1. Shingles Recycling: Quality Assurance / Quality Control A Presentation at the Sacramento RMRC Workshop on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 Presenter: Dan Krivit Dan Krivit and Associates

2. Recycled Materials Resource Center www.rmrc.unh.edu

3. Presentation Outline 1) Material Introduction 2) Engineering Properties 3) Applications and Performance 4)States Using Shingles in HMA 5) Specifications 6) Testing and Design Procedures 7) Further Information 8) Summary

4. Presentation Outline [Modified from presentation already in your big books! Make sure to get all additional inserts: AASHTO spec Bibliography SWMCB packet

5. Material Introduction

6. Definitions Manufacturers’ Asphalt Shingle Scrap Tear-Off Asphalt Shingle Scrap Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS) (Crushed & screened)

7. History 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

8. Engineering Properties

9. Composition of Residential Asphalt Shingles

10. Composition of Asphalt Roofing Shingles Asphalt binder content: 20 to 40% Aggregate material: 40 to 60% Fibrous reinforcement: 20%

11. Recent 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)

12. Applications and Performance

13. Multiple Applications HMA Aggregate (gravel) Dust control Cold patch Ground cover Fuel New shingles [Most Proven]

14. Factors Affecting HMA Performance Aggregate gradation of RAS Properties of final blended binder content within the HMA as affected by: –RAS asphalt binder –Virgin binder

15. Factors Affecting HMA Performance (continued) Location RAS is incorporated into HMA Temperature Moisture content of RAS and other aggregates Retention time in HMA drum

16. Source: Newcomb, April 2003.

23. Engineering Performance Advantages Reduce need for virgin binder Add fibrous reinforcement Modify PG grade binder High temp performance Reduce landfill needs 3-11

24. Potential Benefits * (* Manufacturers’ RAS) Cracking resistance Rutting resistance Conservation of landfill space Source: Paul Lum, Lafarge Construction Materials Ltd., April 13, 2003.

25. Challenges 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

26. Barriers to Shingle Recycling Economic reasons Policy and regulatory compliance Environmental concerns Technical reasons Public sentiment ----------- (Note:These barriers may be real or perceived!)

27. Engineering Performance Disadvantages Hotter mix requirements Stiffer mix Possible contamination 3-12 (Justus, September 2004)

28. Source: Lum, April 2003.

35. Asphalt Shingles in HMA Missouri DOT Experience Joe Schroer, PE Construction and Materials Division March 30, 2005

36. In The Beginning Approached by Pace Construction and Peerless Landfill –MoDOT Not Using RAP in Mixtures –Deleterious Material –Stiffness of Asphalt in Shingles

37. First Look The “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

38. Shingle Components Asphalt  20%-40% –Stiffen Roadway Asphalt Aggregate   30% –Good Stuff Fiberglass or Paper Mat   30% –No Harm if Well Dispersed

39. MoDOT Goals Engineering Properties First –Harmful Effects of Deleterious Material –Asphalt Binder Properties Traffic Safety – Nails, etc. If Everything Else Works Out, Landfilling is Reduced

40. Why Should We Pursue Shingles? High Asphalt Content Granules Are Hard and Durable Recycling CO$T

41. Concerns How Will Deleterious Material Affect the Mixture Can the Low Temperature Grading be Maintained at Various Blending Ratios

42. Asphalt After Blending with Shingle Asphalt Resist Rutting Resist Fatigue Cracking Resist Cold-Weather Cracking

43. Asphalt 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 64°C (147°F) Low Temp –22°C (-8°F)

44. Asphalt Modifications Require PG 64-22 Stiffer at High Temperature – OK Stiffer at Low Temperature –Use Lower Percentage of Shingles –Use Softer Roadway Asphalt

45. Deleterious Evaluation Specification for Aggregate –0.5% “Other Foreign Material” Sticks, mud balls, deer fur, etc. Shingle “OFM” –Approximately 3% Total

46. Deleterious Material Nails Wood Plastic Cellophane Paper Fiber Board

47. Trial by Fire

48. No Difference Visually Standard Mixture Tests Placement

49. Big Difference Rut Resistance Cold Temperature Tests OFM in Mixture

50. Can Tear-Off Shingles be Used? Allowance in OFM Due to Small Percentage of Shingles and Trial Mixture Start with Softer Roadway Asphalt

51. Where 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

52. U of M Lab Data: Missouri 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

53. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 100sec. (PG 64-22)

54. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 100sec. (PG 58-28)

55. MO: Mix Stiffness @ 500sec. (PG 58-28)

56. MO: Tensile Strength (PG 64-22)

57. MO: Tensile Strength (PG 58-28)

58. Mn/DOT lab data Jim McGraw, Director of Mn/DOT’s Chemical Lab, Maplewood, MN Preliminary lab data as of Thursday, April 6, 2006 Report with U of M lab data, including Mo/DOT samples, to be released soon

59. New 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 conduct indirect tensile strength tests

60. MN: Gradation of RAS – Tear Off

61. MN: Gradation of RAS – Manufacturers’

62. MN: Gradation of RAP

63. MN: Asphalt Content of RAS

64. MN: PG Grade of RAS

66. MN: Deleterious in RAS

67. U of M Lab Data: Minnesota 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

68. MN: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 100 sec. 0.2 2.7 10.0 0.5 5.0 13.5 0.2 5.5 8.2 0 4 8 12 16 0-10-20 Temperature [ o C] Stiffness [GPa] 20% RAP 15% RAP + 5% Tear-off 15% RAP + 5% Manufactured

69. MN: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 500 sec.

70. MN: Tensile Strength [MPa]

71. MN vs. MO: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 100 sec.

72. MN vs. MO: Mix Stiffness [GPa] @ 500 sec.

73. States Using RAS

74. (Justus, September 2004)

77. Western States California Montana Texas Oregon

78. Source: Ordorff, March 2005

80. Source: Ayres, April 2003.

81. Other States’ Specifications [and Experiences]

82. 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)

83. –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 Minnesota (Justus, September 2004)

84. 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)

85. 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)

86. 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 7-2 (Justus, September 2004)

87. Texas DOT: Constituents of Roofing Shingles Used in Test Project Tear-Off Shingles Manufacturer’s Shingles Asphalt Cement (%) Mineral Filler (%) Viscosity of Asphalt @ 140˚F (Poise) Penetration @ 77˚F 25 39 3778 24 22 50 1223 37 (Justus, September 2004)

88. Texas 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)

89. 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. Texas DOT - Conclusions (Justus, September 2004)

90. 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

91. New 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

92. Testing and Design Procedures

93. American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHT0) Recycled asphalt shingles specification and practice was approved by the Subcommittee on Materials (SOM) August 2005

94. AASHTO: Subcommittee on Materials THOMAS E. BAKER (360) 709-5401 Tumwater, Washington bakert@wsdot.wa.gov

95. Review 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

96. AASHTO 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”

97. AASHTO 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]

98. List of Roofing Waste Items Included for Recycling “YES” (Include these items): Asphalt shingles Felt attached to shingles

99. List 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

100. Lista 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

101. AASHTO 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)

102. AASHTO Specification (continued) Deleterious material maximum limits (Section 8): (material retained on the No. 4 sieve) –Heavy fraction = 0.50% –Lightweight fraction = 0.05%

103. Missouri Shingle Spec Extrinsic Material Allowance Raised –3.0% Total –1.5% Wood

104. NCHRP Rpt. 452 “Incorporation of RAP in the Superpave System” – <15% RAP, no change in PG Grade – >15% RAP, Assess the Effect of RAS on the Virgin Binder The Draft AASHTO specification recommends a similar approach. – < 5% RAS, no change in PG Grade – > 5% RAS, Assess the Effects of RAS on the Virgin Binder (Justus, September 2004)

105. Design Approach >5% 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 6-5 (Justus, September 2004)

106. What 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)

107. 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) Contribution of RAS Binder to Total Binder in HMA 6-7 (Justus, September 2004)

108. Determine the Effect of RAS on PG Grade Binder NCHRP No. 452 presents: Mathematical Solution Graphical Solution 6-8 (Justus, September 2004)

109. Graphical Solution for PG Binder Determine performance temperature for RAS binder Use monograph to evaluate effect on virgin binder 6-9 (Justus, September 2004)

110. Comprehensive 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

111. Minnesota 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)

112. Minnesota 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)

113. Minnesota 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

114. Minnesota DOT MnDOT Conclusions: Constructability of RAS Equivalent to RAP Two Year performance of RAS Equivalent to Control PG Binder Performance (Justus, September 2004)

115. Mn/DOT Spec Maximum 5% manufacturers’ shingle scrap in HMA Considered a type of RAP Example: 5% shingles + 25% RAP = 30% max RAP QA/QC standards apply (blending charts)

116. Mn/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

117. Mn/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

118. Asbestos Risk Incidence of asbestos is extremely low Average content was only: – 0.02% in 1963 –0.00016% in 1973 Source: NAHB, 1999

119. ASRAS Data Iowa (1,791 samples), no hits Maine (118 samples), no hits Mass: –(2,288 composite samples) 11 hits < 1% –(69 tarpaper samples) 2 < 5% –(109 ground RAS samples) 2 < 1% Florida (287 samples), 2 hits > 1% Source: Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.

120. ASRAS Data (continued) Missouri (6 samples), no hits Hawaii (100 samples), 1 hit > 1% Minnesota (156 samples), no hits Minnesota (50 tarpaper), 1 hit @ 2% - 5% We still want more data! (for EPA / CMRA project.) Original source: Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.

121. DKA / AES Fiber Tests As part of the RMRC Project: Environmental Testing of Airborne Particles at The Shingle Processing Plant April 2003

122. Summary 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

123. Sampling 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

124. Key Conclusions 1.Previous waste sampling indicates negligible asbestos in used asphalt roofing shingles 2.Asbestos is more likely from commercial roofing waste, mastic, caulk or felt 3.Any new exposure to asbestos would be at shingle recycling (e.g., grinding) operation 4.Private, residential, shingle family homes are exempt from NESHAP

125. Key Conclusions (continued) 5.MN OSHA sampling in 1999 indicated total dust within PEL standards 6.AES sampling in 2002 indicated total fibers within PEL standards 7.Operators can reduce employee risk to dust and fiber exposure 8.Personal respirators are probably NOT necessary

126. Information Sources

127. Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA)

128. EPA Project CMRA web page http://www.ShingleRecycling.org William Turley, Executive Director (630) 585-7530 turley@cdrecycling.org Dan Krivit and Associates (651) 489 - 4990 DKrivit@bitstream.net

129. Equipment Vendors www.GreenGuardian.com/pdf/shingle_vendors.pdf

130. SWMCB Web Site http://www.greenguardian.com/ business/shinglerecycling.asp

131. Recent Resources April 14, 2003 Forum web page RMRC web page www.ShingleRecycling.org SWMCB web page OEA web page Mn/DOT & RMRC handout packet

132. States California, Minnesota, North Carolina and Texas maintain Excellent Web Sites (Justus, September 2004)

133. Trade Groups Shingle Recycling- University of Florida - www.shinglerecycling.org www.shinglerecycling.org Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association-www.memberservices@arra.orgmemberservices@arra.org Construction Materials Recycling Association- www.cdrecycling.org (Justus, September 2004)

134. Summary

135. Current 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

136. National Asphalt Price Trend Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics

137. Shingles 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

138. Quality 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

139. Quality Specs: Scrap Feedstock and Final Products Free of debris / trash / foreign matter Tear-off scrap must be asphalt shingles only No nails!

140. Certification 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.

141. Model 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.

142. Proposed 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.”

143. Proposed 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.”

144. Strategy Identify players Pre-meeting Identify unknowns Request demonstration project Source: Paul Ruesch, April 13, 2003.

145. Minnesota 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.

146. Key Conclusions 1. Proven and documented 2. Quality control is essential 3. Economics are driving the market 4. Manufacturer shingle scrap recycling is here today and commercialized 5. Tear-off shingle scrap is under development, but feasible

147. Recommendations 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

148. Recommendations (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)

149. Recommendations (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

150. Recommendations (Continued) 4.GUARANTEE YOUR PRODUCT QUALITY: –Asbestos free –No nails (use multiple magnets) –½ - inch minus –Controlled mix ratios –Exceed State QA/QC procedures