SUBJECT:	Summary of October 28, 1996 Communication and Outreach Work Group meeting.

I.	PURPOSE

An in-person Communication & Outreach (C&O) Work Group meeting took place on October 28, 1996 in Dallas, Texas to discuss the 10/24/96 draft communication plan, the 10/24/96 information packet material, and the longer-term communication strategy. 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

Susan Bullard, OMS

Nancy Kruger, STAPPA/ALAPCO

Jayne Mardock, Clean Air Network

Richard Paul, AAMA

Scott Thomas, Oklahoma DEQ

Work Group members not in Attendance:

Tad Aburn, MDE

Bruce Carhart, OTC

Margaret Cook, Intertribal Council of Arizona

Alice Collingwood, PSAPCA

Kathy Ellis, DOD

Caryl Pfeiffer, Kentucky Utilities Co.

Nancy Seidman, Massachusetts DEP

Quin Shea, NMA

Sandy Stash, ARCO

Other EPA attendees: Herb Sherrow (Region VI) and James Davis.

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

III.	MEETING SUMMARY

Action items

1)	The Communication Plan will be presented to the Subcommittee at the November meeting and will subsequently be presented to the CAAAC in December.

2)	Three to five public hearings regarding the standard are planned for mid-January.

3)	The following groups were listed as ways to reach state and local agencies: STAPPA/ALAPCO, NARC, League of Cities, NCSO, National Governors' Association, Environmental Council of the States, US Conference of Mayors, National Association of County Officials, National Association of Towns and Townships. Lists of industry and environmental/public interest group contacts have been provided to the Work Group in the past.

4)	The Key Audiences and Information Needs tables in section III will be reorganized and condensed.

5)	Members were encouraged to send written comments on the information packet to Jan Kleeman by October 30. She will include them in the next discussion with the contractor.

6)	Members will send Jan Kleeman examples of the types of C&O materials they are using as examples for the contractor.

Other items to note:

1)	Teleconference calls are planned for November 7 and 14.

3)	There is another satellite broadcast scheduled for December 9, from 1:00 to 4:00 EST.

4)	STAPPA/ALAPCO is creating a video on PM.

5)	MARAMA, NESCAUM, OTC and EPA Regions I, II, and III are working together on an ozone map, which will be available next summer in New England.

6)	There will be a one-pager on AOV/AOI ready in January.

IV.	SUMMARY OF IDEAS DISCUSSED/PROPOSED

Revised Draft Communication Plan

FACA should not play the role of an advocacy group.

The Communication Plan should be completed in about 2 weeks in order to be integrated into the Subcommittee's Phase 1 report.

Information should be included in the Communication Plan on the number of people reached (i.e., How many attendees were there at the July/August NAAQS meetings? How many commenters were there? How many people have accessed the Home Page? How many attended the satellite downlinks?). Information pertaining to the period beyond January 1996 is missing. Mechanisms needed to reach each target group should be listed. STAPPA/ALAPCO should tell their members who to call or write concerning the proposals and implementation issues. Add dates for when the information will be delivered.

Specify which "key environmental officials" are being referred to in the second bullet of Section II and include Environmental and public interest groups in this bullet.

The second part of the Communication Plan should be a stand alone document outlining the C&O plan from the proposal forward.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs) should be expanded to include AOV/AOI and outdated FAQs should be deleted.

A third column should be added to the Key Audiences and Information Needs tables in section III pertaining to how the information will be delivered. This could also be accomplished by a separate table.

Reorganize and condense the Key Audiences and Information Needs tables in section III. Ideas for clusters of questions include: material concerning why this is being done, health effects, how sectors are affected (designations, boundaries), and how people will be affected (inc. timing). These tables could be included as an appendix to the Phase 1 report.

Part of the C&O message should be "air pollution isn't what it used to be." Discussion could include information on the progress that has been made and the current challenges, including regionality/transport.

Upcoming NAAQS Proposal

The date and location of public meetings should be included in the NAAQS proposal.

EPA should get together with its regional offices to discuss what is coming and find out what they need to have ready. The regional offices should get information from more than one source.

Not including the AOV/AOI concept in the proposal will present a challenge to states who may have to contend with different sets of maps and control responsibilities (i.e., controls might be necessary in "attainment" areas). Letting people know there might be controls in an area without a pollution problem without having explained the rationale beforehand is a mistake.

The Work Group should come up with 6 things it can tell people in the next month and develop answers to simple questions concerning what this means to my area, what multiple exceedances are, why is this being done, how will we be affected, what is a safe threshold or margin of safety, etc.

EPA should answer questions that will not change, such as why multiple exceedences are allowed if the standard is designed to protect health. The Work Group can translate this information for its use. It is not adequate to direct people to the proposal's preamble for answers to these questions.

Send EPA's press office a strong message from the Work Group about what types of materials should go out. The press background fact sheets should go out before the Thanksgiving holiday. They will be more useful a week before the proposal.

States can put together a list of PM2.5 emission sources now (including both primary and secondary) that indicates which sources will be affected in the event of a PM2.5 standard.

Emphasize health and welfare issues in the standard change. The former should be presented by the most credible person possible.

Tell each target group what questions to be ready for, which will at least get them thinking about what information they need to be collecting.

An explanation of the difference between a proposal and promulgation should be included in the press release. Also provide people with an idea of when things will actually happen and how long it will be until the air will be cleaned up.

Develop answers to simple questions from a state perspective, including: health effects, how sources will be affected, how soon will this impact us, proposal vs. promulgation, air pollution is "not what it used to be," multiple exceedences, and threshold.

Use the "Swiss cheese" press release format in which questions are provided with blanks left for local information.

Transportation and small business people should be targeted.

It is ok to have the fact sheets come from both EPA and representatives of each sector because the latter may initiate a greater response.

Information Packet

The general order of information should be reversed. Begin with information on what is being done about the problem, then move to why it is being done.

The information packet: 1) is not written in plain English; 2) should not use the term NAAQS (acronyms should be avoided in general); 3) uses too many big words; 4) should emphasize results instead of process; and 5) generally should be rewritten at a lower level.

Include sidebars on the NAAQS and a timeline.

The third paragraph, beginning with The Clean Air Act should be changed to say: review the NAAQS at least every five years.

Do not imply that the previous efforts have been for naught. Say that although progress has been made, we are finding ways to do things even better.

Add a paragraph about why the ozone and PM standards are being reviewed (i.e., a statutory requirement, CASAC in addition to EPA decision).

If there is a desire for this piece to have a shelf-life beyond final promulgation, it may need to be written differently.

Add more in the Developing Standards section about the extensive stakeholder involvement in this process.

Replace health and welfare bullets on page 3 of the packet with "there are two standards: one for health and one for the environment."

Hand the packet to someone in your office who knows nothing about this issue and solicit their feedback. If they find something unclear, chances are that others will too.

Longer-Term C&O Strategies

The following ideas were suggested as long term C&O strategies: 1) reach the media; 2) suggest long term strategies to EPA so they can begin planning now (including resource planning); 3) convene a science and health writers conference; 4) resume the EPA background briefings for the press; 5) provide general information to the Society for Environmental Journalists and flag good story ideas for them; 6) use editorial boards and the National Safety Council's Environmental Health Center; 7) make information available on the Internet which will allow people to pick and choose materials for use in presentations; 8) utilize the Ad Council, which will be focusing on children over the next 5 years; 9) use graphics to show the progression of a regional ozone episode over time, not just a text description; 10) EPA should nationalize the ozone map MARAMA, NESCAUM, OTC and EPA Regions I, II, and III are working together on, which should be available next summer for New England.

The cost of C&O must be built into the overall cost of the implementation program. C&O is a necessary component of any implementation program.

All efforts to get state-level decisions down to local efforts are good.

The Pollutant Standards Index should be standardized as far as what is considered "unhealthful," which currently varies by area. It will also need to be adjusted to reflect any change in the PM standard.

The idea of putting signs on highways to the effect of "You are now entering a high ozone area" might be effective but it has not been deemed politically acceptable.