Document ID: EPA-HQ-OLEM-2016-0177-0055
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2016-07-26T04:00Z

ETC Messages from October 23, 2014 Briefing
                                       
* David Case was pleased that we initiated the contact with ETC to schedule this briefing, and also pleased with our plan to conduct outreach with industry on a quarterly basis.  ETC meets quarterly anyway, so it will be easy to plan the additional outreach around their quarterly meetings in DC.
* It was suggested that we should contact independent transporters for their views on e-Manifest.  ETC members often perform their own transportation and support e-Manifest, but the independent transporters should have their own input.
* ETC will provide us with more detailed answers to the information and questions included in the briefing.  David will coordinate this with Rich.  David will also meet with Chris and IEc to discuss economic questions.
* Preliminary member reactions to the points and issues in the briefing were:
      o Some concern if TSDFs' user fees were tapped to subsidize cost of public access, particularly if such public access consisted of data mining aimed at obtaining customer list or other information ETC members view as sensitive
      o Question was raised whether states will still charge fees after the Fee Rule is issued.  EPA explained that there are state tracking activities that will continue after e-Manifest, as well as fees assessed by states based on waste generation or management activities.  States may assess fees for such activities after e-Manifest, unless it is an activity assumed by EPA and funded by e-Manifest fees.
      o Concern with idea of a separate fee for manifest "corrections."  Points were raised that it is not that clear what a "correction" would be (any change to a manifest entry while in process or after receipt?), and experience with states has been that a correction based fee only creates incentives to find corrections.  Another comment raised was that a fee for corrections could have the effect of incentivizing industry not to make appropriate corrections.
      o Questions also raised about a separate fee for "complex" manifests.  Are manifests like lab packs with a large number of line items complex? Similar concerns raised with continuation sheets, as some states force industry to execute separate manifests for these, rather than using the continuation sheets.  Also, if a complex transaction results in multiple manifests, then the complexity plays out with the additional fees for each manifest.
* On paper manifest premium, we heard:
      o David raised concern that an arbitrary "penalty" added to paper manifest fees would not appear to comply with the Act, which seems to base fees only on cost recovery.
      o There was a sense that we would not need to contrive any premium fee for paper manifests, as the marginal costs of processing paper manifests ought to result in a "premium" fee for paper without any additional effort on our part to incentivize fees
      o Initially, there might be pushback on a paper fee "penalty," but in time, the FACA might be consulted on this and might recommend the phase out of paper by increasing fees beyond the marginal cost amounts.  This is a proper issue for the FACA to consider over time.
      o ETC members support a two-level paper manifest fee under which data uploads receive a discounted fee, while paper forms mailed to EPA or sent as scanned images would be processed with a higher fee for the additional data-processing work.
* On question of TSDFs being responsible for fee payments, we heard:
      o ETC members are resigned to the fact that the initial payment of user fees by the TSDFs makes the most sense.  They are not enthusiastically volunteering for this, but they understand that it is not practical or cost-effective to pursue 100,000 generators for the payments.
      o ETC members also mentioned that the TSDFs can also pass the fees on to their customers if desired, and this is how the TDFS typically deal with states' manifest fees today.
* On issue of how payments should be billed and collected, we heard:
      o ETC members were generally enthusiastic about an option under which the TSDFs would establish pre-funded accounts from which the per-manifest payments would be automatically debited on manifest completion by the TSDF.  This is the so-called "EZ Pass model," a model the ETC agreed with, including the feature whereby the payment accounts could be automatically refreshed when the balance reaches a specified amount.
      o ETC members explained that they need to have the payments made and recorded at the facility level, rather than at the company-wide level.
      o We heard several members express general opposition to the option of payment in advance, as companies' financial managers would object to making a large annual payment.  It might not be as objectionable if the payments were spread over 12 months, but even here, there is a question whether their actual usage might vary from the numbers relied upon to generate the pre-payment fee obligation.  Members also objected to any fee model based on tonnage of waste rather than numbers of manifests used.
      o There was some comment that while a monthly invoice would assess the fee based on actual usage during the billing period, the processing of such invoices and their payment by industry also introduces costs for industry members, as well as EPA.
* On issue of help desk costs, ETC commented:
      o Optically, it would be better for help desk costs to be projected and rolled into per manifest fee, rather than trying to assess a separate per ticket fee for support.
      o ETC members would be concerned about paying another help desk fee for issues when the system is down through no fault of the members.
* On issue of fee models, ETC asked how system improvements would be factored in the process.
      o ETC emphasized that replacing the Biennial Report with e-Manifest is big on their agenda, but they understand that it may not be included in Phase 1
      o After discussion, David and members agreed that the FACA was a good forum for system improvements being suggested and discussed in terms of their effect on fee revisions.
      o ETC agreed that there should be a separate fee component reflecting system development cost retirement (expires after amortization period), and if there are agreed system upgrades, new upgrade cost retirement components would be added to the fee models until those costs are recovered.  In any case, it was suggested that system improvements should not be delayed because Phase I development costs have not yet been fully recovered.
      o We agreed that we would try to share the fee models with ETC at the next quarterly meeting.
* During report out by Chris on survey results to date, we heard:
      o David would put pressure on EQ/Heritage to provide their survey responses.
      o David indicated that PSC/Stericycle is not a member of the ETC.  We will contact staff contact (Mr. Sloat) at PSC for follow-up.
      o There was some surprise expressed that the total number of (non-CBI) manifests from 6 large ETC respondents was far below earlier estimates of 3  -  5 million per year.  The number needs to be accurate so we can scale the survey results out to the overall population, and base the per manifest fees on that number of manifests recovering our costs.
            # We will try to validate responses to ensure that all shipments covered by a manifest under federal or state law were included in the tallies
            # There is also some confusion on whether shipments that include continuation sheets are counted as 1 form or counted by the total number of sheets.
            # It was suggested that we check with the approved manifest printers to determine their sale volumes.  This could provide an upper bound check on total numbers of manifests. (a 3-year average might be best for this)
            # It was suggested that checking BR numbers on waste receipts would not be helpful as validation of manifest numbers
      o It was suggested that there are only 20 or so states that are receiving manifest copies currently, not the "almost every state" result reported to us by IEC
      o There were also questions raised about the accuracy of the statement that state wastes account for the majority of manifests.  ETC members suggested this was not the case, as only about 6 states now have their own waste codes for state wastes.
* At meeting conclusion, we invited ETC members to participate in the public webinar now scheduled for November 20[th].  ETC indicated they would be happy to participate, and welcomed additional outreach.