Energy and Environment Monitorwww.eem.jacksonkelly.com

Bird Group Seeks Rulemaking For Wind Turbines

The American Bird Conservancy submitted a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USF&WS”) asking for the adoption of rules for wind turbines to protect migratory birds - both for siting new facilities and operating existing ones.  The proposed rule, which cites the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as its primary legal bases, would require a permit from the USF&WS to construct or operate wind turbines.  The permit criteria would require that before issuing a permit, the USF&WS must find that: 

(a)        the effects of the anticipated take and required mitigation, together with cumulative effects of other activities and additional factors affecting the bird populations and habitats impacted by the project, are compatible with the maintenance and conservation of bird populations, particularly populations of birds designated by FWS as Birds of Conservation Concern and bird species that are candidates for listing under the ESA; 

(b)        the permit applicant will conduct appropriate, adequate pre-construction and post-construction monitoring; 

(c)        the permit applicant will to the maximum extent practicable avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on migratory birds and important migratory bird habitats; 

(c)        the permit applicant will conduct such monitoring and adaptive management as the Service determines is necessary to fully and effectively evaluate the impact of the project, including the efficacy of minimization and mitigation measures, on migratory birds and migratory bird habitat, and to evaluate whether changes need to be made in the project’s operation in order to better minimize and mitigate the impact on migratory birds; and 

(d)       there are no practicable alternatives to the project as proposed that would entail less adverse impact on migratory birds. 

Existing facilities would have to obtain permits as well, but would have 120 days from adoption of the rules to submit a complete application.  They would also be exempt from the provision requiring that practicable alternatives be evaluated. 

This article was authored by Robert G. McLusky, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Former Head of EPA Criminal Enforcement Discusses Environmental Crimes

On February 3, 2011, the American Bar Association sponsored a teleconference entitled “Criminal Enforcement of Environmental Laws: A Conversation with the Former Head of EPA's Criminal Investigation Division.”  Bruce Pasfield of Alston & Bird, LLP moderated the teleconference, which took the form of a Q&A session between Mr. Pasfield and Fred Burnside, former Director of EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, Forensics, and Training.  Mr. Burnside provided background information and insight into the inner-workings of EPA’s oft-overlooked criminal enforcement division.  

EPA currently has 213 agents nationwide focusing on environmental crimes.  The bulk of their leads come from public sources, though their best leads come from inspectors on the regulatory side.  Since 1994, EPA has utilized the "Devaney Memo” as its guidance to distinguish cases meriting criminal investigation from those more appropriately pursued under administrative or civil judicial authorities.  Currently, EPA looks at factors involving the level of environmental harm and the measure of culpable conduct in determining the need for criminal enforcement.  EPA is, however, in the midst of adopting a new 4-tiered system to replace the Devaney model that will score potential criminal investigations in terms of importance.  Cases involving death or injury will automatically be classified as Tier 1 (highest priority).  An example of a Tier 1 environmental/criminal matter would be the BP oil spill.  The other factors will likely involve the degree of human health risk/exposure, whether the estimated cost to remediate exceeds $1 million, size of the company, culpability, etc. 

While no one wants to have one of EPA’s environmental crimes special agents come knocking on their door, it is always a good idea to be prepared for that contingency.  Mr. Burnside shared some pointers on how companies faced with the possibility of an EPA criminal enforcement can help or harm themselves.  Obviously, hiding information from agents is a bad idea, and encouraging employees to be uncooperative may cause an investigating agent to press harder.  Mr. Burnside suggested that companies have a strategic plan in place for the contingency of an EPA warrant or investigation.  Companies should be prepared to stay ahead of the investigation by knowing what evidence EPA is looking for and/or interviewing everyone at the site EPA plans on investigating.  Companies should understand where the investigation is going by having someone designated to take notes on EPA interviews with potential witnesses and to monitor what EPA is doing.  Companies should be cooperative, but they should consult counsel before speaking with EPA agents.  

This article was authored by Chris M. Hunter, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Railroads and Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.  EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation.  It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work. 

See, "Environmental Justice". U.S. EPA. http://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/.  This concept is frequently related to the crossroads of business development and low income and/or minority neighborhoods.  A recent example of an environmental justice problem is a proposed light rail project that would connect Minneapolis, Minnesota with St. Paul Minnesota.  This project would have the rail project bisect a predominantly black and low income neighborhood and would conceivably cause environmental and economic hardship to the community.  Local community residents opposed the light rail project; however, a federal judge found it to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), despite objection that the project would cause economic harm to predominantly black and low income neighborhoods.  The case is The Saint Paul Branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. USA, case number 0:10-cv-00147, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

This article was authored by Laura G. Swingle, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

EPA Releases Draft FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan: Many EPA initiatives significantly affect industry and energy producers

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released its Draft FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan for public review on June 18, 2010 (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2010-0486). The comment period ended July 30, and the Agency plans to transmit the final FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan to Congress by September 30, 2010.

 

EPA’s Strategic Plan sets forth the Agency’s long-term vision, strategic goals and objectives, and strategies to achieve them. Several specifics of the Draft Plan will directly affect many industrial and energy company, and indirectly affect everyone in the nation.

 

Strategic Plan Overview

 

Five strategic goals are identified in this Draft Plan:

 

1.   Taking Action on Climate Change and Improving Air Quality

2.   Protecting America’s Waters

3.   Cleaning up our Communities

4.   Ensuring the Safety of Chemicals and Preventing Pollution

5.   Enforcing Environmental Laws

 

The Draft Plan also introduces five EPA strategies which “set explicit expectations for changing the way EPA does business in achieving its mission results”:

 

·     Expanding the Conversation on Environmentalism

·     Working for Environmental Justice and Children’s Health

·     Advancing Science, Research, and Technological Innovation

·     Strengthening State, Tribal, and International Partnerships

·     Strengthening EPA’s Workforce and Capabilities 

 

Significant Impacts to Industry and Energy Companies 

 

The Draft Plan contains several potentially significant impacts:

 

1.   Within the area of Taking Action on Climate Change, a planned EPA strategy has far-reaching and costly implications:

 

“Establishing permitting requirements for facilities that emit large amounts of GHGs to encourage design and construction of more efficient and advanced processes that will contribute to a clean energy economy.”

 

2.   Under Goal# 5, Enforcing Environmental Laws, EPA plans several new or more aggressive enforcement initiatives, including the following:

 

“Vigorous civil and criminal enforcement plays a central role in achieving the bold goals below that the Administrator has set for EPA.”

 

“EPA will take effective actions to reduce air pollution from the largest sources, including coal-fired power plants and the cement, acid, and glass sectors, to improve air quality”.

 

“Enforcement to cut toxic air pollution in communities improves the health of communities, particularly low income, minority, and tribal communities that are disproportionately impacted by pollution.”

 

“Enforcement supports reductions in greenhouse gases (GHG) through enforcement settlements that encourage GHG emission reductions.”

 

“Increase pollutant reducing enforcement actions in waters that don’t meet water quality standards, and post results and analysis on the web.”

 

3.   During the next two years, EPA will initiate at least four drinking water standard reviews to strengthen public health protection.

 

4.   By June 15, 2011, EPA will make publically available 100 percent of facility-level GHG emissions data submitted to EPA in accordance with the GHG Reporting Rule, compliant with policies protecting Confidential Business Information (CBI).

 

5.   All Chesapeake Bay watershed States (including the District of Columbia) will develop and submit approvable Phase I watershed implementation plans by the end of CY 2010 and Phase II plans by the end of CY 2011 in support of EPA’s final Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). 

 

For further details on EPA’s Draft FY 2011-2015 Strategic Plan, including a link to download a pdf version of the Plan, see the following web site:

 

Draft FY 2011-2015 EPA Strategic Plan

http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/plan/plan.htm  

Any questions regarding the Plan may be emailed to EPA at Strategic_Plan@epa.gov.

 

This article was partially excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers. For more information on the author see here.

EPA’s Proposed FY2011 Budget “Cut” 2.7% from FY2010, but still up 31% from FY2009

If you get a 31% pay raise this year, would you complain about a 2.7% cut in your salary next year? No way! That’s the situation at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), where the budgetary good times keep on rolling.  The US economy is in the tank, regulated industries and energy producers are under greater duress than ever, but EPA continues living large. 

On February 1, 2010, the Obama administration proposed a fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget of $10.02 billion for the EPA.  The proposed FY2011 budget would be the second largest in the agency’s 40-year history, although a 2.7% drop from their FY2010 allocated funds of $10.3 billion. However, the FY2011 budget would still amount to a 31% funding increase over FY2009’s $7.6 billion EPA budget. 

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson recently touted the rock-ribbed fiscal responsibility of the proposed FY2011spending level for her Agency:  

“The budget also reflects President Obama’s commitment to fiscal responsibility. Families across America are tightening their budgets; the President has directed us to do the same. 

The $10 billion proposed for EPA – though a reduction from last year – will support key priorities in a time of fiscal challenges.” 

I don’t believe that the average American family would consider a 2.7% spending cut after receiving a 31% spending increase to equate to financial belt-tightening. But in EPA’s world, it does. 

The EPA lists the following “highlights” of their proposed FY2011 budget: 

• “To take action on climate change and promote clean energy, the budget includes an increase of more than $43 million. This will support implementation of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and facilitate permitting and enforcement under the Clean Air Act. 
• In addition, $55 million will be invested in the successful Energy Star program, cutting energy costs and emissions for homes and businesses. 
• To clean up our communities, we’re proposing investments that will get dangerous pollution out, and put good jobs back in. That starts with $215 million for Brownfields, with increases for planning, cleanup, job training and redevelopment. We’ll also provide funding for assessment and cleanup of underground storage tanks and other petroleum contamination on Brownfields. 
• $1.3 billion for Superfund cleanup efforts across the country, and continue the commitment to civil and criminal enforcement announced last month. 
• $2 billion for the Clean Water State Revolving fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.  
• $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay program including increased funding to implement President Obama’s Chesapeake Bay Executive Order.” 

Superfund Excise Tax -- Coming in 2011

EPA has not forgotten about its plan to reinstate the Superfund excise taxes, which expired in 1995. The FY2011 budget proposal includes restarting Superfund excise taxes beginning in January 2011. The reinstated Superfund taxes are estimated to generate an EPA revenue level of over $1.3 billion in 2011, increasing to over $2.5 billion annually by 2020.  

Of course, one person’s “increased revenue level” is another person’s added taxation burden, and one more disincentive to continue to operate and provide good jobs in the US. 

For further details on EPA’s FY2011 budget and policy priorities, see the following web sites:

http://www.epa.gov/budget/2011/2011bib.pdf#9

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/8d49f7ad4bbcf4ef852573590040b7f6/405c7357a4f6f26f852576bd006e5e06!OpenDocument

This article was partially excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  Any opinions expressed in this article are those solely of the author, and are not intended as legal or professional guidance to any specific readers. For more information on the author see here.

West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) Pending Regulation 47CSR10 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program as it relates to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in West Virginia

Proposed regulation 47CSR10 for CAFOs is currently awaiting approval in the West Virginia legislature. The passage is almost assured, since denial of the regulation would result in federal administration of the NPDES permitting of large chicken and turkey farming operations.  

·     This regulation is consistent with the current federal regulation.

·     Those affected are commercial chicken and turkey farming operations in West Virginia. Possibly a very few swine farming operations could be affected.

·     Generally the current and pending regulations could affect those operations with as few as 30,000 chickens or as few as 16,500 turkeys. There are small, medium and large CAFOs. The classification depends on number of animals and animal waste disposal methodology.

The following is a brief summary of the new requirements included in the pending regulation before you now. Page references from the pending regulation on file with the WV Secretary of State are provided for the following requirements. The pending regulation can be accessed by this link:  http://www.sos.wv.gov/administrative-law/modified/Pages/default.aspx 

Perhaps the single most attention-getting provision added in the regulation is Section 13.1.c., which allows the Director of the WVDEP or the Regional Administrator of the USEPA to designate any Animal Feeding Operation (AFO) as a CAFO upon determining that it is a significant contributor of pollutants to the waters of WV. The Regional Administrator must determine that the pollution is impacting a downstream or adjacent State. p. 42 

NPDES permit applications for CAFOs will require a nutrient management plan (NMP) that includes detailed procedures to meet effluent limitations, including operational procedures, sampling and testing to verify nutrient concentrations (nitrogen & phosphorus) in land applied waste to fields, wastewater treatment processes, etc. pp. 43-47 

The new regulation implies that the NMP must be developed or approved by a certified nutrient management planner. p. 44 

The NMP must be maintained onsite and be made available to the WVDEP upon request. p. 44

The permittee must maintain various operational records for a period of five years and make to records available to the WVDEP upon request. p. 44 

When transferring manure, litter or process waste water to other persons, Large CAFOs must provide the recipient with the most current nutrient analysis and maintain information regarding the transfer for five years. p. 44 

Permittees must prepare annual reports to the WVDEP regarding the number and type of animals, amounts of waste generated, amounts of waste transferred to other persons, acres of land application (manure, etc.) covered by the NMP, summary of all manure or waste water discharges during the past year, actual crops and yields for each field (including chemical analysis of the waste) receiving land application. pp. 44-45 

The WVDEP shall review the rates of land application of the waste in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus as identified in the NMP for each crop. The land application must be based on calculations to verify the crop will use the nutrients applied as intended. These calculations must be performed at least once each year and must take into account nutrient requirements of the crops, nutrients and nutrient analysis of the land application waste. pp. 45 

Changes to a NMP must be submitted to the WVDEP. If the WVDEP finds the changes are not substantial, the permittee and the public will be advised of any changes to the terms of the NMP and the changes can be implemented. If the changes are substantial, public review and opportunity for comment, along with the opportunity for a public hearing is provided. Once the WVDEP makes a final determination, the owner or operator and the public will be informed regarding the decision. pp. 46-47.  

This article was authored by William Chambers, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

US EPA Releases Annual Enforcement Results and Mapping Tool

On December 23, 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released enforcement results for fiscal year 2009, and has developed a new Web-based tool and interactive map that allows the public to get detailed information by location about the enforcement actions taken at approximately 4,600 facilities.  

The website is available at http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/reports/endofyear/eoy2009/index.html 

The web site provides data and background about the Agency’s enforcement actions addressing specific environmental and public health problems, both nationally and locally.

Overview 

In fiscal year 2009, EPA concluded enforcement actions requiring polluters to invest more than $5 billion on pollution controls, cleanup, and environmental projects. Civil and criminal defendants committed to install controls and take other measures to reduce pollution by approximately 580 million pounds annually once all required controls are fully implemented. 

EPA indicates that it targets its enforcement actions to address the most important environmental and public health problems. Approximately 57% of pollution reductions and 71% of pollution control investments obtained through the Agency’s fiscal year 2009 enforcement actions focused on water and air pollution priority problems.  

EPA’s Clean Air Act enforcement actions during fiscal year 2009 reduced approximately 230 million pounds of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter per year when all the required pollution controls are in place, resulting in estimated health benefits of between $4 billion to $9.8 billion.  

US EPA has identified national priority areas for enforcement which includes:

·     air toxics (click here for air toxics strategy summary)

·     concentrated animal feeding operations (click here for CAFO strategy summary)

·     municipal sewer overflows (click here for combined sewer overflow strategy summary and here for sanitary sewer overflow strategy summary)

·     new source review (click here for NSR/PSD strategy summary)

·     storm water (click here for storm water strategy summary)

·     RCRA mineral processing (click here for mineral processing strategy summary)

·     financial assurance (click here for financial assurance strategy summary)

·     Indian country (click here for Indian country strategy summary) 

Criminal Enforcement Highlights 

In fiscal year 2009 EPA’s criminal enforcement program continued emphasizing cases with significant environmental, human health and deterrence impact while balancing its overall case load across all pollution statues. The criminal enforcement program emphasizes National Enforcement Priorities, Regional Enforcement Priorities, stationary source air cases, “high impact” cases, repeat or chronic civil noncompliance and import-export cases.  

387 new environmental crime cases were opened in fiscal year 2009, the highest number in the past five years. Almost 1/3 of the new cases opened in fiscal year 2009 were in criminal enforcement priority areas.  

Mapping Tool 

The new mapping tool (click here) allows the public to view the locations of facilities that were the subject of those enforcement actions on interactive maps of the U.S. and territories. The maps show facilities where civil enforcement actions were taken for environmental laws for air, water and land pollution and a separate map shows criminal enforcement actions.  

EPA mapped the locations of more than 90 percent of the facilities that were the subject of enforcement actions last year. Drinking water treatment facilities were not mapped due to potential security concerns. A list of the facilities not mapped is available here.  

Additional information about the mapping tool is available here. 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

EPA Issues Proposed Revisions to Renewable Fuels Program

            On May 26, 2008, EPA published its revisions to the renewable fuels program RFS2.  The proposed rule established the renewable fuels mandate for 2010 and implements a number of provisions of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (“EISA”). 

            The proposed rule sets out the requirements for biofuels to qualify for the RFS program.  The proposed regulations state that renewable fuels must achieve a 20% reduction in greenhouse gas emission over fossil fuels.  This is calculated over the life cycle of the biofuel.  The proposed rule would exempt from this requirement biofuel production capacity that was in place or under construction when Congress passed EISA in 2007.  Apparently, the purpose is to ensure the viability of corn based biofuels until cellulosic alternatives are available. 

The proposed rule increases the renewable fuels obligations of refiners, importers and blenders by including generally all transportation fuels in the computation of an entity’s renewal fuels obligation, i.e., diesel, marine, etc.  The rule requires the use of fuels other than corn based ethanol as follows:  cellulosic biofuel beginning in 2010; biomass-based diesel beginning 2009; advanced biofuel beginning 2009. 

EPA has not proposed, but has sought comment on whether to exclude conventional blendstock (CBOB) (blended with ethanol to produce conventional gasoline) and reformulated blendstock (RBOB) (blended with ethanol to produce reformulated gasoline) from the calculation of the renewable fuels obligation of refiners, importers and blenders.  This alternative would shift the renewable fuels obligation down to the ethanol blenders.  The current and proposed regulations provide that a person who only blends ethanol to make finished fuel is not an obligated party with respect to the blendstock.  If EPA adopts this alternative, it may have a significant adverse impact on parties who have contracted based on the current regulatory scheme. 

As part of the rulemaking EPA provided two scenarios on how the 34 billion gallon renewable fuels mandate for 2022 might be met.  The first relies on two fuels E-10 (10% ethanol) and E-85 (85% ethanol).  In order to meet the 2022 goal with these fuels, there will have to be a large increase in the use of E-85.  According to EPA, this will require an increase in the production of flex fuel vehicles (FFV); an increase in the number of retail locations offering E-85; an increase in E-85 fueling frequency (currently estimated at 5%); and reduction in the price differential between E-10 and E-85.   

The second scenario relies on the assumption that E-15 or E-20 would be generally available by 2013.  Under this scenario, E-10 would be sold as premium gasoline and E-15 or 20 would be sold as regular.  Substantial use of E-85 would still be required to meet the 2022 mandate.  The second scenario assumes a resolution of issues concerning potential equipment damage from E-15 or 20, the availability of insurance for underground storage tank releases and the preservation of those warranties which are predicated on the use of no more than 10% ethanol. 

This article was authored by James R. Snyder, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

The Industrial Accident Emergency Notification Bill Summary (SB 279)

            The Industrial Accident Emergency Notification Bill (SB 279) was proposed by Governor Manchin in the 2009 regular legislative session.  

This bill was developed to strike the proper balance between effectively regulating industrial accidents to protect public safety and ensuring the requirements are not an over reaction to one incident that creates a heavy burden on industry throughout the state. It creates a new section of the West Virginia Code in Chapter 15 Public Safety, Article 5B Mine and Industrial Accident Rapid Response System, just after Section 3 Emergency Mine Response. The new Section 3a is entitled the “Industrial facility emergency event notification and access”. The legislation passed the legislature on April 11^th, 2009 and was signed into law by the Governor on May 12^th, 2009. It will become effective 90 days from passage on July 10^th, 2009. 

There are several important provisions set forth by this bill including but not limited to:

·        providing that before any facility may be subject to the legislation, the owner or operator of each facility must be placed on actual written notice via certified mail, return receipt requested, of the facility's inclusion

·        requiring certain industrial facilities notify either the Mine and Industrial Accident Emergency Operations Center or their local 911 Center of an emergency event within 15 minutes

·        requiring facilities provide access to certain state and local officials access to the location where the emergency event is being managed or coordinated and to the location of the incident once it becomes safe

·        establishing a fine of up to $100,000 for not reporting 

·        requiring the industrial facility establish a communications system designed to provide timely information to appropriate state and local officials

·        requiring state and local officials to notify the public within 30 minutes of obtaining information regarding hazardous materials that affects the public health, safety or welfare

·        establishing that a facility can be subject to additional civil penalties depending on how it handles the continuing communications and access requirements of the bill

·        designating that any moneys collected pursuant to the bill will be deposited in the Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund managed by the WVDEP

·      authorizing the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management to promulgate rules, including emergency rules that among other things will establish a list of industrial facilities to be regulated by this legislation

In summary, the legislation mandates 3 primary requirements for industrial facilities that are regulated by this legislation upon the occurrence of an emergency event: (1) accident reporting, (2) providing access to public officials, and (3) development of an emergency event communications system. The Department of Homeland Security’s development of rules for this legislation on these issues is set to begin in early June. 

This article was authored by Donnie L. Adkins, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Toxic Release Inventory Reporting Changes for 2008

On Tuesday, April 21, 2009 the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) Program announced the release of the TRI-MEweb to all TRI reporting facilities for the Reporting Year 2008 (RY08), including new facilities that have to file TRI reports for the first time.  

TRI-MEweb allows you to submit your RY08 TRI forms via the internet through EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). The following states are participating in the TRI State Data Exchange program: Colorado, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.   TRI-MEweb will send TRI reports directly to the states participating in the TRI State Data Exchange. TRI-MEweb will be able to print forms or save files to CD or diskette to submit to states not participating in the State Data Exchange Program. 

Melyssa Savage, Title III coordinator with the WV Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Response, indicated that WV is able accept either CD or diskette submissions from WV sources. At this time, she was not aware of any plans by WV to join the EPA’s Central Data Exchange program.  

TRI-MEweb has several advantages over the TRI-MEdesktop software, including the following: 

1.   TRI-MEweb is web-based, there is no software to download, and can be accessed anywhere. 

2.   TRI-MEweb calculates Section 8 column b automatically based on entries in Section 5 and 6. 

3.   RY08 forms will be pre-populated with data from RY07 in order to save time and data entry. 

4.   Facility and Chemical Quicklists to allow facilities to choose which sections of the form are applicable to them, and  

5.   You can compare current year data against last year’s filings to see if there are large percentage changes in reported values that might indicate a possible data entry error. 

Requirements to submit using TRI-MEweb for RY08: 

1.   You must have Internet access. 

2.   The individuals who will use TRI-MEweb to prepare and submit data to CDX (“preparers”) and individuals who will use CDX to certify forms submitted by TRI-MEweb (“certifying officials”) must have CDX accounts. You may register for an account or access your existing account at http://cdx.epa.gov. 

3.   To meet the government wide initiative to increase security of electronic reporting, the certifying official must sign an Electronic Signature Agreement (ESA) and mail this to the TRI Data Processing Center (TRIDPC) prior to being able to certify a TRI submission prepared by TRI-MEweb. The ESA must be received and processed by the TRIDPC before a submission can be certified. This process may take up to five business days. The certifying official needs to get this in as soon as practical.  

4.   Preparers can gain access to their facility’s TRI data in the TRI-MEweb with the unique facility access code emailed to the facility Technical Contact by US EPA or by entering the last year’s Technical Contact’s name and phone number for the facility. 

Please Note: TRI reporters that are required to report Dioxin will need to use TRI-MEweb or paper forms.  

If you plan to utilize TRI-MEweb it would be advisable to start the process early for the following reasons. 

·        The CDX accounts for the preparer and certifier need to be established. 

·        The Certifying Official must sign and mail an Electronic Signature Agreement.

·        Most website slowdown with increased traffic. The closer to the due date the more users will be on the system. This can result in site crashes.  

TRI-MEdesktop is available for download at www.epa.gov/tri/report/software/index.htm. This is the last year that TRI-MEdesktop will be available. It should be noted that TRI-MEdesktop is not compatible with the Windows VISTA operating system.    

Form A changes:

Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) reporting requirements changed on March 11, 2009, as a result of a change in federal law. The Omnibus Appropriations Act, return TRI reporting requirements back to the rules in effect prior to December 22, 2006. These changes affect TRI reports due July 1, 2009. The change requires that all reports on persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals be submitted on “Form R,” the more detailed form. For all other chemicals the shorter form, “Form A” may be used only if the “annual reporting amount” is 500 pounds or less and that the chemical was manufactured, processed or otherwise used in an amount not exceeding 1 million pounds during the reporting year.     

For some basic information on Toxic Release Inventory, see the following web site:  http://www.epa.gov/tri.   

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Joyce Gentry, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.