[Senate Hearing 109-1076]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-1076
CONSIDER S. 3871, A BILL DIRECTING THE EPA TO ESTABLISH A HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SUPERFUND AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
47-644 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia JAMES M. JEFFORDS, Vermont
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island BARBARA BOXER, California
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York
JIM DeMINT, South Carolina FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BARACK OBAMA, Illinois
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
Andrew Wheeler, Majority Staff Director
Ken Connolly, Minority Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia BARBARA BOXER, California
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri MAX BAUCUS, Montana
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 3
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 8
Jeffords, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.. 2
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey, prepared statement..................................... 21
Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota.... 1
WITNESSES
Bodine, Susan Parker, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental Protection Agency.. 4
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Jeffords......................................... 25
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 26
Bond, Phillip J., president and CEO, Information Technology
Association of America......................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Coleman, Cheryl T., director, Division of Compliance and
Enforcement, South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste Management 6
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Florjancic, Frederick J. Jr., chief executive officer and
president, Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc........................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from Senator Lautenberg.... 32
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
Baker, Thomas M., director, Environment and Transportation,
Veolia ES Technical Solutions, L.L.C....................... 42
Bond, Philip J., president and CEO, Information Technology
Association of America (ITAA).............................. 38
Gray, Terrence, president, Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO)..... 35
Maris, Scott, president, Environmental Technology Council.... 37
Weiner, Peter H., Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker LLP...... 40
CONSIDER S. 3871, A BILL DIRECTING THE EPA TO ESTABLISH A HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
----------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2006
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, the Hon. John Thune
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Thune, Jeffords, Inhofe, Boxer.
Senator Thune. Today's hearing will come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
I want to welcome everyone to our legislative hearing
regarding a bill I introduced earlier this month, along with
Chairman Inhofe and Ranking Member Jeffords. Our legislation,
S. 3871, would direct EPA to begin a much-needed transformation
regarding the tracking of hazardous waste.
While the Resource Conservation Recovery Act that Congress
passed in 1976 has done a great deal when it comes to
protecting human health and the environment, the paper manifest
process that is used to track federally regulated hazardous
waste has turned into the single largest continuous paperwork
burden imposed on regulated entities under Federal
environmental law.
On an annual basis, roughly 139,000 regulated entities
track anywhere between 2.5 million to 5 million hazardous waste
manifests. This paperwork burden has been estimated to cost
States and the regulated community between $200 million and
$500 million. This is largely due to the fact that each paper
manifest is comprised of six carbon copies that must be signed
and mailed to waste-generators and State agencies and then
ultimately stored by each regulated entity.
To underscore just how cumbersome this paper manifest is,
the EPA in over 20 States don't even keep copies. The benefits
of using electronic manifests are numerous. We will hear more
about those benefits from today's witnesses. I would like to
stress that the legislation my colleagues and I have introduced
simply provides a voluntary alternative for regulated entities
who wish to file their hazardous waste manifests in a more
efficient manner, without the time-consuming paperwork burden
they are currently faced with.
Furthermore, nothing in this legislation seeks to weaken or
in any way lessen the protections that currently exist under
the uniform paper manifest.
As we begin this morning's hearing, I would like to insert
for the record a handful of letters that I have received in
support of S. 3871, one of which is from Terrence Gray,
president of the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials, who noted, ``It is appropriate, and
many would say overdue in the 21st century economy to have the
capability of using electronic reporting for such a tracking
system. We are supportive of your efforts to initiate this
process. It is our understanding the S. 3871 is the necessary
first step in designating the detailed system for electronic
manifesting, and for that reason we think it should go
forward.''
[The referenced documents follow on page 35.]
Senator Thune. I look forward to hearing from our four
witnesses today and hope that my colleagues will continue to
work with me to see that this noncontroversial legislation is
cleared by the full committee and ultimately passed by the
Senate.
Before we open up to our first panel of panelists, I would
like to defer to my colleagues, Senator Jeffords, the Ranking
Member on this committee.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. JEFFORDS, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF VERMONT
I am pleased that we are holding this hearing on S. 3871,
the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act,
introduced by Senator Thune. I co-sponsored this legislation
because it appears to be one of the rare examples in politics
where everybody wins and nobody loses.
The environment wins because an electronic manifest system
will strengthen the tracking of hazardous waste from the point
of generation to the ultimate disposal. Industry wins because
an electronic manifest will significantly reduce compliance
costs. The EPA estimates that the current paper-based system
costs waste handlers and States between $193 million and $404
million annually.
Finally, the public wins because an electronic manifest
system will enable the citizens, States, the Federal
Government, and industry to access manifests for shipments of
hazardous waste all over the country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Jeffords follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Jeffords, U.S. Senator from the
State of Vermont
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are holding this hearing on S.
3871, the ``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act,''
introduced by Senator Thune.
I co-sponsored this legislation because it appears to be one of the
rare examples in politics where everybody wins and nobody loses.
The environment wins because an electronic manifest system will
strengthen the tracking of hazardous waste from the point of generation
to ultimate disposal.
Industry wins because an electronic manifest will significantly
reduce compliance costs. The EPA estimates that the current paper-based
system costs waste handlers and States between $193 million and $404
million annually.
Finally, the public wins because an electronic manifest system will
enable the citizens, States, the Federal Government and industry to
access manifests for shipments of hazardous waste all over the country.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
The Senator from California, the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee has arrived. Senator, would you like to provide an
opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Yes, I do. I have to apologize because I am
going to stay a little bit for the questioning, but then I have
an issue on the floor so I will have to exit, hopefully to
return, but you never know.
Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for this hearing to examine
the potential benefits and concerns surrounding the use of
electronic records to track hazardous waste. The current
system, as we all know, relies on paper documents called
manifests to track this waste. The reliability of the tracking
system is critically important because we know what happens if
there is an accident. First responders rely on the manifests so
they know exactly what they are dealing with and what the
hazards are. It is crucial. If there is a mistake there, it is
a real problem.
A reliable tracking system also helps deter improper waste
disposal. Improper disposal of hazardous waste can lead to the
creation of Superfund sites. We have over 100 Superfund sites
where human exposure is not under control. You and I are trying
very hard to work on that. We cannot afford to add to that
list.
A sound hazardous waste tracking system also ensures that
the polluter, and not the taxpayer, pays for the costs
associated with the cleanup if a problem develops with the
waste disposal sometime in the future. We generate a great deal
of hazardous waste in this country, an estimated 12 million
tons of hazardous a year. There are 139,000 businesses and
other entities that handle the waste.
In 2003, California ranked first in the number of hazardous
waste generators, with 2,500, and produced more than 445,000
tons of waste. So clearly, this issue, Mr. Chairman, is very
important to my State.
Manifests give officials the information they need to
protect communities. Congress should do what it can to make
manifests easy to use, but we must not sacrifice safety for
streamlining. First responders and other officials have a hard
job and we can't make it more difficult.
States, including my State of California, agree with the
idea of moving to an electronic manifest system, but they want
to make certain that it works. So I do look forward to hearing
the testimony today.
I have a lot of faith in high technology and progress, but
we all know sometimes it doesn't meet our expectations. If we
look around the voting system, for example, it is clear that
you need backups. So I think there are some lessons, Mr.
Chairman, that we can apply to this really good issue that you
have brought before us.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
With that, we will turn to our first panel. With us today
is Susan Bodine, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response at EPA. Welcome, Susan; also Cheryl
Coleman, who is director, Division of Compliance and
Enforcement with the South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste
Management.
Ms. Bodine, if you would please share your testimony with
us, and then Ms. Coleman.
STATEMENT OF SUSAN BODINE, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
I am Susan Bodine, the Assistant Administrator of the
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response at EPA. I am very
happy to be with you here today to talk about EPA's efforts to
develop a national electronic manifest system, or e-Manifest.
I will summarize my testimony. I ask that my entire written
statement be placed in the record.
Senator Thune. Without objection.
Ms. Bodine. A few days ago, I was on the phone talking to
my father, and I was telling him I was going to be appearing at
this hearing. I talked about the e-Manifest system. His comment
was, ``Well, it is about time EPA joined the 21st century.'' I
have to say, I couldn't agree more. It is certainly about time
that with respect to our data collection and reporting, that we
did join the 21st century. We are making very great strides
toward that, and have many efforts underway that contribute to
that.
But we need your help. We have discovered that to have a
uniform system that all users can use and trust, we actually
need some additional legislative authorities, and that is what
we are here to talk about today.
I would like to thank Chairman Thune, Senator Jeffords, and
Senator Inhofe, for their efforts to develop e-Manifest
legislation. EPA supports your efforts and I look forward to
working with the Chairman and the committee to address any
issues that may arise as the bill moves through the legislative
process.
As you know, the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
establishes a cradle-to-grave tracking system for hazardous
waste. The method for accomplishing that is the manifest
system. The manifest is created by the generator. It then is
used to ensure that the right transporter is carrying the
waste, and also to make sure that waste reaches its ultimate
destination, whether it is treatment, storage or disposal.
The final copy, then, after it has gone through all of its
tracking steps, is then sent back to the generator so that the
generator knows that the waste got to where it was supposed to
get, again, that we don't have any midnight dumping situations.
Now, States also require use of manifests, and I think it
has been mentioned by Senator Boxer, 24 States in fact collect
data and have tracking systems for their manifests. Generally,
they take copies of the manifest and they manually enter
information into their tracking systems.
Now, all of these steps, whether it is by the generator,
the transporter, or the ultimate disposal facility, all of
these steps add up to a very significant paperwork burden.
There are about 2.4 to 5.1 million forms each year, and that
annual paperwork burden for States and the regulated community
is between $200 million and $500 million.
Now, we believe that if we have an e-Manifest system, that
net savings, at only 75 percent participation in the system,
that we would still have net savings of over $100 million a
year. But that is not the only benefit of an e-Manifest system.
Having an electronic manifest system will improve the overall
effectiveness of a tracking program. We have the technology to
put into the system automatic data quality checks to correct
data entry errors. Right now, often there are mistakes on
written manifests or they are simply illegible.
Another benefit is we would be able to have real-time
tracking of wastes. Right now, the generator doesn't know
essentially the disposition of the waste until it has gone
through all the various steps and then the final manifest is
mailed back to them, which could be 90 days later. As we all
know, technology is out there now that allows real-time
tracking of shipments. Anyone who has sent a Federal Express
package knows that you can go online and find out where your
package is. We would be able to do the same thing now for our
waste shipments.
Finally, because we would have electronic data collection,
we have a new opportunity for program management and a new
opportunity, an additional source of data on hazardous waste.
So that, again, is another benefit.
Now, we have been trying to improve the hazardous waste
management system. Just in September of this year, the uniform
manifests went into effect. That is a tremendous step forward.
It means every State is using the exact same manifests, and the
same data fields. It is also a key step needed to establish an
e-Manifest system.
We had proposed to establish an e-Manifest system earlier
that was decentralized. The comments we received on that
proposal were negative. The communities and the stakeholders
said no, we need a centralized system to have a system that
they would trust.
So after listening to all the stakeholders, we went back
and issued a notice of data availability announcing that we
would like to develop a centralized e-Manifest system. Now, we
have made a lot of steps already toward that. For example, 41
States have already got what we call nodes, which is a hookup,
an ability to transmit data to EPA on our central data
exchange. That is already happening and 41 States have that
capability, and 9 are underway. So again, steps are going
forward to essentially allow the seamless transfer of
information between States and EPA.
Now, earlier in 2005, we also tried to go forward to issue
a contract to set up a national e-Manifest system under a
provision of the Electronic Government Act that allowed for
share and savings contracts. Unfortunately, that authority
expired before we were able to complete that procurement, so
now we are here very happy that the committee is considering
legislation that would give us specific authority on e-
Manifests.
After working on this issue, we realized what we need is
the authority to collect and have user fees that will fund the
e-Manifest system, and S. 3871 provides that authority. We also
need the authority to enter into these performance-based
contracts that are similar to the pilot program that was
established under the Electronic Government Act. Again, S. 3871
provides that authority.
And then third, we need the authority to make sure that we
have a uniform system that goes into effect in all States at
the same time, and S. 3871 provides that authority as well.
So in summary, EPA supports the enactment of legislation
that would allow us to establish a national e-Manifest system.
We think that the benefits are there, not only to the regulated
community, not only to States, but also to regulators. It is
really a win-win situation for all, as Senator Jeffords said.
So EPA looks forward to working with the committee and with
Congress to develop legislation that would provide us with
these authorities, and again, would provide an efficient and
effective e-Manifest system for everyone.
Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Senator Thune. Ms. Coleman.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL T. COLEMAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT, SOUTH CAROLINA BUREAU OF LAND AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT
Ms. Coleman. Good morning, Chairman Thune, Senator Jeffords
and Senator Boxer. I bring you greetings from the State of
South Carolina, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear
before you today.
As you know, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
established authority for EPA to develop a preventive system to
control the growing volume of municipal and industrial waste
through national goals designed to protect human health and the
environment from potential hazards of these wastes, conserve
energy and natural resources, reduce the volume of these
wastes, and ensure that the wastes are managed in an
environmentally sound manner.
The hazardous waste program managed under RCRA Subtitle C
is a cradle-to-grave system designed to ensure appropriate
management of these wastes from generation to disposal. The
hazardous waste manifest is an essential tool for monitoring
and tracking hazardous waste from the time it leaves the
generator facility where it was produced, until it is delivered
to the destination facility for storage, treatment and/or
disposal.
Both the Department of Transportation and the Environmental
Protection Agency require the manifest, as do states. Each
entity handling the waste as it is transported to its
destination is required to sign and retain a copy of the
manifest. This results in accountability and responsibility for
all involved in the disposal process.
Once the destination facility receives the waste, a signed
copy of the manifest is returned to the generator, thus
confirming proper delivery of the entire shipment. EPA enables
States to assume primary responsibility for implementing the
RCRA hazardous waste program, and as such, most States have
requested and received authorization for the core elements of
the RCRA program.
As an authorized State, South Carolina applauds the
inclusion of electronic reporting of hazardous waste activities
in the hazardous waste manifest system and fully supports this
initial step in that process.
S. 3871 primarily focuses on the design of a system and
does not identify a role for States other than membership on
the proposed hazardous waste electronic manifest system
governing board, and the requirements for development of the
regulations. As a supporter of the concept, South Carolina
offers the following comments.
S. 3871 should clearly state that participation in the
electronic manifest reporting system is voluntary. Companies
may be unable to submit this information electronically due to
limitations with funding and technology. The definition of the
term ``user'' should be clarified. The current definition could
be interpreted to mean that use of the electronic manifest
process is mandatory, even though paragraph B indicates
participation is voluntary.
In addition, States accessing the information as part of
the regulatory process could be considered users of the system
and incur fees. The system should be designed in a manner that
is inclusive of existing State regulatory programs and current
manifest procedures, and not require additional State financial
resources.
It is unclear if potential users will incur fees during the
development stages. Paragraph G(b)(2), effective date of
regulation, states that regulations promulgated by the
Administrator relating to electronic manifesting of hazardous
waste shall take effect in each State as of the effective data
specified in the regulation. States authorized to implement the
RCRA program in lieu of EPA have State-specific statutory
requirements for promulgating regulations, and these
requirements may be inconsistent with the timeframe established
in this paragraph. We respectfully request that this wording be
modified to recognize State requirements for promulgation of
regulations.
This bill does not address the importance of the manifest
in the transportation phase for waste sent for treatment,
storage, and/or disposal. Specifically, it does not identify
how inspectors and/or emergency response personnel will be able
to access electronic manifests to identify waste in transit.
This information is vital, particularly in the event of an
emergency.
For example, in South Carolina, there have been several
incidents where emergency personnel responded to a spill of
hazardous waste and the transport vehicle driver's English
proficiency was limited. The absence of a paper manifest could
have delayed or resulted in inappropriate response activities
as it includes information needed for appropriate response
activities.
Electronic manifests would facilitate pre-inspection
activities for State regulators. Because South Carolina, like
many other States, does not receive copies of manifests, access
to this information prior to the actual inspection would
greatly enhance the inspection process.
The regulation should also not inhibit public access to the
information. Many States have freedom of information
requirements that are broader in scope than Federal
requirements.
In conclusion, we recognize that paragraphs five through
eight can and should be more thoroughly addressed through the
promulgation of the regulation stage of this process. We wish
to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of
including State representatives and strongly encourage this
committee to include steps to ensure that States are active
participants in subsequent phases of regulation development.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Ms. Coleman. It looks like we are
going to be joined by the Chairman of the full committee here
for a statement, but since he hasn't returned yet, we will
proceed to questions. All right. Here he is. I got his
attention.
Senator Inhofe. You did, you did.
Senator Thune. Mr. Chairman, welcome. Do you have any
statement you would like to make?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I am going to submit my
statement for the record, but this is something that I, having
been a former Mayor, I am very sensitive to some of this stuff.
I strongly support this. I am a co-sponsor of your legislation
to correct this problem, but it is something that we shouldn't
have to do. It shouldn't take legislation to do this.
Unfortunately, it does, and by doing this, I am going to lose
some of my real good speaking material that I have used before.
According to EPA, the paper manifest system generates up to
156 tons of paper each year. It takes roughly 17 trees to
create a ton of paper. Are you listening to this, Senator
Boxer?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. This means that RCRA's proposed
environmental purposes require 2,652 trees a year.
Senator Boxer. And we need trees [remarks off mic].
Senator Inhofe. You got it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Ask her if she would quit interrupting me,
would you please?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Anyway, this is something I strongly
support, and I am glad I share with my friend, who will be
seated next to me next year in the whole committee, that I am
glad that science is finally coming around and refuting all
these things you have been saying all these years about global
warming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Laughter.]
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator from the
State of Oklahoma
As a former Mayor, I know all too well how Federal requirements can
effectively tax local and State governments. Federal requirements
should be flexibly applied so that each State can implement them in the
ways most efficient for them. The paper manifest system under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act was not flexibly applied in the
last two and a half decades.
The bill that Senator Thune has sponsored and that I am proud to
co-sponsor with the ranking member seeks to change that.
This legislation seeks to reduce time, staffing, and financial
burdens on States as they comply with Federal requirements by
transforming the manner in which hazardous waste data is collected,
stored, and accessed.
Frankly, I am disappointed that the Federal Government needs
legislation to do something that seems so obvious in this day and age.
For those concerned about how much paper is used for this
inefficient and burdensome requirement----
According to EPA, the paper manifest system generates up to 156
tons of paper per year. It takes roughly 17 trees to create a ton of
paper. This means that RCRA's supposed environmental purpose requires
2,652 trees per year.
Rather than benefit from the efficiencies that computers can
provide, current regulations require a paper manifest system comprised
of six carbon copies which must be filled out and signed by each person
who handles the waste. Those copies must not only accompany the waste
as it is transported but must be mailed to generators and State
agencies and kept on file by each regulated entity.
EPA estimates that roughly 146,000 regulated entities track between
2.5-5 million manifests each year.
The current system is far too burdensome on all parties, especially
the private sector and State managers.
I sincerely hope that we can pass this noncontroversial bill
quickly.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't know if we want to start down that road today. This
was scheduled to be a fairly brief hearing.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much for your
statement and your comments in support of the legislation.
In terms of questions, Ms. Bodine, could you explain to the
committee why the share and savings approach in the bill is so
critical to the creation of an e-Manifest system?
Ms. Bodine. Thank you, Senator Thune.
Yes, that is the approach that had been authorized under
the e-Government Act and the authority that expired. That is a
tool that would allow EPA to enter into a contract with a
vendor where the vendor would incur the costs up front of
developing the e-Manifest system, and then would recoup those
costs from the fees paid by the use of the system afterward. So
it is a very flexible procurement tool and we believe it is one
that, first, will allow us to get an e-Manifest system up and
running most quickly; and second, then is very equitable
because it establishes an e-Manifest system that is paid for,
funded for by the users themselves.
Senator Thune. If the legislation were enacted into law,
let's say just hypothetically, early next year, how long would
it take EPA to get an e-Manifest system up and running?
Ms. Bodine. We have already started working on rulemaking,
and so we are proceeding in parallel now with the legislation.
We can't actually promulgate until we get the legislative
authority, but we are working now. I firmly believe that the
deadlines in your legislation are ones that we can meet. We can
get the rule promulgated within a year, because they have
already started, and that we would be able to have the system
in place within 2 years after that because we will need some
time to develop the contract and get the system up and running,
but the 3 years is definitely achievable.
Senator Thune. Ms. Coleman, in your opinion, is there any
reason not to move forward with creating this sort of a system?
Ms. Coleman. No, sir. We fully support the establishment of
this system as part of the reporting system.
Senator Thune. I don't know, maybe this isn't a fair
question for you to do this off of your head, but what would
you estimate that a State like South Carolina could save if it
could access hazardous waste manifest data in near real-time?
Ms. Coleman. I think that the savings, monetarily I can't
make an estimate, but I believe that being able to access this
information would greatly increase our ability to be able to
regulate effectively. We need to be able to identify potential
problems. RCRA is a preventive program, and I think that the e-
Manifest system would allow us to be able to identify potential
problems more quickly, and the savings in cost I cannot even
begin to estimate how much it would cost to save lives and our
environment.
Senator Thune. As someone who is involved with enforcement
regarding the management of hazardous wastes, it would seem
that the bill would drastically improve the manner in which
your State tracks the movement of regulated waste. Is there a
particular area that you think that this legislation would help
your State in compliance and enforcement?
Ms. Coleman. I do. We view the manifest as an
accountability and a responsibility document. It is in fact a
validation that this generator did in fact produce this waste;
that these transporters did transport this waste; and this
facility, the destination facility did receive this waste.
We monitor those closely and take appropriate enforcement
action if there is a failure to comply with any of that. We do,
however, want the system to be designed in a manner that allows
us to validate the e-signatures, to say that this company did
in fact enter this data, and be able to use that in a court
proceeding if necessary.
Senator Thune. I want to get back to one point that you
made in your testimony. Maybe this is a question for Ms.
Bodine, because you referenced the concern about having States
involved in the process, the rulemaking et cetera. Ms. Bodine,
how involved would States be in future rulemaking that would
come from the legislation? Is there any reason to believe that
some of the outstanding issues that were referenced in Ms.
Coleman's testimony couldn't be addressed?
Ms. Bodine. First, the States are involved in the
rulemaking. We have five or six States that are already on our
work group. In addition, we make sure that we get the comments
and input from all States through the organization, ASTSWMO,
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials. So we definitely are involving and will continue to
involve States in the process.
Second, yes, the issues that have been raised, we have
identified the authorities that we need, and then the specific
implementation issues could easily be addressed in the
rulemaking.
Senator Thune. Great.
I understand, Senator Jeffords, that you want Senator Boxer
to go next for questions? OK. Senator Boxer is recognized.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Senator Jeffords. As I said, I need to run down
to the floor of the Senate.
I just have this opportunity, Ms. Bodine, to ask you when
Senator Thune and I can expect an answer to our letter. We did
get a response back and said we are working on a letter; we
will have it for you as soon as possible, regarding the out of
control sites. So I wondered if you had a date-certain that we
could count on getting it?
Ms. Bodine. The letter is in our clearance process, so I
would expect it shortly. I don't have a date-certain. In
addition, there is some data----
Senator Boxer. Shortly meaning within the next 2 weeks?
Ms. Bodine. Yes.
Senator Boxer. OK, good. OK, that is great, because we are
looking forward to that.
Just so, Mr. Chairman, you know where I am coming from on
this, I want to see this legislation go forward, but I do share
Ms. Coleman's concerns about States feeling comfortable with
it. We did receive a letter from California, which I am going
to go over with you and your staff because I think they really
have some good ideas on how to make this the best it can be.
I wanted to ask Ms. Bodine just one more question, and then
I will leave. That is, EPA currently has an electronic
docketing system where it places records that support the
Agency's rulemaking online. I have printed out an example of
that, so that the public can access this information over the
Internet.
So you have an electronic docket for the e-Manifest
rulemaking process, but ironically it fails to make available
documents that were submitted to EPA as far back as June 2001.
So I always have problems because, again, high-tech is the way
to go. Look, I come from the State that invented it, pretty
much, notwithstanding the Defense Department's role, which was
huge. Once that happened, California, Silicon Valley and the
rest. So I want to move in this direction.
So I am a little worried about your own e-docketing system
at this stage being flawed when somebody goes up and reads
about this, and they have no way to access it. For example,
comments by Russell Hanson, manager of Hazardous Materials at
the University of Missouri, they can't get the record.
Ms. Bodine. Senator, I would have to go back and
investigate the issues that you are identifying with respect to
EPA's comment docket, but in the context of e-Manifest, we
certainly in the rulemaking and then in the contract that we
would be negotiating with a vendor, we would be putting in all
of the quality control and information security and ability to
verify signatures, all of the issues that you have identified,
that California has identified, that South Carolina has
identified. Those would all be addressed in the rulemaking and
in the contract itself. So we would be dealing with those
issues.
Senator Boxer. OK. My only point here is, it is only as
good as what you put in the system, right? The information.
Ms. Bodine. The information.
Senator Boxer. An electronic document is only as good as
the system it gets in. Here, you don't have the system
operational, and there are documents posted here from 2001, but
if a citizen goes on, and this is just about this particular
rulemaking. It concerns me. I have been around too long. I know
that the best intentions don't always turn out. I worry, that's
all.
So I think, Mr. Chairman, as we move forward, I am very,
very anxious to make this work. I think we can. I think we just
want to make sure in your legislation we have taken into
account the concerns of the various States. Again, it is not
really rocket science. It is just simple, I think, goals that
are clearly stated and to make sure that we have the backup
documents that we need.
Before I leave, I want to acknowledge that unless something
happens and the Chairman of the full committee calls a hearing
on global warming, this will be Senator Jeffords's last hearing
with us. Yes. I just wanted to say that we will all miss you
and we look forward to staying in touch with you on all the
important issues.
Senator Jeffords. OK, thank you.
Senator Boxer. All right.
[Applause.]
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Boxer. With the use of
all that technology that California puts out, you will be able
to stay in touch with Senator Jeffords, I am quite certain.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. I, too, want to recognize Senator Jeffords
and thank you for your very distinguished service to this
committee. This very well could be the last hearing. I don't
know that we have any global warming hearings scheduled.
[Laughter.]
Senator Thune. In the event that happens, we will have
another opportunity to recognize you, but we want to thank you
and wish you absolutely the very best.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Do you have any question, Senator?
Senator Jeffords. Yes.
Ms. Bodine, as the head of the Nation's hazardous waste
program, you are obligated by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act to promulgate regulations assuring that the use of
a manifest system will track hazardous waste from the point of
generation to ultimate disposal. If this bill becomes law, can
you guarantee that the future electronic manifest regulations
will give State agencies and the Federal Government the same
ability to track manifests and determine accountability as the
current paper system?
Ms. Bodine. Yes, Senator Jeffords, that is exactly the kind
of system that we intend to establish.
Senator Jeffords. Based upon your experience with the paper
manifest system, if this bill, were it to become law, what
information would be available to the public in an electronic
manifest?
Ms. Bodine. The timing of when information would be public
is something that we have received comments on in response to
the NODA and is something that we would want to work out in the
rulemaking process. There are issues. Well, right now some
States have tracking systems where they manually key in
information to their system and then it becomes public later
because there is a lag time.
Now, with an electronic manifest system, we would be able
to have real-time tracking, but there might be security reasons
or confidential business information reasons why we wouldn't
want to make that information available immediately. That isn't
to say that later it wouldn't then become publicly available
within generally the same time period that some States make it
publicly available now.
Senator Jeffords. I think you have answered this, but I
will ask it anyway. If this bill were to become law, what are
your estimates for how promptly this information would be
available to the public, States and first responders?
Ms. Bodine. Well, States and first responders would have
the information right away. Nothing in this legislation and
nothing in our rulemaking would changes any of the requirements
under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, which
requires that a paper manifest follow and be carried with the
transporters. That would still be in effect. It is all the same
information that we have in our uniform manifest that is in
place right now. That paper manifest would still be following
the shipment so all of that information would still be
available to the first responders.
Senator Jeffords. Ms. Coleman, I know that your State of
South Carolina has permit requirements for those who transport
hazardous waste. If this bill becomes law, how would the
electronic manifest system work with this permit system?
Ms. Coleman. You are absolutely correct. We do require
hazardous waste transporters to obtain a permit, and that
permit is put in place for several reasons. One, it is to
verify that that transporter has appropriate insurance coverage
should there be some type of catastrophic event. Two, he or she
is also saying to the State, we have trained our drivers in how
to manage this material while it is in transit. We have very
real concerns about the transportation phase. And three, that
that driver is able to provide that information to the
inspectors or emergency personnel should there be some sudden
event that would require them to perform some type of response
activity.
So we would be looking during the regulation development
phase of the electronic manifest system for those abilities to
remain. It is very important that we be able to access that
information in a timely manner and be able to respond
appropriately. You certainly don't want to put water on a
water-reactive waste. So we need to be able to access that
information, and I was very happy to hear Ms. Bodine say that
that is a very real intent of EPA that they will include that
information in the transit phase.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
And thank you very much, panel, for your testimony and for
your insights. We appreciate it, and welcome your continued
input as we move forward with the legislation, and hopefully
ultimately getting it enacted, and want to make sure that we
are addressing as best we can the needs that the States have as
a stakeholder in this, obviously an important partner in making
sure that we get it right. So thank you very much.
We will ask the next panel to come forward. Our second
panel consists of Frederick Florjancic, who is chief executive
officer and president of Safety-Kleen Systems, Incorporated;
and Mr. Phillip Bond, who is president and CEO of Information
Technology Association of America.
I will ask those gentlemen to come forward. We welcome you
both to the subcommittee and look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Florjancic, if you would like to start off, that would
be great.
STATEMENT OF FREDERICK J. FLORJANCIC, JR., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRESIDENT, SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC.
Mr. Florjancic. Thank you and good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Jeffords. Thank you for inviting Safety-Kleen to
testify on S. 3871, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act.
I have filed for the record more extensive comments which I
will summarize for the committee.
I am Fred Florjancic, and I am CEO and president of Safety-
Kleen Systems, which is a major environmental service provider
throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico. We are
now expanding into Mexico as well. We employ more than 4,500
people in North America at more than 200 locations, of which
approximately 4,100 people at 190 locations are in the United
States. We provide more than 400,000 customers of all sizes,
including 440 of the Fortune 500 companies with safe, compliant
recycling and environmental services.
I am also proud to note that Safety-Kleen is the leading
re-refiner of used oil in North America, collecting more than
200 million gallons of waste oil every year, re-refining it
back into high-quality lubricating oil and other products that
extend the life of this precious resource. Safety-Kleen also
collects approximately 300 million gallons of hazardous waste
annually in North America.
I am particularly pleased to be here today in support of S.
3781. This is an important piece of legislation for our
country, for our industry, and for Safety-Kleen. We strongly
support S. 3781 and compliment the Subcommittee Chairman Thune
and Senator Jeffords and Committee Chairman Inhofe for your
hard work and leadership in addressing this issue and crafting
an extremely positive bill that we believe can dramatically
improve the present hazardous waste manifest system.
I am comfortable expressing our support because at Safety-
Kleen, we know manifests. Because Safety-Kleen serves so many
different types and sizes of customers, we believe Safety-Kleen
is the Nation's largest individual user of manifests, the
paper-based manifest tracking system.
For example, this year Safety-Kleen will use between
600,000 and 700,000 paper manifests, and just today we will
generate more than 2,400 manifests for our customers to
complete. During my testimony here, we will issue 25 manifests
for customers to complete for waste shipments taking place
somewhere in the United States.
Needless to say, this proposed legislation could have a
significant and we believe positive impact on Safety-Kleen, our
customers, the industry, and State regulatory agencies who play
a key role in implementing the manifest system.
The current requirement to use a manifest has existed for
more than 25 years. Manifests are a key element of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, known as RCRA, which was adopted
in 1976. The purpose of the manifest system was to help
eliminate a significant problem at the time, that was then
known as orphaned waste, waste that could not be tracked back
to its origins and as such became a burden on the American
taxpayer.
Since 1980, RCRA has required that a manifest accompany all
shipments of hazardous waste, and that has brought order,
discipline and accountability to our national hazardous waste
management system. Manifests contain two key types of
information. First, what a waste shipment is comprised of so
that in the event of an emergency, the first responders know
the materials that they would be managing. Second, the manifest
identifies who ships the waste, who is transporting the waste,
and where it is ultimately headed so that it can be tracked at
every step of the way to ensure proper disposition.
The manifest tracking system is clearly a key element in
avoiding past problems associated with improper waste handling
and disposal, but the question today is can we do it in a
better way. I believe the answer is yes, and that S. 3871
provides a solid framework for moving in that direction.
Our current paper-based manifest system places an enormous
paperwork burden on regulated companies, regulated customers
and State regulatory agencies. The recent economic analysis
prepared by the EPA estimates more than 92,000 regulated
entities track between 2 and 4 million waste shipments per
year. Keep in mind that each manifest form is six copies
containing 83 fields of information. The current form must be
filled out by the customer using a combination of computer-
generated and manually inserted information, and then signed in
ink and physically carried with each waste shipment.
Copies and sometimes multiple copies have to be mailed to
generators and State agencies, and we have to keep permanent
records at all of our facilities. For Safety-Kleen, our
mailings costs alone are close to $1 million a year, and the
paperwork burden is so significant that 22 States no longer
even accept paper copies of the manifest.
Frankly, we are today using a manifest tracking system that
was developed before the widespread use of computers and
information technology. Today's system works, but it is a
dinosaur. It does not take advantage of any of the quality,
cost reduction, and productivity improvements that computers
allow.
The potential benefits of moving forward to include an
electronic manifest system are significant. For example, the
system would provide that States with manifest data would have
easily usable, searchable and storable formatted information.
It would allow the regulated community to develop computer-
based manifest systems that would improve data quality,
streamline transactions for customers, and save tens of
millions of dollars each year by reducing the paperwork burden.
Additionally, the e-Manifest system would produce a
national security benefit by improving our overall ability to
track hazardous materials. Under the current system, it takes
weeks to provide verification of information to generators or
regulators when a waste shipment is complete.
I note for the committee five specific items that S. 3871
should include. Safety-Kleen believes that any fee structure
established to pay for the e-manifesting system must be limited
to providing funding for the designing and implementing of the
program specifically and exclusively. In other words, any fee
structure must not become a de facto tax or fund other
programs.
Second, the e-Manifest system must be cost-effective to the
regulated community and the Government as a whole, and we
endorse the bill's proposal to have a qualified IT contractor
build the system and then receive payment on a per-manifest
basis.
The regulated community, the industry needs to have a place
at the table to provide recommendations to the Administrator of
the e-Manifest system and the system must be flexible and
scalable to take into consideration not only today's needs, but
tomorrow's manifesting requirements. It should provide real-
time information for the generation, transportation and
disposal of waste.
In closing, I believe S. 3871 provides a solid foundation
for moving our Nation into the 21st century hazardous waste
manifest tracking system. Enactment of this legislation will
produce significant improvements in data quality, real-time
tracking capability, cost reduction and productivity
improvements, not only for industry, but the State and Federal
regulatory agencies.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today, and I
would be pleased to answer any questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Florjancic. Your entire
statement will be made a part of the record.
Mr. Bond, it is nice to have you back on Capitol Hill. You
served with distinction in the Congress as a member of the
staff of Jennifer Dunn over there, and someone that I worked
with quite a bit at that time, and living proof that there is
good life after your service in Congress. Correct?
Mr. Bond. There you go.
Senator Thune. We welcome you in front of the committee
today and would love to hear your testimony.
STATEMENT OF PHILLIP J. BOND, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Bond. Thank you, Chairman Thune and Senator Jeffords
for the opportunity to present on behalf of the 325 corporate
members of the Information Technology Association of America.
Obviously, we have a very favorable perspective on this, and I
also want to thank you for your continued leadership to amend
RCRA to make such a system possible.
I will try to edit myself in real-time for the benefit of
the Senators, to spare you recitation of some of the statistics
and other things that you have heard. But I do want to
underscore the point that this is fundamentally a very creative
approach, a 21st century approach that we believe solves
problems for the public, for policymakers, for taxpayers,
streamlines the process, makes it more efficient, just as IT
has done throughout the national and global economies, and
State governments, and certainly can do in this process.
As has just been noted, I want to underscore that in
addition to the policy and environmental benefits, a very real
national security, homeland security benefits of such a system
as well.
We know the reasons for a manifest system. They are
legitimate reasons. You need to know in the event of an
incident where materials are. You have to be able to track that
shipment all the way to the final disposal facility to meet the
environmental and national security goals inherent.
This system is a bit of an anachronism in this information
age. The paperwork burden is extensive. You have heard some of
the statistics generated by EPA itself in terms of the number
of regulated entities and shipments that are covered, with each
manifest manually filled out, signed with pen and ink,
physically carried, mailed to multiple sites, and then stored
among facility records as well.
Ironically, at the end of this, some States charge a fee to
cover the processing, but that fee also goes to convert the
data often to an electronic format at the end of the process.
So this would perhaps put it in the right place at the front of
the process. It really does seem to us and the IT industry at
large as a system that is still stuck in the last century, too
costly, too manpower-intensive, too cumbersome, too time-
consuming.
Notably, especially I think for the committee and
policymakers in general, I want to note that the information
often does not get where it needs to go. Currently, 22 States
and the EPA do not collect copies. States that do not receive
copies often simply store them without review. So the
information is bottled up and not useful.
The e-Manifest proposal would solve these problems. It
would help States. It would help the public. It would help
members of this committee, policymakers, all would know
exponentially more about where these materials are at any given
time. You heard earlier from EPA itself the estimates of the
savings, some $100 million and more.
Homeland Security has been mentioned. I would just note
that there are clear benefits to knowing the nature of a
shipment, its location, and the risks inherent, the parties
involved in it, in a matter of minutes at the most, or even
seconds, instead of hours, days or weeks under the current
system. We can know if there has been any kind of delay, or if
we pick up intelligence about any sinister plans and be able to
respond quickly.
Authentication has been just kind of referenced slightly in
the earlier panel. That is an issue, I think, but it is hardly
insurmountable in the 21st century. I would observe that
Congress itself accepts digital signatures as a way to secure
important documents. Lobbying reports, for instance, are
required to be filed and authenticated with digital signatures.
Digital signatures are now widely accepted throughout the
financial, legal and insurance sectors of our economy.
An electronic process of this type with the use of digital
signatures would actually be more secure, rather than less
secure, in a less secure system where the paper often is
ignored or filed without review. This would be a more secure
system.
In short, an elegant solution to a rather ugly problem, a
21st century approach. It also is a 21st century approach in
terms of how you get the private sector to bid, to ask bidding
companies at their own expense to come up with a system. The
winning bidder then would recover their investment through a
user fee as part of the initiative by EPA. This allows industry
to make the initial investment. It allows private industry to
share in some of the risk, and then ultimately the reward of a
successful system.
Without the legislation that you are considering, fees that
would be collected under the e-Manifest system, under current
law those would be considered Federal revenues and prohibited
from some of the uses envisioned. So the legislation truly is
necessary. As we mentioned, this is not a new burden. Fees are
being collected now.
Finally, I would just like to note that the legislation
upholds the broader aims, the very bipartisan aims of e-
Government, making bureaucratic government less so, making it
more efficient, enhancing security, providing more information,
making government better in a fiscally responsible way. It
might be described as government of, by, and for the people.
Thank you.
Senator Thune. Well put.
Let me proceed to questions for this panel. I will start
with Mr. Florjancic. Where does Safety-Kleen currently store
its paper manifest forms?
Mr. Florjancic. We currently store in just about all 200
facility locations, multiple locations. Obviously, an
electronic manifest system would allow us to do that much more
cheaply, much more effectively, and much more efficiently, and
make those records available real-time.
Senator Thune. We talked a little bit about how we would
structure this system in terms of underwriting the cost of
getting it up and operating. What do you think would be a
reasonable fee, for your company to use an electronic manifest
system? Do you care to comment on that?
Mr. Florjancic. Senator, I don't have a specific dollar in
mind, except to say that the current manifest system costs
Safety-Kleen approximately $10 to $12 million a year to
execute. That includes printing fees and I am sure includes
some permitting fees, et cetera, et cetera. I don't know
precisely what the savings would be. I can tell you that there
would be some savings, and clearly the efficiency factor is the
most important that we are after.
Senator Thune. Mr. Bond, based on your understanding of how
the current paper manifest system operates, are there any
concerns among the IT community that a system couldn't be
adequately designed to meet the needs of the regulated
community, the States and the Federal Government?
Mr. Bond. No. In fact, there is a high degree of confidence
based on many other e-Government applications, the wide use of
digital signatures and so forth, that indeed this could be
constructed in this creative way envisioned in the legislation,
that would be very efficient both to the government, but also
efficient in terms of operation, very fast.
Senator Thune. Under the competitive bid procedures that
are outlined in the legislation, what is your assessment as to
the number of qualified bidders? Would there be any shortage of
those who would want to bid on the opportunity?
Mr. Bond. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I can assure you, based on
interest expressed directly by a number of companies just at
our association, that there is no shortage of interest in
companies able and interested in pursuing exactly this kind of
design.
Senator Thune. Senator Jeffords.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Florjancic, in your written
testimony, you state that public access to electronic manifests
would provide an advantage to your competitors because it may
include business information. Do you think that limiting the
public's access to information about toxic waste traveling
through their neighborhood is justified because of financial
considerations?
Mr. Florjancic. Senator, I believe that real-time
information can be made available to certainly the regulating
areas, both State and Federal, and the public can have access
under the Freedom of Information Act. But I believe in the
State of California, in particular, let me cite how they handle
the confidential business information of customer lists, et
cetera. That is what I am concerned about:
``The department shall make [available] all of the information in
quarterly reports submitted pursuant to this subdivision, available to
the public through its usual means of disclosure. . . .'' [each State
has their own methodology] ``. . . except that the department shall not
disclose the association between any specific transporter and specific
generator. The list of generators served by a transporter shall be
deemed to be a trade secret and confidential business information . .
.'' for various purposes.
So even under the current paper manifest system in
existence, the States have taken care of that issue. California
even has it in their statute. So all we were concerned about,
Senator, was protecting the confidential trade secret customer
information.
In terms of the actual hazardous waste being transported,
that is not an issue.
Senator Jeffords. How will the electronic manifest system
impact your company's handling of hazardous waste?
Mr. Florjancic. Really, the physical handling of the waste
would not be impeded whatsoever. It would continue to be
handled in the same way that we currently do it, meeting both
State and Federal regulations. It would simply allow us to more
effectively transmit information to the appropriate regulators
and the originators of the waste.
Senator Jeffords. Mr. Bond, EPA will maintain the Web site
for the electronic manifest system. As we all know, sometimes
computer servers fail. Would hazardous waste generators,
transporters and receiving facilities that use electronic
manifests delay transporting waste? Or would they temporarily
revert to the paper manifest system?
Mr. Bond. Well, a couple of points, one that I learned this
morning from listening, and one technological point, learning
this morning that the paper would go with the cargo. You have
one redundant backup there. But then as a technological matter,
for something this important, certainly it is not at all
difficult to have a mirrored site and a backup and so forth, so
that electronic recovery can be very, very rapid.
If I could, Senator, too, to your question asked of the
other panel, I just wanted to observe that the concerns about
business proprietary information are real. Certainly, our
members had those concerns as contractors with government, too.
I just wanted to observe that if you imagine a data base with
all of the information of the e-Manifest system here, EPA may
be able to pull all of the information out of that data base,
including proprietary information they may need to see.
On this side, the public would pull less information out of
that, so that you can take out the proprietary information.
Indeed, you would have perhaps some homeland security issues to
think about what you would even want on the public-facing side
of that. But it is technologically very easy to take care of
both concerns, make sure EPA has all the detail they need, then
the public has what they need as well.
Senator Jeffords. Under the electronic manifest system, how
would regulated parties certify that they received the
hazardous waste or sent it offsite?
Mr. Bond. Let's see. The digital signature would authorize
and authenticate at both ends of the process, just as is done
in millions of financial transactions every day. There are
different technologies for and levels of encryption for that so
that it is secure and done in an electronic method so that it
is instantaneous.
Senator Jeffords. Thank you.
Mr. Bond. Yes, thank you.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Senator Jeffords.
I just want to point out that I have a copy here of what is
a paper manifest which seems to me that, for the number of
transactions and the number of times each company like Safety-
Kleen and others around the country have to keep track of this,
at a cost of almost a $\1/2\billion annually, that in light of
the technology that we have today, a paper-driven system really
is kind of a dinosaur. I think it really is time that we
transition effectively to an electronic system.
I appreciate very much the testimony of this panel, as well
as the one before in terms of some of the parameters about
proceeding with that. We are obviously open to suggestions on
improvement in the bill, but we think the bill provides a great
starting point. Hopefully before it is all said and done, we
will be able to move it forward and get it passed.
We will keep the record open for at least a week for any
additional comments that anyone would like to include for the
record, but this will serve as the public record with respect
to the bill. Hopefully, as I said, this is something that it
seems to me at least in terms of issues that we deal with here
in the Congress, which in many cases have a great deal of
controversy, this seems to be fairly noncontroversial. If we
can come up with a way of moving it fairly quickly through here
and getting this process up and going, I think the sooner the
better.
So thank you all very much for your testimony. Senator
Jeffords, congratulations again and thank you for your very
distinguished service on this committee and advocacy on the
issues that come before it.
With that, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:38 a.m. the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow.]
Statement of Hon. Frank R. Lautenberg, U.S. Senator from the
State of New Jersey
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding today's hearing on S. 3871, a
way to electronically track hazardous waste as we move it--and safely
get rid of it--across the country. S. 3871 would create a virtual
manifest to track the hazardous waste we relocate and discard of across
America. Coming from the computer world, I see the economy,
transparency and power in that idea. Electronic manifests could make
our paper-based system more secure, accurate and accessible to the
public. But as we move our hazmat tracking into the modern age, we must
make sure that age-old problems with data do not plague us.
First, data needs protection. Virtual records--even more so than
paper ones--can be lost. Second, people need access to data. First
responders need it quickly and reliably--and people with and without
computers also need it equally. Third, good data can prevent bad
accidents from taking place. One reason we track hazardous waste from
its cradle to its grave is to prevent the birth of new Superfund sites.
The Nation already has 1,200--more than 110 in New Jersey alone.
Neither New Jersey nor our Nation needs more. If we know more about the
whereabouts of our waste, the less chance they have of causing us or
our environment harm. I hope today's witnesses will address these
concerns and recommend changes to strengthen the bill before us.
Now, let me make two more comments on Superfund. This week--after
requests from myself and others--the Ringwood Mines Superfund site in
New Jersey was added back to the National Priorities List. I appreciate
the EPA's action and hope it will ensure that the site is cleaned
quickly to protect Ringwood's residents from toxic pollutants.
In September, the Chairman and Ranking Member of our subcommittee
urged the EPA Administrator to develop a plan to deal with Superfund
sites where men, women and children are exposed to uncontrolled
contaminants. New Jersey has 14 of these sites. Let me thank Senators
Thune and Boxer for their support, and urge the EPA to make the
uncontrolled exposure sites a top priority.
__________
Statement of Susan Parker Bondine, Assistant Administrator, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am Susan
Parker Bodine, Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. I am pleased to be here today to discuss
tracking hazardous waste shipments under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). In particular, I will focus my remarks on the
efforts underway at EPA to establish a national electronic manifest
system, or e-Manifest, to track hazardous waste shipments more
effectively and efficiently.
I will summarize EPA's current authority to track hazardous waste
shipments under RCRA, and the paper-based manifest system that EPA and
the Department of Transportation (DOT) established more than 25 years
ago. In addition, I will describe EPA's ongoing efforts to revise and
modernize the manifest system, including the effort underway to
transition the manifest system from one that is very paper-intensive
and burdensome to a system that will rely on information technology to
track waste shipments. Finally, I will discuss the new statutory
authorities that EPA will need in order to establish a national e-
Manifest system that will meet our needs and the needs identified by
our stakeholders.
EPA supports Chairman Thune's efforts and I look forward to working
with the committee to address any issues that may arise as the bill
moves through the legislative process.
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL AND THE RCRA MANIFEST SYSTEM
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
establishes the statutory framework for the regulation of hazardous
wastes. Pursuant to this, EPA has developed a comprehensive regulatory
system prescribing ``cradle-to-grave'' controls on the generation,
transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. As a
threshold level of protection, Subtitle C of RCRA required that EPA
establish a manifest system to ensure that hazardous wastes are
designated for, and indeed arrive at, designated hazardous waste
management facilities. The manifest requirement was the congressional
answer to episodes of ``midnight dumping'' in the hazardous waste
transportation and management industries.
The manifest effectuates the very important function in our
``cradle-to-grave'' waste management system of documenting that the
hazardous waste shipments that originate at a specific ``cradle'' or
generator site arrive intact at the selected ``grave'' or waste
management facility. The manifest collects information about the
quantity, composition, origin, and destination of all hazardous waste
shipments. The manifest also documents the actual chain of custody for
a waste shipment, by recording in turn the signatures of the generator,
the transporters, and the receiving facility responsible for handling
the waste.
Under Section 3003(b) of RCRA, EPA is required to coordinate our
waste transportation regulations with the Department of Transportation
(DOT). This requirement exists in order to minimize duplication and
ensure consistency between RCRA's hazardous waste transportation
requirements and DOT's hazardous materials regulations. EPA's
coordination with DOT has resulted in completing a hazardous waste
manifest that assures compliance with DOT's requirements for completing
a hazardous materials shipping paper.
The manifest system stems from the so-called Uniform Manifest that
EPA and DOT issued jointly in 1984. The Uniform Manifest is a multi-
copy form that generators of hazardous waste must complete before
hazardous wastes can be shipped off-site. There are minimal Federal
requirements that apply to all manifests. First, the generator is
responsible for entering information that describes its wastes and that
identifies the transporters and the waste management facility that will
receive the waste. The manifest form is then physically carried with
the waste shipment, and with each change of custody that occurs during
transportation, a signature is obtained from the waste handler
receiving custody. Each waste handler that signs the manifest must also
retain a signed copy of the form among its company records to document
its compliance. Finally, when the waste arrives at the designated waste
management facility, that facility must sign the manifest and either
verify that all the hazardous waste types and quantities were received,
or identify any discrepancies. This final copy verifying receipts must
then be sent to the generator, so that the generator receives
confirmation of receipt by the designated facility.
Authorized State programs may require the submission of one or more
manifest copies so that the data may be entered into the States'
tracking systems. There are currently 24 such States that collect
manifest copies, and these States use manifest data for program
management, revenue collection, and enforcement purposes. The States
that collect manifest copies generally must enter the data manually
into their tracking systems. All the manual processing steps described
above add up to a very significant paperwork burden. We estimate that
each year, hazardous waste generators prepare 2.4 to 5.1 million
manifest forms, and that the completion and processing of all these
forms results in an annual paperwork burden of between $200 million and
$500 million.
BENEFITS OF AN E-MANIFEST SYSTEM
EPA believes there are very significant benefits of an e-Manifest
system--both cost savings and program efficiencies for the regulated
community and regulators.
One benefit of moving to an e-Manifest system is the cost savings
that will result to manifest users and to the State agencies that
collect manifests and process their data. When EPA began analyzing the
business case for e-Manifest several years ago, we projected that an e-
Manifest system that handled 75 percent of the current manifest traffic
electronically could result in annual net savings of approximately $100
million to users and to State agencies. Again, these substantial cost
savings result primarily from eliminating all of the manual processing
steps that are necessary to support the completion, carrying, signing,
filing, and mailing of paper manifests and data.
However, a variety of other significant benefits also would be
realized that are equally important, if not more important, to the
hazardous waste program. An e-Manifest system would improve the overall
effectiveness of the national hazardous waste tracking system and thus,
provide increased protection to human health and the environment. I
would like to highlight a few of these benefits.
First, we would expect that the e-Manifest would produce better
quality data and more timely information on waste shipments. The e-
Manifest could be developed with automatic quality checks that would
identify data entry errors, and we would likely avoid many of the data
interpretation errors that result currently from illegible handwritten
entries or from illegible copies.
Second, the e-Manifest system would make it possible to have nearly
real-time tracking capabilities for waste shipments. Users could check
the status of shipments as needed, and would no longer need to wait 30
days or more for paper copies to be mailed and processed before they
could determine if their hazardous waste shipments have been delivered.
This electronic tracking capability would also provide much more rapid
notification of any discrepancies, delays, or other problems connected
with a particular shipment.
Third, users could rely on the national e-Manifest system as their
single point of contact for both their Federal and State-required
manifest data reporting. Since all States would be linked to the e-
Manifest network, the submission of one e-Manifest to the national
system also would supply necessary copies to all appropriate State
programs. Thus, there would be one-stop reporting of manifest data.
Fourth, the e-Manifest system, with its ability to provide a single
point of contact for transmitting and storing manifests, also would
support enhanced inspection and enforcement capabilities. Federal or
State regulators conceivably could inspect a facility's manifests and
shipment data quite readily without having to go on-site for a labor-
intensive inspection of paper records. Regulatory program management
also would benefit by having access to manifest data that can be
imported easily into a Federal or State Agency's tracking system,
without having to re-enter data from paper forms.
Finally, the full implementation of e-Manifest could foster new
data management possibilities, such as simplification or consolidation
of existing requirements and systems for biennial reporting of
hazardous waste data, for reporting of hazardous waste export and
import data, and possible consolidation or streamlining of duplicative
Federal and State tracking systems.
MANIFEST PROGRAM REVISIONS
Over the years, EPA has sought to improve the current manifest
system. In May 2001, EPA proposed significant revisions to the manifest
system. These proposed changes were motivated by EPA's desire to reduce
the substantial paperwork burden that resulted under the 1984 Uniform
Manifest requirements, as well as to enhance the effectiveness of the
manifest as a means to track hazardous waste shipments. A key
shortcoming of the 1984 Uniform Manifest was that it was not truly
uniform. The Uniform Manifest included 11 ``optional'' data fields that
authorized States could elect to incorporate into their State-specific
manifest forms. Some 24 States in fact printed and distributed their
distinct manifest forms, and generators were required to obtain the
forms from either the State to which they shipped their waste, or from
the State where the waste was generated. Thus, rather than having a
truly ``uniform'' manifest, we instead had a system that featured many
distinct manifest forms, which varied from State to State.
Therefore, the May 2001 proposed Manifest Revisions Rule included
two distinct components: (1) proposed form revisions aimed at fully
standardizing the manifest form; and (2) proposed electronic
manifesting standards aimed at automating the exchange of manifest data
and eliminating, as far as possible, the manual processes involved with
using paper forms. The proposed form revisions met with strong support
from public commenters, and a final rule announcing a fully
standardized hazardous waste manifest was published in March 2004. The
new standardized manifest form just went into effect on September 5 of
this year. Now, everyone is using the same manifest form, and the
optional fields that resulted in variability among manifest forms have
been eliminated. This standardized manifest form also is an important
first step in the establishment of an electronic manifest, since an
electronic manifest would not be feasible to implement without a
standardized format for the exchange of manifest data.
While EPA enjoyed success with standardizing the paper manifest
form, the electronic manifesting standards proposed in May 2001
generated a number of concerns from public commenters. The 2001
proposal suggested a decentralized approach to electronic manifesting,
under which EPA would issue standards to govern the development of
manifest systems by various private sector entities. Public commenters
suggested that EPA's proposed decentralized approach was not cost-
effective, as it would likely result in inconsistent proprietary
systems being developed that could not communicate with each other nor
provide the necessary data security. These comments expressed a strong
preference for an alternative e-Manifest approach that featured one
consistent, centralized and secure system for completing and
transmitting electronic manifests.
As a result of these comment, EPA engaged in additional analysis of
options and outreach with stakeholders before deciding on the future
direction of the e-Manifest project. Therefore, in May 2004, EPA
conducted a national stakeholders meeting to have a broader discussion
of system alternatives, policy and technical issues, and funding
options. Based on that input and feedback, and based on other
discussions with interested parties since May 2004, the Agency has been
exploring how it could develop and fund an e-Manifest system that would
be centralized, secure, and sustainable, so that the regulators and
users might realize the many benefits that are possible under an
electronic system.
A SUSTAINABLE E-MANIFEST
EPA is convinced that a fee-based, centralized e-Manifest system
has the greatest likelihood of succeeding. Because the manifest users
would actually enjoy the greater part of the benefits and cost savings
that would result from using the e-Manifest, it seems fitting to the
Agency and to the users themselves that the manifest users should fund
the system development and operation costs. In addition, EPA already
has the capability to host the e-Manifest system on the Agency's
electronic reporting architecture known as the Central Data Exchange or
CDX. Using EPA's CDX electronic reporting hub would ensure the legal
validity and integrity of any e-Manifest records that would be
transmitted. Further, this EPA system already has established links to
networks operated by EPA and the States as part of the Environmental
Information Exchange Network.
In early 2005, EPA sought to fund the development of the e-Manifest
system under the Electronic Government Act of 2002 which authorized, on
a pilot basis, a new contracting approach for Federal information
technology (IT) projects. The General Services Administration (GSA) was
authorized to manage the program, and we worked closely with GSA to
formulate a project plan and a procurement action for developing e-
Manifest. Unfortunately, we were not able to complete the e-Manifest
procurement activity before the expiration of the pilot authority in
September 2005. EPA's final e-Manifest rule was not yet completed and
issues remained about the legal sufficiency of the E-Gov Act provisions
as a basis for EPA collecting and retaining user fees.
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
EPA's efforts in 2005 to initiate a fee-funded e-Manifest
procurement under the pilot program helped us better understand what
authorities were needed to pursue such an approach. First, legislation
should authorize EPA to collect, retain, and use the fees collected to
pay the costs associated with the development, operation, support,
management, and future upgrade or enhancement of the e-Manifest system.
This authorization should explicitly provide that the monies collected
as user fees are available to EPA to use for the payment of e-Manifest
system costs, without fiscal year limitation. Second, legislation
should contain contracting provisions for e-Manifest that would
authorize a performance-based contracting approach similar to the pilot
program approach that was authorized in the Electronic Government Act
of 2002. This would enable EPA and the IT vendor to enter into a
procurement relationship under which the vendor would develop and
operate a system meeting EPA's performance objectives.
Third, legislation should include provisions that will ensure that
the e-Manifest system and the authorizing regulations developed by EPA
could be implemented in all States. The e-Manifest can be successful as
a cost savings project for users and a profitable venture for vendors
only if it is assured that the e-Manifest will be implemented
consistently in the States. The e-Manifest will not be successful if
some States choose not to recognize the validity of electronic
manifests, or if some States require a paper manifest to be completed
in addition to an e-Manifest. Similarly, EPA believes that the e-
Manifest should be effective in all States as a Federal requirement on
the effective date designated in the authorizing regulation.
Thereafter, as authorized State programs revise their regulations
to adopt e-Manifest and become authorized for this program
modification, the e-Manifest would become effective as well under State
law. However, to avoid confusion for users, and to assure that the IT
vendor developing e-Manifest has a stable market, we need to be sure
that e-Manifest will be effective as a Federal requirement on the same
date in all States.
CONCLUSION
In summary, EPA supports the enactment of legislation that would
allow EPA to establish a national e-Manifest system. We believe that
such an electronic system can produce better tracking services for our
citizens, better data for informed policy decisions and program
management, greater accountability for how hazardous wastes are
transported and managed, and provide cost savings to both the e-
Manifest users and regulators. EPA looks forward to working with
Congress to develop legislation which would provide EPA with the
appropriate authorities to help us accomplish these goals and to
provide for the development of an efficient, effective e-Manifest
system.
______
Responses by Susan Parker Bodine to Additional Questions from
Senator Jeffords
Question 1. Questions regarding the Solvent-Contaminated Industrial
Wipes Proposed Rule (68 FR 65586) What is the status of the rule?
Response. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register
for notice and comment on November 20, 2003 (68 FR 65586). The comment
period closed in April 2004.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received numerous
comments both supporting and raising issues with the proposed rule. In
particular, EPA received a number of comments about the risk assessment
supporting the proposal. To respond to these comments, EPA believes it
is necessary to revise the risk assessment. We plan to publish a
``Notice of Data Availability'' (NODA) requesting review and comment on
the revised risk assessment once it is completed. We continue to work
on those issues not directly affected by the risk assessment so that we
can complete the final rule as quickly as possible after receiving
comments on the risk assessment.
Question 2. Under the rule, what are the conditions for excluding
solvent contaminated reusable wipes from the definition of solid waste
under RCRA? What are the conditions for excluding solvent contaminated
disposable wipes from the definition of hazardous waste under RCRA?
Response. EPA is currently revising the risk assessment, and plans
to make it available for comment before publishing a final rule.
Therefore, it would be premature to speculate what conditions will be
in the final rule as EPA is continuing to work through the process to
finalize the conditions. EPA will thoroughly consider the numerous
comments received both supporting and raising issues on the proposed
rule as the final rule is promulgated.
The proposed rule contained the following conditions for reusable
wipes:
accumulate, store, and manage the wipes on-site in
covered, nonleaking containers;
transport the wipes off-site in containers that are
designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment;
and
containers of wipes sent to a laundry must not contain
free liquids.
The proposed rule contained the following conditions for disposable
wipes:
accumulate, store, and manage the wipes on-site in
covered, nonleaking containers;
transport the wipes off-site in containers that are
designed, constructed, and managed to minimize loss to the environment;
transport the wipes in containers labeled ``Exempt
Solvent-Contaminated Wipes.''
ensure that the wipes transported to a municipal waste
landfill or other nonhazardous waste landfill contain less than 5 grams
of solvent each, or been treated by solvent extraction; and
the disposable wipes must not contain 11 solvents
identified in the risk assessment for posing a risk or identified as a
Toxicity Characteristic solvent.
Question 3. How will the EPA and the States ensure that the
conditions for both exclusions will be met?
Response. EPA and States authorized to implement the hazardous
wastes regulations have the authority to take enforcement action if
persons managing the wipes fail to comply with one or more of the
conditions of the exclusion. Both EPA and the authorized States have a
range of enforcement mechanisms available to respond to violations of
the hazardous waste regulations. Please refer to the preamble of the
proposed rule for a more detailed discussion on enforcement (See 68 FR
65607).
Question 4. Will the rule provide any requirements that will
protect workers handling these solvent contaminated wipes?
Response. As noted previously, it would be premature to speculate
what conditions will be in the final rule. While the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration is the Agency primarily responsible
for worker protection, the proposed rule included conditions such as
the requirement that wipes be stored in nonleaking covered containers,
which would increase worker protection.
Question 5. Regarding laundry facilities that clean solvent
contaminated wipes for reuse, does the EPA's risk analysis for this
rule consider increased solvent discharges in wastewater? If not,
please explain why. Will the rule prohibit solvents from entering the
wastewater stream?
Response. As noted previously, EPA continues to evaluate comments
received on the solvent-contaminated industrial wipes proposal and the
proposed risk assessment. EPA is currently revising the proposed risk
assessment, and plans to make the revised risk assessment available for
comment before publishing a final rule. EPA considered promulgating
standards for industrial laundries under the Clean Water Act in the
late 1990s, but chose not to do so. The proposed solvent-contaminated
industrial wipes rule included conditions that were designed to
minimize the quantity of solvent received on wipes at laundries. For
example, the proposal included a ``no free liquids'' standard for
wipes, and also requested comment on other approaches for minimizing
solvent on wipes. Thus, the proposed rule should lead to reductions in
solvents discharged by laundries.
______
Responses by Susan Parker Bodine to Additional Questions from
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1a. Some States that support the concept of e-Manifests
want to ensure that their use will be voluntary, and serve as a
supplement, not a substitute for paper manifests. What is EPA's
position on whether e-Manifests should supplement, rather than replace
paper manifests?
Response. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes
that to implement the e-Manifest system nationally, it must be
effective in all States. Thus, if a member of the regulated community
elects to use an electronic manifest, then that electronic manifest
would replace the paper manifest for purposes of compliance with RCRA
requirements. However, the e-Manifest will not eliminate the need for a
paper document entirely, because the e-Manifest will not change the
U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) shipping paper requirements--
notably the requirement that a paper copy of a shipping paper be
carried on the transport vehicle. This DOT requirement, however, could
be satisfied by using the e-Manifest system to print a paper document
for the transporter to carry on the transport vehicle.
Question 1b. Should the use of the e-Manifest system be voluntary?
Response. EPA's regulatory workgroup will address the issue of
whether the e-Manifest should be mandatory or optional in the final
regulations that EPA will publish for e-Manifest. EPA has, in previous
statements indicated that the e-Manifest would likely be optional for
users. We also asked the public about this issue in an April 18, 2006,
Notice of Data Availability. Comments generally supported making the e-
Manifest an optional system, at least initially.
If EPA found that there were substantial benefits to other
reporting requirements (e.g., biennial report), we might want to
consider making e-Manifest mandatory for at least some classes of waste
handlers, such as large quantity generators (LQGs) and/or treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs). It should be noted that the
definition of ``use?'' in S. 3871 suggests that the e-Manifest will be
used at the election of the users.
Question 1c. How will the system work if some of the parties in the
chain of custody of the waste are using a paper manifest system and
others are using an e-Manifest system?
Response. EPA recognizes that there may be times when an electronic
manifest cannot be passed to all the waste handlers involved in a waste
shipment. Fundamentally, however, a TSDF must be able to receive and
process electronic manifests, and either the generator or transporter
should also have the capability to create or transmit an electronic
manifest in order for the transaction to be initiated electronically.
EPA's regulatory workgroup will address how the system will work if one
or more of the parties in the chain of custody of the waste are unable
to use the e-Manifest system.
Question 2a. Does EPA have a firm estimate of the numbers of
generators, transporters, and treatment and disposal operators that
currently have to comply with the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) manifest requirements?
Response. EPA currently estimates that there are approximately
131,600 generators, 358 transporters, and 569 TSDFs that use the
hazardous waste manifest as part of the RCRA program.
Question 2b. Does EPA know how many of those parties have the
computers and other tools needed to participate in an e-Manifest
program?
Response. While EPA does not have specific estimates of how many
parties would have access to computers and other tools, it is expected
that most hazardous waste generators have office desktop PCs with
Internet capabilities. The e-Manifest will be designed so that
hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs can access the
system through their Internet-enabled once desktop PCs or other
portable devices. Further, we understand that some TSDF and transporter
companies are already introducing portable devices and computer
applications to their generator customers. We expect this will also be
the ease with e-Manifest, so that many generators will not need to have
their own computer equipment to participate in the e-Manifest system.
Question 3a. Does EPA have an estimate of what it would cost to
fully implement an e-Manifest system?
Response. On April 18, 2006, EPA published a Notice of data
availability (NODA) and request for comment. EPA outlined the range of
cost estimates based on a 2002 benefit-cost analysis conducted by
Logistics Management Institute, Inc. (LMI) which is an expansion of
LMI's October 2000 initial benefit-cost study in support of our May 22,
2001 proposed rule for the e-Manifest. The 2002 study estimates start-
up costs for an e-Manifest system from $2.0 million to $7.0 million in
the initial year, plus $0.8 million to $3.2 million per year for future
annual operation and maintenance (O&M). In addition to this system
cost, industrial facilities are expected to spend upwards of $60.2
million to $68.8 million, and State governments upwards of $2.3 million
to $3.1 million, in start-up costs for modifying existing IT systems to
process e-Manifests (assuming 100 percent participation in the
centralized e-Manifest system). Industrial facilities and State
governments also may spend upwards of $32.2 million to $37.0 million in
annual future costs for apportionment of a fraction of existing
business IT system costs for e-manifesting purposes. However, the
expected average annual reduction in paperwork burden for handling the
current paper manifest forms that e-Manifest will provide industrial
facilities and State governments is expected to offset these costs by a
net annual savings exceeding $103 million per year.
Question 3b. Does EPA envision treating States as ``users'' for
purposes of collecting a user fee to pay for the system?
Response. No. Several States commented on the April 2006 Notice of
Data Availability and nearly all of these asked the question as to
whether States would be considered ``users'' of the e-Manifest and
therefore, subject to paying user fees when they accessed information
from the system. EPA has since indicated to States that the term
``users'' refers to members of the regulated community who are required
to use the manifest to track waste shipments, and not to Federal or
State regulators or emergency responders who access the system to
obtain manifests.
Question 4a. Concerns have been raised about the access of
emergency responders to e-Manifest information. How does EPA plan to
address that concern?
Response. As I discussed in a response to a question posed at the
hearing, emergency responders will have access to the manifest
information that they rely upon to discharge their responsibilities.
First, transporters will still be required by DOT to carry a hard copy
of the manifest or other hazardous materials shipping paper on the
transport vehicle during the entire time that a hazardous waste
shipment is in transportation. This requirement is in place to ensure
that emergency responders can access information about the materials
being transported in the event of an accident or other incident
involving the vehicle that would require an emergency response. The
hard copy of the manifest or other shipping paper will contain all of
the appropriate information about the containers and materials that are
involved in the shipment, including the DOT proper shipping name,
hazard class, packing group, container information, and quantity of
each material in the shipment. As this information will be available on
a paper copy that will be accessible from the vehicle, access of the
emergency responders to technology should not be a factor. Second, to
the extent emergency responders need to access the e-Manifest system to
obtain data on hazardous waste shipments, EPA does not intend to
restrict in any way the access of emergency responders to the
electronic data in the system. We discuss this further below in our
answer to Question 5.
Question 4b. Do you think that there is a solution to that problem
besides maintaining both a paper and an e-Manifest system?
Response. Currently, we do not know of a solution that would avoid
the requirement to carry a paper copy of the manifest or shipping
paper, as this is a DOT requirement under its hazardous materials
regulations, or HMRs. DOT believes that it is essential that the
transport vehicle carry a shipping paper that contains information that
is accessible in a readable form to emergency responders who may be
called upon to respond to an incident in remote locations or under
adverse circumstances where technology is not available or operational.
While EPA shares the concern that this will not allow for a completely
paperless system, we believe that the system can be designed and
operated efficiently, and that users will realize substantial savings
and benefits from being able to enter, transmit, receive, and process
their manifest data through the electronic system.
Question 5a. What is the universe of parties that EPA envisions
will have access to e-Manifest data? Will State regulators, enforcement
officials and others have access?
Response. EPA envisions that the entities named on the manifest as
having a role in the shipping, handling, transportation, or management
of the hazardous waste shipment will have access to the e-Manifest
data. Thus, the generator, transporter(s), and the designated TSDF
named on each manifest will be provided access to the manifests, so
that they can track the status of their hazardous waste shipments and
receipts.
In addition, emergency responders and State and Federal regulators
will have access to all manifest information in the system. This means
that State and local police and fire officials, State and Federal
regulators, State and Federal enforcement officials, and all other
emergency responders will have unrestricted access to all the manifest
copies and data that will be accessible from the e-Manifest system.
This access is necessary to afford prompt and appropriate emergency
response, and the necessary police and enforcement oversight of the
hazardous waste and hazardous materials regulations, while providing
Federal and State oversight agencies with data they need to manage
their regulatory programs.
Question 5b. Will there be limits on public access to the data? If
so, what will be the limits, and why?
Response. While EPA intends to provide unrestricted data access to
regulators, enforcement officials, and emergency responders, EPA is
considering the appropriate level of access to other members of the
public. EPA has been advised by several parties that there are security
and/or commercial concerns over providing immediate and unrestricted
public access to all e-Manifest information. For example, some parties
have advised EPA that there can be security risks posed from immediate
unlimited access to information identifying the whereabouts and
destination of certain high risk (e.g., explosive or highly flammable)
materials, while they are in transportation. Further, members of the
hazardous waste management industry have advised us that they are
concerned that competitors might access manifest data to develop
customer list information that could be used for competitive purposes.
EPA has not yet determined the appropriate level of access. EPA
will consider this to be a regulatory issue that will be worked out by
EPA and State participants as part of the regulatory workgroup process.
If limits are imposed, they will be developed with the purpose of
protecting the security or commercial interests that would be adversely
affected by public disclosure.
Question 5c. In New Jesey, as well as other States, manifest data
is public and is not treated as confidential business information
(CBI). If EPA intends to classify manifest information as CBI, please
explain the Agency's reasoning for doing so.
Response. EPA is aware that New Jersey and several other States do
not treat manifest data as CBI. These States may do this, as they
operate under their own statutes and regulations that address the
availability of information. States generally do not need to have the
same protections in place for CBI that EPA administers under Federal
law for CBI. EPA is required to implement the Federal Trade Secrets
Act, the Federal Freedom of Information Act, and the statutory
protections included in RCRA for confidential business information. If
EPA were to determine that manifest data submitted to EPA through the
national e-Manifest system may be claimed to be CBI, it would be the
result of applying Federal law addressing CBI to the facts and
circumstances of manifest submissions, and whether the release of
certain manifest data which might be claimed CBI could harm the
competitive position of the claimant. Again, EPA intends to examine
this issue as part of the regulatory process when we develop the final
regulations on e-Manifest.
__________
Statement of Cheryl T. Coleman, Director, Division of Compliance and
Enforcement, South Carolina Bureau of Land and Waste Management
Good Morning Chairman Thune, ranking member Boxer and Members of
the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. I thank the
committee for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the
addition of electronic hazardous waste manifests to the existing paper
hazardous waste manifest system.
I am the director of the Division of Compliance and Enforcement in
the Bureau of Land and Waste Management at the South Carolina
Department of Health and Environmental Control. The Division of
Compliance and Enforcement is responsible for ensuring conformance with
applicable regulations for management of hazardous, solid, infectious
and radiological waste, as well as mining and reclamation, underground
storage tank and Superfund activities in the State. Activities
associated with these responsibilities include inspections of
generators, transporters and treatment, storage and/or disposal
facilities. Additionally, I serve as co-chairperson of the Hazardous
Waste Subcommittee and chairperson of the Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Task Force for the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO).
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), passed by
Congress on October 21, 1976 established authority for EPA to develop a
preventive system to control the growing volume of municipal and
industrial waste through national goals designed to protect human
health and the environment from potential hazards of these wastes;
conserve energy and natural resources; reduce the volume of these
wastes and ensure the wastes are managed in an environmentally sound
manner. The hazardous waste program, managed under RCRA Subtitle C is a
cradle to grave system designed to ensure appropriate management of
these wastes from generation to disposal.
The hazardous waste manifest is an essential tool for monitoring
and tracking hazardous waste from the time the waste leaves the
generator facility where it was produced until it is delivered to the
destination facility for storage, treatment and/or disposal. Both the
Department of Transportation and EPA require the manifest. Each entity
handling the waste as it is transported to its destination is required
to sign and retain a copy of the manifest. This results in
accountability and responsibility for all involved in the disposal
process. Once the destination facility receives the waste, a signed
copy of the manifest is returned to the generator, thus confirming
proper delivery of the entire shipment.
EPA enables States to assume primary responsibility for
implementing the RCRA hazardous waste program; and as such, most States
have requested and received authorization for the core elements of the
RCRA program. As an authorized State, South Carolina applauds the
inclusion of electronic reporting of hazardous waste activities in the
hazardous waste manifest system and fully supports this initial step in
that process.
S. 3871 primarily focuses on the design of a system and does not
identify a role for States other than membership on the proposed
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest System Governing Board and the
requirements for development of the regulations. As a supporter of the
concept, South Carolina offers the following comments:
(1) S. 3871 should clearly state that participation in the
electronic manifest reporting process is voluntary. Companies may be
unable to submit this information electronically due to limitations
with funding and technology.
(2) The definition of the term ``user'' should be clarified. The
current definition could be interpreted to mean that use of the
electronic manifest process is mandatory even though paragraph B
indicates participation is voluntary. In addition, States accessing the
information as part of the regulatory process could be considered
``users'' of the system and incur fees.
(3) The system should be designed in a manner that is inclusive of
existing State regulatory programs and current manifest procedures and
not require additional State financial resources.
(4) It is unclear if potential users will incur fees during the
development stages.
(5) Paragraph (g) (B)(2)--Effective Date of Regulations states that
regulations promulgated by the Administrator relating to electronic
manifesting of hazardous waste shall take effect in each State as of
the effective date specified in the regulation. States authorized to
implement the RCRA program in lieu of EPA have State specific statutory
requirements for promulgating regulations that may be inconsistent with
the timeframe established in this paragraph. We respectfully request
that this wording be modified to recognize State requirements for
promulgation of regulations.
(6) S. 3871 does not address the importance of the manifest in the
transportation phase for wastes sent for treatment, storage and/or
disposal. Specifically, the bill does not identify how inspectors and/
or emergency response personnel will be able to access electronic
manifests to identify wastes in transit. This information is vital,
particularly in the event of an emergency.
For example, there have been several incidents where emergency
personnel responded to a spill of hazardous waste and the transport
vehicle driver's English proficiency was limited. The absence of a
paper manifest could have delayed or resulted in inappropriate response
activities as it includes information needed for appropriate response
activities.
(7) Electronic manifests would facilitate pre-inspection activities
for State regulators. Because South Carolina, like many other States,
does not receive copies of manifests, access to this information prior
to the actual inspection would greatly enhance the inspection process.
(8) The regulations should not inhibit public access to the
information.
In conclusion, we recognize that paragraphs five through eight can
and should be more thoroughly addressed during the promulgation of
regulations stage of this process. We wish to take this opportunity to
emphasize the importance of including State representatives and
strongly encourage the committee to include steps to ensure that States
are active participants in subsequent phases of regulation development.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share this information with
you this morning.
__________
Statement of Frederick J. Florjancic, Jr., CEO and President,
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Boxer and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting Safety-Kleen to testify on S. 3871, the
``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act.''
My name is Fred Florjancic, Jr., and I am CEO and President of
Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc., which is a major environmental services
provider throughout the United States, Canada and Puerto Rico, and we
are now expanding into Mexico, as well. We employ more than 4,500
people in North America at more than 200 locations, of which
approximately 4,100 people at 190 locations are in the U.S., and we
provide more than 400,000 customers of all sizes, including
approximately 440 of the Fortune 500, with safe, compliant recycling
and environmental services.
I am also proud to note that Safety-Kleen is the leading re-refiner
of used oil in North America, collecting more than 200 million gallons
of waste oil every year and re-refining it back into high-quality oil
and other products that extend the life of this precious resource.
Safety-Kleen also collects approximately 300 million gallons annually
of hazardous waste in North America.
I am particularly pleased to be here today in support of S. 3781,
which was recently introduced by Subcommittee Chairman Thune and
Senator Jeffords, and co-sponsored by Committee Chairman Inhofe. This
is an important piece of legislation for our country, for our industry
and for Safety-Kleen. We strongly support S. 3781, and compliment the
Subcommittee and full Committee Chairmen, and Senator Jeffords, for
your hard work and leadership in addressing this issue and crafting an
extremely positive bill that we believe can dramatically improve the
present hazardous waste manifest system.
I am comfortable expressing our support because, at Safety-Kleen,
we know manifests. Because Safety-Kleen serves so many different types
and sizes of customers, we believe Safety-Kleen is the nation's largest
individual user of the current, paper-based waste tracking system. For
example, this year Safety-Kleen will use between 600,000 and 700,000
paper manifests, and just today we will generate more than 2,400
manifests for our customers to complete. During my testimony here, we
will issue 25 manifests for customers to complete for waste shipments
taking place somewhere in the US. Needless to say, this proposed
legislation could have a significant, and we believe positive, impact
on Safety-Kleen, our customers and the State regulatory agencies who
play a key role in implementing the manifest system.
The current requirement to use a manifest has existed for more than
25 years. Manifests are a key element of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, known as RCRA, which was adopted in 1976. The purpose of
the manifest system was to help eliminate a significant problem at that
time--what was then known as ``orphaned waste''--waste that could not
be traced back to its origins and, as such, became a burden on the
American taxpayer. Since 1980, RCRA has required that a manifest
accompany all shipments of hazardous wastes, and that has brought
order, discipline and accountability to our national hazardous waste
management system.
Manifests contain two key types of information--first, what a waste
shipment is comprised of so that, in the event of an emergency, first
responders know what materials they are managing. Second, the manifest
identifies who shipped the waste, who is transporting the waste and
where it is ultimately headed, so that it can be tracked every step of
the way to ensure its proper disposition.
The waste manifest tracking system is clearly a key element in
avoiding past problems associated with improper waste handling and
disposal, but the question today is, ``Can we do a better job?'' I
believe the answer is yes, and that S. 3871 provides a solid framework
for moving in that direction.
Our current, paper-based manifest system places an enormous
paperwork burden on regulated companies, customers and State regulatory
agencies. A recent economic analysis prepared by the EPA estimates that
more than 92,000 regulated entities track between two and four million
waste shipments every year.
Keep in mind that each manifest form has six copies, containing up
to 83 fields of information. The current form must filled out by the
customer using a combination of computer-generated and manually
inserted information, then signed in ink, and physically carried with
each waste shipment. Copies, and sometimes multiple copies, have to be
mailed to generators and State agencies, and we have to keep permanent
records at our facilities. For Safety-Kleen, our mailing costs alone
are close to $1 million per year, and the paperwork burden is so
significant for the States that 22 of them no longer even accept paper
copies of manifests.
EPA estimates\1\ that the present paper manifest takes about an
hour for the generator and waste receiver to complete, and that by the
time all of the necessary parties have seen, processed and approved the
document, that increases to 2 hours per document for each end every
hazardous waste shipment that occurs in the United States. EPA also
estimates that the labor costs alone for creating, handling, and
processing the paper manifests are somewhere between $193,000,000 and
$769,000,000 annually. That is a broad a range of estimated costs and,
while Safety-Kleen has not made its own independent estimate of the
labor costs associated with the existing system, we do believe based on
our own experience that the current system is quite labor intensive
and, therefore, costly. We believe that an electronic system could
reduce this time and expense considerably, for all the parties
involved, and result in a system that is more efficient, reliable,
accessible and timely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Eads, Mark, U.S. EPA (Nov. 24, 2004), ``Economic Analysis of
the U.S. EPA's Final Rule Revisions to the RCRA Waste Manifest Form,''
p. 37, 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frankly, we are today using a manifest tracking system that was
developed before the widespread use of desktop computers, information
networks, and fully integrated information technology architectures.
Today's system works, but it is a dinosaur--it does not take advantage
of any of the quality, cost and productivity improvements that
computers allow.
The potential benefits of moving to an electronic manifest, or ``e-
Manifest'', system are significant. For example, an e-Manifest system
would:
Provide States with manifest data in an easily usable,
searchable and storable format;
Allow the regulated community to develop computer-based
manifest systems that would improve data quality;
Streamline transactions for customers; and,
Save tens of millions of dollars every year by reducing
the paperwork burden on States, the EPA and industry.
Additionally, a national e-Manifest system could produce national
security benefits by improving our overall ability to track hazardous
materials. Under the current paper system, it can take weeks to provide
basic verification to generators or regulators that a waste shipment
has been completed, but under an e-Manifest system, such information
could be produced on essentially a real-time basis.
S. 3871 would amend Subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42
U.S.C. 6921, et seq.) by adding a new Section 3024 authorizing a
Hazardous Waste Management System, including specific provisions
relating to the establishment, structure, and management of such a
system. In commenting on specific provisions in the bill, I will refer
to proposed subsections in new Section 3024 of Subtitle C, as would be
created under the bill.
I would note for the committee five specific items with regard to
the system as established under the bill:
1. Safety-Kleen believes that any fee structure established to pay
for an e-manifesting system must be limited to providing funding for
designing and implementing that program specifically and exclusively.
In other words, any fee structure must not become a de facto tax or
fund other programs. I believe subsections (c) and (d) attempt to
address this issue. Specifically, we believe the precise language in
subsection 3024(c)(3) requires the fee to cover only the costs of
operating the e-Manifest system. We believe the language in subsections
(c)(3)(A)(IX) and (e)(4)(C)(ii) should be read narrowly and should not
allow indirect government personnel costs not related to the e-Manifest
system to be passed along as part of the fee structure. Safety-Kleen
also believes the fee structure must result in overall cost savings to
the regulated community. We urge the subcommittee to conduct oversight
in the future to ensure that these savings materialize, or to make such
revisions to the program as may be deemed necessary, including making
the system mandatory after some reasonable phase-in period because only
through a mandatory system will the benefits of the system ultimately
be realized.
2. An e-Manifest system must be cost-effective to the regulated
community and to the government as a whole. We endorse the bill's
proposal to have a qualified IT contractor build the system, and then
receive payment from users on a per-manifest basis. The benefits of
such a system are numerous. For example, using a private contractor
eliminates the need for Federal appropriations. Second, the winning
contractor's risk and profit will depend on the quality of service
provided--it will establish a proper business incentive for solid
performance. Specifically the ``Achievement of Goals'' requirements in
subsection (e)(3) will make this a performance-based contract that will
have the best chance of creating an e-Manifest system that will benefit
all users. And if users are dissatisfied, they can turn back to the
present paper system. The ``Cancellation and Termination'' requirements
in subsection (e)(5) will allow for the termination of the IT
contracts, and therefore the e-Manifest system, if the e-Manifest
system is not used enough to generate sufficient funds.
3. The regulated community--industry--needs to have a place at the
table to provide recommendations to the Administrator on the e-Manifest
system. The new ``Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Governing Board''
established under subsection (f) provides adequately for such
opportunities. Safety-Kleen supports the creation of this Board. In
addition, we fully endorse subsection (f)(2)(B)(ii) that requires at
least one seat on the Board to be allocated to users of the manifest
system.
4. The system must be flexible and scalable to address both today's
manifesting environment and tomorrow's manifesting needs. I believe the
Administrator, when entering into a contract in accordance with
subsection (g), should require the IT contractor to provide for meeting
both current and future needs.
5. An e-Manifest system will provide real-time information
regarding the generation, transportation and final disposition of
wastes, and part of such information may be proprietary to the
generator or hazardous waste disposal facility--that is, it may include
business information that would provide competitors an advantage if
disclosed. It is very important to share e-Manifest information with
necessary governmental agencies throughout the transportation process,
and to be able to do so easily, but it should also be an imperative
that special consideration be given to information designated as
``business confidential'' in order to protect customer/service provider
relationships. This issue should be clearly addressed in the
legislation, and we would be pleased to work with the committee and
staff to develop such language, as appropriate.
In closing, I believe S. 3871 provides a solid foundation for
moving our nation to a 21st century hazardous waste manifest tracking
system. Enactment of this legislation will produce significant
improvements in data quality, real-time tracking capability, costs and
productivity for industry and State regulatory agencies. We will
provide any additional thoughts we might have on this important
legislation to the Committee, and we look forward to working with the
committee and staff to help move this bill forward.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify and I would be
pleased to take any questions that Members of the committee might have.
______
Responses by Frederick J. Florjancic, Jr., to Additional Questions from
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1a. Does Safety-Kleen think the e-Manifest system should
be mandatory, once it is past the pilot phase?
Response. Safety-Kleen believes that the electronic manifest should
be mandatory at some point in the future. We believe the best approach
is to build the system and allow a certain time, say up to 2 years, for
the system to be operated, tested, and improved. After that time, a
formal decision process on whether to make the e-Manifest mandatory,
that includes input from the regulated community, should be conducted.
In our opinion, not making electronic manifests mandatory would reduce
the savings that would be derived from mandatory electronic manifests.
Question 1b. Should the paper manifest system ultimately be
dropped, entirely?
Response. Safety-Kleen believes that if the e-Manifest system is
designed and operated properly there will be no need for the paper
manifest. Our response to the above question addresses this in more
detail.
Question 1c. How would you address the concern raised about access
to e-Manifest data for first responders?
Response. Safety-Kleen wants to make sure that first responders
have quick access to shipment information for their safety and for the
protection of human health and the environment. We believe this
information could be provided through one of two options: (1) The
vehicle is equipped with an electronic device that is portable and
capable of providing the needed information on demand for emergency
responders; or (2) The vehicle transporting the regulated material
carries a paper, DOT approved, Bill of Lading. Either option will
provide the first responders with the needed information to respond to
an emergency.
Question 2. Concerns have been raised about the sufficiency of an
e-Manifest system to back-up and not lose data. Could you address those
concerns?
Response. Safety-Kleen believes that any e-Manifest system must
have redundancy built into it so that the potential failure of one node
would not eliminate vital information from the system. The type of IT
architecture that can accomplish this is standard for critical
applications throughout business and government.
Question 3. In New Jersey, as well as other States, manifest data
is public and is not treated as confidential business information
(CBI). Does Safety-Kleen support keeping manifest information submitted
to EPA public, or classifying it as CBI? If you support classifying
some or all of the manifest information as CBI, please explain what
specific information and why it should be so classified.
Response. It is not Safety-Kleen's intention to exclude manifesting
information from public review or to limit any access to any manifest
information to the regulatory authorities. However, we are concerned
that, if no limitations are placed upon the public availability of such
information,--particularly when such information is available in real
time--competitors will have immediate access to our customer list. All
members of our industry commit significant time and resources to
acquiring, servicing, and maintaining their customers. If competitors
have instant access to that customer information, it could
significantly affect their business. Accordingly, we recommend that
generator information (generator name, address, EPA ID, and phone
number) be maintained as confidential for a period of one year after
the date on which waste is picked up. For security reasons, we also
believe information on certain types of waste being shipped (for
example., mixed wastes and wastes that could be vulnerable to terrorist
threats) should not be publicly available until after the waste reaches
its disposal destination. All information would be immediately
available to first responders and Federal and State regulatory
authorities as well as information that is not deemed confidential or
sensitive. All other information would be released to the public
through a more deliberate process consistent with existing laws and
regulations concerning the release of information to the public.
__________
Statement of Phillip J. Bond, President and CEO on Behalf of the
Information Technology Association of America
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Senators, on behalf of ITAA's 325
corporate members, I'd like to thank you for inviting us to share our
perspective on allowing electronic tracking of hazardous waste. I'd
also like to take this opportunity to thank you for your continued
leadership to amend the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
in order to make such a system possible.
The legislation before the subcommittee today is a creative
approach to solving a problem on behalf of the U.S. taxpayer.
Information technology drives innovation throughout the national and
global economies. Throughout the economy, we see IT streamlining
processes and making them more efficient. We see no reason why IT
cannot streamline this reporting requirement while simultaneously
enhancing our national security.
Our understanding is that EPA requires shippers to include the
Uniform Manifest with hazardous waste shipments for two purposes.
First, that information is needed by emergency responders in the event
of an incident. Second, it allows the government to track every
shipment all the way to the final disposal facility. Both are critical
environmental, as well as national security goals.
Yet in this high-tech age, the paperwork burden from this process
is enormous. In fact, it is the most expensive such burden that the EPA
imposes under the Federal hazardous waste law. Further, EPA's economic
analysis estimates that over 92,000 regulated entities annually track
2.4 million shipments a year.
Each manifest form has seven or eight copies. Each of those copies
must be manually filled out and signed with pen and ink signatures;
physically carried with waste shipments; mailed to generators and State
agencies; and finally, stored among facility records. Finally, some
States charge a fee to help pay the cost of supplying paper forms and
to defray the costs of processing the paper copies and converting the
data into a useful, electronic format. To put it simply, this process
is straight out of the last century--and it is just too costly, too
manpower intensive, too cumbersome and too time consuming.
And, perhaps most importantly, because of the administrative
burden, this information is not getting where it needs to go.
Currently, 22 States and the EPA do not even collect copies. Those
States that do receive copies often simply store them without review.
An e-Manifest system would solve all of these problems and greatly
enhance capability where it currently does not exist. It would help
States--and the public--receive data more readily in a format they can
use. Members of this committee and other national policymakers would
know exponentially more about hazardous waste transportation in this
country than they do today. And it is estimated that it would save over
$100 million every year.
A national e-Manifest would also produce homeland security
benefits. To know the nature of a shipment, its location, and the
parties involved would take minutes or seconds instead of weeks. If a
shipment were diverted for some sinister purpose or if a highly
sensitive shipment were delayed because of mechanical failure or road
or weather conditions, we can know this and be alerted in time to
respond and do something about it.
Authentication is another issue to consider, but it is hardly an
insurmountable problem in the 21st century. Congress itself accepts
digital signatures as a secure way of authenticating electronic
documents. Lobbying reports are required to be submitted on-line and
are authenticated by digital signatures. Electronic signatures are also
now widely accepted throughout the financial, legal and insurance
sectors. And, an electronic process assured through the use of digital
signatures would be more secure, not less secure, than the paper-based
manifest process employed today.
Your proposal is an elegant solution to an ugly problem, and we
commend you for your innovative 21st Century approach. Under this
legislation, the EPA would be authorized to develop requirements and
conduct a competitive bid. Bidding companies would be asked to create--
at their own expense--proposed solutions for an e-Manifest service. The
winning bidder would be paid for their investment through a user fee
established as part of the initiative by EPA.
This procurement could allow industry to make the initial
investment in a solution while providing for a potential premium in
return. The legislation allows private industry to share both risk and
reward. Operational funding, capital costs and EPA administrative costs
for the e-Manifest system would also be generated from the fee. Without
the legislation that you are considering, the fees collected would be
considered Federal revenues and prohibited from such uses. As we
mentioned earlier, fees are already being collected to cover the cost
of the manifest management process today, so we are not creating a new
burden on the shippers or the government entities that must keep track
of these shipments.
Finally, I'd like to note that this legislation upholds the broader
aims of e-Government. It makes a bureaucratic government process more
efficient and enhances security along the way. It makes government
better at what it does for the American people. All in a fiscally
responsible manner. Which, from where I sit today, sounds like good
government of, by and for the people.
Thank you.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7644.008