Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, January 16, 1993 TAG: 9301160095
SECTION: BUSINESS PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: GEORGE KEGLEY STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
DU PONT PLANT FINED
The State Department of Labor and Industry has fined the Du Pont Corp.'s Martinsville plant $10,000 and a Martinsville contractor $38,500 for alleged asbestos violations.The two citations against Du Pont and 11 against B.W.B. Construction Corp. are the subject of a Jan. 28 conference with a regional supervisor, the department said Friday.
James Mann, the supervisor, could reduce the penalties 50 percent if the companies can show there is no evidence for the citations. All were "serious," the second-highest level of violation, the department said.
The citations, dating to an inspection by the Virginia Occupational Safety and Health Enforcement staff last July, "were reviewed pretty stringently," said Anna Jolly, a lawyer in the Labor Department.
These are "fairly big penalties," she said. The maximum fine for serious citations is $7,000. Each Du Pont citation was for $5,000 and each B.W.B. charge was for $3,500.
Dean Goad, a union official at the Du Pont plant, said the citations should have been for "willful" violations, the most serious type. These fines "are like a slap on the wrist for a corporation," he said.
Herman Cook, safety, health and environmental manager for the Du Pont plant, disputed the citations. The plant has had "a real flurry" of state safety and health inspections, he said, and "no allegations have been substantiated."
Disclosure of the citations by the state came three days after the International Brotherhood of Du Pont Workers distributed a warning to 10,000 employees about the company's environmental, health and safety "misdeeds."
On Friday, Cook said the union has been calling the state Labor Department daily about violation complaints. "We feel this is part of the union's corporate campaign," he added.
The citation said Du Pont did not conduct monitoring to determine the exposure by employees to asbestos concentrations when components were removed from a spinning machine. Du Pont also was cited for failure to train employees adequately about protection from asbestos exposure.
B.W.B., a contractor at the plant last summer, was cited for failure to instruct workers in proper asbestos removal and failure to establish proper procedures for those exposed to asbestos. B.W.B. also did not provide respirators for workers who were exposed, the state said.
Officials of B.W.B. could not be located Friday. The company no longer has a Henry County business license or telephone, but it was represented at a Richmond conference on the citations last week, Jolly said.
The real issue in the asbestos complaints, according to Cook, is his company's practice of contracting asbestos-removal jobs to a licensed company instead of using Du Pont employees to do the work.
Goad, president of the Martinsville local and the national union, said last summer that more than 100 employees of the nylon plant were exposed to asbestos. The company denied that claim.
State inspectors said Du Pont did not monitor removal of a pipe when components were removed from a spinning machine insulated with asbestos. Cook said his company did not consider the removal of components as an asbestos-abatement project. An asbestos-removal company came the following week, as scheduled, he said.
Du Pont "strongly contests" the charge of lack of training, he said. Once a year, every employee reads a paper explaining health hazards and procedures for handling asbestos, he said. In a special asbestos-awareness training session, employees are being better informed about handling procedures, he said.
Every allegation has been investigated, Cook said, "and no measurable exposure to the health and safety of employees has been found. He said he's confident of Du Pont's adherence to asbestos-removal laws.
The state Labor Department also recently issued fines against Du Pont of $1,300 and $900 for two December citations that employees did not use welding screens when exposed to arc rays.
Cook said the company has contested these citations and he expects them to be dropped because a trained employee failed to use a welding screen. The employee was disciplined, he said.