Agencies Scrub Web Sites Of Sensitive Chemical Data Government Debates Safety Versus Security
Previous Current Articles Next
Subject: Keeping the public in the dark.............................
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 13:36:43 -0400
From: Stephen Tvedten <steve@getipm.com>
Organization: Get Set Inc. (www.getipm.com)
To: Paul Helliker <phelliker@cdpr.ca.gov>
Director, State of
California, Department of Pesticide Regulation
cc: Christine Whitman whitman.christine@epa.gov
Dear Mr. Helliker, I thought you might like to read an article entitled: Agencies Scrub Web Sites Of Sensitive Chemical Data Government Debates Safety Versus Security By Guy Gugliotta - Washington Post Staff Writer
Some federal agencies have been removing documents from Internet sites to keep them away from terrorists, rekindling concerns that important information is being withheld from communities at risk from hazardous chemicals.
The documents contain information about potentially dangerous, yet commonly available materials such as chlorine, gasoline or pesticides, which can cause serious damage or death if misused or deliberately freed into the environment.
"This has received so much publicity that we decided to take [the information] down," said Jim Makris, Environmental Protection Agency emergency coordinator. "We're trying to decide whether it was the proper thing to do."
The EPA dismantled its risk management program Web site, which contains general information about emergency plans and chemicals used at 15,000 sites nationwide. More sensitive information about "worst case" chemical accidents is kept in special reading rooms.
At the Department of Transportation, officials removed pipeline mapping information as well as a study describing risk profiles of various chemicals. "We thought this was maybe too easy a place to locate all this information," said a knowledgeable department source who asked not to be named.
And the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed a "Report on Chemical Terrorism," which describes industry's shortcomings in preparing for a possible terrorist attack.
Officials at the three agencies said each decided on its own to remove the documents.
Nevertheless, the decisions reopened the delicate question about how much people ought to know about the safety of hazardous chemicals in their communities before knowledge begins to compromise national security.
The issue was joined in 1999, when chemical users were required to describe "worst case" accidents that could occur at their facilities and make that information publicly available to EPA's risk management program.
The information concerned the handling, storage, processing and transportation of substances at once mundane and lethal: ammonium nitrate, a common fertilizer transformed into a deadly explosive by Timothy J. McVeigh in Oklahoma City; methyl bromide, a toxic gas used to kill termites in "tented" houses; chlorine, for water purification; and gasoline.
Industry and the FBI approached the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, urging it to temper the disclosure requirements because of the targeting potential such information might have for terorrists.
"We agreed that putting the stuff on the Web was not the best idea," said one committee source. Instead, lawmakers agreed that while the EPA should post less sensitive information on the Internet, the worst-case data would be confined to limited-access reading rooms around the country. Makris said the rooms have not experienced suspicious activity in recent months.
In return for restricting access, Congress demanded that the Justice Department produce a report describing the safety preparations at chemical plants and what measures companies were taking to improve them.
The Justice Department has not produced the document despite a mid-2000 deadline, and has not responded to congressional complaints. The Justice Department did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
On Sept. 26, four House Democrats led by Rep. John D. Dingell (Mich.), the Energy and Commerce Committee's ranking minority member, urged President Bush in a letter to allocate $7 million to complete the report. Failure to do so, Dingell said yesterday, "not only violates federal law, but also leaves us susceptible to evil-doers."
Environmentalists have chastised industry for using anti-terrorism as an excuse to avoid discussion of its shortcomings: "We should be pushing for improvements in site security, not figuring out how to hide information," said Fred Millar, a former toxics director at Friends of the Earth. "Keeping the public in the dark is a prescription for anxiety."
Spokesman Jeff Vann of the American Chemistry Council said yesterday that the chemical industry intends to ask the EPA to stop access to the worst-case accident information while it studies what to do about publicizing its data. But Vann insisted that chemical manufacturers and users "understand the importance of [risk management] information," and simply wanted the EPA "to assess whether access may increase risk."
© 2001 The Washington Post Company
Source url: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2738-2001Oct3.html
Well Mr. Helliker, I am sure the "terrorists" have all of this information already. I believe that your keeping this data secret (like you do on the dangers and/or risks caused by your unregistered "inerts" contained in your "registered" POISONS) from the public, will virtually ensure the public will continue to use/misuse only your "registered" pesticide POISONS.
Respectfully, Stephen L. Tvedten
If you would like to be included in our mailing list for continuing information on pesticides, Email Us. with "subscribe" in the subject line.