|
In 1986,
Congress passed the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know
Act (EPCRA), which established several thousand Local Emergency
Planning Committees (LEPC) across the United States. These LEPCs
were intended to identify chemical hazards, plan for emergencies,
convey public information, and include all stakeholders. But are
the LEPCs working? Many community activists believe that the mostly-volunteer
LEPCs are not able to fulfill the vision of EPCRA, particularly
for community involvement, hazard communication, and hazard reduction.
Below are some criteria for evaluating your LEPC. (To locate your
LEPC, see www.epa.gov/ceppo/lepclist.htm).
Check each
item completed by your LEPC.
Items completed:
- 51
to 60 -- Outstanding
- 41
to 50 -- Very Good
- 31 to
40 -- Good
- 21 to
30 -- Progressing
- 11 to
20 -- Mediocre
- 0 to
10 --- Non-functional
1.
GOALS
Has
your LEPC . . .
Established
measurable outcome goals for --
- reducing
vulnerability zones and accident potentials?
- improving
emergency response and mitigation?
- established
goals for public access to chemical hazards information?
- set
process objectives (for funding, participation, communication,
putting inherent safety before response, etc.) and annually evaluated
progress toward achieving goals?
2.
STRUCTURE AND PROCESS
Has
your LEPC . . .
- achieved
genuinely broad-based and balanced membership?
- secured
adequate funding sources and professional staffing (through legislation,
agency budgets, donations, etc)?
- adopted
a mission statement and by-laws?
- held
regular, well-attended meetings (at least quarterly)?
- held
formal meetings (advance agenda, written minutes)?
- organized
active subcommittees and established clear member roles?
- maintained
policy independence from the host agency?
- produced
an annual report (covering trends in accidents, hazards, enforcement,
drills, site-specific risk reduction, etc.)?
- utilized
external resources such as other LEPCs and government agencies
(e.g., to obtain training materials)?
3.
COMMUNITY HAZARDS ANALYSIS
Has
your LEPC . . .
(for facilities with extremely hazardous substances, EHSs):
- developed
easily understood community maps showing EHS facilities, vulnerability
zones, and transportation routes?
- obtained
needed EHS facility data through questionnaires, site visits,
and document requests (using EPCRA 303(d)(3) authority)?
- obtained
worst-case and lesser release scenarios prepared under EPA's Risk
Management Planning regulations?
- obtained
EHS facility process hazard analyses prepared under OSHA's Process
Safety Management regulations?
- asked
transportation carriers to identify standard routes, storage areas,
average amounts, and vulnerability zones?
- identified
critical facilities, vulnerable environments, and potentially
exposed populations (e.g., schools, nursing homes, residential
areas, workers on-site)?
- reviewed
hazard analyses with EHS facility managers and worker representatives
(including shelter-in- place and evacuation needs)?
- established
computerized hazards analysis capabilities?
- prioritized
hazards (e.g., by vulnerability zone)?
- independently
reviewed or tested site security measures?
4. EMERGENCY
RESPONSE PLANNING
Has
your LEPC . . .
- submitted
a site-specific emergency plan to the State Emergency Response
Commission?
- exercised
the emergency plan and corrected identified weaknesses?
- ensured
coordination between EHS facilities and fire departments, as well
as other emergency response organizations (police, hospitals,
etc)?
- sponsored
training for fire, medical, police, hazmat and other response
personnel?
- ensured
that hazard analyses are incorporated into fire department pre-plans?
- established
alert and warning systems (and coordinated systems among facilities)?
- established
means to determine the severity of a release, and the area and
population likely to be affected?
- planned
shelters and evacuation routes?
- designated
community and facility emergency response coordinators?
- maintained
an inventory of emergency response resources (equipment, facilities
and expertise)?
- provided
public education on protective actions (evacuation and shelter-in-place)?
- evaluated
the protective capacity of shelter-in-place structures?
- acknowledged
the limits of emergency response capabilities for protecting people,
property and the environment?
5. ACCIDENT
PREVENTION
Has
your LEPC . . .
- promoted
exploration of inherently safer technologies (involving safer
chemicals, lower pressures or temperatures, less storage, fewer
shipments, etc.)?
- promoted
"add-on" safety controls (e.g., secondary containment,
automatic shutoffs, alarms, etc)?
- promoted
site security improvements (e.g. guards, fences, cyber barriers,
independent audits, etc.)?
- asked
facilities to present progress reports on chemical hazard reduction
projects?
- provided
the community hazard analysis to planning commissions, zoning
boards, public works departments, citizen advisory councils and
other local entities?
- acquainted
facilities with hazard reduction resources (e.g., financing, expertise)?
- convened
seminars for facility personnel, union health and safety committees,
etc.?
- analyzed
spills and response, and publicized lessons learned and best practices?
- given
public recognition for major hazard reduction efforts (e.g., annual
awards)?
6. COMMUNITY
RIGHT-TO-KNOW
Has your LEPC . . .
- publicized
availability of right-to-know information?
- computerized
data for ease of access and analysis?
- established
a convenient information request process?
- provided
Tier II chemical storage information as required?
- communicated
Risk Management Plan information to the public?
- worked
with the news media to publicize hazard maps and safer alternatives?
- publicized
the federal reading rooms (www/epa.gov/ceppo/readingroom.htm)?
- publicized
options for reducing vulnerability zones through safer technologies?
- ensured
that meetings are accessible and well-publicized (time, place,
agenda)?
- worked
with concerned communities at specific sites (e.g., through good
neighbor agreements)?
7. ENFORCEMENT
Has
your LEPC . . .
- publicized
reporting requirements to covered facilities and transportation
carriers?
- provided
compliance assistance to facilities and carriers?
- uncovered
and prosecuted non-reporting firms?
- pursued
beneficial expenditures in settling citizen suits against non-reporting
firms?
Compiled
by Paul Orum, Working Group on Community Right-to-Know (202-544-9586)
and Stuart Greenberg, Environmental Health Watch (216-961-4646).
[Version 2/20/02]
[TOP]
|