In the chemical process industries (CPI), dust can present an issue far more menacing than a housekeeping nuisance. Combustible dust is in fact, much too often listed as a cause of serious, and even fatal accidents.
Incidents
In January of this year, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB; Washington, D.C., www.csb.gov) issued its report on the U.S. Ink plant flash fire that burned seven workers. This incident, which occurred in October 2012 in East Rutherford, N.J., was found to have resulted from the accumulation of combustible dust inside a dust-collection system that had been put into operation four days prior to the accident. One of the key findings in the report is that while the dust-collection system was designed for dust collection, it was modified to include a housekeeping function, which caused insufficient flowrates. The CSB report notes that the volume of air flow and the air velocity were below industry recommendations.
In 2006, the CSB issued a comprehensive report on combustible dust hazards that was based on investigations of three major industrial explosions that occurred in the U.S. in 2003 alone. The three incidents, in North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, cost 14 lives and numerous injuries. In that 2006 study, the CSB identified 281 combustible-dust incidents that occurred in the previous 25 years and claimed 119 lives with over 700 injuries. Since 2006, the CSB documented 50 combustible-dust incidents that resulted in 29 fatalities and 161 injuries. These include the 2008 Imperial Sugar disaster near Savannah, Ga., and three incidents over a six-month period in 2011 at a powdered-metal plant in Gallatin, Tenn.
Standards and regulations
What is striking in the reports about dust explosions is that at least in some cases, known engineering controls may have been preventative. In its 2006 investigation report “Combustible Dust Hazard Study,” the CSB recommended that the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. (OSHA; Washington, D.C.; www.osha.gov) issue a standard to prevent combustible-dust fires and explosions based on standards already available from the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA; Quincy, Mass.; www.nfpa.org). The CSB reiterates this recommendation in numerous subsequent reports including its most recent one issued in January. While standards exist, they are voluntary and not enforced through federal regulations. In 2013, the CSB designated a comprehensive general industry standard for combustible dust as its first “Most Wanted Chemical Safety Improvement.”
Resources
In the meantime, a wealth of information about combustible dust is available. The CSB website contains many lessons learned from incident investigations in both report and video format. The NFPA offers a number of relevant standards. OSHA offers various resources, including information on its Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP). And numerous articles, such as the Feature Report in this issue (Prevent Combustible Dust Explosions With Nitrogen Inerting, p. 64) help to share knowledge and insight into this important issue.■
Dorothy Lozowski, Editor in Chief
Featured Conference
November 9-11, 2026Irving Convention Center | Dallas, TX
Explore this topic and more — live at Clean Americas. Join environmental, health, safety, and emergency response professionals tackling the industry's most urgent hazards. View Conference Program →
When a major incident strikes, the people stepping into Incident Command aren't always the ones who trained for it. Engineers, operators, trades supervisors, and compliance specialists may suddenly find themselves filling Command and General Staff roles — not because they volunteered, but because the situation demands it. Panelists will share practical strategies for leading without positional authority, tools and frameworks that help personnel rapidly orient to ICS roles, and approaches for closing the gap between day-to-day job functions and emergency command readiness before the next incident makes it urgent.
Speaking
Scott Andrews (Trans Mountain Canada Inc., Manager Emergency Management)
Kelly Codlin , MSPH, CIH (Marathon Petroleum Company, Emergency Preparedness Director)
Nick Hickson (Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service (TEEX), Hazmat Training Manager)
Josh Dubach MSc, CEM (Onterris, Senior Response Management Consultant)
This session will examine produced water as the largest waste stream in the oil and gas industry and one of its most pressing emerging challenges. It will address the growing volumes of produced water, the increasing regulatory and public scrutiny of constituents such as PFAS, salts, and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), and the operational implications for management, treatment, reuse, and disposal. The discussion will also explore how operators, regulators, and communities are redefining approaches to produced water management in response to environmental, technical, and stakeholder pressures.
Speaking
Steve Pepper, Ph.D., (Onterris, Director of Response Management)
Charles Maguire (Railroad Commission of Texas, Advisor, Oil and Gas Division)
Prof. Shane Walker Ph.D. (Texas Produced Water Consortium, Director)
Ray Cheatham (Onterris, Energy Sector Leader)
This session will present a detailed case study of a large-scale lithium-ion battery fire response that extended over 12 months. Attendees will explore the hazards associated with thermal runaway events, the operational challenges of suppressing lithium battery fires, and the response strategies that proved effective in this prolonged incident. The
Drawing on insights from U.S. EPA Region 9 wildfire response efforts, the session will also highlight tactics such as hazard characterization, air monitoring and evaluation, and household hazardous waste collection and disposal. Participants will leave with a stronger understanding of the complexities involved in large-scale battery fire incidents and the critical factors to consider when planning and executing an effective response.
Speaking
Robert W. May PG (Clean Harbors, Senior Vice President, Branch Services and Sales)
Crosley Welch (Missouri Department of Natural Resources, State On-Scene Coordinator)
Samuel Cheek , CSP, RRPT (U.S. EPA, Region 6, Federal On-Scene Coordinator)
Christopher Myers (U.S. EPA, Region 9, Federal On-Scene Coordinator)
This session introduces use of remote sensing technologies to detect, characterize and monitor spills across marine and coastal environments. Discussion will highlight how tools can integrate into modern spill response workflows to improve safety and support data-driven decision making.
Speaking
James Hanzalik (Clean Gulf Associates, Vice-President)
Gordon Staples (MDA Space Ltd., Senior Radar Applications Scientist)
Grant Coolbaugh (Applied Research Associates / Ohmsett, Mechanical Engineer)
Speaking
Allyson Purcell MEP, CEM (ConocoPhillips, CMER Director)
Michael Delio (Maxum Petroleum, EHS & SECURITY MGR)
This session provides a practical, ground‑level introduction to the essential steps required after a battery undergoes a thermal event. We’ll break down how to assess site conditions, stabilize and prepare damaged cells or packs, select appropriate containment and packaging methods, and navigate the regulatory landscape that governs transport and disposal. The lecture emphasizes real‑world decision‑making, safety considerations, and compliance requirements, giving participants a clear framework they can apply immediately in field operations or emergency response planning.
Speaking
Mark Steadman (The Battery Network, Program Manager)
Environment, Health, Safety & Security
A ‘most wanted’ safety improvement
| By Dorothy Lozowski
In the chemical process industries (CPI), dust can present an issue far more menacing than a housekeeping nuisance. Combustible dust is in fact, much too often listed as a cause of serious, and even fatal accidents.
Incidents
In January of this year, the U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB; Washington, D.C., www.csb.gov) issued its report on the U.S. Ink plant flash fire that burned seven workers. This incident, which occurred in October 2012 in East Rutherford, N.J., was found to have resulted from the accumulation of combustible dust inside a dust-collection system that had been put into operation four days prior to the accident. One of the key findings in the report is that while the dust-collection system was designed for dust collection, it was modified to include a housekeeping function, which caused insufficient flowrates. The CSB report notes that the volume of air flow and the air velocity were below industry recommendations.
In 2006, the CSB issued a comprehensive report on combustible dust hazards that was based on investigations of three major industrial explosions that occurred in the U.S. in 2003 alone. The three incidents, in North Carolina, Kentucky and Indiana, cost 14 lives and numerous injuries. In that 2006 study, the CSB identified 281 combustible-dust incidents that occurred in the previous 25 years and claimed 119 lives with over 700 injuries. Since 2006, the CSB documented 50 combustible-dust incidents that resulted in 29 fatalities and 161 injuries. These include the 2008 Imperial Sugar disaster near Savannah, Ga., and three incidents over a six-month period in 2011 at a powdered-metal plant in Gallatin, Tenn.
Standards and regulations
What is striking in the reports about dust explosions is that at least in some cases, known engineering controls may have been preventative. In its 2006 investigation report “Combustible Dust Hazard Study,” the CSB recommended that the Occupational Safety and Health Admin. (OSHA; Washington, D.C.; www.osha.gov) issue a standard to prevent combustible-dust fires and explosions based on standards already available from the National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA; Quincy, Mass.; www.nfpa.org). The CSB reiterates this recommendation in numerous subsequent reports including its most recent one issued in January. While standards exist, they are voluntary and not enforced through federal regulations. In 2013, the CSB designated a comprehensive general industry standard for combustible dust as its first “Most Wanted Chemical Safety Improvement.”
Resources
In the meantime, a wealth of information about combustible dust is available. The CSB website contains many lessons learned from incident investigations in both report and video format. The NFPA offers a number of relevant standards. OSHA offers various resources, including information on its Combustible Dust National Emphasis Program (NEP). And numerous articles, such as the Feature Report in this issue (Prevent Combustible Dust Explosions With Nitrogen Inerting, p. 64) help to share knowledge and insight into this important issue.■
Featured Conference
When a major incident strikes, the people stepping into Incident Command aren't always the ones who trained for it. Engineers, operators, trades supervisors, and compliance specialists may suddenly find themselves filling Command and General Staff roles — not because they volunteered, but because the situation demands it. Panelists will share practical strategies for leading without positional authority, tools and frameworks that help personnel rapidly orient to ICS roles, and approaches for closing the gap between day-to-day job functions and emergency command readiness before the next incident makes it urgent.
This session will examine produced water as the largest waste stream in the oil and gas industry and one of its most pressing emerging challenges. It will address the growing volumes of produced water, the increasing regulatory and public scrutiny of constituents such as PFAS, salts, and Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (NORM), and the operational implications for management, treatment, reuse, and disposal. The discussion will also explore how operators, regulators, and communities are redefining approaches to produced water management in response to environmental, technical, and stakeholder pressures.
This session will present a detailed case study of a large-scale lithium-ion battery fire response that extended over 12 months. Attendees will explore the hazards associated with thermal runaway events, the operational challenges of suppressing lithium battery fires, and the response strategies that proved effective in this prolonged incident. The
Drawing on insights from U.S. EPA Region 9 wildfire response efforts, the session will also highlight tactics such as hazard characterization, air monitoring and evaluation, and household hazardous waste collection and disposal. Participants will leave with a stronger understanding of the complexities involved in large-scale battery fire incidents and the critical factors to consider when planning and executing an effective response.
This session introduces use of remote sensing technologies to detect, characterize and monitor spills across marine and coastal environments. Discussion will highlight how tools can integrate into modern spill response workflows to improve safety and support data-driven decision making.
This session provides a practical, ground‑level introduction to the essential steps required after a battery undergoes a thermal event. We’ll break down how to assess site conditions, stabilize and prepare damaged cells or packs, select appropriate containment and packaging methods, and navigate the regulatory landscape that governs transport and disposal. The lecture emphasizes real‑world decision‑making, safety considerations, and compliance requirements, giving participants a clear framework they can apply immediately in field operations or emergency response planning.