NATIONWIDE LEPC SURVEY: SUMMARY REPORT
                                    
         William C. Adams; Stephen D. Burns; Philip G. Handwerk
               Department of Public Administration
                The George Washington University
                      Washington, DC 20052
                  (202) 994-7494 (703) 522-4331
                          October 1994

       Grant funding for this research was provided by the
    Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention Office of
            the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The current status of America's Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPCs) cannot be generalized as either utter failure or phenomenal
success.  However, many LEPCs are doing a far better job than their
critics imagined.  One fourth of the LEPCs strictly comply with
their legal mandates and even take numerous proactive steps that go
beyond the minimum required by law. 

Though not as proactive, most other LEPCs are highly compliant
(16%) or mostly compliant (39%) with the law.  Yet, despite this
vigor, about one fifth (21%) of all LEPCs -- disproportionately in
less-populated and rural counties -- are inactive or, if once
active, are now defunct.  

These and other findings are drawn from survey data of 1,151 LEPCs. 
The nationwide, population-weighted poll was conducted in the
summer of 1994 by a research team from The George Washington
University. 

Background.  
Title III of the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) is a provision called the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) commonly referred to as SARA Title III or
just SARA III.  

SARA III stipulated that each governor appoint a State Emergency
Response Commission (SERC).  Each SERC was then to create Local
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs).  Most SERCs created one LEPC
for each county.  A few states used small townships or boroughs; a
few created large LEPCs encompassing many counties.  

Each LEPC was supposed to submit an emergency response plan to the
SERC no later than October, 1988.  LEPCs were also given various
other duties.  This nationwide survey was designed to measure the
progress that have LEPCs made to date in fulfilling these
responsibilities. 

COMPLIANCE & PROACTIVITY

Compliance.  
To what extent have LEPCs complied with the requirements of SARA
III?  To satisfy ten key provisions of the law, LEPCs need to have
the following:

(1)  An LEPC Chair
(2)  An Emergency Coordinator
(3)  An Information Coordinator
(4)  Members representing at least 12 of 13 specified groups 
(5)  Formal LEPC meetings
(6)  Publicly advertised meetings 
(7)  An emergency response plan submitted to the SERC
(8)  A plan incorporating at least 9 of 10 key SARA III elements 
(9)  A plan that has been reviewed in the past year 
(10) Published newspaper notice that the plan and local hazardous
     substances data are publicly available

Proactivity.  
To what extent have LEPCs gone beyond the minimum letter of the
law?  To assess "proactivity," five additional factors can be
examined:  Whether the LEPC . . .

(1)  Has practiced the plan in the past 12 months 
(2)  Has updated the plan in the past 12 months
(3)  Has a plan that takes natural hazards into account
(4)  Uses its EHS data to make hazard reduction or prevention
     recommendations to local government or to industry 
(5)  Meets at least quarterly 

ACTIVITY CATEGORIES

LEPCs can be sorted according to their degrees of compliance and
proactivity.  In this report, they are grouped into these four
categories: (1) Proactive, 24% of LEPCs surveyed; (2) Compliant,
16%; (3) Quasi-Active, 39%; and Inactive, 21%.

Proactive LEPCs.  
LEPCs are classified as Proactive if they have complied with all
(10/10) or almost all (9/10) of the ten SARA III provisions listed
above (including a completed, SERC-submitted plan) and also have
performed at least four of the five proactive initiatives listed
above.  A substantial number of all surveyed LEPCs earned the
Proactive designation (24%).  

Proactive LEPCs excel across the board, but, when examined for any
common deficiencies, public communication tends to be their weakest
area (just as for other LEPCs). 

Compliant LEPCs.  
The Compliant LEPCs -- 16% of all LEPCs --   fully satisfy at least
nine of the ten SARA III provisions (including a SERC-submitted
plan) but have not performed as many as four of the five proactive
factors on page 2. 

Compliant LEPCs are most likely to default on the requirement to
publish newspaper notices of the public availability of their EPCRA
data and plan.  Only 56% do so. 

Quasi-Active LEPCs.  
These LEPCs comply with a majority of the ten legal mandates noted
above, but fall short in two to four areas and/or have not filed a
completed emergency plan with the SERC.  Quasi-Active LEPCs
comprise 39% of all LEPCs.  

Quasi-Active LEPCs are not exactly dormant.  Yet, they are
neglecting several areas of the law, especially those involving
public communications requirements.  For example:

* Only 53% of all Quasi-Active LEPCs publicly advertise their
formal meetings.
* Only 34% of all Quasi-Active LEPCs have published newspaper
notices of the availability of their plans and EPCRA data.

Quasi-Active LEPCs tend to be behind in most other SARA III
activities as well.  For example, just 60% have submitted completed
plans to their SERC.  And only 72% of those that do have completed
plans have reviewed the plans in the past year.

Inactive LEPCs.  
This study classifies LEPCs as Inactive if they fail to comply with
a majority of the ten SARA III requirements noted above -- or the
Chair acknowledged that the LEPC had become defunct, had never been
active, or had just begun tentative efforts to organize. 

These LEPCs have poor records on most issues covered in the survey. 
Some Inactive LEPCs technically do have an emergency response plan
-- but, their plan was inherited from years gone by and has rarely,
if ever, been updated.

Why are these LEPCs inactive? 

*   According to 67%, the indifference of their local community is
the reason.  Many blame their small population base.  
*   Inadequate financial support constrains 38%.  Several wrote
that they need "resources to go with the mandates" and need
"funding, funding, funding." 
*   A perceived lack of actual chemical threats was singled out by
34% as the reason for inactivity. 

What sort of LEPCs are idle?   Population size is the best
predictor of LEPC lethargy.  Almost half (47%) of all Inactive
LEPCs have jurisdictions with fewer than 20,000 residents. 
Inactive LEPCs are also more likely to be rural and somewhat less
affluent.  Inactive LEPCs exist in all regions, but are slightly
more common in the West where there are a few more sparsely
populated jurisdictions. 

Note that throughout the rest of this report all references to
"functioning" LEPCs are based on the 79% of LEPCs that are
"Quasi-Active," "Compliant," or "Proactive" -- and excludes the 21%
that are Inactive.

STRUCTURES & PROCEDURES

*  Most functioning LEPCs have a Chairperson (99%), an Emergency
Coordinator (94%), and an Information Coordinator (96%).  They
usually have formal rules of procedure (86%) and hold formal
meetings (91%). 

*  Only 42% of functioning LEPCs have an operating budget to
support their activities.  Some draw direct funding from local
governments (34%) and a few from local industry (14%). 

*  Most functioning LEPCs have sought additional resources.  In
accordance with SARA III, many LEPCs have made recommendations
regarding resources they need (71%), but only about half (54%) have
made recommendations regarding the means for providing such
resources.

*  Most functioning LEPCs have recruited members from most of the
dozen areas designated in SARA III.  Elected state officials are
the least represented, serving on just 38% of LEPCs.

*  The median size of functioning LEPCs is 20 members. Their
meetings are fairly well attended, with 12 members attending the
typical meeting.  

*  Most functioning LEPCs meet on a fairly regular basis; 61% hold
formal meetings at least quarterly.  About one third (34%) meet six
or more times a year.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN

Most functioning LEPCs (81%) have completed an emergency response
plan and submitted it to their SERC; another 11% say their plan is
"mostly completed."  Characteristics of the completed plans include
the following: 

*  Most plans contain all or nearly all the elements required by
law.

*  Most plans were written by a team of LEPC members (60%) or by
one member (19%).

*  Most plans (78%) allow for natural hazards like hurricanes and
earthquakes, an element not required by law. 

Most functioning LEPCs with completed plans are giving ongoing
attention to refining their plans. 

*  Most functioning LEPCs (88%) reviewed their completed plan in
the past year.

*  Over three-fourths (78%) updated their plan in the past year. 

*  A large majority (74%) practiced and exercised their plan in the
past year.

*  In the past year, 46% both exercised and then revised their plan
as a result of the exercise. 

The status of these emergency response plans is important because
most LEPCs (62%) have had to use their plans in a chemical
emergency.

One of the most important (but not mandated) measures that LEPCs
can take is to make "hazard reduction or prevention recommendations
to industry or local government."  Nearly half (48%) of the
functioning LEPCs have taken this notable step. 

PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS

Public accountability is a fundamental theme of SARA III.  The law
outlines several specific steps to ensure and encourage public
accessibility to EHS data and the emergency planning process. 
Nonetheless, many LEPCs are lax in this area.

*  Nearly a third of the functioning LEPCs (30%) fail to advertise
their meetings to the public. 

*  Half (51%) of the functioning LEPCs fail to publish the required
newspaper notice about the public availability of the emergency
response plan and EPCRA data. 

*  Most functioning LEPCs (88%) do have procedures in place to make
the plan and the EPCRA data available to the public. 

*  Whether due to public apathy or the low profile of LEPCs, most
receive few public inquiries.  Many (41%) had no public inquiries
during the past year. Only 25% received over six inquiries.  

OTHER DATA USAGE

*  Functioning LEPCs overwhelmingly (89%) use the chemical
inventory information found on the Tier I/II forms to identify risk
areas to be addressed in the emergency plans.

*  Fewer than half (42%) of the functioning LEPCs systematically
process the extremely hazardous substances (EHS) data differently
than non-EHS data.  

*  Nearly half (45%) of the functioning LEPCs put the chemical
inventory information found on the Tier I/II forms into a
computerized database.  The remainder only use paper.

LEPC PRIORITIES

LEPC leaders were asked to select as many as three top priorities
for improving their LEPC from a list of 12 items.  Priorities are
widely dispersed.  No single factor far surpasses all the rest as
the top concern of LEPCs.  Most potential priorities are each cited
by only one or two out of every ten LEPCs.  

The top priority is "identifying nonreporting facilities," cited by
29%.  "Developing training programs" (23%) and "communicating with
the public" (21%) are other priorities.

TYPES OF ASSISTANCE

LEPCs were asked to rate the usefulness of 25 different types of
assistance: 11 EPA publications and software packages, three other
publication series, eight training and technical assistance
programs, and three types of meetings.

Of 11 EPA tools and publications, LEPC leaders consider three to be
"very useful": CAMEO, ALOHA, and the List of Lists.  None of the
EPA products was widely criticized as "not useful."

EPA training, technical assistance, and publications all compared
favorably to the evaluations of similar assistance from industry or
other government agencies.  

EPA's publications and other forms of assistance received mostly
positive reviews among those who were familiar with them. However,
many LEPC leaders are unacquainted with these resources.

The most well-known EPA publications are the NRT1 Planning Guide,
Green Book, CAMEO program, Chemicals in the Community, and List of
Lists.  Yet, about one third of the leaders of functioning LEPCs
are unfamiliar with EPA's highest profile publications.  Other
publications are unfamiliar to as many as two thirds of them.

IMPLICATIONS

The performance of LEPCs is a complex and varied pattern.  As
reviewed above, their levels of activism are extremely uneven.
About one fifth (21%) have failed to act on a majority of the basic
mandates of SARA III.  Some of these LEPCs created an emergency
plan years ago but have become lifeless today; others have recently
begun to revive.  At the other extreme, nearly a quarter (24%) have
chosen to fully comply with the details of the law and to pursue
activities beyond the minimum legal mandates.  Without exhausting
the ramifications of these survey findings, three particular
patterns should be underscored.

LEPCs in many of America's more populous jurisdictions are
surprisingly vigorous.  However, rural and small-town LEPCs are
often much less healthy, if not moribund.  SARA III was predicated
on more volunteerism, public interest, and inventive funding than
has emerged in these less-populated LEPCs.  These lagging LEPCs
might well profit from special guidance and resources.  Some might
even be consolidated with adjacent LEPCs.

Despite the "community right-to-know" goals of SARA III, public
communications is the area in which most LEPCs fall short.  Among
all functioning LEPCs, only 49% publish newspaper notice of the
public availability of their emergency plans and HazMat data and
only 70% advertise their meetings to the public.  LEPCs clearly
need to be reminded of these obligations.

Another important communications area stands out as a conspicuous
target for improvement -- the visibility of EPA publications for
LEPCs.  Among those who are familiar with them, EPA's publications
are seen as valuable.  However, EPA's publications are unknown to
between one third and two thirds of the leaders of functioning
LEPCs.  Thus, greater distribution of these materials holds the
real potential to assist LEPCs.

METHODOLOGY

Population-Weighted Sample.  
The 50 states have 2,883 LEPCs; another 427 are assigned to U.S.
territories, Native American reservations, and the District of
Columbia.  An unweighted sample would have drawn over half of the
fifty-state sample from the 1,538 LEPCs of just four states -- New
Jersey, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Texas -- since those
states each have hundreds of small LEPC districts.

Instead, the sampling strategy that was used weighted LEPCs
according to their population.  This system ensured that LEPCs in
the more populated jurisdictions were represented in approximate
proportion to their population. 
For every 120,000 residents of a state, an LEPC was sampled.  The
resulting sample size for the project was 1,435 LEPCs, including a
sample of LEPCs for U.S. territories and Native American
reservations.  Ultimately, mail surveys and supplemental telephone
interviews yielded a final completion rate of 80% (1,151 LEPCs).

Confidence Intervals.  
These 1,151 completed interviews drawn from the total of 3,310
LEPCs yields confidence intervals of 2% as a safe rule of thumb
(at the customary 95% level of probability, adjusted by the finite
population multiplier).  The text does not note confidence
intervals, however, because the central findings of this survey do
not hinge on subtle 2% margins.  

Testing for Nonresponse Bias.  
The high response rate greatly increases the likelihood that
responses are an accurate representation of the sampled population. 
Moreover, to further verify the merits of this sample, an
abbreviated telephone interview was conducted with a random sample
of 150 LEPC leaders who had not responded to the mail
questionnaires.  This exercise found that the minority who had not
responded were not significantly different in terms of LEPC
activity from those who did respond. 

Response Validation.  
To check if Chairs were willing to admit their LEPCs' shortcomings,
three dissimilar states were selected for a special analysis.  A
total of 112 LEPCs had been successfully surveyed in these three
states.  Only one of these 112 LEPCs had erroneously claimed to
have a completed, SERC-submitted, emergency response plan,
according to records obtained from their SERCs.  This litmus test
verified the candor and accuracy of LEPC responses to this crucial
question and, by extension, reinforced the reliability of all the
findings.