Document ID: EPA-HQ-OECA-2003-0017-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-11T05:00Z

Appendices
Appendix
A:
PrintSTEP
Evaluation
Strategy
Appendix
B:
Telephone
Survey
Instruments
for
Printers
Appendix
C:
PrintSTEP
Application
Template
Appendix
D:
Telephone
Survey
Instrument
for
Community
Members
Appendix
E:
Federal
Register
Notice
Appendix
F:
Fax­
back
Form
for
Cost
Information
Appendix
G:
Report
Outline
Appendix
A:
PrintSTEP
Evaluation
Strategy
1
This
Strategy
is
expected
to
remain
draft
until
several
factors
become
known,
including
the
budget
for
the
evaluation,
and
how
many
printers
and
community
members
will
be
involved
in
the
pilots.

3
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
EVALUATION
STRATEGY
FOR
THE
PrintSTEP
PILOT
PROJECTS
DRAFT1
OVERVIEW
OF
THE
APPROACH
The
evaluation
of
the
PrintSTEP
pilot
program
aims
to
systematically
identify
the
impacts
the
program
has
had
on
three
types
of
stakeholders:
printers,
community
residents,
and
the
state
government
agencies
administering
the
program.
We
want
to
know:
what
difference
has
PrintSTEP
made
to
each
of
these
three
types
of
stakeholders?
Ultimately,
this
will
help
determine
whether
or
not
to
go
forward
with
full
implementation
of
the
program
in
all
states.
In
the
process
of
doing
so,
improvement
measures
for
the
program
can
be
put
in
place.

Because
PrintSTEP
is
a
multifaceted
program,
it
has
a
variety
of
goals.
The
PrintSTEP
Project
Team
has
identified
seven
types
of
expected
outcomes,
each
of
which
has
several
component
parts.

enhanced
environmental
protection;

increased
use
of
pollution
prevention
practices;

simplified
regulatory
process
for
printers;

improved
efficiency
of
administration
for
state
governments;

enhanced
public
involvement;

participants
realize
benefits
and
are
motivated
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP;
and

cost
effectiveness
for
all
stakeholders.

This
broad
set
of
expected
outcomes
will
require
a
range
of
distinct
data
collection
and
analysis
activities.
Data
will
be
gathered
from
printer's
program
applications
and
telephone
interviews.
Data
will
be
collected
before
implementation,
a
short
time
after
program
implementation,
and
at
the
end
of
the
pilot.
A
key
feature
of
the
recommended
design
is
the
use
of
a
comparison
group
of
printers
as
a
tool
for
gauging
the
impact
of
the
PrintSTEP
program.

The
evaluation
design
will
have
two
main
products:
an
Interim
Report
and
Final
Evaluation
Report.
The
Interim
Report
would
be
based
on
data
collected
approximately
one
year
after
program
implementation,
focusing
on
the
experiences
of
printers,
the
community
and
state
agency
staff
with
the
initial
implementation
of
the
program.
Additional
Interim
Reports
may
be
produced
during
the
evaluation,
as
required
by
EPA.
The
Final
Report
would
be
based
primarily
on
a
comparison
of
pre­
implementation
data
with
data
collected
after
approximately
two
years
of
program
operations
from
printers,
community
residents,
and
state
agencies.
The
Final
Report
would
address
the
program's
impacts
on
all
seven
of
the
outcomes
identified
above.

Section
One
of
this
document
describes
the
rationale
underlying
the
recommended
program
4
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
evaluation
strategy.
Section
Two
identifies
the
data
collection
activities
necessary
to
support
the
program
evaluation.
Section
Three
provides
a
preliminary
schedule
for
program
evaluation
activities.
Finally,
Section
Four
discusses
each
of
the
seven
outcome
domains
in
greater
detail,
identifying
the
specific
information
required
and
the
proposed
methods
for
collecting
the
information.

SECTION
ONE:
RATIONALE
FOR
THE
RESEARCH
DESIGN
The
overall
design
of
the
evaluation
is
driven
by
the
need
to
know
what
difference
the
program
has
made.
For
the
PrintSTEP
program,
the
best
way
to
identify
program
impacts
is
a
"
double
difference"
design,
i.
e.,
one
that
employs
both
a
comparison
of
data
collected
before
and
after
implementation
and
also
a
comparison
of
data
on
participating
printers
and
non­
participating
printers.
To
truly
evaluate
the
impact
of
the
PrintSTEP
program,
one
would
like
to
be
able
to
say
that
PrintSTEP
caused
the
changes
that
are
seen
when
pre­
implementation
data
is
compared
to
post­
implementation
data.
Without
a
comparison
group,
the
study
would
be
vulnerable
to
the
criticism
that
any
observed
changes
are
the
result
of
something
other
than
the
PrintSTEP
program,
such
as
the
market
demand
for
specific
types
of
printing
services,
the
cost
of
materials
used
in
production,
or
the
larger
social
and
political
context.
Collecting
information
about
both
participating
printers
and
a
comparison
group
of
printers
allows
us
to
control
for
certain
"
confounding"
factors
that
might
undermine
our
ability
to
attribute
observed
changes
to
the
program.
This
will
allow
the
study
to
make
the
strongest
case
it
can
that
the
PrintSTEP
program
did
or
did
not
have
specific
program
impacts,
such
as
increasing
the
use
of
pollution
prevention
techniques
or
increasing
the
level
of
public
involvement.

Constructing
a
valid
comparison
group
of
printers
must
be
done
with
great
care,
to
avoid
introducing
bias
into
the
analysis.
For
instance,
if
printers
enter
the
PrintSTEP
program
because
they
are
making
an
investment
in
new
equipment
and
will
need
to
modify
their
existing
permits,
a
comparison
with
printers
who
are
not
making
similar
investments
may
be
biased.
The
printers
that
are
not
investing
in
their
equipment
are
more
likely
to
be
using
older,
more
polluting
production
techniques.
The
intention
is
that
the
comparison
group
of
printers
will
resemble
the
participating
printers
in
a
number
of
important
respects.
The
printers
should
be
of
comparable
size,
use
comparable
printing
technologies,
and
be
subject
to
similar
pre­
implementation
regulatory
requirements.
To
recruit
the
comparison
group,
the
three
pilot
state
coordinators
(
in
New
Hampshire,
Minnesota,
and
Missouri)
will
be
working
with
the
printing
trade
associations
in
the
state.
In
Minnesota
and
Missouri,
PrintSTEP
is
being
piloted
only
in
specific
geographic
areas
(
St.
Cloud
and
St.
Louis,
respectively).
The
comparison
group
will
be
drawn
from
the
non­
PrintSTEP
areas
of
the
state.
Through
the
trade
associations,
every
effort
will
be
made
to
recruit
comparison
group
printers
who
would
participate
in
PrintSTEP
if
it
were
available
in
their
area.
This
will
eliminate
the
most
critical
area
of
bias:
that
related
to
printers'
motivation.
In
New
Hampshire,
PrintSTEP
will
be
implemented
state­
wide.
The
New
Hampshire
PrintSTEP
coordinator
will
work
with
the
printing
trade
associations
to
recruit
a
comparable
comparison
group.

Use
of
a
comparison
group
approach
will
help
the
evaluation
gain
considerable
leverage
on
the
5
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
analysis
of
key
outcomes.
For
instance,
we
will
compare
the
public
involvement
experience
of
printers
participating
in
the
PrintSTEP
process
with
the
public
involvement
experience
in
the
regulatory
process
for
the
comparison
group
of
printers.
Additionally,
we
will
compare
costs
to
the
state
related
to
participating
and
non­
participating
printers.

SECTION
TWO:
DATA
COLLECTION
ACTIVITIES
Data
for
the
evaluation
study
will
be
gathered
in
a
variety
of
ways.

Telephone
survey
of
printers
(
including
participating
printers
and
a
comparison
group
of
printers);

Printer
application
forms
and
an
application­
equivalent
for
the
comparison
group;

In­
person
interviews
with
state
agency
staff;

State­
agency
data;
and

Telephone
survey
of
community
residents.

Printers:
Telephone
Survey
and
PrintSTEP
Application
Forms
It
is
critical
to
the
evaluation
to
understand
how
printers
view
the
PrintSTEP
program,
how
the
costs
of
participating
compare
to
the
costs
of
not
participating,
and
what
changes
participating
printers
have
made
as
a
result
of
their
participation
in
the
program.
Both
participating
and
nonparticipating
printers
will
be
interviewed
three
times:
before
the
program
is
implemented,
at
an
early
point
in
implementation,
and
at
the
end
of
the
pilot.
The
Baseline
survey
establishes
a
starting
point
against
which
subsequent
measures
can
be
compared.
The
Interim
survey
would
collect
information
on
the
printers'
opinions
about
the
initial
application
process
and
about
the
costs
they
incurred
as
part
of
that
process.
This
information
is
likely
to
be
more
accurate
if
collected
at
an
interim
point
than
it
would
be
if
it
were
collected
at
the
end
of
the
pilot.
The
Postpilot
survey
would
focus
primarily
on
changes
to
the
production
process
and
measures
of
environmental
impact,
areas
where
any
impacts
are
not
likely
to
be
fully
evident
earlier
in
the
program.

Telephone
surveys,
combined
with
written
information
from
the
PrintSTEP
application
(
or
application­
equivalent
for
the
comparison
group),
will
be
used
to
collect
this
information.
The
PrintSTEP
application
form
and
their
annual
updates
will
be
used
to
provide
data
on
environmental
releases
before
and
after
pilot
implementation.
The
application
template
as
it
appears
in
the
Plain
Language
Workbook
may
be
modified
to
capture
the
relevant
data,
and
printers
will
complete
it
at
the
time
of
application
and
update
it
annually.
Information
on
costs
incurred
related
to
PrintSTEP
or
environmental
regulation
will
be
collected
via
a
fax­
back
form
that
will
be
sent
to
the
printer
at
the
completion
of
the
telephone
interview.

By
way
of
background,
in
order
to
help
identify
the
universe
of
printers
who
may
ultimately
be
subject
to
the
evaluation,
the
PrintSTEP
pilot
coordinators
in
MN
and
NH
plan
to
send
a
questionnaire
to
printers
in
the
pilot
implementation
areas.
If
a
printer
decides
to
voluntarily
6
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
complete
the
questionnaire,
he/
she
will
be
asked
to
provide
the
following
information:
company
name,
contact
person,
mailing
address,
facility
address,
type
of
printing
process
operated,
type
of
printing
jobs,
and
whether
or
not
the
printer
would
possibly
be
interested
in
joining
PrintSTEP.
A
space
for
comments
will
be
included.
The
questionnaire
will
be
printed
as
a
tri­
fold
with
postagepaid
return
address.
The
PrintSTEP
coordinators
for
these
pilot
states
will
receive
the
responses
and
will
use
them
to
build
and/
or
enhance
their
database
of
potentially
interested
printers,
who
may
be
subject
to
the
evaluation.

State
Agency:
In­
person
Interviews
and
State
Agency
Data
The
critical
outcomes
expected
from
state
and
other
regulatory
authorities
are
measures
of
efficiency:
how
well
the
agency
is
able
to
coordinate
to
accomplish
multi­
media
tasks
concurrently,
how
much
time
the
paper
work
and
processing
takes,
and
what
the
resulting
costs
will
be.
Our
recommended
approach
is
to
conduct
in­
person
interviews
with
government
personnel
at
the
baseline,
at
an
interim
point
and
at
the
end
of
the
pilot.
Questions
about
time
and
costs
will
be
asked
at
all
three
times,
but
questions
about
the
organization
and
multi­
media
office
coordination
will
only
be
asked
at
the
end.
Comparison
data
will
be
collected
from
state
agency
staff
who
will
be
processing
permits
for
the
comparison
group
of
printers.

In­
person
interviews
are
recommended
as
the
preferred
method
to
collect
this
information.
The
states
have
a
more
varied
set
of
objectives
for
PrintSTEP,
including
outcomes
at
their
own
agency,
as
well
as
outcomes
involving
printers
and
the
public.
In­
person
interviews
will
be
more
effective
at
capturing
the
increased
level
of
complexity
and
is
estimated
to
be
cost
effective.
State
agency
data,
where
it
exists,
will
be
collected
to
measure
the
length
of
time
it
takes
to
process
permits
under
the
old
system
verses
processing
time
for
PrintSTEP
Notifications
and
Agreements.

Community
Residents:
Telephone
Survey
For
the
community
it
will
be
critical
to
evaluate
their
awareness
of
printers'
activities,
understanding
of
where
to
get
information,
and
effectiveness
of
being
a
participant
in
the
PrintSTEP
process.
Community
residents
participating
in
PrintSTEP
will
be
interviewed
after
the
public
involvement
process
for
the
printer
with
whom
they
are
involved
is
complete.
PrintSTEP
participants
will
be
identified
from
the
mailing
lists
for
Actual
Notice,
and
lists
associated
with
the
PrintSTEP
Registry,
Repository
and
public
meetings.
Interviews
will
collect
information
about
the
effectiveness
of
notice,
access
to
information,
ability
to
comment
effectively,
and
the
overall
effectiveness
of
participation,
and
related
improvements
that
result.

SECTION
THREE:
EVALUATION
SCHEDULE
The
following
list
outlines
the
steps
needed
for
implementation
and
evaluation
of
PrintSTEP,
and
prerequisites
for
data
collection.

1
Research
design
finalized
­
DONE
7
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
2
Request
for
proposals
goes
out
to
states
from
EPA
­
DONE
3
States
are
selected
for
pilots
­
DONE
4
States
begin
implementation
­
DONE
States
designate
staff
to
run
pilots
and
review
PrintSTEP
applications
­
DONE
States
market
program,
invite
printers
to
participate
5
Printers
volunteer
to
participate
6
Data
collection
instruments
developed
Critical
implementation
factors
before
finalizing
data
collection
instruments:


Is
program
open
to
all
printers
state­
wide,
or
to
printers
in
a
specified
locality?­
DONE

How
many
printers
volunteer?


Do
printers
apply
for
PrintSTEP
all
at
once,
or
phased
in
over
a
specified
time
period,
or
phased
in
as
their
permits
come
up
for
renewal
(
if
they
already
have
permits)?
­
DONE
7
Baseline
data
collected
from
states
and
printers
Critical
steps
before
baseline
data
collection
occurs:


State
staff
must
be
identified
to
implement
PrintSTEP
­
DONE

All
participating
printers
must
be
identified
8
Interim
data
collected
from
printers
and
community
members
Critical
steps
before
interim
data
collection
occurs:


Repository
and
registry
must
be
established

Actual
and/
or
general
notice
must
have
gone
out
for
all
of
these
applications
9
Interim
Report
submitted
Critical
step
before
final
data
collection
occurs:


Pilot
programs
must
be
considered
fully
implemented
10
Final
data
collected
from
printers
and
states
11
Final
Report
submitted
SECTION
FOUR:
DATA
COLLECTION
AND
ANALYSIS
PLAN
FOR
EACH
OF
THE
SEVEN
OBJECTIVES
8
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
1.
PrintSTEP
provides
enhanced
environmental
protection.

a)
Emissions,
wastes
and
discharges
from
printing
(
both
overall
and
for
each
medium)
have
decreased.
Obtain
quantitative
data
consistent
with
the
program's
environmental
measures.
Analyze
results
in
each
individual
media,
as
well
as
overall
changes
to
evaluate
multi­
media
effects.
Normalizing
should
be
done
to
account
for
changes
in
production
or
product
mix.
If
each
facility
is
allowed
to
use
their
own
index
(
i.
e.,
their
own
denominator,
such
as
sales
or
square
feet
of
paper
consumed),
aggregate
results
would
best
be
expressed
as
a
percent.
What
data:

Specific
pollutants
or
indicators
(
i.
e.,
TSS)
in
wastewater.
PrintSTEP
will
agree
to
3­
5
common
printing
discharges
as
indicators.

Pounds
or
gallons
of
total
hazardous
waste
generated

Amount
of
materials
previously
being
disposed
that
are
now
being
recycled

Degree
of
opportunity
of
materials
to
be
exposed
to
storm
water

Total
pounds
of
VOC
emissions,
total
pounds
of
HAP
emissions
or

Total
gallons
of
VOC­
containing
product
used,
total
gallons
of
HAP­
containing
product
used

Unit
of
production/
production
index
How:
Participating
printer
submits
Program
Application,
Storm
Water
Exposure
Checklist,
and
Air
Level
Worksheets.
Comparison
group
printers
will
complete
an
application­
equivalent.
When:
Before
PrintSTEP,
and
at
end
of
pilot
b)
PrintSTEP
Improves
Printers'
Ability
to
Achieve
Compliance.

What
data:

Positive
results
from
the
following
OTHER
components
of
the
evaluation
indicate
the
improved
ability
for
printers
to
achieve
compliance:
Objective
3:
PrintSTEP
simplifies
the
regulatory
process
for
printers.
Objective
6:
There
is
sufficient
motivation
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP.
Objective
7:
PrintSTEP
is
cost
effective
for
all
stakeholders.
How:
Refer
to
the
corresponding
sections
of
the
evaluation
for
how
to
collect
data
for
the
components
listed
above.
When:
Refer
to
the
corresponding
sections
of
the
evaluation
for
when
data
will
be
collected
for
the
components
listed
above.

2.
Participation
in
PrintSTEP
results
in
increased
use
of
pollution
prevention.
9
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
a)
Printers
use
of
specific
pollution
prevention
practices
has
increased
What
data:

Do
you
use
any
of
the
following
pollution
prevention
practices?
(
from
a
list
of
practices
on
application
template
­
these
have
been
reviewed
by
industry
representatives)
How:
Telephone
survey
of
participating
printers
and
a
comparison
group.
When:
Before
PrintSTEP,
interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot.

b)
Technical
assistance
provided
through
PrintSTEP
is
useful
to
printers
and
community
members.
Survey
must
be
sensitive
to
those
using
technical
assistance
(
TA)
strictly
because
they
need
help
implementing
Print
STEP.
Creation
of
new
TA
centers,
or
number
of
people
accessing
TA
strictly
as
a
result
of
PrintSTEP
is
not
necessarily
a
measure
of
effectiveness.
What
data:
Ask
printers
and
community
members:

Have
you
ever
used
technical
assistance?
Before
or
after
PrintSTEP?

Was
technical
assistance
available
to
you
when
you
needed
it?

Was
it
helpful?

What
type
of
technical
assistance
did
you
request?

Was
it
easy
to
find
out
how
to
get
in
touch
with
a
technical
assistance
provider?

Were
the
PrintSTEP
documents
helpful
to
you
in
this
regard?
How:
Telephone
survey
of
printers
and
community
participants
When:
At
end
of
pilot.

3.
PrintSTEP
simplifies
the
regulatory
process
for
printers.

a)
It
is
easier
for
printers
to
understand
their
regulatory
requirements
under
PrintSTEP.
What
data:

Has
PrintSTEP
improved
your
understanding
of
your
regulatory
requirements?

Which
aspects
of
PrintSTEP
were
difficult
to
understand?

Did
the
PrintSTEP
documents
make
things
easier
to
understand?
How:
Telephone
survey
of
PrintSTEP
printers.
When:
Before
PrintSTEP,
interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot.

b)
PrintSTEP
increases
printers'
ability
to
respond
to
market
conditions.
To
determine
if
changes
are,
in
fact,
a
result
of
PrintSTEP,
a
comparison
group
will
be
used.
The
change
being
evaluated
here
may
occur
so
infrequently
that
only
anecdotal
results
may
be
available.
10
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
What
data:

Have
you
been
delayed
and/
or
prevented
from
responding
to
business
opportunities
(
e.
g.,
installing
a
new
piece
of
equipment;
meeting
the
request
of
a
customer/
potential
customer
for
a
different
ink,
coating,
etc.;
increasing
production;
bringing
outsourced
operations
in­
house)
because
of
environmental
requirements
(
e.
g.,
a
change
to
a
permit
or
other
approval
from
the
local,
state,
or
federal
government)?
In
what
way?
How:
Telephone
survey
of
PrintSTEP
printers
and
a
comparison
group.
When:
Before
PrintSTEP,
interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot.

c)
PrintSTEP
is
effectively
administered
as
a
multi­
media
program.
What
data:

Is
there
a
single
point
of
contact
at
the
agency
for
all
media/
PrintSTEP
questions?

Has
this
person
been
accessible
to
you?

Does
the
agency
coordinate
effectively
across
media
and
up
through
the
organization?

Did
the
coordination
speed
or
slow
the
regulatory
process?
How:
Telephone
survey
of
PrintSTEP
printers.
When:
Before
PrintSTEP,
interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot
4.
PrintSTEP
is
more
efficient
for
the
states.

a)
States
can
administer
PrintSTEP
as
a
multi­
media
program.
Analysis
will
need
to
consider
subjectivity
of
responses.
It
may
be
difficult
to
generalize
from
changes
at
the
agency
during
the
pilot
to
a
fully
implemented
program.
What
data:

Does
a
recognizable
cross­
program
infrastructure
exist
that
functions
for
all
media?

Do
you
feel
you
are
able
to
be
more
efficient
at
permitting
printers?

Are
different
program
personnel
able
to
coordinate
effectively?

Is
there
a
clear
understanding
of
roles
and
responsibilities
at
the
agency?

Is
there
a
single
point
of
contact
at
the
agency
for
all
media/
PrintSTEP
questions?

Were
the
PrintSTEP
State
Guide
and
other
documents
helpful
in
administering
the
program?
How:
Interview
state
agency
personnel.
When:
At
end
of
pilot
b)
PrintSTEP
reduces
the
total
amount
of
time
between
initial
application
and
final
Agreement
(
compared
to
the
multiple
applications
under
the
original
system).
Note:
this
outcome
only
applies
to
currently
permitted
facilities.
Analysis
will
be
affected
by
how
a
particular
pilot
state
currently
tracks
processing
time.
11
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
What
data:

Time
between
initial
application
and
final
approval
for
each
individual
permit
under
the
traditional
system

Time
between
initial
application
and
final
approval
for
a
PrintSTEP
Agreement
How:

Measure
time
it
took
to
receive
all
applicable
permits
under
the
original
system
for
comparison
group
of
printers

Measure
time
it
took
to
receive
a
PrintSTEP
Agreement
for
participating
printers
When:
Baseline,
interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot
5.
PrintSTEP
involves
the
public.
Collection
of
pre­
implementation
data
is
not
viable
because
it
will
not
be
known
who
the
participants
will
be
before
the
start
of
the
pilot.
What
data:
From
community
members:

How
were
you
informed
of
PrintSTEP/
your
local
printer?

Has
PrintSTEP
increased
your
awareness
of
the
printers
in
your
neighborhood,
and
what
they
do
with
regard
to
the
environment?

Did
PrintSTEP
provide
an
opportunity
for
you
to
participate
in
the
decision­
making
process?

Were
you
able
to
obtain
documents
from
the
Repository?

Were
you
able
to
read
and
understand
them?

Was
there
enough
information
for
you
to
participate
effectively?

If
public
meetings
were
held,
were
they
accessible
to
you
(
time
of
day,
handicap
accessible,
etc.)?

Were
your
concerns
effectively
addressed?

Has
a
single
point
of
contact
at
the
regulatory
agency
been
available
to
you?

Were
they
able
to
assist
you
effectively?
From
states:

What
outreach
responsibilities
did
you
handle?

Did
the
public
submit
comments
on
PrintSTEP
applications?
request
public
meetings?
attend
meetings?

Were
community
concerns
effectively
addressed?
From
printers:

What
outreach
responsibilities
did
you
handle?

Did
printers
benefit
from
the
public
involvement
aspects
of
PrintSTEP?

Did
you
involve
the
public
early?

Were
you
more
aware
of
your
neighbors
and
of
potential
environmental
and
health
impacts
now
than
before
PrintSTEP?
From
all:

Is
the
Information
Repository
useful?

Has
there
been
an
improvement
in
your
ability
to
communicate
more
effectively
with
printers/
regulators/
community
members?
12
DRAFT
­
April,
2001

Did
the
PrintSTEP
documents
help
you
with
public
involvement?
How:
Telephone
survey
and/
or
focus
groups
of
state,
printer
and
community
participants
When:
Interim,
and
at
end
of
pilot.

6.
There
is
sufficient
motivation
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP.

a)
Participants
would
participate
in
a
similar
program
again.
What
data:

Would
you
participate
in
a
similar
program
again?

What
recommendations
do
you
have
to
improve
the
program?
How:
Telephone
survey
and/
or
focus
groups
of
state,
printer
and
community
participants
When:
At
end
of
pilot
b)
Participants
responses
on
the
future
benefits
they
see
from
the
increased
communication
among
states,
communities,
and
printers.
What
data:

What
future
benefits
do
you
see
from
the
increased
communication?
How:
Telephone
survey
and/
or
focus
groups
of
state,
printer
and
community
participants
When:
At
end
of
pilot
7.
PrintSTEP
is
cost
effective
for
all
stakeholders.

a)
Printers'
costs
Estimate
costs
from
a
cost
model
identifying
the
elements
which
might
be
influenced
by
the
PrintSTEP
process.
It
will
be
difficult
to
generalize
from
printers
who
participate
in
the
pilot
to
costs
of
full­
fledged
implementation.
Note:
Several
costs
items
(
operating,
capital
and
inspection
costs)
were
eliminated
from
the
list
because
their
relevance
to
the
evaluation
of
PrintSTEP
is
insignificant.
What
data:
.

What
filings
were
required
prior
to
PrintSTEP?
What
fees
were
associated
with
them?
Is
there
a
fee
for
the
PrintSTEP
Notification
or
Agreement?
(
possible
question
for
state
agency).

Labor
costs
associated
with
PrintSTEP
application
and
with
environmental
regulations
before
PrintSTEP
(
printer
recollection).

Labor
costs
associated
with
PrintSTEP
modifications
and
with
modifications
before
PrintSTEP
(
printer
recollection).
(
Account
for
process
changes
that
would
have
triggered
permit
modifications
but
don't
under
PrintSTEP).

Fees
for
outside
engineers,
consultants,
or
attorneys
should
be
included
above.
13
DRAFT
­
April,
2001

Cost
of
outreach,
including
providing
actual
notice,
if
applicable.

Cost
savings
from
pollution
prevention
implementation.
How:
Telephone
interview
supplemented
by
written
cost
information
(
as
a
fax­
back
form
following
the
telephone
interview).
When:
Interim
and
at
end
of
pilot.

b)
State
(
and
local)
government
costs
Build
a
cost
model
for
state
administration
of
printer
environmental
regulations,
identifying
cost
elements
which
might
be
influenced
by
the
PrintSTEP
process.
Note:
Cost
of
inspections
was
deleted
from
this
list
because
a
change
is
not
anticipated
due
to
implementation
of
PrintSTEP.
What
data:

administrative
costs

technical
assistance

public
meetings

repository

notice

other
outreach,
if
applicable
How:
In­
person
interviews
When:
Baseline
(
to
develop
cost
model),
Interim
and
at
end
of
pilot
(
to
input
to
model).

c)
Community
costs
Build
a
cost
model
for
community
costs,
identifying
all
the
cost
elements
which
might
be
influenced
by
the
PrintSTEP
process.
It
will
be
difficult
to
convert
community
time
to
monetary
costs.
Note:
Costs
of
repository
and
notice
were
deleted
from
this
list
because
no
cost
is
anticipated
for
the
community.
What
data:
Collect
information
on
labor
costs
(
time
spent)
to
community
of
participation
in

public
meetings

technical
assistance

reviewing
information
in
repository

other
Collect
information
on
direct
costs,
if
any

monetary
outlays
(
e.
g.
for
child
care)
How:
Telephone
survey
When:
During
community
survey.
14
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
B:
Telephone
Survey
Instruments
for
Printers
15
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Printers
WAVE
1
INTRODUCTION:

GATEKEEPER
INTRODUCTION:

May
I
please
speak
with
(
PRINTER).
IF
NECESSARY:
This
is
________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
(
TREATMENT:
an
environmental
program
that
(
PRINTER)
is
participating
in/
CONTROL:
a
survey
that
(
PRINTER)
has
volunteered
to
complete).

PRINTSTEP
PARTICIPANT
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
this
is
________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
the
PrintSTEP
program.
You
may
remember
participating
printers
are
being
asked
to
complete
a
brief
interview
after
they
submit
an
application
to
the
program.
The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
The
interview
usually
takes
less
than
ten
minutes.

Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
PrintSTEP
or
any
other
government
program.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
this
is
____________
calling
from
Abt
Associates.
We
are
interviewing
printers
in
(
STATE)
about
the
impact
of
environmental
regulations
on
the
printing
industry.
You
may
recall
that
(
TRADE
ASSOCIATION)
spoke
with
you
about
participating
in
this
research.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
Participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
any
government
programs.

IF
CONTROL
PRINTER,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
2
16
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
1.
What
made
you
decide
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP?
(
MULTIPLE
RESPONSE)

GOOD
IMAGE
IN
COMMUNITY
CUSTOMERS
WANTED
ME
TO
SUPPLIERS
WANTED
ME
TO
EMPLOYEES
WANTED
ME
TO
INTERESTED
IN
SAFER
OPERATIONS
OTHER
PRINTERS
IN
AREA
WERE
JOINING
LAYWER
ADVISED
ME
TO
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

2.
Do
you
have
any
required
public
involvement
activities
(
not
related
to
PrintSTEP)?

YES
(
ASK
Q
2A)
NO
(
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
3)
REFUSED
(
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
3)
DON'T
KNOW
(
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
3)

2A.
What
type
of
public
involvement
requirements
do
you
have?

PUBLIC
SUBMITS
COMMENTS
PUBLIC
MEETING
HELD
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
PLAN
DEVELOPED
FOLLOW­
UP
PUBLIC
MEETING
HELD
PUBLIC
APPEAL
OF
APPROVAL
OTHER
PUBLIC
FORUM
________________________

3.
The
following
questions
are
about
the
state
environmental
agency
with
which
you
interact
for
air,
water,
and
hazardous
waste
regulatory
issues.

Is
there
a
single
point­
of­
contact
for
all
environmental
regulatory
questions,
for
some
types
of
questions
or
do
you
always
contact
different
people
for
different
environmental
regulations?
IF
ASKED
WHICH
REGULATIONS:
We
mean
in
general,
for
the
bulk
of
the
regulations.

SINGLE
POINT
OF
CONTACT
FOR
ALL
SINGLE
POINT
OF
CONTACT
FOR
SOME
DIFFERENT
PEOPLE
FOR
DIFFERENT
MEDIA
(
SKIP
TO
Q.
4)
17
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
3A.
How
easy
is
it
to
get
in
touch
with
this
person?
Would
you
say
it
is 

Very
easy
Somewhat
easy
Somewhat
difficult,
or
Very
difficult
3B.
How
often
is
this
person
able
to
answer
your
multi­
media
or
multi­
program
questions
adequately?

Always
Sometimes
Rarely,
or
Never
3C.
What
effect
does
multi­
media
or
multi­
program
coordination
at
the
state
agency
have
on
the
regulatory
process?
Does
it
usually 

Speed
up
the
process,
Slow
down
the
process
Sometimes
speed
it
up
and
other
times
slow
it
down,
or
does
it
usually
Have
no
effect
at
all
4.
We
would
like
to
get
a
sense
of
printers'
perception
of
current
environmental
regulatory
requirements.
For
each
area
that
I
read,
please
tell
me
whether
you
would
rate
your
own
understanding
as
very
good,
fairly
good,
not
very
good
or
poor.
How
would
you
rate
your
understanding
of
the
(
READ
ITEM)?

Very
Good
Fairly
Good
Not
Very
Good
Poor
Air
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Storm
Water
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Waste
Water
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Hazardous
Waste
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
18
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
5.
FOR
EACH
ITEM
RESPONDENT
ANSWERED
NOT
VERY
GOOD
OR
POOR
IN
QUESTION
4
ABOVE,
ASK:

What
about
the
(
air/
storm
water/
waste
water/
hazardous
waste)
regulatory
program
or
requirements
do
you
find
difficult
to
understand?

TOO
COMPLICATED
LACK
OF
EASY­
TO­
READ
INFORMATION
NO
TIME
TO
LEARN
HARD
TO
GET
INFORMATION
FROM
GOVERNMENT
STAFF
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

6.
Has
an
environmental
requirement,
for
example,
a
change
to
a
permit
or
other
approval
from
the
local,
state,
or
federal
government,
ever
affected
your
company's
ability
to
respond
to
a
business
opportunity?

IF
NECESSARY
READ:
For
example,
installing
a
new
piece
of
equipment;
meeting
the
request
of
a
customer
or
potential
customer
for
a
different
ink,
coating,
etc.;
increasing
production;
or
bringing
out­
sourced
operations
in­
house?

YES
NO
(
SKIP
TO
CLOSING)
REFUSED
(
SKIP
TO
CLOSING)
DON'T
KNOW
(
SKIP
TO
CLOSING)

6A.
Can
you
describe
a
recent
time
this
happened?

6B.
How
big
an
impact
did
this
have
on
your
company's
profitability
or
growth
opportunity?
Would
you
say
it
was .

A
severe
negative
impact
A
serious
negative
impact
A
moderate
negative
impact
or
A
slight
negative
impact
PRINTSTEP
PARTICIPANT
CLOSING:
Those
are
all
my
questions
today.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
You
can
expect
to
hear
from
us
again
in
about
a
year
to
learn
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.
19
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
CONTROL
CLOSING:
I
have
several
other
questions
that
are
in
a
written
format.
I
will
fax
you
the
questions
and
there
is
a
number
where
you
can
fax
back
the
completed
form.
Please
send
this
back
as
soon
as
possible.
If
you
prefer,
I
can
email
you
the
written
portion
instead.
What
is
your
fax
number/
email
address?
Those
are
all
my
questions
today.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
20
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Printers
WAVE
2
INTRODUCTION:

GATEKEEPER
INTRODUCTION:

May
I
please
speak
with
(
PRINTER).

IF
NECESSARY:
This
is
____________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
(
TREATMENT:
an
environmental
program
that
(
PRINTER)
is
participating
in/
CONTROL:
a
survey
that
(
PRINTER)
has
volunteered
to
complete).

PRINTSTEP
PARTICIPANT
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
This
is
__________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
the
PrintSTEP
program.
You
may
remember
participating
printers
are
being
asked
to
complete
a
brief
interview
after
your
PrintSTEP
application
is
processed.
approval
of
your
PrintSTEP
agreement
or
standard
permit.
[
You
may
recall
that
we
spoke
with
you
a
year
ago
about
your
particpation
with
the
PrintSTEP
program].
We
are
doing
this
follow
up
interview
to
learn
more
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.
The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
The
interview
usually
takes
less
than
20
minutes.

Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
PrintSTEP
or
any
other
government
program.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
this
is
_______
calling
from
Abt
Associates.
You
may
recall
we
spoke
with
you
a
year
ago
about
the
impact
of
environment
regulations
on
the
printing
industry
as
part
of
this
[
TRADE
ASSOCIATION]
supported
project.
We
are
doing
this
follow
up
interview
to
learn
more
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
any
governmental
program.

1.
TREATMENT:
Do
you
have
any
required
public
involvement
activities
not
related
to
PrintSTEP?
CONTROL:
Do
you
have
any
required
public
involvement
activities?
21
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
YES
1ASK
A
NO
2
SKIP
TO
2
DON'T
KNOW
3
SKIP
TO
2
A.
Which
of
the
following
are
required?

Public
submits
comments
1
Public
meeting
held
2
Community
involvement
Plan
developed
3
Follow­
up
public
meeting
held
4
Public
appeal
of
approval
5
Other
public
forum
(
SPECIFY)
6
ASK
PRINTERS
IN
[
state
name]
ONLY:
2.
Did
you
provide
public
notice
(
of
your
PrintSTEP
application/
related
to
any
requirements
statute
in
the
last
year)?

YES
1
NO
2
(
SKIP
TO
3)

A.
What
types
of
public
notice
of
your
(
PrintSTEP/
environmental
permit)
application
did
you
use?
Did
you
use   
CODE
ALL
THAT
APPLY
YES
NO
Direct
mailing
1
2
Telephone
contact
1
2
Newspaper
notice
or
advertisement
1
2
Posted
signs
1
2
Internet
notice
1
2
In
person
or
word­
of­
mouth
1
2
Any
other
type
of
notice
(
SPECIFY)
1
2
3.
Did
you
have
any
community
outreach
activities
such
as
an
open
house
beyond
those
required
by
(
PrintSTEP/
an
environmental
statue)?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
4
A.
What
type
(
types)
of
community
outreach?
22
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
(
Was/
were)
there 

YES
NO
An
open
house
1
2
A
public
meeting
1
2
Hearings
of
conservation
commission1
2
Hearings
of
health
board
1
2
City
council
meetings
1
2
Written
materials
1
2
Some
other
type
of
community
outreach____
1
2
B.
How
useful
do
you
think
these
efforts
to
learn
about
community
concerns
and
expectations
were?
Were
they .

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
(
REFER
TO
QUESTION
1A
AND
QUESTION
3A.
ASK
QUESTION
4­
6
ONLY
OF
PRINTERS
WHO
HELD
PUBLIC
MEETINGS).
OTHERWISE
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
7.

ASK
PRINTERS
IN
[
State
name]
ONLY:

4.
Before
you
held
your
public
meeting
,
did
you
provide
public
notice
of
the
meeting?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
5
A.
In
providing
public
notice,
did
you
use..

YES
NO
Direct
mailing
1
2
Telephone
contact
1
2
Newspaper
notice
or
advertisement
1
2
Posted
signs
1
2
Internet
notice
1
2
In
person
or
word­
of­
mouth
1
2
Any
other
type
of
notice
(
SPECIFY)
23
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1
2
5.
How
useful
was
the
[
first/
second]
public
meeting
as
a
way
to
learn
about
community
concerns
and
expectations?
Would
you
say
it
was 

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
6.
What
would
have
made
the
[
first/
second]
public
meeting
more
useful?
(
MULTIPLE
RESPONSES)

GREATER
COMMUNITY
ATTENDANCE
PARTICIPATION
OF
STATE
AGENCY
STAFF
COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT
PLAN
DEVELOPED
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)_____________________________

IF
THERE
WAS
A
SECOND
MEETING,
ASK
QUESTIONS
4­
6
FOR
THE
SECOND
MEETING.

7.
Did
you
receive
written
comments
(
on
your
PrintSTEP
application/
related
to
any
environmental
filing)
during
any
part
of
the
regulatory
process?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
8
A.
How
useful
did
you
find
the
public
comment
process
at
addressing
concerns?
Would
you
say
it
was..

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
B.
How
useful
did
you
find
the
public
comment
process
at
resolving
issues?

Very
useful
4
24
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
8.
Was
a
Community
Involvement
Plan
developed?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
9
A.
How
useful
did
you
find
the
Community
Involvement
plan
at
addressing
concerns?
Would
you
say
it
was
 

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
B.
In
what
ways
was
it
useful
to
you?

RESOLVED
ISSUES
ADDRESSED
CONCERNS
IDENTIFIED
SUPPORT
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)_______________

IF
CONTROL
PRINTER,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
10
9.
Did
you
use
the
PrintSTEP
Information
Repository
during
any
part
of
the
regulatory
process?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
10
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
available
used
in
the
Information
Repository?
Were
you 

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
10
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
10
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
25
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
information
available
in
the
Information
Repository
?

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME
/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)
_______

10.
Did
you
obtain
information
from
(
name
of
state
contact
person
and
office/
office)
during
any
part
of
the
regulatory
process?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
11
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
state
contact
person
and
office/
office)
Were
you .

Very
satisfied
1
SKIP
TO
11
Somewhat
satisfied
2
SKIP
TO
11
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
Very
unsatisfied
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
this
information?

DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
COULDN'T
REACH
THEM
DIDN'T
NEED
HELP
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER_____________

11.
Did
you
obtain
information
from
(
technical
assistance
provider/
center
name)
during
any
part
of
regulatory
process?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
12
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
assistance
obtained
from
(
technical
assistance
provider/
center
name)?
Were
you..

Very
satisfied
4
26
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
SKIP
TO
12
Very
unsatisfied
1
SKIP
TO
12
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
assistance
from
(
Technical
assistance
provider/
name)?
Would
you
say
it
was/
there
wasn't/
because
you...

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

12
Did
you
obtain
information
from
any
other
source?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
13
A.
What
other
source
was
this?

B.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
other
source)?
Would
you
say
you
were .

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
13
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
13
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
C.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
other
source)
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)_____________

IF
CONTROL
PRINTER,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
14.
13.
Did
you
use
the
PrintSTEP
Workbook
or
other
PrintSTEP
documents?
27
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
14
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
content
and
format?
Would
you
say
you
were .

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
14
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
14
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
PrintSTEP
documents?

DIDN'T
KNOW
THERE
WERE
ANY
DIDN'T
HAVE
THE
INFORMATION
I
NEEDED
COULDN'T
GET
A
COPY
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
WEREN'T
WRITTEN
IN
YOUR
PRIMARY
LANGUAGE
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)______________________

ASK
PRINTSTEP
RESPONDENTS
AND
CONTROL
RESPONDENTS
WHO
INDICATED
THEY
HAD
PUBLIC
INVOLVEMENT
IN
QUESTIONS
1­
3
14.
Overall,
how
do
you
feel
about
the
usefulness
of
the
public
involvement
activities
(
of
the
PrintSTEP)
program)?
Were
they 

Very
useful
4
SKIP
TO
B
Somewhat
useful
3
SKIP
TO
B
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
16A.
Why
weren't
your
public
involvement
activities
useful?
28
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
SKIP
TO
CLOSING
16B.
In
what
way
were
your
public
involvement
activities
useful?

PRINTSTEP
PARTICIPANT
CLOSING:
Those
are
all
my
questions
today.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
You
can
expect
to
hear
from
us
once
more
gain
in
about
a
year
to
learn
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.

CONTROL
CLOSING:
I
have
several
other
questions
that
are
in
a
written
format.
I
will
fax
you
the
questions
and
there
is
a
number
where
you
can
fax
back
the
completed
form.
Please
send
this
back
as
soon
as
possible.
If
you
prefer,
I
can
email
you
the
written
portion
instead.
What
is
your
fax
number/
email
address?
Those
are
all
my
questions
today.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
29
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Printers
GATEKEEPER
INTRODUCTION:

May
I
please
speak
with
(
PRINTER).

IF
NECESSARY:
This
is
____________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
(
TREATMENT:
an
environmental
program
that
(
PRINTER)
is
participating
in/
CONTROL:
a
survey
that
(
PRINTER)
has
volunteered
to
complete).

PRINTSTEP
PARTICIPANT
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
This
is
__________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
the
PrintSTEP
program.
You
may
remember
participating
printers
are
being
asked
to
complete
a
brief
interview
at
the
close
of
the
pilot
project.
[
You
may
recall
that
we
spoke
with
you
a
year
ago
about
your
participation
with
the
PrintSTEP
program].
We
are
doing
this
follow
up
interview
to
learn
more
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.
The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
The
interview
usually
takes
less
than
20
minutes.

Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
PrintSTEP
or
any
other
government
program.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
Hello,
this
is
_______
calling
from
Abt
Associates.
You
may
recall
we
spoke
with
you
two
years
ago
about
the
impact
of
environment
regulations
on
the
printing
industry
as
part
of
this
[
TRADE
ASSOCIATION]
supported
project.
We
are
doing
this
follow
up
interview
to
learn
more
about
your
latest
experiences
with
environmental
regulations.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary
and
will
have
no
effect
on
your
involvement
in
any
government
program.

1.
Have
you
been
involved
in
any
type
of
outreach
or
public
involvement
activity
(
since
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved/
in
the
last
2
years)?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
2
A.
What
type
of
community
outreach
were
you
involved
with?
Were
you
involved
with 
YES
NO
30
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
An
open
house
1
2
A
public
meeting
1
2
Hearings
of
conservation
commission1
2
Hearings
of
health
board
1
2
City
council
meetings
1
2
Written
materials
1
2
Some
other
type
of
community
outreach____
1
2
B.
In
general,
how
useful
do
you
think
these
community
outreach
efforts
were?

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
2.
Was
a
Community
Involvement
Plan
developed?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
3
A.
In
general,
how
useful
did
you
find
the
Community
Involvement
Plan?
Would
you
say
it
was
 

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful,
or
2
SKIP
TO
C
Not
useful
at
all
1
SKIP
TO
C
B.
In
what
ways
was
it
useful
to
you?

RESOLVED
ISSUES
ADDRESSED
CONCERNS
IDENTIFIED
SUPPORT
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)_______________

SKIP
TO
3
C.
Why
was
it
not
useful?
31
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
CONTROLS
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
4
3.
Since
the
time
when
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved,
have
you
used
the
PrintSTEP
Information
Repository?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
4
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
available
in
the
Information
Repository?
Were
you 

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
4
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
information
available
in
the
Information
Repository
?

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME
/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)
_______

4.
(
Since
the
time
when
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved/
In
the
last
2
years),
have
you
obtained
information
from
(
name
of
state
contact
person
and
office/
office)?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
5
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
state
contact
person
and
office/
office)
Were
you .

Very
satisfied
1
SKIP
TO
5
Somewhat
satisfied
2
SKIP
TO
5
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
Very
unsatisfied
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
this
information?
32
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
COULDN'T
REACH
THEM
DIDN'T
NEED
HELP
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER_____________

5.
(
Since
the
time
when
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved/
In
the
last
2
years),
have
you
obtained
information
from
(
technical
assistance
provider/
center
name)?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
6
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
assistance
obtained
from
(
technical
assistance
provider/
center
name)?
Were
you..

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
6
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
6
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
assistance
from
(
Technical
assistance
provider/
name)?

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

6.
(
Since
the
time
when
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved/
In
the
last
2
years),
have
you
obtained
environmental
regulatory
information
from
any
other
source?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
7
A.
What
other
source
was
this?

B.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
other
source)?
Would
you
say
you
were .
33
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
7
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
7
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
C.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
information
obtained
from
(
name
of
other
source)

NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)_____________

IF
CONTROL
PRINTER,
SKIP
TO
QUESTION
9
7.
Since
the
time
when
your
PrintSTEP
application
was
approved,
have
you
used
the
PrintSTEP
Workbook
or
other
PrintSTEP
documents?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
8
34
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
content
and
format?
Would
you
say
you
were .

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
8
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
8
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
B.
Why
weren't
you
satisfied
with
the
PrintSTEP
documents?

DIDN'T
KNOW
THERE
WERE
ANY
DIDN'T
HAVE
THE
INFORMATION
I
NEEDED
COULDN'T
GET
A
COPY
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
35
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
WEREN'T
WRITTEN
IN
YOUR
PRIMARY
LANGUAGE
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)______________________

8.
I'm
going
to
read
of
list
of
possible
outcomes
of
the
PrintSTEP
public
involvement
activities.
For
each
one,
please
tell
me
if
it
was
an
outcome
of
your
own
involvement.
Was
(
ITEM)
an
outcome?

YES
NO
New
information
was
introduced
about
the
environmental
impacts
of
your
facility
1
2
Different
approaches
were
developed
to
address
environmental
problems
1
2
The
schedule
for
printers'
PrintSTEP
Agreements
was
lengthened
or
shortened
compared
to
the
time
it
used
to
take
under
the
standard
permitting
process
1
2
Different
requirements
or
environmental
limits
were
set
in
the
Agreements
1
2
The
final
Agreement
was
different
from
what
it
would
have
been
without
public
involvement
1
2
ASK
IF
NO
"
YES"
RESPONSE
ABOVE:
No
outcomes
were
affected
1
2
9.
The
following
questions
are
about
the
state
environmental
agency
with
which
you
interact
for
air,
water,
and
hazardous
waste
regulatory
issues.

Is
there
a
single
point­
of­
contact
for
all
environmental
regulatory
questions,
for
some
types
of
questions
or
do
you
always
contact
different
people
for
different
environmental
regulations?
IF
ASKED
WHICH
REGULATIONS:
We
mean
in
general,
for
the
bulk
of
the
regulations.

SINGLE
POINT
OF
CONTACT
FOR
ALL
SINGLE
POINT
OF
CONTACT
FOR
SOME
DIFFERENT
PEOPLE
FOR
DIFFERENT
MEDIA
(
SKIP
TO
Q.
11)

A.
How
easy
is
it
to
get
in
touch
with
this
person?
Would
you
say
it
is 
36
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Very
easy
4
Somewhat
easy
3
Somewhat
difficult,
or
2
Very
difficult
1
B.
How
often
is
this
person
able
to
answer
your
multi­
media
or
multi­
program
questions
adequately?

Always
4
Sometimes
3
Rarely,
or
2
Never
1
C.
What
effect
does
multi­
media
or
multi­
program
coordination
at
the
state
agency
have
on
the
regulatory
process?
Does
it
usually 

Speed
up
the
process
1
Slow
down
the
process
2
Sometimes
speed
it
up
and
other
times
slow
it
down,
or
3
Have
no
effect
at
all
4
10.
We
would
like
to
get
a
sense
of
printers'
perception
of
current
environmental
regulatory
requirements.
For
each
area
that
I
read,
please
tell
me
whether
you
would
rate
your
own
understanding
as
very
good,
good,
fair
or
poor.
How
would
you
rate
your
understanding
of
the
(
READ
ITEM)?

VERY
GOOD
GOOD
FAIR
POOR
Air
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Storm
Water
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Waste
Water
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
Hazardous
Waste
regulatory
program
and
associated
requirements
4
3
2
1
37
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
11.
FOR
EACH
ITEM
RESPONDENT
ANSWERED
NOT
VERY
GOOD
OR
POOR
IN
QUESTION
10
ABOVE,
ASK:

What
about
the
(
air/
storm
water/
waste
water/
hazardous
waste)
regulatory
program
or
requirements
do
you
find
difficult
to
understand?

TOO
COMPLICATED
LACK
OF
EASY­
TO­
READ
INFORMATION
NO
TIME
TO
LEARN
HARD
TO
GET
INFORMATION
FROM
GOVERNMENT
STAFF
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

12.
Has
an
environmental
requirement,
for
example,
a
change
to
a
permit
or
other
approval
from
the
local,
state,
or
federal
government,
ever
affected
your
company's
ability
to
respond
to
a
business
opportunity?

IF
NECESSARY
READ:
For
example,
installing
a
new
piece
of
equipment;
meeting
the
request
of
a
customer
or
potential
customer
for
a
different
ink,
coating,
etc.;
increasing
production;
or
bringing
out­
sourced
operations
in­
house?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
13
A.
Can
you
describe
a
recent
time
this
happened?

B.
How
big
an
impact
did
this
have
on
your
company's
profitability
or
growth
opportunity?
Would
you
say
it
was 

A
severe
negative
impact
1
A
serious
negative
impact
2
A
moderate
negative
impact
or
3
A
slight
negative
impact
4
13.
(
Since
PrintSTEP/
In
the
past
3
years),
has
the
time
you've
spent
on
record
keeping
related
to
environmental
requirements
increased,
decreased,
or
remained
the
same,
ignoring
changes
related
to
variations
in
your
production
volume?

INCREASED
1
DECREASED
2
38
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
REMAINED
THE
SAME
3
14.
(
Since
PrintSTEP/
In
the
past
3
years),
has
the
time
you've
spent
on
reporting
related
to
environmental
requirements
increased,
decreased,
or
remained
the
same,
ignoring
changes
related
to
variations
in
your
production
volume?

INCREASED
1
DECREASED
2
REMAINED
THE
SAME
3
15.
CONTROL
PRINTERS
SKIP
TO
CLOSING
Do
you
see
any
benefits
from
your
involvement
in
PrintSTEP?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
16
A.
What
benefits
do
you
see
from
your
involvement
in
the
process?

16.
Were
there
any
drawbacks
to
being
involved?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
17
A.
What
were
the
drawbacks?

17.
What
recommendations
do
you
have
for
program
improvements?

18.
Overall,
how
satisfied
are
you
with
the
PrintSTEP
process?

Very
satisfied
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied.
1
CLOSING:
Those
are
all
my
questions
for
today.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
39
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
40
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
C:
PrintSTEP
Application
Template
41
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
PrintSTEP
Application
1.
Background
Information
Reporting
year:

This
is
a
(
circle
one):
Initial
PrintSTEP
Application
or
Annual
PrintSTEP
Renewal
Your
Name:
Phone:

Facility
Name:
Fax:

Street
Address:
E­
mail:

City:
Zip:

Number
of
Employees
(
Specify
full­
time
or
part­
time)
:

2.
Accounting
for
changes
in
production
Please
complete
only
ONE
of
the
next
4
rows:

For
facilities
that
track
production
by
square
feet
of
substrate
printed
annually,
enter
that
value
for
the
reporting
year:
___________

For
facilities
that
track
production
by
annual
sales,
enter
your
Total
Sales
for
the
reporting
year:
$___________

For
facilities
that
track
production
by
annual
labor
hours,
enter
your
Total
Labor
Hours
for
printing
operations
for
the
reporting
year:
___________
hours
For
facilities
that
do
not
track
by
these
measures,
enter
the
type,
units,
and
value
of
an
alternative
normalizing
measure
for
the
reporting
year:
_______________
42
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
3.
Type
of
Printing
Operations
TYPE
OF
PRINTING
PROCESSES
YOU
USE
Check
all
that
apply
If
you
have
multiple
processes,
indicate
the
percentage
of
production
from
each
process*:

Sheetfed
Lithography
Nonheatset
Web
Lithography
Heatset
Web
Lithography
Flexography
Screenprinting
Gravure
4.
Waste
water
Information
(
check
yes
or
no)
Yes
No
Do
you
discharge
any
wastewater
to
a
septic
system?

Do
you
discharge
industrial
waste
water
to
the
sewer
district?

Are
you
designated
as
a
Significant
Industrial
User
(
SIU)?

Do
you
discharge
wastewater
directly
to
surface
water?

If
you
answered
 
yes 
to
any
of
the
above
questions,
does
the
discharge
require
a
permit
of
any
kind?

If
you
have
a
wastewater
permit,
complete
the
following
information:

Date
Permit
Obtained:
Permitting
Authority:

Expiration
Date:
Permit
Number:

Estimate
the
amount
of
waste
water
discharged
over
the
last
12
mos.
gal/
year
43
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
5.
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
What
is
your
RCRA
generator
status?
Check
one:
Enter
your
EPA
hazardous
waste
generator
number:

No
hazardous
waste
generated
­
not
applicable
­

Conditionally
Exempt
Generator
Small
Quantity
Generator
Large
Quantity
Generator
If
you
have
a
hazardous
waste
permit
(
required
in
some
localities),
complete
the
following:

Date
Permit
Obtained:
Permitting
Authority:

Expiration
Date:
Permit
Number:

List
all
hazardous
wastes
generated
during
the
reporting
year:

Name
of
the
Waste
Waste
Type*
Process
or
Activity
Generating
Waste
Amount
Generated
(
lbs
or
gal)

*
If
the
waste
is
a
listed
hazardous
waste,
enter
the
RCRA
waste
code,
otherwise
enter
the
RCRA
characteristic
 
ignitable,
corrosive,
reactive,
or
toxic.

6.
Air
Emissions
What
is
your
Air
Level?
(
from
Chapter
1
of
the
Workbook)

circle
one:
1
2
3
4
5
What
method
did
you
use
to
determine
your
Air
Level
(
from
Chapter
1
of
the
Workbook)?

circle
one:
Materials
Use
Worksheet
or
Emissions
Calculations
Worksheet

Attach
a
copy
of
your
completed
Worksheet
to
this
Application.

If
you
have
a
permit
for
air
emissions,
complete
the
following:

circle
one:
Preconstruction
permit
or
Operating
permit
44
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Date
Permit
Obtained:
Permitting
Authority:

Expiration
Date:
Permit
Number:

7.
Storm
water
Attach
a
copy
of
your
Storm
water
Checklist
from
the
Plain
Language
Workbook,
or
complete
the
following
table.

Are
any
of
the
following
items
exposed
to
precipitation,
now
or
in
the
foreseeable
future?

Yes
No
a.
vehicles
used
in
material
handling
(
excepting
adequately
maintained
mobile
equipment).

b.
industrial
machinery
or
equipment
c.
residue
from
the
cleaning
of
machinery
or
equipment
d.
materials
associated
with
vehicular
maintenance,
cleaning,
or
refueling
e.
materials
or
products
during
loading/
unloading
or
transporting
activities
f.
materials
or
products
at
uncovered
loading
docks
g.
materials
or
products
stored
outdoors
(
except
for
products
intended
for
outdoor
use,
e.
g.,
cars)

h.
materials
or
products
handled/
stored
on
roads
or
railways
owned
or
maintained
by
the
certifier
i.
materials
or
spill/
leak
residues
accumulated
in
storm
water
inlets
j.
residuals
on
the
ground
from
spills/
leaks
(
including
subsurface
residuals
from
percolation)

k.
materials
contained
in
open
or
deteriorated
storage
tanks/
drums/
containers
l.
industrial
activities
conducted
outdoors
m.
materials
or
products
from
past
outdoor
industrial
activity
n.
waste
material
o.
process
waste
water
disposed
of
outdoors
(
unless
otherwise
permitted)

p.
particulate
matter
from
roof
stack/
vents
not
otherwise
regulated
(
i.
e.,
under
air
quality
control
permit)
and
in
quantities
detectable
in
the
storm
water
outflow
q.
visible
deposits
of
residuals
near
roof
or
side
vents
r.
spills/
leaks
resulting
from
maintenance
of
stacks
or
air
exhaust
systems
45
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
If
you
have
a
NPDES
permit
for
storm
water,
complete
the
following:

circle
one:
General
NPDES
permit
or
Individual
NPDES
permit
Date
Permit
Obtained:
Permitting
Authority:

Expiration
Date:
Permit
Number:

8.
Public
Involvement
How
has
your
facility
interacted
with
your
community
and
immediate
neighbors
in
the
past
year
regarding
environmental
concerns?
Check
all
that
apply
Open
House
Mailings
­
advertising
Mailings
­
non­
advertising
Discussions
with
Community
leaders
Public
Meeting
No
Activity
Other
(
please
describe):

9.
Pollution
Prevention
Pollution
Prevention
Practice
For
new
PrintSTEP
applicants,
answer:
Have
you
ever...?

For
annual
renewal
of
PrintSTEP,
answer:
Over
the
last
year,
have
you?
Check
Yes,
No,
or
Don t
Know
for
each
row:

Yes
No
Don t
Know
Eliminated
chrome
based
cleaners?

Installed
silver
recovery
units?

Properly
maintained
silver
recovery
units?

Properly
maintained
film
and
plate
processing
units
(
e.
g.,
flow
rates,
squeegees,
secondary
containment,
holding
tanks
and
pipes/
tubing?

Utilized
Code
of
Silver
Practices
steps
to
recover
silver
from
film
fixers?

Investigated
use
of
developer
and
fixer
recycling
units
for
film
processors?

Investigated
use
of
low
replenishing
rate
film
chemistry?
Pollution
Prevention
Practice
For
new
PrintSTEP
applicants,
answer:
Have
you
ever...?

For
annual
renewal
of
PrintSTEP,
answer:
Over
the
last
year,
have
you?
Check
Yes,
No,
or
Don t
Know
for
each
row:

Yes
No
Don t
Know
46
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Investigated
use
of
washwater
recycling
units
for
film
and
plate
processors?

Investigated
use
of
digital,
dry,
or
water­
based
proofing
systems?

Instituted
an
ink
inventory
system
to
reduce
waste
ink
disposal
costs?

Instituted
a
switch
to
low
VOC
ink
systems,
such
as
UV
curable,
waterbased
technology
or
vegetable
based
ink
systems?

Investigated
the
use
of
stay
open
and
cartridge
ink
delivery
system
for
sheetfed
offset
lithographic
inks?

Used
chiller
re­
circulators
to
lower
temperature
of
fountain
solutions
to
reduce
evaporation
and
lower
air
emissions?

Instituted
a
switch
to
isopropyl
alcohol
free
fountain
solutions
or
reduced
concentration
of
isopropyl
alcohol
in
fountain
solution?

Investigated
the
installation
of
filtration
system
for
fountain
solution
recirculation
system?

Switched
to
low
vapor
pressure
or
low
VOC
cleaning
solvents
(
less
than
10
mm
Hg
at
20
degrees
Celsius)
to
reduce
air
emissions
and
quantity
of
solvent
purchased?

Eliminated
the
use
of
f­
listed
solvents
and
substituted
d­
listed
or
nonhazardous
solvents
to
reduce
the
toxicity
of
hazardous
waste
generated?

Instituted
a
solvent
recycling/
reuse
system?

Implemented
a
shop
towel
management?
policy
so
that
soiled
wipers
are
stored
in
closed
or
covered
safety
containers
to
reduce
air
emissions?

Instituted
a
program
to
recover
free
liquids
from
shop
towels
either
on­
site
or
off­
site,(
i.
e.,
gravity
draining
via
false
bottom
collection
drums,
hand
wringers,
centrifuges,
etc.)?

Implemented
a
solid
waste/
recycling
program
by
recycling
all
possible
items
from
your
solid
waste
stream?

Reused
and
recycled
pallets
and
skids
to
reduce
solid
waste?

Collected
and
recycled
used
oil,
other
lubricants,
and
batteries?

Recycled
parts
washing
fluids?

Implemented
a
program
to
manage
and
recycle
spent
fluorescent
and
high
intensity
discharge
lamps?
Pollution
Prevention
Practice
For
new
PrintSTEP
applicants,
answer:
Have
you
ever...?

For
annual
renewal
of
PrintSTEP,
answer:
Over
the
last
year,
have
you?
Check
Yes,
No,
or
Don t
Know
for
each
row:

Yes
No
Don t
Know
47
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Where
possible,
used
low
solvent,
no
solvent­
based,
or
water­
based
adhesives
and
glues?

Where
possible,
used
low
solvent,
or
water­
based
ink
jet
inks?

Requested
vendor
take
back
all
samples
not
consumed?

Used
first
in
first
out
inventory
control
system?

Covered
all
open
containers
of
liquids
and
keep
them
closed?

Stored
all
materials
to
minimize
damage
due
to
mishandling
or
accidents?

10.
Technical
Assistance
As
a
PrintSTEP
participant,
you
will
have
access
to
free
technical
assistance.
These
specialists
can
help
you
with
pollution
prevention,
environmental
compliance,
or
any
questions
on
PrintSTEP.
Check
here
if
you
would
like
a
technical
assistance
specialist
to
contact
you:

48
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
D:
Telephone
Survey
Instrument
for
Community
Members
49
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
QUESTIONS
FOR
TELEPHONE
SURVEY:
Community
Members
ASK
TO
SPEAK
WITH
DESIGNATED
RESPONDENT.
WHEN
CONNECTED
SAY:

Hello,
this
is
____________
calling
from
Abt
Associates
about
your
participation
in
the
PrintSTEP
program.
You
may
remember
that
participating
members
of
your
community
are
being
asked
to
complete
a
brief
interview
about
their
PrintSTEP
participation.
The
data
collected
during
these
interviews
will
be
kept
confidential
and
not
reported
in
any
way
that
would
allow
you
to
be
individually
identified.
The
interview
usually
takes
about
fifteen
minutes.

Your
participation
in
this
interview
is
voluntary.
This
research
is
sponsored
by
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.

1.
First,
can
you
tell
me
the
name
of
the
printer
or
printers
you
were
involved
with?

PRINTER
#
1
____________________________________________
PRINTER
#
2
____________________________________________

2.
Are
you 
YES
NO
An
employee
of
printer
1
2
A
member
of
a
community
or
local
activist
group?
1
2
A
professional
educator
1
2
An
environmental
professional
1
2
3.
Is
your
home
or
place
of
work
within
a
half
mile
of
(
PRINTER
#
1
(
or
PRINTER
#
2))?

YES
1
NO
2
4.
How
did
you
first
hear
about
PrintSTEP?
DO
NOT
READ
LIST.
CODE
ONE
ANSWER.

MAILING
1
TELEPHONE
CONTACT
2
NEWSPAPER
NOTICE
OR
ADVERTISEMENT
3
POSTED
SIGNS
4
INTERNET
5
IN
PERSON,
WORD­
OF­
MOUTH
6
OTHER
TYPE
OF
NOTICE
_____________
7
50
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
5.
What
made
you
decide
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP?

6.
IF
A
[
COMMUNITY
OUTREACH
ACTIVITY
OTHER
THAN
WHAT
IS
REQUIRED]
WAS
HELD,
ASK:

A.
Did
you
hear
about
the
[
EVENT]
on
[
DATE]
before
it
happened?

YES
1
NO
2
B.
Did
you
attend
the
[
EVENT]?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
Q.
7
C.
Did
you
take
vacation
time
or
unpaid
time
off
work
to
attend
the
[
EVENT]?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
E
D.
How
many
hours
of
unpaid
time
or
vacation
time
did
you
take
to
attend
(
EVENT)?

________________
HOURS
E.
How
much
did
you
spend
in
out
of
pocket
expenses
like
bus
or
cab
fare,
parking,
paying
a
babysitter
or
any
other
costs
you
incurred
to
attend
the
[
EVENT]?

$
______________________

F.
How
useful
was
the
[
EVENT]
as
a
way
to
learn
about
[
PRINTER
#
1]
and
their
application
for
environmental
approval?

Very
useful
1
Somewhat
useful
2
Not
very
useful
or
3
Not
useful
at
all
4
7.
Did
you
review
the
printers'
application?

YES
1
SKIP
TO
8A
NO
2
Why
not?
51
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
TOO
MUCH
TROUBLE/
TOO
LONG/
TOO
COMPLICATED
1
DIDN'T
KNOW
I
COULD/
NO
OPPORTUNITY
2
NOT
INTERESTED
3
NEVER
GOT
AROUND
TO
IT
4
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)
6
8.
Did
you
submit
written
comments?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
9
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
public
comment
process?
Would
you
say
you
were
Y
Very
satisfied
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
9.
IF
A
`
POST
APPLICATION'
PUBLIC
MEETING
WAS
HELD,
ASK
THE
QUESTION
BELOW.
IF
NOT,
SKIP
TO
14.

Did
you
hear
about
the
[
first]
public
meeting
on
[
date]
before
it
happened
YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
10
A.
How
did
you
find
out
about
the
meeting?
CODE
ALL
THAT
APPLY
MAILING
1
TELEPHONE
CONTACT
2
NEWSPAPER
NOTICE
OR
ADVERTISEMENT
3
POSTED
SIGNS
4
INTERNET
5
IN
PERSON,
WORD­
OF­
MOUTH
6
OTHER
TYPE
OF
NOTICE
_____________
7
10.
Did
you
attend
the
[
first]
public
meeting?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
11
A.
Did
you
take
vacation
time
or
unpaid
time
off
work
to
attend
the
[
EVENT]?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
E
52
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
B.
How
many
hours
of
unpaid
time
or
vacation
time
did
you
take
to
attend
(
EVENT)?

_________________
HOURS
C.
How
much
did
you
spend
in
out
of
pocket
expenses
like
bus
or
cab
fare,
parking,
paying
a
babysitter
or
any
other
costs
you
incurred
to
attend
the
[
EVENT]?

$
______________________

11.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
provided
at
the
[
first]
public
meeting?
Would
you
say
you
were
Y.

Very
satisfied
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied.
1
12.
How
useful
was
the
[
first]
public
meeting
as
a
way
to
learn
about
[
PRINTER
#
1]
and
their
application
for
environmental
approval?

Very
useful
1
Somewhat
useful
2
Not
very
useful
or
3
Not
useful
at
all
4
13.
What
would
have
made
the
[
first]
public
meeting
more
useful?

IF
THERE
WAS
A
SECOND
PUBLIC
MEETING,
REPEAT
THE
QUESTIONS
ABOVE.

14.
Was
a
Community
Involvement
Plan
developed?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
15
A.
Did
you
find
it
Y.

Very
useful
4
Somewhat
useful
3
Not
very
useful
or
2
Not
useful
at
all
1
53
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
15.
Have
you
ever
participated
in
any
environmental
regulatory
action
before
­­
for
example,
attended
a
public
meeting
or
provided
comments?

YES
1
NO
2
16.
Did
you
use
the
PrintSTEP
Information
Repository?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
B
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
available?

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
17
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
17
Somewhat
unsatisfied
2
SKIP
TO
17
Very
unsatisfied.
1
SKIP
TO
17
B.
Why
not?

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

17.
Did
you
obtain
information
from
[
state
contact
person/
office]?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
B
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
you
obtained?

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
18
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
18
Somewhat
unsatisfied
2
SKIP
TO
18
Very
unsatisfied.
1
SKIP
TO
18
B.
Why
not?

DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
54
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
COULDN'T
REACH
THEM
DIDN'T
NEED
HELP
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

18.
Did
you
get
any
assistance
from
[
technical
assistance
provider/
center
name]?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
B
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
you
obtained?

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
19
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
19
Somewhat
unsatisfied
2
SKIP
TO
19
Very
unsatisfied.
1
SKIP
TO
19
B.
Why
not?

DIFFICULT
TO
ACCESS
NOT
ENOUGH
USEFUL
INFORMATION
THERE
DIDN'T
KNOW
ABOUT
IT
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

19.
Did
you
seek
assistance
from
another
source?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
C
A.
From
what
other
source
did
you
seek
assistance?

B
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
information
you
obtained?

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
20
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
20
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
o
2
SKIP
TO
20
Very
unsatisfied.
1
SKIP
TO
20
C.
Why
not?

DIDN'T
NEED
TO
NEEDED
TO,
BUT
DIDN'T
KNOW
WHO
TO
CALL
55
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

20.
Did
you
use
the
PrintSTEP
Community
Handbook
or
other
documents?

YES
1
NO
2
SKIP
TO
B
A.
How
satisfied
were
you
with
the
content
and
format?

Very
satisfied
4
SKIP
TO
21
Somewhat
satisfied
3
SKIP
TO
21
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
o
2
SKIP
TO
21
Very
unsatisfied.
1
SKIP
TO
21
B.
Why
not?

DIDN'T
KNOW
THERE
WERE
ANY
COULDN'T
GET
A
COPY
WEREN'T
WRITTEN
IN
MY
PRIMARY
LANGUAGE
DIDN'T
HAVE
TIME/
TOO
BUSY
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)
21.
We
talked
about
costs
and
the
time
associated
with
attending
meetings
and
events.
Now
we'd
like
to
identify
the
other
costs
you
have
incurred
related
to
your
participation
in
the
PrintSTEP
program
overall.
I'll
read
a
list
of
activities
on
which
you
may
have
spent
time
or
money.
For
each
one,
I'll
ask
you
to
estimate
the
time
you
have
devoted
to
it,
the
time,
if
any
for
which
you
lost
wages
and
then
an
estimate
of
any
major
out­
of­
pocket
expenses
you
incurred.

Did
you
(
READ
ACTIVITY)?

IF
YES:
A.
Altogether,
how
many
hours
did
you
spend
(
ACTIVITY)?
B.
For
how
many
of
these
hours
did
you
lose
wages?
C.
How
much
did
you
spend
out
of
pocket
on
(
ACTVITY)?

ACTIVITY
PARTICIPATE
A.
HOURS
SPENT
B.
HRS
OF
LOST
WAGES
C.
EXPENSES
Review(
ing)
printers'
applications
YES
NO
Obtain(
ing)
and
review(
ing)
other
materials
Prepar(
ing)
and
submit(
ting)
comments
Resolv(
ing)
outstanding
issues
56
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
such
as
CIP
development)
Other
(
specify)

22.
Overall,
how
satisfied
were
you
with
your
opportunities
to
be
involved
with
the
approval
of
[
PRINTER
#
1]?

Very
satisfied
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied
2
Very
unsatisfied
1
23.
For
which
aspects
of
the
process
was
the
public
involvement
component
most
successful?
SELECT
ALL
THAT
APPLY
REVIEWING
PRINTERS'
APPLICATIONS
OBTAINING
AND
REVIEWING
OTHER
MATERIALS
PREPARING
AND
SUBMITING
COMMENTS
RESOLVING
OUTSTANDING
ISSUES
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

24.
For
which
aspects
of
the
process
was
the
public
involvement
least
successful?

REVIEWING
PRINTERS'
APPLICATIONS
OBTAINING
AND
REVIEWING
OTHER
MATERIALS
PREPARING
AND
SUBMITING
COMMENTS
RESOLVING
OUTSTANDING
ISSUES
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

25.
How
much
of
a
difference
do
you
feel
that
the
involvement
of
community
members
like
you
made
a
difference
in
the
outcome?

A
big
difference
4
ASK
A
A
moderate
difference
3
ASK
A
A
little
difference,
or
2
ASK
B
No
difference
at
all
1
ASK
B
A.
In
what
way?

B.
Why
do
you
think
you
were
not
able
to
make
a
difference?
57
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
26.
Do
you
feel
that
your
participating
in
PrintSTEP
has
 
YES
NO
Taught
you
new
information
1
2
Had
an
impact
on
the
outcome
of
the
process
1
2
Developed
new
relationships
1
2
Improved
communication
or
trust
with
printers
or
regulators
1
2
27.
What
else
has
PrintSTEP
helped
you
accomplish?

DID
NOT
ACCOMPLISH
ANYTHING
0
IF
NO
TO
ALL
ITEMS
IN
QUESTION
26
AND
DID
NOT
ACCOMPLISH
ANYTHING
ANSWERED
FOR
QUESTION
27,
ASK:

28.
Do
you
think
anything
was
accomplished
by
your
participation
in
PrintSTEP?

YES
1
ASK
A
NO
2
A.
What?

29.
Were
there
any
drawbacks
to
being
involved?

YES
1
ASK
A
NO
2
A.
What
were
the
drawbacks?

EXPENSES/
COST/
MONEY
SPENT
TIME/
TOO
MUCH
TIME
DIDN'T
LIKE
SOME
OF
OTHER
PEOPLE
OTHER
(
SPECIFY)

30.
What
recommendations
do
you
have
for
program
improvements?

31.
Overall,
how
satisfied
are
you
with
the
PrintSTEP
process?

Very
satisfied
4
Somewhat
satisfied
3
Somewhat
unsatisfied,
or
2
Very
unsatisfied.
1
58
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
CLOSING:
That's
all
my
questions.
I
thank
you
very
much
for
your
time.
59
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
E:
Federal
Register
Notice
60
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
[
Federal
Register:
March
14,
2000
(
Volume
65,
Number
50)]
[
Notices]
[
Page
13748­
13749]
From
the
Federal
Register
Online
via
GPO
Access
[
wais.
access.
gpo.
gov]
[
DOCID:
fr14mr00­
65]

=====================================================================
==
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
[
FRL­
6548­
3]

Agency
Information
Collection
Activities:
Proposed
Collection;
Comment
Request;
Evaluation
of
PrintSTEP
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Notice.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

SUMMARY:
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.),
this
document
announces
that
EPA
is
planning
to
submit
the
following
proposed
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB):
Evaluation
of
PrintSTEP,
EPA
ICR
Number:
1941.01.
Before
submitting
the
ICR
to
OMB
for
review
and
approval,
EPA
is
soliciting
comments
on
specific
aspects
of
the
proposed
information
collection
as
described
below.

DATES:
Comments
must
be
submitted
on
or
before
May
15,
2000.

ADDRESSES:
Interested
persons
may
obtain
a
copy
of
the
draft
ICR
by
request
from
the
Office
of
Compliance,
by
contacting
Amy
Porter
at
the
contact
information
provided
below.
Details
of
the
PrintSTEP
evaluation
is
available
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ooaujeag/
sectors/
pdf/
pgm__
eval.
pdf
FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Amy
Porter,
2221A,
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue
NW,
Washington
DC,
20460.
Phone:
(
202)
564­
2431,
Fax:
(
202)
564­
0027,
E­
mail:
porter.
amy@
epa.
gov
61
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:
Affected
entities:
Entities
potentially
affected
by
this
action
are
those
which
volunteer
to
participate
in
the
PrintSTEP
pilots
including
State
officials
in
Missouri,
New
Hampshire,
and
Minnesota
and
printers
in
those
3
states
who
participate
in
the
pilots
or
the
evaluation
control
groups,
and
members
of
the
communities
where
participating
printers
are
located.
Title:
Proposed
Information
Collection
Request
for
the
Evaluation
of
PrintSTEP.
Abstract:
Information
will
be
collected
for
evaluation
of
the
PrintSTEP
pilot
program.
The
evaluation
aims
to
systematically
identify
the
impacts
the
program
has
had
on
three
types
of
stakeholders:
printers,
community
residents,
and
the
state
government
agencies
administering
the
program.
Specifically,
the
evaluation
will
determine
the
extent
to
which
the
7
goals
of
the
pilot
program
are
met.
The
goals
are:
enhanced
environmental
protection;
increased
use
of
pollution
prevention
practices;
simplified
regulatory
process
for
printers;
improved
efficiency
of
administration
for
state
governments;
enhanced
public
involvement;
participants'
realize
benefits
and
are
motivated
to
participate
in
PrintSTEP;
and,
cost
effectiveness
for
all
stakeholders.
This
broad
set
of
expected
outcomes
will
require
a
range
of
distinct
data
collection
and
analysis
activities.
Data
will
be
gathered
from
printer's
program
applications,
from
telephone
interviews,
from
in­
person
interviews
and
possibly
from
focus
groups.
Data
will
be
collected
before
implementation,
a
short
time
after
program
implementation,
and
at
the
end
of
the
pilot.
Responses
to
the
collection
of
information
are
voluntary.
Names
of
persons
providing
informa­
tion
will
be
not
recorded.
More
information
is
available
in
the
final
draft
of
the
Evaluation
Strategy
which
can
be
accessed
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ooaujeag/
sectors/
pdf/
pgm__
eval.
pdf
An
agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
The
EPA
would
like
to
solicit
comments
to:
(
i)
evaluate
whether
the
proposed
collection
of
information
is
necessary
for
the
proper
performance
of
the
functions
of
the
agency,
including
whether
the
information
will
have
practical
utility;
(
ii)
evaluate
the
accuracy
of
the
agency's
estimate
of
the
burden
of
the
proposed
collection
of
information,
including
the
validity
of
the
methodology
and
assumptions
used;
(
iii)
enhance
the
quality,
utility,
and
clarity
of
the
information
to
be
collected;
and
(
iv)
minimize
the
burden
of
the
collection
of
information
on
those
who
are
to
respond,
including
through
the
use
of
appropriate
automated
electronic,
mechanical,
or
other
technological
collection
techniques
or
other
forms
of
information
technology,
e.
g.,
permitting
electronic
submission
of
responses.

Burden
Statement
Estimated
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Hour
Burden
on
Respondents
The
PrintSTEP
evaluation
includes
a
telephone
interview
with
three
types
of
respondents:
(
1)
Printers
who
are
voluntarily
participating
in
the
PrintSTEP
program;
(
2)
a
comparison
group
of
printers
who
are
not
participating
in
PrintSTEP;
and
(
3)
community
members
who
have
participated
in
the
public
involvement
component
of
PrintSTEP.
For
both
types
of
printers,
written
data
will
be
collected
on
their
costs
associated
with
PrintSTEP
and/
or
regulatory
activities.
For
the
comparison
group
of
printers,
additional
written
data
will
be
collected
on
environmental
releases.
The
written
information
requested
is
expected
to
take
one
hour
for
the
62
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
printers
participating
in
PrintSTEP
and
2.75
hours
for
the
comparison
group
printers.
Comparison
group
printers
will
be
asked
to
submit
information
on
their
environmental
releases
which
the
pilot
participants
provide
in
their
PrintSTEP
applications.
It
is
anticipated
that
a
total
of
320
printers
will
be
interviewed
three
times
during
the
course
of
the
evaluation
and
that
they
will
be
either
an
environmental
professional,
or
a
manager.
It
is
expected
that
one
interview
will
be
conducted
with
each
of
50
community
members.
The
telephone
portion
of
the
survey
for
printers
is
expected
to
take
15
minutes
to
complete.
The
telephone
interview
with
community
members
is
expected
to
take
15
minutes.
The
estimates
of
respondent
burden
are
shown
in
the
table
below.

[[
Page
13749]]

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Estimated
avg.
Time
to
Time
to
hourly
wage
of
Total
respon­
Estimated
respond
to
complete
Total
respondent
dent
burden
in
Respondent
ty
number
of
telephone
written
respondent
during
the
monetary
terms
respondents
survey
(
hrs)
response
burden
(
hrs)
survey
($/
hr)
($)
\
1\
\
2\
(
hrs)
\
2\
\
3\

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Wave
1:
PrintSTEP
printer..............
160
0.25
1.00
200
25.00
5,000
Comparison
printer.............
160
0.25
2.75
480
25.00
12,000
Wave
2:
PrintSTEP
printer..............
160
0.25
1.00
200
25.00
5,000
Comparison
printer.............
160
0.25
2.75
480
25.00
12,000
Wave
3:
PrintSTEP
printer..............
160
0.25
1.00
200
25.00
5,000
Comparison
printer.............
160
0.25
2.75
480
25.00
12,000
Community
member............
50
0.25
0.00
13
0.00
0
Total
for
all
3
waves.............
..............
..............
..............
2053
..............
51,000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
\
1\
Based
on
estimated
number
of
participants
provided
by
pilot
states
with
the
breakdown
as
follows:
60,
60,
and
40
participants
expected
in
MO,
NH,
and
MN,
respectively.
\
2\
Based
on
preliminary
testing
of
the
survey
instruments
by
Abt
Associates.
\
3\
Based
on
Screenprinting
and
Graphic
Imaging
Association
International's
1999
Wage
Survey.

Estimated
Recordkeeping
and
Reporting
Cost
Burden
on
Respondents
63
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
The
PrintSTEP
evaluation
utilizes
telephone
interviews
and
written
data
collection
forms
to
collect
all
the
data
necessary
from
the
respondent.
The
only
cost
to
the
respondents
resulting
from
this
survey
is
their
time,
which
is
covered
in
the
section
above.
There
are
no
other
costs
to
the
respondents
and
this
section,
therefore,
is
not
applicable.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

Dated:
February
24,
2000.
Michael
M.
Stahl,
Director,
Office
of
Compliance.
[
FR
Doc.
00­
5627
Filed
3­
13­
00;
8:
45
am]
BILLING
CODE
6560­
50­
P
64
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
F:
Fax­
back
Form
for
Cost
Information
65
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
FAX­
BACK
FORM
ON
COST
INFORMATION
We
would
like
to
identify
the
costs
associated
with
the
various
aspects
of
your
PrintSTEP
notification/
agreement
process
or
your
standard
environmental
permit.
We
are
interested
in
costs
of
all
kinds,
including
the
time
your
staff
spent,
the
cost
of
consultants,
buying
advertising
or
printing
informational
materials,
and
so
forth.
Please
respond
by
saying
what
type(
s)
of
staff
were
involved
and
how
much
time
they
spent
(
in
hours
or
days)
on
the
following
activities.
Also
specify
what
other
expenses
you
incurred
(
type
and
amount).

ACTIVITY
LABOR
HOURS
DIRECT
COSTS
MANAGER
TECHNICAL
CLERICAL
TYPE
AMOUNT
preparation
of
regulatory
applications/
filings
(
i.
e.,
PrintSTEP
application
for
participants
and
permit
applications
for
non­
participants)

follow­
up
with
regulatory
agency
regarding
status,
approval,
etc.
of
application/
permit
notification
(
e.
g.,
creating
and
running
an
advertisement,
sending
out
a
mailing
about
an
event,
having
a
sign
made,
etc.)

completing
the
environmental
regulatory
forms
required
when
modifying
your
process
(
e.
g.,
adding
a
new
press)

reviewing
and
responding
to
comments
preparing
for
and
attending
public
meetings
follow­
up
from
public
meetings
(
e.
g.
developing
a
CIP)
66
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Appendix
G:
Report
Outline
67
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
REPORT
OUTLINE
Environmental
Impacts,
Administrative
Impacts,
and
Stakeholders'
Views
November
11,1999
Outline
Part
1:
Environmental
Impacts
Hypothesis
#_
Emissions,
wastes
and
discharges
from
printing
(
both
overall
and
for
each
medium)
have
decreased.

Specific
pollutants
or
indicators
in
wastewater
have
decreased.
Pounds
or
gallons
of
total
hazardous
waste
generated
have
been
reduced.
Degree
of
opportunity
of
materials
to
be
exposed
to
storm
water
has
been
reduced.

Table
___:
Changes
in
Waste
Water/
Storm
Water
Flow
PrintSTEP
Printers
Non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
%
changea
pre
post
%
changea
Water
use
(
gal/
year)

Waste
water
discharge
(
gal/
year)

Number
discharging
to
septic
Number
requiring
a
storm
water
permit
Number
of
Exposures
checked
on
the
Storm
Water
Checklist
(
for
facilities
with
storm
water
permits
only)

a
Changes
will
be
normalized
for
each
facility's
change
in
production.
For
example,
if
a
printer's
production
decreases
and
their
water
use
decreases
proportionally,
this
would
not
be
reflected
as
a
reduction
on
this
table.

Data
Source:
Application
form
for
PrintSTEP
printers,
and
equivalent
for
non­
participants.

Table
___:
Changes
in
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
Hazardous
Waste
Generation
PrintSTEP
Printers
Non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
%
changea
pre
post
%
changea
Average
hazardous
waste
generated
over
the
last
year
(
lbs)
per
facility
Number
of
Large
Quantity
Generators
68
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Number
of
Small
Quantity
Generators
Number
Conditionally
Exempt
Number
not
generating
haz.
waste
a
Changes
will
be
normalized
for
each
facility's
change
in
production.

Data
Source:
Application
form
for
PrintSTEP
printers,
and
equivalent
for
non­
participants.

Table
___:
Changes
in
Air
Emissions
Use
of:
PrintSTEP
Printers
Non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
%
changea
pre
post
%
changea
Average
VOC­
containing
materials
(
lbs)
per
facility
(
per
Worksheet)
b
Average
HAP­
containing
materials
(
lbs)
per
facility
(
per
Worksheet)
b
Average
PrintSTEP
Air
Level
%
of
facilities
that
reduced
their
PrintSTEP
Air
Level
during
the
pilot
a
Changes
will
be
normalized
for
each
facility's
change
in
production.
b
Information
on
VOC­
and
HAP­
containing
materials
will
come
from
printers'
Material
Use
or
Emissions
Worksheets.

Data
Source:
Material
Use
or
Emissions
Worksheet
from
the
PrintSTEP
application
form
for
PrintSTEP
printers,
and
equivalent
for
non­
participants.
69
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Hypothesis
#_
Printers'
use
of
specific
pollution
prevention
practices
has
increased.

Has
there
been
an
increase
in
the
use
of
pollution
prevention
practices
as
a
result
of
PrintSTEP?
Is
there
a
difference
in
the
pollution
prevention
practices
of
printers
who
volunteered
for
PrintSTEP
than
of
those
who
didn't?

Over
the
past
2
years
have
you:
PrintSTEP
Printers
non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
change
pre
post
change
Investigated
the
use
of
digital
pre­
press
applications?

Eliminated
chrome
based
cleaners?

Installed
silver
recovery
units?

Properly
maintained
silver
recovery
units?

Properly
maintained
film
and
plate
processing
units
(
e.
g.,
flow
rates,
squeegees,
secondary
containment,
holding
tanks
and
pipes/
tubing?

Utilized
Code
of
Silver
Practices
steps
to
recover
silver
from
film
fixers?

Investigated
use
of
developer
and
fixer
recycling
units
for
film
processors?

Investigated
use
of
low
replenishing
rate
film
chemistry?

Investigated
use
of
washwater
recycling
units
for
film
and
plate
processors?

Investigated
use
of
digital,
dry,
or
waterbased
proofing
systems?

Instituted
an
ink
inventory
system
to
reduce
waste
ink
disposal
costs?

Instituted
a
switch
to
low
VOC
ink
systems,
such
as
UV
curable,
waterbased
technology
or
vegetable
based
ink
systems?

Investigated
the
use
of
stay
open
and
cartridge
ink
delivery
system
for
sheetfed
offset
lithographic
inks?
Over
the
past
2
years
have
you:
PrintSTEP
Printers
non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
change
pre
post
change
70
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Used
chiller
re­
circulators
to
lower
temperature
of
fountain
solutions
to
reduce
evaporation
and
lower
air
emissions?

Instituted
a
switch
to
isopropyl
alcohol
free
fountain
solutions
or
reduced
concentration
of
isopropyl
alcohol
in
fountain
solution?

Investigated
the
installation
of
filtration
system
for
fountain
solution
recirculation
system?

Switched
to
low
vapor
pressure
or
low
VOC
cleaning
solvents
(
less
than
10
mm
Hg
at
20
degrees
Celsius)
to
reduce
air
emissions
and
quantity
of
solvent
purchased?

Eliminated
the
use
of
f­
listed
solvents
and
substituted
d­
listed
or
nonhazardous
solvents
to
reduce
the
toxicity
of
hazardous
waste
generated?

Instituted
a
solvent
recycling/
reuse
system?

Implemented
a
shop
towel
management?
policy
so
that
soiled
wipers
are
stored
in
closed
or
covered
safety
containers
to
reduce
air
emissions?

Instituted
a
program
to
recover
free
liquids
from
shop
towels
either
on­
site
or
off­
site,(
i.
e.,
gravity
draining
via
false
bottom
collection
drums,
hand
wringers,
centrifuges,
etc.)?

Implemented
a
solid
waste/
recycling
program
by
recycling
all
possible
items
from
your
solid
waste
stream?

Reused
and
recycled
pallets
and
skids
to
reduce
solid
waste?

Collected
and
recycled
used
oil,
other
lubricants,
and
batteries?

Recycled
parts
washing
fluids?

Implemented
a
program
to
manage
and
recycle
spent
fluorescent
and
high
intensity
discharge
lamps?
Over
the
past
2
years
have
you:
PrintSTEP
Printers
non­
PrintSTEP
printers
pre
post
change
pre
post
change
71
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Where
possible,
used
low
solvent,
no
solvent­
based,
or
water­
based
adhesives
and
glues?

Where
possible,
used
low
solvent,
or
waterbased
ink
jet
inks?

Requested
vendor
take
back
all
samples
not
consumed?

Used
first
in
first
out
inventory
control
system?

Covered
all
open
containers
of
liquids
and
keep
them
closed?

Stored
all
materials
to
minimize
damage
due
to
mishandling
or
accidents?

a
Sample
list
of
pollution
prevention
practices;
final
list
to
be
determined.

Data
Source:
Printer
survey
(
or
printer
application
form
for
PrintSTEP
printers,
and
equivalent
for
non­
participants)

Outline
Part
2A:
Administrative
Impacts/
State
Government
Hypothesis
#_
States
can
administer
PrintSTEP
as
a
multi­
media
program.

Does
a
recognizable
cross­
program
infrastructure
exist
that
functions
for
all
media?
Does
the
agency
coordinate
effectively
across
media
and
up
through
the
organization?
Do
you
feel
you
are
able
to
be
more
efficient
at
permitting
printers?
Is
there
a
single
point
of
contact
at
the
agency
for
all
media/
PrintSTEP
questions?
Has
this
person
been
accessible?
Did
the
coordination
speed
or
slow
the
process?

For
specific
states:
To
what
extent
does
the
state
possess
the
following
characteristics:

°
recognizable
cross­
program
infrastructure
°
efficient
permitting/
approval
process
°
effective
coordination
among
different
program
staff
°
clear
understanding
of
roles
and
responsibilities
72
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
°
single
point
of
contact
for
cross­
media
questions
°
ease
of
access
to
this
person
°
ability
of
this
person
to
adequately
answer
multi­
media
questions
°
effect
of
coordination
in
terms
of
speeding
or
slowing
the
process
Did
this
characteristic
exist
before
PrintSTEP?
If
not,
does
it
exist
now
as
a
result
of
PrintSTEP?
In
states
where
PrintSTEP
is
not
implemented
throughout
the
state,
are
these
things
recognized
outside
of
the
pilot
area?
To
what
extent
are
each
of
these
characteristics
recognizable
to
the
printer?

Summary
findings
of
all
states
together:

Data
source:
interviews
with
state
personnel
and
printers'
survey
73
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Outline
Part
2B:
Administrative
Impacts/
Printers
Hypothesis
#_
PrintSTEP
reduces
the
total
amount
of
time
between
initial
application
and
final
Agreement
(
compared
to
the
multiple
applications
under
the
original
system).
Note:
this
outcome
only
applies
to
currently
permitted
facilities.

How
much
time
did
it
take
between
initial
application
and
final
approval
for
each
individual
permit
under
the
traditional
system?
How
much
time
did
it
take
between
initial
application
and
final
approval
for
a
PrintSTEP
Agreement?

Table__:
Time
elapsed
between
initial
submittal
of
standard
permit/
PrintSTEP
Application
and
completion
(
final
approval
or
denial(?))

%
of
printers
for
which
process
took:
PrintSTEP
Application
Standard
permit
application
(
all
media
totaled)

0­
2
weeks
2­
4
weeks
4­
6
weeks
6­
8
weeks
8­
12
weeks
12­
16
weeks
more
than
16
weeks
Data
source:
State
records
and
state
interviews
(
or
printers'
questionnaire?)
74
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Hypothesis
#_
Printers
have
a
better
understanding
of
their
regulatory
requirements
under
PrintSTEP.

Has
PrintSTEP
improved
your
understanding
of
your
regulatory
requirements?
Did
PrintSTEP
improve
printers'
ability
to
achieve
compliance?

Table
__:
Percent
of
printers
who
feel
they
have
a
good
understanding
of
their
regulatory
requirements.*

PrintSTEP
participants
non­
participants
pre
post
pre
post
air
storm
water
waste
water
hazardous
waste
*
Printers
were
asked
to
rate
their
level
of
understanding
on
a
four­
point
scale
of
"
very
well,"
"
fairly
well,"
"
not
very
well,"
and
"
poor."
Here
we
report
only
the
responses
"
very
well"
or
"
fairly
well"
as
a
positive
assessment.

Data
source:
printers'
survey.

Hypothesis
#_
PrintSTEP
increases
printers'
ability
to
respond
to
business
opportunities.

Have
environmental
requirements
(
e.
g.,
a
change
to
a
permit
or
other
approval
from
the
local,
state,
or
federal
government)
affected
you
in
terms
of
your
ability
to
respond
to
business
opportunities
(
e.
g.,
installing
a
new
piece
of
equipment;
meeting
the
request
of
a
customer/
potential
customer
for
a
different
ink,
coating,
etc.;
increasing
production;
bringing
outsourced
operations
in­
house)
in
the
past
___
years?
In
what
way?
How
big
was
the
impact?

(
Anecdotal
responses)

Hypothesis
#__
Stakeholders
view
the
PrintSTEP
(
public
involvement)
process
as
beneficial
75
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
*(
some
overlap
here
with
questions
on
the
Public
Involvement
outline.
This
table
should
probably
go
in
that
section.)*

Were
all
participants
satisfied
with
the
information
and
assistance
provided?
Were
all
aspects
of
PrintSTEP
available
and
accessible?
Which
aspects
of
PrintSTEP
were
most/
least
available
and
accessible?

Table
__:
Printers'
Satisfaction
with
Information/
Assistance
Provided,
by
Source
Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Very
unsatisfied
N/
A
Composite
score**

Public
Meeting(
s)
for
your
PrintSTEP
Application
Technical
Assistance
Center
Repository
State
Contact
Other
source
Overall
Satisfaction
with
PrintSTEP
Information
*
Printers
were
asked
to
rate
each
of
three
aspects
of
the
public
meetings
on
a
four­
point
scale:
very
satisfied,
somewhat
satisfied,
somewhat
unsatisfied,
and
very
unsatisfied.
**
Each
response
was
assigned
points
according
to
the
following
scheme:
very
satisfied
=
+
2,
somewhat
satisfied
=
+
1,
somewhat
unsatisfied
=
­
1,
and
very
unsatisfied
=
­
2.
76
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Outline
Part
3:
Stakeholders'
Views
of
PrintSTEP
Hypothesis
#__
PrintSTEP
documents
were
useful
to
stakeholders
Was
the
PrintSTEP
State
Guide
helpful
to
states
in
administering
the
program?
Was
the
Plain
Language
Workbook
helpful
to
printers
in
implementing
pollution
prevention?
Were
the
PrintSTEP
documents
helpful
in
finding
a
technical
assistance
provider?

Table
__:
Percent
of
respondents
who
said
the
PrintSTEP
Documents
were
useful
for
the
following
things
PrintSTEP
Printers
Community
Members
State
government
officials
explaining
the
PrintSTEP
process
understanding
regulatory
requirements
aiding
community
involvement
finding
technical
assistance
providers
assisting
pollution
prevention
implementation
finding
other
resources
understanding/
completing
the
PrintSTEP
Application
other
Data
source:
Printer
survey,
community
member
survey,
interviews
with
state
staff.
77
DRAFT
­
April,
2001
Hypothesis
#_
Stakeholders
view
the
PrintSTEP
process
as
beneficial
overall
Would
you
participate
in
a
similar
program
again?
What
recommendations
do
you
have
to
improve
the
program?
What
future
benefits
do
you
see
from
the
increased
communication?

Anecdotal
responses,
plus:

Table
___:
Stakeholder
Satisfaction
with
the
PrintSTEP
Process
Overall*

Very
satisfied
Somewhat
satisfied
Somewhat
unsatisfied
Very
unsatisfied
Composite
score**

Printers
Community
members
State
staff
*
Stakeholders
were
asked
to
rate
the
process
on
a
four­
point
scale:
very
satisfied,
somewhat
satisfied,
somewhat
unsatisfied,
and
very
unsatisfied.
**
Each
response
was
assigned
points
according
to
the
following
scheme:
very
satisfied
=
+
2,
somewhat
satisfied
=
+
1,
somewhat
unsatisfied
=
­
1,
and
very
unsatisfied
=
­
2.

Data
source:
Printer
survey,
community
member
survey,
interviews
with
state
staff.