Title: Shingles Recycling: Experiences in Other States
1Shingles RecyclingExperiences in Other States
- Western Central Wisconsin Recyclers
- Special Shingle Recycling Workshop
- September 12, 2006
- By Dan Krivit
2Material Introduction
3Definitions
- Manufacturers Asphalt Shingle Scrap
- Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap
- Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS)(Crushed
screened)
4History
- 15 years
- Multiple research studies in lab and field
- Manufacturer shingle scrap in hot-mix asphalt
best known, most accepted practice - Still relatively new application
5Engineering Properties
6Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles
7Composition of Asphalt Roofing Shingles
- Asphalt binder content 20 to 40
- Aggregate material 40 to 60
- Fibrous reinforcement 20
8Recent Composition Weight Ranges of Typical
Asphalt Shingles
- 32 to 42 Coating filler (limestone or fly ash)
- 28 to 42 Granules (painted rocks coal slag)
- 16 to 25 Asphalt
- 3 to 6 Back dust (limestone or silica sand)
- 2 to 15 Mat (fiberglass, paper, cotton rags)
- 0.2 to 2 Adhesives (modified asphalt based)
9Applications and Performance
10Multiple Applications
Most Proven
Aggregate (gravel)
Dust control
Cold patch
Ground cover
Fuel
New shingles
11Factors Affecting HMA Performance
- Aggregate gradation of RAS
- Properties of final blended binder content within
the HMA as affected by - RAS asphalt binder
- Virgin binder
12Factors AffectingHMA Performance(continued)
- Location RAS is incorporated into HMA
- Temperature
- Moisture content of RAS and other aggregates
- Retention time in HMA drum
13Source Newcomb, April 2003.
14Source Newcomb, April 2003.
15Source Newcomb, April 2003.
16Source Newcomb, April 2003.
17Source Newcomb, April 2003.
18Source Newcomb, April 2003.
19Source Newcomb, April 2003.
20Engineering Performance Advantages
- Reduce need for virgin binder
- Add fibrous reinforcement
- Modify PG grade binder
- High temp performance
- Reduce landfill needs
3-11
21Potential Benefits ( Manufacturers RAS)
- Cracking resistance
- Rutting resistance
- Conservation of landfill space
Source Paul Lum, Lafarge Construction Materials
Ltd., April 13, 2003.
22Challenges
- Need for improved grinding and handling
- Blending and storage
- Continued research into engineering effects of
RAP and RAS on AC binder content - Quality control and quality assurance
23Barriers to Shingle Recycling
- Economic reasons
- Policy and regulatory compliance
- Environmental concerns
- Technical reasons
- Public sentiment
- -----------
- (Note These barriers may be real or perceived!)
24Engineering Performance Disadvantages
- Hotter mix requirements
- Stiffer mix
- Possible contamination
(Justus, September 2004)
3-12
25Source Lum, April 2003.
26Source Lum, April 2003.
27Source Lum, April 2003.
28Source Lum, April 2003.
29Source Lum, April 2003.
30Source Lum, April 2003.
31Source Lum, April 2003.
32Asphalt Shingles in HMAMissouri DOT Experience
- Joe Schroer, PE
- Construction and Materials Division
- March 30, 2005
33In The Beginning
- Approached by Pace Construction and Peerless
Landfill - MoDOT Not Using RAP in Mixtures
- Deleterious Material
- Stiffness of Asphalt in Shingles
34First LookThe Ex Factor
- Exhaustive Literature Search
- Exclusion of Tear Offs in States Allowing
Manufacturing Waste - Extra Clean Material Contained Little
Deleterious Matter - Exceptionally Stiff Asphalt Extracted from
Shingles
35Shingle Components
- Asphalt ? 20-40
- Stiffen Roadway Asphalt
- Aggregate ? ?30
- Good Stuff
- Fiberglass or Paper Mat ? ?30
- No Harm if Well Dispersed
36MoDOT Goals
- Engineering Properties First
- Harmful Effects of Deleterious Material
- Asphalt Binder Properties
- Traffic Safety Nails, etc.
- If Everything Else Works Out, Landfilling is
Reduced
37Why Should We Pursue Shingles?
- High Asphalt Content
- Granules Are Hard and Durable
- Recycling
COT
38Concerns
- How Will Deleterious Material Affect the Mixture
- Can the Low Temperature Grading be Maintained at
Various Blending Ratios
39Asphalt After Blending with Shingle Asphalt
- Resist Rutting
- Resist Fatigue Cracking
- Resist Cold-Weather Cracking
40Asphalt Grades
- High Temperature for Rut Resistance
- Low Temperature for Fatigue and Cold Weather
Performance - Performance Graded PG
- PG 64-22 (PG Sixty-four Minus Twenty-two)
- High Temp 64C (147F)
- Low Temp 22C (-8F)
41Asphalt Modifications Require PG 64-22
- Stiffer at High Temperature OK
- Stiffer at Low Temperature
- Use Lower Percentage of Shingles
- Use Softer Roadway Asphalt
42Deleterious Evaluation
- Specification for Aggregate
- 0.5 Other Foreign Material
- Sticks, mud balls, deer fur, etc.
- Shingle OFM
- Approximately 3 Total
43Deleterious Material
- Nails
- Wood
- Plastic
- Cellophane
- Paper
- Fiber Board
44Trial by Fire
45No Difference
- Visually
- Standard Mixture Tests
- Placement
46Big Difference
- Rut Resistance
- Cold Temperature Tests
- OFM in Mixture
47Can Tear-Off Shingles be Used?
- Allowance in OFM Due to Small Percentage of
Shingles and Trial Mixture - Start with Softer Roadway Asphalt
48Where Are We?The Ex Factor 2
- Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised
- 3.0 Total
- 1.5 Wood
- Expect PG 64-22 met w/ PG 58-28
- Extra grades optional w/ testing
- Examining various proportions and asphalts
- Exuberant Contractors
49U of M Lab DataMissouri Samples
- Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil
Engineering - Preliminary results as of 4-6-2006
- Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon
50MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 100sec. (PG 64-22)
51MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 100sec. (PG 58-28)
52MO Mix Stiffness _at_ 500sec. (PG 58-28)
53MO Tensile Strength (PG 64-22)
54MO Tensile Strength (PG 58-28)
55Mn/DOT lab data
- Jim McGraw, Director of Mn/DOTs Chemical Lab,
Maplewood, MN - Lab data as presentedJuly 12, 2006
- Report with U of M lab data, including Mo/DOT
samples, to be released soon
56New Minnesota Lab Study
- Funded by OEA
- Co-sponsored by Mn/DOT
- Comparing manufacturer RAS to Tear-Off RAS
- Mn/DOT to conduct PG extractions
- U of M Civil Engineering to conductindirect
tensile strength tests
57MN Gradation of RAS Tear Off
58MN Gradation of RAS Manufacturers
59MN Gradation of RAP
60MN Asphalt Content of RAS
61MN PG Grade of RAS
62MN PG Grade of RAS
63MN Deleterious in RAS
64U of M Lab DataMinnesota Samples
- Prof. Mihai Marasteanu,U of M Dept. of Civil
Engineering - Preliminary results as of Thursday, April 6,
2006 - Report with Mn/DOT lab data to be released soon
65MN Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 100 sec.
16
13.5
20 RAP
15 RAP 5 Tear-off
12
15 RAP 5 Manufactured
10.0
8.2
8
Stiffness GPa
5.5
5.0
4
2.7
0.5
0.2
0.2
0
0
-10
-20
o
Temperature
C
66MN Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 500 sec.
67MN Tensile Strength MPa
68MN vs. MO Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 100 sec.
69MN vs. MO Mix Stiffness GPa _at_ 500 sec.
70States Using RAS
71(Justus, September 2004)
72(No Transcript)
73(No Transcript)
74Western States
- California
- Montana
- Texas
- Oregon
75Source Ordorff, March 2005
76Source Ordorff, March 2005
77Source Ayres, April 2003.
78Other States Specificationsand Experiences
79- Georgia
- - Manufacturing and Post Consumer Shingle
- - Mixing Permitted
- -100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
- - Maximum 5.0 RAS permitted
- - Gradation - meet requirements of Mix
Design -
-
- - No foreign material ( paper, roofing nails,
wood, and metal flashing) - - Free of Asbestos when tested with Polarized
- Light Microscopy. Test every 1000 Tons
(Justus, September 2004)
80- Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
- 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
- Maximum of 5.0 RAS permitted
- Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
- Performance grade of virgin asphalt binder based
on the properties of the shingle asphalt binder - No limits on deleterious materials or asbestos
(Justus, September 2004)
81- New Jersey
- Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
- 100 passing the ¾ inch Sieve
- Maximum of 5.0 RAS permitted
- Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
- No limitations on deleterious materials or
asbestos
(Justus, September 2004)
82- North Carolina
- Manufacturing Shingle Waste Only
- 100 Passing the ½ inch Sieve
- Maximum of 6.0 RAS permitted
- Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
- No Limitations on the presence of deleterious
materials or asbestos
(Justus, September 2004)
83 Texas DOT
- Texas DOT- State Highway 31 Corsicana,
- Navarro County 1997
- - 2 x 1,000 foot sections post consumer RAS
- - 2 x 1,000 foot sections manufacturing RAS
- - 2 x 4,000 foot sections Control Mixture
- The Mix Design required 5 Post Consumer RAS
and 5 Manufacturing RAS - All three Mixes required 5 Stripping Agent
(Justus, September 2004)
7-2
84Texas DOT Constituents of Roofing Shingles Used
in Test Project
Tear-Off Shingles
Manufacturers Shingles
Asphalt Cement ()
25
22
50
39
Mineral Filler ()
3778
Viscosity of Asphalt _at_ 140F (Poise)
1223
Penetration _at_ 77F
24
37
(Justus, September 2004)
85Texas DOT- Conclusions
- Shingle binder content does not relate to reduced
quantity of virgin binder - Felt appeared to migrate to the surface
- Processed shingles (RAS) did not clump
- Post consumer shingle more difficult to handle
(Justus, September 2004)
86Texas DOT - Conclusions
- Smoothness, stability, moisture susceptibility,
creep indicated similar characteristics among the
three mixes. - 1999 Falling Weight Deflectometer testing showed
performance agreement among the three mixes. - Visual evaluation shows no apparent distress in
any of the mixes. -
-
(Justus, September 2004)
87- Texas (old proposed specification)
- Both Manufacturing and Tear-Off Shingle Waste
permitted - 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
- Gradation meet the requirements of the mix design
- No Contamination - dirt or other objectionable
materials - No harmful quantities of asbestos when tested
according to EPA guidelines
88New TCEQ Memo
- March 20, 2006
- Manufacturers RAS in HMA approved
- Tear-offs not approved depending on stack testing
results and subsequent review of impacts - Must follow same procedures as RAP into HMA
89Testing and Design Procedures
90American Association of State and Highway
Transportation Officials (AASHT0)
- Recycled asphalt shingles specification and
practice was approved by the Subcommittee on
Materials (SOM) August 2005
91AASHTOSubcommittee on Materials
- THOMAS E. BAKER
- (360) 709-5401 Tumwater, Washington
bakert_at_wsdot.wa.gov
92Review of AASHTO Specification Subcommittee on
Materials (SOM)
- Both manufacturers and tear-offs allowed
- 100 passing the ½ inch Sieve
- Maximum addition rate contractor option
- Gradation and volumetrics must meet the
requirements of the mix design
93AASHTO Specification (continued)
- Addition rates (Section 7)
- If RAS binder if greater than 0.75 percent, the
virgin asphalt binder and RAS binder combination
shall be further evaluated to ensure PG
requirements
94AASHTO Specification (continued)
- Tear-off material composition (Section 5.2)
- May only include asphalt roll roofing, cap
sheets, and shingles (including underlayment). - May not include other roofing debris such as
coal tar epoxy, rubber, or other undesirables
metal, plastic, wood, glass
95List of Roofing Waste Items Included for
RecyclingYES (Include these items)
- Asphalt shingles
- Felt attached to shingles
96List of Roofing Waste Items Excluded for
Recycling NO (Do NOT include)
- Wood
- Metal flashings, gutters, etc
- Nails (best effort)
- Plastic wrap, buckets
- Paper waste
- No other garbage or trash
97Lista de material para techos basura artículo
para reciclar
Si (Incluya) No / Ningun (No incluya)
Repias Madera
Papel del fietro Metal flashings, canales
Clavos
Plastico
Basura de papel
La otra basura
98AASHTO Specification (continued)
- Asbestos levels
- shall be certified to be asbestos free.
(Section 5.2) - (Tear-off shingles are) construction debris and
various state and local regulations may be
applicable to its use. The user of this
specification is advised to contact state and
local transportation departments and
environmental agencies to determine what
additional requirements may be necessary. (Note
2)
99AASHTO Specification (continued)
- Deleterious material maximum limits (Section
8)(material retained on the No. 4 sieve) - Heavy fraction 0.50
- Lightweight fraction 0.05
100Missouri Shingle Spec
- Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised
- 3.0 Total
- 1.5 Wood
101- NCHRP Rpt. 452 Incorporation of RAP in the
- Superpave System
- lt15 RAP, no change in PG Grade
- gt15 RAP, Assess the Effect of RAS
- on the Virgin Binder
-
- The Draft AASHTO specification recommends
- a similar approach.
- lt 5 RAS, no change in PG Grade
- gt 5 RAS, Assess the Effects of RAS on the
- Virgin Binder
-
(Justus, September 2004)
102Design Approach gt5 RAS
- Extract Shingle Binder from RAS
- Determine PG Grade of Shingle Binder
- Evaluate effect of Shingle Binder on Virgin
- Binder
- Use PP28 Volumetric Mix Design for HMA
- Determine Optimum Asphalt Content
(Justus, September 2004)
6-5
103What happens to RAS in Virgin Binder
- RAS binder dissolves into virgin binder
- RAS binder partially dissolves into virgin binder
- RAS binder does not dissolve but acts like an
aggregate particle - RAS binder particle absorbs volatile oils from
virgin binder - Additional virgin binder needed to coat RAS
binder particle
(Justus, September 2004)
104Contribution of RAS Binder to Total Binder in HMA
- Volumetric Mix Design of Control Mix
- - Determine the Optimum Virgin Binder Content
(OVB Control) - Volumetric Mix Design of Mixture with RAS
- -Determine the Optimum Virgin Binder Content
(OVB RAS Mix)
(Justus, September 2004)
6-7
105Determine the Effect of RAS on PG Grade Binder
- NCHRP No. 452 presents
- Mathematical Solution
- Graphical Solution
(Justus, September 2004)
6-8
106Graphical Solution for PG Binder
- Determine performance temperature for RAS binder
- Use monograph to evaluate effect on virgin binder
(Justus, September 2004)
6-9
107Comprehensive Quality Control Plan
- Quality control of supply
- Worker safety and health protection
- Final product quality, storage and handling
- Shingle recycling system design
- Final product sampling and lab testing
108Minnesota DOT
- France Avenue, Bloomington, Mn
- June 2002 Demonstration Project
- Project Characteristics
- 25,000 ADT
- Original Construction in 1963
- Reconstruction in 1989
- Shingle Mix Overlay in 2002
(Justus, September 2004)
109Minnesota DOT
- Overlay Construction Plan
- 550 foot Four Lane Roadway
- Northbound Lane Repaved with 5 Manufacturing
Waste Shingle - Southbound Lane Repaved without Shingle
(Justus, September 2004)
110Minnesota DOT
- Specified Binder PG 58-28
- Control Mix (30 RAP with No Shingles)
- PG 67.6-27.0
- PG 68.1-27.9
- RAS Mix (25 RAP, 5 Shingles)
- PG 66.5-27.9
- PG 67.6-28.4
111Minnesota DOT
- MnDOT Conclusions
- Constructability of RAS Equivalent to
- RAP
- Two Year performance of RAS
- Equivalent to Control
- PG Binder Performance
(Justus, September 2004)
112Mn/DOT Spec
- Maximum 5 manufacturers shingle scrap in HMA
- Considered a type of RAPExample
- 5 shingles 25 RAP 30 max RAP
- QA/QC standards apply(blending charts)
113Mn/DOT Spec on File
- Gradation of RAS
- 100 passing the ¾ sieve, and
- 95 passing the 4 sieve
- Shingles stockpiled separately
- Pre-blending is prohibited
- Crushed recycled shingles introduced with RAP
at same time
114Mn/DOT Spec on File(See SWMCB handouts of
March 4, 2004)
- Certification from
- Manufacturer
- Processor
- Sample for review
- List of pre-approved sources and processors from
MN/DOT
115Asbestos Risk
- Incidence of asbestos is extremely low
- Average content was only
- 0.02 in 1963
- 0.00016 in 1973
- Source NAHB, 1999
116ASRAS Data
- Iowa (1,791 samples), no hits
- Maine (118 samples), no hits
- Mass
- (2,288 composite samples) 11 hits lt 1
- (69 tarpaper samples) 2 lt 5
- (109 ground RAS samples) 2 lt 1
- Florida (287 samples), 2 hits gt 1
Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
117ASRAS Data(continued)
- Missouri (6 samples), no hits
- Hawaii (100 samples), 1 hit gt 1
- Minnesota (156 samples), no hits
- Minnesota (50 tarpaper), 1 hit _at_ 2 - 5
- We still want more data!
- (for EPA / CMRA project.)
Original source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
118DKA / AESFiber Tests
- As part of the RMRC Project
- Environmental Testing of Airborne Particles
atThe Shingle Processing Plant - April 2003
119Summary Highlights
- Risk from asbestos is negligible to non-existent
- Two rounds of sampling for total
- Dust (1999)
- Fibers (2002)
- Common sense and best management practices can
help prevent employee exposure
120Sampling Results
- PEL was not exceeded
- Peak (excursion) levels under standard
- Peak exposure during cleaning
- Worst case total fibers measured at 0.06 fibers
per cubic centimeter (f/cc) of air - Well within asbestos PEL
121Key Conclusions
- Previous waste sampling indicates negligible
asbestos in used asphalt roofing shingles - Asbestos is more likely from commercial roofing
waste, mastic, caulk or felt - Any new exposure to asbestos would be at shingle
recycling (e.g., grinding) operation - Private, residential, shingle family homes are
exempt from NESHAP
122Key Conclusions(continued)
- MN OSHA sampling in 1999 indicated total dust
within PEL standards - AES sampling in 2002 indicated total fibers
within PEL standards - Operators can reduce employee risk to dust and
fiber exposure - Personal respirators are probably NOT necessary
123Information Sources
124Construction Materials Recycling Association
(CMRA)
125EPA Project
- CMRA web pagehttp//www.ShingleRecycling.orgWill
iam Turley, Executive Director(630)
585-7530turley_at_cdrecycling.org - Dan Krivit and Associates(651) 489 -
4990DKrivit_at_bitstream.net
126Equipment Vendors
www.GreenGuardian.com/pdf/shingle_vendors.pdf
127SWMCB Web Site
- http//www.greenguardian.com/business/shinglerecy
cling.asp
128Recent Resources
- April 14, 2003 Forum web page
- RMRC web page
- www.ShingleRecycling.org
- SWMCB web page
- OEA web page
- Mn/DOT RMRC handout packet
129States
- California, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas
maintain Excellent Web Sites
(Justus, September 2004)
130Trade Groups
- Shingle Recycling- University of Florida -
www.shinglerecycling.org - Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming
Association-www.memberservices_at_arra.org - Construction Materials Recycling Association-
www.cdrecycling.org
(Justus, September 2004)
131Summary
132Current Trends and Future Growth
- Virgin asphalt is expensive, tipping fees are
rising, improved economics - Applications other than HMA are being developed
- Use of post consumer shingle waste is promising
133National Asphalt Price Trend
Source U.S. Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor
Statistics
134Shingles Recycling into HMA is a Proven
Technology
- History of experience
- Private operators
- State engineers
- Environmental regulators
- Substantial body of literature
- High quality HMA can be maintained
135Quality Control Savings
- QA/QC critical
- Use in HMA can be very cost effective
- Cheaper alternative to landfilling
- 0.50 to 3.30 per ton of HMA
136Quality Specs Scrap Feedstock and Final
Products
- Free of debris / trash / foreign matter
- Tear-off scrap must be asphalt shingles only
- No nails!
137Certification and Inspection of Shingle Supply
- Clear written spec for acceptable material
- Certify suppliers
- State licensed asbestos inspectors
- Visual screening of all shingle scrap
- Types of shingles
- I.d. non-shingle waste
- I.d., layers, composites, thickness, etc.
Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
138Model Sampling Protocol (if required)
- Specified sampling frequency of incoming loads
- Sampling of recycled asphalt shingles (ground /
screened product) - Willingness to certify quality of finished
products
Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
139Proposed Tear-Off Supplier Certification Form
- .. We . certify that
- All tear-off shingle scrap came from residential
buildings having four or fewer dwelling units
and - These residential buildings are not regulated
facilities according to state and federal rules
and - The material delivered consists of asphalt
shingles only and contains no known hazardous
material.
140Proposed Tear-Off Processor Certification Form
- .. We . certify that
- All tear-off shingle scrap came from certified
suppliers only (see Supplier Certification
forms) and - The final product contains no known hazardous
material.
141Strategy
- Identify players
- Pre-meeting
- Identify unknowns
- Request demonstration project
Source Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.
142Minnesota Approach
- Regulatory status under NESHAP
- Single family shingle scrap only (no commercial
or institutional buildings) - No testing required if certified as free of
asbestos
Source Dan Krivit, Overcoming the Barriers to
Asphalt Shingle Recycling, Environmental White
Paper Report, Mn/DOT, April 2003.
143Key Conclusions
- Proven and documented
- Quality control is essential
- Economics are driving the market
- Manufacturer shingle scrap recycling is here
today and commercialized - Tear-off shingle scrap is under development, but
feasible
144Recommendations
- 1. CONTINUE MARKET DEVELOPMENT
- Cities, counties and states should use alternate
bid language allowing shingles - EPA / CMRA project in progress
- Asbestos statistics
- Best practices guideline documents
- Implementation / Outreach
145Recommendations(Continued)
- 2. MANAGE the asbestos issue
- Restrict supply to private, residential homes
only (per NESHAP) - Tight supply specification
- Certify suppliers (e.g., roofing companies)
- Inspect each load (suggest becoming a licensed
inspector)
146Recommendations(Continued)
- 3. PROTECT employee health and safety
- Develop dust management program
- Develop employee hazard prevention
- Shroud grinder
- Water scrap shingles
- Provide accurate information as part of a full
employee education program
147Recommendations(Continued)
- 4. GUARANTEE YOUR PRODUCT QUALITY
- Asbestos free
- No nails (use multiple magnets)
- ½ - inch minus
- Controlled mix ratios
- Exceed State QA/QC procedures