The coal pile rises like a black tide, spreading long and deep in the flats along Interstate 10. If Tucson Electric Power has its way, this fuel will eventually feed the Sundt Generating Station, contributing to a haze in our skies and, according to two new reports, more death and illness in the predominantly poor, mostly minority communities that surround it.

“The coal you can see stockpiled from I-10, they want to burn it,” says Tucson-based Sierra Club organizer Dan Millis. “We want to keep it on the ground, and out of Tucson’s lungs.”

Unfortunately, that may not happen anytime soon. Due to the plant’s age (the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality concluded that it came online in 1962), Sundt, at 3950 E. Irvington Road, has been exempted from requirements to install costly, emissions-cutting upgrades. The rationale is that those upgrades are unnecessary for plants nearing the end of their productive lives.

The Sierra Club and other groups have questioned that exemption from the state’s haze-rule implementation plan, and called upon the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to review the ADEQ decision.

“The plant should be held to more-stringent standards,” says Millis, adding that representatives from environmental groups have met with TEP “to see what we can do to get fewer emissions in our air.”

In the meantime, the Sierra Club and other groups want the Sundt generator to switch from coal to natural gas—which it is equipped to do—and save that enormous black pile as an emergency reserve.

Calls to TEP spokesman Joe Salkowski for comment on the Sundt generator were not returned. But two recent reports speak volumes about the toxicity of this plant in Tucson.

One is from the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, and the other from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Both rank Sundt high on a national list of outdated coal burners that need to be shut down.

According to the Union report, Ripe for Retirement: The Case for Closing America’s Costliest Coal Plants, 42 percent of our nation’s electricity last year was generated by coal-burning plants like Sundt. And like Sundt, more than three-quarters of those plants have outlived their 30-year life spans.

“Most are inefficient,” says the report, “operating far below both their power generation potential. … They lack essential modern pollution controls,” it continues, “so they damage public health. The sulfur they emit causes acid rain. The mercury they release poisons waterways and fish and causes neurological damage in children. … The soot they emit creates smog that causes lung disease, premature death, and triggers asthma attacks. … Burning coal demands billions of gallons of cooling water from vulnerable rivers and lakes, and leaves behind vast quantities of toxic ash residuals, while coal-mining causes extensive and lasting damage both to human health and the natural environment.”

The report goes on to describe coal-fired power plants as “our nation’s largest single source of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary contributor to global warming.”

And according to the NAACP report, the burden of living with dirty old plants like Sundt disproportionately affects minority neighborhoods. While Rachel Carson’s groundbreaking 1962 book Silent Spring helped prod America out of its apathy regarding toxic pollutants, that shift did not immediately filter down to working-class minority communities.

There was an awakening in 1982, however, when African-American residents in one rural North Carolina community learned that the toxin polychlorinated biphenyl was being dumped in a nearby landfill. Their outrage resulted in massive civil disobedience and more than 500 arrests. Today’s powerful environmental-justice movement is largely attributed to that watershed event.

With the publication of the NAACP’s Coal Blooded: Putting Profits Before People, that movement is now turning its attention to dirty, aging plants such as Sundt, and highlighting the health toll they exact on surrounding, often-minority communities.

The study looked at 378 coal-fired plants across the country, evaluating their impacts upon minorities and the poor. It also singled out a dozen companies for an “F” rating based on their poor performance in relation to social- and environmental-justice issues.

Among those failing companies was UNS Energy, the parent company of Tucson Electric Power. Like the others, UNS was targeted for having a coal plant “sited … in densely populated areas with high proportions of low-income people and people of color.”

The Sundt plant certainly fits that bill. According to the report, it emits more than 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 1,400 tons of nitrogen oxide each year into the air over some of Tucson’s poorest minority neighborhoods. Another study, published by the Clean Air Task Force in 2010, concluded that pollution from Sundt is responsible for six heart attacks, 68 asthma attacks and four deaths each year.

Yet the plant continues burning coal, and polluting neighborhoods that lack the clout to stop it.

“Often, you find there’s more political power in communities that aren’t low income, or communities of color,” says Jacqui Patterson, director of the NAACP’s Climate Justice Initiative and a co-author of the study.

As a result, polluting plants are “disproportionately in communities of color and low-income communities,” Patterson says. “One reason is that property values tend to be lower in areas that have toxic facilities. When someone is low-income, they would look to buy in a place that has lower property costs.”

The other factor, she says, “is that political piece, in terms of not having the political power to be able to fight to get something out of the community.”

Those communities subsequently suffer from what Patterson calls “clusters” of health concerns. For instance, “across the board, you’ll see higher rates of asthma,” she says. “African-American children are three times as likely to go into the hospital from asthma, and twice as like to die from it.”

Patterson says tighter federal regulations are in the pipeline. “But meanwhile, these plants have been spewing out toxins for years. How many lives have been lost or compromised without those standards?”

7 replies on “Polluting the Poor”

  1. You know, I was driving down I10 taking a drive to St. David, when I saw all this coal. My sister was with us, she’s from Jersey, and asked what are you all doing with coal?? I said I don’t know, news to me.
    Now, can someone please explain it to me, like I’m a five year old, what is sun drenched city like Tucson doing with this crap.
    We can be solar powered!!! People from Jersey come here to not see this coal…I’m so Pissed, can someone tell me who’s in charge!!!

  2. And Sylvia, HOW much do you want to pay for Electricity? Arizona produces much more coal than oil or natural gas, and those cost savings ARE allowing TEP to invest in Solar. Can you afford a $40,000 up front cost for a Solar system for your home? We cannot do it overnight, but progress IS happening.
    As far as the Irvington Power plant being built in the 60’s, the coal conversion did not happen until the 80’s, so it probably is NOT as dirty as the story wishes to make it out. The prevailing wind is from the West, so most of the emissions probably go to Rita Ranch and Vail.
    Before everyone gets on the anti-coal bandwagon, check your wallet, BO and his EPA are in the process of forcing Cochise County residents electric bills to go up by as much as 30%, or loose Electricity all together, all in the name of Haze Reduction only, not Health.

  3. cempiremtn is correct, the sources for the story are anti everything. These groups have a history of manipulating facts and statistics to suit their claims. We all need to go back to horse and bugy days just to suit them. But wait horse crap emits methane, horrorrs! Maybe they can heat their frozen burro in a sun powered oven.

  4. Another bias anti-coal article based on what? Obama’s EPA is on a rampage to do away with affordable energy and stick it to us. The EPA rep showed up at several meetings to listen to input from those living in Cochise County….did the EPA listen? Heck NO..they do what they want regards of the facts and lives it will impact. Apache Power Plant will fight this…and I hope to God we the People win and put the EPA in it’s place.

  5. Actually, the TEP plant is relatively low pollution, considering its age. It will need to be replaced in the near future, and that will happen under more strict regulation. If you don’t like the pile of coal, then I recommend you just disconnect from TEP. It’s really quite simple, isn’t it?

  6. Great article. Actually it is easy and cheap to at least partially disconnect from TEP. Both my son and I have solar panels on our house roofs and we have been very pleased with the results. And our initial cost was zero dollars thanks to the financing programs offered by SolarCity, Sungevity, etc. Why every house in Tucson doesn’t have solar panels is beyond me.

  7. But the Republicans like this, they think it is progress and takes about the rights of businesses. They love pollution. They would outlaw the EPA and FDA if they could. They want to risk the lives of the people. Republicans are for corporations to operate as profitable as they can, even if they pollute.

Comments are closed.