From Dr S Zerafa

Enemalta Corporation refutes all allegations reported by a number of its employees to the press as unfounded and incorrect. Indeed the article published on the TMIS 10 December represents distorted facts which do not reflect the true course of events in the project undertaken by the Corporation for the removal of asbestos from the Marsa Power Station. Moreover, serious unfounded allegations are made which are completely untrue.

The project for the removal of asbestos from the Marsa Power Station started over ten years ago. This exercise was carried out in stages for practical and technical reasons and the work was contracted to very reputable contractors certified to carry out such work, which are British companies recognised by the British Association of Contractors involved in this type of work, or local contractors certified by MEPA. The course of events reported on 10 December is, in general, incorrect.

Moreover, the contractor who "with some British workers had gone on site and "removed" the asbestos" (TMIS 10 December) was, in reality, a British company, which was fully certified to perform this work. This company was contracted to complete one of the stages planned as part of the project. Indeed, some of the Enemalta employees who contacted the Independent on Sunday asking it to publish the article of the 10 December actually worked for this foreign contractor in their free time or even took vacation leave from Enemalta Corporation in order to work for them during this cleaning contract.

At no point have ‘hesitant employees' (TMIS 10 December) been threatened, nor has information ever been hidden from them as alleged. Enemalta Corporation never threatened anyone and always made available to its employees all certificates it had in hand. Indeed, some of these certificates were posted on the workshop notice board for all to see. It is pertinent to point out that in actual fact the employees were never 'hesitant' and they themselves objected through the GWU when Enemalta Corporation indicated that it intended to subcontract the dismantling work, insisting that this work should be assigned to them, which request was accepted by the Corporation.

There was no other British contractor who showed the employees how things should have been done from the beginning as alleged. The contractor referred to is only another foreign company contracted to work at one of the later stages planned as part of the project undertaken. This contractor was not brought in to fix some previous mishap as the article of 10 December suggests. This foreign contractor was assigned cleaning work on small localised areas and had to encapsulate in plastic only a small item of the plant. This contractor vacuumed the area around the workplace as part of standard procedure. Air tests were carried out routinely as in the previous operations and no air borne asbestos was found.

At no point did Enemalta Corporation ever order its employees to work on any plant when there was any doubt that asbestos might be present The employees in question had been working on steel structures and when they came across insulation that was suspected to contain asbestos, work was immediately stopped by the Corporation and tests were carried out to ascertain the workers' safety. Moreover, the certificates requested have always been available to the employees and indeed, following a recent meeting with the employees concerned, the certificates requested have been handed to them on 30 November.

Dr Stephania Zerafa