STATE-OF-THE-PRACTICE LITERATURE SCAN FOR

FOUNDRY SAND

QUICK SEARCH

Submitted to:

Scott Seiter, P.E.

Oklahoma Department of Transportation

Submitted by:

Dominique M. Pittenger, Ph.D.

Gallogly College of Engineering
The University of Oklahoma

February 2017
 Foundry Sand

Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Foundry Sand .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Foundry Sand in Highway Applications ............................................................................................... 5

DOT Experience with Foundry Sand and Related Studies ................................................................. 8

State Regulations and DOT Specifications ........................................................................................ 12

Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................... 13
References ............................................................................................................................................. 14
Appendices – FHWA Guidance, Example State Requirements and Specifications ...................... 16

2|Page
 Foundry Sand

Introduction
According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), using the waste product of foundry sand in transportation applications (e.g. in
embankments and for ice/snow mitigation) is “technically sound, commercially competitive and
environmentally safe” (FHWA 2004). The EPA has estimated that using foundry sand in
construction applications could prevent 20,000 tons of CO2 emissions and save more than 200
billion BTUs of energy (AFS-FIRST 2016). Reuse of foundry sand is also an effective way to
“conserve landfill capacity and save virgin sands” (MarylandDOT 2016). Therefore, advancing the
use of foundry sand has become the focus of “intensive market development efforts by the [EPA]
and [FHWA]” (AFS-FIRST 2016).

In 2016, a synthesis effort evaluated current practices and studies related to foundry sand use in
transportation construction (MarylandDOT 2016). The study identified “potential concerns related
to material performance, environmental considerations, design and field performance”. A survey
was conducted through the AASHTO Subcommittee on Materials. Of the 15 responding DOTs,
three reported limited use of foundry sand. Specification revisions and implementation actions
were recommended.

This report will focus on the salient findings of the synthesis, as well as other studies and published
literature related to DOT foundry-sand experience. Additionally, it will provide state and DOT
foundry-sand requirements and specifications.

Foundry Sand
Metal foundries produce and reuse 100 million tons of foundry sand annually to facilitate the
metal casting process (Benson and Bradshaw 2011). When the sand becomes unusable by the
foundry, it is discarded, resulting in approximately 10 million tons of spent sand per year (FHWA
2004). Recently, foundries in the US have established the goal of achieving 50 percent of spent
sands being diverted to non-landfill applications, which represents an increase from the current
28 percent diversion rate (AFS-FIRST 2016). Figure 1 shows the magnification of foundry sand,
which is a high-quality silica sand (Benson and Bradshaw 2011).

Figure 1 Foundry Sand (left) compared to Natural Sand (right) at 45x Magnification (Olenbush 2007)

3|Page
 Foundry Sand

Foundries work with nonferrous metals (aluminum, brass or bronze) and/or ferrous metals (steel,
iron, stainless steel). Therefore, spent foundry sand may contain leachable contaminants, including
heavy metals and phenols that are absorbed by the sand during foundry operations (FHWA 2016).
Nonferrous source materials have limited application because they are often classified as
hazardous materials due to potentially high concentrations of heavy metals (e.g. cadmium, lead,
copper, nickel, and zinc), although the EPA has removed any characterization of nonferrous
foundry sands as hazardous in its final guideline (TxDOT 2005, TxDOT 1999). Foundry sand from
sources that work with ferrous materials have greater potential for highway applications because
the spent sand is generally considered environmentally benign (TxDOT 1999).

Foundries produce sand that is classified as green sand (“clay-bonded” sand) or resin sand
(“chemically-bonded” sand). The most common is green sand, which makes up about 90% of the
spent foundry sand supply (Benson and Bradshaw 2011). Its physical and mechanical properties
are listed in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. It contains:
 silica sand,
 5% to 10% bentonite clay,
 2% to 5% water and
 less than 5 percent sea coal.
Resin sand is silica sand held together with “organic binder in conjunction with catalysts and
different hardening/setting procedures” used by foundries for special applications (Benson and
Bradshaw 2011).

Table 1 Typical Physical Properties of Spent Green Foundry Sand (FHWA 2016)

Table 2 Typical Mechanical Properties of Spent Foundry Sand (FHWA 2016)

4|Page
 Foundry Sand

The following was also noted about foundry sand physical properties (FHWA 2016):
 grain size distribution of spent foundry sand is very uniform
 85 to 95% is sized between 0.6 mm and 0.15 mm (No. 30 and No. 100 sieve)
 5 to 12% is smaller than 0.075 mm (No. 200 sieve)
 particle shape is typically subangular to rounded
 gradations have been found to be too fine to satisfy some specifications for fine aggregate
 has low absorption and is nonplastic
 reported values of absorption were found to vary widely, which can also be attributed to the
presence of binders and additives
 content of organic impurities (particularly from sea coal binder systems) can vary widely and
can be quite high, which may preclude its use in applications where organic impurities could
be important (e.g., Portland cement concrete aggregate)
 the spent material often contains metal and core material containing partially degraded
binder

The following was noted about foundry sand chemical properties (FHWA 2016):
 hydrophilic, which could lead to moisture-accelerated damage and associated stripping
problems in asphalt pavement (may require antistripping additives)
 depending on the binder and type of metal cast, the pH of spent foundry sand can vary from
approximately 4 to 8
 some spent foundry sands have been reported to be corrosive to metals
 phenols may be discharged into surface/groundwater supplies due to precipitation
percolating through stockpiles; therefore, must be monitored.

Foundry Sand in Highway Applications

Since the late 1980s, foundry sands have had limited use in road construction applications for
items such as base and subbase, asphalt and concrete pavement, concrete-related products,
cement, soil amendments, and landfill cover (TxDOT 1999). FHWA suggests another possible use
of foundry sand is as an anti-skid material for roads covered with snow and ice (FHWA 2004).
However, there have been environmental and engineering challenges associated with its use
(MarylandDOT 2016). The FHWA published guidance in 2004 entitled “Foundry Sand Facts for Civil
Engineers” to provide technical information about using foundry sand in highway applications
(FHWA 2004). Highway embankments and flowable fill are the most common applications
(MarylandDOT 2016, TxDOT 1999). The Maryland DOT synthesis authors compiled literature
information and made specification revision recommendations related to foundry sand (FS) use
in the following applications (MarylandDOT 2016):

Foundry Sand in Flowable Fill

 increase in FS content lowers the workability, so amount of superplasticizer required increases
 for self-compacted concrete applications with FS, temperature has little effect on compressive
strength, but slightly weakens splitting tensile strength
 concrete with 10-15% FS replacement has the highest strength
 compressive strength decreases with increasing FS replacement of natural sand
 FS should be combined with natural sand (i.e., round sand) to achieve desirable performance

5|Page
 Foundry Sand

 drying shrinkage of SCC mixtures increases with increasing FS content

 carbonation depth of concrete increases with increasing FS content
 substitution of FS increases permeability; significant increase when rate exceeds 30%
 FS enhances the resistance to chloride penetration
 increasing FS content weakens sulfate resistance (10% is the maximum FS content for
acceptable sulfate attack resistance)
 pH increases as cement or lime is added into FS mixtures
 performance tests should be conducted on FS prior to recycling
 metal concentrations from flowable fill materials with FS are lower than EPA maximum limits
 leachate from FS originated from the production of iron, steel, and aluminum are below the
regulatory limits for hazardous waste

Foundry Sand in Embankment and Base

 provides sufficient shear strength and compressibility
 has sufficient strength to resist breakdown under compaction
 CBR is 11%-30% higher than that of granular sands, but the friction angle of FS is 30°-36°,
comparable to that of natural sands
 prolonging curing time helps improve the strength of cement-amended or lime-amended FS-
crushed rock mixtures
 more compressible than natural sand
 swelling is negligible, even for those with high bentonite content (4.7-10.5%)
 when bentonite clay content exceeds 6%, permeability value of FS decreases significantly
 FS containing clays should be compacted to optimum water content in structural fill, and a
consistent moisture content should be maintained during compaction
 high cement ratios (>10% by weight) may make cement-stabilized FS more brittle, leading to
cracking in base which can be reflected to upper layers
 green sand requires moisture during transportation and placement for dusting
 can be transported, placed and compacted with conventional construction equipment
 TCLP (Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure) extracts of FS without any additives may
have high concentrations of copper, lead and zinc, over the limits of 5mg/L; however, adding
iron to the TCLP extraction can significantly decrease copper and lead concentrations
 does not cause groundwater or surface water contamination

Foundry Sand in Hot Mix Asphalt (HMA) or Crack Sealant

 AASHTO pavement design method can be used to design asphalt pavements incorporating
FS as fine aggregate in HMA
 satisfactory performance has been obtained from hot mix pavements incorporating up to 15
percent clean, spent foundry sand (FHWA 2016)
 use same field-testing procedures, methods and equipment used for conventional HMA mixes
 typically has more consistent composition and higher quality compared to natural sands used
in construction
 density of HMA decreases with increasing FS content
 FS replacements of less than 10% yield desirable Marshall stability

6|Page
 Foundry Sand

 flow value decreases as FS content increases due to increased fine content, indicating lower
plasticity and lower durability
 when FS replacement is higher than 15%, asphalt mix may become more sensitive to moisture
damage (i.e., stripping) due to the presence of silica
 moisture resistance of FS depends on the clay content and organic additives used
 clay content and organic-based additives should be limited in producing HMA
 clay-bonded FS (green sands) may typically be more sensitive to moisture
 bentonite should be processed to reduce fines contents
 for most FS, the sand equivalent test is not applicable, but methylene blue test is encouraged
for measuring the clay content
 indirect tensile strength (ITS) of HMA mixtures decrease with increasing FS content, in either
wet or dry conditions, due to the FS clay content
 HMA containing FS does not release hazardous substances into the environment
 ferrous and aluminum based FS are safe substitutes for virgin sands in construction
applications
 can reduce the costs of HMA pavements for both producers and end users
 use as a fine aggregate reduces the carbon footprint

Foundry Sand in Portland Cement Concrete

 water absorption of concrete with 5% FS is higher than that of conventional concrete
 water absorption decreases when the substitution rate of FS exceeds 5%
 reduces workability with slump decreasing as FS replacement increases
 modulus of elasticity range from 5.2% to 12% depending on the FS content and curing time
 increases drying shrinkage
 exacerbates carbonation
 sodium silicate binder systems are not desirable in Portland cement
 one study showed reduction in compressive and tensile strengths, and the elasticity modulus
which is directly related to waste foundry inclusion in concrete (Guney et al. 2010)
 although the freezing and thawing significantly reduces the mechanical and physical
properties of the concrete, the obtained results satisfies the acceptable limits set by the
American Concrete Institute (Guney et al. 2010)
 metal concentrations tested by TCLP are below the EPA limits for hazardous waste
 only arsenic may exceed National Primary Drinking Water Standard tested by SPLP

Foundry Sand in Drainage

 with 6%-10% clay, liquid limit is more than 20, and plastic index is more than 2
 low water absorption, varying with different binders and additive types
 hydraulic conductivity is 6x10-4- 5x10-3 cm/sec, high enough to provide good drainage
capacity for highway applications
 when bentonite clay content is more than 6% by weight, permeability value decreases
significantly to 1x10-7- 3x10-6 cm/sec

7|Page
 Foundry Sand

Foundry Sand in Snow/Ice Mitigation (FHWA 2004)

 to be used as an anti-skid material, the foundry sand must meet each State’s requirements
 angular particles improve traction of pavement surface
 its black color will hold heat longer and will melt the ice faster
 typically, foundry sand is too fine to comply with anti-skid regulations, but when mixed with a
coarser material, it does comply
 trial mixes should be formulated and evaluated prior to use
 should be free from glass, metals, or other substances that could be harmful to cars and
vehicles

Additionally, it has been noted that the foundry should be responsible for testing and evaluating
these materials before they are categorized and approved for use (WisconsinDOT 1999). When it
is ready for use, crushing or screening of the material is required to reduce or separate any
oversized materials (FHWA 2016). Stockpiles of sufficient size typically need to be accumulated so
that a consistent and uniform product can be produced (i.e., day-to-day variations in the material
characteristics can be overcome by blending in a comparatively large stockpile) (FHWA 2016).

DOT Experience with Foundry Sand and Related Studies

By 2002, eighteen states had programs that regulated beneficial reuse activities for foundry sand,
including Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio, California,
Texas, and Louisiana (FHWA 2004). However, literature reveals that DOTs have limited experience
with the use of foundry sand, providing experimental case study information and no standard
methods for establishing suitability of foundry sand use (Maryland DOT 2016, FHWA 2016). There
was little published evidence that foundry sand has been used or is allowable by most DOTs for
anything (including snow and ice mitigation) except embankments and flowable fill. Some DOTs
have noted “opportunity” and “success” related to limited foundry sand projects, while other DOTs
question its viability and safety.

The 2016 Maryland DOT synthesis conducted a survey related to use of recyclable materials,
including foundry sand, in various applications (Table 3). The following 15 states responded to the
survey: Alaska, Alabama, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Montana, North
Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The three states that
reported using foundry sand were Wisconsin, Ohio and Alabama and application was restricted
to flowable fill (self-consolidating concrete).

Table 3 Use of Foundry Sand in Highway Applications (MarylandDOT 2016)

8|Page
 Foundry Sand

PennDOT recently showed that it has not used foundry sand, but presented “project
opportunities” related to its potential use in fine aggregate and flowable fill applications
(PennDOT 2013). A recent analysis of PennDOT road construction activities and materials source
sites in the Pittsburgh area found that using “locally sourced recycled materials (including foundry
sand) instead of virgin materials would reduce energy used in transportation by about 50%”
(NCHRP 2010).

The Texas DOT conducted a study in 2005 to determine if foundry sand was appropriate for
flowable fill and cemented sand applications in Texas (TxDOT 2005). [Note: Texas did not report
use of foundry sand in the 2016 Maryland DOT survey.] It identified local foundry sand sources
and evaluated material quality based upon environmental and engineering properties. It
developed the following protocol to determine suitability of foundry sand:
 collected samples from 10 sources
 created a QA/QC plan for foundry sand testing
 verified if foundry sand met TxDOT Specification DMS 1100 for “Non-Hazardous Recyclable
Materials”
 characterized geotechnical properties
 determined leaching characteristics using EPA and [TxDEQ] testing methods
 verified that properties of local materials were in range of values reported in literature
 tested more than 200 laboratory and field specimens over a period of one year
 developed specifications and MSDS
The study concluded that local foundry sands could be used for flowable fill and cemented sand
applications in the state. It recommended that other studies be conducted to evaluate the long-
term performance of foundry sand.

Worker Exposure: Airborne Contaminants from Foundry Sand

In 1996, foundry sand was used in the construction of a roadway embankment in northeastern
Indiana. Previous investigations of the sand had found that it was safe to use as a construction
material and had no detrimental effects. However, several days after the laying and compaction
of the sand, tire interaction with the compacted and now dried sand caused the generation of
copious black dust clouds that coated the backs of the construction vehicles in a layer of fine
black dust. This led to worker concern regarding airborne silica and silicosis.
A study was conducted by the Indiana DOT to determine if the threat of overexposure to
airborne crystalline silica existed in regard to Occupation Health and Safety Administration’s
(OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL). It found that the respirable crystalline silica dust did
not overexpose the workers according to the OSHA PEL.
The study showed that adding up to an average of 20% by weight of respirable size dust
(such as baghouse hopper dust) is allowable in the waste foundry sand. Specifying this amount
of fine dust for waste foundry sand will provide a worker exposure safety factor of about 2.0
for protection against overexposure to crystalline silica dust. Removing the baghouse hopper
dust material from the waste sand would reduce dust generation considerably. Recommended
methods of dust abatement include watering down the dust during transportation, dumping,
and compacting and keeping the sand wet during construction (IndianaDOT 2002).

9|Page
 Foundry Sand

According to a Wisconsin DOT Transportation Bulletin (1999), the state has had some successful
projects using waste materials, including foundry sand (Table 4).

Table 4 Wisconsin DOT Project List of “Successful Application” of Waste Products (1999)

FHWA on Foundry Sand in Asphalt Pavements

Currently, the FHWA website states that there is no performance record for asphalt pavements
containing foundry sand since “there are no documented field uses of foundry sand in asphalt
paving mixes” (FHWA 2016a). However, its 2004 report states the following:
Pennsylvania, Michigan and Tennessee Departments of Transportation allow the use of recycled
foundry sand in HMA. Pennsylvania DOT allows the use of 8 to 10% of the total aggregate
portion to be recycled foundry sand in the asphalt wearing course. One hot mix producer in
Michigan consistently supplies HMA with 10-20% recycled foundry sand to replace the
conventional aggregate, and it meets Michigan DOT specifications. Another hot mix supplier in
Tennessee claims that hot mix with foundry sand replacing 10% of the fine aggregate compacts
better and outperforms the HMA containing washed river sand. In addition, a hot mix producer
in Ontario, Canada has used foundry sand as a fine aggregate substitute for the past 10 years
in both foundation and surface HMA layers. (FHWA 2004)

10 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

An Ohio DOT report states that foundry sand is rarely used, although it is a competitive bid item
(OhioDOT 2008). The report also states that “recent attempts by the foundry sand industry have
found limited success and failures”. It further states:
“Recycled materials need to be economically viable. Mandates generally
have not worked. The foundry sand industry pushed their product as clean,
which it generally is, but construction of embankments with clean sand is
not stable. The cost of containing and stabilizing the sand along with the
additional construction time created its own limits even when the material
was initially cheaper”. (OhioDOT 2008)

Additionally, in its specification for recycled materials, the statements in the “Benefits” section are
(OhioDOT 2005, in Appendix):
“By using these [recycled] materials, the Department will save land fill space
in the state. The Department may minimize the potential future legislation
that would require the use of these materials. (Note: A few years ago, the
state legislators required us to allow petroleum contaminated soil for
embankment material.)”

An Ohio EPA Policy document entitled “Beneficial Use of Nontoxic Bottom Ash, Fly Ash and Spent
Foundry Sand, and Other Exempt Waste,” was developed in 1998 but removed in 2003. It included
information regarding “the use as an anti-skid material (i.e. snow/ice control) or road surface
preparation material, if such use is consistent with Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
specifications or other applicable specifications” (OhioEPA 2003).

Although the FHWA reported that Illinois was one of the states that had programs to regulate
beneficial reuse activities for foundry sand, the Illinois DOT does not “currently considered
[foundry sand] a viable resource” due to “economic or technical reasons” and is therefore not used
by the Department (IllinoisDOT 2011, FHWA 2004). Concerns specifically relate to the material’s
origin, physical properties, potential engineering value, potential application and other
department concerns as noted (IllinoisDOT 2011):

Origin
 presence of heavy metals (i.e. cadmium, lead, copper, nickel, and zinc ) is of concern

Physical Properties
 sand contains metal casting pieces and partially degraded binder
 may also contain some leachable contaminants, including heavy metals and phenols

Engineering Value
 may result in stripping of the asphalt cement coating aggregate

Potential Application
 commercial use is extremely limited in the United States

11 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

 two main challenges to using waste foundry sand are environmental issues and an engineering
value
 transportation cost of foundry sand is the most limiting factor to its use

Department Concerns
 environmental safety of sand depends on chemical additives and casted metals utilized with
the sand
 The Illinois DOT does not allow use of ferrous foundry waste sand because it is often
contaminated with traces of hazardous elements

State Regulations and DOT Specifications

State regulations and DOT specifications for foundry sand reuse vary from state to state. Some
states have a single set of requirements for all industrial by-products, while others have rules
specifically guiding the reuse of foundry sand (Wisconsin RMRC 2016).
The EPA produced the “State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand”
that establishes a “roadmap for creating a foundry sands beneficial reuse program” (Figure 2) and
provides links to regulations in ten example states including: Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maine,
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin (EPA 2006). The guidance
for Indiana produced by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in 2007 is located
in the Appendix for reference.

Figure 2 Roadmap for Creating a Foundry Sands Beneficial Reuse Program (EPA 2006)

12 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

According to the Maryland DOT synthesis, most requirements for foundry sand primarily relate to
the gradation and percentage of recycled material (MarylandDOT 2016). Specifications for the
Indiana DOT and Ohio DOT are in the Appendix, for reference. The Ohio DOT specification also
includes leaching test requirements, as shown in Figure 3 (MarylandDOT 2016).

Figure 3 Ohio DOT Foundry Sand Requirements

Conclusions
The state-of-the-practice shows limited use of foundry sand in highway applications, with use
being primarily restricted to embankments and flowable fill. This is attributed to the engineering
and environmental challenges associated with the material. There are also no standard methods
for establishing suitability of foundry sand use and long-term performance is unknown. Some
DOTs have noted “opportunity” and “success” related to the limited foundry sand projects, while
other DOTs question its viability and safety.

13 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

References
AFS-FIRST 2016. “Recycling,” American Foundry Society - Foundry Industry Recycling Starts
Today (AFS-FIRST), http://www.afsinc.org/government/AFSFirst.cfm?ItemNumber=7887

Benson and Bradshaw 2011. “User Guideline for Foundry Sand in Green Infrastructure
Construction,” Recycled Materials Resource Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
http://rmrc.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bradshaw-No.-59-Part-4-Updated-
Beneficial-User-Guidelines-Foundry-Sand2.pdf

EPA 2006. “State Toolkit for Developing Beneficial Reuse Programs for Foundry Sand,”
US Environmental Protection Agency.

FHWA 2016. “User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction,”
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148,
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/intro.cfm

FHWA 2016a. “User Guideline for Foundry Sand in Asphalt Concrete,”

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/fs2.cfm

FHWA 2004. “Foundry Sand Facts for Civil Engineers,”

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/pub_details.cfm?id=55

Guney Y, Y. Dursun Sari, M. Yalcin, A. Tuncan, S. Donmez, 2010. “Re-usage of waste foundry sand
in high-strength concrete”, Journal of Waste Management, Waste Management 30 (2010), 1705–
1713.

IllinoisDOT 2011. “Utilization of Recycled and Reclaimed Materials in Illinois Highway

Construction in 2010,” PHYSICAL RESEARCH REPORT NO. 160.

IndianaDOT 2002. “Worker Exposure to Airborne Contaminates When Using Waste Foundry
Sand in the Construction of Road Embankments,” Final Report, FHWA/IN/JTRP-2002/3.

MarylandDOT 2016. “Recycled Material Availability in Maryland – A Synthesis Study,” Project

Number Sp509b4f, Final Report, October 2016, Maryland Department of Transportation State
Highway Administration.

NCHRP 2010. “Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures for Transportation Construction,

Maintenance, and Operations Activities,” prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 58,
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.

OhioDOT 2008. “Ohio Department of Transportation Sustainability Assessment Report,”

https://www.dot.state.oh.us/stormwater/Documents/ODOT%20Sustainability%20Assessment%2
0Report%20Oct%202008.pdf

14 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

Ohio EPA 2003. “Beneficial Use of Nontoxic Bottom Ash, Fly Ash and Spent Foundry Sand, and
Other Exempt Waste,” http://epa.ohio.gov/portals/35/policy/04_07r.pdf.

PennDOT 2013. “Strategic Recycling Program – An Overview,” Pennsylvania DOT,

http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/subject/advcoun/recycle/2013/9-26-
13/PennDOT_RFAC_2013.pdf
TxDOT 2005. “Applications for Foundry Sands: Flowable Fill and Cemented Sand,” TxDOT Project
Summary Report 7-4935-S, December 2005.

TxDOT 2009. “Year of the Recycled Roadway Materials,” Texas Department of Transportation.

Wisconsin RMRC 2016. “Foundry Sand,” Wisconsin Recycled Materials Resource Center, University
of Wisconsin, http://rmrc.wisc.edu/foundry-sand/

WisconsinDOT 1999. “Using Recovered Materials in Highway Construction,” Wisconsin

Transportation Bulletin, No. 20.

15 | P a g e
 Foundry Sand

Appendices – FHWA Guidance, Example State Requirements and Specifications

FHWA User Guideline for Foundry Sand in Asphalt Concrete (2016)

FHWA User Guideline for Foundry Sand in Flowable Fill (2016)

Indiana Department of Environmental Management Guidance Document for Foundry Sand Reuse (2007)

Indiana DOT Specification for Foundry Sand (2015)

Ohio DOT Specification for Foundry Sand in Embankments (2005)

16 | P a g e
 Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in

Pavement Construction
FOUNDRY SAND User Guideline

Asphalt Concrete

INTRODUCTION

Ferrous spent foundry sand can be used as fine aggregate in hot mix asphalt
pavements.(1,2,3) Satisfactory performance has been obtained from hot mix pavements incorporating up
to 15 percent clean, spent foundry sand.

Hot mix asphalt pavements with more than 15 percent of clean spent foundry sand content (blended
with natural sand) are susceptible to moisture damage due to the hydrophilic nature of the (primarily
silica) foundry sand, resulting in stripping of the asphalt cement coating surrounding the aggregate
grains, loss of fine aggregate, and accelerated pavement deterioration. The problem can be mitigated by
using antistripping additives.

Spent sands from nonferrous foundries and foundry baghouse dust can contain a high concentration of
heavy metals that could preclude their use as an aggregate in pavement construction.

PERFORMANCE RECORD

The commercial use of spent foundry sand in the United States is extremely limited. There are no
documented field uses of foundry sand in asphalt paving mixes. In an American Foundrymen’s Society
study of asphalt concrete properties (using 10 percent foundry sand) compared with control mixes
(without foundry sand), the results indicated little difference in Marshall design properties (e.g., voids,
voids in mineral aggregate, stability, flow, and unit weight). (4) A more recent study was undertaken at
Purdue University with samples containing up to 30 percent foundry sand. Increasing foundry sand
blends above 15 percent lowered the unit weight, increased the air voids, decreased the flow and
stability of the mixes, and reduced the indirect tensile strength (after immersion in a hot water bath),
which is indicative of samples that are susceptible to stripping problems. (4)

MATERIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Crushing and Screening

It may be necessary to crush and screen the spent foundry sand to reduce the size of any oversize core
butts or uncollapsed molds prior to use as aggregate. This is readily accomplished using conventional
aggregate processing equipment (closed loop crushing and screening process, equipped with magnetic
separator, as necessary).

It is also important that consistency (primarily gradation) be maintained for hot mix asphalt production.
Variations between foundries require that spent foundry sands be examined and evaluated on a source-
specific basis.

Quality Control

For spent foundry sand to be suitable as a partial replacement for natural fine aggregates in asphalt
pavements, it should be free of objectionable materials such as wood, garbage, and metal, which can be
introduced at the foundry. Spent foundry sand should also be free of thick coatings of burnt carbon,
binders, and mold additives. These constituents can inhibit adhesion of the asphalt cement binder to the
foundry sand.

Storage and Blending

Stockpiles of sufficient size should be accumulated so that product uniformity can be achieved. This may
necessitate the accumulation of a substantial quantity of spent foundry sand in a central site at a specific
foundry or group of foundries before transferring the material to hot mix producers.

To satisfy the gradation requirements for hot mix asphalt fine aggregates (AASHTO M29), (5) the spent
foundry sand must be blended with natural sand at the hot mix plant.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

Some of the properties of spent foundry sand that are of particular interest when foundry sand is used in
asphalt paving applications include particle shape, gradation, durability, and plasticity. With the
exception of gradation, clean, processed foundry sands can generally satisfy the physical requirements
for hot mix asphalt fine aggregate (AASHTO M29).

Particle Shape: The grain size distribution of spent foundry sand is very uniform, with approximately 85
to 95 percent of the material between 0.6 mm and 0.15 mm (No. 30 and No. 100) sieve sizes. The
grains are generally rounded to subangular in shape.

Gradation: The gradation tends to fall within the limits for a poorly graded fine sand that has relatively
uniform size (passing 0.3 mm and retained 0.15 mm), with fines content (less than 0.075 mm (No. 200
sieve)) ranging from 5 to 15 percent.

Durability: Spent foundry sands display good durability characteristics with resistance to weathering. (6,7)

Plasticity: Spent foundry sand generated by foundries using green sand molding systems, in which
bentonite clay and sea coal are added to the casting, should be examined to ensure that plasticity levels
comply with AASHTO requirements for fine aggregates.

Stripping is one of the more critical properties that should be assessed when foundry sand is
incorporated into an asphalt mix.

Stripping: Spent foundry sand is composed primarily of silica sand, coated with a thin film of burnt
carbon, residual binder (bentonite, sea coal, resins), and dust. The hydrophilic nature of the (primarily
silica) foundry sand, however, can result in stripping of the asphalt cement coating surrounding the
aggregate grains, with resulting loss of fine aggregate and accelerated pavement deterioration. This
problem can be mitigated by limiting the content of spent foundry sand in the mix to 15 percent of the
total mass of aggregate or using an antistripping additive.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Mix Design

Asphalt mixes containing foundry sand can be designed using standard asphalt mix design methods
(Marshall, Hveem).

The potential for stripping of asphalt mixes containing spent foundry sand should be assessed in the
laboratory as part of the overall mix design. Several tests are available, with the most common including:
AASHTO T283-85,(8) which compares the tensile strength ratio of wet and dry specimens; T182-
84,(9) T195-67,(10) or the Immersion Marshall test following the MTO LS-283(11) procedure, which
compares the retained Marshall stability and visual appearance of Marshall briquettes before and after
immersion in a heated water bath. Stripping resistance can be enhanced by adding hydrated lime or
commercially available antistripping additives.

Structural Design

Conventional AASHTO pavement design methods are appropriate for asphalt paving incorporating
spent foundry sand as fine aggregate.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

Material Handling and Storage

The same general methods and equipment used to handle conventional aggregates are applicable for
foundry sand.

Foundry sand, which is usually obtained in a dry form, can be stored in covered structures to preserve
this condition and reduce energy required for drying. Special measures may be required to control the
leachate (containing phenols) from open stockpiles (including temporary stockpiles). (12) The use of an
impervious pad (to collect surface moisture or precipitation passing through the stockpile) and
subsequent filtration (using an activated carbon filter) of the leachate has proven to be effective (but
potentially expensive) in limiting the phenol concentration of the discharge.(6,7)

Mixing, Placing, and Compacting

The same methods and equipment used for conventional hot mix asphalt pavement are applicable to
pavements containing spent foundry sand. If it is dry (less than 5 percent moisture), spent foundry sand
can be metered directly into a pugmill (batch plants only) or through a recycled asphalt feed (drum
plants) where it can be further dried, if necessary, by the already heated conventional aggregates. (13)

The presence of bentonite and organic binder materials can increase the time required for drying and
can increase the load on the hot mix plant dust collection system (baghouse). Any coal and organic
binders that are present are usually combusted in the process.

The same methods and equipment used for placing and compacting conventional pavements are
applicable for pavements incorporating foundry sand.

Quality Control

The same field testing procedures used for conventional hot mix asphalt mixes should be used for mixes
containing foundry sand. Mixes should be sampled in accordance with AASHTO T168, (14) and tested for
specific gravity in accordance with ASTM D2726(15) and in-place density in accordance with ASTM
D2950.(16)

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

There is a need to establish standard methods of assessing the suitability of foundry sand for hot mix
asphalt use. The Immersion Marshall test appears to be appropriate for assessing stripping potential.

Additional performance data are required to determine the maximum amount of foundry sand that can
be incorporated in hot mix asphalt without deleterious effects.

There is a need to define the potential environmental problems associated with phenol discharges from
foundry sand stockpiles, and to determine appropriate treatment strategies, if necessary.
 REFERENCES

1. Javed, S., C. W. Lovell, and L. E. Wood. "Waste Foundry Sand in Asphalt

Concrete," Transportation Research Record 1437. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
DC, 1994.
2. Javed, S., and C. W. Lovell. Use of Waste Foundry Sand in Highway Construction. Final Report,
Project No. C-36-50N, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, 1994.
3. Ciesielski, S. K. and R. J. Collins. Recycling and Use of Waste Materials and By-Products in
Highway Construction. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway
Practice 199, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994.
4. American Foundrymen's Society. Alternative Utilization of Foundry Waste Sand. Final Report
(Phase I) prepared by American Foundrymen’s Society Inc. for Illinois Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs, Des Plaines, Illinois, July, 1991.
5. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Fine Aggregate for Bituminous Paving Mixtures," AASHTO Designation: M29-83, Part I
Specifications, 14th Edition, 1986.
6. MOEE. Spent Foundry Sand - Alternative Use Study. Report prepared by John Emery
Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for
Ontario, February, 1992.
7. MOEE. Spent Foundry Waste Sand - Alternative Uses Study. Report prepared by John Emery
Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy and the
Canadian Foundry Association, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, July, 1993.
8. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Resistance of Compacted Bituminous Mixtures to Moisture Induced Damage," AASHTO
Designation: T 283-85, Part II Testing, 14th Edition, 1986.
9. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Coating and Stripping of Bitumen-Aggregate Mixtures," AASHTO Designation: T182-84, Part II
Testing, 14th Edition, 1986.
10. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Determining Degree of Particle Coating of Bituminous-Aggregate Mixtures," AASHTO
Designation: T195-67, Part II Testing, 14th Edition, 1986.
11. Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Resistance to Stripping of Asphaltic Cement in Bituminous
Mixture by Immersion Marshall - LS 283. Laboratory Testing Manual, Ontario Ministry of
Transportation, 1995.
12. Johnson, C. K. "Phenols in Foundry Waste Sand," Modern Casting. January, 1981.
13. D’Allesandro, L., R. Haas, and R.W. Cockfield. Feasibility Study on the Environmental and
Economical Beneficial Use of Waste Foundry Sand in the Paving Industry. Confidential Report
for MRCO and the Canadian Foundry Group - Sand Exchange Project, University of Waterloo,
November, 1990.
14. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Sampling Bituminous Paving Mixtures," AASHTO Designation: T168-82, Part II Tests, 14th
Edition, 1986.
15. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification D2726-96, "Bulk Specific
Gravity and Density of Non-Absorptive Compacted Bituminous Mixtures," Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Volume 04.03, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996.
16. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification D2950-96, "Density of
Bituminous Concrete in Place by Nuclear Methods," Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume
04.03, ASTM, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, 1996.

age Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT
TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and
construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,
Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,
Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling
Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update needed

This page last modified on 03/08/2016

 Publication Number: FHWA-RD-97-148

User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in

Pavement Construction
FOUNDRY SAND User Guideline

Flowable Fill

INTRODUCTION

Ferrous spent foundry sand can be used as substitute for natural sand (fine aggregate) in flowable
fill(1,2). Natural sand is a major component of most flowable fill mixes. Spent sands from nonferrous
foundries and foundry baghouse dust can contain high concentrations of heavy metals that may
preclude their use in flowable fill applications.

Flowable fill or controlled low strength material (CLSM) is generally composed of a mixture of sand, fly
ash from coal-fired power plants, a small amount of cement, water, and admixtures. It is defined by the
ACI Committee 229(3) as a cementitious material that is in a flowable state at the time of placement and
that has a specified compressive strength of 1400 kPa (200 lb/in2) or less at 28 days. This makes it
possible for the material to be removed should future excavation be necessary. The applications of
flowable fill are numerous and include restoration of utility cuts in county roads, backfilling structures,
filling abandoned wells, filling voids under existing pavements, and pipe embedments. (See references
4,5,6,7,8 and 9.)

The specifications in most jurisdictions for flowable fill materials require that aggregates satisfy ASTM
C33.(9) While spent foundry sand may not satisfy the gradation requirements of ASTM C33 for fine
aggregates, the uniform, spherical nature of the particles produces a relatively free-flowing mixture.

PERFORMANCE RECORD

There has been limited reported use of spent foundry sand in flowable fills or cementitious applications.
It is reportedly being used in flowable fill applications in the Buffalo, New York area. (10)Pennsylvania has
reported successful use of foundry sand as a sand substitute in flowable fill. Illinois, however, has tried
spent foundry sand and considered such use unsuitable due to poor performance or economics.(11)

MATERIAL PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

Crushing and Screening

It may be necessary to crush the spent foundry sand to reduce the size of oversize core butts or
uncollapsed molds. The spent foundry sand can also be screened and oversize material (from molds
and cores that have not completely collapsed) removed.

Quality Control

For spent foundry sand to be suitable as a replacement for fine aggregate in flowable fill, it should be
free of objectionable material such as wood, garbage, and metal that can be introduced at the foundry. It
should be free of foreign material and thick coatings of burnt carbon, binders, and mold additives that
could inhibit cement hydration.
Storage and Blending

Stockpiles of sufficient size should be accumulated and blended so that a consistent gradation can be
achieved before transferring the material to ready-mix concrete plants/flowable fill producers.(12) Where it
is specified that aggregates must satisfy the requirements of ASTM C33, the spent foundry sand must
be blended with natural or other suitable fine aggregate materials to meet gradation requirements. The
presence of organics (from some binder systems such as bentonite clay) may exceed ASTM C33
criteria and must therefore be closely monitored.

ENGINEERING PROPERTIES

Some of the engineering properties of spent foundry sand that are of particular interest when foundry
sand is used in flowable fill applications include particle shape, gradation, strength characteristics,
soundness, deleterious substances, and corrosivity.

Particle Shape: The grain size distribution of spent foundry sand is more uniform and somewhat finer
than conventional concrete sand.(13) The fineness of spent foundry sand contributes to good suspension,
limiting segregation of flowable fill. The spherical shape of spent foundry sand particles contributes to
good flow characteristics. However, increased particle fineness and sphericity also result in lower
strength bearing capacity (CBR) of the hardened flowable fill.(14)

Gradation: Spent foundry sand may not satisfy the ASTM C33 gradation requirement for concrete
aggregate and, therefore, it may need to be blended with natural sand or other suitable fine aggregate
materials to meet the requirements.

Strength Characteristics: Although some organic binder materials can interfere with cement hydration,
low (rather than high) strength development is in most cases more desirable with flowable fill to permit
excavation at a later date. It has been reported that the flowable fill incorporating spent foundry sand
aggregates, fly ash, a small quantity of Portland cement, and water readily satisfies specified limited
strength criteria.(15)

Soundness: The performance of spent foundry sands in soundness tests depends on the amount of clay
binder materials present in the spent foundry sand, the amount of agglomeration of the fines, and the
coating on the individual particles. The greater amount of clay binder or agglomeration, or the thicker the
coatings, the higher the soundness loss. Regardless, spent foundry sands generally exhibit favorable
performance in soundness testing, with soundness losses less than 10 percent (indicative of durable
aggregate).(13)

Deleterious Substances: Poorly managed spent foundry sand could contain objectionable materials
such as wood, garbage, metal, carbon, and dust as well as large chunks of sand. For use in flowable fill,
spent foundry sand must be managed to ensure that the sand is clean and processed to the proper sand
size. Foundry sand is often contaminated with organic material and can have an organic content of up to
12 percent.(16,17)

Corrosivity: Depending on the binder and type of metal cast, the pH of spent foundry sand can vary from
approximately 4 to 8.(18) It has been reported that some spent foundry sand can be corrosive to
metals.(19) Others have indicated that flowable fill mixes containing spent foundry sand are noncorrosive
in nature because of the absence of chlorides and high pH values obtained (11.4 to 12.3). (1)
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Mix Design

Flowable fill mixes are usually designed on the basis of compressive strength, generally after 28 days of
ambient temperature curing, but sometimes on the basis of longer term (90 days or more) strength.
They are designed to have high fluidity during placement (typical slump of 150 mm to 200 mm (6 to 8
inches)) and to develop limited strength (typically between 340 kPa and 1400 kPa (50 and 200 lb/in 2)),
which is sufficient to support traffic without settling, yet can be readily excavated. (20)

Many jurisdictions specify the use of fine aggregates conforming to ASTM C33 in flowable fill, which
generally precludes using spent foundry sand unless it is blended with natural sand or other suitable
materials.

Structural Design

Structural design procedures for flowable fill materials are no different than geotechnical design
procedures for conventional earth backfill materials. The procedures are based on using the unit weight
and shear strength of the flowable fill to calculate the bearing capacity and lateral pressure of the
material under given site conditions.

CONSTRUCTION PROCEDURES

The same methods and equipment used to mix, transpor, and place flowable fill made with conventional
aggregates may be used for flowable fill incorporating spent foundry sand.

Material Handling and Storage

The same general methods and equipment used to handle conventional aggregates are applicable for
foundry sand. Special measures may be required to control the early contact water leachate (containing
phenols) from spent foundry sand stockpiles. The construction of an impervious pad (to collect surface
moisture or precipitation passing through the stockpile) and subsequent filtration (through an activated
carbon filter) of the leachate has reportedly been effective in limiting the phenol concentration of the
discharge.(19)

Mixing, Placing, and Compacting

Flowable fill can be produced at a central concrete mixing plant in accordance with ASTM C94(21) and
delivered by concrete truck mixers or using a mobile, volumetric mixer for small jobs. It is important that
high fluidity (slump greater than 150 mm (6 in)) be maintained to ensure that the flowable fill material
entirely fills all voids beneath pavements and around structures and utilities.

Quality Control

Various standard field and laboratory tests for flowable fill mixes are given by AASHTO T27, (22) ASTM
Provisional Standard 28 - Provisional Test Method for Flow Consistency of Controlled Low Strength
Materials; and ASTM Provisional Standard 29 - Provisional Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Controlled Low Strength Material.
UNRESOLVED ISSUES

Most existing specifications require that the fine aggregate for flowable fill satisfy ASTM C33. Since
foundry sand does not meet the gradation requirements of this standard, there is a need to review
gradation requirements and investigate the impact of alternative gradations to permit wider use of spent
foundry sand for this application. There also is a need to develop standardized mix design methods for
assessing the suitability of foundry sand in flowable fill as well as a need to assess the environmental
suitability of spent foundry sand for flowable fill from ferrous and particularly nonferrous foundries.

REFERENCES

1. Bhat, S. T., and C. W. Lovell. "Design of Flowable Fill: Waste Foundry Sand as a Fine
Aggregate," Paper No. 961066, Transportation Research Board, 75th Annual Meeting,
Washington, DC, 1996.
2. Naik, T. R. Foundry Industry By-Products Utilization. Report No. CBU-1989-01, University of
Wisconsin - Milwaukee, February, 1989.
3. ACI Committee 229. "Controlled Low Strength Materials," Concrete International, Volume 16,
No. 7, July, 1994, pp. 55-64.
4. Adaska, W. S., and W. C. Krell. "Bibliography on Controlled Low-Strength Materials
(CLSM)," Concrete International, Volume 14, No. 10, December, 1992, pp. 42-43.
5. Naik, T. R., B. W. Ramme, and H. J. Kolbeck. "Filling Abandoned Underground Facilities with
CLSM Fly Ash Slurry," Concrete International, Volume 12, No. 7, July, 1990, pp. 19-25.
6. Larsen, R. L., "Sound Uses of CLSM in the Environment," Concrete International, Volume 12,
No. 7, July, 1990, pp. 26-29.
7. Ambroise, J. A. Amoura, and J. Péra. "Development of Flowable High Volume - Fly Ash
Mortars," Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on the Use and Management of
Coal Combustion By-Products (CCBs), Volume 2. American Coal Ash Association, 1995.
8. Newman, F. B., A. M. Di Gioia, and L. F. Rojas-Gonzalez. "CLSM Backfills for Bridge
Abutments," Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on the Use and Management of
Coal Combustion By-Products (CCBs), Volume 2. American Coal Ash Association, 1995.
9. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification C33, "Concrete
Aggregate," Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.02, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 1996.
10. Pohlman, D. Pohlman Foundry Company, Buffalo, New York, Personal Communication, June,
1995.
11. Collins, R. J. and S. K. Ciesielski. Recycling and Use of Waste Materials and By-Products in
Highway Construction. National Cooperative Highway Research Program Synthesis of Highway
Practice 199, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 1994.
12. Leidel, D. S., M. Novakowski, D. Pohlman, Z. D. MacRunnels, and M. H. MacKay. "External
Beneficial Reuse of Spent Foundry Sand," AFS Transactions, Volume 102. American
Foundrymen's Society, 1994.
13. Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Spent Foundry Sand - Alternative Use Study.
Report prepared by John Emery Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Ontario Ministry of the
Environment and Energy and the Canadian Foundry Association, Queen’s Printer for Ontario,
July, 1993.
14. Larson, R. M. "Case Studies Demonstrating Applications of Controlled Low Strength Materials,"
Presented at the Spring Convention, American Concrete Institute, Washington, DC, March,
1992.
15. CME. Compression Test Reports, CME Associates Inc., Buffalo, New York, 1993 (provided to
JEGEL by Riefill Corp., Buffalo, New York, June, 1995).
16. American Foundrymen’s Society. Alternative Utilization of Foundry Waste Sand. Final Report
(Phase I) prepared by American Foundrymen’s Society Inc. for Illinois Department of Commerce
and Community Affairs, Des Plaines, Illinois, July, 1991.
17. Javed, S. and C. W. Lovell. Use of Foundry Sand in Highway Construction. Joint Highway
Research Project No. C-36-50N, Department of Civil Engineering, Purdue University, July,
1994.
18. Johnson, C. K. "Phenols in Foundry Waste Sand." Modern Casting. January, 1981.
 19. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Mineral Aggregate Conservation - Reuse and Recycling.
Report prepared by John Emery Geotechnical Engineering Limited for Ontario Ministry of
Natural Resources, Queen’s Printer for Ontario, February, 1992.
20. PCA. Cementitious Grouts and Grouting. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, 1990.
21. American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard Specification C94, "Ready-Mixed
Concrete," Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 04.02, ASTM, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 1996.
22. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Standard Method of Test,
"Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates," AASHTO Designation: T 27-84, Part II Tests,
14th Edition, 1986.

[ Material Description ] [ Asphalt Concrete ]

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Page Owner: Office of Research, Development, and Technology, Office of Safety, RDT
TRT Terms: Waste products as road materials--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Asphalt concrete--Design and
construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Pavements, Concrete--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,
Pavements--Additives--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Fills (Earthwork)--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc,
Roads--Base courses--Design and construction--Handbooks, manuals, etc, Wastes, Environmental impacts, Recycling
Scheduled Update: Archive - No Update needed

This page last modified on 03/08/2016

 GUIDANCE
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Office of Land Quality
100 N. Senate Avenue
Indianapolis, IN 46204
OLQ PH: (317) 232-8941

FOUNDRY WASTE CLASSIFICATION GUIDELINES

A waste classification must be issued by Indiana Department of Environmental Management

(IDEM) when a foundry wishes to:

· dispose of foundry wastes (restricted waste) into a restricted waste site.

· use foundry sand in accordance with Indiana’s law allowing the use of foundry
sand (IC 13-19-3-7).

A waste classification does not need to be issued from IDEM when a foundry wishes to:

· dispose of foundry wastes in a municipal solid waste landfill as a nonhazardous

solid waste in accordance with Indiana’s Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities
Rule (329 IAC 10).
· dispose or use foundry wastes outside of Indiana.

Foundries generate several waste streams. This guidance is specifically for nonhazardous wastes.
Foundry wastes may include foundry sands, slag, refractory, baghouse dust, and pattern shop waste.
The term foundry sand is used in Indiana regulations that govern the use of foundry sand. For this
purpose, foundry sand is generally accepted as molding sand and core sand. Baghouse dust from
sand handling systems if made up of only fine sand particles may be used under IC 13-19-3-7.
Baghouse dust from other processes such as furnace emissions, grinding, or shot blasting may not be
used under the statute.

A particular classification level is assigned to a waste based upon a complete and thorough waste
characterization, including a well-planned representative sampling program. IDEM staff have
prepared this waste classification guideline to describe how to sample and analyze foundry wastes
as required under 329 IAC 10-9-4.

Foundry wastes may be disposed as nonhazardous solid waste in any permitted municipal solid
waste landfill designed and operated in accordance with the Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities
rule (329 IAC 10) without obtaining a waste classification. However, if the waste is to be sent to
a restricted waste site or used, it must be tested and classified according to 329 IAC 10-9-4.
Additional testing is required for use in land application or as a soil amendment. The additional
testing requirements can be found in IDEM Guidance titled “Use of Foundry Sand in Land
Application and as a Soil Amendment” (ID No. WASTE-040-NPD).

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 1 11/2007
Please note that the restricted waste site classification, (Type I, II, III, and IV), must be certified in
writing by the IDEM.

Prior to obtaining a waste classification, generators of solid waste are responsible for maintaining
information on their wastes as required under 329 IAC 10-7.2. That rule references the hazardous
waste determination found in Indiana’s Hazardous Waste Management rules (329 IAC 3.1) as
well as other characteristics that may affect disposal at a permitted land disposal facility. 329 IAC
10-7.2 includes an evaluation for Polychlorinated Biphenyls, asbestos, pesticides, or any other risk
posed during handling use or disposal of a waste. It should also be noted that the agency retains
authority to ask for any other information relevant to compliance with Indiana’s environmental
regulations. Wastes that are determined to be nonhazardous and do not contain Polychlorinated
Biphenyls, asbestos, or pesticide residues regulated by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) may be evaluated for a Waste Classification.
The waste classification is used to determine restricted waste site disposal requirements and
identify potential risks for legitimate use applications.

This guidance has been developed by Office of Land Quality staff to assist foundries in the waste
classification process. Since every generating facility is unique, some factors or situations may
not be addressed in this guidance document. Any questions about the requirements outlined in
this guidance should be discussed with Industrial Waste Section staff at 317/308-3103.

A copy of all applicable statutes (IC 13) and rules (329 IAC 10 and 329 IAC 3.1) may be obtained
from the Legislative Services Agency by calling 317/232-9556 or through the Internet at
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic_iac/. Guidance regarding foundry sand storage, foundry sand
use, and making a hazardous waste determination may be obtained through the Internet at
http://www.in.gov/idem/rules/policies/#land or by calling Industrial Waste Section Staff at
317/308-3103. A list of referenced and related rules and guidance can be found at the end of this
guidance.

A. Generator Responsibilities for Waste Information

329 IAC 10-7.2 lists generator responsibilities for collecting information on wastes they generate.
This information is used to determine how a waste may be properly disposed in a permitted
disposal facility or processed in a permitted processing facility. The waste determination must
specifically look at hazardous waste (characterisitic and listed), asbestos, PCBs, heat or capability
of generating heat, or any other risk that a particular waste may present. It should also be noted
that the agency retains authority to ask for any other information relevant to compliance with
Indiana’s environmental regulations. This determination may be based on testing or use of
generator knowledge. Information must be collected on individual waste streams.

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 2 11/2007
 Hazardous Waste Determination

State and Federal regulations require generators of solid waste to make a hazardous waste
determination (40 CFR 262.11, adopted under 329 IAC 3.1-6). To make this determination,
generators must do one or more of the following for each separate waste stream:

Identify the process that generated the waste (Is it a “listed” waste?),
Apply knowledge of typical waste composition and/or
Conduct waste testing or analysis.

NOTE: Some solid wastes may be excluded from hazardous waste regulations (see 40 CFR
261). Even if you have determined that your waste is excluded from hazardous waste
regulation, you need to re-evaluate your status periodically to verify that conditions
affecting the composition of your waste have not changed. Some excluded wastes may
exhibit hazardous waste characteristics.

Hazardous Waste Listing Determination

If you find that your waste is not excluded from hazardous waste regulations, then you must
determine if the waste meets one or more of the hazardous waste listing descriptions found in 40
CFR 261.31, 261.32 and 261.33. The lists include wastes from non-specific sources [termed “F-
listed wastes,” such as F002 wastes, spent halogenated solvents ( i.e., perchloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, methylene chloride.)] The hazardous waste listings also include wastes from
specific sources, K-listed wastes, such as K062 waste, spent pickle liquor from the steel finishing
industries. The third group of hazardous waste listings includes discarded unused commercial
chemical products, off-specification products and spill residues of such products (i.e., P- and U-
listed wastes.) While there are no source specific listings for foundries, if another listed waste
(such as an F-listed waste) is mixed with another waste, the mixture is considered a hazardous
waste.

Hazardous Waste Characteristic Determination

If the waste is not listed, you must determine if it exhibits any of the four characteristics of a
hazardous waste: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. This evaluation involves
testing the waste or using knowledge of the process or materials used to produce the waste.

A waste is ignitable if it is a liquid and its flash point is less than 140o F (60o C). A waste also
may be defined as ignitable if it is an oxidizer or an ignitable compressed gas as defined by the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations in 49 CFR Part 173, or if it has the
potential to ignite under standard temperature and pressure and burn persistently and vigorously
once ignited. Wastes that are ignitable are classified as EPA Hazardous Waste Code D001.
Examples of ignitable wastes include certain spent solvents such as some
mineral spirits. Guidance titled “Ignitable Solid Hazardous Waste” is available for further
assistance.

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 3 11/2007
A waste is corrosive if it is aqueous and its pH is less than or equal to 2 or greater than or equal to
12.5. A waste also is corrosive if it is a liquid and it corrodes steel at a rate of more than 0.25
inches per year under conditions specified in EPA Test Method 1110. Corrosive wastes are
designated as EPA Hazardous Waste Code D002. Examples of corrosive wastes include spent
sulfuric acid and concentrated waste sodium hydroxide solutions that have not been neutralized.

A waste exhibits reactivity if it is unstable and explodes or produces fumes, gases, and vapors
when mixed with water or under other conditions such as heat or pressure. A waste also may be
defined as reactive if it is a forbidden explosive or a Class A or Class B explosive as defined in 49
CFR Part 173. Wastes that exhibit the characteristic of reactivity are classified as EPA Hazardous
Waste Code D003. Examples of reactive wastes include certain cyanide or sulfide-bearing
wastes.

The toxicity characteristic of a waste is determined by having a laboratory analyze an extract of

the waste using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure. The results of the analysis are
compared to the regulatory thresholds of 40 constituents, primarily heavy metals, organic
compounds, and pesticide/herbicides. If the extract from the TCLP procedure contains levels of
any of the 40 constituents at or above regulatory thresholds, the waste is considered a hazardous
waste. Wastes that exhibit the toxicity characteristic are classified as EPA Hazardous Waste
Codes D004 through D043. Examples of toxic wastes may include wastewater treatment sludges,
wastes from organic chemical manufacturing and pesticide/herbicide wastes.

You can meet general waste analysis requirements using several methods or combinations of
methods. The preferred method for hazardous waste characteristics is to conduct sampling and
analysis of the waste as this method is more accurate and defensible than other options. (The
procedures and equipment for both obtaining and analyzing samples are described in Appendices I
and II of 40 CFR Part 261.)

When conducting analysis, a representative sample from each waste stream is required. A
representative sample is defined as a sample of a universe or whole that can be expected to
exhibit the average properties of the universe or whole. Guidance regarding methods for
statistical determination of a valid number of samples, sampling methods, sampling strategies and
applicable sampling equipment are found in Chapter 9 of “Test Methods for Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods” SW-846, 3rd Edition. It is recommended that you prepare a
sampling and analysis plan prior to sample collection and testing. Examples of information that
should be included in a sampling and analysis plan are found in this document (see Section E).

Other Constituents (asbestos, PCBs, heat or capability of generating heat, or other risks)

Evaluation for these constituents is required by 329 IAC 10-7.2. As with the hazardous waste
determination process outlined above, generator knowledge or analysis may be used to determine
the presence and/or concentration of any of these constituents. If a constituent is not present,
analysis is not required. Asbestos may be found in building materials such as building siding or

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 4 11/2007
insulation and is usually not found in typical foundry waste streams. PCBs may be found in
hydraulic or dielectric fluids. PCBs may be found in foundry wastes if the scrap source includes
items such as engine blocks and electrical equipment. If other unique risks are known to the
generator, they must also be evaluated. The generator must identify and quantify any other risks.
Upon completion of a waste determination, if the foundry wastes are nonhazardous and
don’t contain other regulated constituents, they may be disposed as a solid waste in
accordance with 329 IAC 10.

B. Waste Classification

Prior to obtaining a waste classification, a Waste Information as required by 329 IAC 10-7.2
must be completed. Complete waste information documentation must be submitted with any
request for waste classification. Classification must occur if the foundry wastes:
 will be disposed at a restricted waste site;
 are to be excluded from the provisions of Indiana’s solid waste rules as a type IV
waste; or
 are to be used in accordance with IC 13-19-3-7 (foundry sand only).

In order to obtain waste classification of restricted waste site Type I, II, III, or IV, the waste must
be evaluated in accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4. Waste that is classified may be disposed in a
restricted waste site (see Section H). 329 IAC 10-9-4 (o) lists the test methods and constituent
lists for wastes that will be disposed in a restricted waste site. A waste classification stating the
restricted waste site type (I, II, III or IV) must be issued by IDEM prior to submitting an
application for a restricted waste facility permit of those types. The waste classification must be
kept current as long as disposal occurs at the facility. Questions regarding the restricted waste site
facility permit application and/or permit process may be directed to staff of the Solid Waste
Permit Management Section at 317/233-2711.

If the foundry sand will be used in accordance with IC 13-19-3-7, the foundry sand must meet
Type III criteria and the generator must obtain a waste classification and keep it current as long as
the foundry sand is used. IDEM has the authority to grant case-by-case approvals for Type I or
Type II foundry sand or for other foundry wastes [329 IAC 10-3-1 (16)]. Other uses not specified
under the statute may also be considered for case-by-case approval. In most cases, IDEM will
require the completion of a waste classification. If an alternative test method is desired, IDEM
approval of the alternative method is required. Questions regarding use of foundry sand may be
directed to staff of the Industrial Waste Section at 317/308-3103.

Foundry sand that meets Type IV criteria are excluded from the provisions of the Solid Waste
Rules in accordance with 329 IAC 10-3-4. Please note that several restrictions to the placement
and control requirements are also found in 329 IAC 10-3-4. Foundry sands receiving a Type IV
waste classification are also eligible for use under the statute.

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 5 11/2007
The restricted waste site type may be determined through sampling and analysis or by applying the
generator’s knowledge. “Generator knowledge” is discussed in the next section (see Section C).
For analytes where the use of generator knowledge is not possible, or appear as constituents of
the waste stream, testing must occur. This involves taking a statistically valid number of
representative samples of the individual waste streams, testing the individual waste streams using
acceptable methods, and applying a statistical analysis to determine a waste type (see Section F).
The restricted waste site type is determined by the upper confidence limit for the constituent limit
in the highest category. The calculation is based on the 90% confidence limits. For example, if
the upper confidence limit for lead is in the Type III range, but all other constituents (barium,
cadmium, chromium, phenols, etc.) are in the Type IV range, the overall classification will be
Type III.

C. Generator Knowledge

Indiana’s Solid and Hazardous Waste Rules allow use of generator knowledge as part of the waste
determination process [329 IAC 10-2-78.1 and 262.11 (c)(2)]. In fact, generator knowledge is
crucial in evaluating listed wastes. Generator knowledge is defined under 329 IAC 10-2-78.1 as:

“... the relevant, accurate and reliable information available to or developed by

the generator about a waste that allows a person to determine the correct
regulatory status of that waste. This information may include, but is not limited to
the following categories of information:
(1) Information provided by the manufacturer or supplier of the materials
used in the process.
(2) Information provided in reference materials.
(3) Information describing the process generating the waste.
(4) Information describing the materials used in the process that generates
the waste.
(5) Information describing principles of science, including chemistry and
physics, applied to the raw materials and process used.
(6) Information developed through prior testing of the waste.”

To save time and money on unnecessary testing, the generator may determine which analytes can
be excluded or which analytes need to be tested using generator knowledge, if applicable.
Generator knowledge may render testing unnecessary for certain analytes, provided that specific
circumstances are met, such as adequate proof that the analyte in question is neither introduced
into, nor generated by the process producing the waste.

Note: Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are only required to list ingredients that comprise
1% or more of the material it addresses. This level of reporting is inadequate to ascertain the
constituent levels in the wastes to be characterized. The threshold values listed in Tables I and
II contained in this guidance are typically well below 1% of the waste. Therefore, the MSDS
should be viewed in a supporting fashion and not as the sole means of providing generator

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 6 11/2007
knowledge.

For cases where generator knowledge is incomplete, unprovable or indicates the presence of
regulated analytes, sampling and analysis must occur to meet waste classification requirements.
Prior to sampling and analysis for waste classification purposes, a Sampling and Analysis Plan
(SAP) should be prepared and may be submitted to IDEM for review.

D. Request for Waste Classification

A formal request for waste classification must be sent to the Industrial Waste Section. Please note
that the same laboratory documentation and sampling information listed in Sections E, F, and G
are to be provided with all analyses. Restricted waste classifications (Types I, II, III, and IV) will
be certified in writing by the IDEM in accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4 (k).

The following information and results must be submitted to IDEM in order to obtain a waste
classification:

A narrative description of the process.

Raw materials used to generate the waste.
Volume and frequency of disposal (for wastes going to a restricted waste site).
Documentation used to make the waste determination.
Complete waste sampling and laboratory analysis documentation including all laboratory
analyses and Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) information as
enumerated in Chapter 1, "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste,
Physical/Chemical Methods" SW-846, 3rd Edition, and/or the "Guidance to the
Performance and Presentation of Analytical Chemistry Data" (available from
IDEM).
A signed statement attesting that the information provided is true and accurate that states,
“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were
prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed
to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information
submitted. Based on my inquiry of the persons who managed the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information
submitted is, to the best of my knowledge, true, accurate, and complete. I am
aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. I
further certify that I am authorized to submit this information.” [As required by
329 IAC 10-9-4 (j)]

Please note that wastes cannot be officially classified as Type II, III, or IV without adequate
generator knowledge or completion of the analytical requirements outlined in the previous
sections. IDEM staff will conduct an inspection to verify information submitted as part of the

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 7 11/2007
request.

Request for Renewal

It is the generating facility’s responsibility to maintain a current waste classification. As stated

earlier, a current waste classification is required for disposal in a restricted waste site or for use
under IC 13-19-3-7.

In accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4 (e)(2), resampling must occur every two (2) years, whenever
the process changes or according to a schedule specified by the commissioner for the purposes of
maintaining a waste classification. The expiration date on the waste classification usually
corresponds with the schedule for resampling unless there is a change to the process. Indiana
Statute allows IDEM to issue new permits for up to five (5) years [IC 13-15-3-2 (a)]. Foundries
may expect initial requests to be granted for two (2) years to five (5) years depending on site
specific conditions. Those conditions include variability of the process, consistency of raw
materials, overall facility compliance and disposition of the foundry sand. Please note that
resampling for hazardous waste determination purposes may not be necessary if there has been no
change to the process or the raw materials used. If the characteristics of the foundry sand or the
process generating the waste changes, IDEM may revoke or suspend a waste classification until
resampling has been conducted.

Indiana Statute allows for continued operation under a permit provided a timely and sufficient
renewal request is submitted. Under IC 13-15-3-6 (a), the permit does not expire until IDEM
makes a final decision on the application. No time frame is specified for waste classification
renewal. Therefore, the agency will consider the following as a timely and sufficient renewal
request:

Ninety (90) days: A renewal request which includes either a proposed sampling and
analysis plan (SAP) or all items listed under Section D must be requested ninety (90) days
prior to expiration. Please see Section E for more information about the SAP content.

One-hundred twenty (120) days: The generating facility may request IDEM to reduce or
waive testing requirements. Such a request must be submitted 120 days prior to the
expiration. IDEM will consider the following in reducing or waiving testing requirements:
 variability of the generating process and raw materials
 consistency of previous analytical results
 facility compliance rates
IDEM reserves the right to refuse any request to reduce or waive testing and may require a
full documentation (generator knowledge and/or analytical results) for waste determination
and waste classification purposes.

If timely renewal is not made, the waste classification will expire. No extensions will be
granted.

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 8 11/2007
A new waste classification will be issued upon completion of all requirements. If the waste does
not remain within the concentration limits for that restricted waste site type, a new waste
classification will be issued indicating the new restricted waste site type.

E. Sampling Description/Sampling and Analysis Plan

Samples taken for hazardous waste determination purposes must be “representative” according to
federal regulations (40 CFR 261.24). Additionally, Indiana’s Solid Waste Rule requires sufficient
documentation of representative sampling for waste classification purposes [329 IAC 10-9-4 (i)].
Both of these regulations can be satisfied with a sampling description.

Although a sampling description would meet minimum regulatory requirements, IDEM staff have
observed that preparation of a more comprehensive sampling and analysis plan (SAP) can assist
the generator, laboratory, IDEM and other personnel involved in the process. Chapter 1 and
Chapter 9 of "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods", SW-
846, 3rd Edition, is an excellent source of information on sampling and analysis. This
document is used by IDEM staff in SAP preparation. It should also be used by the generator
as a source of information in preparing a SAP. The generator of a waste prepares a SAP prior to
sample collection and testing. This SAP may be submitted to Industrial Waste Compliance
Section staff for review. A SAP should be used by laboratory and facility personnel as a reference
during all phases of sample collection and analysis to ensure communication of standards and
methods. Occasionally, problems are encountered during sampling or testing and portions of the
SAP are not followed. Any deviation from the prescribed sampling and/or analysis may be noted
in sampling logs, chain of custody sheets, or laboratory reports and then submitted with the
request for waste classification.

Examples of the types of information to be included in the SAP are:

 sample collection methods,

 sampling equipment,
 sampling equipment decontamination procedures (when applicable),
 site map illustrating collection points,
 description of processes generating the wastes,
 MSDS, raw material specifications, or similar data illustrating the materials used in the
processes,
 the calculations used in determining a statistically valid number of samples for
characterization,
 volumes of individual waste streams,
 analytical method number(s),
 detection limits.

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 9 11/2007
OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 10 11/2007
F. Sampling

This section contains several subsections related to sampling. Including:

 Generating Events
 Determination of Correct Number of Samples
 Individual Waste Stream Sampling
 Resampling

Note: Multiple waste stream compositing is no longer allowed in accordance with

329 IAC 10-9-4 (m).

Generating Events

For waste classification purposes, samples must be collected from separate generating events to
ensure that the ordinary range of variation in waste materials is captured. Generating events are
considered independent processes using a different batch of the same raw material. To illustrate
and clarify the concept of separate generating events, consider the following example. Foundry
"A" took delivery of a batch of scrap metal, raw sand and chemical binders to be used in the
process. All the foundry wastes (molding sand, cores, shakeout sand, etc.) generated during this
time were from the same generating event. When the shipments of raw materials were used up,
the next shipment of raw materials were prepared for the process. When the second batch of
materials were being used, the process and the waste streams generated were the same, but the
wastes were from a separate generating event. If the raw materials come into the process on a
more or less continuous basis, this is less well defined and may be determined by the storage
capacity at the facility and the rate of use. A reasonable assumption in this case is that a one (1)
week time lapse between collecting samples from the same waste stream ensures sampling from
separate generating events for most foundries.

Number of Samples

To determine the restricted waste site Type (I, II, III, or IV), sampling and analysis of a statistically
valid number of samples is required unless generator knowledge can be used (see Section C).
Methods for statistical determination of a valid number of samples, recommended sampling
methods, sampling strategies, and applicable sampling equipment are found in Chapter 9 of "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" SW-846, 3rd Edition. Over the
years, IDEM staff have reviewed analytical results from foundries and found that some foundry
wastes can be variable. IDEM recommends following the statistical evaluation in Chapter 9 of
SW-846 for both waste determinations and waste classifications. Should the generator desire,
technical assistance may be provided by IDEM, Office of Land Quality, Industrial Waste Section.
Please note that three sample sets are the accepted minimum number for waste classification
purposes if generator knowledge is not used. A proper standard deviation calculation cannot be
performed on less than three sample results. The standard deviation calculation is integral to the

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 11 11/2007
statistical analysis that the analytical results are subjected to in both the waste determination and
waste classification processes. If you have questions about using generator knowledge to reduce
the number of samples, please contact Industrial Waste Section staff at 317/308-3103.

Individual Waste Stream Sampling

Individual samples must be collected from each waste stream for waste determination purposes.
Each waste stream must also be evaluated separately for waste classification purposes [329 IAC
10-9-4 (m)]. Please be reminded that a waste classification is only necessary for use under Indiana
Statute, disposal in a restricted waste site, or as specifically directed by IDEM.

Usually, a sample is taken either as a grab sample or a composite sample. IDEM recommends
composite sampling for individual waste streams. A composite is a sample made up of many
separate subsamples of the individual waste stream.

To illustrate and clarify the concept of individual composite samples, consider the following
example:

Foundry “A” identified three individual waste streams: molding sand, cores and shake out sand.
Based on prior knowledge Foundry “A” determined that three composite samples for each waste
stream would be appropriate. Foundry "A" also found that a one week time lapse between
sampling events would guarantee sampling from separate generating events because raw materials
were shipped on a continuous basis and their storage capacity would allow them to operate for a
week if shipments stopped. Foundry "A" determined a sampling point for each waste stream.
Then, Foundry "A" collected samples at a sampling point every 5 minutes, for 30 minutes as the
wastes passed by on a conveyor system. This resulted in seven small, equally sized subsamples
from the waste stream. The subsamples collected from this point were mixed together after
collection was completed. In mixing the subsamples together, Foundry "A" formed a composite
sample for an individual waste stream. Foundry "A" decontaminated their sampling equipment,
went to the next sample collection point, and repeated the sampling and compositing process. The
same steps were followed with the third waste stream. The composite samples were sent to the
laboratory for analysis. One week after the first sampling event, Foundry "A" repeated the entire
process. The second set of samples was sent to the laboratory for analysis. One week after that,
the third and final composite sample set was taken. The last set of composite samples from each
waste stream was sent to the laboratory for analysis. Foundry "A" has collected three composite
samples for each individual waste stream, each taken during separate generating events.

Resampling

Note: Resampling is required whenever the process generating the waste changes in accordance
with 329 IAC 10-9-4 (e)(2).

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 12 11/2007
G. Analysis

Two separate subsections follow for analysis for the purpose of Waste Determination and Waste
Classification:

Waste Determination Analysis

As stated earlier, if generator knowledge is insufficient, inconclusive or indicates a need to perform

testing, analysis must occur for the purposes of waste determination.

Also as stated earlier, information must be collected on individual waste streams. 329 IAC 10-9-4
(o) specifies the required extraction methods, constituents for analysis, and the analytical methods,
The complete list of TCLP constituents and regulatory limits are found in 40 CFR 261.24, Table 1
and in Table III of this document. Testing is not required for any constituents not introduced or
created during the process. For example, the TCLP list includes several herbicides and pesticides
that are not used by industry or created in the manufacturing process. Those pesticides and
herbicides can be eliminated from consideration for testing.

Waste Classification Analysis

329 IAC 10-9-4 (o) specifies the required extraction methods, constituent for analysis and the
analytical methods for waste classification purposes. The commissioner may accept additional or
alternative testing methods if the test methods provide an equivalent level of accuracy and
reliability per 329 IAC 10-9-4 (l).

329 IAC 10-9-4 contains the constituent concentration for each restricted waste site type. This
information is also included in Table I and Table II of this guidance.

As with the procedures for waste determinations, testing for analytes listed in Table I will be
performed using TCLP extraction procedures or totals analysis. In specific cases, totals testing for
metals may be acceptable in lieu of TCLP testing. Totals testing may be accepted only when the
90% single-tailed upper confidence limits derived from Student’s t analysis for all observed
constituent levels are below twenty (20) times the TCLP regulatory threshold for each constituent.
Regardless of whether TCLP or total levels are analyzed, the same parameters require testing.

Testing for analytes in Table II will be performed using Leaching Method (Neutral) extraction
procedures. Leaching Method (Neutral) is an extraction procedure that is performed in the same
manner as TCLP, with two major differences. These differences are that no acidification of the
sample occurs, and the extraction fluid is deionized water instead of a buffered acidic aqueous

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 13 11/2007
solution. Please note that testing for Table II constituents is not required for Type I restricted
wastes. IDEM will issue a Type I waste classification based on the waste determination data (see
Section A).
A note concerning common analytical errors: Notice that the pH measurement listed in Table II
is the pH of the Neutral Leach extract, measured and documented immediately at the end of the 18
hour extraction period. Please advise the laboratory to include adequate documentation to ensure
the pH was measured using this method. It is also important to complete the analysis within the
holding time and to provide the chain of custody documentation.

After any testing, the data set obtained from the waste determination and classification
analyses as well as supporting documentation must be submitted to the IDEM. IDEM
personnel will review the data validation documentation. If the data is considered valid and
usable, IDEM personnel will perform a Student’s t statistical analysis on the data (using
standard error calculations). The 90% upper confidence limit generated as a result of this
manipulation will be compared to the regulatory thresholds listed in Table I, and/or Table II
to determine the waste classification [329 IAC 10-9-4 (k)]. The method and mathematical
formulas for performing the Student’s t statistical analysis are found in Chapter 9 of "Test
Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods" SW-846, 3rd Edition.
The generator may perform the statistical analyses using the above model, however, IDEM’s
findings will be used to determine the restricted waste type.

H. Waste Classification and Disposal

IDEM staff will notify the facility, in writing, of the classification of its waste(s) after reviewing
the analyses and accompanying information in accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4 (k). This includes
waste classification renewals. Once the waste classification has been issued, the generator has
the following options:

 Type I, II, III, and IV waste may be disposed of in restricted waste sites permitted for that
waste type or better. For example, a Type II waste may be disposed of in a Type I or II
landfill but a Type I waste may only be disposed of in a Type I landfill.

 Type III foundry sand is also eligible for use in accordance with IC 13-19-3-7; no IDEM
approval is required once the waste classification is issued provided IDEM guidance for use
is followed. Please note that any use at a permitted landfill may require a modification to
the landfill’s permit.

 Materials which are certified as Type IV by IDEM do not require permitted waste disposal
sites. However, there are restrictions on Type IV disposal locations and disposal control
requirements, set forth in 329 IAC 10-3-4.

Note: All nonhazardous foundry wastes may be disposed in a Municipal Solid Waste Landfill as

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 14 11/2007
an nonhazardous solid waste in accordance with Indiana’s Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities
Rule (329 IAC 10) without obtaining a waste classification.

Titles of Rules and Guidance

Rules
Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities Rule (329 IAC 10)
Hazardous Waste Management Permit Program (329 IAC 3.1)

Guidance
“Storage of Type III Foundry Sands Prior to Legitimate Use” (ID No. WASTE-0027-NPD)
“Use of Foundry Sands in Accordance with House Enrolled At 1541" (ID No. WASTE-0028-
NPD)
“Use of Foundry Sand in Land Application and as a Soil Amendment” (ID No. WASTE-040-NPD)
“Understanding the Hazardous Waste Determination Process” (ID No. 00056-01-HW)
“Guidance to the Performance and Presentation of Analytical Chemistry Data” (ID No. WASTE-
032-NPD)

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 15 11/2007
 Table I.

Parameters and Classification Ranges using TCLP Methods

Parameter Concentrations (mg/l)

Type I Type II Type III Type IV

Arsenic <5.0 1.3 0.50 0.05

Barium <100 25 10 1.0

Cadmium <1.0 0.25 0.10 0.01

Chromium <5.0 1.3 0.50 0.05

Lead <5.0 1.3 0.50 0.05

Mercury <0.2 0.05 0.02 0.002

Selenium <1.0 0.25 0.10 0.01

Silver <5.0 1.3 0.50 0.05

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 16 11/2007
 Table II.
Parameters and Classification Ranges for the Leaching Method (Neutral)

Parameter Concentrations (mg/l)

Type I Type II Type III Type IV

Chlorides * 6,300 2,500 250

Copper * 6.3 2.5 .25

Cyanide (Total) * 5.0 2.0 0.20

Fluoride * 35 14 1.4

Iron * * 15.0 1.5

Manganese * * .50 .05

Nickel * 5.0 2.0 .20

Phenols * 7.5 3.0 .30

Sodium * 6,300 2,500 250

Sulfate * 6,300 2,500 250

Sulfide (Total) * 13.0 5.0 1.0

Total Dissolved Solids * 12,500 5,000 500

Zinc * 63 25 2.5

pH (Standard Units) * 4.0-11.0 5.0-10.0 6.0-9.0

* Testing is not required

PLACE CURSOR HERE AND PRESS HOME KEY TWICE

This will allow you to insert a file here. To do this go to the top menu and selecting Insert, then
File..., and then selecting the name of your existing document text file and click on the Insert
button. You will get a message asking if you want to “Insert the file into the current document”,
just tell it Yes/OK. A copy of the file will be inserted wherever the cursor was before you told it to
insert the file. The text is red is hidden text and it will not print out. If you do not want to see the
“hidden text” on your screen, just go the to menu above and go to View, then click on Hid

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 17 11/2007
 Table III
Parameters and Regulatory Limits Using TCLP Methods

EPA HAZ. WASTE NO. CHARACTERISTIC/CONTAMINANTS REG. LEVEL (mg/L)

D004 Arsenic 5.0
D005 Barium 100.0
D018 Benzene 0.5
D006 Cadmium 1.0
D019 Carbon Tetrachloride 0.5
D020 Chlordane 0.03
D021 Chlorobenzene 100.0
D022 Chloroform 6.0
D007 Chromium 5.0
D023 O-Cresol 200.0
D024 M-Cresol 200.0
D025 P-Cresol 200.0
D026 Cresol 200.0
D016 2,4-D 10.0
D027 1,4 -Dichlorobenzene 7.5
D028 1,2 - Dichloroethane 0.5
D029 1,1 - Dichloroethylene 0.7
D030 2,4 - Dinitrotoluene 0.13
D012 Endrin 0.02
D031 Heptachlor (and its Hydroxide) 0.008
D032 Hexachlorobenzene 0.13
D033 Hexachlorobutadiene 0.5
D034 Hexachloroethane 3.0
D008 Lead 5.0
D013 Lindane 0.4
D009 Mercury 0.2
D014 Methoxychlor 10.0
D035 Methyl Ethyl Ketone 200.0
D036 Nitrobenzene 2.0
D037 Pentachlorophenol 100.0
D038 Pyridine 5.0
D010 Selenium 1.0
D011 Silver 5.0
D039 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7
D015 Toxaphene 0.5
D040 Trichloroethylene 0.5
D041 2,4,5 - Trichlorophenol 400.0
D042 2,4,6 - Trichlorophenol 2.0
D017 2,4,5 - TP (Silvex) 1.0
D043 Vinyl Chloride 0.2

OLQ-SHW-GUIDANCE-ID#0124 18 11/2007
 09-01-15
Indiana DOT Specification for Foundry Sand (2015)

200-R-401 RECYCLED FOUNDRY SAND (Revised 06-18-15)

Description
Recycled foundry sand, RFS, consists of a mixture of residual
materials used from ferrous or non-ferrous metal castings and natural
sands. The Contractor shall have the option of incorporating RFS into
applicable operations in accordance with 105.03.

Materials
RFS sources are to be selected from the Department’s list of
approved Foundry Sand Sources. RFS may be substituted for B borrow or
Borrow upon the approval of the Office of Geotechnical Services.

The Contractor shall provide a copy of the Indiana Department of

Environmental Management’s, IDEM, waste classification certification
for Type III or IV residual sands prior to use. The IDEM certification
shall clearly identify the stockpiles with regard to their extent and
geographical location.

The Contractor shall provide the Engineer with a type A

certification in accordance with 916 for RFS prior to use of the
materials. The type A certification shall consist of applicable
laboratory tests results of gradation. Consultants on the Department’s
list of approved Geotechnical Consultants shall perform the testing of
RFS materials.

RFS use is restricted to the following additional requirements:

1. RFS derived from Type III residual sand shall not be

allowed within 100 ft, horizontally, of a stream, river,
lake, reservoir, wetland or any other protected
environmental resource area.
2. RFS derived from Type III or Type IV residual sand shall
not be placed within 150 ft, horizontally, of a well,
spring, or other ground source of potable water.
3. RFS shall not be allowed adjacent to metallic pipes, or
other metallic structures.
4. RFS shall not be used as encasement material.
5. RFS shall not be used in MSE wall applications.
6. RFS placement shall be at least 2 ft above ground water
elevation.

If RFS is used in embankment, excavation and replacement

operations as a replacement for B borrow or borrow, the following
additional restrictions will be required.

1. Borrow: RFS shall be in accordance with 203.

2. B borrow: RFS shall be in accordance with 211.

Construction Requirements
RFS shall be transported in a manner that prevents the release of
fugitive dust and loss of material. Adequate measures shall be taken
during construction operations to control fugitive dust from RFS. RFS
shall not be applied when wind conditions result in problems in
adjacent areas or result in a hazard to traffic on any adjacent
roadway. The spreading of RFS shall be limited to an amount that shall
be encased within the same workday. If weather causes stoppage of work
200-R-401
1 of 6
 09-01-15

or exposes the RFS to washing or blowing, additional RFS may be spread

when the work resumes. Spraying with water, limewater, or other sealing
type sprays will be considered to be acceptable methods for dust
control.

When RFS is used as borrow or B borrow, the lift thickness and

compaction of the materials shall be in accordance with 203.23. The
dynamic cone penetrometer, DCP, criteria will be determined by a test
section in accordance with ITM 514. The DCP testing will be performed
in accordance with ITM 509. The moisture content shall be controlled in
accordance with 203.23. The test section shall be constructed in the
presence of a representative of the Office of Geotechnical Services.
When RFS is used as B borrow, the DCP criteria for the granular soils
shall be used in accordance with 203.23. Nuclear density testing of RFS
will not be allowed.

When RFS is used in embankment construction, the sideslopes of

the RFS shall be encased with 1.5 ft of non-RFS borrow materials. All
RFS shall be encased with a minimum of 1 ft of non-RFS borrow materials
prior to the completion of construction operations in a calendar year.
The encasement materials shall be placed and compacted concurrently
with the RFS lifts. Encasement materials not meeting the AASHTO M 145
Classifications of A-6 and A-7 shall be submitted to the Office of
Geotechnical Services for approvals.

Method of Measurement
RFS applications will be measured in accordance to the respective
uses for borrow or B borrow.

Basis of Payment
RFS will be paid for at the contract unit price in accordance
with the respective uses for borrow or B borrow.

No payment will be made for the transportation, handling, or any

special construction requirements such as alternative compaction means
or encasement activities, when using RFS materials.

The cost of the use of water, limewater, sprays, or other

activities necessary for dust control, shall be included in the cost of
the respective pay item.

The cost of geotechnical testing for the use of RFS materials

shall be included in the cost of the respective pay item.

RECYCLED FOUNDRY SAND SOURCE APPROVAL CRITERIA

The following procedures covers the requirements for Foundry Sand

source approvals or otherwise prescribed subject matter to be added,
maintained and removed from a Department’s approved list.

The procedures for approval may involve hazardous materials,

operations, and equipment. These procedures do not purport to address
all of the safety problems associated with the use of the product. The
source’s responsibility is to establish appropriate safety and health
practices and determine the applicability of regulatory limitations
prior to use.

General Requirements
200-R-401
2 of 6
 09-01-15

1. A source, requesting approval for addition to the Department’s

list, shall provide to the Office of Materials Management the
following:

(a) Name and location of source or manufacturer,

(b) List of material and specification reference for the
material that the approval is being requested,
(c) Average monthly production of the material by size, type or
grade,
(d) Name, address, and telephone number of responsible contact
person,
(e) Facility layout or production process of the material,
(f) Quality parameters of the material,
(g) Raw material sampling and testing frequency,
(h) Procedures for conforming materials which provides a
positive linkage between the furnished materials and the
quality control test data,
(i) Procedures for non-conforming materials,
(j) Procedures for marking and tracking materials,
(k) Procedures for documentation maintenance,
(l) Finished material sampling and testing frequency,
(m) Procedures for reviewing and updating the source
operations,
(n) Testing laboratory quality system,
(o) Names, titles and qualifications of sampling and testing
personnel,
(p) Location and telephone number of the laboratory testing
office,
(q) Sample management describing procedures for samples
identification, maintenance of the samples prior to
testing, sample retention and disposal of samples,
(r) Testing report procedures,
(s) Methods used to identify improper test results and
procedures followed when testing deficiencies occur,
(t) Statistical analysis of test results, and
(u) Maintenance of test records

The application shall be signed and dated by the source’s or

manufacturer’s representative at the time the application is submitted
for acceptance. The application shall be maintained to reflect the
current status and revisions shall be provided to the Department in
writing.

2. Testing may be required which will be performed outside the

Department’s laboratories. A recognized laboratory shall be
the following:

(a) A State transportation agency testing laboratory,

(b) A testing laboratory regularly inspected by the AMRL, or
(c) A testing facility approved by the Department.

Approval Requirements
In addition to the general requirements, the source shall also
submit the following to the Office of Materials Management.

(a) Name of Testing Facility

(b) Dates samples were obtained
(c) Dates samples were tested
200-R-401
3 of 6
 09-01-15

(d) Test method used for IDEM classification

(e) Letter from IDEM indicating the waste classification of the
materials
(f) Test results for TCLP and neutral leachate
(g) Stockpile sampling locations, including depths and
available historical testing results
(h) Gradation test results
(i) Recycled Foundry Sand (RFS) Source Certification

The Recycled Foundry Sand (RFS) source certification is included

as Attachment A. A new approval submission shall be required when re-
sampling is required in accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4(e) (2). (In
accordance with 329 IAC 10-9-4 (e)(2) for foundry waste, re-sampling is
conducted: at two-year intervals whenever the process changes or
according to a schedule for re-sampling by the IDEM Commissioner based
on variability noted in previous sampling and other factors affecting
the predictability of waste characteristics.)

When metal concentration of the Type III residual sand exceeds

80% of the allowable limits within IDEM classification, an
indemnification clause is required. The "Recycled Foundry Sand (RFS)
Indemnification Clause" is included as Attachment B.

Maintaining Approval
Test reports shall be generated in accordance with specification
requirements for the material and submitted monthly to the Office of
Materials Management. If the material is not produced by the source in
a given month, the monthly submittal shall state:

“No _____________ was manufactured during _____________________.”

Material month/year

Samples of material may be obtained randomly for verification at

the source or at the point of incorporation into the work in accordance
with 106.02.

The source shall provide written notification of any changes,

revisions or updates of their operations, source name or address,
contact person or product name to the Office of Materials Management.

To maintain approval, a summary of new stockpile test results for

the acceptance analysis shall be submitted monthly indicating testing
every 2,000 t. Tested and approved RFS stockpiles shall be properly
signed for easy identification. If no new stockpiles are created in a
given month, a letter indicating, "no new RFS stockpiles for month/year
were created" shall be submitted to the Office of Materials Management.

Removal from Approved List

A source will be removed from the approved list for the
following, but not limited to, reasons:

(a) Test failures determined by Department verification

sampling,
(b) Monthly test reports not provided for three consecutive
months,
(c) Test reports generated by the source which indicate non-
compliance with specification requirements, or
(d) Performance of the product no longer meets the intended
purpose.
200-R-401
4 of 6
 09-01-15

Attachment A

RECYCLED FOUNDRY SAND (RFS) SOURCE CERTIFICATION

This is to certify recycled foundry sand (RFS) stockpiles

geographically located as follows:
RFS ___________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

RFS was produced by the ________________________ __________________

Company located in ___________________ (City), and _________________
(State) and was shipped for use on Indiana Department of Transportation
projects is Type _________________ (III or IV) material according to
the IDEM’s restricted waste criteria. If any metal concentration
exceeds 80% of the allowable limits for a Type III material the foundry
shall provide the Department with an acceptable indemnification clause.
The _________________ RFS source also agree that processes and
stockpiles associated with the production of such RFS may be inspected
and sampled at regular intervals by properly identified representatives
of the Department or a duly assigned representative.

_______________(Date of Signing)___________________ (RFS Producer)

_______________________________________________ (Title)

_______________________________________________ (Signature)

State of ____________________ SS: County of _____________________

Subscribed and sworn to before me by __________________________________

of the firm of __________________ this ________ day of ________ 20__

________________________ Notary Public

My Commission Expires: ________

This certification has been reviewed and approved by:

____________________________________________________________
(INDOT Representative) Date

Attachment B

RECYCLED FOUNDRY SAND (RFS) INDEMNIFICATION CLAUSE

______________ RFS producer shall indemnify, defend, exculpate, and

hold harmless the State of Indiana, its officials, and employees from
any liability of the State of Indiana for loss, damage, injury, or
other casualty of whatever kind or to whomever caused, arising out of
or resulting from a violation of the federal or Indiana Occupational
Safety and Health Acts (OSHA), the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA), or any other environmental law, regulation,
ordinance, order or decree (collectively referred to hereinafter as
"Environmental Laws"), as a result of the supply, testing, and
200-R-401
5 of 6
 09-01-15

application of residual sand or other materials supplied under this

Contract by _______________________________ source, whether due in
whole or in part of the negligent acts or omissions of: (1)
_________________ Foundry, its agents, officers, or employees, or other
persons engaged in the performance of the contract; or (2) the joint
negligence of them and the State Of Indiana, its officials, agents, or
employees.

This contract shall include, but not be limited to,

indemnification from: (1) any environmental contamination liability due
to the supply, testing, and application of residual sand in road base,
embankments, or other projects designated by the Department as agreed
to by the parties, and (2) any liability for the clean up or removal of
residual sand, or materials incorporating such sand, pursuant to any
Environmental Law.

The RFS producer also agrees to defend any such action on behalf
of the State of Indiana, to pay all reasonable expenses and attorneys
fees for such defense, and shall have the right to settle all such
claims. Provided, however, that no liability shall arise for any such
fees or expenses incurred prior to the time that ______________ Foundry
shall have first received actual and timely written notice of any claim
against the State which is covered by this Indemnification Agreement.
If timely written notice of any claim hereunder is not received by
_______________ Foundry, and _________________ Foundry is thereby
prejudiced in its ability to defend or indemnify, then to the extent of
such prejudice, this Indemnification Agreement shall be void.

This Indemnification Agreement does not create any rights in any

third party, and is solely for the benefit of the State of Indiana and
its agents, officials, and employees.

200-R-401
6 of 6
 STATE OF OHIO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SUPPLEMENTAL SPECIFICATION 871
EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION USING RECYCLED MATERIALS
APRIL 15, 2005

871.01 Description
871.02 Materials
871.03 Environmental Requirements
871.04 Geotechnical Requirements
871.05 Construction Requirements

871.01 Description. This work consists of constructing embankments with recycled material and material
from other approved sources as necessary to complete the planned embankments. Item 203, Roadway
Excavation and Embankment shall apply as modified herein.

871.02. Materials. Only these materials will be allowed:

A. Fly Ash. Furnish Fly Ash conforming to ASTM E-2277.
B. Bottom Ash. Furnish Bottom Ash conforming to ASTM E-2277.
C. Foundry Sand. Furnish Foundry Sand that is generated from foundry operations.
D. Glass. Furnish Glass, Ceramic, or Earthenware with a maximum dimension of 1 inch any direction and, by
visual inspection, 95 percent free from foreign material. Glass containing hazardous wastes or hazardous
substances such as glass from automobiles, light bulbs of any kind, laboratory glass, television glass, computer
or other cathode monitor tubes is not suitable.
E. Tire Shreds. Furnish Tire Shreds as defined in ASTM D 6270 and the following:
1. Class 1 tire shreds shall have a maximum of 50 percent passing the 1-1/2 inch (38 mm) square mesh
sieve, and a maximum of 5 percent passing the No. 4 (4.75mm) sieve. All percentages are calculated by weight.
2. Class 2 tire shreds shall have a maximum of 25 percent passing the 1-1/2 inch (38 mm) square mesh
sieve and a maximum of 1 percent passing the No. 4 (4.75 mm) sieve. All percentages are calculated by weight.
3. Restrictions on all tire shreds are as follows:
a. Furnish tire shreds, which are not contaminated with fuels or lubricants.
b. Furnish tire shreds that have not been subjected to a fire.
c. Furnish tire shreds containing no more than 1 percent metal fragments which are not at least partially
encased in rubber. Metal fragments that are partially encased in rubber shall protrude no more than 1 inch (25
mm) from the edge of the tire shred on 75 percent of the pieces and no more than 2 inches (50 mm) on 100
percent of the pieces. All percentages are calculated by weight.
d. Furnish tire shreds with at least one sidewall severed from the tread of each tire.
e. Furnish tire shreds with a maximum dimension of 8 inches (200mm) measures in any direction.
f. Furnish tire shreds free from wood chips, other fibrous organic matter, ice and snow.
F. Natural soil. Furnish natural soil conforming to 203.02.I.
G. Natural Granular Material. Furnish natural granular material conforming to 203.02.H and conforming to
the gradation and physical requirements of 703.16.C, Granular Material Type B.

1
 H. Drainage Material. Furnish aggregate drains conforming to Item 605. Completely wrap the aggregate
drains with geotextile fabric. As an alternative, 707.45 pipe may be furnished, provided that the inner end of
the pipe is completely wrapped with 712.09 Type A fabric.
I. Geotextile Fabric. Furnish geotextile fabric conforming to 712.09 Type A.

871.03. Environmental Requirements. Use recycled materials that conform to all current environmental
policies, rules, and regulations and the following:
Fly Ash, Bottom Ash, and Foundry Sand. Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Policy 0400.007 "A
Beneficial use of Nontoxic Bottom Ash, Fly Ash and Spent Foundry Sand and other Exempt Wastes.” Provide a
certified letter from the Local Ohio EPA Chief allowing the use of this material on the project.
Glass. Provide a certified letter from the Local Ohio EPA Chief allowing the use of glass on the project.
Tire Shreds. Ohio Administrative Code 3745-27-78.
Select an independent consultant pre-qualified by the Department for environmental site assessment and
remedial design to prepare the notification documents. The consultant shall coordinate all Ohio EPA required
meetings, documentation, and testing. The consultant shall monitor the construction according to 203.03.I. to
ensure that the environmental requirements are carried out on the project. The consultant shall report any
discrepancies to the Department and the Contractor. The consultant shall certify the report or reports to the
Department.
Submit to the Engineer for approval, prior to use, documentation that demonstrates compliance with all
current environmental policies, rules and regulations.

871.04. Geotechnical Requirements. Select an independent soils consultant pre-qualified by the

Department. The consultant shall:
A. Classify the Materials. Classify Fly Ash, Bottom Ash and Foundry Sand according to Ohio Department of
Transportation, Division of Planning, Office of Geotechnical Engineering, Specifications for Subsurface
Investigations. When fly ash is used, clearly identify it as self-hardening, (Class C), or non self-hardening fly
ash, (Class F).
Classify Tire Shreds according to ASTM D-6270.
B. Perform an Engineering Analysis to demonstrate that the material is suitable to construct the planned
embankments. The engineering analysis shall include;
1. a stability analysis
2. a stability sensitivity analysis
3. a total settlement analysis
4. a total settlement sensitivity analysis
5. a differential settlement analysis
6. a differential settlement sensitivity analysis
Perform the appropriate laboratory tests necessary to validate the assumptions used in the engineering
analysis.
C. Prepare moisture density curves or relative density results for the recycled materials that is required for
compaction acceptance.
D. Submit to Engineer 30 days prior to use:

2
 1. The location where recycled materials will be used for embankment construction in the project plan,
profile, and cross-section views.
2. The estimated volume of embankment to be constructed using recycled materials.
3. All electronic files for the Engineering Analyses.
4. A summary of the Engineering Analysis, tests and proposed compaction acceptance information.
E. Receive Engineer’s approval prior to use.
871.05. Construction Requirements.
A. Fly Ash.
Figure 871.05.A

Place and compact a 1 foot (0.3 m) layer of natural granular material on the prepared foundation. Spread Fly
Ash in horizontal loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (200 mm). Compact Fly Ash at 3 percent below optimum
moisture or dryer. Uniformly apply and evenly mix water into dry material. Disc and aerate wet material.
Compact the lifts to a stable, durable condition with at least eight passes of a vibratory steel wheel roller. The
roller shall have a minimum weight of 10 tons (9 metric tons) or its centrifugal equivalent.
Compact lifts to: 100 percent of the AASHTO T-99 Maximum Density or, 98 percent of the Supplement
1015 Test Section Maximum Density.
Cover the sides and top of Fly Ash embankment with natural soil. The minimum vertical cover is 3 feet, (1.0
m) (measured from subgrade elevation). The minimum horizontal cover is 8 feet, (2.5 m) (measured from final
slope line).
Install the drains detailed in 871.02.H at 50 foot (15 m) intervals on both sides of the embankment.

3
 B. Bottom Ash.
Figure 871.05.B

Place Bottom Ash on the prepared foundation in horizontal loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (200 mm).
Compact Bottom Ash at 3 percent below optimum moisture or dryer. Uniformly apply and evenly mix water
into dry material. Disc and aerate wet material.
Compact the lifts to a stable, durable condition with at least eight passes of a vibratory steel wheel roller. The
roller shall have a minimum weight of 10 tons (9 metric tons) or its centrifugal equivalent.
Compact lifts to: An ASTM D-4253/D-4254 Relative Density of 70 percent or, 100 percent of the AASHTO
T-99 Maximum Density or, 98 percent of the Supplement 1015 Test Section Maximum Density.
The Engineer will use the density determined by Supplement 1015 to resolve conflicts that may occur using
the other methods.
Cover the sides and top of Bottom Ash embankment with natural soil. The minimum vertical cover is 3 feet,
(1 0m) (measured from subgrade elevation). The minimum horizontal cover is 8 feet, (2.5 m) (measured from
final slope line). Install the drains detailed in 871.02.H at 50 foot (15 m) intervals on both sides of the
embankment.

4
 C. Foundry Sand.
Figure 871.05.C

Place Foundry Sand on the prepared foundation in horizontal loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (200 mm).
Compact the lifts to a stable, durable condition with at least eight passes of a vibratory steel wheel roller. The
roller shall have a minimum weight of 10 tons (9 metric tons) or its centrifugal equivalent. Compact lifts to 98
percent of the Supplement 1015.06 Test Section Method B Maximum Density.
Cover the sides and top of Foundry Sand embankment with natural soil. The minimum vertical cover is 3
feet, (1.0m) (measured from subgrade elevation). The minimum horizontal cover is 8 feet, (2.5 m) (measured
from final slope line).
Install the drains detailed in 871.02.H at 50 foot (15 m) intervals on both sides of the embankment.
D. Glass. Place Glass on the prepared foundation in horizontal loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (200 mm).
Water is not needed to aid compaction of Glass lifts. Compact the lifts to a stable, durable condition with at
least eight passes of a vibratory steel wheel roller. The roller shall have a minimum weight of 10 tons (9 metric
tons) or its centrifugal equivalent. Compact lifts to 98 percent of the Supplement 1015 Test Section Maximum
Density. Alternate lifts of glass with lifts of natural soil. Construct 4 inches (100mm) of natural soil on the
outside slopes using the construction details for topsoil placement in 659.11. Do not use glass within 3.0 feet
(1.0m) of the subgrade.

5
 E. Tire Shreds.
Figure 871.05.E

Place and compact a 1 foot (0.3 m) layer of natural granular material on a prepared foundation.
Place a layer of Geotextile Fabric, (712.09 Type A) on top of the Natural Granular Material. Place Tire
Shreds in horizontal loose lifts not to exceed 8 inches (200 mm).
Compact each lift of Tire Shreds to a stable, durable condition with eight passes of a steel wheel roller. The
steel wheel roller shall have a minimum weight of 10 tons (9 metric tons) or its centrifugal equivalent.
Place additional Tire Shred lifts to construct a Tire Shred layer. The maximum layer thickness for Class 1
Tire Shreds is 3 feet (1.0 m). The maximum layer thickness for Class 2 Tire Shreds is 10 feet (3.3 m).
Separate Tire Shred layers completely from natural granular material and natural soil by enclosing the top,
bottom and sides of the of Tire Shreds with Geotextile Fabric. Alternate natural granular material layers with
Geotextile Fabric enclosed Tire Shred layers. Cover sides and top of Tire Shred embankment with natural soil.
The minimum vertical cover is 5 feet, (1.5 m) (measured from subgrade elevation). The minimum horizontal
cover is 8 feet, (2.5 m) (measured from final slope line).
Place a 1 foot (0.3 m) of natural soil surcharge on the subgrade for 60 days. Do not use tire shreds for the
bedding and backfill of any conduit or retaining wall. Do not use tire shreds for embankment construction
within 100 feet, (30.0m) of any structure.

6
 Designer Note for Supplemental Specification 871, Embankment Using Recycled Material
This specification was written to allow the Districts to use recycled materials in embankment construction.
It was written to safely use these recycled products without jeopardizing the embankment or pavement
integrity or long-term performance. The Department does not require the use of recycled materials because this
specification does not eliminate all risk or liability to the Department, it only minimizes such risks.
The utilization of this specification is totally at the Districts discretion. Districts are advised to consider all
the plusses and potential problems prior to allowing these materials.
Benefits:
Recycled materials can be cheaper and provided engineering improvements to the embankment construction.
For example, fly ash and tires can provide lighter weight materials.
By using these materials, the Department will save land fill space in the state. The Department may minimize
the potential future legislation that would require the use of these materials. (Note: A few years ago, the state
legislators required us to allow petroleum contaminated soil for embankment material.)

Potential Problems:
Once these materials are placed on ODOT property, then the recycled materials will become the
responsibility of the Department. ODOT will assume any future liability and costs for removal and proper
disposal of material according to future EPA regulations. In the future, if this embankment is repaired then the
material may have to be disposed of in a landfill, if required by EPA regulations.
A small percentage of tire fills have spontaneously combust into fires. Fly ash is silt and may be susceptible
to frost heave and capillary action. Both problems are minimized by the engineering controls in the
specification.
The District may pick and choose which recycled material to use or allow all of the recycled materials.
The District may allow different materials at certain locations along the project.
No change in the cross sections are needed to include SS-871 in the plans. This specification delineates the
areas that the recycled materials are allowed.

Use the following plan note to incorporate SS 871 in the contract.

Embankment Construction Using Recycled Materials.
On this project, Supplemental Specification 871 Embankment Construction Using Recycled Materials
applies. ____________________________(Put in the materials wanted or needed) may be substituted for Item
203 Embankment in the contract.
The Department will measure and pay for all work detailed in SS-871 according to the Unit Bid Price for
Item 203 Embankment.