-CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS - RECYCLER January 29,1999

Volume I/Number 2

The Ofsiial Voice of the C&D Recycling Industry

Examination of Reclaimed Asphalt for Leaching Risk By Timothy G. Townsend and Allan S. Brantley

A major component of con- struction and demolition debris is asphalt concrete from the con- struction and expansion of asphalt roads. Asphalt debris is typically produced as a milled material, or is some cases as large pieces.

A large percentage this reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is recycled by incorpora- tion into a new asphalt mixture. At times, however, C&D debris recy- clers and roadway contractors may desire alternative reuse options for this material. One alternative for the reuse of RAP often suggested is use as fill material, either in con- struction applications or to reclaim borrow pits and other similar excavations. In some areas of the U.S., questions have been raised in regard to the possibility of pollu- tants leaching from the RAP into groundwater and surface water.

These concerns result from been limited. To address these con- asphalt’s composition (an organic cerns in Florida, a research project material derived from petroleum) (sponsored by the Florida Center and the types of chemicals that for Solid and Hazardous Waste may be deposited on a pavement Management) was conducted to surface over time. The use of RAP as fill in some areas has therefore continued on page 4

pavement pile to check for leaching characteristics.

Potential New Market: Vinyl Siding Recycling Editor’s Note: Approximately 48,000 tons of vinyl siding waste are generated each year in the Unit- ed States. For recyclers, this materi- al presents a new, potentially lucrative market. This article is the first in a series on how to set up a vinyl siding recycling operation. It is adapted f rom a guide developed by the Vinyl Siding lnstitute and published by the American Plastics Council (APC). To receive the complete document, contact A P C at 800/2-HE L P-90.

Four key activities must take place for a successful vinyl siding recy- cling program:

A supply of vinyl siding must be identified; A system must be designed to collect the supply; The collected material must be transported to a processor where it can be turned into a flake form; The recycled flake must be sold to a manufacturer for use in a recycled product. But like setting up any recycling

operation, the best place to start planning a program is at the end of the cycle-researching for poten- tial end markets. Why there? Because if no markets for vinyl scrap have been identified, then it will not make sense to collect it.

Typically, recovered vinyl is sold to manufacturers of such items as sewer pipe, electrical conduits, irri- gation pipe, outdoor furniture, fencing, non-electrical cable coat- ings, garden hoses, floor mat back-

continued on page 6

Construction Materials Recycler January 29,1999 1

RECYCLE U P T O 90% OFYOUR C&D DEBRIS WITH THE FASTEST, MOST EFFICIENT SORTING SYSTEM EVER ON THE MARKET.

Drastically reduces landfill fees.

Turns C&D into clean, saleable end products: sand, brick and concrete (various sizes), wood, painted wood, metal, aluminum and corrugated.

Features original StarscreenTM and Air Separation technology.

Developed in Holland, where scarce land availability has fostered world- c I ass recyc I i ng in novation. -

Prepares your operation for government regulations requiring greater recycling of C&D.

Main Office: (203)967-1140 Midwest: (312)832-1330 West Coast: (310)378-5433 Canada: (519)940-4601

U.S. & Canadian D is t r ibutor of Eau inment . www.lubo.nl

CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

RECYCLER ‘lLzrrl

The Official Voice of the C&D Industry

January 29,1999 Volume l/Number 2

E ditor/PuLlisRer William Turley

Contributing Editor James McElvenny

Marketing Assistant Susan Henninger

Design Consultant SundeC Koffarnus

Advertising Sales Rick Downing Carol Garbo

Construction Materials Recycler is published 24 times a year by R.M.R. Publishing

in conjunction with the Construction Materials Recycling Association.

Editorial and Circulation Offices P.O. Box 644

Lisle, 111.60532 Telephone: 6301548-4510

Fax: 6301548-4511 email: turley@xsite.net

Marketing Offices 8665 Station St.

Mentor, Ohio 44060-4363 Telephone: 4401350-3622

Fax: 44012554256 email: tckjl@ncweb.com

Subscription Rates $75 per year, $135 for two

years.

No part of this publication may be transmitted or reproduced

without written permission f rom the publisher.

Construction Materials Recycler

Count Recycled Concrete, Asphalt In USGS Figures

Concrete and asphalt recycling has been called by some a “maturing” industry because it is practiced throughout most of the United States. In many states, not only is an operation recycling the two materials, but it has competition.

We disagree it is mature, but recycling concrete and asphalt is certainly an established industry. There still are areas where it is uncommon or not practiced, unlike quarrying for natural aggregates, which is virtually everywhere. That is an industry practiced for thousands of years. It is a big industry, too, with last year an estimated 1.5 billion tons or so of crushed stone produced, and when you add in sand and gravel, about 2.5 billion tons. Production growth in the U.S. natural aggregate industry has been about 5% annually for several years, and with the planned roadbuilding by the federal government, it probably won’t let up.

But another industry on the rise in concrete and asphalt recycling. True, the Construction Materials Recycling Association conservatively estimates that only 104 million tons of concrete were recycled as recently as 1997, but any way you cut it, that is a lot of tons. That is only an estimate. Unlike aggregate production, no one knows how close that number really is to reality, although it is the best one available. Yet recycled concrete and asphalt are aggregate products, and are replacing natural aggregate in some traditional applications. Hence, they should be counted in any aggregate production census. Currently the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) counts aggregate production, which is where the above estimates come from. Those estimates are well respected because of their accuracy. Also, the USGS counts some recycled material production, but only from aggregate producers, a small fraction of the market. We think the USGS should count all recycled concrete and asphalt production in order to give a true figure of how much aggregate is produced in the United State each year. Not including recycled aggregates does not reflect the true size of the entire aggregate industry.

There are flies in the ointment. The USGS always seems to be fighting for its funding, and sometimes its own existence, so one wonders how willing it will be to do new work. Recycling still has a certain panache among some legislators, so maybe Congress will like hearing the agency will count a recycled material. In addition, there seems to be a bias among many, but certainly not all, USGS employees against recycled and for natural. The agency is a long-time supporter of mining interests, and was initially hostile to recycled. It also doesn’t know much about recycled materials, but that can be overcome. Because of its many years counting aggregate production, a job done well by Valentin Tepordei of the USGS, it has the expertise to get a true count on aggregate production in the United States, the job it is charged to do.

How would the data be compiled? Most concrete and asphalt recyclers are independent types who don’t like reporting to federal agencies. Maybe the only way to get the information is to make it part of a permitting process, either at the demolition or construction permit stage or just the usual plant permit. For the lat- ter, the operator would have to report how many tons were recycled the previ- ous year. For the former, before being permitted on a site the contractor would have to supply a plan as to how much concrete and/or asphalt would be recycled, or report it after the fact. Obviously, the simpler plan is to get the data at the county or waste district level, have the state compile it, and have the USGS gath- er it into its estimates. We don’t like the government intrusion in the industry, but this may be the only way to get these numbers. Until we do, the size of the C&D recycling industry, especially the concrete and asphalt recycling side, will be woefully undercounted.

January 29,1999 3

Asphalt continued from page 1

evaluate the possible leaching of pollutants from RAP.

Methods Samples of RAP were collected from six locations in Florida (Fig- ure 1). Four of the samples were collected from mixed source stockpiles of sized-reduced RAP at hot mix asphalt plants. These crushed RAP piles were a combi- nation of many different pave- ment sources. The remaining two samples were collected from piles of RAP generated from specific and identifiable milling projects. These RAP piles were also located at HMA plants. The RAP samples were then subjected a number of different leaching tests. The evalu- ation of a material’s potential to leach chemicals to the environ- ment may be approached in a number of different fashions. Lab- oratory batch tests may be per- formed in which a prescribed mass of sample is subjected to a leach- ing fluid under a prescribed set of conditions. The concentration of chemicals of interest in the result- ing leachate are then measured.

The most commonly employed leaching test used in the United States is the Toxicity Characteris- tic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The TCLP simulates the acid con- ditions occurring within a landfill. An alternative test, the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP), is finding growing use to simulate leaching in non-landfill conditions, such as might be encountered in a RAP stockpile or RAP fill. The SPLP is performed in the same manner as the TCLP, but a simulated acid rainfall is employed. Both the TCLP and the SPLP were performed on the RAP samples.

Column leaching tests, an alter- native to batch tests, were also conducted on the RAP samples to simulate more realistic environ- mental conditions. Two environ- mental scenarios were simulated. A saturated condition in which the

RAP such as from this pile at a hot mix asphalt plant was examined as part of the testing for the material’s leaching characteristics.

asphalt was completely submerged with the SPLP leaching solution was observed.

This scenario was evaluated to assess possible conditions where RAP material might be used as fill below the water table. An unsatu- rated experiment in which an SPLP leaching solution was added in doses, similar to rainfall events, was also conducted. Leachate was collected from throughout six- week leaching period. In both batch and column tests, leachate was analyzed for a number of organic priority pollutants (volatile organic compounds and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) and heavy metals using standard- ized U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency methodology.

Results Results from the Toxicity Charac- teristic and the Synthetic Precipi- tation Leaching Procedures (both batch tests) indicated that the RAP samples investigated were not a hazardous waste (as expect- ed) and did not leach chemicals greater than the typical groundwa- ter standards. The use of batch tests such as the SPLP to assess the potential risk of leaching from a waste material or contaminated soil is a growing practice in regu- latory agencies. Using this approach, the RAP samples test- ed did not pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater contamina- tion from the pollutants tested. Leachate collected during the col- umn studies did not contain levels of organic pollutants or selected heavy metals (Ba, Ca, Cr, Cu, Ni, and Zn) above typical groundwa- ter regulatory concentrations. In RAP from older roadways, howev- er, the heavy metal lead was detected in amounts above the pri- mary drinking water standard (15 g/L) in some columns. In the one unsaturated column (correspond- ing to the oldest RAP sample) where the lead exceeded the drinking water standard, the con- centration diminished to below

continued on page 6

4 January 29,1999 Construction Materials Recycler

Casella, KTI Agree To Merger Terms KTI Inc., a diversified waste pro- cessing company that has several waste-to-energy plants, mostly in the northeastern United States, agreed to be merge with Casella Waste Systems, a regional waste company with six landfills, one of which was for C&D. A stock swap was the price, with KTI sharehold- ers receiving 0.91 shares of Casella common stock for each KTI com- mon share. The merger should close in the second quarter of 1999. As a combined company, Casella will have annualized revenues of about $460 million, and total assets of more than $650 million.

The management team will be Ross Pirasteh, chairman of KTI as chairman; John Casella, chairman and CEO of Casella, as president and CEO; James Bohlig, senior vide president and COO of Casel-

la, as senior vice president and COO; Martin Sergi, president of KTI, as executive vice president; Paul Garrett, vice chairman of KTI, as executive vice president; and, Jerry S. Cifor, senior vice president and CFO of Casella, as senior vice president and CFO.

Pioneer Southwest Acquires Asphalt Inc. Asphalt, Inc., a San Diego-based operation that produces asphalt, sand, gravel, and is heavily involved in area road construction, has been purchased by Pioneer Southwest, a subsidiary of Pioneer USA. Main target of the deal was Asphalt's 40 million tons of aggre- gate reserves. Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

USA Biomass Wins Large Biomass Contract USA Biomass Corp.'s subsidiary

Transpacific Environmental has won a three-year, $500,000 annual contract for the recovery of shred- ded green waste from the Los Angeles County Sanitation Dis- trict. More than 30,000 tons of green waste will be processed.

EIA Sells WasteExpo, Waste Age Magazine In a deal that had been under dis- cussion for nearly a year, Primedia Intertec has purchased two of the Environmental Industries Associ- ation's major assets-the large WasteExpo show and the venera- ble Waste Age magazine.

Probably the most immediate change will be the folding in of Primedia Intertec's World Wastes magazine into Waste Age. In addi- tion, some members of the Waste- Expo staff, notably Jackie Wolfe and Kent McCullough, become employees of Primedia Intertec.

0) - 3 KOLBERG-PIONEER'; INC.- 1 r

800-542-931 1 700 W. 21st St. P.O. Box 20-Yankton, SD 57078 Phone: (605) 665-8771 Fax: (605) 665-8858 mai/@kolbergpioneer.com www.kolbergpioneer.com

- - See us at booths ... S-7189 & A-I20

Construction Materials Recycler January 29,1999 5

.. 1 .

Asphalt ontinued from page 4

detection during the course of the study. In the saturated columns, lead remained above the drinking water standard at the end of the study in only one column (the old- est RAP sample).

It was concluded that the age of a sample did have an impact on the amount of lead present. This is most likely explained by increased exposure to vehicle traffic and emissions. Lead was detected in the columns and not in the batch tests because of the different con- ditions between the two tests. The column leachate was the results of contact with a greater mass of RAP per volume of leaching solu- tion than the batch test leachate. Reuse of RAP in unsaturated fill conditions should pose minimal risk to groundwater. If considered for use in saturated environments, thought should be given to the age of the sample and the amount of dilution that will occur. In all cases, the appropriate environmental regulatory agencies should be con- sulted for their policy.

Additional Information The information presented here is a summary of a peer-reviewed technical paper to be published in 1999 in the Journal of Environ- mental Engineering Science. For a full copy of the report “Leaching Characteristics of Asphalt Road Waste,” contact the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management at 352/392-6264.

Timothy G. Townsend and Allan S. Brantley are affiliated with the University of Florida Department of Environmental Engineering Sci- ences, Gainesville, Fla.

Want Results? Try a Classified Ad! Call 630/548-4510

Vinyl continued from page 1

ings, molded tool handles, industri- al sheeting, and tarps.

One way to identify companies that collect vinyl siding scrap is through APC’s “National Plastics Handler and Reclaimer Data- base” (800/243-5790). The data- base lists some companies that collect the material. Another important list is “Directory of U.S. and Canadian Companies Manu- facturing products from Recycled Vinyl and Canadian Companies Involved in the Recycling of Vinyl Plastics,” and, “Directory of U.S. and Canadian Companies In- volved in the Recycling of Vinyl Plastics.” They are available from the Vinyl Institute’s Vinyl Envi- ronmental Resource Center, also know as VERCE, which can be reached at 800/969-8469.

Market Survey Once a number of potential mar- kets are identified, a market sur- vey should be conducted to determine the correct market. Re- member, to be successful, a vinyl siding recycling operation must match material supply with the market’s feedstock requirements.

Here are some questions for the market survey:

Where is the market located? Transportation costs can signifi- cantly affect recycling economics; How long has the market been in business? How long has the market been using recycled vinyl scrap? How has the market worked with a business like yours before? If possible, talk to two or three suppliers of the market to get a feel for the possibilities; How willing is the market to work with you to achieve quality material? What additional services will the market provide? Will it provide technical assistance, educational materials, staff training pro- grams, collection containers, balers and/or grinders? Once a market or two has been

selected, a more in-depth inter- view should be conducted to determine exactly what the mar- kets’ expectations are and how your relationship with them will function. Consider the following:

What are the market’s specifica- tions for the material? How does it define “clean” and “accept- able” siding scrap? What levels of contamination are allowed? What happens to the material that does not meet the market’s specifications? Is the price reduced? If so, by how much and how are determinations made? Is the material land- filled? If so, who is responsible for transporting it to a landfill and paying for disposal? How should the material be deliv- ered to market? Who is responsi- ble for transporting the material? What quantities are required? Are there any minimum or max- imum amount restrictions? In what form should the material be? Can the vinyl be transport- ed loose? Are bales of vinyl sid- ing scrap acceptable? Or does the market require that the material be in flake form? Are there any other require- ments related to storing, ship- ping, and/or handling the material prior to marketing it?

What is the current price paid for recovered vinyl siding, in what- ever form? How often is the price subject to change? What has the price history been for the market? What are the market’s short- and long-term price projections?

.What is the length of contract offered by the market? Is there willingness to make a long-term agreement to help even out price fluctuations? The answers to these questions

will evaluate the practicality of becoming involved in a vinyl sid- ing recycling program.

Next Issue: Designing a Collec- tion System. In further issues we will discuss designing a processing line and a case history of one vinyl siding recycler.

6 January 29,1999 Construction Materials Recycler