American Coatings Association

On Jan. 30, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule to reconsider the Final Rule for National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Chemical Manufacturing Area Sources (CMAS rule). 

EPA promulgated the CMAS rule for nine area source categories in the chemical manufacturing sector in October 2009.  On Feb. 12, 2010, after the rulemaking was final, the American Chemistry Council and the Society of Chemical Manufacturers and Affiliates petitioned EPA to reconsider many sections in the final rule.  EPA decided to reconsider the rule and address the petitioners’ concerns and also proposed new requirements and additional changes.

EPA is proposing to change the title V requirements for “synthetic” and “natural” area sources, overlapping regulatory requirements, direct and proximal leak inspections, requirement for covers and lids on process vessels, and the definition of metal hazardous air pollutant (HAP) process vents.  With respect to title V permitting, EPA is proposing to only require a title V permit for a synthetic area source if air pollution controls were installed on at least one chemical manufacturing process unit subject to the final rule in order to become an area source.  If finalized, this change to the title V permitting process should ease the compliance burden for many chemical manufacturing area sources. 

EPA is also requesting comment on the definition of metal HAP process vent and how this definition applies to all chemical manufacturing processes.      

In addition, EPA is proposing new requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.  In response to a recent court decision, EPA is required to regulate hazardous air pollutants from major and area sources during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunctions.  However, EPA is proposing an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceeding the emission limits during a malfunction episode.  This defense places the burden on the violator to demonstrate that the malfunction was a result of a sudden, unavoidable failure of equipment or a process, and could not have been prevented by proper planning or better operation and maintenance practices.  The defendant also must show that it responded quickly to the malfunction and took steps to minimize the impacts on human health and the environment due to the malfunction, among other requirements. 

Please note that these additional requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and the corresponding affirmative defense, will be integrated into new Clean Air Act hazardous air pollutants regulations in the future.   

ACA is developing comments regarding EPA’s proposed reconsideration of the CMAS rule, which are due by March 30, 2012. 

Contact ACA’s This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it for more information.