United Stares
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Policy-
Planning and Evaluation
Washington DC 20460
December 1988
EPA-230-06-89-063
&EPA
Processing Hazardous
Materials Risk Information
at the Local Level
-------
-------
PROCESSING HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISK INFORMATION
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Final Report on Phase One of
COMMUNITY INTERPRETATION OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RISK INFORMATION
Prepared for
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
an,d OFFICE OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND EVALUATION
Cooperative Agreement No. 814921
By
UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS STUDIES
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE & STATE UNIVERSITY
W. David Conn, Principal Investigator
William L. Owens, Co-Principal Investigator
Richard C. Rich, Co-Principal Investigator
Jarol B. Manheim, Consultant
December 30. 1988
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1
Acknowledgements .............. .....:...: ........................... . ..... .... ..... --. ......... .- ...... .................... -. ...... .-. ................
Introduction ......... ' .............. ....... -...., .................... . ............ ' .............. :-; ................ ........... .......................... :.-.1
Objectives
Activities....
Methodology
Findings ............. , ............... ......... ............ ......... : ........... .'...... ........ . ..... .. ...................... . ...................................... 6
LEPC Structure and Operation ................ '. ............ . ..... ....... ...... . ....... . ................ ..... .......... ...... ................ 6
.. Members' Perceptions :. ....... . ......................... ...... ..:,........ .................... ......... ..,.....:..;......, .............. ,..-...8
Membership Composition .......... ....... ........ , .......................... .......................... '; ............................... 18
Internal Cohesiveness ................... ..... .................... '....', ........... ..... .................. .' ........ ....... ................. 27
" ' T}
Conclusions ..... . .......... : ............. :..;.,.r ......................... - ......... ........ ..- ..... ...... :- ..... ..........................
Recommendations .............. . ....... . ...... .......... ... ....... . ....................................... ..:.....'. .......... ,..;.... ................... --36
Appendix A: Data Collection Instruments and Cover Letters
Appendix B: Report on the Hazards Analysis Presentation
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors thank the following for their assistance in the study described in this report: John
Gustafsort, Terry Dinan, and Ann Fisher (EPA); Cynthia Bailey and Wayne Halbleib (Virginia SERC);
and all LEPC members who participated in the study. Any opinions expressed in the report are those
of the authors alone and do not reflect an official view of Virginia, Polytechnic Institute & State Uni-
versity or of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
This is ihe'final, report on Phase 1 of-this project, conducted between March and October, 1988. under
Cooperative Agreement No. 8.14921. It addresses the issue of environmental risk cpmmunication
under Title ill of the. Superfund Amendments and Reautliorization Act of 1986 (SARA), That .act calls
for the creation in eaclj state of Local Emergency Planninq Committees (LEPCs) which are to include
representatives of local government; police, 'fire, hospital and other emergency resppnse and public
health agencies; facilities likely to use hazardous materials covered by SARA; community groups and
the media. Each LEPC's initial responsibility has been to develop a comprehensive plan, for re- .
spending effectively to emergencies created by the release of hazardous chemicals into the environ-
ment. These plans: were to be, completed by October 17, 1988. In addition to developing the plan, the
committees have an important public information function. The LEPCs are to receive.and store in-
formation on chemical hazards in the community from any facility that handles substances identified
as hazardous by the:Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). They are also changed with establishing
and administering procedures for responding to public requests for information about these environ-
mental hazards. This study examines a sample of Virginia LEPCs in their role as risk communicators
under Title 111.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of Phase.l were as follows:
1. To begin to explore the Title III process as an example of an approach to raising community
awareness of risks associated with hazardous materials and providing mechanisms through
which citizens can address these risks.
2. To evaluate the effectiveness of EPA's Hazards Analysis Presentation as an aid to community
groups such .as LEPCs.
-------
ACTIVITIES
This section provides an overview of the Phase 1 activities:
1 Attend a preliminary Hazards Analysis Presentation to the Hazards Analysis Subcommittee of the
Washington, D.C. LEPC.
This gave us a chance to see an early version of the presentation, as well as to be introduced to
CAMEO. (CAMEO has not/however, been a large part of our work since then.) Following this
presentation, we were able to provide feedback as lo how it might be strengthened.
2. Select four communities in which to evaluate the hazards analysis presentation and conduct focus
group discussions on the Title III planning process.
The number of communities had been determined as a function of time and budget constraints.
We also knew that we wanted a varied selection, including urban and rural areas, and areas with
both high and low intensity of facilities having hazardous materials. Given the low number and
wide variety, we elected to pick four communities in Virginia. This avoided adding another layer
of variables (such as different state or EPA region policies) allowed us to capitalize on our con-
tacts within the state, and reduced the costs of the research.
The four communities selected were:
Urban, low intensity - Prince William County/Cities of Manassas, Manassas Park.
Estimated 1985 population 195,400 (total); 169,000 (county); 19.500 (Manassas); 6,900
(Manassas Park). Median income 1979 $20-25.000.
Very rapid growth. DC suburban community. Electronics (IBM); office; light industry.
Urban, high intensity - City of Richmond.
Estimated 1985 population 217,200. Median income 1979 $13,606.
State capital. Major banking. Largest manufacturing concentration in Virginia. Tobacco
processing, printing, paper, apparel, chemicals.
-------
Rural, low intensity - Franklin, County. ' ' . ..'"..
Estimated 1985 population 37,300, Median income 1979 S14.&92.
Lumber, wood products, furniture, apparel.
Rural, high intensity - Rockingham County/City of Harrisonburg. ' , ' .
Estimated 1985 population 80.100 (total); 53.600 (county); 26.500 (Harrisonburg). Median in-
come 1979 $13-16.000. .
' Major .poultry farming/processing (especially turkeys); other food processing; apparel;
chemicals: James Madison University.
3. Gather information on Virginia LEPCs.
Since we were attempting, among other things, to determine whether the Hazards Analysis
Presentation was useful to groups such as LEPCs, we decided it was necessary to learn more
about the members and the nature of their needs (both from their perspective and^ours). Given'
that the four selected communities were all in Virginia, we sought to collect data on other Virginia
LEPCs to provide a context for interpreting information from the case studies. Details of theis
data collection effort are provided in the Methodology section, below. >
4. Evaluate the Hazards Analysis Presentation, and conduct focus group discussions, in the four
communities. ' .'
Results of the evaluation were presented in a separate report which is attached to this report as
Appendix 8. Our observations on the Hazards Analysis Presentation are not discussed in.the
body of the report. However, the focus group discussions, which were intended to elicit the
members' thoughts regarding both the presentation nnd the Title III process, provided valuable
insights which are discussed in subsequent sections. .
-------
METHODOLOGY
Since the LEPCs are new institutions, there existed no prior research to guide us in identifying key
questions to be asked or framing hypotheses to be tested As a result, we designed ah exploratory
data collection instrument intended to produce a description of the LEPCs and to discover patterns
which could suggest lines for future research,
In April. 1988. packets were sent to the Chairs of the flO LEPCs that had been formed in Virginia by that
date. Each packet contained 1) an LEPC Information Form designed to gather data'on the LEPCs as
organizations, 2) questionnaires for the individual LEPC members, and 3) a supporting letter from the
Virginia Emergency Response Council., (The data collection instruments and cover letters are re-
produced in Appendix B of this report.) LEPC Chairs were asked to distribute the individual ques-
tionnaires to the members of their organization, ask that they fill them out, collect the completed forms
and return them along with the LEPC Information Form to.us in an envelope provided for that purpose.
To encourage frank answers to questions about the LEPC and its leadership, no identifiers were
placed on the members' questionnaires and we asked that the completed instruments be placed in
sealed envelopes before being returned to the chair in order to ensure that individual responses
would be confidential.
We followed the initial mailing with additional letters and with phone calls to urge a response. In the
end, we received questionnaires from 31 different LEPCs for an organizational response rate of 35%.
The LEPCs that returned information forms reported a total of 493 members. The 251 individual
questionnaires we received, therefore, constitue a 51% sample of all the members of the responding
organizations. There was, however, a great deal of variation from committee to committee in the
percent of reported members who completed questionnaires. Conversations with LEPC members and
the response of some Chairs to our request suggest that one plausible explanation for this rather low
response from the organizations is that many LEPCs were quite young at the time of our study and
did not feel that they could provide answers to many of the questions. Other Chairs may have felt that
they were asking so much of their members in their efforts to develop the plan by the October dead-
line that they could not justify also asking them to complete the questionnaire. ,
-------
Our "sample",resulted from an attempt to achieve a census of state LBPCs rather than from the ap- .
plication of random sampling techniques. As a result.-wo can not speak with precision of the statis-
tical representativeness of our sample and we can not rule qut the possibility that those who
responded are. in some ways, unrepresentative of,the population of LEPC members. We can. how- .
ever, argue that- there is, a logical, if not a statistical, basis for believing our sample to.be at least
typical of LEPC members. In the first place, the organisations from which they come are located in
every region of the state and in both urban and rural localities with both high and low concentrations
of facilities with hazardous materials: In addition, the profile of those LEPC members who responded
is consistent with what a knowledge of emergency pianninrj and the requirements of SARA would lead
one to expect. Finally, the response patterns we.describe below are generally so strong that it is
highly unlikely that they would have occurred by chanco in a sample of this type if they did not exi^t
in the larger population. As a result, we feel comfortable in making broad generalizations about the
LEPCs and their members from these data. It is important, however, to recognize the limitations of
this study. The sample was confined to one state, the sampling technique employed encouraged re-
sponses primarily from more committed members of more active organizations, and responses came
from a-relatively small proportion of the committees. Together, these facts mean that it would be a
mistake to predict precise relationships or response patterns in all LEPCs from these data. Accord-
ingly, we will focus on general patterns, will be cautious in making generalizations and will treat our
findings as suggestive rather than definitive.
-------
FINDINGS
i
LEPC STRUCTURE AND OPERATION
4
Information on (he structure, organization and activities of the LEPCs comes from the LEPC Informa-
tion Forms completed by the Chairs of the individual LEPCs, Data on the "organizational climate",
procedures, and perceived capacity of the committees can be derived by aggregating responses of
individual members to our questionnaire.
Structure
Twenty nine of the committees that sent in member responses filed LEPC Information Forms. These
indicate that, at the time-of the study, the LEPCs had bnoivin existence for an average of six months
and had 18 members. In compliance with the legislation that created them, 90% had appointed
Community Information Coordinators and 93% had appointed Community Emergency Coordinators.
We asked what subcommittees had been created by the LEPCs on the assumption that their sub-
committee structure could suggest how they defined thnir responsibilities. The following table shows
the distribution of subcommittees as reported on the LEPC Information Forms. It indicates that there
was little consensus on how best to organize the work of tho LEPCs since there is no set of subcom-
mittees common to all organizations. Almost one fourth of these LEPCs had formed no subcommit-
tees. Generally, the larger LEPCs and those serving more urbanized areas reported more
subcommittees while smaller and more rural LEPCs exhibited less division of labor.
-------
TYPE OF PERCENT OF LEPCs THAT
SUBCOMMITTEE HAVE FORMED SUBCOMMITTEE
Public-Relations . 34% .
Hazards Analysis . 34%
Emergency Planning ' ' 31%
Response Capacity 31%
Miscellaneous ' 28%
Internal Affairs . 24%
Transportation . 17%
Public Education 17%
Media Relations. 10%
Site Identification 10%
Response Training 10%
Medical Preparation 6%
Recognizing the centrality of the material safety data sheets (MSDSs) to the task of the LEPCs, we
asked how many of these forms each committee had received from local firms and how many firms
were to report to each LEPC. Individual organizations reported having received from 0 to 10,000 ma-
terial safety data sheets from between one and 200 local firms. The median LEPC reported receiving
a total of 37 data sheets from 15 facilities (though means were much higher because of a few very high
estimates). When asked what kind of system they had developed to record and retrieve the informa-
tion contained on the MSOSs, 90% of the responding LEPCs reported having only a paper record while
3% reported a combination of computerized and paper systems and 7% indicated that they had NO
system yet in place. This result indicates, at this stage of SARA's implementation, a very limited ca-
pacity for efficiently processing information on hazardous materials in their communities. In addition,
we found that four LEPC Chairs had no idea how many facilities were to report to them and another
nine gave what we consider to be unrealistically low estimates given the level of economic develop-
ment in their areas. .."
-------
We asked which of three phrases best described the stage of the planning process which the com-
m.ltees had reached (See question 9 on the information ,h«»et ) The results are shown in Ihe table
that follows
STAGE OF PLANNING PERCENT OF LEPCs
Gathering information and designing the process 21%
Planning well under way 41°'°
Circulating drafts of the plan 10%
Close to final draft of the plan 21%
Other description of stage
This distribution reflects the fact that our study came relatively early in the planning process, but in-
dicates that our data come from organizations at all stages of the planning process. The stage the
LEPC had reached in the process was statisticaly related only to the age of the committee, suggesting
that no organizational structure had any particular advantage in moving the planning process along
more rapidly than any other.
MEMBERS'PERCEPTIONS
If we turn to the more subjective characteristics of the LEPCs revealed by their members' responses
to the questionnaire, we can ask about members' perceptions of 1) the capacity of the committees for
performing the functions assigned to them. 2) the resources available to the LEPCs, and 3) the internal
procedures of the organizations.
Before addressing these issues, however, a methodological explanation is called for. In what follows
we treat all 251 respondents as a single sample of LEPC members rather than breaking them into 31
separate samples of specific committees. Examination of the responses on a committee-by-
committee basis gave us both a reason for not analyzing them as separate samples and a justification
for grouping them into a single sample. First, there were so few responses from some LEPCs that
we would run the risk of drawing very inaccurate conclusions about the whole committee if we relied
-------
on our, respondents as representative, samples of the individual LE'PCs. This argued against
commiltee-by-comm'ittee.analysis. Second, we found no important differences among the response
patterns in the different LEPCs. While a few committees stood out.as distinctive in their answers to
\ -
-a few specific questions, there were no consistent patterns of distinctiveness -- those that gave atyp-
ical answers to one question were not consistently atypical and .there was no visible pattern to the
type of questions on which individual committees stood out or in the type of committees (urban/rural:
more/less professional; etc.) that stood out in their responses to given questions. In short, there we're
so few differences between committees in the way their members answered our questions that we feel
fully justified in treating these respondents as a single sample.
Organizational Capacity
Questions three, four, five and seven on the membership questionnaire were designed to tap mem-
bers' perceptions of the capacity of their LEPC. We first asked them to use a five-point scale ("inad-
equate" to "excellent") to rate the degree to which their LEPC exhibited each of 11 different features
which we considered necessary to the organizations' effectiveness. Figure 1 presents a summary of
the results. As a group, LEPC members were quite confident of their organizations' capacity for
gathering and analyzing information and felt that they had strong leaders and dedicated members.
They also expressed general confidence in their LEPCs' relations with the media and ability to com-
municate with government and business in the jurisdiction. At this stage, however, members were
noticeably less convinced that the LEPC could communicate with the public, had high public visibility
or had the confidence of the public. Clearly, the members feel that.they have internally effective or-
ganizations but recognize the very limited outreach capacity of the LEPCs in this early phase of their
work.
Next we asked members to rate the efforts their organization had made to communicate with busi-
nesses in their jurisdiction. Using a five-point scale in which one represented inadequate and five
represented extensive efforts, only 11% of members ranked their LEPCs efforts as a one or two (poor)
while 52% rated the efforts at a four or five (good). In addition, we asked members to rate the coop-
eration their LEPC received from the business community on a five-point scale and found that only
14% called it poor or inadequate while 41% rated it as adequate and 45% termed it good to excellent.
This pattern was generally repeated when we examined responses from the individual LEPCs since
-------
FIGURE 1
Members' Assessment of LEPC
LEPC Quality
Strong leaders
Communicate -w/gvt.
Dedicated members
Communicate w/bus.
Analyzing info.
Gathering info.
Relations w/media
Subcommittees
Communicate w/public
Public confidence
Public visibility
911
010 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percent rating high*
*% rating 4 or 5 on 5-point scale
-------
neither the positive nor negative evaluations were concnnlrated in a few organizations. Overall, (he
results suggest.general satisfaction with the relationship between the LEPCs and businesses though
there is clearly room for improvement in the minds of a significant minority of members.
We next tried to assess organizational capacity by asking members to evaluate their LEPCs' chances
of reaching six goals. (See question 7 on the questionnaire) Figure 2 summarizes the-results, Most
members were quite confident of their committee's ability to develop the comprehensive response
plan, to develop it on time,'to establish procedures for- responding t° citizens' requests for information,
and to secure cooperation from local business and government. At this stage, they were noticeably
less confident of their chances of securing adequate r.iti/nn input in the development of the plan or
effectively communicating the plan to citizens. In all, while there is concern about funding and contacts
with the public, rnosMEPC members exhibited a "can do" altitude with respect to their organizations'
capacity for the tasks assigned to them. . . .
Resources
This confidence exists in the face of a pessimistic view of tho resource situation of the organizations.
Question six on the questionnaire asked members to evaluate five types of resources provided to the
LEPCs by federal, state and local governments. Figures 3, 4 and 5 present highlights of the results
results. At this stage, responding members tend to regard funding from all sources as inadequate
and are generaffy dissatisfied with the provision of equipment and materials from all levels of gov-
ernment. However, they tended to rate the provision of technical information by all governments as.
adequate and were satisfied with the administrative cooperation received from state and local gov-
ernments, though they were less pleased with federal efforts in this regard. In general, LEPC mem-
bers see their strongest support as coming from local government and are least satisfied with the
resources received from the federal level. Both responses-to the questionnaire and our discussions
in the focus groups indicate that most members feel as though they, are being asked to do a difficult
task with too few resources. .
11
-------
FIGURE 2
Likelyhood of LEPC Success
Task or Objective
Develop good plan [
Handle info requests
Get gvt. cooperation
Develop plan ON TIME
Get bus. cooperation
Inform citizens
Secure citizen input
88 i
76
76
6.6
149
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% saying likely*
*% rating 4 or 5 on 5-point scale
-------
FIGURES
Perceived Local Support
Type of Support
Administrative coop.
Tech. Information ?;^43|i
Facilities
Materials & supplies
Operating funds
86
>, ' ><
'
74
73
47
J_ J L_ L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% rating as adequate
-------
FIGURE 4
Perceived State Support
Type of Support
Administrative coop.
Tech. Information
Facilities
Materials & supplies
Operating funds
67
70
20 j
24
12
i I I 1 L
J L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% rating as adequate
-------
FIGURES
Perceived Federal Support
Type of Support
Administrative coop.
Tech. Information
Facilities
13
Materials & supplies
Operating funds
8
4Q
\58
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% rating as adequate
-------
Internal Procedures
Question 8 sought to assess members' evaluation of the operations of.their LEPCs by asking them to
agree or disagree with a series of questions about the organization. The results, summarized in
Figure 6. indicate that members generally agree that LEPC decisions are broadly based, meetings are
well organized and clearly focused, members have the ability to conduct valid hazards analyses and
that members' skills and knowledge are used effectively. They are noticeably less likely to agree that
the workload demanded by the LEPC is appropriate for a volunteer organization. Our conversations
With LEPC members leads us to interpret this as indicating that many members feel as though too
much is expected of them.
Volunteer organizations can make it more or less difficult for members to serve by the procedures
they adopt. In question 18 we asked LEPC members to tell us to. what degree they experienced a set
of potential problems in serving on the LEPC. The following table shows how they responded by in-
dicating what percent said each potential problem was a serious, minor or unimportant problem for
them. Clearly, the unavoidable problem of finding sufficient time is the major difficulty experienced
by LEPC members and even that is identified as serious by only a minority of members.
POTENTIAL
PROBLEM
Finding time for work outside of meetings
Finding time to go to LEPC meetings
Meetings scheduled at inconvenient times
Getting access to needed information
Lack of cooperation from affected firms
Getting time released from work for the LEPC
PERCENT OF
SERIOUS
28%
21%
19%
14%
12%
7%
MEMBERS
MINOR
51%
46%
36%
35%
31%
11%
SAYING IT IS:
UNIMPORTANT
21%
34%
45%
51%
56%
82%
Overall, these results suggest that members perceive the LEPCs as strong organizations with capable
members, adequate capacity and good internal arrangements. While they are concerned about the
adequacy of the resources available to them and dp not feel that the LEPC is well-connected to the^
-------
FIGURE 6
Assessment of LEPC Procedures
Internal Procedures
Meetings
Use of mbr. skills
Hazards analysis
Workload
Pnwpr «;h3r nn ,", 4 - " >',,*.;,, *.*,',* ',' ',
rUWCI Ol IO.HI iy ' , *, ,*,,?,^''<; ,,/,'.,,{,(,^ »%&s,;v'
-------
public, they appear to be confident of support from local business and government and do NOT appear
to be overwhelmed by the magnitude of the task beforo them.
MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION ,
Since the LEPCs are their members, we turn next'to a sor.ios of questions about who they are, .how
(hey define the mission of the committees and how they evaluate their personal preparation for ful-
filling that mission. The profile of LEPC members that emerged is very much what one would expect
from the technical nature of their central task and the types of persons who are involved in these is-
sues in local communities. As individuals, they range in age from 22 to 77 with an average age of 46
years. They are 86% male and have lived in the community an average of 21 years. Educationally,
89% had gone to college, 61% had earned college degrees and 38% had postgraduate degrees.
Forty nine percent considered their occupation to be in the public sector while 41% saw themselves
as coming from the private .sector and 9% said they worked in the volunteer sector.
We also asked members whether they belonged to any of several types of organizations (question 15
on the questionnaire). Figure 7 presents their responses. We can combine these organizations into
four more general types to discuss the kinds of interests represented on the LEPCs. This analysis
reveals that 23% of the members held elected or appointed positions in government, 21% were from
business or industry, 20% were from public sector emergency response organizations like a police
or fire department, 15% were from what might be labeled "watchdog" groups - the media and envi-
ronmental interest groups - and 22% reported membership in NONE of these organizations or groups.
This is a logical composition for the committees given the kinds of skills and information necessary
to their mission. Figure 8 graphically illustrates that it is also a fairly well-balanced composition in
which no one group dominates.
Virqinia's LEPC members are, in short, well-educated, long-term residents of their communities with
9 i . ;-.. ''
occupational backgrounds that seem appropriate to the job of the LEPC. Clearly they are NOT a cross
section of the communities they serve. They are more male, better educated, more professional,
more likely to be associated with government and probably more middle-age than would be expected
from a representative sample of the general public. They may, therefore, not accurately reflect the
opinions of their communities.- However, this composition of the committees seems to be dictated to
18
-------
FIGURE?
LEPC Members Affiliations
Rescue Squad
9%
Planning Agency
18%
Elected Official
7%
Business Mgt.
18%
Police Dept.
7%
Fire Dept.
14% .
Hospital
4%
Media
5%
Envrion. Group
7%
Industry Team
10%
Members of each group on LEPC
-------
FIGURES
LEPC Members Backgrounds
Government
23%
Emergency
20%
"Watchdog"
15%
Industry
21%
Unaffiliated
22%
LEPC members from each group
-------
. some degree by the nature of their main mission and there is little reason to anticipate systematic
bias on the committees as a result of who is included and excluded. We will address this'topic in
more'detail below, but for now we can note that business representatives do not dominate the com-
mittees numerically and there .seem to be ample potential representatives of the public interest on the
committees in the members who are from public sector organizations and watchdog groups as well
as ."unaffUiated". individuals who are not likely to have any special interest in hazardous materials
management.
How involved are these members in the LEPC and what does it require of them? In terms of their
length of service, 30% had been on the LEPC for less than three months, 28% had been members for
three to six months, and 42% had served for over six months. In terms of the offices they held in the
committee, 9% of our respondents were LEPC Chairs, 7% served as Community Information Coordi-/
nator, 10% served as Community Emergency Coordinator, and 13% were subcommittee chairs: What
we have, therefore, is a sample which probably over-represents the.more active members of the or-
ganizations simply .because these people were more likely to have enough interest to take the time
to complete the questionnaire.
Even these relatively long-term, active members reported attending remarkably few meetings of the
full LEPC. Fully 55% had attended three or fewer meetings and only 5%-reported attending ten or
more meetings. We also asked how much time members gave to various LEPC activities each month.
(See question 13.) The answers are summarized in the following list of the average numbers of hours
devoted to different tasks. We must caution that the mean response is somewhat inflated by the very
high number of hours reported by a very few respondents in each category and that all of these re-
sponses are probably high because our sample contains an unusually high percentage of LEPC offi-
cers. It is also important to note that members could report allocating time to more than one activity
so the total number of hours per month may be much higher than any one category indicates. In fact,
members reported spending an average of 21.3 hours per month on all activities combined.
21
-------
AVERAGE HOURS
ACTIVITY SPENT PER MONTH
Attending training sessions 4.6
Studying hazardous material issues 4.2
Gathering information 3.9
Attending LEPC meetings 3.1
Evaluating information 2.2
Planning meetings 2>1
Coordinating with other organizations 1.9
Informing the public of LEPC activities .8
Seeking public input -7
The extent of members' investment in learning about hazardous materials is suggested by the fact
that 69% of respondents reported being familiar with the* National Response Team's "Hazardous
Materials Emergency Planning Guide" (NRT-1) while 48% said that they had seen the EPA's "Techni-
cal Guidance for Hazards Analysis" and 41% said they had seen the Virginia Department of Emer-
gency Services' "Emergency Operations Plan". Just under one third of respondents reported having
attended either of two hazmat/Title III training seminars offered by the State of Virginia.
The rank ordering of members' time allocation shows once again that they see their task as primarily
technical In nature and give less attention to involving or informing the public. In addition, the abso-
lute number of hours reported suggests that the burden of LEPC service is already substantial for busy
individuals and makes it difficult to see how time could be found at this stage of the process to take
on a task as time-consuming as citizen participation.
In question 16 we asked members to use a five-point scale to assess their own skills in a variety of
areas that could be important to their role as LEPC members. The following table shows the average
rating in each category. It indicates that members generally felt confident of their abilities.
22
i
-------
SKILL AVERAGE RATING
(out of a possible 5)
Leadership ability ' 49
Formulating plans 39
Public relations skills 39
Understanding political issues 38
Writing reports 37
Understanding technical materials 35
Public speaking 3 6 -
The ratings contain some surprises. For a group that defines its mission largely in technical terms,
.. - '>
these members express surprisingly high confidence in their ability to exert leadership, understand
political issues and relate to the public. This may reflect the influence of the large number of gov-
ernment officials on the LEPCs, but it clearly indicates that they feel capable of taking on a more
proactive, politically-oriented role than is envisioned in their understanding of the first mission of the
LEPCs. This capacity may bode well for the role of the LEPCs after the comprehensive plan is ap-
proved - a topic we address below.
The members' confidence in their abilities probably reflects the experiences they have had that are
relevant to the mission of the LEPC. Question 17 asked them to tell us how much experience they had
with a variety of tasks. Their responses were organized into a five-point scale in which one repres-
ented 'very little* experience and five represented "a great deal" of experience. The following table
shows the percent of members who indicated substantial background (a ranking of four or five) in each
area and the average ranking given by all respondents in each category.
23
-------
% WITH STRONG AVERAGE RATING
SUBJECT BACKGROUND (out of a possible 5)
Dealing with government 68% 4.0
Formulating plans 68% 3.8
Reading technical materials 60% 3.6
Dealing with the media 52% 3.6
Resolving conflicts , 47°° 3'4
Hazmat risk analysis - 40% 3.1
Communicating technical information to the public 34% 3.0
Using a personal computer 29% 29
These figures are a tribute to the recruiting process used to form the LEPCs since the members bring
the right experience to the job. While we expected strong planning and technical backgrounds, we
were surprised to find that members reported equally strong backgrounds in dealing with government
officials and the media and in resolving conflicts. Only in the areas of communicating technical plans
and using personal computers (which could be a great help to response planning) do the members
seem to need additional training. The combination of experiences described by members suggests,
once again, that these organizations have the capacity for taking on more political roles after their
plans have been approved.
In fact, we asked them what they saw as the appropriate role for the LEPC after the plan was done.
(See question 9.) Only 9% said they should stop work while 12% said they should continue to plan
for emergencies, 33% said they should become involved in the implementation of the plan and 36%
indicated some combination of planning and implementation. (Ten percent gave some response that
did not fall into any of these categories.) This willingness to see the committees continue their work
and take on new roles indicates that there is a foundation in both the attitudes and skills of members'
for expanding the functions of the LEPCs in the future.
24
-------
Major Goals and Problems of the LEPCs
How dothese - LEPC members see the job oftheir orgam/nlion? The first item on the questionnaire
was an open-ended question, about what the member saw as the most important purpose of the LEPC
- what major contribution it.was to make to the community. Responses fell into the eight categories
identified in Figure 9. Almost half of all respondents repealed the legal requirement of developing a
comprehensive plan for responding to hazardous materials emergencies. Another 17% cited some
task that was part of developing the plan (gathering information on hazards, identifying facilities, co-
ordinating the plans of various emergency response otnnm>ations). Sixteen percent gave a general
response that translated into ensuring the safety of the community with regard to hazardous materi-
als. Fifteen percent felt they were to inform citizens of tho existence and extent of hazards and two
percent felt they were to reassure citizens that their interests were being looked after. These re-
sponses indicate a rather narrow definition of the committees' responsibilities and Jeave little room
for involving the public in the planning'process, educating tho public about environmental risks or
promoting community dialogue about risks.
We next asked what members saw as the major problem confronting their LEPC in trying to fulfill its
mission. The responses fell into the nine categories presented in the following table. Clearly-the most
commonly cited problem was inadequate funding, but fewer than one-third of the members indicated
that finances were an issue, there was, in fact, no consensus on what constituted barriers to effective
operation of the LEPCs.
25
-------
FIGURE 9
Perceived Major Purpose of LEPC
Purpose Identified
Develop response pin
Gather hazmat info.
Identify facilities
Coordinate plans
Ensure public safety
Inform citizens
Reassure citizens I 2 i
Other I 3;
47
I I I I L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% naming as purpose
-------
0
'o
PROBLEM PERCENT OF
IDENTIFIED RESPONDENTS CITING
. Inadequate funding . . 32%
Insufficient time before deadline . ' .13%
Lack of public interest . '. 10°/
Insufficient information on hazards . 9%
Inadequate cooperation Jrom businesses 7%
Lack of cooperation from state and/or local government 6%
Complex or oppressive federal regulations 5%
Other types of problems . 14%
Not aware of any problems . - - 5%
INTERNAL COHESIVENESS
Any organization confronting issues of hazardous materials management could become a battle
ground for potentially conflicting interests. Representatives of private firms pr government agencies
with hazardous materials may seek to conceal dangers nssociatcd with their operations for public
relations purposes, try to avoid costs associated with regulation, or attempt to evade legal responsi-
bilities, while other members of the organization seek to identify and publicize potentially dangerous
situations. If such conflicts developed in an LEPC, they could render the committee ineffective in for-
mulating meaningful plans and undercut its authority with the public that must rely on the,LEPC to
protect its interest. Is there evidence of deep internal divisions in the Virginia LEPCs we examined?
Rather than ask this question directly and risk getting intentionally misleading answers from image-
sensitive members, we sought indirect evidence of the basis for internal divisions. We began with the
206 responding members who said that they WERE members of one of the groups or organizations
listed in question 15 and divided them into four groups -- 1) those" associated with an emergency re-
sponse organization like a fire or police department (25% of the 206); 2) those who worked in private
industry (26% of this total); 3) those who were appointed or elected government officials (29% of this
-------
total), and 3} those who were affiliated with "watchdog" groups like the media, concerned citizens'
groups or environmental interest organizations (19% oflhis tot.al).
We first looked at the composition of the individual LEPCs in terms'of this categorization of their
members and found that most individual committees are not dominated by any one group. In one
committee a maionty of the responding members came from industry, in one case a majority came
from emergency organizations and in two LEPCs a majority of-the members who responded came
from government. Other LEPCs either exhibited more balance or returned so few questionnaires that
we could not reliably estimate their composition from the small sample. We also asked if members
of any group were more likely to hold leadership positions in Hie committees. We found that members
of government and the emergency response organizations were statistically more likely to be LEPC
Chairs, subcommittee chairs or Community Information or Emergency Coordinators than represen-
tatives of industry or the watchdog groups, as the following simple table shows.
GROUP
Emergency
Government
Industry
Watchdog
LEPC OFFICE
43%
42%
28%
18%
This dominance of LEPC offices by representatives of government and emergency response groups
is most logically interpreted not as bias, but as a reflection of the kinds of knowledge, experience and
contacts required for the LEPCs' mission and the ease with which the work of the LEPC can be merged
with members' other professional activities. Planners, firo chiefs, etc.. often have responsibilities that
overlap those of the LEPC.
We next turned to the more important question of whether representatives of these four constituencies
differed substantially in their perceptions of or attitudes toward the LEPCs. To answer this question
we relied on measures of association and tests of statistical significance. The tests of statistical sig-
-------
mficance were used only as summary indicators since w* recognize that ,he nature of our sampling
technique renders such tests technically inappropriate for Ihose'data/ To anticipate our final conclu-
sion m this sectioh..we found very few
We can present the
that show these differences 'and some data that roller, .ho pattern that-dominated the casos in
which we found no significant differences to help the rnndnr understand the degree of consensus that
we found in this sample of LEPCs. '
Figures 10 and 11 show the extent to which members or nil four groups agreed on some major '
questions about, the LEPC. Since the differences shown are not statistically significant.' these tables
indicate that representatives of all four groups generally -nqroe on the major purpose of the LEPCs,
the nature of the problems they face, their capacities and the likelihood of their success in various
areas.
Two of the very few areas in which we did find significant disagreements among the various groups
were of substantive interest. In both cqses. members from the media and environmental interest
groups stood out from others in analysis of variance procedures. First, members of these "watchdog"
groups were, significantly
-------
UJ
cr
ID
LL
00
CD
O
* cr
oa.
LU
LJJOO
CE:O
IDCL
oo:
H-IZ)
LL.CL
o
LU
LU
LJJ
a:
CL
O LU
1- H
00 LU
= "Z. -1
LU CL
CD X Z
z 3 o
M CJ
>- *
00 £T <
0 -J
&Z^CL
Z
LU
CO -I
< CD
CD O
z CD cr
M Z CL
UJ M
LU Q Z
cn -z. M
Z) <
_ 0 . . ^~
B*5* Li-
CD <
[DENTIFYIN
INNING AS
[N PURPOSE
i^^ **, '
fep n ^
6s- d. 2_
CL
0
CD
CD LO o o
J
t\ LO LD in
ro
co CNI co m
in in co in
i- =
>- Z CD
u >- LU o
z cr Z Q
LU H- 2 I
CD co cr cj
cr ^ LU h-
LU Q > <
Z Z O 2
UJ HH CD S
LL
o
LU
LU
cr
LU
Q
LU
LU
CO
O
1-
co
z
z
D
_J
O
CJ
z.
,^^
OPTIONS Q£
ONG GOUPS,
CL Z
0 <
cr
CL »-
"Z
LU LU
LT Z
< LU
QL LU
Z cr
O CD
CJ <
9
-
o
h-
00
1 1 1
ULJ
Z>
0
h-
co
LU
CO
CL
CO.
LU
l^U
cr
^
,_i
CL
COMBINING
>-
CD
Q
LU
H
Z3
CL
Q
CJ
<
-------
CO
LU
CO
CO
LLJ
LU
* IS
o
CL
LU LU
cr _j
Z) ,
CD -Z.
LL
h-
LU
LU
LU
cr
o
>-
-
LU
^
HI
^^
Z
"'^j
S
00
<£
CD
Z
H
J-
^
cr
&2
i _i
H- Q.
M
CJ LL
O
IT
«cr oo
o z
LL LU
Z rM
KH M
1
H- h~
M Z?
CJ CL
'Z
LU M
cr
^ z
CJ LU
LU M
OT »H
2
cr
o
0
CL
C/3
^
CD
Z
1-
.h-
<
cr
frSJ
LU
CJ
Z
LU
CJ Q
M M
-J LL
CD Z
:D o
GL 0
>-
h-
»H
_J
cj w
M CD
_J M
CD 00
Z) H
O.">
CL
O
. O
cr
0
"-.
5s? fe^S 5^5 ^
CM O N-) "' . .KO
CM t * <
,
&5 gv2 &5 6^2
CD O 00 LT>
CM CM r- CM
x .
&5 B>5 &5 g>S
O CO CM CM ro
' .
'
^9 gs? , &5 6>S
Csl CD O Ln
Z CD
CJ >- LU O
z cr Z Q
LU 1 Z I
CD c/-) cr cj
CT Z) LU K
LU Q > <
Z Z O 3 '
LJ H-i O s
f-
z
LU
z
LU
LU
cr
CD
-------
more likely lo rale relations with the media as "excellent" nnd less likely to rate them as "poor" than
members of the other groups.
% RATING MEDIA RELATIONS AS
GROUP POOR EXCELLENT
Emergency 10% 16%
Government 10% , 28%
Industry 16% 22%
Watchdog 3% 45%
We can not'determine if these differences reflect differences in the information and perceptions of
individual members or are more systematic in origin, but they clearly do not suggest a situation in
which members who see themselves as advocates of the public interest are alienated from the LEPC
planning process in any way. "Watchdog" members do NOT seem to feel that businesses are being
evasive or that the media is being intentionally excluded from committee activities. This suggests that
there is a good basis for the LEPCs serving as communication bridges among the public; government
and industry with regard to hazardous materials issues.
In all, our data provide evidence of capable organizations with (at this early stage of SARA's imple-
mentation) a narrow definition of their mission but strong potential for taking a more active role in
facilitating community discussion of and planning for environmental risks.
32
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The following-conclusions are based on the findings 'from both the focus group, discussions with the
four "case study" LEPCs and data from a statewide sampln of LEPC members.' We have indicated the.
source of the data on which each conclusion is based in parentheses'. In considering the conclusions.
readers should keep in mind that the.study was conducted at an early stage in SARA'S implementa-
tion, when some LEPCs had not yet been formed and olhors had only recently become active for the
first time. '
LEPC ORGANIZATION & MEMBERSHIP IN VIRGINIA
1. LEPC membership is distributed roughly evenly among the following groups: government, busU
ness or industry ..public sector emergency response organizations, "watchdog" groups, and un-
affiliated members, (questionnaire)
2. Members are generally well-educated, long-term residents of their communities. They are more
male, better educated, more professional, more likely to be associated with government, and
probably more middle-aged than would be expected from a representative sample of community
residents and may, therefore, not accurately reflect the values and opinions of their communities.
(questionnaire)
3. Many members have a background in hazardous material management and/or public health and
safety. They seem technically well prepared to develop the plan, (questionnaire; focus groups)
4. Some media representatives feel a conflict.between their responsibility to participate as an LEPC
member and their responsibility to report what is going on. The proportion of media represen-
tatives on the LEPCs is small and there is some evidence that their attendance rates are low.
(focus groups; questionnaire)
5. The LEPCs have employed a variety of organizational structures, but our results do not indicate
that any one structure has particular advantages, (questionnaire)
33
-------
6, LEPCs appear to have a very limited capacity for efficiently processing information on hazardous
materials in their communities. Although these LEPCs roported receiving as many as 10,000
MSDSs, very few of them had anything other than n pnper record of these forms, (questionnaire)
MEMBERS' VIEW OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR LEPCS
1 The members express a high confidence in their ability as individuals to exert leadership, un-
derstand political issues, and relate to the public. They foel capable of taking on a proactive
politically-oriented role (questionnaire). ,'' '
2, Despite their confidence In their individual abilities, nt this stage most members are less confi-
dent regarding the chance that their LEPC will securo adequate citizen input in the development
of the plan or effectively communicate the plan to citizens, (questionnaire)
3. Most members are confident regarding their committee's ability to develop their plan, to establish
f' ' : .
procedures for responding to citizens' requests for information, and to secure cooperation from
local business and government, (questionnaire)
MEMBERS' VIEWS OF THE TITLE III PROCESS
1. Over half of the members perceive the major purpose of their LEPC is to develop the compre-
hensive emergency response plan or to perform specific tasks leading to this end. (questionnaire)
2. Fifteen percent feel that the major purpose is to inform citizens of the existence and extent of
hazards. Two percent feel that the major purpose is to reassure citizens that their interests are
being looked after, (questionnire)
3. Members generally view the provision of operating funds, as well as equipment and materials,
from all levels of government to be inadequate and feel that they are being asked to do a difficult
task with too few resources, (questonnaire; focus groups)
34
-------
4. Members tend to rate the provision.of technical information by all levels of government as ade-
quale and to. see'the administrative cooperation; rnmived from state anri'local governments as
adequate, (questionnaire) ' . -
* ' '
PLANNING AND COMMUNICATING WITH THE WIDER PUBLIC
1. At this early stage in the process. LEPC members pencrally.do hot see communication with the
public as a high priority. While this could change with completion of the initial response plan,
we believe there will have to be a significant change in most members-perceptions, before out--
reach can take on a higher priority, (questionnaire: focus group)
2. Some members believe that citizens are generally not interested in communications 'from the
LEPC regarding hazardous materials emergency planning unless and until an incident takes
place, (focus group)Pehpt.
3. About half of the members rate their LEPCs ability to communicate with the public as high; fewer,
however, rate highly the level of public confidence or public visibility currently enjoyed by their
LEPC. (questionnaire)
4. Some members believe that firefighters in Virginia (who play an important role on the LEPCs) lack
a tradition of involving the public in the formative stages of the planning process, (focus group)
INTERNAL COHESIVENESS
/. Most LEPCs are not dominated by members representing any single group in the community.
(questionnaire)
2. Members representing government and the emergency response organizations are more likely to
occupy leadership positions in the LEPC than are representatives of industry or the watchdog
groups, (questionnaire)
35
-------
3 Representatives of the four constituencies - government, emergency response agencies, industry.
and "watchdog" groups - do not differ substantially in Ihnir perceptions of or attitudes toward the
LEPCs. (questionnaire)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The fact that our observations were confined to one state inevitabley raises questions about how
broadly we can generalize from our findings. However, our contacts with LEPCs, and both SERC and
EPA officials in other states suggests that Virginia's LEPCs may be quite typical of the nation as a
whole. If the patterns we observed in Virginia are found in other states, then the following recomm-
endations may be appropriate for enhancing the functioning of the local committees in (he period after
the initial completion of their response plans.
1, Members should have access to training which will highlight the importance of the LEPCs' role
I
as risk communicators to the wider public and encourage them to broaden their definition of their
mission to include increasing public understanding of hazmat issues.
2. Materials should be developed and distributed to the LEPCs to provide them with information on
how to incorporate the public into the planning process. Similarly, materials should be developed
and distributed to the LEPCs to assist them in successfully communicating risk information to the
public.
3. Support should be offered to the LEPCs to assist them in more efficiently analyzing, storing, and
retrieving MSDSs and other hazardous materials data.
4. Guidelines should be developed to assist the LEPCs in devising workable systems for responding
to citizen requests for hazmat information.
\
5. Training should be provided to the LEPCs to assist them in effectively using computers to facilitate
the committees' work in planning, storing and retrieving information, and providing information to
the public. 36
-------
6. Guidance should be provided to the LEPCs to re.so/v/n. the apparent conflicts of interest experi-
enced by some media representatives by altprinci thn ^Indian of LEPC members or devising
"operating rules" for the 'media-affiliated members.' , ' ,
7. While the existing process for recruiting mcmhnrs AT thr- LEPCs tins.produced technically com-
petent organizations, efforts should be madn to expand the vnrinty of groups represented on the
committees as'they move into a phase of their work which r^u'ires more communication with the
public. ' , ' . .
37
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
-------
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
a land-grant university
University Center for Environmental & Hazardous Materials Studies
201a Architecture Annex Blacksburq Virginia 24061 USA
(703) 961-7508 TX: 9103331361 VPI BKS Bitnet: CONN at VTVM1 .
April 12. 1988 ' ' . « ,
TO: . ' ' Virginia LEPC Chairs
FROM: : W. David Conn
William L. Owens
Richard C. Rich ,
SUBJECT: Survey of LEPC Members -
The enclosed materials are being sent to you as part of research being conducted bv' the _
University Center for Environmental and Hazardous Materials Studies a* Virginia Polytechnic
mstitute and State University, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
EncTsed is a survey which we request that you distribute to the members of your LEPC.
As you can see from the enclosed memo from Cynthia V. Bailey of the Virginia Emergency
Response Council, our project has the support of the Commonwealth of Vrg.rua. as well as
the EPA. . -
We need your assistance to conduct this survey. Accordingly, we would be very grateful-if
you would do the following:
1. Read the enclosed letter from Ms. Bailey and review the survey so that you are generally
familiar with it. '
2 Distribute one survey to each of your members, including yourself. Note that each of the
enclosed manila envelopes contains one survey, along with a copy of Ms. Ba.ley s letter.
Our preference is that you distribute the survey at a meeting of your LEPC and provide
. approximately one half-hour at the same meeting for your members to f.ll it out. In any
event however you choose to handle the distribution, please emphasize the .mportance
of completing and returning the survey to you promptly.
3. Fill out the enclosed LEPC Information Form and a survey yourself.
4 Collect the completed surveys in their sealed envelopes from your LEPC members as
soon as possible, preferably at the same meeting as they were distributed (as suggested
in step 2). , ,
5 Return all of the completed surveys (still in their sealed envelopes) in.the enclosed _
' ore-stamped 10x13 envelope addressed to the University Center for Environmental and
: Hazardous Materials Studies. If at all possible, please mail these surveys by the end of
- April, 1988.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
-------
-------
EXECL'r.E ; =£0:0=)
TO:
_ _
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
James Monroe Building, Eleventh Floor
101 North Fourteenth Street
Richmond 232~!9
(804) 225-2667
MEMORANDUM
Local Emergency Planning Committee Members
Cynthia V. Bailey, chair
Virginia Emergency Respo
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Membership Survey
March 24, 1988
A^c^EvV i-tAHGac've
JOAN M3CCA1.1.LM
VICMic'. yjaxELS j?
jpa \o?.Ei.O
?aAN* H UILLE3 JR
HAVP'ON
Lautho??zatl0ofn A^^f 1986 (SARA)'^ SUperf^nd Amendments and
Enclosed please find a survey prepared by the
Its purpose is to obtain information on the nature
and operation of the LEPCs formed in the
SrVS, d\ta W1111 bS USed1 bY the UCE! & HMS to de temin what kinds
of educational materials should be developed to assist IFP?
members perform their tasks more effectively. assist LEPC
**.,., your' Participation in this project is voluntary i
strongly encourage you to complete the survey. 'Your answers wi1i
provide the UCE S» HMS with the ability to make meaSinafui
conclusions and recommendations on the effectivenessT of ?Se SocS
emergency planning process. The conclusions and recommendation's
to th«f ?^Y m?Y ultimatelv affect the. level of funding provided
D?OO ^CS £°r successf^l implementation of SARA Pr°Vlded
programs throughout the Commonwealth. ^^
/bcm
-------
-------
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
University Center for Environmental & Hazardous Materials Studies
201a Architecture Annex Blacksburg Virginia 24061 USA
(703) 961-7S08 TX 9103331861 VPI BKS Bitnet' CONN at VTVM1
a land:grant university
May 30, 1988
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Virginia LEPC Chairs
W. David Conn
William L. Owen's
Richard C. Rich
Survey of LEPC Members
n.Hw,h y°Uf * SUrVey f°r dis^bu«on to all of the members of your LEPC
would l.ke to thank those of you who have had an opportunity already. to conduct the
survey and return to us the completed forms, conaucr me
***"
' we would aPP^ciate your doing so as soon
- f° T^ f?e members of V°ur LEPC lo give these forms back to you, for
m the single pre-stamped envelope which we provided. A few individuals apparently
Mana InTenT ^ ^^ responses direct|y «° the Department of Waste
atfoT
hSSitate t0 CaJI if you have questions. Once again, thank you for your co'oper-
-------
-------
LEPC INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by the LEPC Chair)
1: In what month and year was your LEPC officially formed?
2. How many members now serve on the LEPC?
3. How many, if any. vacant positions are-there now on.the LEPC?
4. Has your LEPC appointed a Community Information Coordinator?,
5. Has your LEPC appointed, a Community Emergency Coordinator?
/
6. On what days and at what time of day does your full LEPC usually meet (for example: The second
Tuesday morning in each month)?
7, Which of the following statements most nearly describes the stage your LEPC has reached in
developing a comprehensive plan for responding to hazardous materials emergencies?
Gathering information and designing the planning process.
Well into the process with a good overview of what is needed.
Getting feedback on drafts of at least parts of the plan.
Close to a final draft of the full plan.
8. Approximately how many Materials Safety Data Sheets have been submitted to your LEPC to-,
' date? '
9. Which of the following best describes the system your LEPC has developed'for storing and re-
covering the information provided to it on Materials Safety Data Sheets and other forms?
' i
A hard copy (paper) file
A fully computerized file .
Combination hard copy and computerized file
No system yet in place ,
10. Approximately how many facilities which handle hazardous materials are supposed to be re-
porting to your LEPC? ,_'-'.
11. On July 1, selected businesses will be required to submit a report on the amounts and types of
chemicals they release into the environment. Is your LEPC interested in seeing the reports that
are applicable to your jurisdiction?
- YES NO
12. If your LEPC has formed subcommittees, please provide the following information about each
subcommittee. Attach additional pages if needed. . ,
1st Subcommittee title: < '- .
Number of members: Primary responsibility:
(continued on back)
-------
2nd Subcommittee title:
Number of members: Primary responsibility;
3rd Subcommittee title:
Number of members: Primary responsibility:
4th Subcommittee title:
Number of members: Primary responsibility:
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
-------
- LEPC MEMBERSHIP SURVEY --
This survey is a part of research being conducted by the University Center for Environmental & Haz-
ardous Materia.ls Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in cooperation with,the
U.S. Environmental Prote.ction Agency. ' s
The purpose of the survey is to learn about the operation of Virginia's local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) and the people who serve on them. Information from the survey-will help us to
determine what materials should be developed to assist LEPC members in doing their job more ef-
fectively.
Your participation in the survey is entirely voluntary, and you can be sure that your individual answers
will be totally confidential. However, your cooperation is essential if we are to get an accurate picture
of Virginia's LEPCs. Please answer as frankly as possible. If your LEPC has been formed only recently
or you-just joined the LEPC you may feel that you do not have enough experience to answer some
of the, questions. Please feel free to leave such questions unanswered.
Please place the completed survey in the'accompanying envelope, seal it and return it to the Chair
of your LEPC. Your name should not appear on the survey or envelope.
A report on the results of this survey will be sent to your LEPC when it is complete. Thank you very
much for your help! .
1. What do you see as the most imporianfpurpose of the LEPC -- What should be its major
contribution to the community? . ; """
2. What do you feel is the major problem your LEPC faces in fulfilling this basic purpose?
-------
3 How would you rate the degree to which your LEPC has each of the following qualities? (CIRCLE
THE NUMBER THAT CORRESPONDS TO YOUR ANSWER)
QUALITY , EXCELLENT FAIR INADEQUATE
Good information gathering capabilities 5 " 4 321
* Good capacity for analyzing information 54321
Capable and dedicated leaders 543.2 1
* Capable and dedicated members 54 3 2, 1
* A workable system of subcommittees 54321
Capacity for communicating with
government agencies 5 4 3 2.1
Capacity for communicating with
business and industry 5 4 3 2 1
Capacity for communicating with
the general public 54 3 2 1
Good relations with the media 5 4 3 2 1
High public visibility 5 4 3 2 1
Confidence of the public in its
ability to protect their interests . 54321
4. How would you describe your LEPC's efforts to communicate with businesses in its jurisdiction?
EXCELLENT ADEQUATE INADEQUATE
5 ' 4 .' 3 21
5. How would you describe the level of cooperation your LEPC receives from most businesses in the
area?
EXCELLENT ADEQUATE INADEQUATE
5 ' 4 32 1
6. LEPCs must rely on the support of various governments. Please tell us if you feel each of the
levels of government provides your LEPC with enough of each of the following kinds of support
by circling an "I" for "inadequate" or an "A" for "adequate" under each heading in each row. If
the question does not apply to a given level, circle "N".
RESOURCE LOCAL STATE
Operating funds IAN l> A N
Technical information I A N I A N
Equipment and materials IAN IAN
Facilities IAN IAN
Administrative cooperation IAN IAN
-------
7. How likely do you think it is that your LEPC can accomplish each of of the following goals?
GOAL LIKELY
Developing a comprehensive plan for responding 5' 4
to hazardous. materials emergencies which
meets the requirements of SARA
Developing this plan 5 4
BY THE OCTOBER 17, 1988 DEADLINE
' Establishing workable procedures for processing 5 4
citizens' requests for information on hazardous
materials (eg: Materials Safety Data Sheets)
Getting local government agencies to cooperate 5 4
by making preparations to implement the plan
Getting local businesses to cooperate by making 5 4
preparations to implement the plan
Securing enough citizen involvement in designing 5 4
the plan to make it realistic and effective
Informing citizens of the plan well enough that 5 4
they can cooperate with it
V
8. .Do you agree or disagree that the following statements accurately
STRONGLY
STATEMENT ' AGREE
Decision making power is widely shared 5 4
among all members.
LEPC meetings are wellorganized and clearly 5 4
focused on specific tasks.
The work load expected of members is 5 4
appropriate for a volunteer organization.
We have the skills and information to conduct 5 4
a sound hazards analysis for most risks
in our area.
The LEPC makes full use of most of its 5 4
members' skills and knowledge.
The LEPC makes full use of MY skills and 5 4
50/50 . NOT
CHANCE LIKELY
3 2 . 1
3 2 1
' 3 2 1
3,2 1 "
3 . 2. ' 1
.'3 2 1
3 2 1"
describe your LEPC?
STRONGLY
NEUTRAL DISAGREE
3 2 ._ 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 2 1
3 21
-------
9 Which of the following best describes the role you think your LEPC will play AFTER the compre-
hensive preparedness plan is accepted7 (You may circle more than one )
1 Slopwork , 3. Become involved in implementation of the plnn
1 Continue planning for emergencies 8 .'. Other '
10 Turning to some questions about you. how many months have you been a member of the LEPC7
(NUMBER OF MONTHS)
11, Do you currently hold any of the following offices in the LEPC?
LEPC Chair YES NO
Community Information Coordinator YES NO
Community Emergency Coordinator YES NO
Subcommittee Chair YES NO
12. How many meetings of the full LEPC have you attended since becoming a member of the organ-
lza lon , _ (NUMBER OF MEETINGS)
13, How many, if any, hours do you spend on each of the following tasks for the LEPC in an average
month?
TASK HOURS
Attending meetings of the full LEPC or its subcommittees
Planning for meetings (preparing presentations,
securing speakers, etc.)
Gathering information for the LEPC
Evaluating information for the LEPC
(risk assessment, mapping, etc.)
Coordinating with other organizations
Seeking public opinion on planning issues
Informing the public of LEPC activities
Attending seminars or training sessions
Studying about hazardous materials risks on your own
-------
14 A variety of materials'have been developed to explain Title III and to assist the LEPCs in fulfilling
. their mission. Please indicate which of the following materials you have seen and how useful you
. found them. . . ' , , . '
HAVE YOU
SEEN IT?
MATERIAL OR PRESENTATION
' "Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide"
(NRT-1) by The National Response Team
"Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysjs"
prepared by Environmental Protection Agency
"Emergency Operations Plan,Airborne Hazardous
Substances" prepared by Virginia Department
of Emergency Services
Five-d.ay Hazardous Materials Contingency Course
offered by Va. Emergency Response Council
and Va. Department of Emergency Services
One-day Public Officials' Conference on
Title III presented by the State of Virginia
YES. NO
1 2
1 2
HOW DO YOU RATE
ITS USEFULNESS?
.CANT
GOOD FAIR. POOR JUDGE
1 -0
1 0
15. Are you a member of any of the following types of organizations or groups?
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION MEMBER?
Fire department
Rescue squad
Police department
Hospital emergency team
Industry safety team
Industry management
News media
Elected officials
Government planning agency
Environmental interest group
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
-------
1fi How would you rate your own ability in each of the following areas?
SKILL
Public speaking
Writing reports
Understanding technical materials
Understanding political issues
Ability to formulate plans
Public relations skills
Leadership ability
17 How much experience have you had with each of the following?
SUBJECT
Analyzing the risks posed by hazardous materials
Dealing with representatives of the news media
Reading technical or scientific reports
Communicating technical information to the public
Resolving conflicts among diverse groups
Working with government officials
Using a personal computer
Formulating plans for business,
government or other organizations
EXCELLENT
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
; following?
GREAT DEAL
ils 5
5
5
lie 5
5
5
5
5
4
.4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
FAIR
3
3
3
3
3
3
3,
SOME
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
INADEQUATE
1
1
1
1
1
_1
1
VERY LITTLE
1
1..
1
1
1
1
1
1
18, A variety of things can make it difficult for LEPC members to do the work expected of them.
Please tell us how significant a problem each of the following potential problems actually is for
you by circling the appropriate number beside each item.
POTENTIAL
PROBLEM
Finding the time for LEPC meetings
Finding the time for LEPC work done outside
of meetings
Attending meetings which are scheduled at
inconvenient times
Getting release time for LEPC service from
an employer
Getting access to the information needed to
do the job
Lack of cooperation from affected businesses
VERY
SIGNIFICANT
3
3
SOMEWHAT
SIGNIFICANT
2
2
NOT
SIGNIFICANT
1
1
-------
, For background information, how many years have you lived iri this community7
(YEARS)
20 -Which of the following describes your highest level of education?
High school graduate '
Vocational school
Some college
College graduate
Post graduate work
Post graduate or professional degree
1
2
3,
4
5
6'-
21. What is your job title? (For example: Safety director for local chemical firm; P'ublic information
officer for police department, etc.) ,
JOB TITLE:
22. In which "sector" is your occupation?
PUBLIC SECTOR (government) ' 1
PRIVATE SECTOR (business) 2
VOLUNTEER SECTOR (Red Cross, charity hospital, etc.) 3
23. What is your gender?
MALE
FEMALE
24. What is your age?
x
(YEARS)
25. If you have suggestions for improving the LEPC or feel that there is important information about
the LEPC for which we have not asked, please let us have any comments you want to make on
the reverse side or on additional sheets.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
-------
EVALUATION 0:F THE HAZARDS ANALYSIS PRESENTATION
We sought to evaluate the hazards analysis presentation provided to the LEPCs by EPA from two mam
perspectives: . . ' ' . -
1 We wanted to know what impact seeing .(lie presentation had on LEPC members' opinions and
perception's with regard to a variety'of issues affecting the LEPC.
2, We wanted to know how the members as^ssed the qu'a.lity and usefulness of the, presentation.
We asked the members of four LEPCs to complete a self-administered questionnaire before and after
seeing the presentation. Copies of these instruments are attached and the reader is referred to them
for details of the questions. For convenience, we will refer to LEPC Members Questionnaire No. 1 as
the pretest and LEPC Members Questionnaire No..2 as the posttest.
A detailed analysis of our finds will be presented in our final report on the project. Here we offer a
summary of our observations and draw some general conclusions about the presentation. Since there
were few systematic differences among the results obtained from the four different LEPCs, we will
treat all respondents as a single sample in this summary ' '
Impact on Members Opinions and Perceptions
To address our first objective, we asked members to answer a series of questions about their per-
ceptions and opinions both before and after viewing the presentation. The results can be reported
as answers to seven broad questions: :
1. How do members rate the importance of five tasks to the mission of the LEPC, and how does this
rating change after viewing the presentation?
This.question was answered through members'.responses to Item 1 on the pretest and Item 4 on
the posttest. Overall, members rated four of the five tasks as highly important both before and
after the presentation. The task of providing for public participation in the planning activities of
the LEPC was given a lower overall rating than the other four tasks.
The task which is most relevant to the purposes of the presentation is that of conducting a haz-
ards analysis for the jurisdiction. At the outset, most members rated the importance of this task
as roughly equal to the importance of establishing procedures for processing public requests for
MSDS information, identifying facilities subject to SARA planning requirements, and evaluating
the need for resources necessary to implement the emergency response plan. We can conclude
that the need for hazards analysis was salient to members even before the presentation.
After the presentation, members' rating of the other tasks did not change in any systematic way.
There was, however, a slight increase in the overall importance rating given to hazards analysis
(from just above a 4 to closer to a 4.5 on a 5-point scale in which 5 represented highly important).
This suggests that members came away from the presentation with a heightened awareness of
the importance of hazards analysis to the overall planning task and indicates that the presenta-
tion was moderately successful in one of its primary objectives.
2. To what degree are members confident that their organization has the information needed to
formulate an effective plan for responding to hazardous materials emergencies and how does the
presentation alter this assessment?
Overall, responses to Item 3 on the pretest indicated that members were, at best, "fairly confi-
dent" of the adequacy of the information available to their LEPC. In response to Item 5 on the
posttest, a number of individual members did increase or decrease their reported level of confi-
dence. The increases tended to cancel out the decreases so thai there was no substantial
change in the overall level of confidence. However, the fact that some members reassessed their
attitude toward this questions suggests that the presentation did_ stimulate thought about what
kinds of information were needed to make a good plan. To this extent, it must be regarded as
useful.
3. To what degree are members confident in their own understanding of what must be done to
conduct a hazards analysis and how js this confidence affected by viewing the presentation?
-------
Responses to item 4 on the pretest indicated more variance in members' opinions on this !han
on most other questions (probably due to differences in their individual backgrounds). Overall,
however, members were only "fairly confident" of their understanding at the outset. Responses
>o tern 6 on the posttest revealed somewhat less varinnce in the responses and a slightly higher
overall (eve! of confidence. This suggests that the presentation led the average member to feel
qs if "e or she understood the requirements of a hazards analysis a little better than before,
4 How .veil do members feel they understand six .terms related to hazards analysis and how is this
understanding affected by the presentation''
Members' responses to Item 5 on the pretest reveal substantial variance in the level of under-
standing both from member to member and among the different concepts. At least some mem-
bers described themselves as relatively unfamiliar with each term and at least some described
themselves as highly familiar with each term. "Level of concern" was the only term that was no-
liceably less familiar than the others. Its overall rating was between "poor" and "fair" as com-
pared to overall ratings between "fair" and "very good" for the other terms.
Responses to Item 7 on the posttest reveal significantly loss variance in the reported level of
understanding among members and among the six terms, Most of the lower ratings fell off and
average ratings for all terms moved toward the "very good" end. This indicates that the dis-.
cussion of these'concepts in the presentation gave members the feeling that they understood the
terms better than before, thought it is important to note that we did not test their actual under-
standing
5, What role do members think computers can play in their efforts to develop the plan and how does
this perception change after the presentation? -
In general members were convinced that computers wore valuable tools both before and after the
presentation. Comparisons of responses to Item 6 on the pretest and Item 8 on the posttest show
that there was little variation in members" opinions on this and that there was no significant
change as a result of the presentation. .The relatively high and uniform level of the original
opinions on this issue left no room for the presentation to have much of an impact.
6, How confident are members that their LEPC can accurately-judge the level of risk posed by spe-
cific situations and how is this confidence affected by the presentation?
Responses to Item 7 on the pretest and Item 9 on the posttest indicate that members were, in
general, fairly confident of their organization* ability to assess risk. A number of individuals did
change their responses from the pretest to the posttest. The number who expressed increased
confidence after seeing the presentation roughly equaled the number who expressed less confi-
dence, however, so there was no significant net change in the overall level of confidence. The
presentation apparently stimulated LEPC members to give serious thought to the question of how
well they could assess risks but did not have a consistent effect on the conclusions they reached.
7. How confident are members of their ability to communicate risks to the general public in a form
which they will understand?
Since the presentation was not directed at increasing risk communication skills, we asked this
question only in Item 8 on the pretest. Members' responses indicated that they had relatively
little confidence in their ability to successfully communicate risk since the average response fell
between "not confident" and "fairly confident." There were fewer positive responses to this
questions than to any other on Tech evaluation. This indicates simply that members feel the need
for assistance in devising ways to communicate environmental risks effectively.
Members' Evaluations
To learn how LEPC members themselves evaluated the presentation, we asked three questions about
their assessment of the program in Items 1, 2 and 3 of the posttest. Before presenting the responses
to those questions, we need to note two contextual issues.
First unlike responses to the first portion of the evaluation questionnaires, there was a noteworthy
difference among responses from the different LEPCs on this second portion. The difference is that
Richmond respondents stood out from members of other LEPCs. As a group, Richmonders were more
-------
°oth! pre!,enta.t.ion than others. This may relate to their individual characteristics or to the fact
that the Richmond presentation was somewhat truncated at the request of the LEPC chair.
Second, in Item 2 of jhe pretest, we asked members what (hoy expected 'to learn from thepresentation
based on what they knew about it in advance. Approximately one third of the members indicated that
they did not know what .to expect or left the question unanswered. Those who did answer had only
very general expectations. Approximately half knew that the presentation was to be about hazards
r rhTnrZV? !°me WT °Vera"' il is clear ttia' D LEPC members had very little information '
lv differing IT T "r ?' 3^ 2) members °T diffffrenf LEPCs had NOT been given system-
H T ?$ of'n °rmatlon abou' what to expect. Moreover, there was little correspondence
imnn n foplfhsaid theV expected to learn and what they subsequently reported'as the most
important less from the presentation. All this suggests that advance information about the program
did not significantly influence members' evaluation of it.
fU°f 'I!6' posttest: f.sked members. to tell us what they found to be the most valuable thing they
was r.T presentatlonw Most responses were unique to the individual who gave them and there
nWFfrTV0 CH°nSf n?rf However' flve 9eneral responses were offered by more than one or two
members. In order to the frequency with which they were mentioned, these were:
1. How to go about conducting a systematic hazards analysis.
2. How to get started on the planning process.
3. A better understanding of the overall planning process.
4
Pr°m'ted b* recognition of the
. ,
5. An overview of the full mission of the LEPC.
Interestingly, in answering this question, only one person specifically mentioned the utility of com-
puters in- the planning process and only two gave responses which could be interpreted as referrinq
to the use of computers. a
2£llntPHSt*»eSt 3Sked *EPC members to rate the Duality of the presentation on each of five cri-
i « ?esP°"dents.twere instructed to use a five-point scale in which a rating of 5 was excellent and
1 was poor. The criteria and results are as follows:
1' C!fjity,,°f the mal" P°lnts: 43 P«rcent of the respondents gave the presentation a 4 on clarity
while 36 percent scored it a 5 and 21 percent gave it a 3. -''.-.'.
2. Adequacy of the visual aids: 53 percent of respondents scored this aspect of the presentation a
4 while roughty 20 percent rated it a 3 and 20 percent gave it a 5.
3. Sufficient detail about how CAMEO works: 50 percent gave this a 3 while equal numbers rated
it a 2 and 4 and a few gave it a 1 or 5. This aspect received the lowest evaluation from members.
4. Sufficient information about conducting a hazards analysis: 48 percent of respondents scored this
a 4 while roughly 20 percent gave it a 2 and 20 percent a 5.
5. Practical usefulness to your LEPC: approximately equal numbers of respondents rated this a 3
and a 4 with just over 40. percent in each category. Few gave it a 5 and some gave it a 2 or 1
suggesting that the practical usefulness was not altogether clear to members.
Overall, this is a positive set of responses which indicate that the members were generally satisfied
with the presentation.
finally, Item 3 of the posttest asked respondents to suggest the one change which they felt would most
improve the presentation. Thirty percent of the members left this blank or wrote that they had no re-
commendation. There was no consensus among those who offered a suggestion The two most
common suggestions, however, were 1) to provide an actual demonstration of how CAMEO works and
2) to allow more-time for the presentation. (Most of the suggestions for more time came from re-
spondents in Richmond where the presentation was compressed.) Other suggestions which were
made by more than one respondent were:
-------
Provide more practical examples of how to conduct a hazards analysis. . .
Provide more detail on how to do a hazards analysis.
3«1'3uce 'he level of sophistication of the presentation tp fitjhe nee.ds.of an audience of lay vol-
MotaO'y oniv one individual's suggestions was directed, at improving the way in which the presenter
handled the task, suggesting that he was perceived as quite competent.
Less Structured Observations
In addition to the results- of the questionnaires, we can base our assessment of the presentation both
on the open-ended discussions we had with members following .the proqram-and on our own obser- .
vations of the presentation.
The post-presentation discussions were most informative with regard to both the impact of the pres-
entation and a variety of issues related to the larger mission of the LEPCs which we will address in
the final report With respect to the presentation, these discussions suggest the following conclusions:
Members who had little background in hazards assessment found the information provided to be a
valuable introduction to the topic and were especially grateful for the clear definition of some terms.
Members who had a good background in hazardous materials management did not find the informa-
tion from the presentation especially useful because they already knew it, but they did find it useful
to hear how the various parts of the hazards analysis process are integrated into the overallplanning
process,
Most members seemed to gain three main impressions from the presentations:
1. There are procedures through which the massive task before them can be attacked systematically
and there are tools available to help them in doing this. This seemed to be an empowering ex-
perience for members who had felt overwhelmed and had no idea where or how to begin. If the
presentation did nothing more than give members a sense that the task was possible, it served
a valuable function.
2. Hazards analysis should be viewed as a foundation for the entire planning process since much
of the information needed to develop the plan will be generated in the process of conducting a
through hazards analysis. The message that hazards analysis was a crucial first step seemed
to come through loud and clear for most members.
3. The task is complex enough that the LEPC must get moving very rapidly if it is to hope to complete
the plan. The presentation seemed to impart a great sense of urciency but also gave members
the feeling that there were criteria to use in prioritizing decisions so that progress could be made.
On the negative side, the presentation did raise a large number of questions for its audiences. It did
less to teach skills than to sensitize members to what they needed to learn. It is a good introduction
for new members and can motivate members, but, as currently structured, it does nothing to actually
train them to take action. Relatedly, members and especially the chairs felt that the presentation
would be most useful if it could be viewed very early in the LEPC's history so that the organization
could take full advantage of the orientation it suggests for organizing their work.
Our own observation of the presentation confirmed much of what was said by members. As organ-
ized, it calls for passive learning from the audience. This is never as affective in communicating in-
formation or imparting skills as a combination of information presentation and exercises. In addition,
without more concrete examples, illustrations of how the ideas presented actually work and some
opportunity for hands-on experience for the audience, the presentation remains at a very high level
of abstraction. Educational research has consistently shown that information presented at this level
has less impact on the learner and is remembered less effectively than lessons which are more con-
crete and require the active participation of the learner.
In addition, the relevance of the ideas and procedures to the individual LEPC was not as clear as it
might have been because of the abstraction.
-------
Summary and Suggestions
In general the presentation must be evaluated as an effective way to introduce the LEPC members
to the role of hazards analysis information emergency response plans and as a potentially good_
stimulus to action. For these purposes, it is well conceived. However, it is important to recognize the
very limited scope of its impact It seems to have done little to persuade members that computer
Drograms could play a major role in their-planning efforts or to "sell" any given computer program.
It can not be considered "training" since it does not give members any actual skills to use m the
planning process. And there is good reason to doubt that the information presented will be remem-
bered.very long by members.
How can the presentation be as effective as possible within the general limitations of its designated
scope and the way it is likely to be delivered in the field? We feel the following suggestions would .
move in the right direction.
1. The program should be presented to LEPCs as early in their history as possible so it can inform
' their original conceptualization of the task before them.
2 The program should be presented only when the organization can devote at least an hour and a
half to it so that there is time for question-and-answer and for more concrete examples.
3 To the extent possible, the presentation should include concrete examples of how a hazards
analysis would be conducted for an actual case in the LEPC jurisdiction. This would have the
advantage of making the information more concrete and illustrating the practical utility ot the
approach to the individual LEPC.
4 The presenter should have on-hand a computer which can be used both to show hpv/ computer-
' ized aids help in planning and to assist members in working through a hazards analysis exercise
using data which is either from a local site or simulates local conditions.
5 If possible the presentation should be offered by someone who is familiar with the individual
' LEPC area or at least, can be viewed as someone who shares the concerns and problems of the
LEPC rather than an "outside expert" of representative of some higher level authority.
6 If possible; the'presenter should arrive early enough to talk with members to get a feel for the
' level of sophistication among the group, the stage of their planning efforts and the particular
problems they face. He or she should then incorporate this information into the presentation
whenever possible.
7 The presentation should be augmented with as many concrete examples and handouts as pos-
' sible and should be designed to include at least one exercise in which members are asked to
participate in actually doing elements of a hazards analysis.
-------
------- |