^
o
>*.
To
3
LO
.2
c
^
CL
CO
Q.
5
U
ion Casebook
+*
re
'i
en
M
E
minu
_
(U
u
3
O
-------
fluoride (AlF-j), and calcium fluoride (CaF2) • The anodes are prepared
in the carbon plant where petroleum coke is crushed, screened, classi-
fied, and mixed with a pitch binder.
When a sufficient quantity of aluminum metal has formed in a cell,
it is drawn off into a transfer crucible and sent to the cast house
where it is placed directly in a holding furnace or cast into pigs.
Usually, the molten metal is fluxed before casting to remove minor
impurities. Alloying metals are also added at this point. The casting
and alloying is done prior to shipping for final product manufacture.
SECONDARY SMELTING AND REFINING OF ALUMINUM
The secondary aluminum smelting and refining industry is character-
ized by a large number of relatively small operations in urban areas
throughout the United States. Many of these plants are engaged in
only high grade scrap melting. Some primary aluminum producers also
operate secondary smelters.
High grade aluminum scrap can be easily recycled by remelting in
pot or rotary furnaces. The smelting of low grade scraps and foundry
drosses is performed with reverberatory or rotary furnaces. Fluxing
agents and alloying agents are charged with the scrap. Magnesium is
removed by AlF^ or Cl2 demagging. Degassing is usually achieved
simultaneously with the demagging operation. Upon completion of the
smelting operation, the fluxing agent is skimmed and the purified
metal melt is poured and cast into ingots. Common salt and potash
mixtures are normally employed as fluxing agents.
Secondary aluminum smelting from low grade drosses containing 10
to 30 percent aluminum metal values requires pre-processing of the
dross to enrich the aluminum metal content to about 75 percent. Either
wet or dry processes may be employed. In the dry process, the dross
material is crushed and comminuted in impaction or ball mills. The
fines are removed, leaving enriched metal granules for smelting in
reverberatory or rotary furnaces. Alternatively, the dross raw
material may be processed by water washing in a rotating drum, where the
water-soluble fluxing salts are removed. Wet processing is more common-
ly applied in relatively low volume dross processing plants.
The principal groups of raw materials for the secondary aluminum
industry are (1) new clipping and forgings, (2) old casting and sheet,
(3) borings and turnings, (4) remelted ingot and sweated pig, and
(5) residues.
The main product line of secondary smelters is specification alloys
(ingots or sows) and/or deoxidant (notched bar, shapes, or shot).
82
-------
PROPOSED GUIDELINES
Construction materials designated as "aluminum" are usually made
of an aluminum alloy. An aluminum alloy is defined by its chemical
composition and allowable impurities. A particular alloy can generally
be manufactured in a number of ways. At one extreme is the sole use
of "earth" or "new" materials. On the other is the use of recovered
material (old scrap) which has the exact chemical composition of the
aluminum alloy required for the manufacture of the particular construc-
tion material. Between the two extremes are various combinations of
"earth" materials and old scrap, new scrap and old scrap, and various
types of old scrap.
Information which has been developed and is pertinent to the
formulation of guidelines includes:
1. Required aluminum alloys can usually be produced in several
ways.
2. Purchase of aluminum construction materials for public
construction, and particularly for federally owned construc-
tion, represents only a small percentage of aluminum metal
production.
3. The use of old and new scrap by the aluminum industry has
shown a noticeable upward trend in recent years.
4. Primary producers (but not necessarily all) purchase signifi-
cant quantities of old and new aluminum scrap.
Possible guidelines are:
1. The scrap content of aluminum construction products must be
specified.
2. All construction products must contain at least x percent
(e.g., 5-10 percent) of old scrap.
3. The metal from which construction materials are manufactured
must be produced in secondary smelters.
4. The metal from which construction materials are manufactured
must be produced from old scrap only.
The first guideline imposes a reporting requirement but is unlikely
to have any further impact.
The second guideline will require material certification. It may
eliminate primary producers who do not presently employ old scrap in
their production process from bidding on government contracts. Con-
versely, the guideline may also act as a stimulus for these primary
producers to utilize old scrap in their production -process.
83
-------
The third proposed guideline would eliminate "primary producers"
as suppliers of aluminum construction materials for federally owned
construction. Some primary producers, however, apparently also
operate secondary smelters and these would remain competitive. At
present, primary producers are the major suppliers of construction
materials. This is not only related to metal production but also to
the availability of the necessary milling, rolling, and fabricating
facilities.
The last guideline is the most severe in terms of placing restric-
tions on the metal producers. The types of old scrap needed to produce
the required aluminum alloy may not be readily available for purchase
by many secondary smelters. The previously mentioned fabricating
facility problems apply here as well.
The guideline recommended for implementation is to require that
all construction products contain at least x percent (e.g., 5-10 per-
cent) of recovered material. The precise percentage should be esta-
blished initially through discussions with industry representatives.
The percentage of recovered materials employed could be gradually
increased over the years. As previously noted, this guideline would
prevent some primary producers from bidding on government construction
material contracts, i.e., those which do not presently employ recovered
material in their production process. The number of firms which
would be barred from bidding (assuming that they took no corrective
action) would not appear to eliminate a competitive environment.
From data in Table 8-7, the percentages of old scrap (including
sweated pig) of total purchased scrap consumption in the aluminum
industry were calculated to be 27 percent in 1975, 28 percent in 1976,
and 32 percent in 1977. Application of these percentages to the
scrap consumption by primary producers yields the following estimates
of old scrap consumption by primary producers:
1975 93,000 tons
1976 102,000
1977 136,000
Old scrap consumption is estimated to have represented the following
percentages of total metal production by primary producers in 1975-1977,
1975 2.4 percent
1976 2.4
1977 3.0
The amounts of additional recovered materials which would be
utilized as a result of the implementation of this guideline cannot be
precisely quantified for the following reasons:
84
-------
1. The continuing upward trend in the use of recovered material
by the industry.
2. Some aluminum construction materials presently purchased by
the government probably already contain recovered materials.
3. Old scrap consumption by primary producers is not reported.
4. The quantity of aluminum construction materials purchased by
the government is relatively small.
The guideline would affect mainly primary producers. Total scrap
use by primary producers is compared with total new metal production
below for 1975, 1976, and 1977.
Year New Metal Prod. Scrap Consumption %_
1975 3,879,000 tons 342,810 tons 8.8
1976 4,251,000 365,190 8.6
1977 4,539,000 425,733 9.4
(1) See Table 8-1
(2) See Table 8-7
The scrap consumption tonnages include both old and new scrap.
Assuming an initial guideline of 5 percent recovered material
content in construction products and that aluminum construction products
represent about 23 percent of the industry's total output, the addi-
tional consumption of old scrap as shown below would have resulted.
1975 23,000 tons
1976 25,000
1977 21,000
The relationship between private and public construction programs
and the relatively modest use of aluminum products in public construc-
tion programs were discussed earlier. Accordingly, a guideline calling
for a 5 percent recovered material content in aluminum construction
materials would have resulted in the following increased consumption
of recovered material from 1975 through 1977.
1975 1976 1977
Federally Owned Construction 1,150 tons 1,000 tons 840 tons
State and Locally Owned Const. 5,750 5,500 3,780
Total Public Construction 6,900 6,500 4,620
85
-------
Therefore, it is estimated that the implementation of this guide-
line would only result in a slight reduction in the waste stream.
Application of the guideline should be limited to mill orders or
material purchases which exceed a stated quantity or value. It is
suggested that two certification options be provided to industry: (1)
certification that the delivered construction material contains the
mandated amount of recovered material, and (2) the producing plant
utilized, on the average, the mandated amount of recovered material in
its operation during the preceding 3 or 6 months.
86
-------
Section 9
USE OF FLY ASH IN CEMENT AND CONCRETE
INTRODUCTION
Fly ash may be incorporated into concrete either as a component of
blended cement or as an admixture to an appropriately designed concrete
mix. Employed in the latter role, the fly ash, because of its pozzo-
lanic action, may replace a significant fraction of the Portland cement
in concrete.
Known uses of fly ash in cement and concrete include the manu-
facture of blended cements, light-weight aggregates (e.g., used in the
manufacture of masonry products), and soil-cement for highway construc-
tion. However, the use of fly ash to replace or supplement Portland
cement in concrete represents the largest potential for fly ash in
the particular construction categories considered in this study.
CEMENT PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION
The U.S. production of Portland and masonry cements as reported by
the U.S. Department of the Interior is compared below with U.S.
cement consumption presented in the Portland Cement Association's (PCA")
Economic Report for 1972-1977. Quantities are expressed in 1,000's
of short tons.
Year U.S. Department of the Interior PCA
1972 82,597 80,840
1973 85,513 86,253
1974 80,917 79,113
1975 68,139 67,243
1976 72,950 70,696
1977 NA 77,081
NA = not available
The data series coincide closely. Both show a significant drop from
1974 to 1975 followed by a gradual recovery trend.
14. "Cement in 1976," Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, January 12, 1977.
15. "The U.S. Cement Industry, an Economic Report," Portland Cement
Association, Second Edition, March 1978.
87
-------
Consumption of cement by type of product for 1975 is reported as
follows:
Cement Type % of Consumption
General use and moderate heat 92.7
(Types I and II)
High early strength (Type III) 3.1
Oil well 1.7
White 0.5
Sulfate resisting (Type V) 0.5
Portland slag and pozzolan
(blended cements) 0.5
Others 1.0
Only the blended cements contain slag or fly ash. Actually, however,
many applications of Types I, II, and V cements permit the use of fly
ash or slag either as an integral part of the cement or as a substitute
for Portland cement in Portland cement concrete.
The small amounts of fly ash and slag employed in cement production
are verified by a Department of the Interior industry survey, from
which the following data are extracted.
1975 1976
Total raw materials used in producing Portland
cement in the U.S. (1,000's of short tons) 114,944 122,624
Blast furnace slag (1,000's of short tons) 465 435
Fly ash (1,000's of short tons) 180 264
14
Portland cement shipments in 1976 , by type of customer, are
recorded as:
Building material dealers 5,497 x 10 short tons 7.6%
Concrete product manufacturers 10,073 14.0
Ready-mixed concrete 46,666 64.9
Highway contractors 5,622 7.8
Other contractors 2,772 3.9
Federal, state § other govt. agencies 326 0.5
Miscellaneous, including own use 965 1.3
Total 71,921
14. "Cement in 1976," Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, January 12, 1977.
15. "The U.S. Cement Industry, an Economic Report," Portland Cement
Association, Second Edition, March 1978.
88
-------
By far the largest quantity of cement is shipped directly to ready-mix
concrete facilities.
Average cement use by construction categories for the 1972-1976
time period^ was:
Public buildings 10%
Public Works 20%
Transportation 17%
Industrial-commercial 18%
Residential 28%
Miscellaneous 7%
The data indicate that almost one-half of U.S. cement consumption
(47 percent) was utilized in federally/state/localled owned construc-
tion, most of which may be impacted by federally funding.
Cement manufacture is a regional industry primarily because of the
low value-to-weight ratio. Generally, cement plants tend to be located
within 200 miles of their principal markets. Longer transport require-
ments result in excessive transportation costs except where barge
shipment is available. Cement production capacity for 1976*6 by EPA
regions and states, together with 1976 cement consumption, is shown
in Table 9-1. The wide geographic dispersal of the industry is borne
out by the data.
FLY ASH PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION
Coal, pulverized by grinding in advance of firing, contains some
incombustible material, the amount varying with the source of coal.
Two types of ash result from combustion. The coarser ash recovered is
known as bottom ash; the bulk of the ash, known as fly ash, is collected
from the flue gas by several rows of precipitators, and is either
sluiced to a lagoon or collected dry in a silo. Fly ash constitutes
approximately 80 percent of the total amount of ash produced.
15. "The U.S. Cement Industry, an Economic Report," Portland Cement
Association, Second Edition, March 1978.
16. "Potential for Energy Conservation Through the Use of Slag and
Fly Ash in Concrete" (Review Draft), Gordian Associates, Inc.,
September 1978.
89
-------
TABLE 9-1. 1976 U.S. CEMENT PRODUCTION CAPACITY AND CONSUMPTION
(1000'S OF SHORT TONS)*
EPA REGION/STATES
I
Maine
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II
New York
New Jersey
III
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Delaware
District of Columbia
IV
Alabama
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
Kentucky
North Carolina
V
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Ohio
Wisconsin
Minnesota
CAPACITY
472
472
0
0
0
0
0
4,684
4,684
0
12,890
9,499
1,861
1,530
0
0
16,019
3,902
3,957
2,539
2,004
1,683
664
660
610
16,237
6,442
3,496
2,810
2,451
374
664
CONSUMPTION
2,167
308
563
810
236
141
109
3,439
2,088
1,351
5,974
2,850
1,188
1,598
142
196
11,822
1,361
3,389
782
1,310
1,644
831
1,046
1,459
13,959
2,595
1,682
3,759
2,770
1,602
1,551
EPA REGION/STATES
VI
Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
VI
Missouri
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
South Dakota
Utah
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
IX
California
Arizona
Nevada
X
Washington
Hawaii
Oregon
Idaho
Alaska
Total U.S.
CAPACITY
13,380
8,928
1,698
1,245
1,089
420
11,460
4,956
3,093
2,386
1,025
3,844
1,714
570
710
650
200
0
12,215
10,095
1.720
400
3,399
1,789
770
630
210
0
94,600
CONSUMPTION
11,673
6,482
1,262
886
2,500
543
5,829
1,723
1,849
1,228
1,029
3,658
1,197
376
919
336
418
412
8,796
7,316
1,117
363
2,963
1,167
327
794
512
163
70,280
*Source: "Cement in 1976," Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Department of the Interior, January 12, 1977.
90
-------
The largest sources of fly ash are those thermal power plants which
employ bituminous coal as their primary fuel. Estimates of the quantity
of fly ash recovered range around 8 percent by weight of the coal burned.
Estimated fly ash generation based on bituminous coal consumption in the
U.S. in 197616 is shown by EPA regions and states in Table 9-2. The
amount of fly ash produced annually from this source has probably
increased since 1976 and can be expected to continue to increase as
power plants are converted from oil or gas to coal.
Cement consumption and fly ash generation in the 10 EPA regions
are compared below using 1976 data. Quantities are expressed in 1,000's
of short tons.
EPA Region Cement Consumption Fly Ash Generated
I 2,167 60
II 3,439 660
III 5,974 6,008
IV 11,822 9,015
V 13,959 10,570
VI 11,673 0
VII 5,829 2,521
VIII 3,658 219
IX 8,796 85
X 2,963 0
No fly ash was produced in EPA regions VI and X, and less than
100,000 short tons were produced in EPA regions I and IX. The bulk
of the fly ash is found in EPA regions III, IV, and V, which encompass
the mid-western and south-eastern states.
FLY ASH AND CEMENT UTILIZATION
Total fly ash collection and utilization data are available for
197716 and are presented in Table 9-3.
There is a significant difference between the total amount of fly
ash produced listed in Table 9-3 and that presented in Table 9-2. The
data were obtained from different sources and are for different years,
the former being 1977 and the latter being 1976. Further, the data in
Table 9-2 are computed values, whereas the information in Table 9-3
apparently is based on reported fly ash recovery and disposal, and may
include fly ash from other than bituminous coal.
16. "Potential for Energy Conservation Through the Use of Slag and Fly
Ash in Concrete" (Review Draft), Gordian Associates, Inc.,
September 1978.
91
-------
TABLE 9-2. ESTIMATED FLY ASH GENERATED IN THE U.S. IN 1976
FROM BITUMINOUS COAL (1000'S OF SHORT TONS)*
EPA REGION/STATES
1
Maine
Connecticut
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
II
New York
New Jersey
III
Pennsylvania
Maryland
Virginia
Delaware
District of Columbia
IV
Alabama
Florida
South Carolina
Tennessee
Georgia
Mississippi
Kentucky
North Carolina
V
Michigan
Indiana
Illinois
Ohio
Wisconsin
Minnesota
FLY ASH
60
0
0
0
60
0
0
600
458
202
6,008
2^05
366
425
2,250
62
9,015
1,447
555
439
1,682
1,168
126
2,031
1,567
10,570
1,674
2,274
1,950
3,848
690
134
EPA REGION/STATES
VI
Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
VII
Missouri
Iowa
Kansas
Nebraska
VIII
Colorado
South Dakota
Utah
Montana
Wyoming
North Dakota
IX
California
Arizona
Nevada
X
Washington
Hawaii
Oregon
Idaho
Alaska
Total U.S.
FLY ASH
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,521
1,645
469
274
133
219
72
2
145
0
0
0
85
0
19
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,138
'Source: Calspan estimates based on the bituminous coal consumption data given in
"Potential for Energy Conservation Through the Use of Slag and Fly Ash in Concrete" (Review Draft),
Gordian Associates, Inc., September 1978
and using an average fly ash generation rate of 8 percent of the weight of coal burned.
92
-------
TABLE 9-3. FLY ASH COLLECTION AND UTILIZATION
(MILLIONS OF SHORT TONS)
Total Fly Ash Collected
Ash Utilized
Commercial Utilization
Mixed with raw material before
forming cement clinker
Mixed with cement clinker or
mixed with cement (Type 1-P)
Partial replacement of cement
in concrete and blocks
Lightweight aggregate
Fill material for roads, constuction
sites, land, reclamation, dikes, etc.
Stabilizer for road bases, parking
areas, etc.
Filler in asphalt mix
Miscellaneous
Ash Removed from Plant Sites at
No Cost to Utility
Ash Utilized from Disposal Sites
After Disposal Costs
48.5
6.3*
0.4
0.3
1.6
0.1
1.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.6
(7%)
(5%)
(25%)
(2%)
(20%)
(3%)
(2%)
(3%)
(7%)
(26%)
*Due to rounding errors, the figures below total 6.2 rather than 6.3.
Regardless, it is evident that sufficient fly ash is generated
annually to meet all potential needs of the cement and concrete indus-
tries. The total availability of fly ash can be misleading, however,
since its use is dependent on fly ash quality, material performance,
location/cost, and engineer bias. It is believed that the latter two
factors represent the significant obstacles in the way of expanded use
of fly ash in cement and concrete.
The EPA regions and states in which fly ash is generated are shown
in Table 9-2. Current and projected future major construction programs
receiving Federal Government support and requiring relatively signifi-
cant amounts of cement/concrete are more difficult to identify.
One major usage of cement is in highway construction. It is
assumed that highway construction, although financed largely through a
trust fund, falls within the province of the guidelines. U.S. average
93
-------
usage factors for cement and for concrete pipe, expressed in tons/
million dollars of contracted highway construction cost, are shown
in Table 9-4.
TABLE 9-4. U.S. AVERAGE HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION USAGE FACTORS FOR
CEMENT AND CONCRETE PIPE (SHORT TONS/MILLION DOLLARS
OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION COST)*
1968-69-70
1969-70-71
1970-71-72
1971-72-73
1972-73-74
1973-74-75
1974-75-76
CEMENT**
1,794
1,747
1,562
1,391
1,281
1,076
938
CONCRETE PIPE***
393
402
381
333
334
270
247
* Source: "Highway Construction Usage Factors for Cement, Bitumens, Concrete Pipe and Clay Pipe,
1974-75-76," U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
**Includes Portland and natural cement used for paving, structures, and all other highway
construction purposes except pipe.
*** Includes both plain and reinforced concrete pipe. Reinforcing included in the concrete pipe
factors amounts to about 2 percent by weight.
As shown subsequently, the steep decline in the quantity of cement
usage per million dollars of construction cost over the years is due in
part to reduced cement usage. Also, however, it is accounted for by
the fact that the cost of construction, other than cement, has risen
at a much more rapid pace than the price of cement.
Cement usage for interstate and other federal-aid primary highway
systems is somewhat above and concrete pipe usage is below the national
averages. Data are reported as follows^? in terms of tons per million
dollars of construction costs.
17. "Highway Construction Usage Factors for Cement, Bitumens, Concrete
Pipe and Clay Pipe, 1974-75-76," U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
94
-------
Cement Concrete Pipe
1973-74-75 1,349 223
1974-75-76 1,206 201
Estimated construction expenditures for all public highways
(federal, state and local funds excluding cost of right-of-way and
engineering) for 1969-1977 are shown below:
1968 $8.112 billions 1974 $10.962 billions
1969 8.128 1975 12.020
1970 9.235 1976 12.119*
1971 9.868 1977 12.371**
1972 9.789
1973 9.722
*Preliminary
**Forecast
Combining these data with those contained in Table 9-4 yields the
following average, annual usages of cement and concrete pipe for highway
construction.
Cement Concrete Pipe
(IQOO's of tons) (IQOO's of tons)
3,337
3,649
3,669
3,261
3,393
2,943
2,890
The average annual cement usage over this time period'was 13,639 x
103 tons (
-------
The remainder of cement usage in federally supported construction
programs is for public works and public housing. A large portion of the
former, particularly as it pertains to the types of projects which
employ significant quantities of cement, is believed to fall under the
aegis of the Corps of Engineers. Historically, the Corps has permitted
and, in fact, encouraged the use of fly ash in its dam construction
programs where fly ash of suitable quality is available within a
reasonable distance from the construction site. "Reasonable" in this
case is defined by the 'relative costs of fly ash and cement at the
construction sites.
Fly ash employed in public housing may encounter opposition because
it tends to reduce the early strength of concrete which in turn may
impact on the construction schedule. Apparently, however, it is possi-
ble to meet early strength requirements by employing the reduced water
requirement, imparted by fly ash to concrete mix, as a means for formu-
lating a concrete mix that includes fly ash.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The following discussion of the problems, advantages, and dis-
advantages of the use of fly ash in cements and concrete are based
largely on the proceedings of the Energy-and Resource Conservation in
the Cement and Concrete Industry Seminar held in Ottawa in November
1976.18
When used in mass concrete where early strength is not critical
and low heat performance is sought, or in steam-cured concrete, fly
ash can replace an equal quantity of cement. The U.S. Corps of
Engineers 1" indicated that a 30 percent substitution of fly ash for
cement has been used for the interior construction of dams and 20
percent substitution for exterior dam construction.*
*Current ASTM specification limits the pozzolan constituent to a range
of 15-40% of the finished cement in blended cements. Virtually no loss
in strength occurs at early ages if replacement is held to about 10
percent.
18. "Energy and Resource Conservation in the Cement and Concrete
Industry," Proceedings of a Seminar Sponsored by Canada Centre for
Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) and Office of Energy
Conservation, Dept. of Energy Mines and Resources, Ottawa, Ontario
November 8, 9, 1976.
19. Telcon with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. October
1978.
96
-------
Fly ash of good quality can be shipped realtively long distances
where it ranks in value with cement. However, where fly ash is used
in normal structural concrete and where early strength is required,
considerably more ash must be used than the amount of cement removed.
In this use, fly ash of good quality has a value of up to one-half that
of portland cement, reducing the potential marketing distance
accordingly.
The potential of fly ash as a raw material in the manufacture of
sintered lightweight aggregate is well recognized. Unburned carbon
in fly ash reduces the amount of fuel required in production. The
latter benefit over other means of lightweight manufacture will
increase in proportion as fuel costs increase.
Despite this promising outlook, many past attempts at sintered
aggregate manufacture using fly ash have ended in failure. Failures
have been due to technical reasons (control of carbon content and fine-
ness of the fly ash) and economic reasons (a plant should have a high
capacity, preferably over 300,000 tons per year).
High carbon content and low fineness are usually undesirable
features in fly ash for pozzolanic applications or aggregate production.
Considerable variation in the quality of fly ash as measured by these
parameters can occur not only between sources of fly ash but also in
a given source of fly ash. Factors which contribute to this variability
include:
1. The extent to which the coal is pulverized prior to firing.
2. The firing cycle during which fly ash is collected, e.g.,
poorer quality of fly ash is usually generated during start-
up and when the efficiency of burning is low.
3. Provision of traps for tramp iron, etc., in fly ash handling
systems, excluding such material from supplies stored for
marketing.
19
The Corps of Engineers indicates that it specifies performance
requirements rather than material content for most concrete construc-
tion. It is up to the competing contractors to employ fly ash as they
see fit, i.e., to the extent that it is to their greatest economic
advantage.
19. Telcon with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.,
October 1978.
97
-------
The Corps of Engineers does, however, sample and test available
fly ash within a reasonable distance from the construction sites to
determine its suitability as a construction material. Such tests are
made prior to each construction program. There is no nationwide or
even regional listing of acceptable fly ash supplies for concrete work.
This is probably in recognition of the fly ash variability noted pre-
viously. Fly ash, where employed, is generally stored in silos and
metered and combined with cement and aggregates rn situ.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES
Careful selection of fly ash from a source of low variability,
combined with adequate quality control and concrete mix proportioning,
can result in a durable product at reduced material costs.
Guidelines which encourage the use of fly ash in concrete, parti-
cularly where it is used as a Portland cement substitute, would
obviously have a depressing effect on the Portland cement industry.
Fly ash sources, where extant, are generally available on an equal
basis to all contractors who may compete for government financed (in
whole or in part) construction activities in a given area.
The use of fly ash, as a substitute for Portland cement, could
probably be set at 5-10 percent wherever cements of Types I and II are
used without affecting performance. Primary uses of fly ash, however,
are in construction projects such as dams and road substrata where
the advantages provided by the use of fly ash far outnumber their
disadvantages. The Corps of Engineers already encourages the use of
fly ash in many of its programs. Greater use of fly ash in road con-
struction will depend to a considerable degree on convincing state
highway engineers of the benefit of its application.
The current approach used by the Corps of Engineers may be a model
for the proposed guidelines, namely
1. Determine that fly ash of a suitable quality and in sufficient
quantity is available in the construction area.
2. Specify that fly ash is an acceptable cement substitute material,
3. Employ performance rather than material specification.
4. Rely on the economics (i.e., the relative price advantage of
fly ash vs Portland cement) to further the use of fly ash in
concrete.
98
-------
Section 10
CONSTRUCTION PAPER AND BOARD
INTRODUCTION
Construction paper and boards are not standard products. Materials
and production processes employed in their manufacture differ among
manufacturers. Even within the output from a particular manufacturing
plant, materials employed, including types of waste materials, can
vary depending on the cost and availability of particular waste materials
at any point in time. The construction materials which are included
in this category and their usage in construction are described below.
MATERIAL DESCRIPTION
The major construction paper products are sheathing paper, roofing
felts, asbestos paper and asbestos-filled paper. Also included in this
product category are floor covering (e.g., carpet felt, wet base for
enameled floor covering and linoleum), automotive felts, felts used
for deadening, industrial, pipe covering and refrigerators, insulating
paper blankets, and other building paper such as saturating screenings.
Construction board products can be divided into three categories:
Insulating boards for retail use
Insulating boards for industrial use
Hardboard
Insulating boards for retail use which are designed for interior
application include building and wallboard, sound deadening board,
tile, planks, trim, and moldings. Exterior applications of insulating
boards consist of sheathing board, shinglebacker, roof insulation,
roof deck insulation, and fiberboard formboard.
Insulating boards for industrial uses include material employed
for further manufacture, processing, or assembly. Examples are
insulating siding base, trailer board, backer board for metal siding,
expansion joint strips, and other industrial uses such as in automo-
biles and furniture.
Hardboard is of two types: treated or tempered, and not treated
or tempered.
The following information is provided to illustrate the variations
in types and quantities of waste paper used in the manufacture of these
products.
99
-------
Gypsum wallboard is coated on both sides with paper, 100 percent of
which is derived from waste paper. Core material contains very little,
if any, paper.
Cellulose insulation is made by running newsprint through a
complex "defiberer" and shredding operation. Chemicals are then added
so that the final product (fine thermal insulation) contains 16 to 20
percent chemicals by weight, the remainder being paper. It is estimated
that between 480,000 and 615,000 short tons of newsprint were used in
the manufacture of this product in 1977.
Roofing felt can be made from corrugated paper waste (50 - 60
percent) and wood, or alternatively, from a combination of newsprint
(38 percent), corrugated waste paper (32 percent) and softwood sawdust
(30 percent).*
Ceiling tile may contain 0 to 5 percent of waste by weight, mineral
wool panels 10 percent of paper/corrugated by weight, and exterior
insulation sheeting board 5 percent of waste paper by weight.
Finally, there is one U.S. manufacturer of exterior and interior
construction boards whose product lines are made largely from waste
paper.
It should be noted that increased use of wastepaper would in
some cases reduce the utilization of other waste materials.
U.S. PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION PAPER AND BOARDS
Production of construction paper and boards for 1970 through 1977
is summarized in Table 10-1. Production rose between 1970 and 1973
and then declined during the following two years. Production recovered
to record levels in 1976 and 1977.
A breakdown of production, by major product categories, for 1975
and 1976, is shown in Table 10-2. In terms of tonnage, construction
boards represent about two-thirds and construction paper one-third of
the total output.
*The amounts of materials of various types used in the manufacture of
paper-type construction products were obtained through private communi-
cations with industry representatives.
100
-------
TABLE 10-1. CONSTRUCTION PAPER AND BOARD PRODUCTION
(1,000 SHORT TONS)*
Construction Paper
Construction Board
Insulating Board
Hard board
Subtotal
Grand Total
1970
1,594
1,219
1,463
2,682
4,276
1971
1,837
1,446
1,718
3,164
5,001
1972
1,915
1,529
1,908
3,437
5,352
1973
1,858
1,547
2,001
3,548
5,406
1974
1,845
1,295
1,978
3,273
5,118
1975
1,616
1,249
1,784
3,033
4,649
1976
1,832
1,441
2,145
3,586
5,418
1977
1,7? 2
1,409
2,279
3,688
5,480
*Source: Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce
101
-------
TABLE 10-2. PRODUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION PAPER AND BOARD
(SHORT TONS)*
Construction Paper
Sheathing Paper
Roofing Felts
Asbestos Paper and Asbestos Filled Paper
Other
Total
Construction Boards
Insulating Boards for Retail Use
I nterior Products
Exterior Products
Subtotal
Insulating Boards for Industrial Use
Insulating Boards Total
Hard board
Treated or Tempered
Not Treated or Tempered
Hardboard Total
Construction Board Total
Construction Paper and Boards Grand Total
1975
15,800
1,401,510
90,518
107,714
1,615,542
421,581
659,913
1,081,494
167,317
1,248,811
718,039
1,065,492
1,783,531
3,032,342
4,647,884
1976
22,067
1,553,320
114,181
142,593
1,832,161
481,969
766,265
1,248,234
193,105
1,441,339
832,808
1,312,314
2,145,122
3,586,461
5,418,622
•Source: "Pulp, Paper and Board," Summary for 1976, Current Industrial Reports M26A(76)-13,
Bureau of Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, Issued August 1977.
102
-------
USE OF CONSTRUCTION PAPER AND BOARDS IN PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION
The primary application of these construction materials is in
residential and nonresidential buildings. The relative construction
values of federally owned and state and locally owned buildings of
total U.S. construction of residential and non residential buildings
are used to estimate the use of the construction products in public
construction.
The percentages o'f public building construction of total (private
and public) building construction are shown below.
1975 1974 1975 1976 1977
% Federally owned Bldgs. 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.9
% State and Locally owned
Bldgs. 11.7 14.2 15.4 11.5 9.9
% Private Bldgs. 87.0 84.2 82.7 86.8 88.2
These percentages are combined with the data in Table 10-1 to
yield the estimated tonnages of construction paper and boards employed
in public construction.
These are:
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977
Construction Paper (1,000 short tons)
Federally owned construction
State and Locally owned construction
24
217
30
262
31
249
31
211
34
177
Construction Board (1,000 short tons)
Federally owned construction 46 52 58 61 70
State and Locally owned construction 415 465 467 412 365
ESTIMATED PROCUREMENT FOR PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION
The quantities of construction paper and boards used in public
construction appear to be relatively modest. The estimated quantities
of construction paper and boards installed per million dollars of
public building construction are:
103
-------
Construction Paper Construction Board
1973 19 short tons 35 short tons
1974 19 34
1975 18 34
1976 18 36
1977 17 35
The quantities of construction paper and board products per million
dollars of public building construction remained relatively constant
throughout this period of time.
As previously noted, different manufacturers employ different types
and quantities of waste materials to produce their competing products.
Some manufacturers are presently set up to use slightly different mixes
of waste materials in their production processes, the selection being
based on the availability and cost of usable waste products.
It appears unlikely that the relatively small government purchases
provide sufficient incentive for a manufacturer to modify his production
process(es) in order to accommodate a small increase in the use of waste
materials.
CANDIDATE GUIDELINES
The industry presently makes extensive use of recovered materials
and other wastes (e.g., sawdust). The mix of waste materials used by
manufacturers in the production of a particular material varies depend-
ing in part on their availability and cost and the proprietary production
processes employed.
Government purchases account for a relatively small portion of
industry sales. It is doubtful whether Government purchases could
provide sufficient incentives for the industry to make significant
changes in its production processes or whether, in fact, individual
plants could do so and maintain their identity. Consideration of the
preceding, together with the already extensive use of waste products
by the industry, leads to the conclusion that no substantive guidelines
are required for these products.
104
-------
Section 11
USE OF WASTE RUBBER IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the use of
rubber from discarded tires in various highway construction and main-
tenance operations. Applications of asphalt-rubber materials currently
being examined include:
Seal coats
Joint and crack fillers
Strain relieving interlayers
In particular, the use of an asphalt-rubber paving composition as the
binder in a seal coat and/or interlayer application has been the sub-
ject of extensive field trials in recent years. The Federal Highway
Administration has funded studies in several states on the use of tire
chips in asphalt under Demonstration Project No. 37. The results of
this demonstration program are still being evaluated. In a status
report published in July 1978, the comments of investigators from 18
states were generally favorable although some observers noted no
differences in the performance of control sections which were installed
using conventional materials and test sections installed using asphalt-
rubber mixtures.
ASPHALT-RUBBER PAVING METHODS
There are two major methods in use for incorporating waste rubber
into asphalt paving operations. Both methods use discarded tires as
the major source of rubber, but they differ in the way the rubber is
prepared and then mixed with the asphalt.
In the first method, a typical specification requires that
"...the rubber shall be a dry free flowing blend of 40% powdered devul-
canized rubber and 60% ground vulcanized rubber scrap specially
selected to have a high natural rubber content. It shall be free from
fabric, wire, or other contaminating materials except that a small
quantity of mineral powder may be included to prevent caking of the
particles."20 For this method, the sieve analysis is specified as
follows:
20. Personal communication. Robert C. Ziegler, Calspan Corporation,
to William H. Clark III, N.Y.S. Thruway Authority, Albany, N.Y.
15 December 1978.
105
-------
Screen % Retained
10 0
30 20-40
50 40-60
100 5-15
pan 10-25
The second method requires that "...the rubber shall be a good
quality ground tire rubber, dry and free flowing. The specific gravity
of the rubber shall be 1.15 ±.02 and shall be free from fabric, wire,
or other contaminating materials except that up to 4 percent of calcium
carbonate shall be included to prevent the particles from sticking
together." The corresponding sieve analysis is specified as:
Screen % Passing
16 95% Min.
25 10% Max.
Because the first method requires that part of the rubber be devulcan-
ized, the cost of the prepared rubber is somewhat higher than that
required for the second method. Recent inquiries indicated that rubber
of type 1 was $0.30/lb. compared to $0.20/lb. for type 2 rubber.
In the preparation of the binder for the first method, an asphalt-
oil blend is heated to at least 400°F and thoroughly mixed before the
rubber is added. The rubber is added in amounts up to 22 to 24 percent.
Adequate agitation of the liquid blend must be maintained to insure
proper dispersion and mixing. The asphalt-rubber mix is applied at a
temperature of 375°F to 425°F at a minimum rate of 0.6 gallon per
square yard.
For the second method, the binder is prepared by combining the
rubber, in amounts of 23 to 27 percent by weight, with asphalt at a
temperature between 350°F and 450°F. Following mixing, the blend is
diluted with a kerosene-type diluent. The asphalt-rubber mix is
applied at a temperature of 300°F to 350°F at the rate of 0.4 to 1.0
gallon per square yard.
Perhaps the most common use of the asphalt-rubber mixtures is as a
stress absorbing membrane jLnterlayer (SAMI). In this application, the
mixture is applied over old deteriorated pavement or base. Later a
friction course of asphaltic concrete is generally applied. The SAMI
has shown to be effective in preventing reflective cracking of the
final surface layer due to the cracks in the old underlaying pavement.
106
-------
Since some special equipment is required for blending and applying the
asphalt-rubber mixture, a capital investment is required on the part of
the paving contractor. The cost of the asphalt-rubber mix is 2 to 3
times that of asphalt alone.
ASPHALT SALES IN THE U.S.
Sales of petroleum asphalt for consumption in the U.S. by type
and principal use are shown in Table 11-1 for the years 1972-1976.
Total sales of petroleum asphalt as well as the use of asphalt for
paving have declined during the past 2 years, i.e., 1975 and 1976, from
a high in 1973. The proportionate amount of asphalt used for paving,
as a percentage of total sales, remained constant throughout the 5-year
period at 78-79 percent.
RUBBER RECYCLING
Recycled rubber statistics for the years 1973-1977 are shown in
Table 11-2. Listed under Consumption, item i, Rubber Surfacing,
includes recycled tires used in paving products. The statistics do not
include the approximately 50 million or more tires which are retreaded
each year.
However, the amount of rubber recycled or the recycling capacity,
even when considered jointly with tires destined for retreading, still
represents only a small percentage of the 200 to 300 million tires
discarded each year. The remainder is added to the already existing
piles of tires strewn everywhere. It has been estimated that there
are over 2 billion scrap tires presently in storage or littering the
landscape.21
POTENTIAL BENEFITS
Although the use of discarded tires in asphalt is still under
investigation and evaluation, it is possible to bound potential bene-
fits by means of a simple parametric analysis. Benefits in this context
are defined as the removal of discarded tires from the nation's waste
stream.
The independent variable in the analysis is the amount of asphalt
replaced by ground-up tires in the paving mixture. The dependent
variable is the amount of waste rubber utilized, i.e., the number of
tires consumed.
21. "Ways to Use Waste Products in Highway Construction," Prepared by
Task Force 16 Subcommittee on New Highway Materials of the Joint
Cooperative Committee of American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials, American Road and Transportation Builders
Association.
107
-------
LU
<
CO
Q
01
H
Z
D
LU
X
Z
O CO
CO "2.
^ o
O H
0 H
CC QC
O O
U- I
i_ CO
^ LU
^D
co -*
iE
O LU
CO CQ
LU
_l
CQ
<
CO
IX
on
c\.
in
IX
on
rx
en
co
rx
en
CM
en
00
i—.
Q
co
IX*
CM
CO
in
in*
en
rx*
CM
co
S
in*
CO
o.
s
r-
CO
%
CO
CO
s
00
CM
o"
CM
(•
CO
s
o
e/T
0)
1
•o
0)
£•
D
o
o
IX
CM*
8
p."
CM
00
rx
CO*
t—
^
CM"
CM
00
in
CM
s"
8"
CO
in
o"
«
IX*
CM
1
s
^
CM
(A
0)
X
_3
il
•o
c
(0
' Type:
Asphalt Cements
CO
8
in
en"
IX
CO
CM"
CM
00
en"
0
CO,
CM"
i
CO
CM
in
CM"
CM
CO
rx
CM"
IX,
CM*
CO
co
CO
CM"
CO
"I
CM
VI
*-
Emulsified Aspha
CM
en
CO,
r*.
CO
CO*
1
CM*
O
CO*
IX
IX
(X
00*
in
CO,
CO*
co
r™
a
CM,
Tf*
a
1
CO
Cutback Asphalts
1 Principal Use:
00
S
00,
^
r-*
^-"
CM
S
00
CM*
en
in.
fm
CM
CD
CO
I
a
in
in.
IX*
CM
1
in
0
^
CM
Paving Products
CO
T»
S
^"
i
co"
o
00
^f
1
CO,
in
CO
CO
IX*
IX
CO
in"
o
CO
00
co"
«
in
Roofing Products
^
CO,
co
0
r^
CM
CO
en*
en
o.
r-
§
CO*
IX
in.
r*
in
"S-
in"
T-
CD,
00
IX
in
8
fM
CA
U
ol
a>
O
TJ
(0
O
O
•o
re
o>
O
I
1
3
**
iS
o
0)
T3
"5
x
•o
4)
i- CM
IX
rx
en
r*
0)
C
3
rx
CM
VI
Q)
i
•8
3
ID
a
w
CO
_0
I
4)
a
o
Q
It
3
00
•a
i
en
_c
4^
"3
a
CO
0)
U
CO
*
108
-------
TABLE 11-2. RECYCLED RUBBER STATISTICS, 1977*
CONSUMPTION
a) Tires Repair Material
b) Inner Tube Reclaim
c) Ground Crumb
d) Auto Mats, Mechanicals
e) Heels, Soles, Footwear
f ) Cements, Dispersions
g) Hose, Belting Packing
h) Mechanicals (not auto)
i) Rubber Surfacing
j) All Other
TOTAL - Million Pounds
SCRAP RUBBER
PROCESSED
OPERATING CAPACITY
(300 day operation)
1977
MILLION
POUNDS
129.9
21.0
35.2
20.2
0.2
5.6
2.4
16.1
6.5
7.4
244.5
259.0
289.6
%
53.1
8.6
14.4
8.3
—
2.3
1.0
6.6
2.7
3.0
100.0
1976
%
56.0
8.8
10.2
12.8
0.1
2.1
0.9
7.0
'0.8
1.3
217.9
221.0
263.9
1975
%
58.8
10.3
9.6
8.3
0.2
4.1
0.5
5.7
1.2
1.3
223.1
188.6
247.0
1974
%
58.8
6.3
6.7
13.5
0.3
4.6
0.7
7.4
1.2
0.5
259.8
263.3
325.3
1973
%
58.8
8.4
N.A.
15.4
0.1
4.2
1.7
7.7
2.5
0.7
285.6
287.7
299.4
N.A. = Not Available
•Source: Technical Committee Survey Results, Table 1, Rubber Recycling Division, A Division of National
Association of Recycling Industries, Inc.
For the purpose of the analysis, it is assumed that 23,800,000
short tons of asphalt paving mixture are used annually. This repre-
sents the average quantity for the 1972-1976 time period. It is further
assumed that a tire will yield 10 pounds of ground rubber after removal
of the bead and the major part of the fabric. The quantity of ground
rubber substituted in the asphalt paving mixture is varied from 0.01
percent to 25 percent.
The results of this analysis are shown in Table 11-3. According
to Table 11-2, 3,250 short tons of rubber are presently used for rubber
surfacing. This is equivalent to substituting, on the average, 0.014
percent of ground rubber in the total quantity of asphalt paving mix-
tures used in the U.S. and represents approximately 650,000 tires.
109
-------
TABLE 11-3. POTENTIAL USES OF DISCARDED TIRES IN
ASPHALT PAVING MIXTURES
GROUND RUBBER
SUBSTITUTE (%)
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.10
0.25
0.50
1.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25,00
RUBBER REQUIRED
(Short Tons)
2,380
4,760
11,900
23,800
59,500
119,000
238,000
1,190,000
2,380,000
3,570,000
4,760,000
5,950,000
NO. OF TIRES
476,000
952,000
2,380,000
4,760,000
11,900,000
23,800,000
47,600,000
238,000,000
476,000,000
714,000,000
952,000,000
1,190,000,000
It is estimated that the substitution of ground rubber in paving
asphalt in amounts of 2 to 3 percent would consume all the tires dis-
carded annually. IVhile this would provide a means for disposing of the
tires, it would have no noticeable beneficial effects on the pavement.
The amount of rubber which must be added to the asphalt mixtures
to obtain improved performance varies between 6% and 25%, depending on
application (e.g., as a stress-absorbing membrane, or as a wearing
course).
The percentage of all asphalt paving where the addition of rubber
could provide enhanced performance is not known. If we assume that this
is the case in 10 percent of all asphalt paving and that, on the
average, the average rubber addition is 25 percent, the ,total number of
tires consumed would be 120 million. This quantity is 183 times
greater than current tire use for this application. It is readily
apparent that any significant application of rubber-asphalt paving
mixtures would eliminate large numbers of tires from the waste stream.
110
-------
The use of rubber in asphalt paving mixtures does not come free.
Plants for grinding rubber require substantial investments. Extra
equipment is also required by contractors applying the rubber-asphalt
mixture.^O
The purpose behind capital investment decisions is to protect and
increase the profit-making ability of a corporation. The private
sector will not make investments necessary to implement the rubber-
asphalt paving concept until the profit potential exists. Basic here
is the existence of a market place for the materials and services being
offered.
The use of rubber-asphalt pavement mixtures is almost certain to
result in higher prices than regular asphalt, particularly during the
initial years of implementation. Therefore, the government would have
to not only guarantee (i.e., require) the use of asphalt-rubber
pavement mixtures but also indicate that it would absorb the incre-
mental costs associated with "the use of the mixture.
GUIDELINES
Experimental uses of rubber-asphalt paving mixtures have shown
encouraging results. Widespread application of such paving mixtures
has the potential to remove a significant number of discarded tires
from the nation's waste stream.
Increased use of this paving mixture will require capital invest-
ments in two areas in the private sector of the economy: (1) the
establishment of plants to prepare the ground rubber, and (2) the
modification of equipment used to spread the paving mixture.
Guidelines promulgated for the use of this paving mixture must
guarantee the private sector a market for materials and services. A
major obstacle is that most highway construction and repair contracts
are let by the states. The states may hesitate to utilize the new
paving mixture because of incomplete or inconclusive test results and
higher costs which may be incurred as a result of its use. A large-
scale promotion and education program appears necessary to sell this
concept to the states.
Implementation of a specific guideline(s) must await the comple-
tion and evaluation of demonstration projects currently being conducted
by the Federal Highway Adminstration.
20. Personal communication. Robert C. Ziegler, Calspan Corporation,
to William H. Clark III, N.Y.S. Thruway Authority, Albany, N.Y.
15 December 1978.
.111
-------
The present production capacity for ground rubber is inadequate
to satisfy significantly increased demand. Any guideline must, there-
fore, provide .for a gradual increase in the use of rubber in pavement.
Further, it must-provide sufficient guarantees for the employment of
such material (including the absorption of higher costs) to stimulate
the private sector to enlarge its production capacity.
112
-------
Section 12
GLASS
INTRODUCTION
A number of products containing waste glass have been fabricated
and evaluated in laboratory and small-scale demonstrations. These
include:
Glass polymer composite sewer pipe
Glass-wool insulation
Lightweight aggregate
Brick
Floor tile
Glasphalt bituminous pavement
The processes employed in the manufacture of products containing
waste glass are in various stages of development. None of the products
are presently commercially available, and none are expected to be in
the immediate future.
As a result, building materials containing recycled glass are not
of immediate relevancy to this study. The following discussion
addresses some of the technological and economic aspects of the use
of waste glass in construction material and its potential significance
for reducing the discarded glass wastes.
The discussion is based largely on an article prepared by Dr. E.
Joseph Duckett.^2 Additional information was obtained through private
communications with representatives of government, private industry
and universities. [See Appendix A for a list of contacts).
DISCUSSION
The potential value of waste glass in construction materials
depends on the value of the material it replaces and ancillary con-
sideration such as energy requirements and accessibility to, and
availability of, waste glass of the required quality.
22. "Glass Recovery and Reuse," Dr. E. Joseph Duckett, NCRR Bulletin,
Vol. VIII, No. 4, Fall 1978.
113
-------
Generally, the value of material replaced by waste glass in
construction products is relatively low. This low value is reflected
in the locations of manufacturing plants, i.e., many plants are
situated near raw material sites, thus minimizing transportation costs.
Waste glass, however, is largely generated in urban areas and, follow-
ing recovery, would have to be shipped to the manufacturing plants,
thereby incurring significant transportation costs in many cases.
It is estimated that waste glass recovered for use in roadbed
construction would replace low-priced aggregate valued at $2 - $3
per ton. For use in bricks, added at a 10 to 20 percent rate, glass
may be worth 2 to 3 times as much per ton. It should be noted, however,
that transportation costs for waste glass may amount to $5 to $10 per
ton or more, depending on shipping distances and freight rates.
Technical problems and costs are also incurred in the recovery
and collection of waste glass. Technical problems can be largely
circumvented by the separation of glass at the household lev.el. Once
glass has entered the municipal solid waste stream, however, relatively
sophisticated processes are needed for separation and processing.
There are two techniques, froth flotation and optical sorting,
that have shown promise for successful recovery of usable cullet.
Forth flotation is a minerals processing technique that has been
adapted for use in waste glass recovery. Glass cullet recovered by
froth flotation has been tested in laboratory melts. The cullet has
been reported to be low in refractory particle content and to produce
a glass product that is virtually free of inclusions. The process
yields particles of color-mixed glass cullet in the size range of
minus 20 mesh to plus 140 mesh. To date, no practical method for
color-sorting froth-floated cullet has been developed.
The other approach for recovery of container quality cullet is
optical color-sorting of glass particles larger than 6mm (1/4 inch)
in size. Optical sorters, commonly used in food processing and other
industries, have been modified for use in glass cullet recovery.
In practice, at least two types of sorting are involved: a separa-
tion of opaque (mostly nonglass) particles from transparent particles;
and then a sorting of the transparent particles by color.
The significance of cullet purity and color separation depend on
the end product in which the cullet is employed. For example, cullet
used as lightweight aggregate has the least restrictions; cullet
employed in the manufacture of certain types of glass containers may
have to meet rigid specifications.
114
-------
At present, there are no published specifications for glass to
be used in brick manufacture. Important characteristics of glass for
use in brickmaking include particle size and content of organic
materials.
The effectiveness of glass as a fluxing agent in brickmaking has
been shown to be a function of particle size. Glass ground to minus
200 mesh has been reported to reduce firing temperature by as much as
500°F (from a normal firing temperature of 2150°F) when used as 50
percent of the brick mix. The fluxing action of the glass is impeded
by the presence of organic contaminants. A maximum of 10 percent
organic material in the waste glass fraction has been proposed as the
limit to assure fluxing action sufficient to lower firing temperatures
by at least 100°F.
Theoretically, construction materials could absorb significant
quantities of waste glass. From a practical point of view, however,
there are a number of technical and economic obstacles which may
inhibit its use on a significant scale, particularly in the near
future.
Production processes designed to incorporate waste glass into
construction materials are presently in various stages of development.
Similarly, glass recovery systems are presently operative only as pilot
plant operations. Their ability to generate cullet which meets the
specifications for waste glass applicable for the various types of
construction materials has yet to be proven.
The economics of employing waste glass in construction materials
is marginal at this time. This arises from a number of factors, which
include: the relatively low value of the virgin material replaced by
the waste glass; waste glass recovery, processing, and transportation
costs.
Potential benefits which may accrue from the employment of waste
glass in construction materials are the reduction in the magnitude of
municipal solid waste which must be disposed and energy savings in the
production of selected materials, such as bricks.
Significant benefits, however, will only result if a large segment
of the construction industry, both public and private, utilizes
construction materials which contain waste glass.
POTENTIAL GUIDELINES
Product development has not reached commercial production of the
construction materials under consideration. The promulgation of appro-
priate guidelines must await reasonably large-scale availability of the
products in the market place.
115
-------
Section 13
PLASTICS
INTRODUCTION
Plastics of various types are now widely used in the manufacture
of products used in building construction. Major product groups
include: flooring; glazing and skylights; insulation; lighting fixtures;
panels and siding; pipe, conduit, and fittings; profile extrusions;
plumbing fixtures; resin binded woods; vapor barriers; and wall
coverings. In 1978, shipments of plastic building products totaled
3,159,000 tons.23 The largest single product group in the building
category was that of pipe, conduit, and fittings, which alone accounted
for 1,473,000 tons, or 46.7 percent of the total. This product group
was of direct interest in the present study. We estimate that public
construction projects account for approximately 294,600 tons, or 20
percent, of the total amount of plastic pipe shipped annually.
Within the pipe group, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), high-density
polyethylene (HDPE), and acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS)
accounted for over 90 percent of the shipments in 1978. PVC pipe
alone accounted for approximately 67 percent of total shipments.
MANUFACTURE
The production of both PVC and HDPE requires ethylene, the major
source of which is natural gas. For PVC production, ethylene is
reacted with chlorine and hydrochloric acid to form ethylene
dichloride, which is then cracked to form vinyl chloride and
chlorinated organics. The vinyl chloride is then polymerized in an
exothermic, self-sustaining chain reaction to form PVC.
In the production of HDPE, ethylene is fed to a reactor along
with a catalyst and a diluent. The polymerized product forms as a
powder. ABS is a compound of styrene-butadiene polymers, butadiene-
acrylonitrile rubbers, and other compounding ingredients.
In the production of plastic pipe, resins mixed with stabilizers,
plasticizers, lubricants and other additives are first dried and then
passed through an extruder hopper and an extruder cylinder where they
are melted. The pressure of the cylinder and a rotating screw force
the mixture through the orifice of a die. After a sizing and cooling
23. Modern Plastics, p. 62, January 1979.
116
-------
24
process, the pipe emerges and is then cut to length or coiled.
Plastic pipe as produced in the United States conforms primarily
to standards developed by the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM). Other standards have also been established by the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the National Sanitation
Foundation (NSF), and the American Water Works Association (AWWA).
RECOVERY AND RECYCLING OF PLASTIC SCRAP25
The recycling of home scrap and prompt segregated scrap is standard
practice in the plastic industry. The successful recycling of scrap
at this level is due primarily to the fact that the scrap is already
segregated by type of plastic and/or is easily identifiable by type.
The situation becomes more difficult, however, once the plastic scrap
enters the waste stream. The cost of recovery and segregation is
generally high and sometimes exceeds the salvage value of the scrap
or the cost of virgin materials. It is noted that, historically,
once the plastics leave the fabrication points, they have seldom been
recovered. There are other reasons, in addition to cost, why the
recycling of post-consumer plastic wastes has been limited, a major one
being that resin properties and performance degrade through aging,
during fabrication and in the reclamation process. However, new
technological developments for upgrading plastic scrap may eliminate
some of the present risks involved in recycling plastic wastes.
25
The Society of the Plastics Industry identifies three main
sources of plastic waste:
1. The plastics industry (producers of primary polymers) itself,
which recycles part of its waste internally and sends the
remainder for recovery and recycling to scrap processors.
2. Fabricators, who recycle most of their plastic wastes
internally.
3. Industrial, commercial, and agricultural users, wholesalers
and retailers, and private households, where waste is usually
hauled away to municipal disposal sites near their location.
24. "Plastic Pipe: Profile of a Growing Market," K.L. Kollar and
W. Youngwirth, Construction Review, March 1976, published by
U.S. Department of Commerce.
25. Based largely on information contained in the "1978 Edition of
Facts and Figures of the Plastics Industry," published by the
Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc., 355 Lexington Ave.,
N.Y., N.Y.
117
-------
Waste plastic from producers of primary polymers and fabricators,
which is not reprocessed internally, is generally acquired by either
scrap dealers or reprocessors. The function of the scrap dealers is
generally limited to transferring the scrap from the producer to the
user. The reprocessors, on the other hand, perform one or more opera-
tions on the scrap including regrinding, washing and reblending.
Reprocessors frequently operate on a contract basis, returning the
processed wastes to the organization from which they were obtained.
In a contact with one scrap reprocessor, it was noted that because of
recent increases in shipping rates for materials of low bulk density,
such as plastic wastes, it has become too expensive to ship much
useful plastic waste.
It has been estimated that in 1975, gross discards of solid waste
derived from post-consumer and commercial sources amounted to 136
million tons."26 Of this amount, 2.6 million tons, or about 2 percent,
was plastic waste, little, if any, of which was recovered and
recycled. One of the major difficulties in the recovery and reuse
of such plastic waste is the fact that it is both contaminated and
unsegregated by type. Industry studies25 indicate that "...the use of
waste plastics in an unsorted form for the recovery of energy will
comprise the most successful plastics recycling program in the context
of present-day technology and economics." This statement is qualified,
however, with the observation that "...the technological and economic
evaluations are still in a developmental phase."
In addition to the technical and economic factors that have
inhibited the recovery and recycle of plastic waste, there are restric-
tions imposed by specifications that include prohibitions against the
use of old plastic scrap. The National Sanitation Foundation has
developed Standard No. 14 (revised February 1977) pertaining to thermo-
plastic materials, pipe, fittings, valves, traps, and joining materials
Section 4 of the Standard, entitled "Requirements for Pipe, Fittings,
Valves, and Traps," reads in part as follows: "Thermoplastic pipe,
fittings, valves, and traps shall be produced only from virgin
materials meeting the requirements of this standard for the use
intended. Clean rework material of the same virgin ingredients
generated from the manufacturer's own production may be used by the
25. "1978 Edition of Facts and Figures of the Plastics Industry,"
published by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.,
355 Lexington Ave., N.Y., N.Y.
26. "Fourth Report to Congress, Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction,"
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, 1977 (SW-600).
118
-------
same manufacturer provided that the finished products are equal in
quality to products manufactured from virgin materials." (Underlines
added). Because of specifications such as these, any manufacturer
of plastic pipe is reluctant to use old scrap and thereby risk being
eliminated from competition. The reasons behind such specifications
are well founded and are based upon considerations of both product
performance and integrity, and possible contamination of the product
by undesirable components in waste materials. Contamination is a
particularly important consideration for pipe used in the distribution
of potable water. Following any future developments in the reclama-
tion of plastic wastes that would make the use of recovered material
acceptable for use in plastic pipe production, it would probably require
several years before existing specifications would be modified to allow
its use. A certain period of testing would be required, followed by
the drafting and acceptance of amendments.
GUIDELINES
Opportunities for the development of government procurement
guidelines for plastic pipe appear to be limited. In the course of
discussions with various industry spokesmen, low-head irrigation pipe
and corrugated agricultural drainage tubing were mentioned as two
products that might be able to utilize waste plastic in their manu-
facture. However, subsequent investigations revealed that present
standards prohibit the use of waste plastic in these products, as
well, and that the potential use of plastic scrap in corrugated plastic
drainage tubing was analyzed in detail in recent years. The findings
indicated that the quality and standard of product performance could
not be maintained on a consistent basis by pipe manufacturers. Even
low percentages of scrap resulted in inferior (and unacceptable) quality
in the final product. It was concluded that the only way that the use
of scrap might prove successful would be to have the scrap returned
to the plastic manufacturers for reclassification and blending with
virgin material. Apparently no effort was made to implement such an
approach. Similar considerations hold for plastic irrigation pipe.
Even if scrap plastic could be used successfully in the manufacture
of irrigation pipe and agricultural drainage tubing, the impact on
overall scrap consumption would probably be small. Reliable production
figures for these two types of pipe apparently are not available.
However, it is estimated that annual shipments of corrugated plastic
drainage tubing total approximately 115,000 tons of which perhaps only
20 percent, or 23,000 tons, would be affected by government procurement
guidelines. Requiring 25 percent recovered material use in the pro-
duction of corrugated plastic drainage tubing for public-funded projects
would result in the consumption of an estimated 5800 tons of plastic
scrap. Scrap consumption in the manufacture of low-head plastic
irrigation pipe would probably be of the same order.
119
-------
In summary, plastic scrap that is segregated and uncontaminated is
currently being recycled. Thus, most home scrap and prompt industrial
scrap is recovered and reused. On the other hand, plastic scrap that
is unsegregated and contaminated has little value as a raw material
for the manufacture of plastic products. Accordingly, the recovery
of plastic wastes from the municipal waste stream has proven to be
neither practical nor economical. Until suitable technology is avail-
able for the recovery and reclamation of plastic scrap that is not now
being recycled because of technical and economic reasons, it would be
premature to develop procurement guidelines in this product category.
120
-------
Appendix A
ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED
1. Aluminum Association
818 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, D. C. 200006
(202) 862-5132
William W. Pritsky
2. Aluminum Recycling Ass'n
900 17th St. N.W.
Suite 504
Washington, D. C. 200006
(202) 785-0550
Richard Cooperman
3. American Association of State
Highway § Transportation Officials
444 N. Capitol
Washington, D. C. 20001
(202) 624-5800
Joe Rhodes
4. American Concrete Pressure Pipe
Association
Vienna, Virginia
(703) 821-1990
Mike Bailey
5. American Die Casting Inst.
2340 Des Plaines Ave.
Des Plaines, 111. 60018
(312) 298-1220
Peter Findlay
6. American Hardboard Assn'n
205 Touhy (W) Ave.
Park Ridge, 111. 60068
(312) 692-5178
Curt Peterson
7. American Inst. of Steel Construct
1221 Ave. of the Americas
New York, N. Y. 10020
(212) 764-0463
William Milek
8. American Iron § Steel Inst.
1000 16th Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 452-7265
Dr. Stewart Fletcher
9. American Paper Institute
260 Madison Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10016
(212) 340-0600
Audrey Schwartz
10. American Road £ Transporta-
tion Builders Association
525 School St. S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20024
(202) 488-2722
Daniel J. Hanson, Sr.
Randy Russell
11. Associated Reinforcing Bar
Producers
Suite 2110
180 North LaSalle St.
Chicago, 111. 60601
(312) 372-4872
Martin L. Cawley
12. American Society of Concrete
Construction
Glen Ellyn, 111.
(312) 543-0870
George Southworth
13. Architectural Aluminum
Manufacturers Ass'n
35 E. Wacker Dr.
Suite 3200
Chicago, 111. 60601
(312) 782-8256
Edward Haggarty
121
-------
14.
15.
16.
17.
18,
19.
20.
Asbestos Cement Pipe Producers 21.
Assoc.
Arlington, Virginia
(703) 841-1556
John Welch
Auburn Steel Co. 22.
Auburn, N. Y. 13021
(315) 253-4491
J. Carlton
Brick Institute of America
1750 Old Meadow Rd. 23.
McLean, Virginia 22101
(703) 893-4010
Mr. Farley
Cast Iron Pipe Research Institute
1301 W. 22nd St.
Oak Brook, 111. 60521
(312) 654-2945 24,
Robert Metz
Edward Heffernan
Cast Iron Soil Pipe Inst.
2020 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 223-4536
Edward M. Bailey
Cellulose Insulation Manu-
facturers Association
220 Zeeger Ave.
Elk Grove Village, 111. 60007
(312) 439-0888
Robert Lacosse
Leslie Barren
Central Foundry Company
Box 188
Holt, Alabama 35401
(205) 553-6810
Joseph Sledge
25
26
Certain Teed Corporation
P.O. Box 860
Valley Forge, Pa. 19482
(215) 3721-4641
Lori Wise
Chaparral Steel
P.O. Box 1100
Midlothian, Texas 76065
(214) 775-8241
Dick Jaffe
Concrete Reinforcing Steel
Institute
Suite 2110
180 North La Salle St.
Chicago, 111. 60601
(312) 372-4872
Robert T. Stafford
Corrugated Plastic Tubing
Association
7 Hensel Court
Carmel, Indiana 46032
Robert Lowe
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Admin.
Room 3203
Washington, D.C. 20590
(202) 426-0392
Sanford P. La Hue
Jack Coursey
Eastern Foundry Co.
Spring and Schaeffer Streets
Boyerstown, Pa. 19512
(215) 367-2153
Mr. Christman
122
-------
27. FAA-DOT 34
U.S. Dept of Commerce
HUD
VA.
(202) 426-3831
(202) 377-5853
(202) 755-5952 35,
(202) 389-2885
28. Federal Aviation Administration
Washington, D.C.
(202) 426-3446
L. Mudd
Edward Aikman 36
29. Federal Highway Administration
Arlington, Va.
(703) 557-0522
Doug Bernard
Doug Brown 37,
30. Glass Packaging Institute
1800 K St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 872-1280
Richard Powell 38,
31. Glen Gary Corporation
Schumakersville, Pa.
(215) 562-8792
Jake Schneider
39,
32. Gypsum Association
1603 Orrington Ave.
Evanston, 111. 60201
(312) 491-1744
A. Victor Abnee, Jr.
33. Homasote Company
Box 240 40,
West Trenton, N. J. 08628
(609) 883-3300
Craig Mohr
Illinois Institute of
Technology Research
Chicago, 111.
(312) 567-4412
Gene Aleshin
Institute of Scrap Iron
£ Steel
1729 H Street S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 466-4050
Dr. Herschel Cutler
Koppers Company, Inc.
Organic Materials Division
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15219
(412) 227-2270
R. K. Shapard
Lightweight Aggregate
Products Association
Allentown, Pa.
(215) 435-9687
Theodore R. Berger
National Ash Association
1819 H Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 659-2303
John H. Faber
National Assn. of Recycling
Industries
330 Madison Ave.
New York, N.Y. 10017
(212) 867-7330
Jerry Scharf
Howard Ness
National Bureau of
Standards
Washington, D.C.
(301) 921-3459
Dr. Geoffrey Frohnsdorff
123
-------
41. National Gypsum Co. 48.
Research Division
1650 Military Rd.
Tonawanda, N. Y.
(716) 873-9750
Robert Johnson 49.
42. National Concrete Masonry
Association
McLean, Virginia
(703) 790-8650
Tom Redmond 50.
43. National Mineral Wool Insulation
Association
Summit, N. J.
(201) 277-1550
Sheldon Cady
.51
44. National Particleboard Assoc.
2603 Perkins Place
Silver Springs, Maryland 20910
• (301) 587-2204
Robert E. Dougherty
45. National Precast Concrete
Association
Indianapolis, Ind.
(317) 253-0486
Robert W. Walton
52,
53
46. National Ready Mix Concrete
Association
Silver Springs, Md.
(301) 587-1400
Kenneth Tobin 54,
47. National Sanitation Foundation
3475 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
(313) 769-8010 55
Tom S. Gable
N.Y.S. Thruway Authority
Albany, N. Y.
(518) 449-1750
William Clark III
Owens-Corning Fiberglass
1 Levis Square
Toledo, Ohio
(419) 248-8000
William Kreutz
Owens-Illinois Corporation
Technical Center
P.O. Box 1035
Toledo, Ohio
(419) 247-9025
John Minns
Philip Shuman and Sons
35 Neoga St.
Depew, N. Y.
(716) 685-2121
Mr. Levine
Plastics Pipe Institute
355 Lexington Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10017
(212) 573-9400
Stephan E. Klamke
Portland Cement Association
Skokie, 111.
(312) 966-6200
Robert Packard
Prestressed Concrete Instit.
Chicago, 111.
(312) 346-4071
Daniel Jenny
Society of International Cellu-
lose Insulation Manufacturers
7610 Pennsylvania Ave.
Washington, D.C. 20028
(202) 420-4603
Greg Fitzgerald
124
-------
56,
57,
58.
59,
60
61.
62,
Society of the Plastics
Industries
335 Lexington Ave.
New York, N. Y. 10017
(212) 573-9400
Ralph L. Harding
John Lawrence
Soil Conservation Service
Washington, D. C.
(202) 447-6037
Walter J. Ocks
Teledyne National
Baltimore, Md.
(301) 687-4840
Northridge, Calif.
(213) 886-2211
Tennessee Valley Authority
400 Commerce Ave.
W12A9CK
Knoxville, Tenn. 37902
(615) 632-2911
Mr. Bonine
Tyler Pipe Industries
P.O. Box 2027
Tyler, Texas 75701
James Milstead
University of Missouri
Rolla, Missouri
(314) 341-4483
Dr. Robert Wixson
Dr. Ward Malish
Upson Company
Stevens St.
Lockport, N. Y.
(716) 434-8881
Bruce Barber
14094
63. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Office of Chief of Engineers
DAEN-CWO-C
Washington, D.C. 20314
(202) 693-6894
John Ryan
.64. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, D.C.
(202) 693-7310
James Rhodes
65. U.S. Bureau of Mines
College Park Metallurgy
Center
College Park, Md.
(301) 344-4019
66. U.S. Bureau of Mines
Tallahasee, Fla.
John Sweeny
67. U.S. Bureau of Mines
Tuscaloosa Metallurgy
Research Laboratory
Tuscaloosa, Ala.
(205) 758-0491
Martin Stanscyk
68. U.S. Department of
Commerce
Washington, D.C.
(202) 377-3601
Charles Pitcher
69. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Municipal and Industrial
Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio
(513) 684-7881
Don Oberacker
125
-------
70. U.S. Forest Service
Forest Products Lab
Walnut Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53705
(608) 257-2213
Donald Fahey
71. United States Pipe and Foundry
Soil Pipe Division
P.O. Box 6129
Chattanooga, Tenn. 37401
(615) 265-4611
Mr. Worth
72. U.S. Rubber Reclaiming Co., Inc.
4498 Main St.
Buffalo, N. Y. 14226
(716) 839-9816
Raymond J. Dzimian
126
-------
Appendix B
LISTS OF INFORMATION NEEDS FOR GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS
A. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
1. Annual dollar value of all construction activities:
Actual figures for years 1970-1977
Projected figures for years 1978-1985
2. Types of construction C®-g-> office buildings, roads, hospitals,
residential)
3. Percent of total construction represented by each category
listed in response to A.2 above
B. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
1. Categories of materials used in construction...see the eight
general categories identified in Enclosure 1 C«-g-» steel,
aluminum)
2. Specific products used in construction...see specific products
listed in Enclosure 1 (e.g., steel reinforcing Bars-, structural
shapes)
3. Annual amounts of each product listed in response to B.2 above
CDollar value and/or weight, volume, or length as- appropriate:
Actual amounts for years 1970-1977
Projected amounts for years 1978-1985
4. Trends (if any) toward new materials and/or products
127
-------
PROCUREMENT PRACTICES
1. Level at which purchases of construction products are made
(e.g., by the agency itself, by the prime contractor,
by the subcontractors)
2. Level at which material/product specifications are incorporated
into construction design
3. Procedures for insuring that material/product specifications
are met
4. Existing procurement specifications that require, or allow the
use of, "recovered material"* in construction products.
D. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Factors that make it difficult to introduce changes in procurement
specifications for construction products containing recovered materials.
2. Time frame and procedures involved in revising procurement specifications
to allow, or require, the use of recovered materials in construction
products.
"Recovered material" is any material which, after conversion into a finished
product and utilization by a fabricator or final consumer, is collected or
recovered. Home scrap (or revert scrap) does not fail within this definition,
since such material is not recovered "after conversion into a finished product..
Prompt industrial scrap, on the other hand, does since it is material generated
in fabrication operations.
128
-------
DEFINITION OF RECOVERED MATERIAL
The term "recovered material," as used repeatedly in the following
sections, refers to any material which, after conversion into a finished
product and utilization by a fabricator or final consumer, is collected or
recovered. Home scrap (or revert scrap) does not fall within this definition,
since such material is not recovered "after conversion into a finished product..
Prompt industrial scrap, on the other hand, does since it is material generated
in fabrication operations.
A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Types of construction products currently being made using "recovered
material" (in whole or in part), or having the potential of being
made using "recovered materials" in the 1978 to 1985 time frame.
The following information (B through J) is needed for each product
or product category identified under A.I above.
B. PRODUCTION INFORMATION
1. Annual U.S. production figures: actual figures, years- 127Q-1977
projected figures, years 1978-1985
2. Major producers (.i.e., those producers whose combined production
represents 80% or more of total U.S. production).
3. Percentage of total production that is used for construction projects
funded fully or partially by the U.S. Government.
4. Percentage of total production by weight that contains "recovered
material" in any amount. Percentage that contains home scrap.
129
-------
MATERIAL INFORMATION %
1. Total amounts and types of "-recovered materials" currently being used
annually in U.S. production. Also, total amount of home scrap being
used.
2. For any product currently being made using "recovered material,"
the sources, types, and amounts (metric tons per metxic ton of product]
of "recovered materials" used (give ranges of values if appropriate) .
Also, the amount of home scrap used (metric tons per metric ton of
product) .
3. The maximum amount of "recovered material" that could 5e used in
production without degrading the performance required for intended
end use (metric tons of "recovered material" per metric ton of product) .
4. The maximum amount of "recovered material" that could be used in production
now without the need for major changes in equipment or processes.
In 1980? In 1985?
5. TypeCs) and amount (s) (metric tons per metric ton of product) of
virgin material (s), replaced by the "recovered material (s]tr for
products currently being made.
6. Quantity of virgin material required when product is made solely
from virgin materials (metric tons per metric ton of product) .
7. The sources/suppliers of the "recovered material (s) " (e.g., municipal
solid waste, scrap from fabricators, secondary materials dealers] and
percentage of "recovered material" obtained from each.
8. Specifications for "recovered material" as it is delivered to th.e
product manufacturer (e.g., maximum allowable levels of contaminants,
size distribution, bulk density) .
9. Experience with availability of "recovered material" required:
delivery times; constancy of quality; steady supply; etc.
130
-------
D. PROCESS/EQUIPMENT CHANGES
1. Changes in manufacturing processes required to allow use, or greater
use, of "recovered materials."
2. Preprocessing or preparation of "recovered material" fes delivered]
required to make it suitable for use.
3. Equipment required to enable "recovered -materials" to Be used, or
used in greater quantities, in production.
E. COST INFORMATION (Ranges are acceptable)
1. Cost of "recovered material" as- delivered to user.
2. Cost to preprocess or prepare delivered "recovered material" to
make it suitable for use.
3. Capital costs of special equipment and facilities required to
make possible the use of "recovered materials-."
4. Incremental changes in production cost (or prices charged),
for products made using virgin materials only and for products
made using "recovered materials" only or a mixture of virgin and
recovered materials.
5. Incremental effect on production costs (or prices charged) of
increasing the percentage of "recovered material" contained in the
final product, assuming that the capability to use "recovered
material" already exists.
131
-------
F. PRODUCT QUALITY
1. Effects (if any) of use of recovered materials on the overall
"quality" of the final product. Strength, hardness, insulation
value, durability, corrosion resistance, appearance, fire retarding
characteristics, etc., as appropriate for a given product category.
2. Amounts of contaminants in recovered material that degrade product
quality to unacceptable levels.
G. ENVIRONMENTAL-ENERGY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Effects on air and water emissions (and solid waste generation]
caused by introducing recovered materials into th.e manufacturing
process.
2. Incremental changes in energy consumption in manufacture due to
increased use of recovered materials).
H. CERTIFICATION
1. Means available for certifying that construction products delivered
in any given shipment contain some minimum level of "recovered material Cs}1
Ce.g-., record of input materials for each production run; tests of
selected samples from batch, etc.).
2. Possible alternatives for certification if it is not possible
(or practical) to verify recovered material content of each production
run (e.g., records of daily, weekly or monthly average values of
recovered material content).
132
-------
I. SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS
1. Factors that have inhibited increased use of recovered material in the
manufacture of construction prodcuts C®-8.» cost, unavailability of
recovered material having acceptable quality, reluctance in the market
place to accept products1 made with recovered materials, inability to
maintain satisfactory product performance).
2. Any government specification, standard or performance requirement
of which you are aware that directly, or indirectly, discriminates against
the use of "recovered material" in the end product.
J. SUPPLY/DELIVERY INFORMATION
1. Percentage of companies that currently manufacture products containing
some level of "recovered material.fr
2. Names of companies included in response to J.I above.
3. Incremental change in delivery time if specifications require that
product Be made using some percentage of "recovered material."
133
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Investment, Operating, and Other Budget Outlays," Special Analysis
D, Office of Management and Budget, January 1978.
2. "Construction Reports, New Construction Put in Place," U.S.
Department of Commerce, March 1978.
3. "Study of the Feasibility of Requiring Secondary Materials in
Federal Construction," Resource Planning Associates, Inc., January
1975.
4. "Iron and Steel Products: Shipments, Bookings and Backlog," U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, January/February
1978.
5. "Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute 11-Year Statistical Report-
Rebar Usage (1966 Through 1976)," published by Concrete Reinforcing
Steel Institute, Chicago, Illinois, February 23, 1978.
6. The Making, Shaping and Treating of Steel, Ninth Edition, Harold
E. McGannon, ed., United States Steel Corporation, 1971.
7. "Mineral Commodity Profiles, Iron and Steel," MCP-15, Donald H.
Desy, Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of the Interior, July 1978.
8. "Discriminatory Railroad Freight Rates," Institute of Scrap Iron
and Steel, December 1977.
9. "Purchased Ferrous Scrap - United States Demand and Supply
Outlook," William T. Hogan, S.J. and Frank T. Koelble, Industrial
Economic Research Institute of Fordham University, June 1977.
10. "The Horn of Plenty Keeps Overflowing," Phoenix Quarterly, Vol. 9,
No. 3, Fall 1977, Institute of Scrap Iron and Steel, Inc.,
Washington, D.C.
11. "A Survey and Analysis of the Supply and Availability of Obsolete
Iron and Steel Scrap," prepared for U.S. Department of Commerce,
Business and Defense Services Administration by Battelle Memorial
Institute, January 1957.
12. "Environmental Impacts of Virgin and Recycled Steel and Aluminum,"
R.C. Ziegler et al., Calspan Corporation, PB-2534-87/3ST,
February 1974.
13. Personal communication. S.G. Fletcher, American Iron and Steel
Institute, to R.C. Ziegler, Calspan Corporation, 4 December 1978.
134
-------
14. "Cement in 1976," Mineral Industry Surveys, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, January 12, 1977.
15. "The U.S. Cement Industry, an Economic Report," Portland Cement
Association, Second Edition, March 1978.
16. "Potential for Energy Conservation Through the Use of Slag and
Fly Ash in Concrete" (Review Draft), Gordian Associates, Inc.,
September 1978.
17. "Highway Construction Usage Factors for Cement, Bitumens, Concrete
Pipe and Clay Pipe, 1974-75-76," U.S. Dept. of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration.
18. "Energy and Resource Conservation in the Cement and Concrete
Industry," Proceedings of a Seminar Sponsored by Canada Centre
for Mineral and Energy Technology (CANMET) and Office of Energy
Conservation, Dept. of Energy Mines and Resources, Ottawa,
Ontario November 8, 9, 1976.
19. Telcon with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
October 1978.
20. Personal communication. Robert C. Ziegler, Calspan Corporation,
to William H. Clark III, N.Y.S. Thruway Authroity, Albany, N.Y.
15 December 1978.
21. "Ways to Use Waste Products in Highway Construction," Prepared by
Task Force 16 Subcommittee on New Highway Materials of the Joint
Cooperative Committee of American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials, American Road and Transportation
Builders Association.
22. "Glass Recovery and Reuse," Dr. E. Joseph Duckett, NCRR Bulletin,
Vol. VIII, No. 4, Fall 1978.
23. Modern Plastics, p. 62, January 1979.
24. "Plastic Pipe: Profile of a Growing Market," K.L. Kollar and
W. Youngwirth, Construction Review, March 1976, published by
U.S. Department of Commerce.
25. "1978 Edition of Facts and Figures of the Plastics Industry,"
published by the Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.,
355 Lexington Ave., N.Y., N.Y.
26. "Fourth Report to Congress, Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction,"
prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste, 1977 (SW-600).
135
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abrahams, J.H. Recycling container glass — an overview. ^In_ Proceed-
ings; Third Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, March 14-16,
1972. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute. lOp.
Battelle Memorial Institute. A study to identify opportunities for
increased solid waste utilization; volumes VIII and IX. Environmental
Protection Publication SW-40D. 3-72. Washington Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, 1972. 342p.
Bennett, K.W. Is recycling metal workings next Cinderella market?
Iron Age 221(14):27-29, April 3, 1978
Bortz, S.A. and M.A. Schwartz Recycling wastes for structural applica-
tions. Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division, Proc. ASCE
(April 1973)
Brown, P.W., J.R. Clifton, G. Frohnsdorff, and R.L. Berger. The utiliza-
tion of industrial by-products in blended cements. In_ Proceedings; Fifth
Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, April 13-14, 1976. U.S.
Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute, p.278-284.
Cahoon, H.P. and I.B. Cutler Feasibility of making insulation material
by foaming waste glass. _In_ Proceedings; Third Mineral Waste Utilization
Symposium, Chicago, March 14-16, 1972. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT
Research Institute. 5p.
Cardin, F.A. Secondary fiber recovery incentive analysis. Environ-
mental Protection Publication 670-5/74-004. Cincinnati, National
Environmental Research Center, 1974. 400p.
Carr, W.E. Many problems involved in increasing utilization of waste
paper. Paper Trade Journal, 155:48-52, May 17, 1971.
CH2M/Hill Market analysis of recovered materials and energy from solid
waste; executive summary. Prepared for Washington State Dept of Ecology,
Jan. 1977. (Distributed by National Information Service, Springfield,
Va., as PB 277-143.)
Coal Research Bureau School of Mines, West Virginia University, Pilot
scale up of processes to demonstrate utilization of pulverized coal fly-
ash modified by the addition of limestone-dolomite sulfur dioxide removal
additives. Research Triangle Park, EPA Office of Air Programs,1971. 108p.
Collins, R.J. Waste products as a potential replacement for aggregates.
In Proceedings; Fourth International Ash Utilization Symposium, St. Louis,
March 24-25, 1976. Energy Research and Development Administration.
p.93-113.
136
-------
Clifton, J.R., P.W. Brown and G. Frohnsdorff. Survey of uses of waste
materials in construction in the United States. National Bureau of
Standards Report NBSIR 77-1244. Washington, U.S. Department of Commerce,
1977. 55p.
Cramer, S.D. and H.V. Makar Steel from ferrous can scrap. In
Proceedings; Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago,
April 13-14, 1976. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute.
p. 398-406.
Uavis, R.L., P.G. Hansen and S.G. Kelkar Extrusion—a means of
recycling waste plastic and glass. J_n_ Proceedings; Third Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, Chicago, March 14-16, 1972. U.S. Bureau of Mines
and IIT Research Institute. 10 p.
Emery, J.J. Trends in waste utilization in construction. Presented
at Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, April 13-14,
1976. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute. 27 p.
Faber, J.H., A.W. Babcock, and J.D. Spencer Ash Utilization;
Proceedings; Fourth International Ash Utilization Symposium. St. Louis,
March 24-25, 1976. Energy Research and Development Administration.
688 p.
Federal Highway Administration Offices of Research and Development.
Implementation package; rubber-asphalt binder for seal coat construction.
Publication 73-1. Washington, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1973.
28 p.
Goddard, H.C. An economic evaluation of technical systems for scrap
tire recycling. Environmental Protection Publication 600/5-75/019.
Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental Research Lab, 1975.. 40 p.
Goode, A.H., M.E. Tyrrell and I.L. Feld Glass wool from waste glass.
Report of investigations. 7708. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
1972. 16 p.
Green, E.L., et al. The chemical and physical properties of asphalt
rubber mixtures. I. Basic material behavior. Report FHWA-AZ-HPR14-
162. Phoenix, Arizona Department of Transportation, 1977. 88 p.
Haynes, J. and W.B. Ledbetter Incinerator residue in bituminous
base construction. Report No. FHWA-RD-76-12. Washington, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 1975. 98 p.
Holman, J.L., J.B. Stephenson and M.J. Adam Recycling of plastics
from urban and industrial refuse. Report of investigations 7955.
Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1974. 44 p.
137
-------
Howdyshell, P.A. and D.C. Morse Use of Fly ash and high-strength
reinforcing bars in military construction. Report No. CERL-TR-M-228.
Champaign, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, 1977, 43p.
Humpstone, C.C., et al. Tire recycling and reuse incentives.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-530-32C. Washington, Inter-
.national Research and Technology Corporation, 1974. 116p.
Hunter, W.L. Steel from urban waste. Report of investigations 8147.
Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1976. 16p.
lannnazzi, F.D. Analysis of demand and supply for secondary fiber in
the U.S. paper and paperboard industry. Environmental Protection
Publication 520/SW-115C.2. Washington, Office of Solid Waste Manage-
ment Programs, 1975. 257p.
IU Conversion Systems, Inc. Technical and economic evaluation of
recycled industrial secondary products for the preparation of synthetic
highway building aggregates. Report No. ARC 73-40 (RPC-772).
Washington, Appalachian Regional Commission, 1974. 73p.
Jackson, G. and S .Ware The feasibility of utilizing solid wastes
for building materials. Environmental Protection Publication 600/8-77-
006. Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, 1977.
96p.
Jackson, G. and S. Ware The feasibility of utilizing solid wastes
for building materials; executive summary. Environmental Protection
Publication 600/8-77-006. Cincinnati, Municipal Environmental
Research Center, 1977. 93p.
Johnson, P.W. and J.A. Barclay Economic studies of uses of the
glass fractions from municipal incinerator residues. Report of
investigations 8567. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1973. 44p.
Johnson, P.W. and J.A. Barclay Economic studies of uses of the
glass fractions from municipal incinerator residues. Report of
investigations 8567. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1973.
44p.
Lawrence, J.R. Status report on plastics recycling. Presented at
Symposium on Ecological Disposal of Plastics, American Society for
Testing Materials, October 25, 1972. 25p.
138
-------
Liles, K.J. Lightweight structural concrete aggregate from municipal
waste glass. J!n_ Proceedings; Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Sympo-
sium, Chicago, April 13-14, 1976. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT
Research Institute, p.219-222.
Liles, K.J. and M.E. Tyrrell Waste glass as a raw material for light-
weight aggregate. Report of investigations 8104. Washington,
U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1976. 8p.
Makar, H.V., R.S. Kaplan, and L. Janowski Evaluation of steel made
with ferrous fractions from urban refuse. Report of investigations
8037. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1975. 26p.
Malisch, W.R., et al. Effect of contaminants in recycled glass
utilized for glasphalt. IJT_ Proceedings; Third Mineral Waste Utilization
Symposium, Chicago, March 14-16, 1972. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT
Research Institute. 14p.
McKee, R.C. Effect of repulping on sheet properties and fiber
characteristics. Paper Trade Journal, 155:34-40, May 24, 1971.
Meyers, J.F., et al. Fly ash as a construction material for high-
ways; a manual. Report No. FHWA-1P-76-16. Washington, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, 1976. 201p.
'Milgrom, J. Can federal procurement practices be used to reduce
solid waste. Prepared for Office of Research and Development.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, Oct. 1973. 213p.
(Preliminary draft, contract No. CPE 68-03-0047)
Milgrom, J. Incentives for recycling and reuse of plastics.
Environmental Protection Publication SW-410-72. Cambridge, Arthur D.
Little, Inc., 1972. 316p.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Incorporated Aluminum
recovery; a status report; part 1. NCRR Bulletin, 7(2):37-45,
Spring 1977.
National Center for Resource Recovery, Incorporated. Magnetic metals
recovery; a review; part 2. NCRR Bulletin, 8(1):18-28, Winter 1978.
Obrzuf, J.J. Voluntary standards:everyone wants in. iron Age
221(22):39-41, May 29, 1978.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense. Fiscal year 1979
military construction program. News Release No. 13-78. Washington,
Feb. 27, 1978. 80p.
139
-------
Office of Management and Budget Special analysis D; investment,
operating and other budget outlays. Reprint from Special Analyses,
Budget of the United States Government, 1979. Washington, January
1978. p.83-96.
Proudy, H., G. Gregory and J. Hodge Recycled asphalt concrete.
Implementation package 75-5. Washington, U.S. Department of Trans-
portation, 1975. 47p.
Resource Technology Corporation, Guidelines for resource recovery from
municipal wastes. Prepared for U.S. Steel Corporation, April 1978.
26p.
Samtur, H.R. Glass recycling and reuse. Report No. NSF-RA-E-74-015.
Washington, National Science Foundation, 1974. 106p.
Scrap aluminum pressed into metal-working service. Iron Age^ 221(26) :
40-41, June 26, 1978
Slonaker, J.F. Production of forty percent core area fly ash
brick using a southern West Virginia Fly ash. In_ Proceedings; Fifth
Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, April 13-14, 1976.
U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute: p.319-321.
Spendlove, M.J. Bureau of Mines research on resource recovery;
reclamation, utilization, disposal and stabilization. Information
Circular 8750. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines. 1977. 104p.
Steinberg, M., P. Columbo and G. Farber (Atomic Energy Commission).
Glass polymer composites. U.S. Patent 3,856,054; filed July 28, 1972;
issued Dec. 24, 1974.
Sullivan, P.M. and H.V. Makar. Quality of products from Bureau of
Mines resource recovery systems and suitability for recycling. In
Proceedings; Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago,
April 13-14, 1976. U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute.
p.223-233.
Tress, J.E. and W.L. Hunter. Secondary pig iron from shredded auto
scrap. Report of investigations 7808. Washington, U.S. Bureau of
Mines, 1973. 9p.
Tyrrell, M.E. and I.L. Feld Fabrication and cost evaluation of
experimental building brick from waste glass. Report of investiga-
tions 7605. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines, 1972. 33p.
140
-------
Tyrrell, M.E. and A.H. Goode Waste glass as a flux for brick clays.
Report of investigations 7701. Washington, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
1972. 9p.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Construction reports. Value of new
construction put in place, 1947 to 1974. Series C30-74S. Washington,
December, 1975. 185p.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Construction reports. Value of new
construction put in place. Series C30-78-3. Washington, May 1978.
13p.
U.S. Department of Commerce Construction Review. 24(2):67-72,
March/April 1978.
United States Steel, Equipment to recover steel from municipal solid
waste. USS Publication ADUSS 33-7200-02. Pittsburgh, United States
Steel Corp. 25p.
Wayne, D.D. Waste use in highway construction. Use of Waste Materials
and Soil Stabilization; Transportation Research Record 593. Washington,
National Academy of Sciences, 1976. p.9-12.
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979—620-007/6316
141
-------
DALLAS, TEXAS
-------