Prepared 10/20/2008

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials

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?

Response: Images of individual manifests are available on a publicly accessible web 

site. A delay in availability is not intentionally implemented, however, at present 

the images are generally posted four to six weeks from date of receipt of the form (in 

general, one to two months after the date of shipment). 

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?

Response: Manifest data, in text format, is available on the Department web site. 

This data is updated from the information in our State computer system monthly. 

If information can be provided to a requestor from a canned query from our 

computer system, then this is provided. Per State FOIL requirements, paper 

reports over seven pages cost 25 cents per page, however, many times this 

information is sent electronically at no cost. Generally, this information is provided 

within one to two weeks of the request.

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?

Response: New York considers manifest data to be publicly available, however, a 

company can request CBI status for certain information in a hazardous waste 

report. The last time New York received such a request was in 2001 for year 2000

data. That year, one facility requested CBI status for GM pages for waste they 

generated at their facility and disposed of at their facility. This information was not 

part of the public manifest record and CBI status was granted. The second facility 

requested CBI status for information on WR forms which was readily available 

from the hazardous waste manifest data base. In this case, CBI status was denied. 

The company appealed and the decision to deny CBI status was upheld. The third 

facility made a general request for CBI for all information in the WR section of the 

report. A letter was sent to them detailing the information they must provide the 

State in order for a determination to be met, noting that the information found on 

manifests is considered publicly available, and a response from the company was 

never received so the data was not given CBI status.

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?

Response: There will not be an impact on the State’s availability of information.