WOC Sues EPA Over Power Plants

by Dan Heilig

They say patience is a virtue. On the other hand, it is also said that he who hesitates is lost. WOC's lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding operating permit problems for two major Wyoming power plants strikes a balance between both pearls of wisdom.

In early 1998, WOC submitted comments to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) concerning operating permits proposed for the Jim Bridger and Naughton power plants in southwest Wyoming. Our comments noted serious problems with the permits, specifically, the lack of continuous monitoring for the opacity (clarity) of plant plumes and exceptions to emission limits that appeared to violate federal Clean Air Act requirements.

The Jim Bridger and Naughton plants rank among the largest sources of air pollution in Wyoming. Combined, these two coal-fired plants pump over 43,900 tons of nitrogen oxides and 39,000 tons of sulfur dioxide into Wyoming's air each year.

After reviewing our concerns, DEQ declined to change the permits. Not satisfied with DEQ's response, we filed formal objections with EPA Administrator Carol Browner in June 1998. We asked the EPA administrator to veto the permits issued by DEQ and to revise the permits to ensure safe and environmentally sound operations at the plants.

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA was supposed to have responded by September 1, 1998-60 days from the date we filed our petition. Although during the intervening months and years we received repeated assurances from EPA that action was imminent, the agency never responded. So on September 18, 2000, more than 775 days after we submitted our petition to EPA, WOC finally grew weary of the delays and filed a lawsuit in federal court in Cheyenne, asking the court to order EPA to act on our petition.

Currently, the power plants are required to monitor the opacity of their plumes for six minutes at three-month intervals, a total of just 24 minutes of monitoring each year. WOC contends that plume opacity should be monitored continuously, as it is done at other plants across the country. We also believe that a provision in the permit allowing exceptions to emission limits for circumstances "beyond the control of the operator" provides a loophole that could be used to excuse emissions that exceed permitted levels.

A court decision on this case could take up to a year.