by Roy H. Grau III and Robert B. Krog

Increased awareness of a healthy work environment is common to all industries and the stone industry is no exception. The presence of operating diesel equipment, welding, stone production blasting, and silica dust in a working environment all contribute to air quality issues in underground stone mines. Particularly recognized is the exposure of workers to diesel particulate matter (DPM). Recent regulations call for a DPM standard of 160_TC ug/m³ (TC = Total Carbon). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has conducted research to improve the ventilation of these mines and consequently reduce the exposure of workers to harmful airborne contaminants. The results have shown that the ventilation of underground stone mines can be significantly enhanced using improved ventilation controls and techniques.

Large-opening stone mines present specialized ventilation challenges because their entries are much larger than in other types of mines. Most stone mines have entries about 40 feet wide and up to 30 feet high, with bench areas that may extend even higher. These large entries present the positive opportunity to move large air quantities at relatively low mine fan pressures resulting in lower fan horsepower and reduced operating costs. However, the difficulty in ventilating large-opening mines is that even with large air volumes, the air velocity is often less than 100 feet/minute. Higher ventilation velocities more quickly dilute and remove contaminants from the face areas. Higher ventilation airflow velocities can be achieved by effective ventilation planning and proper choice of ventilation fans.

Good mine planning is essential

Ventilation is improved significantly in underground stone mines by considering future ventilation needs in the mine planning process (Grau and Krog, 2008, Krog et al., 2004). By strategically selecting stopping designs, stopping and auxiliary fan locations, and stopping types, the mine ventilation efficiency (air quantity at face compared to total mine airflow) and, consequently, the air quality will be improved. Although an adequate large-opening mine ventilation system depends on many factors, preventing leakage between stoppings is a primary consideration. With reduced leakage, more of the airflow generated by the main mine fans reaches the faces to dilute and remove harmful contaminants.

The basic principles of mine ventilation planning include determining the air quantity that is needed to dilute and render harmless all contaminants, how to produce this airflow, and how to direct this airflow to the required mine locations. The necessary airflow quantity is highly dependent on the diesel equipment in use. Cleaner burning engines require less air to dilute diesel emissions and, consequently, require less production from the main mine fan. A mine with less stopping leakage also reduces the needed airflow from the main mine fan because a higher percentage of the airflow from the main fan reaches the face areas. In order to help mine operators determine how much airflow is necessary, NIOSH developed a user-friendly, stand-alone computer program called the “air quantity estimator” (Robertson et al., 2004). The program is available for download on the NIOSH mining Web site (www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/products/product4.htm). The program uses diesel engine information from several sources to provide a starting point to estimate the air quantity required to dilute DPM contaminants to statutory levels in the main return of a mine.

Several studies performed by NIOSH in mines that produced from 1.0 million to 1.2 million tons of stone per year showed that air quantities of about 750,000 cfm were needed to comply with a 400_TC ug/m³ DPM concentration limit, although the necessary ventilation air quantity is highly dependent upon the diesel equipment in use and resultant ventilation efficiencies (Grau et al., 2002). In order to comply with the current DPM exposure limit of 160_TC ug/m³, the estimated required air flow would be greater.

Since haul trucks are the single highest source of DPM, confining the truck haulage to the return air courses is a good working practice and should be done whenever possible. Truck drivers’ exposures to DPM can be minimized by ensuring that truck cabs are equipped with positive filtration systems and the correct filters are used (Noll et al., 2008.)

Use the right fan

Generally, there are two types of fans used in underground stone mines: vane-axial and propeller fans. Vane-axial fans are designed to deliver air volumes at high static pressures. Propeller fans deliver large air quantities, but at much lower pressures. NIOSH observations have found that a total mine fan pressure of less than 0.75 inches (w.g.), not including shock losses, is common in drift portal stone mines and stone mines with slopes or declines operating at depths less than 100 feet or with shaft diameters greater than 15 feet. By comparison, coal mines have higher resistances, which typically range from 2 inches (w.g). to 10 inches (w.g.). The magnitude of the total mine fan pressures is an important factor when choosing what type of fan to use in a stone mine. Propeller fans are often the best choice for ventilating stone mines since these fans generate large air flows at lower static pressures, generally require less capital and lower operating costs, and have lower operating noise levels compared to vane-axial fans (Krog and Grau, 2006). Generally, second-hand vane-axial fans were readily available for sale and thus they are prevalent in many large-opening mines, but propeller fans should be considered in conditions such as those described above.

Ventilation planning factors

The physical layout of a stone mine significantly impacts the mine’s ventilation efficiency. NIOSH research has shown that significant improvements in ventilation are achieved by using long stone pillars to direct the ventilation air. Long stone pillars are created by leaving the break-though cut in a crosscut, creating a pillar that is much longer than normal, with some pillars being over 500 feet long compared to a 45-foot width, as shown in Figure 1. Although there is an apparent loss of stone when developing long pillars, the pillars can be mined during the last days of the mine. Long stone pillars eliminate the leakage that occurs when using fabric stoppings and substantially increase the ventilation airflow to the face. Notice that the mine in Figure 1 delivered 74 percent of the air produced by the main mine fan to the face. By observation, it was apparent an even higher percentage could have been achieved by reducing the leakage at three of the four crosscuts. In comparison tests, a different mine using conventional fabric stoppings at every crosscut, instead of long stone pillars, moved only 33 percent of the total air produced to the face.

Although conventional fabric stoppings are difficult to properly construct and maintain and are prone to leakage, they are a necessity in some locations. Where stoppings are required, a good construction technique is to use “cut-downs.”  Cut-downs involve cutting the roof and rib of the entry smaller than normal, as shown in Figure 2. This allows for a solid stone backing along the rib and roof against which the material can be attached to permit a better seal. Cut-downs are helpful in any entries where stoppings are to be built. One more effective method to reduce leakage is to use piled rock in the crosscut entry and top it with a fabric stopping, as shown in Figure 2. The smaller area created by the piled stone reduces the quantity of fabric material and the opportunity for rips or tears.

Although stone mines are generally shallow operations, their natural ventilation is apparent, but it is uncontrollable in direction. In many mines, the natural ventilation changes direction several times within a day. In most cases, the main mine fan should overcome all natural ventilation. However, there are conditions that make a mine or sections of a mine much more difficult to ventilate. Mining up slope creates contaminated air pockets of warm diesel exhaust, as shown in Figure 3. NIOSH has observed large production areas being difficult to ventilate because the sections were developed up slope. In the summer months, fresh air that has been cooled by the mine ground temperature is required to move up slope to push out warm air that is collecting in the upper reaches. Mines that are developed down slope are easier to ventilate as the warm, contaminated air naturally rises away from the face.

Many mines use a slope for access from the surface or from one mining level to another. When developing the slope or the mine workings, advancement can be slow. If a single slope is used, tubing attached to an exhaust or blowing fan is necessary for ventilation. In such cases, operators may be tempted to develop a mine airshaft as soon as possible once the mining level is reached. In fact, NIOSH has observed some operations where the slope bottom is just a few breaks away from the bottom of an airshaft with no stoppings between. As the mine expands, this creates a ventilation problem, as most of the airflow will short circuit directly to the exhaust shaft rather than move past the shaft to the mine workings. This results in serious contamination problems in the mine workings due to minimum inflow of fresh air.

An alternative approach is to continue to use the blowing tubing to construct the shaft a further distance from the slope bottom and orient long stonewalls to force the air to the production faces, as shown in Figure 4. Later, the cut-downs “A” can be permanently sealed to prevent short-circuit leakage from the slope to the shaft. It is a tradeoff, as using tubing is considered a necessary nuisance while trying to locate the shaft some distance from the slope. Notice that once underground development to the shaft begins, at least two entries must be available for an escapeway, as shown by “A.”  Once the mine is expanded, future mine plans may eventually call for abandoning the shaft and relocating the shaft to a location beneficial to a larger mine.

General ventilation considerations

A common question is whether to use blowing or exhaust ventilation in a stone mine. Due to the low fan exit losses, equal amounts of energy are used with either method. If a mine uses drift portals for ventilation, one disadvantage of an exhaust system is the need for check curtains on the portal where the trucks leave the mine. A mine operating an exhaust system needs two return portal exits, one for the truck haulage and one for the fan. Without check curtains, the exhaust fan would pull air from the truck portal, short circuiting airflow to the active face area. For a mine operating a blowing system, truck haulage using the returns and exhaust portals do not need check curtains. This is a distinct advantage for a blowing system in these types of instances.

Potentially hazardous circumstances can develop on a seasonal basis depending upon how and where the ventilation air enters the mine. If a mine has an exhaust shaft with an intake slope, cold air that enters the slope may create icy roadways and hazardous travel conditions during the winter months. In the summer months, warm moist intake air being cooled in the mine causes condensation on the roof and ribs, which, in turn, can promote ground control problems. This is likely less of a problem near the shaft, which is normally away from common travel areas. Therefore, local conditions may dictate the choice of an exhaust or blowing system. For a mine with only portals and no air shaft, blowing ventilation has a distinct advantage of not requiring the check curtains. Also, it has been observed that the fans can be reversed during different times of the year. In some cases, this reversal could be beneficial, although a detailed investigation into changes in traffic pattern would be required. Considerations must also be given to keeping haul trucks from traveling in the return airways until blast fumes from stone production have left the mine. This can usually be accomplished by blasting at the end of the last shift of the day (assuming the mine doesn’t work all night). This schedule allows the mine ventilation to clear out blast fumes. To determine the time required, velocity rates for intake air can be checked in the return using an anemometer. Chekan et al. (2004) found that velocities in one stone mine ranged from 60 feet/minute to 75 feet/minute by monitoring dust and exhaust clouds traveling through the mine after a production shot.

Mine plan layouts should be developed with considerations given to future ventilation needs as the mine expands in size. Three methods to ventilate a large, underground limestone mine have been documented and tested by NIOSH: perimeter, split, and unit ventilation (Grau et al., 2002). These methods are designed to create stable and measurable airflows at the working faces. Older large-opening mines that have limited preplanned ventilation systems often attempt to ventilate using the perimeter ventilation system. This system is designed to keep the active faces continuously supplied with intake air, which is accomplished by separating the active mining areas from the rest of the operation using air walls of stoppings or rectangular pillars, as shown in Figure 5. The disadvantage of this system is that all sections are on one ventilation circuit, creating possible air quality issues with multiple faces. Since the mining front continually expands, a second air wall is developed at least four entries beyond and parallel to the first air wall. In an older developed mine that is trying for the first time to establish a ventilation system, the first air wall needs to be developed by erecting fabric stoppings. However, the second air wall could be developed by minimizing crosscut development through the use of long stone pillars. As mining progresses beyond the second air wall and a third air wall is developed, crosscuts in the second air wall can be fully developed and the stone recovered. Expanding the perimeter in this way allows for better ventilation to the faces. Split mine ventilation is designed to split the mine into two parcels, intake and return, separated by an air wall (Figures 1 and 6). Face ventilation with this system is similar to the perimeter ventilation method, in that air is coursed by air walls. However, this system can be used during mine start-up and allows the ventilation air to be divided into multiple splits, if desired. Also shown in Figure 6 is a projected truck route situated in return air.

Unit mining is generally used in combination with other ventilation plans such as split ventilation systems (Krog et al, 2004). The unit ventilation method is a series of “units” or “sections” which make up the active mining areas, as shown in Figure 7. The units described in this method are pre-planned mining blocks of several pillars that contain the working faces and that are surrounded on four sides by long air walls incorporating stone stoppings. The air walls have only a few openings or check curtains, which allow for ventilation control and haulage. One advantage of this method is that it allows for these units to be at least partially removed from the main mine ventilation circuit when mining is completed.

Using auxiliary fans

Auxiliary propeller fans are becoming more popular in underground limestone mines. NIOSH studies have found that auxiliary, free-standing vane-axial and propeller fans have different airflow patterns which affect the positioning of fans for effective face ventilation (Krog et al., 2006). The study found that, due to momentum transfer, both types of fans entrain and move considerably more air than the rated capacity of the fan, as shown in Figure 8. The 8-foot-diameter propeller fan was rated at 115,000 cfm and was powered by a 30-horsepower motor. The vane-axial fan was rated at 22,000 cfm, it was equipped with a 23-inch diameter discharge reducer, and was powered by a 25-horsepower motor. The propeller fan generated airflow of 536,000 cfm. However, this was a slower-moving air mass that interacted differently with the surrounding air as compared to the airflow developed by the vane-axial fan. The air exited the propeller fan outlet at 2,500 feet/minute and expanded rapidly to cover the entire cross-section of the drift. The velocity profile was much closer to uniform (i.e., being more evenly distributed across the drift) than was observed with the vane-axial fan. The vane-axial fan had an exit velocity of 7,600 feet/minute and entrained air as far as 260 feet downstream from the fan, whereas the propeller fan entrained air only for about 100 feet. Both fans showed similar reductions in airflow quantity with distance.

These test results verified those by Dunn et al. (1983), who found that a free-standing vane-axial fan entrained nine to 15 times the rated capacity of the fan. Due to these different entrainment levels, propeller and vane-axial fans have different placement criteria when used as auxiliary fans. Kissell (2007) reported several studies showing that ventilation efficiencies in dead-end entries were improved when free-standing vane-axial fans were equipped with a reducing nozzle and were tilted slightly towards the roof.

Placing auxiliary fans

Although a long pillar air wall can assist in delivering large air quantities to the last open crosscut, the correct placement of auxiliary fans plays a vital role in moving the air from the last open crosscut to the face. To better understand this concept, NIOSH performed a series of in-mine tests to determine the impact that auxiliary fan positioning has on the percentage of intake air at the last opening of the long pillar that is delivered to the face (Grau and Krog, 2008).

Figure 9 shows an auxiliary fan improperly positioned because it is inby the last pillar opening. A fan at this location provides only marginal improvement in ventilation. In this scenario, 74 percent of the air produced by the main mine fan reached the last open crosscut, while only 5 percent of the air was measured 400 feet from the last open crosscut. A small amount of face ventilation is achieved because the air mass moving down the intake entries carries momentum which pushes it a short distance into the face area. Also, a small amount of ventilation arises from the motion of both the loader and trucks at the face. However, even with the fan and the equipment movement, the face ventilation in this scenario is minimal.

The fan being positioned inby the main ventilation air stream increases recirculation while providing minimal fresh intake air to the face. Furthermore, the position of the fan in the middle entry tends to promote excessive recirculation as the air reverses both in entry “A” and is non-directional in the entry at “B,” with the recirculated air acting as a substitute for fresh air. It should be noted that not all recirculation is detrimental, with previous studies showing that recirculation is a problem only when it replaces the quantity of fresh air moving to the face (Kissell and Bielicki, 1975).

Figure 10 shows the ventilation efficiencies measured along the stone pillar air wall to the last open crosscut and to the face where the highest efficiency drop occurs. The total efficiency is highly dependent upon the placement of an auxiliary fan or fans near the last open crosscut. An auxiliary fan improperly positioned inby the last open crosscut provided a ventilation efficiency of 5 percent measured at a location 3,000 feet from the intake portal or 400 feet inby the last open crosscut.

The correct auxiliary fan location, as shown in Figure 11, is outby the last open crosscut where it can entrain and blow fresh air into the face area. The fan should also be positioned in the furthest upstream entry (in this case, the left) to create air movement that is traveling in the same general direction as the air being moved by the main mine fan. Being in the left-most entry, recirculation is reduced and the air sweeps the face. Using this configuration, virtually all of the air that was moved by the auxiliary fan was intake air, and 57 percent of the air at the last open cross-cut was pushed 400 feet to the face area. Figure 10 shows that the proper positioning of the auxiliary fan in the intake air significantly increases the fresh air quantity that moves to the face. Correct positioning of the fan yielded a mine ventilation efficiency of 45 percent when measured 400 feet inby the last open crosscut.

Both vane-axial and propeller fans should be positioned in such a way that they entrain, and then move, the maximum quantity of fresh intake air to the face. Generally, this is outby the last opening in the pillar. Both vane-axial fans and propeller fans should be positioned to entrain as much intake air as possible, keeping in mind that vane-axial fans entrain for up to 260 feet after the fan (Krog and Grau, 2006). The propeller fans should also be located in the intake air where entrainment takes place within 100 feet downstream from the fan. It should be noted that moving the fan further from the face, outby the last open crosscut in the long pillar, does not increase the airflow to the face, but increases the percentage of fresh air available at the last open cross-cut that is moved to the face.

Concerning the application of these fans, propeller fans work best in regional ventilation applications where they can move large slugs of air. Vane-axial fans work best in face and dead-end ventilation applications (due to better penetration and greater mobility) (Krog et al., 2006).

Unit ventilation systems

Figure 7 shows the transitioning of a split mining system to a unit mining system where the unit section is to the right of entries “D,” “E,” and “F.”  In this scenario, the ventilation of the unit section was significantly affected by the positioning of two auxiliary fans. The fan situated at “A” is needed to push the air from the last open crosscut toward the face at “C” and to prevent short circuiting of airflow to the bottom of the figure. The second fan is situated near “B” between the last open crosscut and the “C” face. This fan, when directed to ventilate “C” face, allows only about 10 percent of the available air at “A” to reach the unit section through entries “D” and “E.”  However, when the fan is positioned in the same location, but directed toward the unit section, the total ventilation air through “D” and “E” amounts to about 70 percent of the air coming through the last open crosscut near “A.”

Two important considerations are noteworthy when transitioning to unit ventilation. First, it is necessary that a mobile fan can be quickly adjusted, depending upon whether workers are in the uppermost “C” face or in the unit section. Portable diesel-powered fans are becoming popular in underground limestone mines and are best suited for such conditions. Second, as shown in Figure 7, a fan is necessary at “A” in all situations to ensure that fresh air passing through the last open crosscut is directed to the active faces.

Conclusions

These methods to improve ventilation airflows and ventilation efficiencies in large-opening mines include the use of the NIOSH Estimator to estimate the airflow required for proper DPM dilution, use of propeller fans where possible, and utilization of mine planning layouts that incorporate long stone pillars, stoppings, and auxiliary fans to direct airflow to active face areas. The use of long stone pillars is particularly effective in reducing leakage between intake airways and return airways, thus allowing the maximum amount of air produced by the main mine fan to reach the face area. Although various factors can impact face ventilation effectiveness, the best method to ventilate the face is to position an auxiliary fan outby the last open crosscut and in the furthest upstream entry, such that it blows through the intake entry. It is shown that auxiliary fans entrain and generate considerably more air quantity than the actual fan rating. Therefore, although actual conditions will dictate the proper position of the auxiliary fans, as a general rule, they should be located in the intake air, outby the last opening in the long pillar, entraining as much intake air as possible. This will lead to increased fresh air quantities moving toward the face. To reduce recirculation, the fan should also be located in the furthest upstream entry to create air movement that is traveling in the same general direction as the air being moved by the main mine fan.

The findings and conclusions in this report have not been formally disseminated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.

REFERENCES

Chekan G.J., Colinet J.F., Grau, III R.H. [2004] Evaluating ventilating air movement in underground limestone mines by monitoring respirable dust generated from production shots. In: Ganguli R., Bandopadhyay S., eds. Mine ventilation: Proceedings of the 10^th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium (Anchorage, Alaska, May 16-19, 2004). Leiden, Netherlands: Balkerma, pp. 349-355.

Dunn M., Kendorski F., Rahim M.O., Volkwein J [1983]. Auxiliary jet fans and how to get the most out of them for ventilating large room-and-pillar mines. Eng Min, Dec., pp. 31-34.

Grau, III R.H., Robertson S.B., Mucho T.P., Garcia F., Smith A.C. [2002]. NIOSH ventilation research addressing diesel emissions and other air quality issues in nonmetal mines. 2002 SME Annual Meeting, Preprint 02-187, Phoenix.

Grau, III R.H., Krog R.B. [2008], Using mine planning and other techniques to improve ventilation in large-opening mines. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, SME Preprint 08-187, pp. 1-9.

Kissell F. [2007]. Handbook for Methane Control in Mining. NIOSH Publication No. 2006-127, Information Circular 9486, pp. 184.

Kissell F.N., Bielicki R.J. [1975]. Methane buildup hazards caused by dust scrubber recirculation at coal mine working faces: a preliminary estimate. Pittsburgh, Pa.: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines, RI 8015. NTIS No. PB-240 684/1/XAB.

Krog R.B., Grau, III R.H., Mucho T.P., Robertson S.B. [2004]. Ventilation planning layouts for large-opening mines. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, SME Preprint 04-187, pp. 1-9.

Krog R.B., Grau, III R.H., [2006]. Fan selection for large opening mines: vane-axial or propeller fans – which to choose?  In the 11th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symp. University Park, PA, Leiden, Netherlands, Taylor & Francis/Balkerma, pp. 535-542.

Noll J.D., Patts L, Grau, III R.H., [2008]. The effects of ventilation controls and environmental cabs on diesel particulate matter concentrations in some limestone mines. In the 12th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symp. Reno, Nev.

Robertson S.B., Grau, III R.H., Dolgos J.G., Mucho T.P. [2004]. A computer software program that estimates air quantity requirements in large-opening stone mines. In: R. Ganguli, S. Bandopadhyay S, (eds.), Mine ventilation: Proc. of the 10th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symp., Anchorage, Alaska, May 16-19, 2004. Leiden, Netherlands: Balkema, 363-369.

Roy Grau, a mining engineer with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH), has more than 10 years experience in developing methods to improve the ventilation and air quality of underground stone mines. He can be contacted via phone at 412-386-6562 or via e-mail at rgrau@cdc.gov.

Robert Krog, a mining engineer with the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH), has experience in ventilation design, mine layouts, and fan installations. He can be reached at 412-386-6729 or rkrog@cdc.gov.

by Mary Foster, Contributing Editor

With the economic downturn and its affect on construction spending, it would be a logical assumption that many producers have put equipment purchase plans on hold. But surprisingly, producers seem to be doing what they’ve always done when it comes to equipment purchase decisions, typically following their long-term equipment replacement plans as they work to maintain long service life for their existing machines. And while factors outside their control – such as fuel costs and government regulations – have had to become part of the strategic methods applied to equipment procurement, producers rely on their dealers and manufacturers in much the same way as they have for years.

Replace or repair?

The biggest question producers face when planning for capital equipment purchases is whether to stretch a machine’s life as long as physically possible, or purchase a new machine that ultimately employs newer technology for better production and efficiency.

Paul Campbell, executive vice president of Wheeler Machinery – a Caterpillar dealer based in Salt Lake City, Utah – says companies that have planned replacement cycles in place are continuing to follow those cycles. As chairman of Associated Equipment Distributors (AED), Campbell is in a unique position of being able to see how equipment-buying habits across the country have changed or remained the same in recent months.

And Nashville, Tenn.-based Rogers Group, Inc., seems to fit Campbell’s proposed model. Cameron Druyor, director of equipment operations for Rogers Group, says, “We are pretty much keeping with a rolling five-year replacement plan. There are always exceptions, but for the most part, the way we see it is that equipment purchases will have to happen, regardless of the economy.” Druyor explains that like many large producers, his company has enough production facilities that, if it becomes clear the equipment is not being utilized enough in one location, it can be moved to another location. This is especially true of rolling stock and portable plants. Also, site acquisitions bring additional equipment into the mix and allow fluctuations to equipment purchase plans. “But as long as we keep our utilization up, we’re not changing our buying strategy as a long-range tool,” he says.

That said, aggregate producers have always worked to extend the life of their machines as long as feasibly possible. “It is also our normal business strategy to try and run our equipment as long as it is cost effective to do so,” Druyor adds.

Dick Brannigan, Certified Equipment Manager (CEM) at John R. Jurgensen Companies, based in Cincinnati, Ohio, and president of the Association for Equipment Management Professionals (AEMP) agrees. John R. Jurgensen is a third-generation, family-owned, vertically integrated business group with aggregate and hot-mix asphalt facilities. “We keep our equipment a long time,” Brannigan notes. “But the ability to keep it running efficiently is important. We often look at manufacturers’ certified rebuild programs as one way to extend life while maintaining availability. We constantly strive to achieve the longest lifecycle through good preventive maintenance compliance, repair before failure, and component rebuild by a reliable warranted distributor.”

An important factor in the repair-versus-replace decision is the ability to track maintenance and costs over the lifetime of the machine. This is especially important with fuel costs rising as quickly as they have. Druyor says Rogers Group has become extremely conscious of fuel efficiency during the past couple of years. “We do a five-gas exhaust analysis on our equipment that prompts us to do necessary repairs that help keep our equipment running as lean as possible. We also regularly do an oil analysis for the same reason,” he says. “A benefit is that we’ve discovered our equipment tends to live longer when it runs leaner.”

According to Campbell, companies must be able to determine when the threshold has been crossed and the cost to run a machine on a per-hour basis actually exceeds the cost of buying a new machine. “I’ve learned that the companies that have the lowest operating costs are the ones that track their costs by machine, such that they know what each machine is costing them,” he says. And if a customer decides the most cost-effective choice is to maintain, repair, and keep the same machine running, then Campbell also says the customer must not fall into a pattern of neglect just because capital is tight. “Neglecting maintenance is a huge mistake,” he says. “You might get by in the short term, but long term, it will come back to haunt you in the form of a catastrophic failure. Then you will be faced with an even greater cost to repair – or ultimately replace – the machine. You can’t starve the machine and have it work for you in the long term,” he says.

John Stolowski, general manager, North American marketing for Metso Minerals, says most manufacturers and dealers are dedicated to supporting their customers as they continue to maintain or repair existing machinery. “Of course, we would like to see customers replace old technology, but we know it’s not always economically feasible even in the best of times,” he says. “So it’s important to us and our dealers that we fully support the machines in the field and do what’s necessary to keep them running as efficiently as possible.

“Ultimately, parts purchases go on the books as expenses,” Stolowski continues. “An equipment purchase goes on the books as a capital investment, which makes a difference, even if a catastrophic failure forces a customer’s hand. The capital expenditure is more visible. So it comes down to dollars and cents in their long-range forecasts, and we have to support them in every situation.”

When it’s time to buy

According to Druyor, for Rogers Group’s rolling stock, 20,000 hours of service is the typical average lifespan of components. “We start to intensely scrutinize them at 18,000 hours. We rebuild the major components at 20,000 hours, then run the machine through another cycle. Midway through its ‘second life,’ we evaluate the machine to determine when to replace it with a new machine,” he says, adding a rule of thumb he follows in making the ultimate decision to replace a piece of equipment: “Typically, when we’ve spent as much in repairs as we paid when we bought the machine, then it’s a good time to roll it out of our fleet and replace it.”

This leads to a trend Campbell says he is seeing more of: the elimination of older equipment – through sale or trade – when a producer or contractor buys new equipment. “A couple years ago, customers were concentrating on expanding their fleets. Now they will replace equipment, rather than adding to a fleet,” he says.

And once a producer has decided to purchase new equipment, what factors into a good purchase decision? Cost-of-ownership projections are extremely helpful, and most manufacturers can provide this information. At the same time, Druyor suggests that keeping good maintenance records for existing equipment also helps when it’s time to buy new. “We rely a lot on our own information,” he says. “We look at cost per hour, including fuel dollars spent, total dollars spent on maintenance and repair, availability, utilization, and even ergonomics. Within our five-year plan, then, we also look at production goals for each location. We’ll look at equipment size to make sure it’s appropriate for production requirements and goals, and if it’s not, then we might buy new or move an existing machine.”

Campbell says this data can then be compared to the projected costs provided by the manufacturer/dealer. “It takes the customer that can track the operating costs of existing equipment and a manufacturer and dealer that can give cost formulas for new equipment to provide the real picture of how new equipment will affect operating costs.”

Fuel costs are one example, according to Campbell. “If you look at the lifecycle of the machine, it used to be that fuel costs were about 14 to 15 percent of the total cost to own a machine over its lifetime. Today, fuel costs have become more than 25 percent of the total lifetime cost of a machine. They’ve become a much bigger part of owning and operating a piece of equipment.” Campbell also says that while the purchase price typically comprises 15 percent of a machine’s cost over its lifetime, the most expensive cost involved in owning and operating equipment is still the operator.

While their structures might differ, the ability for larger producers to leverage costs using national or regional accounts is a trend that truly began to take hold with the upswing in the industry’s consolidation. And Druyor says it is a nice tool to have in a purchasing arsenal. “We will use national accounts for leverage when we can,” he says. “When you have a multiple-year contract with a manufacturer, it gets some of the decision out of the way, so you don’t have to worry about that aspect of purchasing for a couple years.”

According to Brannigan, “The Certified Equipment Manager (CEM) program of AEMP is an excellent foundation for fleet managers and continuing education for advancement as a fleet management professional.” This type of training can be invaluable when making equipment purchasing decisions. “Continuing educational sessions at our semi-annual management meetings have included discussions on net present value analysis, lifecycle costing, and fleet replacement planning, as well as general topics such as emissions management, technology and telematics, and fuel management,” he says.

Replace or rent?

Rental has always been an option for fulfilling equipment needs. Campbell says that in recent years, when producers’ and contractors’ businesses were expanding quickly, these customers were more likely to buy new equipment outright as a means to add capacity. “Today, there is more caution,” he says. “We see increasing numbers of customers that will rent to supplement their fleets without long-term commitment. They like having the option to walk away.”

Campbell suggests a simple formula that can be followed when deciding whether to rent or buy. “If you use a machine less than 600 hours per year, then the most cost-effective option is to rent. If you use it 600 to 1,000 hours per year, then you should buy a used machine. If you use a machine more than 1,000 hours in a year, buy new. And if you use it more than 1,200 hours per year, buy new with a service contract or sure way to maintain the machine,” he says.

A different animal

Aggregate processing equipment can offer some different challenges in the purchase process, according to Druyor. “A wheel loader can pretty well shovel rock anywhere,” he notes, “but with aggregate processing equipment, you have to look at the products and applications more closely. There’s a lot more art going into it, in addition to everything else.” Druyor says for these purchases, he will get the plant engineers involved in the decisions, providing input on product mixes, type of rock, and production needs.

And one challenge that aggregate equipment manufacturers are working to solve is that of rising fuel costs. According to Stolowski, in the production flow, as the face of a quarry changes with blasting for new material, “producers often struggle with the fact that the face can be a good mile-and-a-half away from the surge pile or primary.” In answer to that problem – for producers looking to reduce processing fuel costs and/or enhance production – portable equipment can help reduce or eliminate the high fuel costs associated with haulage.

“By adding portable equipment to crush at the face, the producer gets 75 percent of the process done,” Stolowski says. “Alternatively, producers who modify a stationary plant to enhance production find that it’s a difficult process - and a huge capital investment. A new jaw unit might be a lower cost than a track-mounted jaw. But when you consider the other cost factors, including engineering, new foundations, chute work, fabrication, and conveying, there is a lot of added cost. And once it’s in place, it’s fixed. There’s no flexibility like track-mounted equipment can offer. And track equipment is self-contained with the feeder, the processing unit, and conveyors.”

It’s a trend that is definitely growing, Stolowski says. “Two years ago, the trend was fixed installations. Producers would remove smaller crushers and screens and replace them with larger capacity equipment. I think we would still see that today if the economy was the same. And while some people will always be staunch on stationary, others are exploring other ways to enhance production and reduce operating costs.”

The price/quality conundrum

Any producer who attended ConExpo-Con/Agg couldn’t help but notice that there is now a large influx of lower-priced equipment hitting U.S. markets. This trend will continue. And it adds some attractive possibilities for equipment purchasing – provided the buyer is aware of the real parameters set by this equipment.

To some extent, price does equal quality and longevity with heavy equipment. And not a small part of this equation in equipment life is the ready availability of service and parts. According to Brannigan, the influx of low-price models has not affected his buying habits.

“I need my equipment to work every day. There is no excuse for downtime. If I can’t get parts or service, my fleet won’t run,” he says. “I would say that any producer would have to decide his tolerance for downtime. That’s the key question. It’s a willingness to put forth the capital outlay or the willingness to accept downtime when waiting on parts or service.”

Druyor agrees. “I haven’t gained a thing if I purchase equipment that’s attractive in price, but has no support,” he says.

Stolowski says that price should be a factor in the purchase decision, but manufacturers can command a premium price if they provide everything that goes along with the premium – including parts, technical support, and service. “There will always be people who will buy because the price is low,” he says, “but if there is a problem, if the machine malfunctions and parts are not available, it affects the bottom line. When you make the decision to buy a piece of equipment, and you make a large capital outlay, a poor decision can stay with you a long time.”

Service is king

As mentioned earlier, the ability of a manufacturer and/or dealer to provide good service is of utmost importance. And this ability factors into the purchase decision. “When I talk to other producers or contractors and I ask, ‘Why did you buy this product,’ price never comes up,” Brannigan says. “Instead, it’s a matter of parts availability, having a local mechanic that can help with the machine, or a product support rep. There’s a whole laundry list of product support factors that come into play.”

A model employed by AEMP to promote the ideal sales and service relationship is the “equipment triangle,” which in its most simple definition is a three-way relationship between the manufacturer, the local distributor or dealer, and the end user, Brannigan says. With emphasis on high standards for fair and ethical business practices, the equipment triangle concept is carried through sales, service, and even equipment rental. “If you have strong relationships in the triangle, and all are doing what they’re supposed to be doing, it’s a win-win for all three legs of the triangle,” he says. “AEMP’s model has been embraced by several local dealers as well as manufacturers, and takes product support to its highest level.”

“Embrace the relationship you have with your dealers; they can lower your costs over the lifetime of your machine,” Campbell says. “Look for a dealer that can do more than sell the machine, but also provide the resources you need after the sale. Partner with them in the long run to provide the highest productivity and the lowest operating costs.”

Technology and the regulatory pipeline

A volatile variable in the purchase of heavy equipment is the ever-changing regulatory arena. The attempt to lower exhaust emissions first led to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) phasing in Tiers I through IV in regulated exhaust levels. Then the California Air Resources Board (CARB) upped the ante in mid-2007. The answers sought by ultra-low-sulfur diesel have proven to be more difficult to achieve, both financially and through infrastructure requirements, than originally estimated – and now consideration for the selective catalytic reduction (SCR) method is creating infrastructure challenges of its own.

“Gaining insight into current and future emissions requirements has been difficult at best,” Brannigan says. “The entire industry is closely watching the CARB versus EPA debate. Once the different models for fleet emissions compliance gain some clarity, our path to regulatory compliance should be slightly easier. Two different approaches to meeting Tier IV emissions are being considered – EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) and SCR. The SCR method has me greatly concerned. It calls for liquid urea to be introduced into the exhaust stream to lower NOx (nitrogen oxide) to required levels. I question the cost of creating an entire new infrastructure for the manufacture, storage, dispensing, and use of urea.

“I remember clearly the original EPA estimate that ultra-low-sulfur diesel (ULS) was going to cost us an additional three cents over the price of low-sulfur (LS) diesel,” he continues. “Obviously, their estimate did not take into consideration the necessary infrastructure changes and profit considerations of the refiners. It’s still hard to believe that in such a short time, the cost of diesel has risen from 50 cents per gallon cheaper than gasoline to 50 cents more.”

Stolowski emphasizes that going green is a good thing. “The green element in our manufacturing processes and the products we make help us to be a good corporate neighbor, and they help the producer to be a good local neighbor,” he says. “At the same time, the need for Tier III engines in California affects buying decisions – either to replace older equipment or to retrofit. You can call it providing what the market needs. And if you want the business, you’d better be there with the technology.”

“We look west all the time for what might be coming down the pipeline to us in new exhaust legislation,” Druyor says, using the CARB ruling as an example. “That’s why we got into our five-gas analysis. We didn’t want to have a knee-jerk reaction to air quality. We wanted to know where our ‘problem children’ were when it came to exhaust emissions. It will help us stay ahead of the curve.”

Mary Foster is a contributing editor to Aggregates Manager. She specializes in covering the construction materials industry.

Rules of Thumb

Make the rent versus used versus new decision:

• If you use a machine less than 600 hours per year, rental is the best bet;
• If you use a machine between 600 and 1,000 hours, buy used;
• If you use a machine more than 1,000 hours, buy new; and
• If you use a machine more than 1,200 hours, buy new with a service contract or a plan for maintaining the machine.

Track existing costs:

• Track all aspects of existing equipment usage:

• Purchase price,
• Fuel and oil use and costs,
• Exhaust contaminants,
• Engine health,
• Total costs of maintenance and repair,
• Utilization, and
• Operator costs;
• For rolling stock, begin to scrutinize component replacement needs at 18,000 hours;

• Rolling equipment should have an average productive component lifecycle of 20,000 hours; and
• If you’re spending as much in repairs as you would in buying a machine, it’s time to replace it.

When looking at new equipment:

• Use tracked data from existing equipment;
• Look at availability and utilization;
• Compare your data with manufacturer cost-of-ownership and operation formulas;
• Look at safety and ergonomics;
• Review aftermarket support capabilities – service and parts;
• Consider price; and
• Leverage buying power of national or regional accounts if possible.

by Therese Dunphy, Editor-in-Chief

For years, the permitting process has remained predictable. A producer seeks a permit for a new aggregate operation or the expansion of an existing one. A group of local citizens or regulators oppose the permit. Community pressure is brought to bear upon the elected officials sitting on the zoning board. They either cave to said pressure or develop a costly laundry list of requirements if a permit is granted.

Typically, the important uses of aggregates such as the construction of highways, bridges, homes, schools, and hospitals are lost among concerns about blast vibrations, groundwater concerns, and noise and dust complaints. Urban legend (or at least industry lore) suggests that years may pass and millions of dollars may be spent in order to secure a permit. So what’s the real picture? How long does it take to secure a permit? What does it cost? How do those factors vary based on operation size and location? These are some of the questions tackled by the Aggregates Manager Permitting Survey.

In May, the survey was sent to a select portion of our readership including many company owners and executives. More than 400 responses were returned, including responses from every state with the nation. In terms of production, 49.3 percent of respondents produced less than 500,000 tons per year or less, while 16.2 percent produced more than 3 million tons per year. Slightly fewer than 70 percent of respondents worked for small, independent companies and slightly more than 30 percent worked for a site that was a subsidiary or part of a larger company.

The buck stops here

One goal of the survey was to capture industry sentiment about whether the permitting climate has changed during recent years. Rather than rely on anecdotal evidence, we sought specific information about producer experiences with this issue. On a scale of 1 to 5 (1 represents strongly disagree, 5 represents strongly agree), 75.1 percent of producers said they believe that permitting has become more difficult during the last decade. Not surprisingly, the West demonstrated the sharpest response to this question with 88.0 percent of respondents strongly agreeing that permitting was indeed tougher now than 10 years ago.

In terms of cost, 77.2 percent of respondents said that permitting has become more expensive during the last decade. In contrast 0.2 percent disagreed with that premise. Again, the West chimed in with the strongest reaction; 87.7 percent there strongly agreed with the statement. In terms of production, sand and gravel producers edged out crushed stone producers with 80.0 percent and 79.7 percent, respectively, agreeing with the assumption.

In some areas of the nation, local markets have already noted a shortage of aggregates. This was verified through survey responses. By region, the West noted the highest number of producers who say there is already an aggregates shortage with 33 percent. In descending order, the Northeast (26.2 percent), South (24.6 percent), and North Central (13.2 percent) agreed. When speculating on future aggregate availability, the regional trends remained true to that pattern. Producers in the North Central reported not only the lowest number of those who felt there is a current shortage, but also the highest number (5.0 percent) who said they don’t believe there will be a shortage.

Banking on reserves

Across the various segments of aggregates producers surveyed – crushed stone and sand and gravel, crushed stone only, sand and gravel only, and other – the most frequently cited response to an inquiry about existing permitted reserves was that the respondent had less than 5 million tons of permitted reserves at the site. While that is not surprising for smaller producers (77.7 percent of those who produced less than 250,000 tons per year responded in this manner), it is a somewhat disconcerting response from the 6.4 percent of producers in the 1.6 million tons per year category. At that rate of production, those sites noted slightly more than three years of remaining reserves.

It is important to note, however, that 21.8 percent of producers in that largest category also did claim to have reserves of more than 100 million tons, leaving them well positioned for future production.

In terms of regional disparity, 54.4 percent of producers in the Northeast reported having less than 5 million tons of permitted reserves, followed by the West (45.3 percent), the North Central (34.5 percent), and the South (28.1 percent). In contrast, 8.4 percent of producers in the North Central region reported more than 100 million tons of reserves, followed by the South (7.8 percent), the Northeast (7.6 percent), and the West (7.5 percent).

Looking at reserves as a company-wide issue, slightly less than half of respondents (48.9 percent) reported having corporate reserves of less than 10 million tons. The next largest category was 10 to 50 million tons of reserves with 23.4 percent of respondents. In contrast, 8.0 percent indicated they had 51 million  to 100 million tons, 10.6 percent claimed 101 million to 500 million tons, 3.4 percent noted 501 million to 1 billion tons, and 5.7 percent topped the stockpile with more than 1 billion tons of reserves.

As anticipated, smaller annual tonnage operations tended to indicate they had fewer tons of reserves while larger annual tonnage operations were more likely to indicate higher tonnages. On a regional basis, the Northeast had the highest percentage of producers (65.7 percent) with less than 10 million tons of reserves while 13.3 percent of producers in the South claimed more than 1 billion tons.

Red light, green light

Of the producers who responded to our survey, 38 percent were actively seeking a permit. The larger the annual production, the more likely it seemed that the producer was involved in a current permit: 57.0 percent of those with production rates of more than 1.6 million tons per year were seeking permits compared to 44.9 percent of sites with 750,001 million to 1.5 million tons, 39.6 percent at sites with 250,001 million to 750,000 million tons, and 20.9 percent at sites producing fewer than 250,000 tons per year. In addition, those in the South (48.0 percent) and West (47.7 percent) were the most likely to be involved in a permitting effort.

When it comes to timeliness, small producers (less than 250,000 tons per year) experienced both extremes in obtaining permits. While 34.8 percent were able to secure permits in less than six months, 10.9 percent had been working on a permit for more than a decade. In contrast, large producers (more than 1.6 million tons per year) seemed to have the swiftest turnarounds; 83.6 percent were able to obtain permits within three years. Producers in the West also faced long waits with 14.5 percent saying they had been working on their current permit for more than 10 years. Meanwhile, those in the North Central and South seemed to be in relatively good shape – 37.5 percent and 43.8 percent, respectively, had obtained a permit within the last year.

One of the biggest surprises outlined in the survey came in the area of cost; 74.1 percent of respondents said they invested less than $100,000 in their last permitting effort. The large number of small, independent producers responding to the survey may have influenced this number. In addition, 89.8 percent of those in the smallest production category (less than 250,000 tons per year) and 88.9 percent of those who only produced sand and gravel indicated they were part of this spending category. In contrast, 9.9 percent of respondents in the West and 12.7 percent of those producing more than 750,000 tons per year indicated that they spent $1 million to $3 million to get their most recent permit.

Fact vs. fiction

While the results of the Aggregates Manager Permitting Survey confirmed some urban legends such as the shortage of aggregate reserves, they dispelled others related to the cost of permits. That said, there are still plenty of industry tales of woe related to permitting, and those cases will continue to underscore the importance of proactive public relations and education efforts.

* After nine years, Buffalo Crushed Stone is still trying to expand its operation in the Cheektowaga, N.Y.

* In July 2007, a Florida judge shut down operations owned by Florida Rock, Tarmac, and White Rock Quarries. The Lake Belt operations produce a combined tonnage of approximately 55 million tons per year and those shutdowns are likely to reduce state-wide production by 30 to 40 percent.

* In late July 2007, Granite Construction – working with its partner, Palomar Aggregates – won a legal battle to mine a greenfield site in North County, California. As part of that 20-year approval process, the partners will pay for the construction of a $26 million roadway to mitigate major development around the mine.

* In August 2007, Aggregate Industries opted to sue Alamo Township, Mich., for the right to operate a sand and gravel operation. It claimed that the township’s ordinance regulating gravel mines is unconstitutional.

* In early October2007, Kaweah River Rock, based in Tulare County, California, received court approval to proceed with mining after 21 years of hard work in the face of opposition from environmental groups.

So although the cost of permitting may not be as bad as legends tell, permitting difficulties are likely to continue. They will also impact the long-term health of all companies. That fact was underscored in late September, when Don James, chairman and CEO of Vulcan Materials Co., told security analysts,”Where it is possible, we work very hard to secure new greenfield sites. That is increasingly difficult, increasingly expensive, increasingly long term.”

In short supply

There is a shortage now          23.9%

Will be in 5 years        36.3%

Will be in 10 years      37.4%

No shortage     2.4%

caption: Percentage of aggregate producers who believe there is or will be a shortage of aggregates in their market.

Source: Aggregates Manager Permitting Survey

Permitting timelines

Less than 6 months     27.1%

6 months to 1 year      28.1%

1 to 3 years      22.6%

4 to 5 years      10.1%

6 to 10 years    3.5%

More than 10 years     8.5%

caption: Length of time respondents have been involved in their current permitting effort.

Permit restrictions

Want to know what restriction helped bring about a permit? Here is the breakdown of restrictions included on permits our respondents were able to obtain.

Hours of operation: 49.2 percent

Air/emissions: 48.2 percent

Setbacks: 43.9 percent

Tonnage/acreage restrictions: 40.1 percent

Screening/berming (aesthetics): 36.3 percent

Groundwater monitoring: 33.5 percent

Noise limitations: 31.7 percent

Blast monitoring: 26.1 percent

Wetlands mitigation: 24.6 percent

Trucking: 22.6 percent

Crushing: 17.5 percent

Other: 2.5 percent

No conditions/restrictions attached: 8.1 percent

Note: Respondents could select as many restrictions as applied to their situation.

Permit dealbreakers

No matter how well you argue a business case scenario, public pressure sometimes prevails. Here are the most frequently cited reasons why producers were denied a permit.

Community pressure: 38.3 percent

Zoning: 30.0 percent

Truck traffic: 25.0 percent

Ground water/well concerns: 21.7 percent

Noise: 18.3 percent

Air/emission concerns: 15.0 percent

Blast concerns: 11.7 percent

Endangered/threatened species: 11.7 percent

Wetlands: 11.7 percent

General health issues: 8.3 percent

Other: 5.0 percent

No reason given: 20.0 percent

Note: Respondents could select as many reasons for a permit denial as applied to their situation.

U.S. Permit Regions

Northeast: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania

North Central: Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota

South: Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas

West: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, Washington

Potential callouts, quick facts, or decks

More than 75 percent of survey respondents strongly agreed that permitting has become more difficult during the last decade.

More than 41 percent of respondents said that a community or activist group attempted to stop their permitting effort.

A third of producers in the West say there is already a shortage of aggregates while another 36.9 percent in that region expect a shortage to develop within five years.

No longer just a buzzword, sustainability is a trend that will help provide the aggregates industry with the social license it needs to operate.

Sustainability — a concept many previously believed to be a cause de jour — has grown deep roots in the culture of the global population. From movies featuring former vice presidents to television commercials for household products, environmental issues also play an increasingly important role in the American conscience. For aggregates producers, it elevates the significance of environmental stewardship not only during the mining phase, but also life-cycle planning from design through final use of their sites.

“Sustainability is not a catchword anymore. It really is a value. Sustainability means that we care about people, we care about our environment, and we care about making products that help build America’s economy,” says Joy Wilson, president and CEO of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA) in a new toolkit on sustainability within the aggregates industry. “It’s the three circles of environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic investment that, together, combine to allow our industry help our communities achieve a sustainable future.”

Best practices — not only in mining but also in community relations — go to the core of communicating how environmental, safety, and health initiatives being used in the aggregate industry ensure a supply of construction materials for economic development, but in a way that minimizes its impact on future generations.

“We are only going to be allowed to continue to operate at the good graces of the community,” says Louis Griesemer, president of Springfield Underground, Inc., and immediate past chairman of NSSGA. “If we don’t have their support, we might be able to continue to mine for some time or operate our operations in existing locations, but they will look very adversely at us during any kind of expansion or opening of new sites.”

Mindful of the importance of maintaining their social license to operate, many aggregate companies include sustainability and sustainable development among their core values.

Vulcan Materials Co.

Birmingham, Ala.-based Vulcan Materials Co. has demonstrated its commitment to environmental, safety, health, and sustainability issues through numerous initiatives, including several significant announcements so far this year.

In January, Vulcan joined the Global Environmental Management Initiatives (GEMI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization of companies dedicated to fostering global environmental, health, and safety excellence through the sharing of tools and information. It also promotes a worldwide business ethic in these areas through example and leadership. Companies belonging to GEMI include 3M, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., DuPont, Eastman Kodak Co., The Coca-Cola Co., Perdue Farms, and The Procter & Gamble Co., among others.

“Given the constantly changing regulatory environment and challenges facing the industry, our safety, health, and environmental programs must continue to improve for the company to maintain its leadership position,” says Brad Rosenwald, Vulcan’s corporate vice president of safety, health, and environment. “Membership and participation in an organization of GEMI’s caliber is a cornerstone in helping our company achieve our goal of continual improvement.”

In February, the California Climate Action Registry, following certification of its 2006 inventory report of greenhouse gas emissions, designated Vulcan’s Western Division as a Climate Action Leader. That report is a single part of a larger initiative in the division to address the challenges of climate change.

The Western Division is also looking for ways to quantify the steps it has taken to reduce greenhouse gases at its facilities. One example of these efforts is the design and construction of a downhill conveyor at its newest aggregates site in Corona, Calif. The conveyor generates electricity as it carries aggregate to the processing plant below. According to Brian Anderson, the Western Division’s director, environmental management, regulatory affairs, and sustainable development, the electricity created by the plant’s downhill conveyor will result in more than 180,000 pounds of greenhouse gas savings annually. “This project is a testament to Vulcan’s commitment to the environment, and a wonderful example of a sustainable practice that directly benefits the community by providing a material that is in severe shortage throughout the state,” Anderson says.

In Orange County, Calif., Vulcan has also partnered on a trial project with West MeadVaco and Western Emulsions to pave a service road in Irvine Regional Park with warm-mix asphalt, a paving technology used in Europe for several years, but just being tested in the United States. Warm-mix asphalt requires less heat for its use and can be poured in colder weather. Benefits include the potential for energy savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and an extended paving system that could expedite construction projects.

“Environmental protection has always been at the core of our business. We are firmly committed to providing California with quality materials in a socially responsible manner that results in sustainable benefits to the communities we serve,” Anderson notes. “Projects such as these are critical for infrastructure, and having this option is a perfect example of blending business innovation with social responsibility.”

Moving beyond products and processes, the division’s Irwindale, Calif., facility was the first of its kind to receive ISO 14001 certification. In early April, it received that certification after NSF-International Strategic Registration, an independent, non-profit organization, conducted a series of audits.

“Having the first combined asphalt and aggregates facility in California to be certified as ISO 14001 compliant provides independent confirmation of Vulcan’s commitment to the environment and demonstrates to our customers and to our neighbors how we integrate sustainability into our operations,” says Alan Wessel, president of the Western Division. “We are proud of the management systems framework we established to ensure continuous improvement in our environmental practices.”

The team at the Irwindale plant developed an array of methods to reduce and prevent pollution, including repowering large equipment and giving contractors access to the facility’s power grid. This allows contractors to eliminate the use of outdated equipment and generates a corresponding decrease in diesel and nitrogen oxide emissions.

Holcim

Sustainability plays a key role in various initiatives at companies that are part of Holcim Group. In areas ranging from the development of environmentally friendly building products, to emission-reducing transportation strategies, to well-designed plants, the company considers its long-term social license in its business decisions and strategies.

For several years in a row, the Dow Jones Sustainability Index has recognized Holcim for having the best sustainability performance in the building materials industry. It also partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in the SmartWay Transport program, which was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by increasing efficiencies in the freight industry. And, the company’s plant in Theodore, Ala., was recognized with the 2007 Gulf Guardian Award for a stormwater conservation project.

The Holcim Foundation for Sustainable Construction — supported by Holcim, but free of its commercial interests — promotes sustainability in the construction industry by supporting innovations around the world. For example, it conducts an international sustainable construction competition, provides financial support for research and construction projects, and promotes collaboration through publications and exhibitions.

“Holcim has long been a leader in sustainable construction,” says Susana Duarte de Suarez, vice president, communications, for Holcim (US) Inc. “We continue to invest in sustainable efforts both in our plant communities and globally because it is the right thing to do.”

During the 2006 Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, Holcim introduced a series of products named Envirocore. The environmentally friendly products meet various levels of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and have been used in projects such as the 7 World Trade Center and the Freedom Tower, both located at “Ground Zero” in New York City. The 7 World Trade Center has been called the city’s first “green” office tower after receiving a gold Green Building Rating System certification.

Aggregate Industries, a wholly owned subsidiary of Holcim, has been a member of the U.S. Green Building Council since 2005. It also entered into a partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Climate Leaders program. The program is an industry-government partnership that works with companies to develop comprehensive climate change strategies. Partner companies commit to reducing their impact on the global environment by completing a corporate-wide inventory of their greenhouse gas emissions based on a quality management system, setting aggressive reduction goals, and annually reporting their progress to the EPA.

Similar to Vulcan’s foray into warm-mix asphalt, Aggregate Industries formed a partnership with the Cool Climate Concrete (C3) program. C3 is a monitored and verified carbon dioxide offset program based on the use of blended cement concrete in construction and civil works projects. Program participants create offsets by decreasing the use of Portland cement and receive financial benefits for their efforts.

Reclamation efforts have also provided strong returns for the company. Aggregate Industries’ West Central Region won the state of Colorado’s Sustainability Champion Award for reservoir projects at its Morrison Quarry and the Thornton/Hazeltine sand and gravel site.

The quarry reclamation project was a team effort with the town of Morrison to provide water storage for the Denver metro area. When the award was announced, Morrison Mayor Allen Williams said, “Sustainability for the town of Morrison is essential, and our partnership with Aggregate Industries has virtually guaranteed the survival and the future of the town of Morrison.”

The second reservoir reclamation project, located at a former sand and gravel site, includes three water reservoirs for the cities of Thornton and Arvada. A specialized mixture of clay and water was trenched into bedrock to create a watertight containment area that provides 2.6 billion gallons of water to the two communities.

“Our entire team of employees in the West Central Region has long been committed to the issue of sustainability,” says Regional President Pat Ward. “We have been working on these water reservoir projects for many years, even before sustainability became a buzz word.”

Lafarge

Lafarge, another industry leader in sustainable development, reiterated its commitment to ensuring environmental protection, social responsibility, and corporate governance last May when it launched its Sustainability Ambitions 2012 report. For years, Lafarge has published a sustainability report, but the new paper combines the results of in-depth conversations with stakeholders and the company’s management team. Its intent is to define major issues for the group and outline where Lafarge can positively influence the industry.

“In a changing world, the building materials sector is undergoing a substantial transformation,” said Bruno LaFont, Lafarge chairman and CEO, in announcing the new report. “Global economic and population growth, coupled with the new environmental and social issues that are emerging, give us new responsibilities.”

Three main priorities have been identified as part of the report.

Lafarge reiterated its voluntary commitment to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent of carbon dioxide per ton of cement worldwide between 1990 and 2010. Set in cooperation with WWF International (an independent conservation organization formerly known as the World Wildlife Fund), that goal is well underway. Lafarge is now targeting emissions during the entire life cycle of a building. Noting that 80 percent of carbon dioxide emissions are emitted during a building’s use, Lafarge launched an ancillary project with United Technologies Corp. Under the auspices of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the program — Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EEB) — will strive to identify innovative solutions for developing sustainable, carbon-neutral buildings.

On the aggregates front, Lafarge will promote biodiversity in its 1,000 quarries around the world. The company has committed to screen its quarries according to criteria developed by WWF International and to introduce a biodiversity development plan on all sites with potential in terms of rare animal and plant species, in partnerships with local environmental associations. In North America, that goal often involves a partnership with the Wildlife Habitat Council (WHC). Prior to the 2012 report, Lafarge announced its intention to secure certification through WHC at 50 of its North American operations by 2010.

The final top priority identified in the new report is to ensure the health and safety of its workforce. Lafarge says that it will roll out a comprehensive health care program that will ensure that every employee will receive — at the very least — regular medical checkups, including in third-world countries where that is not standard practice.

“Regardless of how ambitious these goals are, we are committed to achieving them. We are committed because achieving our goals will make a real difference,” LaFont said. “When we have achieved our goals, we will have contributed to a better environment and society.”

Good business sense

While many companies have embraced concept of sustainability, others may wonder if the time, effort, and expense is worthwhile. The NSSGA offers the following points in making the business case for sustainability.

Sustainability is a developing issue. Public resource agencies are implementing frameworks based on sustainability development. Companies will increase their abilities to compete effectively by implementing sustainability guidelines.

The long-term viability of the industry is dependent on obtaining and maintaining a social license to operate. These licenses are based on discretionary decisions by local government bodies that are heavily influenced by political and public opinion. Companies will enhance their ability to obtain these licenses when applying sustainability guidelines.

Sustainability emphasizes the efficient use of resources, which reduces costs (by reducing waste) and contributes to profitability. Implementation of sustainability principles can reduce the risk of adverse legal and regulatory actions.

Sustainability is an integrated concept. Implementing sustainability guidelines will help to coordinate and improve the effectiveness of multi-disciplinary functions such as community relations; environment, safety, and health; operations and legal.

In the NSSGA toolkit, Jami Gaboriau, environmental manager for Aggregate Industries, points out that many companies are already incorporating sustainability concepts in their everyday practices; they simply may not have communicated them in that manner.

“As an industry, we do so much that can be viewed as sustainable, however, we’ve never quite promoted it that way,” she says. “This is more than a trend going into the future. This is going to be a way of life that our business has to adapt to (in order) to extend into the future.”

The Kyoto Protocol

Many aggregate companies, particularly international ones, strive to meet the requirements outlined in the Kyoto Protocol. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) — which coordinates the United Nations environmental activities, assists developing countries in implementing environmentally sound policies, and encourages sustainable development through sound environmental practices — the Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent compared to the year 1990. The agreement was negotiated by more than 160 nations in 1997 and went into effect in February 2005.

“The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases — carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, hydrofluorocarbons, and perfluorocarbons averaged over the period of 2008-2012,” UNEP said in a press release. “National limitations range from 8-percent reductions for the European Union and some others to 7 percent for the United States, 6 percent for Japan, 0 percent for Russia, and permitted increases of 8 percent for Australia and 10 percent for Iceland.”

Source: United Nations Environmental Programme

NSSGA Guiding Principles for Sustainable Aggregates Operations

Members of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association
(NSSGA) define sustainability as a business approach that integrates environmental stewardship, social responsibility, and economic prosperity to ensure the long-term supply of aggregate materials to society. The association says its overarching practices are necessary to preserve the potential for a high-quality life for future generation. Those practices include the following items:

• Member companies sustain the communities in which they operate by providing raw materials as natural building blocks for the quality of life.

• We are conscious of the need to provide economic, social, and environmental value for future generations and the communities in which we operate.

• We demonstrate a strong and unwavering commitment to safety, health, and the environment at our operations.

• We work with appropriate governmental bodies to establish effective, responsible, and balanced laws and other requirements based on sound science.

• We encourage life cycle re-use of products during manufacturing and post-consumer use.

• We maintain adequate aggregates resources in locations that minimize the life cycle impacts of the resource’s extraction, delivery, and use.

• We encourage proper land-use development and planning within communities to ensure long-term aggregates resource availability.

• We adhere to the highest ethical business practices and transparency in all aspects of our operations.

• We recognize that profitability is essential to a sustainable industry and its continued ability to contribute to communities.

During the mining life cycle of an aggregates operation, members are encouraged to implement the following strategies:

Planning phase

• Develop a site-specific plan for post-mining land use and/or reclamation that engages stakeholders in planning for future needs and interests.

• Plan for the prevention and/or minimization of environmental impacts.

• Adopt and implement an environmental management system program to properly manage potential environmental risks and requirements, and improve overall environmental performance.

Operational and closure phase

• Pursue new technologies and practices to improve the operational, safety, health, and environmental efficiency of our operations.

• Invest in the personal and professional development of employees to ensure a strong work force into the future.

• Ensure that employees are treated in a respectful and positive manner and provide them with competitive compensation programs consistent with performance and industry practice.

• Identify, control, and/or eliminate risks associated with occupational injuries and illnesses.

• Encourage employees and contractors to interact responsibly within the communities in which we operate.

• Work in partnerships to promote beneficial post-mining land use, including industrial, commercial, and residential and community development, agricultural production, and wildlife conservation, habitat creation, and restoration.

Source: The National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association

7 Questions to Sustainability

Concerns about public perceptions of mining have long been one of the drivers toward an increased focus on sustainability. In 1999, nine CEOS from some of the world’s largest mining companies met in Davos, Switzerland, to address their concerns about their perceptions of an emerging disconnect between mining/minerals-related practices and the values of today’s society. They voiced unease that their “social license to operate” was in jeopardy.

Working through the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), they commissioned the International Institute of Environment and Development to undertake a global review of practices related to mining and minerals and the development of solutions for mining and minerals and the many interacting communities of interest contribute to a global transition to sustainable development. The resulting project was “Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development (MMSD)” and included both global and regional segments.

The North American work group of MMSD brought together a group of 35 individuals representing a broad range of interests and charged them with developing a set of practical principles, criteria, and/or indicators that could be used to guide or test mining/minerals activities in terms of their compatibility with concepts of sustainability. That group developed the Seven Questions to Sustainability Assessment Framework.

Assessing for sustainability

• Engagement. Are engagement processes in place and working effectively?

• People. Will people’s well-being be maintained or improved?

• Environment. Is the integrity of the environment assured over the long term?

• Economy. Is the economic viability of the project or operation assured, and will the economy of the community and beyond be better off as a result?

• Traditional and non-market activities. Are traditional and non-market activities in the community and surrounding area accounted for in a way that is acceptable to the local people?

• Institutional arrangements and governance. Are rules, incentives, programs, and capacities in place to address project or operational consequences?

• Synthesis and continuous learning. Does a full synthesis show that the net result will be positive or negative in the long term, and will there be periodic reassessment?

Source: The International Institute for Sustainable Development

Water’s abundance in some areas and shortage in others has the industry drowning in concern about water availability. Here’s how some are handling it.

The global demand for freshwater is doubling every 20 years, and at least 1 billion people are not sure each day where their water will come from — or whether they’ll even have any. That’s what Mike Newman, managing director of the Michigan Aggregates Association told attendees of the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association’s 2007 Annual Convention last March. (See “Dewatering the Problem: How one state kept its head above water when backlash about water usage threatened the existence of some aggregates operations,” AggBeat, May 2007.)

And concern about water availability isn’t lessening. These water issues aren’t just a third-world problem — in fact, concern about water availability is continuing to grow in our own nation and has trickled down to many of our own locales. This problem could potentially threaten the aggregates industry, which deals with large volumes of water on a daily basis through dewatering and other production activities. That means your operation could be affected.

Water has become such an important issue and resource that prestigious investment-banking firms are now looking at it as the new super commodity. “They are saying that water is the oil market of the future,” Newman says.

In the mainstream

Just recently, the issue of water availability has been in the public eye in Atlanta and its surrounding area. According to an Associated Press report released at at Aggregates Manager press time, more than one-quarter of the Southeast was covered by an “exceptional” drought — the National Weather Service’s worst drought category.

But even in a water-rich state such as Illinois, there is growing concern about continued availability of water given the current demand as well as projected new demands including population growth, expansion of ethanol production, and potential for coal gasification, explains John Henriksen, executive director of the Illinois Association of Aggregate Producers (IAAP).

Newman agrees. “The issue is not going to go away, no matter what region in the country you are from,” he says. “If you don’t see it now, it might be in a year or in five years. This is a long-term issue for our industry. We have to confront it and be a player in it.”

However, Newman says, oftentimes, “We run into environmental groups that are driven by emotion and not science.” Many environmental groups want water to be held in a public trust. This means that water wouldn’t be owned by people, and therefore, controlled by states. A public trust is the principle that certain resources are preserved for public use and that the government is required to maintain it for the public’s reasonable use.

“The public policy debate on freshwater is driven by economics, social values, and environmental concerns,” Newman adds. “The primary targets of the environmental community in Michigan on water issues are bottled watering operations, aggregate producers, and agricultural irrigators.”

Developing a plan

When the Michigan Aggregates Association started having conflicts about five years ago — both real and perceived — the group began working with legislators to ensure that everything done is based on science. The National Wildlife Federation went to Michigan’s Department of Environmental Quality and asked that several quarries in southeast Michigan be shut down. “We can be good stewards of water, but we have to be able to use it as a resource,” Newman says. “Why does everything have to be so unreasonable? Why is there never a common ground? It’s all or nothing.”

With an abundance of water in some areas and an extreme shortage in others, states are getting very protective about their water sources, particularly more water-rich regions such as those surrounding the Great Lakes.

So the association took a proactive approach and helped to develop a five-step process to ensure that its access to water is protected but addressed state and community concerns about being good stewards of water. Many times, conflicts now can be resolved amicably, Newman says (see sidebar, “Using a Five-Step Process”).

For example, a homeowner about seven miles from a Michigan aggregates operation claimed that facility caused failure of the home’s well. However, the cone of depression was nowhere near that part of the aggregates operation. The quarry owners didn’t feel the complaint was legitimate, but the homeowner still believed the aggregates operation was responsible for the problem. In the past, the only recourse would be for the homeowner to litigate the situation if the aggregates operation didn’t believe it was responsible for the problem.

Now, there is a plan in place that presents a fair way to resolve the issue for both parties. “If the well was 200 yards from the quarry, it is very possible that the failure of the well was due to that operation,” Newman says. “But seven miles away…I would say there isn’t a legitimate complaint.”

Now, the homeowner can still file a complaint, but an electrical inspection first must be conducted to ensure that no circuits or pumps failed. A well inspection also must be performed. The findings from both inspections must be submitted to the state and reviewed by a hydrologist before a complaint can be filed. “Most of the time, problems can be resolved without going through the courts,” Newman says. “Usually, you just settle if it was determined that the claim was reasonable.”

Nearly 50 claims have been filed in the last three years — many against aggregate operations — and all but one has been resolved amicably, Newman notes. “This is a good process for both community relations, and it also weeds out a lot of inaccurate claims where people would just try to get a new well by putting pressure on a quarry, even thought it had no impact on it. The system works well, and everyone seems to be pleased with it. There is still a system of litigation in place, but this intermediate process has been very helpful.”

Who’s water is it, anyway?

IAAP’s Henriksen notes that the industry should seize any opportunity that is presented to work collaboratively with interest groups that are concerned about water issues — whether they are traditional allies or historical foes. “We must be prepared to educate policymakers and the public at large regarding the aggregates industry’s impact on the hydrogeologic regime of our region,” Henriksen points out.

Looking at Illinois as a case study, the state was looking at a top-down control model for water withdrawal legislation. In 2004, a bill was filed in the Illinois Senate that would have required the Department of Natural Resources to develop a program to issue permits for “high-capacity” wells and community water supply systems. A high-capacity well was define as a well that withdraws 70 gallons per minute; 100,000 gallons per day, or 3 million gallons per month; or a well with a casing diameter of 6 inches or more. The permit applicant would be required to demonstrate that the water to be withdrawn would not be detrimental to the aquifer, environment, or existing wells.

The problem was that some ready-mixed concrete plants use wells that fit the water withdrawal characteristics of a high-capacity well, Henriksen explains. “There was also come concern expressed that some of our [IAAP] members may have wells with a casing diameter of 6 inches or greater,” he says. “ So we looked for allies to stop the bill.”

The IAAP enlisted the support of farmers, homebuilders, realtors, and other miners. These interest groups all have a stake in land-use issues, Henriksen says, making them a natural coalition to fight the bill. Coalition lobbying efforts stopped the bill and ensured that the revised bill filed in 2005 “essentially exempted farmers and miners,” he says. “Coalition members also gained experience working with the local government groups pushing this legislation, experience that is helpful in future settings.” The outcome of their work resulted in the failure to pass strict water withdrawal legislation, leading to the issuance of a 2006 executive order that mandated a statewide study of water-supply issues.

The members of a non-profit group filed a petition seeking the creation of an area water authority, in accordance with the Illinois Water Authorities Act. The water authority authorized by this Illinois law is created by a referendum on which citizens of the proposed authority area vote. If the voters within the boundaries of the proposed authority area approved the referendum, a three-trustee volunteer panel would have controlled future water use within the borders. They would have had the following power:

• Levy taxes on property within the boundaries of the authority at the rate of .08 percent of the value as equalized or assessed by the Department of Revenue.

• Regulate the permitting of any new wells for high-capacity residential, municipal, industrial, and commercial users.

• Monitor and conserve groundwater and protect important groundwater recharge areas within the authority by exercising broad condemnation, police, and zoning powers.

This proposed local water authority area argued that it was a necessary step to protect the region’s groundwater from overdevelopment. It also proposed boundaries that excluded nearly all of the large population centers located within a three-county area, Henriksen explains. These boundaries would have ensured that only voters within the rural — and anti-growth — areas if these counties would have the right to decide whether this water authority should be created.

However, the IAAP, its members, and other opponents of the area water authority successfully demonstrated that the boundaries of the authority were dictated by politics instead of science, Henriksen says. “Fortunately, our industry, in concert with the homebuilders, realtors, road contractors, and organized labor organizations located in these counties…[helped] to defeat the referendum,” he says. The proposed area water authority “went down in flames by a 4-to-1 margin.”

Additionally, the IAAP and its group are participating in a Regional Water Supply Planning Group (RWSPG) in hopes “to introduce a more balanced approach to water allocation issues,” Henriksen notes.

The Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) is facilitating the work of the RWSPG. This is of particular interest to the aggregates industry because CMAP also will develop water-demand forecasts for the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) and work with the RWSPG to “craft a plan that includes implementation strategies,” Henriksen explains. The resulting water-supply plan will be submitted to the state of Illinois for approval. These results will be used to implement statewide water-use planning efforts.

During the next three years, Illinois is expected to define a comprehensive program for state and regional water supply planning, including development of standards for regional plans and guidance for regional planning processes, Henriksen says.

Practices of the provinces

To the north of us, in Canada, water availability and sustainability also has rigorous planning and legal ties associated with it. When an aggregate license (for private land) or aggregate permit (Crown land) is applied for, myriad technical reports must be prepared to accompany the application.

A Hydrogeological Level 1 report must be completed. This report serves as a preliminary evaluation to examine extraction, the established groundwater table, and the potential for adverse affects of groundwater, surface water resources, and their uses. A Hydrogeological Level 2 report must be prepared if the results of the Level 1 report show the potential for adverse effects. An impact assessment is then required to determine the significance of the effect and the feasibility of mitigation.

The technical report must include several items including the following: water wells; spring; groundwater aquifers; surface water courses and bodies; discharge to surface water; proposed water diversion; storage and drainage facilities on site; and water budget, as well as several other items, explains Carol Hochu, president of the Ontario Stone, Sand & Gravel Association.

“Proper management of ground and surface water is critical to ensuring extraction commences and continues,” Hochu says. “Additionally, the discharge of water from a site requires a permit, and hence a process of examination of impacts. While this primarily affects quarries, it has been used in pits as well.”

Recently, Ontario has led the involvement in the renewal of the Great Lakes Charter Annex, Hochu says. “One of the most salient points in those documents that are now working their way through the Great Lakes bordering states is the transfer of water between watersheds and the utilization and return flow of waters within the Great Lakes Basins,” she points out. “Standards for quantity removal and return flow are indicative of the need to address availability issues.”

Long-term sustainability

The long-term sustainability of the industry depends on the availability of long-term supplies of clean water, water quality, water quantity, and water access. “Competing water users from agriculture, manufacturing, and other water consuming industries will drive the local and regional debates,” points out John S. Hayden, vice president of environmental services with the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association (NSSGA).

However, it’s important to note that the aggregates industry is a water mover, not a consumer. “We need to separate ourselves in this contentious debate from other industry sectors that deplete groundwater and divert surface water,” Hayden says. This doesn’t mean the aggregates industry has no localized impact in areas where the groundwater table is high, he says. But controlled reintroduction of the pumped water back into the hydrogeologic cycle via groundwater injection wells — or just putting the water back into a surface system — can mitigate the localized impacts felt by neighbors on their supply wells, Hayden adds.

With members spread out across the nation with great diversity and regional differences, balancing the needs of members could prove challenging, especially because there are differing opinions as to whether water should be sent to different areas. To assist in alleviating these challenges, NSSGA in June created a Water Resources Task Force of the Environmental Committee to monitor and track state and regional activities with regard to water use, access, availability, and quality. This group, along with NSSGA’s Government Affairs Division, also will monitor federal legislative proposals dealing with water use.

“I see NSSGA as a clearinghouse of existing information related to water resource issues for our membership,” Hayden says. “We will gather information already created by states such as Michigan and others and use that to develop a clearinghouse of state and regional best management practices, legal dispute resolution initiatives, and workable regulatory schemes.”

Tracking regulatory initiatives is critical now, especially with some legislators suggesting national water policies. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democratic presidential candidate, told the Las Vegas Sun in late October that if he is elected, he plans to bring states together to discuss how the water-rich states could assist states with shortages, such as in the Southwest, according to a report in the Detroit Free Press that sources The Sun’s report.“I want a national water policy,” Richardson told The Sun, according to the newspaper report. “We need a dialogue between states to deal with issues like water conservation, water reuse technology, water delivery, and water production. States like Wisconsin are awash in water.”

These statements caused alarm among environmentalists, according to the report. And, “comments like these are taken very seriously in the Midwest,” MAA’s Newman says.

Henriksen agrees, adding that future challenges will center on whether the government decides to limit water withdrawal of producers and any other water users. “We must be prepared to educate policymakers and the public at large regarding the aggregates industry’s impact on the hydrogeologic regime of our region,” Henriksen points out. “Our…economy and well-being depend on the ready availability of water, a resource we have historically taken for granted…The aggregates industry must be alert for legislative, regulatory, or policy initiatives that impact our access to water as well as to access required by our customers.”

What are your rights?

Different states have different laws as to who may claim rights to water and how it may be done. Water rights in the United States are determined through two divergent systems. Riparian water rights are common in the Eastern United States, and prior appropriation water rights (developed in Colorado and California) are common in the West. Each state has its own variations on these basic principles. Typically, water rights are established by obtaining authorization from an individual state via a water right permit.

Michigan, for example, uses riparian law. Under riparian law, there is entitlement to the water on personal land as long as it is used in a “reasonable” way. (There are not exacting definitions for the term “reasonable,” so this could leave some room for problems. However, what is considered “reasonable” is generally determined if there is a conflict and it goes into a court of law.)

Water rights under a prior appropriation doctrine are “first in time, first in right,” meaning that a more senior water right may operate to the exclusion of junior water rights. A “priority date” is significant for this.

Using a Five-Step Process

Here’s a quick look at the Michigan Aggregates Association’s (MAA) proactive approach to ensure that its access to water is protected, while addressing state and community concerns and being good stewards of water. This five-step process, which is still under final development, has helped to amicably resolve conflicts about water usage and rights.

Step 1: Conflict Resolution — This helps to eliminate emotion. “You won’t have citizens saying, ‘My well went dry, and no one could help me,’” says Mike Newman, MAA executive director. “If you take away the emotion, it no longer becomes an issue.”

Step 2: Registration Program/Database for Large Wells — Wells that produce more than 100,000 gallons a day (those that use the 70 gallons per minute rule) must register with the state. “You have to tell them you have the well, where it is located, and how much water you pump,” Newman says. A database should be put together to show who has the wells and how much water is being used. This step needs to be tied closely to Step 3.

Step 3: Geological Mapping — The Michigan legislature developed a geological map of where the large wells are located and mapped out the aquifers. “This let us know where the water was and how much there was, within reason,” Newman says.

Step 4: Permitting, First Phase — Everyone is grandfathered in. Operations already in the system could not be asked to apply for a permit. However, if any new usage would exceed 2 million gallons per day, the operation would then have to get a permit for the increased water use. “If the operation was going from 5 million to 6 million gallons, no permit would be needed,” Newman says. “But if a quarry has been pumping 5 million gallons and wanted to move to 8 million gallons a day, it would have to get a permit because it would be exceeding an additional 2 million gallons.”

Step 5: Water Regulatory Program — This step addresses adverse resource impact (ARI) through use of an assessment tool still under development. “This is where the rubber starts to hit the road,” Newman says. “This is where we are now, and this is where it’s getting more complicated. The overriding feeling of everyone involved in the debate is the avoidance of ARI. But there is always the argument as to where the lines fall for ARI.”

This ARI assessment tool has been developed, but it has not yet been implemented. It’s in the legislative form (Michigan S.B. 860) but is still being worked out. The tool, once implemented, would allow a person to use a computer to interactive plug in a facility or future facility’s parameters to determine whether there would be an ARI through use of these zones: Zone A: No ARI present. Zone B: Indicates some sensitivity to ARI. More research may need to be conducted, processing may need to be changed, or a different technology may need to be used. A facility should be able to be erected at this location. Zone C: This zone is getting close to having an impact if one has not already occurred. However, at this point, mitigation or restorative action could take place to improve the area so an operation could still be opened at this site. Zone D: A facility should not be built or operated at this location.

“This assessment tool isn’t going to be finished soon — it will take a couple years,” Newman says. “But you need to have a proactive scheme. You need to look at the issues, get in early, and make sure there is a system that works for everyone…and be a player in it.”