DATE:	March 28, 1996

SUBJECT:	Minutes from March 20, 1996 Communication and Outreach Work Group meeting.

I.	PURPOSE

The first in-person Communication & Outreach Work Group meeting took place on March 20, 1996 in Alexandria, VA to discuss the information desired by target audiences and to initiate discussion on an Action Plan. Following is a summary of the discussion and proposed action items.

II.	PARTICIPANTS

Work Group members in attendance:

Tom Curran, Co-chair, OAQPS/ITG

Ron White, Co-chair, ALA

Jan Kleeman, OAQPS/ITG

Tad Aburn, MDE

Bruce Carhart, OTC (and Stephanie Cooper)

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Charla Rudisill, NESCAUM - for Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Rob Valero, AAMA

Work Group Members not in Attendance:

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Veronica Kun, NRDC West

Other EPA attendees: Phil Dickerson

Other attendees: Alan Basala

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

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action items

1) Tom Curran and Ron White will begin sensitizing the other Work Groups to the needs of the target audiences in the 3/20/96 Coordination Group joint session with all Work Group co-chairs.

2) Nancy Kruger will present her summary of the questions State/local agencies want answered to the FACA Subcommittee tomorrow (3/21).

3) Work Group members who have compiled lists of information needs (Alice Collingwood, Rob Valero/Caryl Pfeiffer, and Ron White) will develop a schedule of when products should be ready.

4) Caryl Pfeiffer will supply Tom Curran with a list of impacts on industry.

5) Nancy Kruger will obtain input from STAPPA/ALAPCO offices on local press lists.

6)	The next meeting is scheduled for Thursday, April 4, 1996, from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. EST. The call-in number is (202) 260-7280, the access code is 9502#.

IV.	SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION

Communication Tools

OAQPS is developing a bulletin board on the Technology Transfer Network (TTN) with areas for each Work Group, a discussion area for all Work Groups, and an area for public access. It will provide information about the FACA process and products, and provide discussion areas for the work groups. EPA is also developing an Internet Web site for the FACA process. It will include general information, maps and graphics (i.e., the maps in the Criteria documents), and any work group products that are public. Some icons will be "clickable" to allow searching for further information. The bulletin board should be in operation within approximately 10 days, and the Web site by the end of April.

The TTN bulletin board system currently handles about 1,000 calls per day, and 10,000 files are downloaded from it each week. Charla Rudisill and Ron White expressed concern over the future of the network in light of EPA's budget constraints. Tom Curran believes the TTN is safe under EPA's current budgetary situation, especially when considering the question of who would answer the 1,000 calls per day in place of the network.

Tom Curran stressed that satellite downlinks should be planned to precede and/or coincide with the ANPR/NPR milestones, and must explain why these actions are being taken. He thinks the time to begin this explanation is now, and it can begin with the generation of materials providing basic information, such as particle sizes, what 8-hour averaging means, etc. OAQPS is gearing up for this.

Sandy Stash inquired as to whether STAPPA/ALAPCO is capable of assisting with local dissemination. Nancy Kruger replied that although STAPPA/ALAPCO is involved with this, additional people are needed for public relations and marketing efforts.

Quin Shea remarked that EPA already has the means of disseminating the message at its disposal. The EPA press office and contact lists have been very effective tools in the past and can be utilized again in this capacity. Tom Curran agreed, but added that although EPA does have the ability to generate general information for distribution, it does not have the resources to tailor the message to local areas.

Public interest groups cited the Internet as a favored source of information. They are in favor of a World Wide Web page on the FACA process.

Audience Question Lists

Nancy Kruger distributed her summarized list of questions State/local agencies need answers to for presentation to the Subcommittee Thursday. The list was broken into four main subject areas: What is the problem?, What can be done about it?, What is the cost of these activities?, and What is being done at present? An additional area entitled "How do we explain things like..?" was also included to help avoid the perception by the public that because the previous problem has been solved, a new one has been invented. State/local agencies also want to develop a consistent message for the public.

Ron White recently attended a national meeting of clean air activists concerning PM and the NAAQS. He informed meeting attendees about the FACA process. No one had heard of it previously. They expressed much interest in ozone/PM issues, and are now interested in the process of developing integrated implementation strategies. Public interest groups are lacking information on these issues, but believe they can disseminate it effectively themselves once they have it. They want clear, concise information on the following topics: health/environmental effects and the PM/ozone standards, regionality, the FACA process, graphics on PM/ozone sources and trends, OTAG, Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission, and WESTAR. The group recommended that EPA issue press releases on the FACA process and the regionality of ozone and PM, mentioning that EPA's press releases are very effective, and estimated that they are picked up five times more frequently than their own. Consequently, they urged EPA to take the lead in the press push. The clean air activists would also like to have a single contact at EPA that can either answer their questions about ozone/PM/regional haze, or refer them to the appropriate person. Frustration was expressed over getting transferred within EPA many times before reaching the right person.

Timeframe for Accomplishing Objectives

Bruce Carhart noted that the timeline lists the first milestone as arriving this summer, which does not leave much time to accomplish the necessary tasks beforehand. He stressed the need to get going immediately. Tom Curran concurred, emphasizing that July is not far away.

Bruce Carhart briefly recapped the Work Group's progress thus far in terms of an action plan. He said the definition of information needs was a good first step. The second step will be to sensitize the other Work Groups to the questions the public wants answered. As July draws near, the other Work Groups can tailor their products to meet those needs. Once the products are ready, the focus can shift to spreading the message. Mr. Carhart also said that having the schedule in place and taking the first step will provide valuable feedback to aid with designing the next step.

Reaching Target Audiences

Increasing the focus on regionality, secondary aerosol formation, and PM was noted by several members as a way to give the issues a new spin as far as the press is concerned, and thus enhance the likelihood of receiving press coverage.

Sandy Stash mentioned that the Work Group is trying to reach many different types of audiences and wanted input from the Work Group on how to best reach the "average guy." She fears the satellite downlinks will not reach all of the Work Group's target audiences. Bruce Carhart and Ron White both suggested press releases and the press in general as effective tools for achieving this objective. Charla Rudisill said the cheapest, most efficient way to reach the public is through the press. She suggested setting up a press luncheon and distributing fact sheets with graphics. Ron White concurred, adding that press interest is usually centered around a big event, such as a change in an area's attainment status, or an increase in the amount of people exposed to pollution.

Bruce Carhart suggested the need for several levels of communication effort to reach all the different types of audiences. Examples include creating brochures, posting on the Internet, etc. In the short term, he thinks the general public and media should receive first priority. He also believes that reaching the public is going to be an ongoing process.

Sandy Stash liked the idea of using the States more as a vehicle of dissemination. Tom Curran agreed, but cautioned that they must first be well informed. It would be helpful if they could answer questions such as how their area will be impacted early on in the process. Nancy Kruger stressed that both local dissemination and consistency of message throughout different areas are important.

Ron White believes that industry and the State/local agencies will be the groups that take advantage of the satellite downlinks. He does not believe the downlinks will reach the general public directly. He thinks the Communication & Outreach Work Group still needs to make contact with the harder-to-reach audiences. Bruce Carhart concurred that it is imperative all groups are reached.

Tad Aburn doubts EPA will have large amounts of money available to accomplish these goals. He stressed the idea of leveraging the efforts of the private sector. He says that State/local agencies want to know what tools they have at their disposal to sell the program to the general public. He also inquired about the availability of resources to do this type of leveraging.

Scott Thomas believes the most important two issues are going to be health effects and costs. (e.g. what is involved in meeting the standard) Although he agrees that health effects and costs are important factors, Bruce Carhart again stressed the importance of communicating the regionality of these air pollution problems to the public. He envisions a fundamental shift in the public's understanding of air pollution to include the concept of regionality. He thinks it is essential to address misunderstandings such as rural populations believing they have no air pollution problems and consequently not realizing they often exacerbate urban problems.

Tom Curran recommended finding people cognizant of local issues to tailor the message to local needs. Bruce Carhart agreed that local people will know the best way to sell the program in their area. He added that, in order to avoid overload, it is important to limit the number of issues communicated at one time.

Tad Aburn reminded the Work Group that some Marylanders still get the ozone hole and tropospheric ozone pollution confused, so effective and understandable communication is essential.

One member asked how Jeff Clark at EPA responded to the idea of EPA initiating a meeting with the media. Tom Curran replied that Mr. Clark was not optimistic about EPA paying for a luncheon. Ron White noted that whatever mechanism is used, it is still essential to get the press's ideas. Quin Shea said that EPA has press lists available to utilize in this manner.

Tom Curran questioned whether STAPPA/ALAPCO has press lists. Nancy Kruger replied that some chapters have public information offices, but not all. Tom Curran requested that Ms. Kruger get input from these offices.

Work Group Objectives and Products

Scott Thomas stressed how the magnitude of the communication effort will depend on the level at which the standard is set. In other words, if the standard is set at the low end of the range being considered, and many areas are found to be out of attainment, there will be considerably more communication and outreach effort necessary than if the standard is set high and few areas are found to be in non-attainment.

Nancy Kruger stressed the need to produce polished materials. She expressed concern that the other Work Groups may not provide their output in a form that will be suitable for the public.

Tom Curran questioned whether the Work Group should focus more on PM than ozone because of the great amount of attention ozone has received in the past. Ron White, Quin Shea, and Bruce Carhart all concurred. Mr. Curran also mentioned the need to know audience needs before, during, and after key events, such as the ozone and PM proposals.

Nancy Kruger questioned whether EPA will have funds available to help prepare materials for public consumption. Tom Curran responded that he has spoken with John Seitz about this and Mr. Seitz said that once the needs are clearly known, he will discuss the matter with Mary Nichols. The availability of money is a possibility, especially because some of the work may fall under fiscal year 1997.

Quin Shea suggested using models to predict what areas will experience the greatest impacts, and then targeting those areas specifically. Tom Curran does not know when pollutant maps will be available. Ron White said that, at the present time, the focus should be on figuring out what general information needs to be put out and when.

Interfacing with other Work Groups

Ron White said that he and Tom Curran can use their membership in the Coordination Group to raise Communication & Outreach Work Group concerns and help ensure that they are addressed.

In response to a question about how to develop a longer-term action plan, Ron White mentioned the dependence of this Work Group on the other Work Groups' provision of information. Sandy Stash suggested setting deadlines for them. She fears the other Work Groups might get lost in their process if this is not done. Ron White concurred, adding the possibility of giving the other Work Groups an idea of what the schedule should look like, stressing times with key information needs. This should be done in such a way as to get products from the other Work Groups in advance, allowing time to disseminate them before a milestone such as the ANPR arrives. Bruce Carhart recommended the materials be ready two to four weeks in advance of major events, if possible.

Nancy Kruger inquired about what the next step is after target audience questions are proposed. Tom Curran replied that after the Work Group agrees on what the products are and when they must be ready, he must discuss it with the other Work Groups and EPA management. He added that the FACA process is designed to provide feedback to EPA and serve as a guidepost to other Work Groups as to whether they are on track. One example of this feedback process is the Communication & Outreach Work Group's voicing concern to the Coordination Group over whether the other Work Groups will provide their information in lay terms.

Tom Curran said that EPA's communication strategy will be fed back to the Work Group as it is developed. The Agency's impetus for communication and outreach is driven more by the NAAQS than the Implementation process.

Miscellaneous

Caryl Pfeiffer voiced an industry concern expressed as "Are you sure this time?" She noted that industry is not contesting the standard, but rather seeking to ensure the creation of acceptable compliance strategies that are dependable and allow industry to plan. Ron White stated that the public interest perspective is that the science is constantly evolving, and as a result, it is not always possible to be sure. That is why there is a review process.

Tad Aburn stressed equity as an important issue in the implementation process. He noted concern on the part of stationary sources that they will be forced to bear a disproportionate share of the burden, merely because they are the easiest target. Large stationary sources want to ensure that current efforts will result in achievement of the standard. If the current focus is on the wrong sources, will large stationary sources be targeted for future reductions. Ron White said that one way to discourage this from happening is to have a good emissions inventory that all sides have confidence in. Mr. Aburn thinks that partnerships with sources responsible for the remaining emissions are necessary to get at the rest of the problem.

Quin Shea emphasized that States do not understand the great changes that will be required in their SIPs under the upcoming changes to Part 50. Necessary changes in monitoring equipment and monitoring programs will be costly, and insufficient information is being made available to States regarding this issue. Tom Curran corroborated this sentiment with Tad Aburn and Scott Thomas. Mr. Aburn said that the issue of where implementation money will come from is paramount. Mr. Thomas suspects that in the future ozone may become less of a problem and PM more of a problem in Oklahoma.

Sandy Stash asked if a mechanism is in place to answer questions about what the re-tooling cost will be for monitoring. It would be helpful if information on how the implementation plan will impact various groups was disseminated at the same time as the proposal. (i.e. for Oklahoma - is this good or bad for us?)