# Joint Appendix — General Motors Corp. v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0670%3A07 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Joint Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1990 - **Citation:** 496 U.S. 530 ## 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 Radiatio [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385012_0670%3A07. Public record. Not legal advice.