The Chemical Safety Board is Closing, What Happens Now?

The Chemical Safety Board is closing this year, to be replaced in function by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). This is a major blow to those working in manufacturing and at chemical or oil refineries who rely on independent reports to validate their injury claims. Our firm has utilized reporting from the CSB in the past – the organization provided authoritative, expert analysis of major accidents for our clients, something that is invaluable in the personal injury world.

Lawsuits aside, the loss of the CSB will be a direct blow to workers. While the board was unable to directly fine or sanction companies its policy recommendations to the EPA and OSHA, and recommended improvements to companies are likely directly correlated with improved worker safety. As a testament to the board’s influence, over 88% of recommendations were closed by the board, meaning they were adopted by companies. In total, the CSB has closed over 906 recommendations over its lifetime, out of 1,025.

Photo courtesy of the Chemical Safety Board.

This article will explain how the CSB’s investigations helped personal injury cases, how its function will be replaced by the private industry, and where its efforts will be redistributed.

How Does the CSB Help Personal Injury Cases?

The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian primarily takes cases involving medical claims as the result of a personal injury. These can include car accidents, crushing or falling injuries at work, or injuries suffered at oil refineries, like burns, explosions, and chemical exposure. These latter claims typically require significant research – when tons of chemicals escape containment and kill multiple workers, there must be a set of root causes. Take the LyondellBasell leak in 2021 – a “simple mistake” cost 2 workers their lives and sent over 30 other workers to the hospital with mild to severe injuries as the result of exposure and contact with acetic acid and methyl iodide. This leak was found – through reporting by the CSB – to be the result of improper disassembly of a pressure control valve. So what was the conclusion by the CSB?

“The CSB found that LyondellBasell and Turn2 considered the actuator removal job to be a simple task and that LyondellBasell did not provide the work crew with a procedure detailing how to remove the actuator from the plug valve. In addition, neither LyondellBasell nor Turn2 trained the work crew on the steps necessary to remove the actuator, and LyondellBasell did not adequately assess the potential risk of exposing the contract crew to hazardous chemicals during the actuator removal in light of historical incidents in the industry in which workers have inadvertently removed pressure-retaining components from plug valves installed in pressurized service.”

This analysis places the burden of liability on both the contractee, LyondellBasell, and the contractor, Turn2 for not training their workers. The reports generated by this investigation are damning  for companies both in court and at the negotiation table. Unfortunately, with the closure of the CSB, injured workers will no longer have access to reports generated with as much investigative authority as the CSB. Instead, personal injury firms will be required to conduct their own investigations – which will naturally be longer and more limited in scope.

Who Takes Over Now That the CSB Is Closed?

The federal government plans to redistribute the Chemical Safety Board’s responsibilities among existing agencies, primarily the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). While both agencies play important roles in workplace and environmental regulation, neither fills the same investigative niche the CSB previously occupied.

The CSB functioned as an independent, non-regulatory body. Its sole purpose involved investigating serious chemical incidents, determining root causes, and issuing detailed public reports. The board did not face pressure to issue fines, defend regulatory decisions, or manage enforcement actions. This independence allowed investigators to focus on technical failures, management breakdowns, and industry-wide safety gaps without conflict.

OSHA investigations, by contrast, focus on regulatory compliance. Inspectors determine whether safety rules were violated and which citations or penalties to apply. While OSHA reports can, and often do, support injury claims, they often emphasize whether a standard was breached rather than how systemic failures unfolded. OSHA investigations also tend to narrow their scope once a citation has been issued.

The EPA’s role centers on environmental impact, chemical release reporting, and risk management planning. Its investigations typically address contamination, air or water quality, and regulatory adherence under environmental statutes. Worker’s injuries receive less attention, especially where environmental harm proves limited.

As a result, no single agency replaces the CSB’s comprehensive, root-cause approach. Instead, injured workers and their attorneys face a fragmented system where information exists across multiple agencies, each with different priorities, timelines, and disclosure standards.

How the Private Sector Will Fill the Gap

With the loss of CSB investigations, private industry and litigation experts will assume a larger role in accident analysis. Personal injury firms will increasingly rely on third-party engineers, industrial safety consultants, chemical process experts, and former regulators to reconstruct accident timelines. While private investigations can produce strong evidence, they present challenges for injured workers. Independent experts require funding, access to information, and time. Companies often control physical evidence, internal reports, and proprietary processes, which can delay or limit discovery. The CSB previously bypassed many of these obstacles through subpoena power and public reporting authority.

Without that centralized investigation, personal injury cases may involve longer timelines, higher costs, and increased resistance from corporate defendants.

What Other Organizations Will Personal Injury Lawyers Use?

In the absence of CSB reports, personal injury lawyers will draw from a combination of public and private sources to establish liability:

• OSHA Investigation Files: Inspection narratives, citations, and penalty documents can still demonstrate safety violations, training failures, or equipment deficiencies.
• EPA Incident Reports: Risk Management Plan violations, chemical release notifications, and enforcement actions may reveal patterns of unsafe chemical handling.
• Company Internal Records: Maintenance schedules, job hazard analyses, contractor agreements, and prior incident reports often reveal warning signs ignored before an accident.
• Industry Standards: Guidance from organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) help establish what companies knew or should have known.
• Expert Reconstruction: Engineers and safety professionals can replicate accident conditions and explain how mechanical failures or procedural shortcuts caused injuries.

Together, these sources can build a compelling case, but they rarely offer the same clarity or authority as a single CSB investigation. This shift places injured workers at a disadvantage unless their legal team understands how to piece together complex technical evidence.

Why This Change Matters for Houston Workers

Houston remains one of the nation’s largest hubs for oil refining, chemical manufacturing, and industrial processing. Thousands of workers face daily exposure to hazardous substances, pressurized systems, and high-temperature operations. When accidents occur, the consequences often involve catastrophic burns, toxic exposure, traumatic injuries, or fatalities.

The CSB has historically investigated many of the region’s most serious industrial incidents, producing reports that helped injured workers understand what happened and why, and use those reports to field an injury claim. Those findings frequently supported claims that companies failed to train workers, ignored prior warnings, or underestimated known risks.

With the CSB gone, refinery workers injured in Houston face a steeper path to accountability. Evidence still exists, but takes more effort to uncover and interpret.

Contact a Refinery Accident Lawyer in Houston, TX

If you or a loved one suffered injuries in a refinery explosion, chemical release, or industrial accident, legal guidance can make a meaningful difference. The Law Offices of Hilda Sibrian has over 21 years experience handling complex personal injury claims involving oil refineries and chemical facilities across the Houston area, including La Porte, Baytown, Pasadena, and South Texas. We work with qualified experts to uncover the facts, identify liability, and pursue compensation for medical expenses, lost income, and long-term harm.

To discuss your case, contact a refinery accident lawyer today at 713-714-1414 for a confidential consultation, or fill out our online contact form.