February 28, 1984 Dave Dempsey dnvironmental Adviser Office of the Govenor State Capitol Lansing, hi. 48901 Dear Dave: 7 am writing to ask you to issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Rule 57 of the Iater Resources Commission. I do not believe that the 331 has given full consideration to the environmental and public health impacts, nor have the? fully considered reasznable alternatives to acceptable cancer risk. I believe they have been unduly influenced by industry in the state. diving 'n to this pressure time and (D 1 time again is net giving induSLr; much incentive to develop and alternatives that are less threateni-g to the environment and human a believe currently, Jew Chemical Company is holding their aspirn plant over the head of the state. Their general manager, Eob Caldwell told Dow employees, through their in-heuse and on our local t.r. DEE 3455), that the future of the Iichigan Jivision, and thei future depended on the issuance of their water permit. He also said that he mi hi be calling cm all employees to convey that message to their legislator hese 1984 J. tactics are frequently used by Dow. host of the employees knot no hing bout this permit, other than what Dow tells them. However, the message, 'rite the letter, or you might be out of a job, is always clear. In one challenges the validity of the statement. hhile it is somewhat understandable that employees might allow themselves to be held hostage with that threat, it is inexcusable that regulatory .I. agencies would allow themselves to be taken in by this ov?rused cry, by spoiled and pampered industries. 1f the agencies would stand firm, and consider the health and safety of the general public, these excessive demands might cease. I would like to point out the fact that last year, Dow hired the most expensive Pulic Relations firm in the country, Hill Knowlton. This money might be better spent improving the environment. They might even find that a public relations firm was not necessary, if they started thinking in the interest of the general public. pagc-two February 28, 1984 Specifiaali3,l an opposed to the entire idea of acceptable cancer risk based water quality standards. Furthermore, I find it incredible that this risk would be based on an individual weighing 150 pounds. that would the risk be to a nexborn baby? 3ther considerations that have been overlooked are exposure through ?11: inhalation, contact, and absorption via skin contact. And as always, the synergistic effects have not been studied. feel that the proposed Rule :7 would not adeq ately protect tie health of Eichigan residents, and could do irreversible damage to the environment. Ehe nationwide cancer epidezic in fish should give us an indication of where we're headed, if we don't change our course soon. I urge you to seriously consider the consequences, and demand that an thironmental Impact Statexent is required before any decisions are reached. Yours truly, Diane Hebert Director, ECO I o.c.Jayne Schmidt, MUSE James Nurray, Larry Pink, Foresight Society Iilliam Cooper, NLRB Paul hugger, DIR COMMENTS ON DRAFT RULE 57 PACKAGE TO: TOXIC CHEMICAL EVALUATION SECTION FROM: CAROL DANSEREAU. MICHIGAN ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL DATE: JANUARY 27th INTRODUCTION The amount of time provided for review of the new draft Rule 57 package, was short to say the least. The new package differed significantly from previous packages. Thus, these comments were rather hastily prepared. The_Michigan Environmental Council(MEC) is a coalition of twelve major environmental groups from around the state of Michigan. representing over 100,000 individuals. MEG as a whole and its individual member groups are very interested in proposed revisions to Rule 57 and will be extensively involved in the upcoming rulemaking public comment period. We trust that you will remain genuinely Open to suggestions and concerns voiced at that time as required by the Administrative Procedures Act. SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES NEEDED IN DRAFT PACKAGE MEC has a number of significant reservations about the Rule 57 rules and guidelines as presented in the January 4th draft. We have listed below what we believe to be goals which DNR staff should bear in mind in drafting a package and the ways in which the current package fails to achieve those goals. GOAL I: ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT The state Constitution, the Michigan Environmental Protection Act, and the Water Resources Commission Act (Act 2&5) all impose on the DNR a duty to establish water quality standards and discharge limits which protect public health and the environment. Protection of health and environment must be Staff's primary goal in drafting a Rule 57 package. In the face of the tremendous uncertainty which accompanies regulation of toxics, Staff should consciously and expressly choose to risk error on the side of overprotection rather than on the side of inadequate protection. It should consider not only the potential effects of particular chemicals, but also effects arising from interactions of chemicals in the environment. and sould set wide margins of safety. MEC deplores Staff's decision to set levels based on protections necessary for the "average" person only. MEG considers such a de0131on to be both morally and legally unacceptable. All members of society. including those who are""susceptible" and/or those Who simply do not measure up to Staff's description of the "average" person, should be provided with a safe environment. p. 2 MEG Comments Jan. 27, 1984 CHANGES NEEDED: 1. Equations used to determine risk should be altered in order to provide persons. For example, at pages 14?15 of the Guidelines, the human weight used should be significantly lowered. Significant portions of the population never reach 70 kg, and those persons who do reach 70 kg, spend a large percentage of their lives, i.e. their child? hood years weighing less than 70 kg. The daily fish consumption figure should be altered to protect those individuals who eat more fish than .0065 kg/day. . - 2. In 1057(l)(c), Staff should clarify that as to threshold effect toxicants maximum acceptable levels are those levels reasonably believed to yield n2 deaths. If the state does go to a risk assessment approach it should'make itdclear that theuapproach is to be applied only to threshold effect toxicants. 3. Rule 1057(2)(a) should be amended to facilitate the inclusion in the universe of chemicals governed by Rule 52,toxic chemicals not.on the CMR or the EPA lists. Nonexclusive criteria should be added describing situations in which chemicals must be liSted.? For example, chemiCals listed by certain respected agencies or institutes such as NIOSH should be listed with the burden placed on those seeking delisting. Such criteria would be consistent with a policy of risking error on the side of protection. Without such criteria, it is likely that significant numbers of toxic chemicals which are indeed hazardous would go unregulated by Rule 5? simply because Staff has not had time to consider them or inclination to do so. In should provide for citizen petitions to the Commission to expand the list. Although citizens are free to appear before the Commission currently on such matters, such a prOvision would highlight for?the'Ccmmission the need to consider such petitions carefully. 4. Staff should reevaluate the choice of l/lO0,000 as a level of acceptable risk. The daily activities with comparable or greater risks listed by the Rule 57 Advisory Committee in its Report are for the most part voluntaryxactivities. Moreover, many citizens are active in campaigns to reduce those risks from daily activities.(for example, non?smokers rights campaigns have drawn the support of many individuals, as have campaigns to reduce highway deaths, for example from drunk drivers) In additon, the issue of toxic water regulation seems distinguishable from other situationsin that decisions we make today produce long?term effects which may not be reversible. Traffic laws can be changed tommorrow if we decide that they do not provide enough protection, Cbntamination of eCOSystems is often impossible to undo. Finally. it must be noted that the risk posed by standards derived I p-3 ME Comments Jan. 27, 1984 under the Rule 57 Guidelines would probably be greater than The Rule does not adequately address the potential for increased risks due to interactions of chemicals. and it admittedly allows the posing of greater risks for non?average individuals. Staff assures us that there are many safety margins written into the rule which counteract these facts. and that it probably all balances out in the end. but MEC is not comforted by such assurances. Decisions regarding the levels of toxicants to which our bodies and our environment will be eXposed must be based on more than guesswork and a vague feeling that it all evens out in the end. Staff should evaluate in a more scientific way the risks to be posed by the rule. In Rule 1057(1). Staff should clarify that the most restrictive of a.b. c. and d, shall not be exceeded. 6. The exceedance flow in Rule 1090 should be increased from 95% to 99-9%- 7. Section 1057(2)(e). the non?conforming use permit section, provides too much opportunity for avoidance of the rules. It should be modified to include . in 1057(2)(e)3). language from Act 245 referring to wildlife protection. New point sources should not be allowed to receive non?conforming use permits. nor should new pollutants discharged an existing sources be shielded from regulatory requirements by such a permit. Staff should put a cap on the numbers of reissuances of a non?conforming use permit a particular dischargercan receive. At the very least. it should clarify that the burden of proof to be overcome before receiving such a permit is to increase greatly with each issuance. 8. Staff should reevaluate its decision to use a risk assessment approach. The language Of section 6(a) Of 245 does 1391; authorize the DNR to adopt Su0h an approach. In addition. MEPA. section 5(2) forbids agencies to approve actions likely to impair the environment where feasible and prudent alternatives exist. At a minimum, Staff should change the word "may" in line 5 of section to "must". GOAL II: PROTECTION OF WILDLIFE Act 245 mandates the protection of wild animals, birds, fish. aquatic life. and plants as well as protection of human health. Staff is not free to omit such protection. CHANGES NEEDED: 1. changes in Non?Conforming use permit section to mandate consideration of wildlife impacts. (see discussion above) 2. Staff should eliminate the word "important" in Rule 1082(1). Such a limiting adjective does not appear in Act 245. All species of plants and animals are to be protected. If the word. 314' Ne? p. MEC Comments Jan. 27, 1984 "important" is to be included, at the very least it should be defined. 3. At some point in the rules, Staff should clarify that wildlife includes plant life. Staff must then draft provisions which protect plants, as required by Act 245. 4. Rule 1057(1) should be amended to clarify that wildlife is to-be: protected. Although Wildlife is listed in aJand b) under 1057(1); we request that-a requirement of protection of wildlife be placed in~the overlying.paragraph as well.. Its omission there could lead to confusion. Perhaps the very language of Act gnf, section 6(a) could be tracked. GOAL CLARITY OF IN LEGAL DRAFTING Ambiguity in legal documents is detrimental for at least two reasons: i) it leads to the possibility that the protection desired is not promoted, ii) it encourages litigation to clarify the language. Litigation,aside from tying up staff resources and time, may also delay enforcement of a permit and protection of the environment. And of course, the Court could decide in favor of an interpretation unfavorable to the environment. In a number of places, the draft rule and guidelines are extremely 'vague, either in that ambig%ous language is used or that complete discretion is given to Sta . As to the latter situation, Staff has assured us that it Will act in our best interests, but we remain unsatisfied. Even if gurrent Staff did exercise its discretion in a way that maximizes env1ronmental protection, future staff might be less supportive of such policies. It is imperative that certain minimum guarantees of protection be written into the regulations. CHANGES NEEDED: 1. As to genotoxic teratogens and hereditary mutagens, language must ?be added to the regulations. If our knowledge of such agents is so limited that Staff cannot set out any criteria for their regulation, prohibition of discharge may be appropriate. Certainly, the existing guideline which states that staff will just decide acceptable levels on its own without any guidance whatsoever,is unacceptable. 2. The word "important" in 1082(1) should be defined, if it is not eliminated as requested above. 3. Criteria should be established for at least the following: a)additions to the list of chemicals governed by the rule (10f7(2)(a)) b) determinations as to minimum data and the party res onsible for providing the information, 1057(2)(c), c)in 1057 3 should be explained. definition under the Rule, exceedances are inconsistent with the promotion of health, safety, and welfare, Under what f? P- MEG Comments Jan. 27 1984 circumstances can they be judged consistent? The implication that exceedances are sometimes not injurious opens the whole rule up to question. It implies that it may be okay to be less stringent in some cases than in others. 4, Clarification of Where Presumptions/Burdens of Proof Lie And Standards of Review for the Staff MEG is very concerned about the ambiguity that exists in the package as to where variOLE burdens of proof lie and what standards Staff is to follow in determining whether burdens have been met. MEC submits that, in general? burdens should be placed on the regulated parties. This policy is consistent withn.policy of maximum protection of health and environment. It also makes sense from a practical point of view since regulated parties are more likely than the public or even the agency to have access to data concerning particular pollutants and processes. Finally. a pOliCy of placing burdens on the regulated parties will have the benefit of forcing the evaluation of data and the undertaking of new studies. Such research would lead to a decrease in uncertainty in this regulatory area in the future. I ask Staff to clarify the placement of the burden of proof as to the following questions: a) whether a chemical is a carcinogen when EPA lists. Am I correct in believing that once a party can show that the definition in is met, that DNR will be required to begin regulation as a carcinogen until non?carcinogenicity is established? b) As to whether a carcinogen is genotoxic or epigenetic. 1057 (2)d seems to indicate a presumption of genotoxicity. Am I right? This should be clearer; c) As to whether mutagens and teratogens will there be a presumption of genotoxicity? On the related matter of what standard of review Staff should apply in making such determinations i.e. what weight of evidence is necessary or sufficient to allow staff to consider a presumption challenged and overcome? Specifically, a) what will be "sufficient" data in the scientific literature and what does "establish" mean in b)am I right that questions of whether a carcinogen is genotoxic will go to a blue ribbon committee only if the "preponderence of data" suggests that the chemical is not genotoxic?(p. 17 of the Guidelines,last line) even though the paragraph at the bottom of p. 18 speaks of the Director convening the Committee if he or she determines that Staff would benefit from advice and recommendation? c)Is Staff supposed to stick with the presumption in making various determinations, unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise? Or is some evidence enough to satisfy the hurden and overthrow the presumption? Or should staff be re sonabl convinced that the burden is met? These questions are particularly important in light of the broad discretion granted staff by the rule. If we are to have any p. 6 MEC Comments Jan. 27, 1984 guarantee that Staff Will understand and apply a policy of providing ample protection in the face of uncertainty, presumptions/burdens and staff standards of reView must be P901 ed. Presumptlons Should be in favor of determinations that lead to more restrictive limits, and substantial amounts of evidence must be required to overcome those presumptions. j; COMMITTEES Wording should be added to the Rule which clarifies the limited nature of the Committees role. The Committees should be advised to avoid making policy decisions to the greatest extent possible. Policy decisions should be made by staff persons versed in the mandates of the statutes and regulations governing water standards. In recognition of the fact that Committees may make some policy judgements despite warnings to avoid such judgements, the Rule should ensure that a least one Committe member represents environmental groups. For example, in section 5(b)(ii) on page 19 of the Guidelines. the Rule could state that the Director shall appoint a representative from the regulated community, a representative from the academic community. and a representative of environmental organizations. GOAL IV. ABILITY TO WITHSTAND LEGAL CHALLENGE No matter how protective a rule package is on its face, it will not do the state any good if it is vulnerable to legal challenge. MEC suggests careful review of the package with this fact in mind. Specifically as to hereditary mutagens and genotoxic teratogens, Staff's decision to omit discussion of their regulation from the Rule itself may jeopardize any attempt to set limits for them. In Michigan regulation by guidelines in lieu of rule?making is prohibited/ i.e. parties cannot be bound to requirements imposed by an agency based on the provisions of a guideline. Only the agency itself is bound by its guidelines. M.C.L. 2h.226. County of Delta v. DNR. 118 Mich. App 458 (1982). The only mention of hereditary mutagens and genotoxic teratogens in the Rule itself is in the statement that the maximum levels providing an?acceptable?degree of protection from them must not be exceeded. Nothing in the rule explains at all what that means. Regulated parties might object to standards and limits set for such chemicals. and they might refuse to obey them. Due to lack of specificity in the Rule, DNR might be unable to force compliance. TI-IE fonesiqln sociETy 27 January 1984 Mr. Paul Zugger Executive Secretary, Water Resources Commission P.0. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Mr. Zugger: These are our initial comments on the 1/4/84 Preliminary Draft revisions of 323.1043, 323.1057, 323.1082 and 323.1090 (Attachment and the Preliminary Draft Water Quality Standard Derivation Guidelines (Attachment II). We do not feel there was sufficient time to make meaningful, detailed, technical comments on the Draft Guidelines and request a 30-day extension of the comment period. Please keep us informed of all regulatory activities and. decisions regarding these rules and guidelines. Sincerely, Larry E. ink, M.S. Director Attachments 6300 W. Michigan Avenue F-24 Lansing. Michigan 48917 517-321-7358 STATE OF MICHIGAN .?Hul? NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION THOMAS ANDERSON CAROLLD JAMES J. BLANCHARD. Governor JACOB A HOEFER 3:52:52;ng DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES PAUL WENDLEFI STEVENS T. MASON BUILDING HARRY WHITELEY BOX 30023 LANSING. Ml 48909 RONALD SKOOG. DureCIOr February 3, 1984 Mr. Larry E. Fink The Foresight Society 6300 West Michigan Avenue, F-24 Lansing, Michigan 48917 Dear Mr. Fink: Thank you for your comments on the preliminary drafts (dated January 4, 1984) of "Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Commission General Rules" and "Water Quality Standard Derivation Guidelines for Rule Your comments were received by the Department after the deadline of January 27, 1984 and could not be considered for the draft being prepared for the Water Resources Commission in February. Your comments will be considered during the future public comment period. Your interest in the development of revised water quality standards is appreciated. Your name is included on our mailing list and we will keep you informed of future revisions of the pr0posed Rule 57 package. Sincerely, Linn Duling, Aquatic Biologist Toxic Chemical Evaluation Section Environmental Services Division (517) 373-2190 @1 The fonsiqhi sociETy 27 January 1984 Mr. Paui Zugger Executive Secretary, Water Resources Commission P.0. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 Dear Mr. Zugger: These are our initial comments on the 1/4/84 Preiiminary Draft revisions of 323.1043, 323.1044, 323.1051, 323.1057, 323.1082 and 323.1090 (Attachment and the Preiiminary Draft Hater Qua1ity Standard Derivation GuideIines (Attachment II). We do not fee1 there was sufficient time to make meaningfu1, detaiied, technicai comments on the Draft Guideiines and request a 30?day extension of the comment period. Piease keep us informed of a11 reguiatory activities and decisions regarding these ruies and guideiines. Sincereiy, W- Larry E. ink, M.S. Director Attachments 6300 W. Michigan Avenue F-24 Lansmg, Michigan 48917 517-321-7358 Attachment 1 Initial Comments on 1/4/84 Preliminary Draft Revisions of Toxics Water Quality Standards and Related Rules Rule 1043: The definition of "carcinogen" unnecessarily limits what can be regulated as a carcinogen in the waters of the state. we propose the following alternative: A carcinogen is a substance which, or a member of a class of substances, at least one of which, causes an increased incidence of benign or malignant neoplasms . . . through any route of exposure, in any multi- cellular, systemically differentiated organism, as revealed in controlled laboratory or epidemiological studies, unless it can be demonstrated that the method of administration, and not the substance, was the carcinogenic agent. A substance which is a carcinogen by one route of exposure shall be presumed carcinogenic by each of the other routes of exposure, until such time as it is determined that the presumption is contrary to the weight of scientific evidence derived from adequate testing. A single negative test by any route of exposure shall not be considered sufficient scientific evidence to preclude regulating a substance or particular mixture as a carcinogen by that route of exposure. The definitions of "genotoxic teratogen? and ?hereditary mutagen" should be likewise expanded. The draft definition of genotoxic teratogen also limits teratogens to mammalian teratogens. This is unacceptable. A substance should be presumed to be a genotoxic teratogen: 1. if the substance or at least one member of the class of chemicals to which the substance belongs has exhibited a teratogenic effect in any multi-cellular, systemically differentiated organism which reproduces or can reproduce via sexual reproduction; and 2. if the substance or at least one member of the class of chemicals to which the substance belongs has exhibited gene mutation activity above natural background rates in at least one statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassay. A non-genotoxic teratogen is one which meets the requirements of 1 but does not cause a gene mutation in any of a set of seven statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassays. The draft definition of "hereditary mutagen? limits hereditary mutagens to substances which cause heritable changes of the genome in at least one mammalian species. This is unacceptable. A substance should be presumed to be a hereditary mutagen: 1. if the substance or at least one member of the chemical class to which the substance belongs causes heritable mutations in one or Attachment I Page 2 more of the of one or more multi-cellular, systemically differentiated organisms which reproduce or can reproduce via sexual reproduction; or 2. if the substance or at least one member of the chemical class to which the substance belongs has exhibited gene mutation activity in a majority of seven statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassays. "Toxic Chemical" should be changed back to "toxic substance." References to unnatural origin should be deleted. All chemicals are substances but not all substances are chemicals. A mineral like asbestos is not a chemical pgr_?g but is a toxic substance. Rule 1057(1): Regarding draft 1057(1), the standard does not distinguish between identified and unidentified substances or mixtures, limits the protection from injury afforded the water resource only to "designated uses" and fails to consider the effect of combinations of chemicals explicitly. 1057(1) should read: The waters of the state shall not contain chemicals, singly or in particular combinations, in concentrations or quantities which are, may be or represent an unacceptable risk of being or becoming, injurious to their diversity, productivity, utility or value or that of the bottom lands thereunder or the riparian lands adjacent thereto; or to the public health, safety and welfare; or to the surrounding environment and the plant and animal p0pulations living therein or thereupon. The following shall not be exceeded: Regarding 1057(1), add "with an ample margin of safety" to the end of each definition Explicitly set forth in your guidelines the criteria data available in the scientific literature must meet to be considered "sufficient to establish that a chemical is a carcinogen, hereditary mutagen or genotoxic teratogen." Are you going to use the ag_hgg criteria approved by the Critical Materials Register Advisory Committee in 1978? They are unacceptable. Do not delete existing Rule 1057(1). You need to be able to quantify the toxicity of mixtures containing undefined toxic substances and defined toxic substances in undefined mixtures. Reword Attachment 1 Page 3 Rule Regarding 1057(2), a. should read: The chemicals to which this rule shall apply include those on lists lawfully promulgated to identify substances regulatable as toxic, critical, hazardous or otherwise injurious under any state or federal environmental protection statute, including but not limited to: and such other chemicals as the Commission may identify on a case by case basis via a determination made according to the requirements set forth in this rule. If you are going to reference substances on the Michigan Critical Materials Register in this standard, the list must be updated to reflect the current state of science and available information and duly promulgated per the requirements of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. If the CMR criteria and list are not updated, we will contest this provision. Rule The minimum data requirement must be explicit in order to assure the discharger and the public of due process. The Commission should determine what further information is required based on the minimum data submitted and the responsible party(ies) for providing the minimum data and any further information. Our pr0posed minimum data set is identified in our recent submittal to William Fulkerson, Hearings Examiner, in the matter of Dow Chemical Company Michigan Division NPDES Permit MI 0000868 issued April 21, 1982. Rule Ne oppose the use of an acceptable increased cancer risk approach to regulating carcinogens. Their discharge to and presence in the waters of the state should be avoided where possible and minimized where unavoidable in the paramount public interest in the health, safety and general welfare of the pe0ple. Since this is a major reinterpretation of Section 6(a) of 1929 P.A. 245, a departure from the "zero discharge" carcinogen regulatory policy in effect prior to April 1982, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be developed and published by the agency per the requirements of Executive Order 1974-4 and the guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto. Even if the "acceptable risk" approach is not demonstrated to be contrary to the paramount public interest, the choice of an acceptable risk level rests with the legislature. The Commission cannot legislate in its rulemaking. Even if the "acceptable risk" determination falls within the purview of the Commission, the "acceptable risk? level should not exceed 10-6 for any single carcinogen and should not exceed 10-5 for all carcinogens. This rule should protect the public and the natural resources from any genotoxic substance, not just carcinogens. Attachment I Page 4 1" Rule Ne Oppose the granting of non-conforming use permits. The Clean Water Act is technology forcing and is intended to put some operations out of business because achieving the effluent limits required by the state's water quality standards is not economical. This is a loophole. The Commission will be tied up with hundreds of petitions for non-conforming use pennits, bringing their regulatory actions to a halt. Rule 1082(1): The minimum restriction should apply to all wildlife. The mixing zone should not obstruct the passage of any migratory species. Rule 1082(2): For toxic chemicals, the fraction of design receiving water flow, as defined in Rule 1090, that shall be allocated for mixing is the ratio of the once- in?ten-year, four-day low flow to the average flow. Ne oppose the use of diffusers to meet the requirement that the 96 hr L050 be met at the end-of?pipe. The use of a diffuser should only be permitted upon demonstration that BAT is in place. Rule 1090(1): NRC cannot suspend the scope of the water quality standards set forth in 1929 P.A. 245. The Act makes no provision for mixing zones. Rule 1090(2): Even if it can be shown that a mixing zone is lawful under 1929 P.A. 245, the use of the 95% exceedance flow is unacceptable. Since at minimum wildlife must be protected from a 50% incidence of mortality when exposed in the mixing zone for 96 hrs, use the once-in-ten-year, 96 hour low flow as the design low flow for calculating acute toxicity-based effluent limits and the once-in?ten-year, 30-day low flow for calculating chronic toxicity-based effluent limits. If you intend to use the 95% exceedance flow, what is the ratio of the 95% exceedance flow to the for a number of representative rivers in Michigan, so that we better appreciate the degree to which the margin of safety has been diminished? Attachment II \3 Initial Comments on 1/4/84 Preliminary Draft Water Quality Standard Derivation Guidelines For Rule 1057(2) Observations: Data are plural. The guidelines lump species and chemical categories together. This is contrary to the precepts of sound science. The procedures are not science-based but policy-based. The tolerances and uncertainties associated with the Water Quality Standards derived by the procedures are nowhere qualified and quantified. Without a quantification of compounded method and data error in each NQS, it is impossible to be assured that the NOS will protect wild and domesticated plant and animal populations and the public health, safety and welfare with a margin of safety considered ample, as required by the Clean Water Act. Some of the procedures have been changed significantly from those recommended by the Rule 57 Advisory Committee. The language of the guidelines is unclear. It is not possible to comment meaningfully on such a complex technical document in twenty days. Recommendation: Extend the comment period on the draft for another thirty days to allow meaningful comment on this most critical regulatory pr0posal. Run through the step-by-step derivation of a Water Quality Standard and a corresponding water quality-based effluent limit using the 1/4/84 guidelines and the guidelines approved by the Rule 57 Advisory Committee for ten benchmark chemicals with wide ranges of acute toxicity, carci- nogenic potency, bioconcentration-factor and quantity of adequate data, so that those with the appropriate technical background can observe how the process actually works in practice. Write a layman's guide to the rules and guidelines in the same style and format as those of the Site Assessment System information packet that accompanied the June 1983 public noticing ofi?waSAS model. This will increase the likelihood of meaningful public input into the process. Include both the worked benchmark examples and the layman's guide in an information packet to accompany the public noticing of the draft rules and guidelines. Attachment I Initial Comments on 1/4/84 Preliminary Draft Revisions of Toxics Water Quality Standards and Related Rules Rule 1043: The definition of "carcinogen? unnecessarily limits what can be regulated as a carcinogen in the waters of the state. We propose the following alternative: A carcinogen is a substance which, or a member of a class of substances. at least one of which, causes an increased incidence of benign or malignant neoplasms . . . through any route of exposure, in any multi- cellular, systemically differentiated organism, as revealed in controlled laboratory or epidemiological studies, unless it can be demonstrated that the method of administration, and not the substance, was the carcinogenic agent. A substance which is a carcinogen by one route of exposure shall be presumed carcinogenic by each of the other routes of exposure, until such time as it is determined that the presumption is contrary to the weight of scientific evidence derived from adequate testing. A single negative test by any route of exposure shall not be considered sufficient scientific evidence to preclude regulating a substance or particular mixture as a carcinogen by that route of exposure. The definitions of "genotoxic teratogen? and "hereditary mutagen? should be likewise expanded. The draft definition of genotoxic teratogen also limits teratogens to mammalian teratogens. This is unacceptable. A substance should be presumed to be a genotoxic teratogen: 1. if the substance or at least one member of the class of chemicals to which the substance belongs has exhibited a teratogenic effect in any multi-cellular, systemically differentiated organism which reproduces or can reproduce via sexual reproduction; and 2. if the substance or at least one member of the class of chemicals to which the substance belongs has exhibited gene mutation activity above natural background rates in at least one statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassay. A non-genotoxic teratogen is one which meets the requirements of 1 but does not cause a gene mutation in any of a set of seven statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassays. The draft definition of "hereditary mutagen? limits hereditary mutagens to substances which cause heritable changes of the genome in at least one mammalian species. This is unacceptable. A substance should be presumed to be a hereditary mutagen: 1. if the substance or at least one member of the chemical class to which the substance belongs causes heritable mutations in one or Attachment I Page 2 more of the of one or more multi-cellular, systemically differentiated organisms which reproduce or can reproduce via sexual reproduction; or 2. if the substance or at least one member of the chemical class to which the substance belongs haslexhibited gene mutation activity in a majority of seven statistically validated model genotoxicity bioassays. . ?Toxic Chemical" should be changed back to ?toxic substance." References to unnatural origin should be deleted. All chemicals are substances but not all substances are chemicals. A mineral like asbestos is not a chemical but is a toxic substance. i Rule 1057(1): Regarding draft 1057(1), the standard does not distinguish between identified and unidentified substances or mixtures, limits the protection from injury afforded the water resource only to ?deSignated uses" and fails to consider the effect of combinations of chemicalSuexplicitly. 1057(1) should read: . I The waters of the state shall not contain chemicals, singly or in particular combinations, in concentrations or quantities which are, may be or represent an unacceptable risk of being or becoming, injurious to their diversity, productivity, Utility or value or that of the bottom lands thereunder or the riparian lands adjacent thereto; or to the i public health, safety and welfare; or to the surrounding environment 3 and the plant and animal p0pulations living therein or thereupon. The following shall not be exceeded: I Regarding 1057(1), add ?with an ample margin of safety" to the end of each definition - i Explicitly set forth in your guidelines the criteria data available in scientific literature must meet to be considered "sufficient to establish that a chemical is a carcinogen, hereditary mutagen or genotoxic teratogen." Are you going to use the ad_hoc criteria approved by the Critical Materi?ls Register Advisory Committee i??1978? They are unacceptable.. Do not delete-existing Rule 1057(1). loo need to be able to quantify the toxicity of mixtures containing undefined toxic substances and defined . toxic substances in undefined mixtures, Reword Attachment I Page 3 Rule Regarding 1057(2), a. should read: . The chemicals to which this rule shall apply include those on lists . lawfully promulgated to identify substances regulatable as toxic, critical, hazardous or otherwise injurious under any state or federal environmental protection statute, including but not limited to: and such other chemicals as the Commission may identify on a case by case basis via a determination made according to the requirements set forth in this rule. If you are going to reference substances on the Michigan Critical Materials Register in this standard, the list must be updated to reflect the current state of science and available information and duly promulgated per the requirements of the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act. If the CMR criteria and list are not updated, we will contest this provision. Rule The minimum data requirement must be explicit in order to assure the . discharger and the public of due process. The Commission should determine what further information is required based on the minimum data submitted and the responsible party(ies) for providing the minimum data and any further information. Our proposed minimum data set is identified in our recent submittal to William Fulkerson, Hearings Examiner, in the matter of Dow Chemical Company Michigan Division NPDES Permit MI 0000868 issued April 21, 1982. I Me oppose the use of an acceptable increased cancer risk approach to i regulating carcinogens. Their discharge to and presence in the waters of the state should be avoided where possible and minimized where unavoidable inlthe paramount public interest in the health, safety and general welfare of the people. Since this is a major reinterpretation of Section 6(a) of 1929 PJA. 245, a departure from the ?zero discharge" carcinogen regulatory policy in effect prior to April 1982, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be developed and published by the agency per the requirements of Executive Order 1974-4 and the guidelines promulgated pursuant thereto. Even if the ?acceptable risk? approach is not demonstrated to be contrary to the paramount public interest, the choice of an acceptable risk level rests with the legislature. The Commission cannot legislate in its rulemaking. Even if the ?acceptable risk" determination falls within the purview of the Commission, the "acceptable risk" level should not exceed 10-6 for any single carcinogen and should not exceed 10-5 for all carcinogens. This rule should protect the public and the natural resources from any genotoxic substance, not just carcinogers. CEQCC 0? CLEARINEHDUSE Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination [1463 BRINGOIJ) AVliNl?l-I 0 LAKE. MICHIGAN 48632 (517) an? Merck 1f?, Dr. Fohn? C. skoc: Direc?nr Hicrirer of Natural Resources 9 0. Bo? Lansirr, RI 599?0 Dear Dr. Skcor, This is 1 Erosion of Information Act request for documentation pertaining to the proposed drenro in Rule 323.1057 (Rule 57) of the Part Administrative Rules of the Eater ResourCes Commission - Toxic Substances Water Quality Standards. We reouns? Tories of input from individuals, corporations, and groups which had iwran? on its proposed changes. we also wish a copy of the wordinr of the rropnsed rev version of Rule 57. We feel ?Fa? it is essential that a complete Environmental Impact Statement sued prior to any acceptance of change in water quality for +hn state of Nichiran. With the world's largest body of fresh water bordering our stw?n, we cannot afford to take risks that could lead to further degradation be resns"?3ed and of Rd-Wr The public is becoming increasingly more aware o? the need for sound wu-er quality standards and enforcement in order to assure a continuing suprly a? clean drinking water for themselves and future generations. We carnot afford ?o terror with our legacy to our children. (I) inn-oval ?7 ll?. 0 - I . (- fL/? n, hr; C121) +43 rec?or 6 CLEARINEHDUSE Citizens for Alternatives to Chemical Contamination ?463 BRINGOLD LAKE. MICHIGAN 48632 (517') Sim-1w (5173 5993-9?- March 1? i?qh Dr. Williqn Cooper Chairmnr, c/o Boyd Kinzley, Executive Secretary MERE Denertmen? of Commerce Office of Business and Community Development P. O. Box E0225 LA Sinr. HI Dear Dr. Cgorer, We were recenfly informed of the preposed changes in Rule 323.1057 (Rule 57) of fhe Parf 3 Administrative Rules of the Wgter Resounces ComM1ssion Toxic Substances {q?er Quality Standards. We ?eel *hu? it is essential that a complete Environmental Impact Statement he researchei 2rd issued prior to any acceptance of change in water quality standards for ihe stain of Michigan. *ith the world's largest body of fresh water Pondering our state, of water legacy ad ter 1 '1 3. r} Sincerely, am Mud? Ann hunt Direc?or we cannot afford to take risks that could lead to further denraiatinn unli+y. nor can we impose additional risks to the public health. The i?fly more aware of the need POP S?u?d water analitv . ?Hays-uno- i' enforcemert in order to assure a continuing supply of clean drinking Hmmselves ano future generations. we cannot afford to tamper with our our children. Attachment I Page 4 Rule We Oppose the granting of non-conforming use permits. The Clean Water Act is technology forcing and is intended to put some operations out of business because achieving the effluent limits required by the state's water quality standards is not economical. This is a 100phole. The Commission wili be tied up with hundreds of petitions for non-conforming use pennits, bringing their regulatory actions to a halt. Rule 1082(1): The minimum restriction should apply to all wildlife. The mixing zone should not obstruct the passage of any migratory species. Rule 1082(2): For toxic chemicals, the fraction of design receiving water flow, as defined in Rule 1090, that shall be allocated for mixing is the ratio of the once- in?ten-year, four-day low flow to the average flow. we oppose the use of diffusers to meet the requirement that the 96 hr L050 be met at the end-of-pipe. The use of a diffuser should only be permitted upon demonstration that BAT is in place. Rule 1090(1): NRC cannot suspend the scope of the water quality standards set forth in 1929 P.A. 245. The Act makes no provision for mixing zones. Rule 1090(2): Even if it can be shown that a mixing zone is lawful under 1929 P.A. 245, the use of the 95% exceedance flow is unacceptable. Since at minimum wildlife must be protected from a 50% incidence of mortality when exposed in the mixing zone for 96 hrs, use the once-in?ten?year, 96 hour low flow as the design low flow for calculating acute toxicity-based effluent limits and the once?in-ten-year, 30-day low flow for calculating chronic toxicity?based effluent limits. If you intend to use the 95% exceedance flow, what is the ratio of the 95% exceedance flow to the for a number of representative rivers in Michigan, so that we better appreciate the degree to which the margin of safety has been diminished? CONSULTANT 483 W. ASHBY RD.. R15 MIDLAND. MICHIGAN 48640 (517) 835-9625 Feb. 2, 1984 Michigan Department of Natural Resources Environmental Services Division Toxic Chemical Evaluation Section P.O. Box 30028 Lansing, MI 48909 Gentlemen: Following are comments relative to the 1/4/84 draft proposals for changes in rules 323.1043, 323.1044, 323.1051, 323.1057, 323.1082 and 323.1090. Also included are a few comments on the 1/4/84 preliminary draft of the guidelines for deriving water quality standards. In this latter case, I found the procedure very difficult to follow. For the most part, these comments expand on those made at the 1/18/84 meeting in Lansing. General I believe the whole concept of use of risk assessment for determining allowable levels of non?threshold toxicants is a violation of the or may become lan- guage and provisions of Section 6(a) of the NRC Act. If the State is going to make such a major change in the basis for protecting our natural resources and the public trust therein, let's say so up front. How do you intend to rationalize the two concepts short of legislative action? I do not understand so much dependence on "guideline". Surely, you need no reminder of the constant hassle over guidelines vs rules. I believe you should make every attempt to get a max- imum of critical language in the rules. Rule 1043 The definition for "carcinogen" should include the concept of mixtures or combinations of chemicals as well as the ind- vidual chemical. The route of exposure must include all routes. I suggest re- placing; oral or dermal exposure, or through in- halation with any route of gae; Rule 57 2 - 2/2/84 I disagree with the limitation to mammalian species. The increasing technical literature on tumors in fish should be recognized and the definition of carcinogen ould be ex? tended to include fish and other aquatic life?n any life history stage. All the above should also apply to definitions of "genotoxic teratogen" and Hereditary mutagen". Rule 1044 The whole problem of defining "toxicity" and/or what is toxic should be reconsidered with thorough consultation with legal authority. Recent experience suggests that legal construction may be very critical. For example, water conditions such as temperature and pH may be toxic either alone or in combination, or may interact,either alone or in combination, with individual chemicals or combinations of chemicals. This concept of inter- actions between conditions, chemicals and /or substances must be included in the definition of toxics. Additionally, the meaning of "unnatural origin" needs consider- ation. Perhaps the terminology should simply be eliminated as you suggest; if so does the elimination affect the meaning of second sentence? Alternatively, perhaps the terminology should be retained and its application defined to include man?induced levels of materials of natural origin. Still further, the definition must be such that there is no "legal? question of application to Section 6(a) of the NRC Act. Rule 1057 You should retain the current 323.1057 (1). The second sentence may require slight modification, but the first sentence should be retained. This language emphasizes the criticality of a) undefined toxics, b) specifies continuous flow or in situ bioassays, c)specifies 96 hour TL or other appropriate end point and d) through the above spgcifics gets directly to the whole question of assessment of the total environmental mixture- This is a very critical rule and it should not be eliminated. Expand on it if you wish, but do not replace it. I disagree with the apparent open?ended non-conforming use permit. Your draft (2) 3) should at least be restored to the language used in the draft provided in Dec.'83: such use is consistent withthe promotion of public health, safety and welfare in light 9; the State's paramount concern for the pro- tection 9: its natural resources. (emphasis added) Further there should be a limit on the number of renewals or at least tighter restrictions on each successive renewal. Re: Rule 57 3 2/2/84 Further, the non?conforming use permit should not be available to new users. Rule 1090 I do not agree with relaxation of standards by changing design stream flows to 95% exceedance flows. Flow levels of concern should be daily minimum, not daily average. If the receiving stream is very even in flow, minimum and average will not be greatly different. However, in the critical situation of highly variable flow, and especially where flow is controlled by dam release, the average can be severely skewed by very high flows of short duration. This obviously leads to "slugs" of toxicants at higher than planned concentrations and possible severe loadings in mixing zones. Rule 1082 If 1082 is to be changed, let's attempt existing problems. I refer to overlapping mixing zones, zones using 25% of the flow on each side of a stream, the lack of veri? fication of contours of mixing, the extreme length of some zones (TDS forexample) and compliance with the 96-hour LCSO requirement using flow through or in situ technique. Standard Derivation Guidelines I disagree with the proposed use of an "average person" and low level fish consumption as the basis for setting permissable levels of toxicant discharge. If the State is going to change to this concept of water quality management, the most sus? ceptible of our people should be protected. Further, neither animal nor human consumption of fish or other aquatic-sourced food should be curtailed by permitted toxic contamination. u?L 4/4"th Further we cannot igngrezbio?accumulation of several toxic contaminants.In fact multiple contamination is probably more common than contamination with a single material. I believe this must be addressed, especially if we are going to permit toxicant discharge based on risk analysis. I look_forward to further participation in this very critical aspectxwater quality management. Respectfully, Frederick L. Brown . . hair-Ty; - ifQ'Jrzci tr: cr .31 :211:" Ti uw- . 9(21. corwi iucl?lled ii; the ?:29 5 . i; .111 I) .. . - ltff? 151011 w? 2 .JL a ma Hi,w.t Cii?zt,tmz nu??rn; a? . by u, 1.17 . cjfeu. 'JthtiIe ?nd nam n; .for ?excuim.s . nit been can iiered. J. Eu 3.. 111]" bluff ?rm 4le 1?111?- ?C;e??ubiw cancer riak :3 ol?gred to loss s;riuqe,b 1 . . L). :31; OI (3. . itulu ?431 1 rr-_ . v;r lei, 10:41? 11A.uza ir?in; J: t1"! Of .T .5 1.1.- ,i . 5?21; 0:111?: 1,9. :h.u can" u7 C?rj tiered. 7. fiat are t-h -m oryn;p; Wu ;:Ler nxulity of recc_vl? ?Ll! u} 'rtn?nu ?aunt or receivin :?zm he I in? :;mg wizwxxirn.%; 4x J. tr unlug am? Lno?enic discharges need an be consilerud. ,Hb &eveloped to encour?gc uf carci 5rir ?i rm: production procnss Ch.L;n;, etc. 10. WA: .30 ?dWJt ::Ld in riuK? Iny no: LSUSS J. 3 Via?? a jeqn? child WuuLd 41 CC r. .. Che bed); in Liu .c . .. ?h;e . 2. CL 33-1), .m ,o'rpzt 1. i jL;: miter on . - .1 ;ra ?4.93 to is. in.? :r ?.11y, TH Dow an! th- Ctate Hic?uiban :.and in hand tine at" issue the state's first inninerution permit. The S?lae of Tie igan does not even have rules to issue this permit. Thie is due to fact .nL radioaci.ive materials are strictly under jurisn;utznn and Michi on has not established any standards for emission: or PxpOLxr? to radionuclidus. Should Dom' win their battle on the water inane they will Je betfi?f precedent, actually dchlopiug the un?t, tint will need against their own air permit in the upcoming Contested came heu11ny. .Ln the intereut of cor.bistency, Dow should now fight to rescind quir in? (iner=ition permit as well. ..i;Lp1; lLiS 4: MALE oftawdeheo L?o ugr?ciillj Hue; with L~e knowledgement t?nt .Lfioiopt inftrom;iob exirts tn make uprrOyriute ye e:neut:, filled tr ienautel; 510: e: t1.e pubj.io. Th1; in evide:ced by 'v -eveu cheuiells uld widely used lestic iir that have been rr;Lr1:L11 Jr re hu- wL?ergeiu; review by the Enviro. .ental Protection lgency. e? gub'ic reulth l?d welfare is concerueu it is w1on:ihln iv a o;er oglw are innocent until preven guilLy. 4 . t4c: tirit .JeE?ir?xdeirt (if iaitu 121i iL tn enLirelp too mn_oi1 gieeswork uni a eeri 01 ;i I Ld If reaucnuble questions can not he u51Jan' l_rick' i il 1?1.Li_ an, Lbc= rrwuierrt 5=terr?WLiild. be to ;l '05. roiio? .icp/yinotozji; ixorquges. {Dnere vu?ll ooxm3.i L. :3 i acoUULtabllity. Vb all loose atandnrio be :llowei Lo;uy, the ti e, Luul experx-e a Iwreatpeia.uewt va- 1 IT :liru? encild tireet LLC JHR toward ?moing it right the f=v Lino?. TL lrunlre a: {"ng .LlLt tb- gtatement be ti Jr'=Li'i1, CCN L1t .Vrn lire. AFC-O {1'11 L;erely, 2?o C?wzf?/? ulmiT 0:1 k. iliihwlq li-iLKJ Sll?erOltJlellt'Jl "Jo at." :iorl :17-?l -3. ion-lg? {1?1 4085o 517-772 Jr. J3. Jagger, L345 at. 1.?ij Jr. R. l?1K i.r. J. . irrxy, Crier lJ/4-4, . u?i? wijor state action. (M Av? .- ?zbt Director JHLi-3_iehigfin 1" 311v? ran-me .1134] ?t Inqw?c i3 WM explains, when employees are handling casing pipe in the ?eld. The workers cover the end of the pipe with a dough- nut-shaped urethane component, instead of the rubber one used previously. Hagen reports that in recent years demand for urethane in that market has skyrocketed. ?It?s climbed from zero to about half the market in [a few] years.? he says. And, by his estimate, the total market potential is more than 1 million lb/year. Hagen also expects significant growth for urethane to protect pipe in transit. In the past, the oil industry has used stamped metal, polyvinyl chloride and polyethylene devices to protect the pipe, notes Hagen. Now it is replacing those materials with a urethane-metal- urethane sandwich. While the sandwich is more expensive, he says, it does a better job of protecting the pipe. With current consumption by oil companies running at 100,000-200,000 lb/year for urthanes in that application, he forsees ample room for growth. CI Dow wins a tough water permit Michigan, in an attempt to preserve such natural wonders as the spawning of "delicate ?sh" in the state?s rivers, has taken the lead in preposing the na- tion?s strictest permit for discharge of surface water. The permit that renews Dow Chemical?s license to operate its wastewater-treatment plant near Mid- land is being touted by Environmental Protection Agency of?cials as ?one of the most, if not the most, comprehen- sive permits ever issued." And, they add, it is a harbinger that tighter dis- charge requirements are in the of?ng for the entire chemical industry. New limits. The four-year permit, pro- posed by the state?s Natural Resources Dept. (DNR), calls for Dow to halt the discharge of detectable levels of dioxin by 1988. If approved by the state's Wa- ter Resources Commission next month, the regulations will require Dow to re- duce levels from the current 50 parts/ quadrillion (ppq) to 10 in two years and even lower levels by July 1988. Although Dow stopped producing dioxin as a byproduct in 1979, it still discharges "dioxin residues" into the Tittabawassee River. Dow, now experi- menting with sand ?ltration to comply with the new permit, estimates an out- lay of $5?6 million for the process. The company has no quarrel with the terms of the permit, however. It was certainly relieved that DNR didn?t act on an initial proposal, which called on Dow to curb discharges to nondetectable lev- els of 0.3 by 1988, a ?gure that Dow considers an ?impossible" dream. The company argued that current tech- nology cannot measure, let alone limit, dioxin at such concentrations. Says Gary R. Veurink, manager of environ- mental services for Dow?s Michigan di- vision: ?We would have been unavoid- ably in violation of the law.? So the two parties managed a com? promise. Instead of setting a limit for 1988, they agreed to negotiate a new goal in 1986. The new limit will be de termined, says Dow, by technology and scienti?c evidence, particularly studies on the effects of dioxin on Vietnam vet- erans due in 1986. As a part of the compromise, Dow has agreed to cut the ef?uent levels of four additional toxic organic chemicals. The permit had already called for re- The CW 303 weekly index of chemical 29? prices 233 I 1 Latest week 2992 Previous week 299.2 Month ego 299.0 285.7 Latest . Year ego 375 Index: 1967 100 350 325 300 1984 275 1983 259 - A A l3 thmr-J'W'G'dVMi 1?3 val-vim. stricting discharge of some 10 other toxic organics?including phenol, penta- chlorophenol and chloroform. Now, 14 compounds?7 immediately and 7 in 0c- tober 1985?will be limited to an aver- age 30?day permissible concentration of 70 micrograms. Dow also agreed to step up the fre- quency with which it monitors the efflu- ent concentrations of 53 chemicals and to expand one of its four required stud- ies. Those studies and others that DNR has compiled in recent years will be used by EPA to ?pursue aggressively? similar limits on toxic organics across the country, according to Kenneth A. Fenner, chief of Region 5 water quality programs. Whereas the Dow permit cites 15 toxic organics, an EPA of?cial says that permits by the agency have limited discharge of no more than a handful of compounds. The strictest yet. Even though Michi- gan?s water standards are generally more stringent than federal regulations, state of?cials admit that the proposed permit is strict. One state regulator claims that it is ?10 to 100 times tough- er than anything we?ve ever issued, adding that Dow?s previous permit con- . trolled only one toxic organic chemi- cal?phenol?and one proposed in 1982 would have limited only nine. While Dow has been singled out, com- pany of?cials agree with EPA that stricter water discharge limits for other firms will follow. ?We believe that soon others will be written this way," says Dow?s Veurink. ?We have to accept, and live with. that.? An out-of-court fund for asbestos claims A number of defendants caught up in the massive litigation over asbestos are ready to try another way to settle cases and reduce the expensive and mush- rooming case load. After negotiating for over 17 months, six major insurance companies and eight industrial compa- nies that they insure (table) now have tentatively agreed to set up a separate settlement fund that would be adminis? tered by a new nonpro?t organization. Chemical observers are following the development closely. They feel that any new approach to handling the asbestos claims may set a precedent for personal injury lawsuits over other situations in- volving exposure to chemicals, such as Agent Orange, toxic spills and hazard- ous waste dumps. The pressure on defendants in asbes-