An internal workplace survey commissioned by the EPA reveals a work environment that agency scientists and other staff describe as “hostile,” “oppressive,” “toxic,” “extremely toxic,” and “incredibly toxic.” After whistleblowers from the Environmental Protection Agencys New Chemicals Division publicly accused several colleagues and supervisors of altering chemical assessments to make chemicals seem safer, the agency hired consultants to ask employees about their experiences of working in the division, which assesses the safety of chemicals being introduced to the market. The resulting survey ReportThis January report, which was released in response a public records demand in March, shows an agency that is plagued by internal disputes. It also shows a workforce that is torn between its environmental mission and the intense pressure of chemical companies to approve products as quickly as possible within tight deadlines.
The intertwined stressors seem to have made work a form of pain for some of the 29 respondents to the survey. When I joined the [New Chemicals Division in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics]One agency employee wrote that my expectations were high because I was in the core sector to protect America’s environment and public. I’m now failing to live up to my excitement for the EPA and my duties as an environmental justice worker for the public. The harsh environment has left me exhausted and worn out.
Staff were told to leave the room if they expressed a scientific opinion contrary to management.
One respondent shared a description of meetings at which risk assessors are afraid to speak. Another said that staff were told to leave the room if they voiced a scientific opinion that was not in line with management. Others claimed that they were subject to retaliation if they raised scientific concerns with their superiors. One staff member claimed that he became physically ill due to stress in the new chemical division. Another employee mentioned that people are often made cry during interviews about the workplace.
Although the report was redacted in order to protect the identities of individuals, it nonetheless conveyed a pointed mistrust of staff members. The Risk Assessors fear to talk on conference calls with companies. [redacted]Is there, one person noted in an interview, going on with saying that [redacted]is hostile and makes false complaints regarding the Risk Assessors. Another commentator said that people are afraid of [redacted]. Even the agency’s attempt to get employees opinions and feelings about their work culture as part of a larger effort at addressing scientific integrity problems at the agency didn’t go unnoticed by co-workers. The listening sessions were very ineffective because there was very little participation. [redacted]One staff member noted that buddy was logged in to spy.
Despite these tensions, many employees responded to the survey with enthusiasm about the agency’s mission of protecting public health and the environment against toxic chemicals. One worker wrote that she knows that the work that I do protects herself and others so that my family, community, and the entire world have access to clean, safe water, air and land that can be used for their benefit. It brings me great joy to serve them in such a way.
Most staff believe they don’t protect the public and favor industry over them.
Others lamented the disconnect between the agency’s mission and their actual jobs. One staff member quoted in this report stated that if I take a moment to reflect on the potential benefits of the work I do, I can take pride in it. This is difficult to see in the day-today. While I can write an inspiring/impressive blurb about work, the daily tasks of work can quickly make the highlights reel of my work seem like a complete distortion.
A majority of respondents blamed chemical firms for deteriorating the agency’s environment. They suggested new managers should be hired for OPPT without any ties to the sector. What makes you feel good about your workplace and work? One staff member said, “Not much.” OPPT stands for chaos. Many staff believe they are not protecting the public, and that decisions favor industry.
Survey Underscores Whistleblower Allegations
Many of the responses in this report support the allegations made by whistleblowers. Since July, they have provided The Intercept, EPA Inspector General and members of Congress detailed evidence that certain managers and high-ranking officials in the division of new chemical have interfered with dozens upon assessments. They shared screenshots of emails, reports from internal meetings, and draft chemical assessment documents that revealed a pattern of industry influence within the division. This led to pressure on risk assessors to reduce or eliminate the potential dangers of chemicals. Documents show that in many cases, managers changed or deleted the findings of risk assessors when they refused to do so.
Five Ph.D. scientists from the Division of New Chemicals provided the majority of the evidence. However, the EPA has released a new survey that provides a wider view into the experiences of the workers in the division. The Federal Consulting Group conducted 13 listening sessions and 10 individual interview as part of its assessment. (Some employees may have participated both in surveys and listening groups. This makes it difficult to determine the total number of participants.
The new report contains more detailed notes from listening sessions and interviews, as well as direct quotes of the surveys. It reveals a range frustrations felt by workers, and a line of distrust that seems to divide staff working on new chemicals. One respondent blamed the whistleblowers for the disorganized environment. We are unable get anything done because our meetings are more likely being recorded without us knowledge and consent, the person wrote. This could be referring to an audio recording (made possibly by a consultant) of a meeting where high-priority hair on fire cases were discussed. Some staff members described being forced to change their scientific findings by higher-ranking staff. One staff member said that management micromanages staff risk assessments and interferes with their ability to get work done. Multiple rounds of review were done on assessments in order to reduce risk finding. Another replied that managers from the Branch Chief level up to and including the Managers of the Branch Chief level were responsible for reviewing the assessments. [assistant administrator] level force technical experts to do unethical or illegal things and block scientific information from being released if it says something they don’t like.
The new report depicts scientists who are unable to do their jobs properly because they feel mistrustful of their superiors. It is similar to the findings of a 2020 surveyPublic Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), performed the survey. Only 41 percent of 181 employees of the agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, which houses the New Chemicals Division of the survey, agreed with the statement “I can disclose a suspected violation of any law rule or regulation without fear of reprisal.” Only 18% of respondents to the PEER poll agreed with the statement, “My organization’s senior leaders uphold high standards of honesty & integrity.”
PEER, who represented the whistleblowers and filed the Freedom of Information Act Act Request for the internal document, stated that the newly published document vindicated the clients of the group. It supports everything theyve been saying regarding bullying, morale and catering to industry, according to Kyla Bennett (director of science policy at PEER). Bennett also criticized EPA’s inability to make the report public. The fact that EPA failed to give this information out to employees is disconcerting.
The EPA responded to questions from The Intercept by email. It stated that it was committed to resolving the issues plaguing the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. OCSPP is committed ensuring the highest scientific integrity throughout the office and will investigate any allegations of scientific integrity violations. OCSPPis also committed to creating a work environment that encourages respect among all levels of staff, supports work/life balance, allows for open discussion of scientific and policy viewpoints, and accomplishes its mission of protecting the environment and human health.
Overworked, under-resourced
A lack of resources appears to be putting more pressure on scientists responsible for chemical assessment. Michal Freedhoff, EPA Assistant Administrator, was appointed to the position in October. SubmittedMembers of the House Energy and Commerce Committee discovered that the EPA does not have the necessary resources to implement the new chemicals program as Congress intended. The EPA also blamed a shortage of resources for its inability to publish the risk reports for 1,240 chemicals. The internal report paints a grim portrait of the difficulties of trying to conduct complex scientific evaluations on chemical newcomers without sufficient staff or resources.
One employee explained that there are only a few human health assessors who are responsible for all new chemical cases. This means that each one could have more than 100 cases to keep track of at any given time. That’s too much work and quality can suffer as a result. One staff member was able to answer the question about the most important things that need to happen to improve the organization. This is four times the number of people we have currently.
The Lautenberg Act update in 2016 has placed increased demands on assessors. This may explain part of the problem. One respondent described the overwhelming workload as “woefully understaffed” given the 2016 mandate. Lautenberg requires us all to conduct a risk assessment finding on all cases (400-500 per year), whereas we would only have to do this for 20% cases before 2016.
The 2023 budget for EPA, released by President Joe Biden this week, could address some of the problems if it is funded. The president requested $11.881 trillion for the agency, including $124 million to help fulfill the promises made to Americans by the bipartisan Lautenberg Act. According to Michael Regan, EPA Administrator, the money would pay for 449 employees and support EPA-initiated chemical risks evaluations and protective regulations in compliance with statutory timelines.
Photo by Samuel Corum/Bloomberg via Getty Images
These documents are meant for clear, written instructions about how to do routine activities. However, it is hard to imagine such basic documents. One EPA employee was quoted in the climate assessment as saying that even writing SOPs has been a source for contention about how to deal avec industry involvement. We can’t write SOPs because we might forget a reference that the American Chemistry Council might have wanted to be included and if they ask for us to include a reference that we didn’t at the start then the whole thing has to be thrown out and we have to perform a sacrifice to redeem ourselves in the eyes of some unknown god, wrote the employee. The American Chemistry Council is a trade organization that represents many chemical companies.
In January, the EPA published a memo on the climate assessment. This summarized the findings from the survey and acknowledged the feelings of frustration, anger, fear, and anger expressed by employees about working at the New Chemicals Division. Freedhoff reiterated her commitment to take appropriate actions to address inappropriate workplace behavior in certain circumstances, including when responding to inspector general recommendations. In a February interview, Freedhoff also reiterated her commitment in taking action to address substantiated cases involving harassment, scientific integrity violations, or recommendations from The Intercept.
The EPA stated that it is committed to resolving problems within the New Chemicals Division of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention in a statement to The Intercept. Dr. Freedhoff’s goal is to foster a collaborative work environment that allows OCSPP staff to better collaborate to protect human health.
The EPA also noted recent changes that the agency made to improve scientific integrity and strengthen its new chemicals program. The new efforts include a ProgramTo simplify the review of new chemicals; PartnershipThe Office of Research and Development collaborated with Stan Barone, the new science policy adviser at the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Some people feel that the changes are too late. Survey respondents and interviewees mentioned former colleagues who left difficult work situations to find other jobs. One worker said that people leave because of poor upper management. They feel happy that they don’t have to deal anymore with bad management and then convince others to leave. Another worker attributed the departures of workers to divisions’ scientific integrity problems. He wrote, The staff knows that they have no recourse if confronted by unethical or illegal management.
Others stated that they hoped to be like their coworkers. If you were asked what your greatest hope for the future, one employee said that it was to follow their co-workers out the door. One employee answered, “I find a new job as soon I can.” Another employee wrote, “I am willing to take a lateral job or move to another agency to escape this dysfunctional organization.”
Others were determined to continue doing science at the agency and affirmed their loyalty to the New Chemicals Division’s work, if not the current workplace cultures. One scientist wrote that they want a safe place to work without being bullied or discriminated against. Another scientist agreed and expressed the desire to continue the work, but with one caveat: I don’t have to worry about management interference.
