A tyre recycling entrepreneur can make an expensive mistake before the plant has processed its first tonne of waste.
The machinery supplier may recommend a 10 TPD or 20 TPD line. The promoter purchases equipment, leases land and starts civil work. Only later does the project team discover that the technology, pollution-control system, storage arrangement, Consent to Establish conditions or EPR registration requirements do not match the proposed plant.
A DPR for a waste tyre recycling plant should prevent exactly this situation.
It must determine the proposed capacity, recycling route, material recovery, machinery, utilities, land layout, environmental controls, approvals, CapEx, working capital and profitability before substantial capital is committed.
Waste tyre recycling in India operates within the framework of Schedule IX of the Hazardous and Other Wastes (Management and Transboundary Movement) Rules, introduced through G.S.R. 593(E) dated 21 July 2022.
A DPR is not simply a machinery quotation with five-year financial projections attached.
For a tyre recycling project, it should answer six questions:
What will the plant process?
Domestic waste tyres, permissible imported material or a defined procurement mix.
What will the plant manufacture?
Crumb rubber, reclaimed rubber, recovered carbon black, CRMB, TPO/char or another permitted output.
How much can it realistically process?
Capacity should be supported by feedstock availability, machinery throughput, operating hours, downtime and working capital.
Can it obtain the required approvals?
The land, process, pollution-control design and machinery must align with applicable SPCB/PCC and CPCB requirements.
Who will purchase the outputs?
Product offtake should be established independently from assumptions about EPR certificate income.
Does the business remain profitable when assumptions become less favourable?
That last question is what separates an investment presentation from a bankable DPR.
CPCB’s waste tyre recycler-registration framework recognizes recycling outputs including reclaimed rubber, recovered carbon black, crumb rubber modified bitumen, crumb rubber and TPO/char.
Each route has a different investment structure.
| Recycling route | Major output | Main DPR focus | Compliance intensity |
| Mechanical recycling | Crumb rubber + steel + fibre | Electricity, particle size, recovery and buyers | Moderate |
| Reclaim rubber | Reclaimed rubber | Process technology, utilities and quality | Moderate to high |
| CRMB | Rubber-modified bitumen | Rubber preparation, bitumen handling and product market | Moderate to high |
| Pyrolysis | TPO, char/rCB, steel and process gas | Reactor, emissions, wastewater, fire safety and storage | High |
| Integrated plant | Multiple recovered products | Material balance and allocation of capacity | High |
There is no universally “most profitable” process.
A mechanical plant may have lower environmental complexity but depend heavily on crumb-rubber selling prices.
A pyrolysis project may generate several saleable outputs, but it also requires significantly more attention to environmental engineering, process control, fire safety and product handling.
The correct DPR therefore begins with technology selection, not with the machinery quotation.
A typical mechanical recycling configuration may require:
The DPR should not merely mention machine names. It should record rated input capacity, actual expected throughput, connected load, output size, downtime allowance and recovery efficiency.
A vendor saying that a shredder is “10 TPD” does not automatically mean the complete line can process 10 tonnes every operating day.
The bottleneck may instead be the granulator, magnetic separation system, screening section or manual material handling.
A TPO project requires a substantially different technical package.
The revised CPCB SOP dated 16 January 2024 discusses advanced batch automated and continuous tyre pyrolysis systems and requires engineering controls covering process monitoring, gas handling, fire protection and pollution control.
Depending on the approved design, equipment may include:
CPCB’s revised framework also contains a capacity distinction for TPO facilities: Advanced Batch Automated Process capacity is restricted up to the prescribed cumulative threshold, while higher-capacity new or expanded facilities require continuous processing. CPCB material filed before the NGT records a 60 TPD cumulative batch-capacity threshold per premises for this purpose.
This is why a pyrolysis DPR needs environmental and process engineering before procurement.
There is no CPCB-prescribed standard project cost for a tyre recycling plant.
A serious DPR should therefore avoid statements such as:
“A 10 TPD tyre plant costs exactly ₹X crore.”
Two projects with the same rated capacity can have completely different investment requirements because one may use leased industrial land and mechanical recycling while another may include an automated pyrolysis plant, transformer, ETP, oil storage, pollution-control system and extensive fire infrastructure.
A tyre recycling DPR should calculate at least the following:
| Cost head | What should be included |
| Land | Purchase/lease deposit, development and statutory land costs |
| Civil works | Shed, foundations, internal roads, storage zones and drainage |
| Core machinery | Complete recycling line rather than individual machine quote |
| Pollution control | Dust collection, scrubbers, ETP and emission systems as applicable |
| Electrical | Transformer, panels, cabling, sanctioned load and backup |
| Fire and safety | Hydrant/sprinkler systems, alarms, safe storage and emergency infrastructure |
| Utilities | Water system, compressed air, cooling and associated equipment |
| Handling | Forklift, loaders, weighing system and internal logistics |
| Installation | Freight, erection, commissioning and trial operation |
| Professional/pre-operative | Engineering, DPR, statutory filings, testing and project management |
| Contingency | Design changes and project variations |
| Working capital | Waste tyre inventory, wages, utilities, receivables and finished goods |
| Finance cost | Interest during construction and debt servicing assumptions |
A machinery quotation is therefore only one component of the project cost.
Consider a plant rated at:
10 MT/day × 300 operating days = 3,000 MT/year theoretical input
That does not automatically mean the DPR should project 3,000 MT of first-year processing.
If expected capacity utilisation is 70%, actual modelled processing would be:
3,000 × 70% = 2,100 MT/year
From this input, the DPR must establish the expected distribution among:
This material balance should reconcile back to approximately the total input.
If a financial model shows 2,100 tonnes of tyre input but calculates revenue from an impossible quantity of products, the profitability calculation is unreliable regardless of how attractive its ROI looks.
Waste tyre recycling is regulated under Schedule IX of the Hazardous and Other Wastes framework and operates through CPCB’s centralized Waste Tyre EPR system.
A project may require, depending on its process and state:
Planning stage:
Industrial land/zoning verification, process flow, layout, pollution load assessment and Consent to Establish planning.
Pre-operation stage:
Consent to Operate and applicable authorization from the SPCB/PCC, together with fire, factory and other state/local approvals where applicable.
Waste Tyre EPR stage:
Recycler registration on CPCB’s Waste Tyre EPR Portal.
The live CPCB recycler sign-up process asks for CTO-related information, facility details and the authorization issued by the relevant SPCB/PCC.
That makes approval sequencing important.
A DPR should therefore map:
Land → DPR/PFD → CTE → Civil & Machinery → Pollution Controls → CTO/Authorization → CPCB Recycler Registration → Commercial Processing & EPR Compliance
Starting with machinery and working backward toward approvals exposes the promoter to unnecessary redesign risk.
The waste tyre EPR system creates a compliance-linked revenue opportunity for registered recyclers, but this needs to be modelled correctly.
CPCB’s published framework calculates eligible EPR certificate quantity using:
QEPR = QP × CF × WP
where:
The framework assigns different weightages to different recycling routes. Published CPCB guidance lists reclaimed rubber at 1.30, recovered carbon at 1.25, CRMB at 1.10, crumb rubber at 1.0 and lower weightages for TPO/char routes.
This has a direct DPR implication.
Waste tyre processed × assumed EPR price
Instead calculate:
Verified end-product quantity → CPCB conversion factor → applicable weightage → portal-generated eligible certificate quantity → realistic certificate realization
Only then should EPR certificate income enter the financial model.
The DPR should ideally show profitability with and without EPR income.
If the project becomes financially unviable immediately when EPR certificate income falls, the lender or investor needs to know that before sanctioning capital.
A simple operating model can begin with:
Rated TPD × operating days × capacity utilization
Quantity of each saleable product × realistic net selling price
Eligible certificates generated and actually realizable × assumed certificate realization
Total revenue – variable operating expenses – fixed operating expenses
The financial section should then calculate:
Profitability should be tested over several years rather than judged only from the first twelve months.
A plant that appears profitable under perfect assumptions can become cash-negative surprisingly quickly.
Before investment approval, test at least these scenarios:
| Variable | Base case | Stress case to test |
| Capacity utilisation | DPR assumption | Reduce by 15-25% |
| Waste tyre procurement cost | Current negotiated rate | Increase by 10-20% |
| Finished-product selling price | Expected realization | Reduce by 10-15% |
| Power/fuel cost | Current tariff | Increase by 10-15% |
| EPR certificate realization | Base assumption | Reduce materially or set to zero |
The most important question is:
Does the plant still service its debt if EPR income is lower than expected and capacity utilisation is delayed?
That is the type of question a bankable DPR needs to answer.
Pyrolysis should not be treated as a standard mechanical tyre-recycling plant with a reactor added to the machinery list.
CPCB’s revised TPO SOP followed studies of batch, advanced batch automated and continuous facilities and contains specific engineering and environmental safeguards.
Among other controls, CPCB material refers to PLC-based process control, gas sensors, pressure and temperature monitoring, emergency flaring, pyro-gas recirculation, nitrogen purging, suction hoods and mechanized removal of char and steel.
Wastewater generated from the TPO process is also required to be managed and reused after treatment rather than discharged untreated.
A pyrolysis DPR should therefore separately assess:
Reactor technology, capacity configuration, air emissions, process gas, wastewater, oil storage, char storage, fire loading, emergency shutdown, worker safety and environmental monitoring.
Another important restriction is that import of waste tyres for producing pyrolysis oil or char is prohibited under the waste tyre EPR framework.
Feedstock strategy must respect that restriction.
The quality of the report depends on the inputs.
Before financial modelling starts, the project team should ideally have:
Where these inputs are unavailable, they should be identified as assumptions rather than quietly converted into “facts.”
Most industrial projects need ramp-up time.
Civil work, electricity, pollution control, fire systems, working capital and finance costs can materially change the investment.
Actual quality and buyer specifications determine saleability.
Gas used internally as reactor fuel can reduce energy cost, but it should not simultaneously be booked as external product revenue.
EPR income should be stress-tested rather than treated like a guaranteed subsidy.
Waste tyres are bulky. Transportation can materially affect delivered raw-material cost.
If the selected technology cannot meet the applicable pollution-control or layout requirements, the entire plant configuration may need modification.
Before finalizing the project, the promoter should be able to answer yes to these questions:
Technical
Regulatory
Commercial
Financial
If several answers are still “no,” the project is not ready for a final bankable DPR.
A project-specific engagement may cover:
The objective should be to create one technical-commercial model that can support investment decisions, financing discussions and subsequent regulatory planning.
A DPR for a waste tyre recycling plant should answer much more than the cost of a shredder or pyrolysis reactor.
It should connect the proposed capacity with waste tyre availability, machinery throughput, material recovery, environmental controls, CPCB/SPCB approvals, EPR certificate eligibility, product sales, working capital and debt servicing.
For a first-time promoter, the safest sequence is to validate the business model and regulatory feasibility first, prepare the DPR second and commit major capital to machinery only after the technical assumptions are defensible.
A project that remains viable under conservative feedstock, utilization and EPR assumptions is much stronger than one that looks attractive only in the best-case scenario.
📞 +91 78350 06182
📧 wecare@greenpermits.in
👉 Book a Consultation with Green Permits
