Document zdk8LLGBDagmX5Vg2Jp5no5LB

DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. December 28, 1977 TO: AIHC Public Relations Committee FROM: Jim Kanse 1800 M STREET. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20036 202 457.1700 Kuo ED JAN 41978 J. T. BARR Attached are some items for your information and consideration. 1. Letter from Jim Howell of Du Pont expressing his concerns and my reply. Jim's comments are important and I hope you will look them over before our meeting on January 11. 2. . Clip from the Washington Post, December 28. This came from a phone discussion on November 22. . Considering the sketchy information we had at that time I think it comes out o.k. It has prompted several promising press inquiries that -we will follow up. 3. Clip from Houston Chronical of a syndicated piece. We had nothing to do with this but it is a good example of the kind of stuff that is getting attention now. As a point of interest, I believe Dr. Scala of Exxon is working on the AIHC Scientific Committee. 4. Clip from St. Louis Globe Democrat of syndicated piece. This one had help from John Paluszek. i AN OPERATING UNIT OF THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AP00049704 ciTiijimens] E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company lN6*ft*0*ATtA Wilmington, Delaware 19898 PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT December 21, 1977 Mr. James C. Hansen, Manager Public Relations - Washington Dow U.S.A. 1800 M Street, N.W. Suite 700 South Washington, D. C. 20036 Dear Jim: It was good meeting you and the other ATHC Public Relations Committee members yesterday. I look f ard to work ing with the group over the next few months to support the AIHC program. ~ Since I'm playing catch-up and because the Public Relations program is already approved, I would like to restate some general concerns about how specific elements of the program will unfold. I welcome your attempts to keep the PR meetings open and informal, and I hope my comments are accepted as constructive suggestions: Once the Snell economic study is complete, it should not be used as a vital part of the public portion of the PR program. As was brought out at the PR meeting, we will not be in a position to provide a good answer to the span of costs which would result should trade-offs be reached between the OSHA and industry proposals. "If an economic argument is to be an integral part of the media effort (e.g., key cities media tour), then it should be cast as a secondary argument. Headlines from the various cities claiming imminent economic damage may make many of us feel nice? but they will not wash in Washington, where sound stories hopefully will have some impact. One way to treat the economics would be to prepare a concise one-page report as a leave-behind. If the Commerce Depart ment published excerpts or a summary of the Snell study, then it could provide third-party, arms-length appeal. While I question the merits of promoting the issue via aggressive media tours, when they proceed, I recommend that several positioning statements be prepared first. A general policy state ment is needed, plus succinct statements on key points and questions that will arise. One approach is to consider what we would want reported after an hour-long meeting with a reporter. AP00049705  Stimulation of a strong industry response and participa tion in the OSHA hearings call for close work with Ralph Harding's Trade Associations Committee. I think it will become increasingly important not to create a fighting mood within some trade groups because that would easily take the focus off AlHC's primary thrust:; an alternative proposal which is a better approach to the problem government and industry are mutually concerned about. It may have been discussed in the planning stages for the Leslie PR program, but the program does not include a baseline review of the real world we intend to communicate in. As dis- ' heartening as it might be, we must proceed with full recognition that the chemical industry is not perceived as being forthright or credible, that chemicals are perceived as being the leading cause of cancer (after smoking), and that unfavorable occurrences will provoke bad publicity during the first quarter 1978 ( a review of adverse chemical industry news in 1977 brings the point into focus) . Hence, recognizing that we are not working in a vacuum, all PR communications should start with a factual base, and we should avoid propaganda techniques. Use of absurd arguments or examples will eventually be treated by decision-makers and influentials as anti intellectual assertions; cuteness on this significant issue could incur a heavy cost. Jim, I have expressed quite a few frank opinions, and X do hope you accept them in good spirit. X fully recognize the current pace of AIHC activities is tremendous and much has been accomplished. X hope to be an active committee member and will work with you to assure that AIHC communications reflect the realistic objectives of the industry. I look forward to joining you at the next meeting on January 11. Have a good holiday and a Happy New Year. Sincerely, JEH:arm , /James E. Howell AP00049706 DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A. December 28, 1977 1800 M STREET, N.W. Washington, d.c. smss 202 457-1700 Mr. James E. Howell E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. , Public Affairs Department Wilmington, Delaware 19898 Inc. Dear Jim: Thanks very much for your comments about the AIHC public relations effort. I think your concerns are very much to the point and I will circulate your letter to the full committee for their consideration and comment. Because of the rush we have sometimes failed to explore some points in adequate depth and in other cases we have been forced to plan as if material would be forthcoming in a timely (and usable) manner------which may be gross over optimism. As far as the Snell study is concerned I think we need to :: plan on how to use it with the understanding that the material either may not be ready in time to have any impact .prior to the hearings or may be of such complexity (or 'vagueness) as to be relatively useless. We have been burned before by headlines predicting economic disaster and X agree we must avoid that kind of ink. Personally, I have little faith that the study will produce much that we can use with confidence before the hearings. Your comment relative to the preparation of position statements is right on target. As I'm sure you are aware, -a lot of the AIHC positions are being developed simultaneously with the preparations to exploit them. We now have in hand "semi-final" scientific positions and hopefully we will have the statement (long and detailed) on alternatives around January 9. These will have to be distilled into more useful documents for press efforts. In the meantime we must proceed with confidence that AIHC will indeed have positions. AN OPERATING UNIT OP THE OOW CHEMICAL COMPANY AP00049707 2 In my view media tours related to this effort have two real values; the creation of local ink and media interest that can be merchandised back to Washington and the encourage- , ment of smaller, local businesses to get involved. There will not be time to make any real impact on general public sentiment beyond perhaps creating a little interest. This is why cities to be targeted will be selected on the basis of a Washington audience, i.e., which members of Congress do we want to read about the issue in their home town (district) papers. The Public Affairs Committee will be advising on locations. I agree that we need to work closely with the Associations Committee. I am not too sure that we can keep some of them from wanting to do more violent battle however. I think there may be some tendency among some association folks to take a "I'm tougher on OSHA than you" approach. For this reason we will have to try to keep the AIHC "above the battle" whenever possible while recognizing that the associations will proceed in what they certainly view as defense of their own turf. - This will not be easy or altogether successful but we have to' try. Unfortunately I can find no fault with your view of how' the industry is perceived and neither can I disagree that some kind of a mess will hit us in the early part of 1978. I think we can count on something going wrong somewhere. There is no question that a major chemical "disaster" somewhere could hurt us badly no matter how sound our arguments might be. Your statement that we must start with a factual base is exactly correct. I think I may have misled you somewhat by my use of the word "absurdities" although I am not sure what I can adopt as a substitute. We must be very careful when we talk about some of the substances that will be caught in the OSHA net that we make clear that we do not really expect them to be banned from the work place. What we can do is point out that. OSHA would be required to make a decision not to take action on each one of these and that extensive rule making procedures would have to be started by OSHA in many cases if they receive a petition by someone with a grudge. We can emphasize the fact that this is a waste of administrative resources and also requires a return--in practice-- to the case-by-case consideration which OSHA says it wants to avoid. There are enough of the "absurdities" which can be cited so that there is plenty of good material to provide to anyone who wants to write about them and I chink we should provide this material when we have the chance. Because of * AP00049708 3 the flood of cancer materials and the embarrassment of some of the agencies recently the public seems willing to accept the fact that there may be a reasonable approach to the problem somewhere and that the regulators do not have all the answers. If, as we all hope, there is some final agreement in AIHC on- a strong alternative proposal, we shall have a very good weapon in hand. Too often in the past we have had no real counterproposal to make and that leaves us without a band wagon to be boarded by potential allies. I hope this time will be very different. Jim, I appreciate all of your comments, especially since it indicates that you intend to become truly involved in the program. We need all the help we can put together and we need all the suggestions we can get. When we have disagreements it just means everyone is trying to get the job done a better way. > James C. Hansen Public Relations Manager JCHjtsj AP00049709