Today's News

Sugar refinery blast update: 6 dead, 2 missing, 44 injured (2/12)

An explosion and fire of combustible dust at a Georgia sugar refinery Feb. 7 killed six workers and renewed concerns that industry safety standards for combustible dust are inadequate, Chemical & Engineering News reports. Five days after the accident, two workers remained missing, and hotspots continued to burn.

In all, 44 workers were injured, 20 of them severely enough to merit treatment at burn centers, including 17 who have been placed in "medically induced comas" because of the severity of their injuries from the accident at Imperial Sugar Co. at Port Wentworth, near Savannah, according to C&EN.

The exact cause of the accident remains unknown because the site is too unstable to allow entry except by rescue and fire personnel, said Michael Wald, a spokesman with the OSHA regional office in Georgia. The suspected explosive agent, however, is combustible dust — in this case combustible sugar dust. The Chemical Safety & Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) has dispatched four investigators to the site.

Following a CSB study released in November 2006 that found 281 dust explosions between 1980 and 2005 killed 119 U.S. workers and injured 718, CSB recommended that OSHA issue a general comprehensive combustible dust standard. The standard would address hazard assessment, engineering controls, housekeeping and worker training for all industries, and would be similar to OSHA regulations for the grain industry issued in the 1970s after a series of grain dust explosions, said Daniel Horowitz, a CSB spokesman.

OSHA instead announced in October 2007 a less aggressive "national emphasis program" for combustible dust, and in December began training its compliance officers to look for dust problems when conducting other inspections, said Wald. The agency's program identified industries that handle combustible dust, including sugar companies, but did not issue exact standards for OSHA inspectors to use to identify dust problems and to use to ensure safety compliance.

CSB called for OSHA inspection standards, according to Horowitz, including clearly identified and enforceable regulations. Without standards, he said, the burden is put on the inspector to show management that conditions are dangerous.

Did you enjoy this article? Click here to subscribe to ISHN.

You must login or register in order to post a comment.

Multimedia

Videos

Image Galleries

ISHN's Favorite Cover Images

Take a look at some of our favorite cover images!
6/5/13 2:00 pm EST

A Safety Manager’s Guide to Dust Compliance

On demand This webinar will provide an overview of the standards that are providing safety managers a blueprint for compliance. During the NFPA Standards review component, NFPA 652, NFPA 654, NFPA 61 and other relevant Combustible Dust and Combustible Metals Dust Standards will be highlighted and discussed.

THE MAGAZINE

ISHN Magazine

ISHN June 2013 cover

2013 June

ISHN's June issue features a number of articles on heat stress, fall protection systems, safety management, and body protection tips.

Table Of Contents Subscribe

THE ISHN STORE

ANSI/ASSE A10.1-2011 Pre-Project & Pre-Task Safety and Health Planning

This standard establishes the elements and activities for pre-project and pre-task safety and health planning in construction.

More Products

Clear Seas Research

Clear Seas ResearchWith access to over one million professionals and more than 60 industry-specific publications,Clear Seas Research offers relevant insights from those who know your industry best. Let us customize a market research solution that exceeds your marketing goals.

ISHN Webinars are an easy, effective and convenient way to get educated and informed on the latest industry trends and topics. All Webinars are FREE unless indicated. For more information, check out our Events page!

STAY CONNECTED

Facebook logo Twitter YouTubeLinkedIn