Environmental and public health groups yesterday challenged in federal court U.S. EPA requirements for new pollution controls in North Dakota.

At issue is EPA's regional haze plan for the state, which is intended to improve visibility at North Dakota's national parks.

EPA's original proposal set limits that would have required the most stringent emission control technologies for the state's coal-burning power plants.

But in a reversal, the agency went back on that plan for two power plants when it finalized the plan in March.

Stephanie Kodish of the National Parks Conservation Association, which along with Sierra Club filed the appeal with the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, said the revision puts public health at risk because haze also leads to the formation of soot and smog.

"By abandoning plans to significantly reduce air pollution from coal-fired power plants in North Dakota, EPA is condemning North Dakotans, national parks across the upper Midwest and tourists that drive local economies to unhealthy air," Kodish said. "EPA's original pollution reduction plan must be reinstated to grant North Dakota the same air protections afforded to the rest of the country."

EPA made one specific change to the regional haze plan that upset the environmental groups. It said that North Dakota's Milton Young and Leland Olds power plants could use selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems, which are less effective at trapping pollution than the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems originally proposed.

The agency did, however, maintain that North Dakota's Coal Creek and Antelope Valley plants should install the more effective -- and more expensive -- SCR systems.

The agency said the revision was made after careful consideration.

"EPA's final decision on North Dakota's regional haze plan was based on the agency's thorough review of the extensive information submitted during the public comment period, a December 2011 North Dakota federal district court decision, and consideration of the applicable law and regulations," EPA said in a statement to Greenwire. "The agency will review the organization's challenge and will respond accordingly."

North Dakota lawmakers of both parties welcomed the shift. They had argued all along that SNCR systems are significantly cheaper -- running about $50 million for all the state's plants -- and more effective on lignite coal, the kind typically used in North Dakota.

EPA rejected the state's plan for those systems at all power plants, saying they would not cut enough nitrogen oxides emissions (Greenwire, Sept. 21, 2011).

Earthjustice attorney Abigail Dillen, who filed the appeal, said that while EPA is finally taking action on regional haze plans, the final North Dakota proposal shows the agency is still holding back.

"For years, EPA has delayed enforcing the Clean Air Act's requirements to clean up old coal plants and clear the haze that is a blight in national parks," Dillen said. "Now that the agency is finally taking action, it is requiring half measures that won't achieve the readily achievable pollution reductions we need. It's a case of too little too late."

The groups also said the plan is less effective at reducing haze at Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota, as well as Badlands and Wind Cave national parks in South Dakota.

EPA's regional haze program has come under criticism from all angles recently. The program, which is designed to restore visibility at 156 national parks to natural levels by 2064, had long been dormant. The Obama EPA, however, has ratcheted up the program in the past couple of years, in large part due to court deadlines sought by environmental groups.

States and industry have said that EPA is being too aggressive and not deferring to states enough. Environmental groups, on the other hand, say EPA is capitulating to state demands when it finalizes implementation plans.

Much like the North Dakota case, environmentalists lambasted EPA in March for not requiring SCR systems at power plants in its plan for Montana (Greenwire, March 22).

Click here to read the petition for review filed in court.

Click here for the petition filed to EPA.