Biden-Harris administration announces $521 million for electric vehicle charging

Dourson, who receives some of his research funding from industry groups, sent a fundraising email in July outlining his plans. “Can we count on your group to make a tax-deductible donation so that our team can publish a series of papers by the end of 2024?” he asked.

TERA held a conference in October where a pro-industry plan to challenge the EPA’s PFAS regulations was presented — attacking the statistical methods used by the agency and highlighting scientific uncertainty — a conference paper obtained by The Guardian shows.

Current and former EPA experts who reviewed the email and the conference document sharply criticized Dourson’s approach to researching PFAS, a collection of about 16,000 synthetic compounds linked to cancer and a wide range of other serious health problems.

Maria Doa, a former EPA risk assessment official who is now director of the Environmental Defense Fund, said The Guardian that TERA’s plans did not constitute “a sound scientific approach.”

“They’re trying to undermine the EPA’s science, to make it appear that there’s uncertainty where there isn’t, and to make it appear that there’s disagreement within the scientific community where there isn’t,” she said.

Experts have compared efforts to undermine PFAS regulations with industry-funded science to similar efforts used by the tobacco industry in decades past.

“It’s off the beaten path and it’s a lot of the same scientists and the same mercenaries,” said Erik Olson, director of the National Resources Defense Council. The Guardian.

Penny Fenner-Crisp, a former EPA water division official who worked with Dourson, said The Guardian that she was stunned by the obvious bias that was apparent in the documents.

“In my 22 years in three regulatory programs, I’ve come to understand the games that the industry plays, but this one surprised me because it’s unusual to be so blatant,” she said.

The EPA’s regulations set a limit of 4 parts per trillion for two of the main types of PFAS, and up to 10 ppt for the others. Gourson, who previously worked for the EPA but has since changed his approach and, as he puts it, learned to “respect industry knowledge,” has argued that the limits should be much higher. He and other scientists, some with industry ties, published a study in December that supports a higher limit for one main type of PFAS.

Legal challenges to the EPA’s water regulations have come from water companies and chemical manufacturers. At least one lawsuit has been brought in part by the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobbying group that represents companies like 3M and DuPont, which developed PFAS in the mid-20th century for use in consumer and industrial products and allegedly hid their toxic effects and widespread distribution.

In the leaked email, Dourson said his upcoming papers will be published in the first issue of a new journal that aims to “support” legal challenges to PFAS regulations.

The stakes in the lawsuits against EPA water regulations are extremely high, and not just because of the direct impact they will have on hundreds of millions of Americans who may already have toxic PFAS in their drinking water. An industry victory could also discourage further regulation of chemicals in drinking water.

“It’s critical,” said Betsy Southerland, former director of science and technology in the EPA’s water division. The Guardianspeaking about the legal defense of the PFAS rules set in April. “If a court overturns this decision … then the EPA will say the bar is too high to regulate using the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Southerland saidThe Wall Street Journal In May, Dourson “produces biased science that cherry-picks data.”

Dourson was nominated to head the EPA’s chemical safety division in 2017 by then-President Donald Trump, but withdrew from consideration for the post following criticism of his ties to industry. The New York Times At the time of publication, emails had been exchanged between Dourson and the ACC that showed a close relationship.