CSB Updates Accidental Release Reporting Database – 4-17-25
Yesterday the CSB updated their published list of reported chemical release incidents. They added 39 new incidents that occurred since the previous version was published in January. These are not incidents that the CSB is investigating, these are incidents that were reported to the CSB under their Accidental Release Reporting rules (40 CFR 1604) through April 17th, 2025.
The table below shows the top six states based upon the number of reported incidents since the January update was published.
New Incidents
The new version of the database adds 39 new incidents reported since the January 16th version of the data was published. The new incidents include eight incidents where deaths were involved, 21 with serious injuries and 17 where significant property damage was reported. Texas led the reporting with 10 incidents, with Pennsylvania and Louisianna with three each.
The table below shows the top ten states with high reported incidents rates since the CSB started collecting their Accidental Release Reporting data in April 2020.
Incident Removed
There was one reported incident that was included in the January version of the database, but is not found in this newest version:
Incidents Not Reported
I have been tracking news reports about chemical incidents. While such reports are not necessarily conclusive evidence of a CSB reportable incident, the information included in the news reports seem to indicate that the following incidents should have been reported to CSB:
Moss Landing, CA – 1-17-25 – Probable,
Surfside Beach, SC – 1-27-25 – Possible,
Columbia, SC – 3-1-25 – Possible,
McAllen, TX – 3-17-25 – Possible,
American Fork, UT – 03-19-25 – Possible,
NOTE: Those incidents marked ‘Possible’ were where news reports indicated that one or more people were transported to the hospital, but did not note whether or not they were admitted. Transporting someone to the hospital does not make the incident CSB reportable, but admission does. Incidents marked ‘Probable’ were for incidents where news reports did not provide damage estimates, but the descriptions led me to believe that there was more than $1-million in damages.
Many of the facilities involved in these incidents are not part of what people normally consider to be ‘chemical industry’. This means that the owners might not even know about the Chemical Safety Board, much less its chemical release reporting regulations.