Chemical spills and releases: Enterprise risk considerations and 2026 trends

In the first half of 2026, chemical spills and releases have generated headlines and presented risk across industrial, chemical, transportation, and waste management sectors. A single release can trigger emergency response; Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state enforcement; Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) review; United States Department of Justice (DOJ) criminal inquiry; US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) investigation; potential litigation, including mass tort claims; Superfund cost recovery; and board-level crisis management. The most severe releases can result in human harm, including injuries to workers and first responders, and disruption to surrounding communities. These consequences can also affect regulatory scrutiny and how enforcers, courts, and the public evaluate a company's response.

The current enforcement environment provides relevant context. In fiscal year (FY) 2025, EPA concluded more than 2,300 civil enforcement cases, more than any of the preceding nine fiscal years, and assessed nearly $1.16 billion in civil penalties and criminal fines while requiring the cleanup of an estimated 62 million cubic yards of contaminated soil and water. The CSB has published Incident Reports covering 94 serious chemical incidents in 31 states involving 16 fatalities, 75 serious injuries, and more than $4.5 billion in property damage. These figures do not capture state or local action or other costs associated with major releases, including any personal injury suits, class actions, and reputational damages.

For companies that store, handle, transport, use, or dispose of hazardous substances, the level of legal risk following a spill may be influenced by whether foreseeable risks were identified, compliance programs were implemented, decisions were appropriately escalated, and response actions were documented. Companies' responses and documentation have played as significant a role in shaping outcomes as the spill events themselves.

This alert examines the current federal enforcement landscape, identifies legal frameworks commonly implicated, and outlines practical considerations for response planning and documentation.

Risk-based enforcement and escalating penalties for spills and releases

Chemical spills and releases arise across a range of operational contexts, with distinct regulatory triggers and litigation pathways.

I. Hazardous waste

Violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), such as knowingly treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste without a permit, carry penalties of up to $50,000 per day of violation and double the initial penalty amount for subsequent violations. Knowing violations can result in criminal prosecution, up to five years’ imprisonment, and fines. Recent DOJ matters demonstrate that federal authorities may pursue individual accountability in exceptional cases. In August 2025, DOJ obtained a 24-month prison sentence for illegal disposal of laboratory-grade cyanide at nine Albuquerque-area locations, and, in April 2025, operators of an Oregon wood-treatment facility paid $15 million in criminal fines for illegally treating hazardous waste. Both matters triggered coordinated federal investigations exploring individual liability alongside corporate responsibility.

II. Industrial spills and Superfund liability

Industrial liquid and fuel spills have generated cleanup liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund. EPA's Superfund enforcement program secured approximately $714.3 million in FY 2025 commitments from responsible parties for cleanup or future remediation. In February 2025, EPA and DOJ reached a $151.1 million settlement at the Raritan Bay Slag Superfund site in New Jersey, and a $62 million Florida settlement is set to remove more than 50,000 cubic yards of sulfuric acid sludge to protect the Biscayne Aquifer, the sole drinking water source for 5.2 million residents.

III. Air emissions

Multiple defendants were prosecuted in 2025 for violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and tampering with emissions-monitoring systems. The CSB is also investigating several prolonged-release events, including releases of more than 3,900 pounds of nitrogen oxides at the Austin Powder facility in Ohio and more than 900 pounds at the US Nitrogen facility in Tennessee. The CSB has identified these incidents as part of “a concerning trend of serious chemical industry accidents linked to ineffective safety management systems.”

IV. PFAS

EPA's April 2024 designation of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) as hazardous substances under CERCLA triggered Superfund cleanup and cost-recovery authorities. EPA's National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives for 2024–2027 include “Addressing Exposure to PFAS” as a priority. Secondary contamination from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in fire suppression remains an area of regulatory attention, along with evolving federal and state standards.

V. Acute community exposure events

A recent storage-tank instability event in California involving hazardous chemicals in a densely populated area prompted large-scale evacuations, emergency declarations, EPA air monitoring support, class action litigation, and review of the facility’s prior compliance record. The event provides an example of a single equipment failure leading to simultaneous emergency response, tort exposure, regulatory investigation, and public accountability demands.

VI. Stormwater and unpermitted discharges

EPA finalized facility response planning requirements for Clean Water Act (CWA) hazardous substances in March 2024 and later proposed extending the compliance date to June 1, 2030, while seeking feedback on implementation challenges. Criminal enforcement under the CWA also continued in 2025: In August 2025, Onsite Environmental pleaded guilty to bypassing treatment processes and discharging untreated waste into Nashville's sewer system, resulting in a $512,000 fine and additional remediation costs.

The consequences of a spill may depend on the substance involved and the pathway of contamination. Releases can migrate through air, soil, groundwater, and surface water, with secondary pathways (e.g., fire suppression runoff) potentially creating additional issues, including with respect to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Offsite migration and community impact could move an incident from a compliance matter to a proceeding involving multiple agencies, claims, and stakeholders.

Several factors may affect escalation. Delays or inconsistencies in reporting can materially increase penalties and, in severe cases, transform a compliance matter into a criminal investigation; the RCRA’s criminal provisions specifically focus on knowing alteration, destruction, or concealment of records. Internal decision-making breakdowns have been identified by the CSB as root causes in multiple investigations, particularly where teams failed to isolate equipment before maintenance. Inconsistencies between operational actions and the account presented to regulators could affect credibility and expose a company to allegations of fraud or obstruction.

Governing legal and regulatory frameworks

Chemical spills typically implicate multiple regulatory regimes simultaneously, depending on the circumstances, chemicals, and routes of impact. The RCRA regulates hazardous waste handling and disposal, with criminal provisions covering unpermitted treatment or storage, knowing endangerment, and records destruction. The RCRA includes authority for EPA to take immediate enforcement and cleanup action where the agency finds an imminent and substantial endangerment from a waste management site that poses a significant threat to human health or the environment.

The CWA imposes discharge reporting and permitting obligations. As noted above, EPA’s 2024 final rule created new Facility Response Plan (FRP) requirements for worst-case hazardous-substance discharges. The CAA governs emissions and permitting compliance, and, in July 2025, EPA announced its first-ever accidental-release rule settlement under the CAA. OSHA addresses worker exposure, with maximum penalties of $165,514 per willful violation. A January 2025 EPA–OSHA Memorandum of Understanding formalized coordination on chemical–safety enforcement. CERCLA may drive cleanup liability for arrangers, transporters, and current and former owners of contaminated facilities, with $52.5 billion in responsible-party commitments obtained since 1980 and 870 sites currently under cleanup.

State agencies and regulators are also part of spill response, from initial notification through final cleanup. State regulatory requirements operate in parallel with federal frameworks and may be more stringent. Community-notification requirements are often coordinated through state and local agencies, while some obligations arise under federal law. Overlapping jurisdiction can create multiple reporting, response, and documentation obligations, with EPA’s FY 2025 report reflecting 477 enforcement tools finalized at 239 unique Superfund sites.

Regulatory and litigation trends

Parallel investigations involving federal, state, and local agencies are common, as demonstrated by a recent material safety incident at a manufacturing plant where the CSB issued interim safety recommendations. EPA’s FY 2025 results also reflect coordination among enforcement programs, including DOJ’s Environmental Crimes Section investigations and CSB investigations.

Enforcement theories in recent matters have focused on preparedness, foreseeability, and implementation of known controls. Regulators have examined not only the incident itself but also documented safety plans, training records, and management-of-change procedures.

Mass tort claims, natural resource damages, cleanup contribution actions and claims, and insurance disputes have, in some cases, arisen years after initial spills. In some cases, single-event exposures have reached nine-figure liability. For example, the 2023 Norfolk Southern train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, which involved the release of hazardous substances, was followed by mass tort and class action claims and resulted in the establishment of a $600 million settlement fund. This example reflects the potential scale of downstream claims. Settlements may also include system redesign, long-term monitoring, and operational changes in addition to penalties.

Building a spill response record and practical considerations

A response record often begins in the first 24 to 72 hours. While conducting emergency response and containment activities, companies may wish to simultaneously:

• Identify applicable regulatory frameworks and reporting obligations

   

• Preserve records and monitoring data

   

• Assess contamination pathways

   

• Evaluate regulated substances, including PFAS

   

• Coordinate legal; environmental, health, and safety (EHS); operations; technical; communications; insurance; and leadership teams

   

• Document the basis for key decisions in real time

Escalation protocols are also relevant. The CSB’s investigations have identified failures in escalation protocols and safety management systems as root causes of serious incidents. Coordination across legal, environmental, operational, and communications teams may reduce inconsistent messaging, and early engagement of technical consultants may support sampling and remediation decisions.

Civil penalty and criminal matters since 2025 have largely turned on the integrity of operational records and monitoring data. Companies may consider aligning incident response plans and current regulatory requirements, aligning operational practices and documented policies, and evaluating how response documentation may be evaluated in later proceedings.

Questions for EHS teams to consider include the following:

• Who has authority to make reportability decisions in the first hours after a release?
  
  
• Are spill response plans aligned with current federal, state, and local requirements?
  
  
• Can monitoring data, maintenance records, photographs, sampling data, and response communications be preserved quickly?
  
  
• Have potential PFAS, hazardous substance, petroleum, hazardous waste, stormwater, and air-emissions issues been identified before an incident occurs?
  
  
• Do legal, EHS, operations, communications, insurance, and executive teams understand how they would coordinate during a release?
  
  
• Has the escalation process been tested through a tabletop exercise?

Looking ahead

Chemical spill events have involved regulatory, litigation, operational, and reputational exposure and implicated multiple federal authorities. Companies that structure compliance programs, response strategies, and documentation practices before an incident occurs may be better positioned to address immediate obligations and subsequent proceedings.

Recent and ongoing federal developments continue to signal activity in this area, with EPA’s reconsideration of the CWA’s hazardous substance FRP requirements through an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, OSHA’s updated National Emphasis Program on heat hazards and efforts to expand whistleblower protections, the CSB’s ongoing investigation of fatal incidents across the US, and EPA’s recently announced Superfund Solutions initiative directed at accelerating cleanups at more than 1,340 National Priorities List sites.

DLA Piper’s Environmental, Health, and Safety practice and Environmental and Catastrophic Events Task Force assists companies with spill and release events. We advise clients on first-response issues, reporting and agency coordination, privilege and record preservation, technical-consultant management, enforcement action response, cleanup and cost-recovery strategy, insurance coordination, crisis communications, and follow-on litigation. The team coordinates environmental, white collar, OSHA/workplace safety, litigation, insurance, and crisis-response capabilities to help clients address immediate operational, regulatory, and community impacts. For more information, please contact the authors.