### 1



# Information Series 138



# Annual Asphalt Pavement

Industry Survey on

Recycled Materials

and Warm

- Mix Asphalt Usage:

2009

– 2013

4 th 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 201 4 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 t his 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 Materia ls and Warm

- M ix

Asphalt Usage: 2009

– 201 3 5. Report Date

October 201 4

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

– 201 3

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

FHWA Contracting Officer ’ s Representative: Victor Lee Ga l livan

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 recl a imed 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 improve d compaction of asphalt mixtures l eading to improv ed pavement performance.

As part of FHWA ’

s Every Day Counts initiative, WMA was chosen for accelerated deployment in f ederal

- a id 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 o f

recycled materials and WMA in as phalt pavements. The first survey tracks state DOT usage

, and the other tracks industry usage.

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

sustainable practices in the highway indust ry since 2009

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

S urvey results show significant growth in the use of RAP, RAS, and WMA technologies from 2009 t hrough 201 3

. 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 201 3 . 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

201 3

. 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 p ercent since 2009 to

more than 1.6 million tons 201 3 . Assuming a conservative asphalt content of 20 percent for the RAS, this represents about 32 0 ,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 o f states

where contractors reported using s teel 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 201 3 , 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

2 6 22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8

- 72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

### 4 

# A nnual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on

Rec ycled 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 p roduction and paving ope rations, 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 N ational A sphalt P avement A ssociation (NAPA) conducted a voluntary survey of

asphalt mixture producers in the United States and s tate a sphalt p avement a ssociation s (SAPAs). The survey was broken

into five sections : general i nformation, 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 201 3

. Assuming 5 percent liquid asphalt in RAP, this

represents over 3. 4 million tons (19 million barrels) of aspha lt binder conserved. The amount of RAP landfilled

decreased from previous years to less than 0. 2 percent.

 Use of both manufac turer s ’ scrap an d post

- consumer shingles decreased from nearly 1. 9 million tons in 2012 to

more than 1.6 million tons in 2013

, a n 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 use d for all purposes. This is due to fewer unprocessed scrap shingles being collect ed by asphalt mix

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

.

 Information on other recycled material s was obtained for the s econd 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

, w ith 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 ex tending 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 mix es, which helps to stabilize the price of asphalt

mixtures and saves natural resources

. Other recycled materials incorporated into as phalt pavements include ground tire

rubber (GTR), steel slag

, blast furnace slag

, and cellulose fibers, among others

. These materials put waste materials to practical

use, reduc ing 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 f ederal

- a id

highway, s tate d epartment of t ransportation (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 ben efits (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 track ing the use of recy cled

materials and WMA in asphalt pave ments. The first survey tracks s tate DOT usage and the other tracks industry us ag e. Since

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

a biennial survey of s tate DOT s’ 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 us ag e

, and have tracked the growth of

the use of these sustainable pra ctices 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 th e results of

the 2013 in dustry 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 appendi c es.



## Objective and Scope

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

NAPA conducted a voluntary survey of asphalt mixture producer s in the U nited S tates and of state asphalt pavement

associations ( SAPAs )

. W hile 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

U nited S tates . 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 respon d to the survey. Information from

states with fewer than three respon ding 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 a n online survey similar to the 2009

– 2012 survey s that enable s 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 mate rials used in asphalt mixtures was gathered, too

.

2. Conduct a voluntary survey of asphalt mix producers throughout the U nited S tates 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 S APAs 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 es timates.

4. Analyze and s ummarize the information nationally and by s tate and prepare a final report.



## Survey Method ology

The survey was conducted using a w eb survey service

, SurveyMonkey ®

. Sections 1 through 4 of the survey for 2013 w ere

identical to th e survey s used for 2009 through 2011 (Hansen & Newcomb, 2011; Hansen & Copeland , 2013 a; Hansen &

Copeland, 2013b )

. S ection 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. S APA s participa ted by placing

notices on their website s 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 the ir

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

LinkedIn. Asphalt mix ture producers then went to the website and completed the survey form. After the initial data w as

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

The survey w as broken into five sections . These sections were g eneral i nformation, RAP, RAS

, WMA , and other recycled

materials . Table 1 summarizes the question s asked in each section.

Table 1 : Survey Question s Summary

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

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 R ecycled M aterials U sed

DOT Tons Tons Used in HMA/WMA Average % Produced for Other Agency Tons Tons of HMA/WMA P roduced U sing

E ach R ecycled M aterial

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

Residential Tons Tons of O ther R ecycled P roduct U sed

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 i n 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 provi ded by SAPAs in 3 8

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 w here SAPA

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

in the 2009

– 201 1 survey s ; 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 s tate ’ 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

, 2 011 , and 2012 survey s , 1,027 , 1,091

, and 1,141 plants were represented

respectively

. Table 2 summarizes the 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 s haded cells indicate states and years where SAPA

- provided data was used to compute total estimated value. Where no d ata

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 f ederal apportionment and

includes the reported tonnage for each state from the survey results. Figure 1 illustrate s the Table 3 data and provide s

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 f ederal 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 (N EAUPG) 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 201 3 survey increased to all

- time highs for all regions.

### 10 Figure 2 : Number of P lants R esponding to S urvey by User/Producer Group R egions and E stimated T onnage , 2009

–

2013



## Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement

Table 4 summarizes the RAP , RAS

, and WMA data from the survey s

. 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 r epresentation 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 i s estimated

that less than 0.1 percent was sent to landfill s 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 D ata

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 Mixes 1 12.5% 13.2% 15.8% 18.1% 19.5%

Average % for Other Agency Mixes 1 14.0% 15.2% 16.7% 18.2% 19.3%

Average % for Commercial & Residential 1 17.5% 18.0% 19.7% 20.5% 22.7%

National Average All Mixes Based on % Reported for Different

Sectors 1 15.6% 17.2% 18.2% 18.9% 19.3%

National Average All Mixes Based on RAP Tons Used in HMA/WMA 2 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 Mixes 1 0.33% 0.78% 0.66% 0.83% 0.85%

Average % for Other Agency Mixes 1 0.37% 0.47% 0.93% 0.90% 1.08%

Average % for Commercial & Residential 1 0.63% 0.81% 1.04% 1.25% 1.24 %

National Average All Mixes Based on RAS Tons Used in HMA/WMA 2 0.20% 0.33% 0.33% 0.56% 0.49 %

Companies/Branches Reporting Using RAP 44 61 81 87 97

WMA % To tal 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 show s the 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 ca lculated 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 201 3 . 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 ton nage

. It should be noted that the accuracy of data for individual state s 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) increase d 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 W est. For

example

, Idaho average percent RAP in creased steadily from 6 percent in 2009 to 30 percent in 2013

.

For 20 13, all (100 percent) of the contractors/branches responding to the survey reported using RAP

, and more than 8 7

percent of these contractors reported excess RAP in 201 3

. In 2011 and 2012, 98 percent of respondents reported using RAP.

From 201 2 to 201 3

, the amount of RAP used in HMA/WMA decreased from 6 8

. 3 million to 6 7

. 8 million tons

, a 0.73 percent

de crease despite a larger ( 2.66 percent ) decrease in total tonnage for the industry

. The average percent RAP used in mixes

increased modestly f rom 19 .6 percent in 201 2 to 20 percent in 201 3

. 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 summar y of RA S data from the survey s

. 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

– 201 1 surveys

, more unprocessed shingles were rec eived 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. C ontractors using more RAS than they receive

indicate s that 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 ; i n 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 mixtures follows a large increase

, 5 6 percent, from 20 11 to 2012

. From the first survey in 2009 to 2013, RAP use has

increased nearly 135 percent.

S imilar 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 ton s 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 ton s 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 th r e e 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 fro m 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 gain s since 2011. The number of companies/branches using RAS increas ed from 87 to 97 from 2012 to

2013 , a n early 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 plan t

- mix producers reported using RAS in 2009 through 2013

. Red indicate s states 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 C ompanies/ B ranches R eporting U sing 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 N C R N C R 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 N C R N C R No N C R No

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

Delaware Yes Yes N C R Yes Yes North Carolina Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Dist. of Columbia N C R N C R N C R N C R No North Dakota N C R N C R No N C R 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 summar y 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 increase s from 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 M illions) WMA by Industry

Sector

Figure 15 : Estimated Percent of Total Production Using WMA

Figure 15 show s the 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 n umber 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 s tates

— 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 Islan d did not report the use of

WMA.

Nationally

, the tot al tons of WMA increased from 86.7 million tons in 2012 to 106.4 million tons in 2013 , a 23 percent increase

despite the decrease in total tonnage

. Plant foaming is most commonly used to produc e WMA. Use of WMA a dditives

increased from 1 1.6 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 5 33 percent since 2009

, the volume of additives use d

, along with

plant foaming, has increased significantly.



## Other Recycled Materials

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

mixtures. Table 1 summarizes the questions in this secti on. 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 the se other recycled materials would be low and

that producers may not track the use of these materials

, it was agreed to not estimat e the total quantities used for these

materials. A ll 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. Produc ers 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. Th is 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. Co mparing 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 Te xas ; 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 states reported using more than 1.6 percent GTR by weight of mix

in 2012. For 2013, the percent GTR by weight of mix was ca lculated 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, cellulo se

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 fiber s ; however, i n 2013

, seven s t ates

— Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland,

Minnesota, and Texas

— reported us ing 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 we re represented in the 2013 survey.

The e stimated 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 us ed in all mixes h as 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 tons in 2013

. This represents nearly a 2 2

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 u sed 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 th e survey 's history,

the estimated amount of RAP used for all purposes in 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

, a n 11 .6 percent decrease

.

 The amount of RAS a ccept ed 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/branc h es using RAS reported

having excess RAS for 2013

. In 201 3

, 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 wa s landfilled.

 The number of states with reported RAS use increased from 32 states in 2012 to 38 states in 201 3

.

 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 mixtures in both 2012 and 2013

.

 The number of state s reporting 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 steadil y. The survey show s :

 The estimated t otal 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. Th is was primarily due to a decrease in the amount o f 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 s till 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 indicates there

are still opportunities for increasing the use of RAS in asphalt mixtures

, especially in the 1 2 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 as phalt 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 states in 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

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

.

WMA reach ed a milestone in 2013 with more than 106 million tons, which represents mor e 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 201 4 ]

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. C opeland ( 2013 a )

. 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 ( 2013 b )

. 3 rd 

### Annual Asphalt P avement 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,

Reclai med 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, 3 rd 

### 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