8/
31/
05
Excerpts
from
RACT
section
of
Response
to
Comment
Document
b.
Addressing
NO
x
SIP
Call
and
RACT
Docket
No.:
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0122,
0187,
0199,
0215,
0218,
0224,
0229,
0232,
0243,
0269,
0270,
0081,
0281,
0282,
0283,
0292,
0308,
0314,
0315,
0321,
0442,
0443,
0465,
0469,
0470,
0506,
and
0543
Comment:
Comments:
Several
State
and
industry
commenters
supported
EPA's
proposed
approach.
These
commenters
stated
that
the
level
of
emissions
reductions
required
by
the
NO
x
SIP
call
is
far
greater
than
the
level
of
reductions
achieved
by
controls
that
have
been
determined
to
be
NO
x
RACT.
One
State
encourages
EPA
to
provide
this
exemption
to
other
areas
subject
to
approved
cap­
and­
trade
programs
in
addition
to
those
areas
affected
by
the
NO
x
SIP
call.
The
EPA
also
received
comments,
primarily
from
several
States
and
environmental
groups,
opposing
the
approach.
These
commenters
stated
that
there
are
no
exceptions
to
the
RACT
mandates
in
either
subpart
1
or
subpart
2
for
sources
subject
to
SIP
call
cap­
and­
trade
programs,
and
EPA
is
without
authority
to
invent
such
an
exception.
Because
the
NO
x
SIP
Call's
cap
and
trade
program
does
not
require
emission
control
technologies
to
be
installed
at
a
particular
source,
some
commenters
conclude
that
RACT
requirements
are
necessary
and
appropriate
to
ensure
that
all
sources
implement
at
least
a
minimum
level
of
control.
One
State
indicated
there
have
been
numerous
cases
where
sources
subject
to
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
have
not
had
to
install
controls
comparable
to
RACT.
Commenters
also
suggested
that
RACT
is
intended
to
be
a
benchmark
for
control
technology
at
individual
stationary
sources,
not
a
level
of
regional
reductions.
In
addition,
some
commenters
noted
that
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
requirements
are
specific
to
the
ozone
season,
where
RACT
requirements
are
year
round.
Consequently,
these
commenters
recommended
that
EPA
should
also
consider
non­
ozone
related
nitrogen
issues,
including
fine
particles,
visibility,
nitrification
and
acidification
of
watersheds
and
eutrophication
of
coastal
waters
all
of
which
would
be
reduced
with
year­
round
controls.

Response:
The
preamble
to
the
final
phase
2
rule
provides
the
response
to
these
comments.
In
addition,
the
footnote
referring
to
Integrated
Planning
Model
(
IPM)
runs
of
the
CAIR
rulemaking
which
project
EGUs
that
are
expected
to
have
NO
x
controls
in
2010
refers
to
an
analysis
in
the
response
to
comment.
That
analysis
follows:

To
help
determine
if
sources
meeting
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
requirements
and
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
requirements
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
will
be
operating
RACT­
level
combustion
controls
by
2010,
EPA
analyzed
data
from
IPM
runs
for
the
Clean
Air
Interstate
final
rule
(
CAIR).
The
data,
"
IPM
Base
Case
2010
Parsed,"
are
available
in
the
CAIR
docket
(
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
airmarkets/
epa­
ipm/
iaqr.
html)
and
show
which
electricity
generating
units
(
EGUs)
currently
have
controls,
and
which
additional
units
are
projected
to
have
NO
x
controls
in
2010.
Many
units
already
have
NO
x
controls
in
place.
As
described
below,
the
results
of
the
analysis
support
the
conclusion
that
the
vast
majority
of
sources
meeting
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
requirements
and
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
requirements
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
will
utilize
RACT­
level
combustion
controls
or
more
stringent
controls
to
meet
existing
requirements.
1To
reach
this
count,
EPA
supplemented
information
in
the
2010
IPM
base
case
spreadsheet
with
additional
information
placed
in
the
docket
(
electronic
mail
message
of
August
30,
2005,
re:
"
email
for
phase
II
ozone
rule
docket
(
with
correction)).
Further
analysis
supports
the
conclusion
that
most
EGU
sources
outside
the
NO
x
SIP
call
region
that
are
located
in
states
subject
to
CAIR,
and
are
located
in
areas
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard,
will
utilize
RACT­
level
combustion
controls
or
more
stringent
controls
to
meet
existing
state
rules
and,
assuming
states
implement
CAIR
through
EGU
controls,
2009
CAIR
NO
x
requirements.
SIP
call
states:
The
data
base
included
8,517
EGUs
in
the
CAIR
2010
emission
inventory.
Our
analysis
considered
the
681
EGUs
in
the
data
base
for
the
NO
x
SIP
call
states
which
are
projected
to
emit
more
than
1
ton
per
day
of
NO
x
in
2010.
This
level
of
emissions
approximates
the
cutoff
level
for
"
large"
EGUs
in
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
Rule.
Of
the
681
EGUs,
only
3­
6
are
projected
to
be
without
NO
x
controls
in
2010
CAIR
base
case
and
subject
to
an
8­
hour
ozone
NO
x
RACT
determination.
The
units
identified
as
uncontrolled
in
the
2010
base
case
are
located
in
the
Chicago
and
Cleveland
areas.
In
the
Chicago
area,
although
up
to
three
units
may
be
uncontrolled
(
two
of
these
have
not
been
operated
for
the
past
year
and
a
half),
a
majority
of
the
units
in
the
area
already
have
combustion
controls
in
place.
1
Also,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
Chicago
area
was
granted
a
waiver
from
NO
x
RACT
under
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
based
on
a
dispersion
modeling
analysis;
it
is
unclear
whether
such
a
waiver
would
be
requested
and
granted
under
the
8­
hour
standard.
In
that
event,
NO
x
RACT
determinations
would
not
be
required.
In
Cleveland,
although
three
EGUs
were
identified
as
uncontrolled,
there
are
7
additional
large
EGUs
in
the
same
area,
all
of
which
are
expected
to
have
NO
x
controls
(
low­
NO
x
burners,
selective
noncatalytic
reduction
(
SNCR)
and/
or
selective
catalytic
reduction
(
SCR).
Therefore,
both
the
Chicago
and
Cleveland
areas
may
meet
RACT
by
averaging.
Further
NO
x
controls
may
result
from
CAIR
and/
or
8­
hour
ozone
and
PM2.5
attainment
demonstration
requirements
(
the
highest
particulate
nitrate
concentrations
in
the
East
tend
to
occur
in
cooler
regions,
70
FR
25129)
because
installation
of
combustion
controls
to
decrease
NO
x
emissions
is
almost
always
the
most
cost­
effective
NO
x
reduction
strategy.
As
a
result,
EPA
expects
that
sources
subject
to
the
CAIR
or
NO
x
SIP
Call
cap
and
trade
programs
in
these
areas
will
employ
at
least
RACT­
level
controls.
CAIR
States
Outside
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
Region:
In
a
similar
manner,
the
same
2010
CAIR
base
case
data
was
used
to
determine
if
EGUs
in
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas
that
emit
more
than
one
ton/
day
of
NO
x
will
be
operating
RACT­
level
combustion
controls
by
2010
in
the
following
scenario:
(
1)
subject
to
CAIR
for
ozone,
(
2)
not
subject
to
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
requirements
and
(
3)
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
requirements
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
The
following
6
States
are
subject
to
CAIR
for
ozone
but
are
not
included
in
the
NO
x
SIP
Call:
Arkansas,
Florida,
Iowa,
Louisiana
,
Mississippi
and
Wisconsin.
The
following
States
do
not
contain
areas
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard:
Florida,
Iowa,
Louisiana
(
Baton
Rouge
is
marginal),
and
Mississippi.
Crittenden
County
in
Arkansas
is
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard;
however,
there
are
no
large
EGUs
in
the
data
base
for
this
area.
The
Milwaukee
and
Sheboygan
areas
in
Wisconsin
are
subject
to
NO
x
RACT
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard;
in
these
areas
11
of
13
large
EGUs
have
combustion
controls
for
NO
x
in
the
2010
base
case.
The
two
without
NO
x
controls
are
both
located
in
Milwaukee
County
(
South
Oak
Creek).
Thus,
there
may
be
only
two
EGUs
at
one
site
which
are
subject
to
CAIR
and
NO
x
2
There
are
not
currently
any
8­
hour
areas
in
Georgia
that
have
new
RACT
requirements
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Atlanta
is
classified
as
marginal
for
the
8­
hour
standard,
but
was
subject
to
RACT
under
the
1­
hour
standard
for
its
former
1­
hour
classificaiton.
Although
the
Atlanta
8­
hour
nonattainment
area
includes
areas
not
in
the
former
1­
hour
nonattainment
area,
none
of
the
new
areas
are
subject
to
the
marginal
area
requirement
for
RACT
corrections
under
section
182(
a)(
2).
Chattanooga
is
an
early
action
area
with
deferred
nonattainment
status,
so
the
RACT
requirement
is
not
currently
applicable.
However,
EGUs
in
the
Atlanta
area
are
subject
to
existing
state
NO
x
rules
that
have
resulted
in
controls
(
combustion
controls
and
in
several
cases,
SCR)
on
most
units.
There
are
2
other
8­
hr
nonattainment
areas
in
GA,
both
covered
under
subpart
1
and
expected
to
attain
by
2009
(
no
extension
beyond
5
years),
so
under
our
subpart
1
RACT
rule,
they
would
only
need
to
demonstrate
that
they
attain
as
expeditiously
as
practicable:
(
1)
Macon
and
(
2)
Murray
County
(
Chattahoochee
Nat.
Forest).

3
The
Houston
and
Dallas
areas
are
subject
to
8­
hour
ozone
NO
x
RACT.
San
Antonio
is
a
early
action
area
with
deferred
nonattainment
(
subpart
1)
status,
and
Beaumont
is
a
marginal
8­
hour
ozone
area,
so
8­
hour
ozone
RACT
is
not
currently
applicable
in
those
areas
(
though
Beaumont
was
subject
to
the
RACT
requirement
under
the
1­
hour
standard).
EGUs
in
all
of
these
areas
are
subject
to
EGU
NO
x
rules
that
apply
across
a
broad
area
of
East
Texas
and
are
close
to
the
NO
x
SIP
call
in
stringency.
More
stringent
NO
x
limits
apply
to
EGUs
in
Beaumont,
Dallas
and
Houston.
RACT
for
ozone,
are
outside
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
area,
and
are
expected
to
be
uncontrolled
for
NO
x
in
the
2010
CAIR
base
case.
Because
there
are
six
additional
EGUs
in
Milwaukee
County,
all
of
which
are
expected
to
have
NO
x
controls
(
two
with
close
coupled
low­
NO
x
burners
with
overfire
air
using
subbituminous
coal),
in
the
2010
base
case,
it
is
likely
that
the
area
may
be
able
to
demonstrate
RACT
by
averaging
emissions
over
all
the
affected
sources.
Further,
because
installation
of
combustion
controls
to
decrease
NO
x
emissions
is
almost
always
the
most
costeffective
strategy
and
since
the
2010
CAIR
base
case
did
not
take
into
consideration
that
the
area
is
subject
to
attainment
demonstration
requirements
for
both
ozone
and
PM2.5
(
the
highest
particulate
nitrate
concentrations
in
the
East
tend
to
occur
in
cooler
regions),
EPA
expects
sources
subject
to
the
CAIR
cap
and
trade
program
in
Milwaukee
will
employ
at
least
RACT
level
controls.
The
following
states
are
in
the
CAIR
PM
region
but
not
the
CAIR
ozone
region:
Texas,
Georgia,
and
Minnesota.
Minnesota
has
no
ozone
nonattainment
areas.
Georgia
and
Texas
do
have
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas.
An
annual
NO
x
cap
applies
in
the
CAIR
PM
region
that
is
similar
in
stringency
to
the
seasonal
NO
x
cap
for
the
ozone
CAIR
states.
Due
to
the
CAIR
annual
NO
x
requirements
and
the
fact
that
combustion
controls
are
almost
always
the
most
cost
effective
NO
x
reduction
strategy,
previous
RACT
requirements
under
the
1­
hour
standard,
other
NO
x
limitations
applicable
to
EGUs
under
Georgia2
and
Texas3
rules
to
promote
attainment
of
the
1­
hour
standard,
and
8­
hour
attainment
demonstration
requirements,
we
expect
that
the
majority
of
EGUs
in
8­
hour
nonattainment
areas
in
those
states
will
employ
at
least
RACT­
level
controls.

Comments:
Some
commenters
pointed
out
that
many
companies
have
employed
averaging
programs
for
NO
x
SIP
Call
compliance
and
want
this
option
preserved
under
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard
since
requiring
sources
to
individually
meet
NO
x
RACT
requirements
would
greatly
increase
the
costs
of
compliance
at
sources
already
subject
to
the
NO
x
cap­
and­
trade
program
without
achieving
greater
emission
reductions.

Response:
In
some
cases,
a
facility
or
a
group
of
sources
in
a
nonattainment
area
might
choose
to
meet
NO
x
RACT
by
adopting
an
emissions
averaging
concept
within
the
area;
e.
g.,
over
controlling
one
or
more
large
units
and
not
controlling
other
smaller
units.
We
agree
with
comments
that
emission
averaging
and
cap­
and­
trade
programs
such
as
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
Rule
achieve
emission
reductions
at
lower
costs.
The
EPA's
NO
x
RACT
guidance,
published
on
November
25,
1992
(
57
FR
55625),
was,
in
part,
for
the
purpose
of
"
enhancing
the
ability
of
States
to
adopt
market­
based
trading
systems
for
NO
x"
and
to
encourage
States
to
"
structure
their
RACT
requirements
to
inherently
incorporate
an
emissions
averaging
concept
(
i.
e.,
installing
more
stringent
controls
on
some
units
in
exchange
for
lesser
control
on
others)."
Since
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
requires
greater
reductions,
on
average,
than
RACT,
(
see
proposal
notice
at
68
FR
32839
and
discussion
below)
we
believe
the
average
emissions
across
the
facilities
(
in
this
example)
would
be
less
than
emissions
under
application
of
a
RACT
program
alone.
We
would
also
expect
this
scenario
to
be
a
short­
term
case
since
facilities
may
choose
later
to
install
controls
on
the
smaller
units
and
sell
any
excess
allowances,
depending
on
the
projected
cost
of
allowances.

Docket
No.:
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0232,
0283
Comment:
In
cases
where
States
have
adopted
controls
consistent
with
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
for
cement
kilns
(
i.
e.,
30
percent
reduction),
the
State
need
not
submit
a
new
NO
x
RACT
SIP
for
those
sources.
Response:
As
described
in
the
final
rulemaking
notice,
EPA
agrees
with
this
comment.
In
addition,
EPA
believes
the
concept
should
also
apply
to
stationary
internal
combustion
engines
for
the
same
reasons,
given
that
the
NO
x
SIP
Call
Phase
2
rulemaking
is
completed.

*
*
*
*
*

d.
Addressing
RACT
Guidance
Docket
No.:
OAR­
2003­
0079­
0081,
0122,
0149,
0218,
0230,
0232,
0243,
0259,
0260,
0262,
0281,
0282,
0283,
0308,
0315,
0321,
0334,
0335,
0440,
0442,
0443,
0469,
and
0470
Comments:
The
EPA
received
several
comments
for
and
against
the
proposal
that
States
may
use
a
prior
RACT
determination
with
respect
to
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
for
purposes
of
meeting
the
RACT
requirements
for
the
8­
hour
ozone
standard.
Further,
EPA
received
comments
for
and
against
the
proposal
that
a
new
RACT
determination
is
required
in
cases
where
the
initial
RACT
analysis
under
the
1­
hour
standard
for
a
specific
source
or
source
category
concluded
that
no
additional
controls
were
necessary.
Several
State
and
industry
commenters
supported
EPA's
proposed
approach
that
a
prior
RACT
analysis
under
the
1­
hour
ozone
standard
should
meet
RACT
requirements
under
the
8­
5
hour
standard
where
major
sources
or
source
categories
were
previously
reviewed
and
controls
applied
to
meet
RACT.
These
commenters
stated
that
RACT
is
not
specific
to
any
particular
ozone
standard,
such
that
once
a
source
has
met
RACT,
it
has
met
RACT,
whether
or
not
the
ozone
standard
is
revised
to
become
more
(
or
less)
stringent;
just
as
with
the
15
percent
VOC
requirement,
the
statute
provides
no
basis
for
duplicative
imposition
of
RACT;
and
there
is
no
basis
in
the
statute
to
read
in
a
new
requirement
for
RACT.
In
addition,
some
industry
commenters
stated
that
electric
generating
units
which
meet
Title
IV
NO
x
control
requirements
would
also
meet
the
NO
x
RACT
requirement.
The
EPA
also
received
comments
from
several
States
opposing
EPA's
proposed
approach.
These
commenters
believe
the
NO
x
and
VOC
guidance
is
too
old,
needs
updating
and,
in
the
case
of
NO
x
controls,
the
improvement
over
the
last
three
years
has
been
dramatic
with
controls
previously
considered
to
be
Best
Available
Control
Technology
(
BACT)
(
and
therefore
generally
considered
at
the
time
to
be
more
stringent
than
RACT)
are
now
considered
to
be
merely
RACT.
In
addition,
one
State
suggested
the
presumptive
RACT
level
should
be
revised
to
at
least
85
percent
control
or
that
NO
x
RACT
should
be
defined
as
up
to
$
10,000/
ton
of
pollutant
removed.
Two
States
disagreed
with
EPA's
proposal
that
a
new
RACT
determination
should
be
required
in
cases
where
the
initial
RACT
analysis
under
the
l­
hour
NAAQS
found
that
no
additional
controls
were
necessary
for
a
specific
source
or
source
category.
They
indicated
such
re­
analysis
would
be
an
unwise
use
of
resources
because
it
would
not
yield
significant
benefits.
Further,
they
do
not
agree
that
a
RACT
determination
is
warranted
for
major
VOC
or
NO
x
sources
not
in
existence
during
the
previous
RACT
determination,
because
new
sources
in
1­
hour
nonattainment
areas
have
been
permitted
pursuant
to
the
requirements
for
NSR
and,
where
applicable,
have
already
been
subject
to
more
stringent
control
requirements.
Response:
The
EPA
response
is
addressed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rulemaking
notice,
section
IV.
G.
1.
c.
"
What
requirements
should
apply
for
RACM
and
RACT
for
8­
hour
ozone
nonattainment
areas?"
Although
we
drafted
regulatory
language
for
this
aspect
of
the
RACT
program
(
and
for
other
RACT
provisions),
we
believe
it
is
sufficient
to
describe
EPA's
views
on
the
details
of
the
RACT
program
in
today's
preamble
and
in
other
guidance
(
e.
g.,
the
NO
x
Supplement
to
the
General
Preamble,
11­
25­
92);
thus,
some
detailed
portions
of
the
proposed
regulatory
text
regarding
RACT
were
not
retained
in
the
final
rule.

In
the
preamble,
we
noted
B
$
For
VOC
sources
subject
to
MACT
standards,
States
may
streamline
their
RACT
analysis
by
including
a
discussion
of
the
MACT
controls
and
relevant
factors
such
as
whether
VOCs
are
well
controlled
under
the
relevant
MACT
air
toxics
standard,
which
units
at
the
facility
have
MACT
controls,
and
whether
any
major
new
developments
in
technologies
or
costs
have
occurred
subsequent
to
the
MACT
standards..

$
We
believe
that
there
are
many
VOC
sources
that
are
well
controlled
(
e.
g.,
through
addon
controls
or
through
substitution
of
non­
VOC
non­
HAP
materials
for
VOC
HAP
materials)
because
they
are
regulated
by
the
MACT
standards,
which
EPA
developed
under
CAA
section
112.
4However,
there
are
some
MACT
categories
for
which
it
may
not
be
possible
to
determine
the
degree
of
VOC
reductions
from
the
MACT
standard
without
additional
analysis;
for
example,
the
miscellaneous
metal
parts
and
products
(
40
CFR
part
60,
subpart
MMMM)
due
to
the
uncertainty
of
the
compliance
method
that
will
be
selected.

6
$
Any
source
subject
to
MACT
standards
must
meet
a
level
that
is
as
stringent
as
the
bestcontrolled
12
percent
of
sources
in
the
industry.
Examples
of
these
HAP
sources
that
may
effectively
control
VOC
emissions
include
organic
chemical
plants
subject
to
the
hazardous
organic
NESHAP
(
HON),
pharmaceutical
production
facilities,
and
petroleum
refineries.
4
$
We
believe
that,
in
many
cases,
it
will
be
unlikely
that
States
will
identify
emission
controls
more
stringent
than
the
MACT
standards
that
are
note
prohibitively
expensive
and
are
thus
unreasonable.
We
believe
this
will
allow
States,
in
many
cases,
to
rely
on
the
MACT
standards
for
purposes
of
showing
that
a
source
has
met
VOC
RACT.

Some
commenters
stated
that
the
BACT
or
LAER
provisions
would
assure
at
least
RACT
level
controls
on
such
sources.
We
noted
in
the
preamble
B
$
That
we
agree
this
should
be
true
in
many
cases,
but
not
all.

$
The
BACT/
LAER
analyses
do
not
automatically
ensure
compliance
with
RACT
since
the
regulated
pollutant
or
source
applicability
may
differ
and
the
analyses
may
be
conducted
many
years
apart.

$
States
may,
however,
rely
on
information
gathered
from
prior
BACT
or
LAER
analyses
for
the
purposes
of
showing
that
a
source
has
met
RACT
to
the
extent
the
information
remains
valid.
In
general,
except
where
we
have
indicated
in
the
preamble
that
a
MACT
standard
would
satisfy
the
RACT
requirement,
States
are
expected
to
analyze
whether
compliance
with
a
BART,
BACT,
LAER,
or
MACT
standard
or
determination
would
constitute
RACT.
Factors
to
consider
in
such
an
analysis
include:

!
Whether
the
prior
determination
focused
on
other
pollutants
and
program
purposes
and
therefore
may
not
have
required
any
control
of
VOC
or
NOx.

!
Whether
the
prior
determination
my
have
focused
on
other
pollutants
and
program
purposes,
and
may
have
resulted
in
some
limited
reduction
in
an
ozone
precursor
that
does
not
represent
RACT­
equivalent
control
(
e.
g.,
a
MACT
standard
that
allows
substitution
of
non­
HAP
VOCs
for
HAP
VOCs
may
not
result
in
significant
VOC
reduction).

!
Whether
the
prior
determination
may
have
involved
review
of
some,
but
not
all,
of
the
emission
points
subject
to
RACT.

!
Whether
applicability
thresholds
for
the
prior
determination
were
higher
than
the
applicability
threshold
for
RACT
that
exists
in
the
nonattainment
area.
7
!
Whether
costs
of
an
existing
control
technology
may
have
dropped
since
the
prior
determination.

!
Whether
control
efficiency
of
an
existing
control
technology
may
have
significantly
increased
since
the
prior
determination.

!
Whether
new
control
technologies
have
become
available
since
the
prior
determination.
