Office of Regulatory Reinvention

111 S. Capitol Avenue; 8th Floor, Romney Building

Lansing, MI 48933

Phone: (517) 335-8658 FAX: (517) 335-9512

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

and COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (RISCBA)

PART 1: INTRODUCTION

Under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), 1969 PA 306, the agency that has the statutory authority to

promulgate the rules must complete and submit this form electronically to the Office of Regulatory

Reinvention (ORR) at orr@michigan.gov no less than 28 days before the public hearing.

1. Agency Information

Agency name: Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)

Division/Bureau/Office: Waste Management and Radiological Protection (WMRPD)

Name, title, phone number, and e-mail of person completing this form: Ronda L. Blayer,

Environmental Engineering

Specialist, 517-284-6555,

blayerr@michigan.gov

Name of Departmental Regulatory Affairs Officer reviewing this form: David Fiedler

2. Rule Set Information

ORR assigned rule set number: 2018-012EQ

Title of proposed rule set: Hazardous Waste Management, R 299.9101 et. seq.

PART 2: KEY SECTIONS OF THE APA

MCL 24.207a “Small business” defined.

Sec. 7a. “Small business” means a business concern incorporated or doing business in this state, including

the affiliates of the business concern, which is independently owned and operated, and which employs fewer

than 250 full-time employees or which has gross annual sales of less than $6,000,000.00.

MCL 24.232 (8) Except for an emergency rule promulgated under section 48, and subject to subsection (10),

if the federal government has mandated that this state promulgate rules, an agency shall not adopt or

promulgate a rule more stringent than the applicable federally mandated standard unless the director of the

agency determines that there is a clear and convincing need to exceed the applicable federal standard.

(9) Except for an emergency rule promulgated under section 48, and subject to subsection (10), if the

federal government has not mandated that this state promulgate rules, an agency shall not adopt or promulgate

a rule more stringent than an applicable federal standard unless specifically authorized by a statute of this

state or unless the director of the agency determines that there is a clear and convincing need to exceed the

applicable federal standard.

(10) Subsections (8) and (9) do not apply to the amendment of the special education programs and services

rules, R 340.1701 to R 340.1862 of the Michigan Administrative Code. However, subsections (8) and (9) do

apply to the promulgation of new rules relating to special education with the rescission of R 340.1701 to R

340.1862 of the Michigan Administrative Code.

MCL 24.240 Reducing disproportionate economic impact of rule on small business; applicability of

section and MCL 24.245(3).

Sec. 40. (1) When an agency proposes to adopt a rule that will apply to a small business and the rule will

have a disproportionate impact on small businesses because of the size of those businesses, the agency shall

consider exempting small businesses and, if not exempted, the agency proposing to adopt the rule shall reduce

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 2

the economic impact of the rule on small businesses by doing all of the following when it is lawful and

feasible in meeting the objectives of the act authorizing the promulgation of the rule:

(a) Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule and its probable

effect on small businesses.

(b) Establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for small businesses under the

rule after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other administrative costs.

(c) Consolidate, simplify, or eliminate the compliance and reporting requirements for small businesses

under the rule and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.

(d) Establish performance standards to replace design or operational standards required in the proposed rule.

(2) The factors described in subsection (1)(a) to (d) shall be specifically addressed in the small business

impact statement required under section 45.

(3) In reducing the disproportionate economic impact on small business of a rule as provided in

subsection (1), an agency shall use the following classifications of small business:

(a) 0-9 full-time employees.

(b) 10-49 full-time employees.

(c) 50-249 full-time employees.

(4) For purposes of subsection (3), an agency may include a small business with a greater number of

full-time employees in a classification that applies to a business with fewer full-time employees.

(5) This section and section 45(3) do not apply to a rule that is required by federal law and that an agency

promulgates without imposing standards more stringent than those required by the federal law.

MCL 24.245 (3) Except for a rule promulgated under sections 33, 44, and 48, the agency shall prepare and

include with the notice of transmittal a regulatory impact statement which shall contain specific information

(information requested on the following pages).

PART 3: AGENCY RESPONSE

Please provide the required information using complete sentences. Do not answer any question with “N/A”

or “none.”

Comparison of Rule(s) to Federal/State/Association Standards:

1. Compare the proposed rule(s) to parallel federal rules or standards set by a state or national licensing agency

or accreditation association, if any exist.

On October 30, 1986, the state of Michigan received authorization from the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to administer the state Hazardous Waste

Management Program (HWMP) in lieu of the federal HWMP under the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), as amended by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA), and the regulations pursuant thereto (collectively “RCRA”). The DEQ is

proposing the rule revisions under the authority of Part 111, Hazardous Waste Management, of

the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended

(Act 451). As an authorized state, Michigan is required to continually revise the state HWMP

to ensure that it is consistent with, equivalent to, and at least as stringent as the federal

HWMP. The DEQ strives to maintain a quality delegated HWMP, continually reviewing the

rules to identify areas that warrant revision, improvement, or streamlining. The proposed rules

contain revisions based on federal mandates under RCRA, as well as DEQ and public

recommendations. The proposed revisions represent the 12^thamendment to the Part 111

rules and would amend the existing rules, which were promulgated on April 5, 2017.

The proposed rules are consistent with, equivalent to, and not less restrictive than, the

governing federal regulations. The proposed rules do not duplicate similar federal rules except

to the extent required to maintain authorization. An area where the proposed rules are more

restrictive than the federal regulations is the area of state-only listed wastes. The state has

historically maintained a list of state-only hazardous wastes. These wastes are/were

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 3

generated or found to be a source of contamination in Michigan and were identified and

regulated as hazardous waste based on a review of their characteristics, toxicity, and

management practices. By identifying them as hazardous wastes, they are subject to specific

management standards designed to ensure protection of human health and the environment if

followed. However, as noted below, the DEQ is proposing to eliminate some of these codes

based on consideration of potential harm to human health and the environment and presence

in industry.

There are no standards set by a state or national licensing agency or accreditation association.

A. Are these rule(s) required by state law or federal mandate?

As noted in Item 1 above, the revisions based on the federal HWMP are required to maintain

Michigan’s delegation as an authorized state.

B. If these rule(s) exceed a federal standard, identify the federal standard or citation, describe why it is

necessary that the proposed rule(s) exceed the federal standard or law, and specify the costs and benefits

arising out of the deviation.

Existing state rules require hazardous waste containers to be labeled, in part, with the words

“Hazardous Waste” and the hazardous waste number(s) associated with the contents when

the waste is first placed in the container. The federal generator improvements rule requires

all containers to have a description of the hazardous waste and a hazard indicator when the

waste is first placed therein, and the words “Hazardous Waste” and the hazardous waste

number only prior to the waste being shipped offsite. Federal hazardous waste numbers are

unique to a given waste stream or characteristic and are consistent from generator to

generator, industry to industry, state to state and thus, provide regulatory staff that conduct

inspections with vital information for determining compliance with the applicable rules, and

safety purposes. The proposed rules contain a blend of the existing state and new federal

labelling requirements. Satellite accumulation area containers must have the words

“Hazardous Waste”, either the hazardous waste name (i.e., description) or number, and the

hazard indicator when waste is first placed in the container. Very small quantity generators

(VSQGs) sending waste to large quantity generators (LQGs), small quantity generators, and

LQGs must label the containers with the words “Hazardous Waste”, the hazardous waste

number, and the hazard indicator when the waste is first introduced into the container rather

than just prior to shipment offsite.

2. Compare the proposed rule(s) to standards in similarly situated states, based on geographic location,

topography, natural resources, commonalities, or economic similarities.

The U.S. EPA has authorized all of the Region 5 states, which include Minnesota, Wisconsin,

Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. All of these states must administer a general HWMP that

is consistent with, equivalent to, and no less stringent than, the federal HWMP. However, it is

recognized that each state program may have areas where it is more stringent than the federal

program due to that state’s unique factors, including, in part, geology, hydrology, habitats,

population densities, industry, available hazardous waste management facilities, and other

environmental factors.

A. If the rule(s) exceed standards in those states, explain why and specify the costs and benefits arising out

of the deviation.

Given the scope and complexity of the RCRA program, the number of states in Region 5,

and a given state’s ability to be more stringent than the program, it is not feasible to compare

all aspects of the Michigan’s rules with those of the other Region 5 states. The program is

preventative in nature and regulates the management of 1,000s of types of hazardous waste

(both characteristic and listed) from “cradle to grave program.” Regulated parties include

hazardous waste generators (e.g., industry, businesses, academia, etc.), transporters

(independent and commercial), and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 4

(captive and commercial). Taking into account the span and intricacies of the base program

and state-specific considerations as noted above, it is safe to say that no two state HWMPs

are identical. Michigan is likely more stringent than some states in some areas (e.g.,

state-specific waste codes, labelling) while other state’s may be more stringent than Michigan

in other areas (e.g., transporter licensing, fees for review of various required plans, etc.).

3. Identify any laws, rules, and other legal requirements that may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the

proposed rule(s).

The proposed revisions do not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other rules or legal

requirements.

A. Explain how the rule has been coordinated, to the extent practicable, with other federal, state, and local

laws applicable to the same activity or subject matter. This section should include a discussion of the

efforts undertaken by the agency to avoid or minimize duplication.

As part of the DEQ’s ongoing review process, staff reviews other programs that may have an

impact on the state’s HWMP to ensure there are no conflicts.

4. If MCL 24.232(8) applies and the proposed rule(s) is more stringent than the applicable federally mandated

standard, a statement of specific facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more

stringent rule(s) and an explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the more

stringent standard is required below:

Similar to the federal HWMP, the state’s HWMP program is very complex. Under the federal

HWMP, states wishing to become authorized states, like Michigan is, must have requirements

that are consistent with and at least as stringent as its federal counterpart. In establishing

program requirements, states take into account their unique setting, including, in part, such

areas as geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, habitats, population densities and sensitivities,

natural resources, land use, types of industry, available hazardous waste management

facilities, fees, and other environmental factors. These factors often result in slight differences

in state HWMPs. Michigan’s HWMP has historically had a few areas where it is more stringent

or broader in scope than the federal HWMP. However, Michigan continually reviews its

program to ensure that such requirements are necessary for protection of human health and the

environment. In conducting this review, the above referenced factors are considered along with

the associated compliance histories, updated scientific information upon which the requirements

are based, and how are similarly industrialized states regulating these specific areas of their

HWMPs.

As noted in Item1 above, including A and B, the proposed rules contain two areas that are

more stringent than the federal HWMP: 1) additional listings of state-only waste numbers and

2) labelling of containers. The state-only listings, which went through the mandated formal

listing process and have been part of the state HWMP for many years, are based on the

characteristics and toxicity exhibited by wastes that have been or continue to be generated in

Michigan, and if no longer generated, continue to be managed in Michigan. Recognizing that

the waste landscape is different than it was when the state was originally authorized back in

1986, the state-only listings have been the subject of review over the last few rule amendment

packages. As a result of this review, the DEQ has eliminated many of them. It is also

proposing to delete more of them as part of this rules package. That being said, the basis for

listing many of them remains unchanged. In such cases, the listings will remain. However, we

will continue to review these listings as part of all future rulemaking to ensure that the basis for

listing is still relevant.

The requirements regarding container labelling are explained in Item 1.B. above. While the

proposed revisions are more stringent than the federal requirements, they are not more

stringent than the current requirements under the existing state HWMP. The DEQ firmly

believes that the blended requirements in this rules package are vital to determining

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 5

compliance with applicable requirements in that the uniform hazardous waste numbers convey

consistent, specific information regarding the waste to both the inspectors and regulated

parties. HWMP compliance is evaluated from cradle to grave. As such, the necessary

information should be on the containers from when waste is first introduced as opposed to not

until it is ready to be sent to the onsite accumulation area or shipped offsite at some future

time. This requirement is also vital to ensuring the safety of our inspectors.

5. If MCL 24.232(9) applies and the proposed rule(s) is more stringent than the applicable federal standard,

either the statute that specifically authorizes the more stringent rule(s) or a statement of the specific

facts that establish the clear and convincing need to adopt the more stringent rule(s) and an

explanation of the exceptional circumstances that necessitate the more stringent standard is required

below:

MCL 24.232(9) does not apply as the federal government has mandated that the state

promulgate rules.

Purpose and Objectives of the Rule(s):

6. Identify the behavior and frequency of behavior that the proposed rule(s) are designed to alter.

The goals of the proposed rules are to maintain federal authorization; improve the overall quality

of the rules, both in terms of clarification of existing requirements and areas of program

coverage; address the remaining state-only hazardous wastes in accordance with the

Environmental Advisory Rules Committee’s (EARC) recommendation; and reduce some of the

regulatory burdens on the regulated community. The revisions provide the clarity necessary to

alleviate confusion and inconsistent regulatory interpretations. Moreover, they are designed to

reduce regulatory barriers and resource demands, both monetary and nonmonetary, and

provide the regulated community with flexibility and streamlined requirements, where

appropriate.

The proposed rules address federal revisions that are required for the DEQ to maintain its

authorization, as well as those federal revisions that authorized states have the option of

incorporating into their rules for consistency purposes. The federal revisions relate to

generator improvement requirements, electronic manifesting, 2018 court vacatur of some of

the definition of solid waste provisions, and hazardous waste import/export documents

confidentiality and submittal.

The proposed rules also address revisions based on DEQ and public recommendations.

These revisions relate to the following subject areas: hazardous waste identification and

listing, adding aerosol cans as a universal waste, updates to information associated with items

adopted by reference in the rules, and typographical corrections.

In general, all of the revisions are aimed at reducing the rate of noncompliance with existing

HWMP requirements and maintaining protection of human health, safety, welfare, and the

environment.

A. Estimate the change in the frequency of the targeted behavior expected from the proposed rule(s).

The restructuring of the generator requirements, the state’s inclusion of the optional provisions

regarding VSQGs sending waste to LQGs and episodic events, the removal of state-only

listings, expansion of the universal waste, and alternate management options under the

definition of solid waste provisions will provide generators more options for managing their

wastes without necessarily incurring more stringent management requirements. A change in

frequency of compliance cannot be estimated as it not known which generators may be able

to avail themselves of the new options.

B. Describe the difference between current behavior/practice and desired behavior/practice.

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 6

The new structure of the generator requirements makes it easier to identify applicable

standards as opposed to having to check multiple rules and cross-references which can lead

to requirements being missed and result in non-compliance.

C. What is the desired outcome?

The revisions are designed to reduce the rate of noncompliance with HWMP requirements

while providing for proper management of wastes and maintaining protection of human

health, safety, welfare, and the environment.

7. Identify the harm resulting from the behavior that the proposed rule(s) are designed to alter and the likelihood

that the harm will occur in the absence of the rule.

As stated above, the proposed rules contain a number of revisions addressing a variety of

subject areas. Increasing the rate of compliance with state requirements and providing for an

appropriate level of hazardous waste management will help to ensure that hazardous waste is

not mismanaged, thereby reducing the threats and risks to human health, safety, welfare, and

the environment.

A. What is the rationale for changing the rule(s) instead of leaving them as currently written?

As an authorized state, Michigan is required to continually revise the state program to ensure

that it is consistent with, equivalent to, and at least as stringent as the federal HWMP. The

majority of the proposed rules are necessary to maintain the federal authorization. Failure to

maintain such authorization by incorporating federal revisions will jeopardize the state’s

authorization and may result in the withdrawal of authorization and the loss of approximately

$4 million in annual federal funding. Loss of authorization would also result in the dual

regulation of the regulated community by the U.S. EPA and the DEQ.

8. Describe how the proposed rule(s) protect the health, safety, and welfare of Michigan citizens while

promoting a regulatory environment in Michigan that is the least burdensome alternative for those required

to comply.

The state HWMP and its federal counterpart are designed to ensure proper characterization,

identification, and management of hazardous waste from cradle-to-grave in order to ensure

protection of human health, safety, welfare, and the environment and to encourage waste

minimization. Where feasible (i.e., authorization, resources, and legal requirements allow), the

DEQ has made, and continues to explore opportunities to make, improvements to the state

HWMP. These improvements are designed to make the requirements clear to the regulated

community, thereby minimizing incorrect interpretations and the need for outside assistance,

and increasing a party’s ability to comply, and to reduce burdens on the regulated community

and the DEQ. These benefits should result in cost savings to both of the regulated entities

while maintaining environmental and human health, safety, and welfare protection.

9. Describe any rules in the affected rule set that are obsolete or unnecessary and can be rescinded.

Based on a review of the state-only hazardous wastes in terms of basis for listing, industry

generation, and management thereof, over 40 duplicative or out-of-date numbers are proposed

for deletion.

Fiscal Impact on the Agency:

Fiscal impact is an increase or decrease in expenditures from the current level of expenditures, i.e. hiring

additional staff, higher contract costs, programming costs, changes in reimbursement rates, etc. over and above

what is currently expended for that function. It does not include more intangible costs or benefits, such as

opportunity costs, the value of time saved or lost, etc., unless those issues result in a measurable impact on

expenditures.

10. Describe the fiscal impact on the agency (an estimate of the cost of rule imposition or potential savings).

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 7

The majority of the proposed revisions are either enhancements to existing rules or provide

further options for how certain materials may be managed under the rules. Some of the

management options may result in less waste being required to be managed as hazardous

which will, in turn, reduce the state’s revenue from hazardous waste handler fees. The

federally-mandated electronic manifest program will result in an annual loss of about $80,000

in manifest processing fees. The proposed rules will be implemented using existing

resources.

11. Describe whether or not an agency appropriation has been made or a funding source provided for any

expenditures associated with the proposed rule(s).

As with the implementation of the existing rules, the agency receives funding from both the

U.S. EPA and the state. The U.S. EPA provides the DEQ with an annual grant based on

Michigan’s RCRA Grant Work Plan for a given fiscal year. The federal grant is in the

neighborhood of $3,500,000 to 4,000,000. State funding is derived from a mix of legislative

appropriations, hazardous waste user charges (HWUC), licensing fees, and corrective action

cost recovery. The current HWUC system, established in statute, has a sunset provision. As

such and as discussed in the EARC’s findings, the DEQ is evaluating options for a new HWUC

system that will generate the state funding necessary to continue to administer the state

HWMP. Meanwhile, the DEQ continues to explore long-term funding sources for the state

HWMP.

12. Describe how the proposed rule(s) is necessary and suitable to accomplish its purpose, in relationship to the

burden(s) it places on individuals. Burdens may include fiscal or administrative burdens, or duplicative acts.

The majority of the proposed rules are necessary to conform to the federal program, to maintain

our state authorization, and to avoid the potential dual regulation of Michigan’s regulated

community under the state and federal HWMPs. As discussed elsewhere in this document, the

proposed rules contain a variety of regulations that offer some level of regulatory relief to the

regulated community.

A. Despite the identified burden(s), identify how the requirements in the rule(s) are still needed and

reasonable compared to the burdens.

The majority of the proposed rules are necessary to conform to the federal program, to

maintain our state authorization, and to avoid the potential dual regulation of Michigan’s

regulated community under the state and federal HWMPs. Overall, the proposed rules

contain a variety of regulations that offer some level of regulatory relief to the regulated

community as opposed to placing additional burdens on them.

Impact on Other State or Local Governmental Units:

13. Estimate any increase or decrease in revenues to other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities,

counties, school districts) as a result of the rule. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for such other

state or local governmental units as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment, supplies, labor, and

increased administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing monitoring.

The proposed rules will not have any significant impact on revenues to other state or local

governmental units.

A. Estimate the cost increases or reductions for other state or local governmental units (i.e. cities, counties,

school districts) as a result of the rule. Include the cost of equipment, supplies, labor, and increased

administrative costs in both the initial imposition of the rule and any ongoing monitoring.

The proposed rules will not have any significant impact on revenues to other cities, counties,

or school districts.

14. Discuss any program, service, duty or responsibility imposed upon any city, county, town, village, or school

district by the rule(s).

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 8

The proposed rules do not impose any new programs, services, duties, or responsibilities upon

any city, county, town, village, or school district.

A. Describe any actions that governmental units must take to be in compliance with the rule(s). This section

should include items such as record keeping and reporting requirements or changing operational

practices.

The proposed rules do not impose any new requirements on governmental units.

15. Describe whether or not an appropriation to state or local governmental units has been made or a funding

source provided for any additional expenditures associated with the proposed rule(s).

The proposed rules do not impose any new requirements upon any governmental units.

Rural Impact:

16. In general, what impact will the rule(s) have on rural areas?

The proposed rules do not have a specific impact on rural areas.

A. Describe the types of public or private interests in rural areas that will be affected by the rule(s).

The imposition of the proposed rules will not result in additional costs to public or private

interests simply due to their rural location.

Environmental Impact:

17. Do the proposed rule(s) have any impact on the environment? If yes, please explain.

Yes, the proposed rules have an impact on the environment in that the entire HWMP is

designed to ensure proper characterization, identification, and management of hazardous

waste so as to ensure protection of human health, safety, welfare, and the environment.

Small Business Impact Statement:

18. Describe whether and how the agency considered exempting small businesses from the proposed rule(s).

The DEQ did not consider exempting small businesses from the proposed rules. The ability to

provide for any exemption from regulation is tied to the federal HWMP and the state’s

authorization. The state HWMP cannot be less stringent than the governing federal HWMP.

19. If small businesses are not exempt, describe (a) how the agency reduced the economic impact of the

proposed rule(s) on small businesses, including a detailed recitation of the efforts of the agency to comply

with the mandate to reduce the disproportionate impact of the rule(s) upon small businesses as described

below, per MCL 24.240(1)(a)-(d), or (b) the reasons such a reduction was not lawful or feasible.

The state HWMP follows the federal HWMP in that it establishes a stratified system of

management requirements based on the waste type, monthly generation quantities, length of

time waste remains onsite, and how the facility handles the waste from a recycling, storage,

treatment, and/or disposal perspective. Those that generate smaller amounts of a given waste

are generally subject to less restrictive standards. While there is not necessarily a direct

relationship between the size of a business and the type and quantity of waste generated, it is

not unreasonable to conclude that most small businesses generate smaller quantities of waste.

So, while not specifically exempted by size alone, smaller businesses will likely be able to take

advantage of less restrictive management requirements.

A. Identify and estimate the number of small businesses affected by the proposed rule(s) and the probable

effect on small business.

Aside from licensed TSDFs, entities regulated under the state HWMP are not required to

provide information regarding their number of employees or annual sales. With respect to

TSDFs, the agency requires information regarding key positions directly responsible for

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 9

hazardous waste operations, not information regarding all employees. The type of data

submitted to the DEQ is related to the type and quantity of waste generated monthly and

annually, the duration of accumulation or storage, and subsequent waste management

methods and companies involved in that management (transporter, TSDF, etc.). Some

VSQGs may have only a handful of employees while some generators may have hundreds

of employees throughout its various sites (e.g., General Motors). For these reasons, the

DEQ is not able to identify and estimate the number of small business affected by the

proposed rules.

B. Describe how the agency established differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables for

small businesses under the rule after projecting the required reporting, record-keeping, and other

administrative costs.

The DEQ did not establish differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables

specific to small businesses in and of themselves. Rather, all requirements are based on

the waste type and generation rate and method of management as noted above. The

proposed rules do not impose new requirements on the smallest generators based on

quantity.

C. Describe how the agency consolidated or simplified the compliance and reporting requirements for

small businesses and identify the skills necessary to comply with the reporting requirements.

The DEQ did not consolidate or simplify the compliance and reporting requirements specific

to small businesses in and of themselves. Rather, all requirements are based on the waste

type and generation rate and method of management as noted above. The proposed rules

do not impose new reporting requirements on VSQGs. VSQGs need to be able to properly

characterize their waste and track the level of generation on a monthly basis and the

duration of accumulation on-site.

D. Describe how the agency established performance standards to replace design or operation standards

required by the proposed rule(s).

As previously stated, those that generate smaller amounts of a given waste are generally

subject to less restrictive standards, some of which are more like performance standards

than detailed design or operations standards.

20. Identify any disproportionate impact the proposed rule(s) may have on small businesses because of their size

or geographic location.

The proposed rules will not have a disproportionate impact on small businesses because of

their size or geographic location. Impact is based primarily on waste type, generation rate, and

level of management required.

21. Identify the nature of any report and the estimated cost of its preparation by small businesses required to

comply with the proposed rule(s).

The proposed rules do not impose any new reporting requirements on small businesses.

22. Analyze the costs of compliance for all small businesses affected by the proposed rule(s), including costs

of equipment, supplies, labor, and increased administrative costs.

The cost of compliance, including costs of equipment, supplies, labor, and administration with

respect to implementation of the proposed rules is highly dependent upon the specific rule, the

waste type at issue, the level of generation, the level of management, the regulatory option

selected, where applicable, and the level of in-house expertise available and necessary to

ensure proper management. These variables are not necessarily directly related to the size of

the businesses. That being said and given all of the variables referenced herein, the DEQ is

not able to quantify the exact costs to the small businesses of securing any of the referenced

services.

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 10

23. Identify the nature and estimated cost of any legal, consulting, or accounting services that small businesses

would incur in complying with the proposed rule(s).

The need to obtain any legal, consulting, accounting, or accounting services with respect to

implementation of the proposed rules is highly dependent upon the specific rule, the waste

type at issue, the level of generation, the level of management, the regulatory option selected,

where applicable, and the level of in-house expertise available and necessary to ensure proper

management. These variables are not necessarily directly related to the size of the

businesses. That being said and given all of the variables referenced herein, the DEQ is not

able to quantify the exact costs to the small businesses of securing any of the referenced

services.

24. Estimate the ability of small businesses to absorb the costs without suffering economic harm and without

adversely affecting competition in the marketplace.

Many of the revisions are already in effect in Michigan and/or are designed to lessen the

stringency of the state HWMP without adversely impacting the protection of human health,

safety, welfare, and the environment. That being said, the DEQ does not anticipate that small

businesses will suffer economic harm or competition in the marketplace as result of these

revisions. Many small businesses may elect to handle more wastes under exemptions or as

universal wastes instead of hazardous wastes, thereby allowing said businesses to reduce

their hazardous waste generation level, and possibly their level of regulation.

25. Estimate the cost, if any, to the agency of administering or enforcing a rule that exempts or sets lesser

standards for compliance by small businesses.

The DEQ will not incur any additional costs since the proposed revisions do not specifically

exempt or set lesser standards for compliance for small businesses.

26. Identify the impact on the public interest of exempting or setting lesser standards of compliance for small

businesses.

The public will not feel any adverse impact from the proposed rules as they do not specifically

exempt or set lesser standards for compliance for small businesses.

27. Describe whether and how the agency has involved small businesses in the development of the proposed

rule(s).

The DEQ has involved members of the regulated community, special interest groups,

government officials, U.S. EPA, and DEQ in the review of the proposed rules. A notice of

availability of the proposed rules was sent to approximately 30 persons as part of the DEQ,

WMRPD’s HWMP Short List (Short List) distribution and review process. The Short List is

composed of select organizations (i.e., trade associations, councils, legal firms, environmental

groups, and consulting firms) and industry representatives that represent a variety of interested

parties potentially affected by the HWMP. These individuals were notified of the availability of

the proposed rules in mid-March 2018 and were invited to provide comments. The deadline for

submission of comments was April 15, 2018. The DEQ received comments from three

external parties, one business and two association/councils. The DEQ reviewed the

comments, followed up with the Short List members who provided comments, as needed, in

order to seek clarification on, and discuss, some of the comments. The proposed rules were

revised accordingly.

A. If small businesses were involved in the development of the rule(s), please identify the business(es).

The Short List includes various councils, associations, and groups that may represent small

businesses, however, any comments there from, were not specifically identified. Rather,

comments were provided through the councils, associations, etc.

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rules (independent of statutory impact):

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 11

28. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the rule amendments on businesses or groups.

Federal HWMP revisions are generally proposed under either RCRA or HSWA authorities.

Such revisions may be more or less stringent than the existing HWMP. States are not required

to make revisions to their state HWMPs to comply with less stringent provisions. RCRA

authority-based revisions only take effect in Michigan when the state rules are revised,

regardless of stringency. HSWA authority-based revisions, however, take effect immediately

regardless of when the state rules are revised, unless the revisions are less stringent and are,

therefore, optional. These optional revisions only take effect in Michigan if, and when, the state

rules are revised. The proposed rules contain federal revisions based on both authorities, as

well as the e-Manifest Act, as noted below. Compliance costs/savings for these revisions are

provided based on information included in the respective Federal Register (FR):

. Hazardous waste import/export (HSWA authority, not optional, RCRA Revision

Checklist 236). In 81 FR 85696, dated November 28, 2016, the U.S. EPA indicated that the

initial annualized business costs associated with the implementation of the overall rule were

approximately $1.5 million nationally. The U.S. EPA noted that while the benefits and costs

of this rule are difficult to quantify, it foresees the annualized cost savings to businesses

nationally to be about of $0.5 million. Since these revisions were promulgated under HSWA

authority and are already in effect in Michigan, businesses will not incur additional costs as

a result of the inclusion of these revisions in the state rules.

. Generator improvement rule (RCRA authority, portions optional, RCRA Revision

Checklist 237). The U.S. EPA estimates in 81 FR 85732, dated November 28, 2016, that

the future annualized cost to industry to comply with the revisions to be between $5.9 to

$13.3 million on a national basis. It projects that the annualized cost savings or benefits for

businesses that opt to take advantage of the two optional provisions the state has elected to

include in the proposed rules (VSQGs sending wastes to certain LQGs and episodic events)

to be between $8.3 and $14.4 million nationally, with a net annualized benefit of $2.4 million

for the low-end estimate and $1.1 million for the high-end estimate.

. Hazardous waste import/export documents confidentiality (HSWA authority, not optional,

RCRA Revision Checklist 238). As noted in 82 FR 60894, dated December 26, 2017,

these revisions were promulgated under HSWA authority. As such they are already in effect

in Michigan and businesses will not incur additional costs as a result of the inclusion of

these revisions in the state rules.

. Electronic manifesting (e-Manifest Act authority, not optional, RCRA Revision

Checklist 239). The U.S. EPA explains in 83 FR 420, dated January 3, 2018, that the

e-Manifest Act contains similar authority to HSWA-based authority with respect to

effectiveness and implementation responsibilities. Section 2(g)(2) of the e-Manifest Act

provides that the subject revisions shall take effect in each state on the same effective date

that the U.S. EPA specifies in its promulgation regulation. Since these provisions are

already in effect in Michigan, businesses will not incur additional costs as a result of the

inclusion of these revisions in state rules.

. 2018 court vacatur of some of the definition of solid waste provisions (RCRA authority,

portions optional, Revision Checklists 233). In 83 FR 24664, dated May 30, 2018, the

U.S. EPA indicates that this rule is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order

12866, and, therefore, is not subject to Executive Order 13771, entitled Reducing

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs. Additional information quantifying

costs/savings are not available.

. Hazardous waste import/export documents submittal (HSWA authority, not optional, RCRA

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 12

Revision Checklist 240). In 83 FR 38262, dated August 6, 2018, the U.S. EPA states that

this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of the federal Executive

Order (58 FR 51735, dated October 4, 1993). This revision reflects the internal

reorganization of the U.S. EPA and identifies a new address for document submittal. Since

these revisions were promulgated under HSWA authority and are already in effect in

Michigan, businesses will not incur additional costs as a result of the inclusion of these

revisions in the state rules.

The state-initiated proposed revisions relating to the removal of some of the state-only listings

(which are not high-volume wastes) and the addition of aerosol cans as universal wastes are

less stringent than the current state program and will actually decrease the cost of compliance

by lessening the stringency of the HWMP while maintaining the protection of human health,

safety, welfare, and the environment.

All costs/benefit analyses of the proposed revisions are complicated by the fact that the

requirements with which a regulated party must comply are highly dependent upon the waste

type, level of generation, whether the waste is accumulated or stored on-site, and how the

waste is subsequently managed (recycled onsite or offsite; storage, treated, or disposed of

onsite or offsite). Decisions regarding these items are often dependent on the level of in-house

expertise available and necessary to ensure proper statutory and regulatory interpretations and

implementation of the applicable requirements. Given these variables, the DEQ is not able to

more fully quantify the associated costs/benefits.

A. Identify the businesses or groups who will be directly affected by, bear the cost of, or directly benefit

from the proposed rule(s).

The proposed revisions pertain to hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs.

As explained in Item 28 above, the costs and/or benefits are dependent upon a variety of

factors.

B. What additional costs will be imposed on businesses and other groups as a result of these proposed rules

(i.e. new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping)? Identify the types and number of

businesses and groups. Be sure to quantify how each entity will be affected.

The proposed revisions pertain to hazardous waste generators, transporters, and TSDFs. As

explained in Item 28 above, any additional costs are dependent upon a variety of factors.

That being said, since the majority of the revisions provide flexibility or less restrictive

management standards and many are already in effect in Michigan, significant additional

costs are not likely.

29. Estimate the actual statewide compliance costs of the proposed rule(s) on individuals (regulated individuals

or the public). Include the costs of education, training, application fees, examination fees, license fees, new

equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or recordkeeping.

The proposed rules are generally not applicable to individuals (i.e., the general public). As

such, the imposition of the proposed rules will not require individuals to incur compliance

costs, including education, training, fees, new equipment, supplies, labor, accounting, or

recordkeeping.

A. How many and what category of individuals will be affected by the rules?

The proposed rules are generally not applicable to individuals.

B. What qualitative and quantitative impact does the proposed change in rule(s) have on these individuals?

The proposed rules do not directly impact individuals.

30. Quantify any cost reductions to businesses, individuals, groups of individuals, or governmental units as a

result of the proposed rule(s).

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 13

As enumerated in various portions of this document, the proposed rules contain many revisions

that will likely result in cost reductions to businesses. Such cost reductions result from a

combination of lesser regulation of certain waste streams, increased flexibility with respect to

management options, and elimination of dual regulation to the extent possible. However, actual

quantification is not feasible as the savings realized is dependent on the type and quantity of

waste generated and subsequent management decisions made by the regulated parties.

31. Estimate the primary and direct benefits and any secondary or indirect benefits of the proposed rule(s).

Provide both quantitative and qualitative information, as well as your assumptions.

Many persons will directly benefit from the proposed revisions, including generators,

transporters, TSDFs, recyclers, environmental consultants, legal firms, and persons who

manufacture and market various goods associated with compliance with the state HWMP

requirements. The proposed rules contain many direct benefits. However, given the scope of

the rules package, it is not feasible to address all of the benefits herein. Some of the more

significant benefits and secondary or indirect benefits are outlined below:

. The proposed rules will allow Michigan to maintain its authorization for the state HWMP.

This authorization limits the amount of dual federal and state regulation of the regulated

community to the extent possible.

. The clarification and consistency provided for in the proposed rules serve to improve the

overall quality of the rules and provide the regulated community with a more readable set of

rules. In addition, these revisions ensure consistency with other state programs, where

applicable, and alleviate confusion and inconsistent regulatory interpretations.

. The proposed rules will remove many regulatory barriers and reduce resource demands, both

monetary and nonmonetary, on the regulated community and on the agency. This is

particularly true of the removal of certain hazardous waste listings and the addition of

exclusions and alternative options from management as hazardous wastes.

32. Explain how the proposed rule(s) will impact business growth and job creation (or elimination) in Michigan.

As a whole, the proposed rules have the potential to impact approximately 21,275 VSQGs,

1,921 SQGs, 598 LQGs, 478 hazardous waste transporters, and 255 facilities located, or doing

business, in Michigan. These figures are based on a November 27, 2018, query from of the

DEQ’s Waste System Database (WDS) and may fluctuate.

It is not feasible to determine the number of environmental consultants, attorneys, or other

professionals that will be impacted by the proposed revisions as the need to secure these

people is dependent upon the nature of the regulated activity and the level of expertise within a

given business.

It is not feasible to determine the number of businesses that may manufacture various goods

used in complying with the state HWMP requirements and choose to market their products and

services to the regulated community in Michigan. These figures are largely market-driven and

are highly dependent upon the regulated activity, the nature of the waste, the regulated

community’s existing equipment, and the level of expertise within a given business.

The majority of the revisions will yield cost savings which may translate to business growth

and job creation.

33. Identify any individuals or businesses who will be disproportionately affected by the rules as a result of their

industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.

The proposed rules will not have a disproportionate effect on any individuals or businesses as

a result of their industrial sector, segment of the public, business size, or geographic location.

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 14

34. Identify the sources the agency relied upon in compiling the regulatory impact statement, including the

methodology utilized in determining the existence and extent of the impact of a proposed rule(s) and a

cost-benefit analysis of the proposed rule(s).

With respect to revisions based on the federal regulations, the agency relied primarily on

information in the FRs in compiling this statement. The agency used information provided by

stakeholders, the U.S. EPA, staff, and the DEQ’s WDS to compile information for the revisions

recommended by the state and the public

A. How were estimates made, and what were your assumptions? Include internal and external sources,

published reports, information provided by associations or organizations, etc., which demonstrate a need

for the proposed rule(s).

As noted above in Item 34, estimates were made using information provided as part of

discussions with stakeholders, the U.S. EPA, and staff, and data from the DEQ’s WDS.

Alternatives to Regulation:

35. Identify any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule(s) that would achieve the same or similar goals.

Include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve such alternatives.

In conjunction with the development of each rules package, the DEQ evaluates the scope of

the proposed revisions and alternatives to administrative rule revision. Alternatives for the

federally-required revisions, and those federal revisions that were optional but strongly

encouraged to be incorporated, were not considered due to the implications to the state’s

authorization that were addressed above.

Alternatives considered with respect to the state-initiated revisions included not pursuing the

proposed revisions and relying solely on the statute where applicable or on guidance. Since

many of the revisions are aimed at improving the overall clarity of the rules and reducing

burdens to the regulated community and were requested by the regulated community or

recommended by the EARC, not pursuing the revisions would result in the lack of clarity that

often leads to confusion, inconsistent interpretations, non-compliance, and unnecessary

burdens, and low risk, low hazard wastes continuing to be fully regulated as hazardous waste.

A. In enumerating your alternatives, include any statutory amendments that may be necessary to achieve

such alternatives.

No statutory amendments are necessary.

36. Discuss the feasibility of establishing a regulatory program similar to that in the proposed rule(s) that would

operate through private market-based mechanisms. Include a discussion of private market-based systems

utilized by other states.

The state HWMP is a delegated federal program requiring specific standards at the state

government level. The same is true of other states that have delegated programs, most of

which do. However, it warrants pointing out that within the parameters of Michigan’s HWMP,

hazardous waste management currently functions in a market-based manner. The level of

regulation is dependent on the type and amount of hazardous waste generated and the type of

hazardous waste management conducted. The proposed rules are consistent with the state’s

hazardous waste planning policies and the market-based approach thereof. As discussed in

other parts of this document, flexibility has been incorporated in the proposed rules.

37. Discuss all significant alternatives the agency considered during rule development and why they were not

incorporated into the rule(s). This section should include ideas considered both during internal discussions

and discussions with stakeholders, affected parties, or advisory groups.

The DEQ completed a review of the remaining state-only listed hazardous wastes as committed

to the regulated community in conjunction with Amendments 10 and 11 to the Part 111 rules,

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)

RISCBA – Page 15

including an evaluation of waste characteristics, risks, scientific basis for listings, generation

rates and methods of management, and manifest history associated with the wastes. The DEQ

is proposing to delete a significant number of the wastes. The DEQ did not consider any

significant alternatives to continued regulation of the remaining wastes.

Additional Information:

38. As required by MCL 24.245b(1)(c), describe any instructions on complying with the rule(s), if applicable.

This provision is not applicable to the proposed revisions.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

↓ To be completed by the ORR ↓

PART 4: REVIEW BY THE ORR

Date RISCBA received: 2-14-2019 / 3-26-2019

Date RISCBA approved:

3/29/19

Date of disapproval:

Explanation:

Revised: February 5, 2019

MCL 24.245(3)