EPA Dialogue Summary: Information (July 12)

[Sally Hedman <shedman@home.com>]

Public Involvement in EPA Decisions

Summary: July 12, 2001

Dialogue Day 3 Agenda: Getting Information Out

Dialogue moderator Bob Carlitz introduced today's topic: Getting
Information Out.  This is a key topic for people and organizations
who interact with EPA.  He invited participants to focus on five
specific areas: national distribution of information, local and
regional distribution of information, information and tools for
small businesses, good and bad features of EPA and state web sites,
and allowing the public adequate time to review relevant information.

Note: Postings appearing by 8:00 PM Eastern time appear in today's
summary.

National distribution of information

** Concern was voiced that the quality of EPA information had
degenerated after the creation of the Office of Environmental
Information. This office is viewed as closing down a culture of
information sharing as a result of industry pressure.

** Participants reported varying degrees of satisfaction in accessing
information depending on the type of information sought and the method
of access. Existing products need to be more user friendly.

** Participants disagreed with EPA statements that the Agency provides
timely, understandable, and useful information. On the contrary, some
said the opposite.

** EPA should work with organizations with a national focus to put links
on their web sites.

** Materials for public consumption, particularly technical materials,
should be written for the non-technical public and include visuals.

** In addition to distributing information, EPA needs to find an easy
and effective means to solicit, receive, process, evaluate, and respond
to information from stakeholders.

Regional and local distribution of information

** Librarians, as information gatekeepers and public educators, need to
be trained in the issues and technology regarding environmental
information.

** Electronic forms of information become a tremendous resource to
libraries because of space and budget constraints.

** Comments on the quality and availability of information at local
libraries varied. Suggestions for improving information access included
making information available electronically, color coding documents, and
training librarians.

** Certain libraries are designated official government information
depositories. Unfortunately the official depository that stores the
information you want may not be in your area. It would be beneficial for
EPA to have all of its public data at official depositories, as well as
online.

** While the Federal Register may be at libraries, many rural people
live too far away to make this a useful source. Furthermore the Federal
Register is cumbersome, incoherent, and not user friendly. One attorney
recommended lowering the reading level. Documents destined to be read by
non-technical, non-regulatory people should have a brief,
easy-to-understand executive summary. EPA needs to make its information
clear, concise, and useful.

** Help is needed to create hardcopies of documents that are available
on the web. Print-on-demand capability would be beneficial.

** Participants discussed the state, regional and local document
repositories of EPA information and how the documents are viewed.
Suggestions to increase public involvement included writing briefer
materials in common language, developing programs targeting K-12
students in conjunction with their parents.

** Some people found materials at libraries useless because they cannot
be checked out and are too costly to photocopy. Libraries should keep
two copies: one for reference and one to check out. Furthermore,
materials are removed from libraries while they are still valid.

** If EPA repositories are to be useful, they need to include brief
abstract or synopsis in layman terms. Another suggestion for making EPA
information more accessible is to support a university department to
develop educational graphic materials.

** Alternative sources of environmental information were mentioned, such
as the National Library for the Environment.

** EPA's responsibility to inform the public goes beyond making
information available on a database. What comes into play is how EPA
facilitates a consensus and whether a consensus is adequate to answer
the question, "Is it safe to live here?"

** Local professionals who know the community and how to target
particular audiences should handle local distribution. It is important
to know your audience, tailor your information to their needs, and
invite them to participate in the solution.

** EPA should support grants to community and school libraries to make
information prominent so citizens can and will read it.

** EPA should share not only their own information, but also background
materials from non-EPA information sources.

** More effort is needed to involve local government. EPA also needs to
advertise public stakeholder meetings in local papers and on cable
access channels. They should provide scholarships for the public to
attend and holding meetings in "the field".

** Material data safety sheets that industry must prepare for OSHA often
contain good information on chemical and toxic materials.

Information and tools for small businesses

** Small businesses appreciate "one stop shopping" for their compliance
and technical assistance questions. Outreach methods to reach small
businesses (e.g., auto body, dry cleaning) include toll-free hotlines,
onsite visits, seminars, mailings, web pages, and publications.

EPA and state web sites: what's good and what's not

** Users of EPA's web system indicated that it was difficult to reach
and understand, vague, and slow. The information was difficult for the
average citizen to understand. Participants noted a lack of "real"
information about e.g., contaminants, inadequate maps, absent community
involvement segments, lack of links to explanatory discussions and
definitions. Other individuals found the EPA web site superior to
libraries.

** It is important to distinguish among different web sites which may be
conducted under distinctly different statutes.

** Envirofacts and the EPA web site received criticism, while both the
RTKNET databases and the EDF scorecard are better alternatives.

** Several people lamented the Bush Administration's decision to cut
funding for EPA's EMPACT program that provides real time environmental
monitoring in the 156 largest metropolitan areas in the United States.

** EPA should give community presentations, informing people about
contaminants, what they can do, what the exposure pathways are, and who
are the candidates for exposure. EPA should also provide this
information online in a user-friendly manner so people can be educated,
informed, involved, and non-apathetic.

** The so-called "concerned citizen" pages, need links to partners like
USDA, NRCS, and NACD.

Allowing adequate time for review

** People often feel rushed when asked to comment on a document within a
mandated time. Involving the public early would enable them to learn
basic information over a longer period of time, help develop the
document, and review drafts.

** The public needs adequate time to review all the information in a
permit file. Some states can start the comment period on a permit, but
preclude citizen access to key documents because of the permittee's
claims of business confidentiality.

** At the outset of a project, the public needs a written explanation of
the entire process, draft copies, where to get answers and technical
advice (toll free phones), and how to submit comments. The public needs
two way communications with EPA. People want to know they can make a
difference, how their comments affected the decision-making process, and
what the final outcome is.

** EPA needs to provide free technical assistance where the public can
get answers quickly. Patricia Bonner provided a long list of hotlines,
some of which are toll free.

** EPA needs to respond more rapidly to information requests to
facilitate a more informed dialogue.

** Suggestions for allowing adequate time for review included
streamlining FOIA, creating a central location for materials, proactive
approaches to community involvement, up-front outreach and engagement
before the clock starts running, following a uniform permitting process,
lengthening the comment period for complex technical issues.

Each day's summary is intended to capture the essence of the
conversation. While this summary contains the highlights of
participants' comments relating to today's topics, more comprehensive
information may be found in the individual postings. I welcome your
comments on the summaries. This and all daily summaries are available
from the agenda page of the web site.

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/join/agenda.shtml

The dialogue on today's topic is available at:

http://www.info-ren.org/network-democracy/epa-pip/archive/date-c1.html

Sally Hedman
Reporter