Environmental Product Declaration
Coal Ash – Oak Grove
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Coal Ash – Oak Grove, manufactured by Eco Material Technologies. Declaration SmartEPD-2026-091-1125-01, prepared according to Smart EPD® Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002 v1.0, valid until October 29, 2031.
- Declared unit
- 1 metric ton of product
- Valid until
- October 29, 2031
- PCR
- Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002 v1
Declaration details
- Manufacturer
- Eco Material Technologies
- Program operator
- Smart EPD
- Declaration number
- SmartEPD-2026-091-1125-01
- Date of issue
- October 29, 2026
- Valid until
- October 29, 2031
- Product category rules (PCR)
- Smart EPD® Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002 v1.0
- Standard
- ISO 14025:2006 and ISO 21930:2017
- Declared unit
- 1 metric ton of product
- System boundary
- Cradle to gate (A1 - A3)
- Product specificity
- Product Specific
- Manufacturing specificity
- Facility Specific
- Manufacturing plant
- Oak Grove (Oak Grove, KY, USA)
- Product SKU
- ASTM C125 defines Bottom Ash as the “ash that results from combustion of ground or powdered coal that is not transported by the flue gases. Processed bottom ash is bottom ash ground to fly ash-like fineness. Processed bottom ash is a pozzolan and offers similar benefits when used in concrete as…
- Verifier
- Jack Geibig, Ecoform, LLC
- LCA software
- SimaPro 9.6
- Program instructions
- Smart EPD General Program Instructions v.2.0, March 2025
Life cycle assessment results
Results per 1 metric ton of product.
Environmental Impact Assessment Results
| Indicator | Unit | A1-A3 |
|---|---|---|
| GWP-total | kg CO2 eq | 3.54e+1 |
| GWP-total (excl biogenic) | kg CO2 eq | 3.52e+1 |
| GWP-total (incl biogenic) | kg CO2 eq | 3.54e+1 |
| ODP | kg CFC 11 eq | 5.58e-7 |
| AP | kg SO2 eq | 7.87e-2 |
| EP | kg N eq | 7.05e-2 |
| POCP | kg O3 eq | 1.85e+0 |
| HTP-c | CTUh | 8.71e-8 |
| HTP-nc | CTUh | 1.46e-7 |
| ETP-fw | CTUe | 1.24e+2 |
| PM | kg PM2.5 eq | 1.45e-6 |
Resource Use Indicators
| Indicator | Unit | A1-A3 |
|---|---|---|
| PERE | MJ | 0 |
| PERM | MJ | 0 |
| PERT | MJ | 0 |
| PENRE | MJ | 0 |
| PENRM | MJ | 0 |
| PENRT | MJ | 0 |
| RPRE | MJ | 1.88e+1 |
| RPRM | MJ | 0 |
| RPRT | MJ | 1.88e+1 |
| NRPRE | MJ | 5.64e+2 |
| NRPRM | MJ | 0 |
| NRPRT | MJ | 5.64e+2 |
| ADP-fossil | MJ | 6.52e+1 |
| SM | kg | 0 |
| RSF | MJ | 0 |
| NRSF | MJ | 0 |
| FW | m3 | 7.16e-2 |
| RE | MJ | 0 |
Waste and Output Flow Indicators
| Indicator | Unit | A1-A3 |
|---|---|---|
| HWD | kg | 0 |
| NHWD | kg | 0 |
| RWD | kg | 0 |
| HLRW | kg | 0 |
| ILLRW | kg | 0 |
| CRU | kg | 0 |
| MFR | kg | 0 |
| MER | kg | 0 |
| MNER | kg | 0 |
| EEE | MJ | 0 |
| EET | MJ | 0 |
ND = not declared. Life cycle modules: A1-A3 product stage, A4-A5 construction process, B use stage, C end of life, D benefits and loads beyond the system boundary.
Material composition
| Material/Component Category | Origin | % Mass |
|---|---|---|
| Ground Bottom Ash | Franklin TX | 40% - 60% |
| Fresh Fly Ash | Franklin TX | 40% - 60% |
| Biogenic carbon content | kg C per metric ton |
|---|---|
| Biogenic carbon content in product | 0 |
| Biogenic carbon content in accompanying packaging | 0 |
Hazardous substances
No regulated hazardous or dangerous substances are included in this product.
Product description
Oak Grove coal ash is a blend of fly ash and ground bottom ash that can be used to partially replace cement in concrete. Bottom ash is dried and ground onsite to produce consistent product meeting our high quality standards that is then blended with fly ash sourced from current plant production. The resulting product is concrete-grade, ASTM C618 compliant coal ash with improved performance consistency and availability.
ASTM C125 defines Bottom Ash as the “ash that results from combustion of ground or powdered coal that is not transported by the flue gases. Processed bottom ash is bottom ash ground to fly ash-like fineness. Processed bottom ash is a pozzolan and offers similar benefits when used in concrete as those offered by the use of fly ash.
Interpretation
For supplementary cementitious materials analyzed in this study manufacturing (A3) had the largest impact with some facilities having significant impact from raw material transportation (A2) as well. Raw materials (A1) include no burden in the impacts since they are secondary materials and the impacts associated with the materials are included in the primary product. For supplementary cementitious materials studied the global warming potential impacts were largely due to emissions from electricity and combustion of hard coals and natural gas within the manufacturing process. While this is expected it also gives the largest opportunity of potential with the expansion of green energy in North America. Efficiency or renewable energy improvements made to support the processes of transforming the raw materials to the product, including those in system boundary would advance continued impact reduction efforts. Reduction in operations downtime would also optimize impact potential.
LCA results are based on a relative approach and indicate potential environmental effects therefore do not predict actual impacts on category impacts.
LCIA results are relative expressions and do not predict impacts on category endpoints, the exceeding of thresholds, safety margins or risks. EPDs are comparable only when they follow the same PCR, functional unit and system boundary. The full EPD (PDF) contains the methodology, scenario assumptions and verification statement.