Recycling Of Elv example essay topic

Comparing approaches to end-of-life products in two countries. A Comparison between Environmental Legislation in the European Union and Australia Introduction; End-of-Life Vehicles in two Countries: Approximately 9 million end-of-life vehicles are discarded in Europe annually. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) estimates the annual figure at 500,000, increasing. End-of-life vehicles (ELVs) are defined as automobiles no longer in use for their original purpose, transportation, and either deregistered or abandoned. ELV's are a source of materials that have value as second-hand parts and scrap metal. Various industries have specialised in increasing the value of ELV's.

This report discusses the usefulness of these activities in the ELV recycling chain. Figure 1. shows the composition of an average vehicle. A section of this report focuses on the materials used in car manufacturing and how materials choice affects recyclability. Metals are predominately used, although the use of plastics is increasing. In each country, regulations regarding End-of-life vehicles vary. These are considered and compared.

European Union regulations are enforced on the automobile industry regarding ELV's, whereas in Australia, such regulations are non-existent. This report aims to determine the most appropriate system, and conclude by devising an ideal industrial regulatory system regarding the environment. Current Legislation relating to ELVs in Europe, and Germany: The European Parliament Directive on ELVs is perhaps the most significant example of "extended producer responsibility" (EPR) enacted in the world today. The essential result is that vehicle manufacturers are responsible for ensuring recycling targets, of 95% by weight, of ELV's originally manufactured, by 2015.

In Europe, the recycling of ELV incorporates recovery, recycling and re-use, driven by economic, technological, social and environmental concerns. In Europe the Industry recognised growing consciousness of customers and other stakeholders to environmental effects related to purchasing a car, who are increasingly influenced by company environmental policy. Figure 2. DISPOSAL ROUTE FOR END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES Figure 2. shows current disposal of ELVs in Europe, starting with the last car owner.

Deregistered vehicles are delivered to new or used-car dealers, without cost to the owner. Used cars are then delivered to government accredited collectors / dismantlers. Depending on individual state rules, the car can be de-registered by users, dealers, collectors, or dismantlers. Collecting and dismantling companies remove valuable parts suitable for re-use, recycling or sale (i.e. engines, batteries, and airbags). The remainder ("hulks") are processed by shredding companies. Shredded materials undergo a series of mechanical and physical separations recovering ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

The remaining automobile shredder residue (ASR) represents about 20-25% of ELV weight. ASR is the weak point of the worldwide automobile recycling industry. To achieve quantitative reduction in ELV waste, industry must focus on this 25% going to landfill. Landfill space is expensive. Costs vary in different countries.

For example, German environmental policies are considerably strict, and landfill costs $170 per ton, whereas in Australia, the cost is $20 per ton. High disposal costs to landfill were one driving factor behind reducing ASR. German shredder companies are ultimately responsible for reducing ASR and environmental damage resulting from land filling. Environmental policies of the German Automobile Industry are considered a model for future automobile stakeholders to minimize vehicle life cycle environmental impacts. Since 1998, over DM 0.5 billion has been invested to establish a modernised infrastructure of 1,400 accredited receiving stations and 15,000 accredited recycling plants for ELV's in Germany.

A network called ARE-Alt auto began a process for establishing environmental and recycling policies in 1990, as a voluntary agreement by 16 institutions, representing car manufacturers, automotive industries, and recycling operators. ELVs and reaching certain environmental targets was the focus. In 2000 the ELV directive was passed by the European Parliament, becoming legislation during 2001. This meant manufacturers must take responsibility for disposal and recycling of ELVs. It is hoped that the automobile industry will eventually take total control of the entire system of recycling, but currently, certified car dismantling companies act as contract partners of the car industry. The ultimate goal is to put only 5% of ELV residues into landfill.

In addition the directive hopes to create a closed circuit of ELV material flows, shown in figure 3. Figure 3. MATERIAL FLOWS OF ELV Producers (vehicle manufacturers or importers) are the main actors in the E.U. directive recycling chain, connecting the upstream supplier and downstream collector / dismantler /shredder. To meet directive goals, the collector, dismantler and shredder must collaborate.

Vehicles produced must have low energy consumption, easy dismantling, suitable recycling, and less toxic metals. Use of chromium, Pb, Hg, Cd is prohibited, and heavy metals are only used in certain, controlled applications, regularly reviewed. The downstream chain is essential to manufacturers, for knowledge of technical and economical facilities, recyclability rate, and efficiencies. Major steps for ELV recycling in accordance to the E.U. directive are shown in figure 4.

Producers must provide dismantling information for each new vehicle, the design of which must be appropriate for dismantling, recycling, and re-use. This forces improved co-operation in the supplier-producer chain. The "International Dismantling Information System" was developed in 1999.20 manufacturing companies distributed free CD's in eight languages containing information to dismantle different vehicle models. Figure 4. MAJOR STEPS FOR ELV RECYCLING ACCORDING TO THE E.U. DIRECTIVE Dismantler and collector must be accredited. Removing pollutants is an important task of the dismantler.

Dismantlers are certified to destroy waste resulting from removing pollutants. This process reduces ASR produced by shredders. Most separated parts and metal return to automakers, and generally reused in new products. Combustible parts are used in industrial operations replacing fossil fuels. Thus, car manufacturers are essential in the infrastructure system of waste prevention, collection, and treatment of ELV. Current Legislation relating to ELVs in Australia: Figure 5 shows current Australian ELV recycling practices.

ELV moves from the last owner to a dismantler; commercially valuable parts are removed and put on to the second hand market. There are approximately 1000-1200 firms whose primary business is removal of ELV parts with economic value and parts recycling. It is estimated by the APRAA that only 800-900 of those are legitimate operators. These facilities handle approximately 80% of ELV's. From there, metal shredders process most of the ELV. Other than reusable parts, materials' recycling is largely limited to metal components, for which competitive markets exist.

Shredded metal is generally exported, but is also smelted and reprocessed in Australia. 65-75% of ELV weight are recyclable metals. Waste residue is disposed to landfill. Currently in Australia no regulatory requirements for ELV's to be disposed of through recycling facilities exist. While the majority of the 500,000 or more vehicles taken off the road annually are managed through existing ELV recycling processes, a significant number are not. No Australian legislation requires formal deregistration of the car by the last owner.

In Europe most cars not going to recyclers are sold overseas. In Australia it usually means that the owner does not renew the registration or cancels it, obtaining a refund for the unused portion. It is not an offence for owners to keep unregistered vehicle on the property. If the ELV is abandoned or improperly disposed of, States and Territories can pursue the last owner under anti-pollution or anti-littering legislation, and at a cost to local authorities, the ELV goes to a recycling facility. No solution is provided, however, for ELV's that are dumped on private land with landowner's consent. The number of recycled cars, at 70%, is low compared to other nations.

This may be attributed to logistical problems associated with vast landmass and low population density. Distance to recycling infrastructure means lowering of economic value in vehicle hulks. Benefits of Product Reuse are emphasised over other options available in waste management, as in Europe. The recycling industry has an important role and currently markets recycled products to consumers who choose that option. The Industry however, is fragmented and organisation between recycling businesses is poor. Unlike Europe, there are no requirement for automobile manufacturers to achieve targets for reuse and recycling of components in new vehicles.

Consequently parts recycling is completely dependent on private parts recycling companies and marketing of ELV's to the public. Without demand from the public, there will be no business. Problems and Perspectives to European Approaches: A problem faced by European car dismantling companies was unemployment. Many small enterprises were unable to effectuate necessary high investments and forced to quit, with 70% remaining in 2001.300 of the original 1, 4000 certified car dismantlers remain as contract partners of the car industry.

More dismantling companies will be dissolved as the automobile industry gradually starts organising the whole system itself. Eventually, central-dismantling facilities will be created, as manufacturers try to minimise costs. This could lead to a concentrated organisation of distribution and increase environmental impact due to long distance logistics. The future for dismantlers is not all negative. ELV numbers are rising as the life span of the average car drops, and re-use of parts is favored over recycling. Reuse is increasing in insurance repair, and re-usable and upgraded parts present opportunities for dismantling operators to compete directly with pattern parts.

To advance the business there are a number of obstacles: Achieving uniform parts quality; High stocks of low value parts; Establishing a network of authorised vehicle dismantlers and distribution systems for used parts; Gaining customer acceptance; Matching parts to model derivatives and vehicle condition, and; Lower margins for body shops on used parts than OE parts. Approximately 9 million ELV are recycled annually in E.U. countries. Z oboli et al. notes that this figure could be much lower, due flows of second-hand vehicles from E.U. countries to less affluent nations, maximising profits from selling disused vehicles as a whole. Consequently, recycling operators are confronted with reduced input, lowering the usefulness of their business's capacity. Currently in Germany, approximately 60% of deregistered cars are returned to dismantling facilities. Transparent monitoring of ELV destination should be implemented.

A plethora of problems may still arise from the ELV directive in Europe. Firstly, changing one element of the industry may cause detrimental impacts for another. Recycling quotas may prove to compete with improvement in fuel efficiency for example. Also, no clear indications that the approaches taken will lead to more environmentally sustainable products are yet shown. To reduce energy required to drive, lightweight materials such as polymer composites and aluminum will lower the curb weight, however they also reduce recyclability of the automobile. Is reduction in landfill consumption through increased recycling worth the net increase in energy used to run the vehicles?

Despite complications, the directive definitely places greater responsibility on producers to clean up after themselves. When designing a vehicle, thought must be given to its return, recycling quotas and exclusions of toxic material, inevitably driving eco-innovations for renewable and recyclable parts and materials. This may mean costs carried on to consumers when purchasing a vehicle. The ECR IS group, comprising Swedish manufacturing firms, resolved that expanded level of car recycling under present conditions, will result in higher costs increasing exponentially as objectives become more ambitious.

Time required for additional materials dismantling and transport distances to return ELV's to manufacturers were attributed. An action plan is needed to develop markets and methods that will improve recycling economics. We as the public must answer the question; is this increased cost worth it? Finally, the directive is entirely weight based. This is a pitfall, as one kilogram of a specific material will not necessarily result in the same environmental burden as another material.

Problems and Perspectives of the Australian Approaches: To increase the proportion of ELV's reaching recycling facilities, it is essential to streamline disposal procedures. This may include implementation of pick-up / drop -off points for ELV's, or curbside collection. In Europe businesses are devoted solely to collection of ELV's. Better organisation in supplying ELVs to recyclers by local government will increase ELV value and in some part offset costs of retrieving abandoned wrecks.

Vehicle owners need education about ELV disposal. Leaflet circulation or advertisement campaigns may be useful. The Automobile Parts Recycling Association of Australia (APRAA) supports an arrangement somewhat like European requirements, requiring the last owner to formally de register ELVs, allowing for better parts recycling and de-pollution by accredited dismantlers. ELV waste volume and potential pollution from not maximising recycling, represents environmental impacts due to sheer volume going to landfill, resource loss, and significant negative environmental loading. Despite measures to increase ELV component reuse, low overall demand is unlikely to support substantial increases in parts reuse.

This must be created, as in Europe, through enforced or voluntary regulation. Passing responsibility to manufacturers to achieve higher recycling levels creates incentives for increased use of recycled ELV materials in new vehicles, helping to create markets for secondary products. Reducing waste and increasing ELV recycling requires greater recyclability of parts. Unless producers are forced to use less unrecyclable materials, ELV recycling will be difficult. In Europe, regulations limiting certain unrecyclable materials, increased removal and recycling of materials prior to ELV shredding, and recycling the shredder flock itself help lower waste levels. Waste disposal through incineration and energy recovery is widely practiced in Europe.

In Australia, thermal recycling of shredder flock does not occur, possibly partially to poor public perception of incinerators, and extremely low landfill costs not warranting pursuit of alternative disposal options. The APRAA believe that demand for recycled parts is dropping, presumably as a result of longer warranty periods on new vehicles. Without government intervention, this will result in lower use levels of ELV products. The use of products would increase if manufacturing companies were forced to take back ELVs. The new vehicle image would be maintained although reused or recycled parts could be used in the vehicles. Warranty periods could also still apply, as the company would not market vehicles they did not believe lived up to standards.

To improve environmental outcomes, it is necessary for better communication and coordination within the industry. In Australia there is considerable opposition to moves toward European Style EPR and mandate recycling levels, from manufacturers and the Federal Chamber of Automobile Industries (FCAI). Major concerns include; low investment / low volume of local industry; costs and pressures upon landfill currently being low; limited infrastructure and markets for recycled ELV materials; and costs of recycling technologies making them currently un viable given market size. The FCAI noted costs of implementing new regulations would also be substantial, and was estimated at US$10.6 billion in Europe.

Conclusion; Where from here? : The European Union found a major problem was funding for the new initiatives. It was originally agreed that the last owner would not bear any cost of disposal, and industry would meet additional costs, however, currently individual nations are left paying. Should the government have to pay the price? And if so, would the Australian public accept this money coming out of their taxes? A downfall of the E.U. directive is its focus purely on vehicle end-of-life.

Recognition of environmental considerations at different life stages of the vehicle is important. A policy response that has a positive result at vehicle end-of-life may have greater negative environmental outcomes at other stages in its life cycle. The Australian Greenhouse Office agreed that "general assertion that end-of-life considerations should not overshadow the greater impacts occurring in other life cycle phases" is correct. When considering contribution to total environmental loading by automobiles, it is seen that operational and manufacturing life stages are the most significant, shown in figure 6.

It could be said that the environmental gains resulting from increased use of lightweight materials in the operational stage of a vehicle outweigh negative impacts from less ELV recycling. However, positives of recycling quotas are that ultimately they will incite eco- innovations in the automobile industry for modernised, longer lasting, and more environmentally friendly parts. There is a question however, whether longer lasting parts are better than quick replacement with better designed parts. No similar initiatives have been enacted anywhere outside Europe.

It is still unclear whether European measures are sufficient to overcome market factors limiting ELV demand. The Australian Government should not make substantial changes before undertaking full analysis of current economic and technical obstacles inhibiting the level of non-metal ELV recycling, and; monitoring the progress of European initiatives for a rational period. FIGURE 6. RELATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL OF VEHICLE LIFE CYCLE STAGES Even if EPR laws are not placed onto Australian manufacturers, producers still play a leading role in determining extents that vehicles can be recycled, thus, levels of waste and resource loss. It is important that Australian manufacturers still work on improving recyclability levels and researching recyclable materials, although the results from Europe are unknown and similar measures are yet to be taken in Australia. It can be anticipated that in the future imperatives for ELV materials recycling will increase, and when vehicles being designed today become ELVs, commercial viability of materials will be much greater.

In conclusion, neither system is perfect. The European solution may prove too much too soon, and in Australia we may find we have not done enough. The solution may combine features from both approaches. This may include legislating for deregistration, disassembly manuals, and creation of stronger and more efficient links between manufacturers and ELV recycling industries, without pressure to quickly increase percentages recycled. An integrated approach would benefit both parties. Recycling industries would grow by working on improvements to used parts and improving recycling techniques, whilst vehicle manufacturers work on improving fuel efficiency and use-phase impacts.

Removed parts do not have to be used as they are. Research to reduce weight and improve current vehicle parts can go on whilst current vehicle models are being used. Thus, at the end of vehicle life, manufacturers can improve parts then re-use them with the knowledge that they are developing for the better. Progressive environmental policy does not simply rely upon laws and regulations. All stakeholders within society must provide reliable, adaptable participation. Environmental sustainability depends upon joint partnerships of stakeholders, business, consumers and the state.

It is everybody's responsibility that environmental protection is achieved, and all stakeholders should be held accountable.