February 15, 1996

SUBJECT:	Minutes from February 7, 1996 Communication and Outreach Workgroup Conference Call

I.	PURPOSE

A conference call was held on February 7, 1996 to enable Work Group members to become acquainted and to initiate discussion on intended audiences and desired products. Following is a summary of the ensuing discussion and proposed action items.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Attendees:

Tom Curran, OAQPS/ITG (MD-12)

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG (MD-12)

Ron White, ALA

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Bruce Carhart, OTC

Rob Valero, AAMA

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Tad Aburn, MDE

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Work Group Members not in Attendance:

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Veronica Kun, NRDC West

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Other EPA attendees: Bob Stallings, Bill Hamilton, Gil Wood, Michelle McKeever, Larry Wallace, Robin Dunkins, Phil Dickerson, Denise Gerth, Barbara Parzygnat, Karen Borel, Region IV

Beth Friedman and Eric Schweitzer, EC/R Incorporated (EPA Contractor support)

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Mr. Curran summarized the meeting's action items as follows:

1) Members are to get a desired product list for the top 4 identified target groups to EPA by the end of February 13.

2) Mr. Aburn will provide information packets utilized by MDE to Workgroup members listed on roster.

Other items to note:

3) Meeting agenda items are needed by Tuesday [this was before the set meeting day was pushed back to Tuesday from Wednesday] of the week before the next Work Group meeting.

4) Ms. Kleeman will provide a timeline of upcoming regulatory deadlines to members after the teleconference.

5) A combination of fax and e-mail will be used to communicate with members. For those members that have e-mail, it will be the primary means of communication.

6) Please do not put the conference call on hold during the meeting, it can jam the line for other participants seeking access.

7) Agenda items for and minutes of the FACA meeting in mid-March will be distributed to Work Group members. Mr. Curran would like to use EPA's TTN bulletin board for this.

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Work Group Organizational Issues

After a brief introduction by each participant, Ms. Kleeman noted two upcoming regulatory deadlines: the July, 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) on the ozone NAAQS, and an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on integrated ozone/particulate matter (PM) implementation, also in July, 1996.

Work Group teleconference meetings are set to take place every two weeks on Tuesdays from 3:00-4:30 P.M. EST. This time was agreed upon to accommodate members on the west coast. The next meeting will take place on February 20, 1996. The next full Subcommittee meeting is scheduled for the second or third week of March.

Ms. Kleeman discussed how the flow of information is to move from Work Groups to the Coordination group. The Work Groups will feed information to the Coordination group. The Coordination group will select the salient issues for presentation at the next Subcommittee meeting. This process will also allow each Work Group to get a feel for what the others are doing.

Mr. Curran noted concern over the speed of movement of the entire process. He stressed the importance of avoiding duplication of effort, micro management, and over- bureaucratization. He encouraged members to provide feedback on what is working and what is not as the Work Group progresses.

Importance of Communication and Outreach

Mr. White stressed the important role the Communication and Outreach Work Group, especially the information it produces, has in achieving the overall goals of the FACA Subcommittee. Mr. Curran agreed that the Communication and Outreach Work Group is unique. He added that FACA representatives specifically identified the need for this Work Group.

Mr. Aburn mentioned that Maryland's main problems are with ozone pollution and ozone program implementation. After an assessment in 1993, the Agency modified its goals to focus more heavily on public outreach. MDE believes it is crucial that public education and outreach occur in the beginning of the process. The public is the ultimate consumer of these efforts, and programs must be sold to them. MDE's efforts in this regard have met with some success. Mr. Thomas mentioned the large role Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have taken in ozone issues in Oklahoma City.

Ms. Collingwood concurred with Mr. Aburn's remarks about the importance of public education. PSAPCA also has a firm commitment to public education. She believes the existence of laws and the communication of pollutant information is not enough and that the focus now should be on behavior-based education, i.e. what the public can do and what is in it for them.

The public misses the regionality of air pollution problems, according to Mr. Carhart, which is precisely what FACA's all about. He liked Maryland's use of ozone mapping on TV. Mr. Curran believes the Work Group must take advantage of the overlap and co-benefits between the three pollutants.

Approaching pollution issues from an integrated perspective has advantages. Mr. Aburn believes some issues are easier to deal with in integrated programs. For example, he never had a problem with communicating to the public about toxics, but when he switched over to the ozone program the public had extensive misunderstandings about the issues. Marylanders are well attuned to the subject of cancer risk, so this made toxics discussions relatively easy. People can get confused about why we're trying to reduce ozone when we have an ozone hole, etc. MDE is now attempting to link their ozone communication program with that of toxics.

Identification of audience

The call was opened up on the themes of "Who are we trying to reach?" and "What are we trying to give them?" Mr. Curran noted his bias towards the approach used in EPA's old trends reports, whereby the audience is given an assessment of current reality. To achieve this they used maps of areas in non-attainment, projected impacts of changes on non-attainment areas, and trend graphs. He thinks it is best not to debate the NAAQS and health effects.

Mr. White suggested the media, industry, sensitive populations and the general population as potential target groups for the Work Group's products. He added that once the audience and their requirements are decided, the process of informing them will be easier. He also thinks accessing the media and getting them to accurately report the facts is key.

One Work Group member mentioned how there is "no such thing as the general public today" and that it is best to list your audiences by your ability to effect change within them. She then proposed local officials (broadened to include "MPOs"), environmental justice groups, the interested public (e.g. public interest groups and environmental groups), and the technical community (including STAPPA/ALAPCO) as additional target audiences.

Ms. Pfeiffer said getting the "man on the street" educated is key because ultimately the implementation program will need to be marketed to the general public. She stressed how the public needs to understand the costs and benefits of their actions and the media is the appropriate tool to facilitate this understanding.

Conference attendees each selected their top three audience choices out of the eight categories listed below. State/Local agencies/MPOs came in first, the media came in second, affected industries and the interested public tied for third, followed by Sensitive populations in fourth place. The remaining three potential audiences received no votes. Each person's votes are tallied in the table below:

Primary Audience Choices	Audiences Work Group member Scott Bob Alice Tad Caryl Karen Ron Tom 1 State/Local agencies/MPOs 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 Media (general, trade press, etc. 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 3 Affected industries 2 3 3 2 Sensitive populations 2 4 Interested public 2 3 2 3 Environmental justice groups Teachers (elementary, secondary, etc.) Universities/Academia

Mr. Curran noted that it is imperative the other Work Groups tailor their products to the media if that is to be the intended target. The participants seemed to generally agree that it was best to avoid overly academic, dry, or technical material. Along similar lines, Mr. White said the challenge for the Work Group is to identify the information to be made available and then request that the other Work Groups deliver appropriate products.

Mr. Aburn remarked that target groups are also potential partners and the Work Group needs to identify partnership opportunities. Maryland has begun an ozone elementary and high school curriculum. Ms. Kleeman said that EPA has had success with targeting teachers and schoolchildren in the past.

Ms. Collingwood suggested that the Work Group also try to identify other non- traditional media resources such as interest group publications, in addition to conventional media sources. Mr. White concurred and suggested that the term "media" be explicitly defined.

Mr. White estimated a 2- to 2-1/2-year time frame for developing strategies and producing a mix of products for what is likely to be a long-term public education project. Mr. Curran added that the resulting products will be useful long after the other Work Groups need to stop their activities.

Other

The question was raised as to whether EPA will have money to allocate to Work Group activities. Mr. White suggested the Work Group find out what resources it has available in order to prioritize efforts. He also feels it is best to wait until products are defined before locating existing resources.

Mr. Curran briefly discussed the issue of disincentives, e.g., how under the present system increased monitoring efforts are seen as capable of bringing only bad news regarding attainment efforts.