LANSING – A coalition of environmental groups is asking Governor Rick Snyder to overturn the Department of Environmental Quality and reject a package of rules the group said would reduce protections from airborne toxins.

The actual language of the rules is at this point still under development, but the goal of the rules is to pare the list of chemicals the state regulates to those proven to truly be harmful, officials said when the idea for the rules (ORR #2013-109).

But the groups, led by the Michigan Environmental Council, said the change would put residents, particularly those in urban areas, at risk.

“The state of Michigan prides itself on its outstanding quality of life and its manufacturing expertise and experience,” the groups said in a letter. “This proposal is a major step backwards which will erode public confidence in state government to satisfy its most basic duty: protect the health and welfare of its citizens.”

DEQ spokesperson Brad Wurfel said the key issue is the rules are still under development. “The proposal, and how it could be implemented, are still under department consideration. MEC has called on the governor to retract draft rules that haven’t been written,” he said.

The proposal, he said, is to concentrate on the chemicals that most put the public at risk. “The point of the entire exercise is to review what actually is emitted by Michigan industries and hone the DEQ’s regulatory focus to the elements most emitted and known to be dangerous,” he said. “This is about increasing DEQ’s focus on state regulated air toxics and providing public health protection.”

The groups objected to two primary objectives of the rules: eliminating regulation of chemicals that have not been shown to be toxic and of those shown to be minimally toxic.

The rules would not require regulation of a chemical until it was shown to be hazardous. Robert Sills, supervisor of the DEQ Air Quality Division Toxics Unit, told Gongwer News Service at the time the idea for the rules was unveiled was to move to a defined list of regulated chemicals, rather than the current essentially open-ended list.

But the groups said the plan essentially leaves residents unprotected until tests show they are at risk.

“Under this proposed rule, the state may permit a chemical being emitted into neighborhoods without even knowing whether it is a potential human carcinogen. By ignoring the toxicity of a chemical, this change undermines the basic science behind protecting residents of the state,” the letter said.

The groups conceded that some chemicals are less toxic, but said concentration plays a factor as well. “These chemicals, although less toxic, have in some cases been demonstrated to have long-term impacts on human health,” the letter said.

They also questioned the criteria used to trim the list, which involved dropping the bottom 25 percent of the chemicals when ranked by toxicity.

While supporters said the goal of the rules was to make the state more attractive to business, the groups said it could have the opposite effect by making residents more wary of any new industry in their vicinity.

This story was provided by Gongwer News Service. To subscribe, click on Gongwer.Com