labor lawAdivision of labor law center

In addition to releasing new regulations on combustible dust for many industries, OSHA just levied one of the largest worker safety fines in history, against a sugar refinery for violating the regulations.

 

OSHA issued citations with penalties totaling $8,777,500 against Imperial Sugar Co. and two affiliates. This is the third largest fine in OSHA history.

 

The fines are for violations at sugar plants in Port Wentworth, Georgia, and Louisiana. After the tragic February 7, 2008 explosion that claimed 13 lives at the Port Wentworth refinery near Savannah, 40 other employees were hospitalized. Three employees are still in the hospital. On rescue worker described the fiery scene “like walking into hell.”

 

Officials at the Gramercy, Louisiana plant should not have been surprised by the OSHA inspection. The agency has a history of inspecting other plants belonging to the same company, after a serious accident.

 

OSHA’s inspection showed that there were large accumulations of combustible dust in workrooms. The build-up on electrical motors and other equipment was especially problematic. OSHA also reported that although managers at the company were well aware of these conditions, they did nothing to reduce the obvious hazards.

 

Sounding uncharacteristically angry, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health Edwin G. Foulke Jr. said, “I am outraged that this company would show a complete disregard for its employees’ safety by knowingly placing them in an extremely dangerous work environment.” He added, “What is even worse is that a month after the devastating catastrophe in Port Wentworth that claimed the lives of 13 people, this company had done little to ensure abatement of the combustible dust hazards at its other plant. If OSHA investigators had not inspected and posted an imminent danger notice regarding areas at the second plant, the same thing could have happened again.”

 

OSHA proposed $5,062,000 in penalties for safety violations at the Port Wentworth refinery and $3,715,500 for safety violations found at the Gramercy refinery. The citations include 108 instances of willful violations related to the combustible dust hazard, including the failure to clean up dust and not using appropriate equipment or safeguards where combustible dust is present. OSHA also has issued 10 citations for other willful violations, 100 citations for serious violations and four citations for other-than-serious safety and health violations.

 

The company has 15 business days to contest the citations and proposed penalties before the independent Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission. OSHA’s Savannah, Ga., area office staff inspected the Port Wentworth site, while the agency’s Baton Rouge, La., area office staff inspected the Gramercy, La., location.

 

Last 10 posts by Madison

• Washington, D.C. Holiday Pay - September 6th, 2006
• Connecticut Holiday Pay - September 5th, 2006
• Colorado Holiday Pay - September 2nd, 2006
• California Holiday Pay Law - August 18th, 2006
• Arizona Holiday Pay Law - August 18th, 2006
• Alabama Holiday Pay Law - August 18th, 2006
• Arkansas Holiday Pay Law - August 18th, 2006
• Alaska Holiday Pay Law - August 18th, 2006

1. Posted by: Brian

   What are the implications for FR clothing? As an employer do I need to provide FR clothing to employees working in identified Combustible Dust industries?

2. Posted by: Madison

   Hi Brian! That’s a good question, and one that OSHA may not have resolved completely yet. At a minimum, it appears that any uniforms supplied by employers must be fire retardant. What is not clear is if employers who do not currently supply uniforms will be required to do so in the future. As soon as OHSA publishes more info on these regulations, we’ll print them here! Thanks for reading the blogs!~ Madison

3. Posted by: Brian

   Careful w/ your terminology–Technically, Madison, FR stands for Flame Resistant, not Fire Retardant. There’s a big difference.

4. Posted by: Madison

   Hi Brian! Thanks for the correction. Actually, we’ve seen FR used both ways. Sorry that we didn’t know which one you meant. And thanks for reading the blogs!~ Madison