Compass Chemical International Fined $112,700 For Hiding Chemical Data From EPA

THE FOUR-YEAR CONCEALMENT CAMPAIGN

Between 2020 and 2023, while Compass Chemical International manufactured chemicals in quantities significant enough to trigger federal reporting requirements, the company systematically refused to tell the Environmental Protection Agency what those chemicals were, how much they were producing, or what risks they might pose to the surrounding community.

The Toxic Substances Control Act exists for one fundamental reason: communities have the right to know what chemical substances are being manufactured in their neighborhoods. Under Section 8(b) of TSCA, the EPA maintains a Master Inventory File of all chemicals manufactured or imported into the United States. Chemical Data Reporting requirements mandate that any facility producing more than 25,000 pounds of a listed chemical substance must submit detailed information to the EPA during designated submission periods.

The 2024 submission period ran from June 1, 2024, through November 22, 2024. Companies were required to report on manufacturing activities from the prior four calendar years: 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Compass Chemical International’s production records, obtained by EPA inspectors during a March 6, 2024 facility inspection, confirmed the company had manufactured reportable quantities of Chemicals D, F, and G throughout this entire period.

November 22, 2024 came and went. No Chemical Data Report was filed. The chemicals remained concealed. The community remained uninformed.

This was not an oversight. This was not a filing error. Production records obtained during the EPA inspection documented years of continuous manufacturing activity. The company had the data. The company had the legal obligation. The company chose silence.

THE MISSING TEST RULE NOTIFICATION

The concealment extended beyond basic reporting requirements. Compass Chemical International manufactured at least five batches of a substance designated as Chemical H between 2021 and 2023. Chemical H was subject to a final TSCA Section 4 Test Rule promulgated by the EPA, meaning the agency had determined this chemical required health and environmental testing to understand its risks.

When a chemical becomes subject to a federal test rule, manufacturers face a clear deadline: within thirty days of the rule’s effective date or the date of first manufacture (whichever comes later), the company must either submit a notice of intent to test or apply for an exemption from testing. This is not discretionary. This is not optional.

According to the consent agreement, Compass Chemical’s first manufacture of Chemical H occurred on May 5, 2021. The thirty-day deadline passed. No letter of intent was filed. No exemption application was submitted. The company simply began manufacturing a federally regulated chemical as if the test rule didn’t exist.

“Respondent was required to submit a letter of intent to test or an exemption from testing application to the EPA for Chemical H no later than May 5, 2021, which was the date of Respondent’s first manufacture of Chemical H. Respondent failed to submit a letter of intent to test or an exemption from testing for Chemical H on or before May 5, 2021.” EPA Consent Agreement, Docket No. TSCA-04-2026-6008(b), Section IV, Paragraph 30

Think about what this means in practical terms. The EPA determined Chemical H required safety testing to evaluate potential health and environmental impacts. Instead of conducting tests or seeking an exemption, Compass Chemical simply manufactured the substance without any disclosure that production was occurring. For two years, from 2021 to 2023, Chemical H was produced at the Smyrna facility while regulatory authorities remained unaware of its manufacture.

THE NON-FINANCIAL LEDGER

There are no identified victims in this case because the violation itself is the concealment of information that would allow victims to be identified. This is the perfect crime of bureaucratic opacity: the harm is rendered invisible by the act of suppression.

Consider the position of a resident living downwind from the Compass Chemical facility at 5544 Oakdale Road in Smyrna. From 2020 through 2023, chemicals were being manufactured in quantities exceeding 25,000 pounds annually. At least one of those chemicals was significant enough that federal regulators mandated safety testing. But the resident had no way to know this. The chemicals were never reported. The test rule notification was never filed.

If a child in the neighborhood developed respiratory problems, there was no public database connecting those symptoms to potential chemical exposures. If groundwater contamination occurred, there was no inventory of manufactured substances to guide remediation efforts. If workers at the facility experienced health effects, there was no publicly available data confirming what chemicals they were handling.

The dignity violation here is epistemic: the systematic denial of the right to know. Environmental justice doesn’t start with cleanup or compensation. It starts with information. It starts with communities having access to basic facts about what industrial activities are occurring in their midst. Compass Chemical International spent four years denying Smyrna that foundational knowledge.

Even now, with an enforcement action filed and a penalty assessed, the chemical identities remain concealed. The consent agreement itself acknowledges that information has been “intentionally redacted” to protect the company’s business interests. So the violation is documented, the fine is paid, and the community still doesn’t know what was being manufactured in their neighborhood.

This is what corporate privilege looks like in practice. A company can violate federal environmental law for four consecutive years, and the penalty is a monetary fine that doesn’t require disclosure of the very information the law was designed to make public. The system punishes the concealment while preserving the secrecy.

LEGAL RECEIPTS

The consent agreement provides explicit documentation of the regulatory framework Compass Chemical violated. The following passages are reproduced verbatim from the official EPA enforcement document:

“Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 711.15, Respondent was required to submit a 2024 CDR Report to the EPA for reportable chemical substances that were manufactured (including imported) for commercial purposes in quantities greater than 25,000 pounds in calendar years 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 by no later than the end of the 2024 CDR submission period, which was November 22, 2024. Chemicals D, F, and G are reportable chemical substances manufactured by Respondent during the 2024 CDR submission period (2020-2023) and are therefore subject to the 2024 CDR reporting requirements.” EPA Consent Agreement, Section IV, Paragraph 25

“Based on the production dates, Respondent was required to submit a letter of intent to test or an exemption from testing application to the EPA for Chemical H no later than May 5, 2021, which was the date of Respondent’s first manufacture of Chemical H.” EPA Consent Agreement, Section IV, Paragraph 30

“Based on the EPA’s investigation, including a review of Respondent’s records as set forth above, the EPA alleges that Respondent failed to: a. Submit a 2024 CDR Report for Chemicals D, F, and G during the 2024 CDR submission period which ended on November 22, 2024, in violation of 40 C.F.R. §711.15, and Sections 8 and 15 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2607 and 2614; and b. Submit a letter of intent to test or an application for an exemption from testing for Chemical H in violation of 40 C.F.R. Part 799, and Sections 4 and 15 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2603 and 2614.” EPA Consent Agreement, Section V, Paragraph 31

The legal language is precise and unambiguous. The company knew the requirements. The company had the data. The company chose non-compliance. The enforcement record documents not ignorance or error, but deliberate failure to fulfill statutory obligations over a four-year period.

SOCIETAL IMPACT MAPPING

Environmental Degradation

The absence of Chemical Data Reporting creates an environmental surveillance gap. When regulatory authorities don’t know what chemicals are being manufactured at what volumes, they cannot conduct adequate risk assessments for potential releases, spills, or emissions. The EPA’s chemical inventory system is designed to provide a baseline understanding of what substances are in commerce and where they are being produced. Each unreported chemical is a blind spot in that system.

Smyrna, Georgia sits within the Chattahoochee River watershed, a critical water source for metropolitan Atlanta. Industrial facilities in this region are subject to heightened scrutiny precisely because contamination events can have cascading downstream impacts. The failure to report chemical manufacturing activities undermines watershed protection efforts by concealing potential sources of contamination from environmental monitoring programs.

The EPA’s Chemical Data Reporting system also feeds into broader environmental tracking initiatives, including the Toxics Release Inventory and various state-level right-to-know programs. When a facility fails to report chemicals during the CDR submission period, the informational deficit propagates through multiple regulatory systems, degrading the quality of environmental data available to researchers, policymakers, and community advocates.

Public Health

The health implications of concealed chemical manufacturing are impossible to quantify precisely because the concealment itself prevents assessment. But consider the epidemiological challenge: if cluster analysis identifies elevated rates of certain cancers, respiratory diseases, or reproductive disorders in a community, investigators need to know what environmental exposures may be contributing factors.

Chemical Data Reports provide critical information about production volumes, processing activities, and potential exposure pathways. When facilities refuse to file these reports, public health researchers lose access to data that could help explain disease patterns or identify at-risk populations. The harm is not speculative. The harm is the systematic obstruction of public health surveillance.

Workers at the Compass Chemical facility were manufacturing chemicals in quantities exceeding 25,000 pounds annually without public documentation of what those chemicals were. If occupational health issues emerged, there would be no independent record confirming workplace exposures. The company controlled all the information. The workers and the community had none.

Economic Inequality

Environmental information access is a class issue. Affluent communities have resources to conduct independent testing, hire environmental consultants, and demand transparency through legal channels. Working-class communities depend on government-mandated disclosure requirements because they lack the capital to produce that information themselves.

When a company like Compass Chemical violates reporting requirements, the informational advantage concentrates further. The company knows exactly what it’s manufacturing, what the risks are, and what precautions might be necessary. The surrounding community knows nothing. This is environmental injustice in its purest form: the deliberate maintenance of knowledge asymmetry that privileges corporate interests over community welfare.

The $112,700 penalty represents approximately 0.1% of the typical annual revenue for a chemical manufacturing facility of this scale. For context, the median household income in Smyrna, Georgia is approximately $56,000. The fine amounts to roughly two years of median household income. For a limited liability corporation with access to business financing and tax advantages, this is a modest cost of doing business. For a working family trying to understand what industrial activities might be affecting their health, the information remains inaccessible.

WHAT NOW?

The consent agreement was signed by Marco J. Barrueta D., identified as Plant Manager for Compass Chemical International, LLC, on July 14, 2026. The corporate address listed is 1610 Boulder Road SE, Mableton, GA 30126. The EPA signatory was Keriema S. Newman, Director of the Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4.

The agreement certifies that “Respondent is currently in compliance with all relevant requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations, and that all violations alleged herein, which are neither admitted nor denied, have been corrected.” This language means the company has presumably now filed the missing reports, but there is no public documentation confirming what information was ultimately disclosed or whether the chemical identities were revealed in the belated submissions.

For Smyrna residents and community organizations, the key action is FOIA-based accountability. The consent agreement states: “By signing this Consent Agreement, Respondent acknowledges that this CAFO will be available to the public and agrees that this CAFO does not contain any confidential information under Section 14 of TSCA, 15 U.S.C. § 2613, and 40 C.F.R. Part 2 and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), or personally identifiable information.”

This creates a leverage point. While the chemical identities are redacted in the consent agreement itself, the underlying inspection records, production data, and corrective submissions should be accessible through FOIA requests targeting EPA Region 4. Community groups should specifically request:

• Complete, unredacted Chemical Data Reports filed by Compass Chemical International for calendar years 2020-2023
• All inspection records from the March 6, 2024 EPA facility inspection, including any photographic documentation
• All correspondence between Compass Chemical International and EPA Region 4 from January 1, 2020 through present
• Any test data submitted in compliance with the Chemical H test rule

The EPA is required to conduct a Confidential Business Information review for FOIA responses, but the burden is on the company to justify continued redaction. Chemical identities can only remain confidential if disclosure would genuinely reveal proprietary manufacturing processes. Generic chemical names and production volumes are not protectable as CBI in most circumstances.

Organize locally. Smyrna residents should consider forming a community environmental monitoring committee to track industrial facilities, review permit applications, and submit coordinated FOIA requests. The Atlanta-based Southface Institute and the Georgia Conservation Voters Foundation offer technical assistance for community-based environmental advocacy. The information withheld from you for four years belongs in the public domain. Demand it.