Select Page

NOTE TO ISO/TC22/WG10

ON

THE ELV RECYCLING PROCESS

2000.12.18

  1. Objectives

 

This note is made in order to clarify some of the issues concerning reuse, recycling and recovery treated in the draft (N 002) discussed during the first meeting on 29.11.2000, with a view to achieving a set of definitions which, at the same time, are in line with the ELV-directive (2000/53/EC) and the practical way in which an ELV is treated.

  1. The ELV Recycling Process

 

The enclosed schematic diagram shows how an ELV is treated when delivered to an (authorized) treatment facility. The general process is:

Phase 1:

An ELV is ‘de-polluted’ according to the rules in the ELV-directive/National legislation. According to these rules, a number of Waste Fractions have to be removed from the ELV, in the diagram named WF1 to WFn. According to the rules, these WF’s are handed over to authorized receivers of such fractions and are basically recycled, i.e. used engine oil is ‘cleaned’, leading to a re-useable product and a residue = waste, and similar for the other WFs, i.e. all fluids, catalytic converters, lead, tyres etc.

Phase 2:

Following the ‘de-pollution’, dismantling of components take place, with the objective of selling them = re-use for original purpose, some of them though via a re-manufacturing process. Further, large plastic components can be dismantled for recycling etc.

Phase 3:

The rest of the ELV is then sent to shredders.

Phase 4:

As a result of the shredding, there are then metals for recycling + Shredder-residue, which then can be recycled/re-covered + some SR for landfill.

  1. Calculation possibilities

 

 

ELV vehicle weight (Mv)

Practice shows, that the weight of an ELV is not identical to Mv There is not an almost full fuel tank, it does not contain the original amounts of lubricants, washer fluids etc. It may also – in addition – contain ‘extra fitted after market parts’, carpets, etc.

Based on the tests performed during several studies, it should be possible to define a standard reduction factor (RF), e.g. saying that in average, the Mof an ELV is 11% less than then original Mv  , leading to that ELV Mv   can be defined as 0.89 Mv

Recycled amount of Waste Fractions

Also for these, averages can be given. For example for used engine oils, we could get the figure on how much in average of 1 liter/kg of used oil can be re-used, similarly for break-fluid, coolant etc. Hence, for each of the defined Waste Fractions, averages for re-useable products can be given and, correspondingly, averages for waste, which then eventually also may be re-cycled/re-covered.

Since for each WF figures for the volumes delivered to authorised receivers are given to each ‘deliverer’, i.e. authorised facility and for each WF averages figures for re-use and recycling amounts do exist, two figures exist:

  • a figure for the total amount of WFs delivered, here named TWF
  • a figure for how much of the TWF that actually is re-used and re-cycled, here named RWF.

Amounts sent to shredding

Also here, figures exist. When delivering a ‘rest-ELV’ to the shredder, the weight is taken. Hence all autorecyclers will know exactly how much was delivered for shredding. This figure is referred to as TSW  (total shredding weight).

Dismantled components

In practice, and as said above, dismantlers take out components with a view to selling them for re-use, eventually via a remanufacturing process. Components are therefore put on stock for later sale.

However, should the autorecycler/dismantler after a certain period discover, that the components are not sold, then they are going to the same treatment process applied for the total ELV, again leading to certain amounts of WFs and ‘scrap-metal’ for the shredder.

When monitoring the re-use at the side of the autorecycler, on can therefore say, that this amount, now referred to as CRW (component reuse weight) can be calculated as:

CRW  =  ELV M– (TWF + TSW).

One may argue, that this way of calculating the CRW does not give correct figures, simply because a component dismantled for re-use in Year 1 later on, say in Year 3, ends up as WF + TSW. However, since already when we start measuring ‘old components’ will end up as WF and TSW, Therefore the difference is marginal, and using this methodology, avoids the cumbersome process of having to register the weight of each single component put on stock – subsequently taking the weight of each single component later on going into WF and TSW.

Statistically we are therefore systematically repeating an error, which leads to that exact figures can never be given year by year, but since the error is systematic, trend analyses are possible, and after all, this is, what in our view, seems to be important with a view to environment protection.

The same applies for the calculation of RWF – since this figure is also based on averages, but trends can be followed.

Conclusion

If these methods could be applied when we in practice have to report the re-use and recycling rates according to the ELV-directive, we would achieve a state where the important trends can be followed, avoiding a cumbersome and bureaucratic system in order to get precise measures, which in practice never could be obtained anyhow.

These considerations are brought to ISO/TC22/WG10 since we feel they should be taken into account in the future work concerning defining ISO-standards for recoverability and recyclability.

EGARA

2000.12.18