June 8, 2008
Is Enough Done To Stop Explosive Dust?
Sugar Plant Blast In February That Killed 13 Is The Latest Preventable Tragedy
-
Play CBS Video Video The Danger Of Combustible Dust Scott Pelley reports on the deaths and property damage caused by dust explosions at American factories, a problem critics say the government needs to do more to prevent.
-
(CBS)
"When someone says that this is all very complex, and we don't understand it. Well, therefore, we can't regulate it, you say what?" Pelley asks Carolyn Merritt.
"It's just a delay mechanism from actually doing anything," she says.
Merritt was appointed to the Chemical Safety Board by President Bush. Asked what her experience has been with regard to safety regulations in the Bush administration, Merritt says, "The basic disappointment has been this attitude of no new regulation. They don't want industry to be pestered. In some instances, industry has to be pestered in order to comply."
But Ed Foulke says the accusation that the administration is against rule making and doesn't want any more standards is "absolutely false."
This past February there was yet another massive dust explosion investigators say was caused by dust, this time at the imperial sugar refinery outside Savannah, Ga. Once again, OSHA had failed to cite the company for dust. A huge factory building was demolished, dozens of workers were severely burned, and 13 died.
"If OSHA had acted and if the industry itself had paid more attention possibly this incident would not have happened. It should not have happened," Merritt says. "These people should not have been killed."
The Savannah explosion led to immediate action on the part of Congress. George Miller, a California Democrat, told Ed Foulke that lawmakers would impose a new safety standard if Foulke continued to resist. "Mr. Foulke, I must tell you, I just see such an incredible lack of urgency on your part about the role of your agency to protect workers that it's astounding," Rep. Miller remarked. "You're here clinging to what you've done and it's turned out to be fatal for the American workers."
"If the employers comply with the housekeeping standards it would eliminate or at least mitigate the hazard of having a combustible dust explosion," Foulke replied.
Tammy Miser, who lost her brother Shawn in that explosion five years ago in Indiana, now speaks out on behalf of other dust explosion victims. "Our losses are a lifelong, needless sentence because a few people couldn't or wouldn't do what was right," she says.
Asked what responsibility she thinks OSHA bears, Tammy tells Pelley, "I feel that they should take most of the responsibility for this. Because they know. And they're the ones that can prevent it. Nobody else can. There's nobody else out there to take care of it."
In April, a bipartisan majority in the House voted to force OSHA to impose new safety rules for combustible dust. Now the measure goes to the Senate, but the White House is already considering a veto.
Produced by Joel Bach and David Gelber
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Recent Segments
Scroll Left Scroll Right


- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 56 CommentsMary Vivenzi
usmwf.org
Transforming Tragedy Into Prevention.
OSHA should take full responsibility for the errors and misrepresentations of equipment suitability in OSHA 1910.178, which allows untested and uncertified equipment in explosion hazardous areas. OSHA knows that all authority having jurisdictions use this guideline to determine suitability, yet it does not appear that they ever bothered reading UL583 and UL558 to verify NFPA 505 claims of equipment suitability.
To all the authority having jurisdictions I suggest to read the equipment ID tag before allowing the use of equipment in explosion hazardous areas. If the equipment ID tag lists an explosion hazardous area, it can be used in that specific area. However, if an OEM is unwilling to list a hazardous area rating on the ID tag, than the equipment is probably not designed, build, tested and certified for this purpose.
OSHA is a joke to us. We never see OSHA until after the accident. I have had no dust training since I was a child in the farm town of Rochelle IL. Heck, I inspect carnivals with no training. Oddly enough my supervisor is way upset that I closed the factory. But hey, my mother loves me and right away she said please stay out of that factory and check your truck every morning for bombs.
OSHA is a joke. We never see OSHA until after the accident. I have had no dust training since I was a child living in a farm town fifty years ago. Heck, I inspect carnivals with no training. Oddly enough my supervisor is way upset that I closed the factory. But hey, my mother loves me and right away she said please stay out of that factory and check your truck every morning for bombs.
This is not an OSHA problem. OSHA doesn''t exist to perform research. 50 years ago the aluminum industry recognized that there was an explosion hazard involving molten aluminum and water in casting operations. The Aluminum Association initiated extensive testing to determine the causes and make recommendations to prevent explosions. That''s what is needed in every industry whose processes produce oxidizable dust.
And by the way, only oxidizable airborne dusts in certain densities have explosive potential. To all those people living along dusty roads that you scared to death last night, you should apologize.
All processes that handle grain, food, coal, or wood, have some dust generated. Even plants that manufacture shoes & dog food have some explosion potential.
All of the companies I have worked with try to do good house keeping, good equipmnet maintance & good training. In many companies, in a dust enviroment, if anyone is on a job site with even a LIGHTER in their pocket,they may be fired on the spot. Training of employees is esential. If an OSHA inspector goes to a site that makes saidd oil, Hexane gas is present. He better know whathis is or he is not a good inspector. He cannot ignore the MSDS data available,by federal law, to everone on site.
Goverment regulations will always be insuficent to overcome a poor company attitude. But good companies can ocasionally have a motor spark cause a blast, that is why good companies limit access to especially dusty areas.
Posted by jsnbase at 12:07 AM : Jun 09, 2008
If a multi-million dollar factory is not incentive enough to keep dust down, I don''t see how a law will be expected motivate these businesses. I would hypothesize that the companies are unaware, at corporate level, that there are problems. The supervisors and managers on the floor are the failure point here. I would also expect, based on places I have worked, that appropriate safety regulations from the HQ are written. Whether or not they are followed is another first-line supervision issue.
CBS is falling once again to the standard of tabloid reporting. I doubt more than 30 minutes of solid research went into this story. As a member of a more responsible media outlet, I know when something is cobbled together as a quick filler. Not sure how this even made it to the Internet in this condition. I guess they are obligated to post everything from the TV whether it%u2019s good, bad, or ugly.
USMWF, I am truly sorry for your loss, but don%u2019t blame the government or expect them to legislate for a problem that is, in harsh reality, relatively tiny. Your need to lash out indicates more therapy is called for. As many others have stated, the insurance industry is in the best position to force changes. They could pressure for better upper-management oversight to ensure dust is under control.
I can not understand why Scott Pelley would not pose the question, either to the retired inspector or the head of OSHA, why no comments are made on inspections as to the saturation of dust?
It seems obvious to any intelligent being that Bush''s laissez faire government is woefully inadequate as to regulatory affairs. The head of OSHA is the epitome of ''hands-off'' appointments. However, requiring industry to do more does not always translate in higher prices for the consumer. We pay it in higher insurance rates to keep that industry solvent when factories are exploding everywhere.
Stop applying taxes to corporate profit, but rather to corporate revenues (incomes). The former is economically inefficient and the latter is societally responsive.
I can not understand why Scott Pelley would not pose the question, either to the retired inspector or the head of OSHA, why no comments are made on inspections as to the saturation of dust?
It seems obvious to any intelligent being that Bush''s laissez faire government is woefully inadequate as to regulatory affairs. The head of OSHA is the epitome of ''hands-off'' appointments. However, requiring industry to do more does not always translate in higher prices for the consumer. We pay it in higher insurance rates to keep that industry solvent when factories are exploding everywhere.
Stop applying taxes to corporate profit, but rather to corporate revenues (incomes). The former is economically inefficient and the latter is societally responsive.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- next
See all 56 Comments