[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 17, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4021-4024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1349]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6933-5]


Accidental Release Prevention Requirements; Risk Management 
Programs Under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r)(7); Distribution of 
Off-Site Consequence Analysis Information; Development of Read-Only 
Information Technology System and Qualified Researcher System

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing two 
systems for providing access to information about the potential off-
site consequences of accidental chemical releases from industrial 
facilities. One system would provide the public with ``read-only'' 
access to the information in electronic database form. The other system 
would provide qualified researchers with access to the information in 
paper or electronic database form. Both systems are required by section 
112(r) of the Clean Air Act, as revised by the Chemical Safety 
Information, Site Security and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act (CSISSFRRA) 
of 1999. In this document we describe draft plans for these systems and 
request public comment on the plans and related issues.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by March 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be mailed to: Environmental Protection 
Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Docket and Information Center, 
Ariel Rios Building, M6102, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington 
DC, 20460, Attn: Docket No. A-2000-58. By Federal Express or Courier: 
Waterside Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460, 
Attn: Docket No. A-2000-58. Comments may be submitted on a disk in 
Wordperfect or Word formats. Please submit comments in duplicate. The 
draft plan for a qualified researcher system and supporting information 
used to develop that plan and the draft plan for a ``read-only'' 
information system are contained in Docket No. A-2000-58. The docket is 
available for public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 
p.m., Monday through Friday (except government holidays), at Waterside 
Mall, Room M1500, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying. The draft qualified 
researcher plan and the supporting information are also available on 
the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ceppo or by calling the Emergency 
Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline at (800) 424-9346 (in the 
Washington, DC metropolitan area, (703) 412-9810).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dorothy McManus, Program Analyst, 
(202) 564-8606, or Vanessa Rodriguez, Chemical Engineer, (202) 564-
7913, Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office, 
Environmental Protection Agency (5104), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 112(r)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) establishes a program 
for the prevention and mitigation of industrial chemical accidents that 
could harm the surrounding community and environment. Facilities 
subject to the program are required to prepare risk management plans 
(RMPs) that include an analysis of the potential off-site consequences 
of hypothetical worst-case and alternative scenario chemical releases.
    Under section 112(r)(7) as originally enacted, RMPs--including the 
off-site

[[Page 4022]]

consequence analysis (OCA) portions--were to be available to the 
public. However, concerns were raised that potential Internet 
distribution of the OCA portions of RMPs would pose law enforcement and 
national security risks. In response to these concerns, CSISSFRRA was 
enacted in 1999. CSISSFRRA amended the Clean Air Act by adding a new 
subparagraph (H) to section 112(r)(7).
    Under CAA section 112(r)(7)(H)(ii), EPA assessed the benefits of 
public access to the OCA portions of the RMPs and EPA's database 
compiled from those portions (``OCA information''), while the 
Department of Justice (DOJ) assessed the risks of Internet 
dissemination of the same information. Based on the assessments, both 
agencies issued a rule on August 4, 2000, governing the distribution of 
paper copies of OCA information (65 FR 48108) to the public.
    The rule, which is fully described and explained in the Federal 
Register notice cited above, provides two ways for the public to obtain 
limited access to paper copies of OCA information. First, at 50 or more 
federal reading rooms located across the country, any member of the 
public may view a paper copy of the OCA information for the facilities 
located in the jurisdiction of the Local Emergency Planning Committee 
(LEPCs) where the person lives or works. (LEPCs are established under 
the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) 
and generally cover one or more counties.) In addition, a member of the 
public may see a paper copy of the OCA information for up to 10 
facilities per month without regard to where the facility is located. 
Reading rooms may allow the public to read and take notes from, but not 
remove or mechanically copy, the paper copies of OCA information.
    The rule's second avenue for the public to obtain paper copies of 
OCA information is through state and local agencies. The rule 
authorizes LEPCs and related local and state agencies to provide the 
public with read-only access to a paper copy of the OCA information for 
local facilities.
    Apart from the rule, CSISSFRRA provides several other avenues for 
the public to access OCA information. In particular, CAA section 
112(r)(7)(H)(viii) requires EPA, ``[i]n consultation with the Attorney 
General and the heads of other appropriate Federal agencies, [to] 
establish an information technology system that provides for the 
availability to the public of off-site consequence analysis information 
by means of a central data base under the control of the Federal 
Government that contains information that users may read, but that 
provides no means by which an electronic or mechanical copy of the 
information may be made.'' This provision, in short, calls on EPA to 
provide public access to OCA information for all facilities in 
electronic, read-only form.
    CSISSFRRA also includes a provision for making OCA information 
available to ``qualified researchers.'' CAA section 112(r)(7)(H)(vii) 
requires EPA , ``[i]n consultation with the Attorney General, [to] 
develop and implement a system for providing [OCA] information, 
including facility identification, to any qualified researcher, 
including a qualified researcher from industry or any public interest 
group.'' That section further provides that ``[t]he system shall not 
allow the researcher to disseminate, or make available on the Internet, 
the [OCA] information, or any portion of the [OCA] information, 
received'' under the system.

II. Draft System for Public Information Technology System

A. Description of Draft System

    After consulting with DOJ and other appropriate agencies, EPA is 
considering an information technology (IT) system that would provide 
the public with read-only access to OCA information in electronic form 
by means of stand-alone or restricted computers. The computers would 
contain a database compiled from all of the RMPs submitted to EPA. The 
database would include the OCA portions of RMPs along with information 
about facilities' accident prevention programs, accident history and 
emergency response plans.
    An IT system computer would provide no more than read-only access 
by having all of its external communication ports and disk drives 
removed or physically disabled so that there would be no way to attach 
the computer to a printer or other external device. Essentially, the 
only items on the computer would be a monitor, hard disk, and CD-ROM 
reader. There also would be locks on the case of the computer so that 
the hard drive could not be removed and stolen, and the case would be 
bolted to the desk or located in a locked room, so that the computer 
could not be stolen.
    The same precautions would maintain EPA control of the IT system's 
database. That database would not be connected to EPA's central 
database because of the potential for hacking. However, EPA would 
periodically update the IT system's database to keep it reasonably 
current.
    To make the IT system user-friendly, EPA would equip it with 
software that would allow users to query on various types of 
information, such as chemical name and industry sector. For example, 
users could ask the system to pull up the RMPs, including OCA 
information, for facilities that use a particular chemical or belong to 
the same industry sector. At the same time, the software would not 
allow queries on any OCA data elements.
    EPA would introduce the IT system in one location at EPA 
Headquarters in Washington, D.C. That location would be open to the 
public during normal working hours on Mondays through Fridays. 
Currently, members of the public visiting EPA's headquarters must sign 
in and show identification to gain entry to the building. The same 
would be true for users of the IT system.

B. Facility Identification Issue

    An important remaining issue in EPA's development of an IT system 
is whether the system should identify facilities by providing the name 
and address. The system would include all of the data in the OCA 
sections of RMPs (sections 2 through 5). It would also include the 
information in RMPs about prevention programs, accident history and 
emergency response plans. Members of the public using the system would 
thus be able to view OCA information in the context of a facility's 
overall risk management program. They would also be allowed to view an 
unlimited number of facilities' information. The issue is whether the 
system should reveal the names or locations of facilities.
    As noted above, EPA and DOJ issued a rule that provides any member 
of the public with read-only access to paper copies of OCA information 
for facilities in the LEPC jurisdiction where the person lives or works 
and for up to 10 facilities per month regardless of where the facility 
is located. The agencies based the rule on assessments of the risks and 
benefits of broad public dissemination of OCA information, including 
facility identification. The agencies concluded that posting of a large 
OCA database on the Internet would pose a significant national security 
and law enforcement risk, while public access to OCA information would 
provide significant chemical safety benefits. The agencies thus decided 
to reduce the risk of Internet posting while preserving the public 
availability of OCA information by providing any member of the public 
with read-only access to paper copies of OCA information for a limited 
number of facilities.

[[Page 4023]]

    In light of the rule and assessments underlying it, EPA is 
considering whether the IT system should include facility 
identification information. A database including that information would 
provide users with an efficient means of identifying and learning about 
facilities that may put them at risk. At the same time, such a database 
could undercut the security purposes that the rule's limits on public 
access to paper copies of OCA information are intended to serve. A 
database excluding the information, while not permitting users to 
access RMPs for named facilities, could allow users to identify and 
study trends in chemical safety among facilities using the same 
chemical or process. It could also allow users to identify facilities 
similar to ones for which the user had obtained read-only access to OCA 
information in paper form. Comparing similar facilities would allow 
members of the public to assess a particular facility's chemical safety 
practices.
    EPA requests comment on the issue of whether the IT system should 
include facility identification information and how useful such a 
system would be without that information. EPA also requests comment on 
whether we could address any security concerns raised by an IT system 
with facility identification information by limiting the number of 
outlets for the system and adequately securing those outlets.

III. Draft System for Qualified Researcher Access to OCA 
Information

A. Description of Draft System

    EPA has developed draft guidance, in consultation with DOJ, for 
implementing a qualified researcher (QR) system. The draft guidance 
describes the background of the RMP program, CSISSFRRA and the QR 
provision, the factors EPA considered relevant to developing a QR 
system, and the potential terms of the system itself.
    As noted above, CSISSFRRA requires that the QR system not allow 
researchers to disseminate the OCA information, or any portion of the 
OCA information, they receive under the system. This restriction 
reflects the fact that under the system, qualified researchers are to 
receive the most comprehensive and manipulable form of OCA 
information--EPA's OCA database containing OCA data and identification 
information for all covered facilities. QR access to EPA's OCA database 
thus entails some risk of a large OCA database becoming broadly 
available, the same risk the rule for public access is designed to 
address. Consequently, EPA has sought to develop a system that would 
adequately screen applicants to identify only bona fide researchers and 
preclude the release of OCA information in a form or to an extent that 
could pose that same risk.
    The system described in the draft QR guidance contains potential 
criteria for identifying a QR, including experience in conducting 
research in relevant subject matter areas and ability to protect OCA 
information from dissemination. The draft system also calls for any QR 
to sign a consent agreement acknowledging that dissemination of OCA 
information except as authorized by law is a crime and committing the 
QR to protect OCA information from unauthorized dissemination. The 
draft consent agreement provides for significant financial penalties 
for failure to meets its terms.
    A copy of the draft guidance is contained in Docket No. A-2000-58 
and may be viewed at EPA's website or obtained by calling the EPCRA 
Hotline. The addresses and numbers for these outlets are provided in 
the ``Addresses'' section of this notice.

B. Facility Identification Issue

    Like the IT system, the QR system raises an issue related to 
facility identification. As noted above, a QR will have access to OCA 
information, including facility identification information. A QR will 
also be subject to the prohibition in CSISSFRRA and the public access 
rule against distributing OCA information except as authorized by the 
law and regulations. The question EPA must still address is whether a 
QR should be allowed to publish OCA data, as distinct from ``OCA 
information,'' for identified facilities.
    ``OCA information'' is defined by CSISSFRRA and the public access 
rule as the OCA portions of RMPs and any EPA database derived from 
those portions. CSISSFRRA and the rule make clear that while OCA 
information may not be disseminated to the public except in specified 
ways, there is no restriction on the dissemination of the data reported 
in the OCA portions of RMPs so long as the data is conveyed in a format 
different than the OCA portions of RMPs or EPA's OCA database. (The 
rule captures this distinction by defining a new term, ``OCA data 
elements,'' to refer to OCA data in a format other than the restricted 
RMP and EPA database formats.) The distinction reflects that fact that 
the RMP and EPA database formats are relatively easy to post on the 
Internet and thus pose the greatest risk of broad dissemination of a 
large OCA database.
    At the same time, the QR provision in CSISSFRRA provides that the 
system ``shall not allow the researcher to disseminate * * * the [OCA] 
information, or any portion of the [OCA] information,'' the researcher 
receives under the system. There is also concern that a QR could 
potentially defeat the purpose of the statutory and regulatory limits 
on the dissemination of ``OCA information'' by publishing OCA data for 
a large number of identified facilities. We are thus considering 
whether the QR system should place limits on a QR's ability to publish 
OCA data for identified facilities. Among the limits being considered 
are a bar on publication of OCA data for identified facilities and a 
numerical limit on the number of identified facilities for which OCA 
data could be published. Under either of these alternatives, there 
would be no limit on the amount of OCA data that a QR could publish 
without facility identification. We are also considering the 
alternative of not restricting the publication of OCA data for 
identified facilities.
    We request comment on this issue and the alternatives being 
considered for addressing it. In particular, we would like to know why 
researchers might find it necessary to publish OCA data for identified 
facilities and the number of facilities that might be involved. Our 
review of past publications on chemical safety indicates that much 
useful research on chemical safety has been published without naming 
the facilities that were studied. We are aware, however, that some 
researchers, especially those affiliated with public interest groups, 
are interested in identifying facilities in an industry or geographical 
area that have notably good or bad safety records or programs. We are 
therefore interested in receiving comments on how useful a QR system 
would be if it were to include one or the other of the restrictions 
being considered.
    In considering this question, it should be noted that CSISSFRRA and 
the rule prohibit ``covered persons,'' including a QR, from publishing 
statewide or national rankings of RMP facilities based on OCA 
information. This prohibition is likely to lead researchers themselves 
to limit the number of facilities they identify, with or without OCA 
data. It is also worth noting that the draft QR system defines 
``research'' as more than regurgitation or reformatting of available 
information. Consequently, a QR applicant must show that he or she 
needs OCA information to learn something new, such as industry averages 
and ranges. In short, an applicant cannot obtain OCA

[[Page 4024]]

information merely to publicize OCA data. We welcome comments on 
whether the QR system should include restrictions on publication of OCA 
data for identified facilities and, if so, what those restrictions 
should be. We also welcome comment on any other aspect of the draft 
guidance.

    Dated: December 28, 2000.
Timothy Fields, Jr.,
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
[FR Doc. 01-1349 Filed 1-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P