[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
E-MANIFEST: AN UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 27, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-94
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
____________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-427 WASHINGTON : 2016
_______________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
Chairman
GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman PAUL TONKO, New York
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio LOIS CAPPS, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina officio)
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, opening statement.................................... 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Paul Tonko, a Representative in Congress from the State of
New York, opening statement.................................... 4
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 20
Witnesses
Barnes Johnson, Director, Office of Resource Conservation and
Recovery, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Answers to submitted questions............................... 35
E-MANIFEST: AN UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION
----------
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2015
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Shimkus, Harper, Murphy,
Latta, McKinley, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores, Hudson, Tonko,
Schrader, Green, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Will Batson, Legislative Clerk; Jerry Couri,
Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; A.T. Johnston, Senior
Policy Advisor; David McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and
Economy; Tina Richards, Counsel, Environment; Chris Sarley,
Policy Coordinator, Environment and Economy; Dan Schneider,
Press Secretary; Christine Brennan, Press Secretary; Jacqueline
Cohen, Senior Counsel; Timia Crisp, AAAS Fellow; Rick Kessler,
Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; and
Alexander Ratner, Policy Analyst.
Mr. Shimkus. I am going to call the hearing to order. And
before I recognize myself, I want to mention a few things on
this week's activities and schedule. This is a very busy and
historic week. And full House representatives, as we know, we
also have important work to do in the subcommittee. Today, we
are finally giving our friends of the EPA a chance to provide
their progress report on the e-Manifest program. The Agency has
waited patiently as we have been compelled to postpone today's
hearing twice for scheduling reasons beyond our control. But
today is finally here and we have always planned we will hear
from a single witness and only one panel. As the testimony
submitted has not changed from the first scheduled time for
this hearing, our questions will be pretty much the same as
well.
Tomorrow, we have two activities: a hearing on the
management of low level nuclear waste and a subcommittee mark-
up of the Senate's rural water technical assistance
authorization. The hearing is an important step as we all study
the intricacies of the entire nuclear waste issue. This is
another in a series designed to give members a sound
understanding of all the facts of this challenge so that we are
on solid footing to act legislatively when that time comes.
Finally, at the request of Mr. Pallone, we will give
subcommittee members a chance to vote on the Senate Rural Water
Technical Assistance Bill. This is a bill we had a hearing on
last week in which passed the Senate unanimously. If we can see
clearly to pass it without amendment on a strong bipartisan
basis, we can make it into law. And in doing so, we must thank
subcommittee Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, and our Vice Chair Mr.
Harper, for their leadership in getting us this far on the
rural water technical assistance.
To my knowledge, there is no substantive opposition to the
bill and most, if not all, look forward to helping our
constituents by advancing the bill to the President without
amendment.
I am proud of the subcommittee members. We work hard in the
subcommittee in a bipartisan spirit. We have much work left to
accomplish in this Congress, so I am glad members are willing
to maintain this consistent level of effort to achieve that.
And I just wanted to make sure that we started understanding
that we are pushing it pretty hard on the subcommittee.
So with that, I would like to recognize myself for 5
minutes for an opening statement.
The subcommittee is in order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Shimkus. This morning's hearing focuses our panels on
EPA's implementation of the electronic program to receive,
store, and make publicly available manifests of hazardous
waste. Creation of this system has been something that EPA, the
regulated industry, and environmental advocacy groups have
supported for quite some time as a way of modernizing the
carbon copied, paper clogged system in place.
Three years ago, enthusiasm was high for taking this Solid
Waste Disposal Act requirement into the 21st Century. In
September 2012, Congress came together with solid bipartisan
majorities to permit EPA to collect the fee needed to set up
the system EPA wanted to operate. I think we all believed that
not only would EPA be able to continue tracking hazardous waste
destined for treatment, storage, or disposal; but the new
system provided the collateral benefits of increased
transparency, access to critical information for first
responders, reduced reporting errors, and greater
accountability of waste management.
EPA asked for, and we gave them, 3 years to get the system
up and running. Working through some thorny funding concerns,
we authorized the money to make this happen. There was no
reason to believe the system would not be operational within
that time frame.
That was then.
Three weeks ago, yesterday, marked 3 years from the date of
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Act. Under
the law, EPA was supposed to have moved from the system
creation phase to its actual deployment. But, the system is not
ready for ``prime time.''
Moreover, while EPA has been given $7.4 million to get this
system going--$1.4 million more than Congress authorized
through fiscal year 2015, the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request now calls for another $7.4 million to finish
building the system.
Yet, because the law assumed EPA would have the system
working by now, the law's authorization has expired and its
user fees are unavailable until the electronic manifest system
is working. We all know there isn't spare federal money lying
around and it is an easy disqualifier for further funding if
there is not a current authorization.
If this system is going to survive, it is up to the Agency
to help us get to the bottom of what is going on here and, if
merited, make the case to others that e-Manifest's launch needs
further authorization and more funding. I know EPA hasn't been
sitting on its hands the last 3 years, but we need a full
accounting of what it has been doing and what still needs to be
done. Ultimately, we need to know why it is taking so long, why
it is costing so much, and when, if EPA does get its requested
funding, will this system actually be usable.
I welcome our witness from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Barnes Johnson. I appreciate your coming up here to
share your experience and insight on the Agency's efforts. We
are glad that you are here and hope you will see us as a
partner in trying to make the system run well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. John Shimkus
The Subcommittee will now come to order.
This morning's hearing focuses our panel on EPA's
implementation of an electronic program to receive, store, and
make publicly available manifests of hazardous waste. Creation
of this system has been something that EPA, the regulated
industry, and environmental advocacy groups have supported for
quite some time as a way of modernizing the carbon copied,
paper clogged system in place.
Three years ago, enthusiasm was high for taking this Solid
Waste Disposal Act requirement into the 21st Century
In September 2012 Congress came together with solid
bipartisan majorities to permit EPA to collect the fee needed
to set up the system EPA wanted to operate. I think we all
believed that not only would EPA be able to continue tracking
hazardous waste destined for treatment, storage, or disposal;
but the new system provided the collateral benefits of
increased transparency, access to critical information for
first responders, reduced reporting errors, and greater
accountability of waste management.
EPA asked for, and we gave them, 3 years to get the system
up and running. Working through some thorny funding concerns we
authorized the money to make this happen. There was no reason
to believe the system would not be operational within that time
frame.
That was then.
Three weeks ago, yesterday, marked 3 years from the date of
enactment of the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Act. Under
the law, EPA was supposed to have moved from the system
creation phase to its actual deployment. But, the system is not
ready for ``prime time.''
Moreover, while EPA has been given $7.4 million to get this
system going--$1.4 million more than Congress authorized
through fiscal year 2015, the President's fiscal year 2016
budget request now calls for another $7.4 million to finish
building the system.
Yet, because the law assumed EPA would have the system
working by now, the law's authorization has expired and its
user fees are unavailable until the electronic manifest system
is working. We all know there isn't spare federal money lying
around and it is an easy disqualifier for further funding if
there is not a current authorization.
If this system is going to survive it's up to the Agency to
help us get to the bottom of what is going on here and, if
merited, make the case to others that e-Manifest's launch needs
further authorization and more funding.
I know EPA hasn't been sitting on its hands the last 3
years, but we need a full accounting of what it has been doing
and what still needs to be done. Ultimately, we need to know
why it's taking so long, why it's costing so much, and when, if
EPA does get its requested funding, will this system actually
be usable.
I welcome our witness from the Environmental Protection
Agency, Barnes Johnson. I appreciate you coming up here to
share your experience and insight on the Agency's efforts. We
are glad that you are here and hope you will see as a partner
in trying to make the system run well.
I will now yield 5 minutes to the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for the
purpose of providing an opening statement.
Mr. Shimkus. I will now see if any other member on our side
wants any time. Seeing none, I now yield back my time and yield
to the Ranking Member, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL TONKO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank you
and welcome, Mr. Johnson, for testifying before the committee
this morning. I believe we all agree that an electronic system
for tracking hazardous materials will promote greater safety
and more accurate record keeping and certainly lower costs.
The Agency appears to be moving forward steadily to meet
the requirements of the 2012 legislation and to get the system
up and running. And I look forward to hearing more about the
status of this program. And again, thank you, for your
testimony, Director Johnson.
Since I still have a few minutes I believe I have to
express my disappointment that the subcommittee is holding a
hearing on this topic. There are many more pressing issues that
require our attention, like drinking water infrastructure,
brownfields, environmental justice, emergency environmental
response, chemical security, electronic waste, just to name a
few topics.
We have spoken often enough for you to know that drinking
water infrastructure is at the top of my list. There are
serious threats to drinking water, systems in towns and cities
across our great country. With the exception of the problem in
Toledo, Ohio, we have never held hearings on the problems
related to source water quality, contamination, drought, or
emergency response procedures. Instead, we are spending and
investing our time here examining the e-Manifest program, a
program that I believe is underway, has received adequate
funding to make progress and that it is moving forward at a
steady pace. I wish other programs were doing as well.
I realize this committee had a concern about whether the
appropriators would continue to fund the e-Manifest program
adequately in the next fiscal year. But at this point, it is
clear that we are not going to pass a free standing Interior
Appropriations Bill. That is a benefit, in my view, because the
bill has too many cuts to vital programs and too many bad
policy riders. That bill offered funding far too low to meet
real domestic needs. Lack of adequate funding is an issue for
all programs, not just e-Manifest.
The proposed Interior Appropriations Bill cut more than
$700 million, as compared to this year's funding for EPA. Much
of that comes from the state and tribal assistance grants,
money that goes to the states and to local governments to
ensure that we have clean air and have clean water. The
Appropriations Committee proposed a cut to the Drinking Water
Revolving Loan Fund of some $150 million. That is compared to
this year's funding. It is $429 million lower than the
President's request. This cut stands in stark contrast to
current infrastructure assessments and to what we have heard
from witnesses about the needs of water utilities at the two
hearings we did hold on drinking water technical assistance
programs.
We should be exploring solutions that will help public
water systems that are struggling with the tremendous backlog
of work. Continuing to provide clean, safe, affordable drinking
water to everyone in our nation is essential, essential for
public health for a given purpose and for economic prosperity.
There is very little time left in this first session. There are
challenges common to all of our districts. e-Manifest does not
come close to being on that topic of lists. I hope the
subcommittee will take up some of our other big issues, our
bigger issues that are of concern to all of our constituents.
Working together productively, we can deliver progress on many
issues and create jobs in the process. Members on our side of
the aisle are anxious to do that.
And with that, I again thank you, Director Johnson, for
appearing before the subcommittee today. Thank you for your
work to get the e-Manifest program moving forward and I look
forward to your comments.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Just for
my colleague, you know that e-Manifest is my legislative baby,
don't you? Right?
So I would like to turn now to the vice chairman of the
committee, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Do you have any? OK. Anybody else on the Republican side?
Anyone on the Democrat side? No. Seeing none, we would like to
welcome Mr. Johnson from the EPA here. Your full testimony is
entered in the record. You have 5 minutes, and obviously, we
are not going to be stringent on the time, just we look forward
to hearing you and as we talk about this discussion on the e-
Manifest, welcome, and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BARNES JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESOURCE
CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Johnson. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee. I am Barnes Johnson, Director of the Office of
Resource Conservation and Recovery in the Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. I am pleased to be here today to
discuss our efforts to develop an e-Manifest system. I want to
thank you, Chairman Shimkus, and members of the House Energy
and Commerce Committee, for their successful bipartisan efforts
to help enact e-Manifest legislation.
Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation Recovery Act
requires that EPA establish a manifest system to ensure that
when hazardous waste leaves its point of generation, it arrives
safely at a designated, permitted hazardous waste management
facility. The manual processing steps associated with the
current paper based manifest system add up to a significant
paperwork burden.
As you know, the Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest
Establishment Act was signed into law more than 3 years ago on
October 5, 2012. The Act directs the EPA to establish and
implement an electronic manifest system. There are significant
benefits to an e-Manifest system, both in cost savings and
program efficiencies. EPA's projected e-Manifest system that
handles 75 percent of the current manifest traffic could result
in an annual net savings that exceeded $75 million.
A number of other significant benefits are also expected.
An e-Manifest will produce better quality data and more timely
information on waste shipments, make it possible to have
improved tracking capabilities for waste shipments, and users
will be able to rely on the national electronic system for
manifest data reporting.
The Agency has been moving forward on key actions to
implement the Act. The EPA has developed system architecture
plans that focus on major assets of the e-Manifest system. The
EPA worked extensively with commercial users on identifying and
addressing their issues. The EPA has also met regularly with
our state partner organizations. To realize significant
benefits of an e-Manifest system, a broad range of private and
public sector stakeholders must use it. And to help ensure that
use, a system must meet stakeholder needs.
To accomplish this, the Agency is relying heavily on
available off-the-shelf software modules conducting user-
centered design development and is using agile software
development methodologies. This approach embodies continuous
improvement through iterative development of operating software
and testing and continued, regular engagement with users and
stakeholders throughout the process to provide on-going
opportunities for input.
In September 2015, the EPA, in partnership with GSA,
completed an initial system demonstration. This focused on a
key aspect of the system, the transaction at the end of the
chain of custody when hazardous waste arrives at the designated
waste management facility and that facility signs the
electronic manifest to verify that all hazardous waste types
and quantities were received.
Getting the system to properly, electronically execute this
all important manifest transaction was an important first step
for us. The EPA worked with several industry users to complete
this initial system functionality.
The Agency will add more functionality in an incremental
manner via modular contracting strategy. Research has shown
that using this type of lean start-up methodology with agile
techniques lowers the cost of current and future system
development by addressing uncertainties sooner rather than
later. By spring of 2018, EPA expects to have fully deployed a
working e-Manifest system and to be collecting user fees to pay
operation and maintenance costs.
Besides system development, the Agency has also made
progress developing regulations to support the new program. The
EPA published a final regulation in February of 2014 authorized
electronic manifests and we are working towards a proposed user
fee regulation that is quite far along.
In addition, the e-Manifest Advisory Board was established
in August when EPA submitted a charter to Congress. The EPA
appreciates the support of Congress in enacting legislation to
authorize development in an electronic waste management system
and looks forward to continued support to allow for further
development, completion of a hazardous waste e-Manifest system.
We are committed to keeping Congress informed of our progress.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared statement. I will
be happy to answer any questions that you or the subcommittee
members may have about EPA's development of an e-Manifest
system.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. I am going to recognize
myself for 5 minutes for the first starting of the questions.
Before I do that, let me ask unanimous consent that members of
the subcommittee have five legislative days to submit opening
statements for the record. Without objection, so ordered.
To date, $7.4 million has been appropriated for
implementation and set up of e-Manifest. This number is $1.4
million more than the legislation authorized and the President
requested in his budget.
Can you tell us how much the Agency expended on the e-
Manifest IT system and development so far from the fiscal year
2014 and the fiscal year 2015?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. So we have spent $2.5 million of the
$7.4 on system development activities. We have spent another
$1.4 on other non-system related e-Manifest activities like
regulatory development, establishment of a FACA and so on. And
we have $3.5 million that remains unspent.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. EPA's personnel expenditures,
professional IT staff dedicated to the system work, were these
new hires or people who only worked on e-Manifest?
Mr. Johnson. OK, so we have eight FTEs that work
exclusively on e-Manifest and they are a combination of new
hires and people that have worked at EPA for some time.
Mr. Shimkus. Are they paid out of the Environmental Program
Management Funds?
Mr. Johnson. No. They are paid out of the $7.4 million that
has been appropriated for salaries.
Mr. Shimkus. What about contract expenditures for that same
period?
Mr. Johnson. OK, so the contract expenditures that we have
had for the same period that have come from the $7.4 have been
exclusively used for e-Manifest.
Mr. Shimkus. How much has been spent on additional
expenditures associated with implementing the overall e-
Manifest Act such as personnel and contract expenses related to
regulatory development--you kind of mentioned that earlier--e-
Manifest Advisory Board, and other related activities?
Mr. Johnson. So we have spent in total, both personnel
costs and other related costs with contractors on those two
categories of $1.4 million.
Mr. Shimkus. And these funds all came out of the $7.4?
Mr. Johnson. They all came out of the appropriated dollars
for e-Manifest specifically.
Mr. Shimkus. OK, great. As I understand it, EPA has $4.9--
well, that is a different number. You are saying $3.5 million
left in your response?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. At the beginning of the fiscal year,
yes, sir.
Mr. Shimkus. Right. How much of that--so that means, I am
trying to get my math right here. How much of that $3.5 million
was spent on personnel and contract expenses related to
regulatory development?
Mr. Johnson. OK, I will go through the numbers again. So we
have been appropriated $7.4.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Johnson. So $2.5 million of that has been spent on
system development and that includes both personnel and
contract costs. $1.4 have been spent on non-system program-
related expenditures, leaving $3.5.
Mr. Shimkus. Great.
Mr. Johnson. So a total of $3.9 has been spent to date and
a portion of those expenditures are for personnel and a portion
of them are for contract costs.
Mr. Shimkus. Very good. How much of the appropriated funds
are currently--well, I got that answer, currently unspent and
what are EPA's plans for them?
Mr. Johnson. OK, so there is currently $3.5 that was
unspent at the beginning of the fiscal year and we have a lot
of work ahead of us to do, so that $3.5 is going to be used for
a variety of system development activities. Our next, as I sort
of have outlined in my written testimony, what we are really
focused on right now is developing what in the IT world they
call a minimum viable product in March. So our initial
expenditures out of that $3.5 are going to be focused on
delivering that minimum viable operating system by next spring.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you very much. Mr. Pallone, do you want
to do an opening statement?
Mr. Pallone. Sure.
Mr. Shimkus. The chair recognizes Mr. Pallone for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you. I know we tried to start 15 minutes
later, but it doesn't always work out, so thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately, this hearing is one more in a
long line of hearings that focus on small issues while large
and pressing issues remain unexamined and unaddressed. Our
failing drinking water infrastructure, the backlog of Superfund
sites in need of clean up, and the backlog of brownfield sites
in need of redevelopment are just a handful of items this
subcommittee should be focusing on. These issues are important
to the American people, to public health, to the environment,
and to the economy. But the Republican majority on this
committee is simply looking at the periphery.
Last week's hearing focused on the small pot of technical
assistance funding for drinking water systems, but not the big
pot of infrastructure funding. Today's hearing focuses on a
small pot of money to establish a headquarters manifest system,
but not the funding needed to clean up sites contaminated with
hazardous waste.
In tomorrow's hearing, we will look at low level nuclear
waste, but not in service of real solutions for the large
stores of nuclear waste putting communities at risk. And that
is just in this subcommittee. If we look beyond, we see
repetitive hearings to attack Planned Parenthood and women's
health and other rehashing discredited legal arguments against
the Clean Power Plan.
This great committee should be holding hearings on climate
change, on drinking water, on brownfields and more. And I
understand that we are having this hearing because the
appropriators did not include funding for e-Manifest in this
year's Interior Environment Bill. But if members were to
examine that bill, you will see that the appropriators have cut
funding for all sorts of important programs with bigger price
tags and bigger impacts than e-Manifest. Funding for
brownfields grants was $35 million below the President's
request. Funding for Superfund cleanup was $65 million below
the President's request. Funding for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund was $429 million below the President's request.
And those funding levels, I think, are unacceptable. And these
are issues we should be addressing in our hearing today.
Instead, we are here today about what EPA would do with $7
million to establish an e-Manifest system. I suppose I should
say a few words about the e-Manifest system since it is the
subject of the hearing. Adopting an electronic system is a good
idea and it should be funded. Users will see significant
reductions in costs and the time it takes to comply with
regulatory requirements. States will get better info more
quickly and will avoid costs of data entry and first responders
will get better access to information about hazardous shipments
and so will the public. And the long-term benefits will far
exceed the up-front costs.
The appropriators, in my opinion, are being penny wise and
pound foolish in cutting funding for this program just as they
are in failing to invest sufficient funds to address our
backlog of contaminated sites and infrastructure it appears. So
I hope this subcommittee can focus on these pressing issues in
the coming months and I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Tonko, for five minutes for his questions.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I appreciate the
opportunity to highlight how EPA's lack of funding is affecting
EPA's ability to do important work on behalf of our nation's
wellbeing.
Now Director Johnson, the President's budget request for
fiscal year 2016 included, as you made mention, the $7.4
million for e-Manifest programming, is that right?
Mr. Johnson. The $7.4 that we had discussed previously was
the sum of the appropriations received in fiscal years 2014 and
2015. The $7.4 is the President's request for 2016.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And you had talked about some of the
priorities with resources you have now. What would additional
priorities be on your list if these available funds are
directed to the e-Manifest program?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, so one of the things that the President's
budget request in the last two fiscal years has done is to try
to put forward a figure that would really take funding
uncertainties out of the question. I can't underscore enough
for the committee how difficult it is to manage in the face of
extreme funding uncertainties for a large system that EPA
estimates is probably going to cost in the neighborhood of $16
to build. And so the President's budget has tried to take that
out of the equation.
We have a number of things that we have to do to build a
system. The first thing that we are going to be doing is
working toward developing what we refer to as the minimum
viable product in early next year and part of that will involve
working with user authentication. We will be developing
security infrastructure around the software. We will be
implementing quality assurance and quality control procedures
for the data that are coming in. We are going to be focusing on
the transaction that occurs at the designated facility at the
TSD. This is the location that involves the least number of
people, but the most number of users, so we think it is a very
critical part of the system functionality.
We are going to be basically developing that portion of the
system between now and next spring. When we do that, that will
be a core set of capability that we can then add additional
modules to. So after we get past next spring, then we will be
going into other areas like, for example, other modes of
transportation. We will initially focus on truck traffic. We
will be moving into the rail arena. We will be adding bandwidth
to the system, its ability to--you have to remember we may be
receiving up to 25,000 manifests a day as potential receipts.
So we have to have the bandwidth, the physical infrastructure.
There is a number of additional build-out capabilities that we
will need to do as we go beyond that core system into the
larger system.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And that functionality of which you
speak is directly related to the House response. And
unfortunately, the House Republican appropriators recommended
that e-Manifest programming receive no funding in fiscal year
2016 and even worse, e-Manifest is only one of many programs
that will seriously be unfunded if the House Republican
majority gets its way.
So for example, funding for drinking water infrastructure,
which is a pressing need for communities across our country
will fall drastically short of what the President has
requested. And as I said in my opening statement, this year's
proposal or the proposed cut funding for the drinking water SRF
by $150 million below this year's funding is a concern, and by
$429 million below the President's 2016 budget request. With a
backlog and infrastructure needs estimated at $387 billion,
this proposal falls far short of what we should be investing.
So Director Johnson, I know that drinking water
infrastructure is not managed by your office, so I want to ask
you how these dramatic cuts would affect EPA's ability to
ensure safe drinking water? But I do think we all know that
these funding levels will mean more deferred maintenance, more
water main breaks, more boiled water advisories, and generally
more disruption for communities across the country. What I will
ask you is whether, in general, you think the EPA's mission is
important and what your support is giving the Agency towards
the resources necessary to protect human health and the
environment?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I mean absolutely.
Mr. Tonko. Your agenda obviously speaks to that mission and
what I am hearing here is that you will be falling short of the
appropriations required to do your work.
Mr. Johnson. I am not from the Drinking Water Program, so I
can't specifically----
Mr. Tonko. Right.
Mr. Johnson. I am not familiar with the particulars of
that. I am from the Waste Program. I mean I obviously come here
with a great deal of passion in support of EPA's mission to
protect human health and the environment. I think that is
something we all at EPA are trying to do.
Mr. Tonko. I thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
now recognizes the vice chair of the subcommittee, Mr. Harper
from Mississippi, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Harper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, thank you
for being here and to lend your expertise. I think it would be
safe to say that you believe this issue is very important that
you are here testifying on, wouldn't you?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Harper. And I don't think you would say this is a small
issue as others have referred to. It is certainly very
important to you in what you have to do.
Mr. Johnson. It is important. It is important to me. I have
to deliver the product here.
Mr. Harper. Right. Monitoring current paperwork that you
have on the manifests, how many items are done each day? When
you have a transport done, how many are you having to monitor
and track right now, just doing your regular paperwork?
Mr. Johnson. OK, so the manifest system, the way it
operates now, there are somewhere on the order of three to five
million manifests that are managed in the country every year.
Mr. Harper. And when you are doing that, you are having to
also notify local law enforcement, perhaps, or the state
authorities when there is something of particular significance,
correct?
Mr. Johnson. So as part of the manifest system, there is
formal notification of the states that occurs as part of the
processing of the manifest.
Mr. Harper. And when we move into this e-Manifest system,
is that going to be a real time transaction? Is that the
purpose of that so that when it is done who will have access to
that?
Mr. Johnson. So the way our thinking is at the moment is
that it is going to be very similar to when you send a package
through the postal service. You go on the web and you can see
the last transaction point. We are expecting to have a very
similar kind of availability of information to the individuals
who have shipped the waste, to the individuals that are
handling the waste in transit, to the individuals that are
receiving the waste on the end, as well as the states that are
at the origin of the waste, where it is transported through and
the end point. All of those individuals should have access to
the transaction as it occurs if it is handled through the e-
Manifest system.
Mr. Harper. And if you are looking, obviously, it is an
electronic system. Therefore, it is subject to cyber attack and
you have to have that security system built into that. Are you
satisfied with the progress that is being made on that at this
point today?
Mr. Johnson. I am satisfied. We are going to be using the
standard cyber security protocols and building to those
criteria. We have hired a security expert to join our team
recently, so it is an area that I think many who work with IT
systems are keenly aware of and something that we, too, are
focused on.
Mr. Harper. The heart of this, obviously, is public safety.
It is how we protect the public through the transport of
hazardous materials and solid waste.
Mr. Johnson. Right.
Mr. Harper. And so at this point, do you believe that the
development of the system is on track? Are you satisfied with
where it is today?
Mr. Johnson. I am satisfied with where it is today.
Mr. Harper. And there, of course, $3.5 million remains of
that money. How much do you believe will be used of that $3.5
to continue with that system development? I know you have
multiple needs for that money at this point that is unused. And
you said the total cost that you think to get this system up
and running was how much?
Mr. Johnson. Sixteen million is our present estimate at the
moment.
Mr. Harper. And that is over what period of time?
Mr. Johnson. That is between now and April of '18, spring
of '18 when we intend to deliver the system. And that will be
the point in time when we can start collecting fees and recover
all of the dollars that have been appropriated.
Mr. Harper. Has every appointment been made of the advisory
board?
Mr. Johnson. We have established the advisory board and I
would say within the next month to month and a half, we will be
notifying the individuals that we have selected for the board.
Mr. Harper. And three of those come from the states?
Mr. Johnson. Three of them come from the states.
Mr. Harper. Who makes that selection? Are you making that
selection?
Mr. Johnson. We have a panel. We have a set of criteria
based on the particular criteria that are in the statute and we
have a team that make a recommendation for the selection.
Mr. Harper. Is the panel all within the EPA or private
industry or all within the government?
Mr. Johnson. The selecting panel is all within EPA.
However, members of the board themselves, of course, per the
Act, come from the IT industry, come from the waste handling
industry, and come from the states.
Mr. Harper. The three states, will they be selected as the
criteria, each from a different region or do they come from a
particular background? Will any of them be industry related or
will they all be--where will they come from?
Mr. Johnson. They have self nominated and put forward their
background and their experience. And so we will look at what
they have put forward in their application and use that to make
a decision about how to--which ones to select. And certainly
geographic distribution is certainly one of the criteria.
Mr. Harper. Thank you. I am over time my time. I yield
back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the ranking member of the full committee, Mr.
Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I mentioned during
my opening statement, I support the e-Manifest program. I think
it should be funded. Perhaps better tracking of hazardous waste
will mean less contamination of our land. But towns and states
across the country are already dealing with a large backlog of
sites contaminated with hazardous waste and other pollutants.
And I don't understand why we are holding a hearing about $7
million for the e-Manifest program and ignoring the tens of
millions of dollars needed to clean up contamination.
The brownfields program which has historically received
bipartisan support promotes job growth, protects the
environment and safeguards the health of our communities.
However, the funding for brownfields continues to decrease. In
fiscal year 2015, EPA received $80 million for the brownfields
program, $5 million lower than the requested funding level. For
fiscal year 2016, the President's budget recommends an
additional $30 million for a total of $110 million. However,
the appropriators have recommended only $75 million for the
brownfields program, even lower than the funding level enacted
in fiscal year 2015.
So Mr. Johnson, am I correct that these funding levels fall
far short of what was included in the President's budget?
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Pallone, I am of course, director of the
EPA's Waste Programs. I am not with the brownfields and the
Superfund program, but my understanding of the information that
you just expressed is consistent with my understanding. I know
the President's fiscal year 2016 budget proposal came in with
increases for both Superfund and brownfields so that those
programs could deliver the great work that they do in terms of
job creation, economic redevelopment, and protecting our
communities. And having worked in the Superfund program myself
for more than seven years as deputy director of the Remedial
Program at EPA, I sort of understand that first hand.
And I also know firsthand that those programs are
exceptionally scalable and have shown in the past that when
additional funds are appropriated, they deliver great benefit
to the communities that they serve.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. Let me ask about e-
Manifest. If EPA does not receiving funding for this work in
fiscal year 2016, will development and implementation of the
system be delayed?
Mr. Johnson. So if we don't receive money in fiscal year
2016, it will certainly jeopardize the velocity with which we
can go forward.
Mr. Pallone. OK.
Mr. Johnson. And we are constantly juggling the speed at
which we are able to do system development based on what we
think is the availability of funds.
Mr. Pallone. Well, more generally, when Congress fails to
fund EPA programs like e-Manifest or brownfields, can we expect
implementation to happen on schedule? Or even to happen at all?
Mr. Johnson. Well, we certainly can't keep our schedules up
if we don't have the funding that is needed.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks. I mean it just seems to me
that Republicans in the House want to cut funding every year
and then they complain that the EPA is falling behind. If we
value toxic waste clean ups, drinking water infrastructure, and
other EPA initiatives that protect human health, the
environment, and the economy, we should ensure sufficient
funding. And I think these are issues that matter to the
American people. I know they matter to my constituents. And
they should matter to the majority. So I hope we can focus more
on these issues moving forward, Mr. Chairman. And I yield the
balance of my time.
Mr. Shimkus. Will the gentleman yield for one second?
Mr. Pallone. Yes.
Mr. Shimkus. So I think that is part of the debate we are
actually having this morning and the conference we are going to
have on the floor, I think tomorrow in the Bipartisan Budget
Act agreement with the administration. The revised nonsecurity
will go from $493 billion to $518 billion. That is fiscal year
2016. In fiscal year 2017, the revised nonsecurity dollars will
go from $531 billion. There is going to be more money for the
revised nonsecurity if this budget agreement--it is 2 years,
which would mean there would be some certainty. So we will see
what happens on the floor.
Mr. Pallone. We hope we get a big vote from the Republican
side.
Mr. Shimkus. I wouldn't bet a big one. Thank you. I yield
to my colleague, Mr. Murphy from Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here. This is a fascinating process to me. In Western
Pennsylvania, we have a great deal that also results from
mining, from fracking, nuclear areas. These are all issues,
medical wastes, et cetera. They need to be tracked. Just a
couple of questions I have on this. I am trying to understand
this whole system. Can you walk me through how this all works,
the computer systems, the architecture of this?
If I understand from your testimony, you talked about how
basically the manifest follows the trucks, correct? And even
from that it depends on someone to give the driver an accurate
record of exactly what is in there, am I correct? And that is
all kept on computer files? And then that is turned over at the
site of the waste site.
How do we make sure that what is in that manifest is what
is in the truck? Something real basic like that.
Mr. Johnson. So I will try to explain the way the system
works today and the paper manifest and then talk about how we
hope that it will, and we expect that it will, operate in an e-
Manifest system.
So today there is a six-copy form that is used to create
and document the chain of custody that occurs from the point of
generation where the waste is first created, hand it off to the
transporter. The transporter then sends the material to the
designated facility where it will be stored, treated, or
disposed. And then that form is sent back to the generator so
that the TSD at the end, the designated facility at the end,
confirms that what the generator thought they sent to them
actually made it.
Mr. Murphy. And this is what you are saying can be up to
700,000 hours of paperwork?
Mr. Johnson. Pardon me?
Mr. Murphy. This is where you say that could be up to
700,000 hours of paperwork? It is pretty burdensome.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, yes, absolutely. And there is a copy of
copies go to the state where the generator is, the state where
the receiving facility. So that is how all the paperwork
manifests works today.
The electronic manifest, this transaction will occur
electronically. And so it will occur on mobile devices perhaps.
And there will be again a chain of custody that occurs. EPA has
a system called the--we refer to as the chrome air rule, but it
basically is a system of user authentication that ensures that
the person who signs the electronic device is actually the
person of record. So we will follow the exact same process that
occurs----
Mr. Murphy. Now all those things in place, so that this was
supposed to have been up and running a couple of weeks ago. Are
all the elements in place or is there a specific list of items
you have that still have to be done? And let me add to that
because we have had an Energy and Commerce Committee, a number
of hearings on other electronic systems that are supposed to be
up and running. And they weren't because the bugs were not
tested before it was fully implemented. So I need to know if
you can give me a list of some specific items yet to be ready.
And then is EPA going to test this and do a test run of this,
too?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. All great questions. So the system is not
up and running. We do have a key portion of the system that is
up and running that we developed and got going that relates to
that final transaction where the TSD confirms that what they
received actually is that. So we have that piece. But we have
to do the build out for the rest of the system. And so there is
a number of pieces there that we have to work on, the
transaction at the generator, the transporter. We have to have
a system for paper processing. We haven't talked about that,
but the e-Manifest Act allows people to continue to do paper
processing. We have to have interfaces so the states can access
and acquire this data. We have been working very closely with
the user community. We have been, shall I say, joined at the
hip with a variety of waste management companies to learn the
kinds of systems they already use so that we can have software
components that speak directly with their existing software
systems. So we have those pieces to build out. But we have been
actually in very close and regular communication with the
hazardous waste management industry on the structure and the
functionality of this system, learned a great deal from them.
Mr. Murphy. So in the final seconds I have left, I just
want to make sure this is something--so you have done some work
on this, but any more test runs are going to be needed?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. The whole notion of what we are
going to be doing is developing small pieces, testing those,
develop small pieces, testing them, getting them out to the
user. One of the reasons why IT systems have failed in the past
is that they are sort of really done apart from the user
community. And we are actually committed to every step of the
way working right alongside with our user community, having
them test software in real time. In fact, the software that we
developed in September is available to the public. We have
given it to a number of members of the waste management
community. They have given us immediate feedback on things we
got wrong, things we need to improve. So we are staying very
closely tied in with the user community.
Mr. Murphy. It is a great idea to develop that with the
user community. I hope other agencies use that. Thank you. I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Green. I want to thank the chairman and the ranking
member for holding the hearing today. Like a lot of members, I
am disappointed that since it is not up and running, Chairman
Shimkus and I sponsored the e-Manifest system when the
subcommittee held hearings and supported passage of the
Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act. The e-
Manifest Act was passed with strong bipartisan support, support
from the industry, environmental community because its benefits
are so obvious, reducing paperwork, lowering the administrative
burden on regulators and industry, saving tens of millions of
dollars annually and improving the tracking and management of
our nation's hazardous waste.
It has been over 3 years since e-Manifest was signed into
law. I am pleased to get an update on the status and see what
Congress and EPA can do to ensure that promised benefits of e-
Manifest are delivered as soon as reasonably possible. Maybe
our subcommittee should have had some hearings earlier so we
could get an update and see what the problem was.
Mr. Johnson, e-Manifest system protected to save over $75
million and thousands of hours per year once implemented.
However, you mentioned some of the noneconomic benefits in this
system. Can you elaborate on these noneconomic benefits?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, sir. So we expect a number of them. I
think one of the great things will be the immediate
accessibility to information. We will have access to e-Manifest
information like we simply don't have right now. The e-Manifest
data other than in some of the states that takes very special
efforts to collect and acquire that information, we really
don't have it at our fingertips. I think the quality control
will be much improved.
You have to realize there are over 270 data elements on up
to 3 to 5 million of these transactions occurring every year.
So being able to do much better quality control, I think will
have ripple effects through the hazardous waste management
system and bring new accountability to the management of
hazardous waste in general.
Mr. Green. Can you describe who the primary stakeholders
are on this issue and how you would involve them?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. So our primary stakeholders, of
course, are the states. We have worked very closely with a
number of states, and particularly those states that have
systems right now of acquiring manifest data through the paper
system. We have been working very closely with that.
Of course, the state association, ASTSWMO and ECOS, we have
been working very closely with; on the industry side, the whole
transactional environment, so the generator community, the
transportation community, as well as the treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities. So we have been working with the
Environmental Technology Council which is an association that
represents many of the larger hazardous waste management
facilities. We have been working with particular businesses
like Safety Clean and other hazardous waste management
facilities, working with them, working with their IT
departments.
Mr. Green. I represent a district in Houston, we have a
number of the customers who would like to have that and you
mentioned some of them. How would lack of funding for fiscal
year 2016 affect your ability to get the system on line by
2017?
Mr. Johnson. Well, I think it will have an important
adverse effect on us. We are really adjusting the velocity, the
speed of our development activities based on the funding that
we have available to us. And under the funding uncertainty that
we are presently dealing with, we are being cautious in the
speed at which we move forward.
Mr. Green. Given the benefits of the system often the costs
to develop are more than justified. The same is true for much
needed water infrastructure repairs, brownfields, Superfund
funding. I share the concern voiced by my colleagues on this
subcommittee in failing to address the big issues that have an
impact on our working families. Congress must invest in our
infrastructure before it fails and I hope the subcommittee will
focus on infrastructure needs in the coming months.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back my 38 seconds.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr.
Johnson, for appearing here today. It is my understanding----
Mr. Shimkus. Would the gentleman yield for a second? Can
you pull your mic a little bit closer? The gentleman from Texas
cannot hear you and he wants to.
Mr. McKinley. It is my understanding that the total funding
for this could be, you are saying, in the $16 million range?
Mr. Johnson. We are presently estimating, based on what we
know now, that the cost of the system to be $16 million.
Mr. McKinley. OK, so what was your projection of the cost
to have outsourced this? What could they have done in the
private sector?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. One of the things that when the e-
Manifest Act passed, we had the same sense of urgency that I am
feeling from the committee today.
Mr. McKinley. What is the answer to the question? What do
you think the outsourcing would have cost if you had done it
with private sector?
Mr. Johnson. We don't know.
Mr. McKinley. So somebody decided to do this in-house
without having a----
Mr. Johnson. No, the first thing that we did, the very
first thing that we did was we went out and talked to every
individual that had systems like e-Manifest. So the knee jerk
reaction, go talk to FedEx, talk to Amazon, talk to IBM, talk
to all the big companies out there, the Postal Service, to talk
to these folks. We went and talked to all of them.
Mr. McKinley. I am concerned about this time. This was
passed in '12 and it is 3 years later and you are saying it may
not be finished for two more years. So I think we have got an
issue here overall, whether it was good judgment or bad
judgment as to try to do it in-house. And I think the GAO came
out in its own report has been very concerned about the use of
in-house IT work right now with numbers of cancellations.
Mr. Johnson. We are not going to be doing in-house, sir.
Mr. McKinley. I have only got 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. McKinley. So Mr. Shimkus asked Ms. Rudzinski back in
2012, how long do you think it is going to take to do this? And
she said if we use very conventional procedure approach,
typically in 12 to 18 months. That is 12 to 18 months. We are 3
years later and you are saying it may be another 2 years to go.
So was she wrong?
Mr. Johnson. I believe she was responding to the length of
time it takes to get a contract in place. We are not going to
be doing this in-house. We are going to be using contractors.
Mr. McKinley. Rules on that as well. Let me go a little
further. I think you have got a problem. It could be over
funding. It could be maybe incompetency perhaps in taking this
out. I don't know what your qualifications are, or people that
are writing your specifications for this. Are these people that
have failed on others? Are you using tech stacks?
Mr. Johnson. Excuse me, sir?
Mr. McKinley. Tech stacks?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. McKinley. You are using them.
Mr. Johnson. I am not sure----
Mr. McKinley. It is an OMB program for software
development.
Mr. Johnson. It is a certification program?
Mr. McKinley. It is reviewing, the status monitoring,
scheduling of development of software like this. And I am just
curious, you are not familiar with it, so you are apparently
not using it. And OMB has been recommending to the IT
department that they should be using this and it sounds like
you are not using it.
The other thing that I think in answer back to Congressman
Murphy's comment, I didn't hear you use the term IV&V,
independent verification and validation, is a way to check for
issues as you go. Are you using IV&V?
Mr. Johnson. I will ask the technical team.
Mr. McKinley. So if you have opted--that is pretty
incredible--so if you have opted without having other costs
incurred, I am going to do this in-house, even though if again
the GAO has said, they have rattled off this list in their
report, Department of Defense canceled their contract five
years after spending billions of dollars. Homeland Security,
they canceled that contract after a billion dollars. Veterans
Affairs--I could go on and on of there is some real questions
of whether or not our IT is capable of writing the kinds of
specifications to put these things back out in the software.
And apparently, they seem to be recommending that we consider
using outsourcing and I don't hear, you have already
acknowledged you had no idea what the outsourcing cost could
be, but you decided to do it in-house.
Mr. Johnson. No, we are outsourcing this work.
Mr. McKinley. I thought you said you were doing it with
eight people on your staff?
Mr. Johnson. We, of course, have internal staff who are
also outsourcing the work using modular contracting strategies,
agile development. That is what we intend to do.
Mr. McKinley. I am running out of time here. So in the
future, if this has been going on for 3 years, are we going to
be able to get some monitoring of this, to see some mileposts
that we are getting something done in a time frame, the costs,
how the costs are being incurred with this? Where is the
transparency that we were supposed to get?
Mr. Johnson. We are prepared to be very transparent.
Mr. McKinley. This is the first report we have heard from
you in 3 years.
Mr. Johnson. I am happy to report to the committee as they
see fit on progress throughout the development.
Mr. McKinley. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Johnson, if a
state has not delegated enforcement of Subtitle C, what is the
requirement on the manifest once it has been verified by the
disposer?
Mr. Johnson. I am sorry, Mr. Flores, could you please
repeat the question?
Mr. Flores. Yes. If a state has not delegated enforcement
of Subtitle C, what is the requirement on the manifest once it
is verified by the disposer?
Mr. Johnson. So I think I will have to get back to you. I
hesitate to respond on the record on a complex state
authorization issue. So I will get back to you on that.
Mr. Flores. I ask you to provide that answer for the
record. And can you give the subcommittee a specific list of
items that need to be done in their timeline so that we can
understand what stands between now and the system being fully
operational?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. So our first task that we are
going to be focusing on between now and next spring is
developing the core software system that we refer to as the
minimum viable product. And this going to focus on the software
functionality that occurs around the receiving facility, the
designated facility, the TSD. We will develop basic security
infrastructure, basic user authentication. We are going to be
using our electronic signature protocols in that verification.
Have it so that the TSD can receive information and send out
information, confirming the receipt of the waste. So that is
our first core comprehensive deliverable following what we
developed in September.
Then following this spring, we will be building out
additional pieces of the system. So we have to have a paper
tracking system. We have to develop APIs, application
programming interfaces, for our states. We have to have user
interfaces that we have to develop for the system, data
handling systems, that sort of thing.
And then we have to, as I said, grow the ability of the
system to operate with a much larger bandwidth than we will in
the development cycle. So those are examples of some of the
things that we have to do down the road.
Mr. Flores. And in terms of the rulemaking, what is the
status of fee setting for system users?
Mr. Johnson. So we are in the final stages of clearing what
we refer to as our fee rule. That will be, we expect to be
proposed early next year. And in that rule, we are going to lay
out the structure of our fee collection system.
Mr. Flores. Thank you for your responses. I look forward to
the answer to the first question for the record.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding
this hearing today which allows us to be updated on the
implementation of this important program.
Mr. Johnson, thank you for being here and sharing your
testimony. My first question for you is has the EPA determined
how e-Manifest will apply to hazardous waste shipments by rail?
Mr. Johnson. We have not fully determined that. Of course,
there is an existing electronic system that is used to track
the movement of hazardous materials under DOT's program. We
have been talking to the rail industry and we are well aware
that we have to develop some linkages with their existing
system.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that. There is a tremendous
amount of this waste, to my understanding, that is shipped by
rail. So I think it would be important that we include that.
My next question is how will EPA strive to protect
legitimate confidential business information reported as part
of this system as the e-Manifest system?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, this has been an issue for us and one
that we grappled in our one-year rule. And EPA's thinking is
that one of the, I think, key tools that we are going to be
using to handle confidential business information is that other
than the parties that are directly involved in the transaction,
we are going to have a 90-day delay period before we make the
manifest information publicly available.
EPA has made a determination that we don't believe that
generally manifest information is CBI, but we do know that it
has important commercial value, so we think that by delaying
the time between when the transaction occurs and its
publication for the broader public to see, that that will help
ameliorate any concerns that have been raised in this regard.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate it. Could you help me understand
more broadly sort of what are the issues that arose that caused
this delay in the time frame? Just help me understand why it
has taken so long?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, absolutely. So when the law was passed
and EPA immediately had a sense of urgency about building the
system, the very first thing that we did is we went out--it was
really one of two silver bullets that had to come forward if we
were going to meet this 3-year deadline. We were either going
to find a vendor out there that had an existing system that we
could basically take and adapt. So we went out and we talked to
Amazon, to the Postal Service, to FedEx, and all of the people
that you think naturally and we all know have software systems
that are out there that do kind of what e-Manifest is intended
to do. All of those companies came back to us and said look, we
are in the package movement business. We are in the retail
business. We are not in the software sales business. This is
part of our intellectual property and we are not selling it to
anybody. So that was a dead end for us.
The other thing that we had hoped was a thought that had
been part of the legislation which is a share and share and
saving share in revenue or other strategies for intellectual
property sharing with people so that we could kind of get
going. We pursued that. The legislation, as it was finally
passed, didn't have the full authority for that, particularly
with the appropriations coming through, having to come through
every year. So that was not something that we could work on.
Once we sort of got to the bottom of those two things
through pretty extensive conversation with the vendor
communities out there, we are going to have to hire contractors
and use this agile modular contracting strategy to get this
done. So that is really, I think, one of the biggest reasons
why we are where we are today was we really tried to pursue
these silver bullets. They didn't work out. Now we are on a
track using what all the research says is the most cost
effective, efficient way to build IT systems.
Mr. Hudson. All right. One final question. What did you
learn from September's initial demonstration of the system? Did
it meet your expectations? Why or why not?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. It certainly met our expectations.
We were really pleased with the outcome. I think we learned a
number of things. One of the things is we learned how useful
our user community is in identifying errors. They were not shy
about telling us when we had mistakes and errors and things
that we needed to correct. We immediately went in and through
the sprints that you go through in the agile development
process, we were able to get the speed back and fix the
software in a real time basis. So that was one of the things
that we learned.
We learned that we needed a data model and we need to do a
little bit better explanation of our software and how it
operates, so a little bit more communication when we put these
modules out to get the private sector to react to and use and
try to interface with their systems.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I
yield back.
Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Just a
point or two that wasn't really discussed. One of the big
issues, the reason why we wanted to do this was the storage,
all the paper that is stored in file cabinets and buildings for
this documentation. So there was a desire to get it digitally
stored. I know that is all part of the process.
Seeing no other members wishing to ask any questions I want
to remind Mr. Johnson that the hearing record will remain open
for ten legislative days for anyone else who may wish to submit
a follow-up question. And we want to thank you for coming and
we will call this hearing adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:21 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]