Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Variance Determination for Particulate Matter from a Specific Source in the State of New Jersey, 30873-30875 [E8-11979]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment. This action proposes
adding a new test method for measuring
VOC air emissions to the recommended
methods in 40 CFR part 51. It does not
change any existing rules that limit VOC
air emissions.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 21, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E8–11879 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
rfrederick on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
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:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
• www.regulations.gov: Follow the
on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
• 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 email 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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket
are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
30873
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 https://
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
Truchan.paul@epa.gov.
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
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
30874
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules
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.
rfrederick on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
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 worstcase 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 104 / Thursday, May 29, 2008 / Proposed Rules
30875
rfrederick on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:11 May 28, 2008
Jkt 214001
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
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket Nos. 07–294; 06–121; 02–277;
04–228, MM Docket Nos. 01–235; 01–317;
00–244; FCC 07–217]
In the Matter of Promoting
Diversification of Ownership in the
Broadcasting Services; Correction
Federal Communications
Commission.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Proposed rule; correction.
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications
Commission published a document in
the Federal Register of May 16, 2008,
requesting comment on proposals for
the promotion of increased diversity in
the broadcasting services. Due to a
clerical error, the document contained
incorrect comment dates.
Comments for the proceeding
published in the Federal Register on
May 16, 2008 (73 FR 28400), are due on
or before June 30, 2008. Reply
comments are due on or before July 14,
2008.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kristi Thompson, 202–418–1318.
In the
Federal Register of May 16, 2008, in FR
Doc. E8–11043, on page 28400, in the
second column, correct the DATES
caption to read: ‘‘DATES: Comments for
this proceeding are due on or before
June 30, 2008. Reply comments are due
on or before July 14, 2008.’’
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8–11776 Filed 5–28–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
50 CFR Part 679
RIN 0648–XH70
Fisheries of the Exclusive Economic
Zone Off Alaska; Groundfish Fisheries
in the Gulf of Alaska
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Availability of a proposed
amendment to a fishery management
plan; request for comments.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery
Management Council (Council) has
submitted proposed Amendment 79 to
the Fishery Management Plan for
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP)
for Secretarial review. If approved,
Amendment 79 would amend the FMP
and require the Council to annually
recommend an aggregate overfishing
level (OFL) and acceptable biological
catch (ABC) for the ‘‘other species’’
category in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA).
The ‘‘other species’’ category consists of
sharks, sculpins, squid, and octopus.
Currently, the Council only sets total
allowable catch (TAC) for the ‘‘other
species’’ category, which is intended to
accommodate the directed catch of
‘‘other species’’ and incidental catch in
other groundfish fisheries. The revised
process would allow the Council to
incorporate the best and most recent
scientific and socio-economic
information and public testimony in its
recommendation for an annual ‘‘other
species’’ TAC. The purpose of this
amendment is to provide a sound
biological basis for the setting of the
‘‘other species’’ TAC, ABC, and OFL,
and is necessary to comply with the
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 28, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Sue
Salveson, Assistant Regional
Administrator, Sustainable Fisheries
Division, Alaska Region, NMFS, Attn:
Ellen Sebastian. You may submit
comments, identified by RIN 0648–
XH70 by any one of the following
methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
https://www.regulations.gov.
• Mail: P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802.
E:\FR\FM\29MYP1.SGM
29MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 104 (Thursday, May 29, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30873-30875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.
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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the https://
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 https://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 Truchan.paul@epa.gov.
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
