{"id":7331,"date":"2017-12-21T16:54:32","date_gmt":"2017-12-21T21:54:32","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/?p=7331"},"modified":"2024-02-12T11:02:05","modified_gmt":"2024-02-12T16:02:05","slug":"dourson-emails-show-he-was-paid-by-and-worked-closely-with-acc-when-providing-states-advice-on-chemicals-made-by-acc-members","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/2017\/12\/21\/dourson-emails-show-he-was-paid-by-and-worked-closely-with-acc-when-providing-states-advice-on-chemicals-made-by-acc-members\/","title":{"rendered":"Dourson emails show he was paid by and worked closely with ACC when providing states \u201cadvice\u201d on chemicals made by ACC members"},"content":{"rendered":"

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

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

I blogged last week <\/a>about how a trove of emails <\/a>recently released by the New York Times<\/em> <\/a>shines a light on the cozy relationship between Michael Dourson, who just withdrew his nomination to run the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) toxics office, and the American Chemistry Council (ACC), the main chemical industry trade association.\u00a0 [pullquote]Dourson email to ACC staffer: “We should talk while I am still able to do so directly. I am not sure what limitations I will have with outside groups.”<\/em><\/strong>[\/pullquote]You might ask why I\u2019m blogging again about these emails. \u00a0It\u2019s because they provide a rare and fascinating inside look at how \u2013 and how closely \u2013 paid consultants, who often tout themselves to the public and state and federal agencies as independent and objective arbiters of sound science, work with industry. \u00a0In this post I\u2019ll describe what the emails tell us about Dourson\u2019s work with state governments \u2013 and point to a \u201cBcc\u201d in one of those emails that raises a big red flag.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

Dourson and his consulting firm, Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), have long touted their work for state governments as evidence that they are not just hired guns for industry.\u00a0 TERA, which has now morphed into the Risk Science Center at the University of Cincinnati, even offers a free service to states<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The StateHELP (Hazard Evaluation Lending Program) allows states to receive up to 10 hours annually of technical support from the Center scientists free of charge. States can take advantage of this project by requesting either technical support for risk assessment problems over the telephone, or requesting a written review of one of the state’s risk assessments.<\/p>\n

Dourson has worked hard to create the impression that his paid work for the chemical industry was wholly distinct from his work with government agencies.<\/p>\n

So, in reading through the new collection of Dourson emails, my interest was piqued by the fact that quite a few of the emails are discussing work Dourson had been doing with officials in states like Missouri and Indiana.\u00a0 One project focused on 1,4-dioxane \u2013 a chemical for which, in a 2014 paper paid for by PPG Industries, Dourson had recommended <\/a>a \u201csafe\u201d level in drinking water 1,000 times less protective than EPA\u2019s guideline.<\/p>\n

In a July 2017 email exchange between Dourson and ACC Senior Director Steve Risotto (see page 34<\/a>), Dourson refers to this earlier work on the chemical, done through his Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA). \u00a0The state of Kentucky among others had requested Dourson\u2019s help with this chemical.\u00a0 Dourson tells ACC:<\/p>\n

By the way, this is a great example of the value of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (ARA) for it allowed multiple states to step up and offer time (not money), and now that they have participated, it is an easier argument for industry to make to the EPA<\/em><\/strong>. (emphasis added)<\/p>\n

He then suggests that ACC consider a donation to support his work through ARA.<\/p>\n

What Dourson means by his reference to making things \u201ceasier\u201d for industry by getting states involved becomes even clearer in another email chain, this one involving trichloroethylene (TCE).\u00a0 Bear with me as I walk through it.<\/p>\n

In March 2017, one of Dourson\u2019s colleagues at his Risk Science Center emails a large group offering to do briefings on TCE at contaminated sites, touting Dourson\u2019s recently published paper <\/a>on that topic (see pages 251-2<\/a>).\u00a0 That paper we have blogged about before<\/a>:\u00a0 It was funded by ACC, published in Dourson\u2019s go-to<\/a> industry-funded journal, and argued for a standard \u2013 called a reference concentration, or RfC \u2013 that was up to 15 times weaker than EPA\u2019s.<\/p>\n

In April, a health official for the state of Missouri requests a briefing, noting that \u201cMissouri has a number of TCE sites across the state that we have been struggling with given the uncertainties related to the short-term exposure concern of fetal heart malformations.\u201d\u00a0 Dourson promptly replies with an offer to \u201cassist you in any way we can,\u201d noting he is already working with Indiana and planning a workshop on the same matter.<\/p>\n

A month later, in May, after some phone calls, the state official provides Dourson with a copy of \u201cquestions that we have posed to EPA and ATSDR on the uncertainties related to the short-term TCE exposure concern of fetal heart malformations\u201d (see bottom of page 246<\/a>).\u00a0 She copies that email to some or her colleagues at the health department and two state consultants.<\/p>\n

And here\u2019s where it gets even more interesting:\u00a0 Dourson emails back, mentioning a planning call with Indiana officials on the workshop \u201cthat includes specific discussions of the range of likely values [sic]<\/em> TCE … RfCs based on a recent publication.\u201d\u00a0 That publication is of course the ACC-funded one I mentioned earlier.<\/p>\n

Dourson\u2019s reply back includes all of the people copied on the email to which he was responding, as well as several Indiana officials he adds to the \u201ccc\u201d list.\u00a0 But he also blind-copies Steve Risotto of ACC<\/em><\/strong> (see top of page 246<\/a>).\u00a0 Now why would he send that email to ACC \u2013 and keep the fact that he was doing so secret from Missouri and Indiana officials?\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Yet more emails the next month make clear Risotto and ACC are fully involved in Dourson\u2019s \u201cstate outreach\u201d work.\u00a0 In late June, in a chain with the subject line \u201cDraft Response to IDEM [Indiana Department of Environmental Management] comments on September Non-cancer Workshop,\u201d Dourson emails those state consultants (this time not including state officials) and copies Risotto, letting them know \u2013 3 weeks before it will become official and public \u2013 that he is to be nominated to head up EPA\u2019s toxics office.\u00a0 Dourson adds:\u00a0 \u201cI would appreciate you keeping this information under wraps until the announcement.\u201d\u00a0 Risotto responds with his congratulations to \u201cProfessor D.\u201d (see page 61<\/a>).<\/p>\n

Dourson replies back (see page 59<\/a>):<\/p>\n

[w]e should talk while I am still able to do so directly. I am not sure what limitations I will have with outside groups (probably pretty open), but I will be restricted to talking with UC [University of Cincinnati] folks for 1 year.<\/p>\n

On the state outreach we are cooking along with IDEM for a workshop in September. They were looking to get Nancy Beck to give an opening talk, which might work out nicely. IDEM has also included Missouri, and we are now may be [sic] <\/em>asking if Illinois, Ohio and Kentucky are available to join the party. The budget you gave us should be able to stretch through this workshop and perhaps a wee bit more\u2013 depending on how big the workshop actually gets.<\/p>\n

This is a remarkable email in several ways. First, Dourson is telling ACC\u2019s Risotto that they should talk now before any possible ethics constraints kick in.\u00a0 Second, he provides Risotto with an update on the expanding state outreach work intended to amplify Dourson\u2019s and ACC\u2019s views regarding \u201cuncertainty\u201d associated with TCE risks.\u00a0 The reference to inviting Nancy Beck to speak at the state workshop is also telling:\u00a0 Beck, who was then already (and is still) at EPA running the toxics office pending Senate confirmation of Dourson\u2019s nomination, had arrived at EPA fresh from a senior director position at ACC, where she was a colleague of Risotto\u2019s and led the charge <\/a>in ACC\u2019s opposition to EPA\u2019s risk assessments of TCE. Third, Dourson\u2019s reference to \u201cthe budget you gave us\u201d makes clear that ACC is helping to bankroll the state outreach effort.<\/p>\n

To summarize:\u00a0 Dourson is paid by ACC to help cast doubt on EPA\u2019s risk assessment work on TCE.\u00a0 He then uses that work as a basis to try to convince state agencies to also question EPA\u2019s work \u2013 an effort that ACC also funds him to do.\u00a0 Dourson seems also to seek to keep that connection secret from the states.\u00a0 Meanwhile, Dourson touts his state outreach work as evidence that he is independent and objective and not merely an industry hired gun \u2013 all the while carrying water for the industry in that very same work.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, this way of undertaking conflicted, often masked work is not limited to Dourson; it applies to a whole network of paid industry consultants.\u00a0 In this case, because of the emails we get a rare glimpse into how deep the connections run.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Richard Denison, Ph.D.,\u00a0is a Lead Senior Scientist. [Use\u00a0this link\u00a0to see all of our posts on Dourson.] I blogged last week about how a trove of emails recently released by the New York Times shines a light on the cozy relationship between Michael Dourson, who just withdrew his nomination to run the Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s (EPA) …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":100,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[44,56093,114108],"tags":[91812,68,134],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-7331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-policy","category-industry-influence","category-tsca","tag-dourson","tag-epa","tag-states"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/100"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7331"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7331\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12823,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7331\/revisions\/12823"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7331"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/health\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=7331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}