House Committee on Education and Labor
U.S. House of Representatives

Thank you Chairman Miller.

Earlier this year, the community of Port Wentworth, Georgia suffered something no community wishes to endure. With the explosion at the Imperial Sugar factory, a number of their citizens lost their lives, while many others remain gravely injured.

In the wake of that accident, Chairman Miller and Representative Barrow moved quickly to propose this legislation.  Certainly it’s understandable, even commendable, that they want to respond in any way that they can.  But however good our intentions, history has shown that legislating based on newspaper headlines rarely makes for sound policy.

In this case, we are looking at a bill that proposes a highly proscriptive regulatory mandate in an excruciatingly compressed timeframe.  OSHA has made clear that it does not believe it’s possible to complete an effective regulatory process under the constraints of this bill.  It seems to me that we must ask: how can we move forward with a plan that the responsible agency does not believe is possible?

Of course, this is not to say that we should do nothing.  To the contrary, I believe OSHA has a responsibility to complete a thorough, aggressive investigation of the accident at the Imperial Sugar refinery to determine its causes and consider whether additional regulatory guidance is needed.  If it becomes clear that existing standards are ineffective, OSHA should move forward with a robust regulatory process that provides clearer, more effective guidance on combustible dust.

There has been a perception among some that until the Imperial Sugar explosion, no regulatory action had been taken on combustible dust.  Although it’s fair to ask tough questions about whether enough had been done, the best way to answer those questions is to complete the investigation.  In the mean time, however, we also need to acknowledge and take into account that a number of steps had already been taken – prior to this accident – to examine the combustible dust hazard and provide guidance accordingly.

For instance, last year, months before the Georgia accident, OSHA instituted a National Emphasis Program in response to recommendations by the Chemical Safety Board the result of which will identify any gaps that may exist among the 17 standards that currently apply to workplaces with combustible dust.  OSHA issued a Safety and Health Information Bulletin prior to this incident that provides additional guidance on the specific risks associated with this particular hazard.  And the agency went a step further to send this document in a hazard alert letter to 30,000 employers nationwide who may have these risks.

OSHA Administrator Foulke stated during our hearing, and again in a letter to the committee, that the agency would regulate if the findings of the combustible dust National Emphasis Program support that course of action.  In other words, a process that may lead to a combustible dust standard is already underway.  What we’re contemplating with this bill is to set aside the work already being done – an extreme approach that runs counter to our goal.  Mr. Chairman, I ask that Administrator Foulke’s letter be included in the record.

My staff has been working closely with the majority to identify and correct major weaknesses in this legislation.  I want to thank Chairman Miller for his cooperation, recognizing that we share a commitment to workplace safety.

Although some progress has been made, at this juncture I believe the underlying bill continues to contain fundamental flaws that will make it less effective and less enforceable.  As a result, I do not believe it will maximize workplace safety, and I cannot support it in its current form.

The danger of combustible dust in the workplace is a serious concern, and I am committed to appropriate and effective safety measures.  That’s why we plan to offer an alternative proposal today that calls for a more comprehensive approach that would include stakeholder input and expertise in any regulatory action that may be needed, while also allowing current safety initiatives such as the National Emphasis Program to work. 

Thank you Chairman Miller, I yield back.

#####