U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–427 2016

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 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

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 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

Ranking Member 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

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 

(1) 

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 AsVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:34 Mar 17, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-94 CHRIS
2 

sistance 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. 

3 

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, 

4 

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 

5 

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. 

6 

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 offthe-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 apVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:34 Mar 17, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-94 CHRIS
7 

preciates 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:] 

8 


99427.001
9 


99427.002
10 


99427.003
11 


99427.004
12 


99427.005
13 


99427.006
14 


99427.007
15 


99427.008
16 


99427.009
17 


99427.010
18 


99427.011
19 

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 try- ing 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. 

20 

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. 

21 

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. 

22 

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—— 

23 

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 

24 

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. 

25 

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 

26 

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? 

27 

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 

28 

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 

29 

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. 

30 

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. 

31 

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 develVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:34 Mar 17, 2016 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-94 CHRIS
32 

opment 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 

33 

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 

34 

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:] 

35 


99427.012
36 


99427.013
37 


99427.014
38 


99427.015
39 

Æ 


99427.016