Environmental Product Declaration
Coal Ash (Terminal Average)
Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) for Coal Ash (Terminal Average), manufactured by Eco Material Technologies. Declaration SmartEPD-2025-091-0628-01.3, prepared according to Smart EPD® Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002, v1.0, valid until October 31, 2030.
- Declared unit
- 1 tonne of product
- Valid until
- October 31, 2030
- PCR
- Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002
Declaration details
- Manufacturer
- Eco Material Technologies
- Program operator
- Smart EPD
- Declaration number
- SmartEPD-2025-091-0628-01.3
- Date of issue
- October 31, 2025
- Valid until
- October 31, 2030
- Product category rules (PCR)
- Smart EPD® Part B PCR for Supplementary Cementitious Materials, 1000-002, v1.0 (version 1)
- Standard
- ISO 14025:2006 and ISO 21930:2017
- Declared unit
- 1 tonne of product
- System boundary
- Cradle to gate (A1 - A3)
- Product specificity
- Product Specific
- Manufacturing specificity
- Manufacturer Average
- Manufacturing plants
- Baytown (Baytown, TX, USA); Lewisville (Lewisville, TX, USA); Stockton (Fort Stockton, TX, USA); Pomona (Pomona, CA, USA); Panama City (Panama City, FL, USA); Punta Gorda (Punta Gorda, FL, USA); Chryso Denver (Denver, CO, USA)
- Product category
- ManufacturingInputs › CementitiousMaterials › SupplementaryCementitiousMaterials
- Product SKU
- Coal ash (ASTM C618 Class F/C/N, AASHTO M295 Class F/C/N, CSA A3001 Type F/CI/CH/N)
- 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 tonne of product.
Environmental Impact Assessment Results
| Indicator | Unit | A1-A3 |
|---|---|---|
| GWP-total | kg CO2 eq | 1.97e+1 |
| GWP-total (excl biogenic) | kg CO2 eq | 1.93e+1 |
| GWP-total (incl biogenic) | kg CO2 eq | 1.97e+1 |
| ODP | kg CFC 11 eq | 3.32e-7 |
| AP | kg SO2 eq | 7.92e-2 |
| EP | kg N eq | 3.56e-2 |
| POCP | kg O3 eq | 1.93e+0 |
| HTP-c | CTUh | 9.13e-8 |
| HTP-nc | CTUh | 1.78e-7 |
| ETP-fw | CTUe | 1.16e+2 |
| PM | kg PM2.5 eq | 1.74e-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 | 9.85e+0 |
| RPRM | MJ | 0 |
| RPRT | MJ | 9.85e+0 |
| NRPRE | MJ | 3.03e+2 |
| NRPRM | MJ | 0 |
| NRPRT | MJ | 3.03e+2 |
| ADP-fossil | MJ | 3.48e+1 |
| SM | kg | 0 |
| RSF | MJ | 0 |
| NRSF | MJ | 0 |
| FW | m3 | 6.55e-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 |
|---|---|---|
| Harvested Coal Ash | Terminal Average | 100 |
| Biogenic carbon content | kg C per tonne |
|---|---|
| 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
EMT fly ash is a pozzolan for concrete consisting of the “finely divided residue that results from the combustion of ground or powdered coal” as defined by ASTM C125. A pozzolan, as defined by ASTM, reacts chemically with calcium hydroxide produced by the hydration of portland cement to form additional cementitious compounds.
This product is solely freshly produced fly ash for 7 facilities.
The facilities included in the terminal average are; Baytown, Lewisville, Denver, Stockton, Pomona, Panama City, and Punta Gorda. Facility locations were chosen to include several regions and possible variations in materials and facility throughput.
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.