Draft Summary of October 3, 1996 Communication and Outreach Work Group Meeting

November 6, 1996

I.	PURPOSE

A Communication & Outreach Work Group teleconference call took place on October 3, 1996 to discuss the September Subcommittee meeting, the NAAQS review satellite broadcast, the Subcommittee report on Phase I issues, and the Work Group's scope. Following is a summary of the discussion and proposed action items.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work Group members in attendance:

Ron White, Co-chair, ALA

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG

Stephanie Cooper, OTC - for Bruce Carhart

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Jayne Mardock, Clean Air Network

Richard Paul, AAMA

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Work Group members not in Attendance:

Tom Curran, Co-chair, OAQPS/ITG

Tad Aburn, MDE

Susan Bullard, OMS

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Margaret Cook, Intertribal Council of Arizona

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Other EPA attendees: Christine Sansevero, Barbara Parzygnat, Nancy Pate, Bob Stallings, Herb Sherrow (Region VI) - for Jennifer Morisato, and Karen Borel (Region IV).

Eric Schweitzer, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support).

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action items

1)	Nancy Seidman suggested that the Work Group think of ways to get more specialized information to those audiences in need (e.g., specifics on SIPs, etc.).

2)	Jan Kleeman, with the help of others, will generate a draft outline for the work plan within one week, if possible. She will investigate the potential for restrictions on the communications work plan (i.e., must it be limited to the findings of Phase I, or can be more expansive).

3)	Jan Kleeman asked members to review and prepare comments on the Action Plan because it will be included in the proposed Work Plan.

4)	Jan Kleeman will find out if there is money available for EPA to print the information packet.

5)	Jan Kleeman will post OTAG's Communication and Outreach work plan on the bulletin board if she can get a copy in an electronic format. If that is not possible, she will FAX a hard copy to members.

7)	The Work Groups are expected to meet on Monday, November 18 in Denver Colorado, before the next Subcommittee meeting. Jan Kleeman will send members the details as soon as possible.

Other items to note:

1)	The next teleconference call is scheduled for October 22, 1996 from 12:30-2:30 EDT. The call-in number is (919) 541-1593.

2)	The communication and outreach work group will meet in Dallas, TX on Monday, October 28, 1996 from 1:00 to 5:00 p.m. central time. The call in number is (202) 260- 7280 access code 3647#. The meeting will take place at the Dallas Grand Hotel, 1914 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75201 (214) 747-7000. The Subcommittee is scheduled to meet the afternoon of October 29 and all day October 30.

3)	There is another satellite broadcast scheduled for December.

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

September Subcommittee Meeting

The September Subcommittee meeting was productive with good discussion on Phase I issues and the issue papers. Some of the issue papers were sent back to the Work Groups for further work and will subsequently go to the Coordination Group. Concern was expressed at the meeting about how recommendations in issue papers are finalized and how issue papers present recommendations that do not have broad support. The New Source Review (NSR) and Attainment Dates papers were the most controversial issue papers presented.

Communication and Outreach was not discussed until the end of the meeting. Greg Green of Oregon's DEQ told the Subcommittee that a much greater public outreach effort is needed. The Subcommittee did not express much vocal support.

The issue of Communication and Outreach was raised at last Sunday's STAPPA/ALAPCO meeting. Jan Kleeman said there was criticism at that meeting about the Work Group's efforts. The discussion centered around what the Work Group is and is not doing.

Satellite Broadcast

Several Work Group members expressed satisfaction with the satellite broadcast on October 2, 1996. Panelists made effective presentations and good questions were asked. The first two panels ran out of time. Work group members suggested that in future broadcasts the relevant panelists could be brought back to answer remaining questions. The broadcast was very helpful to people in Nancy Seidman's office who were not very familiar with the FACA Subcommittee's efforts. The broadcast was not so helpful for those wanting greater details on specific programs/issues (i.e., SIPs). In future, the broadcast agenda will specifically list what will be covered, which will allow people to attend the sections they desire. There is another satellite broadcast scheduled for December.

Jan Kleeman would like to better define the target audience for future broadcasts. This broadcast was directed to State and Local agencies. Nancy Seidman suggested that the Work Group identify ways to get more specialized information to those audiences in need, which could possibly happen through STAPPA/ALAPCO.

Karen Borel said although the broadcast lacked specifics about program implementation, it kept people from her office interested and their response was positive. Karen Borel and Jan Kleeman noted that program specifics are not yet available. Some of the questions asked during the downlink indicated that the audience may believe more information is there and being withheld.

Phase I Subcommittee Report

The Work Group's charge is to develop a draft of the Communication and Outreach section of the Phase I report to the Subcommittee. The draft will be presented to the Subcommittee at the November meeting and the Subcommittee will deliver the draft to CAAAC at their December 10 meeting. The Work Group's draft needs to be completed in approximately one month and must include a communication plan.

Ron White asked the Work Group to provide ideas, comments, and suggestions to an outline initially developed by EPA. The plan needs to be developed within 3 to 4 weeks to provide time for input from outside the Work Group by the November 19 Subcommittee meeting. In June the Work Group delivered a broad work plan to the Subcommittee. Now the Work Group can determine what needs to be added to that plan and can provide the EPA with the work plan's structure. The Agency will compile the material and return it to the Work Group for feedback. Tom Curran discussed this approach with John Seitz.

Nancy Seidman asked if the Work Group is expected to make recommendations about budget issues. The Work Group can recommend an elaborate work plan, but without funding it will not mean much. Ron White said EPA has been advised to set money aside now to get this going and John Seitz has acknowledged the resource implications associated with a large-scale communications effort. It is critical that the work plan include an estimate of the cost of implementation, as well as a timeline. Jan Kleeman agreed that a cost estimate is important and EPA may use this information to aid the Agency in securing the necessary funds.

Ron White stressed the need to think outside the box in developing the communications plan but to be realistic. An ambitious $30 million plan will probably not happen, but a plan expected to take a few years and $1 million might be realistic. Nancy Seidman said the price of the communication plan should be evaluated relative to the overall cost of new NAAQS implementation. She asked the Work Group to consider the overall cost to consumers and industry of implementing a new NAAQS.

Richard Paul said the relative emphasis chosen between a short-term and a long-term focus is an important consideration. The short-term issues will be relevant for about 12 months, while the EPA's implementation guidelines will be a longer-term effort. Jan Kleeman believes the work plan could include longer-term issues, in addition to the Phase I issues. There might be a way to organize the report to include a section on public outreach. Ron White asked if the Work Group wants to have a focused short-term effort for the communication of Phase I issues and then provide broad ideas about the communication of Phase II issues. The communication of Phase II issues is relevant regardless of the specifics of Phase II. Communication of Phase II issues can be included in the work plan and budget. Jan Kleeman will discuss any potential restrictions on the communications work plan (i.e., must it be limited to the findings of Phase I, or can be more expansive) with the appropriate EPA person(s). She emphasized the importance of a broader communications picture, particularly in light of recent criticism concerning the Work Group's communication effort.

The Work Group discussed how they could best contribute to the development of a work plan by the Agency, particularly how the guidance should be structured and accomplished. Ron White would like members to have reviewed a draft of the work plan before the next meeting in Dallas on October 28. This would allow the Work Group to give a substantive work plan to the Agency at that time, including key ideas. Therefore the Work Group must get the key information to EPA within 2 weeks. Jan Kleeman noted there is less than three weeks between the October and November 19-20 meeting and therefore not much time for changes. She agreed that the Agency needs the Work Group's recommendations within the next 2 weeks. The Work Group dismissed the idea of an in-person meeting in two weeks, mostly for financial reasons, and decided to instead work through the usual e-mail, FAX, and conference call tools.

Jan Kleeman Tom Curran, and EPA Communications Staff, including Jeff Clark will lead EPA's efforts on the production of the work plan. Ron White asked EPA to provide its ideas to the Work Group next week. Work Group members would then have time to review the ideas and get their comments back to the Agency before the next conference call. Then, it can be determined what is needed to put something significant together for review in Dallas.

Jan Kleeman asked members to review and prepare comments on the Action Plan which will be included in the proposed work plan. It will be difficult to draft the work plan in 1 week. The Action Plan did not go into detail about how to reach specific groups, which is an expansion that must be done in the process of developing the work plan.

Ron White suggested the work plan should set the priority target groups and propose how to reach them. It should integrate the target group list with the Action Plan. When the Action Plan was written, there was no budget and actions involving expenditures was outside the scope of the Work Group's efforts. Now, the group can think out of that box. It can propose a larger media plan which is broader and has a longer-term focus.

Karen Borel suggested members revisit the previously generated "Information Needs Identified by the Communication and Outreach Group" list (available on the Documents and issue papers section of the Work Group's TTN area). Ron White proposed that the work plan could be structured in the following manner: 1) What are the target groups? 2) What do these groups want/need to know? and 3) What are the Work Groups recommendations for reaching these groups? The Work Group concurred with this approach.

Jan Kleeman, with the help of others, will generate a draft outline for the work plan within one week, if possible. EPA would like Work Group members feedback before October 17 to allow time to summarize the comments. The comments will then be discussion at the next teleconference call on October 22. Jan Kleeman recommended using the Bulletin Board system as a means of sharing this information. Jayne Mardock suggested the Work Group go through the summarized comments section by section at that time. The Phase I report to the Subcommittee should be a major focus of the Coordination Group meeting on October 23 which will allow 3 working days to incorporate comments and expand the first draft of the work plan for the Work Group to review on October 28 in Dallas.

Work Group Scope

Nancy Kruger provided a synopsis of the communication and outreach comments from the recent STAPPA/ALAPCO meeting. State and Local public information officers, most of whom are not very involved with the FACA process attended the meeting. Recommendations were made at a number of levels. The most compelling messages were as follows:

1) There is great interest in public outreach efforts by the Subcommittee. However, virtually not a word was mentioned on the subject at the last meeting. State and local agencies want a much greater effort and are looking to the Subcommittee to take the lead.

2) There is a desire for more information earlier in the process. This would allow time to prepare people in advance of impending changes. They also asked what happened to the list of questions they prepared ("Questions State and Local Agencies Need Answered").

3) Funding concerns.

4) The Communication and Outreach Work Group should be involved in the day-to-day activities of the other Work Groups. This would provide a greater depth of knowledge to communicate.

5) There is an interest in getting a jump on the November 29 Ozone/PM NAAQS Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Also there is interest in the upcoming monitoring and implementation strategy proposals.

These suggestions were not formally written down, they are State and local agency concerns voiced to STAPPA/ALAPCO. Fact sheets were passed out at the meeting. People were hungry for information and expressed concern over the possibility of repeating the communication mistakes of the past. This is a message to EPA or members of the Subcommittee to get the word out to their constituencies.

There was also discussion about the Work Group's effort to ensure that there are short, understandable issue paper summaries. There was concern that the outreach materials will be too technical. In general, the State and Local agencies do not feel they receive adequate advance notice on Agency proposals. In summary, the general tone was that more needs to be done concerning public outreach. Unfortunately, the short time schedule for producing the Work Group's section of the Phase I report will preclude obtaining feedback by STAPPA/ALAPCO's committee.

Miscellaneous

The Work Assignment for the information packet is in place. The contractor will develop and provide the information packet. The contractor will be given the list of frequently asked questions, fact sheets, and general ideas on the fixed information that will be on the folder itself. The contractor will not develop the dissemination plan. The Work Group should develop the dissemination plan. The contractor will develop a draft packet, which should be ready by the November 11 face-to-face meeting.

Ron White asked whether EPA will be printing the information packet. Jan Kleeman will find out if there is money available for EPA to undertake this effort.

Ron White mentioned that OTAG has developed a Communication and Outreach work plan of their own. He has requested a copy. The Plan sounds very ambitious and includes the development of new printed materials, public service announcements, media, satellite broadcasts, etc. OTAG has been given a $100,000 grant by EPA for a communications staff person. Ron White suggested the Work Group look at OTAG's plan for opportunities or overlaps. Jan Kleeman concurred and said that EPA plans to look at the OTAG plan and coordinate the two. Ron White noted that OTAG is looking at strategies to achieve current standards, rather than future standards.

Jan Kleeman will post OTAG's communication and outreach work plan on the bulletin board if she can get a copy in an electronic format. If that is not possible, she will FAX a hard copy to members.

After the upcoming in-person meetings in Dallas beginning on October 28, the Work Groups are also expected to meet on Monday, November 18 in Denver Colorado, before the next Subcommittee meeting. Jan Kleeman will send members the details as soon as possible.

NON-OAQPS PARTICIPATION IN FACA MEETINGS - COMMUNICATION AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP

Date Prepared: October 23, 1996

NAME

ORGANIZATION 1996 Meeting Date: Feb March April May June July Aug Oct 7 20 7 20 4 18 2 16 29 13 27 29 29 3 22 F Tom Curran Co-chair, EPA/OAQPS/ITG Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N E Ron White Co-chair, ALA Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y E Jayne Mardock Clean Air Network Y N N Y S Tad Aburn MDE Y Y N Y S N Y N N N N N N N S Bruce Carhart OTC Y Y Y Y S Y S S Y S S S N S S Alice Collingwood PSAPCA Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N S Nancy Kruger STAPPA N N Y Y Y N Y N Y N N Y Y Y S Nancy Seidman Massachusetts DEP Y N S S Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y S Scott Thomas Oklahoma DEQ Y N Y Y Y Y S Y Y Y Y Y Y Y I Caryl Pfeiffer Kentucky Utilities Co. Y N N Y Y S Y Y Y Y Y Y S N I Quin Shea NMA N N N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y N N I Sandy Stash ARCO N N N Y N Y Y N Y N N N N N I Richard Paul AAMA Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y F Susan Bullard EPA/OMS Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y N N T Margaret Cook Intertribal Council of Arizona Y N N N F Kathy Ellis DOD N N N Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

Y - attended meeting

N - did not attend

S - sent delegate