EPA to seek to share information more freely
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency assured Congress on Wednesday it will resolve a sensational dispute with its inspector general over allegations that an EPA office run by President Obama's top political staff interfered with independent investigations.
EPA's deputy administrator, Bob Perciasepe, told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that he will instruct EPA's little-known Office of Homeland Security to seek permission to share information with the inspector general's office.
The announcement arrived during a congressional hearing once a top investigator with the inspector general testified that the office, run out of the EPA administrator's office, had for years systematically refused to share information on external threats, computer security and employee misconduct, citing national security.
In 2012, the office signed an agreement with the FBI to be the point of contact for all investigations with a national security connection. But Patrick Sullivan, an assistant EPA inspector general for investigations, told lawmakers that national security was an excuse to keep his office in the dark on misconduct allegations.
In response, Perciasepe said he will direct the office to seek permission of the FBI to be more forthcoming with the agency.
“We do not want to have a problem with the inspector general's access,” said Perciasepe, adding that since Obama took office, EPA personnel had cooperated with more than 2,600 audits and probes.
“The vast majority of work is done efficiently, appropriately and with good result,” he said.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.