HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1983.05.05 - 11661May 5th, 1983
Miscellaneous Resolution # 83124
By: Planning and Building Committee - Anne M. Hobart, Chairperson
In Re: Objection to Federal EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) Sanctions
Against Oakland County
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Chairperson, Ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners are concerned about the
quality of the air in the county; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Board of Commissioners has worked cooperatively
with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, the lead planning agency for air
quality, to develop plans and policies to improve the quality of the air; and
WHEREAS communities in Oakland County and the Oakland County Road
Commission have committed to implement transportation and highway maintenance
projects to improve the quality of the air; and
WHEREAS a goal of the Oakland County Board of Commissioners is to create
the best economic climate for the county as possible;. and
WHEREAS the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed instituting
economic sanctions in Oakland County; and
WHEREAS the Oakland County Executive,Daniel T. Murphy,has stated objections
to the proposed sanctions in a letter dated April 28th, 1983, to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
concurs with the position and objections of the County Executive and disagrees with any
proposed sanctions against Oakland County by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this resolution and the attached letter from the
County Executive dated April 28th, 1983, be sent to the Federal Environmental Protection
Agency, the Michigan Congressional Delegation, the Governor and the President,
MR, CHAIRPERSON, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move
the adoption of the foregoing resolution,
PLANNING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
COUNTY OF OAKLAND
DANIEL T. MURPUY, COLTNTY EXECUTIVE
April 28, 1983
Mr. Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air Programs Branch
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency
Region V
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Central Docket Section (A-130)
Docket N. A-83-01
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
'Washington, D.C. 20460
Nt. John Pratapas
Plans Analysis Section ND-15
Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina 27711
Gentlemen:
In response to EPA's February 3, 1983 proposed rulcmaking an 1982 State
Implementation Plans and Compliance with Part D of the Clean Air Act, I submit
the comments listed below. In addition to the these comments an specific issues,
I would like to offer the following general statement. For the past 30 years in
county govelment and in my capacity as County Executive of Michigan's second
largest county and further as Chairman for NACO's Transportation Steering Com-
mittee I have testified numerous times before the committees of Congress and met
with Federal Officials toonvarerous to mention.
I have always held and continue to hold the position that it is inappropriate
and certainly unfair for the Federal Government to assign responsibility to the
states for certain programs and regulations and then when the State fails to meet
its responsibility, turn its sanctions and penalties toward the local unit of
government.
C(.71.1wants Related to Proposed Construction Ban
The EPAhas proposed a hydrocarbon source construction ban in Oakland County,
object to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. A construction ban is proposed for Oakland County. Three major
deficiencies are cited by EPA. as reasons for applying this penalty:
hydrocarbon stationary source regulations, carbon monoxide hotspots
and Inspection and Maintenance. With the possible exception of
these "deficiencies" appear to be readily resolvable.
The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division,
has been =king on the RAC III regulations. With the cooperation
of EPA, a schedule of completion and implementation can be achieved.
Oakland County Courthouse, 1200 North Telegraph Road, Pontiac, Michigan 48053
Messrs. Rothblatt and Pratapas
Page 2
April 28, 1983
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments has worked extensively to
address the issue of carbon monoxide hotspots. SEMCOG, working
cooperatively with 3 local cor.anunities, 2 state deparents, 1
university, 1 private citizen and 1 utility, along with Ford and
General Motors, has set up a monitoring program to collect data
to determine the extent of the carbon monoxide hotspot problem and
analyze potential problems in the future. The purpose of this very
extensive effort was not to avoid the problems but to address them
with knowledge and realistic solutions. I am sure it is not the
intent of EPA to penalize Michigan, Southeast Michigan and Oakland
County for going above and beyond the law to remedy air quality
problems instead of attempting to meet status quo by using model-
ing techniques which are not always reliable.
Concerning 17M, the determination of what constitutes a reasonable
effort should be made in the context of other activities in the
State. Under normal economic conditions, Michigan's pursuit of
instituting an ILM program might not be considered reasonable.
However, given the current fiscal crises in Michigan, the status
of 1./M might well be considered reasonable. Michigan has been
counittted to compliance with the ozone air quPlityStanciPrds
and despite the economic climate has purused implementation of
regulations necessary to achieve that standard. The State of
Michigan, in April 1980, adopted enabling legislation for an T/M
progrdm. It was the intent of the State to proceed in implement-
ing a program. Due to a continuation of the economic problems
and the inability to balance the State budget, the TIM program
has been delayed in implementation. To impose a construction ban
on Oakland County and Southeast Michigan at this time would only
delay the economic recovery, the implementation of an -VM program
and. limproveme:it in air quality Whon. Michigan is no longer cutting
programs and raising taxes just to balance the budget (not initiate
or expand programs), then reasonable efforts Should bring us closer
to actual implementation of I/M,
In addition, it would not be appropriate to impose a punitive measure
on industry for a mobile source-related issue.
B.- Comments Related to Withholding of Grants Authorized Under the Clean Air Act
The EPA has solicited comments related to the possible application of funding
penalities. On March 22, 1983 the Region V EPA,Adildnistrator gave notice
that Michigan might be subject to a withholding of grants authorized under
the Clean Air Act.
My response is based an the following sentence taken directly from the
April 10, 1980 policy for instituting this penalty:
Messrs. Rothblatt and Pratapas
Page 3
April 28, 1983
"...the EZA Regional Administrator has discretion to continue
to award grants available under the Clean Air Act to State and
local air quality control agencies (including lead planning
agencies designated under Section 174 of the Act) if he finds
such grants necessary for immediate air quality benefits or
development of SIP revisions."
Put simply, it is clear to me that such funding is, in fact, essential to
continue operation of air quality control programs, development of SIP
revisions, and thus, air quality benefits. Therefore, this penalty is not
appropriate for any part of Michigan.
C. Coiments Related to a Cut-Off of Transportation Funds
The March 22, 1983 letter from the Regional EPA Administrator also indicated
a possible cut-off of funds for transportation-related projects. In response
to this notice and EPA's February 3, 1983 solicitation for comments on this
topic, I offer the following objections.
1. As previously stated, the determination of reasonable effort must be
made in the context of locally specific conditions. The arguments
already made under the construction ban also apply to the application
of this penalty.
2. The institution of a transportation funding cut-off in Oakland County
would only serve to penalize agencies implementing road improvement
projects which notonly serve to improve the safety of our road
system (Oakland County's 1/1 priority for road improvements is
accident reduction and safety) but also achieve air quality benefits.
Oakland County has committed to retina 100 traffic signals and a
major widening project in Troy on Big Beaver Road. These improve-
ments were submitted in the SIP as a commicment to improved air
quality. To withhold transportation funds would result in a delay •
in the implementation of the Big Beaver project and the signal
retimings and,ultimately, in the delay in air improvement benefits.
D. Consents Related to a Cut-Off of Sewage Treatment Works Funds
The EPA has also solicited consent related to the cut-off funds for construction
of sewage treatmant ,,,-="ks in nonatta -LidT:ent: areas. It is not clear whether these
sanctions will actually be imposed, hut the EPA has expressly recognized treat-
ment works funding cuts are entirely discretionary with the Agency. In response
to the possible application of these sanctions, I•offer the following objections.
1. The EPA has restricted the applicability of treatilent works
funding by stating the Agency will not impose these sanctions
if a state is making reasonable efforts to meet SIP revirements;
45 Fed. Reg. 53382. As stated previously, reasonable efforts to
meet SIP requirements have been made in Michigan.
Daniel
County Executive
ze_
Messrs. Pothblatt and Pratapas
Page 4
April 28, 1983
2. The EPA has stated even where the Agency imposes treaLwent works
funding sanctions, it will exempt funds for projects needed to
protect the public health; 45 Fed. Reg. 53382. The plaeued
construction of sewage treauiient works in Oakland County is
clearly needed to adequately protect the public health.
I trust these come/its will assist you in formulating your final rulamaking an
these matters. Please contact me if I can be of any assistance.
Sinwely,
DEM:h1..-1
cc: Oakland County Board of Commissioners
Chief Elected Officials of Oakland County's 61 communities
Michigan Congressional Delegation
Governor James Blanchard
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Air Quality Division
Jobal Atberger, Executive Director, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments
Randy Swisher, NACO, Project Director for Energy and Enviroment
#83124 May 5, 1983
5th this day of
LYNND. ALLEN, County Clerk/Re gister of De,
May 1983
Moved by Hobart supported by Rewold the resolution be adopted.
Discussion followed.
Vote on resolution:
AYES: Moffitt, Moore, Nelson, Olsen, Page, Perinoff, Pernick, Price,
Rewold, Wilcox, Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Doyon, Foley, Fortino, Geary, Gosling,
Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell, McDonald, McPherson. (27)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient Majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
1, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resoution8 dopted b the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
at their meeting held on May 5, 1983
with the original record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan