May 2020
alternative plan that is a slight revision to the proposed
rules and uses SAW’s report to set monitoring,
attainment and maintenance requirements through
regular screening as empowered under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. This would ensure continued sampling
while also utilizing state and federal data and standards
over time, meaning water systems could continue to
ensure safe drinking water through sampling and
putting a plan in place to ensure that the system has
safe drinking water rather than triggering a shutdown
of the system if an exceedance is recorded.
Lead with regulation-ready rules
It is imperative that the rules being promulgated
are legally defensible and provide clarity, consistency
and certainty. The rule set must also establish the
proper mechanisms to ensure that EGLE, individuals,
communities and industry can understand, adapt to
and comply with the rules.
“Regulation-ready rules must include a screening
and review process, as well as a site-specific plan
approach for any testing site that registers a level
that results in further action,” Greco said.
Fully account for the cost
EGLE must properly account for the costs to be
incurred by employers, municipal water systems and
their citizens by identifying the cost for retrofitting
of existing municipal water supply systems of differing
scale, costs as they relate to Industrial Pretreatment
Programs and for disposal cost elimination of PFAS
material remaining after treatment. The Regulatory
Impact Statement (RIS) also did not appropriately
account for the ongoing operating costs, including a
full assessment of the compliance monitoring costs,
for municipal systems or the impact and cost the rules
would have on Michigan’s Part 201 clean-up program.
Lastly, SAW should fully identify and consider costs
when establishing HBVs, which does not appear to
have been included in the overall assessment.
“While EGLE did include some minimal
estimate of the costs when preparing its RIS, SAW
failed to provide a similar analysis. As a result,
SAW failed to analyze the quantifiable and
MiMfg Magazine
15
ERRC Echoes MMA’s Peer Review Study
While the ERRC did approve the draft rules during its
February meeting, concluding that they met existing
criteria, ERRC Chairman Rob Nederhood acknowledged
in a letter to JCAR that the Committee itself had “raised
several questions and concerns regarding the Rules and
their interpretation and implementation.”
Nederhood advised JCAR on three areas which echo the
recommendations of MMA and its independent peer review:
1. EGLE should proactively offer guidance to the regulated
community as the Rules are implemented. As drafted, the
Rules create ambiguity with respect to certain regulations
which are ancillary to drinking water, including Part 201
clean-up criteria and regulations of biosolids, compost and
soils. EGLE should work with the regulated community to
provide clarity and guidance around EGLE’s positions
on these areas of regulation impacted by the Rules.
2. The role of MPART and the Science Advisory Workgroup.
The written public comments submitted in response
to the Rules included multiple technical reports that
exhaustively analyzed the report of the Michigan PFAS
Action Response Team (MPART) Science Advisory
Workgroup…The ERRC encourages MPART or the
Science Advisory Workgroup to provide more detailed
written responses to those public comments.
3. EGLE’s commitment to updating the Rules based
on evolving science. Many of the public comments
recommended that, in light of the rapidly evolving science
around the human health effects of PFAS compounds,
the Rules be modified to add a requirement that EGLE
review the Rules in two years and revise them as
necessary to reflect the then-current science. EGLE
declined to include any type of sunset provision in the
Rules. However, EGLE assured the ERRC that the Rules,
the developing science around PFAS compounds, and
the regulatory approaches taken by other states and the
federal government will be reviewed on a continuous
basis by MPART’s Human Health Workgroup.
Your Support is Critical
Contributing to the MMA-PAC is an investment in
Michigan’s future and one of the most affordable
and effective ways to support pro-manufacturing
legislators and candidates.
Donate at mimfg.org or contact Brianna Mills at
517-487-8523 or [email protected].
“Our ability to support pro-manufacturing
candidates is imperative as anti-
manufacturing voices are working
strategically against our industry.”
— Patrick Curry, MMA-PAC Chair
and President of Fullerton Tool
MMA-PAC can accept personal contributions or contributions from sole-proprietorships, partnerships or limited liability companies (LLCs). State Law prohibits acceptance of corporate checks.