Document ID: EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0020-0022
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Approval and Promulgations of Implementation Plans: Variance Determination for Particulate Matter from a Specific Source in the State of New Jersey
Posted Date: 2009-04-01T04:00Z

[Federal Register: April 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 61)]
[Rules and Regulations]               
[Page 14734-14736]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01ap09-11]                         

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0020; FRL-8775-6]

 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Variance 
Determination for Particulate Matter From a Specific Source in the 
State of New Jersey

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State 
of New Jersey. This SIP revision consists of a source-specific 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) determination for 
controlling particulate matter from the cooling tower operated by the 
PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations. This action 
approves a source-specific variance determination and emission 
limitations that were made by New Jersey in accordance with the 
provisions of its rule to help meet the national ambient air quality 
standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter. The intended effect of this 
rule is to approve source-specific emissions limitations required by 
the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will become effective on May 1, 2009.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0020. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other 
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet 
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly 
available docket materials are available either electronically through 
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 
25th Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. This Docket Facility is open 
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal 
holidays. The Docket telephone number is 212-637-4249.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10278, (212) 637-3711, e-mail: Truchan.Paul@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    EPA is approving New Jersey's revision to the particulate matter 
(PM) State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on November 2, 2007. 
This SIP revision relates to New Jersey's PM variance determination for 
the cooling tower at the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem 
Generating Stations located in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem 
County. As part of this variance evaluation, alternate emission 
limitations are specified for total suspended particulates (TSP) and 
PM-10 (particles with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or 
less). No variance was requested, or is being granted for PM2.5. This 
evaluation and variance only involves the operation of the cooling 
tower. The reader is referred to the proposed rulemaking on this action 
(May 29, 2008, 73 FR 30873) for additional details.

II. What Comments Were Received and What Is EPA's Response?

    EPA received one anonymous comment which did not support the 
variance request. The commenter indicated concern with the health 
effects of particulate matter and the need to clean up our air. The 
commenter also stated that the plant should be forced to upgrade and 
that the proposed SIP revision should have included a discussion of 
particulates smaller than 2.5 parts per million (ppm).
    EPA is also concerned with the health effects of particulates and 
revised the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for PM2.5 in 
September 2006, lowering the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS from 65 [mu]g/
m3 to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and readopted the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 
15 [mu]g/m\3\. States were required to make recommendations for 
designating their counties as either attainment or nonattainment by 
December 2007. On December 18, 2008, EPA's Administrator signed a final 
rulemaking containing the new PM2.5 air quality designations.
    Based on current air quality monitoring data, Salem County is in 
attainment of the new 24-hour PM2.5 standard. Salem County is currently 
designated as attaining the previous 24-hour PM2.5 standard, and annual 
PM2.5 standard, and this is confirmed with air quality monitoring data. 
Therefore, the County where the cooling tower is located is currently 
attaining the 65 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS and is also attaining the new lower 
35 [mu]g/m\3\ NAAQS.

[[Page 14735]]

    As part of the requirements for obtaining a variance, an air 
quality modeling analysis may be required. Such an analysis was 
performed for the potential increase in emissions from the PSEG cooling 
tower which looked at annual and 24-hour TSP, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. 
The PM2.5 standard regulates fine particulates with an aerodynamic 
diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (that is, all particulates 2.5 
micrometers and smaller). The proposed approval (73 FR 30874, May 29, 
2008) and the air quality modeling analysis included in the Docket for 
this action addressed the PM2.5 emissions from the cooling tower. 
Maximum modeled concentrations were compared to the respective 
significant impact levels. In general, concentrations of pollutants (in 
micrograms per cubic meter) above the significant impact levels may 
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS. However, in this case, the 
modeled impact of all three pollutants was less than their respective 
significance levels. In addition, the modeled impacts were added to the 
area-wide background concentrations, and all the results were less than 
the NAAQS. Therefore, the proposed SIP revision has demonstrated no 
interference with any NAAQS and satisfied section 110(l) of the Act, 
and EPA concludes the proposed SIP revision will not interfere with 
attainment or any other requirements of the Act. Further, as discussed 
in the proposal (73 FR 30873), the cooling tower will have its annual 
allowable particulate matter emissions limited to 65.9 tons per year 
(tpy) instead of the current allowable of 129 tpy. Under worst case 
assumptions, hourly emissions are allowed to increase to 42.0 pounds 
per hour (lbs/hr) from 29.4 lbs/hr. The worst-case particulate matter 
emissions were modeled and are not predicted to cause an exceedance of 
the NAAQS.
    The variance request also included a review of the existing 
controls at PSEG's cooling tower, an evaluation of other methods of 
reducing emissions at this facility, including the cost of these 
controls, and a comparison of controls that could be required on newly 
constructed cooling towers. The control efficiency currently measured 
for this cooling tower is comparable to or better than similar cooling 
towers documented in EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. Therefore, no 
additional controls are feasible.
    In determining whether to approve the variance request submitted by 
New Jersey, EPA was guided by the applicable rules contained in the 
State Implementation Plan (SIP), the results of air quality monitoring 
for the area, the results of air quality modeling of the proposed 
impact of the variance request, and the results of the technological 
and economic evaluations which were used to justify the variance. The 
New Jersey Administrative Code, Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 6, 
Control and Prohibition of Particulates from Manufacturing Processes, 
Section 6.5 specifically permits variances to be issued and provides 
procedures and requirements which must be met in order for the variance 
to be granted. New Jersey has demonstrated to EPA's satisfaction that 
these requirements have been met and that the variance will not cause 
or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable NAAQS.

III. Conclusion

    EPA is approving New Jersey's SIP revision request for a variance 
and an alternative emission limit determination for the PSEG Nuclear 
LLC Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations cooling tower. This SIP 
revision contains source-specific particulate emission limitations 
contained in New Jersey's Air Pollution Control Operating Permit for 
this source of: TSP less than or equal to 65.9 tpy, PM-10 less than or 
equal to 65.9 tpy, TSP less than or equal to 42 lbs/hr, and PM-10 less 
than or equal to 42 lbs/hr.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 1, 2009. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration of this rule with the Administrator does 
not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness

[[Page 14736]]

of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: February 12, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

0
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(86) to read 
as follows:

Sec.  52.1570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (86) Revisions to the New Jersey State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
for particulate matter granting a variance from Subchapter 6, Control 
and Prohibition of Particles from Manufacturing Processes for the 
cooling tower at the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem Generating 
Stations located in Lower Alloways Creek Township, Salem County dated 
November 2, 2007 submitted by the New Jersey State Department of 
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) which establishes hourly emission 
limits for TSP and PM-10 (total) of less than or equal to 42 pounds per 
hour and annual emission limits for TSP and PM-10 (total) of less than 
or equal to 65.9 tons per year.
    (i) Incorporation by reference:
    (A) A letter from Lisa P. Jackson, Commissioner, New Jersey 
Department of Environmental Protection, addressed to Alan J. Steinberg, 
Regional Administrator, EPA, dated November 2, 2007 submitting the 
variance for PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and Salem Generating Stations 
without the attachments.
    (B) Section J, Facility Specific Requirements, Emission Unit U24 
Cooling Tower, (Significant Modification Approval date August 7, 2007) 
contained in the Air Pollution Control Operating Permit, Significant 
Modification and Preconstruction Approval, PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek 
and Salem Generating Stations, Permit Activity Number: BOP05003.
* * * * *

 [FR Doc. E9-7179 Filed 3-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P