SCOPe
THE SMALL COMMUNITIES OUTREACH PROJECT
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
A cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPA and NASPAA
for the benefit of small communities.
PROJECT REPORT ON THE
LEAD - BRIDGES AND STRUCTURES RULEMAKING
March 2002
© 2002 National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration
1120 G Street, NW, Washington DC 20005
Tel: 202.628.8965 www.naspaa.org
Printed on recycled paper
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Small Communities Outreach Project for Environmental Issues (SCOPe) is a project of the
National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. SCOPe is funded through
Cooperative Agreement # CX 826356-01-0 with the U.S. EPA's Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation. Conclusions and recommendations are solely those of the National Association
of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. NASPAA gratefully acknowledges the support
of the SCOPe National Advisory Board which includes: Council for Excellence in Government;
Environmental Council of the States; International City/County Management Association;
National Association of Counties; National Association of Local Government Environmental
Professionals; National Association of Regional Councils; National Center for Small
Communities; National League of Cities; U.S. EPA.
This Project Report is compiled from the field reports of SCOPe's Principal Investigators. These
faculty were selected as principal investigators based on their expertise in environmental policy
and small community engagement and were assisted by graduate students and/or researchers and
staff. These SCOPe teams were composed of the following individuals: Idaho - Professor
David Patton, Director, Center for Public Policy and Administration, Boise State
University with the assistance of Colleen Fellows and Brett Ingles, both Graduate Assistants at
the Center for Public Policy & Administration and Jonathan Cecil a Project Manager at the
Environmental Finance Center. Indiana - Professor Ellen Szarleta, School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Indiana University, Northwest with the assistance of Michael Fekete
and Dean McDevitt, students in the Masters of Public Administration program. Mississippi Professor John Morris with the assistance of Elizabeth Morris, Stennis Institute of
Government, Mississippi State University. Missouri - Professor James Scott, Director of
the Public Policy Institute, Harry S Truman School, with the assistance of Debra Cheshier,
PhD, Vickie Rightmyre, PhD, Barton Wechsler, PhD, Director, Harry S Truman School of
Public Affairs, University of Missouri-Columbia. Pennsylvania - Professor Beverly Cigler,
Professor of Public Policy and Administration, Penn State Harrisburg, and director of the
Pa Program to Improve State and Local Government; Matthew Davies, master's student in
environmental engineering, School of Science, Engineering, and Technology. Saltwater
environments - Professor Arthur A. Felts, Director of the Riley Institute for Public Affairs
and Policy Studies, College of Charleston, SC with the assistance of Mindy Freedman, and
Kimberly Demetriades, Graduate Student Assistants.
Dr. Rae Zimmerman, director of the Institute for Civil Infrastructure Systems at the
Wagner School of Public Policy, New York University served as SCOPe's technical
consultant. Dr. Arthur Felts, Director of the Riley Institute for Public Affairs and Policy
Studies, College of Charleston, SC was the evaluator of the Indiana, Pennsylvania, Mississippi
and Missouri projects.
SCOPe's project director is Deborah Rosenbloom, Esq., Director of Public Policy and Law at
NASPAA. SCOPe's student intern was Amber Brooks, a second year student in the Master of
Public Administration Program, George Washington University.
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. The Small Communities Outreach Project for Environmental Issues
SCOPe is a community-based initiative to engage elected officials and staff of local governments
in discussions contributing to early regulatory development. SCOPe's mission is to minimize
adverse impacts of environmental rulemakings on small communities while maintaining their
intended environmental and health benefits. Small entities bear a disproportionate burden of the
adverse impacts of environmental rule-makings, yet their voices are rarely heard while these
regulations are being developed. SCOPe creates a mechanism for small entities to learn and
discuss regulatory developments that may impact them, and to have their concerns
communicated to all interested parties.
SCOPe meetings take place in small communities, and are facilitated by independent local
experts in community affairs. Meetings are structured around discussion guides developed in
consultation with the US EPA. All facilitators have faculty appointments in graduate programs
of public affairs and administration and/or Local Government Institutes. These programs and
institutes regularly provide development, training, and evaluation services to local governments
and are members of the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration.
SCOPe is funded through a cooperative agreement between the US EPA's Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs &
Administration (NASPAA). NASPAA is a nationwide network of graduate programs that
maintain vibrant relationships with local governments of small communities in every state.
SCOPe is currently in its third year of funding and has worked with EPA on eight different
rulemakings and met with approximately 475 small jurisdictions in 21 states. SCOPe's work is
cited in the Preamble to the Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources: Proposed Rule and included in its docket.
Pursuant to the authority of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Title IV, Section 402, the
US EPA Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics is currently developing national standards
to contain the effects of removing lead based paint from bridges and other structures. Why the
rule is necessary. The most significant hazards of exposure to lead from bridges and structures
comes about not by deteriorating, flaking and/or peeling paint - which do pose a problem - but
when the paint is removed before it is repainted and when a structure is disassembled. The paint
on steel structures in particular has a crucial performance function: to control the amount of
corrosion that can in extreme cases result in structural failure. When surfaces are prepared for
repainting, the paint must be removed completely so that the new coating can adhere to the
surface sufficiently. Methods for conducting this kind of paint removal/surface preparation can
generate large amounts of dust and release large particles into the surrounding environment. In
addition, the 1978 ban on lead-based paint did not extend to paint being used on bridges and
structures in situations where the public does not have direct access. Although some states
regulate paint removal activities on certain structures that do place a greater emphasis on the
potential impacts to communities, coverage is not comprehensive regulations. The Lead B&S
3
rule will improve both consistency and coverage across the entire United States. Health
problems from exposure to lead can include profound developmental and neurological
impairment in children. Lead poisoning has been linked to mental retardation, poor academic
performance and juvenile delinquency. Nearly one million children ages 1-5 in America today
have dangerously elevated levels of lead in their blood. Because of the potential dangers, any
exposure to deteriorated lead-based paint can cause both acute and long-term effects.
From July 2001 through September 2001, SCOPe teams met with elected officials and public
works staff from 105 small jurisdictions (population <50,000) in Indiana, Missouri, Mississippi
and Pennsylvania and during January and February 2002, SCOPe teams met with elected
officials and staff of an additional 20 small communities in Idaho, North Carolina and South
Carolina.
FINDINGS:
● Communities need to be educated on the risks to the general public of
lead-based paint debris from bridges and structures. A risk communication effort
similar to that given to lead-based paint in housing may be required.
● Small communities think that the federal government should focus on
eliminating the use of lead-based paints on outdoor structures in order to eliminate
creating future risk.
● Small communities do not know which structures and bridges located within
their jurisdictions are painted with lead-based paint, do not know how to obtain
this information, and do not want that responsibility.
● Coordination with GASB 34 requirements to develop inventories of
infrastructure, and with the GASB to develop procedures to account for liabilities
due to environmental regulations will simplify any inventory requirements placed
on small communities by the rulemaking.
● Lab sampling may be the most foolproof way to test for the presence of lead,
but field identification kits would be a reliable and less expensive alternative.
Reliance on historical records is not a viable alternative method.
● Either lab testing or field testing should be done by the state or other entity
during routine infrastructure inspection in order to minimize the burden on the
small entities.
● A rule that differentiates containment standards based on the concentration of
lead found in the paint and the location of the particular bridge or structure will
minimize the burden on the small entities.
● Municipal, county, and state government as well as private companies, such as
railroads and water companies, own bridges and large structures. Even where the
local government owns the bridge or structure, it is not necessarily responsible for
its maintenance.
● The regulations should be directed to the entities that routinely are responsible
for maintenance in order to minimize the burden on small communities.
● Sandblasting is the most common form of paint removal on large structures.
Containment processes vary within the communities and generally it is the
contractors who decide whether and how to contain debris. Containment
4
requirements for bridges that are the only passage for ingress and egress to a
community will need to be carefully coordinated with the jurisdiction.
● Entire structures are repainted approximately every ten years although in salt
water environments repainting is more frequent. Maintenance is dependent on the
availability of funding and increased requirements will defer necessary
maintenance.
● Demolition and replacement can be less costly than repainting, however,
communities prefer not to demolish landmark structures. Some communities
have decided not to repaint with lead-based paint.
●. Small structures are often entirely replaced or painted over with non lead-based
paint. Paint debris is not contained when maintaining small structures. Playground
equipment is often made of materials that do not require painting.
● If structures are regulated, then small structures should be exempt from the
rulemaking since small surface areas pose small health hazards. If the activity is
regulated, small structures should be exempt since they are typically repainted
without scraping.
● Training is essential for contractors and should be optional but available to
small local governments. Financial assistance for training needs to be integral to
this rule. Training should be conducted regionally or locally and be coordinated
with other environmental training for public works employees.
● Small governments do not have the financial capacity to comply with new
maintenance requirements and increased costs may encourage noncompliance.
Minimal record keeping requirements with an exemption on record keeping for
small jobs will minimize the burden.
● Notice should be required to the small jurisdiction where the work will take
place but opinions differ as to whether the general public or only the affected
public should be notified. Contents of the notice should be left up to the small
jurisdiction but some minimal guidelines would be useful. Newspaper notice is
ineffective and public radio or television notice is expensive and difficult to
coordinate. Mail notice, whether as an inclusion in a utility bill or in a separate
mailing, seems to be the most effective means of informing the public.
● Generally, small communities have a higher level of trust and prefer to work
with state agencies than federal counterparts. Some comments reflect a general
negative attitude toward the federal government and not specifically toward the
US EPA.
5
THE LEAD - BRIDGES AND
STRUCTURES PROJECT
The US EPA is currently developing
national standards to contain the effects of
removing lead- based paint from bridges and
other structures. SCOPe was asked to meet
with small communities in Indiana,
Missouri, Mississippi and Pennsylvania to
learn about the potential impact of the
rulemaking on small communities. From
July 2001 through September 2001, SCOPe
teams met with elected officials and public
works staff from 105 small jurisdictions
(population <50,000) in those states and
during January and February 2002, SCOPe
teams met with elected officials and staff of
an additional 20 communities in Idaho,
North Carolina and South Carolina.
Methodology. Criteria for inclusion in
SCOPe were a jurisdiction with a population
under 50,000 people, with an emphasis on
smaller communities1 and the potential to be
impacted by the rulemaking. Outreach
strategies to the communities included
establishing local advisory boards to assist
in networking and discuss local strategies
and findings. A written invitation and a
discussion guide to facilitate the meetings
were given to each SCOPe team.
In Indiana, the SCOPe team led by Professor
Ellen Szarleta, School of Public and
Environmental Affairs, Indiana University,
Northwest, discussed the rulemaking with
representatives of thirteen counties and
twelve municipalities. County governmental
1
The small entity participants from Indiana,
Missouri, Mississippi and Pennsylvania, all are in
averages: Population: 9,921; African American Pop.
13.3%; Hispanic 1.77%; Asian: 1.02%; other .6%;
Budget: $2.817 million; Public works budget: $739
thousand.
units are responsible for the maintenance of
bridges in the state of Indiana and their input
on the economic, fiscal and administrative
burdens and benefits of a lead - bridges and
structures rule was crucial to the project.
The participating counties are located in the
northern half of the state and ranged in size
from approximately 9,500 to a little over
46,000 residents.
In Mississippi, a SCOPe team led by
Professor John Morris, a professor of
political science at Mississippi State
University, initially targeted municipalities
and counties that had a high number of
bridges that could have lead-based paint.
Eighty municipalities and counties were
invited to participate. The SCOPe team met
with 23 communities ranging in size from
populations of 285 to 44,770 people.
In Missouri, the criteria for inclusion were
jurisdictions with a population under 25,000
residents, located within a 50 mile radius of
Columbia, Missouri. A SCOPe team led by
Professor James Scott, Director of the Public
Policy Institute, Harry S Truman School,
University of Missouri, Columbia, contacted
public officials from 76 small jurisdictions
and recruited twenty-five public officials
from 14 jurisdictions to participate in
SCOPe.
In Pennsylvania, the SCOPe team led by
Professor Beverly Cigler, Professor of
Public Policy and Administration, Penn
State Harrisburg, and director of the Pa
Program to Improve State and Local
Government met with 27 communities
ranging in size from a low of 963 to a high
of 44,424. Three criteria were used to select
participating communities: (1) one-day
roundtrip driving distance from Harrisburg,
PA; (2) sites with both large bridges and
6
water holding structures; (3) small
population size.
THE LEAD - BRIDGES AND
STRUCTURES RULEMAKING
Following the completion of SCOPe's work
in Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri and
Mississippi, SCOPe agreed to meet with
additional communities in different types of
environments. Communities in the
Northwest and communities located in salt
water environments were of particular
interest.
Statutory authority. The Lead - Bridges and
Structures (Lead B&S) rule is being
developed by the US EPA Office of
Prevention, Pesticides and Toxics pursuant
to the authority of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA), Title IV, Section 402.
TSCA 402 charges the EPA with
establishing requirements for training and
accreditation of contractors performing
lead-based paint related work on bridges,
structures or super-structures. Proposal of
the Lead B & S in the Federal Register is
expected in 2003.
In Idaho, the SCOPe team led by Dr. David
Patton, Director of the Center for Public
Policy and Administration, Boise State
University, met with city managers from
jurisdictions located throughout the state and
with public works and maintenance officials
from southwest Idaho. The participating
communities ranged in size from 840 to
35,000 people.
Professor Arthur Felts, director of the
Joseph P. Riley, Jr. Institute for Urban
Affairs and Policy Studies at the University
of Charleston, SC, led a SCOPe team
looking at the effects of the rulemaking on
saltwater environments. The team targeted
coastal communities in Florida, Georgia,
North Carolina, and South Carolina. Criteria
for a community's inclusion in SCOPe were
a community with a population of less than
50,000 that had a lead painted steel structure
in a saltwater environment. As an arbitrary
delineator, the search was limited to within
10 miles of the coast. For logistical reasons,
the community needed to be within one
day's driving distance from Charleston, SC.
This limited the search to the area north of
Jacksonville, FL, running up to Morehead
City, NC.
Why the rule is necessary. The most
significant hazards of exposure to lead from
bridges and structures comes about not by
deteriorating, flaking and/or peeling paint which do pose a problem - but when the
paint is removed before it is repainted and
when a structure is disassembled. The paint
on steel structures in particular has a crucial
performance function: to control the amount
of corrosion that can in extreme cases result
in structural failure. When surfaces are
prepared for repainting, the paint must be
removed completely so that the new coating
can adhere to the surface sufficiently.
Methods for conducting this kind of paint
removal/surface preparation can generate
large amounts of dust and release large
particles into the surrounding environment.
In addition, the 1978 ban on lead-based
paint did not extend to paint being used on
bridges and structures in situations where
the public does not have direct access.
Although some states regulate paint removal
activities on certain structures that do place
a greater emphasis on the potential impacts
to communities, coverage is not
comprehensive regulations. The Lead B&S
7
rule will improve both consistency and
coverage across the entire United States.
Health effects of lead exposure. Health
problems from exposure to lead can include
profound developmental and neurological
impairment in children. Lead poisoning has
been linked to mental retardation, poor
academic performance and juvenile
delinquency. Nearly one million children
ages 1-5 in America today have dangerously
elevated levels of lead in their blood.
Because of the potential dangers, any
exposure to deteriorated lead-based paint
can cause both acute and long-term effects.
Children exposed to high levels of lead can
suffer seizures, unconsciousness, and even
death. Exposure of children to low levels of
lead can cause:
● nervous system and kidney damage
● learning disabilities, attention deficit
disorder, and decreased IQ
● speech, language, and behavior
problems
● poor muscle coordination
● decreased muscle and bone growth
● hearing damage
Adults who are exposed to high levels of
lead can suffer:
● increased chance of illness during
pregnancy
● harm to a fetus, including brain
damage or death (lead passes through the
placenta to the fetus)
● fertility problems for both men and
women
● high blood pressure, digestive
problems, nervous disorders, memory and
concentration problems, muscle and joint
pain.
Symptoms and a remedy. Lead is absorbed
by the bones and disrupts red blood cell
production. Symptoms are often mistaken
for other common illnesses and sometimes
there are no symptoms at all. The presence
of lead in the human body is usually
measured by the presence of lead in the
blood stream. The Center for Disease
Control (CDC) has established that more
than 10 micrograms per deciliter of blood
presents a danger. (Note that until recently,
CDC had thought that anything more than
60 micrograms per deciliter presented a
danger. As we understand the effects of lead
better, these lower limits have been
established). If lead is present in significant
amounts, a remedy is to "blood let." This
requires exchanging the contaminated blood
with fresh blood. However this is not a
complete cure. Since bones absorb lead, as
bones break down they release more lead
into the bloodstream.
RISK PERCEPTION
Discussions began with a presentation on
the effects of lead-based paint
contamination on adults and children in
order to assess the need for risk
communication.
Generally, risk from exposure to lead-based
paint debris on outdoor structures is not
perceived as a real danger in small
communities. Although some of the
participants were aware of the risks from
repainting work that had been done in their
jurisdictions, a significantly greater number
were only aware of risks to children living in
houses painted with lead-based paint and
lead in fuel. A few participants had
personally experienced problems with lead
from their own home purchases or sales as
well as their own health problems. Articles
in local newspapers about lead-based paint
issues had also raised their awareness.
8
Many questions were raised about why it is
still legal to manufacture, sell and apply lead
based paint on outdoor structures if it poses
such a threat. Participants were actually
surprised to learn that lead based paint had
not yet been banned altogether. "EPA
…needs to go after the manufacturers rather
than the end route." "Lead paint should just
be outlawed: why contain the debris and
then repaint with lead?" " We don't need
new regulations; just get Congress to ban
lead paint and you'll get rid of the problem."
In Indiana and Pennsylvania, local
government officials were aware of the risks
of exposure to lead based paint and few
dismissed lead as an unimportant issue. In
an Indiana community, an
activist/citizen/business owner stopped
maintenance work on a bridge alleging that
correct compliance procedures were not
being followed. As a consequence, city
officials had become more informed about
the dangers of lead-based paint and the
federal and state rules regulating lead-based
paint activities. Indiana participants were
also aware of health risks to the workers
who removed lead based paint from bridges
that were being reconstructed, improved, or
demolished in their communities. They had
observed the precautions taken in
compliance with the Occupational Health
and Safety Administration's (OSHA)
regulations and Indiana's fugitive dust rule.
Those communities with large numbers of
bridges were concerned primarily for the
health of those individuals performing the
work. As one participant said: "When
removing lead, they should just put a
breathing apparatus on each worker. The
rest will fall in fields and the cows will eat
it." Also, in Indiana, proactive communities
said that although lead-based paint was still
being manufactured and used, they had
decided not to use it in on their outdoor
structures in order to avoid potential health
and environmental problems and/or
regulatory issues in the future.
In Mississippi, participants generally had a
very low level of knowledge about the
dangers of lead. While they were aware that
exposure to lead can be harmful generally,
they knew little about the specific
physiological damage it can cause. While
some knew that eating paint chips was a
source of lead contamination, they were
unaware of other ways that lead can enter
the body. Regardless of the presence of
structures within their communities that
might be painted with lead-based paint,
nearly all participants believed that the risk
of contamination was very low. To the
extent participants believed lead
contamination was a potential problem, they
suggested that contamination problems
would be related to water systems, elevated
storage tanks, pipe fittings, etc. Several
other participants believed the only risk in
their communities was from the presence of
old houses in the community which is
indicative of the difficulty many participants
had in separating the issues of lead based
paint used indoors and lead based paint on
outdoor structures.
The Missouri SCOPe team began the project
believing that because of the large number
of old bridges, steel water towers and tanks
and other structures that might be covered
with lead-based paint, the EPA rulemaking
would be of interest to small communities in
the state. Surprisingly, officials from the 25
Missouri jurisdictions did not appear to
share this concern. Findings suggest that
they think that the problem is not especially
significant in their communities and that
other local concerns have greater priority.
Missouri was the leading lead mining state
in the U.S. for many years. It is possible
that the Missouri participants perceived that
the risk of exposure to lead from lead-based
9
paint debris is relatively low compared to
other, more direct sources of exposure. In
addition, the limited concern is due to the
fact that the State of Missouri has
regulations on containment that apply to
structures with a large surface area. Since
few small jurisdictions maintain structures
that meet the size criterion, public officials
in these jurisdictions are not concerned with
issues of contamination or containment.
Elected officials in North and South
Carolina readily recognized that lead-based
paint posed significant political issues/risks
for them to address. This was clearly
because of the connection between lead
poisoning and children. Coincidentally,
during the time of the project, the
community of Sullivan's Island removed a
steel boat from the playground of a local
school because it was covered with
lead-based paint. The implications of this
perception of political risk were clearly
stated in their preference for wanting to be
notified well in advance if the removal of
lead-based paint was regulated.
Even where the participants were aware of
the harm lead can do "when it moves up the
food chain," they were "suspicious as to
what the health hazards really are,"
particularly when the steel structure in
question is out in the "middle of nowhere."
One official talked about growing up and
attaching lead sinkers to fishing lines by
biting down on the soft lead. He commented
that he had no ill-effects from that practice
and wondered if the issue had not been
blown out of proportion.
FINDINGS. SCOPe finds that communities
need to be educated on the risks to the
general public of lead-based paint debris
from bridges and structures. A risk
communication effort similar to that given to
lead-based paint in housing and in fuel may
be required in this rulemaking. Even those
communities that are generally aware of the
dangers of contamination from lead-based
paint debris are unconvinced of its risks to
the general public. It is probable that without
effective risk communication small
communities will not place a high priority
on this rulemaking and that other local
concerns will take precedence.
There is a perception that the workers
involved in repainting activities are the
individuals most at risk and that regulations
such as the OSHA rules are sufficient to
protect them. Risk communication will
increase the public's understanding of the
importance of the rulemaking.
SCOPe participants think that the federal
government should focus on eliminating the
use of lead-based paints in order to eliminate
creating future risk. Preventing the use of
lead-based paint on outdoor structures will
eliminate continuing issues of contamination
from lead-based paint debris.
IDENTIFYING BRIDGES AND
STRUCTURES PAINTED WITH
LEAD-BASED PAINT
The discussions focused on identifying the
bridges and structures located in the
jurisdictions that are painted with
lead-based paint.
Participants were basically unaware of
structures painted with lead-based paint
located within their jurisdictions. In
Indiana, unless recent maintenance work had
been performed on them, local governments
were unable to identify bridges that are
painted with lead-based paint. Bridges were
identified according to their ages, and
participants did say, "we have
approximately x number of bridges that are
10
made from steel and were constructed prior
to 1978, so they probably are coated with
lead-based paint." Participants were better
able to identify water towers and fire
hydrants with lead-based paint. One
community's water pipelines are coated with
lead-based paint.
In Mississippi, participants had a difficult
time identifying outdoor structures that
might contain lead-based paint. Many could
not answer without prompting from the
project staff. To the extent structures were
mentioned, they included elevated water
storage tanks, handrails, fire hydrants, and
bleachers. One city spoke about a recent
discovery of lead-based paint on wastewater
treatment equipment, specifically clarifiers
and aerators. Only two participants claimed
to know which structures in their
jurisdictions are painted with lead-based
paint. In these cases, repainting work was
scheduled to begin shortly on a railroad
bridge and an elevated water storage tank.
Both jurisdictions had required their
contractors to conduct laboratory analysis of
paint samples to determine whether lead
paint was present.
In Missouri, most participants said they do
not manage or maintain any structure that
has lead-based paint. Galvanized steel is
being used on bridges where possible, thus
eliminating the need for lead-based paint. In
addition, most metal playground equipment
has been replaced with plastic or wood
equipment for safety reasons and therefore is
not painted. Most also indicated signposts
were either galvanized or factory-painted
(and they assumed the factory-painted posts
did not contain lead-based paint).
Based on the experiences of the initial
lead-based SCOPe teams, the South
Carolina team assumed that most steel
bridges would be state maintained even
when they were located within a small
community's jurisdictional boundaries. The
SCOPe team was surprised to find out that
some states have carefully documented
records of bridges that contain lead paint.
This may indicate an awareness that such
structures may eventually be subject to some
type of regulation. It may also indicate a
high level of awareness of the issues that are
at stake in using lead paint. The Georgia
Department of Transportation is currently in
the midst of a major project to completely
remove all lead-based paint from all state
maintained bridges and repaint with
alternative coatings. The Georgia DOT
stated they anticipate that all bridges and
structures within the state will be lead-free
within a year.
The geography of the area extending from
Georgetown, South Carolina to well south of
Savannah, Georgia, is typified by large
expanses of estuarine salt marshes. The
common name for this area is "Lowcountry"
and due to its large expanses of marshland,
bridges are a common feature. Many of
these are privately maintained bridges
owned by railroads. Several steel railroads
spans are readily visible from US 17 on the
drive south from Charleston towards
Savannah. The SCOPe team asked the CSX
Railroad for a list of bridges it maintains in
the coastal portions of South Carolina and
Georgia. This request was refused because
CSX railroad officials felt that the 'public
was adequately informed and protected from
lead-based paint.’
Most of the participants in the salt water
environments were unaware or had not
given much thought to the type of paint
covering their bridges. However, once it was
brought to their attention, many realized that
there were probably other steel structures in
their communities that are also painted with
lead-based paint.
11
In South Carolina, the Bridge Inspection
Engineer in the Bridge Maintenance Office,
South Carolina Department of
Transportation (SCDOT) identified three
small communities with four known bridges
that are painted with lead based paint North Myrtle Beach, Sullivan's Island, and
Mt. Pleasant. The bridge in North Myrtle
Beach is located on Secondary 20 and is
commonly referred to as the Little River
Bridge.
This bridge is state-maintained. The team
also learned that North Myrtle Beach has
another steel bridge that is locally
maintained. There is little doubt this bridge
has lead-based paint. In addition, the town
has a water tower that is most likely painted
with lead-based paint.
the Isle of Palms, which, in turn connects to
Sullivan's Island via a small bridge over a
washout between the two islands. As the
meeting progressed, SCOPe learned that
Sullivan's Island has at least one water tower
painted with lead-based paint as well as a
steel lighthouse maintained by the US Coast
Guard.
Along with the bridges maintained by the
NCDOT and the SCDOT, community
maintained steel structures would fall under
the rule. These include water towers and a
bridge locally operated by North Myrtle
Beach.
In addition, Boiling Spring Lakes, NC has a
bridge located on the boundary of the town
Sullivan's Island, SC, has one bridge that is
covered with lead-based paint. The bridge is
located on SC 703 and is known as the Ben
Sawyer Bridge. Sullivan's Island is a barrier
island and the Ben Sawyer Bridge is a
drawbridge over the intracoastal water way.
It is one of two ways to get on and off the
island-the other being a fixed span concrete
bridge that was built a few years ago. That
fixed span bridge connects Mt. Pleasant and
12
limits in an unpopulated area. The bridge
crosses Orton Creek along North Carolina
133. Orton Creek supplies water to a large
lake located in the center of Boiling Spring
Lakes. The bridge is covered with aluminum
over lead and is not immediately identifiable
as a steel structure since only its concrete
railings are apparent from the roadway. The
steel support spans are only visible from the
embankment. This may be the reason why
local officials were surprised when told
there is a steel bridge in the community. At
the meeting, SCOPe pointed out that, given
the age of the high school located within the
city limits of Boiling Spring Lakes, it is
probable that the school's football bleachers
are covered with lead-based paint. The
Mayor commented that this would be of
more concern than the bridge which she
thought was all concrete anyway.
potential lead-based paint issue as well-that
of exposed water and sewer pipes that
frequently are attached to bridges-especially
when they are in business areas like the
bridge in Shallotte. At the meeting, the team
was informed that Shallotte has a steel water
tower that "very likely" has lead-based
paint. The tower is owned and maintained
by the town.
One additional community was located in
Pender County, north of New Hanover
County. The NCDOT identified this bridge
in Surf City. Located over the Intercoastal
Waterway, the bridge is on NC 50 and is
covered with foliage-green paint over red
The town of Shallotte has one lead painted
bridge running over the Shallotte River
along US 17 Business. The picture shows
that it is constructed similarly to the bridge
in Boiling Spring Lakes in that it presents
itself as a concrete bridge but has exposed
steel girders underneath.
North Carolina DOT informed the SCOPe
team that this bridge has aluminum paint
over lead. The picture also shows another
lead. The bridge in Surf City is a drawbridge
that is easily identified as steel. Unlike
Boiling Spring Lakes and Shallotte, Surf
City is a beachfront community located on
an island. The bridge is one of two that
provide the only means of access to Surf
City. The town manager met with the team
to discuss his community's concerns about
the structure.
Mt. Pleasant has two large bridges that,
according to the SCDOT, are currently
covered with lead-based paint. The Grace
Memorial Bridge and the Silas Pearman
13
Bridge (otherwise known as the "Cooper
River Bridges") connect Mt. Pleasant and
Charleston over the Cooper River and Town
Creek. These large bridges are due to be
demolished or removed once a new bridge,
the Arthur J. Ravenel Jr. Bridge, is
completed. The new bridge is currently
under construction and is scheduled for
completion sometime in 2006. All the steel
structures are owned and maintained by
SCDOT.
The Grace Memorial Bridge, built in 1929,
is over 70 years old and functionally
obsolete with no shoulders and substandard
width lanes of 10 feet. It is a two-lane,
cantilevered structure, whose grid work
singularly dominated the Charleston skyline
until a second bridge was built beside it in
1966. In the fall of 1996, the Charleston
Post and Courier reported that "a federal
inspection in 1993 determined that the
bridge's deck and superstructure were in
'poor condition'," which officials define as
"advanced section loss, deterioration,
spalling (breaks in concrete) or scour
(removal of concrete by rushing water)." On
a scale of 1 to 100, with 100 the highest
score, the Grace rated a four. It has a 10 ton
weight limit that makes it necessary for
trucks and buses that are Charleston-bound
be diverted to the three lane Silas Pearman
Bridge. The Pearman Bridge, completed in
1966, was built beside the Grace Bridge. Its
wider three lanes relieved traffic congestion
that began to increase in the 1950s on the
Grace Bridge. Together, the Grace and
Pearman Bridges have come to define
Charleston as much as any other landmark.
Both bridges are slated for demolition upon
the completion of the new Cooper River
Bridge.
Because of its age, the Grace Bridge is a
designated historic structure. In accordance
with federal guidelines, it has been officially
listed as "for sale" to any individual who
would wish to purchase it, provided of
course that they disassemble and move it
elsewhere. Such a prospect is unlikely. The
most frequently discussed alternative is to
demolish both the Grace and Pearman
Bridges, hauling large sections of the steel
spans out to sea where they will be dumped
to form an artificial reef.
Participants were clear that they do not want
to be responsible for finding out which
bridges and structures in their jurisdictions
are painted with lead-based paint. Reasons
given were lack of expertise, the expense of
hiring an expert, and the inefficiency of
making each community responsible for
testing. Other officials did not want to have
additional information because they believe
that a community's knowledge could imply
later liability. When these concerns were
combined, the officials believed it was
simply better not to know.
Inventory. Only one of the twenty-seven
Pennsylvania communities claimed to have
an inventory of its infrastructure, although
two communities mentioned plans to
develop inventories in anticipation of new
accounting requirements for local
governments. Governmental Accounting
Standards Board, Statement 34 (GASB 34)
“Basic Financial Statements – and
Management’s Discussion and Analysis –
for State and Local Governments” is a new
financial reporting model for state and local
governments. Among other things, it will
require disclosure of the physical condition
of the jurisdiction’s infrastructure assets and
efforts to maintain it.2 The GASB 34
requirements will be phased in over the next
2
Dean Mead, “The New Financial Statements:
Reconnecting with the Basics of Public Financial
Management,” Journal of Public Affairs Education 7
(2001):2:73-90.
14
few years as follows as determined by their
revenues. Governments with revenues less
than $10 million will be required to file
GASB 34 for fiscal years ending after June
15, 2004.3 Governmental Accounting
Standards Board, Statement 34 (GASB 34)
"Basic Financial Statements - and
Management's Discussion and Analysis - for
State and Local Governments" is a new
financial reporting model for state and local
governments. Among other things, it will
require disclosure of the physical condition
of the jurisdiction's infrastructure assets and
efforts to maintain it. The GASB 34
requirements will be phased in over the next
few years as follows as determined by their
revenues. Governments with revenues less
than $10 million will be required to file
GASB 34 for fiscal years ending after June
15, 2004.
including clean air and clean water issues.
GASB expects to issue this new statement in
spring 2004.
GASB 34 does not require that the
infrastructure inventory include an
assessment of the costs of environmental
regulations that will affect maintenance of
these capital assets but it may present an
opportunity for the EPA to coordinate its
databases with the infrastructure inventories
that will be developed. In addition, it
should be noted that there is precedent for
GASB Statements to be developed in
response to EPA rules. GASB Statement 18
Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill Closure and Postclosure Care Costs
(1993) addresses accounting for these
liabilities and costs, and was issued in part
in response to landfill rules issued by the
EPA in 1991. GASB is currently developing
a project to consider how to account for the
costs of all environmental liabilities
ALTERNATIVE METHODS FOR
3
Governments with revenues of $100 million or
more will begin filing GASB 34 for fiscal years
ending after June 15,2002; governments with
revenues between $10 million and $100 million will
begin filing them for fiscal years after June 15, 2003,
ibid.
FINDINGS. SCOPe concludes that
participants do not know which structures
and bridges within their jurisdictions are
painted with lead-based paint, do not know
how to obtain this information, and do not
want that responsibility. Since local
governments will be responsible for
developing inventories of their structures, it
would benefit them if this were coordinated
with the rulemaking. Therefore, the US
EPA should coordinate its work with GASB
34 requirements to develop inventories of
infrastructure, and with the GASB to
develop procedures to account for liabilities
due to environmental regulations.
IDENTIFYING THE PRESENCE OF
LEAD-BASED PAINT
The EPA is considering three alternatives
for identifying whether a bridge or structure
is painted with lead-based paint. These are
laboratory sampling, historical records, and
assumption of presence. Participants were
asked to discuss which of these methods
would be the least burdensome for a small
community.
Laboratory testing. All participants agreed
that laboratory testing is the most foolproof
method to determine the presence of
lead-based paint. Idaho participants added
that this testing would reveal the amount of
lead in the paint and advocated that the rule
be written to differentiate between the
different concentrations of lead found in
paint.
15
Participants in Idaho and Mississippi
cautioned against the use of laboratory
testing in every case because of its expense.
Idaho participants recommended the use of
field identification kits as an acceptable
analysis technique as an alternative to
laboratory testing. Field kits are
inexpensive, easy to purchase, and simple to
use. Mississippi participants recommended
structuring the requirement on the basis of
its cost to the community. A first step
would be an assumption of presence.
Second, existing records could be reviewed
for evidence of lead-based paint. Finally,
laboratory testing could be used if
maintenance records were either missing or
unclear. It was acknowledged that
reviewing historical records would be
problematic since many small communities
do not keep adequate records. In addition,
records that are kept are discarded after five
years due to inadequate storage space. It is
conceivable that using historical records to
determine the presence or absence of
lead-based paint based on historical records
will actually be impossible.
State should be responsible for testing.
While some communities felt it would be
useful for local officials themselves to know
how to test for lead-based paint presence so
that they could create a local inventory of
affected bridges and structures, others
strongly feel the state is the appropriate
entity to assume this responsibility. They
recommended that the lead-based paint
inspections be conducted at the same time
that bridge inspections and other structure
inspections are carried out by the state every
two years. Results could then be reported to
the communities. Pennsylvania SCOPe
found that the state has strong inspection
criteria due to general safety issues, and
especially since the late 1980s when other
states suffered bridge disasters. Depending
on the county in which a municipality is
located, there may be county bridge
inspections. Inspections take place either
every year or every two years. Some
inspections are conducted through a
consortium arrangement and inspections are
not paid for directly by the local
governments. In some instances the funds
from a municipality's share of liquid fuel
taxes are used to pay for inspections. In
fact, as of mid-Fall 2001, PENNDOT was
developing standards to rate the condition of
the paint on bridges as a part of its
inspection regulations. Based on these
standards, PENNDOT will be able to
develop a priority list for scheduling
repainting. It may be useful for EPA to
coordinate with the state departments of
transportation to include testing for
lead-based paint at the same time as routine
inspections are done.
FINDINGS. SCOPe finds that although lab
sampling may be the most foolproof way to
test for the presence of lead, field
identification kits would be a reliable and
less expensive alternative. Reliance on
historical records is not a viable alternative
method. Either lab testing or field testing
should done by the state or other entity
during routine infrastructure inspection. A
rule that differentiates its containment
requirements based on the different
concentrations of lead found in paint and the
location of the particular bridge or structure
will minimize the burden on the small
entities.
OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF
BRIDGES AND OTHER STRUCTURES
The discussion focused on the complexities
of ownership and maintenance
responsibilities.
16
Ownership. Although bridges and other
large structures are located in small entities,
they are often neither owned nor maintained
by the jurisdiction. In Pennsylvania,
bridges are owned by the state, county,
municipality, township, or privately but few
of them are maintained by local
governments. In rural Missouri, many
residents and businesses receive their water
through special purpose water districts that
own and maintain many of the water towers
in Mid-Missouri. County governments may
maintain several smaller bridges as part on
the county road system. Larger bridges in
rural Missouri are typically on state or
federal highways, and are maintained by the
Missouri Department of Transportation. In
Mississippi, private water associations
generally own water storage tanks and water
towers. (Water tanks are both elevated and
ground level). In Idaho, bridges and
overpasses are usually owned by the state,
county, or by the local highway district and
water towers are usually owned by the cities.
The state, or sometimes the county where a
bridge is located, is responsible for
inspecting, painting, and paint removal on
bridges.
about roads and bridges said he did not
know of a single bridge painted by a local
government during his tenure. His early
statement to the SCOPe team was reaffirmed
during the community meeting process and
through conversations with state agency
officials.
Maintaining bridges and large structures.
The responsibility for maintaining bridges
and large structures falls on municipal,
county, and state government and in some
cases private institutions, e.g., railroads for
their bridges and water companies for water
tanks and towers.
Regulations should be directed to the entities
that routinely are responsible for
maintenance.
For example, in Pennsylvania even those
bridges owned by a local government are
typically not maintained by them. The state,
or sometimes the county where a bridge is
located, is responsible for inspecting,
painting, and paint removal on bridges. An
engineer who has worked in the state for 27
years and who works for an agency that
provides technical assistance to communities
Where the responsibility does lie on the
local government, the work is typically
contracted out and not performed by public
works or other governmental employees.
Exceptions included a participating
Mississippi jurisdiction that had repainted a
wastewater treatment facility and employees
of a Missouri jurisdiction who had repainted
a water tower. Maintenance contracts
include spot painting as needed but large
structures are generally repainted in their
entirety, if funding is available.
FINDINGS. Municipal, county, and state
government as well as private companies,
such as railroads and water companies, own
bridges and large structures. Even where the
local government owns the bridge or
structure, it is not necessarily responsible for
its maintenance.
MAINTENANCE PROCESSES USED ON
BRIDGES AND LARGE STRUCTURES
Paint Removal. Sandblasting is the most
common form of paint removal on large
structures. Other methods used are water
blasting, followed by scraping. In
Mississippi, a local government staff had
just completed spot painting water towers
using power washing and a wire brush to
remove the old paint. Idaho participants
suggested that this waste should not be
17
categorized as “hazardous” but instead,
should go to a landfill that can handle
“special” waste which is less costly than
disposing of "hazardous" waste.
Containment. Containment processes are
used to different degrees within the small
jurisdictions. In Idaho, encapsulation is done
by tenting the structures, and using tarps to
contain and clean up the residue for proper
disposal. Several Mississippi communities
where water tanks had been repainted
recently said the tanks were shrouded during
the paint removal process. The Mississippi
participant who had just completed spot
painting water towers said “We don't do
anything to contain the paint chips - but
there is probably not much lead-based paint
involved." (City Administrator). In
Missouri, two participants reported that no
controls are used, one reported using
complete covers, and one other participant
used partial covers. In Pennsylvania,
participants were aware of containment
processes and discussed some of the
methods they had seen used in their area.
These included repainting bridge beams
off-site in a warehouse, wrapping standpipes
in cocoons for scrapping prior to repainting,
and using encapsulation to contain the debris
from repainting tanks at the nearby
Harrisburg International Airport.
In the saltwater beachfront communities, it
was anticipated that any containment
requirements in the regulation would have a
major impact on small entities. The bridges
located in the small jurisdictions were one of
only two ways on and off the islands.
Officials expressed concern that
containment procedures such as draping or
covering would require closing the bridges
and lengthen the amount of time needed to
remove the paint. In the case of one
community that relied on tourism, the
official was clear that this would hinder
traffic and thus adversely affect the entire
town's economy and be a public relations
nightmare for the town with respect to
attracting vacationing families. Even during
the off-season, such procedures could
seriously restrict the ability of emergency
vehicles to get on and off the islands.
Finally, they noted that these bridges were
an integral part of their established hurricane
evacuation routes and closure during
hurricane season without careful planning
for re-opening them in the event of a major
storm would pose a significant threat to the
residents of their communities.
SCOPe participants said that the contractors
decide on the extent of containment for each
particular job. It was also noted that
contractors are obligated to comply with all
regulations
Repainting frequency. In Idaho, bridges
and other large structures are repainted
every ten or more years, or as needed. More
than half of the participants said the entire
structure is repainted, rather than simply
doing spot maintenance. Mississippi
participants said that water tanks are
generally repainted every eight to ten years,
although the availability of funding for
repainting is a factor in this schedule. A
Missouri County Commissioner said that in
the seven years he has served as Presiding
Commissioner, they have never painted
anything due to a lack of funds.
In the salt water environments, SCOPe
found that salt air is a "corrosive"
environment for paint. SCOPe was fortunate
to interview one elected official who was
trained in architecture/design. He was
candid in stating that lead was a superior
product for painting in his beachfront
community and estimated that the use of non
lead-based paints would require painting
twice as frequently. He estimated that it
would be desirable to repaint steel structures
18
that were "significantly" exposed to salt air
every five years, but that could be stretched
to a period of ten years. Though it was
always desirable to remove prior coats of
paint when repainting, he was less certain
when removal of prior paint would be
necessary. The decision would seem to be
based on whether they were painting over
rust. Other participants readily
acknowledged that they were required to
maintain/paint exterior structures more
frequently than inland communities and that
cost was always a factor. With the
knowledge of the potential regulation, they
also indicated they would "think twice"
before allowing lead-based paint to be used.
Repainting with lead-based paint. While
participants said that large structures are not
repainted with lead-based paint, SCOPe was
also told, "People will probably not tell you
if they are using lead paint, because they are
afraid that they will have high cleanup
costs." Reasons for not using lead-based
paint include "We'd be hard-pressed to find
a supplier of lead paint, " "We only use
epoxy-based paints on bridges. It's
expensive, but it lasts longer." In Mississippi
a participant said they are now using epoxies
only, but sometimes over lead-based paint
surfaces.
Within the last five years lead-based paint
has been removed from water towers in
some Indiana municipalities. In these cases,
decisions to remove the paint were made
during review of the towers prior to
beginning maintenance work. In some cases,
this decision was based on the
recommendation of contractors scheduled to
do the maintenance work. Lead-based
removal is complete and nonlead-based
paint has been applied to these water towers,
thus avoiding a future problem. Learning of
the plans to regulate the removal of leadbased paint from structures, only one of the
respondents said would continue to use leadbased paint rather than opting for an
alternative. This jurisdiction noted that
when used properly, lead-based paint is still
the most durable paint available. Most of
the jurisdictions that would use an
alternative noted their concern with health,
and environmental concerns, and cost of
removal. Another worried about the
possibility of the expense of future
mandated removal of lead-based paint from
bridges and other structures. In the salt
water environments, it seemed that the
decision would be left up to the contractors.
Replacing structures. There are plans in
Indiana and in Missouri to demolish and
replace water tanks built in the 1960s,
because it is more cost efficient than
repainting and maintaining them in
compliance with current regulations.
However in Idaho, some structures, such as
water towers, are community landmarks.
The community would not stand for their
removal or demolition. In Mississippi,
SCOPe was told that the town had just taken
bids for repainting a water tower that had
lead-based paint and had determined that it
would be cheaper to tear down the old tower
and build a new one rather than scrape or
sandblast and repaint. This posed an
interesting question of whether or not they
might have decided to keep the old water
tower if there were much higher costs for
demolition and then whether a containment
rule might cause such decisions. He
questioned whether demolition was as
dangerous as paint removal. Another official
said that he thought the new rule would
encourage deferred maintenance and that he
would recommend against removal of any
lead paint, as a means of deferring any
additional costs into the future.
FINDINGS. Sandblasting is the most
common form of paint removal on large
19
structures. Containment processes vary
within the communities and generally it is
the contractors who decide whether and how
to contain debris. Containment
requirements for bridges that are the only
passage for ingress and egress will need to
be carefully coordinated with the
jurisdiction. Entire structures are repainted
approximately every ten years although in
salt water environments repainting is more
frequent. Maintenance is dependent on the
availability of funding and increased
requirements will defer necessary
maintenance. Demolition and replacement
is found to be less costly than repainting,
however, communities prefer not to
demolish landmark structures. Some
communities have decided not to repaint
with lead-based paint.
OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF
SMALL STRUCTURES
The discussion focused on understanding
which entities own and maintain small
structures.
Ownership. Typically, dumpsters, fire
hydrants, sign posts, bleachers, and
grandstands are owned by small
jurisdictions and in some instances, by
private companies.
Responsibility for maintenance. Local
governments as well as private contractors
and volunteers are involved in repainting
small structures. For example, in Mississippi
public works departments do most
repainting of small structures although
several said fire department personnel
repaint their fire hydrants. The county
participants in Mississippi and Idaho said
inmates of county jails do repainting as a
part of their required work details.
Volunteers such as Boy Scouts often paint
fire hydrants.
However, in Pennsylvania, the SCOPe
process revealed that the participating
communities do little painting or paint
removal, if any, of any type because small
structures are often replaced rather than
repainted. Private water companies are
responsible for fire hydrants and hydrants
are most likely simply replaced, not
repainted. SCOPe found that due to federal
and state safety regulations, most
playgrounds are relatively new and are made
of plastic or wooden structures eliminating
the use of lead-based paint altogether.
Among the project participants in
Pennsylvania, no playgrounds would be
affected by the rule. Local governments do
not govern any of the 501 school districts in
the state. Therefore the officials
participating in SCOPe have no authority
and little interaction with individuals
responsible for any structures such as a
stadium that might have lead-based paint.
Participants were asked numerous questions
about their practices regarding light poles,
dumpsters, trash receptacles, and other metal
outdoor objects. Just two examples were
offered, one each by two communities, of
any local government actions. One suburban
community had painted a handrail and one
rural township used touch-up paint around
the municipal building. In Idaho,
participants said that small structures would
be replaced rather than repainted if the rule
goes into effect.
Repainting frequency. Small structures
such as fire hydrants and handrails are
repainted on an as-needed basis, although
some communities reported they repaint fire
hydrants annually. In Missouri, one
participant reported repainting fire hydrants
every five years. Maintenance includes
repainting entire structures, as one
20
respondent said, "we just don't have the
people to go around painting parts of
things." Structures are painted on-site and
not moved to a central location.
Paint Removal. The most common paint
removal method is hand scraping with a
wire brush. Two communities reported they
have sandblasted their fire hydrants at least
once to remove paint buildup. No
participants reported using chemical
stripping methods. Fire hydrants are usually
not striped or scraped but are simply painted
over numerous times. Eventually old fire
hydrants are simply removed and replaced
with new hydrants.
Containment. Participants laughed in
response to a question about whether any
containment was used when removing paint
from small structures. One participant said
that they do not know "what's under the old
paint so they do not do containment."
Several said there was no requirement to do
so; several others did not believe the small
amounts of paint involved created a health
hazard. The following vignette can best
describe responses to this item: when asked
this question, a respondent looked very
directly at the SCOPe researcher and asked,
"what do you think?" At least two
jurisdictions in the Missouri sample use
lead-based paint on playground equipment,
and do not use containment methods.
Findings suggest that should containment be
required, these jurisdictions would likely
replace existing equipment to avoid using
lead-based paint entirely.
Repainting with lead-based paint.
Communities said they made a decision not
to use lead-based paints, on such structures
and had not done so in a long-time. A
community said they painted "smaller stuff"
but that they have been "lead free for ten
years." One of the rural township officials in
Pennsylvania said that there "might be a can
of (lead-based paint) upstairs." Proactive
communities said that while they knew
lead-based paint was still being
manufactured and used, they had made a
decision not to use them in order to avoid
potential health problems and/or regulatory
issues in the future. A Pennsylvania
participant remarked "We use latex paint on
our streets and it s…." Others said they used
lead-based paints in the past and continue to
do so for certain items, e.g., fire hydrants but
rarely if ever removed old paint and simply
painted over old coatings.
FINDINGS. Small communities do not use
lead based paint to maintain small
structures. Small structures are often entirely
replaced or painted over with non lead-based
paint. Paint debris is not contained when
maintaining small structures. However,
assuming that lead-based paint is not being
used on them, there would be no reason to
require containment. Playground equipment
is made of materials that do not require
painting.
REGULATING THE STRUCTURE OR
THE ACTIVITY
The Lead - Bridges and Structures
rulemaking could regulate either structures
containing lead- based paint or the activity
of removing lead based paint. SCOPe
participants were asked which option would
work better for their communities.
Structures. If the rule regulates structures,
the list should be narrow and well defined.
SCOPe participants suggested that if the
threat from lead-based paint removal
processes depends on the number of people
in close proximity to the structure and/or the
removal activity, containment standards
should take into consideration location and
21
relationship to water, i.e. a bridge is more of
a perceived risk than a light pole. The
definition of a structure should be tied to the
risk posed by the amount of lead-based paint
on its surface and structures under a certain
size (small surface area) should be excluded.
In Missouri, state regulations governing the
use and removal of lead-based paint apply
primarily to projects with large surface
areas.4
The advantage of regulating structures
instead of activities is that the government
will be better able to monitor the structure
than the activity. "We know what a fire
hydrant is . . ." and "it should be easy to
identify," are representative comments. A
staff member of a local government unit
with, perhaps the exception of an engineer
employed by the county, was less likely to
be able to identify and discuss "activities."
When government engineers were also
present at the meetings, the discussion was
more productive. Analogies were drawn to
the regulation of asbestos removal.
Activity. Regulating the activity, such as
water jetting or sand blasting on large
surface areas containing lead-based paint
“would allow jurisdictions a wider range of
methods to reduce costs,” and allow a
jurisdiction to avoid the rule by choosing a
different removal procedure. With training
government staff could monitor the
"activity-based" regulations. In addition, if
4
The Missouri Department of Health has standards
on lead paint removal projects, and licenses people
who work on them. Draping or containment may be
required for lead paint removal projects by
Department of Health requirements, by air pollution
management requirements on dust, and to reduce the
contamination of surrounding property by lead dust.
Paint scrapings or sandblast residues produced by
removal projects are regulated as trade wastes that
must be evaluated to determine if they can be
disposed in a sanitary landfill or as toxic hazardous
waste.
activities were regulated, then the
contractors would be responsible for
following regulations addressing the
removal process. A suggestion was made
that EPA should require each state to
produce an inventory of potentially affected
structures and create a permitting process.
Larger municipalities (10,000 or greater)
were more concerned than the smaller
communities with the financial impact of
lead-based paint activities on small
structures, e.g., fire hydrants, due to the
large number of hydrants they maintain. A
few of the larger municipalities thought it
better not to focus on the size of the
individual unit being maintained but rather
on the overall size of the job being
undertaken, and hence the cost and potential
health impacts of the activities. For
example, one municipality proposed that
maintenance work requiring lead-based
paint removal on a large number of small
structures might result in significantly
increased maintenance costs and potential
health hazardous. Therefore, it would be
"absurd" to regulate lead-based paint
activity on a single hydrant in the same
manner as a job involving a large number of
hydrants with its consequent higher risk of
environmental and health impacts and
increased costs.
Exemptions. It was also suggested that
since there would also be limited
health-based risks from activity involving
small structures, these structures should in
fact be exempt. The Missouri experience
suggests that rules that are targeted at
structures with surface areas larger than a
specified size would limit the costs of
compliance for small jurisdictions. In the
Missouri sample, water tanks and towers
were the only structures large enough to fall
under State regulations. Participating
jurisdictions that maintained these structures
22
hired outside contractors to paint them, and
chose not to use lead-based paint. (This
approach implies writing the rules to address
"structures" rather than "activities").
Additionally, certain structures that are
scraped and repainted have too small of a
surface area to warrant regulation, such as
fences, sign posts dumpsters and railings.
FINDINGS. If structures are regulated, then
small structures should be exempt from the
rulemaking since small surface areas pose
small health hazards. If the activity is
regulated, small structures should be exempt
since they are typically repainted without
scraping. Without exemption, the financial
impact on jurisdictions with a significant
amount of small structures would be
burdensome.
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION
The Lead B&S rule will require certification
and training of supervisors (and possibly of
the workers). The discussion focused on
who should be required to get trained and
certified.
Training government staff. It was widely
felt that training should not be mandatory
for small local government staffs since so
few small local governments actually
perform this work. Only one participant
strongly expressed interest in mandatory
training of small local government officials
citing the benefits of being able to monitor
contractors, because "even though they are
trained they don't always do things right,"
and another suggested having a single
workshop about the dangers of lead to
educate government staff about the topic.
However, even if they are not trained and
certified, public works employees need to be
educated about risks of the lead based paint
removal. Training should be optional but
available to governmental units who want to
train their employees. "We want to have
training available, but don't make us go,"
summarizes the general sentiment of these
communities. In Indiana, when the
perceived benefits of training exceed the
costs, local governments do support training,
even sending staff to another state, if
necessary.
The largest impact would be the cost to
communities both in terms of training fees
and lost hours on the job. One city official
said, "it seems we're always sending our
most important people off to be trained. Not
only does it cost a lot, but those people are
not here to do their jobs," (particularly
difficult in jurisdictions with few full time
staff). In addition, some personnel are
employed in other occupations, and training
requires them to take time from their main
occupation. Another participant noted that
employees who are certified and trained in a
specialty area often demand increases in
salary to reflect a higher level of knowledge,
skills and abilities, both an additional
long-term cost and an ongoing source of
friction for small communities. Many
worried that the high turnover in
maintenance personnel would mean an
ongoing outlay of dollars to meet new
federal requirements. Many participants
noted at this point that unfunded mandates
were a tremendous burden to small
communities, and they felt that if EPA were
to require mandatory training that it should
make funds available through grants to
offset the costs to communities. As an
Idaho participant said: "Compliance
Assistance Training usually involves
compliance from the public entity, but no
assistance from EPA."
Idaho participants suggest that training for
lead, asbestos, and arsenic be done
simultaneously to reduce costs and time
23
spent on training programs. In addition,
notebooks and/or reference books should be
created and distributed to all local
governments. Participants were unaware of
any guidance published by any industry
group about how to contain the dust, debris,
particles and paint chips generated when
lead-based paint is disturbed, nor had they
heard of the Society for Protective Coatings,
an industry group that publishes guidance on
these issues.
Contractors. All agreed that contractors
performing the work should be adequately
trained and required to provide proof of their
training, similar to the current
certifications/licenses required for the
removal of asbestos. Opinion on whether
both supervisors and workers should be
trained and certified in work practice
standards was split with some participants
preferring a model requiring supervisors to
be trained and certified; supervisors could
then train workers as needed.
Training and certification requirements exist
at the state level for anyone working with
lead. For example, in Missouri, the
Department of Health's Office of Lead
Licensing and Accreditation provides
training and licensing to commercial
operators working with lead containment
procedures. In Idaho, the participants felt
that both supervisors and workers needed to
be trained. Potential liability is too great for
the supervisors and the workers not to be
trained. While training would be expensive,
it would not be the largest cost associated
with the rule. In Pennsylvania, a staff
member had completed a seminar on lead
effects, conducted either by LTAP (Local
Technical Assistance Program) or HUD at
an area college. A concern was raised in
Idaho that contractors will attempt to skirt
the rules to increase profits.
Who should train. Participants suggested
that training be provided by US EPA or state
equivalent, community colleges, and college
based cooperative extension or continuing
education program that offer training and
certification programs. Idaho respondents
preferred that training is done by private
companies and through universities and also
suggested that EPA could provide a training
video.
FINDINGS. Training is essential for
contractors and should be optional but
available to small local governments.
Financial assistance for training needs to be
integral to this rule. To minimize the
expenses and the time involved in travel,
training should be conducted regionally by a
state agency or locally by a local technical
advisory group or through a university,
community college or cooperative extension
program. Training on lead removal issues
should be coordinated with other
environmental training for public works
employees.
CAPACITY OF LOCAL JURISDICTIONS
EPA estimates that the costs associated with
repainting these bridges and structures will
double as a result of certifying and training
requirements, and the imposition of work
standards for containment. Discussions
focused on the capacity of local
governments to handle these costs.
SCOPe participants were concerned
generally about fiscal stress in their
jurisdictions and concerned in particular
about the economic costs of such a rule and
on the administrative capacity of the local
jurisdictions to implement it. "Our town is
so strapped for funds that I paid to have our
city park mowed out of my own pocket. It's
just easier that way.” (Missouri Mayor).
24
In this context, it is possible that concerns
about lead-based paint may be understated.
In fact, one participant said that local public
officials might not want to talk about the
presence of lead-based paint on their
structures, because they are afraid that it will
cost too much to meet requirements. The
perception of risk is the biggest factor that
goes into a cost/benefit analysis determining
whether to maintain existing structures.
The majority of jurisdictions said that
increased cost for bridge and structure
maintenance will affect decisions regarding
maintenance of existing structures and
bridges. The costs of labor, paint, and
maintenance versus replacement costs,
structural integrity, safety and liability were
also concerns in many jurisdictions. In
Idaho, a participant said that while lead is a
concern in the valley, the city has little or no
experience, equipment, or budget to take on
lead removal projects like the Teeters Field
grandstands. The work it will probably go
“undone” until a grant or government
agency comes in and does the project. Paint
on these structures would have to be tested
to verify they are painted with lead-based
paint. The grandstand was built in the late
‘40’s and to his knowledge has not been
repainted.
Structure of Budgetary Allocations.
SCOPe learned that many small jurisdictions
do not have a specific allocation for
infrastructure maintenance. In Idaho,
budgets vary widely depending on the type
of jurisdiction. County and city budgets
vary depending on both population size and
taxable property values. Highway district
budgets vary according to the number of
road miles, and size of jurisdiction.
In Indiana, counties specifically appropriate
funds for maintenance activities, but not all
municipalities budget for public
maintenance activities. Some jurisdictions
allocate monies to departments (e.g., water,
fire etc.) that undertake various maintenance
activities. Other municipalities, including
one with a population over 10,000, funded
some maintenance projects with monies
transferred from general funds. These
allocations were made on a case-by-case
basis. The size of the communities
participating in Indiana's SCOPe ranged
from a population of 567 to 46,275 and the
budgets of these communities reflected these
variations.
In Mississippi, most communities do not
have separate maintenance budgets, and
none of the participants could provide an
accurate maintenance budget figure.
Estimates of maintenance costs ranged from
about 18 percent to 40 percent of the annual
budget. Budgeting practices in Mississippi
currently involve budgeting by city function
(public safety, public works, parks and
recreation, etc.) and maintenance is not
budgeted as a separate category. Each
function has a total budget that includes
salaries, fringes, materials, etc. Overall
budgets reported by participants in
Mississippi meetings ranged from a low of
$400,000 per year to a high of $58 million
per year, with a mean of $17.26 million per
year. The median value was $9 million per
year, probably a better indicator of the
"average" community in the group.
In Pennsylvania, the budgets for the
participating communities ranged from
ninety thousand to twenty million dollars.
Only 14 of the 27 communities separate out
a public works budget, however, the data are
not revealing of practices due to the vast
differences in municipal responsibilities for
infrastructure. One of the participating
communities, for example, handles the water
supply for itself and another community, as
well as electrical generation and the sewage
system. Water in Pennsylvania, however, is
25
primarily not handled by local communities,
but by private water companies. Roughly
half of the state's governments are special
purpose municipal authorities, especially
water and sewer authorities and other
utilities. Private companies, not a local
government, primarily handle these
functions.
The average budget of the local
governments in Indiana, Missouri,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania participating in
SCOPe was $2.817 million and the average
public works budget was $739 thousand.
Perceived Cost of Regulation. The
perceived cost of the proposed regulation
varied according to the type of regulated
activity and/or structure. The jurisdictions
distinguished "small jobs" from "large jobs."
While the basis for the distinction was not
always clear, it seemed to focus on two
criteria: 1. the extent of the health hazard
posed and 2) the increased economic cost of
the activity, although these criteria were not
mutually exclusive. Small jobs were those
that posed minimal health hazards or whose
costs would be minimally increased by the
implementation of the regulatory
requirements. When asked what a "minimal
health hazard" would be, the communities
were generally unable to define such a
hazard except to say that existing regulations
for the protection of the public's health
should be followed and exposures should
not exceed those levels. Minimal increases
in economic costs also were not well defined
but clearly, an increase of one-third to
one-half of existing costs would not be
considered minimal.
Indiana’s larger municipalities (>10,000
population) were more concerned than the
smaller communities, with the financial
impact of the rule on small structures, e.g.,
fire hydrants due to the large number of
hydrants maintained by the municipality.
Counties responsible for maintenance on
bridges expressed concern about how the
rules would affect "large jobs." Many steel
bridges in the state are in need of
maintenance and/or demolition.
Maintenance of such bridges, including
expenditures on lead-based paint removal,
which is currently being performed, was
estimated to cost anywhere from $20,000 to
$80,000. A one-third increase in cost for
even one bridge was perceived to be beyond
the counties' current financial means.
Counties particularly hard-hit are those with
large numbers of older bridges. These
counties face a particularly troublesome
dilemma. The counties with the largest
number of older bridges feature these
bridges as an asset in their community and
hence draw large numbers of tourists. The
covered bridges of many counties in Indiana
have been featured in tourist manuals,
fictional books, and movies. These
wood/steel structures are in need of
repair/maintenance and are in some cases
covered with lead-based paints.
The counties participating in SCOPe
currently do not have sufficient funds to
maintain these bridges. Additional
regulations, increasing the cost of
maintenance were perceived to be
"unacceptable." Rules that would increase
the costs of bridge maintenance would
prevent any maintenance activity from
taking place. "If a rule like that were put in
place, we'd just paint over the bridge rather
than remove the lead-based paint." The
impact on certain counties would be
financially overwhelming.
In Missouri, some counties have such
limited budgets that they have not painted
anything (external or internal) for several
years. Limited public funds are spent on
roads, law enforcement, public safety, and
26
other community priorities first. Similarly,
all jurisdictions in Missouri believe they had
more pressing environmental issues than
those concerning lead-based paint and they
recommended that EPA needs to prioritize
the problems associated with lead-based
paint waste containment relative to other
environmental issues faced by small
jurisdictions. Those listed as higher
priorities include: water quality, wastewater
treatment, solid waste management, and
storm water issues.
In Mississippi, SCOPe participants
suggested that if the costs to maintain
existing structures went up, then those
structures would receive even less
maintenance than they do currently. Others
were just direct, and stated emphatically that
increased costs would impact their ability to
maintain existing structures. This was
another point in the meetings when many
participants bemoaned the problems of
unfunded federal mandates, and one
participant wryly observed "it seems like the
federal government is trying to mandate us
out of business." Another participant
described additional requirements as "a
catastrophe."
The increased costs of the rule may
encourage noncompliance. Minimal record
keeping requirements with an exemption on
record keeping for small jobs (one day or
less) was recommended.
FINDINGS. The results suggest that risk
communication will be very important.
SCOPe finds that maintenance will be
deferred if costs significantly rise due to the
new standards and possibly non-compliance.
Record keeping and reporting requirements
should be kept to a minimum.
NOTIFICATION
The discussion focused on whether the rule
should require notification to communities
when removal activities or demolition of
bridges or structures are scheduled and on
the best ways for the public to receive that
notice. Two reasons for requiring
notification are so that communities can
take simple steps to protect public health
and to increase the likelihood of
compliance. Even when removal is
contained, there is still a risk of exposure.
Simple procedures such as closing windows
and not letting children play outside, etc.
can reduce the level of exposure and are the
justification for requiring notice to the
public. Notification may have the effect of
putting pressure on contractors to comply
with the standards for containing the lead
based paint debris.
Notice to state. Some participants wanted
the contractor to notify the state that it
would be performing paint removal or
demolition work. The state would then have
the responsibility of notifying the small
jurisdiction in which the work would be
performed.
Notice to local government. There was a
consensus that the rule should require
notification to the local government where
the maintenance or demolition activity is
scheduled to take place. This may be a
reflection of a concern for the potential
political controversy that could be generated
once residents find out there is lead-based
paint on structures in the community. As one
community official stated, "citizens call us
first." She suggested advanced warning of
the work in order to be properly prepared. It
was suggested that a fine be levied on
private companies that fail to give notice
and others suggested that all such work
27
should be permitted by the appropriate
government. A letter to the mayor, town
administrator, city manager and/or public
works director would be sufficient notice.
Notice to general public. The reaction was
mixed on the question of whether notice
should be required to the general public
ranging from "the public must be informed"
and "most people want to know what's going
on," to a feeling that "public notice is largely
ineffective, people don't read the notices."
Participants thought that determining who
should be notified is difficult from a
political standpoint and that notice can invite
lawsuits. To avoid unnecessary alarm, the
notice should not “blow the risks out of
proportion."
In Idaho, a majority felt that public
notification of lead-based paint removal
should take place only when activities
involve larger structures, occur in or near
residential areas, or in the case of an
emergency and that short-term projects (one
day or less) should not require notification.
Other participants said they believed their
residents would want to be notified anytime
lead-based paint removal is scheduled to
occur. As one participant said, "Ninety-nine
percent of the people couldn't care less, but
there's always one percent who want to
know everything that goes on." Another
added, "If they see a water tank covered
with "Visqueen" (a plastic sheeting), they'll
know something's going on." If notice to
the public is required, the jurisdiction
"would have to know about it 2 to 3 months
in advance so that residents can be warned."
Idaho suggested that the community should
be notified on an annual basis (this assumes
that removal work is scheduled annually.
Others felt that notifying the public was
unnecessary unless there were an emergency
situation. "People should trust us to do our
job and look out for them." Notice would
"just result in delays and the work would
never get done," "it will just cause
problems." There was a feeling that
notifying the general public of lead-based
paint activities might create unwarranted
fear. "Public notice leads to public panic
and project stoppage," as one participant
said. Others noted that work such as this
always seemed to cause a rash of health
complaints, even when no health danger was
present. There was also a concern about the
government's liability if someone is missed
during notification or if someone outside the
notification area got sick. In Indiana,
officials believed that proper work
procedures would protect community
members and that citizens would not attempt
to go near areas that were cordoned off
properly.
Participants were not convinced that using
public notification as a means to putting
pressure on contractors to comply with the
regulations was beneficial. If the general
public is notified, some Indiana officials
believe the "bridge huggers" will have
another reason to interfere with local
government operations. "We would have to
deal with those #$% bridge huggers." (These
comments referred to the activists in Indiana
communities who are committed to saving
the state's "historic bridges," and are
perceived to interfere with their proper
maintenance). SCOPe was also told
"enforcement is more important than
notification."
Newspaper notice. Despite obvious
difficulties, newspaper notice was the most
common method for public notification.
However, it was also noted that newspaper
notices often go unread or are
misinterpreted, causing an undue amount of
opposition to any project and that getting
cooperation from small local newspapers to
28
run a public service announcement is
difficult. Small newspapers often serve a
number of small communities they are
reluctant to run a PSA that will affect only
part of their circulation. Indeed, several
indicated the city was required to pay the
same advertising rates for public
announcements as local businesses paid for
advertising. In addition, local papers often
have relatively small circulation numbers.
.
Radio and television. Notice on radio and
television outlets would reach a wide
audience since some serve as many as 100
small communities. However, one
respondent noted that television stations in
particular are often reluctant to allow time
for public service announcements from
communities since they typically serve so
many small communities.
Affected public only. Although participants
had mixed views on citizen notification,
they agreed that notification should be given
to affected residents. "This should be like
Megan's Law, where residents are notified in
the affected areas." Suggestions on how to
identify the affected residents included using
zoning notification software that can list
homes within 300 feet of a structure and
GIS. Delivering flyers to each home within
the affected area and direct mailings are
considered to be the best means of notifying
the affected residents, businesses, schools
etc. Including notification on newsletters or
on the electric, water, and sewer bills was
suggested.
What notice should contain. Officials did
not express confidence in the general
public's ability to comprehend the
complexity of such matters. Most
respondents indicated the notification should
be as short as possible and contain only
information on the time and place of the
work, how long the process would take and
contact information. In Idaho participants
said that the notice should contain the health
risks from exposure and the precautions to
take while the work was going on.
However, in other jurisdictions several
participants said explicitly that the notice
should not contain information about
potential health hazards, as "it would only
encourage people to make up ailments they
didn't have." The officials did not see any
need to identify the type of work being
performed at the site. A notice warning the
public to stay away from the work area
and/or proper procedures for traversing the
area would be sufficient.
Some participants felt that the contents of
the notice should be left up to the
jurisdiction, although it was also noted that
at a minimum notice should contain
information on what to do and where to go
for information. It was suggested that notice
requirements "should depend on the density
of people nearby." A request was made for
the EPA to provide sample disclosure
statements to affected local governments
and require owners of structures that are
being rehabilitated to use the disclosure
statements properly. A point was made that
since providing notice can result in liability,
the notice should be drafted by a lawyer.
Experiences with notification. The
Pennsylvania participants offered a number
of insights about the notification practices of
those who own structures in small
jurisdictions. In the majority of the
jurisdictions included in SCOPe, two private
water companies handled the vast number of
water systems and were responsible for the
water towers, standpipes, and other holding
structures. As such, the questions asked to
SCOPe participants about notification
practices yielded significant findings about
how the private companies work with
community officials and residents when
29
performing paint removal. Phone calls to the
private water companies confirmed that they
have not used lead-based paint for many
years, use well-established containment
procedures, and routinely notify affected
residents of work being performed. Private
water company policies were rated higher
than the state's notification policies or
practices. A surprisingly large number of
meeting participants reported that the state
and some private companies were lax or
entirely uncooperative in terms of reporting
that a project was occurring. This was more
often a criticism of the state Department of
Transportation than on the private water
companies. Phone conversations with
private water company officials confirmed
what was generally reported by the local
officials, i.e., that the water companies have
a practice of notifying affected residents
about paint removal projects and other
projects. In addition, when asked questions
about types of paint used, the water
companies explained their policies of not
using lead-based paint for at least fifteen
years.
Comments included that a private water
company did inform the local officials about
sandblasting but didn't tell them what was
being taken off or what was reapplied.
· "The railroad (which owns some bridges)
wouldn't tell the township what they're
doing but they should."
· "I know what's going on because I'm the
administrator of the authority, but
PENNDOT usually keeps us in the dark."
The official claimed that the community
doesn't hear from "the state unless
something is wrong" and that then they get
the "heavy hand." There is no positive
communication. The county, however,
notified the officials if a nearby town was
planning something that would affect the
community.
· "The state doesn't let us know what they're
doing unless it will affect traffic."
· "Good companies will notify us anyway
and the bad ones won't-with or without
regulations."
· “When the (private) water company does
something, residents are informed."
However, when a tank near one official's
home was sandblasted, there was "no
notification" by the private company.
FINDINGS. Because so many local
governments neither own nor have
responsibility for the structures that will be
affected by the Lead Bridges and Structures
rulemaking, their views on notification are a
key part of the project findings. The
consensus is notice should be required to the
small jurisdiction where the work will take
place but opinions differ as to whether the
general public and/or the affected public
should be notified and as to who would bear
the responsibility and possible liability for
that notice. The contents of the notice
should be left up to the small jurisdiction but
some minimal guidelines would be useful.
The most effective means of notice will
depend in part on the size of the small
jurisdiction and whether the general or
affected public only will be receiving the
notice. Newspaper notice is ineffective and
public radio or television notice is expensive
and difficult to coordinate. Mail notice,
whether as an inclusion in a utility bill or in
a separate mailing, seems to be the most
effective means of informing the public.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH U.S. EPA AND
STATE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCIES
The discussion focused on relationships with
the US EPA and state departments of
environmental protection EPA and sought
30
suggestions on how to improve relationships
between the parties.
"EPA, DNR, IRS – they’re all in the same
basket. They’re all going to be getting in
your pocket, and they all make it harder to
be an administrator in a small community."
(Missouri Mayor)
Generally, although many participants may
have had limited interaction with these
agencies, their feelings were quite strong.
Several participants think that small
jurisdictions are fearful of contacting their
state agency or the EPA, for fear that
penalties may be assessed if they are found
to be in non-compliance. It is also important
to note that most participants did not have a
clear understanding of the relationship
between the federal enabling legislation and
EPA’s legislative requirement to regulate
and think that EPA takes it upon itself to
write rules. A suggestion to EPA is to
engage in some civic education, particularly
when dealing with small communities
(where education levels tend to be lower).
Most participants view regulating agencies
as “intruders” who are not sensitive to the
costs associated with regulation ("all
regulations the EPA writes will be coming
directly from the pockets of the citizens," or
the time it takes to convince local citizens of
their value. Some participants said that the
gap between science and policy at EPA
results in a lack of common sense.
Idaho participants said that the US EPA
does not provide enough awareness of
specific problems before rules are issued and
communication needs to be with elected
officials rather than public works personnel.
One participant said "it seems like they put
us through red tape to accomplish goals" and
"it seems to be getting worse." A city
manager believes that the US EPA
"performs a worthwhile function," while
another participant said that the EPA does
write some needed regulations, but without
thinking about the costs of the rule to local
governments. Idaho participants strongly
feel that regional differences must be
accounted for in the regulation and that
although flexibility is difficult to write into a
rule, it will be the key to compliance. Other
suggestions were for EPA to coordinate its
rules better with all other federal and state
agencies that are dealing with the same
issues.
In Mississippi, about half the participants
expressed a very low level of confidence in
the federal government. This view is
common within the political culture of
Mississippi, and reflects a broader emphasis
on states’ rights and minimal government.
Many expressed an opinion that
Mississippians would be better off with less
government interference, and that
Mississippi was better able to address
conditions in Mississippi than was the
federal government. The other half of the
respondents were somewhat more positive
toward the national government, and
suggested the federal government was
perfectly capable of addressing issues of
lead-based paint.
With one exception, Missouri respondents
indicated they had very little contact with
EPA, unless there was a major spill of
hazardous material. One respondent said
that he met an EPA representative
informally at a Missouri Association of
Counties conference and that this person
(from the Kansas City regional office)
seemed very competent and sensitive to the
concerns and operating constraints of rural
counties. However, Missouri comments
reflected a generally anti-government
feeling. Comments included “Rural people
resent it when the government imposes too
31
many rules. For them, the government costs
them more than the benefits it provides.
(Missouri Water District Manager); “Tell
EPA that they’d screw up a one-car funeral.
They aren’t accountable;” “(The EPA) has
done a good job overall in the last 25 years.
They’ve stopped a lot of pollution, like
burning trash and poor quality drinking
water. Still, our citizens see EPA as
government intrusion into their lives.”
(Missouri Mayor).
Comments included “the EPA is very
directive,” “the EPA is trouble;” and “they
bombard people with too many things and
don’t follow through.” Others were more
benign and neutral, suggesting “they have
good intentions, but poor execution,” “they
will do the right thing to the point it is
prohibitive;” and “I appreciate the things
they do, but they go a bit overboard.” The
ability of regulators to understand small
communities was questioned by comments
such as "they do not approach matters in a
practical way" and have "too little touch
with practitioners" and "lack field
experience."
Participants were overwhelmingly negative
about the US EPA's relationship with them,
although some noted that the SCOPe project
may help improve these relationships. While
many of the participants remained cautious,
most were pleasantly surprised with the
attempt to reach out to the small community
perspective. One administrator said "this is
the first time opinions have been solicited."
Along these same lines, one participant
noted that he sees the SCOPe process as "a
good potential for (small communities)
having some impact." Other participants felt
that SCOPe's input would not have any
impact on the rule itself.
State agencies. Attitudes toward the state
agencies were generally more positive, but
attitudes depend heavily on which individual
within the regulatory agency the local
jurisdiction worked with. Some employees
within each agency might be more
responsive to local jurisdiction concerns,
and were willing to work with local
jurisdictions, while others were unwilling to
listen, and did not appreciate that small
communities were doing their best to
comply with regulations.
The consensus among the participants is that
the rule should be enforced by the state
agencies because it is easier and more
efficient to work with local regulators who
are more familiar than federal agencies with
the local communities. Local pass-through
funds will be needed to implement the rule
and an Idaho participant cautioned that the
regional US EPA offices should not get a
share of those funds. Mississippi
participants said that the Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality
(MDEQ). is “supportive, understanding,
and willing to help.” As one participant
said, “they are on our level.” However, this
may be a “good cop/bad cop” strategy on the
part of MDEQ, which regularly seeks to
accomplish its mission by positioning itself
as the foil to a large, impersonal, uncaring
federal agency (US EPA). MDEQ can thus
portray itself as a friend to Mississippi
communities. This is not to say MDEQ is
shirking its responsibilities or unfairly
portraying the federal agency, but rather it is
tapping into a strong anti-national
government sentiment that runs deep in
Mississippi’s political culture. In Idaho, it
was felt by some participants that the state
environmental agency can be overly
bureaucratic (Boise-centric) and therefore
some communities prefer to work with US
EPA directly. Another individual described
the state EPA as being "difficult and
inflexible," and yet another said that the
state EPA is easy to work with although it
32
has limited powers compared to the US
EPA.
FINDINGS. Generally, small communities
have a higher level of trust and prefer to
work with state agencies than for federal
counterparts. Some comments reflect a
general negative attitude toward the federal
government and not specifically toward the
EPA.
CONCLUSIONS
● Communities need to be educated on the
risks to the general public of lead-based
paint debris from bridges and structures. A
risk communication effort similar to that
given to lead-based paint in housing and in
fuel may be required in this rulemaking.
● Small communities think that the federal
government should focus on eliminating the
use of lead-based paints in order to eliminate
creating future risk. Preventing the use of
lead-based paint on outdoor structures will
eliminate continuing issues of contamination
from lead-based paint debris.
● Small communities do not know which
structures and bridges located within their
jurisdictions are painted with lead-based
paint, do not know how to obtain this
information, and do not want that
responsibility.
● Coordination with GASB 34
requirements to develop inventories of
infrastructure, and with the GASB to
develop procedures to account for liabilities
due to environmental regulations will
simplify any inventory requirements placed
on small communities by the rulemaking.
● Lab sampling may be the most foolproof
way to test for the presence of lead, but field
identification kits would be a reliable and
less expensive alternative. Reliance on
historical records is not a viable alternative
method.
● Either lab testing or field testing should
done by the state or other entity during
routine infrastructure inspection in order to
minimize the burden on the small entities.
● A rule that differentiates containment
requirements based on the different
concentrations of lead found in the paint and
the location of the particular bridge or
structure will minimize the burden on the
small entities.
● Municipal, county, and state government
as well as private companies, such as
railroads and water companies, own bridges
and large structures. Even where the local
government owns the bridge or structure, it
is not necessarily responsible for its
maintenance.
● The regulations should be directed to the
entities that routinely are responsible for
maintenance in order to minimize the burden
on small communities.
● Sandblasting is the most common form
of paint removal on large structures.
Containment processes vary within the
communities and generally it is the
contractors who decide whether and how to
contain debris. Containment requirements
for bridges that are the only passage for
ingress and egress will need to be carefully
coordinated with the jurisdiction.
● Entire structures are repainted
approximately every ten years although in
salt water environments repainting is more
frequent. Maintenance is dependent on the
availability of funding and increased
requirements will defer necessary
maintenance.
● Demolition and replacement can be less
costly than repainting, however,
communities prefer not to demolish
landmark structures. Some communities
have decided not to repaint with lead-based
paint.
● Lead-based paint is not used to maintain
small structures. Small structures are often
entirely replaced or painted over with non
33
lead-based paint. Paint debris is not
contained when maintaining small
structures. Playground equipment is made of
materials that do not require painting.
● If structures are regulated, then small
structures should be exempt from the
rulemaking since small surface areas pose
small health hazards. If the activity is
regulated, small structures should be exempt
since they are typically repainted without
scraping. Without exemption, the financial
impact on jurisdictions with a significant
amount of small structures would be
burdensome.
● Training is essential for contractors and
should be optional but available to small
local governments. Financial assistance for
training needs to be integral to this rule.
Training should be conducted regionally by
a state agency or locally by a local technical
advisory group or through a university,
community college or cooperative extension
program. Training should be coordinated
with other environmental training for public
works employees.
● Small governments do not have the
financial capacity to comply with new
maintenance requirements and increased
costs may encourage noncompliance.
Minimal record keeping requirements with
an exemption on record keeping for small
jobs will minimize the burden.
● Notice should be required to the small
jurisdiction where the work will take
place but opinions differ as to whether the
general public and/or the affected public
should be notified and as to who would bear
the responsibility and possible liability for
that notice. Contents of the notice should be
left up to the small jurisdiction but some
minimal guidelines would be useful. The
most effective means of notice will depend
in part on the size of the small jurisdiction
and whether the general or affected public
only will be receiving the notice. Newspaper
notice is ineffective and public radio or
television notice is expensive and difficult to
coordinate. Mail notice, whether as an
inclusion in a utility bill or in a separate
mailing, seems to be the most effective
means of informing the public.
● Generally, small communities have a
higher level of trust and prefer to work with
state agencies than for federal counterparts.
34
APPENDIX 1 INFORMATIONAL AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES FOR PARTICIPANTS
GENERAL INFORMATION
www.leadinfo.com.html
LEAD & HEALTH
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
1600 Clifton Rd.,
Atlanta, GA 30333
Tel. 404.639.3534 1.800.311.3435
http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/lead.htm
http://www.leadinfo.com/HEALTH/health.html
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Division of Toxicology
1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop E-29
Atlanta, GA 30333
Tel. 1.888.422.8737 Fax. 404.498.0057
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts13.html
FLORIDA
Florida Department of Transportation
Melissa Morgan
Bridge Information Systems Engineer
District 2 Bridge Office
386.758.3707 Fax 386.758.3707 1.800.749.2967 (Lake City)
http://www11.myflorida.com/publicinformationoffice/
GEORGIA
Georgia Department of Transportation
Bridge Maintenance Division
http://www.dot.state.ga.us/homeoffs/bridge_info.www/index.htm
35
INDIANA
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Tel. 317.232.8603 Fax. 317.233.6647 Tel. 800.451.6027 (Toll free in Indiana)
http://www.in.gov/idem/
IDEM Guide to the existing air rule addressing lead containment issues
http://www.in.gov/idem/guides/permit/air/fugitivedust.html
2000 Bridge Sufficiency Rating Report for All Indiana Counties (includes a CD rom)
Indiana LTAP Center
Purdue University
1284 Civil Engineering Building
West Lafayette, IN 47907-1284
Tel. 765.494.2164 1.800.428.7639 (Toll free in Indiana)
MISSOURI
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, MO 65102
Tel. 1.800.361.4827
http://www.dnr.state.mo.us
Missouri Rural Water Association
6101 East Angel Lane, Ashland, MO 65010
Tel. 573.657.5533
http://www.moruralwater.org/
NORTH CAROLINA
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways Operations, Construction & Maintenance, State Maintenance &
Equipment Branch, Bridge Maintenance Unit
Cary Clemmons 919.733.4362 email [email protected]
Wayne Harp 919.733.4362 email [email protected]
http://www.ncdot.org/
36
PENNSYLVANIA
Pennsylvania Department of Health
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program
P.O. Box 90 Harrisburg, PA 17108
Tel. 717.783.8451
This agency educates Pennsylvania’s citizens about the dangers of lead poisoning. It is an
advocacy, education, regulatory, and research unit and provides printed educational materials at
no cost and a lead information hotline (800-440-LEAD).
Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development
Commonwealth Keystone Building, 4th Floor
Harrisburg, PA 17120 Tel. 717.234.4560
The Governor’s Center for Local Government Services (GCLGC) (1-888-223-6837) is a onestop information service for all local governments in the state and will connect officials to
appropriate personnel on any issue affecting a municipality.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, PA 17105-2063
Tel. 717.783.2300
Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT)
Commonwealth Keystone Building
400 North Street
Harrisburg 17120-0041
Tel. 717.787.2838
The Highway Administration part of the agency has a Bridge Quality Assurance division that
includes a large state for the Statewide Bridge Inspection program. There is also a Consultant
Agreement division and a contract Management Division within Highway Administration. The
Bureau of Maintenance and Operations has a Maintenance division that has a Bridge
Maintenance Unit.
The Pennsylvania Local Roads Program (LTAP)
Penn State Eastgate Center
1010 North 7th Street, Suite 304
Harrisburg, PA 17102-1410
Tel. 1.800-FOR-LTAP
[email protected]
LTAP is the only organization in Pennsylvania with the sole function of transferring road and
bridge technology to Pennsylvania’s 2,639 municipalities. LTAP was designed to help the
state’s municipalities—which maintain 68,5000 miles of roadways—to make the best use of
37
their scarce roadway maintenance dollars. LTAP provides a wide array of services, including
technical assistance, training sessions, and updates on the latest technologies and innovations,
usually at no cost to the municipality.
Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (L&I)
Labor and Industry Building
Harrisburg, PA 17120
Tel. 717.787.5279
This agency houses the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. L&I Office of Chief Counsel has a
Labor Law Compliance division. There is also a Bureau of Occupational and Industrial Safety,
which has an Asbestos/Lead program within its Accreditation, Certification & Licensing Section.
A Bureau of PENNSAFE includes a Compliance Assistance Division and training specialists.
Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
Rachael Carson State Office Building
P.O. Box 8767
Harrisburg 17105-8767
Tel. 717.787.2869
The Bureau of Facility Design and construction has a Bridges & Road Management Section. The
Bureau of Recreation and conservation’s Planning, Outreach and Technical support Division
provides planning, workshops, publications, and contracts and is a resource on playground
safety.
Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST)
22 South Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel. 717.787.8137
This agency has a state revolving fund and various other financial mechanisms for helping in the
development of water infrastructure facilities.
The Pennsylvania Program to Improve State and Local Government (The Pa Program)
Penn State Harrisburg
777 W. Harrisburg Pike
Middletown, PA 17057-4898
Tel. 717.948.6060 Fax. 717.948.6320
The PA program is a university research and outreach center dedicated to public service by
advancing the frontiers of knowledge through careful and systematic analysis that helps develop
sound practical assistance to governments and public policy makers. The Pa Programs conducts
original research, facilitates the application of sound information by Pennsylvania’s decisionmakers, and conveys examples of exemplary policy, service delivery, and management practices
through various outreach activities.
38
Center for Rural Pennsylvania
200 North Third Street, Suite 600
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel. 717.787.9555 Fax. 717.772.3587
http://www.ruralpa.org/
The Center for Rural Pennsylvania is a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency that serves as a
resource for rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly. The Center works with
executive agencies and federal, regional and community organizations to maximize resources
and strategies that can better serve the needs of Pennsylvania's 3.7 million rural residents.
Municipal, County and Professional Associations
Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors (PSATS)
3001 Gettysburg Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011-7296
Tel. 717.763.0930
http://www.psats.org/
Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs (PSAB)
41 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Tel. 717.236.9526 Fax 717.236.8164
E-mail: [email protected]
http://www.boroughs.org/index.stm
Pennsylvania League of Cities and Municipalities (PLCM)
414 North Second Street,
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Tel. 717.236.9469 Fax 717.236.6716
http://www.plcm.org
A key program offered by PLCM is a local public procurement program (1-800-438-5370)
through which any municipal government can purchase materials, such as lead-free paint
products.
SOUTH CAROLINA
South Carolina Department of Transportation
Lee Floyd
Bridge Inspection Engineer
Bridge Maintenance Office
Tel. 803.737.1494
http://www.dot.state.sc.us/
39
Appendix 2 PROFILES OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS, METHODOLOGIES &
DEMOGRAPHICS.
Technical consultant. RAE ZIMMERMAN is Professor of Planning and Public
Administration, Director of the Urban Planning Program at New York University’s Robert F.
Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, and member and a former Director of the School’s
management specialization. In 1997, she was President of the Society for Risk Analysis, a 2,400
member international, interdisciplinary professional society of natural and social scientists and
engineers from academia, industry and government. She is a Fellow of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the Society for Risk Analysis. Dr.
Zimmerman’s teaching and research interests are in environmental planning, management, and
impact assessment; environmental equity; urban infrastructure, its measurement and
performance; and risk management and public perceptions of complex technologies.
Dr. Zimmerman has directed numerous multidisciplinary research grants in these areas funded
by agencies including the U.S. EPA, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and U.S.
Department of Commerce, and state and local agencies. In the area of infrastructure, she
directed the New York State needs assessment in transportation, water supply, and wastewater
for the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee; a study of an offshore island complex; and
New York State Department of Transportation’s early outreach program for the statewide
transportation master plan; and water supply, wastewater, and transportation forecasts for a
rapidly growing town in New York State. She has recently been Project Director and Principal
Investigator (PI) of the NSF-funded research project on infrastructure performance and directed
the workshop on integrated research in civil infrastructure. Professionally, she conducts risk and
environmental impact evaluations, regulatory support, and public outreach for large
infrastructure facilities for water treatment, transportation, waste disposal, and other civil
infrastructure with engineers and planners. Current professional appointments include member of
the National Research Council’s Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, U.S.
EPA’s Board of Scientific Counselors, the Science Advisory Board Relative Risk Subcommittee,
and the NYS Comparative Risk Committee.
IDAHO
Principal investigator. W. DAVID PATTON is the Director of the Center for Public Policy
and Administration at Boise State University. As the Director, he coordinates various research
projects as requested by public agencies seeking assistance in a variety of areas. Some recent
projects include an analysis of tax preferences among Idaho citizens, a Baseline Survey for the
Idaho State Library, a Cost of Development study for Boise City, data collection for Idaho's
KIDS COUNT project, development of the Idaho Municipal Source Book, and numerous other
applied research projects. He is also the Institute Director for the Mountain West Municipal
Clerks and Treasurers' Institute, and provides research and training services to government
agencies. Some of these recent training projects have included the Newly Elected City Officials'
Workshop, Local Government Training Institute (for county officials), Performance
40
Measurement Workshop (for state agency officials), and Management Training for the Idaho
State Tax Commission.
Methodology and demographics. In Idaho, the SCOPe team held two open forums and sent a
questionnaire to jurisdictions who were unable to attend either forum. The first forum was
attended by city managers from jurisdictions throughout the state of Idaho with a wide range of
populations. The smallest Idaho city participating SCOPe has a population of 840 and the largest
has nearly 35,000 people. The managers represented the following cities: Burley, pop 9,316;
Coeur d'Alene, pop. 34,514; Jerome, pop.7,780; Lewiston, pop. 30,904; McCall, pop. 2,084;
Meridian, pop. 34,919; Moscow, pop. 21,291; Rexburg, pop.17,257; Rupert, pop. 5,645; Twin
Falls, pop. 34,469; Victor, pop. 840. The second forum included was attended by public works
and maintenance officials from southwest Idaho. They were: Superintendent of Public Works,
Emmett, pop. 5,490; Public Works Supervisor and the City Engineer, Jerome, pop. 7,780;
Building Official and the Street Department Director, Mountain Home, pop.11,143; and the
Director of the Idaho Local Highway Technical Assistance Council.
INDIANA
Principal investigator. ELLEN J. SZARLETA is an assistant professor at the school of Public
and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University Northwest. She is also an attorney and a
magistrate. Dr. Szarleta's research and teaching interests include Law and Economics,
Environmental Policy, Public Policy and Law, Environmental Law, Sustainable Development
Environmental Economics and Urban Sprawl. Publications include “How Severe is Severe:
Public Involvement and the Systematic Understanding of Wilderness as a Resource." Coauthored with M. Schoepfle and S. Schnexnayder, in Scientific Challenges of NEPA: Future
Direction Based on 20 Years of Experience. "Sources and Consequences ofHypothetical Bias in
Economic Analyses of Risk Behavior." Co-authored with R.A. Cantor and M. Schoepfle, in The
Analysis, Communication and Perception of Risk, ed. B.J. Garrick and W.C. Gekler, Plenum
Press, New York, 1991. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. El Portal Project. FERC No.
3581. Contributor. 1988. "Market Surplus in Burkina Faso: A Study of Grain Disposal
Patterns," in the Dynamics of Grain Marketing in Burkina Faso, Vol. III, Center for Research on
Economic Development, University of Michigan and International Agricultural Programs,
University of Wisconsin, 1987.
Methodology and demographics. The thirteen counties that participated in Indiana SCOPe are
Carroll County, Dekalb, Lagrange County, Montgomery County, Noble County, Parke County,
Pulaski County, Putnam County, Steuben County. Ethnic diversity varied slightly but the
population in these counties is primarily White. The largest minority population consisted of
individuals of Hispanic/Latino origin living in Noble County. Approximately 7% of the
population in this county is Hispanic/Latino origin. Median household income in these counties
ranged from approximately $33,000 to almost $41,000. In the state of Indiana the median
household income is $37,909. One indicator of population density is the number of persons per
square mile. In Pulaski County there are 32 persons per square mile, while in Noble County, the
population density measures 112.6 persons per square mile, nearly 6 times that of Pulaski
41
County. Observations made during the drives to the SCOPe meetings confirm the rural nature of
these counties.
Twelve Indiana municipalities participated in SCOPe. The smallest community had a population
of 547 and the largest had 32,900 residents. These municipalities differed widely in ethnic
composition. African-Americans represent over 26% of the population of Michigan City.
Persons of Hispanic/Latino origin represent approximately 11% of the city of Monticello and the
largest percentage (2.6%) of individuals of Asian origin resides in the Town of Schererville. The
participating municipalities are City of Auburn, Town of Danville, City of Greencastle, Town of
Lowell, City of Martinsville, Michigan City, City of Monticello, Town of Plainfield, Town of
Reynolds, Town of Rockville, Town of Schererville, City of Whiting.
Two members of the administration of the Indiana University Northwest campus represented the
academic community. The chancellor of the IUN campus, Dr. Bruce Bergland, and the director
and associate dean of the Division of Public and Environmental Affairs, Joseph Pellicciotti, both
participated. Chancellor Bergland offered the university’s services for meeting facilities and
agreed to support the project’s objectives through additional means. Director Pellicciotti
provided valuable advice on the selection of advisory board members.
The business community, particularly in northwest Indiana, is acutely aware of and concerned
with environmental issues. Mr. John Fekete, environmental director of Inland Steel operations,
was a concerned and active participant. He provided contacts with the participating communities
and important suggestions for establishing contacts.
Two members of the Northwestern Indiana Regional Planning Commission, Ms. Reggie
Korthals and Ms. Petrosky, have extensive experience coordinating and working with local
government officials and assisted in organizing one of the community group meetings.
Dr. Mark Reshkin was chosen in order to provided the board with a sense of the region’s
environmental “culture.” Dr. Reshkin has more than 30 years of experience in addressing local
environmental issues. He is an emeritus professor in the School of Public and Environmental
Affairs at IUN, and currently serves on a number of environmental committees in the region,
including holding the position of Chairperson of the Environmental Management Committee of
the Northwest Indiana Forum, a business association advocating business interests.
Porter County solid waste management district director Lance Hodge is well known for his
experience with working with communities and their citizens. As solid waste management
director he is extremely knowledgeable regarding environmental issues not only in his county
but also in his region. The solid waste management district boards are composed of elected
officials appointed by various governmental bodies (see Indiana Code 13-21-3-5). Mr. Hodge
has extensive experience educating local government officials and conducting outreach efforts.
MISSISSIPPI
Principal investigator. JOHN C. MORRIS is an Associate Professor of Political Science at
Mississippi State University. His research and teaching interests include Environmental Policy,
42
Federalism, Public/Private Administration and Theory. Publications include: "State
Implementation of National Water Quality Policy: Policy Theory, Policy Streams and
(Un)Intended Consequences in Water Quality." Public Works Management & Policy, 3, 317-330
(April 1999); "The Distributional Impacts of Privatization in National Water Quality Policy."
Journal of Politics, 59:1, 56-72 (February 1997). Works in progress include: "State
Implementation of Federal Environmental Policy: Explaining Leveraging in the Clean Water
State Revolving Fund," to be submitted to Policy Studies Journal, with Elizabeth D. Morris and
Rick Travis; A Sense of Place: Water Towers and the Mississippi Landscape a book-length
manuscript to be completed by Spring 2002, with David A. Breaux; Clean Water, Dirty Politics:
Water Associations in Mississippi a book-length manuscript to be completed by August 2002,
with David A. Breaux. Professor Morris served as the Senior Research Scientist on "Helping
Small Communities Address Environmental Requirements, " a grant awarded by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, the Mississippi Municipal Association, and the John C. Stennis
Institute of Government (Award amount: $315,000) (Spring 1998) and received the Outstanding
Professor Award, 1999-2000, Department of Political Science, Mississippi State University. He
serves on the Editorial Board of Public Works Management & Policy.
Methodology and demographics. In Mississippi, all but two of 295 municipalities and nearly
all the counties met the criteria for inclusion in the project. The SCOPe team met with 23
communities ranging in size from populations of 285 to 44,770 people. They are: Aberdeen,
pop. 6,415; Batesville, pop. 7,113; Belzoni, pop. 2,663; Columbus, pop. 25,944; Crawford, pop.
655; Ellisville, pop. 3,465; Greenville, pop. 41,633; Hattiesburg, pop. 44,770; Horn Lake,
pop. 14,099; Indianola, pop. 12,066; Lee County, pop. 41,544; Leland, pop. 5,502; Mize, pop.
285; Noxubee County, pop. 12,548; Oktibeha County, pop. 42,902; Oneida County, pop. 5253;
Oxford, pop. 11,756; Petal, pop. 7579; Plantersville, pop. 1,144; Senatobia, pop. 6,682;
Starkville, pop 21,869; Sumrall, pop. 1,005; Tupelo, pop. 34,211.
Initially, municipalities and counties that had a high number of bridges that could have leadbased paint were targeted and eighty municipalities and counties were invited to participate. To
generate interest in the SCOPe project, the project team attended the Mississippi Municipal
League’s annual convention. During the two-day event, the team spoke with approximately 150
municipal officials and handed out material about the SCOPe project.
Two communities declined to participate in the project. One community examined the material
and stated that the issue was not a concern of the community and therefore would not participate.
A second community has no full time employees; the meeting was scheduled during the day and
the Mayor could not leave work to attend the meeting. Other communities agreed to participate
and then did not attend scheduled meetings. Most of the communities that did not attend had
planned to send their public works director or a water operator. Flash flooding in those
communities or lightning strikes prevented their attendance to the scheduled meeting. Municipal
elections were held in June, and nearly 50% of the invited Mayors were newly elected.
Secondly, municipal budget preparation occurs in July and August when the meetings were
being scheduled. Many of the communities in the state have very few employees and have little
time currently to participate in anything outside of the municipal boundaries.
43
Prior to the meetings, the SCOPe team discussed the extent of lead-based paint on outdoor
structures in Mississippi with the state's Department of Transportation and Department of Health.
These two departments have responsibility or work with communities on the maintenance of
bridges and water towers and tanks. In addition, the team spoke to the university's environmental
hazards department, which conducts training on removal of lead-based paint from indoor
environments for the state. Five meetings were scheduled across the state of Mississippi with an
average of seven people in attendance. The first four meetings were held in the City Council
chambers. The last meeting was held on the campus of Mississippi State University. The
Advisory Board provided the SCOPe team with their thoughts about the project and issues to
consider, contacts and networking assistance, feedback to the findings from the community
meetings and additional information about resources for communities wanting more information
about the hazards of lead-based paint.
The meetings were attended by Mayors, Public Works directors, water, street, fire, and
recreational staff. After an initial telephone invitation, a package was mailed to the Mayor
containing a formal letter of invitation, directions to the meeting place, the brochure that was
passed out at the Mississippi Municipal League convention, and a short discussion guide. A
PowerPoint presentation was made at the meetings and the SCOPe discussion guide was used to
lead the discussion. At the end of the meeting, participants completed an evaluation and
demographic information form and received a brochure that provided more information about the
dangers of lead and the potential rule. After the meetings, the press releases were sent to each
participating community’s newspaper to provide communities with positive publicity about their
participation in the national project.
Because of emergencies and no-shows at the scheduled meetings, the SCOPe team needed to
contact more communities. Initially, the team contacted the communities that had agreed to
participate, but were unable. A number of them agreed to telephone interviews either with a
member of the public works staff or the mayor. Other communities were called that had not
been invited initially to participate. A number of these communities agreed to participate. This
group of communities was sent a letter confirming the telephone call invitation, a brochure about
the project, and discussion questions. The telephone interviews were much more difficult to
complete and were generally not completed in one telephone call. After the telephone call
interview had been completed, a thank you letter with the final brochure, was sent to the Mayor.
The demographic form was completed over the telephone and the evaluation form was faxed to
participants.
The advisory committee was formed based on the team's s understanding of the potential impact
that the EPA rule may have on the State of Mississippi and agencies across the state that
currently address lead-based paint problems or could be required to address problems. The
Mississippi Department of Transportation declined to participate. Otherwise, staff from the
Department of Environmental Quality, the Department of Health, the Mississippi Development
Authority, and the Mississippi Association of Supervisors participated in the advisory board.
Profiles of the board members follow.
Jimmie Asbill, chief of the certification branch of the Air Division of the Mississippi Department
of Environmental Quality’s Office of Pollution Control. The certification branch is responsible
for the development and implementation of the State’s lead-based paint program. He has been
with the Department of Environmental Quality for twelve years. Prior to being employed by
the Department of Environmental Quality, he spent thirty-one years in the petroleum industry.
Johnny Beason, Program Administrator of the Lead Section, in the Mississippi Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) Air Division, and previously was an Environmental Scientist in
the Air and Water Pollution Control Commission Field Service (Water) Division in the MDEQ.
Trent A. Jones, a graduate of Mississippi State University with a Bachelor of Science degree in
Chemical Engineering. He is employed with the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality in the Solid Waste Management Branch. Mr. Jones is one of three regional planning
engineers responsible for working with local communities to develop integrated solid waste
management systems, for permitting and compliance actions involving the Mississippi Waste
Tire Management Program, and for assisting with the Department's Solid Waste Grants
Programs. Additionally, he participates in projects related to the Mississippi Nonhazardous
Solid Waste Corrective Action Trust Fund for closed or abandoned landfills and the Landfill
Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) for gas to energy projects. Finally, Mr. Jones serves as the
primary contact for guidance and information regarding disposal of architectural debris which
includes lead based paint and asbestos containing materials as well as general demolition debris.
G. Keith Maranger, an environmental health program specialist with the Bureau of General
Environmental Services of the Mississippi State Department of Health since September 1994. He
does assessments of lead hazards in the environments of children with elevated blood lead levels.
These assessments include recommendations for reducing the lead hazards in the children's
environments. A graduate of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, VA with a master's degree in
community health education, Maranger is a member of the Mississippi State Lead Advisory
Board.
William (Bill) F. Moody, a graduate of Mississippi State University with a Bachelor's of Science
in Chemical Engineering. He is employed by the Mississippi State Department of Health in the
Division of Water Supply for more than four years as one of eleven Regional Engineering
Representatives.
Barbara R. Ousby, Ph.D., an Environmental Scientist at the Mississippi Development Authority,
Division of Energy. Dr. Ousby is the Division/Agency representative on environmental issues.
In addition to participating in DEQ sponsored projects and activities, such as the Pearl and
Pascagoula Water Basin Teams, and the Air Quality Commission Board, she is the state/federal
liaison with EPA and the LMOP Program and the Wastewater Treatment
45
Program and most recently the Development of a “brownfields” program. Dr. Ousby plays a
lead role in the proposals submitted in the federal government and negotiates and writes
contracts, monitors contract, and reports on projects.
Joel Yelverton, Assistant Executive Director of the Mississippi Association of Supervisors. He
holds a B.S. degree in management and an M.B.A. degree in business administration from
Mississippi State University. Mr. Yelverton has worked as a Senior Analyst for the Joint
Legislative Committee on Performance Evaluation and Expenditure Review (PEER Committee)
and a Senior Fiscal Investigator for the Mississippi Department of Finance and Administration.
Yelverton is actively involved in several organizations including: Keep Mississippi Beautiful
Board of Directors; National Association of County Intergovernmental Relations Officials;
Governor’s Task Force on Water and Wastewater; Southeastern Employment & Training
Association; Public Advisory Committee; Department of Environmental Quality; Mississippi
Council on Rural Development; Mississippi Rural Health Association; Local Governments and
Rural Water Systems Improvements Board; Vice Chairman, Environmental, Energy & Land Use
Steering Committee; National Association of Counties Rails Safety Task Force; Mississippi
Department of Transportation; Chairman, Partnership for a Healthy Mississippi.
MISSOURI
Principal investigator. JAMES K. SCOTT is the Director of the Institute for Public Policy at
the Harry S Truman School, University of Missouri, Columbia and previously served as the
Program Director, Community Policy Analysis Center at the University of Missouri. Scott has
published numerous articles and research reports on community policy research, community
decision support, and community impact assessment. His current research focuses on the
changing nature of rural governance, and the role of the public in community decision making.
Scott coordinates a national community policy research project for the Rural Policy Research
Institute (RUPRI), involving over forty regional scientists from twenty-five states and is a senior
research scientist with the Show Me Project, a multiyear interdisciplinary initiative in rural
community and economic development in the Border regions of Ireland. His publications include
"Community Decision Support Systems: Managing Knowledge for Sustainable Community
Development" with Kate O'Dubhchair and Thomas G. Johnson in G. David Garson, ed.
Handbook of Public Information Systems. New York: marcel dekker, inc (2000); "The Changing
Nature of Rural Communities" with Thomas G. Johnson, in Increasing Understanding of Public
Problems and Policies, D. Ernstes and D. Hicks, eds. Oak Brook, IL: The Farm Foundation
(1998); "The Community Policy Analysis Network: A National Infrastructure for Community
Decision Support," with Thomas G. Johnson Journal of Regional Analysis and Policy, 28(2):
49-64 (1997).
Methodology and demographics. In Missouri, the criteria for inclusion were jurisdictions with
a population under 25,000 residents, located within a 50 mile radius of Columbia, Missouri. A
SCOPe team led by Professor James Scott, Interim Director of the Public Policy Institute, Harry
S. Truman School, contacted public officials from 76 small jurisdictions including
municipalities, county governments and water districts and recruited twenty-five public officials
46
from 14 jurisdictions to participate in SCOPe. The participating jurisdictions were Ashland,
Blackwater, Boone, Boonville, Fulton, Glasglow, Hallsville, Moberly, New Bloomfield, New
Franklin, Pilot Grove, Public Water Special Districts #1, 2, 10.
Columbia is a city of approximately 85,000 people. While the selected region has a population
of over 300,000 living in nine different counties, approximately 60 percent live in the open
country or in jurisdictions with less than 25,000 people. The nine counties included can be
considered a single functioning economic area, which is dominated by the University of
Missouri, the State Capitol in Jefferson City, and regional healthcare and insurance providers.
Columbia is the regional trade and services center. The surrounding rural regions rely on
agriculture and small manufacturing for economic viability.
This region was selected for SCOPe for several reasons. First, its proximity to the University
was convenient for team members and prospective participants. Second, region contains a large
number of jurisdictions that fit the population size targets provided for the project. Third, the
area is generally regarded as a single economic region, where population growth is occurring in
small towns and in the open country. A significant portion of local government revenue comes
from local sales tax receipts. Since retail sales in the region are concentrated in the City of
Columbia, many small jurisdictions in this region have growth in population and demand for
services that far exceeds the growth of local government revenues. Consequently, many of the
small jurisdictions face similar fiscal and environmental challenges.
Workers living in the rural areas around Columbia find employment in small manufacturing, in
state government or in agricultural production and services. With few exceptions, farms are
relatively small. Most farm operators are employed full-time in another job. The rural
population in the region has grown 15.6 percent since 1990, largely because households are
attracted to country life. Nevertheless, the rural population is older, poorer and more
conservative than the region’s city dwellers. Suggestions from the Advisory Panel to broaden the
community sample beyond cities/small towns and counties to also include water districts, and to
stratify the project’s sample by population size, were incorporated in to the project design. A
letter describing SCOPe and inviting participation was mailed to the most senior elected official
in 59 jurisdictions meeting these criteria. A response card allowing these public officials to
indicate interest in participation, with a choice of five meeting times was included.
Each of the Missouri SCOPe meetings and interviews began with a presentation by team
members that provided an introduction to the project, an overview of the environmental and
health hazards regarding the maintenance of lead-based paint on structures, the issues now under
consideration by EPA rule makers, and the alternative methods of containing lead-based paint
debris. These presentations were based on information and power point presentations provided to
each SCOPe team. Additional background information was obtained from discussion with
project advisory panel members, as well as from Missouri’s Department of Natural Resources
and Department of Health.
Missouri SCOPe was assisted by an advisory group that brought years of relevant experience and
donated significant time to help assure successful project completion. The group represents a
47
broad group of environmental stakeholders, including county and municipal local government
staff, the director of the local regional planning commission, pertinent state agency
administrators, an engineering contractor, and an executive director of a citizens environmental
group. The Advisory Group was composed of the following individuals.
Carl Brown, the Government Assistance Unit Chief of the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources’ Technical Assistance Program (TAP), which provides outreach to communities when
they have questions or concerns related to environmental matters. DNR-TAP also provides
technical assistance to communities in addressing environmental issues and Carl has developed a
reputation for being a valued resource to municipalities.
Steve Burdic, a staff member of the Missouri River Communities Network, a local not-for-profit
organization whose purpose is to support sound management of the Missouri River as an
environmental, scenic, economic and cultural resource. Steve has worked on several projects
within MRCN that deal with water quality issues and is very familiar with DNR programs and
guidelines.
Tanna Parish, the Public Works Director for the City of Mexico, Missouri. Tanna has worked
with various state and federal programs for community development, including the Community
Development Block Grant program. In administering CDBG housing rehabilitation programs,
Tanna has a solid background on issues related to removal of lead-based paint.
Ernie Perry, a Research Development Specialist at the Missouri Department of Transportation.
Ernie was previously responsible for community impact assessment related to MO-DOT
projects. Currently, he is developing the social, economic, and environmental research program
for the Department.
Chris Segafredo, the Director of Environmental Services and an environmental scientist for
Engineering Surveys and Services. Chris works with municipalities, water districts and private
industries throughout the central Missouri area. Chris has provided environmental services for a
number of local government projects.
Stan Shawver, the Director, Boone County Planning & Building Inspection. He works on a
variety of issues in rural areas, including environmental compliance and has been with several
regional planning efforts. He is familiar with other types of districts for services in rural areas,
such as rural water and rural sewer districts.
Garry Taylor, the Director of the Mid-Missouri Regional Planning Council, which serves a
multi-county area in Central Missouri. Garry works with local governments to prioritize projects
and secure federal and state funding.
48
PENNSYLVANIA
Principal investigator. BEVERLY A. CIGLER is a Professor of Public Policy and
Administration and director of the Pa Program to Improve State and Local Government, at Penn
State, Harrisburg. Her teaching and research interests include local and state politics and
management, state and local policy, politics and management. Professor Cigler served as the
chair of the Pennsylvania Municipal Management Institute (PMMI), the training institute for the
Association of Pennsylvania Municipal Managers (APMM) and as a vice-chair of the Academy
for Excellence in County Government Advisory Board, County Commissioners Association of
Pennsylvania (CCAP). She is the recipient of several honors and awards for professional and
public service and for her research. Recent publications include: Associate Editor, International
Encyclopedia of Public Policy and Administration, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997, Jay M.
Shafritz, editor-in-chief and 13 associate editors, responsible for approximately 60 urban and
intergovernmental contributions; "Pennsylvania's Small Governments," in The Government and
Politics of Pennsylvania. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, forthcoming. "Emerging
Trends in State-Local Relations in Russell L. Hanson, ed., Governing Partners: State-Local
Relations in the U.S. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1998, pp. 53-74. "Local Implementation of
Federal and State Programs: Preemption, Home Rule, and Federalism," Handbook of Public Law
and Administration, Phillip J. Cooper and Chester A. Newland, eds. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco,
CA, 1997, pp. 159-183. She is the proposed investigator of "A Regional-based Environmental
and Sustainability Program for the Chesapeake Bay Watershed," submitted to USDA/CSREES
by Virginia Tech, University of Maryland, and Pennsylvania State University, June 2000.
Methodology and demographics. In Pennsylvania, the SCOPe team met with 27 communities
ranging in size from a low of 963 to a high of 44,424. Three criteria were used to select
participating communities: (1) one-day roundtrip driving distance from Harrisburg, PA; (2) sites
with both large bridges and water holding structures; (3) small population size.
Pennsylvania is the second most fragmented state in the U.S. It has 2,639 municipalities. Its
topography is characterized by mountains, hills, valleys, rivers, and streams. Thus, many parts
of the state have lots of bridges. Pittsburgh, in fact, is often called the "City of Bridges."
Pennsylvania municipalities maintain 68,500 miles of roadways. The state's local governments
are primarily very small in population size. Pennsylvania has the largest number of rural
residents in the nation. The team first obtained computer printouts of bridges located within the
state and water structures within the state. The listings, provided by the state's Department of
Transportation and Department of Environmental Protection, respectively, included the
municipality and county where the structure was located as well as contact information regarding
ownership of the structure. The state Department of Community and Economic Development's
database, available at their website, was used to locate elected officials in the communities that
had the large structures. The vast majority of the approximately 2,600 communities in
Pennsylvania have either a bridge or water holding facility, which were key criteria for inclusion.
When proximity to the Harrisburg area was added as a criterion, the number dropped to about
100 communities.
49
The population size of the 27 participating communities ranges from a low of 963 to a high of
44,424 and the average population is 7,315. Participants and populations follow: Cumberland
County - Dickinson Township, 4,702; Lower Allen Township, 17,437; Middlesex Township,
6,669; Newville Borough, 1,367; Upper Allen Township, 15,338; Upper Frankford Township,
1,807. Dauphin County - Derry Township, 21,273; Halifax Borough, 875; Halifax Township,
3,329; Highspire Borough, 2,720; Jackson Township, 1,728; Londonderry Township, 5,224;
Lower Paxton Township, 44,424; Lower Swatara Township, 8,149; Middletown Borough, 9,242;
Royalton Borough, 963; South Hanover Township, 4,793; Steelton Borough, 5,858; Upper
Paxton Township, 3,930; Wayne Township, 1,984. Lancaster County - Elizabethtown Borough,
11,887; Mount Joy Borough, 6,765. Schuykill County - Branch Township, 1,871; Cass
Township, 2,383; Minersville Borough, 7,774; East Brunswick Township, 1,601; West
Brunswick Township, 3,428.
Data from the 2000 Census show that nearly 60% of Pennsylvania municipalities have fewer
than 2,500 residents and that these small municipalities are overwhelmingly rural. The 27
communities include 15 with populations of 5,000 or less, 7 with populations in the 5001-10,000
category, 4 in the 10,001-25,000 category and just 1 with a population over 25,000. Seven of the
15 communities with less than 5,000 population each have less than 2,000 residents.
These communities are suburban (N=15, 27%) and rural (N=11, 20%), with just 1 community
depicting itself as urban. Twenty-three percent (N=9) of the Pennsylvania SCOPe communities
claim farming as the community's major economic base, with retail characterizing another 21%
or 8 communities. The others claim a variety of economic bases, such as manufacturing,
industrial, business, tourism, etc. Most communities have a mixed local economic base.
The participating communities are heavily homogenous in their ethnic composition. One has an
African-American population of 31% and two others have African-American populations
between 10-11%. Nineteen have African-American populations of less than 2% each and some
of those have no African-American citizens. With the exception of two communities, each of the
other Pennsylvania SCOPe communities has Hispanic, Asian or other population categories that
comprise less than 5% and usually less that 2% of their total population.
Because 56% of the participating SCOPe communities have populations under 5,000 and 82%
have populations under 10,001, it is not surprising that the elected officials are overwhelmingly
part-time volunteers. Just 3 communities have a full-time official holding the highest elective
office. Nearly three-fourths (74%) of the meeting participants judge that their "environmental
staff" is very qualified or somewhat qualified but that staff is generally one person who "wears
many hats" in the municipal government. Communities with a municipal manager, for example,
rely on that person to handle compliance issues. On occasion, a public works officer, codes
enforcement officer, or housing inspector is responsible for environmental compliance. Among
the 27 communities, two-thirds have designated a full-time staff person to be responsible for
environmental compliance. Again, however, that person has additional responsibilities and
environmental compliance is not the major responsibility. A wide variety of staffers are
responsible for compliance, with no clear pattern to the designation and little evidence, based on
50
the SCOPe meetings, of coordination or much contact among the various officials, elected
or appointed.
The latest Census figures for Pennsylvania show that just 17% of the elected officials from very
small towns (<2,500) in the state have a college degree. The average small town municipal
official in the state has been in office for more than 10 years and in his or her mid-fifties.
The elected officials who participated in the SCOPe meetings ranged from those with grade
school education to a few that had post-graduate education. Only 8 of the 46 individuals who
participated (including 3 elected officials) gave the SCOPe team an e-mail address. E-mail was
clearly not the communication vehicle of choice and PowerPoint presentations were not used by
the team for presenting information.
Phone calls were made to the municipal offices and then to specific elected officials. Often
community staff members were also contacted and asked to participate in the meetings.
Depending on how extensive the initial and follow-up phone conversations were, community
officials were sometimes faxed or mailed SCOPe brochures. For some communities, the
brochures were delivered only in person by the team. Twenty-seven of thirty communities
scheduled for meetings participated. Forty-six (46) individuals participated from the 27
participating communities. All 30 communities interested in meeting were scheduled for a
meeting. The team eventually canceled one of those, which was located very far from
Harrisburg. Another community sent a fax to cancel the session and offered no explanation.
Another meeting was cancelled when the elected official did not appear for the scheduled
meeting at a restaurant over lunch. Two additional communities were interested but dropped out
before any scheduling occurred. Both interested elected officials in one community were out of
town during the anticipated SCOPe meeting period. In the second community, a death in the
family made it impossible for the official to attend a meeting.
Thirteen communities did not respond to an invitation to meet after repeated phone calls. Just
four other communities refused to meet after an invitation by the SCOPe team. One of these
showed initial interest, another had a meeting with all of the community's elected officials and
they deduced that their views would not have an impact on a federal regulation.
Two members of the team met with the elected and administrative officials. The meetings were
held at the respective municipal offices or at area restaurants and included 46 individuals.
Twenty-six of these were elected officials, including mayors, borough council presidents, and
township commissioners or supervisors. Twenty of the 46 participants were administrators,
usually municipal managers/secretaries/administrators, but also public works directors,
engineers, code enforcement officers, and planning and zoning administrators. One session
included 5 elected officials from three communities, another included staff from 2 communities
and still another session included staff and elected officials from 3 communities. Other sessions
were with one or more members of a single community. Following a short presentation based on
materials provided by SCOPe and the US EPA, there was a guided discussion using SCOPe’s
Discussion Guide, as well as information learned at previous meetings. Each meeting lasted
1-1/2 hours. Following the meetings, various municipal officials were sent additional
51
information about their communities' infrastructure, such as the number of bridges and
water holding structures, along with ownership and contact information.
52
SALT WATER ENVIRONMENTS
Principal investigator. ARTHUR A. FELTS is the Director of the Joseph P. Riley, Jr.
Institute for Urban Affairs and Policy Studies, College of Charleston, SC and a professor
of political science in the college. He is an experienced evaluator of federal and state
programs and in addition to being a principal investigator of this project has served as
SCOPe's evaluator for three years. His technical reports on environmental issues include:
Dockowners Attitudes on Saltwater Docks: An eight county survey: (Charlston, SC:
Joseph P. Riley Institute for Urban Affairs and Policy Studies, 2002) and Impacts of the
New Cooper River Bridge on Charleston’s Upper East Side, co-authored with Janet L.
Key and Jeremy Browning (Charleston, SC: Joseph P. Riley Institute for Urban Affairs
and Policy Studies, 2001). Recent publications include "Time and Space: The Origins
and Implications of the New Public Management." Co-authored with Philip Jos.
Administrative Theory and Praxis, Vol. 22, No. 3: 519-533, (2000). "Local Government
Administrators: A Balance Wheel Breakdown." Co-authored with Robert A. Schuhmann.
American Review of Public Administration, Vol 27, No. 4:362-367 (1997).
“Communicating Climate Research to Policy Makers.” Co-authored with David J. Smith.
In Hurricanes: Climate and Socioeconomic Impacts. Edited by H. F. Diaz and R. S.
Pulwarty (Berlin: Springer, 1997): 233-249. “Risk Communication: The Role of the
South Carolina State Climatology Office” Co-authored with David J. Smith and John C.
Purvis. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Vol 76, No. 12: 2423–2431
(1995).
Methodology and demographics. In Florida, the Bridge Information Systems Engineer, from
the Florida Department of Transportation - District 2 Bridge Office, told the SCOPe team that
there was a bridge painted with lead based paint in Nassau County in Northeastern Florida on the
Florida/Georgia border. This bridge was located in an unincorporated section of the county.
Nassau County's population of 57,000 (2000 US Census) exceeded the upper boundary
established by SCOPe. None of the other communities in Florida-essentially Duval and St. Johns
Counties-met the required parameters of the project.
In North Carolina, the Bridge Maintenance Division of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) was extremely helpful in locating communities that had bridges
painted with lead- based paint. After a few brief telephone conversations and e-mail
correspondence, the department understood exactly what we were looking for and sent maps and
indexes for two coastal counties, Brunswick and New Hanover. These guides were useful in
quickly locating potential SCOPe participants. Out of approximately 30 small communities in
Brunswick and New Hanover Counties, two met all the conditions needed for the project-both in
Brunswick County. The team met with the Mayor of Boiling Spring Lakes and administrators of
Shallotte.
The Mayor of Shallotte referred the SCOPe team to the town administrator, who agreed to talk
about the bridge that currently has aluminum over lead paint. The Public Works Director also
participated in the meeting.
53
According to the 2000 Census, North Carolina has a population of 8,049,313. Its minority
population is approximately twenty-eight percent. The three communities within North Carolina
that participated in SCOPe, Boiling Spring Lakes, Shallotte and Surf City, have significantly
smaller minority populations in comparison to the state as a whole. Boiling Spring Lakes is a
rural community with nearly 16,000 acres of land. Comprised primarily of retirees, its 3,100
citizens enjoy over 50 natural and man-made lakes. Currently under a Mayor-Council form of
government, Boiling Spring Lakes is in the process of searching for its first city manager. Its
minority population is just over three and a half percent with a reported household income of
roughly $39,000. The annual government budget for Boiling Spring Lakes is $1.5 million with a
Public Works Budget of $614,000. The town's principal environmental compliance officer is a
full-time Building Inspector. He receives most of his environmental information from the NC
League of Municipalities.
Shallotte, North Carolina is a short drive from many neighboring communities, including historic
Wilmington, NC and the major SC tourist destination of Myrtle Beach. With a population of
1,381, Shallotte has an eclectic makeup of retirees, young families and retail shops. Shallotte's
minority population hovers at around ten percent. The town has a reported household income of
$31,000. The annual local government budget is $1.4 million and the average Enterprise (water
and sewer) Budget is also $1.4 million. The Town Administrator is primarily responsible for
environmental issues and regulation compliance. Surf City is home to approximately 1,402
full-time residents with a population swell to 20,000 during the high season months (Easter to
Labor Day). The beachfront community has a minority population of less than one percent. Surf
City's government budget is $6 million with a Works and Utilities Budget of $2 million.
Individual department heads are responsible for environmental compliance. When researching
environmental issues the City Manager turns to professional association publications and the
Municipal League workshops.
SCOPe initially made contact with Mt. Pleasant's Mayor at a "Meet the Elected Officials"
reception held by the Metro Chamber of Commerce. After a very brief summary of the project
the mayor agreed to meet with us. However, the mayor was preoccupied preparing a "State of the
City" address and was unable to schedule a meeting time. SCOPe was subsequently referred to
Mt. Pleasant's Town Administrator who referred the team to the Stormwater Program Manger in
the town's Public Works Department. The team was only able to conduct a telephone interview.
This difficulty in scheduling may reflect the relative size of Mount Pleasant. With a population
of nearly 48,000, the town is nearly above SCOPe's threshold. Located in the Charleston metro
area-just across the Cooper River from Charleston, SC-the town has experienced rapid growth
and is currently preoccupied with several major growth-related issues.
For the participating communities in both states, the highest elected official's term (mayor) in
office ranged slightly. The longest any of the mayors have been in office is eight years, while
two of them were recently elected in November of 2001. One official has been in office since
November of 1999, and yet another is in her second two-year term. The SCOPe meetings were
held with elected officials and administrators with a variety of educational backgrounds ranging
from a town administrator who has a Master's Degree in Geography and Planning to a Mayor
54
and Program Manager with a Bachelor's Degree in Business. One of the town administrators has
a Masters in Political Science, while yet another town administrator and a city manager have
their Masters in Public Administration.
The state of South Carolina, (2000 Census), has a population of 4,012,012 with a minority
population of approximately thirty-four percent. The state's median household income is
$33,325. The three communities from South Carolina, North Myrtle Beach, Sullivan's Island and
Mt. Pleasant, included in this project vary from one another and the state as a whole.
North Myrtle Beach is a resort community with a population of 11,000 people and a minority
population of less than five percent. The median household income reported by the US Census
Department for 1989 was $29,700. The town employs 280 people and has an annual local
government budget of $24 million with an annual Public Works budget of $12 million. Surf
water quality and storm water run-off are the community's main environmental concerns. The
city engineer is primarily responsible for city's environmental compliance. His chief
environmental contact is the Department of Health and Environmental Concerns (DHEC). The
community is environmentally sensitive about marshland and the surf with a local Sierra Club
Chapter.
The residential community of Sullivan's Island lies slightly north of downtown Charleston. The
beaches of Sullivan's Island span approximately three miles along the Atlantic coast. With a
population of 1,900, the island has a negligible minority population. It has an annual local
government budget of $2.5 million and employs a staff of twenty-six full-time and three
part-time employees. It is a wealthy community with very high property values. The 1989
median household income of Sullivan's Island was $51,867. The chief environmental concern is
storm water run-off. The town manager is the principal environmental compliance officer for the
city. Her primary contact for this information is DHEC, Office of Coastal Resource Management
(OCRM), and consulting engineers.
The town of Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina has a population of just over 47,000 people and a
minority population right at ten percent. Mt. Pleasant has a part-time mayor and eight
councilpersons. The 1989 median household income was $38,605-making the town one of the
wealthier ones in the Charleston Metropolitan area. With a staff of three hundred people the
town's local government budget is $25 million with a Public Work's Budget of $5 million.
Depending on the environmental topic at hand, the Planning and Development Department
would probably handle any environmental compliance issues. The town's main sources for
environmental information are state and county regulations, Federal Register, Professional
Manuals and Municipal Associations. Storm water regulations and water quality lead Mt.
Pleasant's environmental concerns, along with nuclear waste that comes through the community.
55
APPENDIX 3 THE SCOPE PROJECT
"Let us keep in mind that neither SCOPe and NASPAA are stakeholders in these issues, we are
not advocates, and we are not grassroots organizers. We are the facilitators, we are the avenue
that will give these communities their voices in what some feel is an over regulated world where
the distance between the regulators and the regulated is perceived to be great and
insurmountable." Washington, DC, August 1998.
Small governments are a large segment of the regulated community. But their lack of resources
compared to larger counterparts puts them at a distinct disadvantage. How do small governments
get the attention of regulators in Washington, DC? Can small governments play an active role in
developing federal regulations so that the regulations address their needs? Who listens to small
towns cries for flexibility, for attention to the differences between small and large, rich and poor,
urban and rural? How can these voices be heard?
The law. The disproportional impact of federal regulations on these overburdened systems and
the concomitant importance of small community participation in the federal regulatory
development process [in order to minimize the adverse impact of regulations on them] led
Congress to enact two key pieces of legislation: The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), which
amended the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980. In addition, Executive Order 13132
Federalism, August 5, 1999 was signed by President Clinton to ensure the inclusion of local
governments in the regulatory development process.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The purpose of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995 (UMRA), is to curb the practice of imposing unfunded Federal mandates on State, local
and tribal governments; to strengthen the partnership between the Federal government and State,
local and tribal governments; and to ensure that the Federal government either pays the costs
incurred by those governments through implementing the mandates, or at least fully considers
the concerns of those governments.
UMRA section 202 requires a regulating agency to prepare a budgetary impact statement to
accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in
estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector, of
$100 million or more.
UMRA section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that might be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. Under UMRA section
205, EPA must select the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that
achieves the rule's objectives and remains consistent with statutory requirements.
56
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). The purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
are: 1) to motivate agencies to tailor rule requirements to fit the size, resources, and relative
contribution to the problem of the small entities that will be subject to the requirements,
consistent with the statute authorizing the rule and 2) to assure that small entities are given an
opportunity to participate in rulemaking for a rule that will have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
SBREFA's Panel Process. EPA is one of two agencies (OSHA is the other) subject to the
SBREFA panel process. SBREFA section 609 requires convening a review panel unless the
agency certifies that a rule will not have a "significant economic impact on a substantial number
of small entities" or undergo panel review. The phrase "significant economic impact" means an
annual aggregate cost of 100 million dollars. "Small entities" are defined as including small
businesses, small governments, and non-profits which are not dominant in their field. To make
this determination, the agency performs an "initial regulatory flexibility analysis." Small
governments are governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts with populations of less than 50,000 residents. If the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis indicates that the rule will likely result in this significant economic impact, it must be
reviewed by a panel composed of representatives from the Small Business Administration's
Office of Advocacy, the Office of Management and Budget, and the regulatory agency. At this
stage of the regulatory development process, it has already been determined that the rule will
impose an enormous financial burden on small entities.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, August 5, 1999. The intent of this Executive Order is to
"ensure that the principles of federalism established by the Framers guide the executive
departments and agencies in the formulation and implementation of policies, and to further the
policies of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act..." Section 2 "Fundamentals of Federalism (f)
provides in pertinent part: "In the search for enlightened public policy, individual States and
communities are free to experiment with a variety of approaches to public issues.
One-size-fits-all approaches to public policy problems can inhibit the creation of effective
solutions to those problems. (h) Policies of the national government should recognize the
responsibility of -- and should encourage opportunities for - individuals, families,
neighborhoods, local governments, and private associations to achieve their personal, social, and
economic objectives through cooperative effort.
Section 6 "Consultation" directs federal agencies to show they have "consulted with State and
local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation" both for unfunded
mandates and for regulations that will preempt state law.
EPA policy. EPA's policy extends even further than the congressional mandates. EPA is vitally
interested in outreach to small communities in order to understand how to ensure that small
entities receive the environmental and health benefits derived from environmental regulations.
The result of the outreach efforts will ultimately be rules that reflect the increased understanding
of the strengths and limitations of small community resources. There is no doubt that small
governments benefit from inclusion in the process.
57
Small Community Outreach Project for Environmental Issues. SCOPe was created to bridge
the gap between small entities and the federal regulators by discussing areas of potential concern
with representatives of small entities during the pre-proposal stage of a rulemaking. Local
experts of local government facilitate meetings. All principal investigators have faculty
appointments in graduate programs of public affairs and administration and/or Local
Government Institutes. These programs and institutes regularly provide development, training,
and evaluation services to local governments and are members of the National Association of
Schools of Public Affairs and Administration. The SCOPe outreach network is built on this
extraordinary resource and the trusted relationships that exist between local governments and
NASPAA programs. This large pool of experts located throughout the USA guarantees that
SCOPe teams can be created based on an assessment of where the rules are likely to have the
largest impact on small entities. As neutral experts with a public service mission, SCOPe teams
bring the highest caliber of professional expertise to the early consultation process.
SCOPe is funded through a cooperative agreement between the U.S. EPA's Office of Policy,
Economics, and Reinvention and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and
Administration. It was created specifically to benefit small communities by articulating their
concerns to EPA rule writers, policy makers, nonprofit associations and other organizations.
The National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) is an
organizational membership association promoting excellence in public service and public service
education and is the accrediting body for public policy and public administration graduate
programs. The membership includes 250 university graduate programs and local government
institutes in public affairs, public policy, public administration, and non-profit management
located in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
NASPAA's President is Dr. Carolyn Ban, Dean of the Graduate School of Public and
International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh. Dean Ban previously directed the Master of
Public Administration program at the Rockefeller College of Public Administration and Policy,
State University of New York at Albany. She also served as a division chief of a research
division at the US Office of Personnel Management. Dr. Ban has published broadly in the areas
of public management and personnel policy with a focus on civil service reform. She is an
elected fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration and received her PhD degree in
Political Science from Stanford University.
NASPAA's Acting Executive Director, and Director of Public Policy and Law, Deborah
Rosenbloom, is SCOPe's Project Manager. She is a member of the New York, Maryland, and
District of Columbia Bars and holds a Master's of Public Administration degree from the
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. Ms. Rosenbloom has
written extensively on public policy and legal issues and is a contributing author to Public
Administration: Understanding Management, Politics, and Law in the Public Sector (with David
H. Rosenbloom and Robert Kravchuk) (McGraw Hill, 5th ed. 2002).
58