Imagine a workplace where exposure to toxic chemicals leads to employees suffering seizures. This isn’t a dystopian nightmare—it happened in Hickman County, Tennessee, at an explosives plant. In 2019, the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) uncovered alarming safety violations at Accurate Energetic Systems, a facility that would later become the site of a massive explosion in 2025. But here’s where it gets even more troubling: these violations weren’t just minor oversights—they directly endangered workers’ lives.
Multiple employees experienced “seizure events” after being exposed to cyclonite, a highly toxic powdered explosive. The investigation revealed that surfaces in the employees’ break room tested positive for the chemical, and workers were allowed to eat and drink without washing their hands, potentially ingesting the dangerous substance. And this is the part most people miss: despite clear evidence of negligence, the company contested the violations and eventually reached a settlement that reduced the severity of the penalties.
The TOSHA inspection, triggered by three employees suffering seizures in a single day, found that five workers had experienced “central nervous system impairment” due to exposure to cyclonite. While air monitoring ruled out inhalation as the primary exposure route, the inspection confirmed that employees were inadequately protected from ingestion and skin absorption. Shockingly, workers weren’t required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) while handling the chemical, and wipe samples from their skin and break room surfaces tested positive for cyclonite.
The inspection resulted in five “serious” violations, with a $7,200 fine. However, Accurate Energetic Systems contested the penalties, arguing that inhalation exposure was within safe limits and that employees didn’t directly handle the chemical. They also downplayed the amount of cyclonite found in the break room, calling it “infinitesimally small.” But here’s the controversial part: despite these claims, the company ultimately settled with the Department of Labor and Workforce Development in 2023, agreeing to implement safety measures while avoiding admitting fault.
The settlement required the company to take steps like installing handwashing stations, providing long-sleeve uniforms, improving ventilation, and retraining employees on chemical hazards. Yet, the agreement explicitly stated that the company did not admit to violating safety regulations. Is this a victory for worker safety, or does it set a dangerous precedent for companies to evade accountability?
This case raises critical questions: How often do companies prioritize profit over employee safety? And when violations occur, are settlements enough to ensure real change? We’d love to hear your thoughts—share your opinions in the comments below. Let’s spark a conversation about workplace safety and corporate responsibility.
