Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0056-6213
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-03-15T05:00Z

RESPONSE
TO
SIGNIFICANT
PUBLIC
COMMENTS
ON
THE
PROPOSED
CLEAN
AIR
MERCURY
RULE
Received
in
response
to:

Proposed
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants;
and,
in
the
Alternative,
Proposed
Standards
of
Performance
for
New
and
Existing
Stationary
Sources:
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units
(
69
FR
4652;
January
30,
2004)

Supplemental
Notice
for
the
Proposed
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants;
and,
in
the
Alternative,
Proposed
Standards
of
Performance
for
New
and
Existing
Stationary
Sources:
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units
(
69
FR
12398;
March
16,
2004)

Proposed
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants;
and,
in
the
Alternative,
Proposed
Standards
of
Performance
for
New
and
Existing
Stationary
Sources,
Electric
Utility
Steam
Generating
Units:
Notice
of
Data
Availability
(
69
FR
69864;
December
1,
2004)

Docket
Number
OAR­
2002­
0056
8.0
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EXECUTIVE
ORDERS
AND
STATUTES
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Emissions
Standards
Division
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
27711
15
March
2005
i
General
Outline
1.0
INTRODUCTION
AND
BACKGROUND
2.0
APPLICABILITY
AND
SUBCATEGORIZATION
3.0
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
FOR
COAL­
FIRED
ELECTRIC
UTILITY
STEAM
GENERATING
UNITS
4.0
PERFORMANCE
STANDARDS
FOR
OIL­
FIRED
ELECTRIC
UTILITY
STEAM
GENERATING
UNITS
5.0
MERCURY
CAP­
AND­
TRADE
PROGRAM
6.0
MERCURY
EMISSIONS
MONITORING
7.0
IMPACT
ESTIMATES
8.0
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EXECUTIVE
ORDERS
AND
STATUTES
9.0
NODA
10.0
OTHER
Appendix
A
LIST
OF
COMMENTERS
8­
1
8.0
COMPLIANCE
WITH
EXECUTIVE
ORDERS
AND
STATUTES
8.1
REGULATORY
IMPACT
ANALYSIS
(
EO
12866,
ANALYSIS
OF
ALTERNATIVES,
BENEFITS,
HEALTH
COSTS)

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
4910)
stated
that
EPA
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
several
executive
orders.
Specifically
the
commenters
stated
that
EPA
failed
to
perform
a
rigorous
economic
analysis
of
the
alternative
regulatory
options
pursuant
to
EO
12866,
which
would
demonstrate
that
more
stringent
MACT
standards
were
achievable.
The
commenters
claimed
that
tighter
limits
would
result
in
insignificant
increased
cost
compared
to
the
proposal
while
providing
benefits
(
preventing
thousands
of
premature
deaths).
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2836
stated
that
U.
S.
Senators
and
Congressmen
contended
EPA
did
not
comply
with
EO
12866
to
fully
analyze
the
impacts
of
its
proposal
using
the
best
scientific
information
available.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
first
option
would
have
been
to
abandon
the
regulatory
determination
the
listing
decision
and
the
settlement
agreement,
thus
the
proposal
should
have
contained
a
much
more
comprehensive
discussion
of
the
environmental,
energy,
economic,
and
public
health
impacts
of
the
proposed
action.

Six
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1471,
­
1606,
­
1755,
­
1817,
­
1823,
­
2127)
stated
that
EPA
did
not
fulfilled
its
obligations
under
EO
12866
because
it
did
not
assess
the
costs
and
benefits
of
available
regulatory
alternatives.
The
commenters
stated
that
a
full
cost­
benefit
analysis
was
required
for
all
available
technologies,
and
that
EPA
also
must
analyze
the
benefits
of
Hg
emission
control
reductions
considering
such
factors
as
premature
deaths,
emergency
room
admissions,
and
asthma.
The
commenter
stated
that
these
analyses
have
been
published
by
the
Mt.
Sinai
School
of
Medicine's
Center
for
Children's
Health
and
the
Environment
as
well
as
by
the
Harvard
School
of
Public
Health.

Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
Regulatory
Impacts
Assessment
(
RIA)
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

Comment:

Several
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056
­
2152,
­
2235,
­
2286,
­
3514,
­
3560)
questioned
whether
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
regulations
justify
the
costs.
One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3514)
supported
protecting
public
health
and
was
prepared
to
make
reasonable
additional
reductions
in
power
plant
Hg
emissions.
In
fact,
the
commenter
was
actively
funding
and
participating
in
research
into
finding
technologies
that
would
control
Hg
emissions
from
lignite
coal,
as
none
are
currently
available.
The
commenter
also
felt
it
was
important
for
any
costly
environmental
regulations
deliver
identifiable
health
and
environmental
benefits.
The
commenter
8­
2
did
not
believe
that
EPA
demonstrated
that
reductions
of
Hg
emissions
from
U.
S.
power
plants
would
deliver
the
expected
health
benefits.
The
commenter
noted
that
recent
studies
showed
that
even
very
significant
reductions
in
power
plant
emissions
would
have
very
little
impact
in
local
or
nationwide
deposition.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
in
the
January
30
proposed
rule,
EPA
stated
that
they
"
cannot
currently
quantify
whether,
and
the
extent
to
which,
the
adverse
health
effects
occur
in
the
populations
surrounding
these
facilities,
and
the
contribution,
if
any,
of
the
facilities
to
those
problems"
and
"
the
relationship
between
Hg
emission
reductions
from
Utility
Units
and
methylmercury
(
MeHg)
concentrations
in
fish
cannot
be
calculated
in
a
quantitative
manner
with
confidence."

The
second
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3560)
pointed
out
that
the
current
proposed
Hg
rules
failed
to
adequately
consider
the
cost
and
benefits
associated
with
the
MACT
or
cap
and
trade
approach
to
Hg
emissions.
The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
cites
its
own
study
that
apparently
"
supports
a
plausible
link
between
anthropogenic
releases
of
mercury
from
industrial
and
combustion
sources
in
the
U.
S.
and
methylmercury
in
fish"
[
69
Fed.
Reg.
4652,
4658
(
proposed
January
30,
2004)].
The
commenter
further
noted
that
EPA
admitted
as
follows
that
such
a
purported
link
is
untenable:
"
Given
the
current
scientific
understanding
of
the
environmental
fate
and
transport
of
[
methylmercury],
it
is
not
possible
to
quantify
how
much
of
the
MeHg
in
fish
consumed
by
the
U.
S.
population
is
contributed
by
U.
S.
emissions
relative
to
other
sources
of
Hg
(
such
as
natural
sources
and
re­
emissions
from
the
global
pool).
As
a
result,
the
relationship
between
Hg
emission
reductions
from
Utility
Units
and
MeHg
concentrations
in
fish
cannot
be
calculated
in
a
quantitative
manner
with
confidence.
In
addition,
there
is
uncertainty
regarding
over
what
time
period
these
changes
would
occur."

The
commenter
added
that
EPA
found
that
nine
of
the
top
ten
fish/
shellfish
consumed
by
U.
S.
residents
came
from
saltwater.
[
See
Jon
M.
Heuss,
An
Examination
of
the
Claims
that
Utility
Mercury
Emissions
are
Poisoning
US.
Children
and
Creating
Toxic
Hot
Spots,
The
Annapolis
Center
for
Science­
Based
Public
Policy,
at
5.]
The
commenter
submitted
thus,
reducing
power
plant
Hg
emissions
may
not
have
any
significant
impact
on
the
primary
exposure
route,
which
is
human
consumption
of
ocean
fish.
The
commenter
added
that,
in
fact,
EPA
has
readily
acknowledged
that
U.
S.
utilities
are
estimated
to
account
only
for
roughly
1
percent
of
the
total
global
emissions
of
Hg.
[
See
id.,
at
3.]
The
commenter,
therefore,
believed
that
the
exact
extent
and
nature
of
the
health
benefits
to
be
derived
from
reducing
Hg
emissions
at
power
plants
was,
at
best,
unclear.
In
all
probability,
the
reduction
of
Hg
emissions
obtained
by
these
regulations
(
even
eliminating
all
power
plant
emissions)
would
be
unlikely
to
yield
a
measurable
reduction
in
Hg
levels
in
the
primary
exposure
pathway.
The
commenter
concluded
that
in
light
of
the
uncertain
health
benefits
to
be
gained
from
reduction
of
Hg
from
power
plants,
it
appeared
that
the
proposed
Hg
regulations
should
focus
more
carefully
on
the
costs
and
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
emissions.

Three
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2152,
­
2235,
­
2286)
noted
that
EPA
did
not
develop
a
cost­
benefit
analysis
and
recommended
that
EPA
delay
the
rules
until
there
is
proven
technology.
Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
0699,
­
4328)
urged
EPA
to
find
a
compromise
between
the
environment
and
economics
and
to
temper
the
cost
of
the
rule
according
to
the
costs
to
industry
(
employers)
and
to
consumers.
8­
3
Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11
.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2578)
provided
results
of
an
analysis
concluding
that
the
Hg
emissions
reduction
proposed
by
EPA
would
result
in
slightly
lower
exposure
to
Hg
by
U.
S.
women
of
childbearing
age
and
that
the
improvements
to
public
health
would
vary
by
location
across
the
U.
S.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
analysis
indicated,
that
in
comparison
to
1999
levels,
the
average
exposure
would
decrease
by
about
1.46
percent
across
the
U.
S.
under
the
Cap
&
Trade
scenario
while
under
the
MACT
or
CAIR
scenarios,
the
average
exposure
would
be
reduced
by
about
0.9
percent.
The
commenter's
comparison
of
relative
changes
in
exposure
under
the
two
2020
scenarios,
relative
to
1999,
concluded
that,
with
respect
to
the
deposition
case
under
CAIR,
Cap
&
Trade
was,
in
every
case,
more
protective
than
MACT
(
that
is,
for
every
state
for
which
data
are
available,
there
is
a
greater
decrease
in
exposure
under
C&
T
than
under
MACT).

Response:

Through
this
rulemaking
and
the
separate
CAIR
rule,
EPA
is
limiting
Hg
emissions
from
utilities.
As
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
believes
that
these
rules
will
provide
a
substantial
positive
step
in
reducing
the
health
effects
which
may
result
from
the
release
of
Hg
from
these
utilities.

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3538)
disputed
EPA's
co­
benefits
analysis,
stating
that,
based
on
IAQR
and
Clear
Skies,
the
analysis
did
not
properly
account
for
Hg.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
costs
and
benefits
of
IAQR
and
Clear
Skies,
which
would
reduce
Hg
as
a
co­
benefit,
do
not
include
any
monetized
or
quantified
health
and
environmental
benefits
for
Hg
reduction.
The
commenter
believed
that
if
the
SO2
and
NOx
limits
in
the
IAQR
represent
EPA's
approach
for
Hg
reduction,
then
the
maximum
achievable
control
technology
for
Hg
must
be
at
8­
4
least
equivalent
to
the
"
diminishing
returns
(
knee
of
the
cost
curve)",
and
likely
beyond
that,
to
account
for
additional
Hg
benefits.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
the
SO2
and
NOx
removal
technologies
do
represent
MACT,
EPA
must
then
require
the
used
of
scrubbers
to
the
extent
they
are
cost­
effective
for
Hg
and
require
SCR
for
NOx
control
year
round.

Response:

EPA
set
the
first
phase
cap
of
CAMR
at
a
level
that
represents
the
co­
benefit
Hg
reductions
that
will
occur
as
a
result
of
installation
of
NOx
and
SO2
control
technologies
under
CAIR.
EPA
assessed
the
monetary
benefits
of
Hg
reductions
in
the
first
phase
of
the
program
in
the
RIA.
EPA
has
not
asserted
that
NOx
and
SO2
removal
technologies
represent
MACT.
EPA's
second
phase
cap
of
15
tons
will
require
the
installation
of
Hg­
specific
control
technology
at
many
sources,
and
will
provide
a
continuous
incentive
for
the
development
of
increasingly
efficient
and
cost­
effective
control
technologies
for
Hg.

Comment:

Several
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2380,
­
3353,
­
3413,
4139)
questioned
the
adequacy
of
EPA's
benefits
estimate.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
4139
requested
that
EPA
provide
estimates
of
the
potential
environmental
benefits
(
i.
e.,
reduction
in
fish
Hg
levels)
and
time
lines
under
the
proposed
approaches
developed
with
EPA's
own
recommended
approach
(
used
in
TMDL
development)
for
relating
the
reductions
in
Hg
deposition
to
associated
reductions
in
fish
Hg
levels
("
A
Qualitative
Spatial
Link
Between
Air
Deposition
and
Fish
Tissue,
Cocca,
2001).
If
it
is
not
feasible
to
provide
this,
the
commenter
requested
that
EPA
provide
a
more
thorough
description
of
the
limitations
of
the
methodology
and
remaining
data
gaps
which
need
to
be
addressed.
The
commenter
claimed
that
EPA's
position
is
that
health
benefits
cannot
be
assumed
or
estimated
quantitatively
and
that
a
specific
change
in
total
Hg
emissions
cannot
be
related
to
any
specific
change
in
MeHg
concentration
in
fish
or
health
improvements.
The
commenter
asserted
that
EPA
used
this
position
as
the
justification
for
not
performing
a
quantitative
cost
benefit
analysis.

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2380,
­
3413)
stated
that
EPA
had
not
accounted
for
the
health
costs
of
the
proposed
rule.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
$
15
billion
benefit
cited
by
EPA
was
basically
a
savings
to
industry
and
requested
that
EPA
perform
a
health
impact
analysis
for
the
medical
costs
and
illness/
deaths
of
the
proposed
alternatives.

Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3353
requested
that
EPA
provide
its
best
estimate
of
the
reduction
in
the
Hg
levels
in
the
seafood
consumed
in
the
U.
S.
compared
to
complete
elimination
of
Hg,
and
requested
a
more
explicit
analysis
of
the
extent
of
harm
resulting
from
Hg
exposures.
The
commenter
felt
that
States
should
consider
the
total
benefits
of
Hg
control.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
if
elimination
of
Hg
would
not
result
in
a
significant
reductions
in
fish
advisories,
this
should
be
acknowledged
by
EPA.

Response:
8­
5
EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
freshwater
fish.
At
this
time,
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11.

Comment:

Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3459
contended
that
EPA
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
EO
12866
(
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review)
because
it
did
not
undertake
a
rigorous
economic
analysis
of
alternative
MACT
regulatory
options.
In
choosing
among
alternative
approaches,
the
commenter
believed
that
EPA
should
select
the
approaches
that
maximize
net
benefits.
The
costs
and
benefits
include
both
quantitative
measures
(
to
the
fullest
extent
they
can
be
usefully
estimated)
and
qualitative
measures
of
costs
and
benefits
that
are
difficult
to
quantify
but
essential
to
consider.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
published
guidance
in
1996
for
preparing
these
analyses,
and
failed
to
follow
either
the
guidance
or
the
EO
requirements.
The
commenter
claimed
that
EPA
did
not
seriously
evaluate
alternatives
to
the
MACT
floor
(
e.
g.,
floor
based
on
no
subcategorization
or
other
subcategorization
criteria)
and
did
no
assessment
of
alternative
beyond­
the­
floor
options
(
except
for
providing
excuses
why
the
standards
ignore
available
techniques).
The
commenter
asserted
that
EPA
then
did
a
superficial
cost
and
benefit
assessment
of
the
MACT
standard
against
a
section
111
cap
and
trade
alternative.
The
commenter
stated
that
a
rigorous
economic
analysis
demonstrated
that
more
stringent
MACT
standards
are
achievable,
feasible,
highly
cost­
effective,
and
would
provide
substantial
additional
human
health
benefits
(
the
incremental
benefits
would
be
well
in
excess
of
incremental
costs).
The
analysis
used
EPA's
emission
rates
(
minus
what
the
commenter
deemed
unjustifiable
statistical
adjustments),
subcategorization
by
fuel
rank
(
bituminous,
subbituminous,
lignite),
and
other
EPA
methods
and
procedures.
The
results
of
the
commenter's
analysis
showed
that
EPA's
less
stringent
proposal
was
arbitrary
and
capricious.
The
commenter's
alternative
was
said
to
reduce
Hg
far
more,
and
more
rapidly,
and
reduce
particulate­
related
deaths
far
more
at
costs
very
close
to
those
for
EPA's
less
stringent
proposals
(
about
$
5
billion
more)
and
the
commenter
asserted
that
these
costs
were
conservatively
(
high)
estimates.
The
commenter's
alternative
scenario
resulted
in
slight
shifts
towards
more
bituminous
coal
and
moderate
declines
in
subbituminous
and
lignite
use.
A
similar
shift
was
observed
with
EPA's
proposal
(
or
any
regulatory
approach),
but
the
commenter
stated
that
the
public
health
and
environmental
benefits
far
outweigh
the
impacts
of
coal
market
shifts.
The
commenter's
alternative
shifted
coal
production
from
Appalachia
and
the
West
to
the
Interior
region,
and
would
reduce
coal
use
by
less
than
1
percent.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
proposal
had
the
same
shift
but
increased
coal
use
by
about
6
percent.
The
alternative
resulted
in
an
increase
in
electricity
prices
of
about
one­
half
cent
per
kilowatt
hour
(
or
7
percent)
for
all
power
regions
relative
to
EPA's
proposal.
Coal
prices
under
the
alternative
were
essentially
unchanged,
compared
to
EPA's
proposal
and
the
price
of
natural
gas
was
essentially
unaffected.
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
costs
of
the
alternative
were
more
than
8­
6
offset
by
the
total
estimated
benefits
of
$
28
billion
in
2010
and
$
6.9
billion
in
2020.
Additional
benefits
would
be
even
higher
if
the
11
health
and
welfare
benefits
EPA
identified
but
did
not
assess
were
included.
The
commenter
estimated
that
in
2010,
the
benefits
of
the
alternative
would
exceed
costs
by
almost
6
to
1.
The
commenter
stated
that
even
more
stringent
limits
are
cost
effective
and
that
EPA
must
consider
and
analyze
them
to
fulfill
EO
12866
requirements.

Response:

EPA
has
conducted
the
analyses
required
by
EO
12866
and
the
results
are
provided
in
the
preamble
of
the
final
rule.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2251)
stated
that,
based
on
the
preamble,
"...
the
relationship
between
Hg
emission
reductions
from
Utility
Units
and
MeHg
concentrations
cannot
be
calculated
with
confidence,"
and
asserted
that
EPA
should
re­
examine
the
risk
to
the
American
people
caused
by
coal­
based
utility
Hg
emissions
and
consider
the
health
implications
of
Hg
regulation
in
a
more
holistic
fashion,
so
that
rules
designed
to
reduce
Hg
in
fish
actually
reflect
and
address
the
likelihood
of
health
benefits
and
the
expected
timing
of
such
benefits
and
do
not
result
in
arbitrary
administrative
actions
or
unintended,
negative
health
consequences
for
the
public
at
large.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
had
a
dual
responsibility
in
regard
to
public
health
and
emissions
from
power
plants.
First,
the
Agency
must
protect
the
public
from
exposure
to
criteria
air
pollutants
and
HAP,
as
defined
by
the
CAA.
Second,
EPA
must
assess
the
impact
of
its
regulations
in
a
broader
perspective."

Response:

EPA
has
analyzed
the
economic
and
benefits
impacts
of
the
final
rule
and
provided
a
discussion
of
the
results
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
and
in
the
RIA.

8
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1842)
questioned
EPA's
analysis
stating
that
only
a
few
air
toxics
accounted
for
most
of
the
weight
of
toxics
emitted.
The
commenter
noted,
however,
that
there
is
a
huge
difference
in
toxicity
equivalency
quotient
(
TEQ)
between
HAP.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
average
plant
has
a
TEQ
of
242,000,
and
that
this
quotient
already
reflected
90
percent
removal
of
the
metals
other
than
Hg.
The
commenter
concluded
that
the
quotient
with
no
air
pollution
control
equipment
could
easily
be
800,000,
and
if
one
were
to
require
90
percent
reduction
from
this
uncontrolled
level
then
the
TEQ
or
toxic
equivalent
would
be
80,000.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
Hg
were
treated
separately,
the
raw
quotient
would
be
700,000,
and
that
meeting
a
70,000
quotient
limit
could
easily
be
accomplished
with
the
normal
particulate
equipment
and
SO2
scrubber.

The
commenter
stated
that
the
original
EPA
draft
listed
Hg
with
a
lesser
quantity
emission
rate
(
LQER)
of
0.1.
The
commenter
compared
the
Hg
impact
with
the
LQER
both
at
the
0.001
8­
7
level
and
at
0.01
(
the
toxicity
for
lead
and
chromium).
The
commenter
stated
that
these
comparisons
should
give
legislators
pause
before
requiring
a
90
percent
Hg
reduction.
Reducing
Hg
the
extra
10
percent
could
add
as
much
as
10
mils/
kWh
to
electricity
cost.
The
commenter
concluded
that
for
the
base
case,
an
extra
10
percent
reduction
of
HCl,
chromium,
and
lead
would
accomplish
the
same
toxicity
reduction
but
at
a
far
lower
cost
(
less
than
0.5
mil/
kWh).
The
commenter
stated
that
in
the
case
where
Hg
was
assigned
a
lower
toxicity,
the
extra
10
percent
Hg
reduction
only
reduced
total
toxicity
by
0.5
percent.
The
calculations
were
based
on
nationwide
annual
emissions
as
reported
in
the
TRI
inventory.

Response:

As
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule,
EPA
believes
that
Hg
is
the
pollutant
of
concern
from
coal­
fired
Utility
Units.
However,
together
the
multipollutant
benefits
of
CAIR
and
CAMR
will
also
lead
to
reductions
of
the
pollutants
the
commenter
notes.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2899)
questioned
EPA's
analysis
stating
that
reducing
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
appeared
to
do
little
to
reduce
the
public
health
risk
from
Hg
exposure.
The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
has
repeatedly
said
that
it
cannot
quantify
the
linkage
between
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
and
Hg
levels
in
fish
and
observed
that
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
EPA
presented
an
assessment
of
the
benefits
that
it
predicted
would
result
from
its
proposed
Hg
limits.
The
commenter
noted
that
with
regard
to
Hg,
EPA
stated:
"
the
Agency
believes
that
the
key
rationale
for
controlling
Hg
is
to
reduce
public
and
environmental
exposure
to
Hg,
thereby
reducing
risk
to
public
health
and
wildlife.
Although
the
available
science
does
not
support
quantification
of
these
benefits
at
this
time,
the
Agency
believes
the
qualitative
benefits
are
large
enough
to
justify
substantial
investment
in
Hg
emission
reductions."
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
speculation
about
the
possible
benefits
from
the
control
of
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
is
not
borne
out
by
detailed
analyses
performed
by
EPRI.

The
commenter
stated
that
in
May
2003,
EPRI
released
a
technical
report
analyzing
the
cost
effectiveness
of
the
proposed
Clear
Skies
legislation
and
a
hypothetical
MACT
standard.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
analysis
first
used
an
econometric
model
to
predict
how
utilities
would
act
to
comply
with
the
two
regulatory
structures,
then
used
an
atmospheric
fate
and
transport
model
to
predict
how
the
resulting
changes
in
Hg
emissions
would
affect
a
number
of
receptors
in
specific
source
regions.
The
deposition
information
was
then
used
to
estimate
the
change
in
MeHg
exposure
to
women
of
childbearing
age.
These
changes
in
MeHg
exposure
were
then
compared
to
the
estimated
costs
of
each
regulatory
scheme.

According
to
the
commenter,
EPRI's
analyses
found
that
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
contributed
less
than
8
percent
of
the
Hg
deposited
in
the
U.
S.,
and
that
a
10
percent
reduction
in
national
ionic
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
would
result
in
a
0.75
percent
reduction
in
U.
S.
Hg
deposition
while
a
10
percent
reduction
in
national
elemental
Hg
emissions
would
lower
U.
S.
Hg
deposition
by
0.03
percent.
According
to
the
commenter,
8­
8
even
if
Hg
emissions
from
coal­
fired
power
plants
were
reduced
to
15
tons
per
year,
the
Hg
deposition
in
the
U.
S.
would
only
be
reduced
by
approximately
5
percent
assuming
the
reductions
were
linearly
related.

Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11.

Comment:

Commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1842)
stated
that
utilities
attempting
Hg
reduction
were
faced
with
a
decision
as
to
whether
to
install
a
new
baghouse,
with
substantial
capital
cost,
or
to
inject
five
times
more
carbon
to
an
existing
precipitator.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
a
few
years
later
the
utility
were
told
it
must
greatly
reduce
fine
particulate,
it
might
well
regret
its
Hg
removal
choice.
The
commenter
stated
that
toxic
metal
releases
(
lead,
chromium,
cadmium,
etc.)
were
typically
proportionate
to
the
fine
particulate
emissions,
and
that
an
old
plant
which
was
permitted
at
0.2
lbs
of
discrete
particulate/
MMBtu
emitted
more
than
ten
times
as
much
metal
toxics
as
a
newly
permitted
coal
plant
with
a
limit
of
0.018
lbs/
MMBtu.
The
commenter
stated
that
fine
particulate
is
increasingly
targeted
as
an
important
health
hazard,
and
that
condensible
particulate
is
below
2.5
microns
in
diameter
and
includes
acid
mist
and
some
organics.

The
commenter
claimed
that
the
installation
of
scrubbers
due
to
CAIR
would
substantially
reduce
fine
particulate,
and
that
several
scrubber
systems
installed
in
the
early
1990s
guaranteed
discrete
particulate
reductions
from
0.015
lbs/
MMBtu
to
0.05
lbs/
MMBtu.
The
commenter
stated
that
fine
particles
would
not
be
captured
by
these
systems
and
that
most
of
the
acid
mist
(
condensibles)
would
pass
through.
The
commenter
concluded
that
it
is
necessary
to
address
fine
particulate
(
including
metal
toxics)
along
with
Hg,
which
would
be
desirable
not
only
because
of
the
health
benefits
but
because
focusing
on
one
pollutant
at
a
time
was
not
cost
effective.
The
commenter
cited
evidence
that
the
EPA
estimates
of
particulate
and
fine
particulate
were
much
lower
than
the
actual
quantities
(
March
1994
and
August
1994,
Vol.
44
Journal
of
the
Air
and
Waste
Management
Association.)
One
article
from
the
Institute
of
Clean
Air
Companies
was
quoted,
"
Rather,
the
issue
for
ICAC
is
whether
government
regulators
should
give
utilities
the
option
 
the
voluntary
choice
 
of
responding
to
a
possible
stream
of
regulatory
actions
in
an
integrated
cost­
effective
way,
thus
avoiding
the
traditional
and
often
unsatisfactory
choice
of
having
to
add
successive
"
boxes"
as
regulatory
requirements
emerge
piecemeal,
one
after
the
other."
8­
9
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1842)
stated
that
flexible
incentives
could
dramatically
lower
a
utility's
(
and
its
rate
payers')
cost
of
compliance
with
the
regulatory
stream,
provide
certainty,
and
elicit
public
praise.
The
commenter
further
suggested
that
incentives
for
non­
mandated
particulate
and
air
toxics
reductions
would
also
fit
nicely
with
ongoing
efforts
(
e.
g.,
the
U.
S.
EPA's
33/
50
and
"
cleaner/
cheaper"
projects,
and
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy's
voluntary
utility
greenhouse
gas
reduction
projects)
to
use
market
and
regulatory
incentives
to
reduce
dangerous
emissions
more
quickly
and
cost­
effectively.

The
commenter
stated
that
total
U.
S.
utility
particulate
(
fly
ash
and
other
discrete
particles)
emissions
were
between
437,000
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
and
1.9
million
tpy,
compared
to
an
EPA
estimate
of
700,000
tpy,
and
that
fine
particulate
emissions
(
fly
ash
PM
2.5)
were
between
305,000
tpy
and
1.7
million
tpy
(
compared
to
an
EPA
estimate
of
99,000
tpy).
The
commenter
stated
that
these
differences
could
be
important
in
the
setting
of
priorities
and
that
EPA
had
estimated
that
utilities
emit
1.5
million
tpy
of
sulfate
aerosols,
334,000
tpy
of
nitrate
aerosols
and
27,000
tpy
of
organic
aerosols.
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
economics
should
be
reviewed
because
fly
ash
PM2.5
emissions
were
3
to
17
times
greater
than
estimated.
The
commenter
stated
that
accurate
determination
of
PM2.5
is
critical
to
the
program
to
limit
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
nickel,
and
other
heavy
metals.

Response:

The
EPA
believes
that
a
carefully
designed
multipollutant
approach
 
a
program
designed
to
regulate
NOx,
SO2,
and
Hg
at
the
same
time
 
is
the
most
effective
way
to
reduce
emissions
from
the
power
sector.
EPA
has
just
finalized
the
CAIR
rule.
EPA's
modeling
shows
that
CAIR
will
significantly
reduce
the
majority
of
the
coal­
fired
power
plant
mercury
emissions
that
deposit
in
the
U.
S.,
and
those
reductions
will
occur
in
areas
where
mercury
deposition
is
currently
the
highest.
The
Clean
Air
Mercury
Rule
is
expected
to
make
additional
reductions
in
emissions
that
are
transported
regionally
and
deposited
domestically,
and
it
will
reduce
emissions
that
contribute
to
atmospheric
mercury
worldwide.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3543)
stated
that
a
thorough
technical
analysis
of
the
programs
established
by
the
proposal
was
not
possible
without
additional
information
from
EPA.

Response:

EPA
has
conducted
additional
analyses
as
described
in
the
promulgation
preamble
and
provided
in
the
docket.

Comment:

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2334,
­
2915)
were
concerned
about
possible
8­
10
restriction
of
energy
sources.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2334
stated
that
the
rule
would
dictate
air
quality,
energy,
economic,
national
security
and
industrial
competitiveness
policy
for
the
entire
U.
S.
The
commenter
stated
that
all
of
these
policies
would
be
driven
by
whether
the
Rule
will
allow
coal
to
be
used
for
power
generation
in
a
cost
competitive
manner.
The
Rule
would
determine
whether
coal
or
natural
gas
will
be
used
to
meet
expanding
electricity
demand
and
as
a
result,
the
price
and
availability
of
natural
gas
to
private
sector,
non­
utility
consumers
including
manufacturers,
homeowners
and
farmers.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2915
expressed
concern
that
reductions
in
Hg
emissions
that
may
be
required
by
the
final
Hg
rule
not
negatively
impact
the
diversity
of
fuels
that
are
used
for
electricity
generation
in
Texas
or
in
the
U.
S.,
or
raise
the
cost
of
electricity
to,
or
reduce
the
reliability
of,
electricity
for
consumers.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
premise
in
the
proposed
Hg
rule,
was
that
it
would
preserve
the
ability
to
use
all
types
of
coal
currently
used
in
coal­
fired
EGUs.
However,
according
to
the
commenter,
the
proposed
rule
did
not
support
that
premise
because
the
proposed
rule
mandated
Hg
emissions
reductions
that
would
be
technically
impossible
to
achieve
by
certain
EGUs
burning
certain
types
of
coal
and/
or
would
be
economically
unreasonable
for
such
EGUs.
The
commenter
stated
that,
as
a
result,
the
proposed
Hg
rule
would
almost
certainly
prevent
the
continued
use
of
certain
types
of
coal
as
fuel
in
certain
EGUs.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
was
especially
true
for
Gulf
Coast
lignite,
which
would
cease
to
be
as
viable
as
a
fuel
for
EGUs,
and
might
cease
to
be
viable
at
all.
The
commenter
stated
that
this
negative
impact
of
the
proposed
Hg
rule
would
significantly
harm
fuel
diversity,
which
would
increase
electricity
prices
and
decrease
electricity
reliability
without
providing
a
commensurate
health
and
environmental
benefit.

Response:

EPA's
modeling
has
shown
little
significant
coal
switching
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
CAMR
and
CAIR
actions.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
final
rules
will
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
nation's
energy
security,
employment
rates,
or
energy
reliability.
EPA
does
not
feel
that
it
is
in
the
best
interest
of
the
country
to
prohibit
the
use
of
some
ranks
of
coal
when
these
coals
can
be
adequately
controlled
to
limit
Hg
emissions.
EPA
believes
that
a
cap­
and­
trade
approach
will
better
serve
to
protect
the
environment
while
at
the
same
time
allowing
the
U.
S.
to
maintain
fuel
diversity.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2523)
stated
that
farmers
should
be
considered
an
important
stakeholder
in
any
rulemaking
which
impacts
the
affordability
and
availability
of
electricity.
The
commenter
stated
that
in
2002
the
total
energy
consumed
on
U.
S.
farms
exceeded
1.7
quadrillion
Btu,
with
electricity
accounting
for
almost
21
percent
(
356
trillion
Btu)
of
that
usage.
Diesel
and
plant
nutrients
were
said
to
be
the
only
components
of
overall
farm
energy
usage
that
exceeds
that
of
electricity.
According
to
the
commenter,
farmers
spent
$
3.4
billion
on
electricity
in
2002,
and
that
amount
would
be
significantly
higher
for
2004.
(
Electricity
is
used
to
irrigate
20
million
acres
in
the
U.
S.,
more
than
diesel,
propane
and
natural
gas
combined.)
The
commenter
added
that
electricity
is
also
used
to
milk
cows,
move
grain,
cool
poultry
houses,
and
light
barns
and
homes
as
well
as
for
many
other
critical
functions.
The
commenter
supported
cost­
effective
efforts
to
reduce
Hg
pollution
because
of
reports
that
large
doses
of
Hg
can
be
8­
11
harmful
to
people,
especially
children.
The
commenter,
therefore,
supported
reductions
in
Hg
emissions
in
rural
areas
and
all
across
America.
The
commenter
stated
that,
at
the
same
time,
farm
families
continue
to
be
hit
hard
by
fuel
shortages
and
energy
price
increases.
The
commenter
added
that
in
just
the
last
12
months
the
availability
and
price
of
natural
gas,
diesel,
gasoline,
plant
nutrients,
propane
and
electricity
have
had
a
major
impact
on
the
farming
community.

The
commenter
stated
that
farm
groups
have
long
supported
multi­
emissions
legislation
(
based
on
an
emissions
trading
program
similar
to
that
used
successfully
for
SO2
control),
such
as
the
proposal
by
Senator
Voinovich
that
was
before
Congress.
This
legislation
was
predicted
to
cut
power
plant
Hg
emissions
by
nearly
70
percent
by
2018.
The
commenter
opposed
any
proposals
that
would
force
power
plants
to
use
expensive
and
unproven
technologies.
The
commenter
stated
that
imposing
specific
technologies
and
unrealistic
deadlines
on
power
plants
could
unnecessarily
increase
costs
to
utilities
and
electricity
prices
to
consumers.

Response:

EPA
believes
that
the
final
rule
will
address
the
concerns
of
the
commenter.
As
noted
earlier,
EPA
concurs
with
the
commenter's
concerns
regarding
the
use
of
unproven
technologies.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2422)
stated
that
if
EPA
relies
upon
the
Maximum
Achievable
Control
Technology
(
MACT)
provisions
of
CAA
section
112,
the
Hg
rule
could
be
among
the
most
costly
regulatory
mandates
ever
issued
by
the
Agency.
The
commenter
stated
that
reliance
on
an
emission­
trading
alternative,
with
an
emission
cap
and
a
more
stringent
ultimate
level
of
control,
may
reduce
overall
compliance
costs
but
introduce
new
compliance
burdens,
including
constraints
on
the
addition
of
new
coal­
based
generating
capacity.
One
of
the
commenter's
principal
concerns
with
this
rulemaking
was
to
ensure
that
new
coal­
fueled
generating
sources
could
be
permitted
in
a
timely
and
economic
manner,
consistent
with
the
nation's
needs
for
adequate
and
reliable
electric
power
supplies,
in
full
compliance
with
all
applicable
environmental
safeguards.

Response:

EPA
is
finalizing
a
cap­
and­
trade
program
for
Hg
under
section
111
of
the
CAA.
The
final
CAMR
is
not
projected
to
have
any
significant
impact
on
the
amount
of
new
coal
fired
capacity
projected
in
the
power
sector.
The
economic
and
energy
impacts
of
CAIR
are
discussed
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.

Comment:

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1952,
­
2264)
questioned
the
benefits
to
U.
S.
residents
of
rule
limiting
U.
S.
emissions.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1952
stated
that
if
the
cost
of
Hg
removal
drives
U.
S.
electricity
prices
higher,
we
risk
not
only
domestic
job
loss,
but
8­
12
also
substantially
higher
global
emissions
of
Hg,
sulfur,
arsenic,
NOx,
and
CO2.
The
commenter
added
that
there
are
abundant
worldwide
resources
of
coal,
and
that
there
is
no
reason
that
coal­
fired
plants
won't
be
built
in
developing
countries
where
emissions
control
is
not
as
important
as
jobs.
The
commenter
expressed
concern
that
an
EPA
policy
intended
to
reduce
global
emissions
may
actually
have
the
opposite
effect
by
closing
down
U.
S.
plants
with
good
controls
and
replacing
them
with
offshore
plants
with
no
controls.
The
commenter
recommended
a
goal­
driven
policy
that
sets
targets
for
reducing
Hg
and
CO2
and
allows
market­
place
economics
to
select
the
successful
technologies.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2264
expressed
concern
about
the
cost/
benefit
of
the
proposed
rule,
and
stated
that
the
proposed
rule
would
place
the
burden
of
global
Hg
emission
reduction
on
U.
S.
coal­
fired
power
plants.
These
domestic
power
plants
were
said
to
collectively
represent
less
than
1
percent
of
the
global
emissions
of
Hg.
The
commenter
stated
that
natural
sources
of
Hg
account
for
approximately
two­
thirds
of
global
Hg
emissions,
with
human
sources
accounting
for
the
remaining
third.
The
commenter
claimed
that
recent
analyses
by
the
EPA
and
other
experts
found
that
as
much
as
70
percent
of
the
Hg
deposited
in
U.
S.
waterways
comes
from
outside
the
U.
S.

Response:

EPA
is
aware
that
global
Hg
emissions
deposit
in
the
U.
S.
However,
as
presented
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
and
elsewhere
in
this
document,
we
believe
that
it
is
still
prudent
to
regulate
U.
S.
sources
of
Hg.
We
have
discussed
the
impacts
of
global
Hg
emissions
on
the
U.
S.
in
the
preamble
and
in
various
Technical
Support
Documents.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2883)
believed
that
the
EPA
should
consider
the
energy
consequences
(
fuel
supply),
Unfunded
Mandates
and
Regulatory
Act
and
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA),
and
energy
issues
as
outlined
in
EO
12866
consequences
when
promulgating
the
final
rule
to
control
Hg
and
nickel
from
utilities.

Response:

EPA
has
fully
complied
with
all
three
EO
during
this
rulemaking.
An
economic
and
energy
impacts
analysis,
including
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
the
rule
on
small
entities
and
government
owned
entities,
can
be
found
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.

Comment:

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2172,
­
2267)
stated
that
EPA's
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
failed
to
consider
impacts
on
small
entities
as
required
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Fairness
Act
of
1996
(
SBREFA).
The
commenters
stated
that
Congress
enacted
SBREFA
in
order
to
protect
small
business,
small
organizations
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions,
collectively
referred
to
as
"
small
entities,"
from
disproportionate
or
unanticipated
adverse
impacts
of
federal
rulemaking
activity,
and
that
the
analyses
required
by
SBREFA
must
be
undertaken
prior
to
publication
of
any
general
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
and
must
"
contain
a
description
8­
13
of
any
significant
alternatives
to
the
proposed
rule
which
accomplish
the
stated
objectives
of
applicable
statutes
and
which
minimize
any
significant
economic
impact
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities."
5
U.
S.
C.
§
603(
c).

Response:

EPA
performed
an
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
rule
on
small
entities
that
was
discussed
in
the
January
30,
2004
Notice
of
Proposed
Rulemaking
(
see
69
FR
4713).
In
the
NPR,
EPA
certified
that
the
proposed
rule
would
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
For
the
final
rule,
EPA
performed
additional
analysis
of
the
impact
of
CAMR
on
small
entities,
which
is
included
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2830)
stated
that
EPA
had
underestimated
the
annual
cost
of
monitoring,
reporting
and
record
keeping.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
had
estimated
the
annual
reporting
costs
to
be
$
48.4
million,
which
equated
to
approximately
$
85,000
per
unit.
The
commenter
felt
that
this
was
an
underestimate
when
the
annual
Hg
compliance
audit
(
which
was
budgeted
at
over
$
30,000
for
a
single
annual
audit)
was
considered.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
frequency
of
audits
can
be
increased
to
semi­
annual
or
more
frequent,
based
on
the
monitor's
performance.
The
commenter
stated
that,
at
present,
there
are
no
long­
term
Hg
monitoring
systems
in­
place
at
a
coal­
fired
facility,
that
the
current
state
of
monitoring
is
very
labor
intensive
and
involves
an
extremely
highly
trained
workforce,
and
that
analyzers
cost
over
$
100,000.
The
commenter
contended
that
EPA's
estimate
does
not
account
for
secondary
systems
required
to
support
this
equipment
(
e.
g.,
monitor
cabinets,
air
supplies,
electrical
power
supply,
electronic
communication
networks,
data
storage
devices
and
software
enhancements).

Response:

For
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
done
an
analysis
of
the
cost
associated
with
monitoring,
reporting,
and
record
keeping
requirements
for
affected
sources.
EPA
has
estimated
the
annual
costs
associated
with
these
activities
to
be
about
$
76
million
(
see
final
CAMR
preamble
Section
VI.
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act).

8.2
INDIAN
TRIBES
(
CONSULTATIONS,
UNIQUE
IMPACTS
AND
RISKS)

Comment:

Three
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2380,
­
2695,
­
3413)
criticized
the
cost­
benefit
analysis
and
risk
assessment
with
respect
to
tribes.
The
commenters
claimed
that
the
models
used
to
assess
the
impacts
failed
to
independently
address
tribal
lands,
often
establishing
grids
based
on
county
boundaries
that
overlap
tribal
and
State
jurisdictions.
The
commenters
requested
that
EPA
develop
a
model
that
is
appropriate
for
assessing
the
impacts
of
proposed
rules
on
Indian
lands.
The
commenters
also
stated
that
the
risk
assessment
models
and
cost
benefit
models
did
not
account
for
unique
tribal
factors,
such
as
subsistence
and
consumption
levels.
The
8­
14
commenters
recommended
a
risk
assessment
model
based
on
the
precautionary
principle,
which
properly
accounts
for
tribal
consumption
levels.
The
commenters
requested
that
EPA
assess
the
risk
for
a
period
greater
than
7
generations
into
the
future
relative
to
tribes
that
maintain
subsistence
lifestyles.

Comment:

Numerous
commenters
stated
that
high
Hg
levels
in
fish
disproportionately
affect
Indian
tribes
because
a
number
of
power
plants
were
located
along
the
waterways
that
tribes
directly
used
as
food
supply
and
that
they
consumed
more
fish
than
non­
Indians
(
20
times
that
of
the
average
American).
The
commenters
asserted
that
EPA
must
assess
the
disproportionate
health
risk.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
4190
added
that
5
pounds
of
fish
were
consumed
per
person
per
week
in
the
commenter's
tribe
and
that
separate
standards
were
needed
to
account
for
dietary
differences
among
tribes.
One
commenter
recommended
that
the
final
rule
also
address
Indian
Health
Service
findings
on
the
disproportionate
cardiovascular
risk
for
Indians
compared
to
national
levels.
The
commenter
stated
that
"
hot
spots"
may
increase
cardiovascular
risk
in
Indian
people.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3457)
stated
that
the
discussion
in
EO
13175
is
inadequate
in
that
it
only
addresses
compliance
costs
for
two
units
in
Indian
Country,
whereas
Tribes
are
directly
affected
because
of
the
effect
on
fishing
and
fish
consumption
in
ceded
territory
inland
waters
and
Lake
Superior
which
adversely
affect
the
practice
of
important
cultural
activities.

Comment:

Numerous
commenters
stated
that
EPA
had
not
fulfilled
its
tribal
consultation
requirements
under
EO
13175
or
EPA
Indian
Policy
which
required
EPA
to
fulfill
its
trust
responsibility
to
tribes
and
consult
on
a
government­
by­
government
basis.
The
commenters
stated
that
consultation
was
inadequate
given
the
significance
of
the
rule,
and
because
Indians
were
not
included
as
stakeholders
along
with
States.
The
commenters
stated
that
this
obligation
is
heightened
by
EO
12898
which
established
the
Environmental
Justice
doctrine,
and
that
these
obligations
required
EPA
to
consult
with
the
Tribes
to
determine
how
the
proposed
rule
could
result
in
heightened
or
unique
impacts
on
Indian
tribes.
The
commenters
assert
that
after
EPA
has
determined
the
unique
impacts,
EPA
must
then
ensure
that
the
rulemaking
properly
protects
the
tribes
rights
and
resources.
The
commenters
stated
that
EPA
must
identify
and
address
disproportionately
high
human
health
and
environmental
effects
on
all
tribes
so
that
all
people
are
equally
protected
from
health
and
environmental
hazards,
and
that
EPA's
proposals
did
not
meet
legal
requirements,
failed
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
(
particularly
with
respect
to
the
commenters),
and
created
grave
concerns
about
localized
impacts.

Comment:
8­
15
Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2380,
­
3413)
stated
that
EPA
must
develop
a
proper
tribal
consultation
strategy
that
ensures
EPA
will
meet
its
trust
responsibilities
and
conduct
government­
to­
government
consultations.

Response:

EPA
recognizes
that
the
Federal
government
stands
in
a
government­
to­
government
relationship
with
Federally
recognized
Tribes
and
ahs
certain
trust
responsibilities
to
these
Tribes.
This
relationship
and
responsibility
should
guide
EPA
in
the
implementation
of
policies
and
actions
that
affect
Tribes.
Pursuant
to
the
government­
to­
government
relationship,
EPA
consults
with
Tribes
regarding
actions
that
affect
Tribes.
In
addition,
treaties,
statutes,
and
executive
orders
create
Federal
obligations
regarding
Tribal
resources.
EPA
believes
that
its
actions
in
developing
the
final
rule
have
been
consistent
with
the
government­
to­
government
relationship
and
that
the
final
rule
itself
is
consistent
with
the
trust
responsibility.

EPA
does
not
agree
with
the
commenters
who
claim
that
it
did
not
consult
with
tribes
in
developing
the
rule.
As
explained
in
the
discussion
of
EPA
compliance
with
EO
13175
in
the
preamble
for
the
final
rule,
EPA
took
the
following
steps
to
consult
with
Tribes.
EPA
gave
a
presentation
to
a
national
meeting
of
the
National
Tribal
Environmental
Council
(
NTEC)
in
April
2001,
and
encouraged
Tribal
input
at
an
early
stage.
EPA
then
worked
with
NTEC
to
find
a
Tribal
representative
to
participate
in
the
workgroup
developing
the
rule,
and
included
a
representative
from
the
Navajo
Nation
as
a
member
the
official
workgroup,
with
a
representative
from
the
Campo
Band
later
added
as
an
alternate.
In
March
2004,
EPA
provided
a
briefing
for
Tribal
representatives,
the
newly
formed
National
Tribal
Air
Association
(
NTAA),
and
NTEC.
EPA
received
comments
on
this
rule
from
a
number
of
Tribes,
and
has
taken
those
comments
and
other
input
from
Tribal
representatives
into
consideration
in
development
of
this
rule.

EPA
believes
that
this
regulation
adequately
protects
Tribal
health
and
is
consistent
with
the
trust
responsibility
for
several
reasons.
First,
the
commenters
understate
the
significance
of
the
fact
that
Hg
emissions
from
Utility
Units
currently
are
not
subject
to
performance
standards.
This
regulation
will
for
the
first
time
establish
performance
standards
applicable
to
Hg
emissions,
and
those
standards
will
require
significant
reductions
in
the
levels
of
Hg
emissions.
Such
reductions
will
provide
greater
protection
to
Tribal
fish
resources
than
would
otherwise
be
available.
Acting
to
provide
such
heightened
protection
is
consistent
with
both
the
statute
and
the
Federal
trust
responsibility.

Moreover,
the
commenters
offer
no
specific
evidence
that
the
Hg
emissions
reductions
from
this
regulation
will
not
adequately
protect
Tribal
health.
Their
main
contention
is
that
the
regulatory
approach
set
forth
in
an
earlier
EPA
proposal
would
have
produced
a
90
percent
reduction
in
Hg
emissions
and
that
any
smaller
reduction
is,
therefore,
inadequate.
That
contention
rests
on
a
misconception
of
an
earlier
Federal
Register
Notice,
which
proposed
a
finding,
but
did
not
contain
any
specific
proposal
for
Hg
emissions
regulations,
and,
therefore,
did
not
provide
for
any
percentage
of
reduction.
EPA
has
never
proposed
any
such
rule.
EPA
believes
that
this
regulation
will
adequately
protect
Tribal
health.
8­
16
The
commenters
also
argue
that
EPA
has
not
adequately
considered
the
significance
of
Tribal
fish
consumption
patterns,
specifically
the
fact
that
Tribal
fishers
consume
more
fish
than
the
general
population.
That
comment
is
misplaced.
As
described
in
more
detail
elsewhere
in
this
document,
EPA
carefully
analyzed
available
information
on
fish
consumption
by
Tribal
members
and
other
sub­
populations,
and
determined
how
to
use
the
available
data
most
appropriately.
One
basis
for
EPA's
analysis
was
a
study
of
tribal
fish
consumption
in
one
region
to
model
consumption
by
other
Tribes
as
well
as
other
subpopulations.
EPA's
approach
was
to
identify
areas
where
the
effects
of
Hg
deposition
from
utility
emissions
had
the
greatest
effects.
EPA
then
compared
those
high­
deposition
areas
with
locations
with
high
Tribal
populations
to
assess
the
areas
of
greatest
potential
risk
to
Tribes.
That
analysis
found
very
few
areas
where
Native
Americans
live
and
there
is
high
residual
Hg
deposition
caused
by
utilities.
Further,
the
analysis
shows
that
the
standards
established
in
the
regulation
will
significantly
reduce
risks
to
tribal
members.

Finally,
as
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
regulation,
this
regulation
establishes
a
cap­
and­
trade
program
for
Indian
country.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
neurological
impacts
of
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapter
11.
As
part
of
its
assessment,
EPA
provides
estimates
for
the
benefits
of
this
rulemaking
to
subsistence
fishers,
including
case
study
examples
of
the
benefits
to
the
some
members
of
the
Chippewa
Tribe,
the
Hmong,
and
low
income
fishers.

8.3
FACA
Comment:

Many
commenters
criticized
EPA's
rulemaking
process.
Commenters
claimed
that
many
U.
S.
Senators
and
Congressmen
asserted
that
EPA's
actions
may
not
be
sufficient
to
meet
procedural
requirements
under
CAA
section
307(
d).
The
commenters
criticized
EPA
for
ending
consultations
with
the
FACA
Committee,
established
in
accordance
with
CAA
section
117,
and
noted
that,
at
the
same
time,
EPA
appeared
to
be
disproportionately
influenced
by
industry
law
firms.

Many
commenters
specifically
criticized
the
rulemaking
process
for
ignoring
Agency
scientists
and
FACA
recommendations
and
not
analyzing
the
range
of
controls
recommended
by
FACA.
The
commenters
pointed
out
that
the
EPA
proposal
was
at
odds
with
all
FACA
positions.
The
commenters
claimed
that
EPA's
actions
showed
complete
disregard
of
a
working
partnership
with
States
and
other
stakeholders,
and
noted
that,
at
no
time,
was
the
possibility
of
a
cap­
andtrade
program
raised.
Commenters
believe
that
EPA
should
have
consulted
the
States
to
address
regional
issues
prior
to
making
the
alternative
proposal.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2886
found
EPA's
proposal
a
betrayal
of
the
public
stakeholder
process.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2819
specifically
requested
that
EPA
reconsider
the
NESCAUM
and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
8­
17
recommendations
and
incorporate
them
in
the
final
rule.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3438
believed
EPA's
actions
were
a
serious
deviation
from
the
rulemaking
process
and
asked
EPA
to
re­
engage
the
advisory
process
that
it
abandoned.

Many
commenters
claimed
the
advisory
group
process
confirmed
that
EPA
conceded
(
1)
it
was
legally
required
to
adopt
a
MACT
standard
under
section
112,
(
2)
EPA
had
no
authority
to
establish
a
cap­
and­
trade
program
to
set
a
MACT
floor
for
Hg,
and
(
3)
additional
modeling
needed
to
be
done
that
apparently
was
never
performed.
The
FACA
co­
chairman
requested
that
all
FACA
work,
as
was
documented
on
EPA's
website,
be
entered
into
the
docket.
The
FACA
co­
chairman
also
stated
that
EPA
must
produce
the
promised
IPM
modeling
of
the
workgroup's
final
recommendations.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
IPM
runs
must
be
completed,
made
available
to
the
workgroup,
and
entered
into
the
docket.
One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2819)
found
EPA's
refusals
to
perform
the
IPM
modeling
runs
for
the
MACT
proposal
(
without
cap
and
trade)
very
troubling
(
these
runs
were
requested
by
NESCAUM
and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
during
the
FACA
workgroup
process).
The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
perform
these
runs
before
adopting
a
final
rule
using
the
recommendations
submitted
by
the
commenter.
This
commenter
believed
the
results
would
confirm
the
superior
environmental
and
health
benefits
cited
by
State
and
local
agencies
during
the
FACA
process.
The
Massachusetts
Attorney
General
submitted
a
Freedom
of
Information
Act
request
regarding
the
modeling
runs.
Another
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2878)
recommended
that
the
modeling
runs
include
high
performing
technologies
and
the
IAQR
co­
benefits;
failure
to
include
the
IAQR
co­
benefits
would
make
the
costs
of
Hg
reductions
artificially
high.
Three
U.
S.
senators
and
one
Congressman
urged
EPA
to
complete
the
analyses.

Comprehensive
comments
from
public
interest
groups
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3459)
stated
that
EPA's
complete
disregard
for
the
recommendations
of
the
FACA
Working
Group
convened
for
the
MACT
rule
contravened
CAA
requirements
and
was
arbitrary,
capricious,
and
an
abuse
of
discretion.
The
commenters
noted
that
CAA
section
117
required
EPA
to
"
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
within
the
time
provided,
consult
with
appropriate
advisory
committees"
prior
to
publishing
a
111
or
112
standard.
The
commenters
added
that
"
consult"
meant
to
"
consider"
or
"
to
seek
information
or
advise
from"
and
"
to
seek
permission
or
approval
from".
The
commenters
submitted
that
EPA
referenced
its
own
working
group
only
in
passing
and
did
not
discuss
its
recommendations
at
all.
These
recommendations
related
to
subcategorization,
MACT
floors,
variability,
format
of
the
standard,
monitoring,
and
regulation
of
nickel
emissions
from
oil­
fired
units.
In
fact,
the
commenters
claimed,
a
subset
of
the
work
group,
including
industry
participants,
reached
agreement
on
the
subcategorization
issue
and
presented
its
consensus
document
to
EPA.
EPA's
abrupt
termination
of
the
working
group
and
its
failure
to
evaluate
their
recommendations
or
even
include
them
in
the
proposal
at
all
did
not,
in
the
commenters
view,
comport
with
section
117(
c)
requirement
to
"
consult".
The
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
subsequent
proposal
was
weaker
than
any
of
the
recommendations
(
including
recommendations
from
industry
stakeholders)
of
the
work
group
members.
EPA
even
refused
to
perform
specific
modeling
runs
to
assess
alternative
MACT
approaches
requested
by
the
work
group.

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2519)
stated
that
during
the
summer
of
2002
EPA
initiated
the
two­
year
process
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
Advisory
Committee's
Mercury
Working
8­
18
Group,
seeking
stakeholder
input
to
develop
the
Hg
emissions
control
program.
That
process
considered
various
technical,
policy
and
legal
issues
associated
with
setting
the
MACT
standard.
The
commenter
stated
that
at
no
time
during
those
deliberations
was
there
any
suggestion
to
utilize
a
cap­
and­
trade
program
in
lieu
of
MACT
standards.
Accordingly,
there
was
no
opportunity
to
fully
assess
and
debate
various
issues
associated
with
such
a
Hg
emissions
control
approach.
The
commenter
added
that
in
December
2000,
EPA
made
the
regulatory
determination
that
it
was
"
necessary
and
appropriate"
to
regulate
Hg
emissions
from
the
utility
sector,
triggering
the
process
to
establish
MACT
standards.
The
commenter
believed
that
retracting
that
finding
and
establishing
a
cap­
and­
trade
approach
pursuant
to
CAA
section
111
or
112
rendered
the
chosen
program
vulnerable
to
legal
challenge.

Comment:

Four
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
1479,
­
1658,
­
2364,
­
2819)
requested
that
all
FACA
work,
as
is
documented
on
EPA's
website,
be
entered
into
the
docket.
The
commenters
stated
that
EPA
must
produce
the
promised
IPM
modeling
of
the
workgroup's
final
recommendations
and
that
the
IPM
runs
must
be
completed,
made
available
to
the
workgroup
and
entered
into
the
docket.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2819
stated
that
EPA's
refusals
to
perform
the
IPM
modeling
runs
for
the
MACT
proposal
(
without
cap­
and­
trade)
was
troubling,
as
these
runs
were
requested
by
NESCAUM
and
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
during
the
FACA
workgroup
process.
The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
perform
these
runs
before
adopting
a
final
rule
based
on
recommendations
submitted
by
the
commenter.
The
commenter
believed
that
the
results
would
confirm
the
superior
environmental
and
health
benefits
claimed
by
the
State
and
local
agencies
during
the
FACA
process.

Comment:

Four
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2364,
­
2010,
­
2012,
­
2015)
requested
that
EPA
provide
modeling
output.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2364
stated
that
EPA
must
run
the
IPM
at
the
control
levels
recommended
by
stakeholders
in
the
workgroup
(
90
percent
nationwide
with
at
least
70
percent
for
each
plant)
to
determine
the
optimal
time
for
implementation.
Three
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2010,
­
2012,
­
2015)
recommended
using
time
frames
which
match
the
times
specified
in
EPA's
section
111
proposal,
and
stated
that
running
this
analysis
would
satisfy
the
commitments
EPA
made
to
the
workgroup.

Response:

Some
of
the
issues
raised
by
the
commenters
are
the
subject
of
on­
going
FOIA
requests
and
pending
litigation
and,
therefore,
cannot
be
addressed
here.
EPA
has
placed
all
relevant
materials
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
EPA
took
into
consideration
the
input
from
the
workgroup.
However,
after
over
a
year,
EPA
realized
that
consensus
was
not
going
to
be
reached
in
a
timeframe
consistent
with
our
meeting
our
responsibility
to
propose
a
rule
by
December
15,
2003
and
terminated
the
workgroup.

8.4
CHILDREN'S
HEALTH
(
E.
O.
13045)
8­
19
28
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2523)
supported
cost­
effective
efforts
to
reduce
Hg
pollution
because
of
reports
that
large
doses
of
Hg
can
be
harmful
to
people,
especially
children.
The
commenter
therefore
supported
reductions
in
Hg
emissions
in
rural
areas
and
all
across
America.
The
commenter
stated
that
at
the
same
time,
farm
families
continue
to
be
hit
hard
by
fuel
shortages
and
energy
price
increases.

Response:

EPA
concurs
that
cost­
effective
approaches
to
reducing
Hg
emissions
are
most
appropriate
and
believes
that
the
cap­
and­
trade
approach
is
the
best
approach.

Comment:

Comprehensive
comments
from
a
public
interest
group
stated
that
EPA
failed
to
meet
the
requirements
of
EO
13045
(
Protection
of
Children
from
Environmental
Health
Risks
and
Safety
Risks).
The
commenter
stated
that
this
failure
is
particularly
egregious
because
EPA
acknowledged
that
developing
fetuses
and
children
are
at
the
highest
risk
with
respect
to
Hg
contamination.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
record
showed
that
EPA
changed
the
language
from
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
package
("
the
order
did
not
apply
because
the
rule
was
based
on
control
technology
and
not
risk")
to
"
the
Agency
evaluated
the
health
and
safety
effects
of
the
proposed
rule
and
for
the
reasons
explained
above,
the
Agency
believes
the
proposed
strategies
are
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives."
The
commenter
claims
that
the
record
demonstrates
that
EPA
did
not
undertake
such
analysis,
and
it
not
only
failed
to
do
any
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
the
proposed
MACT
or
the
section
111
cap
and
trade
alternative
on
children's
health,
but
also
failed
to
conduct
any
analysis
of
the
impacts
compared
to
other
approaches
(
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives).
The
commenter
stated
that
because
of
this
failing,
the
proposed
strategies
can
hardly
be
considered
preferable
[
per
section
5­
501(
b)]
of
the
order.
The
commenter
asserted
that
this
is
but
one
example
of
how
EPA's
language
was
changed
to
minimize
the
health
risks
of
Hg
exposure.

Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11.
8­
20
Comment:

Numerous
commenters
stated
that
Hg
poses
a
serious
health
threat
to
children
and
that
EPA
should
elevate
this
issue
in
finalizing
the
rule.
Many
of
these
commenters
specifically
stated
that
EPA
had
not
fulfilled
its
obligations
for
the
protection
of
children's
health
under
EO
13045
and
had
ignored
recommendations
of
its
own
Children's
Health
Advisory
Committee
regarding
Hg
emissions
from
power
plants
(
i.
e.,
unique
vulnerabilities
of
children,
infants,
and
women
of
childbearing
age
were
not
adequately
considered).
One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3322)
questioned
whether
the
current
options
go
as
far
as
possible
and
therefore
requested
more
analysis.
This
commenter
specifically
called
on
EPA
to:
1)
Using
existing
information,
evaluate
the
exposures
and
health
risks
to
children
and
women
of
childbearing
age,
resulting
from
the
proposed
options,
including
how
these
might
vary
under
the
different
options;
2)
Evaluate
the
possibility
of
hot
spots;
and
3)
Using
existing
information,
conduct
an
integrated
analysis
of
technologies,
costs,
health
impacts,
and
economic
benefits
before
choosing
a
regulatory
option.

Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3543
questioned
EPA's
statement
that
the
evaluation
of
the
proposed
strategies
shows
the
rulemaking
will
improve
air
quality
and
children's
health.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
link
between
air
quality
and
children's
health
is
water
quality
and
fish
contamination,
and
that
therefore
more
than
air
quality
needs
to
be
evaluated
to
fulfill
the
requirements
of
EO
13045.

Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11.

8.5
UNFUNDED
MANDATES
Comment:

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2172,
­
2267)
stated
that
EPA's
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
failed
to
fully
consider
the
impacts
of
the
proposal
under
UMRA,
and
that
EPA
also
failed
to
provide
a
complete
and
accurate
assessment
of
the
anticipated
impacts
of
the
proposed
rules
pursuant
to
the
UMRA,
2
U.
S.
C.
§
1531
et
seq.
The
commenters
stated
that
EPA
had
concluded
that
the
rules
would
not
have
disproportionate
budgetary
effects
on
any
particular
local
governments
or
types
of
communities.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
rule
would,
in
fact,
impose
significant
direct
costs
of
compliance
on
the
commenter's
municipality;
and
would
endanger
the
substantial
investment
that
the
municipality
had
in
its
electric
generating
facilities.
8­
21
Response:

EPA
performed
an
analysis
of
the
economic
impacts
of
CAMR
on
government­
owned
entities,
which
is
summarized
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.
EPA
has
chosen
to
finalize
a
cap­
andtrade
program
for
Hg,
which
will
reduce
the
economic
impact
of
the
rule
on
municipalities,
through
the
flexibilities
inherent
in
such
a
program.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2251)
stated
that
under
the
Unfunded
Mandates
Act,
EPA
is
required
to
examine
how
the
proposed
regulations
to
reduce
Hg
emissions
would
affect
the
nation's
economy,
with
emphasis
on
productivity,
economic
growth,
full
employment,
creation
of
productive
jobs,
and
international
competitiveness
of
U.
S.
goods
and
services.
The
commenter
believed
that
regulations
that
reduce
current
coal­
based
electricity
or
impede
construction
of
new
coal­
based
power
plants
could
damage
our
domestic
economy.
The
commenter
believed
that
all
domestic
energy
resources
will
be
needed
to
meet
America's
growing
demand
for
reliable
electricity.
The
commenter
stated
that,
unlike
natural
gas,
using
coal
and
nuclear
power
(
the
principal
alternatives
to
gas
for
generating
baseload
power)
would
not
have
a
negative
effect
on
other
energy
sectors
that
would
impact
consumers
and
businesses
alike.
The
commenter
believed
that
if
EPA's
rulemaking
caused
an
even
greater
and
faster
shift
away
from
coal
to
natural
gas,
the
U.
S.
economy,
along
with
millions
of
American
workers
and
investors,
would
be
hurt.

Response:

EPA
provides
an
analysis
of
the
economic
and
energy
impacts
of
CAMR,
including
an
economic
analysis
of
the
impacts
of
CAMR
on
small
entities,
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.
Under
CAMR,
coal­
fired
generation
and
natural
gas­
fired
generation
are
projected
to
remain
relatively
unchanged
because
of
the
phased­
in
nature
of
CAMR,
which
allows
industry
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
install
the
necessary
pollution
controls.

8.6
ENERGY
EFFECTS
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2850)
with
a
high
percentage
of
industrial
customers
who
were
high
energy
users
struggling
to
compete
in
a
competitive
global
market
economy,
recommended
that
any
further
emission
reductions
applicable
to
electric
generating
units
(
EGU)
be
implemented
with
reasonable
time
frames
and
cost
to
minimize
the
impact
to
residential
and
industrial
customers
alike.

Response:

The
EPA
believes
that
a
carefully
designed
multipollutant
approach
 
a
program
designed
to
control
NOx,
SO2,
and
Hg
at
the
same
time
 
is
the
most
effective
way
to
reduce
8­
22
emissions
from
the
power
sector.
One
key
feature
of
this
approach
is
the
interrelationship
of
the
timing
and
cap
levels
for
NOx,
SO2,
and
Hg.
The
recently
finalized
CAIR,
combined
with
today's
rule,
will
implement
cap­
and­
trade
programs
for
all
three
pollutants.
The
use
of
capand
trade
will
limit
the
costs
of
these
rules
relative
to
a
command
and
control
approach.

Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2334)
recommended
that
the
uncertainty
of
natural
gas
supply
be
considered
to
prevent
shortages
and
rationing
of
natural
gas.
The
commenter
stated
that
current
air
regulation
has
driven
electric
utilities
to
use
substantially
larger
amounts
of
natural
gas,
resulting
in
very
high
prices,
and
that,
from
1992
to
2002
natural
gas
demand
by
the
electric
utility
industry
increased
60.5
percent
and
accounted
for
93.6
percent
of
the
nations'
increase
in
natural
gas
demand
(
according
to
the
EIA).
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
Ru1e
be
implemented
in
a
manner
that
is
"
natural
gas
neutral."
The
commenter
stated
that
the
"
46
month
U.
S.
natural
gas
crisis"
cost
consumers
over
$
130
billion
and
that
air
regulation
played
a
significant
role
in
that
cost.
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
availability
and
reliability
of
natural
gas
supply
be
considered,
as
U.
S.
natural
gas
production
has
been
flat
for
years.
(
Gas
production
in
1972
was
21,624
BCF
and
19,047
BCF
in
2002,
a
thirty­
year
time
name.
Gas
production
in
1998
was
19,024
BCF
and
19,047
BCF
in
2002,
a
five­
year
time
frame.)
Even
with
the
current
high
rig
count,
production
is
flat
to
declining.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
electrical
utilities
continue
to
increase
their
use
of
natural
gas,
there
is
a
real
possibility
of
shortages
and
rationing
of
natural
gas.
The
commenter
stated
that
this
would
create
an
economic
calamity
that
is
avoidable
through
the
increased
use
of
available
clean
coal
technologies.

The
commenter
stated
that
electric
utility
purchases
of
natural
gas
compete
with
all
other
consumers
and
have
an
unfair
advantage,
in
that
they
have
the
ability
to
buy
natural
gas
at
any
price
and
pass
the
cost
on
to
the
consumer.
All
other
consumers
such
as
manufacturing,
home­
owners
and
the
farm
community
are
price
sensitive
and
given
high
prices
would
be
required
to
make
what
the
commenter
felt
were
unnecessary
sacrifices.
The
commenter
stated
that,
in
the
past
three
years,
2.8
million
manufacturing
jobs
have
been
lost
in
this
country
in
large
part
due
to
the
increased
cost
of
energy
and
that
further
increases
in
energy
cost
would
result
in
further
loss
of
jobs.

Response:

EPA
provides
an
analysis
of
the
economic
and
energy
impacts
of
CAMR
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.
Under
CAMR,
coal­
fired
generation
and
natural
gas­
fired
generation
are
projected
to
remain
relatively
unchanged
because
of
the
phased­
in
nature
of
CAMR,
which
allows
industry
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
install
the
necessary
pollution
controls
while
still
meeting
our
environmental
goals.
It
should
also
be
noted
that,
according
to
EO
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use,
this
rule
is
not
significant,
measured
incrementally
to
CAIR,
because
it
does
not
have
a
greater
than
a
1
percent
impact
on
the
cost
of
electricity
production
and
it
does
not
result
in
the
retirement
of
greater
than
500
MW
of
coalfired
generation.
In
fact,
CAMR
is
not
projected
to
result
in
any
additional
coal
retirement
relative
to
CAIR.
8­
23
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2251)
believed
that
regulations
that
reduce
current
coal­
based
electricity
or
impede
construction
of
new
coal­
based
power
plants
could
damage
our
domestic
economy.
The
commenter
believed
that
all
domestic
energy
resources
will
be
needed
to
meet
America's
growing
demand
for
reliable
electricity.
The
commenter
stated
that,
unlike
natural
gas,
using
coal
and
nuclear
power
(
the
principal
alternatives
to
gas
for
generating
baseload
power)
would
not
have
a
negative
effect
on
other
energy
sectors
that
would
impact
consumers
and
businesses
alike.
The
commenter
stated
that
if
EPA's
rulemaking
caused
an
even
greater
and
faster
shift
away
from
coal
to
natural
gas,
the
U.
S.
economy,
along
with
millions
of
American
workers
and
investors,
would
be
hurt.

Response:

The
final
CAMR
is
not
projected
to
have
any
significant
impact
on
the
amount
of
new
coal
fired
capacity
projected
in
the
power
sector.
Also,
under
CAMR,
coal­
fired
generation
and
natural
gas­
fired
generation
are
projected
to
remain
relatively
unchanged
because
of
the
phased­
in
nature
of
CAMR,
which
allows
industry
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
install
the
necessary
pollution
controls.
The
economic
and
energy
impacts
of
CAIR
are
discussed
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.

Comment:

Two
commenters
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2066,
­
2334)
requested
energy
studies.
One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2334)
stated
that
it
is
essential
that
a
new
study
be
completed
by
the
EIA
to
determine
the
impact
of
this
rule
on
natural
gas
demand
and
price
under
EO
13211.
The
commenter
asserted
that
consumers
need
assurances
that
the
way
the
EPA
plans
to
implement
the
rule
will
not
increase
demand
for
natural
gas.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2066
stated
that
in
May
2001,
EO
13211
was
signed
by
the
President
and
noted
that,
with
the
full
understanding
that
Federal
Government
regulations
"
can
significantly
affect
the
supply,
distribution,
and
use
of
energy,"
the
President,
through
EO
13211,
requires
agencies
to
prepare
a
"
Statement
of
Energy
Effects"
when
undertaking
certain
actions.
The
commenter
asserted
that
EPA's
proposal
on
regulation
of
Hg
emissions
from
electric
utility
steam­
generating
units
fell
within
the
intent
of
the
President's
issuance
of
this
order
as
well
as
within
the
parameters
outlined
in
the
order
itself.
The
commenter
urged
the
EPA
to
undertake
such
a
study
in
full
compliance
with
the
EO,
and
if
it
has
already
done
so,
the
commenter
requested
that
the
document
be
published
for
public
review
and
comment.

Response:

EPA
has
fully
complied
with
EO
13211
in
this
rulemaking.
A
complete
economic
and
energy
impacts
analysis
is
provided
in
Chapter
7
of
the
RIA.

8.7
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
8­
24
Comment:

Numerous
commenters
stated
that
EPA
must
assess
the
environmental
justice
implications
of
the
proposals.
Commenters
stated
that
there
are
environmental
justice
problems
because
impact
of
lax
controls
fall
on
native
people
and
African­
Americans
who
consume
more
fish
than
the
rest
of
the
population
and
poor
inner
city
residents,
including
children,
who
reside
near
multiple
Hg
emission
sources.
Commenters
recommended
that
EPA
also
identify
and
analyze
the
issue
of
disproportionate
public
health
risk
to
populations
that
subsist
on
Hg­
contaminated
fish
and
shellfish
in
the
context
of
the
trading
proposal,
as
required
under
EO
12890.
Commenter
OAR­
2002­
0056­
3396
emphasized
the
disproportionate
impacts
on
pregnant
women,
unborn
children,
and
children
from
poor
families.

Response:

EPA
has
developed
a
more
complete
assessment
of
its
regulatory
approach
as
part
of
this
final
rulemaking
action.
The
RIA
which
accompanies
this
rulemaking
contains
an
assessment
of
the
costs
and
benefits
of
the
selected
approach
as
well
as
regulatory
alternatives.

As
part
of
its
analysis
of
the
final
rule,
EPA
has
estimated
that
some
of
the
health
benefits
of
reducing
Hg
from
utilities.
At
this
time
EPA
is
only
able
to
provide
quantitative
estimates
of
the
benefits
of
reducing
IQ
decrements
associated
with
exposure
to
MeHg
for
a
portion
of
the
U.
S.
population,
women
of
child­
bearing
age.
The
RIA
for
this
rule
contains
this
analysis
in
Chapters
10
and
11.
As
part
of
its
assessment,
EPA
provides
estimates
for
the
benefits
of
this
rulemaking
to
subsistence
fishers,
including
case
study
examples
of
the
benefits
to
the
some
members
of
the
Chippewa
Tribe,
the
Hmong,
and
low
income
fishers.

8.8
DATA
QUALITY
Comment:

One
commenter
(
OAR­
2002­
0056­
2422)
stated
that
Congress
enacted
new
data
quality
legislation
as
part
of
the
FY2001
Consolidated
Appropriations
Act
(
P.
L.
106­
554,
§
515)
which
expanded
previous
data
quality
report
language
in
the
FY
1999
Omnibus
Appropriations
Act
(
P.
L.
105­
277).
The
commenter
stated
that
in
response
to
these
Congressional
directives,
the
OMB
had
developed
government­
wide
standards
for
the
quality
of
information
used
and
disseminated
by
Federal
agencies,
including
EPA.
The
commenter
stated
that
OMB's
"
Information
Quality
Guidelines
(
October
1,
2002)"
set
forth
the
government­
wide
guidelines
for
"
ensuring
and
maximizing
the
quality,
objectivity,
utility
and
integrity
of
information
disseminated
by
Federal
agencies."
The
commenter
quoted
the
guidelines
as
"
Objectivity
is
a
measure
of
whether
disseminated
information
is
accurate,
reliable
and
unbiased,
and
whether
that
information
is
presented
in
an
accurate,
clear,
complete
and
unbiased
manner."
The
commenter
noted
concern
about
the
objectivity
of
EPA's
Hg
MACT
determination
process,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
selection
of
the
plants
included
in
EPA's
ICR
data
base
and
the
what
the
commenter
claimed
was
EPA's
mischaracterization
of
coal
supplies
to
the
top­
performing
units
selected
for
MACT
floor
evaluations.
The
commenter
felt
that
EPA's
sample
of
80
plants
appeared
to
be
deliberately
8­
25
skewed
toward
certain
plant
configurations
employing
advanced
control
technologies,
and
thus
was
not
representative
of
the
entire
population
of
coal­
fired
boilers
in
the
U.
S.
The
commenter
state
that
concerns
on
this
point
were
raised
in
the
EPA
Mercury
MACT
Working
Group
process,
without
apparent
response
by
EPA.
The
commenter
opposed
MACT­
based
Hg
regulation
for
coal­
fired
electric
generating
units.

Response:

EPA
is
not
finalizing
a
MACT
rule
for
Hg,
but
rather,
a
cap­
and­
trade
program
under
section
111
of
the
CAA.