Jim Corbit
in Connect on LinkedIn
In the spring of 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized a regulation to reduce toxic air emissions from chemical plants, including ethylene oxide (EtO) and chloroprene. The updated Hazardous Organic National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (HON) rule introduces new emissions control requirements and affects facilities nationwide.
While some facilities have received a two-year compliance extension, many facilities do not view the extension as a signal of regulatory rollback. Facilities without a scheduled reprieve must comply with various provisions in 2026 or 2027.
Given the complexity of the updated HON rule, facilities often begin initial evaluation with unit-level engineering to define scope. As cost and operational impacts become clearer, responsibility typically shifts to capital projects teams. With firm deadlines and far-reaching implications, understanding available compliance pathways and implementation strategies has become a critical priority for facility teams and corporate leadership.
Jim Corbit, an air quality compliance and permitting consultant, discusses the HON rule’s implications for the chemical industry.
Q: Is the HON rule fully enforceable, and what does enforcement look like in practice?
A: Yes. Once the compliance dates pass, the rule is enforceable. EPA writes, administers and enforces these regulations, but they are also incorporated into state-level regulations, giving states delegated authority. This means facilities have firm deadlines. Those deadlines will be incorporated into their Title V operating permits. States have an obligation to enforce them, and facilities have an obligation to self-report any noncompliance.
What enforcement looks like can vary by state. States have the authority to levy fines of up to nearly $125,000 per day for noncompliance, though their internal guidance usually calls for considerably lower fines as long as there is a good-faith effort to comply. However, when the EPA chooses to intervene, its enforcement actions tend to be particularly harsh. The agency often issues a consent decree that not only requires the facility to comply with the rule but also requires it to pay a fine for any profits it may have made by not complying. In addition, the EPA can impose additional control measures to offset any harm caused by the delay, with total penalties often running into the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Q: We have seen many regulatory changes in recent years. Is it possible this rule could be significantly delayed or materially changed?
A: It is highly unlikely. This rule is based on a statutory requirement in the Clean Air Act that mandates the EPA review these regulations every eight years. The agency must assess residual emissions, their impact on communities and any changes in control technology. This is an ongoing, repeating cycle.
The primary changes in this HON rule update are derived from standards already applied to other industries, such as the refinery sector’s Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards. Any future change to the rule would typically require a public comment process that takes at least six months, and as of today, nothing has been written or proposed to suggest a change is coming. The EPA granted the two-year extensions to a specific list of facilities through an administrative process without rulemaking. It is unlikely there will be a rulemaking to apply that extension more broadly or to alter the core tenets of the rule. However, it is difficult to determine what other administrative activities may be occurring outside the public process, where specific regulated companies could be requesting consideration.
Q: What are the consequences if a facility misses its compliance deadline?
A: The consequences could be severe, depending on how and why the facility failed to comply. Beyond the significant fines and penalties previously discussed, if a company knowingly and willfully chooses not to comply, there may be personal criminal and civil liability for decision-makers. This liability can extend to mid-level managers and plant managers who play an active role in the decision, not just executive leadership.
The critical takeaway is that you will not know the extent of the work required until you perform prescreening activities. My advice is to start now. The sooner you begin, the more time you will have to develop a range of compliance options. The benefit of starting the process with an integrated engineer-procure-construct (EPC) partner is that we can perform constructability reviews on your various options and seamlessly roll the most effective path forward into a capital project.
