There auto be a law: ecycling. End-of-lif e vehicle recycling policies. 1 countries. by Catherine Wilt and Lori Kincaid. Reprinted from Resource

Transcription

1 Reprinted from Resource ecycling North America s Recycling and Composting Journal There auto be a law: End-of-lif e vehicle recycling policies 1 countries by Catherine Wilt and Lori Kincaid Have you ever wondered what happens to your beloved old car when you trade it in for a new model? As many as 10 million U.S. auto owners could pose this question every year. Although the auto is one of the most widely and highly recycled products in the world, there are numerous reasons for working toward 100 percent recovery of scrap cars. These include concerns about improper disposal of automotive fluids and other components such as lead-acid batteries, oil filters, airbags and tires, quantities and potentially hazardous characteristics of auto shredder residue, and visual pollution from illegally abandoned vehicles. In addition, waste disposal crises in some of the more crowded countries, coupled with the sheer numbers of automobiles requiring proper management, are increasing awareness of the need to con- serve limited resources. For all of these reasons, the issue of vehicle recycling and disposal has gained the attention of governments around the world. In fact, governments and business leaders alike are promoting policies or business prac- tices in all industry sectors that conserve resources, reduce waste and minimize the environmental impacts of a product throughout all phases of its life. These policies and practices will be necessary if societies hope to move toward a goal of sustainable devel- Catherine Wilt is a senior research associate at the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and currently serves on the board of directors for the National Recycling Coalition. Lori Kincaid is associate director of CCPCT and leads the center s vehicle recycling research. Resource Recycling March

2 opment. The automobile, because of the extensive infrastn~cture requirements for its manufacture, use and disposal - not to mention the resources necessary to support its widespread use - is a highly visible target of efforts to reduce its environmental impacts and promote sustainable development. Many countries have proposed or implemented regulations, voluntary agreements and other policy measures aimed at increasing resource recovery and reducing the environmental effects of end-of-life vehicle (ELV) recycling and disposal. Many of these policies place the greatest responsibility for achieving these goals on the auto manufacturer. Such policies embody a relatively new principle of environmental protection - extended pttoduct responsibility WR) - founded on the belief that single-medium, command-and-control environmental protection, while effective, is not enough. Instead, argue EPR advocates, attention must be refocused on entire product systems. All actors along the product chain - from extraction of raw materials and product design through ~ ufact~e, use, recycling and ultimate disposal - share responsibility for reducing impacts. And, although EPR supporters believe everyone has a role in and a responsibility for effecting positive change on the environment, the product manufacturer has the greatest ability and, thus, the greatest responsibility, to reduce the impact of products across their life cycle. In 1996, the Center for Clean products and Clean Technologies (CCPCT) at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, undertook an extensive study of vehicle recycling policies, infraslructure capacity, availability and costs in 21 industtlalized and developing countries on six continents (see box on page 5). To obtain information on ELV policies and international vehicle recycling and waste management infrastructures, CCPCT researchers surveyed government agencies, trade organizations, automobile manufacturers, multi-national comm&ties suppliers, research organizations and environmental organizations in the countries studied. This article will briefly discuss some of the findings of the resulting report, including an overview of vehicle recycling, a discussion of some of the policies being implemented and an assessment of how these recycling trends will be played out in North America as we move toward the next century. The vehicle recycling process A recycling process exists in developed countries in which the majority of ELVs are passed from the last user to a dismantler, either directly or through an intermediary (e.g., auto dealer, insurance company) (see Figure 1). The dismantler removes reusable parts and some rebuildable pm before selling the hulk to a shredding operation. Shredder operators ASR =Auto shredder residue. Soume: Center for Clean Prducts and Ciwn TechnoIog~e* Unrvem~ty oftennessee, Kt~oxville, recover the ferrous materials in the hulk and may recover non-ferrous metals, which are sent to a heavy media separation specialist. About 75 percent of an ELV is recycled in dismantling and shredding operations, while the remaining portion of the auto - auto shredder residue, or fluff - which amounts to about 24 to 25 percent of the car,is usually disposed in landfills. Most estimates suggest that 90 percent or more of ELVs are recycled in developed countries by dismantling and shredding operations. The value of a scrap car when sent to an auto dismantler depends on a number of factors, including the make, model, age and condition of the vehicle. The geographic region of the country in which it is being disposed and the source (e.g., auto dealer, insurance company) of the ELV are also important. Most of the survey data place the value of an ELV when sent to a dismantler at between $50 and $100. Many survey respondents noted an increase in value as the ELV passes down the recycling chain from the dismantler to the shredder (see Table 1). Useful parts and materials are recovered from ELVs in developing countries, but through more informal activities than an established vehicle recycling infrastructure. Smp dealers remove materials that have value on the secondary market, primarily metals, using manual labor and simple mechan- ical devices. Other useful materials or parts may be hoarded by the last owner of the ELV for sale or reuse or scavenged by the urban poor. One survey respondent from South Africa cited the common use of auto body panels to construct urban shelters. According to survey respondents, there is no shortage of auto dismantlers in most developed countries (see Table l). But many of these are small, backyard shops that cannot or do not meet increasingly stringent environmental requirements. For example, some estimates suggest that 90 percent of dismantling facilities in Germany operate in violation of regulations and pay little attention to environmental concerns. As a result, the number of dismantlers in some European countries appears to be decreasing. In part, this is due to automobile manufacturers contracting with a select group of more sophisticated dismantling shops with better environmental images than many smaller operations. In addition, growing urbanization has displaced some auto dismantlers. Shredding plants are not in short supply in developed countries, either. In fact, survey respondents from these countries felt that shredder capacity is adequate to meetdemand A few indicated an overcapacity of shredders, notably in Japan, where some shredders are in danger of closing, and in the Netherlands, Resource Recycling March 1997

3 where shredder operators import auto hulks to remain profitable. The situation is reversed in some developing countries, such as China and India, that sorely lack the shredding infrastructure needed to meet the burgeoning demand for more economical, domestic scrap steel. In Taiwan, the government-sponsored Foundation for Recycling and Resource Recovery is responsible for establishing a vehicle recycling inli-astructure, including the mtry s first shredder plants, which are scheduled to be buiit by ELV policies: What% driving them? Despite the traditionally high recycling rate for ELVs, several countries have developed policies for ELV management (see Table 2). These policies are driven, in part, by concems over disposal capacity, particularly in countries that have growing populations and limited options for landfii development (e.g., in Japan and in some parts of Europe). These problems are exacerbated by public concern and opposition to siting of new land disposal facilities. Meanwhile, in many Western countries, even more vehement opposition to the widespread use of incineration as a disposal option contributes to the problem. In addition, high disposal costs and the lack of incentives for the last owner to properly dispose of ELVs have caused problems with illegal abandon- ment of vehicles in several countries, including Italy, Japan and Sweden. At the other end of the spectrum, governments in many developing countries are only beginning to develop and enforce basic environmental laws or develop an infrastructure for the proper disposal of any type of waste. Resource Recycling March 1997

4 Developed countries turn to EPR Western Europe is at the forefront of promoting product responsibility for ELVs, as evidenced by country-specific ELV legislation and voluntary agreements negotiated in the 1990s. Japan has also been promoting ELV policy development, first through its Recycling Law, which was promulgated in 1991 and which spcified ELVs as a priority waste stream to be managed more efficiently. More recently, Japan s Ministry of International Trade and Industry announced development of legislation, due in Spring 1997, that may impose greater responsibilities on auto manufacturers. Some territories in Australia are also evaluating ELV policies, most notably New South Wales. An4 in 1995, T&- wan implemented an advance disposal fee on the sale of new cars to help defray the cost of disposal. ELV policies in the U.S. have been limited to the so-called junker-clunker provisions implemented in a few states, which provide incentives for car owners to get older, more-polluting autos off the road as a way to reduce airpollution. The voluntary agreements in Europe have many common components. These include gads for recovery and recycling of autos, stipulations on whether incineration counts toward recovery, targets for maximum levels of disposal of auto shredder residue and ce~mcatiodpemitting of authorized dismantlers. Other related themes include increased design for recycling, charges for take-back or provision of free take-back by producers and use of vehicle deregistration to encourage delivery of the ELV to an authorized collection point (see Table 3). Although common themes abound, sufficient differences exist to prompt the European Commission (EC) to propose a directive aimed at harmonizing ELV policy throughout the European Union (Ev>. As is the case with other EC directives, if adopted, the directive would not be a directly applicable law, but member states would be obliged to translate it into applicable national law. Proposed E@ directive In December 199 1, the European ELV Project Group was established with representation from the European vehicle manufacturers organization (ACEA); auto manufacturers; their suppliers in the plastics, glass and steel industries; environmental groups; and EU memkr staks. After over a year of study, the ELV Project Group issued a report on the various scenarios associated with handling wastes from ELVs, including how to manage the collection and scrapping of ELVs. The stakeholders identified as having a role in the collection and treatment included existing car scrapping operations, auto wholesalers, automanufacturers or a combined collection and dismantling industry. After several additional years of discus- sion (and prompted by voluntary agreements in France, Germany and the Netherlands) a draft du-ective on ELV wastes has been crafted. The draft directive (dated July 31,1996) places priority on preventing wastes from vehicles; reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicle components and materials; and reduction of the final quantity of waste from ELVs. It states that the responsibility for collection and recovery of vehicles should be shifted from public authorities to vehicle producers, which, with some exceptions, must take ELVs back from the last owner free of charge. To accomplish these priorities, the directive sets a number of rigorous standards for product responsibility and materials recovery. By 2002, the directive calls for a minimum of 85 percent recovery for all cars, and a more stringent 90 percent recovery rate for new model cars. By 2015, the recovery rates increase to a minimum 95 percent recovery for all models, incorporating a minimum of 90 percent reuse and recycling to meet the overall recovery goal, thus curtailing energy recovery as a treatment option. The directive further calls for manufacturers to phase out the use of hazardous materials such as lead and mercury (except in batteries), cadmium and hexavalent chromium. Strikingly, the directive also calls for a phaseout of PVC plastics by The draft directive is expected to be finalized early in The directive, which requires that authorized treatment and dismantling facilities be available to collect ELVs by January 2000, will not place dramatic demands on countries that already have dismantling Germany, Italy, the Netherlands). However, it will place a considerable burden on some of the poorer EU members that do not have recycling provisions or authorized facilities already in place. Comparison with the United States Unlike Europe and Japan, environmental policy in the U.S., for the most part, is not driven by concern over land disposal capacity or population density. Still, there is gradual movement toward extended product responsibility, as evidenced by voluntary initiatives on the part of industry to promote design for recycling, reduced energy use and reduced materials use. For example, U.S. auto manufacturers (GM, Ford and Chrysler) created the Vehicle Recycling Partnership (VRP) in 1991 to promote and conduct research required for the recovery, reuse, recycling and disposal of materials from scrap cars. The VRP s objectives are to understand issues involved with vehicle recycling, interact with other researchers, develop methods to recycle materials and components from scrap cars, and develop guidelines for design and material selection to facilitate recycling. In addition, Ford Motor Company and the Satum Corpomtion have both established voluntary bumper take-back programs. The Ford program currently recycles bumper material back into new bumpers and is recycling approximately 1.5 million pounds of plastic per year. The Saturn program is currently diverting approximately 47,000 pounds of plastic per year from bumpers returned to Saturn dealerships; the plastic will be reground and used in wheel wells for GMs Cadillac division. These programs are not due to pressure from government, but rather appear to stem from industry desire for greater global competitiveness, a green consumer image and reduced government intervention. However, the federal government is encouraging voluntary product responsibility. The President s Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD) recently recommended that the US. adopt extended product responsibility as a major strategy for achieving sustainable development. Specifically, PCSD suggested that the nation should adopt a voluntary system that ensures responsibility for the environmental effects throughout a product s life cycle by all those involved in the life cycle. PCSD recommended that President Clinton appoint a product Responsibility Panel to facilitate voluntary, multi-stakeholder mresource Recycling March 1997

5 models of shared product responsibility through demonstration projects. Most recently, in October 1996, a tweday workshop on extended product responsibility was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency s Office of Solid Waste and PCSD; it included wide representation &om industry, government, academia and environmental groups. ~ o ~ ~ ~ s i o ~ Although few would dispute the environmental benefit of efforts to promote the collection and recovery of a higher portion of each ELV, several concerns present difficult policy issues. The everchanging materials content of autos dramatically affects the economic viability of ambitious recovery plans. For instance, as plastics use in autos rises - often to achieve a competing policy goal of creating lighter weight, more energyefficient vehicles - the easily recyclable portion of the auto gets smaller, while the profit margin shrinks for auto dimantlers and shredders. Additionally, automobile durability presents unique problems, parlicularly in developing policies. Consider, for instance, that the average useful life of a vehicle is 1 1 years, which provides a wide window for changes in automotive technology. It also makes it more difficult to predict what environmental effects will occur during final recycling and disposal of the vehicle. However, the growing global nature of the auto industry may drive the harmonization of ELV measures. As it stands currently, auto manufacturers in Europe, Japan and North America are subject to very different requirements for the reuse, recycling and ultimate disposal of ELVs. Although the EC directive, when fin&& and implemented, will set consistent standards for all member states, no single standard exists worldwide. The lack of consistent ELV recycling goals could compromise the efforts of auto ~ ufact~ers to compete in the global marketplace by forcing them to track and respond to myriad different standards. A full copy of the report Vehicle Recycling and Disposal Policies in Industrialized and Developing Countries may be requested from Catherine Wilt or Lori Kincaid at the Center for Clean Products and Clean Technologies, University of Tennessee, 600 Henley St., Suite 3 11, Knoxville, TN 37996; (423) , (423) (fax). Resource Recycling March

6