Did White House Release Misleading Information On 9-11 Air? White House Altered EPA Reports?

POSTED: 9:19 p.m. EDT September 3, 2003 UPDATED: 11:19 p.m. EDT September 3, 2003

Just a week after Sept. 11, 2001, the agency responsible for the environmental health of Americans-- the Environmental Protection Agency -- declared the air and water safe in New York.

But now, in her first interview, the EPA's top watchdog says the agency didn't have the facts when it said it was safe to move back to the offices and homes near ground zero -- and she's pointing the finger all the way to the White House.

In the wake of 9/11, there were serious concerns about whether the air around ground zero was filled with toxins that were unsafe for workers and residents.

But by Sept. 18, 2001, many New Yorkers were back in their apartments and on the job. Partly because of a press release that day from the EPA reassuring New Yorkers that "their air is safe to breathe."

In an exclusive interview, Inspector General Nikki Tinsley - the EPA's top watchdog -- told NBC News that the agency simply did not have sufficient data to justify such a reassurance.

In fact, a new report by Tinsley's office says at the time, more than 25 percent of dust samples collected before Sept. 18, 2001, showed unsafe levels of asbestos. But the EPA had no test results at all on PCBs, dioxins, or particulates in the air that can cause respiratory problems.

"The EPA did not give the people of New York complete information," Tinsley said. "It had put together press releases that were more informative than those that it ultimately released."

Tinsley's report charged that in crucial days after 9/11, the White House changed EPA press releases to "add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

On Sept. 13, 2001, the EPA draft release that was never released to the public said that EPA "testing terrorized sites for environmental hazards." The White House changed that to EPA "reassures public about environmental hazards."

On Sept 16, 2001, the EPA draft said that "recent samples of dust ... on Water Street show higher levels of asbestos." The White House version read: "new samples confirm ... ambient air quality meets OSHA government standards," and "is not a cause for public concern."

The White House omitted from the report this warning: "That air samples raise concerns for cleanup workers and office workers near Water Street."

So why were all of these changes made? Tinsley believes it was for security public relations.

"We were told that a desire to reopen Wall Street and national security concerns were the reasons for changing the press releases," Tinsley said.

When all the tests on PCBs and particulates did come in, they did not raise any red flags. But that does not satisfy Kathryn Freed, who lives near Ground zero and now has been diagnosed with bronchitis possibly caused by chemicals from 9/11. She never left her apartment, and feels misled.

"I did influence people to stay," Freed said. "I mean, it kind of made me feel better, I'm not sure I really believed it but there was part of me that said 'well, it's OK and I've just got to do what I've got to do' and there won't be health problems."

While Tinlsey suggests the White House misled the public about the air quality around Ground zero, she stops short of accusing anyone of actually lying, or knowingly providing false information. And Tinsley says the EPA handled most things during 9/11 very well.

In her first broadcast interview on this topic, former EPA Administrator Christie Whitman denies misleading anyone.

"The White House never directed the Environmental Protection Agency to withhold facts or to lie to the people of the city of New York."

James Connaughton, the head of the White House environmental policy group that changed the 9/11 press releases, agrees.

Isnt' this typical? The report itself and Tinsley's cover statement aren't intended as political attacks on The White House. Hillary (Bob Graham too) make the decision to use it as a weapon, now the rest of the media pack is piling on.

"PRESS STATEMENT UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Washington, D.C. 20460

August 22, 2003

(Contact: Eileen McMahon
webcomments.oig@epa.gov
(202) 566-2391

_______________________________________________________

Statement of Nikki L. Tinsley, Inspector General, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report, “EPA’s Response to the World Trade Center Collapse: Challenges, Successes, and Areas for Improvement” an evaluation of how EPA reacted to the September 11, 2001, collapse of the World Trade Center towers in New York City.

“This report, initiated by the OIG early in 2002, found that EPA staff did a commendable job reacting to the unprecedented disaster. Nonetheless, many problems were encountered and changes should be made so that EPA can better respond to future disasters.

Our evaluation was performed by a dedicated team that interviewed more than one hundred people, including key officials, air quality experts, rescue and demolition workers, and residents. The team also reviewed extensive documentation, to get a clear picture of how EPA responded to the World Trade Center collapse and how it can better respond to disasters in the future.

While EPA has already initiated actions as a result of its own internal lessons learned exercises, our report offers further recommendations that should result in improved contingency planning, risk assessment and characterization, and risk communication. A primary finding in our evaluation is that EPA needs to be prepared to assert its opinion and judgment on matters that impact human health and the environment, regardless of who else is involved or may share responsibility. Ultimately, the public, Congress, and others expect EPA to monitor and resolve environmental issues.

Evidence gathered through government hearings, news reports, public polls, health studies, and our own interviews indicated that the public did not receive sufficient air quality information and wanted more information on health risks. Because of those concerns, the Office of Inspector General conducted a survey of approximately 10,000 New York City residents regarding government communications, and the effectiveness in informing the public. The results of the survey are being evaluated and will be issued as a separate report.

In this report we state that while EPA’s actions to address health risks from indoor air pollutants in the World Trade Center area were consistent with applicable statutes and regulations, EPA could have taken a more proactive approach. Although statutes and regulations allowed for local agencies to lead the response, and New York City initially took that lead, the City’s actions were criticized.

The OIG acknowledges the hard work and effort of EPA employees as well as those from all levels of government in responding to this tragedy. Our report notes areas where things could have been done better, but it in no way diminishes the efforts of those involved.

Unfortunately, our country lives under the threat of future terrorist attacks, and it is important that we use what we have learned from the World Trade Center tragedy to make improvements to our emergency response capabilities. It is our hope that this report will inform that discussion and help EPA in its efforts to improve its ability to respond to large scale emergencies.”"

________________________________________________________

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/08/22/epa/index.html

This is the earliest article I could find published, on what is turning out to be a full frontal election year attack on President Bush. Hillary was the first one to use EPA IG Nikki L. Tinsley's report as a political weapon. It's really picking up steam now, with MSNBC doing a full segment on it, complete with footage of the 9-ll clean up.

I'm still looking, but can't find a bio on Nikki L. Tinsley.

Good reminder for the FR Bush bashers.

And remember, too, the veritable parade of politicians, movie stars, visiting dignitaries, and other celebrities who spent days traipsing through Ground Zero.

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet--although I haven't read every thread on this topic--is that clearing out ANY rubble is going to cause respiratory and other difficulties. It's the dust and, over time, the mold and rot that's uncovered--plus there are things in the walls of anyone's house or building that are best not breathed once it's been pulverized into dust.

I'm so weary of everyone pouncing on everything the President says and screaming Liar! Liar! like some brat in the "terrible twos."

HAVE WE ALL FORGOTTEN THE WHOPPERS TOLD BY THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION EVERY TIME THEY OPENED THEIR MOUTHS?

And when given even the slightest opportunity, they're still telling them.

Of course she's a lying hag! And I'm sick and tired of every wimp in NYC blaming every fart and cough on the attacks -- especially if they weren't even right here when it happened!

Hell, I was there and I came back to my home 5 blocks from the WTC site -- and other than a few temporary sore throats and mild headaches, I have suffered no ill effects. Most people have not, and I question the motives of most who claim they have.

Among so many others, I had a supervisor at work who was complaining of headaches and other physical "trauma" about 3-4 months after the attacks. Of course, she was on W.57th Street when the WTC was attacked and she lives in the W. 70s.

Another group of whiners was those who tried to use the "bad air" to get an even bigger rent concession from our landlord. As it was, we got something like 10% off our rent for the rest of our leases. But that wasn't enough, since some greedy clymers found out that other buildings owned by the same company that were practically on top of the WTC site got 25% or 30%. Me? I thanked my lucky stars that my home was intact and that instead of overlooking a tragic disaster site, I still had my usual views and that I still had relatively normal subway service and didn't have to walk blocks and blocks out of my way to get a train. But these people were ballsy enough to demand a rent concession equal to what those who live right over the WTC site were getting. Some of the "activist" tenants here set up a Yahoo group, and it made for some rather entertaining reading -- the declarations of self-importance, the hysteria and the pseudo activism in babbling about a "rent strike" for no apparent reason other than the fact that some felt entitled to it.

My personal favorite (and it was hard to choose from all those great entries) was the kid who decided that he's "too important" and too "busy" to take any time off from his job to look for a new apartment, but since the air here was supposedly having a signficantly adverse effect on his health, he felt entitled to pay even less rent. My entertainment came to crashing end when I pointed out that if his health is really *that* bad, then no amount of money is worth compromising his health and that demanding a bigger rent concession isn't going to make his alleged health problems go away. That, and my pointing out that whatever air problems people felt existed weren't the fault of the owners kind of brought the activist movement to a screeching halt.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.