[Senate Hearing 118-755]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 118-755
IMPACTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL SAFETY,
WASTE MANAGEMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,
AND REGULATORY OVERSIGHT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 15, 2023
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
62-383 WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia, Ranking Member
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PETE RICKETTS, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
MARK KELLY, Arizona DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
ALEX PADILLA, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania
Courtney Taylor, Democratic Staff Director
Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental
Justice, and Regulatory Oversight
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma, Ranking Member
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JOHN FETTERMAN, Pennsylvania SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware (ex officio) (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JUNE 15, 2023
OPENING STATEMENTS
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 1
Mullin, Hon. Markwayne, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma.. 3
WITNESSES
Bradford, Angelle, Doctoral Student in Physiology and Medicine,
Tulane University School of Medicine, Volunteer Sierra Club
Delta Chapter.................................................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Lavigne, Sharon, Founder, Rise St. James......................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Tandazo, Chris, Director of Government Affairs, New Jersey
Environmental Justice Alliance................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Sunday, Kevin, Director of Government Affairs, Pennsylvania
Chamber of Business and Industry............................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Jackson, Donna, Director of Membership Development, Project 21,
National Center for Public Policy and Research................. 33
Prepared statement........................................... 35
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter to Secretary Chuck Carr Brown of the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality and Secretary Courtney N. Phillips of
the Louisiana Department of Health from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 40
Articles from:
Elsevier: Kimberly A. Terrell, Discriminatory outcomes of
industrial air permitting in Louisiana, United States...... 96
The Atlantic: Anya Groner, Louisiana Chemical Plants are
Thriving Off of Slavery.................................... 109
Defend Our Health: Michael Belliveau and Roopa Krithivasan,
Problem Plastic: How Polyester and PET Plastic Can be
Unsafe, Unjust, and Unsustainable Materials................ 128
Environmental Research Letters: Kimberly A. Terrell, Air
pollution is linked to higher cancer rates among black or
impoverished communities in Louisiana...................... 196
IMPACTS OF PLASTIC PRODUCTION AND DISPOSAL
ON ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 2023
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Merkley, Mullin, Carper, Whitehouse,
Markey, Boozman, Sullivan.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Senator Merkley. Welcome to the second in a series of
hearings in the Chemical Safety, Waste Management,
Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight Subcommittee on
the Environmental and Public Health Dangers Involved in the
Production, Use, and Disposal of Plastics.
I appreciate the support of Senator Carper and Ranking
Member Capito for this set of hearings exploring these issues.
In our first hearing, we established that plastic has some
unique and amazing properties. There are a lot of specialized
applications where these may be important, and sometimes
essential. The majority of plastic is single use plastic. There
are significant challenges or harms caused by plastics to human
health, to ecosystems, and to the environment.
Today we are going to hear from people who are impacted the
most by plastic, those who live next to facilities where
plastic is made, and facilities where it is disposed of, often
by burning. The goal is to better understand why plastic
facilities are clumped together and the effect that they are
having.
We cannot tell the story of plastics without mentioning
Cancer Alley in Louisiana. Cancer Alley is an 85-mile section
covering 11 parishes along the Mississippi River between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge that has high levels of toxic
pollution. It accounts for some 25 percent of the Nation's
petrochemical production and has the largest concentration of
chemical plants in the western hemisphere.
The existence of 15 petrochemical plants in agricultural
areas of Cancer Alley is the legacy of slavery. What was once
plantations where enslaved Black Americans raised sugar cane
has been replaced by petrochemical facilities. The free towns
established when recently freed Black Americans lived as
sharecroppers now sit right next door to these plants.
The State is not only not protecting them, it may in fact
be discriminating. I quote from a letter that EPA sent to
Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality, LDEQ, ``EPA
has significant concerns that Black residents and school
children living and/or attending school near the Denka facility
have been subjected to discrimination through LDEQ's actions
and inactions in the implementation of its air pollution
control permit program.''
Where does this plastic go when we are done with it? Too
often, it goes to the municipal solid waste incinerators, where
it is burned with air pollution emissions comparable to fossil
fuel power plants. The burning of plastics releases toxic gases
like dioxins, furans, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, and
it causes a significant range of health maladies.
It is no surprise that 79 percent of the 73 incinerators in
the U.S. are located in low-income communities or communities
of color. Of these facilities, 48 incinerators are located in
communities where more than 25 percent of the population is
below the Federal poverty level. Policies that Congress
included in the debt ceiling bill weakened the National
Environmental Policy Act that will make it more difficult for
overburdened front-line communities to protect themselves.
There is a lot of talk about jobs, so let's get some
statistics on that. The cities and communities historically
dominated by petrochemical production are overwhelmingly poor,
and building petrochemical facilities does not lead to
significant job benefits or economic prosperity for the
surrounding communities.
Port Arthur is home to the Nation's largest oil refinery
operation, but it has an unemployment rate twice as high as
Texas' average. Port Arthur ranks as Texas' poorest city with a
poverty rate of 27.2 percent, double the Texas average of 14.2
percent, or almost double.
A study by San Gabriel in Louisiana found that just 9
percent of full-time industry jobs were held by local citizens,
in spite of the town having an annual per capita income of just
$15,000, a third below the State average and half the national
average.
Whether it is intentional discrimination or because of lack
of qualifications for the work, the result is the same: the
burden of these facilities are placed on communities that
receive little to none of the benefits and receive all of the
pollution. The jobs that are available come with the risk of
serious health impacts. Workers producing plastic are at
increased risk of leukemia, lymphoma, hepatic angiosarcoma,
brain cancer, breast cancer, mesothelioma, neurotoxic injury
and decreased fertility. Workers producing plastic textiles die
of bladder cancer, lung cancer, mesothelioma, and interstitial
lung disease at increased rates.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, known as
OSHA, is tasked with ensuring protection for all workers. OSHA
has a disclaimer on its website that it ``recognizes that many
of its permissible exposure limits, PELs, are outdated and
inadequate to protect workers' health.''
In Louisiana, local communities often have not even
received the benefits of the tax revenue from these facilities.
The State's industrial tax exemption program, ITEP, exempts
major industrial facilities in Louisiana from most property
taxes for up to a decade. ITEP cost local taxing bodies $1.48
billion in foregone taxes in 2018. That is 33 percent of
property taxes collected by the State.
This is an issue of justice. That is why it is so important
that are having the hearing. I look forward to hearing the
insights that each of you bring from your lived experience.
With that, let me turn to opening comments from our co-
leader of the committee, Ranking Member Mullin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARKWAYNE MULLIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we discuss plastics, we got to talk about reality, too.
I have a statement that I do want to read. I do want to say
that I think understanding the plastics that we have, the
reliability that plastics bring and the amount of technology
that we use plastics in would say that everybody in this
committee thinks this is an important topic.
I do want to point out that the reason why we are not
having a lot of people here is because we have a lot of
committees going on. In fact, we have a markup happening in
another committee that I currently sit on. If it wasn't for so
many different hearings going on, I think there would be a lot
more people here, which we appreciate all the witnesses that
are here and the people in the audience. I think we can all
agree this is something we got to pay attention to but how do
we do it without making us more reliant on other countries, how
do we do this without limiting the ability for us to continue
moving forward and society as a whole.
Everybody here relies on plastics. Everybody here has
plastics either on your feet, on your clothes right now.
Everybody here that has a cell phone has plastic. Everybody
that was driven here by either a Metro or by vehicle relies on
plastics. Every electric vehicle out there cannot be produced
without plastics. Everyone that goes to bed and wakes up in the
morning and takes a shower and dries off with a towel relies on
plastics. Everybody that goes grocery shopping and buys your
food relies on plastics.
It is not as though we can just limit, it is just how can
we do it better. We got to have the open conversation where we
are talking about this, Chairman, is how can we do it better. I
will point this out also in my opening statement, I do not
believe we have a plastic problem, we have a recycling problem.
We have to learn how to make recycling valuable where it allows
us to be able to use that as a value base.
If we ignore that issue, guys, then you are ignoring the
reality. What is going to replace plastics? Someone has a
solution for that, then we would probably already be there.
There is not.
I would like to first start by thanking our witnesses here
today for attending this subcommittee hearing, including Mr.
Kevin Sunday and Ms. Donna Jackson. Today's hearing highlights
an original novel idea called environmental justice that has
been transformed away from its original intent of helping poor
and marginalized communities with specific needs into a social
movement Democrats have taken over to push progressive policies
forward under the disguise of social and racial equality.
I think all of us in this community can agree to this,
everyone deserves clean air and water and access to reliable
energy sources that will help create a cleaner, healthier and
safer future. What is missing from the discussion is that
critical role the U.S. plays in manufacturing essential
plastics, materials that are used in medical applications,
helps deliver our clean water, can not get water delivered to
you without plastic piping, and keeps our food fresh.
Some witnesses today might make statements that plastics
are harmful to your health, but they ignore the fact that
plastics are already heavily regulated in the U.S. and have to
go through intense, rigorous standards guided by science to be
used in applications especially when it comes in contact with
your food and your medicine. When it comes to facilitating
siting for these companies, they are not just investing in the
buildings or the land, they are investing in the communities by
providing jobs, health care plans, economic growth in the
surrounding area. These benefits provide--you guys are welcome
to be here, but whoever keeps interrupting us, they either need
to behave or they need to be removed, Chairman.
Senator Merkley. I hold a lot of town halls in Oregon, and
I do so in every county. We have what we call the Oregon way,
which is listen thoughtfully and if you passionately disagree,
still be very respectful of the person speaking. That includes
members of the panel, of the Senate, and that includes those
who are testifying. I really appreciate you all being here,
because these are really important issues that have been
totally under-examined by Congress. Again, please do be
respectful. If you feel like you need to say something, go out
in the hall and say it and then come back in. Thanks.
Senator Mullin. I want to reiterate this. I enjoy the
passion, passion is what drives this Country, guys. Respect is
also there. I raise our kids on four things, honesty, hard
work, respectful, and being responsible. I promise you I will
respect you. That respect needs to be returned two ways.
When it comes to facilitating siting for these companies, I
am going to restart this, they are not just investing in our
buildings, they are investing in buildings or the land, they
are investing in our communities by providing jobs, health care
plans, economic growth in the surrounding areas. These benefits
provide a widespread opportunity for access and stability to
rural States like Oklahoma.
These are not short-term investments, either. It is in the
manufacturing company's interest to ensure good relationships
with the communities around them, not only because it is the
right thing to do, but it is because the labor pool is likely
from within the very community that they work in.
Something I want to make clear, it is that we do not have a
plastic problem, we have a recycling handling problem. Instead
of halting infrastructure projects or manufacturing development
that results in U.S. job loss and more reliance on countries
like China to produce critical material needed for modern life,
why would we not refocus in improving recycling?
As I mentioned in our previous Plastics subcommittee
hearing, recycling means plastics that get re-used, which is
most productive through innovative technologies like advanced
recycling. If we oppose a science-based solution that makes it
possible to capture and re-use large volumes of used plastics
that is currently going unrecycled, do we really care about
plastic waste?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Now we are going to turn to our
witnesses. I am so appreciative that you all are bringing your
knowledge and your lived experience to bear.
We are going to hear first from Angelle Bradford, who is
currently a doctoral student in physiology and medicine at
Tulane University School of Medicine. Ms. Bradford also serves
as a volunteer of Sierra Club's Delta Chapter.
Ms. Bradford, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ANGELLE BRADFORD, PH.D. STUDENT IN CARDIOLOGY,
TULANE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, VOLUNTEER CHAPTER SECRETARY, SIERRA
CLUB, DELTA CHAPTER, NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Ms. Bradford. Thank you so much. Good morning. Thank you,
Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Mullin. I appreciate the
invitation to speak today.
My name is Angelle Bradford. As you said before, I am a
volunteer at the Delta Chapter of the Sierra Club and also a
doctoral candidate earning my degree in cardiovascular
physiology.
I love my life in south Louisiana, as my family has been in
south Louisiana and Mississippi for generations, though it is a
complicated life where basic human rights are always being
challenged. We can do better. When I look out across Lake
Pontchartrain near New Orleans or the Atchafalaya Basin, I am
affirmed that we must do better.
Unfortunately, after decades of inaction, the climate
crisis is fully evident in Louisiana. Our spring and summer
nights and afternoons are getting hotter and more humid, which
makes it harder to cool off at nighttime. I split my time
between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and it is only in recent
years that Baton Rouge reached air quality attainment per
Federal standards. We still struggle with an F rating by the
American Lung Association, however, as recently as 2019, due to
petrochemical plants and other emissions producing ozone that
combine with increased temperatures. I experience frequent
headaches and migraines and asthma attacks on those poor air
quality days.
Our region has had many major hurricanes in the past years.
There is no national insurance market prepared to serve as a
safety net for any of us in this Nation. I would like to own a
home and have a family soon. I am just not sure how responsible
this is right now.
When it comes to my work as a biomedical researcher, weeks
to months can be lost to a hurricane that quickly strengthens
overnight and leaves me little time to power down my
experiments. Many of us in south Louisiana know all too well
how the assurances made to our communities by energy and
utility systems go out the window when we most need them.
Despite these realities, the same industry most responsible
for knowingly exacerbating climate change, the industry that
dominates public policy and politics in my home State of
Louisiana is unleashing yet another catastrophe on this planet,
this time in the form of plastics. In December of just last
year, ExxonMobil Baton Rouge announced plans to double their
capacity in polypropylene plastics, increasing the Gulf Coast
capacity to 450,000 metric tons per year.
Per Defend Our Health's recent study, PET or polyethylene
terephthalate plastic releases 1,4 dioxane, an industrial
solvent and carcinogen, during production into drinking water.
It can damage cells in the liver, kidney and respiratory
system.
Their study also spoke to 150 chemicals out of 193 that
they looked at that leach from our plastic bottles into the
water or beverage that any one of us is drinking. As we
discover chemicals produced from plastic processes, we
recognize their power to damage organs and cells. Often, any
given person does not live next to or breathe the air of just
one plant's emissions, there may be multiple plants clustered
together.
It has historically been difficult to study the cumulative
effects of polluted air, soil, and water at the same time,
particularly because it is unethical within a lot of contexts
to just give people plastics-derived carcinogens and chemicals
and see what happens. Also, people move and have different
exposures and stressors that complicate understanding of
disease processes.
Nonetheless, exposure over time means increased likelihood
of chronic diseases in addition to cancer. When we think about
life in this Country, something we often debate, we need to
also think about the dignity of life we are offering when we
are allowing these companies to carelessly raise our health
care costs and poison our people.
While some folks may see oil and gas on the one hand and
plastics on the other as very different issues that require
different solutions, I see them as one and the same. That is,
the same companies reaping profits from all ends of the supply
chain, from cradle to grave of their products and of our
bodies. I am left to wonder to which part of the plastics life
cycle, to the oil and gas industry, are we ready to sacrifice
our dreams and our lives.
I am no longer willing to offer up my life for any more
industries, and the plastics industry must be stopped with no
exceptions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bradford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you for your testimony.
We are going to turn now to Sharon Lavigne, the founder of
RISE St. James. Ms. Lavigne has long served as an environmental
justice advocate. I look forward to your statement.
STATEMENT OF SHARON LAVIGNE, FOUNDER, RISE ST. JAMES
Ms. Lavigne. Thank you. I would like to thank you for
giving me this opportunity to speak to you today. My name is
Sharon Lavigne, and I am a lifelong resident of St. James,
Louisiana. I was a special education teacher for 38 years at
St. James High School. I retired in 2019 to do this work. This
was my high school, the one that my father, Milton Cayette,
Sr., integrated in 1966 when he was the president of the
NAACP's local chapter.
I am a mother of six and a grandmother of twelve. I live in
the 5th district of my parish, which is 85 percent African
American. On one side lies the Mississippi River. On the other
lies sugar cane fields surrounded by petrochemical plants and
refineries. It is making us sick. We cannot drink the water,
plant a garden, or breathe clean air.
The place I remember being so beautiful and full of life is
now called Cancer Alley, which runs from New Orleans to Baton
Rouge. We call it Death Alley due to the high number of
community members getting sick and dying from cancer.
In 2016, I was diagnosed with autoimmune hepatitis. In
2019, I was diagnosed with aluminum and lead in my body. My
fruit trees no longer produce fruit. Members of my family and
community say that their children have trouble breathing and
they are experiencing skin rashes, nose bleeds, respiratory
ailments, and cancer.
I have lost neighbors on both sides of me to different
forms of cancer. Everyone here either has cancer or knows
someone with cancer. It seems like I am now heading to funerals
just about every week for another neighbor or friend.
In spring of 2018, Governor John Bel Edwards announced the
approval of Formosa Plastics, a $9.4 billion petrochemical
facility to be built two miles from my home. Community members
said it was a done deal.
That did not sit well with me. In the fall of 2018, we
formed RISE St. James, a faith-based organization focusing on
protecting the air, water, and soil of St. James Parish from
toxic industrial pollution.
Formosa Plastics would cover 2,400 acres with its chemical
plants right on top of the former Acadia and Buena Vista slave
plantations. If Formosa is built, it will be a death sentence
for St. James residents. Formosa would double air pollution in
my district and triple our exposure to cancer-causing chemicals
like benzene and ethylene oxide.
We are fighting; we have fought all the approvals given to
Formosa and stopped them. We must make sure it never gets
built.
Many other toxic industries are trying to move in, but we
must stop them. We are not leaving our community. We need
industry to leave. They get tax breaks and we get sickness and
death. For what? All in the name of profit.
These industries are big climate polluters. I survived
Hurricane Ida, but my home didn't. I watched oil spill out of a
holding tank. I lived out of a trailer for many months, and I
am still working to recover and rebuild.
President Biden, the EPA, the Army Corps and other agencies
should use the tools they already have to protect us. You,
Congress, could do so much by defending existing laws and
passing new laws to protect communities and stop building
petrochemicals and fossil fuel projects here in St. James and
everywhere.
I am here today because we are still not safe. Once again,
thank you for having me.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lavigne follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ms. Lavigne. Thank
you for your previous work as a teacher, because education is
so important to the next generation.
Our next witness is Chris Tandazo. Chris Tandazo serves as
the statewide Environmental Justice Organizer with the New
Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. We are pleased to have
you.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS TANDAZO, STATEWIDE ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
ORGANIZER, NEW JERSEY ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ALLIANCE
Mx. Tandazo. Good morning, thank you, buenos dias. Thank
you, Senator Merkley, for the invitation to testify this
morning.
My name is Chris Tandazo. I use they/them pronouns. I am
the statewide Environmental Justice Organizer for the New
Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, NJEJA.
NJEJA is a 20-year-old statewide environmental justice
organization in New Jersey. We collaborate with grassroots
partners to identify, prevent, reduce, and/or eliminate
environmental injustices in our communities. NJEJA is led and
staffed by majority people of color, who are also members of
the communities burdened by polluting facilities and toxic
infrastructure.
NJEJA, alongside other environmental justice advocates,
collectively advocated for and led the way in the passage of
the landmark New Jersey Environmental Justice Law, S. 232. The
primary purpose of the EJ law is to require the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection to evaluate the
environmental and public health impacts on overburdened
communities when reviewing permit applications for certain
facilities. NJDEP then has the authority to deny or condition
certain permits due to the cumulative impacts of pollution.
The EJ law is a beacon of hope for communities like mine. I
immigrated from Ecuador to Irvington, New Jersey when I was 15,
where I lived until my late 20's. Living in Irvington, the
presence of industrial facilities, trucks, and warehouses was
and remains a regular everyday sight, which made me accustomed
to living in pollution and seeing this as normal. It was so
normalized that I didn't think to challenge the presence of
industry.
It wasn't until I had the opportunity to attend graduate
school that I learned about environmental injustice and was
then introduced to the grassroots movement that has
courageously fought for the health and safety of our
communities. I realized how my life, my health, and the well-
being of my family and my entire community had been and
continues to be impacted by the presence of toxic pollutants
that are detrimental to human health, to our health.
When I think of plastic waste, I think of the environmental
justice communities at the front-line and backend of the
plastic crisis that have directly and disproportionately
experienced the harms of the entire life cycle of plastics. The
plastic crisis starts and is particularly acute in places like
Cancer Alley in Louisiana, like Ms. Sharon has just mentioned,
where the petrochemical industry has exposed Black communities
to high levels of toxins, causing extreme rates of cancer-
related illnesses and deaths.
Some of these toxins come from the fossil fuels used to
make plastic, but industry also adds many unnecessary toxins
for color, rigidity, texture, increasing the toxicity of the
plastic and making it impossible to recycle.
As plastic waste generation increases, so does the need to
dispose of it. At this stage, the plastic crisis arrives at my
front door in New Jersey. New Jersey is home to three
incinerators. All of these incinerators are located in low-
income communities of color, in Camden, Rahway, and Newark,
where the incinerators burn the plastic waste from New Jersey,
New York City, and many neighboring states, alongside all other
types of waste.
Burning waste, specifically plastic waste, creates even
more toxins and severely impacts the health of our communities,
such as volatile organic compounds, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur
dioxide, and particulate matter. These toxins are endocrine
disruptors, damage reproductive and neurological systems, and
increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory-related
illnesses for our communities, which are already so
overburdened by other polluting infrastructure and socio-
economic challenges.
I myself deal with respiratory issues. I am congested most
of the time, and it makes it hard to breathe when I am being
active outside. Many people close to me have asthma. You know
what makes this even sadder? According to a recent study by
Earth Justice, from 2004 to 2022, New Jersey ratepayers,
including myself, have paid over $60 million in renewable
energy credit subsidies to the incinerators in New Jersey.
I do not know about you, but it does not sit well with me
that our communities, my family, and myself, have been paying
the incinerators in New Jersey to pollute us, to sacrifice us
to a slow death.
The current disposal of plastic waste in our communities is
a manifestation of environmental racism present in zoning
policies that allow for the siting of incinerators and
petrochemical industries in communities similar to mine
throughout the Country. We collectively urge this body to take
proactive steps toward plastic reduction to alleviate the
burden our communities face.
Thank you for your time and for asking me to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mx. Tandazo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much for bringing your
insights from New Jersey.
Our next witness is Kevin Sunday, the Director of
Government Affairs at the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and
Industry. Mr. Sunday, the microphone is yours.
STATEMENT OF KEVIN SUNDAY, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS,
PENNSYLVANIA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
Mr. Sunday. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Merkley,
Ranking Member Mullin, members of the committee and staff. It
is an honor to appear before you this morning.
My name is Kevin Sunday, Director of Government Affairs
with the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry. We are
the largest broad-based business advocacy organization in the
Commonwealth, representing nearly 10,000 members of all sizes
and from all industrial and commercial sectors.
Our State is the No. 2 producer of natural gas and the
largest exporter of electricity in the U.S. We are a major
producer of construction materials, food, medicine, and other
life-sustaining products. Several of our members have important
advances underway to establish a circular economy that
minimizes water and plastics waste.
As you deliberate on this issue, it is our position that
policy must expand opportunities for all our citizens, advance
sustainability and support economic growth. High energy prices
are a regressive tax on the most vulnerable, and domestic
energy development is paramount to addressing energy poverty
here and abroad.
One of the key criteria in defining an environmental
justice community is the percentage of households or
individuals in poverty. These communities want jobs. We must
embrace and pursue tax and regulatory policy that does not
drive opportunity away from these communities.
The pandemic and recent supply chain shocks have made clear
how important it is for Pennsylvania and our Nation to have a
robust and reliable supply of energy and life-sustaining
products. I am proud to represent a State that has dramatically
improved the Nation's energy security and put it at the
leaderboard for emissions reductions.
Not only is Pennsylvania now measuring attainment due to
increased use of domestic energy for all NAAQS, National
Ambient Air Quality Standards, criteria pollutants, but our
diverse energy portfolio has positioned us as the second
leading State for greenhouse gas emission reductions. Shell Gas
Development, which has the lowest methane intensity of any
production basin in the world, according to the Clean Air Task
Force, is estimated to be responsible for more than 60 percent
of the total domestic greenhouse gas reductions since 2005,
putting the United States ahead of the next four countries
combined for aggregate emissions reductions.
Our State's chemical industry supports more than $24
billion in annual economic output, and 55,000 jobs. Like most
North American chemical manufacturers, they rely on natural gas
and petroleum feedstocks for 99 percent of the building blocks
for more than 70,000 different products, including a variety of
medical devices, products, and vaccines. These feedstocks are
also used to produce ammonia and fertilizer, which are
necessary to provide food to a growing global population.
According to the USEPA, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, manufactured goods from recycled materials typically
requires less energy than producing goods from virgin
materials, and thereby reduces emissions. Plastics play a key
role in reducing greenhouse emissions, and ensuring resilience
from natural disasters. Our State's energy, plastics, and
chemical industry are a major economic driver.
It has not been the case that plastic production operations
in our State have triggered environmental justice analyses and
the associated enhanced public participation process, owing
both to the geographies in which they operate and the nearby
demographics. Nonetheless, there remains an extremely
protective and stringent regulatory regime applicable to these
facilities and operations.
Our members are leaning in, from a refinery in southeastern
Pennsylvania being recognized by an historic leader in the
environmental justice movement for the company's community
engagement to an innovative zero-landfill plastics recycling
facility in Erie that is empowering the community to increase
their own waste minimization efforts, an initiative that is
being undertaken in partnership with community groups, the
USEPA, and with support from legislators across the aisle,
including Senators Casey and Fetterman.
As State and Federal regulators define policy goals with
respect to environmental justice, the implementation of these
goals must come through clearly articulated and objective
regulatory standards established by statute and through a
rulemaking process that are applied fairly and allow
communities to thrive. Pennsylvania's approach to environmental
justice has to date established a process that has ensured
public participation from impacted communities and a permitting
process that has produced durable permitting decisions.
I want to reiterate that disadvantaged communities are in
need of investment and that investment will not come without
tax and regulatory policy that encourages it.
Let me close by saying that we at the Chamber strongly
support the announcements from leaders on both sides of the
aisle, including Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, on
legislation to enact meaningful permitting reform to drive more
investment forward. Congress, in a bipartisan manner, has over
the past several years implemented key regulatory and
permitting reform provisions in defense, energy and
infrastructure bills, and most recently the debt ceiling.
There is widespread agreement on both sides of the aisle,
by business and by labor, that we can pursue further
environmental progress while cutting red tape. In fact, it is
the only way we are going to.
Thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to
answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sunday follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Again, I will please ask folks to take
your comments outside in the hallway. Thank you.
We are going to dive into the questions. We are doing 5
minutes apiece, so we can have multiple rounds as desired.
Oh, I am sorry, Ms. Jackson.
Senator Mullin. I promise he did not do that on purpose. We
disagree on a lot of stuff, but he is not rude.
[Laughter.]
Senator Merkley. Let me back up here. Welcome. Ms. Jackson
is the Director of Membership Development at Project 21's
National Center for Public Policy and Research. Now you have
the floor.
STATEMENT OF DONNA JACKSON, DIRECTOR OF MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT,
PROJECT 21, NATIONAL CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY AND RESEARCH
Ms. Jackson. Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Mullin, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to
testify today.
My name is Donna Jackson and I am the Director of
Membership Development for Project 21, the Black leadership
network of the National Center for Public Policy Research.
Project 21 is one of the oldest and largest Black conservative
think tanks in the country.
Our members come from all walks of life, from small
business owners to law enforcement to assembly line workers to
teachers to energy producers to clergy to health care workers.
Most of us are not career activists, lawyers, or lobbyists, and
more than a few of us actually live in the communities we hope
to improve.
We cover a wide range of issues, but our fundamental focus
is lifting people out of poverty and dependence and into
prosperity and self-sufficiency. I will make my main point up
front and tell you that I think it is an overwhelmingly
positive thing for struggling communities to have industrial
facilities nearby, including plastics manufacturing. The high
wage blue collar jobs that these employers provide are in many
cases the best ones available for those without college
degrees. If you look at the history of the creation of a Black
middle class over the last century, it is these gateway jobs
that lifted up millions of families and broke the cycle of
poverty.
I know that in my own family history I can point to
relatives who worked at Ford, General Motors, Chrysler, U.S.
Steel, and General Dynamics. Not only were they able to provide
for their families, but they were also able to become
homeowners and save for retirement.
Perhaps most importantly, they were able to provide the
educational opportunities that allowed the next generation to
attend college and pursue various professions. As a result,
their kids and now grandkids have never had to suffer even 1
day of poverty or helplessness.
To be blunt about it, it is downright crazy to suggest that
my family would have been better off if these factories would
have never allowed to be located near them. It is not just the
direct jobs. Every big manufacturing facility supports many
small businesses in the community, and quite a few of these
vendors are minority owned. They also contribute to the tax
base that pays for things like schools and police protection.
None of that can happen without the local industrial base,
whether it is a plastics plant or a refinery or an automaker.
Now, we will hear a lot about the environmental dangers of
living near or working in these facilities, including plastics
plants. I think a sense of perspective is in order. American
manufacturers are subjected to the most rigorous environmental
standards in the world, including plastics plants, and
industrial emissions have declined substantially over the last
several decades.
For every study claiming a cancer cluster or a statistical
association with some other disease, there are others that find
that low-income people living near these facilities are no
worse off than comparably poor people in general.
I think it is worth noting that the environmental justice
activists who focus on weak correlations between industrial
emissions and health impacts tend to ignore the undeniable and
well documented improvements that come with the transition from
poverty to well-paying employment.
Beyond reduced illness and disease, good jobs tend to lead
to stronger families and substantially lower rates of domestic
and sexual violence and other traumas. As far as my relatives
who worked for big manufacturers are concerned, the only
difference I could see in their health was the benefit of
having better medical care that comes with a good salary.
I might add that several of my factory worker aunts and
uncles and cousins are still with us and some have celebrated
their 100th birthdays.
In conclusion, the enemy is not trace emissions in the air
and water from industrial activity. The enemy is poverty. That
is why any attempt to shut down good industrial jobs will do a
lot more harm than good in the communities and people that need
these jobs the most.
Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson.
Now we will begin our questions. Ms. Jackson, you noted
that a number of your relatives worked for different automobile
manufacturers, and so forth, as I listened to that list. Do you
see a difference sometimes between manufacturing that involves,
for example, making cars, and the type of plastics production
plant that has a low number of jobs and a high level of
emissions?
Ms. Jackson. I think that all the manufacturers are
subjected to stringent regulations. Our EPA is actually doing a
great job. If there is really this high correlation, and I do
not pretend to be an expert, if it is really this damaging, we
should have Michael Regan in here answering to why they are not
doing their job.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Ms. Bradford, in the community you live in, if we were
talking instead of about a plastics plant, we were talking
about an automobile plant, would you have a different sense? Is
there something particularly dangerous and damaging about the
chemicals in the plastics plant?
Ms. Bradford. Good question. First of all, I would say my
concerns are about all emissions, regardless of the source and
regardless of what is being produced. Just for today's topic,
of course, it is plastics. I think with the research that we
are seeing from independent researchers, from colleges and
universities, from agencies around plastics, it is just
becoming more shocking, the level of chemicals that are
leaching.
For example, the recent Defend Our Health report that
studied 193 chemicals and found 150 of them leached into
plastic bottles, that is a big deal. Now that we know more
about everything from the production of plastics to drinking
out of plastic bottles to the waste discharges into the water,
so on and so forth, microplastics in the ocean, all of these
are confounding factors that are leading to some serious health
consequences, not just environmental.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Ms. Lavigne, you noted that you suffered autoimmune disease
and you are going to a lot of funerals. Is there a higher
correlation of devastating diseases near these plants than far
away from these plants?
Ms. Lavigne. Yes. I think there is higher, because it is
like I said, we are called Cancer Alley. St. James and St. John
Parish are the worst two parishes in this corridor between New
Orleans and Baton Rouge, especially St. John Parish. They are
suffering from chloroprene and the plant is called Denka
Dupont. These people are suffering even worse than us.
More people have been diagnosed with cancer, and more
people are dying with cancer. St. James is next to St. John. We
are dying with cancer.
At one time, we had like two to three funerals in 1 week.
Prior to me starting this work, I wondered why. Then I started
doing the work and I found out about all the pollutants. We
have 12 industries within a 10-mile radius. We are sandwiched
in. People over there are sick, people have asthma, children
are being born preemies, women are having miscarriages, and you
can not breathe the air.
Just like on one of the slides, you can see that yellow
sulfur is open. When you pass by that plant, you get a whiff of
that odor, and it goes in your nostrils and goes down to your
throat, and your throat is irritated. My daughter had to move
because she was always going to the doctor for sinus, ear
infections. My other daughter had to move because she was
always having headaches.
I am still there. My three children are still there, the
other three left. My neighbors, people are dying. Our little
area is like a skeleton town, because our public officials
allow industry to come in the Fifth District the most.
Senator Merkley. I will submit for the record, if there is
no objection, a number of articles that show a much higher
concentration of cancer rates and other disease rates near
these facilities than far away. I think your observed
experience is very well documented in the scientific
literature.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
I want to turn to Mx. Tandazo. You mentioned the burning of
plastics as a strategy for disposal, and I think you said three
incinerators in New Jersey. You also mentioned the New Jersey
environmental law.
Is that law a response to some of these challenges? Did it
improve the situation?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes, thank you for that question. Yes, the EJ
law was a response to the environmental justice communities in
New Jersey, particularly, and are in Ironbound similar to what
Ms. Sharon has mentioned. Ironbound has five-plus industrial
facilities, all of which are located within a five-mile radius
next to an entire neighborhood.
The folks and organizers that fought for the EJ law came
out of these neighborhoods. It was a 20-year battle. Dr. Nicky
Sheetz [phonetically] has been pushing for this law for
cumulative impacts in the past in New Jersey. This landmark
law, the rules just got passed this past Earth Week. Now we
have regulations.
Right now, we are preparing to see what is going to happen.
It seems the EJ law is triggering a lot of facilities that are
trying to be sited all over New Jersey, and facilities are
trying to be sited in communities of color, particularly. They
are not going to the suburbs, they are not going to the rural
areas. They are going to urban settings, where communities of
color live.
We are preparing ourselves to fight these proposals. The EJ
law now gives us the support to do that. The law will not allow
any facility that adds any additional pollution to the area
where they are trying to site.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
My time is expired, but when I come back, I am going to
pick up where we left off. What I will want to understand is
how is it that these incinerators continued operating after
violating their air permits more than 1,400 times. Also, why
they would get $60 million in renewable energy subsidies for
the purpose of burning plastic and creating pollution?
We will turn now to Co-Chair Senator Mullin.
Senator Mullin. Thank you, Chairman.
Ms. Bradford, in your testimony, did I understand you
right, that you want to end all plastic manufacturing?
Ms. Bradford. I said the plastics industry must be stopped.
Senator Mullin. Does that mean end plastic manufacturing?
Ms. Bradford. In my dream world, sure. I think that the----
Senator Mullin. I do not mean to be condescending here, I
just point out, what is going to replace your glasses?
Ms. Bradford. I do know----
Senator Mullin. Your glasses around your face. They are
made of plastic.
Ms. Bradford. Maybe. I do not know what they are made of.
Senator Mullin. They are. I am just pointing out some
things here, because I just want to be realistic when we are
having conversations. When statements are made like this, I
just want to open people's eyes to say, OK, it is easy to say,
but what is the solution. Your water bottle in front of you.
Ms. Bradford. This one.
Senator Mullin. Yes. That plastic?
Ms. Bradford. No.
Senator Mullin. The lid is. That is plastic.
Ms. Bradford. Right, so I would say to your question that I
would first be concerned about single-use plastics. Then we can
talk about alternatives.
Senator Mullin. Your cell phone there. Is it plastic?
Ms. Bradford. The case is. It is glass because----
Senator Mullin. Are the components inside of it not
plastic? The components made out of it is not plastic? They
are. The water that you filled that water bottle up with, where
did you fill that water bottle up out of?
Ms. Bradford. A water filling station.
Senator Mullin. It was delivered by a drink station that
was plastic?
Ms. Bradford. I didn't check.
Senator Mullin. The edges are. The piping coming to it, now
you have a couple choices with the piping. We could go back to
using wood, but then you have to have to line it in chemical.
Or we could go back and use lead because we used to have water
piping that was lead. That was harmful to us. We could go back
to galvanized, but galvanized rusts and had discoloration. We
could go back to copper, but copper has to be mined, and
everybody wants to stop mining in the U.S. You use plastic to
deliver piping that you filled that water bottle up today.
I point this out because the clothes you have on, I
guarantee have plastic in it, the shoes you have on your feet,
the soles of those shoes are plastic. We talk about any
manufacturer, plastic manufacturing, and everybody in here
cheered when you say that. Everybody here, it is an opinion on
plastic as you said.
If you want to end it then quit using it. It is kind of
like, I do not want to shop at certain places right now because
I do not agree with some of their policies. I choose not to do
that. You can choose to not use plastic, do your work. If you
believe it, then live it that way. If not, then tell me what
the solution is.
Mr. Sunday, can you manufacture a car today without
plastic? We talked about manufacturing, the Chairman brought up
manufacturing cars, is it as safe. The components that go into
the cars today, can you do that without plastic?
Mr. Sunday. No, Senator, and increasingly so with the new
mileage mandates, you increasingly need to use automotive
components that are plastics derived.
Senator Mullin. We wouldn't have manufacturing today,
modern manufacturing, if we didn't have plastics, correct?
Mr. Sunday. Correct.
Senator Mullin. Ms. Jackson, do you agree with that
statement?
Ms. Jackson. Yes.
Senator Mullin. What is the alternative for manufacturing?
The Democrats talk about middle-class wages. Middle-class wages
typically come directly from manufacturing. What is it that we
are manufacturing that does not have plastic in it today?
Ms. Jackson. Nothing, and you know what? It would increase
the cost of everything if we turned to an alternative and it
would disproportionately impact low-income people who have
lower incomes. It would be another regressive tax on the poor.
Senator Mullin. According to your testimony, Ms. Jackson,
it sounds like you are saying that the environmental justice
agenda does more harm than good for low-income families. Is
that correct?
Ms. Jackson. Yes. You know, I have the unique opportunity
to see both sides, when the industry comes in the area and when
it does not. As an auditor, I worked on Nissan North America.
Nissan North America moved to Smyrna, Tennessee, where it built
the largest automotive manufacturing plant. The transformation
was astonishing. It went from a community that was poor to a
community that U.S. World News voted one of the top 10 places
to retire.
You had poor people in areas that were poor that became
middle-class. You had middle-class people that became upper
middle-class, and a lot of upper middle-class people that
became affluent. They have attractions, they have amenities,
they have housing, affordability. The amount of prosperity in
that area has resonated out three counties, three counties.
I have also had the opportunity to see when an industrial,
and that wouldn't happen if you do not have an industrial
complex moving into the area where you are talking about high
economics.
I have also see the other side, where all of a sudden you
have deteriorating buildings, empty storefronts, dilapidated
housing, people standing on street corners, families that are
broken.
We need to balance the fact that people's lives need
economic upward mobility. We can not just say, we are going to
take out an industry and leave people poorer than they were.
Poverty causes the worst health care in this Country. Poverty
is the one that destroys lives, it destroys health, it creates
trauma.
We need to make sure that when we are talking about these
issues, we take into account the human loss of life, not just
the environmental impacts.
Senator Mullin. Thank you. Thanks for your indulgence.
Senator Merkley. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, for your
persistent focus on the plastics problem that we face.
Mx. Tandazo, the U.S. plastics recycling rate is less than
10 percent, once you actually put it in the blue bin. For
single-use plastics, about 2 percent of the feedstock is
recycled. The rest is all new. The industry is recommending
that as an alternative, we go to high heat waste disposal
facilities, like pyrolysis facilities.
Do you have a view on what dangers those facilities pose
for adjacent communities?
Mx. Tandazo. Thank you for the question. Yes, those are
what I would consider schemes to deceive this body and anybody
into thinking that they are actually doing some good. If you
are burning plastic, you are still emitting the toxics and the
chemicals. The chemicals that are used to make the plastic are
still being burned. That happens whether you combust them in
incinerators or you gas-fire through pyrolysis and
gasification.
It does not matter which avenue you choose to process the
plastic, it is still going to emit some sort of chemicals. What
is important to think about that is, when we are thinking of
where these so-called alternative recycling plastic-to-fuel
industries are going to be sited at, I will most definitely bet
you it is going to go to low-income communities of color, where
the industry is already taking control over the zoning laws, so
they have the support from municipalities to actually go ahead
and continue to re-site it in these places.
That is why the EJ law is important, because the EJ law
would allow communities themselves to hold the corporations
accountable, actually through a process to prove that their
operations are not going to harm our communities.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you.
Ms. Lavigne, I am getting ready to re-introduce my REDUCE
Act bill, that puts a 20 cent per pound fee on the sale of new
plastic that is destined for single-use products, to try to
help put that 2 percent number where there is so little
recycled plastic being put into single-use plastic.
The plastics industry was not very helpful in that regard,
and ran ads against my bill in Washington with images of things
like child car seats and bicycle helmets. I am not really sure
that those are single-use items in real life. I am interested
in your view on how the proliferation of single-use, throwaway
plastic items implicates communities like yours, not only in
the U.S. but around the world.
Ms. Lavigne. I think we can gradually get away from so much
plastics. I think we have too much, and the health effects of
making these plastics are killing the people, are making us
sick, giving us cancer. When I was diagnosed with autoimmune
hepatitis, I didn't know where it was coming from until I did
my research. It said it came from industrial pollutants. I live
in a cesspool of pollution.
I believe that that is where it came from. I feel we can
gradually go back to the old days when we didn't have so much
plastic, go back to glass. When I was a little girl, we didn't
have so much plastic. We weren't sick.
Maybe we can get together, find solutions, find strategies,
sit at the table and discuss these things. I would like to be a
part of that discussion, because we need to find ways to reduce
so much plastic, and also stop the industries from coming into
poor communities to make these plastics.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman, there are some pretty
reasonable minimum standards we should start pushing toward.
One of them was put forward at the Oslo Oceans Conference by
the European Company Unilever, which has pledged, I think
starting in 2026, to take out of the world a pound of plastic
for every pound of plastic that it puts out into the world
through packaging and through products, to go plastics neutral,
if you will.
If a company as big as Unilever can do that, that should
not be asking too much for American companies. This is an
announced policy. I think it would have a very positive effect.
In fact, it would create a market for getting plastic out of
the world. I think it would be particularly helpful in poorer
countries to have an international market of waste plastic that
people can take out of their communities and get paid for
cleaning up their communities.
There are plenty of levels of engagement. Clearly, if a
company as big as Unilever can make a commitment like that,
that is not an unreasonable ask.
Thanks for your attention to this problem.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Sullivan?
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to begin by thanking my friend and colleague,
Senator Whitehouse, on this topic of plastics and ocean
cleanup, he and I have been tag-teaming for a number of years
on the Save Our Seas Act 1.0, the Save Our Seas Act 2.0, which
the congressional Research Service called the most
comprehensive ocean cleanup, ocean debris legislation ever
passed in the history of the Congress.
It was very bipartisan, Trump Administration, now Biden
Administration. We are implementing that.
There is a lot of bipartisan work going on in this area of
plastics and cleanup, particularly for our oceans, which I
think literally everybody agrees with. I am looking forward to
continuing to work with him and this committee on the next
phase of that, which I think is very important.
The title of this hearing, though, I want to dig into the
topic of environmental justice a little bit more from our
witnesses. In my State, the great State of Alaska, there is a
real double standard on environmental justice. The Biden
Administration talks about how their report on environmental
justice listed a number of projects that ``will not benefit a
community,'' including fossil fuel production, pipeline
development, even possibly roads.
This is ridiculously naive, in my view. What I worry about
sometimes is when we talk about environmental justice, the
Native people, the indigenous people of my State always get
left out of the Biden Administration's views. Maybe for the
witnesses, should not environmental justice include indigenous
people in Alaska? Does everybody agree with that?
Everybody is nodding. That is not a trick question, it is
just a pretty basic question. I think the answer is yes, Mr.
Chairman.
Yet, whether it is the King Cove Road, that is a road that
would connect the community of King Cove, it is a Native
community in Alaska, where they have been trying to build a 12-
mile, single lane dirt road to an airport that would save
lives, this Administration is now opposing it. Secretary
Haaland, every radical lower 48 environmental group opposes
that. That is not environmental justice.
We had a bill of mine, the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
getting land, Native allotments to Alaska Natives who served in
Vietnam. Secretary Haaland will not implement that at all
because radical lower 48 environmental groups do not want
Native Americans who served in Vietnam when most people were
avoiding service to get land.
Is that environmental justice? Hell, no. That is not
environmental justice.
The Ambler Road, which this Administration has now
reversed, that was supported by a number of indigenous
communities in Alaska, would create jobs.
My point, Mr. Chairman, is there is a lot of talk about
environmental justice. When it comes to Alaska Native people,
indigenous people in my State, almost 20 percent of the
population, this Administration targets them so often. Their
claims of environmental justice are just, I do not know. They
are really harming the people of my State, particularly the
Native people, the indigenous people.
I do not want an exception for environmental justice.
Shouldn't be an exception. Do you guys agree? This is not a
controversial statement. Indigenous people in Alaska should be
getting the same benefits that everybody else does under this
rubric of environmental justice. They do not.
I am just going to let that stand here, Mr. Chairman. It is
a big issue for me. It is hypocritical by the White House, by
the way.
Let me just ask a general question. Mr. Sunday, Ms.
Jackson, and again, I worked hard on the issue of plastics and
pollution and making sure we do not pollute our oceans. One
thing I do worry about is that if we crack on plastics here,
the production of that, it is just going to drive it overseas
to China, places that do not have strong environmental
standards like we do.
Is that a concern, and should we be making sure that any
action or legislation we take does not have the perverse impact
of driving operations and jobs to China where their
environmental standards on the production of plastics are not
nearly as high as ours? Do you have a view on that, Mr. Sunday?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, Senator, thanks for the question.
It is the right perspective. As I mentioned in my opening
statement, the U.S. greenhouse gas emission reductions are
greater than the next four countries combined. China's is
greater than all the OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development, nations.
Senator Sullivan. China's is going up the other way, and
ours are going down.
Mr. Sunday. Right.
Senator Sullivan. The revolution in the production of
natural gas, right?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, sir.
Senator Sullivan. Ms. Jackson, do you have a view on that?
We do not want plastic production going to the dirtiest
producer, which is China, and then taking our jobs away. Do you
have a view on that?
Ms. Jackson. Yes. It is our economy that is always being
attacked, even though we are the least of polluters. China is
the greatest polluter, but yet they are being able to get the
benefit of when we attack our economy, when we kill our jobs,
we push them over to the biggest polluter.
If you really believe that plastics are a danger to the
planet, it should be a danger no matter where it is produced.
Senator Sullivan. Correct.
Ms. Jackson. Somehow only Americans are being penalized.
Senator Sullivan. We do not want to kill jobs and then send
production to China that will pollute the environment globally
even worse?
Ms. Jackson. I think it just goes to the narrative that we
do not really believe this. It is this kind of where we want to
just signal that we are good people. If you care about people,
you care about all people. If you believe that plastics are
harming individuals, why harm other people overseas? How come
they are expendable? It should not be that way.
Again, this Country is subject to the most rigorous
regulations. Those companies are actually meeting those
standards. If they are not, why isn't Michael Regan in here
talking about why we are not making sure that our companies are
not adhering to those standards? Nobody really believes that.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
We are going to have additional 5-minutes rounds as people
would like.
One of the things I find interesting about the plastics
conversation is when we identify some of the significant harms
that have developed as the production of plastics has
increased. It is often pointed out that, well, there are
plastics in almost everything. This is pretty accurate. Nylon
is a plastic in our clothes, Dacron, et cetera.
When you have harmful effects, it isn't the right answer to
say, well, there is nothing that can be done. One of the
conversations is, how do we distinguish between necessary uses
of plastic and those that are not necessary. Maybe we can
reduce those harmful effects by reducing how much we produce.
When we produce it, how do we produce it in a way that is less
harmful to the communities in which it is located? How do we
reduce the emissions and reduce the cancer and the disease
rates there?
When it is used in our consumer economy, how do we reclaim
it in a fashion that it does not end up in our rivers and our
oceans, affecting our ecosystems? How do we reduce the amount
of microplastics? I can tell you in the health of our children,
having the effect that we now consume the equivalent of a
credit card of plastic a week through microplastics in our food
and our water, that is a very serious health issue.
I want to encourage a conversation that is based in reality
that there are real issues, that plastics have real roles. We
may be able to work together through this set of hearings to
develop a set of ideas on how we can keep the essential and
necessary roles but eliminate the unnecessary, or at least
eliminate the side effects or reduce them.
That is the conversation we are engaged in. Ms. Bradford,
you mentioned single-use plastics. Is that an area you think is
kind of ripe for us to target to try to reduce?
Ms. Bradford. Yes, for sure. We had human existence and
efficiencies prior to single-use plastics. We can have that
without them, after them. To the point that you were making, I
think it is the responsibility of every industry in this
Country to come together and figure out what actually makes
sense. Yes, we can not power down everything immediately when
it comes to plastics.
There are some medical uses, and of course, I use them in
my lab. We have not always. There are many ways to go back to
less dangerous, less harmful plastic or non-plastic material.
Also, we know from recent reports that have come out that
there are alternatives to a lot of the chemicals that are being
used that because maybe they are cheaper are not being
replaced. We need industries, the petrochemical and plastics
industries, to replace a lot of the chemicals that they are
using.
Senator Merkley. One of the chemicals that gets significant
attention in plastics are endocrine disruptors. Is that
something you are familiar with?
Ms. Bradford. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Can you explain that for us?
Ms. Bradford. Yes, so when you think about the endocrine
system, you are talking about hormones. Hormones regulate a lot
throughout the body. Essentially, plastics are, their chemicals
are disrupting the natural processes of your body. That can
lead to autoimmune diseases or dysfunction of the kidney,
liver, central nervous system. Endocrine disruptors have
several different negative effects and can be carcinogenic as
well.
Senator Merkley. There are various studies that have
suggested that there is a link between plastics which we end up
inhaling or eating and the effects upon breast cancer, prostate
cancer, and for that matter sperm production. Should Americans
be concerned about these types of health impacts?
Ms. Bradford. I will say, I would be concerned across the
board with all these things. It is only now that a lot of
researchers are thinking through not just the historical ways
in which we thought maybe diabetes or cardiovascular disease or
kidney disease develops, but what role does plastic now play in
that. We are seeing that in our Country, we have a lot of
chronic diseases that we have not gotten under control, that we
are still seeing increased diagnoses for people. You do have to
start to wonder, and hopefully we will see more money for
research in the areas of determining the role that plastics
plays in disease development.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
I want to turn next to Mx. Tandazo, to the conversation
about the new law in New Jersey. Is it kind of the bottom line
that better regulation can reduce some of the harmful effects?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes, that is right.
Senator Merkley. Is it a combination of Federal regulation
and State regulation?
Mx. Tandazo. I think it will vary depending on the
situation we are talking about. At the State level it works for
New Jersey, because it is a small State and it is fairly easy
to regulate and have larger oversight over the State. At the
Federal level, it would get a little more complicated because
of the different zoning policies, the different municipalities
all having different things.
Senator Merkley. The incinerators have violated their air
permits more than 1,400 times since 2004. I think those air
permits would have been State air permits, am I correct about
that? Those are State enforcement?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Do we need better Federal regulation, to
Ms. Jackson's point about, if we are concerned about States and
places that are violating the emissions or have very high
emissions, do we need more Federal supervision of how States
enforce these toxic emissions from plastic production?
Mx. Tandazo. I think there is an opportunity to do
something at the Federal level. I think it would definitely be
more efficient to do something State by State. I think the
Federal Government can support by emphasizing different
procedures and regulatory systems that can be implemented in
different laws.
It is possible to do it at the Federal level. President
Biden just signed an Executive Order for Environmental Justice
this past Earth Month. It would be incredible if we can pass
that Executive Order into law. Then we would have more Federal
oversight over not just polluting industries that work at the
State level, but also polluting industries that work at the
Federal level. A lot of them do not have full oversight by the
States, but they have Federal legislation, too.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. We have been joined by Senator
Markey of Massachusetts.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this
important hearing.
Here is what I know. Japanese women in Japan contract
breast cancer at only one-third the rate of Japanese women once
they move to the United States, and their daughters are growing
up their whole lives. In other words, there is something in
American culture that affects those Japanese women once they
get here. Within the first generation, a Japanese American
woman has breast cancer at twice the rate as a women of
Japanese origin in Japan.
We are doing it to ourselves. Is it in our food? Is it in
our air? Is it toxics? What are we doing to ourselves? What is
it that is going inside of the people in our Country that has
their genes misspell, so that now there is a disease which is
induced in individuals?
We know historically that toxics have been identified as
one of those real culprits. We know that all of you have spent
your lives working in those issues. Mx. Tandazo, can you speak
to some specific cost that you have seen as a result of plastic
waste incinerators?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes, we can talk about the costs to the
ratepayers and the costs to their health. New Jersey folks in
urban communities already face a lot of socioeconomic
challenges that come from lack of access to proper health care,
economic resources, healthy jobs.
Senator Markey. I will come back to you.
Let me come over to you, Ms. Lavigne. Cancer Alley, people
are 50 times more likely on average to get sick than other
people in America. Again, that is kind of an analogy over to
the Japanese women in Japan, Japanese women here. You are a
good example of what happens when there is some proximity.
Can you expand upon that, and what do you think are the
causes of it and what the remedy has to be?
Ms. Lavigne. I think that when you come into Cancer Alley,
you are susceptible to something. I had a young girl from New
York who came to stay with me for about 5 months, and she
became ill from breathing the air. She said when she wakes up
in the morning, she had a headache sometimes. Then she started
to feel dizzy or lightheaded. She is not from here, and for her
to experience that, I can imagine what other people coming to
Cancer Alley will experience there.
I always ask people to come to the area where I live, next
to Donaldsonville, that is where the hotels are, and spend a
night at the hotel and wake up the next morning and tell me if
you smell something.
Senator Markey. Yes. When I was growing up in Malden,
Massachusetts, I lived in Ward Two. I still live in Ward Two in
Malden, Massachusetts. Every city has a sacrifice ward. The
Malden River is in Ward Two, three blocks from my house.
My mother would always say to me, Eddie, whatever you do,
do not swim in the Malden River. It was black with a pre-Jimi
Hendrix purple haze over it. I knew I wasn't Tom Sawyer and
Huck Finn on the Mississippi, reading those books, when your
mother says, do not swim in the river three blocks from your
house. It was the chemical companies, the coal companies, they
all just dumped it all in the Malden River.
You live in that ward in Louisiana.
Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
Senator Markey. You live in the petrochemical sacrifice
zone.
Ms. Lavigne. I sure do.
Senator Markey. Every city has that ward, where everyone
thinks they can put all of those industries.
Ms. Lavigne. I do not think that should be. I think we have
the right to breathe clean air and drink clean water. I do not
think that we should be a sacrifice.
Senator Markey. Beyond the dollars, the human costs, the
health care costs, can you just expand on that a little?
Ms. Lavigne. Yes. I think industry should pay for my
illnesses. They made me sick.
Senator Markey. Thank you.
Ms. Lavigne. You are welcome.
Senator Markey. Do you agree with that, Ms. Jackson?
Ms. Jackson. I think that I feel sorry for the illnesses
that she is suffering. At the same time, I know that there are,
some studies agree and some studies do not agree. I feel sorry
and I hope that she feels better. That is all I can say. There
are lots of studies out there, some say there is a direct
correlation; some do not. I think we do not know enough
information to be able to tell.
Senator Markey. At least from my perspective, I think there
is a pretty clear correlation that has been established. I know
up in Woburn, Massachusetts, when I was a young Congressman,
this mother came to me with her little boy, Jimmy. He had
leukemia. What she had done was then go door to door to door in
her ward and she found another five children with leukemia, all
within three or four blocks.
I helped to bring in the EPA to do the big study. It
eventually became a movie called A Civil Action, that kind of
spotlighted this Woburn case. All those children died. We were
able to come in there and just make sure we cleaned up that
site. They were dumping all of those chemicals, Monsanto and
others, into the ground and into the water. Young children were
being exposed to it.
Senator Merkley. Senator Markey, can you stay for another
5-minute session?
Senator Markey. Yes, I am sorry. I am sorry to run over.
Thank you all so much for your courage in standing up. We
just have to do something about this. This is a crisis in our
Country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Mullin?
Senator Mullin. I just want to followup with Ms. Bradford.
You stated you are against single-use plastics. What specific
are you pointing at for single use? What products are you
talking about?
Ms. Bradford. Definitely straws, definitely plastic
bottles. I will not say anything else because I can not think
of anything else right now.
Senator Mullin. Are you for recycling, and advanced
recycling?
Ms. Bradford. No, because it does not work and it does not
happen.
Senator Mullin. Well, then, in your case and everything is
single use at that point. If you are not for recycling, then
you can not say you are against single-use and you are OK with
everything else.
Ms. Bradford. I am for facts, and I think only 9 percent
worldwide are actually recycled.
Senator Mullin. That is why I say that we should focus more
on recycling. If you can tell me you are for recycling, then
maybe we can work to something. A while ago you did say you
were for, you were not against all of it, because you have to
be realistic. You are against single use, because that is what
the Chairman asked you.
If you are for, or against single use, then you must be for
recycling.
Ms. Bradford. No. It does not work.
Senator Mullin. Well, then, that does not make any sense at
all. You can not exist without plastic today. We have already
pointed that out.
I do not know what the alternative is. We talk about this
all the time. It is like Ms. Lavigne mentioned that glass is an
alternative. If you remember, sir, at our last hearing we had
on plastic, for the record I submitted the McKinsey and Company
study that showed that actually plastic has a less carbon
footprint than glass.
Where are we moving toward? What is it that we want to look
to? If we are still for the middle class, we got to have
manufacturing. We pointed that out, that we can not do without
it. We are against it, but yet everybody here is using it. I
just see a lot of people having a thought process because it
sounds good, but no one is actually living by what you believe.
Ms. Bradford. I do not have any single-use plastics in my
house.
Senator Mullin. Do you know that for a fact?
Ms. Bradford. I know that for a fact. I go----
Senator Mullin. What do you not have? What products? You
just mentioned water bottles.
Ms. Bradford. I do not have water bottles like that in my
house.
Senator Mullin. Most of these water bottles actually
recycle, including the one that I am having.
Ms. Bradford. I do participate in recycling, I just know
that it does not work internationally. It is not adding up.
Senator Mullin. Well, I would suggest you maybe doing your
homework a little bit more when you come up here and you start
talking about this stuff that you actually understand what it
is the impact that you are talking about.
Ms. Bradford. I do my homework. I do understand the impact.
I know I am wasting my time recycling because most of it is not
recycled. That is because of the industry and the fact that
plastic is in everything is because the industry forced us to
have it.
Senator Mullin. Well, then quit using plastics.
Ms. Bradford. The industry is just not making that
possible.
Senator Mullin. Well, if you feel that way, then quit----
Ms. Bradford. I do. I just told you, I do not have single-
use plastic bottles in my house. I do what I can.
Senator Mullin. Hold on a second. You are against all
plastic but you have plastic all around you. If you are against
plastic, then do not use it. Live by what you are saying. There
is a lot of people around here that I disagree with, but if you
would live it----
Ms. Bradford. I do live it.
Senator Mullin [continuing]. I respect it--ma'am, you do
not, because you have plastic on your face, you have plastic on
the water bottle, you have----
Ms. Bradford. I do not own companies to create these
things. I cannot make these things. Until they are available,
we are stuck with some things. I do what I can.
Senator Mullin. Do you believe in, do you believe that we
should have solar systems, or not solar systems, but we should
have solar panels on our house?
Ms. Bradford. I am here to talk about what is on the
agenda.
Senator Mullin. I mean, they are.
Ms. Bradford. They are also not single use.
Senator Mullin. Neither is this bottle. Let's go to Mr.
Sunday. In your opening statement, you mentioned Shell Gas was
a big reason why United States have led the world in CO2
reduction, because the energy and natural gas liquids in their
manufacturing is less emission intense than overseas
manufacturing, especially compared to countries like China, is
that correct?
Mr. Sunday. Yes, sir.
Senator Mullin. Can you explain a little bit more about
that?'
Mr. Sunday. Yes. As I mentioned, the Clean Air Task Force
looked at the methane intensities and Shell Gas in Appalachia
has the lowest leakage of any basin in the world. The increased
use of natural gas produced in that region, including
Pennsylvania, has been estimated to be about 60 percent of the
reason why we led the world in reducing emissions as a Country
since 2005.
Big picture, the issue is how do you reduce emissions, keep
costs down and be reliable. That is the long-term challenge.
The short-term challenge is every country out there that is
relying on Russian oil and gas, we should be doing everything
we can to get our energy over there because it is also going to
be used more sustainably.
I can guarantee you, and you can see the Boston Globe
feature from a couple years ago when an LNG tanker came into
Boston, when we got Shell Gas in northeast Pennsylvania, the
most prolific in the world. I definitely want the producer
standards in my standards versus Putin's regime. We saw what
that led to.
Senator Mullin. You know what the difference between the
two standards are?
Mr. Sunday. It is an order of magnitude. I mean, it is so
much so that even if you count for transportation across a
tanker, Shell Gas in the U.S. shipped across the seas is more
sustainable than pipe coming in from Russia.
Senator Mullin. They're not using electricity in the ships
to bring them here? Or they have combustible motors in them?
Mr. Sunday. Right.
Senator Mullin. That is what I was thinking. Trucks to get
them from Point A to Point B, since we can not build pipelines
in the east coast right now.
Mr. Sunday. Right.
Senator Mullin. With that, sir, I yield back.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
The Chair of the committee has arrived, Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I start today, I want to thank all of you for
joining us. I want to thank our witnesses for coming and
speaking with us, sharing some ideas with us, responding to our
questions.
People sometimes ask me, what is environmental justice all
about anyway? I just met with a bunch of students earlier today
from all over Delaware, Future Farmers of America. One of the
things we talked about was, believe it or not, Matthew 25.
Matthew 25 goes something like this, when I was hungry, did you
feed me, when I was thirsty, did you give me to drink, when I
was naked, did you cloth me, when I was sick and in prison, did
you visit me, when I was a stranger in your land, did you
welcome me.
I think we have a moral obligation to the least of these in
our society. I think what environmental justice is all about is
just how do we meet that moral obligation to treat other people
the way we want to be treated. It is just that simple, the
Golden Rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated.
It is an issue that it turns out environmental justice
invokes quite a bit of passion, as evidenced by the hearing in
this room today. We meet in this room, not every day of the
week, but throughout the week, throughout the year. There are
oftentimes great passions that are vented in this room, as you
might imagine.
Environmental justice is also an issue that invokes strong
emotions that come from the experiences that we have lived in
our lives and have felt the impact, in some cases, of disparate
government policies.
I thank our chairman, Chairman Merkley, I want to thank our
Ranking Member, Senator Mullin, for inviting you to convene
here to give you a chance to share your thoughts with us and to
give us a chance to ask some questions of you. I believe that
it is incredibly important to create productive space, if you
will, for having an important discussion like the one here
today.
I will close by saying, I will ask a question, we need to
treat each other with kindness. We need to treat one another
the way we wanted to be treated. That is what I try to do, as
Chairman of this committee. I am sure that is the way Senator
Merkley has chaired this committee hearing today.
A couple of questions, if I may. Going down the list first
of all, Sharon, you go first. Where are you from?
Ms. Lavigne. I am from St. James, Louisiana.
Senator Carper. Welcome.
Ms. Lavigne. Thank you.
Ms. Bradford. I'm Angelle Bradford, I split my time between
Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
Senator Carper. Yes, please.
Mx. Tandazo. I am originally Ecuadorian, but currently
living in Jersey City, New Jersey.
Senator Carper. OK.
Ms. Jackson. I am from Maryland, Kensington.
Senator Carper. OK, a neighbor.
Ms. Jackson. Not originally from here. San Diego,
Nashville, several places around the Country.
Senator Carper. I like the way you say Nashville.
Please?
Mr. Sunday. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Senator Carper. All right. Good to see you.
In April of this year, our President issued an Executive
Order on environmental justice that directs Federal agencies to
take steps to address cumulative impacts on environmental
justice communities. That includes meaningful public
participation in agency decisionmaking. I always have been a
strong supporter of engaging with the communities early and
often.
We had a great hearing here on permitting reform just a
couple of weeks ago. Interestingly, the business community was
the one that was most strong, the strongest on the idea that as
we move forward with permitting reform, we have to reach out to
communities that are at risk and follow through early on, get
their opinion early on. I was very encouraged by that.
Here is my question. What would meaningful engagement look
like for each of the communities you have worked with? What
would meaningful engagement look like for each of the
communities that you have worked with? How would you like to
see agencies update their procedures in accordance with the
Executive Order to foster more meaningful discussions with
communities?
Ms. Bradford, would you answer that first, please? What
does meaningful engagement look like for each of the
communities you have worked with?
Ms. Bradford. Meaningful engagement, I think first things
first, would be transparency. I do not want to say education,
because we are not dumb in Louisiana, we understand a lot when
it comes to environmental policies that exist. There are so
many different agencies involved, it would be really helpful if
at the Federal level there was more engagement in New Orleans
and Baton Rouge and in between, all along the Gulf Coast, as it
pertains to the different commenting periods and procedures for
decisions around permits for these plants and for plastics in
particular.
Senator Carper. OK.
Ms. Bradford. I think another meaningful thing would be,
and I often hear the pushback around, well, you can not prove
this, Exxon pollution led to this, and just really starting
from a place of understanding that our Country does not have a
lot of things that other countries do. A lot of these studies
do admit, being low-income, in poverty, does impact these
things. Not having universal health care and access to health
care that is not connected to your job, but also pollution. All
of this comes together to lead to the outcomes that we see. We
know that. We are not trying to say, and we need to make sure
the communities understand that their voice still matters, that
we can not silence them by saying, oh, you can not prove this
was because of this, therefore what you are saying is not true.
Senator Carper. Thank you, ma'am.
Sharon, how do you pronounce your last name?
Ms. Lavigne. Lavigne.
Senator Carper. Lavigne, thank you. Same question, if you
would. What would meaningful engagement look like for each of
the communities that you have worked with, please?
Ms. Lavigne. I do not understand the question.
Senator Carper. Let me go on, Chris, same question if you
will. We will come back to you, Sharon. Chris, any thoughts?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes, definitely. I think I would like to
mention the Environmental Justice law again, because the
Environmental Justice law actually has meaningful engagement.
The Environmental Justice law in New Jersey actually has
meaningful engagement as part of the policy.
The way it happens is when a facility wants to site a new,
create a new industry in our community, they have to go through
a process through the DEP. The DEP then analyzes whether this
facility is going to have any sort of additional polluting,
contributing more toxic pollutants to the community. Then it
calls for a public hearing. The public hearing involves
community members. The DEP is responsible, not the community,
the DEP is responsible for holding community hearings in which
they invite the facility that has the air permits, and they
invite the community.
The community then hears the permits and they decide, this
is what we want, or we do not want this. If we want it, we want
it with certain, we want it to be healthy in certain ways. Then
the DEP goes into it, analyzes that. Then the facility has to
do an environmental justice report back to the DEP to make sure
they are not actually adding any pollutants.
If they pass then they get approval for their permit. If
they do not pass, the air permits get denied. Then they do not
get constructed.
This is how the EJ law has made sure the community is 100
percent involved in the entire process of what facilities are
going to go into our communities.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
Sharon, we are going to come back to you, and I am going to
pronounce your name correctly. Here is a new question. Through
your testimony, you shared with us the impact that decades of
pollution have had on your community. Is it St. James Parish?
Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
Senator Carper. St. James Parish in Louisiana. Including
the disparate health outcomes for communities of color. IN
order to support the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality in addressing these disparities, the EPA recently
announced a grant to the State agency funded through the
American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act that would
set up an air monitoring project in St. James Parish, your
parish.
What kind of impact will this EPA grant have on you and on
your community in St. James Parish? Additionally, are there
other actions or engagement efforts from EPA that have been
effective in helping your community in St. James Parish?
Ms. Lavigne. In my community in St. James Parish, the
people do not have a voice. The politicians make the decisions.
They do not follow protocol. We get the bulk of the impact of
industry and the pollution.
If the people had a say-so in what is going on in our
community, I do not think any of this would be happening to us.
In Congress, we need to involve the people in making these
decisions, the people that live in those communities that are
impacted.
If you want to see what is going on, Congress, you need to
come to the local communities and see what is going on for
themselves before they make these decisions. It is killing the
people. I think we should have people's lives protected instead
of industry being protected. That is what is happening in St.
James.
Senator Carper. All right.
Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. You have been very
generous with it, and I appreciate it.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We are going to go to Senator Markey, and we can come back
to you if you would like to ask more questions.
Senator Carper. Go ahead, Eddie.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When Ms. Lavigne says that you are 50 times more likely to
get cancer in Cancer Alley, that is a correlation. That is
twice as much, 50 times as likely to get cancer if you are
living in those areas.
Ms. Lavigne. Yes.
Senator Markey. Renewable energy is displacing fossil fuel
energy in Texas and Louisiana and States all across the
Country. The fossil fuel industry is actually looking for a new
market for their product, and it is plastics that they are
looking at, where they will use their fossil fuels. When we see
an increase in plastic production, it does not benefit the
communities. It actually benefits the oil and gas companies.
Ms. Lavigne. That is right.
Senator Markey. The bottom line is that we have a plastic
bottle right here, they could use another substance to make the
bottle. They used plastics. You really can not do a lot about
it. You have plastic in your house, you have plastics right
here on the dais. We do not get options. That is the problem.
In the same way that the auto industry didn't want to build
in seat belts. Are you not going to drive? No, you have to
drive to work. The auto industry didn't want to put in air
bags. Are you not going to drive to work or to school? No, you
have to drive. You want the safeguards, but the auto industry
didn't want to put it in.
It took regulations in order to make sure that we would
have those safeguards in place. By the way, the mining
industry, they didn't want to put in safeguards for the
workers. Black lung disease, you just have to run the risk. No
protections.
We can see the whole trend here in terms of how these
sacrifice zones are created here by those plants. Can you just
expand a little bit more, Ms. Bradford, on your experience on
this issues?
Ms. Bradford. Expand on----
Senator Markey. On the toxicology-related studies that do
show the correlation to disease, when a human body is exposed
to these toxic substances.
Ms. Bradford. Yes. There was a paper published late last
year by Dr. Terrell and Dr. St. Julien around air pollution
being linked to higher cancer rates among Black or impoverished
communities in Louisiana. They concluded that regardless, our
analysis, I will provide context. Just like I said before, they
did speak to the fact that low-income communities, low-income
Black communities in particular do not have access to health
care and preventive care for sure.
In addition to that, they were able to provide evidence of
a statewide link between cancer rates and a carcinogenic air
pollution in marginalized communities, and suggest that toxic
air pollution is a contributing factor to Louisiana's cancer
burden.
The last time I checked, Louisiana's cancer burden, I
believe we were second in the Nation and fifth for mortality,
just for various reasons for those differences. Then I was
trying to look up studies for Baton Rouge, with their major
petrochemical complex, with Exxon and Formosa Plastics in Baton
Rouge.
The studies are coming out more. It is hard to get the
point source.
Senator Markey. Thank you. I agree with you 100 percent.
Mx. Tandazo, I have 1 minute left. Can I get your
concluding thoughts?
Mx. Tandazo. I will followup on this as well. Yes, I do
think that we have a lot of, it is not just like one facility
that we are being exposed to. It is not just one fossil fuel
plant. It is several fossil fuel plants in one neighborhood. It
would be different if we were like, there is one facility miles
away from a neighborhood. This is literally sited right next to
people's houses.
I think we often tend to forget how much people lack health
care, to be able to take care of themselves. A lot of these
communities have socioeconomic challenges and lack access to a
lot of these resources that, if you actually had universal
health care there probably wouldn't be as much death happening
because folks would be able to go to the doctor and check
themselves and be like, hey, something is happening. I am not
feeling well. A lot of the people in our communities do not
have that.
Senator Markey. This is such an important hearing. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing this great group together. We
have to learn from them and then act. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Markey.
We are getting close to wrapping up, but I wanted to
mention a couple of things. I like the analogy that my
colleagues represented about cars. Cars are essential. When
they were without seat belts or airbags or bumpers or crush
zones, a lot more people died. In this case, we are trying to
figure out how the pollution can really be limited, how the bad
effects can be limited.
I was kind of struck by the conversation about water
bottles. We have three examples up here. We have a glass, so it
can be used a million times. We actually have a pitcher, and
this pitcher is not glass. I am not sure about the one on your
table there. They look like maybe those are glass, this is not.
Both of them are reusable thousands of times.
Then my colleague had a plastic water bottle. It is
designed for single use. Some States have deposits on those
bottles. Oregon was the first to have a returnable deposit, and
it massively decreased the pollution. At that time it was all
glass, but it was often shattered, broken glass. As a kid, I
was a Boy Scout, we were out picking up glass shards all the
time.
When we did in Oregon the first return bill in the Nation,
which was 5 cents, which would be equivalent to a quarter
today, they just disappeared completely. If somebody else left
one, you picked it up yourself. For the equivalent of 25 cents
today, you didn't waste it.
Then we had another problem, which was the flip top on
aluminum cans. Those little flip tops were sharp and they were
being digested by animals and stepped on and feet were cut.
Oregon said, you can not have detachable flip tops. The
industry was like, that is crazy, it is impossible to solve.
The day that went into effect, all the cans in Oregon had an
attachable flip top. It was a solvable problem.
There are solvable problems in the plastic pollutions that
we are suffering from, and that is what we are working to
solve. There is a difference between a glass that we can use a
million times, a plastic or glass pitcher, and using instead
over the course of time, thousands of water bottles. Those
water bottles, in the States that do not have a deposit on
their water bottles, the recycling rate is often under 20
percent. The States that have a deposit, the rates are almost
always over 60 percent.
Oregon increased its return from 5 cents to 10 cents, and
we saw a jump. Five cents is not what it was back in the
1970's.
I want to conclude, I know we didn't get to the question,
but a vote is underway and I guess I am one of the last to
vote. I have a little bit of time, OK.
I think to the degree that we can recognize that plastics
are going to be with us in many capacities, but we can
seriously reduce the pollution that comes from the production,
we can seriously decrease the roadside pollution that comes
from plastic waste, we cannot site any more facilities in
places where they are going to harm the surrounding
communities. We can have better regulations on emissions and
better, if you will, monitoring of those regulations.
Which brings me to my question. You mentioned in your
testimony that these incinerators kept operating but they had
like 1,400, I think it was since 2004, air violations. There is
a standard, but when you were talking about 1,400 times it was
documented, who knows how many thousands of times it wasn't
documented.
Mx. Tandazo. Right.
Senator Merkley. They just ignored them. It was just a cost
of doing business, well, if we get fined, it does not really
matter. The first time you get fined, it is like, well, shall
we fix this problem? If you are getting cited over 1,000 times,
it is clear you are just ignoring it.
Why did it not work? Why were they not brought into
compliance with the emission regulations?
Mx. Tandazo. It is just a lack of oversight or a lack of
authority to have oversight from the DEP. It was just a lack of
oversight that they didn't have before, and now they do because
of the EJ law.
Senator Merkley. You mentioned that these plants are
receiving, I thought you said $60 million of subsidies,
recycling subsidies or renewable energy subsidies.
Mx. Tandazo. Yes.
Senator Merkley. They are burning plastic, emitting toxic
chemicals that harm the surrounding community, and getting
money from the State?
Mx. Tandazo. Yes, basically. This is because, again, I
mentioned earlier the schemes of false solutions and different
names and terminologies that these industries use, such as
alternative recycling that was mentioned here today a couple of
times. That is the same as chemical recycling. The incinerator
industry uses waste-to-energy to label themselves, or municipal
solid waste.
They label themselves this way, at the Federal level they
have been recognized as a renewable energy resource. They are
recognized at the Federal level under the renewable portfolio
standards program, they receive Federal funding, Federal
subsidies for renewable energy credits.
Basically, they lied about what operations they do in order
to make it seem like they are actually green energy. The claim
is that they are a renewable energy resource because they are
able to generate energy from burning trash, which would then
mean that the sources and resources they need in order to
constantly generate electricity over the decades is trash.
It means they are dependent on trash. There is no incentive
here to reduce the amount of trash or plastic pollution that
goes into anywhere. They need this incentive. They are not
trying to stop the production of plastic.
When we have policies like a set of bills on
responsibilities that can hold them accountable and reduce the
amounts of plastic, then they are going to have to be held
accountable. We are actively working to get the incinerators
removed from the removable portfolio standard, from the Federal
program.
That is just $60 million for the New Jersey incinerators.
We have also been paying out of State incinerators. Overall, it
is like $160 million that we have paid from 2002 to 2024. I can
give you the report on that.
On top of that, the amount of energy they produce is like 1
percent of energy. That is not renewable.
Senator Merkley. I recall when I was a kid and camping,
someone said, whatever you do, do not throw any plastic into
the campfire, because the fumes are toxic. Everybody knows the
fumes from plastic are toxic. Yet here we are incinerating it
and putting those toxic fumes out into the surrounding
community where they are producing much higher cancer and
disease rates. Also when the plastic is being made.
Ms. Lavigne, you mentioned, or the conversation came up
about sacrifice zones. The idea that hey, we have low-income
communities, they can not fight something effectively, so we
will just put this toxic, polluting plant squat in the middle
of them, and maybe they will get a few jobs. You have fought
that successfully.
To what do you attribute your success?
Ms. Lavigne. I spoke to the Good Lord. The politicians do
not help us, the Governor does not help us. Industry is
poisoning us. I had to go to God to ask God what to do about
the problems in my community, when I saw all these funerals I
was going to and didn't know why.
I also wanted to say, when I was a little girl, we didn't
have this problem. We didn't have pollution. We were never,
ever sick. My parents, my grandparents, we lived off the land,
we weren't sick.
There must be some type of solution that we can come to,
come to the middle and figure out what we are going to do. We
do not have to go through everything cold duck with plastic. We
should gradually come to some conclusion where we can live and
breathe clean air and drink clean water.
Senator Merkley. These zones where there is extensive
emissions that are making people sick and killing them, so-
called sacrifice zones, Mr. Sunday, would you like your family
to live in a sacrifice zone?
Mr. Sunday. I want any facility to operate under the
environmental conditions that have been done, enacted by a
majority of the legislature, and then a rulemaking process that
affords public comment, and then rigorously enforced.
Senator Merkley. Just to be clear, if you were aware that
your child is moving to a new location and their proposed
location is right next to a plant in which there are extremely
high cancer rates and other disease caused from those
emissions, you would say, that is just fine?
Mr. Sunday. This is the other part of public engagement. It
is not just the voice of the communities where the facility is
going to be, the discussion from the regulators about what the
strict standards are going to be enforced at the facility.
Armed with that knowledge, folks can make their decisions.
Senator Merkley. Yes, but what would your decision be?
Mr. Sunday. I think that people need to have economic
mobility and make the decisions for themselves and be involved
in the public process.
Senator Merkley. Well, my answer would be very different. I
have two children who are just now starting out on their
careers. They may well be moving a lot. If they were moving to
a location next to a plant that had high cancer rates and
emissions, I would say, do you really want to live there? You
can not undo the damage that comes.
I think most every parent in the world would say the same
thing. I realize you are here representing a point of view and
you didn't want to really answer the question. I suspect you
wouldn't want your children in that situation next to a toxic,
death-creating production facility either.
Let's keep working toward understanding that we have to
have conversations about the effects. We can not ignore them.
There are very real health and pollution impacts on humans, on
communities, on our ecosystems. Then let's figure out how to
diminish the problem.
It isn't as simple as it was with no flip tops on cans.
That was an easy fix. Industry fought that like crazy,
absolutely cannot figure out how to do it. They had the
solution instantly, as soon as they were required to do so.
I think if we create enough conversation about the need for
change, then industry will help us work together to come up
with solutions.
I want to thank you all for bringing your knowledge and
your real experience to bear. This is an incredibly important
conversation about one of the least understood yet most
significant toxic challenges in America.
With that, the hearing record will remain open through the
close of business on Thursday, June 29th. We will send
questions out to our witnesses. We would appreciate a reply by
Thursday, July 13th.
With that, the hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[all]