EPA Weighs Axing Research Office Key to Agency Rulemaking (1)

The EPA is considering wiping out its scientific research office, a move that could hobble the agency’s ability to issue new regulations, according to documents reviewed by Democratic staff on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

The Office of Research and Development (ORD) provides scientific information to decision makers within the Environmental Protection Agency, feeding into their regulatory, enforcement, and funding decisions. The office would ordinarily play a central role in actions such as the broad deregulatory plan the EPA laid out last week, providing a scientific and legally-sound basis for the many decisions the agency must make.

Of ORD’s 1,540 positions, 50% to 75% would not be retained, according to the documents. Federal agencies were instructed to develop reorganization plans to shrink their ranks, and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has said he plans to cut the agency’s budget by 65%.

In many cases, the EPA is required to use the best available science as it makes its decisions. But the Trump administration has stopped many scientific efforts, including several grants that were nixed by the Department of Government Efficiency.

Some ORD functions, positions, and employee skills “have been identified as directly supporting statutory work in other EPA program offices,” the documents say. If the EPA goes through with its reorganization plan, it says it will assess those positions and decide where they may fit within the agency.

The EPA also said in the documents that it would ask the White House Office of Personnel Management for an exception to the 60-day notice period given to employees selected for release through a reduction in force. If approved, the requirement would be reduced to a 30-day notice period.

“EPA is taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements,” Molly Vaseliou, an EPA spokeswoman, said in an email.

“We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans,” Vaseliou said. “While no decisions have been made yet, we are actively listening to employees at all levels to gather ideas on how to better fulfill agency statutory obligations, increase efficiency, and ensure the EPA is as up-to-date and effective as ever.”

But Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the science committee’s top Democrat, said ORD is mandated by statute, so “eliminating it is illegal.”

Further, Lofgren said, “every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut EPA science. Last time around, Trump and his cronies politicized and distorted science—they knew the value of ORD, and they sought to weaken it. Now, this is their attempt to kill it for good.”

The move would be “a wrecking ball assault on the science that protects the air we breathe and the water we drink from toxic chemicals and pollution,” Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, a former top-ranking ORD official, said in a statement Tuesday.

“Shuttering EPA’s science offices would take a chainsaw to the work of toxicologists, physicians, nurses, and other experts across the country, particularly in places like North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio, and Georgia, where the agency operates major research labs,” Orme-Zavaleta said.

Chitra Kumar, the managing director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ climate and energy program, said it would be “extremely difficult to set protective health standards without the EPA’s Office of Research and Development, and I think that’s exactly what this administration is aiming for. I am not sure how the EPA could fulfill its legal mandate of public health protection if this plan goes forward.”

ORD supports six national research programs that work on air, climate, and energy; chemical safety; health and environmental risk assessment; homeland security; safe and sustainable water resources; and sustainable and healthy communities.