Supplemental Statement of Basis 

PSD Permit Application for Avenal Energy Project 

March 2011 

EPA is supplementing its Statement of Basis for this application for a Clean Air Act 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to address several considerations that have 

arisen since the close of the comment period on this permit. Due to the fact that Avenal’s permit 

application was complete and a proposed permit issued in advance of EPA’s proposal of certain 

recently-promulgated regulations establishing new and additional requirements and other 

compelling factors, EPA has tentatively determined that it should grandfather this permit from 

those requirements, i.e., not require a demonstration of compliance with those requirements for 

this permit. Furthermore, EPA has determined that it is appropriate to provide a detailed 

Environmental Justice Analysis regarding its proposed PSD permit action for this facility for 

public comment. The proposed facility, called the Avenal Energy Project (Project) by the permit 

applicant, Avenal Power Center, LLP (APC), will be located in Kings County, California, and 

consists of two GE 7FA combustion turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, one 

steam turbine generator, and associated equipment. The proposed location for the Project 

constitutes the majority of the northeast quarter of Section 19, Township 21 South, Range 18 

East, Mt. Diablo Base and Meridian. The Kings County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) for 

this location is 36-170-035. The geographic coordinates for the proposed location are Latitude 

36.088394° N and Longitude 120.061141° W. The proposed location is currently in agricultural 

production, is zoned industrial by the City of Avenal and is owned by the applicant. The City of 

Avenal has informed the EPA that the unofficial address for this location’s APN is 33119 Avenal 

Cutoff Road, Avenal, California 93204. EPA Region 9 first received the application for this 

permit in February 2008 and notified the applicant on March 19, 2008 that its permit application 

was complete,1 in accordance with the procedure described in EPA regulations. 40 CFR 

124.3(c). 

 On June 16, 2009, EPA Region 9 issued for public comment a proposed permit for the 

Project, which would grant conditional approval, in accordance with the PSD regulations, to 

APC to construct and operate a 600 MW (net) electric generating facility, along with a statement 

of basis and ambient air quality impact report describing the basis for the permit conditions and 

other related information. The proposed PSD permit requires the use of Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT) to limit emissions to the greatest extent feasible of carbon monoxide (CO), 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and particulate matter less than 10 

micrometers in diameter (PM10). The area in which this facility will be located is in attainment 

with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for these pollutants, as well as sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) and lead. We note that the area where this facility will be located is not meeting 

the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). The 

emissions from the proposed project of the air pollutants (including precursors to the formation 

of these pollutants) for which the relevant area is not attaining the NAAQS are regulated under 

the Nonattainment New Source Review permitting program administered by the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District (District). 

 

1

 Under 40 CFR 52.21(b)(22), “[c]omplete means, in reference to an application for a permit, that the application 

contains all of the information necessary for processing the application.” 

1 
 EPA provided public notices requesting public comment on the proposed permit for the 

Project on June 16, 2009, August 27, 2009 through August 29, 2009, and September 11, 2009. 

The August and September 2009 notices announced that EPA would extend the public comment 

period and hold a public information meeting and two public hearings in conjunction with its 

proposed PSD permit for the Project. The public information meeting and two public hearings 

were held as scheduled, and the public comment period for the proposed permit closed on 

October 15, 2009. 

 In parallel with this process required under the Clean Air Act, EPA has taken the steps 

necessary to ensure its action on this permit application complies with section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. EPA requested initiation of consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service under section 7 of the ESA on July 10, 2008, and provided additional 

information requested by the Service on October 22, 2008. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

completed its biological opinion concluding the formal consultation process in August 2010. 

 At this point, the APC permit application has been pending well beyond the one-year 

deadline by which the Clean Air Act requires EPA to take action to grant or deny this 

application. The permit applicant has filed a suit in federal District Court to compel EPA to reach 

a final decision on this permit application. EPA has represented to the Court that it would be 

able to issue a final permit decision in accordance with 40 CFR 124.15 by May 27, 2011 after 

taking comment on this supplemental statement of basis. 

 EPA is providing an additional public hearing and opportunity to comment on this 

supplemental statement of basis, as described in the associated public notice. 

I. Grandfathering From Requirements Established by Recently Promulgated Rules 

 EPA has determined that it is not appropriate or equitable under the circumstances 

present here to require this permit applicant to meet certain recently promulgated requirements 

that have taken effect while EPA has been in the process of reviewing this application. For the 

reasons discussed below, EPA believes it is authorized to issue a PSD permit to this applicant 

without requiring a demonstration that the source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2) or sulfur dioxide (SO2) NAAQS for the one-hour averaging time or a 

showing that this source will meet the BACT requirement for greenhouse gases. 

 In 2010, EPA completed a series of regulations that established additional standards and 

criteria applicable to the review and issuance of permits to construct or modify major stationary 

sources of air pollution under the PSD program. The relevant regulations include NAAQS for 

hourly concentrations of NO2 and SO2 and limitations on greenhouse gas emissions from light 

duty vehicles. EPA first proposed these regulations in July 2009, December 2009, and 

September 2009 respectively. Under EPA’s interpretation of applicable statutes and regulations, 

these new regulations created additional standards and criteria that became applicable to the 

review and issuance of PSD permits when the new regulations became effective. This is because 

the criteria for issuance of PSD permits include requirements that a source demonstrate it will 

not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS and that the proposed source will meet 

2 
emissions limitations achievable through application of BACT for each pollutant subject to 

regulation under the Clean Air Act (“the Act”). 42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(3)-(4); 40 C.F.R. 52.21(k); 

40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(12); 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). When completing the regulations to 

establish NAAQS for hourly NO2 and SO2 concentrations and the limitations on greenhouse gas 

emissions from light duty vehicles, EPA did not adopt transitional provisions in the PSD 

regulations to grandfather any permit applications that were pending at the time the new 

requirements took effect. 

Nevertheless, EPA has determined in this case that it should not apply the criteria and 

standards described in the preceding paragraph to the APC permit application under the 

circumstances that are presented here. EPA first proposed the hourly NO2 standard more than a 

year after the time that EPA determined APC’s PSD permit application was complete. Indeed, 

EPA had issued a proposed PSD permit for the project prior to the proposal date of the NAAQS 

standard. At this point, the APC permit application has been pending for nearly two years 

beyond the statutory deadline by which EPA was required to make a decision to grant or deny 

this application. This delay has been exacerbated by the need for APC to conduct an analysis to 

show that the proposed APC facility will not cause a violation of the hourly NO2 NAAQS, in 

accordance with EPA previously announced interpretation of the PSD regulations. In 

consideration of EPA’s statutory obligation to take action on this permit application in a timely 

manner, the nature of the source APC seeks to construct, and the factors that have contributed to 

the extended delay in this case, EPA does not believe it is appropriate or equitable at this point to 

require that APC demonstrate compliance with the hourly NO2 NAAQS or additional 

requirements that have taken effect during the extended delay that has resulted from EPA’s prior 

interpretation that APC should make such a showing before EPA could grant the permit 

application. 

A. Substantive and Procedural Requirements Applicable to PSD Permitting

Section 165 of the Act (42 U.S.C. § 7475) and EPA’s implementing regulations (40 

C.F.R. § 52.21; 40 C.F.R. Part 124) contain both substantive and procedural requirements that 

must be satisfied before a PSD permit may be issued to authorize construction or modification of 

a major stationary source of air pollutants. When EPA promulgates a new NAAQS and 

completes rules that make an additional pollutant subject to regulation under the Act,2 the 

Agency must take care to ensure that PSD permit decisions are made in accordance with both the 

substantive and procedural requirements of the Act and EPA’s implementing regulations. 

NAAQS Compliance 

Among the substantive requirements, the Clean Air Act and PSD regulations provide that 

a permit may not be issued unless the applicant demonstrates that the source will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of “any NAAQS.”   42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); 40 C.F.R. 52.21(k). This 

requirement does not apply to any NAAQS for which the area in which the source proposes to 

locate is designated non-attainment. 40 C.F.R. 52.21(i)(2). EPA has previously explained that, 

as a general matter, each decision to issue a PSD permit should be supported by a record 

 

2

 Such pollutants are defined in EPA regulations as a “regulated NSR pollutant.” 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(50). 

3 
showing that the applicant will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (except one 

for which the area is designated nonattainment) that is effective on or before the date that the 

permit is issued. On April 1, 2010, the Director of EPA’s Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards issued a memorandum reminding Regional Offices that EPA interprets the phrase “any 

NAAQS” contained in the PSD provisions of the Act and EPA regulations to cover any NAAQS 

in effect at the time of a final permit decision. The memorandum cited prior instances where 

EPA has applied this interpretation, including one where EPA also issued a rule to grandfather 

some pending applications from the requirement to show the source would not violate the 

NAAQS for PM10. 52 Fed. Reg. 24672 (July 1, 1987). The April 2010 memorandum said the 

following: 

[P]ermits issued under 40 CFR 52.21 on or after April 12, 2010, must contain a 

demonstration that the source’s allowable emissions will not cause or contribute 

to a violation of the new 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. ... There are no exceptions under 

40 CFR 52.21 in this case because as noted above, EPA has not adopted a 

grandfathering provision applicable to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS that would enable 

the required permit to be issued to a prospective source. 

One day later, EPA also addressed this subject in the context of a final decision published in the 

Federal Register on the topic of the pollutants subject to the requirements of the PSD program. 

75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). This document said the following: 

EPA generally interprets a revised NAAQS that establishes either a lower level 

for the standard or a new averaging time for a pollutant already regulated to apply 

upon the effective date of the revised NAAQS. Thus, unless EPA promulgates a 

grandfathering provision that allows pending applications to apply standards in 

effect when the application is complete, a final permit decision issued after the 

effective date of a NAAQS must consider such a NAAQS. 

Id. at 17008. 

Best Available Control Technology 

PSD permit applicants must also show that the proposed source will meet an emissions 

limitation based on application of BACT for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act. 

42 U.S.C. 7475(a)(4). As discussed in EPA’s final action entitled “Reconsideration of 

Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting 

Programs,” EPA construes the BACT requirement to apply to each pollutant that is subject to 

regulation under the Act at the time a PSD permit is issued. 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). 

In this April 2010 action explaining EPA’s decision to continue following a legal interpretation 

established in a December 2008 memorandum from the Administrator (“PSD Interpretive 

Memo”), EPA identified January 2, 2011 as the date when greenhouse gases would first became 

subject to regulation under the Act. January 2, 2011 is the date when the first regulatory 

requirement to control emissions of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act takes effect under 

the Light Duty Vehicle Rule that EPA completed on May 7, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 25324. EPA 

proposed the vehicle rule on September 28, 2009. 

4 
EPA also explained in the April 2, 2010 final action described above that the Agency did 

not “see any grounds to establish a transition period for permit applications that are pending 

before GHGs become subject to regulation.” Id. at 17021. EPA did not see a basis to 

promulgate a grandfathering provision for greenhouse gases because permit applications pending 

prior to April 2, 2010 already had a transition period of nine months in which the permit could be 

issued without addressing the BACT requirement for greenhouse gases. For permits that could 

not be issued in that nine-month period, EPA believed that it would be feasible to begin 

incorporating greenhouse gas considerations into permit reviews in parallel with completion of 

work on other pollutants. EPA also observed that permit applicants had notice that greenhouse 

gases would become subject to regulation for purposes of the PSD program upon completion of 

the light duty vehicle standards. Thus, the Agency said in April 2010 that “EPA does not intend 

to promulgate a transition or grandfathering provision that exempts pending permit applications 

from the onset of GHG requirements in the PSD program.” EPA also explained that “in the 

absence of such a provision, PSD permits that are issued on or after January 2, 2011 ... will be 

required to contain the provisions that fulfill the applicable program requirements for GHGs.” 

Id. at 17022. In June 2010, EPA affirmed that it did not intend to adopt a grandfathering 

provision for greenhouse gases when the Agency completed the PSD and Title V Greenhouse 

Gas Tailoring Rule. 75 Fed. Reg. 31514, 31592-93 (June 3, 2010). 

Timely Permit Review 

The Act also requires that permitting authorities complete review of PSD permit 

applications in a timely manner. Section 165(c) of the Act specifies that “[a]ny completed 

permit application under section 7410 of this title for a major emitting facility in any area to 

which this part applies shall be granted or denied not later than one year after the date of filing of 

such completed application.” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(c). EPA should be mindful of this obligation 

when establishing new regulations that affect the requirements applicable to PSD permit 

applications, especially applications that are in process at the time additional requirements 

become effective. 

Under certain circumstances EPA has previously established transition provisions which 

relieved persons proposing new major sources and major modifications that have submitted a 

complete PSD permit application from having to amend applications to demonstrate compliance 

with the new PSD requirements. For example, EPA adopted such a provision to address the 

transition from the TSP NAAQS to the PM10 NAAQS. See, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(x). EPA 

adopted similar provisions pertaining to new or revised PSD increments for NO2 and particulate 

matter. 40 CFR 52.21(i)(9)-(10). Permit applicants meeting the eligibility criteria in these 

provisions were grandfathered from the new PSD requirements that otherwise would have 

applied to them. 

B. Grounds for Grandfathering this Permit Application from New Requirements

In order to balance EPA’s statutory obligations to issue permits in a timely manner and in 

accordance with the substantive requirements of the Act, EPA is proposing to issue a PSD permit 

to APC without requiring a showing that this source will not cause or contribute to a violation of 

5 
the hourly NO2 and SO2 NAAQS or establishing emissions limitations for greenhouse gases in 

the permit. This determination is based on the following factors that are discussed in more detail 

below: 

(1) The facility that APC proposes to construct will be a well-controlled, natural-gas fired 

electric generating facility that will apply BACT for NO2 and not cause or contribute to a 

violation of the NAAQS that were in place before promulgation of the hourly standards; 

 (2) APC’s permit application was deemed complete by EPA more than a year before, 

and EPA had issued a proposed permit for the project one month before, the date on which EPA 

proposed the hourly NO2 NAAQS. 

(3) Unanticipated challenges with the preparation and review of sufficient information to 

predict the impact of proposed sources on hourly NO2 concentrations were not apparent when 

EPA determined there was no need to establish a grandfathering provision for this requirement 

and others that followed. 

(4) The challenges encountered in supplementing the APC permit application to address 

the hourly NO2 NAAQS caused additional delay beyond the dates when the hourly SO2 

NAAQS and greenhouse gas requirements became applicable to PSD permit applications. 

(5) Court decisions recognize an exception, in cases of significant delay by the 

administrative agency, to the general rule that an administrative agency should apply the law in 

effect at the time its issues a permit or license. 

Considering these factors and EPA’s statutory obligations to complete action on this permit in a 

timely manner, EPA believes there is cause to grandfather this permit application from the 

identified requirements in order to reconcile competing obligations under the Clean Air Act and 

achieve an equitable outcome. 

Projected Emissions from the APC Facility 

 

The facility that APC seeks authorization to construct is a state-of-the-art natural-gas 

fired electric generating facility that will achieve the lowest levels of air pollutant emissions 

achievable in this instance. The proposed PSD permit requires the use of BACT to limit 

emissions of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter (PM), and 

particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM10). See, Statement of Basis and 

Ambient Air Quality Impact Report, Section 7, pp. 15-23 (June 2009) 

 

The record for this permit demonstrates that the source will not cause or contribute to a 

violation of any NAAQS regulated under the permit that was in effect at the time EPA issued a 

proposed permit for this project. EPA has determined from the modeled results for the facility 

that the Project impacts are well below (in all cases, less than 6 percent of) the applicable 

NAAQS for the PSD pollutants addressed in the PSD permit. The maximum modeled impact of 

NO2 for the annual averaging period is 0.5 μg/m3, less than 1 percent of the NAAQS of 100 

6 
μg/m3. The modeled PM10 impact (24-hour averaging period) is 2.9 μg/m3, approximately 2 

percent of the PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m3. The modeled CO impact for the 8-hour 

averaging period is 337 μg/m3, less than 4 percent of the NAAQS of 10,000 μg/m3, and the 

modeled CO impact for the 1-hour averaging period is 2,175 μg/m3, less than 6 percent of the 

NAAQS of 40,000 μg/m3. See, Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact Report, 

Section 8, pp. 24-27 (June 2009); 40 C.F.R Part 50. 

Proposal of Hourly NO2 NAAQS After Application Completed 

At the time its permit application was deemed complete, Avenal did not have notice of 

the potential for the hourly NO2 NAAQS requirement to become applicable when its permit 

application was completed. EPA declared the Avenal PSD permit application complete in March 

2008. EPA proposed the hourly NO2 NAAQS over a year later on July 15, 2009. 

Complications with Implementation of Hourly NO2 NAAQS 

EPA issued the hourly NO2 NAAQS on February 9, 2010 and established that this 

standard would become effective on April 12, 2010. At that time, EPA did not consider 

adopting a transitional provision for pending permit applications completed prior to this date. 

EPA expected that permit applicants would readily be able to determine, based on existing EPA 

modeling guidelines, how to expeditiously complete the analysis necessary to show that 

stationary source construction would not cause or contribute to violations of the hourly NO2 

NAAQS. However, some PSD permit applicants have experienced unforeseen challenges with 

the preparation of sufficient information to predict the impact of the proposed source on hourly 

NO2 concentrations in accordance with PSD modeling guidelines. 

EPA has approved the air quality dispersion model known as AERMOD for use in 

several regulatory applications, including use by permit applicants to demonstrate that the 

sources they propose to build will not cause or contribute to violations of the hourly NO2 

standard. On February 25, 2010, before the hourly NO2 standard became effective, EPA issued 

a Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS, which explained that the current 

AERMOD model should be used in accordance with established guidelines on the application of 

this and other air quality models contained in 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Appendix W. In addition, after 

the hourly NO2 NAAQS became effective, EPA issued two additional guidance memoranda on 

June 28, 2010. One of those memoranda, entitled “Applicability of Appendix W Modeling 

Guidance for the 1-hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard,” provided additional 

technical guidance on using AERMOD to demonstrate that proposed construction of a stationary 

source will not cause or contribute to a violation of the hourly NO2 standard. EPA believed 

these actions would be sufficient to enable all permit applicants, including those with 

applications pending on April 12, 2010 when the NO2 NAAQS became effective, to complete 

appropriate modeling of hourly NO2 concentrations. 

Despite these actions by EPA, some applicants seeking PSD permits to construct or 

modify stationary sources of air pollution have experienced unforeseen challenges with the 

timely preparation of sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed construction will 

not cause or contribute to violations of the hourly NO2 NAAQS. These challenges have 

7 
resulted from the fact that to address the hourly NO2 NAAQS, many permit applicants need to 

conduct a cumulative air quality impact assessment. This has also necessitated the application of 

modeling techniques that are more refined than those that have previously been adequate to 

demonstrate compliance with the annual NO2 standard. These refined modeling techniques 

require consideration of the chemical transformation of NOx emissions through the Ozone 

Limiting Method or Plume Volume Molar Ratio Method under the third and most-refined Tier of 

EPA’s modeling guidelines applicable to NO2. Additional refinements in the determination of 

background concentrations based on modeling of nearby sources and ambient monitoring data 

may also be necessary in many cases. This level of refinement requires acquisition and analysis 

of additional data inputs that are available but not as readily accessible to permit applicants as 

has been the case with other data used in air quality modeling for annual NO2 concentrations. 

Permit applicants and permitting authorities have needed more time than EPA expected to 

develop familiarity with these refined approaches and to obtain and analyze the necessary data. 

Due in part to these complications, APC’s efforts to complete a sufficient modeling 

demonstration to show this source will not cause or contribute to violations of the hourly NO2 

standard has produced unanticipated delays in the review of the PSD permit application 

submitted by APC. This has exacerbated EPA’s failure to comply with the statutory deadline for 

action on this permit application. The potential for such a circumstance to arise was not apparent 

when EPA completed the hourly NO2 NAAQS without grandfathering pending PSD permit 

applications at that time. 

Greenhouse Gas Requirements 

When EPA completed the reconsideration of the PSD Interpretive Memo in April 2010 

and identified the date on which greenhouse gases would become subject to regulation, the 

Agency’s conclusion that it would not be necessary to establish a transitional provision for the 

PSD requirements applicable to greenhouse gases was informed by the assumption that permits 

pending as of April 2010 would reasonably be expected to be issued within the next nine months. 

Thus, when EPA concluded that the approximately nine months remaining until January 2, 2011 

was a sufficient transition period for completing action on most pending permit applications 

without having to address the greenhouse gas requirements, EPA had not considered the 

potential delays that would result for long-pending complete permit applications such as APC’s 

from completion of modeling to address the hourly NO2 NAAQS. Since these delays have 

prevented EPA from issuing a final decision on the APC permit application by January 2, 2011, 

EPA believes it is appropriate to grandfather this permit from the greenhouse gas requirements. 

If not for the delays associated with addressing the hourly NO2 NAAQS requirements, EPA 

would have completed action on the APC permit application prior to January 2, 2011 and the 

application would not have been subject to the greenhouse gas requirements. The limited 

grandfather from the GHG requirements that EPA is applying in this case is justified to provide 

this permit applicant with the benefit of the 9-month transitional period EPA identified in April 

2010 before the complications associated with implementing the hourly NO2 NAAQS in the 

PSD permitting program became apparent. 

8 
Hourly SO2 NAAQS 

On June 22, 2010, EPA published a final rule establishing a primary SO2 NAAQS based 

on a 1-hour averaging time. 75 Fed. Reg. 35,520 (Jun. 22, 2010). That rule became effective on 

August 23, 2010. EPA first proposed this standard on December 8, 2009, more than 20 months 

after EPA determined Avenal’s application was complete. As with the greenhouse gas 

requirement, the Agency’s decision not to establish a transitional provision for the hourly SO2 

NAAQS was informed by the assumption that an hourly NO2 NAAQS modeling demonstration 

could be completed more expeditiously than has proven to be the case for the APC permit. EPA 

did not anticipate that delays in completing modeling for the hourly NO2 NAAQS would impede 

EPA’s ability to complete action on the long-pending complete permit applications such as 

APC’s before the hourly SO2 NAAQS became effective on August 23, 2010. Similar to the 

situation described above with respect to greenhouse gases, EPA would have been able to 

complete action on this permit application before August 23, 2010 if it had not requested 

additional information from Avenal to address the hourly NO2 NAAQS and experienced the 

complications described. 

 

Although these considerations support grandfathering this permit application from the 

hourly SO2 NAAQS, we note that because of the low SO2 emissions from this facility, EPA 

regulations do not require additional analysis to demonstrate that this source will not cause a 

violation of the hourly SO2 NAAQS. The Project’s SO2 emissions are estimated to be 16.7 tons 

per year. Since this is well below the 40 tons per year significant emissions rate for SO2, 

additional analysis is not required from APC. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(m)(1) and 52.21(b)(23)(i). 

Sources with emissions below these levels are considered to have a negligible or “de minimis” 

impact on air quality that would not cause or contribute to violation of the NAAQS for the 

pollutant in question. Thus, further analysis is not required under EPA regulations. 

Judicial Decisions Support Grandfathering the Permit Application from New Requirements in 

this Case 

EPA’s proposed action to grandfather this permit application that has been pending for 

well beyond the statutory deadline for action is supported by judicial opinions that have 

addressed analogous circumstances involving a change in legal requirements while action on an 

application for a government approval was unduly delayed. In the April 2010 interpretive 

statements described above, EPA relied on judicial opinions supporting the general principle that 

a decision on an application for a government license, permit, or other type of authorization must 

be based on the law in effect at the time of the decision of the reviewing authority. See Ziffrin, 

Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73, 78 (1943); State of Alabama v. EPA, 557 F.2d 1101, 1108 (5th 

Cir. 1977). However, some courts have also recognized an exception to this principle in 

circumstances where there has been a significant and prejudicial delay by the government agency 

reviewing an application. These courts have extended to actions by government agencies a 

principle that courts sometimes apply when they themselves are unable for various reasons to 

issue decisions in a timely manner. The judicial principle has been expressed by the Supreme 

Court as follows: 

9 
where the delay in rendering a judgment or a decree arises from the act of the 

court, that is, where the delay has been caused either by the convenience, or by 

the multiplicity or press of business, either the intricacy of the questions involved, 

or of any other cause not attributable to the laches of the parties, the judgment or 

decree may be entered retrospectively, as of a time it should or might have been 

entered up. 

Mitchell v. Overman, 103 U.S. 62, 64-65 (1880). This principle is sometimes identified by the 

Latin maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. 

In one such case applying this principle to action by a government agency, an individual 

had applied for U.S. citizenship under a statute that expired before the government acted on his 

application. The court held that the individual was entitled to have his petition for naturalization 

granted under the expired law because of the government’s delay in the approval of his 

application. Application of Martini, 184 F.Supp. 395, 401-402 (S.D.N.Y. 1960). That court 

opinion applies the judicial principle described above “to the delay caused by administrative 

inaction.” 184 F.Supp. at 401-402. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 

later observed that the above case and others had applied this principle to “situations involving 

prejudicial delays in the administrative proceedings.” Fassilis v. Esperdy, 301 F.2d 429, 434 (2d 

Cir. 1962). However, the Second Circuit actually declined to reach the same result in the 

absence of a similar showing of delay. Id. This opinion of the Second Circuit followed the 

general principle described in Ziffrin Inc. v. United States, 318 U.S. 73 (1943) that an 

administrative agency should apply the law in effect at the time of its final decision on an 

application. Nevertheless, the Second Circuit case did not question the earlier decisions that 

applied an exception to this principle where there has been a meaningful delay by an 

administrative agency. Id. at 434. Although the Second Circuit upheld several denials of 

applications for permanent residency status based in part on a change in law that occurred during 

administrative appeals of the denials, this result was based on the court’s conclusion that there 

were “no substantial delays on the part of the administrative agency which operated to deprive 

the applicants of any right to which any of them was entitled.” Id. Thus, the Fassilis opinion 

appears to confirm the viability of the principle applied in the Martini case where there has been 

a significant delay by an administrative agency. 

Together, the above cases support the view that an administrative agency has the power 

in limited and compelling circumstances to issue a permit decision based on the legal 

requirements that were applicable at the time the Agency should have taken action. 

Conclusion Regarding Grandfathering 

Notwithstanding these considerations, EPA must also ensure compliance with the 

substantive requirements of the Clean Air Act. The Act does not expressly authorize EPA to 

waive the substantive permitting criteria when a permit application has not been granted or 

denied within the one-year deadline. Thus, EPA must consider how to reconcile what have now 

become conflicting statutory obligations because of the delays in processing this permit 

application. Given the ambiguity in the Act on this point, EPA has the discretion to apply a 

permissible interpretation of the Act that balances the requirements in the Act to make a decision 

10 
on a permit application within one year and to ensure that new and modified sources will only be 

authorized to construct after showing they can meet the substantive permitting criteria. Given 

the nature of the facility APC proposes to construct, the fact that EPA proposed the hourly NO2 

NAAQS more than a year after Avenal’s application was complete and after EPA had proposed 

to approve it, the delay in processing this application that resulted from promulgation of this 

standard, and the judicial precedent described above, EPA believes it is appropriate to reconcile 

these competing legal obligations by not requiring that APC show it will not cause or contribute 

to a violation of the one-hour NAAQS for NO2 and SO2 or that this facility will be capable of 

meeting emissions limitations for greenhouse gases based on the BACT requirement. 

Although EPA previously issued interpretive statements that suggest grandfathering is 

not permissible in any circumstance absent an express grandfathering provision in the 

regulations, this previous interpretation should not apply to the circumstances present here. In 

making those prior statements, EPA had not sufficiently considered the judicial decisions 

described above and the present circumstances where several factors have combined to cause a 

delay of EPA’s action on the APC permit nearly two years beyond the statutory deadline. In 

light of these circumstances and the extended delay of EPA’s action on the APC permit 

application attributable to the challenges experienced in attempting to address the hourly NO2 

NAAQS, EPA reads the law to allow EPA to issue this permit application based on the criteria 

and standards applicable to PSD permit decisions prior to the effective date of the hourly NO2 

NAAQS. 

 The previous interpretive statements discussed above were reflected in actions of 

officials from EPA’s headquarters offices. In order to effectuate the refinement of the previous 

Agency interpretations described above and to facilitate issuance of this permit, EPA’s Assistant 

Administrator for Air and Radiation is issuing this statement of basis and intends to issue the 

final permit decision for the APC permit application after consideration of any public comment 

that may be submitted on this action. This action is authorized under a special delegation from 

the EPA Administrator contained in the administrative record. 

11 
II. Environmental Justice Analysis 

Introduction 

Executive Order 12898 entitled “Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations” states in relevant part that “each Federal 

agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and 

addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations.” Section 1-101 of Exec. Order 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629, (Feb. 16, 1994) “Federal 

agencies are required to implement this order consistent with, and to the extent permitted by, 

existing law.”Id. at 7632. Based on this Executive Order, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals 

Board (EAB) has held that environmental justice issues must be considered in connection with 

the issuance of federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits issued by EPA 

Regional Offices and states acting under delegations of Federal authority. See, e.g., In re Prairie 

State Generating Company, 13 E.A.D. 1, 123 (EAB 2006); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 

E.A.D. 121, 174-75 (EAB 1999) (“Knauf I”). EPA Regional Offices or their delegates in the 

states have for several years incorporated environmental justice considerations into their review 

of applications for PSD permits. The EAB reinforced the importance of completing an 

environmental justice analysis in a recent opinion discussed further below. See, , In re: Shell 

Gulf of Mexico, Inc. and Shell Offshore, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 10-1 to 10-4, Slip Op. at 63-4, 

(EAB December 30, 2010) (“Shell II”). 

During the extended public comment period that EPA provided in 2009 regarding the 

proposed PSD permit for the Avenal Energy Project (Project), EPA received a number of 

comments concerning potential impacts on the surrounding communities, and we will respond to 

those in the Response to Comments that will accompany our final permit decision. For reasons 

we discuss in detail below, we have prepared this separate Environmental Justice Analysis to 

address the question of potential impacts of emissions of the air pollutants addressed in EPA’s 

PSD permit action, and in particular short-term NO2 exposures. Another environmental justice 

analysis was conducted, as part of the state permitting and certification process for this Project, 

that addresses certain other air pollutants, namely ozone and fine particles, and we have 

summarized the results of that analysis in this document. We note that the local air district 

permit and the California Energy Commission (CEC)’s certification are the subject of a 

complaint submitted to EPA under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 

 

For purposes of the Executive Order on environmental justice, EPA has recognized that 

compliance with the applicable NAAQS is emblematic of achieving a level of public health 

protection that demonstrates that EPA’s issuance of a PSD permit for a proposed facility will not 

have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. See e.g., Shell II. slip op. 74; In re Shell Offshore 

Inc., 13 E.A.D. 357, 404-5 (EAB 2007) (“Shell I”); In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 9 E.A.D 1, 

15-17 (EAB 2000) (“Knauf II”); In re AES Puerto Rico, L.P., 8 E.A.D. 324, 351 (EAB 1999). 

This is because the NAAQS are health-based standards, designed to protect public health with an 

adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and 

asthmatics. As the EAB recently observed, “[i]n the context of an environmental justice 

12 
analysis, compliance with the NAAQS is emblematic of achieving a level of public health 

protection that, based on the level of protection afforded by the NAAQS, demonstrates that 

minority or low-income populations will not experience disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects due to exposure to relevant criteria pollutants.” Shell, 

Slip Op. at 73. This is supported by the fact that “[t]he Agency sets the NAAQS using 

technical and scientific expertise, ensuring that the primary NAAQS protects the public health 

with an adequate margin of safety.” Shell II, Slip Op. at 73. 

The studies assessed by EPA in setting NAAQS and the integration of the scientific 

evidence presented therein have undergone extensive critical review by EPA, the Clean Air 

Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), and the public. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, 6478 

Feb. 9, 2010. “The rigor of the review makes these studies, and their integrative assessment, the 

most reliable source of scientific information on which to base decisions on the NAAQS.” Id. 

When setting the NAAQS, “[t]he Administrator’s final decisions draw upon scientific 

information and analysis related to health effects, population exposures, and risks; judgments 

about the appropriate response to the range of uncertainties that are inherent in scientific 

evidence and analyses; and comment received from CASAC and the public.” Id. at 6483. In 

light of these characteristics of the process for setting the standards, the EAB generally “relies on 

and defers to the Agency’s cumulative expertise when upholding a permit issuer’s environmental 

justice analysis based on a proposed facility’s compliance with the relevant NAAQS in a PSD 

appeal.” Shell II, Slip. Op. at 74. The NAAQS are also the underpinning for the State 

Implementation Plan process, which requires states to adopt rules and programs that will reduce 

emissions causing air pollution. 

Pursuant to Clean Air Act section 165(a)(3), construction of a major emitting facility may 

not commence until the owner or operator of such facility demonstrates, among other things, that 

the facility will not cause or contribute to air pollution in excess of any NAAQS applicable to the 

permit decision. 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(3); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(k), 52.21(i)(2). EPA 

proposes to regulate emissions affecting the following NAAQS under the PSD permit: NO2 

(annual average), CO (1-hr and 8-hr average), and PM10 (24-hr). The proposed permit does not 

contain emission limitations for SO2 because, as noted above, the Project’s SO2 emissions are 

estimated to be 16.7 tons per year, which is well below the 40 tons per year significant emissions 

rate for SO2. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(b)(23)(i); 52.21(j)(2); 52.21(m)(1). EPA has determined 

that the proposed facility’s projected emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of the 

applicable NAAQS, and are, in fact, well below the NAAQS. Indeed, EPA estimated that the 

projected emissions would be very low – i.e., less than 6% of the applicable NAAQS. Using that 

information for its environmental justice analysis, EPA has determined that compliance with the 

applicable NAAQS is indeed sufficient to satisfy the Executive Order as to those regulated 

pollutants. 

Furthermore, Section 165(a) (2) of the CAA provides that a PSD permit may be 

issued only after “a public hearing has been held with opportunity for interested persons 

including representatives of the Administrator to appear and provide written or oral 

presentations on the air quality impact of [the proposed] source, alternatives thereto, control 

technology requirements, and other appropriate considerations.” In light of the Agency’s 

proposed determination that it should grandfather this permit application from the 1-hour 

13 
NO2 NAAQS, EPA’s environmental justice analysis considers “other appropriate 

considerations” that extend beyond the impacts of the pollutants and NAAQS for those 

pollutants that are addressed in the PSD permit. 

In this case, EPA’s environmental justice analysis will consider not only the annual NO2 

NAAQS, which was applicable at the time of the permit application and when EPA issued a 

proposed permit for the project, but also the potential impacts of the facility on short-term NO2 

concentrations. EPA is examining short-term NO2 concentrations – even though EPA is 

proposing not to apply the new one-hour NO2 NAAQS to this permit application – because the 

Agency recently determined that the annual NO2 standard alone is not sufficient to protect public 

health with an adequate margin of safety against adverse respiratory effects associated with 

short-term exposures to NO2. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, (Feb. 9, 2010) Therefore, EPA’s 

environmental justice analysis considers whether short-term exposures to NO2 emissions from 

the Project may result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and low-income populations. 

The Project is also subject to an air permit issued on November 4, 2008 by the San 

Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (District), which includes conditions necessary to 

satisfy the requirements of the Non-attainment New Source Review (NSR) Program under 

sections 172(c)(5) and 173 of the Clean Air Act. This permit addresses ozone, one of the two air 

pollutants for which the San Joaquin Valley (Valley) has been designated non-attainment.3

 The 

facility’s projected emissions are below the threshold that would trigger non-attainment new 

source review of the other non-attainment pollutant – PM2.5. The California Energy 

Commission, in reviewing the permit applicant’s Application for Certification relating to the 

aforementioned District permit, analyzed environmental justice considerations pertaining to, 

among other things, the proposed siting and emissions profile of the facility. This analysis is 

contained in the California Energy Commission’s Final Commission Decision (08-AFC-1) 

(December 2009). 

The District’s action in issuing an NSR permit for this facility and the CEC’s action in 

certifying the Project are the subject of a pending administrative complaint under Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act. This complaint, submitted to EPA on October 15, 2009 by Greenaction for 

Health and Environmental Justice, alleges that the District discriminated against Avenal and 

Kettleman City residents of color and Spanish-speakers by failing to notify or involve residents 

during the decision-making process. In addition, the complaint alleges that operation of the 

proposed Avenal power plant will result in adverse health impacts on the residents of color of 

Avenal and Kettleman City, who are already impacted by multiple sources of pollution. EPA’s 

Office of Civil Rights has accepted both of these allegations for investigation4

. By letter dated 

 

3 New source review in non-attainment areas is different from PSD review. Because the area already has air quality 

that does not meet national health standards, and yet to preserve the ability for economic development to occur in 

those areas without exacerbating air quality and public health concerns, the Clean Air Act requires that sources 

seeking to build or expand in a non-attainment area must meet the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) and 

offset their anticipated new emissions by eliminating emissions of an equal, or depending on the severity of the nonattainment, greater amount. LAER requires a level of emissions reduction, through the use of control technology or 

other approaches, that is as or more stringent than Best Available Control Technology (BACT), which is required in 

attainment areas.

4

 EPA also referred to the US Department of Energy the second allegation as it relates to the actions of the CEC. 

14 
August 6, 2010, EPA notified the complainant that it is holding its investigation of the second 

allegation described above in abeyance because it is not ripe for review while EPA is still 

considering the PSD permit application. 

 

Project Description and Regulatory Framework 

As discussed above, the Avenal Power Center, LLC has applied to EPA for a PSD permit 

for the Project, a new natural gas fired power plant to be located in Kings County, California, 

within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, which covers 25,000 square miles 

and is about 250 miles long from the northern tip of San Joaquin County to the southern tip of 

Kern County. 

Under the Clean Air Act, new sources of pollutants for an area that has been designated 

attainment or unclassifiable are regulated under the PSD program. In the San Joaquin Valley, 

these pollutants include NO2, PM10, SO2, lead, and CO, and therefore EPA’s proposed PSD 

permit for the Project regulates those pollutants that the facility has the potential to emit in 

significant amounts. In addition, the facility will emit pollutants for which the San Joaquin 

Valley has been designated non-attainment. Specifically, the Valley is designated as an extreme 

non-attainment area for ozone and a non-attainment area for PM2.5. Thus, the non-attainment 

pollutants subject to NSR permitting by the District include NOx and VOC as ozone precursors, 

and PM2.5.5

 In addition, for power plants over 50 MW, the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) must issue a license to authorize construction of a proposed power plant. The District 

issued the non-attainment NSR permit for the facility on October 30, 2008 and the CEC 

completed its licensing process on December 16, 2009. 

The Project is expected to produce approximately 600 megawatts (MW, nominal) net 

electrical output from natural gas-fired combined-cycle generating equipment. The facility will 

be operated in combined-cycle mode. Two combustion turbine generators (CTGs) will connect 

to a dedicated heat recovery steam generator (HRSG), where hot combustion exhaust gas will 

flow through a heat exchanger to generate steam. The facility will be equipped with natural gasfired duct burners to augment steam production during peaking operation. Electrical power will 

be generated from the combustion of natural gas in two 180 MW (nominal) CTGs. Exhaust from 

each gas turbine will flow through the dedicated HRSG to produce steam to power a shared 300 

MW (nominal) Steam Turbine Generator (STG). 

The Project will be equipped with state-of-the-art control technology and will be one of 

the lowest emitting power plants of its kind. Each of the Project’s CTGs will be equipped with 

dry low-NOx (DLN) combustors. The facility will install selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and 

oxidation catalyst (Ox-Cat) systems. SCR will be used to reduce NOx emissions from the 

combustion turbine generators and the Ox-Cat to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and 

volatile organic compounds. Additional equipment includes a natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler 

equipped with an ultra low-NOx burner, a natural gas-fired emergency generator equipped with a 

non-selective catalytic reduction (NSCR) system, and a diesel-fired emergency firewater pump 

 

5 The projected PM2.5 emissions from the Avenal facility fall below the regulatory threshold for new source review 

and there are no PM2.5 requirements in the District’s permit.

15 
engine with a turbo-charger and an inter-cooler/after-cooler. These pollution control 

technologies are required to meet the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) requirements under the PSD and non-attainment NSR 

permitting programs. 

The facility is expected to have emissions as shown in the following table6

. 

 

Pollutant 

Estimated Annual 

Emissions 

(tons/year) 

Major Source 

Threshold 

(tons/year) 

Significant 

Emission Rate 

(tons/year) 

Does PSD 

apply? 

CO 602.7 100 100 Yes 

NO2 144.3 100 40 Yes 

PM/PM10 80.7 100 25/15 Yes 

SOx 16.7 100 40 No 

EPA’s proposed permit includes, among other requirements, 1-hour emissions limits for 

NO2, CO, and PM/PM10 on a mass basis as well as 1-hour emissions limits for NO2 and CO on 

a concentration basis that meet PSD Best Available Control Technology requirements. Based 

on the BACT analysis EPA has conducted, the proposed permit requires the most stringent 

control technology available to reduce NO2 emissions. 

Demographics, Health Data, and Air Quality in the Avenal Area 

Description of Local Area 

The project would be located on industrial zoned lands administered by the City of 

Avenal. Currently, the site is in agricultural use. This area is about 6 miles (~9.7 km) from the 

residential and business centers of the City of Avenal. The topography of the Kettleman Hills 

divides the populated areas of the City of Avenal from the project site. The City of Huron is 

located approximately 8 miles (~12.9 km) north of the site and Kettleman City is located 

approximately 10 miles (~16 km) southeast of the site7

. 

Avenal has a population of 16,236, including 7,000 inmates at Avenal State Prison. 

Many of the remaining residents either work at the prison or in the agriculture or oil industries. 

The City of Huron in Fresno County is 9 miles (14.5 km) east of Interstate 5 (I-5) and 3 miles 

(4.8 km) south of Highway 198. Huron is home to over 7,400 residents and during the harvest 

season, from April to November, the city's population increases to over 9,000 with an influx of 

migrant laborers. The local economy is based on agriculture. Kettleman City is a small 

community with a population of approximately 1,620. The community is located in southern 

 

6 The facility is not expected to emit lead. 

7

 Avenal Energy Application to California Energy Commission, Section 6-9, Land Use. 

16 
Kings County adjacent to the Interstate 5 freeway and surrounded by agricultural fields, and 

defunct oil and natural gas extraction operations. A hazardous waste landfill operated by Waste 

Management, Inc. is located in the Kettleman Hills about 3.5 miles (~5.6 km) southwest of 

Kettleman City. 

Demographic Information 

 

EPA believes an area encompassed by a 25 km radius from the proposed facility is 

appropriate for this environmental justice analysis as this includes populations of interest in the 

area that may be impacted by emissions from the Project. Demographic information for areas of 

15 and 50 km radii are also provided for comparison. These areas include portions of Kings and 

Fresno counties. Thus, for health information EPA will present metrics for both Kings and 

Fresno counties. Relevant areas of comparison include the 8-county area of the San Joaquin 

Valley and the State of California as a whole. 

Demographic information8

 is captured within three radii surrounding the proposed 

Avenal Energy Project at 50, 25 and 15km (see Appendix 1). 

Radius, 

km Population Percent Minority 

Percent 

Under 

Age 18 

Percent 

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically 

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

All three radii capture populations above the state average for percent minority and below 

the state average for median household income. As the area decreases in size relative to the 

proposed facility, the percent minority increases. The median household income captured in the 

15 km radius is more than $20,000 below the state average. 

EPA’s Final Report Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health 

Criteria (ISA)9

 discussed below specifically identified children10 (defined here as under 18 years 

 

8

 US Census Bureau, 2000 Data, Summary File 3 

17 
old) and older adults (65+ years) as being particularly vulnerable to NO2 impacts. The 

percentages of children under 18 within the three radii are close to the state average. The 

percentages of older adults living within the three radii are lower than the state average. 

Linguistic isolation11 limits a household’s capacity for civic engagement in the regulatory 

process. All three radii capture households that are above the state average for linguistic 

isolation. The percent of linguistically isolated households in the State of California is 10% and 

the percent of households in the 25km radius is 30%. 

Education level is another factor that may influence susceptibility and vulnerability to air 

pollution. Limited formal education is a barrier to employment, health care and social resources, 

and can increase the risk of poverty, stress, and impacts from environmental stressors. The 

percent of population without a high school diploma increases the smaller the radius around the 

facility. Compared to the state average of 23%, the percent of population over 25 years of age 

without a high school diploma in the 25km radius is 50%. See Appendix 1 for block group maps 

of each demographic variable described above. 

Status of Air Quality in the Area 

The San Joaquin Valley is an extreme ozone non-attainment area and a non-attainment 

area for PM2.5. The area is designated as attainment or unclassifiable for PM10, NO2, CO, 

SO2, and lead. The San Joaquin Valley has some of the highest PM2.5 levels in the country. 

As discussed in more detail below, EPA recently promulgated a 1-hour NO2 NAAQS of 

100 ppb. EPA has not yet made attainment designations for this new standard. There is limited 

1-hour NO2 monitoring data in California from EPA-approved monitoring network sites. The 

NO2 data for the monitoring network for California for 2006-2009 are presented in Appendix 2. 

The data in the table indicate that the 1 -hour NO2 monitored design values for 2007-2009 range 

from 5.1 ppb to 85.5 ppb. The ambient monitoring sites nearest to the Project are the Hanford 

monitoring site which is 28 miles from the facility, and the Visalia monitoring site which is 46 

miles from the facility12. The NO2 design value monitored at the Visalia site is 61.3 ppb and for 

 9 Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report), Section 4.3, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC, EPA/600/R-08/071, 2008. 

10 Children are particularly vulnerable to adverse health effects from air pollution because: 

• Children’s lungs are still developing. This period of growth and development of the lungs is a critical time 

period for health effects from exposure to air pollution. Exposures to air pollutants during this time can 

have life-long effects on the lungs, including lung capacity, the diameter of the airways, and the number 

and types of cells that line the airways. It is important to note that airways develop through adolescence. 

• Children breathe in more air than adults compared to their body weight, leading to a higher dose of air 

pollution. 

• Children’s airways are narrower than adults, making them more susceptible to air pollution. 11 A linguistically isolated household is defined by the US Census Bureau as a household in which no member 14 

years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a non-English language and speaks English "very well." In 

other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with English. 

12 The Hanford and Visalia monitors are “neighborhood scale,” which means that they represent conditions 

throughout some reasonably homogeneous urban subregion, with dimensions of a few kilometers. These data are 

useful to the understanding and definition of processes that take periods of hours to occur and hence involve 

considerable mixing and transport. The monitors therefore do not represent source-specific or peak concentrations.  

18 
the Hanford site, 50.0 ppb (61% and 50% of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, respectively). This 

indicates that background levels at the monitors closest to the facility are on par with measured 

levels of NO2 statewide, and that background levels of 1-hour NO2 in the general area 

surrounding the facility are not disproportionately high as compared with communities elsewhere 

in the State. 

1-Hour NO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

EPA periodically conducts comprehensive reviews of the scientific literature on health 

effects associated with exposure to the criteria air pollutants. The NAAQS are set at a level that 

protects public health with an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations such as 

children, the elderly, and asthmatics. On January 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour 

standard for NO2 to provide increased public health protection from short-term NO2 exposures 

that have been linked to respiratory illnesses that lead to emergency room visits and hospital 

admissions, particularly in at-risk populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics. The 

standard became effective on April 12, 2010. 

Sources of NO2 

As noted in the record that accompanied the promulgation of the 1-hour NO2 standard, 

NO2 is emitted by stationary sources such as utilities, industry and other combustion sources. 

The largest contributor, however, is motor vehicles, and the greatest concern identified in the 

review of the NAAQS for NO2 was exposure to short term NO2 spikes associated with motor 

vehicle emissions. Nationwide, mobile sources account for 61% of NOx emissions. In Kings 

County, the percentage of NOx emission attributable to mobile sources is 91%.13 NO2 

concentrations on or near major roads are appreciably higher than those measured at 

monitors in the current network. In-vehicle concentrations can be 2-3 times higher than 

measured at nearby community-wide monitors and near-roadway concentrations have been 

measured to be approximately 30 to 100% higher than those measured away from major 

roads. Individuals who spend time on or near major roads can experience short-term NO2 

exposures considerably higher than measured by the current network, which are of 

particular concern for at-risk populations, including people with asthma, children, and the 

elderly. As a result, the final NO2 NAAQS required that new monitors be located near 

roadways in addition to community scale monitors. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (Feb. 9, 

2010); 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, Section 43. 

EPA anticipates NOx, including NO2,concentrations, will continue to decrease as a result 

of state and federal mobile source engine and fuel standards already in effect and being phased in 

as new vehicles replace older ones. Heavy-duty trucks contributed more than half of the NOx 

emissions in Kings County in 2010. The new standards for on-road heavy-duty trucks, which 

were fully effective with the 2007 and 2010 model years, are anticipated to result in NOx 

emissions reductions of almost 60% from these trucks in Kings County by 2020 (see Appendix 

 Reference: EPA’s QA Handbook, Volume II, Appendix E 

(http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/files/ambient/pm25/qa/vol2appe.pdf). 

13 ARB, CEPAM-2009 Almanac - 2/6/2011), Appendix 1, Table 1: NOx Emissions Projections - Kings County 

California.   

19 
3). California’s in-use truck rule will further reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks. In 

addition, new national emissions standards covering many non-road diesel engine categories, 

including construction and farm equipment, will be fully effective by 2015.

Health Effects Associated with NO2 

EPA’s ISA concluded that recent studies provided scientific evidence that NO2 is 

associated with a range of respiratory effects. Specifically, these studies provided evidence 

sufficient to infer a likely causal relationship between short-term NO2 exposure and adverse 

effects on the respiratory system. 

Evidence from epidemiologic studies shows an association between NO2 exposure and 

children’s hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and calls to doctors for asthma. 

NO2 exposure is associated with aggravation of asthma, including symptoms, medication use, 

and lung function. Effects of NO2 on asthma are most evident with a lag of 2-6 days after 

exposure, rather than same-day levels of NO2. The relationship in children between hospital 

admissions or emergency department visits for asthma and NO2 exposure holds even after 

adjusting for co-pollutants such as particulate matter and carbon monoxide. 

In addition, the ISA concluded that the available evidence on the effects of short-term 

exposure to NO2 on cardiovascular health effects is inadequate to infer the presence or absence 

of a causal relationship at this time. The ISA concluded that the epidemiologic evidence is 

suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship of short-term exposure to NO2 with all 

cause and cardiopulmonary-related mortality14. 

Impacts of NO2 on Susceptible and Vulnerable Populations 

The NAAQS are intended to provide an adequate margin of safety for both general 

populations and sensitive subpopulations, for those subgroups potentially at increased risk for 

ambient air pollution health effects. The term susceptibility generally encompasses innate or 

acquired factors that make individuals more likely to experience effects with exposure to 

pollutants. 

As stated in the NO2 ISA at page 4-12: 

Persons with preexisting respiratory disease, children, and older adults may be 

more susceptible to the effects of NO2 exposure. Individuals in sensitive groups may be 

 

14 Results from several large U.S. and European multicity studies and a meta-analysis study indicated positive 

associations between ambient NO2 concentrations and the risk of all-cause (non-accidental) mortality, with effect 

estimates ranging from 0.5 to 3.6% excess risk in mortality per standardized increment. In general, the NO2 effect 

estimates were robust to adjust for co-pollutants. Both cardiovascular and respiratory mortality were associated with 

increased NO2 concentrations in epidemiologic studies; however, similar associations were observed for other 

pollutants, including PM and SO2. The range of risk estimates for excess mortality was generally smaller than that 

for other pollutants such as PM. While NO2 exposure, alone or in conjunction with other pollutants, may contribute 

to increased mortality, evaluation of the specificity of this effect was difficult. U.S. EPA. Integrated Science 

Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen – Health Criteria (Final Report), Section 4.3. U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-08/071, 2008. 

Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=194645#Download 

20 
affected by lower levels of NO2 than the general population or experience a greater 

impact with the same level of exposure. A number of factors may increase susceptibility 

to the effects of NO2. Studies generally reported a positive excess risk for asthmatics, 

and there was emerging evidence that [cardiovascular disease] may cause persons to be 

more susceptible, though it is difficult to distinguish the effect of NO2 from other traffic 

pollutants. Children and older adults (65+ years) may be more susceptible than adults, 

possibly due to physiological changes occurring among these age groups. In addition to 

intrinsically susceptible groups, a portion of the population may be at increased 

vulnerability due to higher exposures, generally people living and working near 

roadways. A considerable fraction of the population resides, works, or attends school 

near major roadways and likely include a disproportionate number of individuals in 

groups with higher prevalence of asthma and higher hospitalization rates for asthma (e.g., 

ethnic or racial minorities and individuals of low socio-economic status). Of this 

population, those with physiological susceptibility will have even greater risks of health 

effects related to NO2. 

Next Steps for New NO2 Health Standard 

The 1-hour NO2 standard became effective on April 12, 2010. As required by the CAA, 

states will submit recommendations to EPA on which areas do and do not meet the standard, 

based on air quality monitoring data, and will also identify areas for which sufficient data are not 

yet available. EPA will review the states’ recommendations and finalize designations by January 

2012. Concurrently, EPA and the states will enhance the ambient monitoring network to ensure 

it provides adequate coverage, including for exposure near roadways. This monitoring network 

is to be in place by January 2013. For areas designated non-attainment, states will be required to 

develop plans to reduce emissions that are contributing to the high levels, and more stringent 

new source review will apply. New sources will be required to control emissions to meet the 

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate and offset any new emissions so that there will be no net 

increase in emissions in the non-attainment area. 

Health Metrics Related to Asthma 

The NO2 ISA specifically identifies persons with preexisting respiratory disease as being 

at increased risk from NO2 related adverse impacts. This section presents data on health metrics 

in Kings and Fresno Counties in California that may be associated with exposures to NO2. 

Respiratory diseases can greatly impair a child’s ability to function, and are an important 

cause of missed school days and limitations to activities. Important respiratory diseases in 

children include asthma, bronchitis, and upper respiratory infections. In 1994-96, on a national 

basis, 24 percent of children with asthma had to limit their activities due to their asthma, and the 

disease caused children to miss 14 million days of school. Studies have shown that outdoor and 

indoor air pollution causes some respiratory symptoms and increases the frequency or severity of 

asthma attacks.15 As noted above, NO2 exposure is associated with aggravation of asthma. 

 

15 http://www.epa.gov/economics/children/child_illness/ci-background.html 

21 
Asthma Disparities and Income 

In California as a whole, asthma disparities exist on the basis of race and ethnicity, age, 

and income. According to the California Breathing (California Department of Public Health) 

Report: The Burden of Asthma: A Surveillance Report (2007) 16, lower income is associated 

with more frequent asthma symptoms and higher asthma hospitalization rates, but slightly lower 

rates of lifetime asthma prevalence. The report states: 

 

Prevalence of severe symptoms is almost seven times higher among adults with 

household incomes below $20,000 compared to adults with household incomes over 

$100,000. The rate of asthma hospitalizations is three times higher among people living 

in areas where the median income is less than $20,000 compared to people living in areas 

where the median income is greater than $50,000. Additionally, people with more repeat 

asthma hospitalizations come from areas with a lower median income. 

Hospitalizations and Emergency Department Visits 

The tables below compare the age-adjusted rates for asthma hospitalizations and asthma 

related emergency department visits in Kings and Fresno Counties versus the State of California 

and are tracked by the California Environmental Health Tracking Program17. 

2009 Asthma Hospitalizations by Race and Ethnicity 

The rate of asthma hospitalizations for children in Fresno and Kings Counties aged 0 – 4 

is significantly higher than the rate for California as a whole. Hospitalizations due to asthma for 

non-Hispanic white children age 0 – 4 in California number 19 per 10,000, compared to 42 and 

28, respectively, for non-Hispanic white children in Fresno and Kings Counties. 

Hospitalizations due to asthma for African-American children age 0 – 4 in California number 55 

per 10,000, compared to 75 for African-American children in the same age group in Fresno 

County (data not available for Kings County). Hospitalizations due to asthma for Latino children 

age 0 – 4 in California number 21 per 10,000, compared to and 45 and 29 (similar to nonHispanic white children) for Latino children in Fresno and Kings Counties, respectively. 

16 http://www.californiabreathing.org/phocadownload/asthmaburdenreport.pdf 17 The California Environmental Health Tracking Program provides data for two asthma indicators: asthma 

hospitalizations and asthma-related emergency department visits. A careful evaluation of asthma in a particular 

community requires review of both asthma-related emergency department (ED) visits and asthma-related hospital 

admissions because when a patient goes to the emergency room with asthma, sometimes they are treated in the 

emergency department and discharged and sometimes they are admitted to the hospital. An asthma-related hospital 

admission is identified by looking at hospitalization data and selecting the admissions that had an asthma diagnosis. 

Hospitalization represents people with severe asthma who end up being hospitalized for their asthma. An asthmarelated emergency department (ED) visit is measured by examining hospital records on ED visits and identifying the 

visits that had an asthma diagnosis. Some ED visits may result in a hospitalization. Emergency department visits 

represent people with asthma who end up at the emergency department (ED) or utilize urgent care services for 

treatment of asthma symptoms. This may be because they have been unable to manage their asthma properly or 

they lack access to a primary health care provider. California Environmental Health Tracking Program, 

http://www.ehib.org/project.jsp?project_key=ehss01 

22 
Age Adj 

Rate, per 

10,000 

persons 

2009b

Total Black Hispanica White Asian/ Pacific 

Islander 

All 

Ages Childrenc All 

Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc

U.S. Comparable national data for emergency department visits are not readily available, however the 

California Breathing Report notes that California hospitalization rates are consistently around 1.5 

times lower than overall U.S. rates. 

CA 9.42 22.71 29.65 55.38 9.31 20.82 7.90 19.15 6.56 17.73 

Fresno 

County 

12.5d 49.34d 31.91 75.48 11.44d 45.28d 11.60d 42.47d 8.91d 48.79d

Kings 

County 

10.78d 31.22d 18.54 NA 12.77d 29.56d 8.93d 28.17d NA NA 

a. Includes Puerto Ricans 

b. 2009 Data, from California Environmental Health Tracking Program, http://www.ehib.org/

c. Children 0-4 years old 

d. This rate is statistically significantly higher than the rate for the State of California for the same ethnic/age 

group 

2009 Asthma Emergency Department Visits by Race and Ethnicity 

 For asthma-related Emergency Department visits, the rates for Fresno and Kings 

Counties are higher than the rate for the State of California, and the difference is statistically 

significant when compared across any of the following: the entire population, the Latino 

population, children under 4, and adults aged 65 and older. Latino children age 0 – 4 in Fresno 

and Kings Counties, as compared to all Latino children age 0-4 in the State of California have 

almost double the rate of emergency department visits: 200 and 193, respectively, per 10,000, 

versus 107. For African–American children in the same age group, the difference is similarly 

striking: 409 and 536 for Fresno and Kings Counties, respectively, per 10,000 visits, versus 333 

for all African American children age 0-4 in the State. 

Age Adj 

Rate, per 

10,000 

persons 

2009b

Total Black Hispanica White Asian/ Pacific 

Islander 

All 

Ages Childrenc All 

Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc All Ages Childrenc

U.S. Comparable national data for emergency department visits are not readily available. 

CA 47.99 109.92 163.05 332.95 44.53 107.66 40.36 79.52 18.68 50.93 

Fresno 

County 

68.04d 216.14d 180.02d 409.06d 61.62d 200.06d 65.90d 167.17d 25.44d

123.86d

Kings 

County 

71.24d 196.01d 146.99 536.51d 73.28d 193.35d 61.98d 133.80d NA NA 

Avenal 26.3e NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

23 
Kettleman 

City 35.75e NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 

a. Includes Puerto Ricans 

b. 2009 Data, from California Environmental Health Tracking Program, http://www.ehib.org/ 

c. Children 0-4 years old 

d. This rate is higher than the rate for the State of California for the same ethnic/age group.

e. Data from 2005-2007 California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD) Patient 

ED Database. Numerator for rates is ED visits with a principal diagnosis using ICD-9 code 493. 

Denominator for Kettleman City and Avenal rates is the estimated number of residents from the ESRI 

Community Sourcebook of Zip Code Demographics.18 

Asthma Prevalence in Kings and Fresno Counties 

 Data from the California Department of Public Health’s “California Breathing” program 

are based on 2007 information. These data show a lifetime prevalence of 24% among Kings 

County children age 0-17, second highest in the State, and a prevalence of 19.2% for Fresno 

County, as compared to the statewide prevalence for the same age group of 15.4%19. In addition, 

according to the Kings County Health Status Report,20 asthma prevalence has been increasing in 

recent years. 

2007 Lifetime Asthma Prevalence by Race and Ethnicity 

In 

Percents 

Total Black Hispanica White Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

Family Income 

Below Poverty 

Level 

All 

Ages Childrenb All 

Ages Children All Ages Children All Ages Children All Ages Children All Ages Children 

U.S.c 11.5 13.1 13.2 19.7 10.2 12.6 11.5 11.2 Comparable data 

not available 14.4 15.7 

CAd 13.6f 15.4 f 18.2 25.9e 10.7 13 e 14.1 20 e 9.9 17 e 11.9 NA 

 

18Of the three population centers within the project area, data for two of the areas, Kettleman City and Avenal, are 

available as the result of a study conducted by the California Environmental Protection Agency and the California 

Department of Public Health (DPH). Although the asthma ED visit rate appears lower for Avenal and Kettleman 

City as compared with the SJV and California rates, because the population in these two areas is relatively small 

(15,000 and 1620 respectively) there is a high degree of variability in these rates. It is important to note that the 

study reached the conclusion that for most of the health metrics examined, Kettleman City was not appreciably 

different than any other community in the Valley. The Department of Public Health did note, however, an excess in 

the number of children with birth defects born to mothers who had lived in Kettleman City. Investigation of Birth 

Defects and Community Exposures in Kettleman City, California, California EPA and California Department of 

Public Health, page 60, December 2010. Available at 

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/Documents/2010/KCDocs/ReportFinal/FinalReport.pdf 

19 http://www.californiabreathing.org/asthma-data/county-comparisons/lifetime-asthma-prevalence-children-2007 20 http://www.countyofkings.com/health/forms/Community%20Health%20Status%20Report%202008-2009.pdf 

(page 34) 

24 
In 

Percents Total Black Hispanica

 White Asian/ 

Pacific Islander 

Family Income 

Below Poverty 

Level 

Fresno 

Countyf

18.3g 19.2 g

Prevalence data are not available at the county level by racial / ethnic population. 

Prevalence data are not available at the county level by racial / ethnic population. 

Kings 

Countyf

17.9 24.0g

a. Includes Puerto Ricans (National asthma prevalence of 20.3% for all ages, 17.8% for children) 

b. Children <18 years old 

c. 2007 CDC data, available at: http://www.cdc.gov/asthma/nhis/07/table2-1.htm

d. California Breathing (California Department of Public Health) Report: The Burden of Asthma: A 

Surveillance Report (2007), based on 2003 data, except where noted 

e. Data available only for adolescents. Prevalence among all CA adolescents is 18%. 

f. County Comparisons based on 2007 data from California Department of Public Health, California 

Breathing program. Available at: http://www.californiabreathing.org/ 

g. The prevalence is statistically significantly higher than the rate for the State of California for the same 

ethnic/age group. 

Access to Health Care in Kings and Fresno Counties

Medically Underserved Areas or Populations have been designated in portions of all eight 

San Joaquin Valley counties, including Kings and Fresno Counties21. According to California 

Health Interview Survey (CHIS) data, 16.4% of the Kings County population and 14.2% of the 

Fresno County population was not insured as of the date of the last survey (2007) compared to 

13.2% of the entire California population surveyed.22

Health Impacts Associated with Air Pollution in the Area 

The San Joaquin Valley, which includes Kings County, is an extreme ozone nonattainment area with some of the highest levels of PM2.5 in the country. The poor air quality 

creates an adverse health impact for all its residents. Children, people older than 65, and 

minorities living in Kings and nearby Fresno County suffer from higher rates of asthma-related 

hospitalizations and emergency department visits than similar groups living elsewhere in the 

State. The residents living within 25 km of the proposed project are disproportionately low 

income and minority compared with the rest of the State. While we have only county-level 

statistics, we anticipate that these statistics would also represent local conditions. 

 

21 http://hpsafind.hrsa.gov/ 

22 http://www.askchis.com/ 

25 
Impact of Project’s Emissions on the NAAQS Applicable to the PSD Permit Application 

The first part of EPA’s environmental justice analysis concerns the potential effects on 

minority or low income populations from emissions that may affect the NAAQS EPA proposes 

to apply to this permit application. Those are emissions affecting the NAAQS for NO2 (annual 

average), CO (1-hr and 8-hr average), and PM10 (24-hr average and annual). As noted earlier, 

since the potential emissions of the Project are below significance levels for SO2, the project is 

not expected to have a significant impact on the applicable SO2 NAAQS. 

 

EPA has determined from the modeled results for the facility that the Project impacts are 

well below (in all cases, less than 6% of) the applicable NAAQS for the PSD pollutants 

regulated under the PSD permit, including the annual NO2 standard. The modeled impact of 

NO2 for the annual averaging period is 0.5 μg/m3, less than 1% of the NAAQS of 100 μg/m3. 

The modeled PM10 impact (24-hour averaging period) is 2.9 μg/m3

, approximately 2% of the 

PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m3

. The modeled CO impact for the 8-hour averaging period 

is 337 μg/m3, less than 4% of the NAAQS of 10,000 μg/m3

, and the modeled CO impact for the 

1-hour averaging period is 2,175 μg/m3, less than 6% of the NAAQS of 40,000 μg/m3. As stated 

elsewhere, the NAAQS are health based standards and are designed to protect public health with 

an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations. Taking into account these modeled 

results in light of the health-based nature of the applicable NAAQS, EPA has determined that 

proposed emissions limits for these pollutants will not result in disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations and low-income 

populations. 

Review of Modeled Short-Term NO2 Impacts from Avenal Energy Project’s Emissions 

The second part of EPA’s environmental justice analysis for this permit concerns the 

short-term impacts of NO2. For the reasons stated in the Revised Statement of Basis, EPA is 

proposing to grandfather the Project from demonstrating that this source will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of the recently promulgated 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. EPA nevertheless is 

performing an analysis of impacts from short-term NO2 concentrations because the Agency 

recently determined that the annual NO2 standard alone is not sufficient to protect public health 

with an adequate margin of safety against adverse respiratory effects associated with short-term 

exposures to NO2. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010). We note that because 

emissions of SO2 from the project are below significance levels and thus have no more than a de 

minimis impact, we do not anticipate any significant or disproportionate impacts associated with 

these emissions. Therefore, further analysis of short-term impacts on SO2 is not necessary. 

The Agency currently has limited data as to the impacts of NO2 emissions from the 

project or existing sources on the communities of interest. As previously discussed, there is 

limited hourly NO2 monitoring data in California from EPA-approved monitoring network sites, 

and the closest monitoring sites are 28 miles and 46 miles from the proposed Project. The 

limited data indicate that background levels at the monitors closest to the facility are on par with 

measured levels of NO2 statewide, and that background levels of 1-hour NO2 in the general area 

26 
surrounding the facility are not disproportionately high as compared with communities elsewhere 

in the State. 

In addition, the District conducted an assessment of the 1-hour NO2 emissions from the 

Project on June 14, 2010.23 The results of this analysis indicate that the operational emissions 

from the facility result in a maximum 1-hour NO2 impact of 82.43 μg/m3 (44 ppb), which 

represents 44% of the standard (188 μg/m3

 or 100 ppb). This value represents the highest 

modeled impact at any location resulting from the facility’s emissions alone; all other locations 

would have a lower impact from the facility. The modeled impact is based on the average of the 

five yearly maximum 8th high values, consistent with EPA’s Notice Regarding Modeling for New 

Hourly NO2 NAAQS, Updated - 02/25/2010, which discusses procedures for calculating NO2 

modeled values suitable for comparison to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS.24 

This is the best information available to EPA at this time regarding the potential impacts 

of the facility’s NO2 emissions on short-term NO2 levels. We do not have an acceptable 

analysis prepared for PSD purposes that provides a detailed comparison of the facility’s 

emissions, as well as background and nearby sources, with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

In light of the limited data available, EPA cannot reach any definitive conclusion about 

the specific human health or environmental impacts of short-term exposure to NO2 emissions 

from the facility on minority and low-income populations. 

Emissions of Pollutants for Which Area Exceeds Air Quality Standards 

The California Energy Commission analyzed environmental justice considerations before 

approval of Avenal’s Application for Certification. Final Commission Decision, Application for 

Certification (08-AFC-1), pp. 328-332 (December 2009). The Commission concluded based on 

the evidentiary record that the fully mitigated project would not result in any significant adverse 

environmental or public health impacts to any population, including farm workers in the region. 

Id. at 331. EPA presents here a summary of the State’s environmental justice analysis, as set 

forth in the Final Commission Decision, in order to provide further information about the 

 

23 See Memorandum of June 14, 2010 to Derek Fukuda, AQE-Permit Services, from Leland Villalvazo. SAQSTechnical Services, Subject: Revised NO2 1-hour NAAQA Assessment for Avenal Power Center. This 

memorandum was prepared in support of the Revised Preliminary Determination of Compliance Evaluation for the 

Avenal Power Center Project, which proposed to limit the annual facility wide NOx and CO emissions for the 

source, resulting in a minor source permit for PSD purposes. However, as noted in EPA Comments on Project 

Number C-II00751 for Avenal Power Center LLC (08-AFC-Ol), September 13, 2010, the equipment emitting NOx 

from both the major and minor source project configurations would have the same permitted 1-hour emission rates, 

and therefore, the modeled short-term 1-hour NO2 impacts of the major source Project’s emissions would be 

identical to that of the minor source project under consideration in the SJVAPCD’s minor source permitting process.

24 EPA’s Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS, Updated - 02/25/2010, states, in its discussion 

regarding procedures for calculating the NO2 design value for comparison to the 1-hour NAAQS: “The highest of 

the average 8th-highest (98th-percentile) concentrations across all receptors, based on the length of the 

meteorological data period, represents the modeled 1-hour NO2 design value based on the form of the standard.” 

The District’s analysis was based on five years of meteorological data (2004-2008). Therefore, the modeled 1-hour 

NO2 design value based on the form of the standard in this case would be the average 8th- highest (98th-percentile) 

based on the average of 5 years data. 

27 
potential air quality impacts of the Project.25 With respect to air quality impacts, the Commission 

found that the combination of emissions controls and offsetting emission reductions would 

mitigate all project air quality impacts to a less than a significant level. Id. at 127. The CEC 

considered modeling that predicted maximum impacts of the facility on PM2.5 concentrations of 

2.9 μg/m3, which is approximately 8 percent of the 35 μg/m3 National Air Quality Standard for 

PM2.5 concentrations averaged over a 24 hour period. This same modeling predicted maximum 

impacts on annual PM2.5 concentrations of 0.8 μg/m3

 which are approximately 6.5 percent of 

California’s 12 μg/m3 air quality standard.26 Pre-existing background concentrations of PM2.5 

in the non-attainment area are as high as 75 μg/m3

 over a 24-hour period and up to 18.4 μg/m3 on 

an annual basis. Id. at 123.27

EPA is working with the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the District to 

ensure that there is a comprehensive plan with adequate controls for attaining the annual and 65 

μg/m3

 24-hour PM2.5 ambient air quality standards by the Clean Air Act’s deadline of 2015. 

See EPA’s proposed action on the 2008 San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 plan at 75 FR 74518 

(November 30, 2010) We will also be working closely with both agencies to develop a plan to 

meet the 35 μg/m3

 24-hour standard, which is due to EPA in late 2012. 

Since NOx is a precursor to ozone formation, the District required the Project to supply 

NOx offsets at a 1.5 to 1 ratio to mitigate NOx emissions from the facility. Because ozone 

formation is not localized, ozone and ozone precursors are considered area or basin-wide 

pollutants. While the NOx offsets provided by the applicant for this source were generated 

within the ozone non-attainment area, they were not required to be near the source. (The closest 

offsets to the facility were generated between 12 and 20 miles away.) The impacts of NO2, on 

the other hand, can be localized in nature. NOx offsets within the broader non-attainment area 

will have a mitigating effect on ozone formation within the non-attainment area, but they will not 

serve to mitigate any localized impacts of NO2 and therefore do not add meaningfully to EPA’s 

analysis of potential NO2 impacts on the local communities. We should note that there may be 

some co-benefits for local areas from the NOx emissions reductions used for the project. 

However, we do not have data showing what these potential co-benefits might be. 

 

25 As previously mentioned, EPA has not yet commenced its investigation into the Title VI complaint’s allegation 

that operation of the proposed Avenal power plant will result in adverse health impacts on the residents of color of 

Avenal and Kettleman City. 

26 The federal primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 for the annual averaging period is 

15.0 μg/m3

. 27 The PM-2.5 values in the CEC report reflect data from the Bakersfield monitor, located approximately 80 miles 

southeast of the Avenal Energy Project. The Corcoran monitor, located within 28 miles east of the Project, reports 

49 μg/m3 24-hour and 17.3 μg/m3 annual design value concentrations. See EPA's Air Quality System, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.

28 
Conclusion 

As explained above, with respect to all pollutants, including those not attaining the 

NAAQS in the affected area, the California Energy Commission found that the combination of 

emissions controls and offsetting emission reductions would mitigate all project air quality 

impacts to a less than a significant level. EPA’s own analysis indicates that this project will not 

cause or contribute to air quality levels in excess of health standards for SO2, CO, PM10 and the 

annual NO2 standard and that there will not be disproportionately high and adverse human health 

or environmental effects with respect to these air pollutants on minority or low-income 

populations residing near the proposed project or the community as a whole. While EPA has no 

information indicating that short-term NO2 emissions from the project will negatively impact 

minority and low-income populations in the vicinity, it is difficult to speak definitively to this 

point due to the limitations of the available data. 

Accordingly, EPA requests any additional information that might further inform the 

Agency’s environmental justice analysis. EPA also requests public comment on this issue 

generally, but particularly in relation to the topics addressed below. 

In light of the existing conditions in the local communities where this source proposes to 

construct, EPA intends to place an ambient NO2 monitor in an appropriate location in the 

vicinity of the proposed source to gather more information about the local NO2 concentrations. 

In EPA’s recent NO2 monitoring rule that was part of the action to complete the 1-hour NO2 

NAAQS, EPA specifically set aside up to 40 monitors to be sited in areas with minority and low 

income populations at the discretion of EPA Regional Administrators. Thus, the Agency has the 

discretion to place an air quality monitor in an appropriate location to develop air quality 

information for the Region and also to help assess air quality before and after operation of the 

Avenal plant. This monitor, along with other NO2 monitors that exist or may be sited in the San 

Joaquin Valley Air District, will be used by the ARB, the District and EPA to determine 

whether air quality in the region meets or exceeds the NAAQS for NO2, and will inform 

governmental plans to address any identified concerns. Any such plans would consider all 

contributing sources in the airshed, including the Avenal facility, in the effort to address any 

identified non-attainment challenges. EPA welcomes public comment on its intentions in this 

regard. 

In the event that EPA were to gather air quality monitoring data that identify a concern in 

the local community from short-term NO2 emissions, EPA is considering options that EPA, 

ARB or the District might employ to mitigate such concerns. For example, EPA may have the 

option to direct federal funds to the local area to address sources of NO2 and provide for 

effective emissions reductions. In addition, the data from monitoring might be used to better 

inform measures that the ARB or the District could take (or might be required to take) to ensure 

attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. Indeed, if monitoring were to identify 

violations of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, the State would need to address those issues through the 

29 
30 

mandated attainment planning process to identify and implement measures to reduce NO2 

sufficiently to assure air quality that meets the applicable standard. EPA requests public 

comment on the merits of such approaches. 

EPA also requests comments on whether there are any conditions that should be included 

in the permit in response to these concerns. For example, because this area includes complex 

terrain and characterization of NO2 issues in that area can be challenging, EPA requests 

comment on considering establishing a condition in the permit that would require the applicant to 

monitor air quality conditions after construction of the facility. This monitoring, in coordination 

with the community-based NO2 monitor, could help provide better characterization of the NO2 

concentrations in the area. Under section 52.21(m)(2) of EPA’s regulations, EPA can require the 

permit applicant to conduct ambient monitoring “after construction of the stationary source ... as 

the Administrator determines is necessary to determine the effect emissions from the stationary 

source ... may have, or are having, on air quality in any area.” 

_____________________________________ 

Regina McCarthy 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 
APPENDIX 1 – Demographic Maps for Avenal Energy Project EJ

Analysis Project Impact Area  

Figure 1 ‐ Project Site and Population Density

A1‐1
   

Figure 2 – Percent Minority

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3

A1‐2
   

Figure 3 ‐ Percent Under Age 18

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3

A1‐3
   

Figure 4 ‐ Percent Over Age 64

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3

A1‐4
   

Figure 5 ‐ Percent Linguistically Isolated

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3

A1‐5
   

Figure 6 ‐ Percent Age Over 25 without High School Diploma

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3

A1‐6
   

A1‐7

Figure 7 ‐ Median Household Income

Radius, 

km 

Population Percent 

Minority 

Percent

Under 

Age 18 

Percent

Over 

Age 64 

Percent 

Linguistically

Isolated 

Percent 

w/o 

High 

School 

Diploma 

Average 

Median 

Household 

Income, $ 

15 25,660 85 24 3 34 51 27,221 

25 32,244 82 25 3 30 50 27,771 

50 162,723 62 29 7 11 35 36,843 

Kings 

County 

129,461 59 29 7 9 31 35,749 

Fresno 

County 

799,407 60 32 10 10 32 34,725 

San 

Joaquin 

Valley 

3,182,529 55 33 10 9 33 38,162 

State of 

CA 

33,871,648 53 27 11 10 23 47,493 

Source: US Census 2000, Summary Tape File 3
Appendix 2

Monitored Hourly NO2 Values in California (2006‐2009)*

Monitor ID Street Address City Name County Name

One Hour NO2

Design Value

(ppb)

06‐001‐0007‐42602‐1 793 RINCON AVE. Livermore Alameda 47.3

06‐001‐0009‐42602‐1 9925 International

Blvd.

Oakland Alameda 51.6

06‐001‐0011‐42602‐1 1100 21st Street Oakland Alameda 47.0

06‐001‐1001‐42602‐1 40733 CHAPEL WAY. Fremont Alameda 47.0

06‐001‐2004‐42602‐1 1340 Sixth Street Berkeley Alameda 45.0

06‐007‐0002‐42602‐1 468 MANZANITA AVE. Chico Butte 38.0

06‐013‐0002‐42602‐1 2956‐A TREAT

BOULEVARD

Concord Contra Costa 36.6

06‐013‐1002‐42602‐1 5551 BETHEL ISLAND

RD.

Bethel Island Contra Costa 31.0

06‐013‐1004‐42602‐1 1865 D RUMRILL

BLVD

San Pablo Contra Costa 41.6

06‐013‐3001‐42602‐1 583 W. 10TH ST. Pittsburg Contra Costa 44.0

06‐019‐0007‐42602‐1 4706 E. DRUMMOND

ST.

Fresno Fresno 61.0

06‐019‐0008‐42602‐1 3425 N FIRST ST. Fresno Fresno 56.6

06‐019‐0242‐42602‐1 SIERRA SKYPARK#2‐

BLYTHE & CHNNLT

Fresno Fresno 39.6

06‐019‐4001‐42602‐1 9240 S. RIVERBEND. Parlier Fresno 39.3

06‐019‐5001‐42602‐1 908 N VILLA AVE. Clovis Fresno 55.6

06‐023‐1004‐42602‐1 717 SOUTH AVENUE Eureka Humboldt 22.3

06‐025‐0005‐42602‐1 1029 ETHEL ST,

CALEXICO HIGH

SCHOOL

Calexico Imperial 72.3

06‐025‐0006‐42602‐1 CALEXICO ‐ EAST Calexico Imperial 70.6

06‐025‐1003‐42602‐1 150 9TH ST. El Centro Imperial 50.3

06‐029‐0007‐42602‐1 JOHNSON FARM. Edison Kern 40.0

06‐029‐0010‐42602‐1 1128 GOLDEN STATE

HIGHWAY

Bakersfield Kern 60.0

06‐029‐0014‐42602‐1 5558 CALIFORNIA

AVE.

Bakersfield Kern 61.0

06‐029‐5001‐42602‐1 20401 BEAR MTN

BLVD, ARVIN, CA.

Arvin Kern 31.6

06‐029‐6001‐42602‐1 548 WALKER ST. Shafter Kern 53.3

06‐031‐1004‐42602‐1 807 SOUTH IRWIN ST. Hanford Kings 50.0

06‐037‐0002‐42602‐2 803 N. LOREN AVE. Azusa Los Angeles 78.3

06‐037‐0016‐42602‐1 840 LAUREL Glendora Los Angeles 69.6

06‐037‐0113‐42602‐1 VA HOSPITAL West Los Angeles Los Angeles 63.3

06‐037‐1002‐42602‐2 228 W. PALM AVE. Burbank Los Angeles 75.3

06‐037‐1103‐42602‐1 1630 N MAIN ST. Los Angeles Los Angeles 81.3

06‐037‐1201‐42602‐2 18330 GAULT ST.,

RESEDA

Reseda Los Angeles 59.6

A2-1 
Monitor ID Street Address City Name County Name

One Hour NO2

Design Value

(ppb)

06‐037‐1301‐42602‐2 11220 LONG BEACH

BLVD.

Lynwood Los Angeles 76.5

06‐037‐1302‐42602‐1 700 North Bullis Road Compton Los Angeles 85.5

06‐037‐1602‐42602‐1 4144 SAN GABRIEL

RIVER PKWY.

Pico Rivera Los Angeles 83.0

06‐037‐1701‐42602‐2 924 N. GAREY AVE. Pomona Los Angeles 81.0

06‐037‐2005‐42602‐1 752 S. WILSON AVE. Pasadena Los Angeles 69.6

06‐037‐4002‐42602‐2 3648 N. LONG BEACH

BLVD.

Long Beach Los Angeles 78.3

06‐037‐5005‐42602‐1 7201 W.

WESTCHESTER

PARKWAY

Los Angeles Los Angeles 71.3

06‐037‐6012‐42602‐1 22224 PLACERITA

CANYON RD.

Santa Clarita Los Angeles 57.3

06‐037‐9033‐42602‐1 43301 DIVISION ST. Lancaster Los Angeles 53.3

06‐039‐0004‐42602‐1 RD. 29 1/2 NO. OF

AVE 8  

Madera Madera 40.3

06‐041‐0001‐42602‐1 534 4TH ST. San Rafael Marin 44.6

06‐043‐0003‐42602‐1 TURTLEBACK DOME Yosemite National

Park

Mariposa 5.1

06‐045‐0008‐42602‐1 306 E. GOBBI STREET Ukiah Mendocino 32.3

06‐045‐0009‐42602‐1 899 SO MAIN STREET Willits Mendocino 26.5

06‐047‐0003‐42602‐1 385 S. COFFEE

AVENUE

Merced Merced 43.3

06‐053‐1003‐42602‐1 867 E. LAUREL Dr Salinas Monterey 34.3

06‐055‐0003‐42602‐1 2552 JEFFERSON AVE. Napa Napa 39.3

06‐057‐0005‐42602‐1 200 LITTON DR. Grass Valley Nevada 26.0

06‐059‐0007‐42602‐5 1630 W. PAMPAS

LANE

Anaheim Orange 65.3

06‐059‐1003‐42602‐1 2850 MESA VERDE

DR. EAST

Costa Mesa Orange 60.3

06‐059‐5001‐42602‐2 621 W. LAMBERT La Habra Orange 69.0

06‐061‐0006‐42602‐1 151 NO SUNRISE

BLVD.

Roseville Placer 53.0

06‐065‐0004‐42602‐1 10551 Bellegrave Mira Loma Riverside 73.0

06‐065‐0012‐42602‐1 200 S. HATHAWAY ST. Banning Riverside 58.3

06‐065‐1003‐42602‐3 7002 MAGNOLIA AVE. Riverside Riverside 63.5

06‐065‐5001‐42602‐2 FS‐590 RACQUET

CLUB AVE.

Palm Springs Riverside 45.0

06‐065‐8001‐42602‐2 5888 MISSION BLVD. Rubidoux Riverside 63.0

06‐065‐8005‐42602‐1 5130 POINSETTIA

PLACE

Mira Loma Riverside 59.0

06‐065‐9001‐42602‐1 506 W FLINT ST. Lake Elsinore Riverside 48.0

06‐067‐0002‐42602‐1 7823 BLACKFOOT

WAY.

North Highlands Sacramento 77.0

06‐067‐0006‐42602‐1 DEL PASO‐2701

AVALON DR.

Sacramento Sacramento 45.6

A2-2 
Monitor ID Street Address City Name County Name

One Hour NO2

Design Value

(ppb)

06‐067‐0010‐42602‐1 1309 T ST. Sacramento Sacramento 55.6

06‐067‐0011‐42602‐1 12490 BRUCEVILLE

RD.

Elk Grove Sacramento 35.6

06‐067‐0012‐42602‐1 50 NATOMA STREET Folsom Sacramento 32.6

06‐067‐0013‐42602‐1 3801 AIRPORT ROAD Sacramento Sacramento 52.0

06‐067‐0014‐42602‐1 68 GOLDENLAND

COURT

Sacramento Sacramento 47.5

06‐071‐0001‐42602‐1 200 E. BUENA VISTA Barstow San Bernardino 63.0

06‐071‐0306‐42602‐1 14306 PARK AVE. Victorville San Bernardino 62.0

06‐071‐1004‐42602‐2 1350 SAN

BERNARDINO RD.

Upland San Bernardino 70.0

06‐071‐1234‐42602‐1 CORNER OF ATHOL

AND TELESCOPE

Trona San Bernardino 42.6

06‐071‐2002‐42602‐1 14360 ARROW BLVD. Fontana San Bernardino 74.0

06‐071‐9004‐42602‐1 24302 4TH ST. San Bernardino San Bernardino 63.6

06‐073‐0001‐42602‐1 80 E. 'J' ST. Chula Vista San Diego 58.6

06‐073‐0003‐42602‐1 1155 REDWOOD AVE. El Cajon San Diego 53.3

06‐073‐0006‐42602‐1 5555 OVERLAND AVE. San Diego San Diego 56.3

06‐073‐1002‐42602‐1 600 E. VALLEY PKWY. Escondido San Diego 62.6

06‐073‐1006‐42602‐1 2300 VICTORIA DR. Alpine San Diego 38.0

06‐073‐1008‐42602‐1 21441‐W B STREET Camp Pendleton

(Marine Corps Base)

San Diego 58.6

06‐073‐1010‐42602‐1 1110 BEARDSLEY

STREET

San Diego San Diego 69.6

06‐073‐2007‐42602‐1 1100 PASEO

INTERNATIONAL

Otay Mesa San Diego 84.6

06‐075‐0005‐42602‐1 10 ARKANSAS ST. San Francisco San Francisco 54.3

06‐077‐1002‐42602‐2 HAZELTON‐HD. Stockton San Joaquin 57.6

06‐077‐3005‐42602‐1 5749 S. TRACY BLVD. Tracy San Joaquin 38.6

06‐079‐3001‐42602‐1 MORRO BAY BLVD &

KERN AVE.

Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 34.6

06‐079‐4002‐42602‐1 NIPOMO REGIONAL

PARK.

Nipomo San Luis Obispo 29.3

06‐079‐8001‐42602‐1 6005 LEWIS AVENUE Atascadero San Luis Obispo 42.0

06‐081‐1001‐42602‐1 897 BARRON AVE. Redwood City San Mateo 45.6

06‐083‐0008‐42602‐1 EL CAPITAN ST PRK,

HWY 10

Capitan Santa Barbara 29.6

06‐083‐0011‐42602‐1 700 E. CANON

PERDIDO

Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 46.0

06‐083‐1008‐42602‐1 906 S BROADWAY Santa Maria Santa Barbara 42.3

06‐083‐1013‐42602‐1 HS & P FACILITY‐500

M SW.

Lompoc Santa Barbara 7.0

06‐083‐1014‐42602‐1 PARADISE RD. Los Padres National

Forest

Santa Barbara 6.3

06‐083‐1018‐42602‐1 GTC B‐HWY 101 NEAR

NOJOQUI PASS,

GAVIOTA

Gaviota Santa Barbara 23.3

A2-3 
A2-4 

Monitor ID Street Address City Name County Name

One Hour NO2

Design Value

(ppb)

06‐083‐1021‐42602‐1 GOBERNADOR RD. Carpinteria Santa Barbara 18.3

06‐083‐1025‐42602‐1 LFC #1‐LAS FLORES

CANYON

Capitan Santa Barbara 14.0

06‐083‐2004‐42602‐1 128 S 'H' ST. Lompoc Santa Barbara 28.3

06‐083‐2011‐42602‐1 380 N FAIRVIEW

AVENUE

Goleta Santa Barbara 35.3

06‐083‐4003‐42602‐1 STS POWER PLANT Vandenberg Air

Force Base

Santa Barbara 8.6

06‐085‐0005‐42602‐1 158B JACKSON ST. San Jose Santa Clara 53.3

06‐087‐0003‐42602‐1 Center St Davenport Santa Cruz 22.0

06‐095‐0004‐42602‐1 304 TUOLUMNE ST. Vallejo Solano 42.3

06‐095‐0006‐42602‐1 E SECOND ST. Benicia Solano 34.5

06‐097‐0003‐42602‐1 837 5TH ST. Santa Rosa Sonoma 38.0

06‐099‐0006‐42602‐1 900 S MINARET

STREET

Turlock Stanislaus 48.6

06‐101‐0003‐42602‐1 773 ALMOND ST. Yuba City Sutter 49.3

06‐107‐2002‐42602‐1 310 N CHURCH ST. Visalia Tulare 61.3

06‐111‐2002‐42602‐1 5400 COCHRAN

STREET

Simi Valley Ventura 44.6

06‐111‐3001‐42602‐1 RIO MESA SCHOOL El Rio Ventura 37.6

06‐113‐0004‐42602‐1 UC DAVIS‐CAMPUS Davis Yolo 36.0

TT‐586‐0009‐42602‐1 Pechanga Tribal

Government Building

Not in a city Riverside 25.8

*Design values are calculated according to the Primary NO2 NAAQS Final Rule (40CFR Part 50 

Appendix S, Section 3), based on data queried from EPA's Air Quality System (AQS, 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/).
A3‐1

Appendix 3

NOx Emissions Projections and Controls – Kings County, California

NOx Emissions Projections and Controls ‐ Kings County, California

annual average daily emissions in tons per day

Source Category Example sources

Year Change 2010‐2020

2010 2015 2020 Value Percent

fuel combustion at

stationary sources  

boilers at utilities and factories,

irrigation pumps,   2.2 1.5 2.3 0.1 3.7%

waste disposal landfills, wastewater treatment

plants 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16.7%

residential fuel

combustion

woodburning, water heaters,

cooking 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 ‐4.0%

fires structural and wild fires 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3%

managed burning and

disposal

agricultural waste burning,

prescribed burning 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.0 ‐2.8%

passenger vehicles cars, light duty trucks, motorcylces,

motor homes 1.8 1.2 0.8 ‐1.0 ‐54.3%

medium and light heavy

duty trucks    1.3 1.0 0.7 ‐0.7 ‐49.2%

heavy heavy duty diesel

and gas trucks

local, intrastate, and interstate

trucks 15.0 9.8 6.6 ‐8.4 ‐56.1%

buses tour, transit, and school buses 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 ‐6.7%

aircraft commerical and military 3.0 3.4 3.7 0.8 26.6%

trains 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.1 10.6%

recreational equipment boats, off‐road motorcycles 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.0%

off‐road equipment construction, oil/gas exploration,

forklifts 0.6 0.5 0.4 ‐0.2 ‐34.4%

farm equipment tractors, loaders 2.2 1.5 1.0 ‐1.2 ‐53.1%

                    

Total annual average day NOx emissions, Kings County 27.837 20.711 17.320 ‐10.5 ‐37.8%

                    

Source:  ARB, CEPAM‐2009 Almanac ‐ 2/6/2011