14
MiMfg Magazine
May 2020
less would subject regulators, drinking water systems
and others to potential skepticism and lack of
confidence in drinking water safety.”
As SAW did not include a proper peer review
phase in its process, MMA believed it essential to
engage an expert review so as to properly and credibly
inform our members of the soundness of the proposed
rule set and also to provide SAW with a founda-
tional peer review for ensuring the soundness of the
final rules package.
“We understand that Michigan has one chance
to get it right, and there is a lot at stake — the
confidence of our residents, the effectiveness of the
regulations and the health of the state’s economy,”
Greco explained. “Michigan cannot and should not
find itself in such a position, especially in light of
PFAS rule-related litigation and implementation
delays being experienced in other states that have
failed to properly underpin standards and account
for costs.”
Critical Shortcomings in State Report
In the report, it was identified that the SAW
recommendations used to establish the standard
lacked the kind of robust scientific and technical
integrity to fully complete the state’s goal.
“It is in the best interest of Michigan, its
manufacturing sector and the individuals and
communities that rely on clean drinking water that
the state follow the lead of the EPA when setting
standards,” said Greco. “This ensures that those
standards are scientifically credible and defensible,
avoid overreach and prevent Michigan from losing
economic competitiveness by finding itself out of
step nationally or with other states.”
MMA’s independent peer review identified five
critical shortcomings in EGLE’s proposed rules:
1. Key studies were not referenced or discussed by
the Science Advisory Workgroup (SAW) in its
risk assessment calculations.
2. Significant data gaps and scientific uncertainty
are evident in SAW’s calculations.
3. Curious conclusions and assumptions are
evident in calculations for the HBVs.
4. SAW deviated from accepted standard practice
when developing its MCLs.
5. An inadequate assessment of the compliance costs
of the proposed rule that, ultimately, the public
will bear, and this could weaken acceptance and
support for the proposed criteria.
“With this being the first instance in Michigan of
pursuing an MCL ahead of EPA input, any proposed
rules at the state level must be ‘regulation ready’ and
that means providing necessary clarity, consistency
and certainty,” said Johnston. “It also means that the
state must rely on settled and established science as
the foundation for developing regulatory standards
and properly consider the significant costs such a rule
could have on local communities, citizens and employers.”
MMA’s Key Recommendations
Based on the findings of the independent peer review,
MMA advocates for four clear recommendations which,
if implemented, would allow Michigan to be viewed
as a credible leader in PFAS-related safe drinking
water standards.
Ensure public confidence in the process
SAW should address and resolve any key scientific
uncertainties and shortcomings that have been
identified during the public comment period and
subsequent to the development of proposed rules.
MMA trusts that the peer review information provided
in the report will assist EGLE in addressing some
of the information gaps and questions that remain.
“As the EPA has historically developed MCLs,
it remains best equipped in both resources and
expertise to address these complex public health
questions,” said Greco. “The EPA remains engaged
in addressing the PFAS issue and, in order to best
ensure public confidence and the protection of
human health, the state should consult and incorporate
research conducted by the EPA and others to enable
Michigan to access critical new findings as PFAS
science evolves.”
Rely on settled science to develop MCLs
Michigan should rely upon universally settled
science when developing MCLs and ensure that
Michigan is using a scientific community-consensus
database. EGLE refrained in this rule set and should
continue to refrain from developing MCLs on a
class basis due to the unique and varying effects of
different PFAS constituents. As the body of scientific
knowledge on exposure continues to grow, Michigan
should reassess its previous determinations, consider
adding or removing other individual PFAS constituents
or modify the compliance requirements.
“There is a significant lack of settled science on
PFAS. Among both scientists and governments, there
is still considerable debate about what constitutes safe
dose exposure,” Johnston explained. “Our commissioned
report identified a 500-fold difference in projected safe
dose levels between Australia’s 160 parts-per-trillion
(ppt) and the safe dose level of 1,500 ppt in the UK.”
Recognizing and understanding that the SAW had
a more than 40,000-fold difference in safe doses based
on the different PFAS constituents, EGLE should
not use SAW’s proposed levels as an automatic trigger
for a point of violation as is proposed in the draft
rule set. Rather, MMA has continued to present an