1

Information Series 138

Annual Asphalt Pavement

Industry Survey on

Recycled Materials

and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage:

2009–2013

4th Annual Survey
2

NAPA Building ● 5100 Forbes Blvd. ● Lanham, MD 20706-4407

Tel: 301-731-4748 ● Fax: 301-731-4621

Toll free: 1-888-468-6499 ● www.AsphaltPavement.org

Publication Sales: napa-orders@abdintl.com ● Toll free: 888-600-4474

Tel: 412-741-6314 ● Fax: 412-741-0609

4

th Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey

IS-138

Produced October 2014

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration in the interest of information 

exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents 

or use of the information contained in this document.

The contents of this report reflect the views of the contractor, who is responsible 

for the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily 

reflect the official policy of the Department of Transportation.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. 

Trade or manufacturer’s names may appear only because they are considered 

essential to the object of this document.
3

4. Title and Subtitle

Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix 

Asphalt Usage: 2009–2013

5. Report Date

October 2014

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Kent R. Hansen, P.E. and Audrey Copeland, Ph.D., P.E.

8. Performing Organization Report No. 

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

National Asphalt Pavement Association

5100 Forbes Blvd.

Lanham, MD 20706

10. Work Unit No. 

11. Contract or Grant No.

DTFH61-13-H-00027

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Asset Management, Pavement and Construction

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 2009–2013

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer’s Representative: Victor Lee Gallivan

16. Abstract

One of the shared goals of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) is 

to support and promote sustainable practices such as pavement recycling and warm-mix asphalt (WMA). The use of recycled

materials, primarily reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS), in asphalt pavements reduces the 

amount of new materials required to produce asphalt mixes and material going to landfills. This is vital to the mission of 

environmental stewardship and extending the service life of the nation’s infrastructure while lowering overall costs.

WMA technologies have been introduced to reduce the mixing and compacting temperatures for asphalt mixtures as a means of 

reducing emissions. Additional benefits include improved compaction of asphalt mixtures leading to improved pavement performance. 

As part of FHWA’s Every Day Counts initiative, WMA was chosen for accelerated deployment in federal-aid highway, state department 

of transportation (DOT), and local road projects.

It is important for the industry to track the deployment of these technologies, which reduce costs, energy, waste, emissions, and 

the amount of new materials required for road construction. FHWA has established two survey mechanisms for tracking the use of 

recycled materials and WMA in asphalt pavements. The first survey tracks state DOT usage, and the other tracks industry usage. 

These surveys have established a baseline for RAP, RAS, and WMA usage and have tracked the growth of the use of these 

sustainable practices in the highway industry since 2009.

The objective of this survey is to quantify the use of recycled materials, and WMA produced by the asphalt pavement industry. 

Survey results show significant growth in the use of RAP, RAS, and WMA technologies from 2009 through 2013. The asphalt industry 

remains the country’s number-one recycler by recycling asphalt pavements at a rate of over 99 percent and for the first time all (100 

percent) contractors/branches report using RAP in 2013. The average percentage of RAP used in asphalt mixtures has increased from

16.2 percent in 2009 to 20.0 percent in 2013. In 2013 the estimated RAP tonnage used in asphalt mixes was 67.8 million tons. 

Assuming 5 percent liquid asphalt in RAP, this represents over 3.4 million tons (19 million barrels) of asphalt binder conserved during 

2013. The estimated savings at $600 per ton for asphalt binder is $2.04 billion.

Use of both manufacturers’ scrap and post-consumer asphalt shingles used in asphalt mixes increased 135 percent since 2009 to 

more than 1.6 million tons 2013. Assuming a conservative asphalt content of 20 percent for the RAS, this represents about 320,000 

tons (1.7 million barrels) of asphalt binder conserved. The estimated savings at $600 per ton for asphalt binder is $192 million.

For 2012 and 2013, contractors were asked about their use of other recycled materials in asphalt mixtures. The number of states 

where contractors reported using steel and blast furnace slag in asphalt mixtures dropped slightly from 13 states in 2012 to 11 states 

in 2013s. The number of states where contractors reported ground tire rubber (GTR) being used in asphalt mixtures grew from nine

states in 2012 to 15 states and Puerto Rico in 2013. The reported use of cellulose fiber grew from one state in 2012 to six states in 

2013. Other recycled materials used to a lesser degree include fly ash, foundry slag, and glass. Due to the low response rate on other 

recycled materials, no attempt was made to estimate the total quantities of other recycled materials used.

In 2013, WMA was more than 30 percent of the total asphalt mixture market. WMA use increased by nearly 22 percent from 

2012 to 2013, and about 533 percent since 2009. Plant foaming is used most often in producing WMA, with 87 percent of the market.

WMA additives accounted for about 13 percent of the market.

17. Key Words

Reclaimed asphalt pavement, reclaimed asphalt shingles, 

warm-mix asphalt, RAP, RAS, WMA, recycled materials

18. Distribution Statement

No Restrictions

19. Security Classif. (of this report) 

Unclassified

20. Security Classif, (of this page) 

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages 

26

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
4

Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on 

Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix Asphalt

Usage: 2009–2013

Executive Summary

The 2013 survey results show that the asphalt pavement industry continues to improve its outstanding record of 

sustainable practices by further increasing the use of recycled materials and warm-mix asphalt (WMA). The use of 

recycled materials such as reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) conserve raw

materials and reduce overall asphalt mixture costs while, WMA technologies improve conditions for achieving 

performance and long life, conserve energy, reduce emissions from production and paving operations, and improve 

conditions for workers.

The objective of this survey was to quantify the use of recycled materials, primarily RAP and RAS, and WMA produced by 

the asphalt pavement industry. The National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA) conducted a voluntary survey of 

asphalt mixture producers in the United States and state asphalt pavement associations (SAPAs). The survey was broken 

into five sections: general information, RAP, RAS, WMA, and other recycled materials. For the first time asphalt mix 

producers from all 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the 2013 survey. A total of 249 

companies/branches with 1,281 plants are represented in the 2013 survey.

The following are highlights of the 2013 survey:

 The asphalt industry remains the country’s number-one recycler by recycling asphalt pavements at a rate of over 

99 percent. 100 percent of the contractors/branches reported using RAP in 2013, which is up two percent from 

2012. The amount of RAP used in asphalt mixtures was 67.8 million tons in 2013, a 21 percent increase over the 

tons used in 2009 (56 million tons). This is a 1 percent decrease over the tons used in 2012 (68.3 million tons).

However, total asphalt tonnage was down from 2012 to 2013, so in term of percent of total tonnage there was a 

2 percent increase in the use of RAP from 2012 to 2013. Assuming 5 percent liquid asphalt in RAP, this 

represents over 3.4 million tons (19 million barrels) of asphalt binder conserved. The amount of RAP landfilled 

decreased from previous years to less than 0.2 percent.

 Use of both manufacturers’ scrap and post-consumer shingles decreased from nearly 1.9 million tons in 2012 to 

more than 1.6 million tons in 2013, an 11.6 percent decrease. Assuming a conservative asphalt content of 20 

percent for the RAS that may be used to replace virgin binder, this represents 320,000 tons (1.7 million barrels) 

of asphalt binder conserved. As in the 2012 survey, the amount of scrap shingles collected was less than the 

amount used for all purposes. This is due to fewer unprocessed scrap shingles being collected by asphalt mix 

producers in 2012 and 2013 than prior years, and producers buying RAS from shingle processors.

 Information on other recycled materials was obtained for the second time in this year’s survey. The most 

commonly used materials in asphalt mixtures were blast furnace slag, steel slag, ground tire rubber, and 

cellulose fibers. Less commonly used recycled materials included fly ash and foundry sand.

 Total tonnage of WMA is estimated at 106.4 million tons in 2013. This is nearly a 23 percent increase over 2012 

WMA tonnage (86.7 million tons). As of 2013, WMA is now over 30 percent of the total asphalt mixture market.

Plant foaming is used most often in producing WMA, with more than 87 percent of the market; additives 

accounted for about 13 percent of the market.
5

Background

One of the shared goals of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Asphalt Pavement Association 

(NAPA) is to support and promote sustainable practices, such as incorporating recycled materials in pavements and the use of 

warm-mix asphalt (WMA). Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is recycled at a higher rate than any other material in the 

United States and is vital to the mission of extending the service life of the nation’s infrastructure while lowering overall costs.

Another recycled material increasingly used in asphalt mixtures is reclaimed asphalt shingles (RAS) from both manufacturers’ 

waste and post-consumer shingles. The use of RAP and RAS in asphalt pavements reduces the amount of material going to 

landfills and can reduce the amount of new asphalt binder required in mixes, which helps to stabilize the price of asphalt 

mixtures and saves natural resources. Other recycled materialsincorporated into asphalt pavements include ground tire 

rubber (GTR), steel slag, blast furnace slag, and cellulose fibers, among others. These materials put waste materials to practical 

use, reducing the amount of material going to landfills and improving the sustainability of asphalt mixtures.

WMA technologies reduce the mixing and compacting temperatures for asphalt mixtures. Environmental benefits include 

reductions in both fuel consumption and air emissions. Construction benefits include the ability to extend the paving season into 

the cooler months, haul the material longer distances, improve compaction, and use higher percentages of RAP (Prowell et al., 

2012). As part of FHWA’s first Every Day Counts initiative, WMA was chosen in 2010 for accelerated deployment in federal-aid 

highway, state department of transportation (DOT), and local road projects(FHWA, 2013). In 2013, WMA was honored with the 

Construction Innovation Forum’s NOVA Award for its engineering, economic, and environmental benefits (CIF, 2013).

FHWA works closely with the pavement industry through associations and other stakeholders to promote pavement recycling 

technologies and WMA. As part of this effort, FHWA has established two survey mechanisms for tracking the use of recycled 

materials and WMA in asphalt pavements. The firstsurvey tracks state DOT usage and the other tracks industry usage. Since 

2007, FHWA has partnered with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to conduct 

a biennial survey of state DOTs’ use of recycled materials(Copeland, 2011; Copeland et al., 2010; Pappas, 2011). The results of 

the FHWA/AASHTO survey are typically presented at FHWA Expert Task Group meetings. For the second survey, FHWA 

partners with NAPA to survey asphalt producers to determine industry use of RAP, RAS, other recycled materials, as well as 

WMA technologies. These surveys have established a baseline of RAP, RAS, and WMA usage, and have tracked the growth of 

the use of these sustainable practices in the highway industry.

The FHWA/NAPA industry survey first began in 2010, and was repeated in 2011 and 2012. The survey results showed 

significant growth in the use of RAP, RAS, and WMA technologies from 2009 to 2012 (Hansen & Newcomb, 2011; Hansen & 

Copeland, 2013a; Hansen & Copeland, 2013b). In order to continue to track the use of these technologies, FHWA again 

partnered with NAPA to conduct a similar survey of RAP, RAS, and WMA use for 2013. This report documents the results of 

the 2013 industry survey, including the survey methodology, results, trends, and changes from 2009 through 2013. For 2012

and 2013, the survey also asked about the use of other recycled materials used in asphalt mixtures. The survey questions and 

data by state are included in the appendices.

Objective and Scope

The objective of this effort is to quantify the use of recycled materials and WMA produced by the asphalt pavement industry.

NAPA conducted a voluntary survey of asphalt mixture producers in the United States and of state asphalt pavement 

associations (SAPAs). While keeping specific producer data confidential, NAPA staff compiled the amount of asphalt mixtures 

being produced; the amount of RAP, RAS, and other recycled material used; and the amount of WMA being produced in the 

United States. The data are broken out on a state-by-state basis in Appendix B. To keep specific producer data confidential, no 

state specific information is provided if fewer than three producers from a state respond to the survey. Information from 

states with fewer than three responding companies is still used to calculate national values. The data are analyzed and 

summarized in this report. In order to accomplish this work, the following tasks were conducted:
6

1. Develop an online survey similar to the 2009–2012 surveysthat enables an analysis of the quantities of RAP and 

RAS being used in asphalt mixtures, as well as the total amount of WMA produced nationally. For 2012 and 2013

information on other recycled materials used in asphalt mixtures was gathered, too.

2. Conduct a voluntary survey of asphalt mix producers throughout the United States and follow up with verbal 

requests for information in locations where responses were low.

3. Estimate the total asphalt mixture market in each state or territory by using data from responding SAPAs and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway apportionment to determine a weighting factor for each state 

and reconciling the total U.S. asphalt mix tonnage with national estimates.

4. Analyze and summarize the information nationally and by state and prepare a final report.

Survey Methodology

The survey was conducted using a web survey service, SurveyMonkey®. Sections 1 through 4 of the survey for 2013 were

identical to the surveys used for 2009 through 2011 (Hansen & Newcomb, 2011; Hansen & Copeland, 2013a; Hansen & 

Copeland, 2013b). Section 5 was added for 2012 and 2013 to collect information on the use of other recycled material in 

asphalt mixtures. A copy of the 2013 survey is included as Appendix A.

Producers were notified of the survey through several forums and electronic media. A notice was posted in NAPA’s 

e-newsletter, ActionNews, informing members of the survey and asking for their participation. SAPAs participated by placing 

notices on their websites and in their newsletters. Announcements were made at NAPA meetings, as well as at several state 

asphalt conferences. A press release was sent to construction industry trade media, and republished in print and to their 

websites. Notices of the survey and links were shared through social media channels, including Twitter, Facebook, and 

LinkedIn. Asphalt mixture producers then went to the website and completed the survey form. After the initial data was

gathered and analyzed, anomalies in individual producer records were identified and reconciled.

The survey was broken into five sections. These sections were general information, RAP, RAS, WMA, and other recycled 

materials. Table 1 summarizes the questions asked in each section.

Table 1: Survey Questions Summary

Most surveys were completed online with one multistate contractor collecting data from its different operations and submitting 

them in spreadsheet form. Data from the online survey was imported into a spreadsheet and checked for accuracy and missing 

data. When anomalies in the data were noted,the person submitting the data was contacted to resolve the anomaly.

Section 1: General 

Information Sections 2 and 3: RAP & RAS Section 4: WMA Section 5: Other Recycled Materials

Number of Plants Tons Accepted Average % Produced for DOT Tons Other Recycled Materials Used

DOT Tons Tons Used in HMA/WMA Average % Produced for Other Agency Tons Tons of HMA/WMA Produced Using 

Each Recycled Material

Other Agency Tons Tons Used in Aggregate Average % Produced for Commercial & 

Residential Tons Tons of Other Recycled Product Used

Commercial & 

Residential Tons Tons Used in Cold Mix Chemical Additive %

Tons Used in Other Additive Foaming %

Tons Landfilled Plant Foaming %

Average % for DOT Mixes Organic Additive %

Average % for Other Agency Mixes

Average % for Commercial & 

Residential Mixes
7

To determine the total amount of RAP and RAS used and WMA produced in each state and in the nation, the total amount of 

asphalt mix produced in each state needed to be determined. Total tonnage of asphalt mix produced represents commercial (i.e.,

private) and government (i.e., DOTs and local agencies) tonnages. Estimated tonnages were provided by SAPAs in 38

states/territories, which totaled about 283 million tons. This included one SAPA that supplied DOT-estimated tonnages. For this

state,the total tonnage was estimated by dividing the DOT tonnage by the percent of DOT tons provided by asphalt mix producers 

in that state who completed the survey. To estimate the total tons in states where a SAPA estimate of total tonnage was not 

available, the total asphalt mixture tonnage was estimated through a relationship developed for those states where SAPA 

estimated tons were available and their federal highway apportionment. This is the same methodology used to estimate tonnage 

in the 2009–2011 surveys; for more details see Hansen & Newcomb (2011).This resulted in the following power curve relationship:

Total Estimated Tons = 0.2359 × (State Federal Apportionment)0.843

This formula used to estimate the tonnage for states with no SAPA estimate based on the state’s federal apportionment.

Survey Results

Asphalt mix producers from all 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the survey. In 2009–2010, 2011 and 

2012, 48, 49, and 49 jurisdictions completed the survey respectively. A total of 249 companies/branches with 1,281 plants are 

represented in the 2013 survey. In the 2009–2010, 2011, and 2012 surveys, 1,027, 1,091, and 1,141 plants were represented

respectively. Table 2 summarizesthe number of companies/branches and the number of plants reporting for each state.

Table 2: No. of Companies/Branches Completing Survey in State

State

2009 & 2010 2011 2012 2013

State

2009 & 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants Cos. Plants

AL 3 17 5 38 4 31 5 32 MT * * 4 8 4 8 3 7

AK 3 20 * * * * * * NE — — * * * * 3 10

AZ * * 4 6 4 7 3 7 NV * * * * 3 14 3 5

AR 3 9 * * 5 17 3 12 NH * * * * 3 14 4 16

CA 6 49 4 48 4 36 7 75 NJ * * 3 21 * * 4 17

CO 8 26 7 24 5 16 6 17 NM — — * * — — * *

CT * * 3 23 * * * * NY 13 68 11 64 11 68 14 74

DE * * — — 3 6 * * NC 6 52 5 29 6 35 6 37

DC — — — — — — * * ND — — 3 8 — — * *

FL 6 61 4 22 5 34 7 44 OH 5 50 5 87 6 102 6 100

GA * * 6 66 6 67 5 51 OK 4 20 3 18 3 14 6 15

HI * * * * * * * * OR 6 10 6 16 6 15 3 3

ID 5 17 3 8 3 8 4 10 PA 17 63 7 34 15 66 14 58

IL 16 44 7 24 5 10 9 19 PR * * * * * * * *

IN 3 19 4 29 5 28 7 42 RI * * * * * * * *

IA 7 16 6 14 10 28 10 29 SC 4 16 3 6 4 15 3 6

KS 6 25 4 21 3 20 5 24 SD * * 3 9 3 8 * *

KY 3 24 4 19 5 38 7 49 TN * * 7 72 5 32 6 48

LA * * * * * * 3 10 TX 7 38 9 41 10 51 8 42

ME * * * * * * 3 18 UT 5 30 6 17 6 16 8 24

MD 4 10 4 10 7 23 9 24 VT * * * * * * * *

MA * * * * 3 14 4 19 VA 5 38 7 26 8 46 8 38

MI 4 40 6 39 4 28 5 24 WA 6 39 4 30 4 29 4 44

MN * * 6 26 4 20 10 37 WV * * 3 15 3 14 3 14

MS * * 4 26 3 16 5 20 WI * * 3 13 3 16 3 58

MO 6 35 7 38 5 35 3 25 WY * * 3 7 3 7 * *

* Fewer than three companies responding

The average tons produced per plant was 121,000 in 2009; 117,000 in 2010; 121,000 in 2011; 122,000 in 2012; and 115,000 in 2013.
8

Table 3: Summary of Estimated and Reported Plant Mix Asphalt Tons by State

State

Tons (Millions)

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Estimated Reported Estimated Reported Estimated Reported Estimated Reported Estimated Reported

Alabama 7.50 1.75 8.00 1.09 8.00 4.24 8.00 3.37 8.00 3.87

Alaska 3.67 0.82 4.41 1.15 5.98 * 5.46 * 4.94 *

Arizona 7.50 * 7.14 * 8.00 0.91 7.55 1.04 6.79 1.01

Arkansas 3.05 0.71 4.15 0.78 5.56 * 4.20 1.41 4.20 0.95

California 19.97 8.44 13.79 7.68 23.00 9.38 22.50 4.06 24.30 11.06

Colorado 7.72 3.00 10.52 2.62 6.50 2.50 6.50 1.48 7.00 2.01

Connecticut 4.96 * 5.01 * 4.34 2.95 4.00 * 4.95 *

Delaware 0.79 * 0.65 * 2.08 — 2.20 0.71 1.30 *

District of Columbia 1.62 — 1.81 — 1.71 — 1.85 — 1.88 *

Florida 14.70 6.91 13.00 5.81 13.57 3.01 12.38 3.82 12.00 6.1

Georgia 13.00 * 11.70 * 9.50 7.29 8.00 7.78 6.75 5.19

Hawaii 1.73 * 1.91 * 1.81 * 1.20 * 1.98 *

Idaho 3.00 1.13 3.09 1.14 3.45 0.56 3.49 0.79 3.08 0.77

Illinois 19.25 7.81 17.60 7.17 13.94 2.12 13.50 1.16 12.50 2.35

Indiana 9.60 3.28 7.90 3.06 9.50 4.07 10.00 4.44 9,00 4.08

Iowa 4.74 3.54 3.45 1.99 3.30 1.31 4.26 2.80 4.18 3.4

Kansas 4.17 2.08 7.12 1.85 4.00 1.67 4.50 1.55 4.50 1.69

Kentucky 7.00 1.72 7.00 1.74 7.00 1.86 9.00 2.90 7.00 4.56

Louisiana 6.00 * 6.00 * 6.00 * 5.50 * 6,000 1.97

Maine 1.80 * 2.03 * 1.91 * 2.36 * 2.01 1.92

Maryland 7.20 1.07 6.50 1.06 6.50 1.73 6.50 4.01 5.80 3.82

Massachusetts 6.00 * 6.00 * 6.00 * 6.00 1.64 6.10 2.04

Michigan 11.50 7.49 10.80 7.03 10.00 6.54 10.00 5.16 10.30 5.36

Minnesota 12.50 * 13.10 * 13.00 4.94 13.00 4.73 13.50 7.02

Mississippi 4.62 * 4.79 * 6.00 2.67 4.00 1.98 4.00 2.29

Missouri 7.13 3.02 4.70 3.19 8.00 4.06 6.24 3.23 6.20 2.35

Montana 3.78 * 3.99 * 4.89 0.59 4.80 0.51 4.17 0.51

Nebraska 2.96 — 3.09 — 3.37 * 3.43 * 3.10 0.95

Nevada 3.11 * 3.57 * 4.24 * 4.18 1.58 3.76 0.44

New Hampshire 1.86 * 1.94 * 1.92 * 2.05 1.09 1.94 1.5

New Jersey 9.33 * 9.09 * 8.73 3.24 8.09 * 8.83 3.37

New Mexico 3.78 — 3.84 — 4.48 * 4.44 — 3.80 *

New York 16.00 5.65 16.00 5.54 16.50 5.88 14.50 6.00 16.00 5.93

North Carolina 9.37 4.95 12.11 5.66 11.00 2.90 13.00 3.93 12.00 2.85

North Dakota 2.55 — 2.70 — 3.89 1.05 3.03 — 5.00 *

Ohio 14.50 5.69 15.10 6.23 14.30 10.81 16.30 12.68 14.60 10.49

Oklahoma 5.74 2.47 5.99 2.16 5.20 1.91 6.50 1.09 5.52 1.7

Oregon 5.22 1.27 4.81 1.16 4.91 1.95 5.14 1.71 4.75 0.37

Pennsylvania 17.40 10.97 18.30 11.66 16.83 4.17 15.86 9.03 14.90 6.66

Puerto Rico 2.49 * 1.44 * 1.19 * 2.06 * 1.60 *

Rhode Island 2.07 * 2.34 * 1.73 * 1.87 * 2.45 *

South Carolina 6.23 1.77 6.14 1.98 6.00 0.85 5.15 1.62 5.40 0.67

South Dakota 2.73 * 2.96 * 2.17 0.93 3.51 0.56 2.10 *

Tennessee 7.95 * 7.87 * 9.04 7.05 8.00 2.79 7.67 3.83

Texas 14.77 4.23 16.54 5.73 13.67 6.36 15.85 8.79 17.00 7.12

Utah 3.14 3.71 3.35 3.23 4.00 2.77 3.99 3.19 3.40 2.62

Vermont 1.74 * 2.12 * 1.96 * 2.13 * 2.30 *

Virginia 9.10 4.64 10.90 4.51 13.10 4.06 12.00 6.78 10.00 4.93

Washington 5.70 4.65 5.70 4.46 4.20 3.26 4.20 2.99 4.30 2.78

West Virginia 2.90 * 3.00 * 3.75 2.10 3.50 1.65 3.00 1.52

Wisconsin 10.52 * 11.96 * 13.00 1.53 11.20 4.22 12.00 7.59

Wyoming 2.77 * 2.83 * 3.25 0.32 3.32 0.30 2.80 *

Total 358.43 123.98 359.85 119.87 365.97 130.54 360.29 139.03 350.68 147.61

* Fewer than three contractors responding

Note: Blue shaded cells indicate states and years where SAPA-provided data was used to compute total estimated value. Where no data 

was available on total tons, a relationship between tonnage and federal apportionment was used to estimate the total tons for states.
9

Table 3 includes the estimated tonnage for each state as given by the SAPA or estimated from the federal apportionment and 

includes the reported tonnage for each state from the survey results. Figure 1 illustratesthe Table 3 data and provides

another perspective on the survey responses, depicting the ratio of the tons reported in each state to the total estimated tons

for each year, 2009–2013. The closer a state’s number is to 100 indicates that the reported tonnage from the survey matches 

the estimated tonnage provided by the SAPA or tonnage estimated from the federal apportionment. The data reported in the 

survey represent about 42 percent of the estimated total U.S. tonnage for 2013.

Figure 1: Reported Tons as a Percent of Estimated Tons

Figure 2 shows the number of plants as well as the average tons produced per plant separated by different user/producer 

group regions. The tons/plant for the North Central Asphalt User/Producer Group (NCAUPG) increased significantly from 

2012 to 2013 to an all-time high since the beginning of the survey. The tons/plant for Rocky Mountain Asphalt 

User/Producer Group (RMAUPG) and Pacific Coast Conference on Asphalt Specification (PCCAS), and Southeast Asphalt 

User/Producer Group (SEAUPG) both dropped slightly from 2012 to 2013. The tons/plant for the Northeast Asphalt 

User/Producer Group (NEAUPG) decreased significantly from 2012 to 2013. Both the RMAUPG/PCCAS and NEAUPG 

tons/plant declined to their lowest value since the beginning of the survey in 2009. The number of plants represented in 

the 2013 survey increased to all-time highs for all regions.
10

Figure 2: Number of Plants Responding to Survey by User/Producer Group Regions and Estimated Tonnage, 2009–

2013

Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement

Table 4 summarizes the RAP, RAS, and WMA data from the surveys. The information asked for in the survey is shown in 

Appendix A and summarized in Table 1. Producers were not asked about allowable RAP or binder replacement requirements, 

which can have an effect on demand for mixes that incorporate these materials. Figure 3 is a visual representation of the 

estimated total tons of RAP used in asphalt mixes, aggregate, cold mix, other uses, and landfilled. The overwhelming majority 

of RAP is used in hot-mix asphalt (HMA) or warm-mix asphalt (WMA), which is the most optimal use of RAP. It is estimated 

that less than 0.1 percent was sent to landfills in 2009 and 2010; less than 0.4 percent in 2011; less than 0.3 percent in 2012; 

and less than 0.2 percent in 2013.
11

Table 4: Summary of RAP, RAS, WMA Data

Reported Values Total Estimated Value

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tons of HMA/WMA Produced Tons (Millions) Tons (Millions)

Total 124.0 119.8 131.7 139 147.6 358.4 359.8 366.0 360.3 350.7

DOT 56.9 55.6 63.1 69.1 67.4 169.2 172.5 175.3 179.1 160.1

Other Agency 28.1 27.8 36.4 32.8 40.6 83.5 86.2 101.2 84.9 96.5

Commercial and Residential 35.6 32.6 32.2 37.1 39.6 105.8 101.2 89.5 96.2 94.1

Companies/Branches Reporting 196 203 213 249

RAP Tons (Millions) Tons (Millions)

Accepted 23.2 24.0 29.8 29.1 34.9 67.2 73.5 79.1 71.3 76.1

Used in HMA/WMA 20.1 21.6 25.1 27.2 29.5 56.0 62.1 66.7 68.3 67.8

Used in Aggregate 1.4 1.6 1.2 1.2 1.7 6.2 7.3 4.9 3.6 4.0

Used in Cold Mix 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

Used in Other 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.2 1.5

Landfilled 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.1

Average % Used in Mixes

Average % for DOT Mixes1 12.5% 13.2% 15.8% 18.1% 19.5%

Average % for Other Agency Mixes1 14.0% 15.2% 16.7% 18.2% 19.3%

Average % for Commercial & Residential1 17.5% 18.0% 19.7% 20.5% 22.7%

National Average All Mixes Based on % Reported for Different 

Sectors1

15.6% 17.2% 18.2% 18.9% 19.3%

National Average All Mixes Based on RAP Tons Used in HMA/WMA2 16.2% 18.0% 19.1% 19.6% 20.0%

Companies/Branches Reporting Using RAP 189 198 208 249

RAS Tons (Thousands) Tons (Thousands)

Accepted 332 559 769 693 685 957 1,851 2,500 1,724 1,599

Used in HMA/WMA 246 393 430 783 718 702 1,100 1,192 1,863 1,647

Used in Aggregate 5 3 14 20 28 6 3 74 73 82

Used in Cold Mix — — — — — — — — — —

Used in Other 39 35 — 4 2 123 125 — 12 5

Landfilled — 0.5 0.1 — — — 7 0.2 — —

Average % Used in Mixes

Average % for DOT Mixes1 0.33% 0.78% 0.66% 0.83% 0.85%

Average % for Other Agency Mixes1 0.37% 0.47% 0.93% 0.90% 1.08%

Average % for Commercial & Residential1 0.63% 0.81% 1.04% 1.25% 1.24%

National Average All Mixes Based on RAS Tons Used in HMA/WMA2 0.20% 0.33% 0.33% 0.56% 0.49%

Companies/Branches Reporting Using RAP 44 61 81 87 97

WMA % Total Production Tons (Millions)

DOT 6.3% 15.0% 23.5% 30.8% 37.3% 8.6 20 34.6 46.4 55.7

Other Agency 4.4% 11.7% 18.2% 24.5% 32.4% 3.6 9.8 16.3 18.9 27.9

Commercial and Residential 4.5% 11.6% 19.9% 22.8% 25.9% 4.6 11.3 17.8 21.4 22.8

Total 16.8 41.1 68.7 86.7 106.4

% of Market

Chemical Additive % 15% 6% 4.1% 9.4% 12.1%

Additive Foaming % 2% 1% 0.2% 2.0% 0.3%

Plant Foaming % 83% 92% 95.4% 88.3% 87.0%

Organic Additive % 0.3% 1% 0.3% 0.2% 0.7%

Companies/Branches Reporting Using WMA 85 121 150 161 193

1

Average percent based on contractor’s reported percentage for each sector.

2

Average percent based on total reported tons of RAP used in HMA/WMA divided by reported total tons HMA/WMA produced.
12

Figure 3: RAP Tons by Final Use (Million Tons)

Figure 4: Comparison of Tons of RAP Accepted and Tons of RAP Used (Million Tons)

Figure 5 showsthe total estimated amount of RAP used in the different industry sectors. These values were calculated using 

the average percentages of RAP reported for the different sectors and adjusted to account for the difference between

reported RAP tons and tons calculated from the percentage by sector. Figure 6 shows the average percentage of RAP used by 

each sector. The average percent RAP used by all sectors has seen a steady increase from 2009 to 2013. The fluctuations in 

the RAP tonnages used by each sector are primarily due to changes in the total tonnage used by each sector, as is illustrated in 

Figure 7. It is interesting that while total tonnage for the DOT sector decreased, the percentage of RAP used DOT mixes 

increased, indicating that states and contractors are making greater use of RAP in their mixes.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

HMA/WMA Aggregate Cold Mix Other Tons Landfilled

2009 56 6.2 1.5 0.7 0.1

2010 62.1 7.3 1.6 0.8 0.0

2011 66.7 4.9 0.2 0.7 0.3

2012 68.3 3.6 0.2 0.2 0.2

2013 67.8 4.0 0.2 1.5 0.1

Tons Used, Million

Final Use

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Tons RAP, Million

Year

Used in Other

Used in Cold Mix

Used in Aggregate

Used in HMA/WMA

Accepted
13

Figure 5: RAP Use by Sector (Million Tons) Figure 6: Average Percent RAP Used by Sector

Figure 7: RAP Tons and Total Mix Tons Comparison

Figures 8 and Table 5 show the average percent of RAP used in the different states based on reported RAP and total tonnage.

It should be noted that the accuracy of data for individual states will vary depending on the number of responses received 

from each state and the total number of tons represented by the responses. Comparing Figures 12–15, the number of states 

averaging more than 20 percent RAP in HMA/WMA (colored lime and dark green in the charts) increased steadily from seven 

states in 2009 to 22 states in 2013. The use of increased amounts of RAP has quickly spread in the Midwest and West. For 

example, Idaho average percent RAP increased steadily from 6 percent in 2009 to 30 percent in 2013.

For 2013, all (100 percent) of the contractors/branches responding to the survey reported using RAP, and more than 87

percent of these contractors reported excess RAP in 2013. In 2011 and 2012, 98 percent of respondents reported using RAP. 

From 2012 to 2013, the amount of RAP used in HMA/WMA decreased from 68.3 million to 67.8 million tons, a 0.73 percent 

decrease despite a larger (2.66 percent) decrease in total tonnage for the industry. The average percent RAP used in mixes 

increased modestly from 19.6 percent in 2012 to 20 percent in 2013.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

RAP Tons Used, Million

Year

DOT Other Agency Commercial & Residential

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average Percent RAP Used

DOT Other Agency Commercial & Residential

0

50

100

150

200

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

Total Mix Tons, Million

RAP Tons, Million

DOT

RAP Tons Total Mix Tons

0

50

100

150

200

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

Total Mix Tons, Million

RAP Tons, Million

Other Agency

RAP Tons Total Mix Tons

0

50

100

150

200

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

Total Mix Tons, Million

RAP Tons, Million

Commercial & Residential

RAP Tons Total Mix Tons
14

Figure 8: Estimated Average Percent of RAP by State 
15

Table 5: Average Estimated RAP Percent

Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles

Table 4 includes the summary of RAS data from the surveys. The information asked for in the survey is shown in Appendix A 

and summarized in Table 1. Producers were not asked about allowable RAS or binder replacement requirements. For the 

2009–2011 surveys, more unprocessed shingles were received than were used for all purposes including landfilling. In 2012

this changed with more than 200,000 tons of RAS being used for all purposes than was received. In 2013 this trend continued 

with 130,000 tons of RAS being used for all purposes than was received. Contractors using more RAS than they receive 

indicatesthat they either had RAS stockpiled or were purchasing it from shingle processors. From 2012 to 2013, the amount 

of RAS accepted by producers decreased by 7.25 percent. No RAS was reported as being landfilled in 2012 or 2013; in 2011,

the amount landfilled was about 0.008 percent. In 2012 less than 0.7 percent of RAS accepted was used for other purposes; in 

2013 that decreased to about 0.3 percent of RAS accepted.

Figure 9 shows the total estimated amount of RAS used for different purposes. From 2012 to 2013 there was a moderate 

decrease, 11.6 percent, in the tons of RAS used in asphalt mixtures. This decrease is due to a decrease in the average percent 
16

of RAS being used in mixes, as well as a decrease in the total tons of asphalt mix produced. This decrease for RAS use in 

asphalt mixturesfollows a large increase, 56 percent, from 2011 to 2012. From the first survey in 2009 to 2013, RAP use has 

increased nearly 135 percent.

Similar to RAP, RAS is primarily used in HMA/WMA. Figure 10 summarizes how RAS was used in the different sectors of the 

paving market. These values were calculated using the average percentages of RAS reported for the different sectors and 

were adjusted to account for the difference in reported RAS tons and the tons calculated from the percentage by sector.

There was a significant decrease in the tons of RAS used by DOTs and commercial and residential while there was a significant 

increase in the amount of RAS used by non-DOT public agencies. The decrease in the tons of RAS used by DOTs and the 

commercial and residential sector is due to the decrease in the total tons of asphalt mix used by these sectors. Figure 11

shows the average RAS percent used in asphalt mixes for the three different sectors. The use of RAS in the commercial and 

residential sector had seen a steady and significant gain from 2009 to 2012. From 2012 to 2013, however, commercial and 

residential sector use remained flat. The DOT sector had a significant gain from 2009 to 2010, but has seen only modest gains 

since. The percentage of RAS for the public agency other than DOT sector saw significant gains from 2009 to 2011, but has 

only seen a modest gainssince 2011. The number of companies/branches using RAS increased from 87 to 97 from 2012 to 

2013, a nearly 11.5 percent increase.

Figure 9: Summary of RAS Use (Million Tons)

Figure 10: Estimated RAS Use by Sector (Million Tons) Figure 11: Average Percent RAS Used by Sector

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

HMA/WMA Aggregate Cold Mix Other Landfilled

2009 0.70 0.01 0.00 0.12 0.00

2010 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01

2011 1.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00

2012 1.86 0.07 0.00 0.01 0.00

2013 1.65 0.08 0.00 0.01 0.00

Tons Used, Million

Final Use

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

RAS Tons, Million

DOT Other Agency Commercial & Residential

0.00%

0.20%

0.40%

0.60%

0.80%

1.00%

1.20%

1.40%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Average % RAS Used

DOT Other Agency Commercial & Residential
17

Figure 12 shows states where plant-mix producers reported using RAS in 2009 through 2013. Red indicatesstates where RAS 

use was not reported for these years. The number of states where plant-mix producers reported using RAS increased each 

year from 22 in 2009 to 38 in 2013. Three states — Connecticut, Louisiana, and Wyoming — reported their first use of RAS in 

2013. Two states — Colorado and West Virginia — reported using RAS in previous years, but did not report its use in 2013. 

Table 6 shows the states where producers reported using RAS for 2009–2013.

Figure 12: States with Companies/Branches Reporting Using RAS
18

Table 6: State Reporting RAS Use

State RAS Used? State RAS Used?

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Alabama Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Montana No No No No No

Alaska No No No No No Nebraska NCR NCR No Yes Yes

Arizona No No No No No Nevada No Yes No No No

Arkansas No No Yes Yes Yes New Hampshire No No Yes Yes Yes

California No Yes Yes Yes Yes New Jersey No No No No Yes

Colorado Yes Yes Yes Yes No New Mexico NCR NCR No NCR No

Connecticut No No No No Yes New York Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Delaware Yes Yes NCR Yes Yes North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dist. of Columbia NCR NCR NCR NCR No North Dakota NCR NCR No NCR No

Florida Yes Yes No No Yes Ohio Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Georgia No No Yes Yes Yes Oklahoma Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Hawaii No No No No No Oregon Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Idaho No No No No No Pennsylvania Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Illinois Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Puerto Rico No No No No No

Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Rhode Island No No No No No

Iowa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes South Carolina No No Yes No Yes

Kansas No Yes Yes Yes Yes South Dakota No No Yes Yes Yes

Kentucky Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Tennessee No No Yes Yes Yes

Louisiana No No No No Yes Texas Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Maine No No Yes Yes Yes Utah No No No No No

Maryland Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Vermont No No No Yes Yes

Massachusetts Yes Yes Yes No Yes Virginia Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Michigan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Washington Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Minnesota No Yes Yes Yes Yes West Virginia Yes Yes No No No

Mississippi No No Yes Yes Yes Wisconsin No No Yes Yes Yes

Missouri Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Wyoming No No No No Yes

NCR = No Companies Reporting

Yes = RAS Use Reported

No = No RAS Use Reported

Warm-Mix Asphalt

Table 4 includes the summary WMA data from the survey. The survey asked producers their estimated percentages of tons 

produced for the different sectors and the percent of which technologies were used.

The percent of companies/branches using WMA saw modest increasesfrom 2011 to 2012 and again from 2012 to 2013, as 

shown in Figure 13. Figure 14 shows a steady increase in the number of tons of WMA produced from 2011 to 2013. WMA use 

exceeded 100 million tons in 2013, which is a little more than 30 percent of the total asphalt mix production for 2013. This is 

probably attributable to increased acceptance of WMA by all industry sectors as illustrated in Figure 14.
19

Figure 13: Number of Companies/Branches Using WMA Figure 14: Estimated Tons (in Millions) WMA by Industry 

Sector

Figure 15: Estimated Percent of Total Production Using WMA

Figure 15 showsthe estimated total tons of WMA produced in each state. It should be noted that the accuracy of data for 

individual states will vary depending on the number of responses received from each state and the total number of tons 

represented by the responses.

From 2012 to 2013, 24 states saw an increase of 5 percent or greater in WMA production, while 10 states had a decrease of 5 

percent or greater in WMA production. Six states — Connecticut, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, and Oklahoma — had

an increase of 25 percent or greater in WMA production. Two states — Alaska and Tennessee — had a decrease of 25 percent 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Percent of Companies/Branches Using 

WMA

Year

Percent Companies/Branches Using 

WMA

0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Estimated WMA Tons (Million)

Year

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Commercial &

Residential 4.55 11.31 17.81 21.35 22.78

Other Agency 3.60 9.84 16.29 18.86 27.85

DOT 8.55 19.99 34.60 46.41 55.68

Estimated WMA Tons
20

or greater in WMA production. The reasons for these fluctuations are uncertain. Only Rhode Island did not report the use of 

WMA.

Nationally, the total tons of WMA increased from 86.7 million tonsin 2012 to 106.4 million tonsin 2013, a 23 percent increase

despite the decrease in total tonnage. Plant foaming is most commonly used to produce WMA. Use of WMA additives 

increased from 11.6 percent in 2012 to 13.1 percent in 2012. This is still below the 17 percent market share noted in 2009, but 

given that WMA production has increased by more than 533 percentsince 2009, the volume of additives used, along with

plant foaming, has increased significantly.

Other Recycled Materials

For the 2012 and 2013 surveys a series of questions was asked about the use of other recycled materials used in asphalt 

mixtures. Table 1 summarizes the questions in this section. The full questionnaire is included as Appendix A.

Producers were asked how many tons of mix were produced that incorporated recycled materials, as well as how many tons 

of specific materials were used in mix production during 2013. Three recycled materials — ground tire rubber (GTR), steel slag,

and blast furnace slag — were specifically mentioned in the survey. The respondents were able to specify up to two additional 

recycled materials used in mixes. Because it was expected that responses to these other recycled materials would be low and 

that producers may not track the use of these materials, it was agreed to not estimate the total quantities used for these 

materials. All values in this section are reported values and do not represent estimates of the total quantity of these 

materials by state or nationally. A total of 40 contractors from 23 states reported using other recycled materials in asphalt 

mixtures.

Table 7 summarizes information on the use of ground tire rubber. Producers from 15 states and Puerto Rico reported the use 

of GTR in some mixes. It must be noted that Arizona, which is known to use large quantities of GTR in mixes, had a relatively 

low participation rate in the survey, while Georgia had a very high participation rate. This likely explains why Georgia’s 

reported quantity of GTR is higher than Arizona. The total reported tons of mix using GTR grew from 691,589 tons in 2012 to 

1,195,594 tons in 2013, thanks to an increase in the number of contractors reporting use of GTR. Comparing the 2013 data to 

2012 data it became apparent that some states had reported unusual levels of GTR tonnage in 2012. While reported tons of 

mix with GTR were accurate, the estimated tons of GTR used was incorrect for California, Georgia, Ohio, and Texas; the 2012 

GTR tonnage data for those states has been removed from this survey.

The "Arizona process" commonly used to create asphalt-rubber binder typically uses more GTR than terminal blends, yielding 

about 20 percent GTR in the binder. Assuming a gap-graded mix with about 8 percent asphalt-rubber binder by weight of mix, 

this would result in 1.6 percent GTR by weight of mix. Four statesreported using more than 1.6 percent GTR by weight of mix 

in 2012. For 2013, the percent GTR by weight of mix was calculated to ensure GTR content was near or below the 1.6 percent 

threshold. In cases where the reported numbers exceeded this threshold, contractors were contacted for additional 

information, which typically resulted in a lowering of the number of tons of GTR used.
21

Table 7: Reported Tons Ground Tire Rubber

State Reported Tons of Mix Using GTR Reported Tons of GTR Used

2012 2013 2012 2013

Arizona 33,590 26,300 532 380

California 101,000 523,213 — 3,748

Florida 86,441 250,779 195 531

Georgia 281,958 65,000 — 260

Illinois — 4,500 — 20

Indiana — 13,000 — 30

Louisiana 25,000 104,395 — 550

Maine — 14,000 — 219

Massachusetts — 24,897 — 324

Michigan 2,400 12,000 20 71

Missouri 100,000 50,000 300 180

New Hampshire — 28,000 — 358

New York — 10 — —

Ohio 36,200 1,500 — 8

Pennsylvania — 18,000 — 140

Puerto Rico — 10,000 — 170

Texas 25,000 50,000 — —

Total 691,589 1,195,594 1,047 6,989

Table 8 summarizes the reported use of steel slag and blast furnace slag in asphalt mixes. 13 and 11 states reported using 

these recycled materials in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

Table 8: Reported Tons for Steel and Blast Furnace Slag

State

Reported Tons of Mix 

Using Steel Slag

Reported Tons of Steel 

Slag Used

Reported Tons of Mix 

Using Blast Furnace Slag

Reported Tons of

Blast Furnace Slag Use

2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013 2012 2013

Alabama 625,000 750,000 133,441 165,000 100,000 110,000 10,100 12,500

Arkansas 120,000 25,000 12,000 2,500 — — — —

Illinois 23,000 43,700 8,000 16,300 — — — —

Indiana 70,000 161,115 44,000 61,985 1,487,000 116,500 304,000 57,000

Iowa 20,000 97,500 — 10,200 — 5,000 — 500

Kentucky 5,714 508,000 800 173,265 — 16,000 — 7,500

Michigan — 750,000 — 95,000 500,000 700,000 50,000 107,000

Minnesota 145,500 200,000 21,800 30,000 — — — —

Ohio 150,000 185,319 42,030 79,085 208,028 416,250 72,400 110,613

Tennessee 30,000 — 6,000 — — — — —

Virginia — — — — 54,520 — 16,356 —

Washington 450,000 586,000 80,000 82,954 — — — —

West Virginia — — — — 588,120 504,704 180,308 155,032

Total 1,639,214 3,306,634 348,071 716,289 2,937,668 1,868,454 633,164 450,145

Table 9 summarizes other recycled materials used in asphalt mixtures. These other recycled materials include fly ash, cellulose 

fiber, foundry sand, and recycled glass. As in 2012 Mississippi and Texas both reported using fly ash in 2013. In 2012, only 

Mississippi reported using cellulose fibers; however, in 2013,seven states — Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, 

Minnesota, and Texas — reported using cellulose fibers.
22

Table 9: Other Recycled Materials

State & Description Other 

Recycled Material

Reported Tons of Mix Produced Using

Other Recycled Material

Reported Tons of

Other Recycled Material Used

2012 2013 2012 2013

Florida

Cellulose Fiber — 20,204 — 71

Georgia

Cellulose Fiber — 43,000 — 129

Indiana

Cellulose Fiber — 6,000 — 60

Louisiana

Cellulose Fiber — 31,651 — 63

Maryland

Cellulose Fiber — 145,000 — 440

Minnesota

Cellulose Fiber — 5,000 — 15

Mississippi

Fly Ash 50,000 50,000 2,400 2,500

Cellulose Fiber 76,000 — 250 —

Missouri

Foundry Sand 5,000 15,130 500 1,514

South Dakota

Bottom Ash 52,000 — 4,280 —

Texas

Fly Ash 18,000 25,000 1,200 1,700

Cellulose Fiber — 30,600 — 90

Virginia

Recycled Glass 173 — 34 —

Summary and Conclusions

The objective of this survey was to quantify the use of recycled materials and WMA produced by the asphalt pavement 

industry. Asphalt mix producers from all 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico completed the 2013 survey. A total of 

249 companies/branches with 1,281 plants were represented in the 2013 survey.

The estimated total asphalt mix production saw a slight decrease from 360 million to 351 million tons from 2012 to 2013. The 

estimated DOT tonnage saw a significant decrease from 179 million to 160 million tons from 2012 to 2013, while other agency 

tonnage increased from 85 million to 96 million tons from 2012 to 2013. There was a slight decrease in commercial and 

residential tonnage from 96 million ton 94 million tons.

The use of recycled material continues to increase. The survey shows:

 The percent of producers reporting using RAP increased from 96 percent in 2009 and 2010 to 98 percent in 2001 and

2012 to 100 percent in 2013.

 The estimated percent of RAP used in asphalt mixtures has increased steadily from 2009 to 2013. The average 

percent RAP used in all mixes has increased from 16.2 percent in 2009 to 20.0 percent in 2013.

 The estimated tons of RAP used in asphalt mixes reached 67.8 million tonsin 2013. This represents nearly a 22

percent increase in the amount of tons used from 2009 to 2012. There was a slight (0.73 percent) decrease in the 

estimate tons of RAP used in 2013, which is related to the decrease in the total asphalt mix produced from 2012 to 

2013.
23

 87 percent of the contractors/branches reported having excess RAP in 2013. For the first time in the survey's history, 

the estimated amount of RAP used for all purposesin 2012, including landfilling, exceeded the amount accepted by 

1.2 million tons.

 Use of both manufacturers’ scrap and post-consumer recycled asphalt shingles decreased from 1.86 million tons used 

in 2012 to 1.65 million tons used in 2013, an 11.6 percent decrease.

 The amount of RAS accepted by asphalt mix producers continued to decline from its high of 2.5 million tons in 2010 

to 1.7 million in 2012 and 1.6 million in 2013. Sixty-four percent of the contractors/branches using RAS reported 

having excess RAS for 2013. In 2013, 135,000 tons of RAS was used for all purposes than was received.

 Of the RAS used in 2013, about 95 percent was used in asphalt mixes. The remainder was primarily combined with 

aggregates. No RAS was landfilled.

 The number of states with reported RAS use increased from 32 states in 2012 to 38 statesin 2013.

 The number of states/provinces reporting use of ground tire rubber (GTR) in asphalt mixtures increased from nine in 

2012 to 16 in 2013.

 The number of states reporting using steel or blast furnace slags decreased slightly from 13 states in 2012 to 11 in 

2013.

 Two states, Mississippi and Texas, reported using fly ash in asphalt mixturesin both 2012 and 2013.

 The number of statesreporting use of cellulose fibers increased from one state in 2012 to seven states in 2013

 Less commonly reported recycled materials in 2013 included foundry sand, and bottom ash.

The use of WMA continues to increase steadily. The survey shows:

 The estimated total production of WMA for 2013 was more than 106 million tons. This was about a 23 percent 

increase over 2012 WMA (86.7 million tons) and more than 533 percent increase over 2009.

 WMA was more than 30 percent of the total estimated asphalt mixture market in 2013.

 Plant foaming, representing 87 percent of the market, is the most commonly used warm-mix technology; additives 

accounted for 13 percent of the market.

The 2013 survey results show that the asphalt pavement industry continues to improve its outstanding record of sustainable 

practices by further increasing the use of recycled materials and WMA. RAP use continues to increase, albeit at a slower rate. 

In 2012, more RAP was used than accepted. This was primarily due to a decrease in the amount of RAP collected. The reason 

for this decrease is uncertain, but it may be partially due to reduced construction, as indicated by the reduction in total 

production volume. In 2013, the trend returned to 2009–2011 norms where more RAP was received than was used for all 

purposes returned. However, the differential was less than the peak in 2011. With more RAP being received than is used —

and 87 percent of producers indicating they have excess RAP — there are still opportunities to increase the amount of RAP 

used in asphalt mixes through permissive specifications and through improved RAP processing, production equipment and 

procedures, and education.

RAS use saw a moderate decrease in 2013 to nearly 1.65 million tons used in asphalt mixes. This represents 15 percent of the 

estimated 11 million ton waste shingle market (manufacturer and post-consumer waste) (NAHB 1998). This indicatesthere 

are still opportunities for increasing the use of RAS in asphalt mixtures, especially in the 12 states and the territories where no 

RAS use was reported for 2013. As with RAP, permissive specifications, improved processing, production equipment and 

procedures, and education will help improve the amount and percentages used in asphalt mixes.
24

The asphalt pavement industry repurposes many products from other industries. The survey shows that steel and blast 

furnace slag use was reported in 13 statesin 2012 and 11 states in 2013, GTR use was reported in nine states in 2012 and 16 

states/provinces in 2013, cellulose fiber use was reported in one state in 2012 and seven states in 2013, and fly ash in two 

statesfor 2012 and 2013. Other less common materials include glass(2012 only), foundry sand, and bottom ash (2012 only).

WMA reached a milestone in 2013 with more than 106 million tons, which represents more than 30 percent of the total 

estimated asphalt mix production. All states, with the exception of Rhode Island, reported using WMA in 2013. WMA use is 

expected to continue to grow as contractors and agencies gain experience and more states implement permissive 

specifications.
25

Bibliography

CIF (2013). 2013 NOVA Award Winner — Warm Mix Asphalt. Construction Innovation Forum, Walbridge, Ohio. 

http://youtu.be/q47p1SAy4g4 [Accessed 14 August 2014]

Copeland, A. (2011). Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement in Asphalt Mixtures: State of the Practice. Report FHWA-HRT-11-021. 

Federal Highway Administration. McLean, VA.

Copeland, A., C.L. Jones, & J. Bukowski (2010). Reclaiming Roads. Public Roads, Vol. 73, No. 5 (March/April). Publication 

FHWA-HRT-10-001. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/10mar/06.cfm [Accessed 14 August 2014]

FHWA (2013). Every Day Counts: Warm Mix Asphalt. Federal Highway Administration. Washington, DC. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/technology/asphalt/intro.cfm [Accessed 14 August 2014]

Hansen, K.R., & A. Copeland (2013a). 2

nd Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, 

Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles, and Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage: 2009–2011 (IS 138). National Asphalt Pavement 

Association. Lanham, MD.

Hansen, K.R., & A. Copeland (2013b). 3

rd Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix 

Asphalt Usage: 2009–2012 (IS 138). National Asphalt Pavement Association. Lanham, MD.

Hansen, K.R., & D.E. Newcomb (2011). Asphalt Pavement Mix Production Survey: Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, 

Reclaimed Asphalt Shingles, Warm-Mix Asphalt Usage: 2009–2010 (IS 138). National Asphalt Pavement Association. 

Lanham, MD.

NAHB (1998). From Roofs to Roads... Recycling Asphalt Roofing Shingles into Paving Materials. NAHB Research Center, 

National Association of Home Builders. Upper Marlboro, MD.

Pappas, J. (2011). Recycling Materials Survey. Presented at the RAP Expert Task Group May Meeting, Irvine, CA. 

http://www.morerap.us/files/meetings/05-11/pappas-recycling-materials-survey.pdf [Accessed 14 August 2014]

Prowell, B.D., G.C. Hurley, & B. Frank. (2012). Warm-Mix Asphalt: Best Practices, 3rd Edition (QIP 125). National Asphalt 

Pavement Association. Lanham, MD.
26

National Asphalt Pavement Association

NAPA Building

5100 Forbes Blvd.

Lanham, Maryland 20706-4407

www.AsphaltPavement.org

napa@AsphaltPavement.org

Tel: 301-731-4748

Toll Free: 1-888-468-6499

Fax: 301-731-4621

Publication Sales:

http://store.AsphaltPavement.org

napa-orders@abdintl.com

Toll Free: 888-600-4474

Tel: 412-741-6314

Fax: 412-741-0609

4

th Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey

IS-138