in Louisiana are optimistic. Steve Mathies, deputy secretary for the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, said preservation efforts will move forward now that state, local, and federal officials are all reading from the same plan. He said Louisiana will look for money in existing funding streams for environmental improvement at the federal and state levels.
Electric utilities sue over nitrogen oxide rule A group of electric utilities has sued to overturn EPA's December rule to reduce nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired electric utility boilers by 900,000 tons/year beginning in 2000. In a January motion filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, the Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) charged that EPA improperly revised earlier standards and underestimated the true cost of technologies required to meet new standards. The rule tightened earlier Phase 1 nitrogen oxide emissions standards for about 600 dry-bottom, wall-fired, and tangentially fired boilers; and it set new Phase 2 emissions limitations for about 145 wet-bottom boilers, cyclones, cell-burner boilers, and vertically fired boilers (Federal Register, 1996, 61 (245), 67111-64). Craig Harrison, UARG attorney, said EPA should not have revised the rules for Phase 1 boilers because the Clean Air Act requires that technological advances drive revisions. "[EPA] has not shown the technology has progressed." The new standards for cyclone and wet-bottom boilers force the industry to use selective catalytic reduction technology, which costs more than low nitrogen oxide burners, the most common nitrogen oxide control technology used by electric utilities, said Harrison Under the Clean Air Act, EPA c3.il require 3. new technology only if costs are comparable with the existing technology's EPA attorney Dwight Alpern said the agency will defend the rule. "We think it is reasonable and legal." Peter Tsirigotis, in the Acid Rain Division, said the Phase 1 revision was justified because the agency has the benefit of continuous-emissions monitoring, which EPA uses to track emissions at the smokestack. The agency did not have these data when it came out with the original Phase 1 rule in 1995.
Industry's complaint about the high cost of selective catalytic reduction technology required in Phase 2 represents a difference in how EPA and the industry want to measure cost, said Tsirigotis. "We look at costeffectiveness; they want us to look at cost alone," he said. Officials in the $200-billion-a-year utility industry estimate that the nitrogen oxide reductions will cost $3 billion to institute and that all reductions mandated since 1995 will cost $5 billion.
Indiana first state to adopt Great Lakes standards Three of the eight Great Lakes states are expected to meet this month's compliance deadline by adopting new water quality standards based on the Great Lakes Initiative (GLI), EPA officials said. Published in March 1995, the GLI is considered an ambitious but controversial water quality program. An outgrowth of a 1986 agreement reached by the Great Lakes governors to protect the watershed, the plan sets wildlife, aquatic life, and human health criteria for chemicals that do not break down easily in the environment, including mercury, dioxin, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other industrial wastes. A major goal of the plan is to prevent any one of the Great Lakes states from luring businesses by implementing lax water quality standards (ES&T, ,ept. .195, p. 416A). In January, Indiana became the first state to sign water quality standards to implement the GLI; Wisconsin and Michigan were expected to quickly follow suit. Several states, including New York and Ohio, however, said they would not finalize their standards until late fall. The other three states, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota, said they were close to finalizing their standards. Officials in the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) Great Lakes office praised Indiana's move, calling it "a great step forward in our region's effort to safeguard the Great Lakes." But environmentalists are also disappointed that Indiana did not take advantage of the opportunities under the GLI to address two pollution sources that plague the Great Lakes: nonpoint source pollution and air deposition. The other states are not likely to include controls on these sources either said NWF's Tim Eder. A decision is expected as early as
1 2 4 A • VOL. 31, NO. 3, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
this month in a lawsuit brought against EPA by the Great Lakes Water Quality Coalition, an association of more than 100 businesses, which charges that implementation of the GLI would be too costly.
Program to protect watersheds under fire A lawsuit filed by three conservation groups in Wyoming charging that EPA approved a lax state watershed protection plan joins a lineup of 15 or more lawsuits over the implementation of the total maximum daily load (TMDL) program. The TMDL program, initiated in the 1970s, is broader than the Clean Water Act regulations controlling wastewater discharges from an individual facility because it considers an entire watershed. States must prioritize their rivers, lakes, and streams based on potential use and severity of pollution; TMDL criteria are then set, often requiring additional controls on pollution sources. The Wyoming lawsuit, filed Nov. 22 by the Wyoming Outdoor Council, American Wildlands, and Biodiversity Associates, focuses on the degradation of high-class water bodies from federal land operations such as forestry and mining. These activities contribute to nonpoint source pollution, caused by runoff from farms, parking lots, or other surfaces. Although TMDLs can be set for nonpoint source pollution, they are difficult to enforce because neither the Clean Water Act nor any state requires a nonpoint source regulatory program. However, nonpoint source criteria can be implemented by federal agencies when they are included in a permit granting approval to work on federal land, said Munir Meghjee, the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund attorney who is representing the conservation 2T0UDS. Many states are behind in setting new TMDLs, often because the state officials are not sure how to implement the program. Lawsuits concerning the state programs have been brought against EPA by groups in at least 10 states. The agency has created a federal advisory group to review the entire TMDL program, said Geoffry Grubbs, Office of Water. Although EPA officials maintain they have "a good solid" program in place, "it is time for a complete overhaul" of the TMDL regulations, he admitted.
