Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Variance Determination for Particulate Matter From a Specific Source in the State of New Jersey, 14734-14736 [E9-7179]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
14734
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
EPA APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, NN REGULATIONS
State citation
*
State
approval/
effective date
Title/subject
*
*
*
EPA approval
date
*
*
Explanation
*
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality
Control Board
*
*
*
Part 20 (20.11.20 NMAC) ...............
*
*
Fugitive Dust Control ......................
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
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 sourcespecific 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
17:40 Mar 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
3/17/2008
*
[FR Doc. E9–7296 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
*
*
April 1, 2009 [Insert FR page
where document begins].
*
the https://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
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. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
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 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3 and
readopted the annual PM2.5 NAAQS at
15 μg/m3. 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 24hour 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 μg/
m3 NAAQS and is also attaining the
new lower 35 μg/m3 NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Mar 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
14735
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
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
14736
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 61 / Wednesday, April 1, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
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.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.1570 is amended by
adding new paragraph (c)(86) to read as
follows:
■
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:40 Mar 31, 2009
Jkt 217001
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 112
RIN 2050–AG16
■
*
[FR Doc. E9–7179 Filed 3–31–09; 8:45 am]
[EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–0584; FRL–8788–5]
Dated: February 12, 2009.
George Pavlou,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
§ 52.1570
Creek and Salem Generating Stations,
Permit Activity Number: BOP05003.
*
*
*
*
*
Oil Pollution Prevention; NonTransportation Related Onshore
Facilities; Spill Prevention, Control,
and Countermeasure Rule—Final
Amendments
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
date.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is delaying the effective
date of the final rule that amends the
Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure (SPCC) regulations
promulgated in the Federal Register on
December 5, 2008. The amendments
will become effective on January 14,
2010. EPA additionally is requesting
public comment on whether a further
extension of the effective date may be
warranted.
DATES: This document is effective April
1, 2009. The effective date of the final
rule (FR Doc. E8–28159), published in
the Federal Register on December 5,
2008 (73 FR 74236), that was delayed
until April 4, 2009 (74 FR 5900), is
further delayed to January 14, 2010.
Comments must be received on or
before May 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OPA–2007–0584, by one of the
following methods:
• https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
• Mail: EPA Docket, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code: 2822T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
• Hand Delivery: EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Docket’s
normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OPA–2007–
0584. EPA’s policy is that all comments
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The
https://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 https://
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, 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 index at the https://
www.regulations.gov. Although listed in
the index, some information may not be
publicly available, such as Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other
information the disclosure of which 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 at https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the EPA Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.,
NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number of the Public Reading Room is
202–566–1744, and the telephone
number to make an appointment to view
the docket is 202–566–0276.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
general information, contact the
Superfund, TRI, EPCRA, RMP, and Oil
E:\FR\FM\01APR1.SGM
01APR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 1, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14734-14736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-7179]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 https://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
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. 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
