EPA v. GENERAL MOTORS, VAN NUYS

Case summary

ON JULY 9, 1985 EPA, REGION 9 ISSUED A NOTICE OF VIOLATION TO GENERAL MOTORS FOR VIOLATIONS THE CAA OCCURRING AT ITS PLANT IN VAN NUYS, CA ( THE PLANT ). THE NOV ALLEGES THAT TWO PAINT COATINGS UTILIZED IN THE PLANT'S AUTO COATING OPERATION WERE SAMPLED APRIL 17, 1985 AND FOUND TO CONTAIN EXCESSIVE LEVELS OF VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LIMITS. THOSE APPLICABLE LIMITS ARE CONTAINED IN THE SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT SCAQMD STANDARDS, WHICH BECAME EFFECTIVE ON JANUARY 1, 1985 AS PART OF THE APPROVED CALIFORNIA STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ( SIP ) AN SCAQMD PROPOSED SIP REVISION THAT WOULD LOWER THOSE STANDARDS AND, PRESUMABLY, RESULT IN THE PLANT'S COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN PENDING BEFORE EPA SINCE JULY, 1984. EPA IS IN THE PROCESS OF PREPARING A FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE PROPOSING TO DISAPPROVE THAT REVISION. VIOLATIONS AT THE PLANT ARE CONTINUING AND HAVE BEEN EXACERBATED BY ITS CONVERSION FROM WATERBORNE COATINGS TO BASECOAT/CLEARCOAT TECHNOLOGY IN AUGUST OF 1985 TO MEET FOREIGN COMPETITION. GENERAL MOTORS CONTENDS THAT IT WILL NOT SURVIVE SUCH FOREIGN COMPETITION IF IT RETURNS TO WATERBORNE COATS OR, APPLIES EXPENSIVE ADD-ON TECHNOLOGY TO CONTROL EXCESSIVE VOC EMMISSIONS. GENERAL MOTORS URGES RELAXATION OF EXISTING VOC STANDARDS THROUGH EPA'S APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REVISION OR THROUGH SOME OTHER PROCEDURAL VEHICLE. GENERAL MOTORS ARGUES THAT THE NOV SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN CONSISITENT WITH SUCH RELAXATION. GENERAL MOTOR'S ADAMANCY CONCERNING THE UNACHIEVABILITY OF MEETING AN UNREVISED SCAQMD STANDARD THROUGH COATING CONTENT REFORMULATION AND THE PROHIBITIVE COSTS OF ACHIEVING IT THROUGH ADD-ON TECHNOLOGY, HAS RECENTLY YIELDED TO GENERAL MOTOR'S PROPOSAL TO MEET IT THROUGH REFORMULATION AND BETTER CONTROL OF BASECOAT/CLEAR WATER APPLICATION. GENERAL MOTORS SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT ENTITLED ALTERNATIVE VOC COMPLIANCE PROGRAM TO REGION 9 FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW. REGION 9 NOTIFIED GENERAL MOTORS THAT THIS PROGRAM IS NOT ADEQUATE TO SATISFY THE SIP REQUIREMENT. REGION 9 HAS ADVISED GENERAL MOTORS THAT ADD-ON TECHNOLOGY WILL BE REQUIRED. GENERAL MOTORS ALSO HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT A CONSENT DECREE WILL NEED TO BE FILED CONTAINING CIVIL PENALTIES FOR PAST VIOLATIONS AS WELL AS STIPULATED PENALTIES FOR ANY FUTURE VIOLATIONS ALONG WITH ALL NECESSARY MILESTONES TOWARD FINAL COMPLIANCE. REGION 9 ALSO ISSUED GENERAL MOTORS A FINDING OF VIOLATION AND ORDER ON JULY 9, 1985 BECAUSE GENERAL MOTORS FAILED TO PROVIDE A REQUIRED 60 DAY NOTICE PRIOR TO THE ANTICIPATED CONVERSION TO BASECOAT/CLEARCOAT TECHNOLOGY AT THE PLANT ON AUGUST 21, 1985. NEITHER DID GENERAL MOTORS SUBMIT TO REGION 9 THE RESULTS OF PERFORMANCE TESTS REQUIRED TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED AND SUBMITTED WITHIN 180 DAYS OF THE AUGUST 21, 1985 CONVERSION DATE. THOSE TEST RESULTS WERE NOT SUBMITTED UNTIL MARCH 27, 1986. ALTHOUGH GENERAL MOTORS HAD BEEN ADVISED IN WRITING AND BY TELEPHONE THAT CAPTURE EFFICIENCY TESTING WAS A REQUIRED PART OF THE SOURCE TEST PROCEDURE, THE TEST RESULTS SUBMITTED DESCRIBE ONLY DESTRUCTION EFFICIENCY AND MAKE NO MENTION OF CAPTURE EFFICIENCY. THOSE REPORTING VIOLATIONS FALL UNDER THE NEW SOURCE PER- FORMANCE STANDARDS PROVISION OF THE CAA, WHICH BECAME APPLICABLE TO THE PLANT BY VIRTUE OF ITS 8/21/85 CONVERSION TO BASECOAT/CLEARCOAT TECHNOLOGY. IN VIEW OF THE MORE SERIOUS SIP VIOLATIONS AND THE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF PENALTIES ASSESSED FOR THOSE VIOLATIONS, REGION 9 IS NOT HIGHLIGHTING THE NSPS REPORTING VIOLATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF THIS REFERRAL. VOCS EMITTED FROM THE SOLVENTS US

Defendants (1)

• GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATIONNamed in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• GMC CPC GROUP VAN NUYS PLANT

  8000 VAN NUYS BLVD, VAN NUYS, CA, 914092310

  Registry ID: 110000781654

Statutes cited

• CAA 110 — Implementation Plan for National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• GENERAL MOTORSentered 1992-10-21

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $57,000

Timeline (9 milestones)

• 1985-04-17Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 1986-06-30Referred To Dept Of Justice
• 1987-08-20Returned To Region
• 1992-07-30Rereferred
• 1992-08-20Complaint Filed With Court
• 1992-10-21Final Order Lodged
• 1992-10-21Final Order Entered
• 1992-10-21Concluded
• 1993-10-20Enforcement Action Closed