Ohio’s answers to Rich Lashier’s requests for CBI clarifications

Paula Canter, Ohio EPA

October 28, 2008

QUESTION 1: Do states that now collect manifests make individual manifests available 

at public request, or are there restrictions on access? How long after hazardous waste 

shipments are completed does it typically take the state to make such manifests available 

to requestors? Not applicable to Ohio.

QUESTION 2: Do states that now collect manifests make aggregated data from

manifests, multiple manifests, or data reports freely available 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 by a particular company or facility.) Have states 

imposed any CBI related limitations on the information they will disclose in response to 

such requests? How long after hazardous waste shipments are completed does it 

typically take the state to provide aggregate data in response to such a request? Not 

applicable to Ohio.

QUESTION 3: In a survey conducted for ASTSWMO by Liz Bols (MI DEQ) in January, 

2007, nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a future 

electronic manifest system. The States that responded were NY, OR, SC, FL, MI, WA, 

CT, ID, and OH. Of these nine states, eight states responded that 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, in 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 

evenly 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 differently for purposes of CBI claims?

Ohio’s answers are consistent (most Ohio TSDFs will attempt to claim CBI on 

anything that has customer identification) so I won’t address that question.

I don’t think aggregate manifest data should be treated differently from requests for 

HW Report data. The latter are compiled largely from manifest data.
I can’t see how it could be justified to allow CBI claims for aggregate manifest data 

but not for individual manifest forms. The only difference between them is the 

number of records. They contain the same information, unless the aggregate data is 

intentionally filtered or pared down to certain fields in the output.

If US EPA allows CBI claims, you are going have to address all of the following 

issues:

- What specific data elements can be declared as confidential, i.e. just 

customer identification or also waste information?

- What criteria will be used to make the determination whether the 

information can be declared confidential? In Ohio we use our trade secret 

law.

- Is there a specific time at which the CBI protection will expire? For 

example, after an interval of X years; when the facility closes; indefinitely?

- How often does a claim need to be filed? For Ohio’s Annual Hazardous 

Waste Reports, a claim must be submitted for each year’s report. Is a claim 

void if certain conditions change, such as facility ownership?

- Claims must be reviewed for validity to determine whether the criteria has 

been met. If they are inadequate they must be challenged.

- There are numerous administration issues for the manifest database if it 

contains CBI data. Many of the advantages of a national shared database 

will be diminished if federal or state personnel cannot view the information 

freely. Of course this would restrict access by the regulated community and 

public as well. The contractor will have to set up user roles to control access 

and work with US EPA to decide who can view the confidential data. The 

CBI situation would also be a factor in reports content if the report lists 

fields that are claimed to be CBI. In the days of the old BRS software, states 

were told to keep confidential data on an entirely different computer! You 

will need to check if there are any US EPA policies like this still on the books 

for RCRA.

QUESTION 4: Do you think that your state’s current policy on public disclosure of 

information of the type described in Question 2 would be at all affected by the fact that 

an electronic manifest system may make information available more rapidly than it is 

available under the current paper system?

I think more people will be interested in obtaining the data if a national manifest 

database becomes a reality. In Ohio, requestors have become accustomed to not 

being able to request waste receipt information because of the annual CBI claims, so 

we don’t get that many. Instead we get requests for the shipment information 

reported by generators, which is not confidential. We provide this in a pdf format 

and therefore it is easy to search for specific text strings. Generally the requestors 

are in the waste management business and are looking for marketing opportunities. 

This is a good thing if it leads to the purchase of equipment or a new process that 

minimizes waste. 
If individual manifests are not held as confidential but aggregate data is, we may get 

requests for multiple individual manifests rather than aggregate data. That would 

be more resource-intensive than just providing the aggregate.

One of the three qualifiers for an Ohio trade secret claim is that the information is 

not commonly available through other means. If a national manifest database exists 

where information is provided upon request and there is no protected data, then 

Ohio TSD facilities will have more difficulty in making a CBI claim for waste 

receipts on a HW Report.