Government survey or HHE evidence class; this is not a measure of exposure severity.
New England Cluster · Bath, MaineBath Iron Works
Kennebec River, Bath, Maine · 1884–present · General Dynamics (since 1995) · 83 WWII destroyers
Bottom Line Up Front
Bath Iron Works employed 12,000 workers at its 1943–1944 peak, launching a destroyer every 17 days — the largest destroyer output of any builder in U.S. history. In November 1987, OSHA levied a $4.2 million fine — then the largest penalty ever assessed against a single employer — after a six-month investigation documented asbestos dust concentrations of up to 40% in areas that supervisors had declared "asbestos-free." NIOSH conducted two separate Health Hazard Evaluations (HHE 89-0273-2000 in 1990 and HETA-94-0122-2578 in 1996), confirming measurable asbestos fiber exposures in insulation and adjacent trades. Bath Iron Works is the only shipyard in this dataset still operating — it currently builds Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers for the U.S. Navy.
Facility Overview
Bath Iron Works traces its origins to a brass and iron foundry established in 1826 on the banks of the Kennebec River in Bath, Maine. Brigadier General Thomas W. Hyde took over the foundry in 1865 and incorporated Bath Iron Works in 1884, launching the gunboat USS Machias in 1891 — the yard's first naval vessel. By 1900, BIW had established itself as a premier destroyer builder, a reputation it has maintained for over a century.
During World War II, BIW reached peak employment of approximately 12,000 workers and launched 83 destroyers and destroyer-minelayers — more than any other yard in the United States. At peak production in 1943–1944, the yard launched a new destroyer every 17 days. BIW ranked 50th among all U.S. corporations in the total value of wartime military production contracts.
Unlike most yards in this dataset, Bath Iron Works never closed. It was acquired by General Dynamics in 1995 and continues to operate as the lead shipyard for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer program — one of the longest-running surface combatant programs in U.S. Navy history. This continuity means that asbestos exposure at BIW spans from the 1930s through at least the late 1980s, covering multiple generations of workers across both WWII construction and Cold War–era repair and overhaul operations.
1987 OSHA Enforcement Action — $4.2 Million Fine
On November 4, 1987, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration proposed fines totaling $4.2 million against Bath Iron Works — at the time, the largest penalty ever assessed against a single employer in the history of the agency. John A. Pendergrass, Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA, stated that a six-month investigation revealed "a complete breakdown in the shipbuilder's safety and health program."
OSHA investigators documented more than 3,000 instances in which the shipyard allegedly failed to meet federal standards. The asbestos-specific findings were particularly severe: inspectors detected asbestos-laden dust with readings of up to 40% of the dust content in work areas that had been deemed free of the toxic material by supervisors. Workers were required to work around asbestos without proper respirators, and the company had "ignored several previous OSHA citations and even its own written safety and health guidelines, despite repeated requests from its workers for proper safeguards."
National News Coverage
The fine was reported by the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, United Press International, and the New York Times. The New York Times noted in October 1988 that the BIW fine was only surpassed when IBP Inc. (a meatpacker) was fined $5.7 million — confirming BIW held the single-employer record for nearly a year.
BIW President William E. Haggett called the fine "grossly excessive" and stated the company would appeal. Ray Ladd, president of BIW's major union, responded: "If safety had really been improving here, BIW would never have gotten such a fine." At the time of the investigation, BIW employed approximately 8,000 workers and was Maine's largest private employer.
NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations (1990, 1996)
Following the 1987 OSHA enforcement action, NIOSH conducted two separate Health Hazard Evaluations at Bath Iron Works. HHE 89-0273-2000 (published 1990) documented measurable asbestos fiber exposures during ship repair and overhaul operations. Workers in insulation trades and adjacent trades — including pipefitters, electricians, and general laborers working in proximity to insulation removal — had quantifiable fiber levels. NIOSH recommended engineering controls and respiratory protection programs.
A second evaluation, HETA-94-0122-2578 (published 1996), was requested by BIW itself in December 1993 — six years after the OSHA fine — suggesting that asbestos exposure concerns persisted well into the 1990s despite the enforcement action and remediation efforts.
Source Integrity Note: The NIOSH HHE documents fiber levels during the evaluation period (1989–1990 and 1993–1994); they do not provide historical exposure estimates for earlier decades. However, the 1987 OSHA findings — asbestos dust at 40% in "cleared" areas — establish that conditions were worse before the enforcement action. The Drinker 1942 study (below) confirms exposure as early as WWII.
Drinker 1942 Harvard Study (PMID 21016030)
Dr. Philip Drinker of the Harvard School of Public Health conducted an industrial hygiene survey at Bath Iron Works in 1942 as part of the U.S. Maritime Commission's wartime occupational health program. The study documented "fairly serious dust risk" with exposure levels at approximately 10 times the safe threshold in pipe covering shops where amosite insulation was being cut and fitted for destroyer construction.
The findings were published in 1946 in the Journal of Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology (Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 17–24) as part of the Fleischer-Drinker series — a set of studies commissioned by the Maritime Commission across multiple shipyards. The study is significant because it establishes that the U.S. government was aware of asbestos hazards at BIW as early as 1942, more than four decades before the 1987 OSHA enforcement action.
Key Litigation
Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 471 A.2d 280 (Me. 1984)
Blaine Austin worked as a painter and cleaner at Bath Iron Works from 1952 through the fall of 1976. He was exposed to asbestos throughout his employment and died in October 1977 from pleural mesothelioma. His widow, Margaret Austin, filed suit against Raybestos-Manhattan and other asbestos manufacturers. The jury found Raybestos-Manhattan negligent but also found Austin's contributory negligence equal to or greater than the defendant's. On retrial, Austin's widow won $323,456.
The case identified Johns Manville, Raymark (Raybestos-Manhattan), UNARCO, and H.K. Porter as liable asbestos suppliers to BIW. It became a landmark Maine product liability case — the Maine Supreme Judicial Court certified a question to the First Circuit on whether comparative negligence applies to strict liability claims, establishing precedent that governed all subsequent Maine asbestos litigation.
Citation: Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 471 A.2d 280 (Me. 1984). See also: Austin v. Unarco Industries, Inc., 705 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1983).
Shorette v. Bath Iron Works Corp., BRB No. 93-1090 (1996)
Lawrence J. Shorette was employed at Bath Iron Works from March 23, 1981, and was exposed to asbestos dust during 1981–1982. Serial chest X-rays documented progressive asbestosis, reaching ILO classification 3/3 by 1991 — indicating advanced bilateral fibrosis. The employer failed to rebut the §20(a) presumption under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
Citation: Lawrence J. Shorette v. Bath Iron Works Corporation and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, BRB No. 93-1090; ALJ No. 92-LHC-0544 (issued 07/25/1996).
Grant v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, 2016 ME 85
This 2016 Maine Supreme Judicial Court decision established the current Maine standard for asbestos causation: plaintiffs must prove actual inhalation from specific manufacturers' products, not merely workplace presence. The ruling tightened the evidentiary requirements for BIW-related claims, making product identification through co-worker testimony and purchase records essential to successful litigation.
Citation: Grant v. Foster Wheeler, LLC, 2016 ME 85.
Asbestos Products Documented
Products identified through OSHA inspection records, NIOSH evaluations, litigation testimony, and NARA vessel specification books.
| Product | Manufacturer | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kaylo pipe covering | Owens-Corning Fiberglas | Austin v. Raybestos (1984); OSHA 1987 | Verified |
| Pipe insulation / lagging (amosite) | Johns-Manville | Austin v. Raybestos (1984); Drinker 1942 | Verified |
| Brake linings / friction products | Raybestos-Manhattan (Raymark) | Austin v. Raybestos (1984) | Verified |
| Asbestos insulation products | UNARCO Industries | Austin v. Unarco (1st Cir. 1983) | Verified |
| Boiler gaskets | Foster Wheeler | Grant v. Foster Wheeler (2016) | Verified |
| Asbestos insulation | H.K. Porter Co. | Austin v. Raybestos (1984) | Verified |
| Valve & pump packing | Multiple suppliers | NIOSH HHE 89-0273-2000 | Verified |
| Asbestos cloth / tape / felt | Multiple suppliers | NARA RG 19 vessel specs | Verified |
| Floor / deck tiles (VAT) | Multiple suppliers | OSHA Inspection 1987 | Verified |
| Raw / loose asbestos fiber | Multiple suppliers | OSHA 1987 (40% dust readings) | Verified |
Archival Records — NARA RG 19
The National Archives holds General Information Books (Record Group 19, Bureau of Ships) detailing asbestos specifications for each vessel constructed at Bath Iron Works. These records document the types, quantities, and installation locations of asbestos-containing materials specified for each destroyer and combatant built at the yard from the 1930s through the 1970s. They provide vessel-specific evidence of asbestos exposure that supplements the yard-wide OSHA and NIOSH findings.
New England Cluster Comparison
Bath Iron Works in context with the other New England shipyard in this dataset.
| Yard | Type | Peak Workers | Facility evidence class | Flagship Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bath Iron Works | Private (General Dynamics) | 12,000 | Facility evidence class — Tier 2 of 3 · Gov. Survey / HHE | OSHA $4.2M fine (1987) + 2 NIOSH HHEs |
| Portsmouth Naval Shipyard | U.S. Navy | 25,000 | Facility evidence class — Tier 1 of 3 · Peer-Reviewed Cohort | Selikoff cohort (PMID 6093728) |
Bath Iron Works is the only private (commercial) yard in the New England cluster and the only yard in the entire dataset that is still operating. While Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has Facility evidence class — Tier 1 of 3 · Peer-Reviewed Cohort evidence, BIW's combination of OSHA enforcement, two NIOSH evaluations, the Drinker 1942 Harvard study, and multiple court records makes it the most evidence-dense Facility evidence class — Tier 2 of 3 yard in the dataset — with 7 verified evidence records.
Why Bath Iron Works Matters
Bath Iron Works is unique in this dataset for three reasons. First, it is the only yard still operating — meaning that asbestos exposure claims may involve workers who are still alive and can provide direct testimony. Second, the 1987 OSHA fine was national news, creating a public record that is easily discoverable and independently verifiable through newspaper archives. Third, the 142-year operational history means that exposure spans from the 1930s through the 1990s, covering multiple generations of workers across WWII construction, Cold War submarine and destroyer programs, and post-Vietnam repair and overhaul operations.
For attorneys evaluating BIW-related claims, the Grant v. Foster Wheeler (2016) standard requires product-specific identification. The Austin case (1984) provides a template: co-worker testimony identifying specific manufacturers (Johns Manville, Raymark, UNARCO, H.K. Porter) by brand label, combined with NARA RG 19 vessel specification books documenting what was specified for each ship class.
Further Reading & Downloads
Further reading: asbestos exposure at Bath Iron Works — WikiMesothelioma.com
About the Authors
Paul Danziger
Founding Partner, Danziger & De Llano, LLP
Paul Danziger has represented mesothelioma patients and their families for over 25 years. He holds a J.D. from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and has secured hundreds of millions in verdicts and settlements for shipyard workers, veterans, and industrial tradespeople exposed to asbestos. His practice focuses exclusively on asbestos-related disease litigation.
Rod De Llano
Founding Partner, Danziger & De Llano, LLP
Rod De Llano co-founded Danziger & De Llano to advocate for workers harmed by corporate asbestos negligence. With a career spanning over two decades in toxic tort litigation, he has developed deep expertise in shipyard exposure patterns, product identification, and occupational disease causation. He represents clients nationwide in mesothelioma and asbestosis claims.
Danziger & De Llano, LLP funds the Asbestos Atlas as a public-interest research project. The dataset is published under CC BY 4.0 and sourced exclusively from primary records (PubMed, NIOSH, EPA, NARA). No law-firm marketing material is used as a data source. See Methodology for the full circularity firewall protocol.