Anyone in the Chemical industry want - or dare - to comment on the Draconian federal criminal million-dollar per incident, per year, fines which can be slapped on any 'covered researcher', federal government agency employee, or other individual who is known or apparently presumed to have seen or have knowledge of the contents of the EPA-mandated Offsite Consequences Analysis [OCA]required to be prepared by each of the 66,000 or so chemical plants in the US and who publicly reveals that information [as, for example, a 'Y2K whistleblower'].

These staggering penalties are included as part of Public Law 106-40, the Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, And Fuels Reglatory Act, passed into law late this summer.

Is this why we are seeing no 'whistleblowing' from this particular industry even as numerous concerns are being voiced about its readiness....?

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 24, 1999

Answers

I have no details on the legislation, and I generally oppose all such government secrecy, but I have to admit this is a problematic case. After all, a complete consequence analysis for every plant in the country would basically be a "How To" book for terrorists, with plans neatly arranged in order of fatalities.

Not that anyone with the funding of a foreign government, or some technical training, would have problems figuring out good sites to hit...

-- You Know... (notme@nothere.com), November 24, 1999.

John, I just recently found out about OCA. Our local Waste Treatment facility has 18,000 lbs of Clhorine stored. There first safety check on record was Oct. '98. I was trying to find the "Offsite Consequence Report" ABSOLUTELY NOT AVAILABLE. The plant is less than 5 miles from my house. What kind of damage/consequences could there be with that many lbs of toxic material around? Dam* thought our location was pretty good.

-- whereyabeen? (karlacalif@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

John,

Little OT:

Do you have any information on an obscure/old law that allows people to come forward and blow the proverbial "whistle", and actually be paid and protected? Heard about it on Nightline. Must be able to prove a company is engaging in fraudulent practices?

-- ?? (karlacalif@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

http://www.fcw.com/pubs/fcw/1999/0621/web-chem-6-25-99.html

[Fair Use: For Educational/Research Purposes Only]

JUNE 25, 1999 . . . 16:45 EDT

Senate passes bill to restrict access to chemical database

BY ELANA VARON (varon@fcw.com)

The Senate this week unanimously passed a compromise version of a bill that would restrict public access to information, especially data in electronic form, about the risks of chemical accidents.

The measure, an amendment to the 1990 Clean Air Act, would prohibit for one year disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act of any information that describes what could happen if toxic chemicals were accidentally released into the environment. The information is contained in reports that the Environmental Protection Agency requires some manufacturers that use toxic chemicals to submit, outlining the consequences of an explosion or other disaster. The EPA is keeping the information in an electronic database, and federal law enforcement officials fear that opening this database to the public would provide terrorists with too much information about potential targets.

During the one-year moratorium on FOIA requests, the Clinton administration would study whether the benefits of disclosing the information to the public outweigh the risks of terrorist attacks on U.S. industrial sites. The administration plans to write regulations based on its findings.

Until the final regulations are issued, the public would not be allowed to have information about specific manufacturing plants, according to the bill. Afterward, individuals could get paper copies of reports about a limited number of sites. The bill also requires the EPA to create a publicly accessible database from which data could be viewed but not copied.

New provisions of the bill (S. 880) approved last week attempt to address objections to an earlier version from state and local government officials who wanted input into the disclosure rules and from environmentalists who argued that the administration had not proven that disclosure posed security risks.

Nevertheless, Tom Natan, research director with the National Environmental Trust, said the bill would make it harder for environmentalists to pressure companies to make their plants less dangerous. Without an electronic database, he said, it will be harder to identify the worst hazards and the companies that do the best job of minimizing potential harm. "If all the information were out there and easily accessible, there would be some public pressure to do hazard reduction," he said.

According to Jody Westby, general manager with In-Q-It, an information technology research firm that works with federal intelligence agencies, the measure is "a step in the right direction." But she said it is still unlikely to keep the most sensitive information off the Internet because paper copies of documents could be scanned and put online, while information from a database could not be completely protected from copying.

The House has yet to act on its version of the bill (H.R. 1790), which is being considered by the House Commerce Committee, but sources familiar with the debate expect it will pass eventually.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 24, 1999.

Wow! Fast research and posting, Linkmeister! Your fingers must still be smoking from the sheer speed you hit getting that up and into the thread :}! Great article, right on topic!

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 24, 1999.

Also see this thread by Ashton and Leska on what to do if there is a hazmat incident in your area:

"Shelter In Place: Make Your Kits"

http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000vWc

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 24, 1999.

Linkmeister - You are the Man!!

;-)

-- karla (karlacalif@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

You're welcome!

-- Linkmeister (link@librarian.edu), November 24, 1999.

Linkdude

you are fast on the link eh? :o)

Here is alot more links on the Chemical Industry

Does anyone have any chemical links?

-- Brian (imager@home.com), November 24, 1999.

I worked at a precious metals refining plant in Orange County, CA. that had two tanks, containing several TONS of cyanide, inside a warehouse full every kind of acid you can think of. Looting, rioting, or Y2K clitches at places like this could very well trigger Bophol like disasters all over the country.

I think the Y2K roll over is an event that should be viewed from far away and behind something solid.

-- Ocotillo (peeling@out.===), November 24, 1999.

"Anyone in the Chemical industry want - or dare - to comment on the Draconian federal criminal million-dollar per incident, per year, fines which can be slapped on any 'covered researcher', federal government agency employee, or other individual who is known or apparently resumed to have seen or have knowledge of the contents of the EPA-mandated Offsite Consequences Analysis [OCA]required to be prepared by each of the 66,000 or so chemical plants in the US and who publicly reveals that information"

I'll bite. I work for a large chemical company covered by this law. You have completely distorted the way the law is worded and who it applies to.

Under the environmental laws, chemical companies and others who use or store large amounts of hazardous chemicals are required by law to file Risk Management Plans. These RMP's must include an analysis of a worst-case scenario accident with details of off-site consequences. The RMP's must be in a certain format, on a particular form, and must be shared with EPA, and state and local government officials responsible for environmental regulations and emergency response.

The law you are referring to prohibits the government agency employees and contractors who receive these forms from disclosing certain sections of the forms to the public, unless the form has already been released to the public by someone else.

The law does not prohibit, and in fact requires, that both the companies involved, and the government agencies, release the actual information contained on the forms to anyone upon request. It just cannot be in the format it was originally filed in. The companies can (and many do) give anyone who asks the actual RMP as filed with the EPA. If a company does release their RMP to any member of the public, they must then notify the EPA that their RMP is now public, and the EPA and other government agencies are free to disclose the RMP.

As a chemical company employee, I could release the RMP to anyone, even post it here or elsewhere on the internet, without any fear of having violated the law. Anyone could ask my employer for information on their RMP, and would likely get a copy of the actual RMP, and they could then do anything they want with the form, without fear of having violated the law. The penalities for "unauthorized" disclosure apply only to those government employees and contractors who receive the RMP's in the course of their jobs, and then only if they disclose an RMP that is not otherwise publically available.

I'm sure there are numerous "whistle-blowers" in the chemical industry. The reason YOU are not seeing any whistle-blowing is that it wouldn't do any good to let YOU know of a potential problem. If I was aware of a serious Y2K problem at my employer which was being ignored or not addressed adequately by them, and it had potential safety consequences, I wouldn't post the information on an Internet forum or go to the press. I'd go to the regional hazmat response team, who would take the appropriate action. You would never hear about it.

If anyone wants to find out who in their neighborhood has filed an RMP, go to this site. It contains the summaries of all RMP's, many of which are quite detailed.

http://www.rtk.net/rmplist.html

When you find a facility you are interested in, you can check the EPA's web site to see if the entire RMP is publically available from them. If not, a quick phone call to the facility will usually get you all the information about their Risk Management Plan, including Offsite Consequences Analysis, that you need in order to plan accordingly.

Jerry

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), November 24, 1999.

Jerry..thank you for taking the time to put this information on the forum. Its the kind of stuff we all need. Its all too easy to get just one side of the story. I went to the one chemical plant that I was aware of in our area. Its a small plant and the chemical is bleach. They do swimming pool supplies. Having been in that plant a number of times in the past, I was always impressed with how tight the rules and regs were. Now I understand more fully. This plant will probably survive as its so small and I don't think there are computers doing the mixes. Again, thank you and please don't stop with your contributions to the forum.

Taz

-- Taz (Tassie123@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

Regarding the comment, "If I was aware of a serious Y2K problem at my employer which was being ignored or not addressed adequately by them and it had potential safety consequences, I wouldn't post the information on an Internet forum or go to the press. I'd go to the regional hazmat response team who would take the appropriate action. You would never hear about it."

I agree with an employee's decision to report a problem to the hazmat team. But with all due respect, if there were a problem with potential safety consequences, the public should know of it. A competent press should be made aware of it, in addition to hazmat. The public has a right to know what incidents or circumstances contain life or safety threatening aspects.

If we are ever at risk, knowing that we "would never hear about it" is hardly reassuring.

-- (normally@ease.notnow), November 24, 1999.

Karla, the whistleblower law you refer to is called the Qui Tam act ( pronounced Key Tam) It is designed to protect those who report on fraud being conducted against the feredal government. It started with Abe Lincoln because of fraud in providing supplies in the civil war. It is more commonly seen today in defense contracts and health care fraud in medicare. The whistle blower will recover between 10-15 % of the collection from the offending company. The whistle blower for the government in their suit against Smith Klein Beacham for fraud in medicare lab tests had to sue the government to get his money. They offered him, initially, one million of their 325 million settlement.

-- smfdoc (smfdoc@aol.com), November 24, 1999.

"I agree with an employee's decision to report a problem to the hazmat team. But with all due respect, if there were a problem with potential safety consequences, the public should know of it."

I agree the public should know about it. I don't think a chemical plant worker should be expected to possibly sacrifice their career or worse for the public's right to know. Many of them would, and do, and should be thanked for doing so. Hopefully, if there is a serious problem that the affected public should know about, the hazmat people would do the right thing.

"A competent press should be made aware of it, in addition to hazmat."

Well, this presupposes the existance of a competent press, doesn't it? Anyone want to rely on the press to communicate important, technical information to the public about issues that might have a serious impact on their lives? After all, they've done such a wonderful job with Y2K in general...

"The public has a right to know what incidents or circumstances contain life or safety threatening aspects."

I absolutely agree.

Jerry

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), November 24, 1999.

As part of my work I visit a substantial number of process groups in large pharmaceutical companies. My observations are as follows: (1) one can find GI's -- some high ranking GI's, (2) even the GI's are confident in their own companies' efforts, (3) there is a general lack of concern. Whether the lack of concern is justified will be determined when end-to-end testing starts on 01/01/00.

-- Dave (aaa@aaa.com), November 24, 1999.

I find this absolutely fascinating.

I cite a specific law which covers the unauthorized release of OCA's.

Jerry counters with a vivid description of RMP's.

Apples suddenly become oranges.

My own research has turned up further and independent confirmation of the original question in the form of a Jeff Rense interview, archived at www.sightings.com, and originally broadcast on November 4th.

Before continuing this thread, it might be worth going there to listen to the first 20 minutes or so.

Then come back and tell us all that the original question was 'a distortion'...

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 24, 1999.

"I cite a specific law which covers the unauthorized release of OCA's. Jerry counters with a vivid description of RMP's. Apples suddenly become oranges.

My own research has turned up further and independent confirmation of the original question in the form of a Jeff Rense interview, archived at www.sightings.com, and originally broadcast on November 4th.

Then come back and tell us all that the original question was 'a distortion'... "

I understood the original question to be (paraphrased): Is the reason we aren't seeing whistle-blowing reports of Y2K problems from the chemical industry, a law that prohibits ANYONE from publically releasing Offsite Consequence Analysis (OCA) data?

My response (paraphrased): There is no such law. The ONLY people prohibited from publically releasing OCA data are government employees and contractors. Chemical companies, employees of chemical companies, and other private entities and individuals are specifically exempted from the law.

Your apparent confusion that stems from you talking about OCA's and me talking about RMP comes from you not understanding that the OCA you are so concerned about is contained in Sections 2 through 5 of the required RMP.

"My own research has turned up further and independent confirmation of the original question in the form of a Jeff Rense interview, archived at www.sightings.com, and originally broadcast on November 4th."

Nothing against Jeff Rense and Sightings, but that's not who I'd rely on for legal advice.

If you would like some actual facts about the law go to

http://www.epa.gov/swercepp/pubs/newlawqa.html

Here is a small quote from that site:

"1. I looked on RMP*Info and saw that there were several companies in my neighborhood that filed RMPs. How can I get the OCA data for these facilities?

A: Federal law restricts the public's access to the OCA sections of a facility's RMP until at least Aug. 5, 2000, but in the meantime you can get information about a facility's potential off-site consequences in one or more of the following ways:

Contact the facility directly. While facilities are not required to provide the public with copies of the OCA sections of their RMPs, virtually all facilities are required to hold a public meeting to summarize the information in those sections or post a public notice providing such a summary. (NOTE: Facilities that have only Program 1 processes are exempt from this requirement. A process is eligible for Program 1 if: there are no public receptors within a distance to an endpoint from a worst-case release; the process has had no release of a regulated substance in the past five years that resulted in an off-site death, injury or response or restoration activity; and the facility has coordinated its emergency response activities with local responders).

Look in EPA's RMP*Info Database located at www.epa.gov/enviro for the contact name provided on the facility RMP form. The person indicated should be able to tell you about the facility's plans for the public meeting and whether the facility is willing to provide you with a copy of the OCA sections of its RMP.

In States that have taken delegation of the program, contact the State Implementing Agency. An agency official can share with you the information in the OCA sections of the RMP forms, although he or she cannot give you copies of the sections themselves. Depending on the State's law, you may have access to OCA information collected under State law.

Contact your EPA Regional Office. A regional EPA official can share with you the information in the OCA sections of the RMP forms, although he or she cannot give you copies of the sections themselves. Phone numbers for the EPA Regional Offices appears on the Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention webpage at www.epa.gov/ceppo.

Contact your Local Emergency Planning Committee. An LEPC official can share with you the information in the OCA sections of the RMP forms, although he or she cannot give you copies of the sections themselves. For the name and phone number of your LEPC, check section 1, item 10 of the facility's RMP to see if the facility has provided that information. If you are interested in searching for facilities that are within the jurisdiction of your LEPC district you may want to start by visiting the LEPC Contact Database website via the RMP*Info Database located at www.epa.gov/enviro. This will lead you to a database that gives you the name and address of your nearest LEPC."

And yes, your original question, as it was worded, was a distortion of the the facts and intent of the law, a distortion of actual practices within the chemical industry and regulatory agencies, and a belittlement of the rights of the public to know about chemical hazards that might affect them. What was your point?

On the other hand, I've provided links to sites where people can get detailed information, including the full content of the "dreaded" OCA in many cases, and told people how to get the exact same information (even if not always in exactly the same format) for any facility that they might have a concern about.

Meanwhile, you can keep blathering about "million-dollar fines" and other silliness.

Jerry

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), November 24, 1999.

Oh, by the way...

The law provides for a maximum penalty of $5,000 per incident for individuals, and $10,000 per incident for agencies, for violating the disclosure restrictions. The "million-dollar" figure is the maximum that could be levied against an indvidual or agency in any one year for multiple incidents. The possible penalties only apply to "covered persons", which include only

Federal covered person: An officer or employee of the United States or of an agent or contractor of the federal government; State or local covered person: An officer of employee of a State or local government or of an agent or contractor of a State or local government, or an individual affiliated with an entity that has been given, by a State or local government, responsibility for preventing, planning for, or responding to accidental releases (for example, a volunteer firefighter or a member of a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) or Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) established under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, or an officer and employee of an agent or contractor of such an entity; and Covered researcher: A researcher as identified by EPA under the qualified researcher provision of the law. "

Also note this quote "Restrictions only apply to "covered persons". A private individual or entity is not prohibited from distributing OCA materials. Because a facility may choose to distribute the OCA sections of its RMP, covered persons may disclose to the public the OCA sections of an RMP that has been released to the public "without restriction" by the facility that submitted the RMP."

So clearly, your original post, by lying about the penalites and would they would possibly apply to, was a distortion.

Jerry

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), November 24, 1999.

Well, Jerry, before you start getting over-irritable with me, here's what you actually said yourself in your first response to this:

The law you are referring to prohibits the government agency employees and contractors who receive these forms from disclosing certain sections of the forms to the public, unless the form has already been released to the public by someone else.

The law does not prohibit, and in fact requires, that both the companies involved, and the government agencies, release the actual information contained on the forms to anyone upon request. It just cannot be in the format it was originally filed in. The companies can (and many do) give anyone who asks the actual RMP as filed with the EPA. If a company does release their RMP to any member of the public, they must then notify the EPA that their RMP is now public, and the EPA and other government agencies are free to disclose the RMP.

In other words, if I understand you correctly, if a member of the public or a journalist doesn't ask, and the company therefore doesn't respond, anyone [in the categories I listed in my question] who proactively whistle-blows on a potentially dangerous [or Y2K- related] situation in that company's plant can be subject to those penalties. Where are we in conflict here? You appear to be saying the same thing, albeit in a more circuitous way, yourself.

Incidentally, if you carefully read my followup above, I was referring to an interview Jeff Rense broadcast [since he's not in the habit of interviewing himself each night, I thought it safe to leave you to infer that he was actually interviewing someone else with information and expertise in this area. Obviously, I shouldn't have made that assumption :)]

Just for clarity's sake, however, are you or are you not now on the record as saying that if a company has not released its OCA, and an 'insider' proactively releases warning information based upon knowledge of its contents and the current conditions prevailing at its chemical plant(s), then the provisions and penalties embodied in this law [Public Law 106-40] do not apply to him?

Because that's the only real issue on the table here.

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 24, 1999.

"Just for clarity's sake, however, are you or are you not now on the record as saying that if a company has not released its OCA, and an 'insider' proactively releases warning information based upon knowledge of its contents and the current conditions prevailing at its chemical plant(s), then the provisions and penalties embodied in this law [Public Law 106-40] do not apply to him?"

That is exactly what I'm saying. If I, as an actual chemical company employee, disclose to a member of the public, warning information based on my knowledge of the contents of my employer's OCA, the provisions and penalties of Public Law 106-40 do NOT apply to me.

Furthermore, my employer, and every other chemical manufacturer, transporter, storage facility, and large volume user, is REQUIRED by the same law to disclose to the public, upon request, AND in a public meeting that must be held no later than sometime in February, 2000, the information contained in it's OCA. It can choose to do that by releasing copies of the actual OCA contained in the RMP, or it can choose some other format. If it releases the RMP, then the restrictions in Public Law 106-40 against public employees and agencies releasing the same information on an individual basis no longer apply.

The law was very narrowly crafted to prevent the EPA from publishing the entire contents of it's RMP and OCA database on it's web site in a form that would allow the entire database to be downloaded by anyone. All the information in the database is still available to the public, just in a more round-about way. By sometime next summer, the EPA will again publish the entire contents of it's RMP and OCA database on it's web site, but in a form that does not allow downloading or mass copying.

To attempt to portray this as some kind of massive coverup with "draconian" penalties for violators is inflammatory and a disservice to the public. Just your cup of tea.

Jerry Jerry

-- Jerry Heidtke (jheidtke@email.com), November 24, 1999.

Jerry, I'm interested in your comments but I'm rapidly losing respect for you as a person. You don't seem to be able to stick to the issue at hand without indulging in gratuitous attacks on the poster you're responding to. Or are you just getting annoyed because, when specifically asked to go on the record, you're compelled to agree that the substance of my question is correct since you yourself are now essentially stating the same thing?

Back to the issue, however - I, at least, like to stick with that.

Now that you've agreed that - for whatever 'good' reason - these penalties would apply to someone taking the action outlined in the original question, and you've attempted to blow smoke by accusing me of 'lying' and of posting a question [a question, of all things!] which you describe as being 'inflammatory and a disservice to the public. Just your cup of tea.', I'd like to draw to the attention of readers of this exchange that:

a] the expert interviewed by Jeff Rense in the November 4th interview cited above cited, during that interview, the very same provisions of the very same law; and that

b] he interpreted them exactly as I did.

Now I suppose that this means that Jerry, with his demonstrated petulance and willingness to cast personal aspersions at people whom he doesn't know but emotionally disagrees with, will promptly say that that expert is 'lying', too.

But I'd be particularly interested in hearing intelligent comment from anyone else who is knowledgeable in this area and who has the opportunity to listen to the first 20 minutes or so of that interview. There's no doubt that he's making the same plain point that I first posed here as a question, and that Jerry has now gracelessly conceded to be true.

So, the real question remains - is this why we are not hearing from whistleblowers in the chemical industry in spite of the doubts and concerns that have been expressed on the Net and in the media about its Y2K readiness....?

-- John Whitley (jwhitley@inforamp.net), November 24, 1999.

Bold OFF?

-- Johnny Canuck (j_canuck@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.