Chemical Safety Compliance: Lessons from Recent EPA Enforcement Actions

Recent EPA enforcement actions highlight critical chemical safety management gaps and emphasize the importance of comprehensive RMP compliance.

• By James Junkin
• May 15, 2025

In a significant move underscoring its commitment to chemical safety, the EPA recently finalized settlements with ten facilities across California for violations related to chemical safety regulations. The April 22, 2025, enforcement actions, resulting in penalties totaling more than $170,000, serve as a stark reminder of the agency's intensifying focus on compliance with the Risk Management Program (RMP) under the Clean Air Act.

The High Cost of Administrative Oversights,

The most substantial penalty, adding up to $151,979, was levied against OrganicGirl, LLC, for violations that many facilities might mistakenly classify as merely administrative. This case exemplifies how seemingly routine compliance issues can lead to significant consequences.

The EPA cited three primary deficiencies at the facility. First was the failure to implement safety recommendations in a timely manner, creating unnecessary risk exposure. When critical safety improvements remain unaddressed, facilities operate with known vulnerabilities that could lead to catastrophic releases. In OrganicGirl's case, this delay significantly increased the likelihood of a serious chemical accident involving anhydrous ammonia, a substance that poses severe health risks, including respiratory damage and skin burns.

Second, investigators identified maintenance program deficiencies, including refrigeration system corrosion and emergency ventilation inadequacies. These physical infrastructure issues represent more than equipment failures—they indicate systematic neglect of critical safety systems. Corrosion in refrigeration systems containing anhydrous ammonia creates potential leak points, while insufficient emergency ventilation means that any release could quickly reach unsafe concentration levels, endangering workers and potentially spreading to surrounding communities.

Third, the facility lacked proper documentation for systems designed to prevent anhydrous ammonia releases. This documentation gap meant that emergency responders would have insufficient information about containment systems, making an effective response more difficult during a crisis. It also indicated that the company itself might not fully understand the engineering controls in place, compromising its ability to maintain these systems properly.

These findings reveal a troubling pattern seen across many industrial operations. When safety recommendations remain unaddressed, it often signals an organizational culture that prioritizes operational continuity over risk mitigation. Similarly, maintenance deficiencies frequently indicate resource allocation challenges or communication breakdowns between technical teams and management.

Why Documentation Matters More Than You Think

Among the violations cited, documentation deficiencies deserve particular attention. Too often, organizations treat documentation as a bureaucratic exercise rather than a critical safety component. 

Documentation serves multiple critical functions in chemical safety management. It ensures operational consistency by providing clear procedures for routine operations and maintenance. It facilitates effective emergency response by giving first responders crucial information about chemical inventories, containment systems, and facility layouts. It enables meaningful safety audits by providing baseline information against which current practices can be evaluated. And perhaps most importantly, it provides crucial information during personnel transitions, ensuring that institutional knowledge isn't lost when experienced employees depart.

When documentation is incomplete or outdated, companies lose their ability to effectively manage risks, train personnel, or respond to emergencies. What appears on the surface as a paperwork problem can quickly escalate into life-threatening situations when systems fail or emergencies occur. Even a single oversight could jeopardize a company’s ability to prevent or respond effectively to a chemical release.

Understanding the Risk Management Program's Broader Impact

The EPA's enforcement actions highlight the far-reaching implications of the Risk Management Program. Established under Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, the RMP requires facilities handling specified quantities of hazardous chemicals to develop and implement comprehensive risk management strategies.

These strategies must include detailed hazard assessments identifying potential release scenarios and their consequences. Facilities must implement prevention programs that include safety precautions, maintenance procedures, and employee training. They must also develop emergency response strategies that coordinate with local first responders and communicate risks to surrounding communities.

The societal impact of RMP compliance is substantial. Chemical releases from regulated facilities cost society over $540 million annually. More concerning is the human impact. Approximately 131 million Americans reside within vulnerability zones of RMP facilities, making proper chemical management not just a regulatory concern, but a public health necessity too.

The EPA's 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule has reinforced these requirements, emphasizing the growing understanding that chemical safety extends beyond individual facilities and affects entire communities. This regulatory evolution introduces stricter safety standards and greater transparency, highlighting that chemical safety isn't just an industrial concern but also a public health imperative.

Developing a Comprehensive Safety Approach

Effective chemical safety management extends beyond regulatory compliance. Organizations that excel in this area adopt an integrated approach that eliminates traditional silos between departments.

This integration begins with comprehensive employee training that explains procedures as well as underlying rationales. When workers understand why safety protocols exist, compliance becomes more consistent and meaningful.

Regular, thorough audits of safety systems, equipment, and documentation should be conducted with an eye toward improvement rather than mere compliance. When these reviews generate safety recommendations, addressing them promptly should be a top priority.

Proactive engagement with regulatory agencies also distinguishes leading organizations. Rather than taking an adversarial approach, forward-thinking companies engage in open dialogue with regulators to ensure alignment and appropriate resource allocation.

The synergistic relationship between the RMP and OSHA's Process Safety Management (PSM) standard is also worth noting. While the RMP focuses on preventing off-site impacts on surrounding communities, the PSM standard emphasizes workplace safety. Organizations that integrate their approach with these complementary regulations often achieve more robust safety outcomes than those that treat them as separate compliance exercises.

Beyond Financial Penalties

While the financial penalties in these cases are substantial, they represent only a fraction of the true cost of non-compliance. Organizations face potential litigation expenses, increased insurance premiums, operational disruptions, and reputational damage that can far exceed initial fines. More importantly, chemical safety failures can result in irreversible harm to workers, communities, and ecosystems. The EPA estimates that approximately 150 catastrophic accidents occur each year at ammonia refrigeration facilities alone, resulting in injuries, fatalities, evacuations, and environmental destruction. No financial calculation can adequately capture the value of preventing these outcomes.

These recent enforcement actions should encourage organizations to reevaluate their approach to chemical safety. By fostering a culture of continuous improvement, integrating safety considerations into all operations, and viewing compliance as a starting point rather than an end goal, organizations can better protect their stakeholders from preventable harm.

The true measure of an organization's commitment to excellence isn't found in avoiding penalties. It's demonstrated through the proactive, comprehensive safety systems that prevent incidents before they occur.