### 1 

## OAQPS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE SUMMARY REPORT

RULE / ACTION

Stationary Combustion Turbines NSPS



### OBJECTIVE

This report provides a summary of demographic data for the areas surrounding recent installations of

combustion turbines selling > 25 MW of power. The U.S. EPA does not have information on recent

industrial applications or turbines smaller than 25 MW, Alaska, Hawaii, and other non

‐ continental areas.

The subset is a representation of areas within the country with growing electric demands that are being

supplied by natural gas, and thus potential new facilities.



### SCOPE

 Total # of unique facility locations

= 130

 Data Source: Trading Programs Database (contact Christian Fellner)



### EJ ASSESSMENT

Meaningful Involvement

To promote meaningful involvement, EPA discussed the proposed rulemaking on the April 24, 2012

community call. Further stakeholder and public input is expected through public comment and follow

‐

up meetings with interested stakeholders.

Demographic Results

Method(s)

 Proximity

‐ to

‐ Source : Comparative analysis of 3 mile or 5 km radius demographics to national

averages.

Source(s)

 CenRANK (proximity)

Proximity

­ to

­ Source

The sector analysis of near source populations (Table 1) reveals that several demographic categories

exceed 20 percent of their corresponding national averages:

o Other or Multiracial

= +13 percentage points or +93%

o Minority = +12 percentage points or +43%

o Hispanic = +15 percentage points or +88%

### 2 o No High School Diploma

= +3 percentage points or +30%

o Below Poverty = + 3 percentage points or +21%

Table 1

A facility

‐ level review of near source populations shows that the densely populated areas surrounding

four facilities in New York and California substantially contribute to each of the demographic categories.

The facilities are East River, NY, Astoria Energy, NY, Malburg Generating Station, CA and Center

Generating Station, CA

. The four areas combined make up 57%, 50%, 57%, 55% and 51% of the sector’s

total multiracial, minority, Hispanic, no high school diploma and below poverty populations respectively.

Additionally, the Malburg Generating Station, CA area has a high percentage of people living below the

poverty line at 29%

, which is 15 percentage points above the national average of 14%, or +107%. In the

sector summary (table 2) we highlight the top three regions and states by number of facilities, and the

top three facilities with the highest near source population totals. The excel file that accompanies this

report contains the near source demographic data for all facilities.

Table 2

Sector Summary Totals

# of Facilities Near Source (3 mi)

Population

Sector 130 6,031,599TopThree Regions

9 32 1,862,399

4 26 232,799

6 22 364,228

States

CA 26 1,715,469

FL 13 173,111

TX 11 167,704

Facilities

NY East River (Combined) 1,069,350

NY Astoria Energy (Combined) 867,418

CA Malburg Generating Station

(Combined) 372,137

To evaluate potential areas of environmental justice concern, the EPA highlights the near source areas

that are equal to or exceed a threshold factor of 1.2 times national averages for race, ethnicity and/or

poverty demographic categories. 1 (The EPA acknowledges that environmental justice areas may exist in

areas below this threshold.) Analysis of this data shows 75 facilities with a near source population of

5,211,584 that are equal to, or exceed, this increased threshold. This is 58% of all facilities, and 86% of

1 The demographic categories evaluated on whether they meet or exceed the threshold are: Minority Only; Hispanic Only;

Poverty Only; Minority & Hispanic; Minority & Poverty; Hispanic & Poverty; Minority, Hispanic & Poverty. POPULATION WHITE AFRICAN

AMERICAN NATIVE

AMERICAN OTHER OR

MULTIRACIAL MINORITY 2 HISPANIC

OR LATINO 3 AGE 0

‐ 17 AGE 65+ NO HIGH

SCHOOL

DIPLOMA BELOW

POVERTY

LINE

6,031,599 3,621,132 737,994 61,939 1,610,534 2,410,467 1,953,393 1,365,832 668,324 805,873 1,025,534

60% 12% 1% 27% 40% 32% 23% 11% 13% 17%

312,861,256 226,405,205 39,475,216 3,646,995 43,333,840 86,456,051 54,181,245 75,217,176 40,830,262 31,914,536 43,487,509

72% 13% 1% 14% 28% 17% 24% 13% 10% 14%

Sources: The demographics are from the U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Information on the facilities is from U.S. EPA.

1. Racial and ethnic categories overlap and cannot be summed.

2. The “Minorities” population is the overall population (in the first column) minus white population (in the second column).

3. The Census Bureau defines “Hispanic or Latino” as an ethnicity rather than as a racial category, Hispanics or Latinos may belong to any race. DEMOGRAPHIC

SUMMARY 1

NEAR SOURCE TOTAL

% OF NEAR SOURCE TOTAL

NATIONAL TOTAL

% OF NATIONAL TOTAL

### 3 the near source population in the sector. The facility with the largest near source population in this

subgroup is the East River, NY facility with a total of 1,069,350. The area surrounding this facility is

comprised of 35% minority ( +25% the national average of 28%), and 18% of people living below the

national poverty line ( +29 % the national average of 14%). Table 3 provides a snapshot of the top three

regions, states and facilities.

Table 3

Potential Areas of

Concern Summary Exceeding Threshold Factor

# of Facilities Near Source (3 mi)

Population

Sector 75 5,211,584TopThree Regions

9 26 1,860,495

6 17 327,677

4 13 140,145

States

CA 22 1,713,582

TX 8 166,835

NY 5 2,151,622

Facilities

NY East River (Combined) 1,069,350

NY Astoria Energy (Combined) 867,418

CA Malburg Generating Station

(Combined) 372,137

Although Native American populations are factored into the minority demographic, the EPA reviews

near source facility data to identify Native American populations that exceed the 1.2 threshold factor.

Analysis of this data indicates 26 facilities with a combined Native American population of 22,553 meet

or exceed this threshold in the sector. The largest Native American population (5,711) is near the

Bluffview Power Plant in New Mexico.

Additionally, the EPA provides a summary of “facility clusters” (see next page). For the purposes of this

report, facility clusters are formed when the study areas overlap, and a given census block can be

attributed to one or more of the facilities. The following population totals are the combined near source

populations for all facilities notated.

### 4 Statistical Summary

The U.S. EPA provides the following statistical summary of tables 4, 5 and 6 to assist in answering the

following questions:

1) On average, how much do populations living near the facilities differ from the U.S. population?

2) How often do the facilities have nearby populations greater than the national average?

While observations can be made on all demographic categories, this summary focuses on the

demographic categories of minority, Hispanic and below poverty. (Facilities with fewer than 100

residents living within 3 miles or 5 km are ignored.) Facility Name ORISPL CODE State Total Population Minority Hispanic Poverty

East River (Combined) 2493 NY 1,069,350 378,480 190,104 195,929

Astoria Energy (Combined) 55375 NY 867,418 501,900 407,425 192,313

1,936,768 45% 31% 20%

Bethpage Energy Center (Combined) 50292 NY 166,201 26,814 17,379 5,227

Pinelawn Power (Combined) 56188 NY 105,483 38,527 18,280 6,503

271,684 24% 13% 4%

Waterside Power LLC (Combined) 56189 CT 64,184 26,435 18,151 8,332

Cos Cob (Simple) 542 CT 58,757 15,818 11,148 4,072

122,941 34% 24% 10%

Empire Generating Company LLC (Combined) 56259 NY 70,601 32,474 6,126 18,978

Bethlehem Energy Center (Albany) (Combined) 2539 NY 16,672 2,377 554 1,143

87,273 40% 8% 23%

Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center (Combined) 564 FL 17,692 4,778 4,604 1,691

Cedar Bayou 4 (Combined) 56806 FL 0 000

17,692 27% 26% 10%

Evander Andrews Power Complex (Simple) 7953 ID 4,815 701 679 781

Bennett Mountain Power Project (Simple) 55733 ID 493 40 23 78

5,308 14% 13% 16%

Panoche Energy Center (Simple) 56803 CA 0 000

Starwood Power Midway LLC (Simple) 56639 CA 91 44 88 37

91 48% 97% 41%

*Facility clusters are formed when study areas overlap such that a census block's centroid can be attributed to one or more facilities.

> or = to (1.2 * Nat'l Average)

### 5 Minority Population

o Table 4 indicates that nationally, 40% of the people living within 3 miles of the facilities are

minorities. This is 12 points, or 43%, greater than the national average of 28% in 2010.

o Table 5 indicates that on average, 27% of the people living near a facility are minorities. The 1

point difference between the average proportion near facilities and the national average is not

significant.

o Table 6 indicates that 41% of facilities have a greater proportion of minorities living nearby than

the national average. This is less than the 50% we would expect if the facilities were randomly

distributed across the U.S.

o Summary of the data : The national proportion (Table 4) is greater than the minority national

average. However, the facility average proportion is not significantly different from the national

average (Table 5), and less than 50% of the facilities have minority populations greater than the

national average (Table 6). This suggests that the national proportion of minorities living within

3 miles of the facilities is driven by a few facilities in urban areas.

Hispanic Population

o Table 4 indicates that nationally, 32% of the people living within 3 miles of the facilities are

Hispanic. This is 15 points, or 88%, greater than the national average of 17% in 2010.

o Table 5 indicates that on average, 20% of the people living near a facility are Hispanic. The 3

point difference between the average proportion near facilities and the national average is not

significant.

o Table 6 indicates that 42% of facilities have a greater proportion of Hispanic populations living

nearby than the national average. This is less than the 50% we would expect if the facilities

were randomly distributed across the U.S.

o Summary of the data : The national proportion (Table 4) is greater than the Hispanic national

average. However, there are no significant differences in the facility average proportion (Table

5) and facilities having Hispanic populations greater than the national average (Table 6). This

suggests that the national proportion living within 3 miles of the facilities are driven by a few

facilities in urban areas.

Below Poverty Population

o Table 4 indicates that nationally, 17% of the people living within 3 miles of the facilities are living

below the poverty line. This is 3 points, or 21%, greater than the national average of 14% in

2010.

o Table 5 indicates that on average, 15% of the people living near a facility are living below the

poverty line. The 1 point difference between the average proportion near facilities and the

national average is not significant.

o Table 6 indicates that 43% of facilities have a greater proportion of below poverty populations

living nearby than the national average. This is less than the 50% we would expect if the

facilities were randomly distributed across the U.S.

o Summary of the data : The national proportion of below poverty populations living near facilities

(Table 4) is similar to the facility average proportion (Table 5). Both proportions are greater

than the national average, but only 43% of the facilities have a below poverty population

greater than the national average (Table 6). This suggests that the proportion of below poverty

populations living near facilities is greater than the national average, but there is a large amount

of variability in the below poverty population between individual facilities.6Table4‐ThresholdFactorPOPULATION WHITEAFRICANAMERICANNATIVEAMERICANOTHERORMULTIRACIALMINORITYHISPANICORLATINOAGE0‐17 AGE65+NOHIGHSCHOOLDIPLOMABELOWPOVERTY6,031,599 3,621,132 737,994 61,939 1,610,534 2,410,467 1,953,393 1,365,832 668,324 805,873 1,025,53460% 12% 1% 27% 40% 32% 23% 11% 13% 17%312,861,256 226,405,205 39,475,216 3,646,995 43,333,840 86,456,051 54,181,245 75,217,176 40,830,262 31,914,536 43,487,50972% 13% 1% 14% 28% 17% 24% 13% 10% 14%>=1.2ofNationalAverage‐17%‐3%‐12% 93% 45% 87%‐6%‐15% 31% 22%Table5‐HypothesisTest1(AveragePopulationVariance)H0:Average%ofPopulationNearSourcesinCategoryX=National%inCategyoryXH1:Average%ofPopulationNearSourcesinCategoryX≠National%inCategyoryXWHITEAFRICANAMERICANNATIVEAMERICANOTHERORMULTIRACIALMINORITYHISPANICORLATINOAGE0‐17 AGE65+NOHIGHSCHOOLDIPLOMABELOWPOVERTY73% 11% 2% 14% 27% 20% 25% 12% 11% 15%0.0189 0.0152 0.0057 0.0118 0.0189 0.0202 0.0051 0.0041 0.0054 0.00770.2790‐1.1989 1.7576 0.2482‐0.2790 1.3352 1.2268‐1.5078 1.2840 1.04320.7807 0.2330 0.0815 0.8044 0.7807 0.1845 0.2224 0.1344 0.2017 0.2990Table6‐HypothesisTest2(Occurrence)H0:%ofSourceswithNearbyPopulationinCategoryXaboveNationalAverage=50%H1:%ofSourceswithNearbyPopulationinCategoryXaboveNationalAverage≠50%WHITEAFRICANAMERICANNATIVEAMERICANOTHERORMULTIRACIALMINORITYHISPANICORLATINOAGE0‐17 AGE65+NOHIGHSCHOOLDIPLOMABELOWPOVERTY59% 26% 31% 39% 41% 42% 60% 39% 47% 43%0.0458 0.0409 0.0432 0.0455 0.0458 0.0460 0.0457 0.0455 0.0465 0.04621.9918‐5.8400‐4.3234‐2.3884‐1.9918‐1.7964 2.1890‐2.3884‐0.6540‐1.41080.0488 < 0.0001 < 0.0001 0.0186 0.0488 0.0751 0.0306 0.0186 0.5145 0.1610STATISTICALSIGNIFICANCELEVELNoSignificance(P>=0.05)MarginalSignificance(0.01<=P<0.05)ModerateSignificance(0.001<=P<0.01)StrongSignificance(P=<0.001)DEMOGRAPHICSUMMARYNEARSOURCETOTAL%OFNEARSOURCETOTALNATIONALTOTAL%OFNATIONALTOTALSTATISTICAVERAGE%NEARFACILITIESSTANDARDDEVIATIONTSTATISTICP‐VALUESTATISTIC%FACILITIES>NATIONALAVGSTANDARDDEVIATIONTSTATISTICP‐VALUE772%13%1%14%28%17%24%13%10%14%87%15%1%17%33%21%29%16%12%17%60%12%1%27%40%32%23%11%13%17%73%11%2%14%27%20%25%12%11%15%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%WHITE AFRICANAMERICANNATIVEAMERICANOTHERORMULTIRACIALMINORITY HISPANICORLATINOAGE0‐17 AGE65+ NOHIGHSCHOOLDIPLOMABELOWPOVERTYLINEPercentageComparisonsbyDemographicCategoryNATIONAL%NATIONAL%X120%SOURCECATEGORYTOTAL%SOURCECATEGORYAVERAGE%8