RESPONSE FROM MI CHI GAN DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,

WASTE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DIVI SI ON October 17, 2008 QUESTION 1: Do states that now collect manifests make individual manifests available at public request , or are there restri ctions on access? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state to make such manifests available to requestors? The MDEQ

- WHMD collects a copy of the manifest from any Michigan generator (LQG and SQG) and all desi gnated facilities that receive hazardous waste from a Michigan generator (or if the out

- of

- state designated facilit y will not submit the a copy of the manifest with the third signature we can and do request a copy from the originating generator) . Any site that is required to submit a manifest to the MDEQ

- WHMD must do so by the 10 th of the month after the shipment was made. It then takes between three and six weeks for the data to be available in the data sy stem and the paper copy /microfilm filed so access ible for review. Example: Hazardous waste was shipped off site b y generator on January 12 th ; a copy of the manifest must be received by the MDEQ

- WHMD by

February 10 th ; the manifest will be reviewed, sent out for data entry , microfilmed (soon we will als o image), and then filed usually with in three weeks but up to six weeks. Meaning the data and manifest will be available to review b y mid

- March to earl y April. Data from the manifests is entered into the Waste Data Sy stem (WDS) database and is available on the public internet web site. Also, anyone can make a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the state to review an y manifest on file (i.e. paper copies or the microfilm).

QUESTION 2: Do states that now collect manifests make aggregate d data from manifests , multiple manifests, or data reports freely availabl e to the public upon request ? (Examples would be a request for all manifests with a particular waste code or all manifests going to or managed b y a particular company or facility .) H ave states imposed any CBIrelated limitation s on the information they will disclose in response to such requests? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state t o provide aggregate data in response to such a req uest ? We do not run queries for sites. The data is available on the public internet web site though not in an eas y to produce aggregate list. There aren’t an y CBI limitations on the public data.
QUESTION 3: In a survey conducted for ASTSWMO by L iz Bo ls (MI DEQ) in January , 2007 , nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a futureelectronic manifest s ys tem. The States that responded were NY, OR, SC, FL, MI, WA,

CT, ID, and OH. Of these nine states, eight states responded th at manifest data would probably not be subject to CBI under state laws and policies, while Ohio indicated that manifest data might be subject to CBI claims based on the experience in Ohio with Ohio’s Hazardous Waste Annual Report. In addition, several states on the e

- Manifest rule workgroup, including MD, PA, NJ, and CA, stated that they would also release their HW manifests as public information without allowing CBI claims. However, i n August, 2004, Paula Canter of the Ohio EPA polled the States on their Site ID , manifest tracking, and Hazardous Waste Reporting requirements. As part of the 2004 survey , 44 States responded to the question “Do you allow CBI claims on the Hazardous Waste Report?” The responses to this question in 2004 from the 44 respondents was evenl y split between states that would allowed and states that would not allow CBI claims for their HW Report data. Given that the request for aggregate manifest data may be viewed as presenting many of the same data and issues as requests for a state’s HW Report data insofar as the disclosure of customer list information, how should we reconcile the answers given in response to the 2004 and 2007 surveys? Should aggregate manifest requests and requests for HW Annual Report data be treated differe ntl y for purposes of CBI claims? Again, the procedure the MDEQ

- WHMD has is the data is available, is on line (can view manifests b y site) or you can review the paper/images, but the MDEQ

WHMD does not have staff develop and run queries as a response to FO IA requests that would generate aggregate lists.
QUESTION 4 : Do you think that your state ’ s current policy on public disclosure of information of the ty

pe described in Question 2 would be at all affected b y the fact that an electronic manifest s ystem may make information available more rapidly than it is available under the current paper s ys tem?
NO