DOWNTOWN SAN DIEGO –
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. had a “culture of corporate arrogance”
that encouraged workers to disregard safety standards when removing
asbestos from a Lemon Grove site, a federal prosecutor told jurors this
week.
But defense attorneys say criminal
charges against the utility and three workers are the result of a
disagreement between SDG&E's experts and government regulators over
whether the asbestos at the site posed a danger.
“Everything that San Diego Gas & Electric did in this case was
aboveboard and transparent,” Greg Vega, a former U.S. attorney who is
representing the company, told jurors in his opening statement
yesterday.
SDG&E, two employees and a contractor are named in a five-count
criminal indictment alleging that they violated safety standards while
removing asbestos, a potentially cancer-causing material, from nine
miles of pipe at a storage station near the Lemon Grove-San Diego
boundary.
If convicted, SDG&E could face a fine of up to $2.5
million. The workers – Jacqueline McHugh, a supervisor in the
environmental department; David Williamson, an environmental
specialist; and Kyle Rheubottom, project superintendent for contractor
IT Corp. – face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a
$250,000 fine for each charge.
The trial began Monday before U.S. District Court Judge Dana Sabraw and is expected to last about six weeks.
SDG&E had owned the 16-acre site, dubbed the Encanto Gas
Holder Facility, since the 1950s and once stored natural gas in the
pipes. The company sold the land to a developer for about $1.5 million
and began removing the pipes in late 2000 to complete the sale.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Melanie Pierson told jurors the workers
disregarded warnings that the site's asbestos was “friable,” or
crumbly, meaning it required government regulation.
They used a machine that scraped chunks of coating containing
asbestos off the pipes, she said, instead of a more costly machine
designed for removing asbestos more safely.
“It's about time and money and personal recognition,” Pierson said. “But mostly it's about the money.”
Defense attorney Michael Lipman, representing Rheubottom, said
workers on the project didn't believe the asbestos posed a danger but
stopped work after county regulators issued violation notices beginning
in November 2000.
McHugh's attorney, Lisa Damiani, said McHugh selected
Rheubottom's company to clear the site because it had the most thorough
– though not the cheapest – bid. She said that indicated there was not
a conspiracy to save money.
“At all times during this project, Jackie McHugh was acting
responsibly,” she said. “At no time did she have any intent to harm the
environment.”
Williamson's attorney, Dorn Bishop, called the charges
“groundless and insulting.” One charge against Williamson accuses him
of identifying himself as a certified asbestos consultant, although he
had not taken a government test to qualify.
Bishop said Williamson had taken all of the courses to be
certified, but he had not taken the test because he was not hiring
himself out to other companies.
“He's on trial for doing his job, doing it well, and maybe having an opinion,” Bishop said.
Anne Krueger: (619) 593-4962; anne.krueger@uniontrib.com
