[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 104 (Thursday, May 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30873-30875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-11979]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket No., EPA-R02-OAR-2008-0020; FRL-8572-5]


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.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve 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 proposes an approval of the source-specific variance 
determination that was 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 
proposed rule is to approve source-specific emissions limitations 
required by the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before June 30, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA-R02-
OAR-2008-0020, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected].
     Fax: 212-637-3901.
     Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866.
     Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th 
Floor, New York, New York 10007-1866. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 
4:30 excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R02-OAR-2008-
0020. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, 
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information 
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov 
your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part 
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available 
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends 
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of 
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters or any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center 
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. 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, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically 
in 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. EPA requests, if at all 
possible, that you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Truchan, Air Programs Branch, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 
New York 10007-1866, (212) 637-3711 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. EPA's Proposed Action
    A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?
    B. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?
    C. What Is EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's SIP Revision?
II. New Jersey's SIP Revision
    A. What Are New Jersey's PM Requirements?
    B. When Was New Jersey's Variance Determination Proposed and 
Adopted?
    C. When Was New Jersey's SIP Revision Submitted to EPA?
    D. What Are EPA's findings?
III. Conclusion
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. EPA's Proposed Action

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

    EPA is proposing to approve 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). This evaluation and variance only involves the operation of the 
cooling tower.

B. Why Is EPA Proposing This Action?

    EPA is proposing this action to:
     Give the public the opportunity to submit comments on 
EPA's proposed

[[Page 30874]]

action, as discussed in the DATES and ADDRESSES sections; and
     Fulfill New Jersey's and EPA's requirements under the 
Clean Air Act (Act); and
     Make New Jersey's variance determination federally-
enforceable.

C. What Is EPA's Evaluation of New Jersey's SIP Revision?

    EPA has determined that New Jersey's SIP revision for the PM 
variance for the cooling tower at the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope Creek and 
Salem Generating Stations is consistent with New Jersey's PM rule and 
EPA's guidance. EPA's basis for evaluating New Jersey's SIP revision is 
whether it meets the SIP requirements described in section 110 of the 
Act. EPA has determined that New Jersey's SIP revision will not 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment or any 
other applicable requirement of the Act.
    After reviewing New Jersey's SIP revision submittal, EPA found it 
administratively and technically complete. EPA has determined that the 
TSP and PM-10 emission limits were developed and adopted through a 
source-specific SIP revision and incorporated into a revision of the 
source's Title V Operating Permit. The permit contains specific 
conditions relating to emissions limits, work practice standards, 
testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. These 
conditions are consistent with the PM requirements specified in 
Subchapter 6, Control and Prohibition of Particulates from 
Manufacturing Processes of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey 
Administrative Code and conform to EPA guidance. EPA proposes to 
approve the conditions contained in the ``Facility Specific 
Requirements'' which includes alternative emission limits for the 
cooling tower. PSEG will comply with the following hourly emission 
limits: for TSP less than or equal to 42 pounds per hour and for PM-10 
(total) less than or equal to 42 pounds per hour. PSEG will comply with 
the following annual emission limits: for TSP less than or equal to 
65.9 tons per year and for PM-10 (total) less than or equal to 65.9 
tons per year. In addition to the limits, New Jersey will include other 
requirements, such as adequate monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting 
in the Title V Operating Permit.

II. New Jersey's SIP Revision

A. What Are New Jersey's PM Requirements?

    New Jersey's PM requirements are contained in Subchapter 6, Control 
and Prohibition of Particulates from Manufacturing Processes of Chapter 
27, Title 7, of the New Jersey Administrative Code. Section 6.5 of New 
Jersey's rule establishes a variance procedure should a source not be 
able to meet the prescribed emission limits for technology reasons. The 
source must provide the reasons and justifications why the prescribed 
emission limits cannot be technologically achieved. Any variance issued 
by New Jersey is conditioned on the source complying with requirements 
that New Jersey deems necessary. In order for EPA to recognize any 
variance as Federally enforceable, New Jersey must submit the variance 
as a revision to its SIP and EPA must approve it through notice and 
rulemaking.

B. When Was New Jersey's Variance Determination Proposed and Adopted?

    New Jersey's variance was proposed on April 3, 2007, with the 
public hearing held on May 1, 2007. The comment period ended May 3, 
2007. New Jersey adopted the variance on August 7, 2007. No verbal 
comments were received during the public hearing and only PSEG Fossil 
LLC submitted written comments.

C. When Was New Jersey's SIP Revision Submitted to EPA?

    New Jersey's SIP revision was submitted to EPA on November 2, 2007. 
EPA determined that the submittal was administratively and technically 
complete on December 19, 2007.

D. What Are EPA's Findings?

    The variance request would allow the evaporation rate of the 
cooling tower to be increased by approximately 20 percent. This would 
increase the cooling tower particulate matter emissions from the 
currently permitted value of 29.4 pounds per hour (lbs/hr) to a 
projected 35.28 lbs/hr, based on the total dissolved solids (TDS) in 
the cooling water. However, under worst-case conditions of the ambient 
water salinity, hydrologic conditions, and the tidal hydrodynamics of 
the Delaware Estuary, which is the water source of the circulating 
cooling water, the maximum emissions that could be expected from the 
cooling tower would be 42.0 lbs/hr. Worst-case conditions are projected 
to occur once in 20 years and to address this occurrence, the new 
allowable will be set at 42.0 lbs/hr. New Jersey now requires that PSEG 
sample the circulating water at a minimum of every seven days and 
analyze it for TDS, which will help ensure that the emission limits are 
not exceeded.
    The cooling tower is currently limited to annual allowable 
emissions of 129 tons per year (tpy). Based on calculations, the actual 
annual emissions are only 54.7 tpy. Adjusting for the new cooling rate, 
the annual emissions are projected to be 65.9 tpy. New Jersey has 
limited the new annual emissions to 65.9 tpy, instead of the existing 
limit of 129 tpy.
    As part of this variance request, a review was undertaken to 
determine ``state-of-the-art'' controls for this type of cooling tower. 
EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse, the manufacturer of the existing 
cooling tower, and internationally available information were consulted 
on currently available controls and control efficiency for this type of 
tower. The only currently available controls involve drift eliminators 
which are already installed and any additions would not be technology 
feasible due to space constraints. Further, the current drift rate for 
the cooling tower is lower than the most stringent rate found in EPA's 
database. There is also no alternative source of makeup water that 
would result in a decrease in total dissolved solids (TDS), which are 
contained in the water and are the source of the particulate matter 
emissions.
    The result of air quality modeling analysis predicts that the 
impact on TSP, PM-10 and PM-2.5 will be below their respective 
significant impact levels and will not cause or contribute to a 
violation of a NAAQS, or a prevention of significant deterioration 
(PSD) Class II increment.
    The only comment received on the variance request was from PSEG and 
involved issues raised at an earlier adjudicatory hearing and did not 
involve the action being proposed on the cooling tower.
    Based on the above findings, EPA proposes to find that requirements 
for approving a variance request pursuant to the Clean Air Act, EPA 
guidance and requirements of New Jersey's Subchapter 6 have been 
satisfied.

III. Conclusion

    EPA is proposing to approve the New Jersey SIP revision for an 
alternative emission limit determination for the PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope 
Creek and Salem Generating Stations. This SIP revision contains source-
specific particulate emission limitations for PSEG Nuclear LLC Hope 
Creek and Salem Generating Stations. EPA will consider all comments 
submitted prior to any final rulemaking action.

[[Page 30875]]

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: May 19, 2008.
Alan J. Steinberg,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E8-11979 Filed 5-28-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P