Regulatory Impact Analysis

                            EPA's 2017 Final Rule
Establishing User Fees for the RCRA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (e-Manifest)

                  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
              Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR)
                 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW (Mailstop 5305P)
                           Washington DC, 20460 USA

                                 December 2017
                               Table of Contents

Acronyms 	iii
Acknowledgements	iv
Executive Summary	ES-1
      ES.1  Overview  	ES-1
      ES.2  Regulatory Changes	ES-2
      ES.3  Affected Universe and Count of Manifests	ES-5
      ES.4  Summary of Findings	ES-7
      ES.5  Other Regulatory and Distributional Issues  	ES-12

Chapter 1:  Problem Statement & Justification for Regulatory Changes	1-1
      1.1  Historical Background of the Paper Manifest System	1-1
      1.2  Purpose of EPA's Electronic Manifest System Rulemaking	1-3
      1.3  The 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act	1-5
      1.4  The 2014 Final Rule	1-6
      1.5  The 2018 Final Rule	1-7

Chapter 2:  Universe of Affected Entities	2-1
      2.1  Industrial Facilities Potentially Affected by e-Manifest	2-1
      2.2  State Governments Potentially Affected by e-Manifest	2-24
      2.3  Summary of Potentially Affected Entities	2-28

Chapter 3:  Count of Hazardous Waste Manifests	3-1
      3.1  Prior Estimates of Manifests	3-1
      3.2  Current Estimate of Manifests	3-2

Chapter 4:  Baseline (Paper) Manifest Activities in the Hazardous Waste Management
Industry	4-1
      4.1  Key Assumptions for Baseline Cost Estimation	4-3
      4.2  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  Federal Manifests	4-5
      4.3  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  State Manifests	4-9
      4.4  Baseline Costs Accruing to EPA	4-11
      4.5  Baseline Costs Accruing to States	4-11
      4.6  Baseline Costs Accruing to Industry  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting	4-16
      4.7  Baseline Costs Accruing to States  -  Hazardous Waste Reporting	4-17
      4.8  Summary of Baseline Costs	4-18

Chapter 5:  Costs and Cost Savings of the e-Manifest System	5-1
      5.1  Key Assumptions for e-Manifest System Cost and Cost Savings Estimation	5-3
      5.2  e-Manifest System Costs to EPA  -  Development and Operations	5-7
      5.3	  Manifest Processing Costs to EPA	5-18
      5.4  Cost and Cost Savings to Industry  -  Manifest Completion and Submittal	5-21
      5.5  Manifest Fees to Industry	5-30
      5.6  Cost Savings to States	5-37
      5.7  Hazardous Waste Reporting Costs	5-37
      5.8  Summary of Costs and Cost Savings	5-40
      5.9  Unquantified Benefits of the e-Manifest System	5-41
      5.10  Caveats: Other Parameters not Considered in this Analysis	5-43

Chapter 6:  Sensitivity Analyses of Final Rule Costs and Cost Savings	6-1
      6.1  Number of Manifests	6-1
      6.2  Adoption Rate of the e-Manifest System	6-3
      6.3  Materials Costs	6-4
      6.4  CROMERR	6-5
      6.5  Payback Period	6-7

Chapter 7:  Supplemental Analyses	7-1
      7.1  Regulatory Planning and Review	7-1
      7.2  Regulatory Flexibility	7-2
      7.3  Employment Impact Analysis	7-10
      7.4  Unfunded Mandates Analysis	7-12
      7.5  Federalism Analysis	7-13
      7.6  Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments	7-14
      7.7  Environmental Justice Analysis	7-14
      7.8  Children's Health Protection Analysis	7-14
      7.9  Energy Impact Analysis	7-15

Appendix A.  Methodology for Estimating Hazardous Waste Tonnage Shipped by SQGs, CESQGs, and Generators of State Hazardous Wastes	A-1
Appendix B.  State Hazardous Waste Programs	B-1
Appendix C.  2014 EPA Survey of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Companies	C-1
Appendix D.  Manifest-Related Activities from the Hazardous Waste Manifest System ICR	D-1
	Appendix E.  EPA Paper Manifest Processing Cost Model	E-1
Appendix F.  e-Manifest Technical Architecture: Helpdesk Operations	F-1
Appendix G.  Industries Potentially Affected by the Rule, by NAICS Code	G-1

                                   Acronyms

ASTSWMO
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
BFRA
Bona-Fide Reclamation Agreement
BR
Biennial Report
CBA
Cost-Benefit Analysis
CBI
Confidential Business Information
CDX
Central Data Exchange
CESQG
Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
CFR
Code of Federal Regulations
COTS
Commercial Off-the-Shelf
CPI-U
Consumer Price Index  -  All Urban Consumers
CROMERR
Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule
D&B
Dun & Bradstreet
DOT
Department of Transportation
ENVCAP
Environmental Compliance Assistance Platform
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
ETC
Environmental Technology Council
GAO
Government Accountability Office
HMAC
Hazardous Materials Advisory Council
HWMS
Hazardous Waste Manifest System
ICR
Information Collection Request
IT
Information Technology
LQG
Large Quantity Generator
NAICS
North American Industry Classification System
O&M
Operations and Maintenance
OIRA
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
OMB
Office of Management & Budget
ORCR
Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
OSW
Office of Solid Waste
QA/QC
Quality Assurance / Quality Control
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFA
Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIA
Regulatory Impact Analysis
SBA
Small Business Administration
SBREFA
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
SIC
Standard Industrial Classification
SISNOSE
Significant Economic Impact for a Substantial Number of Small Entities
SQG
Small Quantity Generator
TSDF
Treatment, Storage, or Disposal Facility
UMRA
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
USC
United States Code
WR
Waste Received
XML
Extensible Markup Language

Acknowledgements

Between 2014 and 2017 under three consecutive work assignments, Industrial Economics Incorporated (IEc) provided analytic support for this RIA:
       May 2014 to April 2015: WA 2-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)
       May 2015 to April 2016: WA 3-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)
       April 2016 to December 2017: WA 4-17 (contract EP-W-12-013)

Chris McMinimy, EPA ORCR Economist, was the EPA Contract Officer Technical Representative (COTR) for the work assignments. Other EPA staff assisting with data processing, analysis, and review of prior drafts of this RIA, include (in alphabetical order): Richard Benware, Lee Hofmann, and Mark J. Huff of ORCR.

                               Executive Summary

ES. 1 Overview

Among other regulatory requirements, Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) required the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous waste from sites where wastes are generated to other sites where hazardous waste is managed (i. e., "cradle-to-grave"). EPA published regulations for a paper manifest system on February 26, 1980 (45 Federal Register 12724). Additionally, in 1984, EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT) promulgated a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form and procedures (49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984) to create uniform requirements across states and reduce confusion and compliance challenges.[,] The central element of the RCRA manifest is the paper trail chain-of-custody it creates. Each manifest is a paper document that identifies each entity that is responsible for the hazardous waste at each stage of the shipping process, and the final destination of the waste for disposition (i. e. treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling).

In 1976, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce estimated that approximately 30 to 35 million tons of hazardous waste were dumped on the ground. In 1984, about 25 million tons of hazardous waste were land-disposed annually, threatening groundwater and soil from contamination. This contamination represented environmental externalities  -  a market failure whereby industrial activities generated hazardous waste, with the consequences impacting the public as a whole.

The purpose of the hazardous waste manifest system is to provide nationwide, cradle-to-grave tracking of all offsite shipments of RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes from their point-of-generation (cradle), to their point-of-treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling (grave). The existing manifest system is paper-based, and uses a six-ply carbon copy paper form which must be signed, with one sheet retained for a minimum of three years by every party that has custody of the waste during its shipment. In this way, the system provides a cradle - to-grave record of all RCRA hazardous wastes that are transported offsite from generator facilities to other locations.

While paper manifests have served as a mechanism to guard against illegal dumping, government and industry sources have commented on the substantial cost of implementing this mechanism. EPA's paper manifest system was the largest paperwork burden of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended approval of the RCRA manifest paperwork burden information collection request (ICR) for only two years in 1994, with the expectation that EPA would, in the interim, adopt manifest revisions that would address its regulatory burden. In 1996, OMB again extended approval of the manifest ICR, but with the expectation that EPA would explicitly address, among other things, innovative approaches as a way to streamline and reduce the annual burden of manifest reporting requirements on the RCRA-regulated community. To reduce paperwork burden on regulated entities, OMB suggested that EPA develop and pilot test the electronic submission and tracking of manifests.

In September 2012, the US Congress passed legislative bill number S. 710 directing EPA to establish an e-Manifest system and authorizing the appropriation of $6 million over 2013 to 2015 for EPA to establish the e-Manifest system. President Obama signed the e-Manifest Act into law on October 5, 2013 (Public law P. L. 112-195). The Act authorizes EPA to collect user fees to recover the costs associated with developing and running e-Manifest. It also defines the goals of the e-Manifest system to be:

 Meeting the needs of the user community, including State governments that collect manifest data,
 Attracting sufficient user participation and fee revenue to ensure the viability of the system,
 Decreasing the administrative burden of the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system on the user community, and
 Providing waste receipt data for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report).

The current manifest system reduces the cost of correcting environmental externalities and therefore increases social welfare; it is part of the broader system under RCRA of protecting human health and the environment by ensuring proper disposal of wastes. An electronic manifest system can further improve the efficiency of this system by leveraging new technology to reduce labor and cost burdens of tracking hazardous waste and ensuring safe and proper disposal. Additionally, an electronic system can provide new information about hazardous waste shipments to industrial entities, environmental and safety regulators, and the public. By bringing the availability of manifest information closer to real-time than under the paper system, an electronic manifest system may even generate environmental and human health benefits associated with reduced material use and more rapid response to potential waste-related issues.

ES. 2 Regulatory Changes

EPA plans to publish two rules to fully promulgate the 2012 Electronic Manifest Act. EPA published the first of these two rules (hereafter referred to as the first year rule) in the Federal Register on February 7, 2014. This final rule revised EPA's regulatory requirements for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system to allow EPA to accept electronic manifests in addition to the existing paper manifests.

In addition, the first year rule:

       Announces EPA's decision to build a single, centralized, e-Manifest system. The decision to build a single system is a departure from the preference expressed by EPA in the 2001 proposed rule to set universal standards that would allow industry to build decentralized electronic manifest systems of their own.

       Defines the universe of entities affected by the e-Manifest program as any facility that completes EPA form 8700-22 and 8700-22A.

       Announces that use of the electronic system will not be mandatory, and that users may choose to submit paper manifests instead.

       Delays the implementation and compliance dates for the provisions of the first year rule until the e-Manifest system is ready for operation and EPA has published a fee schedule for the use of the system in the Federal Register. This information will be published in the final version of the current rulemaking.

       Addresses industry concerns about public access to manifest data and states EPA's decision that manifest data will not be treated as confidential business information (CBI).

       Discusses some technical design aspects of the e-Manifest system, such as how it will capture electronic signatures to be consistent with EPA's 2005 Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).

The current rulemaking, for which this RIA is being conducted, will propose a schedule of user fees to cover the costs of building and running the e-Manifest system and e-Manifest program. It will also announce the date when the system will be turned on and EPA will begin to accept electronic manifests. In addition, the user fee rule will address seven issues that arise within the scope of turning on and running the system, and charging and collecting user fees. These issues are essential to successfully implementing the e-Manifest program and running the e-Manifest system. These seven issues are:

      1) Which users of manifests and manifest data will be charged user fees?
      To address this issue, EPA first had to identify all potential users of the system. EPA identified three broad groups of users: 1) industrial facilities that must use manifests to comply with regulatory obligations under RCRA, 2) State governments that track manifest data, and 3) members of the general public that do not use manifests to comply with RCRA but are interested in manifest data nonetheless. EPA recognizes that the activities of each of these user groups will burden the system, though likely to varying degrees. EPA is proposing to charge only industrial users to recover the full costs of running the e-Manifest system. This group will likely use the e-Manifest system substantially more than state governments or the public, will likely realize benefits from using e-Manifest to a greater degree than state governments or the public, and can more practically be assigned user accounts than all potentially interested members of the public.

      2) What will be the transactional basis for assessing user fee obligations?
      EPA next considered what interaction between industrial users and the system would constitute the billable event that triggered the system to charge a user fee. EPA recognizes the link between system costs that accrue and the number of manifests that pass through the system. For this reason, EPA considered multiple stages within the lifecycle of a manifest as the potential billable event, focusing on the beginning, when a manifest is initiated in the system, and the end, when a finalized manifest is submitted to the system. Based on this review, EPA is proposing to make the final submission of the manifest to the system the billable event. Because the finalized manifest will be submitted by a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), EPA is also proposing that TSDFs will pay the user fee.

      3) How will users be expected to pay their owed fees?
      EPA is proposing that users pay fees within 30 days, using an electronic payment method supported by the US Treasury.

      4) What model or fee formula will EPA rely on for the determination of users' fees?
      EPA considered several models for assessing user fees. As the submission of the finalized manifest is to be the billable event, each fee formula calculates a per-manifest fee. EPA considered three different options:

             Option 1, the Uniform Cost fee, allocates e-Manifest costs evenly across all manifests, creating a single uniform fee.
             Option 2, the Marginal Cost fee, differentiates fees by manifest type, reflecting differences in EPA labor costs associated with data entry and management for different types of manifests.
             Option 3, the Marginal Cost Differentiated fee, differentiates fees by labor costs in the same manner as Option 2, and also differentially assigns operations and maintenance costs by manifest type (e.g., paper manifests versus electronic manifests).

      EPA is proposing to initially assess fees using Option 2. However, if the proportion of electronic manifests remains below 75% of the total volume of manifests five years after the system is turned on, then the fee structure may be changed to reflect Option 3.

      5) How will the rule address fee trajectory and fee schedule revisions?
      EPA is proposing to publish a new schedule of fees at two-year intervals, with the first schedule being published in the final version of this rule. At each revision, EPA will run the latest program cost and manifest usage statistics through the fee formula finalized in this rulemaking to determine fees for the next two-year period. EPA intends to use the same underlying fee formula for the foreseeable future, unless operating conditions or expenditures change drastically and render it obsolete. EPA is also proposing to automatically adjust fees from the first year of each cycle to the second. The purpose of this mid-cycle adjustment would be to account for inflation and any errors (positive or negative) in estimating system usage in the first year of the cycle, which is difficult to predict. Thus, depending on inflation and the accuracy of estimates of system usage for the first year of a cycle, fees in the second period could hypothetically stay about the same, increase, or decrease.

      6) Which, if any, manifest transactions warrant a fee premium?
      EPA is proposing to assess two additional fees above and beyond user fees. The first fee will be levied on submissions of non-manifests to the paper processing center. EPA anticipates significant clerical costs associated with opening these materials, determining that they are not manifests, and returning them to the sender via post. EPA is also proposing to assess additional fees on paper manifests that must be resubmitted and undergo additional review and quality assurance (QA/QC) after initial submission.

      7) What sanctions are being proposed to induce prompt payment of user fees?
      EPA is proposing a mix of financial, denial of service, and enforcement sanctions on late fee payments to encourage timely payment of user fees. Sanctions will begin with financial penalties, be upgraded to denial of service penalties 120 days after payment is due, and escalate to enforcement sanctions 150 days after payment is due.

Finally, the current rule will revise the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Parts §§ 263.21 by revising existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) in that section so that transporters designated on the manifest by generators can make changes on the manifest without prior, explicit approval from the generator, provided their contract with the generator grants them authority to make such changes. EPA is proposing this revision to make the manifest regulations consistent with widespread existing industry practices that enable such changes to the manifest to be made for transportation efficiency. As this revision merely reflects widespread existing industry practices, it is not expected to change industry behavior and thus is not expected to result in net costs or benefits. For this reason this RIA does not estimate the potential economic impacts of this change.

 ES.3 Affected Universe and Count of Manifests

This RIA estimates that in total, 214,242 industrial entities and 33 state governments will be affected by the proposed rule and the implementation of the e-Manifest system. Exhibit ES-1 summarizes these counts across entity type.

                                 Exhibit ES-1
                   Summary of Universe of Affected Entities
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C

                                  Entity Type
                                Number affected
                               Source and Notes
                                       1
LQG Shippers and non-LQG TSDF Shippers[a]
                                                                         19,420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       2
SQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                         35,330
Exhibit 2-6, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.
                                       3
CESQG Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                          2,039
Section <IP_ADDRESS>, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and that only Arkansas requires CESQGs to manifest
                                       4
State Waste Shippers (who manifest)
                                                                        145,522
Exhibit 2-9, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA and states with additional wastes which require manifests for shipment
                                       5
SQGs Shipping under BRFAs (who manifest)
                                                                            447
Exhibit 2-10, based on calculations from EPA's 2015 Improvements to the Hazardous Waste Generator Regulatory Program proposed rule RIA.and states requiring manifests for BFRA shipments
                                       6
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers who Manifest
                                                                        202,758

                                       7
Receiver TSDFs*
                                                                            420
2015 RCRA Biennial Report data
                                       8
Receivers of state waste
                                                                          1,117
Section <IP_ADDRESS>, based on applying the ratio of receiver TSDFs (Row 7) to LQG, TSDF, and SQG shippers (Row 1 plus Row 2) to the count of state waste shippers (Row 4).
                                       9
Industry Subtotal  - Shippers and Receivers who Manifest
                                                                        204,295

                                      10
Transporters (Trucks)
                                                                          9,947
Exhibit 2-11, based on 1996 and 2001 DoT Truck Use Surveys based on 1992 and 1997 data, scaled to estimate 2012 truck counts
                                      11
Industry Total
                                                                        214,242

                                      12
State Governments
                                                                             33
ENVCAP data
[a] In 2015 Biennial Report data, 384 facilities classified as LQGs were also shipper facilities as well as receiver TSDFs. Therefore, the subtotal and total in Rows 8 and 10, respectively, may overstate the total number of industry entities affected. However, any non-LQG TSDF shipper would be affected by the rule via requirements that specifically correspond to shippers of waste, while receiver TSDFs would be affected by the rule's requirements that specifically correspond to receivers of waste. Therefore, even though the total number of entities affected may be overstated, the subtotal and totals in this exhibit accurately portray the number of entity-instances estimated to be affected by the rule, as TSDFs that function as both non-LQG shippers and receivers of waste will be impacted by two different sets of requirements associated with the rule.

To estimate the total number of manifests used annually, this RIA assumes that LQGs and TSDF shippers operate under a weekly pickup schedule for their hazardous waste. Given this assumption, this RIA estimates a total of 1,107,080 manifests from LQG and TSDF shippers annually. Additionally, this RIA assumes that SQGs and generators of state hazardous wastes operate under a monthly pickup schedule for their hazardous waste, leading to an estimate of 2,200,057 manifests from these entities annually. In total, this RIA estimates 3,307,137 manifests used annually for hazardous waste shipments.

 ES.4 Summary of Findings

In establishing an e-Manifest system that will serve as a clearinghouse, on a going-forward basis, for all federal and state manifests, the current (final) rule will incur a set of costs for creating the system, and will result in a set of cost savings from reduced burden relative to the baseline system of paper manifest creation, transmittal, and processing. Within the constraints of data availability, EPA identified the incremental costs and cost savings resulting from the current rule. EPA also assessed the sensitivity of outcomes to key assumptions.

ES.4.1 Costs of e-Manifest

This RIA considers the following major sources of costs:

 Development and maintenance of the e-Manifest system (EPA costs). A majority of the costs associated with the final rule correspond to EPA's development costs for the e-Manifest system. These costs include expenses for both initial system creation and ongoing maintenance, as well as additional costs for activities such as receiving and processing manifests through the e-Manifest system, running a help desk to assist users of the system, and certain Cross-Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR)-based requirements associated with the system's use. As noted below, EPA will be remunerated for these costs by industry through the user fees.

 Collection and processing of manifests (EPA costs). In addition to the development, operations, and maintenance costs associated with the e-Manifest system, EPA will also collect and process manifests within the e-Manifest system. These costs apply specifically to manifests submitted non-electronically; these manifests must undergo additional processing and data entry tasks before their information can be uploaded to the system and stored in a format akin to those manifests submitted electronically through the e-Manifest system. As noted below, EPA will be remunerated for these costs by industry through the user fees.

 Manifest fees (industry costs). To recoup e-Manifest system development and maintenance costs, the final rule will apply fees, on a per-manifest basis, to the hazardous waste industry. Effectively, these fees are equivalent to the sum of EPA's system development and maintenance costs (above) and represent a transfer of those costs to industry. Associated with these fees are additional costs to EPA for payment collection; these costs are imputed into the overall system development and maintenance costs recouped through fees to industry.

Additionally, this RIA considers costs associated with CROMERR requirements for the hazardous waste industry.

ES.4.2 Cost Savings of e-Manifest

This RIA estimates costs savings associated with the following:

 Time and materials savings (industry cost savings). The e-Manifest system will allow manifests to be created and submitted through electronic means, rather than with the current paper form that must be printed, completed, transmitted, submitted, and physically stored in the baseline. This RIA estimates that manifest activities done through the e-Manifest system result in substantial time and materials savings relative to these activities being performed with paper manifests.

 Reduced manifest and program costs (cost savings to states). The e-Manifest system will obviate the need for states to collect and process manifests. While states may still wish to do so to meet their own regulatory, enforcement, or data needs, manifest collection and processing activities will be conducted for all manifests by EPA through the e-Manifest system (and ancillary systems to handle non-electronic manifests received on a going-forward basis). The burden reduction associated with reduced state-level manifest collection and processing represents a cost savings to these states.

 Reduced Biennial Report burden (industry and state cost savings). The hazardous waste industry currently undertakes a number of recordkeeping and reporting activities associated with the RCRA Biennial Report. The e-Manifest system will reduce this burden by automatically collecting some information through manifests submitted to the system; this represents a cost savings both to industry and states.

ES4.3. Comparison of Costs and Cost Savings

Exhibit ES-2 presents an overall summary of the baseline, post-rule, and incremental (post-rule less baseline) costs (and cost savings) of the final rule. Compared to baseline costs of approximately $238 million, post-rule costs range from $252 million in the first year of system launch to $113 million in the sixth year of system launch. Exhibit ES-3 displays the incremental discounted costs of the rule (using three percent and seven percent discount rates), including the annualized incremental costs of the final rule. This RIA estimates approximately $66 million in annualized cost savings over the analyzed six-year period following e-Manifest system launch under a seven percent discount rate and approximately $70 million in annualized cost savings over this period under a three percent discount rate, though the rule results in overall costs in the first year and cost savings in the following five years.

NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.
NOTE: The fee estimates presented in this RIA are not EPA's final schedule of fees to be paid for use of the e-Manifest system. Rather, they are derived from the best estimates available at the time of this RIA's publication of costs related to setting up and running the e-Manifest system and program, as well as the best estimates of the adoption of electronic manifests, and finally the best estimates of cost savings that will be realized by switching from paper to electronic manifests. These estimated fees are necessary for properly comparing the costs and cost savings attributable to electronic manifests and for this reason they are presented here.
EPA will publish an actual schedule of fees as a notice in the Federal Register.

Note that extending the period of analysis forward in time, other things equal, would increase the cost savings estimate, because the highest cost savings accrue after the system implementation costs have been fully accounted for (in the six-year period and afterward). Additional years would continue to reveal substantial cost savings rather than net costs. Therefore, the estimate of a $66 million annualized cost savings can be thought of as a low-end estimate for the long-term savings associated with a functioning e-Manifest system. For example, extending the period of analysis to ten years from system launch, and assuming that net cost savings in Years 7 through 10 are similar to those experienced in Year 6 leads to an annualized cost savings estimate of approximately $85 million instead.

                                 Exhibit ES-2
  Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H

                                 Cost Category
                                   Baseline
                    Post-Rule (e-Manifest System Launched)

                                    Annual
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                         Baseline and Post-Rule Costs
Costs to EPA
                                       1
Receipt/review of federal manifests[a]
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                       2
e-Manifest system  -  annual payment for setup costs ($18.2M total)[b]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $3.64
                                                                          $0.00
                                       3
e-Manifest system  -  operations costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $8.39
                                                                          $8.65
                                                                          $9.48
                                                                          $10.6
                                                                          $10.5
                                                                          $10.6
                                       4
e-Manifest system  -  manifest processing costs[c]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $32.6
                                                                          $26.9
                                                                          $11.3
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                                                          $1.26
                                       5
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
                                                                          $1.04
Costs to Industry
                                       6
Manifest activities[d]
                                                                           $201
                                                                           $195
                                                                           $171
                                                                           $136
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                                                          $88.3
                                       7
CROMERR
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0361
                                                                         $0.161
                                                                         $0.310
                                                                         $0.527
                                                                         $0.414
                                                                         $0.510
                                       8
Manifest fees[e]
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $44.6
                                                                          $39.2
                                                                          $24.4
                                                                          $15.5
                                                                          $15.4
                                                                          $11.9
                                       9
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $10.8
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                                                          $5.02
                                      10
State TSDFs - Registration
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0593
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      11
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                           $212
                                                                           $245
                                                                           $216
                                                                           $165
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $109
                                                                           $106
Costs to States
                                      12
Manifest receipt and processing[f]
                                                                          $16.2
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      13
Hazardous waste reporting activities
                                                                          $9.09
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      14
Registering State TSDFs
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                        $0.0731
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      15
                                                                       Subtotal
                                                                          $25.3
                                                                          $6.37
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                                                          $6.29
                                      16
                                                                    Total Costs
                                                                           $238
                                                                           $252
                                                                           $223
                                                                           $173
                                                                           $117
                                                                           $116
                                                                           $113
            Incremental Costs (Post-Rule Costs Less Baseline Costs)
                                      17
                                                       Incremental Costs to EPA
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                                                          $0.00
                                      18
                                                  Incremental Costs to Industry
                                                                          $33.0
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                        ($46.3)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                      19
                                                    Incremental Costs to States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                      20
                          Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (undiscounted)
                                                                          $14.1
                                                                        ($15.1)
                                                                        ($65.2)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                      21
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (3% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.7
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                        ($59.7)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                      22
                   Total Incremental Costs (Cost Savings) (7% discount rate)[g]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
[a] This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on this cost item. For more information on the activities involved, see Exhibit 4-4.
[b] The cost for this item is $18.2 million and is incurred by in years prior to e-Manifest system launch. This cost is apportioned into five equivalent payments of $3.64 million to evidence how the fee will be applied to industry to recoup this cost. This cost is offset by fees, and is not included in the total row.
c The entirety of this cost is offset by fees and is not included in the total row.
[d] Includes costs for federal and state manifests, capital costs to store manifests, and reclamation agreement-specific recordkeeping activities. This RIA assumes that the final rule has no impact on capital costs associated with storing manifests in file cabinets and recordkeeping activities for shipments under reclamation agreements; the difference between baseline and post-rule costs results from the difference in the burden associated with manifest activities for federal and state manifests only.
[e] Amount equivalent to the total fee accrued in a given year, as shown in Rows 2 through 4.
[f] This RIA assumes that states do not undertake any manifest receipt and processing activities in the post-rule scenario, as the necessary data would be accessible through the e-Manifest system to states at no charge.
[g] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column C is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column D is discounted by two years, and so on.

Exhibit ES-3
Summary of Costs and Cost Savings of the Final Rule and e-Manifest System, Discounted and Annualized
                            (2017$, millions of $)
                            (Millions of $, 2014$)
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                       E
                                       F
                                       G
                                       H
                                       I

                            e-Manifest System Year
                                    Year 1
                                    Year 2
                                    Year 3
                                    Year 4
                                    Year 5
                                    Year 6
                           Total (Years 1 through 6)
              Annualized Incremental Cost (Savings) (Years 1 - 6)

                                 Calendar Year
                                     2018
                                     2019
                                     2020
                                     2021
                                     2022
                                     2023

                                       1
Incremental Costs (Cost Savings)  -  Undiscounted
EPA
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                 Offset by fee
                                       2

Industry
                                                                         $33.0
                                                                          $3.93
                                                                      ($46.3)0)
                                                                         ($102)
                                                                         ($103)
                                                                         ($106)
                                                                         ($320)
                                                                        ($53.4)
                                       3

States
                                                                        ($18.9)
                                                                      ($19.0)0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                                                         ($114)
                                                                        ($19.0)
                                       4

                                                                          Total
                                                                         $14.1
                                                                       ($15.1)
                                                                      ($65.2)0)
                                                                         ($121)
                                                                         ($122)
                                                                         ($125)
                                                                         ($434)
                                                                        ($72.4)
                                       5
                                                       Discounted Total (3%)[a]
                                                                         $13.7
                                                                        ($14.2)
                                                                      ($59.7)0)
                                                                         ($108)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($105)
                                                                         ($378)
                                                                        ($69.7)
                                       6
                                                       Discounted Total (7%)[a]
                                                                          $13.2
                                                                        ($13.1)
                                                                        ($53.3)
                                                                        ($92.6)
                                                                        ($86.7)
                                                                        ($83.3)
                                                                         ($316)
                                                                        ($66.3)
Totals may not sum due to rounding.
[a] Figures discounted back to 2017$. That is, the value in Column B is discounted by one year (2018  -  2017), the value in Column C is discounted by two years, and so on.

b Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $161 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $23.0 million instead.
c Calculated as the annual payment that would need to be made, cognizant of discounting, to reach a total value of $221 million after six years. If the period were extended to ten years (i.e., the total period over which e-Manifest system costs are incurred, including pre-launch setup costs, plus the six-year period analyzed here), the annualized cost savings would be approximately $26.0 million instead.

ES.4.4 Unquantified Benefits

EPA expects that electronic manifests will enhance many stakeholders' abilities to track and extract data on waste shipments by storing and distributing this data in a central, accessible location. EPA has identified six stakeholder groups that may benefit from better access to manifest shipping data:

 Members of industry that use the manifest for tracking waste shipments;
 Federal and state government RCRA enforcement officials;
 Emergency responders;
 Foreign governments;
 Research institutions; and
 Communities near RCRA-regulated facilities.

This RIA does not attempt to quantify the value of this benefit.

ES.4.5 Uncertainties in the Estimation of Costs and Cost Savings

This RIA also assesses the impacts of uncertainty and potential deviations in EPA's chosen assumptions. Specifically, this RIA conducts sensitivity analyses regarding the following assumptions and parameters:

 Number of manifests. The analysis evaluates the effect of assuming increased hazardous waste shipping frequencies and consequently more manifests in the system.
 Adoption rate. Because cost savings result from adoption of electronic manifests, adoption patterns drive the magnitude of cost and cost savings.
 Materials costs. The analysis characterizes cost impacts on a more detailed level, specifically assuming that materials costs will be eliminated for manifests generated and submitted electronically.
 CROMERR. The primary analysis assumes that CROMERR applies only to TSDFs and transporters. If CROMERR applied to generators, a large number of additional facilities would incur costs related to this aspect of electronic manifest submission.
 Payback period. Because of the statutory requirement for the manifest fee to recover EPA's costs, the period over which these costs are recovered impacts the level of the fee, and in turn, industry costs.

Overall, this RIA finds that the final rule remains a net cost saving rule even under reasonably pessimistic assumptions that increase costs and reduce cost savings. This conclusion does not hold only in extreme cases, such as those where there are relatively few annual manifests completed.

ES.5 Other Regulatory and Distributional Impacts

As part of the analysis, EPA assessed the final rule's potential impacts related to:

 Regulatory planning and review: This rule is not expected to result in more than $14.1 million in incremental costs across the economy in any given year and results in net cost savings in most years (an annualized estimate of $66.3 million in cost savings at a seven percent discount rate). Manifest fees to industry do not exceed $44.6 million in any year, and are, even in early years with lower adoption rates, at least partially offset by industry and state government cost savings. As a result, this RIA concludes that the e-Manifest system is not an economically significant regulatory action, though it may still be deemed significant due to the novel legal and policy issues it raises.

 Regulatory flexibility: Because the e-Manifest system is designed to be an accessible, voluntary system that can reduce costs to any regulated entity, EPA's does not anticipate any adverse impacts on small businesses under the final rule. A sensitivity analysis determined that at most, 70 potentially small entities (representing 40 sectors) are affected by the rule, and EPA expects many of these to enjoy cost savings.

 Employment impacts: Insufficient data are available to quantify changes in employment associated with the rule. This RIA estimates a reduction in labor hours (approximately 22.8 million over six years) and labor costs faced by all affected entities, including states, hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs. The RIA does not reflect a complete analysis of labor market effects related to the rule, as the effects are spread across hundreds of thousands of firms in different sectors, and responses to cost reductions are likely to be sector- and firm-specific. Neither the data nor methods were available to conduct such an analysis.

 Unfunded mandates: The e-Manifest final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As described in Chapter 5, this RIA estimates that the net impact of e-Manifest will be to reduce costs to state governments. The e-Manifest rule will not impose any burden on local or tribal governments as they are not stakeholders in the hazardous waste manifest system. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA. This rule is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The current hazardous waste paper manifest system imposes no burden or requirements on small governments.

 Federalism: As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, this RIA estimates cost savings for state agencies. Thus, the final rule would not result in substantial direct compliance costs, as defined in the EPA guidance, for entities owned by state and local governments. EPA does not estimate that the rule would affect the relationship between the federal government and the states or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

 Tribal governments: As indicated in the UMRA discussion above, EPA does not estimate any costs of the final rule for state and local governments. Based on these results, the rule is not expected to impose a substantial burden on tribal governments.

 Environmental justice: EPA does not estimate that the final rule would result in disproportionately high or adverse impacts for minority or low-income populations. Overall, the Agency anticipates that the rule will support the safe shipment and management of hazardous waste, which benefits all communities. As the rule encourages environmentally sound recordkeeping of hazardous wastes, it will likely reduce the risks associated with treatment, disposal, and recovery.

 Children's health protection: EPA does not anticipate that the final rule would lead to a disproportionate negative impact on children. As described in the Environmental Justice section above, the rule improves the information available to EPA through notification, tracking, and reporting requirements, and provides for environmentally sound disposal and recovery.

 Energy Impacts: Changes in the management of hazardous waste resulting from the final rule are not expected to significantly impact energy production or distribution, as these changes relate only to reporting, though the reduction in material (paper) use anticipated under the rule is likely associated with reduced energy demand to manufacture and transport paper. Changes in hazardous waste manifest practices may lead to changes in the management practices of hazardous waste, although the effect of these changes on energy use and generation is uncertain and likely to be minimal. Aside from the potential change in paper use and waste management practices described above, the requirements of the rule would have minimal impact on energy consumption; therefore, the rule is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on energy supply, distribution, or use. In addition, with net costs of no more than $14.1 million in any year year (including both industry and government net costs), this rule is not considered an economically significant action under Executive Order 12866.

                                   Chapter 1
          Problem Statement and Justification for Regulatory Changes

1.1 Historical Background of the Paper Manifest System

Among other regulatory requirements, Subtitle C of the 1976 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) required the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish a manifest system to track shipments of hazardous waste from sites where wastes are generated to other sites where hazardous waste is managed (i. e., "cradle-to-grave"). EPA published regulations for a paper manifest system on February 26, 1980 (45 Federal Register 12724). The central element of the RCRA manifest is the paper trail chain-of-custody it creates. Each manifest is a paper document that identifies each entity that is responsible for the hazardous waste at each stage of the shipping process, and the final destination of the waste for disposition (i. e. treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling).

In 1976, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce estimated that approximately 30 to 35 million tons of hazardous waste were dumped on the ground. In 1984, about 25 million tons of hazardous waste were land-disposed annually, threatening groundwater and soil from contamination. This contamination represented environmental externalities  -  a market failure whereby industrial activities generated hazardous waste, with the consequences impacting the public as a whole.

The purpose of the hazardous waste manifest system is to provide nationwide, cradle-to-grave tracking of all offsite shipments of RCRA-regulated hazardous wastes from their point-of-generation (cradle), to their point-of-treatment, storage, disposal, or recycling (grave). The existing manifest system is paper-based, and uses a six-ply carbon copy paper form which must be signed, with one sheet retained for a minimum of three years by every party that has custody of the waste during its shipment. In this way, the system provides a cradle-to-grave record of all RCRA hazardous wastes that are transported offsite from generator facilities to other locations.

As a component of EPA's hazardous waste regulatory program, manifests help to ensure that hazardous waste is disposed of at permitted treatment, storage, or disposal facilities. For the majority of hazardous waste in the country, generators, transporters, and disposal facilities are identified and held accountable for proper hazardous waste management, ensuring that the environmental and safety costs of hazardous waste are internalized by private parties and do not fall upon the public.

Soon after the 1980 regulations came into effect, more than 20 states developed and required revised, state-specific hazardous waste manifest forms. These forms meet the minimal Federal requirements but also require additional state information. These differing requirements created significant confusion and compliance challenges, and in 1984, EPA and the Department of Transportation (DoT) in coordinated rulemaking, with significant assistance from the

                              What is a manifest?

A "manifest," as referred to in this document, is a six-ply paper form that is the center of RCRA's cradle-to-grave tracking system for RCRA hazardous waste in the United States. When hazardous waste is moved from one facility to another (i.e., shipped), a manifest that identifies the generator, transporter, and receiving facilities involved must accompany it. A manifest also requires information on the types and quantities of hazardous waste being transported, and includes a space for handlers to note any discrepancies that may arise in the course of transporting the waste. Each individual shipment of hazardous waste requires its own separate manifest, and every facility or entity that handles (whether generating, receiving, or transferring) that shipment must sign and retain a copy of said manifest. An individual shipment can range in size from a very small quantity (a single container) to a full truck load or even larger; special manifest rules apply to larger vessels such as trains and ships which transport hazardous waste.

EPA first published the regulations requiring the use of the manifest in 1980 in accordance with Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, which directs EPA to "establish requirements respecting... use of a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal, and arrives at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities... for which a permit has been issued..." EPA standardized the manifest format nationwide in 2006 with the goal of reducing the administrative burden associated with its use across different states.

The current manifest is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22. The continuation sheet, wherein additional wastes can be listed, is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22A.
The manifest serves a number of functions:

 It is a chain of custody document that industry and regulators use to track shipments of hazardous waste.

 It ensures that generation facilities remain responsible for making certain that their waste is properly transported, treated, stored, and disposed by formalizing arrangements for these activities prior to the waste leaving their facilities.

 It meets the requirements of Department of Transportation shipping papers and bills of lading for hazardous waste shipments.

 It informs emergency response teams about the nature of the hazardous waste present in the case of an accident, spill, or leak.

 It is used by State governments to assess fees and taxes on hazardous waste-related activities, such as generation or shipments, and potentially by the public for informational or research purposes.
                              What is a manifest?

A "manifest," as referred to in this document, is a six-ply paper form that is the center of RCRA's cradle-to-grave tracking system for RCRA hazardous waste in the United States. When hazardous waste is moved from one facility to another (i.e., shipped), a manifest that identifies the generator, transporter, and receiving facilities involved must accompany it. A manifest also requires information on the types and quantities of hazardous waste being transported, and includes a space for handlers to note any discrepancies that may arise in the course of transporting the waste. Each individual shipment of hazardous waste requires its own separate manifest, and every facility or entity that handles (whether generating, receiving, or transferring) that shipment must sign and retain a copy of said manifest. An individual shipment can range in size from a very small quantity (a single container) to a full truck load or even larger; special manifest rules apply to larger vessels such as trains and ships which transport hazardous waste.

EPA first published the regulations requiring the use of the manifest in 1980 in accordance with Section 3002(a)(5) of RCRA, which directs EPA to "establish requirements respecting... use of a manifest system and any other reasonable means necessary to assure that all such hazardous waste generated is designated for treatment, storage, or disposal, and arrives at treatment, storage, and disposal facilities... for which a permit has been issued..." EPA standardized the manifest format nationwide in 2006 with the goal of reducing the administrative burden associated with its use across different states.

The current manifest is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22. The continuation sheet, wherein additional wastes can be listed, is formally designated EPA Form 8700-22A.
The manifest serves a number of functions:

 It is a chain of custody document that industry and regulators use to track shipments of hazardous waste.

 It ensures that generation facilities remain responsible for making certain that their waste is properly transported, treated, stored, and disposed by formalizing arrangements for these activities prior to the waste leaving their facilities.

 It meets the requirements of Department of Transportation shipping papers and bills of lading for hazardous waste shipments.

 It informs emergency response teams about the nature of the hazardous waste present in the case of an accident, spill, or leak.

 It is used by State governments to assess fees and taxes on hazardous waste-related activities, such as generation or shipments, and potentially by the public for informational or research purposes.
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials (ASTSWMO) and the Hazardous Materials Advisory Council (HMAC), promulgated a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest form and procedures (49 FR 10490, March 20, 1984).[,]
A decade later, the manifest system became one target of the federal effort to reduce regulatory burden. In March 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and the EPA Administrator put forth an agenda to reinvent environmental protection as part of the larger goal of creating a federal government that works more efficiently and costs less. As one effort of this agenda, the Administration and EPA have been committed to the goal of reducing the paperwork burden resulting from environmental regulations by at least 25 percent.

While paper manifests have served as a mechanism to guard against illegal dumping, government and industry sources have commented on the substantial cost of implementing this mechanism.[,] EPA's paper manifest system was the largest paperwork burden of the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) extended approval of the RCRA manifest paperwork burden information collection request (ICR) for only two years in 1994, with the expectation that EPA would, in the interim, adopt manifest revisions that would address its regulatory burden. In 1996, OMB again extended approval of the manifest ICR, but with the expectation that EPA would explicitly address, among other things, innovative approaches as a way to streamline and reduce the annual burden of manifest reporting requirements on the RCRA-regulated community. To reduce paperwork burden on regulated entities, OMB suggested that EPA develop and pilot test the electronic submission and tracking of manifests.

Reducing the cost of correcting environmental externalities will increase social welfare. An electronic manifest system can further improve the efficiency of this system by leveraging new technology to reduce labor and cost burdens of tracking hazardous waste and ensuring safe and proper disposal. Additionally, an electronic system can provide new information about hazardous waste shipments to industrial entities, environmental and safety regulators, and the public. By bringing the availability of manifest information closer to real-time than under the paper system, an electronic manifest system may even generate environmental and human health benefits associated with reduced material use and more rapid response to potential waste-related issues.

1.2 Purpose of EPA's Electronic Manifest System Rulemaking

As of FY2014, EPA estimates the total annual nationwide paperwork burden of the federal paper manifest system is 2.5 million hours for shipment of EPA-regulated hazardous wastes. In addition, 19 state governments currently require transporters of state (not federally) regulated hazardous wastes to use EPA's RCRA paper manifest; 23 state governments provided EPA with information about their manifest collection and processing activities. Added together, the current annual national paperwork burden hours for EPA-regulated plus state-regulated hazardous waste shipments is estimated in this RIA to involve 6.3 million labor hours per year to process approximately 3.3 million RCRA paper manifests at an estimated annual cost to industry and state governments of approximately $240 million per year. With relatively rare exceptions, EPA itself does not print, distribute, collect, or process RCRA paper manifests, though it incurs relatively small costs annually to receive and review exception reports and similar activities, detailed in Chapter 4 as "Agency burden" costs borne by EPA.

On May 22, 2001, EPA's Office of Solid Waste (now named the Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, or ORCR) published in the Federal Register its intent to implement an e-Manifest system, recognizing that information technologies present tremendous potential for reducing the significant paperwork burden of the current paper-based manifest system. Since 2001, EPA has explored multiple information technology (IT) design configurations for an e-Manifest system to replace the current paper process, involving a number of activities and Federal Register notices, some of which are summarized below.

 EPA solicited stakeholder input on conceptual framework, roadmap, funding, governance, technical and business process approaches and options for an e-Manifest system during a two-day public meeting held in Washington, D.C. on May 19 and 20, 2004.

 On April 18, 2006, EPA published a public notice to announce and request comment on EPA's intention to develop a centralized web-based IT system that would be hosted on EPA's IT architecture. EPA received strong support for a national web-based system funded through user-fees. In addition, commenters generally supported EPA's position that use of e-Manifests should be at the election of the users rather than mandatory.

 On February 26, 2008, EPA published a notice to announce the availability of additional information on the e-Manifest project and solicit additional comments on two issues raised in response to the April 2006 notice: concern that an optional e-Manifest system would create dual paper and electronic systems, and differing perspectives related to confidential business information (CBI) claims for e-Manifests. The notice also confirmed EPA's commitment to finalizing a federal regulation that would authorize the use of electronic manifests as the legal equivalent of paper manifests.

 On November 19 and 20, 2008, EPA's ORCR held a meeting of state government and RCRA-regulated industry representatives in Arlington, VA to discuss EPA's 2006 announced preferred approach to develop a centralized web-based IT system that would be hosted on EPA's existing IT architecture. Meeting participants were asked for input into the design, development, and operation of the centralized e-Manifest system.

1.3 The 2012 Hazardous Waste Electronic Manifest Establishment Act

In September 2012, the US Congress passed legislative bill number S. 710 directing EPA to establish an e-Manifest system and authorizing the appropriation of $6 million over 2013 to 2015 for EPA to establish the e-Manifest system. President Obama signed the e-Manifest Act into law on October 5, 2013 (Public law P. L. 112-195). Among other things, the Act specifies dates by which EPA must meet certain system milestones. These milestones are:

 Publishing a regulation promulgating the Act;

 Establishing a system advisory board to make recommendations on the operation of the system; and

 Bringing the e-Manifest system online such that it can accept electronic manifests from any user.

In addition to establishing system and program milestones for e-Manifest, the Act also:

 Authorizes EPA to collect user fees to recover the costs associated with developing and running e-Manifest.

 Establishes a special revolving System Fund to receive user fees.

 Defines the goals of the e-Manifest system to be:

          Meeting the needs of the user community, including State governments that collect manifest data,
          Attracting sufficient user participation and fee revenue to ensure the viability of the system,
          Decreasing the administrative burden of the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system on the user community, and
          Providing waste receipt data for the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report).

 Establishes regular oversight of fee revenue and system expenses by both Congress and the EPA Inspector General's office.

1.4 The 2014 Final Rule

EPA plans to publish two rules to fully promulgate the 2012 Electronic Manifest Act. EPA published the first of these two rules (hereafter referred to as the first year rule) in the Federal Register on February 7, 2014. This final rule revised EPA's regulatory requirements for the RCRA hazardous waste manifest system to allow EPA to accept electronic manifests in addition to the existing paper manifests.

In addition, the first year rule:

       Announces EPA's decision to build a single, centralized, e-Manifest system. The decision to build a single system is a departure from the preference expressed by EPA in the 2001 proposed rule to set universal standards that would allow industry to build decentralized electronic manifest systems of their own. EPA moved towards the centralized approach after receiving negative feedback from stakeholders in 2001 and 2004 on the decentralized approach.

       Defines the universe of entities affected by the e-Manifest program as any facility that completes EPA form 8700-22 and 8700-22A.

       Announces that use of the electronic system will not be mandatory, and that users may choose to submit paper manifests instead.

       Delays the implementation and compliance dates for the provisions of the first year rule until the e-Manifest system is ready for operation and EPA has published a fee schedule for the use of the system.

       Addresses industry concerns about public access to manifest data and states EPA's decision that manifest data will not be treated as confidential business information (CBI).

       Discusses some technical design aspects of the e-Manifest system, such as how it will capture electronic signatures to be consistent with EPA's 2005 Cross Media Electronic Reporting Rule (CROMERR).

     The 2018 Final Rule

The current rulemaking addressed in this RIA will propose a schedule of user fees to cover the costs of building and running the e-Manifest system and e-Manifest program. It will also announce the date when the system will be turned on and EPA will begin to accept electronic manifests. In addition, the user fee rule will address seven issues that arise within the scope of turning on and running the system, and charging and collecting user fees. These issues are essential to successfully implementing the e-Manifest program and running the e-Manifest system. These seven issues are:

1) Which users of manifests and manifest data will be charged user fees?
To address this issue, EPA first had to identify all potential users of the system. EPA identified three broad groups of users: 1) industrial facilities that must use manifests to comply with regulatory obligations under RCRA, 2) State governments that track manifest data, and 3) members of the general public that do not use manifests to comply with RCRA but are interested in manifest data nonetheless. EPA recognizes that the activities of each of these user groups will burden the system, though likely to varying degrees. EPA is proposing to charge only industrial users to recover the full costs of running the e-Manifest system. Manifest-related costs, including activities associated with completing the manifest, as well as purchase of the manifest itself and any associated user fees are all parts of the broader cost of managing hazardous waste. By levying costs associated with the e-Manifest system, which will facilitate hazardous waste management, on industry, these costs are kept internal to the industry, akin to the pre-rule scenario. This is more efficient than a structure where other groups, (i.e., governments and/or the public) would ultimately bear the cost for the e-Manifest system. Additionally, industry will likely use the e-Manifest system substantially more than state governments or the public, will likely realize benefits from using e-Manifest to a greater degree than state governments or the public, and can more practically be assigned user accounts than all potentially interested members of the public.

2) What will be the transactional basis for assessing user fee obligations?
EPA next considered what interaction between industrial users and the system would constitute the billable event that triggered the system to charge a user fee. EPA recognizes the link between system costs that accrue and the number of manifests that pass through the system. For this reason, EPA considered multiple stages within the lifecycle of a manifest as the potential billable event, focusing on the beginning, when a manifest is initiated in the system, and the end, when a finalized manifest is submitted to the system. Based on this review, EPA is proposing to make the final submission of the manifest to the system the billable event. Because the finalized manifest will be submitted by a treatment, storage, and disposal facility (TSDF), EPA is also proposing that TSDFs will pay the user fee, thereby internalizing the costs of the hazardous waste manifest.

3) How will users be expected to pay their owed fees?
EPA is proposing that users pay fees within 30 days, using an electronic payment method supported by the US Treasury.

4) What model or fee formula will EPA rely on for the determination of users' fees?
EPA considered several models for assessing user fees. As the submission of the finalized manifest is to be the billable event, each fee formula calculates a per-manifest fee. EPA considered three different options for calculating the fee. Option 1, the Uniform Cost fee, allocates e-Manifest costs evenly across all manifests, creating a single uniform fee. Option 2, the Marginal Cost fee, differentiates fees by manifest type, reflecting differences in EPA labor costs associated with data entry and management for different types of manifests. Option 3, the Marginal Cost Differentiated fee, differentiates fees by labor costs in the same manner as Option 2, and also differentially assigns operations and maintenance costs by manifest type (e.g., paper manifests versus electronic manifests), reflecting differences in these costs by type of manifest.

EPA's proposed, fourth option is to initially assess fees using the calculus of Option 2. However, if the proportion of electronic manifests remains below 75% of the total volume of manifests six years after the system is turned on, then the fee structure will be changed to reflect Option 3.

5) How will the rule address fee trajectory and fee schedule revisions?
EPA is proposing to publish a new schedule of fees at two-year intervals, with the first schedule being published in the final version of this rule. At each revision, EPA will run the latest program cost and manifest usage statistics through the fee formula proposed and finalized in this rulemaking to determine fees for the next two-year period. EPA intends to use the same underlying fee formula for the foreseeable future, unless operating conditions or expenditures change drastically and render it obsolete. EPA is also proposing to automatically adjust fees from the first year of each cycle to the second. The purpose of this mid-cycle adjustment would be to account for inflation and any errors (positive or negative) in estimating system usage in the first year of the cycle, which is difficult to predict. Thus, depending on inflation and the accuracy of estimates of system usage for the first year of a cycle, fees in the second period could hypothetically stay about the same, increase, or decrease.

6) Which, if any, manifest transactions warrant a fee premium?
EPA is proposing to assess two additional fees above and beyond user fees. The first fee will be levied on submissions of non-manifests (i.e., other required or requested regulatory or enforcement information for the facility or firm in question not associated with the manifest, such as responses to requests for information, permit applications, etc.) to the paper processing center. EPA anticipates significant clerical costs associated with opening these materials, determining that they are not manifests, and returning them to the sender via post. EPA is also proposing to assess additional fees on paper manifests that must be resubmitted and undergo additional review and quality assurance (QA/QC) after initial submission. Manifest resubmission and additional review may be triggered by findings requiring corrections with the initial manifest submission, a failure of the initial submission to meet certain data validation requirements, and similar issues.

7) What sanctions are being proposed to induce prompt payment of user fees?
EPA is proposing a mix of financial, denial of service, and enforcement sanctions on late fee payments to encourage timely payment of user fees. Sanctions will begin with financial penalties, be upgraded to denial of service penalties 120 days after payment is due, and escalate to enforcement sanctions 150 days after payment is due.

Finally the current rule will revise the manifest regulations at 40 CFR Parts §§ 263.21 by revising existing paragraphs (a) and (b) and adding a new paragraph (c) in that section so that transporters designated on the manifest by generators can make changes on the manifest without prior, explicit approval from the generator, provided their contract with the generator grants them authority to make such changes. EPA is proposing this revision to make the manifest regulations consistent with widespread existing industry practices that enable such changes to the manifest to be made for transportation efficiency. As this revision merely reflects widespread existing industry practices, it is not expected to change industry behavior and thus is not expected to result in net costs or benefits. For this reason this RIA does not estimate the potential economic impacts of this change.

                                   Chapter 2
                         Universe of Affected Entities

This chapter provides an overview of the universe of industrial facilities and government entities that may be affected by the fees for the RCRA Electronic Hazardous Waste Manifest System (e-Manifest) final rule. The rule may affect any industrial facility that uses, signs, or completes a RCRA hazardous waste manifest in the course of conducting business. Thus, the universe of facilities potentially affected by this rule is both large and diverse. To provide a comprehensible picture of this universe, the first section of this chapter describes and categorizes potentially affected facilities according to their roles within the RCRA hazardous waste system and their locations.

The e-Manifest rule may also potentially affect a number of state governments. Under RCRA, state governments have the discretion to impose additional requirements on hazardous waste shipments as long as these requirements are at least as stringent as federal RCRA requirements. A number of state governments have adopted additional standards that may be affected by the e-Manifest system. In particular, requirements that industrial facilities submit copies of the hazardous waste manifest to the state may be streamlined by the e-Manifest system. The second section of this chapter describes the Federal requirements governing state manifest collection programs, and the additional requirements that states often impose on RCRA hazardous waste shipments.

2.1 Industrial Facilities Potentially Affected by e-Manifest

The universe of facilities that may be affected by the e-Manifest rule includes all facilities that may use, sign, or complete a RCRA hazardous waste manifest in the course of conducting business. As this is a large and heterogeneous group of facilities, this chapter sorts them into three groups according to the role that each has in the RCRA hazardous waste system. The three different roles are:

 Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) that receive, treat and dispose of hazardous waste;

 Generators that produce hazardous waste and send it offsite to TSDFs for treatment and disposal; and

 Transporters that deliver shipments of waste from generator sites to TSDF sites.

The rest of this section describes each of these three groups in further detail. It provides information on counts of facilities in aggregate and by state, the quantities of hazardous waste handled by each facility type, and prevalent NAICS codes for each group where applicable.

2.1.1 Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (Receiving Hazardous Waste)

Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities are facilities that are permitted under RCRA to receive shipments of RCRA hazardous waste to be treated, stored, or disposed of, as per 40 CFR Part 264 and 40 CFR Part 265. TSDFs will likely be the heaviest and most important users of the e-Manifest system, because they are required to directly interface with all received manifests.

Facilities permitted as TSDFs may be affected by the final rule in multiple ways. The primary role of TSDFs is to serve as the final destination for shipments of waste, which these facilities then treat, store, or dispose. When serving in this capacity, TSDFs act as receivers of hazardous waste. However, TSDFs may also interact with hazardous waste manifests in other ways: specifically, some TSDFs may generate hazardous waste and ship it off-site. When serving in this alternate capacity, TSDFs are considered to be generators of hazardous waste, and the TSDFs that engage in these activities are considered in Section 2.1.2. Meanwhile, the remainder of this section considers TSDFs serving in the primary capacity as receivers of hazardous waste generated by other entities.

Under RCRA, TSDFs receiving hazardous waste are required to sign and date manifests, note significant discrepancies in the manifest, return a signed manifest to the transporter, send copies of import-affiliated manifests to EPA within 30 days of delivery, and retain a manifest copy for at least three years. Additionally, TSDFs may provide full RCRA compliance services to their generator customers, especially in those cases where a TSDF services relatively small generators. Where this occurs, rather than merely treating waste, TSDFs will also provide services such as preparing copies of the manifest, and transporting waste using trucks owned by the TSDF. Correspondingly, for a certain number of manifests, the TSDF is involved directly in every aspect of manifest activities associated with shipping the waste. For these as well as all other manifests, under the final rule, TSDFs are responsible for transmitting the completed, finalized copies of manifests to the e-Manifest system. Additionally, fees for e-Manifest system use will be levied when the manifest is submitted; correspondingly TSDFs will be the only facilities responsible for paying fees directly to EPA for use of the system.

<IP_ADDRESS> National and State Counts of TSDFs

Data describing the universe of TSDFs comes from the RCRA Hazardous Waste Report (Biennial Report), a summary of hazardous waste generation, shipment, and treatment released every two years. These data, hereafter referred to throughout this RIA as "Biennial Report" data, are compiled from waste reports submitted by TSDF facilities as a part of existing reporting obligations under RCRA. The RCRA Biennial Report therefore provides a fairly complete picture of the TSDF universe that will be impacted by electronic manifests.

According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report (the most recent available), 420 TSDF facilities that were operating in 2015 received hazardous waste from offsite for the purposes of treating, storing, or disposing of it. The remainder of this section refers to these facilities as "receiver TSDFs" as a clarifying measure to distinguish these facilities from facilities permitted as TSDFs that generate and ship hazardous waste off-site, which are discussed on Section 2.1.2.

The Biennial Report data document the number of receiver TSDFs operating in each state and territory of the United States. Exhibit 2-1 displays this information in table form. This Exhibit shows that while receiver TSDFs are spread across the country, they are generally clustered in areas with denser population and more industrial activity. Over half of the receiver TSDFs reported in the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report are located in just 10 states. California, the state with the most reported receiver TSDFs, has 42, while New Hampshire, Montana, and Wyoming have none.

                                  Exhibit 2-1
Counts of Receiver TSDF Facilities by State According to the 2011 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D

                                     State
                           Receiver TSDF* Facilities
                                 National Rank
                           % National Total (B/420)

                                     State
                           Receiver TSDF* Facilities
                                 National Rank
                           % National Total (B/420)
                                       1
Alabama
                                                                              9
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                       2
Alaska
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                       3
Arizona
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      31
Nevada
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                       5
California
                                                                             42
                                                                              1
                                                                          10.0%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                                                              9
                                                                             16
                                                                           2.1%
                                       6
Colorado
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      35
New York
                                                                             21
                                                                              4
                                                                           5.0%
                                       8
Delaware
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                                                             36
North Carolina
                                                                             11
                                                                             11
                                                                           2.6%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      10
Florida
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      38
Ohio
                                                                             22
                                                                              3
                                                                           5.2%
                                      11
Georgia
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      12
Guam
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      40
Oregon
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                                                             20
                                                                              5
                                                                           4.8%
                                      14
Idaho
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      15
Illinois
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      16
Indiana
                                                                             12
                                                                             10
                                                                           2.9%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                                                              6
                                                                             24
                                                                           1.4%
                                      17
Iowa
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                                                              1
                                                                             44
                                                                           0.2%
                                      18
Kansas
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      47
Texas
                                                                             41
                                                                              2
                                                                           9.8%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      21
Maine
                                                                              2
                                                                             40
                                                                           0.5%
                                      49
Utah
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      22
Maryland
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      50
Vermont
                                                                              4
                                                                             31
                                                                           1.0%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      24
Michigan
                                                                             16
                                                                              6
                                                                           3.8%
                                      52
Virginia
                                                                              8
                                                                             18
                                                                           1.9%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      53
Washington
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                                                              3
                                                                             36
                                                                           0.7%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                                                              5
                                                                             27
                                                                           1.2%
                                      27
Missouri
                                                                             15
                                                                              7
                                                                           3.6%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                                                             10
                                                                             12
                                                                           2.4%
                                      28
Montana
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                                                              0
                                                                             50
                                                                           0.0%
                                                                          Total
                                                                            420

                                                                           100%
* "Receiver TSDF" refers to those facilities receiving waste from off-site to treat, store, or dispose of it.
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view

<IP_ADDRESS> Quantities of Waste Received from Offsite by Receiver TSDFs
According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report, receiver TSDFs received 6,215,626 tons of hazardous waste nationally. Michigan was the state that received the largest quantity of hazardous waste (709,056 tons); Alaska (among states with receiver TSDFs receiving waste from offsite), accounted for the smallest quantity: 7.3 tons. Consistent with the number of receiver TSDFs, quantities of waste received are correlated with areas that have historically had significant industrial activity. The ten states that received the largest quantities of hazardous waste accounted for 4,541,498 tons, or 73 percent of the total hazardous waste received: Michigan, Ohio, Texas, Indiana, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Illinois, South Carolina, Arkansas, and Oklahoma. Exhibit 2-2 displays this information below.
                                  Exhibit 2-2
Quantity of Hazardous Waste Received by State According to the 2015 RCRA Biennial Report
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D
                                     Item
                                       A
                                       B
                                       C
                                       D

                                     State
                                 Tons Received
                                 National Rank
                      % of National Total (B/6,
215,626)

                                     State
                                 Tons Received
                                 National Rank
                      % of National Total
(B/6,
215,626)
                                       1
Alabama
                                   132,127.7
                                      16
                                     2.1%
                                      29
Navajo Nation
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                       2
Alaska
                                      7.3
                                      49
                                     0.0%
                                      30
Nebraska
                                   43,668.3
                                      23
                                     0.7%
                                       3
Arizona
                                   11,296.4
                                      33
                                     0.2%
                                      31
Nevada
                                   71,211.3
                                      19
                                     1.1%
                                       4
Arkansas
                                   276,659.7
                                       9
                                     4.5%
                                      32
New Hampshire
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                       5
California
                                   174,887.5
                                      12
                                     2.8%
                                      33
New Jersey
                                   146,013.8
                                      14
                                     2.3%
                                       6
Colorado
                                   45,855.3
                                      22
                                     0.7%
                                      34
New Mexico
                                    2,096.3
                                      37
                                     0.0%
                                       7
Connecticut
                                   39,452.5
                                      25
                                     0.6%
                                      35
New York
                                   58,173.4
                                      20
                                     0.9%
                                       8
Delaware
                                     94.5
                                      45
                                     0.0%
                                      36
North Carolina
                                   21,018.4
                                      29
                                     0.3%
                                       9
District of Columbia
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                      37
North Dakota
                                     249.3
                                      44
                                     0.0%
                                      10
Florida
                                   12,850.8
                                      32
                                     0.2%
                                      38
Ohio
                                   673,302.3
                                       2
                                     10.8%
                                      11
Georgia
                                     606.5
                                      39
                                     0.0%
                                      39
Oklahoma
                                   210,304.7
                                      10
                                     3.4%
                                      12
Guam
                                     48.4
                                      48
                                     0.0%
                                      40
Oregon
                                   48,905.8
                                      21
                                     0.8%
                                      13
Hawaii
                                     81.8
                                      47
                                     0.0%
                                      41
Pennsylvania
                                   389,924.4
                                       6
                                     6.3%
                                      14
Idaho
                                   20,906.6
                                      30
                                     0.3%
                                      42
Puerto Rico
                                     267.2
                                      42
                                     0.0%
                                      15
Illinois
                                   297,401.5
                                       7
                                     4.8%
                                      43
Rhode Island
                                    7,180.7
                                      36
                                     0.1%
                                      16
Indiana
                                   551,866.4
                                       4
                                     8.9%
                                      44
South Carolina
                                   294,842.5
                                       8
                                     4.7%
                                      17
Iowa
                                     258.2
                                      43
                                     0.0%
                                      45
South Dakota
                                     93.2
                                      46
                                     0.0%
                                      18
Kansas
                                   139,432.5
                                      15
                                     2.2%
                                      46
Tennessee
                                   21,192.8
                                      28
                                     0.3%
                                      19
Kentucky
                                   79,445.0
                                      18
                                     1.3%
                                      47
Texas
                                   647,213.5
                                       3
                                     10.4%
                                      20
Louisiana
                                   490,926.9
                                       5
                                     7.9%
                                      48
Trust Territories
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                      21
Maine
                                     503.8
                                      40
                                     0.0%
                                      49
Utah
                                   155,105.1
                                      13
                                     2.5%
                                      22
Maryland
                                   43,184.7
                                      24
                                     0.7%
                                      50
Vermont
                                    1,782.0
                                      38
                                     0.0%
                                      23
Massachusetts
                                    8,157.0
                                      35
                                     0.1%
                                      51
Virgin Islands
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                      24
Michigan
                                   709,056.1
                                       1
                                     11.4%
                                      52
Virginia
                                     485.4
                                      41
                                     0.0%
                                      25
Minnesota
                                   29,973.2
                                      26
                                     0.5%
                                      53
Washington
                                   25,833.1
                                      27
                                     0.4%
                                      26
Mississippi
                                   20,212.3
                                      31
                                     0.3%
                                      54
West Virginia
                                   10,935.2
                                      34
                                     0.2%
                                      27
Missouri
                                   206,386.9
                                      11
                                     3.3%
                                      55
Wisconsin
                                   94,147.8
                                      17
                                     1.5%
                                      28
Montana
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                      56
Wyoming
                                      -
                                      50
                                     0.0%
                                                                          Total
                                   6,215,626

                                     100%
Source: 2015 RCRA Biennial Report facility summary data. Available at: https://rcrainfo.epa.gov/rcrainfoweb/action/modules/br/national/view

2.1.2 Generators