EXPERIMENTAL HOT MIX PAVEMENT

WITH

SCRAP TIRE ROBBER

AT

THAMESVILLE , ONTARIO

REPORT U

ABSTRACT

In support of efforts by the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to dispose of waste tires, the Ministry of Transportation Ontario built a demonstration hot mix pavement incorporating waste tire rubber at Thamesville, Ontario , in 1990"

The purpose o f the demonstration was t o confi rm that (a) the construction of asphalt rubber hot mix pavements is environmentally acceptable and complies with worker health and safety regulations ; (b) asphalt rubber pavements can be recycled in both the plant mix and in -place modes; and (c) asphalt rubber pavements provide equivalent pe rformanc e to standard pavements .

The work consisted of 6".5 km each of asphalt r ubbe r mix and s tandard mix. Both mixes were produced in a drum plant . The rubber content of the mix " was 2.0\.

A full schedule of stack testing was c arried out to determine the presence and levels o f a wide variety o f pollutants . Testing was also carried out to confi r m that the process was in compliance with Ontario worker health and safety regulations .

A desc r iption of the equipment and the work, data on mix quality, a preliminary performance evaluation, a discussion on the findings o f the" environmental and wo rke r safety testing and a costing analysis are included in the paper.

i',

INTRODUCTION

In the Fall of 1989, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation (MT O) was approached by the Ontario Ministry of the Env ironment (MOE) with a proposal to dispose of waste tires in hot mix pavements. This proposal was driven by the mounting problems of tire disposal in Southern Ontario and the commitment made with the introduction of the Ontario Tire Tax.

Six million passenger tires plus one million truck t ires are scrapped each year in Ontario. ·This gives a "total of about 11 million passenger tire equivalents per annum for di sposal. About 10% of the scrap tires are (a) exported offshore for reuse, o r (b) used in carpet backing, etc .. which leaves about 10 million tires annually going to landfill where tires are unwelcome because they are indestructible, they destabilize the l andfill, they host vermin and insect pests and they take up large volumes of space in landfills where space 1s a premium.

Rubber from scrap tires had been used in hot mix in Ontario on an experimental basis from time to time. The percentage of fine rubber used in the mix as an aggregate replacement was always 1% and the asphalt cement content was increased by amounts ranging between 0.3% and 0.5%. The purpos e of these t rial~ was to improve the performance of the hot mix pavement by reducing/eliminating cracking. This improved performance was not established by any of the trials and in some of the trials the cracking wa s wo rse than that found 1n the standard mix. Since the addition of rubber to hot mix " increased the cost of the end-product, the idea always died at that stage . The last of these experiments took place .in 1980.

In 1999 the staff" of the Ministry of the En'llironment (MOE) had become aware o f a new approach to asphalt" rubber hot mix capable of disposing of 3% o f rubber in the mix, or four to five tires per tonne of hot mix. Thi s meant that the ten' to fifteen million tonnes of hot mi x produced annually in Ontario could absorb forty to sixty million: scrap tires. Even if all of the hot mix did not contain rubber, there would be more than enough capacity to cope wi.th the" annual "production" o f scrap tires, plus make quick- inroads into the existing tire stockpiles.

Because the aggregate rep lacement system is new and there is no information available on environmental impacts, worker safety, and long term performance, it was agreed that a major trial of asphalt rubber hot mix should be built ta assess the viability and acceptability of this me thod of tire recycling.

On February burned for

19th, 1990 the Hagersvi11e tire fire 17 days and destroyed approximately

started, fourteen

• \ 1 "

million tires. This major environment.al disaster gave added impetus to efforts to solve the tire disposal problem .

OBJZCT:IVZS or TBJ: TR.:IAL

The objectives of the trial were:

a) to evaluate the tec hnical aspects of mixing and placing asphalt r ubbe r mix containing 3\ of coarse rubber;

b) to mix the material since this type of Ministry work outside

in an oil-fired drum mix plant, hot mix plant is used on mos t of the major urban areas;

c) to obtain exhaust st ack air quality measu rements for comparison with the regulatory standards;

d)

e)

to carry compliance

out with

to establish pavements when

"Air Quality worker health

Assessment" testing· f o r and safety regulations;

the using

recyclability o f a drum mix plant;

asphalt rubber

f) to test asphalt rubber mix for compliance with wa s te disposal regulations ;

g) to evaluate the perfo rmance o f the asphalt rubber ~ix at high (3\) rubber contents ;

h) to determine the viability of using the ho t in-place surface recycling process on asphalt rubber pavements, and its compliance with environmental a~d worker safety regulations; and

i) to obtain reasonably accurate estimates for the cost of asphalt rubbe~ mix.

LAYOUT OF TB::!: TRIAL

The length of the trial was controlled by three factors

a ) the need to mix and place sufficient standard mix to establish a baseline of environmental and worker safety testing values and provide a control section for future performance evaluation;

b ) the 'need to accommodate three construc tion p r ocesses i. e. asphalt rubber mix, recycled asphalt rubber mix and s urface recycling; and

c) sufficient plant operat ing time for each stack test (6 hOUrs ) and f o r the number of stack tests (three per mix type ) required to i nspire confidence in the data.

! . :;.,

t . ! .

This added up to a total length of 12 km using 6,000 tonnes each of asphalt rubber mix and standard mix.

It would have been desi.rable to carry out all three construction processes in the construction season (May to September, 1990) but this was not possible so the recycling processes were deferred to 1991 .

L OCATION OF THE TRIAL

Two suitable l ocations for the work we r e identified in South Western Ontario and were offered as options in the construction tender. Both sites offered pavements that are structurally sound, and carry moderate traffic volumes which facilitates l ong term monitoring . The successfu l bidder -Huron Construction Ltd. of Chatham - chose the Thamesville site on Hwy. '2, 22 km east of Chatham (see Figure 1).

Highway 12 at Thamesville is a two lane rural highway. The terrain is flat and the alignment generally follows the Thames Ri ver. The subsoil is chiefly Be r rien sand, Gilford gravelly loam and Thames clay loam. Tra f fic volume s are 2050 to 2750 AADT (Annual Average Daily Traffic) and 2250 to 3050 SADT (Summer Average Daily Traffic) with 9\ to 10% trucks. The surrounding land use is farming.

The existing pavement wa s in v e r y good st r uct ural cond ition with a fair ride. The hot mix surface was suffering f r om slight ravelling in areas of segregation, and there was extensive minor reflection cracking which had been crack filled.

The 7.5 me tre wide pavement consisted o f 130 mm o f dense graded hot mix ove r 230 mm of concrete pavemen t which had been built in the 192 0 ' s . The fi r st hot mix surf acing was placed in 1955 and wa s re su r faced with recycled hot mix in 1982.

CONTRACT DETAILS

The work carried out in 1990 involved placing 50 rom of hot mix. The proposed standard mix was a minus 19 mm dense graded mi x (MTO Designation HL <1 o r Asphalt Institute Mix Type IV b). The proposed asphalt rubbe r mix was HL '1 Ill'ix with 3%: rubber and an ~dditional 1. S\ asphalt cement . Th e tackcoat of diluted 551 asphalt emulsion was applied at 0.35 kg/m2 .

MI X DE S I GN

The standard mix proposed by the contractor used a c r ushed g"ravel coarse aggregate and natural fine aggregate. It was

found that this mix cou.1d not accommodi!lte the 3\ rubber requirement. To ma x imize the perc entage of rubber whi c h could be used , the c rushed gravel "was replaced with a gravel with a highe r percentage of crushed material , and 80111 of the fine aggregate wa s replaced with anothe r gravel aggregate o f a finer gradation . However, even with these adjustments, the maximum rubber content which could be accommodated in the mix was 2111. The replacement aggregates we r e also used in the standard mix to maintain uniformity.

The final mix designs s elected f o r the standard and asphalt rubber mixtures are summarized in" Table 1.

Table 1 Mix Designs

Job Mix I'ormula

III Asphalt Cement III Coarse Aggregate \ Fine Aggregate

(Hu r on Con st . Sand) (Oxford Sand)

\ Crumb Rubber

Marshall Properties

\ Air Voids Flow (0 . 25 mm) Stability (N) , VMA Bulk Relative Densi ty Maximum Relative Densit y

Standard Mix

5 . 3 44.5

45 . 5 10.0

4. 0 10.5

10800 .0 14. 0

2.445 2.506

VMA - Voids in the Mine r al Aggregate

Asphalt Rubber l1ix

6 .1 49 . 0

42 .0 7.0 2 . 0

4. 0 18.8

5250.0 17 . 0

2 . 337 2.418

I t is interes t ing to note that the addition o f coarse scrap rubber to dense graded hot mix has the effect of raising the flo w value and lowering the stabi lity values , wit h the flow value increased by almost 80\ and the stability value lowered by o ver 50\. What this means in terms o f pavement performance is no t yet clear. In any cas e, the accepted Marshall criteria probably cannot be applied directly to asphalt rubbe r mixe s: The stability value for the asphalt rubber mix used at Thamesville was below the minimum specified value f or standard mix (5250 vs 6700 Newton~) but this wa s deemed acceptable o n the advice of the Min i stry's consultant . The mix design charts and mix design gradations are p r ovided in Figu re s 2 to S . The data for the mix design asphalt cement is , sho wn in Table 2.

Table 2 A:sphalt Cement Data

Penetration @ 25OC, 100g, 5 s, 0 . 1 11m

Kinematic Viscosity @ 13Soc, mm 2/S

Ductility @ 4°c, 1 cm/min, em Absolute Viscosity 13 60 0 c, Poise

MIXING PLANT

Description

85 312.1 115

1431.9

HUron Construction mixed both mixes in a Boeing Model 200 drum mix plant. This is a parallel flow plant i. e . . all the aggregates enter the drum at the burner end . The plant is equipped with a three bin cold feed system and the aggregates are loaded into the bins by a Caterpillar 950E front - end loader. The Ge n co burner on the plant " was fuelled by 42 stove oil (CGSB . CANZ - 3.2 - M89 TYPE Z) supplied by Petro­Canada for both mixes. The plant is equipped with a wet Venturi scrubber system which has 14 spray nozzles with 9.5 mm inlets and 3.2 mm outlets. The system is driven by one electrically powered pump which produces 310- 3 45 kPa (kilo Pascals) of pressure in a 50 rom inside diameter pipe.

The exhaust stack diameter is 0".84 m and the top of the stack is approximately 12 m above grade .

The mix was transferred by drag elevator from the drum to the single storage silo.

Rubber Handling Equipment

The granulated rubber was delivered to the site in 22 kilogram" polyethylene bags packaged on pallets . These pallets were lifted up to a platform on top of a lU m) bin by a Caterpillar 240 front-end loader fitted with forks, where two men manually ripped the bags of rubber open and "dumped them through a grate in the flooring which had been built on the top of the bin. Th e rubber was transferred by conveyor to t he 5 rnJ storage hopper of the specially designed" and built Astec rubber feeder . An automatic gate opener was used to control the quantity of rubber filling the 5 rnJ bin. When this bin was full, the gate on the larger bin automatica"lly closed; conversely, when the rubber level fell the" gate opened to feed the smal l bin.

The auger of the Astec feeder was d riven "by a variable " speed motor supplied by Astec, which was set at 10 volt!! direct current. This 10 volts translated into 560 RPM moto r speed.

At this output, the rubber .flowed at 5 tonnes per hour which was determined by running the auger at this speed and weighing the rubber. The variable speed mo t o r was connected to the Master Feed Control in the a s phalt plant control van which uses 0 - 10 volts direct current to operate the plant. The variable drive motor voltage was set to correspond with the required 2% rubber in the mix. As the operating speed (tonnes per hour) increased, the voltage to the auger control increased proportionately. An RPM meter on the control panel was used to verify the proper RPM for variations in the production rate of the plant.

The Astec 22.9 cm auger entered the rear of the drum for a distance of 3 .5 meters and was fixed at the same slope as the drum. The discharge point allowed for approximately one minute of mixing time. The asphalt cement pipe also entered the drum from the rear for a distance of 4.1 metres.

MIX PRODUCTION DETAILS

The mixing plant operated at a production rate of 140 to 162 tonnes of mix per hour which was well within the 150± 20 tph contract requirement.. .Meteorological data from the MOE station at Courtright, which is located 55 km north west Of. Thamesville, shows hourly mean temperature of 170C for the days when conventional mix was produced (low BOC and high 26 0 C) and a mean of nOc during the asphalt rubber mix production (low 70 C and high 16o C). Wind speeds were recorded at a mean of 14 km/hr . for the conventional mix and a mean of 9 km/hr for the asphalt rubber mix .

The mean mix temperature· at discharge was 1540C approximately for both mixes and the mean layrlown temperatures were 1400C and 14 40C for the conventional and asphalt rubber mixes respectively .

Fuel consumption was 7.43 and 7.95 lit res per tonne of mix for the conventional and asphalt rubber mixes re:pectively.

PLACING or TBI: ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

The asphalt rubber mix was laid with a Cedarapids Grayhound CR561 rubber tired paver . The compaction train initially consisted o f a Bomag vibratory roller (Mode l BW161AD) , then a stat ic steel wheeled. Huber roller; for finish. rolling, another steel drum Huber roller was used. The mix was placed at ' a mean temperature of 144o C. The aspha lt rubber mix retained its temperature much longer than the conventional mix. Consequently, it was found necessary to delay breakdown roll,ing. After the breakdown rolling, there was no visual difference in the appearance of the mat compared to the conventional mix. However, a.fter intermediate r olling with

the specified steel wheeled roller a considerable amount of c ra cking appea red in the mat plus many roller stop-marks. Allowing the mix to cool - further before intermediate rolling did not eliminate the cracking or the roller stop-marks . A Bros SP 3000 rubber tired roller (as used on the conventional mix) was then u!:ed a nd it worked well: it eliminated the cracking and the roller stop-marks from the mat and it also closed up the surface of the mat which was something the steel wheeled roller was unable to do . The only problem with the rubber tired roller was occasional p'ickc.p of fines which the finishing roller wa s not able to r oll back into the mat because the material picked up - had deve-loped a rubbery consistency by that time. A water spray system on the rubber t ired r oller might eliminate this problem and allow the roller to work closer to the breakdown roller . The finish rolling of the HL II modified mix was the same as the HL II conventional mi x - a Huber static steel roller.

As stated earlier, the heat retention of the asphalt rubber mix was quite unusual. The mix was placed in mid-October with cool temperatures in the morning (typically 7 - 100C) . The mix maintained its heat well on the journey from the plant to the paving site (a distance of 30 to 35 km). Even after placing the mix it still retained its heat well: after placing the mix at ±llllloC in the morning, with air temperatures in the region o f 6 - aoc, the mat still had a temperature of 110 - 1150 C forty five minutes to one hour later . Such heat retention could make this kind of paving very difficult during the Summer months, without lowering the mixing and placing temperatures _ DUring the day, for example, it was common to have a distance of 1,000 metres from the paver to the finishing r oller, which would be even greater in the Summer.

The othe r problem that appeared as a result of this heat retention was the upward swelling of the rubberized crack sealer that had been used by the MTO maintenance forces in prior years to repair transverse cracking in the pavement. This swelling occurred before the breakdown rolling and perhaps this problem could also be corrected by reducing the placing tempera~ure of the mix.

Apart from the above, no other problems were encountered in the wo rk. Paving commenced on September 22nd and ended on October 16th with some iost time due to rain.

QUALI TY ASSURANCE TESTING

During construction samples were taken for testing as follows:

;

a) mix samples tested for compliance .... ith the j.ob mix formula (JHF);

b) asphalt cement samples f o r compliance with MTO material specifications;

c) mix samples tested for compliance with the recovered penetration requirements of the cootract;

d) rubber samples tested f or compliance with cont ract requirements;

e) pavement cores tested f or compliance with compaction requirements; and

f) mix samples tested for compliance wi th Marshall criteria .

Mixture Gradation

The gradat ion and asphalt cement content data for · the standard mix are shown in Table 3 and for the asphalt rubber mix in Table 4 . The test data shows that the mixing process was in very good cont rol. The test method used was Rotarex extraction with 1, 1, 1, - trichloroethane solvent, and fines correction with the SMM centrifuge.

.'

Table 3 Standard Mix

Compliance with Job Mix Formula

, A.C. Lot/ station (Corrected CUmulatiWi

SUblot for Fi08.) , 4.75 mm

1/1 20+601 5.01 58.9 1/2 20+261 5.63 62.0 2/1 21+013 5 .35 51.1 2/2 11+000 5 .40 58.1 3/1 11+510 5 .40 58.1 3/2 10+935 5.66 64 .S . /1 12+339 5.43 56 . 0 ./2 l2+3 89 5.16 60.0 5/1 14+34 3 5.34 60.9 5/2 15+021 5.19 51.7 6/1 14+393 5.59 63.8

""an 5 .39 59.85

Job Mhc 5.3 56.0 Fornull!.

• P~si.ng 75 Jlm '.7 3, 7 3.' 3.' 3.' •. 0 3.8 4'.4

••• '.6 3.'

4. 09

3. '

i "

~ , , r. ;.

lAtl SUblot

/ 2

Job Mix

Tabla .. Asphalt Rubbe r Milt

Complianc e With Job Mix Fo rmula

_, A. C. . stati on (Corrected. CWlul.a ti 'WI

~or ~.)

~ .~-

. 5

.3

T,: 50 .

,¥O

.. , ' Lb

, Passing'

7 ~ .

:i

]t:: J .<

, .

Rubber Content

The percentages o f rubber in the mix we re determined i n the extractio n test and are shown in Table 5 ,

Lot /Sublot

1/1 1/2 2/1 2/2 3/1 3/2 4/1 4/2 5/ 1

Mean

Recovered Penetration

Tabla 5 Rubber Contant

Station

15+854 15+500 16+472 16+790 18+100 18 +079 19+195 20+263 19+56.4

• Rubbe:z:.

1.6 1.6 2.1 2 . 1 1.9 1.8 1.7 2.1 2.0

2. 0

The re covered penetration test data for the standard mix is in Table 6, and in Table 7 for the a s phalt rubber mix. All but one o f the sampl es (90-1 0- 05) complied with the c ontract r equirement of 50-80 penetration units , '

Data Sampled

90-10-02 90-10 02 90-10 03 90-10- 03 90-10-04 90-10-05

Table 6 S'tandard Mix

Recover.d Penetration

station lL>t/ Sublot Recovered Penetration (penetration Unibs)

20+609 R '1/1 -' . ". -20+268 L 1/2 72 - -. 10+936 L ' J/2 .. a -1l+000'R 2/2 74

_. 12+389 L · 4/2 - .• 68-15+027 R 512- 49 .. -

-- .-

""'" 68--

! l

Date Sampled

90-1 0-11 90 - 10- 12 90-10-1 5 90- 10- 16 90-10 -1 7

Table 7 Asphalt Rubber Mix

Recov e red Pene tration ,

stati.on let! SUblet; P.8c:overed Penetrati.on (penetration Onits)

15+500 1/2 72 16+790 2/2 8' 18+200 3/2 79 20+263 4/ 2- 90 "

21+262 5/2 83

Mean 82

Statist i cal evaluat ion suggests that the failing test value o f 49 is an outlier: when this value is discarded the mean becomes 72. This still leaves a significant difference between the two sets of data and raises the question whethe r the higher penetration numbers for the asphalt rubber mix are higher because o f the extra film thickness o r because some oi l was extracted from the rubber .

Asphal t Cement

The test results f o r the Petro- Canada 85- 100 asphalt cement used in the work are shown in Table 8 . All of the samples comp lied with the requirements of OPSS 1101 , Specification for Asphalt Cement.

SUple No.

10/ 02a/ 90 lO /02b/ 90 10/03/ 90 10/04/90 10/05/90 10/11/90 10/12/90 10/ 15/ 90 10/16/90 10/17/90

I Specification

Table 8 Asphalt Cement Quality

Penetration !tinematic OUctllity (Mean 3 Tests) Viscosity <at 4°C)

0.1 JIIIl tp;1 .. c ) (Mean 3 Test:s)

8. 334 15+ _

- 85 32' 15+ 93 31 ' 15+ 89 31 9 1'5+ 97 318 15" 93, 302 15+ 93 23. 15+ 92 310 15+ --98 31. 15 .. 99 283 15+

85- 100 280 min 15+

Flub ,.,it

C.O.C. "c '

2."" 260+ 260+ 260"'-

, 260+ -- 260+ ,

260+ 260""+ 260+ 260+ -

260+

, I I ,

Gradation ot Rubber

The gradation test data for the rubber used in the work is in Table 9. The rubber supplied to the .... ork was coarser than the specification on all but the 40 mesh sieve. It is 'not known if this coarseness will impact on the performance of the pavement.

Sieve Spec. 1 5i%.e

No.4 100 98 . 9 No.8 70- 80 60.1 No.I0 50 60 45.1 No.20 30-40 20.2 No.40 5-15 1.6

Tabl. 9 Gradation ot Rubb.r Ol!l.d

Percent PIU.l!Iin 2 3 ,- 5 •

99.1 98.8 97.0 99.6 99.9 47.4 67.8 52.0 74. 7 50.1 39.2 52 .1 41.1 60.1 41.2 18.9 22.1 25.1 26.5 22.2 2.6 10.7 5.' '. 1 4. 0

7 • Moan

99.3 99.2 . 98.8 67 . 4 58 . 6 59.8 58.2 50.1 48 . 4 33 .1 31.1 24.9 15.4 6 . 5 - 6.6

Density of Pavement

Pavement densities are shown in Tables 10 and 11.

Tabl. 10 Pavement Dens! ty - Conventiona l Mix

Lot Core BRD MaD • Compaction Mean - (MRD) Compactio n"

1 2358 2514 93 . 8 2360 2506 94.2 94.4 2380 2506 95.0 2383 2521 94.5

2 2355 2522 93. 4 2370 2506 94 .6 95 .1 2401 2496 96.2 2413 2505 96.3

,

3 2428 2489 97.5 2 430 2520 96 .4 96.3 2396 2515 95 . 3 2412 2515 95 . 9

• 2407 2517 95.6 '2373 2499 95.0 95.6 2396 2513 95 . 3 2422 2507 96.6

Mean Compaction - 95 . 4% MRD (Av . of 4 lots) BRO -Bulk Relative Density MRD - Maximum Relative Density

i , , , . "

.. ,

Table 11 Compaction - Asphalt Rubber Mix

Lot Cora BRD MRD • Compaction Mean • (MRD) Compaction 1 2293 2441 93.9

229 4 2462 93.2' 93.8 2313 2452 94.3 2298 2453 93.7 ..

2 2265 2393 94.7 22'11 2435 92 .0 94.0 2305 2424 95.1 2278 2420 94.1

3 2244 2403 93. 4 2206 2426 90.9 93.3 2295 2438 94 . 1 2308 2432 94.9

4 2294 2413 95 . 1 ..

2202 2439 90.3' '92 . 5 2240 2439 91.8'-2259 2433 92.8 -

5 2239 2408 93 . 0 221 5 2460 90.0 92 . 5 2257 2431 92.8 2325 2466 94.3

- - . Mean Compaction - 93.2% MRD (Av . of 5 lots)' . BRD -Bulk Relative Density MRD - Maximum Relative Density . - -

-..

The contract specified a minimu.m. of 92% compaction . to.r .the lot mean with no test value Of . less than.. gO\.. compaction for both mixes. All samples met the requireIllE;:nt .. However, . there is a significant difference in" the overall mean .values with the s tandard mix showing 2.2% oetter ·density. The areas of asphalt rubber pavement with " iri - sit~ ~ave~ent voids approaching 10' give ri s e to some concern wi th regard to long te rm performance.

Marshall Value.

The Mars hal l values are f ound in Table 12 tor the conventional mix, and in Table 13 f or the asphalt rubber mix. The asphalt rubber mix shows 32' l o wer stabilit y and 40\ higher flow values t ha n the standard mix : thi s is directionally the same as found in the mix design but the differences are not as dramatic. Tes..ting was carried out offsite : laboratory compaction wa s on reheated material using the mechanical equivalent of 75 manual blows.

LO:-' Station Sublot

1 / 1 20+609 3/1 11+571 3 / 2 10+935 . / 1 12+399 5/2 15+027 6/1 14+393

Mean

"':/. stat.:i.on SUhlot

2 / 2 16+790 3/1 18+100 3/2 18+079 . / 1 19+195 . / 2 20+263 5/1 19+564 6/1 20+996

Mean

Tabl. 12 Standard Mix

Marshall Karshal.l Stability Flow

(N)

16,680 13 . 8 1'1, 585· 13.7 14, 085 12.0 14,068 13 .0 15 , 0 13 12.5 12 , 655 12.9 14,514 12.9

Tabl. 13 Asphal.t Rubb.r Kill:

M!Lrsball Marshall stability now

(H) (0.25 DIll)

10285 18. 0 11877 17.0 12555 18 . 2 10889 16.7

9427 18.1 11350 17 . 6 10 728 21.3 11016 18.1

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WORKER SAFETY TESTING

V. M. A. A;" (0 ) Voids

(0 )

13.8 2 . 0 15.8 2 .• 15.6 1.' 15.5 2 . • 15.3 2 . 7 15.7 2 . 2 15.3 2.2

V.M.A. Air Voids (0) (0)

15 .2 1.0 17 . 3 2 . 0 15.8 2.5 16.3 2. 0 ls~8 2 . • 16.5 2 .' 15.9 2.0 16.1 2.2

This ' testing was carried out by Trow Dames and Moore who subcontracted the stack sampling and testing to Ortech International. The Ontario Min ist ry o f the Environment's

..

, , ,. ,

Mobile Air Pollution Sampling (MAP S) Laboratory also car ried out parallel stack te sting . The test results f or the Or tech stack sampling a re given in" Table 14.

Air Emissions .From Bot Mix Production

The a ir emission components tested are broadly classified as follows :

i norgan i c components; combus t ion gases; c hlo rinated compounds; polyaromatic hydroca rbons; and volat ile organic compounds .

Inorganic components include particulate mate r ial and metals. Combustion gases include carbon monoxide, ca r bon dioxide, nitrogen oxide s , oxygen, total hydrocarbons , total . reduced sul ph u r , hydrogen b r omide , h ydrogen chloride, hydrogen flu o ride, nit ri c acid, nitrous acid, phosphoric acid and sulphuric acid. The chlor inated compounds analyz.ed were dio·xin s , f u r ans, polychlorina t ed biphenyls , chlorobenz. enes a nd chlorophenols .

Four tests were car r ied out on the standa rd mix a nd three tests o n the asphalt rubber mix : the f ourt.h test scheduled f o r the asphalt rubber mix was abandoned because o f rain.

Sampling with the Metal s Samp ling Train and the Trace Organics Sampling Train was conducted i sokinetically on the main e xhaust stack at a h eight of app r o x imate ly 7.8 m downstream from the exhaust fan which complied wi th the guidelines of at leils t e ight stack diameters d o wn s tream" and at least two stack diameters upstream o f a flow distu r bance .

Sampling with the Fluorides Sampling Tra i n was conducted isokinetically on the main exhaust s tack a t a d i stance o f approximately 6 . 1 m downstream from the exhaus t fan. This was not a n ideal sampling locat ion so the number of sampling point s was incr eased in accordance wi th the Sourc~ Testing Code .

sampling with t he Vola t ile Organics Sampling Train . (VO~T ) wa s similarly conducted at a distance o f 6 . 1 m down s tream from t h e exhaus t f an . Sampling o f combustion gases was condu c ted at a distan c e o f app roximately 4.6 m d o wnstream fro m the e xhaust f a n. .

The a verage stacie. temperatures measured for e ach sampling train for the conventiona l and asphalt rubber mixes varied within a 730 t o 750 C range . Dai l y averages showed slightly g r eater v a r iation.

The volumetric flowrate o f stack gases when co rrected to reference temperature and pressure (25 0 C and 1 atmosphere) on average ranged from 5.6 t o 6.1 cubic metres per second (mJ/sec) . Daily variations ranged from 5.25 t.o 6.34 mJ/sec . The calculated exit velocity from the stack varied from 11 . 6 to 19 . 7 m/sec .

The major air quality problem on this contract was the level of particulate matte r . For the conventional hot mix the maximum levels exceeded air quality standards by about 30 J:. o 40' and for the rubber mix the maximum level's were 4 to 5 times higher than the air qual i ty s tandards .

A second ai r quality p r oblem wa s benzene emission. The MOE has common ly been allo wing benzene emissio ns of up to a tot.al o f 800 grams per ye a r from any o ne source . This project alone, based on the emission rates measured, released 1.5 times this limit . To date, however, no determination has been made regarding an allowable level f o r this. type o f project.

The point of impact value s in Table 14 are worst case values . No other emissions measured exceeded MOE standards e ven in worst case conditions. The particulate and benzene emissions could p r obably be reduced on f u ture projects by use of alternative fuel s i n the plant o r by improved emission cont r o l procedures or equipment.

Plant Wa stea

The waste water gen era ted b y the air emi ss ion control equipment at the plant was tested and compared with p r ovincial objectives. The test resu lts are in Table 15. The water quality was not suitable f o r di s posal in s torm sys tems, but apart from the level o f mangane s e which . exceeded current .guidel ines by 4 0% , the water wa s suitable for discharge int o sanitary sewers .

Samples o f asphalt pavement, r ubbe r i zed pavement, rubber and the s ludge from the air emissions contro l equ i p me n t were tested with re spect to Ontario ' s Regulation 309 . Leachate Quality Criteria for leachable metals and ben:zo- a - pyrene . The levels did not exceed current criteria and it appea rs the materials could be di'sposed in normal sanitary landfil l s ..

Worker Safety Test ing'

Air quality sampling was conducted in the vicinity o f workers at the hot mix plant and the paving site. Tes ts were conducted f o r a variety o f meta l s, part iculates , s elec ted volatile o rganic compounds and hea v ie r organic compounds .

. The only e xposure problems of concern which were identified

.. '

h \' ,

were particu late leve ls during production of t he rubberized mi x. One test wa s 1 .6 t i me s the current established maximum level. For con ventional asphalt the particulate level wa s only 0 .1 times the standard. Particulate level s were also h igher for the r ubbe r i zed mix at the paving site. The test re sults are listed in Table 16 .

Tables 14, 1 5 and 16 were produced for the Ministry o f Transport a tion by Tro w, Dames and Moore through a contract with Trow Cons u lting Enginee r s . The discussion above is based on preliminary infor mat'ion prov ided by Tr ow, Dames and Moore. The conclusions a nd recommendations of th-e i r preliminary report are as follows:

" From an environmental and occupational health an d safety perspective, the product ion and lay down o f asphalt pavement and more specifically rubbe r i zed asphalt pavement has the potential for some problems . These problems inqlude air emissions and occupational airb orne contaminant exposure. These are problems for which solutions do exist. Based on testing to date, with proper managemen t of these currently identified a rea s of concern , this work can be conducted within the bounds o~ current legislat ion. The use of natural gas as firing fuel for the plant proce ss maY'decrease both particulate and benzene emissions levels. Strict process control and in depth main tenance o f ' emissions control equ ipment can also help to r educe max.imum emissio n rates. Further testing of environmenta l and ' occupational health . and safety parameters is recommended in subsequent proj ect phases to confirm results t o date , to document furt her a reas of interest identified by t his s tudy and to document 'emissio n and exposure l evels during the added activities planned. "

PERFOFMANCE TO DATE

The standa rd mix is performing we ll at this time. The asph a l t rubber mix is also performing wel l apart from three concerns' :

a) some large coarse agg r egate particles are b eing dislodged from the surface wherever a part i cle of rubber is irrunediate ly unde r the aggrega t e . The occurrence of th i s phenomenon is variable and r a nges from zero per square metre to 100 per square metre;

b) the longitudinal const r uction joint at centreline is showi ng some joint opening and ravelling; and

c) the mat i s more permeable and is slower to dry out after rain in comparison with the standard mix .

COSTS

The additional materials and handling costs for the asphalt rubber mix at Thamesville were -

Rubber @ $370.00 /t @ 2\ Asphalt Cement @ S200.00/t @ 0 . 8\ Handling Aggregate upgrading -

$7.40 $1. 60 S1. 40 52 60

$l3 . 00/t

For non-experimental work the typical price f o r HL 4· mix in 1990 in Southern Ontario wa s $35.00 per t onne . Hence asphalt rubber mix is approximately 37\ more expensive than standard mix. This does not include the cost of about SlOO , OOO.OO in modifications to the hot mix plant as it is not reas onable to attach all o f these costs to this wo rk alone.

For 1991, sections of both mix types will be recycled in a drum mix plant at 30\ reclaimed pavement material and 70\ new aggregate. New rubber will be added to the asphalt rubber recycled mix to. maintain the total rubber content at· 2'. Two additional sections ot asphalt rubber mix a re planned, one with rubber to meet the 1990 rubber specification and the other with a finer grade of rubber i.e . lOOt passing the tlO sieve. The environmental and worker safety testing will be continued at the same level.

The hot in-place surface recycling has been delayed to 1992 to allow planning o f the environmental te~sting tor this technique.

"

'"

V I ,

~ Ii iii i ~ ! i ~ ~ ~ r ~ I ~UI e

i ·1 ~ ~ g •• l~a ~I i dn ~ h I n • • I • I I

. ~ ~ ~

HHf.~ ~ • • ~ ~ . S' Ii' E: It 2. ~

lHH! • i~~~ ~§ ~ hi ~ ij ~ .~ ~ ~ E • > 1 -I' ;s ~ s: ... ..... E

!=> :- , §! I ~; lil

~ ", .. g,,"~~ w ~ N N • · ~

I §~ p~~~ < • ~ lh q ~

ii it ;;. nhH ~!"" P!-'?? ~ ~ @Q ~~ ll" 'i<if:S~O: ~ - ~ .J ~

• ~~ 5 ~ I ~ ~ w • ~ • li ~~ ? ~ ~ ~ ? ~ & ~ - = 't • <-

~ ~ ~ i ." ... ... a 3. ~ ~ ~ ;s ~ ~ '" \ ~ ... = ~ ~ w ~~ !. B. • 0 ~ ·

~~ QI , < ~

• Q-

i! s: <:> C> b 0 • g! ~ " ~ :.... ... ..,:...._ .... ?- ~ - ::; ;:; ... Go .... 0 ... GO "" '" 0. '" .... ;, ~ w •

~ . ~

-" w

II ~~; , , p - ~ . ~ t .> i . ~

? :- ? :- ~ ~ § ?? .., Ie I ~e ~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ ~ ~ · ~F

~.

H QI 'l -

~i o <:> ? <:> e ~ ~ 12 i ~; c ;.... S 8 <:> :zl ... ? .... ......... "" .... ........ . ....... - ~ - • - n H ~~ ? ~ :- ~ e ~ ~ ~:- ~ " l h ~~ , H .... ... - ~ ~ ... -.., ~ S • ~~ "' 0.0. 1\ 0'"i.. ~ ... .... .,g • <" 1~ 'iij'

? ? g ? ....? ,j ., ~~ 2 = _ ... ... __ ao ..... _ .... _ ;: 1! • )!~ z

~I H ao <:> '" <:> .... .... <:> ........ <:> ... .... N 0

~ II q ~ L - . t <:> _ <:> - _ ~ § <:> <:> ....

~ h . -~ ~ . ... :.... <:> ~ ... ~ "' ... ~J ~ • "" eo.... n ~ ~ ~ .... .... '" ~ · Q!

. t <:> 0 !=> c:> .j ii

;....S 8 & ... ~? E _

~ Ii , ~ ... .... - '" ........ ............ ~ •

f .

~ § ~ § .§ :;; ~ - ~dn . -1;.8 ,I

[ ,

~ • " I g. 't ~~ 11 ~ ~

t • ~

! • § ' j §

Table 15 Proc .... Water Maximum Ana lysis Re.ult. Compared With Mator Quality Obj e ctive. and Ontario Model Sewer U.e

Bylaw

Moy1 .. • N:)dol s.,.r ,."., . oa •

CO~lDd ..... urad PWQ:> Q.l~i.n ..

Aluminum mq/ l 6. 14 0. 1 50 Cacbnium mg/ l <0.005 0 .00015 1 COOalt rrq/ l 0.05 5 O'lranium rrg 11 <0. 01 0 .1 5 eq,per ",,/1 0.08 0 .005 3 Iron rrg/ l 13.3 0 . 3 50 Lead rrg/ l 0.06 0.005 5 Manganese mg/ 1 6.79 0.05 5 •••

COO<)

M:>lylxlenum mg/ l 0.3 5 Nickel mg/ 1 0.'07 0 .025 3 Phosphorus rrg/1

.. 1.1 0.'01 10

Silver nq/ l <0 .005 0.0001 5 Stront ium rrg/l 2. 58 0.007 Titanium mg/1 0.038 5 Vanadium rrg/ 1 0 .014 0 . '007 5 zinc rrg/l 0.16 0.016 3

Toluene ~g/l 0.7 0 '<

Phenol ~/1 96.1 5 2, 4-D:iJrethylphenol )lg/1 15.8 10. 5

Phenols mg/l '0.575 0.'001 1

Total Kj~ldahl Nitrogen mq/1 31 100 AIm'Onia expressed as

Nitrogen nq/ 1 10.1 0.016 Armonia mg/1 12.26 0.02 Organic Nitrogen mg/ 1 20.9 0.15

001<:)

provincial water Quality Objective CZltario Drinking Water Objective - maxinun desirable concentration ... Exceeds sewer use guidelines

Table 16 eoq:,arillon o·t. Ki¢.Mt Ail::borOli Worbr Exposure Leveh to Ontario

Raqulato:ry GuidDlln ..

JOIimm TU:. WeightAd

""""aura Avera;. LDvelMauureci Exposure Level

COnta:a.lnant rrq /m.3 Q1id.a1in. rrq / m.3

Benzene <0.1 16 Toluene 0.1 376 Ethyl Benzene <0.1 435 Xylenes (sum of isamrs) <0.1 435 Styrene <0.2 213 Napthalene <0.3 52

Total Particulate 15.9 10

Aluminum, water soluble 0.0'17 2 .0 Bari= 0.0013 0.5 Olranium II and III

total Cr measured 0.0016 0 .5 Cobalt <0.0007 0 .05 Copper 0 . 0019 1. 0 Iron, water soluble 0.0737 1.0 Lead 0.0023 0 .15 Magnes ium as MgO 0.052 10 .0 Nickel, acid digestate <0.001 1.0 Titanium, as Ti02 0 . 0251 10 .0 Vanadium, as 11205 respirable 0 . 0438 0 .05 zinc as zno 0.3738 10.0

Coal Tar Pitch Volatiles 0.13 0 .2 Asphalt FUme f o r oomparison

ses, 5 .0

SITE LOCA TlON

" -... .. , <:: Cl .. ... -, .. ....

i •

i • .. ~ < ' ..

<:: .... " ... " OJ: .. ...

. " ....

BITUMINOUS MIX D!SIGN REPORT

:: ~ !~7~

~~ I IT'll.! 110.

""'''''' ~11.

r:::"" ~ td. I .... ,. OATI tAMJUI "IC'U I ~

~ W~ .u""'.,,, .. I .

"

",. • uc ,.., ... , .. , , ,~ " ,

r.t:" ..!!; 3 '.' 3 ••

~ I.' ~; 3.'

0.0 10.5 I .. •·•· <5.' , r.:~_ I .... • ~O ~ 2.4<5

l4 . 5 .... 2.""

I" ~

~ .!T;

so.MCa IIHYIIKT'Oft'f HO.: 1OUIk:I /~.JQ.

COOMO - ,. .... -" _n -- -. AQQ. U AOCLU . ... ""'" ... AQQ;"

'" ~11!

OW< .......... AGGftZQATII QfV.OATIOH . II'IACIJCT ".l8DIQ "" .. ~ ,."., DIMITY OOH 2U ,.., , .. 'U .... . ,. .... 1.1' .. ... , .. ,.

0." 2.700 01. 07. ". 42.' '.1 1.' 1.3 1. ' l :l 1.0 0.' rAil 2.651 101 . 100. 99 .3 7.' 92. 7 71 .1 "'.1 '.1 'A 12 2.6,. 100. ..., 10.' ~' ".3 23 . 3 •• 7 ••• ...... ..... .

. ""'.

______ """'"'""'''' _ ____ ~ ___ CV1'OI 0.'" _ _ _ _ _

FIGURE 2

STANDARD MIX.

TaT PROfIt!MY CURVU

--

FleUR! J

81TUMINOUS MIX DESIGN A!POAT

( OlH",",CT I "'<0 - " 0 0 ~ I ><l' ~n: "" '11M I ~I..," ~o" 111'UI1IO. [ I -. I 2 !lOCATC»I I~ IAI' ,- .- T~"""J'r'u.~ ••• J71~~'1 ' J . 'J t..i

""- , .. iI:_ GLa''' ..... _.u'-- I .oC4 r.a: N:IMU.A /00. I ,

"'. __ ,,0.."""'-I .... - HL l( A.u4 OAn IoUoPUJ ",co. I S6~r. 11'0-,

"" I

/./ . .hI .J OAnCClWtS'lo ' I ,. ....... 1 , .... '\9 1 Ttl,. OATA CurTl'tll) I Y;

JOt J,U 1OMIlU. OItAD.'noH fIIJIICGfT~.laIHO •

"" ... , .. , 1'.a '" U .,. ". 1.1, ... '" .. , .. " ., \~ .0 .S' ~ . ~ . 0 ~l . \ .... <-c.. , .. . 0 .3 ."2...

"""""" AlOU~ MUCtlO ,e.r. .. . ~~ .. .... -' VO'OI ~: 3-5 .j. ... e.r.. t - ."' ... ---, 8 IB . ~ , 'A" ~. ...... -IT ..... , ...... , - Sl50 ... 'A'I t'll·"

_ .... 7. ,,~

,V".,. ' _ .1 +.5 I,. ",'A.S 1:'0 ..., '2 . 041,!, . ~ 2 . ~'3e ...,"'" ,-, -

II ,"'00'"1 ·' Y"",''' 1)", ~~-'>~ e<s,- '59 - - -"""""'" n SCU'II:II \NYIKl'CIn" NO.

_TI IIOCJilW:I f If'v1IfTCII:Y NO. ,.,.. "..

."... --" -.. '""'" - - ~d ..... , - -.. - .... ~ -" ~

"'""lQAn IW( ....... NJQIIIIIGATW OI'ADATIOH • ~,AtPIa

"'''-~ """ DI"''''' TIOH '" " .0 'u ,.., ... • 11 .... 1.1, ... '" '" " c..,.~ - l 12 .'0 0 0'

, S' ~ l ,~ ... 1 \ " 10"-

~ ('Io... \ '1 .'5 00' • ., h, .' 1 t' ~,,''- .. . ,,- ",' ... ' I~" .' "" ",'

.. ..... - - - -_ .. - -...... ..... ·, .... ~1'l;ITMI .. 0

------"."......, .." M'O) OATt ____ _

rIeUR! it

. ,

MIX DESIGN CHARTS ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

II IT\lMHQUS IoIIX OlSJQN: c;o,,~ No. 90 - eo 0

UD I.oIm No, tiL u .lu~

~~A~~: ________________________________________ ___

FIGUR! 5

:1 . I . ,<', "',! .. '

, .. :

~ , .

..

f ; If tlill ~i f'f~Jiff!f Iflfff(I{t· If!riJ~!11 I f I

•

• i • · i

. "

• o~ ~oo§! ~; £~o~Eo~~~~

e ;; i I

::; .... "--

. :. ,;

..

. . ~.' , ,. ,.. ............ t: mmi;

· ! · , · ~

. . ! ,

:~.! !" !

" , ,

.... -,

.;:'

( . -;\. - ,-

;~; s ..

~~.~

, -',

'; .'

.. "' .... ~ o~:;:':;:oo

i .--:"!"!"

§'-::~

~ _0, • m ~

e eee • ·oe ;:;" <>

~ m B

• 0"'00000000

• o~ooooooo~

o2oQoooooo

• •

; § •

" . • .~ n

i ~ •

.'

• o . I~ ! ;.

0 ... 11100 ... 00 ... 0

" 0 ~ § B. i.

~L L I.

• " • • § , i •

i NO ,-u n

,," " H p!C> " 00 .~ ii ~. .H U -. , •• " §;;.=

=E.o .d if I.

If -NN ~~i~e m .e ~~

if -. "'''f'> •• ~l in U

;~~,~r;~(:~, r''':-!<; ;-~~- ~ ~,--' ~"! ~"'. , ," ... ~-. -.

r·~fFr -,," -" '~,-~':, ,

';. . ~ '0"'-

•

~

Q) c t: 0

>::: OJ E ~

~

0 ~ u C1l

LL t: 0 Ul

.Ul

E l it w

_ ._...,'" ,,,",;" :0'

,' .. ..-'--.c ~~· · e._", .

--!":

.

Heavy Metals

I~ II ~IIII II 1111 1 !§!I1- 1Jjj1

CAlCP RA{CP CA{BP RA{BP Process and Asphalt Combinations

I ~ Arsenic _ Beryllium ~ Cadmium !a±!l l ead

:~' '!T~Nfr""

I c .

Heavy Metals & Hydrogen Chloride .-';

, 14011

.;:..... 120-l!jj-------------,--­_ 0> · c . C II .. .g 1001111-----1

OJ E -~

~ co

LL c o en en E w

e • • _":~."':~;'~"':~-':;~:_ :,:: : :.;. :." .o:.:" .-. :;;. :'. ---

. ,CA{CP RA{CP CA{BP . RA{BP Process and Asphalt Combinations

I ~ Ctvomium _ Nichl ~ Hydrogen chkll'ida

. i ., " .

r·~:~~~·'R~:?~T~:~· i ' .di..\,' •. <'~ ~ ,.' , '. ~' ..

-Q) C C 0 --0> E ~

~

0 -u CO

LL C 0 (J) (J)

E w

'. ,~"", _ ...... "" ... , .... , ,~,. -.I "<""':. -'r

.-;..-

"'~7':~;:'::"~"-'::f""$* 0:. ~~mr;7&~ '!;;-;:." , t·: ::;:.~,. :.:' ·:·i·¥~&1"/-::-~;';.::;{~'·"

,,:-c:-I'/':'i§-":' ~,'!n ~'H·!r~~";'7,:,:r·i-. .... ' ~.': ,.'._,.;;;S,.-,' ,~ ' .. ' ,~~,--'-" •. '" ',,' ~ ~')· .:f-<::;~'~ .,~t.J.r';-J~_:t:·~'r.~?,'::

-~ .,.', r': ! .... "" .... -.£,""-:;i .. -~~. -

Heavy Metals & ParticulCite

1

CA/CP RA/CP CA/BP RA/BP Process and Asphalt Combinations

I ~ Aluminum _ lion ~ Paniculala

Polycyclic Organic Compounds

~

Q)

c c 0 --Ol :J 1 ~

~

0 U ro LL 1 c 0 <J) <J)

'E w

CA/CP RA/CP CA/BP RA/BP Process and Asphalt Combinatioris

tBI a.N:~(.)anOv.c:.n. _ B~o(bJlIuoranthen ~ Benzo(b)fIUOIane .

IaIII B.nl~I') P'I'r.n. I?CZl Bl'r1Z0(1}p/flna

"" .. •. ~:,:: ,::7.:."-:;:;::::;37';;.')'.::",:"'. ..,. ~ . ", '>. -''''"~.W;g.~ .• ~:;;::

i~- ··~_T~:~ilf~~:"~~?;·" u. ~. ').: y~:" :r::{i-if:i~~'" r",·' " ;"" ;,' "··-'.~~':;.n:·<: "':'":~f ,-

CD c c ~ OJ E -~

o 'g u.. c o . :;J E w

, -,-;' •• "'."_""'I-"""~'w"",,,-,=oi't",~'~""'~"'~"""""~"'"'..:L'~"~":'\~J'_=--'~';~'~~~~~~',.\'!'A1f.j(.~~.'-":. .. -.:;~ . . "---;'~JM~:;li;i~5~lg'~'

Volatile Organic Compounds Major Common Compounds

CA/CP RAtCP CAlBP RAlBP Process and Asphalt Combinations

I ~ XyiEtn. 1m, 0 & p) _ ChIOfomelhane

Polycyclic Organic Compounds & PCBs •• 'C'

1

1 ~

Q)

c c 0 <:: (J) :::J -~ 1 0 -()

'" 80 LL C 0 U) U)

E 40 l1J

20

CA/CP RA/CP CA/BP '.' RA/BP Process and Asphalt Combinations

1r::m1 m·Terphenyl . PCBs

.-,.,. .... '~~ ... ..,.., -'¥ ...... --', ... . . ... -- .... - ". , ..... . "::"'" . ".". ,.-

~;~~~~~~;"l t- :'~:;'-";~: .-1-'--0,;'\'-1,,0-f >~~:,~ -, .")< .. '~:;"

-Ql C C 0

"=:: OJ E -~

0 ~

u 1 !1l

LL C 0 1 '" '" E w

,-0- . .-, . '.- . ·r.~"--~m" .~:"';;' ,'!'U;J-~," ~ -.1:1_ .,..:,f..,.:~ -~:t::'li. ~ ~ Jr.·,~ - - •• '!:-"',. ,. ~y, .. : .. ~'~;; ,..,""fS.t:,....'"~.,

-~ •• '.,'. #~.1. .... e-.":.~ .. -J. ", , ''''~;>- , ... ;J:·u ...... -;: •. , -:-:--·f·:-£.,' '.::~ ':! .. -.

Volatile Organic Compounds Major Common Compounds

CA/CP RA/CP CA/BP 'RA/BP Process and A.sphalt Combinations

~ Slyl.n.

a!!! T~u_ _ .E!hylbenune ~ S..u:en. I?l&l ~bon. disvlphid.

Volatile Organic Compounds . Less Common Compounds

ill: ,)"~i~I-------------c c

~. 2o~I----------------------1 E· ~

~

.8 u . rn LL c o en en E w

CNCP RAtCP CNBP _ RAtBP Process and Asphalt Combinations I~ 1. 1. '.Tric ...... ~~ ~_~.1\uWIOtIO - - - -ml- r.l.~hyIoo", ellIOt..,. I

~'.~.~"":~~,.,.~ .• ~ "'.",!":'( .~.-:;':. ~.-.-.~, ,·iJ ... " .... iJ .• b U -,:. '. . . . .' .-- ," .. . ' .. '" " ...

e.," _ .. _ •. ~. _,.,.~7"_'" "-_ ~'''' .. ,-"--' ..... , ... ~ - ,,!,.- .•. '-:"~~.~,:'.'-. -' '" .• , -_ ........ .

f,;'; '; ~. .1;~ .:;;?i,~:; <. .~ . , - ' _::~ot.-.,.;;:~:~· .. ", . ~, ,.

Volatile Organic Compounds '. ,,- Less Common Compounds

1

-OJ 1 c c 0

.;::: 0 Ol

E -. ~ 0 t5 '" u.. c 0 VJ VJ

E w

CA/CP RAjCP CA/BP RA!BP Process and Asphalt Combinations I ~ T!ichlotoll .... """,,,, _ CllloIoo""~. ~ Vo>y' c ...... 1eI.

; 1 j ,

, " ~

I ,

'.' I ' . • i ,..

CONTINUOUS EMISSION MONITORING (CEM) ANALYTES, INSTRUMENTS AND CALmRATION

Analytes Maoufacture;r Qperadng Principle CalibadoD Span Gas

Oxygen (0,) Scoa Pararnagnetic~nance Ambientail'

Cuben dioxide (COV ADC Non-dispersive in.fr'md 12.18%Co,inN2

specttoscopy

NitrOgen oxid~ ~OxJ TECO Olemiluminescence 202 ppm No,. in N2

speCttoscopy Carbon monoxide (CO) Beclanan Non-dispersive infrared 7m ppm CO in Nl

speCttoscopy Total hydrocarbons (iRe) R.3.aLSChe Aame ionization detector . 29.7 ppm CVI. in N2

Hydrogen chloride(HCl) TECO Non-dispersive infnrcd 3100 ppm HO in N2

specttoscopy

Sulphur dioxide (50:2) Western Research. Non-dispersive uhn-violet 216 ppm So, in N2

spectroscopy

Total ~uced sulphur Western Research Non-dispersive ultra-violet 100 ppm H2S in Nl (TRS) speCttoscopy ·

, .: ,

..

, . . " > ", ~, ~~ .. !

-j'-

t ' ',f '

, , .

~ ",:.i ."

Probe

.

The Ministry of the Environment Mobile Air Pollution Sampling Laboumry

System Schematic

. . . Filters Sat1)ple System Schematic .. ... . . .. . ..... . .

i H •• tld >-- 1 Manifold

>-< ! THO . .

.. _ ..... _ ..

Condenser Sample 02 and or System check line Dilution

I

Calibration CO2

I ( ) ( ) ) CO ...,... / \. /\ /\

, Zero air Cal Cal Cal

I .

HO

TRS

S02

NOx

, ,

, •

MAXIMUM WORKER EXPOSURE LEVELS MEASURED VERSUS AmBORNE EXPOSURE CRITERIA

Re&:ulatory TWAEV· ror Industry ACGIH··

Maximum Exposure Guideline Prorusioa •• I.cnl Mu:,suCs:d [gr:: CDDU[us::iiDD Glliddlau

Contaminant mg/ml mg/ml mg/~3

A. Arommic HydrocarboIU Ben=< <0. 1 16 Toulene 0.1 376 Ethyl beniene . <0.1 435 Xylenes (sum of isomers) <0.1 435 Styrene <0.2 213 Naphthalene <0.3 52 :i

B. TotDl Particulate 15.9 10

C. Memu Aluminium. water soluble

compounds. (Al) 0.047 2.0 Barium (Ba) 0.0013 0.5 Chromium IT and IT 0.0016 0.5 Cobal! (Co) <0.0007 0.05 Copper (Cu) Iron, water soluble

0.0019 1.0

compounds (Fe) 0.737 1.0 Lead, total 0.0023 0.15 Magn"';um, toW (MgO) 0.052 .10.0 Nickel. water soluble

compounds (Ni) 0.1 0.1 Nickel. acid dilc:swr: <0.001 1.0 Titanium. total as TIWliwn dioxide (riOV 0.0251 10.0 Vanadium. as vanadium

pentoxide. =¢r.ohle (V,o,) 0.002 0.05 Zinc as zinc oxide. total <ZoO) 0.3738 10.0

0.13 D. CooITarPUchYolati1a 0.2 Asphalt Fume 5.0 (Cor'eomparlsoo ooly)

• TVVAEV . Ontario R.egularions Cor Time Weighted Avenge Exposure Values .* ACOIH· American Conference ofGovcm~ntallndusaial HygienistS

1 1

" ... '" "' '" 1: . o ... o c .. f;; ..

® ®Q .. ~ " ... ,e ~ 0 • ;: ' :!! '" "'

z '" '" '" "' ~ ~ ..

"' '" I: ,. z C> ,. z ,. ... "'

ae l! : ... ... "' "' '" '"

'. , .

.~ 'n Cc ·c ~.

;;: :2 z '" "' '" ... '" z ... "' z ... ..

. , ... .' ', .. , . .,., .. "

r---I I • I ~ L_I __ ·_, ___ .,... I I I

In ,~

I. I ~ IE I I I I I I I I I I.. ___________ J

" . ,

, ~ " •

STAU 'AlL

MUTED MEA ,.

PiTOT IWC~TER

(OPTlnXI\L)

TII(jUl):lET(AS

ORIfICE

OilY TEST IlETEIt

",.-n' GLASS WOOL PLUG or

_"";US

ICE IAT"

ty·rASS VALVE

rr-1l

VAtU~ ,",UtiE

Ill. VALYE

ruor

VAWUI U"'

INPINGER CONTENTS

.. '. ,. '. a> ", '.-' .;

flUORIDES SAMPLING TRAIN Q) '

C»

®

WATER t J " \j WATER

WA~~~f ,"'

SILICA GEL

. , . " <;r.' ~ .. " -_ ... ~l}: L; :::4 ,:;-.

:-.:.)- ·:H'(f.~t~~ f.t, i; ::-

. '" aI~j~~Hil~L~~=,;,. ""''"''''',.,.,,~, ,~ .. '" . ";0.>,"" ,.'" "'" i,>;~ '., . ~f~~~:~"'f~! 'J1~~~~:~11 ... !J. , ...... "j .. , . .:..- ..... ': ... ~~~ .. ~:"-"':.,:

',' : ... _ . ... ".: .• ':<'t..~, •• ~-:-: f.'''OA .. ~ ... .i';'"'f:''·':::',.$,j'~.,",f,."T~r-·~7.;,;>·~~", .. . .

S-TnE 'ITOT TUIE

... __ . ' , " ~~"- ---..-,....,... ',

..

flUfII HOlDO

r­I I

I I I

•

It )

.o. ,_. , ••• ••. --'_c •• " __ '~"--''''';' __ ~_''''_~' #'

CONDENSER

AIiIU : IhiPINGER CONTENTS

~~: _ -.J-J. ... -::~-- ____ I:E_!':!~ ____ _ <D WATER

~ WATER

IlAO - flU. .. Gl EMPTY

® , SILICA GEL

...... CUUN .Y'.US VAL'f'I: .... UII(

OIU'IC(

T • THERWOCOUPlES

TRACE ORGANIC SAMPLING TRAIN

, ....... ---.. -.. ---,-~ .... ..,... .. , .

,

.. ,

" !-

.. "

.,

;§ .... ~ ~ o '" ~. z n

~ " .... z C>

.... '" ,. z

• " •

• • • • " , • " •

" • % • c • •

• ~ " •

• • o • "

---r;.~.:.

1990 RESULTS Of SOURCE TESTING AT THE HALDIMAN[)'NORFOlK (CAYUGA) RUBBER·iN·ASPHALT PROJECT (Stack (lI)(lCentr.1Ioot In rriIIlglrns/clJbIc I'fI4tre .125 C, 111m, cky)

A5ph1lt with Added Rui:Jb« (No RAP) Control T'1I1 (CofWenlional, no RAP) Arithmadc Siltdatd Co.ffid,nt

Conlaminant T,st 1 r ... 2 T,st3 Me. n o.vr.lIon of VarI,lion T.st4 AvCJAvR AvRlAvC

Aluminum 12.978 3.-457 9.6~ 8.7 10 4.836 " 11.926 1.369 0.730

.... ~'" 0 ..... 0.001 0.012 0.004 0.00" ". 0.00' I.U9 0.893

"'urio 0.016 0.001 0.012 0.010 0.008 80 0.014 1._ 0 ....

Barium 1.08< 0 . ..., 0.678 0.735 0.324 « 0.576 0.784 1.276

8.fYllium 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 0.0000 0 0.002 2.000 0>00

811tr111h 0.027 0.143 0.015 0.062 0.071 115 "" 80<", 0.098 0.071 0.067 0.079 0.017 21 0.173 2.199 0.455

Cadmium 0 .001 0.001 0.001 0.0010 0.0000 O. 0.001 1.000 1.000

Cllcium 816.811 737.723 .cs..712 669.75 190.33 28 732.133 1.093 0.915

Chromium (10111) 0.037 0.004 0.023 0.021 0.017 78 0.17 7.969 0.125

Co"'" 0.017 0.007 0.013 0.012 0.005 41 0.018 1..459 0.685

CoPPO' 0.047 0.012 0.032 0.030 0.018 58 0.006 0.198 5.056

Iron 28.927 2.' 20.245 17.32 13.31 n 26.673 1.540 0.6-49

L.'" 0.033 0.011 0.026 0.023 0.011 ... 0.025 1.071 0.933

"""m 0.015 0.01 0.013 0.013 0.003 20 0.01 1 0.858 1.152

Megn.slum 446.447 396.371 375.251 . 406.02 36.57 9 380.595 0.937 1.067

Mlnglnall 1.13B 0.913 0.839 • 0.963 0.155 " 1.116 1.159 0.863

Mlr9'Jry 0.007 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.001 " 0.006 0.857 1.167

Molybd.num 0.Q15 0.008 0.01 0.01 1 0.004 33 0.06 5 .... 0.183

Nick.1 0.056 0.023 0.036 0.038 0.017 43 0.099 2.563 0.387

Phosphorus. 0.576 0.093 0.52.\ 0.397 0.2&4 67 0.60<4 1.!l23 0.657

pol ... eium 6.625 3 ..... 5 .057 5.2 \ 1.35 26 5.963 1.1.045 0.874

SellrVum "" 0.001 O.OOOJ 0 .0006 173 · 0.004 12.000 0.083

SUioon :. 1.19-4 6.104 4.-451 3.92 2.50 54 3 .007 0.768 1.302

Silvlf "" "" "" M

Sod'm 2 .551 , .... 1.69<4 ~o« 0.450 22 I."" 0.511 1.958

SIJonC'um - . 38.572 17.97 26.383 21.642 10.359 37 19.201 0.695 1 ....

Tellurium o~. ; :: . "" "" . "" lin , • "" "" "" 0.05

Trtarium 0.414 0.0« 0.391 0283 0.207 73 0.327 1.155 0.865

V.nacium 0.035 0.00. 0.03 0.024 0 .016 .. 0.'" 1.608 0.623

Zl~ 0.154 0.041 0.095 0 .097 0 .057 58 0 .155 1.603 . 0.624

Hydrog.n ehIorida 0.659 0 ... 6 0.486 0 .487 0.202 43 0.'" 1 .... 0.714

Total parllaAl1. 4564.79 4399.09 35" 4168.8 549.0 13 3387.18 0.808 1.238

" , ..

~ : t--· , ~i :;,i >:1 ., ~ }I

"" . ., ,'" .. ;'.'

um lilUi ffli:~~~~~ UUmtlj UUUlfU ~ Wi

i'tUnn ~, ". ! r" lmnl :n ~ n ~ • ~ i ! i" I" i:;

t Ht H~iil i ii!' "i

II ! ' t ~

g "

, !l_ ... __ • iL"~§ N_ = 8 aUili~.nh

~ is !i~t:i!. uwa ~" "" - • r: ~ffi a.fH.II:61~ oaR. !:: a 0: a ta ;:t Ii!

H~ " B_ t.tl

;§maja~a~! ' - i I: .~ i: ~g/GCa i~s:~ii~ ,h.,,§a,. ~.'!l;;~5~~. f • ~ " .. ~

• ~g -. - " g"~;;~ ~- ~ - . OIe.,,~~~at;\~a. ~ f -~ t&uf::: h"~S~ i.ii 'C:8f;Ii:a.it tOl~a ... a.~a.N!i: " .. I< .. ," ',-' '~ -, "-'.'; ~; ~~ ::!.~

~.: !,~. l-'-, .. "

-.;; .' " ,

.f~ " iimi .£::hdi .:: ~- ~ .. ~

Slit_a .. ~ ...., ... ....,y -"~U"--~ h J ~ Ioo ... wbo:'" t~ ,8:.S: .~Ia f":... ~i:N • •

~J c • !::l _ ...

iiH .~., .§~ •

~S:b~ m "i ' 5UU-' - ......... -S& .. co ~' . • G: t~l!:; . --Ij: ... '. ;g ;;::Its 3S~.

~ ~~ • .~ ;>

" - &~3; .S: . t .or - - - 0 is:311:O:: ~::..: ... - .t;;;!:33!::l ....... C:: !!!::2;~:::~a:~ t • f.

~ ~ w

" ;I l - "I Qa",i1j::.~ t ... t .. ", __ N ...

~~~aiith::;jE~ - ¥ 0 .. ;~.i!" '" t:~~~fia.ia.i~ • ! ~ ;; a. iJ> a. bo' • ~;. '" t~ ~'! Ip ::.: _." .. ':t, ~: ' J;',

> ~ <

~ ~ ... 0 000_ ~!=''''!='?:'''':-'' - 00_ 0 00 00000000", ~ ~ b~ ~ .:~.~"n .~ miJ.~.~~ ~~~~~5~!§ . < • ; .N .§ ~.w 9 • .r r

~ .~ii~ .. _ "' ...... NN_O ~

, 0 _"0_"'00 0 w_ 0 _ 0 ......

J ;; ~ ~ ~"~.~"" . ... :...... ~ . t."" ~U.~ii!m~ . < u; • ~ • .!l 0: I::t:a '.~ ~il8: ...... ! ... ~ 0

,",' . -.~~.-, .~

... -. - .. _., ....... _ ... -_ .. _ .... _.- ~ .. -~.-:-'-

1990 RESULTS OF SOURCE TESTING AT THE HALDIMANO-NORFOU< (CAYUGA) RUBBER·tN·ASPHALT PROJECT (SlId!; ~ntratlon.1n niaogf1llT1llc:U:llc metre.l! 2S C, 1 aim, Goy) ..

A"Phah wllh Added Rubber (No RAP) , Control T 851 (Conv.~, 00 RAP)

"""""" "'""" ~~, --""".,,,,",,, TaS! 1 Test 2 Test3 L4nn .. , DIYIadon olVarieSIon Tesl4 Ta5lS MNtI Av ClAv R Av PJAy C

"""""""'. 83.24 70JJ7 53.67 .. " 21 21.30 1120 18.250 0.278 3.600

""" """"'. 0.79 "' "' 0.26 0.46 173 0.« "' 0220 0.835 uril1 .. ..,..,....". "' "' 0>, 0.10 0.18 173 "' "" CNoro,than. 0.70 1.69 1.88 US 0.58 " 1.15 "" 0.575 0.397 2.516 TrichIofoftuoromethan, 1.91 2.37 1.« 1.111 o .. n " 1.58 0.43 1.005 0.527 1.897 I, ' ·OIdllofoelhwul "' "" •. '" 3." 5.36 173 2.42 "" 1.210 0.391 2.556 " .. "'. 263.97 ,,-" "'8 125.0 120.6 OS "" "' c.toon dIs~. 215.8 158.06 131.0:5 16 .. 0 .3 . 28 210.02 26'" 235.Q80 1.402 0.713 Methy1 1Wl' d11orid, 186.9 117.74 110.76 131.8 " .2 37 113.09 .... 101.025 0.761 1.305 1,2·DIct\JOroeltllNli "' "' "' "' "' 1, ' ·OIdlIOIoelhane 109.83 71.61 62.4 81 .3 25.2 31 79.117 79.08 711.526 0.978 ' .022 2· """"'" 52.16 ,~ .. 8.42 24.5 24.0 " " 2>1 1.155 0.047 21.220

""""'- "' "' "' "' "" 1,2·DId'IIoroelhana ~ .. . ... "' .. 2.' " 10.82 11.45 11.135 <4.321 0.23' l,l,l ·TrktlIoroelhane ,." 115.117 106.08 n.16 58., " 56.01 "'" 35.675 0.<462 2.163

"'""'" ,- '" "' "' "" "' Vklylecelale 111.27 31.9<4 "' 17.07 16.09 .. "" "' Benzene 163.78 124.111 110.76 '33 '" 21 22<4.56 176.28 2OIl<20 '.50S 0.583 TrlcNorol1hene 0.8 ~ .. 2.25 '.93 ,.20 " "" "' 1,2·OIdlIoropropane "' '" '" "" "" llI'ornocIIc:tlomelhane "" "' '" 0>9 "'

. 0.1115 d.·l ,3.{llctlloropropane '" "' "' "" "' hn.·l ,3.{llcNotop'opene '" "' "' "' "' 1.1,2·TrIdlloroelhane "" "" '" 0' "" DIbfomocf\loromelhane '" "' "' "" "' ,,~""" "" "' "' "" "' 4-J,4.thy1·2·pantanDntl 96.34 32.' B7.:J11 72.20 ,,-" .. "' "" 2-cNorotthyMnyl eM "' "' "' "" "" Toluane 231 .21 133.81 132.61 '68 56.6 " '30.116 150.80 ,<5'" 0.876 1.1<42 2·Huanone "' "' " .6< lI.g • 17.1 173 "" '" Tevechlorollhene 0.79 <4.15 2.31 2.42 1.68 70 "' "' Chlorobenzane "' "" '" "" "" ElhyIlan.zene 109.83 ". <47.43 73 32 « <47.01 67.00 m05 0.709 1.<411 XyI_ (all Isomer.) 435.43 280.65 102.36 301 '23 " 2<47.11 298.19 272.680 0.900 1.111 .",.,. 51.81 30.32 15.6 " .5 21.3 " 21 .65 34.10 27.875 0.80S ,.238 1.1,2,2·TW1IdIIoroelhan. "' "" '" "' "'

! I I 1 , , ,

i 1

! .' '!j " J "!

" , i

~ . ;

, . L

:.'."'

"

.. ........ .. ~ .. - ... "' ....... 15 ..

• o - 0 p~ ~p ~ D _ 0 __ • ___ u __ ._~ ~~mWP~&~P~ B ~ §! Ei i~ ~I .; §~l~ ~§!~~i~~~. ~ij.§ • • I." ;

• "i ~ i ;;;E is ;~ ~~;; Ei8i~S;;Et ;~~~i~;;;; ~

• i·hm ~ iilga~au~~ ~tI~~U!!l~~ i .. tt!:: ! • ~ !!soUI.it ~i1.iUlil._ a:n: ...... ~t::::u.!: :i082U::;:!1I Iii. • ,

- • -!~ - I - 1 -, i -" ....... I ... m~mm i ! n __ •

iI.il a f ii .~~~L.hS ai§il<:fil.iliI.~a • i - i .. ~ ~- ~ , • ~ .. ~!Z !: mhnn. • f :lU._ · :;- I - I- I i iI.iI. ... it ~ i!~ .. j~;;:_il.~ e~ Ih.u;;:! • - ~ - .... - I - In .mii I. Jd r r" § "2- -:;;; i~'5W!gi 2" - ..... . I:t~;;;! . c,; . . .. f • ~ ... iii It ..

~;~;; ii '"Iii •• it _ ... '"1-&12 § ... btl.:: , m J ... ge - - .... ~ iun~.ae • Ii

ISWU-a .... ~ 5 .. . - --- , Of ...... ........ lB! ... ;;;;::::C;.i:f n ............. . 0

• """JiI"" i ••• ""1"""""" • m • ~i ~i~~i§5;ii i u~u Ul IS"S"· ~ E .. .. - ... • • ;=~i; ~

:"",po ,../",..,..,.,.,.

" m ~ -- ,.,.,..:"'1",..,..,..,.. .. ~ l::o:! lelUliD =r :a~6Z:~ISU! 0

,.

1 , , ! '1 .1 l i } , ;1·

.','

i\" ""; - " ' ,,--II ;j

~ .

r i.l '. "". ll" -j"" , , ~~ ,

• •• ~~a&aaaaaa aa!a&~aa~a

• . c ....... . :< f> ~ • • .;0 • • ; .. ....

. 2UO . . ; . . . . . . . . ..1 ..... ~ .

... = ... ~ • ___ IS • . 1 .. . .. .. . •• C; • ,i: .. iii •

a~~~aa ,!aeaiiaaa i~~aa&i&~i a~!Cii&a&~ ! i ij ... It- - i"~ !:~£i& IE If!!!!!! !l~l&&ilei 1~~El&&IIM ! I

&~e!&~ a!l!a&&l&& &~;l&C&ael &&S~ie~ee~ ! f 1

if!!!' ,!,;& &&&&& &&~aafaa~a aa~!aaaaa~ ! J

E-" • -, -• 8 •• 1S

.m ..

~- !" ~ .~.i .. .. . . . .:IIi .• I: ..... .

I: .. =~ ,.. ;i •• • .: . .......... . .. 0: .. ... .

• 1II.Of • ••••• • illl •• i: .. I:I .

- -, ' -~ ~ ft •• • • • • • • • • • ...... _ •• IS •

p . p ;' p " I 0 • • 1: • • • • •• • • . •• ..1: •• '-.

, C~~ ~~eee ~ .~;_ .lII el.:" n

Report # 2

AURI LIO

EXPERIKJ:NTAL BOT .,. PAVDO:NT

WITH

SCRAP mu: R08BER.

AT

TRAHESVILLE , ONTARI O

REP ORT " RE CYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER .,.

V. Aurilio Senior Bituminous Engineer

Engineering Mat e r ials Office Minist r y of Transportation, Ontar io

_ ... .

51

RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

AB STRACT

In 1990 the Ontario Mini stry of Transportation (MTO) in conjunction with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) constructed an experimental pavement section on Highway 2 in Thllmesville, Ontario that incorporated scrap tire rubber in the asphalt su rface cou r se mix. The mllin object ives o f the trial were to determine if this method of tire recycling is environmenta lly acceptable and to compare the performan ce of asphalt r ubber mix with standard mix.

As a continuum, to a ssess the recyclability of the aspha lt rubbe r mix lind to further study the envir onmental impact s of this relstively new technology, II sect ion o f each mix type placed in the inlti .. 1 phase wa s recycled in 1991 (Pha se II). Ultimately, Phase IJ of this study would provide cr i tical informati on regarding the l ong term use of asphalt rubber mi~es.

This paper summarizes the mix design data, construction deta ils and the quality assursnce test resu lt s f o r Phase II. In addition , a preliminary performance evaluation of the test sections is presented, along with a discussion on the findings of the environmental and worker safety testing carried out in both pha s e s of the wo rk. A breakdown of the material and handling costa is also briefly discussed.

RtSUl"lE

En 1990 , Ie ministere des Transports de l' On tario, en collaborat i on avec Ie ministere de l'Environnement, a fait Ie reve tement d'un troncon de la route 2, II Thamesville en Ontario, en incorpo r ant , II titre e~perimental, des pneus en caoutchouc de rebut au mela nge bitumin eu x de l a couche de roulement. Cette experience cherchait avant tout a determiner si cette methode de recyclage d es pne us est acceptable du point de vue de l 'environnement et a compa rer 1a tenue du melange de bitume et de caoutchouc avec celIe du melange habituel.

De p lus, afi n d'evaluer si I e melange de bituma et de caoutchouc est apte a etre r ecycU:, et pour pousser 1 'etude su:r les effet s environnementsu~ de catte te chnologie psssablement nouvelle, une sect loon de chaque type de r evetement utilise lors de la phase initiale du pro jet a ete recyclee en 1991 . La seconde phase de c ette etude tournirs finalement des :renseignements essentiels concernant l'usage 4 long terllle de melanges de caoutchouc et de bitume.

Ce :rappo rt resume le s donnees sur Is conception du melange, donne des precisiona sur la construction et les resultats des tests de contrlile de qualite de la phase II. De plus, Ie rapport present e unll! eva luation p:reliminaire de la tenue des troncons lIIis 4 l'essai , sccompagnee d ' un expose sur les resultats des reChe r ches effectuees durant les deux phases du pro j et su r 111 protect ion de l'environn eme nt et la securite au travail. La decomposition des fra is des materiaux et de man utention est eqaleillent brievement abordee.

~ !{

AURILIO " INTRODUCTI ON

Over the last decade hot mix recycling has become standard practi ce in Onta ri o. It is estimated that appro xim.!ltely 10' of the total hot mix produce d in 1990 contained reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP ) [5] Thi s equates to about 1.2 million tonne a of recycled hot mix (RHH) On MTO projects RHM constitutes r oughly 25 ' of the total tonnage normally used p e r year and with the introduction of zero waste contracts the use of RA P is being expanded.

The present cost of wa s te disposal in landfill s is ext remely h igh and will l i kel y increase in the future. In addition, some jurisdictions within the Greater Toronto Area do not allow the d is posal of RAP in landfills. In light o f this, the question of whether a nother waste problem is being created if asphalt rubber mixes cannot be recycled remain s c rlticel. Therefo r e , the ebility t o r ecycle asphalt rubber mixes would play a key r ole in determin ing the ove r all a cceptabil ity of this technology for its continued use .

In 1990 the Ontario Mi nistry of Transport a tion (MTO) in conj unction with the Ontario Ministry of the Environment (MOE) constructed an experimental pavement s ection on Highway 2 in Thamesville , Ontario to assess the viability of using scrap tire r ubber in h ot mix. As part of this study it was intended to recycle the asphalt rubber mix at the plant and in-pla c e by heater scarification in the same year. Ho wever, it WliS not possible to Cllrry out each phase o f the work in 1990 and the recycling WliS

deferred to 1991. Phase II of this pro j ect deals with the p l ant recycling aspects of the project.

Thi s repo rt presents an analysis o f the field data and observations for the test sections construc ted in Phase JI. The discussion includes ill. preliminary evaluation of the perfo rmance of the asphalt r ubber pavement sections and ill. detailed analysis of the environmental testing conducted during the producti o n and placement of these mixes .

""' -

-",

iJ)~-.. ~ -, ..- --..... nw.oUYlUI --

FIG. 1 -- Project location.

RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER " IX

__ '" If»/£

'e~eN" ' _ 00_"""'''.'., . ,,'''''.''. ''' ' -'''''' I!i1'.il:i!2l ... ~ ..... u • .." ... ,_, -"' . .. .,-_ ..

, 'efeNO '

.. M,,,,,,nCIC _ .... ,. '" " 0 1'

,

00 _ " C'o'C'" _ ....... _ .. " • ..., ..

.. -..... __ ........

FIG. 2 -- Locu lon or tach tr ill secl lon.

. ..

'. . , , • ,

AtIRILIO 55

PRASE I 1990 WOM

Phase 1 of this study included the construction and preparatory evaluation of a 6.0 km trial section of asphalt rubber hot mix and II control section o f the same length on Highway 2 in Thame s ville, Ontario (Figure 1). The wor k wa s carried out in late September to mid Octobe r, 1990. Both mixes were produced in a drum plant. Air quality testing was conducted to determine the pre sence and levels of various pollutants and to confirm compliance with worker health and safety regu l ations.

The length of the project was controlled by the f o llowing factors .

• The trial section would have to accommodate the placing o f an asphalt rubber mix, a rUbber RHM and a hot in-place recycled mix;

• For each mix type sufficient plant operating time was required for the stack emission testing; and

• A control section was essential to facilitate the long te r m performance evaluation o f the asphalt rubber pavement and to provide a baseline of environmental and wo r ker safety test values of the standa rd mi x f or compa r ison with the r ubber modified mixes.

PHASE :n TRIAL LAYOUT

In 1991 a 2 km sect ion of each pavement type wa s reclaimed by cold milling and recycled in the same plant used in Phase I. The recycling ratio for both recycled mixes was 30\ reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) and 10\ new aggregate (30/10).

Based on the performance of the 1990 asphalt rubber mix using the No. 4 mesh rubber it was decided to change to No. 10 mesh rubber for the 1991 recycling work. However, to compare the performance of the 1990 No.4 mesh rubber with the No.10 mesh rubber an ext r a trial section approximately 3 km in length was p lanned with No. 10 mesh rubber. In order to determine if the performance problems with the No. 4 mesh r ubber used in 1990 were due t o non-compliance with the rubber gradation specifica tion II I km s tretch o f asphalt rubber using the No. 4 mesh rubber which complied wi th the specification was planned for Phase II.

The environmental testing program developed in 1990 was repeated for the work carried out in Phase II.

CONTRACT DETAILS

The work included four test sections, a standard recycled section and a recycled asphalt r ubber section each incorporating 30\ RAP from the pavement constructed in 1990 and t wo new seCtions ; one using the origina l rubber (No. 4 mesh) and one with the No. 10 mesh rubber. Due to re curring problems with the gradation of the No.4 mesh rubber this section was paved with a standard HL 4 mix in 1991. Fig . 2 shows the locations of the d ifferent tria l sections.

The same contract o r used in 1990 was awa rded th e contract for Phase II by an invitation bid.

MIX DESIGN

The mix designs for the standa rd and asphalt rubbe~ mixes were prepared by two separate consultants on behalf of the contractor . The design fo r the recycled hot mix wes completed by MTO. The mix designs se lected are summa r i zed in Table 1.

" RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

The coarse and primory fine agg r egates ~sed in the mi xes submitted f o r Phase II were obta i ned f r om the sou r c es used in Pha se I. The contract o r however reque s ted permission to use II diffe rent tine blending und .

The laborat o ry te s t ing perf o rmed in 1990 indiCli ted that the re we re significant d if f erences between the Mar s hall properties ot s tandard mil, and the IIsphalt rubber mix. The!: Mar sha l l s tability of the asphalt r ubber mix was found to be cons iderably lower than the s tandard mix , while t.he cor res po nding flow values were much highe r than normal. The mix designs compll!ted tor Ph",se I I re vealed similar r esults. The Marshall stability decreased by 36\ fo r t he rUbbe r RHM lind by 3o, t or the No . 10 me sh r ubbe r mix . 11. flo .... inc r ease ot abou t 80\ wa s obse rved for the r ecyc led a sphal t rUbber mix; the mi x which contained the No . 10 me sh rubber experie nced II 4 5\ increase.

The a!iphalt demand for t he asphal t r ubber mix was approximately 1.0\ highe r than the standard mi x in 1990. The asphalt COntent for the NO 10 me sh rubber mi x placed in Phas e II was 1 .2\ h i ghe r than t he standard mix. For t he recyc led rubber mix the additiona l a sphal t c ement requ ired was 0 .5 \ . The void s in mine r a l aggregate (V MA ) of th e conv en t i on al mi x es ra ng e d fr om 14-15 \ , whic h wa s ge nera l ly 2-4 \ l ower than t he a sphal t rubbe r mi xes. According ly, the b ulk relative den S i ties of the as pha l t r ubber mixes were consistently lowe r than the s tanda rd mix. Both mixes used in 1990 were designed at an air void content o f 4 .0\. In 1991 t he mixes were designed a t 4 .0\ and 3.0\ air voids tor the standa r d r ec ycled hOt mix (RHM ) and the recycled rubber mix, respec tively . The new mi x lUli n g the No. l O mesh r ubber wa s d esigned with 4. 0\ a nd the standard mix at 3.4\ air voids.

TABLE 1 -- Hix Desi9n~.

Job Hi" r o=ula.

, Asphalt C ..... nt ·

, Coarse A9g~e9ate "

, rine A9qragate (HurOn Con~ t. Sand) (Oxfo r d Sand ) (xomoka alend Sand)

\ Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement , Cr wnb Rubbe r

Marahall SUbility nl )

n o .... (0.25 ""') Void in Mi ne r al Ag'l ,eqate (\J \ Air Voids Bulk Relative Density Theoret i ea l M. xin:.um

St a nda rd Mix

5.0 39.9

45. 6

9.5

Nil

8300 8.3'

15.0

, .. 2.41 0

No dats

No t e s, • By ..... ~s o f ft\1xtu re. By mass o f dry aq'lregate.

RHM

5.0 34.5

35.5

30.0

Nil

10500 7 . 1 14.2

' .0 2 . 41 5 2 .513

Recycled Rubber

Mi x

5.5 36.5

33.5

30.0

1.2

6125 12.5 16.5

'.0 2 . 365 2.438

NO . 10 Mes h

Rubber

No. 4 Mesh

Rubbe r Mi x Mix

6 .2 50.0

33.0

15.0

2.0

5800 12. 0 18 .7

' .0 2 .320 2. 420

11990

6.1 49. 0

42 .0 7.0

2.0

525 0 18.8 17.0

' .0 2.337 2 . 418

AURILIO 57

CONSTRUCTION

Paving began on October 9, 1991 with the re c ycling of the 3tandard milt; 30\ reclaimed asphalt pavemen t ( RAP) wa s used in the mix . The work was complet ed in seven days without problems . Rec ycling o f the a spha lt rubber mix wi th the same recycling ratio (30/"70) began on October 16, 1991 a nd concluded on October 19, 1991. The ne w rubber mi x with No. 1 0 mesh r ubber wa s placed on October 21, 1991 .

The weather during conditions i n 1990. morning ambient a ir midday.

Pha s e II construct ion was similar to the Th e days were g e nerally sunny and warm wi th

temperatures o f ± 8 0 C a nd highs of ±1 "7°C by

In Phase II the same paving equipment was used as in Pha3e I. The rolling train was the same a s developed during the 1990 work. The laydown temperatures a veraged 12 0°C for the s tandard RHM and varied fr om 130 to 1 ~ 5°C for the recycled asphalt r ubbe r mix. The temperatu >:"e s >:"ecor ded f o r the No. 10 mesh r ubber mix were i n the same range as the recyc led aspha lt rubbe r mix.

Compac ti on problems similar t o those e xpe rien ced in 1990 were encountered with both rubbe>:" mixes i.e. t he mixes were p r one to hai>:" checking whiCh meant that only a few passes were made with the s t a ti c s teel wheel r olle r, and the mixe s were susceptible t o severe pi c kup by t he r ubbe r - tired r o ller . As a res ult wo rking mat temperatures we re about 600 C with the r ubber tired r oller .

The mixes were produced i n the same oi l-f ired Boeing Model 200 drum mix plant used in the first p hase. The production r at e for the plant a veraged 132 tph wh i c h was within the 150± 20 tph contract requirement . The mean mix t empe r atu re at di scha r ge was approxima t ely 151 0 C. The f uel consumption in 1991 wa s lower than the previ ou s year averaging 6.2 and 6.9 1itres per t on ne o f mix t o r the conventional RHM and asphalt r ubber mi xe s . respectively .

Fig. 3 shows a schemat ic ot the r ubbe r handling sys t em described in Report 11 Ill.

to m 3 Slcrage Bin

CCrJVt)'cr

5. 3 -- 23cm dia. Aug.r

R ... ,~~::~--1---ir---,.-Asphalt C.m.nl Pip. "',

Orum Mi~1II'

FIG. 3 -- Rubber handling syste m.

QUALITY ASSURANCE

Accepta n ce t esting f or quality a ssurance consisted o f the r out i ne test ing nor mally conducted on MTO contracts. Random plate samples were taken during construction f o r te sting to determi ne asphalt

58 RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

cement content, extracted aggregate gradations, mix properties and recovered penetration in accordance wit h the contract requirements . Asphalt cement samples were tested for compliance with MTO mat e rial specifics.tions and the gradation of the crumb rubber supplied to the contract was tested for compl i ance with the specified grading. Cores were obtained t o verify the compaction achieve d in the field .

Marshall Prope rt je s

The Marshall test re su lts shown in T'!'ble 2 indi ca t e that the asphalt rubber mixe s exhibit 30 - 40 \ lower Marshall stab i lities and 28- 40\ higher f low values th!ln the sti!lndard mixes. For the recycled rubber mix the ave r age s t abi l i ty was 12.5\ lower and the f low was 15 \ highe~ tha n the standa~d mix . This is simi la~ to the trend noted in the mix designs, however the differences are not as dramat i C. It appears that these dif f erences are more p r onounced with the 19 90 asphalt rubber mix using t he No. 4 mesh rubbe r.

TABLE 2 -- SUrnlmlry of Marshal l Test Results.

Marshall Standard '"" Recycled No . 10 No. • Test Mix Rubber mesh mesh 1991 Mix Rubber Rubber

Mix Mix 1990

Stability INI 13018 1408B 12523 9266 11016 F l ow 11 .6 11.7 13 .4 14. 9 IS . 1 VMA '" 13.7 13.1 16.2 18.4 16 .1 Air Voids I\) 1.9 2.2 2.7 3.3 2.2

The air voids for the standard mix and both recycled mixes did not meet the specifi cation requirement. The average air voids content for the standard mix was 1 . 9 \ ; the voids of the recycl e d mixes were 2 . 2 \ (standard RHM) and 2.7 ' ( r ubber RHM). The average air void content f or the No. 10 mesh aspha lt rubber mix was 3 . 3\.

The Ma r shall tests were conducted on reh ea ted samples at a Regional mobi le laborato~y. Standard briquettes were fab r icated using a hand held hammer employing a compaction effort of 75 blows per side .

Asphalt Cement Coo t ent and Mj xtllre Gradat j on

The grada t ion and asphalt cement conten t dat a are shown in Table 3. Extractions were car ried out in a field l aboratory with the standard Rotarex equipment using a 1, 1, 1 , - trichloroethane solvent , and f ine s cor~ectioo with the SMM centri fu ge in accordance wi th ASTM Standard Test Met hods for Quant itative Ext r action o f Bitumen 'From Bi tuminous Paving Mi xtures (0 2172) .

The test data shows t hat t he average rubber cOntent was 0.57 \ and 0.26' higher than r equired by the Job Mi x Formula tor the asphalt r ubbe r RHM and the No. 10 mesh r Ubber mix, r espectively; the co r responding asphalt cement contents were a l so higher by O. 30 t and 0.24'. Dur i ng construct i on t he contractor ' s process control cons i sted of extraction te s t s and bag count s o f the rubbe r used on a daily basis. This process control data indicated t hat the correct amounts of r ubber we re added to the mi xes.

" • • "

• • ~ •

1. ~i

:l

I

.§ 0

'i 0

." ~ t 0

0

~"

.... URILIO

... "! '". C '": '": c . "! ... '" .. ~ ~ ... ... " III '" ••

"''''''''' '" ...... ~"' ...

qq ,":,": ,,! ~ ,,!,": ... c :g:~;n:::;::.~...;..;

• • •

0 0 •

o o •

• • ,;

0 • •

o • •

o • •

o o •

• • •

o

:i

"

60 RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

"The cont.ract.ed chemical analysis specificat.ions for the r"t,t,,,r were met with the exception of the range of measured sp·, r:i fi.; gravit.y in 1991 (4 J." The data for t.hi s t.esting is summ.ariz"d i r, Table 4.

TABLE 4 -- Summary of c hemical properties.

Property No. 10 Me.!l h Specification

Specific Gravity 1.15 1.lS±O.05

, Carbon Black 17 .8 3S maximum

, Ash 5.1 8 maximur.1

, Acet one Extract 12 . 3 23 maximum

Recoyered Penetratj on

Table 5 summarites the "ccept.ance testing for recov e=~:: penet ra tion. The recovered pe netration values fo r the aspr.o!i :: rubber mix produced in 1990 (Phase 1 ) were much higher than :~.'!o

standard mix. The same trend was obse rved f o r the 1991 n:;:.­re cyc led mixes . however there is only one test value f o r ::'.! standard mix. This difference W5 S not experienced with - •• recycled mixes produced for Phase II.

TABLE 5 -- Recovered Penetrat.ion Test Results.

Lot No. RHM Rubber No. 10 Mesh

RHM Rubber Mix

1 no data " 61 2 68 7B 72 3 " 70 70

• 61 " 5 " 62

Averaqe 67 72 " Asphalt Cement

The test results for the 85-100 and 150-200 asphalt cement 1I''''.t ill the work are shown in Table 6 . The softer qrade asphal t ,·,'In.'nL was used in the recycled mixes. All of the samples complj,'<t will, the requi r ementS of OPSS 11 01, Specification fOr Asphalt Cem.ont.

AURILIO

TABLE 6 -- Asphalt cement qua lity .

Asphalt Cement Grade 85/1 00

Sample "0. Penetration Viscos ity Ductility Flash Unit 0.1 = (mm2lsec) ,oe 4cC) ·c

1 95. '" ,. 260+ 2 93 34. ,. 260+ 3 n 345 ,. 260+ 4 93 348 ,. 260+ 5 " 340 ,. 260+ , 96 351 ,. 260+ 7 " '" ,. 260+

Specification 65-100 280 mi n . ,. 232 min .

Asphalt Cement Grade 150/200

Sample "0. Penetration Viscosity Ductility Flash Unit 0.1 ~ (mm2lsec) 'oe 4cC) ·c

1 '" 225 10. 260+ 2 166 236 10 ' 260+ 3 169 225 10 ' 260+

• 163 25 • 10. 260+

Specification 150-200 200 mi n. 10. 218 min.

Pavement Density

The contract specified a minimum of 92 \ compaction (ba sed o n Theoretical Maximum Relative Density) for the lot mean with no single test value less than 90 \ compaction. In Phase II several lots of the asphalt rubber mixes did not comply wi th the minimum specified compaction. The standard mix and the standard RHM both met the requirements. Consequently, the over a ll pavement densities loIere lower than the standard mixes by 1.9 \ for the rubber mix (No. 10 mesh) and 2.7\ for the asphalt rubber RHM. fig. 4 sholols the average compaction of the different mixes based on fo ur sublots per lot . A compa r ison wi th the 1990 Phase 1 results ind icates that compaction for the standard mixes was generally better than the rubber mixes in both years.

62

" . ..

, ! .. !

" ,

..

RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

, , ,

~ . -

, , , ,

.. -" •. n,

,

p,.. .. " ---j ---

Fig . 4 -- Compaction Test Results by Mix Type for Each Lot

Gradation of Rubper

In 1991 the No. 10 me sh rubber was consistently coarser than specified on the 1 . 18mm sieve size even though the specif i cation had been based on information provided by t h e supplie r . The average g r adat i on for e l even samp l es of the No . 10 mesh rubber t e sted is shown on Fig. 5 .

" . .. .. "

I .. o-

j .. , .. .. " •

'..... ,... .. • ••• " IGO, .. ' .to ' .00 • . ,. ' .r> •.• '".e ... . " .2 ... .

fig. 5 -- Grada t ion o f No . 10 Me sh Rubber.

PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE

Pe rforma pc e su r vey s

AS part of this study the Ministry has initiated II prog r am to evaluate t he loog term performance o f t he asphalt rubber pavements on a yearly basis. A consultant wa s reta i ned in 1990 t o carry out a pre-construction evaluation of the existing pavement. The scope

AURILIO " of the wo rk included a subsoil investigation, a pavement distress survey, deflection testing and a p ost-construction su rvey. Some o f the original pavement condition data is shown in Table 7. The follo wing y ea r the same firm was awarded a second contt"act to evaluate the perfo r mance of t he 1990 work and to extend the pre­construct ion au t"vey to the new trial sectiona tO t" Phase II.

In July 199 2 Minist ry staff visited the site to evaluate the perf ormance of the trials and to carry out an abbreviated c rack surv ey o f 500 m of pavement f or ea ch trial section. A summa ry o f the data collected is al so pre s ented in Table 7.

TABLE 7 -- Compa r ison o f r eflection cracking obs erved to date with the o rig inal pavement condit ion .

Transverse Phase I Phase II Cr acks

Type Standard Asphalt. OHM Rubber No. 10 mi x Rubber Mi x RH" Rubber

(No·h)4 Mix Mesh

full 16 36 Nil 32 8 Pavement

Wid th

Lane Width " 55 11 1< • Pa rtia l 129 73 148 124 9

Lane Width

Total 190 164 159 no 21

Or J.gi na l '" m 25 ' 253 No Data Pavement

, Cr acks n 73 63 " -Reflected

The data shows t hat the asphalt rubber mi xe s have eltperienced similar transve r se cracking to date.

Obs eryot jOO13

field o b se rvat ions we re csrried out sho rtly afte r con s truction in 1990 by the consultant t o Obta i n lin initia l indication o f the performance of the trials. Some early pro blems with coarse aggregate loss a nd opening o f the longitudinal joint along the pavement centerline we r e identif ied in the a s phalt rubber s ection.

The sit e was also visited on numerous occa sions by the Minist r y ' s teChnical staff in 1990 and 1 991. At the end of Janua ry 1991, both mixes we re perfo rm ing well. Ho wever, it wa s obs erved that the coa rse aggregat e was be ing dis lodged from the a s phalt rubber section Also the longitudinal c onst ruction joint . wa s beginning t o open a nd some minor ra velling was occu rr ing. Re flection c rac ks

.. RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

were observed in both sections of the p~vement by Ministr y staff and the consultant.

The following observations were noted by Ministry technical staff in July, 1992;

1 ) the centerline joint for the paveme nt const r ucted in 1990 was almost totally open for both sections ancl the popouts in the asphalt rubber section had not changed over the previous year;

2) the centerline joint in the r ecyc l ed asphalt rubber psvement was 100 ' open ancl some minor ravelling was observed along the open joint. The joint opening i n the standard recycled pavement was slight snd isolated to a few locations;

J) the aggregate pavement was similar

loss noted to the 1990

in the asphalt

recycled asphalt rubber r ubbe r pevement; end

4) the No. 10 me s h rubber section we ! performing reletively better thlln the esphalt rubbe r pevement built in 1 990 for lin equivalent service life lifter one year. The extent of IIggreglite loss WII ! much less end the center line joint was slightly open in localized arees.

ENVIRONMENTAL AND WORltER S AFETY TESTING

The testing wa s conducted jointly by Orte ch International in 1990 and Air Testing Services in 1991 under contract to Dames and Mooree, Canada and by the Ontario Ministry of the Env ironment' S Mobile Air Pollution Sampling (MAPS) mobile laboratory.

The testing program included monit o r ing o f stack emis s ions and wastewater genereated at the plant from the production of the conventional lind asphlilit r ubber mixes and air qUlllity sall".pling in the vicinity of workers at the plant lind on site duri ng paving. The following discussion is based on the information provided by Dames' Moore, Canada in a !ummary report prepared f o r the MTO. The dllta inCluded in this r eport WlilS tabulated by Dames' Moore, Canada.

Prel i minllry as sessment results of this work to date indicate that there lire some detectable differences in ai r emissions between convent ional hot ~ix production and lIsphalt rubber mix production. The product ion of RHM resulted in higher air emissions and exposure levelS. The worst case impect of emissions from both types of mix prOduction exceeded Ontario ai r quality criteria. Pareticule te emission levels increa sed during asphalt rubber mix versus conventional hOt mix prodUCtion end increesed with RHM production (41.

Ai r f cJi :ui ons

In 1990 the levels of particulate matter exceeded eir qua lity stllndards. These levels we r e greater for the aspha l t rubber mix. In 1991, the u!e of a finer mesh rubber did not result in greater particulate emissions. The production of RHM generally resulted in an increase of pllrticulate emissions. However the asphalt rubber RHM did not "exhibit a significant increase over the stllndard RHM. The levels of iron in particulate emissions did not exce ed the·standards in 1990 but did exceed the standards in 1991.

The measured addition ot released 1.5 year by the this limit .

leve l s of benzene emitted did not increase with the rubbe r to hot mix. However, in 1990 this pro ject times the total benzene emission commonly allowed per MOE. The 1991 project r eleased nearly eight times

" TO date, the MOE ha! not mede a determination on

AURI LI O " .... hat an allowable emission level .... ould be for this Cllse ( 4 ). ft A compariaon of the worst case values tor emission r a t es and the standards is presented on Table 8.

physical Testing Results

Samples of the waste .... ater generated by the air emissions cont r ol equipment at the plant .... ere analyzed to determine it on-site disposal would be permissible under cu r rent wat er quality regulations. The 1990 testing indicated that t here .... ere numerous instances of exceedinq the standards. This experience was duplicated in the 1991 program. Table 9 outlines a summary of .... ater test ing data. Ba sed on this testinq the water quality was not suitable tor disposal in storm sewers. The level of manqanese was found to be much higher than the allowable limit for discharge into the sanitary se .... er system

Samples of asphal: paveme nt. r ubberi zed asphalt pavement , rubber .. nd the s ludqe qenerated by the air emissions control equipment were tested for leachable metals and benzo-a-pyrene. None ot the re su lts exceeded the standards [4). The test re su lts indicate that the se materials can be di sposed of in normal sanita r y landfills.

Worker Safet y

The a ir samples obtained during hot mix production at the plant and at the paving site were tested tor a variety of metals. particulates. selected volatile o rganic compounds and heavier organic compounds. Sampling was ca r ried ou t in s f i xed location .... ithin the worker ' s breat hing zone and on t he workers with an air pump connected to a tilter (for captu ring particulat es) andlor a contaminant absorbing tube for capturing gases or vapor.

The only exposure problems of concern in 1990 were with the measured levels o f t otal particulates durinq the prOduction ot the asphalt rubber mix. One test f o r particulate was 1.6 times the established maximum level. The 1991 testing indicated the maximum levels fo r total particulates were not exceeded. However. levels of organics exposure did increase during the production o f the re c yc led hot mi x.

HThe testing tor selected voilltile organic compounds, coal tar pi tch VOlatiles and polyar omat ic hydrocarbons did not exceed the Occupational Standards in 1990 or 1991 (4J .~ The maximum exposure levels measured are out line d i n Table 10.

COSTS

The increase in aspha lt cement content and the costs associated with the addition of tubber to conventional hot mix incr eases the cost of the pavement substantially. For Phase II t he additional materials a nd handlinq cos t s for the IIsphalt rubber mixes at Thamesville were

Rubber 2\ @ S81'.00/t Asphalt Cement 1.2\ @ S200.00/t Handling Aggregate upgrading

Rubber 1 . 2\ @ 5814.00/t Asphalt Cement 0.5\ @ S200.00/t Handling Agqregate upgrading

S16.30 S2. 40 S1. 40 ll.i.O.

S22.70/t

S9.75 S1.00 51. 40 ll.:.Jl

S1 4 .75/t

66 RECYCLI NG ASPHALT RUBBER MI X

Typical pricl!S for conventional HL 4 lind RHM (HL 4 ) in Southern Ontario are about $35. DOlt. This data shows thll t the asphalt rubber mix with the No. 10 mesh rubbe r gradation is approximately 65\ higher than the standard HL 4 mix and the recycled rubber mix i s 40\ more e xpensive than the standard recycled mix. Due t o the higher COSt of the finer rubber the cost f o r the No. 10 mesh rubber mix was CQnsiderlilbly hiq'her than the asphalt rubber mix produced in 1990. I n Phase I the COSt of the rubber wa s $31 0/t r eaultinq in II. cost increase o f about 40 \ f o r the asphalt rubber mix.

F UTOJU: WORK

The emission te sting has identifit!d some problems with the pr o duction of asphalt rubber mixes in drum plants and the implications o f these findings are p re sently unresolved from an en vironmental perspective. At this time the hot in-place surface re c ycl in g ha s been delayed pending the development of an air emiss i on sampling protocol and an environmental assessment of the a i r emissions from the first two phases of the pro j ect.

S~Y OF FINDINGS

The fol lowing summary is b a sed on th e evaluation of the test resul t s and the performllnce of the trial sections to dllte along with the envi r onmental lind work er sa f ety t esting conducted f or both phases o f the work .

1) The allphalt rubber mixes were more difficult to compact in the field;

2) The control and the IIsphalt rubber pavement sections have experienced lIimilar re flection crack ing to date; loss (pOpoutll) observed wa~ more severe in the containing the cosrser cru~b rubber used in 1990;

the aggregate r ubber mixes

3) It i s e xpected that the asphal t rubber mixes will exhibit a reducti on in service life due to the l ower degr ee of compaction obtained;

4 ) The No. 10 mesh rubber mixed placed i n 1991 appear s to be performing better than the No. 4 ~sh rubber mix placed in 1990.

5) The cost o f the asphalt ru bber mixes produced in both years was higher thin the standard mixes;

6) The total pa r ticul a te and ben:u!ne emissions from b o th phases o f th is project exceeded the established standards;

?) The leachate test in g indicates that waste sludge COllected at the plant and the asphalt mixe s (standard and rubber) can be disposed of in normal sanit a ry landfills; the water analysis shows that the wastewater generllted on-site is not lIuitable for dill cha rge into storm drainage facilities;

8) In 1990 one test f o r total particulate exceeded the e s tablished maximum level for worker safety. The IItandard levels were n ot exceeded in 1991. Levels of wo rker e xposure t o organic contaminants did not exceed reguliltory limits, lind the asphalt tume standard was not exceeded in 1990 or 1991.

REFEREN CES

( 1 ) Lawrence, C. t., Killackey, S. J., lind Lynch , O. F., "Exper imental Hot Mix Pavement wi t h Scrap Tire Rubber at Thamesville, Ontari o , Repo rt f1 ~ , Canadilln Technical As phalt Association, Proceedings - Thirty-Six Annual Conference, November, 1991, pp.61-86.

(2) Lync h, O. r .o and No rth'Wood, R. P., "The Wilste Tire Oemonstrlltion Project at Thamesville, Ontario~,

Transportlltion o f Canada 1991 Annual Conference, pp. CII-C26.

AURILIO " [3l Aurilio, V., Lynch, D. t., and Northwood, R. P ., ~The Use and

Recycling of Was t e Tire Rubber Ho t Mi x at Thames v ille Ontario ~ ASTM STP 1193 , 1993, pp. 8 4-113.

(4) Dewit, M. and Pefhany, C. M., "Summary of Dr aft Report on Environmental and Health and Safety Issues Relating to the Sc rap Tires in Bituminous Pavement Project in 1991", Prepared by Da~es , Moore, Canada, for the Ontario Ministry of Transportation, July, 1992.

(5] John En:ery Geotechnical Engineer ing Limited, .. Mine ral Aggregate Conservation Reuse and Recycling", Prepared for The Ontario Ministry of ' Natural Resources, February 1992.

68

! · ! • • I , · •

, , , i , • • • · , · • ; • · · i • , 1 1 ; , • , , i

, !

i o <

, , • , ;

e .-,

e . -. o

" }=

o • . " ,

e .-, ". ." ~= •

I

RECYCLI NG ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

-" · "

" "

" "

· •

• o

• o

• •

· • •

,

· · ,

,

, , , o

• , · o •

I

00,..0

~:;; ... ;; 00"'0

~:;::.! _ ..... ", ..:.;::.;

. • o

.. .. ~ ....... ~:;O~~"!"':"':,... ... '" . , .... -.. ., - ... 0;00

o

".': ;,;..:;::;~:: ." ",."" .... .. .... '" .. --"' 0"' _ .. 0:00 "'

o

00

.- ... "'- ....

."' ''''" '''"''''' ..... "' .. ......

... .. on", "',... 0 __ 0.,00

"',<>:"""0:0: 00000<>0

"' .. "'''' ...... ............... '" 0 ...... ,.. .... ... .. ,..,.."'''' ... .. OON_ .. ."O 0000000

0000000

, , ,

. , .. ~ ' .. ". ", g

o _

'.

• . , -

, .-,

"'''~ ,~ . ' .. g ,

-•

· · o

•

•

· o

· · ·

• NO' o

o

, -· N

o

· · o

AURIL:IO

"'''''' ... ~..:o,; " o

o

•

· · .. -;;.~ - ... ;.. "' ......... "'--

I N , .

.. . ......... .. ","'",

0';0';

0' 0 ..... "' .. :::~

i , . , '1 -··' I .,"'"

" ~-,,

'I iain ," . 8i ...

i !:~~< .. " .. "e

..;..;~ o . , o

c.. . -::;!: 0-<>

o

.. 'N O N

........ :

.; -:~~ . .,."' .. ~:::: N

... N .. • .~ ....

Q~. • .. ..... "',.,'"

"

.......... . '" ....... . ..... . .. · ... .... .. 0::: N

",", ... ",-.. ..., .... . ... ......... .. li!g;=';!~

~ .. -<>~ -0"0'" ., ... .... ............

'" "" .. N ... .. .., ................ .. "0 ......... "' .. · ... 0000

°00000

"

"

, , , ;

o

" . " , .. " -." .. , ... '

0' ., ,

. "

, . " ,

RECYCL I NG ASPHALT RUBBER MIX

!

o o

· •

· •

• , •

, •

• o

o

-•

• •

, -• -·

i

.......... "'N ... ..,;

, , ,. . ... Hi

,

, o

! ,

· . . ~=o

· '0 00 .

o

o

· . . ". "-· ·0 .. . o

• o 0

"",,,,,,, ...; ........... ~..:..:..:

:::;::;;g; '''''' '-'0 •

_N" '" '" 'N"'''' ~: ...... .,

· , , , · • ,

TAB LE; 9 -- 1990 and 1991 ,ulMlllry o f detec ted wa tee analys is

Stand .. d. M ... So_

Puametor Units ee", 'WQO US<! Dy_law

ea.. .... 1 Chemi .. ry pH F,C65 10911 UIOI.S 551095 Field pH F,C('51091l (,5 to 85 S5 t095 B;ochemical Ol<~ Demand - "" Tlllal Sul~ed Solid, - "" Fteld Di"olvt'<! Ol<ygen '"" F,G5 t095 4t0 8 Total oil and B~se "'" '" MiMral oil.1Id 51'$5e "'" " "'~I oil .. Breuc - ,~

FlUOTid. - """ " Chloride - 1 100-700 , .. SuLph.e - F,c )000 , .. ...... " - F,CO,OOl om , Cyanide (FREEl - F,G 0.005 0.00> , Sulph ide - INOffENSIVE To .. 1 Kjeldahl Nit"'S"n ""'- ,ro TOIal Phosphorous - CO", VoJ.olile Sutpe>d l'<l Solids -

res ult ' COfIIpared wi th

"" "'" Effluent ~b.imum ~.imum

". m m

""" 8.20

" ,~

,~

'" 0.'

'00' "" , ... 0.0:10 0.117

" " US>

"""

· St .. ndaeda-

"" ..... Ma. imum

8.1S

, • '" ". " " "., ..,

<0.0005 <0.0001 <0.00 2

<2

"'" •

> • H

" H 0

~

"

, N

TABLE 9 - . Cont.1nued.

S .. nd.,d.

"""" "" "" Sewer "'" Em""nt " .... P .. amclcf Unll. CC"' 'WOO U.., lIy. law M.oximum Mooxim"", ",",xim"",

MOlal . Sih'~r "'" F,e 0.0001 0.0001 , <D-OOS dU105 Aluminum "'" F,e 1l.0CJ5.- C,"" '" '" " .00 L~ • ,.,

" ...... "'" F.COllS ,., <0.05 <0.05 n • Bonum "'" DW 1.0 0.1 79 """ ''''' n Bllmulh "'"

, .. 0.1 <0.1 r

" Cadmium "'" F,G 0.0002. p.G O.OOllS , NO <0.005 <0.005 Z 0.0018 0

Co~h ... /1. , OJ" P,GO,OOJoI , NO 0.1 6 &,05 > Chromium "'" F.e 0.002· 0.10 , NO '" <0 .01 • • ,.,

~ C.",.. "'" F,e Oro:! 1',(;0.0001 , ,." ,.,. <0.01 r ."" " ,- "'" F,e 0.3 0> '" 4.14 110.81'> ,." • , .. , "'" F,e 0.001 - """"

, NO 0.48 ,." C

''''' • ",,- "'" J 0.2 , •. " 13.11) ,." • ...,.,....., ~

10.01.(1,05 p,e 0.01 S ,.,.. <1).2 .. 0.2 ~ Nickel F,e 0.025· O,OJ , NO 0.21 <0.05 Z

0.15 " -....... "'" " NO ,., «>.S • Anlimony "'" P,CO.l107 S ,., <11.1 Sclc..lurn "'" F,e 0.001 0.' , <:0.1 <0.1 To, .... , «>., <0.2 TItanium "'"

, ,.'" 1.610 OJ'" VanadIum - I Il.1 p,e 0-001 , 0 .... 0.151 <0,005 DM "'" F,COm '"

, 0." ,.~ «> ..

TABLE 9 • • Conti nue d.

Sbnd~td .

""0' "" "" Sewer ''''' Ern"""t ~ .... P .. aln('l .... Unit' "'" "'00 UIoC By.l.>w M .. imum M.,.im"", Mnim .....

"",." ChIDf'<>l>en>.CM .. " "

,., NO

llen'.enc ~~/L F,C300 [',C 100 n o 17,1 NO EthylbcfozellC "" F,C 700 I'.ell 0,20 " NO Styrene "" P,C 4 O.~ . NO ToI""nc ""

,,. 1',C O_8 ,." .., NO ().Xylotnc .. " OW,", P,C 40 '" " NO M.Xyl""". r·Xyl""" ~R/L OW,", r,c (2·M.JO- '" ,., NO >

" ~ " I· Methylnaphth.lenc "" P,CI 15.2 NO " 2·Mct hylnaphthale ne ""'- P,C 2 ". NO " 0

Accnaphthenc "" 5.' NO Di·n-octyl phth.ol.lc "" 000.2 NO 10.6

2,4·Dlmethylphcnol

"'" ,,,, ." NO

4·Nllrophenol .gI' P.C48 ~. NO

m-Craol '" JKNS"I "" P.C (I·M,I. M' NO

" "" ... "" ,~ , ,~ NO

Phenol "" P,CS • % "" NO

1.2.4' T rich lorobenzene .gI' " 0.010 NO P"n* "loroben>:......, .gI' 0."" 0.159 NO

~

"

· • • • • " • u , '. j •

I , " < • ; , ,

· I

• •

· ,

• < • • ,

RECYCLING ASPHALT RUBBER HIX

• • " • • • i • -o

• 1 ,

• • ; ; -o

! , 8

TABLE: 10 -- Comparison of hiqhest airborne wo rker e xpOllure levels to requlatory guideline. 1990 and 1991 su"""a ry u,sults.

Time Weighled 1990 Maximum 1991 Maximum ExposuR: Level Avt:l1Igt Eaposun: Le YC I

E~POSUK Level Measured Contaminant m,lin,3 .. mglm3 mglm3 Mod< Sample l...ocation

"""", 16 <0.1 <0.036 T,"""' 376 0. ' 19.84 ""' pavt:r driyer Ethyl Benzene 4" <0.1 0.05 ""' paver driver Xy1enes ($um of isomers) 4" <0.1 0.23 ""' paver driycr S""~ 2IJ <0.2 0.14 ""' planl worker Napthakne 51 <0.3 NA Toea] Particulate 10··· 15.9 ' .04 "= rubber shoyel1er Aluminum, watcr soluble 2 0.047 0.008 "= plant worker S_ O., 0.0013 0.00266 "= rubber shoycllcr Olfomium n and m 0.' 0.00 16 0.00015 ""' ""'" ~" tOlal Cr measured CoW 0.05 <0.0001 <0.00009 Co,pa , 0.0019 0.00036 Iw, rubber shovcller Iron, waler soluble , 0.0737 0.0106 -= plmt worker lad 0. 15 0.(02) O.OOJ3 IW' rubber shOYetJer Magne.sium ~ MgO 10 0.052 0.0504 "= plant worker Nickel, acid digesllte 1 <0.001 0.00083 Iw, pavt:r driver Titanium, IS T!02 10 0.025 1 0.00 12 IW, rubber shoyeller Vanadium. as V205 0.05 0.0438 0.00024 "= rubber shoycller ~pin.ble

zmcasZnO 10 0.3738 0.029 "= rubber $lloydler

~ H

" H 0

" •

"

,

o

RECYCLI NG ASPHALT RUBBER MI X

m~ !!~n ~\;rllO!

«< %%%

. . ". .. ~ " .... . . - .... .. . .. .. .. " " NN

i 'i , •

• " • , 1 • • " • ! " t I

:

ili < • • 52. ", . %