[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               RECYCLING WASTES AS ENERGY IN CEMENT KILNS

                                 ______


                        HON. MICHAEL A. ANDREWS

                                of texas

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 7, 1994

  Mr. ANDREWS of Texas. Mr. Speaker, over the last several years, 
Congress has grappled with the controversial issue of how best to 
manage hazardous waste in this country. Under direction from Federal 
law, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has found that combustion 
of certain wastes represents the best demonstrated available technology 
for safe and effective management. Each year 1.4 million tons of this 
waste is managed in 15 commercial incinerators and about 25 cement 
plants. When waste is burned in a cement plant, it is recycled as 
energy to heat the giant kilns that produce cement, an ingredient 
essential to re-building our roads and bridges. Congress should not let 
competitive issues distort its judgment regarding safe and productive 
use of waste fuels.
  As Members of Congress, it has long been our collective judgment that 
well-regulated energy recovery from waste makes great sense as 
environmental, energy, and economic policy. For example, when we 
enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, we established an 
objective to promote protection of human health and the environment and 
to conserve valuable material and energy resources. Further, we 
committed the Federal Government to a cooperative effort with the 
States, local governments, and private enterprise to encourage energy 
recovery from waste.
  Mr. Speaker, use of waste fuels in cement kilns makes particular 
sense. First, because of the high temperatures, turbulence, and long 
burn times inside the kiln, the cement kiln can manage wastes in a 
manner protective of human health and the environment. Second, instead 
of squandering the heat generated by combustion of waste, the cement 
kiln can channel it into energy savings, the equivalent of 168 million 
gallons of oil or one million tons of coal. The men and women that work 
in cement kilns strongly support the use of waste fuels. Consider the 
statement of Ande Abbott, the legislative director of the International 
Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & 
Helpers, AFL-CIO, on the subject:

       Waste fuel substitution in cement production is a vital 
     link in a unique and efficient materials reuse chain. Fuel 
     substitution provides a valuable end use for the residues of 
     recycling, solving a waste disposal problems and conserving 
     fossil fuel resources. The industry benefits from lower 
     costs, making them more competitive on the world market, 
     thereby protecting the jobs of workers. The public benefits 
     from the total destruction of hazardous waste without air or 
     ground pollution.

  As Dr. Randall Seeker, a member of the EPA Science Advisory Board, 
recently noted, ``Cement kilns satisfy all of the critical design 
parameters for the ideal high-temperature destruction of hazardous 
waste.'' EPA itself has described the regulations that cover cement 
kilns, known as the Boilers and Industrial Furnaces Rule, as 
``substantive requirements that protect human health and the 
environment.'' In contrast to the recently-promulgated BIF rule, 
commercial incinerator regulations were last updated back in 1981.
  This win-win situation is being challenged in a recent bill, H.R. 
4948, which would benefit economic competitors of the cement industry. 
Commercial incinerators, who do not recover energy, would gain an 
unfair competitive advantage through a one-sided, anticompetitive 
legislative proposal that purports to protect the environment while 
cynically undermining an environmentally sensitive form of waste 
management--energy recovery. The bill would skew regulatory priorities 
and undermine ongoing EPA investigations. In short, the legislation 
attempts to achieve for the commercial incinerator industry what it 
could not accomplish in the marketplace. I encourage my fellow Members 
not to support such one-sided, unilateral legislation. Instead, 
Congress should be prepared to encourage energy recovery consistent 
with the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

                          ____________________