2008 Nationwide Survey of
Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs)
-------
This survey was funded by the Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
-------
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
Background and Introduction 3
Methodology and Approach 5
Executive Summary What We Learned 6
How are LEPCs Doing? 7
Emergency Response Plans 9
How Accident History Affects LEPCs 10
Using and Managing Data 11
How LEPCs Communicate with the Public 12
Changes in Activity Since 9/11: A Focus on Homeland Security 13
Types of Assistance 14
Success Factors and Obstacles to Success 15
Additional LEPC Needs 16
Conclusion 17
Appendix A: Survey Responses by Question 19
Appendix B: Cross-Tabulations 28
Appendix C: LEPC Websites 33
Appendix D: Map of EPA Regions 35
Appendix E: Survey Questions 36
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
2008 Nationwide Survey ofLEPCs
-------
Background and Introduction
he Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986, enacted as Title
III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA), was passed in the wake of the
Bhopal disaster in India, where more than 2,000 people died as a result of an accidental release of a
hazardous chemical. In order to prevent similar occurrences in the United States, EPCRA established
a national framework to mobilize local government officials, businesses, and other citizens to plan
for chemical accidents in their communities and required each state to create a State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC).
SERCs were charged with establishing Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), which
provide a forum for first responders, State and local elected officials, emergency managers, industry
representatives, hospital and public health officials, the news media, and the general community to
work together and achieve local solutions. LEPCs work to identify chemical hazards, develop and
maintain emergency plans in case of an accidental release, and encourage continuous attention
to chemical safety, risk reduction, and accident prevention in their communities. Because of their
broad-based membership, LEPCs are able to foster a valuable dialogue within the community to
prevent and prepare for accidental (and terrorist-related) releases of hazardous chemicals.
In April 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Emergency Management
(OEM) conducted a Nationwide Survey of Local Emergency Planning Committees (2008 LEPC
Survey). EPA surveyed LEPCs in both 1994 and 1999 to gauge levels of LEPC compliance and
activity, but there had been no subsequent systematic nationwide analysis of LEPC activity.
In the seven years since the tragic events of September 11, 2001, local emergency planning has
evolved most notably, in the amount of information available to assist LEPCs in preparing for and
preventing chemical emergencies. EPA decided to "check the pulse" of LEPCs across the nation by
conducting the 2008 LEPC Survey. The goals of this survey were to:
1. Track the progress of LEPCs by assessing their current activity; and
2. Probe current LEPC practices and preferences regarding several important issues, including:
communication with local citizens, proactive accident prevention efforts, and the effectiveness of
selected OEM products and services.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Methodology and Approach
Survey Design
The 2008 LEPC Survey employed a universe or census approach. Both lessons-learned from prior
LEPC surveys and limited knowledge of the composition of the entire population of LEPCs made a
census-based approach most appropriate. Because the methodologies used in this survey differed
from those used in past surveys, it is important to note that comparisons between the results
reported here and past surveys are not statistically significant.
Data Collection
While previous surveys were paper-based, the 2008 LEPC Survey was administered electronically
in an attempt to reduce the burden on respondents, increase efficiency, and improve data quality.
To ensure confidentiality, provide technical assistance, and guarantee that specific data quality
objectives were met, a third-party contractor administered the survey.
In the months prior to launching the survey, EPA conducted a major outreach effort to update the
contact information in its LEPC database. At the conclusion of this effort, the database contained
e-mail addresses for 2,670 of the more than 3,000 known LEPCs.
On April 2, 2008, EPA launched the Web-based LEPC Survey by sending electronic survey
invitations to each LEPC contact person with a listed e-mail address. In the invitation, each contact
person was given a user name (their email address) and a unique alpha-numeric password. 313 of
the original emails were returned as undeliverable, making the universe of potential respondents
2,357.
The survey was open for five weeks and closed on May 7, 2008. Two reminder emails were sent to
all those who had not completed the survey on April 23, 2008 and on May 5, 2008. At the close of
the survey, 939 LEPCs had responded, yielding a response rate of 39.8%.
Although a total of 939 LEPC representatives took the survey, the number of people who answered
each question varied. Individuals were not required to answer every question and were able to
skip questions. Finally, individuals who responded in either the affirmative or negative for certain
questions were routed past other questions. Furthermore, for some questions, respondents were
able to "select all that apply."
Data Analysis
A third-party contractor reviewed survey data to ensure data quality. Certain answers were receded
for consistency purposes. Aggregate data tables that contain response frequencies and results
for each survey question are included in Appendix A. Special analyses were conducted (cross-
tabulations) to determine the relationship between two questions and selective, noteworthy findings
are included in Appendix B. This report highlights important findings from both the aggregate data
tables and the cross-tabulation tables.
The final survey question was open-ended, allowing LEPCs to provide additional comments,
including best practices. Answers to this open-ended question were reviewed and compiled
thematically. Important findings from comments provided are included throughout this report.
Maintaining the LEPC Database
The LEPC database currently has over 3,000 listings. It is EPA's intent to provide the most current
and accurate information. We look to the LEPC community to help us successfully meet this
goal. Please forward any changes or corrections to OEM_Homepage@epa.gov. LEPC updates and
additions are made as they are received.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Executive Summary - What We Learned
Overview
In April 2008, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Emergency Management
(OEM) conducted a nationwide survey of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).
LEPCs serve as the fundamental link between citizens, industry, and government in emergency
preparedness for communities. As the central point around which emergency management agencies,
first responders, industry, and the community work together to enhance emergency preparedness,
LEPCs are improving chemical safety and protecting human health and the environment in
communities across this country.
EPA surveyed LEPCs in 1994 and 1999 to determine compliance and activity levels. The 2008
survey built on the previous surveys and was developed to assess LEPCs' current activities; and to
probe LEPC practices and preferences regarding several important issues, including: communication
with local citizens, proactive accident prevention efforts, and the effectiveness of selected OEM
products and services. EPA launched the Web-based survey on April 2, 2008 with notification
sent via email to a total of 2,357 LEPCs. The survey was password-protected and each LEPC
representative was given a unique alpha-numeric password. Nine hundred and thirty nine LEPC
representatives took the survey, yielding a response rate of 39.8%.
The majority of LEPCs responding to the 2008 survey serve rural or mixed rural/suburban residential
populations under 50,000. Among the four U.S. regions, the Northeast is underrepresented in the
survey data while the West, Midwest, and South are overrepresented. This difference in actual response
rates vs. the universe of LEPCs is consistent with response rates from the 1999 LEPC Survey.
Survey results indicate that a dedicated membership is the greatest single factor contributing to an
LEPC's success (33.3%) while 15.9% report that regularly scheduled meetings contribute most to
their success as an organization. Furthermore, there is an obvious sense of pride in the work of the
LEPC 64.9% of responding LEPCs report that the LEPC on which they serve has had a positive
impact on chemical safety in their community.
Other Key Findings
Nine out of every ten responding LEPCs met at least once in the past year three quarters of
those LEPCs met at least quarterly.
Close to 60% of responding LEPCs reviewed and updated their emergency plan in the past 1 2
months.
Three out of four responding LEPCs indicate that the majority of their membership is familiar with
their emergency response plan.
Over 75% of responding LEPCs exercised their emergency response plan in the past year with
nearly seven of ten conducting full-scale exercises.
The most active LEPCs are those that had at least one accident in the past five years.
While three out of four LEPCs did not receive any technical assistance or guidance from the
Federal government in the past five years, of those that did, 58.6% report that the assistance
came from EPA. Close to 80% of those LEPCs indicate that EPA's support plays a significant role
in guiding their LEPC activity.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Nearly 70% of responding LEPCs that receive EPCRA Tier I and Tier II data receive it in the paper
format.
Over half of responding LEPCs use CAMEO.
Two out of five responding LEPCs have an operating budget of which 35.9% is direct funding.
Over half of responding LEPCs receive in-kind funding with the most frequent form being meeting
space.
Since the last LEPC survey in 1999, the percentage of LEPCs that incorporate homeland security
into their emergency response plans nearly doubled (from 40.3% in 1999 to 77.5% today).
Since 9/11, nearly half of responding LEPCs reported increasing their overall activity level. Only
4.0% said the overall activity level of their LEPC decreased since the events of 9/11.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How are LEPCs Doing?
Responding LEPCs provided critical information about their organization, membership, and meetings.
Organization
SERCs organized LEPCs within their respective states to facilitate emergency planning. Therefore,
the number and average service area size of LEPCs in each state differs. Some SERCs established
an LEPC for each county in the state, some established LEPCs for multi-county districts, and some
established one LEPC for the entire state. According to the LEPC database, the number of LEPCs
per state ranges from one to 553 (the average being 78). The number and make-up of LEPCs is not
static; LEPC database update efforts and comments in the open-ended question of the survey show
that LEPCs sometimes disband, form, and merge.
Table 1 below shows that the majority of responding LEPCs serve populations under 50,000 and
are located in rural or mixed rural/suburban service areas; this finding is similar to those of previous
surveys.
Table 1. Demographics
Population Size
< 50,000
50,0011 00,000
100,001500,000
500,001 1,000,000
> 1,000,000
Grand Total
r
Rural
40.2%
4.2%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
45.8%
Rural/Suburban
19.1%
9.7%
11.1%
0.8%
0.6%
41.3%
Service
Suburban
2.1%
0.8%
0.6%
0.2%
0.0%
3.7%
Area Type
Suburban/Urban
0.9%
0.6%
2.7%
1.5%
0.9%
6.6%
Urban
0.2%
0.5%
1.4%
0.1%
0.4%
2.6%
Total
62.5%
15.8%
17.2%
2.6%
1.9%
100.0%
Figure 1 illustrates that over one-third (34.6%)
of responding LEPCs operate in the South, one-
quarter (24.2%) operate in the Midwest, and
one-fifth operate in the West (20.9%) and in
the Northeast (20.3%).1 When these actual
response rates are compared with the regional
distribution of all known LEPCs, the Northeast is
underrepresented and the West, Midwest, and
South are overrepresented in the survey data.
This difference in actual response rates vs. the
universe of LEPCs is consistent with response
rates from the 1999 LEPC Survey.
Figure 1: Actual Response Rates vs. Universe of LEPCs
50% -
40% -
30% -
20% -
10%-
0% -,
42%
35%
21%
l
WEST
MIDWEST NORTHEAST SOUTH
Universe Actual
'In this report: LEPCs in EPA Regions 1, 2, and 3 compose the Northeast; EPA Regions 4 and 6 compose the South; EPA
Regions 5 and 7 compose the Midwest; and EPA Regions 8, 9, and 10 compose the West. Refer to Appendix D for an
EPA Regional Map.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Membership
Under EPCRA, LEPC membership must include (at a minimum): elected state and local officials;
police, fire, civil defense, and public health professionals; environment, transportation, and hospital
officials; facility representatives; and representatives from community groups and the media.
Figure 2 shows the membership of responding
LEPCs. Participation on LEPCs by fire departments
or hazmat representatives (93.2%), law
enforcement representatives (90.7%), and civil
defense representatives and emergency managers
(87.1%) are highest. Survey results also reveal
that the majority (65.8%) of responding LEPCs
elect their chairpersons. Previous surveys did not
ask for this level of detail regarding membership.
The 1994 and 1999 only collected the total
number of individual members in the LEPC.
Figure 2: LEPCs Membership
Fire Department or Hazmat Team
Meetings
Civil Defense or Emergency Management
Elected Local Officials
First Aid or Emergency Medical Service
Hospital or Public Health
Community Group
Broadcast and Print Media
Transportation
Local Environmental Group/Organization
Elected State Officials
I I I I I I I I I I
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% of LEPCs
38.7% of LEPCs said they met quarterly in the
past twelve months, 11.8% met as needed, and
8.8% reported that they had not met. Those
that had not met in the past 1 2 months most
frequently cited a lack of interest from members (30.4%), while 8.9% said they had not met due
to a lack of resources. LEPCs located in more suburban or urban service areas are more likely to
meet bi-monthly than those located in rural areas (see Appendix B, Table 1). Data also show that
as accident history in LEPC service area decreases, so does the likelihood that the LEPC met in the
past 12 months (see Appendix B, Table 2).
The majority of responding LEPCs (67.6%) indicate that they advertise their meetings to the public,
primarily in newspapers (63.5%). This finding is consistent with findings in previous surveys. LEPCs
also advertise with postings on-line (42.9%) and in government buildings (42.4%).
In the open-ended question, many LEPCs shared that achieving good participation rates at meetings
is difficult because LEPC members are volunteers and are often busy with their other jobs or familial
commitments. Several LEPCs that serve small rural populations noted that they had merged with
other LEPCs serving similar populations and that this merger effectively increased LEPC activity and
support.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Emergency Response Plans
EPCRA required that LEPCs submit an emergency response plan to their SERC no later than
October 1998. Required elements of emergency response plans include, among other things, the
identification of facilities and transportation routes of extremely hazardous substances, descriptions
of emergency response procedures, outlines of emergency notification procedures and evacuation
plans, and designation of a community coordinator and facility emergency coordinator(s) to
implement the plan.
Close to 60% of responding LEPCs (58.7%) reviewed and updated their emergency plan in the past
1 2 months. Furthermore, 42.8% of LEPCs said that their plan was reviewed by their SERC in the
last 12 months. Over one-third (37.4%) of responding LEPCs said their emergency response plans
were authored primarily by more than one LEPC member and many (32.9%) said that the plan was
authored by both LEPC members and outside sources.
LEPCs most frequently answered "somewhat familiar" (36.5%) or "familiar" (35.5%) when asked,
"How familiar are the majority of your LEPC members with your emergency response plan?" Data
show that members of LEPCs that met in the past 1 2 months are more likely to be familiar with
their emergency response plans than members of LEPCs that did not meet (see Appendix B, Table
3).
Figure 3 shows the various contents of LEPCs'
emergency response plans. Close to nine out
of ten LEPCs report that their plans include
procedures to inform the public about natural
hazards. Fewer than 40% of responding LEPCs
include environmental justice in their plans. Of
note, the percentage of responding LEPCs that
include Homeland Security (77.5%) in their
emergency response plan is considerably higher
than the 40.3% reported in the 1999 survey.
(More detailed findings on Homeland Security can
be found on page 1 3 of this report.)
Figure 3: Contents of Emergency Response Plan
Procedures to Inform the Public
Homeland Security
Consistency with NIMS
She term-Pace
Coordinators Designated
Tier and Faculties
Emergency Equipment
Evacuation Plans
First Responder Training
Integrate State Plans
Exercising ERP
Environmental Justice
i i i i i i
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
I I I I
70% 80% 90% 100%
% of LEPCs
More than three-quarters of responding LEPCs
(76.8%) exercise their emergency response
plans; 71.3% of those LEPCs exercised that plan
within the past 12 months. This finding is similar
to findings from previous surveys. 74.0% of
functioning LEPCs in the 1994 survey and 69.1%
of active LEPCs in the 1999 survey indicated that
they had exercised their emergency response plan
in the past year.2 Results from the 2008 LEPC Survey indicate that LEPCs most frequently exercise
their plans using table-top (83.5%) or full-scale (68.9%) exercises.
Data also show that LEPCs that reviewed their emergency response plans either in the past 12
months or within the past one to two years are more likely to exercise their plan than those that did
not review it as recently (see Appendix B, Table 4).
When asked what plan emergency responders would use if a chemical accident occurred in an
LEPC's jurisdiction, respondents were able to "select all that apply" 54.3% said that responders
would use a plan developed by the LEPC, 56.5% said that they would use a plan developed by
another emergency response organization, and 46.5% said responders would coordinate their
response efforts with a plan developed by a chemical facility.
2Past surveys developed specific criteria to determine whether an LEPC was active or functioning. The 1999 LEPC Survey
report is available online at http://www.epa.gov/OEM/docs/chem/lepcsurv.pdf
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How Accident History Affects LEPCs
Responding LEPCs most frequently report that one to five chemical accidents occurred in their
service area over the past five years. LEPCs also report that these chemical accidents resulted
in improved coordination efforts between their LEPC and industry/facilities in their service area
(54.4%) and in the revision of emergency response plans based on lessons-learned from the
accidents (42.1 %). Interestingly, LEPCs located in communities that had no accidents in the past
five years indicate lower levels of agreement that their LEPC has a positive impact on chemical
safety in their community. The more accidents that occur within a community, the higher level of
agreement that the LEPC has a positive impact on chemical safety in their community (see Appendix
B, Table 5).
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Using and Managing Data
Survey respondents provided feedback on the ways that they use CAMEO, Tier I and II data, and
BMP data. Questions related to data use and management and specifically asked whether LEPCs
use specific applications/data and how they use those applications/data.
CAMEO
Computer-Aided Management of Emergency Operations (CAMEO) is a system of software
applications used to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies. Developed by EPA and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Office of Response and Restoration,
CAMEO assists front-line chemical emergency planners and responders to access, store, and
evaluate information critical for developing emergency plans.
Approximately half of responding LEPCs (51.4%) report use of CAMEO, most often to access
chemical information (74.8%), for emergency planning (72.5%), and for actual emergencies
(71.6%). 55.4% of LEPCs that use CAMEO use it to manage Tier II data. In the open-ended
question, several LEPCs requested that EPA provide training on CAMEO.
Tier I and II Data
Facilities subject to EPCRA sections 311-312 are required to annually submit an Emergency and
Hazardous Chemical Inventory Form to their LEPC, SERC, and local fire department. Facilities
provide either a Tier I or Tier II form (in most states the Tier II form is required). EPA developed
Tier2 Submit to help facilities prepare an electronic chemical inventory report. Responding LEPCs
primarily receive Tier I and II data via paper submissions (68.7%) with 14.9% of LEPCs primarily
receiving that data via state or local electronic submissions (e.g., diskette or CD). Only 8.1 % of
responding LEPCs receive Tier II data through Tier2 Submit from EPA. LEPCs that serve large urban
populations are more likely to receive data via electronic submission or via web-based submission
(see Appendix B, Tables 6 and 7).
When asked how they manage Tier I and II data, LEPCs most frequently responded through paper
files (73.7%) while 29.7% use CAMEO to manage Tier I and II data. 37.4% of responding LEPCs
only use paper filing systems to manage this data, a decrease from both the 1994 and 1998
surveys (55.0% and 46.6% respectively).
The majority of responding LEPCs (75.6%) use Tier I and II data for emergency planning purposes
(e.g., hazard analysis and identification of risk areas) and emergency response (71.0%). 39.4% use
the data to make preparedness recommendations to local governments and 12.0% use the data to
make hazard reduction recommendations to industry.
RMPData
Under section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act, facilities that produce, handle, process, distribute,
or store certain chemicals are required to develop a Risk Management Program, prepare a Risk
Management Plan (RMP), and submit the RMP to EPA. Approximately one-third (32.5%) of
responding LEPCs use RMP data.
LEPCs that serve larger populations and areas with a history of chemical accidents are more likely
to use RMP data (see Appendix B, Tables 8 and 9). Most LEPCs that use RMP data use the data to
improve emergency planning (88.6%) and for emergency response (77.9%). 40.4% use the data to
support homeland security and 38.6% use the data to work with industry to prevent accidents.
The majority of LEPCs that use RMP data obtain the data from their state (62.3%) although 1 5.7%
obtain it from EPA. The vast majority of those who answered "other" (55.9%) obtain the data
directly from facilities.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How LEPCs Communicate with the Public
Since 9/11, 76.0% of LEPCs report that the number of requests from the public for information
has stayed the same. However, 42.2% of LEPCs report a change in the way chemical hazard
information is made available to the public due to homeland security concerns. Larger populations
with a greater history of accidents are more likely to have changed the way chemical hazard
information is made available to the public (see Appendix B, Tables 10 and 11).
The majority of responding LEPCs (59.1 %) notify the public that their emergency plan and chemical
hazard information is available, most often through notices in the newspaper (66.6%), which is
consistent with how LEPCs say they advertise public meetings.
LEPCs that notify the public of their meetings are also more likely to notify the public that their
emergency plans and chemical hazard information are available (see Appendix B, Table 12). Those
LEPCs whose membership includes general public representatives are more likely to advertise public
meetings and are more likely to notify the public that their plan and emergency information is
available (see Appendix B, Tables 13 and 14).
Less than one-quarter (23.6%) of responding LEPCs have a website.3 LEPCs serving large urban
populations with a greater history of accidents are more likely to have a website (see Appendix B,
Tables 15-17).
LEPCs most often report that radio/TV announcements (88.3%), fire/police departments going door-
to-door (82.4%), and an emergency broadcast system (62.7%) are the mechanisms used to notify
the public of a release requiring evacuation or shelter-in-place.
Most LEPCs (56.4%) received no public inquiries in the past 12 months; however 36.4% reported
receiving and responding to one to five public inquiries. Those LEPCs that advertise meetings and
the availability of their emergency plan and chemical information to the public, that serve large
urban populations with higher accident histories, and that have a website, are most likely to receive
a greater number of public inquiries (see Appendix B, Tables 18-23).
Responding LEPCs interact with chemical facilities in their service area most often through meetings
(53.5%), visits to the facilities (45.8%), and the collection of reports and fees (44.6%). When
asked how frequently LEPCs communicate with facilities (other than for the receipt of reports/fees),
LEPCs most often answered annually (36.7%). Those LEPCs that use Tier I and II data and BMP
data to make hazard reduction recommendations to industry are more likely to have more frequent
contacts with industry (see Appendix B, Table 24).
3As part of the 2008 LEPC Survey, LEPCs were asked if they had a website and had the option to provide that website for
inclusion in this report. A list of functional websites provided is available in Appendix C.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Changes in Activity Since 9/11:
A Focus on Homeland Security
One of the primary goals of the 2008 LEPC Survey was to determine how LEPC activities changed
in the post 9/11 environment. Questions on homeland security (defined for the purposes of this
survey as the potential for terrorist events and/or events extending beyond chemical to radiological
and biological incidents) were first asked in the 1999 survey. At that time, 40.3% of active LEPCs
indicated they had incorporated counter-terrorism measures into their emergency response plans.
2008 survey results show that a much higher percentage of responding LEPCs incorporated
homeland security into their plans (77.5%).
When asked how LEPC activity levels changed since 9/11, responding LEPCs most frequently
reported that their level of activity remained the same (43.9%). 14.9% of LEPCs said their activity
levels increased greatly, and one-third (33.0%) said their activity levels increased somewhat. Only
4.0% said the overall activity level of their LEPC decreased since the events of 9/11.
LEPCs were originally designed to provide a forum for emergency management agencies,
responders, industry, and the public to work together to evaluate, understand, and communicate
chemical hazards in the community and develop appropriate emergency plans in case of accidental
release of these chemicals. However, in recent years, LEPCs' planning efforts have often been
refocused to include planning for a variety of disaster that may affect their communities.
Numerous LEPCs report that since 9/11, they take an all-hazards approach to planning and no
longer solely focus on chemical emergency preparedness. For some LEPCs, this has resulted in
increased interest and participation from both current LEPC membership as well as from the general
public.
Many LEPCs also commented on their relationship with the emergency management agency (EMA)
in their service area. As LEPCs take more of an all-hazards approach to planning, some responding
LEPCs indicate that their activities are duplicative of those activities conducted by the local EMA.
Some LEPCs report that they benefit from close coordination with the EMA, while others said that
the local EMA had taken over LEPC activities, or that the LEPC had or desired to merge with the
EMA.
Citizen Corps
In January 2002, the USA Freedom Corps was launched to build on the spirit of service that
emerged throughout the country following the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Citizen Corps is the
component of USA Freedom Corps that creates opportunities for individuals to volunteer to
help their communities prepare for and respond to emergencies. Coordinated nationally by the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), at the local level, Citizen Corps initiatives are carried out
by Citizen Corps Councils. Currently, there are 2,298 County/Local/Tribal Citizen Corps Councils4
across the country.
Survey results show that 46.6% of LEPCs have Citizen Corps Councils within their communities.
LEPCs serving larger urban populations are more likely to have a Citizen Corps Council (see
Appendix B, Tables 25 and 26). LEPCs most frequently report that they work independently from
the Citizen Corps Council located in their community (36.5%), 26.7% coordinate and work in
close cooperation with their Citizen Corps Council, and 24.8% report that their LEPC merged
with their local Citizen Corps Council. LEPCs that serve larger populations are more likely to work
independently from the Citizen Corps Council (see Appendix B, Table 27). In the open-ended
question, several LEPCs said that merging with their Citizen Corps Council resulted in increased
interest and meeting attendance as well as the incorporation of all-hazards planning.
*More information about Citizen Corps is available online at http://www.citizencorps.gov/
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Types Of Assistance
Survey respondents provided feedback on the types of assistance that their LEPC receives. This
assistance ranges from direct and indirect funding to technical assistance and guidance from Federal
agencies.
Direct Funding
The majority of responding LEPCs do not have an operating budget (59.3%) and do not receive
direct funding (64.1 %). In the open-ended question, many LEPCs commented on the need for
funding with several LEPCs noting that they would use this funding to develop alternative means of
disseminating public warnings/notifications.
Most LEPCs that receive direct funding obtain it through state fees from EPCRA report submissions
(54.2%) and Federal funding such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) Hazardous Materials
Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants (39.7%). In the open-ended question, several LEPCs that
receive HMEP Grants identified the need for more freedom in determining how that funding is spent.
LEPCs would like to use funding to hire personnel, buy equipment, and for activities not just related
to chemical emergencies but to all hazards.
LEPCs that serve populations over 500,000 are more likely to receive direct funding than LEPCs
that serve smaller populations (see Appendix B, Table 28). Furthermore, LEPCs that do not receive
direct funding are more likely not to have met in the past 1 2 months (see Appendix B, Table 29).
Indirect Funding
More LEPCs receive indirect funding (56.3%) than direct funding, most often in the form of meeting
space (93.3%), materials and office supplies (69.5%), and the use of computers or other equipment
(68.9%).
Technical Assistance/Guidance
The majority of LEPCs (72.8%) do not receive technical assistance or
guidance from the Federal government. Figure 4 illustrates that those that
receive technical assistance, most often receive that assistance from EPA
(58.6%) and FEMA (51.7%).
The majority of LEPCs that receive support from EPA (77.9%) "agree"
or "strongly agree" that this support plays a significant role in guiding
their LEPC activities. Those LEPCs that receive EPCRA data through
Tier2 Submit and BMP data from EPA are more likely to agree that EPA's
support has played a significant role in guiding their LEPC activities than
LEPCs that receive data through other channels (see Appendix B, Tables
30 and 31).
Figure 4. Assistance
from Federal Agencies
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
10%-
When responding LEPCs were asked how frequently they visit the EPA Q%_
OEM website (www.epa.gov/oem), 36.1% answered "never," 28.4% ° AGENCY
answered "at least once a year," and 21.8% reported visiting the site
"at least once every six months." Those who visited the website found the information they were
looking for after browsing through the site (59.2%) or after performing a search (28.0%). The
majority of LEPC representatives who use the website (66.0%) said they are "moderately satisfied"
with the technical information they received.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Success Factors and Obstacles to Success
Responding LEPCs most frequently report
that dedicated membership is the greatest
single factor contributing to the success of
their LEPC (33.3%) while lack of funding
is the greatest single obstacle (37.3%).
Figure 5 illustrates the importance of
several success factors. For example,
while LEPCs believe that a dedicated
membership contributes most to their
success (33.3%), 20.1% report that
low membership is a hindrance. LEPCs
also indicate lack of public interest as an
obstacle to success.
Figure 5: Greatest Success Factors and Obstacles to Success
Obstacle
I Success Factor
Additional LEPC Needs
The areas in which responding LEPCs most need assistance are outreach and communication
with the public (42.5%) followed by identification of and compliance assistance for non-reporting
facilities (39.7%). These findings are consistent with feedback received at conferences and
through other mechanisms. In the open-ended question, many LEPCs requested EPA assistance
with outreach tools that outline LEPC purposes and goals so that LEPCs could use the tools both to
educate new or potential LEPC members in addition to members of the general public. Several LEPC
coordinators also requested that EPA develop a compendium of LEPC Best Practices or operational
guidance both to assist newly forming LEPCs and to provide ideas for improvement of existing
LEPCs.
Conclusion
The 2008 LEPC Survey provides a high-level snapshot of LEPC activity in the post 9/11 world.
As with similar surveys, the results of this survey raise additional questions and may encourage
conversations to help focus future LEPC activities. Through this survey effort, LEPCs shared
valuable information and best practices. At the same time, they provided concrete feedback on the
challenges they face. Despite these challenges, LEPCs continue to play a vital role in community
emergency preparedness and 64.9% of LEPCs report that they have had a positive impact on
chemical safety in their communities.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
2008 Nationwide Survey ofLEPCs
-------
Appendix A:
Survey Responses by Question
Although a total of 939 representatives of LEPCs completed the survey, the number of people who
answered each question varied. Individuals were not required to answer each question and were able to
skip questions. Finally, individuals who responded in either the affirmative or negative for certain
questions were routed past questions. For other questions, respondents were able to "select all that
apply." For this reason, the percentage for those questions may be greater than 100%.
LEPC Structure
How is your chairperson chosen? Frequency Percent
Elected by LEPC
Other1
Volunteer
Do not have a chairperson
Have a chairperson but do not know how he/she was chosen
Appointed by State Emergency response Commission (SERC)
Rotating basis
Total
601
184
64
23
20
15
6
913
65.8%
20.2%
7.0%
2.5%
2.3%
1 .6%
0.7%
100.0%
Representatives from which of the following groups or organizations make ._ _, .
up your LEPC-s membership? Frequency Percent
Fire department (or Hazmat) representatives
Law enforcement representatives
Civil defense (or Emergency management) representatives
Hospital or public health representatives
First Aid (Emergency Medical Service) representatives
Elected local officials
Representatives from industry/facilities affected by EPA Tier III of the Superfund
Amendment and Reauthorization Act of 1986
Community group representatives
Broadcast and print media representatives
Transportation representatives
General public
Local environmental group/organization representatives
Other"
Elected state officials
Total
875
852
820
786
783
782
641
597
507
492
467
427
132
106
939
93.2%
90.7%
87.1%
83.7%
83.4%
83.3%
68.3%
63.6%
54.0%
52.4%
49.7%
45.5%
14.1%
1 1 .3%
1 Other includes: appointed by other local representatives (87) (including County Commissioners, Mayors or EMA directors)
and likely other paid positions (70) (including County Judges, Local Emergency Management Manager, or Fire Chief
2 Other includes: local schools, colleges, universities, agriculture groups, and public utilities
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Is there currently a Citizen Corps Council3 within your community? Frequency Percent
1 Yes
No
| Total
421
483
904
46.6%
53.4%
1 00%
Please describe the relationship between your LEPC and the Citizen Corps ._ _, .
Council within your community Frequency Percent
My LEPC and the Citizen Corps Council work independently
My LEPC coordinates closely and works in cooperation with the Citizen Corps
Council
My LEPC merged with the Citizen Corps Council
My LEPC infrequently coordinates with the Citizen Corps Council
Total
153
113
104
49
419
36.5%
26.7%
24.8%
1 1 .7%
100%
LEPC Meetings
How often has your LEPC met in the past 12 months? Frequency Percent
Weekly
Monthly
Bi-Monthly (every other month)
Quarterly
Yearly
As needed
Has not met in the past 12 months
Total
0
158
148
352
64
107
80
909
0.0%
17.4%
16.3%
38.7%
7.0%
1 1 .8%
8.8%
100%
Why has your LEPC not met in the past 12 months? Frequency Percent
Did not need to meet
No interest from members
Insufficient resources (meeting location, time, funding)
LEPC activities covered at other meetings
Other"
Total
12
24
7
18
18
79
15.2%
30.4%
8.9%
22.8%
22.8%
100%
Do you advertise your LEPC meetings to the public? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
606
291
897
67.6% I
32.4%
100%
How do you advertise your LEPC meetings to the public? Frequency Percent
Newspapers
On-line
Postings in government buildings
Mailings
Other0
Flyers and handouts
Total
385
260
257
102
64
43
606
63.5%
42.9%
42.4%
16.8%
10.6%
7.1%
3 A component of USA Freedom Corps that creates opportunities for individuals to volunteer to help their communities
prepare for and respond to emergencies by bringing together local leaders, citizen volunteers and the network of first
responder organizations.
4 Other includes: currently in transition, inactive and lack of interest/time
5 Other includes: media other than print (39), other local publications (7), and phone calls (6)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Emergency Plans
When did your LEPC last review and update its emergency response plan? Frequency Percent
Within the past 12 months
1 - 2 years ago
Over 2 years ago
Plan has not yet been reviewed or updated
Have a plan, but do not know when it was last reviewed and updated
Do not have a plan
Total
525
137
112
28
41
52
895
58.7%
15.3%
12.5%
3.1%
4.6%
5.8%
100%
Who was the primary author of your LEPC's emergency plan? Frequency Percent
One LEPC member
More than one LEPC member
Both LEPC members and outside sources
A consultant or other outside party
Total
146
311
274
101
832
17.5%
37.4%
32.9%
12.1%
100%
When did the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) last review p p
your emergency plan? requency ercen
Within the past 12 months
1 - 2 years ago
Over 2 years ago
Plan has not yet been reviewed
Total
346
172
184
106
808
42.8%
21 .3%
22.8%
13.1%
100%
How familiar are the majority of your LEPC members with your emergency ._ _, .
response plan? Frequency Percent
Very Familiar
Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Slightly Familiar
Not at All Familiar
Total
75
295
303
124
33
830
9.0%
35.5%
36.5%
14.9%
4.0%
100%
Does your emergency plan? Frequency Percent
Provide procedures for informing the public in an emergency
Take into account natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes)
Provide procedures for informing the key persons ("call down list") designated in
the emergency plan
Take into account homeland security (The potential for terrorist events and/or
events extending beyond chemical to radiological and biological incidents)
Demonstrate consistency with NIMS (National Incident Management System)
Address use of shelter-in-place
Designate a community emergency coordinator and facility emergency
coordinators, who make necessary determinations to implement the plan
Identify extremely hazardous substances (EHS) facilities subject to the plan
Identify Tier I and II facilities
Identify the routes likely to be used for the transportation of hazardous
substances
Describe emergency equipment available to the community
Include evacuation plans, such as precautionary evacuations and alternative
traffic routes
Address training for first responders and other response personnel
736
723
690
662
661
660
658
657
627
606
606
552
514
86.2%
84.7%
80.8%
77.5%
77.4%
77.3%
77.0%
76.9%
73.4%
71 .0%
71 .0%
64.6%
60.2%
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Integrate with other applicable state plans
Outline methods to determine the area and population likely to be affected by a
chemical release
Include methods and schedules for exercising the emergency plan
Identify Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities
Take into account environmental justice (The fair treatment for people of all races,
cultures, and incomes regarding the development of environmental laws,
regulations, and policies)
Total
514
509
478
357
311
854
60.2%
59.6%
56.0%
41 .8%
36.4%
Has your LEPC exercised your emergency plan? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
625
189
814
76.8% I
23.2%
100%
How have you exercised your emergency plan? Frequency Percent
Table-top exercise
Full-scale exercise
Drill
Actual response
Pubic briefing
Otherb
Total
522
430
299
299
82
21
625
83.5%
68.9%
47.8%
47.8%
13.1%
4.5%
When did your LEPC last exercise its emergency plan? Frequency Percent
Within the past 12 months
1 - 2 years ago
Over 2 years ago
Exercised plan, but do not know when
Total
442
128
44
6
620
71 .3%
20.6%
7.1%
1 .0%
100%
If an emergency at a chemical facility occurred tomorrow, responders p p
would coordinate their response efforts with a plan developed by: requency ercen
Another emergency response organization (not the LEPC)
The LEPC
Chemical facility
Other'
Do not know
Total
531
510
437
28
23
939
56.5%
54.3%
46.5%
3.0%
2.4%
In the past five years, approximately how many chemical accidents have ._ _, .
occurred in your LEPC's service area? Frequency Percent
None
1 -5
6-10
11 -15
15 or more
Total
162
422
108
40
131
863
18.8%
48.9%
12.5%
4.6%
15.2%
100%
' Other includes: functional exercise (12)
Other includes: do not have a chemical facility (9), case-by-case (3), and Incident Commander (2)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How did these chemical accidents most impact the way your LEPC ._ _ .
operates? Frequency Percent
Improved coordination efforts with industry/facilities
Did not impact
Revised emergency plan based on lessons-learned
Extended LEPC membership
Changed the way information is made available to the public
Other"
Increased frequency of LEPC meetings
Total
327
266
253
106
89
38
26
601
54.4%
44.3%
42.1%
17.6%
14.8%
6.3%
4.3%
100%
Data Use and Management
How do you primarily receive Emergency Planning and Community Right- F p
to-Know Act (EPCRA) Tier I and II data (Sections 31 1 -31 2)? i-requency percent
Paper
State or local electronic submission (e.g., diskette or CD)
State or local Web-based submission
Tier II Submit from EPA
Total
596
129
73
70
868
68.7%
14.9%
8.4%
8.1%
100%
How does your LEPC manage EPCRA Tier I and II data? Frequency Percent
Paper files
CAMEO (Computer-Aided Monitoring of Emergency Operations) (A suite of
software developed by EPA and NOAA used widely to plan for and respond to
chemical emergencies)
Database created by LEPC
Other state or local database
Web-based database
Othera
Total
692
279
144
143
65
28
939
73.7%
29.7%
15.3%
15.2%
6.9%
3.0%
How does your LEPC use EPCRA Tier I and II data? Frequency Percent
For emergency planning (e.g., hazard analysis, identification of risk areas)
For emergency response
To respond to public inquiries
To make preparedness recommendations to local government
To make hazard reduction recommendations to industry
For zoning or other land use issues
Other1"
Total
712
668
420
370
113
80
30
939
75.6%
71 .0%
44.7%
39.4%
12.0%
8.5%
3.6%
Does your LEPC use Risk Management Program (RMP) data? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
272
566
838
32.5% I
67.5%
100%
8 Other includes: increased awareness (9) increased training (4), and added reverse 911 system (2)
9 Other includes: do not know (5), not using (5) and E-Plan (4)
10
Other includes: not used by LEPC (17) , and for reference (2)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
For what purpose(s) does your LEPC use RMP data? Frequency Percent
To improve you local emergency planning
For emergency response
To support Homeland security
To work with industry to prevent accidents
Other"
Total
241
212
110
105
7
272
88.6%
77.9%
40.4%
38.6%
2.6%
From what source does your LEPC primarily obtain RMP data? Frequency Percent
State
Other'^
EPA
Total
167
59
42
268
62.3%
22.0%
15.7%
100.0%
Does your LEPC use CAMEO? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
444
420
864
51 .4% I
48.6%
100.0%
For what purpose(s) does your LEPC use CAMEO? Frequency Percent
To access chemical information
For emergency planning (e.g., screening and contingency plans)
For actual emergencies
For drills and exercises
To manage Tier II data
To respond to public inquires
OtherIJ
Total
332
324
318
313
246
124
6
444
74.8%
72.5%
71 .6%
70.5%
55.4%
27.9%
1 .4%
Communication
Does your LEPC have a Web site? Frequency Percent
I Yes"
No
| Total
207
671
23.6% I
76.4%
100%
Does your LEPC notify the public that its emergency plan and chemical ._ _, .
hazard information is available? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
512
355
867
59.1% I
40.9%
100%
11 Other includes: training, awareness and used by local administrators
12 Other includes: facilities (33), local/county government (10), businesses (5)
13
14
Other includes: do not use/know, and mapping transportation routes
Web site addresses are listed in Appendix C
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How does your LEPC notify the public that its emergency plan and chemical ._ _, .
hazard information is available? Frequency Percent
Newspaper
Public meetings
Brochures
LEPC Web site
Radio/TV
Other13
Total
341
248
112
100
75
46
512
66.6%
48.4%
21 .9%
19.5%
14.6%
8.9%
Which of the following mechanisms are in place to notify the public of a p p
release requiring evacuation or shelter in place? requency ercen
Radio/TV announcements
Fire/police - going door to door
Emergency broadcast system
Vehicle mounted voice communication
Fixed sirens/audible alarms
Telephone dialers
Internet/cell phone alerts
Fixed message boards on public roadways
Other10
Do not know
Total
829
774
589
538
386
349
251
158
35
11
939
88.3%
82.4%
62.7%
57.3%
41.1%
37.2%
26.7%
16.8%
3.7%
1 .2%
How many public inquiries has your LEPC received and responded to c D .
during the past 1 2 months? frequency percent
None
1-5 inquiries
6-10 inquiries
10-20 inquiries
21 or more
Total
490
316
32
20
11
869
56.4%
36.4%
3.7%
2.3%
1 .3%
100%
How does your LEPC interact with chemical facilities in your area of ._ _, .
service? Frequency Percent
Meetings
Visits to the facilities
Collecting reports/fees
Discussion about Risk Management Program
(RMP) plans
Other"
Total
502
430
419
120
76
939
53.5%
45.8%
44.6%
12.8%
8.1%
15 Other includes: other web sites (17), library (5), posting in government buildings (3) and word of mouth (3)
16 Other includes: CodeRed emergency notification (6), mobile message board (4), and currently updating (4)
17 Other includes: not applicable (26), incident response (4) and fire department inspections/visits (3)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Other than receipt of reports/fees from chemical facilities in your area of p p
service, how often does your LEPC communicate with those facilities? requency ercen
Weekly
Monthly
Quarterly
Every six months
Annually
Never
Total
4
74
193
54
314
217
856
0.5%
8.6%
22.5%
6.3%
36.7%
25.4%
100.0%
Funding
Does your LEPC have an operating budget? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
355
518
873
40.7%
59.3%
100.0%
Does your LEPC receive direct funding? Frequency Percent
I Yes
No
| Total
312
556
868
35.9% I
64.1%
100.0%
Please indicate the agencies/organizations from which your LEPC receives ._ _, .
...... M M y Frequency Percent
direct funding. M y
State fees from Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA)
report submission
Federal funding - e.g., Hazmat Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants
Other local government funding
Other state government funding
Local fees from EPCRA report submission
Private industry
Other10
Total
169
124
105
64
27
26
15
312
54.2%
39.7%
33.7%
20.5%
8.7%
8.3%
4.8%
Does your LEPC receive any indirect/in-kind funding (e.g., meeting space, p p t
I Yes
No
| Total
489
379
868
56.3%
43.7%
100.0%
Please indicate the type of indirect funding your LEPC receives. Frequency Percent
Meeting space
Materials or office supplies
Use of computers or other equipment
Office space
Printing
Other'a
Total
456
340
337
280
264
47
489
93.3%
69.5%
68.9%
57.3%
54.0%
9.6%
18
Other includes: other grants (7), donations (3) and membership dues (2)
' Other includes: supplemental staff (25), grants (4) and advertisements (3)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Support from Federal Agencies
In the past five years, did your LEPC receive technical assistance or p p
guidance from any federal government agencies? requency ercen
1 Yes
No
| Total
232
621
853
27.2% I
72.8%
100.0%
From which of the following federal agencies did your LEPC receive P D t
technical assistance or guidance? i-requency percent
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
DHS (other than FEMA)
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
Othei^u
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Total
136
120
89
69
34
23
232
58.6%
51 .7%
38.4%
29.7%
14.7%
9.9%
The support (technical assistance or guidance) received from EPA has F p t
played a significant role in guiding your LEPC's activities: i-requency percent
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total
18
77
38
5
2
140
12.9%
55.0%
27.1%
3.6%
1 .4%
100%
As a representative of your LEPC, how often do you visit the EPA Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) Web site http://www.epa.gov/oem (formerly Frequency Percent
http://www.epa.gov/ceppo) for technical guidance or other information?
At least once a week
At least once a month
At least once every six months
At least once a year
Never
Total
22
97
190
248
315
872
2.5%
11.1%
21 .8%
28.4%
36.1%
100%
When visiting the OEM Web site, I found the information I was looking for: Frequency Percent
After browsing through the site
After performing a site search
Right away
I was unable to find the exact information
Total
319
151
44
25
59.2%
28.0%
8.2%
4.6%
100%
20 Other includes: OSHA (2), DOE (1) and DNR ( 1) Note: many survey respondents included different state sources
including SERC, state DEQ and the state EMA when the questions asked about Federal funding sources.
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Please rank your level of satisfaction with the technical information you p p
received by visiting the OEM Web site. i-requency percent
Very Satisfied
Moderately Satisfied
Slightly Satisfied
Not At All Satisfied
Total
87
356
90
6
539
16.1%
66.0%
16.7%
1.1%
100%
Homeland Security
Since the events of 9/1 1 ,
the overall activity level of your LEPC has: Frequency Percent
Increased Greatly
Increased Somewhat
Stayed About the Same
Decreased Somewhat
Decreased Greatly
Do Not Know
Total
130
288
383
18
17
36
872
14.9%
33.0%
43.9%
2.1%
1 .9%
4.1%
100%
Since 9/1 1 , the number of requests from the public for chemical hazard ._ _ .
information has: Frequency Percent
Increased Greatly
Increased Somewhat
Stayed About the Same
Decreased Somewhat
Decreased Greatly
Do Not Know
Total
5
70
646
13
15
101
850
0.6%
8.2%
76.0%
1 .5%
1 .8%
1 1 .9%
100%
Since 9/1 1 , has your LEPC changed the way chemical hazard information is p p
made available to the public due to homeland security concerns? requency ercen
Yes
No
Total
356
488
844
42.2% I
57.8%
100%
Strengths and Additional Needs
What is the single greatest factor contributing to the success of your _ Percent
LEPC?
Dedicated membership
Regularly scheduled meetings
Dedicated leadership (Chair)
Local government support
State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) support
Funding
Other^'
Cooperation from regulated community
Public interest
Total
278
133
118
117
45
44
42
39
18
834
33.3%
15.9%
14.1%
14.0%
5.4%
5.3%
5.0%
4.7%
2.2%
100%
Other includes: LEPC not successful (13), agency leadership (4) and currently building LEPC (3)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
What is the greatest obstacle to the success of your LEPC? Frequency Percent
Funding
Low membership involvement
Public apathy
Other^
Poor local government support
Infrequent and/or irregular meetings
Limited cooperation from regulated community
Lack of dedicated leadership
Poor State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) support
Total
318
171
110
70
57
42
35
30
19
852
37.3%
20.1%
12.9%
8.2%
6.7%
4.9%
4.1%
3.5%
2.2%
100%
In which of the following areas could your LEPC use assistance? Frequency Percent
Outreach and communicating with the public
Identification and compliance assistance for non-reporting facilities
Conducting drills and exercises
Data management
Developing/reviewing local emergency response plans
Determining the level of risk in your jurisdiction
Integrating homeland security into emergency plans
Coordination with state and federal agencies
Total
399
373
347
320
272
254
200
185
939
42.5%
39.7%
37.0%
34.1%
29.0%
27.1%
21 .3%
19.7%
The LEPC on which I serve has had a positive impact on chemical safety in p p
the community (prevention, preparedness, and response). requency ercen
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither Agree Nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Total
139
427
264
20
22
872
15.9%
49.0%
20.3%
2.3%
2.5%
100%
; Other includes: time constraints (13), none (10) and low staff (4)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Appendix B: Cross-Tabulations
Activity Level
Has not met
Bi-monthly
Monthly
Quarterly
Yearly
As needed
Relationship between activity level and service type
Rural
1 1 .06%
1 1 .78%
1 3.94%
39.18%
9.62%
1 4.42%
Mixed/Rural
6.97%
17.43%
20.91%
40.21%
4.29%
10.19%
Suburban
8.82%
26.47%
14.71%
38.24%
0.00%
1 1 .76%
Mixed/Suburban
6.67%
30.00%
20.00%
31 .67%
8.33%
3.33%
Urban
4.35%
21 .74%
21 .74%
30.43%
8.70%
13.04%
jffWWSS'^S 2f f " '".">
Number of Accidents
0
01-5
06-10
11-15
15+
Meeting Frequency in Past 12 Months
Has Not Met
11.11%
9.74%
8.33%
5.00%
3.82%
Has Met
88.89%
90.26%
91 .67%
95.00%
96.18%
llG]i!lil2S:ISifS"li
Familiarity With Plan
Very Familiar
Familiar
Somewhat Familiar
Slightly Familiar
Not at All Familiar
Meeting Frequency in Past 12 Months
Has Not Met
1 .33%
4.75%
5.94%
12.10%
42.42%
Has Met
98.67%
95.25%
94.06%
87.90%
57.58%
i|£^;;j.:!r;«««»W|^SlSW^|||;
sa«,,,;,ii;,,IL,!!4;:.flj;;:B,:i&;i,iMM
Last ERP Review
<12 months
1-2 years
Over 2 years
No review
Do not know
Do not have
ERP Exercised
No
1 4.62%
23.88%
40.74%
66.67%
61 .76%
100.00%
Yes
85.38%
76.12%
59.26%
33.33%
38.24%
0.00%
Community Impact
Strongly Agree
Agree
Neither
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Relationship between accident level and community impact
No Accidents
15.32%
18.41%
22.37%
22.22%
15.79%
One or More Accidents
84.68%
81 .59%
77.63%
77.78%
84.21%
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
: , ' :n ; ;/ W '> ' V i ^i,y.
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
Tier I and II Data Submitted
Electronic
12.96%
1 1 .03%
21.19%
25.00%
40.00%
Web
7.59%
5.15%
12.58%
8.33%
20.00%
Paper
71 .85%
75.00%
57.62%
54.17%
40.00%
Tier2 Submit
7.59%
8.82%
8.61 %
12.50%
0.00%
,"..' '"': ..i'V"-:'. tV."'';Tnnnk'W4,,
Service Area
Rural
Mixed Rural
Suburban
Mixed Suburban
Urban
Tier 1 and II Data Submitted
Electronic
10.26%
16.62%
23.53%
25.00%
28.57%
Web
8.72%
8.03%
2.94%
6.67%
19.05%
Paper
75.13%
65.37%
61 .76%
60.00%
47.62%
Tier2 Submit
5.90%
9.97%
1 1 .76%
8.33%
4.76%
^fl^i^^^^^f^T8^!!
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
RMP Use
No
70.43%
67.91 %
64.86%
50.00%
25.00%
Yes
29.57%
32.09%
35.14%
50.00%
75.00%
Service Area
Rural
Mixed Rural
Suburban
Mixed Suburban
Urban
RMP Use
No
75.60%
59.77%
75.76%
62.07%
57.89%
Yes
24.40%
40.23%
24.24%
37.93%
42.11%
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
Change in Info Made Available to Public
No
61 .22%
59.69%
49.66%
39.13%
37.50%
Yes
38.78%
40.31%
50.34%
60.87%
62.50%
:^ V:U,'!:k'''VO!'YyY!c,;,Y
Chemical Accidents
0
01-5
06-10
11-15
15+
Change in Info Made Available to Public
No
67.74%
57.82%
59.81 %
57.89%
44.09%
Yes
32.26%
42.18%
40.19%
42.11%
55.91%
2008 Nation wide Survey of LEPCs
-------
:.;/;: .;.. ;; ..v^1..;,':';..;:::^
Notification of Meeting
No
Yes
Notification of Plan
No
65.34%
29.55%
Yes
34.66%
70.45%
Public Representation
Yes
No
Meeting Advertisement
No
23.80%
41 .46%
Yes
76.20%
58.54%
]', L ' '' ' , I \ V \ ' i '^/ '>,< >' , MINN .
Public Representation
Yes
No
Plan Notification
No
34.23%
47.99%
Yes
65.77%
52.01 %
::V'"''V:v:' ^'^' ''':.' '"!!!!!!!'
Population
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
Website
No
85.53%
72.26%
61.18%
25.00%
25.00%
Yes
14.47%
27.74%
38.82%
75.00%
75.00%
i!'. ":.'' r-," ;>'.>''.: '",';;!!!!!!!!'
Service Area
Rural
Mixed Rural
Suburban
Mixed Suburban
Urban
Website
No
83.63%
77.41 %
67.65%
40.00%
42.86%
Yes
16.37%
22.59%
32.35%
60.00%
57.14%
:;';''!> :..'', ^y ''-, ;;;',;= /, ;;;;;;
Number of Accidents
0
01-5
06-10
11-15
15+
Website
No
88.13%
81 .67%
69.44%
60.00%
59.54%
Yes
1 1 .88%
18.33%
30.56%
40.00%
40.46%
';. '"''' *'i'1 ''; >,' ";i',v "iV, '';",' -I
Notification of Meeting
N
Y
Public Inquiries
0
62.91 %
52.90%
01-05
31 .64%
38.91 %
06-10
2.18%
4.44%
10-20
2.18%
2.39%
21 +
1 .09%
1 .37%
Notification of Plan
N
Y
Public Inquiries
0
66.86%
48.52%
01-05
29.75%
41 .42%
06-10
0.57%
5.92%
10-20
2.27%
2.37%
21 +
0.57%
1 .78%
2008 Nationwide Survey oftEPCs
-------
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
Public Inquiries
0
67.22%
47.79%
38.00%
12.50%
0.00%
01-05
29.26%
42.65%
50.00%
66.67%
56.25%
06-10
2.04%
7.35%
5.33%
0.00%
18.75%
10-20
0.93%
2.21 %
4.67%
12.50%
6.25%
21 +
0.56%
0.00%
2.00%
8.33%
18.75%
Service Area
Rural
Mixed Rural
Suburban
Mixed Suburban
Urban
Public Inquiries
0
69.37%
50.00%
33.33%
30.00%
30.00%
01-05
27.34%
41 .34%
60.61 %
51 .67%
45.00%
06-10
2.03%
4.75%
0.00%
6.67%
1 5.00%
10-20
1 .01 %
3.07%
0.00%
6.67%
0.00%
21 +
0.25%
0.84%
6.06%
5.00%
10.00%
Accidents
0
01-5
06-10
11-15
15+
Public Inquiries
0
78.13%
61 .87%
40.74%
37.50%
28.24%
01-05
21 .25%
31 .65%
52.78%
50.00%
54.96%
06-10
0.00%
4.80%
2.78%
2.50%
5.34%
10-20
0.63%
1 .44%
1 .85%
7.50%
6.11%
21 +
0.00%
0.24%
1 .85%
2.50%
5.34%
Website
No
Yes
Public Inquiries
0
60.69%
42.16%
01-05
33.89%
44.61 %
06-10
3.31%
4.90%
10-20
1 .66%
4.41 %
21 +
0.45%
3.92%
»?«₯« !"! ' ', ' 1,, ''' '"'*:! "< i
AIIM- " i <', ; .",,1. ,
Hazard Reduction
Recommendations to
Industry
Yes
No
Chemical Facility Interaction
Weekly
0.95%
0.40%
Monthly
17.14%
7.46%
Quarterly
30.48%
21 .44%
Semi-
annually
1 1 .43%
5.59%
Annually
34.29%
37.02%
Never
5.71%
28.10%
ififiW^;:' "''; .';,;;(,; nj',v;:, ;, <.,.:;.
Li,! P \f. ' ','', -, .1 .
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1,000,000
Citizen Corps Council in Community
No
64.36%
41 .96%
32.26%
30.43%
6.25%
Yes
35.64%
58.04%
67.74%
69.57%
93.75%
V: ;;.,:'..;:>"",
Service Area
Rural
Mixed Rural
Suburban
Mixed Suburban
Urban
Citizen Corps Council in Community
No
64.25%
48.38%
44.12%
23.73%
29.17%
Yes
35.75%
51 .62%
55.88%
76.27%
70.83%
2008 Nation wide Survey of LEPCs
-------
:..'.t'..:t .. .!'..'.! .. .<'..'.< ..'.< (?x ..'.I ...I.. .!'..'.!'.. .!'..'.! ..'.I ..1, 000,000
Relationship Between LEPC and Citizen Corps Council
Independent
27.86%
36.59%
47.12%
43.75%
73.33%
Merged
30.85%
31.71%
1 3.46%
6.25%
6.67%
Coordinate Closely
30.85%
24.39%
25.00%
25.00%
0.00%
Coordinate Infrequently
10.45%
7.32%
14.42%
25.00%
20.00%
i';i';O:;v-;''!:' '''-!>:','', ',
Population Size
<50,000
50,001-100,000
100,001-500,000
500,001-1,000,000
>1, 000,000
Receives Direct Funding
No
63.45%
68.38%
67.33%
50.00%
37.50%
Yes
36.55%
31 .62%
32.67%
50.00%
62.50%
':;''', ';>'-;j ''<;:..>;'. -f^ll.
Direct Funding
No
Yes
Meeting Frequency
Has Not Met
12.97%
1 .28%
Has Met
87.03%
98.72%
::." ''"'. ';'.':':. !'.""' ': '1;*^''-'< ;;
Receive EPCRA Data
Tier II
Electronic
Web
Paper
EPA Support Plays a Significant Role
Strongly
Agree/Agree
86.67%
72.22%
61.11%
65.91 %
Neither
13.33%
22.22%
33.33%
29.55%
Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
0.00%
5.56%
5.56%
4.55%
Receive RMP Data
EPA
Other
State
EPA Support Plays a Significant Role
Strongly
Agree/Agree
88.24%
70.59%
66.67%
Neither
5.88%
23.53%
29.63%
Disagree/Strongly
Disagree
5.88%
5.88%
3.70%
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Appendix C: LEPC Websites
As part of the 2008 LEPC Survey, LEPCs were asked if they had a website and had the option to
provide that website for inclusion in this report. A list of functional websites is provided below:
LEPC/EMA STATE Website Address
Northwest Arctic Borough
Shelby County
Maricopa County
Boulder
Jefferson County
Wolcott
North Central Florida
Southwest Florida Region
Tampa Bay Region
Treasure Coast Region
Carroll County
Cobb County
Columbia County
Henry County
Honolulu
Region 5
Story County
Jerome County
Clark County
Hamilton County
Henry County
Marion
Ripley County
Vanderburgh County
Seward County
Assumption Parish
St. Mary Parish
Southwick County
Dorchester County
Fredrick County
Montgomery County
Worcester County
Hancock County
Oxford County
Marinette County
Andrew County
Bootheel
Meramec Region
Mo River
St. Louis City
St. Louis County
Rowan County
Stokes County
Dickey County
Sargent County
Hall County
Region 5-6
Ocean City
AK
AL
AZ
CO
CO
CT
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
IA
IA
ID
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
LA
LA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
MI
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
NC
NC
ND
ND
NE
NE
NJ
www.nwabor.ors
http://www.shelbvcountvalabama.com/
www.maricoDa.sov/emers mst/
www.boulderoem.com
www.scsllc.com/LEPC.htm
www.wolcottct.com/detail.cfm?sid=10
www.ncflepc.ors
www.swfroc.ors
www.tbrpc.ors/leDC/lepc.shtml
www.tcrpc.ors
www.westsalepc.com
www.cobbresourcecouncil.ors
http://www.columbiacountvsa.sov/index.aspx?pase=2570
www.henrvcountvlepc.ors
www.honolulu.sov/ocda/lepc/indexl.htm
www.resionvhazmat.ors
www.storvcountv.com/emersencvmanasement
www.ieromecountv.ors
www.clarkcountv9 1 1 .com/LEPC
www.in-hc-lepc.ors/
www.henrvcoema.ors/
www.sov.srant.in.uinauire.us/ema/lepc.html
www.riplevlepc.com
www . lepc . ewindiana. ors
www.sewardcountvem.com
www.assumptionoep.com
www.parish.st-marv.la.us
http://www.southwickma.ors/Public Documents/SouthwickMA DeptPases/sema
www.dorchestercntvmd-ema.com
www.co.frederick.md.us/index.asp?NID=22 12&ART=4657&admin= 1
www.montsomervcountvmd.sov/firtmpl.asp?url=/content/firerescue/oem/s31epc.asp
http://www.co.worcester.md.us/EmersencvServices/local emer pins comm.htm
www.co.hancock.me.us/ema/side menu/plannins.html
www.mesalink.net/~oxctvema/
www.marinettecountv.com
http ://www .andrewcountv .ors/emersencvmanasement. htm
www.bootheellepc.com
www.meramecresion.ors
www.mo-river.net/
www.stlouiscitvlepc.com/
www.stlouisco.com/police/oem/lepc l.html
www.rowancountvnc.sov
www.co.stokes.nc.us/em
www.dickevnd.com
www.sarsentnd.com
www.srand-island.com/lepc/
www.resion5-6.ors
www.ocemersencv.com
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
LEPC/EMA STATE Website Address
Albuquerque - Bernalillo
Clovis-Curry County
Steuben County
Bowling Green/Warren
City of Columbus
Cuyahoga County
Montgomery /Greene County
City of Atoka
Kingfisher
Berks County
Bucks County
Chester County
Columbia County
Fayette County
Lehigh County
Westchester County
Aiken County
Spartanburg County
Brookings County
Clay County
Davison County
Lake County
Bradley County
Morgan County
Roane County
Beaver County
Coastal Plain
Collin County
Corpus Christi/Nueces
Humble
Lubbock County
Navarro County
Potter and Randall County
Uintah County
Windham Region
Franklin County
Grays-Harbor County
Skamania County
Milwaukee County
Oneida County
Cabell/Wayne
Kanawha Putnam
Tyler County
Lincoln County
Sweetwater County
Uinta County
NM
NM
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
sc
SD
SD
SD
SD
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
VT
WA
WA
WA
WI
WI
WV
WV
WV
WY
WY
WY
www.lepcaba.ors
www.citvofclovis.ors/lepc
www.steubenconv.ors/emo/lepc.html
www.wclepc.ors
www.cepac.ors
www.lepc.cuvahosacountv.us
www.msclerc.ors
www.atokaeoc.ors
www.kfrem.ors
www.berksema.com
www.buckslepc.ors
www.chesco.ors/des
www. columbiacountvema. ors
www.fcema.ors
www.lehishcountv.ors/EMA/em.cfm?doc=LEPC.HTM
www.westchestersov.com/health/LEPC2000.htm
www.aikencountvsc.sov/lepc/
www.scoem.ors
www.emersencv.brookinsscountvsd.sov/LEPC%20Homepase.htm
www.clavcountvoem.ors
www.davisoncountv.ors
www.lakecountvsd.com/lepc/
www.bradlevcountvlepc.com
www. morsancountvema. com
www.roanelepc.com
www.ptsi.net/bvreoc
www.coastalplainlepc.ors
www.co.collin.tx.us/fire marshal/lepc/lepc.isp
www.cclepc.ors
http://www.citvofhumble.com/emd.html
www.co.lubbock.tx.us/LEPC/lepc.htm
www.navarrocountvoem.ors
www.potterrandall-lepc.com
http://www.co.uintah.ut.us/em/lepc.php
www.lepc.windham.vt.us/
www.franklinem.ors
www. co . sravs-harbor. wa.us/info/DEM
www. skamania-demors/LEPC.html
http://www.countv.milwaukee.sov/IncidentsDisastersl5644.htm
www.co.oneida.wi.sov
www.cwlepc.com
www.kpepc.ors
www.tvlerwv.ors
www.lcwv.ors
www.sweet.wv.us/ema
http ://www .uintacountv .com/index. asp?NID= 1 25
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Appendix D: Map of EPA Regions
For the purposes of this report, EPA Regions were combined into four larger geographic regions:
Northeast (Regions 1, 2 and 3); South (Regions 4 and 6); Midwest (Regions 5 and 7); and West
(Regions 8, 9 and 10)
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Appendix E: Survey Questions
Demographic Information
1) In which state is your Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) located?
Alabama _
2) What size population does your LEPC serve?
a) Fewer than 50,000
b) 50,001 to 100,000
c) 100,001 to 500,000
d) 500,001 to 1,000,000
e) More than 1,000,000
3) How would you best describe your LEPC's service area?
a) Predominantly or entirely rural
b) Mixed rural/suburban
c) Predominantly suburban
d) Mixed suburban/urban
e) Predominantly or entirely urban
LEPC Structure
4) How is your chairperson chosen?
a) Elected by LEPC
b) Appointed by State Emergency Response Commission (SERC)
c) Rotating basis
d) Volunteer
e) Other
f) Have chairperson but do not know how he/she was chosen
g) Do not have a chairperson
5) Representatives from which of the following groups or organizations make up your LEPC's
membership? (Select all that apply)
O Elected local officials
O Elected state officials
O Fire department (or Hazmat) representatives
O Law enforcement representatives
O Civil defense (or Emergency management) representatives
O First Aid (Emergency Medical Service) representatives
O Hospital or public health representatives
O Local environmental group/organization representatives
O Transportation representatives
O Broadcast and print media representatives
O Community group representatives
O General public
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
O Representatives from industry/facilities affected by EPA Title III of the Superfund Amendment
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 representatives
O Other
6) Is there currently a Citizen Corps Council (component of USA Freedom Corps that creates
opportunities for individuals to volunteer to help their communities prepare for and respond to
emergencies by bringing together local leaders, citizen volunteers and the network of first
responder organizations) within your community?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 8
7) Please describe the relationship between your LEPC and the Citizen Corps Council within your
community.
a) My LEPC merged with the Citizen Corps Council
b) My LEPC coordinates closely and works in cooperation with the Citizen Corps Council
c) My LEPC infrequently coordinates with the Citizen Corps Council
d) My LEPC and the Citizen Corps Council work independently
LEPC Meetings
8) How often has your LEPC met in the past 12 months?
a) Weekly
b) Monthly
c) Bi-Monthly (every other month)
d) Quarterly
e) Yearly
f) As needed - (a-f) Skip to Question 10
g) Has not met in the past 12 months
9) Why has your LEPC not met in the past 12 months?
a) Did not need to meet
b) No interest from members
c) Insufficient resources (meeting location, time, funding)
d) LEPC activities covered at other meetings
e) Other
10) Do you advertise your LEPC meetings to the public?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 12
1 l)How do you advertise your LEPC meetings to the public? (Select all that apply)
O Newspapers
O On-line
O Flyers and handouts
O Mailings
O Postings in government buildings
O Other
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Emergency Plan
12) When did your LEPC last review and update its emergency response plan?
a) Within the past 12 months
b) 1-2 years ago
c) Over 2 years ago
d) Plan has not yet been reviewed or updated
e) Have a plan, but do not know when it was last reviewed and updated
f) Do not have a plan - Skip to Question 19
13) Who was the primary author of your LEPC's emergency plan?
a) One LEPC member
b) More than one LEPC member
c) Both LEPC members and outside sources
d) A consultant or other outside party
14) When did the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) last review your emergency plan?
a) Within the past 12 months
b) 1-2 years ago
c) Over 2 years ago
d) Plan has not yet been reviewed
15) How familiar are the majority of your LEPC members with your emergency response plan?
Very T, ... Somewhat .. . . ... Not at All
... Familiar _ ... Slightly Familiar _ ...
Familiar Familiar Familiar
o o o o o
16) Does your emergency plan? (Select all that apply)
O Take into account natural hazards (e.g., hurricanes, earthquakes)
O Take into account homeland security (The potential for terrorist events and/or events extending
beyond chemical to radiological and biological incidents)
O Take into account environmental justice (The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all
people regardless of race, color, national origin or income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies)
O Identify extremely hazardous substances (EHS) facilities subject to the plan
O Identify Tier I and II facilities
O Identify Risk Management Program (RMP) facilities
O Identify the routes likely to be used for the transportation of hazardous substances
O Provide procedures for informing the key persons ("call down list") designated in the emergency
plan
O Designate a community emergency coordinator and facility emergency coordinators, who make
necessary determinations to implement the plan
O Provide procedures for informing the public in an emergency
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
O Address use of shelter-in-place
O Outline methods to determine the area and population likely to be affected by a chemical release
O Describe emergency equipment available to the community
O Include evacuation plans, such as precautionary evacuations and alternative traffic routes
O Address training for first responders and other response personnel
O Include methods and schedules for exercising the emergency plan
O Integrate with other applicable state plans
O Demonstrate consistency with NIMS (National Incident Management System)
17) Has your LEPC exercised your emergency plan?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 20
18) How have you exercised your emergency plan? (Select all that apply)
O Full-scale exercise
O Table-top exercise
O Public briefing
O Drill
O Actual response
O Other
19) When did your LEPC last exercise its emergency plan?
a) Within the past 12 months
b) 1-2 years ago
c) Over 2 years ago
d) Exercised plan, but do not know when
20) If an emergency at a chemical facility occurred tomorrow, responders would coordinate their
response efforts with a plan developed by: (Select all that apply)
O The LEPC
O Another emergency response organization (not the LEPC)
O Chemical facility
O Other
21) In the past five years, approximately how many chemical accidents have occurred in your LEPC's
service area?
a) None - Skip to Question 23
b) 1-5
c) 6-10
d) 11-15
e) 15 or more
22) How did these chemical accidents most impact the way your LEPC operates?
a) Improved coordination efforts with industry/facilities
b) Revised emergency plan based on lessons-learned
c) Changed the way information is made available to the public
d) Extended LEPC membership
e) Increased frequency of LEPC meetings
f) Other
g) Did not impact
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
Data Use and Management
23) How do you primarily receive Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA)
Tier I and II data (Sections 311-312)?
a) Paper
b) Tier2 Submit from EPA
c) State or local electronic submissions (e.g., diskette or CD)
d) State or local Web-based submission
24) How does your LEPC manage EPCRA Tier I and II data? (Select all that apply)
O Paper files
O CAMEO (Computer-Aided Monitoring of Emergency Operations) (A suite of software
developed by EPA and NOAA used widely to plan for and respond to chemical emergencies)
O Database created by LEPC
O Other state or local database
O Web-based database
O Other
25) How does your LEPC use EPCRA Tier I and II data? (Select all that apply)
O For emergency planning (e.g., hazard analysis, identification of risk areas)
O For emergency response
O To make hazard reduction recommendations to industry
O To make preparedness recommendations to local government
O To respond to public inquiries
O For zoning or other land use issues
O Other
26) Does your LEPC use Risk Management Program (RMP) data?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 29
27) For what purpose(s) does your LEPC use RMP data? (Select all that apply)
O To improve your local emergency planning
O For emergency response
O To work with industry to prevent accidents
O To support homeland security
O Other
28) From what source does your LEPC primarily obtain RMP data?
a) State
b) EPA
c) Other
29) Does your LEPC use CAMEO?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 31
30) For what purpose(s) does your LEPC use CAMEO? (Select all that apply)
O For emergency planning (e.g., screening and contingency plans)
O For actual emergencies
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
O For drills and exercises
O To access chemical information
O To manage Tier II data
O To respond to public inquires
O Other
Communication
31) Does your LEPC have a Web site?
a) Yes. Please provide the Web address: (optional)
b) No
32) Does your LEPC notify the public that its emergency plan and chemical hazard information is
available?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 34
33) How does your LEPC notify the public that its emergency plan and chemical hazard information is
available? (Select all that apply)
O Brochures
O Newspaper
O Radio/TV
O Public meetings
O LEPC Web site
O Other
34) Which of the following mechanisms are in place to notify the public of a release requiring
evacuation or shelter in place? (Select all that apply)
O Radio/TV announcements
O Internet/cell phone alerts
O Telephone dialers
O Fixed sirens/audible alarms
O Emergency broadcast system
O Fire/police - going door to door
O Vehicle mounted voice communication
O Fixed message boards on public roadways
O Other
O Do not know
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
How many public inquiries has your LEPC received and responded to during the past 12 months?
a) 1-5 inquiries
b) 6-10 inquiries
c) 10-20 inquiries
d) 21 or more
e) None
35) How does your LEPC interact with chemical facilities in your area of service? (Select all that apply)
O Collecting reports/fees
O Meetings
O Visits to the facilities
O Discussion about Risk Management Program (RMP) plans
O Other
36) Other than receipt of reports/fees from chemical facilities in your area of service, how often does
your LEPC communicate with those facilities?
a) Weekly
b) Monthly
c) Quarterly
d) Every six months
e) Annually
f) Never
Funding
3 7) Does your LEPC have an operating budget?
a) Yes
b) No
3 8) Does your LEPC receive direct funding?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 42
39) Please indicate the agencies/organizations from which your LEPC receives direct funding. (Select all
that apply)
O State fees from Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) report
submission
O Local fees from EPCRA report submission
O Other local government funding
O Other state government funding
O Federal funding - e.g., Hazmat Emergency Preparedness (HMEP) Grants
O Private industry
O Other
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
40) Does your LEPC receive any indirect/in-kind funding (e.g, meeting space, office equipment)?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 44
41) Please indicate the type of indirect funding your LEPC receives. (Select all that apply)
O Office space
O Meeting space
O Materials or office supplies
O Use of computers or other equipment
O Printing
O Other
Support from Federal Agencies
42) In the past five years, did your LEPC receive technical assistance or guidance from any federal
government agencies?
a) Yes
b) No - Skip to Question 47
43) From which of the following federal agencies did your LEPC receive technical assistance or
guidance? (Select all that apply)
O U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
O U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
O Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
O DHS (other than FEMA)
O U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)
O Other
44) The support (technical assistance or guidance) received from EPA has played a significant role in
guiding your LEPC's activities:
0 Neither Agree
Strongly D. Strongly
A«ree Nor Disagree D'Sagfee
000 00
45) As a representative of your LEPC, how often do you visit the EPA Office of Emergency
Management (OEM) Web site http://www.epa.gov/oem (formerly http://www.epa.gov/ceppo) for
technical guidance or other information?
a) At least once a week
b) At least once a month
c) At least once every six months
d) At least once a year
e) Never - Skip to Question 50
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
46) When visiting the OEM Web site, I found the information I was looking for:
a) Right away
b) After performing a site search
c) After browsing through the site
d) I was unable to find the exact information
47) Please rank your level of satisfaction with the technical information you received by visiting the
OEM Web site.
Very Moderately .. , . . f. , Not At All
Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied
o o o o
Homeland Security
(The potential for terrorist events and/or events extending beyond chemical to radiological and
biological incidents)
48) Since the events of 9/11, the overall activity level of your LEPC has:
Increased Increased Stayed About Decreased Decreased Do Not
Greatly Somewhat the Same Somewhat Greatly Know
O O O O O O
49) Since 9/11, the number of requests from the public for chemical hazard information has:
Increased Increased Stayed About Decreased Decreased Do Not
Greatly Somewhat the Same Somewhat Greatly Know
50) Since 9/11, has your LEPC changed the way chemical hazard information is made available to the
public due to homeland security concerns?
a) Yes
b) No
Strengths and Additional Needs
51) What is the single greatest factor contributing to the success of your LEPC?
a) Funding
b) Dedicated leadership (Chair)
c) Dedicated membership
d) Regularly scheduled meetings
e) Local government support
f) Cooperation from regulated community
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
-------
g) State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) support
h) Public interest
i) Other
52) What is the greatest obstacle to the success of your LEPC?
a) Funding
b) Lack of dedicated leadership
c) Low membership involvement
d) Infrequent and/or irregular meetings
e) Poor local government support
f) Poor State Emergency Response Commission (SERC) support
g) Public apathy
h) Limited cooperation from regulated community
i) Other
53) In which of the following areas could your LEPC use assistance? (Select all that apply)
O Determining the level of risk in your jurisdiction
O Identification and compliance assistance for non-reporting facilities
O Conducting drills and exercises
O Developing/reviewing local emergency response plans
O Data management
O Outreach and communicating with the public
O Integrating homeland security into emergency plans
O Coordination with state and federal agencies
54) The LEPC on which I serve has had a positive impact on chemical safety in the community
(prevention, preparedness, and response).
0 Neither Agree
Strongly . T\- Strongly
. Agree Disagree _. °J
Agree .. _. Disagree
0 Nor Disagree
000 00
Please provide additional comments, including best practices, in the space below:
2008 Nationwide Survey of LEPCs
------- |