TIRE STEWARDSHIP FORUM
FINAL MEETING NOTES
SACRAMENTO, CA
July 28, 2004
DEVELOPED FOR THE
CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Developed by:
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
137 Newbury Street
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 236-4855
www.productstewardship.us
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ATTENDEES ................................................................................................................................. 1
MEETING MATERIALS............................................................................................................... 1
WELCOME: Michael Paparian, California Integrated Waste Management Board ....................... 1
INTRODUCTION: Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute ................................................... 2
Mission Statement .................................................................................................................... 2
Problem Statement ................................................................................................................... 3
Dialogue Goals ......................................................................................................................... 4
PRESENTATIONS......................................................................................................................... 4
Pam Swingle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ............................................................ 4
Michael Blumenthal, Rubber Manufacturers Association ....................................................... 5
Tracy Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association ................................................................ 6
Mary Sikora, representing the Tire Industry Association ........................................................ 6
ISSUES AND STRATEGIES: Julie Rhodes, Product Stewardship Institute................................. 7
Issue 1: Waste Tire Generation (Ranking: #7) ......................................................................... 8
Issue 3: Tire Reuse, Retread, Remold (Ranking: #8) ............................................................... 8
Issue 4: Collection and Transportation (Ranking: #6) ............................................................. 9
Issue 5: Crumb Rubber Markets (Ranking: #5) ....................................................................... 9
Issue 6: Recycled Content in New Tires (Ranking: #12) ....................................................... 10
Issue 8: Shredded Tire Markets (Ranking: #4) ...................................................................... 11
Issue 9: Recreation Markets (Ranking: #9) ............................................................................ 11
Issue 11: Landfill Disposal (Ranking: #11) ........................................................................... 12
Issue 12: Sustainable Financing (Ranking: #10) .................................................................... 12
ISSUE/STRATEGY DISCUSSION: Introduction and Top Tier Issues ...................................... 14
Issue 2: Waste Tire Markets (Ranking #1)............................................................................. 14
Issue 10: Tire-derived Fuel (Ranking #2) .............................................................................. 17
Issue 7: Recycled Asphalt Concrete (Ranking #3)................................................................. 19
NEXT STEPS ............................................................................................................................... 21
APPENDIX A: Final Attendance List ....................................................................................... A-1
APPENDIX B: Tire Stewardship Initiative Agenda .................................................................. B-1
APPENDIX C: Presentations..................................................................................................... C-1
Mary Sikora, Representing the Tire Industry Association ................................................... C-1
Julie Rhodes, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. ................................................................ C-6
Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. ............................................................... C-29
Pam Swingle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................................... C-43
Michael Blumenthal, Rubber Manufacturers Association ................................................. C-49
Tracy Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association .......................................................... C-54
TIRE STEWARDSHIP FORUM
MEETING NOTES
SACRAMENTO, CA
July 28, 2004
ATTENDEES
The meeting was attended by 48 participants with another 4 participants on a conference call-in
number over the course of the one-day meeting. (See Final Attendance List in Appendix A.)
MEETING MATERIALS
All materials were posted on the PSI website prior to the meeting, at:
http://productstewardship.us/prod_tires_project.html. All presentations used PowerPoint and should
be consulted for details when reviewing these notes. See Appendix B for the meeting agenda and
Appendix C for the presentations.
Breakfast: Sponsored by Scrap Tire News
WELCOME: Michael Paparian, California Integrated Waste Management Board
Mr. Paparian provided opening remarks and explained the environmental amenities of the
building in which the meeting took place. He remarked that the tire stewardship forum was the
first product stewardship effort in the United States to focus on tires. Mr. Paparian also provided
a context for the meeting by discussing Senate Bill 876, which was passed in 2000 and required
the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) to develop a five-year waste tire
plan. This law increased the fee on tires from 25 cents to one dollar per tire. The statute also
included goals for promoting retreaded tires, longer lasting tires, and recycled content tires;
increasing markets; improving the tire manifest system; increasing state government
procurement of recycled content tire products; and cleaning up tire piles. In May, 2003, revisions
to the tire plan were approved. [A subsequent revision took place in February 2005.]
Mr. Paparian also mentioned the Waste Board’s early discussions with manufacturers and the
discomfort the industry had in disclosing which tires contained post-consumer tire content. He
expressed hope that this dialogue process would overcome some of those barriers so that
information would become more accessible. He also pointed out that Michelin’s website
discussed the company’s commitment to preserve and protect the environment, with a
recognition that natural resources are limited and that we should pursue sustainable development.
Mr. Paparian commented that these website statements could form the basis for a sound product
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – FINAL Meeting Summary
stewardship policy. He then defined product stewardship as a process of collaboration to
develop solutions in which all parties share responsibility, and mentioned that it is being applied
to other products, such as electronics, paint, and thermostats. Mr. Paparian finished by
emphasizing that engaging in the product stewardship dialogue now, which is early in the
process, will be less costly and less difficult than more Draconian approaches that might be
introduced in the future.
INTRODUCTION: Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
Mr. Cassel provided a brief background on the Product Stewardship Institute (PSI), which has 31
state members (including the California Integrated Waste Management Board) and 27 local
members, including 6 from California (Central Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority, Humboldt
County, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Sonoma County Waste Management Authority, and the
Southern CA Association of Governments). Tires, as a category, is one of seven products on
which PSI is currently working. Mr. Cassel reviewed the meeting objectives, dialogue purpose,
dialogue focus, problem statement, proposed dialogue goals, and possible outcomes. He
stressed that PSI’s role is to promote product stewardship solutions and forge partnerships to
share responsibility and not to promote one strategy over another or reach a preconceived
outcome. The group suggested minor changes to the dialogue problem statement and goals,
which have been incorporated into the Final Tire Product Stewardship Action Plan.
Mr. Cassel explained that many of the issues are not state specific, but regional and national in
nature, and that he founded PSI because all product-related issues are national, and even
international. In this way, manufacturers don’t have to invent 50 different solutions for the
different states. There can be one forum for the resolution of these issues in a national context.
He also emphasized that, while the states have the ability to regulate, the forum is designed to
develop solutions together so that any agreements will be ones that the entire group feels are
best.
Mission Statement
Mr. Cassel proposed the following Mission Statement for the group:
We will seek to develop product stewardship
initiatives/agreements related to waste tires by July 1, 2006.
Participant Comments
 Tracy Norberg (RMA): The words “explore opportunities” would be more appropriate,
and that the statement assumes that this exploration has already taken place. Mr. Cassel
(PSI) responded that the group would need to explore opportunities prior to developing
initiatives and agreements.
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): Requested a definition of “product stewardship.” Mr.
Cassel (PSI) replied that it is a commitment to work together and negotiate the level of
responsibility that each party has for resolving a common problem – in this case the
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
2




management of waste tires. (PSI’s definition of “product stewardship” is the following:
Product stewardship is a principle that directs all participants involved in the life cycle of
a product to take shared responsibility for the impacts to human health and the natural
environment that result from the production, use, and end-of-life management of the
product. The greater the ability of a party to influence the life cycle impacts of a product,
the greater the degree of that party’s responsibility.)
Red Hermann (Michelin): Developing a solution for California and nationally might be
too optimistic. Mr. Cassel (PSI) replied that other states have similar concerns as those
being discussed in California. A better solution will result by incorporating their issues
and concerns into the work conducted in California.
Tracy Norberg (RMA): Wanted to ensure that the work that this group is doing will not
be duplicative of work conducted by the U.S. EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge.
Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): The group should be looking at national variations and how to
apply lessons learned to regional circumstances, and that we are not looking for one
national solution for the whole country.
Tom Faust (Redwood Rubber): We are really looking at solutions that are international
and not just in California, and pointed to data in the PSI Draft Action Plan that identified
efforts in the European Union.
Mr. Cassel (PSI) outlined several other national dialogues that are underway in the United States,
including carpet, paint, and rechargeable batteries, in which manufacturers have taken a greater
role in managing products at the “end-of-life.”
Problem Statement
Mr. Cassel (PSI) outlined the problem statement from the Draft Tire Stewardship Action Plan:
 A significant number of waste tires are generated in the state each year.
 Over one-quarter of the annual waste tires generated in the state are disposed of in
landfills.
 Growth in waste tire markets has not kept pace with generation.
 Tire stockpiles could create fires, environmental threats, and health problems.
Participant Comments
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): 80 percent of the tires produced in the United States went to
end-use markets, which is different from other products such as carpet and paint, which
have far fewer markets.
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies): Wanted PSI to summarize a few of its other
efforts so the group could understand how PSI goes from the problem statement to solutions.
He wanted to know how the mission would be accomplished. This effort should add value to
what California is already doing.
 Mark Korte (Tri-C Tire Recycling): The infrastructure in California already exists to pick
up all the waste tires generated in the state. We need to focus on market development to
keep tires out of landfills; tire manufacturers have already embraced stewardship.
 Tracy Norberg (RMA): While the problem statement correctly stated the issue of tire
piles, California no longer has a problem with tire piles.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
3






Terry Leveille (T&L Associates): Tire markets have increased, but have not kept pace
with generation so that tires are still being landfilled.
Pam Swingle (EPA): If this project is national, tire piles should be kept in the problem
statement since it was still a major issue for some states.
Denise Kennedy (Waste Recovery): Illegal dumping and tire enforcement should be part
of the Problem Statement.
Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): The Problem Statement mentions the amount of waste
tires generated in the “state” each year; if we are discussing this as a national dialogue,
we need to discuss it in national terms.
Scott Smithline (CAW): Waste tire markets have tracked generation. There has been a
consistent waste tire disposal rate of about 25 percent.
Fernando Berton (CIWMB): Waste tire markets should be sustainable.
Dialogue Goals
Mr. Cassel (PSI) proposed the following project goals from the Draft Tire Stewardship Action
Plan. These goals would be ones toward which the group would work together.
 Primary Goals
o Reduce waste tire generation.
o Efficient collection, reuse, and recycling.
o Increased and sustained waste tire markets.
 Supporting Goals
o Increase tire life to reduce generation rates.
o Attain highest value according to options:
 Reduce
 Reuse
 Retread
 Recycling into other products (incl. civil eng.)
 Tire-derived fuel
 Proper disposal
o Improve collection and recycling practices.
o Reduce illegal dumping of waste tires.
Participant Comments
 Terry Leveille (T&L Associates) and Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): Add “Reduce landfilling
of waste tires” to goals.
 Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): Our goal should be 100 percent recycling of tires.
 Bendon Blue (CIWMB): We need to create value for waste tires so they are not landfilled
and so that markets are sustainable.
PRESENTATIONS
Pam Swingle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
4
Ms. Swingle explained the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Resource
Conversation Challenge (RCC), which promotes the conservation of resources. One of the RCC
“clusters” is on tires, and Region 4 leads this national effort. The group has held conference calls
and meetings, and has five subcommittees:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Goals
Tire-derived Fuel
Rubberized Asphalt
Civil Engineering Applications
Ground Rubber
The main focus of the RCC Tire Cluster is to develop markets for waste tires. The
subcommittees each set their own goals and implement them. Ms. Swingle emphasized that the
Tire Cluster is a national effort, and that she has spoken to Mr. Cassel and Ms. Rhodes about
ways that the two initiatives can dovetail with one another and not be duplicative. The Tire
Cluster developed the following national goals through its Goals Subcommittee, chaired by
Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): To divert 85 percent of newly generated scrap tires to reuse,
recycling, and energy recovery by 2008, and reduce by 55 percent the number of tires in 17
existing stockpiles.
Michael Blumenthal, Rubber Manufacturers Association
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
The Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA) is the U.S. trade association for the rubber
manufacturing industry, representing the major tire manufacturers and over 100 engineered
product manufacturers. There are seven RMA members (with six represented at the Forum):
Bridgestone Americas, Firestone, Continental, Cooper, Yokohama, Michelin, and Pirelli.
Mr. Blumenthal explained that the industry is committed to a shared responsibility approach
based on the free market. RMA’s focus has been on the creation of sustainable markets, laws that
guide the management of tire piles, technical information, and standards for end-use markets
(including three ASTM standards for tires: tire-derived fuels, ground rubber, and civil
engineering applications).
In 2003, 80 percent of the tires produced in the United States went to an end-use market. While
the percentage of tires recycled has increased each year, tire generation has also increased. In
California, the markets reached a peak in 2001, with 68 percent of waste tires finding an end use,
but dipped to about 61 percent in 2003. Nationally, in 2003, 45 percent of tires went to tirederived fuel (TDF), with 19 percent going to civil engineering uses, 10 percent to ground rubber,
and 9 percent to landfills. In California during this same 2003 time period, 18 percent of tires
went to TDF, 12 percent to civil engineering uses, 18 percent to ground rubber, and 26 percent to
landfill. RMA recommends that California develop sustainable large-scale markets, including
TDF, rubber-modified asphalt, civil engineering applications (particularly in landfills), and
electric arc furnaces.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
5
Tracy Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
Ms. Norberg presented on behalf of the Rubber Association of Canada, a sister organization to
RMA. The Canadian programs are provincially based, with five programs managed by thirdparty organizations, two managed by government, three “marginal programs,” and one program
in development in Ontario. In all provincial programs, the retailer collects a fee from the
consumer and transmits it to a Tire Board, with the fee supporting collection and processing,
stockpile abatement, limited research and development, and education. Ontario’s Waste
Diversion Act, which was under development at the time of the Forum, created a third-party
organization called Waste Diversion Ontario, which manages not only tires but other products.
Individual industry funding organizations have been created to develop diversion plans for
individual materials. In March 2003, tires were phased in under the Act, and Ontario Tire
Stewardship was created to fund tire management programs. It has a Board comprised of tire
manufacturers and retailers.
Participant Comments
 Scott Cassel (PSI): Canadian programs are not national, but provincial, and that the
provinces require the industry to take responsibility. Often, the third-party organizations
are a response to the legislation, and are created by industry to implement the law. They
become a mechanism by which manufacturers can meet their requirements under the law.
 Mike Harrington (BAS Recycling): The Canadian programs do not put all their dollars
into market development, but most goes into collection and processing, with some into
research and market development.
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies) and Tracy Norberg (RMA): Differed on
whether Canadian markets impact tire markets in California. [This was designated as a
placeholder issue for future discussion.]
Mary Sikora, representing the Tire Industry Association
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
The Tire Industry Association (TIA) is an international association with more than 5,000
members, and represents all segments of the tire industry, including those that manufacture,
repair, recycle, sell or service new or retread tires, as well as the suppliers to that industry. The
association specializes in training, certification, and education. TIA has a subgroup called the
Tire and Rubber Recycling Advisory Council (TRRAC) to promote recycling, primarily
comprised of processors, collectors, crumb rubber producers and end-product manufacturers.
Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ) is the government liaison and serves as an advisor and resource to
TRRAC and TIA on regulatory and state issues. TRRAC’s goals are to promote the reuse and
recovery of tire and tire-derived materials, and to increase the marketability of recyclable tires
and recycled rubber products and applications. They are developing responsible industry
practices for tire storage, collection, transportation, and disposal. They also developed
recommendations for scrap tire legislation.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
6
ISSUES AND STRATEGIES: Julie Rhodes, Consultant to PSI
(See presentation in Appendix C.)
PSI’s basic dialogue process involves four two-day meetings over the course of a year. For this
project, PSI designed a one-day forum in order to get feedback on its Draft Tire Stewardship
Action Plan and refine it for future implementation. PSI distributed a written survey to all
stakeholders, and asked them to rank each of the twelve issues and corresponding strategies.
Thirteen participants completed the survey – six tire manufacturers, three government officials,
two retailers, one recycler, and one consultant. PSI tabulated the survey responses and
prioritized the issues. (See Final Tire Stewardship Action Plan for the survey and tabulated
responses.)
The respondents ranked the issues for the dialogue from 1 (being the high priority), to 12 (being
the lowest priority). They also ranked individual strategies, from 2 (strongly agreeing with that
strategy), all the way to negative 2 (strongly disagreeing with the strategy), with zero being
neutral. Respondents also had the opportunity to add strategies and make comments, both of which
PSI recorded. Based on the survey responses, PSI organized the issues in the following three
categories based on the level of interest demonstrated in the surveys. The issues appear with the
ranking they received from the tabulated surveys (e.g., #1, #2, etc.) and the issue number to which
they correlate in the Final Tire Stewardship Action Plan (e.g., Issue 2, Issue 10, etc.).
Top Tier
#1 - Waste Tire Markets (Issue 2)
#2 - Tire-derived Fuel (Issue 10)
#3 - Recycled Asphalt Concrete (Issue 7)
Second Tier
#4 - Shredded Tire Markets (Issue 8)
#5 - Crumb Rubber Markets (Issue 5)
#6 - Collection and Transportation (Issue 4)
#7 - Waste Tire Generation (Issue 1)
#8 -Tire Reuse, Retread, Remold (Issue 3)
Third Tier
#9 - Recreation Markets (Issue 9)
#10 - Sustainable Financing (Issue 12)
#11 - Landfill Disposal (Issue 11)
#12 - Recycled Content in New Tires (Issue 6)
Since the stakeholders valued issues differently, PSI designed the one-day Forum so that the issues
discussed were of the highest interest to the most number of people. Ms. Rhodes explained that she
would cover 9 of the 12 issues generally in the morning, but discuss the top three issues in slightly
more depth later in the day. She also mentioned that the 9 other issues would be discussed in
greater depth in future stakeholder meetings since each issue represented a piece of the puzzle in
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
7
resolving the overall tire management issue. The following notes summarize the presentation and
discussion on each issue.
Issue 1: Waste Tire Generation (Ranking: #7)
 California generates 33.5 million tires annually.
 25% of scrap tires generated in CA annually are landfilled.
Solution: Increase the lifespan of tires.
Strategies (from Draft Tire Stewardship Action Plan)
1. Increase consumer education on tire maintenance at retail and other locations.
2. Provide free and convenient pressure gauges and air for tire maintenance.
3. Install “smart tire” systems on new vehicles.
4. Manufacture longer lasting tires.
5. Encourage consumers to buy longer lasting tires.
6. Develop a unified approach to optimal tire pressure.
7. Additional Strategy (from survey): Nitrogen inflation systems.
8. Additional Strategy (from survey): Incentives and educational strategies for fleets.
Participant Comments
 Added Strategy: Vehicle wheel alignment.
 Added Strategy: Sticker for consumer reminder for service (e.g., oil change, tire rotation).
 RMA program on education about Pressure, alignment, rotation, and tread (PART).
Issue 3: Tire Reuse, Retread, Remold (Ranking: #8)
 Reuse
o One and a half million tires are reused in California (2001 data).
o 2 to 5 percent of generated tires are currently segregated for reuse.
o Up to 10 percent of scrap tires could be reused.
 Retreads
o Retreads allow for the casing to be reused within a tire, a new tread is added.
o Retreads are most often applied to light and large commercial truck tires.
o 59 companies and retailers sell retread tires in California, estimated at over
700,000 retread tires sold in California annually.
 Remolds
o Remolds allow rubber to be remolded into new tires.
o New technology for the United States, but has been in use in Europe.
 Challenges to Reuse, Retreads, and Remolds
o New tires can be inexpensive in comparison.
o Used tires might void warranties and increase liability.
o Retreads must overcome a perception of lower quality.
Solution: Increase Reuse and Retread Markets for Tires.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
8
Strategies
1. Promote the use of retreads among local government and commercial fleets.
2. Reduce liability concerns about reused tires.
Participant Comments
 Heidi Hall (EPA): If we are discussing national markets, we should include federal fleets
in Strategy #1.
 Randy Roth (Lakin Tire): Most of the 700,000 retread tires sold in California are medium
commercial and truck tires, with a small percentage being passenger tires.
 Robert Monford (Bigfoot Tire): Add a Strategy: Promote tire repair.
 Dick Gust (TIA/Lakin): Add a Strategy: Education on maintenance of truck tires to
increase retreadability.
 Bruce Cherry (Big O): Insurance carriers in California may not cover retailers for the loss
of a used tire from a blowout.
 John Sheerin (Bridgestone/Firestone): Put a placeholder on the insurance issue, since it
has never heard about this concern before. Reuse numbers look low; RMA says 18
percent of California’s scrap tires are going into export market for reuse, and that doesn’t
even include reuse in California. Julie Rhodes (PSI) commented that the data, which
come from CIWMB, break out reuse and export.
 Pam Swingle (EPA): If we discuss export to Mexico, we must also consider the need for
proper management after they are no longer usable. There are large tire piles on the
Mexican border.
Issue 4: Collection and Transportation (Ranking: #6)
 Retailers have limited space; some local ordinances do not allow outdoor storage.
 In California, all generators (of greater than 10 tires at one time) must register.
 California manifest program, in effect since 1995 but strengthened in 2003, is viewed as
overly burdensome. Only two haulers file electronically.
Solution: Reduce regulatory barriers to lower costs of tire collection.
Strategies
1. Streamline tire manifest system.
2. Develop cooperative collection contracts.
Participant Comments
 Karen Barstow (hauler/recycler): There is a need for more funding for enforcement and
administration of the manifest program.
Issue 5: Crumb Rubber Markets (Ranking: #5)
 Crumb rubber results from the ambient or cryogenic processing of a scrap tire.
 Challenges
 Each tire by type or manufacturer has a unique recipe.
 Tires are expensive to process.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
9



Must compete with low virgin rubber prices.
Specifications for crumb rubber not well known.
Each potential product has it’s own challenges.
Solution: Develop sustainable and diversified crumb rubber markets.
Strategies
1. Promote existing specifications for crumb rubber.
2. Increase government and business purchase of tire-derived products.
3. Overcome perception related to inferior quality of recycled content tires.
4. Research and develop strategies to overcome technical barriers to using crumb rubber as
a raw material.
5. Equipment grants for crumb rubber manufacturers.
6. Provide marketing assistance for California tire-derived product manufacturers.
Participant Comments
 Tracy Norberg (RMA): The barrier as to different tire chemistries has to do with different
compounds for each part of the tire (e.g., sidewall, inner liner, etc.), and not that each tire
manufacturer has its own recipe.
 Linda Dickinson (CIWMB): CIWMB provides assistance with trade shows in grants.
 Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): Infrastructure, product development, and marketing
are three prongs to the grant program. Grants should be targeted and prioritized
according to these three main needs.
Issue 6: Recycled Content in New Tires (Ranking: #12)
 Currently, tires contain between 0 - 5% recycled rubber.
 There is the potential for 10-15% recycled rubber in new tires without dramatically
impacting tire performance and safety, according to CIWMB.
 Challenges:
o Chemistry of tires
o Vulanized rubber properties
o Without technological breakthrough, adding recycled rubber to tires can impact
tire longevity and performance
o Cost
Solution: Increase percentage of recycled content in new tire manufacture.
Strategies
1. Increase recycled tire rubber in new tire manufacturing and other molded products.
2. Conduct research on technologies to increase recycled content in tires.
3. Provide financial incentives to increase demand for recycled rubber.
4. Develop recycled-content tire procurement specifications along with strategy for
procurement of recycled content tires and molded products.
5. Additional strategy (from survey): Government procurement of recycled-content tires so
that tire manufacturers would disclose the amount of recycled-content in new tires.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
10
Participant Comments
 The potential for increased recycled content in new tires without impacting tire
performance, safety, and longevity has been challenged by tire manufacturers, and should
be addressed in future meetings.
 Barry Takallou (CRM Company): The closest tire manufacturers are over 2,000 miles
from California, so it is too far and costly to ship California crumb rubber to them.
Issue 8: Shredded Tire Markets (Ranking: #4)
 Shredded tires can be substituted for other fill material, such as aggregate, sand, and
gravel.
 Shredded tires are used for a variety of applications: Landfill application, civil
engineering applications, embankments, bridge embankments, road base, septic/drainage
fields.
 Challenges: Design specifications, proper installation, past performance, logistics.
Solution: Increase the civil engineering applications for shredded tires.
Strategies
1. Provide education and information on benefits of using waste tire shreds in landfill
applications.
2. Educate transportation officials about ASTM specifications for tire shreds.
3. Allow for, and promote, waste tire use in local septic fields/drainage through local
ordinances and state rule.
4. Educate about specifications to increase the use of tires in road base.
Participant Comments
 Heidi Hall (EPA): Consider the end-of-life reuse or disposal of shredded tires after being
used for engineering applications.
 Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): There needs to be more education about specifications
for use in civil engineering applications. California has conducted enough pilot projects.
The data are available in other states to show success in septic fields and for drainage.
 Pam Swingle (EPA): Pilots in other states show that shredded tires have worked well for
drainage in a variety of soil types.
 Tracy Norberg (RMA): It can certainly work in California, but the economics are not as
favorable as in other states. Competing material, such as gravel, is less expensive here.
Issue 9: Recreation Markets (Ranking: #9)
 Loose fill crumb rubber or poured in place for recreation and outdoor uses.
 Advantages: Safety (absorbs impact), drainage.
 Challenges: Cost, sustainable funding, public perception (smell, dirty)
Solution: Develop sustainable and diversified recreation markets.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
11
Strategies
 Promote benefits of crumbed and chipped rubber over traditional materials used in sports
fields, playgrounds, horse arenas, golf courses, walking trails, and mulch.
 Develop a market development plan for recreational uses.
Participant Comments
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies): What percentage of California projects
regarding the use of crumb rubber in recreation markets has been subsidized by grant
funding?
Issue 11: Landfill Disposal (Ranking: #11)
 8 million tires still landfilled in California annually (25%).
 Tires must be shredded before legally disposed of in a landfill.
 Most of California’s solid waste landfills accept tires for disposal.
 Landfilling is the cheapest management method for scrap tires.
Solution: Reduce tire landfilling through incentives and disincentives.
Strategies
1. Phase in a landfill ban on tires (current law allows shredded tires to be landfilled; other
states have complete ban).
2. Increase landfill tipping fees.
3. Provide incentives for retailers and haulers
4. Require storage and marketing of tires before landfilling
Participant Comments
 Randy Roth (Lakin Tire), Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ), Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman):
Questioned whether the cost to dispose of tires was accurately reported in the Draft
Action Plan.
Issue 12: Sustainable Financing (Ranking: #10)
 Tire fee of $1 per tire is collected at retail and given to state to run tire programs (up from
$.25 per tire before 2000).
 Funding from fee is used for: Market development, regulatory, enforcement, tire pile
clean-ups, and education.
 $33 million collected annually from the fee.
 An additional fee is often charged to actually pay for the cost of managing and disposing
of a tire (administrative and hauling).
 Fee scheduled to be reduced to $.75 per tire on December 31, 2006.
 In contrast to U.S. and California fee programs, Canadian programs provided some
amount of funding for collection and recycling of scrap tires.
 Some of the fee programs in the U.S. have been raided by the state legislatures for use in
the general fund.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
12
Solution: Develop agreement on long-term funding strategy.
Strategies
 Develop a third party organization that can provide cost-effective system management.
 Distribute funding according to negotiated priorities.
Participant Comments
 Pam Swingle (EPA): How would third party organizations be integrated into tire fee
programs in the U.S., where the funds go to state agencies to manage the program?
 Mike Paparian (CIWMB): Could envision a third party organization that does not violate
current fee arrangements but still provides a benefit by focusing on waste tire generation
and consumer education. There could be other components of the issue as well that can
be enhanced by a third party organization that derives benefits from regional and national
coordination.
 Mitch Dalmage (CIWMB): CIWMB will open up comments on the 5-year Tire
Management Plan on September 29.
 Tracy Norberg (RMA): In addition to deciding the issue of whether this effort is focused
on California or nationally, we should discuss how to coordinate with the RCC and the
CIWMB 5-year Tire Management Plan.
 Martha Gildart: Suggested that we resurvey over lunch because only 13 surveys were
submitted back. Scott Cassel (PSI): That is a moot point because we will discuss all the
issues over time, and we already designed this meeting to discuss the top three issues.
 Mary Sikora (Recycling Research Inst.): What is the PSI process for discussing the
issues? Scott Cassel (PSI): PSI’s process is designed so that all 12 issues would be given
equal time over the course of four meetings. At the Forum, we will discuss 3 of the
issues. In other meetings, California will discuss the other issues identified.
 Scott Smithline (CAW): There should be more environmental representation. Scott
Cassel (PSI): PSI contacted Neil Carman of the Sierra Club’s Texas Chapter, and Mike
Paparian contacted the Sierra Club’s California Chapter. Neither got a response. PSI
would welcome suggestions about other environmental representatives to include in this
dialogue. Julie Rhodes (PSI): The invitation for this meeting went out to well over 200
people, so many others were notified of the meeting.
Lunch: Sponsored by Golden By-Products, Inc.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
13
ISSUE/STRATEGY DISCUSSION: Introduction and Top Tier Issues
Scott Cassel (PSI) walked the group through the process they would use to discuss the issues and
strategies. For each issue, Julie would start by presenting background research to inform the
group about the issue, after which the group would discuss the issue until they felt they fully
understood it. Then, the group would be asked what they thought the Ideal World would be for
that issue, comparing that to the current state. The majority of the discussion would involve
which strategies the group wanted to pursue to address the key issue. For each strategy, Julie
would highlight research to explain it. After a common group understanding was reached on
each strategy, Scott would lead the group through a discussion on that strategy. For each
strategy, the group was asked to consider the following five things:
Tactical Analysis of Each Strategy
 ways to implement/strength of specific strategy
 actors (roles)
 barriers/opportunities
 information gaps/research needs
 pilot project opportunities
New strategies raised by a participant would be put in a Parking Lot for future consideration.
After all strategies were discussed for that key issue, the group would prioritize the strategies that
they wanted to work on between meetings by considering the following criteria:
Criteria to Consider
 leverages progress on other issues
 actors are willing to participate
 widest agreement
 progress is measurable
 progress can be demonstrated
The main outcome from the meeting would be to identify priority strategies that are fleshed out
enough so that a workgroup could refine them and present findings back to the group at future
meetings.
Julie Rhodes (PSI) presented the following three Top Tier issues.
Issue 2: Waste Tire Markets (Ranking #1)
 There are three types of markets including crumb rubber, shredded tires, and tire-derived
fuel.
 The challenges include technological, economical, institutional, logistical, environmental,
lack of education, perception or past performance, highest and best use, and lack of
experience.
Ideal World (proposed)
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
14


Short-term and long-term performance goals exist for reuse/recycling programs that are
measurable and aggressive, but attainable.
Projects and programs include evaluation mechanisms for mid-course improvements
when data show that programs are not meeting performance goals.
Participant Comments on Ideal World
 Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): As RCC Goals Committee chair, suggests that other states
follow goals set out by RCC, which appear in the Draft Tire Stewardship Action Plan in
Appendix B.
 Pam Swingle (EPA): The ideal world would be recovering 100 percent of scrap tires.
 John Sheerin (Bridgestone/Firestone): Goals should be prioritized, possibly by markets.
Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): Nationally, we tried to set goals by markets, and this could not
be done. Perhaps it can for California.
 Michael Paparian (CIWMB): The ultimate goal is zero disposal, but we need to discuss
this issue in terms of measurable interim goals also, such as by 2005, 2010, etc.
 Red Hermann (Michelin): We should have a short-term goal of 100 percent markets, and
then a longer-term goal of those tires going to the most environmentally sound and
economic markets.
Solution: Develop performance metrics for program success.
Strategies
 Set measurable goals for market development and reduced disposal.
 Reduce regulatory barriers to market development.
Participant Comments
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): Assess the market potential in California, and measure
progress toward the goal.
 Tom Faust (Redwood Rubber): We can achieve 100 percent markets for scrap tires in
California but we will need to change existing technologies. The state has not yet
provided funding to change the technology base.
 Pam Swingle (EPA): This group needs to decide first if our focus is national or on
California. Goals for California will be different from national goals.
 Red Hermann (Michelin): We would need to have different goals for California as
compared to other states, or nationally, and the goals should differ by market.
 Randy Roth (Lakin Tire): Markets for tire-derived products are local.
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): The RCC identified market barriers, which are national and
can be applied in California. California is also different from other states in that it has
$34 million per year to spend and has a big staff.
 Pam Swingle (EPA) We need to hear from other states about their interests and how they
differ from California. Many states contributed to the goals process through the RCC list
serve.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
15















Michael Paparian (CIWMB): Some issues are local but many of the 12 issues are
national. In addition, national coordination on a research agenda would be beneficial, as
would public education.
Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies): We should decide whether this effort is
focused on California or national, since our company has national representatives that
handle national issues.
David Chapman (Goodyear): This is a national issue for us, but the specifics have to be
local. We should talk about a national program that is specific to California.
Terry Leveille (T&L Associates): The RCC has developed national goals, but the tire
product stewardship program should be focused on California, with national input.
Mike Harrington (BAS Recycling): Make the goals national, but implement them locally.
Tracy Norberg (RMA): The RCC has set national goals, and we should not duplicate
those. This effort should then focus on developing markets in California, to reach the 100
percent markets goal we discussed earlier.
Heidi Hall (EPA): Follow a phased approach – start with setting realistic local and
regional goals by considering local/regional markets, then invite other states into the
process.
Michael Paparian (CIWMB): Ask other states if they would like to be involved in a
process like this. Under a product stewardship approach, we could promote the purchase
of longer-lasting tires in a joint effort with manufacturers and others.
Michael Blumenthal (RMA): The focus needs to be on California markets. California has
the resources and the interest. With this, we can solve the markets problem in California.
Nevada, for example, is happy to landfill all its tires.
John Sheerin (Bridgestone/Firestone): Imposing a national solution is not the way to go.
Start with a state by state approach, with state goals.
Allan Lassiter (VA DEQ): California should start with the RCC goals and develop its
own goals.
Scott Smithline (CAW): If this is a California effort, we need to consider the context that
has been set by existing statutes that provide guidance and priorities for tire management.
If this group wants to focus on reduction, we need more emphasis on longer-lasting tires
and reuse.
Mitch Dalmage (CIWMB): CIWMB has an interagency agreement to work on smart tire
technology, such as low rolling resistance tires and longer-life tires. That is on a parallel
track to this one.
Tracy Norberg (RMA): Regarding the regulatory barriers strategy, discuss those barriers
and potential solutions within each market.
Scott Cassel (PSI) summed up the discussion by saying that this effort would be focused
on California, and that the state could set its own goals that are more aggressive than the
RCC national goals. However, there may be national issues that California officials
would also be interested in, and might want to discuss with other states. These efforts
should be coordinated with the RCC and other CIWMB efforts.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
16
Issue 10: Tire-derived Fuel (Ranking #2)

There are 8 companies currently producing cement. These companies own 10 facilities,
which contain 18 cement kilns, 9 of which are permitted for TDF, although 6 are
currently burning TDF.
 TDF markets include cement kilns, co-generation facilities, industrial boilers, and others.
These substitute scrap tires in part for coal and coke in the burning process.
 While TDF can reduce certain air pollutants (e.g., nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide) over
the alternative energy source, it might also increase dioxins and furans.
 No state funding can be used to promote TDF under the current law in California.
 Some of the challenges include:
 Perception of “tire burning.”
 Could increase some air pollutants.
 Not the highest and best use of the resource - initial resources are gone forever.
 Conversion of plant is expensive.
 Permitting of tire burning is expensive and takes time.
 Logistically not every facility is cost-effective.
 Potential contaminants.
 Tire chip fuel has costs of processing
Ideal World
 Absolutely no TDF use, OR
 Maximize TDF use as part of a diversified market development strategy, OR
 Develop TDF markets initially, but move more tires towards more value-added end-use
markets.
Participant Comments on Ideal World
 Michael Paparian (CIWMB): Add a 4th Ideal World – Let markets and local regulatory
decisions determine the extent to which TDF is allowed, and not have it decided by state
policy.
 Mitch Dalmage (CIWMB): “Highest and best use” can be defined as “The greatest value
for the product at the least environmental cost overall, over the lifecycle of the product.”
 Red Hermann (Michelin): We need to define what is meant by recycling.
 Scott Smithline (CAW): Whether TDF is better than landfilling is one discussion, but
another is how we prioritize state funding assistance, and that should be according to the
hierarchy of tire management.
 Emily Pimental (EPA): We need a life cycle assessment of tire management options so
we know what is “environmentally sound.”
 John Bennett (California Portland Cement): We need a life cycle assessment comparing
all the options.
Solution: Increase tire-derived fuel markets.
Strategies
1. Overcome perception related to environmental hazard of burning tires for fuel.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
17
2. Provide financial assistance for facility conversion or other start-up costs.
3. Additional strategy (from survey): research into combustion technology and emissions
control technology (less theory, more science).
Participant Comments
 Randall Ward (Cogeneration Ash Council): The Council is the only association of
cogenerators in the state that uses TDF. TDF is an acceptable fuel source. The real issue
is education.
 Scott Cassel (PSI): This group should determine if it is important to recommend changes
to policies, regulations, or statutes as they pertain to TDF or any other issue and strategy.
If the group agrees by consensus that existing barriers can be overcome by changing a
statute, that can be a recommendation of the group.
 Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): If California does not have a greater acceptance of
TDF and civil engineering uses of scrap tires, it will not get to 100 percent markets.
Agree that we should not be constrained by existing laws.
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies): I agree with Strategy #1 (education), but think
that Strategy #3 (research) is a waste of time since there is a lot of research already.
 John Bennett (California Portland Cement): The state should prioritize the funding from
the tire fee into markets that show promise to be sustainable. The state should fund
markets that can eventually survive on their own. The CIWMB should not be subsidizing
markets that don’t show promise in the long run. Markets should not exist only because
of the state subsidies. The fee should only be for Board staff, manifests, enforcement, and
those functions.
 Pam Swingle (EPA): EPA has a white paper being reviewed internally that discusses the
benefits and risks of TDF.
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): RMA has 50 reports on TDF on its website.
 A TDF Subgroup was formed that would come back to the next dialogue meeting with a
proposal for the full group to consider, regarding:
 TDF market potential in California.
 Cost of developing this market.
 If the state statute should be changed to allow CIWMB to fund TDF projects.
 How does TDF track the California law and the Waste Board's waste tire
management priorities?
 TDF Workgroup (to coordinate with RCC TDF subgroup)
 Randy Ward
 Michael Blumenthal
 Jana Nairn
 Randy Roth
 Martha Gildart
 Denise Kennedy
 John Bennett
 CA Air Resources Board
 U.S. EPA
 Environmental representative (Scott Smithline)
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
18

Citizens Advisory Groups
Issue 7: Recycled Asphalt Concrete (Ranking #3)
 Rubberized asphalt concrete (RAC) is the blending of crumb rubber in the liquid asphalt
surface layer on road construction projects.
 Markets include CalTrans, local highway departments, contractors, private sector.
 Challenges include the following:
o Perception that there are limitations regarding patents and mix designs
o Perception that RAC can’t be used in all climates
o Proper Installation
o Cost
 Getting material to jobsite.
 Need for greater incentives to motivate use.
 Caltrans established a 15% internal goal.
 Proposed legislation would require 20-50% goal by 2012 (AB338).
 Proposed legislation would also require use of U.S. tire rubber only.
Ideal World
 Every appropriate paving project uses RAC.
Participant Comments on Ideal World
 Mike Harrington (BAS Recycling): Add to Ideal World that the projects would use
California-based rubberized asphalt.
Solution: Develop sustainable and diversified rubberized asphalt concrete markets.
Strategies
1. Use standardized asphalt mix designs and paving standards for RAC. Train and educate
state and local highway engineers, and others, on RAC use, costs, and benefits.
3. Require Caltrans and others receiving state funding to purchase California-derived tire
rubber.
4. Develop infrastructure and logistics for material delivery.
Participant Comments
Strategy #1
 Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products): Strategy #1 should be: “Promote the use of
existing…” [Strategy #1 was changed to: Promote the use of existing standardized
asphalt mix designs and paving standards for RAC.]
Strategy #2
 Barry Takallou (CRM): Los Angeles County reported at the California RAC Committee
that RAC accounted for 53% of all asphalt it used last year, and they require use of
California rubber only. Orange County reported that over 50% of its asphalt is RAC.
Promote positive uses (e.g., LA County and other locations).
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
19




Nate Gauff (CIWMB): The training is already being done, but there is a need to convince
those who manage technical staff.
Red Hermann (Michelin): Focus on elected officials (top down) and technical champions.
Mitch Dalmage (CIWMB): We also want to push from the bottom up by talking to local
homeowners associations and developers.
Pam Swingle (EPA): RAC acceptance depends a great deal on the willingness of DOT
officials to be open to its use. Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina are using it,
but it is not even being considered in Georgia.
Strategy #3
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies): Agree with Strategy #3. Determine the extent
to which crumb rubber from Canada and other places is impacting the market in
California. Research whether the market is impacted; have the funds been effective at
increasing markets?
Added Strategies
 Jim Dodenhoff (Greenman Technologies) and Jana Nairn (Golden By-Products):
Research why RAC acceptance is low. Once the barriers are identified, then real
strategies will come from that.
 Mike Harrington (BAS Recycling): Gain federal highway acceptance of RAC as noise
reduction, which would open up funding. We also need to use the ASTM standard for
asphalt rubber to maintain performance, and make people aware of it.
 Barry Takallou (CRM): Increase funding in SB 1346 for local agencies to use RAC. Has
Caltrans determined that RAC use is cost-effective, or do we need more research?
Additional Comments
 Additional leads for research: Rubber Pavement Association (Arizona) and Dr. Gary
Hicks (Oregon State University).
 Mitch Dalmage (CIWMB): Caltrans produced a report called State of the Pavement that
lists problems with RAC and plans to address those over time.
 Michael Blumenthal (RMA): We need to determine the market potential for RAC in
California. CalTrans issued a press release yesterday saying that it was going to use
300,000 tons of rubberized asphalt concrete over the next two years, primarily in the
Riverside area, as a road noise dampening material. We know how many tires can be
used in that particular application, so this group can help to expand that information to
other parts of the state.
 Scott Smithline (CAW): AB 338 would require Caltrans to use a minimum amount of
RAC and would follow the ASTM standard definition of asphalt binder. They would be
required to use crumb rubber from the United States. RAC has been piloted extensively
and it has been shown to work.
 Mike Harrington (BAS Recycling): Caltrans opposed AB 338 once the percent of roads
using RAC went up to 50 percent.
 Terry Leveille (T&L Associates): California Asphalt Paving Association has taken an
"oppose" position on AB 338. They're the traditional asphalt pavers.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
20

The group discussed whether to support AB 338, which Caltrans was opposing. Most
participants supported AB 338, but some were concerned about its mandatory nature. The
group decided that it would send individual letters of support and not try to develop a
group letter through PSI.
RAC Workgroup (to coordinate with CIWMB)
 CIWMB lead: Nate Gauff
 Barry Takallou
 Mike Harrington
 Jim Dodenhoff
 Jack Ezekial
 Scott Smithline
 Jana Nairn
 Michael Blumenthal
 Pam Swingle
 Southern California RAC Center (to cover Orange County and LA County)
 Federal Highway Administration
 Asphalt company representative
The group will conduct the following:
 Refine the strategies discussed in this meeting.
 Determine the market potential for RAC in California.
NEXT STEPS
 National Dialogue vs. California Project: The group wanted the effort on markets to be
focused on meeting California goals but, to the extent that strategies relate to national
solutions, they would bring in other states and work nationally. They agreed that the first
focus for this group would be on enhancing California markets; the second step could be
to broaden the group nationally to focus on national issues.

Four Meetings over a Year: Scott Cassel (PSI) asked participants if they could commit
to meet four times over the next year with a first meeting being in February or whenever
it would be held by CIWMB. The group concurred with the concept of planning for four
meetings, but wanted to assess progress after each meeting and plan next steps.

Meeting Length: The group discussed the merits of a one-day or a day and a half meeting.
Most people were comfortable with a longer meeting if the agenda warranted it. One
participant requested that we schedule for the afternoon of Day 1 and a full day for Day 2.

Steering Committee: The group decided to create a Steering Committee to develop the agenda
for the next meeting and frame the issues. Those who volunteered for the Committee were:
 Mary Sikora
 Mike Blumenthal, Tracy Norberg
 Pam Swingle
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
21



Calvin Young
John Sheerin
Mike Paparian
Focus of Steering Committee
 Additional stakeholders needed for dialogue.
 Design the four meetings (the next meeting will discuss Issues #4, 5, 6, 7).
 Develop a template for discussing each market in the two workgroups created at
this Forum (TDF and RAC). The work groups will bring back information based
on these templates to the full group. The template could include the following:
o Short term versus long-term goals.
o Coordination with RCC and other groups.
o Distinguish between strategies that require a national approach versus
those that require a local approach.
o Market potential in terms of how many scrap tires the market could
handle.
o Consider the barriers for each market (including regulatory) and how they
can be overcome.
o Cost to develop the markets.

Stakeholder Agreements: Scott Cassel (PSI) explained that the group can begin to
implement strategies as they are agreed upon, and doesn’t have to wait for a year to
complete a comprehensive agreement. He emphasized that the dialogue is not solely
focused on market development, since other strategies have been identified by
participants. The group will discuss all 12 issues since they were raised as being of
importance to at least some of the stakeholders. As we go through the process, the
strategies that have the highest degree of interest from the most number of stakeholders
will emerge as those that the group wants to implement together. Product stewardship
does not only focus on developing markets for materials, although that is a big element. It
is about more comprehensive issues, such as longer-wear tires and recycled content in
new tires.

Redistribute Survey? Several stakeholders requested that the survey be redistributed
and recalculated. However, after extensive discussion, the group decided that this extra
effort was not necessary. The group came to realize that the prioritization was a way to
manage the discussion, and was not a way to prioritize the importance of an issue. Since
all issues would be discussed over the course of the four meetings, it was not very
important whether a person’s top issue was discussed in the first or second meeting. All
that matters is that the issues are discussed equally. Scott Cassel (PSI) said that PSI
designs meetings so that equal time is given to each issue.

Additional Stakeholders Needed for Meetings
 Waste Management Inc./Chuck White (operator of major tire landfills in state)
 Environmental (Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council)
 Pavement Association (RPA)
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
22

CA Ash Coalition/Randy Ward

Short-term and Long-term approach: One participant suggested that the group find
markets (e.g., including more TDF) for 100 percent of the scrap tires in California, then
move toward solutions that are most environmentally sound.

Coordination: Several participants suggested that this effort should coordinate with the
RCC, California’s Five-Year Tire Plan, and other relevant California and national
initiatives so we don’t reinvent the wheel.

Life Cycle Market Assessment: The group expressed an interest in developing a life
cycle assessment of all the tire markets to help prioritize efforts and funding.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc. - April 21, 2005
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
Draft - For Discussion Purposes Only. Do Not Cite Or Quote.
23
APPENDIX A: Final Attendance List
Tire Stewardship Dialogue Meeting
Final Attendees List
July 28, 2004
Sacramento, CA
NAME
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
Attended/
Dial-in
John Sheerin
Retail Environmental
Manager
Bridgestone Firestone Retail
and Commercial Operations
Attended
Keith Pearson
Tom Wood
Continental
Director, Corporate
Cooper Tire & Rubber
Environmental Affairs Company
MANUFACTURERS
Attended
Attended
David Chapman
Red Hermann
Scrap Tire Activities
Sanat N. Bhavsar
Robert Monford
RETAILERS
Bruce Cherry
Owner/Operator
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
Federal Government
Pam Swingle
Heidi Hall
Emily Pimentel
US/Mexico Border
Coordinator
Goodyear
Michelin
Yokohama Tire Corporation
Bigfoot Tire (Phillipines)
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Big O
Attended
EPA Region 4
EPA Region 9
US EPA
Attended
Attended
Attended
Larry Bowerman
Waste Management
Division
EPA Region 9
Attended
Assistant Chief, Div.
of Design
CA Department of
Transportation
Attended
Jack Ezekiel
Office of Resource
Conservation
CA Department of
Transportation
Attended
Bonnie Bruce
Boxing Cheng
Bendon Blue
Advisor to the Chair
Staff
Committee Analyst
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
Attended
Attended
Attended
State Government
Timothy Craggs
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
A-1
Calvin Young
Cheryl Peace
Fernando Burton
Holly Armstrong
Kathy Fletcher
Linda Dickinson
Rosalie Mulé
Michael Paparian
Michelle Martin
Mitch Delmage
Rosalie Mule
Sally French
Nate Gauff
Garth Hickle
Noelle Hartner
Allan Lassiter
TIRE RECYCLERS
Mike Harrington
John Bennett
Jana Nairn
Karen Barstow
Staff
Board Member
Committee Analyst
Staff Counsel
Advisor
Staff
Board Member
Board Member
Staff
Staff
Board Member
Waste Tire
Management
Staff
Team Leader
Vice President,
Environmental
Manners
Corporate Secretary
Jim Dodenhoff
Randy Roth
Tom Faust
Rick Snyder
Barry Takalou
ASSOCIATIONS
Michael Blumenthal
Tracy Norberg
Dick Gust
Vice President
President
Senior Technical
Director
VP for the
Environment and
Resource Recovery
President
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
CIWMB
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
CIWMB
MN Office of Environmental
Asst.
Attended
Call-in
MI Dept. of Envt'al Quality
VA Dept. of Envt'al Quality
Call-in
Call-in
BAS Recycling, Inc.
California Portland Cement
Attended
Attended
Golden By-Products, Inc.
Golden By-Products, Inc.
Attended
Attended
Greenman Technologies of
California
Attended
Lakin Tire East and West
Redwood Rubber
U.S. Rubber Recyling, Inc.
CRM Company
Attended
Attended
Attended
Attended
Rubber Manufacturers
Association
Rubber Manufacturers
Association
Attended
Tire Industry
Association/(Lakin
Attended
Attended
A-2
Environmental Industries)
OTHER
PARTICIPANTS
Sergi Amirkhanian
Clemson Univ. Asphalt
Rubber Technology Service
Californians Against Waste
Attended
President
Consultant
Recycling Research Institute
T&L Associates
Cogeneration Ash Council
Former CIWMB employee
Call-in
Attended
Attended
Attended
Project Manager
Executive Director
PSI Contractor
Product Stewardship Institute
Attended
Attended
Scott Smithline
Mary Sikora
Terry Leveille
Randall Ward
Martha Gildart
PRODUCT
STEWARDSHIP
INSTITUTE
Julie Rhodes
Scott Cassel
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
Attended
A-3
APPENDIX B: Tire Stewardship Initiative Agenda
AGENDA
TIRE STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE
Sacramento, CA
July 28, 2004
Time
8:00 AM
Topic
Registration/Light breakfast
Presenter
Sponsor: Scrap Tire News
8:30 AM
Welcome and Introductions
8:45 AM


Mike Paparian, CIWMB Board
Member
Scott Cassel, PSI

9:30 AM
10:15 AM
Introduction to PSI
Meeting Objectives, Stakeholder Roles/Process,
Roadmap for the Future
Agree on Problem Statement and Project Goals
Key Tire Initiatives
 EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge Tire
Cluster
 Manufacturer Efforts in the U.S. and Canada
 Retailer and Recycler Efforts


Identification and prioritization of issues in Draft
Tire Stewardship Action Plan
Overview of issues and potential strategies




Pam Swingle, EPA Region
IV
Michael Blumenthal, RMA
Glenn Maidment, RAC
Mary Sikora, TIA
Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant
11:00 AM
Break
11:15 AM
Key Issue #1: Waste Tire Markets
12:15 PM
Lunch
Sponsor: Golden By-Products, Inc.
1:00 PM
Key Issue #2: Tire-derived Fuel Markets
Scott Cassel, PSI
Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant
2:30 PM
2:45 PM
Break
Key Issue #3: Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Markets
Scott Cassel, PSI
Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant
4:15 PM
Next Steps
 Summarize status of issues discussions
o
Confirm priority strategies
o
Clarify future meeting process
 Stakeholder assessment
 Distribution of project information
5:30 PM
Adjourn
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
Scott Cassel, PSI
Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant
Scott Cassel, PSI
B-1
APPENDIX C: Presentations
Mary Sikora, Representing the Tire Industry Association
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-1
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-2
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-3
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-4
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-5
Julie Rhodes, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-6
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-7
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-8
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-9
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-10
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-11
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-12
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-13
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-14
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-15
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-16
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-17
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-18
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-19
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-20
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-21
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-22
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-23
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-24
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-25
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-26
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-27
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-28
Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-29
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-30
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-31
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-32
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-33
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-34
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-35
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-36
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-37
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-38
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-39
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-40
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-41
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-42
Pam Swingle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-43
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-44
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-45
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-46
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-47
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-48
Michael Blumenthal, Rubber Manufacturers Association
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-49
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-50
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-51
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-52
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-53
Tracy Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-54
Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.
Tire Stewardship Forum – Meeting Summary
April 21, 2005
C-55