Ground Zero Pollution

September 11: Anniversary of what else?

In his speech for the Republican national convention, George W Bush reminded the United States of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack. While giving full acknowledgement to the horrific attack on the World Trade Centre, there is a subsequent set of circumstances that perhaps forgot to mention: the controversy over the pollution from the disaster.

Immediately following the disaster, draft EPA press releases - which were cautionary and inconclusive in nature - required approval by the National Security Council (NSC) - via the Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ). The approved EPA press releases were reassuring in nature: the air was (in general) safe to breathe; it was safe (in general) for people to return to work. However, the fact of the matter is that the cloud of pollution radiating from the collapsed World Trade Centre towers was extremely hazardous.

This is how the story unfolds as I see it from following the media commentary. Approximately one month after the disaster a New York daily newspaper caught a whiff of something through the issuance of requests via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Congressman Jerry Nadler launched his own investigations, and in 2002 released a report: the “white paper”.

Also in 2002, the EPA ombudsman was writing a report that he says would have had similar conclusions to a report written approximately one year later by the Inspector General of the EPA - the ombudsman’s office was closed by the EPA administrator. The Inspector Generals report is said to have emerged due to the “white paper”. The EPA Inspector General’s report indicates that the EPA, and the then EPA administrator (Whitman), gave reassuring sentiments on an ongoing basis regarding the state of water and air pollution in relation to Ground Zero. However, contrary to evidence – including evidence from proposed press releases prior to being vetted by the National Security Council – the collapsing of the World Trade Towers released an extremely hazardous cloud of toxins.

The EPA Inspector Generals report – released in August 2003 – set off a huge public outcry. This lead to the filing of a number of class action lawsuits against the EPA and one or more people in the EPA – including the administrator (Whitman). Regarding one of the class actions, in February 2006 District Federal Court Judge Batts released a damning pre-trial opinion report, thus allowing the trial to continue. Except in situations that ‘shock the conscience’, individual public officials are granted personal immunity. The judge refused to grant the then administrator (Whitman) personal immunity. Also, Whitman was frequently criticised at a US House of Representatives ‘Ground Zero illnesses’ committee hearing in September 2006.

Congressman Nadler repeatedly raised concerns of White House involvement, and urged both Congress and the Department of Justice to investigate the matter. The matter is that the cautionary and inconclusive draft EPA press releases were replaced or amended by allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ NSC approved (via the CEQ) press releases.

The chairperson of the NSC is the President of the United States। At the time, and currently, that person is George W Bush. So it begs the question, as the litigation continues in relation to the allegedly ‘conscience shocking’ actions of the EPA and administrator Whitman, what then of the White House and President Bush; and by the way, who else sits on the National Security Council?

It now being September 2008, progress towards truth and justice on this issue has slowly made ground in the judiciary. One wonders what difference a Democrat in the White House might make?