EPA reorganization hits research arm

The US Environmental Protection Agency on May 2 announced its anticipated reorganization plan, which includes a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASES). The agency did not give details on what this office will focus on, nor did it mention the existing EPA research body, the Office of Research and Development (ORD), in the announcement.

But in an opinion piece published May 2 in Newsweek, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin wrote, “EPA is improving its structure by integrating scientific staff directly into our program offices instead of siloed in the Office of Research and Development.”

Officials at EPA town hall meetings on the afternoon of May 2 did not comment on the fate of the ORD, even when asked direct questions about the office, according to multiple ORD employees who attended the meetings and spoke to C&EN. Instead, officials encouraged employees to apply for positions opening up at EPA program offices. But the number of new positions, estimated at around 500 across several offices, means that approximately two-thirds of the more than 1,500 current ORD employees could be left without a job.

EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou did not respond to questions about the number of new positions compared with the number of current ORD employees. “This is a reorganization, not a reduction in force,” she told C&EN by email. “No staff are being let go with this announcement.” When asked about the discrepancy in the number of new positions compared with the number of current employees at ORD, she replied that the ORD was not part of the announced reorganization.

The current White House budget proposal would reduce the ORD’s spending by about 35% compared with levels approved for fiscal year 2025 level.

“This is not restructuring. This is sabotage. They want to gut EPA’s science office and eliminate 1,000 scientists that work every day to protect the air we breathe and the water we drink,” Michelle Roos, executive director of the Environmental Protection Network, tells C&EN by email.

Along with the new OASES, Zeldin announced changes to the Office of Water and the Office of Air and Radiation, including the creation of a new Office of Clean Air Programs, and plans to add 130 positions to the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) to work on backlogs of chemical reviews.

The EPA’s announcement drew a mix of reactions from industry and advocacy groups, with the American Chemistry Council (ACC) applauding the agency’s moves.

“ACC supports EPA evaluating its resources to ensure American taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently and effectively to meet the Agency’s statutory requirements,” Chris Jahn, president and CEO of the ACC tells C&EN by email. “If necessary, that includes shifting resources to critical programs such as EPA’s OCSPP and Office of Pesticide Programs.”

Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is also glad that the EPA is adding positions to the OCSPP, but “that division is so broken that I fear throwing more people in there, particularly people who may not have expertise in doing risk assessments, will be a disaster,” she says. “I also do not think this should be done at the expense of losing people at ORD and in the [environmental justice] arena.”

“Of course, the devil is in the details, which we don't know yet,” Bennett says.

EPA spokesperson Vaseliou says that there will be about 300 positions or so in OASES. According to current ORD employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional repercussions, there are some open positions in the Office of Water and in the Office of Air and Radiation, plus the new positions at the OCSPP. The Office of Personnel Management extended the deadline for EPA employees to apply for the deferred retirement program to Friday, May 9. The deadline to apply for these new EPA jobs is also May 9, so current ORD workers can’t wait to see if they get one of these jobs before they decide to apply for deferred retirement, says one ORD scientist.

ORD employees have been left feeling confused, says a second ORD scientist. It seems like it’s just those three options, they say: take the deferred retirement option; apply for these new positions, which are poorly defined; or wait to get fired. “There’s lots of speculation and uncertainty surrounding the pros and cons of our options,” the second scientist says.

EPA officials at the town hall meetings on May 2 wouldn’t say that ORD is gone and did not give details on what scientists at OASES would be doing, the first scientist says. “Who is left behind and what is their fate, that’s what they wouldn’t talk about publicly,” the scientist says. EPA officials also didn’t answer questions about a potential reduction in force (RIF), just that the May 2 announcement is a small part of a bigger reorganization and that more details would be given later, the first scientist says. “Even with [Friday’s] announcement, no one really knows what’s going on,” they say. “So you have to apply and just wait.”

In making these changes, EPA leadership acted in disregard for input from current and former ORD members, Congress, and others, and “in disregard of the need for the EPA to develop and use best available science under numerous statutes,” says Christopher Frey, environmental engineer at North Carolina State University and former science adviser and assistant administrator for the ORD. This act is essentially signaling the end of the office, he says. “The siloed remnants of the carcass of ORD will not have the capability, capacity, personnel, scientific resources, scientific leadership, holistic systems approaches, scientific integrity, or independence to adequately or appropriately meet the needs” of the whole of the EPA, Frey says.

Under the 1978 Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act (pdf), the EPA is required to have a science advisory board and a research arm that uses the best available science to help make policy decisions. The ORD has acted as this research arm up until now. Since the EPA hasn’t yet provided details on what OASES will be doing, it’s unclear whether the new office will take up this role.

The EPA’s plan basically parcels out what’s left of the ORD across several offices, Frey says. “Divvying science remnants to the administrator's and policy offices is guaranteed to politicize science,” he says. PEER’s Bennett also worries that the new OASES will be politically driven. “Science should not be susceptible to politics,” she tells C&EN by email.