37 - PHC Final Report 30-8-07 For Approval.3d83dd7c

Tyres report
Tyres Programme: End Product

Marketing Support. Phase 1.
Project code: TYR0028 ISBN:

Research date: 7.03.07 – 11.07.07 Date: 23.07.07
Front cover photograph: Used tyres ready for reprocessing
WRAP and Peter Heath 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 responsibility 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. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk
Published by
Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone
Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040
Banbury, Oxon E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
OX16 0AH
Executive summary
The overall objective of WRAP’s End Product Marketing Support Programme is to support the tyres recycling
industry with the promotion of end products made from waste tyre rubber.
This report relates to Phase 1 of the programme and is a scoping study to identify what support is needed and
where it can be most usefully applied. Phase 2 will use this information to develop a focused promotional
campaign.
The Phase 1 work incorporated desk research, a stakeholder survey, stakeholder discussions and analysis of
existing market research data.
The stakeholder survey produced some useful information but no definitive answers regarding which end
products would be most suitable. The overall response was good for postal surveys – 28%. However, some
respondents, though associated in some way with the industry, were not actually involved with the collection
and/or processing of waste tyres. Also some of the major companies did not participate – which could be partly
due to the usual time and availability issues of completing surveys and, possibly, also due to the market being
‘heavily’ surveyed.
Existing market research and DTI statistics indicated that the two fastest growing – and potentially high volume
waste tyre sectors – are energy recovery and landfill engineering. However, the former is not within WRAP’s
remit and the evidence suggests that landfill engineering is likely to grow organically – without the need for
promotion. Another of the main DTI defined sectors is retreads, which is of interest to WRAP but is the subject
of a concurrent study commissioned by WRAP to specifically research the retread market.
The remaining markets for most waste tyre uses (apart from bales) are contained within in the DTI’s classification
of Material Recovery – material processed into shred and crumb – which in 2005 (the latest full DTI statistics)
accounted for around 33% of waste tyres.
Within this category there are some segments where the use of waste tyre material is well-established –
principally equestrian, carpet underlay and sports/play surfaces. They accounted for over ¾ of the Material
Recovery category in 2005 and are clearly very important uses and markets for waste tyre end products.
Nonetheless, whilst they were given consideration in this study, it is thought that they do not offer the best
options for WRAP’s end product promotional support. The reasons for this are:
they are relatively mature markets and the stakeholder companies in them – and probably their customers –
are conversant with the use and benefits of waste tyre
increasing volume in a mature market would require relatively large budgets
WRAP’s budget for this programme is limited. It needs to be able to make a difference wherever it is applied
and it will be necessary to measure its impact and effect
whilst recognising that broad statements will not be true of all cases, it is considered that these well-
established markets may be saturated or levelling out – which further inhibits the possibility of making a
difference with a limited budget
The remaining sectors within Material Recovery are Horticulture, Construction, Pathways, Road repair and
Moulded products (as defined by Oakdene Hollins Ltd in their 2004 research). These were considered by OHL to
account for around ¼ of the Material Recovery category.
In referring to market sectors it is necessary to make particular mention of the ‘construction industry’ sector
which is very large – although consuming relatively little waste tyre-derived product at present. Taken as one
overall sector it must provide considerable volume opportunity – but in reality it cannot be considered as one
market. There are clearly very many sub segments which are large markets in their own right and in which there
are a wide variety of products, applications and specifications. This means that any waste tyre product (apart,
perhaps, from aggregate replacement per se) needs to be promoted to a sub segment of the construction
industry and would need to focus on the specific benefits to the specific targeted audiences.
Some new processes, which may eventually utilise high volumes and offer new products, have not been
considered in this study as they are not yet available as end products which can be promoted in the immediate
future.
Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 1

The Peter Heath Consultancy (PHC) concluded that in order to be able to make effective use of any promotional
support it would be necessary for the end use products to meet certain requirements:
be ‘market ready’ and able to respond to interest or demand created by a promotional programme in the next
few months
have evidence of the product performance and practicability so that convincing messages can be developed
and customer confidence is assured from the outset
that WRAP’s case histories were probably the best source for this evidence
product supply should be sustainable
None of the remaining Material Recovery sectors (Horticulture, Construction, Pathways, Road repair, Moulded
products) has a currently high penetration of waste tyre products and, whilst this creates an opportunity for
increasing penetration, it also creates a dilemma inasmuch as it is unlikely that large volume increases – WRAP’s
principal criterion – could be achieved quickly and on a relatively limited budget.
Given this conclusion it was decided that WRAP would re-evaluate and refine their criteria for end use
promotional support. This process reaffirmed that volume potential should remain the prime measure but that
other criteria should be incorporated into the selection process. These included; added value, ease of access to
the markets, likely impact of intervention, issues affecting intervention and the number of stakeholders likely to
benefit from the results of promotional activity.
Further consideration of the options in light of the revised criteria led WRAP & PHC to conclude that the
application and product area which satisfies most of the criteria is bridleways and pathways (as ‘surfacing
solutions’). This is, effectively, a segment within the construction industry.
It was considered that this application:
is a ‘proven’ product (an exhaustive and successful case history)

is market ready
is a product that a significant number of stakeholders can supply, is not high tech but has added value
has a geographical spread involving a number of stakeholders that can generate and supply local markets
has a ‘convinced’ target customer (Nottinghamshire County Council) which adds evidence and credibility for
other County council customers that are likely to have identical needs
has a readily defined and identified target audience
has the potential to use a high volume of recycled tyre material
End use promotion of this segment will achieve the objective of supporting a reasonable number of stakeholders.
However, it is recognised that that it will not directly support the majority. This is likely to have been the case
whatever sector or segment was chosen. This is because focused marketing, promotion of specific applications
and the featuring of highly relevant customer benefits are necessary with end use promotion and this will
invariably narrow down segments and audiences.
Nonetheless, it is considered that the exposure of these waste tyre applications to the very influential principal
audiences (County councils and other public sector organisations) and contact with them, could have a longer-
term spin-off to the benefit of other stakeholder companies.
Whilst this end use promotional support will inevitably support only part of the industry there are many types of
activities within the WRAP Tyre Programme which support all waste tyre industry companies. WRAP can also
provide business support and other services to individual companies where appropriate and these services are
highlighted through the WRAP Tyres web pages.

Contents
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Methodology ............................................................................................................................ 4
2.1 Desk Research ......................................................................................................................4
2.2 Database development ..........................................................................................................4
2.3 Survey & questionnaire ..........................................................................................................5
3.0 Survey results .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Response ..............................................................................................................................5
3.2 Findings ................................................................................................................................5
3.2.1 Preferred end-user audiences ....................................................................................5
3.2.2 Beneficial promotion channels....................................................................................6
3.2.3 Willingness to participate in further surveys & willingness to undertake further
discussion .............................................................................................................................7
3.3 Survey conclusions ................................................................................................................7
4.0 Market Statistics ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Principal waste tyre sectors ....................................................................................................7
4.1.1 Energy recovery would see strong growth throughout the 5 year period ......................8
4.1.2 Landfill engineering would see strong growth .............................................................9
4.2 Market statistics – considerations ...........................................................................................9
5.0 Market analysis ...................................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Key project criteria .............................................................................................................. 10
5.2 Growth sectors .................................................................................................................... 10
5.2.1 Landfill engineering................................................................................................. 10
5.3 Other sectors ...................................................................................................................... 11
5.4 Market summary .................................................................................................................11
6.0 The Markets & Products ......................................................................................................... 11
7.0 Narrowing the options ........................................................................................................... 12
8.0 The horticultural/landscaping segment................................................................................. 13
9.0 The construction/civil engineering segment ......................................................................... 13
9.1 Audiences ........................................................................................................................... 14
9.1.1 Key influencers on recycled content in the construction industry ................................ 14
10.0 Summary & next steps ........................................................................................................... 16
11.0 Defining the criteria ............................................................................................................... 16
12.0 Conclusions & recommendations ........................................................................................... 17
12.1 Principal contender .............................................................................................................. 17
12.1.1 Bridleways (& pathways) ......................................................................................... 17
12.1.2 Other applications ................................................................................................... 19
Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Appendix 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 27

1.0 Introduction
This report relates to Phase 1 of the WRAP Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. The overall
objective of the project is to provide support to companies within the tyres recycling industry by promoting end
products made from waste tyre rubber.
Phase 1 is a scoping study to review industry outputs and products that contain recycled tyre rubber, to establish
typical business sizes, activities and industry demographics and to identify the support needed by the tyres
recycling industry in marketing their products.
This information will provide the basis for Phase 2 which will be a focused promotional campaign to encourage
the use of waste tyre derived end products.
The Peter Heath Consultancy (PHC) was appointed to undertake this Phase of the programme which commenced
in early March 2007 and was concluded in mid July 2007.
2.0 Methodology
The methodology incorporated a mix of; desk research, a questionnaire based survey, initial telephone contact
for verification of contact names, follow-up calls and a number of qualitative research discussions.
2.1 Desk Research
It was considered that many of the market sectors where waste tyre rubber products were sold would have been
the subject of previous market studies so these were to be used as the foundation for desk research to establish
market types, sectors, sizes, products and leading players.
This work was supplemented by discussions with trade media, trade associations, industry experts and some
companies to flesh out and enhance the information from published data.
Desk research would also be the basis from which to assess current marketing strategies and approaches –
supplemented by information and materials obtained via the survey and the qualitative research outlined later in
this document.
2.2 Database development
WRAP’s own Tyres database was the initial basis for identifying companies in the industry. However, it was not
known how comprehensive this was and it was agreed that PHC would identify other sources which may produce
additional companies operating in the market. A number of sources were identified. These included Association
of Play Industries, Tyre Recovery Association, Retread Manufacturers Association, National Tyre Distributors
Association, Sports and Play Manufacturers Association, LetsRecycle, Dept of Trade & Industry, WRAP’S
Construction Products Guide and Recycled Products Guide. Directory and web searches were also conducted.
From this a database was developed for the purposes of mailing the questionnaire and this contained all the
companies that were considered likely, or possibly, to use waste tyre rubber in their business activities – a total of
492 companies.
It was decided that, as the questionnaire would be requesting detailed information about volumes and finance, it
would be appropriate for the survey to be sent to the Managing Director where possible, so calls were made to all
companies and an attempt made to obtain the MD’s name.
This process established that a significant number of the companies were not now trading or that they did not
use waste tyre rubber. These were excluded form the mailing which was then sent to 439 companies.
In order to encourage participation, follow-up calls were made to all companies that had not responded to the
mailing after 10 days or so.
This exercise, together with returned mailings from Royal Mail indicating ‘gone away’ companies, identified a
further number of companies that were not trading or did not use waste tyre rubber – and this resulted in a
database of 391 companies that at the time, could be considered as ‘legitimate’ waste tyre rubber companies.

This is the number of companies on which the survey statistics were based. The expectation is that it will
eventually be established that more of the database companies are not in the ‘used tyre industry’.
The level of ‘gone away’ companies and companies not in the used tyre industry was primarily due to the attempt
to capture all relevant companies through a variety of sources. All the sources were in appropriate market
sectors – such as sports and play surfaces – or were companies that claimed to use recycled materials, but in
many cases there could be no certainty at the time that they did or did not use waste tyre rubber.
2.3 Survey & questionnaire
A questionnaire was developed as the basis for a postal survey. This was developed in conjunction with WRAP
and trialled with a small number of known waste tyre companies.
The range of company types, market sectors, product types and desired information made questionnaire content
and design rather complex. During this process it was acknowledged that not all recipients would see a benefit
from promotion focused on end-products. Also it was acknowledged that volume and financial information may
be considered sensitive and that this might reduce the response level or the level of detail companies would be
prepared to divulge.
The survey was accompanied by a letter from WRAP explaining the purpose and value of the survey. An option
to complete the survey on-line via the WRAP website was also incorporated. A copy of the letter and
questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.
3.0 Survey results
3.1 Response
Of the 391 companies on the ‘legitimate’ database 110 responded. This represents 28%.
The questionnaire requested that the recipient return it even if they were not in the waste tyre industry or if they
would prefer not to participate in the survey. This was to enable the information to be incorporated into the
database so that these companies could be excluded from any further waste tyre rubber programmes.
27 companies responded saying they are not in the waste tyre industry (some are equipment-only manufacturers,
some surfacing companies but not waste tyre rubber etc) and 5 responded to say they did not want to
participate.
This left 78 respondents who are in the industry – which is a response level of 21% of the reduced ‘legitimate’
database of 364 (391 – 27).
This sample was fairly evenly split across the different company types; collectors only, processors of raw material,
and manufacturers/installers, so whilst this was helpful it also meant that the numbers in each category were not
large. Received data on a question-by-question basis can be found in Appendix 2.
3.2 Findings
The survey produced some useful information on a number of topics:
the range of services provided by individual companies (incorporated into the database)
preferred end-user audiences
beneficial promotion channels
willingness to participate in further surveys
willingness to undertake further discussion
3.2.1 Preferred end-user audiences
Local authorities and the construction industry were seen as a main audience by over half of those answering this
question (45). Add to this the fact that 18 also suggested civil engineering as an important audience and there is
a clear indication that construction as a whole is seen by the respondents to be a key sector. Local Authorities
were also seen as a key audience. This is not surprising as they have a role to play in many of the current

market sectors that use waste tyre rubber.
It is also not surprising that construction is considered an important audience as it is a huge industry with some
fairly well established – though small – waste tyre product applications. It would also seem that some companies
who do not yet supply this market aspire to do so as construction and civil engineering were considered to be
important audiences by far more companies than actually operate in the sector at present – 10 of the companies
said they currently provide products to the construction industry but 24 identified it as an important audience.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
To which end-user customers would WRAP promotional activity be of most benefit to your company
61 eligible 45 companies answered Responses Priority

audience
Construction 24 17
Local authorities 24 16
Civil engineering, roads etc 18 15
Landscape constructors 17 9
Landscape architects 16 11
Architects/Urban designers 15 7
Transport 14 11
Sports surface users/ purchasers 14 9
Developers 13 4
Equestrian 10 7
Automotive 8 6
Home & garden product manufacturers 7 4
Other included Govt & general public
___________________________________________________________________________________________
3.2.2 Beneficial promotion channels
Respondents were given a list of promotional channels from which to choose the method they felt would be most
beneficial to them. Some of the more expensive options – roadshows & seminars – were favoured by more than
used them at present. This seems likely to be because they are considered a good channel but are not affordable
to some on their own budgets.
Interestingly (although not shown in the chart below) it was apparent that many companies that used a particular
channel did not say it would be beneficial to them. This could mean either that they have used it and found it
doesn’t work or that they are able to afford it themselves and would therefore like WRAP’s support through
different channels.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
What communication channels do you use now to your audiences. What channels would be beneficial to you
61 eligible 50 companies answered use now would be No. saying
benefit priority
Exhibitions/shows 17 19 15
Literature/brochures 26 18 14
Websites 34 16 9
Roadshows 2 14 9
Seminars 7 13 8
Advertising 23 12 9
Directories 14 12 8
Sales promotion 16 10 6
PR 17 9 6
____________________________________________________________________________________________

3.2.3 Willingness to participate in further surveys & willingness to undertake further
discussion
61 respondents said they were willing to participate in further surveys and 54 provided a telephone number to
contact to discuss things further. This is encouraging inasmuch as it provides WRAP with the opportunity of more
focused communication and discussion – and the opportunity for feedback if desired.
3.3 Survey conclusions
The survey exercise has indicated the difficulty of establishing a comprehensive list of companies that operate in
the waste tyre industry. The majority of main players were probably known to WRAP as were most of the
principal sectors in which waste tyre rubber is used. Nonetheless, a significant number of companies have been
added through other sources. The problem, of course, is that it is not possible to know if a company is in the
industry unless you ask them. The fact that a company operates in, say, the play surfaces sector does not
necessarily mean that they use waste tyre rubber – but they might.
With 78 respondents across a number of industry segments – and therefore small samples in each – it is not
practicable to draw conclusions of market sizes, values or material volumes from the survey. No ‘unknowns’ were
discovered in the product lists supplied by respondents. So, overall, the survey responses did not identify specific
sectors or product types which were obvious contenders for the end product promotional support.
The survey data was not as comprehensive as would have been wished as a number of key contenders did not
participate – for instance some large and known companies, some TRA members (important because the TRA’s
Responsible Recyclers Scheme is said to account for 80% of UK waste tyre arisings) and some RMA members.
This does not necessarily mean that these companies positively decided not to participate. Whilst this could have
been the case, it is also probable that some may just not have had the time to complete the questionnaire or it
was put aside and forgotten.
Another factor is that many sectors in the industry are fairly mature and comprise companies that are highly
conversant with their markets and customer’s needs. They may not always see the benefit of giving out
information – even to WRAP. Also the industry has been ‘surveyed’ on many occasions in the past and this can
depress response levels. It seems likely that achieving an accurate and comprehensive database would require
further information gathering over a period of time.
The survey alone could not be expected to identify a definitive market sector or application and there was a need
to incorporate the survey findings into the wider context of industry statistics, trends and other studies.
4.0 Market Statistics
4.1 Principal waste tyre sectors
DTI statistics since 1998 (to 2005 which are the latest full statistics available) show fluctuations in the volume of
used tyre arisings. In 2005 the total was 487 ktonnes – the previous highest being 481 ktonnes in 2001.
The significant changes in end uses for waste tyres in the last 5 years of available statistics (2001-2005) have
been:
reduction in landfill from 30% to 12%

increase in Material Recovery from 22% to 33% (although this is a slight drop from 2003 & 2004)
energy recovery – 20% in 1998 – decreased to 8% in 2001 & 11% in 2002 but recovered to 17% in 2005
landfill engineering fluctuated between 3% & 6% until 2004 but doubled to 12% in 2005
All other DTI categorisations (which are export, reuse and retread) have remained fairly static throughout the
period.
WRAP’s objective is to develop alternative end uses and markets for waste tyre rubber – so apart from knowing
the volume of materials going into these broad end use DTI categories, it is necessary to also know the end uses
of the Material Recovery sector (shred, crumb) which is now the largest volume of the DTI’s waste tyre rubber
categories.

A breakdown of Material Recovery end uses is not available through the DTI statistics. However, Oakdene Hollins
Ltd (OHL) was commissioned by WRAP in 2004 to undertake a study of the UK Used Tyre Market and this does
break down the Material Recovery category into end uses.
All the main industry statistics are based on the DTI data but the DTI and OHL calculations are slightly different
due to some variations in availability of statistics, calculation methods and slightly different categorisation.
However OHL did a ‘sense’ check on the data whilst compiling their study and determined that the differences
were not significant. PHC has used the OHL study as the basis for statistics and market trends in this report.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Recovery estimates ‘000 tonnes (2004 estimates. Oakdene Hollins)
Total: Other (export/ASR disposal)

480 ktonnes 147 ktonnes 30%
Energy recovery: Material recovery (shred, crumb,
72 ktonnes 15% powder):
Retread 172 ktonnes. 36%
49 ktonnes. 10% Other permanent re-use
Landfill engineering: (eg baled, civil eng):
29 ktonnes. 6% 12 ktonnes 2%
Landfill:
22 ktonnes. 5%
____________________________________________________________________________________________
These are 2004 statistics but it is also worth viewing the DTI statistics and category breakdown as, although
slightly different to OHL, they include 2005 (the latest available) and show the trend from 2004 to 2005 in energy
recovery and landfill engineering
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Recovery estimates ‘000 tonnes (2004 & 5 estimates. DTI)
2004 Total: 475 ktonnes 2005 Total: 487 ktonnes (+2.5%)

Energy recovery 15% Energy recovery 17%
Retread 12% Retread 12%
Landfill 12% Landfill 12%
Landfill engineering 6% Landfill engineering 12%
Export 7% Export 7%
Reused 7% Reused 7%
Other 7% Other -
Material recovery Material recovery
(shred, crumb, powder) 34% (shred, crumb, powder) 33%
_______________________________________________________________________________
In June 2006 OHL produced another report which considered possible Market Disruption scenarios. The report
purpose was to assess how the market would be affected by possible disruptive events. But it also included a 5
year market forecast covering 2004-2009 which assumed no major event occurrence
The main factors in this forecast were that;
demand for waste tyres could outstrip supply but market forces would balance this out
energy recovery would see strong growth throughout the 5 year period
landfill engineering would see strong growth – doubling from 2004 to 2005 and increasing by a further 20%+
in 2006
4.1.1 Energy recovery would see strong growth throughout the 5 year period
The cement industry itself estimated that waste tyre volume could rise to 140/180 ktonnes by 2009. However,
OHL preferred to use a growth figure of half the industry estimates as previous growth has been lower than the

industry has estimated. OHL’s 2009 projections are that the sector would grow from 84 ktonnes in 2005 to 120
ktonnes in 2009
4.1.2 Landfill engineering would see strong growth
With landfill engineering being an accepted use of waste tyre rubber the market has grown substantially in the
short period between 2004 & 2006. OHL estimated growth would be from 29 ktonnes in 2004 to 75 ktonnes in
2006 or even higher but levelling out at 75 ktonnes pa thereafter. NISP suggest that the figure could reach 100
ktonnes or more during 2007/2008 and could continue to rise.
Growth in other principal sectors is assumed to show no or low growth;
____________________________________________________________________________________________
5 year Market Estimates. Sector growth to 2009. (Oakdene Hollins 2006)
Energy recovery
? 100% increase Reuse
Landfill engineering assumed static
?100% increase
Retread Material recovery (shred, crumb, powder)
assumed static Assumed (conservatively) 5% growth pa 2004-9
Export 2004 172k tonnes
assumed 5% decline 2009 219k tonnes
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Other key projections in the OHL report related to the various uses within the Material Recovery category.
Material Recovery growth has historically been 20% pa since 1999 – but is projected (conservatively, says the
OHL report) to slow down to 5% pa in 2004-2009
The key sectors in this market are equestrian, carpet underlay, sports surfaces and play surfaces which
between them are considered to have accounted for 78% of the Material Recovery category.
However, it is considered by OHL that these markets could be saturated – and the sectors could be levelling
off or possibly downturning. There are influences and factors that support these suggestions; companies in
these markets have known of and have been using waste tyre rubber for some time and will have exploited
its benefits wherever possible. The carpet industry has been in decline for a while and this will have affected
the underlay market. The play surfaces market is well established and it could be expected that recent
discussions about the suitability of different play surfaces for children may have an affect.
The Material Recovery category shares estimated by OHL in 2004 were;
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Material Recovery category. Waste tyre rubber key shares (Oakdene Hollins 2004)
Total 172 ktonnes (117 ktonnes recovered rubber)
Equestrian 41 ktonnes 35%

Carpet underlay 17 ktonnes 15%
Sports surfaces 16.5 ktonnes 14%
Play surfaces 16.5 ktonnes 14%
--------------------------------------------------------- 78%
Horticulture 10 ktonnes 9%
Construction 6 ktonnes 5%
Pathways 5 ktonnes 4%
Road repair 4 ktonnes 3%
Moulded prods 1 ktonnes 1%
____________________________________________________________________________________________
4.2 Market statistics – considerations
The OHL UK Used Tyre Market 2004 report is very useful in any study of end use markets because it contains the
DTI main sectors and it also estimates the end product uses for the Material Recovery category. This, it would
seem, had not previously been researched or estimated.

However, in using the report as a basis for further detail and analysis for end product segments most suitable for
promotional support, it is important to recognise that OHL were able to reference very little formal research in
making their estimates and judgements about end use markets. They explained this in their reports;
2004 report
‘stakeholders within the industry were not able to provide industry estimates of the various end use market
sizes’…..‘……….therefore estimated from a number of key processors’
‘it must be stressed that the market sizes are estimates only based on desk research and from key processors
and end product manufacturers’
‘No estimates of market sizes were available for the horticultural and construction applications……………………’
2006 report
‘based on industry returns for the 1st half of 2005 and anecdotal information from key stakeholders’
‘projections are based on the extrapolation of historical events, with adjustments supported by information
from sources within, & knowledge of, the industry’
‘…….key markets in this sector (material recovery) are unlikely to grow at previous rate. However, new and
potentially high volume applications should continue to grow – and it is expected that the momentum
provided by the 3 year WRAP Tyres Programme will encourage the introduction of new end applications for
used tyres, some with short lead times’
This is in no way to suggest that the OHL estimates and projections are inaccurate but to indicate that there was
no formal research available to OHL in any of the main Material Recovery segments so, as OHL explains, the
market segment figures cannot be precise. This can have more effect when attempting to drill down even further
and analyse the segments in more detail. Detailed market statistics can be found in the OHL report UK Used Tyre
Market 2004 and the 5 year projections can be seen in the 2006 Market Disruption report both of which are
available on the WRAP website.
5.0 Market analysis
5.1 Key project criteria
Prior to considering the market data indications, it is worth reiterating the key elements underlying the project
brief and what WRAP wishes to achieve with its promotional support. These parameters will influence the final
decision about which end product markets should be supported. The key elements – defined simply – are to;
identify appropriate end use markets/products for marketing support

focus on markets that will meet WRAP’s principal measurement of waste tyre volume
effectively utilise the budget
achieve measurable results attributable to the promotional support
5.2 Growth sectors
There are two main sectors where significant growth is predicted – and where these predictions are substantiated
by preliminary DTI figures;
energy recovery – which is not within WRAP’s remit and can be ignored for the purposes of this study
landfill engineering
5.2.1 Landfill engineering
This is a strongly growing sector and, although opinions vary somewhat on how long or large growth will be, it
seems likely to continue throughout the next year or so at least. On the face of it this would seem to be a
contender for promotional support. However, the evidence suggests that this market has grown organically –
and will continue to do so – requiring little marketing or promotional support to achieve this.
The reasons for this organic growth are probably a combination of; landfill has traditionally been a destination for
waste tyres, landfill engineering has achieved some publicity as an accepted use of waste tyres on a case-by-case
basis, waste tyres are a cheaper alternative to aggregates in landfill engineering, the waste site operator
‘universe’ is quite small so word of mouth is quickly effective, NISP has promoted this application area.
So, whilst landfill engineering is a major growth area for waste tyres – and would fulfill WRAP’s volume criteria –
it does not require promotion at present. Clearly, therefore, promotional support in this sector would not be an
effective use of the budget.

5.3 Other sectors
None of the other primary DTI categories – exports, reuse and retreads – are predicted to grow significantly.
Retreads are an area of interest to WRAP so the question here is; can the retread market be increased or
influenced by WRAP’s intervention? However, WRAP has a concurrent project which is specifically looking at this
market – and so this sector can be ignored for the purposes of this project.
This leaves the various end uses and market segments within the Material Recovery category to consider.
As has been previously stated, the principal segments of this category are equestrian, carpet underlay, sports
surfaces and play surfaces. Together they were considered to account for 78% of the category in 2004.
However, despite their high volumes and obvious importance to waste tyre use and the Material Recovery
category, there are factors which work against them as main contenders for promotional support within this
project. This is for a number of reasons;
they are established, mature markets in which the companies and, probably, their audiences are already fully
aware of waste tyre uses and benefits
available research suggests they could be saturated markets which could be leveling off or downturning – and
this is within the wider picture of a slowdown in Material Recovery growth to 5% pa to 2009.
But – as the principal purpose of any marketing and promotional programme is to increase market share, sales,
profitability etc – the question of whether WRAP promotional support could assist in increasing these market
shares has to be considered. This would seem unlikely because;
established, mature markets are difficult to influence without significant investment

the WRAP budget for this project is limited and would be insufficient to launch and sustain an effective
programme in such markets
it would be unlikely that the support could achieve a level of increase which would be measurable or
attributable.
When these important, but difficult to influence segments, are excluded, it leaves the remaining Material
Recovery segments of horticulture, landscaping, construction, civil engineering and moulded products for further
consideration. The OHL 2004 study estimated that, together, these accounted for just under a quarter of
Material Recovery – approximately 26 ktonnes of recovered rubber (probably around 40 ktonnes feedstock).
New processes and products may offer larger volume markets in the long term but they cannot be considered at
this stage as they will not be developed into end use products within the timescale of this project.
5.4 Market summary
the fastest growing volume markets either do not require marketing or are not in WRAP’s remit
largest other existing waste tyre markets are considered to be possibly saturated with low growth prospects
large volume markets are difficult to influence without significant expenditure
WRAP’s budget would be unlikely to produce measurable increases in these markets
the remaining markets, although sizeable in themselves (especially construction), are relatively small users of
waste tyre products at present
new processes and products may offer potential but not for this imminent end product programme.
6.0 The Markets & Products
The principal waste tyre sectors and products are reproduced below. And the question is – having excluded
some of them on the criteria already outlined – where are the opportunities to:
generate volume
provide effective support
make a real and measurable difference

_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Principal waste tyre market sectors and product categories
Construction Equestrian Floor mats

Road surface Bedding/floors Insulation
Insulation Ménage Components
Roof tiles
Gallops Shock absorbers
Flooring
Aggregate replacement
Concrete blocks Play surfaces Industrial
Bonded Safety surfaces
Civil engineering Loose fill Belting
Coastal defences (bales) Tiles Matting
Road embankments (bales) Mats Membranes
Drainage Sealants
Bridleways Sports surfaces Adhesives
Tracks
Landfill engineering Gyms Transport/traffic
Pitches Traffic calming
Landscaping Barriers/bollards
Walkways Home products Kerbs
Ground reinforcement Footwear Railway crossings
Carpet underlay
Horticulture Mouse mats Other
Mulch Boat fenders
Artificial turf Automotive Marine reefs
Bumpers Virgin material replacement
____________________________________________________________________________________________
7.0 Narrowing the options
The remaining broad categories still to be evaluated are horticulture, landscaping, construction, civil engineering and
moulded products (in considering these main categories, horticulture/landscaping and construction/civils have been
combined because of the similarities in their products, companies and end use customer target audiences and the
considerable overlap of products and uses).
The horticulture/landscape category volume potential is primarily through mulches and pathways with soil
improvement and artificial turf being smaller at present but with potential. However, these last two product areas are
only supplied by a small number of companies and this has to be taken into consideration when trying to maximise
the potential value of WRAP’s budget to waste tyre industry stakeholders.
The moulded products segment, whilst containing a range of interesting products, accounts for a relatively small
volume of waste tyre rubber. WRAP’s budget would not be sufficient to increase this by any significant amount
across such a wide range of products. Unless, therefore, WRAP substantially changes it’s criteria for end product
support, moulded products cannot be considered.
A full evaluation of the construction/civils industry and immediate future trends is beyond the scope of this document.
However, it is the biggest industry in the UK with regular high levels of expenditure in the public and private sectors
and it is apparent that, in sheer potential volume terms, the construction and civil engineering markets are the prime
contenders. They have the biggest potential of all with a wide variety of possible waste tyre uses which so far, have
achieved a relatively small market penetration.
A concern, perhaps, in considering support for end use applications in the construction sector is that waste tyre
product market penetration is small despite considerable WRAP activity and expenditure.

8.0 The horticultural/landscaping segment
This segment has some advantages for WRAP end product promotion over the Construction/civils segment inasmuch
as it is very much smaller and is therefore, potentially more likely to be influenced with the level of budget available –
providing the products offer good benefits to end users.
The principal volume would be likely to come from mulch and pathway uses but soil improvement and artificial turf
could also be contenders (artificial turf is used for pitches so could be considered as in the sports surface market. The
distinction between some markets is somewhat blurred).
The issues for WRAP to consider with this segment, especially regarding artificial turf and soil improver, are that;
there are limited number of waste tyre companies in some areas of this segment, so supporting these products
could be of benefit to only a few waste tyre stakeholders
it would seem unlikely that a large volume increase in use of waste tyre rubber would be achievable in the
short/medium term.
The audiences for these segments have not been detailed as it seems more likely that applications in the construction
sector more closely fit the criteria.
9.0 The construction/civil engineering segment
A number of studies, publications and best brains – the TRL study 2003, WRAP’s PAS 107 & 108, WRAP’s
Construction Product Guide & WRAP’s waste tyre Stakeholder forums – have identified the following extensive list of
actual and possible uses in construction/civils:
Road foundations, slope failure repairs, lightweight embankment fill, free-draining layers, drainage systems
Bridge abutments, culvert drainage beds, embankments, sound insulation, thermal insulation, train & tram rail
beds, asphalt rubber, coatings, collision barriers, expansion joints, noise barriers, flooring materials, roofing
materials
Bridleways, footpaths, road surfacing, sea defences, concrete blocks, internal cladding
Air conditioning mats, rubber sheet, rubber insulation mats, safety surfacing
Building panels, fence panels, roofing sheets
And this may not be comprehensive.
In making these points we are aware of the fact that WRAP already knows a great deal about the construction sector.
WRAP has a dedicated construction team which is involved in work on other waste materials as well as tyres. It has
undertaken a wide variety of activities to the main audiences and influencers in construction and it works on an
ongoing basis with a wide range of organisations in the construction sector. This includes work to further the use of
rubber in road surfacing applications (Rubber in Roads programme), advice and direction on recycled product
procurement procedures and the production of a Construction Products Guide.
With this extensive knowledge and experience – and substantial budgets applied to these activities – it is clear there
is already significant effort going into the sector. And the fact that, despite this substantial effort, current waste tyre
product penetration is still low highlights the challenge of making a difference with this end product promotion
programme.
Providing support for end use markets and products in such a diverse market – and to be able to measure its effect
and increase the volume – is different to much of the promotional work undertaken by WRAP where wide ranging
generic promotion fits the bill. And a glance at the size of the industry and the many applications and uses highlights
an important factor;
in terms of marketing and promotion the construction ‘industry’ is not one industry.

In order that this project is complementary to all WRAP’s other construction activities it will require a focus on a
defined market(s) with specific messages, specific product attributes and specific uses.
Clearly it is a market where evidence of performance and suitability is key, where many attitudes may have to be
changed and there are many audiences to convince. In order to achieve this it is necessary to promote products and
uses that are proven and market ready.
In saying this it must always be remembered that, although recycling may be an important influence or benefit for
some organisations, the principal reasons for choice will invariably be performance and price – and reliable and
consistent supply vis a vis competitive products.
Our recommendation, therefore, is that WRAP should;
review the many case histories it has undertaken (and any relevant studies by other organisation) to identify the
markets where waste tyre products performed the best
identify products or applications that are at a market ready stage
use these case histories as evidence and research for presenting the application and products to the relevant
audiences
Some examples of WRAP’s construction/civils case studies that could be reviewed for this purpose are;
roof slates, tile adhesive, acoustic sheets, rubberised bitumen, bridleways, shore protection, flood defence, acoustic
enclosures, micro asphalt, lightweight fill, vibration absorption, land drainage, rubber sheeting, concrete blocks.
9.1 Audiences
9.1.1 Key influencers on recycled content in the construction industry
The following table was produced in WRAP’s 2004 publication; Market Share of Recycled Content in Construction
Procurement. It summarises the key people influencing product choice in principal end-use application areas across
the construction industry.
It clearly indicates the size of the task of selecting the appropriate waste tyre products and markets and
communicating with the right decision-making and influencer audiences.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Key influencers on the specification of construction materials. Market Share of Recycled Content in
Construction Procurement. WRAP 2004
Area of Potential Clients Consultants Main Distributors
Application Usage Contractors
Airports High – major Mainly Significant Some input Low
new
developments
& resurfacing
Central Limited – little Significant Moderate Significant Low
government new build and
departments major
(other) refurbishment
Local Authority – High – major Moderate Moderate – Significant Low
schools PFI projects significant

Ministry of High – major Moderate Moderate Significant Low
Defence PFI/PPP
projects
NHS Trusts High – major Moderate Moderate Significant Low
PFI projects
Ports/harbours Low – Mainly Significant Moderate Low
moderate
Private High – current Moderate Very Increasingly Low
commercial & usage low. Low – significant significant
industrial resistance significant
Private house High potential Low Moderate Significant Moderate
building –high
resistance
Private RMI Some potential High Low High/fragmented High
Railways High – major Significant Significant Low to moderate Low
projects, track
& structures
Roads High – major Significant Significant Increasingly Low
new build, significant on
renewal & design & build
maintenance
Social housing Moderate – Significant Low Moderate Moderate
refurbishment
Utilities Moderate – Significant Moderate – Moderate Low
mainly significant
pipe/cable
reinstatement
_____________________________________________________________________
Each of these areas of application is very large in themselves and can be sub divided further so the table clearly
illustrates that the construction industry cannot be considered as one industry or one audience.
WRAP’s own work on case histories indicates their recognition of this as the cases are taken from all parts of the
industry with each one focusing on one use and one product area.

10.0 Summary & next steps
In summary;
end product promotional support – with a requirement to produce measurable volume increases – has different
requirements to WRAP’s more usual generic sector promotion (which probably have longer term measures).
a key requirement must be that any segments considered for end product support must contain products which
are market ready and companies that are able to take the immediate opportunity that promotion would provide.
even with an effective use/product, some markets and customers will take some time to develop, so the effect of
promotional support may not be immediately apparent and may require different measurement criteria.
in terms of the cost of promotional activities, the budget is limited and will need to be focused and targeted if it is
to have a measurable effect. This is likely to mean it would be directed at a relatively small market segment and
could not be expected, in overall market terms, to generate a very large volume increase of waste tyres.
promotional focus on a currently relatively small segment (but which may have long term potential) would have
the potential to produce a good percentage increase if not a large volume increase.
end user audiences will require evidence of the effectiveness of any waste tyre products and confidence in them.
Case histories provide the ‘research’ evidence and they focus on specific uses. This provides the best basis for
promoting customer benefits and positive promotional messages.
case histories – WRAP’s and possibly others – should be reviewed for successful waste tyre applications and
products which fit the ‘market ready’ criteria. This may produce some clear segment contenders – although it has
to be recognised that it may also produce segments containing a small sample of waste tyre stakeholders.
Using these conclusions as a basis for next steps would, in our view, be more likely to produce a valuable end product
promotion programme. But, as they would not be entirely compatible with WRAP’s principal measurement of volume
increase, PHC suggested that a selection could not realistically be made without WRAP reviewing its criteria for end
product promotional support.
11.0 Defining the criteria
WRAP’s principal measurement criteria is volume potential and this, together with other factors, creates a dilemma in
this project;
the budget cannot be expected to influence existing well established, large waste tyre markets
the budget would be more likely to make a noticeable difference if applied to a currently small market
but a small market is unlikely to generate a large volume in the near term
smaller markets will contain fewer companies – therefore benefiting fewer waste tyre industry stakeholders
The question to consider is, therefore; is volume the only practical measurement WRAP can use or could/should other
criteria be considered?
Volume/benefit/value measures
High number of waste tyre companies in market
Markets where recycled is topical/measured
Superior performance from waste tyre products
Price competitiveness of UTR products
Mature or emerging markets
Higher value end-products
Innovative products
High ‘exposure’, widest audience markets – PR benefits
Products which utilise car tyres
Easiest ‘promotional impact’ markets
‘unique’/different products
Avoidance of competition with other WRAP supported materials
‘political’ considerations
PHC recommended that this issue should be addressed by reviewing and/or redefining the criteria before final
decisions were made on which markets and applications to support.

WRAP undertook the suggested review and established a set of refined criteria for end use promotion.
They concluded that the potential for volume increase should remain the principal criterion – but that other
considerations should be:
added value – where the use of waste tyre rubber brings real and particular advantages to the application in
terms of performance and/or in replacing more expensive or valuable resources
ease of access – products which, whilst providing valuable benefits, were not based on technology that only a few
stakeholder companies could provide. Also beneficial would be applications which make use of car tyres.
likely impact – where it is possible to identify distinct audiences, those especially receptive to the concept of waste
minimisation and recycling and where effective and cost-effective communication channels are suitable
fewer issues – where ‘to-be-resolved’ issues – such as patents, availability of supply or geographical imbalance of
stakeholder companies would limit the benefits of end use promotion to only a small number of stakeholders.
of benefit to a number of stakeholder companies – where product can be obtained, processed and delivered to
end use customers across the UK from ‘local’ sources, thereby creating local markets, minimising the
transportation of waste tyre products and providing benefit to the maximum number of stakeholders
12.0 Conclusions & recommendations
The WRAP Tyre Programme supports all waste tyre industry companies. It involves many types of activities which
include support funding, best practice guidance, research and development, case studies, operational trials, quality
standards, specifications development – and publicity to raise general awareness of the benefits generated by the
waste tyre industry.
There are many companies operating in the industry. Many of the products will have involved companies in the
supply chain from collectors through shredders and crumbers or balers to manufacturers and installers. And the
eventual products serve a wide range of end uses. There are many market sectors, many audiences and many uses
which could be contenders.
But this project is entirely about promotional support for end use applications and applying a budget where it can
make a difference in the near future.
Having evaluated the data accumulated throughout this study, there were, in our view, 3 principal requirements:
the uses/applications should be market ready and provide definable customer benefits
case history applications are the most appropriate to consider for this end use support promotion. This is
because they incorporate real research and evidence of the waste tyre product performance – and this will be
important to end user audiences as well as enabling positive and convincing ‘sales’ messages
sustained availability of the waste tyre product. This will be a critical issue for any company or organisation
contemplating adopting new materials and processes as shortages will inhibit their ability to deliver their services
Following project discussions with WRAP, refined criteria were added which are outlined above in section 11:
added value
ease of access
likely impact
few issues
beneficial to the maximum number of stakeholders
12.1 Principal contender
12.1.1 Bridleways (& pathways)
Despite the successful use of waste tyre material in gallops or ménage it had not been previously considered for use
in rights of way construction. It is estimated that there are 190,000 km of public rights of way throughout England
and Wales.
An in depth research and implementation study, started in 2005, was initiated by WRAP with Scott Wilson Ltd leading
a consortium of industry and other stakeholders (Charles Lawrence International Ltd, Aggregate Industries Ltd, the

Countryside Agency (now Natural England), Nottinghamshire County Council and the University of Nottingham) with a
specific interest in designing and testing potential surfacing materials for use on such rights of way.
The project included exhaustive trials and user research and received a reassuring level of interest from individuals,
interest groups and local authorities. The project was completed in March 2007 with the conclusion that waste tyre
rubber is eminently suitable for this purpose. So much so that Nottinghamshire County Council is planning on using
one of the trialled specifications in future re-surfacing projects.
The key benefits expected from the surfaces are;
improved durability of bridleway surfaces. A surface which is neither too hard for comfortable use nor too soft,
unlike the main alternatives, asphalt and grass or sand
reduced susceptibility to weather conditions which can make softer surfaces impassable for many users
a more stable and road-like surface, which may deter those interested in off-road activities from using public
rights of way
use not only of potentially large amounts of recycled rubber from waste tyres but also Type 1 aggregate derived
from recycled materials.
The research report, case study and good practice guidance (An installation guide)– can be accessed via the Tyres
Publications pages on the WRAP web site (Rubber in rights of way construction - Technical Report)
This end use meets most of the criteria for promotion;
the application is market ready

it is based on available and exhaustive research and development
it is proven to be practical
a principal specifier/customer (Nottinghamshire County Council) has been a part of the evaluation and is planning
to use the surface
bridleways (and pathways) are a UK wide potential application and therefore create a potential for significant
volume of material use
There are other benefits of this application;
the material can be sourced from car tyres – which are not suitable for some waste tyre products because of
their higher textile and wire content and less rubber than truck or bus tyres
the waste tyre chip size is not very small – 20mm – so a substantial number of waste tyre companies can produce
the necessary grade
there will generally be local waste tyre availability – which is to the benefit of local contractors and County Council
customers – and this creates a local market for waste tyre stakeholders from collectors through to processors
the County Council and Unitary Authority target audiences are easily identified and located and – although not
always easy to engage because of their size and range of influencers and decision makers – have a requirement
and interest in waste minimisation and recycling
the requirements and specification of other Counties for bridleways and footways will, in the main, be no different
to Nottinghamshire
the user groups of public rights of way are diverse – horse riders, walkers and runners – but the surfaces are also
highly suitable for cyclists and are good for wheelchair accessibility and use. This opens further development
options in uses such as towpaths, urban walk ways and cycle ways and extends the possible customers and
specifiers to RDA’s, local authorities and other organisations and associations
the case study shows a good cost/benefit ratio. Adding rubber chippings is said to increase the per metre cost
but is offset by the product performance, the savings on alternative raw materials and the transport costs
this Phase of the programme is not intended to define the promotional content or implementation detail of Phase
2 but it is worth mentioning that this application has the potential to be implemented in a number of ways. For
instance it could be directed at all County councils and confined to the bridleway product. But it could be
developed to involve County councils and their City councils and local authorities through a ‘surfacing solutions’
programme. The bridleways construction concept may well have some relevance to the responsibilities of these
audiences but the programme could introduce them to other surfacing options with case history evidence – such
as micro asphalt – which may have particular benefits to their town or city requirements
if other applications were to be incorporated in this way, we would reaffirm our belief that the messages should
remain related to particular applications and product benefits and should avoid becoming a generic ‘waste tyres
products are a good thing’ presentation as this could lose the focus on the real strengths of proven and practical
applications – which will be the most positive and effective approach

In presenting this suggestion we must point out that not all bridleways and pathways would be suitable for the
construction process undertaken in the case history. Also that immediate and large volume is unlikely because of the
lengthy processes most authorities have to go through in terms of specification and procurement. However, this
would be likely to be the case with most of the waste tyre product sectors where the purchasing decisions are more
complex than in consumer markets where innovative products can be promoted and large sales achieved quickly.
Whether this or another application is chosen, it will be necessary to determine alternative or additional criteria on
which the promotional programme will be measured. Because of the lead times on procurement decisions of this
type it is likely these will be based more on volume potential rather than the immediate volume achievement.
These might be measurements such as the number of key customers accepting a presentation, positive feedback on
the suitability of the product or preferably the hard measures of commitment to incorporate the application in
procurement directives or the adoption of the specification .
WRAP is probably already very familiar with the end user audiences and may well know exactly who are the decision
makers and important influencers. However, it is worth making the point that these are not easy audiences to make
contact with or to meet.
Presentation of the products and applications will almost certainly require tailored personal presentations. These
could, perhaps be made by WRAP along with potential local suppliers of waste tyre material and contractors as this
would add a more specific commercial and market ready element to the presentations.
12.1.2 Other applications
In reviewing the wide range of waste tyre rubber end products it is clear that there are many innovative uses that are
market ready or nearly so and which offer end users significant potential benefits. In horticulture and landscaping
these include coloured mulch, soil improver for grass pitches, artificial turf for pitches and – in construction, roof tiles,
adhesives, insulation and a variety of potential uses for tyre bales and concrete blocks.
These all seem to be products with the all-important end user benefits – and to provide the companies involved with
excellent marketing opportunities and the opportunity for positive messages.
Their elimination was certainly not because of any concerns about the products themselves but, in the main, because
of lower potential for early volume increases, being still in R&D stages or that, due to market size or the need for
higher technology/processing/equipment levels, they would only engage a relatively small number of stakeholders.
So, none quite matched the criteria for this particular programme as accurately as the suggested application.

Appendix 1
Survey questionnaire
WRAP Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support Survey

Survey introduction
Established as a not-for-profit company in 2000. WRAP is backed by Government funding from Defra and
the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The aim of the Tyres Programme is
to develop more markets and more demand for recycled tyre rubber.
This survey will help us to establish how to help the industry with promotion which, in this phase, will be
aimed at increasing awareness and demand for end products in selected market sectors.
Some questions ask for tonnage figures. This is simply for us to estimate the overall size of product
categories and market sectors in the Used Tyre Rubber (UTR) market and the range of company sizes
within it. All individual company information will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
We very much hope you will participate in the survey and thank you in anticipation of your assistance.
However, if you decide not to participate we would appreciate it if you would complete Q22 &
Q23 and return the questionnaire in the reply paid envelope. This information is only to help us
assess the number of companies in the industry and to provide perspective on the results of the survey.
WE WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR HELP IN RETURNING

THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE BY 30 MAY 2007
Q1 Does your company recycle used tyres or use Used Tyre Rubber (UTR) in its products
yes [ ] Continue to Q2 no [ ] see note below & GO TO Q22
If no, we would very much appreciate it if you would complete your company details at the end of the
questionnaire and return it in the reply paid envelope. This will enable us to remove your company from
our recycled tyre rubber company database and not bother you in the future.
Q2 Would you please tell us your role in Used Tyre Rubber
role
(tick all that apply)
Tyre Collector [ ] Continue to Q3
Tyre Shredder [ ] Continue to Q3
Tyre Crumber [ ] Continue to Q3
Tyre Bales [ ] Continue to Q3
ELV Tyre Remover [ ] Continue to Q3
Remould/retreader [ ] Continue to Q3
Manufacturer or installer or
surfacer or moulder etc [ ] Continue to Q3
Pyrolysis Plant [ ] GO TO Q16
Devulcaniser [ ] GO TO Q16
Other [ ] Continue to Q3
(please specify)………………………………

Q3 Does your company
a. collect & deliver waste tyres only yes [ ] GO TO Q18
b. collect and/or PROCESS tyres only yes [ ] Continue to Q4
c. collect and/or PROCESS tyres AND PRODUCE

OR MANUFACTURE UTR products for end uses yes [ ] Continue to Q4
d. produce or manufacture products from

UTR BUT NOT PRODUCE YOUR OWN
‘RAW MATERIAL’ (shred/crumb etc) yes [ ] GO TO Q12
Q4 Would you please tell us how you use your used tyre materials and the approx annual
tonnage
(tick all that apply) use annual tonnes
a. Exported [ ] [ ]
(would you tell us which countries)…………………………………………………………….
b. Re-use (part worn or retread) [ ] [ ]
c. Other WHOLE TYRE uses [ ] [ ]
d. Energy recovery (incineration) [ ] [ ]
e. Process into ‘raw material’ (cuts, shred, chips, granulate, powder,
buffings) for other uses including the manufacture of products [ ] [ ]
f. Manufacture/install products [ ] [ ]
f. Other(please specify)
……………………….…………………………………………… [ ] [ ]
Q5 Does your company EXPORT TYRES ONLY
Yes [ ] GO TO Q16 No [ ] Continue to Q6
Q6 Does your company process UTR into ‘raw material’ ie into cuts, shred, chips, granulate,
powder, buffings.
Yes [ ] Continue to Q7 No [ ] GO TO Q12
Q7 Does your company separate the steel & fibre
Yes [ ] Continue to Q8 No [ ] GO TO Q9
Q8 Where do you send or how do you use the steel & fibre
.........................................................................................................................................
Q9 Would you please tell us your approx annual tonnage of UTR ‘raw materials’ and %
supplied to other UTR companies
(complete all that apply)
annual tonnes retained for your own supplied to other
processing UTR companies
(tonnes) (%)
Cuts > 300mm [ ] [ ] [ ]

Shred 50-300mm [ ] [ ] [ ]
Chips 10-50mm [ ] [ ] [ ]
Granulate 1-10mm [ ] [ ] [ ]
Powder 0-1mm [ ] [ ] [ ]
Fine Powder 0-0.5mm [ ] [ ] [ ]
Buffings [ ] [ ] [ ]
Bales [ ] [ ] [ ]
Other
(please specify)…………………………… [ ] [ ] [ ]
Q10 How is your processed material used

(tick all that apply)
a. for incineration only yes [ ] GO TO Q16
b. for incineration & other purposes yes [ ] Continue to Q11
c. as finished material without further processing yes [ ] Continue to Q11

eg ménage, aggregate replacement etc
d. for further processing in

manufacturing/moulding/installing yes [ ] Continue to Q11
Q11 Could you tell us
a. the principal SECTORS in which your ‘raw material’ customers are (cuts, shred, chips,
granulate, powder, buffings). (tick all that apply)
b. your approx annual tonnage of UTR materials into the sector
a) sector b) approx annual
tonnage of UTR
Sports surfaces [ ] [ ]
Playground surfaces [ ] [ ]
Equestrian [ ] [ ]
Transport [ ] [ ]
Construction [ ] [ ]
Civil engineering
roads, marine etc [ ] [ ]
Carpet underlay [ ] [ ]
Landscaping/Horticulture [ ] [ ]
Landfill engineering [ ] [ ]
Cement kilns [ ] [ ]
Other (please specify)
1………………………………… [ ] [ ]
2………………………………… [ ] [ ]
Don’t know [ ] [ ]
Q12 Does your company MANUFACTURE/MOULD/INSTALL products made from UTR raw
material
Yes [ ] No [ ]
Q13 Would you tell us the type of products you produce from UTR and approx annual
tonnage or units if more applicable (complete all that apply)
Please indicate your product types. If you supply the same product to different sectors, an approximate
split would be of help. If there is no applicable sector please use ‘other’ at the end of this question.

annual tonnage/units Industrial
Construction ....................................................... [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
........................................................ [ ]
........................................................ [ ] Carpet Underlay
………………………………..………………….. [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
………………………………..………………….. [ ]
Civil engineering
....................................................... [ ] Equestrian
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
........................................................ [ ] ………………………………..………………….. [ ]
........................................................ [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
………………………………..………………….. [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
Home products
Landscaping/Horticulture ……………………….……………………………. [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
........................................................ [ ]
....................................................... [ ] Automotive
........................................................ [ ]
Play industry [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
........................................................ [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
………………………………..………………….. [ ]
....................................................... [ ] Transport/Traffic
....................................................... [ ] ........................................................ [ ]
. ………………………………..……………….. [ ] ………………..………………………………….. [ ]
………………………………..………………….. [ ]
Sports industry ........................................................ [ ]
........................................................ [ ]
………………………………..………………….. [ ] Other (please specify)
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
....................................................... [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
........................................................ [ ] ....................................................... [ ]
annual tonnage/units
Q14 To which end-user customers would WRAP promotional activity be of most benefit to
your company. Please indicate any that are important to your company and rank them in relative importance.
1= most important to you. 2 = next important etc
Local authorities [ ] Sports surface users/purchasers [ ]

Construction [ ] Home & garden product manufacturers/suppliers [ ]
Civil engineering, roads etc [ ] Transport [ ]
Developers [ ] Automotive [ ]
Equestrian [ ] other (please specify)
Landscape architects [ ] ………………………………………………………………. [ ]
Landscape constructors [ ] ………………………………………………………………. [ ]
Architects/Urban designers [ ] None [ ]
Horticulture [ ] Don’t know [ ]

Q15 Communication and promotion channels & materials to your audiences
a what do you use now (tick all that apply)

b rank any that would be beneficial in order of importance 1= most important to you. 2 = next
important
Seminars [ ] [ ]
Roadshows [ ] [ ]
Exhibitions/shows [ ] [ ]
Literature/brochures [ ] [ ]
Websites [ ] [ ]
Sales promotion [ ] [ ]
Directories [ ] [ ]
PR [ ] [ ]
Other:
………………………………. [ ] [ ]
………………………………. [ ] [ ]
None [ ] [ ]
Don’t know [ ] [ ]
Q16 Are the UTR materials you require readily available
yes [ ] GO TO Q18 no [ ] Continue to Q17
Q17 What approx percentage of shortfall is there in the materials you require
[ ]%
Q18 What tyres or rubber types do you deal with

all types of all types inc.
truck/bus/agricultural only car/van only tyre rubber non-tyre rubber don’t know
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
Q19 Would you please tell us the approx total tonnage of UTR materials/products and the
annual sales value if possible
a. Used Tyre Rubber annual tonnage [ ]
b. Used Tyre Rubber related annual turnover (£) [ ]
Q20 Would you be willing to complete a similar survey in the future
It is always important to monitor the effect of any development or marketing programme so we hope
you will help us repeat this exercise to establish what impact the programme has on your business
and to enable us to plan future support. yes [ ] no [ ]
Q21 Please add anything you would like to say about Used Tyre Rubber or the WRAP
programme (continue on back page if necessary)
.....................................................................................................................................................
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
.
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Q22 Would you please supply your company details
Your name……………………………………………..…. Your position……………………………………………………………
If you would be happy to be contacted to discuss this issue could you please provide your contact
number…………………………….
Company name…………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………………..
Address………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………...County…………………………………Post code……………………
The very last question - only for those electing not to participate
Q23 Please tick here if you have decided not to participate in the survey
[ ]
If you have any queries or wish to discuss this survey or if you would like a Welsh language copy,
please call PHC Marketing on 01420 85432 or email: mail@phcmarketing.com.
Very many thanks for your time in answering this questionnaire.

Survey letter
Dear«Title_2» «Last_Name_2»
The WRAP Tyres Programme
I am writing to ask if you will assist us in the next steps of WRAP’s Tyres Programme by completing or
authorising completion of the enclosed survey questionnaire. This will enable us to determine the best ways to
project the benefits and image of used tyre product and to provide promotional support for companies in the
industry.
WRAP (Waste & Resources Action Programme) works in partnership to encourage and enable businesses and
consumers to be more efficient in their use of materials and recycle more things more often. This helps to
minimise landfill, reduce carbon emissions and improve our environment.
The objective of the Tyres Programme is to break down the barriers to the collection, segregation and
reprocessing of waste tyres and to develop alternative end uses and markets for the recovered material. WRAP
has already undertaken a range of activities to assist the industry including R & D, operational trials, case studies,
best practice guidance and specification standards development.
We now want to extend this with promotional support to increase the awareness and use of recycled tyre
products. This, in one way or another, should benefit all companies in the tyre recycling industry.
So, the purpose of the survey is to consult with industry stakeholders so that we can determine which sectors
would most benefit from promotion in the current and future phases of the Programme. (A current opportunity
for promoting recycled tyre products is available on the WRAP web site in the Construction Products and Recycled
Products Guides. www.wrap.org.uk shows how).
Our hope is that every industry stakeholder will take part in the survey. This is an ambitious aim but it would
ensure that our support – now and in the future – is used in the most beneficial ways. And it will help us update
our records and to maintain the best possible communication with your company.
Your input is very important to us and will really help find the best ways to increase our support to the industry.
The questionnaire should take no more than a few minutes to complete since not all the questions will apply to
your company. I would like to reassure you that everything you tell us will be treated in the strictest of
confidence and will not be released to any other party.
I do hope you will participate – and by 30 May if possible. If you prefer, you can do this online at
www.phcmarketing.com. If you have any questions or queries please contact PHC Marketing (01420 85432) who
are conducting the survey on WRAP’s behalf – or contact me if you wish.
Yours sincerely
Jacqueline Guinness
Marketing Project Manager – Tyres

Appendix 2
Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1.
Survey findings
Compiling the Database
The database has been built from a variety of sources – the principal one being the original WRAP
database.
As the survey was to be of companies considered likely to be in the UK used tyre rubber industry,
entries that were clearly not this – such as associations, overseas companies, academics, consultants
etc were removed.
Potential UTR companies were added from other sources such as: API, RMA, TRA, SAPCA, DTI,
LetsRecycle, WRAP’s on-line Construction and Recycling Directories, other companies that had
contacted WRAP about possible entries to the Directories, enquiries for PAS 107 & 108 and web
directory searches.
This resulted in a total of 493 companies.
However, because the company data emanated from such a wide range of sources and, in some
cases with limited detail, there could be no certainty that all the companies did utilise used tyre
rubber. In fact, although companies have contacted WRAP, or other organisations such as
LetsRecycle, to register their involvement in recycling they have not always made clear if they are in
the Used Tyre Rubber market or what role they play. Therefore, part of the requirement of the
survey was to establish which companies are, in fact, in the UTR market or what role they play.
The database was de-duped for multiple company names or addresses and the remaining companies
were contacted by phone to identify, where possible, the name of the Managing Director or a senior
Director. This was thought advisable because the questionnaire included requests for some volume
and financial information that might not be in the remit of some of the more usual ‘day-to-day’
contacts.
This exercise produced a substantial amount of useful contact data but it also revealed a significant
number of companies that had moved, ceased trading or for which there was insufficient or incorrect
address information. Where possible the missing data was completed or corrected using telephone
and other directories.
The response
The de duping, removal of non-trading companies and those without sufficient data for contact
purposes resulted in a reduction of the database to 440 – and these were mailed. Nearly 50 were
returned by Royal Mail as ‘gone aways’ leaving a ‘legitimate’ database of 391.
Of these, 110 responded – around 28% of the ‘legitimate’ database.
28 said they are not in UTR reducing the ‘legitimate’ database to 363. The other 83 respondents are
in UTR in one way or another and this represents around 23% of the reduced database.
Considerations
1. Identifying actual UTR companies from various lists of recycling companies and/or Association
lists and/or enquirers is very difficult. In many cases the information supplied by the
companies is not sufficiently detailed to enable accurate assessment of whether UTR is or is
not used eg a tyre recycling equipment manufacturer may not be identifiable as this from the
information provided – and a play or sports ground installer may or may not use UTR or,
indeed, any type of rubber.
For these reasons, a number of non UTR companies were in the survey and it is to be
expected that there are more non UTR companies remaining on the database.
2. A 28% response is an acceptable response level for a survey of this type. However, the wide
range of company types and market sectors means that the representation in any segment
will not be large.
3. Many companies would seem to have provided a relatively low level of detail in the product
questions.
4. Whilst the level of response is good, there are a significant number of companies that have
not responded and some of these are probably main players.
5. Company information previously on WRAP’s database has been preserved and will be added to
the new knowledge obtained.
6. The database will require longer term development, as we have previously mentioned, for it to
be a comprehensive representation of the industry. At some stage, those with insufficient data
should be tracked down and the data added to the database. This could be further enhanced
by website and other searches and additional sector, or product-specific, surveys.
Overview
Conclusions are still to be completed and will be incorporated into the overall project findings and
recommendations.
The following is a summary of question by question responses. Further analysis will continue.
Q1 Does your company recycle used tyres or use Used Tyre Rubber (UTR) in its products
There were 110 responses – around 28% of the ‘legitimate’ database. (391 – as described in the
initial summary)
27 of these have said they are not in UTR – reducing the ‘legitimate’ database to 363.
5 returned the questionnaire but declined to participate.
The other 78 respondents are in UTR in one way or another and this represents around 21% of the
363 database.
6 of the 78 are not actually operating in UTR at present being ‘not yet in production’, ‘just finishing
the research stage’ etc – but intend to be in the market in the near future. It seems likely that these
are people who have enquired for information from WRAP as part of their business development and
their responses have been included in the analysis.
Q2 Would you please tell us your role in Used Tyre Rubber
69 of the potential 78 respondents completed this question.
This table shows the number of responses to each type of ‘recycler’. Many of the companies
undertake more than one of the roles.
For instance of the Collectors, Shredders and Crumbers, 16 collect only (in the UTR context) 10 collect
& shred, 6 shred & crumb but don’t collect and 5 companies do all three.

Tyre Collector 36
Tyre Shredder 19
Tyre Crumber 8
Tyre Bales 10
ELV Tyre Remover 6
Remould/retreader 11
Manufacturer or installer or surfacer or moulder etc 14
Pyrolysis Plant -
Devulcaniser 1
Other 4
1. agents for American patented process
2. continuous reductive distillation
3. retail product for sale on e-shop
4. technology developer
Q3 Does your company:
72 of the potential 78 respondents answered this question
a. collect & deliver waste tyres only 16

b. collect and/or PROCESS tyres only 20
c. collect and/or PROCESS tyres AND PRODUCE
OR MANUFACTURE UTR products for end uses 18
d. produce or manufacture products from
UTR BUT NOT PRODUCE YOUR OWN
‘RAW MATERIAL’ (shred/crumb etc) 18
Q4 Would you please tell us how you use your used tyre materials and the approx annual
38 respondents were ’eligible’ to answer this question but 43 did so. Some undertake multiple tasks
a. Exported 9
Spain, Ireland, Guinea, France, Australia, New Zealand, Greece,
Czech Rep, Switzerland, Turkey, Romania, Portugal, Eastern Block,
Africa, Brazil, India
b. Re-use (part worn or retread) 15
c. Other WHOLE TYRE uses 10
d. Energy recovery (incineration) 5
e. Process into ‘raw material’ (cuts, shred, chips, granulate, powder,
buffings) for other uses including the manufacture of products 18
f. Manufacture/install products 7
f. Other 2
Oil, carbon black & steel
Repolymerisation converts crumb into new tyre compounds
Q6 Does your company process UTR into ‘raw material’ ie into cuts, shred, chips,
granulate, powder, buffings.
Of the 43 companies arriving at this question, 23 said they process UTR into raw material and
continued through this section of the questionnaire. 17 do not process raw material and moved to
Q12. 3 did not answer.
Q7 Does your company separate the steel & fibre

& Q8 Where do you send or how do you use the steel & fibre

13 companies separate these materials and stated what happened to them:
landfill
bale steel fibres & sell to scrap metal companies. Fibre retained in crumb product
fibre & steel fully recovered for use in rubber applications & new steel manufacture
recycled
recycled
reshred to clean steel then sold to scrap merchant for recycling
scrap
sold / recycled
steel is exported via 3rd party, fibre is landfilled
steel sent for reprocessing, fibre recycled
steel to scrap yard, fibre not separated
Q9 Would you please tell us approx annual tonnage and 3rd party sales of your UTR ‘raw
materials’
Of the 23 companies from Q6, 19 provided tonnage figures.
For use as anything other than individual company data the survey tonnage returns would need
further analysis against other data – with particular regard to the probable number of companies
operating in the UTR raw materials processing sector and the potential for double counting.
annual tonnes retained for supplied to other

your own processing UTR companies
(tonnes) (%)
Cuts > 300mm 19,200 18,000

Shred 50-333mm 99,235 1,630
Chips 10-50mm 14,835 4,690
Granulate 1-10mm 8,040 7,040
Powder 0-10mm - -
Fine Powder 0-1mm - -
Buffings 198 -
Bales 4,450 2,700
Other 10 -
Q10 How is your processed material used
23 companies answered this question.
One company supplies material for incineration and as a finished product and one company supplies
finished material without further processing as well as supplying for further processing. All others do
only one or other.
a. for incineration only -

b. for incineration & other purposes 2
c. as finished material without further processing 12
eg ménage, aggregate replacement etc
d. for further processing in
manufacturing/moulding/installing 11

Q11 Could you tell us
a. the principal SECTORS in which your ‘raw material’ customers are (cuts, shred, chips,
granulate, powder, buffings).
b. your approx annual sales of UTR materials into the sector
c. your approx annual tonnage of UTR materials into the sector
24 companies answered this question.
As suggested for Q9 this information would need further analysis against other data if it is to be used
for anything other than individual company profiles.
A significant consideration in any comparison of figures and the way respondents report them is the
difference between the used tyres feedstock tonnage and the net recovery of rubber from them after
processing and removal of steel and fabric. This difference is substantial with – in the Oakdene
Hollins 2004 figures – 172 k tonnes of tyres producing 117 tonnes of rubber.
a) sector b) approx annual

tonnage of UTR (tonnes)
Sports surfaces 7 5,520
Playground surfaces 9 5,937
Equestrian 10 6,930
Transport 3 4,001
Construction 2 -
Civil engineering
roads, marine etc 2 500
Carpet underlay 3 22,000
Landscaping / Horticulture 4 262
Landfill engineering 4 61,250
Cement kilns 3 17,170
Other (please specify) 180
emerging from R&D No tonnages yet

new tyres
processor
reprocessor
Don’t Know 2
Q12 Does your company MANUFACTURE/MOULD/INSTALL products made from UTR raw
material
59 companies were ‘eligible’ to answer this question. 55 did so.
20 do MANUFACTURE/MOULD/INSTALL. 35 do not.
Q13 Would you tell us the type of products you produce from UTR and approx annual
sales value
55 companies were eligible to answer this question. Only 26 did so. Most provided some figures but
as only half the potential sample completed this section, the tonnages have been omitted for
simplicity at this stage.
The products are listed below as provided on the questionnaires. There are no ‘new’ or ‘surprising’
products.
Would you please indicate your product types. If there is not an applicable sector please indicate your
product in the ‘other’ section at the end of this question.

Construction Sports industry
acoustic insulation tracks as shredded
tyre bales infill
flooring sports flooring
infill
Landscaping crumb various grades
tyre bales pitch infill
tree cushions
tree buffer Carpet underlay
rubber mulches
mulch Equestrian
soil improver stable flooring
menage as shredded
Civil Engineering horse arenas
tyre bales
rail crossing panels flooring
landfill engineering 1m square slabs
in surfacing product stable matting
drainage as shredded
Home & garden
Industrial mouse mats
packaging wedges
sheeting
anti-vibration pads Automotive parts
acoustic flooring pads new tyres
Road surfaces
Transport
Play industry trucks
wet pour sleeping policemen
playground as shredded civil engineering
Play tiles bollards
play surfaces 1m sq mats
loose fill play surfaces
in situ safety surfacing Other (please specify).
flooring rifle range
crumb various grades reprocessors (crumb
bonded mats on farm tyre baling
1m square mats new tyres - potential use
step posts landfill engineering
play mats high quality rubbers for moulding & other applications
20mm play chips farming
spin discs & hopscotch reprocessor carcasses

Q14 To which end-user customers would WRAP promotional activity be of most benefit to
your company.
55 respondents were eligible for this question. 45 answered.
It is, perhaps, not surprising that local authorities are seen as an

important audience as they are involved in many of the principal
established markets.
%. saying
respondents priority
Local authorities 24 67
Construction 24 71
Civil engineering, roads etc 18 83
Landscape constructors 17 53
Landscape architects 16 69
Architects/Urban designers 15 50
Transport 14 78
Sports surface users/ purchasers 14 64
Developers 13 31
Equestrian 10 70
Automotive 8 75
Home & garden product manufacturers 7 57
Other included Govt & general public
Q15 Communication and promotion channels & materials to your audiences
a what do you use now

b rank any that would be beneficial in order of importance
55 respondents were eligible for this question. 50 answered.
In many cases the channels desired by each respondent were not the ones they used at present.
Whilst this could be because their current channels are not as successful as they would like it could
also mean they would like some opportunities that their current budgets or resources cannot support.
a) use b) would be
now benefit c) % saying priority
Exhibitions/shows 17 19 80
Literature/brochures 26 18 77
Websites 34 16 56
Roadshows 2 14 64
Seminars 7 13 61
Advertising 23 12 75
Directories 14 12 67
Sales promotion 16 10 60
PR 17 9 67
Q16 Are the UTR materials you require readily available

& Q17 What approx percentage of shortfall is there in the materials you require
43 answered this question. Only 3 said they had a shortfall and this was of the order of 2)5 & 40%

Q18 What tyres or rubber types do you deal with
69 respondents answered this question.

all types of all types inc.
truck/bus/agricultural only car/van only tyre rubber non-tyre rubber don’t know
24 19 36 13 2
Q19 Would you please tell us the approx total annual turnover of your company (or
group) and the UTR contribution
These statistics have been omitted for the moment as they are only appropriate on an individual
company basis
a. Used Tyre Rubber related annual turnover (£)
b. Used Tyre Rubber annual tonnage
Q20 Would you be willing to complete a similar survey in the future
63 respondents said they would be prepared to do this.
Q21 Please add anything you would like to say about Used Tyre Rubber or the WRAP
programme
The following is a list of verbatim comments
1. A retailer - does not manufacture or produce

My company is closing the loop & making recycling profitable - WRAP is not much help to me
2. agents for American patented process allowing used tyres to be devulacanised in a commercially
viable manner see notes supplied - ECSER Technologies
3. Currently setting up company have site, planning applied for have stock of 1m + tyres
4. Environment Consultant Broker EA
5. If retreading is thought by WRAP to be the BPEO when it comes to a used tyre then why is it
taking so long to get any support for an ailing but well established industry?
6. import duty is not applied to raw material. Would like zero duty rating applied to formed product
from UTR when purchasing overseas
7. Q! all products made from rubber are bought in - PPL do not manufacture
8. Q13 Aiming to make railways sleepers with UTR content
9. Q13 research work involves malering ?? & characterising compounds based on rubber crumb
Brochure attached
10. Q16 Not all grades in this country @ economical prices
Q20 if it helps us
Q21for further information you can access various press articles on our use of recycled tyre
rubber and our export drive from our website www.rosehillpolymers.com
11. Q18 earthmover only
Q21 WRAP should promote sustainable development and how retreading satisfies this
12. Q18 Textile only
13. Q19 circa 5,000,000 tyres per year
14. Q4 not disclosed Q9 Shred all retained for own use
15. See letter - summary below
We do buy used tyre rubber which has been process, it stripped of all metal & fibre from
producers and sell to the equestrian market place for specific usage on ménages also for other
sports surfaces and play areas
16. sold interest in recycling tyres to Envirotyre Carlisle

17. The company is considering entering the market and would appreciate being kept in the loop

18. The majority of crumb is imported into the UK & not produced from UK shredding companies.
19. volumes & sales are confidential
Q14 any additional usage is helpful
Q21 The best thing for used tyre is as a fuel. Please get power stations to burn them
20. We are a tyre collector which we then bale and the bales are then sent for shredding which is
then used in playgrounds and horse arenas. We are looking for a use of our bales in construction
and sea defence
21. We are hoping to set up to recycle in the near future At present we only collect the waste tyres
and are taken for disposal to an incineration plant
22. we are manufacturers agents for tyre recycling equipment
23. we are suppliers of tyre recycling equipment
24. we consider repolymerisation offers the greatest opportunity to both ourselves and WRAP as this
technology offers a total solution to waste tyre problem. WRAP should look at maximising this
opportunity
25. We feel that any information we give or have given to wrap, or associated consultancy companies
does not benefit us whatsoever, in what is already a very difficult and unsupported market.
We will continue under our own steam; as we have done for the last
26. We have only recently purchased a tyre baler to produce PAS108 quality blocks therefore we are
unable to provide much information particularly tonnages
27. We may e involved in re-using shredded tyres in the future. We are looking into resin coating
shredded tyres that have been coloured to look like bark for mulching. So we are interested in
receiving information
28. we used to import roofing slates made from recycled rubber
29. we would be able to make many more products if we had advertising budgets marketing
experience, money for moulds etc we have many ideas, but are restricted by budgets&
knowledge of sales & marketing. We are only a small company & not many people know we
30. Will not supply commercially sensitive information
WRAP has clearly indicated it is not interested in helping us in what we do. Indeed the format of
this questionnaire demonstrates where WRAP's interests lies. Until WRAP fully acknowledges
what we do and
31. WRAP consider retreaders only as manufacturers - we do not agree as we recycle the worn
casings further use and also forward approx 20000 casing rejected for retreading for either
granulation or fuel which costs us approx £115,000 pa

Written by: Jeff Smithers & Peter Heath
Published by
Waste & Resources The Old Academy Tel: 01295 819 900 Helpline freephone
Action Programme 21 Horse Fair Fax: 01295 819 911 0808 100 2040
Banbury, Oxon E-mail: info@wrap.org.uk
OX16 0AH www.wrap.org.uk

37 - PHC Final Report 30-8-07 For Approval.3d83dd7c

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

37 - PHC Final Report 30-8-07 For Approval.3d83dd7c

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Tyres report

Tyres Programme: End Product

Project code: TYR0028 ISBN:

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 1

It was considered that this application:

 is a ‘proven’ product (an exhaustive and successful case history)

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 2

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 3

2.1 Desk Research

2.2 Database development

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 4

2.3 Survey & questionnaire

3.0 Survey results

The survey produced some useful information on a number of topics:

3.2.1 Preferred end-user audiences

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 5

61 eligible 45 companies answered Responses Priority

3.2.2 Beneficial promotion channels

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 6

3.3 Survey conclusions

4.0 Market Statistics

4.1 Principal waste tyre sectors

 reduction in landfill from 30% to 12%

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 7

 Total:  Other (export/ASR disposal)

 2004 Total: 475 ktonnes  2005 Total: 487 ktonnes (+2.5%)

The main factors in this forecast were that;

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 8

4.1.2 Landfill engineering would see strong growth

Growth in other principal sectors is assumed to show no or low growth;

The Material Recovery category shares estimated by OHL in 2004 were;

Total 172 ktonnes (117 ktonnes recovered rubber)

Equestrian 41 ktonnes 35%

4.2 Market statistics – considerations

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 9

5.0 Market analysis

5.1 Key project criteria

 identify appropriate end use markets/products for marketing support

5.2 Growth sectors

5.2.1 Landfill engineering

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 10

 established, mature markets are difficult to influence without significant investment

5.4 Market summary

6.0 The Markets & Products

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 11

Construction Equestrian Floor mats

7.0 Narrowing the options

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 12

9.0 The construction/civil engineering segment

And this may not be comprehensive.

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 13

Our recommendation, therefore, is that WRAP should;

9.1.1 Key influencers on recycled content in the construction industry

Area of Potential Clients Consultants Main Distributors

Application Usage Contractors

Airports High – major Mainly Significant Some input Low

Central Limited – little Significant Moderate Significant Low

government new build and

Local Authority – High – major Moderate Moderate – Significant Low

schools PFI projects significant

Tyres Programme: End Product Marketing Support. Phase 1. 14

NHS Trusts High – major Moderate Moderate Significant Low

is a ‘proven’ product (an exhaustive and successful case history)

reduction in landfill from 30% to 12%

Total: Other (export/ASR disposal)

2004 Total: 475 ktonnes 2005 Total: 487 ktonnes (+2.5%)

identify appropriate end use markets/products for marketing support

established, mature markets are difficult to influence without significant investment

the application is market ready