Published on
Palm Bay, FL — At approximately three hours ago, a safety venting event at the FAR Research Center — located near the intersection of US-1 and R.J. Conlan — released a mist or vapor into the atmosphere after a container’s internal pressure exceeded safe limits, triggering its engineered relief system.
The plant manager later met with personnel on site and confirmed the following key facts:
The release was isolated to a single container, and its safety mechanism operated as designed to prevent catastrophic failure. No injuries were reported among staff or nearby residents. Preliminary tests indicate the vapor is harmless to people, pets, wildlife, soil, and the environment. Fire Rescue and HazMat crews remained on scene for about two hours, conducting air-monitoring as a precaution. All readings returned to baseline, and crews have begun clearing the scene. Plant officials say on-site teams are already verifying all containment systems are functioning properly to forestall further anomalies.
Though dubbed a “single, isolated event,” the incident has renewed scrutiny of FAR Chemical’s safety record in the region — particularly given past regulatory and safety issues.
Public records show that FAR Chemical, a bulk chemical manufacturer operating in Palm Bay, has a history of safety citations and a fatal accident in its past.
In 2008, an explosion in a reactor at the facility resulted in the death of an employee. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has cited FAR for numerous safety violations over the years, including hazardous waste storage and labeling deficiencies, and failure to maintain permitted waste operations. In a 2013 inspection, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fined FAR $53,253 for violations involving improper chemical waste storage, lack of hazardous waste determinations, and inadequate inspection practices. Earlier, in 2000, DEP issued nearly $77,226 in penalties for hazardous waste releases, some of which were mitigated through pollution-prevention initiatives. In 2013, DEP records identified unsafe container cleaning practices, storage too close to property lines, and failure to conduct weekly inspections of hazardous waste.
Despite these previous findings, the facility remains in operation, and regulatory agencies continue oversight through periodic inspections and penalty enforcement.
In the aftermath of this venting incident, several lines of inquiry and follow-up reporting are warranted:
Full Material Disclosure While the plant manager claims the vapor is harmless, independent verification of the chemical(s) involved is critical. What compound(s) were being stored, and what was their concentration? Are there any cumulative or chronic exposure risks? Engineering Review Though the safety device functioned, why did the container approach over-pressure? Was there a process upset, instrumentation fault, or upstream disturbance? Regulatory Response Will the Florida DEP, EPA, or state health agencies open investigations? Will they demand an operational shutdown pending review? Community Communication Transparent updates to surrounding neighborhoods, especially if wind direction had carried vapors, will be vital for maintaining public trust. Historical Lessons Given prior accidents and violations, the question arises: has FAR sufficiently improved its safety culture and infrastructure to prevent a more serious future incident?
At this early stage, the incident appears to have been controlled and non-injurious — but the broader context suggests this should not be brushed aside as a negligible fluke. With FAR Chemical’s documented history of safety violations and prior fatal incidents, even a “harmless” venting should prompt rigorous independent scrutiny.
