The challenge is a call to action [...]]]> Titan America LLC, a heavy building materials producer in the United States, recently announced the fact that four of its distribution terminals have achieved the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry.  The four sites include: Castle Hayne, North Carolina; Richmond, Virginia; Front Royal, Virginia; and Chesapeake, Virginia.

The challenge is a call to action to improve energy efficiency of America’s commercial and industrial sites.  To receive recognition from the EPA for completing the challenge, the parent company must be an ENERGY STAR partner and the site must achieve a minimum of 10% improvement in energy efficiency within five years.  At each of the four sites, Titan has achieved this goal with an average intensity reduction of 21.76%.  Management at the plant and corporate level recognize the amount of team effort necessary to achieve this reduction.  Don Ingerson, VP of Cement and Aggregates, Sales and Marketing, said, “This achievement was the result of a supreme team effort.  The focus on reducing energy by each and every one of our people at the terminals is an excellent example of our commitment to continuous improvement; with that, our energy management knowledge continues to grow as we share it with our customers and our community”.

Hopefully the ENERGY STAR challenge will continue to spur many industrial and commercial sites to improve energy efficiency and reduce our impact on the environment.

Papadopoulos’s  testimony was presented during a hearing to assess the impact of recent EPA regulations [...]]]> Aris Papadopoulos recently testified before the Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Power.  Papadopoulos, CEO of Titan America and Chair of the Portland Cement Association (PCA), urged Congress to address harmful regulations before they could seriously wreck the economic recovery of the country.

Papadopoulos’s  testimony was presented during a hearing to assess the impact of recent EPA regulations on several industrial sectors.  His testimony focused on the negative impact that these regulations would place on the economy when demand for cement returns.  His evidence was research conducted recently by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.).  M.I.T. has found that the cement industry can take a leading role in reducing greenhouse emissions along with overcoming other environmental challenges.  He also warned that if regulations remained unchanged, the cement industry would follow the way of big oil, creating a dependence on foreign imports.

In closing, Papadopoulos remarked, “Congress must craft legislation that mitigates the impacts of harmful regulations. It must replace them with policies that promote job growth, investment certainty, and responsible environmental stewardship. This will revive private sector confidence, create good jobs for Americans and restore economic prosperity.”

Industry spokespersons [...]]]> As widely reported this week, the EPA has passed a long anticipated set of rules regulating the emission of mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. Reactions have been predictable:  dire predictions that the regulations “can’t be met” with existing technologies for certain plants and claims of the billions of dollars the new regulations will cost the industry.

Industry spokespersons would be wise to study the historical statements of those who have come before them, such as the US automakers in 1972 fighting against catalytic converters. GM’s Earnest Starkman famously claimed that introducing converters on 1975 model cars could result in “complete stoppage of the entire production”…”obvious tremendous loss to the company, shareholders, employees, supplier and communities.” Local Allentown hero Lee Iacocca, then head of Ford, went even farther, claiming that the rule would cause Ford to shut down and result in a reduction to the GNP of $17 billion and the collapse of some local governments. Well, automakers may be dying today but it certainly wasn’t catalytic converters that killed them, nor did they cause the collapse of society.

There will, in fact, be tremendous cost to the industry and this should be considered in the context of a current weak U.S. economy.  Catalytic converters did not come for free (although they initially cost about one third of the projections given by the industry), and neither will reducing mercury and other pollutants from cement plants. The significant difference here is that the catalytic converter regulations applied to all cars brought into the United States, making a level playing field. This is not the case for cement! As a fungible commodity, cement can be imported theoretically from anywhere (at a cost) including from sources where no emissions regulations apply. This is the ”missing link” from the EPA-imposed regulations:  the topic of harm/compensation should be used to minimize the impact on sectors, such as cement, that are exposed to “leakage” from other parts of the world. The industry should be fighting for a “Mercury tax” on imported cement. This is not protectionism, it is simply making an economic adjustment for the projected environmental cost of higher mercury emissions. These “taxes” should then fund R&D activities to reduce emissions even further and to drive costs down through economies of scale. Under this scenario, importers could  choose to meet the same requirements and avoid the tariffs (or have them imposed by their own governments), but in the meantime US companies would do well to focus their efforts on reducing mercury emissions at the lowest possible cost.

Alas, this approach may not find many allies in the industry because most cement producers are multi-national and have the option of importing cement from their non-US facilities. The multi-nationals are not inclined to support taxes against themselves to protect higher cost production in the US. Still this the type of visionary leadership that is needed because the cost of mercury emissions is not currently reflected in the cost of U.S. cement.  It is treated as an “externality” and, therefore, the economics do not reflect the realities.

This is a watershed moment. Mercury and the other pollutants covered by these new regulations are the latest, perhaps largest, but certainly not the last emissions challenges that will be faced by the US cement industry. How the industry chooses to meet these challenges will define the next era.

Early last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finally announced a new proposed set of regulations on coal ash, the first time this by product is being nationally regulated.  The main concern with this coal power plant after [...]]]> With almost 900 ash-containing landfills nationwide, the proper disposal of coal ash was a problem that could be avoided no longer.

Early last week, the Environmental Protection Agency finally announced a new proposed set of regulations on coal ash, the first time this by product is being nationally regulated.  The main concern with this coal power plant after product lies in its contents of potentially hazardous contaminants, such as mercury, arsenic, and cadmium.  Because the ash is commonly stored in liquid form, seepage of these heavy metals into groundwater has been a concern that the EPA is working to eliminate.  EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, “The time has come for common-sense national protections to ensure the safe disposal of coal ash.  We’re proposing strong steps to address the serious risk of groundwater contamination and threats to drinking water and we’re also putting in place stronger safeguards against structural failures of coal ash impoundments. The health and the environment of all communities must be protected.”

Despite its desire to control the waste material, the EPA has yet to decide on the final course to pursue, which are open to public comment for 90 days.  The first option is drawn from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which would create an extensive program of federally enforceable requirements.  The second option, drawn from another part of the RCRA, would create standards for the proper waste management and would be primarily enforced through civil lawsuits.  The EPA has published a comparison of the two options for public review.

Fortunately, in order to keep from alienating support in industry, the EPA announced that it will leave the Bevill exemption in place under the new rules.  This exemption allows different industries to recycle the ash into other useful products that do not present health hazards.  The assistant administrator of the office overseeing the regulations, Mathy Stanislaus said, “EPA supports the legitimate beneficial use of coal combustion residuals.  Environmentally sound beneficial uses of ash conserve resources, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, lessen the need for waste disposal units, and provide significant domestic economic benefits. This proposal will clearly differentiate these uses from coal ash disposal and assure that safe beneficial uses are not restricted and in fact are encouraged.”

The long awaited rules are definitely a step in the right direction and fortunately the legitimate, beneficial uses of the waste material are preserved.

1)      Classify the fly ash as hazardous except [...]]]> Talks are still underway concerning government regulation of fly ash by-product.  Members of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) are part of a coalition of various industries that are reviewing the legislation in attempts to find a universally satisfying proposal.  The legislation is expected to take one of following three paths:

1)      Classify the fly ash as hazardous except when it is reused beneficially;

2)      Continue the current classification as solid waste, regardless of disposal or reuse (which would be subject to state regulation);

3)      Continue the current system, but with recommendations to close all fly ash surface impoundments.

The heart of the issue comes down to whether federal bureaus (like the EPA) or state government will be in charge of regulating.  Depending on the result, the cement industry may find it difficult to use recycled fly ash to make useful concrete products.  The EPA hopes to release the proposal sometime by the end of the month, but it may be delayed through further talks.