Page 1

Summer Issue

A publication of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association

Despite Urgent Need, Repeal Effort Threatens SB 1 Transportation Funding Gains





Technology Green Fleet Community

12 14 18







Despite Urgent Need, Repeal Effort Threatens SB 1 Transportation Funding Gains



Navigating the Murky Waters of Compliance Storm Water Level 2 ERA Action Plans and Technical Reports



Technology Can Work For or Against Us: Industrial Stormwater Compliance


Renewable Diesel – It Burns Cleaner and Works Just Like Traditional Diesel



Inside San Bernardino’s Mining Operations - Local Officials and CalCIMA Members Partake in Guided Bus Tour

The Conveyor is a publication of the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association. The views expressed herein are fixed expressions of the contributing writers and not of CalCIMA. All rights reserved.

CalCIMA 1029 J Street, #420 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 554-1000

Published By Construction Marketing Services, LLC

Graphic Designer Yesenia Ramirez

P.O. Box 892977 Temecula, CA 92589 (909) 772-3121

Editorial Contributors Ben Seaman Pearce Swerdfeger Joe King SESPE Consulting, Inc.

Publisher Kerry Hoover

Ryan Janoch, PE Mapistry

Editor Brian Hoover

Suzanne Seivright Director of Local Governmental Affairs, CalCIMA

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

The Conveyor is published quarterly each year by Construction Marketing Services, LLC All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.



Fixing the Bumps in the Road(s) Ahead Dear Readers,

The largest California transportation bill passed in the last several decades, SB1, is rolling out, now known as the “Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017” (RRAAA), but not all are cheering “RRAAA”. The additional costs for fuel has spurred a recall campaign in a Southern California Senate district; the campaign easily collected the needed signatures within weeks. Also seeking signatures is a repeal effort for SB1, although it is unclear if it will have the necessary funding to collect the requisite signatures. We hope our efforts with transportation funding coalitions will smooth out these potholes.

To advance other areas of our strategic plan, two sub committees have been formed to improve industry image and leadership development. The first group, working with professional experts, will develop a 3 year communication strategy and plan, also informed by interviews of CalCIMA members. The plan will be presented at the September board meeting. The second group will provide additional review of an Emerging Leaders Academy that the CalCIMA Board expressed initial interest after the presentation at the July board meeting.


Aaron Johnston

VP of Safety Environmental and Quality Services Graniterock


The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

TRANSPORTATION Despite Urgent Need, Repeal Effort Threatens SB 1 Transportation Funding Gains By Brian Hoover, Construction Marketing Services, LLC After years of neglect, California has finally realized a path to addressing neglected transportation infrastructure through the passage of SB 1, The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. The legislation increased transportation spending by $50 billion over ten years. As if to emphasize the need for infrastructure repairs, the state endured record breaking rains that have left roads impassable and a $1 billion repair bill. Yet, just when, there seems to be funding on the horizon, a movement has sprung up to repeal SB 1. To recap, the havoc from this year’s storms included: •

Replacement of the Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge in Big Sur damaged from a mudslide earlier this year at a cost of $27 million.

Oroville Dam and its main spillway damaged in February of this year, with a two year time frame to repair and $1 billion price tag.

• Caltrans faced another expensive slide cleanup on Highway 35 in Santa Clara, where rebuilding and hillside stabilization is estimated to have cost more than $29 million.

(Above) Massive Mud Creek landslide on May 20, 2017, located on Highway 1 near Big Sur.

Highway 1’s Mud Creek slide near Big Sur that dropped more than a million tons of earth onto the roadway May 20. Over 40-feet of rock and dirt covered more than a quarter mile of highway, making it one of California’s largest slides ever. It has been reported that cleanup and repair will take Caltrans more than a year.

In January, a massive boulder along with vast amounts of mud crashed down on two separate sections of Topanga Canyon Road in the Santa Monica mountains.

Another $360 million was reportedly needed in Caltrans District 3 in Northern California, when rivers became overwhelmed, causing flooding and widespread damage.

Interstate 80 and U.S. 50 located in the Sierra Nevada area were repeatedly closed to heavy snowfall, leaving both roadways with significant damage.

• Highway 17 from Santa Cruz to San Jose endured repeated mudslides. •

Southern California news channels reported sinkholes and other road failures that seemed able to swallow cars whole. This included a 20foot sinkhole in Studio City

(Above L to R) Giant boulder tumbles down from unstable hillside along Topanga Canyon Road. Sinkhole caused by winter storms swallows car in Studio City. Los Angeles County crews clearing mud covered roads after torrential rains.


The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

(Below L to R) Collapse and washout of SR 35 near Las Cumbres Rd in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Crews clean up mud covered roads on SR 78 near Pala. Highway 50 in El Dorado County being cleared after multiple landslides close roadway in several sections.

back in January and the collapse of a 200-foot section of I-15 on the Cajon Pass that took an entire fire engine down when it collapsed.

The same story can be told over and over in multiple areas across the state where sudden and fierce storms that brought much-needed water, also brought unwanted destruction. When it is all said and done, the cost is likely to be staggering. Caltrans is reported to have a reserve fund of $250 million in place to handle such emergencies, but that is not nearly enough to fix the more than 350 damaged roads, dams, bridges and other structures that took a beating from these storms. It is not a question of if this will continue to happen in California, it is only a question of when. In April, the California State Legislature approved a $52 billion transportationfunding package known as SB 1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017. These funds will be protected by a constitutional amendment (ACA 5) to be voted on in November of 2018 that requires SB 1 funds to be spent solely on transportation infrastructure projects. Supporters of the new package say that the money is desperately needed to counter the more than $100 billion backlog of road repairs The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

desperately needed in California. They believe that the new gas excise tax and vehicle fees are needed to help stave off further deterioration of California’s transportation system, keeping goods and services moving and employment gainful.

(Above) Section of State Route 49 in Central California slides away during February storms.

In fact, the recent State Highway Operations and Protection Plan (SHOPP) submitted by Caltrans says the new money will reportedly result in an additional 17,000 miles of pavement repaired; an additional 500 bridges repaired or replaced; an additional 55,000 culverts and drains repaired; and an additional 7,700 signals, signs and sensors repaired or replaced. Opponents of SB 1 say that the funding package’s new fees and taxes are not necessary and

only add more cost to driving in a state that already has some of the highest gas prices in the nation. They also believe that the state has squandered transportation funds in the past, spending the money in other areas and not on roads and infrastructure. A new battle is brewing, as Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach recently filed paperwork seeking a 2018 ballot measure to overturn SB 1. The California Repeal Gas Tax and Fees Increase Bill Initiative may appear on the ballot as an initiated state statute Nov. 8, 2018. It must first, however, clear several hurdles before reaching the ballot box. This included a July 10 deadline to submit proper paperwork to the State Attorney General’s office, followed by a January 8, 2018 deadline to gather 365,880 voter signatures. If all of the qualifications are met within 131 days of the election date, then the measure would make the November 2018 ballot. The Fix Our Roads coalition is made up of business, labor and transportation groups that helped to promote the SB 1 transportation funding package, and they are also in opposition of any measure designed to repeal such legislation. They recently released a statement saying, 7

constitutional protections and accountability requirements that ensure funds are allocated exclusively for transportation.�

(Above) Pfeiffer Canyon Bridge on the Big Sur coastline is surveyed after flooding and landslides damage bridge. The structure was eventually demolished to make room for a replacement bridge at a cost of more than $20 million.

“Passing the transportation funding and accountability package was an example of addressing the important issues Californians care deeply about. Californians are tired of driving on


potholed, unsafe roads, stuck in traffic. We know voters strongly support increasing funding for transportation improvements, especially when that includes

If successful, the measure would repeal most sections of Senate Bill 1. For many, the question that remains is, regardless of what has been done in the past, transportation infrastructure in the state is in desperate need of replacement and repair and SB 1 provides some of the revenue that is needed to keep up with the nearly 400,000 lane miles here in California. Keeping California moving is not a partisan issue, or at least it should not be. The important thing is that everyone works together to keep California moving forward. n

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

GOODFELLOW Crushers Goodfellow has been servicing the aggregate and mining industries throughout the United States, Canada and Mexico for over 50 years. In partnership with KPI-JCI and Astec Mobile Screens, Goodfellow made the commitment to open a full service facility in Southern California. After months of searching, we found our new home in Rialto at I-10 and Riverside Ave.; located on 6 acres and in a 37,000 square foot building complete with full machining and fabricating capabilities. Our new location is fully staffed with a Parts & Service department to meet the needs of Southern California’s aggregate and mining customers. We also have electrical composites and control panels. With our strong dealer partnership with KPIJCI and Astec Mobile Screens, the premier manufacturer of crushing and screening equipment in the United States, Goodfellow is confident we can provide quality service the aggregate and mining industries.

Equipment Sales - Southern California Ryan Dahlke Cell (909) 270-7087

Service - Southern California Jason Gewecke Cell (626) 665-0683

Equipment Sales - Northern California Bob Cummings Cell 415-990-4200

Service - Northern California Buddy Parsons Cell 916-224-9110

Parts Tonnie Bivens Cell (702) 371-9947

Outside Parts Sales Rich Clanton Cell (661) 477-4630

California Location 280 West Valley Boulevard, Rialto, CA 92376 • Phone: (909) 874-2700 / Fax: (909) 874-2744

ENVIRONMENT Navigating the Murky Waters of Compliance Storm Water Level 2 ERA Action Plans and Technical Reports By Ben Seaman, Pearce Swerdfeger and Joe King, SESPE Consulting, Inc. As we enter the third year of Report. Both the Action Plan the new storm water Industrial and Technical Report must General Permit (IGP), facilities be prepared by a QISP and that have exceeded the IGP’s certified in SMARTS, the Numeric Action Levels (NALs) State’s online storm water in the last two compliance compliance system. years will enter Level 2 status. The first step in the This brings new regulatory compliance process is requirements that operators completing a Level 2 ERA should pay close attention to. Action Plan for each Level 2 The State Water Board parameter by January 1st of has indicated that State and the following calendar year Regional Board staff will be (January 1, 2018 for facilities reviewing Level 2 Exceedance that enter Level 2 status this Response Action (ERA) reports year). The Action Plan must and rejecting ones they deem identify the Demonstration insufficient. Additionally, there chosen for the Technical Report are several citizens’ groups and include a detailed timeline that have been very active in and a description of the tasks threatening lawsuits against to be completed. facilities alleging that they are The Level 2 ERA Technical not in compliance with the IGP. Report for each parameter To avoid regulatory action, and exceeded must be submitted minimize the potential one year after the Action for lawsuits, operators Plan (January 1, 2019 should ensure that the for facilities that enter necessary reports are Level 2 status this year). properly prepared and The Technical Report submitted. must include one or Level 2 status more of the following commences on July Demonstrations: 1st after the reporting Industrial Activity BMPs year in which an NAL Demonstration (the exceedance occurred for facility is the source of a parameter that was the NAL exceedances), already at Level 1 status. Non-Industrial Pollutant If a facility exceeded Source Demonstration an NAL in the 2015(the NAL exceedances 2016 and the 2016-2017 are caused by non(Above) New regulatory reguirements from State Water Board storm water years, it industrial pollutant call for all reports to be properly prepared and submitted to avoid will be in Level 2 status sources), and Natural regulatory action. for that parameter. It Background Pollutant is important to note Level 1 for Total Suspended Source Determination that compliance status is Solids, and Baseline for pH. (the NAL exceedance caused by determined individually for The two primary reporting natural background sources). each parameter. For example, components triggered by Facilities should evaluate it is possible for a facility to Level 2 status are the ERA their sample results and be Level 2 for Oil and Grease, Action Plan and Technical work closely with their QISP 10

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue





A Level 1 ERA Evaluation by a QISP about the facility’s pollutant sources and drainage areas must be completed by October 1st. The evaluation will specify BMPs to prevent future NAL Exceedances. An ERA Level 1 Report prepared by a QISP must be completed by January 1st. The report will describe SWPPP revisions and additional BMPs. The report must be prepared by a QISP and be certified and submitted via the SMARTS database.

to identify the appropriate Demonstration(s). The Non-Industrial Pollutant and Natural Background Demonstrations may require additional sampling at specific locations within the facility to demonstrate that industrial activities are not the source of the exceedances. If this is necessary, operators should develop a sampling plan to determine that the sources

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

Level 2 ERA includes an Exceedance Response Action Plan prepared by a QISP. A specific demonstration must be chosen and performed for each new NAL exceedance. Level 2 also includes an Exceeedance Response Action Technical Report to be prepared by QISP, including a demonstration such as an Industrial Activity BMPs Demonstration, a Non-Industrial Pollutant Source Demonstration or a Natural Background Pollutant Source Demonstration.

of pollutants are properly characterized. If the Industrial Activity Demonstration is used, the facility must identify and implement additional Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutant levels. If these BMPs are not successful in meeting the NALs, the facility must identify additional BMPs, evaluate the costs to implement them, and then implement

them or include an analysis and justification of why they were not selected. As storm water documents must be uploaded to SMARTS, they are readily available to regulators and the public. Operators should ensure that documents are submitted in SMARTS on time and meet all requirements of the IGP. n


TECHNOLOGY Technology Can Work For or Against Us: Industrial Stormwater Compliance By Ryan Janoch, PE, Mapistry For the construction and industrial materials industry, stormwater regulations, like most environmental regulations are one of the many costs of doing business. Unfortunately, they can be quite time consuming, expensive, and unclear as to their effect on the environment. Setting aside the last point, which is truly best left for a future debate, the time consuming and expensive aspects of stormwater regulations can be addressed through technology in two ways, one internally and one externally. Internally, software, whether you call it a portal, dashboard, app, or platform, can be leveraged to handle the many aspects of maintaining compliance with California’s industrial general stormwater permit (IGP). From completing a monthly inspection standing next to a quarry to analyzing laboratory reports in real-time to reminding your environmental manager to file your annual report, software automates permit compliance. The goal of software is to automate all those annoying little tasks (e.g. emailing inspection reports and notifications of Best Management Practice [BMP] deficiencies, make sure you don’t forget deadlines (e.g. email when you are nearing the end of the month without a completed inspection), and reduce the risk of transcription errors (e.g. entering laboratory data and calculating Numeric Action Levels [NALs]). In this situation, stormwater compliance platforms connect all the permit components into one dashboard where a facility’s status is easily visible to not only a plant manager, but 12

(Below) New technology and stormwater compliance platforms help to reduce time spent on IGP compliance.

the environmental director sitting in another office. Stormwater compliance platforms reduce the time spent on IGP compliance, to free up staff for other important tasks, whether it be production (plant managers) or training or other permits (environmental staff). In terms of cost savings, there a couple areas of savings: 1) less staff time on stormwater; 2) automation of tasks consultants are paid to do; and 3) fines/lawsuits from non-compliance. Externally, the industry is well aware of the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)’s (in)famous Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS). This online system has opened up access for the public to stormwater records and eliminated paper filings. There is an opportunity for SMARTS to work for companies, by reducing their reporting costs, increasing public transparency, and ensuring water quality protections for

the community. For example, direct data integrations with the businesses’ own internal stormwater compliance platform can eliminate time spent on data entry (cut staff time or consulting spends), reduce errors (improve regulatory data sets), and ensure near instant reporting (increase public transparency). However, that has not been the case and instead it has worked against many companies. Direct integration is not allowed and too much time is spent battling SMARTS, or in some cases, companies did not file their stormwater permit documents, because they got too fed up with the user experience. This external use of technology is a huge lost opportunity for California’s businesses, regulators, and the public. Technology can sometimes be difficult to adopt as change is often hard, such as moving from paper forms to an app on a smart phone. However, the use of software technology can be a huge win for companies dealing with stormwater permits. The tools exist for companies to reduce costs and increase staff time spent elsewhere, if they are willing to try a new approach to internal permit compliance. Unfortunately, companies are reliant on the regulatory community to ease the burden externally for IGP compliance through improvements to SMARTS. Ultimately, stormwater compliance software has the potential to solve both financial and environmental problems for California companies, if fully utilized both internally and externally. n The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

GREEN FLEET Renewable Diesel – Studies Show it is Mutually Interchangeable with Conventional Diesel and Burns Cleaner By Suzanne Seivright, Director of Local Governmental Affairs, CalCIMA Studies suggest that fleets making the switch to renewable diesel can use it as a strategy to meet sustainability goals without encountering performance issues, or making modifications to equipment or fueling infrastructure to adopt this cleaner fuel. Renewable diesel (RD) is a fuel produced from nonpetroleum renewable sources through a variety of biological and thermochemical processes. These sources can include vegetable oil, animal fat, waste cooking oil, and algae oil, and can meet ASTM 975 fuel oil requirements for use within diesel engines. Following California, several states are considering renewable diesel as part of its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ramos Oil Company Institutes Distribution Agreement with Neste Ramos Oil Company, a supplier of bulk and prepackaged petroleum products for commercial and industrial businesses, expanded its original product portfolio by offering alternatives to its conventional petroleum based fuels to support fleets aspiring to reduce their carbon footprint. In 2014, Ramos Oil Company partnered with multinational Linde Group to provide the first hydrogen-cell fueling station in the country at their West Sacramento retail station. And most recently in Spring of 2017, Ramos Oil instituted an agreement with 14

(Above) Switching to renewable diesel helps fleet managers meet sustainability goals without engine modifications.

Neste, the world’s largest producer of RD to distribute this fuel throughout California and Western Nevada to industries inclusive of trucking, construction, marine, aviation, industrial, and mining, as well as gas stations and truck stops. Fuel Production and Processing RD is produced from nonpetroleum renewable sources through a variety of biological and thermochemical processes. It is similar to petroleum diesel in chemical makeup and therefore considered an infrastructurecompatible fuel that can be used in vehicles without engine modifications and can utilize the existing petroleum distribution systems. Currently, commercial scale producers of RD are being produced by

hydrogenation (hydrotreatment) of fats, oils, and esters and through the fermentation of sugar. Future processes that are being refined include biomass-to-liquids (FT diesel) and biogas-to-liquids (GTL/FT diesel), among other processes. In the hydrogenation process, hydrogen is used to remove oxygen from the triglyceride vegetable oil molecules and to split the triglyceride into three separate chains, thus creating hydrocarbons which are similar to existing diesel fuel components. This allows blending in any desired ratio without concerns regarding fuel quality. Both RD and biodiesel are derived from renewable sources. However, biodiesel is processed differently through esterification of fats and oils which is a reaction of an alcohol with an acid to produce water and ester which is an organic compound made by replacing hydrogen of an acid by an alkyl or other organic group. Diesel is made of fossil fuels from crude oil which consists of hydrocarbons, organic compounds, and small amounts of metal from millions of years ago. It is processed through removal of crude oil from the ground, pumped into a refinery, and refined through a process called hydrogenation. Compatibility with Diesel Engines The standard specification for diesel fuel oils is ASTM D975 which RD can meet in a blend or solely (RD100) allowing it to be used in The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

Fuel Overview FUEL



Renewable Diesel

Derived from non-petroleum renewable resources.

Processed through hydrogenation or fermentation of sugar.


Derived from non-petroleum renewable resources.

Processed through esterification.

Petroleum Diesel

Derived from fossil fuels.

Processed through hydrogenation.

Fuel Characteristics Neste remarks that the fuel Characteristics of RD are more similar to petroleum diesel than to biodiesel. Posted below is Neste’s overview of how their RD compares to sulfur free petroleum diesel.





Better than in fossil fuels due to lower FBP


Distillation Range

Cetane Number



Lower risk for degraded lubrication. Long engine oil drain periods.

Emissions Effects

Rapid cold start.

Using transient tests to simulate real driving conditions and artificial driving cycles, Neste implemented exhaust emission tests with over 36 trucks and buses or their engines. Results of these tests demonstrated significant reductions of particulate mass, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbon. And, nitrogen oxides decrease or remain unchanged. NREL collected data that demonstrated that the high cetane number and low aromatic content correlate with reduced nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

Lower exhaust emissions. Less noise. Low engine oil aging.

Chemical Composition



Low engine oil thickening. Low material compatibility issues. Enhanced combustion.

Carbon / Hydrogen Ratio


Better than in fossil fuels

Lower engine out CO2. Lower well-to-wheels CO2. Low deposit formation in fuel system.

Oxidation Stability



Low fuel injector fouling. No acid formation in fuel. High exhaust catalyst performance.

Ash, S, P, metals

Practically zero

Practically zero

Cold properties

As needed 0 …-40 °C

As needed 0 …-40 °C

Low risk for water pick up from logistics.

Solubility of water


Very low

Low risk for water pick up from logistics.

Corrosion protection

Good with performance additive package

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

Good with performance additive package

any vehicle that uses diesel fuel while still maintaining coverage under manufacturer warranties. According to data collected by National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), RD100 may be an issue for elastomer swell on fuel wetted parts with modern diesel vehicles, and the lubricity must be addressed with additives similar to conventional ultra low sulfur diesel (ULSD). Most manufacturers approve fuels meeting ASTM D975, and more specific approval of RD in engines manufactured by Volvo Trucks North America, Mack, and Mercedes Benz (heavy trucks) has been administered for all their engines.

Long lifetime for particulate filter.

Low risk for troubles if some water condensates and precipitates in fuel tanks.

Federal Renewable Fuel Standard and California Low Carbon Fuel Standard U.S. Congress created the renewable fuel standard (RFS) program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and expand the nation’s renewable fuels sector while reducing reliance on imported oil. This program was authorized under the Energy 15

Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), which amended the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) further amended the CAA by expanding the RFS program. EPA implements the program in consultation with U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. The RFS program is a national policy that requires a certain volume of renewable fuel to replace or reduce the quantity of petroleum-based transportation fuel, heating oil or jet fuel. The four renewable fuel categories under the RFS are: biomass-based diesel (must meet a 50% lifecycle GHG reduction based on a 2005 petroleum baseline as mandated by EISA), cellulosic biofuel, advanced biofuel, and total renewable fuel. Obligated parties under the RFS program are refiners or importers of gasoline or diesel fuel. Compliance is achieved by blending renewable fuels into transportation fuel, or by obtaining credits (called “Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs)”) to meet an EPA-specified Renewable Volume Obligation (RVOs). EPA calculates and establishes RVOs every year through rulemaking, based on the CAA volume requirements and projections of gasoline and diesel production for the coming year. The standards are converted into a percentage and obligated parties must demonstrate compliance annually. In California, there is a separate Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulation in addition to the RFS designed to reduce GHG emissions in the transportation sector and encourage generation of low carbon fuels. The LCFS is expressed in terms of the “carbon intensity (CI)” of 16

gasoline and diesel fuel and their respective substitutes. The LCFS is performance-based and fuel-neutral, allowing the market to determine how the carbon intensity of California’s transportation will be reduced. This program is based on the principle that each fuel has “lifecycle” greenhouse gas emissions. The lifecycle assessment examines the greenhouse gas emissions associated with the production, transportation, and use of a given fuel. The LCFS applies to any transportation fuel that is sold, supplied, or offered for sale in California and to any person who is responsible for that transportation fuel in a calendar year. Compliance is achieved when a regulated party uses credits to offset its deficits. Public Availability and Demonstrated Fleet Use Neste imports RD to the U.S. and is the largest global producer and source of RD in the U.S. Propel Fuels provides RD blends in California stations as ‘Diesel HPR (High Performance Renewable)’ at 18 stations in Northern California, and 13 stations in Southern California. REG-9000 / RHD and Diamond Green Diesel RD is also being sold into the U.S. market. Earlier this year, UPS announced aggressive new sustainability goals to add more alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles to its fleet while increasing its reliance on renewable energy sources. “Because of our size and scale, we know our commitments can shape markets, advance technologies and be a catalyst for infrastructure investments,” said David Abney, UPS Chairman and CEO. “We rely on the ingenuity

of our employees, suppliers and technology partners to help us reach goals that will transform the shipping industry and spur innovation.” UPS operates more than 8,300 alternative fuel and advanced technology vehicles worldwide. The company’s fleet includes electric, hybrid electric, hydraulic hybrid, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, and lightweight fuel-saving composite body vehicles. In addition to its use of alternative vehicles, UPS uses millions of gallons of lower-carbon footprint RD and renewable natural gas in its fleet each year. California’s Department of General Services requires state agencies to buy renewable diesel when making bulk fuel purchases for diesel-powered vehicles and equipment. And, many cities in California have switched fleets to RD inclusive of but not limited to Oakland and San Francisco. The Future of Renewable Diesel All signs point to increases in renewable diesel production and use in the U.S. California is leading the country in adoption and mandate of RD which can allow fleets to substantially reduce carbon emissions and petroleum use, and improve air without sacrificing power, performance, or driving range. In relation to implementation of RD, Neste states that, “any environmentally-conscious driver of a diesel-powered vehicle can instantly reduce the carbon footprint of his or her transportation.” n

The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

CALENDAR UPDATE AUGUST 9, 2017 AUGUST 10, 2017 AUGUST 15, 2017 AUGUST 17, 2017 AUGUST 29, 2017



SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 SEPTEMBER 13, 2017 SEPTEMBER 20, 2017 SEPTEMBER 22, 2017



OCTOBER 11, 2017 OCT 18-20, 23-25, 2017 OCTOBER 25, 2017



NOVEMBER 2017 NOVEMBER 1-2, 2017 NOVEMBER 5-8, 2017 NOVEMBER 5, 2017 NOVEMBER 6, 2017 NOVEMBER 6, 2017 NOVEMBER 14-15, 2017





Applied Conveyor Technology Inc

14644 El Molino St. Fontana, CA 92335 (909) 350-4703 • (909) 350-4982 •

The ACT Group offers our customers solutions to their dust control challenges. Whether it is a large or small issue, ACT has dust suppression systems for all types of materials. We have manufactured custom spray bars, dust suppression systems using spray and chemical foam and small portable systems. If a spray system is not what you need, ACT has trained mechanical specialists who will assist you with sealing of transfer points, hoppers and conveyor belts. The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue


COMMUNITY Inside San Bernardino’s Mining Operations - Local Officials and CalCIMA Members Partake in Guided Bus Tour By Suzanne Seivright, Director of Local Governmental Affairs, CalCIMA In May, members of the CalCIMA San Bernardino Regional Council opened their doors to tours of local mining operations for elected officials and staff. Members found the tours a good way to engage with the local officials, while also helping the elected officials understand the need for local materials. The tour included two quarry facilities starting off at Cemex’ Lytle Creek facility in Rialto then on to CalPortland’s facility in Oro Grande. Christine Jones from Cemex introduced their processing plant in Lytle Creek and discussed how their operation demonstrates its commitment to sustainable business practices by reducing environmental impacts and conserving nearby wildlife. The Lytle Creek quarry has more than 150 acres dedicated to wildlife

habitat easements, including the Riversidean alluvial sage scrub, a habitat for the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat. The tour included an overview of how aggregate is processed at their facility from the material being brought from the pit, poured into a hopper, and transported by conveyor to the surge pile. From there, it is sized, separated, then sent to either a wash plant or to the dry crushed plant. CalPortland’s cement plant in Oro Grande can provide approximately 2.3 million tons of cement annually. During the tour, their team explained the cement making process from providing a live demonstration of how their raw materials are extracted from the quarry via blasting, to crushing through a milling process, correcting the chemical

compositions, then preheating and sending it to a kiln for further processing. CalPortland showcased their newer technologies used to meet ever tightening regulations used within the pyro processing, conveyance, and comminution equipment specifications. CalCIMA members discussed their commitment to building a better future for the communities they live and work in through sustainable business practices with local officials. They also shared key information about the central role our industry plays in infrastructure improvements, resource availability, industry’s economic impact to the region, approaches to climate change, and reclamation. CalCIMA and the regional council thank the gracious hosts from CEMEX and CalPortland. n

(Above) Elected officials and staff are briefed on the quarry tour.

(Above) CalPortland’s facility in Oro Grande.

(Above) CEMEX plant in Lytle Creek.

(Above) Live demonstration of raw materials extracted from quarry via blasting.

(Above) Participants pose after 2017 San Bernardino Mine Tours.


The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue

NATIONAL CEMENT COMPANY of California, Inc. Bill Buckley Bill Buckley: (818) 728-5200 Cell Phone: 9949) 633-7060 Fax: (818) 788-0615 15821 Ventura Blvd., Suite 475 Encino, California 91436-2935

Scott Taylor

P: (714) 587-2595 Ex 101 C: (562) 762-5142

Susana Perez

P: (714) 587-2595 Ex 102 C: (562) 447-4210 The Conveyor • 2017 Summer Issue


The Conveyor - Summer Issue 2017  

The California Construction & Industrial Materials Association's (CalCIMA) publication proudly serving the aggregate, ready mix concrete and...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you