EPA plays politics with itself

The Sierra Club issued a report Wednesday criticizing the Bush Administration's lack of action to contain health risks during the 9/11 clean up, claiming it showed "reckless disregard" for the public. The EPA decried the report, calling it a "scare tactic" and claiming the Sierra Club is playing politics with 9/11.

Let's not forget,however, what the EPA's internal watchdog agency said last year.

In the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attack on the World Trade Center, the White House instructed the Environmental Protection Agency to give the public misleading information, telling New Yorkers it was safe to breathe when reliable information on air quality was not available.

That finding is included in a report released Friday by the Office of the Inspector General of the EPA. It noted that some of the agency's news releases in the weeks after the attack were softened before being released to the public: Reassuring information was added, while cautionary information was deleted.

"When the EPA made a September 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to breathe, it did not have sufficient data and analyses to make such a blanket statement," the report says. "Furthermore, the White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced . . . the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

(snip)

A statement about discovery of asbestos at higher than safe levels in dust samples from lower Manhattan was changed to state that "samples confirm previous reports that ambient air quality meets OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) standards and consequently is not a cause for public concern."

Language in an EPA draft stating that asbestos levels in some areas were three times higher than national standards was changed to "slightly above the 1 percent trigger for defining asbestos material."

(snip)

The report also notes examples when EPA officials claimed that conditions were safe when no scientific support was available.

Which would seem to show a disregard on the part of the White House for public safety post 9/11, doesn't it? Which is what the Sierra Club is claiming, right?

Nice work, EPA. Nice work.