U.S. Agencies Pull Sensitive Data Off Web

Several federal agencies have removed sensitive documents and reports from their Internet sites following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, saying they want to keep the information out of the wrong hands.

The Department of Transportation has removed its national mapping system for a variety of pipelines. The Department of Health and Human Services yanked a report on the dangers of chemical plant terrorism. The Environmental Protection Agency pulled information on risk-management programs, which inform communities of dangers from 15,000 chemical plants and other industrial facilities nationwide.

The widespread editing illustrates how swiftly federal agencies have switched gears following the attacks. Although community activists have lobbied for years for more access to records about nuclear plants and other facilities, agencies now fear that such access may put the public at risk.

“Recent events have focused additional security concerns on critical infrastructure systems,” said a note posted online by the Office of Pipeline Safety within the Transportation Department.

“At this time, [the office] is providing pipeline data to pipeline operators and local, state and federal government officials only.”

White House officials say they have not issued a blanket order to federal agencies to remove sensitive documents from government Web sites.

“We would only hear about these things if we were asked to advise on them,” said E. Floyd Kvamme, co-chairman of the President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology.

However, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said his agency is working closely with the White House and Department of Defense to assure its Web site does not disclose potentially dangerous information.

“We have been reviewing all the information on the Web site with an eye to removing anything that might be helpful to potential terrorists,” said NRC spokesman Breck Henderson. For instance, if the site contained the exact geographic coordinates of a nuclear plant, that information would be removed, he said.

“If we’re a little overzealous in removing things, if there’s something on there you really want, give us a Freedom of Information Act request,” Henderson said.

EPA emergency coordinator Jim Makris said he personally made the decision to remove--at least temporarily--information about risk-management plans submitted by industrial facilities as required by 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act.

The Risk Management Program Web site gave detailed information about 15,000 facilities, including executive summaries, emergency plans, accident histories and chemicals used on site. That data had been on the Internet since late 1999.

“We just wanted to get it out of the way,” Makris said. “We have made no decision that it will stay off.” The information is still available to emergency managers, firefighters and others who need it, he said.

Web security experts say the steps taken by the agencies are only “half measures,” because the material could have been previously downloaded and saved on users’ hard drives. In addition, some of the reports are still available in paper form, said Elias Levy, chief technology officer for SecurityFocus, a security information company in San Mateo.

“If someone really wants to get it badly, as they’re assuming possibly a terrorist would, they still would be able to get it,” Levy said. “You simply have to jump through a lot of hoops. What they’re going to end up doing is discouraging the public from obtaining the information, not necessarily discouraging the terrorists from doing so.”

The Government Printing Office, which prints most government documents and runs a chain of stores, has not been asked to pull any books or reports, deputy general counsel Drew Spalding said.

But Transportation Department spokesman Lenny Alcivar said reviews similar to the one being conducted by his agency are taking place throughout the federal government.

“This is not meant to restrict information on the part of the public, but more importantly to allow the department and the public the maximum protections against security threats as it can,” Alcivar said.

“It’s important that government, across the board, do all that it can to heighten safety measures while at the same time continue to be as open and responsive to the public as possible.”

*

Times staff writers James Gerstenzang and Edmund Sanders in Washington contributed to this report.