Politics choke clean-air efforts

Dudley's letter sparked a flurry of activity as EPA staffers were told to edit the final rule to reflect the White House's last-minute changes.

Johnson defended himself, saying the panel had gone too far; its recommendation was based on a "mixture of scientific and policy considerations." He did not have confidence, he added, in his own agency's scientific analysis. Adams, he noted, had his own reservations.

EPA staff members were appalled, calling the move "pure politics" in e-mails made public during a congressional investigation into Johnson's handling of the ozone standard. One questioned why a final version of the rule included a sentence about parks and forests, "since we're not really protecting any of them properly."

Another manager wrote: "I know how incredibly frustrated and disgusted we all are at the moment."

The last-minute shuffle also inflamed the science advisory panel.

"That's no way to set a standard, by fiat behind closed doors," Henderson said. "They have no shame."

Burnett, the former senior EPA aide who worked on the ozone decision with Johnson, said it was difficult to get the White House to understand the gravity of its decision.

"There were people at the White House who openly said they didn't believe smog causes health problems," he said. "How do you discuss policy with people like that?"

Panel members thought Johnson failed on both ozone rules.

In a letter to Johnson sent April 7, the panel wrote that it did "not endorse the new primary ozone standard as being sufficiently protective of public health," especially the most vulnerable, and that it failed "to satisfy the explicit stipulations of the Clean Air Act."

"It's outrageous," said John Balmes, a physician who studies ozone and served on the panel.

"When you have a committee of 23 people from a variety of disciplines unanimously agreeing on the science," Balmes said, "and he says separately that there is too much uncertainty to follow the recommendations of the panel, a kind phrase would be 'B.S.' This is not a committee of wild-eyed radicals."

Heavy metal

About the same time Henderson and the panel were considering ozone, they were also reviewing airborne lead.

It was one pollutant everyone could agree was bad.

Since the 1970s, evidence had been piling up that airborne lead spewed from smelting plants, leaded gasoline and other sources impaired cognitive functioning in children.

The EPA had not changed the standard since 1978.