Displaying items by tag: CO2

US: A Duke University study prepared for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reported that the cement industry reduced its energy intensity by 13% between 1997 and 2007, averaging improvements of more than 1%/yr. These energy savings equate to a reduction of almost 1.5Mt of energy-related carbon. The study showed the gap between the best-performing cement plants and others narrowed and the performance of the industry as a whole improved.

"The decade studied by Duke was one of unprecedented growth for the cement industry, yet Portland Cement Association (PCA) members demonstrated their commitment to environmental stewardship by building sound strategies for energy management and investing in their facilities with state-of-the-art technologies that significantly improved the industry's energy-efficiency and reduced emissions," said Brian McCarthy, PCA CEO and president. "The US cement industry was among the first major industries to tackle the issue of climate change and this study illustrates that it has remained at the forefront of developing policies and improving the manufacturing process."

The study was commissioned by the EPA to measure the change in the cement industry's energy efficiency curve. The energy management approach promoted by the EPA's 'Energy Star' programme, which benchmarks plant energy performance against peers over time and certifies plants that achieve the best enviornmental performance, was an important factor in enabling the industry to improve its energy performance.

The Energy Performance Indicator (EPI) scores the energy efficiency of a single cement plant and allows the plant to compare its performance to that of the entire industry. The tool is intended to help cement plant operators identify opportunities to improve energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, conserve conventional energy supplies and reduce production costs.

France: Lafarge announced new CO₂ targets in partnership with the World Wildlife Fund on 23 June 2011.Key areas include a 33% reduction of CO₂ emissions per ton of cement produced by the end of 2020 compared with 1990 levels and a commitment to develop innovative solutions for sustainable construction by 2015. It is anticipated that Lafarge will emit an average of 518kg of CO₂ per ton of cement produced in 2020, around 250kg less than in 1990.

US: A federal appeals court has scheduled oral arguments for 11 October 2011 in pending litigation challenging EPA's air toxics and criteria pollutant rules for the Portland cement industry, giving activists a chance to argue for the inclusion of greenhouse gas (GHG) limits in the criteria pollutant rule and for industry to highlight what it says are major flaws in both rules.

The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral arguments for the suits challenging EPA's new source performance standards (NSPS) for criteria pollutants and a maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards for air toxin emissions.

The court recently granted the cement industry's request to sever and hold in abeyance several aspects of its pending lawsuits challenging key provisions of the two rules, following an agency decision to issue a partial denial and partial granting of several petitions for administrative reconsideration of the rules. The oral arguments will focus on suits challenging other provisions of the two rules. For example, the Portland Cement Association (PCA) and other industry petitioners will likely ask the court to vacate both rules due to what they say are numerous faults and errors in the final versions.

In the fight over the NSPS rule, industry filed a brief on 16 May 2011 taking issue with, among other things, the rule's new limits on particulate matter (PM) emissions, particularly its limit of 4.5g (0.01lb) of PM per tonne of clinker. Producers argue that the EPA 'simply adopted' the same PM limit that it set for the air toxins rule, at odds with Clean Air Act requirements for setting NSPS.

In their brief in the MACT suit (16 May 2011), the producers argue that the EPA failed to address the overlap between the cement rule and a recent EPA emissions rule for commercial and industrial solid waste incinerators (CISWI). On 21 March 2011 the EPA issued a memo trying to clarify the number of cement facilities that would be subject to the final CISWI rule but the producers said that the memo did not resolve their concerns and sought to have the question addressed through an administrative reconsideration of the rule. This request was subsequently denied by the EPA.

The PCA and others in the industry have also continued to express concerns over whether some cement kilns burning alternative fuels that may fall under a recent final EPA rule defining non-hazardous solid waste would fall under the cement MACT or under the CISWI rule issued in February 2011 and how that would impact on the MACT baseline emissions limits that the agency used when it developed the cement air toxins regulation.

The rules were amendments to existing NSPS and MACT standards for the sector and industry only wants the court to vacate the 2010 amendments and not the rules that were in place prior to the new rules. If the court vacates the amendments, the rules could revert to the older regulations, a cement NSPS set in 1988 and the MACT rules from 2006.

Environmentalists meanwhile will likely use the oral arguments to push their legal fight that is trying to have the court force the EPA to... ...include GHG limits in the cement NSPS. Environmentalists have filed briefs in the cement litigation arguing that GHGs meet the EPA's two-part criteria for determining whether to regulate new pollutants under NSPS. When the EPA issued the cement NSPS alongside an air toxins rule for the sector in September 2011 it said that CO2 standards 'may be appropriate' for the sector, but chose not to include GHG limits in the final rules, because it had not included GHG limits in the proposed version of the rule. The agency said that it needed, "additional information on site-specific factors that affect performance of these controls, where they are currently applied, and control costs," for reducing CO2 from the Portland cement industry. This is a point that environmentalists are disputing.

In a brief issued on 16 May 2011 Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others argue that the EPA's decision not to include GHG limits in the NSPS while saying such limits 'may be appropriate' for future action 'is particularly egregious' given that the EPA's findings in the proposed and final versions of the rule point toward inclusion of CO2 standards and that the agency has already determined that CO2 negatively affects public health.

US/Colombia: Ceratech, Inc., a producer of alternative, non-OPC cementitious materials, has accepted another strategic equity investment, this time from Colombian cement powerhouse Cementos Argos. The Ceratech investment follows Argos' recent expansion of its US presence through a USD 760m purchase of Lafarge assets in the south east of the country. The strategic investment will help Argos meet its goal of building a competitive advantage based on sustainability and innovation.

Ceratech's manufacturing process produces technologically advanced, more durable, 'sustainable cements' comprising 95% waste fly ash generated by electric utilities. Its production does not generate any CO2 and the product is well-positioned for adoption by contractors, distributors and companies that are looking for new solutions that better conform to green building initiatives.

The two companies will cooperate to develop and distribute Ceratech's cement through Argos' established ready mix channels throughout the mid-Atlantic, southeastern and southwestern US markets.

"This strategic investment being made by Argos shows how important innovative, sustainable construction products are to the industry," stated Jon Hyman, CEO of Ceratech. "Ours is the only cement on the market composed of more than 90% fly ash. As the industry's only carbon-free cement, we exceed the requirements for green building practices such as USGBC's LEED rating system."