{"id":7002,"date":"2017-10-16T09:27:36","date_gmt":"2017-10-16T14:27:36","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7002"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:00","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:00","slug":"no-end-to-chemicals-for-which-the-trump-nominee-to-head-epas-toxics-office-has-conflicts-of-interest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/10\/16\/no-end-to-chemicals-for-which-the-trump-nominee-to-head-epas-toxics-office-has-conflicts-of-interest\/","title":{"rendered":"No end to chemicals for which the Trump nominee to head EPA\u2019s toxics office has conflicts of interest"},"content":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0<\/em>is a Lead Senior Scientist.<\/p>\n

[My colleague Ryan O\u2019Connell assisted in the research described in this post.] <\/em><\/p>\n

[Use\u00a0<\/em>this link\u00a0<\/em><\/a>to see all of our posts on Dourson.]<\/em><\/p>\n

In a series of earlier posts <\/a>to this blog, we have described and documented numerous conflicts of interests that Michael Dourson, the Trump Administration\u2019s nominee to head EPA\u2019s toxics office, would bring to the job if he is confirmed.<\/p>\n

(A vote on his nomination by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is currently scheduled for this Wednesday at 10am EDT<\/a>.\u00a0 If he is voted out of committee, a majority vote of the full Senate would then be required for his nomination to be confirmed.)<\/p>\n

Dourson has worked on dozens of toxic chemicals under payment from dozens of companies.\u00a0 Two consistent patterns emerge when his reviews are examined:\u00a0 The process<\/em> he typically uses <\/a>to conduct his reviews is riddled with conflicts of interest.\u00a0 And his reviews typically result in <\/a>him recommending \u201csafe\u201d levels for the chemicals that are weaker, often much weaker, than the established standards in place at the time of his reviews.<\/p>\n

If confirmed, Dourson would oversee most of the chemicals and companies he has worked on and with.\u00a0 The chemicals include numerous pesticides coming up for review shortly <\/a>under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as well as three chemicals that are among the first 10 <\/a>EPA is now considering under the recently amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).<\/p>\n

To further gauge the impact Dourson could have if confirmed, we have looked a bit farther down the road.\u00a0 TSCA requires <\/a>EPA to be conducting risk evaluations on at least 20 chemicals by December 2019.\u00a0 At least half of those chemicals are to be drawn from EPA\u2019s so-called Work Plan for Chemical Assessments<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Using information available on the website of Dourson\u2019s company, Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA), as well as his published papers, we compared the list of chemicals he\/TERA have worked on to those on the EPA Work Plan.\u00a0 We found that 22 chemicals overlap.\u00a0 We then examined each chemical Dourson or TERA worked on to determine whether Dourson or TERA was paid for their work by their manufacturers or industrial users of those chemicals.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

For at least half \u2013 11 of the 22 Work Plan chemicals \u2013 we identified such funding.\u00a0 These include the three chemicals noted earlier that are among the first 10 EPA is currently evaluating:\u00a0 1,4-dioxane, 1-bromopropane, and trichloroethylene.\u00a0 These and the eight additional Work Plan chemicals we identified are listed in the accompanying table, along with the corporate interests that hired Dourson or TERA to work on them.\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This analysis only deepens the basis for concern over Dourson\u2019s nomination:\u00a0 If confirmed, he would have full authority over the selection of which Work Plan chemicals EPA selects next for risk evaluations, not to mention the scope and content of those evaluations.\u00a0 Many other aspects of TSCA implementation would fall entirely under his purview as well, including those that are central issues in current litigation over EPA\u2019s prioritization and risk evaluation rules<\/a>:<\/p>\n