Grantee Research Project Results
Final Report: Recyclability Index for Automobiles
EPA Grant Number: SU832479Title: Recyclability Index for Automobiles
Investigators: Nelson, Yarrow M. , Tsuji, Alexander , Kean, Andrew , Richards, Deanna , Cota, Harold , Vanasupa, Linda , McDonald, Margot , Vigil, Sam
Institution: California Polytechnic State Univ - San Luis Obispo
EPA Project Officer: Hahn, Intaek
Phase: I
Project Period: December 30, 2005 through May 30, 2006
Project Amount: $9,990
RFA: P3 Awards: A National Student Design Competition for Sustainability Focusing on People, Prosperity and the Planet (2005) RFA Text | Recipients Lists
Research Category: P3 Challenge Area - Chemical Safety , Pollution Prevention/Sustainable Development , P3 Awards , Sustainable and Healthy Communities
Objective:
A rating system was developed to quantify the environmental impacts of light-duty motor vehicles at the end of their life-cycle based on recyclability, toxic material content and ultimate disposal. Each year, 10-11 million vehicles are retired from service in the United States. The vehicle material not recycled is called automotive shredder residue (ASR). About 4.5 to 5 million tons of ASR are disposed in U.S. solid waste landfills annually. The volume of this residue is likely to increase as vehicle manufacturers continue to use more plastics and composites in their designs to reduce weight and increase fuel efficiency. The rating system developed here will help educate consumers about environmental performance and allow them to factor this performance into their choice of automobiles. The score of this rating system has the potential to appear on new vehicle stickers and on the EPA website, similar to the fuel efficiency value. This, in turn, is expected to influence the vehicle manufacturers' choices of design and manufacturing methods. This would provide a voluntary incentive for pollution prevention in much the same way as the Toxic Release Inventory helps reduce the amount of hazardous waste produced. The end-of-life vehicle (ELV) rating system, modeled after life cycle assessment, has two parts: one based on recyclability and one based on toxicity. The recyclability portion is based on the content of ferrous and non-ferrous metal content (which is 100% recyclable) and plastic for which there is a market for recycling. The toxicity index is based on the content of lead (excluding batteries, which are recycled), mercury, cadmium and chromium. The toxicity index would subtract from the recyclability portion in order to give the final rating for an automobile. This rating system was tested on a generic 1995 vehicle.
Summary/Accomplishments (Outputs/Outcomes):
The generic vehicle received a final end-of-life rating of a C+ on a traditional A to F grading This rating is based on the automobile’s recyclability as well as the toxic material content. Due to the recyclability, the vehicle got a B- rating (78.7%); however, the toxicity rating subtracted 6.5%, giving the final rating of C+ (72.2%). The numerical rating of 71.2% does not reflect the actual recyclability percentage of the automobile. The actual recyclability of the automobile is still the original 78.7%.
Conclusions:
This project was successful in creating a rating system that balanced the elements of people, prosperity and the planet by teaching people to make purchases, which are friendlier to the planet. The recyclability of automobiles was adapted after the ISO 22628 standard, while the percent subtraction of heavy metals was an original idea. The main factor contributing to the project’s success was the support of many people, especially Dr. Yarrow Nelson, Dr. Andrew Kean and Dr. Sam Vigil. The basic idea of this rating system - using the recyclability of a product and the toxic materials to form a product rating - could be applied to many industry sectors as well. This rating system could be part of a more comprehensive life cycle rating system developed in the future. The critical barrier to this project was obtaining manufacturer data on automobiles. Unfortunately, such information is often proprietary and not in the public domain. With more automobile data, numerous automobiles could have been rated making the system stronger. In order to implement this rating system, comprehensive material listings are needed from manufacturers, possibly mandated by the EPA.
Journal Articles:
No journal articles submitted with this report: View all 1 publications for this projectSupplemental Keywords:
Pollution prevention, life cycle analysis, waste reduction, engineering, transportation, recycle, automobile, chemistry and materials science, environmental engineering, technology for sustainable environment, design for environment, alternative materials, automotive components, automotive industry, product rating, environmental sustainability, environmentally conscious design, environmentally friendly green products, green design, RFA, Scientific Discipline, INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, TREATMENT/CONTROL, Sustainable Industry/Business, POLLUTION PREVENTION, Sustainable Environment, Energy, Environmental Chemistry, Technology, Technology for Sustainable Environment, Chemistry and Materials Science, Chemicals Management, Environmental Engineering, biopolymers, life cycle analysis, energy conservation, automotive supply chain, biodegradable plastics, clean technologies, cleaner production, environmentally conscious manufacturing, green design, nanocomposite, air pollution control, automotive industry, environmental conscious construction, environmental sustainability, automotive components, biodegradeable nanocomposites, alternative materials, clean manufacturing, environmentally applicable nanoparticles, environmentally friendly green products, nanomaterials, environmentally benign alternative, life cycle assessment, Design for Environment, polypropylene substitute, automotive interior parts, environmentally conscious designThe perspectives, information and conclusions conveyed in research project abstracts, progress reports, final reports, journal abstracts and journal publications convey the viewpoints of the principal investigator and may not represent the views and policies of ORD and EPA. Conclusions drawn by the principal investigators have not been reviewed by the Agency.