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-08-007i 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 Mine ral 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 Be nefits of RMC Use in Fede ral 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 Projected Energy and Environmental Im pacts 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, a nd 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-1

Glossary ....................................................................................................................... ............... G-1

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. AA- 1ii Appendix A: Overview of Po rtland Cement and Concrete

Appendix B: Background of Recovered Mineral Components

Appendix C: Cement and RMC Producers

Appendix D: RMC Beneficial Us e Model - Technical Approach

Appendix E: Summary of Industry Representative Comments on Mechanisms to Increase RMC SubstitutionES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Section 6017(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flex ible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, P.L. 109-59, Aug. 10, 2005 (SAF ETEA-LU), directs the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) to, “...c onduct a study to determine the extent to which procurement requirements, when fully implemented...may realize energy savings and environmental benefits attainable with substitu tion 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 recovere d mineral components are being substituted for portland cement, particularly as a result of current procurement requirements; and (ii) the energy savings and environmental benef its associated with that substitution;

(B) Identify all barriers in procurement re quirements to greater realization of energy savings and environmental benefits, including barriers resulting from exceptions from current law; and

(C) (i) Identify potential mechan isms to achieve greater substitution of recovered mineral components in types of cement and concre te projects for which recovered material components historically have not been used or have been used only minimally; (ii) evaluate the feasibility of establishing guide lines or standards for optimized substitution rates of recovered material component in t hose cement and concrete projects; and (iii) identify any potential environmental or ec onomic effects that may result from greater substitution of recovered mineral components in these cement and concrete projects.

Energy savings and environmental benefi ts associated with substitution. Recovered mineral component (RMC) use yields positive envi ronmental benefits through lower resource consumption. To overcome procurement data limitations, for ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS), coal combustion fly ash (coal fl y ash) , and silica fume, the report derives estimates of their use in Federal projects by r oughly apportioning total vo lumes to Federal and non-Federal projects (b ased upon the estimated proportion of total cement demand related to federally-funded projects). For the years 2004 and 2005, our life cycle analys is indicates that the use of GGBFS, coal fly ash, and silica fume in Federal concrete projec ts alone resulted in significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, criteria air pollutants, and energy and water use. For these two years combined, th e analysis indicates re duced energy use of 31.5 billion megajoules, avoided CO 2 equivalent air emissions of 3.8 million metric tons, and water savings of 2.1 billion liters. Th e report further illustrates how these benefits may accrue over a longer time period (through 2015) given alternative us e scenarios. This aspect of the analysis also links to issue C noted above.

With respect to the issues identified under part s (B) and (C), research suggests that while a number of barriers impede the beneficial us e of RMCs through procurement requirements, a variety of potential mechanisms exist for addressing these barriers. Specifically:ES-2 • Procurement policies and material standards initiatives, including ongoing assessment and refinement of EPA’s Co mprehensive Procurement Guidelines (CPGs), refinement of engineering standards governing substitution of RMCs, and development and application of green building standards.

• Education, technical assist ance, and recognition programs, such as EPA’s foundry sand outreach efforts and public/priva te partnerships, such as the Coal Combustion Products Partnership (C 2 P 2 ) to encourage the beneficial use of coal combustion products (CCPs).

• As part of education, technical assistance, and recognition, ongoing research and pilot projects are cri tical 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 effo rt to promote the use of materials recovered from solid waste and by-products. 2 Under this program, EPA de signates products that are made with recovered materials, and recommends pr actices for buying these products by procuring agencies. 3 Once a product is designated, procuring agenci es are required to purchase it with the highest recovered material conten t level practicable (e.g., the highest material content level that can be economically obtained and can provide th e needed product specif ications). EPA has issued guidelines for procurement of cement and c oncrete containing coal fly ash, and has further designated cenospheres 4 and silica fume as RMCs for cement and concrete.

This report presents EPA’s analysis and discussi on 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 fr om state entities and cer tain industry sources, such as the American Coal Ash Association (A CAA), the Slag Cement Association (SCA), the Silica Fume Association (SFA), the National Slag Associat ion (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 consid eration 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 Re covered 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 usin g 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-3 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 wa ste 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 as h; blast furnace slag aggregate (BFSA) 6 ; and silica fume. Congress specifically excluded lead sl ag from this Report. The other by-product materials identified by EPA for evaluation in clude: foundry sand, cenospheres, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, flue gas desulfur ization (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 envir onmental impacts and product enhancements associated with use of these materials.

5 Section 6017 (a) of SAFETEA-LU defines recovered minera l components as “(A) gro und 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 Bl ast-Furnace Slag (ACBF Slag)ES-4Table ES-1: Summary of RMCsRMC Description Uses/ApplicationsRMCs Named by CongressGround granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBFS)A ferrous slag produced during the production of iron as a result ofremoving impurities from iron ore. Quick quenching (chilling) ofmolten slag yields glassy, granular product which can be ground to afine, powdered hydraulic cement.GGBFS can be used as partial replacement for portland cement,or, if not finely ground, as concrete aggregate.Coal combustion fly ash A finely-divided mineral residue from the combustion of ground orpowdered coal in coal-fired power plants.Partial replacement for portland cement in concrete applications.Can be used as a raw material in the production of portlandcement clinker or as an inter-ground or blended supplementarycementitious material (SCM) in the production of blendedcements.Blast furnace slag aggregate(BFSA)Produced by allowing molten slag to cool and solidify slowly.Also commonly referred to as: aircooled blast-furnace slag (ACBFslag).After crushing and screening, usedas aggregate in applications,such as concrete, asphalt, rail ballast, and roofing. It is also usedin shingle coating, and glass making.Silica fume A very fine, dust-like material generated during alloyed metalproduction.Concrete additive used to increase strength and durability.Other RMCs Identified by EPAFoundry sand Silica sand that is a byproduct of both ferrous and nonferrous metalcastings.Can be used in the manufacture of cement clinker and as aningredient in concrete.Cenospheres Small, inert, lightweight, hollow, "glass" spheres composed of silicaand alumina and filled with air or other gases. They occur naturally incoal fly ash.Used in concrete production to increase concrete's strength anddecreasing shrinkage and weight.[Cenospheres may also be used in a wide variety of materials,from paints and finishes to plastics and caulking.]Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)gypsumFGD by-products are generated by air pollution control devices usedat some coal-fired electric power plants. Forced oxidation wet FGDsystems create gypsum as a by-product.Replacement for natural gypsum in wallboard production andgrinding with clinker to produce finished cement.Flue gas desulfurization (FGD)dry scrubber materialDry FGD systems remove sulfur dioxide (SO2)from coal-fired powerplant flue gas. Main constituents of resulting byproduct includecalcium sulfite, fly ash, portlandite, calcite, calcium sulfate.Dry FGD material is used in concrete mixes and products as asubstitute aggregate material. Dry FGD material may also beused for embankments and roadbase compositions.Power plant bottom ash A coarse, solid mineral residue that results from the burning of coal inutility boilers.Used as aggregate in concrete, orfor other aggregate uses such ascompacted base course. Also used as raw material in cementclinker manufacture as alternativesource of silica, alumina, iron,and calcium.Power Plant Boiler slag A coarse, hard, black, angular, glassy material, produced from slag inwet-bottom boilers.Owing to its abrasive properties, boiler slag is used almostexclusively in the manufacture of blasting grit; can also be usedas raw feed component to make cement clinker.Steel furnace slag A by-product from the conversion of iron to steel in a basic oxygenfurnace or the melting of scrap to makesteel in an electric arc furnace.Used as raw material substitute in cement clinker manufacturing.Also used in aggregate base, fill and asphalt.Cement kiln dust (CKD) The fine-grained, solid, highly alkaline material removed from cementkiln exhaust gas by air pollution control devices.Material is primarilyrecycled through closed loop processes in thecement kiln. Small amounts used as supplementary cementitiousmaterial (SCM) for blended and/ormasonry cements. Material can beused as a soil liming agent.Note:Congress specifically excludedlead slag from this Report.ES-5Table ES-2: RMC Generation and Benefits of UseRMCAnnual QuantityGenerated, 2004.(excludes stockpiles)(million metric tons)Benefits of UseRMCs Named by CongressGroundGranulated BlastFurnace Slag(GGBFS)3.6aUse of GGBFS in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin materials extraction and manufacturing ofportland cement. These benefits include reduced energy useand associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, reduced wateruse and reduced air pollution. In addition, the beneficial properties of concrete mixes containing GGBFS include increasedstrength, improved workability, lower heat of hydration, lower permeability, improved resistance to alkali-silica reactivity, andresistance to sulfate attack. Use of GGBFS creates more concrete from the same amount of portland cement.Coal CombustionFly Ash64.2bUse of coal combustion fly ash in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin materials extraction andmanufacturing of portland cement. These benefits include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced wateruse 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 ofportland cement clinker or as an inter-ground or blended supplementary cementitious material (SCM) in the production ofblended cements.Blast FurnaceSlag Aggregate(BFSA) (ACBFslag)8.1aAs an aggregate in concrete mixes, BFSA reduces the need toquarry, crush, sort, and transport virgin aggregate materials,resulting in reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water use and reduced air pollution.Silica Fume 0.10 – 0.12cThe beneficial properties of concrete mixes containing silica fume include decreased water bleeding, increased strength, andreduced permeability to corrosive chemicals. Use of silica fumein concrete also reduces the required amount of portlandcement for a specific quantity of concrete. Silica fume concrete is used in high-performance applications where specialdurability and strength performance is required.Other RMCs Identified by EPAFoundry Sand8.5dUse of foundry sand in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin sand extraction. These benefits includereduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced water use and reduced air pollution.Cenospheres 0.0052e(sold only)(Total not available)When incorporated into special light weight concrete or othercementitious materials mixes as fillers or extenders, cenospheresand can decrease shrinkage and weight. Use of cenospheres canalso offset the production of other filler materials, such asmanufactured glass, calcium carbonate, clays, talc, and other silicas.Flue GasDesulfurization(FGD) Gypsum10.8cUse of FGD gypsum in wallboard production and as an additive in cement production results in environmental benefits fromavoided extraction of virgin gypsum. These benefits are likelyto include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions,reduced water use and reduced air pollution.Flue GasDesulfurization(FGD) Dry ScrubberMaterial1.7bUse of dry FGD material as a substitute for virgin aggregate results in environmental benefits from avoided virgin materialextraction and aggregate production. These benefits include reduced energyuse and associated GHG emissions, reduced wateruse and reduced air pollution. Use of dry FGD as a substitute (partial or total) for natural gypsum used as an additive in thefinish mill (to control the setting time of the portland cement).Power Plant BottomAsh15.6bUse of bottom ash in concrete results in environmental benefits from avoided aggregate production. These benefits includereduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reduced wateruse and reduced air pollution.The porous surface structureES-6RMCAnnual QuantityGenerated, 2004.(excludes stockpiles)(million metric tons)Benefits of Useof bottom ash also makes it useful in lightweight concrete and concrete block applications. As a raw material in cementmanufacture, the bottom ash can supplysome of the necessary oxides (thus saving on virgin raw materials), and can do so at alower energy cost and with reduced emissions than for some virgin materials.Boiler Slag 2.0bBoiler slag can reduce the need for virginmaterials used as a raw feed for clinker production. Boiler slag is also used in themanufacture of blasting grit.Steel Furnace Slag 9.0aUse of steel slag in clinker manufacturing helps to reduce energy use, decrease CO2and NOX,emissions, increase productioncapacity, and reduce virgin limestone extraction. As an aggregate, steel slag reduces virgin aggregate extraction. The benefitsof avoided limestone or other types of aggregate extraction include reduced energy use and associated GHG emissions, reducedwater use and reduced air pollution.Cement Kiln Dust(CKD)12.0 – 15.0fUse of CKD as a filler or cementitious extender for finishedcement can offset virgin materials extraction and reduce waste sentto landfills. Other beneficial uses of off-site CKD include stabilization of sludges, wastes, and contaminated soils. CKD mayalso be used for land reclamation, livestockfeed 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 intoGGBFS. Van Oss (2006) estimates total blast furnace slag production in 2004 to be 12-14 million metric tons (vs. total reported sales of 12.2million metric tons), but this figure does not distinguish between GBFS, GGBFS, and BFSA.bAmerican Coal Ash Association (ACAA). 2004 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey.cKojundic, 8/30/2006dOman, Alicia, American Foundry Society (AFS), September 18, 2007. Personal Communication. Foundry Sand data are annual averagefor 2005/06.eAmerican Coal Ash Association (ACAA). 2004 Coal Combustion Product (CCP) Production and Use Survey. Reported as sold only.fvan 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 2006approximately 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 KilnDust and Clinker Production)Congress specifically excluded lead slag from this Report.ES-7 Energy and Environmental Benefits of RMC Us e 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 potentia l 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 th e Congressional mandate to examine "recovered mineral components in cement used in cement or concrete projects," these estimates focus specifically on the impacts resulti ng from the use of these three mineral components as a partial replacement for, or supplement to, portland cem ent in Federal construc tion projects involving concrete. The assessed metrics include res ource savings (e.g., re duced energy and water consumption), various avoided priority air pollutants (e.g., NO 2 , PM 10 , SOx, Hg, Pb), and various measures of avoided GHG emissions (e.g., CO 2 , CF 4 , CH 4 , N 2 O), which we further translate into equivalent metrics of avoided ga soline and oil consumption, and vehicles removed from the road. 8

The analysis employs three primary steps in mode ling the environmental benefits of using RMCs in Federal concrete applications: (1) developm ent of RMC substitution scenarios; (2) use of lifecycle analysis to estimate quantified environmenta l impacts associated with the substitution of one unit (metric ton) of RMC; and, (3) calculation of the envir onmental impact profile for the total quantities of substituted RMC.

Concerning RMC substitution scenar ios, 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 C 2 P 2 goal of 16.9 million metric tons of coal fly ash use in concrete by 2011). Beca use data concerning the volume of these RMCs procured by the Federal g overnment are unavailable, the report derives an estimate based on a rough measure of the pr oportion of the total vol ume of cement demand attributable to Federal concrete projects (equal to approximate ly 20% of the annual totals). Chapter 3 and Appendix D provide detailed b ackground 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 de tailed 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 addr essed here because quantities in use ar e 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 ne eded 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-8 scenarios. The shaded area, covering years 2004 and 2005, represents the historical period. As the table shows, under this scenario, the forecas t 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 cont emplates 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 curr ently used at lower rates compared to the highlyutilized 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 Federal Demand for Portland Cement Coal Fl y Ash used in Federal Projects - Baseline Scenario GGBFS used in Federal Projects - Baseline Scenario Silica Fume used in Federal Projects - Baseline Scenario

------------------ ------------------ -----million metric tons

----------------- ----------------- -------------- 2004 24.4 2.6 0.7 0.01

2005 25.1 2.7 0.7 0.01

2006 25.7 2.8 0.7 0.01

2007 26.2 2.8 0.7 0.01

2008 26.8 2.9 0.8 0.01

2009 27.4 3.0 0.8 0.01

2010 27.9 3.0 0.8 0.01

2011 28.5 3.1 0.8 0.01

2012 29.0 3.1 0.8 0.01

2013 29.6 3.2 0.8 0.01

2014 30.1 3.3 0.8 0.01

2015 30.7 3.3 0.9 0.01

N

otes: (1) These figures reflect use of materials as a supplement to or partial replacement for portland cement in Federal projects on ly. (2) Shaded area represents "historical" period for which actua l 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 baseli ne usage scenarios described above. These results are aggregated es timated benefits coveri ng the historical period (2004 and 2005) and projected over the full time frame, 2004 through 2015. For a detailed description of the modeling appro ach, please refer to Appendix D.ES-9 Table ES-4: Estimated Environmental Benefits of Using Coal Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica Fume as a Substitute for, or Supplement to Po rtland Cement in Federal Concrete Projects, Baseline Scenario 9

Metric (units) Historical Environmental Benefits: 2004- 2005 Projected Environmental Benefits: Baseline Scenario 2004-2015 a

Energy Savings (billion megajoules) 31.5 212.1

Water Savings (billion liters) 2.1 14.1

Avoided C0 2 equivalent (GHG) (million metric tons) 3.8 b 25.7 b

Passenger cars not driven for one year c (million) 0.8 b 5.7 b

Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year c (million) 0.7 b 4.7 b

Avoided criteria pollutants (air) (thousand metric tons) 31.3 209.7

Avoided Hg (air) (metric tons) 0.3 1.9

Avoided soil emissions (metric tons) 0.0* 0.0*

Avoided end of life waste (metric tons) 0.0 0.0

Notes: 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 e xpressions of the avoided greenhouse gas metrics and do not represent additional benefits. * Negligible.

We also developed representative benefits estimates fo r 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 Fede ral concrete projects yield energy and water savings, as well as avoided criter ia pollutant emissions. In add ition, use of coal fly ash alone may result in 3.8 million metric tons of avoide d 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 CO 2 emissions of over 25.7 million metric tons, which is equivalent to removing 5.7 million passe nger cars from the road for one year. Impacts on the reuse on soil and e nd of life waste are not significant because the use a nd disposal of portland cement and concrete are not affected by RMC use.

It is difficult to quantify the incremental contribu tion to RMC use that may be attributable to any particular relevant procurement requirements. A number of econom ic, operational, and regulatory factors combine to in fluence procurement behavior, a nd data limitations prevent the

9 Blast furnace slag aggregate (BFSA) is primarily used as a source of aggreg ate 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 aggreg ate in concrete mixtures, in asphalt mixtures, or as roadbase, can be found in Appendix D.ES-10 type of detailed analysis that would support attribution of specific behavior changes to specific programs. In general terms, however, the analys is identifies the combined impact of the CPG, state, Federal government, industr y, 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 id entified in the report fo r 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 incr eased 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 issu es that have the potentia l to limit the use of an RMC. For example, regulatory barriers may in clude certain state and local-level regulations and procedures governing the use of RMCs in vari ous applications. Tec hnical 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 materi als not typically used as RMCs; variation in RMC properties; and the availabi lity 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. Sa fety and health risk pe rception barriers include a lack of understanding of the potential and proper use, f eatures, and risks associated with RMCs.

In addition to external barriers, the CPG provi des that a procuring ag ency need not procure RMCs if certain criteria are met. If these cr iteria are over-interpreted by project managers, it could result in lower usage rates of RMCs than are technically and econom ically feasible. That is, while the CPG requires Federal agencies to procure products contai ning certain RMCs, the guidelines allow that such RMCs do not have to be procured if th ey: (1) are not available within a reasonable period of time; (2) fa il to meet the performance standards set forth in the applicable specifications or fail to meet the reasonable perf ormance 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 stakehol ders, has identified a numbe r of mechanisms that may serve to address the barrier s noted above. These mechanisms are particularly focused onES-11 RMCs with high reuse potential, but which appear to be under-utilized. For example, coal fly ash exists in large quantities, but is currently (2 006) 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, specifica lly in Federal cement and concrete projects. 10

Central to this report, and RMC us e in Federal concrete projects, is the role of the CPG. As noted, the extent to which major Federal procur ing agencies have purchased products containing RMCs is difficult to measure because few data sy stems identify purchases of specific recycledcontent designated products. However, the multi-faceted approach to green purchasing implemented under the CPG has led to many succe sses, 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 mech anism 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 fo r addressing barriers. Chapter 5 provides a detailed listing of these potential mechanis ms. 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 tracki ng of cement and concrete purchases using RMCs; enhanced CPG compliance and implementation procedures; and, delivery of effective information reso urces, training, and outreach to Federal agency contracting, purchase ca rd, 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 th e FHWA, ACAA, DOE, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the United St ates Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Utility Solid Waste Activi ties Group (USWAG) collaboration on C 2 P 2 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 cons truction projects, which includes primary research concerning material specif ications 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 pr ojects currently comprise a moderate percentage of U.S. cement an d concrete projects, increasing reuse rate s 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-fe deral, as well as Federal projects.ES-12 • Economic incentives, such as using transportation funding mechanisms to increase RMC use and enhancing the ec onomic viability of various components of the RMC generation and use chain.

The linkages between these mechanisms and barri ers are complex and varied. For example, some barriers related to inaccura te perceptions concerning RMC use may be overcome relatively easily through education or out reach efforts. These mechanisms, however, would be less effective in instances where str ong economic disincentives to RMC use are present. In addition, implementation of many of these mechanisms is subject to resource av ailability and active participation by a broad range of entities. Thes e factors all indicate that increasing RMC use in concrete products requires an ongoing, multi-faceted approach.1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background and Organization

Section 6017(a) of the Safe, Accountable, Flex ible, 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, “...c onduct a study to determine the extent to which procurement requirements, when fully implemented...may realize energy savings and environmental benefits attainable with substitu tion 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, particular ly 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 re quirements to greater realization of energy savings and environmental benefits, incl uding barriers resulting from exceptions from current law; and

(C) (i) Identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater subs titution 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 (i ii) identify any potential environmental or economic effects that may result from greater s ubstitution of recovered mineral component in those cement or concrete projects.

This report contains EPA’s analysis of the info rmation 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.1-2 • Chapter 2 responds to Part (A) of the Congr essional charge by describing the current industry, uses, and substitution leve ls of the specific RMCs identified in the Introduction (Section 1).

• Chapter 3 responds to Part (A) of the Congr essional charge by analyzing the energy and environmental impacts associat ed with the beneficial use of three specific RMCs identified by Congress.

• Chapter 4 addresses Part (B) of the Congre ssional charge by identifying and describing various barriers to increased RMC substitution.

• Chapter 5 addresses Part (C) of the Congre ssional charge by identifying and describing various mechanisms to increase RMC substitution.

• Chapter 6 presents the report’s conclusions.

Consistent with SAFETEA-LU, this Report reflec ts 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 Offi ce (GAO); the United States Geological Survey (USGS); and the Office of the Federal Environm ental 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 Amer ican Coal Ash Association (ACAA); the Slag Cement Association (SCA); the Silica Fume Asso ciation (SFA); the National Slag Association (NSA) - Edw. C. Levy Co.; Headwaters , Inc.; Venable LLP; and Holcim, Inc.

1.2 The Comprehensive Procu rement Guidelines and Fed eral Requirements Governing the Use of Recovered Mineral Componen ts (RMCs) in Federal Cement and Concrete Projects

The CPG program is part of EPA's continuing effo rt to promote the use of materials recovered from solid waste and by-products. Buying r ecycled-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 agencies 13 to procure these products. Once a product is designated, procuring agencies are required to purchase it with the highest r ecovered 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/eo13423.htm).

13 Procuring agencies include: (1) any federal agency, (2) a ny state or local agency usin g appropriated federal funds for procurement, or (3) any contractors to these agencies who are procuring th ese items for work they perform under the contract.1-3 practicable (e.g., the highest material content le vel that can be economically obtained and can meet the needed specifications).

In 1983, EPA issued guidelines for the procuremen t 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-fu rnace 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 agenci es, as required by statute and Executive Order.

To aid procuring agencies, EPA also has issued guidance on buying recycl ed-content products in Recovered Materials Advisory Notices (RMANs ). The RMANs recommend recycled-content ranges for CPG products based on current info rmation on commercially available recycledcontent products. RMAN levels are update d as marketplace conditions change.

1.2.1 Recovered Materials Content 14

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 fl y ash, GGBFS, cenospheres, or silica fume, as appropriate. 15,16 Recovered materials are frequently us ed as substitutes for or supplements to portland cement when mixing concrete. Some r ecovered 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 portla nd 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 a ll of these recovered materials and choose the one (or mixture) that meets thei r performance requirements, consistent with availability and price considerations. EPA r ecommends that procuring agencies specifically include provisions in all constr uction contracts to allow for the use, as optional or alternate materials, of cement or concrete which contai ns 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 as h, GGBFS, cenospheres, or silica fume. However, EPA provides the following information about recovered materials content: 17

14 Information on recovered materials content reprod uced from: http://www.epa.gov/cpg/products/cement.htm, accessed June 4, 2007.

15 While the EPA language cited here (accessible at: h ttp://www.epa.gov/cpg/product s/cemspecs.htm) uses the general term “cement,” the discussion targets materials a nd 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/produ cts/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 sh ow how slag aggregate can be used in concrete.1-4 • 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 Material s (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 minimu m 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 Speci fications for Concrete Aggregate. BFSA may be used as aggregate for conc rete, as can recycled crushed concrete, sand, gravel, crushed gravel, or cr ushed 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 al so replace up to 70 % of th e 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_i185530/No2_Proportioning.pdf.

21 June 27, 2007 statement from Rich Le hman 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 Fi nal 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.1-5 1.2.2 Specifications

1.2.2.1 Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS

Under the CPG, EPA recommends that procuring ag encies revise their specifications to require that contracts for individual cons truction 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 CP G, procuring agencies should use the existing voluntary consensus specifications referenced be low for cement and concrete containing coal fly ash and/or GGBFS 24

.

• Federal and State Specifications: EPA advises procuring agencies to consult Federal and state sources to identify establ ished specifications for coal fly ash or GGBFS in cement and concrete. For example, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a databa se of state highway agency material specifications. 25 AASHTO specifications are anot her 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 Dist rict of Columbia all have adopted specifications that allow the use of GGBFS in one or more applications. 26 Procuring agencies may obtain these sp ecifications from the respective state transportation departments a nd 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 pr ojects to revise those specifications, as appropriate, to allo w for the use of cement and concrete containing coal fly ash or GGBFS as op tional or alternate materials for the targeted project. These re visions should be consistent with the agencies' performance and price objectives. 27

• Performance Standards: EPA advises procuring agen cies to review and, if necessary, revise performance standa rds 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 just ified 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 sp ecifications, 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 RCRA §60 02 requirements related to material and contract specifications.1-6 reasonable performance requirements for th e 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 speci fic 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 wate r content; such specifications should be reevaluated in order to allow the part ial substitution of coal fly ash or GGBFS for portland cement in the concrete mixtur e, unless technically inappropriate. Cement ratios can be retained, as lo ng as they reflect the cementitious characteristics that coal fly ash or GGB FS 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 c ontractor 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 requirement s. 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 blen ded cement, coal fly ash or GGBFS, and concrete to demonstrate (through reasona ble testing programs or previous experience) the performance and reliability of their product and the adequacy of their quality cont rol 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 speci fications, such as material sa fety data sheets for assisting with use of cenospheres in cement and concrete.

For cement and concrete containing silica fume, pr ocuring agencies can refer to the following national specifications and guidelines, which en able procuring agencies to buy high-performance concrete containing silica fume of a standa rd quality: ASTM C1240, AASHTO M307, and ACI 234R-06. 28 In addition, ACI 234R-06 also describes th e 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; a nd 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)1-7 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 recove red or diverted from solid waste that the Administrator, in cons ultation with an agency head, determines should be treated as recovered mineral component under this section.

Based on a review of construction materials stan dards and other information collected from a range of industry sources, the Agency created an d applied selected criteria to determine which other waste materials or byproducts recovered or divert ed 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 fo r 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 re covered or diverted from solid waste;

• Have a total annual genera tion greater than 0.9 million metric tons (1 million short tons);

• Be addressed in a national cemen t or concrete standard, (e.g., ASTM 31 , ACI 32 , or AASHTO 33 ); 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 differen t metallurgical source.

30 EPA interprets the term “blast-furn ace 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, am ong 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 materi als standards are contained in Section 4 – Construction

. 32 American Concrete Institute, www.concrete.org.

33 American Association of State Highway and Tran sportation Officials, ww w.transportation.org.1-8 • Have data available which may be capabl e of supporting a more detailed analysis, including annual data on th e 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 mate rial using existing modeling platforms.

Based on our review of the available informa tion, EPA identified the following additional materials for screening and possible ev aluation 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 RM Cs.” 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 projec tions, 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 avai lable. A more detailed discussion of each material, including information on production, prope rties, and beneficial uses in cement and concrete production, is presented in Chapter 2.

While none of the “other potential RMCs” iden tified by EPA meets all f our of the specified screening criteria, this report provides an in itial summary of all materials screened. The summary describes the volumes generated and benefi cially 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 framewor ks: coal fly ash, GGBFS, and silica fume. Although data exist for BFSA, power plant bottom ash, and bo iler slag, available modeling frameworks do not support analysis of their energy and environmental impacts. The three materials examined in detail (coal fly as h, GGBFS, and silica fume) are all among those specified as RMCs by the language in SAFETEA-LU.1-9 Table 1-1: Mineral Components Screened for Inclusion in Report

Screening Criteria

Material Estimated Annual Quantity Generated, 2004 a (million metric tons) Estimated Quantity Beneficially Used, 2004 (million metric tons) Exists asByproduct Produce > 0.9 million

metric tons/year Subject of National Standard 1 Data Sufficient for Analysis
RMCs NAMED BY CONGRESS
Ground Granulated Blastfurnace Slag b 3.60 3.60 X X X X

Coal Combustion Fly Ash c 64.20 25.50 X X X X Blast-furnace Slag Aggregate b, d (ACBF Slag) 8.10 8.10 X X X h

Silica Fume e 0.10 – 0.12 0.08 X X X
OTHER RMCs IDENTIFIED BY EPA Foundry Sand f 8.50 2.40 X X X

Cenospheres c N.A. 0.0052 (sold only) X X

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum c 10.80 8.20 X X X

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Dry Scrubber Material c 1.70 0.16 X X X g

Power Plant Bottom Ash c 15.60 7.40 X X X h Power Plant Boiler Slag c 2.00 1.80 X X X h Steel Furnace Slag b 9.00 9.00 X X X

Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) i 12.00 – 15.00 1.20 (excludes reuse back into kiln) X X

Notes :

a The estimated annual quantity available does not reflec t 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.

c ACAA, 2004. 2004 Coal Combustion Produc t (CCP) Production and Use Survey.

d BFSA, while categorized as an evaluated material, was not fully modeled due to data and modeling limitations . A modified asses sment of BFSA benefits is presented in Appendix D.

e Kojundic, 8/30/2006

f Oman, Alicia. American Foundry Society (AFS) . Personal communicatio n September 18, 2007. Foundry Sand data are annual average for 2005/06.

g ASTM C1157 sets a performance-based standard for blended hydrauli c cement. There are no restrictions on the composition of the cement. These materials ma y be used in a concrete project that allows use of ASTM C1157.

h While this information has recently become available, these mate rials have not been incorporated into current modeling platform s (e.g., BEES), and therefore are not included in the materials subject to a more detailed evaluation. Howeve r, as indicated above, a m odified assessment of BFSA benefits is presented in Appendix D.

i van Oss, 2005 (total estimate). The industr y does not report CKD production. A majority of this material is known to be recycl ed 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, mo st raw materials (e.g ., limestone, sand, cl ay) used in portland cement manufacture ar e not subject to a national standard. However, the characteristics and sp ecifications of raw material s are generally understood and commonly accepted.

N.A.– Data not available.

Congress specifically excluded l ead slag from this Report2-1 2.0 INDUSTRY OVERVIEW, MATERI ALS 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 w ith Part (A) of the Congression al 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 desulfurizat ion (FGD) gypsum, flue gas desulfurization (FGD) dry scrubber material, power plant botto m ash, power plant boile r slag, steel furnace slag, and cement kiln dust (CKD). Descriptions and definitions of the materials and terms discussed in this section, and th roughout the report, are provided in a glossary at the end of this report.

All of the materials examined in this section ar e 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 descri bes these benefits. In addition, the use of these materials in cement and concrete production yields a numbe r 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 call ed hydration occurs that causes the cement and hence the concrete to harden and stre ngthen 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, cl ay, sand, iron, etc.) and then fed into a large rotary kiln. As the raw mix m oves 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, consiste nt with the focus of the Congressional mandate, this report focuses on uses associ ated with cement and concrete.2-2 volatiles (especially CO 2 ) to be given off, while the remaining chemical oxides in the mix recombine into ne w 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 ot her 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 ha rden. The concrete must be mixed thoroughly to coat all of the aggr egate 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 de tail 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 proce ss for smelting iron from iron ore. Various types of slags are produced when slagging ag ents (primarily limestone or dolomite) or fluxing materials are added to iron ores in bl ast furnaces to remove impurities. The fluxing process lowers the boiling point and increases the ore’s fluidit y. In the process of reducing iron ore to iron, a molten slag forms as a non-meta llic 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 liqui d metal and cooled. Depending on the cooling process used, either granulated blast-fu rnace 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 gla ssy material. When the cooled material is ground very finely into GGBFS, also known as sl ag cement, the disordered structure of the material gives it moderate hydraulic cementiti ous properties, meaning it will hydrate and gain strength when mixed with water, though at a much slower rate th an portland cement. When used in concrete mixes with portland cement, however, the GGBFS combines with the free lime generated by partial portland cemen t hydration processes and hardens at an2-3 accelerated rate. When used in this manner, GGBFS develops strong hydraulic cementitious properties and can be used w ith 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 c oncrete mixes. Due to the greater cost of the granulation pr ocess 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 (ACB FS), 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-furnac e slag into pits fo r slow cooling. Once cooled, it is crushed, screened, and used as a ggregate in applications, such as road base, concrete, asphalt concrete, rail ballast, roofing, shingles, mi neral wool, and glass making. ACBFS also can be used as a raw material in cl inker 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 qu antity of blast-furnace slag produced in the United States. The USGS es timates, however, that the quantity of blastfurnace 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 approximate ly $289 million. Most of the slag produced is air-cooled slag (approximatel y 75% by tonnage), with a lesse r amount of granulated slag (approximately 25%) and a small am ount 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, includ ing about 760,000 metric tons of granulated slag. Table 2-1 summarizes the estimated tota l blast-furnace slag pr oduction in the United States for 2000 through 2005 (van Oss, 2006, unl ess otherwise noted). Table 2-1 also includes U.S. sales of GBFS and BFSA. Sale s of GGBFS in 2004 were approximately 3.6 million metric tons out of a total GBFS sales of 4.1 million metric tons.2-4 Table 2-1: U.S. Iron Blast-furnace Slag Do mestic Production and Sales (iron only)

Estimated Slag

Production Sales of GBFS Sales of GGBFS (subset of GBFS) Sales of BFSA (ACBFS) Year ---------------------------------million metric tons--------------------------------------
2000 12.0–14.5 2.3* 2.0*** 8.9
2001 10.5–12.5 2.3* 2.4*** 8.1
2002 10.0–12.0 3.7 3.3 ** 2.9 *** 7.4

2003 10.0–12.0 3.6 3.5 ** 3.1 *** 7.3

2004 12.0–14.0 4.1 3.6 ** 3.5 *** 8.1

2005 9.0–11.0** 4.4** 3.7** 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 ad dition, some grinding f acilities only grind imported GBFS or are exploiting old slag piles fr om past years’ production (van Oss, 2004b). Figure B-1 in Appendix B shows the geographic dist ribution 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 thes e locations can be found in Appendix C.

2.1.1.1 Granulated Blast-furnace Slag (GBFS) 37

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 to tal 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 repo rted 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, ar e 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 t ons) was sold for cementitious uses. This included approximately 104,000 metric tons of GBFS used in the manufacture of clinker, and

35 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 pr ocessors at the same location, some of these facilities might be doubled counted.

37 Data presented in this section address GBFS, whic h includes ground and un ground blast-furnace slag. Separate data are not available for GGBFS, but GGBFS is known to account for the majority of GBFS.2-5 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 blastfurnace slag, it is likely that the utilizati on of GBFS is nearly 100% of U.S. production, which reflects the high value of these materi als as SCMs, aggregates, or components of blended cements. In fact, granulat ed slag is currently being impor ted into the U.S. in order to meet the needs of the U.S. construction industry.

Table 2-2 summarizes GBFS (both ground and u nground) 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 concre te is estimated by subtracting total usage in clinker and cement manufacture from total sales.

Table 2-2: Granulated Blas t-furnace Slag (GBFS) Usage

Estimated GBFS Sales GBFS Usage in Clinker Manufacture GBFS Usage in Cement Manufacture GBFS Usage in Concrete Year

------------ ------------ ----------million metric tons----

------------ ---------- --------- 2000 2.3* -- 0.303 0.105*** 1.997 **

2001 2.3* -- 0.300 0.154*** 2.0 **

2002 3.7 0.060 0.369 0.157*** 3.271 **

2003 3.6 0.017 0.333 0.157*** 3.25**

2004 4.1 0.104 0.345 0.159*** 3.651**

2005 4.4 0.144 0.521 3.735**

Source: USGS data * 2000 and 2001 sales were believed to be underreported. **Estimated by 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, in creasing productivity a nd 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 repairs2-6 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 co ncrete 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 replace ment rates of GGBFS (i.e., approximately 70%) exhibits a lower heat of hydration than conventional portland cement concrete; this characte ristic 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 reinforci ng 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 conten t of the cement paste and reduces permeability and water ingress, thus m itigating 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 resist ance 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 th e concrete and increases its solar reflectivity which provides benefits, such as greater safety at night, reduced lighting requirements, and preferred arch itectural finishes. It also can help reduce the urban heat island effect through higher albedo.

38 Holcim (US) Inc. commen ted that, in addition to the more comm on 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 c ontaining] concrete shows some effec tiveness in resisting this form of alkali-aggregate reaction, bu t there is no large volume of work on the topic.”2-7 According to the SCA, some laboratory testi ng has indicated that concrete containing GGBFS (and coal fly ash) might be more suscep tible to salt scaling when deicer salts are applied and the concrete under goes freeze-thaw cycling. On the other hand, other studies have not found this to be the case, or have ev en found improved performance. (Scaling is the loss of a thin layer, usually less than 1/4 in ch 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 Portla nd Cement Concrete Pavement Technology (PCC Center) are collaborating on a project to doc ument the performance of GGBSF-containing concrete exposed to cyclical freeze-thaw cy cles 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 pourin g 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 dur ing the final cooling stages. Once cooled, BFSA is crushed and screened to produce a mate rial 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 ar e 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 ra nge of $1.54 to $17.35 per metric ton. Total usage of BFSA in cement and concrete produ cts (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

2003 2004***

BFSA Use Percent Quantity (million metric tons) Percent Quantity (million metric tons) Ready-Mixed Concrete 9.3 0.68 20.4 1.65
Concrete Products 6.4 0.47 3.5 0.28
Clinker Raw Material 5.7 0.42 1.9 0.15
Other Uses* 78.6 5.73 74.2 6.00

Total** 100 7.3 100 8.1 Source: van Oss, 2004b * Primarily as construction aggregate for granular and bound road base an d 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 we re sold in 2006, indicating declining usage.(Pulipaka, Aswani S., et.al.)

39 For more information, refer to: American Concrete Institute, “Proposed Change s to ACI 318-05” accessible at: http://www.concrete.org/Technical/Flash Help/Proposed_Changes_to_318-05.htm.2-8 As indicated in Table 2-3, 100% of BFSA is currently believed to be utilized 40 , with its largest use as aggregate in road bases and surf aces, including use in asphaltic concrete. Its next largest use is primarily as an aggregate in concrete mixe s and aggregate base (20.4% in 2004). When used in this capacity, it reduces th e need to quarry, crus h, sort, and transport virgin aggregate. Small amounts of BFSA also are used to replace ra w 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 di vided airborne mineral residue generated by the combustion of ground or powdered coal in coal-fired power plan ts. 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 el ectric generating units. The other boilers are more common at industrial or cogeneration facili ties. 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 mi neral residue. Boiler tubes extract the heat from the boiler, cooling the flue gas and cau sing the molten mineral re sidue to harden and form ash. Coarse ash particles, referred to as bottom ash or boiler sl ag, 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 exhaus ting the flue gas to the atmosphe re, coal fly ash is removed by particulate emission control devices, such as el ectrostatic 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

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Production and Usage

------------ --------million metric tons

------------ ---------- Total U.S. Production 69.401 63.640 64.230 64.502 65.680
Utilization:
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 11.412 11.127 12.811 13.599 13.645
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker 1.740 2.744 2.128 2.571 3.765
All Other Uses 11.006 10.388 10.525 10.246 12.004

Total Utilization 24.158 24. 259 25.464 26.416 29.414 Percent Utilization 34.8% 38.1% 39.6% 41.0% 44.8%

Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

40 Recently identified data indicate that BFSA may be utilized at less than 10 0% of generation. However, these data are from the year 2000 (Pulipak a, A. S., et. al., undated).2-9 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 clinke r 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 bene fits when used as a replacement for virgin materials (e.g., portland cement). Reported co al 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 Gen eration and Sales for Utilization in Cement, Clinker, and Concrete

Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Cement and Clinker Manufacture Coal Fly Ash Generation

(ACAA) USGS ACAA Coal Fly Ash Utilization in Concrete (ACAA)
Year

------------ ------------ ------------ --million metric tons------

---------- -------- -------- 2000 No Data 1.77 No Data No Data
2001 61.8 1.67 0.94 11.2
2002 69.4 2.02 1.74 11.4
2003 63.6 2.29 2.74 11.1
2004 64.2 2.97 2.13 12.8
2005 64.5 3.10 2.57 13.6
2006 65.7 ------ ------ 13.6

Sources: ACAA, USGS, and van Oss, 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 b ecause 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 <www.astm.org>. 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.2-10 • Reduced heat of hydration reduces ther mal cracking (e.g., for dams and other mass concrete placements).

• Improved workability makes concrete easier to place.

• Where sharp, clear architectural definiti on is easier to achieve, finishing is improved with less concern about in-place integrity.

• Reduced susceptibility to chemical attack (e.g., su lfate attack) (IEA, 2005).

There are a few potential issues with the us e of coal fly ash in concrete, including:

• Lack of uniformity and consistency be tween coal fly ash sources, possibly requiring users to test each source.

• Slower setting and early-are strengt h gain in cool weather concreting.

• Loss of air entrainment caused by the fine structure of coal fly ash and/or residual unburned carbon content; th is property requires additional air entrainment to maintain conc rete strength and durability.

• Reduced freeze/thaw and scaling resistan ce 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 concre te 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 fe rrosilicon and related ferroalloys production. Specifically, it is produced by the reduction of hi gh purity quartz with coal or coke and wood chips in an electric arc furnace during sili con metal or ferrosilicon alloys production. The glassy, spherical particles ar e extremely small, measuring less than 1 micrometer ( μ m) in diameter, with an average diameter of about 0.1 μ m. Silica fume particles are composed primarily of silicon dioxide (usual ly more than 85%). The silica fume is collected in electric arc furnace stack filters and rec overed for reuse as a pozzolan in high performance concrete (HPC). Silica fume is sold in the United Stat es 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.

ACI estimates that global silica fume producti on is approximately 900,000 metric tons per year and that at least 120,000 me tric tons are used in concre te worldwide (ACI, 2006). The SFA estimates that silica fume production in the United St ates in 2004 was between 100,000 and 120,000 metric tons. Of that amount, an es timated 20,000 metric tons were used in clinker manufacturer, while less than 3,000 me tric 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 landf illed in 2006 in the U.S. (Kojundic, 2006).2-11 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

Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

----------------------------------metric tons----------------------------------------------

Production No Data No Data No Data No Data 100,000 - 120,000 In Clinker 18,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 20,000 In Cement No Data No Data No Data No Data <3,000 In Concrete 55,000 56,000 51,000 53,000 60,000

Source: The Silica Fume Association accessed at www.silicafume.org and Kojundic, 8/30/2006.

Silica fume’s physical and chemical properties c onfer 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 thr ough the addition of silica fume to concrete, making silica-fu me concrete particularly useful in applications, such as columns in high-ri se 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 he lps extend the life of structures.

• Single-Pass (One-Pass) Finishing : Silica fume concrete can utilize singlepass 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.2-12 2.2 Other RMCs Evaluated

The discussion below reviews the generation an d beneficial use of the “other potential RMCs” selected for this anal ysis. These RMCs were id entified 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 chem ical characteristics of foundry sand depend on the type of casting process a nd 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 we re 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 percen tage (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 binde rs also have been found to contain trace amounts of hazardous organic compounds, though mo st 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 additi on, portland cement cli nker production requires certain minerals, such as iron and aluminum oxides, both of which are found in many spent foundry sands. Some foundry sa nds however, can have mate rials in it that are not appropriate for use in kilns and therefore may not be utilized.

Combined data for total quantities of sand a nd calcium silicate used in the production of cement clinker in the United States are ava ilable 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 foundr y sand, although the industry does not identify the quantity of spent foundry sand being used in cem ent 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 Sili cate Utilization in Cement Kilns

Year

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

---------- ---million metric tons---------- Sand and Calcium Silicate Used 3.142 3.500 2.960 2.860 3.150

Source: USGS, 2001 – 2004 (van Oss, 2004, 2003b, 2002b, 2001).2-13 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 th e quantities necessary for controll ed production processes.

2.2.2 Cenospheres

Cenospheres are very small (10 to 350 μ m 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 pr oducts. Cenospheres are not usually intentionally manufactured. Their principal s ource is coal fly ash. The char acteristics of and amount of cenospheres produced in coal fly ash varies de pending 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 concre te varies depending on the application and desired performance characteristics of the conc rete. However, according to industry sources, the typical content of cenosphere s in concrete ranges from 10% to 40% by volume. Concrete containing cenospheres also of ten contains coal fly ash.

ACAA began reporting cenosphere sales in it s annual coal combus tion 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, 7,000 42 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 se parated from the coal fly ash for use. No current data are available on annual cenosphe re production, and it is questionable whether sufficient data exist to allow a meaningful es timate of the cenosphere content of airborne particulates (i.e., percent of cenospheres to weight of co al fly ash). However, ACAA indicated that between 570,000 and 2,900,000 metric tons of cenos pheres 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). Cenosphere s 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 shrinka ge and weight. Howeve r, cenospheres may also react in the concrete. Cenosphe res are 75% lighter than other minerals currently used as fillers, which reduces the final concrete mix’s we ight 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). 43 Cenospheres also are often used in other industrial fille r applications replacing other filler materials, such as manufactured glass, calcium carbonate, clays, talc, and other silicas.2-14 2.2.3 Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Materials

Flue gas desulfurization (FGD) byproducts are generated by air polluti on control devices used at any sulfur dioxide (SO
x ) 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 numbe r of FGD processes to control sulfur oxide (SO x ) emissions from the combustion of coal. FGD processes spray lime or limestone reagents into the exhaust gas, which removes and converts the SO 2 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 we t or dry processes. Wet FGD scrubbers use aqueous solutions of either slak ed lime (calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH) 2 ), or limestone (principally calcium carbonate, CaCO 3 ) to saturate the exhaust gas in a spray tower. These solutions react with and oxidize the SO 2 particles creating a bypr oduct known as scrubber sludge. Dry FGD systems use less water and gene rate a byproduct with different attributes.

Two types of wet FGD processes are used toda y—natural oxidation and forced oxidation. In natural oxidation, only the oxygen naturally occurri ng in the flue gas is used to remove SO 2

. The resulting byproduct consists mo stly of calcium sulfite (CaSO 3 ). In forced oxidation, additional air is supplied by blowers, which creates a byproduct cons isting primarily of calcium sulfate dihydrate (CaSO 4 ·2H 2 O), 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) (PCA, 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 furthe r, as this material has seen little use in cement manufacture or in concrete.2-15 Table 2-8: U.S. Flue Gas Desulfur ization (FGD) Material Production

Wet Scrubber Material Forced Oxidation

(FGD Gypsum) Natural Oxidation (CaSO 3 ) FGD Dry Scrubber Material Other FGD Total FGD
Year

------------ ------------ -----------million metric tons--

-------------- ------------- 2001* No Data No Data No Data No Data 25.840
2002 10.342 15.332 0.849 -- 26.522
2003 10.796 15.740 1.310 0.152 27.998
2004 10.841 15.876 1.660 0.105 28.482
2005 10.864 16.057 1.295 -- 28.216
2006 10.977 14.787 1.351 0.271 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 product s and grout, and about 3% is interground with clinker to produ ce finished cement. This indi cates 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 AC AA 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 Pr oduction and Utilization

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Production and Usage

------------ ----------million metric t ons----------------------- Total Production 10.3421 10.7957 10.841 10.8637 10.9769
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 0.0550 0.0595 0.2644 0.2982 1.3988
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker* 0.2756 0.3811 0.4074 0.3608 .2400 All Other Uses (primarily wallboard) 6.7183 7.0883 7.5338 7.7493 7.0352 Total Utilization 7.0489 7.5289 8.2056 8.4083 8.6740 Percent Utilization 68.2% 69.7% 75.7% 77.4% 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 th ey produced approximately 9.4 million metric tons of FGD gypsum in 2004 ( DOE, 2004). Table B-5, found in Appendix B, indicates production and dispos ition of FGD gypsum by stat e for 2004. Also, a listing of FGD gypsum producers in 2004 is contained in Appendix C.2-16 The handling of FGD gypsum can be probl ematic because it is abrasive, sticky, compressible, and much finer than natural gyps um. These difficulties are often offset by the resource’s proximity to manufacturing fac ilities. While the ma jority of FGD gypsum produced is used in wallboard production, a sm all percentage is used in finished cement products. In the cement production process, F GD gypsum use has the benefit of replacing virgin gypsum that is ground with clinker to regulate the setting tim e of finished portland cement. Gypsum cement, a strong type of pl aster, can also be made from FGD gypsum.

2.2.3.2 Flue Gas Desulfurizatio n (FGD) Dry Scrubber Material

Dry FGD systems remove SO 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 resul ting byproduct, formed by the reaction of the slurry and SO 2 , is dried by the heat of the flue gas a nd collected with the coal fly ash in a particulate control device (eithe r a fabric filter/baghouse or an electrostatic precipitator). Some dry FGD byproducts can contain high concentr ations of sulfur materials that may form ettringite, a hydrophilic materi al, which expands when hydrated. As a result, these byproducts may not be suitable for use in conc rete 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 9,00 0 metric tons of dry FGD mate rial 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 mate rial production and usage for the years 2002 through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).

Table 2-10: Dry Flue Gas Desulfurizatio n (FGD) Material Production and Usage

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Production and Usage -----------------------thousand metric tons------------------ Total Production 848.6 1,310.2 1,660.0 1,294.8 1,350.8
Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 32.1 31.1 33.9 12.7 8.7
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker 2.7 2.2 -- -- --
All Other Uses 302.1 145.9 127.1 131.7 115.2 Total Utilization 336.9 179.2 161.0 144.4 123.9 Percent Utilization 39.7% 13.7% 9.7% 11.2% 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 mine ral residue that result s from the burning of coal in utility boilers. The material is remove d 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 similar2-17 chemical composition to coal fly ash, but is pr oduced 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 la rger particle sizes, bottom ash has a smaller total reactive surface area, for the same wei ght, as coal fly ash. With this and other characteristics, bottom ash does not have suffici ent cementitious properties to be used as a replacement for cement, although it can be used in clinker manufactur e 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 poten tial for corrosion of metal structures that come into contact with bottom ash should be eval uated when using this ma terial 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 beneficial ly used (ACAA, 2006). Table 2-11 summarizes bottom ash production and usage in clinker pr oduction and concrete for the years 2002 through 2006 (ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).

Table 2-11: Power Plant Bottom Ash Production and Utilization

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Production and Utilization

------------ --------million metric tons

------------ ----------- Total Production 17.963 16.420 15.604 15.967 16.874 Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 0.369 0.271 0.716 0.926 0.542
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker* 0.531 0.990 a 0.448 1.100 a 0.558 1.050 a 0.852 1.210 a 0.840

All Other Uses 6.076 6.763 6.122 5.064 6.219 Total Utilization 6.976 7.482 7.396 6.842 7.601 Percent Utilization 38.8% 45.6% 47.4% 42.9% 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 AC AA, data from DOE EIA-767 indicate that approximately 20.4 million metric tons of bo ttom ash were produced at 410 facilities reported to produce bottom ash in 2004 (DOE 2004).

Bottom ash can be used as a replacement for aggr egate in concrete and is usually sufficiently well graded in size to avoid the need for blending with ot her fine aggregates to meet gradation requirements. The porous surface st ructure of bottom ash particles make this material less durable than conventional aggregat es and better suited for use in base course and shoulder mixtures or in cold mix applica tions, as opposed to wear ing surface mixtures. The porous surface structure also makes this mate rial lighter than conventional aggregate and useful in lightweight concrete applications. Bott om ash also can be used as a raw material in clinker production as an a lternative source of silica, alumina, iron, and calcium.2-18 2.2.5 Power Plant Boiler Slag

Boiler slag is a byproduct of the combustion of co al in power plants. It is produced in wetbottom 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 fl ow into an ash hopper below. There are two types of wet-bottom boilers—slag-tap boilers an d cyclone boilers. Sl ag-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 que nched with water, which causes it to fracture instantly, crystallize, and form pellets. The resulting power plant boile r 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 aggregat e in concrete and as a raw feed for clinker production. In 2005, about 38,600 metric tons (appr oximately 2% of all power plant boiler slag used) were used as a ra w feed in clinker production.

Utilization of power plant boiler slag, as a per centage of production, is the highest among all coal combustion products. In 2006, nearly 84% of all power pl ant 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 supplie s are expected to decrease in the future due to the removal from service of the aging power plants that produce it. Table 2-12 summari zes 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 Pro duction and Utilization

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Production and Utilization

------------ ------million metric tons ---------------------- Total Production 1.741.4 1.6658 1.9979 1.7757 1.8380 Utilization
Concrete/Concrete Products/Grout 0.0082 0.0144 - - -
Cement/Raw Feed for Clinker* - 0.0143 0.0304 0.0386 0.0161
All Other Uses 1.3979 1.5643 1.7599 1.6767 1.5179 Total Utilization 1.4061 1.5930 1.7903 1.7153 1.5340 Percent Utilization 80.7% 95.6% 89.6% 96.6% 83.46% * Boiler slag is used only in clinker production. Source: ACAA, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006.

PCA (2005b) reported that 21 portland cement pl ants utilized power plant bottom ash and power plant boiler slag in th e production of clinker in 2005 (no further breakout by material type was provided). Figure B-9 in Appendi x B shows the locations of these plants.2-19 2.2.6 Steel Furnace Slag

Steel furnace slag, commonly referred to as steel slag, is a bypr oduct from either the conversion of iron to steel in a basic oxygen fu rnace (BOF) 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 fluxi ng 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 dolom ite. The liquid silicate slag floats on the molten metal and is separated and cooled. Steel sl ag 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 out put. 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 O ss, 2004b). Table 2-13 summarizes steel slag production and usage for the years 2000 through 2 005, as well as steel slag usage in cement and clinker manufacture (Kalyonc u, 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, w ith an average of $4.32 per metric ton (van Oss 2004b).

Table 2-13: U.S. Steel Sl ag Production and Usage

Estimated Steel Slag Production Estimated Steel Slag Sales Steel Slag Usage in Cement and Clinker Manufacture Year

------------ ------------ --------million metric tons----

---------------- -------- ------ 2000 No Data 5.2 0.805
2001 No Data 6.5 0.500
2002 9-14 8.0 0.481
2003 9-14 8.8 0.448
2004 11-16 9.0 0.401
2005 10-14 8.7 0.525

Source: Kalyoncu, 2001; van Oss, 2002, 2002b, 2003, 2003b, 2004, and, 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 ra w material substitute in clinker manufacturing. The economic and environmental benefits of the utilization of steel fu rnace slag in Portland cement manufacturing may include energy savings, decreased CO 2 and NO X emissions, and increased production capacity.2-20 Because of its expansive characte ristics, steel slag is not typi cally used as an aggregate in concrete for fixed-volume applicatio ns. 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 alkali ne material removed from the cement kiln exhaust gas by scrubbers (filtration baghouses an d /or electrostatic pr ecipitators). The composition of CKD varies among plants and ove r time at a single plant. Much of the material comprising CKD is actually incomplete ly reacted raw material, including a raw mix at various stages of burning, and particles of clinker.

Because of the high percentage of raw mix a nd clinker in CKD, large amounts are put back into the production process through closed l oop 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 di rect reuse, CKD generation rate s are not routinely measured, and limited data are available. One recent estim ate, 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 approx imately 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 manufactur e. In 2004, these amount s were at least 333,000 metric tons in clinker manufacture and 165,000 metr ic tons in cement ma nufacture (van Oss, 2004). As discussed by van Oss (2004), and based upon PCA data and discussions with industry personnel, these figures appear to gros sly 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. C KD in concrete mixes generally increases the water demand, decreases workabil ity, 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 incl ude waste stabilization, mine reclamation, agricultural so il amendment, and in pavement manufacturing.

44 This use must take into account volume expansion tendencies where the granular material is confined.2-21 Table 2-14: Estimated Be neficial Uses of CKD Beneficially Reused, 2006

Beneficial Use Quantity (Metric Tons) Percent of CKD Total Beneficially Used (not returned to the kiln)

Soil/Clay Stabilization 533,365 46%

Waste Stabilization/Solidification 213,675 18%

Mine Reclamation 152,756 13%

Cement Additive/Blending 183,228 16%

All Other Uses 76,987 7%

Total 1,160,011 100%

Source : Portland Cement Association. Summary of 2006 Cement Kiln Dust and Clinke r Production, CKD Beneficially Reused.
Note : CKD recycled into the kiln is under a closed loop process, not removed from the kiln system, and is not considered a beneficial reuse for pur poses of this document.

2.3 Summary of RMC Generati on 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 an d 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 – in cluding GGBFS, BFSA, power plant boiler slag, and st eel furnace slag from electric arc furnace facilities– have beneficial use rates at or near 100%. Table 2-15 provide s summary information on the generation and beneficial use for th e RMCs addressed in this Report.2-22 Table 2-15: Summary of RMC Genera tion 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 Blastfurnace Slag (excluding lead slag) 3.60 3.60 100% High

Coal Combustion Fly Ash 64.20 25.50 40% Moderate Blast-furnace Slag Aggregate (excluding lead slag) 8.10 8.10* 100% Moderate

Silica Fume 0.10 – 0.12 0.08 67%-80% Moderate Other RMCs Identified by EPA Foundry Sand 8.5 2.40 28% Low

Cenospheres N.A. 0.0052 (reported sales) N.A. Moderate

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum 10.80 8.20 76% Low

Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Dry Scrubber Material 1.70 0.16 9% Low

Power Plant Bottom Ash 15.60 7.40 47% Low Power Plant Boiler Slag 2.00 1.80 90% Low Steel Furnace Slag ** 9.00 9.00 100% Low
Cement Kiln Dust (CKD) 12.00 – 15.00 1.20 (excludes reuse back into kiln N.A. Low

Note: Data sources and caveats discussed in deta il 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 BOF steel furnace slag. BOF steel furnace slag may be used at less than 100% (Lehman, Rich. October 3, 2007)3-1 3.0 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEF ITS OF RMC USE IN FEDERAL CONCRETE PROJECTS

3.1 Introduction

This section further addresses Part (A) of the Congressional mandate, wh ich also requires EPA to quantify the energy savings and environmental benefits associated w ith 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 environm ental benefits resulti ng from the substitution of these mineral components for finished por tland 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 not e 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 curr ent modeling limitations. The metrics used to describe impacts include resource savings (e.g., energy and water consumption), avoided air pollutant emissions, various measures of a voided GHG emissions, avoided water emissions, avoided soil emissions, and a voided end of life waste.

This section begins with a brie f overview of the analytical appr oach 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 valu es related to the substi tution of one metric ton of each RMC for finished portland cement in conc rete. Finally, we present aggregated impact results for historical Federal RMC use quant ities (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 asso ciated with RMC use in Federal concrete applications first involves selec ting an appropriate life cycle mode ling 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 estimat e environmental impacts associated with the substitution of one unit (m etric 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 cemen t. LCA allows estimation of a range of

45 BFSA, a material identified by Congre ss, is a source of aggregate in concre te and does not act as an SCM or substitute for portland cement. We focus this assessmen t on the benefits of substitu tion of portland cement. However, an illustration of the types and magnitude of bene fits that can be achieved by using BFSA as a substitute for virgin aggregate in concrete, or as roadbase, can be found in Appendix D.3-2 environmental impacts of a product across all stages in the product’s life, from resource and raw material extraction through dispos al. By comparing the impacts across different beneficial use scenarios in which portland cement is being repla ced, it is possible to prov ide 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 B EES model because it can be used to evaluate three of the RMCs identified by Congress (coa l 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 Mo del (WARM) and the Pavement Life-Cycle Assessment Tool for Environmental and Economic Effects (PaLA TE). Two key differences between WARM and BEES led us to select BEES for the benefits an alysis in this study. Fi rst, WARM evaluates only lifecycle energy and GHG impacts in its outpu ts, while BEES evaluates energy, GHG, and several other environmental impacts, such as wate r use and pollutant emissions to air and water. In addition, the WARM model addresses only on e 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 analys is, the PaLATE model had not been formerly peer reviewed under Agency guidelines. Furtherm ore, as with WARM, PaLATE does not allow for the consistency and comparability across all three RMCs 46 . 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 limi tations of the applicatio n of life cycle modeling in this context. Our approach is to generall y characterize the potential suite of environmental impacts related to reuse of certain materials, a nd to illustrate the potential magnitude of these impacts. As noted, we rely primarily on th e BEES model (version 3.0) to generate this illustration, and then use the WARM model to corr oborate the results for coal fly ash. The life cycle inventories of material a nd 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 le ss representative and require updating. 48 As a result, the long-range projections of materials reuse a nd related impacts based upon current life cycle inventories should be considered with due care and in the appropria te context. For example, the

46 Understanding the material use, modeling, and compar ative 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 en ergy and GHG impacts when coal fly ash is used in concrete. Th is comparison indicates that BEES an d 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 magnit ude 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 BE ES version 4.0 subsequent to the completion of th e analysis presented in this chapter. BEES version 4.0 utilizes updated life cycle in ventories that differ in certain respects from version 3.0. These differences, however, do not yi eld material changes in the relative magnitude of impacts for the RMCs evaluated.3-3 primary focus should be on the categories of im pacts and their directi on (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 fo r coal fly ash, silica fume, and GGBFS use in concrete, and further limits consider ation to those benefits associated with the use of these RMCs as a replacement for portland cemen t in concrete as an SCM, and not an input into the clinker or cement manuf acturing 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 modeli ng capabilities do not allow th e 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 ar e not representative of the pr ocesses 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 incr ease beneficial use rates, EPA first developed projections of future RMC use through 2015 under a variety of scen arios. The current use scenarios reflect RMC use under existing conditions and initiati ves. The expanded use scenarios assume implementation of Federal initiatives to increas e beneficial use rates. We then apply the environmental unit impact measures to these es timates to quantify the potential environmental benefits of historical and future RMC substitution.

Our analysis uses 2004 as a base year for proj ections because 2004 is th e 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 histor ical (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 th e proportion of portland cement and RMCs used in Federal concrete projects. Specifically, to esti mate 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 pr ocessing 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 RM Cs 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 y ear” 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 2006.3-4 concrete construction proj ects involve Federal funds. 51 Therefore, in this analysis, we assume: (1) that Federal projects are using RMC at the sa me “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 a nd government sources on historical and future portland cement demand to develop the following approaches:

• Future GGBFS Use: We assume that annual dema nd for GGBFS will increase proportionate to the overall U.S. demand fo r 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 whic h actual portland cement use data are available). We apply the 2.2% growth ra te 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 metr ic tons. While this approach does not attempt to address a number of i ndustry-specific uncertainties related to GGBFS supply, it is generally consistent with the estimates of potential GGBFS production and sales provided by the US GS. Future GGBFS use, depends on a number of factors, including import pa tterns and demand for GGBFS relative to demand for BFSA and GBFS (GGBFS, GB FS and BFSA are all made from the same supply of iron slag). The SCA pr ojects higher GGBFS use based on an assumed increase in imports and a signifi cant 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 estimat e that a maximum of six million metric tons of GGBFS could be avai lable 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 in elastic global supply of silicon metal and ferrosilicon and related ferroalloys producti on. 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 g overnment and industry initiatives are designed to increase beneficial use ra tes. Specifically, using selected mechanisms, as outlined in Chapter 5, the C 2 P 2 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/commodity/ferroalloys/feallmyb05.pdf

.3-5 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 cons tant 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 C 2 P 2 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 C 2 P 2 , 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 C 2 P 2 goals is dependent upon overcoming a number of the barrie rs, as identified in Chapter 4.

3.3.2 Expanded Use Scenarios

In addition to the current use estimates, we al so developed expanded use estimates for coal fly ash as an SCM in concrete to capture incremen tal changes in use from current levels. These scenarios are designed to provide insight in to the specific impact s of ongoing and emerging efforts by EPA and other Federal agencies and stake holders 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 curr ently underutilized (with respect to supply availability) and therefore has th e capacity for expanded use if barriers to its increased use are removed. 57

We employ two expanded use scenarios to estimat e the potential impacts and benefits due to initiatives to increase the use of coal fly as h. 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 s cenario (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 le vels 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 (inc orporating the 20% adjustment factor) for coal

55 See www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/con serve/c2p2/pub s/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 uncerta inty. 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 re presents 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 e xpanded use of coal fly ash. Additionally, the C 2 P 2 scenario is an expanded use scenario using the goals set forth under the pr ogram. 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 rele ase of the study, or approximately early to mid 2009.3-6 fly ash, GGBFS, silica fume, and total portland cement (including both “virgin” portland and blended cements), as well as the expa nded use estimates for coal fly ash.

Table 3-1: U.S. Portland Cement Dema nd and RMC Use in Cement and Concrete Products, Under Current and Expanded Use Scenarios

Cement Coal Fly Ash GGBFS Silica Fume

All All
Total U.S. Demand Current Use Baseline Current Use C

2 P 2 15%
Scenario 30%
Scenario Scenarios Scenarios

Year

------------------ ------------------ -----million metric tons

----------------- ----------------- -------------- 2004 122.0 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 3.5 0.06

2005 125.7 13.6 13.6 13.6 13.6 3.5 0.06

2006 128.5 13.9 14.2 14.2 14.2 3.6 0.06

2007 131.2 14.2 14.8 14.8 14.8 3.7 0.06

2008 134.0 14.5 15.4 15.4 15.4 3.8 0.06

2009 136.8 14.8 15.9 16.3 17.7 3.8 0.06

2010 139.6 15.1 16.4 17.2 20.0 3.9 0.06

2011 142.3 15.4 16.9 18.1 22.3 4.0 0.06

2012 145.1 15.7 17.2 18.9 24.6 4.1 0.06

2013 147.9 16 17.5 19.8 27.0 4.1 0.06
2014 150.6 16.3 17.9 20.6 29.5 4.2 0.06

2015 153.4 16.6 18.2 21.5 32.0 4.3 0.06

N

otes: (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 quan tities; non-Federal projects make-up the remaining 80%. (b) The C 2 P 2 , 15%, and 30% scenarios repres ent aggressive policy goals.3-7 Table 3-2: Federal Portland Cement a nd RMC Use Under Current and Expanded Use Scenarios

Cement Coal Fly Ash GGBFS Silica Fume

All All
Federal Demand Current Use Baseline Current Use C

2 P 2 15%
Scenario 30%
Scenario Scenarios Scenarios

Year

------------------ ------------------ -----million metric tons

----------------- ----------------- -------------- 2004 24.4 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 0.7 0.01

2005 25.1 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 0.7 0.01

2006 25.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.7 0.01

2007 26.2 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.7 0.01

2008 26.8 2.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.8 0.01

2009 27.4 3.0 3.2 3.4 4.1 0.8 0.01

2010 27.9 3.0 3.3 3.7 5.1 0.8 0.01

2011 28.5 3.1 3.4 4.0 6.1 0.8 0.01

2012 29.0 3.1 3.4 4.3 7.2 0.8 0.01

2013 29.6 3.2 3.5 4.6 8.3 0.8 0.01

2014 30.1 3.3 3.6 4.9 9.4 0.8 0.01

2015 30.7 3.3 3.6 5.3 10.6 0.9 0.01

N

otes: 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 environm ental effects of using one unit of coal fly ash, GGBFS, or silica fume in place of an equiva lent 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 quantiti es 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 th e total life cycle savings of using RMCs as a replacement for one metric ton of finished portland cement in concrete. 62

61 Silica fume does not replace portland cement in a 1:1 ra tio (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.3-8 Table 3-3: Life Cycle Impact s per Metric Ton of RMC Substi tuted for Finished Portland Cement in Concrete

-----------------------Material ---------------------

Metric Coal Fly Ash a GGBFS Silica Fume b Energy Savings (megajoules) 4,695.9 4,220.9 32,915.0 Energy Savings (US $) 129.1 116.1 905.2 Water Savings (Liter) 376.3 145.2 -5,111.4 Water Savings (US $) 0.2 0.1 -3.2

Avoided CO 2 Equivalent (GHG) (grams) c 718,000.0 Not calculated e

Avoided CO 2 Emissions (grams) 701,377.7 668,889.1 699,923.3
Avoided CF 4 Emissions (grams) 0.0
Avoided CH 4 Emissions (grams) 594.8
Avoided N 2 O Emissions (grams) 13.2 Passenger cars not driven for one year d 0.2 Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year d 0.1 Avoided gasoline consumption (liters) d 310.0 Avoided oil consumption (barrels) b 1.7 Not calculated e

Avoided NOx Emissions (grams) 2,130.2 2,014.8 28,442.2

Avoided PM 10 Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 Avoided SOx Emission (grams) 1,673.9 1,605.8 42,560.1 Avoided CO Emissions (grams) 654.3 621.5 2,278.2 Avoided Hg Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 -0.3 Avoided Pb Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.6 Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 3.4 -0.8 -21.0 Avoided chemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 28.7 -6.5 -201.4 Avoided copper water emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avoided suspended matter in water (grams) 15.4 -3.5 -55.1 Avoided emissions to soil (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0 Avoided end of life waste (kilograms) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Notes : a. Impact metrics based upon representative concrete products. b. Negative values represent an incremental increase in impacts rela tive to the use of portland cement. c. Avoided CO 2 equivalent is an expression of the cumulative global warming potential of all four greenhouse gasses for which BEES data were available (CO 2 , CF 4 , CH 4 , and N 2 0). It can be calculated from the global warming potentials of individual greenhouse gasses, using the global warming potential of C0 2 as the reference point. Avoided CO 2 equivalent was calculated using the Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator developed by the U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation (accesse d 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. e. GHG equivalency metrics were not calculated for GGBFS and silica fume, due primarily to the fact that use of these materials is unlik ely to change signific antly across scenarios.3-9 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 ra nge of environmental benefits. For example, substituting one metric ton of coal fly ash result s in 0.72 metric tons of avoided CO 2 equivalent emissions, of which 0.70 metric tons is avoided CO 2 . In comparison, use of one metric ton GGBFS results in 0.67 metric tons of avoided CO 2 emissions.

For all metrics, the energy and environmental bene fits of using GGBFS in concrete are less than the benefits of using coal fly ash in concre te. GGBFS generally is produced by quenching molten slag with water and then grindi ng 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 gr inding prior to its beneficial us e in concrete and is therefore modeled as an environmentally “neu tral” input to concrete production. 63 Thus, the benefits of coal fly ash substitution directly represent the environmental benefits as sociated 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 relativ e to mixes with 100% portland cement. The most significant negative impact is increased wate r 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 incr eases water demand in concrete.

3.5 Historical Energy and En vironmental Impacts of RMC Beneficial Use

To estimate energy and environmental benefits attr ibutable 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 estim ates 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 co mbined. This substitution yields a number of environmental benefits, incl uding avoided energy use of approximately

63 Coal fly ash does require some quality control prior to use in concrete. Separation and beneficiation are widely practiced in the industry, but th e energy impacts of these processes do not a ppear 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.3-10 25 billion megajoules; avoided water consumption of two billion liters; and avoided carbon dioxide equi valent emissions of 3.8 million metric tons.

Energy and water savings represent two signi ficant 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 megajoul es; avoided water consumption of approximately 0.2 billion liters; and avoided carbon dioxide emissions of approximately one million metric tons. Th e 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 ne gative impacts across the various air emissions metrics.3-11 Table 3-4: Historical Impacts of Using Coal Fly Ash, GGBFS, and Silica Fume in Federal Concrete Projects (2004 plus 2005)

COAL FLY ASH GGBFS SILICA FUME
Beneficial Use Quantity (metric tons, 2004 plus 2005)

5,282,000 1,399,000 24,000 Environmental Metric Historical Energy and Environmental Impacts billion megajoules 24.8 5.9 0.8 billion ($ 2006) 0.7 0.2 0.0 Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.7 0.2 0.0

billion liters 2.0 0.2 -0.1 million ($ 2006) 1.2 0.1 -0.1 Water Savings million ($ discounted @7%) 1.2 0.1 -0.1

Avoided CO 2 Equivalent (air) million metric tons 3.8 Not calculated b

Avoided CO 2 million metric tons 3.7 0.9 0.0

Avoided CF 4 metric tons 0.0

Avoided CH 4 thousand metric tons 3.1

Avoided N 2 O metric tons 69.7

Passenger cars not driven for one year million passenger cars 0.8

Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year million passenger cars and light trucks 0.7

Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 1.6

Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 Not calculated b

Avoided NOx (air) t housand metric tons 11.3 2.8 0.7
Avoided PM10 (air) metric tons 0.1 0.0 0.0
Avoided SOx (air) t housand metric tons 8.8 2.2 1.0
Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons 3.5 0.9 0.1 Avoided Hg (air) metric tons 0.2 0.1 0.0
Avoided Pb (air) metric tons 0.2 0.0 0.0

Avoided biochemical oxygen demand (water) metric tons 17.9 -1.1 -0.5

Avoided chemical oxygen demand (water) metric tons 151.4 -9.1 -4.8

Avoided copper (water) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0

Avoided suspended matter (water) metric tons 81.3 -4.9 -1.3

Avoided soil emissions metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0

Avoided end of life waste metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0

Notes: a. BEES reports CO separate from CO 2 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 CO 2
. 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.3-12 As shown in Table 3-4, the environmental benefits associated with the historical use of coal fly ash are significantly larger than the benefits asso ciated with the historic al use of GGBFS. These differences are a function of bot h the historical quantities of each RMC used in Federal concrete projects and the unit impacts fo r the use of one ton of each RMC in concrete. Specifically, greater quantities of coal fly as h 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 bene fits would require iden tifying the specific receptors (i.e., populations and water bodies) whose quality has been improved. Moreover, certain GHG equivalent metrics such as "avoide d 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 project ed 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. th e baseline scenario, the C 2 P 2 goals scenario, the 15% expand ed use scenario for coal fly ash, and the 30% expanded use scenario for coal fly ash). The results are pr esented 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 high er levels of coal fly ash use. Appendix D presents these findings in more detail.

As in the historical scenario, energy and wa ter savings represent two major impacts, and illustrate the differences between the various scenar ios. 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 billi on, and achieving a 30% s ubstitution rate would increase benefits to an estimated $9.6 billion for the three RMCs. Water savings results for the three RMCs reflect a similar patt ern, showing a 30% substitution rate for coal fly ash would save approximately 25 billion litres, compared w ith a 14.1 billion litre savings under baseline assumptions.3-13 Figures 3-1 through 3-3 below pres ent 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 select ed - energy savings, carbon dioxide emissions, and water use impacts, represent the largest environmental benefits a ssociated with use of the RMCs in concrete.

65 We do not present trend results for silica fume in these tables due to the higher degr ee of uncertainty associated with the silica fume analysis.3-14 Table 3-5: Total Projected Impacts of Usin g 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 UnitsCurrent Use BaselineScenarioaCurrent Use C2P2ScenariobIncremental Impactsc(Current Use C2P2minusCurrent Use Baseline )Expanded Use 15%Substitution ScenariodIncremental Impactse(15% Scenario minusBaseline Scenario)Incremental Impactsf(15% Scenario minusCurrent Use C2P2)Expanded Use 30%Substitution ScenariogIncremental Impactsh(30% Scenario minusBaseline Scenario)Incremental Impactsi(30% Scenario minusCurrent Use C2P2)Incremental Impactsj(30% Scenario minus15% Scenario)

billion megajoules 212.1 223.2 11. 2 252.5 40.4 29.3 348 135.9 124.8 95.5 billion ($ 2006) 5.8 6.1 0.3 6.9 1.1 0.8 9.6 3.8 3.4 2.6

Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 4.5 4.7 0.2 5.2 0.7 0.5 6.8 2.3 2.1 1.6

billion liters 14.1 15 0.9 17.3 3.2 2.3 25 10.9 10 7.7 million ($ 2006) 8.7 9.3 0.6 10.7 2 1.4 15.4 6.7 6.2 4.7

Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%) 6.7 7.1 0.4 7.9 1.2 0.9 10.8 4.1 3.7 2.9
Avoided CO 2 Equivalent (air) k million metric tons 25.7 27.4 1.7 31.9 6.2 4.5 46.5 20.8 19.1 14.6

Avoided CO 2 million metric tons 31.4 33.1 1.7 37.5 6.1 4.4 51.7 20.3 18.6 14.3
Avoided CF 4 metric tons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Avoided CH 4 thousand metric tons 21.3 22.7 1.4 26.4 5.1 3.7 38.5 17.2 15.8 12.1
Avoided N 2 O metric tons 471.9 503.3 31.4 585.4 113.5 82.2 853.7 381.8 350.5 268.3 Passenger cars not driven for one year million passenger cars 5.7 6.1 0.4 7.1 1.4 1 10.4 4.7 4.3 3.3 Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year million passenger cars and light trucks 4.7 5 0.3 5.8 1.1 0.8 8.4 3.7 3.5 2.6 Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 11.1 11.8 0.7 13.8 2.7 1.9 20.1 9 8.2 6.3
Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0 0 0.1 0 0 0 Avoided NOx (air) thousand metric tons 99.1 104.1 5.1 117. 4 18.3 13.3 160.8 61.7 56.6 43.3 Avoided PM10 (air) metric tons 0.4 0.5 0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.8 0.4 0.3 0.2

Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons 81 85 4 95.4 14.4 10.4 129.4 48.4 44.5 34.1 Avoided CO (air) l thousand metric tons 29.5 31. 1 1.6 35.2 5.7 4.1 48.5 19 17.4 13.3 Avoided Hg (air) metric tons 1.9 2 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.3 3.1 1.2 1.1 0.9 Avoided Pb (air) metric tons 1.5 1.6 0.1 1.8 0.3 0.2 2.4 0.9 0.8 0.6
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand (water) metric tons 111 119.1 8.1 140. 2 29.2 21.1 209.1 98.1 90 68.9
Avoided chemical oxygen demand (water) metric tons 936.2 1,004.40 68.2 1 ,183.00 246.8 178.6 1, 766.20 830 761.8 583.2 Avoided copper (water) metric tons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Avoided suspended matter (water) metric tons 510.3 546.9 36.6 642.8 132.5 95. 9 955.8 445.5 409 313.1

Avoided soil emissions metric tons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Avoided end of life

waste metric tons 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 03-15 Notes:

a. Calculated as the sum of impacts for coal fly ash current use baseline, GGBFS and silica fume current use scenarios, years 2 004 to 2015. b. Calculated as the sum of impacts for coal fly ash current use C 2 P 2 , 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 C 2 P 2 totals. This represents the impacts attributable to increased coal fly ash use under EPA’s C 2 P 2 program. d. Calculated as the sum of impacts for the coal fly ash 15% e xpanded use, GGBFS current use an d silica fume current use scenar ios 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 i mpacts achieved by moving from coal fly ash use levels without influence from EPA’s C 2 P 2 program, to coal fly ash use le vels under the CGP-recommended 15% substitution. f. Calculated as the difference between 15% expanded use scenario totals and current use C 2 P 2 totals. This represents the impacts achieved by moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA’s C 2 P 2 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% e xpanded use, GGBFS current use an d silica fume current use scenar ios for years 2004 to 2015. Expanded use scenarios were not developed for GGBFS and silica fume. h. Calculated as the difference be tween 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 C 2 P 2 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 C 2 P 2 totals. This represents the impacts achieved by moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA’s C 2 P 2 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 t he impacts of moving from coal fly ash use levels under EPA’s C 2 P 2 program, to coal fly ash use levels under the CGP-maximum 30% substitution. k. For avoided CO 2 equivalent, CF 4 , CH 4 , N 2 O, 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. l. BEES reports CO separate from CO 2 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 CO 2 .3-16Figure 3-1: Avoided Energy Use for Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS, All Scenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)051015202530354045502004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Year

Billion MegajoulesGGBFS Current UseFly Ash Current Use BaselineFly Ash Current Use C2P2Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%3-17Figure 3-2: Avoided Water Use for CoalFly Ash and GGBFS, All Scenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)0.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.52004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Year

Billion litersGGBFS Current UseFly Ash Current Use BaselineFly Ash Current Use C2P2Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%3-18Figure 3-3: Avoided CO2Air Emissions for Coal Fly Ash and GGBFS, AllScenarios (Federally Funded Projects Only)0123456782004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Year

Million metric tonsGGBFS Current UseFly Ash Current Use BaselineFly Ash Current Use C2P2Fly Ash Expanded Use 15%Fly Ash Expanded Use 30%4-1 4.0 BARRIERS TO INCREASED RMC SUBSTITUTION

This chapter addresses Part (B) of the Congr essional mandate requiring EPA to “identify all barriers in procurement requirements to greater realization of energy savings and environmental benefits, including barriers result ing 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 Safety and health risk barriers

Several studies provide a discussi on of barriers to increased RMC us age, 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) publis hed an update to this report in 1998 (EERC, 1999). In addition, EPRI publis hed 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 firs t of which, published in 1988, addressed wastes generated from the combustion of coal by electri c utility power plants. The second, published in 1999, addressed the remaining wastes not addre ssed in the 1988 report to Congress. More recently, the International Energy Agency (IEA) Cl ean 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 he ld 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 sla g, foundry sands, and CCPs (EPA, 2005b). In addition to these sources, EPA and PCA consulted ce ment manufacturers and trade associations to solicit their perspectives on potential barri ers to increased RMC usage.

This section also incorporates additional in formation from research on individual state perspectives on CCP utilization. Specificall y, EERC conducted state reviews addressing CCP utilization in Texas and Florida. 67 These state reviews reveal bene fits 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 ba rriers to increased RMC usage in Federally funded cement and concrete projects. Although some barriers have b een 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 discussi on 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.4-2 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 im mediate 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 infl uenced by a policy interv ention than a barrier related to lack of awareness or inform ation 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 know n to prevent some potential RMC users from incorporating these materials into their portland ce ment 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 positiv e or beneficial use, rega rdless 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 virg in or manufactured material (G oss, 2006). Most RMCs, however, when used properly, will preserve or e nhance final product quality and durability.

Some specific concerns that ha ve been identified include:

• Some states prohibit the use of coal fly ash or slag af ter a certain calendar date each year (e.g., October 15), based on the conc ern 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 wh en using coal fly ash and slag in cement are repeated by (Lobo, 2006).4-3 • 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 al so 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 gove rnmental 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 (o r are not) applied. For example, many state departments of transportation (DOTs) do not accept ASTM’s performance specification for cement (C1157). 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 qua ntities of consistent, high-qual ity 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 vari ous reasons (e.g., price, sulfur reduction) without consideration as to what this does to the ash ch aracteristics. In addition, as discussed in Section 4.2.1, changes to air polluti on control technology can a ffect the physical or chemical characteristics of RMCs. Lack of consis tent quality of spent f oundry 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, a ffecting users’ ability to store consistent supplies, and the quality of coal fly as h 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, sponso red by FHWA, several state DOTs, and industry is investigating the cause of scaling in GGBFS concrete.

70 C1157-00 - 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 re view do not include a performance ceme nt specification analogous to ASTM C 1157.4-4 difficult to produce a consistent product. In ad dition, TX DOT noted instan ces when coal fly ash was not available, even though it ha d 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 consideri ng investing in benefici ation systems to produce concrete-grade coal fly ash, which will allow so me 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 pos e inadvertent barriers to increased use of RMCs. In this section, we consider a divers e set of influences, including the following:

• Air pollution regulations;

• State solid waste regulations;

• Bidding procedures and cont ractual 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 le vels in coal fly ash that impact the ability to use the ash as a supplementary cementitious mate rial. The increased carbon levels result from the addition of activated carbon to control mercury emissions, a nd 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. Ho wever, they indicate th at the selection of air emission controls to meet state and federal requ irements 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/to n 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 manufact ure 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 el ectric 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). Official s 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, how ever, is that any combustion facility associated with the use of carbon burnout (CBO) systems ma y be categorized by FDEP as a new NO X 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.4-5 EPA will continue to monitor the emission techno logies the industry chooses to install and the impact on reuse potential. EPA believes that technology options are avai lable to the industry, specifically for the application of NOx contro ls, which would minimize any impacts on the quality of fly ash. Technology solutions are bein g 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 regu lations for the beneficial use of recovered materials. Each state has its own regulatory program. Although many states are acting to f acilitate the use of RMCs in concrete, some state solid waste regu lations governing the mana gement of RMCs may make it more difficult to benefici ally use these materials. For example, in the Florida CCP review, some observers thought that state monito ring and other requirements were restricting beneficial use requests. In some cases, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) has required end users to install lin ers under temporary CCP storage areas as a precautionary measure. FDEP also requires the ma terial to be covered. Additionally, there is hesitation from FDEP to allow CCP use in land a pplications, limiting the Florida Department of Transportation’s ability to use it in road-buildi ng 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 in terviewees considered to be of greater threat of environmental contamination, such as coal or lim erock. CCPs are essentially being treated as a regulated solid waste by FDEP in this regard (EERC, 2005).

Experience with Florida’s benefi cial 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 approv ing new beneficial use applications. Florida statutes generally define “solid waste” to include any discarded material resulting from domestic, industrial, commercial, mining, ag ricultural, or governmental operations. This includes CCPs. However, there is another provisi on in Florida’s statutes that exempts certain materials from regulation as solid waste if:

1. A majority of the industrial byproducts ar e demonstrated to be sold, used, or reused within one year.

2. The industrial byproducts are not discharge d, 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 contamina tion 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 implem enting this section. Sometimes, FDEP points applicants to beneficial reuse guidance documents prepared for recovered screen material and4-6 waste-to-energy ash. Until a rule is promulgated, however, benefici al 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 appro ach to CCP utilization a nd its support network to implement such activities. A lthough 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, a nd ready-mix producers mentioned attitude and education as key barriers. District an d local highway personnel, architects, engineers, and contractors cited unfamiliar ity, lack of knowledge, or unwarranted negative feelings toward CCPs as barriers to greater CCP utilization.

• CCP generators and ash marketers each ha ve 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 si de, there is a resulting change in ash quality, making it difficult to produce a cons istent product. In addition, TX DOT noted instances when coal fly ash wa s 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 Administra tive Code (TAC), Chapter 335.4, Subchapter R, and users take on the lia bility 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 th e ability to retain in stitutional knowledge of CCPs as staff is turned over at the Texas Co mmission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) and the Texas Department of Transportation.

4.2.3 Bidding Procedures and Contractual Constraints

Bidding procedures and contractua l 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 cha nges in cement mix design. To counter these concerns and provide a consistent product, a contractor might defa ult to a portland-only mix or one that contains less of the RM C (e.g., out of a concern for seas onal shortages of the RMC).

Contract specifications may force more compe tition 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 mixt ures often provide perf ormance benefits in4-7 concrete. Allowing ternary mixtur es provides the possibi lity 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 substituti on alone. For instance, the Iowa DOT typically uses a mix of 15% coal fly ash and 20% slag ceme nt; 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 thes e 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 gene rally a “newer” material in markets, these practitioners are often reluctant to allow slag s ubstitution 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 (A rkansas, Illinois, Missouri, New York, and Vermont). SCA is working with FHWA to produ ce 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 ag encies 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)(1) allows a procuring agen cy the flexibility not to pu rchase an EPA-designated item with recovered materials content. According to th e 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 se t forth in the applicable specifications;

3. Fail to meet the reasonable performance standards of the proc uring agencies; or

4. Are only available at an unreasonable price. 73

Over or inappropriate use of these exemptions could contribu te to unnecessarily reduced RMC usage. Similarly, management inattention to th e 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 di scussion of the key economic barriers affecting increased RMC use. The follo wing barriers are discussed:

73 RCRA Section 6002, http://epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw /procure/pdf/rcra-6002.pdf4-8 • 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 cost s of collecting and tran sporting these materials from their points of generation can render them unc ompetitive with virgin materials at a specific site. For example, the ACAA notes that transportation costs ar e the primary economic impediment to the reuse of CCPs. ACAA estimate s that such costs generally limit the shipment of CCPs to a 100-mile radius around a power pl ant. In addition to the problems posed by distance, using railcars to transport RMCs also pr esents issues because railcar availability is limited, and rail transportation rates are high in certain markets. This issue also applies to virgin materials; however, the geogra phic distribution and specific tran sportation costs are likely to vary from those for CCPs. 74

Studies have noted the sub-optim al geographic location of RMC s upplies, 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 bl ast 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 CalTra ns Bay Bridge project imported coal fly ash from Washington and Wyoming, and the additiona l cost of transportation was minimal when compared to the entire project budget. 75

As discussed in Section 4.1.3, differe nt coals produce different ashes and an electric utility could switch among coal sources for various reasons (pri ce, transportation costs, sulfur reduction, etc.) without consideration as to what this does to the ash. In an Oc tober 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 av ailable in all locations as EPA suggests” (DOE, 2001). This overbalance can be an impediment, as only certain areas of th e country have access to RMCs, and transportation costs are too great to move the materi als to areas with a relatively low supply of RMCs.

Likewise, slag granulation fac ilities are principally in the Ea st, Midwest and South, so for adequate slag cement to reach more remote areas, like the West Coast, imports become essential. Bulk transportation over wate r 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, 2007.4-9 Midwest or East, would help improve the geog raphic 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 im pact of product non-availabilit y. Construction specifications are prepared years in advance of construction. If an RMC is abundant, and included in the specification, but availability declines when c onstruction starts, it may become a frustrating and costly problem for the contractor. Such an even t could cause an agency to be cautious about including the RMC in future specifications.

The Texas state review (EERC, 2005) echoes th e importance of transportation costs to the beneficial use of CCPs. In Texas, power plan ts are located in areas that are not heavily populated, so long distance trans portation 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 transpor tation costs and GGBFS distributi on, foreign sources of RMCs can influence the reuse rate of domestic supplies. Fo r 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.) Furtherm ore, 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 gene rators, account for costs is critical to RMC utilization (EERC, 1999). For example, for many u tilities, the sale of CCPs is generally seen as merely a means of reducing ope rational 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 elec tric utilities, the revenue produced by the sale of CCPs is often insignificant in relation to the revenue stream pr ovided by the sale of electricity. The prices received for CCPs may be too low to jus tify 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 where4-10 the cost with or without fly ash is the same, in cluding 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 roughl y 50%-65% for each [cubic] ya rd of concrete used” (DOE, 2005b). 76

It is noteworthy, however, that RMCs with hi gh unit prices (e.g., GGBFS and silica fume) also can have high reuse rates. Therefore, high prices may often be a reflectio n 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 sp ent 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 th an other industrialized nations. In the U.S., only 25% of slag is granul ated, while in Europe a nd Japan, nearly 80% of blast furnace slag is granulate d. Several reasons for the low U.S. granulation rate exist, including uncertainty and conso lidation in the steel industry ; capital cost of installing granulation/grinding facilities; and availabil ity 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 functi on of available disposal sites. For Electric Utilities, as part of th e permitting process for any new facility or upgrade to an existing facility, the permit must describe what is anticipated for any waste or b yproduct 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 mana ged landfill (not necess arily a municipal solid waste landfill), most likely a monofill. Given the nature of privatel y-owned and industrial waste landfills, total available capacity at these sites is uncertain. Ho wever, 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 materi al 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 fini sh 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 li mited 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.))

77 National Solid Wastes Management Association, Novemb er 8, 2006, “MSW (Subtitle D) Landfills.” Available at: http://wastec.isproductions.net/w ebmodules/webarticles/anmviewer.asp?a=11274-11 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 be neficial use of RMCs concerns the safety and health risks – real or perceived – associated with these material s, i.e., the environmental risks associated with exposure to these industrial materials if they en ter 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 in dicate that risks asso ciated 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, EP A’s risk evaluation of the beneficial use of CCPs in cement and concrete concluded th at national regulati on under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is not warranted. 78 This final Regulatory Determination additionally notes a previous Regulatory Determination in 1993 (see 58 FR 42466; August 9, 1993), an EPA-proposed risk-bas ed set of standards for CKD (see 64 FR 45632; August 20, 1999), and an unpublished re port as of May 22, 2000 from the National Academy of Sciences presenting “a comprehensiv e review of mercury and recommendations on appropriate adverse health effect s levels for this constituent.” Additional research concerning steel slag includes a study conduc ted 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 Vol. 8, No. 4, pp. 681-711.

Findings from these analyses di d not identify significant ri sks to human health and the environment associated with th e beneficial uses of concern. In addition, we identified no documents providing evidence of damage to hu man 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 natu ral silica sand in making clinker, as a substitute for natural sand in cem ent, or in other uses in concrete manufacture, appears to present minimal risk to human health and the environment.

78 http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/fossil/ff2f-fr.pdf5-1 5.0 MECHANISMS TO INCREASE TH E BENEFICIAL USE OF RMCs

This section addresses Part (C) of the Congressional mandate requi ring 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 th e 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 mate rial use standards;

• Education, technical assistance 79 , and recognition programs; and

• Economics

Several of the mechanisms described within each category are generally app licable 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 assi stance, and recognition programs," covers programs focused on increasing the use of coal fl y 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 Federa l cement and concrete projects al one. 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 Fe deral and non-Federal cement and concrete projects.

Finally, this section represents the collective i nput of a variety of diffe rent stakeholders, and includes a wide range of op tions that have been propos ed in various contexts. 81 Some of these options may be outside the scope of the mechan isms 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 discussi ng the various options contemplated.

5.1 Procurement Policies and Material Use Standards

Procurement policies offer the opportunity to s timulate demand for products making beneficial use of RMCs. We consider severa l 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 si milar in nature to those proposed by: Buckley, Tera D., and Debra F. Pflughoeft-Hassell, “Natio nal 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 repres entatives is summarized in Appendix E to this report.5-2 • Next, we consider efforts to revise e ngineering and procurement standards to optimize the substitution of RM Cs in concrete and cement; and

• Finally, we examine how modifying build ing 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 RM Cs in Federal concrete projects, including: (1) expanding the number of RMCs covered by the CP G; (2) strengthening and streamlining policy guidance related to green purchasing requireme nts, implementation, and reporting; and (3) developing and delivering information resour ces, 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. Specifi cally in 1983, EPA’s original procurement guideline designated cement and concrete containing coal fly as h. EPA subsequently amended the designation in May 1995 (CPG III) to includ e 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 ac tual purchases, procuring agencies are subject to a number of implementation and reporting stat utory 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 progr am is an agency's strategy for maximizing the purchase of an EPA-designated item. Affirmativ e procurement programs should be developed in a manner that assures that items composed of re covered/recycled material s are purchased to the maximum extent practicable. Over the years, these programs have been bolstered by a number of Executive Orders; the most recent, Executiv e Order 13423, requires that Federal agencies promote the purchase of energy efficient, recy cled content, biobased, and environmentally preferable products through th eir purchasing requirements. 83

With particular relevance to RMC use in Fede ral cement and concrete projects, the FHWA and other DOT grant programs are explicitly incl uded 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 pr ocuring 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

82 U.S. EPA, Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines, About CPG/RMAN, from http://epa.gov/cpg/about.htm.

83 Adapted from: “Fact Sheet: Executiv e 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 withother green products and services, rather than a separate affirmative procurement program just for the EPAdesignated products.5-3 FHWA is a “procuring agency” under th e Solid Waste Disp osal Act and is therefore fully responsible for im plementing the guidelines and other requirements of §6002. It is the intent of Congress that both FHWA’s direct procurement and indirect Federal-aid pr ograms (Federal Highway Trust Fund) be covered by the requirements of §6002 as amended by this Act. Indirect purchases by the Federal Aviation Admini stration are also covered under Section 6002 in the same manner as is the FHWA . Coverage of the FHWA’s direct and indirect procurement activ ities under this amendment extend to the review of procurement specifications pursuant to Section 6002(d), as amended, in addition to the affirmative procurement pr ogram 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 cont ent, biobased, and environmentally preferable products, E.O. 13423 and related guida nce require agencies to inte grate four existing disparate purchasing requirements into an in tegrated Federal purchasing effort that applies to all types of acquisitions of goods and services. 84 The Order requires every y ear that agencies track and report on their purchases of EPA-de signated recycled-content items. 85

Section 6002 of RCRA requires th e Office of Federal Procuremen t 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 th e annual data reports.

The reporting questionnaire focuses on compliance, training, and auditing a nd 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 cont aining recovered materials, to the maximum extent practicable. Examples in clude integrating specific, recy cled-content products requirements with the use of the U.S Green Building Council’s L eadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), incorporating recycled-content pr oduct requirements into design specifications, and inserting recycled-content product requirements into design/build contracts.”

To optimize program performance, implementa tion and reporting procedures are supplemented with information resources and training activi ties. 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 2005.5-4 This multi-faceted approach to green purch asing has led to many successes, including influencing the amount of RMCs procured for us e in concrete products. As one example, for agencies that gather data for specific desi gnated 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 mech anism to achieve higher RMC reuse levels.

To continue and expand upon this progress, how ever, the procurement guidelines and their implementation are the focus of ongoing improve ment 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 deci sion-making of Federal procurement entities and their reporting obligations. We discu ss these issues in further detail below.

5.1.2 Discussion of Response to CPGs for RMCs in Concrete and Cement

A number of governmental report s and reviews have commented on the efficacy of purchasing programs for recycled-content pr oducts, including, by implicati on, concrete products containing RMCs. 87 The conclusions drawn in these commentaries focus on two general limitations: (1) the lack of robust reporti ng data on volumes of purchased product s and related inability to link such volumes to the influence of procurement requi rements; 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 requi rements, several stakeholders have suggested that addressing various issues related to ma terial 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 procuri ng agencies have purchas ed products containing RMCs is difficult to measure because few data sy stems clearly identify purchases of recycledcontent products. In addition, agencies do not rece ive 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 ce ment/concrete products us ed in Federally-funded projects. In addition, GAO issued the report “Federal Procurement: Better Guidance and Monitoring Needed to Assess Purchases of E nvironmentally Friendly Products” in 2001 to evaluate the status of, and barriers to, Federal agencies ’ efforts to implement RCRA requirements for procuring products with r ecycled content. The GAO report contained suggestions focusing on improving procurement pr ocesses, guidance, and data systems.

87 See, for example, Statement for th e Record by David G. Wood, Direct or, Natural Resource and Environment Issues, US General Accounting Office, July 11, 2002 (GAO-02-928T).

88 June 2001, GAO report, “Federal Pr ocurement- Better Guidance and Monitoring Needed to Assess Purchases of Environmentally Friendly Products”5-5 Improvements in data collection al so were highlighted in “Leadi ng By Example: A Report to the President on Federal Energy and E nvironmental Management (2002-2003).” 89

One example of how relevant procurement data ar e difficult to both derive and interpret involves the recent analysis of agencies’ Federal Procurem ent Data Systems (FPDS) data. This review indicated that recycled content pr oducts were not being supplied or used in more than 95% of the contracting actions in FY 2002 and FY 2003. Wh ile 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 pr oducts 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 performan ce of the CPG program and identify further areas for targeted improvement. 90 Detailed data from each cont ract on the materials, sources, tonnages, haul distances, and mixture pr oportions would significantly improve the documentation and assessment of RMC benefits in Fe deral concrete projects. It is important to note, however, that with respect to RCRA S ection 6002; EPA, OFPP, and OFEE provide only a facilitation role, and have no oversight or complia nce assurance authority. These obligations fall to the individual procuring agencies.

One option for increasing complia nce 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 b udget 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 subj ect 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 ma king 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 cont racting personnel to emphasize that recycled content and other green products are often supplied or used. Contracting personnel are taught that contracts should require a contract or to supply or use green products.

89 “Leading By Example: A Report to the President On Federal Energy and Environmental Management (2002- 2003).” October 2004, from http://ofee.gov/final_report1.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.5-6 5.1.3 Specifications and Bidding Procedures

Another set of suggested mechanisms to increas e 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 th is 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 severa l actions were taken when the review protocol recommends specification changes: (1) reissue th e specifications if there is time prior to the project bid date; (2) if the proj ect has already been bid, then re quire re-bidding; and (3) withhold Federal funding if the project specifi ers do not change the specifications.

Some efforts are already underway to implemen t these mechanisms. For instance, the cement industry has recently promoted the acceptance of the Standard Performance Specification for Hydraulic Cement ASTM C1157 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 successf ul completion of this effort will also take time. In the interim, some companies have modified specifica tions to their cement to address early strength issues. For example, Holcim has decreased the sl ag content in its IS blended cement to address seasonal concerns, and the company is currently ev aluating the use of different grinding aids that will address the perceived set/stre ngth issue. The cement industry as a whole has taken measures to emphasize the need for proper finishing and cu ring techniques to offset the scaling issue.

In general, the development of standards for optim ized substitution is feasible, provided that the effort is based on a process where the stakeholde rs with concerns about quality, cost, and risk can participate and identify solutions that addr ess the priorities of each group. However, this process, as noted above, can require significant ti me to arrive at an acceptable solution, and will require participation of enough government and industry leaders to provide momentum for moving toward a nationally consis tent application of standards in different state and local jurisdictions.

5.1.4 Building Standards

Standards for building and construc tion offer another avenue for incr easing the beneficial use of RMCs. First, integrating environmental buildi ng 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 poten tially 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 developi ng high-performance, su stainable buildings.5-7 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 simp le method for increasing SCMs in cement and concrete (PCA, 2003). By explicitly identifying building standards that include the use of RMCbased cement and concrete, the building and co nstruction 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 su stainable design and green materials among architects and construction cont ractors has been increasing. M odification of bu ilding 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 sens ible green building practices.” 91

Furthermore, continued CPG implementation by FHWA and additional pr omotion of the Green Highways Partnership are likely to alter current transportation c onstruction practices as RMC use is increased as a result of new practices and usage patterns. S ee Section 5.2.3 for information on the Green Highways Partnership.

5.1.4.2 Specifications with in Building Contracts

EPA and other stakeholders have recognized the need for a guid e 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 Specifiers

. 92 This guide helps Federal agencies meet their project-specific envir onmental goals and mandates, and includes the following components:

• Federal Leadership in High Performan ce 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 Ener gy 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 desi gn, construction, and opera tion 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

.5-8 Among other recommendations, the MOU guiding principles includ e 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 sustainabl e building MOU’s guiding principles from the 19 MOU signatory agencies to all Federal agencies.

Another effort, the Unified Facilities Guide Specifi cations (UFGS) is a joint effort of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Naval Faciliti es 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 gui de specification for referencing the EPAdesignated products, and guide specif ications for using RMCs in c oncrete, including coal fly ash, ground iron blast furnace slag, and silica fume. 93

5.1.5 Summary of Potential Mechanisms Relate d to Procurement Policies and Material Use Standards

Below, we summarize the potenti al set of mechanisms containe d 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 additi on, certain mechanisms may merit statutory authorization. The pot ential mechanisms include:

• Integrate and improve procurement syst ems, allowing for identification and tracking of cement and concrete purchases using RMCs and the RMC volumes utilized. As reporting systems allow, m odify the RCRA agency data report to include more specific questions for agenci es 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 percepti on 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. Severa l agencies (e.g., FHWA and DoD) already have such policies in place. In additi on, 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 Database 94 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 allo ws users to search for vendors of a specific CPG product, product category, or5-9 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 pr otocols 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 E nvironmental Executive and the WBDG to develop and promote the Federal Gree n 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 Assistan ce, and Recognition Programs

Education, research, technology development, de monstration, and outreach programs have the potential to improve the unders tanding of RMCs and their be nefits, and to promote their beneficial use. Numerous government agen cies (e.g., FHWA, USDA, EPA) have noted how these types of programs can help address percep tions that RMCs and a ssociated products are inferior or deleterious to hea lth 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 Associat ion (NRMCA), the SFA, Headwate rs, Inc.) consulted for this study have emphasized the importance of educati on programs for ensuring that end users (e.g., local and state transportation ag encies) 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 recogni tion efforts to increase RMC markets and use by improving the availability and flow of information about the be neficial use of a range of industrial materials. The discussion below examines severa l ongoing and prospe ctive initiatives:

type of material. In addition, users can search directly fo r a specific vendor by typing all or part of the vendor’s name in a search field.

95 See, for example, the training programs offe red by OFEE at http://ofee.gov/gp/training.asp.5-10 • The EPA coal combustion pr oducts outreach efforts;

• The EPA foundry sand out reach efforts; and

• Recent industry and public/private collaborations and research.

While the impact of these initiativ es is still emerging, they illus trate programs EPA is conducting with the potential to increase the beneficial use of RMCs.

5.2.1 EPA Coal Combustion Products Outreach Efforts

The C 2 P 2 is a collaborative partnership program with EPA, DOE, FHWA, ACAA, USDA, EPRI, USWAG and more than 150 partners . This partnership is currently working towards two goals. The first goal is to increase the beneficial us e of CCPs from 31% in 2001 to 50% in 2011. The second goal is to increase the use of coal fly as h 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 info rmation 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 Benefi ts and Impacts,” has helped to explain the environmental benefits and risks associated w ith 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 C 2 P 2 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 bot h governmental and private initiatives to address these obstacles. 96 Some of these activities include spons oring 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 C 2 P 2 goals. EPA will report the amounts and type s of CCPs reported by applicants to the C 2 P 2 Awards Program. EPA works with ACAA to review the results of this survey, assessing trends in generation and beneficial use, with the ultim ate 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 re sult in the successful use of CCPs.

As previously noted, three state reviews have been conducted that examine CCP utilization practices and identify the specifi c factors that encourage or disc ourage the beneficial use within each state. These reviews bring together key stake holders 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 C 2 P 2 projects, EPA’s regions have initiated their own pr ojects 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 2007.5-11 In collaboration with the C 2 P 2 partners, EPA has also held two C 2 P 2 award presentations to recognize those partners who have made exceptional progress in pr omoting the beneficial use of CCPs. The C 2 P 2 web includes fact sheets on project activi ties, as well as case studies, increasing the availability of inform ation easily accessible online. 98 Further research and technical assistance is available via the construction init iative, created in part nership 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 us ed each year. According to ACAA survey data, CCP beneficial use has increased from 32% in 2001 to 43% in 2006. 99

5.2.2 EPA Foundry Sand Outreach Efforts

EPA has initiated several efforts to increase th e 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 FH WA to write and publish, “Foundry Sand Facts for Civil Engineers.” This technical guide has been wide ly 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 as sist states that wish to develop or improve their foundry sand beneficial use programs, the Toolkit provides program options to states accord ing to their desired preferences and available resources. Starting with a series of questions to help states determine wh at type of program to design, the Toolkit guides users through a three-stage, six-step roadma p 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 Partners hip (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 wh en 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 expa nding into a national program de signed to emphasis the use of recycled materials in highway construction. This new effort should also help focus the engineering, environmental, a nd economic reasons to use RMCs 102

.

98 The C 2 P 2 web site is at: http://www.epa.g ov/epaoswer/osw/conserve/c2p2/.

99 For more facts on C 2 P 2 , 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/found ry.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 Partnershi p can be found at: http://www.greenhighways.org.5-12 FHWA has been instrumental in assisting EPA in making contacts with state highway officials. Starting in the mid-Atlantic re gion, EPA and FHWA have hosted several workshops for State environmental and transportation officials and ro ad 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 th e use of RMCs in road projects. In addition, FHWA has recently undertaken a refocus of thei r recycling program with a stronger emphasis on environmental stewardship/leadership, whic h intends to address such items as CO 2 gas reduction, National Green Highway Partnership, storm wa ter management, and pollution reduction through improved pavement design. The Recycled Ma terials Policy established by the FHWA Administrator clearly links recy cled materials (e.g., asphalt, c oncrete) to the preservation and improvement of the national highway system.

FHWA has been conducting outreach to the ro ad-building community (the states, local governments, and the construction industry) showing that the engi neering feasibility of using RMCs has been demonstrated in research, fiel d 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 vi ews of the Agency in this regard.

In addition to the above, EPA and FHWA are wo rking with representatives from several byproduct generators to cooperate on workshops and technical information needs in an effort to effectively increase the use of these material s 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 mate rials in various industrial activities, focusing on advancing the management and use of thes e 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 Improve ment (NCASI); NSA; SCA; and the Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA). The goals of the IRC are to:

• Stimulate the transfer of information re lated to the recove ry, use, reuse and recycling of industrial re sources that can be used by planners, designers, specifiers, regulators, purchasers, ma nufacturers and constructors or other stakeholders;

• Participate in the development of appropria te codes, specifications and guides for the use of these industria l resources on par with competing materials and products;5-13 • Facilitate awareness and understandi ng of the environmental, economic, engineering, manufacturing a nd societal benefits derive d from the recovery, use, reuse and recycling of in dustrial materials; and

• Share experiences of effective strategies th at 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 utiliz ation of silica fume. For example, Midwest contractors have reported finishing silica fume concrete parking deck s at 85% of the cost of conventional concrete using the single-pass finishing technique. In addition, FHWA’s publicat ion IF-05-016, “Silica Fume User’s Manual,” includes a chapter of “how to” contractor traini ng. SFA supports this chapter with educationa l 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 re sistant to using non-virgin materials.

The Recycled Materials Resource Center (RMRC). RMRC is a national center that promotes the appropriate use of secondary materials, in cluding 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), a nd 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 ba rriers to the appropriate use of recycled materials. The Center seeks to provide a cohe sive approach to the complex engineering and environmental issues surrounding the use of recycl ed 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 promot e activities designed to ensure that:

• policymakers at the federal, state, and local levels have the e ducation and technical information needed to formulate policy permitting recycled materials to be considered on equal footing with conventi onal construction materials;

• a voice dedicated to informing persons that recy cled materials exist is present in each of the technical organizations associated with transportation infrastructure;

• existing information on recycled materials is organized and structur ed into standards, specifications, and typical engine ering properties that can be used directly by the design and construction community;

• new and innovative applications of recycled materials are continuously developed; and,5-14 • industries and transportation agen cies have the logistical tool s needed to connect sources of recycled materials, applications in th e 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 re quire collaboration across multiple public and private entities. The potential mechanisms include:

• Support and expand the C 2 P 2 program, as well as continue EPA foundry sand outreach efforts.

• Continue and expand collaboration with DOT on the Green Highways Partnership, incorporating environmenta l streamlining and stewardship efforts into all aspects of the highway lifecycle . Continue and expa nd 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 va rious industrial activities.

• Work with industry members and trade a ssociations 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 a nd data collection efforts. Among other research efforts, RMRC and FHWA are conducting ong oing research on the beneficial use of RMCs in highway construction proj ects. These efforts include primary research of material specificat ions and guidance on their use. (www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/recycling)

• Pursue a collaborative government-industry re search effort to develop concrete air entrainment additives that are compatible with coal fly ash generated by mercury-5-15 compliant power plants. EPA and OF EE are well positioned to convene government agencies, the concrete industr y, 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 recy clability of ash is not jeopardized. From developing the mercury standards, EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation is wellpositioned with the technical awareness a nd industry relationships needed to mount a program of assistance. Explor e new pollution control technologies for mercury emissions that do not render co al fly ash potentially unsuitable for beneficial use.

• Continue to review and analyze life cycl e 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 ad dition, 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 constr aints. Even where cost savings exist, they may not be deemed sufficient to overcome potential extern alities and justify changes in practice. This may occur as a result of ba rriers related to misinformation, quality concerns, and standard operating procedures that ma y constrain their use.

Given these market complexities, it is releva nt to consider specifi cally whether and how economic mechanisms implemented by Federal, st ate, or local governme nts could potentially motivate increased levels of RMC substitution by minimizing any negative externalities associated with increased RMC us e. Particularly with respect to the substantial GHG benefits associated with the use of CCPs, the developm ent of targeted tax credits or accelerated depreciation for necessary infras tructure would be beneficial.

On a basic level, an economic influence in th is 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 anywhe re 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 effect ive price of RMC substitution could rely on a variety of tax credits and other incentive mech anisms. 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 a ny perceived externalities of RMC use by the5-16 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 industr y in ways that encourage the beneficial use of RMCs. Examples of appro aches that would influe nce the behaviour and decisions of cement producers and othe r RMC users include the following:

• The introduction of tax cred its or accelerated deprecia tion for installed equipment could enable continued and expanded rates of beneficial use of RMCs. For example, tax credits for investment in slag granulat ion capacity could help address lower U.S. granulation rates (as noted by SCA).

• Industry observers (e.g., SFA) recommend th at when awarding Federal projects, Federal agencies give weighted financia l credit to concrete firms practicing the beneficial use of RMCs. This could include the explorati on of other various incentive mechanisms, such as tax deductions or cr edits 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. Po tential incentives for increased R&D on RMC use could include tax breaks or cred its 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 deve lopment 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. Inve stment tax credit and/or the accelerated depreciation of capital expe nditures for these types of investments would send an economic signal favoring u tilization over disposal.

103 Provus, Stan. “CDFA Spotlight: Green Bonds,” July 2005, http://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/pages/july2005tlc.html.5-17 5.3.3 Caveats

Any potential economic mechanisms discussed in this section would be subject to relevant statutory, regulatory, and budgetary constraints and considerati ons. The transportation funding and tax related incentives presented in this sect ion 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 in crease RMC use. In addition, many of these mechanisms would likely require improved data collection on materials used in Federal construction projects, and additional informati on regarding documentation of inventories and annual production of various RMCs.6-1 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

This study provides information in response to specific provisions in the SAFETEA- LU. Consistent with the statutory direction, th is report addresses the following issues:

(A) Quantify (i) the extent to which recovered mineral components are being substituted for portland cement, particular ly 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 re quirements to greater realization of energy savings and environmental benefits, incl uding barriers resulting from exceptions from current law; and

(C) (i) Identify potential mechanisms to achieve greater subs titution 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 (i ii) identify any potential environmental or economic effects that may result from greater s ubstitution 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 docume nt current production or sales, and generally capture or estimate usage rates, which are generally indicative of the extent of substitution. While data qualit y 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 curr ent 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 produ cts 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 complian ce. Improvements in procurement data6-2 systems and reporting would allow a better understanding of the incremental effects of procurement requirements for cement and concrete projects.

• Energy savings and environmental benefi ts 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 de rive estimates of their use in Federal projects by roughly appor tioning total volumes to Federal and non-Federal projects (based upon the es timated proportion of total cement demand related to federally-funded projects). For the y ears 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 mega joules, avoided CO2 equivalent air emissions of 3.8 million metric tons, and wa ter 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 part s (B) and (C), the report identified a number of barriers which impede the beneficial use of RM Cs through procurement requirements. A variety of potential mechanisms exist for addr essing 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 assist ance, and recognition programs, such as the Green Highways Partnership, EPA’s foundry sand outreach efforts, and public/private partnerships, such as C 2 P 2 encourage the beneficial use of CCPs; in addition, ongoing research and pilot projects are cr itical to advancing the use of RMCs.

• Economic influences, such as using transportation funding mechanisms to increase RMC use and providing tax credit s, accelerated depreciation, tax-exempt bonds and other influences related to va rious components of the RMC generation and use chain.

Table 6-1 summarizes the barriers itemized in Ch apter 4 and characterize s 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 effectivene ss given a particular context. For example, in instances where the use of an RMC is cost prohibitive (for exam ple, where it is in short supply or requires extensive transport), it is unlikely that adjustme nts 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 wh ere barriers related to perceptions of material6-3 performance or standard operating procedures are present. As a nother example, EPA’s efforts in C 2 P 2 are primarily focused on outreach and technical assistance. However, C 2 P 2 also includes research to advance coal fly ash uses; therefore, technical or ec onomic barriers could be partly addressed by a program that is largely an edu cation initiative. Sim ilarly, EPA’s foundry sand program includes guidance for stat es on creating foundry sand benefi cial use programs, directly influencing procurement/contractual barriers.

With respect to barriers in procurement requir ements, we have noted several concerning data reporting, material specifications and standards, contract and bidding procedures, and general program awareness. Anecdotal information indicate s that these barriers may contribute, in some instances, in not using RMCs in making procuremen t decisions. As noted in Chapter 5, a wide range of mechanisms are applicable to thes e issues. Furthermore, to implement these mechanisms fully will require broad participation and effort on the part of federal, state, and private entities.6-4Table 6-1: Summary of Barriers and Mechanismsfor Increasing Beneficial Use of RMCsBarrier Category BarrierApplicable Types ofMechanisms Example Applications of Specific MechanismsTransportation costs andgeographic distributionRMC as minor component ofproducers overall revenuePoor cost-effectiveness of RMCutilizationEconomic BarriersLow cost of RMC disposalEconomic incentivesProcurement policies andbuilding standardsEducation, technicalassistance, andrecognitionEconomic: Fees to increase cost of RMC disposal could increasebeneficial use incentives.Procurement: In general, CPGs help promote demand forRMCs and increase beneficial use. However, improved datacollection would allow assessment of CPG impacts andrefinement of CPG.Education: C2P2research helps identify areas with coal fly ashshortages, helping address geographic distribution barriers.Federal air pollution regulationsState and Federal solid wasteregulationsLegal, Regulatory,and ContractualBarriersBidding procedures andcontractual constraintsProcurement policies andbuilding standardsEducation, technicalassistance, andrecognitionProcurement: Integrate green building standards into Federal,state, and local procurement policies to better focus attention onRMC-based products.Education: EPA’s foundry sand program includes guidance ondevelopment of beneficial use programs.Performance of productscontaining RMCsAcceptance of materialsspecificationsTechnical BarriersVariation in the quality of RMCsuppliesEducation, technicalassistance, andrecognitionEconomic incentivesEducation: Establish baseline data and goals for RMC beneficialuse rates (e.g., coal ash under EPA’s C2P2).Economic: Sponsor and/or conduct research and development tominimize variation in RMC quality.Research:OngoingSafety and HealthRisk PerceptionBarriersPerceived risk associated withproducts containing RMCsEducation, technicalassistance, andrecognitionEducation: As a means of increasing acceptance, educate endusers regarding risks associated with RMC-based products.R-1 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 (ACI), 2006. “Guide for the Use of Silica Fume in Concrete, ACI 234R-06”

American Foundry Society, Undated. http://www.afsinc.org/

Arnold, Dana, 2006. Office of the Federal Enviro nmental 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), Decem ber 1992. “Institutional Constraints to Coal Fly Ash Use in Construction.” Palo Alto, CA.

Energy & Environmental Research Center (EE RC), July 1999. “Barriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/ Desulfurization By-Products by Government and Commercial Sectors - Update 1998.” EERC Topical Repor t DE-FC21-93MC-30097--70. Grand Forks, ND.

Energy and Environment Research Center (EERC), January 2005. Re view 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. Re view 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-2 Founie, Alan, 2004. “USGS 2004 Minerals Ye arbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: Gypsum.”

Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today (FIR ST), 2006. On-line information accessed October 2, 2006 at http://www.foundryrecycl ing.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/EEI’s HQs, Washington DC, 8/30/07.

IEA Clean Coal Centre, January 2005. “Cement a nd Concrete – Benefits and Barriers in Coal Ash Utilization.”

Kalyoncu, R.S., 2001. “USGS 2001 Minerals Yearbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: SlagIron and Steel”

Kiggins, Karen, December 20, 2007. Email Communica tion 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 Ceme nt Association, Skokie, IL.

Lehman, Richard, October 3, 2007. Email Comm unication from Rich Lehman (Edw. C Levy Co.) and Karen Kiggins (National Slag Associa tion) 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 Ma nual and User Guide." National Institute for Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.

Lobo, Colin, 2006. National Ready Mixed Concre te 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 Tran sportation, Federal Highways Administration. Personal Communication.R-3 Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2003. “Conc rete Builds the Sustainable Movement”. Cooperative publication involving PCA, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, and Precast Concrete Institute. First published in Buildi ng Design& Constructions’ September 2003 Issue.

Portland Cement Association, 2004. "2004 Appare nt Use of Portland Cement by Market." Skokie, IL.

Portland Cement Association (PCA), July 2005. “Iron and Steel Byproducts: Portland Cement Association Sustainable Manufacturing F act Sheet.” Accessed October 18, 2006 at http://www.cement.org/pdf_files/is326.pdf

Portland Cement Association (PCA), July 2005b. “Power Plant Byproducts: Portland Cement Association Sustainable Manufacturing F act Sheet.” Accessed October 18, 2006 at http://www.cement.org/pdf_files/is331.pdf

Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2006. “Re port 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. “Summa ry of 2006 Cement Kiln Dust and Clinker Production” State Summaries 2006.

Proctor, D.M. et. al. 2000. “Physical and Chem ical 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 Enviro nment,” Human and Ecological Risk Assessment. Vol. 8, No. 4, 2002. pp. 681-711.

Prusinski, Jan R. 2006. Slag Cement Inform ation for EPA Mineral Recycling Report to Congress. Slag CementAssociation, May 2006.

Pulipaka, Aswani S., J.M. Parker, and S.D. K ohn. (undated). “Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate in Concrete Construction.” Soils and Ma terials Engineers, Inc., Plymouth, MI.

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), July 1994. “B arriers to the Increased Utilization of Coal Combustion/Desulfurization Byproducts by Govern mental 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-4 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004. EIA-860 da ta file “Existing Generating Units in the United States by State, Company and Plan t, 2004”, newunits2004-1.xls available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e lectricity/p age/eia860.html

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), 2004b. “Annua l Steam-Electric Plant Operation and Design Data”. EIA-767 data files available at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/e lectricity/page/eia767.html

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federa l Highway Administration (FHWA), April 1998. “User Guidelines for Waste and By-Product Ma terials in Pavement Construction.” FHWA-RD97-148. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, VA.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Fede ral Highway Administration (FHWA), May, 2004. “Foundry Sand Facts for Civil Engineers”.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federa l 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 Cast ing Industry Sector Notebook.” U.S. EPA, Office of Compliance.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), 2002. Beneficial Re use 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 Ma terials Workshop, July 20, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EP A), 2005c. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Clean Air Interstate Ru le. 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, O ffice of Research and Development.R-5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S . EPA), January 2006. “Characterization of Mercury-Enriched Coal Combustion Residues fro m Electric Utilities Using Enhanced Sorbents for Mercury Control.” EPA/600/R-06/008. F. Sanch ez, 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 Repor t: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials – Foundry Sand

.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2001. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2001”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2002. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2002”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2003. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2003”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2004. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2004”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2005”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2006. “Mineral Comm odity Summaries 2006”, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.

van Oss, H.G., 2001. “USGS 2001 Minerals Ye arbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: Cement”

van Oss, H.G., 2002. “USGS 2002 Minerals Year book: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: SlagIron and Steel”

van Oss, H.G., 2002b. “USGS 2002 Minerals Ye arbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: Cement”

van Oss, H.G., 2003. “USGS 2003 Minerals Year book: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: SlagIron and Steel”

van Oss, H.G., 2003b. “USGS 2003 Minerals Ye arbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: Cement”

van Oss, H.G., 2004. “USGS 2004 Minerals Ye arbook: Volume I--Metals and Minerals: Cement”, accessed October 2, 2006, via http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/commodity/cement/cemenmyb04.pdfR-6 van Oss, H.G., 2004b. “USGS 2004 Minerals Year book: Volume II--Metals and Minerals: SlagIron 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/2005/1152/2005-1152.pdf

van Oss, H.G., July 2006. Personal communication.

van Oss, H.G., September 27, 2007. Personal communication

Wagaman, T., 2006. National Slag A ssociation. Personal contact

Winkler, E.S. and Bolshakov, A.A., 2000. “Charact erization of Foundry Sand Waste.” Chelsea Center for Recycling and Economic Development, University of Mass achusetts at Lowell.

World Business Council for Sustainable Deve lopment (WBCSD), June, 2005. “The Cement Sustainability Initiative Progr ess Report.” Geneva, Switzerland.G-1 GLOSSARY

The following terminology is used throughout this report.

Aggregate A rock material such as sand, gr avel, 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 bot h is added in a fine pa rticle condition to the furnace of a pulverized coal boiler in a small propor tion 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 extr acted ore. Includes the following activities: crushing, grinding, wa shing, dissolution, crys tallization, filtra tion, sorting, sizing, drying, sintering, pelletizing, briq uetting, calcining to remove water and/or carbon dioxide, roasting in preparation for leaching, gravity c oncentration, magnetic separation, electrostatic separation, flotation, ion exchange, solven t extraction, electrow inning, 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 ir on 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 referre d to as air-cooled blast furnace slag (ACBFS), is produced by allowing the molten slag from ir on production to cool and solidify slowly under atmospheric conditions. Once cool ed, it is crushed, screened and used as aggregate in applications such as base, concrete, asphalt, rail ballast, roofing, sh ingle coating, and glass making.G-2 Boiler Slag Boiler slag is a byproduct from the combustion of co al in power plants. It is melted and fused particles of ash that collect on the bottom of the boiler. Slag fo rms 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. Bott om ash does not melt and th erefore 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 car bon, using that carbon as fuel, and produces a premium quality fly ash that can be readily sold to conc rete ‘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 materi al comprising CKD is actually unreacted raw material, including raw mix at various stag es of burning and part icles of clinker.

Cementitious Having the property of or acting like cement.

Cenospheres Very small (10 to 350 microns in diameter), iner t, 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 a ggregate (filler) in concrete production.

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Comp ensation, and Liability Act of 1980, also known as Superfund.

Char To reduce to carbon or charcoal by incomplete combustion.

Clinker Clinker is an intermediate pr oduct of hydraulic cement manufact ure. Clinker is produced in a kiln and consists of semifused nodules that cont ain a controlled and intimate mix of clinker (or cement) minerals. Portland cement clinker consists, chiefly, of th e four minerals tricalcium silicate (C 3 S), dicalcium silicate (C 2 S), tricalcium aluminate (C 3 A), and tetracalcium aluminoferrites (C 4 AF). Clinker is finely ground to make finished cement; in the case of cement, the clinker is intergroun d 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-3 cenospheres, and scrubber residues. The characteristics and physic al properties of CCPs vary. In general, the size, shape, and chemical co mposition of these materials determines their beneficial reuse as a component of building ma terials or as a replacement to other virgin materials such as sand, gravel, or gypsum.

Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines Program authorized by Congress under Secti on 6002 of RCRA and Executive Order 13101 that requires EPA to designate products that are or ca n 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 high est 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) w ith sufficient water and additives to cause the cement to set and bind the entire mass.

Cyclone Boiler A coal combustion technology that creates a cyclon e-like air circulation pattern causing smaller particles to burn in suspension, whil e 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 oxide s are removed from flue gas (the gaseous products of combustion that exit a boiler th rough a flue or st ack) after combustion.

Fluidized-Bed Combustion (FBC) A coal combustion process in which fuel is burn ed on a bed of incombustible material (e.g., sand and limestone) while combustion air is forced up ward at high velocitie s, making the particles flow as a fluid.

Fluxing Materials A material used to remove undesi rable substances as a molten mixt ure. It may also be used to prevent the formation of, or to dissolve a nd facilitate the removal of, oxides and other undesirable substances.

Coal Fly Ash Coal fly ash is the finely divi ded mineral residue that results from the combustion of ground or powdered coal in coal-fired power plants. It c onsists primarily of gla ssy, spherical particles comprised of silicon, aluminum, iron, calcium, an d magnesium. The majority of the fly ash generated by combustion is removed from stack emissions using electrostatic precipitators or fabric-filter bag houses. Some vari eties of fly ash are useful as pozzolans or SCM and others can be used as raw material for c linker manufacture and as fine-g rained construction aggregates.G-4 Foundry Sand High quality silica sand that is a byproduct from the production of both ferrous and nonferrous metal castings. The physical and chemical characte ristics of foundry sand depend on the type of casting process and industry sect or from which it originates.

Granulated Blast Furnace Slag A sand-sized glassy, granular product produced duri ng 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 hydrau lic cementitious properties.

High-Performance Concrete A concrete: made with appropria te materials combined accordi ng to a selected mix design; properly mixed, transported, placed, consolidated a nd cured so that the resulting concrete will give excellent performance in the st ructure in which it is placed, in the environment to which it is exposed and with the loads to which it will be subject fo r its design life.

Low-NO x Burners A type of gas burner that significantly redu ces the formation of oxides of nitrogen.

Micrometer A widely used device in mechanical engineeri ng for precisely measuri ng thickness of blocks, outer and inner diameters of sh afts 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 co mposed 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 hy draulic calcium silicates. Clinker also contains some calcium aluminates and calcium aluminoferri tes and one or more forms of calcium sulfate (gypsum) are interground with the cli nker 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-e ntrained variants) as defined in ASTM C- 150; these types are also collectively called straight portland cement. Apart from the stra ight varieties, “portland cement” when used loosely (a common i ndustry practice) can also include a number of similar hydraulic cements, including blended cements that are ba sed on portland cement cl inker plus gypsum.

Powdered Activated Carbons Made up of crushed or ground carbon partic les, 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-5 Pozzolan A pozzolan is a siliceous or sili ceous and aluminous material, whic h 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 ordi nary 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 fine ly ground (powdered) coal in suspension.

RCRA Subtitle D The portion of the Resource Conservation and Rec overy Act regulations that primarily address non hazardous solid wastes.

Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction A method for reducing nitrogen oxid e emissions in conventional power plants that burn biomass and coal. The process invol ves injecting either ammonia or urea into the firebox of the boiler at a location where the flue gas is between 1600 o F and 2100 o F to react with the nitrogen oxides formed in the combustion process. The resulti ng product of the chemical reaction is elemental nitrogen (N 2 ), carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and water (H 2 O).

Selective Catalytic Reduction a process where a gaseous or liqui d reductant is added to the flue or exhaust gas stream and is absorbed onto a catalyst. The reductant reacts with NO
x 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 silic on 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 a nd steel production. Ferrous slags are produced by adding slagging agents (chiefly limestone or dolom ite) 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 gr anulated 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-6 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 alkalin e material (usually hydrated lime or soda ash) into the gas stream to react with the acid gase s. The sorbent can be injected directly into several different locations: the combustion process, the flue gas duct (ahead of th e 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 proces sing of iron or scrap st eel 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 similarl y to air-cooled blast furnace slag, has similar properties to it, and is used for many of the same purposes. St eel 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 with in blended cements or in concrete mixes as partial substitutes for portland cement. Common examples are GGBFS, fly ash, silica fume, and pozzolana.AA-1 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

ACAA American Coal Ash Association

ACBFS air-cooled blast furnace slag

ACI American Concrete Institute

AFS American Foundry Society

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BEES Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability

BFSA blast furnace slag aggregate

C 2 P 2 Coal Combustion Products Partnership

Ca(OH) 2 Slaked lime, when solide, the mineral portlandite

CaSO 3 calcium sulfite

CaSO 4 calcium sulfate

CaSO 4 ·2H 2 O calcium sulfate dehydrate; the mineral gypsum

CBO carbon burnout

CCP coal combustion product

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmen tal Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CKD cement kiln dust

CPG Comprehensive Procurement Guidelines

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

EERC Energy & Environment Research Center

EIA Energy Information Administration

EO Executive Order

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPACT Energy Policy Act of 2005

EPRI Electric Power Research InstituteAA-2 FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FBC fluidized-bed combustion

FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program

FGD flue gas desulfurization

FHWA Federal Hi ghway Administration

FIRST Foundry Industry Recycling Starts Today

FPDS Federal Procurement Data System

FY Fiscal Year

GAO Government Accountability Office

GBFS granulated blast furnace slag

GGBFS ground granulated blast furnace slag

GHP Green Highways Partnership

HPC high-performance concrete

IEA International Energy Agency

IRC Industrial Resources Council

LCA Life cycle analysis

LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MPa megapascal

NO x nitrogen oxides

NRMCA National Ready Mixe d Concrete Association

NSR New Source Review

OFEE Office of the Federal Environmental Executive

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSW Office of Solid Waste

PAC powdered activated carbon

PC pulverized coal

PCA Portland Cement Association

PM particulate matterAA-3 QA/QC quality assura nce/quality control

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RMANs Recovered Materials Advisory Notices

RMC recovered mineral component

RMRC Recycled Materials Resource Center

SAFETEA- LU The Safe Accountable Flex ible Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
SCM supplementary cementitious materials

SFA Silica Fume Association

SO 2 sulfur dioxide

SO x sulfur oxides

TCAUG Texas Coal Ash Utilization Group

TCEQ Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

TxDOT Texas Department of Transportation

USGBC United States Green Building Council

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

USWAG Utility Solid Waste Activities Group

WBDG Whole Building Design Guide

μ m micrometerAPPENDIX A:

OVERVIEW OF PORTLAND CEMENT AND CONCRETEA-1 Overview of Portland Cement and Concrete

Although the terms “cement” and “c oncrete” are often used interc hangeably, cement is actually an ingredient of concrete. Cements are binding agen ts 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. Th e term portland cement is a general term used to describe a variety of cements used today. Po rtland 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 une venly among more than 150 countri es. This quantity of cement is sufficient for about 14 to 18 Gt/yr of concre te (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 y ear (t/yr) of concrete fo r every person worldwide (van Oss, 2005).

Cement and Cement Manufacturing

Hydraulic cements are the binding agents in co ncretes and most mortar s and are thus common and critically important construc tion materials. Hydraulic cements are of two broad types: those that are inherently hydraulic (i.e ., require only the addition of wa ter to activate), and those that are pozzolanic. The term pozzolan (or pozzolanic) re fers to any siliceous ma terial 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 e nhanced 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 manufac tured and used hydraulic cement in the United States (and the world). It is manufactured throug h 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, sl ight compositional variations in the clinker can be achieved to produce portland cem ents 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 varietie s of straight portland ce ment are denoted per the American Society for Testing and Ma terials (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-2 • 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 suffi x A (e.g., Type IA) indicates the inclusion of an air entraining agent. Air entraining agents impa rt a myriad of tiny bubbl es into the concrete containing the hydrated cement, which can offer cer tain 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 so me 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) ar e activated by the high pH resulting from the hydroxide ions released during th e hydration of portland cement. The most commonly used SCM are volcanic ashes called pozzolana , certain types of fly ash (fro m coal-fired power plants), ground granulated blast furnace sl ag (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 th e 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 ceme nt 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 re latively little finished blended cement.

The designations for blended cements vary worldw ide, but those currently in use in the United States meet either ASTM Standard C-595, C 989 or C-1157. AS TM Standard C-595 defines several types of blended cements. The ma in 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 additi on of less than 15%.

• Slag-modified portland cement (I(SM)). Contains less than 25% GGBFS.A-3 • Slag cement (S). 1 GGBFS content of 70% or more. T ype S can be blended with portland cement to make concrete or with lime for mo rtars; the latter combination would make the final cement a pozzolan-lime cement.

Chemical Composition of Portland Cement

Modern straight portland cement is a very fi nely ground mix of portla nd cement clinker and a small amount (typically 3% to 7%) of gypsum (calcium sulfat e dihydrate) and/or anhydrite (calcium sulfate). Cement chemistry is generall y denoted in simple st oichiometric shorthand terms for the major constituent oxides. Table A- 1 provides the shorthand notation for the major oxides in the cement literature. Table A-1 also shows the typical chemical composition of modern portland cement and its clinker. For clin ker, the oxide compositions would generally not vary from the rough averages shown by more th an 2% to 4%. The oxide composition of portland cement would vary slightly de pending on its actual gypsum fr action or whether any other additives are present.

Table A-1: Chemical Shorthand and Compos ition of Clinker and Portland Cement

Oxide Formula Shorthand Notation Percentage by Mass in Clinker Percentage by Mass in Cement*
CaO C 65 65.0
SiO 2 S 22 22.0
Al 2 O 3 A 6 6.0
Fe 2 O 3 F 3 3.0 MgO M 2 2.0
K 2 O + Na 2 O K + N 0.6 0.6 Other (including SO 3 - ) ...(... S ) 1.4 3.6

H 2 O H “nil” 1.0 * Based on clinker shown plus 5% addition of gypsum (CaSO 4 ·2H 2 O).

Source: van Oss, 2005

Mineralogy of Portland Cement and Its Clinker

The major oxides in clinker are combined essentia lly into just four cemen t or clinker minerals, denoted in shorthand: tricalcium silicate or ‘alite’ (C 3 S); dicalcium silicate or ‘belite’ (C 2 S); tricalcium aluminate (C 3 A); and tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C 4 AF). These formulas represent averages, ignoring impurities commonly found in actua l clinker. It is the ratios of these four minerals (and gypsum) that determine the vary ing properties of differe nt 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.

1 True Type S cements are no longer commonly made in the United States. Instead, the na me 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-4 Table A-2: Typical Mineralogical Comp osition of Modern Portland Cement

Chemical Formula Oxide Formula Shorthand Notation Description Typical Percentage Mineral Function

Ca 3 SiO 5 (CaO) 3 SiO 2 C 3 S Tricalcium silicate (‘alite’) 50-70 Hydrates quickly and imparts early strength and set

Ca 2 SiO 4 (CaO) 2 SiO 2 C 2 S Dicalcium silicate (‘belite’) 10-30 Hydrates slowly and imparts long term (ages beyond 1 week) strength.

Ca 3 Al 2 O 6 (CaO) 3 Al 2 O 3 C 3 A Tricalcium aluminate 3-13 Hydrates almost instantaneously and very exothermically. Contributes to early strength and set.

Ca 4 Al 2 Fe 2 O 10 (CaO) 4 Al 2 O 3 Fe 2 O 3 C 4 AF Tetracalcium aluminoferrite 5-15 Hydrates quickly. Acts as a flux in clinker manufacture. Imparts gray color.

CaSO 4 ·2H 2 O (CaO)(SO 3 ) · (H 2 O) 2 C S H 2 Calcium sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) 3-7 Interground with clinker to make portland cement. Can substitute anhydrite

(C S ). Controls early

set.

CaSO 4 (CaO)(SO 3) C S Anhydrous calcium sulfate 0.2-2

Source: van Oss, 2005.

As indicated in Table A-2, some of the minerals in clinker serve diffe rent functions in the manufacturing process while others impart varying final properties to the cement. The proportion of C 3 S, for example, determines the degree of ear ly strength development of the cement. The “ferrite” mineral’s (C 4 AF) primary purpose, on the other hand, is to lower the temperature required in the kiln to form the C 3 S mineral, and really does not im part a specific property to the cement. Table A-3 presents the common minera logical compositions of Types I through IV cements and the unique properties of each type.A-5 Table A-3: Typical Range in Mineral Composition in Portland Cements Clinker Mineral Percent* ASTM C-150 Cement Type C 3 S C 2 S C 3 A C 4 AF Properties of Cement

I 50-65 10-30 6-14 7-10 General purpose

II 45-65 7-30 2-8 10-12 Moderate heat of hydration, moderate sulfat e resistance III 55-65 5-25 5-12 5-12 High early strength** IV 35-45 28-35 3-4 11-18 Low heat of hydration V 40-65 15-30 1-5 10-17 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 indi vidual angular partic les with a range of sizes, the result of pulverizing clinker in the grinding mill. Approximat ely 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 no t 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 Blaine air-permeability test (ASTM C 204 or AASHTO T 153), which indirectly measures the surface area of pa rticles per unit mass.

Table A-4: Fineness of Portland Cement

ASTM C - 150 Cement Type Fineness (cm 2 /g, Blaine) Range Mean I 3,000-4,210 3,690 II 3,180-4,800 3,770 III 3,900-6,440 5,480 IV 3,190-3,620 3,400 V 2,750-4,300 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 depe nding on how the cement is handled and stored. Reported bulk densities range from 830 to 1,650 kg/m 3 (Kosmatka, 2002).A-6 The Clinker Manufacturing Process

Portland cement manufacturing is a two-step process beginning w ith the manufacture of clinker followed by the fine grinding of th e clinker with gypsum and other additives to make the finished cement product. Grinding can occur on s ite or at offsite grinding plants.

The first step in clinker manufacture is th e 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 tran sport 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 conve rsion, referred to as pyroprocessing because it involves direct flame interaction. Figure A-1 provides a generalized flow diagram of the cement manufacturing process (van Oss, 2005).

Figure A-1: Cement Manuf acturing Flow Diagram

The raw materials for clinker manufacture consist primarily of materials that supply four primary oxides: Calcium oxide (CaO ), silicon dioxide (SiO 2 ), aluminum oxide (Al 2 O 3 ), and ferric oxide (Fe 2 O 3 ). The composition of the raw mix typically includes about 80% calcium carbonate, about 10% to 15% silica, and small amounts of al umina and iron. Depending on the quality and quantity of these oxides available to the facility, other raw material s, referred to as accessory or sweetener materials, are added to correct for a ny deficiencies in the primary raw materials. Certain types of fuel burned in the cement kiln can also cont ribute oxides (e.g., ash from coal combustion contributes silica oxi des, steel belts in waste ti res contribute iron oxide).A-7 Calcium oxide (CaO or simply C in shorthand) is the primary ingredient in clinker, comprising about 65% of clinker by mass. A cement plant t ypically 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, slat e, 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 th e desired clinker composition.

On average, it takes about 1.7 tons of nonfuel raw materials to produce 1 to n of clinker. Of the 1.7 tons of raw materials, approxi mately 1.5 tons is limestone or calcium oxide rich rock (van Oss, 2005). The lost mass takes the form of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) driven off by the calcination of limestone and the generation of CKD. Nearly one ton of CO 2 is produced for every ton of clinker manufactured (van Oss, 2005). The CKD that is produced during clinker ma nufacture 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 k iln 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 fi nish 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, ma sonry cements, ground slag). Additives that commonly require grinding at the mill include gyps um, 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 pr oduced at 113 plants in 37 states in the United States. The reported final production of ma sonry plus portland cement was 99.3 Mt, with portland cement alone accounting for 93.9 Mt of th is 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 contai ns a listing of cemen t plants operating in the United States in 2005. The estimated va lue of cement production for 2005 was about $8 billion. The final reported act ual value for portland plus masonry cement production in 2005 was $11.6 billion. Of this total, $10.9 billion was fo r portland cement alone (van Oss, 2007). Most of the cement was used to make ready mixed c oncrete (75%), while 14% went to concrete manufacturers, 6% to co ntractors, 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 re ported 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 ra w materials were used to produce cement andA-8 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 a nd 2004 to produce cement and clinker (van Oss, 2004).

Figure A-2: U.S. Cement PlantsA-9 Table A-5: U.S. Cement Statistics
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

------------------ ---------million metric tons

---------------- ------------- Estimated Cement Production 87.8 88.9 89.7 92.8 97.4 97.5*

Clinker Production 78.1 78.8 81.5 81.9 86.7 87.4 Imports of Cement 24.6 23.7 22.2 21.0 25.4 29.0 Imports of Clinker 3.7 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.6 2.8 Exports of Cement and Clinker 0.74 0.75 0.83 0.84 0.82 0.80

Average Price, Mill Value, $/ton 78.56 76.50 76.00 75.00 79.50 84.00

* Actual total masonry plus portland ceme nt 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
2003 2004 Clinker Cement Clinker Cement Raw Materials

------------------ ------thousand metric t ons------------------- Limestone 109,000 1,530 125,000 1,810 Cement rock 12,700 44 12,700 2
Cement kiln dust 289 149 333 165 Lime 22 27 24 29 Other calcareous 235 32 23 19 Clay 3,950 --* 4,740 -- Shale 2,630 8 3,700 29
Other aluminous 618 -- 661 -- Ferrous, iron ore, pyrites, millscale, other 1,340 -- 1,340 --

Sand and calcium silicate 2,860 2 3,150 -- Sandtone, quartzite soils, other 587 2 878 6 Coal Fly ash 2,250 39 2,890 77 Other ash, including bottom ash 1,100 -- 1,050 -- Granulated blast furnace slag 17 333 104 345 Other blast furnace slag 214 -- 189 -- Steel slag 448 -- 401 -- Other slags 113 -- 53 -- Natural rock pozzolans -- 25 -- 6 Other pozzolans 129 49 114 19 Gypsum and anhydrite -- 5,000 -- 5,300 Other, not elsewhere classified 70 68 106 98 Clinker, imported -- 4,240 -- 7,530 Total 139,000 11,500 157,000 15,400 *-- Indicates none reported.A-10 Concrete

Concrete is basically a mixtur e of two components: aggregate and cement paste. The cement paste, comprised of a binder (usually portland ce ment) 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 approxima tely 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 st ate in 2005 as reported by NRMCA. USGS estimates that total concrete production in the Un ited States in 2005 was valued at more than $48 billion (USGS, 2006). Although there are no data av ailable 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-11 Table A-7: Ready Mixed Concrete Production by State (2005)

State Production

(million cubic meters) Percent of National Production State Production

(million cubic meters) Percent of National Production Alabama 4.9 1.4% Nebraska 3.8 1.1%

Alaska 0.5 0.1% Nevada 7.3 2.1% Arizona 13.1 3.8% New Hampshire 0.6 0.2%

Arkansas 3.4 1.0% New Jersey 5.5 1.6% California 43.4 12.4% New Mexico 2.5 0.7%

Colorado 7.3 2.1% New York 8.9 2.6% Connecticut 2.2 0.6% North Carolina 8.2 2.4%

Delaware 0.6 0.2% North Dakota 1.0 0.3%
District of Columbia 0.6 0.2% Ohio 10.9 3.1%

Florida 31.6 9.1% Oklahoma 4.5 1.3% Georgia 12.4 3.6% Oregon 3.5 1.0% Hawaii 1.2 0.3% Pennsylvania 9.3 2.7%

Idaho 2.0 0.6% Puerto Rico 5.2 1.5% Illinois 11.6 3.3% Rhode Island 0.5 0.1% Indiana 6.1 1.8% South Carolina 5.0 1.4%

Iowa 5.4 1.6% South Dakota 1.4 0.4% Kansas 4.3 1.2% Tennessee 6.0 1.7% Kentucky 4.2 1.2% Texas 40.8 11.7% Louisiana 5.5 1.6% Utah 4.3 1.2% Maine 0.7 0.2% Vermont 0.4 0.1% Maryland 4.4 1.3% Virginia 7.5 2.1% Massachusetts 3.5 1.0% Washington 6.3 1.8% Michigan 8.2 2.4% West Virginia 1.4 0.4% Minnesota 5.7 1.6% Wisconsin 6.6 1.9% Mississippi 3.0 0.9% Wyoming 1.3 0.4% Missouri 8.0 2.3% Other 1.2 0.3% Montana 1.1 0.3% Total 348.8 100.0%

The character of concrete is determined by the quality of the cement paste (i.e., the cement and water mixture). The water to ceme nt ratio—the weight of the mixi ng water divided by the weight of the cement—plus the quality and type of cemen t determines the strength of the paste, and hence the strength of the conc rete. High-quality concrete is produced by lowering the watercement ratio as much as possible without sacrificing th e workability of fresh concrete. Generally, using less water produces a higher quality concre te provided the concrete is properly placed, consolidated, and cured.A-12 For a typical concrete mix, 1 me tric ton of cement (powder) w ill yield about 3.4 to 3.8 cubic meters of concrete weighing about 7 to 9 metric t ons (i.e., the density is ty pically 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 aggr egates together and cont ributes 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 qual ity and type of the cement and the water-tocement ratio (van Oss, 2005).APPENDIX B:

BACKGROUND OF RECOVERED MINERAL COMPONENTSB-1 Background of Recovered Mineral Components

B.1 Iron and Steel Slags

Ferrous slags are by-products from iron and st eel 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 comb ines with the aluminates and silicates in the ore and ash from the coke to produce this non-me tallic 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 al so can be used in the manufacture of clinker. More information on steel slag is provided in sec tion 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-1) (PCA, 2005).B-2 Figure B-1: Portland Cement Plants Utilizing SlagB-3 B.2 Blast Furnace Slag

Figure B-2: U.S. Blast Furnace Slag Producers

The chemical composition of blast furnace slag vari es, but Table B-1 presents a typical range of values (FHWA, 1998).

Table B-1: Typical Chemical Co mposition of Blast Furnace Slag

Constituent Mean Range

--------------- -----------percent by weight

------------- -------------- Calcium Oxide (CaO) 39.0 34 - 43 Silicon Dioxide (SiO 2 ) 36.0 27 - 38 Aluminum Oxide (Al 2 O 3 ) 10.0 7 - 12 Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 12.0 7 - 15 Iron (FeO or Fe 2 O 3 ) 0.5 0.2 - 1.6 Manganese Oxide (MnO) 0.4 0.15 - 0.76 Sulfur (S) 1.4 1.0 - 1.9B-4 The National Slag Association provided data on sl ag usage in concrete as aggregate and as a SCM for the years 1996 through 2005, which is summar ized 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)

Estimated Slag

Production Slag Used as Concrete Aggregate Slag Used as Supplementary Cementitious Material Year

------------------ ------------------ ---million metric tons--------

----------------- -------------- 1996 NA* NA 1.0
1997 NA 1.27 1.2
1998 NA 1.27 1.4
1999 NA 1.36 1.6
2000 10.9 1.27 1.8
2001 9.5 1.36 2.2
2002 9.2 1.36 2.6
2003 9.3 1.36 2.7
2004 9.3 1.45 3.2
2005 10.3 NA 3.3

*NA = data not available

GBFS is a glassy granular material, consisting mainly of silicates and aluminosilicates of calcium. The particle distribution, shape, a nd grain size of GBFS vary, depending on the chemical composition and method of production, fr om coarse, popcornlike friable particles to dense, sand-size grains. Whereas portland cement typically is ground to around 3,000-3,500

cm 2 /g (Blaine) in the United Stat es, granulated slag is typica lly ground even finer (to about 4,000 – 5,000 cm 2 /g (Blaine) to achieve satisfactory reactivity.

ASTM C 989 (AASHTO M302) classi fies 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 cementi ous character, that is, it will set up and gain strength on its own when mixed with water. In the presence of alka lis such as may be present in a concrete mix with portland cement, these al kalis will accelerate the hydration of the slag cement to levels similar to that of portland cemen t. Because of its cemen titious 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 us ed 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 sl ag 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 us e 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/m 3 (Kosmatka, 2002).B-5 Performance Record

Florida, Maryland, New Hampshire, and Oregon stat e 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) curre ntly have specifications covering the use of GGBFS as a partial replacement for portland cem ent. Some state agencies have reported durability problems (decreased salt scaling resist ance) 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 Asso ciation, there are five companie s producing silica fume in the United States. USGS data indica te that in 2004, silic on 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 cu rrently importing silica fume from Venezuela, Spain, Argentina, Norway and Iceland. U.S. co mpanies 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-6 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 waterreducing admixtures or superpla sticizers. These admixtures are necessary because the high surface area of silica fume increas es water demand in concrete, which can have a detrimental effect on concrete properties. The use of wate r-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 concre te properties through both physical and chemical mechanisms. Physically, th e extremely small size of silica fume particles allows them to occupy spaces between cement grai ns, an arrangement typically referred to as particle packing or micro-filling. Chemically, si lica 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 th e 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 imp roves the efficiency of shotcreting. Second,B-7 silica fume reduces the bleeding in concrete by reducing porosity and reacting with lime. Bleeding leads to the formation of capillary chan nels, 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 perf ormance concrete (HPC) varies depending on the application and desired performan ce characteristics of the concrete, but typically ranges from 5% to 20% on a dry weight basis. HP C containing silica fume also ofte n 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 fi nishing, 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 c onstruction 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 physic al 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 hand ling 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-8 Figure B-4: Cement Mix Continuum

The figure above shows that the efficiency of a pound of cement to concre te 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 stre ngth becomes more difficult to implement.

B.4 Coal Fly Ash

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts several annual survey s to collect data on electric power plants. One such survey (EIA-860: Annual Electric Generator Report) (U.S. DOE, 2004) includes data about genera tors 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 coal 2 as a primary fuel source. Of thes e units, 1,220 were classified as NACIS 22 (electric, gas and sanitary serv ices). It is likely that this represents the universe of U.S. generators that would produce coal co mbustion products, including coal fly ash.

2 This includes facilities that burn anthracite, bituminous and subbitumino us coal, lignite, waste coal and synthetic coal.B-9 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 Op eration and Design Data ) gathers information on, among other things, coal combustion product production. In 2004, 426 fac ilities reported data on coal fly ash production. These data indicate that approximat ely 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 th at 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 abunda nt 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 numb er of facilities producing coal fly ash, and coal fly ash production and disposit ion by state. Additional details on these facilities are included in Appendix .CB-10 Figure B-5: U.S. Coal Fly Ash Producers by StateB-11 Table B-3: Coal Fly Ash Production and Disposition, by State (2004)* Total Fly Ash Production Fly Ash Landfilled Fly Ash Ponded Fly Ash Usedor Stored OnSite Fly Ash Sold Fly Ash Disposed Off-site State Number of Plants --------------------------------------thousand metric tons---------------------------------- AL 10 2,150 672 982 -- 396 99
AR 3 455 189 -- -- 266 -- AZ 6 1,800 550 178 -- 1,050 23
CA 1 46 46 -- -- -- -- CO 11 1,090 484 3 41 141 421
CT 4 75 -- -- -- -- 75 DE 2 3,269 114 -- 3,075 -- 81 FL 17 2,658 732 62 42 1,230 593 GA 11 2,369 540 1,054 -- 721 54
HI 1 7 -- -- -- -- 7
IA 12 838 125 34 59 447 173 IL 23 2,060 18 365 163 683 831 IN 20 4,410 704 2,531 663 382 130
KS 7 642 250 83 -- 279 31 KY 19 3,490 1,718 1,172 153 181 266
LA 4 997 383 160 10 445 --
MA 6 248 -- -- 4 76 168 MD 9 1,403 381 20 -- 379 624
ME 3 578 557 -- -- -- 20 MI 15 1,590 656 535 67 289 44
MN 10 860 314 389 -- 146 11 MO 15 1,252 206 409 6 560 70 MS 6 1,396 742 79 90 431 54
MT 2 613 -- 572 16 24 -- NC 17 2,796 389 900 830 524 153 ND 7 1,299 843 -- 48 354 54
NE 6 321 91 -- 7 216 8
NH 3 78 13 -- -- 3 62
NJ 6 400 -- -- -- -- 400 NM 3 2,449 -- 397 92 442 1,518
NV 3 553 269 -- -- 284 --
NY 12 739 293 -- 1 157 287 OH 22 4,124 1,249 1,504 -- 555 814
OK 7 926 149 18 19 461 278
OR 1 64 -- -- -- 64 -- PA 25 4,262 1,928 578 416 855 484 SC 13 1,177 135 253 -- 751 38
SD 1 33 25 -- -- 8 -- TN 8 1,758 662 493 35 373 195 TX 20 5,837 2,209 76 9 3,042 501 UT 6 1,355 771 11 333 240 -- VA 15 1,573 730 263 34 17 528
WA 1 463 143 -- -- 320 --
WI 14 961 74 -- 95 780 14 WV 14 3,201 1,871 721 213 346 51 WY 5 1,125 478 81 -- 461 105 Total 426 69,791 21,702 13,921 6,519 18,383 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 VermontB-12 Coal fly ash is a finely divided powder resemb ling portland cement. Most of the coal fly ash particles are solid sphe res 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 μ m (micrometer) to more than 100 μ m with the typical par ticle measuring under 20 μ m. Only 10% to 30% of the partic les by mass are larger than 45 μ m. The surface area of coal fly ash is typically 3,000 to 5,000 cm 2 /gm, although some fly ashes can have surface areas as low as 2,000 cm 2 /gm and as high as 7,000 cm 2 /gm. For coal fly ash wit hout close compaction, the bulk density can vary from 540 to 860 kg/m 3 , but with close packed stor age or vibration, the range can be 1,120 to 1,500 kg/m 3 . The specific gravity of coal fly ash generally ranges between 1.9 and 2.8 (Kosmatka, 2002).

Coal fly ash consists primarily of silicate gl ass containing silica, alumina, iron and calcium. Minor constituents are magnesi um, sulfur, sodium, potassium and carbon. This makeup gives coal fly ash its pozzolanic proper ties, meaning that it reacts with water and free lime (calcium oxide) to produce a cement-like compound. ASTM C 618 (AASHTO M295) cl assifies coal fly ash as Class C and Class F based on their pozzola nic and cementitious properties. Some coal fly ash meets both Class C and F classifications.

• Class C Coal Fly Ash is high-calcium, containing typi cally 10% to 30% calcium oxide with carbon contents less than 2%. Many Cl ass 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 ma y have carbon contents as high as 10%. Many Class F ashes have pozzolanic propertie s—they require addition of lime to form cementitious compounds.

Table B-4 presents typical chemi cal compositions for coal fly as h produced from different coal types (FHWA, 1998)

Table B-4: Chemical Composition of Various Coal Fly Ash Types Coal Type Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite Component

------------------ -----------------p ercent by weight---

------------- ------------ SiO 2 20 - 60 40 - 60 15 - 45
Al 2 O 3 5 - 35 20 - 30 10 - 25
Fe 2 O 3 10 - 40 4 - 10 4 - 15
CaO 1 - 12 5 - 30 15 - 40 MgO 0 - 5 1 - 6 3 - 10
SO 3 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 - 10
Na 2 O 0 - 4 0 - 2 0 - 6
K 2 O 0 - 3 0 - 4 0 - 4 Loss on Ignition 0 - 15 0 - 3 0 - 5B-13 Figure B-6 shows the locations of the 39 portland cem ent 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 Plan ts Utilizing Coal Fly Ash (PCA, 2005b)B-14 B.5 Foundry Sand

Foundry sand is produced by five different f oundry 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 purcha se high-quality, size-s pecific 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 inse rted 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, a nd the cycle begins ag ain (see Figure B-7) (FHWA, 2004).

Figure B-7: How sand is reused and becomes foundry sand

Two general types of binder systems are used in metalcasting: clay-bonde d systems (green sand) and chemically-bonded systems. Both types of sand are suitable for benefici al use but they have different physical and environmenta l 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 occurr ing materials which are blended together: high quality silica sand (85% to 95%); bentonite clay (4% to10%) 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 comm only used RFS for beneficial reuse.

• Chemically bonded sand are used both in coremaking, wh ere 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 coarse r in texture than clay bonded sand.B-15 Availability

Foundries are located throughout the United States in all 50 states. The top ten foundry production states are Alabama, Ca lifornia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin. There are ap proximately 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 clinke r to produce finished cement products.

Figure B-8: U.S. Portland Cement Plan ts Utilizing FGD Ma terials (PCA, 2005b)B-16 Table B-5 shows the FGD gypsum production and di sposition in the United States by state in 2004.

Table B-5: FGD Gypsum Production and Disposition, by State (2004)

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 State Number of Plants

-------------------------------------thousand metric tons-----------------------------------------
AL 2 452 -- 405 -- 47 -- FL 3 1,359 -- -- 160 1,199 --
GA 1 29 -- -- -- 29 --
IA 1 20 -- -- -- 20 --
IL 1 160 6 -- -- 154 --
IN 3 879 - 4 -- 875 -- KY 5 1,738 -- 466 -- 1,272 --
NJ 1 39 -- -- -- 39 --
NY 1 91 6 -- -- 86 --
OH 2 576 -- -- -- 576 -- PA 4 1,539 148 -- -- 959 432
SC 1 242 -- -- 101 141 -- TN 1 1,238 -- -- -- 1,238 --
TX 4 329 59 197 -- 73 --
WA 1 481 103 -- -- 378 --
WV 1 222 -- -- -- 222 -- Total 32 9,394 322 1,072 261 7,307 432

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 distribu tion may be encountered in ash sample s 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 functi on of chemical composition, with higher carbon content resulting in lower speci fic 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/m 3 (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 subbituminous coals has a higher percentage of cal cium 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 bo ttom ashes from different coal sources (FHWA, 1998).B-17 Table B-6: Chemical Composition of Select Bottom Ash

Coal Type: Bituminous Subbituminous Lignite West Virginia Ohio Texas Location:

------------------ --------------percent by weight---------------

--------------- ----------- SiO 2 53.6 45.9 47.1 45.4 70.0
Al 2 O 3 28.3 25.1 28.3 19.3 15.9
Fe 2 O 3 5.8 14.3 10.7 9.7 2.0
CaO 0.4 1.4 0.4 15.3 6.0 MgO 4.2 5.2 5.2 3.1 1.9
Na 2 O 1.0 0.7 0.8 1.0 0.6
K 2 O 0.3 0.2 0.2 -- 0.1

Table B-7 indicates production and dis position of bottom ash by state for 2004.

Table B-7: Bottom Ash Production and Disposition, by State (2004)*

Bottom Ash Total Bottom Ash Landfilled Bottom Ash Ponded Bottom Ash Used or Stored

On-site Bottom Ash Sold Bottom Ash Disposed

Offsite State Number of Plants

-----------------------------------thousand metric tons------------------------------------------
AL 9 548 136 252 106 53 1
AR 3 166 126 13 1 25 2
AZ 6 496 373 115 - 3 6
CO 11 237 85 3 28 18 103
CT 3 26 - - - - 26
DE 2 53 - - 43 8 2
FL 17 466 201 15 33 149 68
GA 10 451 69 205 11 166 -
HI 1 0 - - - - 0
IA 12 245 16 73 6 110 39 IL 23 1,183 - 158 130 656 239 IN 20 1,379 33 564 302 428 51
KS 7 369 46 72 32 209 10
KY 18 760 124 379 70 42 145
LA 5 164 10 76 - 78 -
MA 4 49 - - 3 36 10
MD 8 360 32 5 50 157 116
ME 3 149 149 - - - 0
MI 15 356 140 2 152 49 13
MN 10 256 17 58 131 48 1
MO 16 766 6 355 12 391 2
MS 5 228 131 0 44 53 -
MT 2 251 - 245 2 4 -
NC 16 395 31 165 37 98 64
ND 7 762 201 247 215 46 53
NE 6 104 51 - 2 47 5 NH 3 51 - - (10) 58 2
NJ 6 105 - - - 62 43
NM 3 598 - - 247 - 351
NV 4 184 184 - - - 0B-18 Bottom Ash Total Bottom Ash Landfilled Bottom Ash Ponded Bottom Ash Used or Stored

On-site Bottom Ash Sold Bottom Ash Disposed

Offsite State Number of Plants

-----------------------------------thousand metric tons------------------------------------------
NY 11 208 39 - 92 40 37 OH 22 1,213 18 399 266 360 169
OK 6 232 20 13 2 85 113
OR 1 22 13 - - 9 -
PA 22 906 375 17 103 318 93
SC 14 277 41 138 - 65 33
SD 1 62 44 - - 18 -
TN 7 350 - 110 198 39 3 TX 19 2,665 1,724 132 83 557 168
UT 6 403 292 111 - - -
VA 13 596 204 79 60 73 180 WA 1 1,129 301 - 332 496 -
WI 13 241 52 - 43 147 1
WV 14 566 126 98 128 201 13
WY 5 415 275 140 - - - Total 410 20,442 5,685 4,238 2,952 5,405 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-19 Figure B-9: U.S. Portland Cement Plants Utilizing Bottom Ash/Boiler Slag (PCA, 2005b)B-20 B.8 Boiler Slag

Boiler slags are predominantly single-sized and w ithin 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 sl ag will become somewhat vesicular or porous. Boiler slag from the burning of lignite or subbitu minous coal tends to be more porous than that of the eastern bituminous coals. Boiler slag is e ssentially the size of coar se 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 passi ng 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 typica lly in the range of 960 to 1,440 kg/m 3 (FHWA, 1998).

Boiler slag is composed principally of silica, alumina, and iron, with smaller percentages of calcium, magnesium, sulfates, and other compou nds. Like bottom ash, the composition of the boiler slag particles is controll ed primarily by the source of th e 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: Bituminous Lignite West Virginia North Dakota Location: -------------------------------------percent by weight------------------------------------------- SiO 2 48.9 53.6 40.5
Al 2 O 3 21.9 22.7 13.8
Fe 2 O 3 14.3 10.3 14.2
CaO 1.4 1.4 22.4 MgO 5.2 5.2 5.6
Na 2 O 0.7 1.2 1.7
K 2 O 0.1 0.1 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-21 B.9 Steel Slag

Steel slag aggregates are highly angular in sh ape 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, tri calcium silicate, dicalci um 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 practi ce and the steel slag cooling rate. Table B-9 presents the typical chem ical 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/m 3 (FHWA, 1998).

Table B-9: Typical Chemical Co mposition of Steel Furnace Slag Constituent Range (percent by weight) CaO 40 - 52
SiO 2 10 - 19
Al 2 O 3 1 - 3 MgO 5 - 10
FeO and Fe 2 O 3 10 - 40
MnO 5 - 8
S < 0.1
P 2 O 5 0.5 - 1
Metallic Fe 0.5 - 10

B.10 Cement Kiln Dust (CKD)

CKD is a fine, dry, alkaline dust that readily ab sorbs water. It is com posed of particles of unburned or partially burned feed stock materials, dehydrated cl ay, decarbonated (calcined) limestone, ash from combusted fuels, and various minerals formed during the different stages of the clinkering process. While composition varies fr om 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 larges t component of CKD, approaching as much as 50% by weight in some cases (U.S. EPA, 1993).

CKD is very fine grained with par ticle diameters ranging from near zero μ m to greater than 50

μ m. At least 55% of CKD measures less than 30 μ m and nearly 82% is less than 50 μ m (U.S. EPA, 1993). Because of its fine grained nature, C KD is readily entrained and transported in the continuous, rapidly flowing, and hi ghly turbulent gas flow of cement kilns. To remove these entrained fine particles from kiln exhaust gas re quires 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 proces sing industries, can not be us ed due to the chemically dehydrated nature and cementitious properties of CKD. Cement kiln dust collection systems are especially effective at removing CKD from exhaus t gas, typically exhib iting 98% to nearly 100% removal efficiencies (U.S. EPA, 1993).B-22 CKD’s alkaline nature derives from its hi gh concentrations of CaO and other alkaline compounds including K 2 O, NaOH, Na 2 CO 3 , and NaSO 4 . Even though CKD is a highly alkaline material, because it is a so lid, 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 corro sive solids.) When mixed with water, however, the resulting CKD and water mixtures often have pH levels greater than 12.5 and th erefore do exhibit the corrosivity characteristic. Studies using the standard EPA leachi ng 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 bene ficial applications. Studi es performed by EPA in preparation for its 1993 Report to Congress consisten tly found eight Toxicity Characteristic (TC) metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver) and nine other metals (antimony, beryllium, copper, mangan ese, nickel, strontium, thallium, vanadium, and zinc) present in CKD samples. The pre dominant metals were antimony, barium, lead, manganese, strontium, thallium, and zinc. The othe rs 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 Characte ristic levels (U.S. EPA, 1993). A few of the samples, however, did yield results above the re gulatory 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 chem ical composition of CKD (FHWA, 1998).

Table B-10: Typical Chemic al Composition of CKD Stockpiled Fresh Sample 1 Sample 2 Parameter -------------------------------------percent by weight------------------------------------------- CaO 40.5 31.4 44.2
Free Lime 4.4 0.0 0.0
SiO 2 14.5 11.7 11.9
Al 2 O 3 4.1 3.18 3.24 MgO 1.55 0.97 1.73
Na 2 O 3 0.44 0.13 0.27
K 2 O 4.66 1.65 2.92
Fe 2 O 3 2.00 2.16 1.45
SO 3 6.50 8.24 2.40 Loss on Ignition, 105°C 22.9 40.4 30.2

Figure B-10 below shows the amount of CKD dis posed in landfills from 1990 through 2004 and compares the amount of CKD disposed in landfil ls to clinker production during this same time period. The graph below represents CKD recove red from CKD scrubbers and does not reflect any CKD automatically re-duc ted back into the kiln.B-23 Figure B-10 CKD Landfilled; CKD La ndfilled versus Clinker ProducedAPPENDIX C:

CEMENT AND RMC PRODUCERSC-1 Table C-1: U.S. Cement Plants (PCA, 2006)

Company City State CEMEX Demopolis AL Holcim (US) Inc. Theodore AL Lafarge North America, Inc. Calera AL Lehigh SE Cement Company Roberta AL National Cement Company Of Alabama Ragland AL California Portland Cement Company Rillito AZ Phoenix Cement Company (a.k.a., Salt River Materials) Clarkdale AZ

Ash Grove Cement Company Foreman AR California Portland Cement Company Colton CA California Portland Cement Company Mojave CA

CEMEX Victorville CA Texas Industries, Inc. Riverside CA Hanson Permanente Cement (recently purchased by Lehigh) Cupertino CA

Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Tehachapi CA Lehigh Southwest Cement Company Redding CA Mitsubishi Cement Corporation Lucerne Valley CA National Cement Company Of California Lebec CA RMC Pacific Materials, Inc. (now part of CEMEX) Davenport CA Texas Industries, Inc. (TXI Riverside Cement) Oro Grande and Crestmore CA CEMEX Lyons CO Holcim (US) Inc. (facility is closed) LaPorte CO Holcim (US) Inc. Florence CO

CEMEX Brooksville FL Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Newberry FL Lafarge North America, In c. (owned by Florida Rock Industries) Palmetto FL

Lafarge North America, In c. (owned by Florida Rock Industries) Tampa FL

Rinker Materials (owned by CEMEX) Brooksville FL Rinker Materials (owned by CEMEX) Miami FL Tarmac America, Inc. Medley FL

CEMEX Clinchfield GA Lafarge North America, Inc. Atlanta GA Ash Grove Cement Company Inkom ID

Centex Construction Produ cts, Inc. (Eagle Materials) La Salle IL

Dixon-Marquette Cement Company (St Mary’s Cement) Dixon IL

Lafarge North America, Inc. Grand Chain IL Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Oglesby IL Essroc Cement Corp. Speed IN Essroc Cement Corp. Logansport IN Lehigh Cement Company Mitchell IN Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Greencastle INC-2 Company City State Holcim (US) Inc. Mason City IA Lafarge North America, Inc. Buffalo IA Lehigh Cement Company Mason City IA Ash Grove Cement Company Chanute KS Lafarge North America, Inc. Fredonia KS Monarch Cement Company Humboldt KS RC Cement Company, Inc. Independence KS Kosmos Cement Company (operated by CEMEX) Louisville KY Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) New Orleans LA Dragon Products Company Thomaston ME Essroc Cement Corp. Frederick MD Lehigh Cement Company Union Bridge MD St. Lawrence Cement Company Hagerstown MD

CEMEX Charlevoix MI Essroc Cement Corp. Essexville MI Holcim (US) Inc. Dundee MI Lafarge North America, Inc. Alpena MI St. Marys Cement, Inc. (U.S.) Detroit MI Holcim (US) Inc. Artesia MS Continental Cement Company, Inc. Hannibal MO Holcim (US) Inc. Clarksville MO Lafarge North America, Inc. Sugar Creek MO

Lone Star Industries , Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Cape Girardeau MO RC Cement Company, Inc. (B uzzi Unicem) Fustus MO Ash Grove Cement Company Montana City MT Holcim (US) Inc. Three Forks MT Ash Grove Cement Company Louisville NE Centex Construction Products, Inc. Fernley NV Royal Cement Company, Inc. (facility closed) Logandale NV GCC Rio Grande Tijeras NM Lehigh Cement Company Glens Falls NY Lehigh Cement Company Cementon NY Lafarge North America, Inc. Ravena NY St. Lawrence Cement Company Catskill NY

CEMEX Fairborn OH Lafarge North America, Inc. Paulding OH Holcim (US) Inc. Ada OK Lafarge North America, Inc. Tulsa OK Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Pryor OK Ash Grove Cement Company Durkee OR Armstrong Cement & Sup. Corp. Cabot PA CEMEX Wampum PA Essroc Cement Corp. Nazareth PA Essroc Cement Corp. Bessemer PA Giant Cement Holding, Inc. Bath PA Lafarge North America, Inc. Whitehall PA Lehigh Cement Company Evansville PAC-3 Company City State Lehigh Cement Company York PA RC Cement Company, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Stockertown PA Giant Cement Holding, Inc. Harleyville SC Holcim (US) Inc. Holly Hill SC Lafarge North America, Inc. Harleyville SC GCC Dacotah Rapid City SD

CEMEX Knoxville TN RC Cement Company, Inc. (B uzzi Unicem) Chattanooga TN Alamo Cement Company San Antonio TX Capitol Aggregates, Ltd. San Antonio TX

CEMEX Odessa TX

CEMEX New Braunfels TX

Texas Industries Inc. New Braunfels TX

Texas Industries Inc. Midlothian TX Texas-Lehigh Cement Company Buda TX Holcim (US) Inc. Midlothian TX Lehigh Cement Company Waco TX Lone Star Industries, Inc. (Buzzi Unicem) Maryneal TX North Texas Cement Company, L.P. (Ash Grove Texas LP) Midlothian TX

Ash Grove Cement Company Leamington UT Holcim (US) Inc. Morgan UT Roanoke Cement Company Cloverdale VA Ash Grove Cement Company Seattle WA Lafarge North America, Inc. Seattle WA Lehigh Northwest Cement Company Bellingham WA Essroc Cement Corp. Martinsburg WV

Centex Construction Product s, Inc. Laramie WYC-4 Table C-2: U.S. Blast Furnace Sl ag Processors (van Oss, 2004b)

Company City State Fritz Enterprises, Inc. Fairfield AL Holcim (US) Inc. Birmingham (Fairfield) AL Civil & Marine, Inc. (Hanson Slag Cement) Cape Canaveral FL

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. Tampa FL Rinker Materials Corp. Miami FL Titan Florida, Inc. Medley FL Lafarge North America, Inc. Chicago IL Lafarge North America, Inc. Joppa IL Holcim (US) Inc. Gary IN Lafarge North America, Inc. East Chicago IN Levy Co., Inc., The Burns Harbor IN Levy Co., Inc., The East Chicago IN Levy Co., Inc., The Gary IN Mountain Enterprises, Inc. Ashland KY
Stein, Inc. Ashland KY
Buzzi Unicem USA, In c. New Orleans LA Lafarge North America, In c. Sparrows Point MD MultiServ Sparrows Point MD Edward C. Levy Co. Detroit MI Edward C. Levy Co. Detroit MI St. Marys Cement, Inc. Detroit MI St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. Camden NJ Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc. Woodlawn NY Glens Falls-Lehigh Cement Co. Cementon NY Essroc Corp. Middlebranch OH Lafarge North America, Inc. Cleveland (Cuyahoga Co.) OH Lafarge North America, Inc. Lordstown OH Lafarge North America, Inc. McDonald OH Lafarge North America, Inc. Salt Springs (Youngstown) OH Lafarge North America, Inc. Warren OH Stein, Inc. Cleveland OH
Stein, Inc. Lorain OH Tube City IMS Corporation Middletown OH Tube City IMS Corporation Mingo Junction OH Beaver Valley Slag Aliquippa PA Lafarge North America, Inc. West Mifflin PA Lafarge North America, Inc. West Mifflin (Brown Reserve) PA Lafarge North America, Inc. Whitehall PA Lehigh Cement Evansville PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Bethlehem PA
MultiServ Geneva (Provo) UT Lafarge North America, Inc. Seattle WA Holcim (US) Inc. Weirton WV Lafarge North America, Inc. Weirton WVC-5 Table C-3: U.S. Steel Slag Processors (van Oss, 2004b)

Company City State AMSI Holsopple PA Barfield Enterprises, Inc. La Place LA Barfield Enterprises, Inc. Lone Star TX Beaver Valley Slag Aliquippa PA Beaver Valley Slag (Thor Mill Services) Roanoke VA Blackheart Slag Company Mu scatine (Montpelier) IA Border Steel, Inc. El Paso TX Edward C. Levy Company Decatur (Trinity) AL Edward C. Levy Company Butler IN Edward C. Levy Company Columbia City IN Edward C. Levy Company Crawfordsville IN Edward C. Levy Company Detroit MI Edward C. Levy Company Detroit MI Edward C. Levy Company Canton OH Edward C. Levy Company Delta OH Edward C. Levy Company Huger SC Fritz Enterprises, Inc. Fairfield AL Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation Jacksonville FL Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation Charlotte NC Levy Company, Inc., The Burns Harbor IN MultiServ Birmingham AL

MultiServ Tuscaloosa AL MultiServ Blytheville AR MultiServ Blytheville (Armorel) AR

MultiServ Pueblo CO MultiServ Wilton (Muscatine) IA MultiServ East Chicago IN

MultiServ Indiana Harbor IN

MultiServ Ghent KY MultiServ Sparrows Point MD MultiServ Ahoskie (Cofield) NC

MultiServ Canton OH

MultiServ Mansfield OH

MultiServ Warren OH MultiServ Braddock (Mon Valley) PA

MultiServ Butler PA

MultiServ Coatesville PA MultiServ Koppel PA

MultiServ Steelton PA

MultiServ Midlothian TX MultiServ Geneva (Provo) UT

MultiServ Seattle WA Stein, Inc. Sterling IL Stein, Inc. Ashland KY Stein, Inc. Cleveland OHC-6 Company City State Stein, Inc. Loraine OH Tube City IMS Corporation Birmingham AL Tube City IMS Corporation Newport AR Tube City IMS Corporation Rancho Cucamonga CA Tube City IMS Corporation Portage IN Tube City IMS Corporation Norfolk NE Tube City IMS Corporation Perth Amboy NJ Tube City IMS Corporation Sayreville NJ Tube City IMS Corporation Middletown OH Tube City IMS Corporation Mingo Junction OH Tube City IMS Corporation Youngstown OH Tube City IMS Corporation Sand Springs OK Tube City IMS Corporation Cayce SC Tube City IMS Corporation Knoxville TN Tube City IMS Corporation Seguin TX Tube City IMS Corporation Petersburg VA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Axis AL Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Fort Smith AR Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Newport AR Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Kingman AZ Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Claymont DE Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Cartersville GA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Wilton (Muscatine) IA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Kankakee IL Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Peoria IL Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Laplace LA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Jackson MI Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Monroe MI Tube City-IMS, IMS Division St. Paul MN Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Jackson MS Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Charlotte NC Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Perth Amboy NJ Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Sayreville NJ Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Auburn NY Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Marion OH Tube City-IMS, IMS Division McMinnville OR Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Portland OR Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Bethlehem PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Bridgeville PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Midland PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Monroeville PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division New Castle PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Park Hill (Johnstown) PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Pricedale PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Reading PA Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Darlington SC Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Georgetown SCC-7 Company City State Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Jackson TN Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Beaumont TX Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Jewett TX Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Longview TX Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Plymouth UT Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Saukville WI Tube City-IMS, IMS Division Weirton WVC-8 Table C-4: U.S. Facilities Producing Coal Fly Ash (U.S. DOE, 2004b)

Utility Name Plant Name City State Alabama Electric Coop, Inc. Charles R Lowman Leroy AL Alabama Power Co. Barry Bucks AL

Alabama Power Co. Gadsden East Gadsden AL Alabama Power Co. Gorgas Parrish AL Alabama Power Co. Greene County Demopolis AL

Alabama Power Co. E C Ga ston Wilsonville AL Alabama Power Co. James H Miller Jr Quinton AL International Paper Co.-Courtland Intern ational Paper Courtland Mill Courtland AL Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Tuscumbia AL Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Stevenson AL Entergy Arkansas, Inc. White Bluff Redfield AR Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Independence Newark AR

Southwestern Electric Power Co. Flint Creek Gentry AR Arizona Electric Pwr Coop, Inc. Apache Station Cochise AZ

Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Joseph City AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Navajo Page AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Coronado St Johns AZ UNS Electric, Inc. H Wilson Sundt Gene rating Station Cherry Bell Station AZ UNS Electric, Inc. Springerville Springerville AZ ACE Cogeneration Co. ACE Cogeneration Facility Trona CA Colorado Springs, City of Mar tin Drake Colorado Springs CO Colorado Springs, City of Ray D Nixon Fountain CO Platte River Power Authority Rawhide Wellington CO Public Service Co. of Colorado Arapahoe Denver CO

Public Service Co. of Colo rado Cherokee Denver CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Comanche Pueblo CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Valmont Boulder CO Public Service Co. of Colorado Hayden Hayden CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Pawnee Brush CO Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Nucla Nucla CO Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Craig Craig CO

AES Thames LLC AES Thames Uncasville CT NRG Devon Operations, Inc. Devon Station Devon CT NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations NRG Norwalk Harbor South Norwalk CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Bridgeport Station Bridgeport CT Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. Edge Moor Edgemoor DE Indian River Operations, Inc. Indian River Operations Millsboro DE Central Power & Lime, Inc. Central Power & Lime Brooksville FL Florida Power & Light Co. Cape Canaveral Cocoa FL Florida Power & Light Co. Riviera Riviera Beach FL Florida Power & Light Co. Sanford Lake Monroe FL Florida Power & Light Co. Manatee Parrish FL Gainesville Regional Utilities Deerha ven Generating Station Alachua FL

Gulf Power Co. Crist Pensacola FL Gulf Power Co. Lansing Smith Southport FL FLC-9 Utility Name Plant Name City State Indiantown Cogeneration LP Indiantown Cogen Facility Indiantown FL

JEA St Johns River Po wer Park Oceanway FL JEA Northside Generating Station Oceanway FL

Orlando Utilities Comm Stanton En ergy Center Alafaya Branch FL PG&E Operating Service Co. Cedar Bay Generating LP Jacksonville FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Crystal River Crystal River FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. P L Bartow St Petersburg FL Seminole Electric Coop Inc. Seminole Bostwick FL Tampa Electric Co. Big Bend Ruskin FL Georgia Power Co. Bowen Taylorsville GA Georgia Power Co. Hammond Coosa GA Georgia Power Co. Harllee Branch Milledgeville GA Georgia Power Co. Jack McDonough Smyrna GA Georgia Power Co. Mitchell Putney GA Georgia Power Co. Yates Sargent GA Georgia Power Co. Wansley Roopville GA Georgia Power Co. Scherer Juliette GA International Paper Co. International Paper Savanna Mill Savannah GA

Savannah Electric & Power Co. Kraft Port Wentworth GA

Savannah Electric & Power Co. McIntosh Rincon GA AES Corp AES Hawaii Kapolei HI

Archer Daniels Midland Co. Archer Daniels Midland Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Milton L Kapp Clinton IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Prairie Creek Cedar Rapids IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Sutherland Marshalltown IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Burlington Burlington IA Interstate Power and Light Ottumwa Ottumwa IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Riverside Bettendorf IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Council Bluffs Council Bluffs IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Geor ge Neal North Salix IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Louisa Muscatine IA MidAmerican Energy Co. George Neal South Salix IA Muscatine, City of Musca tine Plant #1 Muscatine IA Ameren Energy Generating Co. Coffeen Coffeen IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Hutsonville Hutsonville IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Meredosia Meredosia IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Newton Newton IL Ameren Energy Resources Generating E D Edwards Bartonville IL Ameren Energy Resources Generating Duck Creek Canton IL

Archer Daniels Midland Co. Archer Daniels Midl and Decatur Decatur IL Dominion Energy Services Co. Kincaid Generation LLC Kincaid IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Baldwin Energy Complex Baldwin IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Havana Havana IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Hennepin Power Station Hennepin IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Vermilion Oakwood ILC-10 Utility Name Plant Name City State Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Wood River East Alton IL Electric Energy, Inc. Joppa Steam Joppa IL
Midwest Generations EME LLC Joliet 29 Joliet IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Crawford Chicago IL
Midwest Generations EME LLC Joliet 9 Joliet IL

Midwest Generations EME LLC Powerton Pekin IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Waukegan Waukegan IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Will County Romeoville IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Fisk Street Chicago IL Southern Illinois Power Coop Marion Marion IL Springfield, City of Dallman Springfield IL Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. Warrick Newburgh IN Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc. Frank E Ratts Petersburg IN Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc. Merom Sullivan IN Indiana Michigan Power Co. Ta nners Creek Lawrenceburg IN Indiana Michigan Power Co . Rockport Rockport IN Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp Clifty Creek Madison IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. Harding Street Indianapolis IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. Eagle Valley Martinsville IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. AES Petersburg Petersburg IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co. Bailly Chesterton IN

Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co. Mi chigan City Michigan City IN

Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co . R M Schahfer Wheatfield IN PSI Energy, Inc. Cayuga Cayuga IN PSI Energy, Inc. Edward sport Edwardsport IN PSI Energy, Inc. R Gallagher New Albany IN PSI Energy, Inc. Wabash River Terre Haute IN PSI Energy, Inc. Gibson Mt Carmel IN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co. F B Culley Newburgh IN

Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co. A B Brown Mount Vernon IN State Line Energy LLC State Line Energy Hammond IN Kansas City, City of Quindaro Fairfax Station KS Kansas City, City of Nearman Creek Robert L Roberts STA KS Kansas City Power & Light Co. La Cygne La Cygne KS Sunflower Electric Power Corp Holcomb Holcomb KS Westar Energy Lawrence Energy Center Lawrence, Kansas KS Westar Energy Tecumseh Energy Center Tecumseh KS Westar Energy Jeffrey Energy Center Belvue KS

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. East Bend Rabbit Hash KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. Cooper Burnside KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. Dale Winchester KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. H L Spurlock Maysville KY Kentucky Power Co. Big Sandy Louisa KY Kentucky Utilities Co. E W Brown Burgin KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Ghent Ghent KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Green River Central City KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Tyrone Versailles KYC-11 Utility Name Plant Name City State

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. Cane Run Louisville KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. Mill Creek Louisville KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co . Trimble County Bedford KY Owensboro, City of Elmer Smith Daviess KY Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Drakesboro KY Tennessee Valley Authority Shawnee West Paducah KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Kenneth C Coleman Hawesville KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp HMP&L Station Two Henderson Sebree KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp R D Green Sebree KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp D B Wilson Centertown KY

Cleco Power LLC Dolet Hills Mansfield LA

Cleco Power LLC Rodemacher Lena LA Entergy Gulf States, Inc. R S Nelson Lake Charles LA Louisiana Generating LLC Big Cajun 2 New Roads LA Consolidated Edison E MA, Inc. West Springfield West Springfield MA Dominion Energy New England Brayton Point Somerset MA

Mirant Canal LLC Canal Sandwich MA Northeast Generation Services Co. Mount Tom Holyoke MA

Somerset Power LLC Somers et Station Somerset MA U S Gen New England, Inc. Salem Harbor Salem MA

AES WR Ltd Partnership AES Warrior Run Cogeneration Facility Cumberland MD Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC R Paul Smith Power Station Williamsport MD

Constellation Power Source Gen Brandon Shores Baltimore MD

Constellation Power Source Gen C P Crane Baltimore MD Constellation Power Source Gen Herbert A Wagner Baltimore MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Chalk Point LLC Aquasco MD

Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Dickerson Dickerson MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Morgantown Generating Plant Newburg MD MD Vienna Operations, Inc. Vienna Operations Vienna MD FPL Energy Wyman LLC William F Wyman Yarmouth ME MeadWestvaco Corp Rumford Cogeneration Rumford ME S D Warren Co. Somerset Plant Skowhegan ME Consumers Energy Co. B C Cobb Muskegon MI Consumers Energy Co. Dan E Karn Essexville MI Consumers Energy Co. J H Campbell West Olive MI Consumers Energy Co. J C Weadock Essexville MI Consumers Energy Co. J R Whiting Erie MI

Detroit Edison Co. Harbor Beach Harbor Beach MI

Detroit Edison Co. Monroe Monroe MI Detroit Edison Co. River Rouge River Rouge MI

Detroit Edison Co. St Clair East China MI

Detroit Edison Co. Trenton Channel Trenton MI

Detroit Edison Co. Belle River Belle River MI Lansing, City of Eckert Station Lansing MI Lansing, City of Erickson Station Lansing MI MeadWestvaco Corp Escanaba Paper Company Escanaba MI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Presque Isle Marquette MIC-12 Utility Name Plant Name City State Allete, Inc. Syl Laskin Aurora MN Allete, Inc. Clay Boswell Cohasset MN Allete, Inc. Taconite Harbor Energy Center Schroeder MN Cleveland Cliffs, Inc. Silver Bay Power Silver Bay MN

Northern States Power Co . Black Dog Burnsville MN

Northern States Power Co. High Bridge St. Paul MN Northern States Power Co. Allen S King Bayport MN Northern States Power Co. Riverside Minneapolis MN

Northern States Power Co. Sh erburne County Becker MN Otter Tail Power Co. Hoot Lake Fergus Falls MN

Ameren UE Labadie Labadie MO

Ameren UE Meramec St Louis MO

Ameren UE Sioux West Alton MO

Ameren UE Rush Island Festus MO Aquila, Inc. Sibley Sibley MO Aquila, Inc. Lake Road St Joseph MO Associated Electric Coop, In c. New Madrid Marston MO Associated Electric Coop, In c. Thomas Hill Moberly MO Empire District Electric Co. Asbury Asbury MO Independence, City of Blue Valley Independence MO Kansas City Power & Light Co. Montrose Clinton MO Kansas City Power & Light Co. Iatan Weston MO Sikeston, City of Sikeston Power Station Sikeston MO Springfield, City of James Rive r Power Station Springfield MO Springfield, City of Southwest Power Station Springfield MO Entergy Mississippi, Inc. Gerald Andrus Greenville MS Mississippi Power Co. Jack Watson Gulfport MS Mississippi Power Co. Victor J Daniel Jr Escatawpa MS South Mississippi El Pwr Assn R D Morrow Purvis MS Tractebel Power, Inc. Red Hills Generating Facility Ackerman MS Weyerhaeuser Co. Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS Columbus MS PPL Montana LLC J E Corette Plant Billings MT PPL Montana LLC Colstrip Colstrip MT Carolina Power & Light Co. Asheville Arden NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Cape Fear Moncure NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Lee Goldsboro NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Roxboro Semora NC Carolina Power & Light Co. L V Sutton Wilmington NC Carolina Power & Light Co. W H Weatherspoon Lumberton NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Mayo Roxboro NC Cogentrix of N Carolina, Inc. Cogentrix Southport Southport NC

Cogentrix of Rocky Mount, Inc. Cogentrix Dwayne Collier Battle Cogen Battleboro NC Duke Energy Corp G G Allen Belmont NC Duke Energy Corp Buck Spencer NC Duke Energy Corp Cliffside Cliffside NC Duke Energy Corp Dan River Eden NC Duke Energy Corp Marshall Terrell NCC-13 Utility Name Plant Name City State Duke Energy Corp Riverbend Mount Holly NC Duke Energy Corp Belews Creek Walnut Cove NC

Westmoreland-LG&E Partners Westmoreland-LG&E Roanoke Valley I Weldon NC Basin Electric Power Coop Leland Olds Stanton ND Basin Electric Power Coop Antelope Valley Beulah ND Great River Energy Stanton Stanton ND Great River Energy Coal Creek Underwood ND MDU Resources Group, Inc. R M Heskett Mandan ND Minnkota Power Coop, Inc. Milton R Young Center ND Otter Tail Power Co. Coyote Beulah ND Fremont, City of Lon Wright Fremont NE Grand Island, City of Platte Grand Island NE

Nebraska Public Power District Sheldon Hallam NE

Nebraska Public Power District Gerald Gentleman Sutherland NE

Omaha Public Power District North Omaha Florence NE Omaha Public Power District Nebraska City Nebraska City NE

Public Service Co. of NH Merrimack Concord NH

Public Service Co. of NH Schiller Portsmouth NH Public Service Co. of NH Newington Portsmouth NH Atlantic City Electric Co. B L England Marmora NJ Atlantic City Electric Co. Deepwater Penns Grove NJ Chambers Cogeneration LP Chambers Cogeneration LP Carneys Point NJ Logan Generating Co. LP Logan Generating Plant Swedesboro NJ PSEG Fossil LLC PSEG Hudson Generating Station Jersey City NJ PSEG Fossil LLC PSEG Mercer Generating Station Trenton NJ

Arizona Public Service Co. Four Corners Fruitland NM

Public Service Co. of NM San Juan Waterflow NM Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Escalante Prewitt NM Nevada Power Co. Reid Gardner Moapa NV Sierra Pacific Power Co. North Valmy Valmy NV Southern California Edison Co. Mohave Laughlin NV AES Cayuga LLC AES Cayuga Lansing NY AES Greenidge LLC AES Greenidge LLC Dresden NY

AES Somerset LLC AES Somerset LLC Barker NY AES Westover LLC AES Westover Johnson City NY Astoria Generating Co. LP Astoria Generating Station Woolsey NY Dunkirk Power LLC Dunkirk Generating Station Central Avenue NY Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc. Danskammer Generating Station Newburgh NY Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc. Roseton Generating Station Newburgh NY

Eastman Kodak Co. Kodak Park Site Rochester NY Mirant New York, Inc. Lovett Tomkins Cove NY NRG Huntley Operations, Inc. C R Huntley Generating Station Tonawanda NY Rochester Gas & Electric Corp Rochester 7 Rochester NY American Mun Power-Ohio, Inc. Richard Gorsuch Marietta OH Cardinal Operating Co. Cardinal Brilliant OH Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Walter C Beckjord New Richmond OH

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miami Fort North Bend OHC-14 Utility Name Plant Name City State

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. W H Zimmer Cincinnati OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co. Ashtabula Ashtabula OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co. Eastlake Eastlake OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co . Lake Shore Cleveland OH

Columbus Southern Power Co. Conesville Conesville OH Columbus Southern Power Co. Picway Lockbourne OH Dayton Power & Light Co. O H Hutchings Miamisburg OH Dayton Power & Light Co. J M Stuart Aberdeen OH Dayton Power & Light Co. Killen Station Manchester OH Hamilton, City of Hamilton Hamilton OH Ohio Edison Co. R E Burger Shadyside OH

Ohio Edison Co. W H Sammis Stratton OH Ohio Power Co. Muskingum River Beverly OH

Ohio Power Co. General James M Gavin Cheshire OH Ohio Valley Electric Corp Kyger Creek Cheshire OH

Orion Power Midwest LP Avon Lake Avon Lake OH

Orion Power Midwest LP Niles Niles OH Toledo Edison Co. Bay Shore Oregon OH AES Shady Point, LLC AES Shady Point Panama OK Fort James Operating Co. Muskogee Mill Muskogee OK Grand River Dam Authority GRDA Chouteau OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Muskogee Ft Gibson OK

Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Sooner Morrison OK Public Service Co. of Oklahoma Northeastern Oologah OK Western Farmers Elec Coop, Inc. Hugo Fort Towson OK

Portland General Electric Co . Boardman Boardman OR

AES Beaver Valley AES Beaver Valley Partners Beaver Valley Monaca PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Ar mstrong Power Station Kittaning PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Hatfields Ferry Power Station Masontown PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Mitchell Power Station Courtney PA Exelon Generation Co. LLC Cromby Generating Station Phoenixville PA

Exelon Generation Co. LLC Delaware Generating Station Philadelphia PA Exelon Generation Co. LLC Eddystone Generating Station Chester PA Exelon Generation Co. LLC Schuylkill Generating Station Philadelphia PA Midwest Generation Homer City Station Homer City PA Orion Power Midwest LP New Castle Plant West Pittsburg PA

Orion Power Midwest LP Cheswick Power Plant Cheswick PA P H Glatfelter Co. P H Glatfelter Spring Grove PA Pennsylvania Power Co. Bruce Mansfield Shippingport PA PG&E National Energy Group Northhampton Generating LP Northampton PA PPL Corp PPL Brunner Island York Haven PA PPL Corp PPL Martins Creek Martins Creek PA PPL Corp PPL Montour Washingtonville PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Portland Portland PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Titus Birdboro PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Shawville Clearfield PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co. Conemaugh New Florence PAC-15 Utility Name Plant Name City State Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co. Keystone Shelocta PA Sunbury Generation LLC WPS Energy Servs Sunbury Gen Shamokin Dam PA TIFD VIII-W, Inc. Colver Power Project Colver PA Zinc Corp of America G F W eaton Power Station Monaca PA Carolina Power & Light Co. H B Robinson Hartsville SC Duke Energy Corp W S Lee Pelzer SC International Paper Co.-Eastovr International Paper Eastover Facility Eastover SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co. Canadys Steam Canadys SC

South Carolina Electric&Ga s Co. McMeekin Irmo SC South Carolina Electric&Gas Co. Urquhart Urquhart SC

South Carolina Electric&Gas Co. Wateree Eastover SC South Carolina Genertg Co., In c. Williams Goose Creek SC

South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Cross Cross SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Dolphus M Grainger Conway SC

South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Jefferies Moncks Corner SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Winyah Georgetown SC Stone Container Corp Stone Container Florence Mill Florence SC Otter Tail Power Co. Big Stone Big Stone City SD Eastman Chemical Co.-TN Ops Tenness ee Eastman Operations Kingsport TN Tennessee Valley Authority Allen Steam Plant Memphis TN Tennessee Valley Authority Bull Run Clinton TN Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland Cumberland City TN Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin Gallatin TN Tennessee Valley Authority John Sevier Rogersville TN Tennessee Valley Authority Johnsonville New Johnsonville TN Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Kingston TN

AEP Texas North Co. Oklaunion Vernon TX AES Corp AES Deepwater Pasadena TX Alcoa, Inc. Sandow Station Rockdale TX Lower Colorado River Authority Faye tte Power Project La Grange TX San Antonio Public Service Bd J T Deely Downtown Station TX San Antonio Public Service Bd J K Spruce Downtown Station TX San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc. San Miguel Christine TX Sempra Energy Resources Twin Oaks Power One Bremond TX Southwestern Electric Power Co. Welsh Pittsburg TX Southwestern Electric Power Co. Pirkey Hallsville TX Southwestern Public Service Co. Harrington Amarillo TX

Southwestern Public Service Co. Tolk Muleshoe TX

Texas Genco Limestone Jewett TX Texas Genco W A Parish Thompsons TX Texas Municipal Power Agency Gibbons Creek Anderson TX Topaz Power Group LLC Coleto Creek Fannin TX TXU Electric Co. Big Brown Fairfield TX

TXU Electric Co. Martin Lake Tatum TX

TXU Electric Co. Monti cello Mt. Pleasant TX

TXU Electric Co. Sandow No 4 Rockdale TX Deseret Generation & Tran Coop Bonanza Vernal UTC-16 Utility Name Plant Name City State Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation KUCC Magna Post Office UT Los Angeles, City of Intermountain Power Project Delta UT PacifiCorp Carbon Helper UT PacifiCorp Hunter Castledale UT PacifiCorp Huntington Huntington UT Appalachian Power Co. C linch River Cleveland VA Appalachian Power Co. Glen Lyn Glen Lyn VA Birchwood Power Partners LP Birchwood Power King George VA Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc. Cogentrix of Richmond Richmond VA Cogentrix-Virginia Leas'g Corp Cogentrix Portsmouth Portsmouth VA Covanta Fairfax, Inc. Covanta Fairfax Energy Lorton VA DPS Mecklenburg LLC Mecklenburg Power Station Clarksville VA James River Cogeneration Co. Cogentrix Hopewell Hopewell VA Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Potomac River George Washington VA St Laurent Paper Products Co. West Point Mill West Point VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Bremo Bluff Bremo Bluff VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Chesterfield Chester VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Chesapeake Chesapeake VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Yorktown Yorktown VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Clover Clover VA

TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC Transalta Centralia Generation Centralia WA Dairyland Power Coop Alma Alma WI Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Genoa WI Dairyland Power Coop John P Madgett Alma WI Fort James Operating Co. Gree n Bay West Mill Green Bay WI

Madison Gas & Electric Co. Blount Street Madison WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Port Washington Generating Station Port Washington WI

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. South Oak Creek Oak Creek WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Valley Milwaukee WI

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Pleasant Prairie Kenosha WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Edgewater Sheboygan WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Nelson Dewey Cassville WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Columbia Pardeeville WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Pulliam Green Bay WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Weston Rothschild WI Appalachian Power Co. John E Amos St Albans WV Appalachian Power Co. Kanawha River Glasgow WV Appalachian Power Co. Mountaineer New Haven WV Central Operating Co. Philip Sporn New Haven WV Monongahela Power Co. Albright Albright WV Monongahela Power Co. Fort Martin Power Station Maidsville WV Monongahela Power Co. Harrison Power Station Haywood WV Monongahela Power Co. Rivesville Rivesville WV Monongahela Power Co. Willow Island Williow Island WV Monongahela Power Co. Pleasants Power Station Willow Island WV

Ohio Power Co. Kammer Moundsville WV

Ohio Power Co. Mitchell Moundsville WVC-17 Utility Name Plant Name City State PPG Industries, Inc. PPG Natrium Plant New Martinsville WV Virginia Electric & Power Co. Mt Storm Mt Storm WV Basin Electric Power Coop Laramie River Station Wheatland WY PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Casper WY PacifiCorp Naughton Kemmerer WY PacifiCorp Wyodak Gillette WY PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Rock Springs WYC-18 Table C-5: U.S. Silica Fume Producers (Corathers, 2004)

Company City State Elkem Materials, Inc. Alloy WV Norchem, Inc. Waterford OH Norchem, Inc. Selma AL Norchem, Inc. Niagara Falls* NY Oxbow Carbon and Minerals LLC Bridgeport AL Simcala, Inc. Mount Meigs AL CC Metals and Alloys, Inc. Calvert City KY *Note - Globe’s plant in Niagara Falls was idle in 2004C-19 Table C-6: U.S. Facilities Producing Fl ue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) Gypsum (U.S. DOE, 2004b)

Utility Name Plant Name City State Alabama Electric Coop, Inc. Charles R Lowman Leroy AL Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Stevenson AL

JEA St Johns River Po wer Park Oceanway FL Tampa Electric Company Big Bend Ruskin FL Seminole Electric Coop, Inc. Seminole Bostwick FL Georgia Power Co. Yates Sargent GA Muscatine, City of Musca tine Plant #1 Muscatine IA Springfield, City of Dallman Springfield IL Indianapolis Power & Light Co. AES Petersburg Petersburg IN

Northern Indiana Pub. Service Co. R M Schahfer Wheatfield IN

Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co. F B Culley Newburgh IN

Kentucky Utilities Co. Ghent Ghent KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. Mill Creek Louisville KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co . Trimble County Bedford KY Owensboro, City of Elmer Smith Daviess KY Tennessee Valley Authority Paradise Drakesboro KY Atlantic City Electric Co. B L England Marmora NJ AES Cayuga LLC AES Cayuga Lansing NY

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. W H Zimmer Cincinnati OH

Orion Power Midwest LP Niles Niles OH AES Beaver Valley AES Beaver Valley Partners Beaver Valley Monaca PA

Midwest Generation Homer City Station Homer City PA Pennsylvania Power Co. Bruce Mansfield Shippingport PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co. Conemaugh New Florence PA

South Carolina Pub Service Authority Cross Cross SC

Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland Cumberland City TN AES Corp. AES Deepwater Pasadena TX San Antonio Public Service Bd. J K Spruce Downtown Station TX

TXU Electric Co. Monti cello Mt. Pleasant TX

TXU Electric Co. Sandow No 4 Rockdale TX

TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC Transalta Centralia Generation Centralia WA Monongahela Power Co. Pleasants Power Station Willow Island WVC-20 Table C-7: U.S. Facilities Producing Bottom Ash (U.S. DOE, 2004b)

Utility Name Plant Name City State Alabama Electric Coop, Inc. Charles R Lowman Leroy AL Alabama Power Co. Barry Bucks AL

Alabama Power Co. Gadsden East Gadsden AL Alabama Power Co. Gorgas Parrish AL Alabama Power Co. Greene County Demopolis AL

Alabama Power Co. E C Ga ston Wilsonville AL Alabama Power Co. James H Miller Jr Quinton AL Tennessee Valley Authority Colbert Tuscumbia AL Tennessee Valley Authority Widows Creek Stevenson AL Entergy Arkansas, Inc. White Bluff Redfield AR Entergy Arkansas, Inc. Independence Newark AR

Southwestern Electric Power Co. Flint Creek Gentry AR Arizona Electric Pwr Coop, Inc. Apache Station Cochise AZ

Arizona Public Service Co. Cholla Joseph City AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Navajo Page AZ Salt River Proj Ag I & P Dist Coronado St Johns AZ UNS Electric, Inc. H Wilson Sundt Gene rating Station Cherry Bell Station AZ UNS Electric, Inc. Springerville Springerville AZ Colorado Springs, City of Mar tin Drake Colorado Springs CO Colorado Springs, City of Ray D Nixon Fountain CO Platte River Power Authority Rawhide Wellington CO Public Service Co. of Colorado Arapahoe Denver CO

Public Service Co. of Colo rado Cherokee Denver CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Comanche Pueblo CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Valmont Boulder CO Public Service Co. of Colorado Hayden Hayden CO

Public Service Co. of Colorado Pawnee Brush CO Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Nucla Nucla CO Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Craig Craig CO

AES Thames LLC AES Thames Uncasville CT NRG Norwalk Harbor Operations NRG Norwalk Harbor South Norwalk CT PSEG Power Connecticut LLC Bridgeport Station Bridgeport CT Conectiv Energy Supply, Inc. Edge Moor Edgemoor DE Indian River Operations, Inc. Indian River Operations Millsboro DE Central Power & Lime, Inc. Central Power & Lime Brooksville FL Florida Power & Light Co. Cape Canaveral Cocoa FL Florida Power & Light Co. Tu rkey Point Homestead FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Crystal River Crystal River FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. P L Bartow St Petersburg FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Suwannee River Live Oak FL Progress Energy Florida, Inc. Anclote Tarpon Springs FL Gainesville Regional Utilities Deerha ven Generating Station Alachua FL

Gulf Power Co. Crist Pensacola FL Gulf Power Co. Lansing Smith Southport FL FL Indiantown Cogeneration LP Indiantown Cogen Facility Indiantown FLC-21 Utility Name Plant Name City State

JEA St Johns River Po wer Park Oceanway FL JEA Northside Generating Station Oceanway FL

Orlando Utilities Comm Stanton En ergy Center Alafaya Branch FL PG&E Operating Service Co. Cedar Bay Generating LP Jacksonville FL Tampa Electric Co. Big Bend Ruskin FL Seminole Electric Coop, Inc. Seminole Bostwick FL Georgia Power Co. Bowen Taylorsville GA Georgia Power Co. Hammond Coosa GA Georgia Power Co. Harllee Branch Milledgeville GA Georgia Power Co. Jack McDonough Smyrna GA Georgia Power Co. Mitchell Putney GA Georgia Power Co. Yates Sargent GA Georgia Power Co. Wansley Roopville GA Georgia Power Co. Scherer Juliette GA

Savannah Electric & Power Co. Kraft Port Wentworth GA

Savannah Electric & Power Co. McIntosh Rincon GA AES Corp AES Hawaii Kapolei HI

Archer Daniels Midland Co. Archer Daniels Midland Cedar Rapids Cedar Rapids IA Interstate Power and Light Ottumwa Ottumwa IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Milton L Kapp Clinton IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Prairie Creek Cedar Rapids IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Sutherland Marshalltown IA Interstate Power & Light Co. Burlington Burlington IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Riverside Bettendorf IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Council Bluffs Council Bluffs IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Geor ge Neal North Salix IA MidAmerican Energy Co. Louisa Muscatine IA MidAmerican Energy Co. George Neal South Salix IA Muscatine, City of Musca tine Plant #1 Muscatine IA Ameren Energy Generating Co. Coffeen Coffeen IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Hutsonville Hutsonville IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Meredosia Meredosia IL Ameren Energy Generating Co. Newton Newton IL

Archer Daniels Midland Co. Archer Daniels Midl and Decatur Decatur IL Dominion Energy Services Co. Kincaid Generation LLC Kincaid IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Baldwin Energy Complex Baldwin IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Havana Havana IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Hennepin Power Station Hennepin IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Vermilion Oakwood IL Dynegy Midwest Generation, Inc. Wood River East Alton IL Electric Energy, Inc. Joppa Steam Joppa IL
Midwest Generations EME LLC Joliet 29 Joliet IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Crawford Chicago IL
Midwest Generations EME LLC Joliet 9 Joliet IL

Midwest Generations EME LLC Powerton Pekin IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Waukegan Waukegan IL Midwest Generations EME LLC Will County Romeoville ILC-22 Utility Name Plant Name City State Midwest Generations EME LLC Fisk Street Chicago IL Southern Illinois Power Coop Marion Marion IL Springfield, City of Dallman Springfield IL Ameren Energy Resources Generating E D Edwards Bartonville IL Ameren Energy Resources Genera ting Duck Creek Canton IL Alcoa Power Generating, Inc. Warrick Newburgh IN Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc. Frank E Ratts Petersburg IN Hoosier Energy R E C, Inc. Merom Sullivan IN Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp Clifty Creek Madison IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. Harding Street Indianapolis IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. Eagle Valley Martinsville IN Indianapolis Power & Light Co. AES Petersburg Petersburg IN Indiana Michigan Power Co. Ta nners Creek Lawrenceburg IN Indiana Michigan Power Co . Rockport Rockport IN Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co. Bailly Chesterton IN

Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co. Mi chigan City Michigan City IN

Northern Indiana Pub Serv Co . R M Schahfer Wheatfield IN PSI Energy, Inc. Cayuga Cayuga IN PSI Energy, Inc. Edward sport Edwardsport IN PSI Energy, Inc. R Gallagher New Albany IN PSI Energy, Inc. Wabash River Terre Haute IN PSI Energy, Inc. Gibson Mt Carmel IN Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co. F B Culley Newburgh IN

Southern Indiana Gas & Elec Co. A B Brown Mount Vernon IN State Line Energy LLC State Line Energy Hammond IN Kansas City, City of Quindaro Fairfax Station KS Kansas City, City of Nearman Creek Robert L Roberts STA KS Kansas City Power & Light Co. La Cygne La Cygne KS Sunflower Electric Power Corp Holcomb Holcomb KS Westar Energy Lawrence Energy Center Lawrence, Kansas KS Westar Energy Tecumseh Energy Center Tecumseh KS Westar Energy Jeffrey Energy Center Belvue KS

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. East Bend Rabbit Hash KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. Cooper Burnside KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. Dale Winchester KY East Kentucky Power Coop, Inc. H L Spurlock Maysville KY Kentucky Utilities Co. E W Brown Burgin KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Ghent Ghent KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Green River Central City KY Kentucky Utilities Co. Tyrone Versailles KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. Cane Run Louisville KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co. Mill Creek Louisville KY

Louisville Gas & Electric Co . Trimble County Bedford KY Owensboro, City of Elmer Smith Daviess KY Tennessee Valley Authority Shawnee West Paducah KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp Kenneth C Coleman Hawesville KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp HMP&L Station Two Henderson Sebree KYC-23 Utility Name Plant Name City State Western Kentucky Energy Corp R D Green Sebree KY Western Kentucky Energy Corp D B Wilson Centertown KY Kentucky Power Co. Big Sandy Louisa KY

Cleco Power LLC Dolet Hills Mansfield LA

Cleco Power LLC Rodemacher Lena LA Entergy Gulf States, Inc. R S Nelson Lake Charles LA International Paper Co. Mansfield Mill Mansfield LA Louisiana Generating LLC Big Cajun 2 New Roads LA Dominion Energy New England Brayton Point Somerset MA U S Gen New England, Inc. Salem Harbor Salem MA Northeast Generation Services Co. Mount Tom Holyoke MA

Somerset Power LLC Somers et Station Somerset MA

AES WR Ltd Partnership AES Warrior Run Cogeneration Facility Cumberland MD

Constellation Power Source Gen Brandon Shores Baltimore MD

Constellation Power Source Gen C P Crane Baltimore MD Constellation Power Source Gen Herbert A Wagner Baltimore MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Chalk Point LLC Aquasco MD

Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Dickerson Dickerson MD Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Morgantown Generating Plant Newburg MD MD Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC R Paul Smith Power Station Williamsport MD MeadWestvaco Corp Rumford Cogeneration Rumford ME S D Warren Co. Somerset Plant Skowhegan ME FPL Energy Wyman LLC William F Wyman Yarmouth ME Consumers Energy Co. B C Cobb Muskegon MI Consumers Energy Co. Dan E Karn Essexville MI Consumers Energy Co. J H Campbell West Olive MI Consumers Energy Co. J C Weadock Essexville MI Consumers Energy Co. J R Whiting Erie MI

Detroit Edison Co. Harbor Beach Harbor Beach MI

Detroit Edison Co. Monroe Monroe MI Detroit Edison Co. River Rouge River Rouge MI

Detroit Edison Co. St Clair East China MI

Detroit Edison Co. Trenton Channel Trenton MI

Detroit Edison Co. Belle River Belle River MI Lansing, City of Eckert Station Lansing MI Lansing, City of Erickson Station Lansing MI MeadWestvaco Corp Escanaba Paper Company Escanaba MI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Presque Isle Marquette MI Allete, Inc. Syl Laskin Aurora MN Allete, Inc. Clay Boswell Cohasset MN Allete, Inc. Taconite Harbor Energy Center Schroeder MN Cleveland Cliffs, Inc. Silver Bay Power Silver Bay MN

Northern States Power Co . Black Dog Burnsville MN

Northern States Power Co. High Bridge St. Paul MN Northern States Power Co. Allen S King Bayport MN Northern States Power Co. Riverside Minneapolis MN

Northern States Power Co. Sh erburne County Becker MNC-24 Utility Name Plant Name City State Otter Tail Power Co. Hoot Lake Fergus Falls MN Aquila, Inc. Sibley Sibley MO Aquila, Inc. Lake Road St Joseph MO Associated Electric Coop, In c. New Madrid Marston MO Associated Electric Coop, In c. Thomas Hill Moberly MO Empire District Electric Co. Asbury Asbury MO Independence, City of Blue Valley Independence MO Kansas City Power & Light Co. Hawthorn Kansas City MO Kansas City Power & Light Co. Montrose Clinton MO Kansas City Power & Light Co. Iatan Weston MO Sikeston, City of Sikeston Power Station Sikeston MO Springfield, City of James Rive r Power Station Springfield MO Springfield, City of Southwest Power Station Springfield MO

Ameren UE Labadie Labadie MO

Ameren UE Meramec St Louis MO

Ameren UE Sioux West Alton MO

Ameren UE Rush Island Festus MO Mississippi Power Co. Jack Watson Gulfport MS Mississippi Power Co. Victor J Daniel Jr Escatawpa MS South Mississippi El Pwr Assn R D Morrow Purvis MS Tractebel Power, Inc. Red Hills Generating Facility Ackerman MS Weyerhaeuser Co. Weyerhaeuser Columbus MS Columbus MS PPL Montana LLC J E Corette Plant Billings MT PPL Montana LLC Colstrip Colstrip MT Carolina Power & Light Co. Asheville Arden NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Cape Fear Moncure NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Lee Goldsboro NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Roxboro Semora NC Carolina Power & Light Co. L V Sutton Wilmington NC Carolina Power & Light Co. W H Weatherspoon Lumberton NC Carolina Power & Light Co. Mayo Roxboro NC

Cogentrix of Rocky Mount, Inc. Cogentrix Dwayne Collier Battle Cogen Battleboro NC Duke Energy Corp G G Allen Belmont NC Duke Energy Corp Buck Spencer NC Duke Energy Corp Cliffside Cliffside NC Duke Energy Corp Dan River Eden NC Duke Energy Corp Marshall Terrell NC Duke Energy Corp Riverbend Mount Holly NC Duke Energy Corp Belews Creek Walnut Cove NC Weyerhaeuser Co. Weyerhaeuser Plymouth NC Plymouth NC Basin Electric Power Coop Leland Olds Stanton ND Basin Electric Power Coop Antelope Valley Beulah ND Great River Energy Stanton Stanton ND Great River Energy Coal Creek Underwood ND MDU Resources Group, Inc. R M Heskett Mandan ND Minnkota Power Coop, Inc. Milton R Young Center ND Otter Tail Power Co. Coyote Beulah NDC-25 Utility Name Plant Name City State Fremont, City of Lon Wright Fremont NE

Nebraska Public Power District Sheldon Hallam NE

Nebraska Public Power District Gerald Gentleman Sutherland NE

Omaha Public Power District North Omaha Florence NE Omaha Public Power District Nebraska City Nebraska City NE Grand Island, City of Platte Grand Island NE

Public Service Co. of NH Merrimack Concord NH

Public Service Co. of NH Schiller Portsmouth NH Public Service Co. of NH Newington Portsmouth NH Atlantic City Electric Co. B L England Marmora NJ Atlantic City Electric Co. Deepwater Penns Grove NJ Chambers Cogeneration LP Chambers Cogeneration LP Carneys Point NJ Logan Generating Co. LP Logan Generating Plant Swedesboro NJ PSEG Fossil LLC PSEG Hudson Generating Station Jersey City NJ PSEG Fossil LLC PSEG Mercer Generating Station Trenton NJ

Arizona Public Service Co. Four Corners Fruitland NM

Public Service Co. of NM San Juan Waterflow NM Tri-State G & T Assn, Inc. Escalante Prewitt NM Nevada Power Co. Reid Gardner Moapa NV Sierra Pacific Power Co. Fort Churchill Yerington NV Sierra Pacific Power Co. North Valmy Valmy NV Southern California Edison Co. Mohave Laughlin NV AES Greenidge LLC AES Greenidge LLC Dresden NY Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc. Danskammer Generating Station Newburgh NY Dynegy Northeast Gen, Inc. Roseton Generating Station Newburgh NY

Eastman Kodak Co. Kodak Park Site Rochester NY Mirant New York, Inc. Lovett Tomkins Cove NY NRG Huntley Operations, Inc. C R Huntley Generating Station Tonawanda NY Dunkirk Power LLC Dunkirk Generating Station Central Avenue NY Rochester Gas & Electric Corp Rochester 7 Rochester NY AES Cayuga LLC AES Cayuga Lansing NY

AES Somerset LLC AES Somerset LLC Barker NY AES Westover LLC AES Westover Johnson City NY Cardinal Operating Co. Cardinal Brilliant OH Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Walter C Beckjord New Richmond OH

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. Miami Fort North Bend OH

Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. W H Zimmer Cincinnati OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co. Ashtabula Ashtabula OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co. Eastlake Eastlake OH

Cleveland Electric Illum Co . Lake Shore Cleveland OH

Columbus Southern Power Co. Conesville Conesville OH Columbus Southern Power Co. Picway Lockbourne OH Dayton Power & Light Co. O H Hutchings Miamisburg OH Dayton Power & Light Co. J M Stuart Aberdeen OH Dayton Power & Light Co. Killen Station Manchester OH Hamilton, City of Hamilton Hamilton OH Ohio Edison Co. R E Burger Shadyside OHC-26 Utility Name Plant Name City State

Ohio Edison Co. W H Sammis Stratton OH Ohio Power Co. Muskingum River Beverly OH

Ohio Power Co. General James M Gavin Cheshire OH Ohio Valley Electric Corp Kyger Creek Cheshire OH

Orion Power Midwest LP Avon Lake Avon Lake OH

Orion Power Midwest LP Niles Niles OH Toledo Edison Co. Bay Shore Oregon OH American Mun Power-Ohio, Inc. Richard Gorsuch Marietta OH AES Shady Point, LLC AES Shady Point Panama OK Fort James Operating Co. Muskogee Mill Muskogee OK Grand River Dam Authority GRDA Chouteau OK Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co. Muskogee Ft Gibson OK Public Service Co. of Oklahoma Northeastern Oologah OK Western Farmers Elec Coop, Inc. Hugo Fort Towson OK

Portland General Electric Co . Boardman Boardman OR

AES Beaver Valley AES Beaver Valley Partners Beaver Valley Monaca PA Exelon Generation Co. LLC Cromby Generating Station Phoenixville PA Exelon Generation Co. LLC Eddystone Generating Station Chester PA Midwest Generation Homer City Station Homer City PA

Orion Power Midwest LP Elrama Power Plant Elrama PA

Orion Power Midwest LP Cheswick Power Plant Cheswick PA Orion Power Midwest LP New Castle Plant West Pittsburg PA Pennsylvania Power Co. Bruce Mansfield Shippingport PA PPL Corp PPL Brunner Island York Haven PA PPL Corp PPL Martins Creek Martins Creek PA PPL Corp PPL Montour Washingtonville PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co. Conemaugh New Florence PA Reliant Energy NE Mgt Co. Keystone Shelocta PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Portland Portland PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Titus Birdboro PA Reliant Energy Mid-Atlantic PH Shawville Clearfield PA TIFD VIII-W, Inc. Colver Power Project Colver PA Sunbury Generation LLC WPS Energy Servs Sunbury Gen Shamokin Dam PA PG&E National Energy Group Northhampton Generating LP Northampton PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Ar mstrong Power Station Kittaning PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Hatfields Ferry Power Station Masontown PA Allegheny Energy Supply Co. LLC Mitchell Power Station Courtney PA Carolina Power & Light Co. H B Robinson Hartsville SC Duke Energy Corp W S Lee Pelzer SC International Paper Co.-Eastovr International Paper Eastover Facility Eastover SC South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Canadys Steam Canadys SC

South Carolina Electric & Ga s Co. McMeekin Irmo SC South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Urquhart Urquhart SC

South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Wateree Eastover SC South Carolina Electric & Gas Co. Cope Cope SC

South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Cross Cross SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Dolphus M Grainger Conway SCC-27 Utility Name Plant Name City State

South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Jefferies Moncks Corner SC South Carolina Pub Serv Auth Winyah Georgetown SC South Carolina Genertg Co., In c. Williams Goose Creek SC Stone Container Corp Stone Container Florence Mill Florence SC Otter Tail Power Co. Big Stone Big Stone City SD Eastman Chemical Co.-TN Ops Tenness ee Eastman Operations Kingsport TN Tennessee Valley Authority Bull Run Clinton TN Tennessee Valley Authority Cumberland Cumberland City TN Tennessee Valley Authority Gallatin Gallatin TN Tennessee Valley Authority John Sevier Rogersville TN Tennessee Valley Authority Johnsonville New Johnsonville TN Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Kingston TN Alcoa, Inc. Sandow Station Rockdale TX Topaz Power Group LLC Coleto Creek Fannin TX Lower Colorado River Authority Faye tte Power Project La Grange TX San Antonio Public Service Bd J T Deely Downtown Station TX San Antonio Public Service Bd J K Spruce Downtown Station TX San Miguel Electric Coop, Inc. San Miguel Christine TX Sempra Energy Resources Twin Oaks Power One Bremond TX Southwestern Electric Power Co. Welsh Pittsburg TX Southwestern Electric Power Co. Pirkey Hallsville TX Southwestern Public Service Co. Harrington Amarillo TX

Southwestern Public Service Co. Tolk Muleshoe TX Texas Municipal Power Agency Gibbons Creek Anderson TX

Texas Genco Limestone Jewett TX Texas Genco W A Parish Thompsons TX

AEP Texas North Co. Oklaunion Vernon TX TXU Electric Co. Big Brown Fairfield TX

TXU Electric Co. Martin Lake Tatum TX

TXU Electric Co. Monti cello Mt. Pleasant TX

TXU Electric Co. Sandow No 4 Rockdale TX Los Angeles, City of Intermountain Power Project Delta UT PacifiCorp Carbon Helper UT PacifiCorp Hunter Castledale UT PacifiCorp Huntington Huntington UT Deseret Generation & Tran Coop Bonanza Vernal UT Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation KUCC Magna Post Office UT Appalachian Power Co. C linch River Cleveland VA Appalachian Power Co. Glen Lyn Glen Lyn VA Birchwood Power Partners LP Birchwood Power King George VA St Laurent Paper Products Co. West Point Mill West Point VA Cogentrix of Richmond, Inc. Cogentrix of Richmond Richmond VA Covanta Fairfax, Inc. Covanta Fairfax Energy Lorton VA Mirant Mid-Atlantic LLC Potomac River George Washington VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Bremo Bluff Bremo Bluff VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Chesterfield Chester VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Chesapeake Chesapeake VAC-28 Utility Name Plant Name City State Virginia Electric & Power Co. Yorktown Yorktown VA Virginia Electric & Power Co. Clover Clover VA DPS Mecklenburg LLC Mecklenburg Power Station Clarksville VA

TransAlta Centralia Gen LLC Transalta Centralia Generation Centralia WA Dairyland Power Coop Alma Alma WI Dairyland Power Coop Genoa Genoa WI Dairyland Power Coop John P Madgett Alma WI Fort James Operating Co. Gree n Bay West Mill Green Bay WI

Madison Gas & Electric Co. Blount Street Madison WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Port Washington Generating Station Port Washington WI

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. South Oak Creek Oak Creek WI Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Valley Milwaukee WI

Wisconsin Electric Power Co. Pleasant Prairie Kenosha WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Edgewater Sheboygan WI Wisconsin Power & Light Co. Columbia Pardeeville WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Pulliam Green Bay WI Wisconsin Public Service Corp Weston Rothschild WI Appalachian Power Co. John E Amos St Albans WV Appalachian Power Co. Kanawha River Glasgow WV Appalachian Power Co. Mountaineer New Haven WV Central Operating Co. Philip Sporn New Haven WV Monongahela Power Co. Albright Albright WV Monongahela Power Co. Fort Martin Power Station Maidsville WV Monongahela Power Co. Harrison Power Station Haywood WV Monongahela Power Co. Rivesville Rivesville WV Monongahela Power Co. Willow Island Williow Island WV Monongahela Power Co. Pleasants Power Station Willow Island WV

Ohio Power Co. Kammer Moundsville WV

Ohio Power Co. Mitchell Moundsville WV PPG Industries, Inc. PPG Natrium Plant New Martinsville WV Virginia Electric & Power Co. Mt Storm Mt Storm WV Basin Electric Power Coop Laramie River Station Wheatland WY PacifiCorp Dave Johnston Casper WY PacifiCorp Naughton Kemmerer WY PacifiCorp Wyodak Gillette WY PacifiCorp Jim Bridger Rock Springs WYAPPENDIX D:

RMC BENEFICIAL USE MOD EL – TECHNICAL APPROACHD-1 Recovered Mineral Components (RMC) Beneficial Use Model Technical Approach

As described in the main body of this report, be neficial 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 repor t provides quantified estimates of a suite of environmental impacts for three of the RMCs id entified 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 av oided emissions when a specified quantity of coal fly ash, GGBFS, or silica fume is used in place of finished portland cement in federallyfunded concrete projects. 4 To capture the full magnitude of benefits, the model follows a modified life-cycle approach in which the bene fits 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-1. As shown in this figure, the analytic process includes:

(1) Development of RMC substitution scenario s, 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 unde r current use and expanded use scenarios by multiplying per-unit impacts by national-level RMC reuse quantities

We describe each of these st eps in greater detail below.

3 The Agency recognizes that these e nvironmental 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, an d silica fume because more comprehens ive 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-2Environmental Impact Profile•For each RMC and substitution scenario by year,multiply substitution level (in metric tons of RMC) bysuite of environmental metrics.•Yields profile of environmental benefits (resourceuse, emissions, waste) for RMC beneficial use.RMC Substitution Scenarios•Scenario projection:2004-2015•RMC substitution levels forfederal projects (in metric tonsper year for each RMC):-Fly Ash: “current use” and“expanded use” substitutionscenarios-GGBFS and Silica Fume: “currentuse” substitution scenario onlyFigure D-1Conceptual Schematic of RMC Beneficial Use ModelDecrease in non-hazardouswaste disposal (kilograms)WasteDecrease in air emissions(CO2,CO, Pb, Hg, NOx, PM10,and Sox), soil emissions, andwater emissions (BOD, COD,suspended matter, andcopper) (grams)EmissionsDecrease in energy and waterconsumption (joules, liters)Resource Use

Environmental MetricsBenefit per metric ton of RMCSubstituted for Portland CementEnvironmental Impact ValuesD-3 Step 1 - Estimation of RMC Usage in Federal Concrete Projects

In order to estimate the quantity of coal fl y 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 fe derally-funded projects. Therefore, for this analysis, we assumed that 20% of the national RMC usage is incorporat ed into Federal projects . Table below 1 shows the derivation of the 20% FHWA estimate.

Table D-1: Derivation of FHWA Estimate for Concrete use in Federal Projects

PCA Cement Use in Federal Construction Estimate a Expert Estimate Cement Use in Federal Construction Type

thousand metric tons percent thousand metric tons 1 Classroom buildings & Labs 2,270.5 1% b 22.7 Public Administrative/Services 498.8 10% b 49.9 Low rise hospitals 947 10% b 94.7 High-rise Hospitals 432.9 10% b 43.3 Passenger Terminals 84.7 20% b 16.9 State Highways (Urban and Rural) 15,415.4 74% c 11,418.4 Urban Streets & Roadways 6,240.1 74% c 4,622.0 Rural Roadways 424.7 4% d 17.0 Vehicle / Pedestrian Bridges 7,289.6 43% e 3,137.3 Maintenance & repair 4,055.7 1% d 40.6 Dams & Reservoirs 661.7 90% b 595.5 River & Harbor Development & Control 716.7 90% b 645.0 Water Supply Systems 3,597.1 50% b 1,798.6 Sanitary/Storm Sewers 2,265.6 30% b 679.7 Water & Sewer Tunnels 40.0 80% b 32.0 Airport Runways/Taxi ways/Lighting 1,269.2 99% b 1,256.5 Defense/Space facilities 122.1 100% b 122.1
Total Tons 46,331.8 24,592.2 National Total 114,889 114,889 Percent Used in Federal Construction 40% 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 Jo n Mullarky, Federal Highway Administration, July 17, 2007 and July 18, 2007. c. Federal Highway Administration, “Funding for Hi ghways and Disposition of Highway-User Revenues, All Units of Government, 2004,” Modified March 21, 2006. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohi m/hs04/htm/hf10.htm Accesse d 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/ hm10.htm Accessed on August 14, 2007. e. Federal Highway Administration, “National Bridge Inventory.” Modified July 10, 2007. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.h tm Accessed on August 14, 2007.D-4 Section 3 of this report describes the assumpti ons 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 devel opment 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 (PCA, 2006a). Using the PCA es timate 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-5 Table D-2: Projected Cement Usage

Estimated U.S. Cement Consumption Cement Consumption in Federal Projects Cement Consumption in Non-Federal Projects Year
-------------------------------------thousand metric tons-------------------------------- 2004 121,980 24,396 97,584 2005 125,700 25,140 100,560 2006 128,472 25,694 102,778 2007 131,244 26,249 104,995 2008 134,016 26,803 107,213 2009 136,788 27,358 109,430 2010 139,560 27,912 111,648 2011 142,332 28,466 113,866 2012 145,104 29,020 116,083 2013 147,876 29,575 118,301 2014 150,648 30,130 120,518 2015 153,420 30,684 122,736

Coal Fly Ash:

The current use estimates for coal fly ash as an SCM are broken out into a “baseline” and “C 2 P 2 ” scenario in order to account for the impact of EPA’s C 2 P 2 program on coal fly ash use. The baseline scenario estimates coal fly ash use in the absence of the C 2 P 2 program. The C 2 P 2 scenario estimates coal fly ash use assuming the C 2 P 2 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 util ities (see Section 2). ACAA estimates that 12,811 thousa nd 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 C 2 P 2 program, coal fly ash usage as a finished portland cemen t 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. Proj ected coal fly ash usag e under the current use baseline scenario is shown in the top-half of Table D-3.

Under the current use C 2 P 2 scenario, it is assumed that coal fl y 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 C 2 P 2 program. 6 A second order polynomial fit was used to estimate usage for the years 2006 through 2010. The equation used is y = -8,765.346x 2 + 35,420,372.024x - 35,775,515,275.736 where y = fly ash use as an SCM, and x = years projected past 2005. For the years 2011 through 2015, coal fly ash usage under the C 2 P 2 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 C 2 P 2 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-6 it was assumed that 20% of coal fly ash is us ed in Federal projects and 80% is used in nonFederal projects. Table D-3 shows current use es timates for coal fly ash under the current use baseline and current use C 2 P 2 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 C 2 P 2 program.

Table D-3: Coal Fly Ash Usage Under Current Use Scenarios

Estimated U.S. Coal Fly Ash Consumption Coal fly ash Consumption in Federal Projects Coal fly ash Consumption in Non-Federal Projects Year

---------------------------------thousand metric tons--------------------------------
Baseline 2004 12,811 2,562 10,249 2005 13,599 2,720 10,879 2006 13,900 2,780 11,120 2007 14,200 2,840 11,360 2008 14,498 2,900 11,598 2009 14,798 2,960 11,838 2010 15,098 3,020 12,078 2011 15,398 3,080 12,318 2012 15,698 3,140 12,558 2013 15,998 3,200 12,798 2014 16,298 3,260 13,038 2015 16,598 3,320 13,278 C 2 P 2
2004 12,811 2,562 10,249 2005 13,599 2,720 10,879 2006 14,208 2,842 11,366 2007 14,820 2,964 11,856 2008 15,390 3,078 12,312 2009 15,915 3,183 12,732 2010 16,395 3,279 13,116 2011 16,875 3,375 13,500 2012 17,203 3,441 13,762 2013 17,530 3,506 14,024 2014 17,860 3,572 14,288 2015 18,188 3,638 14,550 Quantity Attributable to C 2 P 2 (C 2 P 2 – Baseline)
2004 0 0 0
2005 0 0 0
2006 308 62 246
2007 620 124 496
2008 892 178 714 2009 1,117 223 894 2010 1,297 259 1,038 2011 1,477 295 1,182 2012 1,505 301 1,204 2013 1,532 306 1,226 2014 1,562 312 1,250 2015 1,590 318 1,272D-7 GGBFS:

Under current use, it was assumed that dema nd for GGBFS would increase linearly from 2004 use rates at the same rate as U.S. cement dema nd (which is approximately 2.2% per year). For GGBFS, this equals an annual increase of 76,000 me tric 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 curr ent use scenario are shown in Table D-4.

Table D-4: GGBFS Usage Under Current Use Scenario

Estimated U.S. GGBFS Consumption GGBFS Consumption in Federal Projects GGBFS Consumption in

Non-Federal

Projects Year

------------------------------thousand metric tons------------------------- 2004 3,460 692 2,768 2005 3,536 707 2,829 2006 3,612 722 2,890 2007 3,688 738 2,950 2008 3,764 753 3,011 2009 3,840 768 3,072 2010 3,916 783 3,133 2011 3,992 798 3,194 2012 4,068 814 3,254 2013 4,144 829 3,315 2014 4,220 844 3,376 2015 4,296 859 3,437

Silica Fume:

For current use, we assume that domestic silica fume supply is in elastic, as a result of relatively inelastic global supply of silicon metal and fe rrosilicon and related ferroalloys production. Therefore, we assume that current (i.e., base ye ar) rates of silica fume use in U.S. concrete projects will remain constant into th e 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 Fede ral 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/commodity/ferroalloys/feallmyb05.pdf

.D-8 Table D-5: Silica Fume Usage Under Current Use Scenario

Estimated U.S. Silica Fume Consumption Silica Fume Consumption in Federal Projects Silica Fume Consumption in Non-Federal Projects Year

------------------------------thousand metric tons-------------------------
2004 60 12 48
2005 60 12 48
2006 60 12 48
2007 60 12 48
2008 60 12 48
2009 60 12 48
2010 60 12 48
2011 60 12 48
2012 60 12 48
2013 60 12 48
2014 60 12 48
2015 60 12 48

Expanded Use Estimates

In order to estimate potential imp acts associated with Federal init iatives to increase beneficial use rates, two expanded usage scenarios were de veloped for coal fly ash. Expanded use scenarios were not developed for GGBFS and silica fume si nce utilization of thes e materials is already very high, and it is unlikely that new initiative s 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 in crease from current reuse rates of approximately 10% to the levels recommended under the comp rehensive procurement guidelines (CPG), which is 15% substitution by 2015. Under the second e xpanded usage scenario (30% scenario), it was assumed that coal fly ash substitution in Federa l 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 re lease of the study, or approximately early to mid 2009D-9 Table D-6: Coal Fly Ash Usage Under Expanded Use Scenarios

Estimated U.S. Coal Fly Ash Consumption Coal Fly Ash Consumption in Federal Projects Coal Fly Ash Consumption in Non-Federal Projects Year

---------------------------thousand metric tons--------------------------- 15% Scenario 2004 12,811 2,562 10,249 2005 13,599 2,720 10,879 2006 14,208 2,842 11,366 2007 14,820 2,964 11,856 2008 15,390 3,078 12,312 2009 16,347 3,269 13,078 2010 17,221 3,444 13,777 2011 18,114 3,623 14,491 2012 18,925 3,785 15,140 2013 19,754 3,951 15,804 2014 20,603 4,121 16,482 2015 21,467 4,293 17,173

30% Scenario 2004 12,811 2,562 10,249 2005 13,599 2,720 10,879 2006 14,208 2,842 11,366 2007 14,820 2,964 11,856 2008 15,390 3,078 12,312 2009 17,689 3,538 14,151 2010 19,962 3,992 15,970 2011 22,311 4,462 17,848 2012 24,630 4,926 19,704 2013 27,021 5,404 21,617 2014 29,486 5,897 23,589 2015 32,021 6,404 25,616D-10 Figure D-2: U.S. Coal Fly Ash Consum ption Under Current and Expanded Usage Scenarios

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

YearMillion Metric Tons Expanded Use 30% Expanded Use 15%

Current Use C2P2

Current Use Baseline

Step 2: Estimation of RMC Unit Impact Values

The second modeling step involve s developing environmental bene fit 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 exam ple, substituting one metric ton of coal fly ash for finished portland cement in concrete ha s consequent effects on energy usage, water consumption, and air emissions related to th e portland cement manufacturing process.

Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a tool that illustra tes the full spectrum of these benefits by providing quantified estimates of the environmental impact s of a product across all stages in the product’s life, from resource extraction thr ough disposal (i.e., “cradle to gr ave”). 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 ra w materials consumed, and emissions and wastes released, as a result of its manufacture and use. Life cycle data for concrete products that incor porate RMCs are a useful basis for calculating the unit metrics described above. Specifically, the model compar es the LCIs for a representative concrete product using 100% portland cement versus one us ing a blended cement containing an RMC. The difference between these LCIs represen ts incremental environmental benefit.D-11 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 substit ution, we rely primarily on data derived from the Building for Environmental and Economic Sust ainability (BEES) model. With support from EPA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) developed BEES to compare the life cycle environmental impact s of alternative building products. 9 The BEES methodology measures environmental performance using an LCA approach, following guidance in the International Standards Organiza tion 14040 series of standards for LCA. Thus, all stages in the life of the product are analy zed: raw material acquisition, manufacture, transportation, installation, use, and recyc ling and waste management. 10

BEES includes LCI data from concrete industr y 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 severa l 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 sili ca fume. BEES includes La farge data for products with silica fume cement but does not include Lafa rge data for products made with 100% portland cement. The closest approximation to a 100% por tland cement mix-design for Lafarge products in BEES is a Portland Type I Cement mix-desi gn, 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 estima te the beneficial environmental impacts of coal fly ash, GGBFs and silica fume as a partial su bstitute 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 ble nded cement containing an RMC. Of all the concrete products for which LCI data are provided in BEES, we ar bitrarily selected a concrete beam with a compressive strength of 4 KSI (4,000 psi) and a lifes pan of 75 years as the ba sis of this analysis. Selection of a different concrete product in B EES 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 speci fic use applications. An alternative approach would be to use an input-output (IO) model. An IO model provid es 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.

11 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 fu me 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-12 concrete column with a compressive strength of 5 KSI) does not effect the calculation of unit impact values. Table D-7 presents the specific B EES data files for a 4 KSI concrete beam that were used to calculate unit impact values fo r coal fly ash, GGBFS and silica fume. It is important to note that data files representing hi gher RMC substitution levels in a concrete beam (e.g., 20% fly ash instead of 15% fly ash) coul d 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

4 KSI Concrete Beam RMC Category Without Blended Cement With Blended Cement

Coal Fly Ash 100% portland

cement Data file B1011A 15% fly ash, 85% portland cement Data file B1011B

GGBFS 100% portland

cement Data file B1011A 20% GGBFS, 80% portland cement Data file B1011D

Silica Fume 95% portland cement, 5% fly ash (Portland Type I) Data file B1011CC 10% silica fume, 85% portland cement, 5% fly ash Data file B1011S

For each data file listed in Table D-7, B EES provides complete environmental life cycle inventory data. The life cycle in ventory data are quantified estima tes of the energy and resource flows going into the product and the releases to the environm ent coming from the product, summed across all stages of the product life cycl e 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 envi ronmental metrics. BEES quantifies these flows for hundreds of environmental metrics but, to ca pture the general spectru m 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 (CO 2 from fossil fuels, CF 4 , CH 4 , and N 2 0) (4) CO emissions; (5) Pb emissions to air; (6) Hg emissions to air; (7) NOx emissions to air; (8) PM 10 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-13 Table D-8 presents the complete BEES lifecycle inventory data fo r the metrics listed above. The data fields in Table D- 8 are defined as follows:

a. XPORT DIST: Transport distance of c oncrete beam to construction site.

b. FLOW: The environmental impact being reported.

c. UNIT: The unit in which the en vironmental flow is reported.

d. TOTAL: The total impact across all life cycle stages for all three components (i.e., the sum of fields COMP1, COMP2 and COMP3).

e. COMP1: The total impact across all life cycle stages for Component 1. Component 1 is the main component, whic h is a 1 cubic yard concrete beam.

f. COMP2: The total impact across all life cycle stages for Component 2. Component 2 refers to th e first installation compone nt 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 instal lation 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.

l. MFG2: Impacts associated with manufacturing of Component 2.

m. MFG3: Impacts associated with manufacturing of Component 3.

n. XPORT1: Impacts associated w ith transport of Component 1.

o. XPORT2: Impacts associated w ith transport of Component 2.

p. XPORT3: Impacts associated w ith transport of Component 3.

q. USE1: Impacts associated with use of the total product (all three components).

r. WASTE1: Impacts associated with dis posal of the total product (all three components).D-14Table D-8: BEES Life Cycle Inventory DataBEES Data file B1011A: Generic Concrete Beam, 100% Portland Cement (4KSI)FLOW UNIT TOTAL COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 RAW1 RAW2 RAW3MFG1 MFG2 MFG3 XPORT1 XPORT2 XPORT3 USE1 WASTE1Water Used (total) liter 1,702.101,055.10 570.94 4.39 1,011.14 570.02 4.25 6.05 0.00 0.0737.91 0.92 0.08 71.67 71.67Concrete Beam Cu yd 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 1 kg65.77 0.00 65.77 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Main component kg 1,817.58 1,817.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 2 kg28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 4 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 5 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 6 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos g 266,110.00 213,972.00 50,991.90 1,146.09 207,804.00 50,863.70 815.22 862.43 0.00 319.85 5,305.62 128.19 11.02 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CFg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Lead (Pb) g 0.43 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Mercury (Hg) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Methane (CH4) g 297.63 206.68 88.66 2.29 202.58 88.571.55 0.57 0.00 0.73 3.52 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as g 1,299.12 1,171.98 118.58 8.56 1,096.00 117.07 4.87 13.60 0.00 3.56 62.38 1.51 0.13 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) g 7.10 6.71 0.28 0.125.95 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Particulates (PM 10) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO g 608.93 479.47 125.583.88 471.71 125.41 2.640.71 0.00 1.23 7.060.17 0.01 0.00 0.00(s) Aluminum (Al) g 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Arsenic (As) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cadmium (Cd) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Carbon (C) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Calcium (Ca) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cobalt (Co) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Copper (Cu) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Iron (Fe) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Lead (Pb) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Manganese (Mn) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nickel (Ni) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nitrogen (N) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Oils (unspecified) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Phosphorus (P) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Sulfur (S) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Zinc (Zn) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen g 15.80 7.04 7.47 1.28 6.25 7.45 1.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem g 82.36 59.57 20.40 2.39 52.89 20.26 2.37 0.92 0.00 0.01 5.76 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) g 0.080.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) Suspended Matter (unspec) g43.64 31.97 9.85 1.81 28.399.78 1.80 0.49 0.00 0.013.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00Waste (end-of-Life) kg 1,883.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,883.35E Total Primary Energy MJ 2,779.14 1,994.61 658.19 126.35 1,904.34 656.30 121.11 12.42 0.00 5.07 77.86 1.88 0.16 0.00 0.00D-15BEES Data file B1011B: Generic Concrete Beam, 85% Portland Cement and 15% Fly Ash (4KSI)FLOW UNIT TOTAL COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 RAW1 RAW2 RAW3MFG1 MFG2 MFG3 XPORT1 XPORT2 XPORT3 USE1 WASTE1Water Used (total) liter 1,690.06 1,043.05 570.94 4.39 999.10 570.02 4.25 6.05 0.00 0.0737.91 0.92 0.08 71.67 71.67Concrete Beam Cu yd 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 1 kg65.77 0.00 65.77 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Main component kg 1,817.58 1,817.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 2 kg28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 4 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 5 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 6 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos g 243,685.00 191,547.00 50,991.90 1,146.09 185,379.00 50,863.70 815.22 862.43 0.00 319.85 5,305.62 128.19 11.02 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CFg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Lead (Pb) g 0.43 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Mercury (Hg) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Methane (CH4) g 278.61 187.66 88.66 2.29 183.56 88.571.55 0.57 0.00 0.73 3.52 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as g 1,231.00 1,103.86 118.58 8.56 1,027.87 117.07 4.87 13.60 0.00 3.56 62.38 1.51 0.13 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) g 6.68 6.28 0.28 0.125.53 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Particulates (PM 10) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO g 555.41 425.95 125.583.88 418.19 125.41 2.640.71 0.00 1.23 7.060.17 0.01 0.00 0.00(s) Aluminum (Al) g 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Arsenic (As) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cadmium (Cd) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Carbon (C) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Calcium (Ca) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cobalt (Co) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Copper (Cu) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Iron (Fe) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Lead (Pb) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Manganese (Mn) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nickel (Ni) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nitrogen (N) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Oils (unspecified) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Phosphorus (P) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Sulfur (S) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Zinc (Zn) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen g 15.69 6.93 7.47 1.28 6.14 7.45 1.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem g 81.45 58.66 20.40 2.39 51.98 20.26 2.37 0.92 0.00 0.01 5.76 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) g 0.080.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) Suspended Matter (unspec g43.14 31.48 9.85 1.81 27.909.78 1.80 0.49 0.00 0.013.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00Waste (end-of-Life) kg 1,883.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,883.35E Total Primary Energy MJ 2,629.00 1,844.47 658.19 126.35 1,754.19 656.30 121.11 12.42 0.00 5.07 77.86 1.88 0.16 0.00 0.00D-16BEES Data file B1011D: Generic Concrete Beam, 20% Slag Cement (4KSI)FLOW UNIT TOTAL COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 RAW1 RAW2 RAW3MFG1 MFG2 MFG3 XPORT1 XPORT2 XPORT3 USE1 WASTE1Water Used (total) liter 1,695.90 1,048.90 570.94 4.39 1,004.95 570.02 4.25 6.05 0.00 0.07 37.91 0.92 0.08 71.67 71.67Concrete Beam Cu yd 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 1 kg65.77 0.00 65.77 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Main component kg 1,817.58 1,817.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 2 kg28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 4 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 5 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 6 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos g 237,595.00 185,457.00 50,991.90 1,146.09 179,289.00 50,863.70 815.22 862.43 0.00 319.85 5,305.62 128.19 11.02 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO) g 578.28 374.49 202.06 1.74355.98 201.70 1.16 3.82 0.00 0.55 14.69 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CFg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Lead (Pb) g 0.42 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Mercury (Hg) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Methane (CH4) g 273.15 182.20 88.66 2.29 178.10 88.571.55 0.57 0.00 0.73 3.52 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as g 1,213.22 1,086.08 118.58 8.56 1,010.10 117.07 4.87 13.60 0.00 3.56 62.38 1.51 0.13 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) g 6.60 6.20 0.28 0.125.45 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Particulates (PM 10) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO g 540.47 411.01 125.583.88 403.25 125.41 2.640.71 0.00 1.23 7.060.17 0.01 0.00 0.00(s) Aluminum (Al) g 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Arsenic (As) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cadmium (Cd) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Carbon (C) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Calcium (Ca) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cobalt (Co) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Copper (Cu) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Iron (Fe) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Lead (Pb) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Manganese (Mn) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nickel (Ni) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nitrogen (N) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Oils (unspecified) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Phosphorus (P) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Sulfur (S) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Zinc (Zn) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen g 15.83 7.07 7.47 1.28 6.28 7.45 1.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem g 82.64 59.85 20.40 2.39 53.17 20.26 2.37 0.92 0.00 0.01 5.76 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) g 0.080.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) Suspended Matter (unspec g43.78 32.12 9.85 1.81 28.549.78 1.80 0.49 0.00 0.013.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00Waste (end-of-Life) kg 1,883.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,883.35E Total Primary Energy MJ 2,599.20 1,814.67 658.19 126.35 1,724.40 656.30 121.11 12.42 0.00 5.07 77.86 1.88 0.16 0.00 0.00D-17BEES Data file B1011CC: Lafarge Concrete Beam, Portland Type I Cement (4KSI)FLOW UNIT TOTAL COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 RAW1 RAW2 RAW3MFG1 MFG2 MFG3 XPORT1 XPORT2 XPORT3 USE1 WASTE1Water Used (total) liter 1,667.98 1,020.98 570.94 4.39 977.03 570.02 4.25 6.05 0.00 0.0737.91 0.92 0.08 71.67 71.67Concrete Beam Cu yd 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 1 kg65.77 0.00 65.77 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Main component kg 1,817.58 1,817.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 2 kg28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 4 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 5 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 6 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos g 316,116.00 263,978.00 50,991.90 1,146.09 257,810.00 50,863.70 815.22 862.43 0.00 319.85 5,305.62 128.19 11.02 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO) g 528.02 324.22 202.06 1.74305.71 201.70 1.16 3.82 0.00 0.55 14.69 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CFg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Lead (Pb) g 0.44 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.02 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Methane (CH4) g 361.22 270.27 88.66 2.29 266.18 88.571.55 0.57 0.00 0.73 3.52 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as g 1,647.13 1,519.99 118.58 8.56 1,444.01 117.07 4.87 13.60 0.00 3.56 62.38 1.51 0.13 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) g 5.81 5.41 0.28 0.124.65 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Particulates (PM 10) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO g 1,734.02 1,604.56 125.58 3.88 1,596.80 125.41 2.64 0.71 0.00 1.23 7.06 0.170.01 0.00 0.00(s) Aluminum (Al) g 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Arsenic (As) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cadmium (Cd) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Carbon (C) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Calcium (Ca) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cobalt (Co) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Copper (Cu) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Iron (Fe) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Lead (Pb) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Manganese (Mn) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nickel (Ni) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nitrogen (N) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Oils (unspecified) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Phosphorus (P) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Sulfur (S) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Zinc (Zn) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen g 15.67 6.92 7.47 1.28 6.13 7.45 1.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem g 80.79 58.00 20.40 2.39 51.32 20.26 2.37 0.92 0.00 0.01 5.76 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) g 0.080.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) Suspended Matter (unspec g45.91 34.25 9.85 1.81 30.669.78 1.80 0.49 0.00 0.013.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00Waste (end-of-Life) kg 1,883.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,883.35E Total Primary Energy MJ 3,011.48 2,226.95 658.19 126.35 2,136.68 656.30 121.11 12.42 0.00 5.07 77.86 1.88 0.16 0.00 0.00D-18BEES Data file B1011S: Lafarge Concrete Beam, 10% Silica Fume Cement (4KSI)FLOW UNIT TOTAL COMP1 COMP2 COMP3 RAW1 RAW2 RAW3MFG1 MFG2 MFG3 XPORT1 XPORT2 XPORT3 USE1 WASTE1Water Used (total) liter 1,776.93 1,129.92 570.94 4.39 1,085.97 570.02 4.25 6.05 0.00 0.07 37.91 0.92 0.08 71.67 71.67Concrete Beam Cu yd 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 1 kg65.77 0.00 65.77 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Main component kg 1,817.58 1,817.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Installation component 2 kg28.57 0.00 0.00 28.57 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 4 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 5 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Component 6 kg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Dioxide (CO2, fos g 301,197.00 249,059.00 50,991.90 1,146.09 242,891.00 50,863.70 815.22 862.43 0.00 319.85 5,305.62 128.19 11.02 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Monoxide (CO) g 479.46 275.66 202.06 1.74257.15 201.70 1.16 3.82 0.00 0.55 14.69 0.35 0.03 0.00 0.00(a) Carbon Tetrafluoride (CFg 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Lead (Pb) g 0.43 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.01 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Mercury (Hg) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Methane (CH4) g 212.79 121.85 88.66 2.29 117.75 88.571.55 0.57 0.00 0.73 3.52 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrogen Oxides (NOx as g1,040.88 913.74 118.58 8.56 837.75 117.07 4.87 13.60 0.00 3.5662.38 1.51 0.13 0.00 0.00(a) Nitrous Oxide (N2O) g 6.81 6.41 0.28 0.125.65 0.26 0.08 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.73 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Particulates (PM 10) g 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.000.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(a) Sulfur Oxides (SOx as SO g 826.84 697.38 125.583.88 689.62 125.41 2.640.71 0.00 1.23 7.060.17 0.01 0.00 0.00(s) Aluminum (Al) g 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Arsenic (As) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cadmium (Cd) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Carbon (C) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Calcium (Ca) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Chromium (Cr III, Cr VI)g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Cobalt (Co) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Copper (Cu) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Iron (Fe) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Lead (Pb) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Manganese (Mn) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Mercury (Hg) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nickel (Ni) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Nitrogen (N) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Oils (unspecified) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Phosphorus (P) g 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Sulfur (S) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(s) Zinc (Zn) g 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) BOD5 (Biochemical Oxygen g 16.12 7.36 7.47 1.28 6.57 7.45 1.28 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) COD (Chemical Oxygen Dem g 85.09 62.30 20.40 2.39 55.62 20.26 2.37 0.92 0.00 0.01 5.76 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00(w) Copper (Cu+, Cu++) g 0.080.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.080.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00(w) Suspended Matter (unspec g47.09 35.42 9.85 1.81 31.849.78 1.80 0.49 0.00 0.013.09 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00Waste (end-of-Life) kg 1,883.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,883.35E Total Primary Energy MJ 2,309.89 1,525.36 658.19 126.35 1,435.09 656.30 121.11 12.42 0.00 5.07 77.86 1.88 0.16 0.00 0.00D-19 Figure D-3 shows the assumed life cycle system bounda ries for a 4 KSI concrete beam in BEES made without blended cement. The LCI data presented in Table D-8 reflect th ese system boundaries.

Figure D-3: System boundaries for 4 KSI concrete beam without blended cement

Figure D-4 shows the assumed life cycle system bounda ries for a 4 KSI concrete beam in BEES made with blended cement (i.e., incorporating an RMC).

Figure D-4: System boundaries for 4 KS I concrete beam with blended cementD-20 Estimating the Unit Impact of Using RMCs

The BEES data presented in Table D-8 above were us ed to calculate the benef its 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 co mpressive strength and assumed tr ansport distance constant for both products). To illustrate the methodology, a sample calculation of an environmental impact metric concerning CO 2 emissions reductions resulting from the s ubstitution 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 LC Is described above. Spec ifically, it derives a CO 2 emissions profile for a concrete product us ing two mix designs: one using 100% portland cement and one using 15% coal fly ash and 85% portland cement. The difference between the CO 2 emissions profiles for the two mix designs repr esents the initial measure of environmental impact. For example, the manufacture of one c ubic yard of concrete using 15% coal fly ash results in 22,425 fewer grams of CO 2 emissions compared to a c ubic yard of concrete made with 100% portland cement.

• Step 2 - derive impact per metric ton of coal fly ash. This step translates the CO 2 emissions per cubic yard of concrete into a measure per me tric 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% substituti on rate. This proportion is dependent upon the pounds of cementitious material present in a cubi c yard of concrete, which varies depending upon concrete mix design. As shown in the table, the calculations yield an estimate of avoided CO 2 emissions per metric ton of coal fly ash substituted equal to 701,378 grams.

A similar process is repeated fo r each of the environmental metric s listed above, for each RMC.D-21 Table D-9: Example Calculation of Impact Metric for Avoided CO 2 Related to 15% Coal Fly Ash Substitution

Impacts per cubic Yard Concrete
Code Note/Sources

100% portland

cement [a] 266,110 grams per cubic yard of concrete Values represent impacts related to building products and pavement as characterized in BEES data file B1011A. BEES Version 3.0 Performance Data.

15% coal fly ash [b] 243,685 grams per cubic yard of concrete Values represent impacts related to building products and pavement as characterized in BEES data file B1011B. BEES Version 3.0 Performance Data.
Incremental benefit [c]=[a]-[b] 22,425 grams per cubic yard of concrete Represents CO 2 reduced per cubic yard of concrete produced with 15% fly ash substitution for portland

cement. Impacts per Metric Ton Coal Fly Ash lbs cement/yd 3

concrete [d] 470 lbs cement/cubic yard of

concrete Represents proportion of cubic yard of concrete made up of cementitious material, given a mix-design or constituent density (Lipiatt, 2002, p. 40).

% coal fly ash substitution [e] 15% Fifteen percent of cementiti ous material is replaced with coal fly ash. lbs/metric ton [f] 2,205 lbs/metric ton Conversion for pounds to metric tons.

MT coal fly ash/yd 3

concrete [g]=[d]*[e]/[f] 0.032 MT coal fly ash/cubic yard of

concrete Conversion of quantity of coal fly ash in one cubic yard of concrete from pounds to metric tons.

unit impact [h]=[c]/[g] 701,378 grams per metric ton of coal fly ash substituted for

cement Represent unit impact values for CO 2 (in grams), based on substitution of one metric ton of coal fly ash in a concrete building product or pavement.D-22 The greenhouse gas metrics taken from BEES (i.e., CO 2 , CH 4 , N 2 0 and CF 4 emissions) were converted to equivalent impacts such as Car bon Dioxide equivalent, pa ssenger cars removed from the road for one year, passenger cars and li ght 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 environmenta l 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 as h, GGBFS, and silica fume. 13

12 The Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator can be accessed at: http://www.usctcgateway.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 (CO 2 , CF 4 , CH 4 , and N 2 0). It is calculated from the global warming potentials of individual greenhouse gasses, using the global warming potential of C0 2 as the reference point.

13 Analysis of life cycle impacts is, in its simplest form , the calculation of all impact s 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 impor tant 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 economi c or mass-based allocation in our analysis.D-23 Table D-10: Environmental Impacts Avoided p er Metric Ton of RMC Used as a Substitute for Finished Portland Cement in Concrete

-----------------------Material --------------------- Metric Coal Fly Ash a GGBFS Silica Fume b

Energy Savings (megajoules) 4,695.9 4,220.9 32,915.0 Energy Savings (US $) 129.1 116.1 905.2 Water Savings (Liters) 376.3 145.2 -5,111.4 Water Savings (US $) 0.2 0.1 -3.2

Avoided CO 2 Equivalent (GHG) (grams) c 718,000.0 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided CO 2 Emissions (grams) 701,377.7 668,889.1 699,923.3

Avoided CF 4 Emissions (grams) 0.0 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided CH 4 Emissions (grams) 594.8 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided N 2 O Emissions (grams) 13.2 Not calculated Not calculated

Passenger cars not driven for one year d 0.2 Not calculated Not calculated
Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one year d 0.1 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided gasoline consumption (liters) d 310.0 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided oil consumption (barrels) b 1.7 Not calculated Not calculated

Avoided NO 2 Emissions (grams) 2,130.2 2,014.8 28,442.2

Avoided PM 10 Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 -0.1

Avoided SOx Emission (grams) 1,673.9 1,605.8 42,560.1

Avoided CO Emissions (grams) 654.3 621.5 2,278.2

Avoided Hg Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 -0.3

Avoided Pb Emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.6
Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 3.4 -0.8 -21.0 Avoided chemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 28.7 -6.5 -201.4

Avoided copper water emissions (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Avoided suspended matter in water (grams) 15.4 -3.5 -55.1

Avoided emissions to soil (grams) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Avoided end of life waste (kilograms) 0.0 0.0 0.0

Notes : a. Impact metrics based upon representative concrete products for building and pavement applications.
b. Negative values represent an incremental increase in impacts rela tive to the use of portland cement.D-24 -----------------------Material --------------------- Metric Coal Fly Ash a GGBFS Silica Fume b 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 devel oped 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 Im pact Profile Calculations

The final step in estimating an environmental impact profile for each RMC is to multiply the appropriate RMC substituti on figures by the set of relevant im pact metrics. Table D-11 below illustrates a profile for coal fly ash, based on es timated substitution levels for 2004. Column "c" captures the environmental benefit measures.D-25 Table D-11: Example Environmental Impact Profile for Coal fly ash Substituted for Portland Cement, 2004

Incremental Impact Avoided per 1 MT Fl y Ash MT of Fly Ash Substituted (2004) Environmental Impact Profile Metric

[a] [b] c =[a]*[b]

Energy Savings (megajoules) 4,695.9 2,562,000 12,030,806,021 Energy Savings (US $) 129.1 2,562,000 330,847,166 Water Savings (Liters) 376.3 2,562,000 963,971,579 Water Savings (US $) 0.2 2,562,000 595,887 Avoided CO2 Equivalent (GHG) (grams) 718,000.0 2,562,000 1,839,516,000,000

Avoided CO2 Emissions (grams) 701,377.7 2,562,000 1,796,929,563,830

Avoided CF4 Emissions (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 0

Avoided CH4 Emissions (grams) 594.8 2,562,000 1,523,844,349

Avoided N2O Emissions (grams) 13.2 2,562,000 33,787,885

Passenger cars not driven for one yeard 0.2 2,562,000 409,920
Passenger cars and light trucks not driven for one yeard 0.1 2,562,000 333,060

Avoided gasoline consumption (liters) 310.0 2,562,000 794,220,000

Avoided oil consumption (barrels) 1.7 2,562,000 4,278,540

Avoided NO2 Emissions (grams) 2,130.2 2,562,000 5,457,697,774

Avoided PM10 Emissions (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 29,248

Avoided SOx Emission (grams) 1,673.9 2,562,000 4,288,431,500

Avoided CO Emissions (grams) 654.3 2,562,000 1,676,332,953

Avoided Hg Emissions (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 108,898

Avoided Pb Emissions (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 80,852 Avoided biochemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 3.4 2,562,000 8,678,148 Avoided chemical oxygen demand in water (grams) 28.7 2,562,000 73,439,730 Avoided copper water emissions (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 0 Avoided suspended matter in water (grams) 15.4 2,562,000 39,424,274

Avoided emissions to soil (grams) 0.0 2,562,000 0

Avoided end of life waste (kilograms) 0.0 2,562,000 0D-26 The environmental impact profile is calculated in this way for the quantity of each RMC used in Federal concrete projects under current and e xpanded 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 refinement s 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-27Table D-12: Detailed Environmental Impact CalculationsFly Ash Current Use Baseline Scenario 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules 12.0 12.8 13.1 13.3 13.6 13.9 14.2 14.514.7 15.0 15.3 15.6 168.0Energy Savings billion ($ 2006) 0.3 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.6Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.30.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 3.6Water Savings billion liters 1.0 1.0 1.01.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.21.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 13.5Water Savings million ($ 2006) 0.6 0.6 0.60.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.70.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 8.3Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.60.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.50.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 6.4Avoided C02Equivalent (air) million metric tons 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 25.7Avoided CO2million metric tons 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.3 25.1Avoided CF4metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided CH4thousand metric tons 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 21.3Avoided N20 metric tons 33.8 35.9 36.7 37.5 38.2 39.0 39.8 40.6 41.442.2 43.0 43.8 471.9Passenger cars not driven forone year million passenger cars 0.4 0.4 0.40.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.50.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.7Passenger cars and light trucksnot driven for one yearmillion passenger cars andlight trucks 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.7Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 0.80.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.91.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 11.1Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided NOx (air) thousand metrictons 5.5 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 7.1 76.2Avoided PM10(air) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4Avoided SOx (air) thousand metrictons 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 59.9Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons 1.7 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.1 2.2 23.4Avoided Hg (air) metric tons 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5Avoided Pb (air) metric tons 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons 8.7 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10.0 10.2 10.4 10.610.8 11.0 11.2 121.2Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons73.4 78.0 79.7 81.4 83.1 84.8 86.6 88.3 90.0 91.7 93.4 95.2 1,025.7Avoided copper (water) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water) metric tons 39.4 41.9 42.8 43.7 44.6 45.5 46.5 47.4 48.3 49.2 50.2 51.1 550.6Avoided soil emissions metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-28Fly Ash Current Use C2P2Scenario 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules 12.0 12.8 13.3 13.9 14.5 14.9 15.4 15.816.2 16.5 16.8 17.1 179.2Energy Savings billion ($ 2006) 0.3 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.9Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.30.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.30.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 3.8Water Savings billion liters 1.0 1.0 1.11.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.31.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 14.4Water Savings million ($ 2006) 0.6 0.6 0.70.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.80.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 8.9Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.60.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.60.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 6.8Avoided C02Equivalent (air) million metric tons 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6 27.4Avoided CO2million metric tons 1.8 1.9 2.02.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.626.8Avoided CF4metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0Avoided CH4thousand metric tons 1.5 1.6 1.71.8 1.8 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.222.7Avoided N20 metric tons 33.8 35.9 37.5 39.140.6 42.0 43.2 44.545.4 46.2 47.1 48.0503.3Passenger cars not driven forone yearmillion passenger cars 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 6.1Passenger cars and light trucksnot driven for one yearmillion passenger cars andlight trucks 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.40.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.0Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 0.80.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.01.0 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 11.8Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided NOx (air) thousand metrictons 5.5 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 6.8 7.0 7.2 7.3 7.5 7.6 7.7 81.3Avoided PM10(air) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4Avoided SOx (air) thousand metrictons 4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.3 5.5 5.6 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 63.9Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 25.0Avoided Hg (air) metric tons 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.6Avoided Pb (air) metric tons 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.2Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons8.7 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.4 10.8 11.1 11.4 11.7 11.9 12.1 12.3 129.3Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons 73.4 78.0 81.5 85.0 88.291.2 94.0 96.7 98.6 100.5 102.4 104.3 1,093.9Avoided copper (water) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons 39.4 41.9 43.7 45.6 47.4 49.0 50.5 51.9 53.054.0 55.0 56.0 587.2Avoided soil emissions metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-29Impacts Attributable to C2P2a2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.41.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 11.2Energy Savings billion ($ 2006) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2Water Savings billion liters 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9Water Savings million ($ 2006) 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4Avoided C02Equivalent (air) million metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.7Avoided CO2million metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21.7Avoided CF4metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0Avoided CH4thousand metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.00.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.21.4Avoided N20 metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.62.3 2.9 3.4 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.231.4Passenger cars not driven forone yearmillion passenger cars 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4Passenger cars and light trucksnot driven for one yearmillion passenger cars andlight trucks0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided NOx (air) thousand metrictons 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 5.1Avoided PM10(air) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided SOx (air) thousand metrictons 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 4.0Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6Avoided Hg (air) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided Pb (air) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided Biochemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 8.1Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.6 5.1 6.4 7.4 8.5 8.6 8.8 8.9 9.1 68.2Avoided copper (water) metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.7 3.4 4.0 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 36.6Avoided soil emissions metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. Calculated as the Fly Ash Current Use C2P2Scenario minus the Fly Ash Current Use Baseline Scenario.D-30GGBFS Current Use Scenario2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalEnergy Savings billion megajoules 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.3 3.43.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 39.3Energy Savings billion ($ 2006) 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8Water Savings billion liters 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.4Water Savings million ($ 2006) 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%) 0.10.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.10.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6Avoided CO2million metric tons0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 6.2Avoided NOx (air) thousand metric tons1.4 1.4 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 18.8Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 14.9Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5.8Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3Avoided Biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons-0.5 -0.5 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6-0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.6 -0.7 -7.1Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons-4.5 -4.6 -4.7 -4.8 -4.9 -5.0 -5.1-5.2 -5.3 -5.4 -5.5 -5.6 -60.5Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water) metric tons-2.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.6 -2.6 -2.7 -2.7-2.8 -2.8 -2.9 -2.9 -3.0 -32.4Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-31Silica Fume Current Use Scenario2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalEnergy Savings billion megajoules0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.7Energy Savings billion ($ 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 0.1Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Water Savings billion liters-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1-0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.1 -0.7Water Savings million ($ 2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5Water Savings million ($ discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.4Avoided CO2million metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided NOx (air) thousand metric tons0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.1Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 6.1Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided Biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons-0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3-0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -0.3 -3.0Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons-2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4-2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -2.4 -29.0Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water) metric tons-0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7-0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -0.7 -7.9Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-32Total Current Use C2P2Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 TotalEnergy Savings billion megajoules15.3 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.0 18.6 19.1 19.6 20.0 20.4 20.7 21.1 223.2Energy Savings billion ($ 2006)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 6.1Energy Savings billion ($ discounted @ 7%)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 4.7Water Savings billion liters1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 15.0Water Savings million ($ 2006)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 9.3Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 7.1Avoided CO2million metric tons2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 33.1Avoided NOx (air) thousand metric tons7.2 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.4 8.7 8.9 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.7 9.8 104.1Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.1 7.3 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.8 8.0 85.0Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 31.1Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.0Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.6Avoided Biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons7.9 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 9.9 10.3 10.6 10.8 11.0 11.2 11.4 119.1Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water) metric tons66.5 71.0 74.4 77.8 80.9 83.8 86.589.1 90.9 92.7 94.5 96.3 1,004.4Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water) metric tons36.4 38.7 40.6 42.4 44.1 45.6 47.1 48.5 49.5 50.4 51.4 52.3 546.9Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. Calculated as the sum of the fly ash current use C2P2, current use GGBFS and current use silica fume scenarios. Theexpanded GHG metrics are not included in these totals because these metricswere not evaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.D-33Fly Ash Expanded Use 15% Scenario 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savingsbillion megajoules12.0 12.8 13.3 13.9 14.5 16.0 17.3 18.8 20.2 21.7 23.2 24.8 208.5Energy Savingsbillion ($2006)0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 5.7Energy Savingsbillion ($discounted @ 7%)0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 4.2Water Savingsbillion liters1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.0 16.7Water Savingsmillion ($2006)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 10.3Water Savingsmillion ($discounted @ 7%)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 7.7Avoided C02Equivalent (air)million metric tons1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.8 31.9Avoided CO2million metric tons1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.5 3.7 31.1Avoided CF4metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided CH4thousand metric tons1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 26.4Avoided N20 metric tons 33.8 35.9 37.5 39.1 40.6 44.8 48.7 52.7 56.760.9 65.2 69.6 585.4Passenger cars not driven forone year million passenger cars 0.4 0.4 0.50.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.60.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 7.1Passenger cars and light trucksnot driven for one yearmillion passenger cars andlight trucks0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 5.8Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 0.80.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.11.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 13.8Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided NOx (air)thousand metric tons5.5 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 7.2 7.9 8.5 9.2 9.8 10.5 11.2 94.6Avoided PM10(air)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Avoided SOx (air)thousand metric tons4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 5.7 6.2 6.7 7.2 7.7 8.3 8.8 74.3Avoided CO (air)thousand metric tons1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 3.2 3.5 29.0Avoided Hg (air)metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.9Avoided Pb (air)metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.4Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons8.7 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.4 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.6 15.6 16.7 17.9 150.4Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons73.4 78.0 81.5 85.0 88.2 97.4 105.8114.5 123.3 132.4 141.7 151.3 1,272.5Avoided copper (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons39.4 41.9 43.7 45.6 47.4 52.3 56.8 61.5 66.2 71.1 76.1 81.2 683.1Avoided soil emissionsmetric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life wastemetric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-34Fly Ash Expanded Use 30% Scenario 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savingsbillion megajoules12.0 12.8 13.3 13.9 14.5 19.1 23.8 28.6 33.6 38.7 44.1 49.6 304.0Energy Savingsbillion ($2006)0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 8.4Energy Savingsbillion ($discounted @ 7%)0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 5.8Water Savingsbillion liters1.0 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.5 1.9 2.3 2.7 3.1 3.5 4.0 24.4Water Savingsmillion ($2006)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.5 15.1Water Savingsmillion ($discounted @ 7%)0.6 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 10.5Avoided C02Equivalent (air)million metric tons1.8 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.9 3.6 4.4 5.1 5.9 6.7 7.6 46.5Avoided CO2million metric tons1.8 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.9 3.6 4.3 5.0 5.8 6.6 7.4 45.4Avoided CF4metric tons 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided CH4thousand metric tons1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.3 4.9 5.6 6.3 38.5Avoided N20 metric tons 33.8 35.9 37.5 39.1 40.6 53.7 66.8 80.4 94.3108.8 123.8 139.2 853.7Passenger cars not driven forone year million passenger cars 0.4 0.4 0.50.5 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.01.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 10.4Passenger cars and light trucksnot driven for one yearmillion passenger cars andlight trucks0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.4 8.4Avoided gasoline consumption billion liters 0.80.8 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.61.9 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.3 20.1Avoided oil consumption billion barrels 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided NOx (air)thousand metric tons5.5 5.8 6.1 6.3 6.6 8.7 10.8 13.0 15.2 17.6 20.0 22.5 137.9Avoided PM10(air)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.7Avoided SOx (air)thousand metric tons4.3 4.6 4.8 5.0 5.2 6.8 8.5 10.2 12.0 13.8 15.7 17.7 108.4Avoided CO (air)thousand metric tons1.7 1.8 1.9 1.9 2.0 2.7 3.3 4.0 4.7 5.4 6.1 6.9 42.4Avoided Hg (air)metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 2.8Avoided Pb (air)metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 2.0Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons8.7 9.2 9.6 10.0 10.4 13.8 17.1 20.6 24.2 27.9 31.8 35.7 219.3Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons73.4 78.0 81.5 85.0 88.2 116.7 145.1174.7 205.1 236.5 269.0 302.5 1,855.7Avoided copper (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons39.4 41.9 43.7 45.6 47.4 62.6 77.9 93.8 110.1 127.0 144.4 162.4 996.2Avoided soil emissionsmetric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life wastemetric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0D-35Total 15% Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules15.3 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.0 19.6 21.0 22.5 24.0 25.6 27.2 28.8 252.5Energy Savings billion ($2006)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 6.9Energy Savings billion ($discounted @ 7%)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 5.2Water Savings billion liters1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 17.3Water Savings million ($2006)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 10.7Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 7.9Avoided CO2million metric tons2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.0 4.3 37.5Avoided NO2(air) thousand metric tons7.2 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.4 9.1 9.8 10.5 11.1 11.8 12.6 13.3 117.4Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 7.4 7.9 8.5 9.0 9.6 10.1 10.7 95.4Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.7 2.9 3.1 3.3 3.6 3.8 4.0 35.2Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 2.2Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.8Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons7.9 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 10.7 11.7 12.7 13.7 14.8 15.8 17.0 140.2Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons66.5 71.0 74.4 77.8 80.9 90.0 98.3106.9 115.6 124.6 133.8 143.3 1,183.0Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons36.4 38.7 40.6 42.4 44.1 49.0 53.4 58.0 62.7 67.5 72.5 77.6 642.8Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. 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 GHGmetrics are not included inthese totals because these metrics were notevaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.D-36Total 30% Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules15.3 16.2 16.8 17.4 18.0 22.7 27.5 32.4 37.4 42.6 48.0 53.6 348.0Energy Savings billion ($2006)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 9.6Energy Savings billion ($discounted @ 7%)0.4 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 6.8Water Savings billion liters1.0 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.6 4.0 25.0Water Savings million ($2006)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.7 2.0 2.2 2.5 15.4Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.3 10.8Avoided CO2million metric tons2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 3.4 4.1 4.8 5.6 6.3 7.2 8.0 51.7Avoided NO2(air) thousand metric tons7.2 7.6 7.9 8.1 8.4 10.6 12.7 14.9 17.2 19.6 22.0 24.6 160.8Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.8Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons5.9 6.2 6.4 6.7 6.9 8.6 10.2 12.0 13.8 15.7 17.6 19.6 129.4Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 3.2 3.8 4.5 5.2 5.9 6.7 7.5 48.5Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 3.1Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 2.4Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons7.9 8.4 8.8 9.2 9.6 12.9 16.3 19.8 23.4 27.1 30.9 34.8 209.1Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons66.5 71.0 74.4 77.8 80.9 109.3 137.6167.0 197.4 228.7 261.1 294.5 1,766.2Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons36.4 38.7 40.6 42.4 44.1 59.3 74.5 90.3 106.6 123.4 140.8 158.8 955.8Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. 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 GHGmetrics are not included inthese totals because these metrics were notevaluated for either GGBFS or silica fume.D-37Total 15% Scenario Incremental to Total C2P2Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.9 2.9 4.0 5.2 6.4 7.7 29.3Energy Savings billion ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8Energy Savings billion ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.5Water Savings billion liters0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 2.3Water Savings million ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.4Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9Avoided CO2million metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.1 4.4Avoided NO2(air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.9 1.3 1.8 2.4 2.9 3.5 13.3Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.9 2.3 2.7 10.4Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.1 4.1Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.3Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 1.4 2.1 2.9 3.8 4.6 5.6 21.1Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 11.8 17.7 24.7 31.9 39.3 47.0 178.6Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 6.4 9.5 13.2 17.1 21.1 25.2 95.9Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. Calculated as the 15% Scenario Total minus Total C2P2. The expanded GHG metrics are not included inthese totals because these metrics werenot evaluated for either GGBFS or silicafume.D-38Total 30% Scenario Incremental to Total C2P2Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 8.4 12.8 17.4 22.3 27.3 32.5 124.8Energy Savings billion ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 3.4Energy Savings billion ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 2.1Water Savings billion liters0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.2 2.6 10.0Water Savings million ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.6 6.2Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 3.7Avoided CO2million metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.3 4.1 4.9 18.6Avoided NO2(air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 3.8 5.8 7.9 10.1 12.4 14.7 56.6Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 3.0 4.5 6.2 7.9 9.7 11.6 44.5Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.1 3.8 4.5 17.4Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.3 1.1Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.8Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 6.0 9.2 12.6 16.1 19.7 23.4 90.0Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.4 51.1 77.9 106.4 136.0 166.6 198.2 761.8Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.6 27.5 41.8 57.1 73.0 89.5 106.4 409.0Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. Calculated as the 30% Scenario Total minus Total C2P2. The expanded GHG metrics are not included inthese totals because these metrics werenot evaluated for either GGBFS or silicafume.D-39Total 30% Scenario Incremental to Total 15% Scenarioa2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015TOTALEnergy Savings billion megajoules0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.2 6.4 9.9 13.4 17.1 20.9 24.8 95.5Energy Savings billion ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.6Energy Savings billion ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.6Water Savings billion liters0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.4 1.7 2.0 7.7Water Savings million ($2006)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.2 4.7Water Savings million ($discounted @ 7%)0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 2.9Avoided CO2million metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.1 3.7 14.3Avoided NO2(air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 2.9 4.5 6.1 7.7 9.5 11.2 43.3Avoided PM10(air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2Avoided SOx (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.1 2.3 3.5 4.8 6.1 7.4 8.8 34.1Avoided CO (air) thousand metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4 2.9 3.5 13.3Avoided Hg (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9Avoided Pb (air) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.6Avoided biochemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.3 4.6 7.1 9.7 12.3 15.0 17.9 68.9Avoided chemical oxygendemand (water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 39.3 60.2 81.8 104.1 127.3 151.3 583.2Avoided copper (water) metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided suspended matter(water)metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.3 21.1 32.3 43.9 55.9 68.4 81.2 313.1Avoided soil emissions metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Avoided end of life waste metric tons0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0a. Calculated as the Total 30%Scenario minus theTotal 15% Scenario. The expanded GHG metrics are not included in these totalsbecause these metrics were not evaluated for eitherGGBFS or silica fume.D-40 General Limitations of Analysis

Beyond the specific assumptions and modeling constr aints 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 th e quantities of each RMC used in these projects. Second, it is diffi cult 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 acc uracy of the estimated quantities. In addition, the results likely overstate benef its 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 be tween two concrete product types. These absolute differences likely overstate marginal welfare impacts resulting from RMC substitution. For example, a portion of en ergy savings from RMC substitution may be consumed elsewhere within the economy. Accordingly, the results are best viewed as a relative measure of bene fits across RMCs and concrete product types.D-41 WARM Analysis of Coal fly ash Substitution

EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WARM) is anothe r 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 us e 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

Impacts per One MT Coal Fly Ash as Cement Replacement

WARM a BEES
Avoided energy (million Btu) 5.26 4.45

Avoided CO 2 (MT) NA b 0.70

Avoided CH 4 (MT) NA b 0.00 Metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO 2 E) 0.96 0.71 c
Metric tons carbon equivalent (MTCE) 0.26 0.20 c

Notes: 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 CO 2 and CH 4 were converted to MTCO 2 E and MTCE using the U.S. Climate Technology Cooperation Gateway’s Greenhouse Gas Equiva lencies Calculator , accessed at: http://www.usctcg ateway.net/tool/

.

As shown, the unit impacts calculated fr om BEES and WARM are very similar.

15 The coal fly ash recycling scenario energy and emissi ons factors in WARM are calcu lated 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 de rive the coal fly ash unit imp acts in BEES. We do not run WARM as a comparison between coal fly ash landfill dispos al and coal fly ash recycling because such an analysis would be inconsistent with the impacts being measured in BEES.D-42 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. Wh en 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 intensiv e 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-LCA 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 benefici al use of blast furnace slag aggregate as the avoided lifecycle impacts of extracting, processi ng and transporting an e quivalent quantity of virgin aggregate. This approach provides a reasonable approximation of the magnitude of benefits since virgin aggregate extraction is the only significant process ch ange 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 extrac tion by the total 2004 baseline 17 quantity of BFSA under two alternative scenarios.

Based on available data and co mmunications 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 bene ficially 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 annu ally, 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 2004 18. These results are pres ented under Scenario 1 in Table D-14. Assuming that a pproximately 1.4 million metric tons of BFSA goes unused annually, this would mean that society is cu rrently 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, tran sportation agency decision-mak ers, 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 inform ation on PaLATE, or to obtain a copy of the model, see http://www.ce.berkeley.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-43 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 Ch apter 3, and earlier in this Appendix, we estimate that BFSA use in Federal projects w ould 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 UNITS UNIT IMPACT

(per metric ton virgin aggregate) SCENARIO 1*

Impacts for 8.1 million metric tons BFSA as substitute for

virgin aggregate SCENARIO 2**

Impacts for use of an additional 1.4 million metric tons BFSA as substitute for virgin aggregate

CO 2 grams 12,039.83 97,522,590,241 16,855,756,338

CO grams 15.85 128,402,187 22,192,971

NO 2 grams 24.26 196,507,899 33,964,328

SO 2 grams 11.82 95,734,247 16,542,878

PM

10 grams 172.52 1,397,444,725 241,478,448

MJ 170.00 1,377,028,355 237,950,500 Energy Btu 161,129 1,305,170,991,400 225,533,547,560

Electricity (kWh) kWh 11.20 90,688,961 15,671,052

Hg grams 0.00 4 0.7

Pb grams 0.00 28,178 4,869
RCRA Hazardous Waste Generated grams 197.57 1,600,281,470 276,528,638

Water Consumption thousand gallons 23.68 191,797,367 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, leav ing the additional 1.4 million metric tons available for beneficial use.

MJ = megajoule

Although not quantified in our analysis, the Natio nal Slag Association has indicated that the beneficial use of BFSA provides a further econom ic benefit by helping the U.S. Steel Industry remain competitive in the globa l steel market. (Kiggins, 2007).APPENDIX E:

SUMMARY OF INDUSTRY REPR ESENTATIVE COMMENTS ON MECHANISMS TO INCREASE RMC SUBSTITUTIONE-1 Table E-1 below summarizes s uggestions from six key indus try stakeholders on potential mechanisms to address barriers and increase us e of coal fly ash, foundry sand, and other RMCs.

Table E-1: Summary of Suggestions fr om Industry on Potential Mechanisms

Industry Member Suggestions

National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) • Mandates for use of RMCs, incl uding 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 ag encies (on Federally supported projects) do not restrict th e 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 activi ties aimed at removing informational barriers including, but not be limited to:

o Education through various medi a regarding the safety and performance- enhancing capabilities of RMCs.

o Elimination of use restricti ons not supported by technical considerations.

o Support for performance-based spec ifications for concrete and RMCs used in concrete.

• Substantially increase efforts to ove rcome 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 th at invest in th e construction of infrastructure to store, process, tr ansport or improve the quality of RMCs.

American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) In Federal projects, current requirements that contractors us e recovered mineral resources do not have ade quate "teeth." A number of caveats make it easy for a contractor to opt-out of beneficial use material opt ions. If the procurement process directed contractors to us e RMC materials whenever the design specification allows it, RMCs would be mo re likely be used. Furthermore, other CCPs including FGD gypsum, boiler sla g, bottom ash, and cenospheres could also be included.E-2 Industry Member Suggestions

Holcim, Ltd. General Comments:

• Create greater transparency about the use of RMCs

• Create a centralized repor ting system that tallies the amount and type of recycled cement/concrete products us ed in Federally funded projects. State Agencies:

• Where Federal funds are involved, incl ude requirements in state and local contracts requiring contractors to use cement/concrete containing RMCs (unless cost, availability or technica l specifications prohibit such use). Federal Agencies:

• Review and update Federal procurement rules to require that contractors bidding on Federal construction proj ects use cement/concrete containing RMCs (unless cost, availability or technical specifications prohibit such use).

• On an annual basis, each Federal agen cy should provide EPA with copies of their procurement plans and rules, grant regulations, and information submitted to them by Federal contract ors 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 CO 2 emissions, SFA suggests a strong prog ram that requires elimination of cement-only concretes or requiring th e use of SCMs in Federal projects using concrete. Give weighted financ ial credit (economic incentive) for using CPG materials to produce co ncrete on Federal projects.

• Any program of this sort must includ e 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-3 Industry Member Suggestions

Slag Cement Association (SCA) • The CPGs can be much more eff ective if they had more explicit requirements regarding replacement rates, use of ternary mixtures, and had actual “teeth” so that non-complia nce would have negative project impacts. Create minimum upper limits on slag cement (and fly ash) percentages in concrete based on application.

• Require that specifications allo w the use of ternary mixtures.

• Establish a review protocol to allow a technical evaluati on by an outside party if a project stakeh older challenges complian ce of a specification to the CPGs. This “outside party” coul d be an appropriate functional agency for the project (e.g. FHWA for tran sportation, 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 spec ifications if ther e is a reasonable amount of time prior to the project bi d 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 cha nged then Federal funding should be withheld.

• Provide incentives that encourage more domestic granulation capacity, such as tax incentives for new granul ator 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 Gree n Highways Partnership, which is attempting to incorporate sustaina ble design concepts into highway design.