23.10.2014 Views

Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

Analysis - The Institute for Southern Studies

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Given that the public procurement of these products should continue because of their CPG designation, this RIA assumed that there will be no<br />

negative impact on the public portion of CCR usage. That is, the demand <strong>for</strong> CPG products made from CCR will be the same as it currently is<br />

<strong>for</strong> the public portion of the construction market. However, this RIA assumes a 50% reduction of total private uses. 158 This results in an<br />

estimated 6.8 million tons per year reduction in CCR use <strong>for</strong> this category of beneficial uses.<br />

“Stigma” <strong>for</strong> CCR in Other Consolidated Uses<br />

Not all consolidated uses of CCR are covered under federal CPGs. Thus, this scenario also estimated the potential impacts on the use of CCR<br />

in non-CPG, consolidated uses. <strong>The</strong>se CCR categories include blended cement/raw feed <strong>for</strong> clinker, mineral filler in asphalt, gypsum panel<br />

products, waste stabilization/solidification, and miscellaneous/other. In the case of CCR used in blended cement, mineral filler – asphalt,<br />

gypsum <strong>for</strong> wallboard, and miscellaneous/other applications, this RIA assumed that 50% of these uses will be reduced. Thus, the potential<br />

reductions in this category will total 6.8 million tons per year.<br />

For the use of CCR in waste stabilization/solidification applications, this RIA assumed that stigma will not have a negative impact. For this<br />

use, the CCR are already being used in a waste management context. <strong>The</strong> CCR are used in secure landfills to immobilize wastes typically more<br />

hazardous than the CCR themselves. <strong>The</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e, this RIA projects no reduction in the future annual tonnage of CCR used <strong>for</strong> this purpose.<br />

“Stigma” <strong>for</strong> Unconsolidated Uses<br />

In addition to the consolidated uses of CCR discussed above, CCR can be employed in unconsolidated uses. For some of these uses, the CCR<br />

products may be more similar to the disposed material proposed to be regulated. In addition, they have typically not been chemically fixed<br />

within a product. As a result, stigma concerns may be more plausible. Markets that involve unconsolidated uses of CCR include structural<br />

fill/embankments, road base/sub-base, soil modification/stabilization, snow/ice control, aggregate, agriculture, and miscellaneous/other. For<br />

purpose of the sensitivity analysis, this RIA assumed a potential reduction of 80%. 159 This results in an additional 11.1 million tons per year<br />

reduction of beneficially used CCR. By adding the 6.8 million tons from CPG consolidated uses, to the 6.8 million tons from non-CPG<br />

consolidated uses, plus the 11.1 million tons from unconsolidated uses, this RIA estimates that a severe stigma effect would lead to a 51%<br />

reduction of beneficial use.<br />

158 <strong>The</strong> 50% reduction is considered a worst-case assumption because these materials provide significant value at competitive costs – <strong>for</strong> example, concrete that includes fly<br />

ash typically per<strong>for</strong>ms better than non-CCR concrete, and is likely to retain favorable treatment under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). In<br />

addition, academic studies of “stigma” associated with products rarely leads to decreased usage to this extent.<br />

159 EPA has assumed this high “stigma” effect because a number of the uses may appear close to the disposal scenario, e.g., structural fills. Also, it is widely recognized<br />

that CCR in unconsolidated uses may present risks, if used in the wrong conditions. (Indeed, EPA takes comment on unconsolidated uses in the preamble to the CCR<br />

proposed rule due to the increased potential <strong>for</strong> risks.) Some of these uses are likely to be particularly sensitive to public concerns and liability concerns. <strong>The</strong>se include<br />

agricultural uses and dispersive uses, like use of bottom ash or boiler slag <strong>for</strong> ice and snow control. <strong>The</strong>re<strong>for</strong>e, if stigma does have a role to play, EPA believes it is<br />

reasonable to assume it will be significant <strong>for</strong> unconsolidated uses. Even <strong>for</strong> the purposes of a worst-case sensitivity analysis, however, EPA believes that, given the<br />

success of many of these uses in states with rigorous beneficial use programs, “stigma” will not completely eliminate such uses; there<strong>for</strong>e, it has estimated a decrease of<br />

80%.<br />

176

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!