Reporting on 'forever chemical' hazards can be hard, but this previously obscure database of information can help

A contractor documents potential PFAS contamination in a waterway.
(Photo by Michigan DEQ, Flickr Creative Commons via SEJ)

A once obscure database can help journalists uncover previously hidden "forever chemical" hazards. "The advocacy nonprofit Environmental Working Group has found a Trump-era loophole in U.S. chemical reporting law, which allowed major companies to hide the amount of toxic PFAS they released into the environment," reports Joseph A. Davis of the Society for Environmental Journalists. What the working group did was "compare and cross-check two databases. One database was the Environmental Protection Agency's Toxics Release Inventory and the other was the Chemical Data Reporting database. The CDR's data collection is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act ...  as is the TRI."

"Under the Toxic Substances Control Act, companies are required to report to the EPA every four years about chemicals they use in commerce or import," Davis explains. "The field covers more chemicals than TRI, essentially all chemicals in commerce, namely those included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. This list now includes more than 86,000 chemicals."

The CDR's original purpose was to "help the EPA manage the regulation of chemicals under TSCA, rather than to inform the public about exposure. It is meant to be comprehensive, but there are exemptions for certain substances and companies below a certain size. And companies are only required to report if they handle more than a certain amount," Davis reports. "The database is, however, publicly available and downloadable online. It is not, however, easily searchable online. Here's the access point for downloading data files."

The EPA maintains a superfund priorities map.

Other environmental reporting sources include the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. Its website has multiple resources, including a "Toxic Substance Portal" and "Toxicological Profiles." The agency's work includes: "Investigating emerging environmental health threats; conducting research on the health impacts of hazardous waste sites; and building capabilities of and providing actionable guidance to state and local health partners."

The Environmental Protection Agency has a "superfund" map, which is useful for hazard site background and discovering where your community might be as far as EPA priorities go. The listing also provides site listing narratives, progress profiles and Federal Register Notices.

Post and Courier spotlights South Carolina's lax septic-tank rules, which allow human waste to pollute waters people use

Residents swim in James Island Creek. Septic-tank waste contributes
to the creek's pollution. (Photo by Henry Taylor, The Post and Courier)

South Carolina's lax approach to septic-tank installation and maintenance must be addressed before extensive harm to nearby water sources cannot be undone, reports John Ramsey of The Post and Courier in Charleston. The Post and Courier's says the state has failed to address "the growing challenges coastal counties face from existing septic tanks as well as the challenges they continue to face as developers increasingly propose new neighborhoods served by dozens or even hundreds of these below-ground sewer systems. . . . Septic-tank systems work well, at least when they're properly installed and properly maintained. And when they aren't near the groundwater table, it is increasingly difficult to achieve along the coast where that table is expected to rise along the seas in the decades to come."

Septic tanks can and do fail, but "the buried nature of septic tanks makes them difficult to monitor, at least until a major failure takes place," Ramsey notes. "A 2015 Michigan study showed a direct link between tainted waterways and the density of nearby septic tanks, but no such study has been done here." Western Carolina University professor Rob Young told Ramsey: "I really worry about the impact of long-term sea level rise on septic systems. It's a much more silent problem, and honestly, I don't think we have done the science to understand the level of failure and what's really ending up in our surface water from these failing systems."

The Post and Courier's editorial board writes, "Both James Island and Shem creeks often reflect a dangerously high amount of fecal contamination, due at least in part to failing septic tanks. Swimming in these waters can be a dicey proposition at best, and that's sad. Taxpayers already are paying for multimillion-dollar, long-term projects ($17 million and counting) to try to limit that pollution by hooking up more nearby homes to sewer lines. . . . Ramsey accurately summed up South Carolina's approach to septic tanks as 'hands-off:' The state isn't even equipped to say how many tanks exist, much less whether they are still working well. That needs to change."

Taking tank-management practices from nearby states could provide the groundwork for change, the editorialists say: "The state also should change its requirements for how thick a layer of soil must exist between the septic tank's drain field and the groundwater. Our rules permit as little as 6 inches between the two, while Alabama and Georgia require at least 2 feet. That's particularly important given how groundwater levels are projected to continue to rise. . . . The most outrageous aspect to the situation [is] how little state officials have seemed to learn. . . We repeat our call for state lawmakers to engage on this issue in a more meaningful way, as other Southeastern states have done or are doing. Tennessee has additional rules for developers of large subdivisions served by septic tanks. Why not us?"

And where does your state rank in the regulation of these tanks that can get rank?