**From: John Brueck, Idaho DEQ** 

**To: Rich LaShier (EPA), ASTSWMO**  **Sent: October 28, 2008 5:52 PM**  **Subject: Idaho DEQ’s Responses to Questions on Manifests and CBI Policy** 

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 ty picall y take the state to make such manifests available to requestors?

**IDAHO RESPONSE: IDAHO DEQ does not maintain a manifest collect ion system**  **so this question is not applicable.**

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 m anifests with a particular waste code or all manifests going to or managed b y a particular company or facility .) Have states imposed any CBIrelated limitation s on the information they will disclose in response to such requests? How long after hazardo us waste shipments are completed does it ty picall y take the state t o provide aggregate data in response to such a request ?

**IDAHO RESPONSE: IDAHO DEQ does not maintain a manifest collection system**  **so this question is not applicable.**

QUESTION 3: In a s urvey conducted for ASTSWMO by L iz Bols (MI DEQ) in January , 2007, nine States provided responses to questions related to manifests and a future electronic manifest sy stem. 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 probabl y 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 s ame 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 differentl y for purposes of CBI claims?**IDAHO RESPONSE: IDAHO answered both surveys in a consistent fashion that** 

**CBI could not be claimed. It is suggested that EPA check the 9 states that responded to the 2007 survey to det**  **ermine if their answers were consistent with the 2004 survey. Otherwise, the inconsistency can be attributed simply to the higher**  **number of respondents in the 2004 survey in the way those states handle CBI.** 

QUESTION 4 : Do y ou think that y our 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?

**IDAHO RESPONSE: No, Idaho would be able to provide information to the public**  **and would maintain the availability of the information consistent with the Idaho Public**  **Records Acts**  **Idaho Code Title 9 Chapter 3.**