### 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 Deteriorat ion (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 i ssued in advance of EP A’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 demonstr ation 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 Av enal Energy Project (Project) by the permit applicant, Avenal Power Center, LLP (APC), w ill be located in Kings County, California, and consists of two GE 7FA combusti on turbine generators, two heat recovery steam generators, one steam turbine generator, and associated equi pment. The proposed location for the Project constitutes the majority of the northeast quart er 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 coor dinates for the proposed location are Latitude 36.088394° N and Longitude 120.061141 ° W. 

### The proposed location is cu rrently in agricultural production, is zoned industrial by th e 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 Regi on 9 first received the application for this permit in February 2008 and notified the appli cant on March 19, 2008 that its permit application was complete, 1 

### in accordance with the procedure de scribed 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 f acility, 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 perm it requires the use of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to limit emissions to the greate st extent feasible of carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NO x 

### ), particulate matter (PM), and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM 10 

### ). 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 wher e this facility will be located is not meeting the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter le ss than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM 2.5 

### ). The emissions from the proposed project of the air pollutants (including precu rsors to the formation of these pollutants) for which the relevant ar ea 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 refere nce to an application for a permit, that the application contains all of the information necessa ry for processing the application.”



### 1

### EPA provided public notices requesting publ ic 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 a nd 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 comm ent period for the proposed permit closed on October 15, 2009.

In parallel with this proce ss required under the Clean Air Act, EPA has taken the steps necessary to ensure its acti on on this permit application co mplies with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. EPA requested initiati on 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 Octobe r 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 applicat ion has been pending well beyond the one-year deadline by which the Clean Air Act requires EP A 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 ha s 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 desc ribed in the associat ed public notice.

I. Grandfathering From Requirements Es tablished 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 author ized to issue a PSD permit to this applicant without requiring a demonstration th at the source will not cause or c ontribute 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 constr uct 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 lim itations 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 interpre tation of applicable st atutes 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 vi olation of any NAAQS and that the proposed source will meet

2

### emissions limitations achievable through applic ation 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 concen trations 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 applic ations that were pending at the time the new requirements took effect.

Nevertheless, EPA has determined in this case that it should not a pply the criteria and standards described in the preceding paragr aph to the APC permit application under the circumstances that are presented here. EPA firs t 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 pr oject prior to the proposal date of the NAAQS standard. At this point, the APC permit app lication has been pending for nearly two years beyond the statutory deadline by which EPA was re quired to make a decision to grant or deny this application. This delay has been exacerbate d 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 in terpretation 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 cons truct, and the factors th at 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 Requi rements 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 a nd procedural requirements that must be satisfied before a PSD permit may be issu ed to authorize construc tion or modification of a major stationary source of air pollutant s. When EPA promulgates a new NAAQS and completes rules that make an additional pol lutant subject to re gulation under the Act, 2 

### the Agency must take care to ensure that PSD perm it decisions are made in accordance with both the substantive and procedural requirements of th e 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 viol ation 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 whic h the area in which th e source proposes to locate is designated non-attainment. 40 C.F.R. 5 2.21(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 interp rets 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 decisi on. 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 su bject to the requirement s of the PSD program. 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). This document said the following:

EPA generally interprets a revised NAAQS that establis hes 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 pendi ng applications to apply standards in effect when the application is complete, a final permit decision issued after the effective date of a NAAQS mu st 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 EP A’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 th e time a PSD permit is issued. 75 Fed. Reg. 17004 (April 2, 2010). In this April 2010 action explaini ng EPA’s decision to continue fo llowing a legal interpretation established in a December 2008 memorandum fro m 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 green house 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 be lieved that it would be feasible to begin incorporating greenhouse gas consid erations into permit reviews in parallel with completion of work on other pollutants. EPA also observed th at 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 Ag ency 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 pr ogram.” 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 app licable 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 ti tle 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 previous ly established transition provisions which relieved persons proposing new major sources a nd 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 PM 10 

### 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 eligibilit y criteria in these provisions were grandfathered from the new PSD requirements that otherwise would have applied to them.

B. Grounds for Grandfathering this Pe rmit 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 fo llowing factors that are discussed in more detail below:

(1) The facility that APC proposes to constr uct will be a well-controlled, natural-gas fired electric generating facility that will apply BA CT for NO2 and not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS that were in place befo re promulgation of the hourly standards;

(2) APC’s permit application was deemed co mplete by EPA more than a year before, and EPA had issued a proposed permit for the pr oject one month before, the date on which EPA proposed the hourly NO2 NAAQS.

(3) Unanticipated challenges with the preparatio n 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 pe rmit application to address the hourly NO2 NAAQS caused additional de lay 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 issu es a permit or license.

Considering these factors and EPA’s statutory oblig ations 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 co mpeting 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 (NO x 

### ), particulate matter (PM), and particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in diameter (PM 10 

### ). See, Statement of Basis and Ambient Air Quality Impact Repor t, 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 th at was in effect at the time EPA issued a proposed permit for this project. EPA has determ ined 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/m 3, less than 1 percent of the NAAQS of 100

6

### μg/m3. The modeled PM10 impact (24-hour aver aging 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 pe rcent of the NAAQS of 10,000 μg/m3, and the modeled CO impact for the 1-hour averaging pe riod is 2,175 μg/m3, less than 6 percent of the NAAQS of 40,000 μg/m3. See, Statement of Basis and Ambien t 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 requireme nt to become applicable when its permit application was completed. EPA declared the Av enal PSD permit application complete in March 2008. EPA proposed the hourly NO2 NAAQS ov er a year later on July 15, 2009.

Complications with Implemen tation of Hourly NO2 NAAQS

EPA issued the hourly NO2 NAAQS on Febr uary 9, 2010 and established that this standard would become effective on April 12, 20 10. At that time, EPA did not consider adopting a transitional provision for pending permit ap plications 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 comp lete the analysis necessary to show that stationary source construction w ould 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 pr edict the impact of the proposed source on hourly NO2 concentrations in accordance with PSD modeling guidelines.

EPA has approved the air quality dispersi on model known as AERMOD for use in several regulatory appl ications, including use by permit appl icants 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 gui delines 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 Nati onal Ambient Air Quality Standard ,” provided additional technical guidance on using AERMOD to demonstrat e that proposed construc tion of a stationary source will not cause or contribute to a viola tion 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 hour ly 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 pr oposed construction will not cause or contribute to viol ations of the hourly NO2 NAAQS . These challenges have

7

### resulted from the fact that to address the hourly NO2 NAAQS, many perm it applicants need to conduct a cumulative air quality imp act assessment. This has also necessitated the application of modeling techniques that are more refined than th ose that have previously been adequate to demonstrate compliance with the annual NO2 st andard. 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 th ird and most-refined Tier of EPA’s modeling guidelines applicable to NO2. A dditional 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 ar e available but not as readily a ccessible 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 re fined approaches and to obtain a nd 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 fo r 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 ga ses 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 approximate ly 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 resu lt for long-pending complete perm it applications such as APC’s from completion of modeling to address the hou rly 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 associ ated 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 b een subject to the greenhouse ga s 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 standa rd 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 establ ish 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 h ourly NO2 NAAQS would impede EPA’s ability to complete action on the long-pe nding complete permit ap plications 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 addr ess 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 additiona l 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 t ons per year significant emissions rate for SO2, additional analysis is no t required from APC. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(m)(1) a nd 52.21(b)(23)(i). Sources with emissions below these levels are cons idered 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 Grandf athering the Permit Application from New Requirements in this Case

EPA’s proposed action to grandfather this pe rmit application that has been pending for well beyond the statutory deadlin e for action is supported by judi cial opinions that have addressed analogous circumstances involving a change in legal re quirements while action on an application for a government approval was undul y delayed. In the Ap ril 2010 interpretive statements described above, EPA relied on judici al 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. Thes e 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 judici al 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, eith er the intricacy of the questions involved, or of any other cause not attributable to th e 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 prin ciple 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 ha ve his petition for naturalization granted under the expired law because of th e 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 pr inciple described above “to th e delay caused by administrative inaction.” 184 F.Supp. at 401-402. The United Stat es 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 e ffect 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 wher e there has been a meaningful delay by an administrative agency. Id . at 434. Although the Second Circ uit 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 wh ich 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 suppor t the view that an administ rative agency has the power in limited and compelling circumstances to issue a permit decision based on the legal requirements that were applicable at the ti me 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 deadlin e. 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 en sure 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 appli cation was complete and after EPA had proposed to approve it, the delay in processing this app lication that resulted from promulgation of this standard, and the judicial preced ent 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 SO 2 or that this facility will be capable of meeting emissions limitations for greenhouse gases based on the BACT requirement.

Although EPA previously issued interpretive st atements that suggest grandfathering is not permissible in any circumstance absent an express grandfathe ring provision in the regulations, this previous interp retation should not apply to the ci rcumstances present here. In making those prior statements, EPA had not sufficien tly considered the judicial decisions described above and the present circumstances wh ere several factors have combined to cause a delay of EPA’s action on the APC permit near ly two years beyond the statutory deadline. In light of these circumstances and the exte nded delay of EPA’s action on the APC permit application attributable to the challenges expe rienced 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 e ffective date of the hourly NO2 NAAQS.

The previous interpretive statements disc ussed above were reflected in actions of officials from EPA’s headquarters offices. In orde r 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 Radiati on is issuing this st atement of basis and intends to issue the final permit decision for the APC permit applica tion 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-Inco me Populations” states in rele vant part that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental ju stice part of its mi ssion by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, dispr oportionately high and adverse hum an health or environmental effects of its programs, polic ies, 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 Or der, the EPA’s Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) has held that envir onmental 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 unde r 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 enviro nmental justice considerations into their review of applications for PSD perm its. The EAB reinforced the importance of completing an environmental justice analysis in a re cent 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 Commen ts 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 perm itting and certification pro cess for this Project, that addresses certain other air pollutants, na mely 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 (C EC)’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 emblem atic of achieving a le vel 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 standa rds, designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, incl uding sensitive populat ions 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 emblem atic of achieving a le vel of public health protection that, based on the le vel of protection afforded by the NAAQS, demonstrates that minority or low-income populations will not ex perience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effe cts due to exposure to relevant criteria pollutants.” Shell, Slip Op. at 73. This is supported by the f act that “[t]he Agency sets the NAAQS using technical and scientific expertise, ensuring that the prim ary 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 extens ive critical review by EPA, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC), an d the public. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, 6478 Feb. 9, 2010. “The rigor of the review makes thes e studies, and their inte grative assessment, the most reliable source of scientific information on which to base decisions on the NAAQS.” Id. When setting the NAAQS, “[t]he Administrato r’s final decisions draw upon scientific information and analysis relate d to health effects, population exposures, and risks; judgments about the appropriate response to the range of uncertain ties 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, th e EAB generally “relies on and defers to the Agency’s cumulative exper tise 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 al so 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 op erator of such facility demons trates, among other things, that the facility will not cause or cont ribute to air pollution in exce ss 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 th e following NAAQS under the PSD permit: NO2 (annual average), CO (1-hr and 8-hr average), an d 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 y ear 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 belo w 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 sati sfy 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 h earing has been held with oppo rtunity for interested persons including representatives of the Administra tor 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 c onsiderations.” In light of the Agency’s proposed determination that it should grandfat her this permit appli cation from the 1-hour

13

### NO2 NAAQS, EPA’s environmental justice analysis considers “other appropriate considerations” that extend beyond the imp acts of the pollutants and NAAQS for those pollutants that are addres sed in the PSD permit.

In this case, EPA’s environmental justice an alysis 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 poten tial impacts of the faci lity on short-term NO2 concentrations. EPA is examining short-te rm NO2 concentrations – even though EPA is proposing not to apply the new one-hour NO2 NAAQ S 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 agai nst adverse respiratory e ffects associated with short-term exposures to NO2. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474, (Feb. 9, 2010) Therefore, EPA’s environmental justice analysis considers whethe r short-term exposures to NO2 emissions from the Project may result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations a nd low-income populations.

The Project is also subject to an air permit issued on November 4, 2008 by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Contro l 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 (V alley) has been desi gnated non-attainment. 3 

### The facility’s projected emissions are below the th reshold that would trigger non-attainment new source review of the other non-attainment pollutant – PM2.5. The California Energy Commission, in reviewing the perm it applicant’s Application for Certification relating to the aforementioned District permit, analyzed enviro nmental justice considerations pertaining to, among other things, the proposed siting and emissions profile of the facility. This analysis is contained in the California Energy Commissi on’s Final Commission Decision (08-AFC-1) (December 2009).

The District’s action in issuing an NSR perm it for this facility and the CEC’s action in certifying the Project are the s ubject of a pending administrative complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. This complaint, submitte d to EPA on October 15, 2009 by Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice, alleges that the District di scriminated against Avenal and Kettleman City residents of color and Spanish-sp eakers by failing to notify or involve residents during the decision-making process. In addition, the complain t alleges that operation of the proposed Avenal power plant will result in advers e health impacts on the residents of color of Avenal and Kettleman City, who are already imp acted by multiple sources of pollution. EPA’s Office of Civil Rights has accepted both of these allegations for investigation 4 

### . By letter dated

3 New source review in non-attainment ar eas 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 qua lity and public health concerns, the Cl ean Air Act requires that sources seeking to build or expand in a non-attainment area must meet the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) andoffset 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 invest igation 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 pl ant to be located in Kings County, California, within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Cont rol 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 pollu tants for an area that has been designated attainment or unclassifiable are regulated under the PSD progr am. In the San Joaquin Valley, these pollutants include NO2, PM10, SO2, lea d, 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. Speci fically, the Valley is designated as an extreme non-attainment area for ozone and a non-attainme nt area for PM2.5. Thus, the non-attainment pollutants subject to NSR permitting by the Distri ct 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 cons truction 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 approxi mately 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 comb ustion turbine generators (CTGs) will connect to a dedicated heat recovery steam generato r (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 ga s in two 180 MW (nominal) CTGs. Exhaust from each gas turbine will flow through the dedicate d HRSG to produce steam to power a shared 300 MW (nominal) Steam Turb ine Generator (STG).

The Project will be equipped with state-of-t he-art control technol ogy 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 NO x 

### emissions from the combustion turbine generators and the Ox-Cat to reduce emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. Additional equipmen t includes a natural gas-fired auxiliary boiler equipped with an ultra low-NOx bur ner, a natural gas-fired emerge ncy 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 fa ll 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-c ooler/after-cooler. These pollution control technologies are required to meet the Best Av ailable Control Technol ogy (BACT) and Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) require ments under the PSD and non-attainment NSR permitting programs.

The facility is expected to have emi ssions as shown in the following table 6



### .

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

SO x 

### 16.7 100 40 No

EPA’s proposed permit includes, among other re quirements, 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 Ava ilable Control Technology re quirements. 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 Ai r 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 th e 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 site 7



### . Avenal has a population of 16,236, including 7,0 00 inmates at Avenal State Prison. Many of the remaining residents eith er 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 Intersta te 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 9,0 00 with an influx of migrant laborers. The local economy is base d 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 En ergy 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 Kettlema n 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 comparis on. These areas includ e 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 information 8 

### 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 populati ons 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 children 10 

### (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 liv ing within the three radii are lower than the state average.

Linguistic isolation 11 

### limits a household’s capacity for civic engagement in the regulatory process. All three radii capture households th at are above the state average for linguistic isolation. The percent of linguistic ally isolated households in th e State of California is 10% and the percent of households in the 25km radius is 30%.

Education level is another fact or that may influence susceptib ility 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 th e smaller the radius around the facility. Compared to the state average of 23%, the percent of popula tion 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 at tainment 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 designati ons 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 Calif ornia for 2006-2009 are presented in Appendix 2. The data in the table indicate that the 1 -hour NO2 monitore d design values for 2007-2009 range from 5.1 ppb to 85.5 ppb. The ambient monitoring s ites nearest to the Pr oject are the Hanford monitoring site which is 28 miles from the facil ity, and the Visalia monitoring site which is 46 miles from the facility 12 

### . 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 adve rse health effects from air pollution because:

• Children’s lungs are still developing. This period of gr owth 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 ca pacity, the diameter of th e airways, and the number and types of cells that line the airways. It is importa nt 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, ma king 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. Th e 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 fac ility 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 di sproportionately high as compar ed with communities elsewhere in the State.

1-Hour NO2 National Ambi ent Air Quality Standard

EPA periodically conducts comprehensive review s of the scientific literature on health effects associated with exposure to the criteria air pollutants. Th e 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 h ealth protection from short-term NO2 exposures that have been linked to respir atory illnesses that lead to em ergency 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 th e promulgation of the 1-hour NO2 standard, NO2 is emitted by stationary sources such as uti lities, 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 s hort 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 at tributable to mobile sources is 91%. 13 

### NO2 concentrations on or near ma jor roads are appreciably highe r 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 concen trations have been measured to be approximatel y 30 to 100% higher th an those measured away from major roads. Individuals wh o spend time on or near major ro ads can experience short-term NO2 exposures considerably higher than measur ed by the current netw ork, which are of particular concern for at-risk populations, including people with asthma, children, and the elderly. As a result, the final NO2 NAAQS re quired that new monitors be located near roadways in addition to community scale m onitors. Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 6474 (Feb. 9, 2010); 40 CFR Part 58, Appendix D, Section 43.

EPA anticipates NOx, including NO2,concentrati ons, will continue to decrease as a result of state and federal mobile source engine and fuel standards alrea dy in effect and being phased in as new vehicles replace older one s. Heavy-duty trucks contribut ed more than half of the NOx emissions in Kings County in 2010. The new st andards 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 th ese 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 ru le 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 pr ovided scientific evidence that NO2 is associated with a range of respiratory effect s. 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 ar e most evident with a lag of 2-6 days after exposure, rather than same-day levels of NO 2. The relationship in children between hospital admissions or emergency department visits fo r asthma and NO2 exposure holds even after adjusting for co-pollutants such as pa rticulate matter and carbon monoxide.

In addition, the ISA concluded that the avai lable evidence on the effects of short-term exposure to NO2 on cardiovascular h ealth 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 rela tionship of short-term exposure to NO2 with all cause and cardiopulmonary-related mortality 14



### . Impacts of NO2 on Susceptibl e and Vulnerable Populations

The NAAQS are intended to provide an ade quate 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 diseas e, children, and older adults may be more susceptible to the effect s 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 concen trations 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.e pa.gov/ncea/cfm/reco rdisplay.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 re ported a positive excess risk for asthmatics, and there was emerging evidence that [cardiova scular disease] may cause persons to be more susceptible, though it is difficult to dis tinguish the effect of NO2 from other traffic pollutants. Children and older adults (65+ ye ars) may be more sus ceptible than adults, possibly due to physiological changes occurring among these age groups. In addition to intrinsically susceptible gr oups, a portion of the populat ion 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 susceptibil ity 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 enha nce the ambient monitori ng network to ensure it provides adequate coverage, including for e xposure near roadways. This monitoring network is to be in place by January 2013. For areas designat ed 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 a ny 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 w ith preexisting respirat ory 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 w ith 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 re spiratory diseases in children include asthma, bronchitis, and upper resp iratory infections. In 1994-96, on a national basis, 24 percent of children with asthma had to limit their activiti es 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 associ ated 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 Breath ing (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 pr evalence. The report sta tes:

Prevalence of severe symptoms is almo st 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 th an $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 ra tes for asthma hospita lizations and asthma related emergency department visits in Kings an d Fresno Counties versus the State of California and are tracked by the California E nvironmental Health Tracking Program 17



### . 2009 Asthma Hospitalizations by Race and Ethnicity
The rate of asthma hospitalizations for chil dren in Fresno and Kings Counties aged 0 – 4 is significantly higher than the rate for Californi a as a whole. Hospitalizations due to asthma for non-Hispanic white children age 0 – 4 in Ca lifornia number 19 per 10,000, compared to 42 and 28, respectively, for non-Hispanic white ch ildren 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). Hosp italizations due to asth ma 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/p hocadownload/asthmaburdenreport.pdf
17 The California Environmental Health Tracking Program provides data for two asthma indicators: asthma hospitalizations and asthma-related emergency department vi sits. A careful evaluation of asthma in a particular community requires review of both asthma-related emerge ncy 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 emergenc y 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 Enviro nmental Health Tracking Program, http://www.ehib.org/project.jsp?project_key=ehss01



### 22Age Adj Rate, per

10,000
persons 2009 b Total Black Hispanic a White Asian/ Pacific Islander

All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c

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

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

a. Includes Puerto Ricans b. 2009 Data, from California Enviro nmental 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 ac ross any of the following: th e 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 depart ment visits: 200 and 193, respectively, per 10,000, versus 107. For African–American children in th e same age group, the difference is similarly striking: 409 and 536 for Fresno and Kings Coun ties, 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 2009 b Total Black Hispanic a White Asian/ Pacific Islander

All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c All Ages Children c

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 68.04 d 216.14 d 180.02 d 409.06 d 61.62 d 200.06 d 65.90 d 167.17 d 25.44 d 123.86 d

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

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



### 23Kettleman City 35.75 e NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

a. Includes Puerto Ricans b. 2009 Data, from California Environmental H ealth 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 w ith 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 De partment of Public Health’s “California Breathing” program are based on 2007 information. These data s how a lifetime prevalence of 24% among Kings County children age 0-17, second highest in th e 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 Preval ence by Race and Ethnicity

In Percents Total Black Hispanic a White Asian/ Pacific Islander Family Income Below Poverty Level

All Ages Children b 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

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

18 Of 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 Calif ornia Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Public Health (DPH). Although the asth ma ED visit rate appears lower for Avenal and Kettleman City as compared with the SJV and Ca lifornia 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 hea lth metrics examined, Kettlema n 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, Calif ornia, California EPA and California Department of Public Health, page 60, D ecember 2010. Available at http://www.calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/Documents/ 2010/KCDocs/ReportFinal/FinalReport.pdf
19 http://www.californiabreathing.org/asthma-data/count y-comparisons/lifetime-asthma -prevalence-children-2007
20 http://www.countyofkings.com/health/forms/Communi ty%20Health%20Status%20Re port%202008-2009.pdf (page 34)



### 24In Percents Total Black Hispanic a White Asian/ Pacific Islander Family Income Below Poverty Level

Fresno County f 18.3 g 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 County f 17.9 24.0 g

a. Includes Puerto Ricans (National asthma prevalen ce of 20.3% for all ag es, 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 signi ficantly 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 designate d in portions of all eight San Joaquin Valley counties, incl uding Kings and Fresno Counties 21 

### . 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 Calif ornia 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 leve ls of PM2.5 in the country. The poor air quality creates an adverse health imp act for all its residents. Ch ildren, 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 liv ing elsewhere in the State. The residents liv ing 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 statisti cs 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 emi ssions that may affect the NAAQS EPA proposes to apply to this permit application. Those ar e 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 significa nce 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 fo r the facility that th e Project impacts are well below (in all cases, less than 6% of) th e applicable NAAQS for the PSD pollutants regulated under the PSD permit, including the an nual NO2 standard. The modeled impact of NO2 for the annual averaging period is 0.5 μg/m 3 

### , less than 1% of the NAAQS of 100 μg/m 3



### . The modeled PM10 impact (24-hour averaging period) is 2.9 μg/m 3 

### , approximately 2% of the PM10 24-hour NAAQS of 150 μg/m 3 

### . The modeled CO impact for the 8-hour averaging period is 337 μg/m3, less than 4% of the NAAQS of 10,000 μg/m 3 

### , and the modeled CO impact for the 1-hour averaging period is 2,175 μg/m 3 

### , less than 6% of the NAAQS of 40,000 μg/m 3 

### . As stated elsewhere, the NAAQS are health based standards and are designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, including sens itive populations. Taking into account these modeled results in light of the health-b ased nature of the applicable NAAQS, EPA has determined that proposed emissions limits for these pollutants w ill not result in disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental eff ects on minority populat ions and low-income populations.

Review of Modeled Short-Term NO2 Impacts from Avenal Energy Project’s Emissions

The second part of EPA’s environmental just ice 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 demons trating that this so urce will not cause or contribute to a violation of th e recently promulgated 1-hour NO 2 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 advers e respiratory effects asso ciated 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 signif icance levels and thus have no more than a de minimis impact, we do not anticipate any significa nt 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 an d 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 ba ckground levels of 1-hour NO2 in the general area

26

### surrounding the facility are not di sproportionately high as compar ed with communities elsewhere in the State.

In addition, the District conducted an assessm ent of the 1-hour NO2 emissions from the Project on June 14, 2010. 23 

### The results of this analysis indi cate that the operational emissions from the facility resu lt in a maximum 1-hour NO2 impact of 82.43 μg/m 3 

### (44 ppb), which represents 44% of the standard (188 μg/m 3 

### or 100 ppb). This valu e represents the highest modeled impact at any location resulting from the facility’s emissions alon e; all other locations would have a lower impact from the facility. The modeled impact is based on the average of the five yearly maximum 8 th 

### high values, consistent with EPA’s Notice Regarding Modeling for New Hourly NO2 NAAQS, Updated - 02/25/2010, which discusses procedur es for calculating NO2 modeled values suitable for comp arison 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 prov ides 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, EP A cannot reach any definitive conclusion about the specific human health or environmental im pacts of short-term exposure to NO2 emissions from the facility on minority a nd 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 Certific ation. Final Commission D ecision, Application for Certification (08-AFC-1), pp. 328-332 (December 2009). The Commission concluded based on the evidentiary record that the fully mitigated pr oject would not result in any significant adverse environmental or public health impacts to any po pulation, 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 orde r 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 Pr eliminary Determination of Compliance Evaluation for the Avenal Power Center Project, which proposed to limit th e annual facility wide NOx and CO emissions for the source, resulting in a minor source pe rmit 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) concentratio ns 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 8 th - highest (98 th -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 imp acts to a less than a significant level. Id. at 127. The CEC considered modeling that predic ted maximum impacts of the fac ility on PM2.5 concentrations of 2.9 μg/m 3 

### , which is approximately 8 percent of the 35 μg/m 3 

### National Air Quality Standard for PM2.5 concentrations averaged over a 24 hour pe riod. This same mode ling predicted maximum impacts on annual PM2.5 concentrations of 0.8 μg/m 3 

### which are approximately 6.5 percent of California’s 12 μg/m 3 

### air quality standard. 26 

### Pre-existing background concentrations of PM2.5 in the non-attainment area are as high as 75 μg/m 3 

### over a 24-hour period and up to 18.4 μg/m 3 

### on an annual basis. Id. at 123. 27



### EPA is working with the California Air Re sources Board (ARB) a nd the District to ensure that there is a comprehensive plan with adequate controls for attaining the annual and 65 μg/m 3 

### 24-hour PM2.5 ambient air quality standard s 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 clos ely with both agencies to develop a plan to meet the 35 μg/m 3 

### 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 pr ecursors 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 w ithin 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 resu lt 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/m 3

. 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 va lue concentrations. See EP A's Air Quality System, http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/.



### 28

### Conclusion

As explained above, with respect to all po llutants, including those not attaining the NAAQS in the affected area, the California En ergy Commission found that the combination of emissions controls and offsetting emission reduc tions 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 ex cess 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 th ese air pollutants on minority or low-income populations residing near the propo sed 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 in formation that might further inform the Agency’s environmental justice analysis. EP A 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 lo cal communities where this source proposes to construct, EPA intends to place an ambient NO2 monitor in an appropr iate 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 pa rt 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 discre tion of EPA Regional Administrators. Thus, the Agency has the discretion to place an air quality monitor in an appropriate lo cation to develop air quality information for the Region and also to help asse ss air quality before a nd 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 th e ARB, the District and EPA to determine whether air quality in the region meets or exceeds the NAAQS for NO 2, and will inform governmental plans to address any identified co ncerns. Any such plans would consider all contributing sources in the airs hed, including the Avenal facility, in the effort to address any identified non-attainment challenges. EPA welc omes public comment on its intentions in this regard.

In the event that EPA were to gather air quality m onitoring data that identify a concern in the local community from short-term NO2 emis sions, EPA is considering options that EPA, ARB or the District might employ to mitigate su ch 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 mon itoring might be used to better inform measures that the ARB or the District coul d take (or might be requi red to take) to ensure attainment and maintenance of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQ S. Indeed, if monitoring were to identify violations of the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS, the State w ould 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 meet s the applicable standard. EPA requests public comment on the merits of such approaches.

EPA also requests comments on whether there ar e 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 ca n be challenging, EPA requests comment on considering establishing a condition in the permit that would re quire the applicant to monitor air quality conditions after construction of the facility. This monitoring, in coordination with the community-based NO2 mo nitor, could help provide bette r 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 ambien t monitoring “after construction of the stationary source ... as the Administrator determines is necessary to dete rmine 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 NO 2 

### Values in California (2006

‐ 2009)*

Monitor ID Street Address City Name County Name One Hour NO 2 

### 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 NO 2 

### 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 NO 2 

### 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 STREE T 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 NO 2 

### 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 PLAN T 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 queri ed 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