Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 57
Final Report An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Pro g ramme and a Forecast of the

Final Report

An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a Forecast of the UK’s Used Tyre Market up to 2015

and a Forecast of the UK’s Used Tyre Market up to 2015 Project code: TYR031 Research

WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change.

use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. Written by: Georgina Le Neve Foster Front

Written by: Georgina Le Neve Foster

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

WRAP and Environmental Resources Management believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept 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. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in a misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP’s endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP’s Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk

Executive Summary

Environmental Resources Management Ltd (ERM) was commissioned by WRAP to carry out a project with the following two specific objectives:

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

2 to carry out forecasts up to 2015 for the UK used tyre market. The aim was to suggest the predicted tonnage growth or decline in the main UK used tyre sectors based on current trends, perceived economic changes and information from the used tyre industry. It included consideration of the maximum and minimum market potential for the main UK tyre sectors up to 2015.

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

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

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

The response rate to this questionnaire was not as high as expected but the feedback received was valuable and provided a good insight into the effectiveness of WRAP’s tyre programme and the industry overall.

WRAP’s Tyres Programme was generally very well received by stakeholders with over half of those who responded stating that the overall programme had been effective. There were a small number of negative comments relating to the promotion activities associated with some projects and how projects were selected for funding. Feedback on the Publicly Available Specification (PAS) documents was very positive and stakeholders recognised these as the most successful publications. Nearly all respondents who mentioned these documents felt that they had had a significant impact on the tyre industry. Stakeholders felt that the Tyres Programme had provided a useful awareness raising and information provision tool.

ERM created a number of scenarios to illustrate how the used tyre industry is likely to look up to 2015. These scenarios were based on ERM’s knowledge of the industry and feedback from key stakeholders.

In terms of changes to the market in the future, ERM believes that the tonnage of tyres sent for retread and reuse will remain fairly constant with a reduction occurring in the export and landfill engineering market. The recycling industry is likely to grow as demand for rubber for use in road surfacing or construction increases and as new and emerging technologies such as cryogenics come in to the market. It is believed that energy recovery through burning tyres in cement kilns will remain strong due to a continued need for more environmentally sound alternative fuels.

The greatest impact on future management routes for used tyres is likely to be from changes to environmental policy and legislation. The banning of tyres (whole and shredded) from landfill has meant that alternative markets have needed to be found to dispose of used tyres. Similarly, legislative controls would impact on the future management routes of used tyres, with excess tyres needing alternative disposal or management routes.

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

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

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

Contents

1.0

Project Objectives

 

3

2.0

Approach

 

3

3.0

Introduction to WRAP’s Tyre Programme

4

4.0

Review of WRAP Projects

 

4

5.0

Stakeholder Feedback on WRAP Tyre Programme

5

5.1 Where has WRAP had the most and least influence?

6

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

6

5.3 Could the Programme have been improved in anyway?

7

5.4 Was the Programme resourced adequately?

8

5.5 What impact did WRAP have in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the collection,

segregation and disposal of waste tyres?

8

5.6

WRAP’s influence in developing alternative end uses and end markets for used tyres

9

6.0

Key Conclusions of Review of Tyre Programme

10

7.0

Used Tyre Arisings

 

12

7.1 Growth Rate 1: DfT Future Forecast

12

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

13

8.0

Factors affecting End Markets

 

14

8.1 Past and Current End Markets

14

8.2 Factors affecting End Markets

15

8.3 Stakeholder Feedback on Future Markets

15

8.4 Future End Markets

 

16

9.0

Forecasting Used Tyre Arisings

17

9.1

Scenario Forecasts

 

17

 

9.1.1

Scenario

1

20

9.1.2

Scenario

2

20

9.1.3 Scenario

3

20

9.1.4 Scenario

4

21

10.0

The Preferred Scenario

28

11.0

Conclusions and ERM Forecasts

30

11.1 Reuse

 

30

11.2 Retreading

 

30

11.3 Recycling

 

30

11.4 Landfill Engineering

 

31

11.5 Energy Recovery

31

11.6 Landfill

 

31

11.7 Exports

31

12.0

Acknowledgements

 

32

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Questionnaire

33

Appendix 2 WRAP Programme Review

44

Introduction

1.0 Project Objectives

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

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

2 to carry out forecasts up to 2015 for the UK used tyre market. The aim was to suggest the predicted tonnage growth or decline in the main UK used tyre sectors based on current trends, perceived economic changes and information from the used tyre industry. Further to this, it intended to consider the maximum and minimum market potential for the main UK tyre sectors up to 2015.

2.0 Approach

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

In order to develop a series of possible projections for the future handling of used tyres up until 2015, ERM carried out desk-based research into factors which can impact on:

the volumes of used tyre arisings; and

the different methods of managing used tyres.

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

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

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

A copy of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 1.

Review of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

3.0 Introduction to WRAP’s Tyre Programme

WRAP funded a broad range of projects including the development of two PAS documents on tyre bales for use in construction and the manufacture and storage of size reduced tyre materials, demonstration trials (such as the use of post-consumer tyres to deliver sustainable construction of public rights of way), operational trials (such as testing the incorporation of a new kind of ultra-fine crumb rubber into truck tyre compound) and R&D projects (such as determining if crumb rubber would be a suitable aggregate replacement in concrete blocks and assessing technical and operational details of waste tyres in landfill engineering applications).

Individual projects may address one of more of the overall aims of the Programme. The main objectives of the WRAP’s Tyre Programme were to:

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

Develop alternative end uses for the recovered material; and

Develop the end markets for this material.

WRAP suggested five further objectives which were:

Market development;

Support funding;

Raising awareness;

Providing information; and

Overcoming legislative barriers.

ERM carried out a high level review of all WRAP’s project outputs with the aim of assessing which have met WRAP’s objectives. ERM also sought feedback from stakeholders on the impact of the Programme via the questionnaire in relation to these objectives (see Section 5.0).

4.0 Review of WRAP Projects

ERM assessed all 82 project outputs provided on the WRAP website that were commissioned over the three year period against the overall aims and objectives of the Programme. ERM reviewed and assessed each publication to determine whether they met WRAP’s objectives. This high level review was done by a simple ‘tick box’ exercise against the five WRAP objectives: market development; support funding; raising awareness; providing information; and overcoming legislative barriers. The results of this review are presented in Appendix 2.

The majority of the publications could be considered to meet the providing information and raising awareness objectives as outputs were all published on the WRAP website and all intend to provide information on the project or event to which they relate. The Stakeholder Forums provided a good means of networking and although not necessarily raising awareness of the overall tyres industry, they enabled the different sectors to become more aware of the Programme and the activities of other industry sectors.

PAS 107 and 108 met a number of WRAP objectives and were received favourably by the industry. They provide information and are a means of regulating the industry in terms of ensuring that tyre bales and grades of rubber are of a consistent and verifiable quality. In this sense they could also be considered to meet the objective of overcoming legislative barriers. Methods which address better regulation in the sector result in improved confidence in products. This helps stabilise markets and thereby helps to reduce market impacts such as the Landfill Directive and End of Life Vehicles (ELV) Directive. Both Directives have increased the number of used tyres needing alternative management.

Project TYR010 (UK Used Tyre Market 2004) is likely to prove useful to policy makers through the provision of forecasts and market disruption planning scenarios.

From our assessment of the WRAP projects, it was clear that all case studies met the market development objective as they were generally involved with research and development and were carrying out trials on emerging ways of reprocessing and reusing tyres. A number of these projects also received support funding. Table 1 below provides a list of all case studies on the WRAP website.

Table 1 WRAP Case Studies

Project Title

Support Funding

Porthcawl Golf Course improving thoroughfares

 

Equestrian Surface, Tyre chip for an all-weather gallop

 

Car and Light Truck Retreads

 

Rubber in Rights of Way Construction

Cardiff Arms Park: Grass Improvement

 

Dunweedin: Tyre shred as horticultural mulch

 

Powder in Truck Tyre Retreads

Artificial Turf

 

Bridleways

Devulcanisation

 

Roof Slates

Tile Adhesives

 

Lightweight Blocks

Landfill Leachate Layer

 

Shore Protection

 

Street Furniture

 

Duralay Carpet Underlay

 

Micro-Asphalt

 

Moulded Products

 

Playtop

 

Biffa Retreaded Tyres

 

Micro-asphalt for resurfacing footways and minor carriageways

 

Use of tyre bales in embankment core for River Witham Phase 23 flood defence contract

 

Use of tyre bales as replacement for shingle in flood defence scheme at Pevensey Beach

 

Use of tyre bales as replacement for unbound sub-base and capping to repair damage to unsurfaced road

 

Projects involving different types of surfaces such as roads, rights of way, sports surfaces and landscaping were generally all seen to provide information. Some reports were considered to meet the objective of market

development and others had received support funding.

The retread projects such as the Powder in Truck Tyre Retreads case study met the market development and providing information objectives as they explored different uses for the powder. Other retread projects all were

considered to provide information.

All publications and projects focusing on emerging technologies also met the providing information objective. The Market Study on the Demand for Char from Tyre Pyrolysis identifies a wide range of potential market outlets for pyrolysis char in the UK and therefore could be considered to meet the market development objective.

5.0 Stakeholder Feedback on WRAP Tyre Programme

70 tyre stakeholders were sent a detailed questionnaire asking for their views on the three year WRAP Tyres Programme and on future markets for used tyres. 27 stakeholders (39%) responded and of these three did not feel able to provide meaningful answers to the questions. Although this response rate is quite low, those who did respond provided useful feedback on the WRAP Programme. This Section provides a summary of these responses.

5.1

Where has WRAP had the most and least influence?

Stakeholders were asked where they felt WRAP had had the most or least influence. They were asked to rank which industry/product areas were most and least influential in terms of the following five objectives:

Market Development;

Support Funding;

Legislation and Standards;

Raising Awareness; and

Providing Information.

Figure 1 Ranked responses to the areas in which WRAP has had the most and least influence (5 = most influence, 0 = least influence)

5 4 3 2 1 0 Market Support Legislation & Raising Providing Development Funding Standards
5
4
3
2
1
0
Market
Support
Legislation &
Raising
Providing
Development
Funding
Standards
Awareness
Information

Figure 1 shows that according to stakeholders WRAP has had most influence in providing information and on legislation and standards – the PAS documents were specifically mentioned by a large number of respondents. Stakeholders commented on how WRAP had enabled a number of R&D projects to be funded, however they felt it was too early to say if the Programme had impacted on market development. ERM recommends that WRAP should repeat this question to the sector in a few years time when the industry has had time to develop further in these areas.

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

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

PAS 107 and 108 were generally very well received by the tyre industry. According to stakeholders, they have been the most successful projects WRAP has commissioned. Stakeholders felt that these documents were of most significance to their companies and had genuinely made a difference to the way in which the construction industry views tyre products. The availability of standards helps break down market barriers, keeps the industry properly regulated, allows businesses to show they are meeting industry expectations and ensures consumer confidence.

Some stakeholders felt that the promotion of these documents could have been better. It was felt that opportunities were missed with PAS 108 as it was not promoted in the relevant publications and therefore the overall impact of the document was less than it could have been. These stakeholders were exclusively from the used tyre reprocessor sector.

Despite this feedback, the stakeholders indicated that these two publications provided the industry with ‘an excellent piece of work’ that will ensure the production of consistent products and that quality control is maintained.

Two further respondents (not within the used tyre reprocessor sector) felt that the promotion of projects was sometimes not adequate. Both of these respondents stated that this could have been due to either their location or the fact that they do not work solely in the waste tyre industry, however, it is evident that there is potential for improvement in this area.

The WRAP website was generally favourably received and stakeholders felt that it was very informative and provided a wealth of material. However, one respondent felt that it was not very user friendly and would have benefited from a summary and list of all the reports and projects undertaken. It was felt that WRAP had contributed significantly in the provision of tools and research that could be used by specific markets rather than providing any direct impact in market development. One respondent felt that it was down to the individual sectors to make the best use of the resources provided by WRAP.

There were differing viewpoints on the way WRAP had funded certain projects. In some cases, it was felt that money had not been well spent and better consultation should have been carried out before selecting projects to fund. Some stakeholders felt that businesses should not receive any funding. Responses in this vein were received from trade associations and used tyre reprocessors.

Other stakeholders felt that more funding would have been beneficial and would have resulted in larger R&D projects and that more capital funding and promotional work was still needed. These responses came from a variety of sectors including used tyre reprocessors, trade associations, consultancies and technology developers.

One stakeholder felt that although the work on tyre bales and roof tiles was very good it could have been promoted more effectively.

5.3 Could the Programme have been improved in anyway?

Stakeholders were asked how WRAP’s tyre programme could have been improved. A small number of respondents felt that support funding could have been improved in terms of how the decision process was carried out and the fact that there should have been more funding for R&D projects. One respondent suggested that the allocation of funding should have been a two-tier process so that successful R&D projects should be eligible to receive more funding in a second commercial development phase. As mentioned in Section 5.2 above, these responses were from a number of different sectors.

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

Figure 2 Level of Improvement Necessary for WRAP’s Tyre Programme

9 8 7 Number of Respondents 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Significant Minor
9
8
7
Number of
Respondents
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Significant
Minor
Unsure

Figure 2 shows that there was some uncertainty as to whether the WRAP Programme needed to be improved. 40% of respondents (8 out of 20) felt that minor improvements were necessary. Respondents were unsure as to the relevance of this question in view of the fact that the Programme was coming to a close.

It was felt that the Programme would have benefited from being five years rather than three years and that it would have been improved if there had been the opportunity to draw lessons from what had been done.

5.4 Was the Programme resourced adequately?

Stakeholders were asked whether they felt the Programme was resourced adequately. 87% (20) of those who responded to the questionnaire answered this question. Over half (11 respondents) felt that it had been resourced well with only four stating that it had been under resourced.

Figure 3 Was the Programme Resourced Adequately

12 10 Number of 8 Respondents 6 4 2 0 Resourced Adequately Under Resourced Unsure
12
10
Number of
8
Respondents
6
4
2
0
Resourced Adequately
Under Resourced
Unsure

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

Stakeholders were asked how WRAP’s programme has impacted on barriers to the collection, segregation and disposal of waste tyres.

Figure 4 shows the number of respondents who felt that WRAP had impacted on the breaking down of barriers to the collection, segregation and disposal of waste tyres. There were no negative responses; however the data shows that the majority of respondents were unsure. Stakeholders were not willing or did not feel happy to speculate whether WRAP had positively or negatively impacted in this area.

Those who responded positively felt that market transparency had been improved by the work on charges and market scenarios and that one of the biggest barriers to the industry is lack of awareness. It was felt that WRAP had increased awareness in these areas, although that there was still room for improvement.

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

16 14 12 10 Sig Positive Impact 8 Positive Impact Unsure 6 4 2 0
16
14
12
10
Sig Positive Impact
8
Positive Impact
Unsure
6
4
2
0
Collection
Segregation
Reprocessing

5.6 WRAP’s influence in developing alternative end uses and end markets for used tyres

In terms of developing end uses it was felt that WRAP had been influential in some areas through its support funding of various R&D projects and its provision of market and technical information. Specific end uses that stakeholders felt WRAP had helped to develop included roof tiles, using rubber in plasterboard and using ultra fine ground post consumer tyres in truck tyre retreads. However it was felt that WRAP had not been particularly influential in other areas, such as using rubber in roads, and that more could have been done to develop materials to be used in construction.

From Figure 5 it is clear that the majority of respondents felt WRAP had had neither a positive nor a negative influence in developing end markets for used tyres. WRAP has helped promote alternative solutions but it was felt that the final impact of these new markets would be dependent on current markets accepting these new materials or products. According to one stakeholder, WRAP’s contribution was more in the area of providing tools and research rather than having any direct impact in market development. The respondent felt that it was the responsibility of the individual sectors to make the best use of the resources provided by WRAP. Overall, it was felt that in terms of general awareness raising and provision of information WRAP had been influential, although two respondents felt that WRAP had not been at all influential in developing end markets and that there had been no significant increase in the volume of recycling capacity within the UK.

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

12 10 8 6 4 2 0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Developing alternative end uses for used tyre material

Developing end markets for used tyres

Very Influential ery Influential

InfluentialV ery Influential Neutral Not very Influential Not at all Influential

NeutralV ery Influential Influential Not very Influential Not at all Influential

Not very InfluentialV ery Influential Influential Neutral Not at all Influential

Not at all InfluentialV ery Influential Influential Neutral Not very Influential

6.0 Key Conclusions of Review of Tyre Programme

Overall stakeholders received the WRAP Tyres Programme favourably and felt it provided a useful awareness raising and information provision tool. There were a small number of negative comments relating to how some projects were promoted and how projects were selected for funding. The publications recognised as being the most successful were the PAS 107 and 108 documents. Nearly all respondents who mentioned these documents felt that they had had a significant impact on the tyre industry.

Respondents felt that the website was a good source of information but that it was up to the individual sectors to make the best use of the resources that have been provided. A number of stakeholders felt that the Tyres Programme should have continued for five rather than three years.

Figure 6 shows that, overall, the WRAP Programme was effective with only two respondents stating that it was not very effective and no stakeholders that it was not at all effective. This is a positive outcome for the Tyres Programme.

Figure 6 How effective has WRAP’s overall Tyres Programme been?

Number of

Respondents

14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Very Effective Effective Neutral Not Very Effective
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Very Effective
Effective
Neutral
Not Very
Effective
Not at all
Effective

It is important to note that although the responses received provided good and full feedback on the WRAP Tyres Programme, only a relatively small number of stakeholders returned the questionnaires. From the responses it is clear that there was an overall view that the programme had been effective, however these views do not necessarily reflect the view of the whole industry. In order to obtain a more comprehensive view of the Programme a response rate of at least 50% would be preferable.

Forecast of UK Markets for Waste Tyres

7.0 Used Tyre Arisings

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

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

improved durability of tyre materials; and

policy or legislative changes.

Generally it is predicted that volumes of used tyres are expected to rise as car ownership increases and as the number of miles driven per vehicle year is growing. However, improved durability of tyres could potentially curb this growth and the increased use of public transport, for example, in response to rising fuel prices and initiatives to reduce carbon emissions, could mean that cars are being used less frequently resulting in longer tyre lifetimes.

In order to forecast future waste tyre arisings in the UK, ERM assumed that used tyre arisings would increase at the same rate as traffic growth. Two different methodologies were used to predict the arisings of waste tyres in the UK up to 2015. Both used baseline figures from the Department for Transport (DfT) and traffic growth rates based on traffic trends. However, one scenario is based on historic data and the other on forecasts.

7.1 Growth Rate 1: DfT Future Forecast

The DfT forecast traffic growth rate up to 2025 used baseline data from 2003. These were the most recent forecast figures published in 2007. These forecasts are split by cars, Light Goods Vehicles (LGVs) and Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs). It is forecast that LGV traffic will increase most rapidly as it has generally increased in line with GDP in past. Car traffic growth follows that of total traffic very closely due to the fact that cars make up a high proportion of total traffic. HGV traffic has grown more slowly than car traffic.

In terms of used tyre arisings, ERM applied these percentage growth rates to DTI waste tyre arisings data for 2004. This was considered a more appropriate baseline year and provided more realistic arisings data when compared to actual data from 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Table 2 below provides a summary of the percentage growth rates from the DfT forecast from 2003 to 2010 and 2015 retrospectively.

Table 2 Percentage Traffic Growth Rates

 

2010

2015

DfT Categorisation 1

   

Cars

11%

20%

LGVs

17%

34%

HGVs

4%

6%

ERM Assumptions

   

Car

11%

20%

4x4

11%

20%

Van & light truck

17%

34%

Truck & bus

4%

6%

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

7.2

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

The DfT has reported on road traffic increases from 2001-2005. This provides details on increases in car, light commercial vehicles and goods vehicles and an overall increase of all vehicle types. In order to forecast future tyre arisings, ERM used the average of the total growth rates and assumed that tyre arisings would increase in line with traffic growth.

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

Figure 7 below shows the difference between the two growth rates. It is clear that there is an insignificant difference between them. For the future management route scenarios, ERM has used Growth Rate 1: DfT Forecast.

Figure 7 Growth Rate Scenarios

600,000 550,000 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 0 DfT Forecast Grow th Rate 1.3% Grow th
600,000
550,000
500,000
450,000
400,000
350,000
0
DfT Forecast Grow th Rate
1.3% Grow th Rate
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Figure 8 shows the management routes of used tyres from 1998-2006 using data from the DTI. It is clear from this that recycling increased dramatically from 2002 and is now more constant. It accounts for the highest tonnage of tyres managed in the industry. Disposal of tyres to landfill has tapered off dramatically as the bans on whole and shredded tyres came into force. Energy recovery and landfill engineering have both increased, with the other management routes remaining fairly constant.

Figure 8 Management of Tyres 1998-2006

Management of Tyres 1998-2006

250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
Reuse
Retreading
Recycling
Landfill engineering
Energy recovery
Landfill
Exports
8.0
Factors affecting End Markets
8.1
Past and Current End Markets

In the past a significant percentage (around 25%) of used tyres were disposed of via landfill. The ban on the disposal of whole tyres (except bicycle tyres and tyres with a diameter greater than 1.4m) to landfill came into force in 2003, with shredded tyres being banned from 2006. This has resulted in the tyre recovery industry having to accommodate the large number of tyres that were originally sent to landfill. There were concerns that this ban would result in more tyres being illegally dumped and stockpiled due to insufficient end-markets for these tyres.

The increasing use of tyres as a fuel in cement kilns has helped to deal with the excess of tyres that were previously sent to landfill. The burning of tyres in cement kilns was first trialled in the mid 1990s. Along with a number of other processes such as landfill engineering, this has helped provide a solution to the large number of waste tyres arising in the market.

The use of shredded tyres as a leachate drainage layer in landfill sites has also taken off in recent years, and accounts for significant volumes that would previously have been disposed to landfill.

Until approximately 10 years ago, retreading was a preferred means of reusing passenger car tyre casings as it effectively doubled the life of a tyre. However, the growth of the budget market for new tyres, particularly imports from areas such as the Far East, made the process less economically viable. Consumer perceptions

regarding the safety of car retreads have also resulted in a reduced demand for these tyres. However there is a strong market in the use of retreads in truck tyres. This is mainly due to the cost benefits of retreading these tyres. For example, road hauliers almost invariably cost the use of these tyres per kilometre of road usage or per millimetre of tread 2 .

The material recycling of used tyres was less prevalent in the past but has increased considerably over the last few years and now is the largest management route for dealing with used tyres. In 1999 20% of used tyres were recycled, and by 2005 33% of used tyres were recycled. The use of waste tyre granulate in products such as sports and playground surfaces has become widespread with the increasing market demand resulting in the development of these industries.

8.2 Factors affecting End Markets

There are a number of factors likely to affect the future end markets of used tyres. The majority of these factors have affected end markets in the past. This includes the introduction of new technologies, changes in global market conditions and demand for different applications. These factors are listed below.

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

energy from waste incentives);

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

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

Global market conditions which affect new/retread tyre sales;

Restrictions on stockpiling;

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

Increased demand for tyres in flood defence applications;

Increased use of public transport;

Energy costs;

Longer tyre life/lighter tyres; and

Possible uptake of pyrolysis and cryogenic reprocessing facilities.

8.3 Stakeholder Feedback on Future Markets

According to the stakeholder responses, the greatest impact on future management routes for used tyres is likely to be environmental policy and legislative controls. The banning of tyres and shredded tyres from landfill has meant that alternative markets have needed to be found to dispose of used tyres. Climate change policies are also likely to have an impact on future markets. The carbon footprint of products is clearly on the environmental agenda and therefore processes that result in high carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) reduction such as retreading and recycling are likely to be considered more favourably.

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

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

with the recent weather patterns in the UK;

the cost of energy;

the reduced demand for tyres in landfill applications;

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

new and emerging technologies;

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

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

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

In terms of new and emerging management routes for used tyres, stakeholders suggested a number of routes they felt were likely to be used for tyre disposal and recovery in the future. These were:

Sonic, thermal and electrical insulation;

Protective coatings;

Wear, corrosion and impact resistance;

More specific applications for granulate and crumb;

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

Water jetting;

South Wales cryogenic plant;

More products from tyre reprocessing;

Pyrolysis;

Partial devulcanisation; and

Increased use of recycled rubber in new tyres

8.4 Future End Markets

Factors such as legislative controls and environmental policy (as mentioned in Section 8.2 above) will remain the factor likely to have the greatest impact on management routes/end markets as these are often mandatory and therefore the industry are obliged to react to the new requirements. According to BERR however the likelihood of any new measures in this area in the immediate future may be limited.

Within the cement kiln industry, burning of tyres is dependent on the permits issued by the EA, as well as being limited by kiln technology. If permits are granted, the cement kilns are allowed to replace a percentage of fuel with tyres. If regulations change and tyres are no longer accepted at these plants, alternative markets will need to be found. However, in ERM’s view this is unlikely to occur. Other issues impacting on the number of tyres being sent to cement kilns include the competition from other waste materials which are seen as possible fuel sources such as RDF. The availability of other materials can impact on gates fees charged by the cement kilns and fluctuating gate fees can result in cement kilns proving to be less popular options.

However, the increased costs of fossil fuels could result in an increased demand for tyres in cement kilns as they are a cheaper and more environmentally beneficial fuel. Assessing the carbon impacts of industrial operations, products and services are increasingly being discussed with a view to reducing these impacts. The cement- making process gives off carbon dioxide, so finding other methods of reducing emissions is important in this industry, particularly for European cement companies which are regulated under the EU emissions trading scheme. Alternative fuels are therefore encouraged in order to reduce the carbon footprint and emissions from the plant. It is likely that tyres will continue to be used in cement kilns in the foreseeable future. Tyres and other waste fuels such as RDF provide a more environmentally beneficial fuel as they are burning a waste rather than a virgin material.

Weather conditions in the UK could potentially impact on the outlets for waste tyres as it may be possible to utilise baled tyres in flood defence schemes. Approximately 100 scrap tyres are used in the production of one bale. However, in ERM’s view this is presently unlikely to result in the diversion of significant tonnages of waste tyres.

New and emerging technologies such as cryogenic reprocessing facilities may open up new end markets and result in a higher demand for tyres to in these areas. The first plant opened in Neath Port Talbot in South Wales in 2007 and predicts that 70% of the rubber crumb will be used to turn into artificial sports surfaces. New technologies such as these will inevitably have an impact on the industry creating new outlets for the recovered material from used tyres. As demand increases in these areas, it could impact on other management routes. Landfill engineering for example is likely to decline in the longer term due the general decline in the use and favourability of landfills. However, if there is a wider acceptance among operators that shredded tyres are a good material to use for leachate drainage layers, then the market in this area is likely to remain stable. Although the use of landfills to dispose of waste are expected to decline in the future, there is likely to be a continuing need for landfill disposal space for in the immediate future. Processes such as cryogenics could potentially provide the additional capacity required to deal with the excess of tyres as other management routes

diminish. However, these processes are only viable if a market exists for their end products. For example, if the demand for rubber in sports surfaces declines the demand for tyres in processes such as cryogenics will also decrease.

The use of rubberised asphalt is becoming increasingly popular as the shock-absorbing properties of rubber provide an added safety factor and the material provides a more durable road surface and decreases noise pollution. If the use of tyres in roads increases it could result in a significant number of tyres being recycled and therefore increase demand in this area.

Economic drivers will also impact on the future markets and end management routes for used tyres. If higher value markets emerge or become more prevalent lower value markets will be displaced. The used tyre market is demand driven and management routes will react to this demand. If higher value markets such as the cement kiln sector increase their demand for and reliance on tyres as a feedstock, the lower value markets such as landfill engineering are likely to suffer.

9.0 Forecasting Used Tyre Arisings

WRAP commissioned Oakdene Hollins to provide a study of the UK Used Tyre Market in 2004. This report sought to provide arisings and recovery/disposal data for 2004 and to compare these findings with the Used Tyre Working Group (UTWG) figures. Various assumptions were made and detailed modelling was undertaken to arrive at figures that could be used with confidence. Oakdene Hollins also prepared a report on Used Tyre Material Flows and Market Analysis. The report suggested a number of change scenarios in the UK and their potential effects on the tyre market.

In order to develop predictions for future waste tyre end markets, ERM developed a spreadsheet model. ERM’s forecasts of tyre arisings are based on the Used Tyre Working Group/DTI (now BERR) figures. Oakdene Hollins figures were considered, but it was considered that, for consistency, it would be more appropriate to use data from one source from 1998-2006. It is important to note that data for 2006 are indicative and have not yet been finalised.

The stakeholder questionnaire asked respondents to provide forecasts of what they considered likely to happen with the management routes of tyres in the future. ERM used these responses and our own knowledge of the tyre industry to produce four different scenarios to illustrate how used tyres could potentially be disposed of in the future by showing the tonnages and percentage increases/decreases of tyres likely to be sent to each management route.

9.1 Scenario Forecasts

ERM developed four different scenarios based on responses from stakeholders and our own knowledge of the industry. All the scenarios are based on arisings data using the DfT forecast growth rate (see Section 7.1).

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

Table 3 Used Tyre Arisings and Management Data 1998-2006 (tonnes)

Fate - TOTAL

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006*

Other (unknown)

13,950

-7,516

99

46,597

46,958

-7,044

11,517

-27,476

-48,278

Reuse

82,880

61,265

72,157

78,217

66,020

61,951

86,077

88,631

85,920

Retreading

75,949

65,896

55,765

49,179

52,474

51,473

54,841

57,427

58,770

Recycling

48,616

83,000

74,500

107,000

105,000

160,000

162,500

162,500

162,500

Landfill engineering

25,530

31,000

26,500

16,100

29,000

14,500

29,000

59,000

100,000

Energy recovery

84,300

70,000

54,000

40,000

48,000

77,500

72,500

85,750

100,000

Landfill

99,868

122,959

166,569

144,404

99,456

85,456

58,797

60,746

29,500

TOTAL

431,093

426,605

449,590

481,496

446,908

443,837

475,232

486,578

488,412

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

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

from year to year and it is impossible to predict what is likely to happen in the future. Therefore, for our purposes in forecasting future tonnages this fate has been omitted.

Figure 9 below shows the four scenarios and the difference between the six available management routes. These will be described in more detail in the following sections.

Figure 9 A Comparison of the Four Scenarios

 

Scenario 1

600,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1998

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

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill

Reuse

Retreading

Recycling

Landfill engineering

Energy recovery

Landfill

Exports

 

Scenario 3

600,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1998

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

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill

Reuse

Retreading

Recycling

Landfill engineering

Energy recovery

Landfill

Exports

 

Scenario 2

600,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1998

1999 2000

2001 2002

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013 2014 2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering

Reuse

Retreading

Recycling

Landfill engineering

Energy recovery

Landfill

Exports

 

Scenario 4

600,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0

1998

1999 2000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013 2014 2015

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Reuse Retreading Recycling Landfill engineering

Reuse

Retreading

Recycling

Landfill engineering

Energy recovery

Landfill

Exports

9.1.1

Scenario 1

In this scenario reuse, retreading, energy recovery and exports remain constant. The only management routes that change are recycling and landfill engineering. Market demand for tyres, particularly for use in road surfaces, will result in an increased need for used tyres to be recycled. Other factors likely to increase the number of tyres being recycled include sports surfaces although this is unlikely to result in such a significant increase in tonnages in this area. Landfill engineering is predicted to decrease as landfill in general becomes less favourable.

Table 4 shows the proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route used in this scenario. These growth rates were applied to the tonnages for specific years using the DfT arisings forecast (as mentioned in Section 9.1). For example, the 2009 growth rate was applied to the years 2007 to 2009, the 2012 growth rate was applied to 2010 to 2012 and the 2015 growth rate was applied to 2013 to 2015.

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

Management route

 

Percentage (%)

2009

2012

2015

Reuse

10

10

10

Retreading

10

10

10

Recycling

31

33

35

Landfill engineering

25

23

21

Energy recovery

19

19

19

Exports

4

4

4

TOTAL

100

100

100

9.1.2 Scenario 2

In this scenario a number of the management routes change. Both recycling and energy recovery are predicted to increase. Recycling, as mentioned above, will continue to rise due to new and emerging technologies resulting in an increased demand for tyres in this area. In scenario 2 it is believed to grow more rapidly than in Scenario 1. Energy recovery is predicted to increase slightly due to increased fossil fuel costs resulting in the industry looking for alternatives to fuel their plants. Reuse is also predicted to increase as demand grows for bales in flood defence. Both landfill engineering and the export market are predicted to decrease. Landfill engineering will decrease more rapidly than in Scenario 1 due to landfills themselves declining in popularity. The export industry could potentially decline as other countries tighten up regulations in this area. Retreading will remain constant as there will always be a market for this form of reuse in the truck tyre industry.

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

Table 5 Proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route: Scenario 2

Management route

 

Percentage (%)

2009

2012

2015

Reuse

4

5

6

Retreading

13

13

13

Recycling

40

42

45

Landfill engineering

15

11

9

Energy recovery

23

23

24

Exports

6

5

4

TOTAL

100

100

100

9.1.3 Scenario 3

In this scenario, the greatest difference is that energy recovery is predicted to decline. From discussions with industry it is felt that this is unlikely, however it is included here as a scenario to show what could potentially happen if cement kilns began to use alternative fuels other than tyres, or if gate fees increased to the extent that

it would discourage tyre collectors from taking tyres to these plants. In this instance, the tyres that would have been used in energy recovery are now being either recycled or reused meaning that these management route tonnages increase. It was also predicted that the retread and export industry would also decline with landfill engineering remaining constant.

Table 6 Proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route: Scenario 3

Management route

 

Percentage (%)

2009

2012

2015

Reuse

12

15

18

Retreading

12

11

10

Recycling

34

37

41

Landfill engineering

14

14

14

Energy recovery

20

16

12

Exports

8

7

5

TOTAL

100

100

100

9.1.4 Scenario 4

In Scenario 4 reuse and retreading remain constant. It is felt that these management routes will fluctuate the least within the industry and that they will increase in line with arisings. Recycling and energy recovery are predicted to increase as other management routes begin to decline. As mentioned previously, new and emerging technologies will increase demand in tyres in recycling and as fossil fuel costs increase alternatives will be sought to as a fuel for cement kilns. Landfill engineering will gradually decline as landfill generally becomes less favourable and exports are predicted to decline as legislation in other countries becomes tighter.

Table 7 Proportion of waste being managed by each treatment/disposal route: Scenario 4

Management route

 

Percentage (%)

2009

2012

2015

Reuse

13

13

13

Retreading

12

12

12

Recycling

35

37

38

Landfill engineering

12

11

10

Energy recovery

21

22

22

Exports

7

5

5

TOTAL

100

100

100

The following figures show the four different scenarios by management route and the potential variations that could occur within the industry by 2015. The figures also show an estimated average for each of the four management routes – indicated as a straight line trend over the period to 2015.

Figure 10 Reuse

100,000 Reuse 80,000 250,000 200,000 60,000 150,000 100,000 40,000 50,000 0 20,000 Scenario1 Scenario 2
100,000
Reuse
80,000
250,000
200,000
60,000
150,000
100,000
40,000
50,000
0
20,000
Scenario1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
0
Tonnes
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Tonnes
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

Figure 11 Retreading

80,000 Retreading 60,000 250,00 0 200,00 0 150,00 0 40,000 100,00 0 50,00 0 20,000
80,000
Retreading
60,000
250,00 0
200,00 0
150,00 0
40,000
100,00 0
50,00 0
20,000
0
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
0
Tonnes
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Tonnes
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

Figure 12 Recycling

Recycling 250,000 250,00 0 200,000 200,00 0 150,00 0 150,000 100,00 0 100,000 50,00 0
Recycling
250,000
250,00 0
200,000
200,00 0
150,00 0
150,000
100,00 0
100,000
50,00 0
0
50,000
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
0
Tonnes
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

Figure 13 Landfill Engineering

140,000 Landfill Engineering Landfill Engineering 120,000 250,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 200,000 80,000 150,000
140,000
Landfill Engineering
Landfill Engineering
120,000
250,000
250,000
100,000
200,000
200,000
80,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
60,000
50,000
50,000
40,000
0
0
20,000
Scenario 1
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Scenario 4
0
Tonnes Tonnes
1998
1998
1999
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2002
2002
2003
2003
2004
2004
2005
2005
2006
2006
2007
2007
2008
2008
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
2012
2012
2013
2013
2014
2014
2015
2015
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

Figure 14 Energy Recovery

140,000 Energy Recovery 120,000 100,000 250 ,000 80,000 200 ,000 150 ,000 60,000 100 ,000
140,000
Energy Recovery
120,000
100,000
250
,000
80,000
200
,000
150
,000
60,000
100
,000
40,000
50,000
0
20,000
0
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
Tonnes
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015

Figure 15 Exports

60,000 Exports 250, 000 40,000 200, 000 150, 000 100, 000 50,000 20,000 0 Scenario
60,000
Exports
250, 000
40,000
200, 000
150, 000
100, 000
50,000
20,000
0
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Scenario 4
0
Tonnes
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

10.0

The Preferred Scenario

ERM provided WRAP with a simple forecast model in which users can alter the percentages of used tyres being sent to each management route in order to see what impact this will have on the other sectors within the industry. Figure 16 below provides an example of the output of this model and shows the preferred scenario used for this model.

This model is based on Scenario 4. It was felt that this scenario provided the best estimate as to what was likely to happen to used tyre management routes in the future. The choice of this scenario was based on information provided by key stakeholders and from our own knowledge of the industry. ERM also looked at the ‘best fit’ lines on the figures above and it was clear that Scenario 4 had the closest fit to this line and therefore it could be considered to be the best scenario using this method.

In ERM’s view Scenario 4 presents a realistic picture of the way in which the future management routes of used tyres might look. The reasonings behind this will be discussed in more depth in Section 11 however Table 8 below provides a brief summary.

Table 8 Summary of the Likely Future Management Routes of Used Tyres

Management Route

Decrease/

Further Comments/Reasons

Increase?

Reuse

Remain constant

There will always be a market for this management route. It has the potential to increase if processes such as baling become more prominent in, for example, flood defence schemes. However, in ERM’s view it will increase proportionately to the increase in used tyre arisings.

Retreading

Remain constant

This will remain constant although it is predicted to increase slightly in terms of truck tyres, with car tyre retreading decreasing over time. Overall, therefore, the tonnage of tyres being sent to this management route will remain relatively stable.

Recycling

Increase

Applications such as sports surfaces and horticultural uses are likely to grow and there is also a potential market increase for rubber in construction and for use in roads.

Landfill engineering

Decrease

This will decrease as landfill void space declines and as more environmentally sound and efficient technologies for dealing with waste are being introduced.

Energy recovery

Increase

This is likely to continue to grow as the cost of fossil fuels increase and as alternative, more environmentally sound fuels are required in cement kilns.

Exports

Decrease

The market is difficult to predict, however as regulations in other countries become tighter it is likely to decline.

Figure 16 Scenario 4 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure 16 Scenario 4
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
0
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
Reuse
Retreading
Recycling
Landfill engineering
Energy recovery
Landfill
Exports

Key Conclusions

11.0

Conclusions and ERM Forecasts

11.1

Reuse

It is predicted that the reuse of used tyres will remain fairly constant and that there will always be a market for these tyres. Reuse does have the potential to increase if processes such as baling become more prominent through uses such as flood defence schemes. With predicted changes to weather patterns in the UK, it is likely that improved flood defence schemes will be required and that the demand for such products will remain. However, flood defence scheme are unlikely to offer large volume markets in themselves.

Emerging technologies such as surface repolymerisation could also result in an increase in the reuse and retreading market. This process enables crumb rubber from waste tyres to be incorporated into retread compounds at much higher rates than before.

11.2 Retreading

Overall tonnage of tyres sent for retreading is likely to remain relatively constant although there will be a slight increase in retreading of truck tyres, accompanied by a decrease in car tyre retreading.

Until recently retreading was a preferred means of reusing used car tyres as it effectively doubled the life of a tyre. Despite the improved quality of retreads, there has been a continuing decline in the passenger car retread market. Imports have also made the process less economically viable as cheaper new car tyres have been introduced into the market. Consumer perceptions regarding the safety of car retreads has also resulted in a reduced demand for these tyres. However there is a strong market in the use of retreads for trucks. This is mainly due to the cost benefits of retreading these tyres. For example, businesses sometimes cost the use of these tyres per kilometre of road usage or per millimetre of tread 3 . It is therefore possible to conclude that the truck tyre retread market will remain strong but it is unlikely that car tyre retreading will be a significant management route for the reuse of these tyres.

11.3 Recycling

The recycling of tyres is predicted to increase. Applications such as sports surfaces and horticultural uses are likely to grow and there is also a potential market increase for rubber in construction. A cryogenics facility opened in 2007 (which is expected to process 30,000 tpa of tyres) and around 70% of this crumb will be used in sports surfacing. Aquablast (water jetting facility) is potentially opening in 2008 which uses high pressure water jets to remove tyre rubber from the reinforcing steel in ‘earthmover’ tyres. The introduction of these technologies could potentially result in more demand for used tyres to feed into these processes; however, these are only viable if there is a market for the output. If, for example, the demand for rubber in sports surfaces declines the demand for tyres in processes such as cryogenics will also decrease.

The use of rubberised asphalt is becoming increasingly popular. The shock-absorbing properties of rubber provide an added safety factor and the material provides a more durable road surface and decreases noise pollution. Trials have been carried out (funded by WRAP) in order to test these surfaces as they have the potential to use high tonnages of used tyres. If the use of tyres in roads increases it could result in a significant number of tyres being recycled and therefore increase demand in this area.

This management route encompasses numerous different processes for the recycling of used tyres and also provides the largest management route, with approximately 33% of used tyres being processed via this route. This and the fact that the recycling of tyres provides one of the best means of dealing with the arisings means that the development of new technologies is likely to continue in this area.

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

11.4

Landfill Engineering

The use of tyres in landfill engineering is likely to remain stable for the next few years. It does have the potential to tail off in long term as the use of landfill generally declines. As sites for landfills are harder to acquire, void space declines and new, more environmentally sound technologies are introduced for dealing with waste the overall use of landfills will decrease. This will clearly result in reduced demand for tyre shred in landfill engineering and this market is likely to decline in the future. However, there is currently still demand for shredded tyres as an engineering material and therefore it is likely to remain relatively stable in the short term.

11.5 Energy Recovery

In terms of energy recovery, it is felt that the use of tyres in cement kilns is likely to increase. However, there is a risk that this use of tyres might be banned through new regulations, or that gate fees will increase and this would create huge implications to the tyre industry, with a potential 20% of used tyres having to find other means of disposal. This could potentially be picked up via the reuse and recycling routes such as baling.

The increased costs of fossil fuels could result in an increased demand for tyres in cement kilns as they are a cheaper and more environmentally beneficial fuel. Assessing the carbon impacts of industrial operations, products and services are increasingly being discussed with a view to reducing these impacts. The cement- making process gives off carbon dioxide, so finding other methods of reducing emissions is important in this industry, particularly for European cement companies which are regulated under the EU emissions trading scheme. Alternative fuels are therefore encouraged in order to reduce the carbon footprint and emissions from the plant. It is likely that tyres will continue to be used in cement kilns for the foreseeable future.

11.6 Landfill

From July 2006 all tyres (except for bicycle tyres and tyres with a diameter greater than 1.4m) have been banned from landfill apart from those being used for landfill engineering purposes. There is the potential for a very small percentage of tyres still to end up in landfill.

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

11.7 Exports

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

study Used Tyres Material Flows and Market Analysis – Market Disruption Planning stated that as importing

countries are tightening road traffic legislation and/or restricting imports while they deal with their own tyre surpluses it is likely that the export industry will decline. Imports in to developing countries can also be restricted to help protect local industries.

The majority of stakeholders who provided forecasts of future used tyre arisings stated that the export industry would either decline or remain constant; none felt that it was likely to increase which mirrored the view of Oakdene Hollins. ERM believes that it is difficult to predict what will to happen to this management route, but is also of the view that it is likely to decline as other management routes become stronger and as legislation in other countries becomes tighter.

12.0

Acknowledgements

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

Appendix 1: Stakeholder Questionnaire

PART 1 - Wrap’s 3 Year Tyres Programme

ERM has been commissioned by WRAP (Waste & Resources Programme) to undertake a review of their tyres programme work and the impact it has had on the used tyre industry. In order to carry out this review, a stakeholder consultation is required.

WRAP’s three year Tyres Programme was launched in April 2005. Its aims were to:

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

develop alternative end uses for the recovered material, and

develop the end markets for this material.

WRAP’s Tyres Programme has pursued these aims through a number of projects under the following five headings:

MARKET DEVELOPMENT

End product marketing campaign focussing on surfacing

Retread campaign focussing on the LCV sector

SUPPORT FUNDING

Research & Development

 

o

Rubber/Plastic Roof Tile;

o

Building Block including rubber;

o

Rubber backing for plasterboard;

o

Polymer coated rubber in retread compound and

o

Effects of de-vulcanisation.

Trials

 

o

Fine crumb in retread compound.

 

Rubber multi modal roadway;

 

o

Rubber/plastic pipe sleeve;

o

Rubber in bridleways.

Capital Infrastructure

o

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

o

Bristol Tyre Shredding (Shredding down to 2mm);

o

McGrath Bros (Shredding down to 25mm).

Market Readiness

o

Rubber/Plastic composite railway sleeper;

o

Roof Tile accreditation;

o

Rubber plaster accreditation.

LEGISLATION & STANDARDS

Development of PAS107

Development of PAS108

Listing of standards applicable to used tyre reprocessing

Work on tyre shred/crumb Quality Protocol

RAISING AWARENESS

Four Stakeholder Forums

Rubber in Roads

Rubberised Asphalt Testing

Articles in trade magazines

PROVIDING INFORMATION

WRAP website

Over twenty Case Studies

Sixteen Best Practice Guides

FAQ

Report on used tyre statistics and future market scenarios

Report on markets for steel and fibre

Agricultural Guidance regarding used tyres

Report on tyre disposal charges

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

Report on C0 2 impacts*

Report on outlets for used earthmover tyres*

EU overview report on used tyres*

Mapping of UK used tyre reprocessors*

* this work is currently being initiated

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

1.

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

- and least - influence (with 1 being the area where WRAP has had the most influence, and 5 being the area where WRAP has had the least influence).

WRAP Programme Area

Rank

MARKET DEVELOPMENT

 

End product marketing campaign focussing on surfacing

Retread campaign focussing on the LCV sector

SUPPORT FUNDING

 

Research & Development – Rubber/Plastic Roof Tile, Building Block including rubber, Rubber backing for plasterboard, Polymer coated rubber in retread compound, Effects of de-vulcanisation.

Trials – Fine crumb in retread compound, Rubber multi modal roadway, rubber/plastic pipe sleeve, rubber in bridleways.

Capital Infrastructure – Aquablast (Water Jetting of large tyres), Bristol Tyre Shredding (Shredding down to 2mm), McGrath Bros (Shredding down to 25mm).

Market Readiness – Rubber/Plastic composite railway sleeper, Roof Tile accreditation, rubber plaster accreditation.

LEGISLATION & STANDARDS

 

Development of PAS107

Development of PAS108

Listing of standards applicable to used tyre reprocessing

Work on tyre shred/crumb Quality Protocol

RAISING AWARENESS

 

Four Stakeholder Forums

Rubber in Roads

Rubberised Asphalt Testing

Articles in trade magazines

PROVIDING INFORMATION

 

WRAP website

Over twenty Case Studies

Sixteen Best Practice Guides

FAQ

Report on used tyre statistics and future market scenarios

Report on markets for steel and fibre

Agricultural Guidance regarding used tyres

Report on tyre disposal charges

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

Report on C0 2 impacts*

Report on outlets for used earthmover tyres*

EU overview report on used tyres*

Mapping of UK used tyre reprocessors* * this work is currently being initiated

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

(ie the area where WRAP has had the most influence). An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme

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

(ie the area where WRAP has had the least influence). If you have any further comments

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

comments to add, please do so in the space provided. 2a. state the reasoning why. Please

2a.

state the reasoning why.

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

tyre projects which you think have been most valuable, and 2b. state the reasoning why. Please

2b.

state the reasoning why.

Please name specific WRAP tyre projects which you think have been least valuable, and

tyre projects which you think have been least valuable, and 3. Could WRAP have done more

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

programmes, more promotional work, more awareness raising, more support funding)? If yes, please give examples. What do think prevented WRAP from moving in these areas?

What do think prevented WRAP from moving in these areas? Please tick the box if you
What do think prevented WRAP from moving in these areas? Please tick the box if you

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

4.

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

Yes (go to question

Yes (go to question No

No

4a)

Unsure

Unsure
in any way? Yes (go to question No 4a) Unsure If no, please give reasons for

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

projects which you think have been particularly valuable. 4a. What level of improvement do think is

4a.

What level of improvement do think is necessary for WRAP’s Tyres Programme?

Significant Improvement

Significant Improvement Minor Improvement

Minor Improvement

Unsure

Unsure
Significant Improvement Minor Improvement Unsure Please give reasons for your answer and provide examples of

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

which you feel are examples of missed opportunities. 5. Was the Programme resourced adequately? Over Resourced

5. Was the Programme resourced adequately?

Over Resourced

Resourced Adequately (neither under- or over-resourced)

Under ResourcedUnsure

Under Resourced

UnsureUnder Resourced

Unsure

6. What impact do you think WRAP has had in relation to the breakdown of barriers to the following:

6a. collection of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact

6a. collection of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Significant Negative Impact

6a. collection of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Positive Impact

Positive Impact Unsure

Unsure

Positive Impact Unsure

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

6b. segregation of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact

6b. segregation of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Significant Negative Impact

6b. segregation of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Positive Impact

Positive Impact Unsure

Unsure

Positive Impact Unsure

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

6c. reprocessing of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact

6c. reprocessing of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Significant Negative Impact

6c. reprocessing of waste tyres? Significant Positive Impact Significant Negative Impact

Positive Impact

Positive Impact Unsure

Unsure

Positive Impact Unsure

Negative Impact

Negative Impact

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

of specific reports/applications where appropriate. 7. How influential do you think WRAP has been in developing

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

tyre material?

tyre material?  
 
tyre material?  

Very Influential

Not Very Influential

Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Not At All Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Neutral

Neutral

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

of specific reports/applications where appropriate. 8. How influential do you think WRAP has been in

8.

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

Very Influential

Very Influential

Not Very Influential

Very Influential Not Very Influential

Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Not At All Influential

Influential Not At All Influential

Neutral

Neutral

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

of specific reports/applications where appropriate. An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a Forecast of

9.

Do you think WRAP’s overall Tyres Programme was:

 

Very effective

Very effective Not Very Effective

Not Very Effective

Very effective Not Very Effective

Effective

Effective Not At All Effective

Not At All Effective

Effective Not At All Effective

Neutral

Neutral

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

comments to add, please do so in the space provided. 10. Which sector do you represent?

10. Which sector do you represent?

Regulatory body

provided. 10. Which sector do you represent? Regulatory body Academia Trade Association Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy

Academia

Trade Association

Used Tyre Reprocessor

Consultancy

Other : please state

Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy Other : please state An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a
Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy Other : please state An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a
Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy Other : please state An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a
Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy Other : please state An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a
Used Tyre Reprocessor Consultancy Other : please state An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a

PART 2 - The Likely Future Management of Waste Tyres

ERM has also been asked to develop a series of possible projections for the future handling of used tyres up until 2015 and factors that can impact on:

the volumes of used tyre arisings; and

the different methods of managing used tyres.

Factors affecting the volumes of used tyre arisings include policy or legislative changes affecting growth/decline in road transport use in the UK, improved durability of tyre materials etc.

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

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

energy-from-waste incentives);

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

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

global market conditions which affect new/retread tyre sales;

restrictions on stockpiling;

reduced demand for tyres in landfill engineering applications;

increased demand for tyres in flood defence applications;

uptake of pyrolysis and cryogenic reprocessing facilities etc.

The main objective of this part of the stakeholder consultation is to seek your views on the likely future management of waste tyres (see question below)

1.

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

you think are the most likely to generate the greatest tonnage processed in the future (1 being the most likely, 2 being the second most likely, etc. until 5).

Management Routes

Rank

Shredding - Cement Kilns

 

Shredding - Landfill Engineering

 

Shredding - Equestrian Ménages, Horticulture/Landscaping

 

Grinding – Highway Surfacing material

 

Crumbing - Sports surfaces, carpet underlay, moulded products etc

 

Baling - Sea Defences/Landfill Engineering etc

 

Retreading (car tyres)

 

Retreading (truck tyres)

 

Cryogenic Reprocessing

 

Pyrolysis

 

Water jetting

 

Micro wave

 

Part Worn Reuse

 

Export

 

Other (please specify):

 

Please state the reasoning behind your choices.

  Please state the reasoning behind your choices. An Assessment of WRAP’s Tyre Programme and a

2.

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

2005 (data from the DTI Used Tyre Statistics on the WRAP website). Approximately what do you think the tonnage capacity for each management route will be in the future (please provide approximate annual tonnages)? Please project figures up to 2015 in the table below.

Table 2A

Tonnages of Used Tyres from 1999-2005

Management Route

1999

2002

2005