![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Summary of Decision on Title VI Complaint Regarding Michigan Department of Environmental Quality's Permit for the Proposed Select Steel Facility
(Complaint File No. 5R-98-R5)
On October 30, 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Civil Rights issued its first substantive decision under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, as amended, and EPA's implementing regulations. The decision concerned an administrative complaint that alleged (1) that the issuance of a Clean Air Act Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the Select Steel Corporation of America for a proposed steel recycling mini-mill in Michigan would lead to a discriminatory impact on minority residents and (2) that the permitting process was conducted in a discriminatory manner. After reviewing all of the materials submitted and information gathered during the investigation, EPA found no violations of Title VI and EPA's implementing regulations.
In assessing the allegation regarding air quality impacts, EPA conducted two types of analyses--one examining airborne pollutants that are covered by a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and another for emissions of air toxics. The NAAQS are health-based standards that have been set at a level presumptively sufficient to protect public health and allows for an adequate margin of safety for the population within the area. For volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (which are covered by the ozone NAAQS) and lead, because both the NAAQS were met, and no contradictory evidence was uncovered to rebut the presumption, EPA did not find any affected population that suffers adverse impacts within the meaning of Title VI.
Moreover, for lead, EPA reviewed information developed by the state on airborne lead emissions from the proposed facility along with other available data on the incidence and likelihood of elevated blood lead levels in the county, particularly in the vicinity of the site of the proposed facility. Overall, EPA found no clear evidence of a prevalence of pre-existing lead levels of concern in the area most likely to be affected by lead emissions from the proposed facility. Furthermore, EPA concurred with the permitting authority's finding that lead emissions from the proposed facility would have at most a de minimis incremental effect on local mean blood lead levels and the incidence of elevated levels.
For air toxics emissions, which do not have a NAAQS, in addition to reviewing the state's air toxics analyses, EPA also considered the potential Select Steel air toxic emissions together with air toxic emissions from nearby facilities. EPA's review of air toxic emissions from both the proposed site alone, as well as in combination with other sources, found no adverse impact in the immediate vicinity of the proposed facility.
As to the public participation process issues, the Complainants raised concerns about the timing of the permit issuance, the use of a former state employee as a consultant by the facility, the notice for the hearing, and the location of the hearing. EPA found that the state satisfied all of their regulatory requirements and that the process was not discriminatory. Consequently, EPA did not find a violation of Title VI or EPA's regulations, and dismissed the complaint.