1
Romix Industries Carbon Footprint Assessment
Ergomax (Pty) Ltd
Cape Town Johannesberg Postnet Suite # 104 72 Silverpine Avenue Private Bag X 26 Randburg, 2194 Tokai, 7966 Tel: 011 792 6955 Tel: 021 713 0070 Fax: 011 792 6955 Fax: 021 713 0006
Dave Morison B.Sc. Hon. Atmospheric Science
2
Cape Town Postnet Suite 104 Private Bag X 26
Tokai 7966
Tel: + 27 (0) 21 713 0070 Fax: + 27 (0) 21 713 0006
Johannesburg
72 Silver Pine Avenue Moret
Randburg 2194
Tel: + 27 (0) 11 792 6955 Fax: + 27 (0) 11 792 6955
To: Romix Industries South Africa
Mr. P. Prinsloo 11-Spetember-2008
In accordance with your request, Ergomax conducted and completed a Carbon
Footprint Assessment of:
- Romix Industries road construction method
The results of our investigation are embodied in the accompanying report. Should
you wish to discuss the report with us, we would be happy to arrange a meeting
with you at a time that is convenient for you.
Yours Sincerely
Dave Morison
Carbon Consultant
Company registration number: 99/27139/07 Directors: Dale Kennedy, M.Sc (Ergonomics),
and Chairman Denis Kennedy, CA (SA).
3
Executive Summary
Through the awareness of the issue concerning global warming and its impacts
on the environment and society, Romix Holdings is striving towards reducing
every possible impact on the environment through their methods of road
construction and is also preparing for future low-carbon economies.
Romix Industries has shown a clear commitment to utilising a carbon footprint
assessment towards resolving these issues. The present carbon footprint
assessment concerns itself with investigating the carbon emissions for a project
involving the construction of road 1000 meters by 7 meters using two different
methods, the Romix Industries method and the conventional cement stabilizing
method.
The assessment includes an outline of the methodology for the carbon emissions
calculations and the accompanying results obtained from page 13.
Please note that:
The auditing process in which Ergomax complies with is set out according to the
international reporting framework of the World Resource Institute and the World
Business Council for Sustainable Development known as the Greenhouse Gas
Protocol.
4
Table of contents:
1. Statement……………………………………………………………………. 5
2. Approval……………………………………………………………………… 6
3. Acknowledgement of Receipt………………………………………………. 6
4. Distribution list…………………..……………………..……………………. 7
5. Introduction……………………...…………………………………………… 8
6. Carbon footprint calculations………………………………………………. 9
7. Description of operations…………………………………………………… 9
8. Reporting boundaries……………………………………………………….. 10
9. Data availability and uncertainty……………………..……………………. 10
10. Consumption units……………………………………………………………11
11. Operational boundaries…………………………………………………… 12
11.1. Romix SoilFix method……………………………………………. 12
11.1.1. Scope 1………………………………………………………….. 12
11.1.2. Scope 2………………………………………………………….. 13
11.1.3. Scope 3………………………………………………………….. 13
11.2. Conventional Cement method…………………………………… 14
11.2.1. Scope 1………………………………………………………….. 14
11.2.2. Scope 2…………………………………………………………... 15
11.2.3. Scope 3………………………………………………………….. 15
12. Results……..………………………………………………………………… 16
Table 1: Romix Industries Emissions contribution….……………… 16
Table 2: Cement method Emissions contribution………………….. 16
13. Summery of results…………………………………………………………. 19
Figure 1: Fuel consumption emissions……………..……………….. 19
Figure 2: Carbon footprint comparison.…………………………….. 20
14. Conclusions…..…………………………………………………………… 21
5
STATEMENT
I, Dave Morison declare on behalf of Ergomax (Pty) Ltd. that the results and
findings of this report are a true reflection of the conditions that were
encountered at the time of the survey.
All recommendations and suggestions are made in good faith and Ergomax
would make reasonable effort to ensure that such recommendations are
viable and practicable.
However, Ergomax and its employees assume no liability or responsibility for
any loss, damage, injury, cost or expense, whether of a financial or other
nature, directly or consequentially incurred by the Client based on this report.
This report only pertains to the conditions found at Romix Industries South
Africa (Alberton), at the time of the survey. The document may not be
copied electronically, physically or otherwise, except in its entirety. If sections
of the report are to be copied, the written approval of the author is required.
6
APPROVAL
ON BEHALF OF ERGOMAX (PTY) LTD.
Mr. Dave Morison Carbon Consultant
__________________________
SIGNATURE
DATE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT
ON BEHALF OF ROMIX INDUSTRIES SOUTH AFRICA
Mr. P. Prinsloo
CEO
__________________________
SIGNATURE
DATE
7
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Copy No.
Attention Name and Contact Details of Concerned Parties
1. Mr. P. Prinsloo Romix Holdings
Suite 1601 – 1603
Kinwick Center
32 Hollywood Road
Hong Kong
2.
Mr. D. Kennedy Ergomax (Pty) Ltd Postnet Suite 104 Private Bag X 26 Tokai 7966
Tel: + 27 (0)21 713 0070
Fax: + 27 (0)21 713 0006
8
Location: Alberton, Johannesburg
Country: South Africa
Year: Project basis: 1000m x 7m road construction
Date: 11-Spetember-2008
5. Introduction
Romix Industries has decided to carry out this carbon footprint assessment in
order to calculate and compare the carbon footprint associated with the
construction of a road segment 1000 meters in length and 7 meters wide using
the Romix Industries SoilFix method and the conventional cement stabilization
method.
As this is a voluntary process, Romix Industries will be recognized for being on
the forefront of the latest and future environmental policies thus placing Romix
Industries ahead and earning a good environmental and ethical reputation. Romix
Industries also wishes to control its greenhouse gas emissions and risks, and
identify possible reduction opportunities.
This carbon footprint assessment consists of describing the operations involved in
the process of the project, the boundaries in which the sources of carbon
emissions are included and categorized within the assessment, and finally the
results obtained from the calculations.
9
6. Carbon footprint calculation
An organizations carbon footprint refers to the total amount of greenhouse gases
they produce as a result of their actions. The unit used for measuring these
greenhouse gases is a standardized unit of CO2-e (carbon dioxide-equivalent)
and is usually expressed in tonnes. This figure may be expressed per other units
of significance to the organization.
In calculating an organizations carbon footprint, the objective is to identify and
account for the major direct and indirect carbon emissions produced as a result of
their actions. An organization has the ability to reduce their carbon footprint
through reduction and offsetting methods and ultimately achieve carbon neutrality
in which their nett emissions are zero.
Ergomax has a five-star carbon footprint rating system, which is based on the
organizations commitments towards managing their carbon footprint through the
adoption of certain recommendations.
7. Description of operations
Romix Industries primary operation involves the construction of roads. There are
various operations that occur in order to facilitate this process. This assessment is
based upon a single project involving the construction of a segment of road 1000
meters by 7 meters and thus the associated operations are the primary focus.
These include product manufacturing, product distribution and transportation to
construction sites and construction site operations involving machinery
operations.
Apart from these primary operations, Romix Industries fixed location operations
involve a small block of offices, product testing facilities and product distributions.
10
8. Reporting boundaries
The emissions in this carbon footprint assessment for Romix Industries are
accounted using a control approach. Therefore all emissions as a result of
operations controlled by Romix Industries are accounted for in the carbon footprint
assessment. The results obtained in this assessment may then be used for
management purposes and public reporting.
The nature in which Romix Industries is approaching this carbon footprint
assessment involves the accounting of various sources where the emissions as a
result of these sources are not in control of Romix Industries. These sources are
laid out clearly under the operational boundaries of the assessment (section 7). In
order for a legitimate comparison to be made with the cement method, a similar
approach towards the reporting boundaries and the corresponding sources in
each case are included under the same operational boundaries.
9. Data availability and uncertainty
The data collected and used for the carbon footprint calculation in both cases for
this assessment is based upon the figures provided by the industry expert. All
calculations have been made with a high degree of accuracy for the amount of
materials used and the construction processes. The material transport data are
based upon estimated distances. Further information regarding data analysis and
calculation methods is provided in section 7 under each individual scope of the
assessment.
There is uncertainty with regards to the emissions factor estimates of the
materials in the products of both Romix Industries and the cement methods. This
is due to the fact that current emissions estimates for non-energy use of fossil
fuels are subject to major uncertainties. However, in this case for comparison
purposes, standard factors have been applied for both methods creating an
unbiased result.
11
In the case of bitumen usage, the majority of emissions result from processes
involving the extraction and production. The emissions from this sector are mainly
of Non-methane Volatile Organic Compounds (NMVOCs) and Nitrous Oxides.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) guidelines does not
provide methodology for determining NMVOC emissions. The extraction and
production processes impose greater emissions uncertainties as different
countries make use of various extraction and production methods and fuels during
these processes. The emissions factors range from anything between 18 kg
CO2/tonne and 75 kg CO2/tonne. In this assessment the factors used are similar
to those used for paint and adhesives. The emissions factors regarding
combustion are available and are much greater than the production emissions
factors however, they are not applicable in this assessment.
The emissions factors regarding the use of paraffin in the cement method and
monomers in the Romix method also have similar uncertainties as with the use of
bitumen described above. The major pollutants in this case are classified as
hazardous air pollutants and not greenhouse gas pollutants. However, in order to
obtain the fraction of greenhouse gas contributing emissions as a result of their
production processes an estimate of one-third of the emissions resulting from the
combustion of standard petroleum products is accepted and applied across both
methods.
10. Consumption units
The quantities of the consumed materials used in the actual construction process
are recorded in either tonnes or liters depending on the material and the units
provided for its consumption.
The diesel fuel consumption for the on-site operations and construction processes
is recorded in liters, while the diesel fuel consumption for the material transport is
12
recorded in kilometers. All electricity consumption is recorded in kilowatt-hour
units.
7. Operational boundaries
Scope 1: covers direct emissions from sources within the boundary of an
organization (owned and controlled).
Scope 2: covers indirect emissions from the consumption of purchased sources
produced by another organization.
Scope 3: covers all other indirect emissions that are a consequence of an
organization’s activities, but are not from sources owned or controlled by the
organization.
11.1. Romix SoilFix method
11.1.1. Scope 1:
The on-site construction and operation of machinery are controlled directly by
Romix Industries and therefore the fuel consumption is accounted under scope 1
of the assessment. The duration for the use of machinery is calculated based on
the amount of time needed to construct the 1000m by 7m road segment. Apart
from laying the seal, which covers about 3000 square meters per day and
therefore requires 2.33 operating days, the other operations are worked out based
on covering 4200 square meters per day and therefore require 1.66 days for
operating the machinery. These operations involve:
13
Layer: Level – grader at 100 liters/day for 1.66 days
Wet – water browser at 50 liters/day for 1.66 days
Compact – compacter x 2 at 60 liters/day for 1.66 days
Mixing: Concrete mixers x 8 at 40 liters/day for 1.66 days
TLB at 80 liters/day for 1.66 days
Tipper trucks x 2 at 80 liters/day for 1.66 days
Laying seal: Paver at 140 liters/day for 2.33 days
Smooth drum roller at 140 liters/day for 2.33 days
Pneumatic at 180 liters/day for 2.33 days
11.1.2. Scope 2:
Romix Industries fixed location operations are the only sources accountable for
the purchased electricity consumption. For comparison purposes, the emissions
as a result of purchased electricity will be included under scope 3 of the
assessment as an addition to the manufacturing.
11.1.3. Scope 3:
All emissions that are derived as a result of the product are accounted under
scope 3 of the assessment as in most cases they are not controlled by Romix
Industries. These consist of:
Manufacturing
Fixed location electricity consumption
Product materials: Monomer
Bitumen
Additives
The transport of materials to and from the construction site is accounted under
scope 3, as the location of the construction site is also not in control of Romix
Industries. However, Romix Industries have chosen to estimate larger distances
due to their scarce location, which will improve as more distribution centers are
14
set up around the country. The distances account for a return trip between the
source and the construction site and the actual distances covered are calculated
depending on the amount of materials being transported at a single time and the
number of trips required. The material transport involves:
10% of natural site material removal – 53km
Product – 70km
Seal – 168km
Asphalt aggregate – 143km
11.2. Conventional cement method
11.2.1. Scope 1:
The same concept described for the inclusion of emissions sources and
calculation of consumption for the Romix Industries method above is applied to
the conventional cement method for comparison purposes. The conventional
cement method scope 1 operations involve:
Sub grade layer: Level – grader at 100 liters/day for 1.66 days
Wet – water browser at 50 liters/day for 1.66 days
Compact – compacter x 2 at 60 liters/day for 1.66 days
Stabilize: 210 liters/day for 10 days
Base layer: Level – grader at 100 liters/day for 1.66 days
Wet – water browser at 50 liters/day for 1.66 days
Compact – compacter x 2 at 60 liters/day for 1.66 days
Laying seal: Paver at 140 liters/day for 2.33 days
Smooth drum roller at 140 liters/day for 2.33 days
Pneumatic at 180 liters/day for 2.33 days
15
11.2.2. Scope 2:
The emissions as a result of the energy consumption during the manufacturing of
the cement from electricity and fuel combustion is accounted for under scope 3 of
the assessment similar to that of the Romix Industries method for comparison
purposes.
11.2.3. Scope 3:
Similar to scope 3 of the Romix Industries method, all the emissions derived as a
result of the product are accounted. In this case these involve:
Cement production
Manufacturing energy
Product materials: Prime layer bitumen
Prime layer paraffin
Asphalt bitumen
The transport of materials to and from the construction site is similarly accounted
under scope 3 for the cement method. In the case of the cement method, many of
the transport distances are estimated to be less than the Romix Industries
distances due to the availability of cement plants. The material transport involves:
Excavation transport – 1400km
Sub grade layer – 530km
Sub base layer – 530km
Base – 1050km
Cement – 315km
Asphalt aggregate – 143km
Prime/seal – 1785km
16
12. Results
Each emission source of Romix Industries and the conventional cement method
mentioned above in the operational boundaries is listed under the three scopes in
the two Emissions Contribution Tables (Tables 1 and 2 respectively). The total
annual consumption of each source is provided and the resulting tonnes of CO2-e
(carbon dioxide equivalent). The contributions of each source towards the nett
emissions are expressed as a percentage and included in this table instead of
being illustrated graphically in the form of a chart, due to the proportion of the
manufacturing emissions in both cases outweigh the other emission sources such
that the other sources are not depicted.
17
Table 1: Break down of emissions from each source of the project for Romix Industries.
Emissions contributions
Company: Romix Industries Location: Alberton, Johannesburg
Period: Project basis: 1000m x 7m road Date: 11-Sep-2008
Emission Sources Consumption Consumption
units CO2-e
(tonnes) % of total emissions
Direct emissions (Scope 1)
1 On-site operations/construction 1752.8liters 4.70 0.39
1.1 Layer 349liters 0.94 0.08
1.2 Mixing 332liters 0.89 0.07
1.3 Laying seal 1071.8liters 2.87 0.24
Indirect emissions (Scope 2) NA
Other indirect emissions (Scope 3)
2.1 Manufacturing 10000liters 1200 99.12
2.2 Fixed location electricity consumption - 3.81 0.31
3.1 Product: SoilFix 1.614 0.13
3.1.1 Monomer (SF) -liters 1.57 0.13
3.1.2 Bitumen (SF) -tonnes 0.04 0.0036
3.1.3 Additives (SF) -- -
3.2 Product: BTA 0.44 0.036
3.2.1 Monomer (BTA) -liters 0.11 0.009
3.2.2 Bitumen (BTA) -tonnes 0.33 0.027
3.2.3 Additives (BTA) -- -
4 Material transport 434km 0.08 0.007
4.1 10% materials 53km 0.01 0.0008
4.2 Product 70km 0.01 0.0011
4.3 Seal 168km 0.03 0.0026
4.4 Asphalt aggregate 143km 0.03 0.0022
Reduction/offsets
Nett Emissions 1211
18
Table 2: Break down of emissions from each source of the project for the conventional cement method.
Emissions contributions
Company: Traditional cement stabilization Location: South Africa
Period: Project basis: 1000m x 7m road Date: 11-Sep-2008
Emission Sources Consumption Consumption
units CO2-e
(tonnes) % of total emissions
Direct emissions (Scope 1)
1 On-site operations/construction 3869.8liters 10.37 0.02
1.1 Subgrade layer 349liters 0.94 0.002
1.2 Stabalize 2100liters 5.63 0.01
1.3 Base layer 349liters 0.94 0.002
1.4 Laying seal 1071.8liters 2.87 0.01
Indirect emissions (Scope 2) NA
Other indirect emissions (Scope 3)
2.1 Cement process emissions 63tonnes 32 0.06
2.2 Manufacturing 63tonnes 50400 99.90
3 Materials 5.72 0.01
3.1 Prime layer bitumen 7.56tonnes 0.19 0.0004
3.2 Prime layer paraffin 5040liters 4.82 0.01
3.3 Asphalt bitumen 28.56tonnes 0.71 0.001
4 Material transport 5753km 1.09 0.002
4.1 Excavation transport 1400km 0.27 0.001
4.2 Subgrade layer 530km 0.10 0.0002
4.3 Subbase layer 530km 0.10 0.0002
4.4 Base 1050km 0.20 0.0004
4.5 Cement 315km 0.06 0.0001
4.6 Asphalt aggregate 143km 0.03 0.0001
4.7 Prime/seal 1785km 0.34 0.001
Reduction/offsets
Nett Emissions 50449.2
19
13. Summary of results
It is clear that the manufacturing of the product for Romix Industries and the
manufacturing of cement for the conventional cement method make up the most
significant amount of emissions (this is expected for the cement method as the
manufacturing of cement on its own contributes about 5% of annual global
emissions). For both methods 99% of their total emissions are contributed by the
manufacturing phases. However, the actual emissions of these sources vary
greatly between the two methods. In the case of the Romix Industries method this
99% consists of 1,200 tonnes CO2-e, while for the cement method this consists of
50,400 tonnes CO2-e. Therefore this is also where the significant difference in
emissions between the two methods becomes evident and is illustrated in Figure
2 below.
Apart from the large influence of the manufacturing emissions on the results of the
assessment, it is also noteworthy to single out the emissions as a result of the fuel
consumption for both on-site construction operations and material transportation,
especially because the emissions from on-site construction operations are
classified as direct scope 1 emissions. These emissions are illustrated in Figure 1.
10.37
4.70
1.090.08
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
ton
ne
s C
O2
-e
On-site
operations
Material
transport
Source
Fuel consumprion emissions
Romix Industries
Cement stabilization
Figure 1: The direct emissions listed under scope 1 are represented as On-site operations and the indirect scope 3 emissions are represented as Material transport for both the Romix Industries method and the conventional cement method.
20
It is evident in Figure 1 that the cement method consumes a greater amount of
fuel during the on-site construction operations and contributes over double as
many direct emissions in this regard compared to the Romix Industries method.
This is due to the more complex procedure and number of layers necessary in the
construction of the road segment by the conventional cement stabilization
method.
1211
50449.2
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
CO
2-e
(to
nn
es
)
Romix Industrie
s
Cement stabiliz
ation
Carbon Footprint
Figure 2: The total greenhouse gas emissions for the construction of road 1000m x 7m for each of the two methods.
Figure 2 illustrates the total greenhouse emissions for each method as a result of
constructing a road segment with dimensions 1000 meters by 7 meters. This
illustration allows for comparing the difference in emissions between the Romix
Industries method and the conventional cement method. The Romix Industries
method is shown to emit 1211 tonnes CO2 for the project, while the cement
method emits about four times as much with a total of 50,449 tonnes CO2.
21
14. Conclusions
The process of constructing a road segment 1000 meters by 7 meters involves
many different sources of emissions from on-site operations fuel consumption to
material transportation and manufacturing. Many of these emissions sources are
not in direct control of the company constructing the road and in this assessment
have been accounted under scope 3. It is clear from this carbon footprint
assessment that the emissions as a result of the Romix Industries road
construction method is much less than the emissions from the conventional
cement method. This substantial difference of 49,238 tonnes CO2 is evident for
only 1000m x 7m of road and would obviously be multiplied by a significant
amount for larger projects.
Not only has this carbon footprint assessment emphasized the difference in
greenhouse gas emissions between the two methods, it has also provided Romix
Industries with the insight of their individual carbon footprint as a result of their
actions. Therefore also provided Romix Industries with the ability to manage their
greenhouse gas emissions through the identification of major emissions sources.
Romix Industries may as a result use this carbon footprint assessment in
promoting their environmentally responsible image.
This carbon footprint assessment was the first of its kind for Romix Industries and
the data used in the calculations was collected and estimated to the best
capability however, the assessment may be more consistent with fewer
uncertainties regarding the emissions factors for the non-energy use of fossil fuels
during the manufacturing processes of the materials used for construction.
