-00JL
The George Washington University
Department of Public Administration
NATIONWIDE
October 1994
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Reprinted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Nationwide LEPC Survey
William C. Adams
Stephen D. Burns
Philip G. Handwerk
Department of Public Administration
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C. 20052
(202) 994-7494 (703) 522-4331
Grant funding for this research
was provided by the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
The Legacy of SARA m 3
How Are the LEPCs Doing? 3
Proactivity and LEPCs 5
Compliance vs. Proactivity 7
Activity Index 8
(1) Inactive LEPCs 8
(2) Quasi-Active LEPCs 11
(3) Compliant LEPCs 11
(4) Proactive LEPCs 11
Structures & Procedures 12
Public Communications 15
Emergency Response Plan 15
Reduce and Prevent Hazards 19
Other Data Usage 19
Priorities for Improvement 20
Types of Assistance 21
Self Appraisals & SARA m 24
Implications 25
Methodology Summary 26
Appendix A: Supplemental Tables . 31
Appendix B: LEPC Questionnaire . . 83
-------
List of Figures
Acknowledgments
Fig. 1:
Rg. 2:
Kg. 3:
Fig. 4:
Fig. 5:
Fig. 6:
Fig. 7:
Fig. 8:
Rg. 9:'
Fig. 10:
Fig. 11:
Fig. 12:
Fig. 13:
Fig. 14:
Fig. 15:
Fig. 16:
Fig. 17:
Fig. 18:
Fig. 19:
Fig. 20:
Fig. 21:
Fig. 22:
Fig. 23:
Fig. 24:
Fig. 25:
Number of Compliant Steps . . 4
Compliance Classifications ... 4
Number of Proactive Steps ... 5
Proactivity Classifications .... 6
Compliance & Proactivity .... 7
LEPC Activity Index 8
LEPC Activity & Population . 10
Areas of by LEPC Members . 10
Leadership & Procedures ... 13
Funding & Recommendations 13
Size & Average Attendance 14
Frequency of Formal Meetings 14
Public Communications ... 16
Number of Public Inquiries 16
Emergency Plan Status .... 17
Emergency Plan Authorship 17
Specifics of Emergency Plans 18
Plan Review, Update, Practice
& Revision 18
Data Use by LEPC 19
Improvement & Assistance . 20
Improvement Priorities .... 20
Usefulness of Resources .
Usefulness of Resources
(Including "Don't Know") .
LEPC Evaluation & Clarity
EPA and Survey Regions
22
23
24
27
The study would not have been possible
without the help and support of several
people who merit special thanks. First
and foremost, Sherry Fielding of the Of-
fice of Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention (CEPP) at the Environ-
mental Protection Agency offered wise
guidance, expertise, and good humor
throughout the project. Kathy Jones at
CEPP also provided valuable counsel.
Other EPA officials who were particularly
helpful were Kathy Bishop, Ray DiNardo,
John Higgins, Mark Horwitz, Kate Piva,
Shelley Levitt, and Kim Stephens. Col-
leagues Jed Kee and Debra Dean at The
George Washington University had cru-
cial roles in facilitating the establishment
of this project.
In addition, invaluable help came from
the SERCs and LEPCs themselves. They
were forthright and extremely helpful in
the initial pilot testing, in written re-
sponses, and in supplemental telephone
interviews.
The judgments and findings of this study
are ultimately those of the researchers
and are not necessarily those of any of
the individuals or institutions cited above.
William C. Adams
Stephen D. Burns
Philip G. Handwerk
Washington, D.C.
October 1, 1994
-------
Executive Summary
During the summer of 1994, researchers
from the Public Administration Depart-
ment at The George Washington Uni-
versity completed 1,155 mail and tele-
phone surveys of Local Emergency Plan-
ning Committees (LEPCs) nationwide.
This research effort achieved a comple-
tion rate of 80% from the population-
weighted random sample of 1,435 of the
nation's LEPCs.
Results of this research reveal a complex
pattern of LEPC activity. Their current
status cannot be generalized as either
utter failure or phenomenal success. A
substantial number of LEPCs are highly
active. Many proactively go beyond the
minimum legal mandates. Yet, a non-
trivial number (21%) disproportion-
ately in less-populated, rural counties
are largely inactive or, even if once ac-
tive, now defunct.
Among the 79% of the LEPCs that are
"functioning," some responsibilities are
performed more faithfully than others.
For example::
The overwhelming majority of func-
tioning LEPCs have filled the man-
dated leadership positions and hold
the required formal meetings. Near-
ly as many have the required variety
of committee members.
Eight of ten functioning LEPCs (81%)
have completed an emergency plan
and submitted it to the state com-
mission; another 11% have one that
is "mostly completed." Most of
these completed plans contain all or
almost all of the key elements speci-
fied by law and the plans have us-
ually been reviewed (88%) and prac-
ticed (74%) during the past year.
The significance of these plans can
be seen in the finding that 62% of all
LEPCs with completed plans have
had to use those plans at least once
to respond to a chemical emergency.
LEPCs are not as compliant with the
mandates involving public communi-
cations. Half (51%) of all functioning
LEPCs failed to publish newspaper
notice of the availability of their
emergency plans and hazardous sub-
stances data. Also, nearly one third
(30%) neglect to advertise their meet-
ings to the public as required.
EPA publications intended to assist
LEPCs are unfamiliar to as many as
two thirds of these LEPC leaders.
Overall, America's LEPCs are doing a
better job than their critics supposed.
Yet, despite the vigor of many urban
LEPCs, a majority of the nation's LEPCs
are failing to follow key legal mandates.
-------
-------
The Legacy of SARA III
How Are the LEPCs Doing?
Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amend-
ments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) is
a freestanding provision called the Emer-
gency Planning and Community Right-to-
Know Act (EPCRA). It is now commonly
called SARA Title HI or just SARA m.
SARA m stipulated that the governor of
each state appoint a State Emergency Re-
sponse Commission (SERC). Each SERC
was then to create Local Emergency Plan-
ning Committees (LEPCs), with members
to be drawn from such fields as public
safety, health care, and local industry.
Most SERCs created one LEPC for each
county in the state, but there were excep-
tions. A few states, such as Connecticut,
New Hampshire, and New Jersey, used
the much smaller jurisdictions of town-
ships and boroughs as the boundaries for
LEPCs. Some other states, such as Cali-
fornia, Florida, and Minnesota, created
much larger districts, encompassing many
.counties in each LEPC.
No later than October of 1988, each LEPC
was supposed have submitted an emer-
gency response plan to its SERC. That
plan was to identify, among other things,
the quantity and location of stored and
transported "Extremely Hazardous Sub-
stances" (EHS or HazMat), along with
procedures for emergency response, pub-
lic notification, and evacuation in the
event of an accidental release, spill or
other chemical emergency.
How much progress have LEPCs made
toward fulfilling the mandates of SARA
m? To what extent have they complied
with basic elements of the law?
Compliance Criteria. To look at the "big
picture" of adherence to SARA m, LEPCs
can be examined according to whether
they are satisfying the following ten cen-
tral provisions of the law:
(1) Have an LEPC Chair
(2) Have an Emergency Coordinator
(3) Have an Information Coordinator
(4) Have members representing at
least 12 of 13 specified groups
(5) Hold formal LEPC meetings
(6) Advertise meetings to the public
(7) Designed an emergency response
plan and submitted it to the SERC
(8) Have a plan incorporating at least
9 of 10 key SARA m elements
(9) Reviewed the plan in the past year
(10) In the past year, published news-
paper notice of the public availabil-
ity of the emergency plan and lo-
cal hazardous substances data.
Figure 1 and Table 1 show the frequency
of compliance with these ten provisions.1
Figure 2 and Table 2 show the same dis-
tribution grouped into three broad cate-
gories.
1 Any LEPC described by its Chair (or acting
Chair) as inactive and not functioning was coded
as "0" in terms of compliance and other per-
formance measures, although these LEPCs may
have a nominal "Chair."
-------
Compliance Classifications. "Not Com-
pliant LEPCs" comprise 21% of the total.
They fail to comply with a majority (at
least six) of these ten provisions or just
say that their LEPC is not a functioning
entity.
"Mostly Compliant LEPCs" (satisfying six,
seven, or eight of these ten provisions)
comprise 35% of all LEPCs. These LEPCs
seem to be striving toward fulfilling major
mandates of the law, but fall short in two
to four important respects.
A total of 44% of the LEPCs can be classi-
fied as "Compliant." These LEPCs are in
total compliance with all ten (22%) or
with nine out of the ten key provisions in
SARA m (22%).
Mostly
Compliant
(6-8 Steps)
35%
Compliant
(9-10 Steps)
44%
Not Compliant
(0-5 Steps)
21%
Figure 2: Compliance Classifications
25%
0%
1 2345678
Figure 1: Number of Compliant Steps
10
-------
Proactivity and LEPCs
To what extent have LEPCs gone beyond
the minimum letter of the law? To deter-
mine how many LEPCs are taking a pro-
active approach, the following five factors
can be examined whether the LEPC:
(1) Has practiced the plan in the past
12 months (voluntarily testing its
current effectiveness and training
participants in its procedures)
(2) Has updated the plan in the past
12 months (not letting an old plan
collect dust)
(3) Has a plan that takes natural haz-
ards into account (also not dictated
by law but indicating a more tho-
rough look at possible threats to
hazardous materials)
(4) Uses its EHS data to make hazard
reduction or prevention recommen-
dations to local government or to
industry (and thus seeks to deter
emergencies, not wait for them)
(5) Meets quarterly or more often (a
sign of commitment and action)
Figure 3 and Table 3 show the frequency
of these proactive steps. While none is
required by law, 85% of the LEPCs have
taken at least one proactive steps. Indeed,
six out of ten LEPCs (61%) have taken a
majority (at least three out of five) of
these proactive steps.
Using these five factors, LEPCs can be
classified as "very proactive" (four or five
out of five), "somewhat proactive" (two
or three out of five), or "not proactive"
(none or one out of five) as shown below
25%
1234
Figure 3: Number of Proactive Steps
-------
in Figure 4 and Table 4. Using this taxon-
omy, 37% of the LEPCs are very proac-
tive, 38% are somewhat proactive, and
25% are not proactive.
Somewhat
Proactive
(2-3 Steps)
38%
Very Proactive
(4-5 Steps)
37%
Not Proactive
(0-1 Steps)
25%
Figure 4: Proactivity Classifications
Proactive Prototypes. "Very proactive"
LEPCs that also are legally "very compli-
ant" (referred to here simply as "Proactive
LEPCs") represent the product of an enor-
mous amount of civic work. These pre-
mier LEPCs constitute a remarkably large
share about a quarter (26%) of the
population-weighted sample of all LEPCs.
Compared to other LEPCs, the typical
Proactive LEPC is likely to serve a more-
populated, affluent, urban jurisdiction (of
at least 40,000). It is a little less likely to
be located in the West.
Every Proactive LEPC holds formal meet-
ings and has a Chair and Information Co-
ordinator. Virtually all have an Emer-
gency Coordinator (99%) and formal rules
of procedures (96%).
The median Proactive LEPC has 21 mem-
bers, including three new members who
joined in the past year. They typically
meet once every two months, with about
13 members attending.
All Proactive LEPCs have an emergency
response plan- (already submitted to the
SERC). During the past year, almost all
have reviewed (97%), updated (95%), and
practiced their plans (94%). Refining the
plan is a serious matter because 80% have
had to use their plan for local chemical
emergencies. Accordingly, three-fourths
(76%) have taken the time to make recom-
mendations to local industry and govern-
ment on ways to reduce hazards and pre-
vent accidents.
Only 57% of the Proactive LEPCs have an
operating budget. Likewise, only 46%
receive funding from local government
and only 25% from local industry. While
this funding surpasses that received by
less active LEPCs, many Proactive LEPCs
do not receive any special funding. Thus,
money clearly helps, but does not appear
to be indispensable for LEPC success.
Large majorities of Proactive LEPCs ad-
vertise their meetings (88%) and have
procedures for public access to their plan
and EPCRA data (97%). However, more
drop the legal ball when it comes to pub-
lishing notices in the newspaper about
the public availability of the plan and the
data; only 68% did so.
-------
Compliance vs. Proactivity
Central to this research are the two issues
examined above the extent to which
LEPCs have come to (A) comply with the
law and (B) take a proactive approach to
chemical emergency planning and preven-
tion. Having previously reviewed each
area separately, how do they interact?
One might expect that only those LEPCs
that are highly compliant with SARA HI
rules would bother going beyond the
rules and take a more proactive approach.
Similarly, one might expect that LEPCs
that are not pursuing the letter of the law
would not proactively pursue its spirit.
Yet, the actual pattern is more complica-
ted. As shown in Figure 5 and Table 5C,
it is true that the more compliant LEPCs
are more inclined to be proactive. How-
ever, there are notable exceptions:
Three out of ten (29%) of the "mostly
compliant" LEPCs (i.e., those not
complying with two to four provi-
sions) are actually "very proactive"
(i.e., take at least four of five steps not
required by the law). Many (52%) are
"somewhat proactive" (taking two or
three proactive steps).
Even among LEPCs that fall so short
that they are termed here as "not com-
pliant," 17% are taking at least two
proactive steps.
Thus, proactivity does not begin only af-
ter legal compliance has been satisfied.
Some active LEPCs undertake valuable
proactive steps, but bypass certain legal
basics (such as public notice of meetings).
25% -
Mostly
Not Compliant
Compliant
o%
'ery Compliant
Not Proactive Somewhat Very Proactive
Figure 5: Compliance & Proactivity
-------
Activity Index
(1) Inactive LEPCs
Tables in Appendix A of this report allow
the reader to make an independent as-
sessment of LEPC progress. However, to
examine overall patterns, LEPCs can be
sorted according to their degrees of both
compliance and proactivity. They will be
grouped into the following four categories
used throughout the remainder of this
report:
(1) Inactive (21%)
(2) Quasi-Active (39%)
(3) Compliant (16%)
(4) -Proactive (24%)
Quasi-
Active
39%
Inactive
21%
Proactive
24%
Compliant
16%
Figure 6: LEPC Activity Index
As shown in Figure 6 and Table 6, LEPCs
exhibit a wide range of activity levels.
Thus, the current status of LEPCs cannot
be broadly characterized as either utter
failure or phenomenal success. Again, the
actual pattern is more complex.
All LEPCs that fail to comply with a majo-
rity of the ten key SARA III provisions
will be termed "Inactive." These LEPCs
have poor records on almost all the issues
covered in the survey.
In over half the Inactive cases, the Chair
acknowledged that the LEPC had become
defunct, had never been active, or had
just begun tentative efforts to organize.
Most other Inactives are not much further
along, although, as previously noted, a
handful have taken a few proactive steps.
In 29% of the cases, the Inactive LEPC
ostensibly has a plan. However, that
plan was inherited from years gone by
and is rarely updated by the current
committee. (Table 26.)
Why are Inactive LEPCs not more active?
According to 67%, the indifference of
the local community is the reason.
One person said, "No one is willing to
be the Chair." Many attribute the lack
of interest to the perceived absence of
any threat or the small population
base on which to draw.
Inadequate financial support constrains
38%. Several commented that they
needed "resources to go along with
the mandates" and needed "funding,
funding, funding."
A perceived lack of serious chemical
threats was singled out by 34%. As
one Chair wrote, "I haven't found the
'level of risk' in our community that
the regulation presumes."
-------
About 5% also volunteered criticism
that their SERC provides poor leader-
ship, no resources, and/or little help.
What sort of LEPCs are idle? Population
size is the best predictor of LEPC leth-
argy. As shown in Figure 7 almost half
(47%) of all Inactive LEPCs have jurisdic-
tions with fewer than 20,000 residents.
Few Proactive (9%) or Compliant LEPCs
(10%) can be found in these less-popu-
lated jurisdictions.
One small-town Chair complained that
"rural, non-industrial counties do not fit
the assumed profile" on which SARA HI
seems to be based. Several others also
elaborated on the inherent difficulties in
attempting to operate a full-fledged LEPC
with little or no funding in a small rural
county. Excerpt #1 quotes one such case.
EXCERPT #1: - ,
Policy makers and researchers neecl to differ-
entiate "between the mission of a fully staff-
ed LEPC with substantiafresources in a large
metropolitan area and a small LEPC with lim-
ited resources working In a rural area. \ [Ours]
is ajural county of about 20,000 wtiempop-
ulatibn centers have less than 4,000 rfesi-
=de'nk . . . [Of the manuals for emergency
planning], all but 6ne seem to ignore "the
needs of a small community which differ,. .:
Jn scale and structure." ...----
r, Midwestern LEPC Chair
Not all Inactive LEPCs are resigned to
their status. Nearly a quarter of the Inac-
tive LEPCs asserted that they were in the
early stage of attempting to launch or re-
vive their LEPC. Comments of one espe-
cially concerned Chair are reprinted in
Except #2.
< '-":- ."".:v ,'s.;~ -wi, ..**.,-
"Last year.,.. thus,committee was doing very
little, if anything, "of whatlt is; supposed to,
;"db as an LEPCj/CIjte do n,Qt have ^a,plan;
|he compliance Vork rVas;nbt b^en' ' '"'.','; ^ ฑ Midwestern lM Chair
Jurisdictions of Inactive LEPCs are more
likely to be rural and less affluent. Inac-
tive LEPCs exist in all regions, but are
slightly more common in the West where
there are a few more sparsely populated
jurisdictions. (See map in Figure 25.) Inactiv-
ity levels are unrelated to the large or
small presence of Hispanic and African-
American minorities. (Table 6.)
These patterns are noteworthy. They hold
true on most individual items as well as
on this cumulative index. That is, LEPCs
likely to be the least active and least par-
ticipatory on virtually all measures are
those that are the least populated (espe-
cially those under 20,000). They are also
likely to be more rural and less affluent.
However, they are neither more nor less
likely to have a high or low proportion of
minority residents.
As a convenient designation, all other
LEPCs will be called "functioning" from
this point forward, to distinguish them as
a group from Inactive LEPCs. Function-
ing LEPCs can then be sorted into three
groups: Quasi-Active, Compliant, and
Proactive.
-------
100%
75%
50%
25%
Inactive Quasi-Active Compliant Proactive
LEPC Population:
Over 100,000 D 20,000-40,000
40,001-100,00011 Under 20,000
Figure 7: LEPC Activity & Population
Percent of functioning LEPCs
Rre Departmert
Law Enforce,
First Aid
25% 50% 75% 100%
Figure 8: Areas Represented by LEPC Members
-------
(2) Quasi-Active LEPCs
(3) Compliant LEPCs
Quasi-Active LEPCs fulfill a majority of
the ten key mandates, but fall short in
two to four areas and/or do not have a
completed emergency plan submitted to
the SERC. Quasi-Active LEPCs comprise
39% of all LEPCs.
Quasi-Active LEPCs are not exactly dor-
mant. As previously shown in Figure 5
and Table 5, most even take some pro-
active measures. Yet, these Quasi-Active
LEPCs still tend to fall short in several
areas of the law, especially those involv-
ing public communications requirements.
Only 53% of all Quasi-Active LEPCs
publicly advertise their formal meet-
ings. (Table 22)
Only 34% of all Quasi-Active LEPCs
have published newspaper notices of
the availability of emergency response
plans and EPCRA data. (Table 24)
Simply satisfying these two elements of
the law would have pushed almost half of
the Quasi-Active LEPCs into the Compli-
ant category. However, Quasi-Active
LEPCs tend to be behind in most other
SARA m activities as well. For example:
Only 60% have submitted completed
emergency response plans to their
. SERC. (Table 26.)
Only 72% of those with completed
plans have reviewed their plans in the
last 12 months. (Table 29.)
Compliant LEPCs 16% of all LEPCs
have achieved a perfect (10/10) or near-
perfect (9/10) score regarding the "letter of
the law" (including a completed, SERC-
submitted plan) but have not accumulated
an equally strong record in the proactive
"spirit of the law."
Like Quasi-Active LEPCs, Compliant
LEPCs are most likely to default on
the requirement to publish newspaper
notices of the public availability of
their EPCRA data and plan. Only 56%
published such notices. (Table 24.)
(4) Proactive LEPCs
LEPCs are classified as Proactive if they
have followed the SARA m law as closely
as the Compliant LEPCs and also have
performed at least four of the five proac-
tive initiatives. A substantial number of
all surveyed LEPCs earned the Proactive
designation (24%).
Proactive LEPCs excel across the board,
but, when examined for any common de-
ficiencies, public communication tends to
be their weakest area (just as it is for
other LEPCs). (Tables 22 and 24.) For a re-
view of the typical Proactive LEPC, see
page 6.
11
-------
Overall, LEPCs vary enormously in their
levels of activism. About one fifth (21%)
have failed to act on a majority of the ba-
sic mandates of SARA EL Some LEPCs
created an emergency plan years ago but
have become lifeless today; others have
recently begun to revive. At the other ex-
treme, nearly a quarter (24%) have chosen
to fully comply with the details of the law
and to pursue activities exceeding the
minimum legal mandates.
All references to "functioning" LEPCs are
based on the 79% of LEPCs that are at
least "Quasi-Active" and excludes the
21% that are Inactive, as explained above.
Structures & Procedures
Most functioning LEPCs do have a
Chairperson (99%), an Emergency Co-
ordinator (94%), and an Information
Coordinator (96%). (See Figure 9.)
Some vacant positions were in the
process of being filled. (Tables 8-10)
Functioning LEPCs usually have for-
mal rules of procedure (86%) and hold
formal meetings (91%). (Figure 9; Tables
11-12)
Only 42% of functioning LEPCs have
an operating budget to support their
activities. (Figure 9; Table 13)
Most of these LEPCs have sought ad-
ditional resources. In accordance with
the statute, many LEPCs have made
recommendations regarding resources
they need (71%), but only about half
(54%) have made recommendations re-
garding the means for providing such
additional resources. (Figure 10; Tables
16-17)
As noted above, only 42% have an
operating budget. Functioning LEPCs
draw direct funding from local govern-
ments (34%) and from local industry
(14%), among other sources. (Figure 10;
Tables 14-15)
! Most LEPCs have recruited members
from most of the dozen areas stipu-
lated in SARA m. Only "elected state
officials" are conspicuously missing
and serve on only 38% of all function-
ing LEPCs. (Figure 8; Table 7)
Consequently, most functioning com-
mittees (85%) have at least 11 mem-
bers. The median number of members
is 20. (Figure 11; Table 18)
LEPC meetings are fairly well attend-
ed. The median number of members
attending the typical meeting of func-
tioning LEPCs in the past year was 12.
(Figure 11; Table 20)
Most functioning LEPCs meet on a
fairly regular basis; 61% hold formal
meetings at least quarterly. About one
third (34%) meet six or more times a
year. (Figure 12; Table 21)
In short, while six of ten LEPCs lack an
operating budget, most functioning com-
mittees follow a majority of the prescribed
structures.
12
-------
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
95%
86%
91%
Chairperson Emerg. Coordinator Info. Coordinator Rules of Procedure Formal Meetings Operating Budget
Figure 9: LEPC Leadership & Procedures
100%
75%
50%
6
25%
0%L
. .Recommendations. Made:..
71%
Direct Funding Sources:
34%
14%
54%
Local Government Local Industry Additional Resources Means for Resources
Figure 10: LEPC Funding & Recommendations
13
-------
35%
34%
Number of LEPC members
Average number of members attending
0%
1-5
6-10
11-15 16-20 21-25 26-30 31 +
Number of Individual LEPC members
Figure 11: Size of LEPC & Average Attendance of Meetings
ฐ1 23456789 10 11 12 13+
Figure 12: Frequency of Formal Meetings in Past 12 Months
14
-------
Public Communications
Emergency Response Plan
Public accountability is a fundamental
theme of SARA EL The law mandates
several specific steps to ensure and en-
courage public accessibility to EHS data
and the emergency planning process.
Nevertheless, LEPCs tend to be especially
lax in this area.
Nearly one third of the functioning
LEPCs (30%) fail to advertise their
meetings to the local public. (Figure 13;
Table 22)
Half (51%) of the functioning LEPCs
fail to publish the required newspaper
notice about the public availability of
the emergency plan and the EPCRA
information. (Figure 13; Table 24)
On the other hand, most functioning
LEPCs (88%) have satisfied the key
provision of having procedures in
place to make the plan and the EPCRA
information available to the public.
(Figure 13; Table 23)
Whether due to public apathy, the low
profiles of LEPCs, or the absence of
newspaper notices, most functioning
LEPCs receive few public inquiries.
Many (41%) received no inquiries dur-
ing the past 12 months. Others re-
ceived a few inquiries, but just a quar-
ter (25%) received more than six inqui-
ries. (Figure 14; Table 25)
Most functioning LEPCs (81%) have com-
pleted an emergency plan and submitted
it to their SERC. Another 11% say their
plan is "mostly completed." (See Figure 15;
Table 26.) Characteristics of completed
plans include the following:
Most emergency plans were written by
a team of LEPC members (60%) or one
member (19%). (Figure 16; Table 27)
Most completed plans contain nearly
all of the elements required by law.
(Figure 17; Table 28)
Most plans (78%) even allow for natu-
ral hazards like hurricanes and earth-
quakes, an element not required by
law. (Figure 17; Table 28)
Most LEPCs (90%) have site-specific
plans. (Figure 19; Table 33)
Most functioning LEPCs with completed
plans are giving ongoing attention to re-
fining their plans. (Figure 18)
Most LEPCs (88%) reviewed their com-
pleted plan in the past year. (Table 29)
Over three-fourths (78%) updated their
plan in the past year. (Fig 18; Table 30.)
A large majority (74%) practiced and
exercised their plan in the past year.
(Figure 18; Table 31)
In the past year, 46% both exercised
their plan and then revised it as a re-
sult of the exercise. (Table 32)
The status of these plans is important be-
cause most (62%) have had to use their
plans in a chemical emergency. (Table 34)
15
-------
100%
a
Advertise LEPC Meetings Procedures to make Plan/EPCRA Published Newspaper Notice of
Info. Publicly Available Available Plan/EPCRA Info.
Figure 13: Public Communications
40%
a
30%
20%
10%
0%
40%
18%
12%
0 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11+
Figure 14: Number of Public Inquiries Received and Responded to in Past 12 Months
16
-------
Completed &
Submitted 81%
A
Little or Nothing
Completed 2%
Partially Completed
6%
s
\
stly Completed
11%
Figure 15: Emergency Plan Status of Functioning LEPCs
Group of LEPC Members
60%
IAll other 3%
Outside
Contractor 3%
State EMS 3%
County EMS 4%
One LEPC Member 19% Local EMS 7%
Figure 16: Emergency Plan Authorship
17
-------
Informing Public
Informing Key Persons
Areas & Pop. Affected
Identify EHS Facilities
Equipment Available
Transportation Routes
Evacuation Plans
Equip. Responsibility
ID Additional Sites
*ID Other Haz. Facilities
'Natural Disasters
Training Programs
0% 25% 50% . 75% 100%
Percent of functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
Not specifically required by SARA III
Figure 17: Specifics of Emergency Plans
100%
0%
Reviewed Plan Updated Plan Practiced Plan Revised after Practice
Ust12months ฎ Over 2 years ago 0 Revisedatter
1-2yearsago Bj N9Ver D Mot revised
Never practiced
Figure 18: Plan Review, Update, Practice & Revision
-------
Reduce and Prevent Hazards Other Data Usage
One of the most important but not
mandated measures that LEPCs can
take is to make "hazard reduction or pre-
vention recommendations to industry or
local government." Nearly half (48%) of
the functioning LEPCs have taken this no-
table Step. (Figure 19; Table 38.)
Proactive LEPCs are especially likely to
make such recommendations, with over
three-fourths (76%) doing so. No dra-
matic regional or demographic correlates
stand out in Table 38, although such rec-
ommendations are less common in lightly
populated LEPC districts (under 20,000)
than elsewhere.
Functioning LEPCs overwhelmingly
(89%) use the chemical inventory in-
formation found on the Tier I/n forms
to identify risk areas to be addressed
in the emergency plans. (Figure 19 and
Table 37.)
Fewer than half (42%) of the function-
ing LEPCs systematically process the
extremely hazardous substances (EHS)
data differently than non-EHS data.
(Figure 19 and Table 35.)
Nearly half (45%) of the functioning
LEPCs put the chemical inventory in-
formation found on the Tier I/n forms
into a computerized database. The re-
mainder only use paper. (Figure 19 and
Table 36.)
Percent of functioning LEPCs _^
F
42%
rocess EHS Different
y
Fij
89%
Identify Risk Areas
jure 19: Data
Prev
Us
48% -
ention Recommendal
e by LEPC
ions
45%
Computerize Forms
19
-------
Priorities for Improvement
LEPC leaders were asked to select as
many as three top priorities for improving
their LEPC from a list of 12 items. Not
everyone specified three priorities as the
instructions requested. Some only noted
one or two, and a few did not record any.
Answers are widely dispersed. No single
factor far surpasses all the rest as the top
concern of LEPCs. Most of these poten-
tial priorities are each cited by only one or
two out of every ten LEPCs. (Figure 21; Ta-
ble 41.)
The top priority was "identifying non-
reporting facilities." Still, only 29%
cited this as one of their top priorities.
The least-cited priority was "integra-
ting natural disasters into emergency
plans." Only 5% are particularly con-
cerned about this area. Most have al-
ready taken natural disasters into ac-
count in their emergency plans and
apparently are satisfied with it.
LEPC leaders also were asked: "Are you
a member of any national organizations
which you feel could effectively be used
to support the interests of LEPCs nation-
wide?"
"No" was the overwhelming answer,
given by 75% of the respondents. The
National Coordinating Council on
Emergency Management (NCCEM)
was cited by 8%, but no other single
group was cited by more than 1%.
(Table 42.)
Percent of functioning LEPCs
Identify Non-
Reporting Sites
Safety Audits ^^
Public Outreach
Training Programs
Using CAMEO
Filing Hazard Data
Hazard Analyses
Drills & Exercises
Determining Risk
Contingency Plans
LEPC Admin.
Natural Disasters
in Plan
62%
61%
59%
56%
57%
^^^SS^^^i^ 46%
48%
60%
Need Major Improvement
Need Outside Assistance
Figure 20: Improvement & Assistance
Percent of functioning LEPCs
Identify Non-
Reporting Sites
Training Programs
Public Outreach
Hazard Analyses
Safety Audits
Drills & Exercises
Using CAMEO
LEPC Admin.
Filing Hazard Data
Determining Risk
Contingency Plans
Natural Disasters
in Plan
29%
10%
Figure 21: Improvement Priorities
20
-------
Types of Assistance
LEPCs were asked to rate the usefulness
of 25 different types of assistance: 11 EPA
publications and software packages, three
other publication series, eight training
and technical assistance programs, and
three types of meetings.
Familiar Resources. How useful are the
various types of assistance with which the
LEPC leaders are familiar? Discarding for
the moment the "never heard of it" and
"unfamiliar" answers, how are these vari-
ous sources rated?
Of 11 EPA tools and publications,
LEPC leaders consider three to be
"very useful": CAMEO, ALOHA, and
the List of Lists. At the other end of
the spectrum, Managing Chemicals Safe-
ly, Making It Work, and Opportunities
and Challenges are rarely praised as be-
ing "very useful." Other EPA publica-
tions, along with trade, industry, and
SERC publications, fall in the middle.
(Figure 22; Table 43.)
Industry training is considered the
most useful, with EPA training not far
behind. Training offered by other fed-
eral agencies and by the SERCs also
receive moderately favorable ratings.
Similarly, LEPC leaders view technical
assistance provided by industry as be-
ing "very useful." Technical assis-
tance from EPA, SERCs, and other
federal agencies is not viewed quite as
positively.
ซ Compared to other meetings, state-
wide LEPC meetings earned the high-
est ratings, with the HazMat Spills
conferences also earning fairly positive
ratings.
The meetings held by the National
Governors' Association received the
poorest ratings of any LEPC resource.
These statistics (and Figure 22) are based
on those who are familiar enough with a
resource to evaluate it. When the "un-
familiar" category is added, a few shifts
occur.
Unfamiliar Resources. Perhaps the single
most important finding shown in Figure
23 is that many LEPC leaders are un-
acquainted with EPA publications or with
other resources as well.
The most well-known EPA publications
are the NRT1 Planning Guide, Green Book,
CAMEO program, Chemicals in the Commu-
nity, and List of Lists. Yet, about one
third of the LEPC leaders are unfamiliar
with EPA's highest profile publications.
Other publications (Making It Work and
Opportunities and Challenges) are unfamiliar
to over two thirds of them. (Figure 23; Table
43.)
Two EPA publications illustrate LEPC
usage in more detail. As shown for both
the NRT1 Hazardous Material Emergency
Planning Guide (Table 44) and Opportunities
and Challenges (Table 45), awareness of
these resources is closely, though not en-
tirely, linked to LEPC activity levels and
population size.
21
-------
Percent of functioning LEPCs
EPA TOOLS & PUBLICATIONS:
CAMEO Program
List of Lists
ALOHA Program
NRT1 Planning Guide
Green Book
Tech. Advisory Bulletins
Chems in Community
Successful Practices
Managing Chems Safely
Making It Work
Opportunities & Challenges
OTHER PUBLICATIONS:
Trade Publications
SERC Newsletter
Industry Publications
TRAINING SESSIONS BY:
Industry
EPA
Federal Agency
SERC
TECH. ASSISTANCE FROM:
Industry
EPA Regional Offices
SERC
Federal Agency
MEETINGS:
State-wide LEPC
HazMat Spills Conference
NGA Meeting
0%
25%
50%
75%
Very Useful
Not Useful
Somewhat Useful
100%
Figure 22: Usefulness of Familiar Resources
22
-------
Percent of functioning LEPCs
EPA TOOLS & PUBLICATIONS:
CAMEO Program
List of Lists
NRT1 Planning Guide
ALOHA Program
Green Book
Tech. Advisory Bulletins
Chems in Community
Successful Practices
Managing Chems Safely
Making It Work
Opportunities & Challenges
OTHER PUBLICATIONS:
Trade Publications
SERC Newsletter
Industry Publications
TRAINING SESSIONS BY:
Industry
EPA
Federal Agency
SERC
TECH. ASSISTANCE FROM:
Industry
SERC
EPA Regional Offices
Federal Agency
MEETINGS:
State-wide LEPC
HazMat Spills Conference
NGA Meeting
mmmmmm
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Very Useful
Not Useful
^ Somewhat Useful
M Don't Know
Figure 23: Usefulness of Resources (Including "Don't Know" Responses)
23
-------
Self Appraisals & SARA III
Asked to assess "the job your LEPC is do-
ing," the answers of LEPC leaders cor-
respond closely to their performance. In
other words, the Compliant or Proactive
LEPCs usually rated themselves as doing
a "good" or "very good" job. Quasi-Ac-
tives tended to rate themselves as "OK or
fair" but not "good." (Table 46)
Nevertheless, as shown below in Figure
24, few are troubled enough by their
LEPC's shortcomings to say their LEPC is
doing a "poor" or "very poor" job. Only
7% of the functioning LEPCs put them-
selves into either of these two categories.
Could confusion about SARA III be to
blame for some problems? LEPC leaders
were asked: "How clear to you are the
federal legal mandates for LEPCs in SARA
m?"
Few functioning LEPC leaders accuse
SARA III of obfuscationi Only 8% say
SARA Hi's requirements are "unclear" or
"very unclear." However, another third
(34%) find them falling short of "clear"
and say the clarity of the requirements are
"in-between" neither all clear nor all
unclear. (Table 47)
Very Poor 1%-
Poor 6%-
OK/Fair 33%-
Good 40%-
Percent of functioning LEPCs
Very Good 20%-
Very Unclear 2%
- Unclear 6%
- In-between 34%
- Clear 43%
Very Clear 16%
Self Evaluation Clarity of SARA III
Figure 24: LEPC Evaluation & Clarity of Law
24
-------
Implications
Overall, LEPCs are doing a much better
job than their critics supposed, although,
many still have a long way to go. With-
out exhausting the ramifications of these
survey findings, three particular patterns
deserve to be underscored.
LEPCs in America's more populous juris-
dictions are surprisingly vigorous. How-
ever, rural and small-town LEPCs are of-
ten much less healthy, if not moribund.
SARA m was predicated on more volun-
teerism, public interest, and inventive
funding than has emerged in these less-
populated LEPCs. These lagging LEPCs
might well profit from special guidance
and resources. Some might even be con-
solidated with adjacent LEPCs.
Despite the "community right-to-know"
goals of SARA IE, public communications
is the area in which most LEPCs fall short.
Among all functioning LEPCs, only-49%
publish newspaper notice of the public
availability of their emergency plans and
HazMat data and only 70% advertise their
meetings to the public. LEPCs clearly
need to be reminded of these obligations.
Another communications area stood out
as a conspicuous target for improvement
the visibility of EPA publications for
LEPCs. The good news is that among
those who are familiar with them
EPA's publications earn positive reviews.
The bad news is that EPA's various publi-
cations are unknown to between one
third and two thirds of the leaders of
functioning LEPCs. Thus, periodic na-
tionwide distribution of these materials
holds the real potential to assist LEPCs.
25
-------
Methodology Summary
Questionnaire. To develop the survey
instrument, a series of interviews was
first conducted with eleven representa-
tives of EPA's Chemical Emergency Pre-
paredness and Prevention (CEPP) office
and with three EPA regional officials.
Next, the resulting draft questionnaire
was pretested with leaders of five diverse
LEPCs in Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Their comments led
to only three minor adjustments in the
questionnaire. These LEPC chairs reacted
so positively to the wording and format of
the document that the questionnaire was
deemed suitable for the national survey.
A copy of the final questionnaire is re-
printed in Appendix B.
Population-Weighted Random Sample.
The sampling strategy weighted LEPCs
according to their population. This sys-
tem ensured that LEPCs in the more pop-
ulated jurisdictions were represented in
approximate proportion to their popula-
tion.
For every 120,000 residents of a state, an
LEPC was sampled. Without such an
approach, an unweighted sample would
have drawn almost a third of the inter-
views from just three states New Jer-
sey, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire
since those states each have hundreds
of small LEPC districts.
The resulting sample size for the project
was 1,435 LEPCs throughout the nation,
including a sample of LEPCs for U.S.
territories and for Native American reser-
vations.
Table 1: LEPC Sampling
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico,
Territories, and
Native Tribes
TOTAL
Total
LEPCs
67
14
15
77
6
56
156
1
4
11
4
4
44
104
92
87
107
120
64
16
25
351
92
7
82
78
57
96
17
234
675
29
58
101
53
87
80
1
67
9
46
66
95
278
31
9
113
41
53
72
23
426
3397
LEPC
Sample
34
5
15
20
6
25
26
1
4
11
4
4
8
96
46
23
21
31
35
10
25
50
68
7
21
32
7
13
10
10
63
13
58
55
5
72
26
1
67
9
29
7
41
142
14
5
46
41
15
41
4
13
1435
-------
Survey Contacts. Five communication
initiatives were undertaken:
May 20, 1994: An advance letter pro-
moting the forthcoming survey (and
including a return change-of-address
postcard) was mailed to all sampled
LEPCs; 244 change-of-address post-
cards were returned.
June 1, 1994: The survey question-
naires were mailed via U.S. Postal Ser-
vice Priority Mail; 770 first-round sur-
veys were returned.
June 7, 1994: A follow-up reminder
postcard was mailed to all LEPCs.
July 11, 1994: A second round of sur-
veys was mailed to all nonresponding
LEPCs. This mailing included a spe-
cial "short-form" to encourage defunct
LEPCs to respond. Ultimately, 138
second-round surveys and 93 short-
form surveys were returned.
August 1-September 23, 1994: Tele-
phone interviews were conducted with
a random sample of 150 LEPC leaders
who had not responded to the mail
questionnaires.
Confidence Intervals. A random sample
of 1,001 completed interviews drawn from
the total of 3,397 LEPCs yields confidence
intervals of ฑ2Vi% as a safe rule of thumb
(at the customary 95% level of probability,
adjusted by the finite population multi-
plier). The text does not dwell on con-
fidence intervals, however, because the
fundamental findings of this research do
not hinge on subtle 2Vi% margins.
Regional Groups. The four U.S. regions
used in the tables throughout this report
are based on EPA's ten regions. The map
below shows how the EPA regions were
combined to form four broader regions
that correspond closely to conventional
groupings.
WEST
EPA Regions
VIII, IX &X
MIDWEST
EPA Regions
V&VII
NORTHEAST
EPA Regions
I, II & III
SOUTH
EPA Regions
IV&VI
Figure 25: EPA Regions and Survey Regions
27
-------
Testing for Non-Response Bias. Out of
1,435 LEPCs sampled, 1,001 responded, a
far larger sample than any know previous
survey of LEPCs. Higher response rates
increase the probability that the responses
are an accurate representation of the sam-
pled population. In this case, the 70% re-
sponse rate is exceptionally strong and
compares quite favorably with past sur-
veys.2
Yet, it was still possible that the 70% who
responded were different from the 30%
who had not responded. Perhaps most
nonresponding LEPCs were defunct. If
so, the data would be misleading, despite
the high response rate.
To probe this possibility, a random sam-
ple of 150 LEPCs was drawn from the
pool of those who had not responded.
All 150 were successfully contacted (in
August and September) by telephone for
a short survey. The results revealed great
similarities between the 70% who re-
sponded and the 30% who had not:
Inactive LEPCs were exactly 21% of
both the 1,001 responding LEPCs and
the 150 nonresponding LEPCs.
Among the functioning LEPCs, 81% of
the responders and 85% of the nonre-
sponders had completed plans.
2 City managers had a 33% response rate to the
1991ICMA survey about LEPCs (R. O'Leary,
Emergency Planning, International City/County
Management Association, 1993). The response
rate was 55% for a 1992 random sample of 220
LEPCs g. D. Kartez, LEPC Roles in Toxic Hazards
Reduction, Texas A&MUniversity, 1993), although
Kartez achieved higher responses from mayors
and managers in middle-sized and large cities.
No significant differences were found.
Thus, no evidence pointed toward nonre-
sponse bias. Instead, these findings bol-
ster the representative character of the
high response rate and strengthen the
persuasiveness of the survey data. (These
telephone interviews bring the total com-
pletion rate to 80%.)
Response Validation. The exceptionally
high mail completion rate plus the lack
of any detectable nonresponse bias still
does not ensure data validity. Despite
the promise of anonymity, Chairs still
might be reluctant to confess their failures
to follow the law. Are LEPC Chairs em-
bellishing their accomplishments? If so,
these survey results would exaggerate the
progress of LEPCs.
To scrutinize this issue, three dissimilar
states were selected for intensive analysis:
Alabama, Ohio, and Washington. A total
of 112 LEPCs had been successfully sur-
veyed in these three states.
Did LEPC Chairs feel comfortable enough
to be frank about perhaps the most pivo-
tal and potentially embarrassing sur-
vey question: Whether their LEPC had
completed the emergency plan that was
supposed to have been submitted to its
SERC in 1988? Not only was this an ideal
litmus test for the candor and accuracy of
the answers, but, thanks to the SERCs'
help, the LEPC answers could be vali-
dated.
Only one of the 112 LEPCs in these
states erroneously claimed to have a
completed plan. This validation lends
great credibility to the survey data.
28
-------
Unexpectedly, a few mistakes occurred
in the opposite direction. Seven
Chairs denied that their LEPC had a
completed plan even though their
SERC had one in its files. Yet, if the
LEPC lacks any institutional memory
or awareness of having a plan, the
survey answer ("no plan") is actually a
superior and more precise response.
29
-------
-------
Appendix A:
Supplemental Tables
31
-------
-------
Table 2: CLASSIFICATIONS OF LEPC COMPLIANCE
Table 1: FREQUENCY OF LEPC COMPLIANCE
NUMBER OF
ALL LEPCs
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minor: ty
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
0
9%
20%
11%
7%
2%
10%
6%
11%
13%
17%
8%
7%
19%
8%
4%
9%
10%
8%
1
1%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
2%
1%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
2
2%
6%
2%
0%
0%
1%
2%
2%
2%
4%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
4%
1%
1%
3
2%
5%
0%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
1%
3%
1%
1%
1%
1%
4%
COMPLIANT ACTIVITIES
4
2%
4%
3%
1%
1%
3%
2%
1%
4%
3%
2%
3%
5%
1%
2%
4%
2%
1%
5
5%
7%
7%
4%
2%
5%
4%
6%
3%
8%
4%
3%
9%
5%
1%
6%
4%
5%
6
7%
9%
7%
7%
6%
7%
7%
7%
9%
5%
7%
9%
9%
6%
8%
6%
8%
6%
7
12%
11%
13%
12%
11%
15%
12%
9%
8%
12%
13%
10%
9%
11%
14%
11%
12%
10%
8 '
16%
17%
14%
15%
20%
16%
15%
15%
25%
13%
16%
20%
11%
16%
21%
14%
17%
20%
. 9
22%
9%
25%
28%
25%
20%
26%
23%
18%
20%
23%
23%
15%
27%
21%
24%
22%
22%
10
22%
10%
17%
24%
33%
22%
27%
22%
11%
15%
24%
23%
18%
22%
27%
21%
23%
22%
COMPLIANCE LEVEL
Non-
Compliant
ALL LEPCs
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
21%
45%
25%
14%
6%
21%
14%
24%
29%
36%
18%
15%
38%
18%
9%
-24%
18%
20%
Mostly
Compliant
35%
36%
34%
34%
36%
38%
34%
32%
43%
30%
35%
39%
29%
33%
43%
32%
37%
36%
Compliant
44%
19%
41%
52%
58%
41%
53%
44%
29%
35%
47%
46%
33%
49%
48%
45%
45%
44%
-------
Table 3: FREQUENCY OF LEPC PROACTIVITY
NUMBER
ALL LEPCs
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
0
15%
34%
16%
11%
4%
4%
6%
32%
9%
28%
13%
9%
28%
14%
5%
18%
14%
14%
1
10%
13%
10%
9%
8%
8%
12%
8%
16%
11%
ii%
9%
14%
10%.
7%
11%
10%
8%
OF PROACTIVE STEPS
2
14%
12%
14%
12%
16%
19%
14%
10%
15%
10%
13%
16%
9%
13%
18%
12%
14%
13%
3
24%
21%
26%
26%
25%
28%
24%
21%
26%
21%
25%
24%
19%
26%
26%
24%
25%
24%
4
22%
15%
19%
24%
27%
24%
23%
20%
21%
18%
23%
23%
18%
20%
28%
17%
21%
30%
5
15%
5%
15%
18%
19%
16%
21%
9%
14%
11%
14%
18%
13%
16%
15%
18%
15%
11%
Table 4: CLASSIFICATIONS OF LEPC PROACTIVITY
PROACTIVITY LEVEL
Not
Proactive
ALL LEPCs
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
25%
47%
27%
20%
13%
21%
22%
28%
34%
38%
24%
18%
42%
24%
13%
29%
24%
22%
Somewhat
Proactive
38%
33%
39%
38%
41%
43%
36%
37%
36%
32%
39%
40%
27%
40%
44%
36%
39%
37%
Very
Proactive
37%
20%
34%
42%
46%
36%
42%
34%
30%
30%
37%
42%
31%
37%
43%
35%
36%
41%
-------
Table 5A:
PROACTIVITY LEVELS BY COMPLIANCE LEVELS
.(Row Percents)
PROACTIVITY LEVEL
Not Somewhat Very
Proactive Proactive Proactive
COMPLIANCE LEVEL
Won-Compliant
Mostly Compliant
Compliant
83%
19%
3%
16%
52%
38%
1%
29%
60%
Table 5B:
PROACTIVITY LEVELS BY COMPLIANCE LEVELS
(Column Percents)
'PROACTIVITY LEVEL
Not Somewhat Very
Proactive Proactive Proactive
COMPLIANCE LEVEL
Non-Compliant
Mostly Compliant
Compliant
68%
27%
5%
8%
48%
44%
1%
28%
71%
Table 5C:
PROACTIVITY LEVELS BY COMPLIANCE LEVELS
(Total Percents)
PROACTIVITY LEVEL
Not Somewhat Very
Proactive Proactive Proactive
COMPLIANCE LEVEL
Non-Compliant
Mostly Compliant
Compliant
17%
7%
1%
3%
18%
17%
0%
10%
26%
Table 6: OVERALL LEPC ACTIVITY LEVELS
ACTIVITY LEVEL
ALL LEPCs
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Inactive
21%
45%
25%
14%
6%
21%
14%
24%
29%
36%
18%
15%
38%
18%
9%
24%
18%
20%
Quasi -
Active
39%
38%
39%
39%
38%
41%
39%
34%
44%
34%
39%
42%
32%
38%
44%
37%
40%
37%
Compliant
16%
8%
17%
17%
22%
14%
18%
19%
13%
12%
18%
15%
10%
19%
18%
17%
17%
15%
Proactive
24%
10%
20%
30%
33%
24%
29%
24%
15%
18%
25%
28%
19%
25%
29%
23%
24%
28%
-------
Table 8: LEPCs WITH A CHAIRPERSON (Q1A)
Table 7: AREAS REPRESENTED BY MEMBERS ON LEPCs (Q4)
Fire Fighting Departments
Law Enforcement
First Aid
Industries/Facilities
Affected by SARA III
Elected Local Officials
Civil Defense
Other Health Industries
Media
Hospitals
Community Groups
Environmental
Transportation Sectors
Elected State Officials
Yes
99%
97%
96%
95%
94%
94%
88%
83%
81%
78%
75%
74%
38%
No
1%
3%
4%
5%
6%
6%
12%
17%
19%
22%
25%
26%
62%
Based on functioning LEPCs
Chairperson
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
99%
88%
46%
99%
100%
100%
74%
88%
91%
98%
88%
93%
87%
81%
78%
91%
91%
77%
91%
94%
89%
88%
89%
No
1%
12%
55%
1%
0%
0%
26%
13%
9%
2%
12%
7%
13%
19%
22%
9%
9%
23%
9%
6%
11%
12%
11%
-------
Table 9: LEPCs WITH A COMMUNITY EMERGENCY COORDINATOR (Q1B)
Table 10: LEPCs WITH AN INFORMATION COORDINATOR (QIC!
Community
Emergency
Coordinator
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ALL LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi-Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40, 001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
94%
83%
41%
89%
97%
99%
70%
86%
88%
86%
83%
87%
82%
74%
77%
84%
84%
73%
87%
86%
83%
83%
84%
No
6%
17%
59%
1.1%
3%
1%
30%
14%
12%
14%
17%
13%
18%
26%
23%
16%
16%
27%
13%
14%
,17%
17%
16%
Information
Coordinator
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21, 000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
96%
84%
35%
91%
100%
100%
67%
82%
88%
93%
81%
90%
83%
76%
78%
84%
87%
75%
86%
88%
84%
83%
85%
No
4%
16%
65%
9%
0%
0%
33%
18%
12%
7%
19%
10%
17%
24%
22%
16%
13%
25%
14%
12%
16%
17%
15%
-------
Table 11: LEPCs WITH RULES OF PROCEDURE (Q1D)
Rules of
Procedure for the
Committee
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
86%
72%
18%
76%
92%
96%
49%
66%
79%
86%
70%
79%
71%
61%
58%
76%
75%
61%
74%
80%
72%
73%
70%
No
14%
28%
82%
24%
8%
4%
51%
34%
21%
14%
30%
21%
29%
39%
42%
24%
25%
39%
26%
20%
28%
27%
30%
Table 12: LEPCs HOLDING FORMAL MEETINGS (Q5)
Formal Meetings
of LEPC
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
91%
75%
13%
82%
98%
100%
49%
68%
82%
94%
73%
81%
73%
72%
60%
78%
81%
59%
78%
86%
71%
77%
76%
No
9%
25%
87%
18%
2%
0%
51%
32%
18%
6%
27%
19%
27%
28%
40%
22%
19%
41%
22%
14%
29%
23%
24%
-------
Table 13: LEPCs WITH AN OPERATING BUDGET (Q9)
Table 14: LEPCs RECEIVING LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING (Q10A)
Operating Budget
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
42%
34%
5%
33%
38%
57%
24%
31%
35%
43%
35%
55%
16%
23%
17%
38%
39%
32%
36%
34%
45%
37%
16%
No
58%
66%
95%
67%
62%
43%
76%
69%
65%
57%
65%
45%
84%
77%
83%
62%
61%
68%
64%
66%
55%
63%
84%
Local Government
Funding
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
34%
28%
- 7%
26%
34%
46%
23%
25%
29%
33%
35%
38%
18%
14%
18%
28%
36%
27%
27%
32%
30%
30%
22%
No
66%
72%
93%
74%
66%
54%
77%
75%
71%
67%
65%
63%
82%
86%
82%
72%
64%
73%
73%
68%
70%
70%
78%
-------
Table 15: LEPCs RECEIVING LOCAL INDUSTRY FUNDING (Q10B)
Local Industry
Funding
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30, 000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
14%
12%
2%
8%
15%
25%
2%
9%
14%
19%
20%
9%
9%
7%
7%
14%
11%
10%
11%
15%
16%
1-0%
11%
No
86%
88%
98%
92%
85.%
75%'
98%
91%
86%
81%
80%
91%
91%
93%
93%
86%
89%
90%
89%
85%
84%
90%
89%
Table 16: LEPCs RECOMMENDING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES (QUA)
LEPC Recommended
Additional
Resources
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
71%
60%
19%
64%
67%
84%
41%
57%
62%
75%
64%
65%
52%
60%
44%
64%
64%
50%
61%
68%
64%
61%
55%
No
29%
40%
81%
36%
33%
16%
59%
43%
38%
25%
36%
35%
48%
40%
56%
36%
36%
50%
39%
32%
36%
39%
45%
-------
Table 17:
L-EPCS RECOMMENDING MEANS FOR AQUIRING MORE RESOURCES (Q11B)
Table 18: NUMBER OF MEMBERS ON LEPC (Q2)
LEPC Recommended
Means for More
Resouces
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
54%
45%
12%
46%
48%
70%
26%
37%
50%
61%
48%
50%
40%
42%
28%
49%
51%
34%
46%
54%
46%
46%
43%
No
46%
55%
88%
54%
52%
30%
74%
63%
50%
39%
52%
50%
60%
58%
72%
51%
49%
66%
54%
46%
54%
54%
57%
Individual LEPC
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ALL LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quart iles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
25th
Percentile
14
12
5
12
15
16
8
12
14
18
12
13
14
11
10
13
14
9
13
15
12
13
13
Median
20
18
9
16
20
21
12
15
20
25
16
18
22
17
13
19
19
14
19
22
15
20
20
Members
75th
Percentile
27
26
12
25
27
29
16
20
26
33
24
24
30
25
20
27
26
18
26
30
20
27
30
-------
Table 19: NUMBER OF NEW MEMBERS ON LEPC (Q3)
Table 20: AVERAGE NUMBER OF MEMBERS ATTENDING LEPC MEETINGS (Q7)
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi- Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
New Members
25th
Percentile
0
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
in the Last
Median
2
2
0
2
2
3
0
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
12 Months
75th
Percentile
4
4
0
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
5
3
4
4
Average Number of Members Attending
25th
Percentile
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi-Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
8
7
0
7
8
10
4
6
8
10
7
7
8
8
6
8
8
5
8
9
6
8
8
Median
12
10
4
10
11
13
7
9
11
14
10
10
12
10
8
11
12
8
11
14
8
12
12
75th
Percentile
15
15
7
15
16
18
10
12
15
18
14
14
19
15
12
15
15
11
15
18
12
16
18
-------
Table 21: FREQUENCY OF LEPC MEETINGS IN LAST YEAR (Q6)
Table 22: PUBLICLY ADVERTISED LEPC MEETINGS (Q8)
Number of
25th
Percentile
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
2
1
0
1
2
4
0
1
2
3
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
LEPC Meetings in Last
Year
Median
4
4
0
3
3
6
2
3
4
5
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
3
75th
Percentile
6
6
2
6
6
9
4
4
6
9
8
7
4
6
4
6
8
6
6
8
6
6
6
Advertise
Meetings to the
Public
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ALL LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
70%
58%
8%
53%
84%
88%
38%
55%
63%
70%
50%
66%
60%
52%
51%
61%
59%
46%
63%
62%
61%
59%
53%
No
30%
42%
92%
47%
16%
12%
62%
45%
37%
30%
50%
34%
40%
48%
49%
39%
41%
54%
37%
38%
39%
41%
47%
-------
Table 23:
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC ACCESS TO PLAN & EPCRA DATA (Q12)
Table 24:
NEWSPAPER NOTICE OF PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION (Q13
Procedures for
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ALL LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40, 001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PRP.OKNT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Public
Plan
Yes
88%
74%
15%
78%
98%
97%
54%
71%
76%
88%
72%
79%
74%
64%
62%
77%
77%
61%
76%
81%
73%
75%
.74%
Access to
and EPCRA
Data
No
12%
26%
85%
22%
2%
3%
46%
29%
24%
12%
28%
21%
26%
36%
38%
23%
23%
39%
24%
19%
27%
25%
26%
Published Notice
in Newspapers
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,00'0
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Ouartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
49%
40%
4%
34%
56%
68%
22%
39%
41%
53%
34%
45%
43%
33%
31%
41%
44%
32%
44%
43%
37%
43%
38%
No
51%
60%
96%
66%
44%
32%
78%
61%
59%
47%
66%
55%
57%
67%
69%
59%
56%
68%
56%
57%
63%
57%
63%
-------
Table 25: NUMBER OF PUBLIC INQUIRIES (Q14)
Table 26: PROGRESS OF SARA III EMERGENCY PLANS (Q19)
Number of Public Inquiries in Last
12 Months
25th
Percentile
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
Median
2
1
0
1
1
4
0
0
1
3
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
0
1
2
0
2
2
75th
Percentile
6
5
0
4
5
10
2
3
4
10
4
5
6
4
3
5
6
3
4
9
3
6
6
Progress of Emergency Plan
Completed/ Mostly
Submitted Completed
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
81%
74%
29%
60%
100%
100%
56%
73%
75%
85%
80%
72%
73%
70%
62%
76%
77%
61%
73%
86%
67%
75%
81%
11%
12%
14%
23%
0%
0%
17%
9%
16%
6%
12%
11%
13%
10%
15%
11%
12%
12%
13%
9%
12%
14%
7%
Partially
Completed
6%
7%
10%
13%
0%
0%
9%
10%
5%
5%
6%
8%
5%
10%
9%
6%
7%
11%
7%
3%
10%
6%
5%
Little or
Nothing
2%
7%
46%
3%
0%
0%
19%
8%
3%
4%
3%
8%
9%
11%
14%
7%
4%
16%
7%
2%
11%
5%
7%
-------
Table 27: AUTHORS OF LEPC EMERGENCY PLANS (Q20)
Table 27: AUTHORS OF LEPC EMERGENCY PLANS (Q20)
Primary Author of Emergency Plan
All
Others
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
2%
4%
0%
1%
1%
1%
1%
3%
1%
1%
3%
1%
2%
2%
Outside
Con-
tractor
3%
3%
5%
3%
2%
7%
4%
2%
2%
3%
3%
4%
1%
5%
3%
2%
5%
3%
2%
3%
3%
3%
One LEPC
Member
19%
19%
27%
15%
15%
29%
29%
18%
13%
18%
24%
17%
13%
19%
19%
20%
26%
19%
16%
26%
18%
16%
Group of
LEPC
Members
60%
60%
54%
60%
66%
48%
55%
65%
63%
62%
58%
59%
66%
63%
58%
62%
57%
59%
64%
51%
63%
61%
Local
EMS
7%
7%
4%
9%
7%
7%
6%
6%
8%
4%
8%
8%
6%
7%
7%
7%
3%
9%
6%
8%
5%
9%
Primary
Regional
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
EMS
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
0%
1%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
0%
1%
0%
1%
0%
Author of Emergency Plan
State
EMS
3%
3%
4%
3%
3%
5%
2%
3%
3%
4%
1%
4%
6%
2%
3%
3%
3%
4%
3%
5%
3%
2%
County
EMS
4%
4%
3%
5%
5%
2%
3%
3%
6%
4%
5%
4%
3%
2%
5%
3%
4%
4%
5%
5%
4%
5%
LEPC
Staff
2%
2%
0%
3%
2%
0%
0%
2%
3%
2%
0%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2%
2%
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
(continued)
-------
Table 29: MOST RECENT REVIEW OF EMERGENCY PLAN (Q21)
Table 28: FEATURES OF LEPC EMERGENCY PLANS (Q28)
Plan Has Procedures to Inform the Public
Plan Has Procedures to Notify Key Persons
Plan Specifies Area & Population Affected
Plan Identifies EHS Facilities
Plan Describes Emergency Equipment
Plan Identifies Transportation Routes
Plan Includes Evacuation Routes
Plan Specifies Equipment Responsibilty
Plan Identifies Additional Facilities
Plan Identifies Other HazMat Facilities
Plan Considers Potential Natural Hazards
Plan Includes Training Programs
Yes
99%
97%
91%
9.1%
90%
88%
87%
86%
86%
86%
78%
72%
No
1%
3%
9%
9%
10%
12%
13%
14%
14%
14%
22%
28%
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
Plan Has
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Last 12
Months
88%
72%
95%
97%
90%
87%
86%
89%
87%
89%
88%
84%
91%
87%
87%
93%
86%
87%
91%
85%
89%
1-2
Years
Ago
9%
20%
4%
2%
2%
9%
11%
9%
8%
8%
8%
15%
5%
9%
9%
3%
10%
10%
5%
11%
6%
Last Reviewed
Over 2 Never
Years
Ago
2%
6%
1%
0%
6%
3%
2%
2%
2%
2%
4%
0%
4%
2%
3%
4%
2%
2%
/
1%
2%
3%
1%
3%
1%
0%
1%
2%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
0%
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
-------
Table 30:
MOST RECENT UPDATE OF 'EMERGENCY PLAN (Q22) Table 31: MOST RECENT PRACTICE OF EMERGENCY PLAN (Q23)
Plan Was
Last 12 1-2
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40, 001-100, 000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Months
78%
61%
76%
95%
80%
76%
79%
76%
78%
82%
77%
66%
85%
76%
77%
84%
78%
76%
85%
75%
77%
Years
Ago
15%
26%
16%
4%
13%
16%
14%
16%
13%
13%
16%
22%
8%
17%
15%
10%
15%
16%
10%
18%
13%
Last Updated
Over 2 Never
Years
Ago
5%
9%
6%
1%
6%
3%
4%
6%
6%
2%
5%
12%
3%
5%
6%
6%
4%
6%
2%
5%
7%
3%
4%
2%
1%
1%
5%
3%
2%
4%
3%
2%
0%
3%
2%
3%
0%
4%
2%
3%
2%
3%
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi-Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40, 001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Plan
Last 12
Months
74%
65%
57%
94%
62%
73%
77%
78%
73%
74%
77%
73%
70%
73%
80%
71%
73%
79%
68%
74%
81%
Was
1-2
Years
Ago
15%
15%
30%
5%
20%
15%
15%
14%
17%
14%
16%
15%
17%
16%
13%
15%
16%
14%
18%
16%
12%
Last Practiced
Over 2 Never
Years
Ago
4%
9%
4%
0%
11%
6%
2%
3%
5%
3%
4%
6%
8%
5%
2%
8%
5%
2%
4%
5%
4%
6%
10%
10%
0%
7%
7%
5%
6%
5%
9%
4%
6%
5%
7%
6%
6%
7%
5%
10%
5%
4%
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
-------
Table 33: SITE-SPECIFIC EMERGENCY PLANS DEVELOPED (Q25)
Table 32: REVISIONS TO PLAN DUE.TO PRACTICE EXCERCISES (Q24)
Plan Was Revised
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi- Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
50%
39%
45%
61%
40%
49%
52%
52%
45%
52%
53%
44%
50%
52%
46%
54%
49%
50%
50%
50%
49%
No
50%
61%
55%
39%
60%
51%
48%
48%
55%
48%
47%
56%
50%
48%
54%
46%
51%
51%
50%
50%
51%
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi-Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
LEPC Has
Site-Specific
Plans
Yes No
90% 10%
85% 15%
89% 11%
95% 5%
86% 14%
84% 16%
90% 10%
93% 7%
91% 9%
91% 9%
88% 12%
88% 12%
85% 15%
89% 11%
93% 7%
88% 12%
89% 11%
92% 8%
92% 8%
90% 10%
86% 14%
Based on functioning LEPCs that have practiced & excercised plan Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan
-------
Table 34: PLAN HAS BEEN USED FOR CHEMICAL EMERGENCIES (Q26)
Table 35: HANDLING OF EXTREMELY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES DATA (Q16)
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20, 000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle QUartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Plan Has
Used
Yes
62%
48%
53%
80%
44%
53%
64%
71%
60%
61%
67%
53%
52%
61%
67%
48%
63%
67%
52%
63%
69%
Been
No
38%
52%
47%
20%
56%
48%
36%
29%
40%
39%
33%
47%
48%
39%
33%
52%
38%
33%
48%
37%
31%
Based on functioning LEPCs with a completed plan.
EHS Data
Handled
Differently
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
42%
35%
8%
36%
42%
51%
25%
30%
35%
47%
37%
41%
32%
25%
29%
35%
39%
30%
35%
41%
37%
37V
32%
No
58%
65%
92%
64%
58%
49%
75%
70%
65%
53%
63%
59%
68%
75%
71%
65%
61%
70%
65%
59%
63%
63%
68%
-------
Table 37: IDENTIFICATION OF RISK AREAS IN EMERGENCY PLAN (Q17)
Table 36: METHODS OF HANDLING CHEMICAL INVENTORY INFORMATION (Q15)
Method of Handling
Tier I/II Forms
Computer
Database
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
18%
3%
21%
15%
27%
10%
13%
16%
30%
18%
21%
16%
17%
7%
18%
25%
12%
16%
28%
16%
18%
20%
Paper
Filing
55%
90%
53%
49%
34%
83%
67%
51%
31%
58%
47%
63%
51%
78%
51%
48%
75%
56%
38%
58%
54%
53%
Both
27%
7%
25%
37%
39%
8% '
20%
33%
39%
25%
32%
21%
32%
15%
31%
27%
14%
29%
34%
26%
28%
27%
Risk Areas are
Identified
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
89%
77%
29%
83%
91%
97%
59%
76%
83%
85%
80%
82%
73%
68%
63%
81%
79%
68%
78%
83%
77%
76%
78%
No
11%
23%
71%
17%
9%
3%
41%
24%
17%
15%
20%
18%
27%
32%
37%
19%
21%
32%
22%
17%
23%
24%
22%
-------
Table 38: LEPCs MAKING HAZARD REDUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS (Q18)
Recommendat ions
Have Been Made
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
ALL LEPCs
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000 '
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Yes
48%
41%
11%
44%
18%
76%
27%
44%
44%
46%
44%
45%
36%
36%
35%
41%
46%
35%
42%
43%
41%
41%
41%
No
52%
59%
89%
56%
83%
24%
73%
56%
56%
54%
56%
55%
64%
64%
65%
59%
54%
65%
58%
57%
59%
59%
59%
Table 39: TASKS LEPCs VIEW AS NEEDING IMPROVEMENT (Q32A\L)
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Improvement of
Identifying Non-Reporting
Safety Audits
Public Communication
Training Programs
CAMEO Use
Data Filing & Automating
Hazard Analyses
Drills and Exercises
Risk Determination
Plan Development/Review
LEPC Administration
Natural Disaster Plans
Yes
62%
59%
52%
49%
46%
45%
39%
35%
31%
28%
26%
26%
No
38%
41%
48%
51%
54%
55%
61%
65%
69%
72%
74%
74%
D**i i-irt*J ,nปi <ฃ*ซซ*- J .._ J _ _ ฅTrm^
-------
Table 41: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AS PRIORITIES BY LEPCs (Q33)
Table 40: TASKS LEPCs VIEW AS NEEDING OUTSIDE
Assistance for Identifying Non-Reporting
Assistance for Safety Audits
Assistance for Public Communication
Assistance for -.Training Programs
Assistance for CAMEO Use
Assistance for Data Filing & Automating
Assistance for Hazard Analyses
Assistance for Drills and Exercises
Assistance for Risk Determination
Assistance for Plan Development /Review
Assistance for LEPC Administration
Assistance for Natural Disaster Plans
ASSISTANCE (Q32A/L)
Yes
61%
56%
38%
57%
48%
43%
44%
37%
36%
29%
27%
24%
No
39%
44%
62%
43%
52%
57%
56%
63%
64%
71%
73%
76%
Based on functioning LEPCs
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi- Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
T 0
LEPC Admin
15%
20%
26%
24%
21%
10%
19%
25%
21%
19%
17%
20%
25%
18%
18%
22%
19%
19%
21%
19%
20%
20%
21%
P 3 PR
Conducting
Drills
16%
18%
9%
23%
23%
15%
18%
18%
22%
16%
20%
20%
15%
18%
15%
18%
20%
19%
18%
18%
19%
20%
14%
I 0 R I T I
Using CAMEO
16%
18%
8%
18%
19%
26%
13%
26%
17%
16%
13%
22%
18%
16%
17%
18%
18%
16%
20%
16%
17%
18%
17%
E S
Conducting
Safety
Audits
16%
16%
1%
16%
20%
27%
10%
14%
15%
23%
18%
21%
11%
13%
11%
16%
21%
13%
15%
22%
16%
18%
12%
(continu'
-------
Table 41: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AS PRIORITIES BY LEPCs (Q33) Table 41: AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT AS PRIORITIES BY LEPCs (Q33)
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi- Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20, 000-40, 000
40, 001-100, 000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
T O
LEPC Admin
15%
20%
26%
24%
21%
10%
19%
25%
21%
19%
17%
20%
25%
18%
18%
22%
19%
19%
21%
19%
20%
20%
21%
P 3 PR
Conducting
Drills
16%
18%
9%
23%
23%
15%
18%
18%
22%
16%
20%
20%
15%
18%
15%
18%
20%
19%
18%
18%
19%
20%
14%
I O R I T I
Using CAMEO
16%
18%
8%
18%
19%
26%
13%
26%
17%
16%
13%
22%
18%
16%
17%
18%
18%
16%
20%
16%
17%
18%
17%
E S
Conducting
Safety
Audits
16%
16%
1%
16%
20%
27%
10%
14%
15%
23%
18%
21%
11%
13%
11%
16%
21%
13%
15%
22%
16%
18%
12%
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi- Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
T O
**
Automating
Data
15%
16%
5%
18%
12%
23%
12%
16%
18%
16%
16%
15%
16%
14%
14%
15%
18%
12%
16%
19%
11%
17%
18%
P 3 PR
.Determining
Risk Level
12%
15%
11%
17%
15%
13%
12%
19%
11%
18%
11%
17%
16%
14%
19%
14%
12%
13%
14%
18%
14%
14%
18V
I 0 R I T I
Contingency
Plans
11%
14%
12%
18%
14%
9%
11%
14%
14%
16%
13%
16%
12%
13%
13%
14%
13%
13%
14%
14%
15%
14%
12%
E S
Integrating
Natural
Disasters
5%
6%
4%
6%
9%
4%
7%
6%
4%
5%
7%
5%
6%
4%
5%
6%
6%
6%
6%
5%
6%
6%
5%
(continued)
-------
Table 42: NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE LEPC SUPPORT (Q30)
Any Organizations For Effective LEPC
Support?
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Answered
'No1
75%
69%
44%
78%
74%
72%
6,9%
71%
70%
67%
66%
76%
67%
61%
68%
70%
67%
68%
72%
64%
74%
68%
65%
NCCEM
8%
7%
1%
5%
7%
12%
1%
5%
10%
8%
5%
8%
6%
8%
2%
7%
9%
3%
7%
9%
4%
8%
7%
Fire
Chiefs
0%
9%
44%
0%
0%
0%
20%
10%
7%.
2%
10%
5%
11%
13%
17%
7%
7%
18%
7%
4%
9%
9%
8%
Others
(Under 1%
Each)
8%
7%
3%
7%
13%
7%
2%
8%
7%
11%
8%
6%
8%
8%
6%
8%
8%
3%
8%
10%
6%
8%
8%
No Answer
9%
8%
7%
10%
5%
9%
9%
6%
6%
12%
11%
5%
8%
10%
6%
8%
9%
8%
6%
13%
7%
7%
11%
-------
Table 43: USEFULNESS OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION (Q29)
.
CAMEO Software Program
List of Lists
"NRT1 HazMat Guide"
ALOHA Modelling Program
"Green Book"
Technical Advisory Bulletins
"Chemicals in Your Community"
"Success Practices"
"Managing Chemicals Safely"
"Making It Work" Series
"Opportunities & Challenges"
Trade Publications
SERC Newsletters
Industry Publications
Industry Training
EPA Training
Federal Training
SERC Training
Industry Technical Assistance
SERC Technical Assistance
EPA Technical Assistance
Federal Technical Assistance
Statewide LEPC Meetings
HazMat Spills Conferences
NGA Meeting
' ~
Very
Useful
46%
39%
37%
30%
29%
22%
21%
17%
14%
6%
5%
30%
24%
16%
35%
30%
28%
27%
43%
31%
27%
23%
31%
18%
5%
Some- Not
' what Useful
15%
18%
39%
16%
40%
31%
37%
34%
33%
24%
20%
35%
41%
33%
25%
25%
28%
32%
28%
34%
26%
34%
29%
25%
10V
6%
3%
2%
6%
3%
3%
5%
6%
4%
5%
6%
2%
5%
3%
2%
4%
3%
5%
3%
8%
7%
7%
6%
4%
9%
Don' t
Know
33%
40%
21%
48%
29%
43%
37%
43%
49%
66%
69%
32%
31%
48%
38%
41%
41%
36%
26%
27%
40%
35%
33%
53%
76%
Table 44: USEFULNESS OF NRT1 PLANNING GUIDE (Q29)
"NRT1 HazMat Guide"
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20J,'000-40, 000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Very
Useful
37%
31%
9%
34%
37%
43%
24%
28%
34%
37%
33%
32%
33%
23%
23%
32%
35%
25%
39%
39%
25%
34%
32%
Some-
what
39%
35%
18%
36%
46%
40%
27%
38%
33%
40%
33%
40%
30%
37%
32%
36%
34%
30%
39%
32%
36%
36%
32%
Not
Useful
2%
2%
0%
2%
2%
3%
1%
2%
0%
4%
2%
3%
1%
3%
1%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
2%
2%
3%
Don't
Know
21%
32%
72%
29%
15%
14%
48%
32%
33%
19%
33%
25%
36%
37%
44%
30%
27%
43%
30%
26%
37%
28%
33%
-------
Table 45: USEFULNESS OF "OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES" (Q29)
Table 46: LEPC SELF EVALUATION (Q31)
"Opportunities
Very
Useful
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
5%
5%
1%
6%
7%
4%
4%
4%
6%
4%
3%
3%
3%
5%
3%
4%
6%
4%
4%
5%
4%
5%
5%
Some-
what
20%
18%
7%
19%
24%
19%
13%
18%
17%
21%
17%
17%
20%
13%
20%
17%
17%
16%
19%
18%
16%
19%
15%
& Challenges"
Not
Useful
6%
5%
2%
7%
5%
5%
3%
6%
4%
7%
6%
5%
3%
8%
2%
6%
5%
2%
6%
6%
3%
6%
5%
Don't
Know
69%.
73%
89%
68%
65%
72%
80%
72%
72%
68%
69%
75%
73%
73%
75%
72%
72%
77%
71%
72%
77%
69%
75%
Overall Rating of
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40, 000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
Very
Good
20%
17%
1%
10%
17%
36%
6%
16%
16%
26%
20%
20%
13%
14%
11%
17%
23%
8%
18%
24%
11%
20%
18%
Good
40%
37%
12%
36%
41%
45%
33%
28%
40%
41%
42%
36%
33%
34%
31%
37%
39%
35%
35%
42%
39%
36%
36%
OK/Fair
33%
34%
35%
43%
35%
17%
40%
41%
34%
25%
30%
32%
36%
39%
38%
34%
30%
38%
35%
27%
36%
33%
31%
LEPC Job
Poor
6%
9%
27%
9%
6%
1%
12%
9%
9%
6%
6%
8%
13%
7%
13%
9%
7%
11%
10%
5%
8%
8%
12%
Very
Poor
1%
4%.
25%
1%
1%
0%
9%
6%
2%
1%
3%
3%
5%
6%
7%
4%
2%
8%
3%
2%
6%
2%
4%
-------
Table 47: CLARITY OF SARA III MANDATES (Q32)
Clarity of SARA III
Very
Clear
FUNCTIONING LEPCs
LEPC TOTAL
ACTIVITY LEVEL
Inactive
Quasi -Active
Compliant
Proactive
LEPC POPULATION
Under 20,000
20,000-40,000
40,001-100,000
Over 100,000
REGION
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
MEDIAN HH INCOME
Under $21,000
Middle Quartiles
Over $30,000
PERCENT URBAN
Under 25% Urban
Middle Quartiles
Over 75% Urban
PERCENT MINORITY
Under 2% Minority
Middle Quartiles
Over 20% Minority
16%
15%
6%
12%
16%
22%
7%
7%
16%
23%
20%
13%
13%
11%
7%
15%
19%
11%
13%
21%
12%
16%
14%
Clear
43%
39%
16%
39%
46%
47%
29%
36%
41%
46%
38%
37%
40%
48%
38%
39%
41%
28%
43%
43%
36%
40%
43%
Mandates
In Unclear
between
34%
34%
38%
39%
34%
26%
42%
42%
34%
26%
32%
40%
31%
34%
38%
35%
32%
43%
34%
30%
39%
34%
31%
6%
8%
28%
8%
3%
3%
16%
11%
8%
3%
8%
8%
10%
7%
13%
8%
.7%
15%
8%
5%
11%
7%
9%
Very
Unclear
2%
3%
12%
2%
1%
1%
7%
5%
2%
1%
2%
3%
5%
1%
4%
4%
2%
3%
4%
2%
2%
3%
3%
-------
Appendix B:
LEPC Survey Questionnaire
83
-------
-------
THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
NATIONWIDE LEPC SURVEY
Your LEPC Structure & Meetings
1. Does your LEPC have:
A. a chairperson? Q Yes Q No
B. a community emergency coordinator? QYes QNo
C. someone to serve as
a coordinator for information? Q Yes Q No
D. rules of procedure for
He functioning as a committee? ... Q Yes Q No
2. How many individual members currently belong to your LEPC
(excluding those who only belong to subcommittees)?
3. How many new members joined your LEPC in the last 12 months?
-------
4. Which of the following areas are represented by members on your LEPC:
A. Elected state officials? QYes QNo
B. Elected local officials? QYes QNo
C. Fire felting departments? QYes QNo
D. Law enforcement? QYes QNo
E. Civil defense? QYes QNo
F. First aid (emergency medical)? ... QYes QNo
0. Hospitals? QYes QNo
H. Health? QYes QNo
I. Environmental agendas/departments? QYes QNo
J. Transportation? QYes QNo
K. Media? QYes QNo
L Community groups? Q Yes Q No
M. Industry/facilities affected by THle III? QYes QNo
6. Does your LEPC hold formal meetings? QYes QNo
6. How many times have you met In the last 12 months?
7. What was the average number of officially designated
members who attended those LEPC meetings?
8. Do you advertise your LEPC meetings to the public? QYes QNo
9. Does your IE PC have en operating budget? QYes QNo
10. Does your LEPC reoefve direct monetary funding:
A. from local government? QYes QNo
B. from focal Industry? Q'Yea QNo
11. Has your LEPC made recommendations regarding:
A. additional resources you may require? QYes QNo
B. the means for providing
such additional resources? QYes QNo
Public Communications
12. Has your LEPC created procedures to make available to
the pubho the emergency response plan and information
submitted under EPCRA? QYes QNo
13. Has your LEPC published notice in the newspaper about
the availability of this information In the last 12 months? QYes QNo
14. About how many pufatfo inquiries have you received and
responded to in the last 12 months? (Please include
inquiries from industry, environmental and trade groups
as well as all other citizens.)
Data use
16. How Is facility chemical inventory information
(Tier l/ll forms) handled by your LEPC? Q Computer database
Q Paper filing
16. When this information arrives do you process
extremely hazardous substances (EH9) data
differently than non-EH8 data? QYes QNo
17. Has your LEPC used the data to identify
risk areas for your emergency plan? Q Yes Q No
18. Has your LEPC made any hazard reduction or prevention
recommendations to industry or local government? . Q Yes Q No
-------
Your LEPC's Emergency Plan
19. How far along is your emergency plan? Q Completed & submitted to 8ERC
Q Mostly completed
Q Partially completed
Q Little or nothing completed ->
[If little or nothing" go ปo Question #29]
20. Who was the primary author of
your emergency plan? Q Outside contractor
Q One LEPC member
Q Group of LEPC members
Q Other:
21. When did you last review the plan? Q Last 12 months Q1-2 years ago
Q Over 2 yrs. ago Q Never
22. When did you last update the plan? Q Last 12 months Q1-2 years ago
Q Over 2 yrs. ago Q Never
23. When did you last practice
and exercise your plan? Q Last 12 months Q1-2 years ago
I Q Over 2 yrs. ago Q Never
24. If so, did you revise your plan
as a result of the exercise? Q Yes Q No
26. Has your LEPC developed (or obtained from
individual facilities) sHe-epecific emergency plans? . QYes Q No
26. Have you ever used your LEPC plan
to respond to a chemical emergency? Q Yes Q No
27. Are the emergency response teams identified
in your plan receiving training which meets the
requirements of EPA and 08HA? Q Yes Q No
28. DOES YOUR EMERGENCY PLAN:
A. Identify extremely hazardous substances
(EHQJ facilities subject to the plan?
QYes
B. Identify other hazardous material facilities? QYes
QYes
0. Identify the routes likely to be used for
the transportation of Tier II substances?
QNo
QNo
QNo
D. Identify additional nearby facilities to be
subject for planning (such as natural gas
facilities or hospitals)? QYes QNo
E. Provide procedures for informing the key
persons ("call down list") designated in
the emergency plan? Q Yes Q No
F. Provide procedures for informing the
public in an emergency? Q Yes Q No
0. Outline methods to determine the area
and population likely to be affected by
a chemical release? Q Yes Q No
H. Describe equipment available to your
LEPC during an emergency? Q Yes Q No
I. Qpecify person(s) responsible for this
emergency equipment? Q Yes Q No
J. Include evacuation plans, such as
precautionary evacuations and alternative
traffic routes? Q Yes Q No
K. Include training programs which meet
the requirements of EPA and 08HA? Q Yes Q No
L. Take info account natural hazards
(such as hurricanes, earthquakes)? Q Yes Q No
-------
EPA & Other Assistance
29. Pteaee check (S) the usefulness of the following fypes of
support or assistance thai uour LEPC mau have received;
Very
useful
Some-
what
useful
Not
useful
Don'*
know:
Not
fimttw
EPA TOOLS & PUBLICATIONS
NRTI Hazardous Material Emergenoy Planning Ouide
Green Book - Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis
Successful Practice*
Chemicals In your Community
Managing Chemicals Safely
Opportunities and Chalengee
Technical Advisory Bulletins (e.g., Chlorine Advisory)
Making It Work series
CAMEO computer software program
ALOHA air modeling program
UstofUsfB
OTHER PUBLICATIONS
8ERC newsletter
Industry pubBoations (e.g., The Chlorine Institute)
Trade pubttootion* (e.g., RJght-to-Know News,
RJght-fo-Know Planning Ouide)
Very
useful
Some-
what
useful
Not
useful
Don't
know:
Hot
ttmKtt
TRAINING SESSIONS
Conducted by EPA
Conducted by another federal agency
Conducted by the 8ERC
Conducted by industry
PERBON-TO-PERSON TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
From EPA regional offices
From the 8ERC
From other federal agencies
From industry
MEETINGS
National Governor's Association Meeting
Hazardous Materials Spills Conference
State-wide LEPC meetings
(Mora Information on EPA roeource* IB available from the EPA Hotline at 1-800-636-0202.)
30. Are you a member of any national organizations which you feel could effectively
be used to support the Interests of LEPCs nationwide?
QNo QYe* pf "yes," please specify mwie(8):]
Ptetoe turn to last page I
-------
Final Assessments
31. Overall, how would you rate the job that your LEPC ia doing?
Q Very good QOood QOK/Fair Qpoor Q Very poor
32. How dear to you are the federal legal mandates for LEPCs in SARA III?
Q Very dear Q Clear Q In-between Q Unclear Q Very unclear
Please answer BOTH columns below.
IN WmCH OF THE LOWING AREAS DO YOU THINK YOUR
LEPC NEEDS IMPROVEMENT &/OR OUTSIDE ASSISTANCE?
[A] Administration of your LEPC
[B] Conducting (juriadtotfon-wlde) hazard analyses
[C] Determining the level of risk In your jurisdiction
D] Developing/reviewing contingency plane
[E] Identifying non-reporting facilities
[F] Conducting safety audits or other methods
to reduce risks at the facility level
G] Developing training programs
H] Conducting drills end exercises
1] Filing and automating hazard data
[J] Using CAMEO or other automated
information management systems
KJ Outreach and communicating with the public
L] Integrating natural disasters into emergency plans
Need major
IMPROVEMENT?
QYee QNo
Q Yes QNo
QYee QNo
QYes QNo
Q Yes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
Q Yes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
Need outside
ASSISTANCE?
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
QYes QNo
33. Please use the categories In the list above ("A" through 1") to Identify your
top three priorities (if any) for improving your LEPC:
U).
(2)
(3)
-------
------- |