Scott's documnet (00921404.DOC;1)



[pic]

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

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

[pic]

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: . 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 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 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.

• 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.)

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. Goals

2. Tire-derived Fuel

3. Rubberized Asphalt

4. Civil Engineering Applications

5. 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 tire-derived 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.

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 third- party 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.

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 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.

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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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)

• 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.

2. 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).

• 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.

• 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

• 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)

• 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.

APPENDIX A: Final Attendance List

|Tire Stewardship Dialogue Meeting |

|Final Attendees List |

|July 28, 2004 |

|Sacramento, CA |

|NAME |TITLE |ORGANIZATION |Attended/ |

| | | |Dial-in |

|MANUFACTURERS |  |  |  |

|John Sheerin |Retail Environmental Manager |Bridgestone Firestone Retail and Commercial |Attended |

| | |Operations | |

|Keith Pearson |  |Continental |Attended |

|Tom Wood |Director, Corporate Environmental |Cooper Tire & Rubber Company |Attended |

| |Affairs | | |

|David Chapman |  |Goodyear |Attended |

|Red Hermann |Scrap Tire Activities |Michelin |Attended |

|Sanat N. Bhavsar |  |Yokohama Tire Corporation |Attended |

|Robert Monford | |Bigfoot Tire (Phillipines) |Attended |

|RETAILERS |  |  |  |

|Bruce Cherry |Owner/Operator |Big O |Attended |

|GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS |  |  |

|Federal Government |  |  |  |

|Pam Swingle |  |EPA Region 4 |Attended |

|Heidi Hall |  |EPA Region 9 |Attended |

|Emily Pimentel |US/Mexico Border Coordinator |US EPA |Attended |

|Larry Bowerman |Waste Management Division |EPA Region 9 |Attended |

|State Government |  |  |  |

|Timothy Craggs |Assistant Chief, Div. of Design |CA Department of Transportation |Attended |

|Jack Ezekiel |Office of Resource Conservation |CA Department of Transportation |Attended |

|Bonnie Bruce |Advisor to the Chair |CIWMB |Attended |

|Boxing Cheng |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Bendon Blue |Committee Analyst |CIWMB |Attended |

|Calvin Young |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Cheryl Peace |Board Member |CIWMB |Attended |

|Fernando Burton |Committee Analyst |CIWMB |Attended |

|Holly Armstrong |Staff Counsel |CIWMB |Attended |

|Kathy Fletcher |Advisor |CIWMB |Attended |

|Linda Dickinson |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Rosalie Mulé |Board Member |CIWMB |Attended |

|Michael Paparian |Board Member |CIWMB |Attended |

|Michelle Martin |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Mitch Delmage |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Rosalie Mule |Board Member |CIWMB |Attended |

|Sally French |Waste Tire Management |CIWMB |Attended |

|Nate Gauff |Staff |CIWMB |Attended |

|Garth Hickle |Team Leader |MN Office of Environmental Asst. |Call-in |

|Noelle Hartner |  |MI Dept. of Envt'al Quality |Call-in |

|Allan Lassiter |  |VA Dept. of Envt'al Quality |Call-in |

|TIRE RECYCLERS |  |  |

|Mike Harrington | |BAS Recycling, Inc. |Attended |

|John Bennett |Vice President, Environmental |California Portland Cement |Attended |

| |Manners | | |

|Jana Nairn |Corporate Secretary |Golden By-Products, Inc. |Attended |

|Karen Barstow | |Golden By-Products, Inc. |Attended |

|Jim Dodenhoff |  |Greenman Technologies of California |Attended |

|Randy Roth |Vice President |Lakin Tire East and West |Attended |

|Tom Faust |  |Redwood Rubber |Attended |

|Rick Snyder |President |U.S. Rubber Recyling, Inc. |Attended |

|Barry Takalou | |CRM Company |Attended |

|ASSOCIATIONS |  |  | |

|Michael Blumenthal |Senior Technical Director |Rubber Manufacturers Association |Attended |

|Tracy Norberg |VP for the Environment and Resource|Rubber Manufacturers Association |Attended |

| |Recovery | | |

|Dick Gust |President |Tire Industry Association/(Lakin |Attended |

| | |Environmental Industries) | |

|OTHER PARTICIPANTS |  |  | |

|Sergi Amirkhanian | | Clemson Univ. Asphalt Rubber Technology |Attended |

| | |Service | |

|Scott Smithline |  |Californians Against Waste |Attended |

|Mary Sikora |President |Recycling Research Institute |Call-in |

|Terry Leveille |Consultant |T&L Associates |Attended |

|Randall Ward |  |Cogeneration Ash Council |Attended |

|Martha Gildart |  |Former CIWMB employee |Attended |

|PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP INSTITUTE |  |  | |

|Julie Rhodes |Project Manager |PSI Contractor |Attended |

|Scott Cassel |Executive Director |Product Stewardship Institute |Attended |

APPENDIX B: Tire Stewardship Initiative Agenda

AGENDA

TIRE STEWARDSHIP INITIATIVE

Sacramento, CA

July 28, 2004

|Time |Topic |Presenter |

| 8:00 AM | Registration/Light breakfast |Sponsor: Scrap Tire News |

| 8:30 AM | Welcome and Introductions |Mike Paparian, CIWMB Board Member |

| 8:45 AM |Introduction to PSI |Scott Cassel, PSI |

| |Meeting Objectives, Stakeholder Roles/Process, Roadmap for the Future | |

| |Agree on Problem Statement and Project Goals | |

| 9:30 AM |Key Tire Initiatives |Pam Swingle, EPA Region IV |

| |EPA’s Resource Conservation Challenge Tire Cluster |Michael Blumenthal, RMA |

| |Manufacturer Efforts in the U.S. and Canada |Glenn Maidment, RAC |

| |Retailer and Recycler Efforts |Mary Sikora, TIA |

|10:15 AM |Identification and prioritization of issues in Draft Tire Stewardship |Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant |

| |Action Plan | |

| |Overview of issues and potential strategies | |

|11:00 AM |Break | |

|11:15 AM |Key Issue #1: Waste Tire Markets |Scott Cassel, PSI |

| | |Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant |

|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 | Break | |

| 2:45 PM |Key Issue #3: Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Markets |Scott Cassel, PSI |

| | |Julie Rhodes, PSI consultant |

| 4:15 PM |Next Steps |Scott Cassel, PSI |

| |Summarize status of issues discussions | |

| |Confirm priority strategies | |

| |Clarify future meeting process | |

| |Stakeholder assessment | |

| |Distribution of project information | |

| 5:30 PM |Adjourn | |

APPENDIX C: Presentations

Mary Sikora, Representing the Tire Industry Association

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Julie Rhodes, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Scott Cassel, Product Stewardship Institute, Inc.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Pam Swingle, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Michael Blumenthal, Rubber Manufacturers Association

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Tracy Norberg, Rubber Manufacturers Association

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download