Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environment Hazardous Waste topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate approves study and narrow authorization for cement‑kiln hazardous‑fuel use after contentious debate
Summary
After hours of debate and expert testimony, the Senate adopted amendments and advanced substitute Senate Bill 140 to create a study committee and site‑specific process allowing limited tests of processed hazardous fuels in cement kilns; the measure passed third-reading calendar amid objections about committee scope and fiscal language.
Senate debate on Substitute Senate Bill 140 (Industrial Furnace Fuel Recycling Act) dominated a long portion of the Feb. 14 floor session. Sponsor Senator John P. Holmgren described the bill as a cautious framework to evaluate use of processed hazardous‑waste‑derived fuels in cement kilns: the bill would list acceptable fuel specifications, require multi‑stage testing and monitoring, and create an independent review process to assess community and environmental impacts.
Supporters said properly processed fuels can be burned safely in kilns and turn an environmental liability into an energy resource. Holmgren described the testing, chain‑of‑custody and repeated plant testing that would be required and argued the bill creates a "win‑win" outcome. "What you have here is a situation where you can take what's considered a negative and... turn it into a positive," Holmgren said.
Counsel for Ashgrove Cement, James Holtkamp, told senators his client has applied for permit amendments and stressed that federal and state rules already constrain what fuels can be used. He said the proposed study committee and independent expert selection would reduce emotion and produce a technical record: "We're trying to have decisions made on the basis of facts," Holtkamp said.
Opponents and skeptical senators raised process and equity concerns: several lawmakers objected to a site‑specific study committee structure that would be formed for a particular applicant, questioned the absence of environmental‑interest representatives on the proposed committee, and flagged unclear fiscal provisions for committee compensation. Senator Finlayson and others pushed for safeguards and for the Legislature to avoid creating a new, applicant‑specific permitting pathway that would differ from existing siting and waiver procedures.
Senators offered and adopted amendments (including language narrowing scope and changing compensation provisions); Senator Black successfully moved amendments removing state per‑diem payments for nonlegislative committee members so those members "shall serve without compensation." After further amendment and argument, the Senate recorded the bill as having 15 ayes, 10 nays and 4 absent and placed the second substitute on the third‑reading calendar.
The record also shows the Senate moved House Bill 16 (siting criteria for hazardous waste) to the top of the calendar and subsequently advanced it to the third‑reading calendar; senators said HB 16 and SB 140 are companion efforts to ensure siting criteria and waiver processes apply to industrial furnaces and cement kilns.
The debate left outstanding questions about committee composition and the precise fiscal impact of the study provisions; proponents emphasized the bill requires independent technical review and permits only narrowly specified fuels under monitoring and waiver rules.
