Joint Appendix — General Motors Corp. v. United States
Supreme Court brief1990
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
OcTOBER TERM, 1989
GENERAL Motors CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
v.
UnrTeED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
ON WPIT OF CERTIORARI TO
THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
JOINT APPENDIX
—_ EEE —————— ae
.
TuHEopore L. Garretr* Kennetu W. S7arR*
Sonya D. WINNER Solicitor General
Covincton & BURLING Department of Justice
| 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530
) P.O. Box 7566 (202) 633-2217
Washington, D.C. 20044 Counsel for Respondent
(202) 662-5398
Counsel for Petitioner
*Counsel of Record
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED SEPTEMBER 5, 1989
CERTIORARI GRANTED DECEMBER 4, 1989
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3. General Motors’ Statement of Material
Facts as to Which There Is No Genuine
Issue to Be Tried (September 18, 1987)
SESS EERE EEE ESSE EEE EE EEE EEE EEE EHR RE HERR RHEE e
4. Affidavit of William J. McFarland (Sep-
"5 yanieeaentinatrscdltettind
a. Exhibit A: Commonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, Office of the p~
Commonwealth, Regulation
, _ TT TE
. os 2 EPA, “ .
sions to Compliance Con-
trol of Volatile Compounds
from Automobile Plant Paint
a we Reg. 51368
d. Exhibit D: Letter from D.M. Aldorfer
to James Belsky (June 7, 1985) .........
14
17
41
Department
Contra A
30 , 46
f. Exhibit F: Letter
to Michael Deland
(December 985) 50
g. Exhibit G:
to F.
75
5.
&3
a9
91
6. Declaration of John J. Silvasi (October 21
SEUC) cscs 97
7. Declaration of Bruce A. Armstrong (Oc-
fF EE Ye 101
8. EPA, “Guidance on Processing SIP Re-
visions (And 111(d) Plans)” (excerpts)... 108
9. First Amended Complaint .................... 112
D. United States v. General Motors Corp., No.
87-2068-Mc (D. Mass. May 16, 1988) .......... 119
NOTICE
The opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for
the First Circuit, which is reported at 876 F.2d 1060, is
printed in the Appendix to the Petition for Certiorari and
is not reprinted here. -
GENERAL DOCKET
Unitep StTaTes Court OF APPEALS
FOR THE First CIRCUIT
CASE NO. 881799
United States of America,
v.
General Motors Corporation,
Date 1988 Filings— Proceedings.
Aug. 10 Record on appeal in one volume, received ar.d
filed. Case docketed and notices mailed.
(eml)
Sept. 20 Brief for appellant and appendix received and
filed. Notices mailed.
Oct. 20 _‘ Brief for General Motors Corporation, Appellee
received and filed. (bf)
Oct. 21 Brief of Amicus Curiae Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts received and filed. (bf)
Nov. 2 Reply brief for the United States received and
filed. (bf)
Dec. 29 Assigned for hearing at the January, 1989 ses-
sion. (jms)
Jan. 11 Heard before CH. J. Campbell, JJ. Coffin and
Torruella. (jms)
June 7 JUDGMENT: The judgment of the District
Court is reversed and the cause is re-
manded to the District Court for further
proceedings inconsistent with the
June 21
June 29
July 28
Sept. 12
Dec. 7
Dec. 28
JA- 2
Itemized and verified bill of costs in favor of
the appellant, received and filed. (Ip)
Mandate issued. Copy filed. Taxation of costs
filed. Original papers to follow. Notices
mailed. (pm)
Original papers returned to the district court.
(pm)
Notice of filing petition for certiorari to the
Supreme Court (89-369) September 5,
1989, received and filed. (cm)
Order from the Supreme Court granting the
petition for writ of certiorari (December
4, 1989) received and filed. (Ib)
Certified copies of proceedings in six volumes
sent to the Supreme Court (cm)
JA- 3
B. Relevant Docket Entries, United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts
Date:
Aug.17
8/29/87
SEP 4
SEP 4
SEP 18
SEP 18
SEP 25
OCT 1
Oct 20
03
04
07
08
10
11
87-2068-Mc
Proceedings
COMPLAINT filed. Summons, 18/ I is-
sued.
Consent Mtn for Extension of time
within which to file a responsive
pleading, up to and including 9/
18/87, filed.
Copy of Letter from Andrew S. Hoge-
land, AUSA, to Amy Woodward,
Esq., dated 9/3/87, filed, with at-
tachment.
Letter to court from Amy Woodward
as acknowledgment receipt of
mail, filed.
Deft. GMC Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alt. for SJ, filed, c/s.
Affidavit of William J. McFarland, filed,
c/s.
Memo in support of GMC Motion to Dis-
miss or in the Alt. for Summary
Judgment, filed, c/s.
Stipulation and Order Extending Time
for Response to GMC Motion to
Dismiss or for Summary Judg-
ment, filed, c/s.
McNaught, D.J. ORDER issued re # 6:
Approved by the Court...cc/cl.
OCT 22 14
OCT 22. 15
OCT 23. 17
NOV 4 18
NOV 4 19
NOV 4 20
NOV 4 21
NOV 6 22
NOV 16 23
NOV 16 24
NOV 16 25
NOV 13
NOV 13 26
JA- 4
Pitf’s motion to Amend Complaint, filed,
c/s.
Memorandum of Pitf in Support of Mo--
tion to Amend Complaint, FILED, C/S.
P’s Memo in Oppos. to Motion of GM
to Dismiss or in the Alternative
foe SJ, filed, c/s.
Letter to Ms. Johnson, from Amy
Woodward requesting oral ar-
gument after 11/16/87 re GM's
Motion to Dismiss or for Sum-
mary Judgment, filed.
Deft’s Response to Amended Complaint
by GMC, filed, ¢/s.
Deft. Motion for Leave to File Reply
memo filed, c/s.
Deft’s Response to motion for Leave to
File Amended Complaint, filed, c/s.
File referred to Magistrate Saris re 14
with memo in Support 15 and
##19 and 21 responses to Deft.
McNAUGHT, D.J. ORDER referring
file to Magistrate issued to par-
ties.
McNAUGHT, D.J. File referred to Mag-
istrate Saris for Rule 16(b)
Sched. Con. and all pretrial mat-
ters.
Reply Brief for Deft. GMC in Support
of its Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative for Summary Judg-
ment, filed, c/s.
SARIS, U.S.M. ORDER issued re #14:
Allowed....ce/cl.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT filed.
NOV 24 27
DEC 8 28
DEC 18 29
DEC 18 30
1988
JAN 4
JAN 5 31
JAN 13 33
JAN 15
JAN 15 34
MAR 9 35
JA- 5
SARIS, U.S.M. NOTICE OF SCHED.
SARIS, U.S.M. Order issued re #29:
Stipulation approved....ce/cl.
Pitf’s Memo in Oppos. to Motion of GM
to Stay Discovery and Proceed-
ings Before Magistrate, filed, /s.
GM Reply Memo in Response to P’s
memo in Oppos. to Motion to
SARIS, U.S.M. Order Issued re #32:
Motion Allowed.... cc/cl.
SARIS, U.S.M. Notice of Status Conf.
and D’s Motion to Stay Disc. and
Proc. set for Wed. 3/2/88 at
11:20 a.m. issued to parties.
Memo to Mary Johnson, Clerks, from
Ellen Hayes re Court’s consid-
eration of Docket #07, D’s Mo-
tion to Dismiss; Mag. Saris
allowed stay of proceedings
oe, disposition of motion,
MAR 11 36
MAY6 38
MAY 6 39
MAY 16 40
MAY 18
JUNE 1 40
JA- 6
MCNAUGHT, DJ. NOTICE OF
HEARING set for 5/6/88 at 9:30
a.m. re D’s motion #07....issued
to all parties.....c/ccl.
Letter to the Court from Atty. Reich,
Foley, Hoag, & Eliot re GM
pending M/Dismiss or in Alt. for
SJ dosing slip opinion, filed,
s.
McNAUGHT, D.J. Clerks Notes:
Counsel appear for hearing on
deft’s motion to dismiss or for
McNAUGHT, D.J. MEMO AND OR-
DER......D’s Motion for SJ is
CASE CLOSED.
McNAUGHT, D.J. JUDGMENT en-
tered....In accordance with the
Memo and Order dated 5/16/88
granting d’s motion for sj, it is
hereby ORDERED...... JUDG-
MENT for the Defendant.....cc/cl.
JA- 7
C. Relevant Pleadings, Motions, and Exhibits
1. Complaint (August 6, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. ,
87-2068-MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the United States of America (‘United
States’’), at the request of the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA’’), alleges
as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a civil action pursuant to Section 113(b) of
the Clean Air Act (“the Act’), 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), seek-
ing civil penalties for emissions of volatile organic com-
pounds (“VOC”) in violation of the Massachusetts State
mplementation Plan and the Act and injunctive relief
&
:
such emissions. :
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has } the subject matter of
this action pursuant to t Gustion bane of On Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
8. Section 10%a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 740%a), requires the Administrator of EPA (‘the Ad-
ministrator’’) to promulgate primary and secondary Na-
10. To achieve the NAAQS for ozone, Section 11a) of
the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a), requires each State to pro-
mulgate and submit to EPA for approval a State
mentation Plan (““SIP’’) containing regulations for reducing
emissions of air pollutants from sources within the State
that contribute to ozone formation. Each SIP is federally
enforceable, if approved. Each SIP is to achieve and main-
§ 7410, which in most cases must be no later
cember 31, 1982, and may not in any case be
December 31, 1987, 42 U.S.C. § 7502. In addition, each
SIP applicable to a “nonattainment area’’—an area where
EPA has determined that an air pollutant exceeds the
U.S.C. § 7502(b\2).
11. The entire stafe of Massachusetts is a nonattainment
area for the primary ozone NAAQS. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 81.322. VOCs are an “air pollutant,”’ as defined in Sec-
tion 302(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g), that contrib-
utes to ozone formation.
13. The Massachusetts automobile coating SIP provi-
sions provide in part:
(7) U Automobile Surface Coating. No person owning,
leasing, or controlling the operation of any automobile
assembly plant shall cause, aHow, or permit emissions
therefrom in excess of those emission limitations set
forth in the following table and within the time sched-
ules specified in the following table.
Emission Source Emission Limitations Compliance Date
Lbs. of volatile organic Achieve Full Compliance
compounds per gallon of with emission limitation
coating (excluding water)
at application
Topeoat application. 5a By December 31, 1979
flash off area, and 5.0° By December 31, 1982
oven and 2.8° By December 31, 1985
Final repair application. 48° By December 31, 1985
* Note. Comphance with these emission limitations shall be based upon an arith.
metic average of topcoat coatings and final repair coatings
14. The Massachusetts automobile coating SIP provi-
sions, as federally approved, apply and at all relevant times
16. Under Section 113(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(a\X1), if the Administrator of EPA finds a person
to be in violation of an applicable SIP
i
DEQE pursuant to Section 113(aX1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(aX1).
18. General Motors received the Notice of Violation on
August 18, 1986.
19. After September 17, 1986, VOC emissions from coat-
ings used on the topcoat and final repair coating lines at
the Framingham plant have continued to exceed the emis-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Piaieaitt
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
|
DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION'S
MOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
FOR
Defendant General Motors Corporation moves the Court
pursuant to Rules 12(b41) and (6) and 56 of the Federal
of
submits the accompanying memorandum, affidavit of Wil-
of ma-
i i ae
JA- 15
terial facts as to which there is no genuine issue to be
tried.
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to Rule 17(c) of the Rules of this Court,
COVINGTON & BURLING
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 7566
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 662-6000
Kenneth A. Reich
Amy Woodward
FOLEY, HOAG & ELIOT
One Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 482-1390
Attorneys for General Motors
Corporation
F JA- 16
Of Counsel:
William L. Weber, Jr.
Patrick J. McCarroll
Legal Staff
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48232
September 18, 1987
JA-17
3. General Motors’ Statement of Material Facts as to
Which There Is No Genuine Issue to Be Tried (Sep-
tember 18, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action
No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
Vv.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
GENERAL MOTORS’ STATEMENT OF MATERIAL
FACTS AS TO WHICH THERE IS NO GENUINE ISSUE
TO BE TRIED
Pursuant to Rule 18 of the Local Rules of this Court,
defendant General Motors Corporation (GM) submits the
following statement of material facts as to which there is
no genuine issue to be tried:
1. GM owns and operates an automobile assembly plant
in Framingham, Massachusetts—the only automobile as-
sembly plant in Massachusetts. Among the operations at
the Framingham plant are automobile painting. Complaint
q 7.
2. In May 1979, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
promulgated a regulation, 310 CMR 7.18(7), limiting emis-
sions of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) from auto-
mobile surface coating, including topcoat and final repair
painting operations. The original final compliance date in
JA- 18
this regulation for these operations was December 31, 1985.
Complaint 44 12, 13.
3. On October 20, 1981, EPA published a Clean Air Act
policy statement allowing for the deferral of the compli-
ance dates in State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations
for automobile painting operations. 46 Fed. Reg. 51386
(1981). (A copy of this EPA policy notice is attached as
Exhibit B to the Affidavit of William J. McFarland.)
4. In 1984, GM requested an extension to December 31,
1987, of the compliance deadline for its Framingham top-
coat and final repair paint operations. GM’s 1984 request
to the Commonwealth was based on proposed abatement
controls of its then-existing lacquer painting facilities. (A
copy of GM's November 20, 1984 request is attached as
Exhibit C to the McFarland Affidavit).
5. On June 7, 1985, GM informed the Commonwealth
of its plans to comply by replacing the existing topcoat
and final lacquer operations with a new lower-emitting
basecoat/clearcoat (BC/CC) enamel paint system. GM stated
that an extension of time until December 31, 1987, was
needed to allow construction of the new painting facilities.
(A copy of GM’s June 7, 1985 letter is attached as Exhibit
D to the McFarland Affidavit.)
6. Following a public hearing, the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts took final action on December 30, 1985,
amending 310 CMR 7.18(7) to extend the topcoat and final
repair automobile paint compliance deadline to August 31,
1987. (A copy of this amendment is attached as Exhibit
E to the McFarland Affidavit.)
7. On December 30, 1985, the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts submitted 310 CMR 7.18(7) to FPA for approval
as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). (A
copy of this December 30, 1985, SIP revision is attached
as Exhibit F to the McFarland Affidavit.)
JA- 19
8. GM continued to operate its then-existing topcoat and
final repair lacquer paint facilities until July 7, 1987, when
these paint facilities were permanently shut down. Mc-
Farland Affidavit, q 13.
taken no final action on the SIP revision to 310 CMR
7.18(7) submitted by the Commonwealth on December 30,
1985. Id, 4 14.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ .
Theodore L. Garrett
COVINGTON & BURLING
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
P.O. Box 7566
Washington, D.C. 20044
(202) 662-6000
Kenneth A. Reich
Amy Woodward
FOLEY, HOAG & ELIOT
One Post Office Square
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 482-1390
Attorneys for General Motors
Corporation
Of Counsel:
William L. Weber, Jr.
Patrick J. McCarroll
Legal Staff
General Motors Corporation
New Center One Building
3031 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, Michigan 48232
September 18, 1987
JA- 20
4. Affidavit of William J. McFarland
(September 16, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Civil Action No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
¥.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
City of Detroit )
County of Wayne ) $.S.:
State of Michigan )
AFFIDAVIT OF WILLIAM J. McFARLAND
William J. McFarland, being duly sworn, deposes and
states as follows:
1. I am a development engineer for the General Motors
Corporation Environmental Activities Staff in Warren.
Michigan. My responsibilities include advice and assistance
to GM in connection with compliance with federal and state
environmental requirements.
2. This affidavit is submitted in connection with United
States of America v. General Motors Corporation, USDC
D. Mass., Civil Action No. 87-2068 MC. I have personal
knowledge of the facts relating to this action.
3. GM owns and operates an automobile assembly plant
in Framingham, Massachusetts—the only automobile as-
sembly plant in Massachusetts. The assembly process at
z
.
|
3
|
qi
|
for
1985.
A.
5. On October 20, 1981, EPA published a policy state-
ment for the deferral of the RACT compliance dates in
State Implementation Plans (SIP) for automobile painting
operations. 46 Fed. Reg. 51386 (1981). The policy states
that compliance dates for automobile paint emission limits
may be deferred by the states until 1987 so that an orderly
national implementation effort to achieve final RACT com-
pian ene te Sees See ees See
industry was developing new lower-emitting coatings,
cluding basecoat/clearcoat (BC/CC), and that granting a
6. Pursuant to EPA's October 20, 1981 policy statement.
JA- 22
7. On June 7, 1985, GM informed the Commonwealth
of its plans to comply by replacing the then-existing lac-
quer painting operations at Framingham with a new, lower
emitting BC/CC enamel paint system. GM noted that the
new paint system would enable the plant to produce ve-
hicles with a finish quality competitive in the world mar-
ket. GM stated that an extension of time until December
31, 1987, was needed to allow for construction of the new
painting facilities. A copy of GM’s June 7, 1985 letter is
attached as Exhibit D.
8. On December 16, 1985, the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engi-
neering (DEQE) held a public hearing on its proposed
revision of 310 CMR 1.18(7) to extend the topcoat and
final repair compliance deadline to December 31, 1987. At
this hearing, GM requested approval of the proposed re-
vision. An EPA representative, the Chief of EPA State
Air Programs Branch, did not oppose the proposed revi-
sion but expressed reservations concerning emissions dur-
ing the extension and limits for the new paint facilities.
(See DEQE summary of hearings, included in Exhibit F.)
9. On December 30, 1985, the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts took final action amending 310 CMR 7.18(7) to
extend.the topcoat and final repair compliance deadline to
August 31, 1987. This date was based on GM’s statement
that it would shut down the then-existing lacquer paint
operations by August 31, 1987. A copy of this amendment
is attached as Exhibit E.
10. On December 30, 1985, the Commonwealth of Mas-
sachusetts submitted amended 310 CMR 7.187) to EPA
for approval as a SIP revision. The Commonwealth’s sub-
mission included a copy of the public notice, a certification
concerning the public hearing, a summary of testimony, a
decision memorandum, and the support document for the
revision. A copy of this December 30, 1985, SIP revision
is attached as Exhibit F.
JA- 23
11. On August 14, 1986, EPA issued a Notice of Vio-
lation to GM alleging that the Framingham plant was vi-
olating 310 CMR 7.18(7) as approved by EPA in 1980 and
1983. The Notice of Violation does not mention the De-
cember 30, 1985 revision of regulation 310 CMR 7.18(7)
by the Commonwealth. The Notice of Violation only ad-
dressed the then-existing lacquer paint operations; the new
BC/CC paint facilities were still under construction and
not in operation. A copy of the Notice of Violation is
attached as Exhibit G.
12. On September 9, 1986, EPA held a conference with
GM on the Framingham Notice of Violation. At the con-
ference, GM maintained it was in compliance with the
topcoat and final repair limitations contained in revised
310 CMR 7.18(7). GM stated that this revision was made
pursuant to and consistent with EPA’s October 20, 1981
policy. Furthermore, GM challenged the validity of the
Notice of Violation because of EPA’s failure to take final
action on revised 310 CMR 7.18(7) within four months as
required by the Clean Air Act.
13. Pursuant to revised 310 CMR 7.18(7), GM continued
to operate its then-existing topcoat and final repair lacquer
paint facilities until July 7, 1987, at which time such fa-
cilities were permanently shut down.
14. EPA has taken no final action on the SIP revision
to 310 CMR 7.18(7) submitted by the Commonwealth on
December 30, 1985.*
/s/ William J. McFarland
William J. McFarland
* On December 2, 1986, EPA published a proposed disapproval of.
the SIP revision. 51 Fed. Reg. 43394 (1986). EPA's notice states that
~ a deferral should be obtained by an enforcement order rather than a
SIP revision. In response, GM and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
submitted comments supporting the validity of the revision and re-
questing EPA approval.
JA- 24
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this 16th day of September, 1987
/s/ Mary de Freitas
Notary Public
MARY DE FREITAS
Notary Public Oakland County, Mich.
Acting in Wayne County
My Commission Expires December 11, 1990
JA- 25
a. Exhibit A: Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Office
of the Secretary of the Commonwealth, Regulation
Filing and Publication Form
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF THE COMMONWEALTH
REGULATION FILING AND PUBLICATION FORM
1. REGULATION CHAPTER NUMBER AND HEADING: 310
CMR 7.18: Air Pollution Control Regulations
2. NAME OF REGULATING AGENCY: Department of En-
vironmental Quality Engineering
3. READABLE LANGUAGE SUMMARY: (Categories of
persons, organizations, businesses affected, general
purposes and requirements of regulation)
These regulation amendments pertain to the control of
volatile compounds from certain source categories within
the state. Specifically they regulate the emission of -hy-
drocarbons from the following industrial processes: metal
furniture coating, metal can surface coating, large appli-
ance surface coating, magnet wire insulation coating, au-
tomobile surface coating, and solvent metal degreasing, as
well as petroleum marketing.
4. AGENCY CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Vaughan M. Steeves
Address: Room 320, 600 Washington Street, Boston, MA
02111 Phone: 727- 5246
5. PUBLICATION REFERENCE: Register Issue 159 Date:
5/24/79
JA- 26
6. EFFECTIVE DATE: When Published:
After Publication On:
A TRUE COPY ATTEST
/s/ Michael Joseph Connolly
MICHAEL JOSEPH CONNOLLY
SECRETARY OF STATE
DATE 5/24/79 CLERK C.M.
JA- 27
310 CMR 7.18: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
REGULATIONS
Volatile Organic Compounds
Section 7.18 U Volatile Organic Compounds.
(1) U Application.
(a) Section 7.18 in its entirety shall apply to solvent
metal cleaning; and facilities which emit volatile organic
compounds in the application of surface coating to auto-
mobiles, metal cans, metal furniture, large appliances, and
insulation of magnet wire.
(b) For the purposes of Section 7.18 in its entirety meth-
ane, ethane, 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (Methyl Chloroform), and
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113) shall be exempt”
(2) U Compliance with Emission Limitations
(a) Persons owning, leasing or controlling the operation
of any facility described in 310 CMR 7.18(3), 7.18(4),
7.18(5), and 7.18(6) shall achieve full compliance by July
1, 1980 with the regulatory emission limitation applicable
to such facility or take the actions shown below:
1. justify to the Department that additional time is
needed, and
2. submit a proposed plan and compliance schedule
for said facility to the Department not later than Jan-
uary 1, 1980.
Justification for additional time to comply with reg-
ulatory emission limitations, and submittal of proposed
plans and compliance schedules are subject to review
and approval by the Department and must provide
for compliance with applicable regulatory emission
limitations as expeditiously as practicable, but in no
case later than July 1, 1982.
All compliance schedules for process equipment re-
placement or modification, or installation of control
JA- 28
equipment shall provide for periodic increments of
progress including submittal of engineering plans, or-
dering of equipment after plan approval, installation
date after confirmation of order by the manufacturer,
and date by which the applicable regulatory emission
limitation will be achieved after equipment is in sat-
isfactory operation.
All compliance schedules based upon reformulation
shall provide for periodic increments of progress in-
cluding submittal of engineering plans, operating and
maintenance procedures, schedules for research and
development, purchase orders for reformulations,
commencement and completion of process modifica-
tions, and date by which regulatory emission limita-
tion will be achieved.
(b) Persons owning, leasing or controlling the operation
at a specific site location of any individual or combination
of coating lines described in 310 CMR 7.18(3) through
7.18(7), may for compliance with 7.18(2\a) and the emis-
sion limitations contained in 310 CMR 7.183) through
7.18(7) submit a proposed plan containing a mix of emis-
sion limits for such coating lines such that the total emis-
sions from all coating lines is less than or equal to the
sum of emissions that would result from each individual
coating line complying with the applicable emission limi-
tation contained in 310 CMR 7.18(3) through 7.18(7). Sub-
mittal of such a proposed plan is subject to review and
approval by the Department and must provide for com-
pliance consistent with Section 7.18(2a).
(c) For the purposes of 310 CMR 7.18 in its entirety
persons owning, leasing, or controlling any facility shall
upon request of the Department perform or have per-
formed, tests to determine compliance in accordance with
methods approved by the Department under the iSi
of 310 CMR 7.13. ——
JA- 29
(3) U Metal Furniture Surface Coating. No person own-
ing, leasing, or controlling the operation of any metal fur-
niture coating line shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit
emissions therefrom in excess of those emission limitations
set forth in the following table and within the time sched-
ules specified in 310 CMR 7.18(2).
(7) U Automobile Surface Coating. No person owning,
leasing, or controlling the operation of any automobile as-
sembly plant shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions
therefrom in excess of those emission limitations set forth
in the following table and within the time schedules spec-
ified in the following table.
Table 5
Emission Limitations
Automobile Surface Coating
U Volatile Organic Compounds
Emission Source Emission Limitations Compliance Date
Lbs. of volatile organic com- Achieve Full Compliance with
pounds per gallon of coating emission limitation
(excluding water) at applica-
tion :
Prime application, flash
off area, and oven 2.1 By July 1, 1979
and 12 #£By December 31, 1982
Primer-surfacer application
flash off area, and oven 3.0 By December 31, 1980
and 28 By December 31, 1985
Topcoat application
flash off area, and oven 5.8° By December 31, 1979
5.0° By December 31, 1982
and 2.8° By December 31, 1985
flashoff area, and oven 4.8° By December 31, 1985
Analytical methods for comparison with these limitation must be conducted in
accordance with ASTM D 1475-60, and/or ASTM D 1644- 59 (Method A only),
and/or ASTM D 2369-73, and/or Federal Standard 14la, Method 4082.1, and/
or any other method(s) which has been correlated to the above method(s) to the
satisfaction of the Department.
JA- 30
b. Exhibit B: EPA, “Approval of Revisions to Compli-
ance Schedules for Control of Volatile Organic Com-
pounds from Automobile Assembly Plant Paint Shop
Operations,’’ 46 Fed. Reg. 51368 (1981)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
(AD, FRL 1860-6]
Approval of Revisions to Compliance Schedules for Con-
trol of Volatile Organic Compounds From Automobile
Assembly Plant Paint Shop Operations
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Policy statement.
SUMMARY: On April 13, 1981, the Agency published a
notice of intent to implement a number of actions to re-
duce the regulatory burden on the motor vehicle industry.
Item 17 in this notice involved exploring with States the
deferral of certain compliance dates for paint shop oper-
ations.
. This notice establishes the criteria the Agency will apply
in reviewing modifications to the existing State compliance
schedules for these paint shop operations. States are ad-
vised that the Agency will consider the following types of
revisions to their State Implementation Plan (SIP):
1. For electrophoretic deposition process (EDP) opera-
tions—compliance date extensions to 1984 to allow the
postponement of significant capital expenditures; deferral
up to 1987, if necessary, to implement alternative com-
pliance techniques or if additional time will eliminate sig-
nificant costs.
2. For prime-surfacer operations—deferral to follow in-
stallation of EDP.
JA- 31
~
3. For topcoat—deferral of compliance with topcoat
emission limits until 1986/1987.
The Agency also commits to study in 1984 any specific
problems which arise with these topcoat limits and, at that
time, will provide additional information to the States for
use in evaluating alternative emission limits which may be
appropriate. Also, to resolve several areas of confusion in
new source review, the Agency provides clarification that
lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) and best available
technology (BACT) determinations should recognize any
innovative technology waivers that are granted and clar-
ifies that offsets need not necessarily be required from a
source if reasonable further progress toward attainment
can be maintained.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cal-
cagni, Control Programs Development Division (MD-15),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, telephone: (919) 541-5663.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the impact of
the implementation of regulations to control volatile or-
ganic compounds (VOC) from automotive assembly plant
paint shop operations. The Agency has concluded that this
delay may ultimately result in more cost-effective compli-
ance with these limitations and, in most cases, can be
implemented without jeopardizing the attainment of the
ambient air quality standard for ozone by the statutory
attainment date. EPA has discussed this policy with rep-
resentatives of the affected States. Where States agree
with the Agency's findings and submit revisions of their
State Implementation Plans (SIPs) consistent with the cri-
teria discussed below, the Agency will approve these sched-
ules as being as expeditious as practicable. However, it
should be noted that SIPs will need to assure continued
compliance with the statutory portions of Sections 110 and
172 of the Clean Air Act. These revisions will need to be
JA- 32
evaluated in light of their impact on the overall plan and
the individual elements, including emission reductions nec-
essary to demonstrate reasonavie further progress toward
attainment of standards. steal
Electrophoretic Deposition Process
Most plants already have plans to install the electro-
phoretic deposition process (EDP) for priming of vehicles
because of its contribution to improved product quality as
well as emission control. The majority will be in place by
1982. However, the capital investment to convert from
spray prime to this process is quite large (estimated to be
$10-$20 million per facility and perhaps significantly
greater for some specific situations). Of course, in some
Instances compliance may be accomplished with techniques
or processes not requiring EDP.
Where significant capital expenditures can be deferred
through the postponement of the installation of these sys-
tems for the next two years, the Agency would find such
schedule changes appropriate. Allowing time for installa-
tion, the final compliance date generally sh
than the end of 1984. “6 y Chews net be later
In a few specific circumstances such as a lant whi
is scheduled for renovation or closing in the hall» few eee
or a plant applying an alternative compliance technique,
Significant expense can be eliminated (not just postponed)
by the deferral of the present compliance date. In cases
where substantial costs can be eliminated, it would be
appropriate to allow the auto industry to postpone these
expenditures beyond 1984. The Agency does not expect
any plant compliance schedule for the installation of EDP
to extend beyond 1987.
Prime Surfacer
Where EDP is used, water-borne primer surfacer or ji
its
equivalent can be phased in. However, where conventional
spray priming is used, some firms have experienced prob-
~~: —
JA- 33
lems in obtaining the necessary quality level in the primer
coating. Accordingly, in plants scheduled to install EDP,
the deferral of the conversion to water-borne primer sur-
facer or its equivalent to follow the EDP installation should
be considered appropriate.
Topcoat
The basis used to establish reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for topcoating of automobiles and light
trucks is the level of emission-control achievable through
the use of a water-borne coating. This is generally ac-
knowledged to be a coating with 2.8 lb/gal solvent (less
water) applied with a transfer efficiency of 30 percent.
Because of the costs of retrofitting a plant to this tech-
nology and numerous product-related decisions, most au-
tomotive firms are pursuing alternative techniques to
achieve an equivalent level of emission control. These in-
clude combinations of: improved transfer efficiency, coat-
ings with higher solids content (less solvent), collection and
recovery of spray booth emissions, and the installation of
incinerators and/or heat recovery features on the exhaust
gases from the curing ovens. The most desirable combi-
nation of these control techniques will vary from plant to
plant. However, it now appears that the most cost-effective
approach will always include use of a higher solids organic
solvent coating (rather than a water-borne) when it can
be incorporated without extensive facility modification.
Although coatings with the requisite solids content have
not yet been fully commercialized, significant development
efforts are underway to lower the solvent content of coat-
ings in use. The Agency expects that the further devel-
opment which will take place during the next few years
will allow the industry to minimize or avoid altogether the
need to rely on non-coating alternatives to achieve water-
borne equivalence. Accordingly, EPA will approve any
State-submitted schedule modifications which postpone fi-
nal compliance with the emission limits for topcoat oper-
JA- 34
ations to the end of 1986 to allow for further development
of coating technology. Such delays will allow more cost-
effective compliance techniques to be used. In order to
follow an orderly implementation effort nationally, some
plants are expected to need until 1987 to achieve final
compliance. States should consider these requests in light
of the individual States circumstances.
A segment of the industry has expressed concern with
the significant cost of add-on control equipment which
would be required should this coating technology not be
commercialized prior to the final compliance date. While
there is a significant basis for confidence that appropriate
coatings will be available in a timely fashion, the Agency
will continue to monitor the applicability of this technology
to individual industry situations. Should problems arise, the
Agency will reconsider the available technology prior to
the end of 1984 in light of industry capabilities at that
time.
The industry is also concerned with the expense of in-
corporating this new coating technology in plants which
now have relatively short ovens and spray booths. The
application of RACT in such plants will need to recognize
on a case-by-case basis the cost imposed by such physical
limitations. The Agency does not interpret that RACT re-
quires major reconstruction of ovens or booths. If use of
water-borne coatings (or equivalent emission control) can-
not be achieved without major reconstruction, then RACT
should be interpreted as the use of the highest solids coat-
ings and the highest available transfer efficiency appro-
priate for the facility. Since new low-emitting coatings are
now being developed, additional information will be avail-
able by 1984 upon which to base modifications to emission
limitations for — operations at plants with relatively
short ovens and spray booths. The Agency will work with
States to address this circumstance as part of the evalu-
ation of coating technology discussed above.
JA- 35
Between now and 1986 a significant number of existing
plants will be making major modifications to meet product
needs. The Agency does not recommend that States im-
pose interim emission pn ony these oreo —
the indu should be permi to concen .
pliance wits ultimate emission limits. Efforts should be
made, however, to assure that the facilities do not increase
emissions in this interim period and that any major mod-
ifications made to the physical plant incorporate in the
design the capability for the plant to subsequently adopt
the new low solvent coatings in the yes a seem
ifically, plants which propose to r their spray-
ne a Pe to scoutnaiians the basecoat/clear coat
paint system or other technology should be required to
assure that such modifications will permit subsequent adop-
tion of the new generation of low solvent coatings.
New Source Review
There are two new source review (NSR) procedures
which may be applicable to an individual surface coating
operation renovation: standards of performance for new
stationary sources required under Section il of the Act
(NSPS) and preconstruction review requirements under
either Part C or D of the Act. Based on the discussion
below, the proposed schedules for applying clear coating
which meet the SIP criteria discussed in this notice can
also be allowed within the regulatory options allowed to
the reviewing authority under NSR.
Section 111(j) of the Act allows EPA with the consent
of the Governor of the State to grant waivers from the
applicable NSPS if any requested waiver would meet cer-
tain tests. Based on section 111(j) criteria, the Agency
expects to evaluate individual company requests for waiv-
ers to allow the use of basecoat/clear coat systems. Thus,
if a section 111(j) waiver is granted, new basecoat/clear
JA- 36
coat operations will generally not have to meet the ap-
plicable NSPS upon startup.
The phased use of clear coat when it takes place at a
new plant in a clean air area is subject to Part C pre-
construction review. Where no new violations of the
NAAQS would result from the construction of the new
automotive plant and the BACT requirement is met by
innovative control technology waiver, the Administrator
believes that construction of new plants developing base-
coat/clear coat technology should not be barred by PSD.
Part D of the Clean Air Act affects major construction
projects in areas designated as nonattainment and with
approved SIPs which demonstrate attainment by the pre-
scribed time. The requirements of this preconstruction re-
view are identified in section 173. Clarification is needed
as to how two of the major requirements of section 173
can be met by new plants using basecoat/clear coat tech-
nology. These requirements are that any proposed major
construction install controls so as to meet the lowest
achievable emission rate (LAER), and secure sufficient
emissions offsets so as to not jeopardize reasonable further
progress in attaining the applicable NAAQS.
For those construction projects that would be subject
to Part D NSR, the proposed evolution of clear coating
technology appears to meet the intent of the LAER re-
quirement. The Administrator feels that any system which
offers the potential of providing greater emission reduc-
tions at less cost than current LAER technology should
be encouraged. Thus, EPA would encourage any State
LAER decision allowing for the evolution of clear coating
technology which is consistent with the conditions of the
111) waiver.
While the State must also require the proposed source
to secure enough offsetting emission reductions so that
reasonable further progress (RFP) is maintained, the State
has considerable flexibility in ensuring that RFP will be
+b net
|
JA- 37
achieved. The State has the option of accommodating any
or all of the emissions from the new plants by emissions
reductions achieved through the allocation of expected re-
ductions from existing plants in the same area. For ex-
ample, the State could require the new plant to offset only
those emissions which will occur after the clear coating
technology is in place and assure RFP by applying reduc-
tions obtained from other sources in the area during the
phase-in period for this technology.
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA must judge whether
a rule is ‘‘Major’’ and therefore subject to the requirement
of a Regulatory Impact Analysis. This action is not Major
because it is not expected to result in increased costs for
the regulated community or for consumers. This action
provides States information on the approvability of the
extension of certain compliance schedule dates for auto-
mobile assembly plant paint shop operations.
This policy statement was submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget for review under Executive Or-
der 12291.
Dated: October 9, 1981.
Anne M. Gorsuch,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 81-30433 Filed 10-19-81; 8:45 am}
—— JA- 38
c. Exhibit C: Letter from David M. Aldorfer to Kenneth
A. Hagg (November 20, 1984)
[GM Square Logo] Environmental Activities Staff
General Motors Corporation
General Mccors Technical Center
30400 Mound Road
Warren, Michigan 48090-9015
November 20, 1984
Mr. Kenneth A. Hagg, Director
Division of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
One Winter Street
Boston, MA 02108
—. General Motors-Framingham Plant VOC Compliance
an
Dear Mr. Hagg:
Volatile organic compound emissions from automobile sur-
face coating operations at the General Motors-Framingham
plant are regulated under Massachusetts 310 CMR 7.18(7).
This regulation includes organic solvent content limits of
2.8 lb VOC per gallon (minus water) for topcoat and 4.8
lb VOC per gallon for final repair coatings, both to be
met by December 31, 1985.
The purpose of this letter is to propose an abatement
program to achieve equivalent levels of emission control,
instead of making the major process changes to entirely
different coating materials that would be required to com-
ply with these limits directly. To accomplish this program,
General Motors requests the cooperation of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Quality Engineering by amending
310 CMR 7.18(7) to extend the final compliance dates for
these two operations from December 31, 1985 to December
31, 1987, and by establishing alternative increments of
progress for this program, as follows:
_ a ee a er
JA- 39
Submit engineering plans 8/1/85
Order equipment 9/16/85
Begin construction 1/15/86
Achieve final compliance 12/31/87
As described in the attachment, the program includes both
spraybooth and oven exhaust controls. Incinerators will be
in place on the primer-surfacer oven by the end of 1985.
This will make the primer-surfacer operation compliant
with the RACT emission limit for this process by Decem-
ber 31, 1985, as required in 310 CMR 7.18(7). Installation
of oven exhaust controls in the topcoat system, which is
the first necessary element in reducing VOC emissions to
meet the topcoat RACT standard, will be complete by the
end of 1986. The increments of progress proposed above
are keyed to the spraybooth controls that will also be
needed to achieve compliance in the topcoat system.
General Motors proposes to retain lacquer repair coatings,
in order to maintain compatibility with the topcoat ma-
terials, and to reduce mass VOC emissions from the top-
coat system by enough to include the increment that would
correspond to meeting the 4.8 lb VOC per gallon limit in
the final repair process. Lacquer repair coatings cannot
be formulated to meet the 4.8 lb VOC per gallon limit for
this process, which is based on enamel repair materials.
In the interim, General Motors proposes to meet a 5.2 lb
VOC per gallon limit for topcoat, and 6.5 lb VOC per
gallon for final repair, both of which represent arithmetic
averages across the color range of the coatings now in
use. ,
The attached document explains in greater detail the ra-
tionale for the proposed abatement program and the need
for additional time to complete it. We will be pleased to
meet with you and your staff to discuss this proposal, and
would like to suggest December 12 or 13, 1984, if your
JA- 40
schedule permits. Please call me at 313-575-8609 to let me
know if one of these dates is acceptabl
would be preferable. —
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Very truly yours,
/s/ David M. Aldorfer
David M. Aldorfer
Manager, Air Pollution Control
GM Environmental Activities Staff
| Plant Environment
cc:Michael Maher
JA- 41
d. Exhibit D: Letter from D.M. Aldorfer to James Bel-
sky (June 7, 1985)
[GM Square Logo]
Warren, Michigan 48090-9015
June 7, 1985
Mr. James Belsky
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Air Quality Contfl
5 Commonwealth Avenue
Woburn, MA 01801
Dear Mr. Belsky:
Since our meeting of January 4 to discuss the abatement
program that we had proposed for the General Motors
Framingham Assembly Plant, a total re-evaluation of the
plant’s situation has occurred. This has led to a major
change in the manner in which GM proposes to comply
with the VOC emission limits for topcoat and final repair
operations. General Motors now is planning to replace the
current lacquer topcoat and final repair systems with new
facilities to use basecoat/clearcoat enamel coatings as the
compliance strategy, rather than abating the current lac-
quer system.
The new paintshop will enable the plant to produce ve-
hicles with a finish quality competitive in today’s world
market, and is consistent with the trend in the entire
domestic auto industry to adopt the basecoat/clearcoat
process. Further, it is consistent with the rationale ex-
pressed in the October 20, 1981 U.S. EPA policy statement
regarding the extension of original topcoat compliance
dates for the purpose of developing and introducing new
coating technology, thereby minimizing or avoiding the
need for non-coating alternatives.
JA- 42
To accomplish this program and demonstrate compliance,
major construction of new paint facilities is required, which
is expected to take 31 months to complete. Thus, the ne-
cessity for the extension of the current compliance dates
for topcoat and final repair operations from December 31,
1985 to December 31, 1987, as previously requested, re-
mains. After discussing the project scope and timing with
you, we will develop and submit new dates for increments
of progress appropriate for this program.
In the interim, General Motors proposes to meet a 5.2 lb
VOC per gallon limit for topcoat, and 6.5 lb VOC per
gallon for final repair, both of which represent arithmetic
averages across the color range of the coatings now in
use.
The following information is provided to demonstrate that
using topcoat materials that average 5.2 lb VOC per gal-
lon, in conjunction with the spray efficiency improvement
from installing automatic electrostatic spray equipment,
does not result in emissions exceeding the equivalent of
the 5.0 lb VOC per gallon interim emission limit.
The interim limit of 5.0 was proposed by GM in its 1978
national paint compliance plan, to represent a nominal 27
percent volume solids lacquer chemistry. This value was
based on information then available about this coating
chemistry, which was still in development, and not in pro-
duction use, at that time. In production use, average VOC
for this generic type of dispersion lacquer is about 0.2 Ib
per gallon higher. For this evaluation, data from Dupont,
one of the three major suppliers of dispersion lacquer, was
used. Information supplied for 1984 model year colors
showed an average of 5.22 lb VOC per gallon/26 percent
volume solids. Compared on the basis of lb VOC per gallon
of solids, these parameters indicate about 9 percent higher
average VOC than the 5.0/.27 ratio - 20.1 vs 18.5.
ee
JA- 43
The offsetting effect of the spray efficiency improvement
can be evaluated by comparing topcoat usage per car be-
fore and after the conversion to electrostatic spray equip-
ment. The reduction in solvent emission potential is airectly
proportional to the reduction in exterior paint usage, ex-
pressed in average gallons per car.
Average usage per car is tracked by the plant on a monthly
basis. It varies slightly from month to month, but was
running about 2.4 gallons per car for exterior coatings at
the Framingham plant before the automatic electrostatic
spray machines were installed. Since the conversion, ex-
perience ranges from 2.06 to 2.15, or an apparent reduc-
tion in the range of 11 to 14 percent. This reduction more
than offsets the 9 percent higher emission potential for
the 5.22 average VOC content.
Since variations in monthly average coating usage per car
ean reflect changes in other factors besides transfer ef-
ficiency, such as slight variations in dry paint film thick-
ness, it is useful to estimate the reduction in paint usage
at constant film thickness, and then to compare the result
to the reduction noted in average monthly usage per car.
This gives a cross check on the results of the first method.
This cross check was done by using a mathematical model
of the topcoat system to estimate the gallons of paint
sprayed hourly. All factors were held constant, except the
values of transfer efficiency for the automatic spray ma-
chines involved in the conversion. A value of 65 percent
was used to represent the electrostatics now in use, versus
45 percent to represent the air-atomized spray machines
replaced by the electrostatics. The model weights the ef-
fect of these devices in with all the other spray equipment
in the topcoat process, according to the volume of paint
solids applied hourly with each type of spray equipment.
Hourly paint consumption estimated in this way was 144
gallons with the electrostatics, and 162 gallons with the
previous conventional air spray machines. The difference
JA- 44
is 12 percent, which compares reasonably well with the
savings observed so far in monthly average paint usage
per car.
The results of this model also were used to estimate
weighted average transfer efficiency for the entire topcoat
process. This is the ratio of the volume of coating solids
applied to a product to the volume of coating solids con-
sumed in the process.
Ratioing the volume of applied topcoat solids versus the
two volumes of solids sprayed, first with and then without
the automatic electrostatics, yields weighted average trans-
fer efficiences of 45 percent and 40 percent respectively.
The latter value represents the baseline for translating the
5.0 lb VOC per gallon interim limit into an equivalent
expression in lb VOC per gallon of applied coating solids.
Dividing 5.0 first by the volume fraction solids (0.27) and
then by baseline transfer efficiency (0.4) yields an equivalent
of 46.3 lb VOC per gallon of applied solids. Using the same
technique, 5.22/0.26 coatings sprayed at 45 percent transfer
efficiency yields 44.6, which again shows that the improved
spray efficiency offsets the higher VOC level.
It is necessary to use these comparisons, because there
are no field measurements of Framingham topcoat transfer
efficiency before and after converting to the automatic
electrostatics. The validity of the model is supported by
comparing the overall efficiency it predicts for Fra-
mingham with measured results from the Fairfax, Kansas
plant, which also uses dispersion lacquer and automatic
electrostatics in its topcoat process. Fairfax results were
in the 48-53 percent range, spraying a longer and wider
car body, with proportionally larger body surface areas
being sprayed electrostatically. Better efficiency is ex-
pected because of the larger target areas at Fairfax for
its electrostatics. Considering the size difference between
the cars, the Framingham transfer efficiency seems rea-
sonable in comparison.
JA- 45
While none of these comparisons might be conclusive by
themselves, together they support a level of paint and
emissions savings via improved transfer efficiency that off-
sets the difference between 5.2 and 5.0 lb VOC per gallon
in the topcoat. On this basis, General Motors believes there
is adequate justification to consider the present system
compliant on an equivalent basis with the 5.0 limit.
We would appreciate the opportunity to meet with you
soon to discuss this program in detail. I will call to arrange
a mutually satisfactory date.
Sincerely,
/s/ David M. Aldorfer
D. M. Aldorfer
Manager, Air Pollution Control
Environmental Activities Staff
JA- 46
e. Exhibit E:- Commonwealth of Massachusetts, De-
partment of Environmental Quality Engineering, Di-
vision of Air Quality Control, ‘‘Amendments to
Regulation 310 CMR 7.18(7)”” (December 30, 1985)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Air Quality Control
One Winter Street, Boston 02108
S. RUSSELL SYLVA
Commissioner
December 30, 1985
Honorable Michael Joseph Connolly
Secretary of the Commonwealth
State House
Boston, Massachusetts 02133
Dear Secretary Connolly:
Attached for filing, in compliance with General Laws,
Chapter 30A, are two attested copies of an amendment
to this Department’s Air Pollution Control Regulations,
310 CMR 7.18(7), which are being promulgated pursuant
to the authority granted by General Laws, Chapter 111,
Section 142 A - 142 E.
This amendment is to take effect January 1, 1986.
I hereby attest that the attached are true copies of this
amendment. 3
Very truly yours,
/s/ Bruce K. Maillet
Bruce K. Maillet
Acting Director
Division of Air Quality Control
BKM/EVR/ch
:
JA- 47
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ENGINEERING DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
ONE WINTER STREET
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02103
AMENDMENTS TO
REGULATION 310 CMR 7.18(7)
FOR
THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
IN THE
BERKSHIRE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
PIONEER VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
MERRIMACK VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
METROPOLITAN BOSTON AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
M.G.L. C. 111, Section 142A-142E
JA- 48
Please note:
310 CMR 7.18 is hereby amended by striking out the
Compliance Dates for Topcoat application and Final repair
application (December 31, 1985) and inserting in place
thereof the date August 31, 1987.
The changes to the regulation are identified by bold
print. 310 CMR 7.13: U Volatile Organic Compounds
(7) U Automobile Surface Coating. No person owning,
leasing, or controlling the operation of any automobile
assembly plant shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit emis-
sions therefrom in excess of those emission limitations
set forth in the following table and within the time
schedules specified in the following table.
Table 5
Emission Limitations
Automobile Surface Coetings
U Volatile Organic Compounds
Emission Source Emission Limitations Compliance Date
Lbs. of volatile organic Achieve full Compliance
compounds per gallon of with emission limitation
coating (excluding water)
at application
Primer application flash 2.1 By July 1, 1979
off area, and oven and 1.2 By December 31, 1982
Primer-surfacer applica- 3.0 By December 31, 1980
tion, flash off area, and and 2.3 By December 31, 1985
oven
Topeoat application 5.3° By December 31, 1979
flash off area, and 5.0° By December 31, 1982
oven and 2.8° By August 31, 1987
Final repair application
flash off area, and oven 4.8° By August 31, 1987
: JA- 49
. Note: Compliance with these emission limitations shall be based upon an anth-
metic average of topcoat coatings and final repair coatings.
The Department may issue such orders and establish such
interim deadlines that it deems necessary.
JA- 50
f. Exhibit F: Letter from S. Russell Sylva to Michael
Deland (with attachments) (December 30, 1985)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
One Winter Street, Boston 02108
S. RUSSELL SYLVA
Commissioner
December 30, 1985
Michael Deland
Administrator, Region I
Environmental Protection Agency
J.F.K. Federal Building
Bo:ton, Massachusetts 02203
Re: Approval of Revisions to
Massachusetts Implementation
Plan. SIP #8502
310 CMR 7.18(7)
Dear Mr. Deland:
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
hereby submits for your review nendments to 310 CMR
7.18(7) of the Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Regu-
lations.
The amendment to the regulations will allow the General
Motors facility in Framingham more time for installation
of new topcoating technology. The SIP revision allows the
existing topcoat and final repair operations to continue
while the paintshop that will house the new basecoat/clear-
coat topcoating operation is constructed. A permit will be
issued to allow the installation of the new low emission
topcoating operation.
The Division of Air Quality Control respectfully submits
for your approval amendments to 310 CMR 7.18(7) of the
on ew A
- —
JA- 51
Regulations for Control of Air Pollution in the Berkshire,
Central Massachusetts, Merrimack Valley, Metropolitan
Boston, Pioneer Valley, and Southeastern Massachusetts
Air Pollution Control Districts.
The Division encloses for your consideration the follow-
ing:
1. A copy of the public notice.
2. A certification:
a. that the public hearing was held in accordance
with the public hearing requirements,
b. of the dates that the public notices were published,
c. of the newspapers in which the notices were pub-
lished,
d. of the dates on which notices to EPA, local and
out-of-state air pollution agencies were mailed,
e. of the date, time and place at which the public
hearing was held, together with a statement that
it was in conformance with the foregoing notices.
3. A summary of written and oral testimony presented
at the public hearing and a copy of the written tes-
timony.
4. A copy of the recommendations of the Director of
the Division of Air Quality Control to the Commis-
sioner of the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering regarding this regulatory revision (De-
cision Memorandum dated December 30, 1985)
5. A copy of the Support Document for the proposed
regulation amendment.
Unedited tape recordings of the hearings are available
for inspection by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
is of the opinion that this action is in conformance with
JA- 52
the provisions of the Clean Air Act, has been adopted
after compliance with all applicable requirements and will
contribute to the attainment and maintenance of the Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standards.
It is therefore recommended that the amendments to
310 CMR 7.18(7) of the Regulations for Control of Air
Pollution in the Berkshire, Central Massachusetts, Merri-
mack Valley, Metropolitan Boston, Pioneer Valley, and
Southeastern Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Districts
be approved as a revision to the Massachusetts State Im-
plementation Plan.
Very truly yours,
/s/ [illegible signature]
S. Russell Sylva
[Acting] Commissioner
SRS:EVR:dep
Enclosures
. PUBLICATION: Massachusetts Register Number
7. EFFECTIVE DATE:
. FISCAL EFFECT STATEMENT Section 5: Estimate of
JA- 53
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Secretary of State
REGULATION FILING AND PUBLICATION
. REGULATION CHAPTER NUMBER AND HEADING: 310
CMR 7.187): Air Pollution Control Regulations
. NAME OF AGENCY: Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
. READABLE LANGUAGE SUMMARY: State the general
purposes and requirements of this regulation as well as
the process, organizations and businesses affected.
The amendment to the regulations will allow the Gen-
eral Motors facility in Framingham more time for in-
stallation of new low-emission topcoating technology.
. AGENCY CONTACT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
Karen Reed Address: Division of Air Quality Control,
DEQE Telephone 229-5630 One Winter Street, 8th
Floor, Boston, MA 02108
. STATUTORY AUTHORITY: M.G.L. c. 111 s. 142A-142E
The Regulations Division will complete the following 6.
and 7.
Date
ume
Code of Massachusetts Regulation Vol-
Page
the fiscal effect of this regulation including that on the
public and private sector, for the first and second year,
and a projection over the five-year period, or a state-
ment of no fiscal effect:
No fiscal effect to either the public or private sector
. PUBLIC HE RING OR COMMENT:
Section 2 ____ Date(s) of public hearing 12/16/85
JA- 54
Section 3 __x___ Date(s) of public comment same: as above
Emergency ss. 2 or 3 State the nature of the
emergency:
10. PUBLICATION OF NOTICE
11.
12.
Was notice of this regulation filed with the State Sec-
retary, published in appropriate newspapers and sent
to persons to whom specific notice must be given 21
days prior to the public hearing or agency action?
Yes
If prior approval of and/or notification to the governor,
legislature or others was required for this regulation
list each approval and the date: (Include here notice
to the Governor’s Management Task Force and the
Local Government Advisory Committee)
No prior approvals or notification required
State how the regulation adds, supersedes, amends or
deletes regulations already on file with the State Sec-
retary, including the most recent effective date.
. Amends 310 CMR 7.18(7) by striking out the com-
pliance dates for topcoat application, and final repair
— and inserting in place the date August 31,
This is effective 01/01/86
JA- 55
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ENGINEERING DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
NOTICE
Notice is hereby given that the Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering, acting in accordance with
the provisions of M.G.L. Chapter 111, Section 142A
through 142D, and in conformance with the Clean Air Act
as amended August 7, 1977 will hold a public hearing on
the following proposed matters, to be applicable to all Dis-
tricts.
It is proposed to amend regulation 310 CMR 7.18(7)
Automobile Surface Coating and the 1982 State Imple-
mentation Plan for ozone and carbon monoxide by ex-
tending the compliance dates for the topcoat and final
repair operations from December 31, 1985 to December
31, 1987. This amendment affects the General Motors Au-
tomobile Surface Coating facility in Framingham, Massa-
chusetts.
In addition, the Department proposes conditional ap-
proval of General Motors application to construct an ad-
dition to the existing facility. The new operation is subject
to Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) and the emis-
sions from the new facility must be balanced by equivalent
emission reductions (offsets) such that a net air quality
benefit is secured.
The public hearing will be conducted under the provi-
sions of N.G.L. Chapter 30A on:
December 16, 1985—Woburn—1:00 P.M.
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
3 Commonwealth Avenue, Woburn—Conference Room.
Testimony may be presented orally and/or in writing no
later than the conclusion of the public hearing. Parties are
requested to submit four written copies of their testimony
at the hearing.
JA- 56
Copies of the proposed regulation amendment and back-
ground information will be available for inspection at the
Division of Air Quality Control, 8th Floor, One Winter
Street, Boston, Massachusetts, at the Merrimack Valley
and Boston Air Pollution Control Districts, 5 Common-
wealth Avenue, Woburn, Massachusetts, at the Berkshire
and Pioneer Valley Air Pollution Control District, State
House West 436 Dwight Street, Springfield, Massachu-
setts, at the Central Massachusetts Air Pollution Control
District, 75 Grove Street, Worcester, Massachusetts and
at the Southeastern Massachusetts Air Pollution Control
District, Lakeville Hospital, Lakeville, Massachusetts.
By Order of the Department.
S. Russell Sylva
Commissioner
JA- 57
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ENGINEERING
DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
ONE WINTER STREET
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02108
PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO
REGULATION 310 CMR 7.18(7)
FOR
THE CONTROL OF AIR POLLUTION
IN THE
BERKSHIRE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
PIONEER VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL D!STRICT
MERRIMACK VALLEY AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
METROPOLITAN BOSTON AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
CENTRAL MASSACHUSETTS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
SOUTHEASTERN MASSACHUSETTS AIR POLLUTION
CONTROL DISTRICT
REGULATORY AUTHORITY:
M.G.L. C. 111, Section 142A - 142D
NOVEMBER, 1985
JA- 58
Please Note:
Proposed changes to the regulation are identified by
bold print
310 CMR 7.18: U Volatile Organic Compounds
(7) U Automobile Surface Coating. No person owning,
leasing, or controlling the operation of any automobile
assembly plant shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit emis-
sions therefrom in excess of those emission limitations
set forth in the following table and within the time
schedules specified in the following table.
Table 5
Emission Limitations
Automobile Surface Coatings
U Volatile Organic Compounds
Emission Source Emission Limitations Compliance Date
Lbs. of volatile organic Achieve full Compliance
compounds per gallon of with emission limitation
coating (excluding water)
at application
Primer application, flash 2.1 By July 1, 1979
off area, and oven and 1.2 By December 31, 1982
Primer-surfacer applica- 3.0 By December 31, 1989
ation flash off area, and and 2.3 By December 31, 1985
oven
Topeoat application 5.3° By December 31, 1979
flash off area, and 5.0° By December 31, 1982
oven and 2.8° By December 31, 1987
Final repair application, 4.8° By December 31, 1987
flash off area, and oven
’ Note: Compliance with these emission limitations shall be based upon an arith-
metic average of topcoat coatings and final repair coatings.
JA- 59
CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that notices of public hearings were
published on the following dates in the following news-
papers:
The Boston Herald (Boston) November 15, 1985
Middlesex News (Framingham) November 16, 1985
Worcester Gazette (Worcester) November 16, 1985
Morning Union (Springfield) November 13, 1985
Cape Cod Standard Times (Hyan- November 16, 1985
nis)
Lawrence Eagle Tribune (Law- November 16, 1985
rence)
I further certify that the notices specified the date, time,
and place of the public hearing to be held on the proposed
amendment of 310 CMR 7.18(7) and revise the 1982 State
Implementation Plan for ozone and carbon monoxide as
well as the proposed conditional approval of General Mo-
tors application to construct an addition to the existing
facility in Framingham, Massachusetts. I also certify that
the notices specified the locations at which the proposed
regulation amendments, etc., together with supporting in-
formation, was available for public inspection. I also certify
that the proposed regulation revisions and supporting in-
formation was available at the locations stated in the no-
tice when the notices were published as well as at the
location and date of the public hearing. I further certify
that similar notices were mailed on or before November
18, 1985 to the Environmental Protection Agency, to any
affected_local or pollution control agencies, and to all
known potentially interested parties.
I further certify that on the following date and at the
following place a hearing was conducted by the Massa-
chusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineer-
ing, pursuant to the above notices and in conformance with
the provisions of 30 C.F.R. 51.4(b):
JA- 60
December 16, 1985—Woburn—1:00 p.m. Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, 5 Commonwealth Av-
enue, Woburn, MA—Conference Room
Attest: /s/ Ellen V. Robertson
Ellen V. Robertson
Acting Hearing Officer
EVR:dep
JA- 61
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ENGINEERING
DIVISION OF AIR QUALITY CONTROL
Summary of Written and Oral Testimony
Presented at the Public Hearing for the Proposed:
e Amendment to Regulation 310 CMR 7.18(7) Auto-
mobile Surface Coating (extending compliance dead-
line for topcoat and final repair operations)
¢ Revisions of the 1982 State Implementation Plan
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide
¢ Conditional Approval of General Motors’ New Paint
Shop Application and Offset Requirements (310
CMR 7.00 Appendix A)
The Public Hearing Was Conducted Under the
Provisions of MCL Chapter 30A on:
December 16, 1985—Woburn—1:00 pm
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
5 Commonwealth Ave., Woburn—Conference Room
December, 1985
The Department received written and oral testimony from:
e U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State Air
Progress Branch (Linda Murphy)
¢ General Motors, Framingham Plant (Ronald Boyd)
e American Lung Association (Michael Ellenbecker)
In response to the proposed amendment to 310 CMR
7.18(7) and revision of the 1982 State Implementation Plan
for Ozone and Carbon Monoxide:
e EPA did not oppose the proposed amendment and
revision, but had reservations because GM’s request
JA- 62
for an extension of two years for its compliance
deadline makes no attempt to limit emissions during
the extension, nor does it contain any guarantees
that the new basecoat/clearcoat line will result in
better controls than RACT controls on the old line.
GM requested approval of the proposed amendment
and revision.
The American Lung Association found the compli-
ance deadline extension acceptable, however it
questioned the date that building construction is to
begin, expressing concern that construction not be-
gin until the necessary permits are issued, and that
GM be required to document interim progress.
In response to the proposed conditional approval of GM’s
new paint shop application and offset requirements:
e EPA did not oppose this approval but gave a list
of areas that the Department should address before
a new source review permit is issued, and a list of
conditions that should be specified as legally en-
forceable in the new source review permit as re-
quired in the Clean Air Act (Section 173). (These
specific issues are discussed in the Response to Tes-
timony.)
GM requested approval of the application and offset
requirements. GM’s written testimony contains cor-
rections and clarifications to the Department’s No-
vember 15, 1985 letter which contained the data
and findings used as the basis for its proposal to
grant conditional approval.
The American Lung Association did not oppose the
approval, but expressed concern about how the De-
partment is calculating and crediting the offsets.
While they believe that stationary sources should
be required to locate offsets from other stationary
sources, not mobile sources, they do realize that
JA- 63
the predominance of hydrocarbon emissions in Mas-
sachusetts (and therefore the available source of
offsets) is from mobile sources. They listed a num-
ber of questions about the use of emissions reduc-
tions calculated from the first nine months that the
I/M program was in place (discussed in the Re-
sponse to Testimony). They asked that the De-
partment not adopt the proposed amendments until
these questions are adequately addressed.
Department comment:
¢ The SIP revision will be extending the compliance
date for the topcoating and final repair operations
until August 31, 1987. The hearing notice had a
proposed compliance deadline of December 31, 1987.
As GM has committed to August 31, 1987 for shut-
ting down existing topcoating operations, the reg-
ulation will only be extended to August 31, 1987.
JA- 64
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Air Quality Control
One Winter Street, Boston 02108
S. RUSSELL SYLVA
Commissioner
MEMORANDUM
TO: S. Russell Sylva
THRU: Thomas F. McLoughlin
FROM: Bruce K. Maillet
DATE: December 30, 1985
SUBJECT: Decision Memorandum—Regulatory Changes to
Sections to 310 CMR 7.18(7) and New Source
Review Permit for the General Motors Auto-
mobile Surface Coating Facility in Fra-
mingham, Massachusetts.
PURPOSE:
By extending the regulation compliance date for the
topcoating operations, the proposed amendment to the reg-
ulation will allow the General Motors plant more time for
installation of new topcoating technology. The SIP revision
allow existing topcoat operations to continue as is while
the paint shop that will house the new basecoat/clearcoat
topcoating operations is constructed.
BACKGROUND
The Department is making one change to its regulations.
That change applies to 310 CMR 7.18(7) Automobile Sur-
face Coating. The change would extend the compliance
dates for the topcoat and final repair operations from De-
cember 31, 1985 to August 31, 1987. This change in the
regulations shall be submitted to EPA as a revision to the
JA- 65
State Implementation Plan for Ozone and Carbon Mon-
oxide.
In addition, the Department has conditionally approved
General Motors application to construct an addition to the
existing facility. The addition will replace equipment cur-
rently used in the coating operation with improved tech-
nology. The new operation is subject to Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) and the emissions from the new
facility have been balanced by equivalent emission reduc-
tions (offsets) for a net benefit to air quality.
MAJOR ISSUES
The Department received testimony from the General
Motors Corporation, EPA and the American Lung Asso-
ciation. Testimony received was generally supportive of
both the proposed amendment to the regulation and the
permit for the new paintshop.
EPA had several questions which they felt the Depart-
ment should address prior to issuance of the New Source
permit. These specific issues are addressed in the Response
to Testimony.
American Lung Association questioned the source of the
offsets used in the New Source Permit review. This too
was addressed in the Response to Testimony.
AIR QUALITY IMPACTS/RESOURCE ESTIMATE
The effect of the amendments is to allow additional time
to the General Motors Facility for installation of new tech-
nology which will have an ultimate benefit to air quality.
The addition to the facility in Framingham will not ad-
versely affect the ability of the Department to demonstrate
a 35% reduction in volatile organic emissions by the year
1987.
It is estimated that the regulation changes and permit
will require minimal Department personnel resources per
JA- 66
year. The resources that will be required will be devoted
to enforcement of the regulation and permit.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Department published public notice providing the
opportunity to review technical support documentation
thirty days prior to the public hearing on December 15,
1985.
COMPLIANCE WITH MEPA:
This project is “categorically exempt” from the “Reg-
ulations Governing the Preparation of Environmental Im-
pact Reports’’ because the proposed regulations will not
reduce existing levels of emission control. All reasonable
measures have been taken to avoid or minimize adverse
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION:
I recommend that the proposed amendment to 310 CMR
7.18(7) of the Regulations for the Control of Air Pollution
to the Berkshire, Central Massachusetts, Merrimack Val-
ley, Metropolitan Boston, Pioneer Valley, and Southeastern
. Massachusetts Air Pollution Control Districts be adopted
as a revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation
Plan.
Legal Office:
Concur: Date:
Deputy Commissioner:
Concur: Date:
Acting Commissioner:
Concur: [signature illegible] Date: 12-31-85
EVR:dep
JA- 67
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
FOR
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ON
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO
310 CMR 7.18(7) and
Requirements of
310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A
Of the Regulations
for the
Control of Air Pollution
in the
Berkshire Air Pollution Control District
Central Massachusetts Air Pollution Control District
Merrimack Valley Air Pollution Control District
Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District
Pioneer Valley Air Pollution Control District
Southeastern Massachusetts Air Pollution Control District
November, 1985
Proposal
The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
proposes to amend 310 CMR 7.18(7), Automobile Surface
Coating, by extending the compliance deadline listed in
Table 3 for the topcoat and final repair applications. Spe-
cifically, the final compliance date of December 31, 1985
will be extended to December 31, 1987. This will be a
JA- 68
revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan
(SIP).
Affected Sources
This amendment to 310 CMR 7.18(7), Automobile Sur-
face Coating, will affect one source in the Commonwealth,
General Motors (GM) in Framingham.
Compliance Status
The existing operations at the General Motors Facility
are subject to 310 CMR 7.18(7), Automobile Surface Coat-
ing. This regulation pertains to specific coating operations
such as the primer, primer surfacer, topcoat and final re-
pair processes. The regulation sets a limit of pounds of
volatile organic compounds (VOC) per gallon of coating
(excluding water) and interim and final dates to meet the
particular limits for each operation. The earliest date was
July 1, 1979 and the final date is December 31, 1985. The
interim dates are important to assure that progress is
being made toward achieving the final requirements.
GM—Compliance History
The emission limits and compliance dates in the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Control Techniques
Guideline for automobile surface coating as adopted by
Massachusetts were derived as part of a national compli-
ance plan with input from General Motors in the late
1970's. States’ acceptance of this plan made it possible for
GM to phase in compliance for the one-hundred plus coat-
ing operations affected by these rules over an eight year
period ending in 1987 (rather than 1982).
The 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act had changed
the deadlines for compliance with the air quality standards
to December 31, 1982. There were provisions in the law
allowing areas with ozone problems to obtain extensions
from the 1982 deadline until December 31, 1987. Massa-
chusetts received an extension.
et ee ee oe
JA- 69
The extra time was important because GM was able to
concentrate on converting primer systems to a waterborne
electrodeposition process and also to reduce the VOC con-
tent of the lacquer topcoat materials.
[The Framingham plant met all interim RACT deadlines
with an electrodeposition primer system and high solids
primer-surfacer with electrostatic spray guns and the dis-
persion lacquer topcoat operations. ]
EPA recognized that the auto industry was moving to-
ward new topcoat technology in its October 20, 1981 policy
statement for extending auto paintshop VOC compliance
schedules. EPA has allowed extensions in other states.
This regulation change makes it possible for GM to con-
tinue development of the new high solids basecoat/clear-
coat (BC/CC) enamel topcoat systems to meet product
objectives and VOC standards.
Because of the number of GM assembly plants and car
lines involved, it has not been possible to complete the
transition to BC/CC at all plants, to date. Knowing this,
GM decided to follow an abatement strategy at the existing
Framingham plant. The initial plan to meet regulation re-
quirements was to complete preliminary engineering in
mid-1985. Construction would begin in early 1986 with
completion targeted in mid-1987. This plan would also re-
quire an extension even though the new technology was
not going to be introduced at the Framingham facility. On
June 7, 1985, GM notified the Department that the strat-
egy for the Framingham facility had changed. GM is now
planning to replace the current lacquer topcoat and final
repair systems with new facilities to use the BC/CC enamel
coatings as the new compliance strategy, rather than abat-
nn as ceuinns tocaney Gee, CG GM will also install an
incinerator on the primer-surfacer operation.
[The BC/CC topcoat consist of a relatively thin layer of
highly pigmented basecoat followed by a thicker layer of
clearcoat. The BC/CC coatings have a more appealing ap-
1 j
domestic auto industry to adopt BC/CC process. Fur-
ther, it is consistent with the rationale expressed in the
October 20, 1981 U.S. EPA policy statement regarding
the extension of original topcoat compliance dates for the
purpose of developing and introducing new coating alter-
natives.
To accomplish this program and demonstrate compli-
ance, major construction of new paint facilities is required,
which is expected to be complete by August 1987. Thus,
the necessity for the extension of the current compliance
dates for topcoat and final repair operations from Decem-
ber 31, 1985 to December 31, 1987.
Offsetting emission reductions are required as detailed
in 310 CMR 7.00 Appendix A. Some offsets are generated
when the existing plant shuts down. Others are generated
when emission reductions in a variety of areas are achieved
that exceed planned emission reductions. These planned
emission reductions are required for any state that is non-
attainment for a criteria pollutant standard.
As specified in the 1982 State Implementation Plan for
ozone and carbon monoxide, each source of VOC (a pre-
cursor pollutant to ozone formation) must reduce emissions
of VOC to a level based on Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) by 1987. For each year between 1980
and 1987 a target reduction was established and the actual
reductions in any given year are compared to the target
to determine whether reasonable further progress (RFP)
is being met. In the 1983 RFP demonstration for Eastern
JA- 71
Massachusetts the actual reductions exceeded the target
by 10,000 tons. Much of this additional reduction was cred-
ited to the performance of the Massachusetts Inspection/
Maintenance (I/M) program.
The offsets needed for the GM, Framingham facility
have been accomodated from the I/M program. New emis-
sion reduction estimates have been made for 1987 to en-
sure that the offsets will be permanent and not affect RFP
demonstrations in the year of projected attainment (1987)
or beyond.
Through this process Massachusetts has demonstrated
that this amendment is consistent with the 1982 SIP and
that Massachusetts will continue making reasonable fur-
ther progress toward attaining the ozone standard by 1987.
Emission Reduction and Reasonable Further Progress
As stated previously the existing topcoat and final repair
operations will continue to operate until the start-up of
the new topcoat (BC/CC) system. As the topcoat and final
repair operations are new, they are subject to New Source
Review and therefore required to meet the Lowest Achiev-
able Emission Rate (LAER) and offset any increase in
emissions. GM submitted a LAER determination on No-
vember 6, 1985. Offsets have been identified and are dis-
cussed in more detail in this section. New Source Review
requires that a net air quality benefit be derived in this
. The net result is that GM by offsetting proposed
VOC emissions will achieve this net air quality benefit (a
decrease from existing emissions) when the new topcoat
operations replace the old. Existing emissions during 1986
and 1987 are expected to be as follows:
Expected Emissions
Year Tons/year
1986 4288
1987 3816
JA- 72
These emissions estimates were calculated on a pounds
of VOC emitted per car basis. Air pollution controls (i.e.
incinerators) will be installed to reduce these emissions
from these levels. These estimates also will be reduced due
to normal equipment maintenance and downtime.
Compliance and Enforcement
Compliance and enforcement information will be dis-
cussed on a pounds of VOC per car basis. Although equiv-
alent, this differs from the units as stated in the regulation.
The limits in the regulation are on a pounds of VOC per
gallon of coating (excluding water) basis. GM has provided
adequate support in the permit application demonstrating
equivalency by providing detailed coating content and
transfer efficiency information. Although the regulation will
not change to a pounds of VOC per car limit, for SIP
purposes this is the limit that will be used.
Proposed Project Schedule
Two actions are being discussed at this public hearing.
One is a regulation change affecting the existing General
Motors facility in Framingham. The second issue relates
to General Motors’ proposed topcoat and final repair re-
placement facility. The proposed facility (considered to be
a major modification) will be connected to the existing
facility. The proposed replacement facility is related to the
first issue in that the old facility (specifically the topcoat
and final repair operations) will shutdown as the new fa-
cility starts up and will provide part of the required off-
setting emission reductions. For that reason, the proposed
project schedule is included here.
Proposed Schedule
Topceoat and Final Repair Operations
December 18, 1985
June 13, 1986
March 1, 1987
Building construction begins
Process equipment installation begins
Building construction complete
ee ee
JA- 73
Process equipment installation complete August 4, 1987
Existing topcoat and final repair shutdown August 31, 1987
New topcoat and final repair (basecoat/
clearcoat) start up
Air Quality Impacts
The regulation change will not cause or contribute an
unreasonable risk to public health, welfare or safety as
the result is a net decrease in emissions.
August 31, 1987
New source review has been required for the new por-
tion of the facility. GM will be required to achieve the
Lowest Achievable Emission Rate (LAER) on topcoat and
final repair operations and must offset these emissions
such that there is no increase in emissions and a net air
quality benefit is achieved.
Public Participation
As provided for by law, the Department gives notice
and provides opportunity to review technical support 30
days prior to proposing the regulation change at a public
hearing on December 16, 1985.
MEPA
This project is ‘‘categorically exempt” from the ‘‘Reg-
ulations Governing the Preparation of the Environmental
Impact Report’’ because the proposed regulation amend-
ment will result in an increase in emission control. All
reasonable measures have been taken to avoid or minimize
adverse impacts.
Ozone Standard Attainment
The attainment date for the National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standard for ozone will not be affected as the regu-
lation requires compliance prior to the attainment date.
Emissions of VOC will be reduced which should result in
further progress toward attainment of the ozone standard.
JA- 74
Economic Impacts
The economic impacts from this change are negligible.
Specifically, GM will shutdown the existing facility as the
new facility starts up. It is not cost effective to control
existing topcoat and final repair operations in the interim
before the new facility is on-line. This interim control cost
has been estimated to be 64.5 million.
JA- 75
g- Exhibit G: Letter from Louis F. Gitto to F. James
McDonald (with attached ‘‘Notice of Violation and
Reporting Requirement’’) (August 14, 1986)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY REGION I
J. F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETTS 02203
August 14, 1986
CERTIFIED MAIL-
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
F. James McDonald, President
General Motors Corporation
3044 West Grand Boulevard
Detroit, MI 48202
Dear Mr. McDonald:
Enclosed is a Notice of Violation issued by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to General
Motors Corporation’s (GM) automobile assembly plant in
Framingham, Massachusetts concerning violations of the
applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) 310 CMR
§ 7.18(7), as approved by EPA. The Notice sets out the
legal and factual bases which support it. EPA is likely to
take enforcement action if General Motors does not correct
the violation within the next thirty days.
Please note that issuance of this Notice of Violation does
not preclude issuance of the Delayed Compliance Order
(DCO) which has recently been the subject of negotiations
among General Motors, EPA and the Massachusetts De-
partment of Environmental Quality Engineering. Fur fed-
eral approval of any DCO, however, we must insist that
the negotiation process proceed in an expeditious manner.
If it is not possible for the parties to reach agreement on
the content of a DCO within 30 days of your receipt of
JA- 76
this Notice and if the violation continues, EPA will decide
which other enforcement options to pursue under Sections
113 and 120 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 7413 and
7420).
General Motors may confer with EPA concerning the vi-
olation cited in the Notice. The Notice sets out the pro-
cedure to request a conference. I urge you to request such
a conference to discuss the most expeditious method for
General Motors to come into compliance with the appli-
cable SIP, 310 CMR § 7.18(7), as approved by EPA, so
that we may reach agreement regarding General Motors’
compliance plan, including an implementation schedule. A
conference may also clarify whether a DCO is negotiable
in this case.
Also enclosed is a Reporting Requirement, issued under
the authority of Section 114 of the Clean Air Act, which
requires that GM submit to EPA certain information and
records on a monthly basis.
Sincerely,
/s/ Louis F. Gitto
Louis F. Gitto, Director
Air Management Division
ec: B. Maillet, DEQE
D. Shallcross, DEQE
G. Hailer, DEQE
M. Maher, DEQE
P. McCarroll, GM
W. McFarland, GM
R. Boyd, GM
F. Bellafato, GM
JA- 77
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY Region I
Docket No. AAA-86-1108
NOTICE OF VIOLATION
and
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
General Motors Corporation
63 Western Avenue
Framingham, MA 01701
Proceedings under Section 113 and 114 of the Clean Air
Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 7413 and 7414
STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Under Section 113(aX1) of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42
~ U.S.C. § 7413(a\1), the Administrator of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to no-
tify any person in violation of any requirement of an ap-
plicable implementation plan, whenever the Administrator
determines that the person is violating the plan. The Ad-
ministrator has delegated this authority to the Regional
Administrator.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopted an “appli-
cable implementation plan,” within the meaning of Section
113(aX1) of the Act, which was approved by EPA under
Section 110 of the Act. The plan includes the Air Pollution
Control Regulations (State Regulations) codified at 310
CMR § 7.00 et seq.
Section 114(aX1) of the Act allows the Administrator to
require the owner or operator of any emission source to
JA- 78
provide such information as may be required to determine
whether the person is in violation of the requirements of of 2.8 lbs of VOCs per gallon of coating
an applicable implementation plan. water) at application, or from the final repair appli-
cation, flash off area, and oven in excess of 4.8 lbs
FINDINGS
. General Motors Corporation (GM) owns and operates
an automobile assembly plant which is located in Fra-
mingham, Massachusetts. This facility includes topcoat-
ing and final repair automobile surface coating
processes.
. General Motors Corporation is a company whose head-
quarters is located in Detroit, Michigan, and which is
incorporated in the State of Delaware.
. The topcoating and final repair automobile surface coat-
ing operations at GM in Framingham, Massachusetts
together emit in excess of 100 TPY of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs).
. GM in Framingham, Massachusetts does not own or
operate any add-on pollution control equipment for the
control of VOCs from its existing topcoating and final
. The topeoating and final repair operations at GM in
Framingham, Massachusetts are subject to the require-
ments of Regulation 7.18(7) of the Massachusetts State
Implementati»n Plan (SIP) (310 CMR § 7.18(7)), as ap-
proved by EPA on September 16, 1980 and November
9, 1983 (45 FR 61293 and 48 FR 51840). EPA has not
approved into Massachusetts’ SIP any changes made to
310 CMR § 7.18(7) by the state since November 9,
Reporting Requirement EPA issued
"on July 3, 1986 under Section 114 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7414, on July 24, 1986 GM submitted to EPA coating
content data derived from independent laboratory coat-
ing analyses using EPA Reference Method 24. These
data and GM’s response show that from January 1,
1986 through June 30, 1986 GM used topcoatings with
an arithmetic average VOC content of 5.02 pounds VOC
per gallon of coating (excluding water) at application,
and that each topcoat GM used exceeded the 2.8 pounds
emission limit in 310 CMR § 7.187). GM used these
topeoatings on a total of 124 days during this period.
The data also show that during this period GM used
final repair coatings with an arithmetic average VOC
content of 6.18 pounds VOC per gallon of coating (ex-
cluding water) at application, and that each final repair
coating GM used exceeded the 4.8 pound emission limit
in 310 CMR § 7.187). GM these final repair coat-
ings on a total of 124 days during this period. GM's
use of these coatings caused VOC emissions from the
topeoating and final repair operations in excess of those
allowed under 310 CMR § 7.18(7), as approved by EPA.
Based on the foregoing, I hereby find General Motors to
be in violation of the SIP requirement at 310 CMR
§ 7.18(7), as approved by EPA.
1983.
6. 310 CMR § 7.18(7), as approved by EPA, provides that,
after December 31, 1985, no person owning or con-
trolling the operation of any automobile assembly plant
shall cause, suffer, allow, or permit emissions from the
JA- 80
ENFORCEMENT
General Motors has thirty days to correct the violations
cited above. If the violations continue beyond the thirtieth
day from the date of receipt of this Notice, EPA may
issue General Motors an Administrative Order requiring
compliance with the applicable SIP, 310 CMR § 7.18(7),
as approved by EPA, or may bring a civil action in federal
district court for an injunction and/or monetary penalties
of up to $25,000 per day of violation. See Section 113(b)
of the Act, 42 U.S:€>-§ 7413(b). Furthermore, if General
Motors knowingly violates the applicable SIP requirement,
310 CMR § 7.18(7), as approved by EPA, then under Sec-
tion 113(c) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c), General Mo-
tors, its officers and/or employees may be subject to
criminal penalties of up to $25,000 per day of violation
and/or imprisonment for not more than one year.
OPPORTUNITY TO CONFER
General Motors may confer with EPA concerning this No-
tice and the findings on which it is based. To schedule a
conference, please contact attorney Timothy Williamson at
(617) 565-3350 within one week of receipt of this Notice.
General Motors has the right to be represented by counsel
at the conference.
REPORTING REQUIREMENT
Pursuant to Section 114(aX1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7414(aX1), beginning September 10, 1986 GM is hereby
required to submit the following information within 10
days of the beginning of each month, until] EPA terminates
this requirement:
1. A written statement including:
a. for each day of the previous month, the arithmetic
average VOC content of topcoatings applied at the
JA- 81
facility, expressed in pounds VOC per gallon of
coating excluding water at application;
b. for each day of the previous month, the arithmetic
average VOC content of final repair coatings ap-
plied at the facility, expressed in pounds VOC per
gallon of coating excluding water at application;
c. the total amount of coating used for topcoating
during the previous month, expressed in gallons;
and
d. the total amount of coating used for final repair
during the previous month, expressed in gallons.
2. For each coating used during the previous month but
for which GM has not previously submitted coating con-
tent data, the coating content data needed to complete
the VOC Data Sheet on Pages II-2 and III-2 and III-
3 of EPA document EPA-450/3-84-019, a copy of which
is attached.
The information required above shall be certified in writing
by an appropriate official and shall be submitted to the
following addresses:
Louis F. Gitto, Director
Air Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I (APC-2311)
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
ATTN: Catherine Ehlhardt
and
Michael Maher, Chief
Northeast Region
Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering
5 Commonwealth Street
Woburn, MA 01801
JA- 82
Under Section 113(b\4) of the Act, failure to comply with
or provide the information required pursuant to this re-
quest may result in further enforcement action. You should
also be aware that Section 113(cX2) provides for possible
criminal penalties for anyone who knowingly makes any
false statement, representation, or certification in a re-
sponse to an EPA reporting requirement.
GM may assert a business confidentiality claim covering
part or all of the information required, in the manner
described by 40 C.F.R. § 2.203(b). Information covered by
such a claim will be disclosed by EPA only to the extent,
and by means of the procedures, set forth in 40 C.F.R.
Part 2, Subpart B. If no such claim accompanies the in-
formation when EPA receives it, the information may be
made available to the public without further notice to GM.
GM should read the above-cited regulation carefully before
asserting a business confidentiality claim, since certain cat-
egories of information are not properly the subject of such
a claim. For example, the Clean Air Act provides that
“emission data” shall in all cases be made available to the
public. See 42 U.S.C. § 7414(c).
EFFECTIVE DATE
This notice shall become effective upon its receipt by Gen-
eral Motors. If General Motors has any questions regarding
this matter, please contact attorney Timothy Williamson
at (617) 565-3350 or engineer Catherine Ehlhardt at (617)
565-3262.
‘s/ Michael R. Deland 8/14/86
Michael R. Deland
JA- 83
5. Affidavit of John L. Hanisch (October 21, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION.
Defendant.
City of Boston
County of Suffolk
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN L. HANISCH
John L. Hanisch, being duly sworn, states as follows:
1. Since March 2, 1986, I have served as Chief of the
State Air Programs Branch of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (“EPA”) Region I. EPA Region I covers the
six New England States of Connecticut, Maine, Massa-
chusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. My
ilities include t and management of the
§ 7410 (the “Act’’), and the enforcement of these SIPs,
pursuant to Sections 113 and
7413 and 7420.
a reorganization which renames the SAPS the Planning
and Technological Evaluation Section (“PTES”).
D. Mass., Civil Action No. 87-2068 MC. I have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit.
Il. EPA Region I SIP Approval Process
4. In EPA Region I, when a state develops a SIP for
EPA's approval under Section 11((aM2) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7410(a\X2), the state submits that SIP to Region
sino cuheuits to the AMD and FUNG aus Guan ain
to a SIP requiring EPA under Section 110(a“3WA)
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(aX3WA).
5. When the Region I PTES receives a proposed SIP re-
vision, it first determines whether the state’s submission
vision, PTES, in conjunction EPA Region I Office of Re-
gion Counsel, must conduct a review of the proposal and
make technical and legal findings to determine whether
the proposal meets the requirements of the Act. A typical
SIP revision for a single source of volatile organic com-
pounds (“VOC”) in an ozone nonattainment area requires
that PTES determine whether.
JA- 85
the national ambient air quality standard,
which requires an analysis of the state’s re-
ported reduction in VOC emissions and the
impact the proposed revision would have on
those reductions;
c. The proposed SIP revision is enforceable,
which requires a technical and legal review of
the wording of the State’s compliance schedule
and any state order which is part of the SIP
revision;
d. The proposal contains adequate monitoring,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements to
enforce compliance, which requires a case-by-
case examination of a source’s manufacturing
process to determine the most accurate way
of measuring VOC emissions that is not un-
reasonably burdensome using EPA approved
methods;
e. The state held a public hearing on the proposal
after at least thirty days public notice; and
f. The proposal provides for the implementation
of reasonably available control technology
which requires a comparison of the source's
proposed control technology with the control
technology of which EPA is aware for other
sources in that category.
6. Once the PTES has made the findings outlined in q 5,
above, the PTES drafts a notice of proposed rulemaking
(“NPR”) for the Federal Register, a technical support doc-
North Carolina. Internal EPA guidance requires that PTES
JA- 86
send out the draft NPR within five months after the date
PTES receives a complete package from the state.
7. After review and approval at EPA Headquarters and
OAQPS the NPR is published in the Federal Register. The
accompanying affadivit describes EPA Headquarters and
OAQPS review of the NPR before its publication in the
Federal Register.
8. In most cases, the public then has thirty days to com-
ment on EPA’s proposed approval or rejection of the SIP
revision. In the case of complicated or controversial pro-
posals, EPA may extend that comment period. After the
comment period closes, the PTES must review each com-
ment and address the comment in a final rulemaking notice
(‘“FRN’’). The PTES must investigate any new information
received in the comments and prepare a rational response
to each comment. The PTES then prepares a draft FRN
for publication in the Federal Register, a technical support
document, and an internal briefing memorandum. The Re-
gional Administrator must again sign off on this package
before the PTES sends it to EPA Headquarters and
OAQPS for review. EPA’s Administrator must sign the
FRN before EPA publishes it in the Federal Register.
Internal EPA guidance requires that the PTES send out
the draft FRN within five months after the date the com-
ment period on the NPR closes.
9. In the past three years, Region I PTES has processed
an average of thirty-five SIP actions or revisions each
fiscal year. In fiscal year 1985, PTES processed about
twenty proposed SIP revisions, in 1986 PTES processed
thirty, and in 1987 PTES processed fifty-six.
Ill. EPA Region I SIP Enforcement Process
10. The State Air Programs Branch contains not only the
PTES, but also the Control Technology and Compliance
Section (“CTCS”’). The CTCS is responsible for enforcing
the emission limits and requirements EPA has approved
JA- 87
into Region I’s SIPs and for overseeing the states’ en-
forcement of the SIPs. Part of the CTCS’s enforcement
program involves developing cases to be filed under Sec-
tion 113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b), to bring sources
into compliance with SIPs and to collect civil penalties for
SIP violations. EPA views its ability to collect such pen-
alties as a critical element of its enforcement program.
The CTCS operates under EPA guidance requiring it to
collect substantial civil penalties from SIP violators in all
but the most rare cases. Further, EPA has developed a
Clean Air Act Civil Penalty Policy to guide the Agency
in imposing penalties which will provide appropriate in-
centives for sources to comply with the SIPs.
11. Since January 1, 1985, the CTCS has issued twenty-
four notices of violation (““NOVs’’) to sources violating VOC
emission limits in Region I SIPs. Of these twenty-four
cases, six involved sources for which the state was de-
veloping a proposed SIP revision to relax the source’s
emission limit or for which the state had already submitted
to EPA a proposed SIP revision doing so. If preliminary
review of a proposed SIP revision applicable to a source
violating the SIP indicates that the revision appears to be
approvable, and that the source would be in compliance
with the SIP as revised, EPA guidance allows the CTCS
to forbear from further enforcement action after issuing
the NOV. Otherwise CTCS is obligated to enforce the orig-
inal emission limits in the unrevised SIP.
IV. DEQE’s Proposed SIP Revision
for General Motor’s Framingham Plant
12. On December 30, 1985, the Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering (““DEQE’’) submit-
ted to PTES a proposed revision to the SIP provisions
applicable to the surface coating lines at the General Mo-
tors (“GM”) automobile assembly plant in Framingham,
Massachusetts. On May 30, 1986, DEQE requested that
EPA Region I delay action on this proposed SIP revision
JA- 88
until June 20, 1986. A true copy of DEQE’s letter from
my files is attached to this Affidavit as Attachment A.
On July 2, 1986 Region I sent a draft NPR proposing to
disapprove DEQE’s SIP revision for GM to EPA Head-
quarters and OAQPS. THE NPR was published in the
Federal Register on December 2, 1986. A true copy of the
NPR from my files is attached to this Affidavit as At-
tachment B. The comment period on EPA’s proposed dis-
approval closed on January 2, 1987. On June 30, 1987,
Region I sent a draft FRN to EPA Headquarters and
OAQPS responding to comments on EPA’s proposed dis-
approval and finally disapproving DEQE’s SIP revision for
GM.
13. According to air quality monitoring data available to
me from OAQPS, sixty-two metropolitan areas in the
United States failed to meet the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for ozone during the period from 1984
through 1986. Seventeen of these areas are on the Eastern
Seaboard, Washington, D.C. and north.
/s/ John L. Hanisch
John L. Hanisch
Signed and sworn to before me on this 21st day of Oc-
tober, 1986.
/s/ Evelyn M. Sullivan
Notary Public
My commission expires:
July 28, 1989
JA- 89
a. Attachment A: Letter from Bruce K. Maillet to Lou
Gitto (May 30, 1986)
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Air Quality Control
One Winter Street, Boston 02108
S. RUSSELL SYLVA
Commissioner
May 30, 1986
Mr. Lou Gitto
Director
Air Division
U.S.E.P.A.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Building
Boston, MA 02108
Dear Mr. Gitto:
As you are aware, we are negotiating and administrative
order under Regulation 310 CMR 7.18 with General Motors
Corporation and your office which will be a Delayed Com-
pliance Order (DCO) under the clean air act. This action
would eliminate the need for a revision to the Massachu-
setts State Implementation Plan.
The draft DCO has been reviewed by DEQE, EPA and
GM and attorneys for each party are scheduled to confer
by telephone on June 2, 1986. I believe Tim Williamson
of U.S.E.P.A. will represent you.
In this regard, it would be appropriate for you to delay
action on our SIP revision request until June 20, 1986 to
allow time to finalize the Delayed Compliance Order. Please
consider this a request for such a delay since a DCO will
be an easier action to achieve and will accomplish the same
result as the proposed SIP revision.
BKMefg.
ec: General Motors
Doug Shallcross
JA- 90
Very truly yours,
/s/ Bruce K.
Maillet
Bruce K. Maillet
Director
JA- 91
b. Attachment B: EPA, “‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Massachusetts; Automobile
Surface Coating,” 51 Fed. Reg. 43394 (1986)
40 CFR Part 52
{[FRL-3120-3}
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans;
Massachusetts; Automobile Surface Coating
AGENCY: Environmental rrotection Agency [EPA].
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a State Im-
plementation Plan revision submitted by the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts. The revision requests an
extension of the final compliance dates for topcoating and
final repair coating of automobiles from December 31, 1985
to August 31, 1987. General Motors in Framingham, Mas-
sachusetts is the only automobile surface coating source
in the State. This action does not change the final emission
limits at the General Motors plant nor will it increase or
The intended effect of this action is to ensure reasonable
further progress towards the attainment of the ozone
standard by the Massachusetts demonstration date of De-
cember 31, 1987.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January
2, 1987. Public comments on this document are requested
and will be considered before taking final action on this
SIP revision.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Louis F. Gitto,
Air Management Division, Room 2311, JFK Federal Bidg.,
Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the submittal and EPA's
evaluation are available for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Room 2311, JFK Federal Bidg., Boston, MA 02203 and
JA- 92
the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Di-
vision of Air Quality Control, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,
Boston, MA 02108.
FOR FURTHER [INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia L.
Greene (617) 565-3248; FTS 835-3248.
of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE), submitted
a revision to the Massachusetts State Implementation Plan
(SIP). The revision to the automobile surface coating reg-
ulation (310 CMR 7.18(7)) requests an extension of the
final compliance dates from December 31, 1985 to August
31, 1987 for the topcoat and final repair applications.
cember 31, 1979: 5.0 Ibs VOCi/galion of coating, minus water,
by December 31, 1982; and 2.8 lbs VOC/gallon of coating,
minus water, by December 31, 1985. The final repair ap-
limitation was 4.8 lbs of VOC/gallon of coating,
minus water, by December 31, 1985. These dates were con-
sistent with a nationally developed schedule for achieving
reductions from the automobile surface coating industry.
On June 7, 1985, GM informed the DEQE that it in-
warnan Apecdin phar py Pam Lider | minus
water, for topcoat and 4.8 lbs VOC/gallon of coating, mi-
JA- 93
1987 after DEQE’s review of the permit application) in
General Motors is modifying its plant by constructing a new
paint shop capable of topcoating cars with basecoat/clearcoat
ee
EPA Evaluation: General Motors did not document that
it was impracticable for the company to meet the existing
JA- 95
EPA Evaluation: The State has not demonstrated that
compliance date using incineration on the existing lines or General Motors’ new basecoat/clearcoat lines will be capable
on lines modified to accommodate the basecoat/clearcoat of implementing low solvent technology
technology. Based on experience at other plants, EPA be- aee
lieves that such technology existed long enough before the 6. Each revision has to be evaluated for its impact on
end of 1985 to permit General Motors to install the basecoat/ the overall State Implementation Plan, including emission
clearcoat technology before that date. Instead, however, reductions necessary to demonstrate reasonable further
General Motors did net decide on its contrel method until progress (RFP) toward attainment of the ozone standard.
une 7, 1985 when it requested, in a letter to DEQE, an :
extension until December 31, 1987. General Motors’ 1985 EPA Evaluation: The entire Commonwealth of Massa
request for an extension, only six months from the final chusetts is nonattainment for ozone, with an attainment
compliance date and at least three years after the availability deadline of December 31, 1987. Massachusetts experienced
of the basecoat/clearcoat technology, under a policy state- 14 days of violations of the ozone standard during the 1985
ment that was published in 1981, cannot be considered im- a ae
plementing reasonably available control technology as 7. The DEQE stated in its response to comments given
expeditiously as practicable at the public hearing, that General Motors’ emissions would
3. Additionally, EPA's 1981 policy stated that postpone- ayy of volatile a nenauns (000 (VOCs
ment of the compliance dates would be allowed for further precursors to ozone.) This percen used in the
development of coating technology. a - pene ~ ory “
1982 SIP to demonstrate attainment with the ozone stand
EPA Evaluation: The basecoat/clearcoat technology and a6 & Ce Cn Oe Gay Se oe
incineration technology have already been developed, and EPA Evaluation: The DEQE did not submit a complete
General Motors has not documented, that with the tech- RFP demonstration with the compliance status of VOC
nology it intends to use in Framingham, it needs two ad sources and graphs representing annual linear reductions.
ditional years for technology development A complete RFP report is needed to support the DEQE’s
4. Under EPA's policy, an increase in the amount of Sith wah be cmainol be dhe and of 1000 dene Oe com.
ee See Se Cag Ce pliance date extension for General Motors and that RFP
compliance dates. will be achieved in the interim. Based on the number of
EPA Evaluation: The DEQE SIP submittal predicts that there is some Fahy 3 ciecn <6 Gi o
General Motors’ emissions during the deferral would in- experience violations standard beyond December
crease above the 1984 actual emissions, thus making it in- 1987 ties aa
eligible for the deferral
Therefore, EPA is proposing to disapprove the proposed
_5. The policy states that any modifications must be de- revision to the Massachusetts State tation Plan .
signed to be capable of subsequent adoption of a new gen- submitted on December 30, 1985, extending the final com
This disapproval will prevent GM from deferring the top-
coat and final repair compliance dates (from December 31,
1985 to August 31, 1987 by revising the State regulation.
Extensions of the December 31, 1985 date should instead
be obtained through an enforcement mechanism.
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), I certify that this SIP revision
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it affects only one source.
In addition, this action imposes no additional requirements
on the source.
Under Executive Order 12291, today’s action is “Major.”
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Dated: July 1, 1986.
Michael R. Deland,
Regional Administrator, Region |.
[FR Doc. 86-27030 Filed, 12-1-86; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
JA- 97
6. Declaration of John J. Silvasi (October 21, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff.
Vv.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Radiation’s Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(“OAQPS”’] in the Control Programs Development Division
(“CPDD"). Within CPDD,
#
z
:
:
JA- 98
miss in United States of America v. General Motors Corp.,
United States District Court for Massachusetts, C.A. No.
87-2068 MC.
Il. Current EPA Headquarters SIP Revision Review
Process
4. After a Regional Office has completed working on a
SIP revision with the state or local agency which has
submitted it to EPA, it prepares a draft proposed rule-
making package which is forwarded to EPA Headquarters
must be reviewed for national consistency, tech-
nical sufficiency, and regulatory interpretation.
6. EPA Headquarters review of a typical SIP revision
package entails the following. Within OAQPS, the CPDD
reviews for consistency with national regulations and pol-
JA- 99
the Regional Administrator’s concurrence on the revised
package, and resubmits the package to Headquarters for
final clearance.
7. Because of the complexity of the issues which are often
involved, experience has shown that case-by-case national
review of SIP revisions is necessary. Also, because issues
are subject to significant change during the time period
when the Regional Office is working with the relevant
state or local agency on the SIP revision, concurrent Head-
quarters and Regional review is impractical. To expedite
matters as much as possible, Headquarters personnel are
often consulted by Regional offices in the period prior to
the submission of a rulemaking package to Headquarters.
8. After a Regional Office has completed its review of the
comments submitted on a proposed SIP revision rulemak-
ing, it prepares a draft final rulemaking package which it
submits for Headquarters review and concurrence. Head-
quarters review of the package generally proceeds as out-
lined above in Paragraph 6. With respect to the final
rulemaking , however, the emphasis is on ensuring
that all recommendations, conditions, and requests for in-
formation set forth in the proposed rulemaking have been
completed, and that all comments raised during the com-
ment period on the proposed rulemaking have been ade-
quately treated. In addition, the final package must be
reviewed and signed by the EPA Administrator.
9. EPA has established as its goal that Headquarters re-
view of SIP revision packages be accomplished within 2
months for both ings and final rulemak-
ings. Due to the number of SIP revisions which must be
processed and to staffing constraints, these target time-
frames often cannot be met. The number of SIP revisions
submitted annually to EPA Headquarters during the 1983
to 1987 time period averaged between 175 and 200. The
resources allocated to EPA Headquarters review of SIP
revisions currently consists of the equivalent of 12 full time
JA-100
positions. EPA has recently promulgated a new National
Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter pur-
suant to Section 107 of the Clean Air Act. In addition,
the Agency is considering requiring significant revisions
to many state VOC SIP’s due to the the failure of nu-
merous areas to achieve the NAAQS for ozone by Decem-
ber 31, 1987. As a result, the number of SIP revisions
needing to be processed at EPA Headquarters will prob-
ably significantly increase in the near future.
III. DEQE’s Proposed SIP Revision for General Motor’s
Framingham Plant
10. The draft proposed rulemaking package for the SIP
revision submitted by the Massachusets DEQE for General
Motors’ Framingham, Massachusetts plant on December
30, 1985 was logged in at the Office of Air Quality Plan-
ning and Standards on July 22, 1986. The Notice proposing
disapproval of the SIP revision appeared in the Federal
Register on December 2, 1986.
11. The draft final rulemaking package for the Fra-
mingham plant SIP revision was logged in at the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards on July 13, 1987.
The package is currently proceeding through the Head-
quarters review process.
Further declarant sayeth naught.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Ex-
ecuted this 21st day of October, 1987.
~- /s/ John J. Silvasi
John J. Silvasi
JA-101
7. Declaration of Bruce A. Armstrong (October 22, 1987)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civ. Action No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant
Declaration of Bruce A. Armstrong
1. I am employed by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency. I work as an environmental engineer
in the Office of Policy Analysis and Review, which is a
staff office in the Office of the Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. .
2. My duties include monitoring and coordinating the prog-
ress through EPA Headquarters of SIP revision rulemak-
ing packages once they have cleared the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards.
3. This declaration is being submitted in connection with
the United States’ response to General Motors’ motion to
dismiss in United States of America v. General Motors
Corp., United States District Court for Massachusetts, C.A.
No. 87-2068 MC.
4. The rulemaking package finally disapproving the SIP
revision submitted by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering for the Genera] Motors
Framingham, Massachusetts plant has completed staff level
Headquarters review and awaits final concurrence.
JA-102
Further declarant sayeth naught.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States that the foregoing is true and correct. Ex-
ecuted this 22nd day of October, 1987.
/s/ Bruce A. Armstrong
Bruce A. Armstrong
JA-103
8. EPA, “Guidance on Processing SIP Revisions
(And 111(d) Plans)”’ (excerpts)
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC
Air
Guidance on
Processing
SIP Revisions
(And 111(d) Plans)
JA-104
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PRPEEEED crcensesscsssenscnsscsasecsaseosesusannsessesecanseusesenase
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES. .....................0000.
ACRONYMS AND GLOSSARY ...............cccccccccceeeeeees
SOUUEIGPENEED cxcnscasnenssessevessssccnescensesesnsssocnsensseeres
I. DEVELOPING THE SIP PACKAGE AT THE
SEE GEPWEED | cevmsnscsesscccnecescsanssenenesseses
Sg ee
eee ee eee eee ee eee eee ee eee?
1. Body of the Preamble .....................
2. Summary of Action ........................:.
3. Regulatory Flexibility Act language
4. ame
5. Petition language ....................::.0000+.
6. Thesaurus terms .................00.ccccceeee.
7
EE eee
QR GS
CR
Il.
Il.
IV.
JA-105
H. Typesetting Request form ...................... 1-22
I. Material for Incorporation by reference I-23
J. OFR Transmittal Memorandum .............. 1-27
QQ 1-28
DR, en 1-30
M. Distribution Matrices .......................c000 1-32
HEADQUARTERS REVIEW ....................000++ II-1
A. SIP Package Distribution ....................... II-1
B. Roles and Responsibilities of Headquar
COU GED enrcenemsenseneenesnssee II-2
1. Office of General Counsel ................. I]-2
2. Office of Air and Radiation .............. II-5
J Se 11-5
4 xy 11-6
0 on II-7
3. Office of Policy, Planning, and Eval-
ee II-7
6 Ree II-7
GE II-8
SO I
4. Office of Management & Budget ...... II-8
C. SIP Concurrence Process ..................... 11-9
RG yyy II-9
2. Headquarters SIP processing contacts —_
3. Negotiation process ............ccccccseseeeee II-11
SIP ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRACKING (THE
SOY) an III-1
LISTING OF NAMES AND TELEPHONE
SD conerscensenepnmmeeemmeememnees IV-1
A. Regional SIP Reviewers. ........................ IV-1
JA-106
C. Regional SIP Processing Contacts ......... IV-4
D. Headquarters SIP Reviewers ................. IV-7
E. Contro? Programs ae Seaton Branch
Specialization Comtacts 2..0...........ccccceeeeees IV-10
F. Committee Membership .......................... IV-11
G. ; — renee SIP Reviewing Office Ad- —
squaansantasnnanenessssncssqssesosnqeonannseseseess |
’. COMPILATION OF THE FEDERALLY-AP.-
DUCE EEE cocennstntanesnnsdsnnsinidigaindmnemsieensessas V-1
APPENDICES
A. Direct Final Rulemaking; example with-
EEE Eh A
B. Parallel Processed Rulemaking; boiler
SITE ichiciinsisnnnicnsniamansitininarineaitinimeniatdnatinemtiains B
C. Abbreviate Final Rulemaking—example . C
D. Standardized sections—example language 2
E. Policy on Taking No Action .................. E
Sf Oe F
established. Tho purpose 1 to inwure a relatively timely
2
:
i
zs
C. When an RO action is inconsistent with national pol-
icy.
D. When material for IBR remains incorrect after the
RO has had a chance to correct it.
E. When a SIP package neither includes a communi-
cations strategy or a negative declaration.
Regional Office and HQ personnel should attempt to
keep CPDD-W fully informed of their discussions on each
package. A case-by-case determination will be made on
whose clock the package rests. Generally, of the RO con-
tact indicates that the change will only take a couple of
days, the package will remain on the HQ clock. If, how-
ever, delays occur beyond that period, CPDD-W will return
the package to the RO clock, AS OF THE DATE IT WAS
ORIGINALLY INFORMED OF THE NEED FOR A RE.
WRITE OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, by placing a
call to the appropriate RO Section Chief.
In other cases when problems arise, CPDD-W will de-
more frequently
B. Tracking
1. CPDD-W Tracking
CPDD-W is responsible for managing the HQ SIP ac-
countability and tracking system.
CPDD-W will provide each Headquarters review office
and Office weekly status of
all SIP packages u eadquarters review. The
on each SIP action.
CPDD-W will provide each Headquarters review office
weekly reports which list by office those SIP’s on which
it has yet to concur.
CPDD-W will track and provide each Headquarters re-
view office and Regional Office a report on action items
resulting from Standing SIP Committee Meetings.
fi
tus report will cover the time interval between
JA-111
JA-110
Bir
af} H
et
The 5 month date for proposals will start on the date
that the revision is received in the RO.
witaats z
Git ig
5 months bien theater of two atone, the sua
hag er eye pink aa
in which CP
clock to
will be
to arrange
their
removal of
cite §
“itt “f
bHL
JA-112
9. First Amended Complaint
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Civil Action
No. 87-2068 MC
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Plaintyf.
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, the United States of America (“United
States’), at the request of the Administrator of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), alleges
as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. This is a civil action pursuant to Section 115) of
the Clean Air Act (“the Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 7415%b), seek
ing civil penalties for emissions of volatile organic com-
pounds (“VOC") in violation of the Massachusetts State
Implementation Plan and the Act.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2. This court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action pursuant to Section 113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(b), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1345, and 1355.
3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 74135) and 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and fc) because the
JA-113
alleged violations took place in the District of Massachu-
setts and because the Defendant is licensed to do business
and is doing business in Massachusetts.
4. Authority to bring this action on behalf of the EPA
Administrator is vested in the United States Department
of Justice pursuant to Section 305 of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7605.
5. Notice of the commencement of this action has been
given to the Massachusetts t of Environmental
Quality Engineering (““DEQE’”’) in accordance with Section
113(b) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413(b).
DEFENDANT
6. Defendant, General Motors Corporation (‘‘General Mo-
tors’’), is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business
in Massachusetts, with its principal place of business in
Detroit, Michigan. General Motors is a “person” as defined
in Section 302(e) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(e).
7. General Motors owns and operates an automobile as-
sembly and painting facility located in Framingham, Mas-
sachusetts (the “Framingham plant’). From at least 1980
to about July 1987, automobiles were painted at the Fra-
mingham plant by a process that included a topcoating
step and, when necessary, a final repair coating step. The
topeoatings and final repair coatings that were used at
the Framingham plant during this period contained VOCs
which were emitted into the atmosphere during the surface
coating process. In about July 1987, operation of the au-
operated by General Motors at the Framingham plant
(hereinafter ‘“‘the lacquer coating lines’’) was terminated.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
8. Section 109%a) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 740%a), requires the Administrator of EPA (‘‘the Ad-
JA-114
ministrator’’) to promulgate primary and secondary Na-
tional Ambient Air Quality Standards (“‘NAAQS”’) for any
air pollutant for which air quality criteria are issued. The
primary standard must be designed ‘‘to protect the public
health”’ with “an adequate margin of safety.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 740%(b\1). The secondary standard must be sufficient
“to protect the public welfare from any known or antic-
ipated adverse effects’”’ of the pollutant. 42 U.S.C.
§ 7409(b\2).
9. On February 8, 1979, the Administrator promulgated,
pursuant to Section 109, a combined primary and second-
ary NAAQS for the photochemical oxidant know as ozone,
which standard is codified at 40 C.F.R. § 50.9.
10. To achieve the NAAQS for ozone, Section 110(a) of
the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7410(a) requires each State to pro-
mulgate and submit to EPA for approval a State Imple-
mentation Plan (‘‘SIP’’) containing regulations for reducing
emissions of air pollutants from sources within the State
that contribute to ozone formation. Each SIP is federally
enforceable, if approved. Each SIP is to achieve and main-
tain the NAAQS within an established time limit, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7410, which in most cases must be no later than De-
cember 31, 1982, and may not in any case be later than
December 31, 1987, 42 U.S.C. § 7502. In addition, each
SIP applicable to a “nonattainment area’’—an area where
EPA has determined that an air pollutant exceeds the
NAAQS for that pollutant—must require such reductions
in emissions from existing sources of the pollutant in the
area as may be achieved through the adoption of, at a
minimum, reasonably available control technology. 42
U.S.C. § 7502(b\2).
11. The entire state of Massachusetts is a nonattainment
area for the primary ozone NAAQS. See 40 C.F.R.
§ 81.322. VOCs are an “air pollutant,”’ as defined in Sec-
tion 302(g) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7602(g), that contrib-
utes to ozone formation.
JA-115
12. Massachusetts, through its DEQE, has promulgated
regulations codified at 310 CMR 7.18(7) which limit VOC
catuiony Rum situ Games erates Se. oly
form approved by EPA on September 16, 1980, see
Fed. Reg. 61293, 61295 (copy attached as Exhibit 1), and
as amended effective November 9, 1983, see 48 Fed. Reg.
51480, 51482 (copy attached as Exhibit 2), these regula-
tions (hereinafter the ‘‘automobile coating SIP provisions’)
are incorporated in the Massachusetts SIP.
13. The Massachusetts automobile coating SIP provi-
sions provide in part:
(7) U Automobile Surface Coating. No person owning,
leasing, or controlling the operation of any automobile
assembly plant shall cause, allow, or permit emissions
therefrom in excess of those emission limitations set
forth in the following table and within the time sched-
ules specified in the following table.
JA-116
Table 5
Emission Limitations
Automobile Surface Coating
U Volatile Organic Compounds
Emission Source Emission Limitations Compli Date
volatile organic Achieve Full Compliance
compounds per gallon of with emission limitation
coating (excluding water)
at application
Topeoat application, 5.8° By December 31, 1979
flash off area, and 5.0° By December 31, 1982
oven and 2.8° By December 31, 1985
Final repair application, 48° By December 31, 1985
flash off area, and oven
* Note: Compliance with these emission limitations shall be based upon an arith-
metic average of topcoat coatings and final repair coatings
14. The Massachusetts automobile coating SIP provi-
sions, as federally approved, applied at al] times relevant
to this Complaint to the lacquer coating lines at General
Motors’ Framingham plant.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
15. From January 1, 1986 until operation of the lacquer
coating lines was terminated in about July 1987, VOC
emissions from topcoatings and final repair coatings on
those coating lines exceeded the emission limits in the
automobile coating SIP provisions during virtually every
day the lines were in operation. There was no pollution
control equipment operating on these lines to control VOC
emissions at any relevant time.
16. Under Section 113(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(aX1), if the Administrator of EPA finds a person
to be in violation of an applicable SIP, the Administrator
shall notify the person and the state in which the SIP
JA-117
applies. If the violation extends beyond the thirtieth day
after the date of the Administrator's notification, the Ad-
ministrator may bring a civil action under Section 113(b\2)
of the Act for injunctive relief, civil penalties of up to
$25,000 per day of violation, or both.
17. On August 14, 1286, EPA issued General Motors a
Notice of Violation under Section 113(a) of the Act, 42
U.S.C. § 7413(a), citing violations of the Massachusetts
automobile coating SIP provisions on the topcoat and final
repair coating lines at the Framingham plant. EPA sent -
a copy of the Notice of Violation to the Massachusetts
DEQE pursuant to Section 113(aX1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7413(aX1).
18. General Motors received the Notice of Violation on
August 18, 1986.
19. After September 17, 1986, VOC emissions from top-
coatings and final repair coatings used on the lacquer coat-
ing lines at the Framingham plant continued to exceed
the emission limits set forth in the Massachusetts auto-
mobile coating SIP provisions.
20. General Motors has, therefore, violated the Massa-
chusetts automobile coating SIP provisions and Section 113
of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7413.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, United States of America, re-
spectfully prays that this Court enter judgment against
Defendant for:
(a) Civil penalties of up to $25,000 for each day on which
Defendant has operated the lacquer coating lines at the
Framingham Plant in violation of the Massachusetts au-
tomobile coating SIP provisions or the Act;
(b) Plaintiff's costs of this action; and
(c) Such other and further relief as the Court deems
just and appropriate.
JA-118
Respectfully submitted,
Roger J. Marzulla
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Land and Natural Resources Division
William D. Brighton, Attorney
Environmental Enforcement Section
Land and Natural Resources Division
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 633-2445
FRANK L. MCNAMARA
Acting United States Attorney
District of Massachusetts
By: Andrew S. Hogeland
Assistant United States Attorney
1107 J.W. McCormack Post Office
and Courthouse
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
(617) 223-9402
OF COUNSEL:
TIMOTHY L. WILLIAMSON
Assistant Regional Counsel
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
J.F.K. Federal Building, Rm. 2003
Boston, Massachusetts 02203
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintyf.
v.
GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
May 16, 1988
Me NAUGHT, D. J.
This action comes on to be heard on defendant General
Motors’ (“GM”) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seg.
The Clean Air Act provides for the EPA to establish
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQSs”) which
JA-120
“The Administrator shall, within four months after
the date required for submission of [the SIP],
approve or disapprove such plan or each portion
thereof. The Administrator shall approve such plan
... if he determines that it was adopted after rea-
sonable notice and hearing and that [certain other
criteria are met].”
Once the SIP has been approved by the EPA, it is enforce-
able under both State and federal law.
The original SIP is not necessarily the final word, how-
ever. Under 42 U.S.C. § 7410(aX3A), the state may submit
revised SIPs to the EPA for approval.
“The Administrator shall approve revision of an
implementation plan applicable to an air quality
control region if he determines that it meets the
requirements of paragraph (2) and has been adopted
by the State after reasonable notice and hearing.”
The heart of the issue before us is whether this provision
requires the EPA to approve or disapprove proposed SIP
revisions within four months as is the case for original SIPs.
The facts before us are as follows: In February, 1979 the
EPA promulgated NAAQSs having to de with photochemical
oxidants, including ozone. One of the industries affected by
these NAAQSs was the GM Plant in Framingham, whose
painting facilities emitted volatile organic compounds
(“VOCs”) which react with the atmosphere to create ozone.
Later that year, the Massachusetts Department of Envi-
ronmental Quality Engineering (““DEQE”’) submitted a pro-
posed SIP which included provisions regulating VOC
emissions from automobile surface coating operations. 310
CMR 7.18(7). GM’s Framingham plant is the only such facility
in the Commonwealth. EPA approved this regulation in 1980.
45 Fed. Reg. 61293, 61295. This SIP required GM to meet
a iii
JA-121
compliance regulations in stages, with full compliance by
December 31, 1985, some two years earlier than the max-
imum time allowed by the NAAQS.
In October 1981, the EPA published a policy statement
which acknowledged a shift in automobile painting technology
from the older lacquer-based process to a new basecoat/clear
coat (“BC/CC”’) process, which would eliminate many prior
pollution problems. 46 Fed. Reg. 51366. This statement pro-
vided that the EPA would allow revisions of SIPs which
gave automakers until 1986 or, in some cases, 1987 to shift
to the BC/CC process. Id. at 51367.
In November 1984, GM submitted a proposed compliance
schedule to DEQE. This schedule related to the lacquer
operations which were still in use at Framingham, and asked
for an extension of time, beyond the end of 1985, to install
the necessary emission controls. By June, 1985, however,
GM had indicated its plans to convert the Framingham plant
to the BC/CC process. This conversion was expected to take
until the end of 1987. On December 30, 1985, the day before
the final compliance deadline under the original SIP, DEQE
proposed a revised SIP which would give GM until August
31, 1987 to comply with the NAAQS.
To make an already long story shorter, GM began con-
struction of a new $200 million BC/CC facility while contin-
uing its out-of-compliance (under the original SIP) lacquer
operations. For its part, EPA Region I conducted negotia-
tions with GM and DEQE on the matter, but with no sat-
isfactory resolution. According to the affidavit of John L.
Hamisch, the Chief of the State Air Programs Branch of
EPA Region I, on May 30, 1986 Region I was prepared to
send a proposed disapproval of the revised SIP to EPA
Headquarters, but delayed this action at DEQE’s request.
The proposed disapproval did go to EPA H rs on
July 2, 1986. Final decision on the matter has yet to take
place as the paperwork has floated about the EPA.
JA-122
Notwithstanding this, in August 1986 the EPA issued a
“Notice of Violation” to GM based on the requirements of
the original SIP, and on August 17, 1987, the United States
brought this action. GM’s new BC/CC plant was completed
in July 1987, the lacquer plant closed permanently, and since
that time GM has been in compliance with all applicable
NAAQSs.
The issue before us—whether or not the provisions of
section 7410(aX3XA) incorporate the four month deadline of
section 7410(aX2)—is an open question in this Circuit. As
conceded by the government, however, the weight of
authority is that it does. The most recent case to address
the subject is United States v. Alcan Foil Products, et al.,
(C.A. No. 87-0434 L (CS), W.D. Ky., March 15, 1988).
Alcan also involved SIPs and proposed SIP revisions deal-
ing with VOC emissions, in that case from rotogravure print-
ing presses. The facts are quite similar to those before us.
The EPA approved the pertinent original SIP in 1981. In
1984 the EPA approved an initial revision of the SIP. In
March of 1986, however, a second revision was proposed.
Just over four months later, without taking action on the
proposed SIP revisions, EPA served Alcan with a noncom-
pliance notice. A year and one day later, having notified
Alcan of perceived obstacles to approval of the proposed SIP,
but not yet having acted upon it, EPA filed suit. As of the
date of the Alcan decision, more than two years from the
time Kentucky had proposed its revised SIP, the EPA had
not yet acted.
The Alcan court relied heavily on the other principal case
in this area, American Cyanamid Co. v. EPA, 810 F.2d 493
(5th Cir. 1987). As in Cyanamid, the court held that although
the EPA had the authority to reject the proposed SIP and
to enforce the old standard from that point on, it could take
no enforcement action until then. Alcan at 4.
Any other result makts little sense from a practical stand-
point. The very structure, of the Clean Air Act describes a
JA-123
cooperative venture in which federal authorities prescribe
long-term national standards but allow each state, within
limits, to determine the best way to reach them. Cyanamid
at 500. Indeed, the language of section 7410(aX3XA) is such
that
“{t}he Agency is plainly charged by the Act with
the responsibility for setting the national ambient
air standards. Just as plainly, however, it is rele-
gated by the Act to a secondary role in the process
of determining and enforcing the specific, source-
by-source emission limitations which are necessary
if the national standards it has set are to be met
... [SJo long as the ultimate effect of a State’s
choice of emission limitations is in compliance with
the national standards for ambient air, the State
is at liberty to adopt whatever mix of emission
standards it deems best suited to its particular sit-
uation.”
Train v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 421 U.S.
60, 79 (1975).
Were we to accept the government’s interpretation of sec-
tion 7410(aX3XA) the role of the states in this cooperative
venture would be severely curtailed. Clearly, one of the rea-
sons the states were authorized to propose revisions to SIPs
is that they are closer to the problems and, therefore, better
able to determine the best interests of their citizens and
state industries in achieving the mandatory federal stand-
ards. A system which would allow EPA to proceed indefi-
nitely without accepting or rejecting the state’s plan, while
at the same time enforcing the previous law, would put all
the cards in federal hands. This is clearly contrary to the
intent of the statute.
The United States makes much of the idea that proposed
SIP revisions are different from original SIP proposals. This
is so in part, they argue, because the groundwork for many
original SIPs was already in place and because there was a
JA-124
need, initially, to get up to speed in Clean Air Act enforce-
ment. In addition, SIP approval was necessary before any
of EPA’s other activities could begin, whereas proposed SIP
revisions must compete with other EPA priorities. Conse-
quently, the government insists, “EPA [should be] entitled
to a reasonable time for action on proposed SIP revisions
submitted by the statutes, not constrained by the four-month
period for decisions on original SIPs.’ (Plaintiff's Brief at
21).
We agree that the EPA should have a “reasonable” time
to review and act upon proposed SIP revisions. As it is, we
believe that the four month period which the Alcan and
Cyanamid courts have agreed upon meets this standard.
Accord Duquesne Light Co. v. EPA, 698 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir.
1983); Council of Commuter Organizations v. Thomas, 799
F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1986); Council of Commuter Organizations
v. Gorruch, 683 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1982). Contra United States
v. National Steel Corp., 767 F.2d 1176 (6th Cir. 1985). This
is so for a number of reasons.
First, the EPA always holds the ultimate trump card:
it may at any time during or after the allowed four month
period reject the proposal and invoke enforcement proceed-
ings under the original SIP. Second, it strains credulity that
truly important or controversial SIP revisions cannot be
effectively identified early on in the process and scheduled
for expedited review. This is especially so since SIP revisions
will seldom be breaking “new ground,” but will merely mod-
ify already approved procedures. Third, a period any greater
than four months would leave both the states and the affected
industries in an unjustifiable state of limbo. For an indefinite
period, the state would be unable to act to balance dictated
national priorities with the interests of its citizens and in-
dustries as the Clean Air Act intended. And the industries
themselves, though fully in compliance with state law, would
in some instances face the Scylla and Charybdis choice be-
tween ceasing operations now, or possibly being forced out
of business by heavy fines later. Although it is not likely
JA-125
that such fines in Framingham would force GM to bank-
ruptcy, that would be cold comfort to Framingham workers
who might be laid off while a new plant was being built or
because the plant was moved out of state.
The provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 7410(aX3XA) do not call for
that choice. We agree with the Alcan and Cycnamid courts
and others that the statute parallels the provisions of section
7410(aX2) in providing EPA with four months to render a
decision on proposed SIP revisions. If a decision is delayed
beyond that time, the EPA is prohibited from bringing or
continuing enforcement proceedings under the original SIP
until final action is taken.
The proposed SIP revision in issue here went to EPA
nearly two and one-half years ago, and final action has yet
to be taken. In the meantime, GM has built a brand new
$200 million facility, shut down permanently the offending
lacquer plant, and come into full compliance with the ozone
NAAQSs. For EPA to complain at this point that it was
not given “reasonable” time to act smacks of closing the
barn door after the horse is already out. If the EPA is to
achieve its stated objective in the future, it will have to get
the door closed faster.
For all of the above reasons, defendant’s motion for sum-
mary judgment is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
JOHN J. McNAUGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.