HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1994.06.09 - 24144BY:
RE:
June 8, 1994,
submitted its
June 8, 1994,
the SWPC and
with certain
Chairperson, on behalf of the Planning and Building Committee, I move
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
ING AND BUILDING COMMITTEE
Miscellaneous Resolution # 94171 June 9, 1994
Planning and Building Committee, Charles Palmer, Chairperson
Solid Waste Management: - Amendments to the
1990 Oakland County Solid Waste Plan Update
Basic Solid Waste Database
Inter County Flow Arrangements
Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity
Interim Siting Mechanism
Contingency Plan
Designation of Additional Disposal Capacity
TO THE OAKLAND COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS:
WHEREAS, this Board has reviewed the proposed amendments to the Oakland
County 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update (the "Plan Update)) as prepared
by the County Executive and approved by the Oakland County Solid Waste Planning
Committee (SWPC) on April 28, 1994, all in accordance with Act 641 of the Public
Acts of 1978, as amended (Act 641); and
WHEREAS, this Board by resolution adopted on May 26, 1994, noted a series
of objections to the proposed amendments and returned the amendments to the SWPC
with a request that the SWPC make its final recommendations to this Board by June
9, 1994, regarding the objections, as provided in Act 641; and
WHEREAS, the SWPC met on May 26, June 2, 1994 and again on
to consider this Board's objections to the amendments and has
written recommendations to this Board pursuant a resolution dated
from the Chairperson of the SWPC; and
WHEREAS, this Board has considered the recommendations of
deems it is necessary and advisable to approve the amendments
changes.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland County Board of Commissioners
hereby approves the amendments as issued on April 28, 1994, by the Solid Waste
Planning Committee with the changes described in the attached Appendix A.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments with the changes noted in
Appendix A shall be submitted first to Oakland County's 61 municipalities for
their approval and after receiving 67% affirmative responses (41 minimum), the
amendments shall be submitted to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for
its final approval.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the language of the attached Appendix B shall
be added to the Plan Update.
Appendix
SWPC Resolution
Responses of the Oakland County Solid Waste Planning Committee to the
Statement of Objections adopted by the Board of Commissioners on May 26, 1994
in re:
Recommended Amendments to the
1990 Solid Waste Management Plan Update
involving the
Solid Waste Database. Inter-County Flow Arrangments. Demonstration of
Available Disposal Capacity. Interim Siting Mechanism. Contingency Plan and
Designation of Additional Disposal Capacity
as adopted by the
Solid Waste Planning Committee
on April 28, 1994
As noted in the preamble of the resolution adopting the Statement of
Objections by the Board of Commissioners on May 26, 1994, MDNR has entered
into a "Stipulation and Order for Dismissal" dated November 10, 1993, in the
Ingham County Circuit Court which involved MDNR and Holly Disposal, Inc.,
MDNR used the stipulation to impose deadlines on the plan amendment process in
Oakland County. In important part, the stipulation noted that if the Board of
Commissioners did not approve a plan amendment containing an interim siting
mechanism which guaranteed that, if the need arises, a facility could be sited
in the County and subsequently release the plan amendment to the
municipalities by June 15, 1994; or if 67t of the municipalities did not
approve the plan amendments by July 31, 1994, the MDNR would mandate
appropriate corrections to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan within 6
months of the missed deadline. If 67t of the municipalities approve the plan
amendments and the Department is notified by July 31, 1994, the MDNR Director
will approve or disapprove the Plan Amendments within 60 days.
Given the time constraints imposed by the MDNR and the potential consequences
of inaction, the potential consequences of failure to meet the deadlines, the
Oakland County Solid Waste Planning Committee hereby responds to the Board of
Commissioners as follows.
A: First to the Subject of MDNR Comments:
(The following responses are keyed to the comment numbers contained in the May
24, 1994 letter from James E. Johnson, Solid Waste Management Unit, Waste
Management Division, MDNR to Roger J. Smith, P.E., Solid Waste Manager,
Oakland County. The fax cover sheet (date and time stamped on 5-24-94 @ 11:47
AM) from Mr. Johnson indicated that additional comments may be forthcoming
with regards to sole source aquifers. On the following day, Mr. Johnson
indicated by phone to Mr. Smith that no additional comments would be made.
1. Annual certifications of available disposal capacity. The SWPC concurs
with the MDNR suggestions. Suggested language clearly indicating that
the annual certifications and appropriate adjustments to the Solid Waste
Database, the Disposal Facility Inventory, the Inter-county Flows of Act
641 Wastes and the Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity do not
constitute Plan Amendments on their face - but only allow the County to
calculate its capacity needs and demonstrate available capacity based
on the latest and best available data and are not required to rely on
obsolete data contained in the plan documents is recommended for
addition. See attached exhibit.
2. Chapter 3 (Inter-County Flows of Act 641 Wastes) authorizes inter-county
flows from Oakland County to Washtenaw County in the maximum annual
amount of 2,000,000 gateyards (comprised of •a primary amount of
1,500,000 annual gateyards and a secondary amount of 500,000 annual
gateyards) and from Washtenaw County to Oakland County in the maximum
Appendix A - Page 1
annual amount of 750,000 gateya .rds. These authorized up-to levels are
correctly stated and no adjustments are required. MDNR's comments get
to the question of whether or not it is reasonable to assume that all of
the secondary authorized amount of up-to 500,000 annual gateyards should
be used in the calculations of available disposal capacity. This is
addressed in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 (Demonstration of Available Disposal Capacity) originally
claimed access to all of the secondary amount of 500,000 annual
gateyards. The SWPC recognizes MDNR's concerns for this first
demonstration of available disposal capacity as contained in the Plan
Amendment and recommends adjustment of the value to 250,000 annual
gateyards as suggested by MDNR. See Chapter 4 rewrite.
3. Prohibited Inter-county Flows: MDNR suggests a cautionary note that
unless inter-county flows are authorized in both the sending and
receiving county's approved plans in a like amount, flows beyond the
minimum amount authorized may not occur. It is recommended that
cautionary language be added. See attached exhibit.
4. Authorized Out-of-State Exports: The language contained in Chapter 3 as
originally written is appropriate. Oakland County authorizes the export
of any amount of Act 641 wastes generated in the county to any and all
out-of-state disposal facilities. It is recognized that in the annual
demonstration of available disposal capacity, should the County claim
access to this capacity for the purposes of determining sufficiency of
capacity reserves, that certain verifications of availability of this
disposal capacity would have to be provided. Oakland County currently
makes no such claims. No changes are required. Should such claims be
made, they would be contained in the Demonstration of Available Disposal
Capacity section of the annual certification. See attached exhibit.
5. Currently Demonstrated Volume Reduction Achievement Levels: Obviously,
the document as written did not contain sufficient information as to
current efforts nor did it properly convey the SWPC's viewpoint that
current VR levels projected flat across the entire planning period was
the final recommendation of the SWPC (as has been recently promulgated
by MDNR in other mandated plans and as is currently being used in the
Wayne County mandate). Additional support information and data could be
added by staff to the text, particularly as it relates to the
commercial and industrial waste stream components. However, upon review
of the support data contained in other approved plans, the MDNR seems to
be pressing hard. Caution has to be used regarding the language of the
new legislation as it may modify the originally intended approach. We
understand that the County Executive and the Board are continuing
negotiations with MDNR in Lansing on these critical points. See Chapter
4 rewrite.
6. Language which applies to Act 641 as it existed on the day the MDNR May
24. 1994 letter was written. MDNR has objected to narrative language
which supports the recent legislative package supported by Oakland
County. The SWPC is comfortable with Corporation Counsel's assurances
that suitable modifying language can be added to the final document.
See Chapter 4 rewrite.
7. Disposal Capacity Shortfalls: MDNR's comments are based upon erroneous
calculations and assumptions. The methods of calculating disposal
capacity shortfalls used by Oakland County staff and as contained in the
documents represent real world estimations of disposal capacity
shortfalls and should suffice in any litigation. Staff faxed material
to MDNR staff on May 31, 1994 which address this issue. No changes
beyond those associated with Washtenaw County noted above are required
and staff's viewpoints and advice as it relates to the on-going
negotiations with MDNR should be carefully sought. See Chapter 4
rewrite.
Appendix A - Page 2
8. U.S. Supreme Court Decision of June 1. 1992: The narrative could be
softened in the final rewrite. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
9. Final Determination of Consistency; The language should be adjusted as
suggested by MDNR. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
10. Language which uplies to Act 641 as it existed on the day the MDNR May
24. 1994 letter was written and i plied plan amendments. The SWPC is
comfortable with Corporation Counsel's assurances that suitable
modifying language can be added to the final document. See Chapter 5
rewrite.
11. Time line for default mode of review: Appropriate time lines for Board
of Commissioners actions in the event of defaults by the Solid Waste
Management Committee are contained elsewhere (Chapter 5, Page 10,
Finding of Consistency, Items I and II.) See Chapter 5 rewrite.
12. Design. hydrogeology. environmental monitoring and other Dermitting
issues deemed by MDNR to be solely their responsibility and any
references to County authority must be deleted: The SWPC takes great
exception with the broad assertions of MDNR staff that any item under
the Department's jurisdiction may not be contained within the interim
siting mechanism or that standards for facilities in Oakland County,
where because of the surficial geology, the groundwaters are
particularly susceptible to contamination, may not be established at a
level higher than acceptable Co the MDNR. The SWPC further takes
exception to the assertions of MDNR that they reviewed this issue during
their presentations to the SWPC in March, 1994. However, on advice of
Corporation Counsel, the SWPC reluctantly accedes on these points and
realizes that these issues may represent "fatal flaws" that could
conceivably result in disapproval of the plan amendment. The SWPC
recommends that all such language be retained in a special document to
display what was originally intended by the SWPC but that all such
language be removed from the document to the extent that Corporation
Counsel and staff believe that retention of same would cause disapproval
of the entire document by the MDNR. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
13. Required Geology / Hydrogeology: Maps should be included in the final
document. Oakland County staff has independently transmitted a copy of
the reference documents to MDNR for their verification. The SWPC takes
great exception with the broad assertions of MDNR staff that any item
under the Department's jurisdiction may not be contained within the
interim siting mechanism. See comments and recommendations in item 12
above. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
14. A Natural Areas Inventory of Oakland County: Oakland County staff has
independently transmitted a copy of the referenced documents to MDNR for
their verification. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
15. "Applicable law" is very vague: Corporation Counsel has advised that
the current language is acceptable. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
16. Local zoning ordinances: The SWPC recognizes the concerns that MDNR has
expressed on this issue and recommends that Criteria 8 on Page 29 be
amended as follows.
The facility shall meet all lawful ordinances, laws, rules,
regulations, policies, or practices of a municipality, of the
county, or of a governmental authority created by statute,
currently in existence or which may hereafter be enacted or
established that do not conflict with Act 641 [MCL 299.430 (4)].
Consistency cannot be denied based on any dicision making process
outside of the amended Solid Waste Management Plan or unless
otherwise expressly authorized by law. Also, see Chapter 5
rewrite.
Appendix A - Page 3
17. f-P gagt -M-1 . - ••-• S.. Sq - I ' It is
recommended that appropriate references be added to this section so that
issues unacceptable elsewhere are not inappropriately cross-referenced
in this section of the document where such items are used for site
scoring or ranking more than one site and the Committee's concerns
cannot be overlooked. An alternative would be to simply delete
references to Chapter 5 - Cl on page 34. See Chapter 5 rewrite.
18. Jkppendix - Act 641_ Excerpts: MDNR supplied staff with the version of
Act 641 (dated 1/31/94) and it is recommended that definition of Solid
Waste, Section 7.(1) be appropriately amended. See attached Exhibit.
second to the Subject of Additional Board ObjectionsL
(The following responses are keyed to the comment numbers contained in the May
26, 1994 Statement of Objections as adopted by the Board of Commissioners.)
For all recommendations except V, see Chapter 5 rewrite.
1. Chapter 3, Page 5
Use of landfill space in Canada should be permissible.
The SWPC agrees with the Planning and Building Committee.
2. Chapter 5, Page 8, Section IV, Item II
Add "by written communication" and add the Chairpersons of the Board of
Commissioners and the Planning and Building Committee.
The SWPC agrees with the Planning and Building Committee and
suggests that the potential host community's chief elected
official should be notified at the same time.
3. Chapter 5, Page 10, Item C
"Attempt to notify" shall include first-class mail and publication in an
area newspaper.
The SWPC agrees with the Planning and Building Committee.
4. Chapter 5, Pages 22-23, Secondary Criteria
Should residential land uses be listed as criteria for review?
The SWPC has reviewed this issue and finds that in a broad sense,
the specific inclusion of criteria based on residential land uses
is inherent by reference throughout the entire document, since any
man-made item, such as wells, etc. are based on the existence of
people. It is recommended that additionalcriteria not be added
at this late date.
5. Chapter 5, Part D, Supplemental Criteria:
Clarify the point System used in the site rankings.
The SWPC agrees with the Planning and Building Committee. It is
recommended that an example of how the scoring system would be
applied to the theoretical ranking of competing sites be added to
the final document.
Provide definitions for "Surficial geology." (Page 34)
The SWPC agrees that the definition of surficial geology may be
confusing and recommends that definitions drawn from the reference
.document in this section should be included in the final document.
(Mr. Carpenter cautioned that special care has to be taken with
regard to the permeability of the soil type in this rewrite.)
Appendix A - Page 4
Add municipal and commercial wells to the supplemental criteria.
The SWPC agrees that this issue could be added, and if so, that it
be added as a seventh Supplemental Criteria Category. It is
suggested that 10 points be assigned to this category and that the
total maximum points be increased to 110.
6. Add an Appendix Identifying those Areas of concern that Were Denied by
DNR - DNR NON-ACTION
The SWPC agrees with the motive behind such a strategy, to build a
record of attempts by the County to protect its citizens, to
provide a basis for future litigation, and to provide a guideline
for potential future applicants as to the wishes of the County,
regardless of MDNR's directions. The guidance of Corporation
Counsel is recommended on this issue. A free-standing document
incorporating all items removed from consideration by MDNR is
recommended which will display what the SWPC intentions were and
which will be available to accompany the plan amendments when they
are presented to the municipalities.
7. CHAPTER 6, PAGE 3 See attached Exhibit.
Add Canadian landfill sites
The SWPC agrees with the Planning and Building Committee.
8. Chapter 5, Item 14
Should the criteria relating to lakes and streams be ranked as a Primary
or Secondary item?
The SWPC recommends that this item remain as a Secondary item.
9. Chapter 5, Page 23
Should a new criteria relating to landfills within 1000 feet of the
calculated cone of depression of any well, public or private be added?
The SWPC has reviewed this item and finds that in other similar
county efforts, that the MDNR has ruled against such criteria as
being potentially exclusionary. Further, MDNR has regulated the
issue of isolation distances, see rules 299.4411 through 4418. It
is recommended that such a new criteria not be added.
Third to the Sakiect of Evolving Legislation:
The bills sponsored by Oakland County cleared the Senate on Wednesday, June 1,
1994 and will take immediate effect upon signature by the Governor. Operating
on the assumption that the bills will be in full effect on the date that the
document receives final approval by the MDNR Director, it is suggested that
the plan amendment be redrafted to cover the new legislation in its entirety.
Finally. to Editorial. Cross-Reference and Narrative Comments:
Due to the press of time and the continually emerging events concerning this
critical plan amendment, the actual narrative of the plan will have to be
rewritten over the next 6 days to incorporate the changes recommended above
and to incorporate the detailed advice of Corporation Counsel. The SWPC
Chairperson and the Chairpersons of the two SWPC sub-committees on Process and
Criteria herewith volunteer to work with the Board Chairperson or any other
designated representative as a editing panel to insure that the final copy
contains all appropriate revisions.
SWPC Resolution originally Adopted on June 2, 1994
SWPC Resolution Amended on June 8, 1994
Appendix A - Page 5
Appendix B
Recommended amendments to the 1990 Solid Waste Management Plan
Update dated December 16, 1993, April 14, 1994 and April 28, 1994
were prepared by the Designated Planning Agency and the Solid
Waste Planning Committee (SWPC). Those documents contained
elements designed to protect the citizens of Oakland County that
were deleted in the final amendment at the direction of the MDNR.
Both the SWPC and the Board of Commissioners note that, absent
the objections of the MDNR, all elements of the proposed plan
amendments from December 1993 through April 1994 would have been
made part of this final plan.
Resolution #94171 June 9, 1994
Moved by Palmer supported by Powers the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Garfield, Gosling, Huntoon, Jensen, Johnson, Kaczmar, Kingzett,
Law, McPherson, Miltner, Newby, Oaks, Obrecht, Palmer, Pernick, Powers,
Schmid, Taub, Wolf, Aaron, Crake, Dingeldey, Douglas. (23)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
I HERE6v/(0PFiOldfrIPFOREt.
L Brooks Pet; o717ounty Executive Date
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution is a true and accurate copy of a resolution adopted by the
Oakland County Board of Commissioners on June 9, 1994 with the original record
thereof now remaining in my office.
In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand andixed the seal ofAthe
un in County of Oakland at Pontiac, Michigan this 9th day of e 1--. /7/7 ,-
D. Allen, County Clerk
Appendix A - Page 7