Document ID: EPA-HQ-RCRA-2001-0032-0179
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-12-03T05:00Z

RESPONSES FROM STATES ON EPA e-MANIFEST QUESTIONS

Rev. January 10, 2007

Elizabeth A. Bols

Michigan Department of Environmental Quality

TABLE OF CONTENTS

  TOC \o "1-4" \h \z \u  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207319"  Survey regarding states opinion on a
national e-Manifest data system	  PAGEREF _Toc156207319 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207320"  Documentation sent to states	  PAGEREF
_Toc156207320 \h  2  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207321"  Survey Results	  PAGEREF _Toc156207321
\h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207322"  What states responded	  PAGEREF
_Toc156207322 \h  5  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207323"  States use of manifest data	  PAGEREF
_Toc156207323 \h  7  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207324"  Who states think should be required to
submit	  PAGEREF _Toc156207324 \h  9  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207325"  States opinion of importance of data
quality and timeliness	  PAGEREF _Toc156207325 \h  11  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207326"  Survey regarding states opinion their
states CBI as it may impact a national e-Manifest data system	  PAGEREF
_Toc156207326 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207327"  Documentation sent to states	  PAGEREF
_Toc156207327 \h  14  

  HYPERLINK \l "_Toc156207328"  Survey Results	  PAGEREF _Toc156207328
\h  17  

 

Survey regarding states opinion on a national e-Manifest data system

Documentation sent to states

Dear ASTSWMO representative:

For more than 20 years, the hazardous waste manifest system has relied
on the creation of a paper trail to track hazardous waste shipments from
cradle-to-grave. Waste generators create multicopy paper manifest forms
to show the transportation routing of their waste shipments and the
composition and quantity of the materials being shipped. Each handler
signs the manifest by hand, until it is signed by the final waste
management facility to show the waste shipment was received. Copies
signed by all parties are retained in company files, and the final copy
verifying receipt by the treatment, storage and disposal facility is
mailed back to the generator to close the tracking loop. About 28 states
also collect manifests from generators and TSDFs, and the data are
manually keyed into state tracking databases to help oversee waste
management trends and assess fees.

Due to the volume of manifests circulated each year (more than 2.5
million) and the number of copies that must be signed sequentially and
retained in files for inspection, the manifest system produces some of
the largest paperwork burdens in the EPA. Compliance with the manifest
system costs waste handlers and states more than $193 million annually.
For this reason, EPA has been pursuing for several years a project that
would transition the manifest from a paper-based system to a mostly
electronic approach. The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is on the verge
of proposing regulatory language that would allow the building of this
system. 

ASTSWMO, through the Hazardous Waste Program Operations Task Force, is
representing state interests on this effort by sitting on an advisory
group with EPA.   The Program Operations Task Force would like to
solicit your input on this soon to be proposed e-manifest system.   We
ask that you fill out the attached survey and return it to
rgordon@des.state.nh.us by December       .  We will compile the results
and use them to identify and represent to EPA the states concerns about
any emanifest proposals.   

For more information on the e-manifest and the EPA(s efforts to date
please see the following web pages:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/faqs.htm

Thank you

ASTSWMO Program Operations Task Force

Survey of States on Manifest Data

1) 	State you represent: ______________________________________

	Your  Name: __________________________________________

	E-mail Address: ________________________________________

2) What does your state currently use manifest data for? (Check all that
apply)

We do not presently use manifest data

We use manifest data to collect a state fee

We use manifest data for Enforcement

We use manifest data to assist generators with regulatory requirements

We use manifest for routine reporting (Including Biennial Report)

We use manifest data to track waste from cradle to grave

We do not presently use manifest data but we would be interested in
using the e-manifest data in the future.

We use manifest data for
_________________________________________________

					(Please list all other state uses of manifest data)

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on
which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.

			Optional	Mandatory

LQG’s				

SQG’s			

CESQG’s		

Transporters		

TSD Facilities 	

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields on
the manifest.

Important – We use or will use certain key fields that must be high
quality 

Not Important – We do not use manifest data or need high quality data

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

Within 5 days of the shipment

Within a month of the shipment

Within a year of the shipment

Other ______________________________________

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss
your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes   			No

7) Please feel free to attach additional information  relating to your
thoughts or concerns about a federal e-manifest system. (Ex.- impacts on
state program, ideas for utilizing manifest data that you are not
currently using) 

Please return this survey to      PRIVATE
HREF="mailto:rgordon@des.state.nh.us"  MACROBUTTON HtmlResAnchor
rgordon@des.state.nh.us 

or fax to Ray Gordon at (603) 271-2181.

Recent partial response from Florida (2007) that has been added into the
results

Elizabeth,

Here are my survey responses. I'm not sure why we didn't respond
immediately.

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on
which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.  

			Optional		Mandatory

LQG's			x

SQG's			x

CESQG's		x 

Transporters				x

TSD Facilities 				x

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

	Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields
on the manifest. (if it is uniformly available - I.E. required for
TSDFs)

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

	Within a month of the shipment (however - E-Manifest must be completed
before shipment or a paper manifest must be on the truck for
emergencies) 	

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss
your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes               Florida    Jack Griffith (850)245-8748		

Survey Results

What states responded

	Contact

Returned	Name	Email	Call

Alabama	AL

Alaska	AK

Arizona	AZ

Arkansas	AR	1	Melanie Foster	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:foster@adeq.state.ar.us"  foster@adeq.state.ar.us 	Y

California	CA

Colorado	CO

Connecticut	CT	1	David Westcott	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:david.westcott@po.state.ct.us"  david.westcott@po.state.ct.us 	Y

Delaware	DE

Dist. of Columbia	DC

Florida	FL

Jack Griffith	John.Griffith@dep.state.fl.us	Added partial response
1/10/07

Georgia	GA	1	Verona Barnes	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:verona_barnes@dnr.state.ga.us"  verona_barnes@dnr.state.ga.us 	?

Guam	GU

Hawaii	HI

Idaho	ID	1	John Brueck	  HYPERLINK "mailto:john.brueck@deq.idaho.gov" 
john.brueck@deq.idaho.gov 	Y

Illinois	IL

Indiana	IN

Iowa	IA

Kansas	KS	1	Jim Rudeen	  HYPERLINK "mailto:jrudeen@kdhe.state.ks.us" 
jrudeen@kdhe.state.ks.us 	Y

Kentucky	KY	1	Bill Schneider	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:william.schneider@ky.gov"  william.schneider@ky.gov 	N

Louisiana	LA	1	James Miller	  HYPERLINK "mailto:James.Miller@la.gov" 
James.Miller@la.gov 	Y

Maine	ME

Maryland	MD	1	Butch Dye	  HYPERLINK "mailto:bdye@mde.state.md.us" 
bdye@mde.state.md.us 	Y

Massachusetts	MA	1	Michael Hurley	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:michael.m.hurley@state.ma.us"  michael.m.hurley@state.ma.us 	N

Michigan	MI

Minnesota	MN

Mississippi	MS

Missouri	MO	1	David Giarratano	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:david.garratano@dnr.mo.gov"  david.garratano@dnr.mo.gov 	Y

Montana	MT	1	Robert Reinke	  HYPERLINK "mailto:breinke@mt.gov" 
breinke@mt.gov 	Y

Nebraska	NE	1	Morgan Leibrandt	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:Morgan.leibrandt@NDEQ.state.ne.us" 
Morgan.leibrandt@NDEQ.state.ne.us 	N

Nevada	NV	1	Jeff Denison	  HYPERLINK "mailto:jdenison@ndep.nv.gov" 
jdenison@ndep.nv.gov 	N

New Hampshire	NH	1	Ray Gordon	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:rgordon@des.state.nh.us"  rgordon@des.state.nh.us 	Y

New Jersey	NJ	1	Ferdinand Scaccetti	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:ferd.Scaccetti@dep.state.nj.us"  ferd.Scaccetti@dep.state.nj.us 
Y

New Mexico	NM

New York	NY	1	Deborah Aldrich	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:dlaldric@gw.dec.state.ny.us"  dlaldric@gw.dec.state.ny.us 	Y

North Carolina	NC

North Dakota	ND	1	Curtis Erickson	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:cerickso@state.nd.us"  cerickso@state.nd.us 	N

Ohio	OH	1	Paula Canter	  HYPERLINK "mailto:paula.canter@epa.state.oh.us"
 paula.canter@epa.state.oh.us 	Y

Oklahoma	OK	1	Jon Roberts	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:jon.roberts@deq.state.ok.us"  jon.roberts@deq.state.ok.us 	Y

Oregon	OR	1	Nancy Dollar	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:dollar.nancy@deq.state.or.us"  dollar.nancy@deq.state.or.us 	Y

Pennsylvania	PA	1	Robert Finkel	  HYPERLINK "mailto:rfinkel@state.pa.us"
 rfinkel@state.pa.us 	Y

Puerto Rico	PR

Rhode Island	RI	1	Mark Dennen	  HYPERLINK "mailto:mdennen@dem.ri.gov" 
mdennen@dem.ri.gov 	N

South Carolina	SC	1	Clyde Buchanan	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:buchanca@dhec.sc.gov"  buchanca@dhec.sc.gov 	N

South Dakota	SD	1	Carrie Jacobson	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:carrie.jacobson@state.sd.us"  carrie.jacobson@state.sd.us 	N

Tennessee	TN

Texas	TX

Utah	UT	1	Rusty Lundberg	  HYPERLINK "mailto:rlundberg@utah.gov" 
rlundberg@utah.gov 	N

Vermont	VT	1	Linda Joyal	  HYPERLINK "mailto:Linda.joyal@state.vt.us" 
Linda.joyal@state.vt.us 	Y

Virginia	VA	1	Steve Frazier	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:sefrazier@deq.virginia.gov"  sefrazier@deq.virginia.gov 	N

Virgin Islands	VI

Washington	WA	1	Jean Rushing	  HYPERLINK "mailto:jeru461@ecy.wa.gov" 
jeru461@ecy.wa.gov 	Y

West Virginia	WV

Wisconsin	WI	1	Aggie Cook	  HYPERLINK
"mailto:agnes.cook@dnr.state.wi.us"  agnes.cook@dnr.state.wi.us 	Y

Wyoming	WY

	29

	

States use of manifest data

Uses of Manifest Data

Not used	Fee	Enforc	Assit	Report	Track	Other 

Alabama	AL

	Alaska	AK

	Arizona	AZ

	Arkansas	AR

1	1

	1	Discrepancy reporting

California	CA

	Colorado	CO

	Connecticut	CT

	1	1

1	Phase One site investigations and Property transfer filings

Delaware	DE

	Dist. of Columbia	DC

	Florida	FL

	We use or will use all or almost all the data fields

on the manifest.

Georgia	GA

1	1	1	1	1

	Guam	GU

	Hawaii	HI

	Idaho	ID	1

Interested in using e-manifest data

Illinois	IL

	Indiana	IN

	Iowa	IA

	Kansas	KS

1	1	1	1

Kentucky	KY	1

Interested in using e-manifest data and discrepancy reports

Louisiana	LA	1

Interested in using e-manifest data

Maine	ME

	Maryland	MD

	1	1	1	1

	Massachusetts	MA

1	1	1	1	1	Polciy making, program planning

Michigan	MI

	Minnesota	MN

	Mississippi	MS

	Missouri	MO

1	1	1	1	1	Statistical Rports (How much generated)

Montana	MT

	1	1	1	1

	Nebraska	NE	1

Nevada	NV

	1

New Hampshire	NH

	New Jersey	NJ

1	1	1	1	1	Site Remediation and Cost Recovery

New Mexico	NM

	New York	NY

1	1	1	1	1

	North Carolina	NC

	North Dakota	ND

	1	1	1	1

	Ohio	OH

	Interested in using e-manifest data

Oklahoma	OK	1

Oregon	OR

1	1	1	1	1

	Pennsylvania	PA

1	1

1	1

	Puerto Rico	PR

	Rhode Island	RI

1	1

	1	Identify BR Non-reporters

South Carolina	SC	1

South Dakota	SD	1

Tennessee	TN

	Texas	TX

	Utah	UT

	1	1

1

	Vermont	VT

1	1	1	1

FOIA

Virginia	VA	1

1

Virgin Islands	VI

	Washington	WA

1	1	1	1	1

	West Virginia	WV

	Wisconsin	WI

1	1	1	1	1

	Wyoming	WY

	Totals

8	13	20	15	14	16

	Did not get from FL

Who states think should be required to submit

LQG's	SQG's	CESQG's	Transporter	TSDF

Optional	Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory	Optional
Mandatory	Optional	Mandatory

Alabama	AL	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Alaska	AK	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Arizona	AZ	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Arkansas	AR	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

California	CA	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Colorado	CO	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Connecticut	CT	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

Delaware	DE	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Dist. of Columbia	DC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Florida* 1/10/07	FL	 x	 	 x	 	 x	 	 	 x	 	 x

Georgia	GA	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Guam	GU	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Hawaii	HI	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Idaho	ID	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Illinois	IL	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Indiana	IN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Iowa	IA	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Kansas	KS	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Kentucky	KY	 	1	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1

Louisiana	LA	 	1	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1

Maine	ME	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Maryland	MD	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Massachusetts	MA	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Michigan	MI	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Minnesota	MN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Mississippi	MS	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Missouri	MO	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Montana	MT	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Nebraska	NE	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Nevada	NV	 	1	 	1	1	 	1	 	 	1

New Hampshire	NH	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

New Jersey	NJ	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

New Mexico	NM	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

New York	NY	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

North Carolina	NC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

North Dakota	ND	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Ohio	OH	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	 	 	1

Oklahoma	OK	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1

Oregon	OR	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Pennsylvania	PA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Puerto Rico	PR	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Rhode Island	RI	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

South Carolina	SC	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

South Dakota	SD	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Tennessee	TN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Texas	TX	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Utah	UT	 	1	 	1	1	 	 	1	 	1

Vermont	VT	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1	 	1

Virginia	VA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 

Virgin Islands	VI	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Washington	WA	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

West Virginia	WV	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Wisconsin	WI	1	 	1	 	1	 	1	 	 	1

Wyoming	WY	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Totals

13	16	14	15	23	6	13	15	6	23

New totals with FL

14	16	15	15	24	6	13	16	6	24

States opinion of importance of data quality and timeliness

Importance of Data Quality	Timeliness of Data

Very	Important	Not	<5	<Month	<year	Other

Alabama	AL	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Alaska	AK	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Arizona	AZ	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Arkansas	AR	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

California	CA	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Colorado	CO	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Connecticut	CT	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

Delaware	DE	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Dist. of Columbia	DC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Florida 1/10/07	FL	 x	 	 	 	 x	 	 

Georgia	GA	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

Guam	GU	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Hawaii	HI	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Idaho	ID	1	 	 	1	 	 	 

Illinois	IL	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Indiana	IN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Iowa	IA	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Kansas	KS	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Kentucky	KY	 	 	1	 	1	 	 

Louisiana	LA	1	 	 	1	 	 	 

Maine	ME	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Maryland	MD	 	1	 	1	 	 	 

Massachusetts	MA	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

Michigan	MI	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Minnesota	MN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Mississippi	MS	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Missouri	MO	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Montana	MT	1	 	 	1	 	 	 

Nebraska	NE	 	 	1	 	 	 	 

Nevada	NV	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

New Hampshire	NH	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

New Jersey	NJ	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

New Mexico	NM	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

New York	NY	1	 	 	1	 	 	Paper is going to be 10 days

North Carolina	NC	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

North Dakota	ND	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Ohio	OH	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Oklahoma	OK	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

Oregon	OR	1	 	 	 	 	 	Real Time

Pennsylvania	PA	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Puerto Rico	PR	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Rhode Island	RI	 	 	 	 	 	 	3 months

South Carolina	SC	 	 	1	 	 	 	 

South Dakota	SD	 	1	 	 	 	 	State copies not required, but
generator copy is important

Tennessee	TN	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Texas	TX	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Utah	UT	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Vermont	VT	1	 	 	 	1	 	 

Virginia	VA	 	 	1	 	 	 	not applicable

Virgin Islands	VI	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Washington	WA	1	 	 	 	 	1	 

West Virginia	WV	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

Wisconsin	WI	 	1	 	 	1	 	 

Wyoming	WY	 	 	 	 	 	 	 

 	 	 	 	 	 	 

 	 	 	 	 	 

	Totals

14	9	4	5	16	1

	New totals with FL

15	9	4	5	17	1

	



Survey regarding states opinion their states CBI as it may impact a
national e-Manifest data system

Documentation sent to states

>>> "Elizabeth Bols" <bolse@michigan.gov> 12/22/06 10:29 AM >>>

Hello from Michigan

I am sending this email to any state that responded an interest on the
survey distributed in December 2005 through ASTSWMO, from Robert
Haggerty, NY and Ray Gordon, NH, on behalf of the states in the
e-manifest workgroup.  Since, Ray is no longer on the workgroup I will
be filling in and working with Robert to keep you informed.  

We just had another conference call/meeting.  There are representatives
from EPA and DOT on the work group and the following individuals
represent the states.

Robert Haggerty	New York DEC

Ed Hammerberg	Maryland MDE

Ed Karmilovich		Pennsylvania DEP

Ferd Scaccetti		New Jersey DEP

Elizabeth Bols		Michigan DEQ

Ann Carberry		California EPA

Jack Griffith		Florida DEP

The rest of this rather long email will address the following 

(1) where are we in the process of implementing a Federal e-manifest
system

(2) fill you in on some of the results from the last survey

(3) what your state does/would do with regard to CBI and manifest data. 
We would appreciate your response by emailing me (bolse@michigan.gov) by
January 10, 2007 so I have time to compile the data before the next
conference call.

(1) WHERE ARE WE IN THE PROCESS OF IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL E-MANIFEST
SYSTEM

I have attached the following documents that you may want to read.  The
first one is a copy of the "Statement of Susan Parker Bodine, Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, before the Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee on September 28, 2006."  The second document is a copy of the
proposed Senate bill that was in the 109th Congress committee.  

The workgroup has been directed by EPA-HQ Management "to proceed with
the final rule development steps for e-Manifest on the assumption that
legislation will eventually be enacted, and that the legislation will
most likely include many of the features that were included in the draft
bill (S. 3871) that was introduced in the 109th Congress by Senator
Thune.  So, we are resuming activity with the workgroup to develop a
final rule that would implement e-Manifest consistently with the Thune
bill, recognizing that we will probably need to adjust the rule language
as needed as the 110th Congress puts its own mark on the subject
matter."  

We have another conference call in January to review draft rules.  

(2) FILL YOU IN ON SOME OF THE RESULTS FROM THE LAST SURVEY

This is the correspondence that accompanied the survey and the survey
(to jog your memory).

Dear ASTSWMO representative:

For more than 20 years, the hazardous waste manifest system has relied
on the creation of a paper trail to track hazardous waste shipments from
cradle-to-grave. Waste generators create multicopy paper manifest forms
to show the transportation routing of their waste shipments and the
composition and quantity of the materials being shipped. Each handler
signs the manifest by hand, until it is signed by the final waste
management facility to show the waste shipment was received. Copies
signed by all parties are retained in company files, and the final copy
verifying receipt by the treatment, storage and disposal facility is
mailed back to the generator to close the tracking loop. About 28 states
also collect manifests from generators and TSDFs, and the data are
manually keyed into state tracking databases to help oversee waste
management trends and assess fees.

Due to the volume of manifests circulated each year (more than 2.5
million) and the number of copies that must be signed sequentially and
retained in files for inspection, the manifest system produces some of
the largest paperwork burdens in the EPA. Compliance with the manifest
system costs waste handlers and states more than $193 million annually.
For this reason, EPA has been pursuing for several years a project that
would transition the manifest from a paper-based system to a mostly
electronic approach. The EPA Office of Solid Waste (OSW) is on the verge
of proposing regulatory language that would allow the building of this
system. 

ASTSWMO, through the Hazardous Waste Program Operations Task Force, is
representing state interests on this effort by sitting on an advisory
group with EPA.   The Program Operations Task Force would like to
solicit your input on this soon to be proposed e-manifest system.   We
ask that you fill out the attached survey and return it to
rgordon@des.state.nh.us by December       .  We will compile the results
and use them to identify and represent to EPA the states concerns about
any emanifest proposals.   

For more information on the e-manifest and the EPA*s efforts to date
please see the following web pages:

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/e-man.htm 
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/gener/manifest/faqs.htm 

Thank you

ASTSWMO Program Operations Task Force

Results from some of the questions on the Survey of States on Manifest
Data

3) When an e-manifest system is launched, please list your preference on
which users should be optional and which should be mandatory.  

			Optional	Mandatory

LQG*s			15		16

SQG*s			17		14

CESQG*s		26		  5

Transporters		16		14

TSD Facilities 		 7		24

4) How important is the data quality of the e-manifest?

	Very Important - We use or will use all or almost all the data fields
on the manifest.	17

	Important - We use or will use certain key fields that must be high
quality 		 9

	Not Important - We do not use manifest data or need high quality data		
4

5) How important is the timeliness of the receipt of the data?

	Within five days of the shipment	  5

	Within a month of the shipment	18

	Within a year of the shipment	  1

6) Do you wish to participate in a national conference call to discuss
your needs from a national e-manifest system?

Yes  (if you know someone in a state that is not listed that may want
updates, please forward this email to them and have them respond to me
(bolse@michigan.gov) so I can add them to the list).

[Note: crossed out names email came back as undelivered]

STATE		NAME			STATE		NAME

Arkansas	Melanie Foster		Connecticut	David Westcott 

Georgia		Verona Barnes 		Idaho		John Brueck 

Kansas		Jim Rudeen 		Kentucky	Bill Schneider 

Louisiana	James Miller 		Maryland	Butch Dye 

Massachusetts	Michael Hurley 		Missouri		David Giarratano 

Montana	Robert Reinke 		Nebraska	Morgan Leibrandt 

Nevada		Jeff Denison 		New Jersey	Ferdinand Scaccetti 

New York	Deborah Aldrich 		North Dakota	Curtis Erickson 

Ohio		Paula Canter 		Oklahoma	Jon Roberts 

Oregon		Nancy Dollar 		Pennsylvania	Robert Finkel

Rhode Island	Mark Dennen 		South Carolina	Clyde Buchanan 

South Dakota	Carrie Jacobson 		Utah		Rusty Lundberg 

Vermont		Linda Joyal		Virginia		Steve Frazier 

Washington	Jean Rushing 		Wisconsin	Aggie Cook 

(3) WHAT YOUR STATE DOES/WOULD DO WITH REGARD TO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS
INFORMATION (CBI) AND MANIFEST DATA

As a state representative we can take it upon ourselves to ask other
states questions and we do not have to go through the monumental
paperwork task that EPA has to go through, so that is why we use this
informal process to as you questions.  

QUESTION

It does not matter if your state currently collects manifests,
films/scans manifest, or even has data in a data system.  What we are
trying to determine is if your state did any of the aforementioned would
the data it be available to the public or could any of the manifest
information be withheld because of a CBI request? Or would it
automatically be withheld because if would pre-determined to be CBI?

Survey Results

‑3666,  david.westcott@po.state.ct.us 

Idaho

X	To answer your part 3 question regarding CBI, Idaho DEQ at one point
had the commercial RCRA C TSD land disposal facility located in SW Idaho
claim CBI on their Biennial Report data because they felt it revealed
their client list of hazardous waste generators who shipped waste to
them.  When we were able to explain to them and have them understand
that the data was available in multiple places by using different
searches of the BR database by searching for generators that shipped
waste to their facility, they dropped their CBI claim on their Biennial
Report.  I think the same can hold true for this CBI concern on
electronic manifests. I believe the information can be available through
a number of methods and not just available in one place so the CBI
argument is less valid when companies want to claim CBI.  Also as an
authorized state, EPA Region 10 is very fastidious about Idaho DEQ's
public information being very available and must be equivalent to 40 CFR
Part 2 as required for authorized states in 40 CFR Part 271.17.  Idaho's
equivalent public information and CBI requirements can be found in the
Idaho Public Records Act at Idaho Code Title 9, Chapter 3, starting at
section 335.    John Brueck. Idaho DEQ

Ohio	X

Thanks for the update.  In response to your CBI question, based on the
fact that most of the Ohio TSDs currently claim confidentiality of their
customer identification info on their HW Annual Report, I would expect
them to try to do so for manifest data also.  Laura Lopez at OSW/AIB is
also concerned about the effect of CBI claims on manifest data and has
an issue paper drafted for the Change Management Biennial Report expert
group to review, but from what she said Tuesday on our monthly
Coordination Group conference call I get the impression she has it on
hold until Matt Hale is briefed and OSW formally commits to using
manifest data as the future BR vehicle.  If you want to see the issue
paper I have a version of it that should be close to or same as hers.  I
commented but she drafted it.  Paula Canter Ohio

	

 PAGE   

 PAGE   1