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 determination s pro vided by Mississippi Phosphates Corporation

– Pascagoula Facilit y Acid Plant Unit s #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 R etrofit Technology

(BART) determination for the above named facilit ies as they relate to the Mississippi Regional Haze S tate Implementation Plan (S IP )

. In addition , the FWS is providing comments on the latest developments regarding the vac atur of Clean Ai r Interstate Rule (CAIR) as it relates the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP. Mississippi Phosphates Corporation

– Pascagoula Facilit y Acid Plant Units #2 and #3 The FWS provided comments to the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on an earlier BART analy sis for the Mississippi Phosphates Corporation’s (MPC) Pascagoula Sulfuric Acid Plant in Ju

ne 2008. The revised BART submittal , dated September 29, 2008 , was responsive to those earlier comments. MPC proposed that BART is a dual absorpt ion sy stem using a cesium catal ys t with an emission limit of 3.2 lbs

. of SO 2 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 ye ars from the date of final EPA approval of the Mississippi Region al 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 t ext 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 ye ars from the Summer/Fall of 2009. The two dates are likel y to be near each other, but the MDEQ shou ld require in the Mississippi Regional Haze SI P that the control technology be operational five

- ye ars from the SI P approval date. In concert with the earlier FWS comments, MPC stated that it would comply with a 10% opacit y limit and a sulfuric acid mist l imit of 0.10 lb/ton of H 2 SO 4 . MDEQ should acknowledge these limits in the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP. However, a NO x emission limit was not mentioned. Other phosphate facilities reasonabl y meet a NO x limit of 0.11

– 0.12 lb/ton of H 2 SO 4 product. Suc h a limit should also be addressed in the Mississippi Regional Haze SI P. No dispersion modeling of this dual absorption system using a cesium catalyst was perform e d , but if MDEQ declares this sy stem to be “the most stringent controls available” (i.e., BAC T ) , 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 anal ys is 3 was followed in selec ting the control technologi es for the BART

eligible 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 analy sis is not required bey ond that point. A statement in the Regional Haze SI P shoul d 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 anal yz ed with the five

- factor BART anal ys is, even though MDEQ believes, without anal ys is, that the cost of such controls might be too expensive. NO x control of various process heaters using ultra

- low NO x burners was dismissed as being too expensiv e. Retrofit Selective Non

- Catal yt ic Reduction (SNCR) has been successfull y applied to refinery process heaters achieving NO x control efficiencies in the 40

- 50% range 4 . This alternative should be included among the BART alternatives and should undergo a f ive

- factor BART analy sis.

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 ha s issued an order vacating the CAIR rule . FWS is concern ed that portions of the Mississippi Regional Haze SIP relied on the CAIR rule to establish the level of control for affected sources

. Because CAI R has been vacated, the BART determinations have become the primary method for establishing the level of pollution control. FWS asks th at MDEQ review the Regional Haze SIP , and where appropriate address how BART control strategies will be implemented in the absence of CAI R. Again, we appreciate the opportunity to work closely

with the State of Mississippi and compliment y ou on y our hard work and dedication to si gnificant improvement in our nation's air quality values and visibility

. Sincerel y,
Sandra V. Silva, Chief FWS Branch of Air Quality

cc: Kay

Prince, Chief Air Planning Branch US EPA Region 4 61 Fors yth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

- 8960 Miche le Notarianni US EPA Region 4 61 Fors yth Street, S.W. Atlanta, Georgia 30303

- 8960 Annette Sharp, Executive Director CENRAP 10005 S. Pennsylvania, Ste. C Oklahoma City , Oklahoma 73159 Pat Brewer VI STAS Technical Coordinator 2090 U.S. 70 Highway Swannano a, North Carolina 28778 Jon Andrew, Chief Southeast Region National Wildlife Refuge Sy stem 1875 Century

Center Atlanta, Georgia 30345Mr. Bickerstaff Page 4

Kenneth Litzenberger Project Manager Southeast L ouisiana Refuges 61389 Hwy . 434 Lacombe, Louisiana 70445 James Burnett Refuge Manager St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge P.O. Box 68 St. Marks, Florida 32355