By Cherise Udell
July 2nd, 2010
Salt Lake Tribune

During a typical winter the Wasatch Front often has the worst air pollution in the country and consistently ranks in the top 10 worst cities for acute air pollution. In the summer, we are plagued by high ozone levels. Not surprisingly, the American Lung Association gives us a big fat “F” for our air quality (or lack thereof), year after year.

If the dirty air were just an eyesore, that would be one thing, but the medical literature shows that air pollution is also deadly. Every year along the Wasatch Front, between 1,000 to 2,000 people die prematurely due to exposure to air pollution. Maybe you know someone who suddenly died of a heart attack, a stroke, an asthma attack or even a baby who died in their sleep. All of these ailments are related to, and/or exacerbated by, breathing dirty air.

Rio Tinto is the number one polluter in the Salt Lake Valley. According to SCORECARD.org, a national pollution information site, in 2002 Rio Tinto’s Kennecott mining operation emitted more than 100 times more pollution than the next-biggest polluter in our valley. (Kennecott: 138,861,589 pounds of pollution versus Sandy-based BD Medical Systems’ 166,204 pounds of pollution).

Rio Tinto made over $14 billion in profit last year, much of that from Kennecott’s Bingham Mine, so it can clearly afford to clean up after itself. Is it too much to ask that Rio Tinto make only $13.5 billion — and use the difference to do the right thing for Utah?

As Rio Tinto disproportionately contributes about 30 percent of the pollution in our valley, then logic suggests Kennecott is also responsible for 30 percent of the premature deaths. And they think we should let them expand by another 30 percent?

Rio Tinto officials have conducted an expensive public relations blitz to sell the expansion project, but they are unwilling to debate its opponents. A coalition of clean-air advocacy groups, including Utah Moms for Clean Air and the Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment, have asked Rio Tinto CEO Tom Albanese to participate in such a debate.

His response? “We do not need public consent to mine in Utah.” If public consent isn’t needed, then why hold all of these public information meetings? Are they just for show? Will Rio Tinto go ahead and do whatever it wants, regardless of what Utah citizens want? That seems to be the case, and our state agencies, such as the Department of Air Quality, are enablers paving the way for more toxic pollution in our “F”-grade valley.

We thus, once again, call upon Mr. Albanese and Kelly Sanders, Kennecott’s CEO and president, to participate in a debate with representatives from the public health, economics and environmental sectors. When the debate is completed and all sides have been heard, Utahns will learn what is best for Utah. And that will not be expansion of Rio Tinto’s operations without substantial investment in air-pollution mitigation.

Every company should pay the true costs of doing business. Not to do so — and to get others to unwittingly pay some of those costs — is unethical. Freedom to pollute our air enriches Rio Tinto, and the health and longevity of the people are compromised for the sake of its bottom line.

Rio Tinto made over $14 billion in profit last year, much of that from Kennecott’s Bingham Mine, so it can clearly afford to clean up after itself. Is it too much to ask that Rio Tinto make only $13.5 billion — and use the difference to do the right thing for Utah?

The state would receive it economic benefit from a cleaner mining operation. We can have jobs and clean air. A recent report by the Environmental Protection Agency shows that for every dollar spent on pollution mitigation, local communities benefit by $30 to $90.

All Utahns have a right to breathe clean air, and Rio Tinto can afford to help us achieve that goal.

http://www.physorg.com/science-news/

The rule, a revision of a Bush administration plan, will require pollution reductions in 27 states from Texas and Minnesota on the west to the East Coast. Cleaner, healthier air is expected as a result in the eastern, central and southern parts of the country, home to 240 million people.
The Clean Air Act requires under a “good neighbor” provision that power plants don’t export pollution to other states. Some states, including North Carolina and Delaware, cleaned up their own plants but ended up with unhealthy air days anyway because of pollution from tall power plant smokestacks hundreds of miles away in other states.

“Just because wind and weather will carry pollution away from its source at a local power plant, it doesn’t mean the pollution is no longer that plant’s responsibility,” EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said. “Pollution that crosses state lines puts a greater burden on states and makes them responsible for cleaning up someone else’s mess.”

Medical experts say that the fine particles and soot from power plants can be deadly, especially for people with heart and lung conditions. Bad air days also aggravate asthma and are even hazardous for healthy people who exercise outdoors.

The EPA said the new rule would prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths a year when it’s phased in by 2014. It also estimated that there would be 15,000 fewer nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis and 400,000 fewer cases of worsened asthma each year.

The EPA said the new rule would prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths a year when it’s phased in by 2014. It also estimated that there would be 15,000 fewer nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 fewer cases of acute bronchitis and 400,000 fewer cases of worsened asthma each year. The numbers are compared to 2005, before the earlier rule went into effect.

While many of the nation’s power plants have installed the equipment needed to reduce the pollution, others have held off. The equipment was first required under a 2005 rule issued by the Bush administration EPA to solve the interstate pollution problem. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck it down in 2008, however, saying it was “fundamentally flawed” and didn’t go far enough. The court left the old rule temporarily in place and gave the EPA a deadline to improve it.

Jackson said the new plan puts firmer caps on pollution. She said that it also gives states flexibility on how to implement the requirements.
The EPA estimated the pollution controls would cost $1.6 billion per year over 30 years. It projected health benefits of $280 billion per year. The agency also said that the money spent on pollution controls would create U.S. jobs.

Critics, however, warned of higher electricity rates and lost jobs. Sen. Jon Cornyn, R-Texas, objected at a recent hearing that the rule would require Texas to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by almost half in just six months. He said he had concerns about “the projected harm it will do to electricity producers and consumers and job creators in my home state.”

Jackson told reporters at a briefing on Thursday that if Texas were not included it would contribute to air pollution affecting thousands of families outside the state. She also said that Texas had cost-effective means to reduce pollution and would be able to continue to burn coal to make electricity.

House Republicans this year have argued that the EPA has gone too far with proposed regulations on air and water pollution. Their proposed appropriations bill for the agency would cut its budget by 18 percent and restrict its authority.

Conservation and environmental groups applauded the new rule. Clean Air Watch, an advocacy group, reported this week that 38 states and Washington, D.C., had smoggy days this year, when pollution exceeded the government limit. “This is a long overdue and much needed step towards protecting the health of people in states downwind of big coal burning power plants. It will prove to be a life saver,” Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell said in an email.

Today is well on its way to being a RED AIR day. At 8am, air monitors were already reporting ozone levels about .040 ppm. When the numbers start creeping past .065 ppm, I start to worry.

Ozone is a poisonous gas, the result of a chemical reaction between sunlight, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxide gases (NOx). It is characterized by three molecules of oxygen and is thus highly unstable, which is why it breaks down so easily indoors, in the absence of sunlight. Particulate matter, the scourge of our bad winter air, does not break down easily and is thus harder to escape.

VOCs + NOx + Sunlight = Ozone

For more information about ozone check-out this great website: Air Pollution Solutions.

But wait, you say, isn’t ozone a good thing? Are we not worried about losing ozone in our atmosphere? Yes, ozone up high in the sky is good (it protects the earth’s surface from ultraviolet rays), but down low it is harmful to breathe. The EPA has a good overview of the health impacts of ground-level ozone.

Breathing air heavy with ozone burns the inside of your lungs. OUCH! It doesn’t take much imagination to realize that this is not a good thing, so consider really limiting your outdoor activities and stay inside to play instead. Ice skating, indoor rock climbing, indoor swimming pools & indoor bounce houses can still get your kids’ wiggles out, but also protect their young lungs. Unfortunately, we are about to experience a run of high ozone days, but luckily a storm is expected next week, which give our lungs a much needed respite.

The Utah Department of Air Quality provides daily alerts regarding air quality (or lack thereof), so that you can take proactive steps to protect yourself and your family.

To reduce your contributions to ozone today (or any day!) and other hot summer days when ozone levels peak, Utah Moms for Clean Air asks you to consider:

* Postpone lawn mowing — unless you use a hand-pushed or electric mower — until after dark.

* Postpone filling-up your gas tank until after dark.

* Do not use spray paint or other paints that off-gas (they all off-gas VOC’s unless they say VOC free).

* Leave your car at home. Tailpipe emissions are one of the biggest contributors to ozone pollution.

* Use natural cleaning products that do not contain VOCs such as Mrs. Myers or even just the classic basics such as baking soda, vinegar and lemon. For tips on using natural cleaners — and saving $$ — check-out: Care2Care or the Guide to Green Living.

* Add green leafy plants to your house which can further reduce VOC exposure indoors. Cactus and Tropicals in Salt Lake City co-hosted a class with Utah Moms for Clean Air on how to purify your indoor air with plants. They are happy to help with your plant selection.

We must all do our part to reduce our contributions to air pollution and ozone is no exception. Please spread the word and encourage your friends, family and elected officials to take a proactive role in protecting the Clean Air Act, which currently is under assault by America’s big polluters.