Transcript for  
Public Hearing on Proposed Revisions to Administrative Rules  
MOAHR 2018-12EQ  
October 16, 2019  
This is a transcript of the October 16, 2019, public hearing on the proposed revisions to the  
administrative rules promulgated pursuant to Part 111, Hazardous Waste Management, of Michigan’s  
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended. The public hearing  
was held in the ConCon Conference Room, Constitution Hall, in Lansing, Michigan.  
SPEAKER:  
Ronda Blayer, Environmental Engineering Specialist  
Hazardous Waste Section  
Materials Management Division  
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy  
BLAYER: Welcome to today’s rules hearing. We are here today to talk about the proposed amendments  
to the hazardous waste management rules, also known as the Part 111 rules. Ok.  
Michigan’s hazardous waste program, as I just mentioned, is administered under Part 111 and  
its administrative rules. Michigan is a delegated state, having received its initial authorization  
in October of 1986. The package that we’re here to discuss today covers both federal and  
state-initiated revisions.  
When we’re considering what program amendments to pursue, we look at the federal program  
revisions, we monitor the, ah, Federal Register, and then participate on an authorization  
workgroup with EPA Headquarters and Regions, and all of the other states. That provides a  
good network to evaluate what the feds are proposing as well as talk to states other that are  
like us and see what their plans are. We also have revisions to the state program. We  
participate in a variety of state workgroups whether its, ah, vapor intrusion, cleanup, TSCA,  
the remediation team or RAT. So those are avenues that we utilize to talk to professionals in  
other state programs and see how those programs are proposed to be changed, see how they  
would mesh with our program, and then look at different changes. We also have our staff  
propose changes based on practical experience, either administratively or in the field based  
on what they see during inspections whether they be licensing, compliance, or corrective  
action. And then we do also get proposed revisions from the public. And by public, that is not  
limited to companies. That just basically means anybody outside of the Department.  
Sometimes EPA will want us to tweak some regulations. Ah, sometimes we might get an  
organized interest group or various, ah, entities, that represent larger cross-sections of  
business sectors that we regulate.  
2
When you’re looking keeping pace with the federal program and keeping up your  
authorization, you have to consider three things. You need to determine consistency with the  
federal program, stringency, in other words you cannot be less stringent than the governing  
federal program, and scope. We can be broader in scope. The main thing there is that would  
not become part of your delegated program. And, that’s a fancy way of saying you can  
administer it but EPA will not codify that and make that part of their regulations. So, they  
would not be coming into our state and enforcing those rules. Whereas anything that is at  
least as stringent as or consistent with the federal program, they would have the ability to over  
file. To date we have had over 30 amendments to Part 111 and the rules package before us  
right now represents the 12th amendment to the base program rules.  
Briefly, want to discuss the administrative rules promulgation process in Michigan. It has been  
changing over the years, and both in terms of process and who it, who has obligations for  
participation in that process. When you’re preparing draft rules, you will notice different types  
of font. Additions are shown in bold. Items proposed for deletion are shown in strikethrough  
text. That is draft 1. Then we proceed, move on to draft 2 where persons that are designated  
program exports in a given area of the program review it. That’s an internal review. By way of  
example, we have a financial assurance expert that reviews Part 7. We have geologists that  
review Parts 5 and 6 as it relates to geology and hydrogeology. We have engineers that look  
at the licensing. We have waste characterization, ah, experts that spend most of their time in  
Part 2 of the rules. And then we have a designated staff expert for compliance, and that is  
usually one of our field inspectors. And that way we can make sure that it is not just Lansing  
looking at the package as a whole but we get input from everybody that has, ah, some stake  
in the program and administering it. We then have to file a Request for Rulemaking, a fairly  
short form. It is a way that you notify the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules  
that you are interested in pursuing revisions. You have to talk about why you are going to  
pursue those revisions and, um, a brief schedule, and kind of highlight what you are going to  
do. It is really just a way for that entity to assign a number and start tracking what activity you  
do. You then, we then proceed to draft 3, which is our Short List review. This is not a formally  
required part of the process but we have found it extremely helpful to do anyway. Ah, the  
Short List review is a high-level review. We are looking just for, um, not minute details but  
from a larger perspective do you have an issue with this proposal. There’s about 80 people  
on the Short List. It is composed of entities that regulate, or excuse me, represent larger  
entities. For example, you are not going to have every automaker on the list. You would  
have, ah, Michigan Manufacturer’s Association so they’ll represent the autos as well as other  
manufacturing. You have the Chemistry Council. So, they represent the chemical  
manufacturing. We have hospital associations looking at pharmaceuticals and other, ah,  
wastes that that business section might generate. You also have the, um, small business  
representatives. So, these are largely composed of groups that represent other people. We  
then move on to draft 4, taking into account all of the comments we’ve received and produce  
another draft and that is what is submitted for informal review by MOAHR and the Legislative  
Service Bureau, or LSB. Ah, MOAHR looks at it with respect to do you have the statutory  
authority to do what you’re proposing and the Legislative Service Bureau reviews it for  
compliance with legal drafting. So, they’re looking at grammar, word usage, things like that.  
Draft 5 is usually where we end up at the required public hearing process. I think this is  
actually draft 6 that is before us today just because we got some additional comments after  
3
the fact from the Legislative Service Bureau. There is a copy of the draft rules over there if  
you would like one. We also have a copy of the Regulatory Impact Statement and  
Cost-Benefit Analysis that is required for you to do prior to those entities approving you to  
move forward with the public hearing.  
In conjunction with the hearing, we have the Long List. Ah, for lack of a better term, it is  
longer than the Short List and it is just anybody that has expressed an interest in acquainting  
themselves with the hazardous waste program, whether it’s statute, rules, guidance, what  
have you. Um, notice of the hearing was also put into EGLE’s Calendar, the Michigan  
Register, and ah, the Detroit area newspaper, Lansing State Journal, and Marquette Mining  
Journal. After this process, we will prepare an executive overview talking about the hearing  
process, how many comments we got, what the nature of the comments were, did they result  
in changes, etc. We’ll update the rules and we’ll compile all of that information into a Joint  
Committee on Administrative Rules Report, or JCAR Report. That is then submitted through  
our front office over to MOAHR who, in turn, sends it on to the Joint Committee. The Joint  
Committee is a legislative body composed of state senators and representatives. They will,  
LSB and MOAHR will formally certify the rules. In other words, that’s their final chance to  
require any changes and by putting their formal seals on them, that tells everyone that they  
have reviewed it, that the statutory authorities necessary are in place, and that the verbiage is  
consistent with the required format. The Department, during that time, prepares the  
Certificate of Adoption for our Director’s signature. And, um, also during that timeframe,  
JCAR will take a look at the package and determine if they want to, ah, pass them on for  
recommendation to be filed, or if they want to file a petition to stop the rules process. Either  
way, the requirement is that the draft rules, once submitted to JCAR, have to remain with  
them for 15 session days. They can waive that 15-day period but often it’s just, ah, they get  
them. If they have reason for us to go over, they might invite us to one of their committee  
hearings to provide a presentation. But usually, its just we’re here and, um, once the 15 days  
toll, the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules can file them with the Great  
Seal and then they take effect 7 days later. At that point, we provide all of this information to  
Region 5 in the form of an authorization application and that at some period of time in the  
future, after some back and forth, they go ahead and authorize the state for those revisions.  
And then they also codify them. That’s a fancy term for, ah, if you look in 40 CFR, you will see  
all states’ regulations codified in there in print. So, if you ever want to see what is a matter of  
law in a given state and what is authorized, you can look at that section and determine that.  
The package at hand, as I mentioned earlier, does contain federally-initiated revisions. The  
more significant ones relate to confidentiality determinations for haz waste import/exports. It  
incorporates the second half of the e-manifest rule. It incorporates the generator  
improvements rule, or some people refer to it as GIR. And then, it also incorporates the 2018  
court vacatur of certain provisions in the definition of solid waste, or DSW.  
E-manifest went, became effective June 30th of 2018. Manifests are now submitted to the  
U.S. EPA, not to the state. Although, I think we still get some on occasion. Currently, there is  
still the ability to submit paper copies and also electronic copies. That may change to all  
electronic at some point and time in the future but we have not received information yet. And,  
ah, as a result, the user charges that went out recently, and I think the last delinquent notices  
4
are going out, for manifest processing charges cover just up until when e-manifest went into  
effect. And then after that date, we no longer collect processing fees.  
Generator improvements rule went into effect at the federal level May 30th, 2017. It is not  
currently in effect at the state level because it does contain a number of provisions that are  
less stringent, and it also was promulgated under RCRA and so it does take effect in  
delegated states until those states pick it up. It is a major restructuring of Part 3, a long  
overdue restructuring. But it does look a lot different in terms of, ah, where provisions appear  
in order and which rules and where they use to. It changed the CESQG to VSQG, very small  
quantity generator, instead of conditionally exempt. There was concern by EPA that there  
was really not an exemption for that quantity of waste and, therefore, they didn’t like that  
terminology. So, they did change it. There are two optional provisions in the generator  
improvements rule as far as states are concerned. Michigan is pursuing both of them. We do  
have provisions that will allow very small quantity generators to send their waste to large  
quantity generators that are under the same corporate umbrella for consolidation before  
sending on to a designated facility.  
The other, ah, optional provision has to do with episodic events. You’re allowed one  
unplanned or planned event each year, and there is an optional waiver should you desire a  
second one. It, the way it is written, it has to be the other type so if you have a planned event,  
your second one would have to be an unplanned event and vice versa. Obviously, if they are  
both unplanned and they have to do with weather considerations, acts of God, those kind of  
things, we’re certainly willing to work with companies to, ah, help them negotiate the  
regulations should that happen. There is regulatory relief offered. There is no regulatory relief  
from the user charges. So, in other words, if you are a large quantity, or a small quantity  
generator and because of your episodic event you become a large quantity generator, you  
don’t have to comply with all the regulations but you still have to pay the user charges  
associated with your highest level of generation in the year. And, if you do have a notification,  
you are asked to notify your districts and then send an updated form into the central office.  
For the most part, our generator improvement rules are consistent with the federal provisions.  
There are a couple departures, and they are departures from where the feds landed in the  
generator improvements rule. They are not departures from what is currently required in  
Michigan. So, although it is not consistent with the federal provisions, it doesn’t represent a  
new requirement for generators. And, um, under the new regs, you have to use a hazard  
indicator and the words hazardous waste, you don’t have to use a name or a number. And,  
we are requiring that those numbers still be provided on containers and tanks. We also have  
maintained secondary containment requirements consistent with what generators or TSDs  
would have to do now.  
There are a few state-initiated revisions. We are continuing to take a look at our  
Michigan-only listed wastes, S wastes or severely toxic, and U wastes. As of right now, we  
are proposing 52 of them for deletion. The reason for those deletions could be a number of  
things. It could be that it’s not generated any more. It’s kind of an archaic waste from  
previous production processes. It has cleanups standards established under Part 201,  
therefore, if we were to find, if it is not generated and we were to find a release of it, we would  
still have 201 to address that cleanup. And, in some cases, the toxicity, the science has  
5
changed and there’s just no reason for them to maintain listing. There are some expanded  
options for verification sampling related to secondary groundwater monitoring parameters.  
We are adding aerosol cans as a universal waste. We are out ahead of the feds on that. The  
feds have proposed a draft so we are trying to take a look at the draft and figure out where  
they’re going to land and so that, hopefully, whatever we finalize will not require revision  
similar to what was required for electronic devices and fluorescent lamps. And then, as  
always, we’ve cleanup up typographical errors that have found and updated all of the  
reference material that we adopt for information regarding where you can get it and how much  
it would cost to do that.  
Ok, with that, we’ve asked each attendee to fill out an attendance card. And if you wish to  
read any comments into the record, please indicate that on your attendance card. The public  
comment ends next week, October 24th at 5 o’clock. You, ah, can submit your comments  
verbally today. If you do have verbal comments, we ask that you provide a written copy as  
well at this time, or you can submit them in writing either hard copy or electronic form. Um,  
my address is there as well as my email and you can send the comments directly to me. Ok,  
we are getting a little be ahead of ourselves here but with that, I would ask that if there is  
anyone that wished to provide any public comments into the record. Seeing that no one  
raised their hand and no one wishes to speak, I will now formally close the hearing. And that  
formal closing of the hearing will take place at 2:02 p.m. on October 16, 2019.  
This transcript is provided by the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy.  
;