The incentive in EPA’s November 28, 2016 generator rule was conditional choice. Its economic analysis attached estimated annualized benefits of $8.3 million to $14.4 million to entities using two voluntary programs: consolidating very small quantity generator waste under common ownership and handling episodic changes in generator status. The estimates used a 7 percent discount rate; they were not savings already booked. [2016-27429]
The 2015 proposal makes the episodic mechanism intelligible. A qualifying occasional increase in waste could otherwise move a smaller generator into a more stringent category. EPA proposed letting the generator retain its existing category under conditions. The commercial attraction was avoiding treatment of a temporary spike as ordinary output, not removing responsibility for storing or disposing of hazardous material. [2015-23166]
The final program included notification, waste-management requirements, records and shipment within 60 calendar days from the event’s start. Meanwhile, the broader rule consolidated most generator provisions in part 262 and projected annualized compliance costs of $5.9 million to $13.3 million at the same discount rate. The benefit range therefore should not be presented alone as a universal reduction in business costs. [2016-27429]
Availability also depended on jurisdiction. The May 30, 2017 federal effective date did not bypass adoption by authorized states, which were not required to take up less-stringent changes. Both documents belong to one EPA rulemaking chain. The economic question is whether a particular conditional option would be usable and worthwhile where a generator operates, not whether every business receives the agency’s aggregate projected benefit. [2016-27429][2015-23166]
Source documents
- Hazardous Waste Generator Improvements Rulehttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-11-28/html/2016-27429.htm
- Hazardous Waste Generator Improvementshttps://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-25/html/2015-23166.htm