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 typically take the state to make such manifests available 

to requestors?

IDAHO RESPONSE: IDAHO DEQ does not maintain a manifest collection system 

so this question is not applicable. 

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?

IDAHO RESPONSE: IDAHO DEQ does not maintain a manifest collection system 

so this question is not applicable. 

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?
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 determine 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 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?

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.