PB-241 729
REQUIRING SECONDARY MATERIALS IN FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION
A FEASIBILITY STUDY
RESOURCE PLANNING ASSOCIATES
JANUARY 1975
DISTRIBUTED BY:
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
APHIC DATA
and Subtitle
1. Report No.
. EPA/53'J/SW-Mft:
2.
PB 241 725
Requiring Secondary Materials 1n Federal Construction
A Feasibility Study
5. Report Date
January 1975
6.
,-fs)
James M. Ramsey
8. Performing Organization Kept.
NO. M-74-20
Organization Name cmd Address
Resource Planning Associates
44 Brattle Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
10. Project/"! ask/Work Unit No.
11. Contract/Grant No.
EPA 68-01-2272
}'i. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D. C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Final
14.
5. Supplementary Notes
— The Federal Government 1s the largest single purchaser of construction in
the United States, accounting for approximately 18 percent of total annual
construction. The study examines the feasibility of the Government's using
this considerable purchasing power to require the use of secondary materials
in construction products as a means of Increasing recycling.
the analysis of Federal construction procurement policies, laws, regulations,
and funding levels shows that while the Government is a major purchaser of
construction materials, there are significant constraints to requiring recycled
materials in these products.
An in-depth technical and economic analysis of opportunities to use
secondary materials recovered from the municipal solid waste stream shows that
Federal construction procurement could impact significantly on the materials
1n the municipal solid waste stream.
6. Abstracts
17. KeyWords »fcd Document Analysis. 17o. Descriptors
Solid waste, recycling, resource recovery, secondary materials, recycled
materials, construction, Federal construction, construction specifications,
guide specifications, Federal procurement, construction procurement, iron
and steel, glass, plastics, paper
17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
17c. COSAT1 Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release unlimited
19.. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
FORM NTII-SI IMEV. >o-T»l ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO.
THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED
-------
REQUIRING SECONDARY MATERIALS
IN FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION-
A FEASIBILITY STUDY
This final report (SW-103c) on work performed
for the Federal solid waste management programs under contract No. 68-01-2272
was written by JAMES M. RAMSEY
and is reproduced at received from the contractor.
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
This report as submitted by the contractor has not been technically
reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-103c) in the solid waste
management series.
11
-------
ACKMOHLEDGBMgNTS
Janes M. Ramsey, the project manager for this study, was assisted by
the following Resource Planning Associates personnel: Louise Cushman
and Peggy Salten, background data gatheringi Frederick Carothers and
Paul LaViolette, technical and economic analysis; and Joanne Sanda
and Louis Landerson, report preparation.
We express our thanks and appreciation to the many individuals and
organisations who provided information and assistance to the study
team. In particular we wish to thank Mr. David Sussman of the Office
of Solid Nest* Management Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, who was project officer for this contract. Mr. Sussman's
assistance and! interest in this project contributed significantly to
the development of this report.
HJ
-------
ABSTRACT
The Federal Government is the largest single purchaser of con-
struction in the United States, accounting for approximately 18 percent
of total annual new construction. The study examines the feasibility
of the Government's using this considerable purchasing power to re-
quire the use of secondary materials in construction products as a
means of increasing recycling.
The analysis of Federal construction procurement policies, laws,
regulations, and funding levels shows that while the Government is
a major purchaser of construction materials, there are significant
constraints to requiring recycled materials in these products. For
example, 78 percent of federally supported construction is in the
form of grants and loans to state and local governments. Federal
control over the use of these indirect funds is less than for direct-
procured construction projects.
An in-depth technical and economic analysis of opportunities to
use secondary materials recovered from the municipal solid waste
stream shows that Federal construction procurement could impact signi-
ficantly on the ferrous and glass fractions. Post-consumer ferrous
scrap presents an immediate opportunity for use in the lower grade
steel construction products such as reinforcing bars. Waste glass,
on the other hand, is a longer-term opportunity, due to the limited
availability of the low quality, low value waste glass from resource
recovery plants. The development of these plants is still in its
infancy.
The report recommends the following: that emphasis be placed on
requiring post-consumer ferrous scrap in steel construction products;
that the Government provide markets for the newly emerging construction
products made from waste glassf and that construction contract speci-
fications encourage the use of secondary materials in all products,
consistent with performance requirements.
-------
STUDY Of TOE FEASIBILITY OF
REQUIRING SECONDARY MATERIALS
IN FfEPKRAL CONSTRUCTION
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AMD RECOMMENDATIONS 1
Findings l
Ferrous Scrap 2
Waste Glass 2
Plastic Scrap 2
Haste Paper 2
Recommendations 2
I. INTRODUCTIOg 4
II. FEDERAL COHSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT 5
A. Construction Overview 5
The Construction Industry and Its Procurement
Process 6
Design Phase 6
Construction Phase 9
Federal Share of Construction Industry 11
B. Federal Construction Procurement Process 13
Procurement Processes 13
Direct Procurement 13
Indirect Procurement 15
Laws and Regulations Related to Federal
Construction Procurement 16
Direct Procurement 16
Indirect Procurement 19
Specifications for Federal Construction Projects 20
Direct Procurement 20
Indirect Procurement 24
C, Federal Procurement Analysis 25
Agency Construction Budgets 25
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Facilities Funded by the Federal Government 29
Construction Materials 29
D. Federal Activities Related to Procurement of
Secondary Materials 38
General Services Administration 38
Other R & D, Demonstration Projects 39
III. OPPORTUNITIES TO USE WASTES IN CONSTRUCTION
MATERIALS 42
A. Iron and Steel 42
Uses of Iron and Steel in Construction 42
Supply of Obsolete Ferrous Scrap 47
Potential for Obsolete Scrap Use 51
Potential Federal Impacts 61
B. Glass 64
Uses of Glass in Construction 64
Supply of Waste Glass 66
Potential for Waste Glass Use in New
Construction Products 69
Influencing Factors 73
Analysis of Selected New Construction Products 76
Potential Federal Impacts 81
C. Plastics 85
Uses of Plastics in Construction 85
Supply of Scrap Plastics 91
Reprocessed Scrap 91
Discarded Industrial Scrap 93
Municipal Plastic Scrap 95
Potential for Scrap Plastic Use 96
Applications in Plastic Construction Products 96
Applications in New Construction Products 108
Potential Federal Impacts 110
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
D. Paper
Page
114
Uses of Paper in Construction
Paperstock Supply
Potential for Additional Paperstock Use
Construction Paper 117
Insulation Board 11B
Hard Pressed Board (Hardboard) 118
Potential Federal Impacts
Appendixes
A. Federal Construction Programs I25
B. Naval Facilities Engineering Coonand
Guide Specifications for Use in Regular
Military Construction Projects 171
C. Descriptions of Construction Products
Made fron Haste Glass 181
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table Page
33 Plastic Resin Shipments - 1973 86
34 Plastic Resin Markets - 1973 87
35 Plastic Resins Used in Building/Construction -
1973 88
36 Major Thermoplastic Construction Products -
Resin Use in 1973 89
37 Plastic Scrap Sources - 1973 92
38 Virgin Resin Prices 94
39 Potential Additional Secondary Resin Use in
Construction Plastics 99
40 Impact of Additional Scrap Use on Municipal
Solid Waste 100
41 Resin Use in Plastic Pipe - 1973 103
42 Ranking of Potential for Increased Secondary
Resin Utilization 104
43 Potential Additional Secondary Resin Use
in Plastic Pipe - 1973 106
44 Federal Procurement of Flooring and Plastic
Pipe 111
45 Potential Use of PCW Plastic in Federal
Construction 113
46 Production of Construction Paper and Board -
1972 115
47 Paperstock Use in Paper Construction Products -
1972 116
48 Federal Procurement of Construction Materials
That Could Contain Waste Paper (MMSF) 120
49 Potential Additional Use of Wastepaper in
Federal Construction 121
V/l/
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
Table
18 Obsolete Iron and Steel Scrap Sources - 1973 49
19 Composition of No. 2 Bundles and Burned Slab 50
20 Composition of Front-End-Separated and
Incinerator Residue Ferrous Scrap 52
21 Acceptability of Low-Grade Scrap Use in
Iron and Steel Construction Products 53
22 Chemical Composition Requirements for Selected
Iron and Steel Construction Products 55
23 Composition (Selected Elements) of Various
Types of Obsolete Scrap 57
24 Technical Limits of Obsolete Scrap Use in
Selected Iron and Steel Construction Products 58
25 Potential Use of Un-Detinned Ferrous Cans
in Selected Products 60
26 Federal Procurement of Iron and Steel
Construction Products 62
27 Potential Use of PCW Ferrous Scrap in
Federal Construction 62
28 Summary of Potential Federal Impacts and
Factors Related to Increased PCW Usage
in Construction Products 63
29 Glass Shipments and Construction Markets - 1972 65
30 Waste Glass Construction Product Opportunities 70
31 Federal Procurement of Construction Materials
That Could Contain Waste Glass 82
32 Potential Use of Waste Glass in Federal
Construction Q3
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1 New Construction - 1972 7
2 Federal Construction Outlays - FY 1973 12
3 Standard Construction Specification
(Technical Section) Format 22
4 Federal Construction Funding - FY 1973 26
5 Summary of Major Direct Programs - FY 1973 27
6 Summary of Major Indirect Programs - FY 1973 28
7 Direct Project Funding by Facility Type -
FY 1973 30
8 Indirect Project Funding by Facility Type -
FY 1973 31
9 Construction Material Consumption by Facility
Type - FY 1973 32
10 Construction Material Consumption by Agency -
Direct Programs - FY 1973 34
11 Construction Material Consumption by Agency -
Indirect Programs - FY 1973 35
12 Selected Department of Defense Construction
Materials - FY 1973 36
13 Selected Indirect Program Construction
Materials - FY 1973 37
14 Iron and Steel Markets - 1973 43
15 Iron and Steel in Building/Construction - 1973 44
16 Scrap Use in Iron and Steel Construction
Products - 1973
46
17 Breakdown of Production Processes for Steel
Construction Products 48
X
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1 Construction Procurement Process 8
2 Finns Involved in the Manufacture, Distribution,
and Installation of Construction Materials 10
3 Construction Organization - Department of
the Navy 14
4 Indirect Federal Construction Procurement
Process 17
5 Cost of Mechanical Separation 68
6 Economic Comparison of Waste Glass
Construction Products 72
7 Recovering Plastics, Metal, and Fiber from
Black Clawson Concentrate 97
x/
-------
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Federal Government purchases, either directly or indirectly,
approximately 18 percent of annual new construction in the United
States. In Fiscal Year (FY) 1973 this amounted to nearly $22.5 billion,
of which approximately 40 percent, or $9 billion, was spent on con-
struction materials. The following is a summary of findings related to
the feasibility of using this considerable purchasing power to increase
the use of recycled materials in construction products.
FINDINGS
There are two major types of construction procurement - direct
and indirect. In the former, the Federal Government contracts di-
rectly with a construction contractor. The latter involves the distri-
bution of grants and loans to state and local governments for construc-
tion purposes. Direct procurement accounts for about 22 percent of
federally supported construction; indirect represents 78 percent.
Federal construction procurement is controlled through the use of
several different types of specifications and guidelines, which could
be modified to require the use of recycled materials. For direct
procurement, these specifications take the form of detailed instructions
to the designer and builder concerning all phases of the construction
process, including requirements for construction materials. On the
other hand, the guidelines for indirect procurement typically provide
only general technical guidance and broad performance requirements.
The choice of construction materials is usually left to the grant/loan
recipient.
Thus, while the Government would appear to have the legal authority
to specify recycled materials in all types of construction, implementa-
tion of this requirement for indirect programs would result in some
administrative complexity and require the modification of existing
agency procedures. Implementation for direct programs would be less
complex.
The majority of Federal construction funding and materials pur-
chases is concentrated in a small group of agencies. The Department
of Transportation is by far the largest, funding over $5.7 billion in
FY 1973 - 35 percent of total federal construction outlays. Other key
agencies include the Department of Defense (including Army Corps of
Engineers Civil Works Construction); Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare; Department of Agriculture; and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
-1-
-------
There are a number of attractive opportunities to use recycled
materials in construction products, and these are summarized briefly
below.
Ferrous Scrap
Federal purchases of iron and steel construction products could
use nearly 500,000 tons of municipal can scrap annually, or 8 percent
of the ferrous containers in municipal solid waste. Although there
would be some industry resistance to specifications requiring the use
of municipal ferrous scrap - especially for steel reinforcing bars -
this is not considered to be an insurmountable problem.
Waste Glass
Federal purchases of construction materials could consume as
much as 1.43 million tons of waste glass annually - 12 percent of the
glass containers in municipal waste. This is more of a long-term
opportunity, since these products use the lower quality cullet from
resource recovery plants - and significant quantities of this material
are not likely to be available before 1980. Most of the products that
use waste glass have gained only limited market acceptance; only a few
have been developed past the pilot/demonstration stage.
Plastic Scrap
The Federal Government could influence the use of about 30,000
tons of post consuwer waste plastics in its construction purchases, or
1 percent of plastics in the waste stream. A major problem with this
material is the limited supply of post consumer waste plastic. The
difficulties associated with separating plastic polymers is a major
barrier to recycling.
Waste Paper
Federal construction could consume an additional 460,000 tons of
waste paper, or 1.5 percent of the paper in municipal waste. The
General Services Administration has already taken steps to require
waste paper usage in two important construction materials - construction
paper and insulating board.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The findings detailed in the following report and summarized
above led to the following recoranendations for Federal construction
procurement policy.
-2-
-------
1. Emphasis should be placed on using post consumer
(municipal) ferrous scrap in iron and steel construction
products. Initially the program might involve only one
agency. For example, the Department of Transportation
could modify its specifications to require that some
percentage (say 5 percent) of municipal scrap be used
in reinforcing steel installed in all federal-aid
highway projects.
2. Where practicable, the Government should use its pur-
chasing influence to provide markets for the newly
emerging construction products made from waste glass.
Given the limited availability of these products,
procurement would be on a case-by-case, demonstration
basis.
3. All Federal construction contracts should encourage
the use of secondary materials in construction products,
consistent with product performance requirements.
-3-
-------
I. INTRODUCTIOH
There has been considerable interest in recent years in the use
of Federal purchasing power to encourage either the reduction of
solid waste generation or the use of recycled materials. Section 205
of the Resource Recovery Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-512) requested
that a study be made of the "use of Federal procurement to develop
market demands for recovered resources." Several bills currently
before Congress include specific requirements that all federally
procured materials contain recycled materials to the maximum extent
practicable. And in 1971 the General Services Administration (GSA)
changed its paper procurement policy to require specific percentages
of recycled materials in a number of the paper products purchased by
the government.
In compliance with the 1970 Act, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) authorized a study in 1971 to determine those areas in
which the Federal Government's procurement power could be utilized
most effectively as an economic incentive to increase the use of
recycled materials. This study identified several areas of Federal
procurement, including construction materials, with potentially signi-
ficant recycling impacts.
The present study was authorized to provide a detailed analysis
of the Federal Government's procurement of construction materials and
of the opportunities to use municipal waste materials in construction
products. The objective of this analysis is the development of recom-
mendations for a Federal procurement policy that will result in signi-
ficant recycling and, at the same time, minimize the associated economic
and institutional problems for both industry and the Federal agencies
involved.
To this end, the body of the report is organized into two major
sections, as follows:
Chapter II - "Federal Construction Procurement" provides an
overview of the construction industry and a detailed dis-
cussion of the Federal construction procurement process.
Chapter III - "Opportunities To Use Wastes in Construction
Materials" analyzes the opportunities to use municipal
wastes in construction products, assesses the potential
Federal impacts in each of the four waste categories
analyzed (i.e., ferrous, glass, plastic, and paper), and
summarizes the constraints associated with each.
-4-
-------
II. FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT
A prerequisite to the development of a sound Federal construction
materials procurement policy is an understanding of the construction
industry and the Government's role in construction, as well as the
Federal construction procurement process. Hence, the major sections
of this chapter cover:
A. "Construction Overview," which describes the construction
industry in general and the Federal share of national con-
struction activity.
B. "Federal Construction Procurement Process," which details
the ways in which the Federal Government purchases con-
struction, including the laws and regulations that pertain
to Federal construction procurement and the specifications
for Federal construction projects.
C. "Federal Procurement Analysis," which describes the construc-
tion programs of Federal agencies, the types and amounts of
facilities funded, and the quantities of construction
materials purchased.
D. "Federal Activities Related to Procurement of Secondary
Materials," which summarizes the existing programs within
Federal agencies to procure products containing recycled
materials or to conduct research and demonstration programs
related to the use of recycled materials in certain product
types.
A. CONSTRUCTION OVERVIEW
To understand how the Federal Government might use its consider-
able purchasing power in construction to provide markets for recycled
materials, it is important to understand the construction industry in
general and the role of the Federal Government in construction. Each
of these two topics is addressed in turn in this section.
-5-
-------
THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
AND ITS PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Total new construction* in the United States in 1972 amounted to
$123.8 billion, or about 11 percent of the $1,151.8 billion gross
national product.* (Table 1 presents a breakdown of 1972 new con-
struction projects, by private versus public ownership and by major
facility types.) On the average, construction materials account for
about 40 percent of the cost of new construction projects. In 1972,
the sale of construction materials amounted to $50 billion, or about
4 percent of the gross national product.
The execution of a construction project consists of two major
phases, design «nd construction. (See Figure 1 for an overview of
the process.)
Design Phase
In the design phase, the architect-engineer (A-E) develops the
requirements of the facility owner into project plans and specifica-
tions, which contain complete instructions on the type and quantities
of construction materials required, and direct the way in which these
materials are to be put together to form the completed facility. If
the owner has a design staff, this work may be done in-house; if not,
the A-E is typically selected on the basis of both his estimated de-
sign fee and his professional reputation and experience.
Upon completion of the design work, the owner solicits bids on
the plans and specifications from construction contractors. The
lowest bidder is usually awarded the construction contract. For most
projects, several different construction specialties are involved,
and each is performed by a subcontractor who specializes in a particu-
lar field. The owner deals directly with the general contractor, who,
in addition to performing a portion of the work, coordinates the
activities of the various subcontractors.
This construction contracting industry, consisting of general
contractors and subcontractors, is extremely fragmented. As of 1967,
Construction in the broadest sense includes the erection, maintenance,
and repair of immobile structures and facilities, such as buildings
for residential, commercial, industrial, educational, religious,
charitable, and public use, as well as highways, dams, airports, and
tunnels. This study was concerned with only new construction, since
maintenance and repair account for less than 5 percent of total
federally funded construction expenditures.
^"U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract, 1973.
2Ibid.
-6-
-------
Table 1
New Construction - 1972*
Ownership
Private
Residential
Nonresidential
Public
Total
Facility Tyge
Buildings
Public Utilities
Highways and Streets
Other Public Works
Total
54.2
39.4
$ Billion
$ 93.6
*Source: U.S. Department of Comnerce, Statistical Abstract, 1973.
-7-
-------
Figure 1
CCWSTWCTICM PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Design
Construction
i— H Architect - Engineer
PJWVmt! CWn«»i- '
GAnAra 1 Contractor
1
Sub-Contractor Level 1
i
Sub-Contractor Level 2
<5
«--
^ —
X
»
? P
^i
H
t) C
tnil
l«
*»
H-
§
-------
nearly 800,000 firms in the U.S. were engaged in construction con-
tracting.3 of this total, approximately 130,000 were general con-
tractors (100,000 general building contractors and 30,000 general
heavy construction contractors, specializing in highways and earth-
work) . The remaining 670,000 were subcontractors, specializing in
one of the 16 or more building trades, ranging from plumbing to
structural steel erection.
Each year, over 100,000 firms enter the industry, while a compar-
able number leave. Rapid entry is facilitated by the minimal equipment
needed for a small-scale operation - a shovel and hammer are sometimes
sufficient, and frequently even a pickup truck is not necessary.
Moreover, failures occur continually due to lack of experience and
poor management, which lead to high operating expenses and inadequate
sales. The turnover rate in construction is thus higher than in any
other major industry.4
In 1967, over 75 percent of the 800,000 construction contracting
firms had annual sales of less than $100,000; more than half of these
had sales less than $10,000.5 The top 400 general construction con-
tractors (excluding home builders) accounted for approximately 33
percent of total new construction; the top 40 represented about 20
percent of the total. The largest general construction contractor
has a market share of 1 to 2 percent.
Construction Phase
During the construction phase, the general contractor and the
subcontractors obtain their required materials from one or more mater-
ial suppliers. The construction materials industry can be characterized
by its extreme complexity. This industry is, in fact, made up of
numerous types and sizes of firms from many industries. The broad
scope of the industry can be better understood by observing Figure 2.
Construction materials are manufactured by companies that also
produce goods for a wide range of other end-use industries. For
example, steel companies manufacture steel products not only for
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract, 1973.
4Rees, John D., "The Birth of Construction Management," Research
Report submitted for Harvard MBA Program, April, 1972.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract, 1973.
—9—
-------
Figure 2
FIRMS INVOLVED IN THE MANUFACTURE. DISTRIBOTIOW, AND ItBTAliATION OP CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Manufacture
Distribution
Installation
Forest Products
Companies
Insulation Manu-
facturers
Floor Tile Man-
ufacturers
Lumber, Con-
struct ion
Materials
(13.600)
i
_*_
I
JL
Electrical Products
Manufacturers
Pipe Manufacturers
Air Conditioning
Equipment Man-
ufacturers
Asphaltic Concrete
Hot-Mix
(4,500)
Hardware, Plumbing
Heating Equipment
(16,700)
Portland Cement
Concrete Ready-
Mix
(10,000)
CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS
(795,OOO)
Note: Numbers in parentheses are the numbers of firms in particular categories as of 1967.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce Statistical Abstract, 1973.
-------
construction but also for the automotive and railroad industries.
These manufacturers, besides selling materials directly to contractors
(usually for large purchases, shown by dotted line in Figure 2), have
an established distribution network.
Most construction materials are sold through this network, which
consists of four major types of wholesale distributors: metal; lumLar
and construction materials; electrical goods; and hardware, plumbing,
and heating equipment. On the other hand, the two major construction
materials that are not sold through distributors are hot-mix asphaltic
concrete and ready-mix portland cement concrete. These materials are
produced to meet local demands and are sold directly by the manufacturer
to the builder. Including these asphalt and concrete producers, the
number of construction materials distributors in the U.S. totals over
66,000.
FEDERAL SHARE OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
The Federal Government supports, through the activities of 18
agencies, a significant portion of the total annual new construction.
As shown in Table 2, total federally supported construction in FY 1973
amounted to about $22.46 billion, or 18 percent of total U.S. new
construction. There are important distinctions among the various
categories of Federal construction:
• Direct - construction contracted directly by Federal
agencies, (e.g., U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
• Grants and loans (indirect) - the federal share of sub-
sidized construction projects for state and local
governments and private, nonprofit groups (e.g., the
Environmental Protection Agency's contribution to local
wastewater treatment facilities)
• Nonfederal share - that portion of a federally supported
project financed by the state or local agency.
Thus, of the total of $22.46 billion, only $4.99 billion, or 22 per-
cent, is direct construction, while indirect projects account for 78
percent of the total, or $17.47 billion. Later in the report, de-
tailed breakdowns in terms of agencies and programs, facility types,
and actual construction materials consumed are provided to show how
these funds are spent. Some important distinctions between direct
and indirect construction procurement will also be developed in re-
lation to the feasibility of requiring recycled materials in con-
struction products.
-11-
-------
Table 2
Federal Construction Outlays - FY 1973*
$ Billion Percent
Federal Construction Funds:
Direct 4.99 22
Grant* and Loans 11.43 51
Total 16.42 73
Non-Federal Share of Grants
and loans 6.04 27_
Total Federally Supported
Construction 22.46 100
Total U.S. Construction (1972) 123.8
Federal Share 18
*Sources: U.S. Dept. of Conferee, Statistical Abstract, 1973.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Special Analyses of
the U.S. Government, FY 1974.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-12-
-------
B. FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT PROCESS
To carry out its construction responsibility, the Federal Govern-
ment has developed specific procurement processes. These processes
reflect the various laws and regulations that govern Federal construc-
tion, as well as the government-established specifications that act as
project controls. These three critical aspects - the procurement
processes themselves, the relevant laws and regulations, and the
specifications - are addressed separately in this section.
PROCUREMENT PROCESSES
There are two types of Federal procurement processes - direct and
indirect.
Direct Procurement
Direct Federal construction projects are procured in exactly the
same way as in the overall construction procurement process shown in
Figure 1, with one exception: "Owner" becomes "Agency" (i.e., the
Federal Government).
Although agencies vary in the way they organize and execute
direct construction projects, there is a common organizational form
that applies to most. (See Figure 3, which depicts the Department of
the Navy's construction organization.) Most construction is decentral-
ized - i.e., it is designed and built through one of four "field di-
visions" rather than by the headquarters group in Washington. Within
each field division, there are three major offices, or branches:
• The Contracts Branch is responsible for contracts and other
legal arrangements between the government and the A-E or
the construction contractor.
• The Design Branch is responsible for accomplishing all
design work, if the project is designed in-house; if the
project is designed by an A-E, this branch is responsible
for coordination and administration of the contract with
the A-E.
• The Construction Branch is responsible for administration
and coordination of the construction work as performed by
the contractor.
The headquarters office also has these three branches. For
special projects managed at this level, these branches function like
their regional counterparts. When they do not have managerial
-13-
-------
Figure 3
CONSTRUCTION ORGANIZATIOH - DEPARTMENT OT THE NAVY
Department of Defense
Department of the Navy
Naval Material Command
Naval Facilities Engineering Con*»an
-------
responsibility, they help establish policies and procedures to be
followed by the regional offices, develop and monitor certain kinds of
construction specifications and contractual requirements, and provide
general assistance and guidance to the regional offices.
A typical project is executed in a series of steps in three
phases, as follows:
Phase I - Predesign
1. Project funds are appropriated fay Congress.
2. Regional Design Branch develops a broad description
of project requirements, and establishes general
design requirements.
Phase II - Design
3. If design is to be executed by an outside A-E,
Contracts Branch develops A-E contract documents,
including the general project requirements esta-
blished in Step 2; solicits proposals from A-E
firms s and selects firm based on fee and previous
experience and reputation. If design is executed
in-house, Design Branch develops construction plans
and specifications.
4. A-E completes design, and develops a set of con-
struction plans and specifications; these activities
are administered by the Design Branch.
Phase III - Construction
5. Contracts Branch prepares construction contract bid
documents consisting of the plans and specifications
developed during the design phase; lets contract for
bids to construction contractor; and awards contract
to the lowest responsible bidder.
6. Contractor performs construction? activities are
administered by the Construction Branch.
(Appendix A shows for each direct program the approximate percentage
of projects which are designed by A-Es.)
Indirect Procurement
The process of indirect procurement differs from that for direct
procurement in that the project is actually executed by the grant or
-15-
-------
loan recipient, who receives funding and some degree of guidance and
control from the Federal agency. (See Figure 4.) The Department of
Transportation's highway program, administered by the Federal Highway
Administration (PHWA), is an example of an indirect construction pro-
curement program. Here program administration, including funds allo-
cation for particular projects, is totally decentralized, as it is
accomplished by the state-level offices of the FHWA. Funds are
annually allocated to the states from the Highway Trust Fund, and the
state-level FHWA offices allocate the total funds pool to specific
projects, upon review of project requests from the state highway de-
partments. Having received project approval from the FHWA state
representative, the state highway agencies then direct their design
departments to prepare detailed project plans and specifications.
When completed, these are submitted to the FHWA representative for
final approval.
Upon approval, the state highway department then advertises for
bids from highway construction contractors, and, as required by the
FHWA, awards the construction contract to the lowest responsible
bidder. The construction contract is administered by the state high-
way department, but FHWA representatives make periodic inspections to
ensure the project is being accomplished in accordance with the ap-
proved plans and specifications.
LAWS AND REGULATIONS RELATED TO
FEDERAL OOWSTRUCTIOS PROCUREMENT
The direct and indirect procurement processes become operative
through the laws that authorize the various agencies to procure
construction, and the regulations that enable the agencies to implement
their construction programs. The laws and regulations pertaining to
both types of procurement are detailed in turn below.
Direct Procurement
The authority for direct construction procurement (other than the
U.S. Postal Service*) is contained in two laws: The Federal Property
and Administrative Services Act (FPASA), 410 U.S.C. 251; and the Armed
Services Procurement Act {ASPA), 10 U.S.C. 2301. The basic requirement
of the FPASA and ASPA, as related to construction (or to any Federal
procurement for that matter) is that procurement must be competitive -
i.e., except under certain conditions1, goods and services must be
*Governed by the Postal Reorganization Act of 1971, 39 U.S.C. 410-A.
-16-
-------
Figure 4
INDIRECT FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT PROCESS
Design
Construction
Agency
Grant/Loan
Recipient
Architect - Engineer
-»
Prime Contractor
Sub-Contractor Level 1
Sub-Contractor Level 2
ft
• o
1 8
PI w
M ft
to y
en o
.e rt
H-
A
-------
procured at the lowest competitively bid cost. ASPA governs procure-
ments of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA): FPASA governs all other agencies,
including the Amy Corps of Engineers Civil Works construction activi-
ties.
Another category of laws that applies to most programs is the
annual authorization and appropriations activities of Congress.
Whereas the ASPA and FPASA provide the basic authority to procure
construction, the annual appropriations acts provide the funding
needed to accomplish the work.
Finally, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires
that the Government prepare an environmental impact statement for
"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment." Since most new direct construction projects are
major federal actions that could significantly affect the environment,
an environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for each such
project.
The implementing regulations associated with FPASA and ASPA are
the Federal Procurement Regulations (FPR), 41 CFR, and the Armed
Services Procurement Regulations (ASPR), 32 CFR. Maintenance responsi-
bility for these regulations is vested in the GSA and DOD, respectively.
All agencies governed by FPASA and ASPA are governed by FPR and
ASPR, except the Tennessee Valley Authority, which has established its
own regulations, and NASA and the Coast Guard, which are governed by
both FPR and ASPR in their procurements. These regulations provide
detailed instructions and guidance to agencies for all kinds of pro-
curements, including construction. In accordance with the competitive
procurement requirement contained in both laws, the regulations pro-
hibit (except in unusual circumstances) the use of proprietary products.
Proprietary specifications favor one manufacturer/supplier over another,
and could result in a noncompetitive procurement.
Exceptions to the standard FPR and ASPR procurement requirements
exist in the form of "mandatory" items (called "preference" items in
ASPR). These result when legislative or Congressional action is taken
explicitly to favor one product/service type or producer over another.
Such action is taken only when it is deemed to be in the national in-
terest. Examples of mandatory/preference items include:
• Buy American. Regulations require that American-made goods
be used in domestic construction projects, where possible.
• Small Business Set-Asides. Regulations require that con-
tracts below a certain funding level be awarded only to
-18-
-------
small businesses, which are defined as firms with annual
sales less than a stated amount.
• Jewelled bearings. Where jewelled bearings are required
as part of a procurement, they must be obtained from one
particular producing facility.
• Aluminum stockpile. For a period of time, certain con-
tracts involving the purchase of aluminum required that
the aluminum be purchased from the Government stockpile.
In addition to the FPR and ASPR, more detailed implementing regu-
lations are developed by each agency to govern specific types of
procurements. For instance, in the Department of the Navy, there are
two additional levels of regulations below the ASPR, which are more
specifically related to the Navy's procurement of construction. These
are Navy Procurement Directives (NPD), which govern all Department of
the Navy procurements, and the Navy Contracts Manual (P-68), which is
maintained by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command and covers all
construction procurement procedures in detail.
Indirect Procurement
The legal and regulatory framework for indirect construction pro-
curement is more complex than that for direct procurement. In the
indirect procurement situation, there are different laws and regulations
for each subsidy program because each is specifically authorized by
Congress to meet some perceived national need, and each is directed at
a specific type of recipient and type of facility. For example, the
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act authorizes the Department
of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service to provide funds in support
of the Watershed Protection and Flood Control Program; and the Small
Reclamation Projects Act allows the Department of the Interior's
Bureau of Reclamation to provide funds for small irrigation loans. A
complete list of the laws and regulations affecting each program is
contained in Appendix A.
The regulations established to help each agency administer the
law are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations. These regula-
tions require competitive procurement, as do FPR and ASPR. Moreover,
they focus on meeting program objectives (e.g., sewage treatment plant
construction) rather than on conforming to strict detail with regard
to purchase of goods and services. They usually allow the grant/loan
recipient considerable purchasing freedom.
Lastly, like direct procurement, indirect procurement projects
are required to submit an environmental impact statement.
-19-
-------
SPECIFICATIONS FOR FEDERAL COHSTRUCTIOS PROJECTS
Specifications are used by the Federal Government to ensure con-
struction spending results in cost-effective facilities that can be
used for the purpose intended. These are the documents by which the
government controls construction projects and the construction mate-
rials used therein. The various types of specifications that control
direct and indirect procurement-type projects are discussed below.
Direct Procurement
There »re three basic types of specifications used by government
agencies in direct procurement situations:
• Contract specifications; A contract specification describes
the facility to be built; the materials to be used; and, in
some cases, how the facility is to be constructed. Each
project has: (1) a set of plans that graphically show a
detailed configuration of the proposed facility* and (2) a
set of written specifications. The written specifications
include general provisions, such as the Buy America re-
quirements, and a technical section that describes each
phase of the work in detail. The plans and the technical
section of the specification are developed during the
design phase - either in-house or by an outside A-E. The
standard format for the technical section consists of 16
divisions, which are listed in Table 3.
The construction materials used by the contractor on the job
are controlled by this technical section. Materials are
specified in two ways: by providing a detailed description
of the material in regard to performance/technical require-
ments; or by referencing an existing material specification.
The latter is described in detail in the section on material/
product specifications. (It is of interest here to note
that the general provision section. Standard Form 23-A,
contains the following requirement under Section 9, Mate-
rials and Workmanship: "Unless otherwise specifically pro-
vided in the contract, all equipment, material, and
articles incorporated in the work covered by this contract
are to be new and of the most suitable grade for the pur-
pose intended.")
• Guide specifications; Guide specifications play a key role
in the procurement process because they provide guidance
and direction to the A-E regarding the design of the
facility. Since the A-E develops the detailed plans and
specifications used by the contractor to construct the
-20-
-------
facility, the guide specification is a fundamental mechanism
for the agency to control th« end product. Appendix A lists
the guide specifications used in each Federal construction
program.
Guide specifications vary widely among agencies as to the
level of detail in their requirements. However, most
agencies with significant construction programs and with
a major portion of design accomplished by outside A-Es
maintain a sizable standard list of detailed guide speci-
fications. An exception is the U.S. Postal Service, which
uses outside A-Es on 100 percent of its design projects,
yet has no guide specification for A-E control. The USPS
maintains design criteria for the construction of postal
facilities, which are general project requirements and not
addressed to the details of design.
A number of agencies uses guide specifications that are
grouped in sections corresponding to the 16 divisions of
a standard construction contract. (See Table 3.) There is
at least one guide specification in each of the 16 standard
contract divisions, which the A-E uses as he prepares the
plans and specifications. The "Naval Facilities Engineering
Command Guide Specifications for Use in Regular Military
Construction Projects" is provided in Appendix B as an
example of federal guide specifications.
Guide specifications vary in their degree of specificity
for construction materials. At one extreme, the guide
specification may describe in detail the technical/performance
requirements of the product. On the other hand, the guide
specification may simply refer to one of many existing
material specifications (either government-controlled or
industry-wide); or, at the other extreme, the guide speci-
fication may leave the choice of materials entirely to the
A-E. In the former two instances, the A-E would be required
to include in the construction contract specification for
a particular material either the technical requirements
contained in the guide specification or a reference to the
existing material specification listed in the guide speci-
fication.
An effort is currently under way, led by the Building Re-
search Advisory Board and its Federal Construction Council,
to standardize the guide specifications of federal construc-
tion agencies. They have established a Committee on Federal
Construction Guide Specifications composed of representa-
tives of the more than eight direct construction programs.
-21-
-------
Table 3
Standard Construction specification
(Itchnical Section) Fors*t
Till*
General Requireswnts
Site Work
Concrete
Masonry
Metals
Wood and Plastic*
Thermal and Moisture Protection
Doors and Window*
Finishes
Specialties
Equipment
Furnishings
Special Construction
Conveying Systems
Mechanical
Electrical
-22-
-------
These programs have guide specifications grouped according
to the 16 technical divisions (Table 3), similar to the
Naval Facilities Engineering Command specifications
listed in Appendix B. Others include the Department of
the Army; GSA; Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare; NASA; and the Veterans Administration. Each of these
programs has different guide specifications within each of
the major technical divisions. The objective of the Com-
mittee is to standardize 144 of 165 guide specifications
for all agencies; 40 have been completed to date.
Material/product specifications; Material/product speci-
fications are detailed, accurate descriptions of the
technical requirements of particular items. The construc-
tion material specifications cowroonly used in Federal con-
struction contracts are of two broad types - governmental
and industrial.
The primary governmental specifications include federal
specifications and military specifications, under the
cognizance of the GSA and the DoD, respectively. There
are about 5,000 of the former and 40,000 of the latter,
covering a wide range of materials, many of which are not
used in construction. Industry plays a significant role
in the development of new governmental specifications.
Every new specification is reviewed by a cross section of
industry representatives, and revisions are made until the
specification is satisfactory to the industry group.
Although the governmental specifications are widely used,
there is a developing trend toward the use of industry
specifications for construction materials by certain
agencies, such as the DoD and the U.S. Postal Service.
Industry specifications are issued by a number of industrial
groups, some covering a broad range of materials, others
being very specialized in nature. The major specifications
in the industrial category are those of the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) and the American National
Standards Institute (ANSI).
Most agencies engaged in construction procurement use
established procedures to ensure compliance with the
6Arthur D. Little, Inc., Can Federal Procurement Practices Be Used to
Reduce Solid Wastes, October 1973.
-23-
-------
material specifications. This compliance is checked in
two ways. First, the contractor is required to submit a
written statement, certifying the materials to be used on
the project conform to the specifications. Secondly,
federal inspectors check the materials at the construction
site to ensure the contractor's certified materials comply
with contract requirements.
Indirect Procurement
Government agencies that administer grant and loan programs
typically attempt to exert little or no influence over the construc-
tion materials used in the facilities for which they provide funds.
Instead of detailed specifications, the agencies are likely to use
"design guidelines," which provide general technical guidance and
list general mandatory, project-performance requirements. (Appendix
A lists each indirect construction program and the guidelines or
guide specifications, if any, used. Also included is an assessment
of the degree of control over construction materials that is embodied
in the guidelines.)
An example is the EPA's "Federal Guidelines for Design, Operation,
and Maintenance of Wastewater Treatment Facilities." Therein are
listed requirements for the local government's preparation of project
plans and specifications to be reviewed upon completion by the EPA's
regional offices. The guidelines are oriented toward facility per-
formance rather than toward the specific materials used in construction.
Although, as stated before, control is virtually nonexistent in
most cases, there is at least one program that is quite specific in
its requirements for construction materials used in subsidized projects.
The Department of Agriculture's Rural Electrification Administration
{REA) Bulletins 43-5 and 344-2 list acceptable construction materials
for the REA's electric and telephone projects, respectively. Moreover,
it is interesting to note that REA prohibits the use of recycled
plastics in certain construction products used in supported facilities -
specifically, REA Specification No. P-E-200 for polyethylene insulation
for telephone cable requires that only virgin plastic resin be used in
this material.
-24-
-------
C. FEDERAL PROCUREMENT ANALYSIS
Beceuse of the complexity of the Federal construction procurement
processes, we have expanded on the base information by providing here
relevant information on construction budgets of individual agencies,
the types of facilities purchased, and the kinds and quantities of
important construction materials used in such projects.
AGENCY CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS
The FY 1973 construction funding of 18 Federal departments and
agencies, including the District of Columbia and the Architect of the
Gapitol, amounted to $22.4 million, as shown in Table 4, with indirect
(grant/loan) programs accounting for $17.4 million, or 78 percent, of
the total. Agency funding ranged from $12 million by the Department
of Justice to $8.3 billion by the Department of Transportation. Five
of the 18 organizations are involved with both direct and indirect
programs, while the remaining 13 focus exclusively on one type of
program or the other - i.e., either direct or indirect.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Construction program
is the largest of the direct programs, funded at over $1.2 billion.
(See Table 5.) Funded projects include dams, locks, floodwalls,
power plants, and reservoirs. The Department of Defense is a close
second, at $1.1 billion, which supports a variety of military con-
struction projects ranging from barracks to research laboratories.
The Army's military construction program is administered by the Corps
of Engineers Military Construction Directorate, while the Corps' civil
works activities are managed by the Civil Works Directorate.
By far the most significant indirect federal construction program,
in terms of funding, is the Department of Transportation's Federal-
Aid Highway Program, administered by the Federal Highway Administration.
(See Table 6.) Funded at over $5.7 billion, this program represents
over 25 percent of the cost of all new construction supported wholly
or in part by the Federal Government. Funds are given to states under
*Appendix A provides substantial additional information on the indi-
vidual construction programs carried out by the organizations listed
in Table 4. This information includes a description of the program,
the funding level for FY 1973, important materials specifications
used, the agency contact, and the estimated consumption of selected
construction materials. In addition, for direct programs, it pro-
vides the percentage of design work contracted to outside A-Es; for
indirect programs, it lists the laws authorizing the programs.
-25-
-------
Tabla 4
t»d«ral Canatrnctlon Funding - ft 19?3*
(* Million)
D^rtaant/*^
Architect of tha Capital
Dapartaant of Agriculture
U.S. Amy Corp* of
Enginaan - Civil Marks
Dapartaant of Ooaauea
Dapartaant of BaaltA,
Education, and Milan
Dapartaant of Bousing and
Urban Davalopasnt
Departaant of Intario*
Dapartasnt of Justioa
Dapartaant of Tranaporta-
District of Oolusfcla
Environaantal Protactlon
Aoancy
Ganaral Sarvicaa AA*tala>
tration
national Jbaroaautiea mt
vatacmaa MbvUlatntio*
Postal flarvica
Tannaaaaa valiay Author ity
Mtoaic Enorqv rnaaiiainn
Dapartaant of Dafanaa
Total
BiMMt OMttnctlon
33
201
1,221
-
45
.
609
1
311
-
_
279
58
63
2SO
S22
2J7
1,1 J9
4,989
Inditact Qonatruetlon
FaOaral
than
w
.
1,614
—
230
821
1,167
1M
•
5,741
94
1,600
-
-
- •
- '
-
.
-
11,433
total
(3)
.
a.i«
.
376
2, MS
1.513
293
11
7,9*6
94
3,133
-
-
-
-
-
-
17,473
Total Oan»tructio«
Paoaral1
Shara
33
1,115
1,221
220
866
1,167
777
9
6,052
94
1.400
279
58
83
250
522
237
1,139
16,422
Total1
33
2,383
1,221
376
2,900
1,533
902
12
8,307
94
2,133
279
58
83
2SO
522
237
1,139
12,4€2
Fmtoral Shar* - (1) + (2)
Total
(1) » (3)
Sourc«i U.S. Offisa of Man
Ft 1WJ.
KM
it am] »«a
-------
Table 5
Summary of Major Direct Programs - FY 1973*
Department/Age ncy
U.S. Army Corps of Engineer*
Department of Defense
Army
Navy
Air Force
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bonnaville Power Administration
National Park Service
Tennessee Valley Authority
General Services Administration
Postal Service
Totai Major Programs
Funding (S MM)
1,221
556
306
277
380
91
85
53
522
279
250
Program Description
Civil works facilities - flood
control, navigation, power
plants
Military construction for
all 3 department - housing,
offices, hospitals, schools
Irrigation projects, dams
Schools, roads
Power generation facilities
Recreation facilities
rower generation and transmission
Federal office buildings
Postal facilities—offices, ware-
houses
4,020 = 81* of all direct funding
1 Sourcei U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Special Analyses of
the U.S. Government, FY 1973
-27-
-------
Table 6
Summary of Major Indirect Programs - FY 1973*
Department/Agency
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Urban Mass Transportation
Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare
Office of Education
Hill-Burton
Health Professions
National Institutes of Health
Nursing Profession
Department of Agriculture
Rural Electrification Administration
Farmers Hone Administration
Soil Conservation Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Public Housing
Water/Sewer
Neighborhood Facilities
Public Facilities
College Housing
Total Major Programs
Funding ($ MM)1
5,782
1,688
526
1,428
1,191
149
44
43
1,270
7S4
1S8
2,133
900
439
80
64
50
Program Description
Interstate/state highway grants
Mass transportation facilities
grants i trackage, maintenance shops
Airport facilities grants
Grants and loan subsidies for
educational facilities
Grants and loans for hospitals
Grants for training facilities
Grants for cancer research facilities
Grants for training facilities
Rural electric and telephone
facilities loans
Rural waste disposal facilities
grants and loans
Flood prevention facilities
grants and loans
Municipal waste water collection/
treatment facilities grants
Low-rent public housing facilities
loans
Grants for water supply, sewage
disposal facilities
Grants for neighborhood facilities
Loans for public facilities
Loans for college housing
16,699 = 96% of all indirect funding
1Funding - Total Federal and Non-Federal Share
•Source: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Special Analyses of the U.S. Government,
FY 1973.
RPA estimates.
-28-
-------
formula grants to support the construction of interstate and primary
highways and associated facilities, such as bridges and culverts.
With the exception of the EPA, the major agencies with indirect
programs have at least three distinct programs to manage. The Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, which ranks second to the
Department of Transportation with $2.8 billion, has five separate
programs dealing with health or education facilities. The smallest,
Nursing Professions, is only $43 million, whereas the Office of
Education administers a $1.4 billion program of financial assistance
to educational institutions.
FACILITIES FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
An analysis of the programs described earlier and in Appendix A
shows that, although there are about 40 separate direct and indirect
programs, there are only 14 types of facilities included in federally
supported projects.* (See Tables 7 and 8.) For convenience the
facilities have been divided into two groups - buildings and non-
buildings. Of the indirect funding projects, the most heavily funded
building types are hospitals, technical facilities, and schools, while
the primary nonbuilding facilities are highways and sewage treatment
plants. (See Table 8.) For directly funded projects, the most heavily
funded types are military construction projects, which cover seven
different facility types, the most prominent of which is housing.
(See Table 7.)
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS
Classification of federal construction funding by facility type
provides the basis for understanding the kinds and quantities of con-
struction materials purchased by the Government. Table 9 is an esti-
mate of construction material consumption in FY 1973 for each of the
facility types described above.
The 23 materials listed in Table 9, while not exhaustive in scope,
represent a significant fraction of all building materials commonly
used in construction today. Some materials are described in terms of
square footage rather than tonnage (e.g., wall and floor coverings).
The diversity of wall and floor covering materials, including insula-
tion, makes it impossible to provide a meaningful estimate of material
weight. Thus, square footage is the only logical measure.
*Projects such as dredging, which use negligible quantities of con-
struction materials, are excluded.
-29-
-------
cilitv ftg>« - n 1973*
(* HtUian)
Architect
Capitol
!,
I
I
g
i i
1
(!••
li
I
•uildin? type Facilities
MfciniJtrative
Hospitals Research,
Other technical
Sctooia
33
250
45
SI
Housing
•Ott-iftilding Type Facilities
subways. Railroad
ItUJbttys, Runways
D*»s • •
W7
4
12
10
20
98
«3
16J
Mdbdwalls
170
134
171
NO
a»wl»a Treatment
(inclttdinq collection)
Electrical, Telephone.
28
S«*«r Distribtttld*!
270
141
40
217
101
137
175
363
S13
97
98
675
800
187
167
373
20
163
446
134
171
413
28
103
143
total
33
195
675
Ml
266
279
58
83
iM
S22
237
1,13*
4.J37
Itotei Excluded ffo» tot»l« are projects requiring naqligittle congtruction Mterlals, e.g.,
-------
Table 8
Indirect Project Funding by Facility Type - FY 1973*
(S Million)
^v\^ Department/Urgency
^^^
^x.
acility Type ^N.
Biildinq Type Facilities
Administrative
Hospitals Research,
Other Technical
Schools
Industrial
Housing
K>n Building Type Facilities
Subways, Railroads
Highways , Runways
Dans
Locks
Floodwalls
Power Plants
Sewage Treatment
(including collection)
Electrical, Telephone
Distribution
Water, Sewer Distribution
Total
Department oi
Agriculture
754
1,270
2,024
Department ol
Commerce
113
263
376
*
S.
tt
i
..-5
Department ol
Educat ion , »r
Welfare
1.235
1 ,620
2,855
I
It
». S
°s
\l
V H
b 3
h4J
1
80
950
. 503
1,533
Departnent ol
the Interior
18
25
43
-------
Table
Construction Material Consumption by Facility Type - FY 1973*
\
Nv Facility
\ Typs
N.
\
\
Construction ^v
Material \
Portland ceejsnt
Concrete
(000 tons)
Bitusdnous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass
(000 tons)
Waterproofing
(MNBF-»illion
square feet)
Insulation (MM5F)
Roofing (MNSF)
wall cowering
(NNBT)
Floor Covering
(MNSF)
Wire (OOO tons)
/^kM%_
Copper
Aluninusi
Insulation-
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbastos-Ceaent
Plastic
Steel
Building Typs Facilities
f
|
j
2,200
460
230
90
34
16
M
• 16
87
j.
6
0.
0.
«
1
il
• H
3*
11
3,400
760
400
120
80
40
20
20
2
13
5
30
1.
1.
Softools
4,300
910
460
MO
170
3»
6
6
6
IS
7
2
1.1
0.9
H
Industri
4,200
40O
230
70
16
54
40
54
62
3
0.2
0.1
Housing
2,300
320
440
70
60
40
29
29
17
164
60
0.7
10
0.5
0.4
Non-Building Type Facilities
|
:
i
1
30
50
20
M
§
.
Highways
21,000
39,000
340
330
220
3
1,100
5
I
,800
130
30
1
,100
70
20
M
1
800
in
u
_d
J Power P:
4,000
200
^
*• 8
C -H
V *>
Si;
« r-t
V •-*
fig
j Sewage '
(incl. <
1,300
70
20
•
2,500
1,100
145
15
e
9) &
rf U
*l
* M
M •> c
w o
ui a
1 Mater,
Distrib
3
57,530
39,000
2,870
1,5^0
1,320
1,090
220
168
181
167
169
624
220
17.6
39
i
i
220
120
14
321
3,600
1,270
3.6
145
32
60
•Source: WA estimates,
-32-
-------
Table 9 was developed primarily by using standard construction
estimating techniques in conjunction with the facility cost information
in Tables " and 8. Unfortunately, roost federal agencies, with the
exception of the Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works), the Department
of Transportation (highway program), and the Department of Agriculture
(rural electification), do not maintain aggregate construction mate-
rial consumption information. Thus, estimates were made on the basis
of the best information available.
The information in Table 9 leads directly to estimates of con-
struction material consumption by agency and program. Agency con-
sumption information is provided in Tables 10 and 11 (direct and
indirect programs, respectively), and estimates for individual programs
are provided in Appendix A.
As indicated by the agency-funding breakdowns of Tables 4, 5, and
6, the major share of most materials is consumed by only a few agen-
cies. Table 12 indicates that for direct programs, the Department of
Defense (including both military construction and Corps of Engineers
Civil Works) was the largest consumer for 17 of the 23 items listed.
The share for individual materials ranged from 34 percent to 90 percent
of the material consumed in direct programs.
Table 13 lists the four agencies that were the largest purchasers
of 21 of the 23 materials in the indirect program area: Department of
Transportation - structural materials (i.e., concrete and steel);
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare - building materials (i.e.,
insulation, masonry, roofing)j Department of Agriculture - electrical
products (i.e., wire and insulation); and Environmental Protection
Agency - sewer pipe.
-33-
-------
-_inr 1973.*
\ M
\v
N.
Co*i»truction NL
Portland CMtnt
Coaczttt* (000 MMF>
Bltimlmxn Oono**t*
«KW ton*)
Mntonry (000 tenat
Concrota Block
Brick
Steal i'O90 tonal
StZttCtur«*
talatoxcial
nUinllMiKiui
f ut CUM (ooe t«w)
MLM&|U Wjfiivg !*•§*•
ZSu^mn
*wtt*9
««• (000 «MW)
CBfVwr
Uanbn*
ltMKl«tio« >U«tic
Pip* «X>O toM)
c>ct mm
&**»*««
CU»
Oopp«f
Ji«lj««fi'» Ci»»f
Fl4«tiC
StMl
O
ii
«•
»
»
4
1.4
.
O.*
«.«
1
1.4
a.ow
B.34
>.M7
0.01J
«$
6
h
«43
1,170
11
10
c
1
M
»
t
a
|
•1
* <^
1;
H»»373
121
M
4J
?!
j*
i
«•
«
«
a
a
1
0.4
0.4
0.4
J
1
0.01
0.*
0.03
0.93
O
!°!
1
1,4*7
27
14
W
71
1-1
2
a
s
a
o.oia
9.7
S
0.03
0-4J
*i
Ii
iW
•4
42
18
10
5
3,1
3, a
is
«.4
O.JM
0.4
0.1
4.W
1
0.1U
0.2Z*
!••
11
11
OK
149
71
&
**'•
4,9
4.9
a*
U.3
O.U4
l.ttfi
0.0*1
0.093
1
4
i
ll
|
|
!
103
13
12
• 4
t
0.4
>.»
4
t
9.03
9.9
o.os
O.O4
i
1
\
u*
30
16
S
3
2
0.*
0.8
5
a
0.03
1.3
o.t#
o.os
J
1
i
«*
14
64
as
9,5
1
* fc
fl
1,000
100
•
4.S
4.5
24
to
0.102
1,68
0.004
0.08*
ll
If
408
91
48
14
10
5
34
• ^
2.4
2.4
16
*
0.0S
J.*
0.18
0,t6
^
|
ll
h
J.436
»3
J15
9»
.«
34.1
24 1
J5.T
J5. 2
sa
3»
t.«4
2,«
0.9
30.45
12
0.424
1.7*4
1
i
4.44S
1^70
«5
4«
360
404
6
61. J
.^
45
44.4
IM
71
2.10
J.2
X.O
S4..1*
»
»
l.U!
1
3.093
2
-**-
-------
Table 11
Construction Material Con»\«ption fry Agency - Indirect Programs - FY 1973*
V Agency
N.
N^
Construction \^
Material >v
Portland Cement Con-
crete (000 tons)
Bituminous Concrete
(000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000 tons)
Naten roof ing (MUST «
million sq. ft. )
Insulation (MUST)
Hoofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (NMSF)
Floor Covering (MM6F)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-cement
Plastic
steel
§
Agricultv
338
18
5
13.6
35.8
650
286
38
4
tW
O
a
h
11
286
62
30
12
4.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
11
4.7
0.052
62.78
34
0.0)9
3.939
1
° § «
aS «
5,858
1,266
648
286
198
56.5
66.2
66.2
66.2
237
95
O.792
J7.b
1 .88
1.55
^
0 I
u
v 8" fi u
a S
3,9
-------
Table 12
Selected Department of Defense Construction Materials - FY 1973
Corps of Engineers - Civil Works
. Portland Cement Concrete - 10,372,000 tons, 42% of total
direct consumption
. Structural Steel - 121,000 tons, 34%
Military Departments - Military Construction
. Concrete block masonry - 363,000 tons, 39%
. Brick Masonry - 215,000 tons, 43%
. Flat Glass - 24,700 tons, 4O%
. Waterproofing - 28,500,000 square feet, 59%
. Insulation - 25,700,000 square feet, 57%
. Roofing - 25,200,000 square feet, 57%
. Wall Covering - 92,000,000 square feet, 47%
. Floor Covering - 29,000,000 square feet, 41%
. Copper Wire - 1,614 tons, 70%
. Aluminum Wire - 2,800 tons, 88%
. Plastic Insulation - 900 tons, 90%
. Cast iron Pipe - 30,450 tons, 54%
. Clay Pipe - 12,000 tons, 40%
. Copper Pipe - 424 tons, 38%
. Plastic Pipe - 1,764 tons, 57%
-36-
-------
Table 13
Selecte3 Indirect Program Construction Materials - FY 1973
Department of Transportation
. Portland Cement Concrete - 23,644 tons, 71% of total
indirect consumption
. Bituminous Concrete - 37,830,000 tons, 100%
. Structural Steel - 548,000 tons, 57%
. Reinforcing Steel - 392,000 tons, 57%
. Miscellaneous Steel - 214,000 tons, 97%
. Steel Pipe - 58,000 tons, 100%
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
. Concrete Block Masonry - 1,266,000 tons, 65%
. Brick Masonry - 648,000 tons, 63%
. Flat Glass - 56,500 tons, 53%
. Waterproofing - 66,200,000 square feet, 50%
. Insulation - 66,200,000 square feet, 54%
. Roofing - 66,200,000 square feet, 53%
. Wall Covering - 237,000,000 square feet, 55%
. Floor Covering - 95,000,000 square feet, 64%
Department of Agriculture
. Copper Wire - 13,600 tons, 89%
. Aluminum Wire - 35,800 tons, 100%
. Plastic Insulation - 11,000 tons, 100%
Environmental Protection Agency
. Concrete Pipe - 1,825,000 tons, 52%
. Clay Pipe - 803,000 tons, 65%
. Asbestos-Cement Pipe - 106,000 tons, 74%
. Plastic Pipe - 11,000 tons, 38%
-37-
-------
D. FEDERAL ACTIVITIES RELATED TO PROCUREMENT
OF SECOtCARY MATERIALS
Several Federal agencies have developed programs to procure
products containing recycled materials, or to conduct research and
demonstration programs related to the use of recycled materials in
certain product types. This section briefly discusses these programs.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
In 1972 the Federal Supply Service (PSS) of GSA, at the direction
of the President, reviewed all Federal specifications to determine
which ones, if any, could be modified to require the use of recycled
materials. FSS selected 86 specifications and established requirements
for minimum percentages of recycled material for each. For 43 of these
products, there exists a further requirement for a minimum percentage
of post-consumer waste use.
Of the 86 specifications, six are for building materials:
o Specifications HH-I-515-B, LLL-I-535A - Thermal Insulation
o HH-1-1030 - Thermal Insulation (Mineral Fiber)
o HH-R-595 B, SS-R-201 0, SS-R-630 D - Roofing Felts.
While conducting their specification review, GSA also identified a
number of specifications that discriminated against recycled materials.
Several of these were modified, not to require, but to allow the use of
secondary materials. The following two building material specifica-
tions are in this category:
o Specification L-P-315C - Plastic Pipe
o Specification HHH-I-521 - Mineral Fiber Insulation.
The Federal Supply Service purchases products on a competitive-
bid basis, in accordance with the requirements of the FPASA. Individual
-38-
-------
procurements often cover only one product type. The procurements are
usually large enough to enable the government to deal directly with
the producing mill rather than with distributors.
Several significant observations about the GSA procurement
program were drawn from discussions with Federal Supply Service
officials:
• Flexible specifications are important. If the recycle
requirement of a particular procurement discourages
producer mills from bidding, the Federal Supply Service
is prepared to lower the percentage to a point acceptable
to the mills.
• Some traditional government suppliers halted their federal
transactions because of the recycle requirement either
because of administrative complexity or because their
operations were not geared to using recycled materials.
• During periods of high paperstock prices, GSA had to pay
higher prices for paper with the mandatory recycle con-
tent than they would have otherwise. This created a con-
flict with the FPASA competitive bid requirement, and GSA
waived the recycle requirement in certain cases.
In addition to the aforementioned procurement program of the
Federal Supply Service, the Public Buildings Service of GSA is spon-
soring an Environmental Demonstration Project in conjunction with a
new federal office building in Saginaw, Michigan. Besides demonstrating
energy-efficient building design concepts (e.g., the use of solar energy
collectors), this project is utilizing three applications of waste mate-
rial use in building products: (1) wall panels made from demolition
rubble; (2) paving materials containing wastes; and (3) walkways con-
taining waste brick.
OTHER R & D, DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Other Federal activities related to waste use in construction are:
• The Department of Transportation, which has experimented
with using waste glass and rubber in pavement applications
• The Atomic Energy Commission, which has demonstrated, in a
project at Brookhaven National Laboratory, polymer/concrete
sewer pipe containing waste glass
-39-
-------
• The Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards,
which is conducting research in a number of product areas,
and is maintaining liaison with international standards
organizations to ensure up-to-date information transfer
in this area.
* * *
In summary, then, our analysis of the feasibility of required
secondary material use in Federal construction shows that:
• The construction contracting industry is extremely
fragmented - 800,000 firms, most of which are small
businesses.
• The construction materials industry cuts across industry
lines, involving many types of product manufacturers and
over 66,000 distributors.
• The Federal Government purchases or supports a major
share of national construction output - 18 percent, or
$22.5 billion.
• Construction materials are not purchased directly by
the government, but rather by the contractors and sub-
contractors, who install the materials.
• Direct procurement accounts for only 22 percent of
federally supported construction; indirect procurement
(grants and loans to state and local governments) repre-
sents the remaining 78 percent,
• Most indirect programs currently have no requirements
related to construction materials since local authorities
have design and specification authority.
• By law, construction procurement must be competitive.
• Federal construction is administered by 18 separate
agencies and departments, which means there is no cen-
tralized procurement control.
• The majority of construction funding and materials
purchases is concentrated in a small group of agencies:
-40-
-------
- Direct; Department of Defense, including Army Corps
of Engineers, Civil Works Directorate
- Indirect; Department of Transportation; Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare; Department of
Agriculture; and Environmental Protection Agency.
On the basis of the fact-finding summarized above, three general
conclusions* can be drawn:
1. Guide specifications and/or material specifications for
direct programs can be modified to include a recycle
content requirement, similar to GSA's program.
2. For indirect programs, although the laws do not appear
to preclude the imposition of construction material
requirements on grant/loan recipients, the present
general reluctance to impose material requirements is
a significant institutional barrier to required recycled
material use.
3. The government's indirect control over material suppliers,
through contruction contractors and sub-contractors, would
result in less leverage and greater administrative com-
plexity than experienced by GSA in its recycled paper
program.
*Specific conclusions are included in the waste material/construction
product discussions in Chapter III.
-41-
-------
III.. OPPORTUNITIES TO USE WASTES IN COKSTRPCTION MATERIALS
Given the government's apparent willingness to use recycled mate-
rials in its construction projects , it is imperative to consider what post-
consumer wastes lend themselves to recovery for usage in construction.
materials. We have considered four municipal waste categories: fer-
rous* glass, plastics, and paper. Each of these four sections is
structured as follows:
1 . Identification of construction products that are or could be
made frjom these materials, including an assessment of current
scrap usage in existing products
2 . Analysis of the supply of waste that might be available
use in ,the products, including the econcad.cs and technology
of resource recovery
3. Assessment of the opportunities for additional waste utiliza-
tion in selected products , including laoth the technical limits
to recycling, and the associated industry impacts and institu-
tional constraints
4 . analysis of the potential impacts on the waste stream of
Federal procurement of selected products
A. IRON AHD STEEL
USES OT IRON AHD STEEL IN CONSTRUCTION
After the automobile industry, construction is the largest user of
iron and steel products, utilizing 22 percent of total steel shipments
and 20 percent of total cast iron shipments, {See Table 144 Speci-
fically, of the total 1973 iron and stseel shipments of 126.73 million
tons, 24.40 million tons were used in construction materials.
Of the major iron and steel construction product categories,
structural and afreet steel account for 65 percent of the steel con-
struction products manufactured in 1973, (See Table 15.) Bars, pri-
marily concrete reinforcing steel, account for 14 percent of steel
construction products, and pipe is by far the most significant cast
iron construction product.
-42-
-------
Table 14
Iron and Steel Markets - 1973*
Shipments
(MM Tons)
Steel
Automotive
Construction
Containers, Packaging
Machinery, Industrial
Equipment
Converting, Processing
Electrical Equipment
Rail Transportation
Other
Total Shipments
Cast Iron
Construction/Pipe
Other
Total Shipments
Total Steel and Iron
30.01
24.40
10.07
8.13
6.00
4.32
4.20
24.30
111.43
Percent of
Steel Shipments
27
22
9
4
4
22
100
Percent of Cast
Iron Shipments
20
80
100
*Source: American Iron and Steel Institute,
Annual Statistical Report for 1973.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract, 1973.
-43-
-------
Table 15
Iron and Steel in Building/Construction -_ 1973*
Shipments
(MM Tons) Percent
Steel
Structural shapes, 8 54 35
plates, piling
Sheet 7.37 30
Bars (reinforcing
and other) 3'42 14
Pipe
3.19 13
Other i-88 8
Total 24.40 100
Cast Iron
Pipe 3.0 100
Total Steel and Iron 27.40
Used in Construction
*Source: American Iron and Steel Institute,
Annual Statistical Report for 1973.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract, 1973.
-44-
-------
Various kinds and quantities of scrap can be used in iron and
steel construction products. (See Table 16.) Total scrap content in
the various construction products ranges from 41 percent (in sheet,
steel pipe) to 95 percent (in bars); obsolete scrap content ranges
from 2 percent to 42 percent. For all products, obsolete scrap use
amounted to 3.01 million tons, or 11 percent of total iron and steel
construction materials produced.
This variation in scrap use among products is explained by two
factors:
1. Technical requirements of the product. For example,
concrete reinforcing bars have low technical/performance
specifications and are therefore less dependent on high-
quality scrap or iron ore than, for instance, sheet
steel.
2. The manufacturing process involved. The three major
steel-making processes are: basic-oxygen furnace,
open-hearth furnace, and electric furnace, accounting
for 50 percent, 30 percent, and 20 percent of total U.S.
steel production, respectively.
Basic-oxygen and open-hearth steelmaking furnaces are
used by large, integrated steel companies in conjunction
with blast furnaces, which produce pig iron from iron
ore. The pig iron from the blast furnace is mixed with
a percentage of scrap in the steelmaking furnace to
produce steel. A number of the integrated producers
also use electric furnaces in addition to one or both
of the other types. However, most electric-furnace
production comes from nonintegrated mills, which use the
electric furnace exclusively.
The average scrap input for these three furnace types is
30 percent for basic-oxygen furnaces, 45 percent for
open-hearth furnaces, and 100 percent for electric
furnaces. The first two percentages do not represent
the upper limit of scrap that could be used in the steel-
making process. Rather, they result from a complex com-
bination of technical, economic, and institutional factors
associated with integrated steel manufacture. For in-
stance, the ready availability of pig iron from the blast
furnace tends to limit scrap consumption, particularly
during times of high scrap prices.
Most cast iron is produced in cupola furnaces. The
foundry cupola, like the electric furnace, typically
operates with a scrap charge approaching 100 percent,
-45-
-------
Table 16
Scrap Use in Iron and Steel Construction Products - 1973*
.
^s**.
Structural shapes,
plates, piling
Bars (reinforcing
and other)
**P«
Other
fotal
Cast Iron
Total Steel fi Iron
Used in Construction
Shipments
(Mf Terns)
7.37
8.54
3.42
3.19
1.88
24.40
3.0
27.40
Hone & Prompt
Percent
3f
41
53
39
39
42
58
43
Ml Tons
2.»*
3.50
1.81
1.24
0.73
10.15
1.74
11.89
Obsolete Scrap
Percent
2
6
42
2
2
9
27
11
MM IDAS
0.16
0.51
1.44
0.06
0.04
2.20
0.81
3.01
total Scrap Content
Percent
i ' '
41
47
95
41
41
51
85
54
MM tons
3.02
4.01
3.25
1.30
0.77
12.35
2.55
14.90
*Source: Resource Planning Associates estimates.
American Iron and Steel Institute, Statistics Department.
Ccswunication with Industry Representatives.
Jensen, Harold B-. Analysis of Ferrous Scrap Supply-Demand Balance. U.S.A., 1973.
-------
thus explaining the high 85-percent scrap consumption
for cast iron pipe. (See Table 16.)
With the exception of bars, the steel products listed in
Table 16. are manufactured predominantly by the inte-
grated producers, in either the basic-oxygen or open-
hearth furnace. Bars, on the other hand, are made
primarily in electric furnaces. (See Table 17.) This
explains the variations in total scrap consumption
percentages for the products listed in Table 16. It
also helps to explain the variation in obsolete scrap
consumption for the products. The integrated producer
has little need to use obsolete scrap since, with a
total scrap charge of 30-45 percent and a typical home
scrap generation rate of 30 percent, the balance of
scrap requirements - if any - can be made up from prompt
industrial sources. Therefore, most of the obsolete
scrap flows to the foundries and nonintegrated electric
mills.
SUPPLY OF OBSOLETE FERROUS SCRAP
Before one can consider the possibility of using greater amounts
of obsolete scrap in iron and steel construction products, it is first
necessary to consider the types and quantities of obsolete scrap that
might be available.
There are eight types of scrap potentially available from muni-
cipal and nonmunicipal sources. (See Table 18.) Of the total 43
million tons of scrap from these eight sources, 11.03 million tons
(26 percent) are municipal scrap, and 31.97 million tons (74 percent)
are nonmunicipal scrap.
Most nonmunicipal scrap is currently being recycled back to the
steel mills through established networks of salvage firms, auto
wreckers, demolition contractors, and scrap dealers. (See Table 19
for typical chemical composition of this type of material.) However,
most municipal ferrous scrap is not being recycled; rather, it is
dumped into landfills, along with the rest of the country's municipal
wastes and garbage.
A portion of this wasted municipal scrap could indeed become
available for recycling. In particular, the beverage containers and
other packaging categories (i.e., ferrous cans) are the most readily
-47-
-------
Table 17
Breakdown of Production Processes for
Steel Construction Products*
structural
Bars
Sheets, pipe,
other
Integrated Mills
EOF/Open Hearth
81%
10
90
Electric
9%
25
10
_____ ^_
Non-Integrated Mills j
Electric j
10% J
65 i
A
•Source: CoHBmmication with Industry Representatives.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-48-
-------
Table 18
Obsolete Iron and Steel Scrap Sources - 1973*
MM Tons
Monmunicipal
Junk Cars
Motor Blocks
Railroad Scrap
Ship Scrap
Other
•total 31.97 (74%)
Municipal
Beverage Containers
Other Packaging
Appliances and Other
Total 11.03 (26%)
Total Nonmunicipal and 43.00
Municipal Yield
*Source: Jensen, Harold B., Analysis of Ferrous Scrap
Supply-Demand Balance, U.S.A., 1973.
Skinner, Dr. John, "Resource Recovery: The
Federal Perspective," Waste Age, January/Feb.,
1974, pg. 14.
-49-
-------
T«bl« 19
Cgapogjtion of No. 2 Bundles and
Burned Slab*
(Percent by might)
Mo. 2 Bandit Burned Slab
CKton
Sulfur
ItemKnes,
•txwffcorouB
Tin
Oow-
•ie^l
Molybdenw
ffilinon
*Souece: ostrowski
0.16
0.048
0.10
0.012
0.038
0.38
0.10
0.08
0.02
0.06
, Ed, «M
Pcrroas S
0.28
0.070
0.12
0.015
'
0.41
0.17
0.01
teiqht Outlook for
cr«> fro* Solid
, 1974.
-SO-
-------
recyclable materials. Approximately 35 percent of beverage containers
are made from tin-free steel, while all nonbeverage containers contain
tin. Thus, approximately 89 percent of all ferrous containers have
some tin content. These cans also contain some lead, since they are
constructed with a lead-solder side seam. Most beverage containers
have aluminum ends; hence, about 33 percent of ferrous containers have
some aluminum content as well. The average percent in an average mix
of clean ferrous cans (as might be recovered with a source-separation
program), by weight, of aluminum is 3.4> of tin, 0.4; and of lead, 1.7.7
Aside from clean, separated cans, municipal ferrous scrap may also
be available from front-end-separated scrap (obtained through a resource-
recovery system) and incinerator residue. This ferrous waste would in-
clude both can and "other" ferrous materials. (Typical compositions of
these materials are shown in Table 20.)
For nonincinerated municipal ferrous waste, an important market
prior to the steel mill is the de-tinner, which removes the tin and
sends the remainder to the mill. This is an important factor since
high tin content of scrap may adversely affect certain steel proper-
ties, such as ductility.
POTENTIAL FOR OBSOLETE SCRAP USE
The use of low-grade scrap in the manufacture of iron and steel
products has various degrees of acceptability. (See Table 21.) Al-
though this acceptance is a qualitative assessment, based on a general
understanding of the product types and their technical performance
requirements, it appears the most advantageous opportunities to use
obsolete scrap are in:
Bars. The major industry specification used by the Govern-
ment and most other construction contracting groups for bars
is the ASTM Specification A615-72, Standard Specification
for Deformed and Plain Billet - Steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement. In the event the specification would re-
quire minimum municipal scrap content, industry would prob-
ably not meet the requirement. Specifically, since only
*The appliances and other category contains items that are often con-
taminated with nonferrous metals, plastics, or other materials, and
are therefore more difficult to recycle.
Ostrowski, E. J., "Recycling of Tin-Free Steel Cans, Tin Cans and
Scrap from Municipal Incinerator Residue," 1971.
-51-
-------
Table 20
Carbon
Sulfur
Manganese
Phosphorous
Tin
Copper
Chroniudt
Nickel
Molybdenum
AluMinum
Lead
Composition of Front-End-Separated
And Incinerator Residue
Ferrous Scrap*
(Percent by Weight)
Incinerator Residue
0.047
0.047
s 0.027
?us 0.034
0.223
0.360
0.028
0.054
urn 0.020
-
0.019
Front-End
Separated
0.30
0.013
0.30
0.024
0.165
0.06
0.089
0.045
0.024
0.089
0.129
•Source: Ostrowski, Bd, The Bright outlook for
Recycling Ferroua Scrap from Solid
Waste, 1974.
-52-
-------
Table 21
Acceptability of Low-Grade Scrap Use
In Iron and Steal Construction Products*
Steel
Bars (reinforcing and Excellent
other)
Structural shapes, plates, Good/Fair
piling
Sheets Marginal/Unsuitable
Pipe Marginal/Unsuitable
Other Marginal/Unsuitable
Cast Iron
Pipe Good
*Source: Midwest Research Institute, An Evaluation of
Means to Stimulate Scrap by the Iron and Steel
Industry, 1971.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-53-
-------
35 percent of all bars are produced in integrated mills, and
since bars typically account for less than 10 percent of an
integrated mill's output, the integrated mills would probably
not produce to the specification requirement. The potential
for contamination of higher grade steels and the integrated
producer's traditional reliance on high-quality scrap are
major constraints. Both factors would probably keep inte-
grated producers from using municipal scrap, until the demand
grew to a significant portion of the market. The noninte-
grated electric mills, while evidencing some concern about
the impurities and other technical problems associated with
municipal scrap, would be expected to produce to the speci-
fication, given access to a sufficient supply of scrap.
Structural shapes, plates, and piling. The major specifica-
tions are ASTM Specifications A36-70a, A529-72, and A440-70a,
Standard Specifications for Structural Steel, Structural
Steel with 42,000 psi Yield Point, and High Strength Struc-
tural Steel, respectively. It is expected that a specifica-
tion requirement for structural steel to contain, say, 12-
percent municipal ferrous scrap would meet with strong
resistance from firms operating the basic-oxygen furnace,
which consumes 30 percent scrap, and generates approximately
30 percent home scrap, thereby creating very little need for
any imported scrap.
The open-hearth producers would be more willing to comply
with the specification. Nevertheless, there would be some
resistance because of concern about possible contamination
of higher grade steels and traditional reliance on higher
quality scrap. Again, the nonintegrated electric mills
would be* most responsive to the specifications, but the im-
pact of these mills would be small since they account for
only 10 percent of total structural steel production. (See
Table 17".)
Cast iron pipe. The specification relied on for cast iron
pipe is the ANSI Standard A21.51, Ductile-Iron Pipe. Should
a minimum municipal scrap content requirement evolve, it is
likely industry response would be similar to that of the
nonintegrated electric mills for the bar specification -
favorable, with reservations about scrap impurities and
other technical problems.
The above-indicated specifications and standards contain both
material composition and technical performance requirements. The
performance requirements relate primarily to tensile strength and
ductility; chemical composition requirements are shown in Table 22.
-54-
-------
Table 22
Chemical Composition Requirements for Selected
Iron and Steel Construction Products
(Percent by Weight)
in
I
Carbon, max.
Manganese, max.
Phosphorous, max.
Sulfur, max.
Silicon, max.
Copper, min, when
copper is
specified
Bars
ASTM
A 615-72
-
-
0.05
-
-
-
Structural
ASTM
A36-70a
0.26
-
0.04
0.05
-
0.202
ASTM
A529-72
0.27
1.20
0.04
0.05
-
0.202
ASTM
A440-70a
0.28
1.10-1.60
0.04
0.05
0.30
0.202
Ductile Iron
Pipe
ANSI A21.511
(0.27)
(1.20)
(0.10)
(0.10)
(0.30)
(0.35)
A21.51 does not specify composition requirements. Numbers listed are from an industry
source.
"Industry sources state that 0.35 is a safe maximum copper limit
-------
In addition to the elements listed in Table 22, steel mill opera-
tors are concerned with other materials, especially those found in
municipal ferrous scrap. Tin is a major concern because of its
adverse impact on the ductility of steel. It appears that a maximum
tin concentration of "0.2 percent would be acceptable for bars, and
0.1 percent* would be acceptable for structural steel and ductile
iron pipe.
Lead and aluminum are also important to the manufacturers, not
because of their impact on the quality of the tteel product, but
because of the potential for adverse impact on the manufacturing
process. For exanple, lead, though it oxidizes to lead oxide in the
basic-oxygen furnace, does not oxidize in other furnace types, there-
by causing problems with refractory materials. Aluminum in signifi-
cant quantities causes a rather violent exothermic reaction in the
steel-making furnace, and causes changes in slag composition, which
may adversely affect the refractories. When continuous casting is
employed/ aluminum can cause problems by clogging the nozzles used in
this process.
Since lead and aluminum do not affect steel properties, they will
not be considered in determining the technical limits of obsolete scrap
use for the various steel products. However, they will be discussed
•ore fully later in the report, where other technical and economic
issues that bear on the problem are examined.
Table 23 summarizes the chemical composition of the obsolete scrap
types in Tables 19 and 20, with emphasis on those critical trace ele-
ments described above. Also shown in Table 23 are those instances in
which the scrap contains elements in excess of the product limits.
Clearly, each source of scrap contains elements that exceed
specification limits for at least one product type; key contaminants
are tin, copper, carbon, and phosphorus. This means that a 100-percent
obsolete scrap charge would probably result in a nonconforming product
output. Thus it is important to know the technical limits of scrap
input for the specific products.
The maximum technical limits of the various sources of obsolete
scrap for the three selected products, assuming 100 percent of the
scrap impurities are transferred to the steel product, are shown in
Table 24. Specifically, the tin content of source-separated cans
limits their maximum scrap charge to 25-50 percent, whereas the other
*Based on information obtained from industry representatives.
-56-
-------
Table 23
Composition (Selected Elements) of Various
Types of Obsolete Scrap
(Percent by Weight)
Tin
Carbon
Manganese
Phosphorous
Sulfur
Silicon
Copper
Municipal
Source-Separated
Ferrous Cans
0.401'2'3
-
-
-
-
-
-
Incinerator
Residue
0.2231'2'3
0.047
0.027
0.034
0.047
-
0.3602'3
Front-End
Separated
0.1652'3
0.302'3
0.30
0.024
0.013
-
0;06
Non-Municipal
No. 2
Bundle
0.038
0.16
0.10
0.012
0.048
0.06
0.382'3
Burned
Slab
- '
0.282'3
0.12
0.015
0.0702
0.01
0.412'3
I
in
Exceeds limits for bars.
Exceeds limits for structural.
Exceeds limits for ductile iron pipe.
-------
Table 24
Technical T.i»
-------
scrap sources can be charged from 45-100 percent. However, de-tinning
would increase the technical limits to 100 percent for all products
with source-separated scrap, and a minimum of 85 percent with front-
end-separated scrap.
Since there are apt to be significant variations in scrap quality
and content, it would be wise to impose a safety factor on the limits
set in Table 24. Using a safety factor of 2, Table 25 shows the
potential percentage and tonnage of scrap use for each product type,
using as the worst case, a scrap input consisting entirely of un-
de-tinned source-separated ferrous cans. The total of 2.24 million
tons accounts for 40 percent of the ferrous containers in the municipal
solid waste stream.
Beyond the tolerance of steel products for the contaminant levels
commonly found in municipal scrap, there are other technical and eco-
nomic issues that affect the steel industry's willingness to use
municipal ferrous scrap in their products. The issues are:
• Furnace problems. Elements responsible for furnace problems
are lead, aluminum, and copper. Lead and aluminum are po-
tentially damaging to refractory materials, and may neces-
sitate more frequent furnace re-lining than normal. Copper
is potentially harmful in the electric furnace, since it
causes a cake to form on the electrode, which in turn may
break the electrode. This necessitates shutting down the
furnace and retrieving and replacing the electrode.
• Pollution problems. Lead is responsible for lead oxide
emissions, which may be a significant environmental and
occupational health hazard.
• Continuous casting. Where the continuous casting process
is employed, alumina from aluminum contaminants tends to
plug the nozzles used in the process, necessitating more
frequent cleaning and replacement.
• Metal losses. The high surface area-to-weight ratio of
can scrap may cause high levels of oxidation when heat is
applied to the scrap, resulting in losses of iron in the
form of iron oxide.
• Alloys. Alloying elements can be added to the melt to
counter impurities. However, they are expensive, and some
are currently in short supply.
• Scrap handling. Low-density can scrap is more costly to
handle, on a per-ton basis, than other, more dense forms
of scrap.
-59-
-------
Table 25
Potential Use of Un-detinned Ferrous
Cans in Selected Products
(Safety Factor - 2)
Bars
Structural
Shipments
MM Tons
3.42
8.54
Percent
Scrap
25
12
Scrap
MM Tons
0.86
1.02
Buctile Iron 3 OQ 12 o.36
Pipe '
ItotaJ. I4-96 15 2-24
-60-
-------
Longer melt time. High contaminant levels and the possible
need for alloys may require a longer melt time per batch of
.jteel, resulting in reduced furnace capacity.
Contamination of other products. Low-grade scrap, suitable
for a construction-grade steel, may be totally unacceptable
for other types, such as automobile sheet. Integrated
mills typically produce a wide range of products, and they
must exert careful control over the use of their various
scrap stockpiles. Use of municipal scrap would require
segregation from other materials and careful control of
its use. However, integrated mills often use home scrap
interchangeably for a variety of steel types. If a low-
grade scrap were used to make a particular product, it
night be necessary to restrict the resultant home scrap
to melts of that product.
POTENTIAL FEDERAL IMPACTS
The Federal Government purchases, either directly or indirectly,
significant quantities - 2.73 million tons, or 18 percent of the total
national shipment - of the three iron and steel construction products
discussed above. (See Table 26.) Thirty percent of these purchases
are used by direct programs, while 70 percent are used in indirect
programs.
Additional tonnage of post consumer waste ferrous scrap could be
used in the iron and steel products purchased by the Government. (See
Table 27. These tonnages are based on the substitution potential shown
in Table 25, assuming the scrap is un-de-tinned ferrous cans.) The
total Federal consumption would be 0.47 million tons, or about 8 percent
of the 5.62 million tons of ferrous cans in the municipal solid waste
stream. (See Table 28 for a summary of the potential Federal impact
of each of the four major waste areas examined.)
-61-
-------
Table ^6
Federal Procurement of Iron and Steel
Construction Products
(Million Tons/Year)
Structural StMl
Reinforcing Bar*
Cast Iron Pipe
Total Iron £ Steel
Total
Direct
0.36
0.41
0.06
0.83
Total
Indirect
0.96
0.68
0.26
1.90
Total
Federal
1.32
1.09
0.32
2.73
Major
Agency
0.551
0.391
0.132
1.07
Table,2T
Potential Dae of PCW Ferrous Scrap
In Federal Construction
(Million Tons/Year)
-
Structural Steel
Reinforcing Bar*
Cast Iron Pipe
Total Iron 6 Steel
Total
Direct
0.04
0.10
0.01
0.15
Total
Indirect
0.12
0.17
0.03
0.32
Total
Federal
0.16
0.27
0.04
0.47
Major
Agency
0.071
0.101
0.022
0.19
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and Urban Development
-62-
-------
Table 28
Svumi iiy of Potential Federal Impacts
And Factors Related to Increased PCW Usage
In Construction Products
waste
Material
Potential Additional
PCW Use in Federal Construction
MM Tons/Year
% of HSW
Factors Related to Increased
PCW Usage in Construction Products
Favorable
Constraints
Glass
Plastics
Paper
0.47
1.43
0.03
0.46
1.5
Waste SUBB*** less of a problem
than for glass or plastics
GSA has modified Federal specifications
to r£ggij^£ PCW in construction paper
Some industry resistance expected (less
problem for reinforcing steel or iron
pipe than structural steel)
Supply of waste glass - dependent upon
resource recovery plants
Mew products - «ark»t acceptance not
demonstrated
Supply of waste plastics - polysnr
contamination is a Mjor problem
PCW use' in hardboerd constrained by
manufacturing process and plant
location
Percentage of ferrous containers in MSB.
Percentage of paper remaining in KSW after recycling at current rates.
-------
***
In summary, our examination of the potential of increased use of
ferrous scrap in iron and steel construction products showed>
1. Iron and steel construction products are potentially
significant markets for municipal ferrous scrap. In
particular, bars, structural shapes, and iron pipe could
safely consume 2.24 million tons of un-de-tinned, source-
separated ferrous cans, or 40 percent of ferrous con-
tainers in municipal solid waste. Of this amount, the
total Federal share would represent 0.47 million tons.
2. The contaminants in municipal ferrous scrap, while ac-
ceptable for product requirements, can cause technical
and economic problems for the producing mill - and these
problems could result in higher product costs.
3. Specifications requiring municipal ferrous scrap in con-
struction products could lead to dislocations within the
industry. Integrated mills, especially the basic-oxygen
furnace, would resist using municipal scrap, but the
dislocations would be less severe for bars and iron pipe
than for structural shapes.
B. GLASS
USES OF GLASS IN CONSTRUCTION
In 1972, 16 million tons of glass products were produced, with 2.7
million tons consumed by the construction industry. (See Table 29.)
The three major manufacturing segments are containers, accounting for
approximately 11,6 million tons, or 73 percent, of the total glass
shipments; flat glass, accounting for 2.4 million tons; and pressed
and blown glass, consuming 2.0 million tons.
The two significant glass products used in construction are
window glass, comprising 83 percent of all flat glass shipments (about
2.0 million tons) and glass insulation, comprising 35 percent of all
pressed and blown glass (about 0.7 million tons). Together, these
products total 2.7 million tons, or 17 percent of total glass shipments.
The only cullet (glass scrap) currently used in window glass and
glass insulation is home cullet. However, small quantities of
-64-
-------
Table 29
Glass Shipments and Construction Markets - 1972*
Shipments Percent of
Glass Type (MM Tons) Total Shipments
Containers 11.6 73
Flat 2.4 15
Windows for Buildings 2.0 13
Pressed and Blown 2.0 12
Glass Insulation 0.7 4
Total Production 16.0 100
Total Construction Market 2.7 17
*Source: Resource Planning Associates, Inc., A Resource Recovery
Report on Glass, 1973.
Midwest Research Institute, The Coppercial Potential
of Glass Wool Insulation.
-65-
-------
container cullet have been used by one small manufacturer of insulation.
But container cullet has a markedly different, and inferior, chemical
composition from the flat and pressed/blown glass, and therefore can
usually not be used in the manufacture of existing types of glass
products. Thus, the-greatest potential for using waste glass in con-
struction is in new products.
SUPPLY Or WASTE GLASS
Waste containers represent the only type of cullet available in
reasonable quantities and in a form suitable for recovery. (Flat
glass, for instance, is usually not recoverable after use; when a
building is demolished, the window glass is typically pulverized and
combined with plaster, concrete dust, and dirt, and then discarded.)
Assuming all containers shipped in a given year were disposed of in
the same year, a maximum of 11.6 million tons entered the waste stream
in 1972.
Most of the cullet recycled today comes from source separation
or recycling programs in which citizens voluntarily separate their
glass, by color, for shipment to one of the glass container manufac-
turers. Currently, the manufacturers will accept a certain amount of
color mixing (up to 30 percent for amber or green glass), but speci-
fications are quite restrictive regarding contamination with foreign
materials such as ceramics and stone. Prices for source-separated
cullet range from $20 to $30 per ton at the container manufacturing
plant. As will be shown later in the discussion, only a few of the
potential construction uses for waste glass can competitively support
cullet prices at this level.
Resource recovery plants are expected to be a major future source
of cullet. Although the technology is still in its infancy, separation
through front-end or back-end recovery systems is feasible and has been
demonstrated at the pilot stage. Examples are the Sortex optical
sorting system in operation at the Franklin, Ohio, demonstration re-
source recovery plant, and the Garrett Research and Development Company
tests of a froth flotation system to separate the glass fraction.
Since these processing facilities must deal with mixed refuse,
they typically yield a cullet product that is lower in quality than
source-separated cullet. The color sorting is expensive and is not
100-peroent effective; there is always some contamination with the
organics, ceramics, and metallic* present in the mixed refuse. As a
result, this cullet is a lower quality product generally unsuitable
for reuse in container manufacture. However, many of the new con-
struction products were developed to use this form of cullet. As a
means of judging the economic viability of manufacturing new
-66-
-------
construction products from cullet, a graph - Figure 5 - has been
developed to demonstrate the relationship between the quality, or
degree of purity of the separated glass, and the associated separation
coats.
A major issue related to cullet supply for construction products
is the rate at which resource recovery plants will be coning on line,
since Most source-separated cullet is likely to be used in container
manufacture. A recent study® projected that by 1980, the equivalent
of 36 1,000-ton-per-day energy recovery plants (which may or may not
have glass recovery subsystems) will be in operation, based on projects
that exist or are presently in the planning stage. The same study
estimated that, if energy recovery systems were developed in all
areas of the country where economically feasible, 170 1,000-ton-per-day
plants would be on line by 1980.
Assuming that in 1980, glass represents approximately 10 percent,
by weight, of municipal solid waste, as it did in 1974, the maximum
glass flow through these resource recovery systems would be 900,000
tons to 4.25 million tons per year. However, glass subsystems will
probably not be installed in all of these resource recovery systems,
and for those that do install such a subsystem, less than 100 percent
of the available glass will actually be recovered. Therefore, assuming
50 percent of the systems have glass subsystems, and that 75 percent
of the glass throughput is technically recoverable, glass availability
from resource recovery systems in 1980 would actually be about 300,000
to 1.6 million tons per year.
Other issues, related to the supply of waste glass for construction
products aret
• Glass recovery technology. Improvements in glass recovery
technology could result in high-quality cullet suitable
for use in containers, thereby diverting cullet from con-
struction uses.
• Source-reduction legislation. National interest in the
use of returnable beverage containers is increasing. A
major shift away from throwaways would reduce the tonnage
of glass containers in the waste stream.
g
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Energy Conservation through
Improved Solid Waste Management, 1974.
-67-
-------
Figure 5
COST OF mOaancxL SEPARATION *
COtt ftX
Ton 9t
(*)
100%
90% 80%
Percwit Pur« Glass
70%
60%
•Source: Resource Planning Associates, Inc.
-68-
-------
POTENTIAL F01. WASTE GIASS USB K VS* CONSTWJCTKM PRODUCTS
During the last decade, over a dozen separate construction pro-
ducts using waste glass have been developed and tested; some are being
manufactured commercially from source-separated glass. Much of this
development work has been sponsored and funded by the glass container
industry, either independently or through their association, the Glass
Container Manufacturers Institute. The actual work has been carried
out by universities, local governments, and private industry. The
federal Government has taken a major, direct role, primarily through
the U.S. Bureau of Mines.
In this effort, we focused our evaluation on 13 products that
have been proven technologically! that is, each can be produced on a
large scale and can satisfactorily perform the functions for which it
was designed. (See Table 30.)* These 13 are:
Terrazzo. Terrazzo floors are made with a colorful aggre-
gate, set in cement« and polished until smooth. Glass chips
can be used instead of the traditional marble chips.
Thixite^. A strong and attractive tile or panel can be made
with rubble, finely crushed glass, and clay, which is vibra-
tory cast and fired. Decorative effects can be achieved with
different aggregates (including glass chips) and surface
treatments.
Pozxolan. Waste glass is finely ground and used as a con-
crete additive to counteract reactions between cement and
certain silicone aggregates.
Foamed glass panels. Waste glass is heated in the presence
of an organic material, which volatilizes and causes the
cooled glass mass to be porous. Many nonstructural materials
can be made in this manner by using varying weights and
surface treatments.
Ceramic bricks. Glass can be used as a substitute for a
portion of the clay in common ceramic brick. Its use results
in significant energy savings.
*A detailed description of each product is provided in Appendix C,
including a technical description of the function, the status of
development, unique advantages, constraints, necessary plant invest-
ment, quality of glass required, economics, market segment and size,
person or firm to contact for information on the product, and techni-
cal reports on the product.
-69-
-------
Table 30
Maste Glass Const
Waste Glass
Si«e - 1973 Z
Product Status * (IBLiiaon Tone par Year)
Floors Demonstrated .8
Thixite* Demonstrated 1.4
Pocsolafi ttpariBwntal .8
Foamed Panels Demonstrated 1.5
Ceramic Bricks Dsannatratad 7.1
Gla««-«xcr«t« Tiles Psarmstrated .3
Poa»»d Idght-
Aggregate Opvriamtal 5.7
Wool Insula-
tion Cianurcial .5
Glasp iolyaMr Con-
ct«t* D««onstrated 2.7
Glasphalt D««ionstrateerli«»tali Technical perfor»M»e d*M»»tr»it»d in laUaratory
Demonstrated. At least one pilot deaonBtawtion to «n actual
construction application
Coonerciali Product beia>g warketed . JSMI rcially
2coa«>«res with maximtw of 1.6 mdUion to»«y^»r avmil»M«
resource recovery plawts by 19SO.
*Sourcei Rssource Planning Associates esttaates, publi«hed ceports
on products (see Appendix C), and construction naterial
industry production statistics.
-70-
-------
Glass excreta tile. Ground glass and certain organic mate-
rials, such as cow dung, are fired under pressure to produce
a strong, light-weight tile.
Foamed light-weight aggregate. Ground glass can be heated
so that it foams into strong porous nuggets that can be used
for concrete aggregate. Less energy is consumed in this
process than in traditional bloated shale aggregates.
Glass wool. The familiar glass fiber product used for in-
sulation can be made with large percentages of waste glass,
resulting in energy savings.
Glass polymer concrete. Small amounts of plastic resins
can be mixed with inert aggregates, such as glass, to form
a strong, corrosion-resistant concrete, useful for sewer
pipes and other products.
Glasphalt. Glass can be substituted for a portion of the
stone aggregate in asphalt pavements.
Slurry seal. Slurry seal is a specially prepared and cured
protective surface for roads. Crushed glass can be utilized
for all or a portion of the aggregate.
Glass-Portland-cement concrete. Glass can be used as a
replacement for concrete aggregate, especially for its decor-
ative effect. However, some loss of strength has been ob-
served .
Tekbloks . A patented process forms bricks or blocks using
glass or any inert aggregate in combination with cement and
chemicals. The mixture is cured under pressure.
An economic comparison of these products is presented in Figure 6.
For each product two types of figures are presented: (1) the estimated
value at which the cullet product is competitive with "virgin" products,
and (2) the estimated cost of separating the glass at the required
quality/purity in a resource-recovery system.* The spread between
these two numbers is an indication of the economic viability of the
product.
^Estimates are approximate, based on industry data from laboratory and
pilot-scale projects.
-71-
-------
(O
I
Figure 6
ECONOMIC COMPARISON OP WASTE GLASS CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS
W
O
(-•
w
t)
I
o
a
OT
O
»
«
1
s
CO
o
a
m
01
«
s-
3
^*f
-
n
w
•d
Is
O
s
1
S
IT
u.
-
*
O)
«
ft
ft
a
p.
-• 5
-• 10
15
-" 20
y
Recovery
costs
•• 25
Value
n
'
•- 30
100*
-------
Although potential market size and economic comparisons are useful
starting points, a number of other factors impact on whether a parti-
cular product will succeed or fail in the marketplace. Consequently,
in the remainder of this subsection, we first examine the major factors
that influence the success or failure of new products, and then apply
these factors in an analysis of three specific opportunities, ceramic
bricks, glass-excreta tiles, and foamed panels.
Influencing Factors
There are two broad categories of factors that must be considered:
(1) those affecting the manufacturers of products made from waste
glass, and (2) those affecting the suppliers of the waste glass (i.e.,
resource recovery system owners).
Product manufacturer. The product manufacturer must con-
sider five factors:
1. Product uniqueness. A new product that meets a mar-
ket segment's needs better than an existing product
will likely have more success than a new product
that offers no advantages over an existing product.
New product developers will find that selling is a
major expense, and that preselling may be necessary
before either architects or builders accept the
product. Clearly, distinct product advantages will
reduce the need for a preselling effort.
It is thus important for the manufacturer to under-
stand the needs of the market and to address those
needs via the product. These needs may be in the
form of product performance or ease of installation,
or they may relate to manufacturing costs of con-
struction products or scarcity of resources. An
example of the latter is the inherent potential for
energy conservation with the use of cullet in the
manufacturing process. Energy is becoming a scarce
resource, and substantial quantities are required
in the manufacture of bricks. The use of cullet in
brick manufacture speeds the production process and
conserves energy.
2. Industry structure. The developer of a new product
must understand the structure of the industry that
manufactures and sells competing products. Of
particular importance are concentration (i.e., the
number and size of firms presently in the business),
channels of distribution (i.e., how present
-73-
-------
manufacturers sell their products to the end con-
sumers), and barriers to entry (i.e., building code*
and other regulations).
Firms presently in the business may indeed be viewed
as competitors, but the possibility of licensing new
product development to these firms should also be
considered. This may, in fact, be the only way to
develop market share for a new product. For instance,
the existing glass wool insulation industry is con-
centrated in four large firms, and is fully capable
of overwhelming fledgling ventures making glass wool
from container cullet.
Product marketing. Product marketing relates to the
previous issues of product uniqueness and industry
structure, and is essential for the success of a
new product. To be successful, the producer must
convince the consumer to buy the product at a price
that will sustain the firm. There are a number of
ways to "sell" the consumer, including advertising,
discounting, and promotions.
The distributor may play an important role in the
selling effort, and the producer may need the dis-
tributor to "push" the product to the consumer. It
may be difficult for a new producer to enter the
existing distribution channels for competing con-
struction products. This, then, is another possible
argument for entering into joint ventures or licensing
arrangements with existing manufacturers; such ven-
tures would take advantage of established marketing
and distribution networks.
Reliability of waste glass supply. Since cullet
will be a key raw material ingredient of the new
product, the producer must be assured of a ti^ly
flow of materials that meet established specifica-
tions . The importance of these factors depends on
the particular product. For instance, bricks made
with glass as a flux can also be made entirely from
clay, and the brick manufacturer could continue to
produce in the absence of glass supply. The pro-
duction of glass-excreta tiles, on the other hand,
would cease without a supply of glass.
Supply factors will vary greatly throughout the
country. Some waste-producing centers, although
-74-
-------
their entire product would be available for con-
struction products, are located far from glass
container plants. On a nationwide basis, 300,000-
1.6 million tons of available waste glass per year
would not seem likely to have much impact on some of
the larger markets listed in Table 27. But on a
regional basis, these glass supplies might become
available in concentrated pockets, and could flood
more than one of the markets, even assuming good
market penetration.
5. Investment and risks. The relationship between in-
vestment and risks is basic to any business venture.
If the required investment for plant or market
development of a product were high and the associated
risks were high, the prospects of attracting entre-
peneurs would be poor. Such is the case with glass
wool and, to a lesser extent, with foamed glass panels.
A glass wool plant will require an investment of about
$2 million, more than that required for any other
product, and there are risks associated with obtaining
a consistent quality and quantity of waste glass.
Furthermore, it is not known exactly what contaminants
can be tolerated to produce a commercial-grade glass
wool. Some of the risks can be mitigated with an
experimentation program, but investments of this
magnitude are best taken by large firms already in
the business.
At the other end of the scale are the products z^ such
as bricks, slurry seal, glasphalt, and Tekbloks® -
in which glass is substituted, when available, as an
ingredient. No large investment is necessary because
the existing plant will continue to operate with or
without the glass. Moreover, no investment or risks
are involved in marketing because the basic character
of the product does not change. And risks stemming
from the quality of glass input are low because the
level of contaminants is not critical in such products.
Resource recovery system owners. There are four factors im-
portant to the owners/operators of resource recovery systems:
1. Impact of demand for construction-product cullet on
waste supply. Clearly, since glass is a relatively
small portion of the solid waste stream, investment
decisions on total resource recovery systems are not
expected to be heavily influenced by the glass
-75-
-------
markets. However, since some form of subsystem will
be necessary to process, recover, and store the
cullet, the system owner must be assured that the
market demand justifies the investments required.
2. Reliability of demand. Of equal importance to the
size of the demand for cullet is the reliability
of the demand. This is closely related to the
viability of the construction products made from the
waste and to the "staying power" of the product
manufacturers. The resource recovery system owner
needs to be assured that his investment in a cullet
subsystem will be fully paid off over tine, and will
yield a reasonable profit.
3. User delivery and quality requirements. This factor
is closely related to the first two. If a product
manufacturer required high-quality cullet, or re-
quired that cullet be delivered on a demanding time
schedule, then the resource recovery system owner
may be forced to guarantee both the quality and the
quantity of his supply of cullet.
4. Availability of alternate markets for waste. To
minimize the aforementioned risks, the system owner
may wish to develop several alternative markets for
the waste glass from his system. These could either
be two or more manufacturers of the same product
(e.g., bricks), or manufacturers of different pro-
ducts with the same cullet requirements. With two
or more buyers, the system owner could assure price
competition for his cullet. Should a product fail,
he could continue to sell at least some of the waste
material.
It is evident that many of the uncertainties facing the product
manufacturer and the waste supplier stem from their mode of interaction.
It is therefore anticipated that resource recovery systems and the
construction products may develop as a joint venture between the system
owners and product manufacturers. In this way, both parties would
share common risks, and a major source of uncertainty for both would
be eliminated.
Analysis of Selected New Construction Products
Glass-excreta tiles, foamed panels, and ceramic bricks were
chosen for analysis because each represents a sizable market for waste
glass. At 10-percent market penetration, the brick demand would
-76-
-------
approach 50 percent of the waste glass availability in 1980; similarly,
the other two products, taken together, would account for 10-20 per-
cent of the total avilable cullet in these years. In addition, each
appears economically attractive - i.e., the product could support a
cullet price substantially higher than the cost of recovering the
cullet in a resource recovery system. (See Figure 6.)
Foamed panels and glass-excreta tiles. These two products
have been grouped together because of their similarity and
the possibility they would be produced in a common plant.
Issues facing manufacturers.
Product uniqueness. Foamed panels and glass-
excreta tiles are light-weight, fireproof, and
attractive. Additionally, the foamed panels could
potentially be sold at a price considerably less
than competing products. For example, it is esti-
mated9 that a selling price of 6 cents per board-
foot would yield the producer an after-tax return
on investment of 23.3 percent; competing products
sell for 20-22 cents per board-foot.
Industry structure. Foamed panels and glass-
excreta tiles could potentially compete with
materials made by a variety of industrial firms.
These firms typically make a wide range of con-
struction products and sell them through a highly
developed distribution system. The industries for
each type of product consist of several large
firms (4-10) with a dominant share of the market
(60-90 percent), plus a number of smaller firms
that sometimes serve only regional markets. There
is a growing trend for the larger manufacturers to
take an increasing share of the total market.
Product marketing. Although the two products have
good technical-performance characteristics and are
potentially available at competitive prices, mar-
keting would be a major problem. It would be
logical for existing distribution channels to
carry the new products. However, actually to sell
the product, the manufacturer must either create
9Midwest Research Institute, Commercial Potential for Foamed Glass
Construction Materials Made with Waste Glass and Animal Excreta.
-77-
-------
demand at th« consumer level through advertising
or other mean*, or he must get assistance from
the distributor/wholesaler who can "push" the
products in a number of ways. Advertising would
probably not be an economical alternative at this
stage of the product life cycle, so the manufac-
turer would have to depend heavily on the selling
ability of the distribution network.
One approach to minimizing the marketing risks
would be for the manufacturer of new products to
establish joint venture or licensing arrangements
with one or more of the large building material
suppliers. This could have substantial benefit
since these suppliers have ready access to the
entire distribution network for building products
and their influence with distributors could help
introduce new products. Furthermore, a joint
venture could be attractive to large suppliers
interested in diversifying present product lines.
Another approach to reducing risk - a joint ven-
ture between manufacturer and resource recovery
system owner - would be possible. For example,
informal discussions are being held between
Environ Control Products and officials of San
Diego County, who are involved with developing a
pyrolysis resource recovery system for the county.
These officials have indicated that the county
might fund Environ Control Products to build a
plant to make products from San Diego's glass
wastes.
Reliability of waste glass supply. Foamed panels
and glass-excreta tiles have a 95-percent cullet
content; thus, glass supply is of great importance
to the success of these products. The producer,
however, w^ill probably have one source of supply.
That is, at the outset, there will be only one
resource recovery system within economical shipping
distance of the manufacturing plant.
Investment and risks. The investment required for
an economical plant size is $500,000. A 10-percent
market penetration in a region of 15 million people
(representing maximum economical shipping distance)
would require a $1-million investment.
-78-
-------
Issues facing resource recovery system owners.
Impact of demand for construction-product cullet on
waste supply. Plants would utilize from 25 to 50
tons per day, depending on plant size. This rep-
resents 12-25 percent of the glass output of a
2,000-ton-per-day resource recovery plant, thereby
necessitating that other markets for the waste
glass be found.
Reliability of demand. The major problem here
relates to the viability of the product in the
marketplace. If it sold at a price that provided
sufficient economic return to the manufacturer,
demand would be guaranteed;-if the business
failed, demand would be nonexistent.
User delivery and quality requirements. The cullet
quality requirements are relatively low and flexible.
The glass used in making these products can be
relatively contaminated with dirt, metals, and the
like. But timely delivery will be of major impor-
tance to the buyer. In the event of system shut-
down, the buyer will either have a sufficient
supply in inventory, or he will demand delivery as
promised. The system owner can assure compliance
by maintaining an emergency inventory of glass at
the resource recovery plant.
Availability of alternate markets for waste. As
mentioned above, the system owner must attempt to
locate markets for the remaining 75 percent of the
waste glass.
Ceramic bricks. In contrast to foamed glass panels and glass-
excreta tiles, the ceramic brick opportunity is an attractive
market for cullet that entails little risk for either the
brick manufacturer or the resource recovery system owner.
Issues facing manufacturers.
Product uniqueness. This product uses glass as a
flux in the manufacture of clay bricks. Besides
saving clay, a scarce resource, the use of glass
conserves energy. Brickmaking is an energy-
intensive industry, and the brickmaker will wel-
come anything that reduces his dependence on
-79-
-------
energy. Additionally, the shorter kiln time
increases plant capacity and can boost production,
if desired.
Industry structure. The brickmaking industry is
fragmented. Typically, local production serves
only local markets. Most manufacturers have a
clay pit as part of their operation. Average
annual sales amount to approximately $1-2 million
per brick producer.
Product marketing. Brick producers will experience
no difficulty in marketing these bricks since they
are similar in appearance and performance to bricks
produced without glass.
Reliability of waste glass supply. Since the brick-
maker can produce bricks with or without the glass,
and since he has a captive supply of clay, it is
evident that cullet supply variations would not be
a major problem. If the resource recovery plant
were to be delayed in opening or shut down for
maintenance or equipment replacement, it would not
be damaging to the brickmaker.
Investment and risks. The capital investment
required to accept and use glass at a typical
brickyard is less than $50,000. The risks, as
described above, are minimal.
Issues facing resource recovery system owners.
Impact of demand for construction-product cullet on
waste supply. A typical brickyard might require
60 tons of cullet per day. Given the geographical
dispersion of brickmaking facilities across the
country, it is assumed that one resource recovery
plant could economically serve at least two brick
plants. This amounts to 120 tons of cullet per
day, or over 50 percent of the total waste glass
theoretically available from a 2,000-ton-per-day
plant.
Reliability of demand. The reliability of demand
is high in this instance. Once the brickmaker has
signed a contract to purchase a given quantity of
cullet, the resource recovery system owner need
-80-
-------
not be concerned, since there is little danger of
the brickmaker going out of business.
User delivery and quality requirements. Some
cullet cleaning is required, especially to remove
metals. However, delivery requirements are moio
flexible since the brickmaker can, on relatively
short notice, accept varying quantities of glass,
ranging from zero to the full contract amount.
Availability of alternate markets for waste. The
system owner will need to locate markets for the
50 percent of his cullet not sold to the brick-
maker.
POTENTIAL FEDERAL IMPACTS
The Federal Government purchases large quantities of the con-
struction materials that could be manufactured from waste glass -
ceramic bricks, wall surfacing (e.g., foamed glass panels), and
flooring (e.g., terrazzo) materials. (See Table 30. The purchases
of wall surfacing and flooring are given in terms of square footage
because of the great variety of materials that could be used in these
products.) The major government purchaser of these materials is the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which accounts for about
40 percent of total Federal consumption. Direct procurement accounts
for 30 percent of the purchases, while the remaining 70 percent is
purchased indirectly.
Potentially, the Federal Government could consume 1.43 million
tons of waste glass in its construction projects, or about 12 percent
of the glass containers in the solid waste stream. (See Table 32.)
This also represents nearly 90 percent of the 1.6 million tons of
waste glass that might be available from resource recovery plants by
1980. The purchases of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare alone could consume about 600,000 tons of glass annually, or
5 percent of the glass containers in the waste stream.
-81-
-------
Table 31
Federal Procurement of Construction Materials
That Could Contain waste Glass
Caraic Bricks
(000 tons)
Wall Surfacing
(MM SF)
Floor inn
(MM SF)
Total
Direct
499
195
71
Total
indirect
1,031
429
149
Total
Federal
1,530
624
220
Major
Agency
6481
2371
951
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
-82-
-------
Table 32
Potential Use of Waste Glass
In Federal Construction*
(Million Tons/Year)
Ceramic Bricks
Wall Surfacing
(Foamed Glass
Panels)
Flooring
(Terrazzo)
Total
Total
Direct
0.17
0.08
0.21
0.46
Total
Indirect
0.36
0.17
0.44
0.97
Total
Federal
0.53
0.25
0.65
1.43
Major
Agency
0.231
0.091
0.281
0.60
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
*Source: Published product information
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-83-
-------
***
In summary, our analysis of the possibility of increasing the use
of waste glass in construction products showed that:
1. There are a number of attractive opportunities to use
waste glass in new construction products.
a. Most of the products do not require the high-quality
cullet used in containers and cannot compete economi-
cally for container-quality cullet.
b. Two of the products - thixite wall panels and
terrazzo floors - require container-quality cullet
and can support a cullet price of $30 + per ton.
c. All of the products are still in the experimental
stage, or at most have had some commercial exposure.
Market acceptance is a major unknown.
2. The supply of waste glass for most construction products
is limited by the number of resource recovery plants.
a. Source-separated cullet will be diverted to container
manufacture and possibly to the manufacture of thixite
wall panels and terrazzo floors.
b. The lower-quality cullet from resource recovery plants
is well suited to many construction uses.
3. For products dependent on resource recovery systems as a
source of cullet supply, there are two major risks related
to product success.
a. Product acceptance, which is not a problem for
established products (e.g., clay bricks using glass
as a flux), but may be a major problem for new pro-
ducts such as glass-excreta tiles.
b. Willingness and capacity of the resource recovery
system operator to provide long-term cullet at the
required quality and quantity.
-84-
-------
C. PLASTICS
USES OF PLASTICS IN CONSTRUCTION
The two major categories of plastics (or plastic resins) are
thermoplastics and thermosets. Thermosets, representing approximately
20 percent of all plastics, cannot be remelted after the first heating
cycle; thus, recycling of thermosets is difficult. However, thermo-
plastics, which comprise about 80 percent of all plastics, can be
remelted and reshaped.
In 1973, plastics production reached 13.2 million tons. (See
Table 33.) Approximately 90 percent of all thermoplastics are the
"Big Five" polymers: high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density
polyethylene (LDPE) , polypropylene (PP), polystyrene and acrylonitrile-
butadiene-styrene (PS/ABS), and polyvinyl chloride (PVC). And nearly
all plastics in the solid waste stream are members of the "Big Five."
The largest plastic resin consumer is the construction industry,
consuming 2.9 million tons, or 22 percent, of total resin production.
(See Table 34.) Moreover, the market for plastics in construction is
growing at an annual rate of 18 percent, well above the average growth
rate of 14 percent for all plastic resin markets. But despite the
large size of the plastics market in construction, plastics account
for less than 5 percent of all construction materials used. ^
Within the building/construction industry, thermoplastics com-
prise 70 percent of construction plastics; thermosets make up the
remaining 30 percent. (See Table 35.) Of the thermoplastics, PVC
accounts for 58 percent (by weight); LDPE is 15 percent; PS/ABS is
13 percent; and HDPE, PP, and other make up the remaining 14 percent.
Construction products represent the major end use for PVC resin - 46
percent of total PVC shipments. The dominance of PVC in construction
is explained by its excellent strength, durability, and weather
resistance. Resin use in the three major thermoplastic construction
products - pipe, wire and cable, and flooring, which represent 80
percent of thermoplastics used in construction. (See Table 36.)
The market for construction plastics is growing rapidly, at the
expense of the more traditional building materials such as steel,
copper, and wood. For example, plastic pipe sales have quadrupled
Modern Plastics, October 1973, p. 83.
-85-
-------
Table 33
Plastic Resin Shipments - 1973*
Polymer Type Shipments (1000 Tons)
Thermoplastics
High-density polyethylene (HDPE) 1,254
Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) 2,664
Polypropylene (PP) 978
Polystyrene and acrylonitrile-butadiene-*
styrene (PS/ABS) 2,407
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 2,171
Total "BIG 5" Thermoplastics 9,474
Other Thermoplastics 938
Total Thermoplastics 10,412
Themosets 2,770
Total All Plastics 13,182
*Source: Modern Plastics, January 1974.
-86-
-------
Table 34
Plastic Resin
Market
Building/Construction**
Packaging
Transpor tat ion
Housewares
Furniture
Appliances
Toys
Electrical/Electronics**
Other
Total -All Markets
Markets - 1973*
Shipments
(1000 tons)
2,926.4
2,644
703.5
618
496.5
425.3
400
271.8
4,696.5
13,182
Percent
of Total
Resin -
Production
22
20
5
5
4
3
3
2
36
100
Growth Rate
(Percent)
(1972-73)
18
12
N/A
13
9
22
22
11
N/A
14
*Source: Modern Plastics, January 1964.
**Wire and cable included in Building/Construction; not Electrical/
Electronics.
-87-
-------
Table 35
Plastic Resins Used in Building/Construction - 1973*
(1000 tons)
^"~~~----^^^ Polymer
Product --- ^^^
Pipe/Fittings/Conduit
Wire and Cable
Resin-Bonded Woods
Flooring
Insulation
Panels/Siding
Vapor Barriers
Profile Extrusions
I
Light Fixtures
I Wall Covering/
Wood Surfacing
Decorative Laminates
Glazing/Skylights
Plumbing/Bathroom
Fixtures
Total Building/
Construction
Thermoplastics
HDPE
152
3.4
155.4
LDPE
22
226
70
318
PP
9
47
56
PS/ABS
207
29
5
22
2
3
268
PVC
569
194
211
39
29
84
5
54
1,185
i
OTHER
4.2
5.8
28.5
28.9
5.4
72.8
Total
Tlie i. uiO~
plastics
959
471.2
211
29
49.8
99
87.4
55.5
56
28.9
8.4
2,055.2
Thennosets
56.6
468. 2
Total
1,015.6
471.2
468.2
19.5
177
54.6
1.5
50.5
12.3
31
871.2
230.5
206.0
104.4
99 0
y ^ • w
87.4
57.0
56.0
50.5
41.2
39.4
2,926.4
I
00
CD
*Source: Modern Plastics, January, 1974.
-------
Table 36
Major Thermoplastic Constraction Products
Resin Use in 1973 (1000 Tons)
~-~-^^^ Polymer
— -^^^
Product ^^-^^_^^
P ipe/F it tings/Conduit
Wire and Cable
Flooring
Total
HDPE
152
152
LDPE
22
226
248
PP
9
47
56
PS/ABS
207
207
FVC
569
194
211
974
TOTAL
959
467
211
1,637
OD
vD
I
-------
since 1968 and are expected to double their present level of about
1 million tons per year by 1978.** In addition, a new generation of
plastic foam materials is similarly expected to replace lumber on a
large scale. Indeed, at least one source12 predicts plastics will
compose 25 percent of construction materials by the turn of the
century - a significant rise from the present 5-percent level.
There are many reasons for the encroachment of plastics on the
markets for traditional construction materials, including the favor-
able performance characteristics of plastics and the severe shortages
and price increases for the traditional materials. Moreover, plastics
are lightweight and therefore easy to fabricate, transport, and in-
stall; they have a high strength-to-weight ratio, thereby making them
suitable for structural applications; they are extremely durable and
resistant to environmental deterioration (certain grades of plastic
pipe are guaranteed for 50 years in subsurface installations) ; and
their costs are competitive with other materials. Shortages of other
materials such as steel, lumber, and copper have driven prices up and
created market disruptions, thereby forcing buyers to seek alterna-
tives. (However, it must be noted that the world petroleum situation
has resulted in shortages and price increases in the plastics industry.
Although it is too early to predict the long-term effects of this
development, it may slow the growth of plastics for the short term.)
Building codes have been a barrier to use of plastic construction
products, however. Local building officials have hesitated removing
all code-related barriers to plastics use because of pressure from
traditional material suppliers and uncertainty regarding the perfor-
mance claims of plastic products. For instance, a 1973 survey13 found
that ABS pipe was approved for drain, waste, and vent applications in
only 75 percent of all new residential construction areas. Thus,
significant industry effort must be expended to develop credibility
in plastic construction products.
Besides "virgin" plastics, there are secondary - or scrap -
plastics. The secondary plastics used in construction products con-
sist almost entirely of scrap generated in the manufacturer's own
operations since producers hesitate to use scrap from outside sources
because they cannot be certain of the chemical composition of outside
^Chemical Week, October 17, 1973, p. 53.
Modern Plastics, October 1973, p. 83.
13Modern Plastics, May 1973, p. 71.
-90-
-------
scrap. In some cases, product specifications preclude the use of
outside scrap due to risk of contamination.
Contamination of the polymer resin is of particular concern in
plastics manufacturing. Use of contaminated resin may degrade a
product's physical properties, such as strength, color, heat resis
tance, and durability. Different polymers are generally incompatible
when mixed together, and the structural strength of the resulting
mixture is often less than that of either component. Even two dif-
ferent batches of the same polymer may be incompatible because of
coloring, previous exposure to heat, or additives.
The two processes used to fabricate plastic construction pro-
ducts are extrusion and molding, accounting for approximately 70
and 30 percent of production, respectively. Although home scrap
generation and re-use rates vary from one operation to the next, on
the average, the extrusion process generates 15-percent scrap, while
molding generates 10-percent scrap. About one-half of this scrap is
reused as home scrap; most of the remainder is discarded.
SUPPLY OF SCRAP PLASTICS
Plastics are important components of the solid waste stream from
an energy recovery point of view. Although plastics are only 3 per-
cent by weight of municipal solid waste, they have a heating value of
16,000 Btu's per pound, and represent If) percent of the energy content
of the waste stream. Assuming an energy value of 18 cents per 1,000
Btu's (equivalent to oil at $11 per barrel), plastics would have a
value of about 2.9 cents per pound, or $58 per ton. The value
of plastics as a source of energy may limit the availability of
plastics for recycling, particularly in view of the technological
problems associated with polymer separation.
There are three major sources of plastic scrap for recycling:
(1) reprocessed scrap; (2) discarded industrial scrap; and (3) munici-
pal plastic scrap. (Table 37 lists the quantities of the five major
thermoplastic resins in these three waste categories.) Each is dis-
cussed in turn below.
Reprocessed Scrap
Plastics recycling is currently limited to industrial scrap. Most
is recycled as home scrap, but a portion is processed by the repro-
cessing industry and sold to industrial users as secondary resin. It
is estimated that approximately 440,000 tons of scrap was recycled in
-91-
-------
Table 37
Plastic Scrap Sources - 1973*
(1000 Tons)
HOPE
LDPE
PP
PS
PVC
Total
Prompt (Reprocessed)
Scrap (1970 Data)
33
87
30
125
165
440
Discarded Plastic Scrap
Industrial
31
138
42
83
171
465
Municipal
868
1,186
210
618
518
3,400
Total
932
1,411
282
826
854
4,305
t
*Source: Arthur D. Little, Inc., Incentives for Recycling and Reuse
of plastics. 1972.
Modern Plastics, January, February 1974.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-92-
-------
1973 by the reprocessing industry, representing less than 5 percent
of the 1973 shipments of the five major thermoplastic resins. This
small percentage of recycled prompt scrap reflects the reluctance of
plastics manufacturers to use outside scrap.
Although no quantitative estimates are available, it is likely
that the volume of reprocessed scrap plastic has decreased, or at
best remained constant during the past year, as a result of petroleum
shortages. The energy crisis has driven the price of plastic resin to
new highs, and many of the fabricators and resin producers have in-
stalled machinery in their own plants to allow them to reuse as much
scrap as possible. As a result, the amount of scrap flowing to the
reprocessor has been reduced. Table 38 shows the change in quoted
prices for virgin resin between February 4 and June 10, 1974. During
this period, prices increased from 14 to 80 percent.
The price for secondary resin (after reprocessing) is comparable
to the price of "off-grade" resin, a form of virgin plastic that is
slightly lower in quality than top-grade material. ^ Good virgin
resin sells for approximately 10 percent more than the price of off-
grade resin. Thus, using the June 10 virgin resin figures in Table
38, the corresponding secondary resin prices would be 16 cents per
pound for HDPE, 15 cents for LDPE, 17 cents for PP, 23 cents for PS,
and 26 cents for PVC.
Specifications for secondary resin vary, depending on the fabri-
cation process (e.g., extrusion, molding) and the products for which
it is used. Most applications require an uncontaminated material,
free from other polymer types and particulate matter.
Discarded Industrial Scrap
Discarded industrial scrap, or "nuisance plastic", is badly con-
taminated material (e.g., plastic-coated fabric) for which recovery
is as yet uneconomical. In past years, "nuisance plastic" has been
neither reused nor reprocessed. This scrap amounted to about 465,000
tons in 1973, or about 5 percent of total resin production. There
are indications16, however, that the amount of "nuisance plastic" has
Arthur D. Little, Inc., Incentives for Recycling and Reuse of
Plastics, 1972.
15Ibid.
Modern Plastics, February 1974.
-93-
-------
Table 38
Virgin
Prices*
(Cants per Pound)
HOPE
LDPE
PP
PS
PVC
February 4, 1974
16
13.5
18
15
24
June 10, 1974
19
18
20.5
27
30
Percent Increase
19
33
14
80
25
Prices are the average of high and low quoted prices for the day
indicated—large lots, F.O.B., New York.
*Source: Chemical Marketing Reporter, February 4 and June 10, 1974.
-94-
-------
decreased by 25 percent from the previous year because of resin price
increases and increased interest in material reuse.
Municipal Plastic Scrap
Plastics amounted to about 3.4 million tons, or 3 percent by
weight, of the municipal solid waste stream in 1973. Nearly 70 percent
of this material is packaging waste, such as LDPE film, HDPE con-
tainers, and PS drinking cups. LDPE and HDPE are the prominant resins
in municipal waste, representing 35 percent and 25 percent, respectively,
of total waste plastics. Nonpackaging wastes include plastic apparel,
luggage, and appliances.
Recycling of municipal plastic waste has been practiced to a
limited extent in several source-separation programs in the United
States. Citizens in Wellesley, Massachusetts, for example, found a
market for mixed-polymer plastic wastes, and were therefore not re-
quired to separate the material by resin type. Other programs, how-
ever , require separation by polymer.
Most source-separation programs focus on HDPE containers because
they can be easily identified, separated, and cleaned by the citizen.
The reuse of these containers, however, poses a potential problem.
About 50 percent of HDPE scrap is found in detergent and bleach con-
tainers, while the other 50 percent is in milk bottles.* The HDPE
used in the former is a co-polymer (i.e., it contains other polymer
types) , whereas the milk bottles use homopolymer HDPE. Certain re-
cycling opportunities (coiled drain pipe, for instance) would preclude
the use of homopolymer, but could use the co-polymer.
A major roadblock to economical source separation of plastic
wastes, especially containers, is collection. Only one of the 110
source-separation programs monitored by the EPA collects plastics
from households. This program (in Austin, Minnesota) collects HDPE
containers along with cans, and the two materials are later separated
manually. The plastics are then reground and sold to a manufacturer
of drainage tubing. Prior to regrinding, however, these plastics are
extremely low density, which translates into high collection costs of
about 4 cents per pound.
Mechanical separation of plastics from mixed municipal solid
waste has been practiced on an experimental basis, primarily by the
*Based on information provided by an industry representative.
-95-
-------
U.S. Bureau of Mines (BOM).17 BOM has experimented with several dif-
ferent waste mixtures received from the Black Clawson FIBRECLAIM Urban
Refuse Recovery System at Franklin, Ohio: moisture, 55 percent by
weight; mixed fiber, 30.4 percent; plastic, 14 percent; and metal,
0.6 percent.
The BOM separation system (for which no cost information is
available) contains several processing steps, as shown in Figure 7.
The two primary plastic separation steps are the electrostatic separa-
tor, which separates mixed plastics from the paper fibers, and the
hydraulic separator, which separates the plastics by polymer type.
As shown in Figure 7, the electrostatic separator yields a 95-percent,
plastic-rich fraction.
The hydraulic separator takes advantage of the different densi-
ties of the major plastic polymers to achieve separation. Unfortunately,
HOPE, LDPE, and PP, known collectively as polyolefins, have approxi-
mately the same density and could not be separated by polymer in the
BOM process. The results of the hydraulic separation were 3-percent
contamination for polyolefin, with other polymers; 5-percent contamina-
tion for polystyrene; and 60-percent contamination for PVC.
In other BOM tests, using mixed plastic wastes containing only
polyolefins, PS, and PVC, the impurity levels were 0.1 percent for
polyolefin; 2.2-3.9 percent for PS; and 0.1-0.4 percent for PVC.
These test results indicate that source separation is the only recovery
means currently available that meets the secondary resin specification
requiring no contamination with other polymers.
POTENTIAL FOR SCRAP PLASTIC USE
The potential for scrap plastic use in construction can be broken
down into applications in existing plastic construction products and
in new construction products.
Applications in Plastic
Construction Products
The feasibility of using secondary resin in construction products
depends on two factors. The first is related to the polymer type; the
major polymers, in general, differ in their capacity to be recycled.
The second is related to the particular product requirements - e.g.,
U.S. Bureau of Mines, Recycling of Plastics from Urban and Industrial
Refuse, Report of Investigation No. 7955, 1974.
-96-
-------
Figure 7
RECOVERING PLASTICS, METAL, AND FIBER
"FROM riLACK CLAHSCM CONCENTRATE
Black Clawson Waste Plastics
Concentrate
_ L
Dryer
Chopper
Air
Classi f i er
-Light
Heavy
Chopper and screen
I
-3 + 10 mesh
i
-10 mesh
Moisture
contro I
Metal and fiber
concentrate
Electros 1 a t i c
sepo rator
95 pet plastic
t
Electrosta tic
separator
Washer
Metal Fiber
concentrate concentrate
Hydiou I i c
separator
P o i y o I o f i n
PS
PVC
*Source: U.S. Bureau of Mines, Recycling of Plastics from Urban
and Industrial Refuse, Department of Investigations
No. 7935, 1974.
-97-
-------
pressure pipe for gas transmission versus nonpressure pipe for agri-
cultural drainage.
All polymers are sensitive to contamination with other polymers.
Different polymers are incompatible with each other, and even when
heated and mixed together, they do not blend into a truly homogeneous
substance. Boundaries form between the two polymers in the mix, and
the boundaries remain when the material sets. These interfaces rep-
resent points of weakness in the structure, and, particularly in thin-
wall plastic products, could lead to failure at stresses considerably
less than expected from virgin material.
Polystyrene and polypropylene are most sensitive to contamination
with other polymers; PVC, HDPE, and LDPE are also sensitive, but to a
lesser degree than the other two polymers.
The second major problem associated with plastics recycling is
that all of the polymers tend to lose or change properties each time
they are reheated and reused. PVC has extremely poor heat stability,
which impedes its recycling. Polyethylene and polypropylene oxidize
and change color with reheating. Additionally, polyethylene flows
less readily when remelted, whereas polypropylene flows more readily
upon renelting. Polystyrene becomes more opaque each time it is
melted.
These property changes can usually be corrected through the use
of additives or stabilizers. The major impediment to recycling is
that the potential user may not know the heating history of a parti-
cular batch of scrap, and is therefore unable to adjust the mix with
the proper additives. He would be justifiably concerned about mixing
an unknown material with a batch of virgin resin.
To determine to what extent scrap plastic can be applied in
plastic construction products, we analyzed the technical potential of
nonhome scrap use in pipe, wire and cable, and flooring, three pro-
ducts that consume 80 percent of all thermoplastics used in construc-
tion.* (See Table 39.) Table 40 shows the impact of increased scrap
use, by polymer type, as a percentage of the resin available in municipal
*Since the potential for scrap use is directly related to the quality
of the scrap, we assumed for the purpose of this analysis that the
scrap would not be contaminated with other polymers and only negligibly
contaminated with materials such as paper fibers. We also assumed the
heat history of the scrap would not be precisely known, but that in-
formation would be available on the products (e.g., milk bottles) from
which the scrap came.
-98-
-------
Table 39
Potential Additional Secondary Resin Use in Construction Plastics
(1000 tons)
-^-^.^^ Polymer
Product --^^^
Pipe (maximum)
Wire and Cable
Flooring
Total
HDPE
51
51
LDPE
2
-
2
PP
2
-
2
PS/ABS
64
64
PVC
79
-
53
132
TOTAL
198
-
53
251
-------
Table 40
Impact of Additional Scrap Use on
Municipal Solid Waste
HDPE
LDPE
PP
PS/ABS
PVC
Total
Potential
Scrap Use
(1000 tons)
51
2
2
64
132
251
Plastic in
Municipal
Solid Waste
(1000 tons)
868
1,186
210
618
518
3,400
Impact
(Percent)
6
-
1
10
25
7
-100-
-------
solid waste. Overall, the impact of full substitution on the municipal
waste stream ranges from 1 percent (PP) to 25 percent (PVC). (See
r»»—1_l _ *^ r\ \
Table 39.)
Pipe. The major industry specifications for all types of
plastic pipe* preclude the use of any nonhome scrap in the
manufacture of plastic pipe. This does not mean that the
technical limit of outside scrap use is zero. Rather,
these specifications are the result of institutional and
market factors that are peculiar to the plastic pipe in-
dustry.
Secondary plastics, other than "clean rework material gen-
erated from the manufacturer's own production," is prohi-
bited in all 13 plastic pipe specifications published by
ASTM. These specifications are important because they are
followed closely by pipe manufacturers, and are the basis
for important Federal specifications for plastic pipe. As
described in Chapter II, the Soil Conservation Service
Specification for Plastic Drainage Tile and the Soil Con-
servation Engineering Standard Practice for Drain Tile -
Code 606 stipulate that corrugated polyethylene drainage
tubing shall conform with the ASTM specification for this
material.
The Federal Specification for Polyethylene Pipe, L-P-315C,
refers to ASTM D-2239, but a recent change in the Federal
specification allows greater flexibility in the reuse of
secondary plastics. Section 3.3, Pipe for Other Water,
Fluids or Other Use, states: "PE pipe for other than
potable water service may include, in addition to clean
re-work material, clean rejected or damaged pipe that has
not been in service." Thus, a manufacturer could presumably
use rejected or damaged pipe originating from another manu-
facturer .
ASTM specifications preclude nonhome scrap use because of
possible polymer contamination from uncertain scrap sources.
The manufacturers of plastic pipe have invested substantial
resources to convince pipe users that the plastic product is
*Specifications for plastic products do not help determine technical
recycling limits. Rather, plastic specifications are based on phy-
sical properties and performance requirements of the particular
product. Thus it is difficult to establish a direct linkage between
the specification and the technically acceptable scrap content.
-101-
-------
technically as good as the traditional piping materials -
copper, clay, steel, concrete. When the industry was in
its infancy, there were instances in which manufacturers
blended low-quality materials to make pipe that did not
meet specifications; but the industry took positive steps
at an early date to eliminate this type of practice. One
of these steps was to prohibit the use of nonhome scrap.
This provision in the ASTM specifications was thus effected
by both manufacturers and users of plastic pipe in their
mutual desire to maintain the highest possible quality
standards.
To assess the potential for scrap use in plastic pipe, it
is first necessary to identify the categories of pipe and
the resins used in the manufacture of each. Pipe production
is evenly split between pressure and nonpressure applica-
tions. (See Table 41.) Approximately 500,000 tons of each
are produced per year. PVC comprises 69 percent of pressure
pipe; most of the remaining percent is HOPE. In nonpressure
applications, PVC and PS/ABS are nearly equal, making up 43
percent and 40 percent, respectively, of the total, while
HDPE accounts for about 15 percent.
Specifications and performance requirements are more de-
manding for pressure pipe than for nonpressure pipe, as
might be expected because of the continuing stresses to
which pressure pipe is exposed. Additionally, the nature
of the materials carried in certain types of pressure
piping, such as chemicals and natural gas, requires high
performance standards to prevent premature deterioration
and/or failure of the pipe.
Agricultural drainage applications (73,000 tons, mostly
HDPE) generally demand less stringent quality or perfor-
mance requirements than other categories. This market is
one of the fastest growing areas in the pipe field; a
growth rate of 30 percent per year is projected for over
the next several years. Indeed, plastic is replacing
the market shares of clay and concrete tile, both tradi-
tional products in the agricultural drainage area.
Increased scrap usage can be assessed by examining the
performance requirements of the various pipe categories
and the physical characteristics of the major thermoplastic
polymers. Table 42 ranks the feasibility of using secondary
18Chemical Week, October 17, 1973, p. 53.
-102-
-------
Table 41
Resin Use in Plastic Pipe - 1973*
(1000 Tons)
PRODUCT ^*^**—**.^Wiiii|><>^
Pressure pipe
General Purpose
Chemical Processing
Irrigation
Gas Distribution
Other
TOTAL Pressure
Non-Pressure Pipe
Drain/waste/vent
Conduit
Agric. Drain
Sewer
TOTAL Non-Pressure
TOTAL
HDPE
42
13
15
6
76
10
66
76
152
LDPE
22
22
22
PP
9
9
9
PS/ABS
115
20
7
65
207
207
PVC
264
32
10
14
26
346
47
128
48
223
569
TOTAL
328
45
25
20
35
453
162
158
73
113
506
959
o
u>
i
* Source: Chemical Week, October 17, 1973;
Modern Plastics, January 1974;
Resource Planning Associates, estimates.
-------
Table 42
Ranking of Potential for Increased Secondary Resin Utilization*
^"^- POLYMER
PRODUCT "-— — »^_
Pressure pipe
General Purpose
Chemical Processing
Irrigation
Gas Distribution
Other
Non-Pressure Pipe
Drain/waste/vent
Conduit
Agric. Drain
Sewer
HOPE
3
4
2
4
2
1
LDPE
4
PP
3
PS/ABS
2
2
1
2
PVC
4 <
5
3
5
4
3
3
3
o
A
I
^Ranking key: 1 - highest potential for increased secondary material utilization.
2
3
4
5 - lowest potential
* Source: Resource Planning Associates, estimates.
-------
plastics (beyond the home scrap used presently) for the
various pipe categories, by polymer type. As stated
earlier, PVC generally is less suited to recycling than
the other polymers because of its poor heat stability.
As shown in Table 42, secondary plastics are more suited to
nonpressure applications than to pressure applications be-
cause of the continual operating stresses that act on
pressurized pipe. Chemical processing and gas-distribution
piping have high performance requirements because of the
nature of material carried in the pipe and the severe con-
sequences of pipe failure.
Agricultural drainage tubing has been manufactured from
post-consumer plastic scrap in at least two cases. Owens-
Illinois Corporation sponsored a community project in
Wasterville, Ohio, in which 5,000 polyethylene containers
were collected for use in drainage tubing. Advanced
Drainage of Ohio, Inc., reground the containers and mixed
them with virgin material in a 2:3 ratio to make 4,200
feet of 4-inch drainage tile. A similar project was con-
ducted in Southern California by the Golden Arrow Dairy,
Dow Chemical Company, and the Ledco Company.
Estimates of increased secondary resin usage are shown in
Table 43. The lower figure represents a level of usage
immediately feasible if not prohibited by specifications;
the higher figure is a maximum level consistent with tech-
nical specifications/performance requirements. The sub-
stitution range for PVC represents 3-14 percent of PVC
pipe production, while the range for HOPE is 10-34 percent.
Overall, the substitution potential ranges from 5-19 percent
of total plastic pipe production.
In recent months, certain segments of the plastic pipe in-
dustry, particularly nonpressure agricultural drainage
tubing, which is a relatively low-performance product,
have sought a modification of the specifications to allow
greater secondary plastic usage. Pressure from resin
shortages and rising prices, plus the fact that drainage
application does not require the highest grade of mate-
rials, has forced manufacturers to consider outside sources
of scrap.
Positive action in this direction was taken at a recent
ASTM Plastic Pipe Committee meeting (June 1974) , when the
members made a formal request to the Test Methods Subcom-
mittee to develop new test methods for drainage tubing.
-105-
-------
Table 43
Potential additional Secondary Resin Use in Plastic Pipe - 1973*
(1000 tons)
^fc"""'*-'-^^^ POLYMER
PRODUCT ^^^^^*^^
Pressure Pipe
General purpose
Chemical processing
Irrigation
Gas Distribution
j Other
' TOTAL Pressure
Non-Pressure Pipe
Drain/waste/vent
Conduit
Agric. Drain
Sewer
TOTAL Non-Pressure
TOTAL
HOPE
Low
2
-
2
-
4
1
10
11
15
High
8
1
5
1
15
3
33
36
51
LDPE
LOW
_
-
-
High
2
2
2
pp
LOW
1
1
1
High
2
2
2
PS/ABS
Low
12
2
1
7
22
22
High
34
6
4
20
64
64
PVC
Low
5
-
1
-
1
7
2
6
2
10
17
High
26
2
2
1
3
34
9
26
10
45
79
TOTAL
Low
7
-
3
-
2
12
14
9
11
9
43
55
High
36
3
7
2
5
53
43
35
37
30
145
198
I
M
O
I
*Source: Resource Planning Associates, Inc. estimates.
-------
These methods would enable a manufacturer to test a plastic
scrap source, and to determine what percentage, if any,
could be used in his manufacturing operation.
Wire and cable. Plastic is used as the insulation material
for wire and cable products. LDPE accounts for 48 percent
of this material, PVC comprises 41 percent, and PP consti-
tutes the remainder. These insulating materials have strict
physical requirements; they are thin-walled and must have
enough strength and flexibility to resist any stress cracking
over the life of the wire or cable product. Performance re-
quirements for this material are among the most demanding of
any plastic product.
Manufacturers currently use only virgin resin in the manu-
facture of wire and cable insulation; home scrap is rarely
used. It is therefore concluded that this is not a good
opportunity for using recycled scrap plastic.
Flooring. Flooring, which uses the PVC polymer, regularly
contains up to 50 percent recycled home scrap, but manu-
facturers are hesitant to use any scrap from sources other
than their own plants. A major manufacturer of vinyl-
asbestos tile indicated that a number of potential techni-
cal problems relate to the use of outside scrap. Speci-
fically, color is extremely important in the tile business,
so clear, water-white material is a must. In addition,
additives in the scrap could affect some or all of the
following properties: color retention, staining, fire
resistance, adhesion to backing, adhesion of the wear
layer, aging, and dimensional stability.
Notwithstanding the technical problems of uncertain scrap
sources, there is an opportunity in flooring to use secondary
industrial or post-consumer resin. In fact, the above-
mentioned manufacturer is investigating the use of purchased
scrap for tile manufacture. It is estimated that 25 percent
nonhome scrap could be used in vinyl and vinyl-asbestos
tile, provided the scrap were clean and uniform, and pre-
vious additives could be identified. This amounts to 53,000
tons of PVC scrap of the total 1973 tile production of
211,000 tons.
-107-
-------
Applications in New
Construction Products
In light of the technical problems of separating polymers for
reuse in existing plastic products, considerable interest has recently
been generated in using mixed-polymer plastic waste for new types of
products. Since polymer mixing degrades the strength and durability
of plastic products, particularly thin-wall materials, the new mixed-
polymer products typically are thick-walled (one-half inch thick or
greater) and are not subject to the stress levels that are safe for
virgin resin*.
The»e new construction applications for mixed waste plastics
include highway base material, wood substitutes, and sand substitute
in concrete, each of which is discussed in some detail below.
Highway base material. The highway base material applica-
tion was developed on an experimental basis in Germany. It
was found that plastic improved the insulating properties
of the base material, thereby reducing temperature cracking
during cold weather. No cost information is yet available
on this application.
Wood substitutes. Several Japanese firms have experimented
with - and, in some cases developed on a pilot or commercial
sale - processes to make wood substitutes from low-grade
mixed plastic scrap. Mitsubishi Petrochemical Company, one
of Japan's two top plastic resin producers, has developed a
reprocessing machine called Reverzer. This machine can
reportedly rework any mixture of PE, PP, PS, ABS, PVC, and
other resins in any input form. Also, depending upon end-
use product specifications, the system can accept up to
50-percent nonplastic materials, such as sand, glass, paper,
and textiles.1^ There are 25 Reverzers operating in Japan.
The two wood-substitute construction products that can be
made in the process are fence posts and lumber (e.g., 2 x 4's)
Capital costs for the process are $100,000 to $150,000 for
the equipment, plus the costs of a building and utilities.
Production of simpler products, such as the fence posts, re-
portedly costs about 16 cents per pound.20
19Modern Plastics, February, 1971.
2°Ibid.
-108-
-------
There is no published information available either on the
technical performance or appearance of these products, or
on their market acceptance. However, given the available
information, it is possible to analyze the economic at-
tractiveness of these products relative to their wood
counterparts, and to identify some of the major problems
of marketing these products in the United States.
Assuming these products have a density approximating that
of most virgin resins (60 Ib./cubic foot), the production
cost of 16 cents per pound is equivalent to 58 cents per
board-foot. (For 2 x 4's, one board-foot equals 0.06
cubic foot.) In the United States, Southern Pine 2 x 4's
wholesale selling price in Boston in June 1974 was 23 cents
per board-foot. Thus, the wholesale selling price of the
wood product is less than 40 percent of the manufacturing
cost of the plastic substitute.
Although fencing is not sold by the board-foot, it is priced
about the same as lumber, on a unit volume basis. Thus,
the Reverzer economics are apparently extremely unfavorable
when compared with U.S. prices of lumber and fencing. How-
ever, because wood is much less plentiful in Japan than in
the U.S., it is possible that Reverzer is competitive with
Japanese wood prices.
Beyond the issue of unfavorable economics is the question of
marketing these products in the U.S. and the likelihood of
acceptance by the various market segments. Major barriers
to market acceptance are:
Weight. If the wood substitutes were not foamed to
a density less than 60 Ib./cubic foot (as they appar-
ently are not with Reverzer), then their density would
be nearly twice that of wood (i.e., 30 Ib./cubic foot).
For lumber products particularly, this increased weight
would lead to higher installation costs and certain
labor resistance.
Appearance. Most wooden fencing in the U.S. is pur-
chased by homeowners for decorative purposes. Appear-
ance and a "quality" image are undoubtedly important
to the buyer. The plastic substitute would probably
have neither the appearance nor the quality image of
wood.
-109-
-------
Building codes. The lumber substitute would probably
not be accepted by local building code officials across
the country because of toxic combustion products given
off when some plastics burn.
Sand substitute in concrete. The Society of the .Plastics
Industry and Hoffer Plastics Corporation (South Elgin,
Illinois) cooperated in a project to use plastic chips as a
replacement for sand in a concrete bridge. Tests conducted
by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) showed that plastic-
containing concret«s do not match regular concretes either
in economics or in strength and workability. Regarding
strength and workability, PCA concluded:21
- Workability ifi reduced and cannot be effectively
restored by the addition of greater than usual amounts
of water.
- Thermal expansion is greatly increased.
- Compressive and split tensile strengths are reduced
at all ages through 1 year.
- Modulus of rupture is greatly reduced after the
concrete has received moderate temperature cycling.
- Shrinkage is only slightly reduced at the later ages.
- Creep is significantly increased, particularly in
lightweight concrete with high levels of sand re-
placement by plastic scrap.
POTENTIAL FEDERAL IMPACTS
The Federal Government purchases 220 million square feet of
flooring (all types) and 65,000 tons of plastic pipe. (See Table 44.)
Direct procurement consumes about 30 percent of flooring, but only
6 percent of plastic pipe. The major purchasing agencies of these two
items are the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (flooring),
and th« Department of Agriculture (plastic pipe). The Department of
21Portland Cement Association, Final Report on Evaluation of Ground
Plastic Scrap as a Partial Sand Replacement in Concrete, 1972.
-110-
-------
Table 44
Federal Procurement of Flooring
And Plastic Pipe
Flooring
(MMSF)
Plastic Pipe
(000 tons)
Total
Direct
71
3
Total
Indirect
149
62*
Total
Federal
220
65*
Major
Agency
951
33* 2
*Includes 33,000 tons not shown on Table 11 - Soil Conservation
Service, Department of Agriculture, strongly influences the purchase
of plastic agricultural drainage tubing, although it does not fund
construction.
1Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Agriculture
-111-
-------
Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service (SCS)* influences the pro-
curement of about 50 percent of the nation's agricultural drainage
tubing through technical assistance programs to fanners and farm
groups. (No construction funds are provided.) This amounts to about
33,000 tons of plastic pipe annually.
The additional tonnage of PCW plastic that could be used in
these two plastic products purchased (or influenced) by the Government
amounts to 13,700 tons of flooring and 22,900 tons of plastic pipe.
(See Table 45. These tonnages are based on the waste substitution
potentials developed previously in this section.) Thus, the maximum
Federal impact is 36,600 tons, or about 1.1 percent of municipal solid-
waste (MSN) plastics. The SCS alone could influence the use of 16,500
tons of plastic scrap, or about 0.5 percent of all NSW plastics.
***
In summary, our analysis of the feasibility of increased use of
secondary plastics in construction products shows that:
1. The availability of scrap plastic is a major constraint
to its extensive use in construction products.
a. The current technology for separating plastic from
mixed municipal refuse produces a low-quality resin
unsuitable for use as secondary resin.
b. Source separation is feasible, but polymer identi-
fication may be difficult.
c. Energy-recovery value of plastics is strong competi-
tion for material recovery.
2. Recycling opportunities in existing products have small
impact on the municipal solid waste stream. The total
national potential for pipe and flooring is 251,000 tons,
of 7 percent of MSW plastics. Of this amount, the total
Federal share would amount to 36,600 tons.
3. Industry resistance to using nonhome scrap is eroding.
*SCS officials are active members of the ASTM plastic pipe committees
and are closely involved with the suggested changes to the ASTM speci-
fication, which would allow secondary resin use in agricultural
drainage tubing.
-112-
-------
Table 45
Potential. Use of PCW Plastic
In Federal Construction*
(000 Tons/Year)
Flooring
Plastic Pipe
Total
Total
Direct
4.4
0.6
5.0
Total
Indirect
9.3
22.3
31.6
Total
Federal
13.7
22.9
36.6
Major
Agency
5.91
16. 52
22.4
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Department of Agriculture
*Source: Resource Planning Associates.estimate
-113-
-------
a. Virgin resin price increases and shortages are
forcing the industry to consider ways of using all
available resin.
b. Pressure is building in the plastic pipe industry
to delete the nonhome scrap prohibition from the
ASTM specifications, especially for agricultural
drainage tubing.
4. Mew construction products made from mixed-polymer wastes
are not viable opportunities.
D. PAPER
USES OF PAPER IN CONSTRUCTION
As shown in Table 46, construction paper and board production in
1972 amounted -to 5.19 million tons, or 9 percent of total paper and
board production. The major categories of construction paper and
board are construction paper, gypsum linerboard, insulating board,
and hard pressed board. Other construction uses of paper include
loose-fill insulation and bituminous fiber pipe and conduit. The
latter product is used for sewer and drain lines and as electrical
conduit, and is made from recycled newsprint saturated with a bitumi-
nous coating.
From a paperstock-consumption standpoint, both loose-fill insu-
lation and bituminous fiber pipe and conduit use 100 percent obsolete
paperstock - i.e., newsprint. (See Table 47.) In the paper and
board category, gypsum linerboard uses a 100-percent paperstock fur-
nish, of which 63 percent is obsolete; hard pressed board uses no
paperstock; and construction paper and insulation board each use 47
percent paperstock - 32 percent obsolete and 15 percent home and prompt.
Paperstock grades for the paper and board construction products
are generally lower than for other paper and board products. It is
estimated22 that the paperstock used in construction paper and
nn
American Paper Institute, Paper, Paperboard, and Woodpulp Capacity
1971-1974.
-114-
-------
Table 46
Production of Construction Paper and Board -_ 1972*
(Million Tons)
Paper and Board
Construction Paper and Board
Construction Paper 1.92
Gypsum Linerboard 1.05
Insulating Board (used in
building construction)
Hard Pressed Board (used
in building construction)
Total Construction Paper and
Board 5.19
Other Paper and Board
Total Paper and Board
Other Construction Uses of Paper
Loose Fill Insulation Less than 0.05
Bituminous Fiber Pipe and Conduit 0.05
^As classified in U.S. Department of Commerce Current Industrial Reports
*Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Industrial Reports,
Pulp, Paper, and Board 1972.
Midwest Research Institute, The Role of Non-Packaging
Paper in Solid Waste Management.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-115-
-------
Table 47
Paperstock Use in Paper Construction Products - 1972*
Construction Paper
and Board
Construction Paper
Gypsum Linerboard
Insulating Board
Hard Pressed Board
Total Construction
Paper & Board
Loose Fill Insulation
Bituminous Fiber Pipe
and Conduit
Production
(MM Tons)
1.92
1.05
1.27
0.95
5.19
Less than
0.05
0.05
Hone & Prompt
Paperstock
Percent
15
37
15
-
17
-
-
MM Tons
0.29
0.39
0.19
-
0.87
-
-
Obsolete
Paperstock
Percent
32
63
32
-
32
100
100
MM Tons
0.61
0.66
0.41
-
1.68
N/A
0.05
Total
Paperstock
Percent
47
100
47
-
49
100
100
MM Tons
0.90
1.05
0.60
-
2.55
N/A
0.05
*Source: American Paper Institute, Paper, Paperboard, and Woodpulp
Capacity, 1971-1974.
Resource Planning Associates estimates.
-------
insulation board has the following mix: mixed, 58 percent; newsprint,
21 percent; corrugated, 12 percent; and pulp substitute, 9 percent.
PAPERSTOCK SUPPLY
Paper is the major component of municipal solid waste, accounting
for approximately 39 million tons, or 31 percent of the 125-million-
ton municipal waste stream in 1971.23 Of this, an estimated 8 million
tons was recycled; thus, 31 million tons was discarded.*
Most paper recycling is accomplished through source-separation
programs, which tend to focus primarily on newsprint. Mechanical
separation of paper from mixed refuse has been demonstrated in the
U.S. and abroad. The Black Clawson system in Franklin, Ohio, in-
cludes a wet separation system for paper fibers, while a European
concern, Krauss-Maffei, has developed a dry processing system for
paper separation. (The outputs from the Black Clawson system are
currently being used in a construction application - roofing felts.)
POTENTIAL FOR ADDITIONAL PAPERSTOCK USE
To determine to what further extent recycled paper can be used in
construction products, we examined the technical and institutional
problems related to increased paperstock usage in construction paper,
insulation board, and hard pressed board.
Construction Paper
Eighty-one percent of construction paper is used in roofing felts,
which are saturated with asphalt in the manufacturing process. In-
dustry officials indicate that a roofing felt made of 100 percent
recycled fibers (versus the present composition of 50 percent recycled
fiber and 50 percent pulp from wood waste) would meet all existing
technical performance requirements. The problem with using more paper-
stock lies in the manufacturing operation.
Roofing felts are manufactured in a wet processing system. Higher
paperstock usage slows drainage and drying of the finished product,
thereby slowing the entire production process.
* Resource Planning Associates estimates.
23Dr. John H. Skinner, "Resource Recovery: The Federal Perspective,"
Waste Age, January/February 1974, p. 12.
-117-
-------
A related, and more serious problem, is absorption of asphalt.
Product requirements demand a given quantity of asphalt per square
foot. The higher absorption of recycled fibers means greater reten-
tion of asphalt, which leads to excess roofing weight and wastage of
the asphalt.
"Deadening felt" is a type of building felt made without asphalt,
and industry sources indicate that a 60-percent paperstock usage
would be acceptable, froa a manufacturing point of view, in this mate-
rial. Fifty percent is considered to be the desired paperstock level
for asphalt-saturated felts.
Insulation Board
Insulation board is subject to the same types of manufacturing
constraints as construction paper. From a product performance point
of view, 100 percent newsprint would be acceptable. However, the
drainage problem and the asphalt retention problem (in the case of
asphalt-impregnated exterior insulation board) limit recycling levels
to about 50 percent.
Hard Pressed Board (Hardboard)
Except for a small portion of the total production, hardboard
uses no paperstock. There are important technical and institutional
factors that explain why hardboard is traditionally manufactured with-
out paper stock. Host important is the location of hardboard mills.
These are located primarily in the Northwest and Southeast, close to
lumber mills on which they rely for the necessary wood wastes. These
locations are typically in remote areas and are not logistically well
suited to the use of paper stock, which is generated in populated
areas.
The technical constraint to using recycled fibers in hardboard is
that for many years the wet process was used exclusively. Similar to
construction paper and insulation board, the slow drainage associated
with paperstock use discouraged manufacturers from using recycled
materials.
Dry-process plants are becoming more popular, however, because
of the lower capital investment requirements and the absence of water
pollution problems that plague the wet-process plants. Dry processing
uses a hot press to compress the fibrous material into hardboard.
Resin is used as a bonding agent, and more resin is required when
paperstock is ufied than when virgin materials are used.
The U.S. Forest Products Laboratory experimented with a dry-
process hardboard containing 100 percent paperstock. It was found
that three times as much resin was required than when no paperstock
-118-
-------
was used. However, because resin is a petroleum-based product, the
recent oil-price increases could act as a significant economic dis-
incentive for recycled fiber use.
Two firms - Homasote Company of Trenton, New Jersey, and Upson
Company of Lockport, New York - currently make a "medium density"
hardboard from 100 percent recycled newsprint. These products ap-
parently meet the required technical specifications.
Since it is technically feasible, from a product performance
standpoint, to use 100 percent recycled fibers in construction paper,
insulation board, and hardboard, it is appropriate to measure the
impact of full substitution, in terms of increased paperstock use.
For the three products, full substitution would amount to 2.64 million
tons of paperstock, using the 1972 figures presented in Table 42.
This would amount to about 9 percent of the 31 million tons of paper
remaining in the municipal solid waste stream after recycling at
current rates.
POTENTIAL FEDERAL IMPACTS
At present, Federal purchases of construction paper, or of con-
struction products that could contain paper, amount to 181 million
square feet of waterproofing materials (e.g., construction paper),
167 million square feet of insulation materials (e.g., insulating
board), and 624 million square feet of wall-surfacing materials (e.g.,
hardboard). (See Table 48.) The major Government purchaser of these
materials is the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which
accounts for 30-40 percent of total Federal consumption.
But the Federal Government could purchase an additional 455,000
tons of wastepaper, or about 1.5 percent of the paper remaining in
the municipal waste stream after recycling at current rates. (See
Table 49.) The purchases of the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare alone could account for an additional 173,000 tons of waste-
paper, or 0.5 percent of the paper in the waste stream. And, indeed,
the Federal Government has already taken steps to increase the re-
cycling of construction paper and board through the procurement pro-
cess. Specifically, the GSA has developed specifications for con-
struction paper and insulating board, which have the following re-
cycled material requirements:
-119-
-------
Table 48
Federal Procurement of Construction
Materials That Could Contain Haste Paper CMMSF)
Waterproof ing
Insulation
Hall Surfacing
Total
Direct
48
45
195
Total
Indirect
133
122
429
Total
Federal
181
167
624
Major
Agency
66.21
66. 21
2371
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
-120-
-------
Table 49
Potential Additional Use of Wastepaper
In Federal Construction
(Million Tons/Year)
Wa te rproof ing
(Construction Paper)
Insulation
(Insulating Board)
Wall Surfacing
(Hardboard)
Total
Total
Direct
0.002
0.016
0.122
0.14
Total
Indirect
0.005
0.042
0.268
0.315
Total
Federal
0;007
0.058
0.390
0.455
Major
Agency
0.002
0.023
0.146
0.173
-121-
-------
Percent Reclaimed
Material Percent PCW
Roofing Felt (construction 40 30
paper)
Insulation (insulation 15
board)
In summary, our analysis of the feasibility of increasing the use
of recycled paper in construction products shows that:
1. It is technically feasible to use more recycled fibers in
paper construction products. The maximum incremental
recycling would amount to 2.64 million tons for construc-
tion paper, insulation board, and hardboard, or approxi-
mately 5 percent of the paper fibers in the municipal
solid waste stream. Of this amount, the total Federal
•hare would represent 0.46 million tons.
2. Wiere are technical (i.e., type of manufacturing process)
and institutional (i.e., location of hardboard plants)
constraints to using more paperstock.
* * *
Overall, in assessing the extent to which the four municipal
ite materials - ferrous, glass, plastics, and paper - can be recycled
and utilized in construction products, we conclude:
e Significant opportunities do exist to use additional waste
materials in construction products.
s In terms of impact on the municipal solid waste stream, the
ferrous and glass product opportunities are the most at-
tractive. Federally-purchased construction products could
utilize at least 8 percent of the ferrous containers in the
waste stream and more than 12 percent of waste glass con-
tainers. The potential Federal impact on plastic and paper
wastes., on the other hand, would amount to only 1-2 percent
of the tonnages of these materials in municipal waste.
-122-
-------
Waste supply is a major constraint to increased use of
waste glass and plastics in construction products. Most
of the glass opportunities are economically Viable only
with the lower value cullet from resource recovery systems,
and plastics are difficult to separate - even in the home -
because of the wide variety of plastic polymers.
yo 1191
-123-
-------
APPENDIX A
FEDERAL CONSTRUCTION PROGRAMS
-125-
Preceding page blank
-------
ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
88
19
9
1.4
0.6
0.016
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) 0.6
Roofing (MMSF) 0.6
Wall Covering (MMSF) 3
Floor Covering (MMSF) 1.4
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 0.24
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.012
Asbestos-Cement
Tlaotic 0.012
Steel
Preceding page blank
Program Description;
Capitol buildings (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$33 million
Guide Specifications;
Developed on case-by-case basis
Contact:
Coordinating Engineer
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 65%
-127-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - 1
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
tMMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MHSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 -tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
643
1,170
11
10
6
1
58
12
Program Description:
Forest Service - Roads, wastewateer treatment
Jacilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding!
$201 million
Guide Specifications;
Forest Service Standard Specifications for
Construction of Parks and Bridges
Contact;
-Division of Engineering, Engineering
Operations Management
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 100%
-128-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - 2
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipu (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
338
18
5
650
286
38
4
Program Description;
Fanners Home Administration - Rural waste dis-
posal facilities grants and loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $736 million
Total - $754 million
Guide Specifications;
No material specifications; general guidelines
to assure economic feasibility and compliance
with minimum health and safety standards
Contact;
Deputy Administrator, Program Operations Depart-
ment, Community Services Water and Waste Dis-
posal Loan Division
Laws;
Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of
1961, as amended; Rural Water Facilities Act of
1965, PL 89-240; Consolidated Farm and Rural
Development Act of 1972, PL 92-419.
-129-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - 3
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminoxis Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF*)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Coppor
Asbr':l os-Ccmcnt
Plastic
Steel
(Negligible
Program Description:
Soil Conservation Service - Flood prevention
and watershed protection loans and grants
(indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $115 million
Total - $158 million
Guide Specifications;
SCS National Engineering Handbook - Section 20.
Although most funded projects involve negligible
construction materials (as seen at left) SCS
also provides engineering guidance for other
non-funded projects, such as agricultural
drainage. Their specifications figure
importantly in these projects.
Contact;
Deputy Administrator, Water Resources Department,
Engineering Division
Laws;
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act
as amended.
-130-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - 4
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cant Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
13.6
35.8
11
Program Description;
Rural Electrification Administration - Rural
electric and telephone systems loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $763 million
Total - $1,270 million
Guide Specifications;
Bulletins 43-5 and 344-2 are "acceptable"
materials lists for the electric and telephone
projects, respectively
Contact;
Electric Division: Deputy Administrator,
Standards Division for Electric Projects
Telephone Division: Assistant Director,
Standards Division for Telephones
Laws;
Rural Electrification Act of 1936, Titles
I and II, as amended
-131-
-------
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, CIVIL WORKS
Program Smanary
121
84
PY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 10,372
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass fOOO
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Hall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asber.tos-CeiBent
Plastic
Steel
Program Description;
Civil works projects for flood control,
navigation, power supply (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$1,221 Million
Guide Specifications:
U.S. Corps of Bagineecs Guide Specifications
for Civil Works Construction
Contact;
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Directorate
of Civil Works,
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 20%
-132-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
286
62
30
12
4.4
2.1
2.1
2.1
0.052
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF) 11
Floor Covering (MMSF) 4.7
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 62.78
Concrete
Clay 34
Copper 0.039
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic' 3.939
Steel
Program Description;
Economic Development Administration - Commerce
and transportation facilities grants and loans
(indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $220 million
Total - $376 million
Guide Specificat ions;
No guide specifications.
Contact;
Director, Office of Public Works.
Laws;
Public Works and Economic Development Act of
1965, as amended.
-133-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE - 1
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMST1)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbe r: tor; -Cement
Plastic
Steel
68
15
8
2
2
.4
.4
3
1
.01
.06
.03
.03
Program Description:
Indian Health Facilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$45 million
Guide Specif ications;
Guide Specifications for Construction
Contact;
Director, Office of Architectural and Engineering
Services, Facilities Engineering and Construction
Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 90%
-134-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE - 2
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof i ng
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
387
82
41
22
15
3.4
5
5
16
Floor Covering (MMSF) 7
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
0.036
2.0
0.1
0.08
Program Description:
Health Professions Facilities Grants
(indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $50 million
Total - $149 million
Guide Specifications;
No material specifications; general guidelines
for health and environmental standards
Contact;
Director of Facilities Engineering and Property
Management, Health Facilities Planning
Laws;
Public Health Service Act, PL 88-129, Title III,
Part B, Section 720-729; Comprehensive Health
Manpower Act of 1971
-135-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WEJ-FARE - 3
Program Suwmary
86
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million 1
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) 1
Roofing (MMSF) 1
Wall Covering 4MMSF) 4
Floor Covering (MMSF) 1
Wire (000 tons)
Copper 01008
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
18
9
5
3
0.8
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Ceoeitt.
Plastic
Steel
0,4
0.02
0.02
Program Description;
Nursing Construction Grants (indirect)
Fiscal .Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $20 million
Total - $43 million
Guide
NO material specifications? guidelines for
health and environmental standards
Contact:
, Office of Architecture and
P«blAc Health Services Act, Title III, Section
801, ?L 90-490, 78-410, as amended.
-136-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE - 4
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 68
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block 15
Brick 8
Steel (000 tons)
Structural 2
Reinforcing 2
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million .4
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) .4
Roofing (MMSF) .4
Wall Covering (MMSF) 3
Floor Covering (MMSF) 1
Wire (000 tons)
Copper • 01
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron .06
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.03
Asbestos-Cnmcnt
Plastic 0.03
Steel
Program Description;
National Institutes of Health - Cancer research
grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $33 million
Total - $44 million
Guide Specifications;
No material specifications; guidelines
for health and environmental standards
Contact;
Office of Architecture and Engineering,
Director, Health Research Facilities and
Resources Branch, Health Facilities
Construction Division
Laws;
National Cancer Act of 1971, PL 92-218,
as amended
-137-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE - 5
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 3,311
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF) 140
Floor Covering (MMSF) 57
Wire (000 tons)
Copper 0.30J
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 16.9
Concrete
Clay
Coppor 0.86
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic °-68
Steel
702
354
185
132
29.3
48
48
48
Program Description:
Office of Education - Grant and loan subsidies
(indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $560 million
Total - $1,428 million
Guide Specifications;
No specifications
Contact;
Division of Academic Facilities, Operations
Branch
Laws;
Higher Education Act of 1965, Title VII, as
amended
-138-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE - 6
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
2,006
449
236
72
46
22
11.8
11.8
Roofing (MMSF) H-8
Wall Covering (MMSF) 74
Floor Covering (MMSF) 29
Wire (000 tons)
Copper -43
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 17.7
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.87
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic 0.74
Steel
Program Description;
Hill-Burton hospital grants and loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $158 million
Total - $1,191 million
Guide Specifications;
No material specifications; Minimum Requirements
of construction and Equipment for Hospital and
Medical Facilities
Contact;
Director of Facilities Engineering and Property
Management, Health Facilities Planning
Laws;
Public Health Service Act, Title VI, PL 91-296
-139-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT -
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbc> s toR-Cement
Plastic
Steel
118
64
7.6
Program Description;
Community Development - Public Facilities Loans
and Water and Sewer Grants (Indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding.:
Federal - $177 million
Total - $503 million
Guide Specif!cations;
Minimum Design Standards for Community Water
Supply Systems, Circular #4940.2;
Minimum Design Standards for Community
Sewage Systems, Circular $4940.3
(Both discuss materials generally - no
specifics)
Contact;
Community Development Department, Office of
Program Services; Director, Program Regulations
and Assistance Division
Laws;
Housing Amendments of 1965, Title II, as amended,
PL 84-345; Housing and Urban Development Act of
1965, Title VII, Section 702, as amended, PL 89-117
-140
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 2
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
198
43
21
3.1
1.4
0.036
1.4
Roofing (MMSF) 1.4
Wall Covering (MMSF) 8
Floor Covering (MMSF) 3.2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 0.54
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.027
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic 0,027
Steel
Program Description;
Community Development - Neighborhood Facilities
Grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $40 million
Total - $80 million
Guide Specifications!
No specifications
Contact;
Community Development Department, Office of
Program Services; Director, Program Regulations
and Assistance Division
Laws;
Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965,
Title VII, Section 703, PL 89-117
-141-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 3
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
1,564
218
298
47
42
27.2
19.6
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 42
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
19.6
11.5
0.47
6.7
0.34
Program Description:
Low-rent public housing loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $900 million
Total - $900 million
Guide Speci fications;
Minimum Property Standards - 4900.1, 4910.1,
4920.1 - Some discussion of material require-
ments is included
Contact;
Office of Subsidized Housing Programs; Director,
Publically Financed Housing Division
Laws;
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, as amended, PL 75-412;
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,
Section VII
).272j
-142-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT - 4
Program Summary
FV 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 92
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block 13
Brick 18
Steel (000 tons)
Structural 3
Reinforcing 2
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million 1>2
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) 1>2
Roofing (MMSF) o.7
Wall Covering (MMSF) 7
Floor Covering (MMSF) 2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Ce-ment
Plastic
Steel
1.6
.03
0.4
0.02
0.016
Program Descriptipn -.
College housing loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $50 million
Total - $50 million
Guide Specifications/.
No specifications
Contact:
Office of Subsidized Housing Programs;
Chief, College Housing-Branch
Laws;
Housing Act of 1950/ Title IV, as amended,
PL 81-475
-143-
-------
DEPAKTMEHT OF THE INTERIOR - 1
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (OQO tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Stoel (000 torn;)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (JO1SF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (KMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbostos-Cewont
Plastic
Steol
5,928
79
46
Program Description:
Bureau of Reclamation - Irrigation, reclamation
projects (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$380 million
Guide Specifications;
Specifications prepared on case-by-case basis
Contact:
Chief, Division of General Engineering
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 0%
-144-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 2
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (OOO tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
129
Flat Glass
tons)
(000
27
14
7
5
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbostor-Coraent
Plastic
Steel
1.1
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
0.012
9.7
5
0.03
0.63
Program Description;
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Schools, roads (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$91 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contcict:
Director, Engineering Systems Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 90%
-145-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 3
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete B^ock
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
(Negligible)
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering {MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbu.stos-Ceraent
Plarjtic
Steel
Program Description:
National Park Service - Recreational facilities
(direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$53 million
GujLde Specificationu;
No guide specifications - negligible materials,
as seen at left
C
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 4
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
IMiiPt It-
Steel
400
20
Program Description;
Bonneville Power Administration (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Fundingt
$85 million
Guide Specifications;
Specifications prepared on case-by-case basis
Contact:
Director, Engineering Department
Percent Design by Outside A-E: 20%
-147-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 5
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete {000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering {MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
0.4
Program Description;
Bureau of Reclamation - Small irrigation
facilities loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Fundingt
Federal - $25 million
Total - $25 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact;
Division of General Engineering) Chief*
Construction Contracting Activities
Laws;
Small Reclamation Projects Act of 19S€,
amended, PL 84-984
-148-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 6
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
t0nS) (Negligible)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
Program Description:
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation - Recreation
facility grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $125 million
Total - $250 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications - negligible materials
Contact:
Assistant Director, Division of State Programs
Laws:
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,
as amended, PL 88-578, PI 90-401, PL 91-485,
PL 91-308
-149-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR - 7
Program Summary
10
5
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 44
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 0.7
Wire (000 tons)
Copper 0.008
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
0.7
0.3
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
0.12
0.006
0.006
Program Description:
Territorial Affairs - public facilities (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $18 million
Total - $18 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact;
Territorial Affairs, Staff Assistant,
Economic Development and Environmental Affairs
Lavs:
-150-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - 1
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons) (Negligible)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
1-l.adtio
Steel
Program Description:
Federal Prison System (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$1 million
Guide Specifications^
No guide specifications
Contact:
Director, Facilities Engineering Department
Percent Design by Outside A-E: 100%
-151-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE - 2
Program Summary
0.3
0.2
PY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 22
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block 5
Brick 2
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing 1
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
{MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 0.4
Wire (000 tons)
Copper 0.004
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 0.06
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.003
Asbe s to s-Cemcnt
Plastic 0.003
Steel
Program Description;
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding!
Federal - $8 million
Total - $11 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact:
Office of Criminal Justice; Associate Administrator,
Office of Operations Support
Laws;
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of
1968, Section C, PL 90-351 as amended by the
Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1970, PL 91-644,
Section E
-152-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 1
Program Summary
328
73
38
11
8
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF) 13
Floor Covering (MMSF) 5.4
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
4.3
2.0
0.064
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
2.76
0.143
0.123
Program Description^
Federal Aviation Administration - Airport
facilities and equipment (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$241 million
Guide Specification3^;
Standard Specifications for Construction
Airports
Contact:
Associate Administrator for Engineering and
Development, Engineering Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 100%
-153-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 2
Program Summary
107
11
4
6
2
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 1
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation - ..
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 2-16
Concrete
Clay 1
Copper . 009
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic -106
Steel
.7
1.3
1.1
1.2
2
.218
.4
Program Description!
Coast Guard - Shore facilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding^
$50 million
Guide Specifications;
Uses Navy's guide specification
Contact;
Director, Office of Engineering; Civil Engineering
Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 50%
-154-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 3
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
Program Description;
Federal Railroad Administration - Railway
facilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$20 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact;
Director, Office of Administration; Contracts
and Procurement Division
Percent Design by Outside A-E: 100%
-155-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 4
Program Summary
19,530
36,270
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural 316
Reinforcing 306
Miscellaneous 205
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 28
Concrete 1,023
Clay 47
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel 55
Program Description:
Federal Highway Administration - Federal-aid
highway program (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $4,597 million
Total - $5,782 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications - refers to industry
standards
Contact:
Chief, Office of Engineering; Federal Aid
Division
Laws;
Title 23 - U.S. Code-Highways? Title 23 -
Code of Federal Regulations
-156-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 5
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic-
Steel
840
1,560
14
13
9
1
44
2
Program Description;
Federal Aviation Administration - Airport
Grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $300 million
Total - $526 million
Guide Specifications^
Standard specifications for the Construction
of Airports - 150/5370-1A—rely heavily on
established industry specifications
Contact:
Deputy Administrator, Airport Services Branch
Laws;
Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970,
as amended, PL 91-258, PL 93-44
-157-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - 6
Program Suianary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 3,274
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block 300
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural 218
Reinforcing 73
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000 12.1
tons)
41
30
41
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF) 49
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper .3
Aluminum
Insulai-.ion -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 2.25
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.15
Asbostos-Cement
Playtic 0.075
Steel
Program Description;
Urban Mass Transportation Administration
Mass transit grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $844 million
Total - $1,688 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact:
Assistant Administrator, Office of Capital
Assistance Programs
Laws;
Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, as
amended, PL 91-453 and 88-365; Federal Aid
Highway Act of 1973, PL 93-87
-158-
-------
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
90
18
9
7
5
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF) 1
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
(000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
0.008
.02
.02
Program Description;
General construction loans (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
Federal - $94 million
Total - $94 million
Guide Specifications;
No guide specifications
Contact:
Administrator, Department of General Services,
Capital Improvements Unit
Laws
Congressional appropriations
-159-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MKSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
51
15
1,825
803
106
11
Program Description;
Municipal wastewater treatment grants (indirect)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
Federal - $1,600 million
Total - $2,133 million
Guide Specifications;
No material specifications; Guidelines for
Design, Operations, and Maintenance of Waste-
water Treatment Facilities
Contact;
Director, Water Program Operations; Municipal
Wastawater Systems Division
Laws:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
PL 92-500
-160-
-------
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Program Summary
PY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
682
149
71
27
10.6
4.9
4.9
4.9
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF) 28
Floor Covering (MMSF) 11-2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
0.124
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
AsbcPtoc-Ccmcnt
Plactic
Steel
1.86
0.093
0.093
Program Description;
Public buildings (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$279 million
Guide Specifications;
Guide Specifications for Major New Construction
and Extension Projects (Series 4)
Contact^:
Public Guildings Service, Design and Construc-
tion Division; Chief, Design Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 80%
-161-
-------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbcs tos-Cement
Plastic
Steel
102
23
12
4
2
.6
.6
4
2
.02
0.9
0.05
0.04
Program Description;
Research/space flight facilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding^;
$58 million
Guide Specifications;
General guide specifications, specific projects
developed on a case-by-case basis
Contact:
Director, Facilities Engineering Division
Percent Design by Outside A-E - 65%
-162-
-------
VETERANS ADMINISTRATION
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 136
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block 30
Brick 16
Steel (000 tons)
Structural 5
Reinforcing 3
Mis ce11aneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million .8
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) .8
Roofing (MMSF) .8
Wall Covering (MMSF) 5
Floor Covering (MMSF) 2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper '°3
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 1.2
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.06
Ar.bestoi;- Cement
Plastic -05
Steel
Program Description;
Veterans Hospitals (direct)
Fiscal year 1973 Funding:
$83 million
Guide Specifications;
Master Construction Guide Specifications
Contact:
Director, Office of Construction, Architectural
Specifications Division
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 50%
-163-
-------
U.S. POSTAL SERVICE
Program Summary
134
64
25
9.5
4.5
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) 4.5
Roofing (MMSF) 4.5
Wall Covering (MMSF) 24
Floor Covering (MMSF) 10
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plaatic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron 1.68
Concrete
Clay
Copper 0.084
Asbestos -Cement
Plaatic 0.084
Steel
0.112
Program Description!
Postal facilities (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$250 million
Guide Specifications;
No arterial specificationsj Design Criteria for
the Construction of Postal Facilities.
Contact;
Director, Engineering Office, Systems Engineering
Design Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 10O%
-164-
-------
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 2,000
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing 100
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering (MMSF)
Wire (000 tons)
Copper
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbcston-Cement
Plastic
Steel
Program Description;
Power generation/transmission facilities
(direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$522 million
Guide Specifications^
Specifications developed on a case-by-case basis
Contact;
Manager, Engineering Design and Construction
Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E: 0%
-165-
-------
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
Program Summary
91
48
14
10
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 40»
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons}
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Biock
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (OOO
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million 2.4
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF) 2.4
Roofing (MMSF) 2.4
Wall Covering (MMSF) 16
Floor Covering (MMSF) 6
Wire (000 torts)
Copper •08
Aluminum
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Copper
Asbestos-Cement
Plantic
Steel
3.6
0.18
0.16
Program Description;
Laboratories, research (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$237 million
Guide Specifications:
Specifications developed on case -by-case basis
Contact:
Assistant Director, Division of Construction
and Engineering, Construction Operations Branch
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 0%
-166-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - 1
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Cone-rote (000 1,034
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 torn?)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproof ing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
Insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
161
123
36
25
12.9
11.5
10.9
9.2
48
Floor Covering (MMSF) 17.2
Wire (000 tons)
Copper .72
Aluminum 1.2
Insulation -
Plastic
Pipe (000 tons)
Cast Iron
Concrete
Clay
Coppt. r
Asbestos-Cement
.4
15.24
.21
0.88
Steel
Program Descriptiont
Army - Military Construction (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding:
$556 million
Guide Specifications;
Guide Specifications for Military Construction
Contact:
Office of the Chief of Engineers, Military
Construction Directorate
Percent Design by Outside A-E - 80%
-167-
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - 2
Program Summary
FY 1973 Construction
Material Purchases
Portland Cement
Concrete (000 709
tons)
Bituminous Con-
crete (000 tons)
Masonry (000 tons)
Concrete Block
Brick
Steel (000 tons)
Structural
Reinforcing
Miscellaneous
Flat Glass (000
tons)
Waterproofing
(MMSF = million
square feet)
insulation (MMSF)
Roofing (MMSF)
Wall Covering (MMSF)
Floor Covering
-------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE - 3
Program Summary
FY 1973 Conrtruction
M -*tcr 3 a 1 Purchases _
Portland (.'orient
GoncroU- (000
ton:,)
Bitv.rrinouK Con-
crete (fJC'O tons)
Ku<-."nry (000 tons)
Concrei .; Block
Brick
StceJ (000 tons)
Structural
Ruin-forcing
1 ""•"jous
693
107
52
28
19
Fiat Glass (000
ton:;)
Waterproof! r -3
(MMSl1 - million
square £«et)
Insulation (MMfll1)
6.5
8.4
7.2
7.9
Roofing (MflSF)
Wall Covi.-ri.na (MMSF) 23
Floor Covering (MMSF) 6.8
VJiro (000 tons)
Copper 0.3
* 0.4
'"2U ~ o.i
j'e (000 tons,)
C..L.t lion
Conor olu
Clay
Copper
A;-.bcytcr,--rcna-i
I'lj.-.tic
Steel
4.21
.109
0.198
Program Description;
Air Force - Military Construction (direct)
Fiscal Year 1973 Funding;
$277 million
Guide Specifications,;
Use Army/Navy guide specifications
Contact;
Deputy Chief of Staff, Programs and Resources;
Director of Civil Engineering, Engineering
Division
Percent Design by Outside A-E; 50%
-169-
-------
APPENDIX B
NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND
GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
FOR USE IN REGULAR MILITARY
CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Source: Construction Specifications Institute, Master Index
of Government Guide Specifications for Construction,
2nd Edition.
-171-
Preceding page blank
-------
NAV I
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NAVAL FACILITIES ENGINEERING COMMAND (NAVFAC)
TYPE (GUIDE) SPECIFICATIONS FOR USE IN REGULAR MILITARY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
DIVISION 1: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
TS-M129W Sep70
TS-P62o
Feb64
DIVISION 2: SITE WORK
TS-Ble
TS-2D3
TS-D4d
7S-2£lo
TS-2F16
TS-J2c
TS-P2d
TS-02310
TS-2P12
TS-P13c
TS-PMe
TS-2PI6
TS-2P18
TS-2P21g
TS-P22g
TS-2P23a
TS-2P24
TS-2P25
TS-2P26o
TS-P47o
JS-2P57
TS-P63
TS-2P67
Mar 66
Aug7l
Mar 66
Aug71
Jun 71
Feb63
Jul63
Feb72
Aug69
Dec 62
Dec 62
Jun 71
Jun 68
Jun 67
Nov66
Aug68
Sep67
Sep67
Oct 71
Jun 64
Jun 71
Jan 64
Jul 71
Format and General Paragraphs for the Preparation of Manuscripts of Specifications
for Construction Contracts for Public Works
Pert/time Management Information System
Soil Boring and Sampling
Dredging
Duct for Coble Under Existing Airfield Pavement
Earthwork
Pressure Injected Footings
Reseating of Joints in Rigid Pavement at Airports
Composite Wood and Concrete Piling
Round Timber Piles
Bonded Concrete Overlay Pavement
Select Material Base Course for Rigid Pavement
Select Material Subbase Course for Rexible Pavement
Bituminous Base Course (Central Plant Hot Mix)
Graded Aggregate Base Course for Flexible Pavements
Bituminous Tack Coat
Bituminous Prime Coat
Asphalt Binder and Wearing Courses for Flexible Pavement (Central Plant Hot Mix)
Bituminous Seal Coat
Single Bituminous Surface Treatment
Double Bituminous Surface Treatment
Paving of Water Catchment Areas
Prestressed Concrete Piling
Ploning Asphalt Pavement
Steel H-Bearing Piles
Preceding one link
-173-
-------
NAV2
TS-2P69ct
TS-2P71
TS-2S2
T5-2S3
TS-S7
TS-TlSo
TS-T19b
TS-2W8
TS-02110
TS-02240
TS-02250
TS-02317
T5-02711
TS-02910
DIVISION 3:
TS-C2c
TS-R9
TS-03300
DIVISION 4:
TS-Mle
TS-TI3a
DIVISION 5:
TS-FI8
TS-SR10
TS-S8
TS-05120
.Mar 71
Jur»67
Mar 68
Jun7l
Jul 66
Mor64
Jul65
Nov67
Oet69
Jun71
S*P72
Oct72
0^:72
Nov72
Sep72
Nov 72
CONCRETE
Apr 63
Apr 65
Nov 72
MASONRY
Aug66
Feb71
Jun66
METALS
JuUS
Jui 71
D«c 67
Mar 71
V"
Jul72
Aug«r-Plac*d Coocr«t* Pi lei
FpgSeal
Exterior Sanitary S*w«r and Drainage Syttomt
Change No. 1
Atatwlt Slurry Seal
Coat-Tor Slurry Seal
Timber Harvesting
Timber Stand Improveinent
Water Distribution Syitem
Change No. )
Demolition
Environment Protection
Soil Treatment
Cast-in Place Concrete Piles, Steel Cosing
Fence, Chain Link
Welding Crane toils- Thermite "Self-Preheat Method"
Precast Structural Concrete
Cast-in-ploce Gypsum Roof Decks
Cast-in-place Concrete
Brick, Hofiow Tile, and Concrete Masonry Unit Work
Change No. 1
Ceramic dozed Structural Clay Facing Tile and Prefaced Concrete Masonry Unit
Steel Sub-floors (Cellular and Non-cellular) Steet Floor Decks (Cellular)
Change No. 1
Steel Roof Decks
Change No. I
Open Web Steel Joists
Structural Steel
-174-
-------
DIVISION 6: WOOD AND RUSTICS
TS-6C18 Feb 69 Framing and Rough Carpentry
Jul 69 Change No. 1
Jan 71 Change No. 2
TS-6C19 Feb 69 Exterior and Interior Finish Carpentry
Jan 71 Change No. 1
DIVISION 7: THERMAL AND MOISTURE PROTECTION
TS-R6 Oct 64 Corrugated Metal RoofJwg and Siding
TS-R7 Oct 64 Corrugated Cement-Asbestos Roofing and Siding
TS-R8 May 65 Elastomeric Roofing Systems
Jan 71 Change No. 1
TS-07160 Sep 72 Bituminous Dampproofing
TS-07140 Sep 72 Metallic Oxide Waterproofing
TS-07210 Jul 72 Perimeter Insulation
TS-07221 Jul 72 Cavjty Wall Insulation
TS-07232 Jul 72 Ceiling, Wall and Crawl Space Insulation
TS-07241 Jul 72 Roof Insulation
TS-07310 Jul 72 Asphalt Shingles
TS-07600 Jul 72 Flashing and Sheet Metal
TS-07510 Jul 72 Built-up Bituminous Roofing
TS-07951 Nov 72 Calking and Sealants
DIVISIONS: DOORS AND WINDOWS
TS-8D9 Mat 71 Sliding Hangar Doors
TS-8D10 Feb 69
TS-8H15
Apr 69
Feb 71
Jul 71
IS-8H16 Apr 69
'S-8H17 Apr 69
fS-08110 Nov 72
T^-08120 Sep 72
TH»310 Sep 72
Wood Doors and Windows
Builders' (Finish) Hardware
Chance No. 1
Change No. 2
Specification for Selecting Builders' Hardware *
List of Builders' Hardware Samples on File In Washington, D. C.
Hollow Metal Doors and Frames
Aluminum Doors and Frames
Fire Doors
-175-
-------
NAV4
TS-08320
TS-08330
TS-08360
TS-08371
TS-08510
TS- 08520
TS-08810
TS-08900
DIVISION 9t
TS-9F15o
TS-9F22
TS-9F23o
TS-9F24o
TS-9P9
TS-9P30
TS-9P74
TS-9P75
7S-9P76
TS-9P77
TS-9P78
TS-9T3
TS-T21
TS-W9
TS-09110
TS-09411
TS-09500
TS-09650
Oct 72
Sep72
Oct 72
Sep72
Jul72
Sep72
Sep72
Sep72
FINISHES
Apr ?!
May 71
Jon 70
May 71
May 71
May 71
Oct 70
Feb71
Mar 71
Reb70
Feb70
Feb70
Feb70
Feb70
Oct 70
Feb71
Mar 63
Jan 71
Mar 66
Dec 72
Sep72
Nov 72
Sep72
Metal-Clad (Kalamein) Doon and Frames
Accordion and Ceiling Steel Service Doors
Overhead and Vertical Lift Steel Doon
Aluminum Sfiding Glass Doors
Steel Windows
Aluminum Windows
Glass and Glazing
Curtain Wall Systems
Metallic-type Static-disseminating and Spark-resistant Floor Rnish
(for Ocdnance and Other Structures)
Change No, 1 .
Wood Strip Floor Systems
Change No. 1
Wood Parquet Floor Systems
Wood Block (End Grain) Industrial Flooring
Plastering and Stuccoing
Change No. 1
Protection of Buried Steel Piping and Steel Bulkhead Tie Rods
Painting of Drydock AMMl Pontoon
Painting of Fuel Storage AMMl Pontoon
Pointing of General Purpose AMMl Pontoon
Painting of Mobile Facility AMMJ Pontoon
Painting of Water Storage AMMl Pontoon
Tile Work
Change No. 1
Acid-resisting Quarry Tile Floor
Change No. \
Gypsum Wallboard
Metal Studding, Metot Furring ond Metal and Gypsum Lathing
Terrorro, Bonded to Concrete
Acoustical Treatment
Resilient Flooring
-176-
-------
NAV
[5-09910 Jul 72 Painting of Buildings (Field Painting)
TS-09951 Oct 72 vinyl Coated Wall Covering
DIVISION 10: SPECIALTIES
TS-MPl Jul 60 Movable Partitions
IS-10P32 Dec 67 Metal Toilet Pbrtit?on»
TS-P65 May 64 Folding Fabric Partitions
TS-10T24o May 71 Metal Toilet and Bath Accessories
DIVISION Hj EQUIPMENT
TS-H400 Dec 72 Food Service Equipment
TS-11874 Sep 72 Adjustable Loading Ramp (Power Operated)
DIVISION 12: FURNISHINGS
TS-12322 Dec 72 Wardrobes
TS-Doa Mar 66 Drapery Rods
Jan 71 Change No. 1
Apr 71 Change No. 2
TS-12321 Dec 72 Wardrobes Storage CabinentJ 3-Drawer
DIVISION 13: SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION
TS-B2 Mar 66 Prefabricated Metal Buildings (Straight Walls)
TS-13B3 Sep 68 Relocatable Structures (Procurement for Use)
Apr 71 Chonge No. 1
TS-13F12 Aug 71 Raised Floor System (for Data Processing Equipment Rooms)
TS-13F25 Jun 70 Portable (Demountable) Wood Floor System*
May 71 Change No. 1
DIVISION 14: CONVEYING SYSTEMS
TS-W6 Apr 63 Welding Crane Roils
Jul 63 Change No. 1
DIVISION 15: MECHANICAL
TS-F2b Mar 61 Diatomaceous Earth Type Filtration and Purification Equipment for Swimming
Pools
TS-F4a Apr 66 Sprinkler System, Automatic, Dry Pipe Type
Jun 71 Change No. 1
-177-
-------
NAV6
TS-F5o
TS-F6o
TS-F10
TS-Hlb
thru
TS-H11b
TS-15H7
TS-15H8
TS-15H9
TS-15H10
TS-L2b
TS-L3
TS-15P28
TS-P35o
TS-P36o
TS-P37o
TS-P40o
TS-P4lo
TS-P42o
TS-P43o
TS-P45o
.
TS-P49a
TS-P50o
TS-P51a
Apr 66
Apr 66
Dec 62
Jan 62
V*9
Jun71
Apr 69
V*9
Jon 71
Apr 69
Jon 71
Apr 63
Apr 63
May 69
Jan 71
Jul 59
Jol 59
Jon 60
Jul 59
Jon 60
Jun60
Jun60
Jul 59
Aog71
Aug65
Aug71
Aog65
Aug65
Sprinkler System, Automatic, Deluge Type
Sprinkler System, Automatic, Wet Pipe Type
Aviation Fuel Distribution System
Heating Plants, Consolidated Specifications for Steam and HTW System*
Heating Plant No. 7, 8,000,000 to 36, 000, 000 Btu/W, Coal, Oil or Gas Fired,
Natural Steam Pressurized HTW System
Change No. 1 . ,
Heating Plant No. 8, 20, 000, 000 to 120,000,000 Btu/W, Coal, Oil, or Gas Fired
Natural Steam Pressurized HTW System
Heating Plant No. 9, 50, 000 to 120,000,000 BtuAour, Coal, Oil, or Gas Fired,
Nitrogen Pressurized HTW System
Change No. 1
Heating Plant No. 10, 100,000,000 to 210,000,000 BtuA«jr, Cool, Oil, or Gas Fired,
Nitrogen Pressurized HTW System
Change No. 1
Water Level and Draft Indicating System (Pneumatic Type)
Water Level and Draft Indicating System (Electro Pneumatic Type)
Heat Distribution Systems Outside of Buildings
Navy CQC Supplement No. 1
Power Plant, Steam-electric Generating, 5,000kw, Straight Cetfdensing Oil Fired **
Rower Plant, Steam-electric Generating, 5, 000 kw, Automatic Extraction Oil Fired **
Power Plants, Steam-electric Generating, 10, 000 kw. Straight Condensing, Oil Fired **
Power Plant, Steam-electric Generating, 15, 000 kw. Automatic Extraction Oil fired **
Power Plant, Steam-electric 23,500 kw, Straight Condensing Oil Fired **
Power Plant, Steam-electric Generating, 20, 000 kw, Automatic Extraction, Oil Fired **
Power Plants, Steam-electric Generating, 5,000kw, Automatic Extraction, Coal-
Oil Fired **
Power Plants, Steam-electric Generating, 15, 000 kw, Automatic Extraction, Coal-
Oil Fired **
Change No. 1
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 1, Continuous Duty, 201 to
500 kw. Units **
Change No. 1
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 2, Continuous Duty, 501 to
1000 kw, Units **
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 3, Continuous Duty, 1001 to
1500 kw, Units **
-178-
-------
NAV /
TS-P52a
TS-P53a
TS-P54a
TS-P55a
TS-P59
TS-P60
TS-P61
TS-S9
TS-S11
TS-15S15
TS-15S18
TS-15S19
TS-15T6
TS-15T8
TS-15T10
TS-15T22o
TS- 15057
TS-I5180
TS-15384
TS- 15390
TV. 15393
TW.5405
U- 1 54 08
»WI5409
'-'•-552
•-B02
Aug65
Aug71
Sep65
Aug71
Sep65
Aug65
Nov 62
Mar 63
Mar 63
Mar 67
Mar 67
Jul 71
Sep71
Jul 71
Nov 70
Sep68
May 71
SeP68
Mar 71
Oct 68
Jun68
Mar 71
Sep72
Feb73
May 72
May 72
May 72
Oct 72
Oct 72
Oct 72
Jun 72
Nov 72
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 4, Continuous Duty 1501
to 3500 kw, Units **
Change No. I
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 5, Standby Duty 101 to
700 kw, Units **
Change No. 1
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Design 6, Standby Duty 701 to
1250 kw, Units **
Power Plants, Diesel-electric Generating, Emergency Duty, 201 to 600 kw, Units **
Plumbing Systems, Interior
Piping, Gas, Interior
Piping, Oil, Interior
Prefabricated Sewage-treatment Plant
Prefabricated Sewage Lift Station
Circular Clarifier
Change No. 1
Trickling Filter
Comminutor
Steel Tanks with Floating Roofs
Change No. 1
Steel Tanks with Fixed Roofs
Change No. 1
Underground Vertical Steel Tanks
Steel Tanks with Covered Floating Roofs
Change No. 1
Coal Tor Coating Systems for Steel Structures
Insulation of Mechanical Systems
Rectangular Claiifier
Aeration Equipment
Flow Measuring Equipment
Oxide Piping Systems
Nitrous Oxide Piping Systems
Vacuum Piping System
Central Refrigeration Equipment for Air Conditioning
Air Supply Systems
-179-
-------
NAV8
DIVISION 16:
TS-I6A9o
TS-16C22
TS-J6F1
TS-16F19
TS-I6F2I
TS-16L4
TS-16R11
TS-16113
TS-16300
TS-16335
TS-16402
TS- 16475
TS-16570
TS- 16761
TS- 16852
ELECTRICAL
Mar 68
May 71
Dec 69
Jul71
Jan 68
Jan 71
Sep67
Jan 68
Jan 68
Jan 71
Sop 67
Mar 71
Sep70
SeP72
May 72
Apr 72
Jol 72
Apr 72
Sep72
Sep72
Airfield Lighting
Change No. 1
Electronic Intercommunication Syitem
Change No. 1
Fire Alarm System (Shunt, Non-interfering Type)
Change No. 1
Radio Frequency Filters for 60 Cycle Power Lines
Change No. 1
Fire Alarm System (Positive, Non-interfering Type)
Change No. 1
Outdoor Lighting
Change No. 1
Receptacle) and Plugs, Electrical (for Aircraft Ground Support Equipment)
Underfloor Duct Systems
Electrical Distribution, Exterior
Transformers, Substation and Switchgear, Exterior
Interior Wiring Systems
Transformers, Substations and Switchgeor, Interior
Watchman's Clock System
Intercommunication System
Electrical Space Heating Equipment
Available only From NAVFAC HQ
A limited supply was printed. Copies should only be requested when a particular need for
specification exists.
-180-
-------
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTIONS OF CONSTRUCTION PRODUCTS MADE
FROM HASTE GLASS
-181-
-------
Product; Terrazzo Floors
Description: Glass chips sorted and blended by color and size set
into a matrix of portland cement or a "Poly-Mod" mixture of cement
and a polymer. Floor is polished to show glass aggregate.
Status of Development; Two floors have been used successfully for
almost four years at Emhart in Windsor, Ct., and the Fullerton Air
Industrial Park, Fullerton, Ca. Basic research was conducted by the
Bureau of Mines at Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Unique Advantages: Harder than marble. Can easily compete with
marble's high cost of $30-$120 per ton.
Constraints: Glass must be source separated to achieve quality,
size and color balance.
*Plant Investment: Low
Quality of Glass Required; Large chips, clean and color separated.
**Economics; Value - $30-$100+/ton
Recovery Cost - Source Separation
Market; Traditional terrazzo floor market. If 100 percent of the
marble could be replaced by glass, that would amount to .8 million
tons nationally in 1974. Market is growing at 7 percent per year.
Contact: Pickett Scott, Glass Containers Corp., 535 North Gilbert
Avenue, Fullerton, California 92634.
Reports; The Commercial Potential of Terrazzo with Wash Glass
Aggregate, Midwest Research Institute. Published by GCMI, 1800 K
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.
Symposium on utilization of Waste Glass in Secondary Fibers,
University of New Mexico, Glass Container Manufacturers Institute
(GCMI), Albuquerque, New Mexico. One paper of special interest is
"Terrazzo and Other Glass Products in Existing Buildings" by Pickett
Scott of Glass Containers Corporation, Fullerton, California.
*Low - $0-$150,000 **Value of glass in product.
Medium - $150,000-$500,000 Cog(. ^ 3eparate glass in resource
High - $500,000 and above recovery system, if applicable.
Figures are approximate.
These figures represent incre-
mental investment in those cases
where existing plant can be
utilized.
Preceding page blank
-IS 3-
-------
Product; Thixite^
Description; A strong durable tile or panel made with various mix-
tures of ground glass, clay, construction rubble and glass chips.
The product is vibratory casted and fired to the size and shape
desired in virtually any size and shape desired. Decorative effects
can be achieved with different aggregate and surface treatments.
Status of Development: 4,000 SP are incorporated into the picnic
pavilion in Washington Park, Denver.
Unique Advantages; Uses 94 percent waste materials. Saves over
400 F in firing temperature vs. bricks. Can command high price for
glass.
Constraints; New material—will face market development period.
Plant Investment; Low
Quality of Glass Required; Basic mixture can accept glass-rich sep-
aration plant output if it is free of organics. Glass chips must be
large and color sorted when used for visual effect.
Economics; Value - $30-$100+ton
Recovery Cost - $2-$5/ton
Market; The market for architectural wall board is about 961 million
square feet in 1974 and is growing at about 7 1/4 percent annually.
Thixite containing 31 percent waste glass could theoretically consume
1.4 million tons in 1974.
Contact; Patent Licensee-Thixon Corporation, 1367 Harlan street,
Lakewood, Colorado 80214. Patent Holder-GCMI, 1800 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20006.
Reports; The Commercial Potential of Glass-Rubble Building Panels,
Midwest Research Institute, Published by BCMI, 1800 K Street, N.W.,
Washington, D. C. 20006.
-184-
-------
Product; Pozzolan
Description; Waste glass is ground to minus 100 mesh and used as a
concrete additive to counteract reactions between cement and certain
siliceous aggregates.
Status of Development: Experiments have been successfully conducted at
the Colorado School of Mines.
Unique Advantages: Glass has a more consistent chemical composition
than pozzolans in use today.
Constraints; Would replace materials which are themselves recovered
wastes.
Plant Investment: Low
Quality of Glass Required: Lightly contaminated—mixed colors.
Economics; Value - $16-$21/ton
Recovery Cost - $4-$6/ton
Market; Total annual tonnage rose dramatically to about 800,000
tons. Heaviest use in the Midwest.
Contact; Maurice Pattengill. Colorado School of Mines Research
Institute, P. 0. Box 112, Golden, Colorado.
Reports: Symposium on Utilization of Waste Glass in Secondary Products,
January 24-25, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Sponsored by the Technology
Application Center, University of New Mexico, The Glass Container
Manufacturers Institute, the Albuquerque Dept. of Environmental
Health. One paper of particular interest is "Use of Ground Glass as
a Pozzolan" by Maurice Pattengill and T. C. Shutt of Colorado School
of Mines Research Institute.
-185-
-------
Product: Foamed Glass Panels
Description; Waste glass foamed with a variety of foaming agents to
produce a line of wallboard, sandwich wall cores, acoustic panels,
glazed panels, roofing materials, etc. Products have good sound
and heat insulating characteristics and can be made with a variety
of decorative effects. ,One licensee of the UCLA patents calls
on
their product Envirite .
Status of Development! Process has been perfected at both UCLA and
University of Utah. Several applications of Envirite are in use in
the Fullerton Air Industrial Park, Fullerton, Cal.
Unique Advantages; New construction product having many attractive
features which should allow it to compete with a broad spectrum of
traditional materials.
Constraints; New Material—will face market development period.
Plant Investment; Medium
Quality of Glass Required; Can be quite dirty. Organics will burn
off during processing.
Economics; Value - $3-$16/ton
Recovery Cost - $l-$3/ton
Market; Envirite will probably compete best in the insulating wall-
board market which is about 3,800 million square feet in 1974. This
translates to about 1.5 million tons per year of waste glass.
Contact; Dr. J. Douglas MacKensie, University of California, Los
Angeles, School of Engineering, Boelter Hall, Room 6532, Los Angeles,
Cal. 90024; Mr. Jerry D. Johnson, Environ Control Products, Inc.,
16128 Leadwell Street, Van Nuys, Cal. 91406; B. D. Mardrant and I. B.
Cutler, Division of Materials Science and Engineering, University of
Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Reports; The Commercial Potential of Foamed Glass Construction
Materials made with Waste Glass and Animal Excreta, Midwest Research
Institute. Published by GCMI, 1800 K Street, N. W., Washington,
D. C. 20006.
Symposium on Utilization of Waste Glass in Secondary Products,
sponsored by the Technology Application Center, University of New
Mexico, GCMI, Inc.
-186-
-------
Product: Ceramic Bricks
Description; Ceramic bricks are traditional red bricks which are
predominantly used as facing bricks all across the country. The U.S.
Bureau of Mines has run some successful tests on the use of ground
glass as a replacement for clay in bricks. They have found that the
strength holds up very well, and have also discovered an important
advantage in using glass in the makeup of a brick body (i.e., there
are great energy savings when the bricks are fired which are proportional
to the amounts of glass used). Not only is energy saved but also the
residence time in the kilns is drastically reduced. For brick manu-
facturers who are facing capacity constraints, this reduction of kiln
time is an important advantage. The presence of the glass makes little
or no change in the appearance of the bricks and of course the bricks
would continue to be sold by the existing distribution networks.
Glass from resource recovery plants will probably be acceptable
with the only exception being that all aluminum must first be extracted.
Status of Development; Good quality bricks have been produced by the
Bureau of Mines and brick makers in California. The National Center
for Resource Recovery plans to do further testing in cooperation with
a brick maker on the East Coast.
Unique Advantages: No new product distribution effort required.
Large energy savings in manufacturing.
Plant Investment: Low.
Quality of Glass Required: Can be contaminated but all aluminum should
be removed.
Economics: Value $2-$12/ton
Recovery Cost - $2-$4/ton
Market; Assuming a clay replacement of 35 percent, the annual U.S.
market would be about 7.1 million tons.
Contact: M. E. Tyrrell and I. L. Feld, Tuscaloosa Metallurgy Research Lab,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama; J. A. Barclay, College Metallurgy Research Center,
College Park, Maryland.
Reports: USBM, Fabrication and Cost Evaluation of Experimental Building
Brick from Waste Glass, R.I. 7605 by M. E. Tyrrell and I. L. Feld,
Tuscaloosa Metallurgy Research Lab, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
USBM, Economic Studies of Uses of the Glass Fractions from Muni-
cipal Incinerator Residues, R.I. 8567 by Paul W. Johnson and James A.
Barclay, College Park Metallurgy Research Center, College Park, Maryland.
USBM, Glass Wool from Waste Glass, R.I. 7708, by Alan H. Goode,
M.E. Tyrell and I. L. Feld, Tuscaloosa Metallurgy Research Lab,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
-187-
-------
Product; Glass-Excreta Tiles
Description; Aside from the study for foamed glass panels, UCLA has
also developed a strong light-weight tile which is made in a like
manner. However, the excreta is not volitalized as the tiles are
fired under pressure. Instead, the excreta particles remain intact
while the glass fuses and forms a strong matrix around the light
particles. Except for their lightness, these tiles are not signifi-
cantly different from products currently on the market. They would
probably be manufactured at the same plant as the foamed glass panels,
and would be able to accept as input the same quality of glass (i.e.,
somewhat contaminated) coming from resource recovery plants.
Status of Development: Processes have been perfected at UCLA.
Unique Advantages; The most attractive features of this product is
its being lightweight, fire proof and attractive in appearance.
Plant Investment; Medium
Quality of Glass; Can be dirty as organics will burn off during
processing.
Economics; Value - $2-$1I/ton
Recovery Costs - $l-$3/ton
Market: The market for glass excreta tiles is roughly 300,000 tons
per year.
Contacts; Dr. MacKenzie and Jerry D. Johnson, Environ Control Pro-
ducts, Inc., 16128 Leadwell Street, Van Nuys, California 91406,
(213) 994-2392.
Reports: The Commercial Potential of Ceramic Tiles Made with Waste
Glass and Animal Excreta, Midwest Research Institute, published by
GCMI, Inc., 1800 K Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20006.
-188-
-------
Product: Foamed Light-Weight Aggregate
Description; Light-weight aggregate has become an important cost
saving ingredient in concrete structures. The U. S. Bureau of Mines
in Tuscaloosa, Alabama has developed a process to convert finely
ground waste glass into a foamed light-weight aggregate. The process
could utilize rotary kilns which are presently owned by manufacturers
of traditional light-weight aggregate which is made by heating certain
types of shale until they bloat. The USBM found it could achieve high
quality aggregate by foaming the glass and thereby offer at least two
significant advantages: 1) in many sections of the country the freight
on the raw material would be drastically reduced and 2) there will be
a great energy savings because glass melts (foams) at a lower blasting
temperature than the shale.
Status of Development: Experimental. Based on studies done by USBM,
Metallurgy Lab, Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Unique Advantages: Energy savings in manufacture and freight
savings for raw materials (for many sections of the country). Also
existing distribution channels can be utilized.
Plant Investment-. Low
Quality of Glass Required; Somewhat contaminated - more experimental
work needed.
Economics: Value $3-$6/ton
Recovery Costs - $l-$3/ton
Market: Large and growing. Could potentially accept 5.7 million
tons of waste glass per year.
Contact: Miles Tyrrell or Martin H. Stanczyk, Tuscaloosa Metallurgy
Research Lab, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
Reports: None published yet.
-189-
-------
Product; Glass Wool Insulation
Description; Glass wool is a well-known insulating product made of
finely drawn glass fibers. Early experimental and even some commer-
cial operation has shown that a good grade of glass wool can be pro-
duced from waste glass. One major manufacturer feels that a great deal
more pilot plant work needs to be done so that potential contaminants
in garbage or in the waste glass itself can be controlled.
Status of Development; Some problems remain to be solved before large
scale operation can commence. Presently, Sealite Corporation is
producing glass wool from waste glass.
Unique Advantages; Energy savings. Can use existing channels of
distribution.
Constraints; Chemicals present in garbage and waste glass may delay
technology.
Plant Investment; High
Quality of Glass Required; Clean but not color separated.
Economics; Value - $3-$6/ton
Recovery Costs - $4-$6/ton
Market; Small in relation to the total of waste glass available.
Only about 500,000 tons per year but growing rapidly because of the
energy crisis.
Contact; Walter Gubar, Director, Research Lab, Certain-Teed Saint
Gobain Insulation Corporation, P. O. Box 15080, Kansas City, Mo.
66115; Mr. Miles Firnhaber, Sealite Corporation, P. O. Box 344,
Waukesha, Wisconsin 53186.
Reports: USBM, Glass Wool from Waste Glass, R. I. 7708, by Alan H.
Goode, M. E. Tyrell, and I. L. Feld, Tuscaloosa Metallurgy Research
Lab, Tuscaloosa, Ala.
The Commercial Potential of Glass Wool Insulation, by Midwest
Research Institute, published by GCMI, 1800 K Street, N. W.,
Washington, D. C. 20006.
-190-
-------
Product: Glass-Polymer Concrete
Description: Glass-polymer concrete is produced by mixing crushed
waste glass with monomer, either methyl methacrylate or polyester
stryene and polymerizing by chemical initial techniques. The amount
of monomer loadings can be as low as 9-10 percent. The strength of
this concrete is 2 to 4 times as high as ordinary concrete. One
major advantage is the resistance to chemical attack. Therefore, the
most logical application has been for sewer pipes and pipes for more
corrosive industrial liquids. The same process can be applied with
other aggregate materials, including common crushed stone.
Status of Development; Several types of pipe and other materials have
been fabricated. On October 30, 1972 a 30 foot section of glass
polymer concrete sewer pipe was installed in Huntington, Long Island,
New York.
Unique Advantages: Resistance to corrosion.
Constraints; The glass would be used as a substitute aggregate for
other more common aggregates and therefore can command only a low
value. The only exception is for high corrosion uses, which is a
small market.
Plant Investment: Low
Quality of Glass Required: Glass can be quite dirty.
Economics: Value - $2-$5/ton
Recovery Costs - $2-$4/ton
Market: If GPC could capture the entire 3 inch to 24 inch sewer
pipe market, it could use 2.7 million tons of glass per year.
Contact: Morris Beller and Meyer Steinberg, Department of Applied
Science, Brookhaven National Lab, Upton, New York.
Reports; Symposium on Utilization of Waste Glass in Secondary
Products sponsored by Technology Application Center, University of
New Mexico, the Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute, Inc.,
Jan. 24-25, 1973, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
M. Beller and M. Steinberg, Glass-Polymer Composites, Brookhaven
National Lab, Upton, New York.
A. D. Little, Glass Polymer Conposite Sewer Pipe - An Initial
Evaluation of its Commercial Potential, prepared by R. S. Lindstrom
and Dr. Jack Milgrom.
-191-
-------
Product: Glasphalt
Description: The use of waste glass as an aggregate in an asphaltic
mixture is called glasphalt. It is one of the earliest products to
emerge as a secondary use of waste glass. Laboratory studies began
in 1969 at the University of Missouri. For the 30 or more test
strips of glasphalt in use around the country, results have been
satisfactory except for a very few cases. Tests run by the U.S.
Federal Highway Administration indicate a potential problem with "strip-
ping," or poor adherence of liquid asphalt to the glass particles.
The potential market is over 150,000,000 tons of waste glass per year,
significantly in excess of the 12 million tons of glass in the solid
waste stream. Glasphalt enables paving contractors to pave several
weeks later in the fall and to begin paving several weeks earlier
in the spring because it takes longer to cool than conventional
asphalt. Another feature is that glasphalt can accept a high per-
centage of nonglass materials (up to 17 percent in some tests).
Because of the low value of the glass as a substitute for crushed
rock, it may be hard to generate much interest in developing and
promoting the product by industry.
Status of Development: Many test strips across the country.
Unique Advantages: Cold weather paving and ability to take very
contaminated glass.
Constraints: Low value will not stimulate product demand.
Plant Investment: Low
Quality of Glass Required: Can be very dirty.
Economics; Value - $2-$5/ton
Recovery Cost - $l-$3/ton
Market; If glass could replace 50 percent of all black-top paving
aggregate, this would represent a market of 150 million tons per
year.
Contact: Ward R. Malisch and Delbert E. Day, Engineering Research
Lab, University of Missouri, Rolla, Missour.
Reports; Papers presented at Symposium on Utilization of Waste Glass
in Secondary Products, sponsored by Technology Application Center,
University of New Mexico, GCMI, Inc., Albuquerque, New Mexico,
January 24, 25, 1973.
Ward R. Malisch, James J. Schneider, Bobby G. Wixson, University
of Missouri, Laboratory and Field Experience with Asphaltic Concretes
Containing Glass Aggregates.
John P. Cummings, Owens-Illinois Co., Waste Glass in Road Construction.
-192-
-------
Product; Slurry Seal
Description; Slurry seal is a specially prepared and cured surface
for roads. The seals provide protection against moisture penetration,
and wear and tear from traffic and protection against skidding. It has
been demonstrated on several strips that slurry seal containing large
portions of glass as an aggregate is better than, or at least equal
to conventional slurry seal. There is evidence to show that slurry
seal with glass provides resistance against skidding because as the
traffic wears down the matrix, the small particles of glass will
break off and expose new angular glass surfaces. Neither heat nor
solids are required in the preparation of slurry seal.
Status of Development: Successfully demonstrated in several strips,
including Waco, Texas and New Orleans, Louisiana.
Unique Advantages: Increased skid resistance.
Constraints: Low value for glass when substituted for conventional
rock aggregates.
Plant Investment: Low
Quality of Glass Required: Can be quite contaminated.
Economics; Value - $2-$5/ton
Recovery Cost - $2-$4/ton
Market; The total aggregate could be substituted with glass and
would amount to 1.4 million tons in the United States annually.
Contact; R. T. Young of Slurry Seal Inc. , Waco, Texas.
Reports: "Commercial Potential of Slurry Seal with Waste Glass
Aggregate," by Midwest Research sponsored by GCMI, 1800 K Street,
N.W., Washington, D.C.
The American City Magazine, "Slurry Seal Program - A Political
Asset," Buttenheim Publishing Co., March 1972.
-193-
-------
Product; Glass-Portland Cement Concrete
Description: Glass has been used as a replacement for sand and SOB*
of the smaller crushed rock aggregates in concrete. It has been
demonstrated in the Air Industrial Park in Fullerton, California.
Some of the basic research was conducted at the Thayer School of
Engineering at Dartmouth, Hanover, New Hampshire. The results of
strength tests have been somewhat mixed, but it is concluded that
glass can be used in nonstructural concrete especially where the
decorative effect of glass chips can be used advantageously. Generally
however, the use of glass in concrete is little better than a disposal
strategy because the competing aggregates are quite inexpensive.
Status of Development; Demonstrated in the Fullerton Air Industrial
Park, basic research at Thayer School at Dartmouth College.
Unique Advantages; Can be used for interesting decorative effects.
Constraints: May develop strength problems in structural concrete.
Plant Investment; Low
Quality of Glass; Glass must be free of organics.
Economies; Value - $2-$5/ton
Recovery Cost - $2-$6/ton
Market; The potential markets are very large. Considering the use
of concrete in masonry blocks alone, about 16 million tons could
theoretically be consumed annually.
Contact; Russell Stearns, Thayer School, Dartmouth College.
Reportst Hansen, W.C., Journal of Materials, Vol. 2, June, 1967,
408-431. Powers, T.C., ACI Journal, Vol. 51, Feb. 1955, 497-516,
785-811.
Proceedings of the Third Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
jointly sponsored by Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute,
Chicago, Illinois, March 14-16, 1972.
Klimnek, Charles A., "Utilization of Waste Glass in Portland
Cement Concrete," Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College,
June 1970.
-194-
-------
Product: Tekbloks^,
Description; Glass and many other aggregates may be used in the
formation of a unique block made with a process patented by Tekology,
Inc. In the manufacturing process, an aggregate is combined with
Portland cement, water and common chemicals. The mixture is then
subjected to pressure of several thousand pounds per square inch.
This causes a chemical reaction between the cement, chemicals and
water, creating the patented Tek adhesive binder. Simultaneously,
the desired product shape is formed, either into conventional shapes
or into interlocking that require no mortar. Since waste products
such as mine tailings can be used, a low value would be placed on
the glass unless it was needed for decorative facing. The existence
of this market for glass will depend on the success Tekology has in
establishing itself across the country.
Status of Development; Demonstrated in a 4-bedroom, tri-level house
built in Richmond, Virginia by Reynolds Metals.
Unique Advantages: New construction product offering several cost
advantages. Uses about 90 percent waste materials.
Constraints: Glass must compete with very low value aggregates
such as mine tailings.
Plant Investment: Medium
Quality of Glass Required: Can be heavily contaminated.
Economics; Value - $0-$3/ton
Recovery Cost - $l-$3/ton
Market; Will compete in the bricks and concrete block market where
total aggregates amount to well over 40 million tons per year.
Contact; James Ryan, President, Tekology Corporation, Palisades
Park, New Jersey.
Reports; Environmental Science and Technology Reprint - "Building
Bricks from the Waste Pile," June 1972.
-195-
-------
|