S3
Friday
January 28, 1983
Part IV
Protection 'Agency
Cement and Concrete Containing Fly
Ash; Guideline for Federal Procurement
-------
4230
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 249
ISWH-FHL 2176-8]
Guideline for Federal Procurement of
Cement and Concrete Containing Fly
Ash
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
.ACTION: Final guideline.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is today issuing final
guidelines for the Federal procurement
of cement and concret containing fly
ash, implementing Section 6002(e) of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended (RCRA).
Section 6002 of RCRA requires procuring
agencies using appropriated Federal
funds to purchase items composed of the
highest percentage of recovered
materials practicable'. Section 6002(e)
Instructs EPA to prepare guidelines to
assist procuring agencies in complying
with the requirements of Section 6002.
This guideline designates cement and
concrete containing fly ash as a product
area forwhich affirmative procurement
actions are required, in accordance with
Section 6002. Fly ash is a component of •
coal resulting from its combustion, and
is the finely divided*mineral residue
which is typically collected from boiler
stack gases. The guideline provides
recommendations to procuring agencies
which are expected to stimulate greater
recovery and reuse of fly ash.
The preamble to the guideline
explains EPA's regulatory strategy for
fulfilling its responsibilities under
Section 0002 of RCRA.
DATE Effective February 28,1983.
ADDRESS: Single copies of the final
guideline, and RCRA, are available
From:
RCRA Hotline (800) 424-9348 (In the
Washington, D.C. area call 382-3000)
Public Docket: The public docket for this
guideline is located in: Room S269C,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401M Street, SW.,
Washington, D.C. 20460, and is
available for viewing 9:00 a.m. to 4:00
p.m. Monday-Friday excluding
holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Heffelfinger, Hazardous and
Industrial Waste Division, Office of
Solid Waste (WH-565), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401M
Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460;
(202) 382-4761.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal
and Comments: The proposed guideline •
was published on pages 76906-76921 of
the Federal Register of November 20,
1980, and invited comments from the
public on its contents until January 15,
1981. At the request of some
commenters the comment period was
reopened until January 30,1981. Notice
of reopening of the comment period was
published on pages 9132-9133 of the
Federal Register of January 28,1981. A
total of 161 written comments were
received on the proposed guideline, .
including 12 late.comments. This is in
addition to oral comments received at
the public hearing held on January. 8,
1981" at EPA Waterside Mall, where
approximately 75 persons attended and
21 presented formal testimony. The
public docket for this guideline is
available for viewing as mentioned
above.
Introduction
Purpose and Scope
The Environmental Protection Agency
is today promulgating the first of a
. series of guidelines designed to
encourage the use of products
containing recovered materials. Section
6002 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended by the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended
("RCRA" or "Act"), 42 U.S.C. 6962,
requires Federal, State, and local
procuring agencies using appropriated
Federal funds to purchase items
composed of the highest percentage of
recovered materials practicable. EPA is
required to prepare guidelines to assist
procuring agencies in Complying with
the requirements of Se'ction 6002.
This preamble als.o explains EPA's
regulatory strategy for fulfilling its
responsibilities under Section 6002 of
RCRA.
RCRA
V
The objectives of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act are the
protection of human health and the
environment and conservation of
valuable material and energy resources.
The Act sets forth a national program to
achieve these objectives by improving
solid waste management practices. The
provisions of the Act include: (1)
Requirements for control of the
generation, transportation, treatment,
storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes, (2) establishment of
environmentally sound disposal
practices for all wastes, and (3)
investigation and creation of incentives
for resource recovery and conservation
activities. These activities are to be
carried out through a cooperative effort
among Federal, State, and local
governments, as well as private x
industry.
Requirements of Section 6002
Section 6002 of the Act/titled Federal
Procurement, directs all procuring
agencies which use appropriated
Federal funds to procure items
containing the highest percentage of
recovered materials practicable, given
that reasonable levels of competition,
" cost, availability, and technical
performance are maintained. This
requirement applies only to those
products which are designated by
guidelines issued by EPA under Section
6002(e). Further, only items where the
purchase price of the item exceeds
$10,000, or where the quantity of such
items purchased during the preceding
year exceeded $10;000, are subject to
these purchasing requirements.
Federal procuring agencies
responsible for drafting or reviewing <
specifications are required to review
and revise specifications for products in
order to eliminate any discrimination
against the use of recovered materials.
They are to remove specifications
requiring that items be manufactured .
from virgin materials, and remove
prohibitions against the use of recovered
materials.
Vendors are required to estimate the
percentage of recovered materials
utilized for the performance of the
contract and to certify that it is at least
the amount called for by the
specifications or other contractual'
requirements.
Section 6002 gives the Environmental
Protection Agency responsibility for
promulgating guidelines to assist
procuring agencies in carrying out these
requirements. The EPA guidelines are to
designate those products which can be ,
produced with recovered materials and
whose procurement by procuring^
agencies will fulfill RCRA objectives.
EPA guidelines are to provide specific
recommendations with respect to the
procurement of products containing
recovered materials. In conjunction with
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy
in the Executive Office of the President,
EPA has responsibility for implementing
the policy and program at all levels of
government.
Section 6002 is aimed at achieving the
materials conservation goal. Its .clear
objective is to use the economic
incentive of Federal procurement to
increase the recovery of solid waste ,
materials. Federal procurement of
products made from recycled materials
can demonstrate their technical and
economic viability as they are used by
Federal, State and local agencies.
-------
Federal
Rules an:d Regulations
4232
.Guideline for Federal Procurement of
Cement and Concrete Containing Fly
Ash
Purpose ' •
The purpose of this, guideline is to
increase the use of cement and concrete
containing fly ash which is purchased
'with Federal funds. Fly ash is a by-
product of coal combustion. Its
increased use in cement and concrete
will help reduce this source of solid
waste. At the same time this will
conserve both significant amounts of
energy and natural resources used in
making cement. Gost savings can be .
achieved while providing a product that
can be equivalent or even superior to
cement and. concrete made using only
virgin materials.
This guideline will increase the • -
demand for recovered fly ash inM • •
federally-funded construction. This
increased demand should improve the
marketability of fly ash and promote
wider acceptance of it as a cement
substitute and concrete additive. This
together with the cost savings of fly ash
in local markets may result in its more
widespread use in non-federally funded
construction as welL
Contents of the Guideline
This guideline designates cement and
concrete, including concrete products
such as pipe and.block, containing fly
ash as a product area for which
procuring agencies must exercise " • - .
affirmative procurement under Section
6002 of RCRA and presents
recommendations for carrying out the
requirements of Section 6002 with
respect to fly ash used in cement and
concrete. RCRA defines procuring
agencies to include not only Federal
agencies, but also State and local
agencies, grantees, and contractors
which are using Federal funds to
purchase cement and concrete.
Section 6002 of the Act sets forth "
certain requirements for procuring
agencies. These requirements include:
(1) Eliminating from specifications any
discrimination against the use of
recovered"materials; (2) purchasing
products which contain recovered
material if reasonable levels of technical
performance, cost, availability, and
competition can be achieved; and [3)
obtaining certification from suppliers
that they have met "any minimum
contractual requirements for including
recovered materials. , •'
To assist procuring agencies in
achieving compliance with these
requirements, this guideline
recommends that procuring agencies
which purchase cement or concrete
adopt a procurement approach which
specifically allows that fly ash can be
used as an optional or alternate material
in the performance of the contract, '
either in a blended cement or as an
admixture in concrete. This -
recommendation applies except in those
' cases where the use of fly ash would be
technically inappropriate.
Flexibility is allowed procuring
agencies in meeting this recomendation.
• For example, some agenices may prefer
to allow for fly ash use through changes
in contract specifications, with the
option to use fly ash left to the
discretion of the successful offerer. In
other cases, agencies may prefer an
'alternate bid approach,, and solicit bids
for portlarid cement or concrete, alone,
and for portland cement or concrete
containing fly ash.; " '
In addition, this guideline .
recommends that procuring agencies
revise, their guide specifications and
design guidelines to ensure that fly ash
use is allowed,-except where technically
inappropriate. It Suggests certification
procedures which utilize the existing
review and approval mechanisms
already.imposed by procuring agencies.
Phased-in implementation,, with
specification changes to be made in the
first year after publication of this "
guideline and purchases to begin hi the
second year, is recommended.
Explanation of Current Regulatory
Approach ' •.:'••
General vs. Specific Guidelines,
Soon after EPA undertook the effort to
prepare procurement guidelines, it
became clear that guidelines could not
be developed for all 50,000 Federal
-product specifications and standards.
EPA did not have the resources to
review all 50,000 Federal product
specifications and make decisions on
what percentage o"f recoverable
materials is technically and
economically feasible, available in a
reasonable amount of time, and
produced by enough companies to
guarantee that competition is
maintained.
The" Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-482)
require a product-specific approach in
issuing guidelines. These amendments
key all of the purchasing requirements
of Section 6002(c) to the preparation by
EPA of guidelines, for particular products
and direct EPA to "designate those
items which are or can be produced with
recovered materials and whose ,
procurement by procuring agencies will
carry out the objectives of (Section
6002)." -
Statute Requirements vs., Guidelines
A few commenters on. the proposed
guideline expressed confusion over the
relationship between the requirements =
of Section 6002 and the
recommendations of the guidelines.
They asked-for clarification of whether
the recommendations contained in the
guidelines must be adhered to.
EPA is of the opinion that the
guidelines sire, in general, voluntary. .
They contalnrecommendations for
achieving compliance with the
mandatory provisions of the statute, i.e.,
Section 6002. The mandatory provisions
of the statute for a particular product
area are triggered, for the most part, by
EPA's designation of that product under
Section 60Q2(e). ~
Although the guidelines contain
recommendations rather than
requirements, EPA is of the opinion that
compliance with the guidelines
constitutes compliance with the statute;'
However, there may be alternative
.methods of complying with, the statute,
not specifically addressed by the
guidelines. As long as compliance with
the intent of Section 6002 can be
established,'these alternative methods
should be considered,acceptable.
Criteria far Selection of Product Aregs-
In the projposed guideline, EPA
proposed criteria to aid in the selection
of product areas for which guidelines
will be prepared. These criteria were:
(.1) The waste material must constitute
a significant solid waste management
problem due; either to volume, degree of
hazard of difficulties in disposal;
(2) Econornic methods of separation
and recovery must exist; ; "
(3) The material must have technically
proven uses; and . -
(4) Federal purchasing power for the
final product must-be substantial.
In the main, these criteria incorporate
all of the factors which the Solid Waste
Disposal Act Amendments require EPA
to consider in selecting products for the:
issuance of guidelines. ;
Some commenters suggested adding to
or revising these criteria. One
commenter suggested a criterion that the
recycled product must not displace a
currently recycled product, for example,
home scrap us reused within a steeLmill.
EPA agrees in principle that by -
designating a product for affirmative
procurement actions, a currently
recycled product should not be
precluded from use. By taking the
product-specific approach which is
required by Section 6002, sufficient
investigations would be performed to •-
assure that this does not occur. We
-------
4232 Federal Register^ / Vol. 48. No. 20 /^jay-
1983 /
should add, however, that the definition
of "recovered material" contained in
RCRA "* * * does not include those
materials and by-products generated
from, and commonly reused within, an
original manufacturing process." Thus,
home scrap would not qualify as a
recovered material for purposes of
Section 6002.
Other commenters suggested that
energy conservation be included as a
criterion for product selection. EPA
believes that while use of waste
materials may indeed conserve energy,
the overriding thrust of Section 6002
must be the impact on solid waste. Thus,
it would be inappropriate to reject
products from consideration which ,
could result in a significant impact on
the solid waste stream, but for which a
slight increase in energy consumption
would result. Likewise, if significant
energy reductions could be achieved *
while having little or no impact on the
solid waste stream, it would be
Inappropriate for EPA to issue
procurement guidelines under Section
6002,
One commenter suggested revising the
criterion of Federal purchasing power
from being "substantial," to "a great
deal." In considering this comment as
well as suggestions for additional
product areas for the issuance .of
guidelines, it became apparent that the
criterion should focus on the extent to
which the Federal government can affect
use of waste materials through the
procurement guideline mechanism. In
some cases, changes resulting from
direct purchasing with Federal funding
may not be as significant as changes
which may take place at State and local
levels, and in the private sector, due to
the "ripple effect" which changes hi
Federal procurement practices may
have. Therefore, the fourth criterion has
been revised to read as follows:
(4) The Federal government's ability to affect
purchasing or use of the final product or"
recovered material must be substantial.
One commenter suggested inclusion of
a criterion for uses which may be
expected to develop in the future. EPA
rejected this suggestion because it is in
opposition to the fundamental concept
that the guidelines can only designate
products which are technically and
economically proven, and available in a
reasonable period of time from enough
persons to assure that competition is
maintained, Other governmental
programs may be aimed at
demonstrating, for example, the
technical feasibility of using a waste
material in lieu of a virgin material in a
pilot-scale project. Such use may be
further developed in the future.
However, the mechanism of Federal
procurement guidelines is inappropriate
for such product development efforts.
For the guidelines to be effective,
products must have been fully
developed and somewhat available, but
suffering from resistance to their use.
Experimental or developmental products
do not fall into this category.
Product Areas Currently Under Study
With these criteria in mind, EPA has
chosen four major product categories for
the issuance of guidelines under Section
6002. These categories are cement and
concrete containing fly ash, recycled
paper products, spent pickle liquor from
steel finishing processes as used in
wastewater treatment operations, and
highway construction products
containing recovered materials,
particularly lime-fly ash-aggregate road
base and subbase mixtures. The
issuance of a guideline for composted
sewage sludge, as mentioned in the
proposed guideline, has been deferred,
due to higher priority commitments
" within EPA at the present time. EPA
expects additional candidate products
to surface through its industry solid
waste studies program, As guidelines
are completed in these areas, additional
product areas may be selected for
issuance of guidelines.
Some commenters suggested
additional product areas which EPA,
should include in this and/or future
guidelines. These products include
petroleum products, petrochemicals,
waste oil, metals, glass, tires, polyester
bottles, salvaged materials, wood ash or
coal/wood ash, and lead blast furnace,
These comments were not
accompanied by any documentation as
to how they meet the criteria for
selection of product areas, as EPA
specifically requested in the preamble to
the proposed guideline. No information
was presented as to why these products
are good candidates for the procurement
guidelines program. However, EPA has
studied or considered some of these
product areas for the issuance of
guidelines. The only currently viable
candidate on the list appears to be
waste oil, i.e., Federal purchasing of
rerefined oil. A guideline may be issued
for this product area after completion of
the already planned guidelines
mentioned above.
Two major categories of metals,
aluminum and ferrous scrap, have been
considered for procurement guidelines
and rejected. Aluminum, does not
constitute a significant solid waste
management problem. Recycling
programs implemented by the major
aluminum producers during the past
decade have had a significant impact on
the major source of aluminum scrap—
the aluminum can. So valuable has this
material become that its price has risen
well over 100% during the past five
years. Federal involvement would do
little to promote further aluminum
recycling, where the marketplace has
already responded based on economics.
With regard to recycling ferrous scrap,
although it is certainly technically and
economically feasible, EPA has
determined that the Federal government
possesses very little ability to influence
the amount of scrap which is currently
recycled, through the procurement
guidelines program. One reason for this
is the technical capability of steel
furnaces to use scrap. Basic oxygen and
electric-arc furnaces currently are
operated very close to their maximum
technically feasible scrap utilization
levels. The open hearth furnaces, on the
other hand, have the capability to use
additional amounts of scrap. This has
been demonstrated in the past, where
scrap has served essentially as the surge
material when demand for steel
increases. However, open hearth
furnaces are slowly being phased out
and replaced by basic oxygen and
electric-arc furnaces. Open hearth
furnaces account for less than 15
percent of domestic steel production
today, compared to over 40 percent in
1969. Any expansion of production in
the steel industry will take place by way
of electric-arc and basic oxygen
furnaces, which technically must use
certain, levels of scrap. Thus, Federal
involvement would do little to promote
further recycling of this material.
A second major reason for not issuing
a guideline for ferrous metals is the
number of distribution levels through
which steel products must pass before
receipt by the government. The criterion.
that the Federal government be in a*
position to affect purchasing of a
recovered material product depends
very much upon how directly the
government can deal with the
manufacturer of the product. For most of
the products EPA has considered for the
issuance of guidelines, the government
purcha'ses directly from the
manufacturer or at most, from one
intervening level. Although the
government purchases such steel-
containing products as automobiles,
desks, and file cabinets, these are
obtained from the final product
manufacturers or distributors, very far
removed from the steel production ,
process. It is unlikely that the Federal
government could influence raw
materials utilization practices of steel "
manufacturers, with such reduced
-------
No. 20 /
1983 7 Rules and Regulations
4233
leverage, or obtain meaningful
certification of recovered material
content.
With regard to government purchases
• of products containing recovered glass,
the above discussion regarding levels of
distributors applies here. The
government purchases fabricated
products which contain glass as one
component or are packaged in glass.
However, the government possesses
very little leverage over the raw
materials utilization decisions' of glass
manufacturers in suck situations. There
are some potential uses of recovered
glass in construction products, such as
"in brick manufacture or as an aggregate
in concrete block or in asphalt concrete.
However, these applications have not
yet proven themselves to be technically
or economically viable enough to be-
commercially, available for the purpose
of Federal procurement.
Another waste material, tires, has
potential for utilization* One promising
application is; the use of crumb rubber ;
from waste tires in an asphalt-rubber
mixture in highway construction. Such
uses are referred to as stress absorbing
membranes, involving a thin layer of .
asphalt-rubber used as surface material •
with chip seals or as an interlayer with
a surface'overlay. Asphalt-rubber has '
been demonstrated to be effective in
preventing certain types of pavement
cracking by improving the elasticity of
the pavement and reducing the
susceptibility of the pavement to
temperature changes. However,
technical feasibility and availability
have not yet been demonstrated in wide- •
areas of- the country. Further, .on an
initial cost basis, asphalt-rubber
systems appear to be more expensive
than conventional pavements, although
on a life-cycle cost basis asphalt-rubber
may be less expensive. Insufficient data
at the present precludes accurate cost
comparisions.
This product area is one for which
EPA may issue a procurement guideline .
in the future, as technical, economic^
and availability factors are resolved, la -
the meantime^ agencies responsible, for
highway construction programs- at the
Federal, State, and local level are urged
to investigate the potential for use of
asphalt-rubber through further
demonstrations and evaluations in their
particular regions. - .' '.
With regard to using salvaged
materials, i.e., used brick, old concrete
crushed for aggregate, etc., no
procurement guidelines are currently
envisioned. Construction debris such as
this has not been demonstrated to be a
significant solid waste problem. This
generally inert material is usually
disposed of on contractor-owned land
and not in municipal landfills where it
would consume sorely needed landfill
space. Further, reuse of such materials, .
while potentially very desirable, is; likely
confined to project specific situations
which lend themselves to this practice.
The suggestion for using wood ash or
combinations of coal ash and wood ash
for concrete, in similar fashion to fly ash
from coal combustion, is not considered
legitimate. It fails to recognize that fly
ash must possess certain chemical and
physical properties in order to react
successfully in a concrete mix. While no,
documentation was provided, it is highly
unlikely that wood ash or coal/wood
ash possess these same properties.
Rationale for Choosing To Issue
Guideline Pertaining To Fly Ask
Fly ash used in cement and concrete
was chosen as a product area where
Federal purchasing power could
significantly increase the use of a
recovered material. The following
discussion demonstrates that fly ash
meets the product selection criteria.
(1) Significant Solid Waste Problem ,
Fly ash is the term used to describe an,
ash component of coal which results
from the combustion of coal. The vast
majority of fly ash-is produced in
electric-power generating plants,, where
powdered coal is burned to produce
steam to drive the turbines. Fly ash,
which is a finely divided mineral
residue, is conveyed out of the boiler
along with the stack gases. It is then
collected from the gases by various ,
means, including electrostatic
precipitatprs, mechanical precipitatbrs,
cyclone separators, bag houses and '
_ scrubbers. It is stored in silos, awaiting
reuse or disposal, or it may be conveyed
directly to, a disposal area. Fly ash
typically represents about 70 percent .of
the ash generated :by coal' combustion,
with coarser and heavier bottom ash
accounting for the remaining 30 percent.
During 1979, 57.5 million tons of fly
ash were generated, with over 82
percent disposed of as wastes The
quantities ,of fly ash requiring disposal
will increase dramatically during the
1980's with the construction of --
additional coal burning power plants.
Estimates are for fly ash generation to,.
be 70-80 million tons annually by 1985.
Current disposal practices for fly ash
can have a negative effect on water
quality (surface and groundwater
contamination), air quality (increased -'
dust)', land use, noise, and aesthetic
value.
(2) Feasible Methods ofRecavecy
Economically feasible methods exist
for recovery of the fly ash waste stream.
Electrostatic precipitators or mechanical
collection devices separate fly ash from;
boiler stack gases. More than two-thirds
of the coal-fired generating stations
have collection and loading facilities for
fly asfr. However, the majority oifly ash
currently is combined with bottom ash,
boiler slag, and/or scrubber sludge'for
disposal, making future recovery for
cement and concrete use difficult and
more expensive..
(3) Technically Proven. Uses
Cement is a powder-like
manufactured mineral product, usually
gray in- color. Cement is mixed with
water and sand, gravel, crushed stone,
or other aggregates to form the hard
substancEi known as concrete. Cement is'
not used by itself for construction but is,
a component of concrete. '
Cement is produced by first grinding a
carefully proportioned mixture of raw
materials such as limestone, silica,, sand,
claysrand iron ore. The mixture is
heated in huge rotary kilns at
temperances approximating 1500°C . '
(2700°F), where -chemical reactions take
place..The resulting marble-size pellets,
or clmker, are ground with a small
amount of gypsuin (to control setting '
and harde ning} to produce an
extremely fine powder, known as-
"portland" cement. Portland cement is a
generic teirm used to describe a
particular type of inorganic hydraulic
cement". A hydraulic cement is a cement
which will combine with water and
hatden. ' : - ;
a. Raw Material. Several commenters-
pointed out that fly ash can be used as a
raw material in the initial production
stages of cement. Fly ash can be a
source, for example, of iron and silica
needed for cement manufacture.. As
such, fly ash can,be used as a :• ",
. supplementary raw material feedstock •
which is proportioned with other rav^
materials and burned in the kiln to, form
clinker* which is then ground to produce
cement. ,, ...'-..
Fly ash used in this manner loses its
identity and becomes an .integral part of
the.cement. Portland cement from such ,
production is tested and certfied
according to ASTM standard C150
prescribed by the American Society for
Testing,"and Materials. It is stored,
transported, marketed, and used in the
same manner as cement produced
without using fly ash as a raw material.
Such cement is generally not identified
as being produced from fly ash. •
Fly ash used as a raw material
completely loses its identity by
undergoing chemical reactions with
other cememt constituents, allowing
further amtmnts of fly ash to be "
-------
4234 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
incorporated into the cement, either to
produce a blended cement containing fly
ash, or as an admixture in concrete, as
discussed below.
Although EPA strongly encourages the
use of fly ash as a raw material in the
production of cement, we feel it is
unnecessary to recommend any changes
in specifications, purchasing practices,
or certification procedures for this
application. The standard specification
for portland cement, ASTM C150,
currently allows for fly ash use in'this
manner. Solicitations typically request
ASTM C150 as the controlling
specification. Standard certification^
practices exist in the industry. Furth'er,
the extent to which fly ash can be used
as a raw material is highly plant-
specific, depending upon the mineral
resource needs of any particular
manufacturing plant. Thus, no Federal
intervention is deemed appropriate for
this application.
b. Blends and Admixtures. Although
not cement itself, fly ash has the
properly of cementation when combined
with lime and water, and this can
complement the cementing action of
Portland cement. Fly ash combines with
the water-soluble lime generated during
the reaction of portland cement with
water, and forms insoluble cementitious
compounds. This cementitious property
gives fly ash two primary uses: as an
ingredient hi blended cements, and as a
component of portland cement concrete.
When used to produce blended cement
fly ash is either interground with the
portland cement clinker, or blended with
the finely ground portland cement
powder (or both). When used directly in
concrete, fly ash is added to the
standard concrete ingredients at the
concrete mixing site. Fly ash can be
used either as a partial cement
replacement in concrete, or as an added
ingredient to obtain certain desired
concrete characteristics. Almost 3
million tons of fly ash were used in the
production of cement or concrete during
1979.
1. Blended Cement. Several U.S.
cement manufacturers produce a
blended cement meeting the standards
prescrlbed'by the American Society for
Testing and Materials (ASTM) for the
use of fly ash in cement. Blended cement
containing fly ash is included in ASTM
specification C595 and is designated as
"Type IP" or 'Type I(PM)." Table 1
indicates the extent to which Type IP or
Type I£PM) cement can be used as a
substitute for ASTM cement Types I
through V in general concrete
construction.
TABLE 1
ASTM
Ce-
ment
typo
I
!!„
III.....
IV
v
Purpose
Moderate sulfate resistance and heat of
hydration.
Htgh early strength .'..«...
Substi-
tute fly
ash
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
2. Concrete Admixture. Fly ash can
also be used directly as an admixture in
concrete, as a partial replacement for
portland cement. ASTM specification
C311 contains requirements for the
sampling and testing of fly ash when in
this manner. ASTM C618 is the, standard
specification for the use of fly ash as an
admixture in concrete. In addition, the
General Services Administration
maintains Federal Specification SS-C-
1960, which references ASTM C618, with
minor differences for sulfur trioxide
content, loss on ignition, and the
pozzolanic activity index.
c. Bottom Ash. Bottom ash is the term
used to describe an ash component of
coal which results from the combustion
of coal. The ash that is not fine enough
to go up the stack with boiler gases in
the form of fly ash instead solidifies and
agglomerates into coarser heavier
particles. These coarse particles fall:into
the ash hopper at the bottom of the
furnace. The ash may be generated in a
dry state or in molten form, where it is
more accurately referred to as boiler
slag.
Commenters stated that bottom ash
and boiler slag can be used in the
production of Type IP, portland-
pozzolan cement. The' cement is
apparently marketed as Type IP and
certified in accordance with ASTM
C595. In this application, the ash is
generally interground with cement
clinker to produce blended cement. This
application is possible because bottom
ash is very similar to fly ash in chemical
composition.
EPA feels it is inappropriate to
include, at the present time, bottom ash
or boiler slag as used in the production
of Type IP cement, as a recovered
material which is "designated" under
this guideline. Although bottom ash and
boiler slag generally meet the criteria
discussed here as those criteria relate to
fly ash, the recommendations which
EPA makes in this guideline regarding
specification and purchasing of Type IP
cement are based solely on investigation
related to fly ash. Because this is a
relatively minor application at the
present time, and in order to minimize
confusion, the Agency has not included
bottom ash and'boiler slag as
"designated" materials in § 249.02 of the
guideline. However, although the
guideline language will continue to
reflect emphasis on the use of fly ash,
procuring agencies should be receptive
to consideration of such bottom ash use,
when it arises.
d. Practical Applications! Many ready
mixed concrete producers and concrete
product manufacturers have used fly ash
for years, particularly in non-
specification jobs where they are
responsible for the performance of the
product, but are able to choose the
material content which will best suit
their needs both technically and
economically.
Several commenters provided EPA
with names of specific projects or types
of applications where fly ash has been
used successfully in concrete. EPA feels
that mention of these applications will
be particularly useful to potential users
of fly ash, particularly those who may
possess doubts as to the legitimacy of
using fly ash in concrete. The following
list is by no means exhaustive, but
indicates general areas-where fly ash
has been used on a commercial scale.
' 1. Structural Building. Structural
concrete containing fly ash has been
used extensively in certain regions of
the country. Buildings in the Chicago
area which contain fly asli include the
Sears Tower, John Hancock Center,
McCormick Place, Standard Oil
Building, Prudential Building, Inland
Steel Building, and First Wisconsin
National Bank of Milwaukee. Other
buildings include the Detroit General
Hospital, the Atlanta Hilton Hotel, and
" the Davis-Bessie nuclear power plant
near Toledo, Ohio.
2. Wastewater Treatment Plants.
Locations of more than a dozen
wastewater treatment plants, where
concrete containing fly ash was utilized,
were provided by commenters. These
plants included both municipal and
industrial treatment plants. Fly ash is
sometimes specified or allowed for use
as an alternate to ASTM Cement Types
II or V, due to the often improved sulfate
resistance which concrete containing fly
ash can afford. ,
3. Dams. On a national level, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation have used fly ash
in concrete in various projects, most
notably dam construction, for many
years. Some of these projects include:
Hungry Horse Dam—1953
Dworshak Dam—1973 (700' high)
Libby Dam—1975 (400' high)
Richard B. Russell Dam—under construction
Tombigbee Riverway-^under construction
(series of locks and dams)
-------
1983 / Rules aiii'd Regulations 4235
A new project on which fly ash is
permitted in concrete is the Central
Arizona Project, designed to convey
• water from the Colorado River to the
cities of Phoenix and, Tucson. The $2
billion project involves construction-, of "
over 300 miles of concrete aqueduct and
four large pumping stations.
4. Pavement. Some State Departments
_ of Transportation have approved fly ash
• use. For example, the Georgia
Department of Transportation (DOT)
revised its specifications in 3.975 to
"allow fly ash to be used as a partial
cement replacement. Since then,
Georgia's DOT has placed over three
million cubic yards of fly ash concrete
pavement and road shoulders, and is
now considering review of the
specification to allow for a greater fly
ash replacement rate.
5. Concrete Block. Many
manufacturers of concrete block use fly
ash at rates of 20-35% of total
cementitious material. Some
manufacturers use as much as 50% fly
ash when employing high-pressure-
"stearn cured processes.
6. Concrete Pipe. Some concrete pipe
manufacturers use fly ash to obtain a
• better material flow in production, and
to increase the density and decrease the
permeability of their product.
v. Performance of Fly Ash. Some
. commenters pointed out that a
-distinction should be made between
ASTM Class F ashes, obtained from the
combustion of bituminous coal, and the
ASTM Class C ashes, which are
obtained from subbituminous and lignite
coals. While both types of fly ash are
composed of the same chemical
components, the quantity of these
chemical components as constituent
elements of these two types of fly ash
vary. The proposed preamble was
primarily limited to a discussion of
"Class F ash, although some of the
statements may be true for Class C. The
following discussion has been revised to
reflect the differences in performance of
the two types of ash where information
was available from commenters.
1. Enhanced Performance. As
discussed in the proposal, the use of fly
ash in ceme.nt and concrete may
enhance the performance characteristics
of the final products.1 These advantages
can be summarized as follows:
i. Greater Ultimate Strength. Proper
mix design will achieve 28-day strength
equal to or better than a typical Type I
cement. Fifty-six day strength will be
1 (The properties of cement and concrete which'
contain fly ash have been examined and
documented. A report by the National Bureau of
Standards entitled "Fly Ashes in Cements and.
Concretes: Technical Needs and Opportunities,"
NBSIR'81-22q9, summarizes these properties.)
superior in almost all cases. In the
- examples of structural applications
listed above, use of fly ash was found to
be the most practical and economical
method of obtaining high strength mixes.
Class Gash concrete may attain early
strengths equal to or greater than
concrete utilizing portland cement only.
This is likely due to the higher calcium
oxide content of Class G ash, leading to
more rapid development of cementitious
compounds. ;
ii. Improved Workability.
Specification fly ash used in properly
proportioned concrete mixes improves
the pumpability, handling, placing, and
finishing of fresh concrete, in part due to
the glassy, spherical shape of fly ash
particles, which add to the "plasticity"
of the mix.
iii. Reduced .Water Requirement. Due
to improved workability, usually less
water needs to be added to the mix,
resulting in less drying shrinkage and
less cracking.
iv. Lower Heat of Hydration.
Generally, less heat is generated during
the chemical reactions between the
cement and water, resulting Tin less
thermal cracking—especially important
in mass concrete'applicatioris such as
dams, large beams, retaining walls, and '
foundations. .'.'.'••'
When using Class C ash, however, the
prolific cementitious reactions which
take place due to higher calcium oxide
contents may not allow for achievement
of lower heat of hydration. This
characteristic of Class C vs. Class F
should be noted where heat liberation is -
critical. " '
' v. Increased Sulfate Resistance. A
proper concrete mix with Class F fly ash
will reduce the chemical attacks in
concrete from sulfates contained in
adjacent soil and groundwater. These
reactions cause cracking and eventual
disintegration of the concrete. Fly ash
forms stable cementitious compounds
with certain cement constituents, thus
reducing the ability of sulfates to
combine with these same cement
constituents.
With Class C'ash, there apparently is
no improvement in sulfate resistance.
One commenter claimed that
subbituminous and lignite fly ashes '
generally lead to reduced resistance to
sulfate attack in concrete.
vi. Reduced Alkali-Aggregate •
Reactions, Certain aggregates react with
the alkalis generated during cement
hydration, resulting in disruptive
expansion and cracking of concrete.
Class F fly ash reacts with these alkalis '
to form stable compounds, thus
preventing or severely reducing the
reaction with aggregates and the
•accompanying detrimental effects.
Commenters on Class C fly, ash state
it has negligible effect with regard to
alkali-aggregate reactions. In any event,
standard tests are available to
determine if a reaction is likely to occur.
This likelihood can be predicted as
accurately with fly ash as with portland
cement; :
2. Disadvantages. Several
disadvantages which are associated
with the use of fly ash can be overcome
through proper use.
t . i. Variable Physical and Chemical
Composition. Fly ash from different
sources can! be highly variable in its
physical and chemical composition. This
variability-can be due to several factors,
such as coal source, combustion -'
procesSj and collection method. This
problem can be overcome through
adequate testing -and quality control of
the ash. ASTM specifications C595, .
C311, and C618 should be used as
minimum standards foe acceptance of
fly ash. However, these material
standards by themselves will not
guarantee satisfactory performance of a
concrete mix; just as use of portland
cement conforming to ASTM C150 will
not assure production of a satisfactory
concrete. Proper mix design, selection
and quality control.of all materials, and
expertise in mixing, placing, and
finishing of concrete all play a role'in
• achieving satisfactory performance.
.The issue of ash variability and
quality control was by far the technical
issue of most concern to commenters.
„ Many commenters who stated that use
of fly ash results in deleterious
' performance! of concrete based their
concerns on situations where low
quality, non-:specification ash might be
used in concrete. FJA agrees in
principle with these commenters
concerns. Therefore, EPA substantially
revised the sections of this preamble
and guideline entitled "Quality Control,"
which emphasize the n'eed for quality
control and quality assurance
procedures cm the part of all involved
parties, parti cularlyily ash suppliers
and material vendors. '
ii. Unfamiliar Users. Due to lack of
widely publicized and sometimes
inadequate data on mix designs (as
compared tO'jgerieral purpose concrete),
fly ash concrete may be improperly
prepared by an unfamiliar user. Mix
designs do exist to produce fly ash
concrete, and in most cases fly ash
brokers/companies will provide ;
.manufacturing assistance and
engineering design aid. The
"References'" section of this guideline
refers tp information on fly ash and its
use in cement and concrete. Potential
users should familiarize themselves with
-------
4236
Federal Register / Vol. 48. No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 /Rules and Regulations
the information in those publications,
and seek assistance from suppliers of fly
ash,
ill. Special Storage and
Transportation Equipment. Due to its
extreme fineness, fly ash requires the
use of storage and conveying equipment
With tight fittings. Equipment meeting
these requirements is readily available.
iv. Extended Curing Time. Mix
proportions have been developed which
will achieve equal or superior strength
to general purpose concrete at all ages,
particularly if 10%-30% fly ash is added
(not substituted) to a concrete mix, or if
a blended cement with up to 10% fly ash
content is used. However, when used as
' a cement replacement, superior strength
is often not achieved until the age of 28
days.
As discussed earlier, commenters
using Class C ash state that equal or
superior strength gains can be achieved
et all stages of development.
v. Increased Demand for Air
Entraining Agent. Inadequate air
content in concrete will significantly
affect its durability and most likely
result in premature deterioration. Fly
ash used In blended cements and
concrete will often cause an increased
demand for air entraining agent. With
proper testing a'nd quality control, the
need for entrained air can be satisfied.
The cost of the additional air entraining
agent and quality control is often
balanced by the cost savings associated
with fly ash use.
Commenters on Class C fly ash
indicate that air entrainment is not a
problem, due to the lower loss on
ignition (LOI) of Class C ashes
compared to Class F, The reason for a
low LOI is likely not due to any inherent
property of lignite or subbituminous
coal. Rather, these coals are often
burned in newer, more efficient, power
plants, resulting in more complete
combustion with less residua} carbon.
One tho. other hand, many of the power
plants in the East burn bituminous coal.
These plants are generally older and
may combust less efficiently than the
generally more modern plants found
where the lignite and subbituminous
coals reserves are located.
EPA cautions against making air
content determinations based on the
class of ash. Rather, marketers and
users should be concerned with the
properties of the particular ash at hand.
Both types of ash, regardless of carbon
level, can affect air entrainment levels
and should be evaluated vis-a-vis
compensating air entraining admixture •
levels. This is because any alteration in
the mix properties affecting the fine
aggregate particle distribution and heat
evolution has an effect on air
entrainment.
(3) Federal Purchasing Power
Almost one-half of total U.S. cement
consumption is in public construction
projects (public buildings, public works,
transportation). Since Federal funds
account for nearly two-thirds of the
funding for public construction
nationally, approximately 23 million
tons of cement is purchased annually
either directly or indirectly with Federal
funds. These 23 million tons mark the
theoretical universe to which this
guideline applies.
The actual figure may be lower,
however, as some of these cement
applications may not be technically
appropriate for the use of fly ash. In
addition, some of these Federally funded
projects already incorporate fly ash. On
the other hand, with the anticipated
"ripple effect" of private purchases
being influenced by these public
purchases, the impact could be
substantially increased. For example,
commenters indicate in those areas .
where fly ash is accepted, contractors
who use fly ash will tend to use it for all
of their projects, public and private,
-where technically acceptable.
Discussion of Guideline
This section of the preamble
summarizes and explains the guideline
and its integration with the requirements
of Section 6002 of the Act. The guideline
recommends practices with regard to
specifications, purchasing, and
certifications which procuring agencies
may employ in complying with the
mandatory provisions of Section, 6002.
Adherence to the procedures suggested
in the guideline will be deemed to ;
constitute compliance with Section 6002.
Scope
The scope of this guideline is limited
to the use fly ash in cement and
concrete, including concrete products
such as pipe and block. Several
commenters agreed with this limitation.
However, as discussed in this Preamble
under the section entitled "Technically
Proven Uses," commenters indicated
that bottom ash and boiler slag are
being used in production of Type IP,
portland-pozzolan cement. Therefore,
when reference is made in this guideline
to Type IP or blended cements, bottom
ash and boiler slag should be considered
by procuring agencies as qualifying for •
those applications, if manufacturers/
suppliers can provide satisfactory
technical support.
Many commenters pointed out that fly
ash and bottom ash can also be used in
many other construction applications,
such as road base and subbase material,
structural fill and embankment, soil
stabilization, grouting, masonry cement,
and as lighweight aggregate. However,
the technical and economic issues
related to these uses of coal ash are
sufficiently different to Warrant separate
consideration by procuring agencies.
The Agency intends to prepare
guidelines on a product-by-product
basis.
Guidelines on the use of fly ash in
road bases and subbases are currently
being drafted by EPA. The Agency
believes such use can result in •
significant economic and energy savings
nationwide. Interested persons should
become aware, of the recently-enacted
Federal Highway Administration
demonstration program (Project 59) for
fly ash in highway construction.
The fact that EPA has not issued
guidelines for certain applications of fly
ash should not be construed as
preventing agencies from investigation
and use of such materials. For example,
one commenter indicated a history pf
successful use of fly ash in producing a
masonry cement meeting the
requirements of ASTM, C91, Standard '
Specification for Masonry Cement. Such.
uses are encouraged. Agencies should
apply the general provisions of this
guideline to such applications, in
. keeping with the intent of RCRA.
The Agency received comments on
and considered expanding this guideline
to include the use of granulated iron
blast furnace slag in cement and
concrete. Although major actions have
recently been taken to increase the
quality and quantity of granulated slag,
EPA does not believe granulated slag is
sufficiently available yet to warrant
guidelines on a national scale. In
addition, iron blast furnace slag is
already reused at a very high rate, as
aggregate and as fill material. Procuring
agencies are strongly urged to apply the
general provisions of this guideline in
those cases where granulated slag
suitable for use in cement becomes
available.
Similarly, silica fume, the by-product
dust resulting from the manufacture of
silicon metal and collected in air
pollution control devices, has been
studied for its use in cement and,
concrete. The U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers has developed results which
indicate that silica fume can be
extremely beneficial in increasing the
resistance of concrete to sulfate attack,
while generally maintaining early
strength similar to that of portland
cement concrete that does not contain
the dust. However, additional technical
information arid standards need to be
-------
y. January 28,' 1983 / Rules and Regulations
4237
developed before this material is used
oil a national scale. Thus, a specific
procurement guideline is not currently
envisioned for silica fume.
. In the meantime, agencies should
apply the general provisions of this
guideline in those cases where silica
fume or other recovered materials ,
become available. This guideline should
not be construed as preventing the
procurement of other recovered
materials suitable for use in cement and
concrete. .
Some commenters questioned why the
use of shales and other naturally
. occurring pozzolans is not addressed by
this guideline. Because the philosophy of
the procurement guidelines program is
to encourage recovery and reuse of solid
waste materials, consideration of
guidelines for natural materials which
are not solid wastes is inappropriate.
One commenter suggested that EPA'
disallow the use of concrete containing
fly ash in load bearing structures. In
view of the successful structural
applications mentioned elsewhere in
this guideline, and with no
documentation provided by the
commenter to support the suggestion,
EPA must reject it.
Several commenters requested that
EPA exempt precast and prestress,ed
concrete products from the guideline;
The main concerns expressed by these •
commenters were that use of fly ash
would cause ^delays in production of
these products resulting in increased
costs and loss of competitive edge vis-a-
vis substitute products. Commenters ,
stated that energy consumption would
increase as a result of raising curing
temperatures to achieve needed early
strength gains. These commenters also
expressed concern over the quality and
variability of fly ash, which can affect
performance and color of precast and
prestressed concrete products.
The basis of these commenters'
concerns stems from resistance to
"mandatory" use of fly ash, i.e., a '
recommendation contained in the
proposed guideline that procuring
agencies solicit bids solely for cement or
concrete containing fly ash when, in
their judgement those products were
available, cost competitive, and
technically acceptable. The commenters
claimed this recommendation caused
confusion and would lead to blanket ^
requirements that fly ash be used in all
precast and prestressed products. -
EPA has deleted this recommendation
in the final guideline, in favor of an
approach which recommends that fly -
ash use be included in all solicitations,
unless technically inappropriate. EPA
believes that there are no good grounds
for exempting precast and prestressed
concrete products from such ' \
solicitations. Several commenters stated
that fly ash is currently being used by
some manufacturers of precast and
prestressed concrete, apparently with
technical and economic success. EPA
believes that persons who are willing
and able to use fly ash, while
guaranteeing performance of their
product, should have the opportunity to
- do so. Thus, an exemption for this
product area is not considered
appropriate. -
Applicability
The requirements of Section 6002
apply, for the most part, to "procuring
agencies." The term "procuring agency"
is defined by the Act as "any Federal
agency, or any State agency or agency
of a political subdivision of a State
which is using appropriated Federal
funds for such procurement, or any
person contracting with any such
agency with respect to work performed
under such contract." The affirmative
purchasing requirements of Section 6002
apply to procuring agencies' purchases
exceeding $10,000, or where that
quantity of functionally equivalent
purchases in the preceding fiscal year
exceeded $10,000.
This guideline recommends that any
solicitations for purchases of cement or
concrete made with Federal funds,
either directly or indirectly, specifically
allow for fly ash to be used as an
optional or alternate material, unless it .
can be shown that the use of fly ash is,
technically inappropriate for a particular
construction application.
(1) Procuring Agency
(a) Direct purchases. With regard to
direct purchases, there are several
situations to Which the Agency believes
this guideline should apply. Although
the language on applicability in Section
6002 leaves room for interpretation, the
Agency believes the recommendations :
here best describe the intent and <
practical application of Section 6002.
The first is where a Federal agency or
other authority using Federal funds
purchases cement, either in,bag or bulk
form. The agency may use this cement
or it may supply the cement to other
persons or the cement may be us'ed by
persons performing construction -
services for the agency. An example of
this occurs where the Department of
Defense, Army, purchases cement for
use on a construction job, or its general
contractor or subcontractor purchases
cement for use on that job. '
A second case occurs where ready
mixed concrete is purchased directly by
a Federal agency. The same scenarios
applied to direct purchases of cement
apply here. If a Federal agency
purchases ready-mixed concrete for its
own use or, more likely, if a person
. under contract to or in,support of a •
Federal agency purchases concrete, then
the provisions of this guideline apply.
(b) Indirect purchases. Indirect
purchases of cement and concrete by
Federal or other procuring agencies are.
subject to this guideline. This is where
the coverage of the term "procuring
agency" becomes critical. Foremost
•among indirect consumers of cement
and concrete are the Department of
Transportation (including the Federal
Highway Administration, Federal
Aviation Administration, Urban Mass
Transit Administration); the Department
of Health and Human Services; the
• Department of Housing and Urban
Development; and the EPA itself
(wastewatelr treatment works •
construction grants program). All these
agencies are involved in the Federal
funding of construction programs for or
through state and local governmental
, authorities.: EPA believes that any
purchase oJ: at least $10,000-wprth of
cement or concrete by States and
localities or their contractors,
. subcontractors, grantees or other
persons .which is funded by grants,
loans, funds or similar forms of
disbursements of monies from Federal.
agencies is subject to the provisions of
this guideline. ...'.''
EPA recognizes that these cases of
indirect Federal iunding may present the
most difficulty for implementation. For
instance, while the Federal Procurement
Regulations and the Defense Acquisition
Regulations control all Federal agencies '
in the case of direct procurement, each
Federal agency establishes its own grant
regulations. In addition, agency reviews
appear to exert little influence over the
composition of materials used in
•construction activities funded by that
agency. An agency's primary interest is
that the project performs as intended.
While some commenters expressed
support for the above interpretation,
other commienters had very differing
viewpoints. One commenter, the Federal
Highway Administra^n (FHWA)
agreed that Its direct procurement
program for Federal roads and highways
is subject to RCRA Section 6002
requirements. The direct-Federal
program includes highway projects on
Federally owned lands, such as national
parks. ; - :')••'•'
However, ihe FHWA has taken
exception to the inclusion of the multk -
billion dollar Federal-aid (Federal
Highway Trust Fund) program under
Section 6002. FHWA contends that State
highway departments operating under
-------
4238 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday. January 28. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
the Federal-aid program are not
procuring agencies under RCRA because
they use State funds rather than
appropriated Federal funds for any
necessary procurement. A percentage of *
their expenses is later reimbursed by
FHWA if the States have satisfactorily
complied with applicable Federal laws,
regulations, and FHWA/DOT policies.
Thus, FHWA states that guidelines
promulgated by EPA are not applicable
lo the Federal-aid program.
EPA does not agree with the above
FHWA interpretation. Although the
Trust Fund monies result from the
Federal excise tax on gasoline, the
monies are appropriated to projects
before they are redistributed to the
States. Further, these Federal funds are
substantially being used for
procurement of the highway projects in
question. Long-established relationships
indicate that States are virtually
guaranteed of receiving the Trust Fund
monies aa long as their projects are
approved by FHWA and they comply
with the requirements specified by
FHWA.
EPA does not believe that the
legislative history of RCRA supports
such a narrow interpretation of the term
"procuring agency." Rather, the intent of
RCRA Section 6002 is to use the
influence which the Federal government
can exert through its purchasing power
to stimulate demand for and use of
recovered materials. Therefore, EPA is
of the opinion that the Federal-aid
program for highway construction
projects is subject to RCRA
requirements. Those persons who
believe they will suffer damage as a
result of failure by a procuring agency to
comply with Section 6002, are urged to
review the section of this preamble
entitled "Compliance and Monitoring."
(c) Unrelated purchases. One
commenter suggested a very strict
interpretation of the term "procuring
agency." This commenter claimed that
once an agency uses any Federal funds
for any procurement (over $10,000 total),
all purchases (including non-designated
items and those made with non-Federal
funds) by it and any entities contracting
with it become procuring agencies
within the meaning of RCRA.
EPA disagrees with this
interpretation. In the statute, Congress
defined procuring agency to mean an
Agency which "* * * is using
appropriated Federal funds for such
procurement," thereby signalling an
intention to exclude purchases made
with non-Federal funds from the explicit
reach of Section 6002.
Further, the RCRA amendments,
discussed elsewhere in this preamble,
key the purchasing requirements of
Section 6002 to the "designation" by
EPA of certain candidate products by
way of procurement guidelines. These
amendments were passed, in part,
because procuring agencies were "
pursuing inconsistent policies in
attempting to implement RCRA
purchasing policies throughout their
procurement systems for all of their
products. EPA is now given the
responsibility for designating those
items whose procuremenf will best carry
out RCRA objectives.
Thus, this guideline should not apply
to construction activities being _^
performed which are unrelated to or
incidental to Federal funding, or which
include purchases on non-designated
products. An example of an activity :
unrelated or incidental to Federal
funding would be where a contractor
performed laboratory experiments and
bench-scale tesls for the Government
under a contract. In order to carry out
his responsibilities he may need to
expand his existing physical facility or
construct a new one. The cement and
concrete used in that structure would"
not be subject to the requirements of
Section 6002 or this guideline, even
though some of the funds received from
Federal contract payments might be
used to finance the construction.
Another commenter suggested
regional instead of nationwide
guidelines. The reason cited was that fly
ash of the quality and quantity required
for a construction project may not
always be immediately available in
certain parts of the country. Ano'ther
commenter requested an exemption for
city and county construction projects,
citing a lack of expertise on their part.
These two comments serve to ~-
emphasize the "chicken and egg"-
dilemma for many recycled materials. Is
fly ash not available because 'there is no
demand or expertise to use it in a
particular area, or is there no demand or
expertise in those areas because fly ash
is unavailable? The purpose of this
guideline is to alter the status quo by
stimulating demand for fly ash, thereby
encouraging its availability and the •
development of the necessary expertise.
EPA feels that by including fly ash in bid
solicitations as an alternate or optional
material, availability will be determined
by whether any bids are received for it.
Further, allowing for fly ash use will
serve as an incentive to potential users
in these areas. Contractors will not
make the commitment necessary to use
fly ash unless it is more readily
accepted. Specifically allowing it to be
used provides this incentive.
(2) $10,000Rule
An important issue is the applicability
of the $10,000 rule. Clearly, the guideline
.applies, where a procuring agency
directly purchases more than $10,000
worth of cement or concrete during the
course of'any fiscal year. The rule is
complicated, however, if a procuring
agency purchases concrete "services,"
which would not only involve the supply
of the product but also placement,
finishing, etc. Eyen more complex is the
common case where a contractor is,
assigned all construction activities for a
particular agency project, including
subcontracting authority for concrete
work. In such cases the actual cost of
the cement or concrete may not be
readily determinable.
In the proposed guidelines, EPA
recommended that the $10,000 limitation
.include the cost of services related to
the purchase of the product as well as to
the cost of the product itself, at least in
those cases where the separate cost of •
the materials cannot be practically
determined.
EPA received several divergent
comments on the issue of including
concrete "services" in determining
applicability of the $10,000 rule. An
equal nunjb'erTif commenters agreed and
disagreed with this approach. EPA's
purpose in including services in the
$10,000 limitation as stated in the
proposal, was to allow flexibility to
procuring agencies and reduce
paperwork which might otherwise occur.
The final guideline now .leaves it at the
discretion of an agency as to whether
that agency chooses to separately cost-
out all the elements of concrete work for
purposes of determining RCRA
applicability. In some cases, this
calculation may be a simple task,
particularly for direct purchases of
concrete. On the other hand, it may be
virtually impossible to obtain such
detailed cost information where a
general contractor has responsibility for
all work on a project. Agencies may
desire to establish procedures for
estimating the proportion of a project
which is represented by the material
costs of cement and concrete.
In any event, EPA urges that agencies
keep in mind the intent of RCRA, i.e.,
.increased use of recovered materials, in
developing their approach to •
determining RCRA applicability.
Imposition of new paperwork or
estimation procedures for this purpose
should be avoided. Rather, EPA
recommends that fly ash use be
specifically allowed in all cases, except
where technically inappropriate. EPA
recommends that agencies develop and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules'".-and Regulations 4239
issue policies to their construction
directorates, field offices, grantees, etc.
on this issue so that consistency will be
maintained in applying this provision.
On a related topic, several
commenters stated that the $10,000
limitation was to low, because, it would
subject too many small jobs to Section
• 6002 requirements. EPA cannot accept
the commenter's rationale. Congress
established the $10,000 purchasing rule
in Section 6002(a) of RCRA. The reason
for setting a minimum was most likely
so that incidental purchases would not
be subject to specification changes
purchasing requirements, and
monitoring efforts. Furthermore, the
$10,000 limitation is not to be considered
• on a contract-by-contract basis, but
rather is an aggregate total for the cost
of cement and concrete materials during
a fiscal year. In order for cement and
concrete containing fly ash to be
assimilated into the construction
materials procurement system, it needs
to be considered as an acceptable
material on a regular, day-to-day basis.
Fly ash should not merely be reserved
for larger dollar value projects, as one
commenter suggested.
Definitions
Of the definitions which were
contained in the -proposed guideline, •
most were self-explanatory and non-
controversial and therefore need riot be
addressed in this preamble. In addition..-.
to the definition of "procuring agency"
discussed above, the terms "recovered-
material" and "solid waste" deserve
discussion, as EPA received comments
on these particular definitions.
The requirements of Section 6002 *
apply to products containing recovered
materials. The definition of "recovered
material" contained in the proposed
guideline was the'same as that in RCRA.
However, the definition of recovered
material was revised by Congress in the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1980. The current definition includes '
waste material and by-products which
have been recovered or diverted from
solid waste. It excludes materials and
by-products—such as home scrap— ':
generated from and commonly used
within an original manufacturing '
process.
Some commenters argued that
materials "which were being recycled
were not. solid wastes, because they
were not being discarded. The Agency
has already dealt with this argument on
numerous occasions (see, e.g. 45 FR at
33091 (May 19,1980)]. We think it clear
from the language oLthe statute, the •'
legislative history, judicial
interpretation, and subsequent
expressions of Congressional intent that
Congress intended that materials being
used, reused, recycled, or reclaimed be
solid wastes. These activities are types
of waste management which, if properly
conducted, can avoid environmental.
hazards, protect scarce land supply, and
. reduce the nation's reliance on foreign
energy and materials.
.Some commenters on this guideline
specifically took exception to the
definition of "solid waste" and EPA's
authority to regulate reuse and
recycling. Rather, they argued that
EPA's authority to designate products
for procurement guidelines should be
based on whether those products are, or
contain, recovered materials, i.e.,
according to the revised definition of
"recovered material."
EPA disagrees, in general, with these
commenters' opinions. Based'on the
reasons presented above, EPA
maintains its authority to regulate solid
wastes which are used, reused, recycled,
or reclaimed. In fact, the revised
statutory definition of "recovered '
material" makes clear materials can be
recovered from "solid waste," so that
the material need not be thrown away to
be a solid waste. However, in order to
reduce the unnecessary confusion which
has arisen in this guideline due to the
definition of solid waste, and any
revisions to this definition which may
occur in the future, EPA has eliminated
the definition of "solid waste" from this
final guideline.
Specifications
Section 6002(d) of the Act requires
revision of all specifications for cement
and concrete for which Federal agencies
have "drafting and revieiv responsibility
so that they no longer exclude the use of
fly ash—and so that they incorporate
the use of fly ash to the maximum:
extent.-' . '.'
While this requirement applies
nominally only to Federal agencies, EPA—
believes that the elimination of
specifications which unreasonably
discriminate against the use of fly ash is
implicitly required by the affirmative-
procurement provisions of Section - ".
6002(c) as well. A procuring agency
could not realistically fulfill its Section "
6002(c) obligation to procure items
composed of the highest percentage of
recovered materials practicable if, in" /
procuring cement or concrete, it relied
upon specifications which unreasonably
discriminated against fly ash use.
Accordingly, EPA construes the >
specifications requirement to apply to
all procuring agencies.
To assisi procuring agencies in
achieving compliance with this
requirement, the guideline makes
several recommendations on
specifications. There are three major
categories of specifications for which
•recommendations are made:
• Guide specifications—typically, model
standards or specification issued by a
procuring; agency, which are suggested ,
or required for use in the design of all-'
of the construction projects of an
agency (these are often referred to as
design standards or design
guidelines).
• Contract specifications—a precise set
of specifications prepared for a
particular construction project, which.
- contains isuch items as design, -
performance, arid material
requirements for that project.
„ • Material specification—a
specification that stipulates the use of
certain materials to meet the
necessary performance requirements.
Guide Specifications
Procuring agencies will need to review
and revise guide specifications in order
to reflect the recommendations of this
guideline. In doing this, the agencies will
need to eliminate any discrimination,
either direct or indirect, against the use
of fly ash in cement and concrete. In
addition they must ensure that guide
specifications require that the use of fly
ash be considered and incorporated,
where appropriate, into contract
, specifications for individual
construction projects. EPA recommends
a period of siix months after the effective
date of this jjjuidelme to complete review
and revision of guide specifications.
One commenter requested that EPA
publish a sample guide specification for
use by Federal agencies. EPA has
chosen not to follow this suggestion. As
mentioned above, guide specifications
are usually maintained by individual
agencies and can take various forms,
such as specifications, standards, or
narrative guidelines. It seems
undesirable for EPA to develop one
guide specification which would be
recommended to all agencies. Rather,
EPA prefers to allow procuring agencies
the flexibility to develop their own
specific policies in this area, taking into
account types of construction projects, :
degree of control exercised over
specifying architects and engineers, and
other such faictors. Procuring agencies :
are expected, to reflect the intent of
RCRA and policies of this guideline in
making whatever changes are necessary
in guide specifications. V
Several commenters stated that ' , •
standards of the American Concrete ,
Institute (ACI) currently allow for fly
ash use. These commenters specifically
mentioned ACI Standard 301,
"Specifications for Structural Concrete •
-------
4240 Federal Register '/ Vol. 48, No. 20 /.jffitey, January 28. 1983 •/^ Rules^ and
for Buildings,""and ACI Standard 318,
"Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete." Such standards
apparently do allow for fly ash use, at
the desctetion of the specifying
engineer. However, agencies should still
be prepared to make modifications to
these and other standards, when and if
necessary, particularly if the standards
are shown to contain provisions which
!n some way indirectly discriminate
against fly ash use. Specification of
minimum cement contents may be one
example of such indirect discrimination.
Contract Specifications
This guideline will have its greatest
effect on contract specifications which
are prepared for each individual t
construction project. The guideline
recommends that agencies make sure
that specifications for individual
construction contracts specifically
include provisions for the use of fly ash
as an optional or alternate material,
unless it can be shown that this would
be technically inappropriate.
Many commenters stated that the
most frequent obstacle to fly ash use on
an individual project is the specifying
architect or engineer. If this person does
not specifically allow for fly ash to be
used, it is invariably precluded from use.
The guideline addresses this problem by
apprising procuring agencies that they
are responsible for assuring that these
individuals are aware of the statutory
requirements of Section B002 and the
policies of this guideline with regard to
fly ash. Thus, it is critical that the
technical officer or engineer on a
contract work closely with the
contracting or grant officer to assure
that fly ash is appropriately considered.
The guideline also recommends that
procuring agencies document decisions
to exclude fly ash from contract
specifications, in order to build a base of
technical information on this subject, as
well as to respond to possible protests
or inquiries. Placing the burden upon the
procuring agency to assure that fly ash
is allowed in contract specifications is
particularly important where the design
function is outside the agency or where
construction projects are being
performed as a result of grants, loans,
funds, etc.
Several commenters objected to EPA's
recommendation that procuring agencies
justify exclusion of fly ash from contract
specifications,-asserting instead that
justification to use fly ash should be the
subject of documentation. The Agency
disagrees with these commenters. Since
the technical feasibility of using fly ash
in cement and concrete has been
adequately demonstrated, agencies
f hould not require a supplier to
"reinvent the wheel" for each project.
The recommended approach permits fly-
ash to be evaluated on a job-by-job
basis. It doesn't preclude restriction of
fly ash as long as it is justifiable and
documented. EPA urges procuring
agencies to require that individual
suppliers of cement or concrete
containing fly ash demonstrate a history
of satisfactory technical performance
with this material and their ability to
meet performance requirements for the
particular application at hand, just as
they would for portland cement or
concrete.
Typically, if use.of fly ash is not
initially allowed, the time period during
which bids are officially open is
insufficient to allow for consideration of
fly ash use and amendment of
solicitations. Consideration of changes
, can often not be accomplished until ,
after 'the fact, which can lead to.
contracting problems and invite protests
from losing bidders if change orders are
issued at a later time without formal
resolicitation. Thus, EPA maintains that
consideration should be given to using
fly ash during development of the
contract specifications, and that cement
or concrete containing fly ash should be
considered acceptable unless the agency
demonstrates otherwise.
EPA agrees with a commenter on a
related issue, which is that legitimate
documentation of infeasibility for fly ash
can be for certain types of applications
rather than on a job-by-job basis. By
referencing this documentation in
individual contract specifications, an
agency can avoid extensive repetition of
previously documented points. An
agency should be prepared to submit
such documentation to tfutside review
and scrutiny.
EPA recommends that procuring
agencies take no more than 12 months
from the effective date of this guideline
Jo assure that contract specifications
reflect the requirements of Section 6002.
Material Specifications
Both Federal specifications and
national voluntary consensus standards
exist for the use of fly ash in blended
cement and in concrete. Rather than •
actually revise existing material
specifications for portland cement,
procuring agencies are expected to make
maximum use of these existing material
specifications.
In the proposal, EPA recommended
that procuring agencies use only fly ash
which, as a minimum, meets ASTM
standards. Some commenters agreed
that use of ASTM specifications as a
minimal standard is appropriate, in that
they are national voluntary consensus
standards which have been developed
over a period of time. A few
commenters, however, suggested that
EPA reference the ASTM standards, but
with recommendations for tighter
parameters.' While EPA discusses such
tighter parameters for information •
purposes in this preamble, the Agency
feels it is inappropriate to make
recommendations which override
national consensus standards. •
One commenter requested that
compliance with ASTM standards not
be made mandatory, because the
commenter has been able to use fly ash, '
which does not conform to the -' •
standards in one aspect, very
successfully in concrete. EPA agrees
with this approach. While the guideline
recommends adherence to ASTM and/
or Federal specifications, the ultimate
determinant of acceptability should be
concrete performance. Accordingly, the
guideline permits use of non-
specification fly ash where the procuring
agency has developed sufficient
expertise to use it in particular
applications."
Mix Design Standards
This guideline suggests no minimum,
maximum, or absolute level of fly ash
content in blended cement or concrete
which is subject to this guideline.
Flexibility is necessary because of
variation in fly ashes and cements,
strength requirements, relative costs,
and even local and regional construction
- practices and climatic conditions.
The provisions of ASTM specification
C595 for blended hydraulic cement
require that Type IP cement contain
15%-40% fly ash and that Type I (PM)
cement contain 0-15% fly ash by weight,
thus allowing fly ash content to be
specified in a range from 0 to 40%. A
typical blending rate in the industry
appears to be around 20%. However, the
actual proportion to use needs to be
determined on a job-by-job basis in
accordance with established mix design
procedures and performance needs.
When used directly in the
manufacture of concrete, industry
practice indicates that more fly ash .
should be use than the amount of
cement replaced, at least when using
Class F ash. This ratio should be at least
1.25-1.50 fly ash to 1.00 unit of cement.
Commenters on Class C ash provided
data to indicate that pound-for-pound
replacement of cement with fly ash can
be used to achieve early strengths
equivalent to that of portland cement
alone. Typical replacement rates in
concrete are around the 15% level, but
the actual percentage needs to be .
determined on a job-by-job basis.
-------
Allowing the use of low levels, of fly
ash in cement and concrete may
encourage additional companies to
experiment with the product and gain
expertise. This could ultimately increase
the number of companies using fly ash,
and the amount of fly ash they use. ,
Information contained in the
"References" can be used as guidance in
determining proper fly ash content.
While some commenters agreed with
this flexible approach to fly ash content
and mix design; a few disagreed with'it.
The dissenters argued-that RCRA
"requires procurement of products
containing the highest percentage of
recovered materials practicable. Thus, if
fly ash can be used at a blending rate of
20%, these commenters suggest EPA
specify 20% as the minimum level of fly
ash content which must be supplied in
order to qualify for award.
EPA prefers to interpret RCRA with
emphasis on'the woid practicable. EPA
feels that the highest percentage of fly
ash practicable is determined by such
factors as-price, .availability,
competition, and technical performance.
For instance, if a higher level of fly ash
content is only available at a much
higher price, EPA considers it
impractical to purchase the higher
priced material, although it is
technically available. With the open _
bidding approach recommended in this
. final guideline, EPARelieves that
• persons willing and able to suppljr
cement or concrete containing fly ash
will do so. Normal bid evaluation
procedures will then determine
practicality based on price, availability,
etc. and hot on an arbitrarily established
limit on fly ash content which considers
only technical potential.
Concrete specifications; which specify
minimum cement contents could
potentially discriminate against the use
of fly ash. Such provisions may deter
substitution of fly ash for cement. To
address this problem the proposal
recommended changing such
specifications to permit the substitution
of fly ash for cement.
An equal number of commenters
agreed and disagreed on this issue. The
opposing commenters stated that
minimum cement factors are often based
• on the need not only for strength but for
durability and that an agency should be
permitted to specify some level of
minimum cement content (which may
reflect the substitution of fly ash for a
portion of the cement). The commenters
were willing to agree with EPA's
recommendation on this issue, provided
that adequate testing or local experience
showed that concrete durability is not
affected. EPA feels this is a reasonable
approach, and that minimum cement
contents may be retained, provided they
reflect a substitution of fly ash for a
portion of the cement.
, Of the commenters supporting EPA's
recommendation on minimum cement
contents, most stated that minimum
cement contents and maximum
watencement ratios discriminate against
use of fly ash, and suggested a shift from
prescription specifications to those
based^on performance. A wholesale
_ revision in concrete specifications to
those based totally on performance is
beyond the scope of this guideline and
the jurisdiction of EPA. However, such a
shift may be appropriate~in particular
instances. Thus, this final guideline
recommends that procuring agencies
change mix design standards which
.'. unfairly discriminate against the use of
fly ash, such as those which
unnecessarily specify minimum cement
content or maximum watencement
ratios.
Performance Standards
It is often claimed that designs of
construction projects are conservative
arid, as a safeguard, intentionally
increase the strength requirements
beyond what the design criteria actually
require. Setting concrete strengths which
are higher than actually needed during
the several days following concrete
placement (i.e., "high early strength")
can deter the use of fly ash. Although fly
ash will generally enable a concrete to
achieve a higher ultimate strength (e.g.,
at 28, 56, and 90 days), very high early
strength can be achieved, with Class F
ash, only by adding fly ash to the
mixture without reducing the cement
content. In this situation, the economic
and energy conservation advantages of
using fly ash are sharply diminished.:
In the proposed guideline EPA
recommended revising certain
performance standards, where
appropriate, primarily to extend the
period for strength evaluation.
Numerous comments were received on
this issuer primarily opposing EPA's
recommendation. A variety of reasons
were given for not extending strength
evaluation periods. Foremost among
these was a claim that increased costs
and delays in schedules would opcur as
a result of delays in stripping forms or
awaiting approval before proceeding
with further construction. Some
commenters pointed out that strength
development is a key factor, in
determining durability of concrete.'The
commenters urged EPA to maintain the
current, standard strength evaluation
periods, citing their existence as
providing a good balance between costs,
performance, and timeliness.
Some commenters agreed with EPA's
recommendation to extend strength
evaluation periods, while others
commented this practice should only be
allowed for certain applications, such as
non-flexutal members.
In this final guideline, EPA has
retained the general concept that
performance requirements which
arbitrarily restrict the use of fly ash, -
either intentionally or inadvertently,
should be revised. However, the Agency
has removed the specific
recommendations for extension of
strength evaluation periods. We feel the
performance requirements for a project
should be assessed based on the
specific technical design needs of'that
project, -j
The Agency still maintains that a
need exists for recognizing that concrete
containing fly ash can perform
successfully, although it may not always
achieve the early strength gains of
Portland cement concrete. Methods of
predicting strength, such as past
experience, laboratory design results
and accelerated test procedures can be
used to estimate the strengths which
concrete containing fly ash will attain at
specified intervals. ,
Thus, although concrete containing-fly
ash may e:diibit lower strengths than
Portland cement concrete, at 3-day and
7-day test periods for example, an
agency may consider accepting the
product provided the supplier has
satisfactorily demonstrated the later day
strengths which are expected to be ,
achieved, and-thie strengths at all ages
are satisfactory from a safety
standpoint Of course, in allowing /
slower early strength development, the
contractor is still responsible for
performing under the contract in a cost
effective, safe, and timely manner. EPA
feels this .can and is being done.
Purchasing
EPA is designating cement and
concrete containing fly ash as a product
area for which procuring agencies must
exercise affirmative procurement
actions under Section 6002 of RCRA. .As
discussed in this Preamble under the
section entitled "Statute Requirements
vs. Guidelines," when EPA •
"designatesi"a product area through the
issuance of-guidelines, RCRA requires
that procuring agencies take positive,
step to purchase that product. This . . - -
section of the guideline contains
recommendations for satisfying the
affirmative procurement requirement.
Bidding Approach
In the proposed'guideline, EPA
recommended that procuring agencies
-------
4242 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January•28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
utilize a dual bid approach for cement
and concrete purchases. The Agency
recommended that all bid solicitations
for cement and concrete should solicit.
bids for both portland cement or
concrete and cement or concrete
containing fly ash, where technically
appropriate. Award would be made to
the lowest priced responsible offerer.
In the proposal, EPA further
, recommended that where the
application was technically appropriate
and where a procuring agency was
satisfied that cement or concrete
containing fly ash was reasonably
available and its bid price would be
competitive with that of portland cement
or concrete, only bids for cement of
concrete containing fly ash should be
solicited. Award would still be made to
the lowest priced responsible offerer.
"the issue of affirmative"purchasing
and what most negative commenters
characterized as the "mandatory use"
provision of the proposed guideline,
§ 249,20(b), was by far the issue of most
concern to commenters. At the public
hearing, the Agency pointed out that
§ 249.20{b) is a "mandatory use"
provision only if the individual
procuring agency chooses to solicit bids
only for cement or concrete containing
fly ash, while excluding portland
cement. This is not the same as the
stricter approach which the Agency had
considered taking in the proposal, which
was to recommend that all agencies
always require the use of cement or
concrete containing fly ash, except
•whore technically inappropriate.
Nevertheless, over half of the
commenters considered the proposed
§ 249,20(b) as undesirable, arguing that
cement and concrete containing fly ash
should never be the only material
specified, except in those very rare
instances where it provides a property
which porlland cement alone cannot,
such as low internal heat generation
during construction of dams. Although
EPA would have left this decision at the
discretion of the procuring agencies,
EPA now believes it is inappropriate to
recommend it at all.
Despite.the negative criticism of the
"mandatory use" provision in the
proposed guideline, a majority of
commenters on this issue indicated
support for an optional or alternate bid
approach which allows for fly ash use.
EPA's recommendation in this final
guideline is that procuring agencies
specifically include provisions in
individual contracts to allow for fly ash
juse as an optional or alternate material,
unless the application is shown to be ,
technically inappropriate. Award can
then be made in accordance with
normal and customary bid evaluation
procedures, since these procedures
[which generally require award to the
lowest priced responsible offerer] tend
to insure the purchase of cement or
concrete containing fly ash only when it
is reasonably priced [i.e., priced at or
below the price of portland cement or
concrete), reasonably available (i.e.,
offered by a responsible offerer) and
technically appropriate. By notifying
potential bidders that fly ash use is
acceptable, the procuring agency thus
essentially complies with its affirmative '
procurement obligation to purchase
cement or concrete containing fly aslj,
except where not reasonably available,
reasonably priced, or technically
appropriate, since the natural operation
of the bidding system tends to make this
determination for the agency.
After reflection, EPA is convinced that
the marketplace provides the best gauge
of reasonable price, availability, and
competition. It is inappropriate to
artifically restrict the marketplace
through limitation of bids, even where
the procuring agency has independent
knowledge that the cement or concrete
containing fly ash is reasonably priced,"
available, etc. The reasons for this are
discussed below,
Lack of Availability
Commenters claimed that the
"mandatory use" proposal was
inappropriate because quality controlled
fly ash is not always available in every
part of the country. As discussed
previously, this is the "chicken and egg"
dilemma for many recycled materials,
i.e., is fly ash not available because
there is no demand in those areas, or is
there no demand in those areas because
fly ash is unavailable? Supporters of fly
ash use argue that if fly ash is more
universally accepted, it will easily be
more available.
Under the proposal, procuring
agencies were required to restrict the
bidding to fly ash where they knew it to
,be available. Nevertheless, the local
unavailability situation does exist and
procuring agencies can be mistaken in
their assessment of reasonable
availability. Agencies feel it is a waste
of time and money to prepare and solicit
bids solely for fly ash, only-to find out
there are no offerers. However, if fly ash
is not the only product included in bid
solicitations, availability will be
determined by whether any bids are
received for it, without the need for
resolicitation. Allowing fly ash will also
serve as an incentive to potential users
in that area. Contractors will not make
the commitment necessary to use fly ash
unless it is more readily accepted.
Including it in bid solicitations and
allowing it to be used provides this
incentive.
Cost Issues
The negative commenters almost
always cited the potential for cost
increases as a reason for never
mandating sole use of fly ash. While the •
Agency did nqt propose to mandate sole
use of fly ash, regardless of cost, it is
true that use of certain classes of fly ash
can cause a delay in early strength gains
in concrete. This can lead to longer
production times and may lead to cost
increases. In addition, as noted in the
proposed preamble, some equipment
and technical expertise may have to be •
purchased in order to use fly ash
successfully. Further, because of local
unavailability, quality fly ash may only
be available at a premium in certain
areas.
If fly ash were required to be used,
regardless of cost, some contractors
would undoubtedly be left with no
alternative but to raise their bid prices,
without making the prices
extraordinarily high or infeasible.
However, if fly ash is merely allowed to
be used but not required, portland
cement concrete contractors will still be
able to bid and award can be made to
the lowest priced responsible bidder.
Many fly ash concrete suppliers can
economically compete, if given the
chance to do so. If a builder can use fly
ash in a cost effective manner, arid
guarantee performance and timeliness of
the work, this is what the Government
should be concerned with. An open
bidding process successsfully addresses
the negative commenters' contentions
that cost increases are the inevitable
result of fly ash use.
Technical Considerations
Many commenters voiced concern
over technical problems which can arise
when fly ash is used and which might be
exacerbated under the "mandatory use"
provision. These problems can often be
attributed to use by inexperienced
persons or use of low quality ash.
However, there are legitimate technical
concerns which do exist even when
using high quality ash, for which
mandatory use causes a dilemma—
largely because the mandatory use
provision requires the issue of technical
appropriateness to be resolved at the
outset, thus reducing flexibility.
One technical concern is the effect
which climate can have. Use of fly ash
can delay the curing time of concrete.
Cold temperatures can compound this
effect even further. Some manufacturers
of blended cement containing fly ash
recommend that their product should
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules arid Regulations
4243
not be used at less than 50°F, except
1 under close supervision. Flexibility to
revert to portland cement concrete
would be needed in such instances. On
a long-term contract which spans the .
winter months, it is possible that fly ash
concrete should most likely not be used.
Serious contractual problems could
arise if fly ash were specified as the
mandatory material for that contract,
and award made on that basis, while
precluding portland cement suppliers.
Procuring agencies would likely exclude
fly ash altogether as an alternative,
since it could not be used as the sole -
material for the entire contract. •
One solution, however,,is to allow
that fly ash be used, at the option of the
contractor, subject to approval of mix
designs by the engineer. As materials
change on a project, due to availablity,":
cost, etc., new designs are often
approved. In the case of fly ash, this
flexibility should be permitted to the
contractor.
Another technical problem is that fly
ash may not be suitable for all uses
within a project. A contractor bids on
the entire project. Therefore, requiring a
bid for either fly ash or not raises
serious technical questions. Again, as an
alternative, a procuring agency would
likely exclude the use of fly ash
altogether, since it could not be used for
the entire project. However,lwith the
more flexible approach EPA suggests in
this guideline, the contractor and/or
engineer can decide on which uses may
, not lend themselves to fly ash; on an
•item-by-item basis, .after award of the
contract. : ;
Inexperienced Users and Ash
Variability
Many commenters expressed concern
that the so-called "mandatory use"
provision might encourage use by
inexperienced persons. As noted in the
preamble to the proposed guideline, ,
many contractors still lack knowledge of
the proper use of fly ash in concrete and
of the means of ensuring quality control.
Commenters claim that if businesses are
faced with the choice of either using fly .
ash .or not bidding on a job, they will
tend to use'fly ash. EPA agrees that this
could definitely lead to the use of low
quality ash by unsophisticated users, or
the failure to otherwise provide a
• satisfactory product. While ash from a
single source may be of consistently
high quality, a great deal of the fly ash
generated is not suitable for use in
concrete. ,
Although contractors are responsible
for obtaining suitable materials and
applying them properly, EPA believes
that the problem of inexperienced users
can best be avoided by employing an
open bidding process iri which bids for
cement'or concrete contining fly ash and
portland cement or concrete are
accepted. Furthermore; since fly ash
does not currently enjoy widespread
use, this solution will, in the long run,
create greater acceptance by procuring
agencies, engineers and contractors.
Restricts Use of Other Materials
Several commenters stated that the
"mandatory use" provision, by
restricting bids to the use of fly ash as a
partial cement replacement in cement
, and concrete, would effectively preclude
use of other recovered materials in
cement and concrete. There are other
waste materials, particularly blast
furnace slag from iron production, which
can be used successfully in cement
production. Any suggestion on EPA's
part that fly ash should always or even
sometimes be the only material
specified could be a major setback to
development of other materials suitable
• for use in cement. It would be improper
for EPA to create such barriers.
This problem can be overcome .
through allowing, not requiring, fly ash '
to be used. Contract specifications
should be written incorporating
references to both poitland cement '..
specifications and those for fly ash. As
iron blast furnace slag is developed and
becomes more readily available for this
use, it should be included as a third
optional material, at the discretion of
procuring agencies. The American
Society for Testing and Materials is
'• actively working on development of
such a standard for slag.
Competition Would Be Restricted
While adequate competition may exist
(i.e., two or more bidders with •
reasonable prices) when soliciting bids
only for fly ash, producers of portland
cement concrete would be precluded
from bidding. The primary purpose of
the guideline is to work fly ash into the
bidding system, because it is typically
the excluded product at the current time.
EPA would be reversing this situation
with a mandatory fly ash use provision.
,We feel such an approach is
unnecessary in the case of fly ash. With
the approach that fly ash be included in
the bidding system as an optional or
alternate material, competition and
business opportunities will increase, by
allowing persons who are willing and
able to use fly ash to bid on contracts on
which-they "are now often precluded.
Bid Alternatives " :
' Commenters have made EPA
somewhat aware of the various methods
which can be used to achieve the
objectives expressed above. EPA
discusses these methods in the
guideline, aaid has left flexibility to
procuring agencies in deciding which
mechanism can best be implemented in
their existing procurement system.
One approach is to allow for the use '
of fly ash tlirough changes to contract or
guide specifications, as discussed in this
preamble in the section entitled
"Specifications." Under this approach,
the contractor would secure award of a
contract based on normal bid evaluation
procedures,; At a later time, the
contractor can exercise his option to use
or not to USB fly ash. Regardless of the
choice made, normal quality assurance
procedures'apply, and review and
approval of mix designs, materials,'etc.,
,must be performed by the project ,
_ engineer. Some 'commenters
* characterized this method of solicitation
as the "optional" approach.
A second' purchasing method which
some commenters suggested can be
characterized as an "alternate bid"
approach. Under this approach, a -
procuring agency would solicit bids
requesting^ eparate price quotations for
either portland cement concrete or
concrete containing fly ash. As in the
case of the "optional" approach, award
would be made in accordance with
normal and customary evaluation
procedures—typically to the lowest
priced responsible bidder—regardless of
whether fly ash is used.
The difference between this approach
and the optional approach is that the
contractor typically would be obligated
to supply the material for which award
is made for :the duration of the contract,
whether it be portland cement'or fly.ash.
However, in order to accommodate '
situations in which fly ash may not be
technically suitable for use in all phases
of a project, or it becomes unavailable,
EPA recommends that the winning
contractor be allowed flexibility in ,
amending his selection of materials •
planned for use, subject to approval of
the procuring agency/project engineer,
as long as he supplies at the agreed to
bid price (or less). ;
EPA believes that the "alternate"
approach holds most promise where, the
procuring agency is directly purchasing
cement or concrete for a particular
project, as where the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers; purchases cement or
concrete for 3 dam. In such a face-to-
face bidding situation, where the ,
procurement is s'trictly for cement or
concrete, the procuring agency is in a
positionio directly evaluate the bids,
make award, and evaluate requested
material changes based upon the
relevant factors.. . :
-------
4244 Federal Register / Vol. 48. Ncx 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and .Regulations
The "optional" approach, on the other
hand, holds most promise where the
procuring agency is not directly
purchasing cement or concrete, as in the
situation where the procuring agency
solicits bids for a construction project,
such as a building, only one component
of which is cement or concrete. In this
situation, the price for cement or
concrete is generally imbedded in the
total bid price and the ultimate
procurement of cement or concrete is by
the contractor or the subcontractor,
making evaluation of fly ash use in
awarding the bid difficult or impossible. •
Indeed, commenters asserted that if the
contractor bidding on the project had to
commit to using fly ash or portland
cement at the outset, the contractor
would tend to specify portland cement,
because fly ash may not be suitable for
all construction applications on a given
project. This, of course, would tend to
retard fly ash use. Allowing the
contractor to decide whether to use fly
ash corrects this problem.
The "optional" approach should not
be construed as a repudiation of the
affirmative procurement requirements of
Section G002(c). Where cement or
concrete is purchased ultimately by a
contractor or subcontractor rather than
by the Federal or state procuring
agency, the contractor or subcontractor
becomes a "procuring agency" for
purposes of Section 6002 and the
obligation to purchase fly ash is
imposed on them as well. To insure that
the contractor or subcontractor complies
with this obligation, the guideline
recommends that procuring agencies
using the optional bid approach add a
statement to their bid solicitations
urging contractors and subcontractors to
actively seek out suppliers of cement
and concrete containing fly ash, and to
solicit bids for these materials.
Regardless of the method of
solicitation used, situations may occur
where two or more low bids are
received which offer different levels of
fly ash content. While it generally would
be desirable to make award to the
bidder offering the highest fly ash
' content (assuming technical
performance is maintained), there is a
problem if that bid price is higher than
that of other technically qualified
suppliers.
The Agency considered establishing
some type of "sliding scale" which
would allow credits, and in effect
additional payment for the supply of
various ranges of fly ash in cement and
concrete. This alternative was rejected
because use of fly ash is cost
competitive with portland cement use,
rendering a price preference scheme
unnecessary as a means of stimulating
fly ash use.
The only so-called "preference" for fly
ash which EPA has retained in this final
guideline is in the case of identical low
bids. In such instances award should be
made to a contractor who plans to
utilize the highest percentage of fly ash,
all other factors being equal.
Recommendations as to Price,
Competition, Availability, and
Performance
Prices , ,.
Section 6002 raises the issue of
"reasonable" price. Congress did not
say that a recovered material product
need cost less than or the same as the :
virgin material product it replaces, but
'merely that its cost be reasonable.
•Although a few commenters •
recommended that bonuses or premiums
be paid to those persons using fly ash,
the Agency rejected this idea for this
guideline. Payment of premiums is
generally unnecessary since the use of
fly ash in cement and concrete is itself
cost competitive. No price premium
should be necessary to obtain cement or
concrete containing fly ash. Indeed, to
allow, a premium on a regular basis may
be unnecessarily inflationary.
This guideline leaves the
determination of reasonable price to the
discretion of the procuring agency,
although the guideline does suggest
general procedures for determining
reasonable prices and price competition,
based on procedures contained in the
Federal Procurement Regulations
applicable to certain types of
procurements. The Agency cautions
against determining reasonableness of
price by comparing spot prices for
relatively small quantities of cement or
concrete containing fly ash with
competitive bids for volume purchases
of portland cement or concrete.
Competition
The primary purpose of competition is
to secure the lowest price for a given
product. Federal procurement
procedures state that adequate
competition is usually presumed to exist
if: (i) At least two responsible offerers
(ii) who can satisfy the Government's
requirements (iii) independently
compete for a contract to be awarded
(iv) by submitting priced offers
responsive to the expressed
requirements of a solicitation. In
addition, the prices should be examined
for reasonableness.
Using the alternative bid approaches
recommended by EPA, there should be
no problem in achieving reasonable
competition. Solicitation of bids for both
portland dement or concrete and cement
or concrete containing fly ash is
recommended in all cases, thus enabling
the procuring agency to better guarantee
overall competition. "
The existing Federal procurement
procedures do not suggest comparing
contracts with respect to numbers of
bidders. They merely require that there
be a sufficient number of bidders for
adequate price competition for the .
particular contract at hand. EPA feels
that as long as-prices can be determined
to be reasonable for .cement and
concrete which contain fly ash, then
competition should be presumed to
exist, no matter what the number of
prospective offerors.
Availability and Delays
• The Agency does not feel that
procuring agencies should have to
tolerate any unusual or unreasonable
delays in obtaining cement or concrete
which contain fly ash, other than delays .
which may be typically* associated with
portland cement and concrete: As
specifications arid purchasing practices
are revised to allow for the use of fly
ash, this material should become more
widely available both geographically
and in terms of the number of
businesses willing and ^ible to supgly it.
Performance
The issue of reasonable performance
is addressed in this preamble under the
subsections on "Technically Proven
Uses," "Specifications," and "Quality
Control." Additional technical
performance information is contained in
the "References" section of this
guideline.
In general, fly ash blended cement can
be considered substitutable for all
ASTM cement types .except Type III,
High Early Strength (and even these
requirements can be met by adding, but
not substituting, fly ash to a portland
cement mixture). However, from a
practical standpoint, the use of fly ash
should be determined on a job-by-job
basis, as there may be specific technical
applications which would preclude the
use of fly ash. As discussed in this
preamble under "Contract
Specifications," a procuring agency may
document technical infeasibility for
certain types of applications, rather than
on a job-by-job basis. This practice
should be considered acceptable as long
as the purpose is not to circumvent the
intent of RCRA.
The purpose of comparison to
"reasonable" performance standards as
required in Section 6002(c) of RCRA is to
eliminate those standards,
specifications, procedures, and practices
-------
Federal Register V^Vol, 48,_Na 20 /Friday._ January28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations 4245
which are overly restrictive and which •
unfairly discriminate, either directly or
indirectly, against the use of fly ash. The
use of reaonable performance standards
is also intended to assure that the
necessary technical performance
requirements are still maintained, and
that product quality is not reduced
below acceptable limits.
Time-Phasing
Although the requirements'of Section
6002 and the recommendations of this
guideline should be implemented as, -
quickly as possible, the Agency
recognizes that problems could occur-
in both the marketplace and
governmental procurement systems—if
implementation is pushed too rapidly.
For example, the cost of fly ash suitable
for use in cement and concrete could
rise dramatically until the supply of
suitable ash and' storage capacity ha's a
chance to increase. Construction
contracts might include allowance; for
fly ash where it is technically
inappropriate. Thus, this guideline
recommends a phased-in approach to
implementation. •
The first year after the effective date
of final publication of this guideline is:
reserved for specification review and
revision. Beginning in the second year,
procuring agencies should take -
affirmative action in thfeir purchases of
cement or .concrete, using the
recommendations of this guideline, in
the manner discussed above. .
A few commenters specifically
supported EPA's recommended phasing-
5n approach. HoweVer, two commenters
requested that delays be granted in
, implementing the guideline so that -use
of fly ash could be evaluated. In light of
the discussions throughout this
preamble regarding the technical and
.economic feasibility of using cement and
concrete containing fly ash, EPA feels . ,
such delays would be unnecessary and
counterproductive.
The Agency realizes that testing
programs and the need for quality
assurance are always necessary to
assure the acquisition of acceptable
materials. Such programs have been
developed for fly ash.
Local and regional variations in the
components of concrete always need to
be taken into account when designing
and approving concrete mixes,
regardless of whether fly ash is used.
EPA feels the one year implementation
period is adequate for'agencies to begin
providing for fly ash use.
; Another commenter suggested a two
year implementation period, instead of
one year, to allow voluntary consensus
standards organizations an opportunity
to react to guideline recommendations.
EPA does not agree. Based on comments
received from some of the major
consensus standards organizations
(ASTM, ACI), their standards often
allow for fly ash to be used, subject to
specfic approval by the design engineer.
However, if procuring agencies find '
revisions to consensus standards
necessary, the guideline recommends
that agencies reflect those revisions in
their guide or material specifications, or
on a contract-by-contract basis.
" Certification .
Section 6002 of RCRA-requires
vendors to certify that the percentage of
fly ash to be included in the cement or
concrete supplied under the contract is
at least the amount required by :
applicable specifications or other
contractual requirements. Further,
vendors must estimate what this
percentage is. This certification
requirement is to take effect after a date
to be specified in the guideline.
Some commenters objected to
certification of fly ash content, stating it
is a meaningless paperwork burden. '
Other commenters suggested use of
simple certification, clauses or
procedures normally used by_ industry.
EPA is leaving the exact certification
language and format to the discretion of
procuring agencies, but has provided
suggestions here. •
A simple certification clause is
contained in the Code of Federal
Regulations, 41 CFR Part 1-1, Subpart 1-
1.2504, which states:
The offerer/contractor certifies that
recovered materials will be used as required
. by specifications referenced in the
solicitation/contract.
The opinion of the Agency is that by
signing the bid document/solicitation,
the fly ash cement or concrete supplier
is in effect agreeing to meet the fly ash
content requirements. Thus, no separate
form, signature, etc. is needed. '
In addition to the inclusion of such a
certification clause in solicitations, the
supplier should certify the percentage of
fly, ash used. This should normally be
done on a per project or per shipment
basis, as, opposed to certification of the
average amount to be used over the
course of a year, for instance. Exceprfor
technical performance purposes in
concrete mix design, a procuring agency
may allow the percentage to be certified
within a small range, rather than
requiring an exact percentage. The
purpose of this flexibility is to not
discourage potential suppliers who may
be fearful that if an exact percentage is
certified for a government contract, only
that exact percentage may be supplied.
Weather conditions or material '••
variations, for example, may require
modification of the concrete mix design
and therefore the fly ash content.
This certification information is likely
a necessity in evaluating concrete mix
designs. However, procuring agencies
can also use it in evaluating future
contract requirements and in
maintaining a record of fly ash use. Such
information should be useful to
procuring agencies in fulfilling their
obligations under Section 6002(g) of
RCRA, which requires agencies to
submit annually a report to the Office of
•Federal Procurement Policy on actions
taken by the agency to implement » ,
Section 6002.
Quality Control
The subject of quality control was of
great concern to commenters. Some
commenters misconstrued EPA's
recommendations and thought that EPA
was proposing to relieve suppliers of
cement and concrete containing fly ash
from many of the standard industry,
quality control and quality assurance
procedures. These commenters :
apparently thought that EPA was
replacing these standard procedures by
the certification requirements discussed
above. This is not the case: The
certification procedures for fly ash
content are entirely separate in purpose
and format from quality control arid
quality assurance procedures.
, EPA emphasizes that nothing in this
•certification section should be construed
to relieve the contractor of
responsibility for providing a
satisfactory product. Cement and
concrete suppliers are already -.
responsible both for the .quality of the
ingredients of their product and for
meeting appropriate performance
requirements and will continue to be'
under this guideline. ,
Some commenters on the proposed
guideline started that EPA was
incorrectly attempting to shift
responsibilities andliabilities from fly
ash suppliers to concrete producers and
builders. EPA intends that no such shift
take place. Responsibilities and
liabilities are assumed to be in
accordance with normal industry
procedures..;
, Some commenters felt that fly ash
should be subject to the same quality
control/quality assurance provisions as
for cement and other materials of
construction,; Many commenters felt that '
fly .ash suppliers should be required to
certify the physical and chemical
characteristics of their material to users.'
EPA generally agrees with these
commenters.; Because the characteristics
of fly ash can vary considerably
-------
4246
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations
between sources, knowledge of those
characteristics is essential to assuring
appropriate use of fly ash in cement" and
concrete. The Agency is recommending
that fly ash suppliers be asked by users
to provide a statement of the important
characteristics of their fly ash. These
characteristics are the chemistry of the
material, loss on ignition (LOI), and
fineness. Other characteristics should be
requested as needed by the procuring
agency. Further, EPA agrees with
commenlers who suggested that fly ash
suppliers should be prepared to
demonstrate the adequacy of their
qualily control programs, at least for
new suppliers or those unfamiliar to the
procuring agency.
The responsibility for insuring the
quality of blended cement lies with the
supplier. ASTM specification C595
specifics adequate requirements for
quality control of fly ash used in
blended hydraulic cements. Most
blended cement manufacturers maintain
quality control programs. No additional
testing above that which would be
required of any cement should be
necessary on the part of the user/builder
to insure compliance with this
specification. However, the user must be
conscious of any differences which may '
exist in the field application of blended
cement containing fly ash vs. portland
cement.
The responsibility for insuring the
quality of fly ash to be used as an
admixture in concrete is that of the fly
ash supplier. Although many suppliers
of fly ash have their own quality control
program, commenters pointed out that
ASTM specification C618 may not be
sufficiently stringent to ensure all ashes
which comply are really suitable for
general use as mineral admixtures in
concrete, particularly when chemical
admixtures such as air-entraining agents
are to be used. Further, there is no
assurance that all ashes which comply
with specifications will be suitable for
all uses. Thus, unfamiliar users must
acquire the necessary technical
expertise if they are to use fly ash
successfully.
Some commenters suggested that
Stales approve sources of fly ash. While
EPA is nol specifically recommending
an "approved source" approach, the
Agency does believe that fly ash and
concrete suppliers should be expected to,
demonstrate (through reasonable testing
programs or previous experience) the
performance and reliability of their
product. The Judgement of the
contractor/builder must be used in
evaluating:
(1) Whether additional testing is necessary
to insure the performance of the concrete,
and
(2) Whether such testing is cost effective
when compared with the cost of using other
materials.
Fly ash which does not satisfy at least
ASTM specifications should not be used
in cement or concrete on Federal
construction projects.
For those agencies desiring a testing
or quality assurance program for
cements, blended cements, or pozzolans,
the U.S. Army Engineer Waterways
Experiment Station (WES], P.O. Box 631.
Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, "may be
contacted. WES is the agency
responsible for. testing such materials for
Federal agencies.
Date
EPA is charged with designating a
time after publication of this guideline at
which certification requirements will
take effect. Certification of fly ash
content should be a part of any
solicitation which allows or requires the
use of fly ash in cement or concrete.
This guideline recommends a 12-month
period after the effective date for review
and revision of all guide and continuing
contract specifications. After this 12-
month period any solicitations/contracts
issued should include provisions which
allow that fly ash be supplied, and thus
should incorporate certification
requirements.
Compliance and Monitoring
EPA expects full cooperation from all
Federal agencies in implementation of
this guideline. The Office of Federal
Procurement Policy (OFPP) has the
major responsibility for overseeing
implementation of Section 6002 of
RCRA. The OFPP has indicated it will
direct the Defense Acquisition
Regulations and Federal Procurement
Regulations overseeing bodies to
immediately implement the final
guideline.
The OFPP is responsible for
monitoring and reporting annually to
Congress on the actions taken by
procuring agencies in implementing
Section 6002 of RCRA. Under its Policy
Letter 77-1, OFPP has imposed a
reporting requirement upon the
procuring agencies to gather this
information. EPA, in conjunction with
the OFPP, will monitor the impact of this
particular guideline on the procurement
practices of Federal agencies and on fly
ash use. Thus, agencies are encouraged
to develop procedures for gathering and
maintaining such information."
A few commenters urged strict and
active enforcement of the guideline by
EPA. Among the specific suggestions
were debarment of contractors for major
certification violations, provision by
EPA of technical assistance to States
and other agencies in the revision" of
specifications and the use of fly ash, and
monitoring by EPA of its own.
contractors and grantees.
EPA expects a high level of
compliance with the guideline. If
necessary, the Agency is prepared to
take appropriate measures to ensure
that the objectives of the guideline are
met. In addition, there are other methods
available to interested parties to
encourage compliance with Section
6002. One of these methods is the citizen
suit provision'of Section 7002 of RCRA,
which states:
[a] * * * any person may commence a'civil
action on his own behalf—(1) against any
person (including (a) the United States, and
(b) any other governmental instrumentality or
agency * * *) who is alleged to be in
violation of any permit, standard, regulation,
condition,, requirement, or order which has
become effective pursuant to this Act.
A second method which may be
useful in encouraging compliance with
Section 6002 is the filing of formal
protests by aggrieved bidders. A bidder
who is willing and able to supply a
"designated" recovered material product
to procuring agencies and who is „
precluded from bidding by failure of a
procuring agency to comply with Section
6002, may be able to obtain satisfaction
through this process.
Regulatory Analysis -
In this and other sections, the
preamble contains discussions of the
elements required in a Regulatory
Analysis: (1) The program objectives, (2)
our consideration of regulatory
alternatives, (3) a general assessment of
our choices, (4) a description of potential
benefits and costs and (5] the rationale
for our decisions. EPA believes it is
complying with the intent of Executive
Order 12291 because of this and other
efforts, including the preparation of a •
more detailed background document to
support the analyses below. This
document may be examined at the
RCRA Public Docke! Office, at the place
and times listed previously in this
preamble.
Effects
(1) Economic savings. This guideline
•should help the cement industry by
reducing both energy costs and capital
investment requirements for capacity
expansions. Adding effective capacity *
•by using fly ash to produce blended
cement is a viable alternative to new •
kiln construction. Adding capacity with
x fly ash involves about ten percent of the
-------
Federal Register / Vol.'48, No, 20 / Friday. January 28. 1983 / Rules and Regulations
4247
capital cost of a new plant .($5-$15 per
ton added capacity using fly ash vs.
$125r-$185 per ton for a new cement
plant). .,-
The purchased energy cost associated
with cement production represents one-
third of the finished value of the
cement—very high in relation to other
building materials. At a typical blending
rate of 20 percent, fly ash in cement can
reduce total energy use about 15
percent. The portion of total cost
represented by this energy savings—
currently five percent—will grow as the
cost of purchased energy increases.
For cement consumers, i.e. ready
mixed concrete producers, concrete
product manufacturers, and highway
contractors, fly ash can reduce raw
material costs. Cement prices range
from $40-$90 per ton, while,the price of
fly ash suitable for use in concrete may
range" from about $15-$50 per ton.
Depending on the replacement rate and
relative price of the two materials, .
substituting fly ash can save 5 to 15
percent of the cost. ;
Procuring agencies may not be in a .
position to realize the savings described
here with respect to their purchases of
blended cements. Because of the pricing
structure and concentrated nature of the
cement industry;—and the fact that a
properly blended cement containing fly
ash may perform as well or better than
Portland cement—blended cements
containing fly ash (ASTM Types IP and
I(PM)) are likely to be priced at the same
level as ASTM Type I portland cement.
However, concrete producers are able to
take direct advantage of decreased raw
materials cost by purchasing fly ash as a
.partial cement replacement. Given the, :
greater competition among the large
number of firms in these industries, bid
quotations for concrete may reflect part
of these savings.
(2) Energy Conservation. In 1976," the
Portland cement industry accounted for
two percent of total energy used by U.S. •
industry. Although the cement industry
has steadily reduced its energy
consumption per unit of product over the
past several years, the use of fly ash in
producing blended cements can still
save a significant amount of energy.
Seventy to eighty percent of the
energy used in cement production is
consumed during the pyroprocessing
stage, where raw materials are
subjected to intense'heat and chemically
react to form cementitious compounds,
or clinker. The clinker is ground into the
fine powder known as cement.
Replacing the cement clinker with fly
ash (on a one-to-one ratio by weight)
reduces the amount of clinker -
production required per ton of finished
cement. Energy savings are proportioned
to the percentage of fly ash used in the
blend. Assuming a 20-percent ,
replacement rate, the savings may range.
from about 13 to 19 percent of total
energy used in production.
Concrete producers can save energy
indirectly^ on a nationalized basis, if fly
ash is used as an admixture at their
plant. Replacing a portion of cement
with fly ash in the final product would
reduce the production needed fronfthe
cement industry, and thus would reduce
energy consumption. Each ton of cement
replaced would save approximately
5,750,000 BTU's of energy.
One -commenter pointed out that the
energy savings presented here are not
totally achievable for new cement plants
which have been designed to take .
advantage of energy conserving '
technologies. While this statement is
true when considering BTU's, the
percentage energy savings are
nevertheless achievable by bypassing
the pyroprocessing. stage, regardless of .
the efficiency of the plant involved. .
Another commenter claimed that .
increased energy consumption would
take place in the precast and
prestressed concrete industry, due to the
higher temperatures needed to achieve
equivalent early strengths when using .
fly ash. Since the use of fly ash is
considered to be at the manufacturer's
. option under this guideline, EPA feels
that if increased energy consumption is
prohibitive for precast and prestressed "
manufacturers, concrete containing fly
ash will not be utilized.
(3) Environmental Issues, (a) Benefits.
The use of fly ash in cement and
concrete will have a positive effect on
the 'environment, reducing pollution of •,
the land, air, and water. It wilLdo this
by reducing: (1) The quantities of fly ash
requiring disposal, (2) the mining and
processing of raw materials used in
cement productibn, and [3) the cement
plant emissions per ton of, blended
cement produced or per toil of cement
replaced-with-fly ash. --
If current usage rates continue, by
1985 6IH55 million tons of fly ash
annually will-require disposal.
Approximately 10-20 million tons of this
fly ash are estimated to be suitable for
use in concrete. This guideline can affect
the practices of collecting fly ash,
especially from new sources, and can
reduce the quantities which require '
ultimate disposal. Thus, the use of fly
ash in cement and concrete will provide
a more environmentally acceptable way
to manage; these substances than would
otherwise be,,available.
Current practices for cement
manufacturing, and current disposal
practices for fly ash, can have a
negative .effect on air quality (increased
dust), water quality (surface and •" -
groundwater contamination), land use,
noise, and aesthetic value. The use of fly
ash in cement and concrete can reduce
.these effects in several ways. For
example, it would reduce the need for
such raw materials as limestone and
clay, whoso mining and processing can.
harm the environment through the -
creation of increased dust, erosion,
runoff, and noise, disturbance of natural
habitats, and degradation of potential
land use. U^se of fly ash reduces the
potential for leaching of trace heavy
metals, which could occur as a result of
indiscriminate fly ash disposal.
Requiring less cement for the same
quantity of "cementitious" end product
may reducei the amount of cement kiln
dust which Requires disposal (currently
6-8 million tons per year). The disposal
of cement kiln dust can have the same
harmful effects (i.e., air quality, water
quality,; land use, aesthetic value, etc.)
as the disposal practices of fly ash. In
addition, using fly ash to increase the
capacity of a cement plant would most ,
likely reduce the needier air pollution
control since it would not require the air
pollution control associated with new
kiln construction. This approach to
expanding capacity maybe especially
attractive in "noriattainment" areas,
where new.kiln construction is
effectively precluded. , ,
(b) Impact ofRCRA, Subtitle C. Jn .
May 1980, EPA promulgated regulations
for the control of hazardous Waste -•
pursuant to Subtitle C of RCRA. In the
Solid Waste Disposal Act Amendments
of 1980, Congress directed EPA not to
regulate fly ash as a hazardous yvaste
until such time as EPA investigates the
environmental hazards, if any, posed by
fly ash disposal. Findings to date"
indicate that little, if any, fly ash
exhibits characteristics defined as
hazardous ;in the Federal regulations.
Therefore, Subtitle C!regulations will
have no significant impact on the use of
fly ash in cement and concrete.
A few cbmmenters suggested that
EPA limit-the use of fly ash in concrete,
restricting its use in potable water
sources or iin-storage areas for food. The
rationale given for these suggestions
was the potential for leaching of trace -
metal elements out of the fly ash. The
commenters provided no documentation
as to the likelihood or extent of leaching
when fly asih is useci in concrete.
While it is true that fly ash contains
trace amounts of certain elements,
, which can be toxic in larger
concentrations, it is unlikely that fly ash
as used in concrete would exhibit
leaching characteristics. First, the
preme'ability of concrete containing fly
-------
4248 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28,1983 / Rules and
ash is negligible compared to the
permeability of fly ash as typically
disposed. This reduced permeability
prevents water or other liquids from
penetrating concrete and providing a
leaching medium through which
. contaminants could travel.
Second, when used in concrete, fly
ash becomes an integral part of the final
product. The surface area of individual
fly ash particles, from which leaching of
trace constituents takes place, is so
greatly reduced in this application as to
be almost nonexistent. It is not possible
through conducting leaching tests of raw
fly ash to estimate the leaching, if any,
which would take place in a concrete
containing fly ash. Thus, the
commenter's suggestion that dams and
pipes not be constructed using fly ash
appears to have no technical basis.
(c) Radioactivity Issues. At the same
time as original proposal of the
hazardous waste regulations (December
18,1978), EPA issued an advance notice
of proposed rulemaking that it was
considering establishing 5 picocuries per
gram (pCi/g) of radium-226 as a criterion
For listing wastes as hazardous. The
notice also requested comment on other
criteria which might tend to affect the
radiation hazard. Among these is the
emanation rate of radon from the waste.
The Agency has, at this date, taken no
further action on this proposed
rulemaking to establish general criteria
for hazardous radioactivity levels in
wastes.
Where resource recovery is practiced,
an important consideration in assessing
the hazard is the proposed use of the
waste material. While some proportion
of fly ash generated in the U.S. has' more
than 5 pCi/g of radium-226, the physical
structure of fly ash is such that its
contribution to radiation exposure is
probably less than that of most normal
constituents of concrete which generally
fall below this level. This is explained
below.
A few conimenters expressed concern
to EPA that fly ash used in the
construction of habitable structures
could pone a threat to public health due
to radioactivity. The source of the
radiation threat is due to radium-226, a
radioactive isotope which occurs
naturally in soil, sand, and mineral
deposits as well as in fly ash. The
radium-226 content of soil generally
ranges from .2 to 3 pCi/g. Limited
measurements of radioactivity in cement
show that the radium-226 content of
cement can be as high as 5 pCi/g, but
typically averages close to 1 pCi/g.
Limited measurements of fly ash
presently generated in the U.S. show a
radium-220 content ranging from 1 to 8
pCi/g with an average of roughly
,4pCi/g.
There are two pathways of radiation
exposure from radium-226 in building
materials. The pathway of primary
concern is from inhalation of radon-222
and its short-lived decay products.
Radon-222, an inert gas with a
radioactive half-life of 3.8 days, is the
first generation decay product of
radium-226. Because it is an inert gas, it
can readily migrate from the building
material into the indoor air of a home.
Although the rate at which radon is
created within a building material is
proportional to its radium content, the
intrinsic structure of the material may,
in some cases, prevent most of the radon
from escaping. When air containing
radon and its radioactive decay
products is breathed for long periods of
time, a person's risk of lung cancer is
increased.
Gamma radiation from radium-226
and its decay products is the other
exposure pathway. The amount of
gamma radiation emission from a
building material is proportional to its
radium content, but the total exposure a
person receives will also depend on
other factors such as shielding, distance
from the material, and exposure time.
Exposure to gamma radiation results in
an increased risk of many types of
cancer.
' When fly ash is used as a partial
cement replacement in concrete, the fly
ash content of the final concrete product
is between 2 and 3 percent (assuming a
15 to 25 percent cement replacement
rate and an 8 to 1 ratio of aggregate and
water to cemeiititious material). Since
the average radium-226 content of fly
ash exceeds that of cement by a few
pCi/g, the use of fly ash as a cement
replacement in habitable structures will,
on the average, result in a slight
increase in the gamma radiation
exposure to people (less than a
milliroentgen per year). However, in
some instances, where fly ash with a
lower than average radium content
replaces a cement with a higher than
average radium content, the result
would be less gamma radiation
exposure.
The use of fly ash as a cement
replacement will also affect the quantity
of radon emitted by the building
material. Although the rate at which
radon is created is directly proportional
to the radium content, other factors may
inhibit radon emanation from a material.
Because fly ash is produced at high
temperatures, it has a glassy structure
which keeps most of the radon from
escaping. The fraction of radon which
escapes from fly ash [emanation
fraction) has been measured at no more
than a few percent. In contrast, typical
soil and soil like materials tend to have
an emanation fraction in the
neighborhood of 20 percent. Thus,
although fly ash, on the average, has a
greater radium content than the cement
it replaces, the use of fly ash as a partial
cement replacement is likely to reduce
the radon gas contribution of the final
concrete product.
During the proposal period for this
guideline, EPA has been investigating
this issue more thoroughly. Tests
recently conducted for EPA substantiate
the.conclusions above, i.e., that the
radon emanation rate of fly ash in its
raw state and as used in. concrete is only
a few percent compared to the absolute
radium concentration. Thus, while-fly
ash use in cement would, on the
average, result iij a small increase in
gamma radiation exposure, this small
increase in gamma exposure is likely to
be offset by a decreased radon
exposure. In light of this, EPA believes
that the use of typically-occurring fly
ash in concrete does not constitute a
significantly different ra'diation risk than
the risk from the cement it replaces, and
neither of these is significantly different
from the radiation risk posed by
common soil. -
Institutional Issues
In spite of proven technical
performance and favorable economics,
the use of fly ash in cement and <
concrete has had only limited
acceptance. This can be attributed in
part to potential consumers'
unfamiliarity with fly ash, and their
reluctance to aggressively investigate or
readily accept new materials where an
existing product—in this case portland
cement—has traditionally been
accepted. In some cases there may be
outright discrimination against this use
,of fly ash, because of attitudes,
personalities of-individuals involved,
and political and economic pressures.
Several commenters stated that this
Federal procurement guideline is
necessary to overcome the lethargy of
specifying engineers, inertia of the
construction industry, unfair
competition from vested interests, and
resistance to use by some factions of.
State highway departments and the
Federal Highway Administration.
It is difficult to obtain quick approval
for a new product or material
specification in the construction field,
given the requirements for
experimentation, demonstration, field
evaluation and finally specifications
changes. However, it should be
recognized that fly ash has already gone
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, '1983 / Rules and Regulations-
4249
through these steps. There are
established specifications and standards
for the testing and use of this material.'
Sources of ash must be acceptable and
EPA emphasizes that only ash which
meets established specifications should
be used. However, a procuring agency
need not "reinvent the wheel" by
requiring extensive and expensive
reevaluation of the basic feasibility
which has already been proven. This
applies to all government agencies, but
especially to state and local entities,
which use such instruments as building
codes to regulate construction activities.
Design engineers generally have the
final say on the materials to be specified
for a particular construction job.
. Typically, until a majority of peer
engineers accept a "new" material there
is reluctance to use it. However, an
engineer can meet his or her
responsibility for the performance ;of a
structure by. conducting a thorough
review of the concrete mix design before
placing the concrete, and assure that the
materials and mix design meet, as a
minimum, ASTM, Federal, and/or •
American Concrete Institute
specifications. The intent of this •
guideline is to help overcome certain of •
these "institutional" barriers which may
have no adequate foundation, while
maintaining satisfactory product quality.
Resource Requirements ' .
The cost to procuring agencies of
compliance with this guideline will be
minimal. The price of cement and
concrete containing fly ash should be
less than or equal to;the price of •
Portland cement and concrete. The start-
up costs of revising specifications and
assimilating fly ash into the procurement
system should be relatively minor but
are not readily measurable.
The Office of Federal Procurement
Policy (OFPP) is responsible for
submitting an annual report to Congress
on actions taken by Federal agencies
and the progress made in
implementation of the resource recovery •
policy of Sectioti~6Q02. As a result, OFPP
already requires an annual report from
each Fe'deral agency on actions taken in
the implementation of Section 6002. By
working closely with OFPP, information
relevant to the implementation of this
guideline can be obtained. The costs to
OFPP and EPA of implementing this
guideline are expected to be relatively
minor.
EPA's efforts during the first year
following promulgation of the final
guideline will focus on explaining the
guideline provisions to interested
persons and responding to inquiries
regarding implementation of the
guideline. The Agency urges individuals
with an interest in seeing the guideline
implemented to deal directly with those
persons responsible for compliance with
Section 6002, i.e., procuring agencies,
and ultimately with architects,
engineers, etc. • -•-..-
Public Participation •
•Prior to proposal, an interagency work
group, including representatives from
most of the Federal agencies which will
be directly affected by this guideline,
assisted in development of the proposed
guideline. In addition, a draft of the
proposed guideline package, including a
summary development plan, preamble,
rule, and background documents was
circulated to well over 200 interested
persons for comment. Public
participation regarding formal proposal
and comments on the proposed
guideline was presented at the
beginning of the section of this preamble
entitled "SUPPLEMENTARY " ,
INFORMATION."
Compliance With Executive Order
Under Executive Order 12291, EPA
must judge whether a regulation is
"Major" and therefore subject to the
requirement of a Regulatory Impact
Analysis. This guideline is not major
because it is not likely to result in:
(1) An annual effect on the economy
of $100 million or more; '
(2) A major increase in costs or prices
for consumers, individual industries,
Federal, State, or local government
agencies, or geographic regions; or
(3) Significant adverse effects on,
competition, employment, investment
productivity, innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based '.: .
enterprises to compete with foreign-
based enterprises in domestic or export
markets. .
This guideline recommends that
procuring agencies include provisions in
construction contracts which
specifically allow for fly ash to be used,
with the contractor retaining the option
to use fly ash. Typically, fly ash is
currently precluded from use on /
construction projects unless it is
specifically called.for in the contract
specifications. As discussed in other
sections of the preamble, particularly
"Regulatory Analysis," this guideline
should not adversely affect competition.
With the approach that fly ash be
allowed into the bidding system as an
alternate material, competition and
business opportunities are increased by
allowing persons who are willing and
able to use fly ash to bid on contracts,
while still allowing suppliers of
conventional portland cement and
concrete to compete.
With regard to costs, this guideline '
should help,the cement industry by
reducing both energy costs and capital
' investment requirements for capacity-
expansions, through the blending of fly
ash with cement. For cement consumers,
i.e., ready-mixed concrete producers,
concrete product manufacturers, and
highway contractors, use of fly ash can
reduce raw material costs, as fly ash is .-
generally priced less than the cement it
replaces, although savings will vary. On
a micro-scale, however, individual••r
companies may be placed in the position
.of losing bids to competitors who choose
to use fly ash, and who bid lower.
EPA has prepared a detailed
background, dpcumentliupporting the
above analysis. This document may be.
examined at the RCRA Public Docket
Office, at th.e place and times listed
above. I . . * ;
- This guideline was submitted to the
Office of Mianagement and Budget ,
(OMB) for review as required by ,
Executive Order 12291.
Dated: January 21,1983.
Anne M. Gorsuch, /
Administrator. : -
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 249
Resource ;recoy7ery, Recycling, Fly ash,
Procurement. . •"..
Title 40 CFR is amended by adding a
new Part 249 reading as follows:
PART 249—GUIDELINE FOR FEDERAL.
PROCUREMENT OF CEMENT AND
CONCRETE: CONTAINING FLY ASH
Subpart A—Purpose, Applicability, and
Definitions .;[ ' '.'.-"''•-
Sec. •-. •" '.'.-. . .' • ?-<_. - '•
-249.01 Purpose.
249.02 Designation.
249.03 Applicability, .,
249.04 Definitions.
Subpart B—Specifications
249.10 Reco:mmendations for guide
specifications. • , '
249.11 Reco:tnmendations for contract '
specifications.
249.12 Reco:mmehdations for material
'specifications.
249.13 Recaoimendations for fly ash content
and mix Design.
249.14 Recommendations for performance
standards.
Subpart C—Purchasing
249.20 Recoipmendations for bidding
approach.
249.21 Recommendations for reasonable
price. .: ,
249.22 Recommendations for reasonable
competition.
249.23 Reasonable availability.
249.24 Recommendations for time-phasing.
•/"I
-------
4250 Federal Register / Vol. 48, .No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and
Subpart D—Certification
Std
249,30 Recommendations for measurement.
249,31 Recommendations for
documentation.
249.32 Quality control.
249,33 Date recommendations.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6962.
Subpart A—Purpose, Applicability and
Definitions
§ 249.01 Purpose.
(a) The purpose of the guideline is to
assist procuring agencies in the
procurement of cement and concrete
which contain fly ash, in accordance
with Section 6002(e) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended ("RCRA" or
"Act") (42 U.S.C. 6962).
(b) This guideline contains
recommendations for implementing
Section 6002 requirements, including
revision of specifications, purchasing,
phasing-irt of requirements, and
certification procedures. The Agency
believes its recommendations provide a
flexible approach to meeting the
statutory requirements, while still
maintaining the intent of RCRA. The
Agency is of the opinion that adherence
to the guideline constitutes compliance
with the statute.
§ 249.02 Designation.
Cement and concrete, including
concrete products such as pipe and
block, containing fly ash is hereby
designated by EPA as a product area for
which affirmative procurement actions
are required on the part of procuring
agencies, under the requirements of
Section 6002 of RCRA.
§249.03 Applicability.
(a) This guideline applies to all
procuring agencies and to all
procurement actions involving cement or
concrete where the procuring agency
purchases, in total, $10,000 or more
worth of cement or concrete during the
course of a fiscal year, or where the
quantity of such items purchased during
the preceding fiscal year was $10,000 or
more. EPA leaves the precise method of
calculating or estimating the
applicability of this provision to specific
construction activities of a procuring
agency at the discretion of that agency.
(b) Procurement actions covered by
this guideline include all purchases for
cement or conqrete made directly by a
procuring agency or by any person
directly in support of work being
performed for a procuring agency, as hi
the case of general construction
contractors and/or subcontractors.
(c) Such procurement actions also
include any purchases of cement or
concrete made "indirectly" by a
procuring agency, as in the case of
purchases resulting from grants, loans,
funds, and similar forms of
disbursements of monies which the
procuring agency intended to be used
for construction.
(d) The guideline does not apply to
purchases of cement and concrete which
are unrelated to or incidental to Federal
funding, i.e., not the direct result of a
contract, grant, loan, funds
disbursement, or agreement with a
procuring agency.
§249.04 Definitions.
.As used in this guideline:
(a) "Act" or "RCRA" means the Splid
Waste Disposal Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6901
et seq.
(b) "Construction" means the erection
or building of new structures, or the
replacement, expansion, remodeling,
alteration, modernization, or extension
of existing structures. It includes the
engineering and architectural surveys,
designs, plans, working drawings,
specifications, and other actions
necessary to complete the project.
(c) "Contract specifications" means
the set of specifications prepared for an
individual construction project, which
contains design, performance, and
material requirements for that project.
(d) "Federal agency" means any
department, agency, or other
instrumentality of the Federal
Government, any independent agency or
establishment of the Federal
Government including any Government
corporation, and the Government
Printing Office (Pub. L. 94-580, 90 Stat.
2799, 42 U.S.C. 6903). _
(e) "Fly ash" means the component of
coal which results from the combustion
of coal, and is the finely divided mineral
residue which is typically collected from
boiler stack gases by electrostatic
precipitator or mechanical collection
devices.
(f) "Guide specification" means a
general specification—often referred to
as a design standard or design
guideline—which is a model standard
and is suggested or required for use in
the design of all of the construction
projects of an agency. '
(g) "Implementation" means putting a
plan into practice by carrying out
planned activities, or ensuring that these
activities are carried out.
(h) "Material specification" means a
specification that stipulates the use of
certain materials to meet the necessary
performance requirements.
(i) "Person" means an individual,
trust, firm, joint stock company, Federal
agency, corporation (including a
government corporation), partnership,
association, State, municipality,
commission, political subdivision of a
State, or any interstate body.
(j) "Procurement item" means any
device, goods, substance, material,
product, or other item whether real or
personal property which is the subject of
any purchase, barter, or other exchange
made to procure such item (Pub. L. 94-
580, 90 Stat. 2800, 42 U.S.C. 6903).
(k) "Procuring agency" means any
Federal agency, or any State agency or
agency of a political subdivision of a ,
State which is using appropriated
Federal funds for such procurement, or
any person contracting with any such-
agency with respect to work performed ,
under such contract (Pub. L. 94-580, 90
Stat. 2800, 42 U.S.C. 6903).
(1) "Recovered material" means waste
material and byproducts which have
been recovered or diverted from solid
Waste, but such term does not include
those materials and byproducts
generated from, and commonly reused
within, an original manufacturing
process (Pub. L. 94-580, 90 Stat. 2800, 42
U.S.C. 6903, as amended by Pub. L. 96-
482).
(m) "Specification" means a clear and
accurate description of the technical
requirement for materials, products, or
services, which specifies the minimum
requirement for quality and construction
of materials and equipment necessary
for an acceptable product. In general,
specifications are in the form of written
descriptions, drawings, prints,
commercial designations, industry
standards, and other descriptive
references. ,
Subpart B—Specifications
§ 249.10 Recommendations for guide
specifications.
(a) Each procuring agency should
assure that its guide specifications do
not unfairly discriminate against the use
of fly ash in cement and concrete. Each
procuring agency should:
(1) Revise specifications, standards, or
procedures which currently require that
cement and concrete contain virgin
materials to eliminate this restriction.
(2) Revise specifications, standards, or
procedures which prohibit using
recovered materials (particularly fly
ash) in cement and concrete to eliminate
this restriction.
(b) Guide specifications should
require that contract specifications for ,
individual construction projects or
products allow for the use of fly ash,
unless fly ash use is technically
-------
inappropriate for a particular
construction application.
(c) Referenced specifications which
are. maintained by national
organizations, such as the American
Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the
American Concrete Institute (ACI), and
the American Society for Testing^and
Materials (ASTM) should be reviewed
and modified, if necessary, to remove
any discrimination against the use of fly
ash in cement and concrete;
(d) Guide specifications should be
revised, if necessary, within six months
after the effective date of this guideline,
to incorporate the recommendations of
paragraphs (a] through (c) of this
section. ;
§249.11 Recommendations for contract
specifications.-
(a) Each procuring agency which
prepares or reviews "contract"
specifications for individual
construction projects should revise
those specifications to allow the use of
cement and concrete which contain fly
ash as an optional or alternate material
for the project in accordance with
§ 249.20, except as noted in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(b)(l) Notwithstanding the above,
procuring agencies should not revise
contract specifications to allow ihe use
of fly ash if it can be determined that,
for a particular project or application,
reasonable performance requirements
for the cement or concrete will not be
met, or that the use of fly ash would be
inappropriate for technical reasons.
[2) The determination under this
paragraph should be documented by the
procuring agency, design engineer/
architect, or other responsible person,
based on specific technical performance
information. Legitimate documentation
of technical infeasibility for fly ash can
be for certain classes of applications,
rather than on a job-by-job basis.
Agencies should reference such -:
documentation in individual contract
specifications, to avoid extensive
. repetition of previously documented
points. However, procuring agencies
should be prepared to submit such
documentation to scrutiny by interested
persons, and should have a review
process available in the event of
disagreements.
(c) Each procuring agency should
assure that contract specifications
reflect the provisions of paragraphs (a)
and (b) of this section by reviewing the
contract specifications for any
individual construction project before
awarding the contract. Procuring
agencies are reminded that the statutory
requirements apply to projects which
are contracted for directly, as well as
those projects directly performed under
the provisions of grants, loans, funds or
similar forms of disbursement.' •
(d) All contract specifications issued
after one year from the effective date of
this guideline should meet the
provisions of this section. ,
§249.12 Recommendations for material
specifications. . .
(a) Each procuring agency should
make maximum use of existing
voluntary consensus standards and
Federal material specifications for
cement and'concrete which contain fly
ash. These are: .
(1) Cement.
(i) ANSI/ASTM C595—"Standard
Specification for Blended Hydraulic
Cements." •
(ii) Fed. Spec. SS-C-1960/4B—
"Cement, Hydraulic, Blended."
(iii) ANSI/ASTM C150—"Standard
Specification for Portland Cement" arid
Fed. Spec, SS-C-1960/Gen. are
appropriate specifications when fly ash
is used as a raw material in the
production of cement.
(2) Concrete. ,
(i) ANSI/ASTM C6i8—"Standard
Specification for Fly Ash and Raw or
Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use as a
Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement
Concrete."
(ii] Fed. Spec. SS-C-1960/5A—
"Pozzolan, For Use in Portland Cement
Concrete,"
(iii) ANSI/ASTM C311—"Standard
Methods of Sampling and Testing Fly
Ash and Natural Pozzolans for use as a
Mineral Admixture in Portland Cement
Concrete."
(b) Only fly ash which, as a minimum,
meets ASTM standards should be used,
unless a procuring agency has
developed sufficient expertise to use
non-specification fly ash for particular
applications.
§ 249.13 Recommendations for fly ash
content and mix design.
(a) This guideline does not specify a
minimum or maximum level of fly ash
content for any uses, due to variations in
fly ash, cement, strength requirements,
gosts, construction practices, etc.
However, replacement rates of fly ash
for cement in the production of blended,
cement generally do not exceed 20% to
30%, although fly ash blended cements
may range from 0%-40% fly ash by
weight, according to ASTM C595, for
cement Types IP and I(PM). Fifteen
percent is a more accepted rate when fly
ash is used as a partial cement
replacement as an admixture in
concrete.
(b) Information on fly ash and
concrete mix designate contained in the
"References" section of this guideline.
These sources should^ be consulted in
the design and evaluation of the proper
mix ratio, for a specific project. In
general, the concrete mix is adjusted by
adding fly ash, while decreasing cement,
water, and fine aggregate. The fly ash
should be cheqked'for compliance_with
applicable ASTM standards/Federal
specifications, and trial mixes should be
made to verify compliance of such mixes
with specified quality parameters as is
typically done for portland cement
-concrete. ' '
(c) Concriete. mix design specifications
which specify minimum cement content
of maximum watencement ratios, could
potentially ijnfairly discriminate against
the use of fly ash. Such specifications
should be changed in order to allow the
partial substitution of fly ash for cement
in the concrete mixture, unless
technically inappropriate. Minumum
, cement contents and maximum
watencemeht ratios may be retained, as
long as they; reflect the cementitious
characteristics which fly ash can impart
to a concrete mixture,: e.g., by
considering portland cement plus fly ash
' as the total cementitious component.
§249.14 Recommendations for
performance standards.
(a) Each procuring agency should
review and, ;if necessary, revise
performances standards relating to
cement or concrete construction projects
to insure that, they do not arbitrarily
restrict the .vise of fly ash, either
intentionally or inadvertently, unless
, this restriction is justified on a case-by-
•case basis, us allowed for in § 249,ll(b).
Subpart C—'Purchasing -.-.,'
§249.20 Recommendations for bidding
approach. 1
(a) EPA recommends that a procuring
agency specifically include provisions in
all construction contracts to allow for
the use, as an optional or alternate
material, of cement or concrete which
contains, fly ash, except as provided for
in § 249.11(b).
.(b) Agencies should adopt appropriate
bidding approaches to comply with
paragraph (a) of this section. While EPA
allows flexibility to procuring agencies '
in this regard, alternatives which should
be considered in adhering to paragraph
(a) include: i
(l)(i) Revisiion'of contract or guide
specifications, as discussed in §§'249.10
and 249.11, such that pprtland cement or
concrete and cement or concrete
containing fly ash are both considered
acceptable materials for the particular
-------
4252 Federal Register / Vol. 48, No. 20 / Friday, January 28, 1983 / Rules and Regulations >
construction job. Such an approach
allows a contractor to secure award of a
contract based on normal bid evaluation
procedures. At a later time, the
contractor can exercise the option to use
or not to use fly ash, subject to normal
quality assurance procedures and
review and approval of mix designs,
materials, etc. by the procuring agency/
project engineer.
(H) This bidding approach may be
most useful in procurements where
cement or concrete is not the sole
material purchased, e.g., as in the case
of a solicitation covering all phases of
construction of an office building. Under
this approach, procuring agencies should
put offerers on notice that a
specification change has taken place
and that they should actively seek out
suppliers of cement or concrete
containing fly ash.
(2)0) Solicitation of alternate bids,
allowing separate price quotations for
either portland cement concrete or
concrete containing fly ash. Under this
approach, award is made to the
successful bidder (typically lowest
priced responsible offerer) for either one
or the other of the materials. However,
the successful bidder can later revise
the selection of materials planned for
use, for example, due to technical
reasons or material availability, subject
to approval of the procuring agency/
project engineer.
(ii) This bidding approach may be
most useful in procurements where the
procuring agency is purchasing cement
or concrete separately from other
phases of a construction project, thus
enabling the agency to evaluate bids for
cement or concrete individually and to
deal directly with potential suppliers.
(c) Regardless of the method of
solicitation used, award should be made
in accordance with an agency's
customary award procedures, typically
to the lowest priced responsible bidder,
regardless of whether fly ash is used. In
the event that two or more low bids are
received which offer different levels of
fly ash content, award should be made
in accordance with an agency's
customary award procedures, typically
to the lowest priced responsible offeror.
In the case of identical low bids, award
should.be made to the offeror with the
higher level of fly ash content, all other
factors being equal.
§ 249.21 Recommendations for
reasonable price.
(a) Procuring agencies should use •
general procedures, such as those
contained in the Federal Procurement
Regulations, in determining whetherJhe
prices offered are reasonable. This
determination should consider the
objectives of Section 6002 of RCRA.
(b) Techniques of price analysis (not
cost analysis) should be used, as
appropriate. (Price analysis is the
process of examining and evaluating a
prospective price without evaluating the'
separate cost elements and proposed
profit of the individual prospective
supplier.) Price analysis may be done in
various ways, including:
(1) Comparison of the price quotations
submitted.
(2) Comparison of prior quotations
and contract prices with current
quotations for the same or similar end
items, making appropriate aEowances
for any differences in quantities,
delivery tune, inflation, etc.
(3) Comparison of prices set forth in
published price lists or catalogs.
Cost analysis may be necessary
where there is no history or published
information upon which to base price
analysis.
§ 249.22 Recommendations for
reasonable competition.
(a) Procuring agencies can assume
that there is reasonable competition if
there is adequate price competition.
(b) Adequate price competition is
usually presumed to exist if:
(1) At least two responsible offerers,
(2) who can satisfy the purchaser's
(e.g., the Government's) requirements,
(3) independently compete for a
contract to be awarded,
(4) by submitting priced offers
responsive to the expressed
requirements of a solicitation.
In addition, the reasonableness of
prices is a factor which should be
evaluated in accordance with § 249.21.
§ 249.23 Reasonable availability.
Procuring agencies should consider
cement or concrete which contains fly
ash to be reasonably available if it can.
be delivered in time to successfully
perform the job, or if there are no
unusual or unnecessary delays expected
in its delivery compared to those for
Portland cement or concrete.
§ 249.24 Recommendations for time-
phasing.
In order to minimize any adverse
effects on the marketplace or on the
procuring agency in implementing this
guideline, the Agency Tecommends that
not later than the beginning of the
second year after the effective date of
the guideline, all contracts should solicit
bids which specifically allow for the use
of fly ash, in accordance with the
provisions of § 249.11 and §§ 249.20-
249.23.
Subpart D—Certification
§ 249.30 Recommendations for
measurement.
(a) The procuring agency should
require the supplier to:
(1) Certify that the percentage of fly
ash to be included in the cement or
concrete supplied under the contract is
in accordance with the amount required
by specifications referenced in the
solicitation or contract.
(2) Estimate the percentage of fly ash
which will be used in a particular mix
design, as well as the quantity of fly ash
to be supplied under the contract.
(b) Measurement of fly ash content
should be made in accordance with
standard industry practice, normally on
a weight basis, and stated as a
percentage of the weight of total
cementitious material: (fly ash.weight/
(fly ash weight + cemenUweight}) = %.
This will often be a reflection of either a
typical cubic yard of concrete or ton of
cement.
§ 249.31 Recommendations for
documentation.
(a) The supplier's certification of fly
ash content should not require separate
reporting forms, but should make use of
existing mechanisms, such as a
statement contained in a signed bid
document or a mix design proposal.
(b) In cases where the purchase of
cement or concrete is not under the
direct control of the procuring agency,
as in the case of certain indirect
purchases, the fly ash content of the
cement or concrete purchased and
quantity^of fly ash used should be made
available to the procuring agency.
§ 249.32 Quality control.
(a) Nothing in this guideline should be
construed to relieve the contractor of
responsibility for providing a
satisfactory product. The certification
procedures discussed in § § 249.30 and
249.31 are intended to satisfy the
certification requirements of Section
6002, and are entirely separate in
purpose and format from standard
industry quality control and quality '
assurance procedures. Cement and
concrete suppliers are already
responsible both for the quality of the
ingredients of their product and for
meeting appropriate performance
requirements, and will continue to be
under this guideline. This guideline does
not attempt to shift normal industry
procedures for assigning responsibility
and liability.
(b)(l) Procuring agencies should
expect suppliers of blended cement, fly •
ash, and concrete to demonstrate
-------
Federal Kggl8jjer_/jyol. 48,.No, 20>• /Friday^Januarif 28, 1883 /Rules and Regulations 4253
(through reasonable testing programs or
previous experience) the performance
, and reliability of their product and the
adequacy.of their quality control
programs. However, procuring agencies
should not subje.ct cement and concrete
containing fly ash to any unreasonable
testing requirements.
(2) -In accordance with standard
industry practice, fly ash suppliers
should be required to provide to users a
statement of the key characteristics of
fly ash supplied. These characteristics
include its chemical constituents, loss on
ignition (LOIJ, and fineness of .the, ,
matter. These characteristics may be
stated in appropriate ranges. Other
characteristics should be requested as
needed by the procuring agency.
(c) Agencies desiring a,testing or
quality assurance program for cements,
blended cements, or fly ash should
contact the U.S. Army Engineer ,
Waterways Experiment Station, P.O.
Box'631, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180.
§ 249.33 Date recommendations. .
Certification of fly ash content should
occur at the time olpurphase of cement
and concrete-in accordance with the
phasing-m recommendations in § 249.24
and §§249.30-249.32, :
References '--.'-•
EPA recommends that these documents be
used by procuring agencies and those persons
wishing, to familiarize themselves with issues
related to fly ash use.
1. ASTM. Standard specification for fly ash
1 and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for
use as a mineral admixture in portland
cement concrete. ASTM C618, latest
edition. Annual book of ASTM^,
N standards, part 14. Philadelphia, PA.
2. ASTM. Standard methods of sampling and
testing fly ash or natural pozzolans for
use as a mineral admixture in portland
cement concrete. ASTM C311, latest
edition. Annual book of ASTM
standards, part 14. Philadelphia; PA.
3. ASTM. Standard specification for blended
hydraulic cements. ASTM C595, latest
edition. Annual book of ASTM
Standards, part 14. Phila'delphia, PA.
4. Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Office of the Chief of • ••
Engineers, Washington, D.C. Standard
practice for concrete. EM-111O-2-2000,
with latest changes.-
5. Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers, Office of the Chief .of
Engineers, Washington, D.C. Guide "
Specification for concrete. GW-03305,
with latest changes.
6. Department of the Army, Corps of
.Engineers; Office of the Chief of
Engineers, Washington, D.C. Guide
Specification for cast-in-place structural
concrete. CW-03301, with latest changes.
7. Frohnsdorffi G., and J. R. Clifton. National
Bureau of Standards. 1981. Fly ashes in
cements and concretes: technical needs
and'opportunities NBSIR 81-2239. .
8. General Services Administration.
Specification for pozzolan for use in
Portland cement concrete. Federal
Specification SS-C-1960/5A.
9. General Services Administration.
Specification for blended hydraulic
cement. Federal specification SS-C-
. 1960/4B. .,' , .
10. Gordian Asisociates, Inc. 1978. Potential
for energy conservation through the use
of slag and fly ash in concrete. DOE
report SAN-1699-T1.
11. Lovewell, C. E., and E. J. Hyland. 1974. A
method of proportioning structural
concrete niixtures with fly ash and other
pozzolans, ACI.Committee 211,
"Proportioning Concrete Mixes," SP—J6-
8: pp. 109^140 (with 9 references).
12. Tennessee Valley Authority; Singleton
Materials Engineering Laboratory. 1979.
Properties arid use of fly ash in portland
cement concrete. Technical report
CR-78-2 (with 11 references)!
IFR Doc. 83-2335 Filed 1-27-83; 8:45 am) ,
BILLING CODE 65«0-50-M
-------
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
Washington DC 20460
------- |