Latest news with #ORD
Miami Herald
9 hours ago
- Health
- Miami Herald
The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?
In the wake of the Trump administration's decision to dismantle the research arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a robust if little-known California agency known as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is poised to take on an even bigger role to bridge the gap. The EPA this month announced that it was eliminating nearly 4,000 employees as part of a cost-saving "reduction in force," the majority of which are staffers from its Office of Research and Development - whose research into environmental risks and hazards underpins nearly all EPA rules and regulations. The reduction will save the agency $748.8 million, officials said. "Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback," read a statement from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. "This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars." The ORD had been in operation since the EPA was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and was focused on conducting scientific research to help advance the EPA's goals of protecting human health and the environment. Experts said the decision to break up the research office sends a chilling signal for science and will leave more communities exposed to environmental hazards such as industrial chemicals, wildfire smoke and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances - or PFAs - in drinking water, all of which are subject to the department's analysis. "The people of this country are not well served by these actions," read a statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. "They are left more vulnerable." It also shifts the onus onto California and other states to fill the void left by the federal government. ORD's research supported work around Superfund site cleanups and environmental disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires or the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. "There will be another East Palestine, another Exxon Valdez [oil spill] - some disaster will happen ... and those communities will be hurt when they don't have to be," said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at UC San Francisco and a former senior scientist and policy advisor with EPA's Office of Policy. The Golden State appears better positioned than many others carry on the work - particularly through the small but mighty department Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, located within the California Environmental Protection Agency. "California has for some time developed a pretty robust infrastructure of assessing the health harms of toxic chemicals and pollutants," Woodruff said. "So in that way, we're better off than almost any other state because we have such a stellar group of scientists." Indeed, California is known for some of its more rigorous health-based standards and regulations, such as the Proposition 65 warnings posted by businesses across the state to advise people of the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which are overseen by OEHAA. By dismantling ORD, the EPA is further politicizing the independent science and research that underpins so many of the nation's regulations, said Yana Garcia, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection. While California remains dedicated to such science, she said other states may not be so lucky. "We will continue to keep the work of OEHHA strong and remain committed to it, but we're still getting a handle on what this loss really means," Garcia said. "It is a huge loss to California. It is an even bigger loss to so many other states that don't have an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments like we do." Kris Thayer, OEHHA's director, came to agency from ORD, where she directed its IRIS program for identifying and characterizing the human health hazards of chemicals. She said the state is "absolutely going to be looking at every way that we can fill the void given our resources, but we are going to feel the pinch of this." "It's not only that the quantity of assessments will be reduced, but the credibility of the assessments will be reduced, because they will be developed by programs where there's a lot more opportunity for political interference in terms of the science that gets shaped," she said. Chemical industry and other anti-regulatory groups have lobbied for the EPA to limit ORD's influence. A January letter addressed to Zeldin spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and 80 other organizations said risk assessments developed by ORD were "being used to develop overly burdensome regulations on critical chemistries essential for products we use every day." In particular, they cited the government's evaluation of chemicals including formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and hexavalent chromium, which can be used or created by industrial processes. The groups charged the agency with a lack of impartiality and transparency, a slow process and limited peer review. Thayer noted that a lot of assessment work conducted by ORD is used in California. On the other hand, a number of states and EPA programs also look to California's assessments. "We're going to be monitoring how this unfolds, but we're certainly going to be looking to do everything we can to meet capacity - we're not going to be able to fully meet it - and recognizing that our work will not only impact California, but can be used by other states," she said. Garcia said California has hired a number of people from the federal government over the past year and is open to absorbing more EPA employees who were recently laid off. OEHHA has a number of open positions. "California remains open for [a] rigorous, science-based approach to health and environmental protections," Garcia said. Woodruff, of UCSF, said she hopes to see California and other states invest more in OEHAA and other scientific agencies by offering better salaries and bolstering staff numbers. But ultimately, she said the Golden State can use this moment to become an example for others to follow. "California could be a real leader for all the other states who also want to keep doing right by their by their constituents and continuing to address toxic chemical exposure," she said. Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Forbes
5 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
American Airlines CEO Jabs Back After Attack By United CEO
Airline execs Scott Kirby, Robert Isom, Ed Bastian, Joanna Geraghty and Robert Jordan attended ... More unveiling of a new ATC system in May. (Photo by Win McNamee) American Airlines CEO Robert Isom on Thursday countered recent negative comments by United's CEO, saying, 'We don't run our airline based on other airlines' perception of our business' Speaking on American's second quarter earnings call, Isom also noted that the carrier is growing at Chicago O'Hare. While United regularly touts its market dominance at ORD, Isom called the airport 'a tremendous opportunity for American,' which had cut back on regional subsidiary flying due to the pilot shortage. 'You'll see Chicago hit 485 peak departures, over 500 as we take a look into next year.' Isom said. At ORD, United currently has about 500 daily departures to 200 destinations, while American has about 480 daily departures to 160 destinations. Isom spoke on American's second quarter earnings call, the last of the earnings calls by the big three carriers. A week earlier, on the United earnings call, CEO Scott Kirby said that the U.S. airline sector has 'two brand loyal airlines really winning and everybody else losing.' He identified United and Delta as the two winners. Kirby added that 'If I dig deeper into it and I look at every airline that's not named United or Delta, I can find at every single one of them, a double-digit percentage of their route network that loses money.' Later on the United call, Andrew Nocella, chief operating officer, noted 'documented share gains in each of our hubs:' O'Hare is arguably the airport where American is best poised to fight back. Isom responded to a question from JP Morgan analyst Jamie Baker, who referred to Kirby's statement and asked, 'Give us an approximation – What overall percentage of American flying loses money?' Isom did not directly respond to that question. However, he noted two 'primary differentiators between us and some of our competitors.' One is that American is 70% domestic, the largest share among the three global carriers. 'We do have a network that we're proud to say is more oriented towards the domestic network' Isom said. American repeatedly explained its second quarter underperformance by citing domestic concentration at a time when international flying is more profitable. Isom cited, 'The reluctance of domestic passengers to get in the game' and said 'We think that's going to change.' The second differentiator Isom cited is that 'We are paying our team members at market wages. Others are benefitting from not doing that.' Isom seemed to refer to United's flight attendant contract, which is currently out for ratification by members. American Airlines did not respond to a request for clarification. While American flight attendants currently have a better contract, United's second quarter results included $561 million to pay flight attendants signing bonuses. Moreover, United CFO Mike Leskinen noted that his cost estimate for the third and fourth quarters includes the cost of a flight attendant contract. The total cost of the contract is about $6 billion over five years, so United's second quarter spending on signing bonuses is arguably more than the quarterly cost of the contract. Possibly Isom was referring to the wages that Delta pays its mechanics and fleet service workers. They are non-union: The International Association of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are seeking to organize the two groups, respectively, while the Association of Flight Attendants is seeking to organize Delta flight attendants. Isom and Kirby, who once worked together at US Airways, have traded barbs over the past year. 'It's like parents yelling at a little league game,' said Dennis Tajer, spokesman for Allied Pilots Association, which represents American pilots. ted
Los Angeles Times
6 days ago
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
The Trump administration is gutting EPA's research arm. Can California bridge the gap?
In the wake of the Trump administration's decision to dismantle the research arm of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a robust if little-known California agency known as the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is poised to take on an even bigger role to bridge the gap. The EPA this month announced that it was eliminating nearly 4,000 employees as part of a cost-saving 'reduction in force,' the majority of which are staffers from its Office of Research and Development — whose research into environmental risks and hazards underpins nearly all EPA rules and regulations. The reduction will save the agency $748.8 million, officials said. 'Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback,' read a statement from EPA administrator Lee Zeldin. 'This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.' The ORD had been in operation since the EPA was established by President Richard Nixon in 1970 and was focused on conducting scientific research to help advance the EPA's goals of protecting human health and the environment. Experts said the decision to break up the research office sends a chilling signal for science and will leave more communities exposed to environmental hazards such as industrial chemicals, wildfire smoke and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — or PFAs — in drinking water, all of which are subject to the department's analysis. 'The people of this country are not well served by these actions,' read a statement from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, former EPA Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science. 'They are left more vulnerable.' It also shifts the onus onto California and other states to fill the void left by the federal government. ORD's research supported work around Superfund site cleanups and environmental disasters such as the Los Angeles wildfires or the East Palestine, Ohio, train derailment. 'There will be another East Palestine, another Exxon Valdez [oil spill] — some disaster will happen ... and those communities will be hurt when they don't have to be,' said Tracey Woodruff, a professor at UC San Francisco and a former senior scientist and policy advisor with EPA's Office of Policy. The Golden State appears better positioned than many others carry on the work — particularly through the small but mighty department Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or OEHHA, located within the California Environmental Protection Agency. 'California has for some time developed a pretty robust infrastructure of assessing the health harms of toxic chemicals and pollutants,' Woodruff said. 'So in that way, we're better off than almost any other state because we have such a stellar group of scientists.' Indeed, California is known for some of its more rigorous health-based standards and regulations, such as the Proposition 65 warnings posted by businesses across the state to advise people of the presence of cancer-causing chemicals, which are overseen by OEHAA. By dismantling ORD, the EPA is further politicizing the independent science and research that underpins so many of the nation's regulations, said Yana Garcia, California's Secretary for Environmental Protection. While California remains dedicated to such science, she said other states may not be so lucky. 'We will continue to keep the work of OEHHA strong and remain committed to it, but we're still getting a handle on what this loss really means,' Garcia said. 'It is a huge loss to California. It is an even bigger loss to so many other states that don't have an Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessments like we do.' Kris Thayer, OEHHA's director, came to agency from ORD, where she directed its IRIS program for identifying and characterizing the human health hazards of chemicals. She said the state is 'absolutely going to be looking at every way that we can fill the void given our resources, but we are going to feel the pinch of this.' 'It's not only that the quantity of assessments will be reduced, but the credibility of the assessments will be reduced, because they will be developed by programs where there's a lot more opportunity for political interference in terms of the science that gets shaped,' she said. Chemical industry and other anti-regulatory groups have lobbied for the EPA to limit ORD's influence. A January letter addressed to Zeldin spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council and 80 other organizations said risk assessments developed by ORD were 'being used to develop overly burdensome regulations on critical chemistries essential for products we use every day.' In particular, they cited the government's evaluation of chemicals including formaldehyde, inorganic arsenic and hexavalent chromium, which can be used or created by industrial processes. The groups charged the agency with a lack of impartiality and transparency, a slow process and limited peer review. Thayer noted that a lot of assessment work conducted by ORD is used in California. On the other hand, a number of states and EPA programs also look to California's assessments. 'We're going to be monitoring how this unfolds, but we're certainly going to be looking to do everything we can to meet capacity — we're not going to be able to fully meet it — and recognizing that our work will not only impact California, but can be used by other states,' she said. Garcia said California has hired a number of people from the federal government over the past year and is open to absorbing more EPA employees who were recently laid off. OEHHA has a number of open positions. 'California remains open for [a] rigorous, science-based approach to health and environmental protections,' Garcia said. Woodruff, of UCSF, said she hopes to see California and other states invest more in OEHAA and other scientific agencies by offering better salaries and bolstering staff numbers. But ultimately, she said the Golden State can use this moment to become an example for others to follow. 'California could be a real leader for all the other states who also want to keep doing right by their by their constituents and continuing to address toxic chemical exposure,' she said.
E&E News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- E&E News
‘Total chaos': EPA staffers slam research office fallout
The Trump administration's plans to eliminate EPA's stand-alone science office have left employees with more questions than answers. 'If this sounds like they're doing this on the fly, they're doing this on the fly,' said one agency employee. 'It's not organized. It's total chaos.' Among other lingering unknowns is which — and how many — Office of Research and Development staffers will receive layoff notices versus who will get reassigned to other offices, according to EPA employees granted anonymity to speak freely because they fear retaliation. Advertisement Some employees have received reassignments for internal positions they were encouraged to apply to in May, before they knew ORD's fate.
WIRED
21-07-2025
- Business
- WIRED
EPA Employees Still in the Dark as Agency Dismantles Scientific Research Office
Jul 21, 2025 5:26 PM As the EPA moves to shut down the Office of Research and Development, leadership is unable to answer questions as basic as when it will close and how many will lose their jobs. Photograph: Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images Employees of the crucial scientific research arm of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been left with more questions than answers as the agency moves to officially wind down the office following months of back-and-forth. On Friday evening, the EPA issued a press release announcing a reduction in force at the Office of Research and Development (ORD), citing the move as part of a larger effort to save a purported $748.8 million. On Monday, some employees at ORD, the largest office in the agency, began receiving emails detailing that they had been assigned new positions within the EPA. 'Please note, this is not an offer, but a notice of reassignment,' says a letter sent to an employee and viewed by WIRED states; the employee had previously applied to positions within the agency, as ORD employees were instructed to do in May. 'There is no action you need to take the reassignment, and there is no option to decline.' On a call with ORD administrators and staff held Monday afternoon, audio of which was obtained by WIRED, leadership—including ORD acting administrator Maureen Gwinn—was unable to answer basic questions from employees, including a timeline for when the agency planned to permanently end ORD, how many employees would be transferred to other offices, and how many would lose their jobs. Employees at ORD who spoke with WIRED say that Friday's public-facing email was the first concrete news they had heard about their organization's future. One worker told WIRED that employees often learned more from news outlets, including WIRED, 'than we do from our management.' "We wish we had more information for you," Gwinn told staff on the call. "I'll speak for myself, I wish we weren't at this point today." An EPA spokesperson, who declined to give their name, wrote in response to a series of questions from WIRED that the agency is currently offering its third voluntary resignation period, known as a DRP, which ends on July 25. 'The RIF process entails a number of specific procedures in accordance with OPM regulations,' they said. 'The next step in this process is to issue intent to RIF notices to individual employees.' That number 'won't be clear,' they said, until after the DRP process was over. 'This is not an elimination of science and research,' the spokesperson wrote. 'We are confident EPA has the resources needed to accomplish the agency's core mission of protecting human health and the environment, fulfill all statutory obligations, and make the best-informed decisions based on the gold standard of science.' At the start of the year, ORD was composed of between one and two thousand scientists at labs spread across the country as well as in Washington, DC. The branch's work provides much of the science that underpins the policy formed in the agency, from research on chemicals' impacts on human health and the environment to air quality and climate change to planning for emergencies and responding to contaminations in air, soil, and water. The office contains many groups and initiatives that are crucial to protecting the environment and human health, including a team that studies human health risks from chemicals. Several EPA scientists stressed to WIRED that ORD's current structure, which allows research to happen independent of the policy-making that occurs in other parts of the agency, is crucial to producing quality work. One told WIRED that they worked in a scientific role in an EPA policy office under the first Trump administration. There, they felt that their job was to 'try and mine the science to support a policy decision that had already been made.' The structure at ORD, they said, provides a layer of insulation between decision-makers and the scientific process. ORD was heavily singled out in Project 2025's Mandate for Leadership document, the policy blueprint that has closely anticipated the Trump administration's moves in office. It described the branch as 'precautionary, bloated, unaccountable, closed, outcome-driven, hostile to public and legislative input, and inclined to pursue political rather than purely scientific goals.' The plan did not, however, propose doing away with the organization. But in March, documents presented to the White House by agency leadership proposed dissolving ORD, resulting in backlash from Democrats in Congress. In early May, the EPA announced it would be reorganizing its structure, which administrator Lee Zeldin wrote in a Newsweek op-ed would 'improve' the agency by 'integrating scientific staff directly into our program offices." The agency said that it would create a new Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions (OASES), which would sit under the Office of the Administrator. Putting much of ORD's scientific work in policy offices, the scientist who previously worked in a policy office told WIRED, means that 'we're going to end up seeing science that has been unduly interested by policy interests. I don't think that's going to result in policy decisions that are empirically supportable.' Following May's reorganization announcement, ORD employees were encouraged to apply for jobs within other parts of the agency. Multiple workers who spoke with WIRED say that the job postings for these new positions were barebones, with few descriptions of what the work would actually entail. One job posting seen by WIRED labels the posting simply as 'Interdisciplinary Scientific & Engineering Positions,' with no information about the topic area, team, or scientific expertise required. The EPA's reorganization efforts were temporarily stalled by lawsuits. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court paused a preliminary injunction blocking further mass reductions in force at 17 federal agencies, including the EPA. There was one bright spot on Monday's call: ORD leadership told employees that all of the ORD-affiliated labs would be kept open, a piece of news that ran contrary to some previous reports. Still, workers say that it's becoming increasingly difficult to do science at EPA. More than 325 ORD workers—around a fifth of ORD's ranks—had taken voluntary retirements since the start of the year, according to the EPA spokesperson. A scientist told WIRED that while they usually would have had a small team helping with their field work, they've been left to handle everything alone, including 'washing dishes and labeling bottles.' Cumbersome new financial approval processes, they said, have also resulted in chemicals that they ordered being delayed for months and expensive equipment sitting without any repairs. Since taking office, Zeldin has made it clear that he intends to relax environmental regulations, especially around business: Last week, he authored an op-ed in Fox News advertising how the agency would essentially erase the Clean Air Act permitting process for power plants and data centers in order to 'make America the AI capital of the world.' ORD scientists fear that the dissolution of their office will only make this pro-business mission easier. 'If you're going to end up rolling back air quality regulations—and we know, conclusively at this point, that ozone pollution is causing premature mortality and chronic effects—if you roll back the rules, you're going to see excess cases of death and illness,' one scientist tells WIRED. 'My guess is that [EPA leadership] don't want to know the answer to the question of how bad it is going to be.'
