United States Environmental Protection Agency
in conjunction with the
U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Department of Energy
Study on Increasing the Usage of Recovered Mineral
Components in Federally Funded Projects Involving
Procurement of Cement or Concrete
to Address the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
Report to Congress
June 3, 2008
EPA530-R-08-007
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ES-1
1.0 Introduction 1-1
1.1 Background and Organization 1-1
1.2 The Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines and Federal Requirements
Governing the Use of Recovered Mineral Components (RMCs) in Federal
Cement and Concrete Projects 1-2
1.3 RMCs Analyzed 1-7
2.0 Industry Overview, Materials Evaluated, and Current RMC Substitution Levels 2-1
2.1 RMCs Identified by Congress 2-2
2.2 Other Materials Evaluated 2-12
2.3 Summary of RMC Generation and Beneficial Use 2-21
3.0 Energy and Environmental Benefits of RMC Use in Federal Concrete Projects 3.1
3.1 Introduction 3-1
3.2 Analytical Approach and Model 3-1
3.3 Current and Expanded Use Scenarios 3-3
3.4 RMC Unit Impact Savings 3-7
3.5 Historical Energy and Environmental Impacts of RMC Beneficial Use 3-9
3.6 Proj ected Energy and Environmental Impacts of RMC Beneficial Use 3-12
4.0 Barriers to Increased RMC Substitution 4.1
4.1 Technical Barriers 4-2
4.2 Legal, Regulatory Policy, and Contractual Barriers 4-4
4.3 Economic Barriers 4-7
4.4 Perceived Safety and Health Risk Barriers 4-11
5.0 Mechanisms to Increase the Beneficial Use of RMCs 5-1
5.1 Procurement Policies and Material Use Standards 5-1
5.2 Education, Technical Assistance, and Recognition Programs 5-9
5.3 Economics 5-15
6.0 Conclusions 6-1
References R-l
Glossary G-l
Abbreviations and Acronyms AA-1
-------
Appendix A: Overview of Portland Cement and Concrete
Appendix B: Background of Recovered Mineral Components
Appendix C: Cement and RMC Producers
Appendix D: RMC Beneficial Use Model - Technical Approach
Appendix E: Summary of Industry Representative Comments on Mechanisms to Increase RMC
Substitution
11
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Section 6017(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, P.L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005 (SAFETEA-LU), directs the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to, ".. .conduct a study to determine the extent to which
procurement requirements, when fully implemented.. .may realize energy savings and
environmental benefits attainable with substitution of recovered mineral components in cement
used in cement or concrete projects."
SAFETEA-LU directs EPA to submit a report to Congress within 30 months of the enactment of
SAFETEA-LU that addresses the following requirements:
(A) Quantify (i) the extent to which recovered mineral components are being substituted
for portland cement, particularly as a result of current procurement requirements; and (ii)
the energy savings and environmental benefits associated with that substitution;
(B) Identify all barriers in procurement requirements to greater realization of energy
savings and environmental benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions from
current law; and
(C) (i) Identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater substitution of recovered mineral
components in types of cement and concrete projects for which recovered material
components historically have not been used or have been used only minimally; (ii)
evaluate the feasibility of establishing guidelines or standards for optimized substitution
rates of recovered material component in those cement and concrete projects; and (iii)
identify any potential environmental or economic effects that may result from greater
substitution of recovered mineral components in these cement and concrete projects.
Energy savings and environmental benefits associated with substitution. Recovered mineral
component (RMC) use yields positive environmental benefits through lower resource
consumption. To overcome procurement data limitations, for ground granulated blast-furnace
slag (GGBFS), coal combustion fly ash (coal fly ash), and silica fume, the report derives
estimates of their use in Federal projects by roughly apportioning total volumes to Federal and
non-Federal projects (based upon the estimated proportion of total cement demand related to
federally-funded projects). For the years 2004 and 2005, our life cycle analysis indicates that the
use of GGBFS, coal fly ash, and silica fume in Federal concrete projects alone resulted in
significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, criteria air pollutants, and energy and
water use. For these two years combined, the analysis indicates reduced energy use of 31.5
billion megajoules, avoided CC>2 equivalent air emissions of 3.8 million metric tons, and water
savings of 2.1 billion liters. The report further illustrates how these benefits may accrue over a
longer time period (through 2015) given alternative use scenarios. This aspect of the analysis
also links to issue C noted above.
With respect to the issues identified under parts (B) and (C), research suggests that while a
number of barriers impede the beneficial use of RMCs through procurement requirements, a
variety of potential mechanisms exist for addressing these barriers. Specifically:
ES-1
-------
• Procurement policies and material standards initiatives, including ongoing
assessment and refinement of EPA's Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
(CPGs), refinement of engineering standards governing substitution of RMCs,
and development and application of green building standards.
• Education, technical assistance, and recognition programs, such as EPA's
foundry sand outreach efforts and public/private partnerships, such as the Coal
Combustion Products Partnership (C2P2) to encourage the beneficial use of coal
combustion products (CCPs).
• As part of education, technical assistance, and recognition, ongoing
research and pilot projects are critical to advancing the use of RMCs.
• Economic incentives, such as using transportation funding mechanisms to
increase RMC use and providing incentives related to various components of the
RMC generation and use chain.1
The CPG program is part of EPA's continuing effort to promote the use of materials recovered
from solid waste and by-products.2 Under this program, EPA designates products that are made
with recovered materials, and recommends practices for buying these products by procuring
agencies.3 Once a product is designated, procuring agencies are required to purchase it with the
highest recovered material content level practicable (e.g., the highest material content level that
can be economically obtained and can provide the needed product specifications). EPA has
issued guidelines for procurement of cement and concrete containing coal fly ash, and has further
designated cenospheres4 and silica fume as RMCs for cement and concrete.
This report presents EPA's analysis and discussion of the requirements contained in SAFETEA -
LU. Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, this Report reflects the input of multiple Federal partners in
addition to EPA, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), the U.S. Department
of Energy (DOE), the General Accountability Office (GAO), the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFFE). In addition, the
Report also reflects comments and information from state entities and certain industry sources,
such as the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), the Slag Cement Association (SCA), the
Silica Fume Association (SFA), the National Slag Association (NSA) - Edw. C. Levy Co.,
Headwaters, Inc., Venable LLP, and Holcim, Inc. We summarize the salient features of the
report below.
1 These incentives are presented for Congressional consideration only. We recognize that the Department of
Transportation does not currently have the legal authority to use transportation funding mechanisms to help increase
RMC use.
2 EPA also issues guidance on buying recycled-content products in Recovered Materials Advisory Notices
(RMANs). The RMANs recommend recycled-content ranges for CPG products based on current information on
commercially available recycled-content products.
3 Procuring agencies include: (1) any federal agency, (2) any state or local agency using appropriated federal funds
for procurement, or (3) any contractors to these agencies who are procuring these items for work they perform
under the contract.
4 Cenospheres are a very specialized product used in a number of different industries. Cenospheres are also
sometimes called microspheres.
ES-2
-------
Industry Overview, Materials Evaluated, and Current Recovered Mineral Component
Substitution Levels
Provisions of SAFETEA- LU identified certain RMCs for further study, and directed EPA to
identify and consider other waste and byproduct materials diverted from solid waste that should
be considered as "recovered mineral components."5 The four congressionally-identified mineral
components include: GGBFS; coal fly ash; blast furnace slag aggregate (BFSA)6; and silica
fume. Congress specifically excluded lead slag from this Report. The other by-product
materials identified by EPA for evaluation include: foundry sand, cenospheres, flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) dry scrubber material, power
plant bottom ash, power plant boiler slag, steel furnace slag, and cement kiln dust (CKD). Table
ES-1 provides a description of each of the RMCs and their general uses. Table ES-2 identifies
the estimated annual quantities available for each RMC (including both domestic production and
imports), and summarizes the positive environmental impacts and product enhancements
associated with use of these materials.
5 Section 6017 (a) of SAFETEA-LU defines recovered mineral components as "(A) ground granulated blast furnace
slag other than lead slag; (B) coal combustion fly ash; (C) blast furnace slag aggregate other than lead slag
aggregate; (D) silica fume; and (E) any other waste material or byproduct recovered or diverted from solid waste
that the Administrator, in consultation with an agency head, determines should be treated as recovered mineral
component under this section."
6 Also known as Air Cooled Blast-Furnace Slag (ACBF Slag)
ES-3
-------
Table ES-1: Summary of RMCs
RMC
Description
Uses/Applications
RMCs Named by Congress
Ground granulated blast-
furnace slag (GGBFS)
Coal combustion fly ash
Blast furnace slag aggregate
(BFSA)
Silica fume
A ferrous slag produced during the production of iron as a result of
removing impurities from iron ore. Quick quenching (chilling) of
molten slag yields glassy, granular product which can be ground to a
fine, powdered hydraulic cement.
A finely -divided mineral residue from the combustion of ground or
powdered coal in coal-fired power plants.
Produced by allowing molten slag to cool and solidify slowly.
Also commonly referred to as: air cooled blast-furnace slag (ACBF
slag).
A very fine, dust-like material generated during alloyed metal
production.
GGBFS can be used as partial replacement for portland cement,
or, if not finely ground, as concrete aggregate.
Partial replacement for portland cement in concrete applications.
Can be used as a raw material in the production of portland
cement clinker or as an inter-ground or blended supplementary
cementitious material (SCM) in the production of blended
cements.
After crushing and screening, used as aggregate in applications,
such as concrete, asphalt, rail ballast, and roofing. It is also used
in shingle coating, and glass making.
Concrete additive used to increase strength and durability.
Other RMCs Identified by EPA
Foundry sand
Cenospheres
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
gypsum
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)
dry scrubber material
Power plant bottom ash
Power Plant Boiler slag
Steel furnace slag
Cement kiln dust (CKD)
Silica sand that is a byproduct of both ferrous and nonferrous metal
castings.
Small, inert, lightweight, hollow, "glass" spheres composed of silica
and alumina and filled with air or other gases. They occur naturally in
coal fly ash.
FGD by-products are generated by air pollution control devices used
at some coal-fired electric power plants. Forced oxidation wet FGD
systems create gypsum as a by-product.
Dry FGD systems remove sulfur dioxide (SO2) from coal-fired power
plant flue gas. Main constituents of resulting byproduct include
calcium sulfite, fly ash, portlandite, calcite, calcium sulfate.
A coarse, solid mineral residue that results from the burning of coal in
utility boilers.
A coarse, hard, black, angular, glassy material, produced from slag in
wet-bottom boilers.
A by-product from the conversion of iron to steel in a basic oxygen
furnace or the melting of scrap to make steel in an electric arc furnace.
The fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from cement
kiln exhaust gas by air pollution control devices.
Can be used in the manufacture of cement clinker and as an
ingredient in concrete.
Used in concrete production to increase concrete's strength and
decreasing shrinkage and weight.
[Cenospheres may also be used in a wide variety of materials,
from paints and finishes to plastics and caulking.]
Replacement for natural gypsum in wallboard production and
grinding with clinker to produce finished cement.
Dry FGD material is used in concrete mixes and products as a
substitute aggregate material. Dry FGD material may also be
used for embankments and roadbase compositions.
Used as aggregate in concrete, or for other aggregate uses such as
compacted base course. Also used as raw material in cement
clinker manufacture as alternative source of silica, alumina, iron,
and calcium.
Owing to its abrasive properties, boiler slag is used almost
exclusively in the manufacture of blasting grit; can also be used
as raw feed component to make cement clinker.
Used as raw material substitute in cement clinker manufacturing.
Also used in aggregate base, fill and asphalt.
Material is primarily recycled through closed loop processes in the
cement kiln. Small amounts used as supplementary cementitious
material (SCM) for blended and/or masonry cements. Material can be
used as a soil liming agent.
Note: Congress specifically excluded lead slag from this Report.
ES-4
-------
Table ES-2: RMC Generation and Benefits of Use
RMC
Annual Quantity
Generated, 2004.
(excludes stockpiles)
(million metric tons)
Benefits of Use
RMCs Named by Congress
Ground
Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag
(GGBFS)
Coal Combustion
Fly Ash
Blast Furnace
Slag Aggregate
(BFSA) (ACBF
slag)
Silica Fume
3.6a
64.2 b
s.r
0.10-0.12C
Use of GGBFS in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin materials extraction and manufacturing of
Portland cement. These benefits include reduced energy use and associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduced water
use and reduced air pollution. In addition, the beneficial properties of concrete mixes containing GGBFS include increased
strength, improved workability, lower heat of hydration, lower permeability, improved resistance to alkali-silica reactivity, and
resistance to sulfate attack. Use of GGBFS creates more concrete from the same amount of portland cement.
Use of coal combustion fly ash in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin materials extraction and
manufacturing of portland cement. These benefits include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water
use and reduced air pollution. In addition, certain performance benefits can be attained through the use of fly ash in cement,
including greater workability in the mixed concrete and higher strength and increased longevity in the finished product. Also,
creates more concrete from the same amount of portland cement. Can also be used as a raw material in the production of
portland cement clinker or as an inter-ground or blended supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in the production of
blended cements.
As an aggregate in concrete mixes, BFSA reduces the need to quarry, crush, sort, and transport virgin aggregate materials,
resulting in reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water use and reduced air pollution.
The beneficial properties of concrete mixes containing silica fume include decreased water bleeding, increased strength, and
reduced permeability to corrosive chemicals. Use of silica fume in concrete also reduces the required amount of portland
cement for a specific quantity of concrete. Silica fume concrete is used in high-performance applications where special
durability and strength performance is required.
Other RMCs Identified by EPA
Foundry Sand
Cenospheres
Flue Gas
Desulfurization
(FGD) Gypsum
Flue Gas
Desulfurization
(FGD) Dry Scrubber
Material
Power Plant Bottom
Ash
8.5d
0.0052e (sold only)
(Total not available)
10.8C
1.7b
15.6b
Use of foundry sand in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin sand extraction. These benefits include
reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water use and reduced air pollution.
When incorporated into special light weight concrete or other cementitious materials mixes as fillers or extenders, cenospheres
and can decrease shrinkage and weight. Use of cenospheres can also offset the production of other filler materials, such as
manufactured glass, calcium carbonate, clays, talc, and other silicas.
Use of FGD gypsum in wallboard production and as an additive in cement production results in environmental benefits from
avoided extraction of virgin gypsum. These benefits are likely to include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions,
reduced water use and reduced air pollution.
Use of dry FGD material as a substitute for virgin aggregate results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin material
extraction and aggregate production. These benefits include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water
use and reduced air pollution. Use of dry FGD as a substitute (partial or total) for natural gypsum used as an additive in the
finish mill (to control the setting time of the portland cement).
Use of bottom ash in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided aggregate production. These benefits include
reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water use and reduced air pollution. The porous surface structure
ES-5
-------
RMC
Boiler Slag
Steel Furnace Slag
Cement Kiln Dust
(CKD)
Annual Quantity
Generated, 2004.
(excludes stockpiles)
(million metric tons)
2.0b
9.0a
12.0-15.0'
Benefits of Use
of bottom ash also makes it useful in lightweight concrete and concrete block applications. As a raw material in cement
manufacture, the bottom ash can supply some of the necessary oxides (thus saving on virgin raw materials), and can do so at a
lower energy cost and with reduced emissions than for some virgin materials.
Boiler slag can reduce the need for virgin materials used as a raw feed for clinker production. Boiler slag is also used in the
manufacture of blasting grit.
Use of steel slag in clinker manufacturing helps to reduce energy use, decrease CO2 and NOX ,emissions, increase production
capacity, and reduce virgin limestone extraction. As an aggregate, steel slag reduces virgin aggregate extraction. The benefits
of avoided limestone or other types of aggregate extraction include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced
water use and reduced air pollution.
Use of CKD as a filler or cementitious extender for finished cement can offset virgin materials extraction and reduce waste sent
to landfills. Other beneficial uses of off-site CKD include stabilization of sludges, wastes, and contaminated soils. CKD may
also be used for land reclamation, livestock feed ingredient, and as daily landfill cover.
Notes
aHendrik G. van Oss, 2004b, values given are amount sold, as the industry does not report on actual production. Sales include imports of ground blast furnace slag (GBFS)
that are ground domestically into GGBFS. Van Oss (2006) estimates total blast furnace slag production in 2004 to be 12-14 million metric tons (vs. total reported sales of 12.2
million metric tons), but this figure does not distinguish between GBFS, GGBFS, and BFSA.
b American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). 2004 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey.
cKojundic, 8/30/2006
dOman, Alicia, American Foundry Society (AFS), September 18, 2007. Personal Communication. Foundry Sand data are annual average for 2005/06.
e American Coal Ash Association (ACAA). 2004 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey. Reported as sold only.
f van Oss, 2005. The industry does not report total CKD production. A majority of this material is known to be recycled back into the kiln. According to PCA, in 2006
approximately 1.2 million metric tons was beneficially reused (other than in kilns) and 1.4 million metric tons was landfilled (PCA, 2006. Summary of 2006 Cement Kiln
Dust and Clinker Production)
Congress specifically excluded lead slag from this Report.
ES-6
-------
Energy and Environmental Benefits of RMC Use in Federal Cement and Concrete Projects
As indicated in Table ES-2, the use of RMCs can decrease the demand for certain virgin
materials and decrease the demand for the use of portland cement. This leads to decreased
resource consumption, namely energy and water. Lower resource consumption can yield, in
turn, reductions in various pollutants and other positive environmental impacts, such as a
reduction in GHG emissions. To assess these potential benefits further, this analysis provides
quantified estimates of the environmental impacts and benefits for three RMCs: coal fly ash,
GGBFS, and silica fume.7 Consistent with the Congressional mandate to examine "recovered
mineral components in cement used in cement or concrete projects," these estimates focus
specifically on the impacts resulting from the use of these three mineral components as a partial
replacement for, or supplement to, portland cement in Federal construction projects involving
concrete. The assessed metrics include resource savings (e.g., reduced energy and water
consumption), various avoided priority air pollutants (e.g., NC>2, PMio, SOx, Hg, Pb), and
various measures of avoided GHG emissions (e.g., CC>2, CF/t, CFL;, N2O), which we further
translate into equivalent metrics of avoided gasoline and oil consumption, and vehicles removed
from the road.8
The analysis employs three primary steps in modeling the environmental benefits of using RMCs
in Federal concrete applications: (1) development of RMC substitution scenarios; (2) use of life-
cycle analysis to estimate quantified environmental impacts associated with the substitution of
one unit (metric ton) of RMC; and, (3) calculation of the environmental impact profile for the
total quantities of substituted RMC.
Concerning RMC substitution scenarios, the report first focuses on past years for which actual
use data can be estimated (2004 and 2005). The report then develops multiple projected use
scenarios for the years 2006 through 2015 based upon existing trends (i.e., baseline) and
expanded use based upon attainment of certain program goals (e.g., attainment of the C2P2 goal
of 16.9 million metric tons of coal fly ash use in concrete by 2011). Because data concerning the
volume of these RMCs procured by the Federal government are unavailable, the report derives
an estimate based on a rough measure of the proportion of the total volume of cement demand
attributable to Federal concrete projects (equal to approximately 20% of the annual totals).
Chapter 3 and Appendix D provide detailed background on the derivation of RMC use scenarios
for Federal concrete projects.
For purposes of illustrating the general magnitude of potential impacts, Table ES-3 shows
projected quantities of coal fly ash, GGBFS and silica fume used in Federal concrete projects for
one scenario — "baseline" usage. Chapter 3 and Appendix D provide detailed results for all
7 The report focuses on these three RMCs due to the fact that more robust data sources and modeling resources exist
with respect to material volumes and their use in federally-funded concrete projects. While it is likely that other
materials used to supplement or substitute for portland cement would have similar benefits, it is difficult to
extrapolate results from the RMCs addressed here because quantities in use are uncertain and different processing
requirements for different materials can have a significant impact on the magnitude of environmental benefits.
8 Additionally, unquantified benefits may be associated with improved performance of concrete and resulting
decreases in the materials and energy needed to repair, replace, and upgrade road beds. Evaluation of these benefits,
however, would require more robust estimates of average changes in management required for different concrete
uses. To date, this type of information has been too limited to support a national estimate.
ES-7
-------
scenarios. The shaded area, covering years 2004 and 2005, represents the historical period. As
the table shows, under this scenario, the forecast estimates that coal fly ash use in Federal
concrete projects will grow from approximately 2.6 million metric tons in 2004, to 3.3 million
metric tons in 2015. The GGBFS forecast contemplates lower growth, from approximately 0.7
million metric tons in 2004 to 0.9 million metric tons in 2015. Coal fly ash shows higher
utilization growth potential as this RMC is currently used at lower rates compared to the highly-
utilized GGBFS. Overall volumes of silica fume use are lower relative to coal fly ash and
GGBFS.
Table ES-3: Use Projections for Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica Fume in Federal Concrete
Projects (baseline scenario)
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Notes:
Federal Demand for
Portland Cement
24.4
25.1
25.7
26.2
26.8
27.4
27.9
28.5
29.0
29.6
30.1
30.7
Coal Fly Ash used in Federal
Projects -
Baseline Scenario
million metric
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
GGBFS used in Federal
Projects -
Baseline Scenario
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
Silica Fume used in
Federal Projects -
Baseline Scenario
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
(1) These figures reflect use of materials as a supplement to or partial replacement for portland cement in Federal projects only.
(2) Shaded area represents "historical" period for which actual use data are estimated. Unshaded area represents the
"forecast" period.
Table ES-4 presents the results of a life cycle inventory analysis of the use coal of fly ash,
GGBFS and silica fume in Federal concrete projects under the baseline usage scenarios
described above. These results are aggregated estimated benefits covering the historical period
(2004 and 2005) and projected over the full time frame, 2004 through 2015. For a detailed
description of the modeling approach, please refer to Appendix D.
ES-8
-------
Table ES-4: Estimated Environmental Benefits of Using Coal Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica
Fume as a Substitute for, or Supplement to Portland Cement in Federal Concrete Projects,
Baseline Scenario9
Metric (units)
Energy Savings (billion megajoules)
Water Savings (billion liters)
Avoided C02 equivalent (GHG) (million metric tons)
Passenger cars not driven for one year0 (million)
Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year0
(million)
Avoided criteria pollutants (air) (thousand metric tons)
Avoided Hg (air) (metric tons)
Avoided soil emissions (metric tons)
Avoided end of life waste (metric tons)
Notes:
Historical
Environmental
Benefits: 2004-
2005
31.5
2.1
3.8b
0.8b
0.7b
31.3
0.3
0.0*
0.0
Projected
Environmental
Benefits: Baseline
Scenario 2004-2015"
212.1
14.1
25. 7b
5.7b
4.7b
209.7
1.9
0.0*
0.0
a. Calculated as the sum of impacts for coal fly ash current use baseline, and GGBFS and silica fume current
use scenarios.
b. Results reflect only coal fly ash impacts.
c. These metrics are equivalent expressions of the avoided greenhouse gas metrics and do not represent
additional benefits.
* Negligible.
We also developed representative benefits estimates for use of BFSA as an aggregate. See Appendix D.
As shown in Table ES-4, the use of coal fly ash, GGBFS and silica fume as a partial substitute
for, or supplement to, portland cement in Federal concrete projects yield energy and water
savings, as well as avoided criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, use of coal fly ash alone
may result in 3.8 million metric tons of avoided carbon dioxide equivalent in the years 2004 to
2005. This savings is equivalent to removing 0.8 million passenger cars from the road for one
year. Through the year 2015 under this scenario, we estimate that the use of such RMCs in
Federal concrete projects may result in reduced CC>2 emissions of over 25.7 million metric tons,
which is equivalent to removing 5.7 million passenger cars from the road for one year. Impacts
on the reuse on soil and end of life waste are not significant because the use and disposal of
portland cement and concrete are not affected by RMC use.
It is difficult to quantify the incremental contribution to RMC use that may be attributable to any
particular relevant procurement requirements. A number of economic, operational, and
regulatory factors combine to influence procurement behavior, and data limitations prevent the
Blast furnace slag aggregate (BFSA) is primarily used as a source of aggregate in concrete and does not act as a
supplementary cementitious material, or substitute for portland cement. Our assessment focuses on the benefits of
substitution for portland cement. However, an illustration of the types and magnitude of benefits that can be
achieved by using BFSA as a substitute for virgin aggregate in concrete mixtures, in asphalt mixtures, or as
roadbase, can be found in Appendix D.
ES-9
-------
type of detailed analysis that would support attribution of specific behavior changes to specific
programs. In general terms, however, the analysis identifies the combined impact of the CPG,
state, Federal government, industry, and market-driven influences on the use of RMCs in Federal
concrete projects.
Barriers to Increased RMC Substitution
Consistent with Part (B) of the Congressional mandate, this report describes barriers to increased
RMC use, focusing specifically on the RMCs identified in the report for which current supply
significantly exceeds current use. (i.e., coal fly ash, foundry sand, FGD gypsum, FGD dry
scrubber material, power plant bottom ash, and CKD). Barriers to the increased use of RMCs in
cement and concrete projects fall into four main categories:
• Technical barriers;
• Legal, regulatory, and contractual barriers;
• Economic barriers; and
• Perceived safety and health risk barriers.
These categories can include a range of specific issues that have the potential to limit the use of
an RMC. For example, regulatory barriers may include certain state and local-level regulations
and procedures governing the use of RMCs in various applications. Technical issues that limit
the use of RMCs include the variability of standards for use of RMCs in portland cement and
concrete and operational constraints with materials not typically used as RMCs; variation in
RMC properties; and the availability of consistent, high-quality materials. Potential economic
factors limiting RMC substitution include the RMC value to the supplier, transportation costs,
the market price of RMCs, and disposal costs. Safety and health risk perception barriers include
a lack of understanding of the potential and proper use, features, and risks associated with
RMCs.
In addition to external barriers, the CPG provides that a procuring agency need not procure
RMCs if certain criteria are met. If these criteria are over-interpreted by project managers, it
could result in lower usage rates of RMCs than are technically and economically feasible. That
is, while the CPG requires Federal agencies to procure products containing certain RMCs, the
guidelines allow that such RMCs do not have to be procured if they: (1) are not available within
a reasonable period of time; (2) fail to meet the performance standards set forth in the applicable
specifications or fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring agencies; or
(3) are only available at an unreasonable price. Additional limitations of the CPG include a lack
of awareness of CPG requirements and products, the perception that CPG is not mandatory, and
the cost and availability of CPG materials.
Mechanisms to Increase RMC Substitution
EPA, in collaboration with a variety of stakeholders, has identified a number of mechanisms that
may serve to address the barriers noted above. These mechanisms are particularly focused on
ES-10
-------
RMCs with high reuse potential, but which appear to be under-utilized. For example, coal fly
ash exists in large quantities, but is currently (2006) used in portland cement and concrete at a
rate of roughly 13.6 million metric tons per year out of a generation of roughly 65.7 million
metric tons. The report focuses on current and potential mechanisms to increase substitution
rates relevant to these materials, specifically in Federal cement and concrete projects.10
Central to this report, and RMC use in Federal concrete projects, is the role of the CPG. As
noted, the extent to which major Federal procuring agencies have purchased products containing
RMCs is difficult to measure because few data systems identify purchases of specific recycled-
content designated products. However, the multi-faceted approach to green purchasing
implemented under the CPG has led to many successes, including influencing the amount of
RMCs procured for use in concrete products. As one example, for FY 2003, more than 80% of
the concrete purchases made by NASA, DOE, and GSA contained coal fly ash or slag. The CPG
program, therefore, represents a critical mechanism to achieve higher RMC reuse levels.
To continue and expand upon this progress, the procurement guidelines and their implementation
are the focus of ongoing improvement efforts (e.g, updating of CPG Supplier database). Further,
a number of other potential mechanisms exist for addressing barriers. Chapter 5 provides a
detailed listing of these potential mechanisms. In summary, the current and potential
mechanisms for increasing RMC use include:
• Procurement policy initiatives, including improved procurement data systems,
allowing for the identification and tracking of cement and concrete purchases
using RMCs; enhanced CPG compliance and implementation procedures; and,
delivery of effective information resources, training, and outreach to Federal
agency contracting, purchase card, and program personnel.
• Material standards optimization, including refinement of engineering standards
governing substitution of RMCs, development and application of green building
standards, and incorporation of these considerations into contract bidding
specifications and procedures.
• Education and recognition programs, such as EPA's CCPs outreach efforts and
public/private partnerships, such as the FHWA, ACAA, DOE, the Electric Power
Research Institute (EPRI), the United States Department of Agriculture (USD A),
and the Utility Solid Waste Activities Group (USWAG) collaboration on C2P2 to
promote the beneficial use of CCPs.
• Technical assistance and research, such as FHWA's ongoing research on the
beneficial use of RMCs in highway construction projects, which includes primary
research concerning material specifications and guidance on their use.
10 We also note that the amount of certain RMCs produced annually in the U.S. surpasses the amount that can be
incorporated into Federal cement and concrete projects alone. Although Federal projects currently comprise a
moderate percentage of U.S. cement and concrete projects, increasing reuse rates to higher levels will require greater
reuse among both Federal and non-Federal cement and concrete projects. To that end, many of the mechanisms
contemplated here can apply to non-federal, as well as Federal projects.
ES-11
-------
• Economic incentives, such as using transportation funding mechanisms to
increase RMC use and enhancing the economic viability of various components
of the RMC generation and use chain.
The linkages between these mechanisms and barriers are complex and varied. For example,
some barriers related to inaccurate perceptions concerning RMC use may be overcome relatively
easily through education or outreach efforts. These mechanisms, however, would be less
effective in instances where strong economic disincentives to RMC use are present. In addition,
implementation of many of these mechanisms is subject to resource availability and active
participation by a broad range of entities. These factors all indicate that increasing RMC use in
concrete products requires an ongoing, multi-faceted approach.
ES-12
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Organization
Section 6017(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users, P.L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005 (SAFETEA-LU)11, directs the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to, ".. .conduct a study to determine the extent to which
procurement requirements, when fully implemented.. .may realize energy savings and
environmental benefits attainable with substitution of recovered mineral components in cement
used in cement or concrete projects."
SAFETEA-LU directs EPA to submit a report to Congress within 30 months of the enactment of
SAFETEA-LU that addresses the following requirements:
(A) Quantify (i) the extent to which recovered mineral components are being
substituted for portland cement, particularly as a result of current procurement
requirements, and (ii) the energy savings and environmental benefits associated
with that substitution;
(B) Identify all barriers in procurement requirements to greater realization of energy
savings and environmental benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions
from current law; and
(C) (i) Identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater substitution of recovered
mineral component in types of cement or concrete projects for which recovered
mineral components historically have not been used or have been used only
minimally; (ii) evaluate the feasibility of establishing guidelines or standards for
optimized substitution rates of recovered mineral component in those cement or
concrete projects; and (iii) identify any potential environmental or economic
effects that may result from greater substitution of recovered mineral component
in those cement or concrete projects.
This report contains EPA's analysis of the information addressed in SAFETEA-LU. The report is
organized into six sections:
• The Introduction discusses EPA's existing comprehensive procurement
guidelines (CPGs), presents an overview of the screening process that EPA used
to identify and prioritize the analysis of specific recovered mineral components
(RMCs), and outlines the current state of different types of specifications for
various RMCs.
11 SAFETEA-LU and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58, August 8, 2005 (EPACT), include similar
provisions amending Subtitle F of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that direct EPA to conduct this study and submit a
Report to Congress. SAFETEA-LU was enacted later in time and, therefore, impliedly repealed EPACT.
1-1
-------
Chapter 2 responds to Part (A) of the Congressional charge by describing the
current industry, uses, and substitution levels of the specific RMCs identified in
the Introduction (Section 1).
Chapter 3 responds to Part (A) of the Congressional charge by analyzing the
energy and environmental impacts associated with the beneficial use of three
specific RMCs identified by Congress.
Chapter 4 addresses Part (B) of the Congressional charge by identifying and
describing various barriers to increased RMC substitution.
Chapter 5 addresses Part (C) of the Congressional charge by identifying and
describing various mechanisms to increase RMC substitution.
Chapter 6 presents the report's conclusions.
Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, this Report reflects the input of multiple Federal partners in
addition to EPA, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT); the Department of
Energy (DOE); the General Accountability Office (GAO); the United States Geological Survey
(USGS); and the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive (OFEE). In addition, the Report
also reflects comments and information from various states and certain industry sources. Such
sources include, but are not limited to: the American Coal Ash Association (ACAA); the Slag
Cement Association (SCA); the Silica Fume Association (SFA); the National Slag Association
(NSA) - Edw. C. Levy Co.; Headwaters, Inc.; Venable LLP; and Holcim, Inc.
1.2 The Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines and Federal Requirements Governing
the Use of Recovered Mineral Components (RMCs) in Federal Cement and
Concrete Projects
The CPG program is part of EPA's continuing effort to promote the use of materials recovered
from solid waste and by-products. Buying recycled-content products enhances the likelihood
that recyclable materials will be used again in the manufacture of new products.
The CPG program is mandated by Congress under Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA). Over the years, CPG implementation has been bolstered by
presidential Executive Orders, the most recent being Executive Order 13423.12 Under this
program, EPA designates products that are made with recovered materials, and recommends
practices for procuring agencies13 to procure these products. Once a product is designated,
procuring agencies are required to purchase it with the highest recovered material content level
12 On January 24, 2007, the President signed Executive Order (E.O) 13423 "Strengthening Federal Environmental,
Energy, and Transportation Management." E.O. 13423 consolidates and strengthens five previously enacted
executive orders. For more details on E.O. 13423, see (http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/practices/eol3423.htm).
13 Procuring agencies include: (1) any federal agency, (2) any state or local agency using appropriated federal funds
for procurement, or (3) any contractors to these agencies who are procuring these items for work they perform under
the contract.
1-2
-------
practicable (e.g., the highest material content level that can be economically obtained and can
meet the needed specifications).
In 1983, EPA issued guidelines for the procurement of cement and concrete containing fly ash
(40 CFR Part 249, 48FR 4230, January 28, 1983). The Agency later amended the rule in CPG
IV to add cenospheres, ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), and silica fume as RMCs
for cement and concrete. Thus designated by EPA, cement and concrete containing RMCs are to
be preferentially procured by procuring agencies, as required by statute and Executive Order.
To aid procuring agencies, EPA also has issued guidance on buying recycled-content products in
Recovered Materials Advisory Notices (RMANs). The RMANs recommend recycled-content
ranges for CPG products based on current information on commercially available recycled-
content products. RMAN levels are updated as marketplace conditions change.
1.2.1 Recovered Materials Content14
In the CPGs for cement and concrete, EPA advises procuring agencies to prepare or revise their
procurement programs for cement and concrete, or for construction projects involving cement
and concrete, to allow for the use of coal fly ash, GGBFS, cenospheres, or silica fume, as
appropriate.15'16 Recovered materials are frequently used as substitutes for or supplements to
Portland cement when mixing concrete. Some recovered materials can also be used in the
manufacture of portland cement itself, by replacing other raw materials used in making clinker
(the intermediate product in portland cement manufacturing) and also in the later blending stages
of the cement manufacturing process. The blended cement produced by this process is then used
in concrete in place of straight portland cement. Finally, many recovered materials can be used
as a direct substitute for the aggregate (i.e., non-cement) portion of concrete.
The CPGs require that procuring agencies consider the use of all of these recovered materials
and choose the one (or mixture) that meets their performance requirements, consistent with
availability and price considerations. EPA recommends that procuring agencies specifically
include provisions in all construction contracts to allow for the use, as optional or alternate
materials, of cement or concrete which contains coal fly ash, GGBFS, cenospheres, or silica
fume, where appropriate. Due to variations in cement, strength requirements, costs, and
construction practices, EPA does not recommend specific RMC content levels for cement or
concrete containing coal fly ash, GGBFS, cenospheres, or silica fume. However, EPA provides
the following information about recovered materials content:17
14 Information on recovered materials content reproduced from: http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products/cement.htm,
accessed June 4, 2007.
15 While the EPA language cited here (accessible at: http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products/cemspecs.htm) uses the
general term "cement," the discussion targets materials and practices that generally refer to portland cement. In
subsequent, related documents, including Federal Register documents, the Agency specifies portland cement.
16 EPA's published information sometimes refers to ground granulated blast-furnace slag as "GGBF slag." For
consistency, we have changed this terminology to GGBFS, even when quoting Agency material. A commonly used
industry term for this material is "slag cement."
17 The following bullets are reproduced from: http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products/cement.htm, accessed July 3, 2007,
with modifications to the first bullet to include portland cement and reflect the distinction between blended cements
and concrete. Two additional bullets are added to show how slag aggregate can be used in concrete.
1-3
-------
Replacement rates for portland cement in concrete generally do not exceed 20%
to 30%. Blended cements are produced at a cement kiln where fly ash is added at
the kiln ranging from zero to 40% coal fly ash by weight, according to the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). These levels are identified
under ASTM C 595 for cement Types IP and IS(PM).18 Fifteen percent is a more
accepted rate when coal fly ash is used as a partial cement replacement as an
admixture in concrete. (See also: ASTM C 1157 Standard Performance
Specification for Hydraulic Cement.)
According to ASTM C 595, GGBFS may replace up to 70% of the portland
cement in some concrete mixtures.19'20 Most GGBFS concrete mixtures contain
between 25% and 50% GGBFS by weight. EPA recommends that procuring
agencies refer, at a minimum, to ASTM C 989 for the GGBFS content appropriate
for the intended use of the cement and concrete.
According to industry sources, there are some cases where slag aggregate can
replace 100% of the virgin aggregate in concrete.
21
According to industry sources, cement and concrete containing cenospheres
typically contains a minimum of 10% cenospheres by volume.
22
According to industry sources, cement and concrete containing silica fume
typically contains silica fume that constitutes five to 10% of cementitious material
on a dry weight basis.23
According to ASTM C33, Standard Specifications for Concrete Aggregate.
BFSA may be used as aggregate for concrete, as can recycled crushed concrete,
sand, gravel, crushed gravel, or crushed stone in concrete mixes.
18 Note that ASTM standards may be updated or revised over time.
19 According to Hendrik van Oss of the USGS, GGBFS may also replace up to 70 % of the portland cement in some
cement blends.
20 Recent changes to ASTM C595 have removed the limit of GGBFS in Type I(S) cement. GGBFS is now governed
by ASTM C989. Now there are industry guidelines for "normally accepted" substitution rates. The SCA publishes
such guidance in its information sheet SCIC #2: Concrete Proportioning available at:
http://www.slagcement.org/image/123800_c_sU128801_s_il85530/No2_Proportioning.pdf.
21 June 27, 2007 statement from Rich Lehman of the Edw. C. Levy Company..
22 Refer to 69 FR 24041, published on April 30, 2004 for more information. Note that this information is consistent
with the generation rates for cenospheres and silica fume published in Background Document for the Final
Comprehensive Procurement Guideline (CPG) IV and Final Recovered Materials Advisory Notice (RMAN) IV, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, April 2004 (EPA 2004).
23 Silica fume use in cement is different than other RMCs because it can be added as a supplement to a final cement
product to help reduce permeability and increase durability, without replacing virgin portland cement. In addition,
silica fume can be used as a substitute for portland cement.
1-4
-------
1.2.2 Specifications
1.2.2.1 Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS
Under the CPG, EPA recommends that procuring agencies revise their specifications to require
that contracts for individual construction projects or products allow for the use of coal fly ash or
GGBFS, unless the use of these materials is technically inappropriate for a particular
construction application. According to the CPG, procuring agencies should use the existing
voluntary consensus specifications referenced below for cement and concrete containing coal fly
ash and/or GGBFS24.
• Federal and State Specifications: EPA advises procuring agencies to consult
Federal and state sources to identify established specifications for coal fly ash or
GGBFS in cement and concrete. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) maintains a database of state highway agency material
specifications.25 AASHTO specifications are another source. Furthermore, the
states of Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maryland,
Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia all have adopted
specifications that allow the use of GGBFS in one or more applications.26
Procuring agencies may obtain these specifications from the respective state
transportation departments and adapt them for use in their programs for cement
and concrete, as appropriate.
• Contract Specifications: EPA advises procuring agencies that prepare or review
"contract" specifications for individual construction projects to revise those
specifications, as appropriate, to allow for the use of cement and concrete
containing coal fly ash or GGBFS as optional or alternate materials for the
targeted project. These revisions should be consistent with the agencies'
performance and price objectives.27
• Performance Standards: EPA advises procuring agencies to review and, if
necessary, revise performance standards relating to cement or concrete
construction projects. This should be done to ensure that existing standards do
not arbitrarily restrict the use of coal fly ash or GGBFS, either intentionally or
inadvertently, unless the restriction is justified on a job-by-job basis: (1) to meet
24 Although not referenced in the current CPG, BFSA is recognized by AASHTO, ASTM, and many procuring
agencies as an appropriate coarse aggregate for use in concrete mixes, and for other aggregate uses.
25 www.specs.fhwa.dot.gov
26 For a detailed table of state DOT specifications, refer to "Engineering and Environmental Specifications of State
Agencies for Utilization and Disposal of Coal Combustion Products: Volume 1 - DOT Specifications," 2005.
Dockter, B. and Diana M. Jagiella, Table 3, Page 32.
27 Chapter 5 provides further detail concerning RCPxA §6002 requirements related to material and contract
specifications.
1-5
-------
reasonable performance requirements for the cement or concrete, or, (2) because
the use of coal fly ash or GGBFS would be inappropriate for technical reasons.
This justification should be documented based on specific technical performance
information.
Mix Design: Existing cement ratios could potentially unfairly discriminate
against the use of coal fly ash or GGBFS if design specifications specify
minimum portland cement or maximum water content; such specifications should
be reevaluated in order to allow the partial substitution of coal fly ash or GGBFS
for portland cement in the concrete mixture, unless technically inappropriate.
Cement ratios can be retained, as long as they reflect the cementitious
characteristics that coal fly ash or GGBFS can impart to a concrete mixture (e.g.,
by considering portland cement plus coal fly ash or portland cement plus GGBFS
as the total cementitious component).
Quality Control: The RMAN does not 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. This will continue to be the case
under the RMAN, with no shift in normal industry procedures for assigning
responsibility and liability for product quality. Procuring agencies should
continue to expect suppliers of blended cement, coal fly ash or GGBFS, and
concrete to demonstrate (through reasonable testing programs or previous
experience) the performance and reliability of their product and the adequacy of
their quality control programs.
1.2.2.2 Cenospheres and Silica Fume
For cement and concrete containing cenospheres, EPA advises that procuring agencies contact
cenosphere suppliers to obtain specifications, such as material safety data sheets for assisting
with use of cenospheres in cement and concrete.
For cement and concrete containing silica fume, procuring agencies can refer to the following
national specifications and guidelines, which enable procuring agencies to buy high-performance
concrete containing silica fume of a standard quality: ASTM C1240, AASHTO M307, and ACT
234R-06.28 In addition, ACT 234R-06 also describes the properties of silica fume; how silica
fume interacts with cement; the effects of silica fume on the properties of fresh and cured
concrete; typical applications of silica fume concrete; and recommendations on proportions,
specifications, and handling of silica fume in the field.
28 For more information, see: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), April
2005. "Silica Fume Users Manual." (Publication No. FHWA-IF-05-016)
1-6
-------
1.3 RMCs Analyzed
The language in SAFETEA-LU defines RMCs as follows:
A. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) (other than lead slag);29
B. Coal combustion fly ash;
C. Blast-furnace slag aggregate (BFSA or air-cooled blast-furnace slag) (other than
lead slag aggregate);30
D. Silica fume; and,
E. Any other waste material or byproduct recovered or diverted from solid waste that
the Administrator, in consultation with an agency head, determines should be
treated as recovered mineral component under this section.
Based on a review of construction materials standards and other information collected from a
range of industry sources, the Agency created and applied selected criteria to determine which
other waste materials or byproducts recovered or diverted from solid waste, as identified under
point "E" above, should be included in the study for evaluation. We have further determined that
it is most beneficial to focus on materials that embody greater potential for beneficial use, and
for which data currently exists. Therefore, to be included in this study, we concluded that a
material should be evaluated against the following four screening criteria.
• Be a potential waste material or byproduct recovered or diverted from solid waste;
• Have a total annual generation greater than 0.9 million metric tons (1 million
short tons);
• Be addressed in a national cement or concrete standard, (e.g., ASTM31, ACT32, or
AASHTO33); and,
29 GGBFS is a product of the iron smelting process and is addressed in this evaluation, along with boiler slag from
power plants and steel furnace slag. Lead slag is from an entirely different metallurgical source.
30 EPA interprets the term "blast-furnace slag aggregate" to mean nongranulated blast-furnace slag that is used as
aggregate in concrete as a replacement for other mineral aggregates. Steel furnace slag, made during the conversion
of iron to steel and used primarily as an aggregate in base and asphalt, among other uses, and boiler slag, produced
during the combustion of coal in power plants and used primarily in the manufacture of blasting grit, are addressed
separately from blast-furnace slag. Pelletized slag works well as a lightweight aggregate (for lightweight concrete)
and in mineral wool used in thermal and heat insulation.
31 ASTM standards can be found in the "Annual Book of ASTM Standards," Available from ASTM International at
www.astm.org. Construction materials standards are contained in Section 4 - Construction.
32 American Concrete Institute, www.concrete.org.
33 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, www.transportation.org.
1-7
-------
• Have data available which may be capable of supporting a more detailed analysis,
including annual data on the quantity of material sent to cement or concrete
manufacturers for five years up to 2004, and life cycle inventory data to support
analysis of the substitution of the material using existing modeling platforms.
Based on our review of the available information, EPA identified the following additional
materials for screening and possible evaluation as "other potential RMCs":
• Foundry sand;
• Cenospheres;
• Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum;
• Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) dry scrubber material;
• Bottom ash from power plants;
• Boiler slag from power plants;
• Steel furnace slag; and
• Cement kiln dust (CKD).
EPA applied the screening criteria to the four materials identified by Congress, as well as the
eight materials identified as "other potential RMCs." Table 1-1 presents all of the mineral
components considered for possible evaluation in this report, including those that did not meet
all the screening criteria. Table 1-1 indicates that the four materials identified by the Congress
generally satisfy the criteria. To make projections, it is important for the base year to be
consistent across the RMCs. The 2004 quantity data represent the most recent year for which
estimates for all four identified RMCs are available. A more detailed discussion of each
material, including information on production, properties, and beneficial uses in cement and
concrete production, is presented in Chapter 2.
While none of the "other potential RMCs" identified by EPA meets all four of the specified
screening criteria, this report provides an initial summary of all materials screened. The
summary describes the volumes generated and beneficially used, as well as the characteristics of
the beneficial reuse markets for each of these materials. However, the quantitative assessment of
energy and environmental benefits in this report is limited to three materials for which there are
sufficient data and existing modeling frameworks: coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume.
Although data exist for BFSA, power plant bottom ash, and boiler slag, available modeling
frameworks do not support analysis of their energy and environmental impacts. The three
materials examined in detail (coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume) are all among those
specified as RMCs by the language in SAFETEA-LU.
1-8
-------
Table 1-1: Mineral Components Screened for Inclusion in Report
Material
Estimated
Annual
Quantity
Generated,
2004a
(million metric
tons)
Estimated
Quantity
Beneficially Used,
2004
(million metric
tons)
Screening Criteria
Exists as
By-
product
Produce >
0.9 million
metric
tons/year
Subject of
National
Standard1
Data Sufficient for
Analysis
RMCs NAMED BY CONGRESS
Ground Granulated Blast-
furnace Slagb
Coal Combustion Fly Ash °
Blast-furnace Slag
Aggregate15' d(ACBF Slag)
Silica Fume e
3.60
64.20
8.10
0.10-0.12
3.60
25.50
8.10
0.08
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
h
X
OTHER RMCs IDENTIFIED BY EPA
Foundry Sand1
Cenospheres °
Flue Gas Desulfurization
(FGD) Gypsum0
Flue Gas Desulfurization
(FGD) Dry Scrubber
Material °
Power Plant Bottom Ash °
Power Plant Boiler Slag °
Steel Furnace Slag b
Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) '
8.50
N.A.
10.80
1.70
15.60
2.00
9.00
12.00-15.00
2.40
0.0052
(sold only)
8.20
0.16
7.40
1.80
9.00
1.20
(excludes reuse back
into kiln)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
xg
X
X
h
h
X
Notes
a The estimated annual quantity available does not reflect stockpiled quantities.
b van Oss, 2004b, values given are amount sold, as the industry does not report on actual production. These sales figures include imported
materials. For example, an estimated one million tons of ferrous slag (i.e., granulated blast-furnace slag) were imported into the U.S. in
2004; of this, approximately 75% was then ground to produce GGBFS domestically prior to sale.
0 ACAA, 2004. 2004 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey.
dBFSA, while categorized as an evaluated material, was not fully modeled due to data and modeling limitations. A modified assessment of
BFSA benefits is presented in Appendix D.
eKojundic, 8/30/2006
f Oman, Alicia. American Foundry Society (AFS). Personal communication September 18, 2007. Foundry Sand data are annual
average for 2005/06.
gASTM Cl 157 sets a performance-based standard for blended hydraulic cement. There are no restrictions on the composition of the
cement. These materials may be used in a concrete project that allows use of ASTM Cl 157.
h While this information has recently become available, these materials have not been incorporated into current modeling platforms (e.g.,
BEES), and therefore are not included in the materials subject to a more detailed evaluation. However, as indicated above, a modified
assessment of BFSA benefits is presented in Appendix D.
1 van Oss, 2005 (total estimate). The industry does not report CKD production. A majority of this material is known to be recycled back into
the kiln. According to PCA, in 2006 approximately 1 .2 million metric tons was beneficially reused (other than in kilns) and 1 .4 million
metric tons was landfilled (PCA, 2006. Summary of 2006 Cement Kiln Dust and Clinker Production).
1 The Agency recognizes that, in general, most raw materials (e.g., limestone, sand, clay) used in portland cement manufacture are not
subject to a national standard. However, the characteristics and specifications of raw materials are generally understood and commonly
accepted.
N.A.- Data not available.
Congress specifically excluded lead slag from this Report
1-9
-------
2.0 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW, MATERIALS EVALUATED, AND CURRENT
RMC SUBSTITUTION LEVELS
This section provides a summary of the production and beneficial uses associated with the
RMCs identified in the Introduction (Section 1). This includes RMCs specifically identified
by Congress for further study, as well as the "other potential RMCs" identified by EPA.
These topics are consistent with Part (A) of the Congressional mandate, which instructs EPA
to analyze ".. .the extent to which recovered mineral components are being substituted for
Portland cement, particularly as a result of current procurement requirements...."
The four mineral components identified by Congress include GGBFS, coal fly ash, BFSA,
and silica fume. The other materials identified by EPA for consideration as RMCs include
foundry sand, cenospheres, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) dry scrubber material, power plant bottom ash, power plant boiler slag, steel furnace
slag, and cement kiln dust (CKD). Descriptions and definitions of the materials and terms
discussed in this section, and throughout the report, are provided in a glossary at the end of
this report.
All of the materials examined in this section are currently being reused as material substitutes
in the cement manufacturing process or the concrete mixing process (or both).34 The degree
to which these materials are being used in cement and concrete production ranges from
relatively low (i.e., approximately 10% to 15%) to 100%. When used appropriately, these
materials enhance the performance, handling, and durability of finished concrete products;
this section qualitatively describes these benefits. In addition, the use of these materials in
cement and concrete production yields a number of environmental and economic benefits,
which we analyze and quantify in Section 3. Furthermore, using RMCs helps limit the
amount of virgin material that must be mined or imported to meet U.S. demand for cement.
In its simplest form, concrete is a mixture of cementitious material, water, and aggregates.
The principal cementitious material in concrete is portland cement. When portland cement is
combined with water, a chemical reaction called hydration occurs that causes the cement and
hence the concrete to harden and strengthen over time into a rock-like mass.
The concrete manufacturing process involves the production of portland cement and the
mixing of cement with water and aggregates. This process can be summarized in the
following steps:
• Clinker Production: Cement making raw materials are proportioned,
crushed, and ground into a raw material mix or meal that is used to make
portland cement (e.g., limestone, shale, clay, sand, iron, etc.) and then fed into
a large rotary kiln. As the raw mix moves through the kiln, the temperature of
the mix is gradually raised to 1400-1450 degrees Celsius, which cause
34 RMCs often have other applications as substitutes for aggregate in various applications (including concrete
and unencapsulated uses, such as flowable fill and granular or stabilized road base) and other applications, such
as blasting grit and soil amendments. However, consistent with the focus of the Congressional mandate, this
report focuses on uses associated with cement and concrete.
2-1
-------
volatiles (especially €62) to be given off, while the remaining chemical
oxides in the mix recombine into new compounds that exhibit hydraulically
cementitious properties. These new compounds ("cement or clinker
minerals") exist together as semifused nodules of clinker that are up to about 4
inches in diameter.
• Grinding: The clinker is combined with other materials, such as gypsum, or
another RMC, and fed into a cement mill where it is very finely ground into a
powder-like consistency to form portland cement or blended cement.
• Concrete Mixing: Portland cement (plus any RMC incorporated as a partial
substitute), fine and course aggregate, and water are mixed together in large
drums to produce concrete. Soon after the aggregates, water, and the cement
are combined, the mixture starts to harden. The concrete must be mixed
thoroughly to coat all of the aggregate particles with cement paste.
The principal cementitious material in concrete is portland cement, but other supplementary
cementitious materials (SCMs) can be used to partially offset portland cement in concrete.
Some SCMs are called pozzolans, which by themselves do not have any cementitious
properties, but when used with portland cement, react to form cementitious material. Other
materials, such as slag, do exhibit cementitious properties. When SCMs are combined with
portland cement in dry form prior to mixing in concrete, the result is a blended cement.
Appendix A provides further technical detail on cement and concrete manufacturing.
2.1 RMCs Identified by Congress
2.1.1 Blast-furnace Slag
Blast-furnace slag is a byproduct of the process for smelting iron from iron ore. Various
types of slags are produced when slagging agents (primarily limestone or dolomite) or
fluxing materials are added to iron ores in blast furnaces to remove impurities. The fluxing
process lowers the boiling point and increases the ore's fluidity. In the process of reducing
iron ore to iron, a molten slag forms as a non-metallic liquid (consisting primarily of silicates
and aluminosilicates of calcium and other bases) that floats on top of the molten iron. The
molten slag is then separated from the liquid metal and cooled. Depending on the cooling
process used, either granulated blast-furnace slag (GBFS) or BFSA is produced.
GBFS is produced by quickly quenching (chilling) molten slag to produce a glassy, granular
product. The most common process is quenching with water, but air or a combination of air
and water can be used. This rapid cooling allows very little mineral crystallization to take
place and produces sand-sized particles of glassy material. When the cooled material is
ground very finely into GGBFS, also known as slag cement, the disordered structure of the
material gives it moderate hydraulic cementitious properties, meaning it will hydrate and
gain strength when mixed with water, though at a much slower rate than portland cement.
When used in concrete mixes with portland cement, however, the GGBFS combines with the
free lime generated by partial portland cement hydration processes and hardens at an
2-2
-------
accelerated rate. When used in this manner, GGBFS develops strong hydraulic cementitious
properties and can be used with portland cement in concrete manufacture. GGBFS can
represent 20% to 80% of the total cementitious material used in concrete mixes, depending
upon the application and engineering requirements. GGBFS is discussed in more detail in
section 2.1.1.1.
Unground or less finely ground slag (GBFS) can also be used as aggregate in concrete mixes.
Due to the greater cost of the granulation process compared to air-cooling, however, it is
unlikely that newly created or high quality GBFS would be used in low-value applications,
such as aggregate. The growing price for GGBFS further limits the opportunities for its use
as an aggregate. Previously stockpiled or low-quality GBFS is more likely to be used as an
aggregate.
BFSA, also referred to as air-cooled blast-furnace slag (ACBFS), is produced by allowing the
molten slag to cool and solidify slowly under ambient (atmospheric) conditions. This is
typically done by pouring the molten blast-furnace slag into pits for slow cooling. Once
cooled, it is crushed, screened, and used as aggregate in applications, such as road base,
concrete, asphalt concrete, rail ballast, roofing, shingles, mineral wool, and glass making.
ACBFS also can be used as a raw material in clinker manufacture. This material is discussed
in greater detail in section 2.1.1.2.
The iron and steel industries do not collect data on the total quantity of blast-furnace slag
produced in the United States. The USGS estimates, however, that the quantity of blast-
furnace slag produced is equivalent to 25% to 30% of crude iron (i.e., pig iron) production
(van Oss, 2004b). In addition, USGS collects data on sales of slag. In 2004, U.S. sales of
blast-furnace slag were valued at approximately $289 million. Most of the slag produced is
air-cooled slag (approximately 75% by tonnage), with a lesser amount of granulated slag
(approximately 25%) and a small amount of pelletized slag. Some is also used as lightweight
aggregate for concrete. A significant quantity of the GGBFS sold in the United States is
produced by grinding imported material.
USGS estimates that approximately one million metric tons of blast-furnace slag were
imported into the United States in 2005, including about 760,000 metric tons of granulated
slag. Table 2-1 summarizes the estimated total blast-furnace slag production in the United
States for 2000 through 2005 (van Oss, 2006, unless otherwise noted). Table 2-1 also
includes U.S. sales of GBFS and BFSA. Sales of GGBFS in 2004 were approximately 3.6
million metric tons out of a total GBFS sales of 4.1 million metric tons.
2-3
-------
Table 2-1: U.S. Iron Blast-furnace Slag Domestic Production and Sales (iron only)
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Estimated Slag
Production
Sales of GBFS
Sales of GGBFS
(subset of GBFS)
Sales of BFSA
(ACBFS)
12.0-14.5
10.5-12.5
10.0-12.0
10.0-12.0
12.0-14.0
9.0-11.0**
2.3*
2.3*
3.7
3.6
4.1
4.4**
2.0***
2 4***
3.3 **
2 9 ***
3.5 **
3 i ***
3.6**
3 5 ***
3.7**
8.9
8.1
7.4
7.3
8.1
8.4**
* 2000 and 2001 sales were believed to be underreported
** van Oss, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
*** National Slag Association Data, as reported by van Oss, 2002, 2003 and 2004b and Slag Cement Association,
2006.
Note: Sales of GGBFS includes imported material that is ground in the U.S.
As of December 31, 2005, 16 integrated steel mills located in nine different states were in
operation in the United States (Wagaman, 2006).35 According to USGS, 44 facilities were
processing blast-furnace slag in the United States in 2004.36 Five of these facilities produced
GBFS (Wierton, West Virginia; South Chicago, Illinois; Gary, Indiana; Sparrows Point,
Maryland; and Birmingham, Alabama). In addition, some grinding facilities only grind
imported GBFS or are exploiting old slag piles from past years' production (van Oss, 2004b).
Figure B-l in Appendix B shows the geographic distribution of cement plants that use slag as
a raw material in clinker production and blend slag into finished cement products. Also, a
table containing additional information on these locations can be found in Appendix C.
37
2.1.1.1 Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GBFS)
According to the USGS, approximately 4.1 million metric tons of GBFS were sold in the
United States in 2004 (see Table 2-2). The total value of these sales was approximately $236
million, the majority of which was represented by sales of GGBFS. Average sales prices for
GBFS were $61.50 per metric ton, with a reported range of $22.05 per metric ton for
unground GBFS to $71.65 per metric ton for GGBFS. This range does not include old,
weathered GBFS from existing stockpiles that is sold as fine aggregate for a few dollars per
metric ton. The prices for GBFS are rising, are much higher than for other slag types and
GGBFS tends to sell for 75%-80% of the price of cement (von Oss, 2007). In 2004,
approximately 91% of GBFS (3.73 million metric tons) was sold for cementitious uses. This
included approximately 104,000 metric tons of GBFS used in the manufacture of clinker, and
An integrated steel mill is one that smelts iron ore into liquid iron in blast furnaces and uses basic oxygen
furnaces to refine this iron into steel.
36 Since slag producers can have contracts with multiple processors at the same location, some of these facilities
might be doubled counted.
37 Data presented in this section address GBFS, which includes ground and unground blast-furnace slag.
Separate data are not available for GGBFS, but GGBFS is known to account for the majority of GBFS.
2-4
-------
approximately 345,000 metric tons used in the manufacture of blended cement. The
remaining GBFS sold for cementitious uses (3.28 million metric tons) was used directly in
concrete as a substitute for portland cement. The majority of materials not sold for
cementitious uses (i.e., the 9% of the 4.1 million metric tons sold in 2004) were old and poor
quality material mined from existing slag piles; this material was sold for use as a fine
aggregate (van Oss, 2004b). Although no data exist on the disposal or landfilling of blast-
furnace slag, it is likely that the utilization of GBFS is nearly 100% of U.S. production,
which reflects the high value of these materials as SCMs, aggregates, or components of
blended cements. In fact, granulated slag is currently being imported into the U.S. in order to
meet the needs of the U.S. construction industry.
Table 2-2 summarizes GBFS (both ground and unground) sales and usage in clinker and
cement manufacture for 2000 through 2005 based on data from the USGS (van Oss, 2004,
2004b, 2003, 2003b, 2002, 2002b, 2001). GBFS usage in concrete is estimated by subtracting
total usage in clinker and cement manufacture from total sales.
Table 2-2: Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GBFS) Usage
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Estimated GBFS
Sales
GBFS Usage in
Clinker
Manufacture
GBFS Usage in
Cement
Manufacture
GBFS Usage in
Concrete
2.3*
2.3*
3.7
3.6
4.1
4.4
-
-
0.060
0.017
0.104
0.144
0.303
0.105***
0.300
0.154***
0.369
0.157***
0.333
0.157***
0.345
0.159***
0.521
1.997**
2.0**
3.271**
3.25**
3.651**
3.735**
Source: USGS data
* 2000 and 2001 sales were believed to be underreported.
**Estimatedby subtraction.
*** Slag Cement Association, 2006.
The primary benefit of using GGBFS as a SCM is that it allows the same amount of portland
cement to yield more yards of concrete, increasing productivity and reducing the total
quantity of portland cement required to meet demand for certain types of concrete. The
beneficial properties of concrete mixes containing GGBFS include the following:
• Strength Development: Concrete containing GGBFS develops strength at a
somewhat slower rate than concrete containing only portland cement, but
ultimately can develop equivalent or even superior strength. The reduced
early strength can be a concern where early strength development is
important, such as for non-heat cured pre-cast concrete or where rapid repairs
2-5
-------
are sought on busy highway structures. Low temperatures generally have a
more adverse impact on strength development with concrete containing
GGBFS than concrete containing only portland cement. However, the higher
ultimate strength development in concrete with GGBFS can allow for
reductions in the portland cement component in a concrete mixture for a given
ultimate (28-day) strength level.
Workability: Concrete containing GGBFS as a partial cement replacement
has longer-lasting workability and low slump loss during hot weather
construction (though this can be a detriment during cold weather
construction). Concrete containing GGBFS is also easier to finish.
Heat of Hydration: Concrete with high replacement rates of GGBFS (i.e.,
approximately 70%) exhibits a lower heat of hydration than conventional
portland cement concrete; this characteristic is an advantage for large mass
concrete applications, but can be a disadvantage for some projects in colder
climates.
Permeability: Concrete containing GGBFS has significantly reduced
permeability, which keeps moisture and harmful constituents out of the
concrete
Corrosion Resistance: The reduced permeability of concrete containing
GGBFS can protect reinforcing steel in reinforced concrete from corrosion for
much longer periods of time than concrete without GGBFS.
Alkali-Silica Reaction: The use of GGBFS blended with portland cement in
concrete reduces the alkali content of the cement paste and reduces
permeability and water ingress, thus mitigating the potential of developing
adverse reactions between alkalis in the cement paste and certain forms of
silica present in some aggregates.38
Sulfate Resistance: Use of GBFS with portland cement can give concrete
moderate to high resistance to sulfate attack.
White Color: GGBFS is a much lighter color than most other commonly
used cementitious materials (i.e., grey portland cement, silica fume, coal fly
ash). Thus, it measurably lightens the concrete and increases its solar
reflectivity which provides benefits, such as greater safety at night, reduced
lighting requirements, and preferred architectural finishes. It also can help
reduce the urban heat island effect through higher albedo.
38 Holcim (US) Inc. commented that, in addition to the more common alkali-silica reaction, "alkali-aggregate
reaction includes a particular, but little seen, reaction known as alkali-carbonate reaction," and it was its
"understanding that slag [i.e., GGBFS containing] concrete shows some effectiveness in resisting this form of
alkali-aggregate reaction, but there is no large volume of work on the topic."
2-6
-------
According to the SCA, some laboratory testing has indicated that concrete containing
GGBFS (and coal fly ash) might be more susceptible to salt scaling when deicer salts are
applied and the concrete undergoes freeze-thaw cycling. On the other hand, other studies
have not found this to be the case, or have even found improved performance. (Scaling is the
loss of a thin layer, usually less than 1/4 inch of surface paste/mortar, sometimes exposing
larger aggregates beneath.) To clarify this issue, FHWA and SCA, in conjunction with the
Iowa State University's Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology (PCC
Center) are collaborating on a project to document the performance of GGBSF-containing
concrete exposed to cyclical freeze-thaw cycles in the presence of deicing chemicals.39
2.1.1.2 Blast-furnace Slag Aggregate (Air-Cooled Blast-Furnace Slag)
BFSA, also known as air-cooled blast-furnace slag, emerges from iron furnaces in a molten
state and is air-cooled. It is produced by pouring molten blast-furnace slag into outdoor pits
and allowing it to cool and solidify slowly under atmospheric conditions. Small quantities of
water are sprayed on top to induce fractures during the final cooling stages. Once cooled,
BFSA is crushed and screened to produce a material similar to gravel that is used as a
construction aggregate for road base, concrete, asphalt, rail ballast, roofing, granules for
roofing shingles, and glass making.
Sales of BFSA for all uses for 2003 and 2004 are shown in Table 2-3. In 2004, BFSA sales
were 8.1 million metric tons, with a total value of $49 million. Average sales prices of BFSA
in 2004 were $6.50 per metric ton, with a range of $1.54 to $17.35 per metric ton. Total
usage of BFSA in cement and concrete products (including clinker manufacture) for 2004
was approximately 2.08 million metric tons, which accounts for about 26% of annual U.S.
sales.
Table 2-3: Sales of Blast-furnace Slag Aggregate (BFSA) by Use in 2003 and 2004
BFSA Use
Ready -Mixed Concrete
Concrete Products
Clinker Raw Material
Other Uses*
Total**
2003
Percent
9.3
6.4
5.7
78.6
100
Quantity
(million metric
tons)
0.68
0.47
0.42
5.73
7.3
2004***
Percent
20.4
3.5
1.9
74.2
100
Quantity
(million metric
tons)
1.65
0.28
0.15
6.00
8.1
Source: vanOss, 2004b
* Primarily as construction aggregate for granular and bound road base and asphalt road surfaces.
** Data may not add to total due to rounding. Data reporting on slag uses is biased towards major uses.
*** Recently received data show a total of 7.3 million metric tons of BFSA were sold in 2006, indicating declining
usage. (Pulipaka, Aswani S., etal.)
39 For more information, refer to: American Concrete Institute, "Proposed Changes to ACI 318-05" accessible
at: http://www.concrete.org/Technical/FlashHelp/Proposed_Changes_to_318-05.htm.
2-7
-------
As indicated in Table 2-3, 100% of BFSA is currently believed to be utilized40, with its
largest use as aggregate in road bases and surfaces, including use in asphaltic concrete. Its
next largest use is primarily as an aggregate in concrete mixes and aggregate base (20.4% in
2004). When used in this capacity, it reduces the need to quarry, crush, sort, and transport
virgin aggregate. Small amounts of BFSA also are used to replace raw feed in the clinker
production process (less than 2% in 2004) and used as an aggregate in concrete products
(3.5% in 2004).
2.1.2 Coal Fly Ash
Coal fly ash is the finely divided airborne mineral residue generated by the combustion of
ground or powdered coal in coal-fired power plants. Four basic types of coal-fired boilers
operate in the United States: 1) pulverized coal (PC) boilers, 2) stoker-fired or traveling grate
boilers, 3) cyclone boilers, and 4) fluidized-bed combustion (FBC) boilers. The PC boiler is
the most widely used, especially for large electric generating units. The other boilers are
more common at industrial or cogeneration facilities. Typically, in a PC boiler, coal is
pulverized and blown with air into the boiler's combustion chamber where it immediately
ignites, generating heat and producing a molten mineral residue. Boiler tubes extract the heat
from the boiler, cooling the flue gas and causing the molten mineral residue to harden and
form ash. Coarse ash particles, referred to as bottom ash or boiler slag, fall to the bottom of
the combustion chamber, and the lighter fine ash particles (coal fly ash) remain suspended in
the flue gas. Prior to exhausting the flue gas to the atmosphere, coal fly ash is removed by
particulate emission control devices, such as electrostatic precipitators or fabric filtration
baghouses.
According to the ACAA survey data, of the 64.2 million metric tons of coal fly ash produced
in the United States in 2004, approximately 40% (25.5 million metric tons) was beneficially
used, while the remaining 60% (approximately 38.8 million metric tons) was disposed of in
land disposal units. Utilization of coal fly ash has increased through 2006 to nearly 45%.
Table 2-4 illustrates the major uses of coal fly ash for the years 2002 through 2006.
Table 2-4: Major Uses of Coal Fly Ash
Production and Usage
Total U.S. Production
Year
2002
2003
69.401
63.640
2004
lion metric tons
64.230
2005
2006
64.502
65. 680
Utilization:
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker
All Other Uses
Total Utilization
Percent Utilization
11.412
1.740
11.006
24.158
34.8%
11.127
2.744
10.388
24.259
38.1%
12.811
2.128
10.525
25.464
39.6%
13.599
2.571
10.246
26.416
41.0%
13.645
3.765
12.004
29.414
44.8%
Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
40 Recently identified data indicate that BFSA may be utilized at less than 100% of generation. However, these
data are from the year 2000 (Pulipaka, A. S., et. al., undated).
2-8
-------
Typically, coal fly ash is used in construction applications. Both Class C and F coal fly ash
can serve as substitutes for conventional materials in construction projects.41 The most
common beneficial use of coal fly ash is as a SCM in concrete. Coal fly ash is also used as a
raw material in the production of cement clinker and as an additive to blended cements. The
consistency and abundance of coal fly ash in many areas present unique opportunities for use
in many construction applications, including pavements and highway and transportation
structures, and can generate environmental benefits when used as a replacement for virgin
materials (e.g., portland cement). Reported coal fly ash generation and use in cement
manufacture and in concrete for the years 2000 through 2006 are summarized in Table 2-5.
Table 2-5: Coal Fly Ash Generation and Sales for Utilization in Cement, Clinker, and
Concrete
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Coal Fly Ash
Generation
(ACAA)
Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Cement and
Clinker Manufacture
USGS
ACAA
Coal Fly Ash
Utilization in
Concrete (ACAA)
No Data
61.8
69.4
63.6
64.2
64.5
65.7
1.77
1.67
2.02
2.29
2.97
3.10
No Data
0.94
1.74
2.74
2.13
2.57
No Data
11.2
11.4
11.1
12.8
13.6
13.6
Sources: ACAA, USGS, andvanOss, 2001, 2002b, 2003b, 2004; ACAA, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.
Certain performance benefits can be attained through the use of coal fly ash in concrete,
including greater workability, higher strength, and increased longevity in the finished
concrete product. Specifically:
• Spherical particle shape allows the coal fly ash to flow and blend freely in
mixtures improving mixing and handling.
• Ball bearing effect creates a lubricating action when concrete is in its plastic
state; as a result, pumping is easier because less energy is required and longer
pumping distances are possible.
• Strength increases as it continues to combine with free lime, increasing the
structural strength over time.
• Reduced permeability and increased durability.
• Reduced shrinkage from the lubricating action of coal fly ash reduces water
content and drying shrinkage.
41 The chemical composition of coal fly ash varies greatly depending on the type of coal used. Two types of
coal fly ash, Class C fly ash and Class F fly ash, are included in the American Society for Testing and
Materials' technical requirements for concrete. Information on these standards is available at
. Additional information on coal fly ash is provided in Appendix B. Other coal fly ash
classification standards are being considered to facilitate the best uses for coal fly ash. Examples include the
CSA Canadian standards.
2-9
-------
• Reduced heat of hydration reduces thermal cracking (e.g., for dams and other
mass concrete placements).
• Improved workability makes concrete easier to place.
• Where sharp, clear architectural definition is easier to achieve, finishing is
improved with less concern about in-place integrity.
• Reduced susceptibility to chemical attack (e.g., sulfate attack) (TEA, 2005).
There are a few potential issues with the use of coal fly ash in concrete, including:
• Lack of uniformity and consistency between coal fly ash sources, possibly
requiring users to test each source.
• Slower setting and early-are strength gain in cool weather concreting.
• Loss of air entrainment caused by the fine structure of coal fly ash and/or
residual unburned carbon content; this property requires additional air
entrainment to maintain concrete strength and durability.
• Reduced freeze/thaw and scaling resistance is possible when a major part of
the cementitious material is replaced with coal fly ash. However, if the
strength and air-void properties of the concrete mixture are kept constant, no
major effect on the freeze-thaw resistance has been observed.
• Reduced abrasion resistance in concrete mixtures where coal fly ash
comprises greater than 50% of the cementitious material. Concrete mixtures
with coal fly ash representing less than 40% of the cementitious material show
no decrease in abrasion resistance.
2.1.3 Silica Fume
Silica fume, also referred to as microsilica or condensed silica fume, is a very fine, dust-like
material generated during silicon metal and ferrosilicon and related ferroalloys production.
Specifically, it is produced by the reduction of high purity quartz with coal or coke and wood
chips in an electric arc furnace during silicon metal or ferrosilicon alloys production. The
glassy, spherical particles are extremely small, measuring less than 1 micrometer (um) in
diameter, with an average diameter of about 0.1 um. Silica fume particles are composed
primarily of silicon dioxide (usually more than 85%). The silica fume is collected in electric
arc furnace stack filters and recovered for reuse as a pozzolan in high performance concrete
(HPC). Silica fume is sold in the United States in powder form and is often made denser by
tumbling it in a silo, which leads to the build-up of surface charges and an agglomeration of
particles.
ACT estimates that global silica fume production is approximately 900,000 metric tons per
year and that at least 120,000 metric tons are used in concrete worldwide (ACT, 2006). The
SFA estimates that silica fume production in the United States in 2004 was between 100,000
and 120,000 metric tons. Of that amount, an estimated 20,000 metric tons were used in
clinker manufacturer, while less than 3,000 metric tons were used in blended cement
production and approximately 60,000 metric tons were used in concrete manufacture. The
SFA also estimates that about 25,000 metric tons of silica fume were landfilled in 2004 and
that less than 16,000 metric tons will be landfilled in 2006 in the U.S. (Kojundic, 2006).
2-10
-------
Table 2-6 summarizes silica fume production and usage in cement and concrete for the years
2000 through 2004.
Table 2-6: U.S. Silica Fume Production and Usage in Cement and Concrete
Production
In Clinker
In Cement
In Concrete
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
No Data
18,000
No Data
55,000
No Data
19,000
No Data
56,000
No Data
19,000
No Data
51,000
No Data
19,000
No Data
53,000
100,000 -
120,000
20,000
<3,000
60,000
Source: The Silica Fume Association accessed at www.silicafume.org and Kojundic, 8/30/2006.
Silica fume's physical and chemical properties confer several benefits to finished concrete
when used with portland cement in concrete mixes, including:
• Increased compressive strength and abrasion resistance: Significant
improvements in compressive strength can be realized through the addition of
silica fume to concrete, making silica-fume concrete particularly useful in
applications, such as columns in high-rise buildings, girders in HPC bridges,
and abrasion-resistant pavements or floors.
• Reduced Bleeding: Silica fume reduces the bleeding in concrete that leads to
the formation of capillary channels, which can increase chloride intrusion in
finished concrete. Eliminating bleeding also allows concrete to be finished
earlier.
• Permeability: Reduced permeability of concrete containing silica fume limits
intrusion of chloride ions from deicing chemicals and helps resist attack from
chemicals, such as sulfates leading to increased durability.
• Corrosion Resistance: Reduced chlorine ion intrusion protects the
reinforcing steel from corrosion and helps extend the life of structures.
• Single-Pass (One-Pass) Finishing: Silica fume concrete can utilize single-
pass finishing whereby the finishing is condensed into a single operation that
shortens finishing time.
Increased modulus of elasticity (with use of silica fume), however, makes the concrete more
brittle and can result in additional cracking.
2-11
-------
2.2 Other RMCs Evaluated
The discussion below reviews the generation and beneficial use of the "other potential
RMCs" selected for this analysis. These RMCs were identified through the screening
procedures described in Section 1.3.
2.2.1 Foundry Sand
Foundry sand is high-quality silica sand used in the production of both ferrous and
nonferrous metal castings. The physical and chemical characteristics of foundry sand depend
on the type of casting process and industry sector from which it originates. Industry sources
estimate that approximately 90 million metric tons of foundry sand are used in production
annually. Of that amount, approximately 8.5 million metric tons of foundry sand are
discarded as "spent" in a year; the remainder is recycled and put back and reused in the
foundry process. A survey by the American Foundry Society (AFS) estimates that 2.4
million metric tons of the spent foundry sand were beneficially used, suggesting that about
six million metric tons may be available to be recycled into other products or used by other
industries (U.S. EPA, 2007). A small percentage (approximately 2%) of the spent foundry
sand are considered hazardous waste due to metal contaminants (U.S. EPA, 1998).
Some spent foundry sands that use organic binders also have been found to contain trace
amounts of hazardous organic compounds, though most of these constituents have been
found to be well below regulatory levels (U.S. EPA, 2002).
Spent foundry sand can be used in the manufacture of portland cement clinker. Most foundry
sands are high in silica content and can serve as a potential alternative silica source in
portland cement clinker production. In addition, portland cement clinker production requires
certain minerals, such as iron and aluminum oxides, both of which are found in many spent
foundry sands. Some foundry sands however, can have materials in it that are not
appropriate for use in kilns and therefore may not be utilized.
Combined data for total quantities of sand and calcium silicate used in the production of
cement clinker in the United States are available from the USGS for the years 2000 through
2004 and are provided in Table 2-7 (van Oss, 2004, 2003b, 2002b, 2001). These data may
include the beneficial reuse of spent foundry sand, although the industry does not identify the
quantity of spent foundry sand being used in cement kilns. The tonnages shown in Table 2-7
primarily consist of silica sand, as the amount of calcium silicates is generally insignificant
(USGS, 2001-2004).
Table 2-7: Sand and Calcium Silicate Utilization in Cement Kilns
Sand and Calcium Silicate Used
Year
2000 20
01 2002
2003
2004
3.142 3.5
Source: USGS, 2001 - 2004 (van Oss, 2004, 2003b, 2002b, 2001).
00 2.960
tiy/*o
2.860
3.150
2-12
-------
Spent foundry sand can be reused to replace virgin sand in both the cement clinker
manufacturing process and in concrete mixing. The use of spent foundry sand eliminates the
need to mine and mill virgin materials, saving energy and other resources. However, the
amount of available foundry sand varies widely by region of the country. In many regions,
foundry sand is not available in the quantities necessary for controlled production processes.
2.2.2 Cenospheres
Cenospheres are very small (10 to 350 um in diameter), inert, lightweight, hollow, "glass"
spheres composed of silica and alumina filled with air or other gases. They occur naturally
in coal fly ash and are recovered from the ash for use as aggregate (filler) in many
applications such as concrete and plastic products. Cenospheres are not usually intentionally
manufactured. Their principal source is coal fly ash. The characteristics of and amount of
cenospheres produced in coal fly ash varies depending upon the type of coal used, the plant
type, and the firing conditions under which the spheres are formed.
The percentage of cenospheres used in concrete varies depending on the application and
desired performance characteristics of the concrete. However, according to industry sources,
the typical content of cenospheres in concrete ranges from 10% to 40% by volume. Concrete
containing cenospheres also often contains coal fly ash.
ACAA began reporting cenosphere sales in its annual coal combustion product production
and use survey in 2004. ACAA reports that approximately 5,200 metric tons of cenospheres
were sold in the United States in 2004, 7,00042 metric tons were sold in 2005, and 5,000
metric tons were sold in 2006. Actual annual cenosphere production is much greater than the
volumes being sold, as not all cenospheres are separated from the coal fly ash for use. No
current data are available on annual cenosphere production, and it is questionable whether
sufficient data exist to allow a meaningful estimate of the cenosphere content of airborne
particulates (i.e., percent of cenospheres to weight of coal fly ash). However, ACAA
indicated that between 570,000 and 2,900,000 metric tons of cenospheres were generated in
1998 in the United States, of which 23,000 to 41,000 metric tons were separated from coal
fly ash and recycled (EPA, 2004). Cenospheres that are not separated and reused are
recycled or landfilled with the coal fly ash from which they are derived.
When incorporated into concrete mixes as fillers or extenders, cenospheres increase the
strength of the concrete and decrease shrinkage and weight. However, cenospheres may also
react in the concrete. Cenospheres are 75% lighter than other minerals currently used as
fillers, which reduces the final concrete mix's weight and increases their thermal stability and
overall durability. Cenospheres can be used in concrete with other recovered materials, such
as coal fly ash and silica fume.43
42 This is an adjusted figure. The 2005 ACAA report: "2005 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and
Use Survey" erroneously reported this figure as 70,918 metric tons (78,174 U.S. tons).
Cenospheres also are often used in other industrial filler applications replacing other filler materials, such as
manufactured glass, calcium carbonate, clays, talc, and other silicas.
2-13
-------
2.2.3 Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Materials
Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) byproducts are generated by air pollution control devices
used at any sulfur dioxide (SOX ) producing emissions source that has an appropriate
scrubber, like some coal-fired electric power plants. Power plants and other types of
facilities (e.g., some cement plants) use a number of FGD processes to control sulfur oxide
(SOX) emissions from the combustion of coal. FGD processes spray lime or limestone
reagents into the exhaust gas, which removes and converts the SO2 to sludge or a semi-sludge
byproduct. In 2006, more than 27 million metric tons of FGD byproducts were produced in
the United States (ACAA, 2006).
FGD processes are characterized as either wet or dry processes. Wet FGD scrubbers use
aqueous solutions of either slaked lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2), or limestone
(principally calcium carbonate, CaCOs) to saturate the exhaust gas in a spray tower. These
solutions react with and oxidize the SC>2 particles creating a byproduct known as scrubber
sludge. Dry FGD systems use less water and generate a byproduct with different attributes.
Two types of wet FGD processes are used today—natural oxidation and forced oxidation. In
natural oxidation, only the oxygen naturally occurring in the flue gas is used to remove SC>2.
The resulting byproduct consists mostly of calcium sulfite (CaSO3). In forced oxidation,
additional air is supplied by blowers, which creates a byproduct consisting primarily of
calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO4'2H2O), or gypsum. While FGD sludge produced using
natural oxidation has limited beneficial use options, gypsum from forced oxidation (also
referred to as synthetic gypsum) is readily used as a direct replacement for natural gypsum in
wallboard production and grinding with clinker to produce finished cement. The Portland
Cement Association (PCA) reports that in 2005, 21 portland cement plants were using FGD
sludge in the manufacture of cement (see Appendix B, Figure B-8) (PC A, 2005).
Table 2-8 summarizes FGD production for the years 2001 through 2006 (ACAA, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006). Additional discussion of the production and uses for FGD
gypsum and dry scrubber material can be found in the sections that follow. FGD sludge from
natural oxidation processes is not discussed further, as this material has seen little use in
cement manufacture or in concrete.
2-14
-------
Table 2-8: U.S. Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Material Production
Year
2001*
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Wet Scrubber Material
Forced Oxidation
(FGD Gypsum)
Natural
Oxidation
(CaS03)
FGD Dry
Scrubber
Material
Other FGD
Total FGD
No Data
10.342
10.796
10.841
10.864
10.977
No Data
15.332
15.740
15.876
16.057
14.787
No Data
0.849
1.310
1.660
1.295
1.351
No Data
—
0.152
0.105
—
0.271
25.840
26.522
27.998
28.482
28.216
27.386
Source: American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
* No breakout of FGD materials by type was reported for 2001.
2.2.3.1 Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum
According to ACAA, U.S. coal-fired power plants produced approximately 11.0 million
metric tons of FGD gypsum in 2006, with approximately 8.7 million metric tons being
reused—approximately 79%. Of this amount, approximately 81% is used in wallboard
manufacturing, about 16% is used in concrete, concrete products and grout, and about 3% is
interground with clinker to produce finished cement. This indicates that while there is FGD
gypsum available for increased use, only a minimal amount may potentially be used in
cement and concrete. Table 2-9 summarizes ACAA data on the production and utilization of
FGD gypsum for the years 2002 through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
Table 2-9: FGD Gypsum Production and Utilization
Production and Usage
Total Production
Year
2002
2003
10.3421
10.7957
2004
illion metric I
10.841
2005
2006
10.8637
10.9769
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker*
All Other Uses (primarily wallboard)
Total Utilization
Percent Utilization
0.0550
0.2756
6.7183
7.0489
68.2%
0.0595
0.3811
7.0883
7.5289
69.7%
0.2644
0.4074
7.5338
8. 2056
75.7%
0.2982
0.3608
7.7493
8.4083
77.4%
1.3988
.2400
7.0352
8.6740
79.0%
* FGD Gypsum is primarily interground with clinker to produce finished cement, not as a raw feed in clinker
production.
Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
The availability of FGD gypsum is expected to grow as more scrubbers are installed
nationally, potentially allowing for increased use. According to DOE, Energy Information
Administration (DOE EIA-767), 32 facilities reported that they produced approximately 9.4
million metric tons of FGD gypsum in 2004 (DOE, 2004). Table B-5, found in Appendix B,
indicates production and disposition of FGD gypsum by state for 2004. Also, a listing of
FGD gypsum producers in 2004 is contained in Appendix C.
2-15
-------
The handling of FGD gypsum can be problematic because it is abrasive, sticky,
compressible, and much finer than natural gypsum. These difficulties are often offset by the
resource's proximity to manufacturing facilities. While the majority of FGD gypsum
produced is used in wallboard production, a small percentage is used in finished cement
products. In the cement production process, FGD gypsum use has the benefit of replacing
virgin gypsum that is ground with clinker to regulate the setting time of finished portland
cement. Gypsum cement, a strong type of plaster, can also be made from FGD gypsum.
2.2.3.2 Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Dry Scrubber Material
Dry FGD systems remove SC>2 emissions, such as from coal-fired power plant flue gas by
contacting a lime or limestone sorbent slurry. The most common dry FGD design is the
spray dryer system in which a slaked lime slurry is sprayed into the flue gas. The dry FGD
process still uses water, although much less than wet processes, and it does not saturate the
flue gas as the wet processes do. The resulting byproduct, formed by the reaction of the
slurry and SO2, is dried by the heat of the flue gas and collected with the coal fly ash in a
particulate control device (either a fabric filter/baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator).
Some dry FGD byproducts can contain high concentrations of sulfur materials that may form
ettringite, a hydrophilic material, which expands when hydrated. As a result, these
byproducts may not be suitable for use in concrete and are not suitable for foundation or
paving use.
In 2006, about 1.35 million metric tons of dry FGD materials were produced in the United
States (ACAA, 2006) and about 9,000 metric tons of dry FGD material was used in concrete
products. The material not reused is primarily stored and/or disposed of in land disposal
units. Table 2-10 summarizes dry FGD material production and usage for the years 2002
through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
Table 2-10: Dry Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Material Production and Usage
Production and Usage
Total Production
Year
2002
2003
848.6
1,310.2
2004
thousand met
1,660.0
2005
2006
1,294.8
1,350.8
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker
All Other Uses
Total Utilization
Percent Utilization
32.1
2.7
302.1
336.9
39.7%
31.1
2.2
145.9
179.2
13.7%
33.9
—
127.1
161.0
9.7%
12.7
—
131.7
144.4
11.2%
8.7
—
115.2
123. 9
9.2%
Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
2.2.4 Power Plant Bottom Ash
Power plant bottom ash is the coarse, solid mineral residue that results from the burning of
coal in utility boilers. The material is removed from the bottom of the boilers either in a wet
or dry state and transported to handling areas by conveyor or pipe. Bottom ash has a similar
2-16
-------
chemical composition to coal fly ash, but is produced in size grades ranging from fine sand to
medium gravel. Although larger in particle size, bottom ash has a smaller reactive surface
area than coal fly ash. Because of its much larger particle sizes, bottom ash has a smaller
total reactive surface area, for the same weight, as coal fly ash. With this and other
characteristics, bottom ash does not have sufficient cementitious properties to be used as a
replacement for cement, although it can be used in clinker manufacture as an alternative
source for silica, alumina, iron and calcium.
Due to its salt content and, in some cases, its low pH, bottom ash also can exhibit corrosive
properties (FHWA, 1998). As a result, the potential for corrosion of metal structures that
come into contact with bottom ash should be evaluated when using this material in structural
applications.
In 2006, nearly 17 million metric tons of bottom ash were produced in the United States, 7.6
million metric tons of which were beneficially used (ACAA, 2006). Table 2-11 summarizes
bottom ash production and usage in clinker production and concrete for the years 2002
through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
Table 2-11: Power Plant Bottom Ash Production and Utilization
Production and Utilization
Total Production
Year
2002
2003
17.963
16.420
2004
million metric
15.604
2005
2006
15.967
16.874
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker*
All Other Uses
Total Utilization
Percent Utilization
0.369
0.531
0.9903
6.076
6.976
38.8%
0.271
0.448
1.1003
6.763
7.482
45.6%
0.716
0.558
1.0503
6.122
7.396
47.4%
0.926
0.852
1.2103
5.064
6.842
42.9%
0.542
0.840
6.219
7.601
45.0%
*Bottom ash used only in clinker production.
a USGS 2006.
Source (unless noted): ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
In contrast to the above data from ACAA, data from DOE EIA-767 indicate that
approximately 20.4 million metric tons of bottom ash were produced at 410 facilities
reported to produce bottom ash in 2004 (DOE 2004).
Bottom ash can be used as a replacement for aggregate in concrete and is usually sufficiently
well graded in size to avoid the need for blending with other fine aggregates to meet
gradation requirements. The porous surface structure of bottom ash particles make this
material less durable than conventional aggregates and better suited for use in base course
and shoulder mixtures or in cold mix applications, as opposed to wearing surface mixtures.
The porous surface structure also makes this material lighter than conventional aggregate and
useful in lightweight concrete applications. Bottom ash also can be used as a raw material in
clinker production as an alternative source of silica, alumina, iron, and calcium.
2-17
-------
2.2.5 Power Plant Boiler Slag
Boiler slag is a byproduct of the combustion of coal in power plants. It is produced in wet-
bottom boilers, which have a solid base with an orifice that can be opened to allow the
molten ash that has collected at the base to flow into an ash hopper below. There are two
types of wet-bottom boilers—slag-tap boilers and cyclone boilers. Slag-tap boilers burn
pulverized coal (coal ground to a fine powder so that at least 70% passes through a 200-mesh
sieve), while cyclone boilers burn crushed coal (coal milled to 0.25 inch maximum size)
(Bolumen). In each of these types of boilers, the bottom ash is kept in a molten state and
tapped off as a liquid. This molten slag is quenched with water, which causes it to fracture
instantly, crystallize, and form pellets. The resulting power plant boiler slag, often referred
to as "black beauty," is a coarse, hard, black, angular, glassy material (FHWA, 1998).
Owing to its abrasive properties, power plant boiler slag is used in the manufacture of
blasting grit and roofing granules for asphalt shingles. However, smaller amounts of it also
are used (or have been used) as an aggregate in concrete and as a raw feed for clinker
production. In 2005, about 38,600 metric tons (approximately 2% of all power plant boiler
slag used) were used as a raw feed in clinker production.
Utilization of power plant boiler slag, as a percentage of production, is the highest among all
coal combustion products. In 2006, nearly 84% of all power plant boiler slag was
beneficially used (ACAA, 2006); down from a high of nearly 97% in 2005 (ACAA, 2005).
Though power plant boiler slag is in high demand for beneficial use, its supplies are expected
to decrease in the future due to the removal from service of the aging power plants that
produce it. Table 2-12 summarizes U.S. production and usage of power plant boiler slag for
the years 2002 through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).
Table 2-12: Boiler Slag Production and Utilization
Production and Utilization
Total Production
Year
2002
2003
mill
1.741.4
1.6658
2004
ion metric tor
1.9979
2005
2006
7.7757
1.8380
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker*
All Other Uses
Total Utilization
Percent Utilization
0.0082
-
1.3979
1.4061
80.7%
0.0144
0.0143
1.5643
1.5930
95.6%
-
0.0304
1.7599
7. 7903
89.6%
-
0.0386
1.6767
1.7153
96.6%
-
0.0161
1.5179
1.5340
83.46%
* Boiler slag is used only in clinker production.
Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.
PC A (2005b) reported that 21 portland cement plants utilized power plant bottom ash and
power plant boiler slag in the production of clinker in 2005 (no further breakout by material
type was provided). Figure B-9 in Appendix B shows the locations of these plants.
2-18
-------
2.2.6 Steel Furnace Slag
Steel furnace slag, commonly referred to as steel slag, is a byproduct from either the
conversion of iron to steel in a basic oxygen furnace (EOF) or the melting of scrap to make
steel in an electric arc furnace (EAF). Similar to iron blast-furnace slag, steel slag is
produced when slagging agents and/or fluxing materials are added to molten metals to
remove impurities. Unlike iron blast furnaces, steel furnaces typically use lime as the
slagging agent instead of limestone and /or dolomite. The liquid silicate slag floats on the
molten metal and is separated and cooled. Steel slag is cooled in pools in a similar fashion as
BFSA from iron blast furnaces.
No reliable data exist on the amounts of steel slag produced annually in the United States
because not all of the slag produced during steel production is tapped, and the amount of
steel slag tapped is not routinely measured. Hendrik G. van Oss (2005) estimates, however,
that steel slag production is between 10% and 15% of crude steel output. This estimate
translates to 11 million to 16 million metric tons produced in 2004, of which nine million
metric tons were sold for reuse (van Oss, 2004b). Table 2-13 summarizes steel slag
production and usage for the years 2000 through 2005, as well as steel slag usage in cement
and clinker manufacture (Kalyoncu, 2001; van Oss 2002, 2002b, 2003, 2003b, 2004, 2004b).
In 2004, total U.S. steel slag sales were valued at about $39 million. Sales prices for steel
slag ranged from $0.22 to $7.89 per metric ton, with an average of $4.32 per metric ton (van
Oss 2004b).
Table 2-13: U.S. Steel Slag Production and Usage
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Source: Kalyoncu
Estimated Steel Slag
Production
No Data
No Data
9-14
9-14
11-16
10-14
,2001; van Oss, 2002, 2002b,
Estimated Steel
Slag Sales
5.2
6.5
8.0
8.8
9.0
8.7
2003, 2003b, 2004, and
Steel Slag Usage in Cement and
Clinker Manufacture
0.805
0.500
0.481
0.448
0.401
0.525
, 2004b.
According to USGS, steel slag was processed at 99 locations in the United States in 2004.
Some duplication in these locations exists, since steel slag producers can have contracts with
multiple processors at the same location (van Oss, 2004b). Table 3 in Appendix C contains
additional information on these locations.
Steel slag has been successfully used as a raw material substitute in clinker manufacturing.
The economic and environmental benefits of the utilization of steel furnace slag in Portland
cement manufacturing may include energy savings, decreased CO2 and NOx emissions, and
increased production capacity.
2-19
-------
Because of its expansive characteristics, steel slag is not typically used as an aggregate in
concrete for fixed-volume applications. Steel slag is useful as an aggregate in granular base
applications,44 and can be processed into a coarse or fine aggregate material for use in hot
mix asphalt concrete pavements and in cold mix or surface treatment applications.
2.2.7 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
CKD is the fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from the cement kiln
exhaust gas by scrubbers (filtration baghouses and /or electrostatic precipitators). The
composition of CKD varies among plants and over time at a single plant. Much of the
material comprising CKD is actually incompletely reacted raw material, including a raw mix
at various stages of burning, and particles of clinker.
Because of the high percentage of raw mix and clinker in CKD, large amounts are put back
into the production process through closed loop processes. CKD not returned to the
production process is either landfilled or sold for other beneficial uses (PCA, 2006).
Because of the high rate of direct reuse, CKD generation rates are not routinely measured,
and limited data are available. One recent estimate, based upon informal conversations with
U.S. cement kiln industry personnel, is that CKD generation (including material returned to
the kiln) is equivalent to approximately 15% to 20% (by weight) of total annual clinker
production. This amount translates into approximately 12 million to 15 million metric tons
per year (van Oss, 2005).
USGS domestic survey data show that in 2003, at least 289,000 metric tons of CKD captured
by air emission control devices were used in clinker manufacture, and another 149,000
metric tons were used in cement manufacture. In 2004, these amounts were at least 333,000
metric tons in clinker manufacture and 165,000 metric tons in cement manufacture (van Oss,
2004). As discussed by van Oss (2004), and based upon PCA data and discussions with
industry personnel, these figures appear to grossly underreport the actual rate of reuse. As
discussed previously, direct reuse of CKD in the manufacturing process is common, but
largely unreported.
Table 2-14 presents a breakdown of the amount and percent of the beneficially used CKD
(and not returned to the kiln) by use in 2006 (PCA, 2006). Nearly half of the CKD
beneficially used in 2006 was used for soil or clay stabilization. Approximately 16% was
used as a cement additive or for blending. CKD in concrete mixes generally increases the
water demand, decreases workability, retards setting time, and decreases concrete strength.
Research into this use for CKD has suggested, however, that limited substitution of CKD for
Portland cement can create undiminished concrete mixes. Studies suggest that effective
substitution rates range from as low as 5% to as much as 50% for certain concrete
applications (EPA, 1993). Other beneficial uses for CKD include waste stabilization, mine
reclamation, agricultural soil amendment, and in pavement manufacturing.
1 This use must take into account volume expansion tendencies where the granular material is confined.
2-20
-------
Table 2-14: Estimated Beneficial Uses of CKD Beneficially Reused, 2006
Beneficial Use
Soil/Clay Stabilization
Waste Stabilization/Solidification
Mine Reclamation
Cement Additive/Blending
All Other Uses
Total
Source: Portland Cement Association. Sun
Note: CKD recycled into the kiln is under
beneficial reuse for purposes of this docurr
Quantity
(Metric Tons)
533,365
213,675
152,756
183,228
76,987
1,160,011
Percent of CKD Total
Beneficially Used
(not returned to the kiln)
46%
18%
13%
16%
7%
100%
unary of 2006 Cement Kiln Dust and Clinker Production, CKD Beneficially Reused.
a closed loop process, not removed from the kiln system, and is not considered a
lent.
2.3 Summary of RMC Generation and Beneficial Use
The RMCs examined in the study vary widely in terms of their generation and beneficial use
rates. Table 2-15 summarizes total generation and beneficial use (all uses) of the RMCs in
2004. By quantity, the most significant materials beneficially used are coal fly ash, BFSA,
and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum. Several materials - including GGBFS, BFSA,
power plant boiler slag, and steel furnace slag from electric arc furnace facilities- have
beneficial use rates at or near 100%. Table 2-15 provides summary information on the
generation and beneficial use for the RMCs addressed in this Report.
2-21
-------
Table 2-15: Summary of RMC Generation and Beneficial Use (2004)
Material
Estimated Annual
Quantity Generated, 2004
(million metric tons)
Estimated Quantity
Beneficially Used, 2004
(million metric tons)
Percent
Beneficially
Used
(all uses)
Beneficial
Use Rate in
Cement or
Concrete
RMCs Named by Congress
Ground Granulated Blast-
furnace Slag (excluding
lead slag)
Coal Combustion Fly Ash
Blast-furnace Slag
Aggregate (excluding lead
slag)
Silica Fume
3.60
64.20
8.10
0.10-0.12
3.60
25.50
8.10*
0.08
100%
40%
100%
67%-80%
High
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Other RMCs Identified by EPA
Foundry Sand
Cenospheres
Flue Gas Desulfurization
(FGD) Gypsum
Flue Gas Desulfurization
(FGD) Dry Scrubber
Material
Power Plant Bottom Ash
Power Plant Boiler Slag
Steel Furnace Slag "
Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
8.5
N.A.
10.80
1.70
15.60
2.00
9.00
12.00-15.00
2.40
0.0052
(reported sales)
8.20
0.16
7.40
1.80
9.00
1.20
(excludes reuse back into kiln
28%
N.A.
76%
9%
47%
90%
100%
N.A.
Low
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Note: Data sources and caveats discussed in detail in section 1, and earlier in this section.
* Recently received information indicates that BFSA may be used at around 85% (Kiggins, 2007). However, this is
based on a single data point.
** Includes both EAF and EOF steel furnace slag. EOF steel furnace slag may be used at less than 100% (Lehman,
Rich. October 3, 2007)
2-22
-------
3.0 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS OF RMC USE IN FEDERAL
CONCRETE PROJECTS
3.1 Introduction
This section further addresses Part (A) of the Congressional mandate, which also requires EPA
to quantify the energy savings and environmental benefits associated with the substitution of
RMCs for portland cement. Specifically, we address three of the four RMCs identified by
Congress for further study: coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume.45 The analysis provides
quantified estimates of energy savings and environmental benefits resulting from the substitution
of these mineral components for finished portland cement in Federal construction projects
involving concrete. RMCs can be used to offset virgin materials at more than one point in the
cement production process. It is important to note that we are modeling the use of RMCs as a
direct replacement for finished portland cement in concrete; this analysis does not evaluate the
use of RMCs in clinker production due to current modeling limitations. The metrics used to
describe impacts include resource savings (e.g., energy and water consumption), avoided air
pollutant emissions, various measures of avoided GHG emissions, avoided water emissions,
avoided soil emissions, and avoided end of life waste.
This section begins with a brief overview of the analytical approach and model used to respond
to the Congressional mandate. We then describe the methodology used to develop estimates of
the quantities of coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume substituted for finished portland cement in
Federal projects. We then present unit impact values related to the substitution of one metric ton
of each RMC for finished portland cement in concrete. Finally, we present aggregated impact
results for historical Federal RMC use quantities (years 2004 and 2005), and project RMC use
quantities (years 2004 to 2015). Appendix D provides detailed results of the analysis, along with
a technical discussion of the modeling inputs and calculations.
3.2 Analytical Approach and Model
Our methodology for evaluating the benefits associated with RMC use in Federal concrete
applications first involves selecting an appropriate life cycle modeling tool to address a range of
RMCs and impacts. We then use the model to implement a three-step analytic approach:
1) development of RMC substitution scenarios;
2) use of life-cycle inventory data to estimate environmental impacts associated with
the substitution of one unit (metric ton) of RMC; and
3) calculation of the environmental impact profile for the total quantities of
substituted RMCs.
We use a life-cycle analysis (LCA) approach to estimate the environmental benefits of
substituting RMCs for finished portland cement. LCA allows estimation of a range of
45 BFS A, a material identified by Congress, is a source of aggregate in concrete and does not act as an SCM or
substitute for portland cement. We focus this assessment on the benefits of substitution of portland cement.
However, an illustration of the types and magnitude of benefits that can be achieved by using BFS A as a substitute
for virgin aggregate in concrete, or as roadbase, can be found in Appendix D.
3-1
-------
environmental impacts of a product across all stages in the product's life, from resource and raw
material extraction through disposal. By comparing the impacts across different beneficial use
scenarios in which portland cement is being replaced, it is possible to provide an estimate of the
impacts associated with increases in the beneficial use of RMCs.
The analysis relies primarily on data derived from the Building for Environmental and Economic
Sustainability (BEES) model. We employ the BEES model because it can be used to evaluate
three of the RMCs identified by Congress (coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume), providing a
consistent modeling platform and set of results across the RMCs. Our comprehensive review of
existing LCA models identified a number of other models that address individual RMCs,
including the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) and the Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool
for Environmental and Economic Effects (PaLATE). Two key differences between WARM and
BEES led us to select BEES for the benefits analysis in this study. First, WARM evaluates only
lifecycle energy and GHG impacts in its outputs, while BEES evaluates energy, GHG, and
several other environmental impacts, such as water use and pollutant emissions to air and water.
In addition, the WARM model addresses only one RMC used in concrete - coal fly ash.
PaLATE is another life cycle analysis tool useful for modeling energy and environmental
impacts. However, at the time of this analysis, the PaLATE model had not been formerly peer
reviewed under Agency guidelines. Furthermore, as with WARM, PaLATE does not allow for
the consistency and comparability across all three RMCs46. Because these models use different
data and methodologies to calculate the impacts of RMC substitution, we opted to use BEES to
evaluate coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume to assure consistency and comparability across the
RMCs analyzed.47
It is important to emphasize the purpose and limitations of the application of life cycle modeling
in this context. Our approach is to generally characterize the potential suite of environmental
impacts related to reuse of certain materials, and to illustrate the potential magnitude of these
impacts. As noted, we rely primarily on the BEES model (version 3.0) to generate this
illustration, and then use the WARM model to corroborate the results for coal fly ash. The life
cycle inventories of material and resource use embedded in these models are representative of
productive processes in place at a given point in time. As these processes evolve, the existing
life cycle inventories may become less representative and require updating.48 As a result, the
long-range projections of materials reuse and related impacts based upon current life cycle
inventories should be considered with due care and in the appropriate context. For example, the
46 Understanding the material use, modeling, and comparative limitations, we applied the PaLATE model in an
effort to estimate the potential types and magnitude of benefits that can be achieved by using BFSA as a substitute
for virgin aggregate in concrete, or as roadbase. This analysis can be found in Appendix D
47 Appendix D of this report includes a comparison of BEES and WARM results for energy and GHG impacts when
coal fly ash is used in concrete. This comparison indicates that BEES and WARM result in roughly comparable
energy and GHG impacts per metric ton of coal fly ash used as an SCM in concrete. We did apply the PaLATE
model in an effort to estimate the potential types and magnitude of benefits that can be achieved by using BFSA as a
substitute for virgin aggregate in concrete, or as roadbase. This analysis can be found in Appendix D
48
For example, NIST recently released BEES version 4.0 subsequent to the completion of the analysis presented in
this chapter. BEES version 4.0 utilizes updated life cycle inventories that differ in certain respects from version 3.0.
These differences, however, do not yield material changes in the relative magnitude of impacts for the RMCs
evaluated.
5-2
-------
primary focus should be on the categories of impacts and their direction (i.e., positive versus
negative impacts), as opposed to the absolute magnitude of impacts, which may change over
time.
As noted previously, our analysis quantifies the benefits only for coal fly ash, silica fume, and
GGBFS use in concrete, and further limits consideration to those benefits associated with the use
of these RMCs as a replacement for portland cement in concrete as an SCM, and not an input
into the clinker or cement manufacturing process. This analysis does not consider the use of
other RMCs (e.g., BFSA, foundry sand, FGD gypsum, bottom ash, and power plant boiler slag)
because current data and modeling capabilities do not allow the Agency to conduct a detailed
analysis of these other RMCs. Finally, we are unable to extrapolate the impacts calculated for
coal fly ash, GGBFs, and silica fume to these other RMCs because the impacts modeled for
portland cement replacement are not representative of the processes required to use these
materials in cement and concrete applications.49
Nevertheless, the analysis provides an estimate of a portion of the benefits associated with
certain RMCs, and also reflects a transparent and readily accepted approach for estimating
potential benefits.
3.3 Current and Expanded Use Scenarios
To evaluate the environmental benefits of using RMCs in concrete, both at current use levels and
under Federal initiatives to increase beneficial use rates, EPA first developed projections of
future RMC use through 2015 under a variety of scenarios. The current use scenarios reflect
RMC use under existing conditions and initiatives. The expanded use scenarios assume
implementation of Federal initiatives to increase beneficial use rates. We then apply the
environmental unit impact measures to these estimates to quantify the potential environmental
benefits of historical and future RMC substitution.
Our analysis uses 2004 as a base year for projections because 2004 is the most recent year for
which use data are available for the three RMCs evaluated. The benefits of RMC use in Federal
concrete projects are assessed for both historical (years 2004 and 2005) and projected (years
2006 to 2015) substitution levels.50 We discuss these scenarios in further detail below.
3.3.1 Current Use Practices
To implement the analysis, we first estimate the proportion of portland cement and RMCs used
in Federal concrete projects. Specifically, to estimate the proportion of RMCs used in all
Federally funded concrete projects, we use an FHWA estimate that approximately 20% of U.S.
49 To the extent that these materials offset extraction and processing of virgin materials, however, there are likely to
be positive environmental life cycle impacts associated with their use in cement or concrete. At a minimum, the
environmental benefits associated with the use of other RMCs are likely to be consistent with the energy savings and
reduced impacts associated with avoiding the production of an equal quantity of virgin material.
50 2006 is not considered a "historical yeaf in this analysis because at the time of this analysis, 2006 use data were
not available for all three RMCs being evaluated. Thus, it was necessary to develop projections of RMC use
beginning in 2006.
3-3
-------
concrete construction projects involve Federal funds.51 Therefore, in this analysis, we assume:
(1) that Federal projects are using RMC at the same "rate" as the national average, and (2) that
the Federal projects incorporate 20% of RMCs used as a substitute for finished portland cement
in concrete. Appendix D presents a detailed discussion of how this estimate was derived.
We then use available data from industry and government sources on historical and future
portland cement demand to develop the following approaches:
• Future GGBFS Use: We assume that annual demand for GGBFS will increase
proportionate to the overall U.S. demand for portland cement. PCA estimates that
U.S. portland cement demand will be 195 million metric tons in 2030 (PCA,
2006a). For this analysis, we assume that demand for portland cement will
increase linearly to the PCA estimated rate by 2030, or approximately 2.2% per
year beyond 2005 (the last year for which actual portland cement use data are
available). We apply the 2.2% growth rate to the base year (2004) quantity of
GGBFS used in U.S. concrete projects (3.46 million metric tons), which equals an
annual increase of approximately 76,000 metric tons. While this approach does
not attempt to address a number of industry-specific uncertainties related to
GGBFS supply, it is generally consistent with the estimates of potential GGBFS
production and sales provided by the USGS. Future GGBFS use, depends on a
number of factors, including import patterns and demand for GGBFS relative to
demand for BFSA and GBFS (GGBFS, GBFS and BFSA are all made from the
same supply of iron slag). The SCA projects higher GGBFS use based on an
assumed increase in imports and a significant investment in grinding equipment.52
For the purposes of this report, however, we use more conservative projections
based on U.S. portland cement demand that do not assume a market shift. These
projections comport with a USGS estimate that a maximum of six million metric
tons of GGBFS could be available in the U.S. in the next 10 to 20 years through
combined imports and domestic production.53
• Future Silica Fume Use: We assume that domestic silica fume supply is
inelastic, as a result of relatively inelastic global supply of silicon metal and
ferrosilicon and related ferroalloys production. Therefore, we assume that current
(i.e., base year) rates of silica fume use in U.S. concrete projects will remain
constant into the future (i.e., roughly 60,000 metric tons per year).54
• Future Coal Fly Ash Use: We employ a different approach to estimate future
use of coal fly ash because current government and industry initiatives are
designed to increase beneficial use rates. Specifically, using selected
mechanisms, as outlined in Chapter 5, the C2P2 program has an aggressive goal of
51 Personal communication with Jon Mullarky, FHWA, July 17, 2007.
52 Personal communication with Jan Prusinski, Slag Cement Association, June 6, 2007.
53 Personal communication with Hendrik van Oss, USGS, July 12, 2007.
54 Personal communication with Hendrik van Oss, USGS, July 12, 2007, and analysis of data from USGS 2005
Minerals Yearbook - Ferroalloys, accessed at:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/ferroallovs/feallmvb05.pdf.
5-4
-------
increasing coal fly ash use in portland cement to 18.6 million short tons (16.9
million metric tons) by 2011,55 We therefore use constant progress toward this
goal to estimate coal fly ash use for the years 2005 through 2011. For the years
2012 through 2015, we then estimate that coal fly ash use under C2P2 will
increase at the same rate as U.S. portland cement demand over 2004 levels (2.2%,
or approximately 333,000 metric tons per year).56 In order to estimate coal fly ash
use in the absence of C2P2, we also employ a current use scenario in which we
assume that the use of coal fly ash as a partial portland cement replacement will
increase linearly for the years 2005 to 2011 at the same rate as U.S. cement
demand. This scenario recognizes that meeting the C2P2 goals is dependent upon
overcoming a number of the barriers, as identified in Chapter 4.
3.3.2 Expanded Use Scenarios
In addition to the current use estimates, we also developed expanded use estimates for coal fly
ash as an SCM in concrete to capture incremental changes in use from current levels. These
scenarios are designed to provide insight into the specific impacts of ongoing and emerging
efforts by EPA and other Federal agencies and stakeholders to increase the beneficial use of coal
fly ash. We limit our evaluation of an expanded use scenario to coal fly ash because, unlike
GGBFS and silica fume, coal fly ash is currently underutilized (with respect to supply
availability) and therefore has the capacity for expanded use if barriers to its increased use are
removed.57
We employ two expanded use scenarios to estimate the potential impacts and benefits due to
initiatives to increase the use of coal fly ash. Under the first expanded use scenario (the "15
percent scenario"), coal fly ash substitution in Federal projects is assumed to increase from the
current use rates (approximately 10%) to the 15% level recommended under the CPG program.
Under the second alternative use scenario (the "30% scenario"), coal fly ash substitution for
portland cement in Federal projects (i.e., 20% of total U.S. estimates) is assumed to increase
from the current use rates to the maximum levels recommended under the CPG program (i.e.,
30%).58'59 For non-Federal projects, our scenarios assume that RMC use would be the same as
under the current use analysis. For both scenarios, we assume that the increase in use will be
linear starting in the year 2009 and continuing through the year 2015.60 Tables 3-1 and 3-2
present the current and future use estimates (incorporating the 20% adjustment factor) for coal
See www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/pubs/facts508.pdf.
56 Comments and information from Hendrik van Oss of the USGS suggest that developing any trend in future coal
fly ash beneficial use is subject to significant uncertainty. We therefore use EPA goals and cement industry
projections as a likely high-end estimate of potential growth.
57 Close to 100% of GGBFS and silica fume currently generated in the U.S. is believed to be beneficially used.
58 Note that an increase to 15% coal fly ash substitution represents an optimistic Agency goal. Therefore, the 30%
scenario represents a possible, though unlikely, maximum target for increased substitution. The results of the 30%
scenario should be taken as an upper bound estimate of possible environmental benefits.
59 Both the 15% and 30% scenarios assume full attainment of the CPG recommended beneficial use levels, but do
not necessarily reflect current barriers to the expanded use of coal fly ash. Additionally, the C2P2 scenario is an
expanded use scenario using the goals set forth under the program. Therefore, the volumes beneficially used in these
scenarios are optimistic Agency goals.
60 SAFETEA-LU instructs all agency heads to implement recommendations of the 30 month study with regard to
procurement guidelines no later than one year after the release of the study, or approximately early to mid 2009.
3-5
-------
fly ash, GGBFS, silica fume, and total portland cement (including both "virgin" portland and
blended cements), as well as the expanded use estimates for coal fly ash.
Table 3-1: U.S. Portland Cement Demand and RMC Use in Cement and Concrete
Products, Under Current and Expanded Use Scenarios
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Notes:
Cement
Total U.S. Demand
Coal Fly Ash
Current Use
Baseline
Current Use
C2p2
15%
Scenario
30%
Scenario
GGBFS
All
Scenarios
Silica Fume
All
Scenarios
122.0
125.7
128.5
131.2
134.0
136.8
139.6
142.3
145.1
147.9
150.6
153.4
12.8
13.6
13.9
14.2
14.5
14.8
15.1
15.4
15.7
16
16.3
16.6
12.8
13.6
14.2
14.8
15.4
15.9
16.4
16.9
17.2
17.5
17.9
18.2
12.8
13.6
14.2
14.8
15.4
16.3
17.2
18.1
18.9
19.8
20.6
21.5
12.8
13.6
14.2
14.8
15.4
17.7
20.0
22.3
24.6
27.0
29.5
32.0
3.5
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.8
3.9
4.0
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
(a) These figures include both Federal and non-Federal projects. For purposes of this analysis, we assume that Federal
projects represent approximately 20% of the total quantities; non-Federal projects make-up the remaining 80%.
(b) The C2P2, 15%, and 30% scenarios represent aggressive policy goals.
-------
Table 3-2: Federal Portland Cement and RMC Use Under Current and Expanded Use
Scenarios
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Notes:
Cement
Federal Demand
Coal Fly Ash
Current Use
Baseline
Current Use
C2p2
24.4
25.1
25.7
26.2
26.8
27.4
27.9
28.5
29.0
29.6
30.1
30.7
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.0
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.6
15%
Scenario
?n metric toj
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
3.4
3.7
4.0
4.3
4.6
4.9
5.3
30%
Scenario
GGBFS
All
Scenarios
Silica Fume
All
Scenarios
2.6
2.7
2.8
3.0
3.1
4.1
5.1
6.1
7.2
8.3
9.4
10.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
These figures reflect Federal projects only.
GGBFS and silica fume data equal 20% of the USA totals.
3.4 RMC Unit Impact Savings
RMC unit impacts represent the energy and environmental effects of using one unit of coal fly
ash, GGBFS, or silica fume in place of an equivalent unit of finished portland cement in a
specified concrete application.61 The unit impact values for each RMC provide a basis for
converting Federal RMC use quantities in Table 3-2 into measures of environmental benefits.
Table 3-3 presents the unit impact values applied in our model. These values are derived from
BEES life cycle inventory data and represent the total life cycle savings of using RMCs as a
replacement for one metric ton of finished portland cement in concrete.62
Silica fume does not replace portland cement in a 1:1 ratio (as is the case with coal fly ash and GGBFS). The
addition of silica fume to concrete has a synergistic effect on compressive strength, making the replacement ratio
complex. For simplicity, however, BEES assumes a 1:1 replacement ratio for silica fume and portland cement in
concrete when modeling life cycle impacts. This is likely to over state the benefits of using this material as an SCM.
62 See Appendix D for the detailed calculations of the RMC unit impact values.
5-7
-------
Table 3-3: Life Cycle Impacts per Metric Ton of RMC Substituted for Finished Portland
Cement in Concrete
Metric
Energy Savings (megajoules)
Energy Savings (US $)
Water Savings (Liter)
Water Savings (US $)
Avoided CO2 Equivalent (GHG) (grams)c
Avoided CO2 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CF4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CH4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided N2O Emissions (grams)
Passenger cars not driven for one yeard
Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one yeard
Avoided gasoline consumption (liters)d
Avoided oil consumption (barrels) b
Avoided NOx Emissions (grams)
Avoided PM10 Emissions (grams)
Avoided SOx Emission (grams)
Avoided CO Emissions (grams)
Avoided Hg Emissions (grams)
Avoided Pb Emissions (grams)
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in water (grams)
Avoided chemical oxygen demand in water (grams)
Avoided copper water emissions (grams)
Avoided suspended matter in water (grams)
Avoided emissions to soil (grams)
Avoided end of life waste (kilograms)
Notes:
Coal Fly Asha
4,695.9
129.1
376.3
0.2
718,000.0
701,377.7
0.0
594.8
13.2
0.2
0.1
310.0
1.7
2,130.2
0.0
1,673.9
654.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
28.7
0.0
15.4
0.0
0.0
GGBFS
4,220.9
116.1
145.2
0.1
Silica Fumeb
32,915.0
905.2
-5,111.4
-3.2
Not calculated1
668,889.1
699,923.3
Not calculated1
2,014.8
0.0
1,605.8
621.5
0.0
0.0
-0.8
-6.5
0.0
-3.5
0.0
0.0
28,442.2
-0.1
42,560.1
2,278.2
-0.3
0.6
-21.0
-201.4
0.0
-55.1
0.0
0.0
a. Impact metrics based upon representative concrete products.
b. Negative values represent an incremental increase in impacts relative to the use of portland cement.
c. Avoided CO2 equivalent is an expression of the cumulative global warming potential of all four greenhouse
gasses for which BEES data were available (CO2, CF4, CH4, and N20). It can be calculated from the global warming
potentials of individual greenhouse gasses, using the global warming potential of C02 as the reference point.
Avoided CO2 equivalent was calculated using the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator developed by the U.S.
Climate Technology Cooperation (accessed at: http://www.usctcgatewav.net/tool/).
d. The greenhouse gas metrics taken from BEES were converted to equivalent impacts such as passenger cars
removed from the road for one year, passenger cars and light trucks removed from the road for one year, avoided
gasoline consumption, and avoided oil consumption, using the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator. It is
important to note that these metrics are equivalent expressions of the avoided greenhouse gas metrics reported by
BEES; they do not represent additional benefits.
e. GHG equivalency metrics were not calculated for GGBFS and silica fume, due primarily to the fact that use of
these materials is unlikely to change significantly across scenarios.
-------
As shown in Table 3-3, use of one metric ton of RMC in place of one metric ton of finished
Portland cement results in a range of environmental benefits. For example, substituting one
metric ton of coal fly ash results in 0.72 metric tons of avoided CC>2 equivalent emissions, of
which 0.70 metric tons is avoided CC>2. In comparison, use of one metric ton GGBFS results in
0.67 metric tons of avoided CC>2 emissions.
For all metrics, the energy and environmental benefits of using GGBFS in concrete are less than
the benefits of using coal fly ash in concrete. GGBFS generally is produced by quenching molten
slag with water and then grinding the cooled material to a fine cement-like consistency. The
resource use and air emissions associated with the mechanical processing of GGBFS offset some
of the environmental benefits from the avoided production of portland cement. In contrast, coal
fly ash generally does not require grinding prior to its beneficial use in concrete and is therefore
modeled as an environmentally "neutral" input to concrete production.63 Thus, the benefits of
coal fly ash substitution directly represent the environmental benefits associated with avoiding
the production of one metric ton of portland cement.
It is important to note that the unit impact values for silica fume are not directly comparable to
the unit impact values for coal fly ash and GGBFS. Silica fume is not generally used as a direct,
complete substitute for finished portland cement, but is instead a partial supplement that offsets
some portland cement use, and also increases the strength and reduces the water permeability of
concrete.64 Substitution of silica fume in concrete can yield both positive and negative
environmental impacts. For example, its use as a partial substitute can lower energy
consumption and carbon dioxide emissions relative to mixes with 100% portland cement. The
most significant negative impact is increased water use when silica fume is used as a partial
substitute in place of portland cement in concrete. As described in Appendix B of this report, the
high surface area of silica fume increases water demand in concrete.
3.5 Historical Energy and Environmental Impacts of RMC Beneficial Use
To estimate energy and environmental benefits attributable to substitution of RMCs for portland
cement in Federal concrete projects, we multiply the unit impact values identified in Table 3-3
by the Federal RMC use quantities for 2004 and 2005 (presented in Table 3-2). As previously
discussed, our historical impacts include both 2004 and 2005, while projections cover 2006
through 2015.
We summarize the historical energy and impact estimates briefly in the bullets below, with more
detailed results presented in Table 3-4.
• Coal Fly Ash: Federal concrete projects used an estimated 5.3 million metric
tons of coal fly ash in 2004 and 2005 combined. This substitution yields a
number of environmental benefits, including avoided energy use of approximately
63Coal fly ash does require some quality control prior to use in concrete. Separation and beneficiation are widely
practiced in the industry, but the energy impacts of these processes do not appear to be as clear or significant as the
grinding required for GGBFS. As a result, many life cycle models, including BEES, do not attribute processing
energy to coal fly ash.
64 For a further explanation of the limitations of the unit impact estimates for silica fume, see Appendix D.
3-9
-------
25 billion megajoules; avoided water consumption of two billion liters; and
avoided carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of 3.8 million metric tons.
Energy and water savings represent two significant impacts that can be monetized
using market prices. Results indicate that the beneficial use of coal fly ash in
2004 and 2005 resulted in energy savings valued at approximately $0.7 billion,
and water savings valued at approximately $1.2 million.
GGBFS: An estimated 1.4 million metric tons of GGBFS were used in Federal
concrete projects in 2004 and 2005 combined. This substitution yields a suite of
positive and negative environmental impacts, including avoided energy use of
approximately six billion megajoules; avoided water consumption of
approximately 0.2 billion liters; and avoided carbon dioxide emissions of
approximately one million metric tons. The negative benefits include increased
chemical oxygen demand and increased suspended matter in water discharges.
Silica Fume: The impact estimates for silica fume result from an estimated use of
24,000 tons in 2004 and 2005. Consistent with the unit impact measures, silica
fume substitution results in both positive and negative impacts, including avoided
energy use of approximately one billion megajoules, increased water consumption
of 0.1 billion liters, and positive and negative impacts across the various air
emissions metrics.
3-10
-------
Table 3-4: Historical Impacts of Using Coal Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica Fume in Federal
Concrete Projects (2004 plus 2005)
Environmental Metric
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N2O
Passenger cars not driven for one year
Passenger cars and light trucks not
driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand
(water)
Avoided chemical oxygen demand
(water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter (water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
Notes:
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and light
trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
COAL FLY
ASH
GGBFS SILICA FUME
Beneficial Use Quantity (metric tons, 2004 plus 2005)
5,282,000
1,399,000 24,000
Historical Energy and Environmental Impacts
24.8
0.7
0.7
2.0
1.2
1.2
3.8
3.7
0.0
3.1
69.7
0.8
0.7
1.6
0.0
11.3
0.1
8.8
3.5
0.2
0.2
17.9
151.4
0.0
81.3
0.0
0.0
5.9 0.8
0.2 0.0
0.2 0.0
0.2 -0.1
0.1 -0.1
0.1 -0.1
Not calculate^
0.9
0.0
Not calculated1'
2.8
0.0
2.2
0.9
0.1
0.0
-1.1
-9.1
0.0
-4.9
0.0
0.0
0.7
0.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-4.8
0.0
-1.3
0.0
0.0
a. BEES reports CO separate from CO2 emissions, but it is important to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) considers CO emitted from portland cement manufacture a precursor to CO2.
b. GHG equivalency metrics were not calculated for GGBFS and silica fume is part due to the fact that use of these
materials is unlikely to change significantly across scenarios.
3-11
-------
As shown in Table 3-4, the environmental benefits associated with the historical use of coal fly
ash are significantly larger than the benefits associated with the historical use of GGBFS. These
differences are a function of both the historical quantities of each RMC used in Federal concrete
projects and the unit impacts for the use of one ton of each RMC in concrete. Specifically,
greater quantities of coal fly ash have been used historically than GGBFS, and the unit impacts
calculated for coal fly ash are higher than those of GGBFS.
While avoided releases of different substances, and savings in energy and water use are generally
additive, a full assessment of the economic benefits would require identifying the specific
receptors (i.e., populations and water bodies) whose quality has been improved. Moreover,
certain GHG equivalent metrics such as "avoided oil consumption" and cars removed from the
road represent different ways of describing the same impact (i.e., avoided greenhouse gas
emissions), and are not additive.
3.6 Projected Energy and Environmental Impacts of RMC Beneficial Use
In addition to assessing the historical benefits of the use of RMCs, this analysis also considers
how the benefits may accrue over time under projected use scenarios. As described above, for
each RMC analyzed, we developed projections, through the year 2015, of potential substitution
levels based upon current use, forecasted supply, and potential demand of each RMC, as well as
estimates based on alternative procurement goals. The projected annual substitution levels (in
metric tons) are then multiplied by the unit impact values (i.e., impacts per metric ton of RMC)
to derive projected environmental benefits.
Table 3-5 below presents aggregate benefits and impacts summed across the years 2004 to 2015
under the four beneficial use scenarios developed in this analysis (i.e. the baseline scenario, the
C2P2 goals scenario, the 15% expanded use scenario for coal fly ash, and the 30% expanded use
scenario for coal fly ash). The results are presented in aggregate for the years 2004 to 2015 to
show the total magnitude of possible impacts during the period of analysis. The results illustrate
the incremental gains achieved by moving to higher levels of coal fly ash use. Appendix D
presents these findings in more detail.
As in the historical scenario, energy and water savings represent two major impacts, and
illustrate the differences between the various scenarios. Results indicate that use of the analyzed
RMCs (coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume) in concrete from 2004 through 2015 may result in
energy savings valued at nearly $6 billion (2006 dollars) under baseline conditions. Achieving
the 15% substitution rate (coal fly ash for Portland cement) for coal fly ash would increase the
value of energy savings to nearly $7 billion, and achieving a 30% substitution rate would
increase benefits to an estimated $9.6 billion for the three RMCs. Water savings results for the
three RMCs reflect a similar pattern, showing a 30% substitution rate for coal fly ash would save
approximately 25 billion litres, compared with a 14.1 billion litre savings under baseline
assumptions.
3-12
-------
Figures 3-1 through 3-3 below present graphic representations of the trends for selected energy
and environmental metrics for all coal fly ash and GGBFS use scenarios.65 Consistent with the
Congressional requirement, the metrics selected - energy savings, carbon dioxide emissions, and
water use impacts, represent the largest environmental benefits associated with use of the RMCs
in concrete.
65 We do not present trend results for silica fume in these tables due to the higher degree of uncertainty associated
with the silica fume analysis.
3-13
-------
Table 3-5: Total Projected Impacts of Using Coal Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica Fume in
Federal Concrete Projects Under Current and Expanded Rate Use Scenarios for Years
2004 - 2015 (Footnotes on next page)
Metric
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Equivalent (air)k
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N2O
Passenger cars not
driven for one year
Passenger cars and
light trucks not driven
for one year
Avoided gasoline
consumption
Avoided oil
consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)1
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical
oxygen demand
(water)
Avoided chemical
oxygen demand
(water)
Avoided copper
(water)
Avoided suspended
matter (water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life
waste
Units
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @
7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @
7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars
and light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
Current Use Baseline
Scenario3
212.1
5.8
4.5
14.1
8.7
6.7
25.7
31.4
0
21.3
471.9
5.7
4.7
11.1
0.1
99.1
0.4
81
29.5
1.9
1.5
111
936.2
0
510.3
0
0
Current Use C2P2
Scenario1"
223.2
6.1
4.7
15
9.3
7.1
27.4
33.1
0
22.1
503.3
6.1
5
11.8
0.1
104.1
0.5
85
31.1
2
1.6
119.1
1,004.40
0
546.9
0
0
Incremental Impacts0
(Current Use C2P2 minus
Current Use Baseline )
11.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.7
0
1.4
31.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0
5.1
0
4
1.6
0.1
0.1
8.1
68.2
0
36.6
0
0
Expanded Use 15%
Substitution Scenario11
252.5
6.9
5.2
17.3
10.7
7.9
31.9
37.5
0
26.4
585.4
7.1
5.8
13.8
0.1
117.4
0.5
95.4
35.2
2.2
1.8
140.2
1,183.00
0
642.8
0
0
Incremental Impacts"
(15% Scenario minus
Baseline Scenario)
40.4
1.1
0.7
3.2
2
1.2
6.2
6.1
0
5.1
113.5
1.4
1.1
2.7
0
18.3
0.1
14.4
5.7
0.3
0.3
29.2
246.8
0
132.5
0
0
Incremental Impacts*
(15% Scenario minus
Current Use C2P2)
29.3
0.8
0.5
2.3
1.4
0.9
4.5
4.4
0
3.7
82.2
1
0.8
1.9
0
13.3
0.1
10.4
4.1
0.3
0.2
21.1
178.6
0
95.9
0
0
Expanded Use 30%
Substitution Scenario8
348
9.6
6.8
25
15.4
10.8
46.5
51.7
0
38.5
853.7
10.4
8.4
20.1
0.1
160.8
0.8
129.4
48.5
3.1
2.4
209.1
1,766.20
0
955.8
0
0
Incremental Impacts'1
(30% Scenario minus
Baseline Scenario)
135.9
3.8
2.3
10.9
6.7
4.1
20.8
20.3
0
17.2
381.8
4.7
3.7
9
0
61.7
0.4
48.4
19
1.2
0.9
98.1
830
0
445.5
0
0
Incremental Impacts'
(30% Scenario minus
Current Use C2P2)
124.8
3.4
2.1
10
6.2
3.7
19.1
18.6
0
15.8
350.5
4.3
3.5
8.2
0
56.6
0.3
44.5
17.4
1.1
0.8
90
761.8
0
409
0
0
Incremental ImpactsJ
(30% Scenario minus
15% Scenario)
95.5
2.6
1.6
7.7
4.7
2.9
14.6
14.3
0
12.1
268.3
3.3
2.6
6.3
0
43.3
0.2
34.1
13.3
0.9
0.6
68.9
583.2
0
313.1
0
0
3-14
-------
Notes:
a. Calculated as the sum of impacts for coal fly ash current use baseline, GGBFS and silica fume current use scenarios, years 2004 to 2015.
b. Calculated as the sum of impacts for coal fly ash current use C2P2, GGBFS and silica fume current use scenarios, years 2004 to 2015.
c. Calculated as the difference between the current use baseline totals and the current use C2P2 totals. This represents the impacts attributable to
increased coal fly ash use under EPA's C2P2 program.
d. Calculated as the sum of impacts for the coal fly ash 15% expanded use, GGBFS current use and silica fume current use scenarios for years
2004 to 2015. Expanded use scenarios were not developed for GGBFS and silica fume.
e. Calculated as the difference between 15% expanded use scenario totals and current use baseline totals. This represents the impacts achieved by
moving from coal fly ash use levels without influence from EPA's C2P2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-recommended 15%
substitution.
f Calculated as the difference between 15% expanded use scenario totals and current use C2P2 totals. This represents the impacts achieved by
moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA's C2P2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-recommended 15% substitution.
g. Calculated as the sum of impacts for the coal fly ash 30% expanded use, GGBFS current use and silica fume current use scenarios for years
2004 to 2015. Expanded use scenarios were not developed for GGBFS and silica fume.
h. Calculated as the difference between the 30% expanded use scenario totals and the current use baseline totals. This represents the impacts
achieved by moving from coal fly ash use levels without influence from EPA's C2P2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-maximum
30% substitution.
i. Calculated as the difference between the 30% expanded use scenario totals and the current use C2P2 totals. This represents the impacts achieved
by moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA's C2P2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-maximum 30% substitution.
j. Calculated as the difference between 30% expanded use scenario totals and 15% expanded use scenario totals. This represents the impacts of
moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA's C2P2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-maximum 30% substitution.
k. For avoided CO2 equivalent, CF4, CH4, N2O, passenger cars removed, passenger cars and light trucks removed, and avoided gas and avoided oil
consumption, impacts are attributable to coal fly ash only as these metrics were not evaluated for GGBFS or silica fume.
1. BEES reports CO separate from CO2 emissions, but it is important to note that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
considers CO emitted from portland cement manufacture a precursor to CO2.
3-15
-------
Figure 3-1: Avoided Energy Use for Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS, All Scenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)
50
45
40
35 -
•GGBFS Current Use
• Fly Ash Current Use Baseline
Fly Ash Current Use C2P2
Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%
•Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%
15 -
10 -
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
2012 2013
2014
2015
5-16
-------
Figure 3-2: Avoided Water Use for Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS, All Scenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)
4.5
4.0
3.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
—*—GGBFS Current Use
• Fly Ash Current Use Baseline
Fly Ash Current Use C2P2
-X- Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%
—•—Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Year
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
5-17
-------
Figure 3-3: Avoided CO2 Air Emissions for Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS, All Scenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)
-GGBFS Current Use
-Fly Ash Current Use Baseline
Fly Ash Current Use C2P2
Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%
-Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%
2004
2005 2006
2013
2014 2015
5-18
-------
4.0 BARRIERS TO INCREASED RMC SUBSTITUTION
This chapter addresses Part (B) of the Congressional mandate requiring EPA to "identify all
barriers in procurement requirements to greater realization of energy savings and environmental
benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions from current law." The discussion groups
these barriers into four major categories:
• Technical barriers;
• Legal, regulatory, and contractual barriers;
• Economic barriers; and
• Perceived Safely and health risk barriers
Several studies provide a discussion of barriers to increased RMC usage, especially as they apply
to coal combustion products (CCPs).66 Specifically, DOE published a report to Congress in 1994
entitled, Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization Byproducts by
Governmental and Commercial Sectors (DOE, 1994). The University of North Dakota Energy
and Environmental Research Center (EERC) published an update to this report in 1998 (EERC,
1999). In addition, EPRI published a report in 1992 entitled, Institutional Constraints to Coal
Fly Ash Use in Construction (EPRI, 1992). EPA prepared two reports to Congress on wastes
from the combustion of fossil fuels, the first of which, published in 1988, addressed wastes
generated from the combustion of coal by electric utility power plants. The second, published in
1999, addressed the remaining wastes not addressed in the 1988 report to Congress. More
recently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) Clean Coal Centre published a report entitled
Cement and Concrete—Benefits and Barriers in Coal Ash Utilization (IEA, 2005).
Building on these publications, EPA and PCA held a workshop in 2005 focused on alternative
fuels and raw materials used in portland cement manufacture. During this workshop, participants
discussed barriers to increased RMC usage in portland cement manufacturing. Materials
discussed included steel slag, foundry sands, and CCPs (EPA, 2005b). In addition to these
sources, EPA and PCA consulted cement manufacturers and trade associations to solicit their
perspectives on potential barriers to increased RMC usage.
This section also incorporates additional information from research on individual state
perspectives on CCP utilization. Specifically, EERC conducted state reviews addressing CCP
utilization in Texas and Florida.67 These state reviews reveal benefits associated with the use of
CCPs, as well as barriers to increased use (EERC, 2005).
The following discussion contains selected excerpts from these documents, as well as industry
perspectives to highlight barriers to increased RMC usage in Federally funded cement and
concrete projects. Although some barriers have been reduced or eliminated since the publication
of the reports identified above, a number of them still remain. Several of these barriers apply
broadly to all RMCs; the discussion notes where barriers are specific to a particular material.
66 This study also refers to CCPs as coal combustion byproducts (CCBs).
67 Pennsylvania was the site of the third state review in December 2006. A synthesis report on the findings across
the three states is forthcoming.
4-1
-------
Finally, not all of these barriers equally affect the level of RMC reuse, nor are they equally
amenable to being addressed by policy mechanisms within the immediate purview of EPA. For
example, strong technical or economic barriers to the use of a particular RMC in a specific
application are generally going to be less influenced by a policy intervention than a barrier
related to lack of awareness or information concerning a particular RMC use.
4.1 Technical Barriers
Technical barriers to the increased beneficial use of RMCs include:
• Performance of products containing RMCs;
• Acceptance of materials specifications; and
• Consistency of RMC supply.
4.1.1 Performance of Products Containing RMCs
Product performance and quality concerns are known to prevent some potential RMC users from
incorporating these materials into their portland cement or concrete products. These concerns
may be related more to traditional terminology than actual performance. The term "recovered
mineral content" refers to a material with a positive or beneficial use, regardless if the material
was originally generated as a byproduct or waste. However, in many states, potential users and
others appear to equate these materials with "wastes," that do not or cannot have the same
quality attributable to a virgin or manufactured material (Goss, 2006). Most RMCs, however,
when used properly, will preserve or enhance final product quality and durability.
Some specific concerns that have been identified include:
• Some states prohibit the use of coal fly ash or slag after a certain calendar date
each year (e.g., October 15), based on the concern that when coal fly ash or slag is
used during cold weather, it can slow the set and strength gain of concrete and
hence delay the project schedule.68 Conventional technologies, such as using a
finer ground portland cement (Type III) or additional portland cement,
accelerating admixtures, or using hot water for mixing could, in many cases
overcome this concern, while maintaining the slag or coal fly ash content.
• Some state DOTs limit the use of coal fly ash or GBFS due to engineering
considerations such as curing time and the impact of cold weather on
construction, and due to concerns about the availability of the materials that meet
strict product specifications.
68 This belief of slowed setting and rates of strength gain when using coal fly ash and slag in cement are repeated by
(Lobo, 2006).
4-2
-------
• Use of GGBFS and coal fly ash at higher percent substitution rates for portland
cement in concrete (greater than 50% for GGBFS and greater than 25% for coal
fly ash) can reduce deicer salt scaling resistance (SCA, 2007).69
• Foundry sands are typically a fine material and might not be suitable for use in
concrete unless blended with other sands. In addition, the presence of clay and
contaminants in foundry sands may also limit reuse opportunities (Mullarky,
2006).
As discussed further in the following section on mechanisms to address these barriers, research,
testing, and pilot programs are being conducted by various industry and governmental entities to
identify proper standards and specifications for RMC use in concrete applications.
4.1.2 Acceptance of Materials Specifications
Some of the most significant technical barriers related to performance are rooted in specific
material specifications and how they are (or are not) applied. For example, many state
departments of transportation (DOTs) do not accept ASTM's performance specification for
cement (Cl 157).70 This is a technical determination made by state DOTs. Compounding this is a
lack of harmonization between the AASHTO and ASTM specifications.71 This leads to a lack of
uniformity in the acceptance, specification, and utilization of RMCs among state DOTs.
4.1.3 Consistency of RMC Supply
One impediment to the increased use of coal fly ash in portland cement and concrete projects is
the availability of required quantities of consistent, high-quality coal fly ash meeting the
specifications for use in concrete (Mullarky, 2006). Different coal types produce different ashes,
and an electric utility could switch among coal sources for various reasons (e.g., price, sulfur
reduction) without consideration as to what this does to the ash characteristics. In addition, as
discussed in Section 4.2.1, changes to air pollution control technology can affect the physical or
chemical characteristics of RMCs. Lack of consistent quality of spent foundry sand is also likely
to limit the development of its beneficial use market.
The state CCP reviews help shed light on this potential barrier. The Texas CCP review notes
that CCP generators and ash marketers each have stringent quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) protocols, yet the Texas Department of Transportation (TX DOT) and ready-mix
producers indicated that coal fly ash storage capacity is limited, affecting users' ability to store
consistent supplies, and the quality of coal fly ash on a truck-by-truck basis is not consistent. If
there is a change in combustion operations, there is a resulting change in ash quality, making it
69 Ongoing research at Iowa State University, sponsored by FHWA, several state DOTs, and industry is
investigating the cause of scaling in GGBFS concrete.
70 Cl 157-00 - Standard Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement
71 ASTM and AASHTO documents are now harmonized with respect to ASTM C 150 portland cement. However,
AASHTO specifications as of this review do not include a performance cement specification analogous to ASTM C
1157.
4-3
-------
difficult to produce a consistent product. In addition, TX DOT noted instances when coal fly ash
was not available, even though it had been specified for a project.
The Florida CCP review also points out that producing a good-quality, consistent CCP is not
easy when plant operators at the utilities have not made this outcome a priority. Some Florida
electric utilities are using or are considering investing in beneficiation systems to produce
concrete-grade coal fly ash, which will allow some coal fly ashes with high unburned carbon or
ammonia content to meet ASTM C618 specifications for use in concrete.72
4.2 Legal, Regulatory Policy, and Contractual Barriers
Laws, regulations, and contractual policies may pose inadvertent barriers to increased use of
RMCs. In this section, we consider a diverse set of influences, including the following:
• Air pollution regulations;
• State solid waste regulations;
• Bidding procedures and contractual constraints; and
• Barriers associated with CPG
4.2.1 Air Pollution Regulations
Industry stakeholders, State of Florida officials (EERC, 2006), and other state agencies have
stated that regulatory programs for the control of mercury and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in electric
utility air emissions can result in increased carbon levels in coal fly ash that impact the ability to
use the ash as a supplementary cementitious material. The increased carbon levels result from
the addition of activated carbon to control mercury emissions, and low temperature boilers to
control NOx emissions which also result in increased levels of unburned carbon in the ash.
Industry representatives understand that there are technology choices that would minimize these
impacts on the beneficial use of coal fly ash. However, they indicate that the selection of air
emission controls to meet state and federal requirements is very complex, resulting in industry
solutions that will be unit-specific. Industry further indicates that, in many cases, some facilities
may lose anywhere between $40/ton and $80/ton of coal fly ash (Hg-CCP dialogue mtg.
summary Final Draft, 1/14/08) if they are no longer able to sell high carbon fly ash as a
supplementary cementitious material in the manufacture of concrete. This estimate also includes
the additional costs associated with the need to dispose of a formerly marketable by-product.
The Texas CCP review also notes that emissions control in the electric utility industry has had a
subsequent impact on the type, quantity, and quality of the solid materials produced at a specific
power plant (EERC, 2005). Officials indicate that the reduced supply of high quality coal fly ash
already poses a threat to coal fly ash use in TX DOT projects, where high volumes of consistent
quality coal fly ash are needed over the duration of large, long-term projects.
72 One concern noted with respect to this consideration, however, is that any combustion facility associated with the
use of carbon burnout (CBO) systems may be categorized by FDEP as a new NOX source. If categorized in this
manner, the installation of CBO systems may trigger New Source Review (NSR) requirements under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration provisions of the Clean Air Act.
4-4
-------
EPA will continue to monitor the emission technologies the industry chooses to install and the
impact on reuse potential. EPA believes that technology options are available to the industry,
specifically for the application of NOx controls, which would minimize any impacts on the
quality of fly ash. Technology solutions are being developed and deployed in the industry to
minimize or avoid any such impacts from the use of mercury controls as well.
4.2.2 State Solid Waste Regulations
There are no uniform, national regulations for the beneficial use of recovered materials. Each
state has its own regulatory program. Although many states are acting to facilitate the use of
RMCs in concrete, some state solid waste regulations governing the management of RMCs may
make it more difficult to beneficially use these materials. For example, in the Florida CCP
review, some observers thought that state monitoring and other requirements were restricting
beneficial use requests. In some cases, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) has required end users to install liners under temporary CCP storage areas as a
precautionary measure. FDEP also requires the material to be covered. Additionally, there is
hesitation from FDEP to allow CCP use in land applications, limiting the Florida Department of
Transportation's ability to use it in road-building applications. The Florida review notes that
some commenters viewed these requirements as unnecessary because they do not apply to
comparable materials, or even to materials that interviewees considered to be of greater threat of
environmental contamination, such as coal or limerock. CCPs are essentially being treated as a
regulated solid waste by FDEP in this regard (EERC, 2005).
Experience with Florida's beneficial use application regulations further highlights the influence
of solid waste regulation on the beneficial use of RMCs. The Florida CCP review notes that
FDEP does not have a formal process for approving new beneficial use applications. Florida
statutes generally define "solid waste" to include any discarded material resulting from domestic,
industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural, or governmental operations. This includes CCPs.
However, there is another provision in Florida's statutes that exempts certain materials from
regulation as solid waste if:
1. A majority of the industrial byproducts are demonstrated to be sold, used, or
reused within one year.
2. The industrial byproducts are not discharged, deposited, injected, dumped, spilled,
leaked, or placed upon any land or water so that such industrial byproducts, or any
constituent thereof, may enter other lands or be emitted into the air or discharged
into any waters, including groundwater, or otherwise enter the environment, such
that a threat of contamination in excess of applicable department standards and
criteria is caused.
3. The industrial byproducts are not hazardous wastes as defined in the 2007 Florida
Statutes (Title XXIX, Chapter 403, Part IV, and Section 703.)
Currently, FDEP does not have a rule implementing this section. Sometimes, FDEP points
applicants to beneficial reuse guidance documents prepared for recovered screen material and
4-5
-------
waste-to-energy ash. Until a rule is promulgated, however, beneficial use projects are evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. FDEP acknowledges that the current case-by-case approval procedure
for CCP beneficial reuse is unclear.
Texas was also selected as a pilot state for an in-depth review of its CCP programs, policies, and
use practices because of its progressive approach to CCP utilization and its support network to
implement such activities. Although the Texas state review discussed barriers for all
applications, we summarize only those specific to CCP use in portland cement and concrete:
• Virtually all of the utilities, ash marketers, and ready-mix producers mentioned
attitude and education as key barriers. District and local highway personnel,
architects, engineers, and contractors cited unfamiliarity, lack of knowledge, or
unwarranted negative feelings toward CCPs as barriers to greater CCP utilization.
• CCP generators and ash marketers each have stringent quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) protocols, yet TX DOT and ready-mix producers indicated that
fly ash storage is limited, and the quality on a truck-by-truck basis is inconsistent.
If there is a change on the combustion side, there is a resulting change in ash
quality, making it difficult to produce a consistent product. In addition, TX DOT
noted instances when coal fly ash was specified for a project, but was not
available.
• By classifying CCPs as products, the material has the same advantages as all other
recycled materials. However, liability lies primarily with generators and users
because generators assume the responsibility of classifying the material in
accordance with 30 Texas Administrative Code (TAG), Chapter 335.4,
Subchapter R, and users take on the liability of using the material properly.
In addition to identifying existing impediments, the Texas state review identified several
emerging issues that may affect CCP use in the future. These include new pollution control
requirements (as discussed in Section 4.2.1) and the ability to retain institutional knowledge of
CCPs as staff is turned over at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the
Texas Department of Transportation.
4.2.3 Bidding Procedures and Contractual Constraints
Bidding procedures and contractual rigidities associated with procurement of portland cement
and other RMC-related products may inadvertently constrain the use of RMCs. Industry sources
note that contracts generally discourage changes in cement mix design. To counter these
concerns and provide a consistent product, a contractor might default to a portland-only mix or
one that contains less of the RMC (e.g., out of a concern for seasonal shortages of the RMC).
Contract specifications may force more competition among RMCs than necessary. Specifically,
some specifiers (particularly some state DOTs) do not allow ternary mixtures (three-cementitious
components) in concrete, so concrete is "forced" to use either coal fly ash or slag cement, if
RMCs are to be used. However, ternary mixtures often provide performance benefits in
4-6
-------
concrete. Allowing ternary mixtures provides the possibility of using both coal fly ash and slag
cement at significant rates in concrete, and also provides a way to replace greater levels of
Portland cement than just coal fly ash substitution alone. For instance, the Iowa DOT typically
uses a mix of 15% coal fly ash and 20% slag cement; coal fly ash alone would likely not be used
at a 35% replacement rate, but the two materials in combination works well for this DOT (SCA,
2007).
In some cases, the beneficial use of RMCs is constrained by the lack of familiarity with the RMC
or preference for a well-known RMC, and these tendencies are reflected in procurement
procedures. For example, specifiers often do not understand the difference between slag cement
and coal fly ash. Since slag cement is generally a "newer" material in markets, these
practitioners are often reluctant to allow slag substitution rates at their optimal level (up to 50%
for pavements and up to 80% for mass concrete). They are more accustomed to coal fly ash
substitution rates of 15% to 30%. This is reflected in a number of State DOT specifications that
do not allow more than 25% slag cement (Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, New York, and
Vermont). SCA is working with FHWA to produce a users' manual for highway engineers about
slag cement (SCA, 2007).
4.2.4 Barriers Associated With CPG
The CPG for cement and concrete require Federal agencies to give a procurement preference for
recycled materials and products containing RMCs, when possible. However, a procuring agency
might not always be able to purchase a CPG-designated item containing RMCs. RCRA Section
6002(c)(l) allows a procuring agency the flexibility not to purchase an EPA-designated item
with recovered materials content. According to the statute, the decision not to procure such items
must be based on a determination that such procurement items:
1. Are not available within a reasonable period of time;
2. Fail to meet the performance standards set forth in the applicable specifications;
3. Fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the procuring agencies; or
4. Are only available at an unreasonable price.73
Over or inappropriate use of these exemptions could contribute to unnecessarily reduced RMC
usage. Similarly, management inattention to the statutory procurement requirements could lead
to failure to use RMCs.
4.3 Economic Barriers
Economic barriers to increased RMC utilization represent a key factor affecting the use of
RMCs. The sections below present a brief discussion of the key economic barriers affecting
increased RMC use. The following barriers are discussed:
! RCRA Section 6002, http://epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/procure/pdf/rcra-6002.pdf
4-7
-------
Transportation costs and geographic distribution;
Importance of RMCs as a revenue stream;
Cost-effectiveness; and,
RMC disposal costs.
4.3.1 Transportation Costs and Geographic Distribution
RMCs are not necessarily generated in the vicinity of cement kilns or major construction projects
or, in the case of foundry sands, are generated by a relatively large number of generators
producing relatively small quantities. The costs of collecting and transporting these materials
from their points of generation can render them uncompetitive with virgin materials at a specific
site. For example, the ACAA notes that transportation costs are the primary economic
impediment to the reuse of CCPs. ACAA estimates that such costs generally limit the shipment
of CCPs to a 100-mile radius around a power plant. In addition to the problems posed by
distance, using railcars to transport RMCs also presents issues because railcar availability is
limited, and rail transportation rates are high in certain markets. This issue also applies to virgin
materials; however, the geographic distribution and specific transportation costs are likely to
vary from those for CCPs.74
Studies have noted the sub-optimal geographic location of RMC supplies, particularly coal fly
ash and bottom ash. The best example of the lack of local availability is in California, where
essentially no coal-fired power plants and no blast furnaces exist. However, depending on the
size and scale of the project, the lack of proximate coal fly ash and related transportation costs
may be overcome. For example, the large CalTrans Bay Bridge project imported coal fly ash
from Washington and Wyoming, and the additional cost of transportation was minimal when
compared to the entire project budget.75
As discussed in Section 4.1.3, different coals produce different ashes and an electric utility could
switch among coal sources for various reasons (price, transportation costs, sulfur reduction, etc.)
without consideration as to what this does to the ash. In an October 29, 2001, letter to EPA, DOE
commented that "DOE sites have expressed concerns about the proposed concrete additives. An
operations office in the western part of the country has stated.. .that cenospheres and silica fume
additives for concrete may not be as readily available in all locations as EPA suggests" (DOE,
2001). This overbalance can be an impediment, as only certain areas of the country have access
to RMCs, and transportation costs are too great to move the materials to areas with a relatively
low supply of RMCs.
Likewise, slag granulation facilities are principally in the East, Midwest and South, so for
adequate slag cement to reach more remote areas, like the West Coast, imports become essential.
Bulk transportation over water is significantly less costly and energy intensive than
transportation by highway or rail. Additional slag granulation facilities, if constructed in the
74 ACAA reports: As the value of coal fly ash has risen in the last two years, ash is typically trucked up to 100-150
miles without difficulty. Rail shipments have increased to more than 1200 miles.
75 Personal communication with Tom Pyle, California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), August 30, 2007.
4-8
-------
Midwest or East, would help improve the geographic distribution somewhat, but not to the
Rocky Mountain or West Coast states (SCA, 2007).
In addition, seasonal factors can influence both the amount of RMCs produced (e.g., increased
summer and winter power demands result in seasonal increased CCP production) and the
demand for building materials (EPA, 2005b). Lack of product availability in certain markets can
be a significant impediment to greater reuse. The shortage of coal fly ash in the Pacific
Northwest in 2006 illustrates the impact of product non-availability. Construction specifications
are prepared years in advance of construction. If an RMC is abundant, and included in the
specification, but availability declines when construction starts, it may become a frustrating and
costly problem for the contractor. Such an event could cause an agency to be cautious about
including the RMC in future specifications.
The Texas state review (EERC, 2005) echoes the importance of transportation costs to the
beneficial use of CCPs. In Texas, power plants are located in areas that are not heavily
populated, so long distance transportation is necessary to get to major CCP markets. Some
electric utilities also have limited infrastructure, making it difficult to transport their materials by
anything other than by truck. In many instances, it is simply not economical to use CCPs due to
these costs.
Finally, in relation to transportation costs and GGBFS distribution, foreign sources of RMCs can
influence the reuse rate of domestic supplies. For example, the U.S. currently imports significant
quantities of GGBFS from overseas because of low rates of slag granulation in the U.S., as well
as that it is more economical on the West Coast to import GGBFS from the Far East than to ship
it across the United States. (See further discussion below regarding the Cost of Increasing Slag
Granulation Capacity.) Furthermore, bulk transportation over water is significantly less costly
and energy intensive than transportation by highway or rail. Availability of foreign sources may
enhance the economic disadvantage introduced by overland transportation costs.
4.3.2 Importance of RMCs as a Revenue Stream
The way in which utilities, and all RMC generators, account for costs is critical to RMC
utilization (EERC, 1999). For example, for many utilities, the sale of CCPs is generally seen as
merely a means of reducing operational costs through avoided disposal costs. When ash
management is considered "an operational cost avoidance" rather than a revenue stream, the
incentives for increased CCP utilization are reduced as compared to it being a source of revenue.
The market value of RMCs is critical to how a supplier views the management of these
materials. For coal-fired electric utilities, the revenue produced by the sale of CCPs is often
insignificant in relation to the revenue stream provided by the sale of electricity. The prices
received for CCPs may be too low to justify a commitment to material marketing.
4.3.3 Cost-Effectiveness
The high price of some RMCs can be an impediment to their greater use. In a letter sent from
DOE to EPA on October 29, 2001, a DOE northwest office advises that ".. .Unlike fly ash where
4-9
-------
the cost with or without fly ash is the same, including silica fume increases the cost by about $1
per pound. A typical [cubic] yard of concrete will use nearly 50 pounds of silica fume, which
would increase the cost roughly 50%-65% for each [cubic] yard of concrete used" (DOE,
2005b).76
It is noteworthy, however, that RMCs with high unit prices (e.g., GGBFS and silica fume) also
can have high reuse rates. Therefore, high prices may often be a reflection of the high inherent
value that some of these materials have as portland cement and concrete additives.
It should also be noted that some individual foundries may choose to engage in a partnership
with an intermediary as a cost-effective way to market and sell its spent foundry sand. The costs
to market the sand may be higher than the firm is willing to spend and will look to a middleman
to conduct the sales transactions. If the costs of selling were lower, or if the selling price were
higher, the foundries may be more willing to handle the process themselves.
Finally, slag granulation in the U.S. affects the cost-effectiveness of this material for use as an
RMC. The slag granulation rate in the U.S. is considerably lower than other industrialized
nations. In the U.S., only 25% of slag is granulated, while in Europe and Japan, nearly 80% of
blast furnace slag is granulated. Several reasons for the low U.S. granulation rate exist,
including uncertainty and consolidation in the steel industry; capital cost of installing
granulation/grinding facilities; and availability of foreign slag granules (SCA, 2007).
4.3.4 RMC Disposal Costs
The relatively low cost of disposal tends to discourage the expanded use of many RMCs in
cement and concrete. Disposal costs are a function of available disposal sites. For Electric
Utilities, as part of the permitting process for any new facility or upgrade to an existing facility,
the permit must describe what is anticipated for any waste or byproduct streams. Existing plants
typically have sites near the plant for disposal, if needed. They may be owned by the utility
(most common) or nearby, such as a locally managed landfill (not necessarily a municipal solid
waste landfill), most likely a monofill. Given the nature of privately-owned and industrial waste
landfills, total available capacity at these sites is uncertain. However, according to the National
Solid Wastes Management Association, as of November 2006 there were approximately 1,654
Subtitle D landfills operating in the 48 contiguous states.77 Furthermore, on a national level, the
current municipal solid waste landfills have 20 years worth of disposal capacity available.
For many RMC generators, the market value of the material does not make up for the handling,
processing, and marketing costs of selling the material for beneficial use. Current beneficial use
76 SFA indicates that "the primary impression of silica fume as a raw material and silica fume concrete in general is
that 'silica fume is quite expensive' and as a concrete 'more difficult' and 'costly' to finish as compared to concrete
containing no silica fume. This industry impression as an expensive material has limited the use of silica fume and
is the primary obstacle to further expanding the use of silica fume in concrete" (Kojundic, 12/13/2006). (Note:
USGS reports that further use of silica fume is primarily limited by the inelastic supply of silica fume, as a result of
the relatively inelastic global supply of silicon metal and ferrosilicon and related ferroalloys production. (Personal
communication with Hendrik van Oss, USGS, July 12, 2007.))
"National Solid Wastes Management Association, November 8, 2006, "MSW (Subtitle D) Landfills."
Available at: http://wastec.isproductions.net/webmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=l 127
4-10
-------
programs from states, Associations, and EPA are helping to expand the beneficial use of these
materials. However, as long as it is more economical to dispose of the RMCs in land disposal
units than to use them beneficially or to sell them as a marketable product, use rates will likely
be limited.
4.4 Perceived Safety and Health Risk Barriers
Another barrier to the expanded beneficial use of RMCs concerns the safety and health risks -
real or perceived - associated with these materials, i.e., the environmental risks associated with
exposure to these industrial materials if they enter the environment through leaching into soil or
other pathways. The issue of risk continues to be evaluated by the Agency. However, targeted
risk analyses conducted to-date indicate that risks associated with the identified RMCs in cement
and concrete are likely to be insignificant. For example, in the Agency's May 2000 Regulatory
Determination for fossil fuel combustion wastes, EPA's risk evaluation of the beneficial use of
CCPs in cement and concrete concluded that national regulation under the Resource
-70
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is not warranted. This final Regulatory
Determination additionally notes a previous Regulatory Determination in 1993 (see 58 FR
42466; August 9, 1993), an EPA-proposed risk-based set of standards for CKD (see 64 FR
45632; August 20, 1999), and an unpublished report as of May 22, 2000 from the National
Academy of Sciences presenting "a comprehensive review of mercury and recommendations on
appropriate adverse health effects levels for this constituent." Additional research concerning
steel slag includes a study conducted by Deborah M. Proctor, et al.: "Assessment of Human
Health and Ecological Risks Posed by the Uses of Steel-Industry Slags in the Environment,"
2002. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment Vo\. 8, No. 4, pp. 681-711.
Findings from these analyses did not identify significant risks to human health and the
environment associated with the beneficial uses of concern. In addition, we identified no
documents providing evidence of damage to human health and the environment from these
beneficial uses. Our overall conclusions from these efforts, therefore, are that encapsulated
applications, including cement and concrete uses, appear to present minimal risk.
EPA has also supported risk analyses associated with the beneficial use of foundry sand. The
Agency concluded that the use of foundry sand as a substitute for natural silica sand in making
clinker, as a substitute for natural sand in cement, or in other uses in concrete manufacture,
appears to present minimal risk to human health and the environment.
! http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ff2f-fr.pdf
4-11
-------
5.0 MECHANISMS TO INCREASE THE BENEFICIAL USE OF RMCs
This section addresses Part (C) of the Congressional mandate requiring EPA to identify potential
mechanisms to achieve greater substitution of RMCs in cement and concrete products. The
discussion covers a broad suite of existing and potential mechanisms, and contemplates
mechanisms that are both within and beyond the immediate purview of EPA and its partner
agencies. To help align these mechanisms with the barriers described in Section 4, we group the
discussion into three categories followed by a generalized set of mechanisms:
• Procurement policies and material use standards;
• Education, technical assistance79, and recognition programs; and
• Economics
Several of the mechanisms described within each category are generally applicable to most types
of RMCs.80 Consistent with the Congressional charge, however, we also focus on certain RMCs
that have historically only been beneficially used at lower levels than other RMCs. For example,
the discussion under "Education, technical assistance, and recognition programs," covers
programs focused on increasing the use of coal fly ash and foundry sand in cement and concrete.
As presented, many of the mechanisms described in this section apply to non-Federal, as well as
Federal projects. The amount of RMCs produced annually in the U.S. surpasses the amount that
can be incorporated into Federal cement and concrete projects alone. Thus, we consider this
broader application of potential mechanisms due to the fact that increasing reuse rates to higher
levels will require greater reuse among both Federal and non-Federal cement and concrete
projects.
Finally, this section represents the collective input of a variety of different stakeholders, and
includes a wide range of options that have been proposed in various contexts.81 Some of these
options may be outside the scope of the mechanisms and issues that EPA has control over.
Further, several of the mechanisms outlined in this chapter may require additional resources to
complete and sustain into the future. However, we include this broad range of ideas for the
purpose of documenting and briefly discussing the various options contemplated.
5.1 Procurement Policies and Material Use Standards
Procurement policies offer the opportunity to stimulate demand for products making beneficial
use of RMCs. We consider several aspects of procurement policies:
• We first review implementation of EPA's CPG and efforts to assess their impact
on the beneficial use of RMCs;
79 Includes technical research.
80 Several of the mechanisms discussed in this chapter are similar in nature to those proposed by: Buckley, Tera D.,
and Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassell, "National Synthesis Report on Regulations, Standards, and Practices Related to the
Use of Coal Combustion Products," Energy & Environmental Research Center, University of North Dakota. Draft
Final Report, July 2007.
81 The full set of mechanisms identified by industry representatives is summarized in Appendix E to this report.
5-1
-------
• Next, we consider efforts to revise engineering and procurement standards to
optimize the substitution of RMCs in concrete and cement; and
• Finally, we examine how modifying building and construction standards could
help increase the beneficial use of RMCs.
5.1.1 Influence of EPA's CPGs on RMC Beneficial Use
Since its inception, procuring agencies, including EPA, have developed a multi-faceted approach
to implement RCRA section 6002 and the CPG program. Components of this approach have
both broad and specific relevance to the use of RMCs in Federal concrete projects, including: (1)
expanding the number of RMCs covered by the CPG; (2) strengthening and streamlining policy
guidance related to green purchasing requirements, implementation, and reporting; and (3)
developing and delivering information resources, training, and outreach activities.
With respect to item (1) above, the RMCs currently covered by the CPG include coal fly ash,
GGBFS, silica fume and cenospheres. Specifically in 1983, EPA's original procurement
guideline designated cement and concrete containing coal fly ash. EPA subsequently amended
the designation in May 1995 (CPG III) to include cement and concrete containing GGBFS, and
again in April 2004 (CPG IV) to add silica fume and cenospheres.82
To translate the CPG designation of an item into actual purchases, procuring agencies are subject
to a number of implementation and reporting statutory requirements. For example, procuring
agencies that purchase more than $10,000 of a CPG item are required, by RCRA Section 6002,
to establish (within one year after the item has been listed) an affirmative procurement program
for that item. An affirmative procurement program is an agency's strategy for maximizing the
purchase of an EPA-designated item. Affirmative procurement programs should be developed in
a manner that assures that items composed of recovered/recycled materials are purchased to the
maximum extent practicable. Over the years, these programs have been bolstered by a number
of Executive Orders; the most recent, Executive Order 13423, requires that Federal agencies
promote the purchase of energy efficient, recycled content, biobased, and environmentally
preferable products through their purchasing requirements.83
With particular relevance to RMC use in Federal cement and concrete projects, the FHWA and
other DOT grant programs are explicitly included as purchasing agencies under RCRA Section
6002, as explained by the conference committee report from the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (Cong. Rec. H 11138 [October 3, 1984]):
To assure the fullest participation by procuring agencies, the Conferees wish to
resolve any ambiguity with respect to §6002 's coverage of the Department of
Transportation, in particular the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The
U.S. EPA, Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines, About CPG/RMAN, from http://epa.gov/cpg/about.htm.
83 Adapted from: "Fact Sheet: Executive Order 13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and
Transportation Management," The Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. OFEE and OMB require
agencies to have holistic green purchasing plans that include the EPA-designated recycled content products with
other green products and services, rather than a separate affirmative procurement program just for the EPA-
designated products.
5-2
-------
FHWA is a "procuring agency " under the Solid Waste Disposal Act and is
therefore fully responsible for implementing the guidelines and other
requirements of §6002. It is the intent of Congress that both FHWA 's direct
procurement and indirect Federal-aid programs (Federal Highway Trust Fund)
be covered by the requirements of §6002 as amended by this Act. Indirect
purchases by the Federal Aviation Administration are also covered under Section
6002 in the same manner as is the FHWA. Coverage of the FHWA 's direct and
indirect procurement activities under this amendment extend to the review of
procurement specifications pursuant to Section 6002(d), as amended, in addition
to the affirmative procurement program required under this section.
Recent efforts have also focused on improving the quality of procurement data and streamlining
the reporting process for Federal agencies. For example, in an effort to increase Federal
purchasing of energy efficient, recycled content, biobased, and environmentally preferable
products, E.O. 13423 and related guidance require agencies to integrate four existing disparate
purchasing requirements into an integrated Federal purchasing effort that applies to all types of
acquisitions of goods and services.84 The Order requires every year that agencies track and
report on their purchases of EPA-designated recycled-content items.85
Section 6002 of RCRA requires the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to report to
Congress every two years on the actions taken by Federal agencies to implement Section 6002.
When it became clear that it was not possible to gather accurate information on every agency's
purchases of individual EPA-designated products, OFPP and OFEE convened a workgroup to
create a new reporting format. Materials, such as concrete, are supplied or used as part of
construction contracts. Contractors generally do not report on the volume of materials supplied
or used, let alone the recycled content of materials. For this reason, agencies now provide other
evidence of compliance in the annual data reports.
The reporting questionnaire focuses on compliance, training, and auditing and trends analysis to
foster increased accountability for program implementation. In the case of construction
products, it asks agencies to "Demonstrate how your agency complies with the requirements to
purchase EPA-designated construction products containing recovered materials, to the maximum
extent practicable. Examples include integrating specific, recycled-content products requirements
with the use of the U.S Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED), incorporating recycled-content product requirements into design specifications,
and inserting recycled-content product requirements into design/build contracts."
To optimize program performance, implementation and reporting procedures are supplemented
with information resources and training activities. Outreach and inter-agency collaboration
activities also occur on an ongoing basis.86
84 Executive Order 13423, "Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management," Fact
Sheet.
85 Strengthening the Federal Environment, Energy, and Transportation Management, January 27, 2007.
86 For a more detailed discussion of these efforts, see, for example: Office of Management and Budget; Office of
Federal Procurement Policy, "Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: A Report on Agencies' Implementation for
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003," October 2005.
5-3
-------
This multi-faceted approach to green purchasing has led to many successes, including
influencing the amount of RMCs procured for use in concrete products. As one example, for
agencies that gather data for specific designated items, for FY 2003, more than 80% of the
concrete purchases made by NASA, DOE, and GSA contained coal fly ash or slag. The CPG
program, therefore, represents a critical mechanism to achieve higher RMC reuse levels.
To continue and expand upon this progress, however, the procurement guidelines and their
implementation are the focus of ongoing improvement efforts. These efforts cover the
facilitation role played by EPA, OFPP, and OFEE under the auspices of RCRA 6002 and the
Executive Orders, and extend to on-the-ground decision-making of Federal procurement entities
and their reporting obligations. We discuss these issues in further detail below.
5.1.2 Discussion of Response to CPGs for RMCs in Concrete and Cement
A number of governmental reports and reviews have commented on the efficacy of purchasing
programs for recycled-content products, including, by implication, concrete products containing
RMCs.87 The conclusions drawn in these commentaries focus on two general limitations: (1) the
lack of robust reporting data on volumes of purchased products and related inability to link such
volumes to the influence of procurement requirements; and (2) the need for expansion of
guidance and tools to facilitate the procurement of products with recycled content. In addition,
with respect to RMC reuse and procurement requirements, several stakeholders have suggested
that addressing various issues related to material standards and specifications, along with
contract bidding procedures, may positively influence reuse rates.
5.1.2.1 Data Limitations
The extent to which the major Federal procuring agencies have purchased products containing
RMCs is difficult to measure because few data systems clearly identify purchases of recycled-
content products. In addition, agencies do not receive complete data from their headquarters and
field offices or their contractors and grantees. As a result, they generally provide estimates, not
actual first-hand data, to the OFPP and OFEE.88
Industry commenters (e.g., Holcim, Ltd.) emphasized the need for a centralized reporting system
that tallies the amount and type of recycled cement/concrete products used in Federally-funded
projects. In addition, GAO issued the report "Federal Procurement: Better Guidance and
Monitoring Needed to Assess Purchases of Environmentally Friendly Products" in 2001 to
evaluate the status of, and barriers to, Federal agencies' efforts to implement RCRA
requirements for procuring products with recycled content. The GAO report contained
suggestions focusing on improving procurement processes, guidance, and data systems.
87 See, for example, Statement for the Record by David G. Wood, Director, Natural Resource and Environment
Issues, US General Accounting Office, July 11, 2002 (GAO-02-928T).
88 June 2001, GAO report, "Federal Procurement- Better Guidance and Monitoring Needed to Assess Purchases of
Environmentally Friendly Products"
5-4
-------
Improvements in data collection also were highlighted in "Leading By Example: A Report to the
President on Federal Energy and Environmental Management (2002-2003)."89
One example of how relevant procurement data are difficult to both derive and interpret involves
the recent analysis of agencies' Federal Procurement Data Systems (FPDS) data. This review
indicated that recycled content products were not being supplied or used in more than 95% of the
contracting actions in FY 2002 and FY 2003. While the agencies have not completed their
assessment of the FPDS data, EPA believes that the amount of material procured does not
accurately reflect the range of products that can be supplied or used as part of support services
contracts.
Better reporting, resulting from the initiatives noted above, should yield a more comprehensive
information resource to evaluate the performance of the CPG program and identify further areas
for targeted improvement.90 Detailed data from each contract on the materials, sources,
tonnages, haul distances, and mixture proportions would significantly improve the
documentation and assessment of RMC benefits in Federal concrete projects. It is important to
note, however, that with respect to RCRA Section 6002; EPA, OFPP, and OFEE provide only a
facilitation role, and have no oversight or compliance assurance authority. These obligations fall
to the individual procuring agencies.
One option for increasing compliance could include OFEE using an awards program to focus on
Agencies' efforts to purchase products with RMCs. OFEE and OFPP can provide negative and
positive recognition during the annual Federal budget process. Agencies implementing the CPG
guidelines and the EO goals and policies can be rewarded.
5.1.2.2 Procurement Facilitation
The ability of agencies to procure recycled content products is subject to a number of
considerations related to information availability, logistics, and costs, among others. EPA and
partner agencies continue efforts to provide agencies with the information necessary to
effectively promote the purchase of products with recycled content. These efforts focus on
outreach, training, and education, along with making relevant information more readily
accessible. For instance, one area of concern is that green purchasing mandates may not be
effectively extended to government contractors or grantees. As one measure to address this
concern, OFEE has revised its training for contracting personnel to emphasize that recycled
content and other green products are often supplied or used. Contracting personnel are taught
that contracts should require a contractor to supply or use green products.
"Leading By Example: A Report to the President On Federal Energy and Environmental Management (2002-
2003)." October 2004, from http://ofee.gov/final_reportl.pdf.
90 For example, with more robust reporting data, the RCRA agency data report could be amended to include more
specific questions for agencies regarding their purchases and usage of RMCs in construction projects. Currently, due
to data limitations, it only asks for a prepared document generally discussing efforts of the agency and not the
specific quantities of material used.
5-5
-------
5.1.3 Specifications and Bidding Procedures
Another set of suggested mechanisms to increase the use of RMCs focuses on the development
of engineering and procurement standards to optimize the substitution of RMCs in concrete and
cement. Industry representatives consulted for this report offered observations on how the CPGs
could be made more effective. For example, SCA stated that the CPGs should have more
explicit requirements regarding replacement rates and the use of ternary mixtures. In addition,
the CPGs could have a greater impact if several actions were taken when the review protocol
recommends specification changes: (1) reissue the specifications if there is time prior to the
project bid date; (2) if the project has already been bid, then require re-bidding; and (3) withhold
Federal funding if the project specifiers do not change the specifications.
Some efforts are already underway to implement these mechanisms. For instance, the cement
industry has recently promoted the acceptance of the Standard Performance Specification for
Hydraulic Cement ASTM Cl 157 to the DOT's FHWA, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),
Corps of Engineers, and Bureau of Reclamation; however, to date, the effort has met with limited
success. There also is a separate effort to harmonize the AASHTO and ASTM standards via an
ASTM/AASHTO Task Group, but successful completion of this effort will also take time. In the
interim, some companies have modified specifications to their cement to address early strength
issues. For example, Holcim has decreased the slag content in its IS blended cement to address
seasonal concerns, and the company is currently evaluating the use of different grinding aids that
will address the perceived set/strength issue. The cement industry as a whole has taken measures
to emphasize the need for proper finishing and curing techniques to offset the scaling issue.
In general, the development of standards for optimized substitution is feasible, provided that the
effort is based on a process where the stakeholders with concerns about quality, cost, and risk
can participate and identify solutions that address the priorities of each group. However, this
process, as noted above, can require significant time to arrive at an acceptable solution, and will
require participation of enough government and industry leaders to provide momentum for
moving toward a nationally consistent application of standards in different state and local
jurisdictions.
5.1.4 Building Standards
Standards for building and construction offer another avenue for increasing the beneficial use of
RMCs. First, integrating environmental building requirements into Federal, state, and local
public building standards could help promote the use of RMC-based materials. Second,
specifications outlining the use of RMCs could be integrated into building contracts. In
conjunction with the economic measures described below, the incorporation of additional RMCs
into building standards could potentially have a large impact on increased RMC use. We discuss
these options below.
5.1.4.1 Building and Construction Industry Practices
The U.S. Green Building Council's LEED Green Building Rating System® is a voluntary,
consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings.
5-6
-------
RMC use constitutes only one LEED credit; however, the reduction in GHG that may result from
increased RMC could satisfy other credits.
The potential for building industry standards such as LEED to be written into Federal, state, and
local public building standards offers a simple method for increasing SCMs in cement and
concrete (PCA, 2003). By explicitly identifying building standards that include the use of RMC-
based cement and concrete, the building and construction industry will likely become more
familiar with these materials and increase their use. In fact, certain Federal agencies already use
LEED and have found that familiarity with sustainable design and green materials among
architects and construction contractors has been increasing. Modification of building standards
could be further pursued in concert with broader green building efforts. Projects, such as the
Green Building Initiative, for example, "work with builders and their associations to facilitate
understanding and acceptance of sensible green building practices."91
Furthermore, continued CPG implementation by FHWA and additional promotion of the Green
Highways Partnership are likely to alter current transportation construction practices as RMC use
is increased as a result of new practices and usage patterns. See Section 5.2.3 for information on
the Green Highways Partnership.
5.1.4.2 Specifications within Building Contracts
EPA and other stakeholders have recognized the need for a guide for procuring green building
products and construction services through Federal contracts. In response, EPA has partnered
with the Federal Environmental Executive and the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) to
develop the Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers92 This guide helps Federal
agencies meet their project-specific environmental goals and mandates, and includes the
following components:
• Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings Memorandum
of Understanding;
• EPA's Final Guidance on Environmentally Preferable Purchasing;
• Greening of Government Executive Orders;
• EPA's CPGs for recovered content;
• USDA's Biobased Purchasing Program;
• ENERGY STAR® & DOE Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP)
Product Efficiency Recommendations;
• Energy Policy Act of 2005;
• ASTM, LEED, Green Globes, and other rating systems and standards; and
• Other "best practices" as determined via industry and public comment.
One effort in particular, the Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustainable Buildings
MOU, guides 19 Federal agencies in the design, construction, and operation of buildings.
91 The Green Building Initiative, "The GBI - A Better Way to Build." Accessed July 18, 2007 at
http://www.thegbi.org/gbi/whatwedo.asp.
92 See details at: http://www.wbdg.org/design/greenspec.php.
5-7
-------
Among other recommendations, the MOU guiding principles include reducing the environmental
impact of materials; concrete with RMCs is consistent with this objective. E.O. 13423,
"Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management," January 24,
2007, expanded the applicability of the sustainable building MOU's guiding principles from the
19 MOU signatory agencies to all Federal agencies.
Another effort, the Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) is a joint effort of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, and NASA. UFGS are
for use in specifying construction for the military services. They include a guide specification
for obtaining LEED certification, a general guide specification for referencing the EPA-
designated products, and guide specifications for using RMCs in concrete, including coal fly ash,
ground iron blast furnace slag, and silica fume.93
5.1.5 Summary of Potential Mechanisms Related to Procurement Policies and Material
Use Standards
Below, we summarize the potential set of mechanisms contained in the above discussion. As
indicated, in some instances, a lead role can be played by EPA, OFPP, and OFEE as part of their
Section 6002 facilitation efforts, while other mechanisms require collaboration across multiple
agencies, or a lead role by procuring entities. In addition, certain mechanisms may merit
statutory authorization. The potential mechanisms include:
• Integrate and improve procurement systems, allowing for identification and
tracking of cement and concrete purchases using RMCs and the RMC volumes
utilized. As reporting systems allow, modify the RCRA agency data report to
include more specific questions for agencies regarding their purchases and usage
of RMCs in construction projects.
• Review all available options for oversight with the implementation guidelines of
the CPG. This may involve working to increase awareness of CPG requirements
and products and to change the perception that CPG is not mandatory. As a
related matter, clarify the CPG clauses to RMC use and other technical standards
associated with RMC use. Other options may include a system of negative or
positive recognition in the annual Federal budget process, and through relevant
recognition programs.
• Continue to work with other Federal agencies to implement policies favoring
purchases of recycled materials. Several agencies (e.g., FHWA and DoD) already
have such policies in place. In addition, increase outreach to vendors explaining
the benefits to CPG material use.
• Develop effective information resources to promote RMC use, including (1)
update and maintain the CPG Supplier Database94 on a regular basis; (2) issue
93 For more information, see: http://www.wbdg.org/ccb/browse_org.php?o=70.
94 EPA's CPG Supplier Database is a searchable database of vendors who sell or distribute CPG-designated products
with recycled content. This tool allows users to search for vendors of a specific CPG product, product category, or
5-8
-------
purchasing guidance documents RMANs recommending recovered material
content ranges for CPG products based on the most recent information about
commercially available products; and (3) develop other information tools as
available resources allow.
• Expand training and outreach with OFPP, OFEE, and various green purchasing
programs to provide training to Federal agency contracting, purchase card, and
program personnel,95 including more targeted training related to RMC
procurement.
• Identify and develop optimization protocols for improved performance and
increased benefits while increasing RMC use in cement and concrete.
• Continue to harmonize the AASHTO and ASTM standards.
• Promote the use of ternary mixtures in the CPG providing the possibility of using
both coal fly ash and slag cement
• Continue to work with the Federal Environmental Executive and the WBDG to
develop and promote the Federal Green Construction Guide for Specifiers.
• Aid in multi-agency based efforts to integrate environmental building
requirements into Federal, state, and local public building standards, including,
for example, industry standards such as LEED being written into Federal, state,
and local building standards.
5.2 Education, Technical Assistance, and Recognition Programs
Education, research, technology development, demonstration, and outreach programs have the
potential to improve the understanding of RMCs and their benefits, and to promote their
beneficial use. Numerous government agencies (e.g., FHWA, USD A, EPA) have noted how
these types of programs can help address perceptions that RMCs and associated products are
inferior or deleterious to health and safety, and how they can improve the information base on
which economic and technical decisions are made. Likewise, industry representatives (National
Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA), the SFA, Headwaters, Inc.) consulted for this
study have emphasized the importance of education programs for ensuring that end users (e.g.,
local and state transportation agencies) understand the reliability of RMC-based products.
Together with a number of industry, Federal, and state partners, EPA is undertaking a variety of
research, education, and recognition efforts to increase RMC markets and use by improving the
availability and flow of information about the beneficial use of a range of industrial materials.
The discussion below examines several ongoing and prospective initiatives:
type of material. In addition, users can search directly for a specific vendor by typing all or part of the vendor's
name in a search field.
95 See, for example, the training programs offered by OFEE at http://ofee.gov/gp/training.asp.
5-9
-------
• The EPA coal combustion products outreach efforts;
• The EPA foundry sand outreach efforts; and
• Recent industry and public/private collaborations and research.
While the impact of these initiatives is still emerging, they illustrate programs EPA is conducting
with the potential to increase the beneficial use of RMCs.
5.2.1 EPA Coal Combustion Products Outreach Efforts
The C2P2 is a collaborative partnership program with EPA, DOE, FHWA, ACAA, USD A, EPRI,
USWAG and more than 150 partners. This partnership is currently working towards two goals.
The first goal is to increase the beneficial use of CCPs from 31% in 2001 to 50% in 2011. The
second goal is to increase the use of coal fly ash in concrete from 14 million U.S. tons in 2002 to
18.6 million U.S. tons by 2011.
With other partners, EPA is undertaking a number of research, education, and recognition efforts
to improve the availability and flow of information about the beneficial use of CCPs. For
example, a 2005 publication created by EPA, DOE, ACAA, FHWA, and USWAG, "Using Coal
Ash in Highway Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts," has helped to explain the
environmental benefits and risks associated with the use of coal fly ash in construction
applications. EPA also partnered with FHWA to write and publish, "Fly Ash Facts for Highway
Engineers." This technical guide document has been widely distributed. In addition, over the
last several years, the C2P2 partners have developed a set of projects to increase the amount of
CCPs that are beneficially used. These projects include an awards program, which recognizes
CCP users, as well as mechanisms designed to allow for a better understanding of the obstacles
to the beneficial use of CCPs, and to identify both governmental and private initiatives to address
these obstacles.96 Some of these activities include sponsoring workshops, publishing information
materials, and participating in information exchange forums.
The ACAA's annual CCP Production and Use Survey is the primary measurement instrument for
C2P2 goals. EPA will report the amounts and types of CCPs reported by applicants to the C2P2
Awards Program. EPA works with ACAA to review the results of this survey, assessing trends
in generation and beneficial use, with the ultimate goal of tracking the partners' progress toward
achieving the 50% CCP usage goal by 2011. Through publication of case studies, EPA
highlights current practices that result in the successful use of CCPs.
As previously noted, three state reviews have been conducted that examine CCP utilization
practices and identify the specific factors that encourage or discourage the beneficial use within
each state. These reviews bring together key stakeholders to discuss factors that affect increased
CCP utilization. Upon completion of these reviews, EPA will compile the findings in a broader
publication.97
96 In addition to C2P2 projects, EPA's regions have initiated their own projects that will also assist the beneficial use
of CCPs.
97 Texas and Florida reviews have been completed and released, and a review of Pennsylvania was completed in
2007.
5-10
-------
In collaboration with the C2P2 partners, EPA has also held two C2P2 award presentations to
recognize those partners who have made exceptional progress in promoting the beneficial use of
CCPs. The C2P2 web includes fact sheets on project activities, as well as case studies, increasing
the availability of information easily accessible online.98 Further research and technical
assistance is available via the construction initiative, created in partnership with DOE, FHWA,
states, trade associations, and other parties, to facilitate the beneficial use of RMCs in large
construction projects.
These collective efforts to increase the beneficial use of CCPs are likely helping to increase the
amount of CCPs beneficially used each year. According to ACAA survey data, CCP beneficial
use has increased from 32% in 2001 to 43% in 2006."
5.2.2 EPA Foundry Sand Outreach Efforts
EPA has initiated several efforts to increase the reuse of foundry sand. For example, EPA has
compiled and published the 2002 Beneficial Use of Foundry Sand: A Review of State Practices
and Regulations. In addition, EPA partnered with FHWA to write and publish, "Foundry Sand
Facts for Civil Engineers." This technical guide has been widely distributed. Moreover, EPA's
Sector Strategies Division published, State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs
for Foundry Sand, in July 2006 (Toolkit).100 Designed specifically to assist states that wish to
develop or improve their foundry sand beneficial use programs, the Toolkit provides program
options to states according to their desired preferences and available resources. Starting with a
series of questions to help states determine what type of program to design, the Toolkit guides
users through a three-stage, six-step roadmap for creating a foundry sand beneficial use
program.101 The Toolkit was developed through multiple Foundry Sand stakeholder meetings in
2005 and 2006.
5.2.3 Other Public/Private Collaboration and Research
A number of additional initiatives are being pursued by a variety of industry, not-for-profit, and
governmental entities. We describe several such initiatives below.
The Green Highways Partnership. The Green Highways Partnership (GHP) is a public/private
effort established to incorporate environmental considerations into the design, construction and
operation of roads, beginning with the Mid-Atlantic Pilot. Environmental considerations include
practices, such as using RMCs when constructing roads and buildings. RMCs can be used in all
aspects of road construction - as a base layer, in the pavement, and in embankments. The Green
Highway Partnership is now expanding into a national program designed to emphasis the use of
recycled materials in highway construction. This new effort should also help focus the
engineering, environmental, and economic reasons to use RMCs102.
98 The C2P2 web site is at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/.
99 For more facts on C2P2, refer to http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/pubs/facts508.pdf.
100 The Toolkit is available at: http://www.epa.gov/sectors/metalcasting/foundry.html, accessed November 14, 2006.
101 EPA has also published a document providing general information on foundry sand recycling which is available
at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/foundry/foundry-st.pdf
102 Information on the Green Highways Partnership can be found at: http://www.greenhighways.org.
5-11
-------
FHWA has been instrumental in assisting EPA in making contacts with state highway officials.
Starting in the mid-Atlantic region, EPA and FHWA have hosted several workshops for State
environmental and transportation officials and road builders to exchange information and share
success stories and concerns about RMCs in road building.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA has been successful in
promoting RMC use in road construction. Their research, development, and technology transfer
efforts have been instrumental in advancing the use of RMCs in road projects. In addition,
FHWA has recently undertaken a refocus of their recycling program with a stronger emphasis on
environmental stewardship/leadership, which intends to address such items as CC>2 gas reduction,
National Green Highway Partnership, storm water management, and pollution reduction through
improved pavement design. The Recycled Materials Policy established by the FHWA
Administrator clearly links recycled materials (e.g., asphalt, concrete) to the preservation and
improvement of the national highway system.
FHWA has been conducting outreach to the road-building community (the states, local
governments, and the construction industry) showing that the engineering feasibility of using
RMCs has been demonstrated in research, field studies, experimental projects and long-term
performance testing and analysis. In addition, to help foster the use of RMCs, the Administrator
of the FHWA issued a national policy memorandum expressing the views of the Agency in this
regard.
In addition to the above, EPA and FHWA are working with representatives from several by-
product generators to cooperate on workshops and technical information needs in an effort to
effectively increase the use of these materials in cement substitution, as well as other civil
engineering applications.
The Industrial Resources Council (IRC). IRC is an organization designed to promote the use
of products, by-products, co-products or other non-hazardous materials in various industrial
activities, focusing on advancing the management and use of these materials in ways that are
environmentally responsible, technically sound, commercially competitive and publicly
accepted. EPA is collaborating with this group, which includes: the Construction Materials
Recycling Association (CMRA); ACAA; the Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST);
the National Council for Air & Stream Improvement (NCASI); NSA; SCA; and the Rubber
Manufacturers Association (RMA). The goals of the IRC are to:
• Stimulate the transfer of information related to the recovery, use, reuse and
recycling of industrial resources that can be used by planners, designers,
specifiers, regulators, purchasers, manufacturers and constructors or other
stakeholders;
• Participate in the development of appropriate codes, specifications and guides for
the use of these industrial resources on par with competing materials and
products;
5-12
-------
Facilitate awareness and understanding of the environmental, economic,
engineering, manufacturing and societal benefits derived from the recovery, use,
reuse and recycling of industrial materials; and
Share experiences of effective strategies that lead to increased utilization of these
industrial materials, including changes in codes, guides and specifications.
The Silica Fume Association (SFA). Industry members are spearheading educational efforts to
address concerns about the utilization of silica fume. For example, Midwest contractors have
reported finishing silica fume concrete parking decks at 85% of the cost of conventional concrete
using the single-pass finishing technique. In addition, FHWA's publication IF-05-016, "Silica
Fume User's Manual," includes a chapter of "how to" contractor training. SFA supports this
chapter with educational videos in an effort to train contractors on how to properly and
economically use silica fume concrete (Kojundic, 12/13/2006). Together, these efforts could
help address the concerns of contractors resistant to using non-virgin materials.
The Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC). RMRC is a national center that promotes
the appropriate use of secondary materials, including waste materials and by-product materials,
in the highway environment. The Center is an active and viable partnership between FHWA, the
University of New Hampshire (UNH), and the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The Center has a unique role in the growing field of recycled materials use in highway
construction—to serve as a catalyst to reduce barriers to the appropriate use of recycled
materials. The Center seeks to provide a cohesive approach to the complex engineering and
environmental issues surrounding the use of recycled materials, and to serve as a principal
outreach organization and evaluator of information, as well as the principal point of contact for
information.
The mission of the Center is to promote activities designed to ensure that:
• policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels have the education and technical
information needed to formulate policy permitting recycled materials to be considered on
equal footing with conventional construction materials;
• a voice dedicated to informing persons that recycled materials exist is present in each of
the technical organizations associated with transportation infrastructure;
• existing information on recycled materials is organized and structured into standards,
specifications, and typical engineering properties that can be used directly by the design
and construction community;
• new and innovative applications of recycled materials are continuously developed; and,
5-13
-------
• industries and transportation agencies have the logistical tools needed to connect sources
of recycled materials, applications in the transportation infrastructure, and entities
involved in supply/delivery.
The RMRC is committed to increasing the wise use of recycled materials and will be working to
track various metrics of its impact and resulting changes in recycled materials use in the coming
years
5.2.4 Summary of Potential Mechanisms Related to Education, Technical Assistance, and
Recognition Programs
Below we summarize the potential set of mechanisms related to the above discussion. As
indicated, in some instances, a lead role can be played by EPA and FHWA as part of their
facilitation efforts, while other mechanisms require collaboration across multiple public and
private entities. The potential mechanisms include:
• Support and expand the C2P2 program, as well as continue EPA foundry sand
outreach efforts.
• Continue and expand collaboration with DOT on the Green Highways
Partnership, incorporating environmental streamlining and stewardship efforts
into all aspects of the highway lifecycle. Continue and expand collaborative work
with DOE on increased CCP use.
• Work with the IRC to promote the use of products, by-products, co-products or
other non-hazardous materials in various industrial activities.
• Work with industry members and trade associations to address barriers.
• Conduct additional state reviews to foster a broader understanding RMC
utilization practices.
• Publicize the energy savings and GHG reductions achievable through RMC use.
• Pursue ways to change the perception that anything that was a by-product or
waste from an industrial process does not or cannot have the same quality
attributable to a virgin or manufactured material.
• Expand current research and data collection efforts. Among other research
efforts, RMRC and FHWA are conducting ongoing research on the beneficial use
of RMCs in highway construction projects. These efforts include primary
research of material specifications and guidance on their use.
(www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling)
• Pursue a collaborative government-industry research effort to develop concrete air
entrainment additives that are compatible with coal fly ash generated by mercury -
5-14
-------
compliant power plants. EPA and OFEE are well positioned to convene
government agencies, the concrete industry, and the electrical power industry to
jointly sponsor such research.
• Increasing EPA outreach and assistance to the coal combustion industry to foster
use of mercury controls such that the recyclability of ash is not jeopardized. From
developing the mercury standards, EPA's Office of Air and Radiation is well-
positioned with the technical awareness and industry relationships needed to
mount a program of assistance. Explore new pollution control technologies for
mercury emissions that do not render coal fly ash potentially unsuitable for
beneficial use.
• Continue to review and analyze life cycle performance and risk assessments of
RMC use in cement and concrete.
5.3 Economics
Chapter 4 (Barriers to Increased RMC Substitution) highlights a variety of economic factors that
influence RMC substitution levels. As noted in that chapter, the market for RMCs is
characterized by small price differences. In addition, the perceived cost savings potentially
enjoyed by producers and consumers of RMCs can be limited by the regional variation in the
supply of RMCs and transportation costs and constraints. Even where cost savings exist, they
may not be deemed sufficient to overcome potential externalities and justify changes in practice.
This may occur as a result of barriers related to misinformation, quality concerns, and standard
operating procedures that may constrain their use.
Given these market complexities, it is relevant to consider specifically whether and how
economic mechanisms implemented by Federal, state, or local governments could potentially
motivate increased levels of RMC substitution by minimizing any negative externalities
associated with increased RMC use. Particularly with respect to the substantial GHG benefits
associated with the use of CCPs, the development of targeted tax credits or accelerated
depreciation for necessary infrastructure would be beneficial.
On a basic level, an economic influence in this context would seek to reduce the price of
concrete manufactured with RMCs relative to concrete manufactured using virgin materials. In
theory, these incentives could be applied anywhere along the material flow of concrete and
concrete inputs - at the virgin material or RMC production phase; at the manufacturing phase; or
at the end-user phase. The discussion below focuses on transportation funding mechanisms and
various other incentives for RMC users.
5.3.1 Transportation Funding Mechanisms
Economic influences aimed at reducing the effective price of RMC substitution could rely on a
variety of tax credits and other incentive mechanisms. At the project level, the Federal
government could use matching requirements for federally funded highway construction projects
to encourage the use of RMCs by reducing any perceived externalities of RMC use by the
5-15
-------
project's contractors. For most Federally-funded highway projects, Federal law requires states or
localities to match a certain percentage of the construction funds provided by the Federal
government. In an effort to encourage greater RMC use, this percentage could be reduced for
those projects meeting RMC substitution targets. Improved data collection is critical to the
success of transportation funding mechanisms.
5.3.2 Mechanisms for Increased Industry RMC Use
Another set of economic mechanisms would directly sponsor industry in ways that encourage the
beneficial use of RMCs. Examples of approaches that would influence the behaviour and
decisions of cement producers and other RMC users include the following:
• The introduction of tax credits or accelerated depreciation for installed equipment
could enable continued and expanded rates of beneficial use of RMCs. For example,
tax credits for investment in slag granulation capacity could help address lower U.S.
granulation rates (as noted by SCA).
• Industry observers (e.g., SFA) recommend that when awarding Federal projects,
Federal agencies give weighted financial credit to concrete firms practicing the
beneficial use of RMCs. This could include the exploration of other various incentive
mechanisms, such as tax deductions or credits for firms that meet RMC substitution
targets.
• Further research and development (R&D) on the substitution of RMCs could make
RMC use more economically viable. Potential incentives for increased R&D on
RMC use could include tax breaks or credits of varying sizes depending on the
amount of resources expended by each firm.
• Promote the increased use of "green bonds" that are tax-exempt when used for
qualified green building and sustainable design projects, as designated by the
Secretary of the Treasury and the EPA Administrator.103 Under Section 701 of the
American Jobs Creation Act of 2004, up to $2 billion of the bonds can be awarded.
• Within the context of the potential development of a carbon dioxide cap and trade
program, consider how emissions credits could be applied toward RMC use.
• Encourage utilities and coal ash marketers to increase utilization rates by investing in
storage and distribution assets that increase the availability and reliability of coal fly
ash supplies in construction markets. Investment tax credit and/or the accelerated
depreciation of capital expenditures for these types of investments would send an
economic signal favoring utilization over disposal.
103 Provus, Stan. "CDFA Spotlight: Green Bonds," July 2005,
http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/july2005tlc.html.
5-16
-------
5.3.3 Caveats
Any potential economic mechanisms discussed in this section would be subject to relevant
statutory, regulatory, and budgetary constraints and considerations. The transportation funding
and tax related incentives presented in this section are for Congressional consideration only. We
recognize that the Department of Transportation does not currently have the legal authority to
use transportation funding mechanisms to help increase RMC use. In addition, many of these
mechanisms would likely require improved data collection on materials used in Federal
construction projects, and additional information regarding documentation of inventories and
annual production of various RMCs.
5-17
-------
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
This study provides information in response to specific provisions in the SAFETEA- LU.
Consistent with the statutory direction, this report addresses the following issues:
(A) Quantify (i) the extent to which recovered mineral components are being
substituted for portland cement, particularly as a result of current procurement
requirements, and (ii) the energy savings and environmental benefits associated
with that substitution;
(B) Identify all barriers in procurement requirements to greater realization of energy
savings and environmental benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions
from current law; and
(C) (i) Identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater substitution of recovered
mineral component in types of cement or concrete projects for which recovered
mineral components historically have not been used or have been used only
minimally; (ii) evaluate the feasibility of establishing guidelines or standards for
optimized substitution rates of recovered mineral component in those cement or
concrete projects; and (iii) identify any potential environmental or economic
effects that may result from greater substitution of recovered mineral component
in those cement or concrete projects.
With respect to the first question - the degree of beneficial use and its impact - we identify
several conclusions:
• Volumes of RMCs being substituted for portland cement. For the four
congressionally-identified RMCs, along with the additional eight RMCs identified
by EPA for further evaluation, we document current production or sales, and
generally capture or estimate usage rates, which are generally indicative of the
extent of substitution. While data quality varies across RMCs, several materials
show relatively high rates of substitution; these include RMCs, such as blast
furnace slag and silica fume. Substitution rates for other high-quantity RMCs,
such as coal fly ash, are lower.
• Substitution resulting from current procurement requirements. For all of the
RMCs, complete procurement data are unavailable to estimate the total volume of
RMCs used in Federal concrete projects. It follows that these information gaps
preclude the Agency from establishing a causal relationship between the CPG and
levels of RMC substitution in Federal concrete projects. Despite these data
limitations, we have identified a number of successful efforts on the part of
procuring agencies to purchase products with RMCs. The lack of a
comprehensive information resource related to RMC procurement primarily
results from disparate and incomplete procurement data systems, reporting
burdens, and lack of reporting compliance. Improvements in procurement data
6-1
-------
systems and reporting would allow a better understanding of the incremental
effects of procurement requirements for cement and concrete projects.
• Energy savings and environmental benefits associated with substitution.
RMC use yields positive environmental benefits through lower resource
consumption. To overcome the procurement data limitations noted above, for
GGBFS, coal fly ash, and silica fume, we derive estimates of their use in Federal
projects by roughly apportioning total volumes to Federal and non-Federal
projects (based upon the estimated proportion of total cement demand related to
federally-funded projects). For the years 2004 and 2005, our life cycle analysis
indicates that the use of GGBFS and coal fly ash in Federal concrete projects
alone resulted in significant reductions of GHG emissions, criteria air pollutants,
and energy and water use. For these two years combined, the analysis suggests
reduced energy use of 31.5 billion megajoules, avoided CO2 equivalent air
emissions of 3.8 million metric tons, and water savings of 2.1 billion liters. We
further illustrate how these benefits may accrue over a longer time period
(through 2015) given alternative use scenarios. This aspect of the analysis also
links to issue C (iii) noted above.
With respect to the issues identified under parts (B) and (C), the report identified a number of
barriers which impede the beneficial use of RMCs through procurement requirements. A variety
of potential mechanisms exist for addressing these barriers. Specifically:
• Procurement policies and material standards initiatives, including an ongoing
assessment and refinement of EPA's CPGs, refinement of engineering standards
governing the substitution of RMCs, and development and application of green
building standards.
• Education, technical assistance, and recognition programs, such as the Green
Highways Partnership, EPA's foundry sand outreach efforts, and public/private
partnerships, such as C2P2 encourage the beneficial use of CCPs; in addition,
ongoing research and pilot projects are critical to advancing the use of RMCs.
• Economic influences, such as using transportation funding mechanisms to
increase RMC use and providing tax credits, accelerated depreciation, tax-exempt
bonds and other influences related to various components of the RMC generation
and use chain.
Table 6-1 summarizes the barriers itemized in Chapter 4 and characterizes the linkages with the
possible mechanisms for increasing the use of RMCs and these barriers. These linkages are
complex, covering a spectrum of stronger and weaker barriers coupled with a suite of potential
mechanisms of varying effectiveness given a particular context. For example, in instances where
the use of an RMC is cost prohibitive (for example, where it is in short supply or requires
extensive transport), it is unlikely that adjustments to the procurement guidelines or technical
assistance programs would substantially affect the RMC's utilization. In contrast, these
mechanisms may be more effective in instances where barriers related to perceptions of material
6-2
-------
performance or standard operating procedures are present. As another example, EPA's efforts in
C2P2 are primarily focused on outreach and technical assistance. However, C2P2 also includes
research to advance coal fly ash uses; therefore, technical or economic barriers could be partly
addressed by a program that is largely an education initiative. Similarly, EPA's foundry sand
program includes guidance for states on creating foundry sand beneficial use programs, directly
influencing procurement/contractual barriers.
With respect to barriers in procurement requirements, we have noted several concerning data
reporting, material specifications and standards, contract and bidding procedures, and general
program awareness. Anecdotal information indicates that these barriers may contribute, in some
instances, in not using RMCs in making procurement decisions. As noted in Chapter 5, a wide
range of mechanisms are applicable to these issues. Furthermore, to implement these
mechanisms fully will require broad participation and effort on the part of federal, state, and
private entities.
6-3
-------
Table 6-1: Summary of Barriers and Mechanisms for Increasing Beneficial Use of RMCs
Barrier Category
Barrier
Applicable Types of
Mechanisms
Example Applications of Specific Mechanisms
Economic Barriers
Transportation costs and
geographic distribution
RMC as minor component of
producers overall revenue
Poor cost-effectiveness of RMC
utilization
Economic incentives
Procurement policies and
building standards
Education, technical
assistance, and
recognition
Low cost of RMC disposal
Economic: Fees to increase cost of RMC disposal could increase
beneficial use incentives.
Procurement: In general, CPGs help promote demand for
RMCs and increase beneficial use. However, improved data
collection would allow assessment of CPG impacts and
refinement of CPG.
Education: C2P2 research helps identify areas with coal fly ash
shortages, helping address geographic distribution barriers.
Legal, Regulatory,
and Contractual
Barriers
Federal air pollution regulations
State and Federal solid waste
regulations
Bidding procedures and
contractual constraints
Procurement policies and
building standards
Education, technical
assistance, and
recognition
Procurement: Integrate green building standards into Federal,
state, and local procurement policies to better focus attention on
RMC-based products.
Education: EPA's foundry sand program includes guidance on
development of beneficial use programs.
Technical Barriers
Performance of products
containing RMCs
Acceptance of materials
specifications
Education, technical
assistance, and
recognition
Economic incentives
Variation in the quality of RMC
supplies
Education: Establish baseline data and goals for RMC beneficial
use rates (e.g., coal ash under EPA's C2P2).
Economic: Sponsor and/or conduct research and development to
minimize variation in RMC quality.
Research: Ongoing
Safety and Health
Risk Perception
Barriers
Perceived risk associated with
products containing RMCs
Education, technical
assistance, and
recognition
Education: As a means of increasing acceptance, educate end
users regarding risks associated with RMC-based products.
6-4
-------
REFERENCES
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2006. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2005. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2004. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2003. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2002. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Coal Ash Association (ACAA), 2001. "Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production
and Use Survey".
American Concrete Institute (ACT), 2006. "Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete, ACT
234R-06"
American Foundry Society, Undated, http://www.afsinc.org/
Arnold, Dana, 2006. Office of the Federal Environmental Executive. Personal Communication.
Chizmadia, Tom, 2006. Holcim Cement. Personal Communication.
Corathers, L.A., 2004. "USGS 2004 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Silicon".
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), December 1992. "Institutional Constraints to Coal Fly
Ash Use in Construction." Palo Alto, CA.
Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), July 1999. "Barriers to the Increased
Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial
Sectors - Update 1998" EERC Topical Report DE-FC21-93MC-30097-70. Grand Forks, ND.
Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC), January 2005. Review of Texas Regulations,
Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products. 2005-EERC-01-01.
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.
Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC), April 2006. Review of Florida Regulations,
Standards, and Practices Related to the Use of Coal Combustion Products. 2006-EERC-04-03.
University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND.
R-l
-------
Founie, Alan, 2004. "USGS 2004 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Gypsum."
Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIRST), 2006. On-line information accessed October
2, 2006 at http://www.foundryrecycling.org/org/whatis.html
Goss, Dave, 2006. American Coal Ash Association. Personal Communication.
Hg-CCP dialogue mtg. sum Final Draft. 1-14-08. RPA Meeting with the Utility Industry and
ACAA to Discuss Repercussions of CAMR on the beneficial use of CCPs/EEFs HQs,
Washington DC, 8/30/07.
IEA Clean Coal Centre, January 2005. "Cement and Concrete - Benefits and Barriers in Coal
Ash Utilization."
Kalyoncu, R.S., 2001. "USGS 2001 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals: Slag-
Iron and Steel"
Kiggins, Karen, December 20, 2007. Email Communication from Karen Kiggins (National Slag
Association) to Anthony Carrell (US EPA)
Kojundic, T, 2006. Email Communication from Tony Kojundic, Silica Fume Association on
8/30/2006.
Kojundic, T, 2006. Email Communication from Tony Kojundic, Silica Fume Association on
12/13/2006.
Kosmatka, S., Kerkhoff, B. and Panarese, W., 2002."Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures,
Fourteenth Edition. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, IL.
Lehman, Richard, October 3, 2007. Email Communication from Rich Lehman (Edw. C Levy
Co.) and Karen Kiggins (National Slag Association) to Anthony Carrell (US EPA) presenting
comments on the September 20, 2007 draft of the Report to Congress.
Lipiatt, Barbara C., 2002. "BEES 3.0 Technical Manual and User Guide." National Institute for
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
Lobo, Colin, 2006. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association. Personal Communication.
Moulton, L.K., 2003. "Bottom Ash and Boiler Slag," Proceedings of the Third International Ash
Utilization Symposium. U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Circular No. 8640, Washington, DC.
Mullarky, John, 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highways Administration.
Personal Communication.
R-2
-------
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2003. "Concrete Builds the Sustainable Movement".
Cooperative publication involving PCA, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, and Precast
Concrete Institute. First published in Building Design& Constructions' September 2003 Issue.
Portland Cement Association, 2004. "2004 Apparent Use of Portland Cement by Market."
Skokie, IL.
Portland Cement Association (PCA), July 2005. "Iron and Steel Byproducts: Portland Cement
Association Sustainable Manufacturing Fact Sheet." Accessed October 18, 2006 at
http://www.cement.org/pdf files7is326.pdf
Portland Cement Association (PCA), July 2005b. "Power Plant Byproducts: Portland Cement
Association Sustainable Manufacturing Fact Sheet." Accessed October 18, 2006 at
http://www.cement.org/pdf files/is331 .pdf
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2006. "Report on Sustainable Manufacturing." Accessed
October 16, 2006 at http://www.cement.org/smreport06/index.htm
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2006a. "Long-Term Cement Consumption Outlook"
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2006b. "Summary of 2006 Cement Kiln Dust and Clinker
Production" State Summaries 2006.
Proctor, D.M. et. al. 2000. "Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Blast Furnace, Basic
Oxygen Furnace, and Electric Arc Furnace Steel Industry Slags," Environmental Science &
Technology. Vol. 34, No. 8, 2000. pp. 1576-1582.
Proctor, Deborah M., et. al. 2002. "Assessment of Human health and Ecological Risks Posed by
the Uses of Steel-Industry Slags in the Environment," Human and Ecological Risk Assessment.
Vol. 8, No. 4, 2002. pp. 681-711.
Prusinski, Jan R. 2006. Slag Cement Information for EPA Mineral Recycling Report to
Congress. Slag Cement Association, May 2006.
Pulipaka, Aswani S., J.M. Parker, and S.D. Kohn. (undated). "Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate in
Concrete Construction." Soils and Materials Engineers, Inc., Plymouth, MI.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), July 1994. "Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal
Combustion/Desulfurization Byproducts by Governmental and Commercial Sectors." Office of
Fossil Energy, Morgantown, WV.
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2001. Letter from Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.,
October 29, 2001 to U.S. EPA.
R-3
-------
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004. EIA-860 data file "Existing Generating Units in the
United States by State, Company and Plant, 2004", newunits2004-l.xls available at
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia860.html
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004b. "Annual Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design
Data". EIA-767 data files available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia767.html
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), April 1998.
"User Guidelines for Waste and By-Product Materials in Pavement Construction." FHWA-RD-
97-148. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), May, 2004.
"Foundry Sand Facts for Civil Engineers".
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), April 2005.
"Silica Fume Users Manual"
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), December 1993. "Report to Congress on
Cement Kiln Dust: Method and Findings." EPA530-R-94-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), February 7, 1995. "Regulatory
Determination on Cement Kiln Dust; Final Rule." 60 Federal Register 7366.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 1998. "Metal Casting Industry Sector
Notebook." U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2002. Beneficial Reuse of Foundry Sand: A
Review of State Practices and Regulations. U.S. EPA Office of Policy, Economic, and
Innovation.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2003. CPG4: Construction Products -
Cement and Concrete Containing Cenospheres.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005. "Using Coal Ash in Highway
Construction: A Guide to Benefits and Impacts", EPA 530-K-05-002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005b. Summary of Notes from EPA/PCA
Alternative Fuels and Raw Materials Workshop, July 20, 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Final Clean Air Interstate Rule. EPA-425/R-05-002, March 2005.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2005d. "Control of Mercury Emissions from
Coal Fired Utility Boilers: An Update." U.S. EPA, Air Pollution and Control Division, National
Risk Management Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development.
R-4
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), January 2006. "Characterization of
Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues from Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents
for Mercury Control." EPA/600/R-06/008. F. Sanchez, R. Keeney, D. Kosson, R. Delapp, and S.
Thorneloe.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), August 14, 2007. Office of Solid Waste.
Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials -
Foundry Sand.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2001. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2001", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2002. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2002", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2003. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2003", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2004. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2004", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2005. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2005", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. "Mineral Commodity Summaries 2006", U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
van Oss, H.G., 2001. "USGS 2001 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Cement"
van Oss, H.G., 2002. "USGS 2002 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals: Slag-
Iron and Steel"
van Oss, H.G., 2002b. "USGS 2002 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Cement"
van Oss, H.G., 2003. "USGS 2003 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals: Slag-
Iron and Steel"
van Oss, H.G., 2003b. "USGS 2003 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Cement"
van Oss, H.G., 2004. "USGS 2004 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I-Metals and Minerals:
Cement", accessed October 2, 2006, via
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/cement/cemenmyb04.pdf
R-5
-------
van Oss, H.G., 2004b. "USGS 2004 Minerals Yearbook: Volume II-Metals and Minerals: Slag-
Iron and Steel", accessed October 2, 2006, via
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/cement/cemenmyb04.pdf
van Oss, H.G., 2005. "Background Facts and Issues Concerning Cement and Concrete Data, U.S.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 2005-1152: Version 1.2", accessed October 2, 2006, via
http://pubs.usgs.gOv/of/2005/l 152/2005-1152.pdf
van Oss, H.G., July 2006. Personal communication.
van Oss, H.G., September 27, 2007. Personal communication
Wagaman, T., 2006. National Slag Association. Personal contact
Winkler, E.S. and Bolshakov, A.A., 2000. "Characterization of Foundry Sand Waste." Chelsea
Center for Recycling and Economic Development, University of Massachusetts at Lowell.
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), June, 2005. "The Cement
Sustainability Initiative Progress Report." Geneva, Switzerland.
R-6
-------
GLOSSARY
The following terminology is used throughout this report.
Aggregate
A rock material such as sand, gravel, or crushed rock with which cement or bitumen is mixed to
form a mortar or concrete.
Air-Cooled Blast Furnace Slag
(see Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate)
Alkali-Silica Reaction
A concrete pathology due to chemical reactions involving reactive silica from reactive aggregates
and the inner solution of concrete. Main effects are swelling, cracking, and reduction in the
mechanical properties of affected concretes.
Ash Reburn
Either fly ash or bottom ash or a mixture of both is added in a fine particle condition to the
furnace of a pulverized coal boiler in a small proportion to the pulverized coal fed to the furnace.
The fuel value that remains in the high carbon coal ash is utilized for heat and steam generation,
and the ash is transformed from a material that must be landfilled to one that can be sold and
utilized.
Beneficiation
The second step in hard rock mining (extraction being the first); it is the initial attempt at
liberating and concentrating the valuable mineral from the extracted ore. Includes the following
activities: crushing, grinding, washing, dissolution, crystallization, filtration, sorting, sizing,
drying, sintering, pelletizing, briquetting, calcining to remove water and/or carbon dioxide,
roasting in preparation for leaching, gravity concentration, magnetic separation, electrostatic
separation, flotation, ion exchange, solvent extraction, electrowinning, precipitation,
amalgamation, and heap, dump, vat, tank, and in situ leaching.
Blast Furnace Slag
Produced during the production of iron from iron ore when slagging agents (primarily limestone
or dolomite) or fluxing materials are added to iron ores in blast furnaces to remove impurities
from iron ore. In this process of reducing iron ore to iron, the molten slag forms as a non-metallic
liquid that floats on top of the molten iron. The molten slag is then separated from the liquid
metal and cooled.
Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate
Blast furnace slag aggregate (BFSA), also referred to as air-cooled blast furnace slag (ACBFS),
is produced by allowing the molten slag from iron production to cool and solidify slowly under
atmospheric conditions. Once cooled, it is crushed, screened and used as aggregate in
applications such as base, concrete, asphalt, rail ballast, roofing, shingle coating, and glass
making.
G-l
-------
Boiler Slag
Boiler slag is a byproduct from the combustion of coal in power plants. It is melted and fused
particles of ash that collect on the bottom of the boiler. Slag forms when operating temperatures
exceed ash fusion temperature.
Bottom Ash
Bottom ash (also called power plant bottom ash) is the coarse, solid mineral residue that results
from the burning of coal in utility boilers. Bottom ash does not melt and therefore remains in the
form of unconsolidated ash that settles on the bottom of a boiler.
Carbon Burnout
A process that combusts fly ash with high carbon, using that carbon as fuel, and produces a
premium quality fly ash that can be readily sold to concrete 'ready-mix' facilities.
Cement Kiln Dust
The fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from cement kiln exhaust gas by air
pollution control devices. Much of the material comprising CKD is actually unreacted raw
material, including raw mix at various stages of burning and particles of clinker.
Cementitious
Having the property of or acting like cement.
Cenospheres
Very small (10 to 350 microns in diameter), inert, lightweight, hollow, "glass" spheres composed
of silica and alumina and filled with air or other gases. They occur naturally in coal fly ash and
are recovered from the ash for use as aggregate (filler) in concrete production.
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also known
as Superfund.
Char
To reduce to carbon or charcoal by incomplete combustion.
Clinker
Clinker is an intermediate product of hydraulic cement manufacture. Clinker is produced in a
kiln and consists of semifused nodules that contain a controlled and intimate mix of clinker (or
cement) minerals. Portland cement clinker consists, chiefly, of the four minerals tricalcium
silicate (CsS), dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium aluminate (CsA), and tetracalcium
aluminoferrites (C4AF). Clinker is finely ground to make finished cement; in the case of cement,
the clinker is interground with a small amount of gypsum and/or anhydrite.
Coal Combustion Products (CCPs)
The materials produced primarily from the combustion of coal as a part of the coal fired power
plants operating processes. CCPs include fly ash, bottom ash, boiler slag, flue gas
desulfurization materials, and other types of material such as fluidized bed combustion ash,
G-2
-------
cenospheres, and scrubber residues. The characteristics and physical properties of CCPs vary.
In general, the size, shape, and chemical composition of these materials determines their
beneficial reuse as a component of building materials or as a replacement to other virgin
materials such as sand, gravel, or gypsum.
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
Program authorized by Congress under Section 6002 of RCRA and Executive Order 13101 that
requires EPA to designate products that are or can be made with recovered materials, and to
recommend practices for buying these products. Once a product is designated, procuring
agencies are required to purchase it with the highest recovered material content level practicable.
Concrete
Concrete is a building material made by mixing a cementing material (such as portland cement)
along with aggregate (such as sand and gravel) with sufficient water and additives to cause the
cement to set and bind the entire mass.
Cyclone Boiler
A coal combustion technology that creates a cyclone-like air circulation pattern causing smaller
particles to burn in suspension, while larger particles adhere to a molten layer of slag that forms
on the barrel walls.
Flotation
A process in which the minerals floated gather in and on the surface of bubbles of air or gas
driven into or generated in the liquid in some convenient manner.
Flue Gas Desulfurization
Process and technologies by which sulfur oxides are removed from flue gas (the gaseous
products of combustion that exit a boiler through a flue or stack) after combustion.
Fluidized-Bed Combustion (FBC)
A coal combustion process in which fuel is burned on a bed of incombustible material (e.g., sand
and limestone) while combustion air is forced upward at high velocities, making the particles
flow as a fluid.
Fluxing Materials
A material used to remove undesirable substances as a molten mixture. It may also be used to
prevent the formation of, or to dissolve and facilitate the removal of, oxides and other
undesirable substances.
Coal Fly Ash
Coal fly ash is the finely divided mineral residue that results from the combustion of ground or
powdered coal in coal-fired power plants. It consists primarily of glassy, spherical particles
comprised of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, and magnesium. The majority of the fly ash
generated by combustion is removed from stack emissions using electrostatic precipitators or
fabric-filter bag houses. Some varieties of fly ash are useful as pozzolans or SCM and others can
be used as raw material for clinker manufacture and as fine-grained construction aggregates.
G-3
-------
Foundry Sand
High quality silica sand that is a byproduct from the production of both ferrous and nonferrous
metal castings. The physical and chemical characteristics of foundry sand depend on the type of
casting process and industry sector from which it originates.
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
A sand-sized glassy, granular product produced during the production of iron from iron ore. It is
formed by quickly quenching (chilling) molten slag. Can be ground very finely into ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) giving it moderate hydraulic cementitious properties.
High-Performance Concrete
A concrete: made with appropriate materials combined according to a selected mix design;
properly mixed, transported, placed, consolidated and cured so that the resulting concrete will
give excellent performance in the structure in which it is placed, in the environment to which it is
exposed and with the loads to which it will be subject for its design life.
Low-NOx Burners
A type of gas burner that significantly reduces the formation of oxides of nitrogen.
Micrometer
A widely used device in mechanical engineering for precisely measuring thickness of blocks,
outer and inner diameters of shafts and depths of slots.
Particulate Matter
Fine liquid or solid particles such as dust, smoke, mist, fumes, or smog, found in the air or
emissions.
Portland Cement
Portland cement is a type of hydraulic cement composed primarily of hydraulic calcium silicates.
Hydraulic cements are the binding agents in concretes and most mortars. Portland cement is a
generic term for the type of cement used in most concrete. Portland cement is produced by
pulverizing clinker that consists primarily of hydraulic calcium silicates. Clinker also contains
some calcium aluminates and calcium aluminoferrites and one or more forms of calcium sulfate
(gypsum) are interground with the clinker to make the finished product.
Strictly, the term portland cement in the United States is limited to the Types I through V
varieties (and their air-entrained variants) as defined in ASTM C- 150; these types are also
collectively called straight portland cement. Apart from the straight varieties, "portland cement"
when used loosely (a common industry practice) can also include a number of similar hydraulic
cements, including blended cements that are based on portland cement clinker plus gypsum.
Powdered Activated Carbons
Made up of crushed or ground carbon particles, 95%-100% of which will pass through a
designated mesh sieve or sieve. It is generally added directly to other process units, such as raw
water intakes, rapid mix basins, clarifiers, and gravity filters.
G-4
-------
Pozzolan
A pozzolan is a siliceous or siliceous and aluminous material, which in itself possesses little or
no cementitious value but which will, in finely divided form and in the presence of moisture,
chemically react with calcium hydroxide at ordinary temperatures to form compounds possessing
cementing properties (ASTM C-618).
Pozzolana
A pozzolanic volcanic ash or tuff.
Pulverized Coal Boiler
A coal combustion technology that burns finely ground (powdered) coal in suspension.
RCRA Subtitle D
The portion of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations that primarily address
non hazardous solid wastes.
Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
A method for reducing nitrogen oxide emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass
and coal. The process involves injecting either ammonia or urea into the firebox of the boiler at a
location where the flue gas is between 1600 °F and 2100 °F to react with the nitrogen oxides
formed in the combustion process. The resulting product of the chemical reaction is elemental
nitrogen (N2), carbon dioxide (CC^), and water (H2O).
Selective Catalytic Reduction
a process where a gaseous or liquid reductant is added to the flue or exhaust gas stream and is
absorbed onto a catalyst. The reductant reacts with NOX in the exhaust gas to form water vapor
and nitrogen gas.
Silica Fume
Also referred to as microsilica or condensed silica fume, ultrafine particles of disordered silica
formed as a byproduct of the manufacture of silicon metal, silicon carbide, and silicon alloys
(e.g., ferrosilicon). It is used as a pozzolan or SCM.
Slag
Slags are valuable co-products of iron and steel production. Ferrous slags are produced by
adding slagging agents (chiefly limestone or dolomite) and/or fluxing materials to blast furnaces
and steel furnaces to strip the impurities from iron ore, steel scrap, and other iron or steel feeds.
The molten slag forms as a liquid silicate melt that floats on top of the molten crude iron or steel
and is tapped from the furnace separately from the liquid metal
Slag Cement
Slag cement is the manufactured product from granulated blast-furnace slag governed by ASTM
C 989. Increasingly on the U.S. market, the term slag cement is used for a 100% GGBFS product
that is sold as an SCM.
G-5
-------
Slagging Agents
A material, such as limestone, dolomite, lime, and silica sand, which serves, through the
formation of a slag, to strip impurities from ores, during the smelting of metallic ores. Slagging
agents commonly perform a dual function as a flux.
Sorbent Injection
Involves the addition of an alkaline material (usually hydrated lime or soda ash) into the gas
stream to react with the acid gases. The sorbent can be injected directly into several different
locations: the combustion process, the flue gas duct (ahead of the particulate control device), or
an open reaction chamber (if one exists). The acid gases react with the alkaline sorbents to form
solid salts that are removed in the particulate control device.
Steel Furnace Slag
A molten or fused solid byproduct from the processing of iron or scrap steel in a basic oxygen
furnace or electric arc furnace produced as limestone or dolomite is used as a flux to remove
impurities. Steel furnace slag is cooled similarly to air-cooled blast furnace slag, has similar
properties to it, and is used for many of the same purposes. Steel slags containing large amounts
of dicalcium silicate are prone to expansion and commonly are cured in piles for some months to
allow for this and for leaching out of lime.
Supplementary Cementitious Material(s) (SCM)
SCMs are materials that can be incorporated within blended cements or in concrete mixes as
partial substitutes for portland cement. Common examples are GGBFS, fly ash, silica fume, and
pozzolana.
G-6
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AASHTO
ACAA
ACBFS
ACI
AFS
ASTM
BEES
BFSA
C2p2
Ca(OH)2
CaSO3
CaSO4
CaSO4-2H2O
CBO
CCP
CERCLA
CFR
CKD
CPG
DOE
DOT
EERC
EIA
EO
EPA
EPACT
EPRI
American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials
American Coal Ash Association
air-cooled blast furnace slag
American Concrete Institute
American Foundry Society
American Society for Testing and Materials
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability
blast furnace slag aggregate
Coal Combustion Products Partnership
Slaked lime, when solide, the mineral portlandite
calcium sulfite
calcium sulfate
calcium sulfate dehydrate; the mineral gypsum
carbon burnout
coal combustion product
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
Code of Federal Regulations
cement kiln dust
Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Energy & Environment Research Center
Energy Information Administration
Executive Order
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Energy Policy Act of 2005
Electric Power Research Institute
AA-1
-------
FAA
FBC
FDEP
FEMP
FGD
FHWA
FIRST
FPDS
FY
GAO
GBFS
GGBFS
GHP
HPC
IEA
IRC
LCA
LEED
MOU
MPa
NOX
NRMCA
NSR
OFEE
OFPP
OMB
OSW
PAC
PC
PCA
PM
Federal Aviation Administration
fluidized-bed combustion
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
Federal Energy Management Program
flue gas desulfurization
Federal Highway Administration
Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today
Federal Procurement Data System
Fiscal Year
Government Accountability Office
granulated blast furnace slag
ground granulated blast furnace slag
Green Highways Partnership
high-performance concrete
International Energy Agency
Industrial Resources Council
Life cycle analysis
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Memorandum of Understanding
megapascal
nitrogen oxides
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association
New Source Review
Office of the Federal Environmental Executive
Office of Federal Procurement Policy
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Solid Waste
powdered activated carbon
pulverized coal
Portland Cement Association
particulate matter
AA-2
-------
QA/QC
RCRA
RMANs
RMC
RMRC
SAFETEA- LU
SCM
SFA
SO2
SOX
TCAUG
TCEQ
TxDOT
USGBC
USGS
USWAG
WBDG
um
quality assurance/quality control
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Recovered Materials Advisory Notices
recovered mineral component
Recycled Materials Resource Center
The Safe Accountable Flexible Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users
supplementary cementitious materials
Silica Fume Association
sulfur dioxide
sulfur oxides
Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Texas Department of Transportation
United States Green Building Council
U.S. Geological Survey
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group
Whole Building Design Guide
micrometer
AA-3
-------
APPENDIX A:
OVERVIEW OF PORTLAND CEMENT AND CONCRETE
-------
Overview of Portland Cement and Concrete
Although the terms "cement" and "concrete" are often used interchangeably, cement is actually
an ingredient of concrete. Cements are binding agents in concretes and mortars. Concrete is an
artificial rock-like material, basically a mixture of coarse aggregate (gravel or crushed stone),
fine aggregate (sand), cement, air, and water. The term portland cement is a general term used to
describe a variety of cements used today. Portland cements are hydraulic cements, which means
they will set and harden by reacting chemically with water through hydration.
Current (2004) world total annual production of hydraulic cement is about 2 billion metric tons
(Gt), with production spread unevenly among more than 150 countries. This quantity of cement
is sufficient for about 14 to 18 Gt/yr of concrete (including mortars), and makes concrete the
most abundant of all manufactured solid materials. The current yearly output of hydraulic cement
is sufficient to make about 2.5 metric tons per year (t/yr) of concrete for every person worldwide
(van Oss, 2005).
Cement and Cement Manufacturing
Hydraulic cements are the binding agents in concretes and most mortars and are thus common
and critically important construction materials. Hydraulic cements are of two broad types: those
that are inherently hydraulic (i.e., require only the addition of water to activate), and those that
are pozzolanic. The term pozzolan (or pozzolanic) refers to any siliceous material that develops
hydraulic cementitious properties in the presence of lime [Ca(OH)2]. This includes true
pozzolans and latent cements. The difference between these materials is that true pozzolans have
no cementitious properties in the absence of lime, whereas latent cements already have some
cementitious properties, but these properties are enhanced in the presence of lime. Pozzolanic
additives or extenders can be collectively termed supplementary cementitious materials (SCM).
(van Oss, 2005)
Portland cement is the most commonly manufactured and used hydraulic cement in the United
States (and the world). It is manufactured through the blending of mineral raw materials at high
temperatures in cement rotary kilns. Rotary kilns produce an intermediate product called
"clinker." Clinker is ground to produce cement. By modifying the raw material mix and, to
some degree, the temperature of manufacture, slight compositional variations in the clinker can
be achieved to produce portland cements with varying properties
Similar varieties of portland cement are made in many parts of the world but go by different
names. In the United States, the different varieties of straight portland cement are denoted per the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard C-150 as:
• Type I: general use portland cement. In some countries, this type is known as ordinary
portland cement.
• Type II: general use portland cement exhibiting moderate sulfate resistance and moderate
heat of hydration.
• Type III: high early strength portland cement.
A-l
-------
• Type IV: portland cement having a low heat of hydration.
• Type V: portland cement having high sulfate resistance.
For Types I, II, and III, the addition of the suffix A (e.g., Type IA) indicates the inclusion of an
air entraining agent. Air entraining agents impart a myriad of tiny bubbles into the concrete
containing the hydrated cement, which can offer certain advantages to the concrete, especially
improved resistance to freeze-thaw cracking. In practice, many companies market hybrid
portland cements; Type I/II is a common hybrid and meets the specifications of both Types I and
II. Another common hybrid is Type II/V.
Blended Cements
Blended cements (called composite cements in some countries) are intimate mixes of a portland
cement base (generally Type I) with one or more SCM extenders. The SCM commonly makes up
about 5% to 30% by weight of the total blend, but can be higher.
In blended cements, the SCM (or pozzolans) are activated by the high pH resulting from the
hydroxide ions released during the hydration of portland cement. The most commonly used SCM
are volcanic ashes called pozzolana, certain types of fly ash (from coal-fired power plants),
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)—now increasingly being referred to as slag
cement—burned clays, silica fume, and cement kiln dust (CKD). In general, incorporation of
SCM with portland cement improves the resistance of the concrete to chemical attack, reduces
the concrete's porosity, reduces the heat of hydration of the cement (not always an advantage),
potentially improves the flowability of concrete, and produces a concrete having about the same
long-term strength as straight portland cement-based concretes. However, SCM generally reduce
the early strength of the concrete, which may be detrimental to certain applications (van Oss,
2005).
Blended cements either can be prepared at a cement plant for sale as a finished blended cement
product, or by doing the blending within a concrete mix. In fact, most of the SCM consumption
by U.S. concrete producers is material purchased directly for blending into the concrete mix.
Concrete producers in the United States buy relatively little finished blended cement.
The designations for blended cements vary worldwide, but those currently in use in the United
States meet either ASTM Standard C-595, C 989 or C-l 157. ASTM Standard C-595 defines
several types of blended cements. The main designations include (van Oss, 2005):
• Portland blast furnace slag cement (IS). Contains 25% to 70% GGBFS.
• Portland-pozzolan cement (IP and P). Contains a base of portland and/or IS cement and
15% to 40% pozzolans.
• Pozzolan-modified portland cement (I(PM)). The base is portland and/or Type IS cement
with a pozzolan addition of less than 15%.
• Slag-modified portland cement (I(SM)). Contains less than 25% GGBFS.
A-2
-------
• Slag cement (S).1 GGBFS content of 70% or more. Type S can be blended with portland
cement to make concrete or with lime for mortars; the latter combination would make the
final cement a pozzolan-lime cement.
Chemical Composition of Portland Cement
Modern straight portland cement is a very finely ground mix of portland cement clinker and a
small amount (typically 3% to 7%) of gypsum (calcium sulfate dihydrate) and/or anhydrite
(calcium sulfate). Cement chemistry is generally denoted in simple stoichiometric shorthand
terms for the major constituent oxides. Table A-l provides the shorthand notation for the major
oxides in the cement literature. Table A-l also shows the typical chemical composition of
modern portland cement and its clinker. For clinker, the oxide compositions would generally not
vary from the rough averages shown by more than 2% to 4%. The oxide composition of portland
cement would vary slightly depending on its actual gypsum fraction or whether any other
additives are present.
Table A-l: Chemical Shorthand and Composition of Clinker and Portland Cement
Oxide Formula
CaO
SiC-2
A1203
Fe2O3
MgO
K2O + Na2O
Other (including SO3")
H20
Shorthand
Notation
C
S
A
F
M
K + N
...(...S)
H
Percentage by Mass
in Clinker
65
22
6
3
2
0.6
1.4
"nil"
Percentage by Mass
in Cement*
65.0
22.0
6.0
3.0
2.0
0.6
3.6
1.0
* Based on clinker shown plus 5% addition of gypsum (CaSO4-2H2O).
Source: van Oss, 2005
Mineralogy of Portland Cement and Its Clinker
The major oxides in clinker are combined essentially into just four cement or clinker minerals,
denoted in shorthand: tricalcium silicate or 'alite' (C3S); dicalcium silicate or 'belite' (C2S);
tricalcium aluminate (C3A); and tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF). These formulas represent
averages, ignoring impurities commonly found in actual clinker. It is the ratios of these four
minerals (and gypsum) that determine the varying properties of different types of portland
cements. Table A-2 provides the chemical formulas and nomenclature for the major cement
oxides as well as the function of each in cement mixtures.
True Type S cements are no longer commonly made in the United States. Instead, the name slag cement (but with
no abbreviation) is now increasingly given to the unblended 100 % GGBFS product (van Oss, 2005). ASTM C989
now governs slag cement (GGBFS).
A-3
-------
Table A-2: Typical Mineralogical Composition of Modern Portland Cement
Chemical
Formula
Ca3SiO5
Ca2SiO4
Ca3Al2O6
Ca4Al2Fe2O10
CaSO4-2H2O
CaSO4
Oxide Formula
(CaO)3SiO2
(CaO)2SiO2
(CaO)3Al2O3
(CaO)4Al2O3Fe2O3
(CaO)(SO3) •
(H20)2
(CaO)(S03)
Shorthand
Notation
C3S
C2S
C3A
C4AF
CSH2
CS
Description
Tricalcium
silicate
('alite')
Dicalcium
silicate
('belite')
Tricalcium
aluminate
Tetracalcium
aluminoferrite
Calcium
sulfate
dihydrate
(gypsum)
Anhydrous
calcium sulfate
Typical
Percentage
50-70
10-30
3-13
5-15
3-7
0.2-2
Mineral Function
Hydrates quickly and
imparts early
strength and set
Hydrates slowly and
imparts long
term (ages beyond 1
week) strength.
Hydrates almost
instantaneously and
very exothermically.
Contributes to early
strength and set.
Hydrates quickly. Acts
as a flux in
clinker manufacture.
Imparts gray color.
Interground with
clinker to make
Portland cement. Can
substitute anhydrite
(C S ). Controls early
set.
Source: van Oss, 2005.
As indicated in Table A-2, some of the minerals in clinker serve different functions in the
manufacturing process while others impart varying final properties to the cement. The proportion
of €38, for example, determines the degree of early strength development of the cement. The
"ferrite" mineral's (C4AF) primary purpose, on the other hand, is to lower the temperature
required in the kiln to form the €38 mineral, and really does not impart a specific property to the
cement. Table A-3 presents the common mineralogical compositions of Types I through IV
cements and the unique properties of each type.
A-4
-------
Table A-3: Typical Range in Mineral Composition in Portland Cements
ASTM C-150
Cement Type
I
II
III
IV
V
Clinker Mineral Percent*
C3S
50-65
45-65
55-65
35-45
40-65
C2S
10-30
7-30
5-25
28-35
15-30
C3A
6-14
2-8
5-12
3-4
1-5
C4AF
7-10
10-12
5-12
11-18
10-17
Properties of Cement
General purpose
Moderate heat of hydration,
moderate sulfate resistance
High early strength**
Low heat of hydration
High sulfate resistance
* Range of minerals is empirical and approximate rather than definitional.
** High early strength is typically achieved by finer grinding of Type I cement.
Source: van Oss, 2005.
Physical Properties of Portland Cement
Portland cement consists of individual angular particles with a range of sizes, the result of
pulverizing clinker in the grinding mill. Approximately 95% of cement particles are smaller than
45 micrometers, with the average particle around 15 micrometers. The fineness of cement affects
the amount of heat released during hydration. Greater cement fineness (smaller particle size)
increases the rate at which cement hydrates and thus accelerates strength development. Except
for AASHTO M 85, most cement standards do not have a maximum limit on fineness, only a
minimum. The fineness of Types I through V portland cement are shown in Table A-4
(Kosmatka, 2002). Values are expressed according to the Elaine air-permeability test (ASTM C
204 or AASHTO T 153), which indirectly measures the surface area of particles per unit mass.
Table A-4: Fineness of Portland Cement
ASTM C - 150
Cement Type
I
II
III
IV
V
Fineness (cm2/g, Blaine)
Range
3,000-4,210
3,180-4,800
3,900-6,440
3,190-3,620
2,750-4,300
Mean
3,690
3,770
5,480
3,400
3,730
The specific gravity of portland cement typically ranges from 3.10 to 3.25, with an average of
3.15. Bulk densities can vary significantly depending on how the cement is handled and stored.
Reported bulk densities range from 830 to 1,650 kg/m3 (Kosmatka, 2002).
A-5
-------
The Clinker Manufacturing Process
Portland cement manufacturing is a two-step process beginning with the manufacture of clinker
followed by the fine grinding of the clinker with gypsum and other additives to make the finished
cement product. Grinding can occur on site or at offsite grinding plants.
The first step in clinker manufacture is the quarrying, crushing, and proportioning of raw
materials. Due to the low unit value of these raw materials, they typically are mined within a few
miles of the cement plant. The cost of transport renders long-distance transport of these low-cost
raw materials uneconomical.
Once the raw mix, or raw meal, is prepared, it is fed into a cement kiln and converted into the
clinker minerals through a thermochemical conversion, referred to as pyroprocessing because it
involves direct flame interaction. Figure A-l provides a generalized flow diagram of the cement
manufacturing process (van Oss, 2005).
Figure A-l: Cement Manufacturing Flow Diagram _
The raw materials for clinker manufacture consist primarily of materials that supply four primary
oxides: Calcium oxide (CaO), silicon dioxide (SiO2), aluminum oxide (A^Os), and ferric oxide
(Fe2O3). The composition of the raw mix typically includes about 80% calcium carbonate, about
10% to 15% silica, and small amounts of alumina and iron. Depending on the quality and
quantity of these oxides available to the facility, other raw materials, referred to as accessory or
sweetener materials, are added to correct for any deficiencies in the primary raw materials.
Certain types of fuel burned in the cement kiln can also contribute oxides (e.g., ash from coal
combustion contributes silica oxides, steel belts in waste tires contribute iron oxide).
A-6
-------
Calcium oxide (CaO or simply C in shorthand) is the primary ingredient in clinker, comprising
about 65% of clinker by mass. A cement plant typically examines its source of C (typically
limestone, marl, or chalk) and determines what other oxides need to be added to achieve the
desired clinker composition. Clay, shale, slate, or sand provide the silica and alumina
component, while iron, mill scale, or other ferrous materials provide the iron content. Preparing
the raw mix for clinker production requires constant sampling, chemical testing, and adjusting of
the inputs to maintain the desired clinker composition.
On average, it takes about 1.7 tons of nonfuel raw materials to produce 1 ton of clinker. Of the
1.7 tons of raw materials, approximately 1.5 tons is limestone or calcium oxide rich rock (van
Oss, 2005). The lost mass takes the form of carbon dioxide (CO2) driven off by the calcination of
limestone and the generation of CKD. Nearly one ton of CO2 is produced for every ton of clinker
manufactured (van Oss, 2005). The CKD that is produced during clinker manufacture is carried
"up the stack" and captured by emission control devices. A large portion of the CKD, though not
all of it, is returned to the kiln as part of the feed stream.
Manufacture of Finished Cement from Clinker
After clinker has been cooled to about 100°C, it is ready to be ground into finished cement in a
grinding mill, more commonly referred to as a finish mill. Generally, separate grinding and/or
blending finish mill lines will be maintained at a plant for each of its major product classes
(finished portland cements, blended cements, masonry cements, ground slag). Additives that
commonly require grinding at the mill include gypsum, limestone, granulated blast furnace slag,
and natural pozzolans. Additives that generally do not require significant grinding include coal
fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume, but the finish mill does provide intimate mixing of these with
the portland cement base.
Production
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) estimated that in 2005 approximately 97.5 million metric
tons (Mt) of portland plus masonry cement was produced at 113 plants in 37 states in the United
States. The reported final production of masonry plus portland cement was 99.3 Mt, with
portland cement alone accounting for 93.9 Mt of this total (van Oss, 2007). Figure A-2 shows
the locations of U.S. cement plants in 2005 based on information provided by the Portland
Cement Association (PCA, 2006). Appendix C contains a listing of cement plants operating in
the United States in 2005. The estimated value of cement production for 2005 was about $8
billion. The final reported actual value for portland plus masonry cement production in 2005 was
$11.6 billion. Of this total, $10.9 billion was for portland cement alone (van Oss, 2007). Most
of the cement was used to make ready mixed concrete (75%), while 14% went to concrete
manufacturers, 6% to contractors, 3% to building materials dealers, and 2% to other users.
Clinker production occurred at 107 plants, with a combined annual capacity of about 103 million
tons. Actual U.S. cement imports in 2005 were reported at 30.4 Mt (excluding Puerto Rico), and
clinker imports were 2.86 Mt (van Oss, 2007). Average mill prices for cement in 2005 were
about $84 per ton. More than 172 million tons of raw materials were used to produce cement and
A-7
-------
clinker in the United States in 2004. Table A-5 summarizes U.S. cement statistics for the years
2000 through 2005 (USGS, 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005; 2006). Table A-6 summarizes raw
materials used in the United States in 2003 and 2004 to produce cement and clinker (van Oss,
2004).
Figure A-2: U.S. Cement Plants
States with more than 4 locations
State
California
Texas
Pennsylvania
Florida
Alabama
Michigan
Missouri
Number of Locations
12
11
10
7
5
5
5
A-8
-------
Table A-5: U.S. Cement Statistics
Year
Estimated Cement
Production
Clinker Production
Imports of Cement
Imports of Clinker
Exports of Cement and
Clinker
Average Price, Mill Value,
$/ton
2000
2001
87.8
78.1
24.6
3.7
0.74
78.56
88.9
78.8
23.7
1.8
0.75
76.50
2002
-million me
89.7
81.5
22.2
1.6
0.83
76.00
2003
2004
2005
92.8
81.9
21.0
1.8
0.84
75.00
97.4
86.7
25.4
1.6
0.82
79.50
97.5*
87.4
29.0
2.8
0.80
84.00
* Actual total masonry plus portland cement final production for 2005 is reported at 99.3 Mt, of which 93.9 Mt was for
Portland cement alone.
Table A-6: Raw Materials Used in Producing Clinker and Cement in the United States
Raw Materials
Limestone
Cement rock
Cement kiln dust
Lime
Other calcareous
Clay
Shale
Other aluminous
Ferrous, iron ore, pyrites,
millscale, other
Sand and calcium silicate
Sandtone, quartzite soils, other
Coal Fly ash
Other ash, including bottom ash
Granulated blast furnace slag
Other blast furnace slag
Steel slag
Other slags
Natural rock pozzolans
Other pozzolans
Gypsum and anhydrite
Other, not elsewhere classified
Clinker, imported
Total
2003
Clinker
Cement
2004
Clinker
Cement
109,000
12,700
289
22
235
3,950
2,630
618
1,340
2,860
587
2,250
1,100
17
214
448
113
—
129
—
70
—
139,000
1,530
44
149
27
32
__*
8
—
—
2
2
39
—
333
—
—
—
25
49
5,000
68
4,240
11,500
125,000
12,700
333
24
23
4,740
3,700
661
1,340
3,150
878
2,890
1,050
104
189
401
53
—
114
—
106
—
157,000
1,810
2
165
29
19
—
29
—
—
—
6
77
—
345
—
—
—
6
19
5,300
98
7,530
15,400
*-- Indicates none reported.
A-9
-------
Concrete
Concrete is basically a mixture of two components: aggregate and cement paste. The cement
paste, comprised of a binder (usually portland cement) and water, binds the aggregates (usually
sand and gravel or crushed stone) into a rocklike mass as the paste hardens. The paste hardens
because of a chemical reaction, called hydration, between the cement and water.
The National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) estimates that ready mixed concrete
production in the United States was approximately 349 million cubic meters in 2005. NRMCA
estimates that there are approximately 6,000 ready mixed concrete plants in the United States,
and that annual ready mixed concrete production is valued at more than $30 billion. Table A-7
shows ready mixed concrete production by state in 2005 as reported by NRMCA. USGS
estimates that total concrete production in the United States in 2005 was valued at more than $48
billion (USGS, 2006). Although there are no data available on the amount of concrete placed
annually in the United States, based on U.S. cement sales it can be estimated to be nearly one
billion metric tons per year.
A-10
-------
Table A-7: Ready Mixed Concrete Production by State (2005)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Production
(million cubic
meters)
4.9
0.5
13.1
3.4
43.4
7.3
2.2
0.6
0.6
31.6
12.4
1.2
2.0
11.6
6.1
5.4
4.3
4.2
5.5
0.7
4.4
3.5
8.2
5.7
3.0
8.0
1.1
Percent of
National
Production
1.4%
0.1%
3.8%
1.0%
12.4%
2.1%
0.6%
0.2%
0.2%
9.1%
3.6%
0.3%
0.6%
3.3%
1.8%
1.6%
1.2%
1.2%
1.6%
0.2%
1.3%
1.0%
2.4%
1.6%
0.9%
2.3%
0.3%
State
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North
Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South
Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Other
Total
Production
(million cubic
meters)
3.8
7.3
0.6
5.5
2.5
8.9
8.2
1.0
10.9
4.5
3.5
9.3
5.2
0.5
5.0
1.4
6.0
40.8
4.3
0.4
7.5
6.3
1.4
6.6
1.3
1.2
348.8
Percent of
National
Production
1.1%
2.1%
0.2%
1.6%
0.7%
2.6%
2.4%
0.3%
3.1%
1.3%
1.0%
2.7%
1.5%
0.1%
1.4%
0.4%
1.7%
11.7%
1.2%
0.1%
2.1%
1.8%
0.4%
1.9%
0.4%
0.3%
100.0%
The character of concrete is determined by the quality of the cement paste (i.e., the cement and
water mixture). The water to cement ratio—the weight of the mixing water divided by the weight
of the cement—plus the quality and type of cement determines the strength of the paste, and
hence the strength of the concrete. High-quality concrete is produced by lowering the water-
cement ratio as much as possible without sacrificing the workability of fresh concrete. Generally,
using less water produces a higher quality concrete provided the concrete is properly placed,
consolidated, and cured.
A-ll
-------
For a typical concrete mix, 1 metric ton of cement (powder) will yield about 3.4 to 3.8 cubic
meters of concrete weighing about 7 to 9 metric tons (i.e., the density is typically in the range of
about 2.2 to 2.4 metric tons per cubic meter). Although aggregates make up the bulk of the mix,
it is the hardened cement paste that binds the aggregates together and contributes virtually all of
the strength of the concrete, with the aggregates serving largely as low cost fillers. The strengths
of the cement paste is determined by both the quality and type of the cement and the water-to-
cement ratio (van Oss, 2005).
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B:
BACKGROUND OF RECOVERED MINERAL COMPONENTS
-------
Background of Recovered Mineral Components
B.I Iron and Steel Slags
Ferrous slags are by-products from iron and steel manufacturing. There are two main types of
ferrous slags produced in the United State—blast furnace slags and steel slags. Blast furnace
slags are produced during smelting of iron ore or iron pellets with coke and a flux, such as
limestone or dolomite. The calcium in the stone combines with the aluminates and silicates in the
ore and ash from the coke to produce this non-metallic material. The slag is removed from the
furnace for further processing. Blast furnace slag has many uses, including the production of
clinker and blended cements, and as an aggregate in portland cement concrete.
Steel slag is a byproduct from the processing of iron in a basic oxygen furnace (BOF) or scrap
steel in an electric arc furnace (EAF). Steel slags also can be used in the manufacture of clinker.
More information on steel slag is provided in section B.9. There is still some minor open hearth
(OH) furnace material resident in slag piles that is occasionally sold. However, no OH slag is
being produced anymore in this country.
In 2005, PCA estimates that 39 cement plants were using slag as a raw material the manufacture
of clinker, and 11 plants were blending it into one or more cement products (see Figure B-l)
(PCA, 2005).
B-l
-------
Figure B-l: Portland Cement Plants Utilizing Slag
0" MH
VI
3D Nl
• •*
PA •
*
OH MD [iE
IH .
W»
u
• •
•
MO • '
IP
- M "
SO
.
Portland cement plants using slag as a raw material for Hie manufacture of clinker (39)
Portland cement plants blending slag into one or more cement products (11)
B-2
-------
B.2 Blast Furnace Slag
Figure B-2: U.S. Blast Furnace Slag Producers
The chemical composition of blast furnace slag varies, but Table B-l presents a typical range of
values (FHWA, 1998).
Table B-l: Typical Chemical Composition of Blast Furnace Slag
Constituent
Calcium Oxide (CaO)
Silicon Dioxide (SiC^)
Aluminum Oxide (A12O3)
Magnesium Oxide (MgO)
Iron (FeO or Fe2O3)
Manganese Oxide (MnO)
Sulfur (S)
Mean
Range
39.0
36.0
10.0
12.0
0.5
0.4
1.4
34-43
27-38
7- 12
7- 15
0.2- 1.6
0.15-0.76
1.0- 1.9
B-3
-------
The National Slag Association provided data on slag usage in concrete as aggregate and as a
SCM for the years 1996 through 2005, which is summarized in Table B-2. These data were not
broken out by slag type (i.e., granulated vs. air-cooled).
Table B-2: Blast Furnace Slag Production and Usage (National Slag Association Data)
Year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Estimated Slag
Production
Slag Used as
Concrete Aggregate
Slag Used as
Supplementary
Cementitious Material
NA*
NA
NA
NA
10.9
9.5
9.2
9.3
9.3
10.3
NA
1.27
1.27
1.36
1.27
1.36
1.36
1.36
1.45
NA
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.2
2.6
2.7
3.2
3.3
*NA = data not available
GBFS is a glassy granular material, consisting mainly of silicates and aluminosilicates of
calcium. The particle distribution, shape, and grain size of GBFS vary, depending on the
chemical composition and method of production, from coarse, popcornlike friable particles to
dense, sand-size grains. Whereas portland cement typically is ground to around 3,000-3,500
cm2/g (Elaine) in the United States, granulated slag is typically ground even finer (to about 4,000
- 5,000 cm2/g (Elaine) to achieve satisfactory reactivity.
ASTM C 989 (AASHTO M302) classifies slag by its increasing level of reactivity as follows:
Grade 80 - slags with low activity index
Grade 100 - slags with a moderate activity index
Grade 120 - slags with high activity index
GGBFS is a hydraulic material with inherent cementious character, that is, it will set up and gain
strength on its own when mixed with water. In the presence of alkalis such as may be present in
a concrete mix with portland cement, these alkalis will accelerate the hydration of the slag
cement to levels similar to that of portland cement. Because of its cementitious nature, it should
be noted that 70% slag cement concrete mixtures are usually used to control heat of hydration in
mass concrete placement. GGBFS has been used for many years as a SCM in portland cement
concrete, either as a mineral admixture or as a component of blended cement. GGBFS slag, when
used in general purpose concrete in North America, typically constitutes between 30% and 45%
of the cementitious material in the mix. Some slag concretes have a slag component of 70% or
more of the cementitious material (Kosmatka, 2002). GGBFS is used in making blended
Portland blast furnace slag cement (IS). The use of GGBFS in blended cement is governed by
ASTM C-595. The specific gravity of GGBFS is in the range of 2.85 to 2.95, and the bulk
density varies from 1,050 to 1,375 kg/m3 (Kosmatka, 2002).
B-4
-------
Performance Record
Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Oregon state agencies are reported to be investigating
the use of GGBFS as a SCM. At least 11 states (Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, North Carolina (limited use on experimental basis),
Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia) currently have specifications covering the use of
GGBFS as a partial replacement for portland cement. Some state agencies have reported
durability problems (decreased salt scaling resistance) with exposed concrete containing blast
furnace slag where the amount of GGBFS exceeds about 25% of the total cement.
B.3 Silica Fume
According to the Silica Fume Association, there are five companies producing silica fume in the
United States. USGS data indicate that in 2004, silicon alloys and/or silicon metals were
produced at six plants, and that a seventh plant was idle in 2004 (Corathers, 2004). Demand for
silica fume is high, and the United States is currently importing silica fume from Venezuela,
Spain, Argentina, Norway and Iceland. U.S. companies also export silica fume to Canada,
Central America, and South America. Figure B-3 illustrates the location of silica fume producers
in the United States. Appendix C contains a listing of U.S. silica fume producers.
B-5
-------
Figure B-3: U.S Silica Fume Producers
Silica fume has been known to be a beneficial admixture to concrete since the late 1940's.
However, silica fume did not become widely used until the development of high-range water-
reducing admixtures or superplasticizers. These admixtures are necessary because the high
surface area of silica fume increases water demand in concrete, which can have a detrimental
effect on concrete properties. The use of water-reducing admixtures or superplasticizers can
improve workability and placement of concrete at lower water contents, offsetting the need for
additional water in mixes containing silica fume.
The addition of silica fume to concrete mixes improves finished concrete properties through both
physical and chemical mechanisms. Physically, the extremely small size of silica fume particles
allows them to occupy spaces between cement grains, an arrangement typically referred to as
particle packing or micro-filling. Chemically, silica fume particles are highly pozzolanic (i.e.,
they react with calcium hydroxide (hydrated lime) to produce highly cementitious compounds)
due to their high amorphous silicon dioxide content. Therefore, when portland cement releases
calcium hydroxide as it hydrates, silica fume reacts with the calcium hydroxide to form
additional binder material (DOT, 2005).
The addition of silica fume has two main effects on fresh concrete. First, it makes the concrete
more cohesive, which reduces segregation and improves the efficiency of shotcreting. Second,
B-6
-------
silica fume reduces the bleeding in concrete by reducing porosity and reacting with lime.
Bleeding leads to the formation of capillary channels, which can increase chloride intrusion in
finished concrete. In addition, eliminating bleeding allows concrete to be finished earlier, which
is advantageous in projects where durability is important, such as in bridge decks or parking
structures.
The percentage of silica fume used in high performance concrete (HPC) varies depending on the
application and desired performance characteristics of the concrete, but typically ranges from 5%
to 20% on a dry weight basis. HPC containing silica fume also often contains coal fly ash. Silica
fume also can be used in concrete with other recovered materials such as GGBFS and
cenospheres. Because silica fume costs more than portland cement and there are relatively low
volumes available, its use is limited primarily to HPC.
The increased strength of finished concrete with silica fume can mean that less cement is
required in concrete mixes, though silica fume is usually used in addition to the standard
amounts of portland cement.
Further, silica fume concrete only requires "single-pass" or "one-pass" finishing whereby the
finishing is condensed into a single operation. In single-pass finishing, placement, consolidation,
surface-closing, and texturing operations follow one another in succession. The concrete is then
cured immediately. The total time from placement to final curing is recommended by the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) to be less than 20 minutes. This rapid finishing technique is
cost efficient, but quite different than normal construction practices used over the past 50 years.
Specifications regarding the use of silica fume in concrete can be found in ASTM C1240
(AASHTO M307). ACI 234R-06 describes the physical and chemical properties of silica fume,
how silica fume interacts with portland cement, the effects of silica fume on the properties of
fresh and hardened concrete, typical applications of silica fume concrete, and recommendations
on proportions, specifications, and handling of silica fume in the field.
The Figure B-4 below shows typical concrete made with cement and 15% coal fly ash as
substitution for cement. To this reference mix, 8% and 15% silica fume, based on cement
weight, was added.
B-7
-------
Figure B-4: Cement Mix Continuum
ALL MIXES AT 15% FA
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 1OQQ PSI
16
14
CEMENT WT
SLUMP -a 1/2 INCHES.
AGE = 28 DAYS
— SLOPE =: 14OO PSI/CWT
SLOPE = 25O/CWT
16% SF
8%SF
REF, (PLASTICIZED)
30O 400 500 SOO 7OO
CEMENT, POUNDS PER CUBIC VARP
SOO
The figure above shows that the efficiency of a pound of cement to concrete strength increases
significantly when 8% silica fume, by weight of cement, was added to the mix. The ability to
generate increased strength from each pound of cement used means that less cement can be used
to achieve a required compressive strength. Also, as the rate or 'slope' is reduced from 1400 to
250psi / cwt, the quality control necessary to achieve that strength becomes more difficult to
implement.
B.4 Coal Fly Ash
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts several annual surveys to collect data on
electric power plants. One such survey (EIA-860: Annual Electric Generator Report) (U.S. DOE,
2004) includes data about generators in electric power plants owned and operated by electric
utilities and nonutilities. These data indicate that in 2004 there were 1,526 generating units at
facilities that used coal2 as a primary fuel source. Of these units, 1,220 were classified as NACIS
22 (electric, gas and sanitary services). It is likely that this represents the universe of U.S.
generators that would produce coal combustion products, including coal fly ash.
This includes facilities that burn anthracite, bituminous and subbituminous coal, lignite, waste coal and synthetic
coal.
B-8
-------
Another annual DOE survey (U.S. DOE, 2004b) collects data from organic-fueled or
combustible renewable steam-electric power plants with a rating of 10 or more megawatts. This
survey (EIA-767: Annual Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Data) gathers information
on, among other things, coal combustion product production. In 2004, 426 facilities reported data
on coal fly ash production. These data indicate that approximately 69.8 million metric tons of
coal fly ash was produced in 2004 at these facilities.
The American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) also conducts an annual survey of coal
combustion product production. ACAA estimates that in 2004 approximately 64.2 million metric
tons of coal fly ash were produced in the United States. (ACAA, 2004)
Coal fly ash is produced in abundant quantities and in all areas of the United States. Figure B-5
illustrates the geographic distribution of facilities that produce coal fly ash by state, based on the
2004 EIA-767 data files. Table B-3 shows the number of facilities producing coal fly ash, and
coal fly ash production and disposition by state. Additional details on these facilities are included
in Appendix .C
B-9
-------
Figure B-5: U.S. Coal Fly Ash Producers by State
Number of Producers
by State
^H 21 - 25
B-10
-------
Table B-3: Coal Fly Ash Production and Disposition, by State (2004)*
State
AL
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
WA
WI
WV
WY
Total
Number of
Plants
10
3
6
1
11
4
2
17
11
1
12
23
20
7
19
4
6
9
3
15
10
15
6
2
17
7
6
3
6
3
3
12
22
7
1
25
13
1
8
20
6
15
1
14
14
5
426
Total Fly
Ash
Production
Fly Ash
Landfilled
Fly Ash
Ponded
Fly Ash Used
or Stored On-
Site
Fly Ash
Sold
Fly Ash
Disposed
Off-site
2,150
455
1,800
46
1,090
75
3,269
2,658
2,369
7
838
2,060
4,410
642
3,490
997
248
1,403
578
1,590
860
1,252
1,396
613
2,796
1,299
321
78
400
2,449
553
739
4,124
926
64
4,262
1,177
33
1,758
5,837
1,355
1,573
463
961
3,201
1,125
69,791
672
189
550
46
484
—
114
732
540
—
125
18
704
250
1,718
383
—
381
557
656
314
206
742
—
389
843
91
13
—
—
269
293
1,249
149
—
1,928
135
25
662
2,209
771
730
143
74
1,871
478
21,702
982
—
178
—
3
—
—
62
1,054
—
34
365
2,531
83
1,172
160
—
20
—
535
389
409
79
572
900
—
—
—
—
397
—
—
1,504
18
—
578
253
—
493
76
11
263
—
—
721
81
13,921
—
—
—
—
41
—
3,075
42
—
—
59
163
663
—
153
10
4
—
—
67
—
6
90
16
830
48
7
—
—
92
—
1
—
19
—
416
—
—
35
9
333
34
—
95
213
—
6,519
396
266
1,050
—
141
—
—
1,230
721
—
447
683
382
279
181
445
76
379
—
289
146
560
431
24
524
354
216
3
—
442
284
157
555
461
64
855
751
8
373
3,042
240
17
320
780
346
461
18,383
99
—
23
—
421
75
81
593
54
7
173
831
130
31
266
—
168
624
20
44
11
70
54
—
153
54
8
62
400
1,518
—
287
814
278
—
484
38
—
195
501
—
528
—
14
51
105
9,266
Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004b. "Annual Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Data". EIA-767
data files available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia767.html
No coal fly ash production was reported in Alaska, Idaho, Rhode Island, or Vermont
B-ll
-------
Coal fly ash is a finely divided powder resembling portland cement. Most of the coal fly ash
particles are solid spheres and some are hollow cenospheres. Plerospheres are also present,
which are spheres containing smaller spheres. The particle sizes in coal fly ash vary from less
than 1 um (micrometer) to more than 100 um with the typical particle measuring under 20 um.
Only 10% to 30% of the particles by mass are larger than 45 um. The surface area of coal fly ash
is typically 3,000 to 5,000 cm2/gm, although some fly ashes can have surface areas as low as
2,000 cm2/gm and as high as 7,000 cm2/gm. For coal fly ash without close compaction, the bulk
density can vary from 540 to 860 kg/m3, but with close packed storage or vibration, the range
can be 1,120 to 1,500 kg/m3. The specific gravity of coal fly ash generally ranges between 1.9
and 2.8 (Kosmatka, 2002).
Coal fly ash consists primarily of silicate glass containing silica, alumina, iron and calcium.
Minor constituents are magnesium, sulfur, sodium, potassium and carbon. This makeup gives
coal fly ash its pozzolanic properties, meaning that it reacts with water and free lime (calcium
oxide) to produce a cement-like compound. ASTM C 618 (AASHTO M295) classifies coal fly
ash as Class C and Class F based on their pozzolanic and cementitious properties. Some coal fly
ash meets both Class C and F classifications.
• Class C Coal Fly Ash is high-calcium, containing typically 10% to 30% calcium oxide
with carbon contents less than 2%. Many Class C ash exhibits both cementitious and
pozzolanic properties.
• Class F Coal Fly Ash is generally low-calcium, with less than 10% calcium oxide, with
carbon contents usually less than 5%, but may have carbon contents as high as 10%.
Many Class F ashes have pozzolanic properties—they require addition of lime to form
cementitious compounds.
Table B-4 presents typical chemical compositions for coal fly ash produced from different coal
types (FHWA, 1998)
Table B-4: Chemical Composition of Various Coal Fly Ash Types
Component
SiO2
A1203
Fe203
CaO
MgO
S03
Na2O
K2O
Loss on Ignition
Coal Type
Bituminous
Subbituminous
Lignite
-per cent by weight
20-60
5-35
10-40
1 - 12
0-5
0-4
0-4
0-3
0- 15
40-60
20-30
4- 10
5-30
1 -6
0-2
0-2
0-4
0-3
15-45
10-25
4- 15
15-40
3 - 10
0- 10
0-6
0-4
0-5
B-12
-------
Figure B-6 shows the locations of the 39 portland cement plants using coal fly ash as a raw feed
in the manufacture of clinker and the 3 plants blending coal fly ash into finished cement
products.
Figure B-6: U.S. Portland Cement Plants Utilizing Coal Fly Ash (PCA, 2005b)
.
MT ND
HH , * Nr
'*
SD M
n "
• NE • • OH MB* ft
IW |L IN •
• Wl
UT C() •.. ^ »
Mu
• m *
TN m
* SC
. . • .v
» « 1
*
Tl ^
Portland cement plants using fly ash as a raw material in the manufacture of clinker (39)
Portland cement plants blending fly ash into one or more cement products (3)
B-13
-------
B.5 Foundry Sand
Foundry sand is produced by five different foundry classes. The ferrous foundries (gray iron,
ductile iron, and steel) produce the most sand in the United States, while aluminum, copper,
brass, and bronze produce the rest. Foundries purchase high-quality, size-specific sand for use in
their molding and casting operations. Foundry sand is used to form the outer shape of the mold
cavity and relies upon a small amount of bentonite clay to act as the binder material. Depending
on the geometry of the casting, sand cores are inserted into the mold cavity to form internal
passages for the molten metal. Once the metal has solidified, the casting is separated from the
molding and the core sand in the shakeout process. At that point, the old sand is displaced from
the cycle as byproduct, new sand is introduced, and the cycle begins again (see Figure B-7)
(FHWA, 2004).
Figure B-7: How sand is reused and becomes foundry sand
Return Sand Storage
New Sand Storage
Return Sand
[System^
Cores and Mold Lumps to
Mechanical Reclamation I
Return Sand
System I
Additives
Bentonite Sea Coal
Cores from Core Making
Molten Metal
_
[Shakeout I 1Casting to Cleaning
I and Finishing
Two general types of binder systems are used in metalcasting: clay-bonded systems (green sand)
and chemically-bonded systems. Both types of sand are suitable for beneficial use but they have
different physical and environmental characteristics (FIRST, Undated):
• Green Sand molds are used to produce about 90% of casting volume in the United States.
Green sand is composed of naturally occurring materials which are blended together:
high quality silica sand (85% to 95%); bentonite clay (4% tolO%) as a binder; a
carbonaceous additive (2% to 10%) to improve the casting surface finish; and water (2%
to 5%). Green sand is the most commonly used RFS for beneficial reuse.
• Chemically bonded sand are used both in coremaking, where high strengths are necessary
to withstand the heat of the molten metal, and in mold making. Chemically bonded sand
is generally light in color and coarser in texture than clay bonded sand.
B-14
-------
Availability
Foundries are located throughout the United States in all 50 states. The top ten foundry
production states are Alabama, California, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are approximately 12 cement kilns that are using
foundry sand as a raw material, and there is an industry survey under way to obtain more
complete data (FIRST, Undated). Cement kilns in New York, Texas, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri,
Maryland, Illinois, and Iowa have used foundry sand as a source of silica.
B.6 Flue Gas Desulfurization Materials
Figure B-8 shows the locations of portland cement facilities grinding and blending flue gas
desulfurization materials with clinker to produce finished cement products.
Figure B-8: U.S. Portland Cement Plants Utilizing FGD Materials (PCA, 2005b)
WA
" »
HT
m
HE
"
OH
UT
„
VT
ME
•
M,
PA
*"D K
TH
NC
II
m
sc
AL
n
B-15
-------
Table B-5 shows the FGD gypsum production and disposition in the United States by state in
2004.
Table B-5: FGD Gypsum Production and Disposition, by State (2004)
State
AL
FL
GA
IA
IL
IN
KY
NJ
NY
OH
PA
SC
TN
TX
WA
WV
Total
Number of
Plants
2
3
1
1
1
3
5
1
1
2
4
1
1
4
1
1
32
Total FGD
Gypsum
Production
FGD
Gypsum
Landfilled
FGD
Gypsum
Ponded
FGD
Gypsum
Used or
Stored
On-Site
FGD
Gypsum
Sold
FGD
Gypsum
Disposed
Off-Site
452
1,359
29
20
160
879
1,738
39
91
576
1,539
242
1,238
329
481
222
9,394
—
—
—
—
6
-
—
—
6
—
148
—
—
59
103
—
322
405
—
—
—
—
4
466
—
—
—
—
—
—
197
—
—
1,072
—
160
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
101
—
—
—
—
261
47
1,199
29
20
154
875
1,272
39
86
576
959
141
1,238
73
378
222
7,307
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
432
—
—
—
—
—
432
B.7 Bottom Ash
Physically, bottom ash is typically grey to black in color. Bottom ashes have angular particles
with a very porous surface texture. The ash is usually a well-graded material, although variations
in particle size distribution may be encountered in ash samples taken from the same power plant
at different times. Bottom ash is predominantly sand-sized, usually with 50% to 90% passing a
4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve, 10% to 60% passing a 0.42 mm (No. 40) sieve, 0% to 10% passing a
0.075 mm (No. 200) sieve. The top size usually ranges from 19 mm (3/4 in) to 38.1 mm (1-1/2
in) (FHWA, 1998).
The specific gravity of dry bottom ash is a function of chemical composition, with higher carbon
content resulting in lower specific gravity, typically in the range of 2.1 to 2.7. The dry unit
weight of bottom ash is typically in the range of 720 to 1,600 kg/m3 (FHWA, 1998).
Bottom ash is composed primarily of silica, alumina and iron, with smaller percentages of
calcium, magnesium, sulfates and other compounds. The composition is controlled primarily by
the source of the coal and not by the type of furnace. Bottom ash derived from lignite or sub-
bituminous coals has a higher percentage of calcium than the bottom ash from anthracite or
bituminous coals. Sulfite content of bottom ash is typically very low (less than 1.0%). Table B-6
presents the chemical composition of several bottom ashes from different coal sources (FHWA,
1998).
B-16
-------
Table B-6: Chemical Composition of Select Bottom Ash
Coal Type:
Location:
SiO2
A1203
Fe203
CaO
MgO
Na2O
K2O
Bituminous
West Virginia
Ohio
Sub-
bituminous
Lignite
Texas
53.6
28.3
5.8
0.4
4.2
1.0
0.3
45.9
25.1
14.3
1.4
5.2
0.7
0.2
47.1
28.3
10.7
0.4
5.2
0.8
0.2
45.4
19.3
9.7
15.3
3.1
1.0
—
70.0
15.9
2.0
6.0
1.9
0.6
0.1
Table B-7 indicates production and disposition of bottom ash by state for 2004.
Table B-7: Bottom Ash Production and Disposition, by State (2004)"
State
AL
AR
AZ
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
IA
IL
IN
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MO
MS
MT
NC
ND
NE
NH
NJ
NM
NV
Number
of Plants
9
3
6
11
3
2
17
10
1
12
23
20
7
18
5
4
8
3
15
10
16
5
2
16
7
6
3
6
3
4
Bottom
Ash Total
Bottom Ash
Landfilled
Bottom
Ash
Ponded
Bottom
Ash Used
or Stored
On-site
Bottom
Ash Sold
Bottom
Ash
Disposed
Offsite
548
166
496
237
26
53
466
451
0
245
1,183
1,379
369
760
164
49
360
149
356
256
766
228
251
395
762
104
51
105
598
184
136
126
373
85
-
-
201
69
-
16
-
33
46
124
10
-
32
149
140
17
6
131
-
31
201
51
-
-
-
184
252
13
115
3
-
-
15
205
-
73
158
564
72
379
76
-
5
-
2
58
355
0
245
165
247
-
-
-
-
-
106
1
-
28
-
43
33
11
-
6
130
302
32
70
-
3
50
-
152
131
12
44
2
37
215
2
(10)
-
247
-
53
25
o
J
18
-
8
149
166
-
110
656
428
209
42
78
36
157
-
49
48
391
53
4
98
46
47
58
62
-
-
1
2
6
103
26
2
68
-
0
39
239
51
10
145
-
10
116
0
13
1
2
-
-
64
53
5
2
43
351
0
B-17
-------
State
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
WA
WI
WV
WY
Total
Number
of Plants
11
22
6
1
22
14
1
7
19
6
13
1
13
14
5
410
Bottom
Ash Total
Bottom Ash
Landfilled
Bottom
Ash
Ponded
Bottom
Ash Used
or Stored
On-site
Bottom
Ash Sold
Bottom
Ash
Disposed
Offsite
208
1,213
232
22
906
277
62
350
2,665
403
596
1,129
241
566
415
20,442
39
18
20
13
375
41
44
-
1,724
292
204
301
52
126
275
5,685
-
399
13
-
17
138
-
110
132
111
79
-
-
98
140
4,238
92
266
2
-
103
-
-
198
83
-
60
332
43
128
-
2,952
40
360
85
9
318
65
18
39
557
-
73
496
147
201
-
5,405
37
169
113
-
93
33
-
3
168
-
180
-
1
13
-
2,162
No bottom ash production was reported for Alaska, California, Idaho, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Figure B-9 presents the locations of portland cement facilities that use bottom ash and/or boiler
slag as a raw feed in clinker production.
B-18
-------
Figure B-9: U.S. Portland Cement Plants Utilizing Bottom Ash/Boiler Slag (PCA, 2005b)
MT
VT
HN
Wl
HY
Ml
NH
MA
CT
OH
HD DE
NV
IN
NC
*
NH
TH
SC
MS
as.
B-19
-------
B.8 Boiler Slag
Boiler slags are predominantly single-sized and within a range of 5.0 to 0.5 mm (No. 4 to No. 40
sieve). Ordinarily, boiler slags have a smooth surface texture, but if gases are trapped in the slag
as it is tapped from the furnace, the quenched slag will become somewhat vesicular or porous.
Boiler slag from the burning of lignite or subbituminous coal tends to be more porous than that
of the eastern bituminous coals. Boiler slag is essentially the size of coarse to medium sand with
90% to 100% passing a 4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve, 40% to 60% passing a 2.0 mm (No. 10) sieve,
10% or less passing a 0.42 mm (No. 40) sieve, and 5% or less passing a 0.075 mm (No. 200)
sieve (FHWA, 1998). The specific gravity of boiler slag is typically in the range of 2.3 to 2.9,
and the dry unit weight is typically in the range of 960 to 1,440 kg/m3 (FHWA, 1998).
Boiler slag is composed principally of silica, alumina, and iron, with smaller percentages of
calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and other compounds. Like bottom ash, the composition of the
boiler slag particles is controlled primarily by the source of the coal and not by the type of
furnace. Boiler slag derived from lignite or sub-bituminous coals has a higher percentage of
calcium than the boiler slag from anthracite or bituminous coals. Sulfate content is usually very
low (less than 1.0%), unless pyrites have not been removed from the boiler slag. Table B-8
presents the chemical composition of select boiler slags (FHWA, 1998).
Table B-8: Chemical Composition of Select Boiler Slags
Coal Type:
Location:
Si02
A1203
Fe203
CaO
MgO
Na2O
K2O
Bituminous
West Virginia
Lignite
North Dakota
48.9
21.9
14.3
1.4
5.2
0.7
0.1
53.6
22.7
10.3
1.4
5.2
1.2
0.1
40.5
13.8
14.2
22.4
5.6
1.7
1.1
Figure B-9 above presents portland cement facilities using boiler slag and/or bottom ash as a raw
feed in clinker production.
B-20
-------
B.9 Steel Slag
Steel slag aggregates are highly angular in shape and have a rough surface texture. The cooling
rate of steel slag is sufficiently low so that crystalline compounds are generally formed. The
predominant compounds are dicalcium silicate, tricalcium silicate, dicalcium ferrite, merwinite,
calcium aluminate, calcium-magnesium iron oxide, and some free lime and free magnesia. The
relative proportions of these compounds depend on the steel-making practice and the steel slag
cooling rate. Table B-9 presents the typical chemical composition of steel furnace slag. Steel slag
typically has a high specific gravity ranging between 3.2 and 3.6, and a unit weight of 1,600 to
1,920 kg/m3 (FHWA, 1998).
Table B-9: Typical Chemical Composition of Steel Furnace Slag
Constituent
CaO
Si02
A1203
MgO
FeO and Fe2C>3
MnO
S
P205
Metallic Fe
Range
(percent by weight)
40-52
10- 19
1 -3
5- 10
10-40
5-8
<0.1
0.5- 1
0.5- 10
B.10 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)
CKD is a fine, dry, alkaline dust that readily absorbs water. It is composed of particles of
unburned or partially burned feedstock materials, dehydrated clay, decarbonated (calcined)
limestone, ash from combusted fuels, and various minerals formed during the different stages of
the clinkering process. While composition varies from plant to plant, the primary constituents of
CKD are calcium oxides, silicates, carbonates, potassium oxide, sulfates, chlorides, various
metal oxides, and sodium oxide. CaO typically comprises the largest component of CKD,
approaching as much as 50% by weight in some cases (U.S. EPA, 1993).
CKD is very fine grained with particle diameters ranging from near zero um to greater than 50
um. At least 55% of CKD measures less than 30 um and nearly 82% is less than 50 um (U.S.
EPA, 1993). Because of its fine grained nature, CKD is readily entrained and transported in the
continuous, rapidly flowing, and highly turbulent gas flow of cement kilns. To remove these
entrained fine particles from kiln exhaust gas requires the use of complex air-pollution control
devices such as electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters (i.e., bag houses). Wet scrubbers,
common in other mineral processing industries, can not be used due to the chemically
dehydrated nature and cementitious properties of CKD. Cement kiln dust collection systems are
especially effective at removing CKD from exhaust gas, typically exhibiting 98% to nearly 100%
removal efficiencies (U.S. EPA, 1993).
B-21
-------
CKD's alkaline nature derives from its high concentrations of CaO and other alkaline
compounds including K2O, NaOH, Na2CO3, and NaSCv Even though CKD is a highly alkaline
material, because it is a solid, it does not exhibit the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste
characteristic of corrosivity. (This is because the RCRA hazardous identification regulations do
not include a definition for corrosive solids.) When mixed with water, however, the resulting
CKD and water mixtures often have pH levels greater than 12.5 and therefore do exhibit the
corrosivity characteristic. Studies using the standard EPA leaching procedure (i.e., the Toxicity
Characteristic Leaching Procedure or TCLP) show leachate pH levels falling in the 11 to 13
range (U.S. EPA, 1993).
Trace constituents commonly found in CKD include organic chemicals, metals, and
radionuclides. Concentrations of heavy metals are of particular concern in the reuse of CKD
either directly in the kiln or for other beneficial applications. Studies performed by EPA in
preparation for its 1993 Report to Congress consistently found eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC)
metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) and nine
other metals (antimony, beryllium, copper, manganese, nickel, strontium, thallium, vanadium,
and zinc) present in CKD samples. The predominant metals were antimony, barium, lead,
manganese, strontium, thallium, and zinc. The others were found in lesser concentrations. While
these metals were consistently present in the CKD samples, in general, their concentrations were
well below the regulatory TCLP/Toxicity Characteristic levels (U.S. EPA, 1993). A few of the
samples, however, did yield results above the regulatory limits for lead (4 of 244 samples),
selenium (2 of 129 samples), barium (1 of 88 samples), and cadmium (1 of 88 samples) (U.S.
EPA, 1993).
Table B-10 illustrates the typical chemical composition of CKD (FHWA, 1998).
Table B-10: Typical Chemical Composition of CKD
Parameter
CaO
Free Lime
SiO2
A1203
MgO
Na2O3
K20
Fe203
S03
Loss on Ignition,
105°C
Fresh
Stockpiled
Sample 1
Sample 2
40.5
4.4
14.5
4.1
1.55
0.44
4.66
2.00
6.50
22.9
31.4
0.0
11.7
3.18
0.97
0.13
1.65
2.16
8.24
40.4
44.2
0.0
11.9
3.24
1.73
0.27
2.92
1.45
2.40
30.2
Figure B-10 below shows the amount of CKD disposed in landfills from 1990 through 2004 and
compares the amount of CKD disposed in landfills to clinker production during this same time
period. The graph below represents CKD recovered from CKD scrubbers and does not reflect
any CKD automatically re-ducted back into the kiln.
B-22
-------
Figure B-10 CKD Landfilled; CKD Landfilled versus Clinker Produced
[CKO SENT TO LANDFILL
CKD PER UNITQFCLJNKER PRODUCED
s
u
90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 GO 01 02 03 04
YEAR
B-23
-------
APPENDIX C:
CEMENT AND RMC PRODUCERS
-------
Table C-l: U.S. Cement Plants (PCA, 2006)
Company
CEMEX
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lehigh SE Cement Company
National Cement Company Of Alabama
California Portland Cement Company
Phoenix Cement Company (a.k.a., Salt River
Materials)
Ash Grove Cement Company
California Portland Cement Company
California Portland Cement Company
CEMEX
Texas Industries, Inc.
Hanson Permanente Cement (recently purchased by
Lehigh)
Lehigh Southwest Cement Company
Lehigh Southwest Cement Company
Mitsubishi Cement Corporation
National Cement Company Of California
RMC Pacific Materials, Inc. (now part of CEMEX)
Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI Riverside Cement)
CEMEX
Holcim (US) Inc. (facility is closed)
Holcim (US) Inc.
CEMEX
Florida Rock Industries, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc. (owned by Florida
Rock Industries)
Lafarge North America, Inc. (owned by Florida
Rock Industries)
Rinker Materials (owned by CEMEX)
Rinker Materials (owned by CEMEX)
Tarmac America, Inc.
CEMEX
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Ash Grove Cement Company
Centex Construction Products, Inc. (Eagle
Materials)
Dixon-Marquette Cement Company (St Mary's
Cement)
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Essroc Cement Corp.
Essroc Cement Corp.
Lehigh Cement Company
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
City
Demopolis
Theodore
Calera
Roberta
Ragland
Rillito
Clarkdale
Foreman
Colton
Mojave
Victorville
Riverside
Cupertino
Tehachapi
Redding
Lucerne Valley
Lebec
Davenport
Oro Grande and Crestmore
Lyons
LaPorte
Florence
Brooksville
Newberry
Palmetto
Tampa
Brooksville
Miami
Medley
Clinchfield
Atlanta
Inkom
La Salle
Dixon
Grand Chain
Oglesby
Speed
Logansport
Mitchell
Greencastle
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AZ
AZ
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CO
CO
CO
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
ID
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
C-l
-------
Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lehigh Cement Company
Ash Grove Cement Company
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Monarch Cement Company
RC Cement Company, Inc.
Kosmos Cement Company (operated by CEMEX)
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Dragon Products Company
Essroc Cement Corp.
Lehigh Cement Company
St. Lawrence Cement Company
CEMEX
Essroc Cement Corp.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
St. Marys Cement, Inc. (U.S.)
Holcim (US) Inc.
Continental Cement Company, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
RC Cement Company, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Ash Grove Cement Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
Ash Grove Cement Company
Centex Construction Products, Inc.
Royal Cement Company, Inc. (facility closed)
GCC Rio Grande
Lehigh Cement Company
Lehigh Cement Company
Lafarge North America, Inc.
St. Lawrence Cement Company
CEMEX
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Ash Grove Cement Company
Armstrong Cement & Sup. Corp.
CEMEX
Essroc Cement Corp.
Essroc Cement Corp.
Giant Cement Holding, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lehigh Cement Company
City
Mason City
Buffalo
Mason City
Chanute
Fredonia
Humboldt
Independence
Louisville
New Orleans
Thomaston
Frederick
Union Bridge
Hagerstown
Charlevoix
Essexville
Dundee
Alpena
Detroit
Artesia
Hannibal
Clarksville
Sugar Creek
Cape Girardeau
Fustus
Montana City
Three Forks
Louisville
Fernley
Logandale
Tijeras
Glens Falls
Cementon
Ravena
Catskill
Fairborn
Paulding
Ada
Tulsa
Pryor
Durkee
Cabot
Wampum
Nazareth
Bessemer
Bath
Whitehall
Evansville
State
IA
IA
IA
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
LA
ME
MD
MD
MD
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MS
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MT
MT
NE
NV
NV
NM
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
C-2
-------
Company
Lehigh Cement Company
RC Cement Company, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Giant Cement Holding, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
GCC Dacotah
CEMEX
RC Cement Company, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
Alamo Cement Company
Capitol Aggregates, Ltd.
CEMEX
CEMEX
Texas Industries Inc.
Texas Industries Inc.
Texas-Lehigh Cement Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lehigh Cement Company
Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem)
North Texas Cement Company, L.P. (Ash Grove
Texas LP)
Ash Grove Cement Company
Holcim (US) Inc.
Roanoke Cement Company
Ash Grove Cement Company
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lehigh Northwest Cement Company
Essroc Cement Corp.
Centex Construction Products, Inc.
City
York
Stockertown
Harleyville
Holly Hill
Harleyville
Rapid City
Knoxville
Chattanooga
San Antonio
San Antonio
Odessa
New Braunfels
New Braunfels
Midlothian
Buda
Midlothian
Waco
Maryneal
Midlothian
Leamington
Morgan
Cloverdale
Seattle
Seattle
Bellingham
Martinsburg
Laramie
State
PA
PA
SC
SC
SC
SD
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
VA
WA
WA
WA
WV
WY
C-3
-------
Table C-2: U.S. Blast Furnace Slag Processors (van Oss, 2004b)
Company
Fritz Enterprises, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Civil & Marine, Inc. (Hanson Slag
Cement)
Florida Rock Industries, Inc.
Rinker Materials Corp.
Titan Florida, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Levy Co., Inc., The
Levy Co., Inc., The
Levy Co., Inc., The
Mountain Enterprises, Inc.
Stein, Inc.
Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
MultiServ
Edward C. Levy Co.
Edward C. Levy Co.
St. Marys Cement, Inc.
St. Lawrence Cement, Inc.
Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc.
Glens Falls-Lehigh Cement Co.
Essroc Corp.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Stein, Inc.
Stein, Inc.
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Beaver Valley Slag
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Lehigh Cement
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
MultiServ
Lafarge North America, Inc.
Holcim (US) Inc.
Lafarge North America, Inc.
City
Fairfield
Birmingham (Fairfield)
Cape Canaveral
Tampa
Miami
Medley
Chicago
Joppa
Gary
East Chicago
Burns Harbor
East Chicago
Gary
Ashland
Ashland
New Orleans
Sparrows Point
Sparrows Point
Detroit
Detroit
Detroit
Camden
Woodlawn
Cementon
Middlebranch
Cleveland (Cuyahoga Co.)
Lordstown
McDonald
Salt Springs (Youngstown)
Warren
Cleveland
Lorain
Middletown
Mingo Junction
Aliquippa
WestMifflin
West Mifflin (Brown Reserve)
Whitehall
Evansville
Bethlehem
Geneva (Provo)
Seattle
Weirton
Weirton
State
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
FL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
LA
MD
MD
MI
MI
MI
NJ
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
UT
WA
WV
WV
C-4
-------
Table C-3: U.S. Steel Slag Processors (van Oss, 2004b)
Company
AMSI
Barfield Enterprises, Inc.
Barfield Enterprises, Inc.
Beaver Valley Slag
Beaver Valley Slag (Thor Mill Services)
Blackheart Slag Company
Border Steel, Inc.
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Edward C. Levy Company
Fritz Enterprises, Inc.
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation
Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation
Levy Company, Inc., The
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
MultiServ
Stein, Inc.
Stein, Inc.
Stein, Inc.
City
Holsopple
La Place
Lone Star
Aliquippa
Roanoke
Muscatine (Montpelier)
El Paso
Decatur (Trinity)
Butler
Columbia City
Crawfordsville
Detroit
Detroit
Canton
Delta
Huger
Fairfield
Jacksonville
Charlotte
Burns Harbor
Birmingham
Tuscaloosa
Blytheville
Blytheville (Armorel)
Pueblo
Wilton (Muscatine)
East Chicago
Indiana Harbor
Ghent
Sparrows Point
Ahoskie (Cofield)
Canton
Mansfield
Warren
Braddock (Mon Valley)
Butler
Coatesville
Koppel
Steelton
Midlothian
Geneva (Provo)
Seattle
Sterling
Ashland
Cleveland
State
PA
LA
TX
PA
VA
IA
TX
AL
IN
IN
IN
MI
MI
OH
OH
SC
AL
FL
NC
IN
AL
AL
AR
AR
CO
IA
IN
IN
KY
MD
NC
OH
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
TX
UT
WA
IL
KY
OH
C-5
-------
Company
Stein, Inc.
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City IMS Corporation
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City -IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
City
Loraine
Birmingham
Newport
Rancho Cucamonga
Portage
Norfolk
Perth Amboy
Sayreville
Middletown
Mingo Junction
Youngstown
Sand Springs
Cayce
Knoxville
Seguin
Petersburg
Axis
Fort Smith
Newport
Kingman
Claymont
Cartersville
Wilton (Muscatine)
Kankakee
Peoria
Laplace
Jackson
Monroe
St. Paul
Jackson
Charlotte
Perth Amboy
Sayreville
Auburn
Marion
McMinnville
Portland
Bethlehem
Bridgeville
Midland
Monroeville
New Castle
Park Hill (Johnstown)
Pricedale
Reading
Darlington
Georgetown
State
OH
AL
AR
CA
IN
NE
NJ
NJ
OH
OH
OH
OK
SC
TN
TX
VA
AL
AR
AR
AZ
DE
GA
IA
IL
IL
LA
MI
MI
MN
MS
NC
NJ
NJ
NY
OH
OR
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
C-6
-------
Company
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
Tube City-IMS, IMS Division
City
Jackson
Beaumont
Jewett
Longview
Plymouth
Saukville
Weirton
State
TN
TX
TX
TX
UT
WI
WV
C-7
-------
Table C-4: U.S. Facilities Producing Coal Fly Ash (U.S. DOE, 2004b)
Utility Name
Alabama Electric Coop, Inc.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
International Paper Co.-Courtland
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Arizona Electric Pwr Coop, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Co.
Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist
Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist
UNS Electric, Inc.
UNS Electric, Inc.
ACE Cogeneration Co.
Colorado Springs, City of
Colorado Springs, City of
Platte River Power Authority
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
AES Thames LLC
NRG Devon Operations, Inc.
NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC
Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.
Indian River Operations, Inc.
Central Power & Lime, Inc.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Gainesville Regional Utilities
Gulf Power Co.
Gulf Power Co.
Plant Name
Charles R Lowman
Barry
Gadsden
Gorgas
Greene County
E C Gaston
James H Miller Jr
International Paper Courtland Mill
Colbert
Widows Creek
White Bluff
Independence
Flint Creek
Apache Station
Cholla
Navajo
Coronado
H Wilson Sundt Generating Station
Springerville
ACE Cogeneration Facility
Martin Drake
Ray D Nixon
Rawhide
Arapahoe
Cherokee
Comanche
Valmont
Hay den
Pawnee
Nucla
Craig
AES Thames
Devon Station
NRG Norwalk Harbor
Bridgeport Station
Edge Moor
Indian River Operations
Central Power & Lime
Cape Canaveral
Riviera
Sanford
Manatee
Deerhaven Generating Station
Crist
Lansing Smith
City
Leroy
Bucks
East Gadsden
Parrish
Demopolis
Wilsonville
Quinton
Courtland
Tuscumbia
Stevenson
Redfield
Newark
Gentry
Cochise
Joseph City
Page
St Johns
Cherry Bell Station
Springerville
Trona
Colorado Springs
Fountain
Wellington
Denver
Denver
Pueblo
Boulder
Hay den
Brush
Nucla
Craig
Uncasville
Devon
South Norwalk
Bridgeport
Edgemoor
Millsboro
Brooksville
Cocoa
Riviera Beach
Lake Monroe
Parrish
Alachua
Pensacola
Southport FL
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CA
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
CT
CT
CT
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
-------
Utility Name
Indiantown Cogeneration LP
JEA
JEA
Orlando Utilities Comm
PG&E Operating Service Co.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Seminole Electric Coop Inc.
Tampa Electric Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
International Paper Co.
Savannah Electric & Power Co.
Savannah Electric & Power Co.
AESCorp
Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power and Light
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
Muscatine, City of
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Resources
Generating
Ameren Energy Resources
Generating
Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Dominion Energy Services Co.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Plant Name
Indiantown Cogen Facility
St Johns River Power Park
Northside Generating Station
Stanton Energy Center
Cedar Bay Generating LP
Crystal River
P L Bartow
Seminole
Big Bend
Bowen
Hammond
Harllee Branch
Jack McDonough
Mitchell
Yates
Wansley
Scherer
International Paper Savanna Mill
Kraft
Mclntosh
AES Hawaii
Archer Daniels Midland Cedar
Rapids
Milton L Kapp
Prairie Creek
Sutherland
Burlington
Ottumwa
Riverside
Council Bluffs
George Neal North
Louisa
George Neal South
Muscatine Plant #1
Coffeen
Hutsonville
Meredosia
Newton
E D Edwards
Duck Creek
Archer Daniels Midland Decatur
Kincaid Generation LLC
Baldwin Energy Complex
Havana
Hennepin Power Station
Vermilion
City
Indiantown
Oceanway
Oceanway
Alafaya Branch
Jacksonville
Crystal River
St Petersburg
Bostwick
Ruskin
Taylorsville
Coosa
Milledgeville
Smyrna
Putney
Sargent
Roopville
Juliette
Savannah
Port Wentworth
Rincon
Kapolei
Cedar Rapids
Clinton
Cedar Rapids
Marshalltown
Burlington
Ottumwa
Bettendorf
Council Bluffs
Salix
Muscatine
Salix
Muscatine
Coffeen
Hutsonville
Meredosia
Newton
Bartonville
Canton
Decatur
Kincaid
Baldwin
Havana
Hennepin
Oakwood
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
C-9
-------
Utility Name
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Electric Energy, Inc.
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Southern Illinois Power Coop
Springfield, City of
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc.
Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc.
Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co.
Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co.
State Line Energy LLC
Kansas City, City of
Kansas City, City of
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp
Westar Energy
Westar Energy
Westar Energy
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
Kentucky Power Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Plant Name
Wood River
Joppa Steam
Joliet 29
Crawford
Joliet 9
Powerton
Waukegan
Will County
Fisk Street
Marion
Dallman
Warrick
Frank E Ratts
Merom
Tanners Creek
Rockport
Clifty Creek
Harding Street
Eagle Valley
AES Petersburg
Bailly
Michigan City
R M Schahfer
Cayuga
Edwardsport
R Gallagher
Wabash River
Gibson
F B Culley
A B Brown
State Line Energy
Quindaro
Nearman Creek
La Cygne
Holcomb
Lawrence Energy Center
Tecumseh Energy Center
Jeffrey Energy Center
East Bend
Cooper
Dale
H L Spurlock
Big Sandy
E W Brown
Ghent
Green River
Tyrone
City
East Alton
Joppa
Joliet
Chicago
Joliet
Pekin
Waukegan
Romeoville
Chicago
Marion
Springfield
Newburgh
Petersburg
Sullivan
Lawrenceburg
Rockport
Madison
Indianapolis
Martinsville
Petersburg
Chesterton
Michigan City
Wheatfield
Cayuga
Edwardsport
New Albany
Terre Haute
Mt Carmel
Newburgh
Mount Vernon
Hammond
Fairfax Station
Robert L Roberts STA
La Cygne
Holcomb
Lawrence, Kansas
Tecumseh
Belvue
Rabbit Hash
Burnside
Winchester
Maysville
Louisa
Burgin
Ghent
Central City
Versailles
State
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
C-10
-------
Utility Name
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Owensboro, City of
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Cleco Power LLC
Cleco Power LLC
Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
Louisiana Generating LLC
Consolidated Edison E MA, Inc.
Dominion Energy New England
Mirant Canal LLC
Northeast Generation Services Co.
Somerset Power LLC
U S Gen New England, Inc.
AES WR Ltd Partnership
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Constellation Power Source Gen
Constellation Power Source Gen
Constellation Power Source Gen
Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC
Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC
Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC
Vienna Operations, Inc.
FPL Energy Wyman LLC
MeadWestvaco Corp
S D Warren Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Lansing, City of
Lansing, City of
MeadWestvaco Corp
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Plant Name
Cane Run
Mill Creek
Trimble County
Elmer Smith
Paradise
Shawnee
Kenneth C Coleman
HMP&L Station Two Henderson
R D Green
D B Wilson
Dolet Hills
Rodemacher
R S Nelson
Big Cajun 2
West Springfield
Brayton Point
Canal
Mount Tom
Somerset Station
Salem Harbor
AES Warrior Run Cogeneration
Facility
R Paul Smith Power Station
Brandon Shores
C P Crane
Herbert A Wagner
Chalk Point LLC
Dickerson
Morgantown Generating Plant
Vienna Operations
William F Wyman
Rumford Cogeneration
Somerset Plant
B C Cobb
Dan E Karn
JH Campbell
J C Weadock
J R Whiting
Harbor Beach
Monroe
River Rouge
St Clair
Trenton Channel
Belle River
Eckert Station
Erickson Station
Escanaba Paper Company
Presque Isle
City
Louisville
Louisville
Bedford
Daviess
Drakesboro
West Paducah
Hawesville
Sebree
Sebree
Centertown
Mansfield
Lena
Lake Charles
New Roads
West Springfield
Somerset
Sandwich
Holyoke
Somerset
Salem
Cumberland
Williamsport
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Aquasco
Dickerson
Newburg MD
Vienna
Yarmouth
Rumford
Skowhegan
Muskegon
Essexville
West Olive
Essexville
Erie
Harbor Beach
Monroe
River Rouge
East China
Trenton
Belle River
Lansing
Lansing
Escanaba
Marquette
State
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
C-ll
-------
Utility Name
Allete, Inc.
Allete, Inc.
Allete, Inc.
Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Otter Tail Power Co.
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Aquila, Inc.
Aquila, Inc.
Associated Electric Coop, Inc.
Associated Electric Coop, Inc.
Empire District Electric Co.
Independence, City of
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Sikeston, City of
Springfield, City of
Springfield, City of
Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Mississippi Power Co.
Mississippi Power Co.
South Mississippi El Pwr Assn
Tractebel Power, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
PPL Montana LLC
PPL Montana LLC
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Cogentrix of N Carolina, Inc.
Cogentrix of Rocky Mount, Inc.
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Plant Name
Syl Laskin
Clay Boswell
Taconite Harbor Energy Center
Silver Bay Power
Black Dog
High Bridge
Allen S King
Riverside
Sherburne County
Hoot Lake
Labadie
Meramec
Sioux
Rush Island
Sibley
Lake Road
New Madrid
Thomas Hill
Asbury
Blue Valley
Montrose
latan
Sikeston Power Station
James River Power Station
Southwest Power Station
Gerald Andrus
Jack Watson
Victor J Daniel Jr
R D Morrow
Red Hills Generating Facility
Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS
J E Corette Plant
Colstrip
Asheville
Cape Fear
Lee
Roxboro
L V Sutton
W H Weatherspoon
Mayo
Cogentrix Southport
Cogentrix Dwayne Collier Battle
Cogen
G G Allen
Buck
Cliffside
Dan River
Marshall
City
Aurora
Cohasset
Schroeder
Silver Bay
Burnsville
St. Paul
Bayport
Minneapolis
Becker
Fergus Falls
Labadie
St Louis
West Alton
Festus
Sibley
St Joseph
Marston
Moberly
Asbury
Independence
Clinton
Weston
Sikeston
Springfield
Springfield
Greenville
Gulfport
Escatawpa
Purvis
Ackerman
Columbus
Billings
Colstrip
Arden
Moncure
Goldsboro
Semora
Wilmington
Lumberton
Roxboro
Southport
Battleboro
Belmont
Spencer
Cliffside
Eden
Terrell
State
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-12
-------
Utility Name
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Westmoreland-LG&E Partners
Basin Electric Power Coop
Basin Electric Power Coop
Great River Energy
Great River Energy
MDU Resources Group, Inc.
Minnkota Power Coop, Inc.
Otter Tail Power Co.
Fremont, City of
Grand Island, City of
Nebraska Public Power District
Nebraska Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Public Service Co. of NH
Public Service Co. of NH
Public Service Co. of NH
Atlantic City Electric Co.
Atlantic City Electric Co.
Chambers Cogeneration LP
Logan Generating Co. LP
PSEG Fossil LLC
PSEG Fossil LLC
Arizona Public Service Co.
Public Service Co. of NM
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
Nevada Power Co.
Sierra Pacific Power Co.
Southern California Edison Co.
AESCayugaLLC
AES Greenidge LLC
AES Somerset LLC
AES Westover LLC
Astoria Generating Co. LP
Dunkirk Power LLC
Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc.
Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Mirant New York, Inc.
NRG Huntley Operations, Inc.
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp
American Mun Power-Ohio, Inc.
Cardinal Operating Co.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Plant Name
Riverbend
Belews Creek
Westmoreland-LG&E Roanoke
Valley I
Leland Olds
Antelope Valley
Stanton
Coal Creek
R M Heskett
Milton R Young
Coyote
Lon Wright
Platte
Sheldon
Gerald Gentleman
North Omaha
Nebraska City
Merrimack
Schiller
Newington
B L England
Deepwater
Chambers Cogeneration LP
Logan Generating Plant
PSEG Hudson Generating Station
PSEG Mercer Generating Station
Four Corners
San Juan
Escalante
Reid Gardner
North Valmy
Mohave
AES Cayuga
AES Greenidge LLC
AES Somerset LLC
AES Westover
Astoria Generating Station
Dunkirk Generating Station
Danskammer Generating Station
Roseton Generating Station
Kodak Park Site
Lovett
C R Huntley Generating Station
Rochester 7
Richard Gorsuch
Cardinal
Walter C Beckjord
Miami Fort
City
Mount Holly
Walnut Cove
Weldon
Stanton
Beulah
Stanton
Underwood
Mandan
Center
Beulah
Fremont
Grand Island
Hallam
Sutherland
Florence
Nebraska City
Concord
Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Marmora
Perms Grove
Carneys Point
Swedesboro
Jersey City
Trenton
Fruitland
Waterflow
Prewitt
Moapa
Valmy
Laughlin
Lansing
Dresden
Barker
Johnson City
Woolsey
Central Avenue
Newburgh
Newburgh
Rochester
Tomkins Cove
Tonawanda
Rochester
Marietta
Brilliant
New Richmond
North Bend
State
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
NM
NV
NV
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
C-13
-------
Utility Name
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Columbus Southern Power Co.
Columbus Southern Power Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Hamilton, City of
Ohio Edison Co.
Ohio Edison Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Valley Electric Corp
Orion Power Midwest LP
Orion Power Midwest LP
Toledo Edison Co.
AES Shady Point, LLC
Fort James Operating Co.
Grand River Dam Authority
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Western Farmers Elec Coop, Inc.
Portland General Electric Co.
AES Beaver Valley
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Midwest Generation
Orion Power Midwest LP
Orion Power Midwest LP
P H Glatfelter Co.
Pennsylvania Power Co.
PG&E National Energy Group
PPL Corp
PPL Corp
PPL Corp
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co.
Plant Name
W H Zimmer
Ashtabula
Eastlake
Lake Shore
Conesville
Picway
O H Hutchings
J M Stuart
Killen Station
Hamilton
R E Burger
W H Sammis
Muskingum River
General James M Gavin
Kyger Creek
Avon Lake
Niles
Bay Shore
AES Shady Point
Muskogee Mill
GRDA
Muskogee
Sooner
Northeastern
Hugo
Boardman
AES Beaver Valley Partners Beaver
Valley
Armstrong Power Station
Hatfields Ferry Power Station
Mitchell Power Station
Cromby Generating Station
Delaware Generating Station
Eddystone Generating Station
Schuylkill Generating Station
Homer City Station
New Castle Plant
Cheswick Power Plant
P H Glatfelter
Bruce Mansfield
Northhampton Generating LP
PPL Brunner Island
PPL Martins Creek
PPL Montour
Portland
Titus
Shawville
Conemaugh
City
Cincinnati
Ashtabula
Eastlake
Cleveland
Conesville
Lockbourne
Miamisburg
Aberdeen
Manchester
Hamilton
Shadyside
Stratton
Beverly
Cheshire
Cheshire
Avon Lake
Niles
Oregon
Panama
Muskogee
Chouteau
Ft Gibson
Morrison
Oologah
Fort Towson
Boardman
Monaca
Kittaning
Masontown
Courtney
Phoenixville
Philadelphia
Chester
Philadelphia
Homer City
West Pittsburg
Cheswick
Spring Grove
Shippingport
Northampton
York Haven
Martins Creek
Washingtonville
Portland
Birdboro
Clearfield
New Florence
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
C-14
-------
Utility Name
Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co.
Sunbury Generation LLC
TIFD VIII-W, Inc.
Zinc Corp of America
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Duke Energy Corp
International Paper Co.-Eastovr
South Carolina Electric&Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric&Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric&Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric&Gas Co.
South Carolina Genertg Co., Inc.
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
Stone Container Corp
Otter Tail Power Co.
Eastman Chemical Co.-TN Ops
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
AEP Texas North Co.
AESCorp
Alcoa, Inc.
Lower Colorado River Authority
San Antonio Public Service Bd
San Antonio Public Service Bd
San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.
Sempra Energy Resources
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Texas Genco
Texas Genco
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Topaz Power Group LLC
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
Deseret Generation & Tran Coop
Plant Name
Keystone
WPS Energy Servs Sunbury Gen
Colver Power Project
G F Weaton Power Station
H B Robinson
WSLee
International Paper Eastover Facility
Canadys Steam
McMeekin
Urquhart
Wateree
Williams
Cross
Dolphus M Grainger
Jefferies
Winy ah
Stone Container Florence Mill
Big Stone
Tennessee Eastman Operations
Allen Steam Plant
Bull Run
Cumberland
Gallatin
John Sevier
Johnsonville
Kingston
Oklaunion
AES Deepwater
Sandow Station
Fayette Power Project
J T Deely
J K Spruce
San Miguel
Twin Oaks Power One
Welsh
Pirkey
Harrington
Tolk
Limestone
W A Parish
Gibbons Creek
Coleto Creek
Big Brown
Martin Lake
Monticello
Sandow No 4
Bonanza
City
Shelocta
Shamokin Dam
Colver
Monaca
Hartsville
Pelzer
Eastover
Canadys
Irmo
Urquhart
Eastover
Goose Creek
Cross
Conway
Moncks Corner
Georgetown
Florence
Big Stone City
Kingsport
Memphis
Clinton
Cumberland City
Gallatin
Rogersville
New Johnsonville
Kingston
Vernon
Pasadena
Rockdale
La Grange
Downtown Station
Downtown Station
Christine
Bremond
Pittsburg
Hallsville
Amarillo
Muleshoe
Jewett
Thompsons
Anderson
Fannin
Fairfield
Tatum
Mt. Pleasant
Rockdale
Vernal
State
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
sc
SC
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
sc
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
C-15
-------
Utility Name
Kennecott Utah Copper
Corporation
Los Angeles, City of
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Birchwood Power Partners LP
Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc.
Cogentrix- Virginia Leas'g Corp
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.
DPS Mecklenburg LLC
James River Cogeneration Co.
Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC
St Laurent Paper Products Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC
Dairy land Power Coop
Dairy land Power Coop
Dairy land Power Coop
Fort James Operating Co.
Madison Gas & Electric Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp
Wisconsin Public Service Corp
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Central Operating Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Plant Name
KUCC
Intermountain Power Project
Carbon
Hunter
Huntington
Clinch River
Glen Lyn
Birchwood Power
Cogentrix of Richmond
Cogentrix Portsmouth
Covanta Fairfax Energy
Mecklenburg Power Station
Cogentrix Hopewell
Potomac River
West Point Mill
Bremo Bluff
Chesterfield
Chesapeake
Yorktown
Clover
Transalta Centralia Generation
Alma
Genoa
John P Madgett
Green Bay West Mill
Blount Street
Port Washington Generating Station
South Oak Creek
Valley
Pleasant Prairie
Edgewater
Nelson Dewey
Columbia
Pulliam
Weston
John E Amos
Kanawha River
Mountaineer
Philip Sporn
Albright
Fort Martin Power Station
Harrison Power Station
Rivesville
Willow Island
Pleasants Power Station
Kammer
Mitchell
City
Magna Post Office
Delta
Helper
Castledale
Huntington
Cleveland
Glen Lyn
King George
Richmond
Portsmouth
Lorton
Clarksville
Hopewell
George Washington
West Point
Bremo Bluff
Chester
Chesapeake
Yorktown
Clover
Centralia
Alma
Genoa
Alma
Green Bay
Madison
Port Washington
Oak Creek
Milwaukee
Kenosha
Sheboygan
Cassville
Pardeeville
Green Bay
Rothschild
St Albans
Glasgow
New Haven
New Haven
Albright
Maidsville
Haywood
Rivesville
Williow Island
Willow Island
Moundsville
Moundsville
State
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
C-16
-------
Utility Name
PPG Industries, Inc.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Basin Electric Power Coop
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
Plant Name
PPG Natrium Plant
Mt Storm
Laramie River Station
Dave Johnston
Naughton
Wyodak
Jim Bridger
City
New Martinsville
Mt Storm
Wheatland
Casper
Kemmerer
Gillette
Rock Springs
State
WV
wv
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
C-17
-------
Table C-5: U.S. Silica Fume Producers (Corathers, 2004)
Company
Elkem Materials, Inc.
Norchem, Inc.
Norchem, Inc.
Norchem, Inc.
Oxbow Carbon and Minerals LLC
Simcala, Inc.
CC Metals and Alloys, Inc.
City
Alloy
Waterford
Selma
Niagara Falls*
Bridgeport
Mount Meigs
Calvert City
State
WV
OH
AL
NY
AL
AL
KY
*Note - Globe's plant in Niagara Falls was idle in 2004
C-18
-------
Table C-6: U.S. Facilities Producing Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum
(U.S. DOE, 2004b)
Utility Name
Alabama Electric Coop, Inc.
Tennessee Valley Authority
JEA
Tampa Electric Company
Seminole Electric Coop, Inc.
Georgia Power Co.
Muscatine, City of
Springfield, City of
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Northern Indiana Pub. Service
Co.
Southern Indiana Gas & Electric
Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Owensboro, City of
Tennessee Valley Authority
Atlantic City Electric Co.
AES Cayuga LLC
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Orion Power Midwest LP
AES Beaver Valley
Midwest Generation
Pennsylvania Power Co.
Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co.
South Carolina Pub Service
Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
AES Corp.
San Antonio Public Service Bd.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC
Monongahela Power Co.
Plant Name
Charles R Lowman
Widows Creek
St Johns River Power Park
Big Bend
Seminole
Yates
Muscatine Plant #1
Dallman
AES Petersburg
R M Schahfer
F B Culley
Ghent
Mill Creek
Trimble County
Elmer Smith
Paradise
B L England
AES Cayuga
W H Zimmer
Niles
AES Beaver Valley Partners
Beaver Valley
Homer City Station
Bruce Mansfield
Conemaugh
Cross
Cumberland
AES Deepwater
J K Spruce
Monticello
Sandow No 4
Transalta Centralia Generation
Pleasants Power Station
City
Leroy
Stevenson
Oceanway
Ruskin
Bostwick
Sargent
Muscatine
Springfield
Petersburg
Wheatfield
Newburgh
Ghent
Louisville
Bedford
Daviess
Drakesboro
Marmora
Lansing
Cincinnati
Niles
Monaca
Homer City
Shippingport
New Florence
Cross
Cumberland City
Pasadena
Downtown Station
Mt. Pleasant
Rockdale
Centralia
Willow Island
State
AL
AL
FL
FL
FL
GA
IA
IL
IN
IN
IN
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
NJ
NY
OH
OH
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
WA
WV
C-19
-------
Table C-7: U.S. Facilities Producing Bottom Ash (U.S. DOE, 2004b)
Utility Name
Alabama Electric Coop, Inc.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Alabama Power Co.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Arizona Electric Pwr Coop, Inc.
Arizona Public Service Co.
Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist
Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist
UNS Electric, Inc.
UNS Electric, Inc.
Colorado Springs, City of
Colorado Springs, City of
Platte River Power Authority
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Public Service Co. of Colorado
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
AES Thames LLC
NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations
PSEG Power Connecticut LLC
Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc.
Indian River Operations, Inc.
Central Power & Lime, Inc.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Florida Power & Light Co.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
Gainesville Regional Utilities
Gulf Power Co.
Gulf Power Co.
Indiantown Cogeneration LP
Plant Name
Charles R Lowman
Barry
Gadsden
Gorgas
Greene County
E C Gaston
James H Miller Jr
Colbert
Widows Creek
White Bluff
Independence
Flint Creek
Apache Station
Cholla
Navajo
Coronado
H Wilson Sundt Generating Station
Springerville
Martin Drake
Ray D Nixon
Rawhide
Arapahoe
Cherokee
Comanche
Valmont
Hay den
Pawnee
Nucla
Craig
AES Thames
NRG Norwalk Harbor
Bridgeport Station
Edge Moor
Indian River Operations
Central Power & Lime
Cape Canaveral
Turkey Point
Crystal River
P L Bartow
Suwannee River
Anclote
Deerhaven Generating Station
Crist
Lansing Smith
Indiantown Cogen Facility
City
Leroy
Bucks
East Gadsden
Parrish
Demopolis
Wilsonville
Quinton
Tuscumbia
Stevenson
Redfield
Newark
Gentry
Cochise
Joseph City
Page
St Johns
Cherry Bell Station
Springerville
Colorado Springs
Fountain
Wellington
Denver
Denver
Pueblo
Boulder
Hay den
Brush
Nucla
Craig
Uncasville
South Norwalk
Bridgeport
Edgemoor
Millsboro
Brooksville
Cocoa
Homestead
Crystal River
St Petersburg
Live Oak
Tarpon Springs
Alachua
Pensacola
Southport FL
Indiantown
State
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AL
AR
AR
AR
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
AZ
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CT
CT
CT
DE
DE
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
C-20
-------
Utility Name
JEA
JEA
Orlando Utilities Comm
PG&E Operating Service Co.
Tampa Electric Co.
Seminole Electric Coop, Inc.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Georgia Power Co.
Savannah Electric & Power Co.
Savannah Electric & Power Co.
AESCorp
Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Interstate Power and Light
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
Interstate Power & Light Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
MidAmerican Energy Co.
Muscatine, City of
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Ameren Energy Generating Co.
Archer Daniels Midland Co.
Dominion Energy Services Co.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc.
Electric Energy, Inc.
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Plant Name
St Johns River Power Park
Northside Generating Station
Stanton Energy Center
Cedar Bay Generating LP
Big Bend
Seminole
Bo wen
Hammond
Harllee Branch
Jack McDonough
Mitchell
Yates
Wansley
Scherer
Kraft
Mclntosh
AES Hawaii
Archer Daniels Midland Cedar
Rapids
Ottumwa
Milton L Kapp
Prairie Creek
Sutherland
Burlington
Riverside
Council Bluffs
George Neal North
Louisa
George Neal South
Muscatine Plant #1
Coffeen
Hutsonville
Meredosia
Newton
Archer Daniels Midland Decatur
Kincaid Generation LLC
Baldwin Energy Complex
Havana
Hennepin Power Station
Vermilion
Wood River
Joppa Steam
Joliet 29
Crawford
Joliet 9
Powerton
Waukegan
Will County
City
Oceanway
Oceanway
Alafaya Branch
Jacksonville
Ruskin
Bostwick
Taylorsville
Coosa
Milledgeville
Smyrna
Putney
Sargent
Roopville
Juliette
Port Wentworth
Rincon
Kapolei
Cedar Rapids
Ottumwa
Clinton
Cedar Rapids
Marshalltown
Burlington
Bettendorf
Council Bluffs
Salix
Muscatine
Salix
Muscatine
Coffeen
Hutsonville
Meredosia
Newton
Decatur
Kincaid
Baldwin
Havana
Hennepin
Oakwood
East Alton
Joppa
Joliet
Chicago
Joliet
Pekin
Waukegan
Romeoville
State
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
FL
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
GA
HI
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IA
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
C-21
-------
Utility Name
Midwest Generations EME LLC
Southern Illinois Power Coop
Springfield, City of
Ameren Energy Resources Generating
Ameren Energy Resources Generating
Alcoa Power Generating, Inc.
Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc.
Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc.
Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Indianapolis Power & Light Co.
Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Indiana Michigan Power Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
PSI Energy, Inc.
Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co.
Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co.
State Line Energy LLC
Kansas City, City of
Kansas City, City of
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Sunflower Electric Power Corp
Westar Energy
Westar Energy
Westar Energy
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Kentucky Utilities Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Louisville Gas & Electric Co.
Owensboro, City of
Tennessee Valley Authority
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Plant Name
Fisk Street
Marion
Dallman
E D Edwards
Duck Creek
Warrick
Frank E Ratts
Merom
Clifty Creek
Harding Street
Eagle Valley
AES Petersburg
Tanners Creek
Rockport
Bailly
Michigan City
R M Schahfer
Cayuga
Edwardsport
R Gallagher
Wabash River
Gibson
F B Culley
A B Brown
State Line Energy
Quindaro
Nearman Creek
La Cygne
Holcomb
Lawrence Energy Center
Tecumseh Energy Center
Jeffrey Energy Center
East Bend
Cooper
Dale
H L Spurlock
E W Brown
Ghent
Green River
Tyrone
Cane Run
Mill Creek
Trimble County
Elmer Smith
Shawnee
Kenneth C Coleman
HMP&L Station Two Henderson
City
Chicago
Marion
Springfield
Bartonville
Canton
Newburgh
Petersburg
Sullivan
Madison
Indianapolis
Martinsville
Petersburg
Lawrenceburg
Rockport
Chesterton
Michigan City
Wheatfield
Cayuga
Edwardsport
New Albany
Terre Haute
Mt Carmel
Newburgh
Mount Vernon
Hammond
Fairfax Station
Robert L Roberts STA
La Cygne
Holcomb
Lawrence, Kansas
Tecumseh
Belvue
Rabbit Hash
Burnside
Winchester
Maysville
Burgin
Ghent
Central City
Versailles
Louisville
Louisville
Bedford
Daviess
West Paducah
Hawesville
Sebree
State
IL
IL
IL
IL
IL
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KS
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
KY
C-22
-------
Utility Name
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Western Kentucky Energy Corp
Kentucky Power Co.
Cleco Power LLC
Cleco Power LLC
Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
International Paper Co.
Louisiana Generating LLC
Dominion Energy New England
U S Gen New England, Inc.
Northeast Generation Services Co.
Somerset Power LLC
AES WR Ltd Partnership
Constellation Power Source Gen
Constellation Power Source Gen
Constellation Power Source Gen
Mirant Mid- Atlantic LLC
Mirant Mid- Atlantic LLC
Mirant Mid- Atlantic LLC
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
MeadWestvaco Corp
S D Warren Co.
FPL Energy Wyman LLC
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Consumers Energy Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Detroit Edison Co.
Lansing, City of
Lansing, City of
MeadWestvaco Corp
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Allete, Inc.
Allete, Inc.
Allete, Inc.
Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Northern States Power Co.
Plant Name
R D Green
D B Wilson
Big Sandy
Dolet Hills
Rodemacher
R S Nelson
Mansfield Mill
Big Cajun 2
Brayton Point
Salem Harbor
Mount Tom
Somerset Station
AES Warrior Run Cogeneration
Facility
Brandon Shores
C P Crane
Herbert A Wagner
Chalk Point LLC
Dickerson
Morgantown Generating Plant
R Paul Smith Power Station
Rumford Cogeneration
Somerset Plant
William F Wyman
B C Cobb
DanEKarn
J H Campbell
J C Weadock
J R Whiting
Harbor Beach
Monroe
River Rouge
St Clair
Trenton Channel
Belle River
Eckert Station
Erickson Station
Escanaba Paper Company
Presque Isle
Syl Laskin
Clay Boswell
Taconite Harbor Energy Center
Silver Bay Power
Black Dog
High Bridge
Allen S King
Riverside
Sherburne County
City
Sebree
Centertown
Louisa
Mansfield
Lena
Lake Charles
Mansfield
New Roads
Somerset
Salem
Holyoke
Somerset
Cumberland
Baltimore
Baltimore
Baltimore
Aquasco
Dickerson
Newburg MD
Williamsport
Rumford
Skowhegan
Yarmouth
Muskegon
Essexville
West Olive
Essexville
Erie
Harbor Beach
Monroe
River Rouge
East China
Trenton
Belle River
Lansing
Lansing
Escanaba
Marquette
Aurora
Cohasset
Schroeder
Silver Bay
Burnsville
St. Paul
Bayport
Minneapolis
Becker
State
KY
KY
KY
LA
LA
LA
LA
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
ME
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
MN
C-23
-------
Utility Name
Otter Tail Power Co.
Aquila, Inc.
Aquila, Inc.
Associated Electric Coop, Inc.
Associated Electric Coop, Inc.
Empire District Electric Co.
Independence, City of
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Kansas City Power & Light Co.
Sikeston, City of
Springfield, City of
Springfield, City of
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Ameren UE
Mississippi Power Co.
Mississippi Power Co.
South Mississippi El Pwr Assn
Tractebel Power, Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Co.
PPL Montana LLC
PPL Montana LLC
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Cogentrix of Rocky Mount, Inc.
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Duke Energy Corp
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Basin Electric Power Coop
Basin Electric Power Coop
Great River Energy
Great River Energy
MDU Resources Group, Inc.
Minnkota Power Coop, Inc.
Otter Tail Power Co.
Plant Name
Hoot Lake
Sibley
Lake Road
New Madrid
Thomas Hill
Asbury
Blue Valley
Hawthorn
Montrose
latan
Sikeston Power Station
James River Power Station
Southwest Power Station
Labadie
Meramec
Sioux
Rush Island
Jack Watson
Victor J Daniel Jr
R D Morrow
Red Hills Generating Facility
Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS
J E Corette Plant
Colstrip
Asheville
Cape Fear
Lee
Roxboro
L V Sutton
W H Weatherspoon
Mayo
Cogentrix Dwayne Collier Battle
Cogen
G G Allen
Buck
Cliffside
Dan River
Marshall
Riverbend
Belews Creek
Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC
Leland Olds
Antelope Valley
Stanton
Coal Creek
R M Heskett
Milton R Young
Coyote
City
Fergus Falls
Sibley
St Joseph
Marston
Moberly
Asbury
Independence
Kansas City
Clinton
Weston
Sikeston
Springfield
Springfield
Labadie
St Louis
West Alton
Festus
Gulfport
Escatawpa
Purvis
Ackerman
Columbus
Billings
Colstrip
Arden
Moncure
Goldsboro
Semora
Wilmington
Lumberton
Roxboro
Battleboro
Belmont
Spencer
Cliffside
Eden
Terrell
Mount Holly
Walnut Cove
Plymouth
Stanton
Beulah
Stanton
Underwood
Mandan
Center
Beulah
State
MN
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MO
MS
MS
MS
MS
MS
MT
MT
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
C-24
-------
Utility Name
Fremont, City of
Nebraska Public Power District
Nebraska Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Omaha Public Power District
Grand Island, City of
Public Service Co. of NH
Public Service Co. of NH
Public Service Co. of NH
Atlantic City Electric Co.
Atlantic City Electric Co.
Chambers Cogeneration LP
Logan Generating Co. LP
PSEG Fossil LLC
PSEG Fossil LLC
Arizona Public Service Co.
Public Service Co. of NM
Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc.
Nevada Power Co.
Sierra Pacific Power Co.
Sierra Pacific Power Co.
Southern California Edison Co.
AES Greenidge LLC
Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc.
Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc.
Eastman Kodak Co.
Mirant New York, Inc.
NRG Huntley Operations, Inc.
Dunkirk Power LLC
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp
AESCayugaLLC
AES Somerset LLC
AESWestoverLLC
Cardinal Operating Co.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Cleveland Electric Ilium Co.
Columbus Southern Power Co.
Columbus Southern Power Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Dayton Power & Light Co.
Hamilton, City of
Ohio Edison Co.
Plant Name
Lon Wright
Sheldon
Gerald Gentleman
North Omaha
Nebraska City
Platte
Merrimack
Schiller
Newington
B L England
Deepwater
Chambers Cogeneration LP
Logan Generating Plant
PSEG Hudson Generating Station
PSEG Mercer Generating Station
Four Corners
San Juan
Escalante
Reid Gardner
Fort Churchill
North Valmy
Mohave
AES Greenidge LLC
Danskammer Generating Station
Roseton Generating Station
Kodak Park Site
Lovett
C R Huntley Generating Station
Dunkirk Generating Station
Rochester 7
AES Cayuga
AES Somerset LLC
AES Westover
Cardinal
Walter C Beckjord
Miami Fort
W H Zimmer
Ashtabula
Eastlake
Lake Shore
Conesville
Picway
O H Hutchings
J M Stuart
Killen Station
Hamilton
R E Burger
City
Fremont
Hallam
Sutherland
Florence
Nebraska City
Grand Island
Concord
Portsmouth
Portsmouth
Marmora
Perms Grove
Carneys Point
Swedesboro
Jersey City
Trenton
Fruitland
Waterflow
Prewitt
Moapa
Yerington
Valmy
Laughlin
Dresden
Newburgh
Newburgh
Rochester
Tomkins Cove
Tonawanda
Central Avenue
Rochester
Lansing
Barker
Johnson City
Brilliant
New Richmond
North Bend
Cincinnati
Ashtabula
Eastlake
Cleveland
Conesville
Lockbourne
Miamisburg
Aberdeen
Manchester
Hamilton
Shadyside
State
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NH
NH
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NM
NM
NM
NV
NV
NV
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
C-25
-------
Utility Name
Ohio Edison Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Valley Electric Corp
Orion Power Midwest LP
Orion Power Midwest LP
Toledo Edison Co.
American Mun Power-Ohio, Inc.
AES Shady Point, LLC
Fort James Operating Co.
Grand River Dam Authority
Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.
Public Service Co. of Oklahoma
Western Farmers Elec Coop, Inc.
Portland General Electric Co.
AES Beaver Valley
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Exelon Generation Co. LLC
Midwest Generation
Orion Power Midwest LP
Orion Power Midwest LP
Orion Power Midwest LP
Pennsylvania Power Co.
PPL Corp
PPL Corp
PPL Corp
Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co.
Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co.
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
Reliant Energy Mid- Atlantic PH
TIFD VIII-W, Inc.
Sunbury Generation LLC
PG&E National Energy Group
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC
Carolina Power & Light Co.
Duke Energy Corp
International Paper Co.-Eastovr
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
South Carolina Electric & Gas Co.
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
Plant Name
W H Sammis
Muskingum River
General James M Gavin
Kyger Creek
Avon Lake
Niles
Bay Shore
Richard Gorsuch
AES Shady Point
Muskogee Mill
GRDA
Muskogee
Northeastern
Hugo
Boardman
AES Beaver Valley Partners Beaver
Valley
Cromby Generating Station
Eddystone Generating Station
Homer City Station
Elrama Power Plant
Cheswick Power Plant
New Castle Plant
Bruce Mansfield
PPL Brunner Island
PPL Martins Creek
PPL Montour
Conemaugh
Keystone
Portland
Titus
Shawville
Colver Power Project
WPS Energy Servs Sunbury Gen
Northhampton Generating LP
Armstrong Power Station
Hatfields Ferry Power Station
Mitchell Power Station
H B Robinson
WSLee
International Paper Eastover Facility
Canadys Steam
McMeekin
Urquhart
Wateree
Cope
Cross
Dolphus M Grainger
City
Stratton
Beverly
Cheshire
Cheshire
Avon Lake
Niles
Oregon
Marietta
Panama
Muskogee
Chouteau
Ft Gibson
Oologah
Fort Towson
Boardman
Monaca
Phoenixville
Chester
Homer City
Elrama
Cheswick
West Pittsburg
Shippingport
York Haven
Martins Creek
Washingtonville
New Florence
Shelocta
Portland
Birdboro
Clearfield
Colver
Shamokin Dam
Northampton
Kittaning
Masontown
Courtney
Hartsville
Pelzer
Eastover
Canadys
Irmo
Urquhart
Eastover
Cope
Cross
Conway
State
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OR
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
PA
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
C-26
-------
Utility Name
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Pub Serv Auth
South Carolina Genertg Co., Inc.
Stone Container Corp
Otter Tail Power Co.
Eastman Chemical Co.-TN Ops
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Tennessee Valley Authority
Alcoa, Inc.
Topaz Power Group LLC
Lower Colorado River Authority
San Antonio Public Service Bd
San Antonio Public Service Bd
San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc.
Sempra Energy Resources
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Southwestern Electric Power Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Southwestern Public Service Co.
Texas Municipal Power Agency
Texas Genco
Texas Genco
AEP Texas North Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
TXU Electric Co.
Los Angeles, City of
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
Deseret Generation & Tran Coop
Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Birchwood Power Partners LP
St Laurent Paper Products Co.
Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc.
Covanta Fairfax, Inc.
Mirant Mid- Atlantic LLC
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Plant Name
Jefferies
Winyah
Williams
Stone Container Florence Mill
Big Stone
Tennessee Eastman Operations
Bull Run
Cumberland
Gallatin
John Sevier
Johnsonville
Kingston
Sandow Station
Coleto Creek
Fayette Power Project
J T Deely
J K Spruce
San Miguel
Twin Oaks Power One
Welsh
Pirkey
Harrington
Tolk
Gibbons Creek
Limestone
W A Parish
Oklaunion
Big Brown
Martin Lake
Monticello
Sandow No 4
Intermountain Power Project
Carbon
Hunter
Huntington
Bonanza
KUCC
Clinch River
Glen Lyn
Birchwood Power
West Point Mill
Cogentrix of Richmond
Covanta Fairfax Energy
Potomac River
Bremo Bluff
Chesterfield
Chesapeake
City
Moncks Corner
Georgetown
Goose Creek
Florence
Big Stone City
Kingsport
Clinton
Cumberland City
Gallatin
Rogersville
New Johnsonville
Kingston
Rockdale
Fannin
La Grange
Downtown Station
Downtown Station
Christine
Bremond
Pittsburg
Hallsville
Amarillo
Muleshoe
Anderson
Jewett
Thompsons
Vernon
Fairfield
Tatum
Mt. Pleasant
Rockdale
Delta
Helper
Castledale
Huntington
Vernal
Magna Post Office
Cleveland
Glen Lyn
King George
West Point
Richmond
Lorton
George Washington
Bremo Bluff
Chester
Chesapeake
State
SC
sc
SC
sc
SD
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TN
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
UT
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
C-27
-------
Utility Name
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
DPS Mecklenburg LLC
TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC
Dairy land Power Coop
Dairy land Power Coop
Dairy land Power Coop
Fort James Operating Co.
Madison Gas & Electric Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Power & Light Co.
Wisconsin Public Service Corp
Wisconsin Public Service Corp
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Appalachian Power Co.
Central Operating Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Monongahela Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
Ohio Power Co.
PPG Industries, Inc.
Virginia Electric & Power Co.
Basin Electric Power Coop
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
PacifiCorp
Plant Name
Yorktown
Clover
Mecklenburg Power Station
Transalta Centralia Generation
Alma
Genoa
John P Madgett
Green Bay West Mill
Blount Street
Port Washington Generating Station
South Oak Creek
Valley
Pleasant Prairie
Edgewater
Columbia
Pulliam
Weston
John E Amos
Kanawha River
Mountaineer
Philip Sporn
Albright
Fort Martin Power Station
Harrison Power Station
Rivesville
Willow Island
Pleasants Power Station
Kammer
Mitchell
PPG Natrium Plant
Mt Storm
Laramie River Station
Dave Johnston
Naughton
Wyodak
Jim Bridger
City
Yorktown
Clover
Clarksville
Centralia
Alma
Genoa
Alma
Green Bay
Madison
Port Washington
Oak Creek
Milwaukee
Kenosha
Sheboygan
Pardeeville
Green Bay
Rothschild
St Albans
Glasgow
New Haven
New Haven
Albright
Maidsville
Haywood
Rivesville
Williow Island
Willow Island
Moundsville
Moundsville
New Martinsville
Mt Storm
Wheatland
Casper
Kemmerer
Gillette
Rock Springs
State
VA
VA
VA
WA
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WI
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WV
WY
WY
WY
WY
WY
C-28
-------
APPENDIX D:
RMC BENEFICIAL USE MODEL - TECHNICAL APPROACH
-------
Recovered Mineral Components (RMC) Beneficial Use Model
Technical Approach
As described in the main body of this report, beneficial use of RMCs in concrete can have
environmental benefits associated with avoided portland cement production.3 In addition to the
general evaluation of these benefits, the report provides quantified estimates of a suite of
environmental impacts for three of the RMCs identified by Congress: coal combustion fly ash;
ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS); and silica fume. In this appendix, we describe
the model used to quantify these environmental benefits and provide the full model results.
The model estimates avoided resource use and avoided emissions when a specified quantity of
coal fly ash, GGBFS, or silica fume is used in place of finished portland cement in federally-
funded concrete projects.4 To capture the full magnitude of benefits, the model follows a
modified life-cycle approach in which the benefits of using RMC in concrete are evaluated
across all stages of the product's life, from resource extraction through disposal.5
We illustrate the three primary steps in modeling the environmental benefits of using RMCs in
Federal concrete applications in Figure D-l. As shown in this figure, the analytic process
includes:
(1) Development of RMC substitution scenarios, representing the estimated annual
quantity of each RMC (in metric tons) used in federally-funded concrete projects,
including current and expanded substitution scenarios;
(2) Estimation of environmental impact values for the substitution of one unit (metric
ton) of RMC as a partial substitute for finished portland cement in concrete; and
(3) Calculation of national-scale impacts under current use and expanded use scenarios
by multiplying per-unit impacts by national-level RMC reuse quantities
We describe each of these steps in greater detail below.
3 The Agency recognizes that these environmental benefits may represent the reduced need for new or expanded
portland cement producing capacity in future years. With the use of RMCs, the same amount of portland
cement/clinker will likely be produced, but will result in more concrete production than with 100% virgin material.
4 As described in Section 2 of this report, RMCs can be used to offset virgin materials at more than one point in the
cement production process. It is important to note that we are modeling the use of RMCs as a direct replacement for
finished portland cement in concrete. This analysis does not evaluate use of RMCs in clinker production.
5 We focus on coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume because more comprehensive and robust life cycle data were
available to analyze them. Relevant life cycle data for the substitution of other RMCs were not available for
purposes of this report.
D-l
-------
Figure D-l
Conceptual Schematic ofRMC BeneficialUse Model
RMC Substitution Scenarios
•Scenario projection: 2004-2015
• RMC substitution levels for
federal projects (in me trie tons
per year for each RMC):
-Fly Ash: "current use" and
"expanded use" substitution
scenarios
-GGBFS and Silica Fume: "current
use" substitution scenario only
Environmental Metrics
Environmental Impact Values
Benefit per metric ton of RMC
Substituted for Portland Cement
Resource Use
Emissions
Waste
Decrease in energy and water
consumption (joules, liters)
Decrease in air emissions
(C02 CO, Pb, Hg, NOx, PM10,
and Sox), soil emissions, and
water emissions (BOD, COD,
suspended matter, and
copper) (grams)
Decrease in non-hazardous
waste disposal (kilograms)
Y
Environmental Impact Profile
• For each RMC and substitution scenario by year,
multiply substitution level (in metric tons of RMC) by
suite of environmental metrics.
• Yields profile of environmental benefits (resource
use, emissions, waste) for RMC beneficial use.
D-2
-------
Step 1 - Estimation of RMC Usage in Federal Concrete Projects
In order to estimate the quantity of coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume used in Federal
concrete projects, we first estimate the quantity of each RMC used in the U.S. and multiply these
estimates by the percentage assumed to be used in federally-funded projects. The Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) estimates that approximately 20% of all cement usage in the
U.S. is incorporated in to federally-funded projects. Therefore, for this analysis, we assumed
that 20% of the national RMC usage is incorporated into Federal projects. Table below 1 shows
the derivation of the 20% FHWA estimate.
Table D-l: Derivation of FHWA Estimate for Concrete use in Federal Projects
Type
Classroom buildings & Labs
Public Administrative/Services
Low rise hospitals
High-rise Hospitals
Passenger Terminals
State Highways (Urban and Rural)
Urban Streets & Roadways
Rural Roadways
Vehicle / Pedestrian Bridges
Maintenance & repair
Dams & Reservoirs
River & Harbor Development & Control
Water Supply Systems
Sanitary/Storm Sewers
Water & Sewer Tunnels
Airport Runways/Taxi ways/Lighting
Defense/Space facilities
Total Tons
National Total
Percent Used in Federal Construction
PCA Cement Use in Federal
Construction Estimate"
thousand metric tons
2,270.5
498.8
947
432.9
84.7
15,415.4
6,240.1
424.7
7,289.6
4,055.7
661.7
716.7
3,597.1
2,265.6
40.0
1,269.2
122.1
46,331.8
114,889
40%
Expert Estimate Cement Use
in Federal Construction
percent
l%b
10%b
10%b
10%b
20%b
74%c
74%c
4%d
43%e
l%d
90%b
90%b
50%b
30%b
80%b
99%b
100%b
thousand metric tons1
22.7
49.9
94.7
43.3
16.9
11,418.4
4,622.0
17.0
3,137.3
40.6
595.5
645.0
1,798.6
679.7
32.0
1,256.5
122.1
24,592.2
114,889
20%
Notes:
1. Values may not add due to rounding.
Sources:
a. Portland Cement Association, "2004 Apparent Use of Portland Cement by Market," 2004. Skokie, IL.
b. Personal communication and follow-up email with Jon Mullarky, Federal Highway Administration, July 17,
2007 and July 18, 2007.
c. Federal Highway Administration, "Funding for Highways and Disposition of Highway -User Revenues, All
Units of Government, 2004," Modified March 21, 2006.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hflO.htm Accessed on August 14, 2007.
d. Federal Highway Administration, "Pubic Road Length-2004," Modified March 14, 2006.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hmlO.htm Accessed on August 14, 2007.
e. Federal Highway Administration, "National Bridge Inventory." Modified July 10, 2007.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.htm Accessed on August 14, 2007.
D-3
-------
Section 3 of this report describes the assumptions used to develop historical and projected
estimates of the quantity of each RMC used as a substitute for finished portland cement under
both current and expanded use scenarios. These assumptions are described in greater detail
below.
Current Use Estimates
Cement:
One of the primary assumptions used in the development of current use estimates for coal fly ash
and GGBFS is that use of these RMCs will grow at the same rate as use of cement. For portland
cement, USGS provides data for the years 2004 and 2005 on estimated U.S. cement production,
imports and exports. Using these data, U.S. cement consumption for the years 2004 and 2005
was estimated as total imports plus total U.S. production minus U.S. exports. Using this
approach, it was estimated that U.S. apparent cement consumption was 121,980 thousand metric
tons in 2004, and 125,700 thousand metric tons in 2005.
The Portland Cement Association estimates that U.S. cement demand will be 195 million metric
tons in 2030 (PC A, 2006a). Using the PC A estimate in 2030, demand for the years 2006 through
2015 was estimated by assuming a linear increase from 125,700 thousand metric tons in 2005 to
195,000 thousand metric tons in 2030. By applying the 20% Federal use estimate to the
projections for total U.S. cement use, we derive the Federal substitution projections for cement.
Cement consumption estimates for the years 2004 through 2015 are presented in Table D-2.
D-4
-------
Table D-2: Projected Cement Usage
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Estimated U.S. Cement
Consumption
121,980
125,700
128,472
131,244
134,016
136,788
139,560
142,332
145,104
147,876
150,648
153,420
Cement Consumption
in Federal Projects
24,396
25,140
25,694
26,249
26,803
27,358
27,912
28,466
29,020
29,575
30,130
30,684
Cement Consumption
in Non-Federal
Projects
97,584
100,560
102,778
104,995
107,213
109,430
111,648
113,866
116,083
118,301
120,518
122,736
Coal Fly Ash:
The current use estimates for coal fly ash as an SCM are broken out into a "baseline" and "C2P2"
00
scenario in order to account for the impact of EPA's C P program on coal fly ash use. The
baseline scenario estimates coal fly ash use in the absence of the C2P2 program. The C2P2
scenario estimates coal fly ash use assuming the C2P2 program achieves the targeted use of coal
fly ash under the program.
For both scenarios, 2004 and 2005 estimates of coal fly ash usage in cement are taken from the
American Coal Ash Association's (ACAA) annual survey of electric utilities (see Section 2).
ACAA estimates that 12,811 thousand metric tons of coal fly ash were used as a finished
Portland cement substitute in 2004, and that 13,599 thousand metric tons were used in 2005.
Under the current use baseline scenario, it is assumed that in the absence of the C2P2 program,
coal fly ash usage as a finished portland cement substitute would increase linearly after 2005 at
the same rate as U.S. cement demand over 2004 levels, which is approximately 2.2%, or
approximately 300,000 metric tons per year. Projected coal fly ash usage under the current use
baseline scenario is shown in the top-half of Table D-3.
Under the current use C2P2 scenario, it is assumed that coal fly ash as a finished portland cement
substitute will increase to 18.6 million short tons (approximately 16.9 million metric tons) by
2011. This is the goal of the C2P2 program.6 A second order polynomial fit was used to estimate
usage for the years 2006 through 2010. The equation used is y = -8,765.346x2 +
35,420,372.024x - 35,775,515,275.736 wherey = fly ash use as an SCM, and x = years projected
past 2005. For the years 2011 through 2015, coal fly ash usage under the C2P2 scenario was
estimated to increase at the same rate as U.S. cement demand over 2004 levels. As with cement
6 For an overview of the C2P2 program, see section 5 of this report. Additional program information can be found
at: http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/pubs/facts508.pdf.
D-5
-------
it was assumed that 20% of coal fly ash is used in Federal projects and 80% is used in non-
Federal projects. Table D-3 shows current use estimates for coal fly ash under the current use
baseline and current use C2P2 scenarios. It is assumed that the difference between coal fly ash
usage in these scenarios, also shown in Table D-3, represents the increment of coal fly ash usage
attributable to the C2P2 program.
Table D-3: Coal Fly Ash Usage Under Current Use Scenarios
Year
Estimated U.S. Coal
Fly Ash Consumption
Coal fly ash Consumption
in Federal Projects
Coal fly ash Consumption
in Non-Federal Projects
Baseline
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
12,811
13,599
13,900
14,200
14,498
14,798
15,098
15,398
15,698
15,998
16,298
16,598
2,562
2,720
2,780
2,840
2,900
2,960
3,020
3,080
3,140
3,200
3,260
3,320
10,249
10,879
11,120
11,360
11,598
11,838
12,078
12,318
12,558
12,798
13,038
13,278
C2p2
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
12,811
13,599
14,208
14,820
15,390
15,915
16,395
16,875
17,203
17,530
17,860
18,188
2,562
2,720
2,842
2,964
3,078
3,183
3,279
3,375
3,441
3,506
3,572
3,638
10,249
10,879
11,366
11,856
12,312
12,732
13,116
13,500
13,762
14,024
14,288
14,550
Quantity Attributable to C2P2 (C2P2 - Baseline)
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
0
0
308
620
892
1,117
1,297
1,477
1,505
1,532
1,562
1,590
0
0
62
124
178
223
259
295
301
306
312
318
0
0
246
496
714
894
1,038
1,182
1,204
1,226
1,250
1,272
D-6
-------
GGBFS:
Under current use, it was assumed that demand for GGBFS would increase linearly from 2004
use rates at the same rate as U.S. cement demand (which is approximately 2.2% per year). For
GGBFS, this equals an annual increase of 76,000 metric tons. It was also assumed that 20% of
GGBFS is used in Federal concrete projects with the remainder being used in non-Federal
projects. Values for GGBFS usage under the current use scenario are shown in Table D-4.
Table D-4: GGBFS Usage Under Current Use Scenario
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Estimated U.S.
GGBFS
Consumption
3,460
3,536
3,612
3,688
3,764
3,840
3,916
3,992
4,068
4,144
4,220
4,296
GGBFS
Consumption in
Federal Projects
692
707
722
738
753
768
783
798
814
829
844
859
GGBFS
Consumption in
Non-Federal
Projects
2,768
2,829
2,890
2,950
3,011
3,072
3,133
3,194
3,254
3,315
3,376
3,437
Silica Fume:
For current use, we assume that domestic silica fume supply is inelastic, as a result of relatively
inelastic global supply of silicon metal and ferrosilicon and related ferroalloys production.
Therefore, we assume that current (i.e., base year) rates of silica fume use in U.S. concrete
projects will remain constant into the future (i.e., roughly 60,000 metric tons).7 Values for silica
fume under the current use scenario are shown in Table D-5. It was also assumed that 20% of
GGBFS and 40% of silica fume were used in Federal projects with the remainder being used in
non-Federal projects.
7 Personal communication with Hendrick van Oss, USGS, July 12, 2007, and analysis of data from USGS 2005
Minerals Yearbook - Ferroalloys, accessed at:
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/ferroallovs/feallmyb05.pdf.
D-7
-------
Table D-5: Silica Fume Usage Under Current Use Scenario
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Estimated U.S. Silica
Fume Consumption
/
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Silica Fume
Consumption in Federal
Projects
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
Silica Fume Consumption
in Non-Federal Projects
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
48
Expanded Use Estimates
In order to estimate potential impacts associated with Federal initiatives to increase beneficial
use rates, two expanded usage scenarios were developed for coal fly ash. Expanded use scenarios
were not developed for GGBFS and silica fume since utilization of these materials is already
very high, and it is unlikely that new initiatives could significantly impact reuse rates.
Under the first expanded usage scenario for coal fly ash (15% scenario), it was assumed that coal
fly ash substitution in Federal projects would increase from current reuse rates of approximately
10% to the levels recommended under the comprehensive procurement guidelines (CPG), which
is 15% substitution by 2015. Under the second expanded usage scenario (30% scenario), it was
assumed that coal fly ash substitution in Federal projects would increase from current reuse rates
of approximately 10% to the maximum levels recommended under the CPG program, which is
30%, by 2015. For both scenarios, it was assumed that the increase from current reuse to the
expanded reuse rates would occur incrementally and linearly starting in the year 2009 and
continuing through the year 2015.8 Using this methodology, expanded usage for coal fly ash was
calculated as shown in Table D-6. Figure D-2 illustrates coal fly ash consumption estimates
under both expanded and current use scenarios.
8 The Bill language instructs all agency heads to implement recommendations of the 30 month study with regard to
procurement guidelines no later than one year after the release of the study, or approximately early to mid 2009
D-8
-------
Table D-6: Coal Fly Ash Usage Under Expanded Use Scenarios
Year
Estimated U.S. Coal Fly
Ash Consumption
Coal Fly Ash Consumption
in Federal Projects
Coal Fly Ash Consumption
in Non-Federal Projects
15% Scenario
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
12,811
13,599
14,208
14,820
15,390
16,347
17,221
18,114
18,925
19,754
20,603
21,467
2,562
2,720
2,842
2,964
3,078
3,269
3,444
3,623
3,785
3,951
4,121
4,293
10,249
10,879
11,366
11,856
12,312
13,078
13,777
14,491
15,140
15,804
16,482
17,173
30% Scenario
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
12,811
13,599
14,208
14,820
15,390
17,689
19,962
22,311
24,630
27,021
29,486
32,021
2,562
2,720
2,842
2,964
3,078
3,538
3,992
4,462
4,926
5,404
5,897
6,404
10,249
10,879
11,366
11,856
12,312
14,151
15,970
17,848
19,704
21,617
23,589
25,616
D-9
-------
Figure D-2: U.S. Coal Fly Ash Consumption Under Current and Expanded Usage
Scenarios
•Expanded Use
30%
•Expanded Use
15%
•Current Use C2P2
Current Use
Baseline
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Year
2012 2013 2014 2015
Step 2: Estimation of RMC Unit Impact Values
The second modeling step involves developing environmental benefit metrics for each RMC, on
a per metric ton basis. Each metric provides a basis for converting RMC substitution quantities
into a measure of environmental impact. For example, substituting one metric ton of coal fly ash
for finished portland cement in concrete has consequent effects on energy usage, water
consumption, and air emissions related to the portland cement manufacturing process.
Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a tool that illustrates the full spectrum of these benefits by providing
quantified estimates of the environmental impacts of a product across all stages in the product's
life, from resource extraction through disposal (i.e., "cradle to grave"). The first stage of LCA
involves developing a life cycle inventory (LCI). The LCI identifies and quantifies the
environmental flows associated with a product, including energy and raw materials consumed,
and emissions and wastes released, as a result of its manufacture and use. Life cycle data for
concrete products that incorporate RMCs are a useful basis for calculating the unit metrics
described above. Specifically, the model compares the LCIs for a representative concrete
product using 100% portland cement versus one using a blended cement containing an RMC.
The difference between these LCIs represents incremental environmental benefit.
D-10
-------
The remainder of this section summarizes the life cycle data sources that provide the basis for the
unit metrics, outlines the method of deriving unit metrics from these sources, and presents the
unit metric values.
Life Cycle Data Sources
To generate life cycle impacts from RMC substitution, we rely primarily on data derived from
the Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES) model. With support from
EPA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed BEES to compare
the life cycle environmental impacts of alternative building products.9 The BEES methodology
measures environmental performance using an LCA approach, following guidance in the
International Standards Organization 14040 series of standards for LCA. Thus, all stages in the
life of the product are analyzed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation,
installation, use, and recycling and waste management.10
BEES includes LCI data from concrete industry sources for both generic and brand name
concrete products. The brand name product data are specific to operations at Lafarge and
Headwaters Resources (formerly ISG Resources) concrete plants, whereas the generic product
data reflect concrete industry averages. BEES contains several LCI data sets for concrete
products that incorporate RMCs at various substitution levels, as well as data for concrete
products made with 100% portland cement (i.e., without blended cement). The exception
concerns data for products that incorporate silica fume. BEES includes Lafarge data for products
with silica fume cement but does not include Lafarge data for products made with 100% portland
cement. The closest approximation to a 100% portland cement mix-design for Lafarge products
in BEES is a Portland Type I Cement mix-design, which includes 95% portland cement and 5%
coal fly ash in the mix. For concrete products made with blended cement, BEES assumes a 1:1
replacement ratio for portland cement on the basis of mass.11
In this analysis, we use BEES LCI data to estimate the beneficial environmental impacts of coal
fly ash, GGBFs and silica fume as a partial substitute for portland cement in concrete. The
beneficial impacts of using RMCs in concrete are measured as the difference in life cycle
impacts for a concrete product made with 100% portland cement (or the closest approximation
thereof) and one made with blended cement containing an RMC. Of all the concrete products for
which LCI data are provided in BEES, we arbitrarily selected a concrete beam with a
compressive strength of 4 KSI (4,000 psi) and a lifespan of 75 years as the basis of this analysis.
Selection of a different concrete product in BEES with a different compressive strength (e.g., a
9 The BEES model and supporting documentation can be downloaded at: www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees.html.
10 BEES is a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) model designed to quantify physical flows of energy, resources, and
environmental effects at a process-level resolution for specific use applications. An alternative approach would be
to use an input-output (IO) model. An IO model provides the capacity to evaluate economic and environmental
effects across the entire supply chain for hundreds of industry sectors. While this approach avoids some of the
system boundary limitations of process-flow LCAs, our focus for this study was on energy and environmental
benefits for targeted use applications, for which an LCA process-flow model is more appropriate.
1: Silica fume does not actually replace portland cement in a 1:1 ratio (as is the case with fly ash and GGBFS). The
addition of silica fume to concrete has a synergistic effect on compressive strength, making the replacement ratio
complex. For simplicity, however, our model assumes a 1:1 replacement ratio for silica fume and portland cement in
concrete when modeling life cycle impacts. This is likely to overstate the benefits of the use of this material as an
SCM.
D-ll
-------
concrete column with a compressive strength of 5 KSI) does not effect the calculation of unit
impact values. Table D-7 presents the specific BEES data files for a 4 KSI concrete beam that
were used to calculate unit impact values for coal fly ash, GGBFS and silica fume. It is
important to note that data files representing higher RMC substitution levels in a concrete beam
(e.g., 20% fly ash instead of 15% fly ash) could have been selected without effect on the
calculation of the unit impact value.
Table D-7: BEES LCI Data files Used to Calculate Unit Impact Values
RMC Category
Coal Fly Ash
GGBFS
Silica Fume
4 KSI Concrete Beam
Without Blended Cement
100% portland
cement
100% portland
cement
95% portland
cement, 5% fly ash
(Portland Type I)
Data file B 101 1A
Data file B 101 1A
Data file B 101 ICC
With Blended Cement
15% fly ash, 85%
portland cement
20% GGBFS, 80%
portland cement
10% silica fume,
85% portland
cement, 5% fly ash
Data file B1011B
Data file B1011D
Data file B1011S
For each data file listed in Table D-7, BEES provides complete environmental life cycle
inventory data. The life cycle inventory data are quantified estimates of the energy and resource
flows going into the product and the releases to the environment coming from the product,
summed across all stages of the product life cycle for one cubic yard of concrete product.
Differences in these flows across products with different RMC substitution levels provide the
basis for deriving unit values for a suite of environmental metrics. BEES quantifies these flows
for hundreds of environmental metrics but, to capture the general spectrum of impacts, this
analysis focused on the following:
(1) Total primary energy (quantity and dollars);
(2) Water use (quantity and dollars);
(3) Greenhouse gas emissions (CC»2 from fossil fuels, CF/t, CFLi, and N20)
(4) CO emissions;
(5) Pb emissions to air;
(6) Hg emissions to air;
(7) NOx emissions to air;
(8) PMio emissions to air;
(9) SOx emissions to air; and
(10) Biochemical oxygen demand in water
(11) Chemical oxygen demand in water
(12) Copper emissions to water
(13) Suspended matter in water
(14) Emissions to soil (sum of all emissions reported by BEES)
(15) End of life (non-hazardous) waste.
D-12
-------
Table D-8 presents the complete BEES lifecycle inventory data for the metrics listed above. The
data fields in Table D-8 are defined as follows:
a. XPORT DIST: Transport distance of concrete beam to construction site.
b. FLOW: The environmental impact being reported.
c. UNIT: The unit in which the environmental flow is reported.
d. TOTAL: The total impact across all life cycle stages for all three components
(i.e., the sum of fields COMF1, COMP2 and COMP3).
e. COMF1: The total impact across all life cycle stages for Component 1.
Component 1 is the main component, which is a 1 cubic yard concrete beam.
f. COMP2: The total impact across all life cycle stages for Component 2.
Component 2 refers to the first installation component associated with the
concrete beam, but BEES does not provide a specific definition.
g. COMP3: The total impact across all life cycle stages for Component 3.
Component 3 refers to the second installation component associated with the
concrete beam, but BEES does not provide a specific definition.
h. RAW1: Impacts associated with raw materials extraction for Component 1.
i. RAW2: Impacts associated with raw materials extraction for Component 2.
j. RAW3: Impacts associated with raw materials extraction for Component 3.
k. MFG1: Impacts associated with manufacturing of Component 1.
1. MFG2:Impacts associated with manufacturing of Component 2.
m. MFG3:Impacts associated with manufacturing of Component 3.
n. XPORT 1: Impacts associated with transport of Component 1.
o. XPORT2: Impacts associated with transport of Component 2.
p. XPORT3: Impacts associated with transport of Component 3.
q. USE1: Impacts associated with use of the total product (all three components).
r. WASTE1: Impacts associated with disposal of the total product (all three
components).
D-13
-------
Table D-8: BEES Life Cycle Inventory Data
BEES Data file B1011A: Generic Concrete Beam, 100% Portland Cement (4KSI)
FLOW
Water Used (total)
Concrete Beam
Installation component 1
Main component
Installation component 2
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos
(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Particulates (PM 10)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO
(s) Aluminum (Al)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Carbon (C)
(s) Calcium (Ca)
(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s)lron (Fe)
(s) Lead (Pb)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Nitrogen (N)
(s) Oils (unspecified)
(s) Phosphorus (P)
(s) Sulfur (S)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspec)
Waste (end-of-Life)
E Total Primary Energy
UNIT
liter
Cuyd
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
kg
MJ
TOTAL
1,702.10
1.00
65.77
1,817.58
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
266,110.00
0.00
0.43
0.01
297.63
1,299.12
7.10
0.01
608.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.80
82.36
0.08
43.64
1,883.35
2,779.14
COMP1
1,055.10
0.00
0.00
1,817.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
213,972.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
206.68
1,171.98
6.71
0.01
479.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.04
59.57
0.00
31.97
0.00
1,994.61
COMP2
570.94
0.00
65.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,991.90
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.66
118.58
0.28
0.00
125.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.47
20.40
0.08
9.85
0.00
658.19
COMP3
4.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,146.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.29
8.56
0.12
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.39
0.00
1.81
0.00
126.35
RAW1
1,011.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
207,804.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
202.58
1,096.00
5.95
0.01
471.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.25
52.89
0.00
28.39
0.00
1,904.34
RAW2
570.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,863.70
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.57
117.07
0.26
0.00
125.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
20.26
0.08
9.78
0.00
656.30
RAWS
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
815.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.87
0.08
0.00
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.37
0.00
1.80
0.00
121.11
MFG1
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
862.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
13.60
0.03
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.92
0.00
0.49
0.00
12.42
MFG2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MFG3
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
319.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
3.56
0.04
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.07
XPORT1
37.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,305.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
62.38
0.73
0.00
7.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
5.76
0.00
3.09
0.00
77.86
XPORT2
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.51
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.88
XPORT3
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.16
USE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WASTE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,883.35
0.00
D-14
-------
BEES Data file B1 011 B: Generic Concrete Beam, 85% Portland Cement and 15% FlyAsh(4KSI)
FLOW
Water Used (total)
Concrete Beam
Installation component 1
Main component
Installation component 2
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos
(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Particulates (PM 10)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO
(s) Aluminum (Al)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Carbon (C)
(s) Calcium (Ca)
(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s) I ran (Fe)
(s) Lead (Pb)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Nitrogen (N)
(s) Oils (unspecified)
(s) Phosphorus (P)
(s) Sulfur (S)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspec
Waste (end-of-Life)
E Total Primary Energy
UNIT
liter
Cuyd
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
kg
MJ
TOTAL
1 ,690.06
1.00
65.77
1,817.58
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
243,685.00
0.00
0.43
0.01
278.61
1,231.00
6.68
0.01
555.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.69
81.45
0.08
43.14
1,883.35
2,629.00
COMP1
1,043.05
0.00
0.00
1,817.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
191,547.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
187.66
1,103.86
6.28
0.01
425.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.93
58.66
0.00
31.48
0.00
1,844.47
COMP2
570.94
0.00
65.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,991.90
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.66
118.58
0.28
0.00
125.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.47
20.40
0.08
9.85
0.00
658.19
COMP3
4.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,146.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.29
8.56
0.12
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.39
0.00
1.81
0.00
126.35
RAW1
999.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
185,379.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
183.56
1,027.87
5.53
0.01
418.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.14
51.98
0.00
27.90
0.00
1,754.19
RAW2
570.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,863.70
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.57
117.07
0.26
0.00
125.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
20.26
0.08
9.78
0.00
656.30
RAWS
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
815.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.87
0.08
0.00
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.37
0.00
1.80
0.00
121.11
MFG1
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
862.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
13.60
0.03
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.92
0.00
0.49
0.00
12.42
MFG2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MFG3
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
319.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
3.56
0.04
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.07
XPORT1
37.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,305.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
62.38
0.73
0.00
7.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
5.76
0.00
3.09
0.00
77.86
XPORT2
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.51
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.88
XPORT3
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.16
USE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WASTE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,883.35
0.00
D-15
-------
BEES Data file B1011D: Generic Concrete Beam, 20% Slag Cement (4KSI)
FLOW
Water Used (total)
Concrete Beam
Installation component 1
Main component
Installation component 2
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos
(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Particulates (PM 10)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO
(s) Aluminum (Al)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Carbon (C)
(s) Calcium (Ca)
(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s)lron (Fe)
(s) Lead (Pb)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Nitrogen (N)
(s) Oils (unspecified)
(s) Phosphorus (P)
(s) Sulfur (S)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspec
Waste (end-of-Life)
E Total Primary Energy
UNIT
liter
Cuyd
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
kg
MJ
TOTAL
1 ,695.90
1.00
65.77
1,817.58
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
237,595.00
578.28
0.00
0.42
0.01
273.15
1,213.22
6.60
0.01
540.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.83
82.64
0.08
43.78
1,883.35
2,599.20
COMP1
1 ,048.90
0.00
0.00
1,817.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
185,457.00
374.49
0.00
0.01
0.01
182.20
1 ,086.08
6.20
0.01
411.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.07
59.85
0.00
32.12
0.00
1,814.67
COMP2
570.94
0.00
65.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,991.90
202.06
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.66
118.58
0.28
0.00
125.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.47
20.40
0.08
9.85
0.00
658.19
COMP3
4.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,146.09
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.29
8.56
0.12
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.39
0.00
1.81
0.00
126.35
RAW1
1,004.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
179,289.00
355.98
0.00
0.01
0.01
178.10
1,010.10
5.45
0.01
403.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.28
53.17
0.00
28.54
0.00
1,724.40
RAW2
570.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,863.70
201.70
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.57
117.07
0.26
0.00
125.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
20.26
0.08
9.78
0.00
656.30
RAWS
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
815.22
1.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.87
0.08
0.00
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.37
0.00
1.80
0.00
121.11
MFG1
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
862.43
3.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
13.60
0.03
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.92
0.00
0.49
0.00
12.42
MFG2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MFG3
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
319.85
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
3.56
0.04
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.07
XPORT1
37.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,305.62
14.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
62.38
0.73
0.00
7.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
5.76
0.00
3.09
0.00
77.86
XPORT2
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.19
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.51
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.88
XPORT3
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.16
USE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WASTE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,883.35
0.00
D-16
-------
BEES Data file B1011CC: Lafarge Concrete Beam, Portland Type I Cement (4KSI)
FLOW
Water Used (total)
Concrete Beam
Installation component 1
Main component
Installation component 2
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos
(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Particulates (PM 10)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO
(s) Aluminum (Al)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Carbon (C)
(s) Calcium (Ca)
(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s) I ran (Fe)
(s) Lead (Pb)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Nitrogen (N)
(s) Oils (unspecified)
(s) Phosphorus (P)
(s) Sulfur (S)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspec
Waste (end-of-Life)
E Total Primary Energy
UNIT
liter
Cuyd
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
kg
MJ
TOTAL
1 ,667.98
1.00
65.77
1,817.58
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
316,116.00
528.02
0.00
0.44
0.00
361.22
1,647.13
5.81
0.01
1 ,734.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
15.67
80.79
0.08
45.91
1,883.35
3,011.48
COMP1
1,020.98
0.00
0.00
1,817.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
263,978.00
324.22
0.00
0.02
0.00
270.27
1,519.99
5.41
0.01
1 ,604.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.92
58.00
0.00
34.25
0.00
2,226.95
COMP2
570.94
0.00
65.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,991.90
202.06
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.66
118.58
0.28
0.00
125.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.47
20.40
0.08
9.85
0.00
658.19
COMP3
4.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,146.09
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.29
8.56
0.12
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.39
0.00
1.81
0.00
126.35
RAW1
977.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
257,810.00
305.71
0.00
0.02
0.00
266.18
1,444.01
4.65
0.01
1,596.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.13
51.32
0.00
30.66
0.00
2,136.68
RAW2
570.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,863.70
201.70
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.57
117.07
0.26
0.00
125.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
20.26
0.08
9.78
0.00
656.30
RAWS
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
815.22
1.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.87
0.08
0.00
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.37
0.00
1.80
0.00
121.11
MFG1
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
862.43
3.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
13.60
0.03
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.92
0.00
0.49
0.00
12.42
MFG2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MFG3
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
319.85
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
3.56
0.04
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.07
XPORT1
37.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,305.62
14.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
62.38
0.73
0.00
7.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
5.76
0.00
3.09
0.00
77.86
XPORT2
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.19
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.51
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.88
XPORT3
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.16
USE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WASTE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,883.35
0.00
D-17
-------
BEES Data file B1011S: Lafarge Concrete Beam, 10% Silica Fume Cement
FLOW
Water Used (total)
Concrete Beam
Installation component 1
Main component
Installation component 2
Component 4
Component 5
Component 6
(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos
(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CF
(a) Lead (Pb)
(a) Mercury (Hg)
(a) Methane (CH4)
(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as
(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O)
(a) Particulates (PM 10)
(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO
(s) Aluminum (Al)
(s) Arsenic (As)
(s) Cadmium (Cd)
(s) Carbon (C)
(s) Calcium (Ca)
(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)
(s) Cobalt (Co)
(s) Copper (Cu)
(s)lron (Fe)
(s) Lead (Pb)
(s) Manganese (Mn)
(s) Mercury (Hg)
(s) Nickel (Ni)
(s) Nitrogen (N)
(s) Oils (unspecified)
(s) Phosphorus (P)
(s) Sulfur (S)
(s) Zinc (Zn)
(w) BODS (Biochemical Oxygen
(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem
(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++)
(w) Suspended Matter (unspec
Waste (end-of-Life)
E Total Primary Energy
UNIT
liter
Cuyd
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
kg
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
g
kg
MJ
TOTAL
1,776.93
1.00
65.77
1,817.58
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
301,197.00
479.46
0.00
0.43
0.01
212.79
1 ,040.88
6.81
0.01
826.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.12
85.09
0.08
47.09
1,883.35
2,309.89
COMP1
1,129.92
0.00
0.00
1,817.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
249,059.00
275.66
0.00
0.01
0.01
121.85
913.74
6.41
0.01
697.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.36
62.30
0.00
35.42
0.00
1,525.36
4KSI)
COMP2
570.94
0.00
65.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,991.90
202.06
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.66
118.58
0.28
0.00
125.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.47
20.40
0.08
9.85
0.00
658.19
COMP3
4.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.57
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,146.09
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.29
8.56
0.12
0.00
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.39
0.00
1.81
0.00
126.35
RAW1
1,085.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
242,891.00
257.15
0.00
0.01
0.01
117.75
837.75
5.65
0.01
689.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.57
55.62
0.00
31.84
0.00
1,435.09
RAW2
570.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50,863.70
201.70
0.00
0.42
0.00
88.57
117.07
0.26
0.00
125.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.45
20.26
0.08
9.78
0.00
656.30
RAWS
4.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
815.22
1.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.55
4.87
0.08
0.00
2.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.28
2.37
0.00
1.80
0.00
121.11
MFG1
6.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
862.43
3.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.57
13.60
0.03
0.00
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.92
0.00
0.49
0.00
12.42
MFG2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
MFG3
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
319.85
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
3.56
0.04
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
5.07
XPORT1
37.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,305.62
14.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.52
62.38
0.73
0.00
7.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.68
5.76
0.00
3.09
0.00
77.86
XPORT2
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
128.19
0.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
1.51
0.02
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.14
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.88
XPORT3
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.16
USE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
WASTE1
71.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,883.35
0.00
D-18
-------
Figure D-3 shows the assumed life cycle system boundaries for a 4 KSI concrete beam in BEES made
without blended cement. The LCI data presented in Table D-8 reflect these system boundaries.
Figure D-3: System boundaries for 4 KSI concrete beam without blended cement
Rortiand
F> rocSu ctf Q n
Figure D-4 shows the assumed life cycle system boundaries for a 4 KSI concrete beam in BEES made
with blended cement (i.e., incorporating an RMC).
Figure D-4: System boundaries for 4 KSI concrete beam with blended cement
Functional Unit
of Concrete with
Fly Ash or Slag
Material
Transportation
Portland
Cement
Production
Fly Ash, Slag
or Limestone
Production
Fine
Aggregate
Production
Coarse
Aggregate
Production
D-19
-------
Estimating the Unit Impact of Using RMCs
The BEES data presented in Table D-8 above were used to calculate the benefits of using a specified
unit (in this case, one metric ton) of each RMC in concrete by taking the difference in environmental
impacts between a concrete product made with 100% portland cement and one made with an RMC at a
given substitution level (holding compressive strength and assumed transport distance constant for
both products). To illustrate the methodology, a sample calculation of an environmental impact metric
concerning CC>2 emissions reductions resulting from the substitution of coal fly ash for portland
cement is presented (see Table D-9). As illustrated in this table, the process proceeds through two
steps:
• Step 1 - derive impact per cubic yard of concrete. This step relies on the BEES data, which
is derived on a cubic yard basis, using the LCIs described above. Specifically, it derives a CO2
emissions profile for a concrete product using two mix designs: one using 100% portland
cement and one using 15% coal fly ash and 85% portland cement. The difference between the
CC>2 emissions profiles for the two mix designs represents the initial measure of environmental
impact. For example, the manufacture of one cubic yard of concrete using 15% coal fly ash
results in 22,425 fewer grams of CC>2 emissions compared to a cubic yard of concrete made
with 100% portland cement.
• Step 2 - derive impact per metric ton of coal fly ash. This step translates the CC>2 emissions
per cubic yard of concrete into a measure per metric ton of coal fly ash. This translation is
required to match the RMC substitution scenarios, which are presented in metric tons. The
process requires first estimating the proportion of one metric ton of coal fly ash present in a
cubic yard of concrete, given a 15% substitution rate. This proportion is dependent upon the
pounds of cementitious material present in a cubic yard of concrete, which varies depending
upon concrete mix design. As shown in the table, the calculations yield an estimate of avoided
CC>2 emissions per metric ton of coal fly ash substituted equal to 701,378 grams.
A similar process is repeated for each of the environmental metrics listed above, for each RMC.
D-20
-------
Table D-9: Example Calculation of Impact Metric for Avoided CO2 Related to 15% Coal Fly Ash
Substitution
Impacts per cubic Yard Concrete
100% portland
cement
15% coal fly
ash
Incremental
benefit
Code
[a]
[b]
[c]=[a]-[b]
266, 110 grams
per cubic yard
of concrete
243,685 grams
per cubic yard
of concrete
22,425 grams
per cubic yard
of concrete
Note/Sources
Values represent impacts related to building products
and pavement as characterized in BEES data file
BIO 11 A. BEES Version 3.0 Performance Data.
Values represent impacts related to building products
and pavement as characterized in BEES data file
B1011B. BEES Version 3.0 Performance Data.
Represents CO2 reduced per cubic yard of concrete
produced with 15% fly ash substitution for portland
cement.
Impacts per Metric Ton Coal Fly Ash
Ibs cement/yd3
concrete
% coal fly ash
substitution
Ibs/metric ton
MT coal fly
ash/yd3
concrete
unit impact
[d]
[e]
[f]
[g]=[d]*[e]/[f]
M=[c]/[g]
470 Ibs
cement/cubic
yard of
concrete
15%
2,205
Ibs/metric ton
0.032 MT coal
fly ash/cubic
yard of
concrete
701,378 grams
per metric ton
of coal fly ash
substituted for
cement
Represents proportion of cubic yard of concrete made
up of cementitious material, given a mix-design or
constituent density (Lipiatt, 2002, p. 40).
Fifteen percent of cementitious material is replaced with
coal fly ash.
Conversion for pounds to metric tons.
Conversion of quantity of coal fly ash in one cubic yard
of concrete from pounds to metric tons.
Represent unit impact values for CO2 (in grams), based
on substitution of one metric ton of coal fly ash in a
concrete building product or pavement.
D-21
-------
The greenhouse gas metrics taken from BEES (i.e., CCh, CH4, N20 and CF4 emissions) were
converted to equivalent impacts such as Carbon Dioxide equivalent, passenger cars removed
from the road for one year, passenger cars and light trucks removed from the road for one year,
avoided gasoline consumption, and avoided oil consumption, using the Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator developed by the U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation (U.S.-CTC).12
It is important to note that these metrics are equivalent expressions of the avoided greenhouse
gas metrics reported by BEES; they do not represent additional benefits.
Unit Impact Values
Table D-10 presents estimates of the environmental impacts avoided per metric ton of RMC used
as a substitute for finished portland cement. As shown in the table, separate estimates were
developed for coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume. 13
12 The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator can be accessed at: http://www.usctcgatewav.net/tool/. Avoided
Carbon Dioxide equivalent is an expression of the cumulative global warming potential of all four greenhouse
gasses for which BEES data were available (CO2, CF4, CH4, and N20). It is calculated from the global warming
potentials of individual greenhouse gasses, using the global warming potential of C02 as the reference point.
13 Analysis of life cycle impacts is, in its simplest form, the calculation of all impacts associated with a single
production system. However, when one production system (or a set of linked production systems) makes two or
more products with market value (i.e., co-products) it is accepted practice in life cycle analysis to allocate the total
life cycle production impacts across products. It is important to consider whether co-products of electricity
generation (e.g., fly ash) that are beneficially used should have some portion of the production impacts associated
with coal combustion (e.g., energy use, greenhouse gas equivalents) attributed to them. The allocated impacts from
coal-fired generation would likely associate only very small flows to the RMCs modeled in this Report. For this
reason, we do not include either an economic or mass-based allocation in our analysis.
D-22
-------
Table D-10: Environmental Impacts Avoided per Metric Ton of RMC Used as a Substitute
for Finished Portland Cement in Concrete
Metric
Energy Savings (megajoules)
Energy Savings (US $)
Water Savings (Liters)
Water Savings (US $)
Avoided CO2 Equivalent (GHG) (grams)c
Avoided CO2 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CF4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CH4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided N2O Emissions (grams)
Passenger cars not driven for one yeard
Passenger cars and light trucks not driven
for one yeard
Avoided gasoline consumption (liters)d
Avoided oil consumption (barrels) b
Avoided NO2 Emissions (grams)
Avoided PM10 Emissions (grams)
Avoided SOx Emission (grams)
Avoided CO Emissions (grams)
Avoided Hg Emissions (grams)
Avoided Pb Emissions (grams)
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in
water (grams)
Avoided chemical oxygen demand in water
(grams)
Avoided copper water emissions (grams)
Avoided suspended matter in water (grams)
Avoided emissions to soil (grams)
Avoided end of life waste (kilograms)
Notes:
Coal Fly Asha
4,695.9
129.1
376.3
0.2
718,000.0
701,377.7
0.0
594.8
13.2
0.2
0.1
310.0
1.7
2,130.2
0.0
1,673.9
654.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
28.7
0.0
15.4
0.0
0.0
GGBFS
4,220.9
116.1
145.2
0.1
Not calculated
668,889.1
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
2,014.8
0.0
1,605.8
621.5
0.0
0.0
-0.8
-6.5
0.0
-3.5
0.0
0.0
Silica Fumeb
32,915.0
905.2
-5,111.4
-3.2
Not calculated
699,923.3
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
Not calculated
28,442.2
-0.1
42,560.1
2,278.2
-0.3
0.6
-21.0
-201.4
0.0
-55.1
0.0
0.0
a. Impact metrics based upon representative concrete products for building and pavement applications.
b. Negative values represent an incremental increase in impacts relative to the use of portland cement.
D-23
-------
•
Metric
Coal Fly Asha
GGBFS
Silica Fumeb
c. Avoided CO2 equivalent is an expression of the cumulative global warming potential of all four
greenhouse gasses for which BEES data were available (CO2, CF4, CH4, and N20). It can be calculated
from the global warming potentials of individual greenhouse gasses, using the global warming potential of
C02 as the reference point. Avoided CO2 equivalent was calculated using the Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator developed by the U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation (accessed at:
http://www.usctcgateway.net/tool/).
d. The greenhouse gas metrics taken from BEES were converted to equivalent impacts such as passenger
cars removed from the road for one year, passenger cars and light trucks removed from the road for one
year, avoided gasoline consumption, and avoided oil consumption, using the Greenhouse Gas
Equivalencies Calculator. It is important to note that these metrics are equivalent expressions of the
avoided greenhouse gas metrics reported by BEES; they do not represent additional benefits.
GHG equivalency metrics were not calculated for GGBFS and silica fume, due primarily to the fact that
use of these materials is unlikely to change significantly across scenarios.
Step 3: Environmental Impact Profile Calculations
The final step in estimating an environmental impact profile for each RMC is to multiply the
appropriate RMC substitution figures by the set of relevant impact metrics. Table D-l 1 below
illustrates a profile for coal fly ash, based on estimated substitution levels for 2004. Column "c"
captures the environmental benefit measures.
D-24
-------
Table D-ll: Example Environmental Impact Profile for Coal fly ash Substituted for
Portland Cement, 2004
Metric
Energy Savings (megajoules)
Energy Savings (US $)
Water Savings (Liters)
Water Savings (US $)
Avoided CO2 Equivalent (GHG)
(grams)
Avoided CO2 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CF4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided CH4 Emissions (grams)
Avoided N2O Emissions (grams)
Passenger cars not driven for one yeard
Passenger cars and light trucks not
driven for one yeard
Avoided gasoline consumption (liters)
Avoided oil consumption (barrels)
Avoided NO2 Emissions (grams)
Avoided PM10 Emissions (grams)
Avoided SOx Emission (grams)
Avoided CO Emissions (grams)
Avoided Hg Emissions (grams)
Avoided Pb Emissions (grams)
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in
water (grams)
Avoided chemical oxygen demand in
water (grams)
Avoided copper water emissions
(grams)
Avoided suspended matter in water
(grams)
Avoided emissions to soil (grams)
Avoided end of life waste (kilograms)
Incremental Impact
Avoided per 1 MT Fly
Ash
[a]
4,695.9
129.1
376.3
0.2
718,000.0
701,377.7
0.0
594.8
13.2
0.2
0.1
310.0
1.7
2,130.2
0.0
1,673.9
654.3
0.0
0.0
3.4
28.7
0.0
15.4
0.0
0.0
MT of Fly Ash
Substituted (2004)
[b]
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
2,562,000
Environmental Impact
Profile
c=[a]*[b]
12,030,806,021
330,847,166
963,971,579
595,887
1,839,516,000,000
1,796,929,563,830
0
1,523,844,349
33,787,885
409,920
333,060
794,220,000
4,278,540
5,457,697,774
29,248
4,288,431,500
1,676,332,953
108,898
80,852
8,678,148
73,439,730
0
39,424,274
0
0
D-25
-------
The environmental impact profile is calculated in this way for the quantity of each RMC used in
Federal concrete projects under current and expanded substitution scenarios for years 2004 to
2015.14 Table D-12 presents the detailed results of these calculations.
14 The detailed results utilize certain additional refinements for consistent reporting purposes. For example,
emission impacts may be converted from grams to metric tons. In addition, certain of the metrics, including water
and energy consumption, are monetized. Appropriate discounting protocols are applied to these monetized figures.
D-26
-------
Table D-12: Detailed Environmental Impact Calculations
Fly Ash Current Use Baseline Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided C02 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N20
Passenger cars not driven for
one year
Passenger cars and light trucks
not driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and
light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
12.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.5
33.8
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.0
5.5
0.0
4.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
8.7
73.4
0.0
39.4
0.0
0.0
2005
12.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.9
0.0
1.6
35.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
4.6
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.2
78.0
0.0
41.9
0.0
0.0
2006
13.1
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.9
0.0
1.7
36.7
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.0
5.9
0.0
4.7
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.4
79.7
0.0
42.8
0.0
0.0
2007
13.3
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.7
37.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.0
0.0
4.8
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.6
81.4
0.0
43.7
0.0
0.0
2008
13.6
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
2.0
0.0
1.7
38.2
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.2
0.0
4.9
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.8
83.1
0.0
44.6
0.0
0.0
2009
13.9
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
2.1
0.0
1.8
39.0
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.3
0.0
5.0
1.9
0.1
0.1
10.0
84.8
0.0
45.5
0.0
0.0
2010
14.2
0.4
0.3
1.1
0.7
0.5
2.2
2.1
0.0
1.8
39.8
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.4
0.0
5.1
2.0
0.1
0.1
10.2
86.6
0.0
46.5
0.0
0.0
2011
14.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
2.2
2.2
0.0
1.8
40.6
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
5.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
10.4
88.3
0.0
47.4
0.0
0.0
2012
14.7
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.5
2.3
2.2
0.0
1.9
41.4
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.7
0.0
5.3
2.1
0.1
0.1
10.6
90.0
0.0
48.3
0.0
0.0
2013
15.0
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.7
0.4
2.3
2.2
0.0
1.9
42.2
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.8
0.0
5.4
2.1
0.1
0.1
10.8
91.7
0.0
49.2
0.0
0.0
2014
15.3
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
2.3
2.3
0.0
1.9
43.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.9
0.0
5.5
2.1
0.1
0.1
11.0
93.4
0.0
50.2
0.0
0.0
2015
15.6
0.4
0.2
1.2
0.8
0.4
2.4
2.3
0.0
2.0
43.8
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
7.1
0.0
5.6
2.2
0.1
0.1
11.2
95.2
0.0
51.1
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
168.0
4.6
3.6
13.5
8.3
6.4
25.7
25.1
0.0
21.3
471.9
5.7
4.7
11.1
0.1
76.2
0.4
59.9
23.4
1.5
1.1
121.2
1,025.7
0.0
550.6
0.0
0.0
D-27
-------
Fly Ash Current Use C2P2 Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided C02 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N20
Passenger cars not driven for
one year
Passenger cars and light trucks
not driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and
light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
12.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.5
33.8
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.0
5.5
0.0
4.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
8.7
73.4
0.0
39.4
0.0
0.0
2005
12.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.9
0.0
1.6
35.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
4.6
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.2
78.0
0.0
41.9
0.0
0.0
2006
13.3
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.7
37.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.1
0.0
4.8
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.6
81.5
0.0
43.7
0.0
0.0
2007
13.9
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
2.1
0.0
1.8
39.1
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.3
0.0
5.0
1.9
0.1
0.1
10.0
85.0
0.0
45.6
0.0
0.0
2008
14.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
1.8
40.6
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
5.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
10.4
88.2
0.0
47.4
0.0
0.0
2009
14.9
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.3
2.2
0.0
1.9
42.0
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.8
0.0
5.3
2.1
0.1
0.1
10.8
91.2
0.0
49.0
0.0
0.0
2010
15.4
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.8
0.6
2.4
2.3
0.0
2.0
43.2
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
5.5
2.1
0.1
0.1
11.1
94.0
0.0
50.5
0.0
0.0
2011
15.8
0.4
0.3
1.3
0.8
0.5
2.4
2.4
0.0
2.0
44.5
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
7.2
0.0
5.6
2.2
0.1
0.1
11.4
96.7
0.0
51.9
0.0
0.0
2012
16.2
0.4
0.3
1.3
0.8
0.5
2.5
2.4
0.0
2.0
45.4
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.0
7.3
0.0
5.8
2.3
0.1
0.1
11.7
98.6
0.0
53.0
0.0
0.0
2013
16.5
0.5
0.3
1.3
0.8
0.5
2.5
2.5
0.0
2.1
46.2
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.0
7.5
0.0
5.9
2.3
0.1
0.1
11.9
100.5
0.0
54.0
0.0
0.0
2014
16.8
0.5
0.3
1.3
0.8
0.5
2.6
2.5
0.0
2.1
47.1
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.0
7.6
0.0
6.0
2.3
0.2
0.1
12.1
102.4
0.0
55.0
0.0
0.0
2015
17.1
0.5
0.2
1.4
0.8
0.4
2.6
2.6
0.0
2.2
48.0
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.0
7.7
0.0
6.1
2.4
0.2
0.1
12.3
104.3
0.0
56.0
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
179.2
4.9
3.8
14.4
8.9
6.8
27.4
26.8
0.0
22.7
503.3
6.1
5.0
11.8
0.1
81.3
0.4
63.9
25.0
1.6
1.2
129.3
1,093.9
0.0
587.2
0.0
0.0
D-28
-------
Impacts Attributable to C2P2a
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided C02 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N20
Passenger cars not driven for
one year
Passenger cars and light trucks
not driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided Biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and
light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2006
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.8
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
2007
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
3.6
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
2008
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.1
2.3
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.6
5.1
0.0
2.7
0.0
0.0
2009
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.1
2.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.8
6.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
0.0
2010
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
3.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.9
7.4
0.0
4.0
0.0
0.0
2011
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
3.9
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
8.5
0.0
4.5
0.0
0.0
2012
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
8.6
0.0
4.6
0.0
0.0
2013
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
4.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
8.8
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
2014
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
4.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.1
8.9
0.0
4.8
0.0
0.0
2015
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.2
4.2
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.0
1.1
9.1
0.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
11.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.7
0.0
1.4
31.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.0
5.1
0.0
4.0
1.6
0.1
0.1
8.1
68.2
0.0
36.6
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the Fly Ash Current Use C2P2 Scenario minus the Fly Ash Current Use Baseline Scenario.
D-29
-------
GGBFS Current Use Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided Biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
2.9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-4.5
0.0
-2.4
0.0
0.0
2005
3.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.5
-4.6
0.0
-2.5
0.0
0.0
2006
3.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.5
0.0
1.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-4.7
0.0
-2.5
0.0
0.0
2007
3.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.5
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-4.8
0.0
-2.6
0.0
0.0
2008
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.5
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-4.9
0.0
-2.6
0.0
0.0
2009
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.5
0.0
1.2
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.0
0.0
-2.7
0.0
0.0
2010
3.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.5
1.6
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.1
0.0
-2.7
0.0
0.0
2011
3.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
1.6
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.2
0.0
-2.8
0.0
0.0
2012
3.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.5
1.6
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.3
0.0
-2.8
0.0
0.0
2013
3.5
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.7
0.0
1.3
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.4
0.0
-2.9
0.0
0.0
2014
3.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.7
0.0
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.6
-5.5
0.0
-2.9
0.0
0.0
2015
3.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.6
1.7
0.0
1.4
0.5
0.0
0.0
-0.7
-5.6
0.0
-3.0
0.0
0.0
Total
39.3
1.1
0.8
1.4
0.8
0.6
6.2
18.8
0.1
14.9
5.8
0.4
0.3
-7.1
-60.5
0.0
-32.4
0.0
0.0
D-30
-------
Silica Fume Current Use Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided Biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million ($ discounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2005
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2006
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2007
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2008
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2009
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2010
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2011
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2012
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2013
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2014
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
2015
0.4
0.0
0.0
-0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
-0.3
-2.4
0.0
-0.7
0.0
0.0
Total
4.7
0.1
0.1
-0.7
-0.5
-0.4
0.1
4.1
0.0
6.1
0.3
0.0
0.1
-3.0
-29.0
0.0
-7.9
0.0
0.0
D-31
-------
Total Current Use C2P2 Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided Biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($ 2006)
billion ($ discounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($ 2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
15.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.3
7.2
0.0
5.9
2.1
0.1
0.1
7.9
66.5
0.0
36.4
0.0
0.0
2005
16.2
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.4
7.6
0.0
6.2
2.2
0.1
0.1
8.4
71.0
0.0
38.7
0.0
0.0
2006
16.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.5
7.9
0.0
6.4
2.3
0.1
0.1
8.8
74.4
0.0
40.6
0.0
0.0
2007
17.4
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.7
2.6
8.1
0.0
6.7
2.4
0.2
0.1
9.2
77.8
0.0
42.4
0.0
0.0
2008
18.0
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.7
8.4
0.0
6.9
2.5
0.2
0.1
9.6
80.9
0.0
44.1
0.0
0.0
2009
18.6
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.6
2.8
8.7
0.0
7.1
2.6
0.2
0.1
9.9
83.8
0.0
45.6
0.0
0.0
2010
19.1
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.6
2.8
8.9
0.0
7.3
2.7
0.2
0.1
10.3
86.5
0.0
47.1
0.0
0.0
2011
19.6
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.6
2.9
9.1
0.0
7.4
2.7
0.2
0.1
10.6
89.1
0.0
48.5
0.0
0.0
2012
20.0
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.8
0.5
3.0
9.3
0.0
7.6
2.8
0.2
0.1
10.8
90.9
0.0
49.5
0.0
0.0
2013
20.4
0.6
0.3
1.4
0.9
0.5
3.0
9.5
0.0
7.7
2.8
0.2
0.1
11.0
92.7
0.0
50.4
0.0
0.0
2014
20.7
0.6
0.3
1.4
0.9
0.5
3.1
9.7
0.0
7.8
2.9
0.2
0.1
11.2
94.5
0.0
51.4
0.0
0.0
2015
21.1
0.6
0.3
1.4
0.9
0.5
3.1
9.8
0.0
8.0
2.9
0.2
0.1
11.4
96.3
0.0
52.3
0.0
0.0
Total
223.2
6.1
4.7
15.0
9.3
7.1
33.1
104.1
0.5
85.0
31.1
2.0
1.6
119.1
1,004.4
0.0
546.9
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the sum of the fly ash current use C2P2, current use GGBFS and current use silica fume scenarios. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in these totals because these metrics
were not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.
D-32
-------
Fly Ash Expanded Use 15% Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided C02 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N20
Passenger cars not driven for
one year
Passenger cars and light trucks
not driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and
light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
12.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.5
33.8
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.0
5.5
0.0
4.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
8.7
73.4
0.0
39.4
0.0
0.0
2005
12.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.9
0.0
1.6
35.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
4.6
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.2
78.0
0.0
41.9
0.0
0.0
2006
13.3
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.7
37.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.1
0.0
4.8
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.6
81.5
0.0
43.7
0.0
0.0
2007
13.9
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
2.1
0.0
1.8
39.1
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.3
0.0
5.0
1.9
0.1
0.1
10.0
85.0
0.0
45.6
0.0
0.0
2008
14.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
1.8
40.6
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
5.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
10.4
88.2
0.0
47.4
0.0
0.0
2009
16.0
0.4
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.6
2.4
2.4
0.0
2.0
44.8
0.5
0.4
1.1
0.0
7.2
0.0
5.7
2.2
0.1
0.1
11.5
97.4
0.0
52.3
0.0
0.0
2010
17.3
0.5
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.6
2.7
2.6
0.0
2.2
48.7
0.6
0.5
1.1
0.0
7.9
0.0
6.2
2.4
0.2
0.1
12.5
105.8
0.0
56.8
0.0
0.0
2011
18.8
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.6
2.9
2.8
0.0
2.4
52.7
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.0
8.5
0.0
6.7
2.6
0.2
0.1
13.5
114.5
0.0
61.5
0.0
0.0
2012
20.2
0.6
0.4
1.6
1.0
0.6
3.1
3.0
0.0
2.6
56.7
0.7
0.6
1.3
0.0
9.2
0.0
7.2
2.8
0.2
0.1
14.6
123.3
0.0
66.2
0.0
0.0
2013
21.7
0.6
0.4
1.7
1.1
0.6
3.3
3.2
0.0
2.7
60.9
0.7
0.6
1.4
0.0
9.8
0.1
7.7
3.0
0.2
0.1
15.6
132.4
0.0
71.1
0.0
0.0
2014
23.2
0.6
0.4
1.9
1.1
0.6
3.5
3.5
0.0
2.9
65.2
0.8
0.6
1.5
0.0
10.5
0.1
8.3
3.2
0.2
0.2
16.7
141.7
0.0
76.1
0.0
0.0
2015
24.8
0.7
0.4
2.0
1.2
0.6
3.8
3.7
0.0
3.1
69.6
0.8
0.7
1.6
0.0
11.2
0.1
8.8
3.5
0.2
0.2
17.9
151.3
0.0
81.2
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
208.5
5.7
4.2
16.7
10.3
7.7
31.9
31.1
0.0
26.4
585.4
7.1
5.8
13.8
0.1
94.6
0.5
74.3
29.0
1.9
1.4
150.4
1,272.5
0.0
683.1
0.0
0.0
D-33
-------
Fly Ash Expanded Use 30% Scenario
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided C02 Equivalent (air)
Avoided CO2
Avoided CF4
Avoided CH4
Avoided N20
Passenger cars not driven for
one year
Passenger cars and light trucks
not driven for one year
Avoided gasoline consumption
Avoided oil consumption
Avoided NOx (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
million metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
million passenger cars
million passenger cars and
light trucks
billion liters
billion barrels
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
12.0
0.3
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.8
0.0
1.5
33.8
0.4
0.3
0.8
0.0
5.5
0.0
4.3
1.7
0.1
0.1
8.7
73.4
0.0
39.4
0.0
0.0
2005
12.8
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.0
1.9
0.0
1.6
35.9
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.0
5.8
0.0
4.6
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.2
78.0
0.0
41.9
0.0
0.0
2006
13.3
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.0
2.0
0.0
1.7
37.5
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.1
0.0
4.8
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.6
81.5
0.0
43.7
0.0
0.0
2007
13.9
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.6
2.1
2.1
0.0
1.8
39.1
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.0
6.3
0.0
5.0
1.9
0.1
0.1
10.0
85.0
0.0
45.6
0.0
0.0
2008
14.5
0.4
0.3
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.2
2.2
0.0
1.8
40.6
0.5
0.4
1.0
0.0
6.6
0.0
5.2
2.0
0.1
0.1
10.4
88.2
0.0
47.4
0.0
0.0
2009
19.1
0.5
0.4
1.5
0.9
0.8
2.9
2.9
0.0
2.4
53.7
0.7
0.5
1.3
0.0
8.7
0.0
6.8
2.7
0.2
0.1
13.8
116.7
0.0
62.6
0.0
0.0
2010
23.8
0.7
0.5
1.9
1.2
0.9
3.6
3.6
0.0
3.0
66.8
0.8
0.7
1.6
0.0
10.8
0.1
8.5
3.3
0.2
0.2
17.1
145.1
0.0
77.9
0.0
0.0
2011
28.6
0.8
0.5
2.3
1.4
1.0
4.4
4.3
0.0
3.6
80.4
1.0
0.8
1.9
0.0
13.0
0.1
10.2
4.0
0.3
0.2
20.6
174.7
0.0
93.8
0.0
0.0
2012
33.6
0.9
0.6
2.7
1.7
1.1
5.1
5.0
0.0
4.3
94.3
1.1
0.9
2.2
0.0
15.2
0.1
12.0
4.7
0.3
0.2
24.2
205.1
0.0
110.1
0.0
0.0
2013
38.7
1.1
0.6
3.1
1.9
1.2
5.9
5.8
0.0
4.9
108.8
1.3
1.1
2.6
0.0
17.6
0.1
13.8
5.4
0.4
0.3
27.9
236.5
0.0
127.0
0.0
0.0
2014
44.1
1.2
0.7
3.5
2.2
1.2
6.7
6.6
0.0
5.6
123.8
1.5
1.2
2.9
0.0
20.0
0.1
15.7
6.1
0.4
0.3
31.8
269.0
0.0
144.4
0.0
0.0
2015
49.6
1.4
0.7
4.0
2.5
1.3
7.6
7.4
0.0
6.3
139.2
1.7
1.4
3.3
0.0
22.5
0.1
17.7
6.9
0.4
0.3
35.7
302.5
0.0
162.4
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
304.0
8.4
5.8
24.4
15.1
10.5
46.5
45.4
0.0
38.5
853.7
10.4
8.4
20.1
0.1
137.9
0.7
108.4
42.4
2.8
2.0
219.3
1,855.7
0.0
996.2
0.0
0.0
D-34
-------
Total 15% Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NO2 (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
15.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.3
7.2
0.0
5.9
2.1
0.1
0.1
7.9
66.5
0.0
36.4
0.0
0.0
2005
16.2
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.4
7.6
0.0
6.2
2.2
0.1
0.1
8.4
71.0
0.0
38.7
0.0
0.0
2006
16.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.5
7.9
0.0
6.4
2.3
0.1
0.1
8.8
74.4
0.0
40.6
0.0
0.0
2007
17.4
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.7
2.6
8.1
0.0
6.7
2.4
0.2
0.1
9.2
77.8
0.0
42.4
0.0
0.0
2008
18.0
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.7
8.4
0.0
6.9
2.5
0.2
0.1
9.6
80.9
0.0
44.1
0.0
0.0
2009
19.6
0.5
0.4
1.3
0.8
0.7
2.9
9.1
0.0
7.4
2.7
0.2
0.1
10.7
90.0
0.0
49.0
0.0
0.0
2010
21.0
0.6
0.4
1.4
0.9
0.7
3.1
9.8
0.0
7.9
2.9
0.2
0.1
11.7
98.3
0.0
53.4
0.0
0.0
2011
22.5
0.6
0.4
1.6
1.0
0.7
3.3
10.5
0.0
8.5
3.1
0.2
0.2
12.7
106.9
0.0
58.0
0.0
0.0
2012
24.0
0.7
0.4
1.7
1.0
0.7
3.6
11.1
0.1
9.0
3.3
0.2
0.2
13.7
115.6
0.0
62.7
0.0
0.0
2013
25.6
0.7
0.4
1.8
1.1
0.7
3.8
11.8
0.1
9.6
3.6
0.2
0.2
14.8
124.6
0.0
67.5
0.0
0.0
2014
27.2
0.7
0.4
1.9
1.2
0.7
4.0
12.6
0.1
10.1
3.8
0.2
0.2
15.8
133.8
0.0
72.5
0.0
0.0
2015
28.8
0.8
0.4
2.0
1.3
0.7
4.3
13.3
0.1
10.7
4.0
0.3
0.2
17.0
143.3
0.0
77.6
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
252.5
6.9
5.2
17.3
10.7
7.9
37.5
117.4
0.5
95.4
35.2
2.2
1.8
140.2
1,183.0
0.0
642.8
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the sum of the fly ash expanded use 15% scenario, the current use GGBFS scenario and the current use silica fume scenario. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in
these totals because these metrics were not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.
D-35
-------
Total 30% Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NO2 (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
15.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.6
2.3
7.2
0.0
5.9
2.1
0.1
0.1
7.9
66.5
0.0
36.4
0.0
0.0
2005
16.2
0.4
0.4
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.4
7.6
0.0
6.2
2.2
0.1
0.1
8.4
71.0
0.0
38.7
0.0
0.0
2006
16.8
0.5
0.5
1.1
0.7
0.7
2.5
7.9
0.0
6.4
2.3
0.1
0.1
8.8
74.4
0.0
40.6
0.0
0.0
2007
17.4
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.7
2.6
8.1
0.0
6.7
2.4
0.2
0.1
9.2
77.8
0.0
42.4
0.0
0.0
2008
18.0
0.5
0.4
1.2
0.7
0.6
2.7
8.4
0.0
6.9
2.5
0.2
0.1
9.6
80.9
0.0
44.1
0.0
0.0
2009
22.7
0.6
0.5
1.6
1.0
0.8
3.4
10.6
0.0
8.6
3.2
0.2
0.2
12.9
109.3
0.0
59.3
0.0
0.0
2010
27.5
0.8
0.6
2.0
1.2
0.9
4.1
12.7
0.1
10.2
3.8
0.2
0.2
16.3
137.6
0.0
74.5
0.0
0.0
2011
32.4
0.9
0.6
2.3
1.5
1.0
4.8
14.9
0.1
12.0
4.5
0.3
0.2
19.8
167.0
0.0
90.3
0.0
0.0
2012
37.4
1.0
0.7
2.7
1.7
1.1
5.6
17.2
0.1
13.8
5.2
0.3
0.3
23.4
197.4
0.0
106.6
0.0
0.0
2013
42.6
1.2
0.7
3.2
2.0
1.2
6.3
19.6
0.1
15.7
5.9
0.4
0.3
27.1
228.7
0.0
123.4
0.0
0.0
2014
48.0
1.3
0.7
3.6
2.2
1.2
7.2
22.0
0.1
17.6
6.7
0.4
0.3
30.9
261.1
0.0
140.8
0.0
0.0
2015
53.6
1.5
0.8
4.0
2.5
1.3
8.0
24.6
0.1
19.6
7.5
0.5
0.4
34.8
294.5
0.0
158.8
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
348.0
9.6
6.8
25.0
15.4
10.8
51.7
160.8
0.8
129.4
48.5
3.1
2.4
209.1
1,766.2
0.0
955.8
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the sum of the fly ash expanded use 30% scenario, the current use GGBFS scenario and the current use silica fume scenario. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in
these totals because these metrics were not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.
D-36
-------
Total 15% Scenario Incremental to Total C2P2 Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NO2 (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2007
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2009
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.7
6.2
0.0
3.3
0.0
0.0
2010
1.9
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.9
0.0
0.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
1.4
11.8
0.0
6.4
0.0
0.0
2011
2.9
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
1.3
0.0
1.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.1
17.7
0.0
9.5
0.0
0.0
2012
4.0
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.6
1.8
0.0
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.0
2.9
24.7
0.0
13.2
0.0
0.0
2013
5.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.8
2.4
0.0
1.9
0.7
0.0
0.0
3.8
31.9
0.0
17.1
0.0
0.0
2014
6.4
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.0
2.9
0.0
2.3
0.9
0.1
0.0
4.6
39.3
0.0
21.1
0.0
0.0
2015
7.7
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.4
0.2
1.1
3.5
0.0
2.7
1.1
0.1
0.1
5.6
47.0
0.0
25.2
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
29.3
0.8
0.5
2.3
1.4
0.9
4.4
13.3
0.1
10.4
4.1
0.3
0.2
21.1
178.6
0.0
95.9
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the 15% Scenario Total minus Total C P . The expanded GHG metrics are not included in these totals because these metrics were not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica
fume.
D-37
-------
Total 30% Scenario Incremental to Total C2P2 Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NO2 (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2007
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2009
4.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.6
1.9
0.0
1.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
3.0
25.4
0.0
13.6
0.0
0.0
2010
8.4
0.2
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.3
1.3
3.8
0.0
3.0
1.2
0.1
0.1
6.0
51.1
0.0
27.5
0.0
0.0
2011
12.8
0.4
0.2
1.0
0.6
0.4
1.9
5.8
0.0
4.5
1.8
0.1
0.1
9.2
77.9
0.0
41.8
0.0
0.0
2012
17.4
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.9
0.6
2.6
7.9
0.0
6.2
2.4
0.2
0.1
12.6
106.4
0.0
57.1
0.0
0.0
2013
22.3
0.6
0.4
1.8
1.1
0.7
3.3
10.1
0.1
7.9
3.1
0.2
0.1
16.1
136.0
0.0
73.0
0.0
0.0
2014
27.3
0.8
0.4
2.2
1.4
0.8
4.1
12.4
0.1
9.7
3.8
0.2
0.2
19.7
166.6
0.0
89.5
0.0
0.0
2015
32.5
0.9
0.5
2.6
1.6
0.8
4.9
14.7
0.1
11.6
4.5
0.3
0.2
23.4
198.2
0.0
106.4
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
124.8
3.4
2.1
10.0
6.2
3.7
18.6
56.6
0.3
44.5
17.4
1.1
0.8
90.0
761.8
0.0
409.0
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the 30% Scenario Total minus Total C2P2. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in these totals because these metrics were not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica
fume.
D-38
-------
Total 30% Scenario Incremental to Total 15% Scenario3
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Energy Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Water Savings
Avoided CO2
Avoided NO2 (air)
Avoided PM10 (air)
Avoided SOx (air)
Avoided CO (air)
Avoided Hg (air)
Avoided Pb (air)
Avoided biochemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided chemical oxygen
demand (water)
Avoided copper (water)
Avoided suspended matter
(water)
Avoided soil emissions
Avoided end of life waste
billion megajoules
billion ($2006)
billion (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
billion liters
million ($2006)
million (Sdiscounted @ 7%)
million metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
thousand metric tons
thousand metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
metric tons
2004
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2005
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2006
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2007
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2009
3.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.5
1.4
0.0
1.1
0.4
0.0
0.0
2.3
19.2
0.0
10.3
0.0
0.0
2010
6.4
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.3
0.2
1.0
2.9
0.0
2.3
0.9
0.1
0.0
4.6
39.3
0.0
21.1
0.0
0.0
2011
9.9
0.3
0.2
0.8
0.5
0.3
1.5
4.5
0.0
3.5
1.4
0.1
0.1
7.1
60.2
0.0
32.3
0.0
0.0
2012
13.4
0.4
0.2
1.1
0.7
0.4
2.0
6.1
0.0
4.8
1.9
0.1
0.1
9.7
81.8
0.0
43.9
0.0
0.0
2013
17.1
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.8
0.5
2.5
7.7
0.0
6.1
2.4
0.2
0.1
12.3
104.1
0.0
55.9
0.0
0.0
2014
20.9
0.6
0.3
1.7
1.0
0.6
3.1
9.5
0.1
7.4
2.9
0.2
0.1
15.0
127.3
0.0
68.4
0.0
0.0
2015
24.8
0.7
0.4
2.0
1.2
0.6
3.7
11.2
0.1
8.8
3.5
0.2
0.2
17.9
151.3
0.0
81.2
0.0
0.0
TOTAL
95.5
2.6
1.6
7.7
4.7
2.9
14.3
43.3
0.2
34.1
13.3
0.9
0.6
68.9
583.2
0.0
313.1
0.0
0.0
a. Calculated as the Total 30% Scenario minus the Total 15% Scenario. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in these totals because these metrics were not evaluated for either
GGBFS or silica fume.
D-39
-------
General Limitations of Analysis
Beyond the specific assumptions and modeling constraints cited throughout this appendix, there
are several broad limitations with respect to the analysis, including:
• Uncertainty concerning applicable RMC substitution levels. Two sources of
uncertainty exist. First, it has been noted that there is difficulty in identifying both the
quantity of concrete procured for federally-funded projects, and the quantities of each
RMC used in these projects. Second, it is difficult to isolate, for quantification, the effect
of current procurement regulations on RMC substitution. Thus, the results may over- or
understate actual benefits depending upon the accuracy of the estimated quantities. In
addition, the results likely overstate benefits attributable to current procurement
regulations.
• Static nature of unit impact values. The BEES model presents an LCI based upon
current manufacturing processes and related energy intensity and emissions levels, which
may change over time. Thus, the accuracy of the impact values derived from these LCIs
likely declines the further out they are applied to the 10-year projection of RMC
substitution levels.
• Social welfare impacts of RMC substitution. The benefit results capture absolute
differences in resource use and emissions between two concrete product types. These
absolute differences likely overstate marginal welfare impacts resulting from RMC
substitution. For example, a portion of energy savings from RMC substitution may be
consumed elsewhere within the economy. Accordingly, the results are best viewed as a
relative measure of benefits across RMCs and concrete product types.
D-40
-------
WARM Analysis of Coal fly ash Substitution
EPA's Waste Reduction Model (WARM) is another lifecycle tool capable of evaluating the
greenhouse gas and energy impacts of coal fly ash substitution in concrete. For comparison with
BEES results for coal fly ash substitution, we calculate the avoided greenhouse gas and energy
impacts per metric ton coal fly ash substitution using WARM. As with BEES, we do not run the
WARM model for coal fly ash but instead use underlying energy and greenhouse gas emissions
factors for the coal fly ash recycling scenario.15 Table D-13 presents a comparison of the energy
and greenhouse gas unit impacts derived from WARM and BEES.
Table D-13: Comparison of WARM and BEES Unit Impacts
Avoided energy (million Btu)
Avoided CO2 (MT)
Avoided CH4 (MT)
Metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E)
Metric tons carbon equivalent (MTCE)
Notes:
Impacts per One MT Coal Fly Ash as Cement
Replacement
WARM3
5.26
NAb
NAb
0.96
0.26
BEES
4.45
0.70
0.00
0.71C
0.20C
a. WARM impacts on a short ton coal fly ash basis were converted to a metric ton basis by multiplying each
impact by 1.10231131 short tons/MT.
b. WARM does not report these metrics.
c. BEES impacts for avoided CO2 and CH4 were converted to MTCO2E and MTCE using the U.S. Climate
Technology Cooperation Gateway's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator, accessed at:
http: //www.usctcgatewav .net/tool/.
As shown, the unit impacts calculated from BEES and WARM are very similar.
The coal fly ash recycling scenario energy and emissions factors in WARM are calculated as the difference in
energy use and greenhouse gas emissions between virgin production of one ton of cement and production of one ton
of coal fly ash. The same general calculation is used to derive the coal fly ash unit impacts in BEES. We do not run
WARM as a comparison between coal fly ash landfill disposal and coal fly ash recycling because such an analysis
would be inconsistent with the impacts being measured in BEES.
D-41
-------
Beneficial Use of Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate (BFSA)
As described in section two of this report, blast furnace slag aggregate can replace virgin
aggregate in concrete mixes or in roadbase. When used in this capacity, blast furnace slag
aggregate reduces the need to quarry, crush, sort, and transport virgin aggregate. Extraction and
processing of virgin crushed rock is a resource and energy intensive process. To the extent that
virgin aggregate production can be offset by use of blast furnace slag aggregate, these energy and
resource requirements are reduced.
The life cycle analysis presented in section three of this report evaluates the substitution of
ground, granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) for finished portland cement, but does not
evaluate substitution of blast furnace slag aggregate for virgin aggregate in concrete or roadbase.
Using a modified-LC A approach, we illustrate the magnitude of environmental and energy
savings that can be realized through beneficial use of blast furnace slag aggregate. We modeled
the environmental and energy savings from beneficial use of blast furnace slag aggregate as the
avoided lifecycle impacts of extracting, processing and transporting an equivalent quantity of
virgin aggregate. This approach provides a reasonable approximation of the magnitude of
benefits since virgin aggregate extraction is the only significant process change when BFSA is
used in place of virgin aggregate in concrete mixes, or as base material.
We rely on life cycle inventory data contained in the Pavement Life Cycle Assessment Tool for
Environmental and Economic Effects (PaLATE) to quantify the environmental savings from one
ton of avoided virgin aggregate extraction.16 We then multiply the unit environmental impacts of
avoided virgin aggregate extraction by the total 2004 baseline17 quantity of BFSA under two
alternative scenarios.
Based on available data and communications with experts in the field, we estimated that
approximately 8.1 million metric tons of BFSA were sold in the U.S. in our baseline year of
2004 (see Chapter 2). Available data at the time of our analysis indicated that virtually 100% of
BFSA generated annually in the U.S. was beneficially used. However, recent information
received from the National Slag Association (Kiggins, 2007) indicates that as much as 1.4
million metric tons of BFSA may go unused annually, resulting in only 6.7 million metric tons
being beneficially used (based on 2004 data). To determine the maximum level of potential
BFSA beneficial use impacts we first estimated benefits based on the full quantity (8.1 million
metric tons) of BFSA reported sales for 200418 These results are presented under Scenario 1 in
Table D-14. Assuming that approximately 1.4 million metric tons of BFSA goes unused
annually, this would mean that society is currently enjoying the environmental benefits
16 PaLATE is an Excel-based tool developed by the Consortium for Green Design and Manufacturing at U.C.
Berkeley for life cycle analysis of environmental and economic performance of pavements and roads.. The model
was developed for pavement designers and engineers, transportation agency decision-makers, civil engineers, and
researchers. PaLATE can evaluate the relative impacts of using different virgin and secondary materials in the
construction and maintenance of roads. For additional information on PaLATE, or to obtain a copy of the model, see
http://www.ce.berkelev.edu/~horvath/palate.html.
17 We did not develop beneficial use trends and projected benefit estimates through the year 2015, as we did for
GGBFS, fly ash and silica fume due to our inability to reliably link projected BFSA use as an aggregate to future
cement use (see Section 3.3.1 of the Report).
18 This quantity includes an estimated 1.8 percent of the total that was actually used as clinker raw material.
D-42
-------
associated with the use of only 6.7 million metric tons. Scenario 2 in Table D-14 presents the
incremental benefits associated with using the additional 1.4 million metric tons of potentially
available BFSA. Consistent with our analysis in Chapter 3, and earlier in this Appendix, we
estimate that BFSA use in Federal projects would represent approximately 20% of the total
estimated benefits.
TABLE D-14: ESTIMATED ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS FROM USE OF BLAST FURNACE SLAG AGGREGATE AS A
SUBSTITUTE FOR VIRGIN AGGREGATE
METRIC
C02
CO
N02
S02
PM10
Energy
Electricity (kWh)
Hg
Pb
RCRA Hazardous Waste
Generated
Water Consumption
UNITS
grams
grams
grams
grams
grams
MJ
Btu
kWh
grams
grams
grams
thousand gallons
UNIT IMPACT
(per metric ton virgin
aggregate)
12,039.83
15.85
24.26
11.82
172.52
170.00
161,129
11.20
0.00
0.00
197.57
23.68
SCENARIO 1*
Impacts for 8.1
million metric tons
BFSA as substitute for
virgin aggregate
97,522,590,241
128,402,187
196,507,899
95,734,247
1,397,444,725
1,377,028,355
1,305,170,991,400
90,688,961
4
28,178
1,600,281,470
191,797,367
SCENARIO 2**
Impacts for use of an
additional 1.4 million
metric tons BFSA as
substitute for virgin
aggregate
16,855,756,338
22,192,971
33,964,328
16,542,878
241,478,448
237,950,500
225,533,547,560
15,671,052
0.7
4,869
276,528,638
33,142,585
* Scenario 1 assumes 100% BFSA usage (8.1 million metric tons) during our baseline year of 2004
(see Chapter 2).
** Scenario 2 presents the estimated incremental benefits of 1 .4 million metric tons only, reflecting the NSA
estimate that approximately 1 .4 million metric tons of BFSA goes unused each year. Under this scenario, the
baseline 2004 usage would be 6.7 million metric tons, leaving the additional 1 .4 million metric tons available
for beneficial use.
MJ = megajoule
Although not quantified in our analysis, the National Slag Association has indicated that the
beneficial use of BFSA provides a further economic benefit by helping the U.S. Steel Industry
remain competitive in the global steel market. (Kiggins, 2007).
D-43
-------
APPENDIX E:
SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVE COMMENTS ON
MECHANISMS TO INCREASE RMC SUBSTITUTION
-------
Table E-l below summarizes suggestions from six key industry stakeholders on potential
mechanisms to address barriers and increase use of coal fly ash, foundry sand, and other RMCs.
Table E-l: Summary of Suggestions from Industry on Potential Mechanisms
Industry
Member
Suggestions
National
Ready Mixed
Concrete
Association
(NRMCA)
Mandates for use of RMCs, including requiring specific minimum
quantities, should be avoided. All mechanisms for increased use should
ensure that the resulting concrete meets quality standards that will not
compromise its service life.
Government should implement education efforts aimed at harmonizing
policy by ensuring that state transportation agencies (on Federally
supported projects) do not restrict the beneficial use unless there are
technically valid reasons locally.
Government should provide financial (economic) and other incentives to
the industry to increase the beneficial use of RMCs.
Headwaters,
Inc.
The U.S. government should:
• Continue on-going activities aimed at removing informational barriers
including, but not be limited to:
o
o
o
Education through various media regarding the safety and
performance- enhancing capabilities of RMCs.
Elimination of use restrictions not supported by technical
considerations.
Support for performance-based specifications for concrete and
RMCs used in concrete.
Substantially increase efforts to overcome logistical barriers. This may
include creation of infrastructure incentives. Financial (economic)
incentives, such as tax credits or accelerated depreciation of capital
expenditures could assist companies that invest in the construction of
infrastructure to store, process, transport or improve the quality of RMCs.
American
Coal Ash
Association
(ACAA)
In Federal projects, current requirements that contractors use recovered mineral
resources do not have adequate "teeth." A number of caveats make it easy for a
contractor to opt-out of beneficial use material options. If the procurement
process directed contractors to use RMC materials whenever the design
specification allows it, RMCs would be more likely be used. Furthermore, other
CCPs including FGD gypsum, boiler slag, bottom ash, and cenospheres could
also be included.
E-l
-------
Industry
Member
Suggestions
Holcim, Ltd.
General Comments:
• Create greater transparency about the use of RMCs
• Create a centralized reporting system that tallies the amount and type of
recycled cement/concrete products used in Federally funded projects.
State Agencies:
• Where Federal funds are involved, include requirements in state and local
contracts requiring contractors to use cement/concrete containing RMCs
(unless cost, availability or technical specifications prohibit such use).
Federal Agencies:
• Review and update Federal procurement rules to require that contractors
bidding on Federal construction projects use cement/concrete containing
RMCs (unless cost, availability or technical specifications prohibit such
use).
• On an annual basis, each Federal agency should provide EPA with copies
of their procurement plans and rules, grant regulations, and information
submitted to them by Federal contractors and state and local governments
as to the amount and type of recycled cement/concrete being used, or
reasons it is not being used, in Federally funded projects.
• Require states to adopt specifications including RMCs in order to in order
to receive Federal funds.
Silica Fume
Association
(SFA)
Since cement production is a pound for pound contributor of CC>2
emissions, SFA suggests a strong program that requires elimination of
cement-only concretes or requiring the use of SCMs in Federal projects
using concrete. Give weighted financial credit (economic incentive) for
using CPG materials to produce concrete on Federal projects.
Any program of this sort must include a technology transfer element, as
most concrete producers in the US are not well versed in cement and
cement replacement technology. To help provide this education or
technology transfer, we recommend the Federal agencies using concrete
join with the concrete industry organizations, and together provide this
education to the industry.
E-2
-------
Industry
Member
Suggestions
Slag Cement
Association
(SCA)
The CPGs can be much more effective if they had more explicit
requirements regarding replacement rates, use of ternary mixtures, and
had actual "teeth" so that non-compliance would have negative project
impacts. Create minimum upper limits on slag cement (and fly ash)
percentages in concrete based on application.
Require that specifications allow the use of ternary mixtures.
Establish a review protocol to allow a technical evaluation by an outside
party if a project stakeholder challenges compliance of a specification to
the CPGs. This "outside party" could be an appropriate functional agency
for the project (e.g. FHWA for transportation, DOD for military, GSA for
general facilities), or the EPA or a combination thereof.
Add "teeth" to the CPGs so that if the review protocol recommends
specification changes, 1) reissue specifications if there is a reasonable
amount of time prior to the project bid date (if time frame is too short
before the bid date, then the bid date would need to be delayed); 2) if the
project has already been bid, then re-bidding would be required; 3) if the
project specifications are not changed then Federal funding should be
withheld.
Provide incentives that encourage more domestic granulation capacity,
such as tax incentives for new granulator installation (such as accelerated
depreciation or tax credits), and provide funding for training programs on
the proper use of GGBF slag (and other RMCs).
Provide funding for the nascent Green Highways Partnership, which is
attempting to incorporate sustainable design concepts into highway
design.
E-3
------- |