MANAGEMENT OF END-OF-LIFE VEHICLES (ELVs) IN ONTARIO

 

REPORT, PROCEEDINGS AND DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS OF

The RCO Roles and Responsibilities Forum
April 28, 1999

 

RECYCLING COUNCIL OF ONTARIO

September, 1999

 


29 September, 1999

To: All Interested Parties

 

In April, 1999, the Recycling Council of Ontario convened a Roles and Responsibilities Forum for the Management of End-of-Life Vehicles in Ontario. The forum proceedings and draft recommendations (located at http://www.rco.on.ca/research/proceedings/elv.html) is the result of input from experts who spoke at that forum as well as subsequent research.

The report outlines current practices in Ontario and other jurisdictions, as well as the regulatory and voluntary management framework for end-of-life vehicles in place in Ontario today. In addition, the report contains a number of proposed recommendations (please see Section 4.8 and Section 5).

RCO is seeking input on the proposed recommendations before issuing its final policy position. It is receiving written comments on the proposed recommendations until 5:00 p.m. on November 12, 1999.

Please send comments to:
The Recycling Council of Ontario
Attention: Chris van Rossem
489 College Street, Suite 504
Toronto, Ontario M6G 1A5
Fax: (416) 960-8053

RCO wishes to thank the speakers and participants who attended the RCO Roles and Responsibilities Forum for the Management of End-of-Life Vehicles in Ontario for their input, the forum sponsors: Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association and Co-Steel Recycling for funding assistance, and Chris van Rossem for organization and report drafting.

Sincerely,

John Hanson

Executive Director


Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Acknowledgments
1.2 RCO - Roles and Responsibilities Forum - End-of-Life Vehicles

1.2.1 Forum Structure
1.2.2 Plenary Discussion

1.3 Conclusions

1.3.1 Summary of Key Draft Recommendations

2.0 Vehicle Recycling - Current Practices in Ontario

2.1 Number of ELVs in Ontario
2.2 Industry Sectors
2.3 Material Flow

2.3.1 Pre-treatment
2.3.2 Parts Reuse
2.3.3 Metals Recovery

2.4 Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR)

2.4.1 Volume
2.4.2 Composition
2.4.3 Management
2.4.4 Research
2.4.5 Manufacturer Initiatives

2.5 Environmental Issues

3.0 Management Practices in Other Jurisdictions

3.1 British Columbia
3.2 Nova Scotia
3.3 Europe

3.3.1 Government Legislated
3.3.2 Voluntary Agreements and Initiatives

3.4 Japan

4.0 Regulatory and Voluntary Management Framework in Ontario

4.1 Regulatory Overview
4.2 Ministry of Transportation

4.2.1 Highway Traffic Act
4.2.2 Stolen and Salvage Vehicle Project

4.3 Ministry of the Environment

4.3.1 Environmental Protection Act Part V
4.3.2 Environmental Protection Act Part VII
4.3.3 General Waste Regulation (Proposed)

4.4 Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

4.4.1 Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act

4.5 Municipal Governments

4.5.1 Planning Act
4.5.2 Municipal Act

4.6 Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association (OARA)
4.7 Collision Industry Standards Council of Ontario (CISCO)
4.8 Draft Recommendations

5.0 Outstanding Issues/Opportunities

6.0 References

7.0 APPENDICES

7.1 APPENDIX A - FORUM PARTICIPANTS
7.2 APPENDIX B - FORUM AGENDA
7.3 APPENDIX C - SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

7.4 APPENDIX D - PRESENTATIONS

I. Government Legislated and Industry ELV Management Programs
II. United States Consortium for Automotive Research - Vehicle Recycling Partnership
III. Management of ELVs in British Columbia
IV. Management of ELVs in Ontario
V. Material Management at Woodbeck Auto Parts
VI. Material Management at Co-Steel Recycling
VII. Role of Ministry of Environment
VIII. Ministry of Transportation’s Stolen and Salvage Vehicle Program
IX. Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association
X. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers of Canada
(N.B. This presentation is in .pdf format and must be viewed using Adobe Acrobat Reader. Acrobat is available as a free download from Adobe.)


1.0 Introduction

Every year more than 400,000 vehicles are taken off the road in Ontario. Many are managed in an environmentally responsible manner. Some, however, do not receive the proper end-of-life care required. While approximately 75% of a vehicle by weight is technically recyclable, it would appear that end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) are not being managed in a consistent manner.

Due to an absence of effective regulatory or self-governing bodies, it would appear that there is the potential for operating fluids and other hazardous components to be released into the environment. In addition, fraudulent and illegal use of Vehicle Identification Numbers (in stolen or rebuilt cars) is a related problem.

As the Ontario vehicle fleet continues to grow, the amount of Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) requiring disposal is increasing and will continue to increase as more vehicles are being disposed of. Because the use of plastics and other non-metallic components in automotive applications has risen from 27 kg per vehicle in 1970 to more than 163 kg today (EPIC, 1999), vehicles shredded today result in greater quantities of ASR requiring disposal. Today, essentially all material recycling and recovery is targeted towards ferrous and non-ferrous metals.

Unfortunately, an absence of reliable data on vehicle disposal in Ontario makes it difficult to determine the percentage of ELVs that are being managed to minimize environmental impacts and ensure maximum recovery of resources. Some jurisdictions abroad already have or may soon implement programs to ensure that vehicles and parts are designed with higher percentages of recyclable material. Ensuring businesses that are involved in dismantling of ELVs are operating at a standard that will not compromise the surrounding environment is becoming typical practice.

There is a growing public expectation that industries must be more involved in minimizing the environmental impacts of their products in the marketplace and at the end of the products’ useful lives. In the automotive sector, this may require financial contributions to ensure improved recovery targets are met.

In the pages that follow RCO explores the operational, regulatory and financial issues associated with ELVs. With this document RCO wants to establish a common understanding of the issues, technologies and future options/approaches in the management of ELVs and ultimately recommend a course(s) of action that will minimize environmental impacts.

1.1 Acknowledgments

RCO would like to thank the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association (OARA) and Co-Steel Recycling for sponsorship of the Roles and Responsibilities Forum on End-of-Life Vehicles. RCO would also like to thank all speakers and participants for their input during the event.

1.2 RCO - Roles and Responsibilities Forum - End-of-Life Vehicles

On April 28, 1999, RCO hosted a forum at Metro Hall in Toronto to discuss the roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders to ensure proper management of ELVs in Ontario. Fifty-one participants at the forum (Appendix A) heard presentations from automotive manufacturers, dealers, dismantlers, scrap metal recyclers, the Ontario Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Ministry of Transportation. Speakers addressed the scope of the problem, the roadblocks contributing to it and current management practices in Ontario as well as in other jurisdictions in Canada and abroad. The goal in bringing together interested stakeholders was to assist in the establishment of a made-for-Ontario, environmentally sound management practice for end-of-life vehicles in the province.

1.2.1 Forum Structure

The forum was divided into the following four sections each of which included presentations and discussion.

Section 1: Vehicle Recycling in Various Jurisdictions

Section 2: Management of Specific Waste Stream Materials

Section 3: Provincial Government Roles

Section 4: Manufacturer Perspectives

For an Agenda of the event and presentations please see Appendix B and Appendix D respectively. Appendix C contains speakers’ biographies.

1.2.2 Plenary Discussion

The forum concluded with a discussion period based on three questions, proposed by RCO, regarding future options and approaches to minimizing environmental impacts associated with end-of-life vehicles.

Question 1: Is there a need for a national, harmonized ‘code of practice’ for businesses involved in the management of ELVs, that could be developed by stakeholders in the industry with the assistance of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and Environment Canada?

Question 2: Is there a need for an authoritative study to identify all the issues surrounding ELVs, including technical, economic and environmental, in order to provide recommendations to all sectors involved?

Question 3: Is there a willingness to establish a multi-stakeholder group to help fund and steer such a process, which would include developing targets and timelines for reduction, reuse and recycling of ELVs? (Such a group could assist in the coordination of all sectors involved in the life cycle of an automobile to facilitate collaboration on achieving targets and the common goal of reducing environmental impacts associated with disposal of ELVs.)

1.3 Conclusions

RCO acknowledges the complexity of the end-of-life vehicle management issue. Manufacturers of automobiles are facing many pressures from government to improve fuel efficiency and vehicle emission standards. In response, they are using lighter materials that may not be easily recycled. Auto recyclers are facing higher costs associated with fluid, tire and hazardous materials disposal and decreased revenues from scrap metal. Shredding operators are facing increased amounts of ASR generated from automobiles, as well as increased disposal costs. A lack of consistent enforcement of provincial environmental regulations and municipal by-laws among all players engaged in the management of end-of-life vehicles results in an un-level playing field.

All sectors involved in the management chain of end-of-life vehicles must work together to ensure that changes in one sector are communicated to others. Design and material selection by vehicle manufacturers will ultimately affect how vehicles are managed by the dismantling and shredding industries. Currently in Canada, there is little if any dialog between the manufacturers and dismantlers. On one hand, manufacturers are increasing the recyclability of vehicles, as well as designing vehicles for disassembly. However, the current collection, reprocessing and marketing infrastructure is inadequate to facilitate these innovations.

1.3.1 Summary of Key Draft Recommendations

The following draft recommendations for improving the environmental conditions associated with the disposal and recycling of ELVs is presented in two parts, the first dealing with inadequacies in the recycling and dismantling infrastructure, the second dealing with the challenges of an increasing ASR waste stream and the changing wastes associated with new materials used in automobiles.

PART 1:

Recommendation 1:

Environment Canada should consider funding a project to develop a national "code of practice" for the automotive dismantling/recycling industry.

Recommendation 2: (Part 1)

All businesses involved in dismantling ELVs and irreparable vehicles should require certification or accreditation consistent with environmental protection standards developed by industry, government and other stakeholders.

Recommendation 2: (Part 2)

Provincial Ministries should consider the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association Self-Regulation Model to accredit and monitor the industry’s activities.

Recommendation 3:

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment should re-evaluate the exemption of the derelict motor vehicle sites from Part V and Regulation 347 of the Environmental Protection Act and within its new Waste Management Regulation Draft.

Recommendation 4:

In Ontario, all ELV dismantlers and recyclers should be required to have a C licence. Exemptions for D licence holders should be discontinued.

Recommendation 5:

The voluntary permit branding program for vehicles that have been "written off" by insurance companies should become a mandatory program.

PART 2:

Recommendation 6:

Environment Canada should develop mandatory targets for reuse and recycling of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) similar to those in other jurisdictions, such as Europe and Japan.

Recommendation 7:

The automotive manufacturers and importers in Canada along with governments, vehicle recyclers and shredders should create a Multi-Stakeholder Task Force to fund and address the issue of Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) generation in Canada.

 

2.0 Vehicle Recycling - Current Practices in Ontario

2.1 Number of ELVs in Ontario

In Ontario approximately 5% to 6% of the automotive fleet is retired each year, or between 400,000 and 500,000 vehicles. Not all vehicles that are retired are immediately recycled. However, 90% of all ELVs are eventually recovered for metals recovery (American Iron and Steel Institute, 1992). Obtaining accurate statistics on the number of ELVs in Ontario is difficult since there is no public agency that is keeping accurate records of vehicle disposal in the province. Although recyclers are obligated to report dismantling activities through provisions of the C Licence requirement in the Highway Traffic Act, only a small percentage of recyclers operate with this licence. The Ministry of Transportation acknowledges that with the current licencing and reporting mechanisms, there is no way of accurately reporting the number of vehicles that are dismantled and recycled each year.

2.2 Industry Sectors

According to OARA, there are more than 700 businesses that have identified themselves as part of the automotive salvage, wrecking, recycling or used-part industry in Ontario. Of the 700 business identified, 20% have indicated that auto recycling is not their primary business, while another 20% have one employee. Approximately 140 Ontario companies belong to OARA and subscribe to its code of practice.

RCO, with the assistance of OARA, has identified five distinct groups of businesses involved in the management of end-of-life and irreparable vehicles. These include:

Auto Dismantlers/Recyclers The primary business is the sale of used auto parts. Material recovery is secondary. Fluid recovery is an integral part of processing each vehicle.

Salvage Yards: The primary business is metals recovery. The sale of used auto parts is secondary. Fluids are recovered if parts are to be removed.

Scrap Metal Dealers/Junk Yards: The only business is metals recovery. Fluids generally are not recovered.

Car Dealers, Body Shops, Tow-Trucks: Dealers and body shops may use vehicles for parts, sending the unused portions to one of the above groups for final processing. Tow-truck operators offer fee-based services to remove unwanted vehicles from properties and deliver them to one of the above groups or directly to shredders for metal recovery. Fluids may or may not be captured.

Individuals: This category includes backyard mechanics, and also auto thieves and organized international and domestic auto theft rings.

2.3 Material Flow

2.3.1 Pre-treatment

Preparation of a vehicle prior to dismantling is essential to proper recycling. Fluid, battery, gas tank and tire removal are required prior to shredding. The materials listed below are typically removed by members of the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association.

Material Handling Procedure
Oils and Greases
(engine oil, transmission, brake, steering fluid)
Reused by auto recycler or removed to a licenced facility.
Coolant, Fuel, Windshield Fluid Reused by auto recycler or sold to customers.
Lead Acid Batteries Either re-sold or removed from premise by a licenced recycling facility.
Tires Good quality tires resold domestically or exported.
Scrap tires removed from facility by service company
CFCs, HCFCs All air-conditioning systems are evacuated by a trained. licenced technician. Used refrigerant is sold to a licenced buyer for reuse.

The ELV recycling industry is tremendously fragmented, with varying degrees of de-pollution occurring at different types of facilities handling ELVs. Facilities that are adequately processing end-of-life vehicles or irreparable vehicles are at a competitive disadvantage to the businesses that are not. The management of operating fluids, lubricating oils, as well as tire disposal are among the associated costs of the vehicle recycling industry. However, with the current exemption from the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, Part V Regulation 347, as waste disposal sites, it is difficult to ascertain the degree to which proper hazardous waste manifesting is occurring. There would appear to be significant gaps in the monitoring and enforcement ability of the MOE, given the existing exemptions under Regulation 347.

2.3.2 Parts Reuse

Depending on demand and projected sales of used parts, various components are dismantled, reconditioned and sold to individual and corporate customers. Typical parts include whole front and rear ends, body panels, engine, transmission, alternator, wheels, windshields and various other parts as needed. Modern auto recyclers use an elaborate electronic system to inventory and sell parts and to help in deciding what to dismantle. Each individual part is given an industry-standard product code that is used by most recyclers (OARA, 1999).

Some parts that cannot be reused, including engines, transmissions, radiators, catalytic converters and electrical components are sold to core buyers for refurbishing and reuse.

2.3.3 Metals Recovery

Regardless of what sector processes an ELV, 90% are eventually captured for metal recovery and processed via large industrial shredders. Nonferrous and ferrous metals comprising approximately 75% of a vehicle by weight are captured with the remaining 25% of the vehicle ending up as Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR). ASR in Ontario is typically landfilled.

Contamination of ASR is directly related to the level of removal of hazardous materials prior to shredding.

Below is a flow chart outlining the players and processes involved in the management of ELVs in Ontario.

Automotive Recycling Process and Balance Sheet

Source: American Iron and Steel Institute, 1992

2.4 Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR)

2.4.1 Volume

According to estimates by the scrap metal industry, approximately 10-million tonnes of iron and steel is recovered from ELVs in North America each year. However, because approximately 25% to 30% of a vehicle by weight is non-metallic, three million tonnes of ASR is also generated.

There are approximately 20 shredders in operation in Canada with the majority situated in Ontario and Quebec. In Ontario, one facility alone generates approximately 105,000 tonnes of ASR annually.

2.4.2 Composition

Typically, composition of ASR is as follows:

Material

Percentage

Plastics polyurethane foam, polyester,
polypropylene, polyvinyl chloride,
styrene, polyethylene, acrylic

15-25%

Inert Material gravel, sand, dirt, fines

15-25%

Paper/wood

15-25%

Glass

10-15%

Rubber

10-15%

Moisture

10-15%

Source: Brett Richards, Co-Steel Recycling, Whitby, Ontario, 1999

2.4.3 Management

In Ontario, most ASR is currently being disposed of in landfill, although some jurisdictions are using it as landfill daycover. ASR is classified as non-hazardous solid waste in Ontario. In Quebec, sampling methods designate the waste as hazardous.

2.4.4 Research

Considerable research has been done to find alternatives to landfilling ASR. In the United States, the Vehicle Recycling Partnership (VRP), which includes the "Big Three" auto manufacturers (Ford, General Motors and Daimler-Chrysler) and the plastic industry, has been actively looking at this issue. The VRP is a committee of the United States Consortium on Automotive Research (USCAR).

National Research Canada (NRC) has published a report entitled "ASR: An Assessment of Thermal Recycling as a Resource Recovery Option". The 200-page report presents detailed information on 16 pyrolysis processes and is based on comprehensive surveys of companies and organizations worldwide that are developing or using innovative thermal recovery techniques to recover resources from ASR and other organic materials (NRC, 1996).

Recently, the NRC’s Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technology (ICPET) has investigated the suitability of using ASR as a substitute material for landfill daycover (NRC, ICPET, 1999). According to ICPET, using ASR as a landfill daycover is more environmentally responsible and less expensive than other disposal options (NRC web site, 1999). ICPET has demonstrated that ASR is an excellent absorbant of heavy metals. Heavy metals can leach into the soil and water sources at landfill sites. Also, because ASR is compressible, it can reduce the overall volume of a landfill cell. ASR also facilitates drainage and provides good traction for equipment. ICPET researchers and various commercial shredding operators are encouraging municipalities to use ASR as an alternative to soil covers in their municipal landfills.

A 1998 study evaluating the use of ASR as a substitute fuel for coke in blast furnaces at steel mills is moving towards a testing phase. Funded by the Environment and Plastics Industry Council (EPIC) and the American Plastics Council (APC), the results of the study suggest that by substituting ASR for coke, blast furnaces can achieve significant cost savings and reduction in air emissions.

These examples represent only a sample of the research being conducted on ASR.

2.4.5 Manufacturer Initiatives

Manufacturers can influence the amount of ASR generated per vehicle through the materials they select to build their vehicles and the extent to which their vehicles can be dismantled. According to the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association (CVMA), manufacturers have sensitized their engineers to the need to design vehicles to incorporate the end-of-life vehicle concept. Initiatives to reduce the number of families of plastics used in vehicles and to increase the recycled content of new parts are now standard. Plastic components coding, which is now underway, will also aid in the separation of various plastic types during the dismantling process.

By specifying recycled stock in new automotive parts, manufacturers improve market demand for some recycled materials, thereby supporting the recycling infrastructure. However, the balance between performance criteria, customer expectations and the recyclability of vehicles must be considered by the manufacturers.

Work carried out by the VRP in the areas of fluid-recovery techniques, methods for removal of mercury switches, seat-foam recovery and dismantling procedures, represents a positive commitment from the automotive industry. However, that work has yet to translate into significant advancements in the Ontario auto recycling network.

2.5 Environmental Issues

Environmental impacts associated with the management of ELVs occur at both dismantling and shredding facilities. Hazardous fluids and components, if not handled properly, can contaminate the soil and ground water adjacent to these sites. One litre of motor oil alone has the potential to contaminate up to one million litres of water. CFCs and HCFCs not recovered, pose a risk to the earth’s ozone layer.

In addition, the inappropriate disposal of these waste materials results in a net loss of energy and non-renewable resources that could be reversed through re-refining and recycling. Given the 400,000 to 500,000 vehicles available for recycling every year, approximately 1.2-million litres of engine oil are available for reuse in Ontario annually from ELVs.

Mercury switches in vehicles (phased out in vehicles produced after 1991) generally are not removed from vehicles prior to shredding. Most vehicles that reach the ELV stage today are from 11 to 15 years old and, therefore, had mercury switches installed to activate the hood and trunk lights. Vehicles of this age typically have 800 mg of mercury contained in tilt switches. This means as much as 360 kg of mercury is generated from ELVs in Ontario each year. Mercury is a bioaccumulative, persistent toxic that threatens the health of humans and wildlife, even in extremely small quantities.

Because many of the dismantling and recycling facilities operating in Ontario today were established before modern land-use planning laws existed, they continue to exist as "legal non-conforming uses", but do not meet today’s standards. Often the ground at such facilities is heavily contaminated with oils and other pollutants (Estrin & Swaigen, 1993).

Increased generation of ASR and ultimate disposal reduces landfill capacity and increases the demand for new sites. This is not recognized as a sustainable long-term management option. Given that ASR is classified as hazardous material in Quebec, as well as other North American jurisdictions suggests that this material in itself poses a potential risk to the environment.

3.0 Management Practices in Other Jurisdictions

3.1 British Columbia

In 1993, the British Columbia Automotive Recyclers Association (BCAR), with financial help from Environment Canada and other partners, began developing an environmental code of practice for the removal, transportation and recycling of hazardous materials from ELVs, based on a pollution prevention approach. In 1995, the development of the environmental code of practice was completed. In 1996, industry training began, and the provincial government initiated work on a new regulation. The first draft of the Small Business Pollution Prevention Stewardship Regulation was completed in June, 1997 and has received general support from the sector.

The Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks proposed to enact the regulation that incorporates an industry code of practice in November, 1998. The regulation requires the safe removal, transportation and recycling of all hazardous residuals from ELVs by certified dismantlers and recyclers. Certification is to be determined through a self-inspection process, the development of pollution prevention plan for each business site and third-party verification.

The list of hazardous materials to be removed includes antifreeze, fuel, oils (crankcase, transmission and differential), brake and power steering fluid, windshield fluid, air-conditioning gases and mercury switches. The majority of the hazardous material will be reused or recycled.

To date, the Small Business Pollution Prevention Stewardship Regulation has not been passed by the legislature, and there is no indication when this may happen.

(Source: "Self-Managed EMS for Automotive Recyclers: A Performance-Based EMS Based On A P2 Approach", Global Environmental Management Systems Ltd.)

For more detailed information, please refer to Appendix D.

3.2 Nova Scotia

Although not presented at the Roles and Responsibilities Forum on April 28, 1999, RCO recently obtained a copy of Nova Scotia’s Abandoned Vehicle Recovery and Recycling Program Proposal prepared by the province’s Task Group on Abandoned Vehicle Recovery and Recycling. This proposal, resulted from the Nova Scotia Department of the Environment’s (NSDOE) introduction of a regulation requiring that a stewardship agreement be established to deal with derelict and "end-of-life vehicles". The Resource Recovery Fund Board Inc. (RRFB), working with industry and government, established the Task Group. The Task Group is endorsed by the Automobile Recyclers Association of Atlantic Canada and the Nova Scotia Automobile Dealers’ Association.

In order to finance the recovery of the more than 4,500 to 6,900 vehicles abandoned annually in Nova Scotia, the Task Group has proposed a $4.00, biannual fee to be paid for all on-road vehicle registrations. The fee would be administered by the Department of Business and Consumer Services, Registry of Motor Vehicles, and the resulting monies would be managed by the RRFB. Funds generated would be used to support vehicle recovery programs sought from, and put forth by, individual municipalities.

The proposal is currently being reviewed by the provincial government; no decision has been reached.

3.3 Europe

3.3.1 Government Legislated
EU Council Directive - End-of-Life Vehicles

The single most significant driver of both mandatory and voluntary environmental initiatives regarding the management of ELVs in Europe is the "Proposal for a Council Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles". While most member countries in the EU have laws or voluntary agreements with industry to deal with the management of end-of-life vehicles, a legally binding common European framework will avoid the inefficiency of various incompatible national initiatives that result in trade and competition distortions and higher overall costs.

The Proposal provides measures that are aimed at preventing the generation of wastes from end-of-life vehicles and to ensure vehicle dismantling and recycling is environmentally friendly. It sets clear, quantified targets for reuse, recycling and recovery of vehicles and their components and places responsibility for prevention measures on producers of automobiles. The proposal calls for manufacturers to place emphasis on design considerations, such as design-for-dismantling and design-for-recycling, recycled content in new vehicles and reduction of hazardous materials such as lead, hexavalent chromium and cadmium. Manufacturers are required to mark materials and components to aid in the dismantling process and provide disassembly manuals to recyclers to aid in the identification of hazardous components.

The European Directive applies the "Extended Producer Responsibility Principle", requiring manufacturers to take-back vehicles once they have reached the end of their lives at no cost to the consumer. There is also a requirement of a "certificate of destruction", needed to de-register the vehicle. De-registration must be done by the vehicle’s last owner at a licenced dismantler. All dismantlers must obtain a permit to handle ELVs. Conditions to obtain a permit include correct de-pollution procedures and designated parts removal in order to facilitate the reuse and recycling of batteries, tires, operating fluids, hazardous components, CFCs and air bags. Member states are also required to create a database of statistics on the treatment of end-of-life vehicles and their components.

However, the Directive was defeated during a EU Council vote in Luxembourg on June 23-24, despite a political consensus reached at the December 1998 Council meeting.

3.3.2 Voluntary Agreements and Initiatives
Consortium for Automotive Recycling (CARE)

CARE is a voluntary industry initiative in Britain made up of 15 automobile manufacturers and a growing number of vehicle dismantlers and recyclers. An industry response in anticipation of the EU Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles, the venture aims to raise the environmental standards of end-of-life vehicle disposal and recycling in the UK.

The agreement between manufacturers and the network of auto dismantlers and recyclers facilitates a free exchange of technical information between the two parties, but does not involve financial assistance from manufacturers. Dismantlers that participate in the program must meet minimum environmental and business standards in order to display the CARE logo.

Long-term goals of CARE are:

  1. To reduce the amount of automotive waste material going to landfill to an absolute minimum.
  2. To generate increased demand for material currently being sent to landfill.
  3. To eliminate pollution risks from the car disposal process, such as soil and water contamination by vehicle fluids.

CARE has established a number of working groups to address particular problematic materials requiring research and market development. The CARE Rubber, Energy Recovery and Plastics Recycling groups have been conducting research in their respective areas to decrease the amount of material entering landfill.

In the future, CARE aims to increase the number of dismantlers in its network. CARE will forward its findings to manufacturers to allow for future improvement of new vehicle designs and allow greater material recycling. The group hopes to develop segregation and recycling routes for additional non-metallic materials and plans to disseminate information on proven techniques and processes that can be adopted by the industry at large.

For more details, on government and voluntary programs in Europe, see Appendix D.

3.4 Japan

In October, 1996 the Ministry of International Trade and Industry passed legislation that addressed the management of end-of-life vehicle disposal in Japan. The law sets clear, quantified targets of 85% by 2002 and 95% by 2015 for the recycling of end-of-life vehicles. It also calls for manufacturers to reduce the amount of lead (Pb) in the manufacture of new vehicles.

4.0 Regulatory and Voluntary Management Framework in Ontario

4.1 Regulatory Overview

The regulatory framework that governs the automotive recycling industry in Ontario is complex and involves numerous provincial ministries as well as municipal by-laws. Under the Highway Traffic Act, dismantlers/recyclers must obtain either a Class C Garage Licence from the Ministry of Transportation or a Dealers D Licence from the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC). OMVIC is a self-managed industry organization that administers the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act for the Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Relations (MCCR). A D Licence is required by operations that buy and sell vehicles and provides an exemption from the C licence requirement.

Also at the provincial level, under the Environmental Protection Act, wrecking yards/dismantling yards are classified as waste disposal sites and require a Certificate of Approval to operate. The Ministry of the Environment has not issued Certificates of Approval for these sites since 1979 and considers the regulation of the sites to be a municipal responsibility.

At the municipal level, a dismantler/recycler may also be subject to municipal zoning by-laws and licences. Under the Ontario Planning Act, municipalities may regulate the design, location and operation of dismantlers/recyclers using the official plan, zoning by-laws, site plan and control and property standard by-laws.

Although municipalities have the authority to licence "scrap yards", a term that includes scrap metal yards, junk yards and autowrecking yards, they often do not have the resources or expertise to monitor and inspect these facilities (Estrin and Swaigen, 1993)

In addition, there appears to be little, if any, environmental protection monitoring or enforcement of the "C" licence administered by MTO or the D licence by OMVIC. The Ministry of Transportation has stated that it will not regulate environmental impacts associated with the industry.

4.2 Ministry of Transportation

4.2.1 Highway Traffic Act

Under subsection 41 "Garage and Storage Licences" of the Highway Traffic Act, all persons in the business of wrecking or dismantling vehicles must be licenced with the MTO. However, this does not apply to a person who is registered as a motor vehicle dealer in accordance with the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act.

Regulation 595 "Garage Licences" requires that an annual $25.00-per-premise fee be paid to the MTO for a licence to buy and wreck motor vehicles. The MTO may also require that the applicant provide proof that the proposed operation will not be in contravention of any by-law of the municipality in which it will be located. Anyone in the business of wrecking or dismantling vehicles must send the ownership permit to the MTO. In theory, this provides the ministry with information on the number of vehicles officially "wrecked" in a given year.

Over the years, the issuance of new C licences has decreased. The Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association estimates that about 10% of its membership operates with such a licence. Since most recyclers/dismantlers are also involved in the buying and selling of vehicles, they opt for a D Licence, which covers both activities. But because there are no requirements for D Licence holders to submit vehicle permits to the MTO once a vehicle has been "wrecked", an accurate count of the number of vehicles processed in Ontario is not achievable.

4.2.2 Stolen and Salvage Vehicle Project

In June 1994, the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) approved a model national program for the identification and control of wrecked vehicles in Canada. With the goal of a national harmonized system, the program identifies rebuilt vehicles that have been stolen or badly damaged (written off) and ensures that the vehicle’s history remains permanently identifiable.

The objectives of the CCMTA model program are:

  1. To prevent the reintroduction of stolen vehicles using identification number of a vehicle declared a total loss that is falsely declared to have been rebuilt.
  2. To ensure the safety of all wrecked vehicles that are genuinely rebuilt.
  3. To make stolen parts harder to conceal when damaged vehicles are being rebuilt.

The Ministry of Transportation’s new "Stolen and Salvage Vehicle Program" has created a voluntary "branding" process for Ontario’s registration files and permits, based on the CCMTA model. The "brand" describes the status of vehicles that are stolen or badly damaged on the vehicles permit. There are currently four brand designations: stolen, irreparable, salvage and rebuilt.

Currently, branding of vehicles that are "written off" by insurers is voluntary.

For a full explanation of the Stolen and Salvage Vehicle Program, please see Appendix D

4.3 Ministry of the Environment

4.3.1 Environmental Protection Act Part V

In general, waste in the province is managed under provisions of the Environmental Protection Act, Part V. Although there are a number of regulations that concern waste management, Regulation 347 is most commonly referred to with respect to wastes generated at facilities engaging in vehicle dismantling.

A "waste disposal site" is defined in the Environmental Protection Act as follows:

(a) any land upon, into, in or through which, or building or structure in which, waste is deposited, disposed of, handled, stored, transferred, treated or processed and

(b) any operation carried out or machinery or equipment used in conjunction with the depositing, disposal, handling, storage, transfer, treatment or processing referred to in clause (a)

In 1979 the Ministry of the Environment and Energy amended this regulation to exempt "motor vehicle sites", a term that includes auto-wrecking facilities, scrap yards and junk yards, from all of Part V of the Environmental Protection Act and Regulation 347. This amendment means that these sites do not require a Certificate of Approval and are not subject to standards set out in the regulation. Prior to the amendment, the regulation specified standards for the location and operation of derelict motor vehicle sites. The standards stipulated that sites be located where nuisance from dust, noise and traffic would be minimized and screened from view. In addition, the standards required that all operating fluids such as crank case oil, antifreeze and brake fluids be drained and disposed of in a manner approved by the ministry.

While motor vehicle sites are exempt from Part V of the EPA and Regulation 347, the Ministry of the Environment’s Keith West, speaking at the Roles and Responsibilities Forum on April 28, 1999 said that under Regulation 347, there are very specific requirements regarding what the MOE calls subject waste, which ensure that recyclers have a generator registration licence as required under the regulation. The regulation also ensures that materials moved off of a site are manifested properly.

In addition, the MOE’s document C-11-1 entitled "Procedures for the Handling and Disposal of Selected Wastes from Retail Motor Vehicle Servicing Facilities" (which is loosely tied to auto recyclers since many hold D licences), states that in order to be exempt from manifest and registration requirements, the service station operator must have a current written agreement for the collection and management of wastes with a carrier approved under Part V of the Environmental Protection Act.

4.3.2 Environmental Protection Act Part VII

Part VII of the EPA also deals with abandoned motor vehicles and provides ministry inspectors and police officers powers to enforce the collection of derelict vehicles being left to decay in driveways and fields.

4.3.3 General Waste Regulation (Proposed)

In the MOE’s proposed "General Waste Regulation", the exemption of "derelict motor vehicle site" from the definition of a "waste disposal site" remains unchanged.

There is some confusion surrounding the environmental regulatory requirements of persons involved in the business of vehicle disposal given the current legislation. It is uncertain what role the Ministry of the Environment plays in the management of vehicle disposal and recycling.

4.4 Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations

4.4.1 Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act

The Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act is administered by a self-managed, not-for-profit organization called the Ontario Motor Vehicle Industry Council (OMVIC). The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is responsible for this legislation.

Under the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, OMVIC administers the D licence. A D licence is necessary in order to receive an exemption under the Highway Traffic Act’s C licence requirement to "wreck vehicles." Therefore, a dismantler/recycler can conduct business with a D licence providing it is are selling vehicles and adhere to all municipal bylaws that apply to site.

4.5 Municipal Governments

In 1979, when the Ministry of the Environment amended Regulation 347 to exempt motor vehicle sites from the requirement of a certificate of disposal, municipalities in effect were told that problems associated with wrecking yards were a local problem to be dealt with using planning and licensing by-laws (Estrin and Swaigen, 1993).

4.5.1 Planning Act

Under the Planning Act, municipalities have the power to regulate the location, design and operation of vehicle recycling sites using a variety of mechanisms including the official plan, property standard and zoning by-laws and site plan control.

4.5.2 Municipal Act

Prior to 1996, Section 233 of the Ontario Municipal Act (repealed 1196, c.1, Sched. M, s.17) defined "salvage yards" as a generic term that included junk yards, scrap metal yards and autowrecking yards. However, Section 210.136 gives municipalities the authority to pass by-laws prohibiting or regulating and inspecting the use of land or structures for storing used motor vehicles for the purpose of wrecking or dismantling them or salvaging parts thereof for sale or other disposal.

4.6 Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association (OARA)

OARA has proposed that an Ontario Vehicle Recycling Industry Council (OVRIC) be established to accredit and licence businesses that process irreparable and end-of-life vehicles. Based on the model currently being considered for approval in British Columbia, this model would take an industry self-management approach. OVRIC would coordinate self-administered checklists and would develop pollution prevention plans with full training. Crucial to the process, an independent third-party auditor would be contracted to undertake site evaluations. This certification would be open to all business involved in the recycling/dismantling of automobiles. OARA has received letters of support from various stakeholders in the industry, including the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association, Used Car Dealers Association, Hamilton Autobody Repair Association and the Recycling Council of Ontario. OARA has also presented its model to stakeholders at the Stolen and Salvage Committee of the MTO. OARA proposal is described in more detail in Appendix D.

4.7 Collision Industry Standards Council of Ontario (CISCO)

CISCO has been created out of extensive work done by a number of partners, including the autobody industry and federal and provincial governments. The Hamilton District Autobody Repair Association (HARA) partnered with Environment Canada and the MOE to develop and promote sound business practices and operating procedures in this sector. HARA was instrumental in assisting the CCME in the development of a code of practice for autobody shops, including new national standards for VOC reduction.

In March 1995, HARA and the MOE signed a partnership agreement to develop and disseminate information on environmentally sound business procedures and good operating practices. Last year, HARA, with the financial support of the MOE and Environment Canada held "Industry Profitability Workshops" across Ontario. The workshops have provided information on CCME’s VOC emission standards, efficient paint application techniques, the MTO’s program on inspection and branding of rebuilt vehicles, the avoidance of problems through good environmental practices and industry self-management and accreditation.

More recently, HARA and the Collision Industry Action Group (CIAG) have proposed The Auto Body Repair, Registration, Inspection and Verification (ARRIV) program to assist with the organization of standards for the industry. The industry has approached the MOE to request sector self-management. With sector self-management only facilities certified by ARRIV would be able to operate in Ontario.

The Collision Industry Standards Council of Ontario (CISCO) will be responsible for an industry self-management certification program for autobody facilities in Ontario. CISCO’s proposal, which is currently being reviewed by MCCR, to regulate the proposed new requirement under the Automotive Repair Act identifies the need to monitor environmental performance of players in the autobody repair industry and level the playing field with respect to environmental compliance and performance.

4.8 Draft Recommendations

Ontario is lacking the necessary legislation and regulations to ensure that environmental impacts associated with the management of ELVs are avoided. Other jurisdictions in Canada, Europe and Japan have taken steps to address the problem. Ontario needs to re-evaluate its approach to dealing with the management of ELVs.

There is a willingness by the OARA to self-regulate the industry. However, backdrop legislation is required to bring currently non-conforming businesses in-line. The Ministry of Transportation, Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations have all indicated that, at the current time, there are no resources to address this situation. Without the provincial government’s leadership, there are few incentives for auto recyclers to self-regulate their business.

During the Roles and Responsibilities Forum on April 28, 1999 the need for a new statute to deal with the issue of regulating automotive dismantling/recycling businesses was discussed. There are precedents for this: Provincial statutes, such as the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act and the Automotive Repair Act, have branched away from the Highway Traffic Act to deal with specific issues within the automotive industry. OMVIC was set up to administer the Dealers Act, on behalf of the MCCR.

The situation in the automotive dismantling/recycling industry today has many similarities to the situation in the autobody industry. The steps that that industry has taken, with its proposed ARRIV program, apply to the ELV issue.

Recommendation 1:

Environment Canada should consider funding a project to develop a national "code of practice" for the automotive dismantling/recycling industry.

RCO was not able to identify any guidelines or best practices documents produced by Ontario ministries. However, other jurisdictions in Canada (British Columbia for example) have addressed the issue. Environment Canada contributed funding to develop pollution prevention initiatives for the auto recycling industry in British Columbia including "Best Management Practices, Technical Pollution Prevention Guide", and "Code of Practice for the Auto Recycling Industry". A national code of practice developed under the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) and the Canadian Council of Motor Transport Administrators (CCMTA) would allow for a harmonized system that could be implemented nationally.

Recommendation 2: (Part 1)

All businesses involved in dismantling ELVs and irreparable vehicles should require certification or accreditation consistent with environmental protection standards developed by industry, government and other stakeholders.

Recommendation 2: (Part 2)

Provincial ministries should consider the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association Self-Regulation Model to accredit and monitor the industry’s activities.

Since few resources to regulate the auto dismantling industry are available, Ontario should consider the Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association Self-Regulation Model to accredit and monitor the vehicle recycling industry.

Recommendation 3:

The Ontario Ministry of the Environment should re-evaluate the exemption of the derelict motor vehicle sites from Part V and Regulation 347 of the Environmental Protection Act and within its new Waste Management Regulation Draft.

Derelict motor vehicle sites handle thousands of litres of petroleum products, such as lubricating fluids, and other hazardous materials, including batteries, antifreeze, ozone-depleting substances, such as CFCs, and mercury containing switches. Just as businesses recycling more benign substances are subject to the requirements of a Certificate of Approval, so too should businesses handling these substances.

Recommendation 4:

In Ontario, all ELV dismantlers and recyclers should be required to have a C licence. Exemptions for D licence holders should be discontinued.

Recommendation 5:

The voluntary permit branding program for vehicles that have been "written off" by insurance companies should become a mandatory program.

5.0 Outstanding Issues/Opportunities

At the Roles and Responsibilities Forum on April 28, 1999, auto manufacturers outlined their companies internal targets for reuse and recycling of ELVs. These targets are "more aggressive" than European targets. Yet, the effectiveness of these initiatives is questionable given the fact that Canada lacks source-separation initiatives at the dismantling stage. Currently, the cost of removing non-metallic components from ELVs outweighs the economic return from recycling. Very few markets have been explored, and there appears to be no work underway to improve the situation.

Recommendation 6:

Environment Canada should develop mandatory targets for reuse and recycling of end-of-life vehicles (ELVs) similar to those in other jurisdictions such as Europe and Japan.

Recommendation 7:

The automotive manufacturers and importers in Canada along with governments, and vehicle recyclers and shredders should create a Multi-Stakeholder Task Force to fund and address the issue of Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) generation in Canada.

The current infrastructure and level of recycling of end-of-life vehicles, which results in the disposal of ASR in landfill, is not acceptable. All stakeholders recognize that this practice is not a long-term sustainable solution. Greater communication between all links in the management chain of ELVs needs to be established in order to facilitate changes in operational practices and the implementation of new technologies. New recycling markets for non-metallic components are needed to encourage recovery of material. Although considerable work has been conducted to address this situation in some sectors of the industry, it has taken place in an uncoordinated manner.

While in Ontario, and across the country, economic and environmental drivers to push forward further initiatives to reduce ASR are absent. European targets for reduction and reuse have stimulated innovative responses from industry to tackle the ELV issue.

Canadian automotive manufacturers and their suppliers must work together with Canadian dismantlers to disseminate such information as the location of substances of concern in vehicles, removal techniques and where design changes have facilitated ease of disassembly. Manufacturers should be promoting the capture of non-metallic components by supporting markets through the purchase of secondary materials captured by dismantlers. Research should continue to assess best practices to manage ASR. The Canadian automotive industry and its suppliers, government and members of the dismantling and shredding industry should partner to develop a multi-stakeholder committee to tackle issues surrounding the management of ELVs.

6.0 References

American Iron and Steel Institute, Summary Report - Recycling State-of-the-Art for Scrapped Automobiles, Michigan, 1992

Canadian Plastics Industry Association, General Overview of Plastics, 1999

Environment and Plastics Industry Council, ASR study says results ready for testing, News and Views, Vol. 5, issue 2, pg. 3, 1998

Estrin and Swaigen, Environment on Trial: A Guide to Environmental Law and Policy, 3rd Edition, Edmond Montgomery Publications Ltd., 1993

McKean, C., Self-Managed EMS for Automotive Recyclers: A Performance-Based EMS on a P2 Approach, Global Environmental Management Systems Ltd. ,1998

National Research Council Canada, Brochure: Automobile Shredder Residue: An Assessment of Thermal Recycling as a Recovery Option, 1996

National Research Council Canada - Institute for Chemical Processes and Environmental Technology, Automobile Shredder Residue (ASR) as a Landfill Daycover, 1999

Ontario Automotive Recyclers Association., The Auto Recycling Story, www.oara.com, 1999