High Court to Consider GM’s Pollution Fines

The Supreme Court today set the stage for a significant ruling on the government’s power to fine air polluters.

The court agreed to hear an appeal by General Motors, which faces fines of up to $25,000 a day for violating federal air quality standards at a Massachusetts car assembly plant.

The justices will review a ruling that the federal government’s failure to meet a deadline for approving or rejecting revised state pollution controls does not bar it from fining GM.

The case involves pollution from car paint at GM’s plant in Framingham.

The federal agency in 1980 approved a Massachusetts plan for reducing pollution from paint at auto assembly factories.

The plan required car makers to comply fully with the federal rules by Dec. 31, 1985. But EPA officials extended the deadline for any plant switching from lacquer paints to enamel, which emits less pollutants.

GM initially planned to stay with lacquer at the Framingham factory but in June, 1985, announced it would convert to enamel by the summer of 1987. The company asked that it not be required to comply with the Dec. 31, 1985, standards until 20 months later.

Massachusetts officials approved GM’s proposal and submitted a revised plan to the EPA on Dec. 30, 1985.

Without waiting for federal approval, GM began building a $200-million plant in Framingham to use enamel paints while still operating its factory that uses lacquer.

EPA officials went to federal court in August, 1987, seeking fines of up to $25,000 a day against GM for 20 months of air-quality violations at the Framingham plant.

It was not until September, 1988, that the EPA rejected a state-approved pollution control system at the new plant.

A federal judge barred the EPA from imposing fines against GM. The judge said the federal agency violated the Clean Air Act by taking more than four months to rule on a state-approved plan submitted Dec. 30, 1985.

But the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals last June said EPA’s failure to meet the four-month deadline does not disqualify it from fining companies that violate previously approved pollution control rules.

In another case, the court agreed to hear arguments favoring states’ rights and consider limiting the federal government’s power to control water used by hydroelectric dams.

The court said it will hear a California appeal supported by nearly every other state.

The California water resources agency sought to limit the flow of water over a dam on Rock Creek, a small tributary of the American River near Placerville, by requiring that enough water continue flowing in Rock Creek to assure survival of trout.

But the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in 1987 said it has exclusive control over how much water should flow over the dam.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the commission last June.

Leading environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, said “ill-conceived hydroelectric development” should not be shielded from state regulation.