FWS/ANWS-AR-AQ

December 4, 2008

Elliott Bickerstaff, P.E., DEE

Chief, Air Support Branch

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality

101 W. Capital Street

Jackson, MS 39201

Re: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Comments on BART determinations provided by

Mississippi Phosphates Corporation – Pascagoula Facility Acid Plant Units #2 and #3 and 

Chevron Products Company – Pascagoula Refinery

Dear Mr. Bickerstaff:

The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is providing comments on the Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART) determination for the above named facilities as they relate to the 

Mississippi Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP). In addition, the FWS is providing 

comments on the latest developments regarding the vacatur of Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

as it relates the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP. 

Mississippi Phosphates Corporation – Pascagoula Facility Acid Plant Units #2 and #3

The FWS provided comments to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) 

on an earlier BART analysis for the Mississippi Phosphates Corporation’s (MPC) Pascagoula 

Sulfuric Acid Plant in June 2008. The revised BART submittal, dated September 29, 2008, was 

responsive to those earlier comments. MPC proposed that BART is a dual absorption system 

using a cesium catalyst with an emission limit of 3.2 lbs. of SO2 per ton of 100% sulfuric acid

that represents Best Available Control Technology (BACT). If the MDEQ agrees with this 

conclusion, it must be so stated in the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP. The FWS does not 

challenge this conclusion and commends MPC’s efforts. 

According to the BART Guidelines, control technology for BART must ensure compliance no 

later than five years from the date of final EPA approval of the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP.

1

 

 

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.” See Section I.E.3.
Mr. Bickerstaff Page 2

MPC’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Major Modification Application states that 

project completion will occur within five years from the Summer/Fall of 2009. The two dates 

are likely to be near each other, but the MDEQ should require in the Mississippi Regional Haze 

SIP that the control technology be operational five-years from the SIP approval date.

In concert with the earlier FWS comments, MPC stated that it would comply with a 10% opacity 

limit and a sulfuric acid mist limit of 0.10 lb/ton of H2SO4. MDEQ should acknowledge these 

limits in the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP. However, a NOx emission limit was not mentioned. 

Other phosphate facilities reasonably meet a NOx limit of 0.11 – 0.12 lb/ton of H2SO4 product. 

Such a limit should also be addressed in the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP.

No dispersion modeling of this dual absorption system using a cesium catalyst was performed, 

but if MDEQ declares this system to be “the most stringent controls available” (i.e., BACT), then 

no such modeling is required.2

Chevron Products Company – Pascagoula Refinery

Regarding the Chevron Products Company – Pascagoula Refinery, there is no evidence that the 

five-factor BART analysis3 was followed in selecting the control technologies for the BARTeligible units under the EPA Consent Decree. However, since the EPA Consent Decree was 

signed on June 7, 2005, before the BART Guidelines were promulgated on July 6, 2005, the 

equipment installed under the Consent Decree can be considered as “baseline” for BART 

purposes. In instances where the chosen control technology is determined by MDEQ to be Best 

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

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, if that is in fact 

the case. If some of the Consent Decree control equipment does not constitute BACT, then 

additional controls should be analyzed with the five-factor BART analysis, even though MDEQ 

believes, without analysis, that the cost of such controls might be too expensive. 

NOx control of various process heaters using ultra-low NOx burners was dismissed as being too 

expensive. Retrofit Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR) has been successfully applied to 

refinery process heaters achieving NOx control efficiencies in the 40-50% range4. This 

alternative should be included among the BART alternatives and should undergo a five-factor 

BART analysis.

 

2

Ibid., See Section IV.D.STEP 1.9.

3

Ibid., See Section IV.D.

4 Assessment of Control Technology Options For Petroleum Refineries in the Mid-Atlantic Region—Final Report, 

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management Association, January 31, 2007, p. 2-18.
Mr. Bickerstaff Page 3

Clean Air Interstate Rule Vacatur

Since FWS last provided comments on the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP, the court has issued 

an order vacating the CAIR rule. FWS is concerned that portions of the Mississippi Regional 

Haze SIP relied on the CAIR rule to establish the level of control for affected sources. Because 

CAIR has been vacated, the BART determinations have become the primary method for 

establishing the level of pollution control. FWS asks that MDEQ review the Regional Haze SIP,

and where appropriate address how BART control strategies will be implemented in the absence 

of CAIR. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely with the State of Mississippi and 

compliment you on your hard work and dedication to significant improvement in our nation's air 

quality values and visibility. 

Sincerely,

Sandra V. Silva, Chief

FWS Branch of Air Quality

cc: Kay Prince, Chief Air Planning Branch

US EPA Region 4 

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Michele Notarianni

US EPA Region 4

61 Forsyth Street, S.W. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Annette Sharp, Executive Director

CENRAP

10005 S. Pennsylvania, Ste. C

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73159

Pat Brewer

VISTAS Technical Coordinator

2090 U.S. 70 Highway

Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778

Jon Andrew, Chief Southeast Region

National Wildlife Refuge System

1875 Century Center

Atlanta, Georgia 30345
Mr. Bickerstaff Page 

4

Kenneth Litzenberger

Project Manager

Southeast Louisiana Refuges

61389 Hwy. 434

Lacombe, Louisiana 70445

James Burnett

Refuge Manager

St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge

P.O. Box 68

St. Marks, Florida 32355