Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications—Mineral and Quarry Byproducts, Volume 4 (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

4 chapter two COSTS AND BENEFITS International research and byproduct application programs have been developed that provide the framework for a for- malized process of identifying byproducts and applications that enhance the sustainable use of resources, are more envi- ronmentally friendly, and reduce costs. UNITED KINGDOM PROGRAM The Petavratzi and Barton (2007) study objectives were to develop a screening protocol and a “Waste-Product Pairing (WPP) Database” for a variety of mineral wastes with uses in construction sectors. The deliverables of this study focused on helping a range of stakeholders evaluate: • Issues of geographical distribution; • The level of specific information required to allow waste producers to engage with particular product manufactur- ing sectors; • Provide at “strategic” levels the generic information needed for planning policy, strategy, and initiatives aimed at stimulating waste utilization; and • The required level of detail at the “implementation” level. Figure 1 shows the conceptual model used by Petavratzi and Barton (2007) to develop the WPP Database. The purpose of Phase One is to conduct waste minimization and environ- mental audits that can be used to aid in the identification, characterization, and identification of the quantities of byprod- ucts. Independent audits need to be conducted by both the byproduct producers and the byproduct users. Phase Two requires both parties to gather information needed to deter- mine preliminary matches between producers and users. Key criteria for matches will be developed in this phase. Specific case studies are explored in Phase Three. This is a rigorous and iterative process that compares and contrasts adverse factors to benefits gained from the pairing. Factors consider technical issues and feasibility (e.g., environmental and financial costs of transport, processing, etc.) of the pairing. Phase Four evalu- ates the particular details needed to move the pairing from concept to implementation. AUSTRALIAN SUSTAINABILITY PROGRAM Australian researchers McClellan et al. (2008) have con- ducted a number of research projects directed at the sus- tainable development programs for the mineral processing industry. The Co-operative Research Centre for Sustainable Resource Processing (CSRP) is developing a collection of toolkits for embedding sustainability into the design and operation of mineral processing plants. The methodology for this particular assessment tool is presented as steps designed to pose questions that need to be answered at each point in the process. The steps and key questions included in the process are: • Project description: What is the project about? What can it be compared with? Who is involved? • Characterization: What aspects of the sustainability does the project impact? • Quantification: What are the measures of the impacts? • Extrapolation: How would wider implementation affect industry sustainable development performance? • Valuation: What is the value of the benefits in mon- etary and nonmonetary terms? • Presentation: Summary of results. The key focus of sustainability, as defined by McClellan et al. (2008), is water and energy consumption. In Austra- lia, water usage by mineral processing consumes only 2% to 3% of the country’s water resources. However, because mineral processing plants are usually located in rural, dry areas of the country, their impact on the local water supply can be significant. The step in the assessment process needs to consider local water management programs so that restric- tions and benefits can be reasonably considered. The authors note that the typical trend of reporting water usage in mineral processing operations only indicates water use-to-production ratios industry-wide. This information is not useful for sus- tainability assessments as it does not reflect individual opera- tional differences on a plant-by-plant basis. The authors also note there is a similar disconnect when it comes to report- ing financial information (i.e., cost per produced quantity of product). This cost ratio does not have the ability to reflect different cost structures within companies. The hierarchical process is needed that integrates individual unit operations in a given plant to an industrial ecological perspective toward sustainability and water management objectives. McClellan et al. (2008) suggest that energy impact assess- ments will be tied to a carbon footprint pricing scheme. The need to reduce greenhouse gases is driving industries to improve technology through the improvement of process effi-

5 This is an analytical framework to evaluate, capture, recover, manage, and utilize. Figure 2 provides an example from McClellan et al. (2008) developed for evaluating the sustainability of bauxite residue management, a byproduct that is anticipated to have some uses, but also face storage or disposal issues. This figure shows three hierarchical levels: • Headline Performance Indicators: this indicator includes strategic planning and reporting, community well-being, social and cultural values, environmental integrity and benefits, lifetime costs and revenue, and resource use efficiency. • Key Performance Indicators: there are 23 Key Perfor- mance Indicators shown in Figure 2. • Performance Measures: the number of performance measures is case-dependent. In Figure 2 the measures in this example are risk assessment and environmental risk once in place. ciencies and through process modifications, fuel switching, waste process heat utilization, alternative energy sources, bio- mass feedstock, geo-sequestration, and bio-sequestration. The ideal application of sustainable operations is to define regional synergies, where byproducts (i.e., materials, water, energy) from one industry can be reused by one or more nearby indus- tries. The CSRP is currently developing two software-based tool kits to be used in a practically oriented process: • Regional Synergy Opportunity Tool: Identifies poten- tial synergy opportunities in an industrial region. This is a three-stage process. The first uses input and output flows for most major industries within the region to identify and rank potential synergies. Second, a more detailed assessment of potential synergies is made based on water consumption, energy usage or production, and material byproducts. Third, a screening analysis is con- ducted to evaluate sustainability. • Technology Assessment Tool: Assesses the technology needs and opportunities for selected regional synergies. Generic Activity Processes Byproduct Product Matching Byproduct Producer Byproduct User Audit and Minimization Study On site optimization of process(es) and management of waste flows Initial characterization Residual of waste to “waste exchange” level detail Business Case Review Product Option Development • Existing • Novel Information gap analysis Audit and Minimization Study Optimization of product and rawmaterials usage Initial Review of Feedstock Needs “Fitness for purpose” characterization at “waste exchange” level detail Business Case Review Waste availability • Existing resources • New sources Information gap analysis Phase Three Waste exchange brokerage service activity • Preliminary optionmatching • Identification of detailed waste product characterization studies • Review of options to bridge gaps Phase Four Producer user direct activities leading to exchange • Highly specific activity ranging from simple contract for direct substitution tomajor process/infrastructure development Phase One Phase One Phase Two FIGURE 1 Conceptual model used to develop sustainability assessment database (after Petavratzi and Barton 2007).

6 Sustainability Assessment Tool Flow Chart 1.0 Strategic Planning and Reporting 4.0 Environmental Integrity and Benefits 2.0 Community Well-Being 3.0 Social and Cultural Values 5.0 Lifetime Costs and Revenues 6.0 Resource Use Efficiency 1.1 Vision & Strategy 3.1 Ecosystem Values 2.1 Health & Well Being 6.1 Resource Use 5.1 Operating Costs & Benefits 4.1 Groundwater 1.2 Closure Plan 3.2 Cultural Attributes & Uses 2.2 Safety 6.2Residue Reduction 5.2 Long Term Asset Value 4.2 Surface Water 1.3 Management System 3.3 Social Capital 2.3 Emergency Preparedness & Response 6.3 Residue Release 5.3 Contribution to Local Economy 4.3 Air Quality 1.4 Financial Provisioning 3.4 Property Values 4.4 Soil 1.5 Public Reporting & Verification 4.5 Habitat Management Indicators Condition Indicators Operational Indicators Performance Measures Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Headline Performance Indicators (HPI) Leading Indicators (e.g. # risk assessment & completed) Lagging Indicators (e.g. size of environment at risk) FIGURE 2 Flow chart for sustainability assessment (after McClellan et al. 2008).