uk waste tyre data

8/14/2019 Uk Waste Tyre Data

1/57

Final Report

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre

Programme and a Forecast of the

UKs Used Tyre Market up to 2015

Project code: TYR031

Research date: September 2007-March 2008 Date: November 2008


2/57

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and

local authorities to reduce waste and

recycle more, making better use of

resources and helping to tackle climatechange.

Written by: Georgina Le Neve Foster

Front cover photography: Used Tyres. [www.tyrerecycling.com]

WRAP and Environmental Resources Management believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of

recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition,

care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context,

etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken

to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibili ty or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being

inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain

whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by

WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to thematerial being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must

not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAPs endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAPs Terms & Conditions on its

web site: www.wrap.org.uk
http://www.erm.com/erm/main.nsf/pages/homepagehttp://www.erm.com/erm/main.nsf/pages/homepage


3/57

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre Programme and a Forecast of the UKs Used

Tyre Market up to 2015 1

Executive SummaryEnvironmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM) was commissioned by WRAP to carry out a project with the

following two specific objectives:

1 to review the impact of the three year WRAP Tyres Programme and to assess its effectiveness in terms of

successes, failures and missed opportunities.

2 to carry out forecasts up to 2015 for the UK used tyre market. The aim was to suggest the predicted

tonnage growth or decline in the main UK used tyre sectors based on current trends, perceived economic

changes and information from the used tyre industry. It included consideration of the maximum and

minimum market potential for the main UK tyre sectors up to 2015.

In order to gain feedback from the tyre industry on the WRAP three year programme, ERM sent key stakeholders

a detailed questionnaire asking for their views on the Programme. ERM also asked stakeholders to predict how

the industry was seen to be progressing and which management routes they felt were going to decline or grow.

The response rate to this questionnaire was not as high as expected but the feedback received was valuable and

provided a good insight into the effectiveness of WRAPs tyre programme and the industry overall.

WRAPs Tyres Programme was generally very well received by stakeholders with over half of those who

responded stating that the overall programme had been effective. There were a small number of negative

comments relating to the promotion activities associated with some projects and how projects were selected for

funding. Feedback on the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) documents was very positive and stakeholders

recognised these as the most successful publications. Nearly all respondents who mentioned these documents

felt that they had had a significant impact on the tyre industry. Stakeholders felt that the Tyres Programme had

provided a useful awareness raising and information provision tool.

ERM created a number of scenarios to illustrate how the used tyre industry is likely to look up to 2015. These

scenarios were based on ERMs knowledge of the industry and feedback from key stakeholders.

In terms of changes to the market in the future, ERM believes that the tonnage of tyres sent for retread andreuse will remain fairly constant with a reduction occurring in the export and landfill engineering market. The

recycling industry is likely to grow as demand for rubber for use in road surfacing or construction increases and

as new and emerging technologies such as cryogenics come in to the market. It is believed that energy recovery

through burning tyres in cement kilns will remain strong due to a continued need for more environmentally sound

alternative fuels.

The greatest impact on future management routes for used tyres is likely to be from changes to environmental

policy and legislation. The banning of tyres (whole and shredded) from landfill has meant that alternative

markets have needed to be found to dispose of used tyres. Similarly, legislative controls would impact on the

future management routes of used tyres, with excess tyres needing alternative disposal or management routes.

Climate change policies are also expected to have an impact on future markets. The carbon footprint of products

is clearly on the environmental agenda and processes that result in a reduction in carbon dioxide such as

retreading and reuse are likely to be considered more favourably by the industry as a whole.


4/57

Contents1.0 Proj ect Object ives .................................................................................................................... 32.0 Approach .................................................................................................................................. 33.0 In troduction to WRAPs Tyr e P rogramm e................................................................................ 44.0 Review of WRAP Pro ject s......................................................................................................... 45.0

Stakeholder Feedback on WRAP Tyre Prog ram me .................................................................. 5

5.1 Where has WRAP had the most and least influence?................................................................65.2 Which WRAP projects have been the most and least valuable?.................................................65.3 Could the Programme have been improved in anyway?............................................................75.4 Was the Programme resourced adequately?............................................................................85.5 What impact did WRAP have in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the collection,segregation and disposal of waste tyres?.............................................................................................85.6 WRAPs influence in developing alternative end uses and end markets for used tyres ................9

6.0 Key Con clu sions of Rev iew of Tyre P rogramm e..................................................................... 10 7.0 Used Tyre Ari sings.................................................................................................................. 12

7.1 Growth Rate 1: DfT Future Forecast ....................................................................................127.2 Growth Rate 2: 1.3% increase based on historic traffic growth...............................................13

8.0 Factors aff ect ing End Mark ets................................................................................................ 148.1 Past and Current End Markets ..............................................................................................148.2 Factors affecting End Markets ..............................................................................................158.3 Stakeholder Feedback on Future Markets..............................................................................158.4 Future End Markets .............................................................................................................16

9.0 Forecasti ng Used Tyre Ar isi ngs .............................................................................................. 179.1 Scenario Forecasts...............................................................................................................17

9.1.1 Scenario 1 ..............................................................................................................209.1.2 Scenario 2 ..............................................................................................................209.1.3 Scenario 3 ..............................................................................................................209.1.4 Scenario 4 ..............................................................................................................21

10.0 The Preferred Scenar io ........................................................................................................... 28 11.0 Conclu sions and ERM Forecasts ............................................................................................. 30

11.1 Reuse .................................................................................................................................3011.2 Retreading ..........................................................................................................................3011.3 Recycling ............................................................................................................................3011.4 Landfill Engineering .............................................................................................................3111.5 Energy Recovery .................................................................................................................3111.6 Landfill................................................................................................................................3111.7 Exports ...............................................................................................................................31

12.0 Acknow ledgem ents ................................................................................................................ 32 Appendix 1: Stakeholder Questi onna ire ............................................................................................ 33 Appendix 2 WRAP Programm e Review .............................................................................................. 44




5/57

Introduction

1.0 Project Objectives

WRAP commissioned ERM to carry out a project with the following two specific objectives:

1 to review the impact of the three year WRAP Tyres Programme and to assess its effectiveness in terms ofsuccesses, failures and missed opportunities.

2 to carry out forecasts up to 2015 for the UK used tyre market. The aim was to suggest the predicted

tonnage growth or decline in the main UK used tyre sectors based on current trends, perceived economic

changes and information from the used tyre industry. Further to this, it intended to consider the maximum

and minimum market potential for the main UK tyre sectors up to 2015.

2.0 Approach

ERM sent a detailed questionnaire to key stakeholders in the industry as agreed with WRAP. This questionnairesought feedback from the stakeholders on the impact of WRAPs three year Tyres Programme.

In order to develop a series of possible projections for the future handling of used tyres up until 2015, ERM

carried out desk-based research into factors which can impact on:

the volumes of used tyre arisings; and

the different methods of managing used tyres.

The stakeholder questionnaire also sought views on how the waste tyre industry is likely to change in the future.

It was also used to gain insight into the perceptions of the future markets of used tyres, and to provide

stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on how they felt the future would look in terms of disposal routes.

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre P rogramme and a Forecast of the

UKs Used Tyre Market up to 2015 3


6/57

Review of WRAPs Tyre Programme

3.0 Introduction to WRAP s Tyre Programme

WRAP funded a broad range of projects including the development of two PAS documents on tyre bales for use in

construction and the manufacture and storage of size reduced tyre materials, demonstration trials (such as theuse of post-consumer tyres to deliver sustainable construction of public rights of way), operational trials (such as

testing the incorporation of a new kind of ultra-fine crumb rubber into truck tyre compound) and R&D projects

(such as determining if crumb rubber would be a suitable aggregate replacement in concrete blocks and

assessing technical and operational details of waste tyres in landfill engineering applications).

Individual projects may address one of more of the overall aims of the Programme. The main objectives of the

WRAPs Tyre Programme were to:

Break down the barriers to the collection, segregation and reprocessing of waste tyres;

Develop alternative end uses for the recovered material; and

Develop the end markets for this material.

WRAP suggested five further objectives which were:

Market development;

Support funding;

Raising awareness;

Providing information; and

Overcoming legislative barriers.

ERM carried out a high level review of all WRAPs project outputs with the aim of assessing which have met

WRAPs objectives. ERM also sought feedback from stakeholders on the impact of the Programme via the

questionnaire in relation to these objectives (see Section 5.0).

4.0 Review of WRAP Projects

ERM assessed all 82 project outputs provided on the WRAP website that were commissioned over the three year

period against the overall aims and objectives of the Programme. ERM reviewed and assessed each publication to

determine whether they met WRAPs objectives. This high level review was done by a simple tick box exercise

against the five WRAP objectives: market development; support funding; raising awareness; providing

information; and overcoming legislative barriers. The results of this review are presented in Appendix 2.

The majority of the publications could be considered to meet theproviding informationand raising awareness

objectives as outputs were all published on the WRAP website and all intend to provide information on the project

or event to which they relate. The Stakeholder Forums provided a good means of networking and although not

necessarily raising awareness of the overall tyres industry, they enabled the different sectors to become moreaware of the Programme and the activities of other industry sectors.

PAS 107 and 108 met a number of WRAP objectives and were received favourably by the industry. They provide

information and are a means of regulating the industry in terms of ensuring that tyre bales and grades of rubber

are of a consistent and verifiable quality. In this sense they could also be considered to meet the objective of

overcoming legislative barriers. Methods which address better regulation in the sector result in improved

confidence in products. This helps stabilise markets and thereby helps to reduce market impacts such as the

Landfill Directive and End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive. Both Directives have increased the number of used

tyres needing alternative management.

Project TYR010 (UK Used Tyre Market 2004) is likely to prove useful to policy makers through the provision of

forecasts and market disruption planning scenarios.




7/57

From our assessment of the WRAP projects, it was clear that all case studies met the market development

objective as they were generally involved with research and development and were carrying out trials on

emerging ways of reprocessing and reusing tyres. A number of these projects also received support funding.

Table 1 below provides a list of all case studies on the WRAP website.

Table 1 WRAP Case Studies

Project Title Support Funding

Porthcawl Golf Course improving thoroughfaresEquestrian Surface, Tyre chip for an all-weather gallop

Car and Light Truck Retreads

Rubber in Rights of Way Construction

Cardiff Arms Park: Grass Improvement

Dunweedin: Tyre shred as horticultural mulch

Powder in Truck Tyre Retreads

Artificial Turf

Bridleways

Devulcanisation

Roof Slates

Tile Adhesives

Lightweight BlocksLandfill Leachate Layer

Shore Protection

Street Furniture

Duralay Carpet Underlay

Micro-Asphalt

Moulded Products

Playtop

Biffa Retreaded Tyres

Micro-asphalt for resurfacing footways and minor

carriageways

Use of tyre bales in embankment core for River Witham

Phase 23 flood defence contractUse of tyre bales as replacement for shingle in flood

defence scheme at Pevensey Beach

Use of tyre bales as replacement for unbound sub-base

and capping to repair damage to unsurfaced road

Projects involving different types of surfaces such as roads, rights of way, sports surfaces and landscaping were

generally all seen toprovide information. Some reports were considered to meet the objective ofmarket

developmentand others had received supportfunding.

The retread projects such as the Powder in Truck Tyre Retreads case study met the market developmentand

providing informationobjectives as they explored different uses for the powder. Other retread projects all were

considered toprovide information.

All publications and projects focusing on emerging technologies also met theproviding informationobjective.

The Market Study on the Demand for Char from Tyre Pyrolysis identifies a wide range of potential market outlets

for pyrolysis char in the UK and therefore could be considered to meet the market developmentobjective.

5.0 Stakeholder Feedback on WR AP Tyre Programme

70 tyre stakeholders were sent a detailed questionnaire asking for their views on the three year WRAP Tyres

Programme and on future markets for used tyres. 27 stakeholders (39%) responded and of these three did not

feel able to provide meaningful answers to the questions. Although this response rate is quite low, those who did

respond provided useful feedback on the WRAP Programme. This Section provides a summary of theseresponses.

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre Programme and a Forecast of the



8/57

5.1 Where has WRAP had the most and least influence?

Stakeholders were asked where they felt WRAP had had the most or least influence. They were asked to rank

which industry/product areas were most and least influential in terms of the following five objectives:

Market Development;

Support Funding;

Legislation and Standards;

Raising Awareness; and

Providing Information.

Figure 1 Ranked responses to the areas in which WRAP has had the most and least influence (5 = most

influence, 0 = least influence)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Market

Development

Support

Funding

Legislation &

Standards

Raising

Awareness

Providing

Information

Figure 1 shows that according to stakeholders WRAP has had most influence in providing information and on

legislation and standards the PAS documents were specifically mentioned by a large number of respondents.

Stakeholders commented on how WRAP had enabled a number of R&D projects to be funded, however they felt

it was too early to say if the Programme had impacted on market development. ERM recommends that WRAP

should repeat this question to the sector in a few years time when the industry has had time to develop further in

these areas.

5.2 Which WRAP projects have been the most and least valuable?

Stakeholders were asked which WRAP projects or initiatives were most and least valuable.

PAS 107 and 108 were generally very well received by the tyre industry. According to stakeholders, they have

been the most successful projects WRAP has commissioned. Stakeholders felt that these documents were of

most significance to their companies and had genuinely made a difference to the way in which the construction

industry views tyre products. The availability of standards helps break down market barriers, keeps the industry

properly regulated, allows businesses to show they are meeting industry expectations and ensures consumer

confidence.

Some stakeholders felt that the promotion of these documents could have been better. It was felt that

opportunities were missed with PAS 108 as it was not promoted in the relevant publications and therefore the

overall impact of the document was less than it could have been. These stakeholders were exclusively from the

used tyre reprocessor sector.




9/57

Despite this feedback, the stakeholders indicated that these two publications provided the industry with an

excellent piece of workthat will ensure the production of consistent products and that quality control is

maintained.

Two further respondents (not within the used tyre reprocessor sector) felt that the promotion of projects was

sometimes not adequate. Both of these respondents stated that this could have been due to either their location

or the fact that they do not work solely in the waste tyre industry, however, it is evident that there is potential for

improvement in this area.

The WRAP website was generally favourably received and stakeholders felt that it was very informative and

provided a wealth of material. However, one respondent felt that it was not very user friendly and would have

benefited from a summary and list of all the reports and projects undertaken. It was felt that WRAP had

contributed significantly in the provision of tools and research that could be used by specific markets rather than

providing any direct impact in market development. One respondent felt that it was down to the individual

sectors to make the best use of the resources provided by WRAP.

There were differing viewpoints on the way WRAP had funded certain projects. In some cases, it was felt that

money had not been well spent and better consultation should have been carried out before selecting projects to

fund. Some stakeholders felt that businesses should not receive any funding. Responses in this vein were

received from trade associations and used tyre reprocessors.

Other stakeholders felt that more funding would have been beneficial and would have resulted in larger R&D

projects and that more capital funding and promotional work was still needed. These responses came from a

variety of sectors including used tyre reprocessors, trade associations, consultancies and technology developers.

One stakeholder felt that although the work on tyre bales and roof tiles was very goodit could have been

promoted more effectively.

5.3 Could the Programme have been improved in anyway?

Stakeholders were asked how WRAPs tyre programme could have been improved. A small number of

respondents felt that support funding could have been improved in terms of how the decision process was carried

out and the fact that there should have been more funding for R&D projects. One respondent suggested that the

allocation of funding should have been a two-tier process so that successful R&D projects should be eligible toreceive more funding in a second commercial development phase. As mentioned in Section 5.2 above, these

responses were from a number of different sectors.

Nine respondents felt that more should have been done in their specific area and of those, four were from the

used tyre reprocessing sector.

Figure 2 Level of Improvement Necessary for WRAPs Tyre Programme

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

78

9

Significant Minor Unsure

Number of

Respondents




10/57

Figure 2 shows that there was some uncertainty as to whether the WRAP Programme needed to be improved.

40% of respondents (8 out of 20) felt that minor improvements were necessary. Respondents were unsure as to

the relevance of this question in view of the fact that the Programme was coming to a close.

It was felt that the Programme would have benefited from being five years rather than three years and that it

would have been improved if there had been the opportunity to draw lessons from what had been done.

5.4 Was the Programme resourced adequately?

Stakeholders were asked whether they felt the Programme was resourced adequately. 87% (20) of those who

responded to the questionnaire answered this question. Over half (11 respondents) felt that it had been

resourced well with only four stating that it had been under resourced.

Figure 3 Was the Programme Resourced Adequately

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Resourced Adequately Under Resourced Unsure

Number of

Respondents

5.5 What impact did WRAP have in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the collection,segregation and disposal of waste tyres?

Stakeholders were asked how WRAPs programme has impacted on barriers to the collection, segregation and

disposal of waste tyres.

Figure 4 shows the number of respondents who felt that WRAP had impacted on the breaking down of barriers to

the collection, segregation and disposal of waste tyres. There were no negative responses; however the data

shows that the majority of respondents were unsure. Stakeholders were not willing or did not feel happy to

speculate whether WRAP had positively or negatively impacted in this area.

Those who responded positively felt that market transparency had been improved by the work on charges and

market scenarios and that one of the biggest barriers to the industry is lack of awareness. It was felt that WRAP

had increased awareness in these areas, although that there was still room for improvement.




11/57

Figure 4 What impact did WRAP have in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the collection, segregation and

disposal of waste tyres?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Collection Segregation Reprocessing

Sig Positive Impact

Positive Impact

Unsure

5.6 WRAPs influence in developing alternative end uses and end markets for used tyres

In terms of developing end uses it was felt that WRAP had been influential in some areas through its support

funding of various R&D projects and its provision of market and technical information. Specific end uses that

stakeholders felt WRAP had helped to develop included roof tiles, using rubber in plasterboard and using ultra

fine ground post consumer tyres in truck tyre retreads. However it was felt that WRAP had not been particularly

influential in other areas, such as using rubber in roads, and that more could have been done to develop

materials to be used in construction.

From Figure 5 it is clear that the majority of respondents felt WRAP had had neither a positive nor a negative

influence in developing end markets for used tyres. WRAP has helped promote alternative solutions but it wasfelt that the final impact of these new markets would be dependent on current markets accepting these new

materials or products. According to one stakeholder, WRAPs contribution was more in the area of providing tools

and research rather than having any direct impact in market development. The respondent felt that it was the

responsibility of the individual sectors to make the best use of the resources provided by WRAP. Overall, it was

felt that in terms of general awareness raising and provision of information WRAP had been influential, although

two respondents felt that WRAP had not been at all influential in developing end markets and that there had been

no significant increase in the volume of recycling capacity within the UK.




12/57

Figure 5 What influence has WRAP had in developing alternative end uses for used tyre materials and end

markets for used tyres?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Developing alternative end uses forused tyre material

Developing end markets for usedtyres

Very InfluentialInfluentialNeutralNot very InfluentialNot at all Influential

6.0 Key Conclusions of Review of Tyre Programme

Overall stakeholders received the WRAP Tyres Programme favourably and felt it provided a useful awareness

raising and information provision tool. There were a small number of negative comments relating to how some

projects were promoted and how projects were selected for funding. The publications recognised as being the

most successful were the PAS 107 and 108 documents. Nearly all respondents who mentioned these documents

felt that they had had a significant impact on the tyre industry.

Respondents felt that the website was a good source of information but that it was up to the individual sectors to

make the best use of the resources that have been provided. A number of stakeholders felt that the TyresProgramme should have continued for five rather than three years.

Figure 6 shows that, overall, the WRAP Programme was effectivewith only two respondents stating that it was

not very effectiveand no stakeholders that it was not at all effective. This is a positive outcome for the Tyres

Programme.

Figure 6 How effective has WRAPs overall Tyres Programme been?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Very Effective Effective Neutral Not Very

Effective

Not at all

Effective

Number of

Respondents




13/57

It is important to note that although the responses received provided good and full feedback on the WRAP Tyres

Programme, only a relatively small number of stakeholders returned the questionnaires. From the responses it is

clear that there was an overall view that the programme had been effective, however these views do not

necessarily reflect the view of the whole industry. In order to obtain a more comprehensive view of the

Programme a response rate of at least 50% would be preferable.

An Assessment of WRAP s Tyre Programme and a Forecast of the



14/57

Forecast of UK Markets for Waste Tyres

7.0 Used Tyre Arisings

There are a number of factors that are likely to affect the volumes of used tyre arisings within the UK. These key

factors include:

the growth/decline in road transport use in the UK;

improved durability of tyre materials; and

policy or legislative changes.

Generally it is predicted that volumes of used tyres are expected to rise as car ownership increases and as the

number of miles driven per vehicle year is growing. However, improved durability of tyres could potentially curb

this growth and the increased use of public transport, for example, in response to rising fuel prices and initiatives

to reduce carbon emissions, could mean that cars are being used less frequently resulting in longer tyre lifetimes.

In order to forecast future waste tyre arisings in the UK, ERM assumed that used tyre arisings would increase at

the same rate as traffic growth. Two different methodologies were used to predict the arisings of waste tyres inthe UK up to 2015. Both used baseline figures from the Department for Transport (DfT) and traffic growth rates

based on traffic trends. However, one scenario is based on historic data and the other on forecasts.

7.1 Growth Rate 1: DfT Future Forecast

The DfT forecast traffic growth rate up to 2025 used baseline data from 2003. These were the most recent

forecast figures published in 2007. These forecasts are split by cars, Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and Heavy

Goods Vehicles (HGVs). It is forecast that LGV traffic will increase most rapidly as it has generally increased in

line with GDP in past. Car traffic growth follows that of total traffic very closely due to the fact that cars make up

a high proportion of total traffic. HGV traffic has grown more slowly than car traffic.

In terms of used tyre arisings, ERM applied these percentage growth rates to DTI waste tyre arisings data for

2004. This was considered a more appropriate baseline year and provided more realistic arisings data when

compared to actual data from 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Table 2 below provides a summary of the percentage growth rates from the DfT forecast from 2003 to 2010 and

2015 retrospectively.

Table 2 Percentage Traffic Growth Rates

2010 2015

DfT Categorisation 1

Cars 11% 20%

LGVs 17% 34%

HGVs 4% 6%

ERM Assumptions

Car 11% 20%

4x4 11% 20%

Van & light truck 17% 34%

Truck & bus 4% 6%

1 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/economics/ntm/071023_AnnualForecast07.pdf




15/57

7.2 Growth Rate 2: 1.3% increase based on historic traffic growth

The DfT has reported on road traffic increases from 2001-2005. This provides details on increases in car, light

commercial vehicles and goods vehicles and an overall increase of all vehicle types. In order to forecast future

tyre arisings, ERM used the average of the total growth rates and assumed that tyre arisings would increase in

line with traffic growth.

This assumes a growth rate of tyre arisings of 1.3% per annum from 2007 to 2015.

Figure 7 below shows the difference between the two growth rates. It is clear that there is an insignificant

difference between them. For the future management route scenarios, ERM has used Growth Rate 1: DfT

Forecast.

Figure 7 Growth Rate Scenarios

350,000

400,000

450,000

500,000

550,000

600,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

DfT Forecast Grow th Rate 1.3% Grow th Rate

0




16/57

Figure 8 shows the management routes of used tyres from 1998-2006 using data from the DTI. It is clear from

this that recycling increased dramatically from 2002 and is now more constant. It accounts for the highest

tonnage of tyres managed in the industry. Disposal of tyres to landfill has tapered off dramatically as the bans on

whole and shredded tyres came into force. Energy recovery and landfill engineering have both increased, with

the other management routes remaining fairly constant.

Figure 8 Management of Tyres 1998-2006

Management of Tyres 1998-2006

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Reuse Retreading Recycling

Landfill engineering Energy recovery Landfill

Exports

8.0 Factors affecting End Markets

8.1 Past and Current End Markets

In the past a significant percentage (around 25%) of used tyres were disposed of via landfill. The ban on the

disposal of whole tyres (except bicycle tyres and tyres with a diameter greater than 1.4m) to landfill came into

force in 2003, with shredded tyres being banned from 2006. This has resulted in the tyre recovery industry

having to accommodate the large number of tyres that were originally sent to landfill. There were concerns that

this ban would result in more tyres being illegally dumped and stockpiled due to insufficient end-markets for

these tyres.

The increasing use of tyres as a fuel in cement kilns has helped to deal with the excess of tyres that were

previously sent to landfill. The burning of tyres in cement kilns was first trialled in the mid 1990s. Along with a

number of other processes such as landfill engineering, this has helped provide a solution to the large number of

waste tyres arising in the market.

The use of shredded tyres as a leachate drainage layer in landfill sites has also taken off in recent years, and

accounts for significant volumes that would previously have been disposed to landfill.

Until approximately 10 years ago, retreading was a preferred means of reusing passenger car tyre casings as it

effectively doubled the life of a tyre. However, the growth of the budget market for new tyres, particularlyimports from areas such as the Far East, made the process less economically viable. Consumer perceptions




17/57

regarding the safety of car retreads have also resulted in a reduced demand for these tyres. However there is a

strong market in the use of retreads in truck tyres. This is mainly due to the cost benefits of retreading these

tyres. For example, road hauliers almost invariably cost the use of these tyres per kilometre of road usage or per

millimetre of tread2.

The material recycling of used tyres was less prevalent in the past but has increased considerably over the last

few years and now is the largest management route for dealing with used tyres. In 1999 20% of used tyres

were recycled, and by 2005 33% of used tyres were recycled. The use of waste tyre granulate in products such

as sports and playground surfaces has become widespread with the increasing market demand resulting in thedevelopment of these industries.

8.2 Factors affecting End Markets

There are a number of factors likely to affect the future end markets of used tyres. The majority of these factors

have affected end markets in the past. This includes the introduction of new technologies, changes in global

market conditions and demand for different applications. These factors are listed below.

Possible environmental policy and legislative controls (eg ban on landfilling, cement kilns authorisations,

energy from waste incentives);

New emerging technologies which provide alternative outlets to traditional management routes;

Acceptance of waste tyre crumb as alternative materials in building and construction projects;

Global market conditions which affect new/retread tyre sales;

Restrictions on stockpiling;

Reduced demand for tyres in landfill engineering applications in the longer term;

Increased demand for tyres in flood defence applications;

Increased use of public transport;

Energy costs;

Longer tyre life/lighter tyres; and

Possible uptake of pyrolysis and cryogenic reprocessing facilities.

8.3 Stakeholder Feedback on Future Markets

According to the stakeholder responses, the greatest impact on future management routes for used tyres is likely

to be environmental policy and legislative controls. The banning of tyres and shredded tyres from landfill has

meant that alternative markets have needed to be found to dispose of used tyres. Climate change policies are

also likely to have an impact on future markets. The carbon footprint of products is clearly on the environmental

agenda and therefore processes that result in high carbon dioxide (CO2) reduction such as retreading and

recycling are likely to be considered more favourably.

Other factors that stakeholders felt were likely to have an impact on future management routes include:

uses of tyres in flood defence there is likely to be a greater need for flood defence applications particularly

with the recent weather patterns in the UK;

the cost of energy;

the reduced demand for tyres in landfill applications;

increased use of public transport and longer life or lighter tyres could reduce the arisings of used tyres;

new and emerging technologies;

acceptance of rubber crumb for use in construction, road resurfacing; and

greater acceptance of retreading and that recycling tyre rubber can be used in the manufacture of new tyres.

2AEA Technology, Overcoming Market Barriers for Key Stakeholders in Retread Tyre Markets, A Report produced for DTI and

The Retread Manufacturers Association (RMA) http://www.retreaders.org.uk/aeatreport.htm




18/57

In terms of new and emerging management routes for used tyres, stakeholders suggested a number of routes

they felt were likely to be used for tyre disposal and recovery in the future. These were:

Sonic, thermal and electrical insulation;

Protective coatings;

Wear, corrosion and impact resistance;

More specific applications for granulate and crumb;

Potential for use in electric arc steel furnaces - this depends on the way steel making develops in the UK;Water jetting;

South Wales cryogenic plant;

More products from tyre reprocessing;

Pyrolysis;

Partial devulcanisation; and

Increased use of recycled rubber in new tyres

8.4 Future End Markets

Factors such as legislative controls and environmental policy (as mentioned in Section 8.2 above) will remain the

factor likely to have the greatest impact on management routes/end markets as these are often mandatory and

therefore the industry are obliged to react to the new requirements. According to BERR however the likelihood of

any new measures in this area in the immediate future may be limited.

Within the cement kiln industry, burning of tyres is dependent on the permits issued by the EA, as well as being

limited by kiln technology. If permits are granted, the cement kilns are allowed to replace a percentage of fuel

with tyres. If regulations change and tyres are no longer accepted at these plants, alternative markets will need

to be found. However, in ERMs view this is unlikely to occur. Other issues impacting on the number of tyres

being sent to cement kilns include the competition from other waste materials which are seen as possible fuel

sources such as RDF. The availability of other materials can impact on gates fees charged by the cement kilns

and fluctuating gate fees can result in cement kilns proving to be less popular options.

However, the increased costs of fossil fuels could result in an increased demand for tyres in cement kilns as they

are a cheaper and more environmentally beneficial fuel. Assessing the carbon impacts of industrial operations,

products and services are increasingly being discussed with a view to reducing these impacts. The cement-

making process gives off carbon dioxide, so finding other methods of reducing emissions is important in this

industry, particularly for European cement companies which are regulated under the EU emissions trading

scheme. Alternative fuels are therefore encouraged in order to reduce the carbon footprint and emissions from

the plant. It is likely that tyres will continue to be used in cement kilns in the foreseeable future. Tyres and

other waste fuels such as RDF provide a more environmentally beneficial fuel as they are burning a waste rather

than a virgin material.

Weather conditions in the UK could potentially impact on the outlets for waste tyres as it may be possible to

utilise baled tyres in flood defence schemes. Approximately 100 scrap tyres are used in the production of onebale. However, in ERMs view this is presently unlikely to result in the diversion of significant tonnages of waste

tyres.

New and emerging technologies such as cryogenic reprocessing facilities may open up new end markets and

result in a higher demand for tyres to in these areas. The first plant opened in Neath Port Talbot in South Wales

in 2007 and predicts that 70% of the rubber crumb will be used to turn into artificial sports surfaces. New

technologies such as these will inevitably have an impact on the industry creating new outlets for the recovered

material from used tyres. As demand increases in these areas, it could impact on other management routes.

Landfill engineering for example is likely to decline in the longer term due the general decline in the use and

favourability of landfills. However, if there is a wider acceptance among operators that shredded tyres are a

good material to use for leachate drainage layers, then the market in this area is likely to remain stable.

Although the use of landfills to dispose of waste are expected to decline in the future, there is likely to be a

continuing need for landfill disposal space for in the immediate future. Processes such as cryogenics could

potentially provide the additional capacity required to deal with the excess of tyres as other management routes




19/57

diminish. However, these processes are only viable if a market exists for their end products. For example, if the

demand for rubber in sports surfaces declines the demand for tyres in processes such as cryogenics will also

decrease.

The use of rubberised asphalt is becoming increasingly popular as the shock-absorbing properties of rubber

provide an added safety factor and the material provides a more durable road surface and decreases noise

pollution. If the use of tyres in roads increases it could result in a significant number of tyres being recycled and

therefore increase demand in this area.

Economic drivers will also impact on the future markets and end management routes for used tyres. If higher

value markets emerge or become more prevalent lower value markets will be displaced. The used tyre market is

demand driven and management routes will react to this demand. If higher value markets such as the cement

kiln sector increase their demand for and reliance on tyres as a feedstock, the lower value markets such as

landfill engineering are likely to suffer.

9.0 Forecasting Used Tyre Arisings

WRAP commissioned Oakdene Hollins to provide a study of the UK Used Tyre Market in 2004. This report sought

to provide arisings and recovery/disposal data for 2004 and to compare these findings with the Used Tyre

Working Group (UTWG) figures. Various assumptions were made and detailed modelling was undertaken to

arrive at figures that could be used with confidence. Oakdene Hollins also prepared a report on Used TyreMaterial Flows and Market Analysis. The report suggested a number of change scenarios in the UK and their

potential effects on the tyre market.

In order to develop predictions for future waste tyre end markets, ERM developed a spreadsheet model. ERMs

forecasts of tyre arisings are based on the Used Tyre Working Group/DTI (now BERR) figures. Oakdene Hollins

figures were considered, but it was considered that, for consistency, it would be more appropriate to use data

from one source from 1998-2006. It is important to note that data for 2006 are indicative and have not yet been

finalised.

The stakeholder questionnaire asked respondents to provide forecasts of what they considered likely to happen

with the management routes of tyres in the future. ERM used these responses and our own knowledge of the

tyre industry to produce four different scenarios to illustrate how used tyres could potentially be disposed of in

the future by showing the tonnages and percentage increases/decreases of tyres likely to be sent to each

management route.

9.1 Scenario Forecasts

ERM developed four different scenarios based on responses from stakeholders and our own knowledge of the

industry. All the scenarios are based on arisings data using the DfT forecast growth rate (see Section 7.1).

The source data provided by the DTI is presented in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Used Tyre Arisings and Management Data 1998-200 6 (tonnes)

Fate - TOTAL 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006*

Other (unknown) 13,950 -7,516 99 46,597 46,958 -7,044 11,517 -27,476 -48,278

Reuse 82,880 61,265 72,157 78,217 66,020 61,951 86,077 88,631 85,920

Retreading 75,949 65,896 55,765 49,179 52,474 51,473 54,841 57,427 58,770

Recycling 48,616 83,000 74,500 107,000 105,000 160,000 162,500 162,500 162,500

Landfill engineering 25,530 31,000 26,500 16,100 29,000 14,500 29,000 59,000 100,000

Energy recovery 84,300 70,000 54,000 40,000 48,000 77,500 72,500 85,750 100,000

Landfill 99,868 122,959 166,569 144,404 99,456 85,456 58,797 60,746 29,500

TOTAL 431,093 426,605 449,590 481,496 446,908 443,837 475,232 486,578 488,412

* NB It is important to note that 2006 data are indicative and at the time of writing had not been finalised.

These data have been used as the basis for ERMs forecasts. The Other (unknown)fate shown in the tableincludes estimations of tyres in stockpiles and other unknown fates. It is clear that these data vary considerably




20/57

from year to year and it is impossible to predict what is likely to happen in the future. Therefore, for our

purposes in forecasting future tonnages this fate has been omitted.

Figure 9 below shows the four scenarios and the difference between the six available management routes. These

will be described in more detail in the following sections.




21/57

An Assessment of WRAP s Tyre Programme and a Forecast of

Scena

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200

Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engi

Scena

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 200

Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engi

Scenario 1

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering Energy recovery Landfill Exports

Scenario 3

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering Energy recovery Landfill Exports

Figure 9A Comparison of the Four Scenarios


22/57

9.1.1 Scenario 1In this scenario reuse, retreading, energy recovery and exports remain constant. The only management routes

that change are recycling and landfill engineering. Market demand for tyres, particularly for use in road surfaces,

will result in an increased need for used tyres to be recycled. Other factors likely to increase the number of tyres

being recycled include sports surfaces although this is unlikely to result in such a significant increase in tonnages

in this area. Landfill engineering is predicted to decrease as landfill in general becomes less favourable.

Table 4 shows the proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route used in this scenario.These growth rates were applied to the tonnages for specific years using the DfT arisings forecast (as mentioned

in Section 9.1). For example, the 2009 growth rate was applied to the years 2007 to 2009, the 2012 growth rate

was applied to 2010 to 2012 and the 2015 growth rate was applied to 2013 to 2015.

Table 4 Proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/ disposal route: Scenario 1

Percentage (% )Management route

2009 2012 2015

Reuse 10 10 10

Retreading 10 10 10

Recycling 31 33 35

Landfill engineering 25 23 21Energy recovery 19 19 19

Exports 4 4 4

TOTAL 100 100 100

9.1.2 Scenario 2In this scenario a number of the management routes change. Both recycling and energy recovery are predicted

to increase. Recycling, as mentioned above, will continue to rise due to new and emerging technologies resulting

in an increased demand for tyres in this area. In scenario 2 it is believed to grow more rapidly than in Scenario 1.

Energy recovery is predicted to increase slightly due to increased fossil fuel costs resulting in the industry looking

for alternatives to fuel their plants. Reuse is also predicted to increase as demand grows for bales in flooddefence. Both landfill engineering and the export market are predicted to decrease. Landfill engineering will

decrease more rapidly than in Scenario 1 due to landfills themselves declining in popularity. The export industry

could potentially decline as other countries tighten up regulations in this area. Retreading will remain constant as

there will always be a market for this form of reuse in the truck tyre industry.

Table 5 below shows the proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route in this scenario.



2009 2012 2015

Reuse 4 5 6Retreading 13 13 13

Recycling 40 42 45

Landfill engineering 15 11 9

Energy recovery 23 23 24

Exports 6 5 4

TOTAL 100 100 100

9.1.3 Scenario 3In this scenario, the greatest difference is that energy recovery is predicted to decline. From discussions with

industry it is felt that this is unlikely, however it is included here as a scenario to show what could potentiallyhappen if cement kilns began to use alternative fuels other than tyres, or if gate fees increased to the extent that




23/57

it would discourage tyre collectors from taking tyres to these plants. In this instance, the tyres that would have

been used in energy recovery are now being either recycled or reused meaning that these management route

tonnages increase. It was also predicted that the retread and export industry would also decline with landfill

engineering remaining constant.



2009 2012 2015Reuse 12 15 18

Retreading 12 11 10

Recycling 34 37 41



Exports 8 7 5

TOTAL 100 100 100

9.1.4 Scenario 4In Scenario 4 reuse and retreading remain constant. It is felt that these management routes will fluctuate theleast within the industry and that they will increase in line with arisings. Recycling and energy recovery are

predicted to increase as other management routes begin to decline. As mentioned previously, new and emerging

technologies will increase demand in tyres in recycling and as fossil fuel costs increase alternatives will be sought

to as a fuel for cement kilns. Landfill engineering will gradually decline as landfill generally becomes less

favourable and exports are predicted to decline as legislation in other countries becomes tighter.



2009 2012 2015

Reuse 13 13 13

Retreading 12 12 12Recycling 35 37 38



Exports 7 5 5

TOTAL 100 100 100

The following figures show the four different scenarios by management route and the potential variations that

could occur within the industry by 2015. The figures also show an estimated average for each of the four

management routes indicated as a straight line trend over the period to 2015.

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre Programme and a Forecast of the



24/57


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

2006

2007

2008

Tonnes

Figure 10 Reuse

Reuse

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tonnes

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4


25/57


Figure 11 Retreading

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

Tonnes

Retreading

0

0

0

0

0

0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

Tonnes



26/57


Figure 12 Recycling

Recycling

0

0

0

0

0

0

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

50,00

100,00

150,00

200,00

250,00

Tonnes


0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006

2007

2008

2 0 0 9


27/57


Figure 13 Landfill Engineering

Landfill Engineering

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tonnes


20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2006

2007

2008

Landfill Engineering

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Tonnes

Scenario 4Scenario 3Scenario 2Scenario 1


28/57


0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 14 Energy Recovery

Energy Recovery

0

50,000

,000

,000

,000

,000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

100

150

200

250

Tonnes



29/57


Figure 15 Exports

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

2006

2007

2008

2009

Exports

0

50,000

000

000

000

000

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

100,

150,

200,

250,

Tonnes



30/57



10.0 The Preferred Scenario

ERM provided WRAP with a simple forecast model in which users can alter the percentages of used tyres being

sent to each management route in order to see what impact this will have on the other sectors within the

industry. Figure 16 below provides an example of the output of this model and shows the preferred scenario

used for this model.

This model is based on Scenario 4. It was felt that this scenario provided the best estimate as to what was likelyto happen to used tyre management routes in the future. The choice of this scenario was based on information

provided by key stakeholders and from our own knowledge of the industry. ERM also looked at the best fit lines

on the figures above and it was clear that Scenario 4 had the closest fit to this line and therefore it could be

considered to be the best scenario using this method.

In ERMs view Scenario 4 presents a realistic picture of the way in which the future management routes of used

tyres might look. The reasonings behind this will be discussed in more depth in Section 11 however Table 8

below provides a brief summary.

Table 8 Summary of the Likely Future M anagement Routes of Used Tyres

Management Route Decrease/

Increase?

Further Comments/Reasons

Reuse Remain constant There will always be a market for this management route.

It has the potential to increase if processes such as baling

become more prominent in, for example, flood defence

schemes. However, in ERMs view it will increase

proportionately to the increase in used tyre arisings.

Retreading Remain constant This will remain constant although it is predicted to increase

slightly in terms of truck tyres, with car tyre retreading

decreasing over time. Overall, therefore, the tonnage of

tyres being sent to this management route will remain

relatively stable.

Recycling Increase Applications such as sports surfaces and horticultural uses

are likely to grow and there is also a potential market

increase for rubber in construction and for use in roads.

Landfill engineering Decrease This will decrease as landfill void space declines and as

more environmentally sound and efficient technologies for

dealing with waste are being introduced.

Energy recovery Increase This is likely to continue to grow as the cost of fossil fuels

increase and as alternative, more environmentally sound

fuels are required in cement kilns.

Exports Decrease The market is difficult to predict, however as regulations in

other countries become tighter it is likely to decline.


31/57

Figure 16 Scenario 4

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering Energy recovery



32/57

Key Conclusions11.0 Conclusions and ERM Forecasts

11.1 Reuse

It is predicted that the reuse of used tyres will remain fairly constant and that there will always be a market forthese tyres. Reuse does have the potential to increase if processes such as baling become more prominent

through uses such as flood defence schemes. With predicted changes to weather patterns in the UK, it is likely

that improved flood defence schemes will be required and that the demand for such products will remain.

However, flood defence scheme are unlikely to offer large volume markets in themselves.

Emerging technologies such as surface repolymerisation could also result in an increase in the reuse and

retreading market. This process enables crumb rubber from waste tyres to be incorporated into retread

compounds at much higher rates than before.

11.2 Retreading

Overall tonnage of tyres sent for retreading is likely to remain relatively constant although there will be a slight

increase in retreading of truck tyres, accompanied by a decrease in car tyre retreading.

Until recently retreading was a preferred means of reusing used car tyres as it effectively doubled the life of a

tyre. Despite the improved quality of retreads, there has been a continuing decline in the passenger car retread

market. Imports have also made the process less economically viable as cheaper new car tyres have been

introduced into the market. Consumer perceptions regarding the safety of car retreads has also resulted in a

reduced demand for these tyres. However there is a strong market in the use of retreads for trucks. This is

mainly due to the cost benefits of retreading these tyres. For example, businesses sometimes cost the use of

these tyres per kilometre of road usage or per millimetre of tread3. It is therefore possible to conclude that the

truck tyre retread market will remain strong but it is unlikely that car tyre retreading will be a significant

management route for the reuse of these tyres.

11.3 Recycling

The recycling of tyres is predicted to increase. Applications such as sports surfaces and horticultural uses are

likely to grow and there is also a potential market increase for rubber in construction. A cryogenics facility

opened in 2007 (which is expected to process 30,000 tpa of tyres) and around 70% of this crumb will be used in

sports surfacing. Aquablast (water jetting facility) is potentially opening in 2008 which uses high pressure water

jets to remove tyre rubber from the reinforcing steel in earthmover tyres. The introduction of these technologies

could potentially result in more demand for used tyres to feed into these processes; however, these are only

viable if there is a market for the output. If, for example, the demand for rubber in sports surfaces declines the

demand for tyres in processes such as cryogenics will also decrease.

The use of rubberised asphalt is becoming increasingly popular. The shock-absorbing properties of rubber

provide an added safety factor and the material provides a more durable road surface and decreases noisepollution. Trials have been carried out (funded by WRAP) in order to test these surfaces as they have the

potential to use high tonnages of used tyres. If the use of tyres in roads increases it could result in a significant

number of tyres being recycled and therefore increase demand in this area.

This management route encompasses numerous different processes for the recycling of used tyres and also

provides the largest management route, with approximately 33% of used tyres being processed via this route.

This and the fact that the recycling of tyres provides one of the best means of dealing with the arisings means

that the development of new technologies is likely to continue in this area.

3

AEA Technology, Overcoming Market Barriers for Key Stakeholders in Retread Tyre Markets, A Report produced for DTI andThe Retread Manufacturers Association (RMA) http://www.retreaders.org.uk/aeatreport.htm




33/57

11.4 Landfill Engineering

The use of tyres in landfill engineering is likely to remain stable for the next few years. It does have the potential

to tail off in long term as the use of landfill generally declines. As sites for landfills are harder to acquire, void

space declines and new, more environmentally sound technologies are introduced for dealing with waste the

overall use of landfills will decrease. This will clearly result in reduced demand for tyre shred in landfill

engineering and this market is likely to decline in the future. However, there is currently still demand for

shredded tyres as an engineering material and therefore it is likely to remain relatively stable in the short term.

11.5 Energy Recovery

In terms of energy recovery, it is felt that the use of tyres in cement kilns is likely to increase. However, there is

a risk that this use of tyres might be banned through new regulations, or that gate fees will increase and this

would create huge implications to the tyre industry, with a potential 20% of used tyres having to find other

means of disposal. This could potentially be picked up via the reuse and recycling routes such as baling.

The increased costs of fossil fuels could result in an increased demand for tyres in cement kilns as they are a

cheaper and more environmentally beneficial fuel. Assessing the carbon impacts of industrial operations,

products and services are increasingly being discussed with a view to reducing these impacts. The cement-

making process gives off carbon dioxide, so finding other methods of reducing emissions is important in this

industry, particularly for European cement companies which are regulated under the EU emissions tradingscheme. Alternative fuels are therefore encouraged in order to reduce the carbon footprint and emissions from

the plant. It is likely that tyres will continue to be used in cement kilns for the foreseeable future.

11.6 Landfill

From July 2006 all tyres (except for bicycle tyres and tyres with a diameter greater than 1.4m) have been banned

from landfill apart from those being used for landfill engineering purposes. There is the potential for a very small

percentage of tyres still to end up in landfill.

As this is now such a minor route, we have not provided any forecast for the number of tyres likely to be sent to

landfill in the future.

11.7 Exports

The export of used tyres is quite difficult to forecast. However, it is likely to decrease. The Oakdene Hollins

study Used Tyres Material Flows and Market Analysis Market Disruption Planningstated that as importing

countries are tightening road traffic legislation and/or restricting imports while they deal with their own tyre

surpluses it is likely that the export industry will decline. Imports in to developing countries can also be restricted

to help protect local industries.

The majority of stakeholders who provided forecasts of future used tyre arisings stated that the export industry

would either decline or remain constant; none felt that it was likely to increase which mirrored the view of

Oakdene Hollins. ERM believes that it is difficult to predict what will to happen to this management route, but is

also of the view that it is likely to decline as other management routes become stronger and as legislation in

other countries becomes tighter.

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre P rogramme and a Forecast of the UKs Used



34/57

12.0 Acknowledgements

ERM would like to thank the various industry stakeholders who provided information and feedback for this

project.

An Assessment of WRAPs Tyre P rogramme and a Forecast of the UKs Used



35/57



Appendix 1: Stakeholder Questionnaire

PART 1 - Wraps 3 Year Tyres Programme

ERM has been commissioned by WRAP (Waste & Resources Programme) to undertake a review of their tyres

programme work and the impact it has had on the used tyre industry. In order to carry out this review, astakeholder consultation is required.

WRAPs three year Tyres Programme was launched in April 2005. Its aims were to:

break down the barriers to the collection, segregation and reprocessing of waste tyres;

develop alternative end uses for the recovered material, and

develop the end markets for this material.

WRAPs Tyres Programme has pursued these aims through a number of projects under the following five

headings:

MARKET DEVELOPMENT

End product marketing campaign focussing on surfacing

Retread campaign focussing on the LCV sector

SUPPORT FUNDING

Research & Development

o Rubber/Plastic Roof Tile;

o Building Block including rubber;

o Rubber backing for plasterboard;

o Polymer coated rubber in retread compound ando Effects of de-vulcanisation.

Trials

o Fine crumb in retread compound.

Rubber multi modal roadway;

o Rubber/plastic pipe sleeve;

o Rubber in bridleways.

Capital Infrastructure

o Aquablast (Water Jetting of large tyres down to 2mm);

o Bristol Tyre Shredding (Shredding down to 2mm);

o McGrath Bros (Shredding down to 25mm).

Market Readiness

o Rubber/Plastic composite railway sleeper;

o Roof Tile accreditation;

o Rubber plaster accreditation.

LEGISLATION & STANDARDS

Development of PAS107


Listing of standards applicable to used tyre reprocessing

Work on tyre shred/crumb Quality Protocol


36/57



RAISING AWARENESS

Four Stakeholder Forums

Rubber in Roads

Rubberised Asphalt Testing

Articles in trade magazines

PROVIDING INFORMATIONWRAP website

Over twenty Case Studies

Sixteen Best Practice Guides

FAQ

Report on used tyre statistics and future market scenarios

Report on markets for steel and fibre

Agricultural Guidance regarding used tyres

Report on tyre disposal charges

Ten year used tyre forecast & review of the WRAP Tyres Programme*

Report on C02 impacts*Report on outlets for used earthmover tyres*

EU overview report on used tyres*

Mapping of UK used tyre reprocessors*

* this work is currently being initiated

For each of these five main project areas, we wish to establish your views in response to the following questions

(see below)


37/57



1. For each of the five areas listed below, please rank where you think WRAP has had the most

- and least - influence (with 1 being the area where W RAP has had the m ost influence, and 5 being

the area where W RAP has had the least influence).

WRAP Programme Area Rank

MARKET DEVELOPMENT

End product marketing campaign focussing on surfacing

Retread campaign focussing on the LCV sector

SUPPORT FUNDING

Research & Development Rubber/Plastic Roof Tile, Building Block including

rubber, Rubber backing for plasterboard, Polymer coated rubber in retread

compound, Effects of de-vulcanisation.

Trials Fine crumb in retread compound, Rubber multi modal roadway,

rubber/plastic pipe sleeve, rubber in bridleways.

Capital Infrastructure Aquablast (Water Jetting of large tyres), Bristol Tyre

Shredding (Shredding down to 2mm), McGrath Bros (Shredding down to 25mm).

Market Readiness Rubber/Plastic composite railway sleeper, Roof Tile

accreditation, rubber plaster accreditation.

LEGISLATION & STANDARDS



Listing of standards applicable to used tyre reprocessing

Work on tyre shred/crumb Quality Protocol

RAISING AWARENESS

Four Stakeholder Forums

Rubber in Roads

Rubberised Asphalt Testing

Articles in trade magazines

PROVIDING INFORMATION

WRAP website

Over twenty Case Studies

Sixteen Best Practice Guides

FAQ

Report on used tyre statistics and future market scenarios

Report on markets for steel and fibre

Agricultural Guidance regarding used tyres

Report on tyre disposal charges

Ten year used tyre forecast & review of the WRAP Tyres Programme*

Report on C02 impacts*

Report on outlets for used earthmover tyres*

EU overview report on used tyres*

Mapping of UK used tyre reprocessors*

* this work is currently being initiated

Please give reasons for your number 1 ranking (ie the area where WRAP has had the most influence).


38/57



Please give reasons for your number 5 ranking (ie the area where WRAP has had the least influence).

If you have any further comments to add, please do so in the space provided.

2a. Please name specific WRAP tyre projects which you think have been most valuable, and

state the reasoning why.

2b. Please name specific WRAP tyre projects which you think have been least valuable, andstate the reasoning why.

3. Could WRAP have done more in other areas (ie more R&D, greater expenditure on capital

programmes, more promotional work, more awareness raising, more support funding)? If yes,

please give examples. What do think prevented WRAP from moving in these areas?

Please tick the box if you are suggesting above that WRAP should have done more inyour specific area of tyre reprocessing.


39/57



4. Do you think WRAP could have improved its Programme in any way?

Yes (go to question

4a)

No

Unsure

If no, please give reasons for your answer and provide examples of specific projects which you think have beenparticularly valuable.

4a. What level of improvement do think is necessary for WRAP s Tyres Programme?

Significant Improvement Minor Improvement

Unsure

Please give reasons for your answer and provide examples of specific projects which you feel are examples of

missed opportunities.

5. Was the Programme resourced adequately?

Over Resourced Under Resourced

Resourced Adequately (neither under- or

over-resourced)

Unsure

6. What impact do you think W RAP has had in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the

following:

6a. collection of w aste tyres?

Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Positive Impact Unsure

Negative Impact

6b. segregation of waste tyres?



Negative Impact


40/57



6c. reprocessing of w aste tyres?



Negative Impact

Please give reasons for your answers and provide examples of specific reports/applications where appropriate.

7. How influential do you think WRAP has been in developing alternative end uses for used

tyre material? Very Influential Not Very Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Neutral

Please give reasons for your answer and provide examples of specific reports/applications where appropriate.

8. How influential do you think WRAP has been in developing end markets for used tyres?

Very Influential Not Very Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Neutral

Please give reasons for your answer and provide examples of specific reports/applications where appropriate.


41/57

9. Do you think WRAP s overall Tyres Programme was:

Very effective Not Very Effective

Effective Not At All Effective

Neutral

If you have any further comments to add, please do so in the space provided.

10. Which sector do you represent?

Regulatory body

Academia

Trade Association

Used Tyre Reprocessor

Consultancy

Other : please state




42/57



PART 2 - The Likely Future Management of Waste Tyres

ERM has also been asked to develop a series of possible projections for the future handling of used tyres up until

2015 and factors that can impact on:

the volumes of used tyre arisings; and

the different methods of managing used tyres.

Factors affecting the volumes of used tyre arisings include policy or legislative changes affecting growth/decline

in road transport use in the UK, improved durability of tyre materials etc.

Factors affecting the availability of end markets which handle used tyres include:

environmental policy and legislative controls (eg the banning of tyres from landfill, cement kiln authorisations,

energy-from-waste incentives);

new emerging technologies which provide alternative outlets to traditional management routes;

acceptance of waste tyre crumb as alternative materials in building and construction projects;

global market conditions which affect new/retread tyre sales;

restrictions on stockpiling;

reduced demand for tyres in landfill engineering applications;

increased demand for tyres in flood defence applications;

uptake of pyrolysis and cryogenic reprocessing facilities etc.

The main objective of this part of the stakeholder consultation is to seek your views on the likely future

management of waste tyres (see question below)


43/57



1. Please rank the following top five management routes for used tyres according to which

you think are the most likely to generate the greatest tonnage processed in the future (1 being the

most likely, 2 being the second most lik ely, etc. until 5).

Management Routes Rank

Shredding - Cement Kilns

Shredding - Landfill Engineering

Shredding - Equestrian Mnages, Horticulture/Landscaping

Grinding Highway Surfacing materialCrumbing - Sports surfaces, carpet underlay, moulded products etc

Baling - Sea Defences/Landfill Engineering etc

Retreading (car tyres)

Retreading (truck tyres)

Cryogenic Reprocessing

Pyrolysis

Water jetting

Micro wave

Part Worn Reuse

Export

Other (please specify):

Please state the reasoning behind your choices.


44/57

2. Table 2A below shows the rounded changes in tonnages of the used tyre market from 1999-

2005 (data from the DTI Used Tyre Statistics on the WRAP w ebsite). Approximately w hat do you

think the tonnage capacity for each management route w ill be in the future (please provide

approximate annual tonnages)? Please project figures up to 2015 in the table below.

Table 2A Tonnages of Used Tyres from 1999-2005

Management Route 1999 2002 2005

Retreading 67,000 52,500 58,500Recycling 83,000 105,000 160,500

Landfill engineering 31,000 29,000 58,500

Energy recovery 70,000 48,000 82,500

Reused as part-worn tyre 31,500 32,500 34,000

Other Reuse 20,000 20,000 0

Exports of Used Casings 10,000 13,500 34,000

Other/stockpile? -7,500 47,000 -

Landfill Disposal 123,000 99,500 58,500

TOTAL 428,000 447,000 486,500

Management Routes Projection for

2009

Projection for

2012

Projection for

2015

Retreading Retreading (car and truck tyres)

Recycling Shredding - Equestrian Mnages,

Horticulture/Landscaping

Grinding Highway Surfacing material

Crumbing - Sports surfaces, carpet

underlay, moulded products

Cryogenic ReprocessingWater jetting

Microwave

Landfil l

Engineering

Shredding - Landfill Engineering

Tyre Bales

Energy Recovery Shredding - Cement Kilns

Pyrolysis

Reuse Baling - Sea Defences

Part Worn Reuse

Other reuse

Exports

Other

uk waste tyre data

Documents