FEDERAL OFFICIALS owe two things to Bridgeton residents who live near the Lambert Field airport expansion: honesty and access. Both have been in short supply.

Nearly 300 buildings containing asbestos have been demolished for the airport expansion using the "wet method," which involves spraying water on a structure as it is torn down rather than removing the asbestos by hand. Use of the wet method is permitted under certain circumstances, few of which were met during the airport project.

Yet officials from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved the controversial method last spring when they belatedly discovered that airport officials had been using it since 2000. The EPA did so after it got a letter from Missouri Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond asking that the project be allowed to proceed. Mr. Bond chairs a committee that controls the EPA's budget.

When the EPA agreed to let airport contractors use the wet method, it apparently didn't know people were living next to demolition sites. That first came to light after the Post-Dispatch wrote about the controversial method - which the EPA subsequently banned - in May.

Bridgeton residents understandably were upset. About 100 showed up at an EPA public forum last week. Hoping to show strength in numbers, they asked the agency to answer their questions as a group but were rebuffed. Instead, they were told to take specific questions to tables where experts from the EPA, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the St. Louis County Health Department and the Airport Authority were seated. That goes against a 2003 EPA policy meant to encourage public participation. The goal of such meetings, the policy notes, is to "understand the goals and concerns of the public and respond to them."

Becky Dolph, an EPA lawyer who ran last week's meeting, said Monday the agency is looking at holding another public meeting. Still, Ms. Dolph insisted that the airport demolitions were done in a way that was "protective of the public health." She based her statement on a review conducted by EPA scientists of air samples taken from the expansion site.

But only nine of those samples were analyzed using techniques that could spot tiny asbestos fibers. Ideally, those samples would be collected both upwind and downwind of a building being demolished. That was done for samples taken at just two properties. Those taken at two other buildings were located upwind, which would be unlikely to capture asbestos released during demolition.

The EPA's analysis showed no significant concentrations of asbestos fibers. But the EPA analyst noted he could not be sure of such basic information as the wind direction during sampling. Without knowing that, the EPA can't be sure whether the public health was protected or imperiled.

It seems obvious to everyone but the EPA that the handling of this project was botched from the beginning. Now, instead of collecting ground samples and setting up a monitoring program, the EPA is offering spin and false assurances.

The people of Bridgeton deserve better than that. They deserve straight talk and answers from the EPA. They're still waiting.