Remanufacture, refurbishment, reuse and recycling of vehicles: trends and opportunities

5. ELV sector development in other countries

A number of different systems operate in other countries to deal with ELVs and there are examples of different practices being employed. This section provides an overview of systems and practices operating in a number of European countries. It also summarises the approach to ELV treatment taken in Japan.

A number of sources have been used to identify the situation in different countries. These include personal correspondence with individuals involved in ELV treatment in different countries ^[61] , a published report prepared for the European Parliament and various papers and ^[62] , ^[63] & ^[64] .

The ELV Directive ^[65] provides for a number of conditions that national systems and practices should adhere to. Some key aspects are listed below to help set a context for the differences that are apparent at national level.

'A certificate of destruction, to be used as a condition for the destruction of end-of like vehicles should be introduced....This certificate shall be issued to the holder and/or owner when the end-of-life vehicle is transferred to a treatment facility'.

Vehicle registration systems can operate differently in different countries. For example, in Austria a vehicle is deregistered when the ownership changes, which is not the case in the UK.

A recent report ^[66] highlights that 'there is indication given that the existence of the registration document notification route has reduced the significance of the COD in the UK' - referring to the fact that the last owner of a vehicle can complete the DVLA form V5C, confirming they have transferred the vehicle to a dismantler, and the DVLA confirms they are no longer responsible for the vehicle without any apparent systematic check being made that a COD has been issued. The deregistration systems in some other countries have linked the production of a COD to a financial reward to the last owner of the vehicle which means there is an economic incentive to ensure the COD is obtained.

'Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the delivery of the vehicle to an authorised treatment facility.....occurs without any cost for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle having no or a negative value'.

In the UK, since the Directive was transposed, the market value of ELVs has typically been positive; therefore, a cost is not usually passed onto the producer.

There are two basic types of system employed within Europe as a result of individual countries transposition of the ELV Directive into national legislation. The first type is a funded system where monies are made available to incentivise behaviour of actors in the ELV system ( e.g. encouraging last owners to take the ELV to a registered treatment facility, paying dismantlers to remove specified parts of the vehicle). The second type of system is an unfunded system ( e.g. the UK, Sweden, Ireland, etc.) where the treatment of ELVs is purely market driven.

A selection of funded ELV systems are described below.

Netherlands

In the Netherlands, there is a funded system managed by a dedicated company, ARN. The first owner of the vehicle pays an additional fee via the importer (currently 45 Euros (£36)), which goes to ARN. This money is distributed to the ATFs that contract with ARN based on the amount of material dismantled (including plastic bumpers and dashboards for example). If all specified materials are dismantled the ATF can earn up to 60 Euros (£48) per vehicle from ARN. Note that the fee is regarded as necessary to subsidise the plastic removal in a situation that would otherwise be uneconomic. Obviously, not all ATFs dismantle to this level as ARN cover costs by the initial 45 Euro (£36) per vehicle fee.

Previous fund surpluses have been invested by ARN in developing an ASR processing plant. No direct Government funding was provided to develop the plant but the Government do provide some financial support with ongoing research and development costs. Once this is fully operational, ARN intend to change their policy regarding plastic bumpers and dashboards as it will be more economically efficient to recover the plastic from the ASR than to pay dismantlers to manually remove them.

In the Netherlands, the COD is the same certificate last owners receive in any case to relieve them of their legal obligations. Without this certificate the owner is still liable for tax, MOT and insurance connected to the vehicle and there is, therefore, a significant driver for the last owner to obtain this certificate (if there is effective enforcement of this break in liability).

Denmark

In Denmark there is a funded system with vehicle owners contributing via annual payments of insurance cover. The last owner is rewarded from the fund when the ELV is delivered into the legal ATF network and paperwork completed. The current payment is DKK 1750 (£188).

The levy paid on the purchase of a new vehicle is placed in a fund which allows the last owner who hands in the vehicle at the end of life to be rewarded for bringing the ELV into the legal regulated ATF system. Monies will only be paid out once the certificate of destruction has been issued.

Norway

In Norway, a scrap deposit/premium system has been introduced with the objective of ensuring that ELV's are only treated at a licensed facility. Unlike in the Netherlands, the fee is not paid to the ATF but the deposit is 100% returned to the last owner (providing them with an incentive to return to a licensed ATF). The initial deposit of NOK 1300 (£140) is paid, by the first owner, to the Norwegian Custom Authorities that operates the web based COD system. The dismantler registers the details about the ELV and the person who delivers the car, and the person to receive the deposit return (these can be two different people). The Norwegian Customs Authorities then approves this and issues a COD to the ELV owner, the dismantler and holds an electronic copy for itself. The dismantler must keep the COD for ten years. The return of the deposit is then made direct to the last owner within 1 to 3 weeks.

Poland

In Poland, there is a fee on the purchase of a new vehicle of PLN 500 (£97), which is paid to The National Foundation for Environmental Activity. ATFs can, each year, submit data returns to this organisation and receive PLN 500 (£97) per 1000kg of ELV treated to the correct standards. There is a limit on the amount each ATF can claim of 200,000 Euro (£160,546) in a 3 year period.

Annex 1 of the ELV Directive states a number of minimum technical requirements for the treatment of ELVs in order to promote recycling:

• 'Removal of catalysts
• Removal of metal components containing copper, aluminium and magnesium if these metals are not segregated in the shredding process
• Removal of tyres and large plastic components (bumpers, dashboard, fluid containers, etc), if these materials are not segregated in the shredding process in such a way that they can be effectively recycled as materials
• Removal of glass'

This section of the ELV Directive was transposed to Scottish regulations ^[67] as:

'Any treatment operations are carried out in such a way as to allow the removal and subsequent recycling of:

• The catalyst or catalysts
• All metal components containing copper, aluminium or magnesium (including during shredding)
• Tyres (including during shredding)
• All large plastic components (including during shredding)
• Glass'

Currently, in Scotland, no significant removal or subsequent recycling of plastic or glass at the dismantler stage, or from post shredder ASR, was identified through industry interviews (other than where the materials were contained in parts and components removed for reuse at the dismantling stage). Separate feedback from one other stakeholder suggested that glass was removed during the processing of ASR in some shredders in Scotland but this was not confirmed during interviews with four of the largest shredders.

In the rest of Europe there are different practices that result in different levels of recycling and recovery being claimed. Different Member States, however, classify the same technical treatment options in different ways. A recent report ^[68] highlighted the following examples of these different interpretations:

Use of plastic streams obtained by post-shredder treatment in blast furnace

Some Member States account for the total amount of the used quantities for recycling (reducing agent), others account only a proportion of the amount introduced into a blast furnace as recycling whereas the remaining proportion is accounted for as thermal recovery.

Co-incineration of fibre-rich waste streams obtained by post-shredder treatment with sewage sludge

Member States either account it as thermal recovery or as recycling (substitution of dewatering agents for the sewage sludge before incineration).

Use of tyres or shredder residues for landfill-construction, landfill cover or terrain corrections

This is either classified as recovery or disposal. (Note: in the UK the use of whole or shredded tyres in landfill construction is considered as recovery but shredder residue used for landfill is considered as disposal)

Backfilling ^[69]

Regarding backfilling there are discrepancies in the definitions of recycling and recovery between the ELV-Directive and the new Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/ EC). The new Waste Framework Directive, in addition to recycling and thermal recovery, also defines "recovery" which is neither "recycling" nor "thermal recovery" ( e.g. backfilling). The targets of the ELV Directive and Commission Decision 2005/293/ EC, however, refer to recycling and thermal recovery only'.

The above differences are related to how different countries record what happens to ASR. This is crucial to whether a country is able to achieve the 85% recycling and 95% recovery targets for 2015.

Reviewing how ASR is treated across different Member States shows that PST plants are only present in a minority of countries ( e.g. Austria, Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands and UK). In Austria, the output of its' centralised PST plant includes plastic used in a blast furnace, a fibrous material that is mixed with sewage sludge prior to incineration. The remainder is landfilled.

In Germany, ASR is landfilled, used as backfill, used in the construction of landfill and for energy recovery.

In the Netherlands, the ASR processing plant states it can produce:

• A plastics pre-concentrate consisting of polypropylene, polyethylene, ABS and polystyrene a mixture that will be further processed by Galloo Plastics and returned in a closed loop to automotive applications
• A plastics granulate mainly used as a reducing agent and as a replacement for coal or heavy oil in blast furnaces
• A fibre fraction used as a de-watering agent for sewage sludge as a replacement for coal dust
• A sand fraction (fines) mainly used as a road construction material and as a backfilling material for old salt mines
• Metals for recycling
• A remaining fraction comprising dust and sludge that will be destined for incineration with energy recovery

According to Annex 1 of the ELV Directive, large plastic components should be removed at either dismantling or during the shredding stage. Figure 36, below, shows the performance of a sample of Member States (who provided the relevant data to Eurostat in 2008) of the removal, reuse and recycling of plastic at the dismantling stage compared to the estimated average weight of plastic obtained in an ELV of 90kg.

Figure 36 - Large plastic parts derived from dismantling ^[70]

The above figure shows a relatively low level of removal of plastic at dismantling stage. It is not clear why the removal figures for Latvia and Slovenia should be so far in excess of their reuse and recycling levels.

Although the Netherlands is known to remove bumpers and other large plastic parts (and the ATFs are financially rewarded for doing so), it is assumed that they did not provide data to Eurostat for the year concerned. As mentioned previously, it is the intention of ARN in the Netherlands to stop this financial reward after its ASR processing plant is fully operational as it will be more economic to recover the plastic from the ASR.

Annex 1 of the ELV Directive also states that glass should be removed as part of the treatment process. The Directive does explicitly provide for this removal to be carried out as part of the shredding process (unlike for plastic and tyres where no similar explicit statement is made regarding the acceptability (or otherwise) of removal, post shredder). Some countries (such as Austria and Sweden) have a legal obligation to remove at least some of the glass prior to shredding but many do so as part of the shredding process. The latter inevitably results in a 'down-cycling' of the material as it is only suitable for aggregate type applications post shredder.

Figure 37, below, shows the performance of a sample of Member States (who provided the relevant data to Eurostat in 2008) of the removal, reuse and recycling of glass at the dismantling stage compared to the estimated average weight of glass obtained in an ELV of 25kg.

Figure 37 - Glass derived from dismantling ^[71]

The above figure shows the UK having no significant removal of glass prior to shredding. This is a function of the cost of labour to remove them and the relatively low (if any) value that can be achieved from reprocessors in comparison to the value they can achieve through sale of the hulk (complete with glass) to the shredder. It is not clear why there should be such high reported rates in other countries where there is no legal obligation to remove glass prior to shredding and no evidence was identified regarding onward markets.

This section provides details of how ELVs are treated in Japan. The key features of Japan's funded ELV recycling system are ^[72] :

• 'Vehicle manufacturers and importers are responsible for the collection of three specific types of material taken from ELVs: ASR, airbags and fluorocarbon gas contained in air conditioners, which are difficult to handle properly;
• A recycling fee must be paid by vehicle users in advance - when they register their cars or when they purchase a new car;
• The handling of ELVs is monitored on the Internet in an integrated manner by an electronic information system
• The Japan Automobile Recycling Promotion Center, a third party organisation, is assigned to manage collected ELV fees, and to monitor ELV handling information;
• Operators must be registered or approved'

The Japanese ELV system contains provisions for 'Whole Vehicle Utilisation' ^[73] . Under this provision:

• 'Japanese dismantlers have an option to send car wrecks directly to the electric furnaces without shredding processes. This recycling method is called 'Whole-Vehicle Utilisation;
• This method is also known as ELV recycling without generating ASR because lightweight parts are pressed with treated car wrecks and then they are put together into an electric furnace as supplementary fuel;
• In this case dismantlers are required to reduce copper contents into not more than 0.3%. So they have to remove the wire harness from ELVs. Japanese dismantlers remove them by operating heavy machinery'

In 2006, the use of the 'Whole Vehicle Utilisation route was taken by 10% to 15% of ELVs ^[74] . This means that ASR is produced from ELVs undergoing the shredding process. There is a current example of ASR processing by plasma gasification in Japan ^[75] . This plant has capacity for 165 tonnes per day of a 50/50 mix of ASR residue compared to 220 tonnes per day for the MSW only. At 165 tonnes per day this equates to just over 60,000 tonnes capacity.