"+2">Discussion 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 <ul> <li>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. <li>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. <li>Participants disagreed with EPA statements that the Agency provides timely, understandable, and useful information. On the contrary, some said the opposite. <li>EPA should work with organizations with a national focus to put links on their web sites. <li>Materials for public consumption, particularly technical materials, should be written for the non-technical public and include visuals. <li>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 </ul> Regional and local distribution of information <ul> <li>Librarians, as information gatekeepers and public educators, need to be trained in the issues and technology regarding environmental information. <li>Electronic forms of information become a tremendous resource to libraries because of space and budget constraints. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>Help is needed to create hardcopies of documents that are available on the web. Print-on-demand capability would be beneficial. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>Alternative sources of environmental information were mentioned, such as the National Library for the Environment. <li>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?" <li>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. <li>EPA should support grants to community and school libraries to make information prominent so citizens can and will read it. <li>EPA should share not only their own information, but also background materials from non-EPA information sources. <li>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". <li>Material data safety sheets that industry must prepare for OSHA often contain good information on chemical and toxic materials. </ul> Information and tools for small businesses <ul> <li>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. </ul> EPA and state web sites: what's good and what's not <ul> <li>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. <li>It is important to distinguish among different web sites which may be conducted under distinctly different statutes. <li>Envirofacts and the EPA web site received criticism, while both the RTKNET databases and the EDF scorecard are better alternatives. <li>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. <li>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. <li>The so-called "concerned citizen" pages, need links to partners like USDA, NRCS, and NACD. </ul> Allowing adequate time for review <ul> <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>EPA needs to respond more rapidly to information requests to facilitate a more informed dialogue. <li>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. </ul> 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. Sally Hedman, Reporter </ul> <html> <head> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/network-democracy/images/favicon_epa-pip.ico" type="image/x-icon" /> <title> </td> </tr></table>  </td>  </tr></table>  </td></tr>   <tr><td bgcolor="#F7F2E6"> <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/welcome.shtml">Welcome</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/about/about.shtml">About this Event</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/join/join.shtml">Join the Dialogue</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/bb/bb.shtml">Briefing Book</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/comment/comment.shtml">Formal Comment</a> | <a href="/cgi-bin/network-democracy/epa-pip/search.plx">Search</a> </td></tr>  </table></td>  </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="F7F2E6" colspan=2> <center>This EPA Dialogue is managed by Information Renaissance. Messages from participants are posted on this non-EPA web site. Views expressed in this dialogue do not represent official EPA policies. </center> </td></tr> </table>  </body> </html>

n" href="/network-democracy/images/favicon_epa-pip.ico" type="image/x-icon" /> "+2">Discussion 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 <ul> <li>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. <li>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. <li>Participants disagreed with EPA statements that the Agency provides timely, understandable, and useful information. On the contrary, some said the opposite. <li>EPA should work with organizations with a national focus to put links on their web sites. <li>Materials for public consumption, particularly technical materials, should be written for the non-technical public and include visuals. <li>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 </ul> Regional and local distribution of information <ul> <li>Librarians, as information gatekeepers and public educators, need to be trained in the issues and technology regarding environmental information. <li>Electronic forms of information become a tremendous resource to libraries because of space and budget constraints. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>Help is needed to create hardcopies of documents that are available on the web. Print-on-demand capability would be beneficial. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>Alternative sources of environmental information were mentioned, such as the National Library for the Environment. <li>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?" <li>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. <li>EPA should support grants to community and school libraries to make information prominent so citizens can and will read it. <li>EPA should share not only their own information, but also background materials from non-EPA information sources. <li>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". <li>Material data safety sheets that industry must prepare for OSHA often contain good information on chemical and toxic materials. </ul> Information and tools for small businesses <ul> <li>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. </ul> EPA and state web sites: what's good and what's not <ul> <li>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. <li>It is important to distinguish among different web sites which may be conducted under distinctly different statutes. <li>Envirofacts and the EPA web site received criticism, while both the RTKNET databases and the EDF scorecard are better alternatives. <li>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. <li>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. <li>The so-called "concerned citizen" pages, need links to partners like USDA, NRCS, and NACD. </ul> Allowing adequate time for review <ul> <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>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. <li>EPA needs to respond more rapidly to information requests to facilitate a more informed dialogue. <li>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. </ul> 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. Sally Hedman, Reporter </ul> <html> <head> <link rel="shortcut icon" href="/network-democracy/images/favicon_epa-pip.ico" type="image/x-icon" /> <title> </td> </tr></table>  </td>  </tr></table>  </td></tr>   <tr><td bgcolor="#F7F2E6"> <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/welcome.shtml">Welcome</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/about/about.shtml">About this Event</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/join/join.shtml">Join the Dialogue</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/bb/bb.shtml">Briefing Book</a> | <a href="/network-democracy/epa-pip/comment/comment.shtml">Formal Comment</a> | <a href="/cgi-bin/network-democracy/epa-pip/search.plx">Search</a> </td></tr>  </table></td>  </tr> <tr><td bgcolor="F7F2E6" colspan=2> <center>This EPA Dialogue is managed by Information Renaissance. Messages from participants are posted on this non-EPA web site. Views expressed in this dialogue do not represent official EPA policies. </center> </td></tr> </table>  </body> </html>