Unitec States Office of Poficy December 1988
Environmental Protection Planning and Evaluation EPA-230-06-89-063
Agency Washington DC 20460
&EPA Processing Hazardous
Materials Risk Information
at the Local Level
ST*%.
&
O
CD
O
^ PRO^
-------
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
and 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. Manhelm, Consultant
December 30, 1988
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements i
Introduction 1
Objectives 1
Activities 2
Methodology 4
Findings 6
LEPC Structure and Operation 6
Members' Perceptions 8
Membership Composition 18
Internal Cohesiveness 27
Conclusions 33
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
Gustafson, 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 the final report on Phase 1 of this project, conducted between March and October, 1988, under
Cooperative Agreement No. 814921. It addresses the issue of environmental risk communication
under Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA). That act calls
for the creation in each state of Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs) which are to include
representatives of local government; police, Tire, hospital and other emergency response 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-
sponding 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 charged 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 III.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of Phase I 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 arid 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.
1
-------
ACTIVITIES
This seclion 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 p
-------
• Rural, low intensity - Franklin County.
Estimated 1985 population 37,300. Median income 1070 $14,892.
Lumber, wood products, furniture, apparel
• Rural, high intensity - Rockingham County/Cily 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 wc were attempting, among other things, to determine whether the Hazards Analysis
Presentation was useful lo groups such as LEPCs, we decided it was necessary to learn more
about (he 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 lo this report as
Appendix B. 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 ,md the Title II) process, provided valuable
insights which are discussed in subsequent sections.
3
-------
METHODOLOGY
Since the LEPCs are new institutions, there existed no prior research lo guide us in identifying key
questions to be asked or framing hypotheses lo be tested. As a result, we designed an exploratory
data collection instrument intended to produce a description of the LEPCs and lo discover patterns
which could suggest lines for future research.
In April, 1988, packets were sent to the Chairs of the 80 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 wore 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 lo 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 lo 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 questionnair es. 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 feet 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 Ihem to complete the questionnaire.
4
-------
Our "sample" resulted from an attempt to achieve a census of state LEPCs 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 out 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 planning 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 chance in n sample of this type if they did not exist
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 stale, the sampling technique employed encouraged re-
sponses primarily Trom 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 pallorns 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.
5
-------
FINDINGS
LEPC STRUCTURE AND OPERATION
Information on the structure, organization and activities of 1 be 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 Ihe committees can be derived by aggregating responses of
individual members lo our questionnaire.
Structure
Twenty nine of the committees that sent in member responses filed LEPC Information Forms. These
indicate that, at Ihe time of the sludy, the LEPCs had boon in existence for an average of six months
and had 18 members. In compliance with Ihe legislation thai 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 their responsibilities. The following table shows
the distribution of subcommittees as reported on the LEPC Information Forms. It indicates thai there
was little consensus on how best to organize the work of the 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.
6
-------
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 centralily 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 lo record and retrieve lhe informa-
tion contained on the MSDSs, 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 Ihem 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 stago of the planning process which the com-
mittees had reached. (See question 9 on the information shoot.) 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 7%
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 nil 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 separale 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
8
-------
on our respondents as representative samples of the individual LEPCs. This argued against
committee-by-committee analysis. Second, we found no important differences among the response
palterns 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 o( 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 were
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 fell 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
9
-------
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
iuAuk
mm?.
wssmmmsM
MUMW.
»»««»*«»»
Qi:
mem
0 10 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 concentrated in a few organizations. Overall, the
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 commiltee's ability to develop Hie comprehensive response
plan, to develop it on lime, to establish procedures for responding to citizens' requests for information,
and lo secure cooperation from local business and government. At this stage, they were noticeably
less confident of their chances of securing adequate citizen 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, most LEPC members exhibited a "can do" altitude with respect lo their organizations'
capacity for the tasks assigned to them
Resources
This confidence exists in the face of a pessimistic view of the 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 generally dissatisfied with the provision of equipment and materials from all levels of gov-
ernment. However, they tended to rale 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 lo 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
.... r-. -"r "¦"—
•.•,••>;; '.•(.•.•f.'.y.'/.v .yv.;.-.'- , y ; v.'.-.
lililiilill
.'.
• '¦'i& •'•&?*
¦} y--t ? j". $'
¦". : " ¦ '
66
76
76
61
I i i
49
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% saying likely'
*0,
% rating 4 or 5 on 5-point scale
-------
FIGURE 3
Perceived Local Support
Type of Support
Administrative coop.
Tech. Information
Facilities
Materials & supplies
wmmmmmmmmM
'miM
Operating funds
«' " . ' ' 1 ^
w* v' ' * ' > ' *"* '/ \ *+ ZS 'o* 5^ v* • ••• ^"4 OC
v'' "< /' ¦¦¦ '¦>>"-"A
, - V<0 . « ; * „ , , 1 ;
*feb:pxv;i#^
-3-
r-
73 ;
mtm
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
"!¦""*
> * <
(. N •¦ "¦ V< "-A .-
» \ s "• \ /V "-X n
67
mm
Materials & supplies
flMf
Operating funds
A&hsl
12
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
mm % rating as adequate
-------
FIGURE 5
Perceived Federal Support
Type of Support
Administrative coop.
40
y< < £ < <*r f./ ' <*< .
mmwvi
Tech. Information
'fir"y;''- &'y
Facilities
Materials & supplies
Operating funds
0
% 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 MEMBERS SAYING IT IS:
SERIOUS MINOR UNIMPORTANT
28% 51% 21%
21% 46% 34%
19% 36% 45%
14% 35% 51%
12% 31% 56%
7% 11% 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 do not feel !ha! the LEPC is well-connected to the
16
-------
FIGURE
Assessment of LEPC
6
Procedures
Internal Procedure
Power sharing
Meetings
Use of mbr. skills
Hazards analysis
Workload
pwpp
ifcXv/:Ss&.
*»»%«
wmi
mm
mm
mm®
mmvi
*fmm
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
percent rating high1
*% scoring 4 or 5 on 5-point scale
-------
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 before them
MEMBERSHIP COMPOSITION
Since the LEPCs are their members, we turn next to a series of questions about who they are, how
they define the mission of Ihe committees and how they evaluate their personal preparation for ful-
filling that mission. The profile of LEPC members thai 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, G1% had earned college degrees and 38% had postgraduate degrees.
Forty nine percent considered their occupation lo 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 or skills and information necessary
to their mission. Figure 8 graphically illustrates thai if is also a fairly well-balanced composilion in
which no one group dominates.
Virginia's LEPC members are, in short, well-educated, long-term residents of their communities with
occupalional backgrounds that seem appropriate to the job of the LEPC. Clearly they are NOT a cross
section or 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 composilion of the committees seems to be dictated to
18
-------
FIGURE 7
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
-------
FIGURE 8
LEPC Members Backgrounds
Government
23% /
Industry
21%
Emergency
20%
Unaffiliated
22%
"Watchdog"
15%
LEPC members from each group
-------
some degree by the nature of their main mission and there is little reason lo 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 Tor now we can note that business representatives do not dominate Ihe com-
mittees numerically and there seem to be ample potential representatives of the public interest on Ihe
committees in the members who are from public sector organizations and wa.tchdog groups as well
as "unaffiliated" 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 Ihey 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 lime
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 thrs 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
-------
SKILL
AVERAGE RATING
(out o( a possible 5)
Leadership ability
4.0
Formulating plans
3.9
Public relations skills
3.3
Understanding polilical issues
3.8
Writing reports
3.7
Understanding technical materials
3.6
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 111 at they feel capable of taking on a more
proactive, politically-oriented rale 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 reflecls 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
-------
SUBJECT
% WITH STRONG
BACKGROUND
AVERAGE RATING
(out of a possible 5)
Dealing with government
68%
4.0
Formulating plans
68%
3.8
Reading technical materials
60%
3 6
Dealing with Ihe 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%
2.9
These figures are a tribute to the recruiting process user! !o form llie LEPCs since the members bring
the right experience (o the job. While we expected strong planning and technical backgrounds, we
were surprised lo find that members reported equally strong backgrounds in dealing with government
officials and the media and in resolving conflicts. Only in (he areas of communicating technical plans
and using personal computers (which could be a great help la 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 Inking on more political roles after their
plans have been approved.
In fact, we asked Ihem what they saw as the appropriate role for Ihe 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 Ihe LEPCs in Ihe future.
24
-------
Major Goals and Problems of the LEPCs
How do these LEPC members see the job of their organisation? The first item on the questionnaire
was an open-ended question about what the member saw as Hie most important purpose of the LEPC
— what major contribution it was to make to (he community. Responses fell into the eight categories
identified in Figure 9. Almost half of all respondents repeated 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 organizations). Sixteen percent gave a general
response thai translated inlo ensuring the safety of the community with regard to hazardous materi-
als. Fifteen percent felt they were to inform citizens ot the 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 leave little room
for involving the public in the planning process, educating the public about environmental risks or
promoting community dialogue about risks.
We next asked what members saw as the major problem confronting Iheir 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
thai 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
^ k111 M ' ¦ ""-I'JJjMH huj.ii,
Develop response pin
47
Gather hazmat info.
Identify facilities
Coordinate plans
Ensure public safety
mmz&m
\/ ss I ' f
Inform citizens
Reassure citizens
Other
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
iH % naming as purpose
-------
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 from businesses 7%
Lack of cooperation from state and/or local government 6%
Complex or oppressive federal regulations 5%
Oilier 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 or government agencies
with hazardous materials may seek to conceal dangers associated 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 Ihe organization seek la identify find 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 will) 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
27
-------
total); and 3) those who were affiliated with "watchdog" tjroups like the media, concerned citizens'
groups or environmental interest organizations (19% of Ihis total).
We first looked at the composition of the individual LEPCs in terms of this categorization ol their
members and found that most individual committees am not dominated by any one group. In one
committee a majority of the responding members came fiom 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 llio committees. We found that members
of government and the emergency response orgnnU.ilions 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.
% HOLDING AN
GROUP LEPC OFFICE
Emergency 43%
Government 42%
Industry 28%
Watchdog 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 Ihe work of the LEPC can be merged
with members' other professional activities. Planners, fire chiefs, etc., oflen 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 or statistical significance. The tests of statistical sig-
28
-------
nificance were used only as summary indicators since we recognize thai the nature of our sampling
technique renders such tests technically inappropriate for these data. To anticipate otir final conclu-
sion in this section, we found very few meaningful differences amongjhe groups. We can present the
data thai show these differences and some data thai relict:! Ihe pattern that dominated the cases in
which we found no significant differences lo help the render understand the degree of consensus that
we found in this sample of LEPCs.
Figures 10 and 11 show the extent lo which members of all four groups agreed on some major
questions about the LEPC. Since Ihe differences shown are not statistically significant, these tables
indicate that representatives of all four groups generally agree 011 the major purpose of the LEPCs,
the nature of the problems Ihey 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 Ihe various groups
were of substantive interest. In both cases, 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 (p = .C4) less likely to feel that a lack of cooperation from local businesses
was a problem for (he LEPC, as the following summary table suggests.
% SAYING LACK OF BUSINESS
GROUP COOPERATION NOT A PROBLEM
Emergency 4B%
Government 54%
Industry 52%
Watchdog 70%
The second significant (p = .03) difference among groups came in their evaluation of Ihe LEPCs re-
lations with the media. Here again, members of the watchdog group were more positive than mem-
bers of the other groups. The following summary table shows that watchdog group members were far
29
-------
FIGURE 10*
AGREEMENT ON PURPOSE/PROBLEMS/FUTURE
% Identifying % Seeing % Saying "Stop
Planning as Funding as Work" When
Group Main Purpose" Main Problem Plan Complete
Emergency
58%
37%
6%
Industry
52%
45%
15%
Government
68%
35%
10%
"Watchdog"
55%
35%
10%
^Compare proportions down columns to see degree of
agreement among goups.
"Computed by combining planning responses to Question 1.
-------
FIGURE 11*
AGREEMENT ON LEPC WEAKNESSES
% Rating as
"Poor"
% Rating as
"Unlikely"
Public
Public
Secure cit-
Inform cit-
Group
visibility
confidence
izen input
izens OF PLAN
Emergency
42%
30%
29%
22%
Industry
49%
28%
20%
10%
Government
30%
24%
18%
13%
"Watchdog"
45%
39%
25%
13%
~Compare proportions down columns to see degree of agreement
AMONG GROUPS.
-------
more likfily to rate 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%
23%
Industry
1 B%
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 lo feel lhal 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 holh the focus group discussions with the
four "case study" LEPCs and data from a statewide sample 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 Ihe study was conducted at an early stage in SARA's implementa-
tion, when some LEPCs had not yet been formed and others 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, busi-
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 expecled 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 Ihe plan, (questionnaire; focus grotips)
A. 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 elficientiy processing information on hazardous
materials in their communities. Although these LEPCs reported receiving as many as 10,000
MSDSs, very Tew or them had anything other than a paper record ot 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 feel capable of taking on a proactive
politically-oriented role (questionnaire).
2. Despite their confidence in their individual abilities, at this stage most members are less confi-
dent regarding the chance that their LEPC wiii secure 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
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 ttiis 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 thai Ihey are being asked to do a difficult
task with loo few resources, (questonnaire; focus groups)
-------
4. Members tend to rate the provision of technical information by alt levels of government as ade-
quate and to see the administrative cooperation received from state and local governments as
adequate, (questionnaire)
PLANNING AND COMMUNICATING WITH THE WIDER PUBLIC
1. At this early stage in (he process, LEPC members generally do not 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 chancjc 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)Pehp1.
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
1. 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 their perceptions of or attitudes toward the
LEPCs. (questionnaire)
RECOMMENDATIONS
The fact that our observations were confined to one state incvitabley 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 he
-------
Guidance should be provided to the LEPCs to resolve the apparent conflicts of interest experi-
enced by some media representatives by altering tl)e selection of LEPC members or devising
"operating rules" for the media-affiliated members.
While the existing process for recruiting members for the LEPCs has produced technically com-
petent organizations, efforts should be made to expnnci the variety of groups represented cn tl}e
committees as they move into a phase of their work which requires more communication with the
public.
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
a land-grant university
University Center (or Environmental & Hazardous Materials Studies
201a Architecture Annex Btacksburg Virginia 24061 USA
(703) 961-7500 TX: 9103331861 VPI BKS Bilnet: 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 by the
University Center for Environmental and Hazardous-Materials Studies at Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Enclosed 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 tho support of tho Commonwealth of Virginia, 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. Baiiey'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 fill it out. In any
event, however you choose to handle the distribution, please emphasize the importance
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
5. Return all of the completed surveys (still in their sealed envelopes) in the enclosed
pre-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.
in step 2).
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!
-------
CYNTHIA V BAILEY
EXECUTIVE DlHECTOR
TO:
FROM:
RE:
COMMONWEALTH of V1RQ1NIA
DEPARTMENT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT
James Monroe Building, Eleventh Floor
101 North Fourteenth Street
Richmond 23219
(804) 225-2667
MEMORANDUM
Local Emergency Planning Committee Members
Cynthia V. Bailey, Chair /7~~T~/f
Virginia Emergency Response
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Membership Survey
V -tfCfNiA
VVA'ATC MANAot*WENT
*OARP
JAMtLS R CRAiG
BLACKS9URG
jAM£S A DAVIS
WINCHESTER
chr-stopher duerksen
cfleoesiCKseu^Q
ANDREW HARGROVE
HAMPTON
JOAN MacCALLUM
LYNCHBURG
MSCha£l VARKELS jr
SPP.NGKELD
FRANK H MllLER. «,R
HAMPTON
DATE:
March 24, 1988
The University Center for Environmental and Hazardous
Materials Studies (UCE & HMS) at Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University has entered into a cooperative agreement
with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency to study hazardous
materials risk assessment and risk communication within local
communities. UCE & HMS has decided to focus the first phase of
its exploratory research on the local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) which have been formed to implement the
provisions of Title III of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).
Enclosed please find a survey prepared by the UCE & HMS.
Its purpose is to obtain information on the nature, composition
and operation of the LEPCs formed in the Commonwealth. The
survey data will be used by the UCE & HMS to determine what kinds
of educational materials should be developed to assist LEPC
members perform their tasks more effectively.
While your participation in this project is voluntary, I
strongly encourage you to complete the survey. Your answers will
provide the UCE & HMS with the ability to make meaningful
conclusions and recommendations on the effectiveness of the local
emergency planning process. The conclusions and recommendations
of this study may ultimately affect the level of funding provided
to the LEPCs for successful implementation of SARA Title III
programs throughout the Commonwealth.
/bem
-------
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY
n land-grant university
University Center for Environmental & Hazardous Materials Studies
201a Architecture Annex Blacksburg Virginia 24061 USA
(703) 961-7508 TX: 9103331961 VP! BKS Bitnct: CONN at VTVM1
May 30, 1988
TO:
Virginia LEPC Chairs
FROM:
W. David Conn L.
William L. Owens
Richard C. Rich
SUBJECT:
Survey of LEPC Members
Several weeks ago wo sent you a survey for distribution to all of Ihe members of your LEPC.
We would like to thank those of you who have had an opportunity already to conduct the
survey and return to us the completed forms.
If you have not yet been able to return the forms, we would appreciate your doing so as soon
as possible.
You may wish to remind the members of your LEPC lo give these forms back to you, for
mailing in the single pre-stamped envelope which we provided. A few individuals apparently
have been confused and have sent their responses directly to (tie Department of Waste
Management.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions. Once again, thank you for your cooper-
ation!
-------
LEPC INFORMATION FORM
(To be completed by the LEPC Chair)
In what month and year was your LEPC officially formed?
How many members now serve on the LEPC?
How many, if any, vacant positions are there now on ttie 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?
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 lo 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:
1
(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.
2
-------
- LEPC MEMBERSHIP SURVEY -
This survey is a part of research being conducted by the University Center for Environmental & Haz-
ardous Materials Studies at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in cooperation with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Tho purpose of the survey is to learn about the operation of Virginia's local emergency planning
committees (LEPCs) anrl 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 gel 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 thai 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 important purpose 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?
-------
How would you rate the degree to which your LEPC has each of the following dualities? (CIRCLE
THE NUMBER THAT CORRESPONDS TO YOUR ANSWER)
QUALITY
Good information gathering capabilities
Good capacity for analyzing information
Capable and dedicated leaders
Capable and dedicated members
A wor kable system oF subcommittees
Capacity for communicating with
government agencies
Capacity for communicating with
business and industry
Capacity for communicating with
the general public
Good relations with the media
High public visibility
Confidence of Hie public in its
ability to protect their interests
EXCELLENT
FAIR
3
3
3
3
3
INADEQUATE
4. How would you describe your LEPC's efforts to communicate with businesses in its jurisdiction?
EXCELLENT ADEQUATE INADEQUATE
5 4 3 2 1
5. How would you describe the level of cooperation your LEPC receives from most businesses in the
area?
EXCELLENT ADEQUATE INADEQUATE
5 4 3 2 1
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
FEDERAL
Operating funds
I A N
1 A N
i A N
Technical information
I A N
1 A N
1 A N
Equipment and materials
1 A N
1 A N
1 A N
Facilities
1 A N
1 A N
1 A N
Administrative cooperation
1 A N
1 A N
1 A N
2
-------
7. How likely do you think it is that your LEPC can accomplish each of of the following goals?
VERY 50/50 NOT
GOAL LIKELY CHANCE LIKELY
Developing a comprehensive plan for responding 5 4 3 2
to hazardous materials emergencies which
meets the requirements of SARA
Developing this plan 5 4 3 2
BY THE OCTOBER 17, 1988 DEADLINE
Establishing workable procedures for processing 5 4 3 2
citizens' requests for information on hazardous
materials (eg: Materials Safety Data Sheets)
Getting local government agencies to cooperate 5 4 3 2
by making preparations to implement the plan
Gelling local businesses to cooperate by making 5 4 3 2
preparations to implement the plan
Securing enough citizen involvement in designing 5 4 3 2
the plan to make it realistic and effective
Informing citizens of the plan well enough that 5 4 3 2
Ihey can cooperate with it
8. Do you agree or disagree that the following statements accurately describe your LEPC?
STRONGLY STRONGLY
STATEMENT AGREE NEUTRAL DISAGREE
Decision making power is widely shared
among all members.
LEPC meetings are well organized and clearty
focused on specific tasks.
The work load expected of members is
appropriate for a volunteer organization.
We have the skills and information to conduct
a sound hazards analysis for most risks
in our area.
The LEPC makes full use of most of its
members' skills and knowledge.
The LEPC makes full use of MY skills and
knowledge.
3
-------
9. Which or the following best describes the role you think your LEPC will play AFTER the compre-
hensive preparedness plan is accepted? (You may circle more than one.)
1....Stop work 3 ..Become involved in implementation of the plan
1....Continue planning for emergencies 8 ...Other
10. Turning to some questions about you, how many months have you been a member of the LEPC?
(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-
ization?
(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 or LEPC activities
• Attending seminars or training sessions
• Studying about hazardous materials risks on your own
4
-------
14 A variety of materials have been developed la explain Title III and lo 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?
HOW DO YOU RATE
ITS USEFULNESS?
MATERIAL OR PRESENTATION
• "Hazardous Materials Emergency Planning Guide''
(NRT-1) by The National Response Team
• "Technical Guidance for Hazards Analysis"
prepared by Environmental Protection Agency
• "Emergency Operations Plan.Airborne Hazardous
Substances'' prepared by Virginia Department
of Emergency Services
• Five-day 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
CAN'T
GOOD FAIR POOR JUDGE
15. Are you a member of any of the following types of organizations or groups?
TYPE OF ORGANIZATION MEMBER?
Fire department
YES
NO
Rescue squad
YES
NO
Police department
YES
NO
Hospital emergency team
YES
NO
Industry safety team
YES
NO
Industry management
YES
NO
News media
YES
NO
Elected officials
YES
NO
Government planning agency
YES
NO
Environmental interest group
YES
NO
5
-------
1fi. How would you rate your own ability in cacti of the following areas?
SKILL
EXCELLENT
FAIR
Public speaking
5
4
3
2
Writing reports
5
A
3
2
Understanding technical materials
5
4
3
2
Understanding political issues
5
4
3
2
Ability to formulate plans
5
4
3
2
Public relations skills
5
4
3
2
Leadership ability
5
4
3
2
INADEQUATE
17 How much experience have you had with nnch of the following?
SUBJECT GREAT DEAL
Analyzing the risks posed hy hazardous materials 5
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
SOME
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
VERY LITTLE
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
6
-------
1fl. For background information, how many years have you lived in (his community?
(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
21. What is your job title? (For example: Safety director for local chemical firm; Public information
ofricer 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?
(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 lei us have any comments you want to make on
the reverse side or on additional sheets.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!
7
-------
APPENDIX
-------
EVALUATION OF THE HAZARDS ANALYSIS PRESENTATION
We sought to evaluate the hazards analysis presentation provided to the LEPCs by EPA from two main
perspectives:
1. We wanted to know what impact seeing the presentation had on LEPC members' opinions and
perceptions with regard to a variety of issues affecting the LEPC.
2. We wanted lo know how the members assessed the quality and usefulness of the presentation.
We askod the members of four LEPCs to complete a self-administcrcd 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 lo 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 aboul the presentation. Since there
were few systematic differences among the results obtained frorn 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 afler viewing Ihe presentation. The results can be reported
as answers to seven broad questions.
1. How do members rale Ihe importance of five tasks to the mission of the LEPC. and how does this
rating change after viewing Ihe presentation?
This question was answered through members' responses to Item 1 on the pretest and Item 4 on
Ihe posttesl. Overall, members rated four of the five tasks as highly important both before and
afler the presentation The task of providing for public participation in the planning activities of
Ihe LEPC was given a lower overall rating than the other four tasks.
The task which is most relevant lo the purposes of Ihe presentation is lhat 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
lhat the need for hazards analysis was salient lo members even before the presentation.
Afler the presentation, members' rating of the other tasks did no! change in any systematic way.
There was, however, a slight increase in Ihe overall importance rating given to hazards analysis
(from just above a 4 to closer to a 4.5 on a 5-poinl 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 lask and indicates that Ihe 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 thai members were, at best, "fairly confi-
dent" of the adequacy of Ihe 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 Ihe 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 thai the presentation dW stimulate thought about what
kinds of information were needed lo 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 is this confidence affected by viewing the presentation?
1
-------
Responses to Hem 4 on the pretest indicated more variance in members' opinions on this than
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
lo Item 6 on the posttest revealed somewhat less variance in the responses and a slightly higher
overall level of confidence. This suggests that the presentation led the average member to feel
as if he or she understood the requirements of a hazards analysis a little better than before.
4 How well do members feel they understand six terms related (o hazards analysis and how is this
understanding affected by the presentation7
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-
ticeably 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 lo ttem 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 feejing that they understood the
terms better than before, thought it is important lo note, that we die) noi 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 were valuable tools both before and after the
presentation. Comparisons of responses to Horn 6 on the pretest and Item 8 on the posttest show
that there was little variation in members opinions on this and thai 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 understand9
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 ofthe 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 Ihe 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
2
-------
critical of the presentation than others. This may relate to their individual characteristics or to the fact
that the Richmond presentation was somewhat truncated al the request of the LEPC chair.
Second, in Item 2 of the pretest, we asked members what they expected to learn from the presentation
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
or risk analysis in some way. Overall, it is clear that 1) LEPC members had very little information
about the presentation in advance, and 2) members of different LEPCs had NOT been given system-
atically different kinds of information about what lo expect. Moreover, there was little correspondence
between what people said they 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.
In Item 1 of the posttest, asked members to tell us what they found to be the most valuable thing they
gained Trom the presentation. Most responses were unique to lhe individual who gave them and there
was clearly no consensus. However, five general responses were offered by more than one or two
members. In order lo 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. A sense of urgency about gelling the planning process underway prompted by recognition or the
magnitude of the task of the LEPC.
5. An overview of the full mission of the LEPC.
Interestingly, in answering this question, only one person specifically mentioned the utiliiy of com-
puters in the planning process and only two gave responses which could be interpreted as referring
to the use of computers.
Item 2 of the posttest asked LEPC members to rate the quality of the presentation on each of five cri-
teria. Respondents were 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. Clarity of the main points: 43 percent 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 roughly 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 lhe presentation.
Finally, Item 3 of the posttest asked respondents to suggest lhe 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 respondenl were:
3
-------
Provide more practical examples of how lo conduct a hazards analysis.
Provide more detail on how to do a hazards analysis.
Reduce the level of sophistication of the presentation to fit the needs of an audience of lay vol-
unteers.
Notahly. only one individual's suggestions was directed at improving Hie 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 overall planning
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 urgency 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 Tor 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.
4
-------
Summary and Suggestions
In general, the presentation must be evaluated as an effective way to introduce the LEPC members
lo 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
programs 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 in 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 Held? We Teel (he 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 lime 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 of the
approach to the individual LEPC.
4. The presenter should have on-hand a computer which can be used both to show how 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 al least one exercise in which members are asked to
participate in actually doing elements of a hazards analysis.
5
-------
30273 ¦ 10:
REPORT DOCUMENTATION (^2^-06-89-063
1 Acc»«t'©n No_ ^
W90 231200TB
4. Title and Subtitle
Processing Hazardous Materials Kisk Information
at the Local level
S. fUoorl Data
December 1988
ft.
7. Author**)
W. David conn, William L.Ctocns, Richard C.Rich, Jarol B. Manlieim
S. P*rformfn^ Organlxatlon Rapt. No.
9. Performing Organization Name end Addreie
University Center For Environmental and Hazardous Materials Study
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Univeristy
Blacksburg, VA 24061
10. Protact/Taik/Wort Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Qrant(G) No.
(O
(Q) Cooperative Agreement
No. CR 814921
12. Sponsoring Organization Nam* and Add rati
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluatin, FM-221
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
13. Typa of Raport * Parlod Covarad
Final for Phase I
14.
11 Supplementary Note*
Phase II report also in available
IS. Abatract (Limit: 200 word*)
This pilot study examines the role of Local Emergency Planning Comr.itLees (LEPC^set up unde
Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act) in communicating about the
risks from hazardous wastes in Superfund or RCRA sites as well as the risks from hazardous
substances covered under the Community Right-to-know Law. This phase evaluated the
usefulness of certain hazard analysis materials to the LEPCs. Eighty LEPCs in Virginia
were surveyed about their activities and their perceptions of their responsibilities for
carmunicating to their communities about Title III risks. The major conclusion for Phase I
is thai LEPCs were emphasizing Lhe development of their local emergency plans. Ccmmunicatin
with the local citizenry was a secondary concern at that time. Phase II is examining how
th
------- |