1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
Series Title: Toxic Influence: EPA builds list of riskiest chemicals. Sheila Kaplan, reporter, Lynne Perri, senior editor.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Oct. 13, 2010 Oct. 28, 2010 (published and aired on TV in North Carolina) Dec. 21, 2010 Dec. 22, 2010
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Toxic Substances Control Act Series: We showed how industry lobbyists killed a congressional effort to reform the 1970s federal toxic substances control act. Our story gave a chronology of how chemical industry lobbyists sabotaged the bill, even as they were making public statements supporting it. We listed the companies working against the reform; their lobbyists; whether those lobbyists had come from within EPA or other federal agencies; the products they were worried about having to take off the market; and the amount of money they had donated to lawmakers. In addition, we detailed EPA's effort to get around the restrictions of the current law, by proposing rules to fill in some specific gaps. And we showed which businesses and their lobbyists were also working against those proposals. The EPA sick building in North Carolina: We found that soon after one of the buildings on the EPA's headquarters in Raleigh, N.C., opened, employees began complaining that contaminated air was causing a range of health problems, among them, asthma, shortness of breath and eye trouble. Although the agency has taken numerous actions to try to fix the situation, some staffers say it is still risky for them to go to work and have had to get permission to telecommute from home. Others continue to work in the affected building, but believe their health is suffering. The story documented all the internal reviews over seven years and the union's and employees' frustrations and fears about coming forward. Neurotoxicants List Series: We revealed the untold story of EPA's long effort to rank neurotoxicants that are the most dangerous to the public and to the environment; these are chemicals that can damage the fetal and infant brain, and are shown in numerous studies to autism and learning disabilities. The story also detailed the move toward in vitro testing for neurotoxicity, and the many limitations of such tests, which are done in the lab. Such testing will not allow for findings of how behavior is affected.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Toxic Substances Control Act Series: We made extensive use of lobby registration forms, federal election committee records, hearing transcripts, letters sent to EPA by various businesses and trade groups, plus interviews with dozens of lobbyists from business and the environmental groups, along with lawmakers and their staffers. Neurotoxicants List Series: We did file a FOI request to obtain the list in progress. The EPA FOIA office denied our request, saying it was still "under deliberation." But a source within the agency knew that an early version of the list was presented during a session of the Society of Toxicology, and that a poster had been put on the web, so we used that one to start. Oddly, EPA's FOIA office said it was unaware of the poster. We also relied on dozens of journal articles published about the pros and cons of in vitro testing, and went to Research Triangle Park, to see the new lab and witness an early test. We found a few other presentations from science conferences, where the EPA project managers had mentioned a few of the chemicals likely to be on the list. We also traveled to research labs in California
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Toxic Substances Control Act Series: This was the result of dozens of interviews with lobbyists for every major business association and chemical industry trade group, as well as lobbyists for retailers, food processors and growers; lawmakers, staffers from both parties, and participants in an off-the-record series of "stakeholder" sessions. Several EPA sources were also helpful, although they did not want to be quoted. The EPA sick building in North Carolina: We found confidential sources within the building and obtained an internal document about the latest findings and recommendations before then working with a local TV station to get video inside the building and additional sources. Neurotoxicants List Series: This story began with a mention from researcher Kevin Crofton, that his lab was developing a list of the most dangerous neurotoxicants. Kaplan met with Crofton, his colleagues and other people at EPA who had various views on the project. She also interviewed many academics who serve on EPA advisory committees and public-health activists. For about six months, EPA_s PR chiefs would not permit Kaplan to meet with Crofton at his lab, or view the in vitro testing. Finally, after many letters of complaint, they permitted Kaplan a short visit. All phone interviews and follow-up talks had to include a PR, which made it difficult for Crofton and Mundy to talk freely, and made it take a long time to get all the facts for the story. EPA sent a memo out to all relevant staffers, telling them not to talk to our reporter.
6. Results (if any).
Neurotoxicants List Series: The story led the learning disability groups to contact EPA and request a meeting to obtain more information.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
Toxic Substances Control Act Series: We ran a clarification of date where a lobbyist first registered to lobby on fire retardants.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Perseverance was the key to this series. Kaplan spent two years trying to get into one of the research labs and many, many months earning the trust of EPA administrators.