Roseland Smitty’s explosion: What we know one year later

ROSELAND, La. —

On Aug. 22, 2025, an explosion at Smitty’s Supply plant in Roseland spread oil across Tangipahoa Parish.

Residents across Tangipahoa Parish are still dealing with its lingering impact.

Nationally recognized environmentalist Scott Smith said his most recent testing shows Roseland remains contaminated.

Photos from environmentalist Mike Bales shows oil still sheening on top of the Tangipahoa River.

Since the explosion, residents have voiced concerns about air quality, wildlife, water supplies, and soil contamination.

Smitty’s Supply has been the focus of several investigations, which uncovered a history of complaints, spills, and violations.

The company claims the chemicals are linked to firefighting foam used after the explosion, but they have also been associated with industrial products, including oils.

“Look at the long-range impact of this, and I believe we pay now or we pay later. If we pay later, we’re going to pay in lives,” Pastor Marvin Vernon of Roseland said.

“We need our senators, we need our public officials in Louisiana to raise pure hell,” Bales said.

Below is a comprehensive timeline of what we have learned one year since the explosion rocked Tangipahoa Parish.

What is Smitty’s Supply?

Smitty’s was established in 1960.

It is one of the largest privately owned oil manufacturing companies in the United States.

The company manufactures and distributes auto lubricants and motor oil. It employed more than 450 people.

The explosion:

The explosion and fire happened on Friday, Aug. 22 around 12:50 p.m. at Smitty’s Supply plant in Roseland.

A large plume of smoke was seen at the site, with oil falling from the sky as far as Ponchatoula.

Louisiana State Police, along with local, state and federal partners, worked around the clock to contain the fire and manage debris in the area.

A mandatory emergency evacuation was put in place within a one-mile radius of the site following the blast.

Residents reported oil and soot damage on their cars, homes, and in the Tangipahoa Parish river.

At the time of the explosion, residents were asked to avoid touching and cleaning the soot.

It was later determined that there was no immediate threat to public health and residents were urged to use caution while cleaning the oil from property.

No one was injured in the blast.

Past incidents:

Two incidents were reported at Smitty’s Supply prior to the Aug. 22 explosion.

According to OSHA records, in August 2020, an employee died after a semi-tractor-trailer backed into a dock where the employee was working.

The employee was struck and later died.

In 2021, the company was fined more than $5,000 after a truck was found to not be in safe operating condition.

OSHA does not report any other incidents at the site.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency’s website, in 2024 an investigation led to Smitty’s paying a $250,000 penalty for violations ranging from oil use, generators, and inspection violations.

EPA takes over the investigation:

On Sept. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency took over the investigation into the Smitty’s Supply explosion.

The EPA took over the site after a second explosion was reported after a “damaged tank” over pressurized and “caused a blowout of the tank roof.”

No one was injured in that explosion.

Widespread layoffs:

Following the blast, mass layoffs were made at Smitty’s Supply due to the explosion.

More than 450 employees were left without work.

Several job fairs were held in the months following the blast to help connect employees with employment opportunities.

Cleanup:

On Oct. 15, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached an agreement with Smitty’s Supply Inc. to clean up its facility.

The company also agreed to cover some of the federal costs tied to the response.

The EPA continues to oversee the cleanup of the nearby Tangipahoa River and ponds. The state of Louisiana will lead that effort, using federal funds from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund.

Smitty’s withdrew from cleanup operations due to financial issues.

Under theagreement, Smitty’s was required to remove hazardous materials, manage storage containers and prevent further contamination. The company must submit a final report within 30 days of finishing the work. If it fails to meet requirements, the EPA will take over again.

Smitty’s Supply files suit:

Smitty’s Supply filed a lawsuit against Fulton Boiler Works and J&M Boiler Combustion Control Services, claiming their actions and negligence caused the explosion in Roseland.

In the lawsuit, Smitty’s said Fulton Boiler Works sold a defective thermal fluid heater, and J&M was negligent in its installation and/or maintenance, thus causing irreparable damage.

“Fulton sold Smitty’s a defective thermal fluid heater, and J&M was negligent in its installation and/or maintenance of the heater, causing an incident that irreparably damaged Smitty’s Supply’s property and inventory, led to mass layoffs of our valued employees, and impacted the Roseland community,” said Matthew Sherman, Smitty’s Supply attorney at the time the lawsuit was field.

The suit also alleges that Smitty’s did not cause or contribute to the fire.

“At all relevant times, the Fulton Thermal Fluid Heater at Smitty’s was being used in an intended and/or foreseeable manner when the fire occurred. Furthermore, Smitty’s in no way caused nor contributed to the fire, and Smitty’s regularly inspected and serviced the Fulton Thermal Fluid Heater. Smitty’s neither misused nor materially altered the Fulton Thermal Fluid Heater,” said Sherman.

Contaminated waterways:

The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality released test results of fish impacted by the Smitty’s Supply explosion on Nov. 3.

According to the LDEQ, a study was conducted to determine if fish, shrimp and crabs from the Tangipahoa River were safe for consumption.

The results were compared to fish in Bayou Lacombe, which were not impacted by the oil discharge from the explosion.

According to the LDEQ, the fish samples showed an increased amount of arsenic. No other contaminants were found.

Arsenic was detected in five of 13 samples.

WDSU reached out to the LDEQ for more information on how much arsenic in a fish is considered safe for consumption.

WDSU received the following response:

“It’s important to note that arsenic occurs in two main forms: inorganic and organic. Inorganic arsenic is the more toxic form, while organic arsenic compounds—which make up about 90% of the arsenic typically found in seafood—are considered far less harmful.

“The initial round of testing did not distinguish between these two forms, so total arsenic was reported. However, given that most arsenic in fish and shellfish is organic, and that arsenic levels in samples from both the background and potentially impacted areas were similar, the available data do not indicate a health concern at this time.”

On Nov. 7, just days after the results, the EPA fully reopened the Tangipahoa River.

EPA finds hazardous waste violations:

On January 13, 2026, the EPA announced it found multiple hazardous waste violations at Smitty’s Supply.

According to a news release issued by the EPA, the agency has entered into an administrative compliance order on consent with Smitty’s Supply Inc. following an inspection and records review of the company’s facility in Roseland under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

According to the report, inspectors recorded areas of concern regarding the handling and management of hazardous waste at the facility.

The EPA and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality were cleaning up the site Oct. 7-9, 2025, when the agencies began investigating the facility.

The inspection focused on records of compliance and material managed in areas of the facility remaining after the fire on Aug. 22, 2025.

According to the EPA, inspectors found 250 damaged containers, more than 200 spills and more than 300 unlabeled or unidentified containers.

The administrative compliance order on consent requires the company to address alleged violations found during the inspection and records review within 60 days, including failure to make accurate hazardous waste determinations, failure to maintain and operate the facility to minimize the possibility of releasing hazardous waste, failure to carry out the required contingency plan, failure to maintain containers in good condition, and failure to manage universal hazardous waste.

According to the EPA, Smitty’s began addressing areas of noncompliance following the inspection and has kept EPA informed of its work.

This includes characterizing the content of totes and drums, addressing leaks by transferring the material into totes that are in good condition, and ensuring totes and drums are properly labeled, according to the EPA’s report.

After the inspection, Smitty’s was required to submit the following documents:

The facility’s current contingency planTraining recordsInspection reportsMaterial manifests

These documents were included in the EPA’s assessment of the facility’s compliance with RCRA requirements.

According to the EPA, Smitty’s is already compliant with some of its work under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

On Jan. 27, 2026, Smitty’s provided an update on cleanup efforts reporting that it had removed 4,930 tons of debris, recycling 5,135 tons of metal, and hauled off ash and soil for proper disposal.

New chemicals found in Tangipahoa River:

An independent environmentalist announced he had found new chemicals in the Tangipahoa River months after the Smitty’s Supply explosion.

Scott Smith alleged he found several dangerous chemicals in the river on March 2, 2026.

This was six months after the blast.

Smitty’s responded to the allegations by saying it was working with the EPA on cleanup efforts, which included extended testing of the site and nearby waterways.

Just a few weeks after Smith’s report, lab reports from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality showed high levels of so-called “forever chemicals” in water tied to the Smitty’s Supply facility.

The reports detailed testing of stormwater collected from and around the facility and show contamination in every sample analyzed, with multiple PFAS compounds detected in each.

According to documentation from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, some of those levels measured thousands of times higher than federal drinking water guidelines. In one case, a single chemical was recorded at more than 3,000 times what is considered safe.

Testing identified at least two dozen different PFAS compounds in water leaving the site, including perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, or PFOS, which was consistently detected at high levels across multiple samples.

PFOS is part of a class of chemicals known as PFAS, often referred to as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down easily in the environment and can persist for years or even decades. The chemical was phased out in the United States about 25 years ago after researchers linked it to serious health concerns.

Experts say the presence of multiple PFAS compounds at once can increase potential risks and make contamination more difficult to track, measure, and regulate.

Smith reviewed the findings and said the contamination appears to be moving beyond the immediate site through drainage systems.

“Fingerprint of the exact same chemicals I’m not only finding in the ditches outside the Smitty’s facility, but those ditches flow through a drainage network that comes into drainage pond four… It flows into the Tangipahoa River,” Smith said.

That drainage pathway connects the site to the Tangipahoa River, which flows south toward Lake Pontchartrain, raising concerns about how far the contamination may travel and what it could impact downstream.

At the time the reports were made public, the EPA had removed more than 13 million gallons of contaminated liquid, along with thousands of tons of soil and debris. However, experts say PFAS contamination presents unique challenges because the chemicals do not easily break down or disappear.

“You’ve got clear forever chemicals flowing in that river, and they don’t go away. They build up in fish tissue. They build up in seafood. They build up in the human body,” Smith said.

PFAS are known to accumulate over time, meaning even low-level exposure can build up in the body, increasing potential long-term health risks.

The lab samples were collected over several months, including in October, December, and January, but were not made publicly available until March after an outside inquiry.

Smith, who obtained one of the reports through a public records request, said the delay raised concerns about transparency and public awareness.

“A whistleblower reached out, and then I did a FOIA request, and that’s how I found that December report, information needs to be transparent and turned around immediately,” Smith said.

The timing of the release has raised questions about when regulators became aware of the contamination and how quickly that information was shared with the public.

Smitty’s Supply replied to the report saying that the chemicals were tied to the fire-fighting foam used by a third party and not to its operations.

“The PFAS levels detected in stormwater samples collected from the facility are attributable to the use of fire-fighting foam used by a third party during firefighting operations following the fire and not from Smitty’s operations or products. Smitty’s has maintained a comprehensive stormwater management and sampling program pursuant to a Voluntary Consent Order overseen by EPA and LDEQ, with all sampling results submitted to both agencies and publicly available. The only stormwater discharge events occur under upset rain events when it is physically impossible to capture all of the stormwater. Regulatory agencies are notified of each stormwater discharge event in accordance with the applicable order.”

While the company attributes the contamination to firefighting foam used during emergency response efforts, PFAS chemicals are also known to be present in certain industrial products, including oils, lubricants, and coatings.

Multiple investigations into the incident are ongoing at both the state and federal levels, though details about the scope and timeline of those investigations have not been publicly outlined.

Experts say the long-term impact of PFAS contamination can be difficult to predict and may extend beyond the original site, particularly when waterways are involved.

“When it comes to Roseland, it is like a combination of the BP spill and the East Palestine derailment, and it is unprecedented. The explosion and fire may be out, but the chemical contamination is ongoing. This event is far from over,” Smith said.

No comment from owner of Smitty’s Supply:

On March 2, the owner of Smitty’s Supply was seen for the first time since the explosion.

Ed Smith was in court for an unrelated matter involving aggravated battery charges.

WDSU Northshore Bureau Reporter Shantel Davis was the only media member there when he exited court, and pressed him for answers about the blast.

Smith declined to comment.

Chemical spill tied to Smitty’s Supply:

On March 19, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality began investigating the possibility of a chemical spill at a plant tied to Smitty’s Supply damaging a water main that left the town of Roseland without water for days.

Water had been restored to nearly all residents, but a boil-water advisory that went into effect over the weekend remained in place at the time of the discovery.

Crews found additional problems during the repair process over the weekend.

“In that process of making those repairs, we discovered that the pipe had significant chemical burns,” said Van L. Showers, mayor of Roseland at the time of the water main break.

According to a statement issued by the LDEQ, the chemical spill happened on Feb. 4 at the CMS Plant on First Street. The statement reads, “the waterline failure occurred overlaps with the area impacted by the February spill, and it appears that this prior incident may have contributed to damage to the pipe.”

Mayor Showers says he knew about the chemical spill on February 4th but chose not to notify residents because he says it was “not significant.”

“It wasn’t big enough,” said Showers, “It wasn’t even in the ditch at that time. There was a drain way right beside the plant on their property, that’s what I saw, that’s what I initially saw, and they were cleaning it up at that time.”

WDSU asked Mayor Showers if residents should have been notified.

“I think further action should have been taken, but until you know there’s a problem or an issue, why bother the residents about that?” Showers said.

Mayor Showers would not confirm if the ruptured pipe is associated with the February chemical spill. He says they are still waiting on test results.

“It’s as if you have the East Palestine train derailment and explosion combined with the BP oil spill,” Scott Smith said. “It is an unprecedented situation what’s going on.”

The CMS plant is a subsidiary of Smitty’s Supply, which experienced a major explosion in August of last year.

According to the LDEQ, the spill at the CMS plant is separate from the explosion at Smitty’s Supply.

Online reports indicate that state police were alerted to a hazmat situation reported by CMS around 1:15 p.m. on Feb. 4.

The report states that an “unknown material” was discharged during a stormwater release at the plant.

Samples of the spilled chemical were taken from the southeast corner and east ditch of the plant, as well as from a tank, according to the reports on LDEQ’s website.

The report outlined multiple chemicals that were tested and listed petroleum-based substances with the highest level of contamination.

WDSU asked LDEQ multiple times to identify the exact chemical that spilled at the plant, but did not receive a response, and was pointed to the online documentation.

According to Scott Smith, an independent environmentalist who reviewed the LDEQ reports on the February spill, toxic chemicals have been spilling from the site since February, and were still flowing into drainage ditches on March 2nd.

According to Smith, one of the chemicals is Toluene. The National Library of Medicine defines it as a “clear, colorless liquid with a distinctive smell.” It “occurs naturally in crude oil,” and may be “produced in the process of making gasoline and other fuels from crude oil and making coke from coal.”

“It’s as if you have the East Palestine train derailment and explosion combined with the BP oil spill, so it is an unprecedented situation what’s going on,” said Smith.

Smith said a whistleblower took him to the leak two weeks ago. That whistleblower explained that the ditches lead to the Tangipahoa Parish River.

WDSU also asked LDEQ why the public wasn’t notified of the spill back in February.

According to LDEQ, the Louisiana State Police were alerted to the spill, and the reports were posted online on the date of the spill.

“In regards to the notification regarding the water, you will need to reach out to the city on their notification protocol. For the spill, it is required to be reported to the LSP hotline as their hazmat team responds, but all documents and spills go to our EDMS system once investigations are completed,” LDEQ said in an issued statement.

According to Louisiana State Police Sgt. Jacob Pucheu, the LSP Hazmat Hotline received information on the chemical spill at the plant, and crews did respond. However, Pucheu said the lead agency on the spill was the LDEQ.

WDSU also reached out to Smitty’s Supply about the chemical spill and whether or not the plant notified the public.

We received this response from CMS Chemical:

“CMS Chemical is aware of the statement issued by the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality regarding the February 4th incident at our facility. CMS Chemical promptly notified the Louisiana State Police and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality when the February incident was discovered.

“We have cooperated fully with regulators since that time and have undertaken remediation efforts at the site in accordance with regulatory guidance. Regarding public notification, CMS followed all applicable regulatory protocols for reporting the incident to the appropriate state agencies.

“Decisions regarding public advisories and communications to residents are made by the responsible public health and environmental authorities, not by private companies. We are unable to comment further on the specifics of the incident due to the ongoing investigation. We take our environmental responsibilities seriously and remain committed to working with regulators to address this matter appropriately.”

WDSU also received this statement on Tuesday from CMS Chemical regarding the chemical burn found on the pipe:

“We became aware of the broken pipe along Highway 51 at the same time as town officials and citizens.

“As the pipe is not on CMS property, we don’t have insight into the cause and are trying to find out more information along with city officials and others.”

The Roseland mayor reported that the damage to the pipe was discovered on Sunday, March 15, 39 days after the chemical spill.

According to LDEQ, due to the pipe’s location and the area of the chemical spill overlapping, the agency is investigating whether the spill contributed to the damage of the pipe.

LDEQ said that despite the chemical damage to the pipe, it does not necessarily mean the water was contaminated.

According to LDEQ, testing is underway to see if the spilled chemical breached the water system.

LDEQ issued the following statement regarding the damage to the water main as well as any impacts to public health:

“The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) can confirm that we were responding to a separate spill incident that occurred on February 4 at the CMS site. This incident is unrelated to the fire at Smitty’s Supply in August.

“Based on current information, the area where the waterline failure occurred overlaps with the area impacted by the February spill, and it appears that this prior incident may have contributed to damage to the pipe. At this time, LDEQ will not speculate on whether any contamination has entered the public water supply. Water sampling and analysis are ongoing, and any confirmed results will be communicated through the appropriate public health and local authorities.

“In general, while infrastructure located near industrial facilities can be exposed to environmental stressors, the presence of chemicals on or near a watermain does not necessarily indicate contamination of the drinking water system. The likelihood and impact of any potential infiltration depend on multiple factors, including the integrity of the pipe, pressure conditions, and the nature of the substance involved.

“If contaminants are confirmed in the water supply, public health guidance will be issued promptly. Residents are encouraged to follow any advisories from local officials, which may include measures such as using bottled water, boiling water (if appropriate), or avoiding water use for certain purposes until further notice.”

WDSU Investigates uncovers long paper trail of violations tied to Smitty’s Supply

In April of 2026, WDSU Investigates obtained 15 years of records tied to Smitty’s Supply.

Long before the explosion at Smitty’s Supply sent smoke over Tangipahoa Parish and launched lawsuits, contamination concerns and federal litigation, state and federal records show regulators had repeatedly documented concerns tied to the facility.

Taken together, those records trace what WDSU Investigates found to be a lengthy paper trail of complaints, spills, alleged violations, enforcement actions and regulatory concerns before the Aug. 22, 2025, explosion.

Timeline of violations and enforcement

Records reviewed by WDSU Investigates show documented regulatory contact tied to the facility dating back at least to 2009:

2009 — State regulators issued a notice of corrected deficiency related to waste handling concerns.

2010 — A complaint inspection documented reports of a black substance entering a ditch and contaminated soil removal.

2012 — Regulators issued a compliance order and notice of potential penalty.

2014 — Records show a notice of deficiency involving improper waste disposal and prohibited open burning. Separate complaint records alleged antifreeze entering drainage near the facility, though inspectors documented no area of concern during that complaint response.

2015 — Records describe a major hydraulic fluid release after a valve malfunction that triggered remediation efforts.

2016 — Inspections documented leaking containments, oil discharges, sheen and overflow concerns

2017 — State warning letter issued tied to inspection findings

2018 — Complaint records alleged unknown material, including ethylene glycol, was released into a ditch.

2020 — Incident records documented leaking drums and grease spills.

2021 — An amended compliance order documented alleged permit violations and repeated discharge concerns.

2022 — The state reached a $35,000 settlement over environmental violations.

2023 — Complaint records documented hydrocarbon sheen and coated vegetation.

2024 — Records documented another discharge involving ethylene glycol.

2025 — Weeks before the explosion, LDEQ said inspections related to a gasoline odor complaint found “no areas of concern” tied to that complaint.

That chronology is only part of what the records show.

Expert concerns over patterns, not isolated events

Tulane environmental health professor Rustin Reed said what stood out was not one incident, but the pattern.

“There’s not a magic number of violations where you cross a line and say this is bad,” Reed said. “I would look for a pattern.”

“Safety and productivity share the same sire: competent management,” Reed said. “If you see a pattern of repeated concerns, that can point to deeper systemic problems.”

“If it’s the same pattern over and over, that’s an indicator something’s wrong,” Reed said.

“I would say that is an exception to the rule,” he said. “Most companies are not in that pattern.”

“When you start digging, you may find it’s not just one issue,” Reed said. “There may be many issues there.”

“We tend to be very reactive,” Reed said. “Something bad happens, then we make a rule to patch the hole.”

“EPA and OSHA don’t have enough staff. They’re spread a little thin,” Reed said.

“I hesitate to say we need more policies necessarily,” Reed said. “I think we need to be smarter. We need to be more proactive and not wait for catastrophic events.”

“The goal is not just to find out you did something wrong and penalize,” Reed said. “The goal should be, let’s make it better.”

“If we have an incident like this, an explosion, then we do have failures,” he added.

Federal compliance findings and contamination concerns

WDSU Investigates reviewed federal data showing pollutant levels at times exceeded permit limits, including organic carbon levels nearly 2,000% above limits, oil and grease levels more than four times allowable limits, and fecal bacteria readings hundreds of percent above standards.

Even after the explosion, federal inspectors identified hundreds of additional alleged compliance deficiencies, including in parts of the facility not directly damaged by the blast.

Records reviewed by WDSU Investigates also show more than $161,000 in federal penalties and a $250,000 state settlement tied to the facility.

Environmental sampling has raised additional concerns.

WDSU Investigates previously reported widespread PFAS detections in stormwater leaving the site.

Environmental expert Scott Smith called the findings unprecedented.

“When it comes to Roseland, this is unprecedented,” Smith said. “The fire may be out, but the contamination is ongoing.”

Records show more than 13 million gallons of contaminated liquid have been removed from the site.

What LDEQ told WDSU Investigates

For months, WDSU Investigates repeatedly requested an on-camera interview with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality about the facility’s compliance history, the explosion and questions surrounding enforcement.

Those requests were declined.

The agency cited ongoing litigation and instead provided detailed written responses.

LDEQ said it identified “conditions that posed a potential environmental risk” at the facility before the explosion and had issued multiple forms of enforcement over time, including notices of deficiency, warning letters, compliance orders and notices of potential penalty.

According to the agency, inspectors responded June 3, 2025, to a complaint involving a gasoline odor, then returned for follow-up site visits June 5 and June 17.

LDEQ said no odors were observed during those visits and “no areas of concern were documented” related to that complaint.

Why violations do not automatically shut down a plant

LDEQ said there is no fixed numeric threshold of violations that automatically pauses a facility.

Instead, the agency said regulatory decisions are based on severity and recurrence of concerns, potential or actual impacts to health and the environment, immediacy of risk, compliance history and documentation and legal review necessary to support enforcement.

The agency said some matters can move through expedited processes while others require lengthy investigation, sampling and coordination with state and federal partners to ensure enforcement actions are legally defensible.

LDEQ also said immediate response actions and formal enforcement do not always happen on the same timeline.

The agency said significant federal involvement already in place at the site demonstrates how regulatory response can escalate when conditions warrant it.

LDEQ details extensive response after the blast

According to LDEQ, emergency response began Aug. 22, 2025, including on-site air monitoring beginning that afternoon.

The agency said it later conducted soot sampling, deployed its Mobile Air Monitoring Laboratory twice, monitored near Roseland Montessori School, participated in radiation source recovery, launched shoreline cleanup assessment operations and conducted off-site water, sediment and biological sampling, including fish, crab and shrimp tissue.

LDEQ said testing has included volatile and semi volatile compounds, petroleum hydrocarbons, metals, dioxins, furans, and PFAS.

The agency said it also led off-site contamination work beginning in October, issued a temporary emergency discharge permit in February, and deployed emergency responders, radiation inspectors, water survey crews, RCRA inspectors, drones, air monitoring systems, an airboat, a shock boat and UTVs.

LDEQ, the Louisiana attorney general’s office and the U.S. Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the EPA, have also filed a complaint against Smitty’s Supply in federal court, according to the agency.

The agency said its current focus remains on response, oversight, ensuring compliance at the facility and pending legal action.

Honoré remained critical of the broader system.

“Plants like to come to Louisiana because we are lax on enforcement,” he said.

LDEQ, in its written responses, pushed back against the idea that enforcement tools were absent, arguing the record reflects repeated regulatory intervention and continuing oversight.

Smitty’s response

Smitty’s Supply disputes any suggestion that historical regulatory issues identified in records reviewed by WDSU Investigates caused or contributed to the explosion.

The company said prior alleged violations referenced in those records were unrelated to the 2025 fire and should not be interpreted as evidence linking past enforcement actions to the cause of the blast.

Smitty’s said it entered into a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act consent order addressing past violations and is nearing completion of those requirements.

Smitty’s has argued PFAS detections tied to response sampling were linked to third-party firefighting foam used during emergency response, not its operations.

The company has also maintained that discharges associated with the site occurred only during what it described as “upset rain events,” with notifications made to regulators.

Smitty’s has pointed to EPA and LDEQ oversight through a consent order and argued the regulatory record should be viewed in the context of corrective actions and compliance efforts over time.

The company has disputed broader characterizations that historical enforcement records establish a direct link to the explosion.

Smitty’s also said the company has maintained ISO 9001 certification for more than a decade, a voluntary internationally recognized quality management standard that involves recurring third-party audits, internal reviews, documented corrective actions and recertification audits every three years.

The company said that certification reflects what it described as an ongoing commitment to operational quality and continuous improvement and argued it should be considered alongside the facility’s regulatory history.

Smitty’s said maintaining the certification requires documented maintenance practices, operating procedures, audits and management review processes.

The company pointed to that certification as evidence it has systems in place focused on consistency and corrective action.

Litigation

The explosion is also the subject of growing litigation.

Attorney Lewis Unglesby, representing plaintiffs, said more than 2,500 people have joined the case.

“These are not just random events disconnected in time,” Unglesby said. “The records show warning after warning.”

“This is about accountability,” he said. “When you see repeated problems over years, people have a right to ask whether more could have been done.”

“It is their property. It is their fire. It is their problem,” Unglesby said.

That divide between Smitty’s argument that past concerns are unrelated to the explosion and the plaintiffs’ argument that the regulatory history raises accountability questions now sits at the center of the legal fight.

No legislative response

Despite the explosion and years of documented concerns, no bills were introduced this legislative session specifically tied to the fire or aimed at changing environmental enforcement laws.

No legislation was filed to alter shutdown thresholds, strengthen penalties or expand enforcement authority.

For critics, that absence has become part of the accountability story itself.

The unresolved question

The cause of the explosion remains under investigation.

But the records reviewed by WDSU Investigates reveal a long regulatory history before the blast and a central unresolved question:

If concerns were documented over many years, were the safeguards enough?

“We’ve got to do better in Louisiana,” Honoré said.

WDSU Investigates continues reviewing records tied to the explosion, contamination concerns and whether the disaster may force policy changes.

Town Hall scheduled one year later:

Independent environmentalist Scott Smith is hosting a Town Hall on Aug. 22, 2026 from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. at Powerhouse Praise and Worship Center.

Smith is expected to release results from additional water testing taken in June.

WDSU has reached out to Smitty’s Supply, the EPA, and the LDEQ for a statement regarding the latest in the cleanup and investigation. At the time of this publication, a response had not been received.