Nationwide
Survey of
LEPCData
Management
Practices
EPA 550-R-97-001
William C. Adams Mary Beth Morgan Mercedes M. viana
Public Administration Department The George Washington University
Grant funding for this research was provided by the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency OMB Survey#2090-0019
-------
-------
Nationwide Survey of LEPC
Data Management Practices
William C.Adams
Mary Beth Morgan
Mercedes M. Viana
Public Administration Department
The George Washington University
Washington, D.C. 20052
Grant funding for this research
was provided by the
Chemical Emergency Preparedness
and Prevention Office of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
OMB #2090-0019
-------
-------
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible by the funding provided by the Chemical Emergency
Preparedness and Prevention Office (CEPPO) of the US Environmental Protection Agency,
and by the assistance of CEPPO's Kathy Jones, Mark Horwitz, and Sherry Fielding. Jed
Kee and Kathryn Newcomer of The George Washington University also had key roles in
helping to facilitate this project. The methods, implementation, and judgments in this
study are the full responsibility of the researchers.
William C. Adams
- Mary Beth Morgan
Mercedes M. Viana
Washington, D.C.
May 1, 1997
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page i
-------
Table of Contents and Charts
Executive Summary 1
Methodology 2
Background 2
LEPC Data Management .. 3
Chart 1: How LEPC Receives Chemical Inventory Data 4
Chart 2: LEPC Management of Chemical Inventory Data 4
Chart 3: Plans and Status of Computer Management of Data 5
Chart 4: Computerized Data Management and US EPA Regions 6
Chart 5: EPA Regions and Survey Regions 6
Chart 6: Number of LEPC Meetings in Past Year 7
Chart 7: Computerized Data Management and Number of LEPC Meetings ;.. 8
Chart 8: Explanations for Not Planning to Computerize Data Management... 9
Chart 9: Usefulness of Collected Data 10
Chart 10: Application of Data for LEPC Activities 11
Chart 11: Software Used (if LEPC Has a Computer) 11
Chart 12: LEPC Software Overlap 12
LEPC Evaluations of CAMEO 13
Chart 13: Reasons for Not Using CAMEO 14
Chart 14: Major Uses of CAMEO 15
Chart 15: Overall Usefulness of CAMEO 15
Chart 16: Usefulness of Specific CAMEO Features 16
Chart 17: Suggested Improvements to CAMEO 17
LEPC Evaluations of Tier II '..; 18
Chart 18: Overall Usefulness of Tier II 19
Chart 19: Usefulness of Tier II Features 20
Chart 20: Suggested Improvements to Tier II , 20
LEPC Evaluations'of LandView .21
Chart 21: LandView Usefulness 22
LEPC Evaluations of the CEPPO Web Site :...... 23
Chart 22: CEPPO Web Site 24
Commentary .25
Appendix: LEPC Questionnaire 26
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page ii
-------
Executive Summary
In March 1997, researchers from the George Washington University's Public Administra-
tion Department conducted nationwide telephone interviews with 1,018 Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPCs). Highlights of the findings may be summarized as follows:
Compared to a 1994 survey of LEPCs, the 1997 survey detects only a modest increase
in the number of LEPCs that use computers to manage their facility chemical inven-
tory data from 35% up to 39%.
The 1997 findings reveal that a large proportion of LEPCs (42%) are on the verge of
switching from paper filing to computer systems for data management. (Just 18%
contend that they do not need or cannot afford to shift to computers.)
The forthcoming computerization is planned throughout all regions of the United
States and among virtually all but the least active and nonfunctioning LEPCs. If
these plans are fulfilled, computer use for data management will more than double
from 3.9% to 81% of all LEPCs. Even if some of these plans are delayed, the best
evidence is that LEPCs are likely to undergo a radical shift in their data management
practices during the 1997-1999 period. This is a pivotal tune when support and assis-
tance is likely to be particularly important for these later adaptors.
LEPC leaders consider the facility chemical inventory data to be "very useful" (44%)
or "moderately useful" (43%). They use the data for emergency response planning
(96%), hazard analysis (91%), responding to public inquiries (89%), disseminating
information to the community (85%), and, to a lesser extent, for zoning and land-use
decisions (34%).
CAMEO was the most liked and widely used of three software packages. -LEPCs
overwhelmingly use CAMEO to support the key LEPC activities of emergency plan-
ning (93%), emergency responses (92%), and managing chemical inventory data
(91%). Rather than confining their use to one or two features, LEPCs find nearly all
of CAMEO's key features to be useful. , .
Of the LEPCs with computer data management, 76% currently use CAMEO, 21 % use
Tier II, and 8% use LandView.
CAMEO is considered to be "very useful" by 69% of the LEPCs, Tier II by 57%, and
' LandView by 52%.
The Web site for CEPPO (Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office)
is considered worthwhile by those who have seen it. However, only 6% of those with
computers have viewed the site in the past six months.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept. Page 1
-------
Methodology
After sending advance notification letters, researchers from the Public Administration De-
partment of the George Washington University completed telephone interviews with lead-
ers of 1,018 Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) in March 1997. The sample
of LEPCs was drawn using population-weighting to ensure that jurisdictions were repre-
sented in approximate proportion to their population. Without population weighting, over
half of the sample of LEPCs in the fifty states would have been drawn from just four states
that have numerous LEPCs New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Texas.1
Consequently, (while not repeated throughout the report) all percentages referring to the
surveyed LEPCs should be interpreted as percentages of the LEPCs where Americans live.
The previous George Washington University survey of LEPCs (1994) used concurrent
validation to verify the accuracy of answers that LEPC leaders gave to sensitive questions.2
That process was not duplicated for the 1997 survey because the new questions were signi-
ficantly less sensitive than those previously tested.
The questionnaire is reprinted in full in the appendix. At the customary 95% level of
probability adjusted by the finite population multiplier, the completed sample of 1,018
yields confidence intervals of ±3%. However, the text does not dwell on confidence inter-
vals because the fundamental findings do not hinge on subtle 3% margins.
Background '. .
The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) was part of Title
III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA III). It stipulated
that the governor of each state appoint a State Emergency Response Commission (SERC).
Each SERC was then to create Local Emergency Planning 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 exceptions. A
few states used smaller jurisdictions (e.g., townships) as the boundaries for LEPCs. And
a few states created much larger districts, encompassing many counties in each LEPC.
LEPCs were required to submit an emergency response plan to their SERC. That plan was
to identify, among other things, the quantity and location of stored and transported "Ex-
tremely Hazardous Substances" (EHS or Hazmat), along with procedures for emergency
response, public notification, and evacuation hi the event of an accidental release, spill or
other chemical emergency. Each year facilities were required to provide LEPCs with a full
EHS inventory. Thus, a key element of LEPC data management involves the "facility
chemical inventory data" (also called EPCRA data).
'See William C. Adams, Stephen D. Burns, and Philip G. Handwerk, Nationwide
LEPC Survey (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994), p 26.
2Ibid.,pp. 28-29.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 2
-------
LEPC Data Management
The 1997 nationwide survey of leaders of 1,018 Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPCs) by researchers from the Public Administration Department of the George Wash-
ington University focused on their data management practices. The first person contacted
for this survey was usually the LEPC chairperson.
A majority of the chairpersons (54%) said that they were "familiar with the data manage-
ment practices." If not, they were asked for the name of the person "who is responsible for
managing EPCRA data" for the LEPC. The balance of the interviews were conducted with
individuals who described themselves as LEPC staff (24% of all those surveyed), the
LEPC information coordinator (12%), an emergency planner or first responder (5%), a
firefighter or fire chief (2%), and miscellaneous others (3%).
In every-region and even in relatively less active LEPCs, the respondents described a
strong pattern of increasing computerization of the facility chemical inventory data. A
sizeable segment of LEPCs have already computerized their data management. Moreover,
an overwhelming majority of the rest have made plans to move from paper to computers
to manage their EPCRA data. Few LEPCs are receiving EPCRA data in computerized
form, but they are rapidly moving toward managing the data on computers.
How does your LEPC receive facility chemical inventory information
on paper, in computerized form, both ways, or not at all?
As shown on the following page in Chart 1, most LEPCs (79%) currently'receive
facility chemical inventory data on paper. Relatively few received the data all (2%)
or in part (14%) in a computerized format.
Only 5% of the LEPCs surveyed said that they were not collecting such data at all.
'When your LEPC receives that information, are the data mainly
managed -with a paper filing system or a computer system? "
A majority of the LEPCs (56%) are still using a paper filing system to manage the
facility chemical inventory data that they receive. However, a sizeable and growing
minority (39%) manage their data on a computer system. (See Chart 2 on page 4.)
Nationwide, some LEPCs that use a paper filing system do have computers available
16% of all LEPCs sampled. Nevertheless, their computers are currently used for
correspondence or other things besides managing the chemical inventory data.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept « Page 3
-------
Chart 1: How LEPC Receives
Chemical Inventory Data
Both ways 14%
Computerized form 2%
Nothing collected 5%
Paper 79%
Percentages based on entire survey of 1,018 LEPCs.
Chart 2: LEPC Management of
Chemical Inventory Data
Paper mgt.
no computer
40%
Paper mgt.
(have comp)
16%
Computer mgt.
39%
Nothing collected
5%
Percentages based on entire survey of 1,018 LEPCs.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 4
-------
Chart 3: Plans and Status of Computer
Management of LEPC Data
Plans to
computerize
42%
Computer
mgt. now
39%
No plans
13%
Nothing
collected
5%
Percentages based on entire survey of 1,018 LEPCs.
"Does your LEPC have plans to put that inventory data on a computer? "
All LEPCs currently using paper filing systems were asked if they "have plans" to put
the chemical inventory data on a computer. Chart 3 shows that a remarkable 42% of
all LEPCs "have plans" to computerize their inventory data. Coupled with the existing
39% that are already computerized, this adds up to a remarkable 81% that are pro-
jected to have computer data management in the foreseeable future.
Relatively few functioning LEPCs (13% of all surveyed LEPCs) do not have plans to
convert to a computer filing system.
Computerization of EPCRA data is proceeding throughout the country. Chart 4 on
the next page reports the progress by region. To date, LEPCs in the Midwest (EPA
Regions V and VII) are the most likely to already use computers to manage facility
chemical inventory data (47%). Those in the West (EPA Regions VIH-X) are the least
computerized (29%).
Chart 4 also shows that regional variations will be minimal if LEPCs realize their
plans to move to computer management of EPCRA data. The survey reveals that
LEPCs around the nation are in the midst of a massive movement toward computer
data management.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. » Page 5
-------
Chart 4: Computerized Data Management
and U.S. EPA Regions
Northeast (1-111)
Midwest (V& VII)
South (IV & VI)
West (VIII-X)
nuComputerized now IDPIans to computerize
39%
44%
47%
" 34%
' 35%
42%
29%
. * ' 52%*
0% 25% 50% 75%
Percentages based on entire survey of 1,018 LEPCs.
100%
WEST
EPA Regions
VIII, EX & X
MIDWEST
EPA Regions
V & VII
NORTHEAST
EPA Regions
I, II & III
SOUTH
EPA Regions
IV & VI
Chart 5: EPA Regions and Survey Regions
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. » Page 6
-------
Chart 6: Number of LEPC Meetings in Past Year
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
41%
.25%
26%
16%
28%
30%
8%
,10%
5%
7%
Never 1-3 4-6 7-11 12+
Percentages based on entire surveys of LEPCs in 1994 and 1997.
"How many times did your LEPC hold formal meetings during the past twelve months? "
Chart 6 above contrasts LEPC meeting frequency in 1994 and 1997. It shows that
10% fewer LEPCs are "never" meeting only 16% down from 26%. It also reveals
a jump in the number meeting between quarterly and every other month (i.e., 4-6
times annually) 41% up from 30%. This finding suggest that more LEPCs have
become at least somewhat active during the nearly three years between the summer
1994 and spring 1997 surveys.
The 1994 nationwide survey of LEPCs found that the frequency of meetings was a
good predictor of LEPC activism and compliance with the mandates of SARA III.3
Meeting frequency correlated significantly with a variety of LEPC responsibilities,
such as annual reviews of the emergency response plan and communication require-
ments. Thus, while it is not a perfect substitute for a lengthy battery of questions,
meeting frequency does serve as a simple and useful surrogate measure for LEPC
activism. .
3William C. Adams, Stephen D. Burns, and Philip G. Handwerk, Nationwide LEPC
Survey (Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1994).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George.Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 7
-------
Chart 7: Computerized Data Management
and Number of LEPC Meetings per Year
No meetings
1-3 meetings
Quarterly (4-11)
Monthly (12+)
| DComputerized now EUPIans to computerize
9%
22%
25%
' 50%
52%
38%
62%
32%
0% 25% 50% 75%
Percentages based on entire survey of 1,018 LEPCs.
100%
"Does your LEPC have plans to put that inventory data on a computer? "
Using meeting frequency as a surrogate for LEPC activity, Chart 7 above confirms the
expectation that the more active LEPCs are more advanced in terms of computer data
management. .
» Six out often (62%) of the LEPCs that meet at least monthly have already put their
EPCRA data on computers. Computer data management is also practiced by five out
often (52%) of LEPCs meeting at least quarterly but less than monthly (4-11 times
per year).
The lagging group consists of LEPCs that meet less than quarterly. EPCRA data is
managed on computers by only 25% of those that held just 1-3 meetings in the past
year and by only 9% of LEPCs that did not have any meetings in the past year.
The 1994 study documented the extent to which LEPC activity correlates with the
population size of the jurisdiction. Thus, rural and small-town LEPCs are less likely
to be active, and less active LEPCs are less likely to make the effort to go beyond
paper filing of EPCRA data. Despite these tendencies, not all rural and small-town
LEPCs are inactive and not all active LEPCs are computerized.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. » Page 8
-------
Chart 8: Explanations for Not Planning to
Computerize Management of LEPC Data
Don't need
a computer
No funding/
Cant afford It
Low priority/
Not yet
No personnel
Miscellaneous
5% ;
2%
13%
47%
32%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Percentages based on the 133 surveyed LEPCs with no plans to computerize data management.
"Does your LEPC have plans to put that inventory data on a computer? "
[If not:] 'Why is that?"
As previously shown in Chart 3, a large majority of LEPCs (81%) either currently use
computers to manage EPCRA data (39%) or have plans to do so (42%). The 13%
who collect data but have no plans to shift to a computer system were asked: "Why?"
Chart 8 above shows the answers of those LEPCs with no plans to shift from paper to
computer data management. A plurality (47%) asserted that they had no need to move
to computers. They are satisfied with their paper filing systems and/or say they do not
have very much to file.
About one-third (32%) would like to use a computer system for EPCRA data, but say
that they lack the financial resources to buy and maintain computer hardware and
software. In this same vein, another 5% emphasized that they lacked the personnel
necessary to set up and sustain the computer operations.
The remaining answers were scattered among those who said it was a "low priority"
or "not yet a priority" (13%) and miscellaneous other answers (2%).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept.: Page 9
-------
Chart 9: Usefulness of Collected LEPC Data
Moderately
useful 43%
Slightly
useful 11%
Not at
all 2%
Very useful 44%
Percentages based on 967 LEPCs that collect facility chemical inventory data (95% of the sample of 1,018).
"Overall, is the data your LEPC collects very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? "
LEPC leaders overwhelmingly (87%) consider the EPCRA data to be at least moder-
ately useful. Very few (2%) dismiss it as "not at all useful." (See Chart 9.)
"Can you tell me whether or not you use the data that your LEPC collects for
the folio-wing activities: for hazard analysis? to respond to public inquiries? to
disseminate information to the community? to support planning for emergency
response activities? for zoning and land-use decisions?
Chart 10 on the next page shows that large majorities (85-96%) of the LEPCs are
using the EPCRA data for four of the five uses specified above. The sole exception
is zoning and land-use decisions, with only 34% using the.data for that purpose.
'To support your LEPC data management, are you using a software program
called CAMEO?...Are you using a software program called Tier II?...LandView?"
Chart 11 on the next page shows that a large majority (75%) of the LEPCs that put
thek data on a computer use CAMEO. Fewer use Tier II (21%) or LandView (8%).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 10
-------
Chart 10: Applications of Data for LEPC Activities
100°' moi
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% -
"*""
-T '- 91% 89%
'*~' v ." ' . . ' 55%
" <- s ir* s > '" ~
%s », *r , , '"'1' ' ,^ ' "- "- '
~-f -* '' ' "i ""' "C ^ '' "~X "^ °s ° ''
~f'''^''/^^'^^/ \
$^ ' ^ ' * ^ s * *>^
?? ~~ <*- * J*- %**.
'£%&' \ *- ", ~s 'f"' -^""- *"^
"" ^ V -* - A e^. .
« - . ,.%;"-
""^ '>., -°- " "-v- *
i, - N ^" -,s ; * >> - ^-x' N
.34%
"* , " y
/^ f N
St1*^ / *\ t
X f
" , i
Emergency Hazard Analysis .Respond to Disseminate Info Zoning and
Response Planning Public inquiries to Community Land Use Decisions
Percentages based on 967 LEPCs that collect facility chemical inventory data {95% of the sample of 1 ,01 8).
01
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
iart 1 1 : Software Used (if LEPC Has a Computer)
v*i*rf * ' . - -
* - . 21%
rr- 45 s'-'^s. ' :
8%
- "- " ^ ^ - s ^;" ;v ^ \ . , '^ ;
CAMEO Tier II LandView
Percentages based on the 391 LEPCs that use computers to manage EPCRA data.
-
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. » Page 11
-------
Chart 12 below shows the extent to which usage of CAMEO, Tier II, and LandView
overlap among LEPCs that use at least one of these three software programs.
LEPCs are most likely use CAMEO alone. They are next most likely to use CAMEO
and Tier II. Only 4% or fewer use all three packages, use CAMEO and LandView,
use only Tier II, or use only LandView.
Chart 12: LEPC Software Overlap
(If using at least one of three programs)
Both Tier II &
LandView 1 %
LandView Only 0%
Both CAMEO &
LandView 3%
Note: Percentages differ from Chart 11 because these sum to 100% based
on all those using at least one of these three programs. (n=353 LEPCs)..
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept.' Page 12
-------
LEPC Evaluations of CAMEO
LEPC Data Management Survey » The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. « Page 13
-------
Chart 13: Reasons for Not Using CAMEO
No chance to try it/
Never learned it
Use another program
Just ordered it
Never heard of it
Too complicated/
Training needed
Not suited to needs
Too expensive
Miscellaneous other
9%
7%
2%
2%
3%
39%
26%
16%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Percentages based on 196 LEPCs that have computers but do not use CAMEO.
50%
To support your L-E-P-C data management, are you using a software program called
CAMEO? " [If not:] Is there any particular reason -why you are not using CAMEO? "
Reasons for not using CAMEO are varied. Chart 13 reports the explanations offered
by all those who have computers but do not use CAMEO.
The most common answers (39%) were variations on the themes of "just haven't
gotten around to it," "haven't had a chance to try it yet," and "never got around to
learning how to use it."
4
» One in four non-CAMEO users (26%) say they use another program. One in six
(16%) say they had just ordered CAMEO and did plan to use it. A few (9%) said they
had never heard of CAMEO. Others (7%) said it was too complicated and required
too much training.
"Are you using CAMEO to manage the facility chemical inventory
data collected under EPCRA? ...for emergency planning such as for
screening and for contingency plans? ...for emergency responses? "
Chart 14 on the next page shows that CAMEO is being widely used for emergency
planning (93%), emergency responses (92%), and data management (91%).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept Page 14
-------
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Chart 14: Major Uses of CAMEO
93%
92%
' .-.V
91%
For Emergency
Planning
For Emergency For Managing Facility
Responses Chemical Inventory Data
Percentages based on 365 LEPCs using CAMEO.
Chart 15: Overall Usefulness of CAMEO
Very useful 69%
-Not at all useful 1 %
Slightly useful 2%
Moderately useful 28%
Percentages based on 365 LEPCs using CAMEO.
LEPC Data Management Survey » The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 15
-------
Chart 16: Usefulness of Specific CAMEO Features
100%
Not tried it 1=1
Not useful
Slightly
Moderately
Very useful
Percentages based on 365 LEPCs using CAMEO.
"Overall, would you say that CAMEO is very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? "
« CAMEO users give the software very high marks mostly "very useful" (69%) or
"moderately useful" (28%). (See Chart 15 on the previous page.)
"We 're interested in what you think about a few of CAMEO's features. For example,
CAMEO's facilities.database feature have you found that to be very useful, moder-
ately useful, slightly useful, not at all usefulor haven 'tyou had a chance to try it? "
" Chart 16 above shows three tiers of popularity for CAMEO features. The most popu-
lar features are the Code Breaker/RIDS (Response Information Data Sheets) and the"
Facility Database, with 90-91% calling those features moderately or very useful.
" Three additional features are also widely appreciated Hazard Analysis/Screening,
MARPLOT, and ALOHA with just over three-fourths (76-79%) describing them
as at least moderately useful.
« The least used feature is the importation and exportation of data. Nearly half (47%)
have never tried to use that aspect of CAMEO.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept « Page 16
-------
Chart 17: Suggested Improvements to CAMEO
Enhance Capabilities
Improve MARPLOT &
Drawing Feature
More User Friendly/
Simplified Program
Better Query for
Gustom Reports
Database Interface
Compatibility
Expand & Update
Chemical Information
Improve ALOHA
More Training
Opportunities
3%
3%
3%
3%
2%
: 1%
0% 1% 2% 3%
Percentages based on 365 LEPCs using CAMEO.
4%
4%
4%
5%
'What improvements would you most want to see in CAMEO? "
Most CAMEO users (76%) did not offer any immediate suggestion for improvements.
The recommendations of those who did are summarized in Chart 17 above.
LEPC Users vs. Other Users of CAMEO
In February 1997, researchers from the George Washington University (GWU) con-
ducted a separate survey of 561 CAMEO users. Drawn from the list of CAMEO users,
nearly one-third of the respondents were not using CAMEO for LEPC purposes at all.
Results from the two surveys show more similarities than differences. Both groups
had high praise for the program as well as similar but few specific suggestions.
One key difference is that LEPCs use CAMEO for the three purposes identified in
Chart 14 to a more overwhelming extent than does the CAMEO user base as a whole.
For example, only 57% of the full user base employs CAMEO to manage facility data
compared to 91% of the LEPCs. And, while 79% of all CAMEO users apply it for
emergency planning and response, 92-93% of the LEPC users of CAMEO do so.
The facility database feature (Chart 16) is also considered more valuable by LEPC
users than by the CAMEO user base as a whole.
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept. » Page 17
-------
LEPC Evaluations of Tier II
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. » Page 18
-------
Chart 18: Overall Usefulness of Tier II
Very useful 57%
Undecided;
don't know 12%
Not at all useful 1%
Slightly useful 2%
Moderately
useful 28%
Percentages based on 101 LEPCs using Tier II.
"Overall, -wouldyou say that Tier II is very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? "
While it is not as popular as CAMEO, Tier II still earned good ratings. As shown in
Chart 18, most Tier II users consider the program to be at least moderately useful.
'Tier II's facility chemical inventory feature-slaveyou found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all usefulor haven't you had a chance to try
it? ...electronic submission (import/export) feature? ...report generation feature?"
Of these three key features of Tier II, the facility chemical inventory feature is consid-
ered the most useful. Although majorities find the other two features to be at least
moderately useful, they are not as widely used. (See Chart 19 on the next page.) With
the chief exception, of greater LEPC appreciation of the facility chemical inventory
feature, LEPC evaluations of Tier .II were similar to those found in the recent separate
survey of the Tier II user base.
What improvements -wouldyou most like to see in Tier II? "
While most users had no immediate suggestions for improving Tier II, the ideas of
those who did are summarized in Chart 20. The top two recommendations were
simplification/more user friendly (8%) and compatibility with other programs (4%).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 19
-------
Chart 19: Usefulness of Tier II Features
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Facility
Chemical Inventory
'Report
Generation
Electronic Submission
(Import/Export)
Not tried it
Not useful
, Slightly
Moderately
Very useful
15
1
3
23
57
27
0
1
23
49
36
1
6
15
42
Percentages based on 101 LEPCs using Tier II.
Chart 20: Suggested Improvements to Tier II
More user friendly
Simplify program
Compatibility with
other programs
Enhance the report
generation feature
Miscellaneous
2%
4%
5%
0% '2% 4% 6%
Percentages based on 101 LEPCs using Tier II.
8%
8%
10%
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 20
-------
LEPC Evaluations of LandView
LEPC Data Management Survey » The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept. Page 21
-------
Chart 21: LandView Usefulness
Moderately
useful
13%
Slightly
useful
16%
Very useful
47%
Very useful
52%
Moderately
useful
9%
Slightly
useful
9%
Not at all
3%
Dont know
22%
Not at all
30%
Overall Usefulness
Geographic Info. Feature
Percentages based on 39 LEPCs using LandView.
"Overall, -wouldyou say that LandView is very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? "
Relatively few LEPCs use LandView, just 8% of those using computers for data
management. However, those who do use it give LandView respectable ratings. As
shown in Chart 21, a majority (60%) assess it as at least moderately useful.
"LandView allows you to add your own geographic information to the program.
Have you found that feature to be very useful, moderately useful, slightly
useful, not at all useful or haven't you had a chance to try it? "
This particular feature prompts similar scores to the program as .a whole. About half
(52%) say it is "very useful" and the rest are not particularly convinced. Despite the
small subsamples of users, these ratings tend to echo the findings from the separate
recent survey of the LandView user base, which included mostly non-LEPC users.4
"William C. Adams, Mary Beth Morgan, and Mercedes M. Viana, Nationwide Surveys
of CAMEO, LandView, and Tier II Users (Washington, DC: George Washington Univer-
sity, 1997).
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. « Page 22
-------
LEPC Evaluations of the CEPPO Web Site
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept. « Page 23
-------
Chart 22: CEPPO Web Site
No 94%
Yes 6%
Not useful 3% ,
Slightly useful 8%
Moderately
useful 55%
Very useful 34%
Use of CEPPO Web Site
in Past Six Months
Usefulness of
CEPPO Web Site
Percentages based on 560 LEPCs that have computers (55% of the sample of 1,018).
"Have you looked at the Internet Web site for CEPPO the Chemical
Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office in the past six months? "
[Ifyes,":] Is the information that you found on the CEPPO Web site very
useful, moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful?
" Of those who have computers, few LEPC leaders (only 6%) looked at the CEPPO
(Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office) Web site during the past
six months. However, most of those who did actually examine the site found it to be
moderately useful (55%) or very useful (34%). Thus, a total of nine out often viewed
the site as worthwhile. Only 3% (one person) said it was "not useful." (See Chart 22
above.)
LEPC Data Management Survey » The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 24
-------
Commentary
Impending Transformation. The 1994 survey found that 35% of the LEPCs had put
their EPCRA data into a computerized database. The 1997 survey suggests a modest
increase, with 39% now doing so. However, the 1997 "snapshot" depicts LEPCs on the
verge of a widespread transformation from paper to computer systems.
Only four out of every ten LEPCs (39%) have already entered the computer era but
another four out often (42%) now have plans to join them. Just two in ten LEPCs (18%)
contend that they do not need or cannot afford to make the shift to computers.
The forthcoming computerization of LEPCs is planned throughout all regions of the United
States and among virtually all but the least active and nonfunctioning LEPCs. Even if
some of these plans are delayed, the best evidence is that LEPCs are likely to undergo a
radical shift in their data management practices during the 1997-1999 period.
Uncertain Outcomes. The success of these good intentions to computerize EPCRA
data is not assured. The early adaptors are likely to have been more computer savvy and
predisposed to high-tech solutions. In contrast, these late adaptors may find the attempted
shift to computers significantly more difficult. Indeed, one dramatic finding from the GWU
surveys of listed users of CAMEO, LandView, and Tier II (February 1997) is that there are
so many would-be users who for a variety of reasons never actually used the software.
The next few years appear to be a crucial time for a potential revolution hi LEPC data man-
agement. Many hundreds of LEPCs around the country are going to try to replace their
paper filing with a computer system. Whatever timetable EPA envisions for promoting,
training, and assisting LEPCs in this endeavor, the survey results are unambiguous: The
ideal time is now.
Satisfactory Software. Most LEPCs are pleased with the software they are using.
CAMEO users are especially happy with its features and overall utility. LEPCs that use
CAMEO are overwhelmingly employing the software to support the key LEPC activities
of emergency planning, emergency responses, and managing chemical inventory data.
LandView and Tier II are newer programs that are not quite as popular as CAMEO and
have far fewer LEPC users. Yet, most of those who use those programs consider them
worthwhile. (With a few minor exceptions, LEPC users tended to mirror the opinions of
other users of these three programs as found in the other recent GWU user surveys.) The
best evidence is that, for most LEPCs, the software itself is not a major impediment to their
computerizing EPCRA data.
Web-based Communications. CEPPO's Web site has attracted little LEPC interest.
While it garners good reviews from those who have seen it, very few (only 6% of those
with computers) have made the effort to see it in the past six months. Absent a major
promotion, this is not yet an effective channel for CEPPO communication with LEPCs.
LEPC Data Management Survey " The George Washington University Public Administration Dept. Page 25
-------
Appendix: LEPC Questionnaire
LEPC Data Management Survey The George Washington University » Public Administration Dept. Page 26
-------
Primary LEPC Data Management Survey
Date:
Area Code:
Interviewer:
Telephone:
< City:
State:
Hello. I'm calling from George Washington University. My name is _
You may have received our letter about the short survey that we're
conducting for the US EPA. We have just a few questions about your LEPC
data management activities. It only takes between five and ten minutes
Can you hear me OK?
(1) Are you generally familiar with the data management
. practices of your L-E-P-C? ;
.Yes
No, not familiar.
[Go to Q-3]
'. 2
L [GotpQ-2]
No data collected 7
[Confirm if'L-E-R-C is active, if
answer yes", ask for person who
is familiar with data management
practices. If inactive and no data
collected, thank and terminate.]
(2) [If not] _Who is responsible for managing EPCRA data [Ask for name and number of the
in your L-h-P-C? ... ; person wno oversees L.E.P.C
' . . data management and contact;
'[EPCRA = the chemical facility inventory data submitted to the L-E-P-C] then thank and terminate.]
Name:
Phone:
(3) Are you the chairperson for the L-E-P-C in your area?
(4)' [If-no'] . .
What best describes your function on the L-E-P-C?
. .Yes-1
[if-yes.-
go to Q-5]
No-2
[.It"no-
go to Q-4]
DK-8
[Ifdk-
go to Q-4]
Firefighter 1
Computer Technician .. 2
Emergency Planner ..; 3
First Responder 4
Information Coordinator 5
Elected Local Official .. 6
L-E-P-C Staff 7
Other:
(5) Is there a computer that's regularly
used to support L-E-P-C activities?.
Yes '. .1
[GO TO Q-6]
No 2
[GO TO Q-31]
Don't know 3
[GO TO Q-31]
(6) To support your L-E-P-C data management,
are you using a software program called CAMEO?.
(7) [if-no':] Have you heard of CAMEO?
Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
[Go to Q- 9] [Go to Q-7] [Go to Q-7]
(8) Is there any particular reason why
you are not using CAMEO? ...
[One probe:] Anything else?
Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
[Go to Q-8][Go to Q-20][Goto Q-20]
Like current software.. 1
Too complicated /
training-needed .... 2
Not suited to needs ... 3
Expensive 4
Not gotten around to it 5
Other
[ALL Q-8 ANSWERS GO TO Q-20]
Don't know
. 6
8
-------
Primary L-E-PC Datta Management Survey
PageS
(9) Are you using CAMEO to manage the facility chemical
inventory data collected under EPCRA?
(10) Are you using CAMEO for emergency planning
such as for screening. and for contingency plans?
(11) Are you using CAMEO for emergency responses?
(12) We're interested in what you think about a few of
CAMEO's features. For example, CAMEO's facilities
database feature have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
(13) How about the chemical information already supplied in
CAMEO in Code Breaker and the Response Information
Data Sheets (RIDS) have you found that to be very
useful, moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
(14) How about the hazards analysis and screeninas feature?
[Repeat as needed] Have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it? '
(15) How about CAMEO's MARPLOT mapping feature?
[Repeat as needed] Have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
(16) How about CAMEO's air dispersion model called ALOHA?
[Repeat as needed] Have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
(17) CAMEO has a feature that allows the user to import and
export data. Have you found this feature to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
(18) What improvement would you most like to see in CAMEO?
(19) Overall, would you say that CAMEO is very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? . .
Yes-1 No-2
Yes-1 No-2
Yes-1 No-2
Very useful
Moderately useful
Slightly useful
Not at all useful . .
>NOTtrie>d it'
Don't know . .
Very useful- ....
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful . .
>NOT tried it
Don't know ....
Very useful ....
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful . .
>NOT tried it
Don't know
Very useful
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful . .
>NOT tried it
Don't know
Very useful ....
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful . .
>NOT tried it ...
Don't know . . .
Very useful ....
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful
>NOT tried it
Don't know
[Recommendation:]
Don't Know
Nothing/It's O.K. .
Very useful ....
Moderately useful
Slightly useful . . .
Not at all useful . .
Don't know
DK-8
DK-8
DK-8
1
2
3
4
c
8
1
2
. . . 3
.' . . . 4
c.
8
1
2
. .. '. 3
...: 4
5
8
1'
2
3
4
5
8
. . . . 1
2
. . .3
4
5
8
1
2
.... 3
4
5
. .'. 8
8
. . . 9
1
.... 2
3
4
8
-------
Primary L.EPC Data Management Survey
Page 3
(20) Are you using a software program called Tier 2?
(21)
(22)
We're interested in what you think about three features
of Tier 2. For example, Tier 2's facility and chemical
inventory feature have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?
How about the electronic submission (import/export)
feature have you found that to be very useful,
moderately useful, slightly useful, not at all useful
or haven't you had a chance to try it?.'.
Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
[Go to Q-21][Go to Q-26][Go to Q-26]
Very useful .1
Moderately useful .... 2
Slightly useful 3
Not at all useful ..:... 4
>NOT tried it 5
Don't know 8
Very useful 1
Moderately useful .... 2
Slightly useful 3
Not at all useful 4
>NOT tried it ........ 5
Don't know ^......... 8
(23) How about the report generation feature? Very useful 1
[Repeat as needed] Have you found that to be very useful, Moderately useful 2
moderately useful, slightly,useful, not at all useful f, ? U] -,' :
- or haven't you had a chance to try it? Not at a!l useful - 4
>NOT tried it 5
Don't know 8
(24) What improvement would you most like to see in Tier 2? . [Recommendation:]
...'.' Don't know 8
Nothing/It's O.K 9
(25) Overall, would you say that Tier 2 is very useful, . Very useful 1
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? .. Moderately useful .... 2
Slightly useful ':.. 3
Not at all useful . 4
Don't know 8
(26) Are you using a. software program called Landview? .... Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
' (Go to Q-27][Go to Q-29][Go to 0-29]
(27) LandView allows you to add your own geographic Very useful ......... 1
information to the program. Have you found that feature Moderately useful ...... 2
to be very useful, moderately useful, slightly useful, not at Slightly useful 3
all useful or haven't you had a chance to try it? Not at all useful 4
>NOTtriedit . ^ 5
- . Don't know 8
(28) Overall, would you say that LandView is very useful, Very useful 1
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? .. Moderately useful .... 2
Slightly useful 3
Not at all useful 4
Don't know 8
-------
Primary LEPC Oat;a Management Survey
Page <4
(29) Now we'd like to ask you a few questions about how your
L-E-P-C receives and uses chemical inventory information.
How does your L-E-P-C receive facility chemical inventory
information on paper, in computerized form,- both ways,
or not at all?
(30) When your L-E-P-C receives that information, are
the data mainly managed with a paper filing system
or a computer system? ,
On paper 1
Computerized ....... 2
Both ways 3
Not at all , 4
[If 'not at all,' GO TO Q-34.J
Paper 1
[Ifpaper, 'GOTO Q-31]
Computer ;... 2
[If "computer," GO TO Q-32J
Both 3
[lfboth,"GOTOQ-32]
[If'PAPER-in Q 30]
(31) Does your L-E-P-C have plans to put the
chemical inventory data from chemical
facilities on a computer? [If not: "Why is that]
Yes
1
No, cannot afford it ... 2
No, don't need computer 3
No, other reasons:
. 4
Do not collect data .... 6
, Don't know 8
(32) Can you tell me whether or not you use the data
that your L-E-P-C collects for the following activities: ,
For hazard analysis '. .Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
To respond to public inquiries Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
To disseminate information to the community .... Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
To support planning for emergency response
activities Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
For zoning and land use decisions.....' ; Yes-1 No-2 DK-8
(33) Overall, is the data your LEPC collects very useful, Very useful 1
moderately useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? ... Moderately useful 2,
Slightly useful 3
Not at all useful....... 4
Don't know 8
(34) Have you looked at the Internet web site for CEPPO the Yes .. , 1
Chemical Emergency, Preparedness and Prevention Office [GO TO Q-35]
in the past 6 months? No 2
[GO TO Q-36]
Don't know 8
[GO TO 0-36]
(35) //ryes'; Very useful 1
Is the information that you found on the Moderately useful 2
, CEPPO Web site very useful, moderately Slightly useful. -'.: 3
useful, slightly useful, or not at all useful? Not at all useful 4
[ALL ANSWERS GO TO Q-36] Don't know 8
(36) And finally, how many times did your L-E-P-C hold Number of times:
formal meetings during the past twelve months? Never hojd meetings 71
[If'don't know.'ask for best guess] , ^^ know a_ _ 88
That concludes our interview. Thank you very much for your help!
------- |