An economic and environmental appraisal of Used Tyre Derived Aggregate

Replacements (UTDAR) for use in landfill engineering

Organisations involved:

Credential Environmental Ltd, landfill site operators

Background

The use of used tyres as a leachate drainage blanket, substituting conventional aggregate in the construction of
new landfill cells, is well proven. This technology has been used for decades and remains in current wide-scale use
in the US where, together with this more common method, chipped tyres are also used as an aggregate
replacement.

For whole tyre applications the most usual method is to construct cell drainage blankets using layers of passenger
car tyres laced in a herringbone pattern to provide stability and equal settlement when compressed. The Landfill
Directive specifically provides for the use of whole tyres for landfill engineering applications to continue,
notwithstanding that the disposal of tyres to landfill has been banned, as this use of waste tyres offers commercial
and environmental benefits to the landfill operator over primary aggregates.

Since 2002, and after extensive research and development by Credential Environmental, chipped tyres have
become common place across the UK landfill industry for use in leachate drainage schemes and have totally
replaced the need to interlace whole used tyres. Used Tyre Derived Aggregate Replacements (UTDAR) now
account for some 20% of all used tyre recycling in the UK. A quality produced UTDAR demonstrates a better range
of technical properties than whole used tyres and are a more sustainable option than virgin aggregate.

This case study provides a summary appraisal of the economic and environmental advantages of the use of quality
assured UTDAR as a leachate drainage blanket over traditional primary aggregate in the UK, based on the results
of a live cell trial in Eastern England.

The 65-
CASE STUDY: Eastern
hectare site is
England one of the
largest sites in
the UK,
handling over
2,000 tonnes
of domestic
household
waste every
day. UTDAR
has been
successfully
installed at this
site in 2003 and 2004 in a live cell trial equivalent
to 6000 m2.

ABOVE: UTDAR placement

Only 50% of the mass of primary aggregate is
required in UTDAR to achieve an equivalent
drainage blanket thickness, taking into consideration relative bulk densities and compression factors under waste
loading. For the 6000 m2 site 6,480 Te (Tonnes equivalent) of primary aggregate would be required to achieve a
600mm blanket (in order to comply with the Landfill Directive the minimum thickness of 0.5m will be required in all
circumstances where leachate is to be collected and the site poses a potential hazard to soil, groundwater or
surface water). Comparative figures for tonnage equivalents (Te) and installation costs for primary aggregate,
whole tyres and UTDAR are given in Table 1.
Table 1 Comparison of required Te, installation costs and site savings at LFS for each drainage blanket option
Installed Bulk Compression 600mm Te/M2 Te 6,000 m2 Savings Total Site Total Site
Cost per Density Factor Gravel Required site costs per m2 Savings Savings
Te1 Equivalence (%) (£)
Aggregate £12.50 1.8 1 0.6 1.08 6,480 £81,000 - - -
Whole Tyres £16.50 0.1 21% 2.8 0.28 1,690 £27,887 £8.85 65.6% £53,113
UTDAR £14.50 0.45 50% 1.2 0.54 3,240 £46,980 £5.67 42.0% £34,020
1
Median costs across UK sites. (Aggregates: incl. gravel, plant and Aggregates Levy; Whole Tyre: incl. labour, gate fee
and LFT).

Summary of environmental and economic benefits

Sustainable waste management & safeguarding natural resources

The objective of sustainable waste management is firstly to minimise or reduce the amount of waste being
produced at source and thereafter to increase the amount of waste that can be reused, recycled and recovered
before final disposal. The application of quality assured chipped tyres to leachate drainage layers in landfill sites
offers a permanent reuse option, as such tyres designated for this purpose are unlikely to ever re-enter the waste
stream. In this case study, this is equivalent to 3,240 Te tyre shred which has been diverted from the waste
stream.

LEFT: Trial cell with completed UTDAR leachate

drainage blanket. ABOVE: Waste placement

Because of the relative bulk density and a compression factor of 50% for UTDAR compared with traditional
aggregates, only 0.54 Te of UTDAR is required to line 1m2 to a depth of 600mm compared with 1.08 Te of virgin
gravel. Replacing virgin aggregates with UTDAR therefore makes an additional contribution to the sustainable
management of natural resources in that a recycled product such as tyre chip reduces the demand for primary
aggregates across the landfill sector. For this reference example, a 6000m2 site, 6480 Te of virgin material has
been offset through the use of UDTAR.
Operator cost savings

For the landfill operator there are clear economic advantages in utilising UTDAR as opposed to primary aggregate.
In Table 1 operator costs for installed aggregates, whole tyres and UTDAR are compared. For virgin aggregates,
the installed cost must include the market price of gravel, plant costs and the Aggregates Levy, which is designed
to reduce demand for primary aggregates by increasing their cost and make the use of recycled and secondary
materials more viable. For whole tyres the cost takes into account the gate fee, Landfill Tax (LFT) and labour costs
which are higher than for any other option because of the technical difficulty of installation.

Taking into consideration the relative volumes required and installation costs for each option the use of UTDAR at
this site has delivered savings of over £34,000 compared with virgin aggregate lining material. Although this
represents a saving some 23% less than for whole tyres, the latter present significant design, practicality and
safety problems when compared with UTDAR. The cost of transportation is considered separately below.

Potential for leaching from tyre shred

A number of leachability tests have been performed on tyre chip, particularly in the US where the practice of
utilising this material for leachate lining is more widespread. The results of these tests indicate that tyre shred does
not leach volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or, when leaching does occur, these compounds are found at very low
concentrations, i.e. below the primary drinking water standards or action levels (see Duffy, 1996; Humphrey,
1996; Humphrey, et al. 1997). Generally, used tyre chip, when used as a leachate drainage material, will provide
protection to the environment by non-generation of leachate and non-contribution of significant organics or
inorganics to leachate or surface runoff. It is of course essential that any tyre chip utilised is produced in a quality
assured process from clean tyres preferably passenger car tyres with minimal bead wire protrusion and
contamination. For this reason a PAS is being developed to assure prospective purchasers of the quality of the
material they are buying. Credential Environmental have been involved in consultation on the forthcoming PAS 107
and are already producing quality UTDAR in compliance with the requisite standard.

Transport movements and CO2

At the reference site primary aggregate would have been sourced from a minimum of 88.5 km from the site,
whereas the UTDAR could be delivered from a distance of only 48.3km. The result is that associated vehicle
movements are reduced by up to one half when UTDAR is used as a substitute material. Table 2 summarises the
economic and environmental implications of this reduced haulage. Since the transportation of whole tyres is
affected by the bulk density, use of UTDAR produces the most significant savings in CO2 and fuel, although both
produce savings when compared with primary aggregate.

Table 2 Comparison of transport distances and CO2 emissions reductions for each option
Te per Single Total Total CO2 CO2 CO2 Diesel
vehicle journey haulage emissions Savings Savings Fuel
movement1 from distance (kg)2 (%) (kg) Savings
source (km) (litres)3
(km)
Aggregate 25 88.5 22,937.9 27,026.4 - - -
Whole 10 48.3 8,157.5 9,611.4 65% 17,415 6,622
Tyres
UTDAR 25 48.3 6,255.7 7,370.7 73% 19,656 7,474
1
Vehicle Load Factor: for Aggregate/UTDAR = Max vehicle gross weight; for Whole Tyres bulk density limits weight.
Assumes 100% weight laden.
2
Calculated using Diesel Freight Road Mileage Conversion Factors (Source: Continuing Survey of Road Goods Transport
2003; NAEI Netcen, 2005, based on load conversion factors taken from COPERT III)
3
Calculated using Diesel Freight Road Mileage Conversion Factors (see above)
Appendix 2.

Reference Installations for used tyre derived replacement aggregate

Location Scheme Quantity Te Date installed

2003
South Western UK 23,000 m2 basal area. 6,925 July-03
Clay liner
Eastern UK 4,000 m2 basal area. 1,266 Sep-03
Clay liner
Eastern UK 9,500 m2 basal area. 3,600 Nov-03
Clay liner
25m deep cell
Total 11,791

Location Scheme Quantity Te Date installed

2004
Eastern UK 14,000 m2 basal area. 4,000 Aug-04
Clay liner
Eastern UK 4,000 m2 basal area. 1,200 Sep-04
Clay liner
Northern UK 46,000 m2 basal area. 14,000 Aug-04
Clay liner
25m deep cell
Northern UK 3,500 m2 basal area. 1,000 Sep-04
GCL Liner
25m deep cell
Total 20,200

Location Scheme Quantity Te Date installed

2005
South Eastern UK 21,000 m2 basal area. 5,000 Mar-05
Clay liner
15m deep cell
Eastern UK 3,000 m2 basal area. 1,350 Jun-05
Clay liner
Northern UK 30,0000 m3 basal 4,000 Jun-05
area.
Clay liner
25m deep cell
South Western UK 36,000 m2 basal area 5,130 Jul-05
Composite liner
Central UK 4,600 m2 basal area 2,400 Jun-05
Clay liner
Eastern UK 13,000 m2 basal area 2,000 Jun-05
Clay liner
Northern UK 10,000 m2 basal area 3,025 May-05
Composite liner
Total 22, 905