View Rule

Statement of Need: This revision of the RCRA regulation is necessary to establish the standards and procedures under which hazardous waste handlers will be authorized to use electronic manifests in lieu of the existing paper manifest form (EPA Form 8700-22). EPA's current RCRA regulations only allow the use of the paper manifest form which must be carried physically with the waste shipment, signed by hand with each change of custody, and filed among each waste handler's operating records for three years. This revision to the RCRA manifest regulation will specify the conditions under which electronic manifests may be obtained, completed, electronically signed, and transmitted, so that the electronic manifests may be used and accepted as the legal equivalent of the current paper manifest form.

Summary of the Legal Basis: There is currently not in place a statue or court order that requires EPA to revise the RCRA manifest regulations to adopt the electronic manifest regulation. However, on September 7, 2006 the U.S. Senate introduced S.3871 that would mandate the development of an electronic manifest system by EPA. The U.S. Senate also introduced a similiar bill S.3109 on June 10, 2008. In addition to authorizing EPA to collect user fees to build and annually operate and maintain the e-manifest information technology (IT) system using a novel share-in-revenue contracting approach, this new bill, also authorizes the collection of user fees to process paper manifests, should EPA require their collection and provides for the tracking of state regulated hazardous wastes. The bill also clarifies what state governments would not be subject to the user fees authorized by the bill. If enacted by the Congress, the bill could include a deadline to EPA for promulgating revisions to the RCRA manifest regulations to authorize the voluntary use of electronic manifests. Whether or not there is such a statutory mandate, EPA could develop a regulation prescribing the conditions for electronic manifesting under the authority of RCRA Section 3002(a)(5), which authorizes EPA to promulgate regulations establishing standards for generators of hazardous waste, including standards on "the use of a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal in and arrives at" permitted facilities.

Alternatives: Based on public comments submitted on EPA's 2001 electronic manifest proposed rule, and additional manifest stakeholder input received at EPA's 2004 public meeting on eManifest, EPA's preferred alternative is now the development of a centralized national eManifest system that EPA would develop and operate under a share-in-revenue contract funded by user fees, and hosted on EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) computer hub. Other alternatives include (1) a national system that would be developed entirely commercially and operated by the NGO; (2) a decentralized option like the one suggested in the EPA's 2001 proposed rule, under which various private entities would develop numerous eManifest systems adhering to standards announced by EPA; and a no action alternative, under which all manifesting would continue only with paper manifests. Although too early for EPA to evaluate as of 2007, the 2006-2009 electronic manifesting pilot project hosted by the Michigan state government may provide a new alternative for EPA to consider scaling-up to become the national eManifest system.

Anticipated Costs and Benefits: As initially estimated by an EPA contractor in 2002, the first-year start-up (i.e., design, build, and installation) costs to EPA for a centralized national eManifest system to be hosted on EPA's CDX computer hub, are projected to be in the range of $2 million to $7 million. EPA's annual operation and maintenance (O&M) costs for such a system are projected in the range $1.6 million to $3.2 million. EPA updates and refines the system cost estimates but refrains from making them publicly available because they constitute EPA's confidential independent government cost estimate (IGCE) which EPA will use as a benchmark to evaluate contractor bids to procure the system. In addition to EPA system costs, (a) the regulated community consisting of 227,000 industrial facilities involved in shipping hazardous wastes every year, may voluntarily need to purchase $60 million to $69 million in computer equipment and services to connect to eManifest, and (b) state governments may voluntary need to spend around $3 million to integrate with the eManifest system, although EPA's over $100 million in grants the past few years to integrate state governments with EPA's CDX via EPA's National Environmental Information Exchange Network (NEIEN) has nearly provided integration for all state governments and many large industrial facilities with CDX via NEIEN nodes. National economic benefits from eManifest are expected to provide 45% reduction in paperwork burden costs to manifest useres and to RCRA-authorized state government agencies of up to $233 million per year (relative to a baseline national cost for paper manifest burden of $513 million per year), assuming that 75% of manifests can be completed electronically. These projected savings can also be expressed as a net unit paperwork burden savings of $23 to $40 per manifest. Other expected benefits of eManifest include: (1) better quality and more timely waste shipment data; (2) nearly real time shipment tracking capabilities for users and public safety agencies (rather than a 30-day wait); (3) enhanced inspection and compliance monitoring capabilities for regulators; (4) more rapid notification and response to problems or discrepancies with waste shipments; (5) more efficient or "one-stop" submission of manifest data to States; and (6) new possibilities to manage manifest data and to simplify or consolidate existing systems for reporting and tracking manifest and RCRA Biennial Report hazardous waste shipment data.

Risks: This action addresses administrative requirements for tracking hazardous waste shipments and does not involve the control of "risks" in the sense that RCRA regulations typically address environmental, human health, and public safety risks posed by the possible mis-management of hazardous wastes. Consequently, EPA has developed a CPIC Exhibit 300 business case "Risk Management Plan" for this action, rather than a hazardous waste chemical exposure risk analysis. Since the e-manifest regulation could authorize the voluntary use of an information technology (IT) system that would be developed to create and transmit electronic manifests, there would be information system management risks and information security risks associated with developing and operating such an IT system. EPA is assessing and managing these IT risks as part of OMB's annual Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) process that governs the management of EPA's IT investments.