The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed eliminating its scientific and research arm and up to 75% of its staff, leaving the future of the agency’s Duluth, Minn., freshwater laboratory and its more than 100 employees uncertain. The proposal for the EPA to eliminate its Office of Resea rch and Development, first reported Monday by the New York Times, is part of the “reduction in force” plans required throughout the federal government by the Trump administration. The potential cuts were outlined in documents reviewed by Democrats on the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. The ORD includes the Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division laboratory, which is world-renowned among aquatic scientists for developing scientific protocols used worldwide to measure how toxic chemicals affect the environment. What these cuts would mean for the Duluth lab is unclear. A portion of the reduction plan shared with the Duluth News Tribune by Science Committee Democratic staff said the EPA planned to “eliminate” the ORD and expected 50 to 75% of its more than 1,540 positions “will not be retained.” As of 2021, the Duluth lab employed 136 people, according to the agency. Reached by phone Wednesday, Dale Hoff, director of the Great Lakes Toxicology and Ecology Division in Duluth, said he couldn’t discuss the future of the Duluth lab. “Anybody who’s read that article knows as much as I do,” Hoff said, referring to Monday’s New York Times. During a virtual town hall meeting Tuesday, ORD officials told the EPA’s science and research employees, including those at the Duluth lab, that dismantling the ORD would likely require an act of Congress, according to two people at the meeting. Political appointees left career ORD officials out of the reduction-in-force discussions, the ORD officials told attendees. At a separate town hall Tuesday for Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure sites, which includes labs in Duluth and Durham, N.C., employees were told to download and save personnel files, writing samples and anything else they might want from their EPA computer, the two people said. U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., the ranking member on the science committee, said in a statement that the Trump administration was trying to kill the EPA and the ORD, but that doing so would violate the law. “EPA’s Office of Research and Development is in statute,” Lofgren said. “Eliminating it is illegal. … EPA cannot meet its legal obligation to use the best available science without ORD, and that’s the point. Donald Trump and Elon Musk are putting their polluter buddies’ bottom lines over the health and safety of Americans.” No response from Stauber U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, a Hermantown Republican whose district includes the Duluth lab, did not respond to the News Tribune’s request for comment on whether he supports the plan to eliminate ORD or if he is concerned about the potential loss of EPA jobs in his district. Asked what the plan meant for the Duluth lab, EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou said the agency was “taking exciting steps as we enter the next phase of organizational improvements” and that it was “committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water, and land for all Americans.” “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,” Vaseliou said. Jack Kelly, who worked as chief of the ecology branch at the Duluth lab from 1998 to 2015, told the News Tribune that EPA’s reduction in force plan targeting the ORD was “really, really upsetting.” “The country has invested in the training, schooling and development of these people to serve a purpose — protecting humans and the environment,” Kelly said. “There’s been a great amount of money invested in this … to throw that away is beyond ridiculous in my mind. To him, the lab is a place where methods were developed to track the quality of the Great Lakes, standards were established on pollutants, and new chemicals that come along were evaluated, like PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), commonly known as “forever chemicals.” “On a personal level, just right away, I object to the not-very-subtle and, frankly, quite ignorant characterization that comes with this,” Kelly said. “My entire life’s pursuit in environmental research and protection is pretty useless and just wasteful spending?” Kelly said the employees at the Duluth lab work there because they are committed to protecting the environment, even though they could probably make more money elsewhere. “It’s hard to swallow the idea that you just toss this out with the garbage,” he said. John Morrice, of Duluth, worked at the EPA lab in Duluth for 15 years as a research biologist studying Great Lakes ecosystems. He retired 12 years ago but worked under both Republican and Democratic administrations. While Republicans often targeted EPA’s regulatory enforcement side, Morrice said the agency’s science and research arms were largely left alone. “There is a need to have better science to underpin the establishment and enforcement of chemicals in our waters as part of the Clean Water Act … the (Duluth) lab has set up teams to try to address that need,” Morrice told the News Tribune. “These are ongoing projects that I don’t think universities and academia are really in a position to pick up the slack if the lab were to disappear.” He cited evaluating and assessing St. Louis River Estuary restoration efforts, creating water criteria for Great Lakes coastal regions, and studying the responses of fish and other organisms to different chemicals among the lab’s “huge successes” over its nearly 60-year history. History Established in 1967, the lab predates the EPA by three years. Its roots go back a few more years. In 1961, U.S. Rep. John Blatnik, D-Minn., sponsored an amendment to the new Federal Water Pollution Act to create federal water quality labs in key areas of the United States. Blatnik picked Duluth (in his home district) as the Great Lakes site. Legend has it that a new congressional aide named Jim Oberstar helped pick the site. Oberstar worked for Blatnik and the powerful House Public Works Committee that Blatnik headed. Later, after he was elected to Congress and served on the same committee, Oberstar returned to visit the lab often, extolling its work. Construction began in 1965 when the lab was under the Federal Public Health Service. By the time it was dedicated two years later, it was part of the Water Pollution Control Administration. It joined the EPA when President Richard Nixon established the agency in 1970. Most recently, its work focused on developing baseline scientific data/protocol for testing chemical impacts on organisms. Without the lab, Kelly said, “We’re talking about not just a loss to the scientific community. We’re talking a loss to the population of the United States … they (the Duluth lab) speak to all kinds of issues of how we need to live and protect the environment so that we protect ourselves.” Related Articles Business | ‘Toothpick Boss’ Jerry Hackett, 85, painstakingly builds replicas of iconic Minnesota structures Business | Gophers drop WCHA title game to Badgers Business | Ontario threat on electricity would have little effect on Minnesota Power, regional grid Business | Charges: Shoplifting suspect delivered several strikes to Roseville officer’s head, injuring him Business | Vulnerable animals find new homes after Roseville aquarium closure ...read more read less