Life Cycle Assessment

Life cycle Assessment of 9 recovery methods

for end-of-life tyres

There are three main aims for life cycle assessment of ELT* To evaluate the environmental advantages of each of the 9 recovery methods used in the sector. To compare the environmental impacts generated and avoided for each method. To identify the key points that require vigilance in the field’s economic optimisation phase.

* End-of-life tyres.

Aims of the study

1 - Retention basin 2 - Infiltration basin 3 - Cement works 4 - Urban heating 5 - Steel works 6 - Foundry 7 - Moulded objects 8 - Synthetic floors 9 - Equestrian floors

Material recycling

Substitute products

Energy recycling

Civil engineering recovery

Part-worn tyres

Whole tyres

Shredded tyres

Granulates

Wire

Landfill 2

Storage used tyresA

Collecting / sorting

B

Storage at the transformation site

C

ShreddingD

Granulation E

Retention basin1

Steel works5

Concrete block / plastic block

Cement works3

Wood, coal, gas, fuel

Scrap metal

Infiltration basin

2

Gravel, miscellaneous…

Urban heating4

Wood, coal, gas, fuel

Steel works5

Anthracite

Foundry6

Foundry coke

Moulded objects7

Elastomers

Synthetic floors8

EPDM elastomers

Equestrian floors9

SandTextile fibres

The 9 recovery methods that are representative of LCAThe study was carried out in the course of a complete year of activity. 2008 was chosen as the reference because it was representative of Aliapur’s current and future activities (300,309 tonnes of tyres collected and recovered in 2008).

Context Aliapur decided to conduct the Life Cycle Assessment of End-of-Life Tyres (ELT) at a time when the sector had reached a degree of maturity, making it possible to have consistent data available.

2002 : Creation of Aliapur

2004 : Start of collection, sorting and recovery operations. The R&D department implemented a flow and environmental impact study.

2008 : Stabilisation of the activity The data available make it possible to draw up a preliminary report. Aliapur orders from Ecobilan PwC a Life Cycle Assessment in accordance with the ISO 14040 and ISO 14044 standards. >12-month study

2010 : Publication of the results

How is a Life Cycle Analysis carried out ?

Defining the aims

‰

Collecting tangible data (limited use of bibliographic data)

‰

Modelling / calculation of impacts

‰

Interpreting the results

+ Critical review by renowned, independent experts

Introduction

Definition of Life cycle Assessment (ACV)Life cycle Assessment is a method for assessing the overall environmental impact of a product from the production of its raw materials to the waste processing at the end of the product’s life. The method is the subject of the ISO 14040 and 14044 standards.

How does the used tyre recovery field work?

Methodology

Public works recovery1 - Retention basin - mature method2 - Infiltration basin - mature method

Energy recycling3 - Cement works - mature method 4 - Urban heating - emerging method

Material recycling5 - Steel works - mature method 6 - Foundries - emerging method 7 - Moulded objects - mature method 8 - Synthetic floors - mature method 9 - Equestrian floors - emerging method

destructive method / non destructive method

Selecting the 9 representative methodsThe Life Cycle Assessment of ELT is based on 9 recovery methods that are representative of the sector.

The aim of choosing these methods is to understand the sector in the totality of its components, as defined on the basis of 3 criteria:

• type of recovery method: public works, energy, material

• the level of maturity of the recovery method: - mature method: with a high contribution to

recovery in terms of tonnage - emerging method: with considerable potential

• eliminating ELT or giving them a second life: destructive or non destructive methods

Defining an appropriate functional unit for the studyFor each recovery method, the environmental impact is calculated for the same service rendered: recovering one tonne of ELT from a given collection point.

LCA is based on calculations per tonne, which:

- guarantees that the results can be compared method by method,

- makes possible future weighting in relation to the tonnages recovered.

Determining the substitution rate The solutions based on ELT and alternative solutions are compared for a given service rendered, that is, in particular for identical life spans.

Example:- Average life span of synthetic turf using ELT granulates = 10 years- Average life span of synthetic turf using granulates from EPDM (ethylene propylene diene Monomer) = 4 years> 1 “ELT turf” ≈ 2.5 “EPDM turfs”

* if necessary

Choosing the limits of the systemIn order to provide the analysis with a framework, a choice was made to define the limits of the study:

Collection Sorting Transfer*Granulation * or Shredding* Transfer Recovery

Taking into account 8 characteristic environmental indicators The Life Cycle Assessment of ELT is based on eight fundamental indicators:

In addition, toxicology and ecotoxicology studies were carried out on the ELT.These studies are available in the R&D section at www.aliapur.fr.

• total primary energy consumption • contribution to the greenhouse effect• consumption of non renewable resources • acidifying gas emissions

• water consumption • tropospheric oxygen formation• contribution to eutrophication • production of non dangerous waste

The outcome of end-of-life products For the non destructive methods, the outcome of the end-of-life products is not taken into account: • this conforms to current practices,• there is no feedback currently available.

Limits of the stages in the system • The study does not concern all used tyres, but only

ELT.• The collection (all products) and sorting stages

are nevertheless taken into account in the overall report.

Transport impact This is a key point in any recovery study. Ecobilan PwC worked on the basis of all the 140,000 transport slips from 2008 which were used and processed in their entirety.

Status of ELT and accounting for material energy • With regard to material energy, the hypothesis

retained is as follows: - ELT are waste materials considered to have been

abandoned by their users, - using their real energy potential (NCV) is

considered to be free and does not result in any counting of primary energy consumption.

• As this choice is decisive for the results regarding primary energy, a sensitivity analysis was carried out. It was considered that 50% of the material energy consumption would be imputed to the person who abandoned the tyre and 50% to the user of the ELT, that is the recovery method studied.

Discussion points

Substitution effects and avoidance scenariosEnvironmental assessment is calculated stage by stage for each criterion.The overall impact for each criterion is: • on the one hand, the sum of the results for each stage,• on the other, the comparison of this overall result with the impacts generated and avoided.

Overall environmental report =

impacts generated by the stages needed to recover the ELT–

impacts avoided by substituting the ELT for “traditional” products

Results

9 methods compared, 8 indicators: a wealth of data and resultsEcobilan PwC chose to present the results by means of more than 100 graphs and comparative tables.A document summarising all the results is available in the R&D section at www.aliapur.fr.For each indicator an assessment in figures was carried out stage by stage, as was a comparison of the various recovery methods in relation to their avoidance scenarios.

Example of greenhouse gas emissions: the case of synthetic turf.

The presence of negative values indicates that the recovery process is more respectful of the environment.

In the context of the LCA of End of Life Tyres, three profiles stand out: 1 • synthetic turf, moulded objects and cement works = proven benefits 2 • retention basins, infiltration basins = minimal benefits

3 • other recovery methods = intermediate benefits (gains that are more or less marked, depending on the indicators)

These results may evolve with the emergence of new transport, shredding, granulation technology etc.

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

> Absolute data stage by stage

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

> Overall and comparative environmental impact in relation to the avoidance scenario (EPDM)

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

> Position of the gain from using ELT as substitutes in synthetic turf among the 9 recovery methods studied

Example of water consumption: the case of synthetic turf.> Absolute data stage by stage > Overall and comparative

environmental impact in relation to the avoidance scenario (EPDM)

> Position of the gain from using ELT as substitutes in synthetic turf among the 9 recovery methods studied

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

Recovery 78%

Recovery 74%

Transfer for recovery 0%Sorting 0%

Syntheticturf

Report Avoided impacts

Recyclingimpact

Mouldedobject

Equestrianfloor

Retentionbasin

Infiltrationbasin

Cementworks

Urbanheating

Greenhouse effect (in kg CO2-equivalent)

Water consumption (in m3)

Steelworks

Foundry

The presence of negative values indicates that the recovery process is more respectful of the environment.

Conclusion

Globally positive results The Life Cycle Assessment made it possible to identify that, under present conditions, all the recovery methods studied have environmental benefits, regardless of the impact taken into consideration.

Justified investment in the preparation stages The study revealed that the impact of the collection, sorting and shredding/granulation stages is secondary in relation to the benefits obtained from the recovery process.

The hierarchy* of recovery methods brought into doubt The LCA shows that the environmental assessment of material recycling methods is not systematically better than that of energy recycling methods.

Projects and future perspectivesAs a result of the analysis, Aliapur’s R&D department intends to continue carrying out studies, in particular: - analysis of future recovery methods, - taking into account the end of the second life of the products used in non destructive methods until their

total elimination.

*Hierarchy in the methods for managing waste mentioned in article 4 of the European Union directive (n°2008/98/EC) concerning waste.

ALIAPUR71, cours Albert Thomas - 69003 Lyon - FRANCETél : +33 (0)4 37 91 43 20 - Fax : +33 (0)4 78 54 67 14www.aliapur.fr - contact@aliapur.fr

Main contributors

Febr

uary

201

0 - P

hoto

s : M

iche

l Dja

oui e

t pho

toth

èque

Alia

pur -

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

Members of the critical review teamHenri Lecouls - LCA expert, Panel coordination

Jacky Bonnemains - Robin des BoisGuy Castelan - Plastics EuropeWalter Klöpffer - International Journal of Life Cycle AssessmentDidier Laffaire - Association Technique Industrie des Liants HydrauliquesLars-Gunnar Lindfors - Swedish Environmental Research Institute - IVLJean-Sébastien Thomas - ArcelorMittal

Project teamCatherine Clauzade - R&D - Aliapur

Philippe Osset, Charlotte Hugrel, Aude Chappert, Maxime Durande - Ecobilan PricewaterhouseCoopers

FRENCH LEADER IN USED TyRE RECOVERy