Federal Land Manage r Comments Summary

Following are the comments received from th e United States Forestry Service and the

United States Fish and Wildlife Service on the preliminary draft. Most of the comments were requesting additional information or di scussion on various topics which have been taken into consideration and for the most part have been included in th e pre-hearing draft.

There were comments about Mi ssissippi including discussi ons on the natu ral background, uniform rate of progress, and reasonable pr ogress goals for nearby Class 1 areas in our

SIP. This information is not included in the draft because Mississippi believes that is not necessary or appropriate to present th is information as part of our SIP.

Some significant comments are being addre ssed. First, the BART analysis and

determination of no available controls to further reduce emissions at Mississippi Phosphates Corporation (MPC) was questio ned. MDEQ has requested additional analysis from MPC. If further controls are warranted, a permitting action will be required. After the determinations have been made and permits issued, Mississippi will be submitting a revised SIP. Information on the MPC determination can be found in Section 7.3 of the Narrative and Appendix L.11.

Second, the preliminary draft did not adequate ly address reasonable progress and the four

factors. Section 7.6 of th e narrative has been revise d to address this concern.January 10, 2008

1 Enclosure

Forest Service Technical Comments on MS DEQ’s Pre-Hearing Draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP)

______________________________________________________________________

Overall Comments

As stated in our letter, we feel that your agency has addresse d most of the priority content areas with which the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) are concerned in the draft Regional Haze Regulations State Implementation Plan (SIP ), but we feel that inclusion of some additional information will strengthen the document.

Mississippi does not have a Class I area with in its boundaries and therefore the State Implementation Plan addresses emissions reducti ons needed for visibility improvement at Class I areas in adjacent states which may be affected by Mississippi sources. Even though there are no Class I areas within Missis sippi, we feel that certain information

about the Class I areas that could be affect ed by Mississippi sources should be included in the SIP. These are discussed in more detail under “Specific Comments”.

As part of its long-term strate gy, we expect that the State wi ll rely in great part on the new source review (NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) programs to assure that new sources do not unduly impair the expected progress toward natural conditions. The December 2007 draft speak s to emissions reductions of ongoing programs but does not include a discussion of the interaction between the existing new source review program and progress on the regi onal haze plan. Given the uncertainty in the new source growth estimates used to develop the 2018 emissions inventory, and ultimately the 2018 visibility projections, we f eel it would be appropriate for the state to discuss the relationship between the Regiona l Haze Plan and requirements of the NSR and PSD programs within the SIP. Specifica lly, how does the State anticipate addressing new sources of air pollution in the PSD process in regards to its reasonable progress goals and long term strategy; and, how will it analy ze the affect of new emissions from these new sources on progress toward the interim visibility goals established under this SIP, as well as the ultimate goal of natu ral background visibility by 2064?

Finally, we recognize that the Regional Planning Organizations have provided significant resources to the states throughout the Regional Haze planning process, and that it will be detrimental to the state agencies if these re sources are no longer available for subsequent planning and periodic SIP reviews. We will strongly encourage the EPA to maintain support for the Regional Planning Organizations and the integrated technical analyses that will be necessary as we begin tracki ng reasonable progress for the Class I areas under the Regional Haze State Implementation Plans.January 10, 2008

2 Specific Comments

Section 1: Introduction

Page 4, Section 1.4 – Please explain why U pper Buffalo Wilderness in northwestern

Arkansas and Hercules Glades Wilderness in southern Missouri were not included as neighboring Class I areas when they are about the same distance from the Mississippi border as Caney Creek Wilderness.

Page 7, Table 1.5-1 – Some of the acreages ar e incorrect in Table 1.5-1. For example, Sipsey is 24,922 acres. Pat Brewer has recent updates to Class I acreages.

Section 2: Baseline, Current and Natural Background Conditions

Page 8, Section 2.0 - Include the baseline a nd current conditions es tablished by VISTAS for the Class I areas Mississippi might affect . Likewise, the Uniform Rate of Progress graphs for these areas should be included.

Section 4: Emissions Inventory Development

Page 11, first paragraph - Modify the language regarding fire emi ssions to reflect the

increases that were included in the 2009 and 2018 inventories. This is mentioned under 4.1.7 on page 12.

Page 12, Table 4.1 – It would be helpful to show values for EGU and non-EGU point sources instead of lumping them into a si ngle category because they are discussed as EGU and non-EGUs in the body of the SIP. It just makes things clearer.

Section 7: Long Term Strategy

Page 31, last paragraph - Add states to the end of the first sentence. It appears to have

been omitted.

Page 34, Section 7.2.2.1, third paragraph, last sentence - Change to “..., comprising more than half of remaining SO2 emissions in most states .” The current language is all states

, but according to the referenced figures, EGUs will comprise less than half the remaining emissions in VA, GA and MS.

Page 36, Section 7.2.2.2, first sentence on page 36 - Explain what a “one hour plan” is. Is this a SIP for the one-hour ozone NAAQS?

Page 43, Section 7.3.2, second paragraph on pa ge 43 - Three sources used the new IMPROVE algorithm to demonstrate BART ex emption, and it appear s that all othersJanuary 10, 2008

3 used the “old” algorithm. According to t the September 27, 2006 revision of EPA responses to questions from the Regional Plan ning Organizations, a state is to select

either the new or the old IMPROVE al gorithm and apply it consistently among stakeholders. It appears that the new algorithm was used when exemption was not possible using the old algorithm. This seems contrary to EPA guidance.

Page 43, Section 7.3.3 – The discussions on BART determinations for the Chevron Refinery and Mississippi Phosphate could benefit from inclusion of additional information from Appendix L in the body of the SIP; specifically summaries addressing

each of the five factors used in a BART determ ination evaluation. This is especially true for the Chevron Refinery which will still ha ve an almost 1 deciview impact on Breton even after emissions reductions currently being permitted are in place.

Page 47, Section 7.4, last sentence in second pa ragraph on page 47 - Please make it clear that the statement refers only to the southern boundary....not all boundaries.

Page 51, Section 7.5.5, second paragraph on page 51 – The text states that the Area of Influence plots for Sipsey and Caney Creek to do not indicate any Mississippi sources.

The state boundaries are not visi ble on the maps in the SIP, so we cannot confirm this statement. We recommend adding the appropr iate spreadsheets for Sipsey and Caney Creek showing that there are no contributions above the 0.5% threshold from sources in Mississippi. It would also be beneficial to include the same spreadsheets for Upper Buffalo and Hercules Glades, which again w ould show there are no contributions above the 0.5% from Mississippi sources. Incl usion of these spreadsheets would support narrowing the remaining discussion to Mississippi sources affecting Breton.

Page 54, Section 7.6 – A Reasonable Progre ss Analysis should be included in the body of the SIP and should specifically include discussion of the four statutory factors: costs of compliance, time necessary for compliance, energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance, and remaining useful like of any potentially affected sources. This is a requirement of the Regional Haze Rule.

Page 55, Section 7.6 – The final Reasonable Progress decision for DuPont should be included in the body of the SIP.

Page 55, Section 7.7, second paragraph - The fi rst and second senten ces point out that elemental carbon from fire is a relatively minor contributor to visibi lity impairment at Sipsey, Caney Creek and Breton Class I ar eas. We agree and suggest including a statement regarding current smoke management practices used in Mississippi in order to fully address fire emissions per Secti on 51.308(d)(3)(v). We recommend adding the following sentences (in italics) to the end of the second paragraph. Under current smoke management practices, the Mississippi Fo restry Commission, in conjunction with Mississippi Department of Envi ronmental Quality, issues bu rning permits based on daily weather forecasts. A permit is required for any fire set for a rec ognized agricultural or forestry purpose.January 10, 2008

4 Section 8: Reasonable Progress Goals

Page 56, Section 8.0 - The Reasonable Progress Go als set by the adjacent states for their

Class I areas should be articulated in the SIP. We suggest that all four Class I areas are included. Also, MS DEQ should include eviden ce that the adjacent states consulted on the reasonable progress goals th at they established.

Section 11: Comprehensive Periodi c Implementation Plan Revisions

While large sulfur dioxide emissions re ductions are anticipated under CAIR, EGU emissions are expected to remain a significan t contributor to regi onal haze in 2018 even after implementation of this Federal Rule. Gi ven that additional EGU reductions will still be necessary after 2018, and that there is a fair amount of uncer tainty surrounding the modeling analyses conducted for future year pr ojections as well as what is actually going to occur under CAIR, the tracking and review periods under the Regional Haze Regulations become increasingly important fr om the FLMs perspective. We are pleased to see Mississippi DEQ’s commitment to completing the reasona ble progress reports every five years, as well as comprehensive SIP revisions in subse quent planning periods, in accordance with the Regional Haze Regulations.

We are also pleased to see that Missis sippi DEQ has included measures for ongoing consultation with the FLMs on page 58 a nd included annual discussions of the implementation process and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data. We recommend adding the following sentence to clearly define “ongoi ng consultation” for future planning periods. “Consultation between Missi ssippi DEQ and the FLMs will include early involvement of FLMs in the periodic review process and FLMs will receive copies of revised regional haze SIPs for comment prior to finalization.” We feel that clearly establishing the process for FLM cons ultation in the SIP document may eliminate any confusion as to what “ongoing consu ltation” requires in future years.

### Fish and Wildlife Service Talking Points regarding the Mississippi Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

Overall, the Mississippi draft Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) includes the necessary elements and offers all the information needed to adequately address regional haze, and the technical s upport documentation is sufficient.

On January 15, 2008 we discussed our major con cern with the Mississi ppi Department of Environmental Quality and the State indicated it would prefer to resolve as many issues prior to FWS formalizing its comments. This is a summary of the issues discussed during

that conference call.

Comments indicated in bold are of special importance and unless adequately addressed would be significant comments that would be el evated to the Assistan t Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks of the Depa rtment of the Interior.

The Fish and Wildlife Service will be glad to work with Mississippi to review and consult on revisions to the draft Regional Haze SIP.



### Four-Factor Analysis

Page 30 -- Bullet IV suggests that chapter 7 of the draft SIP includes results from “the four factor analysis.” Although short, very specific statements are made as to why additional controls will not be required. This section does not provide or summarize the State’s conclusions regarding the four factor analysis. Mississippi has performed the analysis to make the conclusions of wh y additional controls are not being required, but needs to document th at analysis. The four factors, as specified in the Clean Air Act, are required elements in the Region al Haze SIP. At minimum, the State should include a di scussion on “reasonable controls” and

address the four factors. This discussi on could be included in Section 7.5.5 of the Regional Haze SIP.



### Discussion of Thresholds

Page v, (the second to last paragraph) -- Th e Regional Haze SIP states that “Analysis has determined that impacts from sources in Mississippi sources do not contribute to visibility impairment for Sipsey and Cane y Creek.” A more appropriate phrase would indicate that analysis usi ng methods developed by VISTAS indicate that sources in Mississippi were determined to contribute below a significant threshold so as not to

warrant additional controls. In other words, Mississippi does contribute to visibility impact, just not at a significant le vel to react for this 10 year period.Page 40 -- The draft SIP states that the VI STAS analysis demonstrated that VOCs and ammonia are not visibility-impairing po llutants. VOC and ammonia emissions do contribute to visibility impairment. The st atement should be rephras ed to reflect that VOCs and ammonia from point sources are not significant enough to control for this planning period.



### Clarifications

Page 4 -- The draft SIP states that Mississi ppi is required to evaluate progress every 5 years, and that, if emissions controls are not on track, the St ate would need to take action

on emissions or revise the SIP. Can the St ate provide additional information on how the

State will conduct their review and what actions will be up for review in this scenario?

Page 25 -- Section 6.2 provided model performance information for the entire VISTA domain. Can the State provide additional in formation on local perf ormance statistics?

Page 36 -- The draft SIP does not contain a discussion on State limits on emissions resulting from construction activity. This is a required element of the Regional Haze SIP.

Page 55 -- The State indicates th at impairment due to fire related emissions is relatively minor at nearby Class I areas. Can the Stat e provide information on whether there is a Mississippi smoke management plan (SMP)? If so, is the SMP voluntary or mandatory?

Are Class I areas considered as a sensitive visi bility receptor? Can the State make some

basic statements on whether emissions from fi re are anticipated to shrink, stay the same, or increase over the ten y ear planning period?



### Items Relating to Mississippi BART

The following comments are regarding the Be st Available Retrof it Technology (BART) determinations provided by Mississippi Phos phates Corporation (MPC) – Pascagoula Facility and Chevron Products Company – Pascagoula Refinery



### Mississippi Phosphates Corpor ation – Pascagoula Facility

The FWS is in general agreement with the BART determination developed by MPC and tentatively approved by the Mississippi Depart ment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). One primary concern is that the BART SO 2 control alternative involving the cesium catalyst replacement in the third and fourth c onverter pass of each su lfuric acid plant was dismissed as not being technically feasible and not being cost effective.

This technology was dismissed as being “not widely used”. The cesium catalyst is currently in use as an add-on technology at th e CF Industries, Inc. – Plant City, Florida facility on SAP ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, the la tter two units being double absorption units, similar to the Pascagoula Facility. It is al so in use at the Mosaic Fertilizer, Riverview facility in Florida on double absorption units. Installation has also been required by EPAon 12 facilities under consent decrees. Sin ce the technology has been implemented in practice it cannot be dismissed as not being technically feasible.

MPC derived a cost of $1,581 per ton of SO 2 reduction to implement the cesium catalyst

alternative and determin ed the figure to be excessive. A cost of $1,581 per ton for SO 2 control is within the acceptable cost range unde r the BART Guidelines 1 . However, with a proper 15-year amortization pe riod the annualized cost w ould be less. MPC amortized costs over five years, indicating that this was the expected life of the plant given its current age. This spec ific instance is addressed in the BART Guidelines 1 . It is stated that the source operator may accept a federally enforceable condition requiring the source to shut down by a given date. Where the source chooses not to accept a federally enforceable condition requiring the source to shut down by a given date, it is necessary to determine whether a reduced time period for the remaining useful life changes the level of controls that would have been require d as BART. If the reduced time period does change the level of BART controls, the sour ce may identify, and include as part of the BART emission limitation, the more stringent le vel of control that would be required as BART if there were no assumption that redu ced the remaining useful life. The source may incorporate into the BART emission limit this more stringent level, which would serve as a contingency should the source conti nue operating more than five years after the date EPA approves the relevant SIP. The s ource would not be allowed to operate after the 5-year mark withou t such controls.

This may be a good alternative for both MP C and MDEQ. The Pascagoula Facility claims a double absorption SO 2 control level of 4.0 lbs/ton of H 2 SO 4 product. The double absorption technology often delivers a control level of 3.5 lbs/ton of H 2 SO 4 product without a cesium catalyst. If not, almost certainly the cesium catalyst reaches

that level of control. Under BART, MDEQ could impose a 3.5 lbs/ton of H 2 SO 4 product after five years; an emission limitation that MPC may already be meeting. If not, the cesium catalyst could be added before the five year time period. This is a significant effort, because MPC estimates that visibility impact at Breton could be reduced from 0.82

deciviews to 0.5 deciviews with the increased level of control.

Finally, there was no discussion about enforceable limits on NO

x , particulates or sulfuric acid mist. Other phosphate f acilities reasonably meet a NO

x limit of 0.11 – 0.12 lb/ton of

H 2 SO 4 product. Likewise, a 10% particulate matte r opacity limit often is imposed. The

sulfuric acid mist limit for DAP/MAP units should be about 0.18 lb/ton of H 2 SO 4. These limits can usually be attainable without in stallation of additional pollution control equipment. Emission limits should be en forced using continuous emission monitoring systems. Such limits should be addressed in the facility’s permit.

___________________

1 See 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix Y The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized it’s BART Guidelines on June 15, 2005, and published the preamble and final rule text in the Federal Register on July 6, 2005. The rulemaking action added Appendix Y to Part 51, titled “Guidelines for BART Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule.”

### Chevron Products Compan y – Pascagoula Refinery

There is no evidence that th e five-factor BART analysis 1 was followed in selecting the control technologies for the BART-eligible units under the EPA Consent Decree. Of course, in instances where the chosen c ontrol technology was Best Available Control Technology (BACT), the five factor analysis is not required beyond that point. Compliance with a New Source Performance St andard does not necessarily constitute BART. A statement in the Regional H aze SIP should indicate that MDEQ has determined that all controls installed and pr oposed as part of the EPA Consent Decree are

BACT and that this constitutes BART.

Given that one refinery process heater in the US is being controlled by SNCR, this alternative should be included among the BART alternatives and should undergo a fivefactor BART analysis, rather than simp ly being dismissed as too expensive.

Strategies to reduce SO 2 emissions from the Sulfur Recovery Units should include increasing the capacity of the Claus train to recover more sulfur and improving the efficiency of the tail gas scr ubber in several different ways. These alternatives should be analyzed in the BART analysis format as part of the proposed Optimization Study.