You are on page 1of 156


Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Texas Chapter of the Solid Waste Association of North America
Texas Tire Dealers and Retreaders Association
Barry R. McBee, Chairman
R.B. "Ralph"Marquez, Commissioner
John M. Baker, Commissioner

Dan Pearson, Executive Director

Authorization for use or reproduction of any original material contained in

this publication, i.e., not obtained from other sources, is freely granted. The
Commission would appreciate acknowledgement.

Some of the material presented in this document was developed by

sources unrelated to the TNRCC, and therefore such material contained
herein may not reflect the views and policies of the TNRCC.

Published and distributed

by the
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Post Office Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087

tormat; by contacting the TNRCC at (512)239-0010. Fax 239-0055.0% I-~O<-REU\Y.'X (TDD). or by writing
PO. Box 13087, Austin, TX 787n-3087.

Using Tire Shre& in LandJill Design

March 12. 1996
La Quinta Conference Center. Arlington. Teras

Table of Contents

Schedule of Events and Presentations ...................................... 1

Opening Remarks. B y a n D k n .......................................... 2

Welcome and TNRCC Address. Bany R McBee and Bany W1liam.s .................. 5

What is a "Program Tire?". Jennifer A. Sidnell ................................ 9

Leachate Collection Systems. Protective Covers and Other Possible Uses:

Design. Permitting. QAIQC. Operations Test Projects. Susan Janek and David White . . . . . . . 19
Engineering Properties and Water Quality Effects of Tire Chips
f o r Landfill Construction. Dana N. Humphrey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Using Shredded Tires in Landfills ."The New York Perspective". Jim Goehrig . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Use of Waste Tire Chips in Landfills ."The Oklahoma Perspective". Murk Daniels . . . . . . . 109
Current Issues in Research and Development. Daniel Duffy ....................... 113

Applications with Geosynthetic Liners. R Shmvn McCash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Texas Landfill Projects. Michael Stacey .................................... 139

The San Angelo Landfill Experience, Bobby Pilkington .......................... 143

The BFI Experience. Catherine A . Miller ................................... 149

Using Tire Shreds in LandJill Design
March 12,1996
La Quinta Conference Center, Arlington, Twas

Program A ~ e n d a

8:OO-9:00 Registration
9:OO-9:30 Opening Remarks - Moderator, Bryan Diuoq P.E., Director, Municipal Solid Waste
Division, TNRCC
Welcome and TNRCC Address - Bany R McBee, Chairman, and Bany Williams,
Deputy Director, TNRCC
9:30-10:OO What Is A Program Tire? - Jennifer A. Sidnell, Manager, Automotive Waste
Management Section, TNRCC
1 O:00-1O:l5 Break
Leachate Collection Systems, Protective Covers and Other Possible Uses:
Design, Permitting, QAIQC, Operation Test Projects - Susan Jan& P.E.,
Manager, and David White, Engineering Specialist, MSW Permits Section
Engineering Properties and Water Quality Effects of Tire Chips for Landfa
Construction - DanaN. Humphrey, PkD., P.E., Professor, University of Maine
Lunch (Inchded in Registration Fee)
Using Shredded Tires in L a n d f ~ -s "The New YorkPerspective" -Jim Goeluig,
P.E., V.P. of Engineering, Modem Landfill, NY
Use of Waste Tire Chips in Landfas - "The Oklahoma Perspective" Mark -
Daniels, P.E., East Oak Landfill, OK
Current Issues in Research and Development -Daniel DufFy, P.E., RMT,Inc., Ann
Arbor, MI
Applications with Geosynthetic Liners - R Shawn McCash, Laidlaw, Inc., North
Richland Ws, TX
Projects in Texas -
Texas Landfffl Projects -Michael Stacey, P.E., HDR Engineering, Dallas, TX
The San Angelo Landfa Experience -Bobby P i k g t o n , Trashaway Services, San
Angelo, TX
The B.F.I. Experience - Catherine A. Miller, P.E., B.F.I., Jnc., Sinton, TX
Firing Line - A Question and Answer Session - AU Presenters



Bryan Dixon, P.E., Director

Municipal Solid Waste Division

Bryan Dixon, P.E.
Diieetor, Municipal Solid Waste Division
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

In 1963, Bryan Dixon rkceived his B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Texas A&M
College and in 1965 a M.S. degree in Chemical Oceanography from Texas A&M University.

Mr. Dixon joined one of the Texas Natud Resources Conservation Commission's predecessor
agencies, the Texas Water Quality Board, in 1976. He conducted compliance monitoring
inspections out of the Kilgore district office. He later moved to Austin (the agency by now had
become the Texas Department of Water Resources) to write wastewater permits. In December
1980, he became Head of the Solid Waste Compliance Unit where he supervised a staff in the
enforcement of the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act and the newly implemented RCRA. By 1983,
he also bad responsibility for CERCLA, Spill Response and the waste generator registration and
manifest programs.

When the new Texas Water Commission was created in 1985, Mr. Dixon was named Director of
the newly organized Hazardous and Solid Waste Division, a position he held until he left in 1988.
As Division Director, he supenised a staff of over 125 employees in the implementation of Texas
hazardous waste regulatory programs (FZCRA, UIC) and hazardous waste remedial programs
(CERCLA and State Superfund). During this time, Mr. Dixon was very active nationally in
ASTSWMO-the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials-and was
president of the organization from 1987-1988.

During his career at the state agency, Mr. Dixon frequently represented the agency at public
hearings and at legislative and Congressional hearings. He is a recoopized expert in
environmental regulatory issues.

Mr. Dixon left state govemment -
in 1988 and managed numerous environmental consultine
projects. Typical projects include preparing RCRA Part B permit applications; preparing closure

plans; p q a r h g site sampling and ~mediationplans; preparing General Land Officeoil discharge
prevention and response plans; providing expert and second opinions; and conducting many
environmental site assessments.

Mr. Dixon's experience before joining the Texas Water Quality Board includes engagements as
a Research Assistant at Texas A&M; as an Oceanographer and a Geophysical Engineer with Texas
Instruments; and as an engineer with the New South Wales state government in Australia.

In September of 1995, Mr. Dixon returned to the TNRCC to manage the Municipal Solid Waste
program as Division Director.

Barry R. McBee, Chairman


Barry Williams, Deputy Director

Office of Waste Management
Barry R. McBee
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Barry McBee has served as chairman of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) since August 16, 1995. Prior to his appointment to this post by Governor George W.
Bush, McBee had se~vedas Deputy Commissioner of the Texas Department of wc~ltwe under
Rick Perry since January 1991.

Mr. McBee returned to Texas from Washington, D.C. where he served as Associate Director of
Cabinet Affairs at the White House following his selection as a 1989-1990 White House Fellow
by President George Bush. He also served the State of Texas under the admuuslntion of
Governor William P. Clements, Jr. from 1987 to 1989 as Deputy General Counsel and Chief
Deputy Director of Governmental Appointments. Mr. McBee joined Governor Clements' staff
from the Dallas law firm of Thompson & Knight, where he was elected as a partner in 1986.

McBee is a 1978 graduate of the University of Oklahoma (B.A.with distinction), where he was
elected as a member of Phi Beta *a, and a 1981 graduate of the Southern Methodist University
School of Law (J.D. cum laude). He is married and is the proud father of two sons.
Barry Williams
Deputy Director, Office of Waste Management
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Barry Williams is the Deputy Director for the Oftice of Waste Management for the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), the state's new consolidated environmental
agency. His office is responsible for re,atoq oversight in Texas regarding hazardous waste,
municipal solid waste, petroleum storage tanks, pollution storage tanks, pollution cleanup
including superfund sites and development of waste policy.

Prior to joining the TNRCC he held a number of senior positions in the Texas Department of
Agriculture including District Director for the Tyler district, Director of all District Operations,
Assistant Commissioner in 1989 and Director of Environmental hograms in 1990.

Barry joined what was formerly the Texas Water Commission in 1991 as Director of the
Petroleum Storage Tank Division and was named to his current position of Deputy for Waste
Management in 1993.

Barry is a Huntsville, Texas native and a ,graduate of Sam Houston State University in Huntsville.

Jennifer Sidnell, Manager

Automotive Waste Management Section
Jennifer A. Sidnell
Manager, Automotive Waste Programs
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Jennifer A. Sidnell ,pduated from Stephen F. Austin State University in December, 1980, with
a Bachelor of Science degree in Biology. In May, 1983, Ms. Sidnell received a Master of Science
degree in =ology with an emphasis in Aquatic Ecology and Water Chemistry.

Ms. Sidnell began her employment with the Texas Department of Water Resources, a predecessor
agency of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in S'eptember, 1982. She
worked in the Region 12 office in the Houston area as a field inspector, then as a team leader.
In January, 1986, she accepted the position of Enforcement Coordinator in the Water Quality
Division. Ms. SidneU was promoted to Unit Head over the Wastewater Enforcement Unit and
after one year, was promoted to Section Chief of the Wastewater Enforcement Section.

In March, 1992, Ms. Sidnell moved to the Municipal Solid Waste Division to develop and
implement the Waste Tire Recycling Fund Program and now serves as Manager over the newly
created Automotive Waste Management Section. The Automotive Waste Management Section
provides the regulatory framework to implement and promote recycling of alI types of automotive
waste including: waste tires, used and waste oil, used oil filters, used batteries, used antifreeze
and sorbents, and other used automotive fluids and lubricants. Ms Sidnell may be contacted at
(512) 239-6679.

In 1992 the Texas Legislature established the Waste T i Recycling Fund to address the increasing
number of tire dumps across the state. These tire dumps are hazardous because they become a
breeding ground for mosquitos, snakes and rats, and because they can catch fire,releasing black
smoke and offensive odors. Under the program, the TNRCC pays tire processors $.SO to $.85
to shred used tires collected from retailers, tire dumps and other collection sources established
through the program. The tire shreds are then delivered to an end user to be recycled or used for
energy recovery.

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission encourages the use of tire shreds as
leachate collection in landfills. Landfill 'operators can receive tire shreds from any of the
registered processors without registering as an end user. Processors are required to shred tires to
a 2-inch minus industry standard, but may shred to any size as part of a contract with an end user.
Tire shreds can be a cheap substitute for traditional granular materials. Using tire shreds in a
leachate collection system is not only a smaxt environmental decision, but also a smart economical
What is a "Program Tire?"
The Waste Tire Recycling Fund Program
Jennifer A. Sidne11
Manager, Automotive Waste Management Section

1. The Law: Used TkreDisposal

On June 6, 1991, the Governor of Texas, AM Richards, signed a bill, enacting the Waste Tire
Recycling Fund and the subsequent program to administer the fund. As a result of the
73rd legislative session in 1993, there were major changes in the WTRF program. The
legislature, through S.B. 1051, attempted to clarify several confusing aspects of the original
legislation. Then in June, 1995; S.B. 776 was passed to promote and develop recycling in the

This legkhtion makes it illegal in Texas to discard whole uses or scrap tires in any fashion other
than through proper disposal methods. Violators can face fines up to $10,000.

Whole used or scrap tires may be retreaded, recycled, reused or used as a fuel by a properly
registered facility. Whole used or scrap tires can no longer be disposed at landfills, accumulated
in piles exceeding 500 on the ground (or 2000 in a totally enclosed and lockable container) or
stored for more than 90 days without a Texas Natuml Resource Conservation Commission
(TNRCC) registration Number.

2. The Problem

To date about 900 illegal tire sites that may contain as many as 50 million whole used or scrap
tires have been identified across Texas. Several sites are known to have a million or more.
Meanwhile, .about 55,000 more used tires are discarded each day in Texas.

These illegal tire sites so often labeled as "tikdumpsn are eye sores, and create potential health
hazards. They become breeding grounds for mosquitoes and harbor rats and snakes. Tires also
can catch fire, releasing black smoke and foul odors and have the potential to contaminate ground
water with such pollution as oil and carbon black.

Many of the illegal tire sites in the state developed as a result of the typical "system" of disposal
h practice prior to the legislation creating the WTRF. Usually, a wholesale or retail dealer of
new or used tires relied on tire transporters to dispose of their waste tires at which t h e the dealer
paid a fee to the transporter for the service. Many of the transporters would cull through the
waste tires to remove the sellable tires, then dispose of the remaining scrap tires at any available
vacant pruperty rather than dispose of them at a permitted landfill that often charged for disposal.
The consumer had paid for the disposal as part of the price of the tire and the dealer then absorbed
the cost of the disposal. However, the dealer was not required to verify that their waste tires were
properly disposed of by the transporters, and no mechanism was in place at the state level to
determine if they were.
3. The Solution: The Waste Tire Recycling Fund Program
To eliminate this "system" of disposal and clean-up the illegal tire sites the state created the 'WTRF
promgram. This program is designed to:

a. organize the cleanup of numerous iUePd tire sites across the state and
collect currently generated used tires;

b provide a means for the shredding of all whole used or scrap tires within
the boundaries of the State of Texas so that the material contained the
tire can be effectively msed, recycled, or used in energy recovery facilities
at some time in the future;

c. d u c e the number of tires going to landfills for disposal;

d. promote recycling by providing a mechanism to recycle, reuse, or recover

the energy from whole used or scrap tires or shredded tire pieces.

Funding Tire Fees
The 'WTRF is financed by the following fees:

a. $2.00 fee for each new tire sold in Texas with a rim diameter greater than
12" and less than 17.5"

b. $3.50 fee for each new tire sold in Texas with a rim diameter greater than
17.5" but less than 25"

c. $1.00 fee for each used tire sold in Texas with a rim diameter -,ter than
12" and less than 17.5"

d. $2.00 fee for alI used motorcycle tires sold in Texas regardless of rim
diameter size

Cunently, there are in excess of 12,000 registered waste tire generators in the state. A
waste tire generator is the individual or company that introduces the waste tire into the
waste stream (new and used .tire dealers, fleet operators, etc.) and must be registered with
the TNRCC. The generator is guaranteed, through legislation, to free transportation off-
site for the waste tires that accumulate at the facility (generator should not be charged a
disposal fee for tires).
A cradle to grave manifest system is used to track generator tire disposal. A five part
manifest form is initiated by the registered generator when the tires are picked up by a
tmnsporter for disposal. The manifest must accompany the load of tires and must identify
the generator and related information, and must report the number of tires being disposed.
The generator must retain a copy of the manifest and later must receive a completed copy
from the jinal destination (usually the site of the processor or storage facility) of the load
of tires.

A transporter is any individual that transports tires from a generator to a waste tire
processing or storage facility or to a recycling, reuse, or energy recovery facility.
Transporters must be registered with the TNRCC. The transporter must complete the
second portion of the manifest with the individual or company name and registration
number, driver's license number, date and number of tires collected from the generator.
The transporter must account for any tires removed for reuse and for those delivered to a
processor or to a recycling, rwse, or energy recovery facility. The transporter must retain
a copy of the manifest. There are currently approximately 800 waste tire transporters
registered with the TMRCC.

Waste Tire Procesors

A waste fire processor is defined as any individual or company registered with the TNRCC
that collects and shreds whole used or scrap tires for delivery to a storage facility, or a
facility that recycles, reuses, or recovers the energy from the shredded tire pieces.

Waste tire processors in order to be eligible for the WTRF reimbursement at a rate of
$0.80 for each 18.7 pounds of waste tire equivalent, must:

a. shred the whole used or scrap tires to an industry standard two-inch minus.

b. deliver the two-inch m&us shreds to a legitimate end user within 180 days
after the date of reimbursement

c. Shred at least 50 % generator tires

Currently, 16 waste tire processors, either mobile or fixed, are collecting, transporting and
shredding whole used or scrap tires.

In addition to shredding operations and storage requirements, the processor is responsible

to ensure that the transporter delivering tires to the facility is registered with the TNRCC
and that the manifests accompanying loads of tires are properly completed and accurate
relative to the number of tires The processor andlor the operator of the finalstorage site
must return a completed copy of the manifest to the generator, who must retain it for three
Waste Tire Storage Facilities
AU waste tire storage facilities registered by the TNRCC are for the temporary storage of
whole used or scrap tires and shredded tire pieces. There is a $500 fee to register a waste
tire storage facility with the TNRCC and there are five (5) types of waste tire storage
facilities authorized in the state. These facilities are classified by the number of tires at
the facility, and the length of time the tires will be stored. Currently the@ are 34
registered waste tire storage facilities in Texas.

TNRCC regional inspectors perform monthly inspections of the shredding facilities to
ensure requirements of the program are met. Also periodic inspections of generators and
transporters are conducted to verify compliance with the WTRF Program rules.

End Users
An end user is a waste tire recycling facility or waste tire energy recovery facility
approved by the executive director that accepts whole scrap tires, scrap tire pieces or
shredded tire pieces for further utilization either to manufacture a new product or to use
as tire &rived fuel. A waste tire recycling facility is a an entity that manufactures from
whole or shredded tires useful products with a certified end use. A waste tire energy
recovery facility is a facility at which scrap tires or shredded tires are used as fuel
including: a cement kiln; a utility boiler; a pulp and paper d l ; a cogeneration facility;
or other facilities designated by the commission.

Currently there are twelve (12) TNRCC -tered end users receiving tire material from
processors. Four are energy recovery facilities and 8 are recycling facilities.

Scrap Tie: Where the rubber meets the road

From a marketing perspective, scrap tires pose a unique problem. Unlike old newspapers
or used steel cans which can be recycled into the same product, scrap tire rubber cannot
be recycled into new tires. This is because the vulcanization process that creates sturdy,
durable tires to withstand 60,000 miles of road wear, also prohibits the reuse of scrap tire
~ubberin the manufacture of new tires.

At this point, Texas is only beginning to address the issue of finding markets for its scrap
tires. The WTRF Program has successfully addressed the environmental concerns
associated with illegal tire sites, however many of the tires that have been shredded have
not yet been reused or recycled.

Scrap Tire Supply Analysis

Tires comprise an estimated 1.2% of the total waste stream in Texas. (R.W. Beck,
1991). The WTW Program estimates that over 65 million tires have been shredded in
Texas over the past two years, including sixteen million tires from ille,pl tire sites. In
addition to this backlog of tires, Texans generate about 20 million tires each year.
And, the population of Texas is growing at a rapid xate causing the generation of scrap
tires in Texas to increase as well.

Markets Overview
In Texas, roughly 15% of the scrap tires generated are finding markets. The five main
markets for scrap tires are: retreading, ground rubber, civil engineering applications, tire
derived fuel, and other emerging technologies.

Probably the best way to "recycle" a tire is to retread it. Most heavy truck tires are already
being retreaded because they are sufficiently durable to withstand the retreading process.
However, there are sigoificantproblems with retreading passenger car tires since most are
not sturdy enough to be retreaded cost-effectively.

At this time about one million tires are retreaded in Texas every year. nowever,
retreading tires is not a final market solution to the'StateYstire problem. Even if all
available tires were being retreaded, they would eventually wear out. In essence, then,
a l l used tires will at some point become scrap tires.

Ground Rubber
Ground rubber describes scrap tire rubber that has been ground into particles ranging in
size from 114 inch to 100 mesh or smaller (mesh is defined by the number of holes found
in one square inch of a standard sieve). Ground rubber can be used in rubber-modified
asphalt (RMA) and other comme~ialroadbuilding applications as wen as in the
manufacture of a variety of rubber products.

RMA is cumntly the only ground rubber market with the potential to use significant
numbers of scrap tires. As of December, 10992, TXDoT had paved more than 2,500
miles of roadways and airstrips with RMA and the agency continues to test the use of
RMA under a variety of conditions. (General Land Office, December, 1992) It has been
estimated that as much as 10-15 % of the scrap tires generated in the state could be utilized
when RMA is used routinely in road construction.

There are also 4 main types of products that can be made from ground rubber: pneumatic
tires, friction materials, rubberiplastic products, and athletic surfaces. However, the
markets for these products are s t i l l in their infancy and, even at full capacity, cannot be
expected to utilize more than 5 % of the scrap fires generated in Texas.

Civil Engineering
The market for scrap tires in civil en-oinee~gapplications--the use of whole, split, or
processed scrap tires in lieu of standard construction materials-has only recently begun
to expand. Examples of the types of construction activities that could incorporate tires
include the construction of artificial reefs and breakwaters, dock bumpers, road beds,
retaining walk, floor mats, playgrounds, hiking tmils, and the use of tires as a daily cover
or as a liner for landfills or fill material for septic drain fields.
A number of states have extensively tested the use of scrap tires in civil engineering
applications. However, most have executed only experimental projects, with few
conclusions drawn as to the effectiveness and suitability of tires for all proposed
applications. Currently, civil engineering applications in Texas utilize only a minimal
number of scrap tires. However, fully utilized, these applications could incorporate an
estimated 15% of the tires generated annually in Texas.

Tie Derived Fuel

Currently, the largest and most developed market for scrap tires is in energy recover--the
use of either whole or pxwessed tires as tirederived fuel (TDF) to supplement other fuels
or for co-generation in cement kilns, pulp and paper mills boilers, and some coal-fired
utility or industrial boilers.

Based on a survey of Texas cement kilns conducted by TNRCC in 1994, cement kilns,
alone, could utilize from 11to 16 million whole or processed scrap tires every year-100
percent ofthe tires generated anndly in the state.

Innovative Technologies: Pyrolysis

Pyrolysis is the prucess of thermally degrading scrap tires into their main constituent parts,
which include pymlytic gas, oil, and carbon black. Although pyrolysis technology has
been improved and refined over the past 10 years, its economic viability remains
uncertain. As a result, pyrolysis and its end products are not likely to consume large
numbers of tires in the near future unless there are major improvements in the technology.

Authors: Pat Fontenot

Jennifer Sidnell
Dan Landenberger
Office of Pollution hevention and Recycling



Susan Janek, P.E., Manager

Permits Section


David White, Engineering Specialist

Permits Section

Susan Janek, P.E.
Manager, Municipal Solid Waste Permit Section
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Susan Janek is the manager of the Permits Section of the Municipal Solid Waste Division. She has
worked within this division throughout the implementation of Subtitle D regulations. She received
a Bachelor of Science degee in Civil Engineering from Texas A&M University and a Master in Civil
Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin. Susan Janek is a registered Professional
Engineer in Texas.

David White

Engineering Specialist, Municipal Solid Waste Permit Section

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

David White is an Engineering Specialist with the Permits Section of the Municipal Solid Waste
Division. His responsibilities include review of landfill permit applications, i n c l u d i new permits,
amendments and modiftcations. Mr. White has been with TNRCC since early 1994 and was formerly
in technical consulting and commercial laboratory work. He holds a chemistry degree from Indiana
University and a master's in business administration from the Univeristy of Texas. Mr. White.has
specialized in geosynthetics technology for waste containment applications. Mr. White can be
reached at (512) 239-6642.
How to Use Shredded Tires in Landfills
Authorization Processes through the TNRCC
Susan Janek, P.E.
Manager, Municipal Solid Waste Permits Section

Since 1994 when the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) had been
evaluating the major permit upgrades for Subtitle D, shredded tires could be used as a possible
bid alternate for the second foot of protective cover'. In addition, in late 1994,one of the first
in-situ alternate h e r systems that were approved utilized shredded tires as the primary drainage
layer. Now, as in the past, facility owners and operators have an option to use this material as
an alternative to granular materials. Requests for authorization to use this material are evaluated
on a case-by-case basis. This short paper identifies what documentation may need to be
submitted to the TNRCC for evaluation of a request to use the shredded tire systems within a
landfill facility.

Uses of Shredded Tires as Part of the Liner Svstem

To date, the TNRCC will allow, under certain conditions for shredded tires to be incorporated
in with a landfill design. The uses are as follows:

1. Protective Cover;
.3 Primary Drainage Layer;
3. Interior Roads;
. 4. Drainage Layer in the F i Cover System; and
5. Granular Media within a Landfill Gas Vent.

Authorization Processes

Authorization processes to use tire shreds as an alternate protective cover system or as an

altemate primary drainage layer for a liner system that does not uGze a flexible membrane liner
can be through a permit modification found in 30 Texas Administrative Code Section 305.70
or included ah a bid alternate or option within a landfdl major permit amendment process (as
described in 30 TAC Section 305.62).

Shrcddtd Tim in Landfill Conkrcncc

M z c h I?. 1996
.9rlingron. T-
r Use of Shredded Tires

Alternate second foot of

protective cover over landfill

Permit Modification

30 TAC Section

305.70); used for

- -

liner that utilizes a synthetic currently operational

membrane (includes Subtitle D landfills
standard composite liners and
some alternate liners) 0 Permit Amendment 30 TAC Section
305.62; used for
amended facilities
Primary drainage media within o Permit Modification 30 TAC Section
a landfill (must not have a 305.70; used for
synthetic membrane in liner currently operational
landf11ls; must submit
documentation of
alternate liner
performance per 30
TAC Section 330.202.

30 TAC Section
305.62; used for
0 Permit Amendment amended facilities;
must also submit
documentation of
alternate liner
performance per 30
TAC Section 330.202
I( ~ k e r i o rroads (for landfill traffic Notification only Letter notification
indicating where
shreds may be placed
Drainage layer within final 0 Permit Modification 30 TAC $305.70; will
cover system request that a
demonstration of shred
placement be
incorporated prior to
full approval within
final cover system
Use of Shredded T i e s Authorization Comments

Media within landfil gas vents 0 Permit Modification 30 TAC 5305.70; will
request that a
demonstration of shred
placement be
incorporated prior to
full approval within
landfill gas system

In addition, tires may be used in other portions of the landfill including as a biotic or drainage
layer in the fmal cover system or used as media within the landfill gas collection vent or well.
Authorizations for these two processes may be achieved through the above mentioned methods.
However, because these two uses for shredded tires are relatively new and the success or failure
of their uses may be very much site specific, the TNRCC recommends that a trial period or trial
placement of these shreds be employed within the landN1 prior to full approval. This will insure
that the systems can be adequately operated and that there are no unforseen maintenance
problems associated with them.

Information Reauired for Authorization

Shredded Ties as Protective Cover

To obtain approval of a permit modification or for approval within a major permit

amendment to use shredded tires as protective cover, the following information must be
Use of Shredded Tires
Alternate second foot of protective cover 'or approval of a Permit ~odification:

Lener requesting modification

under 30 TAC §305.70(i);

Schematic cross section indicating

0 placement of shreds (must
maintain a minimum of 1 foot away
from the synthetic liner system)
0 size of tire shreds anticipated
0 placement of shreds within
Ieachate pipe envelope

Verification that the tire shreds will

be used on approved liner system

Modification to the Soil and Liner

Quality Control Plan to include
thickness verification: and

Optional requirement to report

weight of shreds used within liner
construction (submitte' with the
Flexible Membrane Liner
Evaluation Report).
*** Note: T i e s cannot be used as
ballast material pursuant to the 30
TAC $330.203 requirements.

The following pages indicate some example cross sections for the use of this material.

Shisddcd Tm in Landfill Confcrcncc

Msrch 12. 15%
Arlinpon. Tcur
Protective Cover.
, Tire Shreds -- Minimum 1 foot


1' Granular Drainage Layer

Primary Drainage Layer (1x10 )
, Standard Composite Liner System
(30 TAC §330.200(a)(2))


Tire Shreds
1' Granular Drainage Layer or
1' Earthen Protective Cover

Standard Composite Liner (30 TA(

9330.200) or Alternate Liner with
synthetic (30 TAC $330.202)

Shrcddd Tim in Landfill Confmcnc;

March 12. 1996
Arlinztan. T-
Thickness Verification

Through the Guidance Handbook for Liner Construction as referenced in 30 TAC $330.205, the
TNRCC requires that a minimum thickness of two feet of protective cover be utilized between
the liner system and the waste. The reason for this is to protect either the synthetic liner system
or the constructed clay liner system from possible damage caused from waste fill operations.
Because tire shreds are extremely compressible, it is recommended that the tires used for the
second foot of protective cover be placed in a minimum nominal thickness of 18". This should
allow for insurance of compaction to a nominal thickness of one foot under marginal loading
conditions. Once full landfill burden has been placed on the tire shreds, the minimum thickness
is no longer critical because the work near the liner surface has stopped. At this time, the
TNRCC is not able to approve tire chips as a drainage media directly over the FML due to
concerns about damage from steel and wire remnants in the shreds.

The thickness of this protective cover needs to be verified with the submittal of the Flexible
Membrane Liner Evaluation Report (FMLER). Thickness verification may include surveyed
information (although tire shreds as protective cover are difficult to survey) or can be through
some hand methods (an inverted traffic cone).


Care needs to be taken during the installation of these shreds that the thickness of the first foot
of protective cover is accurately verified. In addition, there may be some operator concerns in
working so closely at the shred surface. Rubber tube tires may be damaged. In addition, the
shredded tires are appear to be working well along a 3:l sideslope on the sidewalls for relatively
short lengths (less than 30 feet). Greater len,ghs may require some additional stability
performance measures be taken.

Shrcddcd Tjm in h d f i l l C o n f m c e
March 12. 1996
Arlington. Tuar
Use of Shredded T i e s as a Primary Drainage Media

To obtain approval of a permit modification or a permit amendment to use shredded tires as a

primary drainage media, the following conditions must apply and the following information is

Use of Shredded Tires

Primary Drainage Layer [n order to use shredded tires as the
primary drainage media, they must not be
in direct contact with a synthetic liner
system. Therefore, the best use is in
landfilis that use either compacted clay
liners or in-situ liner systems.

Letter requesting permit

modification pursuant to 30 TAC

Location of tire sbxeds within

landfill unit and schematic cross
section of leachate pipe envelope;

Estimate of thickness of tire shreds

required in order to convey
designed leachate head. This
thickness is based on designed
leachate flow rates and volumes and

under compressed conditions.

Momled Soil and Liner Quality

Control Plan to provide for
thickness verification at subrnittr
Soil and Liner Evaluation Report

The following page indicates some example cross sections for the use of this material.
Primary Drainage Layer
Tire Shreds Thickness may vary

depending on waste loading

Alternate Liner (30 TAC 5330.202)

No synthetic --
compacted clay or

Shrddcd Tim in Landfill C o n f m c c

March 12. 1996
Arlinglon. T-
Thickness Verification

Thickness of the drainage layer for the alternate liner system will be based upon the designed
leachate volume and the estimated permeability of the tire shred layer upon full loading from the
landfill. In general, it can be expected that the minimum thickness of the tire shred leachate
layer will be 24" under preloaded conditions.

Thickness verification method is identical to the method described above.


As always, care needs to be taken during the installation of these shreds that the thickness of the
first foot of protective cover is accurately verified. In addition, there may be some operator
concerns in working so closely at the shred surface. Rubber tube tires may be damaged. In
addition, the shredded tires are appear to be working well along a 3: 1 sideslope on the sidewalls
for relatively short len,.ths (less than 30 feet). Greater leniths may require that some additional
stability performance measures be taken.

In the event that tires shreds are not stable along the sidewall liner, then other drainage systems
such as sand or geocomposites may be used.

Use of Shredded Tires for Interior Road Material

To use shredded tires for interior road material, only a letter notification to the TNRCC Permits
Section is required. There should be caution raised that using this material may cause punctures
in tube tires. In addition, direct storm-water run-off that comes into contact with the shredded
tires is high in metals and is brackish in color. The facility may have difficulty in meeting the
stomwater discharge parameters contained within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan.

Use of Shredded Tires as the Drainage Layer in the Final Cover System

Although not ufilized specifically in Texas at this writing, authorization to use shredded tires as
the drainage layer in the i d cover system of a Subtitle D landfill can be considered on a test
case basis initially through the permit moW~cationprocess. After a test period has been
conducted, shredded tires may then be added to the final cover component.
Drainage Layer in the Final Cover System Letter requesting permit
modification pursuant to 30 TAC
§305.70(i). This modification
would allow the use of this material
in a small test area only;

Design cross-section of the fmal

cover system indicating thickness
and relative permeabilities of all

Estimated time of test monitoring;


Modified F i Cover construction

Quality Control Plan indicating how
the thickness and placement of the
tire shreds will be verified.

After a test period has been conducted, and

the tire shreds are behaving satisfactorily in
conjunction with the final cover system,
then approval of the use of tire shreds on a
larger scale can also be issued through the
permit modification process.

Use of Tire Shreds as Granular Media within Landffl Gas Vents

Again, the use of tire shreds in place of the ,ganular media within gas vents may be considered
on a test basis specific to the conditions of the site. For more information on this, please contact
H. Thomas Collins, P.E. at (512) 239-6011.

Recommendation on Documentation

It is recommended that if this material is utiliied within a landfill system, then with each
documentation of construction, other than use in interior roads, then the receipts for weight of
material used (trip tickets) be kept organized and made available for verification of utilization
of this alternate material.

S W d d T i m in h d f i l i Confcmcc
March 12. 1996
Arlington. Tcrrr.

Dana N. Humphrey, Bh.D., Professor

University of Maine
Dana N. Humphrey
Associate Professor
Civil Engineering
University of Maine

Dana N. Humphrey joined the University of Maine in 1986 after receiving his Ph.D. in Civil
Engineering (Geotechniml) from Purdue University. He teaches courses in ground improvement
techniques, thermal soil mechanisms, foundation engineering and advanced soil mechanics. His
research in using tire chips as lightweight fill,retaining wall backfill, and thermal insulation has
received national attention. He has conducted three research projects investigating the effects of
tire chips on groundwater quality. In addition, he has constmcted four full scale field trials and
has authored 10 papers in this area. His other research interests include geotechnics of waste
disposal, behavior of the surface clay crust, and reinforced embankments. In 1994, Dr.
Humphrey was the recipient of the university's Maine Distinguished Professor Award and was
named the 1994 Carnegie Foundation Maine Professor of the Year.

The high hydraulic conductivity of tire chips makes them suitable for many dminage applications
including French drains, drainage layers in landfill liner and cover systems, and leach fields for
on-site sewage disposal systems. Important properties for these applications include: hydraulic
conductivity (permeability), shear strength, compressibility, and thermal conductivity. Test
methods for these properties along with typical results will be given. A concern with using tire
chips in draining applications is their potential effect on groundwater quality. Results from three
field studies of the effect of tire chips on groundwater quality will be presented. Measurements
were made for metals and organics. In two of the field studies, the tire chips were located above
the groundwater table while in the third study the tire chips were located below the groundwater
table. Test results for metals with primary drinking water standards (such as lead) were below
their respective regulatory limits. For metals with secondary standards, which are based primarily
on aesthetic considerations, only results for manganese and, in some cases, iron exceeded their
regulatory limits. For tire chips placed above the groundwater table, there appears to be
negligible release of organics to the groundwater. For tire chips placed below the groundwater
table, low levels of some organic compounds are leached into the groundwater.
This document is part of the ASTM Draft No. 1
standards process and is for ASTM November 28,1995
wmmiitee use only. It shall not be
reproduced or circulated or quoted,
in whole or in part, outside of ASRrI
committee activities except with the
approval ofthe chairman of the
committee having jurisdiction or the
President of the Society.

ASTM Designation:
Standard Practice for

1. Scope

1.I This prrctice provides guidance for use of processed or whole scrap tires in lieu of
conventiond civil engineering mzterids, such as stone, gavel, soil, sand, or other 611 materials.

2. Referenced Documents
2.1 ASRvf Stzndards:
C 127 Test Method for Specific h v i t y and Adsorption of Coarse Aggregatg
D 422 Test Method for Particle-Size Analysis of Soils3
D 698 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Charxteristics of Soil Using Standard
Efiort (12,400 ft-lbf/ft3 (600 ~ - m / m ~ ) ) ~
D 1557 Test Method for Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil Using
hfodified Effort (56,000 ft-lbffft3 (2,700 k ~ - m l r n ~ ) ) ~
D 2424 Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)3

1 This pranic is under h ejuridiction of ASTM C o m m i n r D-34 on Waslc MYlagcrncnt and is the direr1
responsibility of Subcornmite 034.15 on Consuuction and Drhcr Saandary Applications of Rsovcrcd
Annual Book ojAS34Slnndnr&, Vol. 04.02.
Annvol Book ojAS34Slandordr,Vol. 04.08.
D 3080 Test Method for Direct Shear Test of Soils Under Consolidated Drained
D 2434 Test Method for Permeability of Granular Soils (Constant Head)3
2.2 American Association of State Highwav and Transportation Officials Standards:
T 274 Standard Method of Test for ~esilientModulus of Subgrade ~ o i

3. Terminology

Aggregate-Rock or stone of uniform size or a range of sizes from either naturally

occurring deposits or fiom artificially prepared materials.
Baling-A method of volume reduction whereby tires are compressed into bales.
Bead-The anchoring part of the tire which is shaped to fit the rim. The bead is
constructed of high tensile steel wires wrapped by the plies.
Bead Wue-A high tensile steel wire, surrounded by rubber, which forms the bead of a
tire that provides a firm contact to the rim
Belt Wre-A b m s plated high tensile steel wire cord used in steel belts.
Bufiings-Vulcanized rubber usually obtained from a wornlused tire in the process of
removing the old tread in preparation for retreading.
Carcass-Refer to Casing.
Casing-The basic tire structure excluding the tread (also referred to as a carcass).
Chipped Tire- See tire chip.
Chopped Tire-A scrap tire that is cut into relatively large pieces of unspecified

Fines-Small particles of ground rubber that results as a by-product of processingscrap

tires into granules.
Granulated Rubber-A term defined by ASlM D11,Rubber Committee as particulate
rubber composed of mainly non-spherical particles that span a broad range of maximum "particle

Stundard SpeciJiculionsfor Transporfution Molerials andh'elhods of Sumpling and Testing, Purl II: Melhods of
Sampling and Tesling, Amcrican Association of Slate Highnay and Transportation Ofiicials. Washingon, D.C.
dimensionn,from below 425um (40 mesh) to 12 mm (0.47 in). The key feature of this type of

particulate rubber is the fraction of the material in the greater than 2 rnm (0.08 in) up to 12 mrn
(0.47 in) maximum "particle dimension" range. (also refer to particulate rubber).
Ground Rubber -The term used by ASRVID11, Rubber Committee that defines
particulate rubber composed of mainly non-spherical particles that span a range of maximum
"particulate dimension", From well below 425 pm (40 mesh) to 2 mm (0.08 in) as a maximum

"particle dimension". (See definition for particulate rubber.) The smallest reported mesh'size for
ground rubber is 450 mesh.
Xoininal-A term commonly used to refer to the average size product (chip) that
comprisss 50 percent or more of the through put in a scrap tire processing operation. It should be
noted that any scrap tire processing operation will also generate products (chips) above and below
the "noinin$ range of the machine.
Puticulate Rubber-The term used in ASTM D l 1, Rubber Committee to define raw,
uncured, compounded or vulcanized rubber that has been transformed by means of a mechanical
size reduction process into a collection of puticles, with or without a coating of a partitioning
agent to prevent agglomeration during production, transportation, or storage (Also see definition
of bu%g rubber, granulated rubber, ground rubber,-and powered rubber.)
Passenger Car Tire-A tire with less than an 4 5 7 - m rim diameter for use on cars only.
Powdered Rubber-The term used by ASTMD11, Rubber Committee to define
particulate rubber composed of mainly non-spherical particles that have a maximum "particle
dimension" equal to or below 425 pm (40 mesh). (See definition for particulate rubber)

Rough Shred-A piece of a shiedded tire that is larger than 50 mm by 50 mm by 50 mm ,

but smaller than 762 mm by 50 rnm by 100 mm.
Scrap Tire-A tire which can no longer be used for its original purpose, due to wear or
Shred Sizing-A term which generally refers to the process of particles passing through a
rated screen opening rather than those which are retained on thescreen. Examples ofwhich are:
D M . IICCZS Xx_hmczcochmRcoC
25 mm by 25 mm: A size reduced scrap tire, with all dimensions 25 mm

50 mm by 50 mm: a size reduced scrap tire, with all dimensions 50 mm maximum.

X-mm minus: Size reduced scrap tires, the maximum size of any piece has a
dimension no larger than 25 rnm, but 95 percent of which is less than Xmm in any
dimension (i.e., 25-mm minus; 50-mm minus; 75-mm minus, etc.).
shredded Tire-A size reduced scrap tire. The reduction in size was accomplished by a
mechanical processing device, commonly referred to a "shredder".
Shredded Rubber-Pieces of scrap tires resulting from mechanical processing.
Sidewall-The side of a tire between the tread shoulder and the rim bead.
Single Pass Shred-A shredded tire that has been processed with a shear type shredder
and the piece has not been classified.
Steel Belt-Rubber coated steel cords that run diagonally under the tread of steel radial
tires and extend across the tire approximately the width of the tread. The stiffness of the belts
provides good handling, tread wear and penetration resistance.
Tire Chip-Pieces of scrap tires that have a basic geometrical shape and are generally
smaller than 6 inches by 8 inches in size (also referred to as chipped tire).
Tread-That portion of the tire which contacts the road.
Truck Tie-Tires with a rim diameter of 500 mm or larger.
Waste Tire-A tire which is no longer capable of being used for its original purpose, but
which has been disposed of in such a manner that it can not be used for any other purpose.
Whole Tire-A scrap tire that has been removed from a rim, but which has not been
Wires-High tensile, brass plated steel wires, coated with a special adhesion-promoting
compound, that are used as tire reinforcement. Belts of radial tires plies and beads are common
4. Significance and Use
. .:.,.
. ...~.
. ., 4.1 This practice is intended for use of scrap tires including: tire chips or tire shreds
comprised of pieces of scrap tires, tire chiplsoil mixtures, tire sidewalls, and whole scrap tires in
civil engineering applications. This includes use of tire chips, tire shreds and tire chiplsoil
mixtures as lightweight embankment fill, lightweight retaining wall backfill, drainage layers,
thermal insulation to limit frost penetration beneath roads, insulating backfill to limit heat loss
from buildings, and replacement for soil or rock in other fill applications. Use of whole scrap tires
and tire sidewzlls includes construction of retaining walls and drainage culverts, as well as use as
fill when whole tires have been compressed into bails. It is the responsibility of the design
engineer to determine the appropriateness of using scrap tires in a particular application and to
;select applicable tests and specifications to facilitate construction and environmentd protection.
This practice is intended to encourage wider utilization of scrap tires in civil engineerins

5. Materia1 Characterization
5.1 The specific gravity and water absorption capacity of tire chips should be
determined in accordance with Test Method C 127. However, the specific gravity of tire chips is
less than halfthe values obtained for common earthen coarse aggregate, so it is pennissibie to use
a minimum weight of test sample that is halfof the specified value. The particle density or density
of solids oftire chips @
), may be determined from the apparent specific gravity using the
following equation:


, = apparent specific gravity, and

p, = density of water.
5.1.1 The specific gravities and water absorption capacities of tire chips reported by
several investigators are summarized in Table 1. The' table is sorted by the following tire chip
categories: glass belted, steel belted, and rnixqure of glass and steel belted. The apparent specific
gravities range from 1.02 to 1.27. T i e chips with specific gravities in the high end of the range
generally have a high proportions of steel belted tire chips. Water absorption capacities ranged
from 2 to 4.3 %, except for one investigator who reported a value of 9.5 %.
5.2 The gradation of tire chips should be determined in accordance with Test Method D
422. However, the specific gravity of tire chips is less than half the values obtained for common
earthen materials, so it is permissible to use a minimum weight of test sample that is half of the
specified value.
5.3 The laboratory compacted dry density (or bulk density) oftire chips and tire chip1
soil mixtures with less than 30% retained on the 19.0-mm (314-in.) sieve can be determined in
accordance with Test Method D 698 or D 1557. However, tire chips and f i e chiplsoil mixtures
used for civil engineering applications almost always have more than 30% retained on the 19.0-
rnrn (3144-1.) sieve, so these methods ire generally not applicable. Several investigators have used
larger compaction molds to accommodate the larger sue of the tire chips as summarized in Table
2. The larger mold requires that the number of layers andlor the number of blows of the rammer

per layer be increased to produce the desired compactive energy per unit volume. Compactive
energies ranging from 50% of Method D 698 (50% x 600 W - d m 3 = 300 W-dm3) to 100% of
Method D 1557 (2,700 k%m/m3) have been used. The density of tire chips dumped loosely into
the compaction mold has also been determined. One investigator has'used vibratory methods to
determine the laboratory compacted dry density of tire chips (Ahrned, 1993; Ahrned and Lovell,
5.3.1 The laboratory compacted densities of tire chips reported by several investigators
are summarized in Table 3. Tire chips dumped loosely into the compaction mold typically have
dry densities between 0.34 and 0.50 Mgh-13. For compacted samples, the compaction energy had
only a small effect on the resulting dry density. Compacted dry densities ranged between 0.61 and
0.69 ~ g l r n 3expect
, for the results reported by Edil and Bosshcer (1992, 1994) who reported
lower values. Manion and Humphrey (1992) found that compacted dry densities were about the
same for airdried samples and saturated-surfacedry samples. Thus, water content has only a
D U m . I I.2ZYS X-NnaDX
small effect on the compacted dry density and it is reasonable to perform compaction tests on air
or oven-dried samples. The dry densities for lsose tire chips and vibratory compaction in Table 3
are about the same indicating that vibratory compaction of tire chips in the laboratory is
ineffective (Edil and Bosscher, 1992,1994; Ahmed, 1993; Ahmed and LoveI1, 1993).
5.3.2 The laboratory compacted densities of tire chiplsoil mixtures have also been
determined. Edil and Bosscher (1992, 1994) mixed tire chips with a maximum size of 75 mm
with three soil types: (1) outwash sand; (2) casting sand; and (3) clay. Ahmed (1993) and Ahmed
and Love11 (1993) used tire chips with either a 25-rnm or 51-mm maximum size mixed with two
soil types: (1) medium to fine, uniformly graded Ottawa sand; and (2) fine grained glacial till with
a Unified Soil Classification of CL-ML which is locally h o w n as "Crosby Till". The results of
' these studies are surnmvized in Figure 1. The compacted dry density decreases as the percent
tire chips baed on dry weight of the mix increases.
5.3.3 Field densities based on total mass have been estimated for several field trials.
Reed, et 21. (1991) estimated the in-place total density of a 3.8-m thick tire chip to be 0.72 Mg/m3
immediately after placement and compaction. Once compressed by the weight of a 1.65-m of soil
and pavement cover, the in-place dry density was estimated to increase to 0.83 Mg/m3. Nickels
and Humphrey (1995) estimated that the in-place total density of a 0.6-m thick tire chip layer was
0.67 mg/m3 prior to being compressed by the overlying soil cover.
5.3.4 When estimating an in-place density for use in design, the compression of a tire
chip Izyer under its own self-weight and under the weight of any overlying material must be
considered. The dry density determined as discussed in 5.3 and the typical dly densities given in
5.3.1 and 5.3.2 are the uncompressed values. In addition, short-term time dependent settlement of
tire chips must be accounted for when estimating the final in-place density.
5.4 The compressibility of tire chips and tire chiplsoil mixtures have been measured by
placing tire chips in containers with diameters ranging from 152 to 744 mm and then measuring
the vertical strain caused by an increasing vertical stress (Manion and Humphrey, 1992;
Humphrey and Manion, 1992; Humphrey, et a]., 1992, 1993; Humphrey and Sandford, 1993; Edil
D M . 11.x9S ~ A S U l m C
and Bosscher, 1992, 1994; Ahmed, 1993; Ahmed and Lovell, 1993; Drescher and Newcomb,
1994; Nickels and Humphrey, 1995). In some studies, the container was instrumented to measure
the horizontal stress of the tire chips acting on the wall of the container which is needed to
calculate the coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest KO (Manion and Humphrey, 1992;
Humphrey and Manion, 1992; Humphrey, et zl., 1993; Humphrey and Sandford, 1993; Drescher
and Newcomb, 1994; Nickels and Humphrey, 1995). In most studies the ratio of the initial
sample height to sample diameter was greater than 1. This leads to concerns that a significant
portion of the applied vertical stress could be transferred to the walls ofthe container by friction.
This eEea was measured by Manion and Humphrey (1992), Humphrey and Manion (1992),
Humphrey, et al. (1992,1993), Humphrey and Sandford (1993), and Nickels and Humphrey
(1995). Nickels and Humphrey (1995) used a 330-mm diameter high density polyethylene
(HDPE) compression container with side walls lubricated with pump grease. Load cells were
used to measure the vertical stress at the top atop and bottom abet of the sample. The test
apparatus is illustrated in Figure 2. For the first cycle of loading at an average vertical stress [(a

*OP + aboJ/2] of 34.5 kPg obotwas between 15.1 and 19.1 % less than cpOp Ifthe stress
transferred to the walls of the container is not accounted for, the compressibility of the tire chips
will be underestimated. When performing compressibiiity test. on tire chips and tire chiplsoil
mixtures the container should have a suiiicient diameter to accommodate the size tire chips being
tested, the inside of the container should be lubricated to reduce the portion of the applied load
that is transmitted by side fiction from the sample to the container, and the vertical stress at the
top and the bottom of the sample should be measured so that the average vertical stress in the
sample czn be computed.
5.4.1 The compressibility of tire chips has been measured by Manion and Humphrey
(1992), Humphrey and Manion (1992), Humphrey, et al. (1992, 1993), Humphrey and Sandford
(1993), Edil and Bosscher (1992, 1994), Ahmed (1993), Ahmed and Lovell (1993), Drescher and
Newcomb (1994), Newcomb and Drescher (1994), and Nickels and Humphrey (1995). Results

are summarized in Table 4. Caution should be used in assessing the results in Table 4 since they
were determined with a variety of testing techniques.
5.4.2 The compressibility of mixtures of tire chips and soil has been measured by:
Manion and Humphrey (1992), Edil and Bosscher (1992, 1994), Ahmed (1993), and Ahmed and
Love11 (1993). Compressibility decreased as the percent tire chips in the mix decreased.
5.5 The resilient modulus ( M ~ ) o fsubgrade soils can be expressed as @ada and

9 = first invariant of stress (sum of the three principal stresses)

A = experimentally determined parameter

B = experimentally determined parameter

Tests for the parameters A and B can be conducted accordiig to AASHTO T 274. The maximum
tire chip size is typically limited to 19 mm by the testing apparatus which precludes the general
applicability of this procedure to the larger size xire chips typically used for civil engineering
5.5.1 Ahmed (1993) applied AASHTO T 274-82 to tire chips and tire chipkoil
mixtures. Modulus values ranged %om 700 to 1700 Ha.Two soil types were used: (1) Ottawa
sand; and (2) Crosby T i Their results are summarized in Table 5. The parameter A, and
therefore MR, decreases as the percent tire chips by dry weight of the mix increases. Edii and
Bosscher (1992, 1994) measured the resilient modulus of mixtures of tire chips and sand.
However, the tire chip size and details of the testing procedure were not given. Their results are
summarized in Figure 3. Shao, et al. (1995) performed resilient modulus tests on crumb rubber (7
mm maximum size) and rubber bufUngs (1 mm maximum size). The resilient modulus values
ranged from 700 to 1700 kPa.
5.6 The coefficient of lateral earth pressure at rest KOand Poisson's ratio p have been
determined ffom the results of confined compression tests where the horizontal stresses were
measured. KO and p are calculated from:

KO= q/3,,

ah = measured horizontal stress, and
0, = measured vertical stress.

5.6.1 Values ofKOand p reported by several investigators are summarized in Table 6.

Reported values ofKo ranged from 0.47 to 0.26. Vdues of p ranged from 0.17 to 0.32.
5.7 The s h w strength of tire chips may be determined in a direct shear apparatus in
accordance with Test Method D 3080 or using a triaxial shear apparatus. The large size of tire
chips t y p i d y used for civil engineering applications requires that spechen sizes be several times

-=eater than used for common soils. Because of the limited availability of large triaxid s h w
apparatus this method has generally been used for tire chips 25 mm in size and smaller.
Extrapolation of results on sinall size chips to the 75-mm znd larger <ie chips used for civil
engineering app~cationsis unceaain since small chips are nearly equidiiensional while larger
chips tend to be long and flat. Furthermore, the triaxial shear apparatus is generally not suitable
for tire chips that have steel belts protruding from the cut edges of the chips since the wires would
puncture the membrane used to surround the specimen.
5.7.1 The shmc strength of tire chips has been measured using triaxid shear by Bressette
(1984), Ahmed (1993), and ~ e n d (1995);
a and using direct shear by ~ u m ~ h rete al.
~ ,(1992,
1993), Humphrey and Sandford (1993), and Cosgrove (1995). Failure envelopes for tests
conducted at low stress levels (less than about 100 kPa) are compared in Figure 4. The failure
envelopes are non-liner and concave down, so when fitting a linear failure envelope to the data, it
is important that this be done over the range of stresses that will occur in the field. Ahmed (1993)
conducted tests at higher stress levels (greater than 75 kPa) on tire chips with a maximum size of
13 mm and 25 mm. The failure envelopes were approximately linear. Using a failure criteria of
15 % axial strain, cohesion intercepts from 27.4 to 33.0 kPa and friction angles from 15.9 to 20.3
degrees were obtained. Bressette (1984) tested two samples. One was termed "51-mm square"
and it had a cohesion intercept of 26 kPa and a friction angle of 210. The other was termed "51-
rnm shredded" and it had a cohesion intercept of 36 kPa and a friction angle of 14O. No other
information on the tests was given.
5.7.2 The shear strength of tire chiplsoil mixtures has been measured using triaxial shear
by Hvlnon and Forsyth (1973) and Ahmed (1993), and using direct s h w by Edil and Bosscher
(1992), and Benson and Khire (1995). Tables 7 and 8 summarize the results from Ahmed (1993).
Edil Zild Bosscher (1992), and Benson and Khire (1995) were primarily interested in the
reinforcing eEect of tire chips when added to a sand. They found that under some circumstances,
the shear strength was increased by adding tire chips.
5.7.3 The interface strength between tire chips andgeomembrane was measured in a
large scale direct shear test by Cosgrove (1995).
5.8 The hydraulic conductivity (permeability) oftire chips smaller than 19 mm in f i e
can be determined in accordance with Test Method D 2434. However, tire chips and tire chiplsoil
mixcures used for civil engineering applications almost always have a majority of their particles
larger than 19 mm, so this method is generally not applicable.
5.8.1 The hydraulic conductivity oftire chips and tire chiplsoil mixtures has been
measured with constant head permeameters ranging in diameter from 203 mm to 305 mm
(Bressette, 1984; Hall, 1990; Humphrey, et al., 1992, 1993; Humphrey and Sandford, 1993; Edil
and Bosscher, 1992, 1994; Ahmed, 1993; Ahmed and Lovell, 1993). Some permeameters had
provisions to apply a vertical stress to the sample to simulate the compression that would occur
under the weight of overlying soil cover.
5.8.2 The hydraulic conductivity oftird chips determined in several investigations is
summarized in Table 9. Hydraulic conductivities from 0.58 cmls to 23.5 c d s were reported.
DPAFT. llC29J ~ _ m k u m
Results frornEdil and Bosscher (1992, 1994) are not included in Table 7 because they noted
the limited flow capacity of their permeameter casts doubt on the reliability of their reported
hydraulic conductivities.
5.8.3 The hydraulic conductivities of tire chiplsoil mixtures have been measured by Edi
andBosscher (1992,1994), and Ahmed (1993). Edil and Bosscher (1992, 1994) used mixtures
of tire chips with a 75-mm maximum size and a clean uniform sand. Surcharge pressures between
0 and 138 kPa were applied to the sample% Their results are summarized in Figure 5. Ahmed
(1993) used mixtures of tire chips with either a 13 or 25-mm maximum size and two soil types:
(1) uniformly graded Ottawa sand; and (2) a fine grained glacial till (Crosby Till). No surcharge
pressure was applied to the samples. The results are summarized in Table 10. For both studies,
the hydraulic conductivity increased as the percent tire chips in the mix increased.
5.9 The thermal conductivity of tire chips is si-pifimtly Iower thzn for common soils.
Shao, et al. (1995) used a yarded hot plate apparatus to test samples with maximum particle
sizes nnging from 1 to 25 mm. The larger sizes contained the remains of steel belts. Measured
thermal conductivities ranged from 0.0838 Cdm-hr-OC for 1 m m particles tested in a thawed
state with a water content less than 1%and with low compaction to 0.147 Czl/m-hr-°C for 25
mm tire chips tested in a frozen state with a water content of 5% and hish compaction The
thermal conductivity increased with increasing particle &e, increased water content, and
increased compaction. The thermal conductivity was higher for tire chips tested under frozen
conditions than when tested under thawed conditions. Humphrey and Eaton (unpublished) back
calculated a thermal conductivity of 0.2 CalJm-hr-OC from a'field trial constructed using tire chips
with a maximum size of 51 rnrn (Humphrey and Eaton, 1993%1993b, 1994, 1995). It is
reasonable that the back calculated thermal conductivity is higher than found by Shao, et al.
(1994) since the tire chips for the former were larger and contained more steel bead wire and steel

5.10 Material safety data sheets for vulcanized rubber tire, bufiing dust and trimmed
vents, whole scrap tire, and innertube; scrap and whole are included in Appendix A.
D m , IICX9J X_NnnooC
6. Construction Practices
6.1 Tire chips have a compacted dry density that is one-third to one-half of the
compacted dry density of typical soil. This makes them an attractive lightweight fill for
embankment construction on weak, compressible soils where slope stability or excessive
settlement are a concern. Tire chip fill has been used for slope stabilization in Oregon (Read, et
a]., 1991; Upton, 1992; Upton, et al., 1992; Upton and Machan, 1993) and Wyoming (Double
Nickel Slide Project, 1994) and to reduce settlements of roads constructed on compressible soils
in Minnesota (Geisler, et al., 1989; Engstrom and Lamb, 1994); Colorado (Williams, 1992); and
Virginia (Hoppe, 1994). Additional field trials of tire chips as fill beneath paved roads have been
conducted in Wisconsin (Bosscher, et al., 1992; Edil and Bosscher, 1992), Maine (Humphrey and
Nickels, 1991; Mckels and Humpkey, 199S), and North Carolina.
6.2 Tire chips have been used as thermal insulation to limit the depth of frost penetration
beneath a gravel surfaced road in Maine (Humphrey and Eaton, 1993% 1993b, 1994, 1995;
Eaton, et al., 1994). Tire chips have been used for similar applications in Vermont @%nters,
1991; Fnswia, 1991, 1994; Frascoia and Cauley, 1995) and Quibec (Dori, et al., 1995).
6.3 The low compacted dry density, high hydraulic conductivity, and low thermal
conductivi;itymakes tire chips very attractive for use as retaining wall backfill. This has been
investigated in full-scale trials by Tweedie and Humphrey (1995) who reported that the lateral
earth pressures for tire chip backfill can be 25% to 50% of values obtained for soil backfill. Tire

chips have also been useda backfill for geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls (Wu, et al.,
1994; Civil Engineering News, 1995).
6.4 The high hydraulic conductivity of tire chips makes them potentially suitable for
many drainage applications including French drains, drainage layers in landfill liner and cover
systems (Hall, 1990; Cosgrove, 1995; Narejo and Shettima, 1995). and leach fields for on-site
sewage disposal systems (Envirologic, 1990).
6.5 Two difierent sizes of tire chips are commonly used for the applications discussed
above. One has a nominal maximum size of 75 mm and a maximum of 20% passing (by weight)
-".- ..--, x m -
the No. 4 sieve (Nkkels and Humphrey, 1995). The other has a maximum s u e of 610 mm, a
minimum of 80% passing (by weight) the 200-mm sieve size, and a maximum of 50% passing (by
weight) the 100 mm sieve sue. (Twin City Testing, 1990). In all cases, at least one side wall
should be severed from the tread. Tire chips shall be free of oil, grease, and other contaminates
that might leach into the groundwater. They shall not be made from tires that have been partially
consumed in a fire. In some applications, a restriction is placed on the amount of steel bead and
tread wire that is not at least partially encased in rubber.
6.6 Tire chips with a maximum size of 75 mm are generally placed in 305-mm thick lifts
and compacted by a.tracked bulldozer, sheepsfoot roller, or smooth drum vibratory roller. hrger
tire chips are generally placed in 900-mm thick lifts and compacted by a tracked bulldozer.
6.7 Tire chips should be covered with a suficient thickness of soil to limit deflections of
overlying pavement caused by traffic loading. Soil cover thicknesses &om 0.8 m to more than 2
m have been used. For unpaved applications as little as 0.3 m of soil cover has been used. The
designer should assess the actual thickness of soil cover needed based on the loading conditions,
tire chip layer thickness, pavement thickness, and other conditions as appropriate for a particular
project. Regardless of the application, the tire chips should be covered with soil to prevent
contact between the public and the tire chips which may have exposed steel belts.
6.8 In applications where pavement will be placed over the 6re chiplayer and in
drainage applications, the tire chip layer should be completely wrapped in a layer of non-woven or
woven geotextile to minimize infiltration of soil particles into the voids between the tire chips.
6.9 Whole tires and tire sidewalls that have been cut from the tire carcass have been
used t o construct retaining walls (Richman and Jackurq 1984; Jachra, et al., 1983; W&ms and
Weaver, 1987; Caltrans, 1988;Nguyen and Williams, 1989); and bound together to form drainage
culverts (Everett and Gattis, 1994; ~ v e r e tand
t Douglah, 1994). These references should be
consulted for design guidelines.
7. Leachate
7.1 The Toxicity Chara6teristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP) @PA Method 1311) is
used to determine if a waste is a hazardous waste, thereby posing a significant hazard to human
health due to leaching of toxic compounds. The TCLP test represents the worst case scenario of
acid rain percolating through the waste and exiting as ieachate. TCLP results for metals were
reported by Zelibor (1991), Ealding (1992), and Downs, et al. (1995). Their results are -
surnmvized in Table 11. For all regulated metals, the results are well below the TCLP regulatory
limit. Results for semivolatile and volatile organics were reported by Zelibor (1991) and Downs,
et al. (1995), and are summarized in Table 12. Five organic compounds were detected but were
well below applicable TCLP regulatory limits. These results indicate that tire chips are not
classitied u a hazardous waste.
7.2 In addition to TCLP tests, laboratoiy leaching studies have been performed
following several test protocols including: USEPA SW-846 Method 1310 (EP toxicity); American
Foundqman Society (AFS) Ieaching test; and long tern laboratory leaching tests. Results by
Twin City Testing (1990) and Ealding (1992) show that metals are leached most readily at low
pH and that organics are leached most readily kt hish pH. Thus, it is preferable to use tire chips in
environments with a near neutral pH.
7.3 Field studies of tire chip fills located above the ground water table include the
following: Wisconsin (Edil and Bosscher, 1992); Richmond, Maine @umphrey and Katz, 1995a);
and North Yarmouth, Maine (Humphrey and Katz, 1995b). In the W~sconsinand Nor&
Yarmouth studies, sample were collected using seepase collection basins located directly below
the tire chip layer while in the Richmond study sample collection wells were located in native soil
adjacent to the tire chips. A study in Maine by Downs, et al. (1995) investigated the efiects of tire
chips buried below the groundwater table in three different soil types. Results of these studies are
summarized in Table 13 for metals with a primary drinking water standard and in Table 14 for
metals with a secondary drinking wafer standard. A limited field study in Minnesota was
performed by Twin City Testing (1990) is not included in the summary since the only

n p L w 11m9s x-mrirc
groundwater sample was obtained by bailing fiom an open borehole. This deviates significantly
from acceptable sampling procedures which casts doubt on the validity of the test results.
The studies summarized in ~able.13show that tire chips placed both above and below
the groundwater table do not leach metals in excess of primary drinking water standards. For
metals with secondary standards (Table 14), indicating that they are mostly an aesthetic concern,
the levels of iron and manganese tend to exceed regulatory limits when the tire chips are placed
above the groundwater table. ~ G a b i l i t yof iron and manganese levels with time are shown for
theNorth Yarmouth project in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. When tire chips are placed below
the groundwater table, the levels of iron and manganese exceed their regulatory limits by wide
margins. This indicates that tire chips containing a significant portion of steel belts should be used
below the water table only where higher levels of iron and manganese can be tolerated.
T i e chips placedbelow the water table leach some organic compounds into the ground
water (Dovins, et al., 1995). Further study is needed to determineifthese levels are high enough
to be of concern. Pending continued studies ofthe efiect of tire chips placed below the water
table on organic levels, theuse of tire chips should be l i i t e d to above water table applications.
Table 1. Summary of specific gravities and water absorption capacity.
T i e chip Specific gravity Watcr Rdcrcna
t -
-lb2 B& --
Saturated Apparent absorption
surface dry capacity (%)
Glass belted - - 1.14 3.8 . Humphrey el al. (1992)
Glassbelted 0.98 1.02 1.02 4 Manion &Humphrey (1992)
Sted belted . 1.06 1.01 1.10 4 Manion & Humphrey (1992)
Mixsure 1.06 1.16 1.18 9.5 Bressette (1984)
Mixsure - - 1.24 2 Humphrey el al. (1992)
(Pine State)
Musure - - 1.27 2 Humphrey et al. (1992)
Mixme - - 1.23 4.3 Humphrey et al. (1992)
Mixturr: 1.01 1.05 1.05 4 Manion &Humphrey (1992)
Mixsure - 0.88 to - - Ahmed (1993)
(12.7 m to 1.13

DRIFT. 111191
Table 2. Size of compaction molds used to determine dry density of tire chips.

Maximum Particle Mold Diameter Mold Volume Reference

Size (mm) (mm) (m3)

75 254 0.0125 Manion and

Humphrey (1992)
Humphrey, et a1

75 305 0.0146 Edil and Bosscher


51 203 and 305 NR Ahmed (1993)

N.R = not reported
Table 3. Summary of laboratory dry densities of tire chips.
Compaction Panicle sizc Tire chip Sam of tire chips Dry density Reference
methoda mnge (mm) type @dgkn3)
Loosc 2 to 75 Mixed Palmer Shredding 0.341 (2)
Loow 2 to 51 Mixed Pine State Rcqding 0.482
Loor 2 to 25 GIs F &'B Enterprises
Loor 2 10 51 Mixed Sawyer ~nviro-mental
Loow 51 max Mixed -
Lwsc 25 max Mixed
Vibration 25 max Mixed
Vibrarion 13 max Mixed
50% Standard 51 mar Mix&
50% Standard 25 max Mixed
' 60% Standard 2 lo 75 Mixed Palmer Shredding
60% Stuldard 21051 Mixed Pine State R q c l i n g
60% Standard 2 to 25 Glass F & B Enterpriss
60% Standard 21051 Mixed Sawyer Environmental
Standard 21051 Mixed Sauyer Environmental
Standard 51 mar Mixed -
Standard 58 max Mixed
Standard 25 max Mixed -
Standud 13 max Mixed -
Standard 20 to 75 Rcdefeld
Standard 20 to 75 Rodefdd
Modified 21051 Mixed Sauyer Environmental
Mrned 51 max Mixed -
Modified 25 max. hkxed
- 50.8 Mixed - 0.41 to 0.57 (3)
Notes: a. Compaction methods:
Loose= no compaction; tire chips loosely dumped into compaction mold
Vibration =Method D 4253
50% Standard =Impact compaction with compaction energy of 296.4 kUm3
60% Standard =Impact compaction with compaction energy of 355.6 kJ/m3
Standard = Impact compaction with compaction energy of 296.4 kJ/m3
Modified =Impact compaction with compaction energy of 2693 kYm3
b. 152 mm diameter mold compacted by 4.54 kg ramrner falling 305 rnm
c. 305 mm diameter mold compacted by 27.4 kg rammer falling 457 mm
References: (1) Manion and Humphrey (1992); Humphrey and Manion (1992)
(2) Humphrey, et al. (1992, 1993); Humphrey and Sandford (1993)
(3) Bressette (1984)
(4) Edil and Bosscher (1992, 1994)
(5) Ahmed (1993); Ahrned and Love11 (1993)
Table 4. Compressibitityon initial loading.
Panidc Tin: Tirc chip Initial dry Vcnjcal strain (%) at indicated vertical s7rss (Pa) Rcfercnc
size chip source density 10 25 50 100 200
QG @Wm3)
21075 Mixed Palmer Compacted 7 to 11 16to.21 23 to27 30 to34 381041 (2)
2 to 51 Mixed Pine State Compacted 8 to 14 15 to20 21 to26 271032 33 to37 (2)
2 to 25 Glass F&B Compacted 5 to 10 11 to 16 18 to22 26 to 28 33 to35 . (2)
2 to 51 Mixed . Sawyer Compacted 5 to 10 13 to 18 17 to23 22 to30 29'to 37 (1)
Mixed Compacted 4 to5 8 to 11 13 to 16 18 to 23 27
75 max Mixed Pine State 0.51 to 0.67 12 to20 18 to28 - - - (3)
2 to 51 Mixed Pine State Loose 18 34 41 46 52 (2)
Mixed F&B Loose
18 28
12 to I7 1710 24
24 to 31
30 to 38
Reference: (1) Manion & Humphrey (1992)
(2) Humphrey, et al. (1992)
(3) Ahmed (1993)
(4) Drescher & Newcomb (1994)
(5) Nickels & Humphrey (1995)
Table 5. Resilient modulus of tire chips and tire chiplsoil mixtures (after Ahmed, 1993).
Test no. Tircchip Sample % tirechips Soil type Constant Constant rL
max six preption b d o n A B
(mm) total weight
AH01 No Chips Vibratory Nochips Sand 1071.5 0.84 0.95
AH02 13 Vibratory 15 Sand 524.8 0.83 0.95
AH03 13 Vibratory 30 Sand 269.2 0.90 0.67
AH04 13 V~bratory 38 Sand 42.7 1.15 0.89
AH05 13 Vibratory 50 Sand 38.9 0.83 0.84
AH06 13 Vibratory 100 Sand 36.3 0.55 0.74
AH07 19 Vibratory 38 Sand 34.7 121 0.92
AH08 No Chips Standard No Chips Crosby T
l 3162.3 0.49 0.83
AH09 13 Standard 15 Crosby Till 53.7 1.15 0.91
AH10 13 Standard 29 Cmsby Till 61.7 0.91 0.94
AH1 1 13 Standard 38 Crosby Till 55.0 0.67 0.95

Notes: 1. Constants A & B are the constants for the regression equation and rZ is the
regression coefficient
2. Standard = Standard Proctor Energy = 296.4 k3m3
3. The constants A and B assume the units for 8 and MR are psi. (1 psi = 6.89
Table 6. Summary of coefficient.of lateral earth pressure at rest and Poisson's ratio.
Parlick sizc Tire chip rypc S o w of tire chips KO P Refcrcno
m g c (mm)
21051 Mixed Sawyer Environmental 0.44 0.30 (1)
2 to 75 Mixed Palmer Shredding 0.26 0.20 (2)
2to51 Mixed Pine State Rtcycliig 0.41 0.28 (2)
2 to 25 Glass F & B Enterpriws 0.47 0.32 (2)
- - - - 0.3 to (3)
13 to 51 Mixed Maust Tire Recyclers 0.4a 0.3 (4)

Notes:. a. For vertical stress less than 172 kPa

References: (1) Manion and ~ " m ~ h (1992);

r e ~ Humphrey and Manion (1992)
(2) Humphrey, et al. (1992, 1993);Humphrey and Sandford (1993)
(3) Edit and Bosscher (1992, 1994)
(4) Drescher and Newcomb (1994)
Table 8. Shear strength of mixtures oftire chips and Crosby till (Ahmed, 1993).
Table 9. Summary of reported hydraulic conductivities of tire chips.
Particle size Void ratio Dry density Hydraulic Reference
(rnm) (Mglm3) (cdsec)
25 to 64 0.469 5.3 to 23.5 Bressette (1984)
25 to 64 0.608 2.9 to 10.9
5to51 0.470 4.9 to 59.3
5 to51 0.610 3.8 to 22.0
38 - -- 1.4 to 2.6 Hall (1990)
19 - - 0.8 to 2.6
10 to 51 0.925 0.644 7.7 Humphrey, et al.
Table 10. Hydraulic conductivities of mixtures of tire chips and soil (Ahmed, 1993).
T i e chip Soil type % tire chips Dry density Hydraulic
maximum size based on total ~ ~ g l r n 3 ) conductivity
(mm) weight (ds)
- Ottawa sand 0 1.89 1.6~ lo-4
25 Ottawa sand 15.5 1.68 1.8 x 10-3
25 Ottawa sand 30.1 1.53 3.5 x 10-3
25 Ottawa sand 37.7 1.41 8.7 x 10-3
- Crosby till 0 1.91 8.9 x
25 Crosby till 14.8 1.70 1.8 x
25 Crosby tiU 30.1 1.39 2.1 lo-3
25 Crosby till 40 1.20 8.8 10-3
13 Crosby till 40 1.19 9.7 10-3
TabIe 11. Summary of TCLP results for regulated metals.
Ag As Ba Cd Cr Hg Pb Se
Conmdonineam p a p a p a p a p a
(PP~) @pb) (PPW ( P P ~ ) (PP~) @pH (PPW (PPW
TCLPReguIatoryLimit 5000 5MM 100000 I000 5000 200 5000 1000
Viginia DOT NA NA NA 155 2.8 NA 19.6 NA
&zap T i e Management ND 2 590 ND 48 0.4 16 ND
Maine ND ND 357 185 84 ND 216 ND
Notcs: NA = not available, that is not measured or not reported for that study
ND = nondetect

Referents: Zelibor (1991);Ealding (1992); Downs, et al. (1995)

Table 12 Summary of results for field studies pollutants with phmary drinking water

Minnesota PC 400 C10 -3 <I0 NA cl NA a 0 <100,

EastLysimeter NA 570 NA NA NA NA NA 22 NA
Max Conc
WenLysimeter NA 690 NA NA NA N.4 NA 5 NA
Max Conc
Tire Pond
Surface Water
Max Conc
N-4 NA -a N* n r NA 4 0
1 / I / NA NA

Richmond, Maine
Field Trial NA 45 <5 NA NA NA NA c.57 NA
Max Conc
Nonh Yarmouth
Field Trial
Max Conc C NA 225 -3 64 NA NA NA -47 NA
MaxConcD NA 113 <5 70 NA NA NA 4 7 NA
Maine <I5 57 15 7 19 NA NA <15 NA
TC Below GViT
FieldTrial .
Max Conc
Notes: NA = not available, not measured or not recorded for that study

a Federal Re&er, July 1,1993; 40 CFR C h 1, seaion 141.1 1

b Federal Register, July 1,1993; 40 CFR C h 1, section 141.62
c Federal Register, July 1,1993; 40 CFR C h 1, d o n 141.80

M e r c n m : Twin City Testing (1990); Edil and Bosschcr (1992); Downs, ct al. (1995); Humphrey and
?btz(1995% 1995b)

Table 13. Summary of results for field studies - metals with secondary drinking water
standards and other parameters

Minnesora PC

Field Trial 170 105 c0.1 18 290 <lo0 65

Max Conc
Nonh Yarmouth
Field Trial
Max Gmc C ' 150 437 1.5 141 902 1100 58
Max Conc D 400 481 4.8 157 3200 13 25
Maine 362 . 30 87 13 3430 123 22
TC Below G W
Field Trial
Max Conc
Notes: NA = not available, not me& or nor recorded for that study
ND = nonderect
a Viessrnan and Hammer (1985)

References: Twin City Tening (1990); Edil and Bosscher (1992); Downs, el al. (1995)
T i e aiips (% by weight of mbc)

Figure 1. Comparison of compacted dry density of mixtures of tire chips with Ottawa
sand and Crosby till (Ahrned, 1993).
Figure 2. Compressibiity apparatus for tire chips designed to measure l a t e d stress and
the portion of the vertical load transferred by friction from tire chips to
container (NkkeIs and Humphrey, 1995).





10 100
Bulk Stress (psi)

Figure 3. Resilient moddus of mixtures of tire chips and clean sand (Ediil and Bosscher,
60 I 1 i I 1 1 1 I I
o pine Slate. 305-mm box (Ref. 1)

P ~ i n e ~ t a t406-mrn
e. box (Ref. 1)
50- o Palmer. 3 M m m box (Ref. 1)
- - .
- F8.B. 305-mm box (Ref. 1)
2 40 -
-- 75-mm max size (Ret. 2)

38mm max
9.5mm mnsize. A&
size ( R e t 2)
aqG%shl Pel.3)
530- e 9.5mm mn size. L a i d e z l b -
g 20
- -

10 - -
0 I I I I 1 I I 1 1
0 10 20 ' 30 40 50 60 70 ' 80 90 100

Figure 4. Comparison of failure envelops of tire chips at low stress levels (1. Humphrey,
et al, 1992; 2. Cosgrove, 1995; 3. Benda, 1995).
Figure 5. Hydraulic conductivities of mixtures of tire chips and clean sand (Edi and
Bosscher, 1992).
- -2s- SECTIONC -
- --%- SECTION D '
- - RAL = 0.3 mgiL
- -

- - - -\ - - - - - - - - - -
P;1 m i - - -
M 2-4
111194 411194 711194 1011194 111195 4/1/95 711195
Figure 6. Iron levels for filtered samples at North Yarmouth field trial (Humphrey and
Katz, 1995).

E 4.0
O 3.0
I- 2.0 --&-- SECTlON C
0 - - - RAL = 0.05 rn
Z 1.0

111194 411194 711194 10/1/94 111195 411 195 711195

Figure 7. Manganese levels for filtered samples at North Yarmouth field trial (Humphrey
and Katz, 1995).
T i m b h b . r Co. Vulcanized k b b x Tire (419) 423-U21

Carian black

Titaniun d i d &



W 16-36










Solid Black Ibtbber rJB . . 1.031-1.31 NfA
. .
Pny of the follu&g extiIgudwg agents my be used to cmbt fires of this nateriil:
Later (d- vith fog d e s ) , urbn dioxide, dry chanical, k l m or alcdal
f m . Uater, d k p , r d vith fog mnles, my be used to am1 f i r e - a p d omtainers
4 to prevmt pressure b.rild-q.

lhis naterial mtaim mt!xsited-~$~thdcor -tic extader oil. ?his

o i l c u i l d k released fmn the surface thm@ skin omtact. h1crg-d ontact vith
thEse o i l s has b strxm to use skin ancer in lafalatory stdies vith aniimls.
Lhtrmted rephthslic a d arumtic oils ~e classified as c a r c k q m i c by IARC
( I n t e r n a t i d A g e r q for Research on Cancer). Prola?& or r-ted omtact my c a w
&in i r r i t a t i m or s a ~ s i t i z a t i m(allergic skin reaction).
Store inkars in a cml dry, vell ventilated aw, m3er d i m t mnjitia-~~.
( T q e ~ t w e s :32-103T (OD-?BY)). Do -
mt store in direct slmliefit.
- F-

CuCcn black lXs&--G 16-36 Irritant

Qr 1TL41-46-7 Ql.0 Irritmt

Ti taniun diuxide 33463-67-7 Ql.5 Irritant

Zinc mdde uib13-2 0.0 ~rritant

sulfur 7704-34-9 a.5 Irritant

Petrolern 8CCC!-29-7 i-U Irritant


Mite & B h c k W NID 1.035-1.331 WA

hbter Particulatg
Any of the follouir&euriq@&kg agents nq k used to &t fires of this irete+L
water (dkpxsd vith fog mnles), carbn dioxide, dry chemical, Kdm or almhol
f m . Water, dispD-rrjerl vith fq: males, nq be used t o cml fireaqrosed cmtabxs
ard to p-t pmssure Wd-up.

Rtexially cxckgmic wterials ( in c l.wnitmanrines), artm CDddei (e

mrmdde ard cakn diuxide), acrid f i n s , & flwmble nay be likerated
as a d t of t k m d -rim ar corKusticn. Avoid & s d e ard funs d a t
d t . f m n thenml -tim or corKustim.

NID skin ( d d ) mtact

No knovn hsllth effects d w to acute (siort term) acpsnne-

lhis rraterial contains mtreated @ t M c or a m t i c t3ctader oil. ?hir;

o i l d d be r e l d fmn the surface thmu;jl skin cmtact. Rolcmgd cmtact with
ti-ese oils has been dxm to cmr;e skin oncer in laboratory stldies vith zrni~&.
Ultreated @thsric a d -tic oils are classified as carciraginic by I A E
(Internatid Pgexy for Ilessrch m -). Prola?& or n p s t e d ontact q cause
skin irritation or semitiatim (alle.rgic dcin rractim).
E3E3 b t v t e d to & a pmblan. If pvticles (dust) m t e r t
p r t i d t e , £0-
k q, -e
wteridLs anl flush eyes vith large awmts of Mter for
a t lezst 15 minutes. Lift q p arxl
~ lover eyelids to insure fl-.
Obtain ntpporrive nalical attentim as necenary.

: Vash r h o w y vith soap ad vater. I f reddening or i m t a t i c n develops,
obtain s q p r t i v e nalical attentiwi.

Not v t e d to k 2 prublen.

lm-wnm Not ocpected to k a pmblan.

SIEep or siaveZ w t e r i a l into properly M e l e d cmtainer: for dispaal o r -.

UJ?E-s Reclaim or recycle wterial i f ponible. Dkpse of m t d - i n
acwnfance vith applicable f e d o d , s t a t e ad bd guidelins a d
sBmm IX S P P C l B L ~ O N ~ ( N
A l l ~ ~ t s ~ b 2 t o p~r w as~ t e ~
y e a nr t a cst d e x £ s s i v e o r
repatal skin cmtact. BRrmpdate skin p t e c t i m dmld be eqilqal.
I r t a 3 a d c n of dtsts starld be mi&.

gea. Not Iqlirai for m d use.

sW: Use of protective glwes is d e 3 . V& harri-i before =.ti%, sxkirg or
using threstrocm.

RWJ.KE@k WJm d anditicns of use, respiratory protection s h 4 . d m t ixr


Store indaors in a cool, dry, veil ventilate3 aw d e r ambient arditicns.

(Tqxxatures: 32-1COT (OD-330C)). tb m t store in direct sdight. Store and
dispsse of uaterkd. in acwrdance with *cable f&d, state ard l d guidelirpl;
ard rqhticns.

V. C. J m
7 Gayer Tire & Ru&r CO. (419) 426UZt
Bole Scrap Tire

Zix oxide U14-13-2 Q.0 lrritant 5.0 n

gd N7nhannlors

Petmleun hydrmrtrxrs 8a)2-29-7 5-I3 Irritant S-Ong,?? NrrEfuardous

Solid Bladc Elhkr N/D 1.W-1.331 WA


N/A 0 WA WA Insoluble

m N / D
Aw of rhe follwirg extkgkhisg 2gents nay te we3 to &t fires of t h i s naterial:
Later (dispsd virh fog nsales), cartm dimdde, dry chwicdl, b l m or a l c d a l
foam. Varer, d i s p d vith fog ronles, nay k used to mol fi- containers
ard to prwent presnne hrilkrp.

N/D skin (dernel) contact

o i l o d d b e r e l d fmn thesurface -skin

thse o i l s l-as been bto use skin -
?his wterial cmtains untreated ra&rhsric or axmatic at*

UntmteJ rqhthslic a d arumtic 0% are clrnifid asc-

antact. b1&
oil. ?his
a n t a c t vith
in lakxatoty smiies vith aids.

( I n t e r n a t i d PgBlCY for ReSearch on Cancei.). EIU~&

or repeated mntact my ouse
sktn irritation or m i t i z a t i m (allergic skin m c t i m ) .
EES: k t expzcted to te a problem.

S3R Lkh ~~y vith soap ard rarer.
obrrin slrp~ortived i a l attentian.
I£reMarirg or irritatim develops,

'LU;SIE LIEXEAk Reilaim or recycle naterial if pmsible. Disprse of naterial-in

accordance vith applicable ferieral, state ard local guidelines a d
§3H: k of protective glwes is H
us* the restrmn.
V2sh before eating, sndcirg or

Store ifdcors in a cml, dry, V2U vertilatd ara

d k p s = of wterial in accordance vith *cable

ard regtilatias.
mbient ditias.
(Tenp2nnnes: 32-1COT (O0-X°C)). Ib m t store in direct smli&t. Store a d
, a d local guidellns

(lnpmats of this prcduct are id& in Tbi EPA Toxic Substaces Gntrol Act (XS4)
orrnicil Subs- Im91tory.
bp+r Tire h Co. I~uwmbqScrap (419)423-U21
b Wnole

Zinc oxide U14-V2 0.0 ~rritant 5.0 r

gd ~olhazardour

Solid Black B~!khr N/D 1.05 - 1.15 W A

Any of the f o l l ~
. . .. agents my k wed to +t fires of chis raterial:
i a t v (disp.ned,-htiv cazbm diuxide, d q f dsiid, Wlm or dlcchsl
foam. 'Vater, d i s p s s d vith fog d m , my te wed to cml firescposed an-
ard to pt- pmsnne t u i l d - q .

Full protective clothirq: ard HSi4/NT@3 (Hine Safety a d W t h Prbniriistraticrr/Mtiaal

Institute for O c a p t i Safety
~ Hd HEslth) appmved, pxitive pressure,
self-cmtainsl breathirq: apprratus simitd te used vhile firefightirg. T k m i d
k q x s i t i m by-prducts my present a M t h M.

Potentially cKcinogeric naterials (incldirg nit-), cvEcn uxides (cazbm

nrnmdde a d cazbm dioxide), acrid fur^^, m;] Elmriable h y h a x b s nay te l i k t d
Avoid the .smk ard fLTiff ti-at

Eb bM t h effects d w to aarte ( h r t term) eqsme.

?his raterial a n t a i m untraced naphrhenic or -tic extgder oil. ?his

o i l caild h relersal fmn the nnfaa: thm& skin antact. Pm1ag.d antact vith
ttxse oils fas tern to cause skin czncer in labtatory stuties vith 8linals.
Ultreatd naphrhenic ard -tic oils are classified as c a r c k g d c by IHC
, (Intesmciaal Agmy for Research m Cancer). ProlcrqZed or rqstd antact nay
skin irritatim or sensitizatim (allergic skin reactim).
5:Mt v t e d to te a prd,lan. I f prrtic3e-s (dust) fmn a tub mter th eye,
wove prtiatlate, foreign mterials and flush eyes w i t h large -ts of
~ t e for
r a t lezst 15 mirartes. Lift qpa a d 1 u u r q d i d s to imure prqxr
flusirirg. O b t h w r r i w did attmticn as mcesxy.

S3k Wash tlmraghly vith s u q nd vater.
obtain sup~ortivedeal a t t e n t h .
If d d m h g or irritatim develops,
-ted &anwt. dFpmpriate &in p r o t ~ ~ t iskuld
ol be e q i k y d .
Irhalaticn of'dusfs sbxlld k avoided.

SW. Itie of protective g
ur;* the resuwn.
l is recomerdal.
~ ZTasfi hanis Wore ffltirg, mdrtq: or

( N : Urfer m d d c i c n s of use, respiratory protection sfaild mt b


Store irdmrs in a aol,dry %dl ventilarel arsl m k d i m t ccnditias.

(Tapsratures: 32-1COT (0°-B°C)). Ib mt store in d i r s t s ' d k h t . Store and
dispse of naterial in accurdance vith *cable federd, state and local g u i d e ?
am3 regulations.

V. C Jans C m p Tire b h b k r Co. (419) 424-1321

Ahmed, I., "Laboratory Study on Properties of Rubber Soils," Report NO.
FmMN/JHRP-9314, Purdue University, West Lifayette, IN,1993.
Ahrned, I., and Lovell, C.W., "Rubber Soils as Lightweight Geomaterial," Tramporlation
Resemch Record, No. 1422, 1993, pp. 61-70.
Benda, C.C.., "Engineering Properties of Scrap Tires Used in Geotechnical Applications,"
Report 95-1, Materials and Research Division, Vermont Agency of Transportation,
Montpelier, VT,1995.
Benson, C X , and Khire, M.V., "Closure to: Reinforcing Sand with Strips ofReclaimed
High-Density Polyethylene," Journal of GeotechnicalEngineering, Vol 121, No. 4,
April, 1995, pp. 400-401.
Bosscher, P.J., Edil, TB., and Eidin, NN., "Construction and Performance of a Shredded
Waste-Tie Embankment," Transportation Research Record, No. 1345, 1992, pp.
Bressette, T., "Used T i e Material as an Alternative Permeable Aggregate," Report No.
FHWA/Cen,-84/07, Ofiice of Transportation Laboratory, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 1984.
Caltrans, "The Use of Discarded Ties in Highway Maintenance," TransZab Design
Information Brochure No. TL/REUl/88, California Department of Transportation,
Sacramento, CA, 1988.
l Engineering News, "Showcase Highway Repaired with Recycled Materials," Civil
Engineering News, Vol. 6, No. 12, January, 1995, p. 9.
Cosgrove, T.A, "Interface Strength Between Tire Chips and Geomembrane for Use a s a
Drainage Layer in a Landfill Cover," Proceedings of Geosynihetics'95, Industrial
Fabrics Association, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 3, 1995, pp. 1157-1168.
Dori, G., Konrad, J.M., Roy, M., and Rioux, N., "Use of Alternative Materials in
Pavement Frost Protection: Material Characteristics and Performance Modeling,"
TransportationResearch Record, No. 1481, 1995, pp. 63-74.
Downs, L.A, Humphrey, D.N., Katz, L.E., and Rock, C.A, "Water Quality Effects of
Using T i e Chips Below the Groundwater Table," a report prepared by the
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Maine, Orono,
Maine for the Maine Department of Transportation, 1995,215 pp.
Double Nickel Slide Project, "Wyoming Highway Department Selects Tire-Fill For Slide
Area," Scrap Tire News, Vol8, No. 8, August, 1994, p. 1.
Drescher, A, and Newcomb, DE., "Development of Design Guidelines for Use of
Shredded Tires as a Lightweight Fill in Road Subgrade and Retaining Walls," Report
No. MN7RC-94/04, Department of Civil and Mineral Engineering, University of
Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1994.
Ealdi W., "Final Report on Leachable Metals in Scrap Tires," Virginia Department of
Transportation Materials Division, for Virginia Department of Transportation Scrap
Tire Task Force, 1992.
Eaton, RA, Roberts, RJ., and Humphrey, D.N., "Gravel Road Test Sections Insulated
with Scrap Tire Chips," Special Report 94-21, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Cold
Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, August, 1994.
Edil, T.B., and Bosscher, P.J., "Development of Engineering Criteria for Shredded or
Whole Tires in Highway Applications," Report No. FVI 14-92, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, University of W~sconsin,Madison, WI,November,
Mil, T.B., and Bosscher, P.J., "Engineering Properties of Tire Chips and Soil Mixtures,"
Geozechnical Testing Journal, Vol 17, No. 4, December, 1994, pp. 453-464.
Engstrom, G.,and Lamb, R , "Using Shredded Wane T i e s as a Lighnveight Fi Material
For Road Subgrades," Summmy Report, Materials Research & Engineering,
Minnesota Department of Transportation, Maplewood, MN, April, 1994.
Envirologic, "A Report on the Use of Shredded Scrap Tires in On-Site Sewage Disposal
Systems," Envirologic, Inc., Brattleboro, VT, for The Department of Environmental
Conservation, State of Vermont, 1990.
Everett, J.W., and Douglah, S., "A Study of The Use of T i e Truck Beads As Drainage
Pipe and Analysis of The Economics of Tie Disposal in Oklahoma: Part 2 - Tire
Disposal in Oklahoma," School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science,
University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, October, 1994.
Everett, J.W., and Gattis, J.L., "A Study of The Use of T i e Truck Beads As Drainage
Pipe and Analysis of The Economics of Tire Disposal in Oklahoma Part 1 -
Culverts," Report No. MBTC 94.25, Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation
Study Center, School of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science, University of
Oklahoma, Norman, OK, July, 1994.
Frascoia, RI.; "Use of T i e Chips in a Georgia Vermont Town Eghway Base," Resemch
Updnle U91-6,Materials and Research Division, Vermont Agency of Transportation,
Montpelier, VT, April, 1991.
Frascoia, RL, "Tie Chips in the Base Course of a Local Road," Reporf 94-2, Materials
and Research Division, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, March,
Frascoia, XI., and Cauley, RF., "Tire Chips in the Base Course of a Local Road,"
Proceedings of the Sirlh IniematiomI Conference on Low-Volume R d ,
Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 47-52.
Geisler, E., Cody, W.K., and Xemi, MK, "Tires for Subgrade Support," Annual
Conference on Forest Engineering, Coeur D'Alene, ID, Auguq 1989.
Hall, T.J.,"Reuse of Shredded Waste Tire Material for Leachate Collection Systems at
Municipal Solid ~ & Landfills,"
e for Iowa Department of Natural Resources Waste
Management and Authority Division, by Shive-Hattery Engineers and Architects,
Inc., 1990.
Hannon, LB., and Forsyth, R.A., "Fill Stabilization Using Non-Biogradable Waste
Products - Phase I," Report No. CA-DOT-IL-2124-I-72-25, Transportation
Laboratory, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, August,
Hoppe, E.J., "Field Study of Shredded-Tire Embankment," Report No. FHWANA-94-IRi,
Virginia Department of Transportation, Richmond, VA, 1994.
Humphrey, D.N., and Eaton, RA, "Tire Chips as Insulation Beneath Gravel Surfaced
Roads," Proceedings ofthe SecondIntemationai Symposium on Frost in
GeotechnicnlEngineering,AA Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 1993, pp. 137-
Humphrey, D.N., and Eaton, R A , "Tire Chips as Subgrade Insulation -Field Trial,"
Proceedings of the Symposium on Recovery rmd Effective Reuse of Discarded
Materials and By-Producisfor Construction of Highway Facilities, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., October, 1993, pp. 5-55 to 5-68.
Humphrey, D.N., and Eaton, R A , "Performance of Tire Chips as an Insulating Layer
Beneath Gravel Surface Roads," Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium
on Cold Region Development, Espoo, Finland, 1994, pp. 125-126.
Humphrey, D.N. and Eaton, RA, "Field Performance of Tire Chips as Subgrade
Insulation for Rural Roads," Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Low-Volume Roads, Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2, 1995, pp. 77-86.
Humphrey, DN. and K a g L.E., "Water Quality Testing for Digley Road Tire Chip Test
Project," Report to the Town of Richmond, Maine, by Department of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, University of Maine, Orono, Maine, August 4, 1995.
Humphrey, D.N. and Katz, L.E., "Monitoring Pro_- for North Yarmouth Tire Chip
Field Trial - Year 1," Report No. Technical Services Division, Maine Department
of Transportation, Augusta, ME, z 9 5 . (in press)
Humphrey, D.N. and Manion, W.P., "Properties of Tire Chips for Lightweight Fill,"
Grouting. Soillmprovement, and Geosynthetics, ASCE, Vol2, 1992, pp. 1344-1355.
Humphrey, D.N., and Nickels, WL. Jr., "Tire Chips as Subgrade Insulation and
Lightweight Fill," 18th A n m d Meeting of the Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming
Association, Asphalt Recycling and Reclaiming Association, Annapolis, MD, 1994,
pp. 83-105.
Humphrey, D.N., Sandford, T.C., Cribbs, M.M., Gharegrat, H., and Manion, W.P., "Tire
Chips as Lightweight Backfill for Retaining Walls Phase J.," A Study for the New
England Transportation Consortium, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Maine, Orono, ME, 1992.
Humphrey, D.N., Sandford, T.C., Cribbs, MM., Gharegra~H., and Manion, W.P., "Shear
Strength and Compressibility of Tire Chips for Use as Retaining Wall Backfill,"
Tranqortation Research RecordNo. 1422, Transportation Research Board, 1993,
pp. 29-35.
Humphrey, D.N. and Sandford, T.C., "Tire Chips as Lightweight Subgrade Fill and
Retaining Wall BacMill," Proceedings of the Symposium on Recovery and Effececiive
Reuse of DiscardedMaterials and By-Productsfor Construction of Highway
Facilities, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 5-87 to 5-
Jackura, K.A, Hannon, J.B., and Forsych, R.A, "Experimental Tire-Anchored Timber
Wall," Tranrporlation Research Record 898, Transportation Research Board, 1983,
pp. 197-202.
Manion, W.P., and Humphrey, D.N., "Use of Tire Chips as Lightweight and Conventional
Embankment Fill, Phase I - Laboratory," Technid Paper 91-1, Technical Services
Division, Maine Department of Transportation, Augusta, ME, 1992.
Narejo, D.B., and Shenima, M., "Use ofRecycled Automobile Tires to Design Landfill
Components," GeosynfheticsInternational, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1995, pp. 619-625.
Newcomb, D.E. and Drescher, A , "Engineering Properties of Shredded Tires in
Lightweight Fill Applications," TransportationResearch Record, NO. 1437, 1994,
pp. 1-7.
Nguyen, M.X. and Williams, J.A, "ImplementationPackage for Using Discarded Tires in
Highway Maintenance," Report No. CAm-89/10,0ffice of Transportation
Laboratory, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, C q 1989.
Nickels and Humphrey (1995), "The Effect of Tire Chips as Subgrade Fill on Paved
Roads", Report No. -, Technical Senices Division, Maine Department of
Transportation, Augusta, ME, 1995. (in press).
Rada, G. and Witezak, M.W., "ComprehensiveEvaluation of Resilient Moduli Results for
Granular Materials," TransporlationResearch Record, No. 810, 1981, pp. 23-33.
Read, J., Dodson, T., and Thomas, J., "Use of Shredded Tires for Lightweight Fill,"
Report No. DTFH-71-90-501-OR-11, Highway Division, Road Section, Oregon
Department of Transportation, Salem, OK 1991.
Richmond, RL., and Jackura, K.A., "Field Performance of Experimenta1.Tire Anchor
Timber Wall," Report No. FHWA/CA/TL-8U6, Office of Transportation Laboratory,
California Dept. of Transportation, Sacramento, C k 1984.
Shao, I., Zarling, J.P., and Esch, D. (1995), "Thermal Conductivity of Recycled T i e
Rubber for Insulation Beneath Roadways," TransportationResearch Record, No.
1995, p p . . (in press).
Tweedie, J., and Humphrey, D.N., "Tie Chips as Lightweight Backfill for Retaining
Walls - Phase 11,Field Trial," A Study for the New England Transportation
Consortium, Department of Civil Engineering University of Maine, Orono, ME,
1995. (in preparation)
Twin City Testing "Environmental Study of the Use of Shredded Waste Tires for
Roadway Sub-grade Support," Twin City Testing Corp., St. Paul, MN, for Waste
Tire Management Unit, Site Response Section, Groundwater and Solid Waste
Division, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul ,MN, February, 1990.
Upton, RJ., "Experimental Project Use of Shredded Tires For Lightweight Fill," FHWA
Experiment Project No. 1, Report No. DTFH.-71-90-5010R-11, Federal Hjghway
Administration, Washington, D.C., July 1992.
Upton, RJ., and Machan, G., "Use of Shredded Tires for Lightweight Fill,"
TransportationResearch Record, No. 1422, 1993, pp. 36-45.
Upton, RJ., Thomas, J., and Kobernik, R, "Experimental Project: Use of Shredded Ties
for Lightweight Fill," Draft Final Monitoring Report, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C., September, 1992.
Viessman, W., Jr. and Hammer, M.J., Water Supply andPollution Control, 4th ed.,
Harper Collins College Publishers, New York, 1985, pp. 213-231.
W~lliams,J. and Weaver, D., "Guidelines for Using Recycled Tire Carcasses," Reporf NO.
FmA/CAm-87/07, Office of Transportation Laboratory, California Department of
Transportation, Sacramento, California, 1987.
Williams, L., Jr., "Old Tires Get New Life on 1-76: Transportation Agency Uses
Shredded Rubber Instead of Plain Dirt for Highway Roadbed," Rocky Mountain
News, CO, January 2, 1992.
Wmters, P., "Use of T i e Chips in a Highway Embankment," Research Update U91-0.5,
Materials and Research Division, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier,
VT, April, 1991.
W q J.T.H., Helwany, MB., and Barrett, RK, "Use of Shredded Tires as Backfill for a
New GRS Retaining Wall System," Proceedings of the F$h Infemafional
Conference on Geotexiiles, Geomembranes, and Related Products, Sigapore,
September, 1994;pp. 269-272.
Zelibor, JL., "Leachate %om Scrap Ties: RMA TCLP Report," Education Seminar on
Scrap Tire Management, Scrap Tire Management Council, ,Washington, D.C.,
September, 1991, pp. 381-391.

Jim Goehrig, P.E., V.P. of Engineering

Modern Landfill, New York
James P. Goehrig, P.E.
Vice President of Engineering Services
Modern Landfii, Inc.
Model City, New York

Jim Goehrig is a registered Professional Enggeer in the state of New York and is the Vice
President of Senices for Modem Landfill,Inc. He manages the environmental
permitting activities for Modem Landfill as well as its various affiliated solid waste management
companies. Jim has been in the solid waste field for more than ten years, the last four and a half
years with Modem. Currently, Jim is managing both Modem's Lewiston, NY landfill expansion
permitting and Modem's Town and State permitting of its proposed new solid waste management
facility in Eagle, NY.

Prior to joining Modem, Jim worked in the environmental consulting field and started his
professional career with the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation as an
en,+eer in the Division of Solid Waste in the Buffalo, NY office.

Modem Landfill, Incorporated, together with several other Modem corporations

based in Lewiston, New York, provide a full range of solid Waste management and
environmental services for residential, commercial and industrial customers. These
services include non-hazardous industrial, commercial and residential solid waste
collection, transportation and disposal and recycling. Modem's recycling services have now
expanded to include tire recycling and construction and demolition (C&D) recycling as well
as the more traditional recycling of residentially generated paper, metals, glass, and plastic.
In addition, Modem provides landfill construction services utilizing the experiences gained
in the construction of its own state-of-the-art facilities.

Modem Landfill, Inc. owns and operates a New York State Part 360 permitted solid
waste management facility located on a 382 acre site in the Town of Lewiston, Niagara
County, New York. Currently, 122 acres of the site are permitted for landfilling activities.
Another four acre parcel of the site houses Modem's Materials Recovery Facility (MRF)
which is permitted to process up to 89 tons per day of recyclables. A tire storage and
recycling facility is located on yet another three acre portion of the property. C&D
processing and recycling is conducted within the landfill footprint, near the active working

In New York, the solid waste management climate has become as complicated as
ever. On the one hand, our landfill regulations have drastically changed in just the past
several years. These changes have resulted in significant cost increases in the construction
of landfill liners. New operational requirements have also added to the cost burden in areas
such as monitoring and record keeping. On the other hand, forces such as competition
with landfills of inferior design and construction, either in New York State or in adjacent
states have resulted in depressed landfill tipping fees. Finally, recycling mandates have
added a new pressure to expand the range of services offered or lose customers to other
facilities meeting this need.

Modem has attempted to meet these challenges three ways. First, in 1989, Modem
obtained approval for an alternate double composite liner design that exceeds today's
regulatory requirements while providing a savings in landfill airspace equivalent to nearly
$100,000 per acre of liner construction. Second, Modem added recyclables processing to
its operations, and within a three year period expanded this operation to include
commingled recyclables, tire recycling, a landfill salvaging operation and a C&D recycling
operation. Third, Modem utilizes some of these recovered materials in the const~ctionand
day-to-day operations of its landfill. This paper will focus on the tire recycling operations
and how they contribute to Modem's landfill operations.


Reuse or disposal of scrap tires has long been a diicult problem. In 1993, of the
more than 240 million scrap tires generated throughout the country on an annual basis,
only 45 percent were recovered. More than fifty percent of recovered scrap tires were
processed for use as fuel. Eighteen percent of the remaining recovered scrap tires were
used to recover rubber or for retreading. Twelve percent were recovered for other
miscellaneous purposes. The other 55 percent are either landfilled or are stockpiled'.

Landfilling of whole tires is generally an unacceptable practice; in fact many states

ban whole tires from landfills as a matter of law. Stockpiling of tires is also a management
problem. Stockpiles can present ground water contamination, mosquito infestation and fire
hazard concerns and are subject to increasing regulation. More than two billion tires are
now stockpiled throughout the country.

Modem, in an effort to help address the local part of this national problem, began
a two year research and development program to permit the substitution of tire chips for
drainage aggregate in its primary leachate collection system2. Specifically, Modem
requested approval to substitute a 16 inch layer of two inch nominal tire chips for the upper
12 inches of the 24 inch thick primary leachate collection drainage layer. (See Figure 1).
On October 29, 1991, Modem received the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's (NYSDEC) approval and became the first landfill in New York to make use
of tires in this particular manner. Subsequently, Modem also received a U.S. Patent for
utilizing tire chips in the construction of a landfill.

The NYSDEC's permeability requirement3 for the primary leachate collection system
at that time was a minimum of 1 x l o J centimeters per second (cmlsec). (Currently, that
requirement4 is 1 x 10" crn/sec.) The stone material Modem historically used for the
leachate system drainage layer was obtained from a local quarry and exhibited an average
permeability of 1 x 10" cmlsec. The goal of Modem's study, as set forth by the NYSDEC
i n order to receive its approval, was to demonstrate that the tire chips met permeability
requirements and could withstand the leachate environment in the landfill.

Analytical Results

The physical characteristics of the tire chips, such as thickness, length and width,
mass and volume, hardness and of course permeability were measured on samples prior
t o and after exposure to leachate from Modem Landfill. To determine the potential effects
of leachate on the tire chips, a slightly modified version of the Environmental Protection
Agency's 9090 compatibility test was performed at a local laboratory. The 9090 test is
intended for use in determining the effects of chemicals in a surface impoundment, waste
pile, or landfill on the physical properties of a flexible membrane liner materials intended
to contain them. Data from these tests assist in determining whether a given liner material
is acceptable for the intended application5.

In Modem's case, the tests on the exposed materials were changed to measuring
thickness, length and width along edges and centerlines, mass and volume per ASTM
D471-79 and hardness per ASTM D2240-86. Measurements were taken at the 0, 30, 60,
90 and 120 day exposure intervals. Four sets of tire chips were tested. One set was
exposed to leachate at a constant temperature of 23" C (73' F) and another set at 55" C
(131" F). Likewise, two sets of chips were exposed to distilled water at the same
-.-. - - .. -. -- --



- -- ------ 1 2 " NYSDOT H Z STONE

1 2 " S O l L LAYER
I STONE KImox)=l x 10-Scdsec



I " 0 on 1 4 sLo-rrEo p v c

T Y -P I C A L
temperatures to serve as a control. A f f i set of chips were exposed to leachate at 55" C
for an unintempted 120 day period with permeability measurements taken thereafter.

The results of the 9090 testing are provided in Table I. There was no significant
difference in the changes in mass between the leachate and distilled water - exposed
samples a t similar temperatures. Rather, any difference that did occur appeared to be
related more to the temperature of the bath. In general, there was no significant change in
the size of the specimens. All but o n e of the sample groups experienced a very slight
d e c r e a s e in size. The tire chipsileachate sample a t 55' C may have been a n anomalous
result d u e to the non-uniform shape of the tire chip specimens. It was noted in the test
results the length and width measurements had decreased from their original
measurements and that the change in size was significantly influenced by the change in
thickness. However, the thickness of just one of these chips varied from 0.3 to 0.7 inches
depending o n where on that chip the measurement was taken. Finally, and most
importantly to the NYSDEC, the samples exhibited a n increase in hardness. There was an
apparent correlation between increased hardness with temperature and a greater increase
in hardness for the distilled water - exposed samples as compared to the leachate -
exposed samples. However, since the concern of the regulatory agency was the possible
softening of the tire chips exposed t o leachate and these tests indicated otherwise, the
effects observed were not studied further.

Table 1
Tire Chip1 Leachate Compatibility
9090 Test Results
Modem Landfill. Inc.

Percent Change in: Leachate Distilled Water

23 C 55 C 23 C 55 C

I Mass 1 16% 1 38% 1 22% 1 36% 1

Size -9% 7% -6% -9%

Hardness 26% 65% 84% 124%

Table 2 provides the permeability test results on the tire chips. The test results were
carried out under varying superimposed loads to simulate landfill loading conditions. in
1990, horizontal and vertical permeability of the unexposed tire chips were measured and
no significant difference was observed. Thus, this testing focused on the vertical
permeability of the tire chip materials.
Table 2
Tire Chip Permeability Test Results
Modem Landfill, Inc.

4pplied Load NYSDEC Unexposed to Exposed to Leachate

(tonslsq. ft.) Minimum Requirement Leachate 3t 55 C and 120 Days
(as of 1019193) ( test date 3/1/90) (test date 6/28/91)

3 NA

6 1.07

7 NA

9 0.42

12 0.16

NA = Not Analyzed

In general, as the loading was increased, permeability decreased due to the

compression of the materials, as was expected. Yet, in all cases, the required permeability
was readily achieved. Further, the loading on the test samples indicated that significant
amounts of solid waste could be placed on top of the system with factors of safety on the
permeability ranging from 10 to 100. In the case of a landfill with a waste density of 1500
pounds per cubic yard (pcy), an applied test load of just six tons per square foot (tsf) is
equivalent to a landfill nearly 216 feet high. Most notably, exposure to leachate did not
appear to adversely affect the tire chips' permeability.

One other result of the testing program was the determination of the minimum
required thickness of the uncompacted layer of tire chips. Modem's proposal to the
NYSDEC was to replace the upper 12 inches of stone with tire chips. Recognizing that the
tire chips compacted with increased loading, Figure 2 was developed to provide a guide
for determining tire chip density versus applied load. For example, using an average waste
density of 1500 pcy and a waste fill height of 100 feet, the waste loading would be
approximately 2.8 tsf. From Figure 2, a waste load of 2.8 tsf is roughly equivalent to a
compacted density of 48 pcf. The minimum placement thickness of an uncompacted layer
of tire chips on the baseliner that would result in a compacted thickness of at least 12
inches and a density of at least 48 pcf is:
1. 48 lb./ft3 x 12 in. thickness x 1%I12 in. = 48 lbs. of tire chips in a one square
foot area.

2. Density of uncompacted tire chips6is approximately 33 l b w

3. Uncompacted thickness = 48 Ibs./ft2 * 33 1bs.M = 1.45 feet

= 17 inches of tire chips

Figure 2
Tire Chip Density Test Results

APPLIED LOAD (Tonslsq. fL)

Tire Processino Operations

Tire processing takes place on a three acre parcel on the southwest comer of the
landfill property, approximately 2000 feet from the main landfill area. Tire deliveries are
typically made by either van trailers, dump trucks or rear loaders. These vehicles, on
average can haul the equivalent of up to 1100 passenger tires (roughly 11 tons) per load.
All vehicles delivering whole tires to the facility are tirst weighed in at the landfill scale
house. The tires are then off-loaded at the tire processing facility where they are sorted and
inspected. Tires suitable for retreading are set aside where they are reloaded shortly
thereafter into dierent van trailers and transported off site for resale.

The remaining, non-reusable tires are then shred into two inch by two inch nominal
size chips using a mobile tire shredder manufactured by Columbus McKinnon Corporation
of Sarasota, Florida. The shredder is equipped with a diesel power generator, which allows
it to be moved from one site to another or it can be hooked up directly to the site's electrical
service. Modem uses a direct electrical connection at its Lewiston, New York location. The
advantage of the direct electrical connection is the significant reduction in noise and the
more economical mode of operation.

The tires are moved toward the shredder's three foot wide input conveyor with a
wheel loader where laborers manually place the tires onto the conveyor belt. The tires are
conveyed to the cutting box where counter-rotating in-feed rollers compress and align the
tires as they enter the cutting box. Heat-treated knives mounted on two shafts counter-
rotate inward to provide a scissors-like, high torque cutting action. The cut chips then fall
through the bottom of the box onto a rotary classifier that segregates oversize chips
requiring a recut from those that meet the size requirement. The smaller chips fall onto a
two foot wide output conveyor. The chipped tires are then transported to the landfill liner
area via off-road dump trucks.

Modem staffs this operation with one supervisor and five laborers per shift. Typically,
Modem utilizes two overlapping shifts, Monday through Friday, and additional shift on
Saturdays. Modem Landfill's equipment maintenance personnel provide routine
maintenance and repair of the tire processing equipment Modem also contracts with a tire
reclaimer who provides his own labor force for sorting and removing tires for retreading.
Modem is paid a flat per tire fee for each tire reclaimed in this manner.

The tire shredder is capable of processing more than 1200 passenger tires per hour.
On average, Modem shreds anywhere from 600 to 1000 tires per hour and averages 900
tires shred per hour. Assuming minimal down time, a single eight hour shift and a five day
work week, one million whole passenger tires can be shred to replace the upper one foot
of the primary leachate collection system drainage layer with a sixteen inch thick layer of
tire chips for a ten acre landfill cell within 28 weeks.

In addition to shredding tires, Modem also has the capability to remove rims from
tires and to remove the bead wire from steel belted tires. The metals removed in these
operations are resold to scrap dealers. Another plus is the savings on the wear and tear
on the tire shredder with the removal of the bead wire.

Other Potential Uses of Tire C h i ~ s

As noted earlier, more than half of the tires recycled in this country are used for fuel.
In Florida, tire chips are used for daily and intermediate cover at sanitary landfills. Modem
has been working toward using tire chips as a leachate dispersion field within its Lewiston,
New York landfill. For the past two years, Modem has been placing a layer of chips of
varying thickness within the waste mass at its double composite lined landfill with the goal
to recirculate leachate. The tire chip layer is placed directly on top of solid waste and
covered over with additional solid waste. The idea is to tap into this now covered field of
tire chips with injection wells and pump leachate into the chips where it can disperse into
the waste mass without the nuisances of runoff or odor. Modem is also interested in
whether this field could also act as a methane gas collection system. In 1991, Modem
installed a gas recovery well using tire chips as the packing medium around the well casing
in conjunction with the installation of more traditional gas recovery wells as part of its first
phase of active methane gas control. To date, this well has performed as well or better than
the other wells packed with gravel.

One other potential use of tire chips is the production of crumb rubber. Although not
useful in landfill construction, crumb rubber production may become the dominant user of
waste tires as more and more states mandate the use of rubber modified asphalt in
highway construction. The New York State Department of Transportation has developed
what is called the "New York Mix". This mix contains two percent rubber, which equates to
3.5 tires per ton of asphalt. New York generates more than 12 million scrap tires per year.
If this mix were to be ad0pted.b~New York, just half of the asphalt used on state highway
projects annually would consume New Yorkk entire annual scrap tire contribution to the
total waste stream.However, cost and questions on the recyclability of rubber modified
asphalt are currently barriers to implementing this particular end use for tires.'

Economic Incentives

In order to determine whether the recovery of certain portions of the waste stream
for use in landfill construction or operation is feasible, a solid waste manager must look at
several factors including capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, tipping fees and
resale prices. One other factor is cost avoidance; that is, how much in landfill disposal cost
savings must be realized iri order to make the project economically viable.

The use of tire chips in landfill liner construction has an obvious cost avoidance
value. If it assumed that chipping tires is the only way a sanitary landfill can accept them
for disposal, then the cost avoidance is in the savings realized if those same chips can
occupy airspace otherwise occupied by a non-waste material. For example, replacing the
upper twelve inches of the primary leachate collection system drainage layer with tire chips
will ftee up roughly 1600 cubic yards of landfill airspace per acre of liner built. If the waste
density is 1500 pounds per cubic yard and the average tipping fee is $40 per ton, then the
airspace savings is more than $48,000 per acre. An additional savings is found in not
having to purchase, on a per acre of liner basis, 1600 cubic yards of natural drainage
materials that would have made up that upper twelve inch thick drainage layer. The total
savings for a 10 acre cell could approach $600,000 and more than a million tires can be
recycled rather than landfilled. Reasonable tipping fees can then be set to process the tires
and cover the anticipated operations and maintenance costs. The revenue generated by
the additional airspace can be used to pay off the costs of the tire processing equipment.


In the face of increased environmental regulation and downward pressures on

landfill tipping fees, the search for economical landfill construction and operations methods
grows more critical. Utilizing recycled or recovered solid waste materials in landfill
construction and operation helps to meet some of the regulatory recycling requirements
while conserving valuable landfill space and economizing the landfill operation.
In particular, the use of tire chips in the construction of a landfill's baseliner exceeds
the regulatory performance requirement for permeability while providing an additional 1600
cubic yards of airspace per acre of liner built.

Modem's current efforts are just a start. Tire chips may have an application in
leachate recirculation, methane gas recovery or even as an alternative daily cover, as seen
in Florida. As noted earlier, environmental and economic pressures will continue to dictate
just how far anyone can go in finding new and better ways to recover, reuse or recycle
waste tires.
1. O'Connor, John P., "Keeping Tires from Piling High in New England",%?!@
Waste Technoloaies, JanuaryIFebruary 1994.

2. Goehrig, James P., "Innovative Use of Recovered Solid Waste Materials in

Landfill Construction and Operation", New York State Landfill Operator
Trainina Manual -Version 1.O, New York State Association for Solid Waste
Management, March 1995.

3. NYSDEC, 6NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Manaaement Facilities, March


4. NYSDEC, 6NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Manaoement Facilities, October


5. USEPA, Method 9090 - Compatibility Test for Wastes and Membrane Liners,
Revision 0, September 1986.

6. Wehran EnviroTech, Modem Landfill, Inc. Permit Modification Request -

documents submitted to the NYSDEC for review and approval, 1991.

7. Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, The Road to Less

Waste: Recvclina New York State's S c r a ~
Tires Into Asphalt Pavina Material,
January 1991.

Mark Daniels, P.E.

East Oak andf fill,' Oklahoma
Mark Daniels, P.E.
Environmental Engineer
Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Graduated from the University of Oklahoma in May 1979 with a Bachelor of Science in
General Engineering; majoring in civil en,$neering and architecture. Registered professional
engineer in Oklahoma and Texas.

Five years experience as Environmental Engineer for Waste Management of Oklahoma, Inc.
(WMO). Responsible for permitting and compliance aspects for three landfills, two recycling
facilities and two hauling companies operated by WlvfO in the State of Oklahoma. Manage
environmental monitoring and the design and construction of liner, final cover, leachate and
gas management systems.

One year as City Manager for a municipality in southeastern Oklahoma. Three years as
ProjectIDesign Engineer at a consulting firm in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Eight years as
Environmental Engineer working in Solid Waste Management, Public Water Supply and
Construction Grants Engineering divisions at the Oklahoma State Department of Health.

Daniel Duffy, P.E.

RMT, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Daniel P. Duffy, P.E.
Project Engineer
RMT, Inc.
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Mr. Duffy has over 14 years of experience a s an environmental engineer in the fields of solid
waste disposal, hazardous waste management, site remediation, environmental facility construction
and permitting, value engineering and financial analysis, project management and engineering
design. He is a &tered professional engineer in six states, with experience in fourteen states
performing environmental engineering work for a variety of civilian, military, private and public
clients. Mr. Dnffy is an author of several environmental papers and articles. He is currently
responsible for the design, permitting and construction of solid, hazardous and industrial waste

Daniel P. Duffy, P.E.

RUST Environment and Infrastructure
Old tires represent a potentially cost-effective construction
material which can be used in the installation of leachate
drainage and collection systems. Shredding of tires and using
them in conjunction with granular soil materials enhances the
long term performance of the leachate drainage and collection
system. A typical design utilizing shredded tire chips
involves the placement of a minimum one foot thick layer of
tire chips on a granular soil layer overlaying the composite
liner system. Protection of the liner from wire protruding
from chips made from belted tires is essential. As the tire
chips tend to clump together, placement and spreading must be
in relatively thick lifts and performed by low ground pressure
equipment. A fifty percent volume reduction in the tire chip
layer can be anticipated as a result of normal loadings from
the overlaying waste. Equivalent internal friction angles and
cohesiveness for the tire chips should be estimated to ensure
sufficient factors of safety against sideslope failure. The
long term permeability characteristics of the tire chips
(especially as a filter medium) and its resistance to clogging
as a result of biological activity must be at least equal to
that of typical granular soil materials traditionally utilized
in leachate drainage and collection systems.
.As of 1991, approximately 2 billion used tires have been
stockpiled in the United States. To this total, another 242
million to 279 million tires are discarded annually. Almost
78% of these scrap tires are stored in stockpiles, disposed
of in illegal tire dumps, strewn across empty lots and back
roads, or are deposited in landfills. Only 22% are recycled,
incinerated in waste-to-energy systems, reused as structural
fill or other products such as roadway construction material.
For most municipal solid waste landfills, old tires represent
only a small fraction of their incoming waste stream. Whole,
unprocessed tires are usually delivered in small quantities by
private citizens. However, tires processed by shredding
equipment into smaller chips represent a potentially cost-
effective construction material which can be used in the
installation of leachate drainage and collection systems.
Though the potential for the use of shredded tire chips
depends in part on the locally available supply of used tires,
recent regulatory and market changes make the utilization of
tire chips more attractive. Exposed tire stockpiles are
perceived as potential fire hazards and breeding grounds for
disease vectors.'" Resultant regulations requiring stricter
standards for the stockpiling of old tires have increased the
interest of tire stockpilers to find markets for their tires.
Here lies the chief cost advantage from the use of tire chips:
unlike sand and gravel, which has to be purchased like any
other construction material, many suppliers of tire chips will
typically pay the landfill to accept their material.
Material Characteristics and Design Configurations

Shredded tire chips are a unique landfill construction

material with similarities to the natural aggregates and
granular soils typically utilized as drainage and filtration
media. The processed tire chips are, typically, no larger
than 2 inches by 2 inches in size. Commercially available
tire chippers are capable of processing all but the largest
automobile and truck tires. Approximately 35 automobile tires
are required to produce 1 cubic yard of tire chips. Steel
belted radial tires, which comprise the majority of tires on
the market today, produce chips with steel wire protrusions
measuring 3 to 4 inches in length. These potentially sharp
wire protrusions present obvious design and construction
difficulties. Steel belted tire chips cannot be placed
directly over geomembrane liners for fear of puncturing the
There are processes for removal of steel belts from tires
prior to chipping, but this can add greatly to cost and
processing time. Furthermore, obtaining a regulatory agency's
agreement to ignore the potential for liner puncture would
require a demonstration of near 100% efficacy of the steel
belt removal process, which is not realistic. As this is
nearly impossible to prove, a granular or aggregate layer
should be placed over a geomembrane liner prior to placement
of the tire chips (see Fig. 1). However, placement of tire
chips directly on a sufficiently thick clay liner system is
acceptable (see Fig. 2) .
Previous tests have indicated that tire chips have internal
strength characteristics similar to waste in that they have a
small cohesive strength component as well as an internal
friction angle."' '3' A layer of tire chips, for the purposes
of stability analysis, should be considered as a separate
layer, and not just a continuation of the overlaying waste.
Tire chips possess an in-place, internal friction angle of
approximately 27 0 . By comparison, cohesionless granular
soils can have an internal friction angle greater than 30 ".
Much of the tire chip's "internal friction" results from
mechanical bounding between the tire chips and the steel
belted protrusions. The following table summarizes and
compares the strength characteristics of in-place waste,
granular soil and tire chips:

Material Density (pcf) Cohesiveness Internal

(psf Pric tion
Angle (deg)
In-Place 60.0 to 70.0 300.0 25
Granular 120.0 to NA 28 to 30
Soils 130.0
1 ire Chips [ 30.0 to 35.0 ( 150.0

Slope stability concerns, when they arise, are similar to that

of typical in-place waste material and granular/aggregate
leachate drainage layers. Since placement of tire chips on
sideslopes is difficult, this will not always be a concern.
The steepness of the slopes and the operating weight of the
placement equipment will limit the amount of tire chips (slope
length and vertical lift height) which can be placed at any
one time (see Fig. 3). Standard static and dynamic loading
analyses should be performed to determine the factor of safety
against slope failure.
In addition to its uses as the upper component of the leachate
collection layer, the large "particle size" of tire chips also
makes them potential substitutes for aggregate mounds placed
above leachate collection pipes (see Fig. 4 ) . Tire chips in
this application should provide a mounded window directly into
the waste above the leachate collection layer.
Friluee Plane
Similarly, much of the aggregate material utilized in leachate
collection sumps can also be replaced with tire chips so long
as they are not placed as pipe bedding(see Fig. 5 ) . Given
their tendency to compress under normal loadings, tire chips
will not be able to support soft plastic pipes. For purposes
of leachate storage in the collection sumps, tire chips can be
assumed to have "void ratios" similar to that of aggregate,
approximately 30%. A "grain size distribution" of tire
chips, with their consistent 2 inch by 2 inch dimensions would
classify tire chips in a category equivalent to that of
uniformly graded coarse gravel.
Tire chips are not recommended for use as daily or
intermediate cover material. Placement of relatively thin
cover layers of tire chips is difficult since tire chips
(entangled in their steel belt protrusions) have a tendency to
clump together. The large void spaces within a tire chip
layer will limit its effectiveness in controlling odors,
vectors, and to infiltration of surface water run-off.
However, sites utilizing leachate recirculation techniques may
find this an advantage.

Construction and Placement

The actual placement and spreading of tire chips is similar to

that of aggregate material. Unlike waste, compaction in-place
of the tire chips is not possible. Placement of the chips

should be with low ground pressure equipment (less than 8 psi
ground pressure) to minimize the potential for clumping and
driving the tire chips into the layer below. Tire chips have
a tendency to clump together. This is primarily due to the
presence of the steel belted radial protrusions described
above. This makes the consistent placement of tire chips in
lifts less than 8 to 12 inches difficult.
For the purposes of design, planning and construction, it
should be assumed that tire chips will be placed in lifts of
12 inch thickness, with 12 inches being the minimum practical
placement thickness. Frozen piles of tire chips are very
difficult to break up, compared to granular materials, making
cold weather operations more difficult.
Wheeled vehicles should avoid driving directly on tire chips,
as they will not support concentrated axle loadings. This
necessitates initial disposal of waste near the limits of the
operational area until a large enough waste area has been
constructed to allow wheeled vehicles into the disposal area.
The initial lift thickness will be greatly consolidated by the
normal loadings of the deposited waste overlaying the tire
chips. An approximate 50% reduction in lift thickness can be
anticipated as the result of waste loadings. Therefore, an
initial 2 feetof tire chips will consolidate to approximately
1 foot. Note that this 2:l thickness ratio is similar to the
typical compaction ratio between gate yardage of waste and
compacted in-place waste.
When utilized with a composite liner system, a layer of
granular drainage material should separate the tire chips from
the geomembrane component of the liner. Aminimum granular
layer thickness of 12 inches is preferred to provide
protection to the geomembrane liner and ensure consistent
thickness of the granular layer. In effect, the tire chips
and granular material can be considered as a "composite
leachate drainage layer". A clay liner overlain by tire chips
should have its design thickness increased by a minimum of 6
inches to compensate forpotential impingement of the clay
surface by the steel belted radial protrusions.
Quality assurance and quality control requirements for the.
installation of the tire chip layer are similar to that of
granular or aggregate material (assuming that tire chips are
considered construction material, and not waste, by the
regulatory agency). Thicknesses of each lift of tire chip
should be checked by grid surveys.
Permeability Performance
Regulatory requirements affecting the performance of tire
chips as a drainage medium either rely directly on standard
rates of hydraulic conductivity (typically 1 x lo-' cm per
second for municipal solid waste landfills), or indirectly on
overall leachate system head build-up (12 inches or 30 cm per
Subtitle D). Laboratory tests and available field data
indicate that tire chips, even under the most extreme
overburden pressure regimes, meet or exceed these
requirements. The following table summarizes the results of
a constant head
... permeameter test (ASTM D-2434) performed on
tire chips. "'

Applied Equivalent Resultant Hydraulic

Normal Stress Landfill Strain (Tire Conductivity
(psf Waste Chip Layer (cm/sec)
Overburden Thickness
Thickness Reduction)

The tests were performed with a total hydraulic head of 27

inches on a 13 inch diameter sample. Sample thickness varied
from 9 inches to 13 inches depending on the applied load.
Orientation of the tire chips within the sample was random.
Water was used as the pore fluid (see Fig. 6)
Leachability Performance

Obvious concerns are raised by the possible effects of tire

chips on leachate constituents and the related problem of
potential degradation of tire chips in contact with leachate.
Previous tests indicate that shredded tire chips show no
likelihood of being a hazardous waste. Recirculation tests,
Involving up to three eludations (pass throughs) and utilizing
water as the circulation fluid, were performed to measure the
potential risk posed to groundwater by tire chips. The test
involved several eludations and are useful for providing a
baseline for potential tire chip leaching effects. The
results are summarized below. '''

Parameter/ Initial Final Trend

Element Concentration Concentration
7.13 to 7.43 Slightly
Alkalinity None
- ---

Ca (Mg not Slight

detected Decrease
above 1 mq/l)
Chlorine Decrease
SO4 Decrease
BOD Decrease
COD Decrease
NO,-NO, Decrease
TKN Decrease
Arsenic Not Detected
at indicated
Cadmium Not Detected
at indicated
Chromium Not Detected
at indicated
Copper Not Detected
at indicated
Selenium Not Detected
at indicated
Titanium Not Detected
at indicated
Lead Decrease
Sodium Decrease
I Barium 1 110 ug/l 1 +I10 ug/l I Slight 1
I I I I Increase I
Iron 50 ug/l 150-200 ug/l Increase
Manganese 80 ug/l 250 ug/l Increase
Zinc 40 ug/l 360-600 ug/l Increase
The tire chips showed detectable but very low release patterns
for all substances tested and a declining concentration with
continued leaching for most substances. According to the
referenced report, several of the substance were released from
the surface coatings.
Four metallic elements exhibited increasing concentrations.
Only iron and manganese slightly exceeded applicable drinking
water standards. Barium and zinc remained below acceptable
drinking water standards. Metals leaching from the tire chips,
therefore, do not appear to represent a major concern. In
general, the leaching characteristics of tire chips are far
less than most types of waste.
In addition to multiple eludations, constant leachate
recirculation tests extending for 30, 60 and 90 day periods
under differing temperature regimes have been performed for
tire chips to determine their worst-case potential
Leachability. The recirculation apparatus consisted of
leachate columns having 8 inch diameters and 48 inch heights
(see Fig. 7) . Tests were performed on two columns set at
temperatures of 23 " C and 50 C. . Leachate samples were
extracted at 0 (raw leachate), 30, 60 and 90 day intervals.
The results of the analytical tests are summarized in the
following tables (all vaiues are in mg/l). I 6 1

23 " C 0 - 30 - 60 - 90 - Trend
Column Day Day Day Day
(73.4 O F)

ph / 8.0 17.3 17.3 ) 6.9 1 Slight

Reactivitv- I c2.0 I c10.0 I c2.0 1 c2.O I None
Sulfide I 30.0
130.0 I c10. 0 I clO / Decrease
1 0-009
I0.007 Slight
Barium 0.05 0.7 0.09 0.24 Increase
Cadmium I cO. 004 l'c0.005 Slight
Chromium 0.01 0.09 Slight
Lead 10.12 1 ~0.05 co. 1 co. 0 1 Decrease
Mercury c0.0002 ~ 0 . 0 0 0 4 c0.0002 c0.0002 None
Selenium c0.002 c0.005 c0.01 c0.004 Slight
Silver 0.01 c 0 . 02 c0. 0 1 0.02 Slight



50 " C 90 - Trend
Column Day
(122.0 P)
7.8 1 Slight
Reactivity- Decrease
Reactivity- Decrease
Arsenic 0.004 Slight
Barium 0.04 Decrease
Cadmium co. 005

Lead c o . 05 <O. 0 1 Slight
Mercury c o . 0002

Selenium co. 0 1 cO.004 I None

Silver co. 02 co. 02 co. 01 0.02 None
Note that all the tested parameters exhibit at most a slight
increase in constituent levels. Both types of recirculation
tests provide extremely conservative results compared to real-
world leachate management systems. Unlike the tests, landfill
leachate will typically pass through the tire chip layer only
once before it is removed by the leachate collection and
extraction system. In addition to the above minor
contributions to leachate characteristics, the tire chips
themselves do not show signs of degradation or decomposition.
The potential for clogging by either biological action or
siltation is equivalent to aggregate material of similar size.
Cost Considerations
Assuming that construction and placement restrictions
associated with tire chips is acceptable to the site, and
given that the use of tire chips in a leachate
drainage/filtration media provides a design having operational
characteristics similar to that of granular material and
aggregates, under what economic conditions will it be
profitable to utilize tire chips? Note that an accurate
assessment of the profitability of tire chip utilization
should be in terms of a comparison with the material replaced
by the tire chips.
This can be either the granular and aggregate drainage
material or refuse. The following cost items should be
considered (dollar values based on a study performed for a
landfill in Michigan and may vary greatly for individual
sites) :
The cost of process5ng and shredding the tires depends on the
quantities of the tires to be managed. Shredding costs for
small batch quantities is typically in the range of $0.50 per
tire. Utilizing the economics of scale, the cost of
processing large quantities of tires can reduce this cost to
approximately $0.35 per tire. These costs are based
typically on automobile tires. Larger truck tires will be
more expensive to process. At an average 35 tires per cubic
yard (unconsolidated), the processing cost per cubic yard is
Transportation costs will be greatly reduced if the tire
shredding is performed prior to hauling. Assuming a typical
hauling cost of $1.25 per truck mile and a market area within
a radius of 100 miles, a 200 mile round trip to pick up and
transport the tire chips will cost $250.00. Trucks having a
load capacity of 40 cubic yards will be able to carry the
equivalent of 1,400 tires. Based on the above assumptions,
transportation costs should amount to $6.25 per cubic yard or
$0.18 per tire. Shorter round trips and larger capacity
transfer trailers will reduce this unit cost. Suppliers may
chose to transport the tires themselves, relieving the site of
the burden of direct transportation costs.
Installation of the tire chips is done in the same manner, and
with equivalent level of effort as the granular or aggregate
material replaced by the tire chips. In terms of additional
costs, installation costs can therefore be considered
equivalent and not impact the analysis.
If a landfill is required by corporate policy, state
regulations, or local cornunity agreement, to have a leachate
collection layer with a thickness greater than 12 inches, tire
chips can be utilized as partial replacement for the
collection layer's granular soils. A minimum granular soil
layer of 12 inches must be kept in place directly above the
geomembrane liner. Every 12 inches of unconsolidated tire
chips placed above this layer will replace approximately 6
inches of granular soil. Therefore, as a direct replacement
for granular soil, tire chips are only applicable for use in
leachate collection layers of 18 inch thickness, or greater.
If this is the case.,replacement of the granular soil results
in a cost savings. Assuming locally available sand with a
purchase cost of $1.85 per ton and a hauling cost of $2.35 per
ton, total sand costs will be $4.20 per ton of sand delivered.
Sand available on-site will be considerably cheaper, incurring
only short on-site hauling costs.
At 110 lbs per cubic foot, there are approximately 1.5 tons
per cubic yard of sand. The above sand costs translate into
$6.30 per cubic yard. Since 2 cubic yards (approximately 70
tires) of consolidated tire chips will be required to replace
1 cubic yard of sand, this cost savings is equivalent to $0.09
per tire or $3.15 per (unconsolidated) cubic yard. The above
can be summarized by the following table:


Cost Item Per Tire Per Cubic Yard

1 processing 1$


1$12.25 I
Transportation $ 0.18 $ 6.30
Installation Insignificant Insignificant
Granular Material ($0.09)
Total/Break Even $ 0.44
Fee to Charge the
Tire Chip Supplier
Additional tire chip placement, greater than the amount needed
to displace granular soil, results in displacement of refuse.
Every additional 12 inches of tire chip placement results in
an equivalent loss of waste volume. Compaction in-place
of the deposited refuse typically results in a 50% volume
reduction, similar to that of tire chip consolidation. Since
disposal fees are based on gate yards (or tonnages), potential
loss of refuse disposal revenue should be equated to
unconsolidated tire chip volumes and densities, not the
consolidated value used for equating sand displacement costs.
Fees charged for gate yards of refuse vary greatly from
landfill to landfill. Assuming a gate fee of $8.00 per gate
yard of waste, the equivalent cost per tire would be $0.23.
Processing and transportation costs remain the same.
Installation cost are also considered insignificant since
placement of the chips is similar to waste disposal without
the compaction.
Quality assurance requirements are usually not applicable for
tire chips exceeding the required leachate drainage layer
thickness. The above can be summarized by the following
table :

Cost Item Per Tire Per Cubic Yard

I Processing 1 $ 0.35 1 $12.25 I
Transportation $ 0.18 $ 6.30
Installation Insiqnificant Insignificant
Refuse $ 0.23 $ 8.00
isp placement
Total/Break Even $ 0.76 $27.31
Fee to Charge the
Tire Chip Supplier

Though the break even cost for refuse displacement is 73%

higher than for replacement of granular material, there will
be conditions when the additional placement of tire chips will
make economic sense. This will be especially true if local
agreements limit the amount of gate yardage that a landfill
can receive annually. Additional revenues can be generated by
the acceptance of tire chips utilized as construction
material. However, it 'is not realistic to assume that a
regulatory agency will allow the construction of exceptionally
thick "leachate drainage layers" simply because tire chips
have been conveniently labeled as construction material.
Realistically, the amount of locally available tires will
indirectly limit the extent of tire chip utilizations. A 24
inch unconsolidated layer of tire chips placed over a typical
10 acre construction phase will require nearly 32,300 cubic
yards of tire chips equal to approximately 1,129,300 tires.
Only the largest metropolitan market areas will be able to
supply the needed quantities. More likely, the current
construction phase will utilize both granular leachate
drainage layer sections intermixed with "composite" tire chip
sections based on tire availability. A limited supply of tire
chips can also be effectively utilized as collection pipe
mounding and/or collection sump backfill.
Summary and Conclusions

Laboratory test results clearly show that the permeability of

tire chips is at least equal to that of the granular soils
typically used in leachate collection layers. Furthermore,
tire chips do not significantly increase potential leachate
characteristics. However, the following conditions are
required for the practical use of tire chips in the field:
1. A large, concentrated and consistent source of
tires. It is not economically feasible to collect small
tire quantities from multiple locations.
2. A requirement for a leachate collection layer
exceeding 12 inches in thickness,
3. When a site may utilized a sufficiently thick clay
Additionally, the following list describes those situations
where not practical to use tire chips, or where use of
tire chips presents significant construction and operational
1. On steep side slopes.
2. As pipe bedding material.
3. As daily or intermediate cover
4- In direct contact with a geomembrane liner.

I wish to thank Mike Ruetten, Todd Bookter, Paul Wintheiser

and Dan Counselman of RUST Environment and Infrastructure, and
Prof. Krishna Reddy of the University of Illinois at Chicago
for their assistance in writing this paper.
1. "Tire Fire Pollutes Environment", J.R. Mawhinney, NFPA
Journal, January/February 1991.
2. "Using Shredded Waste Tires as a Lightweight Fill
Material for Road Subgradest',Glenn*Engstrom and Rich
Lamb, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Materials
Research and Engineering,
3. "Use of Shredded Tires as a Lightweight Backfill Material
for Retaining Structures", Prof. Krishna Reddy,
University of Illinois at Chicago, May 1994.
4. "Interim Report, Tire Chip Evaluation, Permeability
Testing", J&L Testing Company, Inc., March 1989.
5. "Review of Waste Characterization of Shredded Tires",
Robert Grefe, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources",
October 1989.
6. "Laboratory Testing, Summary Report, Tire Chip
Evaluation, Permeability and Leachability Assessments ",
J&L Testing Company, Inc., May 1989.

R. Shawn McCash
Laidlaw, Inc.
North Richland Hills, Texas
R. Shawn McCash
Construction and Capital Projects Manager
Laidtaw Waste Systems, Inc.
North Richland HiUs, Texas

Mr. McCash is the Construction and Capital Projects Manager for the U.S. Region of Laidlaw
Waste Systems, Inc. (bidlaw)),located in North Richland Hills, Texas. He has over eight years
experience in the waste management field, providing expeaise in a variety of technical and
managerial rules wor36ng for a leading hazardous wastemanagement company for four years, and
another solid waste management company for two years, prior to joining Laidlaw. Mr. McCash
is a graduate of Texas Tech University with a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering. Mr.
McCash can be reached at (817)485-9950 ext. 241.

The purpose of this paper is to bring to light perspectives of the end users; ie., the owners andlor
operators of landfills, on the applications of tire shreds with regard to geosynthetic lined facilities.
To this end, the paper will discuss financial, engineering, construction, environmental and
operational issues which affect the decision maldng process in order to utiliz.e tire shreds on
geosynthetic lined landfills. In addition, this paper will provide infomation on research and
permitting issues identified from projects in other states utilizing shredded tires.

Michael Stacey,P.E.
H.D.R. Engineering
Dallas, Texas
Michael K. Stacey, P.E.
Project Manager
HDR Engineering, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Michael K. Stacey, P.E., bas a B.S. in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas at Austin
and a M.E. in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas at Arlington. He is a Project
Manager in the Solid Waste Section of the Dallas office of HDR Engineering, Inc. Mr. Stacey
has over 12 years of experience on numerous geotechnical, civil, environmental, hydrogeologic,
and materials projects primarily in Texas. His solid waste experience includes site investigation
and characterization studies, landfill civil and geotechnical design, landfill plans and
specifications, and landfill construction (SLER's).

This presentation will discuss the use and instauation of shredded tire chips in two municipal
landfills. The landfius, one located in North Texas and the other in South Texas, were approved
using tire ships as drainage media in the leachate collection system. The discussion will include
material and installation costs as well as experiences in storage, handling and spreading of tire
chips. Mr. Stacey can be reached at (214) 960-4400.

Bobby Pikington
Trashaway Services
San Angelo, Texas
Bobby Pilkington
Operations Manager
Trashaway Services
San Angelo, Texas

Bobby PiUrington was literally born into dirt consmction as the third generation of his family to
pursue this caref:r. He joined Trashaway Services Inc. in 1987, with an extensive background in
Civil Engineering. Bobby's experience includes hands-on involvement with all aspects of earth
moving and conslxuction. Having complete all technical courses to achieve a Class A certification
from the TNRCC, Bobby was promoted to LandtiU Operations Manager in 1992, where he is also
the Radiation Safety Officer. Mr. Pilkington can be reached at (915) 655-6869.

In January of 1995, while running a maintainer balancing subgrade for the first
Subtitle D cell at the San Angelo Landfill. I w a s paid a visit by David Kennedy with Safe
Tire of Texas from Penwell, Tx.

He brought to my attention the fact that Safe Tire had several thousand yards of
shredded tires which he told m e they would sell for $1.00 per cubic yard. The price was
right but I had some misgivings about the steel in the shreds and also t h e corrosivii of
the material when in contact with the leachate occuring in the waste, o n e other concern
that I expressed to him at this time was if the shreds would meet the specification set by
the TNRCC for the permeabiiii of the drainage layer. At this time that w a s what I was
thinking about using them for, as 1 had been having a hard time finding a cost efficient
granular material that would meet the criteria of the CaCo3 content in the gravel. There
w a s some grade 6 gravel only 30 miles from S a n Angelo, but it tested at 34.5%,
therefore it did not meet the calcium content a t that time. I had looked a t sand from the
sand quarries in Brady which met the CaCo3 crttieria b& was to cost prohibitive in my

David assured me that the shreds would withstand anything that came in contact
with them as part of the liner. Safe Tire had a copy of a lab report that w a s conducted in
Oklahoma as part of a liner system utilizing shredded tires. In this lab report there had
been wrrosivity tests done and the tires had been tested in accordance with ASTM
0-3042. Also the permeability w a s tested by packing the shreds and utilizing the
Constant Head Permeability of Granular Soils Method. The shreds surpassed all
requirements, the only problem that we had w a s to get the paperwork into Austin.

I called down to Austin and talked to Ms. Susan Janek with the TNRCC and s h e
asked if they could come out to San Angelo and visit with us about this particular
procedure. After meeting with u s the group that came out to visit about using the tire
shreds went back to Austin and within a week had an answer in the form of several
alternatives which we could use.

All of the design drawings and engineering for our particular project was done by
the City of San Angelo's Engineering Dept. So after carefully looking at all of the
alternatives and the wsts involved the City's Engineering Staff revised the construction
drawings and sent the new drawings into Austin for the permit modification to be able to
utilize this resource.

In our particular I would be remiss if I did not tell everybody that the reason that
w e used the tire shreds was partially financial and also a way to utilize a resource that
up until now there was very few uses for. This avenue was the least expensive to be
used in the construction of this cell the nearest option in cost would call for u s to have to
build chimneys over our leachate collection pipes, which I understand many of you have
to do.
Also there was quite a bit of cancern about having 12" of drainage layer for the life of the
cell. I felt that by using the shreds with the gravel there would never be any question of
there being enough drainage layer for the entire l i e of the cell or for any time in the

1 would also be remiss if I said that this alternative is the answer for everybody, in
as we in San Angelo had a source of gravel within a short hauling distance that in this
particular instance the wash plant which mainly produces concrete gravel had no
available market for and therefore was able to sell it to us at a very economical price.
One of the things that a planner needs to look at also is the distance the tire shreds
have to be hauled. In our instance the difference of the cost of the gravel and the freight
of the tire shreds offset this to the degree that it was more economical to use the two of
them together than any other alternative.

Once we had recieved the permit modification from the TNRCC to use this
alternative in our cell construction there arose another problem of spreading the gravel
and the tire shreds out. Bv usina a D5 LGP dozer which we attached some winas onto
to help hold the gravel in the mGdle of the blade with as the machine did not coke with
a U-blade we proceeded to haul the gravel to the cell from tha stockpile area and
dumped the gravel onto the area to be covered and the D5 then spread it out in 12" lifts.
After it had been spread we had a man who was spotting the dump trueks was checking
the thickness of the gravel layer with a marked probe with a 314" ball bearing welded to
the end of it for thickness verification. This we did on a 50'x50' grid which the QAOC
personnel verified. After we had pushed the gravel out about 50 to 75' from where the
trucks were dumping then we changed to the tire shreds.

We found that the tire shreds spread very easily, the only problem we had was
with dust that was on the tire shreds from the p m m ~ i n at g the plant. This problem was
very easy to remedy by having the water truck come by several times a day and
spraying the area where the loader was working to settle the dust in the stockpile.before
loading onto the trucks, in this way most of the excess water ran off before reaching the
cell construction area. We placed 18" traffic cones out on the §0'x50' grid with 12"
marked on them for the operator and the QAQC personnel to verify the thickness of the
cover layer. One la$ thing that the project planner needs to put into his formula for cost
estimation is the cost of tires for the trucks hauling the tire shreds onto the construction
site, as the steel in the tire shreds do have a tendency to make a tire look like a

We were quite satisfied with the results of the tire shreds used for the cover layer
in our cell construction, as it was very easy to spread out and even in the rain we didn't
loose any time except when the water started to get up into the fuel tanks of the trucks
hauling the tire shreds and the gravel onto the working area.

Catherine A. Miller, P.E.

B r o w n . , Ferris, Inc.
sinton, Texas
Catherine Miller
District Engineer
Browning-Ferris, Inc.
Sinton, Texas

Catherine Miller has been with Browning-Ferris, Inc. since April 1991 and has worked at both
the district and regional level. In her cunent position as District Engineer, she is responsible for
the engineering work at six BFI l a n m in Texas. A large portion of her time is spent on landfill
design and landfill construction projects. She also provides technical assistance regarding the
management of BITSlandfills.

Prior to Ms. Miller's employment with BFI, she worked for the City of San Antonio's Solid
Waste Division. She has also been employed by several private engineering firms.

Ms. Miller holds a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering from the University of Texas at San
Antonio and she is a registered professional engineer in Texas. She can be reached at (512) 364-

Ms. MiUer wiU present the BFI experience using tire shreds in landfill construction through the
eyes of "Chip", a tire shred. Ms. Miller wiU d a t e Chip's life story, "cradle to grave", from his
tire beginnings to his final resting place as part of a leachate collection system in a BFI landfill.