1
FOSTTA
­
TRI
Meeting
Minutes
Conference
Call
to
Discuss
Form
R
Proposed
Revisions
Wednesday,
July
30,
2003,
3:
30­
4:
30
PM
Attendees
John
Dombrowski,
EPA
Hdqtrs.
Michelle
Price,
EPA
Hdqtrs.
Judy
Kendall,
EPA
Hdqtrs.
Kevin
Minoli,
EPA
Hdqtrs.
(
OGC)
Chis
Colt,
EPA
Region
10
Jack
Salter,
EPA
Region
8
Cindy
DeWulf,
Ohio
EPA
Jeff
Beattie,
Ohio
EPA
Muhammad
Elsalahat,
Ohio
EPA
Mark
Besel,
Ohio
EPA
Idell
Hansen,
Dept.
of
Ecology,
WA
Robert
Jackson,
Michigan
DEQ
Michael
Juras,
Department
of
Health
and
Env.
Control,
SC
Daniel
Roe,
AZ
Emergency
Response
Commission
There
was
no
formal
agenda
for
the
meeting,
so
it
was
decided
at
the
outset
of
the
meeting
that
John
Dombrowski
would
first
give
an
overview
of
the
OMB
ICR
process
and
discuss
the
process
by
which
the
proposed
Form
R
changes
came
about.
Then,
the
floor
would
be
opened
up
for
a
discussion
of
comments
and
concerns
from
FOSTTA
members.
Participants
on
the
conference
call
were
informed
that
meeting
notes
would
be
taken
and
submitted
to
the
EPA
docket
for
the
Form
R
ICR,
and
that
Judy
Kendall
would
send
out
the
minutes
to
all
members
of
FOSTTA­
TRI
as
well
as
to
the
EPA
TRI
state
and
regional
contacts.

John
Dombrowski
explained
that
the
Form
R
ease
of
use
and
context
issues
came
from
stakeholders
through
the
TRI
stakeholder
dialogue
process
and
from
OMB.
All
of
the
changes
that
are
being
proposed
are
not
regulatory
in
nature,
and
so
can
be
proposed
through
this
ICR
renewal
process.
On
March
10,
2003,
OMB
approved
the
TRI
reporting
forms
with
a
shorter
than
usual
clearance
­
an
8
month
ICR
approval
that
expires
October
31,
2003.
A
Federal
Register
notice
was
published
on
July
1
that
begins
a
60­
day
public
comment
period
on
the
Form
R
and
Certification
Form
A
ICR
renewals
to
end
on
September
2,
2003.
At
that
time,
EPA
will
develop
a
response
to
the
public
comments
and
submit
it
along
with
their
ICR
renewal
request
to
OMB.
OMB
then
has
a
total
of
60
days
that
include
a
30­
day
public
comment
period
to
either
approve
or
deny
the
renewal
request.
2
Minutes
of
Conference
Call
(
continued):

Cindy
DeWulf
asked
when
we
expect
that
the
new
form
will
be
used.
John
explained
that
this
will
really
be
dependent
on
stakeholder's
feelings
about
how
these
changes
will
impact
the
states,
regions,
and
reporting
industries
and
how
difficult
stakeholders
feel
the
changes
will
be
to
implement.
It
could
be
that
the
reporting
form
will
stay
the
same
for
Reporting
Year
(
RY)
2003
and
change
for
RY
2004
Robert
Jackson
stated
that
he
prefers
a
phased­
in
approach
due
to
limited
resources
and
the
time
it
takes
to
implement
IT
changes
in
his
office.
There
is
not
enough
time
to
have
a
system
in
place
to
accommodate
the
new
form
for
RY
2003.
In
addition,
there
are
other
databases
that
are
linked
to
TRI
program
data
that
would
also
be
affected.
Also,
compliance
assistance,
training
and
other
resources
would
be
impacted,
and
his
program
is
not
prepared
for
these
changes.
Robert
also
asked
where
the
FOSTTA
group
comes
into
EPA's
decision
making
process?
(
he
first
learned
of
the
changes
when
the
FR
notice
was
published).
John
D.
acknowledged
his
question
but
deferred
it
to
the
end
of
the
discussion
so
that
the
group
could
continue
to
focus
on
the
Form
R
revisions.

Idell
Hanson
expressed
her
concern
about
the
data
structure
as
they
have
not
budgeted
for
changes
in
the
database.
Also,
the
changes
will
impact
TRIDS.
The
Form
R
changes
will
present
a
huge
financial
unfunded
mandate
to
the
states.
John
asked
whether
a
phased­
in
approach
would
help,
and
Idell
responded
that
it
would
help
if
there
was
more
time
available
for
planning
for
changes
to
their
data
systems.

Cindy
DeWulf
echoed
the
concern
that
other
states
have
regarding
the
data
structure,
however,
she
prefers
to
have
all
of
the
changes
made
at
once,
not
piecemeal
or
phased
in.
Idell
and
Robert
agreed.
Robert
clarified
that
by
the
phased
approach,
he
was
referring
to
the
training
and
guidance,
but
that
the
data
changes
should
be
made
all
at
once.

John
Dombrowski
asked
if
changes
in
one
or
two
data
elements
would
create
a
problem,
and
it
was
generally
agreed
that
making
just
a
couple
of
changes
would
not
present
a
problem.

Dan
Roe
added
that
Arizona
wouldn't
be
affected
much
by
any
of
the
data
changes
since
they
rely
almost
exclusively
on
the
TRI
Headquarters
databases.

Idell
Hanson
said
that
section
6.3
alone
adds
30
new
fields
­
a
lot
of
data
elements.

Robert
Jackson
asked
how
the
changes
would
affect
the
TRI­
ME
software,
and
John
replied
that
Headquarters
is
in
the
same
boat
as
the
states
and
regions
 
that
significant
time
and
resources
will
be
required
and
that
he
has
told
our
management
about
the
implications
of
the
changes
on
TRI­
ME.
3
Minutes
of
Conference
Call
(
continued):

Idell
Hanson
wondered
if
the
TRI­
ME
budget
hadn't
been
reduced,
and
John
replied
that
he
did
not
yet
know.

Chris
Colt
indicated
that
one
of
their
computer
programmers
counted
a
total
of
216
changed
fields!

Robert
Jackson
said
that
he
did
not
disagree
with
the
changes
themselves
which
he
thinks
have
merit,
but
that
he
has
problems
with
the
implementation
process
and
schedule.

Idell
Hanson
indicated
that
she
was
not
sure
that
our
approach
in
section
6
of
the
form
gains
anything.
Instead
of
5
elements,
there
are
30,
and
she
wondered
if
we
don't
get
that
information
already
the
way
the
data
are
presented
now?

John
Dombrowski
explained
that
the
overall
thought
process
was
not
to
get
new
information
but
to
address
data
issues
such
as
the
M
codes
and
errors
in
section
8.

Idell
wondered
if
we
couldn't
get
what
we
need
through
TRI­
ME,
using
an
algorithm
that
would
fill
in
sections
8.1,
8.3,
8.5,
and
8.7.
John
responded
that
this
still
wouldn't
help
everyone,
since
many
reporters
still
use
paper.

Michael
Juras
asked
whether
Headquarters
has
looked
at
how
many
states
have
their
own
databases.
We
could
use
the
NCSL
state
survey
to
find
this
out.
Michael
uses
UTIL.
Idell
mentioned
that
if
you
have
systems
or
will
get
systems
that
use
the
UTIL
structure,
then
those
structures
will
have
to
change.

Cindy
DeWulf
asked
about
facilities
that
use
multiple
hard
copies,
and
if
they
would
just
make
copies
of
page
6?
Can
additional
pages
be
attached
for
sections
6
and
7?
Also,
section
7.2
only
provides
room
for
one
off­
site
location.
Can
all
locations
be
added
on
one
page
to
reduce
paper
use?
Michelle
Price
responded
about
the
multiple
copies
and
multiple
off­
site
locations,
that
the
new
process
would
be
similar
to
the
way
we
do
reporting
now
­
that
extra
pages
would
be
attached.

Chris
Colt
indicated,
and
Idell
agreed,
that
it
would
be
helpful
to
put
the
chemical
AND
the
year
on
each
page
of
the
Form
R
in
case
hard
copies
get
separated,
or
to
keep
track
of
catch­
up
filers.

John
asked
if
the
participants
on
the
call
were
planning
to
submit
comments
to
EPA
outside
of
this
call,
and
many
responded
that
they
would
be
submitting
comments
via
EPA's
e­
docket.
Kevin
Minoli
said
that
written
comments
are
best
as
they
will
become
part
of
the
official
record.

John
came
back
to
Robert's
earlier
question
about
communication
with
FOSTTA
about
the
proposed
changes.
John
apologized
for
Headquarters
that
we
did
not
communicate
better
and
4
Minutes
of
Conference
Call
(
continued):

sooner
to
the
states,
regions,
and
FOSTTA
about
this
issue.
He
also
explained
that
when
OMB
gave
the
program
the
green
light
to
go
with
the
changes,
we
had
to
move
fast
to
meet
the
ICR
schedule.

As
far
as
the
future
of
FOSTTA,
funding
and
resources
are
being
cut
and
the
future
of
FOSTTA
is
threatened.
John
wants
to
see
FOSTTA
continue,
but
noted
that
there
wasn't
much
of
a
push
to
get
FOSTTA
together
for
a
special
session.
John
indicated
that
he
was
doing
whatever
he
can
to
keep
FOSTTA
going,
so
that
at
a
minimum,
FOSTTA
will
continue
to
participate
in
the
National
Meeting.

All
states
and
EPA
agreed
that
it
would
be
useful
to
have
quarterly
FOSTTA
conference
calls
and
to
continue
to
have
a
couple
hour
meeting
at
the
National
Meeting.
This
will
keep
the
group
together
and
moving
forward
during
this
tough
budget
period.

With
no
further
comments
or
questions,
the
meeting
was
adjourned.
