v>EPA
           United States
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
           Municipal Environmental Research
           Laboratory
           Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/5-7 8-009
July 1978
           Research and Development
Tires:  Decreasing
Solid Wastes and
Manufacturing
Throughput;  Markets,
Profits, and
Resource Recovery

-------
                RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology.  Elimination  of traditional grouping was  consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are.

      1.  Environmental  Health Effects Research
      2.  Environmental  Protection Technology
      3.  Ecological Research
      4.  Environmental  Monitoring
      5.  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
      6.  Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
      7.  Interagency  Energy-Environment Research and Development
      8.  "Special" Reports
      9.  Miscellaneous Reports

This  report has been  assigned  to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES series. This series includes research on environmental management,
economic analysis,  ecological impacts, comprehensive planning  and fore-
casting, and analysis methodologies.  Included are tools for determining varying
impacts of alternative policies; analyses of environmental planning techniques
at the regional, state, and local levels; and approaches to measuring environ-
mental quality  perceptions, as wel! as analysis of ecological and economic im-
pacts of environmental protection measures. Such topics as urban form, industrial
mix, growth policies, control, and organizational structure are discussed in terms
of optimal environmental performance. These interdisciplinary studies and sys-
tems analyses are presented in forms varying from quantitative relational analyses
to management and policy-oriented reports.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia  22161.

-------
                                           EPA-600/5-78-009
                                           July 1978
                       TIRES:
DECREASING SOLID WASTES AND MANUFACTURING THROUGHPUT
       Markets, Profits, and Resource Recovery
                         by

                 Robert R. Hesterman
              Department of Management
    School of Business and Public Administration
       California State University Sacramento
            Sacramento, California  95819
               Contract No.  68-03-2401
                   Project Officer

                  Haynes C.  Goddard
     Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
     Municipal Environmental  Research Laboratory
               Cincinnati, Ohio  45268
     MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
         OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
        U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
               CINCINNATI,  OHIO  45268
                                                —
                                                     i>
LJ
                                                            b

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER


     This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory  U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U. 5. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
Risiuion of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
                                     11

-------
                                  FOREWORD
     The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health
and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled
land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment.
The complexity of that environment and the interplay between its components
require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.

     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal
and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drinking
water supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution.  This publication is one of the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and the
user community.

     Two hundred million solid waste passenger car tires are generated each
year in the United States; no adequate large scale systems for processing
these tires are in operation, although many have been proposed, and some
implemented on a small scale.  Tire solid waste decreasing systems including
(1) product redesign for longer life and (2) retreading have also been pro-
posed.  This report investigates the costs and benefits of tire resource
recovery methods, retreading, and a tire design change to a longer service
life of 100,000 miles (160,900 kilometers) in an effort to determine the
best system for the management of solid waste tires.
                                      Francis Mayo
                                      Director
                                      Municipal  Environmental
                                        Research Laboratory

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
     This report studies the economic and social  costs and benefits  of a pas-
senger car tire design service life of 100,000 miles (160,900 kilometers),
retreading, and four resource recovery methods for solid waste tires:
(1) cryogenics with recovered rubber use, mixed with asphalt, in repairing
roads; (2) incineration of whole tires; (3) pyrolysis; and (4) landfill.
Symbolic models of tire costs and benefits are presented along with  a
computer program for their calculation.  A shift in new tire design  service
life is recommended., along with increased retreading and with solid  waste
tire processing by cryogenics for use as tire asphalt rubber in repairing
roads.  Three methods of producing 100,000 mile tires are proposed;  one, the
TTW 100,000 mile tire, is discussed in some detail.

       This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-03-2401
by the California State University Sacramento (CSUS) under the sponsorship  of
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.  This report covers a period from
April 1976 to August 1977, and work was completed as of August 31, 1977.
                                     IV

-------
                                  CONTENTS

Foreword	-j-j-j
Abstract	iv
Figures	              vii
Tables	!.'.'.! viii
Acknowledgement	ix

    1.  Naste Tires:  The Problem and Strategies for Solution	1
             Profits and solid waste nanagement alternatives  	  3
             Large scale profit and solid waste management strategies. . .  5
             Small scale showcase tire solid waste systems 	  6
             Priority of tires study	7
             Previous studies	7
    2.  Tire Solid Wasta Cost Benefit Analysis 	  Q
             Scope of the study,   benefit and cost definitions	8
                  Benefits definitions 	 10
                       Product value benefits	10
                       Decreased waste benefits	10
                       Consumer and public cost avoided benefits 	 11
                       Corporate tax transfer benefits 	 11
                       Physical environment aesthetics benefits	11
                       Conservation benefits 	 11
                  Costs definitions	11
                       Tire collection costs 	 11
                       Production, processing, and solid waste costs  ... 12
                       Administrative and marketing costs	12
                       Corporate profits tax costs 	 12
                       Job gains and losses	12
             Reference system:  40,000 mile tires	12!
             Different viewpoints on value:  value definitions 	 13
             Planning horizon and cost benefit rates 	 14
             Data values and parametric analyses 	 16
    3.  The Management of Solid Waste Passenger Car Tires:
        Analysis and Conclusions 	 17
             Summary of conclusions	17
             Values, costs, and benefits 	 18
             100,000 mile tires	21
                  Technical feasibility	21
                  Production costs 	 22
                  Sales price	22
                  Marketability	23
                  Disadvantages	24
                  Business costs and benefits	26
                  Social costs and benefits	27

-------
                            CONTENTS (Continued)
             Retreading	34
                  Advantages and disadvantages 	  34
                  Retreading:  an interim solution?	37
                  A retreaders viewpoint on value	38
                  Retreading:  social value	38
                  Safety of retreaded tires	39
                  The tire size/shape limit	39
                  The limit on suitable carcasses	40
                  Quality control for retreads 	  40
                  Marketing retreads 	  40
             Tire asphalt rubber	41
                  Costs and benefits	41
             Parametric analysis:  tire asphalt rubber 	  43
             Other resource recovery alternatives	43
             Limits on 100,000 mile tires, retreading, and
             tire asphalt rubber	47

References	48
Bibliography 	  51

Appendices

    A.  Benefits and Costs Symbolic Definitions	73
    3.  The Tirec Program	91
    C.  Data Inputs	108
    D.  Road Repairs:  Tire Asphalt Rubber Mix (B-n)  Benefits	m
    E.  100,000 Mile Tires:  Profits, Product Service Life,
        and Solid Haste Management	120

Glossary of Symbols and Definitions	146
                                     VI

-------
                                  FIGURES


Number                                                                   page

  1   The tires industry system 	   2

  2  Annual solid waste car tires 1962 to 1972 and forecast	   4

  3  Production cost versus values:  100.,000 mile tires	30

  4  100,000 mile tires:  costs and benefits versus production costs .   .  31

  5  100,000 mile tire price versus values and benefits	3?.

  6  Discount rate versus 100,000 mile tire values 	  33

  7  Tire asphalt rubber value versus conventional road
     repair frequency	44

  8  Tire asphalt rubber value versus conventional road
     repair costs	4b

  9  Tire asphalt rubber:  social value versus cost	46

E-l  Tire service life versus treadwear	127

-------
                                 TABLES

Number                                                                Page

   1   Benefits and Costs Framework:   Tires  System 	     9
   2  Tire System Benefits and Costs Over 20 Years	    15
   3  Business and Social  Values Per Waste  Tire 	    18
   4  Benefits and Costs Per Standard Tire  or
        Per Four Years	    19
   5  Gross Profits of Five 40,000 Mile Tires	    23
   6  Manufacturers Profits:   100,000 Mile  Tires   	    26
   7  Social  Values (LEGV):  100,000 Mile Tires 	    28
   8  The Benefits and Costs of Retreading	    37
   9  Tire Asphalt Rubber  Benefits and Costs  	    42
 A-l   Product Values:   Symbolic Definitions 	    75
 A-2  Waste Decreasing Models 	    77
 A-3  Consumer Cost Avoided Models  	    78
 A-4  Consumer Cost Avoided Benefits Models 	    80
 A-5  Corporate Profits Tax Benefit  Models   	    81
 A-6  Quality of the Physical Environment Models   	    82
 A-7   Conservation of  Materials Benefits  	    84
 A-8  Inventory, Handling, Shredding, and Transportation Costs   ...    86
 A-9  Recovery, Solid  Waste,  and Production Processing  Costs   ....    87
 A-10 Administration and Marketing Cost Models   	    88
 A-ll Job Gains and Losses Models	    89
 B-l   Tirec Alternatives Identification 	    91
 D-1   Road Repair and  Reconstruction Model  Costs   	  114
 D-2   California Road  Repair Costs  	  117
 D-3   Road Repair Treatments  Versus  Reflective  Cracking 	  118
 E-l   1977 Tread Rubber Depths	125
 E-2   U.  S.  Passenger  Tire Sales (Shipments) in Millions	132
 E-3   Simulated Waste  Tires and New  Replacement Tire
        Sales in 100,000s:  1960 Through  1990	134
 E-4   Estimated Passenger  Tire Sales Data 1981-1990  	  136
 E-5   Costs and Prices of  Steel  Belted Radial Passenger Tires  ....  137
 E-6   Percent of Per Tire  Manufacturing Costs,  By Category  	  138
 E-7   SBR Per Tire Production Costs  By Category 	  138
 E-8   Gross Profits of Five 40,000 Mile Tires 	  143
                                   vm

-------
                                ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
     This report is based upon the author's 1974 doctoral  dissertation,
The Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires; it was developed due to the
interest of Dr. Haynes Goddard in the proper management of solid waste
tires.

     Several persons contributed time, knowledge, and effort to this
work which have made it substantially better.   Dr.  Goddard reviewed both
the dissertation and this work and offered valuable comments.  Mr.  F.  Cecil
Brenner of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration took  the
time to respond in detail to questions on the 100,000-mile tire.
Mr. R. W. Eckart of Mohawk Rubber Company and Mr. M.  J.  King of Oliver
Tire and Rubber Company both assisted with questions  on tread rubber
and thickness.  Mr. W. W. Curtiss, Director of Tire Development Research,
Goodyear Companymet with the author on two occasions  to assist with
questions relating to the research.  Many others have provided similar
assistance.

     The California Almond Grower's Association provided the computer
time for the running of the TIREC program.  Mr. Stanley Deame, Computer
Center Director, Walt McDaniel, and an outstanding crew of programmers
and operators were most considerate and helpful in supporting this  work.

     Harold Schmidt of the Federal Highway Administration's Sacramento
Office provided insight and information on the tire asphalt rubber
process for repairing roads.  Dan Stachura of the California Department
of Highways, District 8 (Riverside), assisted in arranging an inspection
of the process as it was being applied.

     Dr. Robert Snyder, Vice President of Tire Technology for Uniroyal
Company, provided insight into the tire industry's viewpoint on 100,000
mile tires.

-------
                                 SECTION 1

           WASTE TIRES:  THE PROBLEM AND STRATEGIES FOR SOLUTION
     Tires play a significant part in the lives of virtually everyone.   In
manufacture they create jobs and useful  products; in use they are always  as
close to us as the wheels beneath our automobiles, vital to occupation,  fam-
ily activities, and safety, in tire retreading, splitting,  and rubber re-
claiming, worn tire carcasses provide the raw material  for  secondary manu-
facture of recycled tires, door mats, and used rubber.   The jobs  and products
of the tire industry comprise a significant segment of  the  national  economic
system.  Over two hundred million new tires are sold each year in the United
States; Americans spend about nine billion dollars per  year to purchase  tires.
The quantitative significance of tires is personally evident when one reflects
upon how many tires he or she sees each  day, a number probably in the hun-
dreds, and when one considers that a set of four replacement tires costs
today, on the average, $170.  Obviously, the strategic  management of the  tires
production, distribution, and consumption system involves variables  of nation-
al and personal economic significance.

     Unfortunately, tires wear out, and  - although some small  amounts are
retreaded, split, reclaimed, and perhaps sent to relatively small  scale  pro-
jects such as artificial reefs - seventy percent of the waste tires  generated
each year require waste collection, processing, and solid waste disposal.
Waste tires can affect society through:   solid waste handling costs, litter,
and scenic blight, and through the rapid use (rather than conservative use)
of our limited natural resources.  These undesirable aspects of tires shadow
the benefits of the jobs, products, and  profits created by  the industry.

     The system of tire manufacturing, consumption, and wastes affects is
diagrammed in Figure 1.  The components  of this system  are  interdependent:  a
change in management policy with respect to one component will  change the
status of one or more other components.   A change in new tire design towards
the use of higher operating pressures, for example, will increase the number
of tires able to be retreaded each year.  Any one component segment  of the
system might be managed with little regard for costs imposed upon the other
segments.

     The focus of this study is upon the solid waste tires  segment of the
tires system.  We examine and measure a  broad range of  costs and  benefits,
however, including profits, costs to consumers, and jobs affects.  The broad
scope of the study, in lieu of myopic environmental  management, is appropri-
ate if the tires system is to be managed with equal  respect allotted to each

-------
         CONSUMER
          USE OF
           TIRES
                             QUANTITY OF
                              NEW TIRES
                              PRODUCED
                              PER YEAR
                                \
                             QUANTITY OF
                              RETREADED
                           TIRES PRODUCED
                             PER YEAR
    QUANTITY OF
    TIRE WASTES
     PER YEAR
  QUANTITY OF
RECOVERED TIRES
   PER YEAR
                              ANNUAL
                             PRODUCT
                             VALUE OF
                             THE TIRE
                             INDUSTRY
                                 *J
                             SOCIETAL
                             WELFARE
                                                   ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                      QUALITY
                     USE OF THE
                      PHYSICAL
                     ENVIRONMENT
                   Figure 1.   The Tires Industry System.
Note: Arrows indicate interaction between system components;  plus  and minus
signs indicate increases and decreases in the attributes  of the system
components; minus signs imply that the relationship between the attributes is
inverse.  For example:  as the quantity of new tires increases,  the solid
waste quantity increases; as the tire solid waste quantity increases, the use
of the physical environment as a solid waste absorbing sink increases,  and
environmental quality decreases; as environmental  quality decreases  societal
welfare decreases.    On the other hand, as the quantity of new  tires  produced
increases the product value of the tire industry increases and  this  can be
said to increase societal welfare. Obviously, it is important to include a
wide scope of costs and benefits in a study on tires management.

-------
segment.

     Over two hundred minion solid waste tires  are generated  each  year  in
the United States (See Figure 2).   In this study we provide information  and
insight concerning the best set of alternatives  for management of these  tires.
The alternatives discussed can be  highly profitable for selected  firms  in the
tire industry.   They can provide the public with significant cost savings.
They are, however, unconventional, and will require changes in management
attitudes before acceptance.

     This report is intended  for several audiences:  (1) for federal  legis-
lators and policymakers and their  staffs; (2)  for strategic decisionmakers  in
tire manufacturing, retreading, and solid waste  tire processing;  and  (3) for
students interested in an interdisciplinary case which synthesizes  and  quan-
titatively evaluates public and private economic, social, technical,  and
environmental costs and benefits of waste reduction (Source Reduction),  re-
cycling, and resource recovery alternatives.   The technical feasibility,
marketing, and economic analyses of the waste  reduction alternative,  the
100,000 mile tire, should be  of special interest to all intended  readers.*

PROFITS AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVES

     A specific focus of our  work  is Source Reduction; we examine the meaning
and implementation of the solid waste decreasing Source Reduction alternative
for tires.  Both solid waste  quantities and new  product quantities  are  deter-
mined by manufacturers' product design service lives.   We find that a 100,000
mile design tire service life can  provide significantly improved  total  pro-
fits for a number of tire manufacturers and,  at  the same time, can  reduce
solid waste tires by sixty to seventy-five percent.  100,000 mile tires  can
decrease the costs of tire services for consumers, they can conserve  re-
sources, and can preserve (not use for disposal) the physical  environment.
This can be achieved with the same total product value for the tire industry
as might normally be expected in coming years; 100,000 mile tires can create
additional manufacturing jobs for  a few years.  Those manufacturers who  cap-
ture the market can obtain fantastic profits.   The problem with this  altern-
ative is, as with the current shift to steel  belted radial tires, which  man-
ufacturers will realize these profits? This is an income distribution problem.
Also of concern is how and when will those, displaced by change,  adapt.

     Another focus of the study is upon retreading.  Retreading is  recycling.
Retreading provides the same  profits, solid waste reduction, consumer cost,
conservation, and environmental quality benefits as 100,000 mile tires.   In-
creased retreading creates jobs.  Yet retreading has been limited by manufact-
uring practices and by public perceptions of retreaded tires.   We demonstrate,
and measure, the prominent potential of retreading as a tire systems  manage-
ment alternative.

*100,000 miles is equal to 160,935 Kilometers.  Conventional 40,000 mile steel
belted radial tires are 64,374 Kilometer tires.   The 100,000 and 40,000  mile
labels are used, in this report, as names rather than as numerical  values.
The Kilometric equivalents are repeated whenever the actual measurement  of
length is of importance.

-------
   200
   175
o
3
in
OJ
(D
to
(D
-s
o>
O)
-s
   150
   125
   100
    75
                                                                        99.2
                                                                                                      O)
                                                                                                      -5

                                                                                                      II


                                                                                                      X
                     CTl
                                    ffl
                                    CO
                                                                      VO
CO
O
              Figure 2.  Annual  solid waste car  tires 1962 to  1972  and forecast.

-------
     The longer service life design and retreading alternatives lack the pro-
motion and glamour of the tire resource recovery technologies.   Many persons
do not regard these as serious solid waste management alternatives.   Increased
service life and retreading are feasible, important, and viable waste manage-
ment alternatives, however.  It is technically feasible, today, to  manufacture
passenger car tires that will  last, on the average, 100,000 miles  (160,935
Kilometers).  Retreading can be carried out in such a quality controlled fash-
ion so as to make retreaded tires desirable to the public.   Both of these
waste decreasing alternatives can be considered akin to providing  solid waste
disposal capacity through avoiding the need for it.  The waste reducing man-
agement strategies are alternatives to resource recovery.

     This is not a generally accepted conclusion and, accordingly,  we attempt
to demonstrate this relationship in this study.  If we decrease the quantity
of solid waste tires generated each year by seventy-five percent then we will
need seventy-five percent less investment and annual operating costs for
Pyrolysis, incineration, or other engineering oriented tire resource recovery
facilities.  The investment costs avoided through the use of 100,000 mile
tires will amount to hundreds of millions of dollars; the operating costs
avoided through this Source Reduction alternative will, in steady  state,
amount to at least 150 million dollars annually.  Solid waste decreasing
alternatives can, in this time of increasing inflation and cost consciousness,
be of some economic and political value.

     The Source Reduction and recycling methods, on the other hand, do not
represent, by themselves, complete solutions; each year-some quantity of tire
solid waste remains.  Consequently, at least one waste tire resource recovery
method is needed along with Source Reduction and retreading.  Resource recov-
ery alternatives for solid waste tires have been studied for a period of over
five years.  These include Pyrolysis, incineration with heat recovery, and
mixing scrap rubber with asphalt for use in repairing roads.  We examine the
relative economics of these processes in this study.

     A final focus of this report is upon the desirability of tire  resource
recovery, recycling, and Source Reduction alternatives when conservation,
environmental quality, and general public values are taken into consideration.
We examine the economic worth of conservation and environmental quality.

LARGE SCALE PROFIT AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES

     We study four major recovery alternatives for handling the tire solid
waste stream in addition to the two waste decreasing alternatives:

  1. Road Repairs - In this process scrap tires are processed by Cryogenics,
     shredding, and classification to obtain vulcanized rubber particles
     which can be mixed with asphalt for use in repairing roads. A thin
     layer of asphalt rubber prevents reflection cracking and prevents the
     need for some road repairs.

  2. Landfill - This process involves shredding tires and burying  the shreds

-------
      in the earth.  Tires produce an inert non-polluting fill material.  The
      tire rubber land-filled can be mined at a later date.

  3.  Incineration with energy recovery- Incinerators specially designed to
      handle whole tires are now in operation.  Tires have a heat value
      similar to coal and exhibit promise in heat recovery and use as energy.

  4.  Pyrolysis/Destructive Distillation- In this process tires are subjected
      to heat in the absence of oxygen; they break down into oils, chars, and
      gasses which can be marketable.

  5.  Retreading- Worn tire carcasses, in good condition, are buffed to be
      round and uniform, and a new tread rubber is applied and cured.  This
      enables the use of the carcass for a second life time and avoids tire
      solid wastes.

  6.  100,000 mile tires- Passenger car tires that will  last, on the average
      under normal conditions, 100,000 miles can be manufactured by varying
      operating pressure, tire size and width, and the quality of the tread
      rubber used in tire manufacture.

     There are, in addition to these, other tire waste management alterna-
tives.  The alternatives chosen were selected because they seemed to promise
large scale solutions rather than showcase demonstrations on a small scale.


SMALL SCALE SHOWCASE TIRE SOLID WASTE SYSTEMS

     The manufacture of artificial  ocean reefs is one current showcase
solution for waste tires.  The idea is good, the technology is simple, and
reefs provide significant benefits  for fish and for fishermen.  The demand
for tire reefs , however, is not likely to require even five million worn
tires per year, while two hundred million solid waste passenger car tires
are generated each year.  From the  perspective of scale then, artificial
reefs are not a solution to the tire waste problem.

     Many smallscale alternatives for handling waste tires exist.  It seems
probable that several of these will be important, in small scale, in tire
waste management.  These alternatives include:

                - Artificial reefs
                - Tire splitting and manufacture of doormats, gaskets, etc.
                - Grinding for use as a soil conditioner
                - Re-use intact for swings, bumpers for docks, etc.
                - Shredding and manufacture of resilient surfacing
                - Protein manufacture
                - Chemical modification

     Still a solution is needed for handling the preponderant portion of the
annual solid waste tires stream which will not be processed by the combined
capacities of these relatively small scale alternatives.

-------
PRIORITY OF TIRES STUDY

     The focus of our study upon tires seems  to be  so  highly  specialized as
to be of little interest or importance as  compared  to  the  many  problems of
business and society.  Quite the opposite  is  true.   The  consequences  of im-
plementation of ideas presented here impact on every consumer,  on  the tire
industry, and on the physical  environment.  These consequences,  no matter
what the alternatives chosen,  will  involve millions to billions  of dollars
to process solid waste tires.   The  conservation aspects  of tires management
are significant:  Each tire, in manufacture,  consumes  about seven  gallons of
oil.  Four replacement tires cost the consumer $170 to $320 every  few years.
Tires should be an area of priority concern for government planners.   Tire
service life and retreading should  be areas of increased profit oriented
study for manufacturers.

PREVIOUS STUDIES

     There has been quite a bit of  study on solid waste  tires carried out in
recent years throughout the world;  an extensive bibliography  on solid waste
tires, tire resource recovery, retreading, tire production, tire profits, and
tire markets is included with this  report.  This study and its  predecessor,
however, are unique in that they combine all  of the above  listed factors,
in comparable terms, and define and provide quantitative measures  of  the
costs and benefits of various alternatives; these measures include measure-
ment of environmental quality, conservation,  and effects on employment.

-------
                                 SECTION 2
                    TIRE SOLID WASTE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS

     Choice from among competing solid waste management strategies should,
to the extent possible, be based upon quantitative analysis of the costs and
benefits associated with the strategies.  The alternative is satisficing,
judgemental decision based upon incomplete information.

     Some guidelines for Cost/Benefit Analysis are:

          1. Establish a framework matrix of cost and benefit
             categories, and inductively search the matrix for
             potential costs and benefits with respect to each
             alternative studied.
          2. Specify the system of reference and measure inc-
             remental costs and benefits with respect to this
             system.
          3. Define value.  From whose viewpoint are we looking
             at value?  Which costs and benefits are to be
             included in which definition of value?
          4. Measure the costs and benefits over a common time
             period so that the numbers are comparable as rates.

     Cost/Benefits Analysis usually enumerates the costs and benefits of each
alternative, establishes the periodic timing of the costs and benefits,  and
calculates the net present value of the periodic costs and benefits.   Our
Cost/Benefit Analysis is slightly different in that we measure cost and
benefit rates over a common short time period.  Our present value calculations
are slightly different from the conventional.  We examine, below, the imple-
mentation of our guidelines for Cost/Benefit Analysis in the management  of  the
tires system.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY: BENEFIT AND COST DEFINITIONS

     The cost and benefit categories that we studied for tires are given in
Table 1.  This Table identifies the broad scope of the study and  provides a
framework for the analysis.  Brief definitions of the costs and benefits are
given in the Table;  more detailed definitions are given in the paragraphs
that follow.  Explicit symbolic definitions are given in Appendix A.   We found
values for forty-eight of the sixty benefit and cost rates indicated in  Table
one.  All costs and benefits were measured as incremental effects per tire
per four years.

-------
TABLE 1.  BENEFITS AND COSTS FRAMEWORK:  TIRES SYSTEM.
f-.anagement Alt.
alternative #
Resource recovery
Road repairs 1
Landfill 2

Incin. energy 3

Pyrolysis 4
Recycl ing
Retreading 5

Source reduction
100,000 Mile 6






Note: a negative
benefit will also be
treated as a cost,
and a negative cost
will be treated as
a benefit.


1

Bn
B
21
B
31
B41

3
51

B
61
Benef i t
2

B
12
B
22
B
32
V

B
52

B
62
categories
3

B,3
B
23
B
33
843

D
o
53

B
63
(j)
4

B!4
B
24
B
34
644

B
54

B
64

5

B,5
B
25
B
35
B
45

B
55

B
65
Benefit definitions
-o
Q- -5
fD o
O Q.
-5 C
ro o
Cu rt
to
ro <
Q. Cu
S c"
CU O
CO
rt cu
fD 3
Q-
— ' O
-•• o
0 3
CO
0 C=
0 3
CO 0)
rt -5
(/i
Cu
CU 3
< CL
O
Q- c:
fD GT
0. 1
rt O
OJ O
X -i
T3
«-t O
Cu cu
3 rt
to fD
~h
fD ~O
1 1
co o
-h

CO
~3 "^
fb zr
3 ^

cu o
rt> cu
to — i
3" ro
fD 3
rt <
o -s
to o
I
o
o
3 3

ro -i
-5 <
_i. cu
Cu rt
— i — r.
CO O
O
-h


1

cn
C
21
C
31
C41

C
51

C
61

cu —4
3 ->•
0- -S
ro
to
zr o
-s o
ro — i
Q- — i
Q- ro
-•• o
3 rt
o
3

Cost
2

C12
C
22
C
32
C42

C
52

C
62
Cost
r> -a
ro -*;
to O
co o_
-•• c:
£30
Cu CO rt
rt cu o
ro 3 3
Q-o
o -5
— • 0
— '• 1
CL
categories
3

C,3
C
23
C
33
C43

C
53

C
63
(k)
4

°14
C
24
C
34
C44

C
54

C
64

5

C15
C
25
C
35
C
45

C
55

C
65
definitions
Cu 3>
3 O.
Cu 3

3 3
"7^* C*"
ro -5
rt cu
rs ->•
CO <


(_)
o
-5

o
-5
rt CU
Cu r!-
x ro
ro
CO TD
-s
o
-••
to
r .
Q
QT

	 'CO
o cy
CO — '.
co rs
fD co
CO
Cu
rj
a.



-------
     A narrative description of each benefit category definition, detailed;
when appropriate, for each of the six alternatives studied is provided below.

Product Value Benefits

     fcoau I7.epairs-the value of rubber recovered from a solid waste tire when
sold in uags for use mixed as asphalt rubber; the value of recovered steel was
added to this.

     Landfill-the sales value for otherwise unusable land which has been re-
covered by landfill ing with shredded tfres.

     Incineration/tnergy-the sales revenues of the energy recovered per tire
as expressed in British Thermal Units and related to conventional fuels.

     Pyrolysis-the sales revenues per tire from the Carbon, oil, and steel
recovered.

     Retreading-the difference between the sales revenues on a retreaded tire
and the sales revenues on a new tire for which the retread is a substitute,
the salvage value of the worn carcass after its retreaded life was added to
the revenue difference.  The salvage value was valued as in Road Repairs
above.  An alternative definition was also studied,  this modified definition
eliminated the revenues of the new tire; only the revenues obtained from the
retreaded tire., plus the salvage value, were treated as a benefit.  The first
definition is appropriate when viewing the entire tire industry as an inte-
grated whole:, the second is appropriate when the business merits of retreading
are taken alone from an independent retreader's viewpoint.

     100,000 iiile Tires-the discounted sales revenues from two 100,000 mile
tires (one sold at present and the other at year ten) plus the discounted sal-
vage values of the two tires (as in Road Repairs above); from this is sub-
tracted the discounted sales revenues of the five current 40,000 mile worn
carcasses replaced by the 100,000 mile tires and the discounted sales revenues
from the rubber and steel salvaged from the five solid waste tires processed
for Road Repair.  The sum of these affects is multiplied by a fraction repre-
senting the ratio of the planning period of the study (4 Years in this study)
to the number of years included in the comparison of the 100,000 and 40,000
mile tires (20 Years in this study).  This converts the quantity to be a rate
per four years.  Finally, the result of the calculations is multiplied times
a term which adds the average interest earnable or able to be lost by this
tradeoff each four years.

Decreased Waste Benefits

     The landfill and administrative costs avoided by resource recovery were
included as benefits for these alternatives.  The worn tire storage, grading,
                                      10

-------
batcii collection, haul, handling, chopping, landfill, and administrative
costs avoided by recycling and by Source Reduction are benefits.

Consumer and Public Cost Avoided Benefits

     The consumer costs avoided include cost savings obtainable by tire users
with retreaded tires as opposed to new tires, and the cost savings obtainable
with lOCKOOO Nile tires as opposed to current steel  belted radials.  The lat-
ter, of course, is dependent upon the costs and prices of 100,000 mile tires.

     The public costs avoided benefits are peculiar to the Road Repair altern-
ative.  Tire Asphalt Rubber road repairs enable public highway agencies to re-
pair roads less frequently; Asphalt Rubber avoids some road repairs completely
thus saving money.  This money could be invested to earn interest.  The timing
of these benefits is such that they must be calculated over a relatively long
period of time, as with the 100,000 mile tire benefits.  Consequently these
benefits have to be adjusted to be a rate per four years so as to be compar-
able to the resource recovery alternatives.

Corporate Tax Transfer Benefits

     The corporate taxes paid by profitable recovery, recycling, and 100,000
mile tire operations are available to society for whatever beneficial use
they may be put to.

Physical Environment Aesthetics Benefits

     Resource recovery, retreading, and 1005000 mile tires avoid the use of
tiie land as a disposal sink; they preserve and conserve the physical environ-
ment.  These benefits can be conservatively valued at the cost value of
properly disposing of tires by sanitary landfill.

Conservation benefits

     Retreaded and 100,000 mile tires get more use out of the carcass of the
tire; they require fewer carcasses per unit of time, and this conserves mat-
erial resources and energy.  Tire incineration conserves on the use of energy
from conventional sources.

Costs Definitions

     A narrative description of each cost category definition, detailed, when
appropriate, for each of the six alternatives studied, is provided below.

Tire Collection Costs

     Horn tires must be stored, handled, graded, shredded, collected and
hauled; each of these operations involves some costs.  He aggregate these
as,  "Collection"  costs.
                                      11

-------
Production, Processing, and Solid Waste Costs

     These costs include investment and overhead cost allocations together
with the operational costs of labor, energy, and materials for each process.
For 100,000 mile tires incremental production costs with respect to the cost
of production of a 40,000 mile steel belted radial  tire are system costs.
For retreading, the difference in production costs  for a new and a retread
tire are included as negative costs.  The solid waste tires disposal  costs
for the portions of the solid waste stream that remain under the waste de-
creasing alternative are included in this cost category.

Administrative and Marketing Costs

     The resource recovery and recycling strategies involve additional
administrative and marketing cost; the products produced must be managed.
100,000 mile tires, on the contrary, decrease production and sales through-
put and, consequently, decrease administrative and  marketing costs.  A
negative cost for 100,000 mile tires, a benefit in  reality, accrues in
this category.

Corporate Profits Tax Costs

     When the recovery, recycling, and 100,000 mile tire operations are run
on a profitable basis, they are accountable for corporate profits taxes;
these are costs to the operating or production firms.

Job Gains and Losses

     Resource recovery creates jobs; retreading creates jobs at the expense
of new tire production jobs.  100,000 mile tires eliminate jobs after an
initial period of years of higher employment.  We valued these at the value
of the increases or decreases in labor or personnel oriented costs associated
with each alternative.  We did not include the benefit of increased employ-
ment for 100,000 mile tires in the short run.


REFERENCE SYSTEM:  40,000 MILE TIRES

     The system of reference which we used in measuring incremental benefits
and costs was an all steel belted radial, 40,000 mile tire, system.  Steel
belted radial tires are the largest selling replacement tire; recently, radial
tires dominated original equipment tire sales for the first time.  This dom-
inance will further increase replacement radial tire sales in a few years
since radial tires should not be mixed in use with  bias type tires.

     The system of reference defines the numeric values of the costs  and
benefits.  In our analyses, for example, the cost of retreading is the cost
of retreading a steel belted radial tire rather than a belted bias tire.
For the 100,000 mile tire, costs and benefits are measured as increments, or
decrements, as compared to the costs and benefits of producing and disposing
of a current steel belted radial tire.  The values  assigned to these costs
                                      12

-------
and benefits would be different if we used the belted bias tire as our refer-
ence.  Steel belted radial tires are the proper system of reference for the
present and corning years.

DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS ON VALUE:  VALUE DEFINITIONS

     Value, tiie sum of tne present value of the benefits of an alternative
minus the present value of the costs, varies according to the dccisionnaker
carrying out the analysis.  One measure of value is the standard business
value (S3V) "revenues minus costs".  A rate of value (reference Table 1),
according to this definition, would be, for the tire manufacturers as an
industry and for the "itlv1 recovery or reduction alternative:
                                          k=l
     For the tire rubber asphalt alternative we studied a modified definition
of value; this definition excluded cryogenics from the process; it included
only tire collection and shredding:

                             S3V'   = iJ_. - C,.
                                1m    11    11

     Private tire manufacturers, dealers, and retreaders within the tire in-
dustry would see value from a different viewpoint than that of the incustry.
From the integrated industry viewpoint, increased retreading is at the ex-
pense of cheap new tire sales; C-^ would include the opportunity costs of the
new tire sale foregone.  This viewpoint truly represents some tire dealers.
For those primarily in retreading, however, the objective is to sell as many
retreads as possible.  There is no opportunity cost of not selling a new tire
for these retreaders.  Similarly, a manufacturer selling 100,000 mile tires
to the automobile companies would not be overly concerned that his increased
profits v/ere at the expense of an independent tire dealer.  The increased
profit of 100,000 mile tires goes to one group of persons within the indus-
try; the opportunity costs of new tires not sold accrue to a separate oroup
of persons.  From the viewpoint of a single private manufacturer or retreader,
then, our standard bu-siness value definition (reference Table 1) would be
modified, for alternatives five (retreading) and six (100.000 m'le tires), so
as not to include the opportunity cost of a new tire not sold.  (In the def-
initions below "rii" stands for "modified".)
                                     = B11m - £  Cik
                                              k=l            1=5,6

     A socially or public oriented measure of value (LEGV) might include, for
recovery or reduction alternative "i", all of the benefits and costs of
Table 1.

                                                   Cik
                                                k=l

                                     13
                                              -  £

-------
      This  is  the decision criterion which  is applicable for federal legisla-
 tors  in  their decision making on  the desirability of product standards such
 as  a  requirement that new tires be designed for a service life of 100,000
 miles  (160,935 Kilometers).  All  of the cost and benefit factors of Table 1
 may be of  interest to this public decision.

      On  the other hand, most strategic management changes, not just environ-
 mentally oriented changes, have effects of increasing or decreasing employ-
 ment  levels.   Business managers routinely make decisions affecting employment.
 Layoffs  are certainly enacted whenever business finds them necessary.   If this
 were  not so,  no one would ever be displaced from his or her job.  All  organi-
 zations  and programs would grow monotonically.  Employment effects are a
 significant emotional and political issue.  We would argue that employment
 effects, which are already counted and valued in the product value section
 of  our benefits (or costs depending upon the sign), should not be double
 counted  or allowed to override all other considerations.

      With  this  in mind we investigated a second social  value definition
•which excludes  the employment effects:


                                   5        4
                         LEGV-  =  y B- • -  Y C-
                             irn    •  i j   ^--  i k
                                  j=l      k-1          1=1,	5
                                                        m="ffiodified

     These several  different measures of value are all  important in making
 tire system decisions.

 PLANNING HORIZON AND COST/BENEFIT RATES

     The concept of a planning horizon which is common  to all  of the six
 alternatives  studied, and the associated idea of measuring costs and benefits
 as  rates per  unit of time, are demonstrated in Table 2.   In a  twenty year
 period we might use five 40,000 mile steel  belted radial tires or two  100,000
 mile tires per axle.   The benefits and costs of the five 40,000 mile and two
 100,000 mile  tires are fair in comparison.   A twenty year planning horizon
 is  appropriate to this situation.

     As an example benefit calculation, let us look at  the difference  in
 profits  between the alternatives shown.  The five 40,000 mile  tires will  ob-
 tain, for tire dealers, $212.95 profits each twenty years.   The present value
 of  these periodically timed cash flows, when discounted  at a rate of twenty
 percent, is $73.85.   Alternatively, tire sellers may sell  one  100,000  mile
 tire at  time  zero and another at the beginning of year  eleven.   The gross
 profits  from  the two 100,000 mile tires total  $140;  the  present value  of this
 profit is $79.45.   Consequently, the tire industry can make $5.60 more profit
 each twenty years with the 100,000 mile tire alternative.   This is a benefit
 to  the tire industry.

     The $5.60 profit per twenty years is a rate of gross  profits as compared
to five 40,000 mile tires.   We converted  it to a rate per  one  40,000 mile


                                     14

-------
                       TABLE 2.   TIRE SYSTEM BENEFITS AND COSTS OVER 20 YEARS
Yr
      Benefits
             40,000 mile  tire
                            Costs
                                     Benefits
                                                  100,000 mile tire
                  Costs
11
13
17
20
    Dealers gross
    profit $42.59

    Dealers gross
    profit $42.59
    Dealers gross
    profit $42.59
Dealers gross
profit $42.59
Dealers gross
profit $43.59
               Consumer purchases 1 new tire
               @ $65.50; 30 Lbs. materials
               used in manufacture
               Consumer purchases 1 new tire
               G> $65.50;'30 Lbs. materials &
               % cu. ft. physical environ-
               ment used;  $1 solid waste cost
               Consumer purchases 1 new tire
               @ $65.50; 30 Lbs. materials &
               % cu. ft. physical environ-
               ment used;  $1 solid waste cost
Consumer purchases 1 new tire
@ $65.50; 30 Lbs. materials &
% cu. ft. physical environ-
ment used;$l solid waste cost
Consumer purchases 1 new tire
? $65.50; 30 Lbs. materials &
% cu. ft. physical environ-
ment used;$l solid waste cost
% cu. ft. physical environ-
ment used; $1 solid waste
processing cost
                                Dealers gross
                                profits $70
                                               Dealers gross
                                               profits $70
Consumer purchases 1 new tire P $100;
58 Lbs. materials used; incremental
manufacturing costs of approx. $7.50
                                                Consumer purchases 1 new tire @ $100;
                                                58 Lbs. materials used; incremental
                                                manf. costs of approx. $7.50; h cu.
                                                ft. physical environment used & $1
                                                solid waste tire processing cost
                                                               % cu.  ft.  physical  environment used;
                                                               SI  solid waste tire processing cost
 All years (YR) listed are timed at the beginning of the
 year except for year twenty which is meant to be the end
 of the year

-------
tire.  This is equivalent to a rate per four years since one 40>000 mile tire
lasts four years at the annual automobile use of 10,000 riles which is char-
acteristic in the United States.  Consequently, we shew that a $1.12 benefit
per four years accruas to tire sellers when 100,000 mile tires are sold at
the profit rate shown.  The benefits, in this case, represent average dis-
counted profits allocable to a four year period.

     The twenty year planning horizon, then, is used only to assist in ob-
taining cost and benefit rates', on occasion we use a ten year horizon for
this purpose.  The cost and benefit horizon for this study is four years.
The five costs and benefits listed in Table 1 are calculated, for each of
the six alternatives studied, on a four year basis with respect to a 40,000
mile sclid waste tire.  The implication is that the rates determined will
maintain their relationships to each other for some undetermined period
extending into the future.

DATA VALUES AND PARAMETRIC ANALYSES

     The data values utilized in this study are estimates.  Variation in data
values could lead to changes in the conclusions reached.  The value of 100,000
irile tires and of tire asphalt rubber, for example, vary with the interest/
discount rate used in the analysis.   >M'« utilize our best data estimates in
our basic analysis and, in recognition of the possible affect, on conclusions
reached, of the data chosen, we investigate variations in prices, costs, the
discount rate, and the interest rate.  These parametric analyses, together
with the alternative value definitions discussed above, allow the reader to
understand better the structure of this tire system decision apart from the
specific data utilized.  Consequently the study will be of use even to those
who might disagree with specific data values.

     Explicit symbolic models representing the cost and benefit rates are
detailed in Appendix A; the computer program, TIREC, used to calculate these
value rates is listed as Appendix B.   A study of the size and scope of this
study defies detailed examination but by the most fastidious interested
persons.  U'ith this in mind, this and the next chapter summarize end
reference the more detailed work given in the several  appendices.
                                     16

-------
                                 SECTION 3

             THE MANAGEMENT OF SOLID WASTE PASSENGER CAR TIRES:
                          ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS


     The symbolic definitions of benefits and costs given in Appendix A and
briefly described in Section 2 were programmed for calculation by computer
into a program entitled, "TIREC", which is listed in Appendix B.   The data
values which were input to TIREC are listed in Appendix C.  TIREC calculates
the sixty cost and benefit value rates of Table 1.  These are combined into
the standard business and social values described in Section 2.  We present
and discuss, in this section, actual values, benefits, and costs  as well  as
material developed in the Appendices.  We analyze the tire management systems
and draw conclusions relating to optimal systems management.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS

     The TIREC cost/benefit analysis provides explicit information supporting
three conclusions:

1.  Tire solid waste decreasing alternatives are economically preferable  to
engineering resource recovery alternatives; both retreads and 100,000 mile
new tires can be privately manufactured at a profit while providing substan-
tial conservation, consumer cost, and environmental benefits.

2.  The repair of roads using tire asphalt rubber is the economically prefer-
able large scale end use (disposal method) for the rubber in worn tires;  tire
asphalt rubber provides benefits to society through road repair costs which
can be avoided as a result of the process.

3.  Tire resource recovery by pyrolysis, incineration with energy recovery,
and landfill cannot be operated, at this time, at a profit.   These solid
waste tire handling methods will not be implemented by industry without
governmental prodding.  There are environmental  and conservation  benefits
which provide social justification for these processes, however.

     These conclusions are significant in that they indicate that the econom-
ical solution to the solid waste tires problem lies in alternatives not cur-
rently promoted by either the tire industry or by the federal government.
The conclusion that waste prevention is economically superior to  resource
recovery is especially significant since this is a systematically determined
conclusion based upon facts and data documented  in this report.  This waste
reduction conclusion has ramifications for several federal solid  waste
management programs as well as for tires.

                                      17

-------
     Two other conclusions were reached in developing the information needed.

4.  It is technically feasible, at this tine, to produce tires which will
last, on the average, 100,000 miles (160,935 kilometers).  These tires can
be safer and less costly, on a cost per mile basis, than current steel belted
radial tires.  They can be manufactured for less than $30 and sold for about
$100 each.   100,000 mile tires have substantial benefits upon which to build
a marketing campaign.  They promise significant total industry profits as
compared to current steel belted radial tire total  industry profits.  Three
preliminary 100,000 mile tire designs are identified later in this section
and are discussed in Appendix E.

5.  Retreading is an existing solid waste recycling business which is operat-
ing on its  own merit at a profit.  It is possible to dramatically increase
the number  of tires retreaded, however.  New tires  could be designed to en-
hance retreadability; the tire within a tire design could be used to provide
increased safety.  In this design a second tire is  built inside each tire so
that when the outside tire fails the inside tire still  operates safely.   Re-
treading methods, equipment, and materials could be improved to provide a
better product.  Retread markets could be expanded  with better communication
to consumers concerning the recommended uses and limitations of retreads.

VALUES, COSTS, AND BENEFITS

     The basic sixty benefits and costs calculated  by TIREC are given in
Table 4.  The values calculated based upon these and upon modification of two
of these are presented in Table 3 below.  Table 3 identifies the relative val-
ues of source reduction, recycling by retreading, tire  asphalt rubber, and
other resource recovery alternatives.

            TABLE 3.  BUSINESS AND SOCIAL VALUES PER HASTE TIRE


    Strategy           Standard business values     Social legislative values
Resource recovery
Road repairs
Landfill
Incineration energy
Pyrolysis
Recycling
Retreading
Source Reduction
100,000 miles
SDVi
-$ 1.19
-$ 1.09
-$ 1.20
-$ .66

-$24.85

$ 2.43
SBV1m
$ .01
-$ 1.09
-$ 1.20
-$ .66

$ 6.17

$ 6.27
LEGVi
$31.27
$ .11
$ .66
$ 1.77

$27.81

$19.38
LEGVim
$31.75
$ .08
$ .50
$ 1.49

$30.49

$29.07
Note:  The SBV^ and SBV^ columns are estimates of the revenues  and costs  per
solid waste tire per four years; these are the sums of benefit number one  and
the first four costs of Table 4 except as noted in definitions on  pages  13
and 14.  The LE6V values include all  of the benefits of Table  4  except that
LEGVim excludes employment effects (C^).

                                     18

-------
TA3I.E 4.  BENEFITS AND COSTS  PER  STANDARD TI3i£ OR PER FOUR YEARS
Management Alt.
alternative #
Resource recovery
Road repairs 1
Landfill 2
Incin. energy 3
Pyrolysis 4
Recycling
Retreading 5
Waste reduction
100,000 miles 6

Note: a negative
benefit is, in
reality, a cost.
A negative cost
is a benefit.














1

1.15
0.10
0.53
0.96

-34.15

0.79

-o
o
Q-
0
ft-
CU

C
fD
CU
3
o

CL
fD
O
fD
Cu
fD
Q.
£
£•
fD
Benefit
2

38.69
0.00
0.00
0.00

47.28

22.70
Benefit
0
3
C
TO
O
o

in

o

ol
fD
O.
O





categories
3

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.61

1.19
defini
o
*T*1
0
Cu
fD
•o
-J
O
-h
C/l

n-
cu
CU
3
fD
-s


4

1.19
1.19
1.19
1.19

0.60

0.55
tions
3-
(/>
n
ta
fD
3
<
-5
0
3
fD
3
<-*•
fD

3"
fD
— i.
O


5

5.00
0.00
0.53
0.96

5-86

2.20

o
3
(/)
(D
-S
Cu
rl-
o'
3
0
-h
3
Cu
r*-
fD
-s
CU
in






1

1.14
1.14
1.14
1.32

1.08

0.45

— (
n>
o
0
ro1
o
<-*•
o
3
3
Q.
-5
n>
Q.
a.
ta



Cost
2

11.4?
0.05
0.52
0.25

-11.98

- 2.43
Cost
-o
-i
0
Q.
c
o
o
3
«*
"O

o
o
t/5
V)
3
CU
a.
S
a>
fD

categories
3

1.71
0.01
0.08
0.06

0.00

- .85

4

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

1.61

1.19

5

0.48
- 0.03
- 0.16
- 0.29

2.68

9.69
definitions
Q.
3
3
~i
C"*"
^'
fD
Cu
3
Q.

CU
-5
fD
3




O
-5
T3
0
CU
n>
TJ
o
-h
S"'

<~t~
fD
(/I






C-i
O
cr
10
CU
_*.
3
CO

a.
_,
o
in
i^
fP








-------
      100,000 mile  tires, at a price of $107 each - a production cost of about
$30 each  -  and a discount  rate  of  twenty percent, display a high relative
value  from  all viewpoints:  Each 100,000 mile tire increases tiie national tire
industry  product (value of the  tirs industry) by $2.43 per four years; for a
single  private tire manufacturer each 100,000 mile tire promises $6.27 in net
profits per four years; 100,000 mile tires have eleven times the value of the
most optimistic representation  of  the socio-economics (LEGVJ of pyrolysis
(destructive distillation), a resource recovery netbod highly recon-mended ami
promoted  by the tire industry;  the value of 100,000 mile tires is 176 times
as great  as that of landfill, the  current tire solid waste disposal method,
vjhen social values concarning quality of the physical environment, conserva-
tion of materials, and cost per year of tire services for consumers are taken
into account.

     These  value relationships  include a $9.69 social cost (per 100,000 mile
tire each four years) associated with decreased employment in the tire in-
dustry.   This social unemployment  cost was measured as the value of the labor
not needed  each four years as a result of the decreased production throughput
associated  with 100,000 (versus 40,000) mile tires.  When this employment
cost is excluded from the  value definition, 100,000 mile tires are about
twenty  times as valuable as pyrolysis.

     100,000 mile  tires are a most valuable alternative.  When it is consid-
ered that each 100,000 mile tire could be retreaded for a second life and
then treated for resource  recovery use in road repairs.   A change in tire
product design such that automobile passenger car tires obtain, on the ave-
rage - under normal conditions of  use - 100,000 miles is desirable from both
the private profit oriented and the public socially oriented viewpoints.

     The  technical feasibility, marketability, and the effect of parametric
variations  in the  $107 price, $30  production cost, and twenty percent inter-
est rate are discussed later in this section.   Generally, these do not alter
the conclusion favoring 100,000 mile tires.

     The second factor evident  from the basic research results of Table 2 is
that retreading is a highly profitable and socially valuable business.   A re-
treaded tire promises $6.17 in profit to an independent retreader.   When  the
materials conservation, decreased  solid wastes, and consumer cost social  ben-
efits are included in the  analysis, retreading a-sumes a value in excess  of
the 100,000 mile tire value.   From the viewpoint of the tire industry as  a
whole, however - or from the viewpoint of a tire dealer selling both retreads
and new steel  belted radial tires - retreads are costly.  A new steel  belted
radial tire promises $24.85 more profit than a retreaded tire.   It is not to
the tire dealers benefit to sell more retreads if these sales are at the
expense of  new steel belted radial tire sales.

     Both the 100,000 mile tire design and retreading should be implemented
prior to resource recovery, according to their high values.

     Cryogenics, with the  use of recovered rubber in road repairs, is the
best, most  valuable, tire  resource recovery method.  The tire asphalt rubber
process loses $1.19 per tire processed with cryogenics (SDV-,).   VIhen


                                     20

-------
cryogenics is net usea, the production of recovered tire rubber just about
breaks even (SBVini =  .01).  These representations do not include the cost of
repairing roads.  As a public program, when the social benefits of road re-
pair costs avoided are taken into consideration (a value of $38.69, Table 3)
tira asphalt rubber moves from the loss or break even situation to a position
of relatively overwhelming value as a solid waste tire handling method.  Each
40,000 mile tire processed by cryogenics and used in tire asphalt rubber to
repair roads provides a 530.49 net value to all concerned.

     Lanufill, tire incineration with energy recovery and pyrolysis (destruc-
tive distillation) are costly business propositions.  For the 200,000,000
solid waste tires generated in the United States each year these would cost
the tire industry 132 nil!ion dollars to 218 million dollars per year; tiie
tire industry ends up with most old tires when traded in and, accordingly,
the responsibility for disposal.  Obviously these alternatives will not be
implemented, in large scale, by the tire industry, without governmental
prooding.

     Increased incineration or pyrolysis of solid waste tires is not without
benefits, however.  Tire resource recovery creates jobs, avoids use of the
environment as merely a waste disposal sink, and conserves resources in addi-
tion to providing the values of che recovered products.  Landfill, as a land
reclamation process, demonstrates sone of these benefits.  The values of
these second place resource recovery processes, when all benefits and costs
are included, are positive:  Each solid waste tire provides net benefits of:

                    Landfill                   $ .11
                    Incineration/energy        $ .66
                    Pyrolysis                  $1.77

     ;Ja examine to costs and benefits aggregated to produce the values of
Table 2 in four technical subsections:  100,000 Mile Tires, Rotroading, Tire
Asphalt Rubber, and Other Resource Recovery Technologies.

100,000 MILE TIRES

Technical Feasibility

     It is technically feasible, at this time, to produce tires that will
last, on the average, 100,000 miles (160,935 kilometers).  Truck tires, in
current practice, obtain 115,000 miles (185,035 kilometers) of original life
before? the first retreading.  Three technological  alternatives for the deve-
lopment of 100,000 mile passenger car tires are:

1.  Large High Pressure Tire (LHP).   Redesign autos to use the larger tira
    sizes; increase operating pressure in the tire and redesign the automo-
    bile suspension system to absorb some of the increased harshness of the
    ride.

2.  Thick Tread-Wide Tire (TTW).  Use truck tread rubber, increase the thick-
    ness of the treac rubber on conventional passenger steel  belted radial
    tire carcasses to the maximum safe thickness;  widen the tire as in cur-
    rent sporty wide tires.
                                      21

-------
 3.   Durable Tread  Rubber (DTR).   Develop a  highly durable  tread rubber which,
     with  the same  tread thickness as  in  current  passenger  tires, and at the
     same  low inflation  pressures, will obtain  100,000 miles.

      The  LHP and TTW 100,000 mile tires  are currently feasible designs.  The
 DTR  100,000 mile tire is,  apparently, yet to be  developed.  These designs are
 discussed in Appendix E.

 Production Costs

      We calculated a production  cost  for 100,000 mile TTW  tires; these are
 essentially current steel  belted radial  tires  with  increased width and tread
 depth.  The production  cost, H,  may be represented  as:

        H = the cost of a  current steel  belted radial tire PLUS
             the additional materials  cost PLUS
             the additional labor costs PLUS
             an additional  allocation  for overhead expenses

        H = Cr(l + S^ +  SLHL + S0H0)

 Where:

 Cr =  the  cost of producing a current  steel  belted radial passenger car tire,
      excluding manufacturer's profits
 Sm =  the  decimal fraction  of a steel  belted radial  tire's production costs
      attributable  to materials only
 Hm =  a number representing the additional amount of materials needed to
      obtain 100,000 miles
 Sj_ =  the  decimal fraction of a steel  belted  radial  tire's production cost
      attributable  to labor, only
 HL =  a number representing the additional labor  needed to produce a 100,000
      mile tire
 S0 =  the  decimal fraction of a steel  belted  radial  tire's production costs
      attributable  to overhead
 H0 =  a number representing the additional overhead  which must be allocated
      to a  100,000  mile  tire.

      Our  estimated production cost is:

      H =  21.68(1 + (.475)(.45) +  (.275)(.25) + (.250)(.40)

       =  $29.92

      The TIREC program  calculated this cost  to be $29.71.  100,000 mile
 tires, then,  excluding manufacturer's profits, cost about $30 each to
 produce.

 Sales Price

      Tire manufacturers would sell 100,000 mile tires directly to  the auto-
mobile manufacturers for use as original  equipment.   Tire sellers  have  the

                                     22

-------
option of selling 40,000 mile tires that last four years (at 10,000 miles per
year) or TTW 100,000 mile tires that last ten years.   We formulated the alter-
native sales of two 100,000 mile tires or five 40,000 mile tires as a present
value problem to determine the discounted gross profits needed to make the
two alternatives equally attractive to the tire industry.

            TABLE 5.  GROSS PROFITS OF FIVE 40,000 MILE TIRES
Beginning
of year
1.0
5.0
9.0
13.0
17.0
PV factor
20%
1.000
.482
.233
.112
.054
Total
Steel radial
gross profits
$ 42.59
$ 42.59
$ 42.59
$ 42.59
$ 42.59
$212.95
Present value
of gross profits
$ 42.59
$ 20.53
$ 9.92
$ 4.77
$ 2.30
$ 80.11
        ).ll gross profits is earned on five 40,000 mile tires over a twenty
year period.  In place of these we propose two 100,000 mile tires, one sold
at present and the other at the beginning of year eleven.   We set the gross
profit of the current sale of a 100,000 mile tire (G|_) plus the present value
of the gross profits on the 100,000 mile tire sale at year eleven (.1626^)
equal to the profits on the alternative five 40,000 mile tire sales:

                             Gh  :  20% discount rate

                             Gh  +  .162Gh = 80.11

                                    on n
                                           = $68.94

        !.94 profit is needed on a 100,000 mile tire in order to provide the
same gross profits for the tire industry as is earned currently with 40,000
mile tires.  We added this estimate of gross profits to the $30 production
cost of a 100,000 mile tire to determine a reasonable price for a 100,000
mile tire.  The price of a 100,000 mile tire, according to this procedure,
should be $98.94 or about $100.

Marketability

     Consumers will buy 100,000 mile tires at prices above $100.  In a pre-
liminary market survey virtually all of the respondents indicated that they:
(1) were interested in such tires, and (2) were willing to pay from $30 to
$150 additional for each tire (See Appendix E).  There are several reasons
for this interest:
                                      23

-------
1.  Consumers can obtain 100,000 mile tires when they buy a new car and can,
conveniently and accordingly, include ten years of tire costs in the financing
of the vehicle.

2.  Consumers can obtain 100,000 mile tires at a price which, in present value
analysis, is cheaper than the costs of the alternative four sets of tires.
Consequently consumers can obtain a lower cost per mile.

3.  Purchase of 100,000 mile tires will eliminate the need for at least three
distasteful trips to purchase replacement tires; this will include fuel sav-
ings, time savings, and avoidance of the confusion associated with hundreds
of tire brands and types.

4.  Consumers can recoup their investment if they sell their car after, for
example, three years; the factor of having good tires with 70,000 miles of
treadwear left will be an asset which will increase the resale price and
sales potential of the three year old car.

5.  Consumers can avoid public costs associated with waste tire disposal.
Waste tire disposal involves, at the least, transportation costs, expensive
shredders costs, and landfill costs.  100,000 mile tires eliminate sixty
percent of the waste tires generated in any year and, accordingly, avoid
sixty percent of the public tire waste handling costs which would otherwise
be incurred.

6.  Consumers are very much conscious of the needs for conservation and pro-
tection of environmental quality.  They will  buy 100,000 mile tires because
they believe in the need for conservation and because they value quality of
the physical environment.

7.  100,000 mile tires will provide added safety to the consumers vehicle and
to vehicles with which consumers interact on the road.  Safety studies  have
indicated that baldness of tires is a significant factor contributing to
accidents.  100,000 mile tires, with respect to this most important safety
factor, would be much safer than current tires.  100,000 mile tires would not
be likely to become bald until, on the average, 100,000 miles of service, 10
years of service life, were completed.   Consequently 100,000 mile tires would
eliminate much of the danger associated with bald tires.  They  would have  a
substantial amount of tread remaining during the last five to seven years of
automobile use whereas current tires would either be balding or, perhaps re-
placed with cheap tires.  Even if 100,000 mile tires were not inherently safe
they could be redesigned to be safe via the tire within a tire design.

Disadvantages

  •   There are several potential  disadvantages to 100,000 mile tires.   These
include:

1.  The selling prices are higher; demand for tires or cars may decrease as
a result.
2.  The losses  per  tire due to tires damaged  and  rendered  unusable  during
service life will  be higher.


                                     24

-------
3.  100,000 r;ile TTW and LI-IP tires will be heavier with a cost to consumers
in terms of lower gasoline mileage.
4.  100,000 mile tires inay alter the appearance of the vehicle.
5.  100,000 mile tires may have a more harsh ride than ao current tires.
6.  100,000 mile tires may not handle as well as do current tires; traction
characteristics may be different.
7.  100,000 mile tires will decrease employment in the long run.

     V.'e offer the following brief responses to these disadvantages:

1.  The ability to finance the tires when the automobile is purchased should
offset the effect of the high selling price.

2.  The total losses due to damages during service life may be lower due to
increased durability of 100,000 mile tires even though per tire losses are
higher.

3.  & rough calculation of the effect of the increasei weight on  gasoline
mileage provides an increased cost of only $3.84 per 100,000 mile"tire per
four years (See Appendix E).  This cost is not significant in comparison to
the benefits of 100,000 mile tires.

4.  The appearance of the vehicle need not oe changed considerably to allow
for 100,000 mile tires, even though it may be.

5.  Consumers are willing to endure a more "harsh" ride than is obtained with
current tires.

6.  100,000 mile tires may handle just as well as current tires;  truck tires
seem to do a reasonable job.

     Vie do not argue with the disadvantage that 100,000 mile tires will de-
crease employment in the long run.  The conclusion that 100,000 mile tires
are desirable is, at the least, highly controversial.  The longer service
life idea is avoided by tire manufacturers and sellers.  The decreased mar-
ket volume, decreased employment, and the effects these have on the national
economy are taken, by some, to be overriding considerations which preclude,
or should preclude, consideration of 100,000 mile tires by industry and by
public decisionmakers.

     We included these market, employment, and macro-economic effects in our
analysis:  (1) An explicit measure of employment shifts or losses, represented
as system costs, was calculated; (2) the price at which a 100,000 mile tire is
to be sold was represented as a price which would provide profits equal to the
discounted present value of the 40,000 mile tires which the 100,000 mile tire
replaces.  Consequently, little or no macro-economic change effects, and
multiplication of macro-economic effects, in terms of Gross National Product
(the Multiplier) are expected.  GNP and the tire industry value remain rela-
tively constant at the prices and costs of our basic analysis.  Those who
would cast doubt upon the efficacy of the 100,000 mile (160,935 kilometer)
service life based upon these employment and macro-economic arguments might
direct their analysis and comments toward how these effects were


                                      25

-------
 represented  in  this  analysis  rather than whether they were included.

 Business  Costs  and Benefits

      Table 6 studies two  business oriented measures of profits for 100,000
 mile  tires based  upon the TIREC costs and benefits of Table 4.

             TABLE 6.   MANUFACTURERS PROFITS:  100,000 MILE TIRES
   SBVg              SBV6ni
                                                Benefits
  $  .79             $25.57              65] Product value and decreased wastes
  $  .79             $25.57              TOTALS

$ .45
-$2.43
-$ .85
$1.19
-$1.64
$2.43

$ .45
$11.90
$ 4.17
$ 2.79
$19.31
$ 6.26
Costs*
Cgi Tire collection and shredding
Cg2 Production and olid waste
Cg3 Administrative and marketing
Cg4 Corporate profits taxes
Totals
Benefits mfnus costs
* A negative cost  indicates, in reality, a benefit.  The values shown were
calculated in accordance with the formulas given in Appendix A at a business
interest rate of twenty percent, a production cost of $29.71, and a 100,000
mile tire sales price of $107.


     The first measure, SBVg, includes incremental effects of 100,000 mile
tires as compared  to 40,000 mile tires and may be interpreted as saying  that
the gross product  of the tire industry increases by $2.43 per 100,000 mile
tire each four years.  The significance of this information is that 100,000
mile tires can be  a viable business alternative as compared to current tires.

     Even with the smaller production/sales volume taken into consideration
each 100,000 mile  tire provides $.79 more revenues to a manufacturer/seller
per four years (B61 = $.79; Reference Table 6) than does the comparable  dis-
placed 40,000 mile tire.  This increase represents both sales revenues and
tire solid wastes costs avoided.  Unlike resource recovery, however,  100,000
mile tires leave some solid waste tires requiring disposal  each year;  the
remaining tire solid wastes, per 100,000 mile tire, cost $.45.   It is  cheaper
by $2.43 (on a production cost per year of service life basis), over  a four
year period, to manufacture 100,000 mile tires than it is to manufacture
40,000 mile tires, even when the cost of landfill ing the tire solid wastes
remaining are included in the tradeoff (Cg2 = -$2.43).   Administrative and


                                      26

-------
marketing costs with 100,000 mile tires are, at a minimum, $.85 cheaper per
tire than the comparable costs of the 40,000 mile tires replaced.   In fact,
administrative and marketing costs are probably very substantially lower than
this representation for 100,000 mile tires since tire manufacturers would be
the 100,000 mile tire sellers and sales would be made directly to  the automo-
bile companies; retail administrative and marketing costs would be, in great
part, eliminated.  Finally, corporate profits taxes on a 100,000 mile tire
will increase by $1.19 per four years as compared to taxes on a 40,000 mile
tire.  When all of these effects are combined the net evaluation of the
100,000 mile tire is very favorable; $2.43 more per 100,000 mile tire than
for a 40,000 mile tire is realized (SBVs = $2.43).  At a price of  $107 each
for 100,000 mile tires, a production cost of $29.71, and an expected rate of
return on investments of twenty percent, 100,000 mile tires, as a  business
venture, compare very favorably with current 40,000 mile tires.

     The employment effects, the £55 cost category, are not included in the
business analysis value definitions (SBV's) since these are not costs to tire
companies, but rather are social costs.  Employment effects are discussed
later in this section in the analysis of social values.

     The second ciefinition of Table 6, SBVgm, (page 13) includes the total
discounted benefits and costs per four years; these effects were not measureo,
as were SiJVg effects, as incremental costs and benefits compared to 40^,000
mile tires.  The $BVgm measure depicts the situation that 100,000  mile tire
manufacturers/sellers would make net profits of $6.26 (including the costs of
adequate tire solid waste disposal) oer 100,000 mile tire per four years.   A
40,000 mile tire, incomparison, makes only $2.56 in profits (See Table E-5)
and even this figure should be decreased by tire solid waste costs to be com-
parable to the $6.26.  This rate of profits^ at a production cost  of $29.71
and a sales price of $107, is high.  Those who manufacture and sell  100,000
mile tires can make substantial net profits.

     The $6.26 is a net profit rate; in actuality $25.06 in net profits would
be realized at_ the time of sale.  The customer, however, would not return for
a repeat sales for ten years.

Social Costs and Benefits

     Social values of the 100,000 mile tire alternative are given  in Table 7.
These include, for LEGVe, four additional public benefits and the  controver-
sial additional cost of displaced jobs associated with the 100,000 mile tire
alternative.

     The additional benefits of 100,000 mile tires total $26.64, a very sub-
stantial amount in addition to the $.79 incremental product value  benefit to
the manufacturer.  Consumers can save $22.70 each four years by purchasing
100,000 mile tires at $107 each as compared to current steel belted radial
tires at $65.50 each.  The increased corporate profits taxes, $1.19 per
100,000 mile tire, paid by the tire manufacturer/seller are paid to the
public treasury and, hence, are available for any public benefit.   Each
100,000 mile tire prevents the use of $.55 worth of the physical environment


                                     27

-------
and conserves  $2.20 worth of tire production materials each four years.  These
are benefits which should be taken  into account in determining the desirabil-
ity of  100,000 mile tires.  Notably, they do not impinge directly upon the
tire  industry  as costs or revenues  of a conventional accounting sense.

             TABLE 7.   SOCIAL VALUES (LEGV):  100,000 MILE TIRES
LEGV6

$ .79
$22.70
$ 1.19
$ .55
$ 2.20
$27.43

$ .45
-$ 2.43
-$ .85
$ 1.19
$ 9.69
$ 8.10
$19.33
LEGV6m

$ .79
$22.70
$ 1.19
$ .55
$ 2.20
$27.43

$ .45
-$ 2.43
-$ .85
$ 1.19
$ -
-$ 1.64
$29.07

Benefits
Bg-| Product value and decreased wastes
Bg2 Consumer costs avoided
Bg3 Corporate profits tax transfers
Bg4 Physical environment preservation
Bgg Conservation of materials
Total
Costs
Cg] Tire collection and shredding
Cg2 Production and solid waste
Cg3 Administration and marketing
Cg» Corporate profits taxes
Cg5 Job gains and losses
Total
Benefits minus costs
     The cost of displaced jobs associated with  100,000  mile  tires  is  very
substantial; each 100,000 mile tire eliminates,  in  the long run,  $9.69 worth
of labor employment.   This "translates"  to about 187,500 persons' employment
being affected ouring a fifteen year psriod,  12,500 persons per year.  (See
page 134.)

     Increased employment is a common economic objective of federal policies
and, accordingly, an alternative which decreases employment may be  considered
costly.  This type of thinking, however, supports:   (1)  the status  quo,  and
(2) the concept that only those alternatives which increase employment are of
value.  Cannot an alternative which promotes efficiency  for tire  manufactur-
ers and/or consumers, and efficiency in the use of materials  and  of the  phys-
ical environment be of value?  Are all organizations now in existence  to grow
larger and larger simply to increase employment?  Should hot  new  medicines be
introduced, simply to maintain the rate of patient referral  to medical doct-
ors, to maintain the level of employment of doctors?  The response  is  obvious.
There are changes which decrease employment which are desirable to  society.
                                      28

-------
     The costs and benefits associated with 100,000 mile tires indicate that
this is one such change.  The social  value (LEG\/5m) of 100,000 mile tires,
excluding  the employment effect, is  $26.59,  a very substantial  amount.   The
social value including the employment effect  is $16.89, still  a very substan-
tial amount.  And 100,000 mile tires  promise  increased employment initially,
an effect not included in our models.  The decrease in employment occurs over
a period of ten years or so; this period allows ample time for reaction to
displacement from jobs in an orderly  fashion.   These considerations are dis-
cussed in more detail in Appendix E.

     It may be noted that the value of 100,000 mile tires is dependent upon
several data parameters included in our analysis; the values and conclusions
discussed above may vary with changes in:  (a) production costs; (b) sales
prices; and (c) the discount rate.  Figures 3 through 6, respectively, con-
sider variation in these factors and  the effects of these variations upon
value.

     Figure 3 indicates that, given a 100,000 mile tire price of $107 and a
discount rate of twenty percent, any  100,000  mile tire production cost above
$36 will decrease the profit oriented SBVg (Line AB) to below zero.  At a
production cost of $56 per 100,000 mile tire, the Business Value (SBVg) drops
to -$10; a $26 increase in production costs,  in addition to the $30 cost we
used to represent 100,000 mile tires, decreases the net business benefits by
about $13 per tire.  The business value of 100,000 mile tires is moderately
sensitive to 100,000 mile production  costs; a 55 percent decrease in net
business benefits accrues to a 100 percent increase in production costs.  The
moderate stability  of value with this parametric change is due to:  (1) the
ability of 100,000 mile tires to spread the increase in costs over ten years;
and (2) the fact that no other business cost  changes dramatically with
changes in 100,000 mile production costs.

     The social value (LEGV6 and Line CB in Figure 3) is very sensitive to
100,000 mile tire production costs.  A 100 percent increase in production
costs precipitates a 176 percent decrease in  the social value LEGVg.  This
sensitivity is due to the combined production cost and employment effects.
The social value modified to exclude  decreased employment costs (Line DE
representing LEGVgm) is moderately sensitive  to production costs, but never
drops below $13 - even at production  costs of $60.

      The  significance of Figure  3  in our analysis  is that, ceteris paribus,
 our conclusion  that  100.000 mile  tires can be profitable to the  tire industry
 holds  good  for  a twenty percent  increase over the  $29.71 production cost rep-
 resentation of  our analysis.  The  social value of  100,000 rile tires holds
 positive  for a  sixty-one percent  increase in representation of 100,000 ivile
 tir^  production costs.  The argument that our analysis and conclusion is neg-
 ated  by  an  error in  estimation of  100,000 itrile tire production costs is
 questionable.   Figure 4 demonstrates the relative  importance of the various
 benefits  ano costs.   Figure 4 shows the variation  in costs and benefits asso-
 ciated with models of Appendix A.  The costs and benefits not plotted did
 not vary  with  changes in production costs of 100,000 :-n'le tires.
                                     29

-------
               100,000 MILE TIRE PRODUCTION COST  IN  $
       20
00
CtL
LU
Q.


OO
00
o
o
       10
      -10
            30
40
50
60
    Figure 3.   Production cost versus values  100,000 mile tires.
                               30

-------
               25
Cd

UJ
>-

«3-

C£.
UJ
Q_
               20
          IT    15
          UJ
          o
          o
          o
           *1
          o
          o
          o:
          LU
          a.
          on
          z
          UJ
          OQ
     10
          oo
          O
                     30
                        40
                                             production
                                                cost
                                          di fferential
50
60
                        PRODUCTION  COST PER  100,000  MILE TIRE

Figure 4.  100,000 mile tires:  costs 
-------
Ul
O
O
O
O
oo
I—
»— «
U_
UJ
z
LU
co

O
to
LU
     50
     40
     30
     20
10
    -10
    -12.5
                    \
                    LEGV
            40    50  60
                        70   80    90    100  110   120  130
                       100,000 MILE  TIRE PRICE  IK $


   Figure 5.   100,000 mile  tire price versus values and benefits.
                               32

-------
-

«3-

C£.
UJ
O-
    20
                              LEGV6
LU
O
O
O

O
O
UJ
O.
UJ
UJ
CQ
00
O
O
     10
                              SBV6
                                   I
                                                 I
                        12         20            30

                    BUSINESS DISCOUNT RATE  %

                         08            18

                  GOVERNMENTAL DISCOUNT RATE %

     Figure 6.   Discount rate  versus 100,000 mile tire values.
                              33

-------
      Figure  5  indicates  that, given  100,000 nrile tire production costs of
 $29.71  and a discount  rate  of twenty percent, a 100,000 mile tire price
 greater than $100  is needed in order that  100,000 mile tires can be an
 attractive alternative for  the tire  industry.  At the $100 price there are
 substantial  social  benefits.  The social benefits of the 100,000 mile tire
 decrease  by  13 percent for  a 100 percent increase in the price of the 100,000
 mile  tire.   This represents a relatively inelastic relationship between price
 and social value.   The standard business value of the 100,000 mile tire in-
 creases,  ceteris paribus, by 60 percent for each 100 percent increase in the
 selling  price.  At  a price  of $100 for the 100,000 mile tires, substantial bene
 benefits  exist for  both  society and  for the tire industry.  This price is not
 unworkable as  100,000  mile  tires have the  seven substantial advantages, dis-
 cussed  above,  upon  which to build a  marketing campaign, and since a prelimi-
 nary  consumer  survey has indicated high consumer interest in 100,000 mile
 tires even at  this  price.

      Figure  6  indicates  that, at a price of $107 and a production cost of
,$29.71,  100,000 mile tires  are attractive  to the tire industry at any dis-
 count rate;  the net value of 100,000 mile  tires is positive no matter what
 the discount rate used at this price and cost.  At a lower price, undoubtedly,
 there is  a minimum  discount rate required  to make the tires viable.   The
 social  value of 100,000  mile tires decreases with an increasing discount rate
 and yet  is substantial,  in  excess of $15 per 100,000 mile tire, at any dis-
 count rate below 40 percent for business decisions and 28 percent for govern-
 mental  decisions.   In  TIREC a business discount rate twelve percent higher
 than  the  governmental  rate  was used.

 RETREADING

      Retreading is  obviously technically feasible and an economically viable
 business  proposition;  consequently we do not discuss these as was done above
 for 100,000 mile tires.  He discuss, instead, the pros and cons of retread-
 ing and  the  costs and  benefits cf retreading determined by TIREC.

 Advantages and Disadvantages

      Retreading is  recycling.  In tire solid waste management it should be
 recognized that retreading  is a prominent management alternative for several
 reasons:
                                      34

-------
                                   LIST  1

                          ADVANTAGES  OF  RETREADING
     Retreading conserves natural  resources;  it  reuses tire carcasses.
     Retreading provides  several years  of  continued  primary use of a
     tire and, later,  salvage by any of the  several  methods proposed
     for tire resource recovery.   Retreading  decreases the rate of
     usage of oil  and  other resources used in manufacturing new tires.

     Retreading provides  economical  service  to consumers.  The
     average cost  of a new passenger car tire is $37; the average
     cost of a retread is $18.  Retreads can  be  built to provide
     the same service  life as a new  tire.

     Retreading provides  jobs.  Any  increase  in  the  number of tires
     retreaded will  require labor  and materials; a commensurate in-
     crease in the number of jobs, an increase in employment, will
     also occur with increased retreading.

     Retreading decreases the rate of public  tire solid waste dis-
     posal costs required.  Fewer  tires remain to be disposed of
     each year with increased retreading.   Consequently smaller
     investment and operating costs  for tire  disposal facilities
     are required.

     Retreading enhances  environmental  quality,  the  quality of the
     physical environment.  The larger the number of tires retreaded,
     the less land or air that is  needed as  a disposal sink, and,
     consequently, the higher the  level of environmental quality.

     Retreading is an obviously viable business  alternative that can
     operate based upon its own merit to provide profits to private
     entrepreneurs; it does not require governmental subsidy or
     operation.
     These many favorable aspects of Retreading  lead  one  to  wonder,  "Why  isn't
retreading promoted and increased in extent?".   Again several  reasons can  be
identified:
                                      35

-------
                                    LIST  2

                         FACTORS  LIMITING RETREADING
     Retreading  has been thought of as only an interim solution;
     the tire still remains to  be disposed of at a later date.

     The attitudes of tire manufacturers and dealers toward
     retreading  do not favor a  dramatic increase in the number
     of tires retreaded.

     Retreaded tires have been  regarded by the public as "of
     dubious safety".  Chunks of retreaded tires are constantly
     seen along  highways.

     The thousands of different tire sizes, shapes, and types
     produced by new tire manufacturers have thwarted increased
     retreading  because of the  costs.of maintaining a large in-
     ventory of  molds and other retreading equipment needed to
     process the variety.

     An adequate inventory of carcasses suitable for retreading
     has not been generally available.

     Retreaders  have not made their objective to, "Produce the
     highest quality retread possible".  Instead the objective
     has been to provide an adequate retread at a lower cost.

     Retreaders  have not marketed their product to the best
     extent possible.
     It is a fact that retreading is different than resource recovery; re-
treading is a solid waste decreasing rather than residue handling process.
Still retreading avoids solid waste operating costs and avoids costly in-
vestments in tire solid waste processing facilities.  It is a very valuable
part of the solid waste tire system as demonstrated by the net cost/benefits
determined in this research.

     We examine these costs and benefits in Table 8; the other factors limit-
ing retreading are then briefly discussed and some ideas which may assist in
eliminating the limits are presented.
                                     36

-------
               TABLE 8.  THE BENEFITS AiJD COSTS OF RETREADING
SBV5
-$34.15
-$34.15

$ 1.08
-$11.98
-
$ 1.61
-
-$ 9.29
-$24.86
SBV5m
$18.82
$18.82

$ 1.08
$ 9.52
$ 1.90
$ .16
-
$12.66
$ 6.16
LEGV5
-$34.15
$47.28
$ 1.61
$ .60
$ 5.86
$21.20

$ 1.08
-$11.98
-
$ 1.61
$ 2.68
-$ 6.49
$27.69
Benefits
85^ Product value and decreased waste
Bg2 Consumer costs avoided
Bg3 Corporate profit tax transfers
654 Physical environment preservation
B55 Materials conservation
Total benefits
Costs
C5i Tire collection and shredding
C$2 Production and solid waste
C$3 Administrative and marketing
C$4 Corporate profits taxes
C55 Job gains and losses
Total costs
benefits minus costs
Retreading:  An Interim Solution?

An Integrated Industry View of Retreading

     SB\/5 indicates the value of a retreaded tire as seen from an integrated
tire industry viewpoint.  Retreaded tires are substitutes for cheap new tires;
we valued the new tires at $52 each.  This was meant to be a value for a
cheap new steel belted radial tire.  A retreaded tire sold in lieu of the new
radial decreases the revenues of the seller by $34.15; this is an opportunity
cost to a tire dealer.

     Retreaded tires are very cheap to produce, however; as compared to a new
steel belted radial tire, retreads are $11.98 cheaper.  The difference in
corporate profits taxes between the cheap new and the retreaded tire is $1.61.
The tire collection costs for retreading are $1.08.  These factors together
favor the sale of the new steel belted radial tires by a figure of $24.86
per tire.

     We believe that it is important to retreading that it be recognized
that increased retreading is not viewed by new tire dealers as being bene-
ficial to the tire industry.  To a retreader who is not a new tire seller


                                      37

-------
increased retreading is an objective.  From the integrated viewpoint of a new
tire dealer who is also a retreader, retread sales are not as valued as are
new tire sales.  From a tire dealers viewpoint too much retreading would cut
out too many new tire sales.  For a tire manufacturer, too much retreading
would lower the demand for new tires and would decrease production needs,
and profits.  To dramatically increase the extent of retreading, these atti-
tudes of manufacturers and dealers must be changed; then manufacturers and
dealers will find, perhaps design changes and profit structure which make
retreading total profits more competitive with new tires.  This may be
accomplished by (1) education, (2) government regulation, and/or (3) the
actions of a strong independent organization of retreaders.

A Retreaders Viewpoint On Value

     The SBV5P! value of Table 8, $6.16 per retreaded tire, is a representation
of the profits on a retreaded steel belted radial  tire excluding the compari-
son and reference to a cheap new steel belted radial tire.  There is no limit
to the number of tires that a retreader who is only a retreader and not a new
tire dealer wants to sell.  $18.82 revenues, on the average, are made on each
sale and only $12.66 in costs are incurred.  The profit per retreaded tire is
a fine incentive to increase the extent of retreading from a retreaders
viewpoint.

Retreading:  Social Value

     Our representation of the social public value of retreading includes all
of the costs and benefits:  the tire industry costs described above, a $34.15
net opportunity cost (net benefits of decreased solid waste handling costs)
for the new tire not sold due to a substituted retread, the $1.08 tire col-
lection cost, and the $1.61 cost of increased profits taxes, are included in
LEGV5 °f Table 8.  The $2.68 net cost per retreaded tire of decreased employ-
ment is included.  There are benefits of retreading that overwhelm even these
high costs, however.  Each retreaded steel belted  radial tire avoids $47.28
in consumer costs each four years when compared to the cost of a new steel
belted radial tire.  (Had we used the $52 price, instead of $65.50, this bene-
fit would have been $34 per retreaded tire.)  Each retreaded tire provides a
$11.98 benefit of decreased, or smaller, production costs than a new radial.
The $1.61 increase in corporate profits taxes paid by retreaders is paid to
the public treasury and, here, is recorded as a benefit.  $.60 per tire in
benefits of avoiding use of the physical  environment as a tire disposal sink
are realized, and $5.86 worth of tire building materials are conserved.  The
benefits of retreading are significantly higher than the costs; $27.69 worth
of net benefits ($14.41  if the $34 consumer cost benefit is used).   Retread-
ing, from a public viewpoint is a highly valuable  industry, many orders of
magnitude more valuable than pyrolysis, tire incineration, or landfill.
     This measure, LEGVs, of value includes, with equal  weight, benefits and
costs to tire manufacturers, tire dealers, retreaders, consumers  and the
public good.  It is a comprehensive representation of value.
                                      38

-------
     We include this cost benefit analysis in response to the argument that
"retreading is not a solution to the waste tire problem - that a retreaded
tire must be disposed of some time later".  We included the cost of disposal
of the solid waste tires, on a cost per retreaded tire per four year basis,
in the retreading processing cost, C52, of the cost benefit analysis.   This
allows the comparison of retreading, as a solid waste management alternative,
to tire resource recovery methods proposed.  This representation is one of a
final tire solid waste solution that includes retreading as a process  compo-
nent.  Retreading is a most important concept, technique, and industry for
tire solid waste management.

Safety of Retreaded Tires

     The second factor that we see as a limit to retreading is public  percep-
tions of the safety of retreaded tires.  It is a fact that retreaded tires
are safer than generally thought.  According to Rain's, in a survey of tire
scraps found along highways, almost half of the tire rubber scraps  are
from new tires.  It seems likely that the public assumes that all  scraps of
tire seen along highways are from retreads, when in fact the survey indicates
that this is not the case.  It should be noted, however, that retreads have a
higher rate of tread separation per tire than do new tires.  This  note is
based upon the equal proportions of new and retread scraps found by the sur-
vey and the knowledge that fewer retreads are on the roads than are new
tires.  Still retreads are probably safer than is generally assumed.

     Retreaded tires can be safer yet if consumers are educated to  know the
safe limits in terms of safely allowable distances and speeds associated with
current retreads and new tire designs such as the tire within a tire design
are generally implemented.  In this design, if there were a tire failure,
another tire built inside the first would safely take over the tire functions.
Many more tires could be retreaded and sold if the tire within a tire  design
were generally implemented by new tire manufacturers.  The spare tire  might
also be eliminated.

The Tire Size/Shape Limit

     There are, perhaps, two to three thousand different types, sizes, and
brand names of tires.  A retreader must have equipment to fit the  tires which
he will retread; he must have an inventory of molds of many sizes  and  types.
To the extent that standardization and limitation on the number of  tire sizes
and shapes would be implemented, the number of worn tires retreaded could be
increased.

     The limitation placed upon retreading by the variety of tires  produced
has been relaxed to some extent by the recent Supreme Court decision which
requires more standardization in manufacture and labelling of tires.  It may
be that even more standardization of tires is desirable if legislators and
tire processors find the benefits of retreading warrent redesign of new tires
so as to increase retreadability.
                                     39

-------
 The  Limit  On  Suitable Carcasses

      Retreaders feel limited by the supply of worn tire carcasses available
 which are  suited for retreading.  This limit is closely associated with the
 size/shape limitation and would be alleviated by more standardization.  In
 addition,  tire manufacturers could, perhaps, design tires that would be
 annoying to ride on after the tread depth decreased toward a point near the
 minimum level suitable to retreading.  Consumers would, in this situation, be
 inclined to retread or sell their tires while in a reasonable condition and,
 consequently, the number of tires retreaded could be substantially increased.

 Quality Control For Retreads

      Retreaders have available as materials several levels of quality; the
 usual  tread rubber level used on retreads is not the top quality.  With the
 best quality  and workmanship a retread service life equal to the new tire's
 life,may be obtained.  This emphasis on quality could promote an increase in
 the  extent of retreading.

      Standardization, described above, would help to improve retread quality
 since there would be less inclination for a retreader to try to fit a carcass
 into a mold which is not exactly the right size.

      New equipment has been developed which enables better inspection of tire
 carcasses  for defects.  This equipment could be utilized to a greater extent
 to increase retreading.

      Statistical quality control procedures, long used in other industries,
 may  be more and more utilized to control  processes, materials, and the number
 of defects in completed, production batches.  Statistics may be used to im-
 prove public  perceptions of the retread industry with the advertising of
 policies such as "99.7% (virtually 100%)  of our first level  retreads pass
 inspections for:  (1) casing soundness, and (2) having been built according
 to the highest production standards".

      More  consumers might be lured to bring their own tires in for retread-
 ing;  these tires would be of known quality and safeness to the consumer, and
 they could be retreaded with top quality tread rubber and other materials on
 equipment  and with materials designed to exactly match the tires.   Quality
 control over labor and equipment might be tightened up.  The resultant pro-
 duct,  with good marketing communication,  could be sold in larger numbers than
 ever  before - with the consumer, society, and the retreader all  better off.
 To the extent that new manufacturers are, in addition, retreaders, new tire
 manufacturers would also be better off.

 Marketing  Retreads

      Retreaders have not produced and marketed their product to the extent
 possible since it has not been pointed out that retreads provide the conser-
 vation, decreased consumer cost, jobs, decreased public costs,  and environ-
mental quality benefits  quantified in Table 7.   A marketing  campaign based
 upon  these factors and on safety would seem to promise great benefits for the


                                     40

-------
retreading industry.

     All of the above considerations point towards a conclusion that there
can and should be an increase in the extent of retreading in future years.
To the extent that retreaded tires would still be limited in speed and dis-
tance applications - and as an alternative of similar benefits - new tires
designed to provide vastly increased management alternative.


TIRE ASPHALT RUBBER

     Still a method for processing solid waste tires, after retreading, is
needed.  Tire asphalt rubber seems destined to fill this need.

     Worn tire rubber recovered by cryogenics and mixed with asphalt in the
proportions 25 percent rubber and 75 percent asphalt is useful in road re-
pairs.  Tire asphalt rubber repair projects have been carried out since the
late 1960s in Arizona and have been carried out recently in California and
other states.  A four year Environmental Protection Agency Project to docu-
ment experience with the tire asphalt rubber repairs is in process and will
be completed in 1981.  A detailed look at tire asphalt rubber is provided in
Appendix D.

Costs and Benefits
     Table 9 lists the costs and benefits of resource recovery management
alternative, tire asphalt rubber.  As a business proposition asphalt rubber
is not economical; each tire processed by cryogenics for use in asphalt rub-
ber results in $1.19 loss.

     The rubber used for current tire asphalt rubber projects is not sub-
jected to cryogenics; it is tread rubber buffed from worn tires, and the
processing costs are lower than the $1 per tire cost of cryogenics.   Conse-
quently, for companies participating in this process it is an almost break
even process.  The current process does not dispose of waste tires,  however.
Cryogenics is needed in order that the process may be a waste management
alternative.

     The attraction of the asphalt rubber process is the huge public avoided
cost benefits which accrue to highway repair agencies.  Should the government,
in accordance with the $38.69 consumer road repair "cost avoided" benefit,
decide to  implement the tire asphalt  rubber alternative in large scale, the
selling price for recovered tire rubber, included in B]-|, would undoubtedly
increase;  tire asphalt rubber in this situation would become an economical
business proposition.  The current operators of this process are, undoubtedly,
planning that this will occur.

     The social  benefits of tire asphalt rubber are highly significant.  The
value of the rubber recovered from tires, together with the value of the
solid waste tire costs avoided, is $1.15; each tire provides $38.69  worth of
highway repair costs avoided; $1.19 worth of the use of the physical environ-
ment is avoided for each tire processed; and finally $5 worth of highway


                                      41

-------
 repair materials  are conserved  by the process.  The  total of  these  benefits
 is  $46.38.

              TAoLE 9.  TIRE ASPHALT RUBBER BENEFITS AND COSTS
   SBV1            LEGV]
                                                      Benefits
 $1.15          $ 1.15               B-J-] Product value and decreased waste
                 $38.69               &i2 Consumer costs avoided
                                      B-L3 Corporate profits tax transfers
                 $ 1.19               B14 Physical environment preservation
                 $ 5.00               615 Conservation of materials
 $1.15          $46.38               Totals
                                                       Costs
 $1.14          $ 1.14               C-|-| Tire collection and shredding

 $ 1.00*         $11.42               C12 Processing and solid waste
 $  .20          $ 1.71               C^^ Administration and marketing
                                      C^ Corporate profits taxes
                 $  .48               C   Job gains and losses
 $ 2.34          $14.75               Totals

-$1.19          $31.37               Benefits minus costs


* This figure is the cost per tire for cryogenics; it is not calculated by
  TIREC.
     Each tire processed by cryogenics costs $1.14 to collect.   Processing
costs per solid waste tire are a high $11.42 since, to include the benefits
of road repair costs avoided each four years we must also include the costs
of application of tire asphalt rubber to highways.  Administrative and mar-
keting costs total $1.71.   Finally the tire asphalt rubber alternative cre-
ates jobs; the asphalt rubber additive is an additional  step in road repairs.
On the other hand it delays repairs and thus avoids or eliminates jobs.   More
jobs are eliminated each four years than are created.   The net jobs effect is
a job loss,  per solid waste tire per four years, of $.48.   The total  of  all
of the road  repair costs is $14.75.

     The net benefits of the road repair alternative are $31.37 per tire pro-
cessed.  This is the largest net benefit of any alternative studied.   This
value is eighteen times greater than pyrolysis, forty-eight times greater
than tire incineration, and 284 times as great as landfill.   When all  of the
costs and benefits are included in the analysis, tire  asphalt rubber is  the
best tire solid waste management alternative of all.


                                      42

-------
PARAMETRIC ANALYSIS:  TIRE ASPHALT RUBBER

     The high values determined for tire asphalt rubber might have been
caused by any of the factors used in comparison:  (1) the conventional road
repair frequency, (2} conventional road repair costs; or (3) the cost of
applying tire asphalt rubber.  Me examined variations in each of these
factors.

     Figure 7 indicates that the tire asphalt rubber value (Curve AC) is non
linear and riiyhly sensitive to the road repair frequency for repair intervals
greater than five years.  Even at a nine year repair interval, however, the
tire asphalt rubber alternative exhibits substantial net benefits, $12.  Con-
sequently, we do not find the road repair interval of 3.33 years, used in our
basic analysis, to be misleading; the high value exists even with longer
frequencies between repairs.

     Figure 3 demonstrates the affect of the dollar value used to represent
conventional road repair costs upon the LEGV-] value of tire asphalt rubber.
We represented trie tire asphalt rubber costs as $8661 per block.  Figure 8
shows how the asphalt rubber value varies in comparison.  Conventional road
repair costs would have to be around $4000 per 3733 square yard city block,
or the difference between asphalt rubber and conventional repair costs would
nave to be $4000 before the social value of tire asphalt rubber dropped to
the level of the resource recovery alternatives.  This information lends sup-
port to the conclusion regarding the desirability of the asphalt rubber
alternative.

     Figure 9 demonstrates the variation of the social value of tire asphalt
rubber with the cost per square yard of road repaired by the process.  In our
basic analysis, we used the $1.75 per square yard cost of application of tire
asphalt rubber.  This represented the 1/4 inch rubber covering only, as our
processing cost.  The 1/4 inch covering, a seal coat, has been applied with-
out aspiialt cover with success in avoiding road repairs; the asphalt cover
just makes the road smoother.  Had the entire cost of asphalt and asphalt
rubber, $2.32 per square yard, keen used to represent this cost, the social
value would have dropped substantially, to near zero; the value of the tire
asphalt rubber alternative is somewhat sensitive to the cost per square yard
of tire asphalt rubber.  A forty-six percent decrease in value accrues to a
100 percent increase in the cost per square yard of application of tire
asphalt rubber.  At any reasonable cost for tire asphalt rubber, however,
the social value is in excess of the other tire resource recovery alternative
studied.
OTHER RESOURCE RECOVERY ALTERNATIVES

     Pyrolysis, landfill, and tire incineration in specially designed incin-
erators are all losing business propositions- the tire industry will have to
be prodded to implement these in large scale.  These are not without social
merit however; they decrease the use of the physical environment by a value
of $1.19  per tire processed.  Incineration and pyrolysis conserve on the use
of energy and materials.  The value of these effects is $.53 and $.96 per


                                     43

-------
CO

3

O
     o
     co
     UJ
     QL
     CO
     LU
     Z
     UJ
     CO
     •^
     to
     h-
     oo
     o
          40
          30
          20
          10
                                                                      10
                 CONVENTIONAL ROAD REPAIR  INTERVAL IN  YEARS
Figure  7.  Tire asphalt  rubber value versus conventional  road repair frequency.
                                    44

-------
        40
    OJ
        30
    o
    GO
    UJ
    a.
        20
    CO
    GO
    o
    o
    UJ
        10
                      3750
7500
11,250
15,000
                   CONVENTIONAL ROAD REPAIR  COSTS IN  $
Figure 8.  Tire asphalt rubber  value versus conventional road repair costs.
                                 45

-------
               TIRE ASPHALT  RUBBER  ROAD  REPAIR  COSTS
           PER SQUARE YARD OF  ROAD  REPAIRED,  IN DOLLARS
    40  h
LLt
h-
00

3C

Q
oc
LU
a.
CO
O
O
O
O
00
UJ
LU
    30
    20  -
    10  -
     Figure  9.   Tire asphalt rubber:   social  value versus cost.
                               46

-------
tire processed, respectively.   In addition landfill,  incineration,  and
pyrolysis create jobs.  The value of these jobs  is  $.03,  $.16,  and  $  29  per
fnn'nKip6^  Tfl6Se ;!ternatlv?s are not able to compete with  retreading,
 00,000 nnle tires, or tTre asphalt rubber since they  do  not  exhibit  any
benefits of a large scale.
LIMITS ON 100,000 MILE TIRES,  RETREADING,  AND TIRE ASPHALT  RUBBER

     The concept central  to our analysis of 100,000 mile tires  is  that  they
can be a viable profitable business venture.   Another approach  to  implemen-
tation of the 100,000 mile tire idea would be that such tires  be required  by
federal product standards; 100,000 mile tires could be required on all  new
vehicles sold.  In this situation the tire production volume,  and  subsequent-
ly, the tire solid waste volume, would fall  to the level  of the number  of
new cars produced each year.  For 1978 this figure should represent about
40,000,000 to 50,000,000 tires per year.  It is not inconceivable  that  those
40,000,000 to 50,000,000 tires per year could be retreaded.   For an average
life of a vehicle of ten years, vehicles use after ten years  of age would
provide a need for these retreaded tires.   Eventually, however, 40,000,000
to 50,000,000 tires per year will require some final  type of processing.
Cryogenics with use of the rubber recovered in asphalt for  use  in  road  re-
pairs can fill this need with substantial  benefits to society.  In fact it
seems that cryogenics with tire asphalt rubber road repairs could  process  all
or the 200,000,000 solid waste tires currently generated in the United  States
(See Appendix D) if necessary.  These three alternatives are compatible and
should form the basis of tires system management.
                                    47

-------
                                 REFERENCES
1.  Way, George.   Prevention of  Reflective  Cracking  in Arizona Minnetonka-
    East (A Case Study).   Rep. No.  11,  HPR-1-13(224).  Arizona Department of
    Transportation,  Phoenix, Arizona,  1976.  p  1.

2.  ibid,   p 3.

3.  Morris, 6.,  and  C.  McDonald.   Asphalt-Rubber  Stress-Absorbing Membranes:
   ' Field Performance and State  of the  Art.  Transportation  Research Record
    595, Transportation Research Board, National  Academy of  Sciences,
    Washington,  D. C.,  1976.  p  53.

4.  ibid.

5.  Morris, G.  Asphalt-Rubber Membranes:   Development, Use,  Potential.
    Arizona Department  of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona,  1975.

6.  Rubber-Asphalt Binder for Seal  Coat Construction.  Federal Highway
    Administration,  1973.

7.  Wood, W.  Methods of Minimizing Cracking in Bituminous Overlays.  Notice
    N5140.9, Federal Highways Administration,  January 19, 1976.  p 31.

8.  Internal Report  on  Asphalt-Rubber.   Arizona Department of Transportation,
    Phoenix, Arizona, 1974.   p.  2.

9.  Westerman, R. The  Management of Waste  Passenger Car Tires.  Ph.D.
    Thesis, Uharton  School,  University  of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania, 1974.  p 108.   (Sum of Costs one through seven for
    Alternative  4.)

10. This information was obtained from  Harold  M.  Schmitt, Assistant Liaison
    Engineer, California Division, Federal  Highways  Administration,
    Sacramento,  California,  1977.

11. Demonstration Project No. 39:  Recycling Asphalt Pavements.  U. S.
    Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Arlington,
    Virginia, undated.   2 page flyer.

12. Meadows, et  al.   The Limits  to Growth.   Second Edition,  Universe Books,
    New York, 1974.   p  58.   Meadows estimated, in 1972, adequacy of twenty
    years.
                                     48

-------
13.  Rains, W., and D. Williams.  A Study of the Feasibility of Requiring  the
     Federal Government to Use Retreaded Tires.   Publication P13-243 028,
     National Technical Information Service, 1975.   p 93.

14.  ibid,  p 57.   Rains refers to a figure of 100,000 miles.   The 115,000
     mile figure was obtained, telephonically from  Mr. John Diehl, National
     Highway Traffic Safety Administration, February 22, 1977.

15.  Kovac, F.  Tire Technology, Fourth Edition. Goodyear Company,  1973.
     Figure 36 on errata, p 52.

16.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from F. Cecil Brenner, Chief,  Tire
     Systems Division, National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration, U.  S.
     Department of Transportation, Washington, D. C., dated March  4, 1977.
     (two references).

17.  Kovac, F.  Tire Technology, Fourth Edition. Goodyear Company,  1973.
     Figure 86, p 113.

18.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from M. King, Development  Project
     Engineer, Oliver Tire and Rubber Company, Oakland California, dated
     February 22, 1977.

19.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from R. Eckart, Director,  Tread  Rubber
     Production and Development, Mohawk Rubber Company, Akron,  Ohio, dated
     February 23, 1977.

20.  Davisson, J.   Design and Application of Commercial Type Tires.   SAE SP-
     344, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, 1969.  p  28.

21.  Wolf, R.  What's the Angle?  Rubber Age Magazine, September 1967, p 64.

22.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from E. Wagner, Managing Director,
     American Retreader's Association, Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, dated
     February 9, 1977.

23.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from Dr. C.  McCabe, Elastomer  Chemicals
     Department, E.  I. DuPont de Nemours and Comapny, Wilmington,  Delaware,
     dated February 8, 1974.

24.  Correspondence to R. Westerman from F. Cecil Brenner, Chief,  Tire
     Systems Division, National Highway Traffic  Safety Administration,
     U.  S. Department of Transportation, dated March 4, 1977.

25.  Intercompany correspondence to Mr. F. Taff  from R. Snyder,  Uniroyal,
     Inc., Tire Technology Division, Detroit, Michigan, dated March  21, 1975.
     Subsequent to this letter, this point was brought up  at a meeting of
     Snyder, Westerman, Environmental  Protection Agency officials  and  Rubber
     Manufacturers'  Association officials in Washington, D.  C.  in  the  fall
     of 1975, at the Office of Solid Waste Management, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency.
                                     49

-------
26.  Philo, H., and A. Portner.   170 Million Defective Tires Per Year.
     Trial Magazine, November 1976.  p 51.

27.  ibid,  p 50.

28.  Harvey, J., and F. Brenner.  Tire Use  Survey:   The Physical  Condition,
     Use, and Performance of Passenger Car  Tires in the United  States  of
     America.  Office of Vehicle Systems Research,  Institute For Applied
     Technology, National Bureau of Standards,  Washington,  D. C., 1970.   p

29.  Curtiss, W.  Tire Evolution.  Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.   A
     paper presented at the International Automobile and Manufacturing
     Meeting, October 22, 1974.   p 17.

30.  Data of this  type are available in "Rubber Industry Facts":   a  set  of
     statistics which is maintained by the  Rubber Manufacturer's  Associatio
     Washington, D. C.

31.  Westerman, R.   The Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires.   Ph.D.
     Thesis, Wharton School, University of  Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
     Pennsylvania,  1974.  p 144.

32.  Big Rubber Companies Set For Comeback.   Chemical  Week, February 25, 19
     p 13.
                                     50

-------
                                BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adjustment Records Show How Failures Can Be Reduced.   Retreader's  Journal,
     Volume 11, August 8, 1967, pp 3-11.

Aiken, Eric.  Undeflated Akron.  Barrow's, May 6,  1974,  pp  3,  10,  12-13.

All About Tires.  Tyres and Accessories, Volume 24,  Number  7,  January  1971,
     pp 18-19.

Allison, K.  Changes Reach the Retreader.   Rubber  World,  Volume  154, Number 4,
     July 1966, p 58.

Allison, K.  Changes Reach the Retreader III.   Rubber World, Volume 154,
     Number 5, August 1966, p 67.

Allison, Kenneth.  Those Amazing Rubber Roads.   Rubber World,  March-April
     1967.

Altenau, A. G., J. R. Laman, and J.  A.  Beckman.  Tire Disposal.  Polymer
     News 1, Number 2/3, 1971, p 34.

Anderson, Earl V.  Economics Are Bugaboo in Scrap  Tire Recycling.  C/E News,
     Volume 50, Number 33, August 14, 1972, pp 8-10.

Araki, T.  On the Treatment by Pyrolysis of the Waste Synthetic  Polymers.
     Yoki Gosei Kagaku, 33(5):342-342,  May 1975.

Arizona Paves 10 Miles Road with Recycled  Rubber Asphalt.   Environmental
     Science and Technology, p 902.

Aronson, R. B.  Cooking Cash from Old Tires.   Mach Design,  Volume  42,
     Number 14, July 11, 1970, pp 46-47.

Assessing Retreadability:  The Economics of the Causes of Defects  and Their
     Elimination.  Gummibereifung, 43(11):63,  November 1967.

Badenkov, P. F.  Increasing the Quality of Tyres to  the Highest  World
     Standards.  Kauchuk-.Rezina, 24(10), October 1965, p  2.  (English
     translation by Ralph McElroy Company, Austin, Texas).

Badenkov, P. F.  Reclaiming Rubber by a Dispersion Method.  Rpara  Transla-
     tion 1746, 1971, pp 373-385.
                                      51

-------
Badenkov, P.  F.,  and V.  A.  Zhelezov.   Principal  Trends  in  Improving  the Tech-
     nology of Tire Production.   Zh.  Vscsoyuzh.  Khim. Obshch,  Volume 13,
     Number 1, 1968, pp  13-18.

Barrass, Robert.   The Pre-1968  Marketing of Automobile  Tires  by  Gasoline
     Retailers:   A Problem  of Market  Power Generated  by Franchise  Agreements.
     Ph.D.  Thesis, Washington State University,  1973.

Batchelor,  K.  VI.   Should the Retreader Make His  Own Rubber?   Retreader's
     Journal,  Volume 9,  Number  4, April  1965,  pp 3-4, 6-20.

Bayer, G.,  and L. Cherdor.   Process and Apparatus for Disposal and Utilization
     of Used Rubber and  Other Combustible Wastes.  French  Patent 73, 30644
     Issued March 22, 1973.

Becker, E.  J.   Latest Developments in Retreading: Cost Wear  Index for Tread
     Reuse Rubber Evaluation.  Paper  presented to Akron Rubber Group Technical
     Symposium Division  of  Rubber Chemistry, Winter 1967.

Beckman, J. A.  Distilling  Scrap Rubber.  U. S.  Patent  3582279.

Beckman, J. A., et al.   Scrap Tire Dispoal.  Rubber Chemistry and  Technology,
     Volume 47, Number 3, July  1974.   pp 597-624.

Beckman, J. A.  Yields and  Analyses of the Products from the  Destructive
     Distillation of Scrap  Tires.  Division of Water  Waste Chemistry ACS
     Reprints, Volume 10, Number 2, September 13, 1970.   pp  195-202.

Belted Tires Are Better Says Chrysler Corporation. Rubber Age,  Volume 100,
     Number 1, January 1968.  p 98.

Bernard, J. E., P. Fancher, and L. Segal.  Vehicle-In-Use-Limit  Performance
     and Tire Factors.   University of Michigan Highway  Safety Research
     Institute, Ann Arbor,  Michigan 48105.

Bessler, Henry H., et al.  Nondestructive Testing System for  Retreads.  NTIS
     Report Number DOT-TSC-N HTSA-75-4, November 1975.

The Best Trash Disposal  Is  Recycling.  Proceedings, Symposium on Trash
     Economy and Trash Technology in  the Alpine Region, Almuenster,  Austria,
     April  25-26, 1974.

Bibus, E.  Energy from Old  Tires.  Energie 26(11), November  1974.  pp 53-64.

Bidwell , J. B.  A Car-Tire  Relationship.  Rev. Gen, Cnoutchouc Plastiques,
     Volume 43, Number 9, September 1966.  p 1153.

Big Pot.  Rubber Journal, Volume 152, Number 10, October 1970.   p  12.

Big Rubber Companies Set for Comeback.  Chemical Week,  February  25,  1976.
     p 13.
                                      52

-------
Big Wheels in Natural Rubber.  Rubber Developments, Volume 23, Number 3,
     1970.  pp 91-95.

Biological Attack on Polymeric Materials.  Mater.  Plast.  Elast.,  Volume 36,
     Number 3, March 1970.  pp 316-319.

Bogomolov, V. G., and A. A. Bondarenko.  Semi-Automatic Tread Production Line.
     Sov. Rub. T., Volume 24, Number 3, March 1965.  p 45.

Bohlmann, Ferdinand, Christa Zderu.  Ein Neues Eugenol-Derivat Aus Bidens
     Aurea (Ait.) Sherff.  Chem.  Ber 108, 1975.  pp 440-444.

Brand, B. G.   Scrap Rubber Tire Utilization in Road Dressings.  Battelle
     Memorial Institute Chemistry, 505 King Avenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201.

Braner, Henry M.   An Analysis of the Domestic Passenger Tire  Retreading
     Industry, With Emphasis on Selected Marketing Functions  of Independent
     Retreaders.   Ph.D. Thesis, Ohio State University, 1964.

Braton, N. R., and J. A. Koutsky.   Cryogenic Recycling.  Proceedings, Fourth
     Mineral  Waste Utilization Symposium, Chicago, Illinois,  May 7-8, 1974.

Brenner, F. C.  Tires - Their Selection and Care.   NBS Information Series
     Number 2, November 1970.  p 28.

Brenner, F. C., and Akira Kondo.   Elements in the  Road Evaluation of Tire
     Ware.  Tire  Science and Technology, Volume 1, Number 1,  February 1973.
     pp 17-31.

Brenner, F. C., and A. Kondo.  Research for a Uniform Quality Grading System
     for Tires:  IV Tread Wear.  Rubber Chemistry  and Technology, Volume 44,
     Number 1.  pp 106-121.

Brenner, F. C., S. R. Scheiner, and Akira Kondo.   Effect  of Tire  Wear on
     Wear Rate.  Tire Science and Technology, Volume 3, Number 4, November
     1975.  pp 235-251.

Brion, 0.  Tire Incinerator.  U.  S. Patent 3,779,183 owned by Commissariat
     a L'Energie  Atomique, Paris,  France issued December  18,  1973.

Britain Sales Oil, Helps Balance of Payments with  Reclaim. Rubber World,
     Volume 171,  Number 2, November 1974.  p 26.

British Firm Gains Control of U.  S. Retread Process.   British Vacu-Lug  Ltd.

Broich, Franz.  Environment Control Solutions and  Government  Pollution
     Standards in the Synthetic Rubber Industry.   Proceedings 12th Annual
     Meeting, International Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers,
     Australia, April 1971.  pp 22-32.

Buddenhagen,  F. E.  Design and Construction Considerations of Radial
     Passenger Car Tires.  S.A.E.  Preprint 670470, 1967.   p 5.


                                      53

-------
Burn Scrap Tires, Utilize Heat.  Tire Review, Volume 71,  Number 8,  August
     1970.  p 70.

Bushey, R.  Experimental  Overlays to Minimize Reflection  Cracking.   California
     Department of Transportation Interim Report FHWA-CA-TL-3167-76-28,
     September 1976.

Bynum, D., Jr., L. C.  Askew, J. F.  Evertson, and H.  0.  Fleisher.   Effect of
     Scrap Tires on the Mechanical  Properties of Asphaltic Concrete in Unilax-
     ial Compression.   Texas A and  M University, Houston, Texas.

Bynum, D., Or., L. C.  Askew, J. F.  Evertson, and H.  0.  Fleisher.   The  Effect
     of Scrap Rubber on the Mechanical  Properties of Asphaltic  Concrete in
     Uniaxial Compression.   Australian  Road Research 5(6):December  1974.
     pp 20-25.

Campbell,  K.   Determination of Passenger Car Tire Performance  Levels -
     Treadwear.  Society of Automotive  Engineers Publication Number 690507.
     1969.

Campbera,  E.  M., and H. Santana.   Economic Factors in Road User Costs.
     University Cen De Venezuela, Highway Engineering,  Caracas, Venezuela.

Can the Sun Still Shine in  Akron.  Financial World,  July  24, 1974.   p  19.

Capp, John P.  Fly Ash-Rubber Mixtures:  Studies on  Skid  Resistance and
     Durability.  U. S. Bureau of Mines, 1972.   p 11.

Carnes, Richard A.  Using Reclaimed Rubber Tires in  Road  Dressings.  U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, October 31, 1973.   pp 1-4.

Carousel Crematireum.   Rubber World, Volume 167, Number 3, March  1973.
     pp 16-17.

Cavanaugh, William T.   Plain Talk.   Material Resource Standards,  Volume 11,
     Number 4.  p 32B.

Chadwick,  J.   The Use of Reclaim Under  Modern Conditions.   Proceedings Inst.
     Rubber Ind., Volume 13, Number 1,  1966.  pp 15-23.

Cheater, G.  Recycling and  Reclaiming of Rubber.  Progress of  Rubber
     Technology (38),  1975.  pp 99-104.

Cheater, G.,  The Useful Life of Rubber.  Chemistry and  Industry,  Number 12,
     June 16, 1973.  pp 569-570.

Cheater, G.,  and L. D. Loan.  The Problem of Waste Rubber.  RAPRA Technical
     Review Number 37, May-June 1967.  pp 48-49.

Clark, S.  K., et al.  Pressure Effects  on Worn Passenger  Car Tire Carcasses.
     NTIS Report PB-241533/95T, February 1975.
                                     54

-------
Coddington, 0. M.  Improved Retread Reliability Via a New Liquid Applied Air
     Barrier.  Paper presented at the Division of Rubber Chemistry Meeting,
     Cleveland, Ohio, October 1971.

Cole, Calvin W.  Tire Repair Methods and Materials.  NTIS Report PB-196952,
     October 1970.

Consumer's Guide to:  Retread Tires.  Mechanix Illustrated,  December  1975.
     p 10.

Cooper, T.  The Impact of the Radial Tire in the United States.   MBA  Thesis,
     Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1973.

Cox, R.  NTDRA Marketing Guidelines 1976.  National Tire Dealers and  Retread-
     ers Association, Washington, D. C., 1976.

Cox, R.  NTDRA Marketing Guidelines 1977.  National Tire Dealers and  Retread-
     ers Association, Washington, D. C., November 22, 1976.

Cox, R.  NTDRA Financial Analysis Study.  National  Tire Dealers  and Retread-
     ers Association, Washington, D. C., 1975.

Cox, W.  Recycle and Reuse of Tires.  Society of Manufacturing  Engineers
     Paper EM74-225, Dearborne, Michigan, 1974.

Cox, W.  The Tire-Fired Boiler.  Environmental Aspects of Chemical  Use in
     Rubber Processing Operations, Conference Proceedings, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency Publication 560/1-75-002, July 1975.   pp  371-380.

Crane, G., and E. L. Kay.  Scrap Tire Disposal Process.  Rubber  and Chemistry
     Technology 48(1), March-April 1975.  pp 50-61.

Curtiss, W.  Tire Evolution.  Paper presented at the International  Automobile
     and Manufacturing Meeting, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron, Ohio,
     October 22, 1974.

Davisson, J. A.  Design and Application of Commercial Type Tires.  Society
     of Automotive Engineers Paper SP 344, New York, 1969.

Dayton Tire Boosts Radial Production.  Rubber World, November  1974.   p 16.

Dealer's Business Booming, Tire Review.  1975.

D'lanni, James.  Our Changing Environment - A Challenge to Technology.
     Paper presented at Joint Meeting of New York and Philadelphia  Rubber
     Groups, April 1970.

Disposal of Automobile Tires - Economically.  Rubber Age, Volume 102,
     Number 9, September 1970.  p 85.

Downwind, Akron Stinks.  Rubber World, Volume 161,  Number 1, December 1969.
     pp 50-53.

                                      55

-------
Dreyfus, B., and L.  Tourlec.   Raw Material  Requirements  for  the  Tire  Companies
     in the 70's.   ABST.  J.  IRI, Volume 5,  Number 3,  1971.   p  87.

DuPont, E.  I.  DeNemours and  Company,  Inc.   Delphi Forecast of  Future  Rubber
     Processing.  DuPont Company Elastomer  Chemicals  Department, Wilmington,
     Delaware, 1971.

Dworkin, David.   Tires.  Chemical  Week, Volume 108, Number 20.   pp  34-40.

Ehrlich, I.  R.,  and  M.  Jurkat.   Characteristics of Tire  Usage  in the  Eastern
     United States.   Research Report  1336-A,  Division Laboratory, Stevens
     Institute of Technology, 1969.   p 14.

Ehrlich, I.  R.,  I.  0.  Kamm,  and M.  P.  Jurkat.   Feasibility Study of a Trailer
     Method of Tread Wear Evaluation.   School  of Engineering,  Stevens Insti-
     tute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey  07030.

Evaluating Retreadability.   Gummibereifung, 44(4), April, 1968.  p  63.

Evans, C.  W.   Mixing Techniques in Europe  (Equipment, Process,  Compounding
     Aspects).  Rubber Preprints (39), April  1969.

Ewing, J.  The Feasibility of Marketing the 100,000 Mile Tire.   MBA Paper,
     California State University Sacramento,  School of Business  and Public
     Administration, 6000 J  Street, Sacramento, California 95819, 1977.

Fabrikaut, A.   Flotation Agents by Pyrolysis  of Vulcanized Rubber Scrap.
     Chem.  Phys. Appl.  Surface Active Subst.  Proc. Congr. 4th,  1964.
     pp 371-377.

Facts About Tires.   Tire TBA Review,  Volume 66, Number 2, February  1966.
     p 16.

Fendell, B.   New Styling Roll Seen for Tires.   Automotive News,  Volume 16,
     Number 4324, March 15,  1971.

Fewer and Lower Chemical Price Increases.   U.  S. and  World Rubber News,
     March 1976.  p 11.

Ficker, S.   Reclaiming Scrap Rubber.   Rubber  Age, Volume 104,  Number  8,
     August 1972.  pp 53-55.

Fink, F.  Disposal  of Old Tires and Processed Remains of Wrecked Cars.
     Battelle Inf., Number 7, Oune 1970. pp 35-37.

Finney, C.  S., and D. E. Garrett.  The Flash  Pyrolysis of Solid  Wastes.
     Energy Sources, Volume 1, Number 3, 1974.  pp 295-314.

Fike, L. T.  Retreading Specifications.  Tire Review, Volume 67, Number
     1:64R, January 1967.
                                      56

-------
Firestone to Shut Down Reclaiming Plant.   Wall  Street Journal,  January  27,
     1972.  p 3.

Fish Hooked on Old Tires.  Goodyear Tire  and Rubber Company,  Polysar  Prog.
     Volume 5, Number 5, September/October 1970.   p 7.

Flanagan, William.  Another Way to Recycle Old  Tires.   SAE J. Volume  78,
     Number 12, 1970.  p 43.

Flanagan, William.  Tires Could Be Recycled if  Process  Proves Economical.
     SAE J. Volume 78, Number 8, 1970.   pp 35-37.

Fleeger, D. W.  Tire Wear Index Test.   Service  Engineering Division,  Ogden
     Air Material Area, Hill  Air Force Base, Utah.

Floberg, J. F.  Economics of  Regulated Safety II.   Rubber  World,  Volume 164,
     Number 1, April 1971.  pp 55-58.

Ford Investigates Tire Pollution.  Rubber Age,  Volume 104, Number 3,  March
     1972.  p 90.                                                                      J
                                                                                       U
Forelich, L.  Old Tires Are Fuel at New Tire Plant.  Akron Beacon Journal               3
     E-3, April 27, 1972.                                                              C
                                                                                       Q
Fox, C.  Reconditioning of Aircraft Tires.   Rubber  Developments,  Volume 18,             ]
     Number 4, August 1965.  p 149.
                                                                                       U
Fredericks, S.  An Economic Evaluation of the Use of Cryogenics  in Rubber               p
     Tire Reclaiming.  University of Wisconsin-Madison,  College  of Engineer-            »
     ing, Madison, Wisconsin, Undated.                                                  |

Gagarina, N. S.  Cost Planning in the Tire Industry.   Kauchuk Rezina, 2S (9):           £
     44, September 1966.                                                               jj

Gal'Perin, A. S.  Selection of the Optimum Height of a  Repair Tread for
     Tractor Tyres By Dynamic Programming.   Kauchuk Rezina, Volume 24,
     Number 12, December 1965.  p 32.

Goddard, Haynes C.  An Economic Evaluation of Technical  Systems  for Scrap
     Tire Recycling.  U. S. Environmental  Protection Agency, Washington,
     D. C.  41 p.

Goodrich to Install Computer  Storage of Tire Specifications.  Rubber  Age,
     Volume 102, Number 11, November 1970.   p 86.

Goodyear Uses Scrap Tires as  Fuel to Generate Steam.  Rubber/Plastics News,
     May 8, 1972.  p 16.

Gorenstein, S.  Planning Tire Production.   Management Science, Volume 17,
     Number 2, October 1970.   pp 72-82.
                                     57

-------
               Gottshall, Wm.  W.   Reinforcing Agent.   U.  S.  Patent 3,644,131  issued
                    February 22,  1972.

               Graham, John.   Radial  Tire Equipment.   Rubber Age,  September 1974.   pp  33-39.

               Greene, C. H.   Industrial  Pollution Control.   Modern Manufacturing,  Number 9,
                    1970.  pp  167-168.

               Ground-Up Tires Keep Out Weeds.   Akron Beacon Journal,  February 22,  1972.
                    p A 17.

               Harvey, J. L.,  and F.  C.  Brenner.  Tire Use Survey.   National  Bureau Standards
                    Technical  Note 528.   p 59.

               Heap, Wendy,  and S.  H.  Morrell.   Microbiological  Deterioration of Rubber and
                    Plastics.   Journal  of Applied Chemistry, Volume 18,  Number 7, July 1968.
                    pp 189-194.

               Heaton, J. W.,  and W.  E.  Fawcett.  Method  and Apparatus for Removing Tread
**"''                Material from Vehicle Tires.  U.  S.  Patent 3,888,145 issued June 10,
£..:'•                1975, Kennametal,  Inc., Latrobe,  Pennsylvania.

.•i'.'            Highway Median  Strip.   Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,  1971.

•   •            Hofmann, W.   Some  Problems with the Disposal  of Rubber  Wastes.   Paper
                    presented  at  the Conference of the American  Chemical  Society, Division
•j£"                 of Rubber  Chemistry,  Toronto, Canada, May 9, 1974.   34 p.

•it:!'            How to Figure Profitability on Your Equipment.  Tire Review,  May 1975.  p  16.

               How to Retread  Radial  Ply  Tires.   Tire Review,  Volume 67,  Number 1,  January
                    1967.  p 54.

               Huber, C.  F.  The  Tire  Companies:  Can They Shake Detroit  and  Make More
                    Money?   Rubber World, Volume 154, Number 3,  December  1967.   p 53.

               Humpstone, C. C.,  E.  Ayres, S.  C. Keahey,  and T.  Schell.   Tire Recycling and
                    Reuse Incentives.   U. S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency,  Office of
                    Solid Waste Management Programs,  1974.   88 p.

               Imazu, S.   Thermal  Decomposition  of the Waste Tires.  Sangyo  Kikai (299),
                    August  1975.   pp 37-40.

               The Industry  at Midyear.   Rubber  Age,  July 1975.  pp 30-31.

               Ingegnere, C. M.   Europe Leads in Tyre Research.  Australian  Plastics and
                    Rubber Journal,  25(Number 300), July  1970.   pp  19-20,  31.

               Intermixing of  Bias,  Bias/Belted, and  Radial  Ply  Passenger  Tires.  Systems
                    Technology Associates, Inc., 13766 S.  Hawthorn  Boulevard,  Hawthorne,
                    California 90250.
                                                    58

-------
Investment Mileage from Radials.   Chemical  World, May 23,  1973.   p 7.

Isaksson, G. E.  Production Equipment Demands.   Rubber Age,  Volume 104,
     Number 6, June 1972.  pp 38-42.

Jones, A. J.  Tread Rubber Manufacturing.   Rubber World, Volume  144,  Number  1.
     p 89.

Jones, P. B., and R. Garfield.  Technology and  the Retread.   Journal  Institute
     Rubber Industry, Volume 3, Number 5,  October 1969.  pp  209-213.

Judging Suitability for Retreading.  Gummibereifung, Volume  41,  Number  9,
     September 1965.  p 86.

Kaiser, Elmer R.   Incineration of Bulky Refuse  Without Prior Shredding.  New
     York University, 1973.  91 p.

Keeping Cows Happy.  Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company,  1971.

Kelner, M.  Stop Murder by Motor.  American Trial Lawyers  Association,
     Boston, Massachusetts, 1966.  Reprinted in Tire and TBA Review,
     February 1966.  p 24.

Keubler, J.  Goodyear's New Tire Company President, Mercer,  Sees an End  to
     Guaranteed Mileage on Tires.  Rubber  World, September 1976.

Khrapunov, L. G.   A Method of Increasing the Life of Tubeless  Truck Tires.
     Kauchuk i Rezina 21(2), 1962.  pp 26-28.  (English translation by
     Ralph McElroy Company, Austin, Texas.)

Kiefer,  Irene.  Incentives for Tire Recycling and Reuse.   U. S.  Environmental
     Protection Agency, 1974.  28 p.

Kispert, R. G., L. C. Anderson, D. H. Walker, S. E. Sadek, and D.  L.  Wise.
     Selection of Base-Line Inputs for Optimization:  Ranges of  Input
     Variables.  Dynatech R/D Company, Cambridge, Massachusetts, July 31,
     1974.

Knox, R. L.  Workable Competition in the Rubber Tire Industry.  The Univer-
     sity of North Carolina, Chapel Hill,  North Carolina.

Kovac, F. J.  Tire Design Engineer Turns to Technological  Forecasting.
     Production Engineering, Volume 41, Number 27.  pp 16-17.

Kovac, F. J.  Tire Technology.  Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, Akron,
     Ohio, 1970.   100 p.

Kritskov, V. F., and S. N. Ragimov.  The Economics of the  Production  and Use
     of  Radial Ply Tires.  Kauchuk i  Rezina, Volume 28, Number 10, 1969.
     (English translation by Ralph McElroy Company, Austin,  Texas.)
                                      59

-------
               Kuebler, Joseph E.   COLC Lifts Lid on Tire Prices.   Modern Tire Dealer,  March
                    1974.  p 34.

               Kuebler, J.   Goodyear's New Tire Company President,  Mercer, Sees an  End  to
                    Guaranteed Mileage on Tires.   Rubber World,  September 1976.

               Kuebler, Joseph E.   Tire Sales $ Volume Up - But  Profits  Prove Elusive.
                    Rubber  World,  September 1975.  p 67.

               Kuebler, Joseph E.   Turkish Tire Plant to be U. S.  Equipped.   Rubber World,
                    August  1975.  PP 47, 51.

               Lane, G. H.   The Case Against Burning Used Tires.   Rubber Journal, Volume
                    150, Number 2, February 1968.  pp 44, 59.

               Lanius, E. H.  Tire Deposit As Incentive:  Old  Car  Tires  Shall  Yield Valuable
                    Raw Material Through Pyrolysis.   VDI-Nachrichten  Z8(39),  September  1974.
                    P 7.

               Laverty, C.   General Tire Automates Big Tire Plant.  Rubber World, Volume 159,
 *f.                Number  5, February 1969.   p 39.

 ''^            Laverty, C.   Water Pollution Controls:  A $5 Billion Tab.   Rubber World,
 :^  ''                Volume  160, Number 1, April 1969.  pp 48-50.
 f:,: i
 ''''"_''           Lavery, A.  Nondestructive Tire Testing.  U. S. Department of  Transportation
                    Systems Center, 55 Broadway,  Cambridge, Massachusetts.
 . 4
 ;T /           Law, Charles.  Design Revolution Rocks the Tire  Industry.   Rubber World,
 •'*-••—                Volume  159, Number 6, 1969.  pp 34-43.

 ,.,,;.-           Lehnen, J. P.  Tire Manufacturing  Machinery and Process  Engineering.
 .'#»"•'>',                Kunststoff Gumrni 6(1), January 1967.  p 5.
M i, !
               Lerner, M.  Musing With Mel.  Rubber Age, July  1975.   p  16.

               The Longer-Wearing Tire.  Tire Review, Volume 71, Number  7, July 1971.
                    pp 13,  16, 21, 68.

               Lowne, R. W.  Tyre Failures on Part of M5 Motorway.  NTIS Report Number
                    TRRL-LR-585, 1973.

               Lucas Furnace Developments Ltd.  Tire Scrap. Plastic  Rubber Weekly,  Number
                    353, November 13, 1970. pp 34-35.

               Ludema, K. C.  Wear Models for Severe Wear of Polymeric  Materials.   School of
                    Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan  48106.

               Ludwig, Saul H.  Bicentennial  Year - Boom or Bust?   Modern Tire Dealer,
                    January 1976.   pp 52-60.
                                                     60

-------
Lueers, U.  Disposal and Recycling of Tire Waste.   Gummi  Asbest Kunstst
     Volume 28, Number 12, December 1975.   pp 860-867.

Mahner, K.  Data for Determining Tire Substitute Requirements  Under the In-
     fluence Exerted by the Development of the Tire Quality.   Plaste Kaut
     Schok, Volume 16, Number 1, January 1969.  p  31.

Marchesani, Vincent J.  Minor Sources of Air Pollutant  Emissions.   Air Pollut
     Contrass. J., Volume 20, Number 1, 1970.  pp  19-22.

Mares, A.  The Use of Computers for Technical and  Economic Calculations in
     Tire Factories II.  Kautsckuk Gummikunstoffe, Volume 21,  Number 8,
     August 1966.  p 443.

Martin, G. A.  Tack Loss in Tire Tread Stocks.  Paper presented at Southern
     Rubber Group Meeting, Dallas, Texas, February 1971.

Marzocchi, Z.  Glass Fiber Impregnated Yarns' Retread Potential.   Rubber
     World, Volume 158, Number 6, September 1968.   p 67.

Massoubre, J. M.  Reclaiming NR or SR.  U. S. Patent 3,563,922 issued
     February 16, 1971.

Maus, Erwin III.  Delete-Optioned Radials?  No Panic in Tire Town.  Wards
     Auto World, April 1975.  p 20.

Modern Equipment Boosts Production.  Tire Review,  Volume 67, Number 7,
     July 1968.  p 68.

More Mileage from Old Tires?  Chemical Engineering 1976,  Number 23, October
     1969.  pp 58-59.

More Uses for Scrap Casings.  Modern Tire Dealer,  Volume 50, Number 6,
     January 1969.  pp 10-11.

Morris, G.  Asphalt-Rubber Membranes Development,  Use,  Potential.   Arizona
     Department of Transportation, Phoenix, Arizona, 1975.

Morris, G., and C. McDonald.  Asphalt-Rubber Stress Absorbing  Membranes:
     Field Performance and State of the Art.  Transportation Research Record
     595, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.  C., 1976.   pp 52-58.

Morton, C. F.  Factors Influencing Tyre Development.  Journal  IRI, Volume 4,
     Number 4, August 1970.  pp 145-152.

Morton, G. F.  Tire Design.  Proc Inst. Rubber Ind., Volume 13, Number 6,
     December 1966.  p 214.

Moyer, R. A.  Tire Wear and Cost on Selected Roadway Surfaces.  Iowa Engineer-
     ing  Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa.
                                      61

-------
                Muller, W.  Retreading of Radial  Ply Tires.   Gummi  Bereifung, Volume 46,
                     Number 5, May 1970.   pp 126, 128.

                McEwen, L.  Tire Disposal and Recovery.   U.  S.  Environmental  Protection
                     Agency, Office of Solid Haste Management,  Washington,  D. C.,  1974.

                McLain, J. M.   The Theory of the Firm and Competition in the  American Rubber
                     Industry.  Ohio State University.

                Nadezhdin, G.  V.  Main Design Parameters of  Tyres for Motor Vehicles.   Sov.
                     Rub.T., Volume 24, Number 1, January 1965.   p 29.

                National Standard's New Line in Tire Machines.   Rubber Journal,  Volume 152,
                     Number 10, October 1970. pp 37-38.

                NBS Surveys Tire Usage.  NBS Technical  News  Bulletin, Volume  54, Number 10,
                     October 1970.  p 229.

                New BFG Division.   Rubber World,  July 1974.   p  34.

 *?,''            New Method for the Collection of Tires.   GAK, Volume 28, Number  1, 1975.
 *-"•                 p 40.
 «.«-.                  r

 ^'- ;            New Recycling Methods for Waste Tires.   Raba Daijesto,  Volume 27,  Number 4,
 (•'9,                 April 1975.  pp 43-47.

 ,1..             Nikolinski, P.  Complete Re-utilization  of Rubber Vulcanizates.  Review
 :*"•'                 Generate Caoutchouc Plastique, Volume 45,  Number 5 7/8,  1968.  pp 867-

 £ij                 87°-
                Nittan Company Limited.  Precede Pout Fabriquer Une Mattere Oleo-Collectrice.
 ..IVi:|.                 French Patent 73,36612 issued May 10, 1974.
 & "• i
{T'jj |            Noble, H. M.  Wave-Maze, Floating Breakwater.  ASCE Proc. Civil  Engineering
 '" ''                 in Oceans, 2nd Conference, Miami,  Florida, December 10-12,  1969.
                     pp 929-942.

                Ochs, G., and K. Coram.  Scrap Tire Utilization and Disposal.  Franklin
                     Institute Research Laboratories Publication DAAK03-75-C-0031, Rockville,
                     Maryland.  Undated.

                Old Tires Yield Chemicals.  Chemical Marketing  Reporter, 205, June 17, 1974.
                     pp 3, 18.

                O'Rourke, J. J.  Oregon Tire Disposal Rule to Be Model  for  Nation?  Tire
                     Review, Volume 73, Number 12, December  1973.   p 32.

                Pacey, Margaret D.  On the Bandwagon.  Barren's,  August 9,  1971.   pp 11, 19,
                     20.

                Pacey, Margaret D.  Technology Is Opening Up New Markets for  Tire  Retreaders.
                     Barren's, August 9,  1971.  pp 11-12, 21.


                                                     62

-------
Palmgren, Hans.  Scrap Rubber and Its Waste Problems.   Paper presented at the
     SGF Environment Conference, June 1972.

Palmgren, H.  Waste Rubber As A Disposal  Problem.   Plastvarlden,  Number 6,
     June 1972.  pp 28-31.

Passenger Tire Use Survey.   Consolidated  HBS Report CSF398 PB 189487.   Undated

Pearson, Henry C.  Rubber Tires and All About Them.  The India Rubber  Publish-
     ing Company, New York, 1906.

Pettigrew, R. J.   Rubber Reuse and Solid  Waste Management.  U. S.  Environment-
     al Protection Agency,  Solid Waste Management  Series (SW-22c)   "Rubber
     Reuse and Solid Waste Management, 1971.

Philipson, I. R.   Incineration Scrap Tyres for Energy.   Australian Plastics
     and Rubber,  Volume 26, Number 28, August 1975.  p  31.

Philo, H., and A. Portner.   170 Million Defective  Tires Per Year.   Trial
     Magazine, November 1976.  pp 50-53.

Pickett, F.  N.  Distillation Products from Waste Rubber.  Trans.  Inst.
     Rubber Ind., Volume 15, 1940.  pp 340-342.                                        •*>
                                                                                      iw
Pierson, W.  R.  Search for Airborne Particulate Debris  from Rubber Tires.              '*J
     Paper presented at the Division:  Water, Air  and Waste Chemistry,  162nd           j
     ACS Meeting, Washington, D. C., September 1971.

Pierson, W.  R., and W.  W. Brachaczek.  Airborne Particulates Debris from               '"*
     Rubber Tires.  Rubber  Chemistry and  Technology,  Volume 47, Number  5,
     December 1974.  pp 1275-1299.                                                    j
                                                                                      f
Plunkett, Dick.  Disposing  of Scrap Tires.  Rubber World,  Volume  172,                  "*
     Number 6, September 1975.  pp 61-64.                                              j

Potamoshnev, S. P., and G.  G. Ivanov.  Measuring Labor  Productivity in  the
     Tire Industry.  Kauchuk i Rezina, Volume 20,  Number 4, 1961.   pp  49-53.
     (English translation)

Price Hikes Don't Worry Dealers.  Modern  Tire Dealer, March 1974.   p 27.

Prices Hiked.  Rubber Age,  May 1974.  p 86.

Prices Up On Most Tires and Tubes.  Modern Tire Dealer, March 1974.  p  9.

Process for Utilizing Scrap Tires in Carbon Black  Manufacture. Columbian
     Division - Cities Service Company, April 1971.

Producing Carbon Black By Pyrolising Tyre Crumb Containing Fibres.   European
     Rubber Journal, Volume 154, Number 8, August  1975. p 16.
                                      63

-------

              Production Conditions and Service Life.   Gummifereifung,  Volume 45,  Number  7,
                   July 1969.  p 27.

              Production Conditions and Service Life.   Gummifereifung,  Volume 45,  Number  8,
                   August 1969.  p 17.

              Prolonging Life Through Proper Care of Tires.   Solid Waste Management,  Volume
                   16, Number 8, August 1973.   p 72.

              Prospects for Reclaimed Rubber.   Polymer Age,  Volume 6(7-8),  July/August  1975.
                   p 214.

              Rachkova, L.  V.  Development in the Tire Retreading Industry.   Kauchuk  i
                   Rezina,  Volume 26, Number 7, July 1967.   p 2.

              Rains, W. A.   A Study of the Feasibility of Requiring the Federal  Government
                   to Use Retreaded Tires.  U. S. Environmental  Protection  Agency,
                   Washington, D. C. , 1975.  122 p.

              Recycling of Waste Tires (1) - The Present Situation of Pyrolysis  Technology.
                   Kagaku Kojo, Volume 19, Number 2, February 1975.  pp 90-93.

              Recycling of Wastepaper and Economical Recovery of Used Tires.   Mitteilungen
                   Des Chemischen Forschungs Institutes Der  Wirtschaft Oesterreichs Und
                   Des Oesterreich Ischen Kunststoff institutes,  28(515), December  1974.
                   pp 179-180.

              Recycling Old Motor Tyres.  Water and Waste Treatment, Volume 18,  Number  6,
                   June 1975.  pp 24, 26.

              Retread Standard for Passenger Tires.   Tire Review, Volume 73,  Number 3,
                   March 1973.  pp 81-82.
 ";j|:          Retreading Can Set Records in '75 - $1,200,000,000 and Growing.   Tire Review,
u"11"               May 1975.  pp 13-15.

              Retreading in Italy.  Tyres and Accessories, Volume 22, Number 263,  June
                   1968.  pp 33-34.

              Retreading of Michelin X Tires.  Gummibereifung, Volume 37,  Number  2, 1961.
                   pp 15-16, 18.

              Retreading's Future Looks Pretty Good.  Tire Review, April  1975.  pp 48-49,52.

              Reutens, Anthony J.  An Econometric Analysis of the International Rubber
                   Economy.  Ph.D. Thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana, Champagaion,
                   1974.

              1974 Review-1975 Preview.  Rubber Age, January 1975.  pp 24-33.

              Review 74-Preview 75.  Rubber Age, January 1975.  pp 34-38.
                                                   64

-------
1975 Review-1976 Preview.  Rubber Age.   January 1976.   pp 26-28.

Rivoire, J., and J. N. Winton.   Energy  and the Product Mix.   Chemical  Week,
     Volume 115, Number 22, November 27, 1974.  pp 29-32.

Roland, R. D.  Tire Properties, Effects on Vehicle Handling.   Calspan
     Corporation, 4455 Genesee Street,  Buffalo, New York 14221.

Rubber.  Sub-council Report, National  Industrial  Pollution Control  Council,
     Washington, 0. C., October 1971.   15 p.

Rubber Age Visits a Giant Tire Plant.   Rubber Age, Volume 9,  Number 4,
     April 1966.  p 82.

Rubber Aids Plant Growth.  C/E News, Volume 50, Number 9, February  28,  1972.
     pp 57.

Rubber Chemicals Ride Retread Boom.   Chemical  Week, May 14,  1975.   pp  29-30.

Russia's Tire Industry - An Overview.   Rubber World, Volume  161,  Number 2,
     1969.  pp 57-63.

Sackett, G.  Quality Control in Retreading.   NTDRA Dealer News, Volume  31,
     Number 28, July 8, 1968.  pp 7, 10.

Saeke, Y.  and G. Suzuki.  Fluidized  Thermal  Cracking Process  for  Waste  Tires.
     Rubber Age, Volume 108, Number  2,  February 1976.   pp 33-40.

Sakagami,  J.  Foy Type Waste Tire Treatment Plant.  Kankyo Gijutsu,  Volume 4,
     Number 8, 1975.  pp 585-591.

Sanga, Y.   Method of and Apparatus for  Productin  Activated Charcoal  from
     Waste Tires.  U.  S. Patent 3,875-077 issued  April  1, 1975.

Samsom, R.  The Automobile as a Social  Machine.  Paper delivered  at  the
     International  Automotive Engineering Congress, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.  C., January 10,  1973.

Saul Ludwig Predicts 5.5% Car Tire Growth.   Rubber World, January 1976.  p 9.

Sawa, K.  Apparatus for Pulverizing  Vulcanized Rubber  and Rubber  Products.
     U. S. Patent 3,889,889, Kobe Steel  Limited,  Kobe,  Japan  issued  June
     17, 1975.

Schnecko,  H.  On Recycling Methods of Waste Tires.   Kautschuk und Gummi,
     Volume 27, Number 12, December  1974.   pp 526-534.

Schnecko,  H.  Ueber Verwertungs -  Moeflichkeiten  von AHreifen (Possible
     Utilization and Recovery of Used Tires).   Kautschuk und  Gummi -
     Kunststoffe, Volume 27, Number  12,  1974.   pp 526-530, 532, 534.
                                     65

-------
             Schultz, Mort.  Wear, Oh, Where Has My Tire Tread Gone?  Popular Mechanics,
                  March 1975.  pp 130-133.

             Scott, John A.  A Feasibility Study of Cold Process Retreading and Its
                  Adaptability to the Army Maintenance Program.  NTIS Report USAML-ITC-
                  2-73-21, March 1973.

             Scrap Recovery and Size Reduction Equipment.  PRT Polymer Age, Volume 3,
                  Number 3, March 1972,  pp 110-111.

             Scrap Tire.  Committee for Retrieval and Reuse of Wastes, Ministry of Inter-
                  national Trade and Industry,  Haikibutsu No Shigenka, September 15, 1974.
                  pp 80-88.

             Scrap Tires Eyed As Oil Source.  Purchasing, January 7, 1975.  p 18A.

             Scrap Tires May Help Pave Roads.  Engineering and Contract Record, Volume 88,
                  Number 3, March 1975.  p 3.

,„            Search, W., and T. Cturtnicek.  Disposal Techniques for Tires and Other
,?.'.''               Polymeric Materials.  Monsanto Research Corporation, 1515 Nicholas Road,
«:                 Box 8, Dayton, Ohio 45407.

>••-'          Sears, J.  Retreading and the 100,000 Mile Passenger Car Tire.  Rubber
->'               Manufacturers Association, Washington, D. C., April 2, 1975.

             Setright, L. F. K.  Automobile Tyres.  Chapman and Hall, London, 1972.
«•:•!'
"i            Sherman, I. A.  Collecting and Recovering Waste Rubber.  India Rubber World,
*-?i'               Number 6, April 15, 1892.  pp 201-202.

,;-.-            Single Stage Machines Build Radial Passenger, Truck Tires.  Rubber World,
";;;               Volume 163, Number 5, February 1971.  p 78.
mil  I

-------
Strongin, M. , and N.  Gorkina.   Methods of Increasing  Tyre Life.   Soviet Rubber
     Technology, Volume 31, Number 6, June 1972.   pp  42-43.

Strong Opposition to "Retreadable" Label.   Tire Review,  Volume 71,  Number  2,
     February 1971.  pp 40-41.

Study on the Retrieval  of Resources from Waste Tires  -  Present State  of
     Pyrolysis.   Kagaku Kojo,  Volume 19, Number 3,  March 1975.   pp  93-95.

Subramani, 0. P.  Particulate  Air Pollution from Automobile  Tire Tread  Wear.
     Ph.D. Thesis, University  of Cincinnati, May 1971.   188  p.

Szilard, J. A.  Reclaiming Rubber and Other Polymers.   Noyes Data Corporation,
     Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1973.

Taggart, R.  Shredded Tires as an Auxiliary Fuel.   Environmental  Aspects of
     Chemical Use in Rubber Processing Operations,  Conference Proceedings,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication  560/1-75-002,  July
     1975.  pp 361-370.

Taylor, I. M.  Chaos Among Curing Rates.  Modern Tire Dealer, Volume  50,
     Number 5, December 1968.   pi.

Taylor, I.  Improve Product Uniformity.   Modern Tire  Dealer, Volume 49,
     Number 10,  May 1968.  pp  R3, R5, R7.

Taylor, I.  Only the Slackers  Need Fear Retreading  Standards.   Modern Tire
     Dealer, Volume 51, Number 11, June 1970.   pp  1,  3,  5.

Taylor, I.  Retread Standard 117 Is Tough, But Not  Impossible.   Modern  Tire
     Dealer, Volume 52, Number 11, June 1971.  pp 1-3.

Teknekron, Inc.   Factors Influencing Product Durability.   Resource  Conserva-
     tion, Resource Recovery,  and Solid Waste Disposal,  U. S.  Senate
     Committee on Public Works, Serial Number 93-12,  U.  S. Government
     Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1973.

Thomsen, I. B.  People Hate to Buy Tires.   Tyres and  Accessories, Volume 23,
     Number 10,  April 1970.  pp 36-37, 39.

Tire Disposal.  Battelle Research Outlook, Volume  3,  Number  2, 1971.  p 37.

Tire Disposer Now Available.  Tire Review, Volume  73, Number 1,  January 1973.
     p 34.

Tire Makers File Suit as NHTSA Issues Standards for Grading  Tires.  Tire
     Review,  p 60.

Tire Mathematics Symposium.  Akron Rubber Group, Division of Rubber Chemistry,
     ACS, Spring 1971.
                                      67

-------
              Tire Pollution  Breakthrough.   Australian Plastics  and  Rubber,  Volume  24,
                   Number 2,  February 1973.   p  37.
              Tire Reefs Spawn New Fishing  Grounds.   Chemical  Week,  March  20,  1974.   p  31.
              Tire Research:   New Role for  Government.  Modern Tire  Dealer,  Volume  59,
                   Number 7,  February 1968.   pp 35-36.
              Tire Safety - and Value - On  the  Road.   Rubber Developments, Volume 18,
                   Number 4,  1965.   p 138.
              Tire Safety Gets a Heavier Tread.   Business  Week,  Number  2167, May 15,  1971.
                   p  124.
              Tire Sales Should Climb, But  Strike Threat Clouds  Outlook.   Industry  Week,
                   February 2, 1976.   p 44.
              Tire Treadwear  Test.   South Texas Tire  Test  Inc.,  Devine, Texas.
,'?!            Tire Treadwear  Validation. Hodges Transportation  Inc., N.  Plaza  Street,
fc:                 Carson City, Nevada 89701.
£;!,,           Tires.  Consumer Reports, Volume  26,  Number  8.  pp 472-477.
O;'
              Tires, A Review of Current Constructions,  Development, Performance.   Auto
                   Engineering, Volume 59,  Number 8,  July  1969.   pp  274-289.
?•"•••           Tires and Wheels.  Fleet Owner, June  1974.   pp 198-200.
a:
              Tires:  Bias-Ply and Belted-Bias.   Consumer  Reports, October 1974. pp 712-
                   715.
••>••,.'!
£;!!''•           Tires Pave Way  to Better Roads.   Purchasing,  January 21,  1975.   p 14.
              Tires - Scrap.   Akron Beacon  Journal, February 16, 1972.  p 4.
              Tires - Scrap.   Akron Beacon  Journal, September  16, 1973.
              Tires - Scrap.   Chemical Engineering, October 18,  1971.   p  76.
              Toles, G. E.  Firestone to Build  Tire Coking  Plant.  Rubber Journal,  Volume
                   152, Number 10, October  1970.  p 92.
              Tomihisaik.  On Recycling of  Rubber.  Raba Daijesuto,  Volume 26,  Number 11,
                   November 1974.  pp 2-13.
              Toyotate, K.  LNG Utilization for Low Temperature  Crusher - Waste Tire Rubber
                   Plastics.   Kogyo Zairyo,  Volume  23, Number  8, August 1975.  pp 68-72.
              Trend of American Business.  U. S. News & World  Report, January  5, 1976.  p  5.
                                                   68

-------
Truck Retread Process.  Modern Tire Dealer, Volume 53, Number 5, October 1971.
     P 4.

Truck Tire Symposium.  Rubber World, Volume 153, Number 6, March 1966.   p 71.

Truck Tires Through Punched Programmed Cards.   Kelly Springfield Tire Company,
     Rubber Age, Volume 99, Number 6, June 1967.  p 81.

Trusov, A. D.  Methods of Reducing Production  Costs in the Tire Industry.
     Kauchuk i Rezina, Number 1, January 1966.   p 42.

Tyre Pyrolysis Caused Reservoir Pollution.  Surveyor,  Volume 146, Number 4339,
     August 8, 1975.  p 3.

Tyre Technology - Pace Maker in the Building Trade.  Gummibereifung,  Volume
     44, Number 2, February 1968.   pp 26-32, 35.

U. S. Department of Transportation, Demonstration Project No.  39.  Recycling
     Asphalt Pavements.   Arlington Virginia.  Undated  flyer.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office  of Solid Waste Management
     Programs, Abraham,  D. G., Saunders, W.  B., and Woodall,  T.  G.   Industry-
     Commodity Analysis; Reclaimed Rubber Industry:  I In Transportation
     Rates and Costs for Selected  Virgin and Secondary Commodities.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.  C.   Brand, Benson G.
     Scrap Rubber Tire Utilization in Road Dressings.   1974.   44 p.

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste Management  Series  (SW-22c)
     Pettigrew.   Rubber  Reuse and  Solid Waste  Management.   1971.

Vershinin, U. S.  Determination of the Effective Use of the Production
     Potential of Tire Works.  Kauchuk i Rezina, Volume 25, Number  4,
     April 1966.  p 36.

Vostrokunto, V.   Statistical Method of Determining the Safe Service Life of
     Retreaded Tyres.  Soviet Rubber Technology, Volume 24, Number  2,
     February 1965.  p 36.

Vostroknutov, E. G.  Statistical Method of Predicting  the Mean Life of
     Retreaded Tyres.  Kauchuk i Rezina, Volume 25, Number 4,  July  1966.
     p 40.

Wagner, E. J.  Can Money Be Made In Retreading?  Tire  Review,   p 102.

Wagner, E.  Retreadonomics.  Retreaders Journal, Retreading Consultant
     Services Inc., Louisville, Kentucky, May  1975 and May 1976.

Wakabayaski, K., S. Tomita, S.  Hayakawa, and T. Ono.   Systems  Design  for a
     Waste Disposal Center.  Anzen Kogaku, Volume 14,  Number 3,  1975. pp 143-
     150.
                                     69

-------
Wake-field, R.  Tires, Tires, Tires, High Performance Tires.   Road and Track,
     Volume 21, Number 1, September 1969.   pp 61-76.

Warner, Stanley L.   Innovation and Research in the Automobile Tire and Tire
     Supporting Industries.   Ph.D. Thesis,  Harvard University, 1970.

Wassull,  K.  Sensitivity of  Underheating of Unvulcanised Tread Strips.
     Gummibereifung, Volume  42, Number 2,  February 1966.  p  72.

Waste Tire Use.  Goodyear Tire and Rubber  Company, September 25,  1970.

Waste Tyres - New Disposal Systems.  European Rubber Journal, December 1974.
     p 20.

Watson, Mike.  Retreads:  They Should Wear  Out, Not Blow Out.  Tire Review,
     Volume 72, Number 7, July 1972.   pp 88-90.

Watson, S. R., and R. V. Brown.  Case Studies in the Value of Decision
     Analysis.   National Technical Information Service Report TR-75-10,
     October 1975.

Way, George.  Prevention of  Reflective Cracking in Arizona Minnetanka -  East
     (A Case Study).  Arizona Department of Transportation,  Phoenix,  Arizona,
     1976.

Westerman, R.  The Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires.   Ph.D.  Thesis, The
     Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
     1974.

Winchester, G.  W.   Adjustment Records Show  How Failures Can  Be Reduced.
     Retreader's Journal, August 1967.   pp  3-11, 14-17.

Winchester, G.  W.   Change To Round Buffing  Cuts Out Many Failures In  Retread-
     ing.   Tire Battery Accessory News, Volume 25, Number 3,  1962.   pp 34-35,
     48.

Winchester, G.  W.   How Simple Changes In Retread Production  Reduced Failures
     From 10% To Less Than 1%.  Tire  Battery, Accessory News, Volume  23,
     Number 7, 1960.  pp 18-20, 45.

Winchester, G.  W.   How To Discover and Correct Causes Of Retread  Separation.
     Tire, Battery Accessory News, Volume  22, Number 10, 1960.  pp 30-32.

Winchester, G.  W.   New TBA News Research Shows Undercures Cause Many  Retread
     Failures.   Tire, Battery Accessory News, Volume 24, Number 8,  1961.
     pp 22-24, 42.

Winchester, G.  W.   Review of Current  Retread Problems.   Tire, Battery
     Accessory News, Volume  25, Number 8,  1962.  pp 18-19, 38.

Winchester, G.  W.   What Is Your Matrix Surface Temperature.   Retreader's
     Journal, May 1968.  pp  3-10.


                                      70

-------
Whitaker, H. R.  New Uses For Old Tires.   Science Digest, October 1974.
     pp 66-68.

Whittaker, M. P., and L. I. Grindstaff.   Production of Activated Carbon  From
     Rubber and a Carbonaceous Binder.   U.  S.  Patent 3,822,218 owned by  Great
     Lakes Carbon Corporation issued July 2, 1974.

Wolf, R. F.  What's The Angle?  Rubber  Age, Volume  99, Number  9, September
     1967.  p 59.

Wolf, Ralph.  Goodyear Shreds Scrap Tires For  Tire  Turf.   Rubber Age,  Volume
     104, Number 3, March 1972.   p 103.

Wolf, R.  What's New In Tires?  Not Very Much.   Rubber Age,  December 1967.
     pp 60-68.

Wolfson, D. E.  Destructive Distillation of Scrap Tires.   U. S.  Bureau of
     Mines, Washington, D. C., 1969.

Wolk, H.  Study of the Technical  and Economic  Feasibility of a Hydrogenation
     Process For Utilization of Waste Rubber.   U. S. Environmental  Protection
     Agency, 1973.  142 p.  (Hydrocarbon Research Incorporated,  Trenton,  New
     Jersey.)

Wolk, Ronald H., Michael C. Cherubnak,  Carmine A. Battista.  Hydrogenation of
     Waste Tires.  Rubber Age, June 1974.  pp  27-38.

Wood, W.  Methods of Minimizing Reflection  Cracking In Bituminous Overlays,
     Federal Highway Administration Notice  (Attachment) N5140.9, January  19,
     1976.

Yamashita, I., N. Yamamoto, and S. Mima.   Degradation of Scrap Rubber  By
     Microwave.  Bulletin of the Government Industrial Research  Institute
     24(2), June 1973.  pp 75-79.

Yamashita, S., N. Kawabata, M. Moriki,  and  T.  Fojii.  The Conversion of
     Vulcanized Rubber to Liquid Rubber.   Proceedings:  31st Fall  Meeting of
     the Chemical Society of Japan, October 1974.

Yashunskaya, F. T., and S. P. Potamoshnev.   A  Method For Comparing  Productiv-
     ity In The Tyre Industry.  Kaushuk i Rezina, Volume 24, Number 10,
     October 1965.  p 45.

Yoshizaki, J.   Incinerator For The Waste Tires.   Japanese Patent S40 50-
     25275, August 22, 1975.

Young, J.  Reclaim Process.  RAPRA Information Report Number 5879,
     September 1969.

Zeplichal, F.  Pyrolysis of Old Tires:   A Contribution To The  Problem Of
     Disposing of Scrap.  Rev. G. Caout.  Plast., Volume 50,  Number  3,  March
     1973, pp 163-165.

                                     71

-------
                 Zeplichal,  Franz.  Utilization of Waste Tire - A Contribution To The Problem
                      of  Waste Utilization.  Plaste Kautsch, Volume 22, Number 11, November
                      1975.   pp 873-877.

                 Zorowski, C. F., and E. A. Saibel.  Development of Mathematical  Models to
                      Describe the Wear Process in Viscoelastic Materials.  School of
                      Engineering, University of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina
                      27600.
tut-
                                                      72

-------
                                 APPENDIX A

                 BENEFITS AND COSTS: SYMBOLIC DEFINITIONS
     The scope of the factors which we investigated was identified in Table I.
The benefits and costs which were determined to exist from among these factors
are symbolically modeled  in this section.

PRODUCT VALUE AND DECREASED HASTE BENhFITS (Bn- B61)

     The product value and decreased wastes benefits are the sum, for each
alternative, of the values determined by (l) the product value models, and
(2) the decreased waste model which are discussed in separate sections below.

Product Value Benefits (PVj)
     The symbolic definitions used in calculating product value benefits are
displayed  in Table A-l.  Product values were defined to include:

            -Sales prices for shredded rubber, usable land,
             energy, and materials including carbon, oil,
             and steel
            -Incremental sales revenues or losses as compared
             to new 40000 mile tires with which retreads and
             100,000 mile tires compete
            -Salvage values for tire carcasses processed by
             Cryogenics, after retreaded or 100,000 mile
             service life is completed
            -Interest on funds gained or lost in the tradeoffs
             suggested by the waste reduction alternatives
            -Discounting


Decreased Waste Benefits (WAj)
     Each worn tire processed by a recovery method eliminates, forever,  the
administrative and processing costs that would have otherwise been necessary
should that tire have been disposed of by landfill.. The waste decreasing
methods avoid tire solid waste costs and, in addition,  can eliminate them at
a later date through resource recovery.  We measure only the portion of  the
costs avoided here.  The recovery methods avoid only processing and adminis-
trative costs while the waste decreasing methods eliminate a portion of  all
of the tire solid waste handling costs.  The models which we used to represent
are given  in Table A-2:
                                      73

-------
                                                 LIST A-l
                                  DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-l
                 C  =  cost per solid waste tire for processing by  Cryogenics
                 DC =  pounds of Carbon recoverable from one  solid  waste  tire  by Pyrolysis
                 DQ =  barrels of oil recoverable  from one  solid waste  tire  by Pyrolysis
                 DS =  tons of scrap steel obtainable from  one solid  waste tire by Pyrolysis
                 Hm =  additional materials needed for a 100,000 mile tire;  a  decimal  fraction
                 Id =  interest and discount rate  for business analysis
                 Na =  number of solid waste tires needed to  fill one acre of  landfill  to a
 3?':"-                   depth of six feet; calculated at 1 cubic foot  per  tire
 £?•
 ••«"./             P-, =  price per acre for land reclaimed by landfill
 O.
 c|yp             P  =  selling price per pound for recovered.  Carbon
 * * •'
 •""•''             P0 =  price per tire processed by Cryogenics and sold  in bags as granules
 Cii.              9
 !«"•'              PL. =  selling price for a 100,000 mile tire
 11:,:              h
   .,;             PO =  selling price per barrel for recovered oil
 ;**f-i;             P  =  selling price for a retreaded steel  belted radial  tire
 SL'iilh'
"""'•"             PS =  selling price per ton for scrap steel
                 Pt =  price per ton for coal
                 P* =  selling price for a new 40,000 mile  steel belted radial  tire
                 Rp =  proportion of a worn tire that is rubber
                 Uc =  BTU heat value per pound of coal
                 Ur =  BTU heat value per pound of worn tire  rubber
                 Wt =  average weight of a worn tire
                                                       74

-------
TABLE A-l:   PRODUCT VALUZS.   SYMBOLIC DEFINITIONS
        Road  Repairs: Product Value Model 1


             PV1 = pg - Cg + PSDS

     =  the  net profit from Cryogenics, plus the
       revenues from the steel recovered, per
       solid  waste tire

         Landfill: Product Value Model 2
                      pa
                                Na        261360

           =  the  sales  price  for reclaimed land in a landfill
             six  feet deep, per solid waste  tire

           Incineration/Energy: Product  Value Model 3


                       PV3 =   l r t p
                             2000 Uc

   PV3 = the  sales  value  of the BTU s of heat value produced by a
         solid  waste tire, valued at the price of coal

                   Pyrolysis: Product Value  Model 4

                    P\I «  = np  + n p  + n P
                    ™4   Vc + UOKO + USKS

\/4 = the sales  revenues from  recovered carbon, oil, and steel respectively

                  Retreading: Product Value  Models 5 & 5m


                   PV5  =   !r_Lj!y 4   pg" cg +^s°s



 P\/5 = the difference in  revenues between a  retreaded and  its new tire
       competitor,  plus the salvage value of the worn tire carcass after
       one retreading

 PV5m = the term  ".8P*"  is removed front the model according to this
        modified  definition.
                         75
                                                                          it
                                                                          It

-------
                Table A-l (continued)
PV6 =
100,000 Mile Tires:  Product Value Models 6 & 6m

     1                         1          1

                                 ",10 4
                               (l+Id)
                                                                              (1  <- HJ
                      - p*
            1 +
                                                                    ,16
 '***«'•
       ;pg-c,


         Y*
        2YC
                                     (Hid)

                                      Y*/2
                                           Y*
                                                                          16
                                                                    (Hid)      (HI)
                                                        20
o,,
       the discounted  sales  revenues  from two 100,000  mile  tires,  one  sold
       at present and  the other at the end of year ten,  plus  the discounted
       values  of two 100,000 mile tire carcasses  salvaged by  Cryogenics,
       minus  the discounted  values of the five current 40,000 mile tires
       replaced by the two 100,000 mile tires, minus the discounted  value of
       five 40,000 mile worn carcasses processed  by Cryogenics.  This  sum
       is multiplied by a fraction representing the ratio of  the planning
       period  of our study to the number of years included  in the  comparison
       of 100,000 and  40,000 tires 120 years above) to convert it  to a rate
       per four years.   Finally, the result of the calculations is  multiplied
       times a term which adds  in the average interest on the funds  gained
       or lost by this tradeoff each  four years.
                 PV6m  is  a  modified  definition  of PVg  in  which  includes  only  the  100,000
                       mile  tire  revenues  per  four years.
                                             2V,
                                                     76

-------
                     TABLE A-2.  1WSTE  DECREASING MODELS
              WAi = CL + KLCL              for  i = 1,2,3, and 4
                      pc                                           Y
              WAi = < -p + Ca + Cb + Cu + Ch + Cc + CL + KLCL)(l- -!-
                                           for  i = 5,6
                                   LIST A-2
                      DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-2
Cg = cost of grading a worn tire casing for possible reuse
Cj., = batch collection costs per solid waste tire
C
-------
                 CONSUMER COSTS AVOIDED
                                               62
                     The  road repairs, retreading, and 100,000 nnle tire alternative accrue
                benefits  to consumers in terms of avoided costs: incineration, landfill, and
                Pyrolysis do not exhibit these benefits.

                     Three symbolic definitions of road repairs costs avoided (by public road
                repair agencies) benefits, each representing an alternative average frequency
                of road repairs, are given in Table A-3.  List A-3 provides definitions of
                the symbols used in the Table.
                                  TABLE A-3.  CONSUMER COST AVOIDED MODELS
»*'!
                Where:
                                'xb

      = the road repair costs avoided per solid waste tire  processed  plus
        the interest on the funds available by this  avoidance;  both are
        measured over a four year time period

         (for a three year repair interval)

                           Rr
                                                            •c
                                       (l+Ig)3.33     (l+Ig)6.66
                    - (*c-CtraMl+Ig)   -1   Rcd+Ig)6'66 -1    Rc(HIg)3-33 -1
                    ~              y                                  b
          (1 + Ig)10            (1  + Ig)


Where: (for a five year repair interval)

                          	R_c	
  cspml    ( Rc " ctra ) + /  ,
                                                        10
                  S.
                   ipml
                                    ( 1
                                                  .5
                                             ia)10
                          I)10
                                                  I   )5
                                                  xg  '
In )10
                                                     78

-------
Table A-3 (continued)
where: (for a ten year repair interval)


                           Cspm2 = Rc " ctra


                             (Rc - Ctra) (1  H
                     Sipm2
                                   (  1 + Ig )10

And:                        Nb = WpPGAbN
                               LIST A-3
                  DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-3
AJJ   = the area, in square yards, of a 3733 square yard Phoenix,  Arizona,
       city block of road

Csp  = present value (S) of the road repairs avoided each ten years;  the
       subscripts, ml and m2, represent modified definitions 1  and 2

^tra = tire asphalt rubber road repair costs for one 3733 sq.yd.  city block

G    = the application rate, in gallons per souare yard,  for asphalt  rubber

Iq   = interest and discounting rate for federal funds

N    = the proportion of a solid waste tire that it takes to recover  one
       pound of tire rubber asphalt additive

Njj   = the number of solid waste tire carcasses used in repairing one 3733
       square yard city block

P    = the weight, in pounds per gallon, of tire asphalt rubber

RC   = the cost of conventional repairs to one city block of road

S.jp  = present value ($) of the interest earnable on Csp; the subscripts, ml
       and m2, represent modified definitions 1 and 2

Y*   = years of service life of a 40,000 mile tire

Y6   = years of service life of a 100,000 mile tire

Wp   = the proportion, by weight, of tire asphalt rubber which is worn
       tire rubber
                                     79

-------
     The waste decreasing strategies, at our best estimates of production
costs and sales prices, exhibit substantial benefits to consumers in terms
of the cost per year of tire services provided.  These consumer costs avoided
benefits were represented as the cost savings per four years achieved by
using retreaded or 100,000 mile tires in lieu of 40,000 mile tires.   These
benefits are modelled in Table A-4.


             TABLE A-4.   CONSUMER COSTS  AVOIDED BENEFITS  MODELS
                                           M*P,
                               552 = P*
                              '62
                                  = P* -
                                         (M5 -


                                          M*Ph
                                 LIST A'4
                   DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-4
P^ = the average retail price of a 40,000 mile steel belted radial  tire

P^ = the average retail orice of a 100,000 mile tire

P  = the average retail price of a retreaded steel belted radial tire
 I

\ = the average 1977 mileage of a new steel belted radial tire

Mg = the total mileage obtained by a retreaded steel belted radial  tire;
     this includes both original and retreaded mileage

^5 = the average mileage obtained by a 100,000 mile tire:  100,000 miles
CORPORATE PROFITS TAX TRANSFER BENEFITS (B31 - B36)

     In the event that any  of the alternatives studied earn profits, cor-
porate profits taxes would have to be paid.  These taxes represent a cost
to the tire businessman, but a berefit to society.  The tax funds may be
spent by governmental agencies for activities beneficial to society.  Cor-
porate profits tax benefits models as represented in this study  are given
in Table A-5.
                                     80

-------
              TABLE A-5.  CORPORATE PROFITS TAX BENEFIT MODELS
 Resource
 resource                         /                        \
 Recovery            Bi3 = P.T =   B^ - (C^ + Ci2 + C13)  T      i=l,...4
 Retreading          B53 = T (F5Pr - KrCt) - T (F* (.8P*) - EXL)
                                           i
100,000 Mile         B   = T (F p  _ £XAV)  Y* i  .  f(F*p* - EXAV)
Tires                                       Y
                                 LIST A-5
                    DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-5
Cj.   = retreading production  cost
EXAV = selling expenses for a 40,000 mile steel  belted radial  tire (average)
EXL  = selling expenses for a 40,000 mile steel  belted radial  tire;
       low estimate
F*   = tire dealer's gross profit rate on the selling price for a 40,000
       mile steel belted radial tire
Fr   = tire dealer's gross profit rate for a 40,000 mile retreaded tire
FS   = tire seller's gross profit rate on selling price for 100,000  mile tire
K    = decimal fraction representing administrative and marketing costs
       for a retreaded tire
P*   = sales price for a 40,000 mile new tire
Pj   = corporate profits for recovery alternative "i"
ph   = sales price for a new 100,000 mile tire
Pr   = sales price for a 40,000 mile retreaded tire
T    = the corporate profits tax rate
Y*   = service lifr of a 40,000 mile tire
Y,.   = service life for a 100,000 mile tire
                                     81

-------
               PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT/AESTHETICS BENEFITS (B14 -  B64)

                    Resource recovery, recycling, and source reduction are concepts  designed
               to maintain quality of the physical  environment.   When a worn tire  is litter-
               ed, dumped, or improperly landfilled, it results  in pollution and creates  a
               less desirable environment.   Resource recovery,  recycling,  and source reduc-
               tion avoid this land pollution.  The dollar value of maintaining Quality of
               the physical environment, avoiding land pollution, may be represented as being
               equivalent to the costs which would be necessary to properly dispose  of a
               tire; environmental quality can be measured!  We used landfill costs  as a
               surrogate for this purpose,  (see Table A-6 and List A-6) The use of landfill
               costs was a rather conservative choice, however,  since the  physical environ-
               ment, a shredded tire landfill, will never be truly natural.


                          TABLE  A-6.   QUALITY  OF  THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT  MODELS
Where
                                                                    c + CL + KLCL
                           equals the costs of storage, grading, batch collection,  haul,
                           handling, chopping, landfill operating costs, and landfill
                           administrative costs
                                    CS
.On-
                 Where E54  equals B]4 adjusted to be a rate per four years;   this  includes
                           both the original and retreaded life of the retreaded tire in  YS
                             '64
                    B14
                                            1 +
                            m'
                                                  (l+Ig)
                                                        10
                                                         2Y,
                 Where B,-4 equals the difference in tire solid wastes costs between five
                           conventional 40,000 mile tires and two 100,000 mile tires;
                           the difference is adjusted to be a rate per four years
                                                    82

-------
 p
                                  LIST A-6
                     DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-6
Bj4   = the benefits to improved (maintained) quality of the physical
        environment attributable to a solid waste tire recovery process;
        specifically, the benefit in road repairs is used-this is
        equivalent to the benefit in landfill, B24  , which could have been
        used in the formula instead
Ca    = the costs of grading a worn tire carcass for reuse
£5    = the batch collection costs per worn tire
Cc    = the costs  of chopping up (shredding) a solid waste tire
C^    = handling costs per solid waste tire
CL    = the landfill operating costs per solid waste tire
Cr    = the average monthly rental  cost for a tire dealer
Cu    = the haul costs per solid waste tire
Hm    = a decimal fraction representing the additional  materials needed for
        a 100,000 mile tire
Ig    = the discount/interest rate for governmental  funds
KL    = a low administrative and marketing cost factor  decimal  fraction
S     = the average proportion of a tire dealer's space used  tor storage of
        worn tire casings
V     = the average inventory of worn tire casings held by a tire dealer
Y*    = the average years of service life of a 40,000 mile steel  belted
        radial tire
Yg    = the total service life of a retreaded steel  belted radial  tire,
        including both the original life and the retreaded life,  in years
Y     = the service life , in years, of a 100,000 mile tire
                                     83

-------
                    It might  be noted that retreading and 100,000 mile tires accrue these
               benefits due to decreases in the solid waste generation rate; they may still
               be recovered at a later date to provide a full  set of  environmental benefits
               as do the recovery alternatives.  Since our study was  organized to compare
               the alternatives as if they were mutually exclusive, we did not model this
               effect.

               CONSERVATION BENEFITS (B15 - B65)

                    All  of the alternatives studied, except for landfill, conserve resources.
               The road repairs with tire asphalt rubber alternative  avoids the use of road
               repair materials; this effect was measured as a product value earlier.  Tire
               asphalt rubber, in addition, may be compared to an alternative process which
               is designed to accomplish the same end, avoiding road  repairs.  Heater Scar-
               ification with Petroset is a viable alternative to tire asphalt rubber, (see
               Appendix D) We determined the conservation benefit per tire for tire asphalt
               rubber with respect to this process.   This benefit (and other conservation
               benefits discussed below) is modelled in Table A-7 below.


?'''                           TABLE  A-7.   CONSERVATION OF MATERIALS  BENEFITS
f-f  :
•.  1+,CT    h£
                                                    84

-------
                                  LIST A-7

                    DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-7
Ce   = the cost per square yard for road repairs using heater scaritication
       with Petroset
Cf   = the average cost of h inch of asphalt concrete (ACFC) finishing coat
       in road repairs
Cs   = the average cost of one inch of asphalt concrete in road repairs

Dc   = the pounds of carbon obtainable from one solid waste tire using the
       Tosco Pyrolysis (Destructive Distillation) process
DQ   = the barrels of recovered oil obtainable from one solid waste tire
       using the Tosco Pyrolysis (Destructive Distillation) process
DS   = the tons of scrap steel obtainable from one solid waste tire using
       the Tosco Pyrolysis (Destructive Distillation) process
H    = the average production cost for a 100,000 mile steel belt radial tire
Ig   = the discount/interest rate for governmental  funds

Ns   = the number of whole tires used in one square yard of tire asphalt rubber
       road repairs
PC   = the selling price per pound for recovered carbon
P0   = the selling price per barrel for recovered oil

PS   = the selling price per ton for recovered steel
P-t   = the price per ton of coal
R*   = the average production cost for a 40,000 mile steel belted radial tire
P.p   = the proportion of a worn tire which is rubber

Sm   = the proportion of a tire manufacturer's average selling price per tire
       allocable to materials costs
S0   = the proportion of a tire manufacturer's average selling price per tire
       allocable to overhead
Uc   = the heat value, in British Thermal Units (BTUJ, obtainable from a
       pound of coal
Ur   = the heat value, in British Thermal Units (BTU), obtainable from  one
       pound of solid waste tire rubber
N£   = the average weight, in pounds, of a solid waste tire

Y*   = the years of service life of a 40,000 mile steel belted radial  tire

Yg   = the years of service life of a 100,000 mile steel belted radial tire

Y5   = the years of service life of a retreaded tire; including both the
       original equipment life and the retreaded life
                                      85

-------
or""
H* ]**''' J
                    Two alternatives, incineration with energy recovery and Pyrolysis,  also
               conserve resources.  Each tire incinerated to produce energy avoids the  need
               for using a comparable amount of primary fuel.  The formula for 835 of Table
               A-7 represents the value of this fuel conserved per solid waste tire.  The
               formula for 645  represents the value of the carbon, oil, and steel conserved
               by reusing carbon, oil, and steel from solid waste tires.  The conservation
               benefit of retreaded tires has been represented, in Table A-7, as the  savings
               in materials and associated overhead each four years.  The conservation  ben-
               efit for 100,000 mile tires is slightly more complicated.  We modelled this
               benefit as the discounted difference, per four years, between the materials
               used in five 40,000 mile steel belted radial tires and two 100,000 mile  tires,

               TIRE COLLECTION COSTS (Cn - Cei)

                    Solid waste tire collection costs were defined to include the six sep-
               arate costs indicated in Table A-8.

                    TABLE A-8.   INVENTORY,  HANDLING,  SHREDDING, AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS
crsp
Cil ' v
+ ca + cb <
h Cu + Ch + Cc
i = 1....4
p 1 -+P 4- r» 4- r 4-P -^P!
Lil ^ v La Lb ' Lu 4 uh Lc
v*
l'i]
i = 5,6

=<$'.                                            LIST A-8
O-!                              DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-8
IUU
               Ca  = the costs of grading a worn tire carcass for reuse
               Cb  = the costs of batch collection per worn tire
               Cc  = the costs of chopping up (shredding) a solid waste tire
               C^  = handling costs per worn tire
               Cr  = the average monthly rental cost for a tire dealer
               Cu  = the haul costs per solid waste tire
               Sp  = the average proportion of a tire dealer's space used for storage of
                     worn tire casings
               V   = the average inventory of worn tire casings held by a tire dealer
               Y*  = the average number of years of service life of a 40,000 mile steel
                     belted radial tire
               Yi  = the average number of years of service life for retreaded or 100,000
                     mile tires; 1=5 for total retreaded & OE life, i=6 for 100,000 mi.  tire
                                                     86

-------
     Collection costs are represented as the sum of: (l) inventory holding
costs associated with storage space rental, (2) grading costs of inspection
and classification,  (3) batch or micro-collection costs, (4) haul or
macro-collection costs, (5) handling costs for loading and unloading, and
(6) shredding or grinding costs.  The solid waste decreasing alternatives,
retreading and 100,000 mile tires, have their costs decreased by the ratio,
Y*/Y.j, since these decrease the quantities of solid wastes requiring collec-
tion each year.

PROCESSING COSTS (C12 - C62)

     The resource recovery processing costs for landfill, Pyrolysis, and
incineration were not symbolically modeled in this work, but rather were
input to our calculations as data.  The processing cost for road repairs
was represented as the cost per solid waste tire for materials and for the
application of tire  asphalt rubber.

      TAI3LE A-9.  RECOVERY, SOLID WASTE, AMD PRODUCTION PROCESSING COSTS.
                              '12
RrAb   ctra

 Nb  =  Nb
                              '52
C62=IH
i
•4
»«d)1U
-
R
1+1+1+1 + 1
(l+Id)MlHd)8 (Wd,12 (l+Id)16
] Y*(l
J
+Id)Y* Y*
2Y6 Y6
     The processing cost for retreading represents the cost  of  retreading  a
steel belted radial tire plus the cost of processing  the tire solid wastes
per tire retreaded that still remain each year.   The  processing cost  for
100,000 mile tires represents the difference (and interest on the  difference)
in original equipment production costs between two 100,000 mile tires  and  five
40,000 mile tires.  This difference has been discounted and  adjusted  to be a
rate per the lifetime of the tire which is used  as the reference for  our cost
and benefit measurements.   The solid waste tire  costs that remain  each year
with this waste decreasing alternative are then  added.

     Definitions of the symbols utilized in Table A-9 are given in List A-9.
                                      87

-------
                                                  LIST A-9
                                     DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-9

               Ab   = the area, in square yards, of a Phoenix Arizona city block: 560' X 60'
               Ct   = the cost of retreading a steel belted radial tire
               Ctra = the costs of tire asphalt rubber repairs to a 560' X 60' city block
               E    = the costs of collection, handling, processin, and disposal  tor a solid
                      waste tire
               H    = the average production cost for a 100, OOu mile steel belted radial  tire
               Id   = the discount/interest rate used to represent privately invested capital
               Nfc   = the number of solid waste tires needed for tire asphalt rubber repairs
                      to a city block 560' X 60'
               R    = the average production cost for a 40,000 mile steel  belted radial  tire
               Rr   = the cost per square yard for materials and application of tire asphaly
                      rubber
               Y*   = the years of service life of a 40,000 mile steel belted radial tire
               Y5   = the years of service life of a retreaded tire including tne original
                      equipment and retreaded lives
               Yp   = the years of service life of a 100,000 mile tire
'"f;-;;-            ADMINISTRATION AND MARKETING COSTS (Ci3 - C63)

V"'
'•"•"•                  Administrative and marketing costs, listed in Table A-10, were estimated
 t              as a percent of the processing costs.   Administrative and marketing costs for
-jjj^             100,000 mile tires were negative; these were, in actuality, benefits in terms
^jT'"             of decreased costs.  100,000 mile tires decrease production, administration,
jjjj             and marketing throughput volume;  fewer salesmen and administrators are needed
                with this alternative.

                            TABLE A-10.  ADMINISTRATION AND MARKETING COSTS MODELS
                                          ^i3  = ^i^!2                   i  = 1>•••»6
                                                  LIST A-10
                                     DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-10


                       the processing costs for recovery, recycling, and 100,000 mile tires
                       administrative and marketing costs expressed as a decimal  fraction
                                                     88

-------
OPPORTUNITY COSTS: JOB GAINS AND LOSSES

     This cost category was developed as a focus for discussion of the
emotion packed costs and benefits associated with job losses  and shifts  and
with the creation of new jobs.  The production of 100,000 mile tires  will,
over a period of time, decrease the number of jobs in the tire industry;   in
the  short run 100,000 mile tires increase employment.   Retreaded tires  can
be substitutes for new tires.  Increased retreading creates new retreading
jobs, but decreases employment in the new tire production sector by a
commensurate amount.  Resource recovery, on the other hand, creates jobs.   If
the sole  criterion for selection of a solid waste tire management strategy
were the affects on employment then retreading and resource recovery  seem
to be especially attractive.

     How can the value of a job be measured?  If there  is an  appropriate way,
it would be as follows.  The importance of jobs is to the people who  would,
or do, hold the job.  The measure of job value is the salary  or wages paid
for that job.  Consequently, job gain benefits might be measured as the  value
of the increase in labor costs associated with an alternative.   Job costs
might be measured as the value of the labor wages and salaries lost as a
result of implementation of one of the alternatives.

     Symbolic models for job loss costs and job gains benefits (negative job
loss costs) are given in Table A-ll.

                   TABLE A-ll.  JOB GAINS AMD LOSSES MODELS
                         Ci5 = "°LBii                   1-  =  i

                         C55 = SL (.8R)  - SrCt           i  =  5


                         C65 = ((SL + HL)  H -  2.5
     The job cost/benefit for retreading is  modeled  as  tne difference between
the labor value for a cheap new tire,  the cheap  new  tire  being  priced at
eighty percent of the cost of production of  a  new  tire,   and  the  labor value
for production of a retreaded tire.

     The job cost/benefit for 100,000  mile tires is  represented as  the
difference between the labor value of  one 100,000  mile  tire and 2.5 steel
belted radial 40,000 mile tires;  this  difference has been adjusted  to be a
rate per the lifetime of the reference tire.
                                      89

-------
                                                   LIST A-ll

                                      DEFINITIONS TO ACCOMPANY TABLE A-ll
  t-                    labor
'*!-" ': '.'.
                B,i  = the value of the product(s) produced by recovery, recyclina by retread-
                  '     ing, and 100,000 mile tires

                Cj.   = the cost of retreading a steel belted radial tire

                H    = the average production cost for a  100,000 mile tire

                Hi   = a decimal fraction representing the increased labor needed for a
                       100,000 mile tire

                OL   = the decimal fraction of resource recovery products value attributable
                       to labor
                R    = the average production cost for a  40,000 mile steel belted radial tire

                SL   = the proportion of a tire manufacturer's average selling price, per
                       tire, allocable to labor costs

                S    = the fraction of a retreaded tires  production cost attributable to
                                                      90

-------
                           APPENDIX B
                       THE TIREC PROGRAM

     Tirec I is a program developed in 1973 as part of the au-
thor's doctoral dissertation.  Tirec I calculated the costs,
benefits, and values ofr eight tire resource recovery alterna-
tives; it conducted optimality and linear programming analyses
in addition.

     Tirec I was modified for this research to represent improved
cost and benefit definitions and alternative optimality analyses.
The program, Tirec II, is documented only by comments, (1) in the
program itself, and (2) in this report.  Tirec II allows for
eight alternatives and yet studies only six alternatives.  The
alternatives studied are numbered differently in Tirec II than
they are in this report.  The alternative numbers used may be
identified in Table B-l.
            TABLE B-l.  TIREC ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFICATION
Alternative
Alternative number
                      Tirec ITirec II

Incineration             1           1
Tire asphalt rubber      2           2
Roadbase aggregate       3        not used
Landfill                 4           4
Destructive  dist.         5           5
Retreading               6           6
38,000 mile  tires        7        not used
100,000 mile tires       8           8
                  This Report

                       3
                       1
                   not studied
                       2
                       4
                       5
                   not used
                       6
     The costs and benefits of the unused alternatives 3 and 7
of Tirec II were set equal to zero.  No linear programming
analysis was carried out in the Tirec II analysis although the
storage spaces of Tirec I were left declared in the program in
order that the linear programming subroutine could be emplaced
as desired.
                                91

-------
                  The  calculation  of  SBV^  values  is  not  carried  out  automa-
             tically by  Tirec  II;   all  other  calculations are  made  by the
             program.

                  Tirec  II  is  a  working  program  specifically designed for
             tires research.   It is not  a general  cost/benefit program.
             Tirec II  is  not designed to be efficient in  terms of computer
             time  used yet  it  requires  only about  six minutes  total processing
             time  on a IBM  370-148 computer using  the PL1 optimizing  compiler.
             The printing time (for about 100 pages)  is additional.
at.....
U!
                                            92

-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILES
                 SQLRCE  LISTING
STMT
       )/* TIRES  B'EHmT/COST  PROCESS INCTT1" OPTIMIZATION ftNAIYSrS"~PTTOGR4H  *f
   \   |TT?EC:  PROCEDURE  OPTIONS (MAIN);
   2   |D:L  C%NI  FIXED BINARY;
       I                                         "  	
       I
  ___	I

       I
       I	           	
   3   1 M="4;~N= 5;   '         """              	             ~
   5   I DISSERT:  BEGIN;
   6   IDCL  (F,I,J,K,L,P,R,S,T,V)  FIXED BINARY INIT (0)5	
  ~7   IDCL  D'FTXED  DEC  19,275"
   8   IDCL  A(MH ,0: M + V)  FIXED  D2C (15,3);  .
   9   IDCL  C(0:N+y) FIXED  DEC  (15,3)  INITIAL (d+N+M) 0);
  "10	IDCl^RATT^TTHFTArTIXED DEC ( I5,'3)~ IMTI AL (0) '5	
  11   IDCL  Bd)  FIXEC  BINARY;
  12   IDCL  BENEFITS  (8,5)  FIXEC DEC (15,3);
  13"  |DCL~rOSTS(8,9T  FIXED  DzC ( 15, 31T	
  14   IDCL  AV_D£AL5ftS_MnNTHLY_RENTAL  FIXED DEC (10,2)5
  15   IDCL  GRADING  COSTS FIXED CEC (10,2»;
  ~16"~ IDCC~BATCH_COL"LFC7T'ON_COSTS FIXED DEC~UO,21 ;
  17   IDCL  WORN_TIRE_STORiGE_PROPCRTION FIXED DEC (10,2)5
  18   IDCL  (HAUL.COSTS,HANDLING_COSTS) FIXED DEC  (10,2);
  "19"~"|DCl~TG3!NJDTNG_CaSTS,CHOPPING_COSTS) FIXED DEC 110,21'*"
  20   IDCL  WASTt_P°OPORTICN(N)  FIXED  DcC  (10,21;
  21   IDCL  TIRE_YEARS_LIFE(N)  FIXED DEC (10,2);
  "22~"1DCU~MILEtGSlUSr_DER_YEAR FIXED DEC (10,21;
  23   IDCL  TOTAL  MIL EAr,E_PER_^ IP E( N )  FIXED DEC (10,2>;
  24   IOCL  BELT-D_eiAS_PPCD_COST  FIXED DEC (10,2);
  25'" IDCL  CQSriTNCHX  FIXE5  DEC (10,2);           '	"'
  26   IOCL  DISCOUNT_RATE FIXED DEC (10,2);
  27   IOCL  ON?_HUNC_VI_TIRc_PROD_CCST FIXED  DEC (10,2);	
  ~28~~TDCU~MATERr4i;Sl'PP.OPORTION FTXED"DEC" (T0,2) ;
  29   IDCL  ADMIN  MKTG_COST_FACTOR_LOW FIXED  DEC uo,2);
  30   IDCL  AOMU'_MKTG_COST_FACTOR HIGH FIXED DEC  (10,2);
  31  " IDCL'"AO*IN_MKTG_CaST_FACTOR_PETREADS FIXED DEC (10,2);
  32   IOCL  #0"IK  MKT_Cnsr_'=ACTCR_lOOOOO_MI FIXED OEC (10,21;
  33   IDCL  TIRt_v.lL = AGE_PRICE  60U IVALCNT( fJ I  FIXED DEC JIO,2>!
  "34—nCL~AV-3F/OOOI^lLE^TTP.E_PRICE"FIXcD DEC" (10,'2);	
  35   IDCL  AV_IOOOOO  MILE  TIRE.PRICE  FIXED DEC (io,2>;
  36   IDCL  INTERNAL COS'SINI  FIXED DEC (10,2);
  37   1DCL'COAL1PRICE_P'F-1TON  FIXED DEC (10,2);           	
  38   IOCL  POUNDS PHP_wASTS_TIRE  FIXED DEC (10,2»;
  39   IDCL  LAND_PRICE_P£P._AC*E FIXED   (10,2);
  "40—IDCC~DESTT?ucrrvEiDrsT  PRPOUCTS_PRICE FIXED DECTiOTrrr
                                        93

-------
                      OPTIMIZING COMPILER
                     STMT
OU
                      "41   IDCL INfEF~NAL_VALUE(.N) FIXED OtC" ( 10, 2 ) ;'"
                       42   IDCL AV_RErRSAC_Tie£_P=UCE FIX:D  (10,2);
                       43   IDCL T1R5_CARCASS_VALUE_PROPORTIQN  FIXED  DEC  110,2);
                       44 —|DCL"50CrAL_VALUES(!J) FIXE3 "DeC~"( 1DV2) ;	 	
                       45   IDCL VAL_LIMIT<*1 FIXED DEC  (10,2);
                       46   IDCL HOLD FIXED 3:C (15,3);
                      "47 ~TOCL"-Ou£NT' FIxIO Q'C  (15,3);	 ""	"~~
 48
 49_

 51
 52
'53  '

 55
"56"
 57
 58
 59
 60
 61
 62
 63
 64
 65
 66
 67
'68
 69
 70
 71
 72
 73

 75
 76
 77
 78
 79
 80
 81
 82
 83
 84
 85
 86
 87
 88
 89
 IDCL
 IDCL
 |DCL"
 IDCL
 IOCL
~|DCr
 IDCL
 IDCL
                                WASTF_DFCReaS;_PT_PER_YEAR(NI  FIXED D6C  (10,2);
                                ENVR_OUALITY_COSTS FIXED DEC  (10,2);
                                CO"P_PRCP1T1TAX_RATE  FIXED  DEC (15,31  INIT (OIT
                                TAXHOLO FIXED PEC (15,2);
                                FIG FIXED DEC (10,21;
                               ~CHir-F IXECT" DcC'l 10,2 1 ; ----------- ~
                                RADIAL_38S_PROO_COST  FIXED  DEC (10,2);
                                S€T(N( FIXED DEC  (10,21;
IDCL  HEADING CHAR uoo) INITIAL ('BEST VALUE  coeFFiciENT  ESTIMATES*!;
     t>A"4M_CHAp (ioo) VARYING;                  __        _
    "PARA'^VAT"FTX5D DEC '
-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILER
STMf "
  90  TOOL GA FIXED  C?C~~(TO , 2 »
  91  lOCL AB FIXED  C?C  (10,2)
  92  IOCL NT PIX: O  DSC  (10,2)
  94  IOCL CSP FIXrO D£C (10,2
  95  IDCL RC FIXED CEC (10,21
  96  rDCL~CTfnrrrXTD- CEC"'(10,
  97  IDCL N6 FIXED CEC <10,2)
  98  IDCL CE FIX5D Dt-C (10,21
  99	1 DCL~'CS~F1X'ED~C;C-T10,2T
 100  IDCL CF FIXED DEC (10,2)
 101  IDCL NS FIXEO DEC 110,2)
                                r
 103
 104
 105
 106
 107
'108
 109
 110
 111
 112
 1 13
      IDCL CRYOG6NICS_COST  FIX  D DEC (6,2);
      l!XL PP.C FIXED  CEC  (6,2) _ ^^^
      1 DC L~TT"F I Xh D CEC ~T6~,"2r;
      IDCL RAMFLEX_PRICE  F I XtO  DEC (10,2);
      :D:L PC-CPROC FIXEC  SINAPY;
     -TDCL~aV-BELTET_TTtS_TTRFIPRTCE FIXED-DEC"? 10.-21;" ----
      IDCL RET_0°P COST TO .MANUFACTURERS FIXED DEC (10,2);
      IOCL AOMIN.MKTG COST_FACTOR_38000_MI FIXED DcC (10,2);
     "IDCL" PL~*NT_:SIZE_TPD FIXED DEC  (10,2)'; --------- ----------
      IDCL CAPITAL_PTPC_CONVERSION_COSTS FIXED DEC (10,2);
      | DCL J IT 1 S V ( N I F I X6D DEC £1^5 ,3)J __________ __

      I
      I/*  PASIC ANALYSIS USING BEST DATA ESTIMATES  */
      T
      I
      |L=1
       IPUT EOITC6EST  DATA  ESTI MATES ' ) ( PAGEtSKIPC 5), A );
       (PUT eDIT(»CATA')(SKIP(3»,A);
 115
 116
 117
 us  IHEADING = '°.ASIC ANALYSIS'
 H9  ICALL VALUES;
                      ANALYSES   */
                    •TF  VAklL1US'PT3CODNT'RATES~*T '

       WOP.M1) =  DISCOUNT_RATE;
 120
 121
 122
 123  IHEADING = «oiscojt4T/iNTEResT  RATE  EFFECTS  ANALYSIS*;
 124  |PAFAM = 'DISCOUNT RAT£«;                         	
                   rT -.13-"BY -.DZ;	
                                        95

-------
                   OPTIMIZING COMPILER
                  STMT
                  "126" I"   ni'SC'CUNOATH  =  C;
                   127  I    PARAMV4L  =  DISCCUNT_RATE;
                   128  I	ID = DISCnUNT_R4TS_f .12;     	
                   129  I    CALr~VATUES;          """  ~
                   130  I END;
                   131  101SCOUNT_RAT=  = HQPMll;	
                  "1/2~TID = WCRK72J';
                        I
                  	I		
                        1
                        I/* ANALYSIS  OF VARIOUS PRICES FOR  100000  MILE TIRES  */
                   133  |L= 3;
,   ..,               135  [ HEADING^ ANALYSIS  OF VARIOUS PRICES FOR  100000 MILE TIRES';
'*'"„,               136 _ I °ARAM= •AV_100000_MILE_TIRE_PRICE ' ;'	
|f;':»                137 ""JDO~0"="T50Vl?5ni5,110f 105 f88V37.02";"
..•^'                138  I  AV_100000_"ILE_TIRE_PRICE = 0;
!'".;!•>.•               139 _|  f>ARAMVAL = AV_J.O^pOa_MILE_TJRb_PRICE ;_	
.tii	               140" ! "CALL'VA'LUSS;    "    	     '   "	"   " "
'fa""^               141  |END;
I,,!';;-               142  I ftV_100000_MILE_TIRE_PPl C£ = KORKt I >;	


x-                     !
,«,-•>	|/* •ANALYriS~OF"100000 'MRE" TIKE  PkODUCTICN COSTS +7
                        IL - 5;
                                  =  ONc_HUND_MI_TIRE_PROD_COST;
                                                                                    _
 |                 145  "I HriOING~="~1ANfiLYSI$"DF~lCOOOO"MILE' TIRE" PRODUCT ION"COSTS«1
  „                146   |P4?AM  =  • Cr.e_HUND_MI_TI RE_P«CD_CCST' ;
:$!„                147   103 D =  I0,_20j  _
•j.                  148   I" OMHlHU^D"MI_"tI RE_P'R3C_COST "= OKElHUND_MI_TI R ElPROD_CO"S"T"+ D;
 "                 149  I  PftRAMVAL  =  CNE_HUND_MI_TIRE_PROD_COST;
                   150  I  CtLL VALUSSJ
                   151
                   152  IONF HUND  MI_TIRE_"ROD_COST = WORK ( 1 ) ;
                        I
                        I
                        l/» DEFi.Ninn-g  OF  100000 HILE TIPE  PRODUCT  VALUE BENEFITS SIMILAR TO
                    ...... |RcTREADiNGS"DfcF INITION OF TOTAL ' PROOUCT  VALUEi  NOT INCREMENTAL"*/ .......
                   153  IL = 6;
                   154  |HEADIMG_=  ' ALT? S_NAJI VE PENEF ITS< 8 , 1 )  DEFINITION';       _
                   155  ICALL" VALUE'S"; ..... "" ..... " ..... ........ "" ............... " .....
                        I
                        I
                    " """ I  "  ""  '"  ~ " ""  "~ ......      ""  ' ...... ""  ..... """" ........       .....
                        I/* INVESTIGATION  OF VARIOUS  ROAD  REPAIR  FREQUENCIES */
                   156  IL « 7;
                   157  "IHFAO'ING  ="»"FI V£ "Y EAR" INTERVAL "8E TWEEN CONV.  ROAD REPA IRS' ;
r
                                                          96

-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILER
 158  [CALL VATUSS";   '  ""	          """  "  -- —-		 --		I
 159  |L = 8;                                                                   |
 160  IHEADING = «TEN YEAR INTERVAL  BETWEEN CCNV. ROAD  REPAIRS*;                I
"lfcr~ICALL~VATOSr;     	" 	~						T
      I
      I	

      I/* ANAL/SIS OF ALTERNATIVE COSTS FOR ROAO REPAIRS */
 162  |L = 3;
~"163~~TWCKKI1) .= RC;	
 164  |HEADING = 'ANALYSIS OF  ALTERNATIVES  FOR  CONV.  ROAD REPAIR  COSTS';
 165  (PAR AM = «RC»;
 166  1DO D'v-800076~366T		
 167  |  RC = D;
 168  I  PARAMVAL = RC;	
"169r~CftLT V4LU5S;	
 170  IcND;
 171  IRC •= WORK(l);
      I
      I
      I I* ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS RETREADED TIRE  PRICES  */
 172  {L~ = "91              ~
 173  |WOPK(i)=AV_tlETREAO_TIRE_PRICfc;
 174  IHEOING = "ANALYSIS OF RFTRSAD'ED TIRE  PRICES';
~175""|PARAM = '^gTRFAD TIRF'PRICE'";          '  	 ~
 176  |DO D =  27,37,47,57;
 177  |  AV RETRFiO_TI«?E PRICE = D;
"178	T'PAPAMVAL" =""AV;RFTREAD_TIRE_PRICE ;			
 179  |  CALL VALUES;
 180  jcNDj
 18 I—I AV R'ETRF;A-rrTITElTJRrCE~=' WORKTTT;	
      I
 	I	                                     	
      i                                             	~	~	             	r"
      I/* ANALYSIS OF FHUR INDEPENDENT DATA CHANGES  */
 182  |L - 3;     		
'183fWCRKTTT = "C;T
 184  |WO?K(2) = LAND_PRICE_PER_ACRE;
 185  |WORK(3) = CCAL_PRICE_PfcR_TON;
'186  IWHRKI 4)'~=' BELT;D_PI A^_P^OD_CO?T;  "	
 187  I HEADING = 'FOUR T^drPENDENT DATA CHANGES';
 188  IPARAP = 'pRicf.OF P.ecrvEREO CARBON*;	
"189  PT = .01;
 190
 191
 1S2'"T CnAL_PRICH_?FR_TON"= 25;'
 193
 154
        LAND_PRI CE_DeR_-ACPE * 1COO;
        BSLTEO_SIAS_PK-CD_COST = 18;
        PAPAMVAL = PC;
        CALL VALUES;
 TS^—PC'W'JKMI 1}
                                       97

-------
                  OPTIMIZING  COMPILER
                 STMT
                  196
                  157
                  198
TLAMO_P(MCE_P=R_4CRE = WCRM2);
 ICOAL  PR ICS_PSR_TON = WORK(31;
 I5ELTED_3I»S_OROD_CCST = WORM4);
                        I
                  199
                  200
                  202
                  203
                  "204
                  205
                  206
 I/* ANALYSTS OF VAnOTS~~SERV7CrTTWS""FOTT"TIRES"*7	
 |L=6;
 |WORK(1)_=  nTAL_MILEAGE_PER_TIRE(8) ;	      	
 IwOffkf 21  ^~~AVrrOOOOO_m E_TIRE_PR"ICE;
 |WORK<3»=TOTAL_«ILEAGt_PER_TIREC6> ;
 IHEAOING  =  'ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS  SERVICE  LIVES FOR TIRES';
•IPAQ"A"M v « DESIGN" SERVICE LIFE';
 IDO P  *  500CCt75000,125000t!50000f200000;
 |TOTAL_MIL;AOF_PER_TIRc(8) = D:
                                                     "AV~3"!TO"OCC^imTIR"ELPini:S~*"Tr7"TDTACIMrLEAG
"•'I
sir f
 2C8
'209~
 210
 211
'212
 213
 214
                   215
                  "216"
                   217
                   218
                  "219
                   220
                   221
                   222
                   223
                   224
                   225
                   226
                   227"
                   228
                   229
                   230"
                          __
                        I TOTAL.MR EAGE P£R_TIRC(6) =.25>D;
                       TPA R A^V A'r"^~T3TA!^M Il'EAGE_PER_T   '
                        ICiLl  VALUES;
                     IR'FOr '= HD(i'KVlT
 I mtL.MILEACE.PEPjriREt 6)=WORK(3) ;
 |AV_100000_MIL£_TI R.£_PRI CE=WORK( 2);
 I/*  ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF APPLICATION OF ASPHALT RUBBER
 I WORM 1)  = "SIC;               	
"1 HEADING  = •tNALY'S'IS" OF" RRC"«T
 IPARAM =  «RQAD REPAIR COST*;
 100  D = .50,.75,l,00,l-5C,2.00t2.32;
    RRC '="[<";
    PARAMVAL = RRC;
    CALL  VALUES;
  "EN D";
  RRC =  WORM n;
  /* ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS REFERENCE TIRE PRICES */
  WOPKt rr=AV_-38000rMlLc_T IRE_PR ICE;          	
 |WO»K(2)=TOTAL MILEAGE.PER  tlRtl7);
 |TOTAL_«ILEA3S »S»._T1R E( 7 j =36000";
    """ MILEAGE-36000';"            "
                        DECREASE  '    M
-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILER
STKT
"231   r'A
 232   ICALL VALUES;
 233   I END;
 234-"TAV_38ffOO'_mF_TIRE_PRICE=65.50;'-
 235   ITOTAL_MK=AGE  PER.TI^FJTI=40000;
       I
            __       _             __
 235  IVAVDES:  PROCEDURE";
      I/* A PROCEDURE  WHICH  COLLATES,  CALCULATES! AND INTEGRATES MINE
      I   CATEGORIES OF  COSTS  AND FIVE CATEGORIES OF BENEFITS IN CONVENTIONAL
--- 7" ..... "A NO" SCC 111" COST' BENEFIT ANALYSES FOP. WORN PASSENGER' C4R TIRE" .....
      i   MANAGEMENT,,  THIS  PROCEDUREt STATEMENTS 205 TO 380, PROCESSESES  ALL
      I   QF THE CALCULATIONS  DOCUMENTED IN THE DISSERTATION.  */
       I
       I/*  INITIALIZATIONS    *•/

 237   (DO J=l TO  5;
 238   |   3ENPFITS(*tJI=0;
' 23 «J — FEND! - :
 240   100 I *  1 TO  N;
     I   DO J
242
                 1  TO  5,7  TO  9;
                 T5U,J» s OT~
 243  I  fcND;
 244  | FQkM: END;
"245 - rT&XHDrD=ai  /*  T FnS~TS~TO~SVDTD~^IUMERTC'Ar~ERRORS~TN~CTgr91 LAIbK
 246  ICOSTS(7,6I,COSTS(8,6»=0;
 247  |COSTS«2t6) , COSTS! 6,6 ), COSTS (8 ,6»-0 ;
       I
       I
                                                                     CHAR.  */
 248   100  I =  1  TO  N;
 249 "1  TTRFIYrARSItIF:?rn=TOTAt_MILEAGE_PER_TIRE(I)/MILEAGE_USEjPER_YHART-
 250   IENO;
 251   IDO  1=  1 TO' N;
 252 - fWirTTZP
 253
 254
 255"  IDO
 256   I  WASTE DECREASE PT_P.ER_YEA^( I 1 = 1 - WASTE_PROPORT ION( I):
 257   I END;    _   _      __
                                        99

-------
                    OPTIMIZING COMPILE*
                   STMT
                   ~2'60   TEND";
                          I/* CALCULATION CF  PRICES FOR RETREADSi NEW  tONVENTION AL ,  &  100000 MILE
                          (TIKES.  100000  MILE TIPc CALCULATION INCLUDES  DISCOUNTING. R=TREAO PRIC:
                          ISHnUUTOTSCCUVrTnCTBUT DOESNT"*/ --------------------- --------------------------- ' "
                          I
                          I __
                          I DO" 1=1  TO  N;               '     '   "                                ""•  "
                          lTnE_"MLEAGS_PRlCE_EOUlVALSNT=tTIRE_YEARS_LIFE(I) )*( AV_38000_"ULE_TIRE_
                             CE/TIR£_Y6ARS_LIFE(1 ) ) ;
                                                                               r
                          |WQRK<7)=1  + 1/IHOISCOUNT_RAT£)**4 *!/( 1+0 ISCOUNT_RATE1 *«8
                          I  l/tl+DISCOUNT RATEI**12 *!/ { 1+01 SCOUNT_R AT E>** 16;
                          rwoexr9'j'^"~r>~iyrr*TD)**4"+' T/n+io)**e  * i/(i+iDi**i2~  ~
                    263   |WORK(8I  =  AV 33000_MILE_T IRE_PRICE * WORM9);
                          (TIF.E_HlLEAG£_PPICg_5QUIVAL6NT(8) = WORK(8»/(l *  l/( 1 + IO)**T IRE_YEARS_L
                            '                                                               "" .....
                          I/*  CALCULATION OF TIRt PRODUCTION COSTS */
                     2t5   |RACIAL_38S_PPCO_COST =( BSLTED^BI AS_PROD_COST *  ( 1*-COST_INDEX
                          I si  *  . m ;
                     266""|HM'=" lCT*on~+"TO'3-DD)' *~(CW*DS *DH*0'I )';
                          I/*  HM IS  ADDITIONAL MAT5RIAL NEEDED FOR A  100000  MILE  TIRE  */
                     267   llp  L  -.=  5  THEN
   ,,                      MATERIALS  ORQPORTICN * HM + SL * HL +  so *  HO);
<*'».                	I	
                          I/*   PRINT  INTERMEDIATE CALCULATION RESULTS   */
                          i  __
266  IDT;
269 _ lPUTjE_DIT_(SKIP,X(15»,A,A,F(15,3)>; _
272 ~lDO 'T"^"l TON;            ™             .......    ~'
273  IPUT EDIT! 'TVLC.It ' ) =' t TIRE_YEARS_L IFEI I) ) ( SKIP« II , A,F ( 1 1 , A, F< 6,2>) ;
                    '275   lOD"!  =  I  TO N;        '                    '•'".                           1
                     276   |PUT  £DIT<»WASTR "PROPORTION (Sit1) -• i WASTE_PROPORTI3N( I) ) ( SK IP( 1), A,
                          I          Fill ,A,F(6,2)I ;
                    '277 '  I'tN'O;                  	                 ' ~
                     278   Inn  i  =  i  TO N;
                     279   |  PUT F.DIT('WASTE DE.CPSASE PER TIR'E PER VEAR  < S 11'_)" S WASTE_OECR EASE.P I
                                        }(SKlP'VAiFIl),A.,F{6,2));    "  	      '          "            I
                                                                                                   T
                                                           100

-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILER


S T MT
 28d  TEND;               ""     "    	"	 "       "                  '
 281  IDO I = 1 TO N;
 282	I PUT EOITCTMPE1 ',!,«) =«,TIRE  MILEAGE_PRICE_EQUI VALENT( 11)
      I"       ~TSKlPm,A,F(l),A,F<6,2n;	   	~  	
 283  ICND;
 28*  IPUT EOIT('RADIAL_38S_PRCO_CQST=  ',RADIAL_38S PRCD_COSTI(SKIP,A,F(5,2) »;
"285  ("PUT EDTTPYOCrMTLTTIRE  PRODUCTION  COST=«,ONE_HUND  MI  TIRE  PROD  COST)
      I           (SKIP(1),A,F(6,2));
 286  IPUT EDITJ 'AV_IOOGOO_MILE_TIRE  PRICE =  ',AV_100000 MILS_TIRE_PRIC6)
      I	rsxrp-,-zr;FT6-,2TJ;	
 287  IPUT EOITCHM  =  • , HK M SKI P (1), At F (6 ,2 I I ;
 288  IEND;	
      I
      I
      I/* TIRES COST/BENEFIT CALCULATIONS   */
      I
      I
 289  ICONTIN:
      i
      I
 	I
      77"*~~CTLtULATIOl
      ICOSTS(*tlt = ,01
 290  ICOSTS(6»1» =  l;
 292  I  IF (I = 4 t L = 21 THEN GC  TO  CONTI;
 293  I   COSTSn,2)=(AV_DEALERS_MONTHLY_RENTAL*WORN_TIRE_STORAGE_PROPOftTION> /
      I   COSTS(I,3l=G«ACING_COSTS*BATCH_COLLECTICNj:OSTS;
 295  I   CCSTS(I,A)=I-AUL_COSTS*HANDLING_COSTS;	
"296—I—rOSTS"nT5)^i:HCPPTNG_C OST S;
 297  ICONTI: END;
 2S8_I	
 299  I   DO 1= 1  TCTT;
 300  I   COSTS(6tI)=WASTF_P^OPCRTION(6)*  COSTS(6«I);
 301  I   COSTS 17,1 l = k«ASTE_PRC'ORTION(7l*_COSTS{7tI »;	

 303  I   END;
 	I		___       _	__

      I/* PROCESSING AND HASTE HANDLING COST  CALCULATIONS */
      I            .
'304IENVK_UUALIIY_t
 3C5  IPUT EDITt 'ENVIRCNMENTAL .QUALITY COSTS'=  •tENVR_OUALITY_COSTS»(SKIP111,A
      I
      I
 3TJ6  INB - i w * PC. * GA * IB"*  NT;
                                      101

-------
                    OPTIMIZING  COMPILER
                   STMT


                   " 307" "|CHYOREKTICS'_CO'ST = "CY * FOUNDS_PER_WASTE_T IRE;     "  "~~ ........
                    308  )ROAO_REPAI. _COST =  RRC * AB / NB;
                    309  ICOSTSJ2.6)  =  PCAD PEP«R_COST;
                   " 3lO~~"fPUT"EDTrT'CRyC'GFNICS COST =" VCRYOGENICS_C05T)C SKIPC1 ) , A",F C672)T:'~ .......
                    3ii  IPJT EDITC« SOAC_REPAIR COST  = • ,RCAD_REPAIR_COSTI =  ONE_HUN D_H I_T IRE_PROD COST  * TI R6_YEARS_LI FEUl/T IRE_YEARS_
                          1UFE<8);                           .....        ..... "" .....              ......
Jt"                  315   I ELSE
•^'!'                       1C3STS(8,6)=  COME HUND "I TI RE_PROO_COST * ( 1*1/ (1 +10) **10) -
«'.;;''•                -..._. I (f^DiAt^ss-^pKODj^n-ST >~{ IV 17 (1 + ID ) **4~+ l/l 1* ID >**8 + 1/C r+rDl**12~ '
*'••-•••                      i  +  l/Cl*IOI**t6JJI* (TIRE_YEASS_LIFE( 1»/(2*TI RE_YEARS_L I FE< 8) ) I
V;.,:                       I          _              *(l+ID»**TIRE_YEARS_LIFEtl);
;%,                "316" TCOSTS'ffi, 61=  COST5T8T6r~*~HA'ST£'_-pROPCRTION(8>* (COSTS C4',6l*COSTS'{V,T)Tr""

-i                       !
                         •(7*"C"STCUUAT15NS""OP~ADVI'N"AKD MARKETIN'5 ^  "COST "AFFECTS"*/
TV                       !
  ,..,                 317   I DO  I»l  TO 4;
™'.t                 218   I  C'CSTS(I,?r=i"CMrN_MKTGICOST_FACTCRlLOW "*" COSTSCI , 6) ;
J£,->                 319   ISND;
 ,.                  320   |COSTSC5,7I=ADMIN_MKTG_CCST FACTOR.HIGH  * COSTSt5,6»S
 •                  321  " ICDSTS(6, 7)=ADMrN_*KTG_COST_FACTOR .RETREADS * COSTSC6.6) ;
*«•*'                 322   IIF  CnSTS(6,6>  <0 THEN CCSTS(6,7» =  0;
T*'"                 323 _ ICDSTSt 8,7)^ApHIN_^KT_CDST_FACTOR 100000_MI *COSTSCB,6);  _
*-'                 324"  (IF  COSTSf8",6l<6 I  L=6 THEN""COSTS(B,7) = COSTS< 8, 7 ) *<-! ) ',       "   '
&J                       !
                          r                                                       ~
                          I/*  CALCULATIONS QF PRODUCT VALUES  BENEFITS */
                          I
                    325 "  rBEN'EFlTSTl ,lT~STCrAH>RI'C'E"JPg"RlTON" *"UW"* POU'NOS.PeRjwA'STEITTR't'"*" RB)/
                          I (2000  «  UL» ;
                    326   lBENEFITS<2tl)=RAMFLEX PRICE +  PA *  OX  - CRYOGENIC S_ COST ;
                    327   |B;NEFITS(3,1I  =0":    " ..........            ........ ~" ' ..........
                    328   |6ENEFITS(4,1 I = (LANO PRICE PER_ACRE I/ (6*435601 ;
                    329 _!RSTREAr:    _                                         _
                          iBEKEFlTSTsTil  = I5"C~*~PC" *'~C'C '*~'PO~*"Ox" * 'PA";
                    330   HP  L = 6  THEN
                          lBeNCFITS(6,ll=4V_Re"P?AC_TIRF  PRICE ;                          _
                    331   IELSE       ""          " ..... "~ "" ........       .....     ........
                          lBhNFFITS(6, 1)  = av_R?TREAD_TIRE_PRIC=  - .8 * AV 38000 MILE TIRE_PRICE  +
                          |EfNEFITS(2,l)/(H-ID)**TIRE_YEARS LIFEll)-  BENEF I TS( 2i 1)  ;
                    332                  ~~" .......... " " ..... '"" ...... ..... "~ '  " .......
                                                           102

-------
 OPT1MI ZING COMP ILER


STMt	
 333  ~]TF""L =  6"TKN  '           	'	     ""	 I
       |BENEPITS{6,1>=  #V_100000 f I LE_Tt RE.PRICE* (1* I/ ( 1+ ID) **T IRE  YEARS LIFE(8|
       I)»"TIRE_YEARS_lIFiO^K(9)  - BENEFITS ( 2,II* {WO<5K (9 l-l))  * TIPE_YEARS_LIFE(1»/I
       I«2*TI<3F_YrARS_LIF?<8) )
       I*  (1 +  (l/(TIRc_YCARS_LIFE(l)/2)»{l + IO)**TIRS_YEARS_LIFE( 11-1 ») ;
•3-35—VPUT~E(JTT{ 'BENEFIT S< 6V1)-'= •, BtNFiF ITS (6, 1» ) ( SKIP( 1), A,F IdrZlT;	
 336   (PUT  EDIT( •3ENEFIT5(8,1I   = •.BENEFITS(8, 1)) (SK IP(I) ,A ,F(6,2));
       I
 _ I /* ADDITION  OF  DECREASED HASTES BENEFITS TQ PRODUCT  VALUE  BENEFITS */
      T                                                       .....
 237   100 I =  1  TO  5;
 338   I  BENEFITSUil)  = BEN5F I TS( I , I » *COSTS(«,6I  +COSTS(^,7);
 340   I DO  1  =  6  TO 8 :
 341   I   RSNEFITSt 1,1)  = BcNEFITSCIf 1) + HAST E_DECREASE_PT_PE R_YE AR (I )  *
    ~
 342
       I
       I
        /»  CALCULATIONS OF EMPLCYMENT EFFECTS */
 343   IDO  I  =  1  TO 5;
 344   I  CQSTS
-------
                     OPTIMIZING
                    STMT
>•:
06
  -s
uJ
                      354   I  ELSE'COSISU ,9»=0;
                      355   IEND;
                      356   IDC  I  =  1 TO 5;                                                   	
                      357 'T" B^mr$-(I73~r~=~C~OSTS(i;/TIR E_YEARS_L IFE I 8 »  -  (PRDFIT_PA
      |T9( 7r~«~AVr33"0'0'0^^rLr_TIR'E_PR ICt"- EXAV) ) ;' '
 362   I END;
 3t3   I ELSE                                 	     		
	100;                   	    ~   ""   	"
 364   |BENEFITS(6i3)=CORP_PROFIT_TAXlRATE *  (PROFIT_RATE(7I *  AV_RETȣAD_TIRE_
      IPRICF - ACMIN "KTG C3ST_FACTOR_RETREAOS * RET_PROC_COST);
 365   |9EK'EFITS(8,3J=CORD_'=>ROFIT_TAX_RATe *  ( PROFI T_RATE ( 8) *" AV1"1000001MTLE_T
      |IR?_ORICe - EXAVI *lTl°c_Y£ARS_LIFE(1)/TIRE_YEARS_LIFE<8)
 366   lENo"          _             _         _                	
 367  '|DOT'=  6 TO 8";""  "   """ "       "  	"	""
 368   IIF  3ENEFITSU,31 > 0 THEN  COSTS(I,9)  = BENEFITSC1.3 I;
 369   I5LSE  CCSTSU r?) = 0;
'370  "
                      371
                      372

                      373
                      374"
                      375
                      276
                      377

                      378
                      279
       /* CALCULATION' OF VALUE  FRCM  THE  VIEWPOINT" OF THE T-I*E  INDUSTRY"*/

       DO 1= 1 TO 8;
       i NTER'NiTTos: f rrr=cos"rs"( i"n r+co'STs < r, 2 J+COSTS « r,3 j+"co'STsnv'4» +COSTS< i , 5
       l*COSTS(Tt6l*COSTS(Ii7l            +COSTSU,9t;
       SNO;  __  ______  _______
       00 "1=1 TO" 8;
         INTEPNAL_vaLU£( I) = BEMEF ITS ( I , I )  - I NTERNAL.COSTS ( I » ;
       ENO;      '    '                                  '
       IMTF'RNALTvflll'Ufr2T'=INTrRNAL_VA'LUE<2r"+ ROAD.ft EP AlR_COST  *' Tl  4  ACMIN_MKT
       INTERNAL ViLuC(7t=0;
                                                            104

-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILE*


S T M T
      T/*" CALtULiflON "CF'TIRE  RUBBER ASPHALT COST? AVOIDED  AND INTEREST"
      I9ENEFITS   */
      I ____
      T  "      "                '     '"   "" "" ........ " .......... "
      I/* NB WAS  CALCULATED ABOVE AT ABOUT STATEMENT  278 */
 380  IIP 1=7 THEN
 381  ISIP =( (RC-CTRA)«U H-DISCOUNT_PATC I **10-1 1 I /(H-DI SCOUMT_RATE l**10
      I (3O( ( 1+C ISCQUNT_RATE)**5-n )/( H-DISCOUNT_R ATE » **10;
"382'  1CSP="~TRX-CTRAT + RC/CH-DISCOUNT_RATE)**5;  --------
 383  IENO;
 384  UP L_^_8  T_HEN
      100:"    "                  -....•— ........ - .....    . . ... ..........
 335  ISIP=( (RC-CT*A)*« 1 +D ISCCUNT_RATE)**10- 1) )/ ( 1+DISC DJNT.RATE > **10 ;
 386  |CSP = (RC-CT«A) ;
 387
 288  I£LSE DO;
 389  |S1P=< (RC-CTRA )*( (1+CISCOUNT RATE) ** 10- 1) )/ ( l+DI SCOUNT RATEI**10 +
      1  [RCnTItT'TTCTCT;T_PA-r?)**6r66-l) I7( 1+DI SCOUNT_RATE»**10' *~(RC*TTr* -----
      I  DISCOUNT. RAT= )**3.33-l) J/( 1+D ISCOUNT_RATE l**10 ;
 390  ICSP =  (RC-CTRM  + PC/(1  «• CI SCOUNT_RAT £) **3. 33  +  RC/(1 * DI SCOUNT_RATE I
 391   I     END;
 3S2   IPUT EDITCNBi  SIPf  CSP  = • , N3, SI Pf CS^I (SKI P ( II , A ,F« 6,2 I » X( 3 I , F ( 6, 2 I • X (
 3S3   |B=NEFITS(2i2)  =  ((CSP + S IP I/MB )*(TI RE_YEARS_L I FE( 1 )/T 1RE_YEARS_U Fb (8>
       II + PA *  DX;
 3'S4~T3E'N=;FTTST£t2)=iV_3'8(TOO VTLE_TT RF_PRICE -IAV  RET3EAD_TIREJPRTCt^* ---------
       I (TOTAL_MILEAGE_PER_TIRE ( 1 ) / (TOTAL_KILEAGE_PER_TIRE(6) -TOTAL_M1LEAGE_PER
       I_TIRE(1) ) ))  ;
 3S5 — lBHNcFrrT(5,7)=AVC3^0aO^MrLEITIKEi:PRTCE""-(AV_100000_HILEITTRTrPRTCE~*-~
       I (TOTAL_f ILEAGc_PcR_TIPE( 1 1 /TOTAL_MIL EAGE_PER_TIRE( 8 I I I ;
       I/* CALCULATION OF PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT  BENEFITS  */
 396   100  I =  1  TO  3 5
 397   I BENEFITS1I,A)=ENVR_OUALITY_COSTS;
 398 "1 END;	 -—	"	
 399   I BENEFITS!6,41=  8ENEFITS<6,4)* WASTE DECREASE_PT_PER_YEAR(6) ;
 400   lB£Nl=FITS<8-,4)=   3=N2FITS(4|4J*WOIJK<7) -  BENEFI TS( 4,4»* ( l*H«* ) *( I/ (1 +DI SC
	1 OUNT_T;ATrT*-*rrrRFITT:ArS_L7FE (8) -TIRE^YEAP- S_LIFF(U ) 1 * IYH + DT SCDUNT_RATc '
       I J ** ( 2*T I F. =_Y= «H.S_L I Ft ( 8 ) -T I P.E_YSARS_L I FE < 11 );
 401   IP5NEFITM 6,4)=35,M;FITSIR»4)* TIRE_YEAHS_LIFE(11/.(2*TIRE_YFARS_LIFE<8) I;

       I

	t7*""CArtUOTTOK-eF-C^N5=RVATIO»r BENEFITS  */                    :           f
                                       105

-------
                      OPTIMIZING COMPILER
                     STMT
                           I3ENEFITSU.5) = RENEF IT S(l, 1 > ;
                           |BEN6FITSI2,5I = (CE - CS -  CF)  /  NS5
                           |BLM5FITS(6,5»= »AOI AL_38S_PROD_COST * (MATERI ALS_PROPORTION+, 3*SO ) *
                           I WtSTE_D=CRStSE_PT_PEP YEAFU6I;
                                                                 "
                           IM7I - ONS_HUNO HI TIRE  PRGD_COST*(MATERI ALS.PROPORTI ON+.3*SO )»( 1 «•!/< 1 +
                           |OISCOUNT_RATE}**TJRE_YEARS_LI?:EmM  * TIRE_YEARS_L IFE < 1) / (2*TIRE_YEARS
                            ILTFETB7I;                   "   '""           -----                -  -
                      407  |COSTS(3,*>=0;
                      408  I COSTS (TV*T=T)~;
                      409  |RcNEFITS(3,*)=0;
                      410  |3£N5F1TS(7,*)=0;
                      412  (SOCIAL VALUESU) = SUMtBSNEF ITS!I,*)I-COSTS(1, 1)  -COSTS (1, 2 I-COST S (I, 3 I
                           |-COSTSn,4)-CCSTS(I.5)-CDSTSnt6)-COSTS(I,7)-COSTS t AT:
                      426  JPUT EDIT( 'ASPHALT ADOIT IVE' , INT6RNAL_VALUE t 21 M SKIP.XI 221 , A,X( 1 1 ) , F (7, 2
                           I));     _
                      427 "TPUT" EDrTT^TANG~RTCT^2T ICM7rN~TE"RNAL~v/5L"UE f4) ) <~SK rP^xr2"ZT7ATXTn:rtT( 7721
                           I ) ) ;
                      426  |PUT EDITC INCINcRAT ICN« , IKTjRNAL.VALUF ( 1) ) ( SKIP,X( 22) , A, Xt 15) ,F 17 ,2) ) ;
                      429~"lPUT~£OIf(rPY- , A,X( 3
                           I), FIT, 21);
                      430  JPUT EOIT(«*5TfiFADJNGl,INTERNAL_VALUE(6)) ISKIP,X(?2),AfX(17),Ff7,2)>;
                      431 " IPUT 50IT< TOO'COO MILE"TIRBS',INTERNAL1VALUE(8I I (SKIP, X(22) , A, X( 10) ,"F< 7,"
                           12)) ;
                      432  IRFTURN? ENDi __        ___        _
                           I                          ~                                   "           F"
                                                            106

-------
 OPTIMIZING COMPILE*


STMT
      I
 434  ICSPftlMT: PROCEDURE;
 435  (PUT EDIT(HeADIN;
 436  IIP (L=2|L=3|L=4|L=5|L=9|L=6>  THbN
      IPUT EOTTiPASAf-, <-  r,PiP4MvAD ISKIP.XIZO) ,A,A,F( io,3> j s
 437  IPUT FDIM'COSTS  VIO  BbNEFITS  USFD IN VALUE DEF INIT IONS') ( S K IP, X(20 I , A) ;
 438  (PUT SKIP;
 439  IPUT rO!T< PCOSTSP , I.1 )'  DO 1 = 1  TO 9) X SKIP ,Xl 221 ,9 '( A.Fmi A,"X(2I H J  "
 440  (PUT FDIT
-------
                          APPENDIX  C
                          DATA INPUTS

    The data on the following pages were printed by Tirec II
and represent our best estimates of the data relevant to the
Tirec II cost/benefit analysis.   The sources of the data, when
relevant, are listed in the Appendices; otherwise the data
represent common sense choices of numbers such as the value of
.08 used for the discount rate.

     Some of the data was taken  from the author's doctoral
dissertation, "The Management of Waste Passenger Car Tires",
completed at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, in
1974.  Some data used in this 1974 Tirec I work was left in
Tirec II, but was not used.  This included:

         CAPITAL_PTPD_CONVERSION_COSTS=2750,
         RET_OPP_COST_TO_MANUFACTURERS=21.00,
         PLANT_SIZE_TPD=10000,

     The variable names of Tired were written out so as to be
understandable without reference to a list of definitions.  For
example: "DISCOUNT_RATE" is the  name used in the Program to
represent the discount rate.  These data are listed on the
following page, the first page of data.  The second data page
Includes new variables defined for the Tirec II research.
These data were given identifiers (names) which are the same as
is given In the glossary of definitions at the end of this
report except that the subscript letters could not be printed
by the computer/  The subscripts are printed as regular letters
in their expected positions, however.  For example:


                    SL = SL in Tirec II

                    Pc = PC in Tirec II

     Thirty-seven new variables  were added to the Tirec program
as part of the Tirec II research.
                              108

-------
CATA
 AV_lOCOOO_wilE_Tl RE_PRI CE = 107,
 CUkP_PROFIT_TAX_R4TE=.22,
 DISCCUNT_PATE=,08,
 OfcSfRUCr IVE_DIST_PRODUCTS_PRICE=.4fc,
 AV_RhTPEAD_TI » t_PR I CE=1 6 .22 ,
 CnAL_PRICE_?FR_TON=45,
 UND_PRIC6_PER_ACRE=1GJCG,
 BtLTED_BIAS_PROO_COST=15.00,
 RET_PROC_COST=8.92,
 AV_BELTED_6I AS_TJ RE.PR I CE=37 .02 ,
 CAPIT0l_PTPD_CQNVERSION_CCSTS=275C,
«!r r_CPP_COST_TQ_MANUFACTURER S = 21 .00,
 PLAIMT_S I Z£_Tpn=loOOO,
 /iDMI N_MKTG_CnST_FAC F CP_3BOOO_MI = -. 35 ,
 COSTSIlf6)=.52f
 COSTS(3,6>=, 17,
 CCSTS(5,6)=.25,
 AV_DtAL?PS_MOKTHLY_PENTAL=lCCOt
 GKAOING_COSTS=. i3,BATCH_cct.LEcnoN_cosTS=. 57,
 HAUL_CCSTS=.ll,HANDLING_CCSTS=.02,
 GKINDING_COSTS=.43,
 MlLLAGL_USfc_PER_YEAR=10COO,
TOTAL.MLtAGS.PEfi^TIRS: (11=^*0000,
TCTAL_MILEAGc_PFR_TIRFl2
TOTAL_MLEAGci_PER_TIRE(3
TOTAL_yiL£AG£_PER_TI Rt (4
 TOT AL_M L£AGE_PFR_T I RE ( 6
TCTAL_MlLcAGF._PER_TIPE( 7
TOT =.50,
 VIRt CARCASE . VALUE_.PROPCPTI CN=,80 ;
 RAMFLEX_PRICE = 2,
                      109

-------
SL
ML
HC
CT
0!
DQ
or.)
ow
OS
ID
OL
EXL
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
,275,
.250,
.40,
.- 15,
.35,
.25,
.11,
.35,
.40,
.20,
.3C,
19.62,
EXAV = 40.03
UW
RB
UL
TW
PD
GA
NT
NS
AB
=
=
7
=
•=
=
=
=
=
15000,
.70,
ICCOO,
,25,
7.5,
.5,
,07,
.07,
3133,
RC=L1013,
DC = 7,
00.034,
OX=.002,
PC=.08,
P0=7.50,
PA = 45 ,
SR = .23t
SO = .250,
Ct = l.Slt
CF - .65,
CS = .91,
CY = .05,
RRC =  .75,
                      110

-------
                                    APPENDIX D

              ROAD REPAIRS:   TIRE ASPHALT RUBBER MIX (B^)  BENEFITS

     The United States has entered an era of road maintenance and  repairs;
the major road construction work of the past decades has,  for the  most part,
been completed.  As time passes, these many roads built in  the construction
era will develop cracks, potholes, unevenness, and other failures.

           To extend the useful life of deteriorating roadways, gen-
        erally accepted restoration typically involves the application
        of a thin asphaltic overlay...over the cracked and otherwise
        deformed pavement.  Historically, however, the application of
        these thin overlays (generally of 4 inches or less) results  in
        a new complex problem known as "Reflective Cracking"--defined
        as the migration of a subsurface cracking pattern into and
        subsequently through the overlay structure...Once the overlay
        is fractured, general erosion occurs which severely affects
        performance and requires further and costly maintenance (1).

     The use of waste tire rubber in road repairing appears to have  signifi-
cant benefits in avoiding the costs, inconveniences, and road hazards involved
in the repair of reflective cracks over and over again.  In a study  of various
methods of road repairs, Arizona found that asphalt rubber repairs reflected
only four percent of the underlying cracks in three years while control  sec-
tions reflected seventeen percent of the cracks (2).  The Arizona  experiences
indicate that roads repaired with tire asphalt rubber stay repaired  for quite
a while:

           "the surface is in excellent condition and shows only
        minor crack reflection after eight years of service" (3);

           "After six years of service, this Project has required  no
        maintenance and shows only a few minor reflective cracks"  (4).

     The asphalt rubber process includes along with semi-conventional re-
pairs, the placement of a 1/4 inch overlay consisting of 25 percent  worn
tire rubber and 75 percent asphalt.  The engineering details of the  process
are described in the literature 15-6).

     The Arizona Projects might have been successful due to the favorable
climate of the Phoenix area where they were carried out.  Accordingly, in
August of 1973 a tire asphalt rubber road repair project was carried out at
a severe winter weather location— Flagstaff, Arizona.  Flagstaff  is at an
elevation of 7200 feet with temperatures as low as -40 degrees farenheit
(-5 degrees  Celsius  ) and frost depths to three feet.  The Project was

                                      111

-------
reported, in 1976, to have "performed excellently with zero maintenance to
date".  It appears then, that the tire asphalt rubber road repair process  will
be valuable in a range of climates.

     The highly favorable experiences of Arizona, however, have not  yet been
duplicated in a significant number of other states.   Some tire asphalt rubber
road repairs have been made in California and in South Dakota.   California
has indicated that tire asphalt rubber seems to work as intended. South
Dakota has had poor results with the process (7).  The poor South Dakota
results may be due to the use of alternative quantities and types of rubbers
used in repairs and/or due to different methods of application.   A four year
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Project to document experience with  the
tire asphalt rubber repairs is in process and will be completed in 1981.

     The Arizona and California experiences provide reasonable documentation
with which to estimate the benefits of the tire asphalt rubber road  repair
process.

TIRE ASPHALT RUBBER REPAIRS

     The benefits of the tire asphalt rubber repairs might be represented  as
the road repair costs avoided by use of the Process.

           Phoenix "streets require a new (conventional) seal coat every
        three to five years.  The asphalt rubber (tire rubber asphalt)
        seals have exceeded seven years to date and it appears that  they
        will last at least ten years" (8).

     According to these estimates, in ten years we might need one tire asphalt
repair or two or three conventional  repairs.

     The city of Phoenix, in 1972, reported the costs per city block, of
conventional repairs, to be $1900.  Comparable tire asphalt rubber repairs
were reported to cost $2400.  Arizona, in 1976, reported:  (1)  costs of $2.95
per square yard for a (conventional) three inch asphalt concrete overlay with
a one half inch asphalt concrete finishing coat; and (2) costs of $2.32 per
square yard for 1 1/4 inches of asphalt concrete followed by about 1/4 inch
of the tire asphalt rubber chip coating and one half inch asphalt concrete
finishing coat.  These costs include "the total of all ingredients and oper-
ations and are estimations based on...a size job...generally more than 40,000
square yards".  The cost of the tire asphalt rubber chip seal alone, accounts
for about $.75 of the $2.32 on the average.  California reported, in 1976,
average costs of $1.91 per square yard for one to one and one half inches  of
asphalt overlay.

     We multiplied 1976 cost figures times the 3733 square yards ( 3121.26
square meters) of the Phoenix block mentioned earlier in order to obtain 1976
"costs per block" useful in estimating the benefits of the tire asphalt rubber
process.  According to Arizona estimates, a "conventional" repair of the
Phoenix block would cost $11,013 and would last as little as three years;  a
tire asphalt rubber interlayer repair would cost $8661, and would, we estimate
based upon the Phoenix experience, last ten years.  According to the

                                      112

-------
California information, conventional repairs to a block would cost $7130
and would last as long as seven years.  We regarded the $8661 asphalt rubber
cost as representative for California repairs.

ARIZONA ROAD REPAIR BENEFIT CALCULATION

     Demolition and reconstruction of a city  block,  in 1977,  might  cost  in  the
neighborhood of $86,000;  sometimes reconstruction  is  necessary.   Relatively
thin repair overlays are  suitable temporary substitutes for reconstruction  as
long as the coats do not  raise the road so high as to cover curbs,  storm
drains, etc.   One two inch thick tire asphalt rubber  overlay, according  to
Arizona experience, can last ten years.  Three 3 1/2  inch  thick  conventional
overlays, a total of 10 1/2 inches thickness  might be required in ten  years
as an alternative.  Assuming that after 10 1/2 inches of road thickness  build-
up occurs the road must be reconstructed, we  can say  that  five tire asphalt
rubber road repairs may be used in place of both nine conventional  3  1/2 inch
seals and two major road  constructions (Table D-l).   In addition to the  costs
avoided, we might say that the highway repair agency  could invest these  funds
not spent to earn money during this period.

     We took the present value of the repair costs avoided in ten years  (the
10th to 20th years in Table D-las if year  10 were the present time) plus the
present value of the interest earnable in  ten years on the savings from costs
avoided, as one estimate of the total incremental benefits,  in ten years, of
tire asphalt rubber repairs to one city block.  This did not include the pos-
sible substantial savings in major reconstruction beginning  in year 20.   We
multiplied this by 4/10 to convert this to an average rate per four years.

     We divided this result by the number  of worn tires used in tire asphalt
rubber reapirs to a city block.  The result was an estimate of the benefits
of the tire asphalt rubber process per waste tire utilized and per four  years.
We added to this the value of steel recovered from the waste tire in
processing.

     The present value of the repair costs avoided (cost savings) in  ten years
was represented as:
                                  Rc          Rc
          CSp = (Rc - Ctra) + (1+1)3.33 + (1+1)6.66

Where:    RC = conventional repair costs to one city  block
          ^tra = tire asphalt rubber repair costs  to  one city block

      At a discount rate  of ten per cent,  and 1977 costs-  RC = $11,013 and
ctra = $8>661 "the benefits are:

                              $11,013      $11,013
        ($11,013 - $8,661) + (L1)3.33 +  (1-1)6.66  = $17>060
                                     113

-------
                       TABLE  D-l.   ROAD  REPAIR  AND  RECONSTRUCTION MODEL  COSTS
.£
Beginning
of year
0.00
3.33
6.67
10.00
13.33
16.67
20.00
23.33
26.67
30.00
33.33
36.67
40.00
43.33
46.67
50.00
53.33
56.67
60.00

Conventional repairs
costs 3^ inch
$86,000 first
cycle
-
$11,013
$11,013
$11,013
$86,000
-
_
$11,013
$11,013
$11,013
$86,000
-
_
$11,013
$11,013
$11,013
$86,000 second
cycle
Tire asphalt rubber
repairs costs 1 3/4"
$86,000
-
-
$ 8,661
-
-
$ 8,661
-
-
$ 8,661
-
-
$ 8,661
-
_
$ 8,661
-
-
$86,000

Cost
savings
_
-
_
$ 2,352
$11,013
$11,013
$77,339
-
_
$ 2,352
$11,013
$11,013
$77,339
-
_
$ 2,352
$11,013
$11,013
-

           Note:  This assumes:  (1)  that original  and reconstruction  work  lasts  ten years
                 and, (2) that a second asphalt rubber repair (and  the third  and fourth
                 and fifth) would last ten years as does  the first. This is not  certain.
                The present value of the interest earnable on the funds  made  available
           by avoiding these costs was represented as:

                                     )10-l    Rc(l+Ig)6-66-l
                       ($11,013-$8,661)U.1)10-1    $11.013(1. I)6-66-!    $11,013(1. I)3-33-!
                              (l.l)10                   (l.D10
                 Sip =  $5,739.20
                                                 114

-------
     The combined sum of the costs  savings  and  interest  benefits  is $22,799.63;
the benefits each four years,  including  the revenues  from recvoered steel, per
solid waste tire are:
                 Benefits =
                            $22,799.63
                                        10
+ $.07 = $37.44
Where
         = the number of solid waste passenger  car  tires  used  in tire asphalt
           rubber repairs to a city block
      Nb = UpPGAbN
        Ilbs.  tire rubber \/gallons

           gallon       /I 1  Sq  Yd
                                          Sq.  Yards
                                          1 city block
             No. of worn tires

             Ib. tire asph.  rb.
And
            worn tires
           1 city block
      Wp = the proportion, by weight,  of tire asphalt rubber  which  is
           worn tire rubber
       P = the weight, in pounds per gallon,  of tire  asphalt  rubber
       G = the application rate, in gallons per square yard,  for  asphalt rubber
      Ab = the area, in square yards,  of a city block (Phoenix, Ariz.  3733
           square yards)
       N = the proportion of a tire that it takes  to  recover  1 pound of tire
           asphalt rubber
An example calculation follows:

             / 7.5 Ibs
                 gallon
                               H.5 gallons \l 3733

                                1 sq.  yd. |ll ci
     sq yds \| .07 worn tires \
  city block/lib, crumb rubber/
              244 tires

              1 city block
                                      115

-------
                  These gross benefits are substantial; they are, however, misleading with
             respect to current tire asphalt rubber road repairs since the rubber current-
             ly used is but tread rubber ground from worn tires.  In current tire asphalt
             rubber procedures many worn tires, less some tread rubber, remain to be dis-
             posed of.   Current tire asphalt rubber repairs use 60 pound bags of tread rub-
             ber which  were ground from 175 worn tires.  The proportion, "n", above, for
             this procedure is 2.917; the number of tires used in a city block at this rate
             is 10,208; the gross benefit per tire drops to $.89 per tire in this case, and
             in addition, 8165 tires per city block repaired still remain to be disposed
             of.  Without utilizing the entire amount of rubber available in the worn tire,
             the benefits of tire asphalt rubber, on a per tire basis, are much lower.

                  Cryogenics can be used to separate worn tires into three parts; rubber,
             metal, and fabrics so that virtually all of the tire rubber can be recovered.
             Steel belted radial tires are processed by cryogenics just as easily as non-
             steel belted tires.  Cryogenics together with solid separation systems pro-
             duces saleable metals and fabrics in addition:  three pounds of steel and
             three pounds of fiber may be recovered tor each waste tire processed.  These
             provide additional gross benefits for the cryogenics/road repair alternative.
;^..,           Of course  the costs of cryogenic processing must be included in the analysis
V|           in the appropriate place.
i"£'
ijyj'               The three pounds (.0015 tons) of steel recovered is wortn S.07 when
$£t           valued at  current prices of $45 per ton; no value data for the fibers recov-
;•;;!           ered was available.  The benefits of the tire asphalt rubber process, then,
.Jl*           are B-ji =  37.44 per tire per four years.  This includes $37.37 costs avoided
•^           and interest savings plus .07 for recovered product values.
«•«•»•'
y^                Each  worn tire processed for use in tire rubber asphalt eliminates one
             waste tire and its associated processing costs.  Waste processing costs are
 I            $.92 for a tire landfill (9).  Consequently, the tire rubber asphalt altern-
(flC           ative realizes an additional $.92 benefit per tire each four years.
3U
jLj                The total road repair and decreased waste benefits tor the road repair
             tire handling alternative, B-J-J = $38.36.

             CALIFORNIA ROAD REPAIR BENEFIT CALCULATION

                  The asphalt rubber benefits are smaller according to California road
             repair practices and/or when treated in a more conservative fashion.  Assum-
             ing that construction or reconstruction lasts ten years, conventional re-
             pairs last seven years, and asphalt rubber lasts ten years, Table D-2 was
             prepared.

                  This  table probably illustrates the current perception of most highway
             repair officials with respect to the asphalt rubber process.  It appears in
             any given  year to be more expensive ($8661 versus $636b) and does not provide
             any benefit in terms of decreased costs.  The present value (10%) of the
             costs for the two cases are approximately equal.
                                                   116

-------
                 TABLE D-2.   CALIFORNIA  ROAD  REPAIR  COSTS
                           Conventional               Tire  asphalt  rubber
Year                       1  1/2 inch  AC          1"  AC +  1/4"  AR  +  1/2"  ACFC
0
10
17
20
24
30
31
38
40
45
50
52
59
86,000
6,366
6,366

6,366

6,366
6,366

6,366

6,366
86,000
86,000
8,661

8,661

8,661


8,661

8,661

86,000
     The 1 1/2 inch asphalt concrete and 1  3/4 inch asphalt rubber repairs
are not comparable, however.  The asphalt rubber roads,  as indicated  above,
haveTewer reflected cracks.  In addition the asphalt rubber repairs  are
fewer with less nuisance and accident hazards created.   And, as  indicated
above, it may be that asphalt rubber lasts more than ten years.   Conse-
quently, we used the Arizona estimates in calculating the benefits of the
asphalt rubber process.  We investigated a lower conventional  repair  pro-
cess cost (Rc = 6366) in both the framework of Table D-2 and of  the formulas
given.

LIMITS OF THE TIRE RUBBER ASPHALT PROCESS

     The number of worn tires which may, potentially, be used in tire asphalt
rubber repairs each year, in the United States, may be symbolically repre-
sented as:

                               V 587IWs

Where RL = the mileage of cracked roads repaired, temporarily, each year  (as
           opposed to rebuilt roads).

      Rw = the average width, in feet, of a U. S. road.

      Ns = the number of worn tires used in one square yard of tire asphalt
           rubber road repairs.  N
*  The constant 587 is used to convert the term "RLRW" to square yards.

                                     117

-------
   Data on the mileage of temporary repairs carried out each year in the Uni-
ted States is not readily available.  It is possible to gain insight on the
market for the tire rubber asphalt repairs by a calculation of the number of
miles which could be repaired with the two hundred million waste tires gene-
rated each year.  To do this we set "T" equal to 200,000,000, assumed an
average road width of 40 feet, and solved for R, .
                      RL =
                           587
                             200000000
                      R.  =	= 131,044 miles
                       L   587(40)(.065)

     131,000 miles (210,821 kilometers) of road repair work will  be needed
each year to absorb all of the solid waste tires generated.  United States
streets and roads, in 1974, accounted for 3,815,807 miles (6,139,633 kilome-
ters); almost all (3,000,000 miles or 4,827,000 kilometers) of these roads
are asphalt.  All of the worn tires currently generated could be used in the
tire asphalt rubber process, assuming that a road requires repairs each three
years, and that fifteen percent of these repairs are needed for fatigue type
cracking of the sort controlled by asphalt rubber (10).  If the average time
between road repairs were five years, 90,000 miles (144,810 kilometers) per
year would need repairs; for an average life of seven years, 57,500 miles
(92,517 kilometers) per year would need repairs.  It would appear, then, that
tire asphalt rubber is potentially a fairly large scale process.

ALTERNATIVES TO ASPHALT RUBBER IN ROAD REPAIRS

       Arizona found that not only asphalt rubber, but also four other pro-
cesses control reflective cracking of highways.

       TABLE  D-3.   ROAD REPAIR  TREATMENTS  VERSUS  REFLECTIVE  CRACKING.
1. Heater scarification and pretroset
2. Tire asphalt rubber (between AC and ACFC)
3. Fiberglass
4. Heater scarification and reel ami te
5. 200/300 penetration asphalt
Control sections
3
4
5
6
8
17
SOURCE:  "Prevention of Reflective Cracking in Arizona Minnetanka-East, A
         Case Study", Arizona Department of Transportation Report Number 11,
         HPR-1-13(224) May 1976.


                                     118

-------
     Petromat, Is yet another product which seems to be in fairly high demand
for road repairs.  To the extent that any of these cost less  than asphalt
rubber an opportunity cost could be associated with use of asphalt rubber in
the place of the best alternative.

     Finally, highway repair officials are carrying out research  on recycling
road asphalt.  Three alternatives:   hot mix recycling, cold recycling with
chemical options, and surface recycling are being investigated (11).   It is
possible that one of these may be desirable relative to asphalt rubber.  High-
way management officials should be convinced of the benefits  of asphalt rub-
ber; they should be consulted concerning a requirement for widescale use of
the process; such a requirement would perhaps be very restrictive from their
viewpoint.
                                      119

-------
                                 APPENDIX  E

                            100,000 MILE TIRES:
           PROFITS,  PRODUCT SERVICE LIFE,  AND SOLID  WASTE  MANAGEMENT

     The design of manufactured products  involves  analyses and  choices  with
respect to physical  characteristics, marketability,  performance,  service  life,
maintainability, and other factors.  Design factors  may have offsetting
effects; a better performance with respect to one  factor may be detrimental
to performance with respect to another.   Product design balances  the  levels
of achievement of these factors.  Balance  requires analysis of  the costs  and
benefits associated with design alternatives in  order to develop  information
on levels of achievement.   Some costs and  revenues (benefits) of conventional
design analyses are internal to manufacturers.  Other design costs and  bene-
fits are external to manufacturers; these  atfect consumers and  society  in
general:  Product design service life, for example,  is  proportional
to (a) the quantities of solid waste generated;  (b)  the rate of use of  fixed
quantities of natural resources: and (c)  the rate  of cost  to consumers  for
services provided by products.  Costs and  benefits affecting society  in gen-
eral have either not been  included in product design analyses or  have not been
adjusted to reflect societal attitudes of  the 1970s; perhaps they should  be.

     We analyze the internal and external  costs  and  benefits associated with
the design of passenger car tires.  Longer service life appears to be not
only a promising solid waste management alternative, but also promises:
(1) improved total profits for the tire industry,  and (2)  a better deal for
consumers.

COST TO CONSUMERS

     Product design determines the cost to consumers, per  unit  of time, of
the services provided by a product.  One could say,  disregarding maintenance
and the time value of money, that a tire costing $60, which provides  4  years
of service, costs $15 per year; should the tire  last lu years instead,  the
cost to the consumer would be only $6 per  year.   Service life design, to-
gether with sales price, determines this  cost to consumers.  In the current
era of increasing inflation and cost consciousness,  it is  likely that con-
sumers value increased product service life more highly.  The comfort of  a
tire's ride, for example,  a primary design criterion in past years, may have
diminished in relative importance; the economics of service may today be  more
important.  Product designers should take  notice of  changes in  consumer needs.
These changes can cause the optimal design balance to change.
                                     120

-------
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES

     In addition to consumer costs, design service life determines the solid
waste quantities which pose problems and costs for public managers, engineers,
and society.  A tire could generate one worn carcass every 4 years, or one
worn carcass every 10 years, depending upon its design life.  Worn tire car-
casses are costly and cause special problems in public waste disposal.  The
effects of product design lives upon the solid waste generation rate, and upon
these costs, might also be taken into consideration in manufacturers' product
design decisions.  The increased requirements and costs of solid waste manage-
ment may have, like the consumer service cost factor, changed the optimal
product design balance toward longer service lives.

CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES

     Design service life is related to the availability and use of nonrenew-
able natural resources such as oil.  Short service life products use up
fixed supplies of resources at a faster rate than do long service products.
The world supply of petroleum (with consumption growing at the average annual
rate of consumption prior to 1972) has been estimated to be adequate only
through the year 1992 (12).  Tires use petroleum in fair amounts:

(a) as a material ingredient in synthetic rubber production;
(b) as a material ingredient, and finishing medium, for tire cord yarn
    production;
(c) as an ingredient in the manufacture of carbon black for tire material;
(d) in rubber compounding (mixing the various types of rubber);
(e) as an energy source in production.

     On the average, seven gallons (26.5 liters) of crude oil are used in the
manufacture of a passenger car tire; this includes five gallons (18.93 liters)
as a material ingredient and two gallons (7.57 liters) in the form of energy
(13).  While the 25,000 mile tire design uses 7 gallons of oil, for each tire,
each 2.5 years, a 100,000 mile tire might use but 7 gallons each 10 years.
Obviously, longer tire design service lives will conserve valuable oil re-
sources; wire, fabrics, and other tire materials are similarly conserved by
longer usage of the tire carcass.  Longer service  lives use valuable resources
at a slower rate.

     Some types of 100,000 mile tires will be heavier causing increased con-
sumption of gasoline in autos.  This effect does not negate tne conservation
benefit, however, but rather diminishes it.

     Consumers'  attitudes with respect to  conservation  and  environmental
quality have undergone well  documented changes  in  the  past  decade.   A great
respect for conservation  and environmental  quality, including  proper solid
waste management, has  developed.   The  new  attitude  is  clear in  the  National
Resource Recovery and  Conservation Act of  1976.  These changes  in  attitude
affect consumer buying habits  in  the area  of design service life,  the current
shift to the purchase  of  longer  lived  steel  radial  tires  is evidence of  this.
Perhaps tire design  service  lives  even longer than  that of  steel  belted
radials are desirable  to  consumers.

                                      121

-------
                 THE 100,000 MILE  TIRE

                      The socially conscious manufacturer may respond to these factors  by re-
                 computing the optimal  balance among the factors important in product design.
                 It would seem, however,  that increased design service lives  portend  drastical-
                 ly decimated markets and profits.   These are contrary to the manufacturers'
                 primary task which is  to survive and to obtain healthy profits.   With  this
                 realization, tire manufacturers  avoid the longer service life idea via the
                 mystique of technical  infeasibility.  Who would propose a 100,000 mile tire!
                 But what if longer product service lives, and healthy profits for the  tire
                 industry can together  be realized?  What if consumers want 100,000 mile tires?
                 And what of future society where radically improved  service  lives may  be a
                 reality, not by management choice, but due to resource limitations and solid
                 waste pollution?

                      We find that longer lived products can provide  the same level of  total
                 profit to the tire industry, can be more economical  to consumers, and, at the
                 same time, can conserve  resources  and decrease waste quantities.  Further, we
                 believe consumers will want them when all the facts  are known.

£                100,000 MILE TIRES:  TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

2                     It is technically feasible  to manufacture passenger car tires which will
5j[                last on the average, under normal  conditions of use  and recommended  infla-
*«                tions, 100,000 miles (160,900 kilometers).  Truck tires, in  current  practice
$                obtain 115,000 (185,035  kilometers) of original life before  the  first  re-
                 treading (14); truck tires are designed differently  than passenger car tires,
*                however; they use different rubbers and are of different dimensions.   Con-
£                sumers, when made aware  of the 100,000 plus mile truck tire  life could demand
                 tires designed to be similar to  truck tires.  They could, in some cases, buy
'                 currently available truck tires.
L>
„                Design Factors Controllable By Tire Engineers
J                	


                      Tire design engineers have  at least six basic design factors under their
                 control which could be used to improve passenger tire service life  (15):

                 1.  Tread compound - the recipes for tread rubber may be adjusted by type and
                     percent of elastomer, type and percent of carbon black,  type and percent
                     of oil extenders,  dispersion,  and state or cure.
                 2.  Tire construction  type - bias, radial, or bias belted designs may  be
                     chosen.
                 3.  Tread pattern - the  number of ribs, groove width, element geometry, unit
                     tread pressure, type blading,  skid depth, footprint area may be  changed.
                 4.  Mold shape - the shape of the mold used in vulcanizing may be altered.
                 5.  Tire dimensions -  diameter,  tread width, aspect  ratio, tread radius may
                     be changed.
                 6.  Tire fabric - (in  either the carcass or belt) cord size, cord count, cord
                     processing, composite, cord  angle, number of plies, lay up may be  changed.
                                                      122

-------
Clearly, there are numerous combinations of factors from among these which
might be investigated with the idea ot extending the average tire service
life to 100,000 miles (160,900 kilometers).

Three Alternative Designs For 100,000 Mile Tires

     Three technological alternatives tor the development of 100,000 mile
passenger car tires are listed below.

1.  Large High Pressure Tire (LHP).  Redesign autos to use the larger tire
    sizes; increase operating pressure in the tire; and redesign the auto-
    mobile suspension system to absorb some of the increased harshness of
    the ride.

2.  Thick Tread-Hide Tire (TTW).   Use truck tread rubber, increase the thick-
    ness of the tread rubber on conventional passenger steel belted radial
    tire carcasses, to the maximum safe thickness; widen the tire as in cur-
    rent sporty wide tires.

3.  Durable Tread Rubber (DTR).  Develop a highly durable tread rubber which,
    with the same tread thickness as in current passenger tires, and at the
    same low inflation pressures  as have current tires, will obtain 100,000
    miles (160,900 kilometers).

     There are, in addition, other alternatives, as indicated above.  We
examine the LHP and DTR tires briefly below.  The TTW tire is then examined
in detail.

The LHP  100,000 Mile Tire

     The Large High Pressure Tire (LHP), contrary to popular belief, is
technically feasible.

           "If autos were redesigned to make it possible to fit them
        with much larger tires, then 100,000 miles is possible with
        no new developments.  To illustrate, assume a 3600 Ib vehicle,
        900 Ib on each tire.  A 6.95-14 tire is rated to carry 1050 Ib
        and on this vehicle would be carrying only 86 percent of its
        maximum load.  Let's replace that  tire with a 8.85-14 tire which
        can carry 1580 lb...That tire is carrying 57 percent of its max-
        imum load.  This change would increase the service life from
        40,000 to perhaps 65,000 to 70,000 miles.  If we increase in-
        flation pressure from 24 psi to 40 psi, the load bearing capa-
        city of the larger tire would be increased to 2100 Ib and the
        load would be 43 percent of the maximum safe load and the tread
        life would probably exceed 100,000 miles." (16)

     The costs associated with the LHP tire would include the incremental
purchase costs of the larger tire as well  as some one time costs associated
with vehicle and tire production:
                                     123

-------
                          "The larger sized tire requires changes in fenders and
                       axles, in steering systems; high pressure tires would require
                       new suspension systems that would be capable of filtering out
                       high frequency road induced vibrations which the tire now ab-
                       sorbs.  If I am correct, there is no problem as far as the tire
                       is concerned; it is the vehicle that must be modified.  As the
                       tire company representatives point out, they respond to auto
                       manufacturers' requirements and if they change the vehicle
                       design these solutions are available." (16)

               The DTR 100,000 Mile Tire

                    The Durable Tread Rubber Tire (DTR) is, evidently, not yet technically
               feasible.  The idea here is to maintain the current size, shape, and operat-
               ing characteristics but to replace the tread rubber with a highly durable
               elastomer that will last 100,000 miles (160,900 kilometers).

                    Plastic tires have been molded by the tire industry, but have not been
               commercialized.  Rubber, with such excellent wearing properties as with plas-
               tic may be limited in performance with respect to traction.  The tire indus-
)("•'             try has carried out a survey of its experts and has estimated that there is
$£.             greater than a fifty percent chance that the durable tread rubber with ade-
<£,             quate traction capabilities will be developed by 1990; according to the sur-
ft£             vey some experts thought that 100,000 mile DTR tires might be available as
fo             early as 1983  (17).  According to the experts, then, DTR 100,000 mile tires
«!•%             are destined to appear in the not too distant future, but are not yet tech-
«""*             nically developed.
fL
H*             The TTW 100,000 Mile Tire
£
 I                   The TTW tire offers an alternative to the largeness and higher operating
 \             pressure of the LHP 100,000 mile tire.  TTW 100,000 mile tires are technically

-------
     Passenger Tire Tread Rubber Thickness

     Tire industry personnel commonly represent tread rubber thicknesses in
thirty-secondths of an inch.  Table E-l  indicates current thicknesses of tread
rubber used by retreaders for passenger  and truck tires.

                    TABLE E-l.   1977 TREAD RUBBER DEPTHS
                                                Tread  thickness
          Tire type
  Uncureu
Cm       Inches
  Cured
Cm      Inches
Passenger cars,
Passenger cars,
Truck tires,
Truck tires,
conventional
snow and mud
highway or rib
lug design
0.95
1.11
1.58
1.91
12/32
14/32
20/32
24/32
0.87
0.95
1.43
1.75
11/32
12/32
18/32
22/32

SOURCES:  (1) Mohawk Rubber Co., Akron, Ohio letter of February 23, 1977 from
              R. W. Eckard to R. Westerman.
          (2) Oliver Rubber Company, Oakland, California letter of February
              22, 1977 to R. Westerman.


     Thicker treads than the 14/32 inches and 24/32 inches indicated are man-
ufactured for specialty applications such as the "Highway Rib Extra Tread"
truck tire, for taxi tires, and for passenger snow tires.  Taxicab tires have
utilized extra thick tread rubber in original manufacture together with re-
grooving, cutting a new tread pattern into the tire when the first is worn
off.  These specialty tires are limited to a general speed of, perhaps, 40
miles (64 kilometers) per hour with short (20 minute) spurts to 50 miles
(80 kilometers) per hour.  Maintaining higher speeds for longer periods is
reported to cause heat buildups in the tires which may cause damage to the
tires.

     The thick tread rubber alternative for  100,000 mile tires would indicate
that a tread rubber thickness.of 27.5/32 inches (2.2 cm) cured would be neces-
sary; this is 2.5 times the cured thickness used for conventional  passenger
car tires.  The truck designs indicate that as thick as 22/32 cured inches
(1.75 cm) may be used, yet this is for generally larger tires.  Truck tires,
however, use different tread rubbers than do passenger car tires:

           "Service conditions are more severe for truck tires, therefore
        the rubber is generally tougher than for passenger car use." (18)

           "Should a good truck grade of rubber be used on a passenger
        tire it would produce mileage equal to or in excess of new tire
        mileage."  "Truck tire compounds...are of higher quality."
        Truck fleets who do keep records...insist on the highest
        qualities of rubbers." (19)
                                     125

-------
     It seems, then, that less than 27.5/32 (2.2 cm) inches of tread rubber
will be needed for a 100,000 mile tire if truck tread rubber is used.

     Another factor bearing on the thickness of the tread rubber needed for
a 100,000 mile tire is the wear rate:

           "Bias tires wear at a logarithmic rate indicating decreas-
        ing wear with increasing mileage.  This decrease in wear rate
        can be attributed to a progressively increasing tread radius
        and to the tread elements which become more rigid with wear
        and thus, do not exhibit as much movement through the ground
        contact area." (20)

     These same factors, increasing tread radius and increasing rubber rigid-
ity with wear, should be at work in steel belted radial tires.  Consequently
the tread rubber required for a 100,000 mile tire, based upon this factor
alone, would be less than the quantity indicated by the direct proportion
taken above, 27.5/32 inches (2.2 cm); as the design service life is increased
the additional tread rubber required is in less than a linear proportion.

     Figure E-l may be used to explore the tread rubber thickness needed when
both (1) the use of truck tread rubber, and (2) the logarithmic wear rate are
taken into consideration.  Figure E-l indicates that, to obtain 100,000 miles
from a truck tire,  .62 inches of truck tread rubber would be needed under
typical wear conditions and .1 inches under slow wear conditions; these fig-
ures are for bias truck tires operating at much higher pressures, however.

     We plotted estimated passenger car tire lines on Figure E-l.  Manufact-
urers now offer tires guaranteed to last 50,000 miles.  To this basic steel
belted mileage we added twenty percent based upon the wide tire concept:

        "...the ultra-wide radial is reported to give 20 percent
        more tread wear than a regular radial tire which is already
        far better  than a conventional bias ply tire.  In addition,
        it gives better high speed performance because of the add-
        itional rubber on the road.  It does not give any cornering
        trouble as ordinary radials sometimes do at high speeds." (21)

     This resulted  in a steel belted radial tire expected life of 60,000
miles.  We assumed  that the effect of the general decrease in the speed limit
to  55 miles per hour, a 10 percent advantage, perhaps, in tread wear over the
older high speed limits, had been included in the 50,000 mile guarantee manu-
facturers' boast.

     The effect of  using truck tread rubber in lieu of passenger tread rubber
could be estimated  to increase mileage by as much as sixty percent.  "The
average mileage obtained from a retreaded radial (steel belted) is 25,000 to
40,000 miles depending on the type of tread rubber used."  (22)  We allowed,
however, that the selection of the highest quality of truck tread rubber would
increase mileage of our TTW tire a modest ten percent, to 66,000 miles.  We
placed a point on Figure E-l at the point where 66,000 miles intersects with
the current design  depth .41 inches, and connected this point to the common


                                      126

-------
           TIRE SERVICE  LIFE MILEAGE  IN THOUSANDS (Log Scale)
  1.0




   .7





   .5
-   3

-------
point of the two truck tire lines as an origin to establish an estimate of
the TTW 100,000 mile tire tread wear rate line.   The TTW 100,000 mile tire
tread wear rate line.   The TTW line indicates that about .55 inches  (1.397 cm)
of truck tread rubber will be needed for 100,000 miles.

     This represents an increase in tread depth of .14 inches (.34 cm)  or
4.5/32.  A total thickness of 17.6/32 inches of truck tread rubber is re-
quired.  This thickness is less than the 20/32 commonly  used by trucks.   If
4.5/32 of truck grade quality tread rubber can be added  to the best  quality
ultra wide steel belted radial tires, a feat which seems realistic according
to Table E-l, we will  have a TTW 100,000 mile tire.

Strength. Durability,  and Safety of 100.000 Mile Tires

     The extra tread rubber will, after a certain thickness is reached,
however, undergo heat buildups which may cause the tire  to fail.  In addi-
tion, tires with such thick tread rubber may not handle  as well as do current
passenger tires.  There are questions of safety associated with the  thick
tread rubber tire.  In fact, there are questions of safety associated with
any tire designed to go 100,000 miles.  Can a tire carcass—as well  as  a
thicker tread—last through 100,000 miles of road hazards such as stones and
potholes?  We examine these questions in order to establish the technical
feasibility of 100,000 mile tires.

     The carcass of existing steel belted radial tires has been judged  by
some tire industry personnel to be adequate for a service life of 100,000
mi 1es:

        "In analyzing the tire, the carcass is probably  adequate"...
        (for 100,000 miles)..."since it is already retreaded and
        generally performs well even in two retreads for many."  (23)

        "There is no problem as far as the tire is concerned; it is
        the vehicle that must be modified." (24)

     There is no mention, in the tire literature, of the tire carcass deter-
iorating with age, except for the problem of sidewall  cracking.  Sidewall
cracking is a chemical reaction via which cracks develop in the tire sides
over time, generally after six years.  Sidewall  cracking is an aesthetic prob-
lem, not a cause of tire failure.  Even if sidewall  cracking would be more
serious sidewall rubbers which can eliminate this problem are reported  to be
available; anti-oxidants can be compounded into sidewall rubber to accomplish
this.

     The ability of any tire to withstand 100,000 miles  of service life  in-
cluding encounters with road hazards has been questioned (25)  The notion that
a 100,000 mile tire has to "survive" 2.5 times as many potholes, rocks,  and
other road hazards implies that:  (1) an average driver  routinely encounters
a significant number of road hazards, and (2) tire rubbers become weaker,  and
more susceptible to damage from road hazards, with age--or with each encounter
and (3) these factors will be significantly detrimental  to the safety of
100,000 mile tires—perhaps causing injuries and death.   None of these

                                     128

-------
implications hold any obvious or absolute truth.   The number of road hazards
is relatively small; drivers are not constantly running into rocks,  potholes,
and nails.  Encounters with road hazards are the  exception rather than the
rule.

     There is no indication in the literature of  tire rubbers or tire struc-
ture weakening with age.  We have already reported the contrary with respect
to tread rubber; tread rubber actually becomes harder with age.  And it seems
that repeated encounters with road hazards should only cause tire failure if:
(a) the tire was of poor manufacture in the first place;  or (b) the  road
hazard encounters are of such extent that they could be labelled "abuse".

     Some factors related to manufacture which might, together with  road
hazards, cause a tire related accident are (26):

        bead deficiencies - inadequate insulation, improper splicing; too
                            small diameter; inadequate or no Chafer
        ply deficiencies  - inadequate adhesion between plies, defective
                            splicing, contaminants at interfaces, cord
                            breaks
        tread deficiencies - inadequate adhesion, air entrapment, contami-
                             nants at interface of tread  and carcass
        inner liner deficiencies - too thin, inadequate composition, air
                                   entrapment
        hinge points - abrupt changes in structure such as belt ends
        defective cords - inadequate materials, size, and strength;  con-
                          tamination; overlapping too much; frays.

     It is probably true that the additional 60,000 miles of tire service
life of a 100,000 mile tire, in combination with  the manufacturing defects
listed above, would cause increased incidence of  tire failures; we suggest,
however, that the tire industry inspects and tests to avoid poorly manufact-
ured products since who is to say that defects might not  cause death and in-
jury during the first 40,000 miles of a tire.  Recently,  however, it has been
suggested that all current tires are defective (27).

     Quite to the contrary of the explanatory approach taken above,  we feel
that 100,000 mile tires will be significantly more safe than current tires.
Tires are not known to be a significant cause of  accidents and injury; that
is, of course, unless the tires in question were  bald, devoid of tread.   Tire
manufacturers have claimed that only .057 percent of vehicle accidents are
tire related.  Bald tires, whether 100,000 mile design or 40,000, will  be
dangerous when exposed to road hazards.  Studies  indicate that (1) bald tires
are more susceptible to damage, and that (2) older cars are more prone to be
fitted with bald tires:

        "There is evidence of significantly greater hazards of both
        tire failure and accidents with bald tires.  Tread depth re-
        maining on tires decreases with vehicle age...Based upon a
        sampling of the general population of...tires in  the USA it
        appears that one-eighth of the passenger  car tires in service
        are bald."  (28)

                                     129

-------
     100,000 mile tires would eliminate much of this danger,  due to baldness,
during the last five to seven years of a vehicles life.   100,000 mile tires
would not be likely to become bald until, on the average, 100,000 miles  of
service, 10 years of life, was completed.  100,000 mile  tires would have a
substantial amount of tread remaining during the last five to seven years of
use whereas current tires do not.   100,000 mile tires, then,  should be safer
than current tires.  They-will decrease the incidence of accidents and provide
benefits to society in terms of lives saved, reductions  in property losses,
and reductions in personnel and paperwork now needed to  account for accidents.

     The LHP 100,000 mile tire would be an even more safe tire since it  would
be underloaded, operating at higher pressures with less  deflection, and  would
have more body plies.  The decreased deflection would be especially important
to increased safe life of the tire.

     Even if this were not so, safety technologies are readily available to
tire manufacturers, technologies with which any tire can be made virtually
accident free.  These designs could be combined with the 100,000 mile designs
above to provide increased safety:

        Self Sealing Tires - usually a tacky coating on  the inner liner
        surface which has the characteristic of "healing" a puncture
        would even in the event that the puncturing object is expelled
        from the tire.

        The Tire Within A Tire - tires designed to be operable even if
        totally deflated, and still maintain reasonable  highway speeds
        for long distances with total vehicle control, and the avoidance
        of destructive damage to the tire.

     Traction, the ability of a tire to enable the vehicle to remain under
control on a road, may be affected by the 100,000 mile design.  For the  TTW
tire, if truck or high quality tread rubber were to have less traction than
current passenger tire tread rubbers, then 100,000 mile  tires would not  handle
quite as well.  Yet the TTW tire is ultra wide with a larger  footprint and
this factor, if necessary, could offset the traction effect of the tread rub-
ber used.  And traction problems related to accidents are generally caused,
again, by baldness.  100,000 mile tires will not be bald for  the greater part
of ten years.  Traction, it would appear, could be about the  same as with
current passenger tire design, or better.  Obviously, however, the traction
factor should be given careful consideration in the detailed  design stage
for 100,000 mile tires.

     In summary, it appears that 100,000 mile tires, both the LHP and TTW
designs, can be more durable, strong, and safe than current 40,000 mile  tires.
We examine next, marketability.

MARKETABILITY OF 100,000 MILE TIRES

     Consumers will buy 100,000 mile tires; in a preliminary  market survey,
virtually all of the respondents indicated that they (1) were interested in
such tires and (2) were willing to pay from $30 to $150  additional for each

                                      130

-------
tire (29).  There are several  reasons for this interest:

1.  Consumers can obtain 100,000 mile tires when they buy a new car and can,
    conveniently and accordingly, include ten years of tire costs  in the fi-
    nancing of the new vehicle.

2.  Consumers can obtain 100,000 mile tires at a price which,  in present
    value analysis, is cheaper than the costs of the alternative four sets
    of tires.  Consequently consumers achieve a lower cost per mile.

3.  100,000 mile tires will provide added safety to their own  vehicle and to
    the vehicles with which they interact on the road.

4.  Purchase of 100,000 mile tires will eliminate the need for at  least three
    distasteful trips to purchase replacement tires; this will  include gaso-
    line savings, time savings,  and avoidance of the confusion associated with
    tire brands and types.

5.  Consumers can recoup their investment if they sell their car after, say,
    three years; the factor of having good tires with 70,000 miles of tread-
    wear left will be an asset which will increase the resale  price.

6.  Consumers can avoid public costs (increased taxes) associated  with waste
    tire disposal.  Waste tire disposal involves, at the least, transporta-
    tion costs, expensive shredders costs, and landfill costs; 100,000 mile
    tires eliminate 75 percent of the waste tires generated in any year, and,
    accordingly, avoid 75 percent of the public tire waste costs.

7.  Consumers are very much conscious of the needs for conservation and pro-
    tection of environmental quality.  They will buy 100,000 mile  tires be-
    cause they believe in the need for conservation and they value quality
    of the physical environment.

     The costs to consumers may be, with the LHP 100,000 mile  tire, a rela-
tively harsh ride.  The principal factor in passenger car tire design has
been riding comfort:

        "The original inventors and pioneers of the pneumatic  tire
        were inspired by the one objective of cushioning a moving
        vehicle.  The tire has evolved to provide many other essen-
        tial properties for the operation of modern vehicles,  but
        the principle of a soft smooth ride remains a major criterion
        and will probably remain the governing factor in design
        approaches in the future."  (29)

Tire manufacturers would say that, "Consumers, through their automobile pur-
chases demand tires that ride soft; consumers will not buy rougher riding
tires such as LHP tires".  We suggest that consumers may not even  notice the
difference in ride between 100,000 and current belted tires.  We suggest,
further, that oil quantity limitations, inflationary cost increases, and solid
waste pollution have, perhaps, changed consumer attitudes more toward a tire
product design balance which is more economical in use and which conserves oil

                                      131

-------
and avoids pollution and public waste handling costs.   The consumers of today
will buy 100,000 mile tires, even if their ride is rougher.

     The preliminary design analysis, above, shows that 100,000 mile tires
are technically feasible; there are significant bases  upon which to build a
marketing campaign.  Why is it then that the tire industry has not already
produced 100,000 mile tires?


               A TIRE INDUSTRY VIEWPOINT:  100,000 MILE TIRES

     The Rubber Manufacturers Association indicates that the tire industry is
booming; the replacement tire market has grown by leaps and bounds (30).

       TABLE E-2.  U. S. PASSENGER TIRE SALES  (SHIPMENTS) IN MILLIONS
Market                                                 Year

Original
equipment
Replacement
1950

37
47
1955

43
50
1960

36
69
1965

51
95
1970

38
133
1975

40
129*
* The 1975 figure was affected by a fairly severe recession.

     Is it not "just good business" to keep tire service life short as com-
pared to vehicle life; after all, repeat sales mean repeat profits.  This
approach has resulted in the fantastic growth in Table E-2.  The larger the
annual market volume, the larger the annual profits.  100,000 mile tires will
be, of necessity, original equipment (OE) tires and, except for defective or
damaged 100,000 mile tires and to replace short lived tires already in use,
there will eventually be little or no need for a replacement tire market.
100,000 mile tires have little appeal when viewed from this viewpoint, the
current viewpoint of the tire dealer.

     Price research has indicated that tire manufacturers now make substantial
profits (6 or 7 percent) on replacement tires with little or no profit (1 or
2 percent, sometimes even losses) taken on original equipment sales.  The ap-
parent strategy of this approach is to build up the company name and image in
the original equipment market so as to promote replacement tire sales and an
increasing market share of the replacement market.  Consequently, manufact-
urers would have to sell 100,000 mile tires to automobile manufacturers at
higher prices than those of current practice.  Can tire manufacturers con-
vince automobile manufacturers to buy 100,000 mile tires?  Can they take, with
this product, reasonable recurrent profits?  Can enough profit be obtained so
as to maintain the current value of the industry?  And what of the job changes
and losses associated with the lost market volume?  What will be the effects
on employment levels and the national economy?  Conventional  economic theory

                                     132

-------
as well as political insight indicates that responses to these questions
should be negative.  Tire dealers and manufacturers have not produced 100,000
mile tires because it seems, to them, a matter of survival.   This is a quite
different reason, however, than the usually assumed non-availability of tech-
nology to do the job.

     He would respond to these questions facing the tire and auto industries
positively:  Consumers will buy 100,000 mile tires and therefore automobile
manufacturers will purchase them for original  equipment.  We indicate below
how the tire industry can actually make greater total profits per year with
100,000 mile tires.  According to conventional economic theory then, there
should be an improvement in the national economy with a greater Gross Nation-
al Product as 100,000 mile tires become standard.

     The last hard question relates to employment levels.   With 100,000 mile
tires, fewer manufacturing, transportation, and sales employees will be need-
ed.  With the TTW tire, for example, we would  produce, in  1975, for example,
thirty-five million 100,000 mile tires for original equipment.   We would pro-
duce, in addition, the 138 million conventional replacement  tires or 138
million 75,000 mile tires, or 138 million of some other design service life
tire.  The effects of the 100,000 mile tire should be felt that year in a
positive fashion as more workers should be needed to produce the same num-
ber of tires as would ordinarily be required,  but to produce tires of higher
service life quality with more materials and some increased  labor.  The next
few years should be of similarly high employment.  After,  perhaps, four years,
however, the demand for replacement tires will begin to decline; tires that
ordinarily would require replacement that year will not require replacement.
The replacement tire market will continue to decline in volume over the years,
the only growth influence being attributable to population and car sales
growth.  Some persons employed by the tire industry during this time would,
of necessity, have to change to other jobs or  products.  Tire salesmen might
have to focus upon auto accessories.  Tire dealers might have to focus more
upon auto and tire service.

     These changes are not unusual in the tire industry.  Since the 1960s
choices of reinforcing fabrics, wire, and glasses, used in tires, as well as
materials used in elastomer compounding, have  shifted the  fortunes of company
after company.  The recent shift toward increasing use of  38,000 mile steel
belted radial tires has placed into effect, as a profit oriented business
decision, the exact effects which we forecast  for the 100,000 mile tire:
/Although it is difficult to discern in the total figures of  Table E-2, long
life radial sales are booming in their initial years.  Tire  dealers are
shifting more toward being automobile service  centers.  The  100,000 mile
tire proposal promises more of the same.

     The notion that the effects of 100,000 mile radial tires would be felt
gradually over time^ is demonstrated in Tables E-3 and E-4,  the results of a
simulation of car and tire production and solid wastes (31).   The results of
a hypothetical Federal Policy requiring that,  all new cars sold in 1978 and
thereafter be equipped with lifetime, 100,000  mile, tires,"  were as follows:
                                     133

-------
TABLE E-3.  SIMULATED WASTE TIRES AND NEW REPLACEMENT TIRE SALES IN 100,000's:
                                  1960 THROUGH 1990

Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978*
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
New cars
produced
63
65
67
69
71
74
76
78
80
82
85
87
89
91
93
96
98
100
102
104
107
109
111
113
115
118
120
122
124
126
129
Waste
model
(1)
1170
1280
1230
1260
1410
1455
1530
1535
1670
1655
1770
1760
1890
1890
1920
2060
2000
2115
2070
2205
2010
2245
2030
2165
2130
2340
2215
2370
2305
2590
2460
tires
run
(2;
1170
1280
1230
1260
1410
1455
1530
1535
1670
1655
1770
1760
1890
1890
1920
2060
2000
2115
2070
2205
2030
2060
1700
1535
1320
1290
1090
1045
1100
1090
1035
Repl . tire sales
model run
0) C2)
990
1025
1020
1095
1170
1200
1265
1280
1380
1345
1450
1435
1545
1595
1565
1685
1610
1730
1670
1860
1645
1785
1575
1735
1645
1865
1745
1930
1755
2005
1890
990
1025
1020
1095
1170
1200
1265
1280
1380
1345
1450
1435
1545
1595
1565
1685
1610
1730
1670
1860
1645
1595
1245
1095
86U
825
645
585
570
505
470
Junked
cars
36
51
42
33
48
51
53
51
58
62
64
65
69
59
71
75
78
77
80
69
77
93
91
88
92
93
89
92
106
117
113
* Model Run 2 implements the policy of all 100,000 mile tires on original
  equipment cars, and 27,0(JO mile retreaded tires for replacements, beginning
  in 1978.  These figures were taken for a single computer run; they suffice
  for a rough indication.  Follow up research should sample from this model
  to obtain average results.
                                      134

-------
(1) No effects were felt on replacement tire sales for two years;  actually,
    as above, more workers and labor would be involved,  increased  employment
    and GNP, to produce this expected number of tires.

(2) Beginning in 1981,  replacement tire sales begin to diminish at an  average
    rate of 11,750,000  per year,  to a level  ot around 47,000,000 tires per
    year in 1990; these sales should continue to decrease as  the needs for
    replacements drop to near zero eventually and used and retreaded  tires
    could fill these needs.

(3) New cars produced increase from 10,200,000 in 1978 to 12,900,000  in 1990.
    New OE tire sales increase by about 1,000,000 tires  per year.

     The important points that we would make are that the replacement  tire
market still exists after ten years, and that it has been decreasing  over
time at a rate of 11,750,000 tires per year.  There is no elimination  of the
replacement market all  at once as some would fear.  Meanwhile the  new  passen-
ger tire market is increasing by  one million tires per year.

     The 100,000 mile tires being produced will require,  in addition,  more
labor and materials, and higher per tire employment levels than current
tires.  If the increase in labor  and materials is linear, then there will be
no employment decreases whatsoever with 100,000 mile tires; all of the labor
and materials that went into replacement tire production  would be  merely
shifted to OE tire production. This is not the case however--it is much
cheaper to produce and  sell one 100,000 mile tire ($30)  than  it is to  pro-
duce four current steel belted radial tires ($80).  300,000 persons are em-
ployed by tire manufacturers and  dealers.   If 100,000 mile tires are  used as
original equipment, then 5/8 of these, 187,500 persons,  might be expected to
be affected during a, perhaps, fifteen year period.  This amounts  to  about
12,500 persons per year whose employment will be affected. These  persons
will include tire builders and other manufacturing personnel, tire dealers,
and tire salesmen.  If  these are  split evenly between production and  sales,
then 6250 persons per year in each category can be expected to be  affected.
Retreaders, reclaimers, and tire  splitters should still  have  an adequate
number of worn carcasses to work  with as well as adequate markets.

     Some of the 6250 persons per year may be able to continue employment in
the same job due to increased demand for new cars.  Others may have to rind
new employment.  Perhaps the necessary employment shifts  can  be managed by
tire manufacturers and  dealers so that affected employees have years  of
notice, have retraining, and are  given placement services by  their firms.

     None of this needs to affect the gross value of the  tire industry; this
is demonstrated in the  following  section.   Tire prices can be established so
that gross profits from one 100,000 mile tire can be greater  than  or  equal to
gross profits from four 25,000 mile tires.  This can actually be accomplished
with the tire consumer  receiving  tire services for less  cost  per year.
                                     135

-------
       TABLE E-4.  ESTIMATED PASSENGER TIRE SALES DATA 1981  - 1990

Sales data in




Year
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
(1)

Exp.
OE
sales
545
555
565
575
590
600
610
620
630
645
12)

Exp.
rep.
sales
1785
1575
1735
1645
1865
1745
1930
1775
2005
1890
(3)

Exp.
total
sales
2330
2130
2300
2220
2455
2345
2540
2375
2635
2535
(4)

Actual
rep.
sales
1595
1245
1095
860
825
645
585
570
505
470
(5)

Exp-act
rep. sale
decrease
190
330
640
785
1040
1100
1345
1185
1500
1420
(6)
Act rep
decrease
from prev
year
50
350
150
235
35
180
60
15
65
35
100,000's
(7)
OE
increase
over prev
year
10
10
10
10
15
10
10
10
10
15

(8)

Net an
dec
6-7
40
340
140
225
25
170
50
5
55
25

(9)

Net tot
dec
6-7
180
320
630
775
1030
1090
1335
1175
1490
1410

''NOTE:   This is Actual  Replacement Sales geven the requirement that all  OE
        tires be 100,000 mile tires.
        We examine next the costs, prices, and profits of 100,000 mile tires.

COSTS, PRICES, AND PROFITS:  1976 STEEL BELTED RADIAL TIRES

     100,000 mile tires will, obviously, cost more than current passenger
tires.  The TTW Design is based upon the steel belted radial  carcass  and  its
estimated costs may be determined in relation to current steel  belted radial
tires; to the basic cost of a current steel  belted radial, we can add the in-
creased costs for labor and materials—as well as a reallocation of overhead
costs.  Estimates of current manufacturing costs provide the  basis for our
estimates of 100,000 mile tire production cost.

     Steel belted radial tire manufacture is relatively new in the United
States; there are two basic methods of steel belted radial tire manufacture:
these are the conventional, "Single Stage" method, and a, special  for steel
belted radials, "Two Stage" method.  The Two Stage method requires an extra
machine {the second stage)  for tire building; the second machine expands  the
green tire to its torroidal shape so that the relatively inflexible belts may
be added.  In the One Stage method more flexible belts are added prior to
expansion to final shape.

     We estimate that steel belted radial tires, in 1976 production,  ex-
hibited the following cost  and price relationships:
                                     136

-------
   TABLE E-5.  COSTS AND PRICES OF STEEL BELTED RADIAL PASSENGER TIRES
                                       Two-stage               One-stage
	steel  belted	steel  belted
Manufacturers' prices*
  OE auto cost of a tire          ^-^  2?-64  33.17     17.69  22.12  27.06
  REP dealer cost of a tire       22-91  28-64  34-39     18-32  22-91  27-51

Retail tire dealer sales price&   39-20  65-50  89-60     39-20  65-50  89-60

Gross profit:  dealers*           15-29  36-86  55-21     20-88  42-59  62-09

Tire dealer expenses*             15-31  34'64  51-89     19-62  40-03  58-36

Net  (BT) profit:  dealers^           -98   2-22    3-32      1-25   2-56   3-73


* Manufacturers' costs were calculated based upon a range of belted bias
  costs of $12 to $18; we used three discrete levels:  $12, $15, and $18.
  To this we added 25% for the two stage process; nothing was added for the
  single stage process;  this represented a  25%  and 0% incremental cost for
  radial tire production over bias belted.  Next  a 40% increase in costs over
  the calculated radial  tire cost was figured in; this increase represents
  the oil and associated price increases of 1974  to 1976.  The labor price
  increase of late 1976  was next figured in at  12% times -the labor portion
  of tire costs  .275.  Then 2% OE manufacturers profits and 6% replacement
  tire manufacturers profits were added.  References are (1) Westerman,
  pp 176-179; (2) Cox, NTDRA Marketing Guidelines, 1977, p 11; (3) Cone,
  et al, p 75; and (4) Modern Tire Dealer,  1977,  January, p 72.

& Reference Cox, NTDRA Marketing Guidelines 197/, p 11; these are actual
  prices for the first six months of 1976,  with 12% added to reflect the
  settlement of  the labor dispute of 1976--Modern Tire Dealer, January 1977,
  p  72.

i Profits on original equipment were not calculated.  This gross profit
  represents retail price minus replacement tire  cost; this assumes that
  low cost tires are sold at lower prices.

# Expenses were  calculated at  .94 of gross  profit; reference Cox, NTDRA
  Financial Analysis Study 1977, p 2, Table 2.

@ This before tax profit was calculated as  gross  profits minus expenses.
  Taxes would be  .25 or  .48 percent  of this, depending on the size of
  profits.
      The cost figures  given  for  the one stage  process are probably better
 estimates of radial  tire  manufacturing costs:
                                      137

-------
           "Radials  sell  for up to 50% more than other tires,  yet  cost
        little more  to manufacture,  especially now that Akron's  "learn-
        ing experience" is  largely completed and radial  volume is  moving
        into mass  production figures." (32)

     A breakdown of  total  passenger tire costs was developed by  Cooper  (33):

    TABLE E-6.  PERCENT OF PER TIRE MANUFACTURING COSTS, BY CATEGORY


                       Bias belted            Radial               Radial
Cost category         glass/textile       textile/textile       steel/textile
Investment
Labor
Materials
Total
9
39
52
100
8
45
47
100
10
45
45
100
_._
     In 1976 another cost breakdown for steel  belted radials  was  reported:
(1) Labor 10%; (2)  Materials 50%;  and (3)  Other 40%; profit was not  included
in this estimate (34).

     This discrepancy in reported  data (10% labor versus  45%  labor for  steel
belted radial  tires) is probably based upon accounting practice;  the later
estimate reflects the recent investment in radial  tire production equipment
in its high depreciation years  and consequently the "Other" category includ-
ing depreciation expense is relatively high, 40%.   Cooper's figures, on the
other hand, probably reflect little depreciation expense  and, perhaps,  could
more fairly be called "overhead".   Cooper's sources may not have  realized the
affect of decreased production  quantities  on overhead; fewer  tires per  year
are needed with radials.  We used  the average of the two  reports  as  our est-
imate.  We felt that this was a more accurate representation  of the  long run
proportions.

            TABLE E-7.   SBR PER TIRE PRODUCTION COSTS BY CATEGORY
Cost category                                                     Percent of
                                                                  total  costs

Overhead, S0                                                         25.0
Labor,    SL                                                         27.5
Material, Sm                                                         47.5
Total                                                               100.0
     We estimate next the additional  materials, labor,  and  overhead  needed
for a 100,000 mile tire.


                                     138

-------
100,000 MILE TTW TIRES:   INCREMENTAL MATERIALS NEEDS (H ')
                                                     v  m'

     If the incremental  material  needs for a 100,000 mile  tire were in pro-
portion to the mileage obtained,  then 2.5 times the materials of a current
steel  belted radial  tire, an increment of 1.5 times the materials, would be
required:

                             M6   100000

                             M=  40000 = 2'5
Where Mg = the mileage obtained, on the average under normal  use,  from
           100,000 mile tires.

      MI = the mileage obtained, on the average under normal  use,  from
           current steel belted radial  tires.

     We have indicated, however, that the carcass of an existing steel
belted radial passenger tire is adequate for 100,000 miles (160,900 kilo-
meters) of life, and that only 4.5 thirty-secondths of an inch (.36 cm)  over
the usual 13.1 thirty-secondths of an inch (1.04 cm) of tread rubber thick-
ness will be needed.  The additional tread rubber needed represents an
increment, not of 150%, but of only 35%.  Tread rubber constitutes perhaps
fifteen percent of the tire materials by volume.  Accordingly we multiplied
the increase in depth (.35) times the proportion (.15) to determine the in-
creased materials proportion; the result is a  five percent increase due to
tread rubber thickness:

  Increased Tread Rubber Needs = Dt (Dn) = .15 (.35) = .05

  Where:   Dt = a decimal fraction; the fraction, by volume,  that tread
                rubber constitutes of a tires  materials
           D^ = the decimal fraction increase  in tread rubber depth needed
                for 100,000 miles of tire service life as opposed to
                40,000 miles

     This tread rubber would be truck tread rubber in lieu of passenger tread
rubber.  We represented the truck tread rubber as rubber comprised of a high-
er grade of carbon black than is currently normal.  The higher quality carbon
black costs more, we assumed a twenty-five percent increase,  than that
currently used for passenger tires, but requires less black and less oil ex-
tender;  the amount  effect is a cost savings  of about eleven percent. (34)
If these figures are reasonable, then the net  effect would be a fourteen
percent increment in the cost of tread rubber  .
Net Increase In Materials
  Due To Quality
                              _    _     „_    , ,    , ,
                            = D  ~ Dd = -25 - -11 = -14
                                     139

-------
Where:
D   = a decimal fraction representing the increase in the cost of high
 4    quality carbon black over conventional carbon black
D,  = a decimal fraction decrease in the cost of carbon black with higher
      quality, due to the need for smaller amounts

     The additional materials which we would need to account for the wideness
of the tire might be represented as a three inch (7.62 cm.) increase in width
on a 75.15 tire, a thirty-five percent increase in the parts of the tire
beneath the tread, and including the tread.  This portion of the tire com-
prises about forty percent of the surface area of the tire, and includes car-
cass, belts, non-skid, and tread rubber.  We multiplied the increase in width
(.35) times the relevant proportion of the tire (.4) to determine an approx-
imation to the increased materials needed due to width.  K'e added .12 to this
result to represent the factor of .35 increase in tread rubber depth needed
on the widened section of tire.  Twenty-six percent additional materials are
needed for the ultra-wide tire.
  Materials Needed Due To
   Increased Width
uw
(Du)  + Dw (On)  = .35 (.4)  + .35 (.35)  = .26
Where:
      the decimal fraction increase in tread rubber depth needed for 100,000
      miles of tire service life as opposed to 40,000 miles
      the proportion of a tires surface area which is covered by tread rubber
      the decimal fraction representing the increased width needed for a
      TTW 100,000 mile tire
     We summed the three effects discussed above to determine a surrogate
measure of the increased materials needed for a TTW 100,000 mile tire.


          Hm = the increase in rubber thickness plus
               the increase in materials due to tread quality plus
               the increase  in materials due to the width of the TTW tire
             = .05 + .14 + .26

             = .45

100,000 MILE TIRES: INCREASED LABOR NEEDS (HL)

     A diagram of the tire manufacturing process is given in Kovacs (35).

     Labor costs to produce a TTW tire could increase in direct proportion
to the additional materials used; certainly TTW tires would require that a
greater number of pounds of rubber and materials be processed:  (1) through
tire cord weaving dip and calendering units; and (2) through Banbury, milling,
and extruding machines.  The tire vulcanizing process will take longer due to
the increased thickness of tread rubber used.  We estimated that labor costs
associated with these components of the tire manufacturing would increase
                                     140

-------
forty-five percent, in accordance with H , for 100,000 mile tires.

     The time requirements of cutting, bead coating-winding-and building,
tire assembly, and final inspection (452 of the operations) would not in-
crease significantly, however; a tire builder, for example, still  has the
same number of pieces to assemble with a TTW tire as he does for a  conven-
tional tire.   Tire Builders are the most skilled of the tire labor  force;
they are on a relatively high wage scale.  The labor costs, per tire, of the
tire builder, cutting, bead, and inspection components would then,  not in-
crease for a  100,000 mile tire.

     Based upon this analysis we used a figure of twenty-five percent as an
estimate of increased labor costs for the TTW tire.  H,   =  ,2b

OVERHEAD COSTS:  100,000 MILE TIRES (HQ)

     It would seem that overhead costs per tire, the "burden", would increase
dramatically with the decreased production throughput volume implied by
100,000 mile tires; the fixed costs of production must be allocated tor ac-
counting purposes, over a smaller volume of tires.  To determine the correct-
ness of this  idea we examine, "What is overhead?".

     Overhead expenses include:

        1.  Repair labor and materials
        Z.  Energy costs
        3.  Water and waste processing costs
        4.  Depreciation on equipment
        5.  Property taxes
        6.  Insurance
        7.  Salaries and wages of non direct production personnel
        8.  Research
        9.  Other.

     There is no reason to assume that a tire manufacturer would maintain the
system of overhead associated activities if he decreased his production vol-
ume.  Most of the expenses would be decreased.  Obviously, the energy re-
quirements would be smaller with a smaller production volume; water and waste
processing requirements would be similarly smaller.  Some plant and equipment
would undoubtedly be sold off and this would decrease depreciation, property
taxes, repair labor and materials, and insurance costs.  A smaller  non direct
work force would be needed to manage the production.  Research might remain
at the same level.  It seems, then, that a smaller quantity of overhead costs
remains to be allocated over the smaller quantity of 100,000 mile tires.  It
is not inconceivable that overhead costs increase, but by a small amount.

     Further, the 100,000 mile tire alternative clearly recognizes  that,
eventually, a large percent of the replacement tire market will be  elimin-
ated or transformed to provide other goods and services.   The firms that
remain to produce the 100,000 mile tires will have the same overhead costs
per tire as before provided that they operate at the same production volume.
For these firms the overhead costs per tire will remain about the same as for

                                     141

-------
conventional tires or, at most, will  have an increase proportional  to the in-
creased material  usage.  Some of the  overhead categories—depreciation,  taxes,
and insurance—would not increase if  excess capacity already existed for the
manufacturers.   Excess capacity does  exist for most tire manufacturing equip-
ment—at least tor the more expensive eouipment such as the Calender and
Banbury machines.   Consequently a figure representing less than the forty-
five percent increase in overhead would be justified.

     We used a figure of H0 = .40 to  represent this increase for those firms
that would remain  in the industry to  produce the 100,000 mile tires.

PRODUCTION COSTS:   100,000 TTW TIRES

     The TTW 100,000 mile tire is essentially a current steel belted radial
tire with increased width and tread depth; in addition it uses top  quality
(truck) tread rubber.  To calculate its cost we combined the cost components,
studied above, as  follows:

                     H = Cr + CrSrnHm  + CrSi_HL + CrS0H0

                       = Cr(l+ SmHm  + SLHL + S0H0)

Where:

   H  = the production cost for a TTW 100,1)00 mile tire.
   Cr = the cost of producing a current steel belted radial passenger car
        tire, excluding manufacturers profit.
   Sm = the decimal fraction of a steel belted radial tire's production
        costs attributable to materials, only.
   H  = a number representing the additional amount of materials needed to
        obtain 100,000 miles.
   S^ = the decimal fraction of a steel belted radial tire's production cost
        attributable to labor, only.
   HL = a number representing the additional labor needed to produce a
        100,000 mile tire.
   SQ = the decimal fraction of a steel belted radial tire's production costs
        attributable to "overhead".
   H  = a number representing the additional overhead which must be allocated
        to a 100,000 mile tire.

This Equation says:

   H = Cost of a current steel belted radial tire plus
       the additional materials costs plus
       the additional  labor costs plus
       the additional  allocation for overhead expenses.

     The cost of a current single stage steel belted radial tire, with manu-
facturers' profits included, from Table E-5 is $22.12.  Cr, excluding manu-
facturers' profits, is 521.68.  The data for Sm, Si, and S0 is given in Table
E-7.  The additional materials proportions (Hm = .45), Labor (H[_ =  .25), and


                                     142

-------
overhead (\\Q = .40) needed for TTW 100,000 mile tires, were developed in the
previous sections.  Our estimated cost for a 100,000 mile TTW tire is,
accordingly:

                H = 21.68 (1 + (.475K.45) + (.275)(.25) + (.250)(.40)

                  = 21.68 (1.38)  = $29.92

     A 100,000 mile TTW tire will cost about thirty dollars, excluding
manufacturer's profits, to produce.  An equally important question is, "At
what price would these tires sell?"

SALES PRICES: 100,000 MILE TIRES

     Tire sellers have the option of selling 40,000 mile steel  belted radial
tires that last four years (at 10,000 miles per year), or TTW 100,000 mile
tires that last ten years.  This situation may be formulated as a present
value problem to determine a reasonable selling price for 100,000 mile tires.
             TABLE E-8.  GROSS PROFITS OF FIVE 40,000 MILE TIRES

Beginning PV factors
of year 10% 20%
1.0
5.0
9.0
13.0
17.0
1.000
.633
.467
.319
.218
1.000
.482
.233
.112
.054
Steel radial
gross profits
542.59
$42.59
$42.59
$42.59
$42.59
Present value of gross profits
10% 20%
$42.59
5.29.09
$19.89
$13.59
$ 9.28
$42.59
$20.53
5 9.92
$ 4.77
$ 2.30
                      Totals $212.95
  $114.44
$80.11
     The present values of the gross profits from five 40,000 mile tire sales
are $114.44 discounted at ten percent and $80.11 discounted at twenty percent.
These values may be used to determine a price for the 100,000 mile tire.
Two 100,000 mile tires are equivalent to five current 40,000 mile steel belt-
ed radial tires.  Based upon this we calculated the gross profits from  two
100,000 mile tire sales for the ten and twenty percent discount rates:
   Gn:  10% calculation

     Gn + .424Gh = 114.44

     G  = 114.44/1/424 = $ 80.36
Gh: 20% calculation

   Gh + .162Gh = 80.11

   Gh = 80.11/1.162 = $ 68.94
                                     143

-------
        5.94 to $80.36 gross profits per 100,000 mile tire will  be necessary,
from the tire industry's viewpoint, if the 100,000 mile tire is to be profit-
able as compared to current steel  belted radial tires.

     If we add the $30 production  cost to this gross profit value we obtain
an estimate of a price for 100,000 mile tires which should be very reasonable
from the tire industry's viewpoint.  This price is $ 98.94 to $110.36.   About
$100 would be a reasonable price for a 100,000 mile tire.

     In current dollar figures, if tire sellers were to sell 47.5 million
100,000 mile tires per year at a price of about $100 each, they would make
more gross profit than if they were to sell  150 million 40,000 mile tires
per year at a price of $65.50.  In general,  it is better to sell  fewer high
quality tires at higher prices than to sell  larger quantities of lower
quality tires at lower prices.

100,000 MILE TIRES AND THE CONSUMER

     Consumers may also be the beneficiaries of a 100,000 mile tire.   At
current steel belted radial tire prices consumers may be expected to pay
$65.50 per tire every four years.   In twenty years this totals  $327.50 per
axle on a car; the present value of this amount at a discount rate of ten
percent is $190.27.  Tire sellers  can sell 100,000 mile tires at $100 each,
one now and one at the beginning of year eleven, to the consumer.  The
present value of these two sales is $142.40.  The consumer can  save $47.87
per axle each twenty years.  Obviously, both the consumer and the tire
seller can get more for less with  100,000 mile tires.

FUEL CONSUMPTION:  100,000 MILE TIRES

     TTW 100,000 mile tires use about forty  percent more materials than  do
current steel belted radial tires; a TTW tire, then, may be represented  as
being forty percent heavier than a current 40,000 mile  tire.  If a current
tire weighs 30 pounds (13.6 Kg.) when new, then TTW tires would weigh 42
pounds (19.1 Kg.) each.  This represents an  increase in weight  of twelve
pounds (5.4 Kg.) per tire.  This increased wieght has an effect on the gas-
oline mileage obtained from an automobile and this effect might be repre-
sented as a cost of 100,000 mile tires in our analyses.  We examine the
cost of increased fuel consumption below.

     We estimated the change in fuel  consumption which  would be associated
with a twelve pound (5.4 Kg.) increase in the weight of a TTW tire,   a 5000
pound (2268 Kg.) tutomobile consumes about 100 percent  more fuel  than does  a
2500 (1134 Kg.) automobile.  Over  the ten year life of  his vehicle the owner
usually spends nearly sixty percent of the price of the car on  gasoline.  For
a $5000 automobile, $3000 would be spent on  gasoline in ten years and this
represents $1200 during the four year life of a current tire.   An increase
in weight of twelve pounds (5.4 Kg.) on a 3750 pound (1701  Kg.)  car repre-
sents a .3 percent increase in weight.  If the relationship between fuel
consumption and vehicle weight is  direct such that a .002 percent increase
in weight results in a .3 percent  increase in fuel consumption,  then  an
additional cost of $3.84 per 100,000 mile tire per four years would be


                                     144

-------
incurred.  Four 100,000 mile tires would add $15.36 to consumer fuel  costs
each four years.  This cost is significant, yet it is significantly less  than
the $22.70 consumer savings (Table 3) obtainable in the cost of tire  services.
And there is substantial possibility that 100,000 mile tires could  be sold  at
even less than the $107 price used to represent 100,000 mile tires  in the
Tires II analysis.  For example, if a tire manufacturer were satisfied with
a $90 price per tire representing a markup, from the $30 production cost, of
200 percent, consumers could obtain tire cost benefits much greater than  the
$22.70 found in this research.

     The LHP 100,000 mile tire need not have any increased fuel consumption
as compared to current tires; the effect of higher operating pressures is to
increase gas mileage.  The operating pressure of TTW tires could be slightly
increased to offset any increase in gasoline consumption which  would  occur
because of increased weight.  DTR 100,000 mile tires, when developed, will
have no increase in weight.  The efficiency of fuel use for 100,000 mile
tires, then, can be the same as for current tires.

SUMMARY

     100,000 mile tires are technically feasible to produce and are market-
able.  They can offer increased profits for tire sellers and decreased costs
for tire services to consumers.  100,000 mile tires will provide additional
benefits in the areas of safety, conservation, and solid waste  management.
                                     145

-------
               GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS

A   =  the proportion of a 40,000 mile tire's manufactured value
       (manufacturer's selling price) that a solid waste tire
       retains
Ajj  =  the area, in square yards, of a Phoenix, Arixona, city
       block 560 feet by 60 feet
Ca  =  the costs of grading a worn tire for possible reuse

Cjj  =  the batch collection costs per worn tire

Cc  -  the haul costs per solid waste tire

Cj  =  the costs of grinding a solid waste tire

Ce  =  the costs of chopping up (shredding) a solid waste tire

Cf  =  the average cost of a % inch asphalt concrete finishing
       coat (ACFC) in conventional road repairs

Cg  =  the cost of processing a solid waste tire by Cryogenics

Cj,  =  handling costs per solid waste or worn tire

G.J  =  a cost index which indicates the decimal fraction inc-
       reased cost that radial tires incur as compared to belted
       bias tires
Cj_  =  landfill costs per solid waste tire

Cn  =  the production cost for a belted bias tire, including
 P
       manufacturer's profit; the average price to wholesalers
C   =  the average store rental cost for a tire dealer

Cs  =  the average cost of one inch of asphalt concrete in road
       repairs
C   =  the present value of road repairs avoided each ten years
       with the tire asphalt rubber repair process
Ctra=  tire asphalt rubber costs for repairs to a 560' X 60'
       city block
C.  =  the cost of retreading a tire; production processing cost

Cu  =  the haul cost per solid waste tire

DC  =  the pounds of carbon obtainable from one solid waste tire
                               146

-------
       using the TOSCO, pyrolysis/destructive distillation,
       process
Dj  =  a decimal fraction decrease in the cost of carbon black
       with higher quality, due to smaller amounts needed
Dh  =  the decimal fraction increase in tread rubber depth needed
       for 100,000 miles of tire service life as opposed to
       40,000 miles
D.  =  the decimal fraction solid waste decrease per tire for
       the service life design which is used with alternative "i"
DQ  =  the barrels of recovered oil obtainable from one solid
       waste tire using the Tosco destructive distillation
       process
D   =  a decimal fraction representing the increase in the cost
       of high quality carbon black over conventional  carbon
       black
Ds  =  the tons of scrap steel obtainable from one solid waste
       tire using the Tosco destructive distillation process
Dt  =  a decimal fraction that indicates the part, by volume,
       that tread rubber constitutes of a tire's materials
Du  =  the proportion of a tire's surface area which is covered
       by tread rubber
Dw  =  a decimal fraction representing the increased width
       needed for a TTW 100,000 mile tire
E   =  the costs of maintaining environmental quality; landfill
       costs are used as a surrogate in this work
EXAV =  the average selling expenses for a 40,000 mile steel
       belted radial  tire
EXL =  a low estimate of selling expenses for a 40,000 mile steel
       belted radial  tire
F*  =  a tire dealer's gross profit rate on selling price for
       40,000 mile steel belted radial tires
F5  =  a tire dealer's gross profit rate on the selling price
       of a 40,000 mile retreaded tire
Fc  =  a tire dealers gross profit rate  on the selling price
       of a 100,000 mile tire
6   =  the application rate for tire asphalt rubber, in gallons
       per square yard of road repaired
G.  =  the gross profits obtained on the sale of a 100,000 mile
 n     tire
H   =  the average production cost for a 100,000 mile TTW tire

HL  =  a decimal fraction representing the increased labor
       needed to produce a 100,000 mile tire
Hm  =  a decimal fraction representing the increased materials
       needed in producing a 100,000 mile tire
Ij  =  an interest/discounting rate decimal fraction for
       business investments
Ig  =  an interst/discounting rate decimal fraction for
       governmental funds
K^  =  a decimal fraction representing high administrative and
       marketing costs as compared to production costs
                               147

-------
K   =  a decimal fraction of sales price factor representing
 h     administrative and marketing costs  for 100,000 mile tires
Ki   =  a decimal fraction of production costs factor used to
       represent low administrative and marketing costs
Kr  =  a decimal fraction of production costs factor used to
       represent administrative and marketing costs of retreading
M*  =  average mileage service life ofr a steel belted radial
       tire in the United States in 1975: 40,000 miles
M5  =  average total mileage service life for belted (steel)
       radial  tires with one retreading; including both original
       and retreaded life
M6  =  average mileage service life for tires designed to last,
       the average life of an automobile: 100,000 miles
N   =  the proportion of a solid waste tire that it takes to
       obtain one pound of tire asphalt rubber additive
N   =  the number of tires in a landfill six feet deep measured
       at one cubic foot per tire
Nb  =  the number of whole tires used in one city block of tire
       asphalt rubber road repairs
Ns  =  the number of whole tires used in one square yard of tire
       asphalt rubber road repairs
0   =  the opportunity cost, to tire manufacturers, of increas-
       ing retreading by one tire
0|_  =  the decimal fraction of resource recovery products value
       attributable to labor
P   =  the weight, in pounds per gallon, of tire asphalt rubber

Pa  =  the price per acre of land reclaimed by fill with shred-
       ded tires
Pjj  =  the average retail price of a belted bias tire

P_  =  the selling price per pound for recovered carbon
 v

Pq  =  the selling price for a bag of crumb rubber reprocessed
       by Cryogenics
Ph  =  the average retail selling price for a 100,000 mile tire

P*  =  the average retail selling price of  a 40,000 mile tire

Pj  =  the corporate profits for alternative "i"

PO  =  the selling price for a barrel of recovered oil from
       sol id waste tires
P»  =  the retail selling price of a retreaded 40,000 mile
       radial  tire
P   =  the selling price, per ton, for scrap steel

Pt  =  the price per ton of coal

R   =  the average production cost for a 40,000 mile steel
       belted radial tire
                               148

-------
R   =  the cost of conventional repairs to a city block which
 c     is 5604 by 60'
RL  =  the mileage of cracked roads repaired temporarily each
       year in the United States (as opposed to rebuilt,
       permanently repaired, roads)
Rp  =  the proportion of a worn tire that is rubber

Rr  =  the cost, per square yard, for materials and application
       of tire asphalt rubber
RW  =  the average width of a U.S. road

S^  =  the present value of the interest earnable on the road
       repair costs avoided by the asphalt rubber process, meas-
       ured over a ten year period
S|_  =  the proportion fo a tire manufacturer's average selling
       price, per tire, allocable to labor costs
Sm  =  the decimal fraction proportion that materials comprise
       of a manufacturer's selling price per tire
S0  =  the decimal fraction proportion of a tire manufacturer's
       average selling price allocable to overhead costs
Sp  =  the average proportion of a tire dealer's physical  space
       used for storage of worn tire casings
Sr  =  the decimal fraction of a retreaded tires price attrib-
       utable to labor
T   =  the corporate profits tax rate

Tw  =  the number of solid waste tires which may, potentially,
       be used in tire asphalt rubber road repairs each year
       in the United States
U   =  the average number of miles driven per car per year

Uc  =  the heat value in British Thermal Units (BTU)  obtainable
       from a pound of coal
Ur  =  the heat value in British Thermal Units (BTU) obtainable
       from one pound of worn tire rubber
V   =  the average inventory of  worn tire casings held by a
       tire dealer
W^-j =  the waste decrease per tire per year as compared to
       40,000 mile tires
Wp  =  the proportion, by weight, of tire asphalt rubber,  which
       is worn tire rubber
Wj.  =  the average weight, in pounds, of a solid waste tire

Wwl- =  the decimal fraction of solid waste tires per unit  time
       that remain with any of the solid waste decreasing
       alternatives
Y*  =  the years of service life of a 40,000 mile steel belted
       radial tire, the reference tire system
Yi  =  the number of years of service life obtainable from the
       tire design associated with alternative "i"
                               149

-------
Yc  =  the total  service life of a retreaded steel  belted radial
       tire including original  life plus retreaded  life
Y6  *  the service life of a 100,000 mile tire
                               150

-------
                                  TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
                           (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
  EPA-6QO/5-78-009
 TITLE AND SUBTITLE
  TIRES:   DECREASING SOLID  WASTES AND
  MANUFACTURING THROUGHPUT
  Markets, Profits, and  Resource Recovery
              5. REPORT DATE
                July  1978  (Issuing Date)
              6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
                                                           I. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
 AUTHOR(S)

 Robert R.  Westerman
              8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
 Department  of Management
 School  of Business and Public Administration
 California  State University  Sacramento
 Sacramento,  California  95819
               10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
                 1DC618
               11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.

                 Contract #68-03-2401
 2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
 Municipal  Environmental Research  Laboratory—Cin.,OH
 Office of  Research and Development
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 Cincinnati,  Ohio  45268
               13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED

                Final  4-76 to 8-77    	
               14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
                 EPA/600/14
 5. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
  Haynes C.  Goddard, Project  Officer  513/684-7881
16. ABSTRACT
     This report studies the economic  and social costs and  benefits  of a passenger car
tire design  service life of 100,000  miles (160,900 kilometers),  retreading, and"four
resource  recovery methods for solid  waste tires:  (1) cryogenics with  recovered rubber
use, mixed with asphalt, in repairing  roads; (2) incineration  of whole tires; (3) py-
rolysis;  and (4) landfill.  Symbolic models of tire costs and  benefits are presented
along with a computer program for  their calculation.  A shift  in new tire design service
life is recommended, along with  increased retreading and with  solid  waste tire process-
ing by cryogenics for use as tire  asphalt rubber in repairing  roads.   Three methods of
producing 100,000 mile tires are proposed; one, the TTW 100,000  mile tire, is discussed
in some detail.
17.
                                KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
                  DESCRIPTORS
   Tires
   Automobile Tires
   Economic Analysis
   Benefit Cost Analysis
                                              b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
     Waste Tires
                                                                           COSATI l-iL-UI/(iroup
   05C
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
   Unlimited
  19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report!
    Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
   161
                                              20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
                                                Unclassified
                                                                         22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
151
                                                                   a 1 S COYIRMKICl P»MH"C OffICt 15'8- ' " '

-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     Office of Research and Development
    Environmental Research Information Center
           Cincinnati,  Ohio 45268

           OFFICIAL BUSINESS
    PENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE. S3OO
  AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
        POSTAGE AND FEES PAID

U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                EPA-335


       Special  Fourth-C lass Rate
                 Book
                                         if your address is incorrect, please change on the abovi- lube/
                                         tear off,  and return to the above address.
                                         If you do not desire to continue receiving these technical
                                         reports,  CHECK HERE CH, tear off label, and return it to the
                                         above address,
                                                     EPA-600/'      i09

-------