![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20081111143530im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Frequent Questions
- Who is responsible for the hazardous waste manifest?
- Does EPA currently collect manifests?
- What are the goals of the 2005 revision of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest rule?
- What are the anticipated burden reductions for the regulated community?
- How does the rule specifically address problems associated with manifest variability?
- How will this rule affect waste handlers' ability to obtain blank manifest forms?
- How does EPA plan to oversee this manifest form distribution and numbering process?
- When will waste handlers and states need to begin using the revised manifest form?
- Why is EPA allowing until September 5, 2006 for compliance?
- Where are the changes going to be codified?
- Why is DOT's authority being used to implement this rule?
- What is the status of the RCRA e-manifest? Wasn't it part of the 2001 proposed rule?
Who is responsible for the hazardous waste manifest?
The current hazardous waste manifest is a joint undertaking by EPA and the Department of Transportation (DOT). EPA is responsible for regulating hazardous waste under a federal statute known as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This act requires that all hazardous waste shipped off-site be tracked from "cradle-to-grave" using a manifest that provides information about the generator of the waste, the facility that will receive the waste, a description and quantity of the waste (including the number and type of containers), and how the waste will be routed to the receiving facility. Because hazardous waste is also regulated by the DOT under its hazardous materials laws, the manifest was developed to meet both EPA’s requirements for a manifest, and DOT’s requirements for "shipping papers."
Does EPA currently collect manifests?
No. The federal regulations do not require the routine submission of manifests to EPA, except when there are problems with a shipment which the generator and receiving facility cannot reconcile. Moreover, the hazardous waste regulatory program has been largely delegated to the state level, so most day-to-day implementation and inspection activities are carried out by "authorized states", rather than by EPA. However, about 30 states do routinely collect manifests, and these state programs now enter the data contained in these paper manifests into their databases for tracking purposes. The data is used by the states for estimation of hazardous waste management capacity, compliance targeting and enforcement, program management, and generation of revenue.
What are the goals of the 2005 revision of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest rule?
The RCRA hazardous waste manifest form revisions aim to reduce burden to waste handlers by standardizing all the manifest data elements and improving tracking of irregular shipments, while maintaining or improving protection of human health and the environment. The final revisions also will further standardize hazardous waste tracking procedures, while making the form available from a greater number of printer sources, rather than only from state governments.
What are the anticipated burden reductions for the regulated community?
The final rule is designed to provide regulatory relief to upwards of 139,000 entities in at least 45 industrial sub-sectors, who are involved in transporting RCRA hazardous wastes every year for off-site management. About 12 million tons of hazardous waste (non-wastewaters and wastewaters) per year are manifested for shipment (i.e. transport by truck, rail or barge), involving 2.4 to 5.1 million RCRA manifests, requiring about 4.4 to 9.2 million waste handler labor hours, costing about $187 to $733 million annually. In addition, 34 state governments reportedly spend 199,000 to 416,000 labor hours costing $6.3 to $37 million annually to administer the current RCRA hazardous waste manifest program, which when added to waste handler burden, totals 4.6 to 9.7 million hours ($193 to $770 million) per year in baseline national paperwork burden. Relative to this paperwork burden baseline, EPA estimates that today's final rule revisions to the RCRA manifest form are expected to produce a national total of $12.7 to $20.6 million in average annual paperwork burden reduction benefits associated with a reduction of 249,000 to 397,000 annual burden hours.
How does the rule specifically address problems associated with manifest variability?
First, the rule eliminates most sources of state-by-state variability in the contents (data fields) of the current RCRA manifest form, including the existing "state optional" boxes. The rule also eliminates the requirement to obtain state-specific manifest forms and instructions. With the exception of allowance for state-specific hazardous waste codes on the RCRA manifest form, which the states contend are essential to their continued use of the manifest to track the hazardous wastes that are regulated by states (but are not regulated by EPA), the form is now completely standardized by the final rule.
Second, the rule prescribes the use of new check boxes and data fields on the manifest form to improve tracking of several "problem" shipments (i.e., container residues, rejected wastes, and international waste shipments).
Third, the rule standardizes the current state-by-state varying waste "handling code" box on the manifest form, by replacing it with a "management method code" box which is also used for RCRA biennial reporting. The final rule's standardization of these codes around the codes used for RCRA biennial reporting will integrate manifest data collection with RCRA biennial reporting requirements as well as reduce the burden that results from implementing varying code systems.
How will this rule affect waste handlers' ability to obtain blank manifest forms?
The final rule establishes a standard (nationally uniform) RCRA manifest form that will be required in every state, tribal, and US territorial jurisdiction. This replaces the current approach, which requires states to implement the federal format (the Uniform Manifest Form 8700-22 and 22A), but allows each state to vary the federal format slightly and to limit distribution of their specific manifest forms to members of their regulated communities. The current approach results in many waste handlers having to obtain multiple manifest forms and follow multiple data formats for each of the various states in which they transport hazardous wastes. Under the final rule, varying state-specific manifest formats will be eliminated, and the revised manifest form can be obtained from a greater number of registered sources (i.e., states, commercial printers, and waste handlers who register with EPA to print and distribute forms). The final rule will require that all manifest forms be printed to a precise federal printing specification to assure uniformity and quality. Moreover, each form must have a unique preprinted manifest tracking number that will identify a waste shipment individually in all tracking systems.
How does EPA plan to oversee this manifest form distribution and numbering process?
EPA will oversee the revised manifest distribution process by creating a manifest printing registry within its Office of Solid Waste (OSW), to which those entities desiring to print and distribute the revised manifests must register. The rule describes the printing specifications and other qualifications with which approved registrants must comply. The rule also explains the application content and the criteria OSW will use to evaluate the proofs of the form registrants submit to OSW to demonstrate adherence to the specifications. OSW plans to establish and maintain a web site to disseminate information on the Registry for applicants and the public, and to make available information on state waste codes, state copy submission requirements, and state program contacts.
When will waste handlers and states need to begin using the revised manifest form?
Waste handlers and state governments will have until September 5, 2006 to prepare their operations for the use of the revised manifest form. Under both RCRA and Department of Transportation (DOT) statutory authorities, the use of the revised form will be nationally mandatory after September 5, 2006. As was the case with EPA's 1984 Uniform Manifest Rule, the revised manifest will be effective in all states on the compliance date under DOT's hazardous materials laws, regardless of whether the states are fully authorized for the manifest revisions under RCRA state authorization requirements.
Why is EPA allowing until September 5, 2006 for compliance?
The September 5, 2006 compliance date should allow waste handlers to use up their stocks of the old forms and allow sufficient time for registrants to apply to EPA Office of Solid Waste's registry and prepare to print and distribute the revised manifest forms. Likewise, 18 months will provide states sufficient time to update their tracking databases to address the rule's changes to the manifest form and its data elements and to enable them to revise their authorized hazardous waste programs to adapt the revised manifest requirements. Because we are requiring the revised manifest format to be used and accepted in every US jurisdiction, today's rule also will preclude states from requiring their regulated waste handlers to obtain manifest forms exclusively from the state agencies.
Where are the changes going to be codified?
The action amends the regulations for hazardous waste generators and transporters in 40 CFR Parts 262 - 263, and related requirements for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities (TSDFs) in 40 CFR Parts 264 - 265. The actual revisions to the manifest form itself are to EPA Forms 8700-22 and 8700-22A (continuation sheet).
Why is the Department of Transportation 's (DOT's) authority being used to implement this rule?
We are required by statute to coordinate with DOT on transportation requirements, and to maintain consistency with DOT's hazardous materials statutes and regulations. DOT indicated that it supports the changes to the manifest contained in this rule, as it will cause the manifest to be more in line with DOT statutes that promote uniformity in the regulation of hazardous materials transportation, including the use and content of shipping papers such as the manifest.
What is the status of the RCRA e-manifest? Wasn't it part of the 2001 proposed rule?
Although we included proposed standards in our May 2001 proposal to allow for an electronic manifest (e-manifest), comments on the that component of the proposed rule raised significant information technology issues and policy issues that merited further analysis and stakeholder outreach prior to adopting a final e-manifest direction. The e-manifest remains a high priority for future EPA action, since it accounts for the greater part of the annual burden reduction cost savings estimated for the entire 2001 proposed rule, and it will have the greater impact in improving the effectiveness of tracking hazardous waste shipments. However, since the e-manifest project needed additional analysis before it could be finalized, we separated the e-manifest project from the revised form requirements, and decided to continue the two projects as separate rulemaking actions.
Comments received in response to the form revisions proposal raised fewer issues than the e-manifest, and we are now in a position to finalize the form changes. Notably, there is broad stakeholder support for finalizing the form revisions as a separate action, because manifest variability is a large concern of the regulated community, and because standardizing the form elements is a necessary precursor to establishing an e-manifest.
While the manifest form revisions are now ready to be published in a final rule, we note that significant progress has also been made in recent months on the e-manifest. A stakeholder meeting was conducted in May 2004 in Washington, DC, and we met with participants from the generator community, the waste transportation and management sectors, authorized state agencies, and information technology vendors for two days to talk about the future direction of the e-manifest project. From this meeting, we learned there is a strong consensus among the stakeholders in favor of a national, centralized e-manifest system, rather than the decentralized approach that we proposed in May 2001. We also learned that the user community is willing to help pay the cost of developing a national e-manifest system through the payment of reasonable service fees earmarked to the costs of this system.Subsequently, we coordinated with the General Services Administration (GSA) on the feasibility of developing an e-manifest system as a Share-in-Savings
initiative, and we concluded that this procurement tool provided a practical means for EPA to proceed with the e-manifest as a federal procurement. EPA now plans to compete the e-manifest system development and operations work as a Share-in-Savings contract task under a Blanket Purchase Agreement established by GSA for this purpose. We expect that an award will be issued to the successful IT bidder on this task by September 30, 2005.
