Serious chemical accidents are rising and the increase is not marginal. Reportable events tracked by the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) climbed from 83 in 2021 to 133 in 2025, an increase of roughly 60 percent, according to an analysis of CSB filings by PCI Magazine. Events involving at least one fatality or serious injury rose from 60 to 91 over the same period, an increase of approximately 52 percent. Since the CSB's accidental release reporting rule took effect in April 2020, companies have reported more than 650 qualifying incidents, each involving a fatality, a serious injury or property damage exceeding one million dollars.
Chemical incident reporting is the mandatory disclosure of accidental releases, injuries and property damage tied to regulated or extremely hazardous substances, submitted to bodies such as the CSB, the EPA and state fire and emergency planning authorities. A separate analysis by the Wall Street Journal of 2025 figures found that of 131 serious chemical accidents that year, 89 resulted in death or injury and the resulting death toll of 48 was nearly double the prior year's total.
What's driving the increase: aging systems under more strain, not just more chemicals
Former CSB and EPA officials, along with industry safety experts, point to years of deferred safety maintenance on aging plants as a major contributing factor. CSB reports cite recurring, avoidable failure types: corroded pipes and missing or malfunctioning safety equipment among them. Deferred maintenance is the accumulation of postponed repair and inspection work that gradually erodes a facility's margin of safety. These are not exotic failure modes. They are the kind of degradation that shows up in inspection records long before it shows up in an incident report, provided someone is tracking those records continuously in the first place.
The filing your team submits isn't the risk, the data behind it is
Most teams have an inaccurate data problem but aren’t overly aware of it. Missing or guessed data is inaccurate data; it creates a chemical inventory that has gaps or one where those gaps were filled in with an estimate rather than logged continuously at the point of use, producing a figure that is just as inaccurate as a wrong one, it just looks more defensible on paper. Rounding up to stay on the safe side of a threshold feels like caution but consistent overstatement invites the same scrutiny as understatement, because both signal that a facility does not actually know what it holds.
As incident rates climb, that gap matters more. When an incident occurs, investigators and regulators compare what was reported against what was actually on site. A Tier II, TRI or HMBP filing built on an annual estimate is not a safety net in that scenario. It is the first document that gets checked against reality.
Regional regulatory complexity compounds the exposure
Chemical management compliance rarely means satisfying a single framework. Tier II, TRI, HMBP and REACH each carry different triggers, cadences and jurisdictional scope and organizations operating across multiple states or countries are managing all of them at once, often through separate spreadsheets and separate owners.
| Framework | Triggered by | Filing cadence | Scope |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tier II (EPCRA Section 312) | Storage of hazardous chemicals above threshold quantities | Annual, March 1 deadline | Federal, filed per facility and per state |
| TRI (Toxics Release Inventory) | Manufacture, processing or use of listed toxic chemicals above threshold | Annual | Federal |
| HMBP (Hazardous Materials Business Plan) | Storage of hazardous materials | State-specific, varies by jurisdiction | State level (for example California) |
| REACH | Manufacture or import of chemical substances | Ongoing registration and reporting obligations | EU only |
Teams tracking chemical inventory manually across this many frameworks are more likely to have gaps between jurisdictions than teams working from a single, continuously updated source of inventory data. The complexity is not a reason to simplify reporting standards. It is a reason to simplify how the underlying data is captured.
From chemical custody to chemical strategy
Chemical custody is the periodic, compliance-driven recording of chemical holdings, typically compiled at filing time and often mediated through external consultants who visit a handful of times a year to check the record against the shelf. Chemical strategy is the continuous, in-house ownership of chemical data across its full lifecycle: source, control, use, validation and disposal.
The distinction matters because custody is built to satisfy a deadline, while strategy is built to reflect what is actually happening on site at any given moment. In a rising-incident environment, the organizations best positioned are the ones treating chemical data as an operational discipline owned by the people managing the chemicals, not a document produced under deadline pressure by someone once removed from the storage room.
Accurate reporting starts long before the deadline
Accurate reporting is a product of what a team tracks all year, not what it compiles in the weeks before a deadline. Ideagen Chemical Management supports this by tying inventory data to continuous, lifecycle-based tracking rather than periodic collection.
See where your own filing practices might already be exposed with our interactive Tier II reporting readiness checklist.
Explore chemical management solutions
Gain real-time visibility across procurement, inventory, compliance and hazard communication. One intelligent platform for your entire chemical lifecycle.