Toxic Legacy: Soil Contamination and Community Impact in Houston’s Fifth Ward

In May 2025, Union Pacific Railroad released long-awaited soil test results from Houston's Fifth Ward, confirming widespread contamination in a historically underserved community. Roughly one in four tested properties showed toxin levels exceeding the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) screening thresholds. This revelation intensified concerns that had simmered for years about the health implications of creosote, a chemical used in wood preservation at a former rail yard. As residents continue to raise questions about their safety and demand accountability, this development marks a crucial turning point in the fight for environmental justice in the Fifth Ward.

Houston’s Fifth Ward, a predominantly Black and Latino neighborhood, has long been burdened by environmental hazards, most notably from the operations of a former Southern Pacific (now Union Pacific) rail yard. For decades, this site was used to treat wooden railroad ties with creosote, a tar-based preservative known for its carcinogenic properties. While operations ceased in 1984, lingering contamination beneath the surface has posed ongoing risks to the community.

Residents have reported elevated cancer rates, prompting local activists and environmental groups to push for investigations into the connection between the former rail yard and health issues in the area. In 2019, the Texas Department of State Health Services identified a cancer cluster in the Fifth Ward, but questions remained about the full scope of exposure and long-term consequences. Union Pacific had previously acknowledged the presence of contamination but had not provided a comprehensive assessment until now. The release of the latest soil test results is the culmination of years of community demands for transparency and action, reflecting a broader narrative of environmental neglect in marginalized communities across the U.S.

The soil testing conducted by Union Pacific in Houston’s Fifth Ward revealed troubling levels of toxic contamination. According to the report released in May 2025, approximately 25% of the 100 properties sampled exceeded the EPA’s recommended screening levels for hazardous substances. The tests identified several pollutants, with creosote-related compounds such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) being the most prominent. These chemicals are known to persist in the environment and have been linked to various health issues, including respiratory ailments and cancers.

Contamination was not limited to isolated hotspots; it appeared in residential yards, vacant lots, and even areas near schools and community centers. Experts noted that the results indicated a significant risk of long-term exposure, particularly through soil contact and groundwater infiltration. Union Pacific’s testing effort, prompted by persistent community pressure and oversight from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), is now being used as a basis for further risk assessments. The findings have reignited fears among residents who feel their concerns were ignored for decades, even as their families experienced disproportionately high rates of illness. These results lay the groundwork for possible remediation and legal challenges ahead.

The release of soil test results has intensified scrutiny of the health risks facing Fifth Ward residents. Creosote, a substance classified as a probable human carcinogen by the EPA, contains compounds such as benzo[a]pyrene, which are known to cause cancer after prolonged exposure. The presence of these contaminants in residential areas raises fears about increased risks of skin, lung, and bladder cancers, especially among children and older adults who are more vulnerable to environmental toxins.

Community members have long pointed to elevated cancer rates and chronic respiratory conditions in the neighborhood as possible consequences of exposure. A 2019 study by the Texas Department of State Health Services supported these concerns by identifying a statistically significant cancer cluster, but the root cause remained officially inconclusive until now. In addition to the health impacts, the environmental degradation has eroded trust in regulatory bodies and fueled frustration over perceived inaction.

Environmental experts warn that the full impact may not yet be visible, as the toxins can leach into groundwater or become airborne during dry conditions. They stress the need for ongoing monitoring, public health interventions, and soil remediation to protect current and future residents from the enduring consequences of this toxic legacy.

Union Pacific has acknowledged the contamination but emphasized that it is cooperating with local and federal authorities to address the issue. Following the release of the soil test results, the company committed to supporting a comprehensive health-risk assessment scheduled for later in 2025. This study, conducted in collaboration with the EPA and the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), aims to evaluate the potential health implications and inform any necessary remediation efforts.

However, critics argue that Union Pacific’s response has been slow and insufficient, given the decades of pollution and its documented health impacts. Advocacy groups are calling for more aggressive cleanup plans, financial compensation for affected residents, and a transparent timeline for action. Meanwhile, local officials, including members of Houston’s city council, have urged both state and federal agencies to apply stricter oversight and ensure that remediation is prioritized for the most affected zones.

Community members and advocacy groups in Houston’s Fifth Ward are not waiting passively for government or corporate action. Organizations such as IMPACT Fifth Ward and local environmental justice coalitions have amplified calls for transparency, relocation support, and full-scale cleanup. Their efforts have led to increased media attention and pressure on elected officials to prioritize the neighborhood’s needs in upcoming policy decisions.

Looking ahead, the Fifth Ward may serve as a critical case study in the broader national conversation about environmental justice. Advocates are urging federal agencies to use this incident to reinforce policies that prevent industrial pollution in marginalized communities. Many residents continue to call for reparative justice, including health care access and long-term monitoring.

While the soil test results validate long-held concerns, they also underscore the urgent need for coordinated action. Without sustained oversight and investment, the community risks becoming yet another example of how environmental neglect perpetuates inequality.

New Federal Rules on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting: What Businesses Need to Know

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a primary driver of climate change, making transparency in corporate emissions reporting a critical step toward global sustainability. Governments worldwide have been tightening regulations to ensure businesses accurately disclose their environmental impact. In the United States, new federal rules now require companies to report their GHG emissions more transparently, marking a significant shift in climate accountability.

These regulations aim to provide investors, regulators, and the public with clearer insights into corporate carbon footprints. By standardizing emissions reporting, the government seeks to close loopholes that previously allowed companies to underreport or misrepresent their environmental impact. This move aligns with broader global efforts, including the European Union’s mandatory sustainability reporting framework.

As companies prepare for these new requirements, they face both challenges and opportunities. Understanding the implications of these regulations will be crucial for businesses navigating the evolving landscape of environmental compliance.

Background: The Need for Stricter GHG Reporting

For years, corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting has been largely inconsistent, with many companies voluntarily disclosing emissions data using different methodologies. While some businesses have taken proactive steps toward transparency, others have faced criticism for underreporting or omitting key emissions sources, creating a gap in accurate climate data. This lack of standardization has made it difficult for investors, regulators, and the public to assess corporate environmental impact effectively.

The growing urgency of the climate crisis has increased pressure on governments to tighten regulations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been working to establish clear, enforceable reporting requirements that align with global sustainability goals. Additionally, international frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have influenced the push for stricter regulations in the U.S.

Beyond regulatory pressure, stakeholders—including investors, customers, and environmental advocates—are demanding greater accountability. Companies that fail to provide transparent emissions data risk reputational damage and potential legal consequences. The new federal rules aim to address these concerns by requiring standardized, verifiable disclosures, ensuring that businesses take responsibility for their environmental impact.

Details of the New Federal Rules

The new federal rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting represent a significant shift in corporate climate disclosure, but recent statements from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicate that some aspects of the regulations are still under review. Legal challenges and stakeholder concerns have led to reconsideration of certain provisions, particularly regarding Scope 3 emissions reporting and compliance costs for smaller businesses.

Key Changes in the SEC Climate Disclosure Rules:

• Mandatory Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions

  • Scope 1: Direct emissions from company operations.

  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy.

• Scope 3 Emissions Reporting Still Under Review

  • Originally proposed as mandatory for large companies, but now facing legal and industry pushback.

  • Final rules may limit Scope 3 disclosures to certain industries or make them voluntary.

• Third-Party Verification Requirements

  • Companies must ensure the accuracy of emissions data through independent audits.

• Regulatory Uncertainty and Legal Challenges

  • The SEC is facing lawsuits and political opposition, which could delay or modify final implementation.

While the rules aim to align with global reporting standards, the final version will likely be adjusted to address industry concerns and legal risks. Companies should prepare for stricter reporting requirements but remain aware that aspects of the regulation may still change.

Impacts on Businesses and Industries

The uncertainty surrounding the SEC’s climate disclosure rules is creating both challenges and opportunities for businesses. While the move toward greater transparency is seen as a positive step for environmental accountability, the potential costs and legal complexities are raising concerns among corporate leaders.

Compliance Challenges and Costs

One of the biggest concerns is the financial burden of compliance, especially for small and mid-sized companies. Businesses will need to invest in emissions tracking systems, conduct third-party audits, and integrate climate risk assessments into their financial disclosures. If Scope 3 reporting remains part of the final rules, companies with large supply chains could face significant compliance challenges.

Benefits: Transparency, Investor Confidence, and Sustainability

Despite these challenges, clear and standardized reporting could provide long-term business benefits. Investors and regulators increasingly favor companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, and greater transparency may enhance corporate reputation and access to sustainable investment opportunities. Companies that proactively adopt emissions reduction strategies may also gain a competitive edge as sustainability expectations continue to rise.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Potential Changes

With legal challenges still unfolding, some companies are waiting for final rule adjustments before making major investments in emissions tracking. Businesses should stay informed and prepare for compliance while remaining adaptable to potential modifications in the reporting requirements.

Reactions and Future Implications

The SEC’s revised approach to climate disclosure has sparked mixed reactions. Environmental advocates and ESG-focused investors argue that the rules need to be stronger to ensure full corporate accountability. They are particularly concerned about Scope 3 emissions potentially being dropped from mandatory reporting, as supply chain emissions often make up the majority of a company’s carbon footprint.

On the other hand, business leaders and industry groups have pushed back, citing high compliance costs and legal risks. Some argue that the SEC’s involvement in climate disclosure oversteps its authority, leading to lawsuits and potential delays in implementation.

Looking ahead, businesses should expect continued debate and possible modifications before the rules take full effect. However, the trend toward greater emissions transparency is unlikely to reverse, meaning companies will need to invest in sustainability reporting regardless of how the final SEC rules take shape.

Conclusion

The SEC’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules mark a significant step toward corporate climate accountability, but ongoing legal challenges and regulatory uncertainty mean businesses must remain adaptable. While Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting will likely become standard, the debate over Scope 3 disclosures highlights the complexities of enforcing climate transparency.

For companies, the shift toward stricter reporting represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Proactive businesses that invest in emissions tracking and sustainability efforts will gain a competitive edge in an evolving regulatory landscape. Regardless of final SEC rulings, the push for greater corporate climate accountability is here to stay.

PFAS Regulations in 2025: What EHS Professionals Need to Know

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have become a critical focus for environmental, health, and safety (EHS) professionals worldwide. Often referred to as "forever chemicals," PFAS are a group of synthetic compounds used extensively in manufacturing, from nonstick cookware and waterproof textiles to firefighting foam. Their persistence in the environment and bioaccumulation in living organisms pose significant risks to both human health and ecosystems.

The year 2025 marks a pivotal shift in the regulatory landscape for PFAS, as governments worldwide, led by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implement stricter controls on their production, use, and disposal. For EHS professionals, these changes signify not just compliance challenges but also opportunities to lead sustainability efforts within their organizations.

This article delves into the critical updates to PFAS regulations for 2025, offering insights and actionable strategies to help EHS managers prepare for and adapt to these landmark changes.

What Are PFAS?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a vast class of over 12,000 synthetic chemicals characterized by their unique carbon-fluorine bonds. This chemical structure gives PFAS their remarkable stability, making them resistant to heat, water, and oil. These properties have made PFAS indispensable in various industries, including electronics, aerospace, textiles, and food packaging.

However, the very durability that makes PFAS valuable also makes them harmful. Dubbed “forever chemicals,” PFAS do not naturally break down, leading to their accumulation in soil, water, and the human body. Scientific studies have linked prolonged PFAS exposure to severe health risks, including cancer, thyroid disorders, liver damage, and immune system suppression.

PFAS contamination has become a global environmental crisis. These chemicals are frequently detected in drinking water supplies and agricultural lands, causing widespread concern. Regulatory bodies are intensifying efforts to address these issues, recognizing the urgent need to limit PFAS exposure and mitigate their impacts. For EHS professionals, understanding the science and prevalence of PFAS is critical to navigating the evolving regulatory environment and safeguarding their organizations against potential liabilities.

Key Changes in 2025 Regulations

The regulatory framework for PFAS is set to tighten significantly in 2025, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spearheading efforts to address these persistent chemicals. Several new measures aim to curb PFAS production, minimize exposure, and enhance environmental and human health protections.

A major milestone is the EPA’s anticipated finalization of enforceable limits for PFAS in drinking water under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This regulation targets specific compounds like PFOA and PFOS, setting limits as low as 4 parts per trillion (ppt)—a groundbreaking move given the chemicals' widespread detection in water systems. Additionally, new rules will require industries to monitor and report PFAS releases into air, soil, and waterways, ensuring greater transparency and accountability.

The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) is also undergoing revisions. Manufacturers must now disclose PFAS usage in their products and demonstrate efforts to phase out or find safer alternatives. For industries such as textiles, firefighting, and electronics, these updates necessitate significant changes in supply chain management and production processes.

Another critical update involves waste management. Landfills and wastewater treatment facilities are facing stricter guidelines for handling PFAS-laden materials. Compliance will require enhanced treatment technologies and monitoring protocols.

Globally, other countries are following suit. The European Union is advancing its plans to ban over 10,000 PFAS chemicals by 2025, creating additional challenges for multinational corporations. These synchronized efforts reflect growing recognition of PFAS as a global crisis.

For EHS professionals, staying ahead of these regulations is imperative. Understanding these changes enables proactive planning, minimizing risks of noncompliance and reputational damage while fostering sustainable practices.

Implications for EHS Professionals

The upcoming PFAS regulations pose significant challenges and responsibilities for EHS professionals, who play a central role in ensuring organizational compliance and mitigating risks. As the 2025 implementation deadline approaches, EHS managers must adapt their practices to meet heightened standards.

One immediate task is conducting a comprehensive inventory of PFAS usage within the organization. This involves identifying all products, processes, and waste streams that may contain these chemicals. Collaboration with suppliers to obtain detailed material disclosures is also essential, especially for industries heavily reliant on PFAS-containing materials, such as manufacturing, firefighting, and construction.

EHS teams will also need to establish robust monitoring systems to track PFAS emissions and ensure compliance with reporting requirements. This could include sampling water discharges, testing air emissions, and auditing waste disposal practices. Implementing advanced technologies for PFAS detection, such as high-resolution mass spectrometry, can enhance the accuracy of these efforts.

Training and communication are critical components of compliance. Employees at all levels must be educated about the new regulations, their implications, and best practices for managing PFAS-related risks. This ensures organizational alignment and fosters a culture of accountability.

Additionally, EHS managers must prepare for increased scrutiny from regulators and stakeholders. Transparent reporting, backed by data-driven assessments, will be key to maintaining trust and credibility.

By proactively addressing these challenges, EHS professionals not only safeguard their organizations against potential liabilities but also position themselves as leaders in environmental stewardship and sustainability.

Future Trends and Innovations

As PFAS regulations evolve, advancements in technology and policy offer promising pathways for mitigation and management. Emerging solutions, such as activated carbon filters, ion exchange resins, and advanced oxidation processes, are proving effective in reducing PFAS contamination in water systems. Meanwhile, industries are exploring biodegradable alternatives to PFAS, fostering innovation in materials science.

Policy developments are also gaining momentum on the global stage. Initiatives like the European Union’s sweeping restrictions on PFAS and collaborative international efforts signal a shift toward comprehensive, unified action. For EHS professionals, staying abreast of these trends is essential for long-term compliance and environmental leadership.

CORe: Surprise H&S Inspection - Use your Legal Register to be Inspection Ready

Have your company’s offices or stores ever been caught off-guard by an unexpected inspection from the Occupational Health and Safety authority? Imagine scrambling to locate key documents and records to verify compliance, only to find that many required files were incomplete or missing entirely. It’s a stressful situation.

As a CORe member, there is a smart solution to ensure you are always prepared: leverage your CORe Country H&S Legal Register as the foundation for a streamlined and organized system.

Here is how it works: Simply link all relevant records and documents from your office or store directly to the corresponding regulatory items in your H&S legal register or checklist. This transforms your legal register into a powerful compliance tool.

Benefits? Your office or store will be inspection-ready—no more last-minute searches, just a well-prepared, easy-to-access system. It's a simple yet effective solution.

Take note:

• This approach also serves as a central repository for all site H&S documents, and provides easy access.

• Of course, maintaining up-to-date H&S documents is essential for the long-term success of this strategy.

• This approach works best when most or all of your H&S documents are in an electronic format.

To learn more about CORe EHS regulatory compliance tools for offices and stores, please visit Core EHS Legal Compliance Resources or contact convergence consulting at infomail@cc-global.com

October as Biosafety and Biosecurity Month: Promoting Safety and Compliance in Research Environments

Every October, institutions across the country participate in Biosafety and Biosecurity Month, a campaign led by the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) to promote a culture of safety and responsibility in research environments. This initiative aims to raise awareness about the importance of handling hazardous biological materials safely and emphasizes the ethical responsibilities researchers have to protect both human health and the environment.

The campaign's focus goes beyond compliance; it fosters collaboration between environmental health and safety (EHS) professionals and research staff, encouraging best practices to prevent accidents and biosecurity breaches. As laboratories engage with more advanced research, from infectious disease studies to synthetic biology, the need for strict adherence to biosafety protocols is more critical than ever. This month provides an opportunity for organizations to evaluate and enhance their safety practices, ensuring they meet both regulatory requirements and ethical standards.

What is Biosafety and Biosecurity?

Biosafety and biosecurity are essential components of laboratory and research practices designed to protect individuals, communities, and the environment from exposure to biological hazards. While these terms are often used together, they address different but complementary concerns. Biosafety focuses on the protection of people and the environment from accidental exposure to or release of potentially harmful biological materials. In contrast, biosecurity emphasizes the protection of these materials from theft, misuse, or intentional release, ensuring that pathogens are not used for malicious purposes.

In research and clinical settings, biosafety practices involve protocols such as the correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), autoclave sterilization, and the safe disposal of medical waste. Biosecurity measures, on the other hand, include access controls, surveillance systems, and tracking biological materials to prevent unauthorized access or diversion of infectious agents.

The increasing complexity of scientific research—such as studies involving genetic engineering, synthetic biology, and high-containment pathogens—requires advanced biosafety and biosecurity frameworks. Organizations like the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) lead efforts to promote these practices, ensuring that laboratories worldwide adopt robust safety systems to protect public health and research integrity.

The alignment of biosafety and biosecurity also promotes public trust, as researchers demonstrate that their work is conducted safely and responsibly. By adhering to these standards, institutions not only protect their staff but also avoid reputational risks and meet evolving regulatory requirements from agencies like OSHA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Key Campaign Objectives for 2024

The 2024 Biosafety and Biosecurity Month centers on promoting safety stewardship and regulatory compliance across laboratories and research institutions. This year’s campaign emphasizes three core objectives: enhancing collaboration between safety professionals and researchers, ensuring regulatory compliance, and fostering ethical conduct in scientific research.

1. Training and Awareness Building
   A key focus is on increasing awareness and providing targeted training on critical safety protocols, such as handling infectious agents, bloodborne pathogen management, and autoclave operations. Site-specific training led by supervisors is emphasized, ensuring that safety measures are tailored to the specific risks of each laboratory environment. Regular training ensures compliance with federal and state regulations, such as OSHA's mandates on hazardous materials management.

2. Emphasis on Waste Management and Compliance
   Improper disposal of biohazardous and chemical waste poses significant safety risks and can attract financial penalties. The campaign encourages research institutions to conduct routine audits of their waste management practices, involving EHS professionals in annual reviews of waste regulations to maintain compliance. The goal is to prevent accidents and ensure that all hazardous waste is handled according to federal guidelines.

3. Engaging Researchers in Safety Practices
   Beyond compliance, the campaign fosters a culture of safety by engaging researchers directly in discussions about biosecurity. This collaborative approach aims to build trust and ensure that safety practices are integrated into day-to-day operations. The campaign encourages participation from every level of research personnel, from principal investigators to laboratory technicians, emphasizing that safety is a shared responsibility.

By focusing on these objectives, the 2024 campaign aims to enhance operational safety, prevent accidents, and ensure that scientific work is conducted with both integrity and responsibility.

Compliance and Training Requirements

Strict adherence to biosafety and biosecurity regulations is essential for laboratories to avoid accidents, protect staff, and maintain research integrity. Federal and state bodies such as OSHA, the CDC, and the NIH provide frameworks that guide safety protocols, including the proper handling, storage, and disposal of biohazardous materials. Non-compliance can result in severe financial penalties, reputational damage, and increased scrutiny from regulatory agencies.

1. Federal and State Regulatory Requirements
   Regulations such as OSHA’s Bloodborne Pathogens Standard and NIH guidelines for research involving recombinant DNA require laboratories to implement specific biosafety measures. Laboratories must also comply with Hazard Communication (HazCom) standards, which mandate proper labeling and documentation of all hazardous substances used in the lab.

2. Mandatory Training Programs
   Effective biosafety management begins with comprehensive training. Institutions must provide both general and site-specific training to laboratory staff. General training typically covers topics like biohazard waste management, PPE use, and chemical safety, while site-specific sessions address risks unique to a particular lab setting. The 2024 Biosafety and Biosecurity Month highlights the importance of involving supervisors in these training efforts, ensuring that protocols are reviewed before any research activities commence.

3. Risks of Non-Compliance
   Non-compliance with biosafety standards not only increases the risk of accidents but can also result in fines or operational shutdowns. Regulatory bodies conduct routine inspections, and institutions found lacking in compliance may be required to halt projects until safety gaps are addressed. Moreover, research misconduct or negligence in biosecurity protocols can tarnish the reputation of institutions, affecting their ability to secure funding or partnerships in the future.

Practical Steps for Labs to Improve Safety

Laboratories can adopt several practical measures to strengthen their biosafety and biosecurity practices. Implementing these strategies not only reduces the risk of accidents but also ensures compliance with evolving regulations and fosters a culture of continuous improvement in safety management.

1. Conduct Regular Audits and Inspections
   Routine inspections help identify safety gaps before they result in incidents. EHS professionals recommend scheduling annual or semi-annual audits focused on key areas such as waste management, chemical storage, and PPE usage. These inspections ensure that lab conditions align with the latest safety standards and regulatory requirements.

2. Engage EHS Experts and Provide Continuous Training
   One way to enhance safety performance is to involve EHS professionals in lab meetings and training sessions. Continuous education, including refresher courses, ensures that staff stay updated on new regulations and technologies.

3. Establish Clear Communication Channels
   Effective safety management relies on open communication between researchers, supervisors, and EHS teams. Creating platforms for reporting safety concerns, such as anonymous suggestion boxes or digital reporting tools, encourages proactive problem-solving.

4. Integrate Safety into Everyday Operations
   Instead of treating safety as an isolated responsibility, it should be integrated into all aspects of lab operations. Ensuring that safety protocols become routine helps build a sustainable culture of safety.

Conclusion

Biosafety and Biosecurity Month serves as a vital reminder of the importance of safeguarding research environments through comprehensive safety practices and regulatory compliance. Participating in initiatives such as this campaign not only enhances operational safety but also reinforces public trust in scientific research.