Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
comment on proposed RMP "worst case
scenario" rule.
Fair Use Statement
Return to main RMP proposed rule page and send your own comment.
ACTION ALERT!
Deadline June 8
Please take five minutes now to defend our
right-to-know and freedom to communicate about
dangerous chemical-industry practices where we work,
live, play, or go to school.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) have proposed to severely
restrict public access to chemical accident scenarios
that show what could go wrong at facilities that use
extremely hazardous chemicals.
Please see background below, then fax or e-mail (by
June 8) your objections to EPA and DOJ! (Fax and
e-mail addresses below).
We suggest, in your own words, including some or all
of the following:
1. Your name, organization, address, and interest in
preventing chemical accidents.
2. The proposed rule:
Confirms that dangerous chemical industry
practices threaten workers and nearby communities, and
that the potential for criminal activity compounds
these dangers.
Acknowledges that community right-to-know
reduces hazards.
Fails to honor the public's right-to-know and
does nothing to decrease existing dangers to workers
and communities.
Fails to show how many lives EPA and DOJ
expect to save by keeping accident scenarios off the
Internet, and balance this against lives saved through
full disclosure.
Ignores the legal mandate for EPA and DOJ to
protect people from potential hazards.
Establishes a tracking system for people who
request public information, raising privacy concerns.
Restricts people to viewing but not copying
public documents to which they have legal access.
Negates the benefits of national
right-to-know data that enables people to identify
best practices in other communities and then demand
best practices at local facilities.
Fails to establish a "read-only" information
system as required (and easily achieved through the
reading rooms that the agencies are proposing).
Creates a dangerous precedent that threatens
other right-to-know data involving environmental or
public health hazards.
Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Department of Justice (DOJ) have jointly proposed
restrictive new rules for public access to information
on toxic chemical hazards in communities.
The Clean Air Act of 1990 requires more than 15,000
facilities that use extremely hazardous substances to
tell workers and the public what could happen in a
chemical accident, from the most-likely accident to a
worst-case scenario. These scenarios are part of
larger Risk Management Plans.
However, by the mid-1990s, a few voices in the
chemical industry still argued against public
disclosure. They worked to involve the government's
security agencies and raised alarm about putting
hazard scenarios on the Internet. This strategy
shifted attention from corporate responsibility to
fear of the Internet.
Raising fear of the Internet does nothing to improve
worker and public safety; rather, it fosters a
paranoid "Chemical McCarthyism" that openness is
dangerous to society. However, facility design and
chemicals determine the need for site security and
safety, not the amount of information on the Internet.
We argue that secrecy invariably breeds incompetence
and complacency, while right-to-know (with
regulations) spurs innovation to reduce hazards.
Moreover, the information in these plans is entirely
inadequate to create a chemical incident; no tanks,
valves, staffing, security, or similar information is
included.
Further, many facilities hazard scenarios are already
on the Internet (at ). Some newspapers
publish stories on the Internet that inform their
readers about local chemical hazards. In addition,
people can identify chemical plants from direct
observation, the phone book, satellite images, trade
publications, industry public relations events, common
sense, and other sources without using the Internet.
Nonetheless, in August 1999, Congress responded by
partially restricting the hazard scenarios (in S.880).
At the same time, this measure did almost nothing to
reduce chemical industry hazards or improve site
security at chemical plants. (The lone safety
provision requires DOJ to study site security at
chemical plants. However, the DOJ has not even begun
this security study, with an interim report due in
early August.)
On April 27, 2000 the EPA and DOJ jointly announced in
the Federal Register proposed rules to carry out this
law (page 24833). However, the proposal does not
carry out the law's balancing test between the
benefits and risks of disclosure. Instead, EPA and
DOJ go to extraordinary lengths to keep companies'
danger assessments off the Internet. The proposed
rule restricts people to viewing, but not copying,
hazard scenarios for ten facilities per month at
reading rooms that could be hundreds of miles away.
People could also view the data under the supervision
and discretion of local officials. Both options are
very burdensome on citizens and under-funded local
emergency responders. In addition, members of Local
Emergency Planning Committees could face fines of up
to $1 million for giving out copies of the data.
Meanwhile, each year, an estimated 250 Americans die
in chemical accidents.
Fax, e-mail, or mail a short letter
(on or before June 8) to:
Attn: Docket No. A-2000-20
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center
Ariel Rios Building, M6102
1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20460
Fax: (202) 260-4400
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov
Phone: 202-260-7548 (if problems or to confirm
receipt)
For more information:
See the Federal Register, page 24833, April 27, 2000.
See (lengthy) basis documents at http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/april18final.pdf (warning: this is a very large 1.9mb PDF document) and
http://www.epa.gov/ceppo/ap-lere.htm#oca.
See our issue-specific web site at www.rtk.net/wcs.
Prepared by Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
218 D Street, SE; Washington, DC 20003; (202)
544-9586.
=====
Working Group on Community Right-to-Know
218 D Street, SE; Washington, DC 20003
Phone: 202-544-9586; Fax: 202-546-2461
Return to main RMP proposed rule page and send your own comment.
