Clinton, Nadler call for investigation of EPA response to 9-11

[DoYouEverWonder]

December 13th, 2005 1:50 PM


On Tuesday, local lawmakers requested an independent investigation into the way the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has responded to toxic dust--both the cleanup and the health effects--from the World Trade Center disaster.

Senator Hillary Clinton and Congressman Jerrold Nadler sent a letter to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, asking the non-partisan agency to probe EPA's "failure to establish an effective, science-based testing and clean-up plan" of 9-11-related contamination remaining downtown.

For nearly two years, dozens of people who live and work in and around Lower Manhattan have been locked in a debate with the EPA over a proposal to test for lingering trade center dust. With the help of an advisory panel convened in response to pressure from Senator Clinton, the EPA had proposed analyzing only limited samples from Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn. Last month, the agency scaled back its test and cleanup plan even more, sparking furor among residents, office workers, and others who have been pushing it to do the right thing.

In their letter, Clinton and Nadler express "serious concerns that EPA’s response to September 11th has not adequately protected public health and environment." The current plan – and the agency’s decision to dismantle the advisory panel—"repeats a familiar pattern in which the Agency has sought to downplay the potential risks and convey false assurances regarding World Trade Center contamination," they wrote, before setting out five specific questions for the GAO to investigate.

http://villagevoice.com/news/0550,lombardi,70936,2.html

[Tuesday_Morning]

1. yes! It's about time. n/t

[journalist3072]

2. Remember how..

The White House edited the EPA's report on the air quality in and around Ground Zero?

The White House deleted more cautionary statements that the EPA had put in the report, and inserted more re-assuring statements that they could not back up with data or facts.

OP-ED COLUMNIST
Dust and Deception
By PAUL KRUGMAN


ast week a quietly scathing report by the inspector general of the Environmental Protection Agency confirmed what some have long suspected: in the aftermath of the World Trade Center's collapse, the agency systematically misled New Yorkers about the risks the resulting air pollution posed to their health. And it did so under pressure from the White House.

The Bush administration has misled the public on many issues, from the budget outlook to the Iraqi threat. But this particular deception seems, at first sight, not just callous but gratuitous. It's only when you look back at budget politics in 2001 that you see the method in the administration's mendacity.

A draft E.P.A. report released last December conceded that 9/11 had led to huge emissions of pollutants. In particular, releases of dioxins — which are carcinogens and can also damage the nervous system and cause birth defects — created "likely the highest ambient concentrations that have ever been reported," up to 1,500 times normal levels. But the report concluded that because the outdoor air cleared after a couple of months, little harm had been done.

In fact, the main danger comes from toxic dust that seeped into buildings and remains in carpets, furniture and air ducts. According to a recent report in Salon, businesses that did environmental assessments of their own premises found alarming levels not just of dioxins but also of asbestos and other dangerous pollutants. So the most shocking revelation from the new report is that under White House direction, the E.P.A. suppressed warnings about indoor pollution. Scattered evidence suggests that as a result, hundreds of cleaning workers and thousands of residents may be suffering chronic health problems.

Why was crucial information withheld from the public? The report mentions "the desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns." Maybe — though the national security benefits of failing to remove toxic dust escape me. I suspect that there was another reason: budget politics.

Rest of article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/26/opinion/26KRUG.html?ex=1134622800&en=cdd5849876b81ce8&ei=5070&ex=1062911699&ei=1&en=985bf473a9a9c442

[OneBlueSky]

3. there's a hell of a lot more about 9/11 that should be investigated . . .

than just the EPA response in NYC . . . just what in the hell actually happened that day, for example . . .

[Blasphemer]

4. Good...

I'm glad to see Senator Clinton involved in this as it gets so little attention.

[leesa]

5. I'm waaaaay more interested in NORAD'S response to 9-11.

[jsamuel]

6. geez... just now, we have known about this for YEARS!... but at least they

are doing it now...