LinkUp eNewsLink Winter 2008

LinkUp has added expanded polystyrene to its focus materials for 2008. Expanded polystyrene, commonly referred to as Styrofoam, is used in a variety of ways, including as packaging for everything from food to electronics and insulation for buildings. Virtually every business and every individual uses expanded polystyrene.

Although expanded polystyrene represents only 1 percent of the waste stream by weight in King County, it makes up a significant volume. Approximately 7.9 million cubic feet of polystyrene is disposed in King County each year, enough to fill 2½ buildings the size of Seattle’s 38-story Smith Tower. Ultimately, this volume accounts for about 248,000 cubic yards of King County landfill space annually.1

“LinkUp is focusing on expanded polystyrene as a priority material because few recycling options exist locally,” said Kris Beatty, program manager for the King County Solid Waste Division. “The technology already exists and once a system for recycling the material is established, businesses and individuals can help save landfill space from unnecessary waste.”

Virgin polystyrene production has negative impacts from both environmental and health perspectives. Production involves the use of carcinogens and toxins such as benzene and styrene.2 Polystyrene is also a neurotoxin and is classified by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance as one of the three most toxic plastics.1

Recycling polystyrene is by no means a pioneering process. Many areas of the United States already recycle polystyrene. Although there are several drop-off locations accepting packing peanuts for reuse, there are no businesses actively recycling expanded polystyrene molded packaging1 in Washington.

Several companies in Oregon – Tegrant Corp, PC Plastics, Next Steps Recycling and Denton Plastics – have drop-off sites for molded polystyrene. PC Plastics and Denton Plastics process the used polystyrene into form pellets that are sold to injection molding companies that make construction parts or cosmetic cases.1 Tegrant Corp and Next Step Recycling collect polystyrene and ship to other companies for processing.1

Nearly half of recycled polystyrene packaging is recycled back into polystyrene packaging. Other end markets include: siding and deck board, ceiling texture, molding, electronic products, auto products, agricultural products, office supplies, egg cartons and beanbag filler.3

Industry voice

The use of recycled tear-off shingles in hot mix asphalt (HMA) is on the rise. More states are studying the durability of HMA made with shingles, and experts have highlighted its benefits. King County LinkUp is in the beginning stages of a trial project in Washington. An advisory group comprised of asphalt producers, engineers, state and local agencies representatives and recyclers has been formed. Four members of the advisory group attended the Third Asphalt Shingle Recycling Forum, held in Chicago in November 2007.

eNewsLink met with two attendees - John Grisham with Woodworth & Company, Inc., an asphalt producer, and Jim Eagan, Managing Engineer with King County Department of Transportation, Road Services Division – to hear their thoughts on the Forum and the future of shingle recycling.

Why was it important for industry representatives to attend the Shingles Forum?

John Grisham: Woodworth & Company has been involved for quite some time to figure out best process for recycling of shingles. For me, the most important part of attending the Forum was to keep apprised of where the industry is as a whole. Some people are way ahead and some are way back at the beginning. By attending the Forum I was able get the most current information on all different parties, the latest in the recycling process and how to incorporate that into our processes.

Jim Eagan: I oversee the King County pavement management and overlay program. As an end user, program proponents felt it was important for me to attend the Forum so I could learn more about this use of recycled shingles, and consider the potential for use in asphalt resurfacing.

Based on your experience at the forum, what does the future hold for shingle recycling?

JG: From an asphalt producer standpoint, it showed that the recycling approval or the specification process is well on its way. It’s just a matter of time, not if, but when, that agencies like the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) will have specs available for producers. King County is leading the way. It’s not too far off in the future. Huge strides have been made in the number of state agencies and HMA producers actively working on shingle recycling. Attending the Forum in Chicago brought me up to speed. It was a huge advantage to see how it has progressed; it has progressed further than I thought.

JE: The forum was informative. What I took away was that there is more than one use for recycled shingles in roadway applications, and all applications should be considered depending on specific needs. It was an outstanding opportunity to talk to people with much experience, and who have been in the field of manufacturing asphalt utilizing recycled asphalt shingles. It gave insight on possibilities and potentials as well as the limitations and hurdles that need to be overcome.

The next step is to test mix designs and develop specifications that satisfy the needs of the end users. It appears that the recyclers and manufacturers are making significant strides in this direction. To make it really happen it’s going to have to be the asphalt manufacturers and government agencies that figure out the right mix for specific locations and applications.

How will King County’s demonstration project help increase shingle recycling?

JG: It’s a huge step. This will demonstrate that we can produce a product containing recycled shingles so the quality is as good or better than HMA without shingles. Right now we don’t have a vehicle to prove that. With a pilot project and quality control data to present to King County, engineers and WSDOT, we will have data to say what we have produced and where we have paved – just like project examples that we saw at the forum. That was another big item of the forum; we were able to see how some projects in Minnesota held up since the last time we heard. The general consensus was that using recycling shingles in HMA is not detrimental to pavement.

What impressed you the most at the forum?

JG: The biggest thing for me was truly the number of people involved in recycling now and how far it has come in the last four years. The interest has increased three or four fold from when I attended the forum in 2003. At that time, three to six states were using recycled shingles at different levels; at this forum there were something like 16 states using recycled shingles.

JE: I came out of the conference thinking this has some real possibilities. Whenever we can reuse waste material or divert material from landfills in a cost-effective method, everyone wins. It needs to be proven that this material has the same performance as virgin HMA, and it needs to be shown that it is cost-effective. I think it’s doable, I don’t see any major roadblocks in the way, but performance will be tied to life cycle, which obviously is a long-term analysis.

What do you think the key benefit to King County would be if recycled shingles were regularly used in HMA? What are some of the challenges that will be faced?

JG: The most important aspect is that it will keep that amount of material from entering landfills. The biggest benefit is not filling the landfill with roofing material. I believe with King County taking the lead, it will have a good pilot program to take to other counties and say, “Let’s get this going in other areas.” There is some speculation that shingles will offer significant savings for cost of making asphalt; I don’t see that in the near future, but there may be costs saving at some point.

The biggest challenge we are working on now is convincing the technical people we can find the right mix design when using recycled shingles in the roadways and that it is not detrimental to the asphalt. Most importantly, we need to convince agencies that this can be done. That’s what the forum represented: It showed it can be done. The other obstacle is convincing producers to educate other asphalt producers to making that initial investment in the equipment and the technology to do this – it is a huge investment.

JE: We are running out of landfill capacity in King County, anything we can do to reduce impacts to landfill is helpful. When it comes to overlay, it’s about life cycle and cost. We attempt to maximize life cycle and minimize unit costs. As a manager these are the primary measurements that I use to evaluate the success of the overlay program. The first challenge will be material testing and design. The long-term challenges will be related to performance and cost control.

King County focus

Waste management plan brings significant changes to King County
The King County Solid Waste Division will soon see some of its most significant changes in over 40 years. In late 2007, the King County Council unanimously approved the Solid Waste Transfer and Waste Management Plan, including changes that would pave the way for modernizing the solid waste transfer system and set a plan in motion to extend the life of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill.

The adopted plan has three key objectives: keep disposal fees low and stable, make existing facilities as efficient as possible, and ensure facilities keep pace with the growth in customer base and changing technologies in the solid waste industry.

“This plan is the culmination of several years of work — including frequent meetings with suburban city planning groups and advisory committees — and input from labor representatives and division employees,” said Kevin Kiernan, King County Solid Waste Division Director. “It sets the groundwork for significant work ahead, and represents a proactive approach to managing waste and recyclable resources in King County.”

A major component of the plan is modernizing the existing waste transfer and disposal system, portions of which were built in the 1960s. The system will be upgraded to meet current industry standards, with four new transfer stations to be constructed and three existing stations to be closed.

The plan details how strategically located transfer stations reduce costs for labor, fuel, and vehicle maintenance as well as mitigate environmental, infrastructure, and traffic issues. A solid waste rate increase adopted by the King County Council in 2007 – the first since 1999 – will allow the Solid Waste Division to proceed with plans to construct new transfer stations at Bow Lake and Factoria.

As part of the plan, King County will also review opportunities to extend the life of the Cedar Hills Regional Landfill and review the site’s development plan accordingly. New methods of landfilling along with increased waste reduction and recycling can contribute to an extended lifespan for the site, giving the county and its partners more time to closely examine waste management options for the landfill’s eventual closure.

In addition to this plan, the division is working closely with its stakeholders from the Metropolitan Solid Waste Advisory Committee (MSWMAC) and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee (SWAC), to update its 2001 Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan.

The Comprehensive Plan will have a heavy focus on policy and programs for county and city adoption to increase waste reduction and recycling. Specific goals and strategies will be developed for single and multi-family, commercial, self-haul and construction and demolition generators with an aim to zero out waste from disposal. Key material targets include paper, food scraps, plastic, wood and metals – items that are still thrown away in large amounts, yet have strong recycling markets.

Fast facts

Weight versus volume that polystyrene occupies in the landfill compared to glass containers.

Despite its light weight, polystyrene occupies a significant amount of the King County waste stream in terms of space.4 Glass containers constitute a greater tonnage of the waste generated in King County than polystyrene, but polystyrene foam, by contrast, represents a far greater volume.

1 Expanded Polystyrene Research memo. Prepared by Cascadia Consulting Group. Nov. 21, 2007.
2 Platt, Brenda; Tom Lent; and Bill Wash. The Healthy Building Network’s Guide to Plastic Lumber. October 2005, 2nd Edition.
3 “Use and Disposal of Polystyrene in California.” Dec. 2004. Page 11.
4 Polystyrene weight from King County Monitoring Program 2002-2003 Waste Characterization Study and Customer Surveys, April 2004. Prepared by Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. Pg. 28. Polystyrene Density from Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste, June 2006, Prepared by Cascadia Consulting. Pg. 63. Calculation 3,974 x 2000 pounds/32 = 248,375.

King County announces polystyrene as a new priority material for 2008

Industry voice

King County focus

Fast facts

Material highlights

Partner update

News you can use

DNRP > SWD > LinkUp > eNewsLink > Current Issue

A NEWSLETTER TO EXPAND MARKETS FOR RECYCLED MATERIALS