# 2007 Minerals Yearbook

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey 

# IRON AND STEEL, SLAG [ADVANCE RELEASE]

June 2009IRON AND STEEL, SLAG—2007 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 69.1 

# S LAG

# —I RON AND

# S TEEL

By Hendrik G. van Oss

Sales of iron and steel slags in the United States in 2007 totaled about 19.6 million metric tons (Mt), a decline of about 3% from sales in 2006. Overall, the value of slag sales in 2007 was about $428 million, up by about 5% (table 1).

Iron and steel slags are formed through the addition of slagging agents and fl uxes (chie fl y limestone or dolomite and silica sand) to blast furnaces and steel furnaces to strip the impurities from iron ore, steel scrap, and other ferrous feeds. The slag forms as a silicate melt that fl oats on top of the molten crude iron or steel and is tapped from the furnace separately from the liquid metal. After cooling to solid form, the slag is processed and may then be sold and/or returned to the furnace. Most forms of processed slag have very low unit values compared with those of iron and steel products and for this reason, iron and steel companies generally contract with outside slag-processing companies to cool the slag and remove it. Although the fi nancial arrangements vary, typically the processing company receives the slag for free, crushes it to various marketable sizes, uses screens and magnetic separators to recover entrained metal from the slag (this metal to be returned to the furnace for a low charge), sells the slag on the open market, and pays a small percentage of the net slag sales
revenues or pro fi ts to the iron or steel company. Slag may be returned to the furnaces for use as fl ux and as a supplemental source of iron; this return of slag is typically not reported as a sale.

A list of slag processors, processing sites, and the iron and steel companies serviced is provided in table 4. Apparent duplication at some sites is because certain processing contracts may have been transferred to other companies during the year, and integrated iron and steel plants may have processing and/or marketing contracts with different companies for different slag types produced at the plant. In some cases, the slag is cooled by one company but is then further processed and/or marketed by another company or at another site.

Legislation and Government Programs

Consumption of slag in the construction sector is in fl uenced by Federal and State programs that affect construction spending levels. In federally funded and other construction projects, slags are promoted as “sustainable” construction materials, mainly on the basis that slags substitute directly or indirectly for virgin raw materials (for example, for natural stone aggregates in various applications and for natural raw materials in cement manufacture) or, in the speci fi c case of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), can partially substitute for portland cement in concrete. With respect to portland cement manufacture, substitution of slags for natural raw materials to make clinker can reduce the unit consumption of fuel and limestone in the kiln, which then reduces the overall and unit emissions of certain pollutants, most notably carbon dioxide. Use of granulated blast furnace slag (ground or unground) in the fi nish mill allows more fi nished cement to be made from the same amount of clinker. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was under mandate from Congress, as part of the 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Ef fi cient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), to study the potential for increasing the use of “recovered mineral components” (including slag) in federally funded construction projects. The EPA released a review draft of its report on the subject in June 2007, and a fi nal report was expected to be fi nished in 2008.

Production

Few data are available on the actual annual production of iron and steel slag because not all of the slag is tapped during a heat, and the amount of slag tapped is not routinely measured. However, both U.S. and world production of ferrous slags can be broadly estimated, based on typical slag to metal production ratios, which in turn are related to the chemistry of the ferrous feeds to the furnaces. For typical iron ore grades (60% to 66% iron), a blast furnace normally will produce about 0.25 to 0.30 metric tons (t) of slag per metric ton of crude or pig iron produced. For ores of lower than average grade, the slag output will be higher—sometimes as much as 1.0 to 1.2 t of slag per ton of crude iron. Steel furnaces typically produce about 0.2 t of slag per ton of crude steel, but up to 50% of this slag is entrained metal, most of which is generally recovered during slag processing and returned to the furnace. The amount of marketable steel slag remaining after entrained metal removal is thus usually equivalent to about 10% to 15% of the crude steel output. Using these ratios and data for U.S. and world iron and steel production from the American Iron and Steel Institute (2007, p. 121–126), it was estimated that U.S. blast furnace slag production in 2007 was in the range of about 9 to 11 Mt, and world output was in the range of 237 to 284 Mt. Similarly, U.S. output of steel slag (after metal removal) in 2007 was estimated to be 10 to 15 Mt, and world output, 134 to 202 Mt. Apparent production of slag may differ from the sales of slag (table 1) because of a combination of undocumented returns of slag to the furnaces and stockpiling of slag by the processors.

How slag is cooled is a major determinant of how the slag may be used. Marketed blast furnace slags are of three main types—air-cooled, granulated, and pelletized (or expanded). Air-cooled blast furnace slag is formed by allowing the molten slag to cool relatively slowly under ambient conditions; fi nal cooling can be accelerated with a water spray. Although it can have a vesicular texture with closed pores, the cooled slag is hard and dense and is especially suitable for use as aggregates. Granulated blast furnace slag (GBFS) is formed by quenching molten slag in water to form sand-sized particles of glass. The disordered structure of this glass gives the material inherent moderate hydraulic cementitious properties when very fi nely ground. However, if GGBFS can access free lime during hydration, then its cementitious properties become strong. In the United States, production of GGBFS is from both69.2 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2007 domestically produced GBFS and imported feed processed at domestic grinding plants. Pelletized or expanded slag is cooled through a water jet, which leads to rapid steam generation and the development of innumerable vesicles within the slag. The vesicular texture reduces the overall density of the slag and allows for good mechanical binding with hydraulic cement paste; this slag type is most commonly used as a lightweight aggregate, but if very fi nely ground, can have cementitious properties similar to GGBFS. Blast furnace slag (generally air-cooled) also can be made into mineral wool. Slag for this purpose is remelted and then poured through an air stream or jet of steam or other gas to produce a spray of molten droplets; alternatively, the droplets can be formed by passing the melt through a perforated or fast spinning disc. The droplets elongate into long fi bers that are collected and layered, and this material is suitable for use as thermal insulation.

Steel furnace slag is cooled similarly to air-cooled blast furnace slag, has similar properties to it, and is used for some of the same purposes. Steel slags containing large amounts of dicalcium silicate are prone to expansion and commonly are cured in piles for several months to allow for the expansion and for leaching out of lime.

Consumption

Data in this report are based on an annual U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) canvass of slag processors and relate to sales of processed slag, not the amount of slag processed during the year or the actual production of slag by iron and steel companies. Processed slag is sold from stockpiles, and although most of the material is a byproduct of current or recent iron and steel output or is of imported material, some slag sales are of material mined from old slag piles (slag banks) produced by iron and steel plants now closed. In 2007, canvasses were sent to 27 companies, covering 143 processing sites, and at least partial data (some as consolidated responses) were received for 127 of the sites; the reported data accounted for 96% of the gross tonnages listed in table 1. The data for 2006 represent receipt of at least partial data for 141 of 143 sites canvassed, and nearly 100% of the tonnage listed. For both years, data on pelletized blast furnace slag have been withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data, but the quantities sold were very small. As noted in the Foreign Trade section below, the sales data for granulated slag in both years exclude material sold by importers who as yet do not take part in the USGS canvass.

Nearly 78% of the total slag sales tonnage in 2007, and 79% in 2006, were of air-cooled blast furnace slag and steel slag (table 1). The volume of sales of air-cooled blast furnace slag was virtually unchanged in 2007, whereas that of steel slag declined by about 10%. For both years and all previous years, the sales data for these two slag types largely exclude material returned to the furnaces (and likewise exclude the weight of free metal recovered from the slag and returned to the furnace); data on these returns are very incomplete. Sales of air-cooled blast furnace slag and steel slag, combined, were down by 5% compared with those of 2006, but fared better than certain other construction materials, based on USGS canvasses: cement (down by 9.9%), crushed stone (down by 9.6%), and construction sand and gravel (down by 6.8%). Both air-cooled blast furnace and steel furnace slags are used primarily for a variety of aggregate applications (table 3). However, because of potential expansion problems, steel slag fi nds little use in applications requiring maintenance of

a fi

xed volume (for example, concrete). Both slag types also fi nd signi fi cant use as a raw material for cement (clinker) manufacture (the slag contributes aluminum, calcium, iron, and silicon oxides), but steel slag has proven to be especially suitable for this use. Although some differences for 2006–07 are evident among the usage breakout percentages for these two slag types in table 3, evaluation of the shifts is dif fi cult because the data incorporate estimates, and much of the plant-level data reported in recent years have revealed only the dominant use(s) for the slag; that is, the less common uses are understated. The apparent increase of air-cooled blast furnace slag for clinker manufacture is merely a return to relative levels seen in 2005 and likely re fl ects continued underreporting of this use in 2006 (despite an upward revision to the datum). The 2006 datum for steel slag for clinker manufacture was also revised upward; the 2007 level is nearly identical to that in 2005.

Modest increases in the average selling prices for air-cooled blast furnace and steel slags were evident in 2007, but, overall, prices for these two slag types have changed very little in recent years. Because of generally low unit sales values, slag sold for aggregate generally cannot be economically transported over long distances, particularly overland. Thus, the major factors affecting the sales volumes and prices of these two slag types are dominated by local competition from natural aggregates, the overall level of construction activity (particularly that for roads), and the existence of long-term supply contracts. Air-cooled and steel furnace slags sold for uses other than aggregates can command higher prices than do the aggregate applications. Pelletized slag (not revealed in tables 1–3) can sell for prices well above those for air-cooled slag.

Despite accounting for less than one-quarter of the overall tonnage of slag sold, sales of GBFS dominate the slag market in terms of value. In 2007, sales of GBFS accounted for 86% of the total value of blast furnace slag sales and about 78% of all ferrous slag sales combined (table 1). It is likely that the GBFS tonnages listed in table 1 understate the true market for this material owing to incomplete data. As reported, sales tonnages of GBFS rose by about 5% in 2007, but the average value overall was essentially unchanged. However, the average value of the cementitious use subset of sales of GBFS uses fell about 4% (table 2).

Of total 2007 GBFS sales, 3.57 Mt was GGBFS and the rest was unground material; the GGBFS sales were insigni fi cantly lower than those in 2006. The unit sales value of GGBFS was signi fi cantly higher than that of the unground material; the high value re fl ected the ready market for GGBFS as a partial substitute for portland cement in ready-mixed concrete or as a component of blended cements (also for use in concrete). In concrete containing a proportion of GGBFS, hydration of portland cement releases the lime needed to fully activate the slag. Concretes incorporating GGBFS generally develop strength more slowly than concretes that contain only portland cement but can have similar or even superior long-term strength, release less heat during hydration, have reduced permeability, and generally exhibit improved resistance to chemical attack.IRON AND STEEL, SLAG—2007 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 69.3 Despite its relatively high unit price, GGBFS still sells at a 20% to 25% discount to portland cement. Unground GBFS was sold primarily to cement plants or to dedicated slag-grinding plants for conversion to GGBFS, or to cement plants to be used as a grinding aid (for portland cement) in their fi nish mills. A small fraction of the unground GBFS on the market has been sourced from old slag piles and lacks cementitious character as a result of weathering; this material still has use in concrete (as a fi ne grain aggregate), but sells for much lower prices than those indicated for the cementitious material in table 2.

The USGS slag survey does not distinguish between GBFS sold directly to cement companies and that sold directly to concrete companies, but data collected by recent USGS cement surveys indicate that cement producers consume about 15% of the total granulated slag sold. Sales in the United States of GGBFS under the designation “slag cement” are promoted by the Slag Cement Association (SCA), whose members accounted for much of the country’s GGBFS output. The SCA reported sales by its members of 3.35 Mt of GGBFS in 2007 (Slag Cement Association, 2008); although this represents a 7.4% decline, the overall tonnage is in close agreement with the USGS data.

Foreign Trade

Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, imports in 2007 of ferrous slags (excluding iron scales) totaled about 1.9 Mt, up by about 42% from the import levels in 2006. Granulated slag imports were about 1.7 Mt in 2007, up by 52%. For granulated slag imports (most of which were of unground material), the average customs value was $23.15 per metric ton; down almost 42% from the unit value in 2006. The average cost, insurance, and freight (c.i.f) value was $29.32 per ton in 2007, down by 44%. The leading sources of imported granulated slag were Japan (41%), Canada (38%), and Italy (16%). The tariff codes associated with slag seem also to be used for some other materials (such as censospheres, fl y ash, silica fume) that presumably lack their own codes; some import entries that show exceptionally high unit values may in fact be of these other materials, but these entries generally are of low tonnage. Exports of slag were listed as only about 0.05 Mt in 2007, down by about 37%.

Comparison of the U.S. Census Bureau import data for slag with data from the Journal of Commerce’s Port Imports Export Reporting Service (PIERS) strongly suggests that the U.S. Census Bureau import data are substantially incomplete. The PIERS data show imports of “granulated slag” totaling about 3.0 Mt in 2006 and 2.3 Mt in 2007, including higher tonnages from the same countries listed by the U.S. Census Bureau as well as several country sources not listed by the U.S. Census Bureau. Although some of the PIERS data are actually for cenospheres and pelletized slag (despite being listed as granulated slag), the mislabeled quantities are relatively small and it remains unclear why there are such major discrepancies between the of fi cial data and the PIERS import data. By way of comparison, the 2007 USGS canvass data for sales of granulated slag (table 1) can be split between about 2.4 Mt likely derived from U.S. blast furnaces and about 2.0 Mt likely of imported origin (including imported GBFS ground domestically into GGBFS). This apparent import component of the USGS data suggests that the USGS data include about 0.3 to 0.4 Mt of imported material missing from the U.S. Census Bureau data, but the comparison would also suggest that the USGS canvass has understated (because of the existence of importers not included in the canvass) the import component of the 2007 market by at least 0.3 Mt. Thus, it appears that total sales of granulated slag may have been closer to 4.7 Mt in 2007 instead of the 4.4 Mt listed in table 1; the 2006 data may have been understated by an amount closer to 1.0 Mt.

Outlook

Although the consumption of ferrous slags for use as aggregates will likely continue to parallel trends in the consumption of natural aggregates and cement, and thus will depend on overall construction spending levels, demand for slag is expected to bene fi t from Government programs to promote the use of recovered mineral components in public sector construction projects. Factors affecting the competitiveness of slags relative to natural aggregates include the promotional efforts by the slag industry itself and slag availability. The generally declining trend in the U.S. output of iron and steel implies future constraints on the supply of slag from domestic sources. This is especially true for the long-term availability of air-cooled slag, given the continuing decline in the number of operating blast furnaces. Steel slag supplies are more assured, especially slag from electric arc rather than basic oxygen furnaces.

Demand for GGBFS is likely to increase because of efforts promoting the performance and environmental bene fi ts of incorporating this material in concrete. The supply of GBFS from domestic blast furnaces is constrained by the fact that granulation cooling is currently installed at only four blast furnaces in the United States. Installation of granulators at other blast furnaces is possible but expensive. Unless this is done, any growth in supply will depend on the output of existing or new domestic grinding plants that rely on imported GBFS feed or on direct imports of the material.

References Cited

American Iron and Steel Institute, 2007, Annual statistical report: Washington,

DC, American Iron and Steel Institute, 126 p. Slag Cement Association, 2008, U.S. slag cement shipments: Woodstock, GA,

Slag Cement Association. (Accessed October 31, 2008 via http:// www.slagcement.org/.)

GENERAL SOURCES OF INFORMATION

U.S. Geological Survey Publications

Iron and Steel Slag. Ch. in Mineral Commodity Summaries,

annual.

Other

National Slag Association. Portland Cement Association. Slag Cement Association.69.4 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2007 Steel Total iron Steel Total iron

Air-cooled Granulated Total 2 furnace slag and steel slag 2 Air-cooled Granulated Total 2 furnace slag and steel slag 2
Quantity 3 7.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 20.3 7.4 4.4 11.8 7.8 19.6

Value e, 4 49 318 367 41 r 407 r 54 332 386 43 428 Blast furnace slag r, 1 Blast furnace slag 1

4 Values are rounded because of the inclusion of a large estimated component. eEstimated. rRevised.

1 Excludes expanded (pelletized) slag to avoid disclosing company proprietary data. The quantities are very small (about 0.1 unitor less).

2 Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.

3 Quantities are rounded to reflect inclusion of some estimated data and to reflect inherent accuracy limitations of reported dat a. TABLE 1
IRON AND S TEEL SLAG SOLD IN THE UNITED STATES

(Million metric tons and million dollars)

2006 2007

Slag type Range Average Range Average Blast furnace slag:

Air-cooled 3.03

– 16.26 6.63 2.77–16.53 7.26

Granulated 2 19.29–94.80 79.18 17.08–93.70 75.80 Steel slag 0.49–13.16 4.58 0.47–11.90 5.48 TABLE 2

SELLING PRICES FOR IRON AND STEEL SLAG IN THE UNITED STATES 1

(Dollars per metric ton)

2006

were generally at unit values below the ranges shown. 1 Data contain a large component of estimates and some respondents provide values only on their total sales of

2 Values are for material reported for use as a cementitious additive in cement or concrete manufacture. Material at or near the low end of the range was sold in unground form. Sales other than for cementitious use 2007

a slag type instead of value by type of use. Thus the value ranges shown are likely too restrictive.

Steel Steel Use Air-cooled Granulated slag Air-cooled Granulated slag Ready-mixed concrete 15.7 -- -- 15.2 -- -- Concrete products 4.0 -- -- 4.2 -- -- Asphaltic concrete 13.3 -- 12.1 11.8 -- 14.4 Road bases and surfaces 41.3 -- 51.0 41.4 6.3 51.5 Fill 13.5 r -- 16.6 r 13.0 -- 13.3 Cementitious material -- 94.1 -- -- 86.1 --
Clinker raw material 2.6 r -- 8.2 r 4.9 5.0 6.7

Miscellaneous 3 7.6 0.6 0.8 6.7 0.7 2.3 Other or unspecified 2.0 5.3 11.3 2.7 2.2 12.0 2006

rRevised. -- Zero. 2007 Blast furnace slag 2 TABLE 3
SALES OF FERROUS SLAGS IN THE UNITED STATES, BY USE 1

(Percentage of total tons sold)

use categories are likely underreported. The data also incorporate some estimates and thus should be viewed as good to no more than two significant digits.

3 Reported as used for railroad ballast, roofing, mineral wool, or soil conditioner. Blast furnace slag 2

1 A number of respondents provide breakouts that represent only the dominant use(s) of their slag; accordingly, the minor

2Excludes expanded or pelletized slag; this materialis generally sold as a lightweight aggregate.IRON AND STEEL, SLAG—2007 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 69.5 Slag processing company Plant location Steel company serviced 2, 3 AC GG Exp BOF OHF EAF Alexander Mills Services Inc. Hollsopple, PA North American Höganäs, Inc. X Barfield Enterprises, Inc. LaPlace, LA Bayou Steel Corp. X

Do. Lone Star, TX Lone Star Steel Corp. X Beaver Valley Slag Aliquippa, PA Old slag pile site X X X
Beelman Truck Co. Granite City, IL4 U.S. Steel Corp. X Blackheart Slag Co. Muscatine (Montpelier), IA IPSCO Steel, Inc. X Border Steel, Inc. El Paso, TX Border Steel, Inc. X Buzzi Unicem USA, Inc. New Orleans, LA Foreign, some domestic X Dragon Products Co. Thomaston, ME Miscellaneous domestic and foreign X Edward C. Levy Co. Decatur (Trinity), AL Nucor Corp. X

Do. Butler, IN Steel Dynamics, Inc. X Do. Columbia City, IN do. X Do. Crawfordsville, IN Nucor Corp. X Do. East Chicago (Indiana Harbor), IN ArcelorMittal USA X Do. Detroit, MI Severstal North America, Inc. X X Do. do. U.S. Steel Corp. X X Do. Delta, OH North Star-Bluescope Steel LLC X Do. Canton, OH The Timken Co. X Do. Huger, SC Nucor Corp. X Essroc Corp. Middlebranch, OH Miscellaneous domestic and foreign X Hanson Slag Cement, Inc. Cape Canaveral, FL Foreign X Fritz Enterprises, Inc. Fairfield, AL5 U.S. Steel Corp. X X X Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. Jacksonville, FL Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X

Do. Charlotte, NC do. X Holcim (US) Inc. Birmingham (Fairfield), AL 5 U.S. Steel Corp. X

Do. Gary, IN do. X Lafarge North America Inc. Atlanta, GA ArcelorMittal USA X

Do. Joppa, IL do. X Do. South Chicago, IL do. X
Do. East Chicago, IN do. X X Do. Sparrows Point, MD do. X
Do. Cleveland (Cuyahoga Co.), OH4 do. X Do. Lordstown, OH Old slag pile site X Do. McDonald, OH do. X Do. Salt Springs (Youngstown), OH do. X Do. Warren, OH WCI Steel Inc. X Do. West Mifflin (Duquesne), PA U.S. Steel Corp. (ET Works) X Do. West Mifflin (Brown Reserve), PA Old slag pile site X Do. Seattle, WA Foreign X Lehigh Cement Co. Evansville, PA do. X Lehigh Northeast Cement Co. Cementon, NY do. X Levy Co., Inc., The Burns Harbor, IN ArcelorMittal USA X X

Do. Gary, IN U.S. Steel Corp. X X Mountain Enterprises, Inc. Ashland, KY4 AK Steel Corp. X MultiServ Birmingham, AL Structural Metals Corp. X

Do. Blytheville, AR Nucor Corp. X Do. Blytheville (Armorel), AR Nucor-Yamato Steel Co. X Do. Pueblo, CO Evraz Rocky Mountain Steel Mills X Do. Wilton (Muscatine), IA IPSCO Steel, Inc. X Do. Riverdale, IL ArcelorMittal USA X Do. East Chicago, IN do. X Do. Indiana Harbor, IN do. X Do. Pittsboro, IN Steel Dynamics, Inc. X Do. Ghent, KY Gallatin Steel Co. X Do. do. North American Stainless, LP X TABLE 4
PROCESSORS OF IRON AND STEEL SLAG IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2007

Slag and furnace types 1 Blast furnace slag Steel furnace slag

See footnotes at end of table.69.6 [ADVANCE RELEASE] U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MINERALS YEARBOOK—2007 Slag processing company Plant location Steel company serviced 2, 3 AC GG Exp BOF OHF EAF MultiServ—Continued: Sparrows Point, MD ArcelorMittal USA X

Do. Ahoskie (Cofield), NC Nucor Corp. X Do. Canton, OH Republic Engineered Products, Inc. X Do. Mansfield, OH AK Steel Corp. X Do. Warren, OH WCI Steel Inc. X Do. Brackenridge, PA Allegheny Ludlum Corp. X Do. Butler, PA AK Steel Corp. X Do. Coatesville, PA ArcelorMittal USA X Do. Koppel, PA Koppel Steel Corp. (NS Group, Inc.) X Do. Latrobe, PA Allegheny Ludlum Corp. X Do. Natrona Heights, PA do. X Do. Steelton, PA ArcelorMittal USA X Do. Midlothian, TX Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. 7 X Do. Geneva (Provo), UT Old slag pile site X X Do. Seattle, WA Nucor Corp. X Phoenix Services LLC Sparrows Point, MD ArcelorMittal USA X

Do. Roanoke, VA Steel Dynamics, Inc. X Do. Latrobe, PA Latrobe Specialty Steel Co. X Recmix of PA, Inc. Ghent, KY North American Stainless, LP X

Do. Sarver (Brackenridge), PA Allegheny Ludlum Corp. X Rinker Materials Corp. Miami, FL Foreign X St. Lawrence Cement, Inc. Camden, NJ do. X St. Marys Cement Inc. Detroit, MI do. X

Do. Milwaukee, WI Domestic and foreign X Stein, Inc. Alton, IL Alton Steel, Inc. X

Do. Granite City, IL4 U.S. Steel Corp. X X Do. Sterling, IL Sterling Steel, Inc. X
Do. Ashland, KY4 AK Steel Corp. X X

Do. Cleveland, OH4 ArcelorMittal USA X X Do. Loraine, OH Republic Engineered Products, Inc. X X Do. Georgetown, SC Georgetown Steel Corp. X Tube City IMS, LLC, IMS Division Axis, AL IPSCO Steel, Inc. X

Do. Birmingham, AL Nucor Corp. X Do. Tuscaloosa, AL do. X Do. Fort Smith, AR Gerdau MACSTEEL 6 X Do. Rancho Cucamonga, CA TAMCO Steel X Do. Claymont, DE Evraz Claymont Steel, Inc. X Do. Cartersville, GA Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X Do. Wilton (Muscatine), IA do. X Do. Kankakee, IL Nucor Corp. X Do. Peoria, IL Keystone Steel & Wire Co. X Do. Gary, IN U.S. Steel Corp. X Do. Portage, IN Beta Steel Corp. X Do. Ashland, KY Kentucky Electric Steel, LLC X Do. Jackson, MI Gerdau MACSTEEL6 X Do. Monroe, MI do. X Do. St. Paul, MN Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X Do. Jackson, MS Nucor Corp. X Do. Norfolk, NE do. X Do. Perth Amboy, NJ Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X Do. Sayreville, NJ do. X Do. Auburn, NY Nucor Corp. X Do. Marion, OH do. X Do. McMinnville, OR Cascade Steel Rolling Mills, Inc. X Do. Middletown, OH AK Steel Corp. X X Do. Mingo Junction, OH Wheeling Pittsburgh Steel Corp. X X X TABLE 4—Continued

Blast furnace slag Steel furnace slag

See footnotes at end of table. PROCESSORS OF IRON AND STEEL SLAG IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2007

Slag and furnace types 1IRON AND STEEL, SLAG—2007 [ADVANCE RELEASE] 69.7 Slag processing company Plant location Steel company serviced 2, 3 AC GG Exp BOF OHF EAF Tube City IMS, LLC, IMS Division—

Continued: Youngstown, OH V&M Star (North Star, Inc.) X Do. Sand Springs, OK Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X Do. Bethlehem, PA Old slag pile site X X Do. Braddock, PA U.S. Steel Corp. X Do. Bridgeville, PA Universal Stainless & Alloy Products Inc. X Do. Midland, PA Allegheny Ludlum Corp. X Do. New Castle, PA Ellwood Quality Steels Co. X Do. Park Hill (Johnstown), PA Old slag pile site X X Do. Pricedale, PA do. X Do. Reading, PA Carpenter Technology Corp. X Do. Cayce, SC SMI/CMC Steel Group X Do. Darlington, SC Nucor Corp. X Do. Jackson, TN Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. X Do. Knoxville, TN do. X Do. Beaumont, TX do. X Do. Jewett, TX Nucor Corp. X Do. Longview, TX LeTourneau Technologies, Inc. X Do. Seguin, TX SMI/CMC Steel Group X Do. Plymouth, UT Nucor Corp. X Do. Petersburg, VA Gerdau AmeriSteel Corp. 7 X Do. Saukville, WI Charter Steel X Uniserve LLC Newport, AR Arkansas Steel Association X

Do. Gallatin, TN Hoeganaes Corp. X

Vulcan Materials Co. 8 Tampa, FL Foreign X

OHF, open hearth furnace; EAF, electric arc furnace.

8 The Florida Rock Div. of Vulcan Materials Co. (formerly Florid a Rock Industries, Inc.) was purchased by Vulcan Materials Co. inNovember 2007. 3 Currently operating iron and/or steel company. Company is not shown for old slag pile sites.

5 For granulated slag, Fritz Enterprises, Inc. operates the granulat or but Holcim (US) Inc. owns the apparatus and markets the sl ag.

6 Formerly Macsteel; new name represents the purchase of Quanex Corp. (parent of Macsteel) by Gerdau S.A. of Brazil. in November 2007. 4 For the air-cooled slag, Stein, Inc. was responsible for the cooling but the processing and marketing were handled by Beelman Truck Co. (Granite City, IL), Lafarge North American Inc. (Cleveland, OH), and Mountain Enterprises, Inc. (Ashland, KY).

7 Formerly Chaparral Steel Co.; Gerdau AmeriS teel Corp. purchased Chaparral in late 2007. 2 "Foreign" refers to the fact that the facility imports unground granulated blast furnace slag and grinds it onsite to make grou nd granulated blast furnace slag, commonly now referred to as "slag cement." "Domestic" im plies grinding slag sourced from the domestic market, not a serv ice contract. Blast furnace slag Steel furnace slag TABLE 4—Continued
PROCESSORS OF IRON AND STEEL SLAG IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2007

1 Blast furnace slag type abbreviations: AC, air-cooled; GG, granulated; Exp, expanded. Steel furnace slag types: BOF, basic oxyg en furnace; Slag and furnace types 1

Do., do. ditto.