I oversaw the government’s criminal investigation into the Deepwater Horizon disaster, along with other catastrophic incidents that were less well known. Living through one is genuinely terrible: it can mean loss of life, serious injuries, and trauma, as well as economic disruption and a loss of trust among staff, regulators, customers, and the community. That experience taught me what separates the companies that recover from the ones that stumble: how well they know the government’s playbook, and how prepared they are before the first call comes in.

Factfinders and Faultfinders

Two different kinds of federal investigators tend to show up after a major chemical or industrial incident, and they aren’t looking for the same thing.

The U.S. Chemical Safety Board (CSB) is a factfinder. Its statutory mission covers major incidents involving chemical substances, including deaths, serious injuries, substantial property damage, releases with serious public consequences, and hazards serious enough to carry lessons for the broader industry, even when no one is hurt. CSB investigations focus on root causes and are designed to produce answers and lessons, not determine liability.

EPA’s Criminal Investigation Division, where I worked, is a faultfinder focused on holding individuals and companies legally accountable, where appropriate, to ensure justice is served and deter future violations.

The Government’s Three-Phase Lens

Fact-finding and fault-finding investigations often run in parallel, and both work from the same timeline. Investigators build that timeline across three distinct phases, and each tells them something different:

1. Before the incident. Was the risk known? Were there prior warnings, deferred maintenance, or ignored recommendations? This speaks to foreseeability – whether the company acted on what it knew.
2. How it happened (root cause). The mechanical, process, or human failures that triggered the event. This answers “how,” but says little about intent or culpability on its own.
3. How the company responded afterward. Was the response transparent and cooperative? Was reporting timely and accurate? Did the story hold together as facts emerged? This phase often carries the most weight in determining whether the government treats the matter as an accident or as evidence of a pattern worthy of criminal investigation.

Throughout, investigators also look closely at individual responsibility or liability. Post-incident hazard management, and any sign of concealment or non-cooperation will draw heavy scrutiny from investigators.

Taking Care of People Comes First

In the event of a critical incident, before any legal or remediation strategy takes shape, the immediate priority must be the people affected, such as injured workers, their families, and employees who witnessed or responded to the event. Prioritizing people means medical needs are met, families are informed with care and consistency, trauma support reaches everyone involved (not just those physically injured), and any ongoing operational risk is being actively mitigated. How an organization treats its people afterward is not separate from its legal posture – it’s often one of the clearest signals, to regulators and the public alike, of what kind of company they’re dealing with.

Post-Incident Response Recommendations

Prior investigations offer a roadmap for where the government will focus, and a major incident at a significant facility will likely be a high priority for review. A few steps can meaningfully reduce the likelihood that a matter escalates toward criminal evaluation:

1. Stay cooperative and vigilant. The greatest risk in the post-incident window is a second incident or being perceived as uncooperative in managing remaining hazards. Work closely with EPA and other response agencies, and if a request seems unreasonable, raise it professionally rather than resisting outright.
2. Bring in experienced counsel early. Counsel should guide the company through pre-incident review, support the root cause investigation, and clarify the company’s exposure to criminal and civil liability. Bear in mind that counsel’s role is to shape legal strategy, not to run point with regulators and responders.
3. Consider outside expertise. A credible environmental consulting team can add a layer of assurance to the government and community that hazards are being handled properly.
4. Stay engaged with the community. Concerns about repeat incidents will persist whether or not they’re grounded in fact. Consistent transparency matters, and prosecutors often weigh community trust as a mitigating factor when considering criminal and civil liability.
5. Address the pre-incident gaps that may have contributed to the event. Compliance gaps, maintenance records, and documentation should stay under active review even as the response continues.

The Bottom Line: Practical Questions

The period immediately following a critical incident is a moment for cooperation and caution – with the government, the community, and internally. Companies that manage the post-incident phase using the recommendations above put themselves in a materially better position. Those that don’t take on risk that’s almost entirely avoidable. The best way to know where you stand is to ask yourself a few honest questions.

If a serious incident occurs at your facility tomorrow, are you able to speak clearly about what your organization knew beforehand? How would you respond? How would you support your workforce? Who in your company owns communication with regulators and the community? If you have trouble answering any of these questions, you’ve identified a gap in your risk management strategy – and the time to close it is now.

Until next week,

Doug Parker

CEO, Ecolumix

---

Coming in future issues:

EPA’s National Compliance Initiatives: The EPA lays out its compliance and enforcement priorities. Here is what you need to understand about them as an EHS leader.

Independent Monitors in the EHS Context: Why are they appointed in some of the most extreme enforcement cases, and what it means for companies that have one.

Questions or topics worth covering? Reach out: doug@ecolumix.com