Croda Inc. stored unlabeled flammable and corrosive chemical waste across multiple buildings at its Delaware facility, skipped required safety inspections for nearly three years, ran an emergency plan so incomplete it could not tell responders where the emergency equipment was, and the federal government let them walk away for $7,500 ($7,500, the cost of a used car with 180,000 miles on it).

Seven Thousand Five Hundred Dollars

Croda Inc. Stored Hazardous Waste Illegally for Years. The Price? Less Than a Month’s Rent.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What Money Can’t Measure

At 315 Cherry Lane in New Castle, Delaware, people go to work every day in buildings where chemical waste sat in unlabeled containers on shelves and in cabinets. They did not know what was in those containers. The government’s own inspection records confirm the contents were “unknown at the time of observation.” That is the reality Croda created for its workers: a workplace where the hazards were deliberately unacknowledged, where the containers designed to signal danger carried no warning at all.

Hazardous waste regulations exist for one core reason: because the chemicals inside those containers can hurt people. EPA Waste Codes D001, D002, D003, D019, and D022 cover ignitable, corrosive, reactive, benzene-containing, and chloroform-containing wastes. These are chemicals that can catch fire, burn skin and lungs, trigger cancer with prolonged exposure, and cause neurological damage. Croda knew these chemicals were present. Croda knew the rules required labeling. Croda chose a different path.

The workers in Building 88, Building 1’s Quality Control lab, and Building 100 spent their shifts feet away from chemicals that had no accumulation start dates, no hazardous waste labels, and no clear chain of accountability. If a spill happened, if a container cracked, if a fire started, the contingency plan that was supposed to spring into action was missing the names of emergency coordinators, the locations of emergency equipment, and the required emergency response procedures. The people who would have had to respond to that emergency were flying blind, on paper that Croda signed off on.

There is a particular kind of institutional contempt embedded in a falsified date. When EPA inspectors arrived on May 19, 2025, they found unlabeled containers in Building 88, Room 126. Three days later, on May 22, Croda staff repackaged those containers, moved them to Building 285, and stamped them with the date May 22, 2025, not the actual date the waste began accumulating. The official government document confirms this directly: “The date the containers were marked with, 5/22/2025, is not the date in which the hazardous waste began to be accumulated.” That is a company that, while under federal investigation, altered records. The $7,500 fine did not address that. It barely acknowledged it.

The inspection also revealed that Croda skipped mandatory weekly inspections of its hazardous waste accumulation areas across multiple years. The gaps are not a single missed week. The records show skipped inspections spanning from May 2022 through April 2025, a roughly three-year window of noncompliance. In Building 285 alone, eleven separate weekly inspection windows were missed. These inspections exist to catch exactly the kind of problems EPA found: unlabeled waste, unknown contents, deteriorating containers. Every skipped inspection was a week where a problem could have grown undetected.

Legal Receipts: The Documents Don’t Lie

These are the words from the official EPA enforcement document, verbatim. Read them. Croda signed off on all of it.

“On 5/22/2025, the waste in Building 88, Room 126 was repackaged into different containers, and those containers with the waste were transferred to Building 285 and dated 5/22/2025. The date the containers were marked with, 5/22/2025, is not the date in which the hazardous waste began to be accumulated by the Facility.” EPA Enforcement Document, Paragraph 10(a)(2)(ii) — This is the government confirming Croda staff altered container dating records three days after federal inspectors arrived on site.

“Two green, unlabeled 5-gal containers were observed in the HWAA at Building 285 on 5/19/2025. The contents of the containers were unknown at the time of the observation. The green containers had been placed in the HWAA as a waste prior to EPA’s observation. A hazardous waste determination had not been made at the time of the observation.” EPA Enforcement Document, Paragraph 10(b)(1) — At a facility that manufactures carcinogenic chemicals, Croda could not identify what was in 10 gallons of its own waste.

“The contingency plan did not list the names and telephone numbers of all persons qualified to act as emergency coordinator or identify who would be the primary emergency coordinator and alternates… The list of emergency equipment in the contingency plan did not include the location of the emergency equipment… The contingency plan did not include actions that personnel must take in the response to an emergency.” EPA Enforcement Document, Paragraphs 10(a)(3) and 10(d) — Three separate, catastrophic failures in Croda’s emergency plan, confirmed by federal inspection and documented twice under separate regulatory frameworks.

“Respondent failed to conduct weekly inspections at the HWAA located at Building 285 for the following weeks: week of 4/06/2025, week of 12/22/2024, week of 12/15/2024, week of 12/01/2024, week of 11/24/2024, week of 6/16/2024, week of 11/19/2023, week of 4/02/2023, and week of 5/22/2022.” EPA Enforcement Document, Paragraph 10(a)(4)(ii) — Nine separate missed inspection weeks at Building 285 alone, spanning a documented period from May 2022 through April 2025.

“Complainant and Respondent agree that settlement of this matter for a total penalty of SEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($7,500.00) is in the public interest.” EPA Enforcement Document, Paragraph 11 — The federal government’s official position is that $7,500 ($7,500, barely enough to cover two months of groceries for a family of four) represents “the public interest” in response to multi-year documented hazardous waste violations.

Societal Impact Mapping

Environmental Degradation

Croda’s facility at 315 Cherry Lane sits in New Castle, Delaware, a community that already carries a disproportionate burden of industrial pollution from the heavily industrialized Delaware River corridor. The facility generates and stores hazardous waste under EPA waste codes that include ignitables (D001), corrosives (D002), reactives (D003), benzene-containing waste (D019), and chloroform-containing waste (D022), alongside listed solvents F002 and F003. These are not theoretical hazards; these are chemicals with documented pathways into soil and groundwater when storage standards break down.

Croda operated without properly labeled containers, without regular inspections, and without a complete emergency plan. All three of those failures increase the probability of an undetected spill, leak, or fire escalating before anyone can respond correctly. The EPA document confirms that at the time of inspection, Croda did not even have a hazardous waste determination for two containers of unknown material sitting in its waste accumulation area. Unknown chemicals in unlabeled containers at an uninspected site are not an abstract regulatory concern; they are the conditions that precede environmental contamination events.

Croda also manufactures ethylene oxide at this site. Ethylene oxide is classified as a Group 1 human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. It is a colorless, odorless gas at room temperature, meaning a leak is imperceptible without detection equipment. The combination of ethylene oxide production, multi-category hazardous waste storage, and a structurally deficient emergency plan creates a layered environmental risk profile for the surrounding community that a $7,500 fine ($7,500, less than the cost of repainting a single room in a commercial facility) does nothing to address.

Public Health

The chemicals stored at Croda’s New Castle facility carry serious human health implications. Benzene (covered under waste code D019) is a confirmed human carcinogen with no safe level of exposure. Chloroform (covered under waste code D022) is a probable human carcinogen and central nervous system depressant. The listed solvents under F002 and F003 include halogenated and non-halogenated organic solvents, several of which are associated with liver damage, neurological effects, and reproductive harm.

The people at greatest risk from Croda’s storage failures are the workers inside the buildings where these chemicals sat unlabeled. Workers in Building 88, Building 1’s Quality Control lab, and Building 100 had no way to identify the hazardous nature of the containers around them without compliant labeling. In the event of a container rupture or spill, the absence of visible hazard identification slows response time and increases exposure duration. Croda’s failure to conduct weekly inspections means that early warning signs of container degradation, leaks, or improper storage would go undetected for weeks at a time.

Beyond the facility perimeter, residents of New Castle, Delaware face the downstream consequences of inadequate hazardous waste management at industrial facilities in their community. New Castle is a working-class, racially diverse community located downriver from multiple industrial sites. Environmental justice research consistently demonstrates that communities like New Castle bear a higher cumulative chemical burden than wealthier, whiter suburbs. Croda’s years of noncompliance at this facility are one more entry in a ledger that the residents of New Castle never agreed to hold.

Economic Inequality

The fine Croda received, $7,500 ($7,500, roughly what a fast food worker earns in 4 months before taxes at federal minimum wage), reveals the fundamental economic logic of environmental enforcement in the United States. Croda Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company. Its parent company, Croda International, reported revenues exceeding 1.6 billion British pounds in recent operating years. A $7,500 penalty to a corporation of that scale is not a deterrent; it is a rounding error on a spreadsheet.

The agreement itself, an expedited settlement process, is the standard mechanism by which corporations resolve environmental violations quickly, quietly, and cheaply. Croda did not admit to the factual violations. The document states explicitly that Croda “neither admits nor denies the specific factual allegations.” The company waived its right to a hearing, agreed to pay, and walked away without a public admission of wrongdoing. The people living and working near 315 Cherry Lane do not get to “neither admit nor deny” the air they breathe.

The workers in Croda’s New Castle facility are the ones who faced the daily reality of these violations. They did not receive compensation in this settlement. They were not parties to the agreement. The $7,500 went to the United States Treasury, not to the community that absorbs the risk. That is the economic logic of the system as built: the corporation bears a nominal administrative cost, the community bears the actual risk, and the gap between those two burdens is filled entirely by who has power and who does not.

What Now: This Is Who Answers For It

The settlement was signed by Jeff LaBrozzi, Site Director at Croda Inc.’s 315 Cherry Lane facility, on October 22, 2025. He is the individual who certified, subject to civil and criminal penalties for a false submission, that the violations have been corrected. His email is on file with the EPA at jeff.labrozzi@croda.com. That accountability exists because the federal document puts it there.

Documented Violations at a Glance

• Operating Without a PermitCroda operated its facility without a required hazardous waste permit from at least May 19 through May 22, 2025.
• Unlabeled Hazardous Waste ContainersMultiple buildings contained unlabeled containers of ignitable, corrosive, and reactive chemical waste.
• Falsified Accumulation DatesAfter EPA inspectors arrived, waste was repackaged and stamped with a new date that did not reflect the actual accumulation start date.
• Incomplete Emergency Contingency PlanThe plan lacked emergency coordinator names, equipment locations, and required response procedures. This failure appeared under two separate regulatory frameworks.
• Failed to Determine Waste ContentsTwo 5-gallon containers of unknown material sat in the hazardous waste accumulation area with no waste determination made.
• 11 Missed Weekly Inspections (2022-2025)Spanning nearly three years across two buildings, Croda failed to conduct the mandatory weekly checks of its hazardous waste areas.
• Improperly Labeled Universal Waste LampsFluorescent lamp containers used incorrect label language in violation of universal waste management rules.

If you live or work near 315 Cherry Lane in New Castle, Delaware, you have a right to know what is stored at that facility. You can submit a public records request to DNREC for Croda’s hazardous waste manifests and inspection history. You can contact the EPA’s Region 3 office directly to request the full compliance file. You can connect with local environmental justice organizations in New Castle County who track industrial pollution burdens in your community. Regulatory fines are the floor, not the ceiling, of accountability. Community pressure, organized and sustained, is what moves the floor.