Dissolving EPA’s research arm may jeopardize toxic chemical protections

The Trump administration’s plan to eliminate the entire research arm of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) would have devastating impacts on toxic chemical research, destabilizing infrastructure that forms the scientific backbone of regulations that protect people and the environment, according to former agency leaders.

The move to dissolve the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD), first reported by The New York Times last week, would stagnate new environmental regulations for years to come, the former EPA officials claim.

The ORD, which employs more than 1,000 scientists, operates six research programs that work to inform policy making on a range of environmental issues, including air and water quality, climate concerns, and chemical safety. ORD research topics include chemicals such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), pesticides, greenhouse gases and health-harming soot.

The administration reportedly plans to cut up to 75% of ORD’s staff and to relocate those left to other parts of the agency.

“What it means is that any child born in 2025 will grow up in an environment that has more contaminated air, more contaminated water, and more contaminated land than any previous generation that was born after the 1970s,” when Congress put in place major environmental statutes, said Betsy Southerland, a former EPA senior scientist and a director in the agency’s Office of Water. “Any new administration that comes in, it will take them years to rebuild that scientific expertise and capability,” she said.

If the Trump administration dismantles the EPA’s research office and rolls back existing environmental rules, it could force the nation into a fragmented, state-by-state regulatory approach reminiscent of a pre-1970s era when city air was thick with smog and oil-coated rivers caught fire, said Southerland.

Word of the plan to cut ORD comes after the White House announced the administration may cut 65% of EPA spending, and after the EPA revealed a list of 31 regulations on the chopping block, including clean water protections, restrictions on mercury emissions, wastewater regulations for oil and gas and air quality standards for tiny particles linked to respiratory problems and lung cancer.

In a March 18 letter to Congress, 50 former high-level EPA staff wrote that deep cuts to EPA “would jeopardize EPA’s responses to toxic chemical spills and other disasters as well as basic compliance with America’s environmental laws,” suggesting the administration should work with Congress to make desired changes, “not unilaterally and recklessly freeze, delay, or eliminate funding.”

ORD impact

The move to downsize the EPA is one of several actions by the Trump Administration that appear to be in line with Project 2025, a policy blueprint of the right-wing Heritage Foundation.

The plan, which President Trump previously had disavowed, does not call for a wholesale dismantling of the ORD but does describe the EPA’s science office as “bloated,” “unaccountable,” and “hostile to public and legislative input.”

Project 25 recommends eliminating several ORD offices and programs, including the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which has been used since the 1980s to characterize the health hazards of chemicals in the environment and set national standards, according to the EPA’s website. IRIS recommendations are based on “questionable science,” claims Project 2025, “resulting in billions in economic costs.”

No decisions have been made yet about the future of ORD, and the EPA is “actively listening to employees at all levels” as it takes “exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements,” said EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou. “We are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans,” she said.

ORD has offices across the country and manages the EPA’s 10 regional laboratories.

ORD’s work includes epidemiological studies, a type of research that is “incredibly valuable” in helping understand human health risks, according to Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for ORD.

“Not having that information means that we would rely on other kinds of research which can be informative but may underestimate the risk [of toxic chemicals],” Orme-Zavaleta said.

Past ORD research has been used to study the smoke in downtown Manhattan, New York after 9/11, the environmental effects of oil in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon blowout, and the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, said Christopher Frey, former Assistant Administrator of ORD and the current Associate Dean for Research and Infrastructure at NC State University’s College of Engineering.

Part of what has made ORD so effective is the firewall between scientists and policymakers that helps ensure the office produces unbiased research, said Frey.

Getting rid of ORD, with its unique structure and mission, would pull the rug out from under “a decades-long balance between the federal government, academia and industry that had provided tremendous innovation and economic growth for the country and has positioned the US as the world leader in science and technology,” he said.

PFAS research at risk

Insights from ORD are key to informing the EPA’s strategy for how tackling persistent pollutants in the environment such as PFAS, which are widespread in US drinking water and have been linked to health problems including cancer.

Working with the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, ORD developed the agency’s national PFAS testing strategy, which allows scientists to break down thousands of PFAS chemicals into categories, testing representative chemicals from each group to learn about their toxicity.

A monitoring program for unregulated chemicals in all mid-sized and large US drinking water systems that includes 29 types of PFAS has found 16 within unknown toxicities at detectable levels in drinking water, while 9 of the PFAS chemicals EPA has asked states to monitor for in fish also have unknown toxicities, said Southerland.

“We would have hoped that ORD would look at these 25 PFAS chemicals and make them a priority to try to figure out how toxic they are,” said Southerland. But if ORD is dissolved, the agency’s PFAS work would come to an end, she said.

And getting rid of ORD science wouldn’t just impact the federal EPA’s efforts to combat hazardous pollutants – it would also interfere with efforts by states, added Southerland, which have moved faster than the federal government in banning PFAS from various products.

“Most of the states really depend on ORD to give them the information on these PFAS chemicals, and all other chemicals for that matter…” Southerland said. “States would still have the ability to move forward with their own regulations, but only if ORD is still in existence.”

(Featured image by Mike Marrah on Unsplash.)