We've always represented West Virginians statewide. Our new Charleston office gives Kanawha County and surrounding communities a more convenient place to meet our team.
Oil and gas work around fracking and hydraulic fracturing can involve contact with naturally occurring radioactive materials and related contaminants that are concentrated by industrial activity, sometimes called TENORM. Workers may face exposure through scale, sludge, produced water, dust, or contaminated equipment during drilling, transport, maintenance, and disposal. If you’ve developed serious health concerns or were not given reasonable safety measures, you may have questions about what happened and what options exist. Stephen New & Associates helps workers and families in Beckley and across West Virginia evaluate exposure facts, jobsite practices, and responsible parties so you can make informed decisions about next steps.
Fracking worker exposure claims are complex because symptoms can appear over time and multiple companies may share responsibility on a single site. Legal support helps connect the timeline of your work to specific tasks, materials, and controls that were—or were not—in place. It also helps preserve and request the records that can demonstrate how exposure occurred, including safety policies, air monitoring, cleaning procedures, and disposal practices. With a focused approach, you can better understand potential compensation pathways and avoid common mistakes that weaken a claim, such as incomplete work histories or missing medical documentation. The goal is a well-supported case that reflects the full impact on your health, finances, and family.
TENORM means naturally occurring radioactive material that becomes more concentrated due to industrial activity. In oil and gas operations, this can appear in pipe scale, sludge, produced water, and equipment residues. The concern is not just the presence of material, but whether workers were exposed through dust, contact, or contaminated work areas. Proper controls may include monitoring, containment, cleanup procedures, and protective equipment. When those controls are missing or ignored, exposures may rise and create avoidable risks on the job.
Produced water is wastewater brought to the surface during oil and gas extraction. It can contain salts, hydrocarbons, metals, chemical additives, and sometimes concentrated naturally occurring materials. Workers may contact it during transfer, storage, treatment, and disposal, particularly when hoses leak, tanks overflow, or spray occurs. Even when a job is “routine,” repeated contact can add up if cleaning and containment practices are poor. Documentation about handling and disposal can become important evidence when exposure is suspected.
Scale and sludge are residues that can build up inside pipes, separators, tanks, and other production equipment. These materials may trap and concentrate contaminants, including naturally occurring materials and other hazardous substances. Workers can be exposed when equipment is opened, cut, blasted, scraped, or cleaned—especially if dust becomes airborne or waste is handled without appropriate containment. The risk often increases during maintenance shutdowns and disposal activities. Work orders, cleaning methods, and waste manifests can help show how these materials were managed and whether safer practices were feasible.
Air monitoring refers to measuring what workers may be breathing in a work area, such as dust or other airborne contaminants. Dosimetry is a way of tracking potential radiation exposure over time, often through badges or monitoring devices, depending on the site’s practices. Not every jobsite performs consistent monitoring, and gaps in records can make it harder for workers to understand their risk. When monitoring is performed, those results can be significant evidence about conditions on specific dates and tasks. If monitoring was skipped or results were not shared, that may raise serious questions about safety management.
Start a simple timeline of where you worked, the companies on site, and the tasks you performed around tanks, pipes, waste, and maintenance. Include dates, locations, supervisor names, and the types of equipment you handled, even if you’re not sure what materials were present. This record helps connect exposure opportunities to jobsite records that can later be requested and preserved.
Keep copies of diagnoses, imaging, lab results, and appointment summaries, along with any work restrictions you were given. If you have safety handouts, training certificates, incident reports, or photos of conditions, store them somewhere secure. Consistent documentation can make it easier to show how symptoms developed and what information you were—or were not—given at work.
If an insurer or third party asks for a recorded statement, remember their questions may be designed to narrow what they have to pay. It is easy to miss important details when you’re dealing with health concerns, job loss, or stress. Consider getting legal guidance before giving statements or signing releases so your rights are protected while facts are gathered.
Fracking operations often involve an operator plus several contractors handling transport, maintenance, waste, and safety. When responsibility is divided, it can be difficult for a worker to know who set the rules, who supplied equipment, and who ignored hazards. A comprehensive approach helps identify each party’s role and secure the records needed to prove what actually happened.
If you are facing a significant diagnosis, ongoing treatment, or time away from work, the financial and personal impact can be substantial. These cases may require careful medical documentation and a clear explanation of how workplace conditions contributed to the harm. A full strategy also considers future costs and how the injury affects your ability to earn a living.
Sometimes a worker primarily needs help understanding paperwork, deadlines, and what information to gather first. Reviewing incident notes, medical records, and employment documents can clarify whether a claim is realistic and what next steps are worth taking. This kind of focused assistance can prevent missteps while you decide whether to proceed further.
In a smaller number of cases, the facts are straightforward and the responsible party is obvious. If records are complete and the insurer is acting reasonably, a more limited negotiation approach may resolve the matter without extended litigation. Even then, it helps to verify that any resolution reflects medical costs, lost income, and the real impact on daily life.
Opening tanks, scraping scale, or cutting pipe can release dust and residues that workers may breathe or contact. These tasks often happen during shutdowns when time pressure and poor containment increase risk.
Transfers, leaks, and spray from hoses or valves can lead to repeated contact with contaminated fluids and surfaces. Records of disposal practices and site controls can be key when exposure is suspected.
Workers may not be told what materials they are handling or how to reduce exposure during routine tasks. Missing air monitoring or incomplete safety documentation can point to broader safety failures.
TENORM-related exposure claims require a practical investigation that matches the realities of oil and gas work. We focus on building a clear timeline, identifying all companies involved at the site, and preserving documents that may otherwise disappear—contracts, safety manuals, monitoring records, maintenance logs, and waste handling paperwork. We also work to understand your medical journey and how symptoms have affected your work, family life, and finances. From the first conversation, we aim to give you straightforward answers about what can be pursued, what information matters most, and what the process may look like in West Virginia.
TENORM is naturally occurring radioactive material that becomes more concentrated by industrial processes. In oil and gas operations, materials can collect in pipe scale, tank sludge, filtration media, and produced water, and can be disturbed during cleaning, cutting, transport, or disposal. Exposure risk can rise when dusty work is done without good containment, when wet residues are allowed to dry and become airborne, or when housekeeping practices are inconsistent. A legal review looks at where you worked, what tasks you performed, and what controls were in place at the time. Training materials, monitoring results, cleanup procedures, and waste-handling records can help show whether reasonable steps were taken to reduce exposure. If those steps were missing, delayed, or ignored, there may be grounds to pursue accountability depending on the parties involved.
Health concerns reported by oil and gas workers can vary widely and may involve respiratory problems, skin irritation, headaches, fatigue, and other symptoms that require medical evaluation. In some situations, workers later face more serious conditions that raise questions about whether workplace exposures played a contributing role. Because many factors can affect health, it is important to rely on medical providers for diagnosis and treatment rather than self-diagnosing based on workplace rumors. From a legal standpoint, the focus is often on documentation and timing: what symptoms appeared, when they began, what your job duties were, and what substances may have been present. A case may involve reviewing medical records, employment history, and site practices to understand whether the exposure pathway is supported by evidence. If you are worried, getting medical care and creating a written work history can be meaningful early steps.
Yes, being a contractor does not automatically eliminate legal options. Many fracking sites involve multiple companies working side by side, and responsibility may rest with the operator, a contractor, a subcontractor, a transport company, or another third party depending on who controlled the area and the task. The key is identifying who owed safety duties and whether their actions—or inaction—contributed to the hazardous condition. Contractor cases often depend on contracts, site orientation materials, daily safety meetings, and who directed the work. Even if your paycheck came from one company, another entity may have controlled the equipment, set the procedures, or handled waste and containment. A thorough review helps determine where liability may exist and what claims are realistic under West Virginia law.
Evidence commonly includes your work timeline, job descriptions, and details about tasks involving tanks, pipes, produced water, solids handling, and maintenance. Safety documents can be important, such as training materials, PPE policies, air monitoring results, incident reports, and communications about hazards. Photos, texts, coworker information, and records of who was on site can also help establish conditions and identify responsible parties. Medical documentation matters as well, including records that show symptom onset, diagnoses, treatment plans, and work restrictions. In many cases, the strongest claims are built when the exposure story and the medical story line up clearly over time. Because documents can be lost or overwritten, it is often helpful to act sooner rather than later to preserve what exists and request what you do not have access to.
Deadlines can vary depending on the type of claim, who the defendant is, and when the harm was discovered or reasonably should have been discovered. Exposure cases may involve arguments about delayed symptoms and when a person could have connected health changes to workplace conditions. Because these issues can be complicated, it is risky to assume you have “plenty of time” without getting the dates reviewed. A prompt consultation helps identify the likely limitation period, what notices may be required, and which records should be preserved immediately. Even if you are still undergoing testing, there are often steps that can be taken to protect your position while medical information develops. Waiting can make it harder to locate witnesses, obtain site records, and document job conditions accurately.
A company’s claim that it followed safety rules is not always the end of the story. The question is what was actually done in practice on the dates you were working, whether controls were adequate for the tasks being performed, and whether known hazards were addressed. Policies on paper can differ from real-world conditions, especially during maintenance, cleanup, and time-sensitive operations. A case review may compare written procedures to training provided, monitoring performed, enforcement actions taken, and the availability of protective equipment. It may also look at whether warnings were communicated and whether contractors were coordinated safely. If gaps appear between the stated program and on-site reality, that information can be important when evaluating liability and potential recovery.
Working at multiple sites is common in the oil and gas field, and it does not prevent a claim. It does mean the investigation must be organized: locations, timeframes, employers, contractors, and tasks must be mapped out so exposure opportunities can be evaluated. Your own notes, pay records, dispatch logs, and any training or badge records can help reconstruct where you were and what you did. In some cases, more than one site or company may have contributed to exposure over time. That can affect how responsibility is divided and what evidence is needed to support causation. A structured review can narrow the most significant exposure periods and identify which entities had control over hazardous materials, monitoring, and waste handling during those times.
You do not always need personal radiation badge data or complete air monitoring results to start evaluating a claim. Many workers never receive individual monitoring information, and some sites may not conduct consistent testing. Other evidence—maintenance records, waste manifests, safety meeting notes, and testimony about tasks and conditions—can still help show how exposure could have occurred. That said, monitoring data can be valuable if it exists, and part of a legal investigation is identifying whether records are available and who has them. If the company performed testing but did not share results, that may raise additional questions about safety management and transparency. The key is not to delay simply because you do not have every document in hand today.
Take-home contamination is a concern when residues or dust settle on clothing, boots, tools, or vehicles and are later brought into a home environment. Families may be exposed through laundering work clothes, handling gear, or living with contaminated items stored in common areas. While each situation is different, it is reasonable to take the issue seriously and discuss it with medical providers if symptoms are present. From a legal standpoint, these cases can depend on what the employer provided for changing, laundering, cleanup, and hazard communication. If workers were not given reasonable ways to keep contaminated materials at the jobsite, that fact can matter. Documenting practices, policies, and what workers were told helps evaluate whether preventable pathways into the home were created.
Before signing releases or giving recorded statements, it helps to understand what rights you may be giving up and how your words may be used later. Some releases are broad and allow insurers to obtain extensive medical history that may be taken out of context. Statements can also lock you into timelines or descriptions that don’t include key details you remember later. Consider gathering your basic documents first—medical records you have, a work timeline, and any safety materials—then speaking with an attorney about the best way to proceed. If communication with an insurer is necessary, you can still be cooperative while protecting yourself from unnecessary risks. A careful approach early on can prevent avoidable problems as the claim develops.
Comprehensive legal representation across West Virginia