — we will tell you which category yours falls into rather than leave you guessing.
If your address is outside the area, we will say so plainly. We keep the details on file either way, because the facilities and diagnoses being accepted change over time and a claim can be revisited — but you will not be chased.
You do not need medical records, an address history, or anything else to ask. One call or one form is enough to find out which side of the line you were on, and roughly how long a claim of this kind takes. Free case review, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.
Cancers Linked to Ethylene Oxide Exposure
Leukemia (all types), non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Multiple Myeloma, Liver Cancer, Lung Cancer, Breast Cancer
EtO is a colorless gas used for sterilizing medical devices, but it’s also a known carcinogen according to the EPA. Prolonged exposure has been associated with increased risks of cancers such as leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and breast cancer. This page explains EtO cancer risks Massachusetts-specific, based on public EPA data, and how our firm can assist if you meet certain criteria for Taunton EtO exposure claims. We are available 24/7 at 617-741-7600 to take your call and discuss your potential EtO cancer claim.
What Is Ethylene Oxide (EtO) and Why Is It a Concern for PCS EtO Lawsuit MA Claims?
Ethylene oxide (EtO) is a chemical used in sterilization processes at facilities like Professional Contract Sterilization (PCS) in Taunton. The facility, located at 40 Myles Standish Blvd, has operated since 1990, using EtO for sterilizing medical equipment and materials.
According to EPA Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) data, the Taunton facility is one of 29 nationwide required to report EtO emissions since a 2021 EPA decision, due to high usage volumes and community proximity risks. Historical data shows ongoing emissions, with EPA noting reductions under new 2024 NESHAP rules but still flagging cancer risks for EtO emissions cancer MA concerns. Status as of September 2026: on 17 March 2026 EPA proposed to repeal the 2024 commercial-sterilizer rule, citing legal, scientific and medical-supply concerns. That proposal has not been finalised, so the 2024 standards remain in effect while the reconsideration is pending.
The EPA has highlighted environmental justice concerns for the ~70,000 residents within 5 miles, including vulnerable populations like children near schools. EtO is genotoxic, meaning it can damage DNA and lead to cancers with latencies of 2-5 years or more from first exposure.
EPA Data Summary on EtO Emissions at the Taunton Facility
The Professional Contract Sterilization, Inc. (PCS) facility at 40 Myles Standish Blvd in Taunton, MA (ZIP 02780), has been active since 1990, using ethylene oxide (EtO) for sterilizing medical devices, a process regulated by the EPA due to EtO’s classification as a human carcinogen via inhalation.
Key EPA insights include
- Historical Emissions and Reporting The facility became one of 29 nationwide required to report EtO to the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in December 2021 under EPA’s discretionary authority, due to high volumes and community proximity risks. As of 2024 TRI submissions (due July 2025), ongoing emissions are noted with reductions under new rules, but legacy exposures post-1990 remain a concern. In 2022 national data, 26 facilities managed >6 million lbs EtO waste, with 9,166 lbs released to air (43% decrease from 2013-2022).
- Current Regulations Under the EPA’s 2024 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) amendments, the facility must reduce EtO emissions by 90% by 2026, including stricter controls on point source and room air emissions. No major violations are publicly noted beyond a 2024 $15,000 settlement for Clean Air Act reporting failures, but the site is flagged for environmental justice concerns affecting ~70,000 residents within 5 miles, including vulnerable populations like children.
- Health Risk Assessments EPA’s 2016 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment links long-term EtO inhalation to multi-site cancers, with modeled risks ≥100-in-1 million in blue zones near PCS, decreasing with distance. 2025 updates highlight no new controls planned and no local EtO monitoring, with 2022 community outreach including meetings and flyers.
Key Health Risks Linked to EtO (Based on EPA and NIOSH Studies)
- Leukemias (all types).
- Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma.
- Multiple Myeloma.
- Lung Cancer (limited to non-smokers).
- Breast Cancer.
Potential Claimants: Do You Meet the Criteria for an EtO Lawsuit?
Drawing from EtO litigation trends (e.g., Sterigenics’ $363 million jury award in 2022 and ongoing settlements in 2025), we focus on qualified individuals without statute of limitations issues (except state-specific for deceased claimants). Priorities include
- Residents – Lived near the facility, with a diagnosis of leukemia, lymphoma, or a less common subtype of breast cancer. The closer the home and the longer the residence, the stronger the claim, and exposure during the years before emission controls were installed matters most. There is no cutoff based on how long ago the diagnosis was made.
- Family members – Relatives of someone who has died and who met the description above (wrongful death claims under Massachusetts law).
- Workers – Working at the plant is not by itself a basis for these claims, which are residential. Someone who worked there may still qualify if they also lived nearby for a sustained period, so it is worth checking rather than assuming otherwise.
Addresses are measured street-to-street, not by ZIP code, so it is worth asking even if you are unsure. If your diagnosis or address falls outside these descriptions, we still want the details — the facilities and diagnoses being accepted change over time, and we keep a complete file so a claim can be revisited. Free case review, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.
Court costs and litigation expenses are advanced by counsel and repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.
Latency Periods Reported in Published Studies (For Educational Purposes Only)
| Cancer Type | Latency Reported in Published Studies | Additional Filters |
|---|---|---|
| Leukemias (All) | 5 years | None |
| Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma | 2 years | None |
| Multiple Myeloma | 2 years | None |
| Liver Cancer | 2 years | Non/light drinker, younger age |
| Lung Cancer | 2 years | Non-smoker |
| Breast Cancer | 5 years | None |
Why Choose Marin & Murphy for Your EtO Claim?
- Local Presence: As a Massachusetts firm, we bring deep knowledge of MA regulations, DEP permits, and community impacts.
- Proven Environmental Experience: Led by founding partner Matthew Marin, who has over 17 years in mass tort litigation. Matthew Marin’s personal connection drives our commitment: “My father was an environmental scientist and was exposed; he spent most of his adult life suffering. It’s important personally for me and for the victims of this past water contamination to step forward and hold 3M and DuPont accountable.” We apply this experience to EtO cases.
- No Upfront Costs: We operate on a contingency fee basis—No fee unless there is a recovery. The firm advances court costs and litigation expenses, and those expenses are repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted. We advance all litigation expenses (e.g., court fees, expert witnesses), so there are no upfront costs. In PFAS cases, average payouts vary by diagnosis, exposure history and governing state law.
- Ethical Approach: All communications are truthful and educational, with no guarantees of results. Matthew Marin is admitted to the Massachusetts bar and a member of the American Association for Justice and a Mass Torts Made Perfect (MTMP) speaker.
At Marin & Murphy Law Firm, our track record in EtO cancer lawsuits demonstrates our ability to deliver results for clients harmed by negligent emissions. While each case is unique and past outcomes don’t guarantee future success, our experience in similar environmental torts informs the work we do for people affected near facilities like PCS in Taunton, MA. We handle complex claims involving genotoxic carcinogens.
Our success stems from a client-centered approach: We advance all costs on contingency, ensuring no financial burden. We provide personalized strategies.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) on EtO Exposure Lawsuits in Taunton, MA
How recent does the diagnosis have to be?
More recent than most people expect, and this is the single most common reason a file that looks strong on the map goes nowhere. The cases currently being accepted in this litigation weigh how recently the diagnosis was made, not only what the diagnosis was. If yours is an older one, say so at the start rather than at the end — it changes which lane a claim belongs in, and you are better served knowing that on the first call.
Click the questions below for additional information on the Taunton, MA PCS Cancer Lawsuits:
What is a PCS ethylene oxide lawsuit?
How to find a PCS cancer lawyer?
What is PCS EtO cancer lawsuit eligibility?
What are PCS ethylene oxide exposure lawsuit risks?
What is the PCS Taunton MA ethylene oxide lawsuit process?
What is PCS corporation sterilization plant lawsuit compensation?
What cancers qualify for a PCS leukemia lawsuit or PCS multiple myeloma lawsuit?
Can I file a Taunton MA ethylene oxide lawsuit?
What is a Taunton MA sterilizer lawsuit?
What is PCS ethylene oxide exposure attorney experience?
Other ethylene oxide plants on the federal record
Ethylene oxide is reported to EPA at plants across the country, and the federal record is not the same at any two of them. A claim turns on the plant a person actually lived near, so if your address was closer to one of these, start there instead:
- Steris, South Plainfield NJ
- Boston Scientific, Coventry RI
- Covidien, North Haven CT
- Steris, Northborough MA
You can read EPA’s modelled risk for every census tract around these plants, side by side, in our EtO census-tract risk index.
Naming an operator is not an allegation that it caused any individual’s illness. Whether a person has a claim depends on their address, their years there, their diagnosis and the law of their state.
CONTACT OUR ETHYLENE OXIDE LAWSUIT LAWYERS TODAY
If exposure to ethylene oxide from the PCS facility in Taunton has left you or a loved one struggling with cancer or other health issues, you don’t have to face it alone. At the Marin & Murphy Law Firm, our lawyers are investigating cases involving leukemia, lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and other cancers linked to EtO emissions. We understand how overwhelming these situations can be, and we’re here to fight for accountability and the compensation available under the law.
Deadlines Apply to EtO Claims
Dealing with EtO-related cancers is hard enough without wondering what to do next. Contact the Marin & Murphy Law Firm today for a free, no-obligation consultation. We’ll sit down with you, hear your story, and explain your options in a way that makes sense. Claims can have deadlines, so it is worth having your situation reviewed. We are available 24/7 at 617-741-7600 to take your call and discuss your potential EtO cancer claim.
Disclaimer The case results described above are provided for informational purposes only and reflect outcomes achieved in specific matters handled by Marin & Murphy Law Firm. Prior results do not guarantee, warrant, or predict a similar outcome in any future case. Each legal matter is unique, and the success of any case depends on its specific factual and legal circumstances, which may differ significantly from those in the cases referenced. No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. For a comprehensive evaluation of your potential claim, please contact our firm directly.
This page is legal information, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.