U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

October 2011 

Responses to Public Comments on the Proposed Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration Permit for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project 
2

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 3

SUMMARY OF THE FORMAL PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS .............................................................3 

II. EPA’S RESPONSES TO THE PUBLIC COMMENTS .............................................................. 5

A. WRITTEN COMMENTS..................................................................................................................5 

Comments Submitted by Reed Glyer on behalf of the City of Lancaster............................................ 5

Comments Submitted by Gideon Kracov on Behalf of Desert Citizens Against Pollution and 

California Communities Against Toxics........................................................................................... 7

Comments Submitted by April Sommer on behalf of Rob Simpson and Helping Hand Tools...........10

Comments Submitted by Rob Simpson............................................................................................27

Comments Submitted by AECOM on behalf of the City of Palmdale...............................................48

Written Comments Received During the Informational Meeting and Formal Public Hearing on 

September 14, 2011.......................................................................................................................56

B. ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2011 ..............57 

III. REVISIONS IN FINAL PERMIT..........................................................................................58
3

I. Introduction 

Summary of the Formal Public Participation Process 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 (EPA) proposed to issue a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the City of Palmdale for the Palmdale Hybrid Power 

Project (PHPP) on August 11, 2011. The public comment period on the proposal (Proposed 

Permit)1began August 11, 2011 and closed on September 14, 2011. During the public comment 

period EPA took comments on the proposed permit and specifically requested comments 

regarding: 1) the best available control technology (BACT) determinations; 2) the effects, if any, 

on Class I areas; 3) the effect of the proposed facility on ambient air quality; and 4) the 

attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. 

The purpose of this document is to respond to every significant issue raised in the public 

comments received during the public comment period and explain what changes have been made 

in the final permit (Final Permit) as a result of those comments. 

EPA announced the public comment period through public notices published in the Antelope 

Valley Press (in English and Spanish) on August 14, 2011, La Prensa Popular (in Spanish only) 

on August 16, 2011 and on Region 9’s website (in English and Spanish) on August 12, 2011. 

EPA also distributed the English and Spanish public notices to the necessary parties in 

accordance with 40 CFR Part 124, including notices sent by mail on August 11, 2011 and email 

on August 12, 2011. Parties notified by EPA included agencies, organizations, and public 

members for whom contact information was obtained through a number of different methods, 

including requests made directly to EPA through Region 9’s website (or through other means) 

from parties seeking notification regarding permit actions in California, within the Antelope 

Valley Air Quality Management District (District), within Los Angeles County, or specific to the 

PHPP; appropriate contacts from the California Energy Commission’s Palmdale mailing list; the 

mailing list used by the District; contacts provided by the City of Palmdale and the City of 

Lancaster; and other parties known to EPA that may have an interest in this action. EPA 

provided notice to numerous government agencies in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124, 

including, but not limited to, the California Energy Commission (CEC), the District, the City of 

Palmdale, the City of Lancaster, and the Department of the Air Force. 

The Administrative Record for the Proposed Permit was made available at EPA Region 9’s 

office. EPA also made the Proposed Permit, the Fact Sheet and Ambient Air Quality Impact 

Report (Fact Sheet) and other supporting documents available on Region 9’s website, at the 

District office in Lancaster, CA and at the following public libraries: the Palmdale City Library 

in Palmdale, CA, the Lancaster Regional Library in Lancaster, CA, the Lake Los Angeles 

Library in Palmdale, CA, and the Quartz Hill Library in Quartz Hill, CA. 

 

1 We note that EPA’s permitting regulations at 40 CFR Part 124 refer to proposed permits as “draft permits.” See 40 

CFR 124.6. 
4

EPA held a formal public hearing, on September 14, 2011 in Palmdale, California. All oral 

public comments made were recorded by a court reporter, and a Spanish language interpreter 

was present for oral translation. 

EPA also held a public information meeting earlier on September 14, 2011 in Palmdale, 

California. The purpose of the public information meeting was to provide interested parties with 

additional information and an opportunity for informal discussion of the proposed Project. A 

Spanish language interpreter was present for oral translation. EPA responded to questions at 

these meetings but did not formally record remarks from those in attendance. However, 

attendees of the meeting were given the opportunity to submit written comments. 

EPA’s public notice for the Proposed Permit provided the public with notice of both the public 

hearing and the public information meeting. 

During the public comment period, EPA received several comment letters by mail and email. We 

also received written and oral comments at the public hearing. All comments received equal 

weight, regardless of the method used to submit them. 
5

II. EPA’s Responses to the Public Comments 

This section summarizes all significant public comments received by EPA and provides our 

responses to the comments. In some instances, similar comments may be grouped together by 

topic into one comment summary, and addressed by one EPA response. The full text of all public 

comments and many other documents relevant to the permit can be accessed online through 

EPA’s website at http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/permit/r9-permits-issued.html. 

A. Written Comments 

Comments Submitted by Reed Glyer on behalf of the City of Lancaster 

1. Comment: The commenter raises concerns about the facility’s emissions’ compliance 

with the State of California’s 1-hour standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the context of 

the California Energy Commission’s (CEC) Presiding Member’s Proposed Decision 

(PMPD). 

Response: Issues concerning the Project’s compliance with State of California air quality 

standards and the CEC’s licensing process for the Project are beyond the scope of matters 

regulated under the PSD permit for the Project. These matters are addressed through 

separate approval processes conducted for the Project under State and local laws by the 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (District) and the CEC, which are 

separate from the PSD permitting process for the Project that is implemented by EPA. 

2. Comment: The commenter stated the Project will result in an increase of particulate 

matter under 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) of 11.6 μg/m3, which is above the above the 

increment of 9 μg/m3. By exceeding the maximum allowable increase in 24-hour PM2.5

emissions, the Project would significantly deteriorate the air quality in the Antelope Valley. 

The commenter stated that the Project would increase PM2.5 emissions levels by 70% in the 

Antelope Valley and prevent future industrial growth in the area needed for the local 

aerospace industry. The commenter is concerned that the Project would use the majority of 

the Antelope Valley’s remaining PM2.5 emissions allotment and would severely limit the 

future growth of the aerospace industry and permanently damage the long-term economic 

viability of the Valley. 

Response: In promulgating the PM2.5 increments, EPA stated that we would begin 

implementing the Federal PSD program requirements for the PM2.5 increments on the 

effective date of those increments; that is, on October 20, 2011. Implementation for PSD 

permits issued after that date will include a review of the amount of increment consumed 

by major stationary sources after the PSD major source baseline date, October 20, 2010. 

See 75 Fed. Reg. 64877, 64898-99 (October 20, 2010) (“Accordingly, we are setting the 

effective date of the PM2.5 increments at 1 year from the date of promulgation of this final 

rule [October 20, 2010], consistent with the 1-year delay required under section 166(b) of 

the Act.”). Because the PSD permit for the PHPP is being issued prior to October 20, 

2011, an increment analysis for PM2.5 is not required, even though, as explained below, the 
6

emissions increase resulting from the source will count against the increments and must be 

accounted for by subsequent PSD sources proposing to locate in the area. 

The concerns expressed by the commenter regarding the consumption of PM2.5 increment 

affecting future industrial growth in the area and associated economic impact are generally 

outside the scope of PSD review as the increment is not effective at this time. 

However, for informational purposes, we believe it may be useful to point out that in 

general, while the impacts and percent increases in PM2.5 cited by the commenter are 

approximately correct summaries of the numerical results from the applicant’s modeling, 

we disagree that the results imply substantial air quality deterioration or restriction on 

future industrial growth, as explained below. 

Because the Project would be constructed after the major source baseline date for the PM2.5

increment, it would consume PM2.5 increment, and could potentially affect the amount of 

increment available for future sources. The air quality impact analysis for any future 

project subject to PSD would have to take into account the consumption of increment by 

PHPP. The specific practical effect of this is not known at the current time, as the 

applicant’s modeling was a conservative National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) analysis that does not constitute a cumulative PSD increment analysis. 

However, the information available to EPA indicates that consumption of PM2.5 increment 

by PHPP is unlikely to substantially constrain the construction of additional sources. The 

area over which PHPP has a significant PM2.5 impact is limited in geographic scope to an 

area fairly close to the PHPP site. The area over which PHPP has a significant PM2.5 impact 

extends only about 1 mile beyond the PHPP property boundary. Therefore, an additional 

source would have to threaten the increment on its own within the 1 mile circle around 

PHPP before their combined impact would be a concern.

2

In addition, the increment 

modeling analysis that would need to be performed for a future source would likely be 

different than the cumulative NAAQS analysis performed for PHPP. For example, PHPP 

conservatively used PM10 emissions for many of the sources in the PM2.5 NAAQS analysis; 

a more refined analysis could use only PM2.5. Since PM2.5 is a fraction of PM10, emissions 

would be substantially lower, and the impact areas described above would be even smaller. 

In summary, although a full PM2.5 increment analysis has not been performed, the 

modeling that is available gives strong assurance that a substantial portion of the PM2.5

increment remains available for future new sources. 

3. Comment: Citing the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the commenter stated the 

CEC and its PMPD did not comply with the CCR’s requirement to “find out and disclose” 

all foreseeable sources of emissions in the Valley. The commenter is concerned that the 

modeling analyses did not identify any future foreseeable sources of PM2.5 emissions in the 

Antelope Valley. The commenter states that a substantive consideration of foreseeable 

future sources of PM2.5 emissions, such as expansion of the existing aerospace and other 

 

2 The Class I area Significant Impact Level (SILs) are lower than the Class II SILs discussed here, and so PHPP 

impacts would exceed them over a larger area. However, they apply only in Class I areas, where PHPP impacts 

would be far below the applicable SILs, and would impose essentially no constraint on future sources. 
7

light industrial uses, is needed, and requests that EPA deny or delay the issuance of the 

permit until such an analysis is conducted. 

Response: Concerns about compliance with the CCR and associated issues relating to the 

CEC’s PMPD are matters of State law and are generally outside the scope of matters 

regulated under the PSD permit for the Project; the commenter has not identified or 

described how the issues are relevant to EPA’s PSD permit or associated analysis. Also, as 

noted in Response 43, the impacts of future sources are outside the scope of the PSD air 

quality analysis for PHPP. The impacts of any such future source would be accounted for at 

the time it seeks its own PSD permit. 

4. Comment: The commenter stated additional measures are needed to address the visual 

blight associated with the Project, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). The commenter notes impacts associated with the facility’s structure, states that 

the 622 foot high water vapor plumes associated with the Project would have an “adverse 

effect on visual resources,” and states that the Project results in the complete obstruction of 

the “scenic views of the San Gabriel Mountains” from three of the four key observation 

points at the facility. The commenter requests that EPA delay or deny issuance of its PSD 

permit on these grounds. 

Response: The commenter has not described how visual impacts from the facility’s 

structure or the CEC’s compliance with CEQA raise issues with EPA’s PSD permit or 

analysis for the Project; these issues generally appear to be outside the scope of the PSD 

program and the PSD permit for the Project. 

We note that EPA believes that PHPP adequately addressed the PSD regulatory 

requirements for assessing impairment to visibility (see 40 CFR 52.21(o)). The regulations 

require an assessment, but do not prescribe a particular test that a project must pass in order 

to receive a permit. To assess the visibility of the plume from the project, the applicant 

performed an extensive visibility analysis for nearby Class I areas and for some sensitive 

Class II areas (Sheep Mountain Wilderness Area, Saddleback Butte State Park, Antelope 

Valley Indian Museum State Park, Antelope Valley California Poppy State Reserve, and 

Arthur B. Ripley Desert Woodland). The impacts were found to be small, below the color 

difference and brightness contrast thresholds in EPA’s Workbook for Plume Visual Impact 

Screening and Analysis. 

In sum, EPA does not believe that the issue raised by the commenter provides grounds for 

delaying or denying issuance of EPA’s PSD permit. 

Comments Submitted by Gideon Kracov on Behalf of Desert Citizens Against Pollution and 

California Communities Against Toxics 

5. Comment: The commenter incorporated by reference and requested a response to attached 

documents relating to the Project prepared by Lisa Belenky for the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD) and Dr. Phyllis Fox, consulting engineer for the CBD. Specifically, the 

commenter requested that EPA respond to those comments that addressed PM2.5 emissions, 
8

interpollutant trading, and the air quality and other environmental impacts of the proposed 

use of road paving emission reduction credits. 

Response: EPA acknowledges the documents provided by the commenter as attachments, 

and has included the attachments as part of the commenter’s comments in the record for 

this action. The commenter, however, has not explained with any specificity the relevance 

to EPA’s PSD permit decision of these attachments, which appear to have been created in 

the context of California Energy Commission (CEC) and/or local approval processes 

separate from the proposed PSD permitting action for the Project. Therefore, EPA cannot 

provide a detailed response. We note, however, that the issue of PM2.5 increments is 

discussed in detail in Response 2. 

 

We also note that the attached document from Dr. Phyllis Fox dated July 19, 2010 asserts 

that road paving associated with the Project may raise the potential for impacts to Federally 

listed endangered species; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) considered the 

issue of road paving generally in the Endangered Species Act (ESA) section 7 consultation 

with EPA for the PHPP, and determined that EPA’s proposed action was not likely to 

adversely affect any Federally-listed species. 

6. Comment: The commenter is concerned that the Project will consume much of the 

allowable criteria pollutant increment in the attainment area and, as a result, will prevent 

more environmentally friendly facilities from obtaining PSD permits in the future. The 

commenter is concerned this will have a negative impact on the economy and green jobs. 

The commenter requested that EPA provide how much increment for the various criteria 

pollutants will remain available in the attainment area. The commenter asked what the 

socioeconomic impacts are with increment consumption and stated that those impacts must 

be examined as part of the required socioeconomic impact analysis for the Project. 

Response: The PSD increments that are currently in effect for the area in which the PHPP 

will be located are for annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour sulfur dioxide (SO2), annual NO2, and 

annual and 24-hour particulate matter under 10 μm in diameter (PM10). There are no 

increments defined for the other criteria pollutants regulated under the permit, except for 

PM2.5. However, as discussed in detail in Response 2, the effective date for the PM2.5

increments is October 20, 2011, and therefore the PHPP is not required to perform an 

increment analysis because it is being issued a final PSD permit prior to that date. 

Response 2 also notes that the information available indicates the area over which PHPP 

has a significant PM2.5 impact is limited in geographic scope to an area fairly close to the 

PHPP site. 

The PHPP would emit lower than the significant emission rate of 40 tons per year for SO2, 

so PSD is not applicable to PHPP for SO2. For annual NO2, the Project’s modeled impacts 

are less than the SIL of 1 μg/m3and therefore further air quality modeling was not 

necessary to demonstrate compliance with the increment. For 24-hour PM10, the Project’s 

maximum modeled impact was 12.7 μg/m3, which is above the SIL of 5 μg/m3and required 

a cumulative increment analysis. The PM10 increment consumption was modeled to be 12.9 

μg/m3, which is below the increment of 30 μg/m3. Further, these significant impacts all 
9

occur within half a mile of the PHPP main stack. Thus, EPA finds that the Project’s 

increment consumption for these pollutants would not be expected to preclude the 

development of other facilities. 

With respect to the commenter’s suggestion that a socioeconomic impact analysis be 

conducted including potential impacts from the PHPP’s increment consumption on 

environmentally friendly facilities, the local economy and green jobs, we note that the 

Project will not exceed any applicable increments, and that such matters are generally 

beyond the scope of PSD review. 

7. Comment: The commenter stated that the cooling tower monitoring must include 

monitoring of the water circulation rate at the time of total dissolved solids (TDS) sampling 

(to calculate drift rate from water circulation rate and TDS content). 

Response: We agree with the commenter that the permit should require the water 

circulation rate to be recorded at the time of TDS sampling. We have revised the Cooling 

Tower Dissolved Solids Testing Requirements in Condition X.G.2.a accordingly. 

8. Comment: The commenter stated that stack tests for the boilers should be required 

annually instead of once every five years. 

Response: The commenter has not provided sufficient justification to require annual 

testing of the auxiliary boiler and the heat transfer fluid (HTF) heater. As part of the GHG 

BACT requirements, the units will have to conduct annual boiler tune-ups. The tune-ups 

are designed to ensure the units are properly maintained and continue to operate at optimal 

efficiency overtime. In addition, these units have limited hours of operation (500 hours per 

year for the auxiliary boiler and 1,000 hours per year for the HTF heater). Based on these 

other requirements in the permit, EPA does not find that annual testing is warranted for 

these units. 

9. Comment: The commenter stated that the initial performance test for the emergency 

firewater pump engine and emergency generator is insufficient because the performance of 

the engines will deteriorate over time. The commenter stated that a stack test should be 

required at least every five years. 

Response: The BACT emission limits established for these engines are equivalent to the 

applicable New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) limits for compression ignition 

engines. Per 40 CFR 60.4203, the engines must meet the applicable emissions limits for 

the certified emissions life of the engine. The certified emissions life for these engines is 

8,000 hours or ten years, whichever comes first (see 40 CFR 1039.101(g). Therefore, we 

believe that additional testing is not necessary until the end of the certified emissions life 

for the engine occurs. We have revised Conditions X.G.1.a.iii and X.G.1.a.iv to require 

testing every five years beginning at the end of the certified emissions life for each engine. 
10

10. Comment: The commenter stated that no quantification of heat transfer VOC emissions 

has been conducted. The commenter stated that this is generally done based on estimated 

annual loss (based on experience at other facilities) and should be quantified. 

Response: We assume the commenter is referring to fugitive VOC emissions from the 

heat transfer fluid (HTF) associated with the HTF heater for the solar component of the 

Project. VOC emissions are not regulated under this PSD permit. We note, however, that 

these emissions were quantified as part of the CEC’s PMPD. Fugitive VOC emissions 

from the HTF were estimated at 0.2 tpy and the CEC required a monitored vapor control 

system at points where HTF can vent to the atmosphere, as well as leak-free expansion 

tanks. Please see page 6.2-10 of the CEC’s PMPD. 

11. Comment: The commenter stated that under the PM2.5 final rule, the two “screening tools” 

which include the SIL and the Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC) for PM2.5 went 

into effect as of December 20, 2010. The commenter stated that EPA is already using these 

screening tools to review PSD applications. The SIL provides significance thresholds 

above which new sources must comply with increment analysis under the PSD program. 

See 40 CFR 52.21(k)(2). The Project will emit PM2.5 at levels far above these SILs. The 

SIL thresholds indicated that the PM2.5 emissions from the Project are significant and 

should have been analyzed as such in order to comply with NEPA and CEQA. The 

commenter also included the SILs for annual and 24-hr PM2.5 for Class I, II, and III areas as 

part of the comment. 

Response: The PM2.5 increments do not become effective until October 20, 2011; because 

the PSD permit for the PHPP is being issued prior to October 20, 2011, an increment 

analysis for PM2.5 is not required for the PHPP. Please see Response 2 for a detailed 

discussion of the applicability of the PM2.5 increment with respect to the PHPP. We note 

that the applicant did conduct appropriate PM2.5 modeling in accordance with the applicable 

PSD requirements. However, EPA’s PSD permitting action is not subject to CEQA, which 

is a California State law requirement, nor is it subject to the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA), as actions taken under the Clean Air Act are specifically exempt from NEPA 

per section 7(c) of the Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 15 

U.S.C. 793(c)(1). 

Comments Submitted by April Sommer on behalf of Rob Simpson and Helping Hand Tools 

12. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA’s environmental justice analysis is woefully 

inadequate and does not support its conclusion that “there will not be disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects with respect to these air pollutants 

on minority or low-income populations residing near the proposed Project or the 

community as a whole.” The commenter states that EPA will have failed its duty to insure 

the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people in the implementation of the 

Clean Air Act in approving a polluting industrial facility. 

The commenter went on to state there has been no public involvement, much less 

meaningful involvement in the environmental justice analysis process. The commenter 
11

quoted Section 5-5(c) of EO 12898, which states that “[e]ach Federal agency shall work to 

ensure that public documents, notices, and hearings relating to human health or the 

environment are concise, understandable, and readily accessible to the public.”3 The 

commenter states that EPA has failed both the objectives and mandates of the Executive 

Order in making no attempt to involve the public in addressing PHPP environmental justice 

and human health issues. The commenter states that EPA has not really addressed 

environmental justice or human health at all. 

Response: EPA believes that it has fulfilled its responsibilities under Executive Order 

12898 (EO 12898 or EO), including Section 5-5(c), with respect to its PSD permitting 

action for the Project, as described in detail below. EPA also believes that the 

Environmental Justice Analysis that EPA prepared in conjunction with its proposed PSD 

permit for the PHPP (hereinafter referred to as “EJ Analysis”) was properly drafted and 

well-reasoned, and contained appropriate and adequate support for its conclusions. 

Background 

Executive Order 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations,” was signed on February 11, 1994. The EO 

establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make 

environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their 

programs, policies and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. The 

EO is designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and 

environmental conditions in minority communities and low-income communities with the 

goal of achieving environmental justice. 

EPA has determined that the EO applies to our PSD permitting decisions. See, e.g., In re 

Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. & In Re Shell Offshore, Inc. (Frontier Discovery Drilling Unit) 

15 E.A.D.___, OCS Appeal Nos. 10-01 through 10-04, slip op. at 63-64 (EAB Dec. 30, 

2010) (citing prior EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) opinions) (“Shell II”). EPA 

defines environmental justice as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all 

people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

 

3

 The commenter also quotes paragraph (d) of Section 5-5 of EO 12898, which reads: “The Working Group shall 

hold public meetings, as appropriate, for the purpose of fact-finding, receiving public comments, and conducting 

inquiries concerning environmental justice. The Working Group shall prepare for public review a summary of the 

comments and recommendations discussed at the public meetings.” The "Working Group" refers to the Federal 

Interagency Working Group on Environmental Justice (IWG) that was established under section 1-102 of EO 12898. 

The IWG is comprised of fifteen federal agencies and several White House offices. The role of IWG is to guide, 

support and enhance federal environmental justice and community-based activities. The functions of the IWG 

appear do not appear to be relevant to EPA’s PSD permitting action for the Project, and the commenter did not 

explain the relevance of IWG’s functions to this action, so EPA cannot provide a further response regarding 

paragraph (d). 
12

implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. EPA has 

this goal for all communities and persons. 

EPA defines meaningful involvement to mean that 1) potentially affected community 

residents have an appropriate opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed 

activity that will affect their environment and/or health, 2) the public’s contribution can 

influence our decision, 3) the concerns of all participants involved will be considered in our 

decision-making process and 4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement 

of those potentially affected. 

EPA’s Public Participation and Outreach Activities for the Proposed PSD Permit for the 

PHPP 

With respect to public outreach and participation, EO 12898 affords EPA considerable 

discretion to determine appropriate outreach activities. In this case, EPA prepared the EJ 

Analysis and took numerous actions to facilitate input from the community regarding the 

Project, addressing the objectives described above. EPA’s enhanced public participation 

process, described below, went well beyond the specific regulatory requirements set forth 

in 40 CFR Part 124 for PSD permit proceedings, and clearly demonstrates a commitment 

on EPA’s part to ensuring meaningful participation by nearby communities in the decision 

making process. 

First, in response to a request from the public, Region 9 determined that the level of public 

interest in the Project warranted the scheduling of a public hearing in the City of Palmdale 

on September 14, 2011. Although not required as part of the public participation process in 

40 CFR Part 124, EPA decided to hold a public information meeting in the City as well on 

the same date, prior to the public hearing, with Spanish translation services for both. While 

Spanish translation is not required by Part 124, EPA determined that it would be 

appropriate to provide Spanish translation services at the hearing and meeting, and to 

translate the public notice and certain other documents relating to the proposed PSD 

permit, in order to facilitate public involvement by Spanish-speaking members of nearby 

communities. In scheduling the public information meeting and hearing, Region 9 

considered and balanced a variety of factors such as available resources, the availability of 

the meeting facilities and translators, the need to provide adequate time for public notice 

prior to the public information meeting and hearing, and the need to move forward with our 

permitting decision in a timely manner. 

In August 2011, EPA provided notice of its proposed PSD permit for the Project, as well as 

the public information meeting and hearing, through a public notice issued in both English 

and Spanish. EPA distributed both the English-language and Spanish-language versions of 

the notice using a number of methods designed to reach the community in the area, 

including publishing the notices in the Antelope Valley Press (English and Spanish) and La 

Prensa Popular (Spanish only), and on the EPA Region 9’s website. EPA also distributed 

the public notices to the necessary parties in accordance with 40 CFR Part 124, as 

described above in Section I. The public notice provided the public with a clear 

explanation of how to obtain additional information about EPA’s action, including the fact 
13

that detailed materials relating to EPA’s action were being made available at numerous 

locations in the communities near the Project site as well as on EPA Region 9’s website 

and at EPA’s office in San Francisco. The public notice also included the name, phone 

number and email address of a contact person so that members of the public could contact 

EPA directly to ask questions or obtain additional information. 

EPA sent a copy of its public notice, the proposed PSD permit, and Fact Sheet/Ambient Air 

Quality Impact Report (hereinafter referred to as Fact Sheet) to the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District in Lancaster, CA, and, although not required by Part 124, 

EPA also distributed these documents to numerous locations in communities near the 

Project site to facilitate review by members of nearby communities: the Palmdale City 

Library in Palmdale, CA; the Lancaster Regional Library in Lancaster, CA; the Lake Los 

Angeles Library in Palmdale, CA; and the Quartz Hill Library, in Quartz Hill, CA. 

EPA also posted key documents in the administrative record for its Proposed Permit on the 

Region 9 website, including the Proposed Permit, Fact Sheet, permit application and other 

key supporting information. Although Part 124 does not specifically require this approach, 

EPA determined that it would facilitate community involvement by making key 

information more immediately accessible to the public. 

In addition, in order to facilitate community understanding, EPA prepared numerous 

supplemental outreach materials for the public information meeting and hearing, which it 

also translated into Spanish. These documents included information on EPA’s public 

involvement process and how to comment on the proposed PSD permit; a Public 

Information Sheet including an overview of the proposed PSD permit, Project emissions, 

and air quality impacts; and information on key State and local agency contacts involved 

with the Project. These English-language and Spanish-language materials were also made 

available on EPA’s on-line docket for review by the public on August 12, 2011. 

Further, EPA determined that there may be minority or low-income populations potentially 

affected by its proposed action on the PHPP PSD permit application, and determined that it 

would be appropriate to prepare a separate EJ Analysis for this particular action. EPA 

prepared the analysis and made it available as part of the administrative record for the 

Proposed Permit at the time EPA issued its proposed PSD permit for comment, so that the 

public could comment on the analysis if desired. The EJ Analysis was posted in EPA’s online docket during the comment period, and was briefly discussed in EPA’s Fact Sheet and 

Public Information Sheet for the Project. 

EPA believes that all of these efforts, which went well beyond the required public notice 

and participation procedures in 40 CFR Part 124, were consistent with its public 

participation responsibilities under EO 12898, and served to ensure that the public 

documents, public notice, public hearing, and public information meeting relating to its 

proposed PSD permitting action for the Project were concise, understandable, and readily 

accessible to the public. 
14

EPA’s EJ Analysis and Consideration of Environmental Justice Public Comments for the 

PHPP 

With respect to EPA’s substantive consideration of environmental justice issues in the 

context of its PSD permitting action for the PHPP, EPA prepared a succinct, well-reasoned 

EJ Analysis to accompany its proposed PSD permit, in which EPA discussed potential 

impacts of its action on environmental justice communities. As noted previously, EPA 

made the EJ Analysis available for public review during the public comment period on the 

Proposed Permit. EPA’s EJ Analysis described EPA’s proposed PSD permitting action, 

included a brief description of the area near the Project and key demographic information 

regarding the surrounding communities, discussed the actions EPA was taking to provide 

enhanced public participation opportunities for its proposed PSD permit, and considered 

the impacts of EPA’s permitting action on nearby communities, as described in more detail 

below. 

With respect to potential impacts on environmental justice communities from EPA’s 

proposed PSD permitting action, the EJ Analysis focused on the fact that the NAAQS are 

health-based standards, designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, 

including sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and asthmatics. The EJ 

analysis noted that as EPA’s EAB recently observed, in the context of an environmental 

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

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

demonstrates that minority or low-income populations will not experience 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects due to exposure 

to relevant criteria pollutants. EJ Analysis at 1. 

EPA’s EJ Analysis went on to explain that, in light of the health-based nature of the 

applicable NAAQS, EPA has determined that the modeled results indicate that proposed 

emissions of the pollutants regulated under EPA’s PSD permit for the PHPP would not 

cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS, and therefore will not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. Id. at 8. 

The EJ Analysis also discussed the fact that the Project will emit pollutants for which the 

area is not meeting the NAAQS (and precursors that lead to the formation of such 

pollutants), which are regulated by the Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

(District), and noted that the District implements the Nonattainment New Source Review 

(NNSR) permitting program for this area as required under the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 

51.160 to 51.165. Id. at 3. The analysis later described health effects associated with 

ground-level ozone exposure and described the planning process that is being undertaken to 

address ozone nonattainment in the area. Id. at 8-9. For informational purposes, the EJ 

Analysis also mentioned the fact that the CEC analyzed environmental justice 

considerations. Id. at 9. 
15

In addition to preparing its EJ Analysis, EPA has carefully considered comments submitted 

during the public comment period raising environmental justice issues related to EPA’s 

action and responded as appropriate. 

In sum, EPA believes that its public participation process and substantive consideration of 

environmental justice issues with respect to its PSD permitting action for the Project were 

appropriate and consistent with its obligations under EO 12898 as well as its 

responsibilities under 40 CFR Part 124. 

13. Comment: The commenter expressed a concern that EPA did not hold any public 

meetings specific to environmental justice or human health issues. The commenter also 

raised a concern about the timing of the public information meeting EPA held, suggesting 

that the meeting’s timing was inadequate to afford the public the opportunity to formulate 

considered comments on environmental justice issues and the proposed permit, given that 

the meeting was held just before EPA’s public hearing and the close of the comment 

period. The commenter further stated that there was no indication that environmental 

justice or human health concerns would be discussed at the public information meeting. 

Response: In general, public meetings are not required as part of the public participation 

process for PSD permitting actions per 40 CFR Part 124. At times, EPA schedules public 

meetings in conjunction with such actions when it believes community interest would make 

such a meeting appropriate and resources allow. In the case of EPA’s proposed PSD 

permit for the PHPP, EPA determined that it would be appropriate to conduct a public 

information meeting on September 14, 2011, prior to the public hearing, in order to provide 

an opportunity for the public to have face-to-face informal discussions with EPA staff, and 

to raise questions, regarding any issues the public wished to discuss relevant to EPA’s 

proposed PSD permitting action, including environmental justice issues. With respect to 

the public information meeting, EPA’s public notice stated: “EPA will hold a Public 

Information Meeting for the purpose of providing interested parties with additional 

information and an opportunity for informal discussion of the proposed Project.” The 

commenter has not explained why a separate meeting specifically focusing on 

environmental justice and human health issues would have been necessary in this case. 

With respect to the timing of the public information meeting, as noted above, in scheduling 

the public information meeting and hearing, Region 9 had to balance a variety of factors 

such as available resources, the availability of the meeting facilities and translators, the 

need to provide adequate time for public notice prior to the information meeting and 

hearing, and the need to move forward with our permitting decision in a timely manner. 

Further, it is important to note that there were numerous opportunities for members of the 

public to obtain information about EPA’s action at the outset of the public comment period, 

well before the public information meeting. EPA’s English-language and Spanishlanguage public notices notified the public about how to obtain additional information 

about EPA’s action, including the fact that detailed materials relating to EPA’s action were 

being made available on EPA’s website and at EPA’s office in San Francisco as well as at 

numerous locations in the communities near the Project site (as described above in 
16

Response 12). The public notice also included the name, phone number and email address 

of a contact person so that members of the public could contact EPA directly to obtain 

additional information. 

14. Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA should have issued a draft, rather than a final, 

environmental justice analysis for public comment, and that it appeared that the public had 

not been or would not be consulted regarding the contents of the analysis. 

Response: As discussed above in Responses 12-13, EPA made its EJ Analysis for the 

Project available as part of the administrative record during the public comment period on 

the Proposed Permit, along with the other analyses EPA conducted in conjunction with its 

PSD review. EPA also posted the EJ Analysis on its on-line docket, provided information 

to the public through several means about how to obtain additional documentation related 

to EPA’s Proposed Permit, and described the EJ Analysis in the Fact Sheet for the Project, 

as well as in the Public Information Sheet that was translated into Spanish and also 

available in EPA’s on-line docket. EPA believes that this approach afforded the public 

with an appropriate opportunity to comment on its EJ Analysis in this case and was 

consistent with the procedures in 40 CFR Part 124 as well as EO 12898. 

15. Comment: The commenter stated that the public notice for the proposed PSD permit did 

not mention environmental justice or human health. 

Response: EPA’s public notice included appropriate information as required by the public 

notice content requirements in 40 CFR 124.10(d). We note that the public notice did state 

that “[a]ir pollution emissions from the Project would not cause or contribute to violations 

of any National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the pollutants regulated 

under the PSD permit.” 

Consistent with 40 CFR 124.10(d), EPA did not describe in its public notice all of the 

analyses conducted in conjunction with its PSD review, such as the EJ Analysis; however, 

as discussed above in Response 12, the public notice directed the reader to locations, 

including EPA’s website, where it could obtain additional information concerning EPA’s 

proposed PSD permit, and provided contact information for EPA staff who could provide 

more information. The EJ Analysis was made available in EPA’s on-line docket, for which 

the public notice provided a web link. Further, as noted above, EPA’s Fact Sheet and the 

Public Information Sheet for the Project mentioned the EJ Analysis. 

16. Comment: The commenter also stated that neither the EJ Analysis nor any other human 

health information was made available at any locations near the site, while noting that other 

documents related to the Proposed Permit were available near the Project site. 

Response: The commenter is correct that EPA did not send the EJ Analysis to the libraries 

and other locations near the Project site to which it sent its public notice in English and 

Spanish, the Proposed Permit, and the Fact Sheet. As discussed in more detail in Response 

15, the EJ Analysis was one of many analyses and supporting documents included in 

EPA’s administrative record for the Project, and EPA believes that the methods used for 
17

informing the public about the EJ Analysis and for making the document available to the 

public were appropriate in this case. See also Responses 17 and 19. 

17. Comment: The commenter stated that EO 12898 Section 3-302 calls upon agencies to 

include an analysis of human health risks in EJ analyses. The commenter also quoted EO 

12898 Section 3-301, then stated that EPA does not appear to have collected, maintained, 

or analyzed any data on human health in reference to the PHPP. 

Response: EO 12898 Section 3-301 provides directives for Federal agencies to follow 

when conducting human health and environmental research and analysis. Paragraph (a) of 

this section applies specifically to environmental human health research that involves 

epidemiological and clinical studies, and makes clear that its provisions are to be applied 

when “practicable and appropriate.” Paragraph (b) of Section 3-301 states that 

environmental human health analyses, “whenever practicable and appropriate,” shall 

consider multiple and cumulative exposures. Paragraph (c) states that Federal agencies 

shall provide minority populations and low-income populations the opportunity to 

comment on the development and design of research strategies undertaken pursuant to the 

EO. 

EPA does not believe that that Section 3-301 was intended to apply to such matters as caseby-case permitting actions, including EPA’s PSD permitting decisions, that are not research 

studies and which do not include epidemiological and clinical studies or detailed 

environmental human health analysis. We note that human health studies are not among 

the requirements of the PSD program. Even if some portion of this section were potentially 

applicable to EPA’s PSD permit decisions, however, we believe that it is neither 

practicable nor appropriate to apply its provisions to EPA’s permitting action here on a 

case-specific basis, as EPA’s PSD permitting action in itself will not result in an adverse 

impact on any communities, as it ensures compliance with the NAAQS for the pollutants 

regulated under the permit, as discussed in detail in Response 12. 

EO 12898 Section 3-302 states: 

“Each Federal agency, whenever practicable and appropriate, shall collect, maintain, and 

analyze information assessing and comparing environmental and human health risks borne 

by populations identified by race, national origin, or income. To the extent practicable and 

appropriate, Federal agencies shall use this information to determine whether their 

programs, policies and activities have disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority populations and low-income populations.” 

 

EPA believes that the first sentence of Section 3-302 describes general responsibilities for 

Federal agencies but does not mandate the collection, maintenance and analysis of such 

information in the context of any particular agency action, such as EPA PSD permitting 

decisions. 

Further, to the extent that the second sentence of Section 3-302 could be interpreted as 

applicable to any particular case-specific agency action, it states that it applies “to the 
18

extent practicable and appropriate,” and thereby provides EPA with considerable discretion 

in determining how to discharge such responsibilities in any particular case. In this case, as 

discussed above in Response 12, the modeling analyses for EPA’s PSD permit for the 

PHPP demonstrate that PHPP’s emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any 

NAAQS regulated under the PSD permit. The NAAQS are health-based standards, 

designed to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive 

populations such as children, the elderly and asthmatics, and therefore EPA’s issuance of a 

PSD permit for the PHPP will not cause any adverse health effects to the surrounding 

community, or any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority populations and low-income populations. EPA believes that its primary 

focus on compliance with the NAAQS is appropriate in terms of considering impacts on 

nearby communities in this case. 

We note, however, that as discussed in Response 12 above, EPA’s EJ Analysis did consider 

demographic information relevant to environmental justice considerations for nearby 

communities and geographic areas, focusing on geographic areas with radii of 15 km, 25 

km, and 50 km from the Project site, and compared these areas with the State as a whole. 

EPA’s demographic review for each geographic area considered percent minority, percent 

under age 18, percent over age 64, percent linguistically isolated, percent without a high 

school diploma, and average median household income. EPA’s analysis also noted the 

health impacts associated with exposure to ground-level ozone given the fact that the area 

in which the facility will be sited is an ozone non-attainment area. 

18. Comment: The commenter stated that the EJ analysis does not mention the astronomically 

higher rates of asthma in the Antelope Valley compared to the average rates in other areas 

in Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County as a whole, and the United States. The 

commenter pointed to information from the Los Angeles County Department of Public 

Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as the basis for this comment. 

The commenter stated that the data makes it clear that the communities closest to the PHPP 

are especially sensitive to the environmental hazards of air pollution. 

Response: EPA agrees that individuals with asthma may be especially vulnerable to the 

health effects of air pollution. The commenter is correct that EPA’s EJ Analysis does not 

discuss asthma rates in the areas surrounding the PHPP. However, EPA does not believe 

that including such information in EPA’s EJ Analysis was necessary in this case. As 

described in detail above in Response 12, and in EPA’s EJ Analysis, the analyses 

supporting EPA’s PSD permit demonstrate that the Project will comply with all NAAQS 

regulated for the pollutants regulated under the PSD permit, designed to protect public 

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

the elderly and persons with asthma. 

We reviewed the data referenced by the commenter for both 2005 and 2007 (provided 

below) and note that the asthma prevalence rate for children (17 years and younger) 

decreased from 15.8 to 9.7 percent in 2007. 
19

Percent of Adults (18+ years old) Diagnosed with Asthma, and Reported 

Either Currently Still has Asthma or had an Attack in the past 12 months, 

2005

Asthma (current prevalence) Percent 95% CI Estimated #

LA County 6.5% 5.9 - 7.1 472,000

Antelope Valley SPA 11.4% 8.9 - 13.9 26,000

San Fernando SPA 6.6% 5.2 - 8.0 102,000

San Gabriel SPA 5.8% 4.4 - 7.2 77,000

Metro SPA 6.2% 4.3 - 8.1 57,000

West SPA 7.6% 5.0 - 10.2 40,000

South SPA 7.2% 5.3 - 9.2 48,000

East SPA 5.1% 3.6 - 6.6 48,000

South Bay SPA 6.7% 5.1 - 8.2 76,000

Source: 2005 Los Angeles County Health Survey; Office of Health Assessment 

and Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services 

Note: Estimates are based on self-reported data by a random sample of 8,648 Los 

Angeles County adults, representative of the adult population in Los Angeles 

County. The percentages and numbers are the best estimates of the actual 

prevalence of each described characteristic in the population. The 95% 

confidence intervals (CI) represent the variability in the estimate due to sampling; 

the actual prevalence in the population, 95 out of 100 times sampled, would fall 

within the range provided. 

Percent of Children (0-17 years) Ever Diagnosed with Asthma6and Currently 

Still Have Asthma or Had an Asthma Attack in the past 12 months, 2005 

Asthma (current prevalence) Percent 95% CI Estimated #

Los Angeles County 8.8% 8.0 - 9.6 244,000

Antelope Valley SPA 15.8% 11.8 - 19.7 16,000

San Fernando SPA 7.9% 6.3 - 9.6 44,000

San Gabriel SPA 8.3% 6.4 - 10.1 41,000

Metro SPA 6.7% 4.4 - 9.0 20,000

West SPA** *4.9% 2.1 - 7.6 5,000

South SPA 9.0% 6.6 - 11.4 32,000

East SPA 8.8% 6.5 - 11.1 37,000

South Bay SPA 11.0% 8.6 - 13.4 48,000

Source: 2005 Los Angeles County Health Survey; Office of Health Assessment 

and Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. 

*The estimate is statistically unstable (relative standard error >23%) and therefore 

may not be appropriate to use for planning or policy purposes. 

**2005 estimates for the West SPA may be unreliable due to small sample size and 

possible sampling bias. Therefore, these estimates should be interpreted with 

caution and may not be appropriate for examining trends over time, or for policy or 

planning purposes. 
20

Percent of Children (0-17 years) Ever Diagnosed with Asthma6and Currently 

Still Have Asthma, 2007 

Asthma (current prevalence) Percent 95% CI Estimated #

LA County 7.9% 7.0 - 8.7 220,000

Antelope Valley SPA 9.7% 6.7 - 12.7 10,000

San Fernando SPA 8.0% 6.1 - 9.8 44,000

San Gabriel SPA 7.6% 5.6 - 9.6 36,000

Metro SPA 4.1% 2.3 - 5.8 13,000

West SPA 7.6% 4.9 - 10.4 9,000

South SPA 7.8% 5.5 - 10.1 29,000

East SPA 8.8% 6.1 - 11.4 36,000

South Bay SPA 9.5% 7.2 - 11.9 42,000

Source: 2007 Los Angeles County Health Survey; Office of Health Assessment and 

Epidemiology, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health. 

Note: The information presented is based on self-reported data from a randomlyselected, representative sample of 5,728 Los Angeles County parents/guardians. The 

95% confidence intervals (CI) represent the margin of error that occurs with statistical 

sampling, and means that the actual prevalence in the population, 95 out of 100 times 

sampled, would fall within the range provided. 

19. Comment: The commenter expressed concerns that EPA had not made information on 

human health readily accessible to the public, and stated that EPA’s EJ Analysis, Fact 

Sheet, and Public Information Sheet do not include any discussion of human health. 

Response: In response, EPA is not aware of any specific human health information 

germane to its PSD permitting action for the Project that should have been provided to the 

public other than the discussion of the Project’s compliance with the NAAQS. As 

discussed above, the CAA does not provide for human health studies to be conducted in 

conjunction with review of specific PSD permit applications. All three of the documents 

mentioned by the commenter include some health-related information relevant to EPA’s 

PSD permitting action to the extent they discuss the fact that the analyses supporting the 

Proposed Permit demonstrate the Project’s compliance with the relevant NAAQS for the 

pollutants regulated under the PSD permit. EPA’s Fact Sheet provides a detailed 

description of the air quality impact analyses conducted in conjunction with EPA’s PSD 

review of the Project to support this conclusion. EPA’s EJ Analysis for the Project 

discusses the conclusions of EPA’s NAAQS analysis and explains why compliance with 

the NAAQS for the pollutants regulated under the PSD permit will ensure protection of 

public health, and also describes issues relating to the area’s ozone nonattainment status 

including health effects associated with exposure to ground-level ozone. EPA’s Public 

Information Sheet also briefly discusses the PHPP’s compliance with the NAAQS for the 

pollutants regulated under the PSD permit.4 

 

4 As discussed above, EPA’s public notice for its proposed PSD permit for the PHPP also referenced EPA’s 

determination that emissions from the Project would not cause or contribute to violations of any NAAQS for the 

pollutants regulated under the PSD permit. 
21

EPA has made these documents available to the public, and translated the Public 

Information Sheet into Spanish, as discussed in detail in Response 12 above, and believes 

that therefore the information included in the documents was made readily accessible to the 

public. 

20. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA relied on alleged modeled compliance with 

the NAAQS to avoid further investigation into the human health impacts of PHPP, 

including in the context of environmental justice. The commenter states that there are a 

number of problems with EPA determining that compliance with the applicable NAAQS is 

sufficient to satisfy the EO as to those regulated pollutants. The commenter states that 

EPA has acted as if the non-attainment New Source Review and PSD permitting processes 

exist entirely independent of one another and as if it can ignore any responsibility for 

environmental justice concerns based on alleged compliance with NAAQS. The 

commenter states that the Project will emit pollutants in excess of NAAQS and the EPA 

has a duty to address this in its environmental justice analysis. Additionally, the proposed 

mitigation of offsets for emissions in excess of NAAQS will be implemented in such a way 

that will almost certainly cause “disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects with respect to these air pollutants on minority or low-income 

populations residing near the proposed Project.” The commenter states that regulation of air 

emissions does not exist in a vacuum. The commenter uses NOx as an example and states 

that because NOx is also a precursor to ozone EPA must include NOx as a precursor to 

ozone as part of the environmental justice analysis. The commenter also states that it is 

irresponsible of the EPA to justify non-compliance with the EO entirely based on estimates 

of emissions that are within 1% of exceeding the NAAQS. 

Response: A new stationary source is subject to preconstruction review requirements 

under the PSD program if it will emit, or will have the potential to emit, in major amounts 

any criteria pollutant for which the area is designated attainment or unclassifiable with 

respect to the NAAQS. The location at which the Project will be located is currently 

designated attainment (or is unclassifiable) for the CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 and lead 

NAAQS. The level of each NAAQS is set in consideration of numerous health studies and 

input from experts and the public, and the NAAQS are set at a level to protect public 

health, including the health of individuals who might be sensitive to the effects of a 

particular criteria pollutant. The PSD program is designed to ensure that a new or modified 

facility will not cause or contribute to a violation of the NAAQS for the PSD pollutants to 

which a proposed project is subject, and that air quality in a particular area will not 

deteriorate and will continue to meet those NAAQS. The PSD regulations require a source 

impact analysis for each such pollutant emitted in significant amounts, and we consider a 

modeled impact less than the NAAQS adequate to show that public health will be 

protected. 

EPA has carefully considered the potential impacts on air quality of these emissions from 

the PHPP. As required by the CAA and applicable PSD regulations, the terms and 

conditions of the final PSD permit help to demonstrate that activities authorized by the 

permit will not cause or contribute to a violation of the applicable NAAQS. Because this 

permit assures compliance with the applicable NAAQS and the NAAQS are set in such a 
22

way that they are protective of public health, we are confident that with respect to these 

NAAQS, emissions of pollutants from the Project regulated under the PSD program will 

not cause any adverse health effects to the nearby community or to other members of the 

public. 

We note that for purposes of EO 12898, EPA has recognized that compliance with the 

applicable NAAQS is emblematic of achieving a level of public health protection that 

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

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority 

populations and low-income populations. See, e.g., Shell II, Slip Op. at 74; In re Shell 

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

GmbH, 9 E.A.D 1, 15-17 (EAB 2000) (“Knauf II”); In re AES Puerto Rico, L.P., 8 E.A.D. 

324, 351 (EAB 1999). This is because the NAAQS are health-based standards, designed to 

protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, including sensitive populations 

such as children, the elderly and asthmatics. As the EAB recently observed, “[i]n the 

context of an environmental justice analysis, compliance with the NAAQS is emblematic 

of achieving a level of public health protection that, based on the level of protection 

afforded by the NAAQS, demonstrates that minority or low-income populations will not 

experience disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects due 

to exposure to relevant criteria pollutants.” Shell II, Slip Op. at 73. This is supported by the 

fact that “[t]he Agency sets the NAAQS using technical and scientific expertise, ensuring 

that the primary NAAQS protects the public health with an adequate margin of safety.” Id. 

With respect to the commenter’s argument that the Project’s NO2 impacts are too close to 

the NAAQS to provide a margin of safety to account for the environmental issues faced by 

the communities near the Project, EPA disagrees. The commenter expressed concern about 

the health protectiveness and realism of the modeled 1-hour NO2 impact of PHPP, which is 

only about 1% below the level of the NAAQS. As noted above, the level of the NAAQS is 

set to protect public health with an adequate margin of safety, so even an impact just below 

the NAAQS is protective of public health in the context of this PSD permit. The PHPP 

impacts are below the NAAQS for every criteria pollutant regulated under the PSD permit. 

EPA believes that reasonable assumptions were made in the PHPP modeling conducted by 

the applicant. We also believe that in this case the nearness of the 1-hour NO2 impacts to 

the NAAQS is an artifact of the conservative assumptions used in the modeling, for 

example the assumption of continuous testing of some emergency equipment, which in 

reality will operate very few times per year. Additional work could have been done to 

refine the model realism and lower the modeled impacts further, and EPA believes that the 

actual NO2 impacts are likely lower than those shown in the application. EPA believes that 

with additional modeling refinements, the NO2 impacts would likely be shown to be well 

below the NAAQS. But this additional work was not needed, since an acceptably 

conservative model run had already shown compliance with the NAAQS. It is therefore 

not surprising that the modeled impacts appear to be only just below the NAAQS. 

For the annual NO2 NAAQS, the modeled project impact was 0.98 μg/m3. This is 98% of 

the NO2 Significant Impact Level of 1 μg/m3, but only about 1% of the NAAQS level of 

100 μg/m3(53 ppb). This concentration is so far below the NAAQS that EPA does not 
23

believe there is any potential health issue related to PHPP impacts on the annual NO2

NAAQS.

With respect to the commenter’s concerns about ozone, as discussed above, the area in 

which the PHPP will be located is designated as a nonattainment area for ozone. While we 

appreciate the commenter’s concerns regarding the Project’s ozone emissions, the 

applicable regulations provide that emissions of ozone precursors from the Project are 

covered by nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) permitting requirements and are 

not covered by the PSD permitting criteria in section 52.21 of EPA’s regulations that apply 

to EPA’s decision. See 40 CFR 52.21(i)(2). The NNSR and PSD permitting processes are, 

in fact, independent of each other. The NNSR program contains more extensive and often 

more stringent requirements for the control of emissions. In this case, the applicable 

NNSR program is administered by the District. Providing offsets is a requirement of the 

NNSR program. PSD review does not apply to ozone in this instance and concerns about 

the adequacy of any offsets required by the District in its permitting process or other 

aspects of the District’s permitting process for the Project are beyond the parameters that 

the PSD provisions of the CAA direct EPA to consider in this action. 

Nevertheless, in this instance, our EJ Analysis discussed the fact that the PHPP will emit 

ozone precursors, and that these emissions are addressed through the District’s NNSR 

permitting process. The EJ Analysis noted that new source review in non-attainment areas 

is different from PSD review. Because the area already has air quality that does not meet 

national health standards, and yet to preserve the ability for economic development to 

occur in those areas without exacerbating air quality and public health concerns, the Clean 

Air Act requires that sources seeking to build or expand in a non-attainment area must meet 

the Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) and offset their anticipated new emissions 

by eliminating emissions of an equal, or depending on the severity of the nonattainment, 

greater amount. LAER requires a level of emissions reduction, through the use of control 

technology or other approaches, that is as stringent as or more stringent than BACT, which 

is required in attainment/unclassifiable areas. 

Our EJ Analysis also described health effects associated with ground-level ozone exposure 

and described the planning process that is being undertaken to address ozone nonattainment 

in the area. The EJ Analysis noted that the local air districts are working diligently to 

ensure that there is a comprehensive plan with adequate controls for attaining the 0.08 parts 

per million (ppm) NAAQS for ozone, and that EPA is currently reviewing the State of 

California plan for the Western Mojave Desert nonattainment area, which includes 

Antelope Valley. 

EPA reads the language in EO 12898 directing federal agencies to identify and address 

impacts “as appropriate,” and “[t]o the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law,” to 

afford considerable discretion to the Agency in determining how to address any impacts or 

issues that we may identify in our review of environmental justice considerations. In 

addition, since the EO references all of the programs, policies and activities of each federal 

agency to which it applies, EPA may consider how best to respond to the environmental 

justice concerns raised in public comments within the larger context of the actions EPA is 
24

taking to reduce environmental hazards in the communities potentially affected by 

emissions from the Project. EPA also believes it is appropriate to consider actions being 

taken by State and local government agencies to address these concerns. 

 

As noted above, the provisions in the CAA and EPA regulations do not expressly 

contemplate that PSD permits will contain conditions addressing air pollutants for which an 

area is in nonattainment. EPA interprets the Act and court precedents to establish that 

emissions of nonattainment pollutants (and their precursors) from the Project should be 

directly addressed in the NNSR permit that was issued, in this instance, by the District. 

Nevertheless, EPA has considered in the context of our EJ Analysis for this permit the 

nonattainment conditions in the local area and the efforts in place to achieve attainment 

with the ozone NAAQS in the area. Given the larger context in which the commenter’s 

concerns regarding nonattainment pollutants has been raised, EPA’s judgment is that these 

concerns are best addressed through the other actions EPA and State and local agencies are 

taking outside the context of this permit application, and that it is not appropriate to address 

these issues further in the context of this PSD permitting action. We also refer the 

commenter to Responses 21-22. 

 

21. Comment: The commenter stated that the EPA is ultimately responsible for enforcing the 

CAA. The commenter states that the District issued its FDOC only under delegation of the 

EPA’s authority and duty to enforce the CAA. Referring to ozone emissions, the 

commenter states that it appears the EJ analysis was not conducted as part of the FDOC 

process and as a result no environmental justice analysis was conducted for the aspect of 

the PHPP that most risks human health. 

Response: We note that EO 12898 applies only to Federal agencies, and the District did 

not issue its Final Determination of Compliance or “FDOC” under authority delegated by 

EPA. The District has a SIP-approved program for issuing NNSR permits under its own 

authority. To the extent that the commenter is asserting that EPA has an obligation to 

conduct an environmental justice analysis for a separate action taken by the local Air 

District under State and local law in light of its CAA oversight responsibilities, EPA is not 

aware that the Agency has ever conducted an environmental justice analysis under such 

circumstances and does not believe that it would be appropriate or practicable to do so in 

this case or that the Executive Order would call for doing so. Further, this PSD permitting 

action is not the appropriate context for EPA to exercise its oversight authority, as the 

District’s permitting process is not among the parameters that the PSD provisions of the 

CAA direct EPA to consider in this action. We also refer the commenter to Response 20. 

22. Comment: The commenter stated that mitigation for NAAQS in the form of inter-district 

emission control reduction offsets specifically impacts environmental justice concerns. The 

commenter states that the way NAAQS offsets will be implemented will almost certainly 

cause disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects with 

respect to these air pollutants on minority or low-income populations residing near the 

proposed Project. The commenter states that mitigation calls for ERC NOx offsets located 

up to 116 miles upwind of the Project site and VOC ERCs are up to 285 miles upwind of 

the Project site. The commenter states that mitigation of emissions will be conducted far 
25

outside of the communities most affected by the emissions and will not likely benefit those 

directly affected by the PHPP. The commenter states that this is the type of injustice the 

EO seeks to prevent. 

The commenter further stated disagreement with the concept that because the modeling did 

not show expected impacts of NOx there are no environmental justice concerns. The 

commenter stated that as a precursor to ozone, any NOx emissions threatens the health of 

those living nearby and because those impacted include a high percentage of minority, 

poor, uneducated, linguistically isolated citizens, there are environmental justice concerns. 

Response: Please see Responses 20-21. 

Although, as discussed above, we are not evaluating in detail ozone issues in the Antelope 

Valley or ozone emissions from the PHPP in the context of this PSD permitting action, we 

believe that it is useful to note that ozone is formed by photochemical reactions involving 

NOx and VOC emissions, which occur over time during the day, rather than immediately at 

the location of the emissions. Ozone in the Antelope Valley is thought to be due mainly to 

transport of ozone and ozone precursors from the more populous and industrialized Los 

Angeles urban area, and can also be subject to overwhelming transport from the San 

Joaquin Valley.

5

 Emissions offsets in the upwind Los Angeles area and in San Joaquin 

Valley will have an ozone benefit in Antelope Valley, potentially more so than if the 

offsets were to occur within Antelope Valley itself. 

Since most NOx emissions are in the form of NO (rather than NO2), and NO reacts quickly 

with any available ozone to form NO2 and oxygen (O2), the immediate effect of NOx

emissions is actually to reduce ozone. It is additional chemical reactions involving VOC 

that lead to ozone increases further downwind. Conversely, nearby NOx reductions would 

tend to increase ozone; NOx reductions further upwind, such as in Los Angeles, would tend 

to decrease ozone in the Antelope Valley. 

The Clean Air Act allows trading between one area and another where one area contributes 

to nonattainment in another. We also note that the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District closely tracks emission reduction credits (ERCs) and has a very rigorous 

process for assuring that the ERCs meet Federal requirements. 

23. Comment: The commenter states that the emission impacts of NO2 emissions were within 

0.02 percent and 0.014 percent of the standards and, as a result, there are no guarantees and 

a statistical likelihood that NOx emissions will exceed the NAAQS. The commenter asserts 

that this puts those living closest to the PHPP at the highest risk of suffering harm from 

NOx and ozone pollution. The commenter states that if the EPA relies on modeling 

estimates as part of the environmental justice analysis, then the estimates should without a 

doubt show that the standards could not conceivably be exceeded under any circumstances. 

 

5

“Assessment of the Impacts of Transported Pollutants on Ozone Concentrations in California”. California 

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, March 2001. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/transport/assessments/assessments.htm
26

The commenter states that this is not the case for this project, so EPA should not rely on 

NAAQS compliance as part of the environmental justice analysis. 

Response: As discussed above in Response 20, for the annual NO2 NAAQS, the 

maximum modeled project impact was 0.98 μg/m3. This is within 0.02 μg/m3, or 2 percent, 

of the NO2 Significant Impact Level of 1 μg/m3, but is less than 1 percent of the NAAQS 

level of 100 μg/m3(53 ppb). This modeled concentration from the source is so far below 

the NAAQS that EPA does not believe there is any potential health issue related to PHPP 

impacts on the annual NO2 NAAQS. Also, as discussed above in Response 20, the 

nearness of the modeled impacts to the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS is an artifact of the 

conservative assumptions used in the modeling, and EPA believes the actual impact will 

likely be less. Under the Clean Air Act, any impact less than the NAAQS is sufficient, 

because the NAAQS is set to be protective of public health, with an adequate margin of 

safety. 

EPA does not agree that it is possible to guarantee “without a doubt” that the level of the 

standard will never “conceivably” be exceeded; any analysis of project impact will have 

some uncertainty. The AERMOD model used in the PHPP air quality impact analysis has 

undergone an extensive performance evaluation, as EPA described when it was 

promulgated (70 FR 68221, November 9, 2005) as an EPA-recommended model in the 

Guideline on Air Quality Models, Appendix W to 40 CFR 51. AERMOD performed well 

in predicting measured concentrations, especially in the higher concentration ranges, and 

EPA believes it is adequate and appropriate for assessing proposed project impacts for PSD 

permits. 

EPA also notes that, given the statistical form of the NAAQS, the concentration level of the 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS may be exceeded a certain number of times per year without resulting 

in a violation (for both monitored and modeled impacts). In recognition of the variability of 

meteorological conditions and other factors, each NAAQS is defined in terms of multiyear 

averages, and of percentiles (except for annual NAAQS). The 1-hour NO2 NAAQS 

involves a three-year average of the 98th percentile of daily highs6. For a given year, the 

highest 2% of days, that is 7 days, are not counted in determining whether there is a 

violation. This avoids regulatory decisions about health impacts and emissions controls 

being driven by extreme conditions that seldom occur. The statistical form of the NAAQS 

is taken into account when the concentration of the NAAQS is set to the level that is 

protective of public health. 

In sum, EPA believes that its reliance on compliance with the NAAQS in the context of the 

EJ Analysis was appropriate. See also Responses 21 and 22. 

24. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should not have relied on the CEC’s 

environmental justice considerations in the PMPD (08-AFC-9) as part of its EJ Analysis. 

The commenter states that the CEC did not conduct a complete analysis because the CEC 

determined that all significant impacts of the Project were being mitigated below 

 

6 Three years of data are used for monitoring NAAQS compliance; modeling may use a different number of years, 

although the PHPP analysis also used three years. 
27

significance and, therefore, would not cause or contribute to disproportionate impacts upon 

minority or low income populations. The commenter disagrees with the CEC’s decision 

because the PMPD document also states that the CEC determined that the proposed VOC 

and NOx ERCs are not adequate to fully offset PHPP emissions, result in a net air quality 

benefit or meet the requirements of AVAQMD Rule 1305. The commenter also stated that 

the CEC called upon the EPA to further address the issue: “The project will be subject to 

review by the US EPA for purposes of determining compliance with the federal PSD 

program and it is expected that US EPA will review all aspects of PHPP, including 

offsets.” CEC Decision page 152. 

Response: As noted in EPA’s EJ Analysis, EPA is not relying on the CEC’s 

environmental justice analysis as the basis for our own analysis but rather has provided a 

brief discussion of the CEC analysis in our EJ Analysis for informational purposes. The 

CEC’s environmental justice analysis was conducted in the context of the State licensing 

and District permitting processes for the Project, and issues concerning that process and the 

State’s analysis, including the manner in which those agencies addressed various 

pollutants, including nonattainment pollutants, i.e., ozone, and related issues such as 

offsets, are not among the parameters that the PSD provisions of the CAA direct EPA to 

consider in this action.7 

Further, issues concerning how nonattainment pollutants are addressed are extremely 

complex and must be considered in the context of the larger ongoing CAA planning 

process established under separate provisions of the CAA to address nonattainment 

pollutants, in addition to the specific State and local approval processes governing the 

facility, as discussed in Responses 20 and 22 above. 

Comments Submitted by Rob Simpson 

25. Comment: The commenter stated that the commenter’s request for an additional 30 days 

to comment on the proposed permit was denied and the commenter would like the EPA to 

provide all internal communications and the basis for the decision to deny an extension of 

the comment period. The commenter also requested that the commenter’s request be 

included as part of the administrative record for the permit. The commenter is concerned 

that the denial of the extension is an attempt to violate the commenter’s civil rights and 

limit the commenter’s participation in retaliation for involvement in past environmental 

justice related issues. 

Response: The commenter’s request for an extension of the public comment period, which 

was received by EPA via email on September 12, 2011, stated that that there is a massive 

amount of information to review and requested that the public comment period be extended 

 

7 To the extent that the CEC expressed the view that EPA reviews non-PSD requirements such as offsets as part of 

its PSD review, the CEC was incorrect. Reviewing the NNSR permit and offsets is a part of EPA’s oversight 

activities of a SIP-approved program. 
28

by 30 days.8 When considering a request for an extension of the public comment period, 

EPA considers whether the commenter has demonstrated a need for additional time per 40 

CFR 124.13. As described in Response 12 above, we believe EPA provided appropriate 

and sufficient notice to all interested parties, including the commenter, regarding the 

proposed Project, and we believe this notice provided the public with a reasonable 

opportunity to provide comments on EPA’s proposed PSD permit. We found no particular 

issue associated with the Project that warranted public review time beyond that established 

in the public notice and required by 40 CFR Part 124, nor did the commenter demonstrate a 

need for additional time per 40 CFR 124.13, and therefore the extension request was denied 

via an email from EPA dated September 12, 2011. The email from EPA notes that 

comments submitted by email needed to be submitted no later than 11:59 p.m. Pacific 

daylight time on September 14, 2011. 

26. Comment: In response to EPA’s denial of his request for extension of the public comment 

period, the commenter stated that the application has been under review for several years, 

but EPA only posted the documents related to the Proposed Permit on August 12, 2011. 

The commenter stated that all of the posted documents equate to tens of thousands of pages 

of information and the EPA only intends to have an informational meeting on the last day 

of the public comment period. The commenter stated that previously, information was 

posted to the docket and accessible as it became available. The commenter stated that the 

present practice of withholding all information until the start of the public comment period, 

with the shortest public comment period that the law might allow, serves to preclude public 

participation. The commenter also stated that EPA had shortened the public comment 

period by one minute.9

Response: Please see Response 25. We are unaware of how the commenter determined 

that the documents associated with the Project equate to tens of thousands of pages of 

information. EPA reviewed the documents made available and estimated the number of 

pages of all documents at around 1,000 pages.10 EPA does not believe that the relevant 

information was particularly voluminous in this case, nor were the key documents 

especially lengthy. 

 

8 The commenter’s request for a 30-day extension of the comment period is included in EPA’s administrative record 

for the PHPP. 

9 We also note that on September 13, 2011, a community member conveyed an oral request for a 30-day extension 

to the public comment period for EPA’s proposed PSD permit for the PHPP to Mr. Steven John, Director of EPA’s 

Southern California Field Office, who is not associated with this permitting action. The commenter indicated that 

she was preparing to provide comments to EPA in a public hearing in Chicago and needed more time to prepare 

comments on the PHPP permit. The community member did not make her request in writing nor did she contact 

the EPA Region 9 contact person for this permitting action. Appropriate Region 9 personnel were informed of this 

request and notified Mr. John that this extension request was denied, and Mr. John conveyed that information to Ms. 

Williams via email. Emails documenting this oral request and EPA’s response are included as part of EPA’s 

administrative record for the PHPP. 

10 In addition, documents referenced in the Fact Sheet were estimated at less than 1,000 pages, possibly making the 

total near 2,000 pages. The majority of those pages are attributed to the CEC’s PMPD, which is a 700-page 

document. While the Fact Sheet pointed to specific conditions referenced in the PMPD, it did not suggest that 

review of the entire PMPD was necessary. 
29

As discussed in Responses 12-16 above, we believe that EPA’s public participation process 

for its Proposed Permit for the PHPP was appropriate, including the timing and methods 

used for making information and documentation relating to its action available to the 

public. EPA did not withhold information from the public; we note that the PSD public 

participation requirements at 40 CFR part 124 do not require that EPA post PSD permitting 

information to its website, and, with respect to past PSD permitting decisions, EPA Region 

9 does not have a history of routinely posting documents associated with our proposed PSD 

permits on our website prior to issuance of the proposed permit. 

In sum, we do not believe that the commenter demonstrated a need for an extension of the 

public comment period. However, we appreciate the commenter’s concern and desire to 

participate in the permitting process and will consider these comments in future permitting 

actions. 

Finally, we disagree that the comment period was shortened by one minute. Comments 

submitted via email could be submitted as late as 11:59 p.m. on September 14, 2011, before 

the point when the public comment period elapsed at 12:00 a.m. on September 15, 2011.

27. Comment: The commenter stated that the public notice stated that the applicant was the 

City of Palmdale, but that the EJ analysis stated that the “City of Palmdale, in conjunction 

with Inland Energy” applied to the EPA for a PSD permit. The commenter requested that 

EPA clarify who the applicant is for the Project and if Inland Energy is an applicant, then 

the EPA should reissue the public notice for the permit. The commenter also questioned 

who would actually construct and operate the Project. Additionally, the commenter stated 

that if it is a private developer that will construct the Project, then a new public notice 

should be issued. 

Response: Inland Energy is the developer being used by the City of Palmdale for this 

project. The Project will be constructed, owned, and operated by the City of Palmdale. 

The application for the PSD permit was signed by Steve Williams, City Manager for 

Palmdale. The public notice and Proposed Permit correctly identified the applicant. 

28. Comment: The commenter requested that EPA identify the public participation and 

outreach conducted. The commenter requested how, when, where and for how long the 

EPA published its notice(s). The commenter questioned whether the EPA incorporated the 

CEC or air district service list, interested parties list or commenter list for the Project, or 

other projects, into its notice list for the proposed PSD permit. The commenter questioned 

whether the EPA provided notice to the CEC and ensured that the notice was posted to the 

CEC’s public docket, whether EPA provided notice to participants from other EPA actions, 

what government officials the EPA provided notice to, whether the air force was notified, 

and whether the City of Lancaster was notified. The commenter questioned how many 

notices the EPA delivered and to whom were they served. 

The commenter requested the circulation rate of each publication in which the EPA 

published notice of the proposed permit (expressed as a gross number) and what percentage 

of the potentially affected population that number would represent. The commenter 
30

requested the same information for distribution in the identified EJ communities, including 

the market penetration ratios for Spanish language notices to Spanish speaking people. 

Response: The commenter is referred to Section I of this response to comments document 

and Responses 12 and 13 of this section. These sections describe EPA’s public 

participation process and we believe this information addresses the commenter’s concern 

that EPA provided sufficient notice to all interested parties on this matter. The Antelope 

Valley Press, which was used to issue EPA’s public notice in both English and Spanish was 

a daily newspaper of general circulation in the area and met the relevant requirements in 40 

CFR 124.10(d). As part of its additional public outreach efforts, EPA also provided notice 

in a separate Spanish-language newspaper in the area that is published biweekly. It is not 

clear how the specific information requested by the commenter about newspaper 

circulation is pertinent to EPA’s PSD permit action. 

29. Comment: The commenter questioned what outreach the EPA conducted in the identified 

environmental justice community and whether EPA identified any pre-existing health 

issues or particular stressors in the identified environmental justice communities. The 

commenter questioned whether EPA had participated in any meetings, workshops, or other 

events where comments were made regarding this project that was not recorded and 

included in the comments regarding this project, and if so, why. 

Response: The commenter is referred to Section I of this response to comments document 

and Responses 12-16 of this section. These sections describe EPA’s public participation 

process and EPA’s EJ Analysis and consideration of health concerns in detail. 40 CFR Part 

124 provides that EPA is to consider all public comments on its proposed PSD permit 

submitted in writing during its public comment period or submitted at a public hearing held 

with respect to its proposed action. EPA has met this requirement. 

30. Comment: The commenter questioned the reasoning of having an informational meeting 

scheduled directly before the public hearing and on the day that the public comment period 

was scheduled to end. The commenter questioned whether any permit has changed based 

upon information that the public received at an informational meeting held on the last day 

of the public comment period. 

Response: The commenter is referred to Response 13, which explains the scheduling of 

the public information meeting for EPA’s proposed permit for the PHPP, and notes that 

members of the public had numerous methods to obtain information about EPA’s action at 

the outset of the public comment period. Further, EPA does not agree with the 

commenter’s suggestion that changes to a permit are the only way to measure whether 

adequate public participation has occurred. Many well-formed comments do not result in 

changes to a permit, but allow EPA an opportunity to better explain the decision making 

process to the public. 

31. Comment: The commenter stated that the contact phone number provided was a long 

distance call from the Project area. The commenter stated that a new notice should be 
31

issued with a local or toll free number because the costs of a toll call may have prevented 

some low income persons from calling. 

Response: Consistent with 40 CFR 124.10(d), EPA’s public notice for its proposed PSD 

permit for the PHPP provided the name, name, address and telephone number of a person 

from whom interested persons could obtain further information. EPA appreciates the 

commenter’s suggestion and will consider this issue when proposing future permits. We 

note, however, that calling the contact phone number was not the only way for the public to 

obtain additional information about EPA’s proposed PSD permit and the permitting 

process. The public notice included an email address for the contact person as well as an 

EPA website that persons of all income levels could use via the Internet at their local 

libraries, where documents associated with the proposed PSD permit for the PHPP were 

also available. 

32. Comment: Quoting an environmental justice guidance document for Connecticut’s 

Department for Environmental Protection, the commenter requested “all supporting 

documents, reports, studies, public announcements via alternative media, certified 

copy(ies) of the newspaper announcement(s), fliers, brochures, radio broadcasts, public 

meeting documentation (e.g. agenda, minutes, any handouts, presentation outline, and 

attendance signage sheets)”. 

Response: The public participation process for EPA’s proposed PSD permit for the 

Project is described in detail in Section I of this response to comments document and in 

Response 12 of this section. The guidelines used by the State of Connecticut are not 

applicable to EPA’s PSD permit actions. We note, however, that relevant materials for 

EPA’s public participation process are included in EPA’s administrative record for this 

action. 

33. Comment: The commenter questioned whether the EPA or other involved government 

entities posted notice of the NAAQS, the area attainment status, or the Project’s effects in 

relationship to those standards. The commenter also questioned whether any notice 

identified the volume of pollutants in any form, whether this information could have been 

germane for decision makers (the public) to determine their approval or desire to 

participate in the permitting process, and whether this type of information was one of the 

reasons that the standards were created. 

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concern for ensuring the public is provided 

with sufficient information to determine whether to participate in the permitting process. 

As discussed in Response 12 above, EPA’s public notice for its proposed PSD permit for 

the PHPP included all information required by 40 CFR Part 124. The notice stated that air 

pollution emissions from the Project would not cause or contribute to violations of any 

NAAQS for the pollutants regulated under the PSD permit. The notice also included a 

website address that directed any concerned citizen to information associated with EPA’s 

proposed PSD permitting action for the Project, including the information identified by the 

commenter. EPA believes the public was provided with appropriate and adequate options 

to obtain information on the Project. 
32

34. Comment: The commenter requested whether EPA agrees with Air Quality Table 5 of the 

CEC final decision (on page 150 of 669). The commenter also questioned whether the 

table contradicts the statement in the public notice for the proposed permit that the “air 

pollution emissions from the Project would not cause or contribute to violations of any 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the pollutants regulated under the 

PSD permit”. The commenter stated that these figures could affect public participation and 

the EPA should publish them in a new notice for this permitting action. 

Response: As discussed in detail above in Responses 12, 15, and 19, EPA believes that its 

public notice and information in the Fact Sheet for its proposed PSD permit for the PHPP 

discussing EPA’s air quality analysis were appropriate and satisfied applicable regulatory 

requirements, and that additional public notice is not necessary. 

In assessing PHPP’s air quality impacts, EPA relied on the information in the PSD permit 

application submitted to EPA by the applicant, rather than on materials prepared for other 

regulatory processes related to the Project. The commenter has not pointed to a specific 

contradiction in the data or errors that the commenter believes EPA should address. 

Nevertheless, EPA has briefly reviewed the data the applicant points to, and continues to 

believe that the PHPP would not cause or contribute to any NAAQS violations. 

We noticed one apparent discrepancy that it may be useful to address, for purposes of 

clarity. Background concentrations for the March 31, 2009 PHPP permit application were 

based on the years 2005-2007, the most recent three years at the time the original modeling 

work was prepared. We note that the values for the 24-hour PM10 background 

concentration used in the CEC table and the PSD application for this period are different. 

Both of the concentrations were monitored at the Lancaster Division Street site, but with 

different physical monitors, and on different days. The CEC table uses 181 μg/m3, 

recorded at monitor #1 on April 12, 2007; the PSD application uses 86 μg/m3, recorded at 

monitor #2 on October 20, 2007. Adjustment for atmospheric temperature and pressure was 

also different; when stated in terms of standard conditions, the 181 becomes 188 μg/m3, the 

value reported in EPA’s AQS database for monitor #1 on April 12, 2007 (the 86 is already 

at standard conditions).11

EPA believes it was appropriate to use the 86 μg/m3value that was included in the 

Project’s PSD NAAQS analysis as the background concentration to add to the modeling 

results, rather than the 188 μg/m3value in the CEC table. This is so for at least three 

reasons: 1) there is flexibility in choosing the particular statistic to use for background, 2) 

the 188 value is not representative of overall conditions in the area, and 3) the 188 value is 

an aberrant value. 

 

11 The California PM10 standard is stated in terms of local conditions, the temperature and pressure at the time and 

place of the measurement. The PM10 NAAQS used by EPA is stated in terms of standard conditions of 25° C 

temperature and 101.3 kPa pressure, per 40 CFR 50, Appendix J; these conditions are used as part of the 

concentration measurement calculation. 
33

For maximum conservatism, the very highest recorded concentration (1st high) may be 

used as the concentration to add to the modeling results, but this is not always required, and 

may be unnecessarily conservative. The 188 and the 86 values represent the 1st high 24-

hour concentration during 2005-2007 for their respective monitors, and so are not 

representative of the background conditions that the PHPP plume would typically 

encounter. The 1st high would be a very conservative value to use for every day of the 

year, since generally most days have far lower concentrations. States vary in the statistic 

they use to choose a background concentration, in order that the analysis not be driven by 

the most extreme values, yet remain a conservative estimate. For example, States have used 

the 3-year average of the 1st highs of each year, the highest among the 2nd highs of each 

year, and the 4th high from among all three years. The 86 μg/m3value is the 2nd high 

among all the data collected in 2005-2007, and EPA believes it is an adequately 

conservative value for a modeling background concentration. 

Antelope Valley is a PM10 attainment area, so the 188 μg/m3, which exceeds the NAAQS 

level of 150 μg/m3, is not really representative of conditions throughout in the area, as 

would be appropriate to reflect nearby sources in a modeling analysis (Guideline on Air 

Quality Models, 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, section 8.2.3). We note that while the 188 is an 

exceedance of the 150 NAAQS level, that does not in itself mean that it is a NAAQS 

violation, since this NAAQS has a particular statistical form that allows one exceedance 

per year. This NAAQS is violated only if the expected number of times per year that the 

concentration exceeds the NAAQS is greater than one (40 CFR 50.6). For PM10 modeling, 

this is implemented as the use of the 4th high, when three years are modeled (since one 

exceedance per year is allowed, the top three are discarded). (Guideline on Air Quality 

Models, 40 CFR 51 Appendix W, section 7.2.1.1.b). Using the 188 as a background 

concentration, i.e., adding it the Project’s modeled impact, would mean that every modeled 

day would be an exceedance, even with a de minimis impact from the Project; this would 

guarantee a modeled NAAQS violation. EPA does not believe this procedure would be an 

accurate assessment of the Project’s impact, since it would artificially multiply the single 

monitored exceedance into 365 exceedances per year. 

Finally, the 188 μg/m3concentration appears to be an aberrant value. It is the only value 

during the 2005-2007 period that is above 75 for monitor #1. Thus, it appears to be an 

extreme outlier. This is also apparent from a time series plot of the data. In addition, the 

188 value has been flagged by the State as due to a high wind event. The highest value at 

monitor #2, located at the same site as #1, is the 86 μg/m3(although it was not operating 

during the period when the 188 was recorded). EPA believes that the 86 μg/m3is a more 

representative concentration to use as a conservative background concentration for 

assessing the impacts of the PHPP. 

In addition, even if the 188 μg/m3were accepted as an appropriate background 

concentration for the NAAQS analysis, PHPP does not have a significant impact at the 

location where it was measured. The Project’s modeled impact is above the SIL of 5 μg/m3

only at locations within half a mile of the PHPP main stack. So, PHPP would not 

significantly contribute to a PM10 NAAQS violation, even if one were created by the 188. 
34

In sum, EPA continues to find that PHPP would not cause or contribute to any NAAQS 

violation. 

35. Comment: The commenter stated that Section 9.3 of the Fact Sheet, regarding growth, 

misinterpreted the growth analysis to include growth “induced” by the Project instead of 

growth “associated” with the Project. The commenter states that the Fact Sheet makes it 

clear that there is growth associated with the Project, but no meaningful analysis was 

provided. The commenter states that EPA should require a growth analysis which 

considers the growth associated with the Project because if a project can simply excuse 

itself from the regulation by pointing to projected growth, then no power plant would need 

to comply with the Clean Air Act. The commenter states EPA should look at the nuances 

of growth that would likely occur in this oversupply of fossil fuel burning electric 

generation market. The commenter questioned whether the growth that occurs would be 

dependent upon this generation, or whether without this oversupply the area would develop 

more efficient buildings, cleaner energy sources or development would not occur. 

The commenter also stated that the Fact Sheet relied on a claim of displacing once through 

cooling facilities. The commenter states that once through cooling facilities hardly operate, 

as there is no demand for their power, just as there is not demand for the power generated 

by the proposed Project. The commenter states that a direct link between which facilities 

will close as a result of the Project should be provided and if the Project is to serve other 

“existing demand” that demand should also be demonstrated. The commenter states that 

the Project will interfere with the development of cleaner resources to serve growth and 

existing demand, and EPA should analyze this effect as a part of the growth analysis. 

Response: As stated in the Fact Sheet, the growth analysis required by 40 CFR 52.21(o) 

considers an analysis of general commercial, residential, industrial and other growth 

associated with the source. EPA has previously interpreted section 52.21(o) to call for 

consideration of emissions generated by growth that will occur in the area due to the 

source. EPA’s 1990 Draft New Source Review Workshop Manual at D.2 – D.4. In 

conducting this review, we focus on residential, commercial and industrial growth that is 

likely to occur to support the source under review. Such an approach is consistent with that 

described in EPA’s 1990 NSR Workshop Manual, which we believe is persuasive on this 

point and, which we have determined is appropriate to follow here. As discussed in EPA’s 

Fact Sheet, EPA concluded, based on relevant information, that the additional employment 

growth was expected to accommodate the ample work force already available in Southern 

California. EPA did not identify any other commercial or industrial growth associated with 

the source. Although not germane to the residential, commercial and industrial growth that 

is likely to occur to support the source under review, the analysis also briefly noted the 

applicant’s projections concerning growth associated with the power generated by the 

Project, which indicated that the PHPP would supply energy to accommodate the existing 

demand and projected growth in the Southern California region. In sum, we believe that 

EPA’s growth analysis, as summarized in EPA’s Fact Sheet, considered the relevant 

information and leads to the conclusion that the Project will not cause significant growth in 

the area. As a result, EPA did not conduct further analysis associated with growth caused 

by the Project. 
35

To the extent that the commenter is arguing that the Project’s addition of more electricity to 

the power grid should be analyzed in detail in EPA’s growth analysis for the Project, EPA 

disagrees, for the reasons discussed above concerning the appropriate scope of the analysis. 

Further, we note that the Project will provide wholesale power to the grid and use of the 

facility will be determined by power generation needs; determining the level of growth, if 

any, associated with those needs is not practicable or feasible in conjunction with EPA’s 

consideration of an individual PSD permit application. We also note that the commenter 

has not provided any specific information to support the notion that adding electricity to the 

grid from the Project would result in growth in distant areas. Indirect impacts such as those 

raised by the commenter are under State and local planning jurisdictions. 

It is unclear how some of the commenter’s other remarks pertain specifically to the criteria 

applicable to EPA’s PSD review for the PHPP, but the commenter appears to suggest that 

there is not a need for the facility. EPA has previously recognized that it may consider the 

need for a facility and a “no build” alternative within the context of CAA section 165(a)(2). 

In re Prairie State Generating Company, 13 E.A.D. 1, 32 (EAB 2006) (“Prairie State”). 

However, we have also observed that it is appropriate to refrain from analyzing whether a 

proposed facility is needed where the State has tasked another State agency with the 

authority to consider that issue. Id. Consistent with this precedent, EPA believes that 

mechanisms within the State of California provide the appropriate vehicles through which 

to address issues regarding the need for natural gas-fired power plants in the State, as these 

mechanisms involve the entities specifically authorized and best equipped to consider the 

State’s short- and long-term energy needs in the context of State renewable requirements, 

among other factors. 

Various mechanisms are in place within the State of California that provide a structure for 

considering the need for new natural gas-fired power plants in the context of the State’s 

renewable energy requirements and policies. These mechanisms include, among other 

things, a regular integrated assessment by the CEC of major energy trends and issues 

facing the State’s electricity and natural gas sectors, and the California Public Utilities 

Commission’s oversight of the very detailed planning processes and the procurement 

activities of investor-owned utilities within the State. 

We also note generally that the CEC has indicated relatively recently that there continues to 

be a need for natural gas-fired power plants in California in the context of increasing 

reliance on renewable generation. In the context of an informational proceeding held by the 

CEC to solicit comments and perspectives regarding how it should perform CEQA 

analyses for the thermal power plants that it licenses, the CEC’s committee report on the 

proceedings stated: 

“The decline in the gas-fired energy in the system might easily mislead some to think that 

no more gas-fired power plants need be built. However, that misapprehends the nature of 

an electric system more reliant on “intermittent” renewable power such as wind and solar 

energy, and the need for reserve generation capacity when those intermittent renewable 

sources generate less. Wind power, for instance, is often less available on the hottest 

summer days when generation capacity is most needed to meet system load requirements. 
36

Thus, a system that increasingly relies on renewable generation for energy must likewise 

provide gas-fired dispatchable capacity to make the system reliable when intermittent 

renewable generators are providing less. This is why the 2007 IEPR states that natural 

gas generation “must be used prudently as a complementary strategy to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions.” [citation omitted] Many of the gas-fired license applications 

currently before the Energy Commission are for projects that will support a transition to a 

more renewable-based generation system, presumably because the procurement process 

favors such projects. This criterion—the degree to which a project supports the transition 

to a more renewable system, while preserving reliability—is important to the assessment 

of project GHG impacts in future licensing decisions.” 

CEC Committee Guidance on Fulfilling CEQA Responsibilities at 224 (March 2009).12 

Furthermore, a PSD permit issuing authority is not required to perform an independent 

analysis of alternatives, or an analysis that extends beyond that submitted by commenters. 

The EAB has explained that administrative imperatives are a key reason why the permitting 

authority is not required to undertake an independent evaluation of alternatives: 

“These limits on the permit issuer’s obligation to consider alternatives are particularly 

important where...a rigorous and robust analysis would be time-consuming and 

burdensome for the permit issuer. In this context, the permit issuer must be granted 

considerable latitude in exercising its discretion to determine how best to apply scarce 

administrative resources.” 

Prairie State at 33. 

In California, in order to conduct a reasoned analysis to determine the need for new natural 

gas-fired power plants in general, or a specific natural gas-fired power plant in particular, 

either within the State as a whole, or in a particular geographic location within the State, 

EPA would need to consider a myriad of extremely complex factors and detailed 

information that EPA has neither the resources nor the expertise to analyze. Therefore, 

EPA does not believe that it is appropriate to conduct the type of rigorous and robust 

analysis that would be required to definitively determine the need for the Project. We note 

that even if EPA did have the expertise and resources to conduct such an analysis, the level 

of analysis and information submitted by the commenter does not consider all of the 

relevant factors or provide the type of detailed information necessary for such an analysis. 

 

36. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA should provide a response to a question posed 

by Jason Caudle, the Deputy City Manager of the City of Lancaster, to the California 

Energy Commission: “What is now the cost associated with [PHPP]? What doesn’t get 

built? Does the transmission capacity in this valley get utilized by the ground energy, and 

therefore Edwards Air Force Base’s 500 megawatt solar plant doesn’t get built? Does our 

distributed generation program that we’re working on, distributed generation from the solar 

 

12 See http://www.valleyair.org/programs/CCAP/documents/CEC-700-2009-004.pdf. 
37

standpoint throughout the community, not get built as a result of it? Does additional 

manufacturing not get built as a result of this selling of this credit or selling of this 

increment? What manufacturing facility can’t come here because the threshold of 

significance has reached beyond the air quality standards?” 

Response: The commenter does not explain how the issues raised by the City of Lancaster 

in the CEC proceeding relate to the CAA criteria applicable to EPA’s proposed PSD permit 

action for the PHPP. To the extent these issues concern increment consumed by the PHPP 

and associated economic issues for the local communities, please see Responses 2 and 6. 

We also note that the City of Lancaster submitted comments directly to EPA on the 

proposed PSD permit; please see Responses 1-4 above. 

37. Comment: The commenter stated that the CO2 sequestration analysis that determined 

CCS to be technically infeasible for this project was actually an issue of cost and not 

technical feasibility. The commenter states that the natural gas industry is familiar with 

pipeline construction and so it is unlikely that the logistics of constructing a pipeline are 

beyond the industry. The commenter provides information from the CEC describing the 

construction of 8.7 miles of natural gas lines through existing right of ways (ROWs) that 

will be designed and constructed by the Southern California Gas Company. The 

commenter also provides information from the CEC regarding the construction of 35.6 

miles of transmission lines that would be constructed on new and existing ROWs, which 

would travel through and near a mixture of disturbed and undisturbed areas, which include 

desert areas, agricultural properties, industrial and residential areas. The commenter states 

that these routes extend into the mountains that are claimed to be insurmountable for a CO2

line. 

Response: As noted by the commenter, the natural gas pipeline and power transmission 

lines needed for the Project will be built on new or existing ROWs. Despite the potential 

for CO2 sequestration as part of enhanced oil recovery (EOC) in the lower San Joaquin 

Valley, there are currently no CO2 pipelines in California. In order to build the CO2

pipeline the applicant would need to obtain the ROWs for approximate 50-100 miles to a 

sequestration site. It is not clear that the applicant could obtain the necessary ROWs.13 

The power to obtain ROWs is usually limited to “public utilities”. The proposed facility 

will not operate as a public utility, so it is not clear that the applicant has the authority to 

obtain the needed ROWs outside the city limits. The barriers referenced in the Fact Sheet 

were not intended to imply that building a “long” pipeline through “mountains” was the 

logistical barrier. 

However, given that there is limited data in EPA’s record concerning potential logistical 

barriers relating to the building of CO2 pipelines for the PHPP or other technical or 

logistical barriers to implementing CCS for the Project, we are revising our BACT analysis 

to assume, for purposes of the analysis, that potential technical or logistical barriers would 

 

13 See “Carbon Dioxide Pipelines:, California Carbon Capture and Storage Review Panel, August 10, 2010. 

Available at: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/carbon_capture_review_panel/meetings/2010-08-

18/white_papers/Carbon_Dioxide_Pipelines.pdf 
38

not make CCS technically infeasible for the PHPP. As a result, CCS would be the topranked control option, and we proceed to Step 4 of the top-down BACT analysis to 

consider CCS. Our analysis assumes that 90% of CO2 emissions would be captured. 

GHG BACT Analysis – Step 4 - CCS Cost Analysis 

As provided in the CEC’s PMPD, the estimated capital costs for the PHPP are $615-$715 

million dollars. For comparison purposes, if these capital costs were annualized (over 20 

years) they are about $35 million. In comparison, the estimated annual cost for CCS is 

about $78 million, or more than twice the value of the facility’s annual capital costs. 

Estimated Annual Cost for CCS14

$/year

CO2 Capture and Compression $75,944,187.00 

CO2 Transport $1,566,747.00 

CO2 Capture Storage $878,067.00 

Total Annual Cost $78,389,001.00 

Accordingly, based on these costs, CCS is being eliminated as a control option because it is 

economically infeasible. BACT for this project remains the thermal efficiency associated 

with a natural gas-fired combined cycle power plant. 

38. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA would create a no build zone near potential 

carbon sequestration sites if it chooses to exclude polluters who chose to develop away 

from sequestration sites or who chose not to prepare adequate studies for their projects. 

The commenter states that the analysis should be real, with real numbers on cost and 

polluters that choose to locate away from sequestration sites should not get a free ride. 

Response: The commenter’s first remark is unclear and as a result EPA does not 

understand how it relates to EPA’s BACT analysis for GHGs for the PHPP. EPA believes 

that each PSD permit applicant must seriously consider all available technologies. As 

described in Response 37 above, EPA has fully considered CCS as part of the BACT 

analysis for the PHPP, and CCS was eliminated in this case due to economic infeasibility. 

39. Comment: The commenter questioned whether tree planting could be a control 

technology. Additionally, the commenter questioned how many trees the applicant would 

need to plant to offset the GHG emissions from the Project. The commenter questioned 

whether algae ponds or changed forestry and farm practices could be used as GHG control 

technologies. The commenter questioned whether GHG controls can be located in another 

 

14 The cost were estimated by using EPA’s GHG Mitigation Strategies Database and The Report of the Interagency 

Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage (August 2010). This information is available at 

http://ghg.ie.unc.edu:8080/GHGMDB/ and http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/downloads/CCS-Task-Force-Report2010.pdf, respectively. In each case, the lowest cost between the two sets of information was used for this analysis. 
39

location or even air basin like the offsets proposed. The commenter questioned whether 

EPA is concerned about the localized effect of GHG emissions as identified in the 

Jacobson effect. 

Response: EPA regulations do not require pollutant mitigation or offset practices to be 

control technologies that must be considered in the PSD permitting process. Applicants 

are only required to evaluate inherently lower-emitting technologies (that result in 

reductions from equipment at the facility) and add-on control technologies. While the 

identified practices can be a part of the overall climate change plan, they are not applicable 

to this PSD permitting process. 

With the above comments, the commenter also provided a paper on the Jacobson effect, 

which identifies the possibility of increased ozone formation near facilities that are 

significant CO2 emitters. Based on the information and comment presented, it was not 

clear how the commenter thought the Jacobson effect should be analyzed within the context 

of the BACT analysis. 

In general, we note that without the ability to quantify the possible contribution of CO2

emissions to ozone formation, it is difficult to consider this effect in any part of the BACT 

analysis. The paper does not provide sufficient information that would warrant a change to 

our BACT determination, nor has the commenter suggested that the Jacobson effect should 

change our determination. We note that any reduction or minimization of CO2 emissions 

would also reduce the Jacobson effect. 

40. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA appears, in a footnote in the Fact Sheet, to 

have indicated that the solar component is a GHG control technology for the Project. 

Additionally, the commenter states that EPA relied on the solar component of the Project to 

satisfy its environmental justice analysis. The commenter concludes that there should be a 

permit condition requiring the 50 MW solar generation. 

The commenter is concerned that there may be plans to eliminate the solar component and 

that the permit is a scam. The commenter questioned whether EPA has any indication that 

some, or all, of the solar component may not be constructed. The commenter further 

questioned if it were possible that the Project could be advertised as a “hybrid” project to 

reduce public participation or increase public acceptance. 

The commenter questioned that if 50 MW of solar represents a control technology, a 

greater solar component would represent greater control. The commenter also questions 

what the ideal ratio of solar to natural gas would be for maximum GHG and EJ benefits for 

this proposal. 

Response: The solar component of the Project was described in the EJ Analysis, but was 

not the basis for any specific determination or conclusion in our analysis of the proposed 

permit’s limits or impacts. Upon review of this comment, we find it appropriate to clearly 

state that the solar component is a lower-emitting GHG technology at this facility. Because 
40

the solar component is integrated into the heat recovery portion of the project, it has the 

potential to reduce GHG emissions by reducing use of the duct burners during peak energy 

demand. The Project, as described in the application, includes the development of 50 MW 

of solar energy. As an integrated part of the Project with the ability to reduce GHG 

emissions, we consider the solar component to be part of the GHG BACT determination for 

the combustion turbines and associated heat recovery system. In addition, the permit has 

been revised to ensure that the solar component is a required part of the facility. 

Conditions III.B, III.C, and X.I.11 have been added to the permit to require construction of 

a solar-thermal plant designed to generate 50 MW of power. Accordingly, the permit also 

requires the development of a maintenance plan to ensure the solar-thermal component is 

operated and maintained according to the designed parameters. 

While EPA agrees that for any project there are less GHG emissions per MWh from solar 

energy than from fossil fuel energy, the primary purpose of the PHPP is to provide 570 

MW of baseload power to increase the reliability of the electrical supply for the City of 

Palmdale. In addition, the applicant has proposed to use solar technology to generate a 

portion of the facility’s power output to support the State of California’s goal of increasing 

the percentage of renewable energy in the State. The applicant is proposing to use 251 

acres of a 331-acre lot for solar generation. An-all solar facility would not be feasible 

because of the space constraints of the 331-acre lot and because solar energy is not 

available at all times to meet baseload demands. Given the scope of the Project, it is not 

necessary for the applicant to determine an optimal ratio of solar to natural gas.15 

Finally, we note that the incorporation of the solar power generation into the BACT 

analysis for this facility does not imply that other sources must necessarily consider 

alternative scenarios involving renewable energy generation in their BACT analyses. In 

this particular case, the solar component was a part of the applicant’s Project as proposed in 

its PSD permit application. Therefore, requiring the applicant to utilize, and thus construct, 

the solar component as a requirement of BACT did not fundamentally redefine the source. 

EPA has stated that an applicant need not consider control options that would 

fundamentally redefine the source. However, it is expected that each applicant consider all 

possible methods to reduce GHG emissions from the source that are within the scope of the 

proposed project. 

41. Comment: The commenter stated that EPA did not appear to identify all GHG control 

technologies. The commenter concluded that EPA, DOE, and CEC and others appear to 

indicate that there are other GHG control technologies. 

Response: The commenter has not specifically identified which technologies EPA did not 

consider. The commenter provided links to EPA websites on agriculture and forestry 

practices to reduce GHG emissions. As stated in Response 39, we do not believe these 

practices are appropriately considered as BACT for the facility at issue. The commenter 

also provided a link to a DOE paper regarding advances in CO2 capture. EPA’s Fact Sheet 

 

15 The commenter has not explained how the ratio of solar to natural gas would impact EJ benefits. See Response to 

Comment 12 with respect to EPA’ general consideration of environmental justice concerns in the context of the 

PHPP. 
41

indicated that EPA determined CO2 capture to be technically feasible, but that CCS was not 

being required because of the lack of a feasible sequestration option. EPA’s BACT 

analysis for CCS is supplemented in Response 37 above, where we assume for purposes of 

the BACT analysis that CO2 capture and sequestration would be technically feasible, but 

eliminate CCS due to economic infeasibility. 

42. Comment: The commenter objects to the baseline emissions and modeling parameters. 

The commenter questioned when the application was deemed complete. The commenter 

believes that a one year limitation for permitting decisions is to ensure that 

contemporaneous baseline, rules and pollution control techniques are utilized. The 

commenter questioned whether EPA agrees with this belief. The commenter questioned 

that if the one year decision mandate were adhered to would different years be required for 

the baseline period. The commenter questioned whether if 2009 and 2010 were used as the 

baseline would the project still fall just below the significance levels for the NAAQS, and 

cited EPA’s conclusions about the annual and 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. 

Response: The one-year deadline in CAA section 165(c) for EPA to grant or deny a PSD 

permit application applies once EPA has determined a permit application to be complete. 

PHPP first submitted a PSD permit application on March 31, 2009, then supplemented its 

application on numerous occasions. The PHPP PSD application was determined by EPA to 

be complete on August 9, 2011, which started the clock on the one-year deadline in CAA 

section 165(c) for the Project. It is unclear how the commenter’s reference to adherence to 

the one-year deadline relates to the baseline data used. However, EPA believes that 

PHPP’s modeling analyses incorporated appropriate data and adhered to PSD modeling 

requirements. 

With respect to the question of whether the Project would fall just below the SILs if 2009 

and 2010 were used as the baseline, we note that in order to assess the significance of 

project impacts, the project is modeled by itself, with no other sources or background 

concentration, and its modeled impact is compared to the SIL. Therefore, choosing 

different years for other sources’ emissions would not affect the conclusions about the 

significance of project impacts for any NAAQS. We note that the commenter refers to the 

1-hour NO2 NAAQS analysis, but for that analysis the impacts were not below, but above 

the SIL. 

43. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that it appears that significant potential 

emission sources were not included in the modeling results. The commenter questioned if 

the modeling included the cumulative impacts of the wastewater treatment plant emissions, 

airports and air plane emissions at Palmdale Regional Airport and the United States Air 

Force, the Lockheed Martin Aeronautics and Northrop Grumman facilities and “four future 

projects within the approximate distance from PHPP included: Fairway Business Park, 1.3 

miles southwest; Palmdale Transit Village Specific Plan, 2.5 miles southwest; Amargosa 

Creek Specific Plan, 2 miles northwest; and 30th St W and Avenue K Projects, 3 miles 

northwest.” CEC Decision. The commenter questioned if the cumulative impacts included 

all local roadways and the increased potential traffic as a result of having the roads paved 

to create PM offsets. 
42

Response: An air quality impact analysis includes the proposed source seeking a PSD 

permit. For any pollutant for which the proposed source has a modeled impact above the 

level of the SIL, an additional cumulative analysis is performed that includes nearby 

sources. Not all nearby sources need be explicitly included in the modeling, only those 

with a significant concentration gradient in the vicinity of the source. Other sources can be 

adequately accounted for with representative monitoring data, which is added to the 

modeling results. For the PHPP, the applicant included sources from the inventory 

supplied by the Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert Air Quality Management Districts, 

which did not include the specific sources listed by the commenter. The impact analysis 

also included conservative background concentrations, which reflect the impact of sources 

not explicitly included in the modeling. EPA found that this was adequate for assessing 

Project impacts. 

As for future sources, a source that does not yet exist does not have an air quality impact. 

Its impacts would be considered at the time it seeks its own PSD permit, and it would have 

to account for sources existing at that time, including PHPP. Nevertheless, it is EPA policy 

for the cumulative analysis to include nearby sources that have not yet been constructed, if 

they have been issued a permit to construct, or if they have they have submitted a complete 

permit application at least 30 days prior to the proposed source’s permit application.16

There are no such permits or pending applications in the Palmdale area, so the PHPP 

analysis did not need to include any future sources. 

44. Comment: The commenter questioned the variant approach used by the applicant from 

EPA’s 2011 memo for the NO2 1-hr modeling. The commenter questioned how this 

variation limits the results and the effect if receptors inside the USAF plant were included. 

Response: As stated in the Fact Sheet (p.60, or page 66 in PDF file, that is, pdf.66), the 

variant of using 98th percentile from among hourly values is less conservative than the 

EPA “first tier” approach of using 98th percentile from among daily maxima; that is, it 

yields lower concentrations. However, EPA mainly accepted this as being more 

conservative (higher concentrations) than the hour-by-hour approach, which EPA believes 

would already have been adequately conservative in this case considering the very 

conservative NO2 background concentrations that were used. EPA does not believe that the 

method used limits the results in any way, but rather believes that it provides an 

appropriately conservative approach. Also, receptors both outside and within U.S. Air 

Force Plant 42 were included in the modeling analysis. Outside Plant 42, all emissions 

were included in the modeling; within Plant 42 only non-Plant 42 emissions were included. 

Plant 42 emissions count only at locations that are in ambient air with respect to Plant 42, 

that is, outside the Plant 42 property boundary. 

45. Comment: The commenter stated that the analysis of secondary PM formation discussed 

in Section 8 – Air Impact Analysis of the Fact Sheet is inadequate and should be 

supplemented. The commenter points to the March 23, 2010 PM2.5 memo that states “if the 

 

16 45 Fed. Reg. 52676 (August 7, 1980), “Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation 

Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans” (amendments to the regulations for Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration) at p. 52718. 
43

facility emits significant quantities of PM2.5 precursors, some assessment of their potential 

contribution to cumulative impacts as secondary PM2.5 may be necessary”. 

Response: The commenter recommended that EPA supplement the Fact Sheet statements 

about the formation of secondary PM2.5 from precursor emissions, but did not state any 

particular objections to the analysis performed by the applicant. EPA believes that the Fact 

Sheet statements (p.58, pdf.64) are sufficient on this issue. EPA notes that the PHPP 

emissions of 8.9 tpy SO2 emissions are less than the SO2 SER of 40 tpy, and would not be 

expected to result in significant secondary PM2.5. The PHPP NO2 emissions of 114.9 tpy 

are above the NO2 SER of 40 tpy. However, secondary PM2.5 formation occurs only as a 

result of chemical transformations that would affect only a portion of those emissions, and 

which occur gradually over time as the plume travels and becomes increasingly diffuse, 

and would be expected to be considerably smaller than the impacts from the 88 tpy of 

directly emitted primary PM2.5. The maximum impact of source primary PM2.5 was 12.6 

μg/m3for 24-hour PM2.5 and 1.2 μg/m3for annual PM2.5; including background 

concentrations this leaves 6.1 μg/m3available before the NAAQS is reached (35 – 28.9 for 

the 24-hour, and 15 – 8.9 for the annual). Since the secondary PM2.5 formation from 

PHPP’s NOx emissions would be expected to be considerably smaller than the primary 

PM2.5 impacts, they would also be smaller than the additional 6.1 μg/m3needed to cause or 

contribute a PM2.5 NAAQS violation. In addition, as EPA noted in the Fact Sheet, 

secondary PM2.5 impacts were likely to occur relatively far downwind, and unlikely to 

overlap with primary PM2.5 impacts that are very nearby. EPA found that the applicant 

adequately followed the recommendations in “Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating 

Compliance with PM2.5 NAAQS”, memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA 

OAQPS, March 23, 2010. 

46. Comment: The commenter stated that the proposal fails to conform to the new PM2.5

increment regulations released on October 20, 2010 and the project will not have a final 

permit by October 20, 2011, so the permit should be denied. 

Response: The final permit is being issued prior to October 20, 2011, and as a result a 

PM2.5 increment analysis is not required. See Response 2. 

47. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that the CEC was unable to justify the offsets 

proposed by the applicant as part of the non-attainment NSR permitting process through the 

District. Despite the CEC acknowledging that it did not agree with the proposed offsets, 

the EPA still relied on the CEC’s determination that there were no significant impacts from 

the proposed project as part of the EPA’s environmental justice analysis. The commenter 

also points to the CEC relying on the 2004 Ozone Attainment Plan submitted by the 

District to CARB and EPA for incorporation into the SIP and noted that EPA has not 

approved an attainment plan for this area since 1997.

Response: The commenter is referred to Response 24 regarding the CEC’s EJ analysis and 

Response to Comment 20 regarding ozone nonattainment. 
44

48. Comment: EPA received a comment questioning if the Antelope Valley is severe 

nonattainment for ozone because EPA has not approved an attainment plan for the area 

since 1997. 

Response: We appreciate the commenter’s concerns about ozone nonattainment in the 

Antelope Valley, but the commenter has not explained how the specific question being 

raised is germane to EPA’s PSD permitting decision for the PHPP. As discussed above in 

Response 22, ozone in the Antelope Valley is thought to be due mainly to transport of 

ozone and ozone precursors from the more populous and industrialized Los Angeles urban 

area, and can also be subject to overwhelming transport from the San Joaquin Valley. 

49. Comment: EPA received a comment asking if EPA issued letters to the District regarding 

the proposed offsets prior to the determination that an environmental justice community 

exists. The commenter also questioned if EPA considered its environmental justice 

mandate with respect to the offsets for this project. The commenter states that limiting the 

EJ analysis to only the impacts associated with the proposed permit is overly narrow and 

disguises the true impacts of this project and is unsupported by the record in the proceeding 

and the mandate contained in Executive Order 12898. The commenter states that EPA’s 

action to approve or disapproved the offsets is subject to its EJ analysis, because the PSD 

pollutants are precursors to ozone. 

Response: The commenter is referred to Responses 20-22 and 24. 

50. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that precursors are also subject to LAER, as 

described in the EJ Analysis. The commenter questioned whether EPA delegated its 

environmental justice responsibilities to another agency, the air district, the CEC or the 

applicant. The commenter further questioned if the EPA monitored any action to ensure 

that the EPA environmental justice mandate was satisfied, and at what time the EPA 

conducted outreach. The commenter also questioned whether EPA satisfied any of the 

precepts in the Illinois EPA’s Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy. 

Response: EPA agrees that precursors to ozone are subject to LAER under the District’s 

NNSR permit, as discussed above. As described in detail in Responses 12 and 20-24 

above, EPA believes that the actions it has taken in conjunction with its issuance of the 

PSD permit for the PHPP appropriately address environmental justice concerns and EPA’s 

responsibilities under EO 12898. The commenter has not explained how the Illinois EPA’s 

Environmental Justice Public Participation Policy is germane to EPA’s PSD permitting 

action for the PHPP. 

 

51. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that the EJ analysis basically said that 

protection of the NAAQS means we do not need further EJ analysis. The commenter then 

questions that if the NAAQS adequately protects why the area is in severe ozone 

nonattainment. 

Response: The commenter is referred to Responses 12, 20, 22 and 48. 
45

52. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that the use of ammonia to reduce NOx

emissions at the Project will result in some un-reacted ammonia being emitted, which is 

known as ammonia slip. The ammonia slip emissions, in the form of ammonium nitrate 

and ammonium sulfates are constituents of airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and can 

contribute significantly to visibility and impairment and regional haze. The commenter 

states the top down BACT analysis for NOx fails to consider the collateral impacts of the 

use of ammonia in the SCR system. The commenter points to information from the CEC 

that estimates potential ammonia emissions at over 60 tons per year. The commenter states 

that considerable secondary particulate formation can occur as ammonia is a known 

precursor to secondary particulate and the project area is ammonia limited according to 

available research. The commenter concludes that the BACT analysis and visibility 

analysis are defective since they ignore the collateral impacts from the project’s ammonia 

emissions. 

Response: The collateral impacts analysis in the NOx BACT analysis for the PHPP did not 

include secondary PM formation from ammonia emissions. Any ammonia slip emissions 

contributing directly to PM formation will be measured at the time PM testing is 

completed. As described in Response 45, secondary PM formation is likely to occur 

relatively far downwind, and unlikely to overlap with primary PM2.5 impacts that are very 

nearby. EPA found that the applicant adequately followed the recommendations in 

“Modeling Procedures for Demonstrating Compliance with PM2.5 NAAQS”, memorandum 

from Stephen D. Page, Director, EPA OAQPS, March 23, 2010. As a result, we do not 

expect significant collateral impacts to result from the Project’s ammonia emissions. 

53. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that EPA is proposing to issue the permit 

after receiving concurrence from the USFWS on the ESA analysis. The commenter states 

that this precludes the public from meaningful comments on its ESA Section 7 consultation 

since it will be completed after the PSD comment period has expired. The commenter 

notes that several projects are impacting the desert tortoise at this time and several planned 

projects also are expected to have significant impacts on the desert tortoise. As an 

example, the commenter points to the Ivanpah Solar project, as a solar project in the desert 

that has recently been forced to halt construction due to exceeding the limits on incidental 

take for the desert tortoise. The commenter concludes that EPA must do a comprehensive 

analysis of this massive utilization of desert property and must hold the public comment 

period open until USFWS has issued its opinion for public comments. 

Response: Neither ESA section 7 nor its implementing regulations at 50 CFR Part 402 

provide for a public comment or public participation process for ESA consultations. 

Likewise, neither CAA section 165 nor its implementing regulations require that EPA 

provide for public participation concerning ESA consultations on PSD permit actions. 

Nevertheless, EPA described in its Fact Sheet for the PHPP the fact that in a letter dated 

August 5, 2011, EPA requested the USFWS’s written concurrence with EPA’s 

determination under ESA section 7 that the proposed PSD permit for the PHPP is not likely 

to adversely affect the desert tortoise or arroyo toad. EPA’s Fact Sheet also stated that 

EPA would issue a final permit decision after making a determination that its decision 

would be consistent with ESA requirements. EPA’s Public Information Sheet also 

mentioned that EPA was conducting an ESA section 7 consultation with USFWS with 
46

respect to its proposed PSD permit for the PHPP. In addition, EPA posted its biological 

assessments and related correspondence with USFWS on its electronic docket for EPA’s 

Proposed Permit for PHPP on August 12, 2011. On September 14, 2011, EPA received 

the USFWS’s written concurrence with its determination of no likely adverse effect, 

completing the consultation process and ensuring compliance with ESA section 7. The 

commenter has not identified any deficiencies in EPA’s compliance with the CAA’s public 

notice requirements for PSD permit actions with respect to this issue. EPA believes that its 

actions here are consistent with its public notice obligations for PSD review and its 

responsibilities under the ESA. 

54. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that carbon sequestration in algae ponds is a 

feasible technology to capture GHG emissions from the proposed Palmdale Project and 

should be included in the BACT evaluation for GHG emissions. The commenter states that 

the permit ignores GHG emissions from maintenance vehicles for the solar component of 

the project. The commenter states that electrical powered maintenance vehicles can 

eliminate virtually all GHG emissions from vehicles used to maintain the solar field and 

should be considered in the BACT analysis for GHG emissions. 

Response: As discussed in Response 39, we do not believe algae ponds are a GHG 

technology at this time. The commenter has not provided any information indicating that 

the use of algae ponds is currently available for carbon sequestration. Additionally, while 

electric powered vehicles would reduce GHG emissions from the source, mobile source 

emissions are not regulated under the PSD program. 

55. Comment: EPA received a comment stating that the permit fails to establish a heat rate as 

BACT for GHG emissions. For these turbines a net facility heat rate of 6,752 (HHV) has 

been accepted as the achievable net facility heat rate. The comment states that the permit 

must establish some quantifiable and verifiable heat rate as BACT for GHG emissions, 

otherwise the permit provides no GHG limits and does not comply with new federal GHG 

regulations. 

Response: The proposed PSD permit for the PHPP included three separate limits on GHG 

emissions – a facility wide annual GHG limit expressed in tons per year of CO2 equivalent 

(CO2e)), a lb CO2/MMBtu limit, and a lb CO2/MWh limit. However, based on the 

comments received regarding the GHG BACT analysis for the Project, we are revising the 

proposed limits in the final permit. The commenter is generally referred to Responses 40 

and 66, which describe changes related to the GHG limits and the solar component. 

Specifically, with regard to the heat rate issues identified in the comment, the heat input 

limit (lb/MMBtu) is being replaced with a heat rate requirement (Btu/kWh) to measure the 

efficiency of the Project. 

56. Comment: The commenter stated that the proposed permit eliminates road paving for 

control of fugitive dust even though it is the number one option. The commenter states that 

technology is established as BACT unless it is demonstrated that technical considerations, 

or energy, environmental, or economic impacts justify a conclusion that the most stringent 

technology is not achievable for the case at hand. The permit eliminates the road paving 
47

option without demonstrating that the option is not economically feasible. The permit must 

make the demonstration to eliminate the top control option of road paving. The commenter 

concludes the BACT analysis is inadequate as it eliminates the top option without a cost 

effectiveness analysis. 

Response: The BACT determination for the fugitive dust emissions includes a mixture of 

paved and unpaved roadways. As identified in EPA’s Fact Sheet, requiring only paved 

roads would result in impacts in terms of an increase in the amount of impervious surfaces, 

which increases storm water runoff, and erosion of the dirt from under the paved edges 

from the infrequent rainstorms in the desert, as compared with minimal environmental 

benefits from paving the less traveled roads. We disagree that a cost-effectiveness analysis 

is the only way to eliminate a technology during Step 4 of the BACT analysis. EPA 

determined that, given all the available information, the use of paved and unpaved 

roadways is BACT for this project. We believe that our determination of a fugitive dust 

plan for the unpaved roadways is BACT and consistent with other BACT determinations. 

57. Comment: The commenter stated that the fugitive dust BACT analysis is inadequate as it 

fails to consider other dust control options. The commenter stated that speeds of 

maintenance vehicles can be lower than 10 miles an hour during dry conditions and limit 

fugitive dust even further. 

Response: The only other dust control option identified by the commenter was to establish 

a speed limit less than 10 miles per hour. A lower speed could reduce emissions further, 

but the commenter has not identified what speed would result in a notable reduction in 

emissions. The use of speed controls is one of several controls measures being used by the 

applicant (including chemical stabilizers, water suppression, and a maintenance plan). We 

determined that the combination of control measures represents BACT in this case. 

58. Comment: The commenter stated that proposed permit limits for CO emissions during 

startup and shutdown are not comparable with current BACT limits for similar sources. 

The commenter uses startup and shutdown emission limits for the Oakley Generating 

Station (OGS) as an example. The commenter also listed the NOx startup and shutdown 

limits for the OGS. 

Response: The OGS and PHPP will use two different types of GE 7FA turbine 

technology. The OGS facility will use two gas turbine generators and one steam turbine 

generator to produce 624 MW of power. The PHPP will use two gas turbine generators 

with duct burners and one steam turbine generator to produce 570 MW of power. The 

lb/event limits for the two facilities are summarized below: 

Oakley Generation Station

Cold Startup 

(lb/event)

Hot/Warm Startup 

(lb/event)

Shutdown 

(lb/event)

NOx

96.3 22.3 39.3

CO 360.2 85.2 140.2
48

Palmdale Hybrid Power Project

Cold Startup 

(lb/event)

Hot/Warm Startup 

(lb/event)

Shutdown 

(lb/event)

NOx 96 40 57

CO 410 329 337

Because the emission limits are on a mass basis we find that the difference in size and setup 

of the two facilities does not make the emissions during startup and shutdown directly 

comparable. For example, a larger unit will generate more emissions on a mass basis (lb/hr 

or lb/event in this case) but on a concentration basis (ppm or lb/MMBtu) the emissions 

could be equivalent. This is demonstrated by the NOx limits during normal operations for 

these two facilities Both facilities must meet 2.0 ppm but OGS has a lb/hr emission limit of 

15.52 whereas PHPP’s lb/hr emission limit is 13.47 lb/hr (without duct burning). We 

continue to conclude that BACT during startup and shutdown is the lb/event limits and 

duration limits in the Proposed Permit. We continue to conclude that BACT during startup 

and shutdown is the lb/event limits and duration limits in the proposed permit. 

59. Comment: The commenter attached a copy of a legal brief prepared on behalf of the 

Chabot-Las Positas Community College District regarding the Eastshore Energy Center. 

Response: EPA acknowledges that this legal brief was provided by the commenter as an 

attachment to his comments, and has included the attachment as part of the commenter’s 

comments in the record for this action. The commenter, however, has not mentioned or 

referenced this brief in his comments, or otherwise explained with any specificity the 

relevance to EPA’s PSD permit decision of this document, which appears to have been 

created in the context of a proceeding before the CEC for a different project, the Eastshore 

Energy Center. Therefore, EPA cannot provide a detailed response. 

Comments Submitted by AECOM on behalf of the City of Palmdale 

60. Comment: The commenter stated that the hourly NOx and CO pound per hour emission 

limits for the combustion turbine generators (CTGs) in Condition X.C.1 should be revised 

to correspond to the load data provided in Appendix A of the application and to reflect the 

CO limits from the BACT analysis. The commenter states that the maximum hourly limits 

should correspond to the low temperature case (23°F) in the emissions data as that is 

expected to be the maximum hourly concentrations for the Project. The commenter states 

that it is standard practice for combined-cycle projects to use the low temperature case as 

the governing limit for maximum hourly values, as was done in the District’s FDOC for the 

PHPP. 

The commenter states that the NOx limits in Condition X.C.1 should be 13.47 lb/hr without 

duct burning and 16.60 lb/hr with duct burning. The CO limits in Condition X.C.1 should 

be 8.20 lb/hr (during the demonstration period) and 6.15 lb/hr (after the demonstration 
49

period) without duct burning and 10.10 lb/hr with duct burning. These revisions will also 

require Condition X.C.3 to be revised. 

Response: Upon review of the emissions data provided in the application and the BACT 

limits established on a concentration basis (ppmvd), we agree with the commenter and have 

revised the lb/hr emission limits in Conditions X.C.1 and X.C.2 accordingly and made 

associated changes to Condition X.C.3. We note that the lb/hr emission limits listed in the 

Proposed Permit were an inadvertent error and these revisions do not affect the air quality 

impact analysis. The revised lb/hr emission limits are either equal to or less than the 

emission rates used for the air quality impact analysis. 

61. Comment: The commenter is concerned that the proposed language in the permit limits 

the combined operation of the two duct burners to 2,000 hours each year. The commenter 

stated that the PSD application requested that the hours of operation for each duct burner be 

limited to 2,000 hours. The Fact Sheet reflects that the emissions are based on the 

assumption that the hours of operation for each duct burner would be limited to 2,000 hours 

for each duct burner (see for example, Section 7.1, page 16), and the commenter believes 

the wording in the permit to be an inadvertent error. 

Response: We agree with the commenter’s comment and request. Consistent with the 

PSD permit application, Condition X.C.2 has been revised to reflect that each duct burner 

is limited to 2,000 hours of operation each year. 

62. Comment: The commenter states that the applicant disagrees with EPA’s determination 

for BACT for PM, PM10 and PM2.5, and believes that the proposed limits are not 

achievable. The proposed limits are lower than the emission guarantees provided by the 

manufacturer, General Electric (GE), for the GE 7FA combustion turbines. 

The commenter states that EPA’s proposed PHPP PM limits without duct burning are 

based on the PSD permit for three Mitsubishi M501 GAC turbines at the Warren County 

Power Station (WCPS) in Virginia. The PM emission limits in the permit issued for the 

WCPS were based on the manufacturer’s guarantee for this specific turbine. Emission 

limits for the WCPS are given in terms of both lb/hr and lb/MMBtu: 8 lb/hr or 0.0027 

lb/MMBtu without duct burning and 14 lb/hr or 0.0040 lb/MMBtu with duct burning. The 

commenter does not agree that the specific limits for the WCPS should be considered as the 

basis for the PM limits of the PHPP. This facility has not yet been constructed and has not 

demonstrated compliance with the proposed PM limits. The commenter states that 

differences in the equipment and the specific manufacturer’s guarantees should be taken 

into consideration. The commenter does agree with using the manufacturer’s guarantee as 

the basis for the limit. 

The commenter states that the basis for EPA’s proposed PHPP PM limits during duct 

burning is the Chouteau Power Plant in Oklahoma. The Choteau permit does not provide a 

separate limit without duct burning. The Chouteau Plant has installed two Siemens Model 

V84.3A turbines. The commenter contacted the permit writer, Mr. Eric Milligan, at 

Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and was informed that recent stack tests 
50

(July 2011) had determined that the Chouteau Plant was not in compliance with its PM 

limits. The commenter also reviewed the May 2011 test report for the Choteau Plant. 

Averages of the 3 runs for each hourly test show that results from two of the three tests are 

not in compliance with the proposed lb/MMBtu limit. The commenter also states that it 

does not appear that the duct burners were operating during any of these tests. The 

commenter was told by Mr. Milligan that the permit limits in the permit are not what 

Chouteau had intended. The Choteau applicant had intended to request permit limits of 

10.56 lb/hr and 0.0056 lb/MMBtu, but somehow an error was made and the permit gave 

limits of 6.59 lb/hr and 0.0035 lb/MMBtu. 

The commenter states that late last year (12/2010), a new Method 202 was adopted which 

reduces the amount of condensable PM formed in the sample. Because the applicant is 

proposing a low sulfur fuel, the commenter does not expect the test results for the new 

Method 202 to change considerably for natural gas-fired turbines. 

The commenter states that since the only control technologies in use on modern combinedcycle turbines for control of PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions are the use of low-sulfur, pipeline 

quality natural gas and good combustion practices, a facility has little control over the 

emission rate and is reliant on the manufacturer’s guarantee. Some applicants have taken a 

strategy of proposing very low PM10 limits as a way to reduce the number of offsets that 

must be provided. The fact that these applicants are willing to accept a compliance risk to 

reduce their requirements should not be imposed on other operators. If the limit is below 

the manufacturer’s guarantee, the operator has no recourse if the unit is not compliant. The 

commenter therefore believes that BACT should be set based on a manufacturer’s 

guarantee, unless there is substantial evidence that a facility will be able to meet a more 

stringent limit on a long term basis, and should not be forced to accept a limit which creates 

a risk for the facility without any true air quality benefit. 

The commenter reviewed the PM limits and test data for a variety of other facilities and 

proposed PM limits of 9 lb/hr without duct firing and 14 lb/hr with duct firing. The 

commenter stated that if the applicant is able to obtain additional information from GE or 

others that would support lower limits, in particular manufacturer’s guarantees, they would 

provide these data to EPA Region 9. 

 

Response: After reviewing the information provided by the commenter we are revising the 

proposed BACT limits for PM, PM10, and PM2.5 (collectively referred to hereafter in this 

particular response as “PM”). We acknowledge that recent stack testing mentioned by the 

commenter demonstrates that PM emissions can be variable and many factors must be 

taken into account when setting BACT limits. As was described in Section 7.1.3 of the 

Fact Sheet for the PHPP, our PM BACT analysis evaluated facilities that considered total 

PM emissions (filterable and condensable) when setting BACT limits. We are now aware 

that while the limits for the Chouteau Power Plant are for total PM emissions, they were set 

using data only for filterable emissions.17 For that reason, and without further analyzing the 

 

17 See email communications dated September 7, 2011 from Eric Milligan to Lisa Beckham – “RE: Chouteau Power 

Plant”. 
51

differences in the two test reports, we will no longer consider those limits in our analysis.18 

The remaining limits for comparison are as follows: 

Facility PM Limit (PM Limit 

w/Duct Firing) Permit Issuance

Avenal Energy Project 8.91 lb/hr (11.78 lb/hr)19 June 2011

Warren County Power Station 8 lb/hr (14 lb/hr) December 2010

Warren County Power Station

0.0024 lb/MMBtu 

(0.0040 lb/MMBtu) December 2010

Colusa Generating Station 13.5 lb/hr March 2010

Victorville II Hybrid Power Project 12.0 lb/hr (18 lb/hr) March 2010

We agree with the commenter that in cases such as this where add-on controls are not used, 

the variability between different manufacturers should be considered. The two most 

recently permitted facilities are the WCPS and the Avenal Energy Project (Avenal). The 

limits established for Avenal are for the same type of turbine and manufacturer as that 

proposed by the PHPP, the GE 7FA. The limits established for the WCPS are for a 

different type of turbine, Mitsubishi’s M501 GAC. Taking into consideration the variability 

between manufacturers and test results identified by the applicant, we are setting the BACT 

limits in Condition X.C.1, consistent with those in the Avenal PSD permit, as follows: 

PM/PM10/PM2.5 (without duct firing) – 8.46 lb/hr and 0.0048 lb/MMBtu 

PM/PM10/PM2.5 (with duct firing) – 11.3 lb/hr and 0.0049 lb/MMBtu 

The commenter opined that the Avenal applicant proposed lower limits to reduce the 

number of offsets that were needed and was risking the ability to demonstrate compliance. 

However, there is no evidence in the record to support this assertion. 

This determination maintains that the best available control technology was considered to 

be good combustion practices and pipeline quality natural gas. Although there are units 

with lower permitted limits, given the uncertainties in terms of differences between 

manufacturers, and the wide range of PM BACT limits evaluated in the Fact Sheet, we find 

these limits to represent BACT. The revised emission limits do not affect the air quality 

impact analysis because that analysis was based on the limits initially proposed by the 

applicant, which are higher. 

63. Comment: In addition to the above comment, the commenter states that there is no need 

for both lb/hr and lb/MMBtu emission limits for PM10/PM2.5 for the PHPP. The 

commenter states that, generally, compliance with these limits is determined by averaging 

 

18 The stack test report for the July 2011 testing included a discussion of possible contamination of the samples 

taken during the testing. So, in addition, to the error that occurred when setting the BACT limits, without further 

information on the validity of the test results we believe it is best to limit our reliance on the information provided 

therein. 

19 These limits are equivalent to 0.0048 lb/MMBtu without duct firing and 0.0049 lb/MMBtu with duct firing, based 

on the size of the CTs and duct burners. 
52

the results of 3 source tests conducted over one hour each. The commenter states that it is 

not possible to hold the units at exactly the same heat rate over a single hourly test, much 

less over 3 hourly tests. These gas-fired units are not required to be continuously monitored 

for PM, and the test results will be targeted to be at as close to 100% load as possible. The 

vendor guarantee for the GE 7FA is given as a maximum lb/hr emission rate. The majority 

(if not all) of the combined-cycle projects previously permitted by EPA Region 9, 

including Avenal, which was permitted only a couple of months before this proposed 

permit, have had only a lb/hr limit for PM/PM10/PM2.5. 

The commenter asserts that a lb/MMBtu limit is unnecessary and provides no additional air 

quality protection given that: i) the test accuracy is not sufficient; ii) compliance will 

generally be determined near the maximum heat rate only; iii) there is nothing the operator 

can do to adjust the emissions for different heat rates; and iv) the vendor guarantee is in 

lb/hr. Additional limits that provide no benefit should be deleted as they create additional 

regulatory burden and risk. 

Response: As demonstrated in EPA’s Fact Sheet accompanying its proposed PSD permit 

for the Project, other sources have been required to meet lb/hr and lb/MMBtu emissions 

limits. For NOx and CO, the applicant is required to meet both a mass emission rate and a 

concentration emission rate. A concentration emission rate is appropriate to ensure that 

BACT is achieved at the time compliance is demonstrated. Setting only a lb/hr emission 

rate does not evaluate the effectiveness of the control technology. As stated by the 

commenter, it appears that Mitsubishi, the manufacturer of the M501 GAC, provided 

lb/MMBtu guarantees. The lack of a lb/MMBtu guarantee by the manufacturer of the 

turbines proposed for the PHPP is not sufficient justification for not requiring such a limit. 

Regarding the testing conditions, we are revising the averaging period for the PM limits to 

reflect the circumstances needed to properly conduct the required compliance testing. 

Because of inherently low emissions, PM emissions are generally below the detection limit 

for the test methods (Method 5 and 202/201A) when using one hour sampling times. For 

example, the Chouteau Power Plant testing used two-hour sampling times for each test run. 

However, we believe three-hour test runs may be more appropriate and would account for 

more variability in operations than the shorter 1-hr test runs referenced by the commenter.20 

Condition X.C.1 has been revised to reflect the revision to a 9-hr averaging period. 

64. Comment: Considering the above comments regarding CO and PM, the commenter stated 

that the annual emission limits for CO and PM/PM10/PM2.5 given in Condition X.A.1 

should be revised. The commenter stated that CO emissions should be revised to 244.1 

tpy, PM revised to 120.1 tpy, PM10 to 103.5 tpy, and PM2.5 to 97.0 tpy. Additionally, the 

commenter noted that these emissions are reduced from the initial PHPP application. 

Response: We have revised the annual emission limits in Condition X.A.1 to reflect our 

responses to Comments 60 and 62. 

 

20 See July 8, 2009, email from Ron Myers to Anita Lee, “Re: question about PM2.5 form natural gas”. 
53

65. Comment: The commenter stated that Condition X.A.1 contains the facility wide annual 

emission limits for GHG (in tons per year of CO2 equivalent (CO2e). Condition X.C.1 of 

the proposed PSD permit contains both a lb CO2/MMBtu and a lb CO2/MWh limit for 

GHG. The commenter believes that the CO2 emission limit of 774 lb CO2/MWh is a 

redundant emission limit, provides no compliance benefit beyond that established by the 

emission limit of 117 lb CO2/MMBtu, and should be removed from the permit. The 117 lb 

CO2/MMBtu emission limit is essentially the EPA default emission factor for CO2 for 

natural gas combustion of 53.02 kg CO2/MMBtu with a unit conversion applied, and 

rounded to three significant figures (40 CFR 98 subpart C, Table C-i). This emission factor 

is based on the U.S. average high heating value (HHV) for natural gas of 1,028 Btu/scf. 

The commenter agrees that this emission factor constitutes a reasonable emission limitation 

for the PHPP. However, the commenter fails to see the benefit of the emission limitation of 

774 lb CO2/MWh. This MWh based emission limitation is derived from the EPA emission 

factor of 117 lb/MMBtu, the expected annual output of 563 MW at the assumed heat rate 

and 8,760 hours of operation. The actual MW output will vary depending on the actual 

ambient (e.g., temperature and relative humidity) conditions under which operations occur 

over the year. Compliance tracking for the 774 lb CO2/MWh emission limit would be based 

on CEMS monitoring that is conducted on an hourly basis. But such monitoring will also 

be used to ensure compliance with the 117 lb CO2/MMBtu emission limit upon which the 

774 lb CO2/MWh emission limit is based. If compliance with the 117 lb CO2/MMBtu is 

demonstrated on an ongoing basis through CEMS, then the annual 774 lb CO2/MWh 

emission limit will not be exceeded. Furthermore, Condition X.A.1 already limits the 

annual GHG CO2e emissions. The 774 lb CO2/MWh rate is dependent on other variables 

and is not a standardized measure. 

66. Response: The output-based emissions limit is an important aspect of setting a GHG 

BACT limit. Because thermal efficiency was determined to be BACT, measuring thermal 

efficiency on a CO2/MWh basis is necessary to ensure that BACT is achieved. An annual 

tpy emission limit or a heat input-based limit does little to measure the thermal efficiency 

of the equipment. Another commenter (see Comment 55) asserted that the permit must 

establish some quantifiable and verifiable heat rate as BACT for GHG emissions, because 

otherwise the permit provides no GHG limits and does not comply with new federal GHG 

regulations. 

In response, we are revising the GHG BACT emissions limits to remove the 117 lb/MMBtu 

limit and instead include a heat rate limit of 7,319 Btu/kWh. We are also revising the 

averaging period (from a 30-day rolling average to 365-day rolling average) for the 774 lb 

CO2/MWh to take into consideration the variability of operations (e.g., temperature and 

humidity). Revisions were made to Conditions X.C.1, X.F.14, and X.F.15. 

Heat Rate Chosen for BACT 

As a part of the GHG BACT analysis, the applicant included a list of the average heat rates 

(Btu/kWh based on the HHV) for various facilities near southern California. The applicant 

listed the heat rate for the PHPP as 6,970 Btu/kWh. This heat rate was lower than all of the 

other facilities that were listed. EPA also looked at other recent permitting decisions to 

determine whether the PHPP value was comparable. One commenter (see Comment 55) 

pointed to the Oakley Generating Station, which has a heat rate of 6,752 Btu/kWh. 
54

However, that heat rate was not included as part of the limits in the permit. The Russell 

City Energy Center has a voluntary GHG heat rate limit of 7,730 Btu/kWh in its PSD 

permit. And, on September 28, 2011, EPA Region 6 issued a draft PSD permit for the 

Lower Colorado River Authority’s combustion turbines (CTs) with a GHG heat rate limit 

of 7,720 Btu/kWh. These limits considered a variety of factors that can affect heat rate, 

including seasonal variations (i.e. temperature, humidity) and equipment degradation. As a 

result, we are setting the BACT limit for the PHPP at 7,319 Btu/kWh to ensure the limit is 

achievable over various operating conditions and during the life of the equipment. Because 

the heat rate for the PHPP is comparable, and in fact lower, than other permitted or 

proposed limits, we find that 7,319 Btu/kWh represents BACT for this facility. 

67. Comment: The commenter requested that the lb/hr NOx and CO limits during startup and 

shutdown for the CTs be removed and replaced with only a combined NOx limit during 

cold startup for both CTs. The application for the Project estimated NOx and CO emissions 

during startup and shutdown based on the pounds of pollutant emitted during the entire 

startup and shutdown event and did not anticipate hourly limits. The application estimated 

65 lb/hr of NOx emissions from each turbine as the worst-case emission scenario. The 

modeling for the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS assumed both turbines were operating 

simultaneously under the worst-case, so total emissions from the turbines were modeled at 

130 lb/hr. The commenter stated that typical emission profiles during startup show that 

most of the emissions occur in the first hour. After considering the hourly limits in the 

proposed permit the commenter does not believe that they are achievable during startup. 

However, the commenter does believe that the combined emission rate of the two CTs – 

130 lb/hr – is an achievable limit and ensures compliance with the 1-hour NO2 NAAQS. As 

a result, the applicant is proposing to replace the individual NOx startup and shutdown lb/hr 

emission limits for each turbine with one combined NOx limit of 130 lb/hr for both CTs 

during cold startups. 

The commenter also requested removing the lb/hr limits for CO emissions because even if 

all the emissions allowed for each startup or shutdown event were emitted in the first hour, 

a 1-hr CO NAAQS violation is not possible (since modeled emissions were below the SIL). 

Response: The commenter is correct that the lb/hr limits were set to ensure compliance 

with the modeled worst-case emission rates. To illustrate the commenter’s concern, it is 

expected that most of the 96 pounds of NOx emissions during a 110-minute cold startup are 

emitted in the first hour. This makes it possible for an individual CT to exceed 65 lb/hr 

during startup. So if emissions during actual operations show this to be true, then the 130 

lb/hr combined limit ensures the applicant cannot startup both CTs at the same time. 

The proposed permit had lb/hr emission rates averaged over the lb/event limits rather than 

being based on the modeled emission rates. Because the lb/hr limits were set to ensure 

compliance with the NAAQS, the emission rates used for modeling should be used as the 

BACT lb/hr limits. In this case, the limits will be based on a combined emission rate. We 

disagree that the emission limits for CO should be removed; as discussed above the limit is 

needed to ensure compliance with modeled emission rates. The NOx and CO limits in 

Condition X.D.3, X.D.7, and X.D.8 were revised and added accordingly. The revision of 
55

these lb/hr emission limits does not affect the lb/event and time duration limits established 

as part of the BACT determination and does not allow operation of the facility in a manner 

that would exceed the modeled emission rates. 

68. Comment: The commenter disagrees with the testing requirements for the cooling tower 

in the proposed permit. Condition X.G.1.a.v. requires that PM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions 

from the cooling tower be tested within 60 days after achieving normal operation, but not 

later than 180 days after the initial startup of equipment, and, unless otherwise specified, 

annually thereafter. The commenter believes source testing of the cooling tower is 

unreasonable and should not be required. PHPP is making the very conservative 

assumption that all total dissolved solids (TDS) emitted from the cooling tower are emitted 

as PM10 and PM2.5. The commenter believes that based on prior discussions with EPA 

Region 9, only towers that assume less than 100% of TDS is emitted as PM10 and PM2.5

might be subject to this requirement. The commenter knows of no other projects that have 

made this 100% assumption and have this testing requirement. There are many combinedcycle projects permitted which assume only 50%, 33% or even as low as 10% of the TDS 

will be emitted as PM10, and these projects are not required to test the cooling tower. 

Cooling tower testing is very difficult and costly to perform, and does not provide very 

accurate data due to these difficulties. When the commenter looked into this requirement in 

the past (for the Victorville 2 Hybrid Power Project), the commenter was told that there is 

only one testing firm in the U.S. (located in Kansas) that is able to perform this testing. 

The commenter believes testing of a full size cooling tower is quite challenging because of 

the probe size and the fact that the testing is done on the exhaust plume outside where the 

concentrations will be influenced by wind. The exhaust plume/stream is saturated which 

means that testing for PM10 and PM2.5 cannot be done to quantify each size range 

specifically. The PSD permit requires the use of Modified Method 306, which measures 

PM only. A method such as EPA Method 201A, which provides particulate size 

distribution, would not work since the cyclones on the head of the probe only work when 

moisture is in the vapor state. 

Response: We agree with the commenter that estimating all TDS emitted as PM10 and 

PM2.5 is a conservative assumption. However, a testing requirement is still needed to 

demonstrate compliance with the use of 0.0005% drift eliminators. We do recognize that 

estimating the size distribution from cooling towers can be difficult to determine, which is 

why the applicant is only required to measure PM emissions. The permit also allows the 

applicant to use equivalent test methods from the Cooling Tower Institute. Further, 

Condition X.G.1.f allows the applicant to request, with adequate justification, a waiver of a 

specific annual test. And finally, Condition X.G.1.c also allows the applicant to use an 

alternate test method, with prior EPA approval, should a better method for estimating 

cooling tower emissions be developed in the future.

69. Comment: The commenter requested that some of the compliance testing and monitoring 

proposed in the permit be consistent with the District’s FDOC/Authority to Construct 

(ATC) permit. The District FDOC/ATC permit was also incorporated into the CEC Final 

Decision. Specifically, the commenter requested that Condition X.G.3.a be revised to 

allow the use of laboratory analysis from the fuel supplier in lieu of taking monthly 
56

samples of natural gas to be analyzed for the sulfur content. The commenter also requested 

that the requirement to install flow meters on the auxiliary boiler and heat transfer fluid 

heater be removed. Both the District permit and CEC approval only require hour meters; 

however, the proposed PSD permit is requiring both hour meters and fuel meters. The 

commenter does not believe that both a fuel meter and an hour meter are necessary for this 

equipment since the equipment will only be used for limited hours during the year and as 

support equipment. 

Response: The fuel testing requirement in Condition X.G.3.a has been revised to allow the 

applicant to obtain a laboratory analysis from the fuel supplier on a monthly basis. We are 

not making a change to the metering requirements for the auxiliary boiler and HTF heater 

because the permit already allows for this flexibility. Condition X.H.1 states “Permittee 

shall install and maintain an operational non-resettable totalizing mass or volumetric flow 

meter” (emphasis added). 

Written Comments Received During the Informational Meeting and Formal Public Hearing 

on September 14, 2011 

70. Comment: EPA received a comment expressing concern about the Air Force testing too 

close to the proposed project. 

Response: The commenter expressed concern about the potential for aircraft to crash at 

the PHPP site. While this issue appears to be outside the scope of PSD review, we note that 

the CEC’s PMPD discusses this issue (see page 6.5-4), and determined that the probability 

of a flight accident is very low, and noted that PHPP would be located to the side of the 

runway, and thus not in the path of aircraft taking off or landing. Please also see Comment 

73 from the Department of the Air Force. 

71. Comment: EPA received a comment expressing concern regarding trucking gasses in the 

power plant. 

Response: EPA believes that the commenter is expressing concern about the transport of 

hazardous ammonia for use in the SCR NOx control equipment. As noted in EPA’s Fact 

Sheet (p.18 pdf.24), the applicant will not be using anhydrous ammonia, which can be 

hazardous, but rather aqueous ammonia. The CEC examined this issue and concluded that 

“the potential for accidental release during transport is exceedingly low”. The CEC’s 

PMPD proposes to include Conditions of Certification to ensure the safe receipt and 

storage of aqueous ammonia at the PHPP safer storage method. (See PMPD, conditions 

HAZ-1 through HAZ-6, and page 6.5-2.) 

72. Comment: EPA received a comment expressing concern about having air pollution 

control inside the building, and keeping workers informed of indoor air quality. 

Response: The air quality inside of buildings is outside the scope of this PSD permitting 

action, which concerns only impacts in ambient air, to which the general public has access. 

Air quality inside buildings is covered under OSHA regulations. 
57

73. Comment: EPA received a copy of a letter from the Department of the Air Force to the 

District. The letter stated that after review and analysis of the placement and air quality 

rules for the PHPP, the Air Force and the Plant 42 contractors (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, 

and Northrop Grumman) were unable to identify any issues or impacts to their current 

programs and operations at Air Force Plant 42. 

Response: Comment acknowledged. 

B. Oral Comments Received During the Public Hearing on September 14, 2011 

1. Comment from Laurie Lile, representing the City of Palmdale: The commenter stated 

that the applicant is anxious for the PSD permit to be issued and the City is available to 

answer any questions the EPA has with respect to the application. The commenter also 

stated that the City’s consultant also submitted comments that they would like EPA to 

consider. 

Response: We acknowledge the applicant’s comment. EPA’s responses to comments 

submitted by the City’s consultant are included in Section A, Responses to Comments 60-

68. 
58

III. Revisions in Final Permit 

The following is a list of revisions and minor changes for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project 

(SE 09-01) Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit, Final Permit Conditions. Minor 

corrections and clarifications are in addition to those referenced above in this Response to 

Comments document. 

1. Cover Sheet 

The cover sheet titled “Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Issued Pursuant to the 

Requirements of 40 CFR 52.21” has been added, and does not result in changes to the 

specific terms and conditions that were included in the Proposed Permit. 

2. Equipment List

Under the Description for Unit GEN1 and Unit GEN2 we have added a description of the 

solar-thermal plant, which now reads as follows:

• Integrated (through the HRSG and STG) with a 251-acre solar-thermal plant (STP) 

consisting of parabolic solar-thermal collectors and associated heat-transfer 

equipment designed to contribute up to 50 MW of generation from the STG

3. Conditions III.B, III.C and X.I.11 – Facility Operation

We have added conditions for the STP:

• Condition III.B states: The Permittee shall operate and maintain the STP in a 

manner consistent with good engineering practices for its full utilization.

• Condition III.C states: As soon as practicable following initial startup of the power 

plant (as defined in 40 CFR § 60.2) but prior to commencement of commercial 

operation (as defined in 40 CFR § 72.2), and thereafter, the Permittee shall develop 

and implement an operation and maintenance plan for the STP, consistent with 

Condition III.B above. At a minimum, the plan shall identify measures for assessing 

the performance of the STP, the acceptable range of the plant performance measures 

for achieving the design electrical output, the methods for monitoring the plant 

performance measures, and the routine procedures for maintaining the STP in good 

operating condition.

• Condition X.I.11 states: The Permittee shall maintain a copy of the current 

operation and maintenance plan for the STP, and shall keep a copy of all prior 

versions of the plan for a minimum of five years. The Permittee shall also keep 

records of the monitoring data for each of the plant performance measures and all 

maintenance activities; the Permittee shall maintain such records for a minimum of 

five years following the date they are created.

4. Condition X.A.1

We have revised the annual facility emission limits for CO, PM, PM10, and PM2.5 as follows:

CO PM PM10 PM2.5

244.1250.2 tpy 111.179.1tpy 94.562.5tpy 88.056.0tpy
59

5. Condition X.C.1

We have revised the table establishing the emission limits for each CTG (with and without 

duct burning):

Emission Limit (per CTG) 

(no duct burning) 

Emission Limit (per CTG) 

(with duct burning) 

NOx

• 13.4711.55 lb/hr 

• 1-hr average 

• 2.0 ppmvd @ 15% O2

• 16.6014.60 lb/hr 

• 1-hr average 

• 2.0 ppmvd @ 15% O2

CO 

3-Year Demonstration Period 

• 8.207.65 lb/hr 

• 1-hr average 

• 2.0 ppmvd @ 15% O2

Post-Demonstration Period 

• 6.155.74 lb/hr 

• 1-hr average 

• 1.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2

Conditions in X.C.3 may affect 

the timing and applicability of 

post-demonstration period 

emission limits. 

• 10.108.90 lb/hr 

• 1-hr average 

• 2.0 ppmvd @ 15% O2

PM, PM10, 

PM2.5

• 0.00480.0027 lb/MMBtu 

• 8.464.78 lb/hr 

• 9-hr average3-hr average

• PUC-quality natural gas 

(Sulfur content of no 

greater than 0.20 grains per 

100 dscf on a 12-month 

average and not greater 

than 1.0 gr/dscf at any 

time) 

• 0.00490.0035 lb/MMBtu 

• 11.38.0 lb/hr 

• 9-hr average3-hr average

• PUC-quality natural gas 

(Sulfur content of no greater 

than 0.20 grains per 100 

dscf on a 12-month average 

and not greater than 1.0 

gr/dscf at any time) 

GHG 

• 774 lb CO2/MWh source-wide net output 

• 7,319 Btu/kWh source-wide net heat rate117 lb CO2/MMBtu 

heat input, each GEN1/DB1 and GEN2/DB2

• 36530-day rolling average 

6. Condition X.C.2:

We have revised hours of operation for each duct burner as follows:
60

• Combined The hours of operation for both each duct burners (DB1 and DB2) shall 

not exceed 2,000 hours per 12-month rolling average. Permittee shall ensure that the 

duct burners are not operated unless the associated turbine units are in operation. 

7. Condition X.C.3.a through X.C.3.d:

We have revised the lb/hr emission rates for CO as follows:

• Condition X.C.3.a: Permittee shall design the gas turbines to achieve a CO emission 

rate of 1.5 ppmvd @ 15% O2 and 5.74 6.15 lb/hr over a 1-hour period without duct 

firing.

• Condition X.C.3.b: During the Demonstration Period, Permittee shall not discharge 

or cause the discharge of CO emissions from each CTG Unit (GEN1 and GEN2) into 

the atmosphere in excess of the following amounts over a 1-hour averaging 

period: 2.0 ppmvd CO @ 15% O2 and (1) 8.90 10.10 lb/hr with duct firing or (2)

7.658.20 lb/hr without duct firing.

• Condition X.C.3.c.iii: 5.74 6.15 lb/hr without duct firing; and 

• Condition X.C.3.c.iv: 8.9010.10 lb/hr with duct firing.

8. Conditions X.D.3, X.D.7, and X.D.8:

We have revised the lb/hr emission limits during startup and shutdown for each CTG by 

removing them from X.D.3 and adding conditions X.D.7 and X.D.8 as follows: 

• Condition X.D.3:

NOx CO Duration 

Cold Startup 

52.4 lb/hr

96 lb/event 

224 lb/hr

410 lb/event 

110 minutes 

Warm and Hot 

Startup 

30 lb/hr

40 lb/event 

247 lb/hr

329 lb/event 

80 minutes 

Shutdown 

114 lb/hr

57 lb/event 

674 lb/hr

337 lb/event 30 minutes 

• Condition X.D.7: During startup or shutdown, emissions of NOx from both CTGs 

(GEN1 and GEN2) combined shall not exceed 130 lb/hr, as verified by the CEMS.

• Condition X.D.8: During startup or shutdown, emissions of CO from both CTGs

(GEN1 and GEN2) combined shall not exceed 790 lb/hr, as verified by the CEMS.

9. Condition X.F.14:

We have revised the heat input monitoring requirements for each CTG and associated duct 

burner as follows:

• Permittee shall measure and record, for each Unit GEN1/DB1 and Unit GEN2/DB2, 

the following: the actual heat input (Btu) on an hourly basis.

a. The actual heat input and the heat input corrected to ISO standard day conditions 

(288 degrees Kelvin, 60 percent relative humidity, and 101.3 kPal pressure) on an 

hourly basis;
61

b. The pounds of CO2 per heat input (lb CO2/MMBtu) corrected to ISO standard day 

conditions on an hourly basis; and

c. The 30-day rolling average emission rate lb CO2/MMBtu (at ISO standard day 

conditions). The 30-day rolling average shall be based on the average hourly 

lb/MMBtu recordings.

10. Condition X.F.15:

We have revised the monitoring requirements for CO2 emissions and added monitoring of the 

heat rate as follows:

a. Net energy output (MWhnet and kWhnet) on an hourly basis;

b. Pounds of CO2 per net energy output (lb CO2/MWhnet) on an hourly basis;

c. Net heat rate (Btu/kWhnet) on an hourly basis, based on total heat input for the 

facility;

d. The 30365-day rolling average emission rate for of lb CO2/MWhnet and 

Btu/kWhnet. The 30365-day rolling average shall be based on the average hourly 

lb CO2/MWhnet recordings.

11. Condition X.G.1.a.iii and X.G.1.a.iv;

We have revised the testing requirements for the emergency engines as follows:

• Condition X.G.1.a.iii: NOX, CO, PM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from the 2,000 kW 

(2,683 hp) internal combustion engine (D2), initial performance test and at least every 

five years beginning ten years after the initial performance test (within 30 days of the 

initial performance test anniversary) only;

• Condition X.G.1.a.iv: NOX, CO, PM, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from the 182 hp 

firewater pump (D3), ), initial performance test and at least every five years 

beginning ten years after the initial performance test (within 30 days of the initial 

performance test anniversary) only; 

12. Condition X.G.2.a:

We revised the cooling tower total dissolved solids testing to require recording of the water 

circulation rate as follows:

• Permittee shall perform weekly tests of the blow-down water quality using an EPAapproved method. The operator shall maintain a log that contains the date and result 

of each blow-down water quality test, the water circulation rate at the time of the test,

and the resulting mass emission rate. This log shall be maintained onsite for a 

minimum of five years and shall be provided to EPA and District personnel upon 

request.

13. Condition X.G.3.a

We have revised the fuel testing requirement as follows:

• Permittee shall take monthly samples of the natural gas combusted. The samples 

shall be analyzed for sulfur content using an ASTM method. The sulfur content test 

results shall be retained onsite and taken to ensure compliance with Special 

Conditions X.C and X.E for Units GEN1/DB1, GEN2/DB2, D1, and D4. As an 

alternative, Permittee may obtain laboratory analysis of sulfur content from the fuel 

supplier on a monthly basis, if Permittee can demonstrate that the fuel tested is 

representative of fuel delivered to the facility.
62

14. Condition X.I.12: 

We clarified this condition to read as follows: 

• Unless otherwise specified herein, aAll records required by this PSD Permit shall be 

retained for not less than five years following the date of such measurements, 

maintenance, reports, and/or records.