Forwarded by Robin Biscaia/ Rl / USEPA/ US on 11/27/2006 02:33 PM

[reformatted from original email by Ross Bunnell, 7 / 5/2007]

From

To

cc

Subject

11/21/2006 05:09 PM

Robin Biscaia/ Rl / USEPA/ US

j_duclos@des.state.nh.us, peter.marshall@state.vt.us, stacy.a.ladner@maine.gov, kevin.sullivan@po.state.ct.us, mark.dennen@dem.ri.gov

james.miller@state.ma.us, waterman.ernest@epa.gov

Fw: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

For your information, please see Region I's response to a question that was raised by Safety Kleen regarding the use of electronic copies of manifests and the temporary removal of TSD copies off site for scanning purposes .

If you have any questions, please contact Ernie Waterman at (617 ) 918-1369.

Thanks

Robin L. Biscaia Hazardous Waste Unit Office of Ecosystem Protection EPA New England - Region I (617 ) 918-1642 (617) 918-0642 (fax)

Forwarded by Robin Biscaia/ Rl / USEPA/US on 11/ 21 / 2006 04:57 PM

From

To

cc

Subject

11/15/2006 03:55 PM

(Document link: Robin Biscaia)

Robin Biscaia/ Rl / USEPA/ US

Jim Miller

Catherine Smith/ Rl/USEPA/US@EPA, Jeff Fowley/Rl/ USEPA/ US@EPA, Andrea Simpson/ Rl/ USEPA/ US@EPA , Lisa Papetti / Rl / USEPA/ US@EPA, Sharon Leitch/ Rl / USEPA/ US@EPA

FW: Storage of Elect ronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen

-1-

Hi Jim,

This is in. response to the Safety Kleen issues you presented to us on October 4 which relate to (1) storing electronically scanned manifests {in lieu of hard copies) at S-K's TSD sites as well as (2) the removal of those TSD paper copies for the purpose of scanning them off site. Given the consistency requirements of the recent manifest rule and the potential national implications of the inquiry, we thought it prudent to seek advice from HQ. HQ response and related correspondence are forwarded below. Based upon HQ' response, we offer the following guidance in this matter.

HQ has determined that Safety Kleen may substitute electronic storage of TSD manifests for paper copies dependent upon the authorized state requirements for the admissibility of copies as evidence. We do not believe the admissibility of copies is an issue in Massachusetts. If true, MADEP could consider allowing electronic copies be maintained by Safety Kleen in lieu of hard copies. This determination is based on an earlier interpretation involving a similar request from Safety Kleen in 1996 {copy attached) .

Regarding the issue involving the removal of the TSD copies off site, HQ has determined that this decision also could be made at the state's discretion if certain conditions are met. For example, we would strongly recommend a short, specified time frame (e.g., two weeks) which manifests could be removed off site on the condition that the documents could be located should an inspection occur at the facility from which they were removed.

Finally, although EPA has determined that Massachusetts may allow Safety Kleen the flexibility described above, the state has the discretion to be more stringent in its approach and not allow one or both activities.

If you have any questions in this matter, please contact Ernie Waterman at (617) 918-1369.

Thank you.

Robin L. Biscaia Hazardous Waste Unit Off ice of Ecosystem Protection EPA New England - Region I (617) 918-1642 (617) 918-0642 (fax)

Forwarded by Robin Biscaia/Rl/USEPA/US on 11/13/2006 04:38 PM

From

To

cc

10/24/2006 04:07 PM

Rich LaShier/DC/USEPA/US

Robin Biscaia/Rl/USEPA/US@EPA

Jeff Fowley/Rl/USEPA/US@EPA, Catherine Smith/Rl/USEPA/US@EPA, Frank Mcalister/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Katherine Nam/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

-2-

Subject

Robin,

Re: Fwd: Safety Kleen has approached us about keeping electronic copies (scanned image. . . [Inquiry: 060927-000

You were correct in your assumption that this issue posed by Safety-Kleen about electronic storage has national implications. In fact, we just received a nearly identical request for guidance on this issue from Pam Allen in the Ohio EPA, as Safety-Kleen posed the same issue to Ohio that they are now raising in Massachusetts.

EPA had determined in November, 1996 that our current federal regulations and Rules of Evidence allowed a company such as Safety-Kleen to retain manifest copies as image files, if the images included the images of the signatures; if the system was designed with security and back-ups to ensure reliable processing of the data, and if the image file system include an indexing or search capability to ensure that all image files of manifests were readily retrievable and readily available to RCRA inspectors for inspection. The memo also made it clear that Safety Kleen needed the clearance from each authorized state where it would produce image files, since we recognized that State regulations and Rules of Evidence on admissibility of copies may not be as liberal as the federal rules on these points. I've attached a copy of the 1996 memo (PDF file) for your reference and background on the availability of image file storage as a substitute for paper copies.

The new twist in the issue is apparently Safety-kleen's desire to have the scanning of the manifests and the production of the image file media done off-site by a contractor . In 1996, Safety-Kleen was doing this activity in house, at several of its larger recycling facilities. So, the challenge presented in the new Safety-Kleen thrust on electronic storage is whether the temporary removal of the paper manifests to an off-site vendor location for scanning and processing is a problem under federal (or state) RCRA regulations addressing the availability of records for inspection.

Rather than restating the points I suggested to Pam Allen in September , I have attached my reply to Ohio below. I would suggest the same advice I gave to Pam Allen would be appropriate for Massachusetts. Please let me know if you have any other questions about this issue or our earlier response.

Thanks, Rich Lashier EPA/OSW (See attached file: sk electronic copies .pdf)

Pam,

Thanks for sharing this question with us. As you know, USEPA generally approved the image file storage and retrieval method (under certain conditions) when Safety-Kleen proposed to us this method of storage in November, 1996. We found then that the proposed storage method met Federal requirements for retaining manifest copies, since the image files would include the image of the handwritten signatures; the system included design and operation controls which seemed to ensure record accuracy, integrity, and

-3-

security; and there were indexing and retrieval features that assured reasonable inspector access to the manifest copies for inspection and producing copies. We also indicated at that time that Safety-Kleen should verify with each State in which it wished to implement image file storage that the proposed storage method comported with State law requirements, including the State's rules of evidence with respect to admitting electronic copies of documents into evidence in the state's courts.

It appears that Ohio is in general agreement that electronic storage of manifest image files would comply with Ohio law and rules of evidence. The new wrinkle is apparently the request to remove the manifest copies from the facility for some period of time (about 2 weeks?) in order to accomplish the record scanning at a centralized scanning facility.

EPA is not really in a position to determine whether the temporary removal of manifest records for the purpose of scanning the files would be in violation of the requirement that manifests be retained at the facility for inspection for at least 3 years. This is an issue that Ohio should determine, given its assessment about how this will impact the state's ability to inspect manifest copies at regulated facilities.

However, since the issue is one of a temporary removal of the records for the purpose of scanning them, it would appear to be an issue for which an agreement could easily be struck between Ohio EPA and Safety-Kleen regarding how and when the records will be removed, where they will be located during the scanning process, and what controls will be implemented to assure that no records are lost during the period of their removal. If it is understood when the records will be removed from the facility, and where they can be accessed in the event it is necessary to inspect one or more of these manifests while they are removed from the facility, then the availability of the records for inspection would not seem to be so great a problem.

That is just my advice, but again, it is entirely up to Ohio EPA to determine if Safety-Kleen should remove the manifests from the facility so that they can be scanned off-site.

Thank you, Rich Lashier EPA/OSW

From

To

cc

Subject

09/27/2006 10:01 AM

Pam Allen <pam.allen@epa.state.oh.us>

Rich LaShier/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Michael Cunningham/RS/USEPA/US@EPA

Jeff Mayhugh <jeff.mayhugh@epa.state.oh.us>, Karen Hale <karen.hale@epa.state.oh.us>

Fwd: Safety Kleen has approached us about keeping electronic copies

(scanned image. [Inquiry:060927-000

-4-

FYI. In case you have any input/advice. I'm attaching what I sent when I submitted my question to the US EPA Waste FAQ Customer Service center.

>>> "Waste Customer Service" <waste@mailca.custhelp.com> 9/27/2006 9:47 AM >>>

Your question has been received. You should expect a response from us within 5 business days.

Update your question via the Web site at http://waste.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/waste.cfg/php/enduser/acct login.php?p userid=pam.allen@epa.state.oh.us&p next page=myq upd.php&p iid=23720&p created=ll5936482B

Question Reference #060927-000011

Summary: Safety Kleen has approached us about keeping electronic copies (scanned image ...

Product Level l: Hazardous Waste Date Created: 09/27/2006 09:47 AM Last Updated: 09/27/2006 09:47 AM

Status: Unresolved

Discussion Thread

Requestor - 09/27/2006 09:47 AM Safety Kleen has approached us about keeping electronic copies (scanned images)of their manifests in lieu of the original hard copies and wants to know if Ohio is OK with it. A 1996 letter from US EPA generally says it's OK. The new twist is they want to send them off-site temporarily (10 days) for scanning. We are struggling with the rule requirement (40 CFR 264.71) to maintain manifests "at the facility" for three years. Have they approached you? Do you have an opinion? See attached.

(---001:001063:31123---J

(See attached file: sk electronic copies.pdf) (See attached file: 060914-000004.pdf)

From

To

Date

Subject

"Miller, James {DEP)" <James.Miller@state.ma.us>

Robin Biscaia/Rl/USEPA/US@EPA

10/04/2006 08:52 AM

FW: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Hi Robin-comments regarding this request

From: Baron, Sarah (DEP) Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:41 AM To: Miller, James (DEP)

-5-

Subject: RE: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

All,

I believe that we should follow EPA's interpretation of whether electronic records can be substituted for hard copies since we are authorized. I spoke with Jeff Fowley who says that Robin Biscaia should be able to answer our inquiry.

Jim, Thursday of this week will be my last day in the office, it would probably be best if you followed up with Robin directly. Thanks.

Sarah

From: Miller, James (DEP) Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 8:46 AM To: Baron, Sarah (DEP) Subject: FW: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Hi Sarah-any thoughts From: White, Steve (DEP) Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:43 PM To: Miller, James (DEP) Cc: DeGabriele, Steven (DEP); Seiler, Scott (DEP); Shallcross, Douglas (DEP) Subject: FW: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Hi Jim:

This is more of a compliance question then a records :retention question. The reg calls for the "original" manifest to be kept for the 3 years at the TSDF.

You might want an opinion from legal on the "wet signature" requirement.

From: White, Steve (DEP) Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 5:21 PM To: Miller, James (DEP) Cc: Seiler, Scott (DEP) Subject: RE: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Hi Jim:

The fact that the "originals" need to be kept would suggest that they cannot do this until the three year period is up.

Scott?

From: Miller, James (DEP) Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 1:22 PM To: White, Steve (DEP) Subject: RE: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

The plan is to take the original, wet signature copies offsite to be scanned and then keep the electronic version onsite

-6-

From: White, Steve {DEP) Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 11:25 AM To: Miller, James {DEP) Cc: Seiler, Scott (DEP) Subject: RE: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Hi Jim:

These are the original, wet signature copies no?

From: Miller, James (DEP) Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 10:04 AM To: White, Steve {DEP) Subject: FW: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Steve-who in the Bureau would make this decision???

From: Wright, Bradley [mailto:Bradley.Wright@safety-kleen.com) Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 8:51 AM To: Wright, Bradley; Miller, James (DEP) Cc: Sirull, William {DEP} Subject: RE: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

This request would also extend to the Safety-Kleen Canton Recycle Center.

Thanks,

Brad Wright, P.E. EHS Manager

From: Wright, Bradley Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2006 2:43 PM To: 'Miller, James (DEP)' Cc: 'Sirull, William (DEP}' Subject: Storage of Electronic Manifests at Safety-Kleen Facilities

Jim,

SKS as a corporation is endeavoring throughout the us to store its hazardous waste manifests in electronic format at its TSDs. The plan is to scan manifests on a regular basis and store them on a network server which is backed up daily. once scanned, the manifest copy(s) would be destroyed. The electronic storage is much more secure and retrievable in the event of a disaster than the paper copies. The files would be secure so that only network administrators would be able to delete a record.

Corporate compliance has asked me to forward you the following questions:

1. May we store electronic (scanned) hazardous waste manifests at our TSDs in lieu of physical copies?

2 . May we remove the manifests off-site to scan them or must they remain on- site for scanning?

- 7 -

If you need any further information regarding this proposal, please let me know.

Brad Wright, P.E., CSP, CHMM Environmental, Health & Safety Manager

Safety-Kleen Systems, Inc. 24 Brixton St. West Hartford, CT 06110

860-953-8827 Office 860-805-8829 Cell 860-953-8004 Fax

-8-

Reference# 060914-000004

Status In Progress

Assigned To Admin

Pam Allen

Category Hazardous Waste

Disposition Forwarded to Staff

SLA Not specified

Queue DHWM

Date Created 09/14/2006 11:16 AM

Initial Response None

Last Updated 09/22/2006 03:14 PM

Customer SmartSense 0 (on -3 to +3 scale)

Staff SmartSense O (on -3 to +3 scale)

Safety-Kleen is investigating the potential for improving our records storage ...

Your Question to Ohio EPA's Answer Place Answer (Pam Allen) Dear Mark,

09/22/2006 03:14 PM

Were you aware of the attached letter sent to Safety-Kleen from U.S. EPA back in 1996? According to our attorneys, Ohio's Rules of Evidence would not prohibit Safety-Kleen from scanning manifests and Land Disposal Restriction {LOR) Notices and keeping them as electronic records in lieu of maintaining the original hard copies. However, Safety-Kleen must be able to produce a hard copy of a manifest or LOR Notice upon the request of an Ohio EPA hazardous waste inspector.

The issue we sUll need to resolve is whether the hazardous waste rules would allow Safety-Kleen to ship these off-site to a centralized scanning center because the documents would not be available "at the facility" while they are being scanned. (See OAC Rule 3745-54-71(A) ... the owner or operator, or his agent, must: ... (5) Retain at the facility a copy of each manifest for at least three years from the date of delivery. http:/lwww.epa.state.oh.us/dhwm/dhwmrules/megasetrules_final/3745-54-71 .pdf}

If you've gotten a definitive answer from other states on the "at the facility" issue, please provide us with a copy. If you login to Answer Place, you can update your question and attach documents.

While we continue to evaluate this issue, please address the following questions:

What information from the manifests is transferred into the operating record before the manifests are sent off-site?

How will the manifests be organized while they are off-site being scanned - - If we needed to access a specific manifest, could it be done, and how long would it take?

Customer (Mark Dembinski) 09120/2006 12:40 PM We are getting these FAQs from other agencies.

1 Question: What is the scanning software being used?

Answer: lntelliScan - Windows based application that will drive the scanner.

2 Question: What is the database In which the Images would be held?

Answer: The index data will be stored in an Oracle database. The Images will be held in RAID devices or NetApp device.

3 Question: What is the resolution of the scanned images?

Answer: 200 DPI, but could be higher if necessary.

4 Question: How long will it take from the time the manifests are sent to BancTec and when they will be available for on line viewing?

Answer: This depends on the volume that is picked up from each location. SK and BancTec will have to decide and agree upon some standards such as all documents will be imaged and available in the archive for retrieval within 10 business days from the day of pickup or something like this. However, at this time no standards have been set.

5 Question: What type of disaster prevention/recovery will be arranged?

Answer: Images will be stored in two devices in two different locations. This will allow for redundancy and disaster recovery.

It will be a big plus if the documents can leave the site and arrive at a BancTec processing facility. However, there is a risk involved in that manifests may get lost in the mail.

Answer (Pam Allen) Dear Mark,

09/20/2006 12:20 PM

Thank you for using the Answer Place. 1 just wanted to let you know we're still working on your request. l should have an answer no later than the end of the week.

Note (Jeff Mayhugh} 09/14/2006 01 :30 PM I didn't want to answer this in a rush so I'm forwarding it to you.

Customer (Mark Dembinski) 09/14/200611:16 AM Safety-Kleen is investigating the potential for improving our records storage system and is requesting written approval from the Department on the following two issues. First, Safety-Kleen requests approval to utilize electronic copies of manifests and Land Disposal Restriction Notices in lieu of maintaining the hard copies at our facilities. We propose to scan existing and future documents and discard the hard copies.

Secondly, the most efficient method of scanning existing documents would be to ship them to our centralized scanning center. This would mean that for a short period of time, estimated at about two weeks, the faciities would not have the documents available. Your approval on this issue is also requested.

Auto-Response 09/14/200611:16 AM

Suggested answers displayed.

Primary Contact First Name: Mark Last Name: Dembinski

Organization:

Login: Mark.Dembinski@Safety-Kleen.com Password; ***"****

Title: Contact Type:

Email: mark.dembinski@safety-kleen.com Email - Alternate #1: Email • Alternate #2:

Office Phone: Mobile Phone:

Fax: Assistant Phone:

Home Phone:

Street City

State/Province Postal Code

Country

Additional Information

File Attachments

Name Size

• sk electronic copies.pdf 51.86k application/pdf

PPC 9452.1996(03)

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE

November12, 1996

Ms. Catherine A. McCord, Manager Regulatory Programs and Business Integration Division Safety-Kleen Corporation 1000 North Randall Road Elgin, IL 60213-7857

Dear Ms. McCord:

In May, 1996, you and Larry Davenport first met with my staff in the Hazardous Waste Identification Division (HWID) to discuss the use of automated information technologies in the hazardous waste manifest system. During this meeting, you indicated that Safety-Kleen Corp. (Safety-Kleen) had developed the capability to store manifest records electronically at its recycle facility in Denton, Texas. Since Safety-Kleen may wish to implement this system on a national basis, you asked HWID to clarify if this electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C requirements for the use and retention of the Uniform Manifest. By this letter, I am pleased to provide you with the requested clarification.

Based on the information provided to EPA staff by Safety-Kleen's representatives, I conclude that the automated manifest record system operated by the company at its Denton, Texas recycle facility complies with current RCRA record retention and access requirements. This conclusion follows from our finding that the image files stored by Safety-Kleen's system meet the requirements in our current manifest regulations for maintaining manifest copies that bear the handwritten signatures of the · generator and subsequent waste handlers. Safety-Kleen's automated system is able to reproduce high quality copies of manifests that include the images of the original handwritten signatures. In

RO 14105

addition, the Safety-Kleen image file system appears to incorporate data integrity and security features which further ensure the trustworthiness of the records and their general admissibility into evidence. Finally, we find that the indexing and automated retrieval features included in the system satisfy RCRA statutory provisions which require facilities to provide RCRA inspectors with reasonable access to their facilities and to their hazardous waste records, including the ability to inspect and copy records. In the enclosure included with this response, we explain this interpretation and our findings in greater detail.

I understand that you have previously received a consistent interpretation from officials in the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, which implements the authorized RCRA hazardous waste program in the State of Texas. To the extent that Safety-Kleen expands its automated record system to facilities in other States, you must verify with the appropriate State agencies that the system will com 1 with each State's manifest retention regulations and

Authorized States may implement RCRA programs that include requirements more stringent than the Federal requirements, and not every State has adopted Rules of Evidence that are as liberal as the Federal Rules insofar as admitting electronic copies of documents into evidence.

This response is directed specifically at the system as configured in Denton and described to EPA and OMB staff by Safety-Kleen's representatives at a here on October 3, 1996. However,

Thank you for taking the time to share with us information about your company's innovative efforts in adopting an automated approach to manifest record keeping. We believe that systems such as these will demonstrate that automated information technologies

RO 14105

can indeed reduce record keeping burdens, while making access to the data more efficient and timely.

If you have any questions about this response, please contact Michele Anders, Chief of the Generator and Recycling Branch, on 703-308-8551, or Richard LaShier on 703-308-8796.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Shapiro, Director Office of Solid Waste

Enclosure

David Nielsen, OECA/RED Ann Stephanos, OECA/RED Ann Codington, OPPE David Schwarz, OPPE George Wyeth, OGC Dell Billings, DOT /RSP A Palmer Kelly, OECA/OCE Nick Swanstrom, OECA/OCE Rich LaShier, HWID I GRB Chris Wotz, OMB David Updike, CIRMD

Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X Tom Kennedy, ASTSWMO)

RO 14105

ENCLOSURE

OSW's Interpretation and Findings Regarding Safety-Kleen Corp.'s Automated Manifest Record Storage System

I. Issue:

Does Safety-Kleen Corp.'s automated manifest record keeping system, which uses a scanner and Personal Computer (PC) to generate and store electronically image files of completed and signed manifests, comply with the current RCRA regulatory requirements addressing the retention of signed manifest copies by waste handlers, and the RCRA statutory requirement that hazardous waste facilities provide RCRA inspectors with access to their records for inspection and copying?

II. Background

In May, 1996, representatives from Safety-Kleen Corp. (Safety-Kleen) met with management and staff from OSW's Hazardous Waste Identification Division (HWID) to discuss the use of automated information technologies in the hazardous waste manifest system. During this meeting, HWID was advised that Safety-Kleen had developed the capability to store manifest records electronically at its recycle facility in Denton, Texas. Safety-Kleen expressed a desire to proceed with implementing this capability on a national basis, and asked OSW to clarify if this electronic record system complied with current Subtitle C requirements for the use and retention of the hazardous waste manifest.

Subsequently, HWID staff conducted a series of internal meetings on the topic of electrontc storage with staff from several interested EPA offices, including the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Regulatory Enforcement, the Office of Criminal Enforcement, and the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation. Since the RCRA manifest requirements touch upon areas within the scope of the hazardous materials transportation laws, staff from the Department of Transportation were also invited to participate in these discussions. These internal discussions

RO 14105

focused on the technical and legal issues presented by electronic record storage, considering both the facts presented by Safety-Kleen and the other types of automated systems that are likely to be encountered as information technologies are relied on increasingly to supplant paper record systems. This discussion will continue as a part of the manifest revisions rulemaking that is now underway in OSWER.

After several internal meetings, we invited Safety-Kleen's representatives to again meet with interested staff to provide additional information on the design and operation of the Denton, Texas record keeping system, and to answer staff questions on the security and accessibility of the stored files. This meeting, attended by EPA and OMB staff, occurred at EPA Headquarters on October 3, 1996.

A. Safety Kleen's Storage System

At the October 3rd meeting, Safety-Kleen was represented by Ms. Catherine McCord, the company's manager for Regulatory Programs and Business Integration, and by Mr. Larry Davenport, the company's vice president for Information Services. Ms. McCord and Mr. Davenport provided much helpful information which clarified staff's understanding of the features and operation of the Denton, Texas automated storage system. Briefly, we understand these to be the key features of the Denton system:

1. Upon receipt of a shipment at the Denton recycle facility, a hard copy of each manifest is scanned, and the image file created by the scanner is saved to disk. The manifest, when scanned, contains the handwritten signatures required under 40 CFR 262.23(a), and these signatures are captured as part of the image file copies.

2. Shortly after scanning the manifests, Safety-Kleen's clerical staff enter some 20 elements of data about the shipment and the manifest into a system index. This index enables Safety-Kleen personnel or RCRA inspectors to access the manifest files by date-of receipt, manifest number, facility name, or other descriptors.

3. The index and manifest retrieval features of the system are

RO 14105

Windows(TM) based applications that support an intuitive, graphical interface with the user. The index to the-retrieval system is activated by "double-clicking" on the index icon that appears on the desktop, and the search for specific manifests is activated by pull down menus and dialog boxes that prompt the user for the fields and data that define the search parameters.

4. The system automatically displays a list of all manifests that respond to a specific search request. The user can then select any item from the displayed list with the computer mouse, and the system will then display the image file of the manifest. The output can be examined on the monitor, or printed as hard copy. Print-outs from the system are typically of the same quality as photocopies of the original documents, and all handwritten signatures appear on the records.

5. At the end of each day, an additional copy of each manifest file scanned into the Denton storage system is transmitted electronically to the company's headquarters in Elgin, Illinois.

B. The Federal Manifest Regulations

The record retention requirements for hazardous waste generators are set forth at 40 CFR Part 262, Subpart D. Taken together, 262.40(a) and 262.23(a) require generators to retain signed copies of completed manifests for a period of 3 years, and provide that the "signed" manifest copies must bear the handwritten signatures of the generator, the transporters accepting the waste for transportation, and the owner or operator of the designated facility, who certifies to the receipt of the waste by signing the manifest. I note that there are similar provisions in the Subtitle C regulations for transporters and treatment, storage and disposal facilities, which taken together, require a "handwritten signature" to be obtained whenever there is a change in the custody of the waste, and require retention for 3 years of these signed copies among the records of the regulated waste handlers. See 263.20(d)(1), 263.22(a), and 264.71.

C. Statutory Requirement for Access to Records

Section 3007(a) of the RCRA statute provides that any person who generates, stores, treats, transports, disposes of, or has

RO 14105

handled hazardous wastes shall, upon the request of any duly designated RCRA inspector, furnish information relating to hazardous wastes to the inspector, and permit such a person at all reasonable times to have access to and to copy all records relating to hazardous wastes.

III. Detailed Discussion

A. The Requirements for Copies Bearing Handwritten Signatures

As summarized above, the current Federal manifest regulations require the generator and each subsequent handler involved with an off-site shipment of hazardous waste to sign the manifest "by hand," and to keep in their files for a 3-year period a copy of the manifest which bears these signatures. The key regulatory compliance issue presented by Safety-Kleen's system is whether the electronically stored image files are created and maintained in such a manner that they qualify as "copies" bearing the necessary "handwritten" signatures. We conclude that the image files meet this standard, because:

(1) The handwritten signatures from the hard copy records are captured by the scanner, incorporated into the stored image files, and reproduced accurately in the output generated by the computer system. Safety-Kleen demonstrated to EPA that the output displays signatures that look no different than the signatures that initially appeared on the scanned hard copies, and the reproduced manifest copies (and signatures) are of the same or better quality than those which are produced by photocopy machines or fax machines. Significantly, this system does not attempt to substitute "digital signatures," PIN Numbers, or other electronic surrogates for the original handwritten signatures.

(2) The image files appear to meet the standards included in the Federal Rules of Evidence for the admission of copies and computer generated records into evidence in judicial proceedings brought in the Federal courts. We believe that the law of evidence provides the proper standard for determining whether these electronic documents (the image files and any printouts-generated by the system) are acceptable "copies" within the meaning of our manifest retention regulations. The regulations require these manifest copies to be retained in order that they may be inspected

RO 14105

by RCRA inspectors, and in a proper case, admitted in evidence in RCRA enforcement proceedings or other proceedings (e.g., CERCLA liability) where the information on the manifests may be considered relevant. Thus, their acceptability as :inspectable records and possible evidence should be evaluated according to the law of evidence on the admissibility of computer generated records.

A significant factor which distinguishes the admissibility of computer generated records from other types of business records is the trustworthiness of these electronic records. In this context, trustworthiness can be affected by the reliability of the hardware and software that make up the computer system, and by the reliability and accuracy of the data entry and data processing methods used by the operator. In addition, the trustworthiness of electronic records can be enhanced by the presence of"computer security" controls that are directed at controlling unauthorized access to the system and data, and at preventing :inadvertent or intentional loss or corruption of the data stored in these records.

Based on the features of the Safety-Kleen system that was explained to EPA and OMB staff, we are reasonably assured that the company's electronic manifest records are accurate and secure. This conclusion is supported by these facts:

p The scanning equipment and software·installed by Safety-Kleen are extremely accurate. Fewer than 1 % of the manifests that are scanned present difficulties during scanning, and most of these can be corrected by obtaining a better copy of the manifest for scanning or by sharpening the image quality before saving the image to disk.

p Safety-Kleen is merely scanning the original hard copies of completed manifests into its computer system, and not entering new data manually. The quality of the image is verified before the record is saved to disk and the scanning of the pa per forms provides m:inimal'opportunities for data entry errors or for alteration of records.

p The Denton facility transmits each night a back-up copy of the electronic manifest records to corporate headquarters in

RO 14105

Elgin, Illinois. Thus, in the event of a fire, flood, or other accident involving the Denton site, the records of waste activity will be secured in Elgin.

Therefore, we believe that these materials would be admissible in evidence, so that they are acceptable manifest "copies" bearing the waste handlers' "handwritten signatures," as required by the RCRA regulations.

B. Reasonable Access to Records.

The.final factor which we considered in determining the acceptability of Safety-Kleen's automated records system is the real world accessibility of the electronically stored manifest records to RCRA inspectors. Section 3007 of the RCRA statute states that any person who generates, stores, treats, disposes, transports, or otherwise handles hazardous wastes must permit EPA or State enforcement personnel access at reasonable times to their facilities as well as to the records relating to their hazardous wastes. Reasonable access to facility records includes the right to inspect and to copy all such records. RCRA 3007(a). Therefore, in considering the merits of any electronic storage system, we must be satisfied that the system would not in any significant way impede the access of RCRA inspectors to the manifest records. In other words, would a RCRA inspector entering a facility with an automated record system enjoy a level of access to individual manifests that is at least comparable to that which he or she would encounter with respect to paper copies maintained in file drawers?

We conclude that Safety-Kleen's system provides adequate assurances of inspector access to electronic manifest files. As the company demonstrated to us, the index and retrieval features of the automated system are implemented from the Windows(TM) desktop, and do not require more than rudimentary familiarity with the Windows(TM) operating system and its pull-down menus and dialogue boxes. The data elements that may be searched are suggested in a pull down menu, and once a selection is made (e.g., manifest#, date of receipt, facility name) the user is prompted for the data that define the search request. The index and retrieval systems are very intuitive, and lead one to a list of responsive files, which if selected, generates the image of the

RO 14105

manifest for examination or printing. We believe that an inspector would only need a few minutes to become familiar with the operation of this system. Once comfortable with the retrieval system, the inspector would actually enjoy a superior level of access compared to paper files, since the index feature now supports searches on about 20 data elements. Thus, an inspector should be able to focus his or her inspection efforts much more efficiently with the automated system and target the search as necessary.

Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we are satisfied that Safety-Kleen's image file storage system meets current RCRA requirements for retention of copies bearing the handwritten signatures of waste handlers, and for ensuring reasonable access by enforcement personnel to Safety-Kleen's manifest records for inspection and copying. This interpretation is directed specifically at the system as configured in Denton, Texas, and described to EPA and OMB staff by Safety-Kleen's representatives at our meeting on October 3, 1996. However, similar systems used by others could also meet RCRA requirements, if they are designed and operated in accordance with the guidance contained in this interpretation. In this regard, the generation and storage of image files that include handwritten signatures, the inclusion of design and operating controls which ensure record accuracy, integrity and security (and thus admissibility of the records in evidence), and the inclusion of indexing and file retrieval features which ensure reasonable inspector access are the key factors in this decision.

Because this issue touches upon the use of innovative information technologies, and involves regulations and interpretations that have national significance, we are distributing this interpretation to the Regional Waste Management Division Directors and to the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We will also make this interpretation available through the OSWER Home Page on the Internet.

RO 14105