Federal Land Manager Comments Summary 

Following are the comments received from the 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 discussion on various topics which have been 

taken into consideration and for the most part have been included in the pre-hearing draft. 

There were comments about Mississippi including discussions on the natural background, 

uniform rate of progress, and reasonable progress 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 this information as part of our SIP. 

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

determination of no available controls to further reduce emissions at Mississippi 

Phosphates Corporation (MPC) was questioned. 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 adequately address reasonable progress and the four 

factors. Section 7.6 of the narrative has been revised 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 addressed 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 within its boundaries and therefore the State 

Implementation Plan addresses emissions reductions 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 Mississippi, we feel that certain information 

about the Class I areas that could be affected by Mississippi sources should be included 

in the SIP. These are discussed in more detail under “Specific Comments”. 

As part of its long-term strategy, we expect that the State will 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 speaks 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 regional 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 feel it would be appropriate for the state to 

discuss the relationship between the Regional Haze Plan and requirements of the NSR 

and PSD programs within the SIP. Specifically, 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 analyze 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 natural 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 resources 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 tracking 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 Upper 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 are 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 and current conditions established 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 emissions 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 single 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 page 43 - Three sources used the new 

IMPROVE algorithm to demonstrate BART exemption, and it appears that all others 
January 10, 2008 

3

used the “old” algorithm. According tot the September 27, 2006 revision of EPA 

responses to questions from the Regional Planning Organizations, a state is to select 

either the new or the old IMPROVE algorithm 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 determination evaluation. This is especially true 

for the Chevron Refinery which will still have 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 paragraph 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 visible on the maps in the SIP, so we cannot confirm this 

statement. We recommend adding the appropriate 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 would show there are no contributions above 

the 0.5% from Mississippi sources. Inclusion of these spreadsheets would support 

narrowing the remaining discussion to Mississippi sources affecting Breton. 

Page 54, Section 7.6 – A Reasonable Progress 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 first and second sentences point out that 

elemental carbon from fire is a relatively minor contributor to visibility impairment at 

Sipsey, Caney Creek and Breton Class I areas. We agree and suggest including a 

statement regarding current smoke management practices used in Mississippi in order to 

fully address fire emissions per Section 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 Forestry Commission, in conjunction with 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, issues burning permits based on daily 

weather forecasts. A permit is required for any fire set for a recognized agricultural or 

forestry purpose. 
January 10, 2008 

4

Section 8: Reasonable Progress Goals 

Page 56, Section 8.0 - The Reasonable Progress Goals 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 evidence that the adjacent states consulted on 

the reasonable progress goals that they established. 

Section 11: Comprehensive Periodic Implementation Plan Revisions 

While large sulfur dioxide emissions reductions are anticipated under CAIR, EGU 

emissions are expected to remain a significant contributor to regional haze in 2018 even 

after implementation of this Federal Rule. Given that additional EGU reductions will still 

be necessary after 2018, and that there is a fair amount of uncertainty surrounding the 

modeling analyses conducted for future year projections as well as what is actually going 

to occur under CAIR, the tracking and review periods under the Regional Haze 

Regulations become increasingly important from the FLMs perspective. We are pleased 

to see Mississippi DEQ’s commitment to completing the reasonable progress reports 

every five years, as well as comprehensive SIP revisions in subsequent planning periods, 

in accordance with the Regional Haze Regulations. 

We are also pleased to see that Mississippi DEQ has included measures for ongoing 

consultation with the FLMs on page 58 and included annual discussions of the 

implementation process and the most recent IMPROVE monitoring data. We 

recommend adding the following sentence to clearly define “ongoing consultation” for 

future planning periods. “Consultation between Mississippi 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 consultation in the SIP document may eliminate 

any confusion as to what “ongoing consultation” 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 support documentation is sufficient. 

On January 15, 2008 we discussed our major concern with the Mississippi 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 elevated to the Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks of the Department 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 why additional controls are 

not being required, but needs to document that analysis. The four factors, as 

specified in the Clean Air Act, are required elements in the Regional Haze SIP. At 

minimum, the State should include a discussion on “reasonable controls” and 

address the four factors. This discussion could be included in Section 7.5.5 of the 

Regional Haze SIP. 

Discussion of Thresholds 

Page v, (the second to last paragraph) -- The Regional Haze SIP states that “Analysis has 

determined that impacts from sources in Mississippi sources do not contribute to 

visibility impairment for Sipsey and Caney Creek.” A more appropriate phrase would 

indicate that analysis using 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 level to react for this 10 year period. 
Page 40 -- The draft SIP states that the VISTAS analysis demonstrated that VOCs and 

ammonia are not visibility-impairing pollutants. VOC and ammonia emissions do 

contribute to visibility impairment. The statement should be rephrased 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 Mississippi is required to evaluate progress every 5 

years, and that, if emissions controls are not on track, the State would need to take action 

on emissions or revise the SIP. Can the State 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 information on local performance 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 that impairment due to fire related emissions is relatively 

minor at nearby Class I areas. Can the State 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 visibility receptor? Can the State make some 

basic statements on whether emissions from fire are anticipated to shrink, stay the same, 

or increase over the ten year planning period? 

Items Relating to Mississippi BART 

The following comments are regarding the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) 

determinations provided by Mississippi Phosphates Corporation (MPC) – Pascagoula 

Facility and Chevron Products Company – Pascagoula Refinery 

Mississippi Phosphates Corporation – Pascagoula Facility 

The FWS is in general agreement with the BART determination developed by MPC and 

tentatively approved by the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). 

One primary concern is that the BART SO2 control alternative involving the cesium 

catalyst replacement in the third and fourth converter pass of each sulfuric 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 the CF Industries, Inc. – Plant City, Florida 

facility on SAP ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’, the latter two units being double absorption units, 

similar to the Pascagoula Facility. It is also in use at the Mosaic Fertilizer, Riverview 

facility in Florida on double absorption units. Installation has also been required by EPA 
on 12 facilities under consent decrees. Since 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 SO2 reduction to implement the cesium catalyst 

alternative and determined the figure to be excessive. A cost of $1,581 per ton for SO2

control is within the acceptable cost range under the BART Guidelines1. However, with 

a proper 15-year amortization period the annualized cost would be less. MPC amortized 

costs over five years, indicating that this was the expected life of the plant given its 

current age. This specific instance is addressed in the BART Guidelines1

. 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 required as BART. If the reduced time period does 

change the level of BART controls, the source may identify, and include as part of the 

BART emission limitation, the more stringent level of control that would be required as 

BART if there were no assumption that reduced 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 continue operating more than five years after the 

date EPA approves the relevant SIP. The source would not be allowed to operate after 

the 5-year mark without such controls. 

This may be a good alternative for both MPC and MDEQ. The Pascagoula Facility 

claims a double absorption SO2 control level of 4.0 lbs/ton of H2SO4 product. The 

double absorption technology often delivers a control level of 3.5 lbs/ton of H2SO4

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 H2SO4 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 NOx, particulates or sulfuric 

acid mist. Other phosphate facilities reasonably meet a NOx limit of 0.11 – 0.12 lb/ton of 

H2SO4 product. Likewise, a 10% particulate matter opacity limit often is imposed. The 

sulfuric acid mist limit for DAP/MAP units should be about 0.18 lb/ton of H2SO4. These 

limits can usually be attainable without installation of additional pollution control 

equipment. Emission limits should be enforced 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 Company – Pascagoula Refinery 

There is no evidence that the five-factor BART analysis1 was followed in selecting the 

control technologies for the BART-eligible units under the EPA Consent Decree. Of 

course, in instances where the chosen control technology was Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), the five factor analysis is not required beyond that point. 

Compliance with a New Source Performance Standard does not necessarily constitute 

BART. A statement in the Regional Haze SIP should indicate that MDEQ has 

determined that all controls installed and proposed 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 simply being dismissed as too expensive. 

Strategies to reduce SO2 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 scrubber in several different ways. These alternatives should be 

analyzed in the BART analysis format as part of the proposed Optimization Study.