Environmental Danger
The EPA stopped assisting terrorists, but some environmentalists are still at it.

By Jonathan H. Adler, assistant professor of law at Case Western Reserve University.
October 11, 2001 9:05 a.m.

ederal agencies are reconsidering "public right-to-know" policies out of concern that uncontrolled access to sensitive information could facilitate future terrorist attacks. The Department of Transportation, for example, closed off Internet access to the National Pipeline Mapping System. The Centers for Disease Control took down its report on America's vulnerability to chemical terrorism. Defense-related sites are taking similar measures. Federal officials concluded that leaving such information on the World Wide Web would make it too easy for potential terrorists to identify attractive targets. Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking part by deactivating web access to databases that describe potential disasters at industrial sites and facility safety measures. "People have a right to know what kinds of risks there are, but unfortunately terrorists are people too," an EPA spokesman told the press.

The EPA's actions are particularly controversial. As noted in an earlier piece on NRO, section 112r of the Clean Air Act requires industrial facilities to prepare risk-management plans that detail potential chemical accidents and "worst-case" scenarios for what could happen to neighboring communities. By law, this information is to be available to the public. As interpreted by the EPA, this meant the risk-management plans should be posted on the Internet for all the world to see and access anonymously. Congress thought otherwise, and passed legislation limiting — though not eliminating — public access to such sensitive data. Information of the greatest potential value to would-be terrorists is only accessible in public reading rooms around the country. With encouragement from environmental activists, however, the EPA still posted substantial data online — until recently that is.

The EPA opted to pull its risk-management-plan database from the web out of concern for public safety. Some environmental groups, however, do not feel the same way. At the time of this writing, summaries of facility risk-management plans are still available in an online searchable database on RTKnet. A potential terrorist can search the database for industrial facilities near population centers where disabling safety measures and causing an accident could have maximum impact. Armed with this information, the terrorist could then get greater detail from a public reading room. RTKnet also hosts a website for the Working Group on Community Right-to-Know which lists the "Top 50 U.S. manufacturing Facilities in Worst-case Disaster Potential" and several maps detailing vulnerability zones for selected chemical facilities.

The sponsors of RTKnet, OMB Watch, and the Center for Public Data Access (CPDA), have given no indication that they plan to take the information offline. Instead, OMB Watch decries the federal actions as a threat to "the spirit of civil society." A CPDA representative attacked this author for "fear-mongering" and "finger-pointing" for raising these concerns in an earlier column. According to OMB Watch, such information must remain available because of the "public's right-to-know." Concerns about terrorism should be addressed by beefing up site security and reducing chemical use. Greenpeace goes further, charging that the only way to reduce the terrorist threat at industrial facilities is to phase-out the use of industrial chemicals such as chlorine. Fortunately, not all environmental groups have adopted such extreme positions. U.S. PIRG has temporarily removed a report on fertilizer use listing facilities storing potentially harmful substances.

Ensuring that local communities have access to information about local threats does not require searchable online databases of industrial facilities nationwide, their vulnerabilities, and worst-case disaster potential. Protecting communities simply requires local disclosure and cooperation between industrial facilities and local officials. As noted in Congressional hearing last week, local police, fire, and emergency officials are the first to respond when disaster strikes. These are the people who most need information about local threats, not D.C.-based environmental activist groups or would-be terrorists. Local officials are also in the best position to work with industrial facilities to identify risks and find ways to protect the public from industrial accidents. Disclosure to local community organizations can also be helpful to encourage civic involvement. None of this, however, requires posting sensitive data about industrial facilities on the web.

Federal mandates requiring nationwide disclosure of sensitive industrial information does little if anything to advance public safety. Even less can be said for displaying such data on government websites. Private groups have the right to post such material on their own sites, but that doesn't make it wise. Our enemies will not attack us with tanks and fighter planes. Rather, as on September 11, they will identify our vulnerabilities and turn the fruits of modern industrial civilization against us. The federal government should take stern and reasonable steps to stop such attacks, and not unduly aid the next wave of attackers. A free and prosperous society is necessarily a somewhat vulnerable one, but we should not support federal agencies or environmental activist groups exposing our Achilles's heels.