Initial response Imperial's refinery in Louisiana was shut down by the company six weeks after the Port Wentworth disaster, over fears a similar explosion would occur there. It was kept from operating for more than a week. OSHA fined Imperial
$36,000 over safety legislation violations at that plant. Demolition of the sugar silos was conducted on June 24, 2008, with a
wrecking ball. A replacement packaging building and new sugar silos were intended to be completed by summer 2009. During demolition, of fire-hardened sugar were recovered from one silo, and another from the second silo. The company hoped to recycle the product for
ethanol production. The bill passed the
United States House of Representatives but never passed the
United States Senate. In 2009 OSHA began developing a federal standard for combustible dust. The CSB released its report in September 2009, saying the explosion had been "entirely preventable". It noted that the
sugar industry had been aware of the risk of dust explosions since 1926. Specifically, internal company memorandums by managers in 1967 expressed their concern about the potential of explosions from sugar dust. Imperial Sugar had made construction changes before the explosion, that enabled the accumulation of sugar dust. It had never practiced evacuation procedures, and the lack of emergency lighting meant that people were confined to dark hallways and tunnels at the time of the explosions. In March 2008, Raquel Islas, a female worker whose arms were burnt, sued
Savannah-based company Stokes Contracting, which was a contracted construction company. In April 2008, the widow of Shelathia Harvey also sued Stokes, as well as Savannah Foods, which operated the refinery along with Imperial. In August 2008, Malcolm Frazier, who suffered burns over 85% of his body, succumbed to his injuries at the Joseph M. Still Burn Center, where he had remained since the explosion. The
United States Department of Labor requested that
Ed Tarver, U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Georgia, pursue criminal prosecution against Imperial and its executives. OSHA cited Imperial with 124 safety violations, finding that the company acted with "plain indifference to, or intentional disregard for, employee safety and health". Tarver said there was not enough evidence of intentional disregard or plain indifference to bring criminal charges against Imperial. He also cited a lack of federal criminal laws specifically related to safety in the sugar industry as a reason for his decision. == Monument ==