-------
SOLID WASTES IN THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
This report (SW-20C) was written by
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc., Engineers,
under Contract No. PH 86-68-212
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1970
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was supported by the United States Public Health Service, Bureau of
Solid Waste Management, Contract No. PH 86-68-212.
We acknowledge the generous cooperation of Mr. Rodney L. Cummins, Project
Officer, and Mr. Henry T. Hudson, Engineer. Mr. George Garland, Chief,
Statistical Services, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, also provided valuable
technical assistance. Many public and private agencies cooperated in the survey;
both the Automotive Service Industry Association and the Automobile Manufacturers
Association distributed questionnaires to their member firms, and many automotive
industry plant and public agency personnel generously assisted our staff engineers'
field surveys.
-------
ABSTRACT
A 24-month study of solid waste and scrap generation, and related plant
management practices, in the automotive industry was performed. The industry was
categorized and defined in accordance with the United States Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes 3711, 3712, 3713, and 3714. Special and custom vehicle
and body manufacturers in SIC 3711, 3712, and 3713; and the parts and accessories
suppliers in SIC 3714 were surveyed. The results of an in-house survey of Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AMA) member plants covering all four SIC Codes is
included in this report.
The information presented was derived from five principle sources:
(1) industry-related publications and general references; (2) automotive industry trade
associations; (3) questionnaires received from 43 different manufacturing plants within
the four SIC Codes; (4) questionnaires from cities within 48 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA) with automotive industry plants; and (5) field interviews and
studies completed at a representative cross section of 74 manufacturing and assembly
plants. The questionnaires were developed in cooperation with industry, the Bureau
of Solid Waste Management, and other authorities.
A general description is given of the industry plant locations, minimum estimated
plant values, vehicle production, employment, industry employee productivity,
products, and manufacturing processes. Waste and scrap generation sources are
Identified; handling, collection, and disposal methods and their costs are presented;
and the effects of automotive industry plant wastes on the environment and community
are discussed. Stepwise multiple regression was applied to the investigation of plant
parameters for predicting waste and scrap generation.
- ii -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS i
ABSTRACT if
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS USED IN REPORT xv
SUMMARY 1
History 1
Study Objectives 1
Procedures 2
Results 2
INTRODUCTION 5
THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY 7
Definition of the Industry 7
Industry Structure 8
Historical Background 8
Period of Study 9
Industry Distribution According to SIC Codes 9
Geographic Location 10
Employment Trends 10
Production Capabilities of the Industry 11
New Plant Locations 11
PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES 12
Industry Plant Types 12
Automotive Industry Products 13
Automobiles 13
Models 13
Optional Equipment 13
Trucks 14
Buses 14
Vehicle Components 15
- in -
-------
Page
Product Trends 15
Vehicle Size Trends 15
Product Materials Trend 16
Effects of Technology on Products 16
Industry Cost Effects 16
Government Regulations and Product Trends 17
Vehicle Safety Codes 17
Product Changes from Air Pollution Regulations 17
Plant Operations 17
Identification of Plant Operations Generating Solid Waste
and Scrap 17
Office Operations 18
Food Service Operations 18
Packaging, Receiving, and Shipping Operations 18
Processing Operations 19
Process Trends 19
Process Choice 19
Product-Process Schematics 20
Mass Production—Automobile and Small Truck Assembly,
SIC 3711 20
Specie I-Purpose Truck and Bus Manufacturing, SIC 3711 20
Body and Trim Fabrication, SIC 3712 and 3713 20
Parts Manufacturing: Machine and Foundry, SIC 3714 21
Engine Manufacturing 21
Transmission and Parts 22
Front-End Assemblies 22
Chassis 22
Miscellaneous Vehicle Components 23
Automotive Springs 23
Seats 23
-Iv-
-------
Air, Fuel, and Oil Filters/Cleaners 23
Air Conditioner and Heater Units 23
METHODS AND PROCEDURES 23
Industry Sample Structure 23
Sampling Methodology 24
Industry Visit Criteria 24
Statistical Methods 24
Plant Contact Procedure 25
Plant Data 25
Industry Coverage 26
Plant Visits 26
Geography 26
Plant Value 26
Employment 26
Product Type 26
Response to Questionnaire Survey 27
AMA Survey Response 27
Community Sample 27
Survey Procedure 27
Community Survey Response 28
Data Reliability 28
Industry Coverage 28
Sample Representativeness 28
Data Accuracy 28
DATA ANA LYSIS 29
General Approach 29
Automotive Industry Solid Waste and Scrap Prediction 30
Industry Waste Prediction 30
- v -
-------
Page
Automotive Industry Solid Waste Prediction 31
Industry Scrap Estimates 31
Industry Materials Balance 32
Prediction of Solid Wastes and Scrap for Individual Plants,
Plant Groups, and Regional Area 32
Model Formulation 32
Stepwise Linear Regression 33
Discussion of the Model 34
Waste Management in the Automotive Industry Plants Sampled 34
Handling and Collection Methods at the Plant Source 34
Equipment Use Factors 36
Labor Aspects of Waste Management 37
Waste Storage Practices 37
Salvage Practices 38
Waste and Scrap Management Methods 39
Waste Col lection Practices 41
The Economics of Waste Management Systems 41
Special Problems in Waste Management 43
Efficiency of Waste Management Systems 44
Aesthetics of Waste and Scrap Management Practices 44
Industry Management Attitudes 45
Waste Management Trends 46
Community Relations 47
Discussion of Specific Problems 47
Municipal Disposal Costs 48
Solid Waste Records 48
Community and Industry Views of Each Other Concerning
Solid Waste Management 49
Automotive Industry Views of Government Roles 49
Pollution and Aesthetics 50
The Role of Government in Solid Waste Management 51
Geographic Trends in Waste Disposal 51
CONCLUSIONS 52
Industry Structure 52
VI
-------
Industry Plants
Employment
Product Changes
Solid Waste Estimation
Statistical Waste Prediction Parameters
Waste Estimation
Scrap Estimation
Waste Management
Salvage Operations
Scrap
Waste Management Efficiency
Environmental Aspects of Automotive Industry Wastes
Municipal Industrial Waste Management Policies
TABLES
FIGURES
PLATES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
Glossary
Automotive Industry Plant Questionnaire
Plant Visit Interview Information Sheet
Municipal Questionnaire
Municipal Interview Sheet
AMA Questionnaire
FIELD SURVEY STAFF-TRAINING PROCEDURE
Weight Estimates
Questionnaires and Interview Procedure
Field Training
APPENDIX D AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PROCESS DESCRIPTION
APPENDIX C
52
52
53
53
53
54
54
54
54
55
55
55
56
57
105
151
158
161
162
165
168
169
170
172
172
172
172
173
VII
-------
Page
Casting 173
Forging 173
Machining 174
Fabrication—Cutting, Trimming, and Forming 175
REFERENCES 176
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 179
•*•
- vin -
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Toble No. Title Page
1 United States Automotive Industry Vehicle Production 57
2 United States Automotive Industry Productivity 58
3 Major Automotive Industry Production Centers 59
4 Models Offered 1948-1969 63
5 Selected "Optional" Equipment Installations 64
6 Automotive Vehicle Parts Groupings 65
7 Relative Material Loss for Manufacturing Processes 66
8 Examples of Increased Equipment Productivity 67
9 Automotive Industry Plants: (Visited/Surveyed)/lndustry
Total 68
10 Automotive Industry Plant Values in Millions of Dollars:
(Visited/Surveyed)/Industry Total 69
11 Automotive Industry Employment: (Visited/Surved)/
Industry Total 71
12 Automotive Industry Survey—Production Coverage
(Excluding AMA Survey) 73
13 Industry Questionnaire Data Replies 75
14 Summary of Reasons for Not Answering Mailed Plant
Questionnaire 77
15 AMA Questionnaire Replies 78
16 Summary of Municipal Survey 80
17 Summary of Mailed Municipal Questionnaire Responses 81
IX
-------
Table No. Title Page
18 Automotive Industry Waste Estimates 82
19 Weight of Scrap Produced in the Manufacture of a
Composite Automobile 83
20 Weight of Scrap Produced in the Manufacture of a
Composite Truck and Bus 85
21 Composition of Typical Automobile 87
22 Automotive Industry Materials Balance Scrap Estimate 88
23 Waste Prediction—Stepwise Regression 89
24 Waste Prediction—Stepwise Regression 90
25 Scrap Prediction—Stepwise Regression 91
26 Scrap Prediction—Stepwise Regression 92
27 Distribution of Container Sizes (Visited-Plant Data) 93
28 Waste-Handling Equipment Use 94
29 Equipment Use by Plant Value 95
30 Plant Scrap and Waste Segregation Practices (70 Plants) 96
31 AMA Survey Salvage 97
32 Incineration Use in Automotive Plants 99
33 Major Geographic Regions Reporting Incinerator Use 100
34 AMA Survey of In-Plant Processing by Burning 101
35 Plant Solid Waste Final Disposal Destination 102
36 Plant Waste and Scrap Removal Schedules—Percent Plants 103
37 Collection Costs Reported by AMA Member Plants 103
38 list of Process Schematic Symbols 104
- x -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page
1 Minimum Total Tangible Assets~SIC 3711 105
2 Minimum Total Tangible Assets—SIC 3712 106
3 Minimum Total Tangible Assets—SIC 3713 107
4 Minimum Total Tangible Assets—SIC 3714 108
5 Major Automobile Assembly Locations, 1969 109
6 Employee Productivity Long-Term Trend 110
7 Employee Productivity—Fitted Linear Short-Term Trend 111
8 U. S. Population/Car Use Relationships 112
9 Major Automotive Production Centers—Northeast and
Central 113
10 Major Automotive Production Centers—Southeast 114
11 Major Automotive Production Centers—Plains States 115
12 Major Automotive Production Centers—West Coast 116
13 Weight of an Average Car and Truck/Bus 117
14 Material Consumption 118
15 Forging a Connecting Rod 119
16 Turning Operations 120
17 Basic Machine Tool Operations 121
18 Six-Station Transfer Machine for Exhaust Manifold
Machining 122
19 Automobile Assembly Schematic 123
- xi
-------
Figure No. Title Page
20 Custom Bus Assembly Plant 124
21 Custom Truck Body and Vehicle Manufacturing
—SIC 3711 125
22 Automobile Bodies, Mass Production—SIC 3712 126
23 Custom Truck Body Production Process Schematic
—SIC 3713 127
24 Vehicle Trim Production Schematic 128
25 Automotive Engine Block, Head, and Camshaft Casting
Schematic 129
26 Crankshaft and Camshaft Bearing Process Schematic 130
27 Engine Manufacturing and Assembly 131
28 Flywheel and Ring Gear Manufacturing 132
29 Transmission Production and Assembly 133
30 Forging: Transmission and Differential Gears, and Axle
Shafts 134
31 Axle Shaft Manufacturing 135
32 Front End: Linkage and Universal Joints 136
33 Front End: Idler Arm, Yoke, and Tie Rod Ends 137
34 Bumper Manufacturing 138
35 Muffler and Tailpipe Fabrication 139
36 Automotive Spring Manufacturing 140
37 Seat Manufacturing 141
38 Air Cleaner/Filter, Oil Filter Fabrication 142
- xii -
-------
Figure No. Title Page
39 Flow Process Chart for Manufacturing of Compact Air
Conditioning and Heater Units 143
40 Plant Sites Visited 144
41 Plant Survey Sample Distribution 145
42 Waste Production Per Employee in Automotive Industry
Plants 146
43 Distribution of Bin Sizes in Automotive Plants 147
44 Solid Waste Collection-Disposal Costs 148
45 Self-Rating By Plants of Their Waste-Handling and Disposal
Methods 149
46 Industry/Municipality Cross Rating of Present Waste
Management 150
- xin
-------
LIST OF PIATES
Plate No. Title
Page
1 Manufacturing Scrap 151
2 Typical Plant Solid Wastes 152
3 Typical In-PIant Waste and Scrap Containers 153
4 In-PIant Waste- and Scrap-Handling Equipment 154
5 Waste- and Scrap-Hand I ing Equipment in Outside Storage
Areas 155
6 External Waste and Scrap Storage 156
7 Waste Burners in Small Automotive Plants 157
xiv -
-------
DEFINITION OF KEY TERMS USED IN REPORT
Automotive industry—in this report refers to all of the companies and their plants
defined by Standard Industrial Classification Codes 3711, 3712, 3713, and
3714. These plants manufacture automobiles, trucks, buses, and vehicle
parts.
Average vehicle—denotes the vehicle derived by weighting the typical mean
automobile and typical mean truck and bus by the proportion of each produced
(see definition of "weight of an average vehicle").
Bin—a large enclosed stationary container structure or cubicle used for storage of a
given material.
Composite automobile—a typical automobile which is formulated from the major
components installed in new automobiles produced (see Table 6).
Composite truck and bus—see definition of "composite automobile."
Container—general term for any enclosure or receptacle that can contain something,
as a box, bin, drum, barrel, bag, can, cubicle, etc.
Cubicle—a stationary materials storage structural container open at the top having
three side walls with or without a door. The walls are commonly of wood or
concrete. Large cubicles will be designated as bins.
Drums—those containers having a cylindrical shape, generally uncovered and open at
one end. Commonly used in reference to 55 gal drums.
Salvage—waste materials that are not reclaimed as normal commercial-industrial
scrap. Originates primarily in nonmanufacturing operations and is generally
comprised of nonmetals.
Weight of an average automobile—a unit weight representing all automobiles
produced in a given year, derived as follows:
y-. [(curb wt of model i) x (number of units of model ? produced in year)]
.^j total automobile production
Weight of an average truck and bus—a unit weight representing all trucks and buses
produced in a given year derived as follows:
- xv
-------
n [(curb wt of model 1) x (number of units of model i (truck and bus)
£ produced in year)] .—
]=1 total truck and bus production
Weight of an average vehicle (car, truck/bus)--a weighted average of cars and
trucks/buses produced in a given year, derived as follows:
[(wt of an average car) x (total number of automobiles produced) + (wt of
on average truck/bus) x (total number of trucks/buses produced)]
total vehicle production
-xvi
-------
SUMMARY
History
In the early 1900's, the automotive industry consisted of many small vehicle
manufacturers and parts suppliers. The trend toward consolidation of companies began
in 1911 and in 1969 there were onfy four major automobile manufacturers. In addition,
there were more than 2,000 manufacturers of parts and custom vehicles, some of whom
supplied the major manufacturers.
The first mass production assembly line was installed at the Ford Motor Company
in 1913. Since then, the line has been improved by the standardizing of parts, using
computers to schedule assembly of several vehicle styles on one production line, and
by introducing multistation transfer machines, which automatically perform several
machining operations.
During World War II, materials shortages provided industry-wide impetus for
improved management of scrap and solid waste. The large manufacturers began
installing chip conveyors, crushers, balers, and machine oil recovery equipment.
In 1969, the industry comprised 2,638 plants with a minimum estimated plant
valuation of approximately $1,695,000,000. Thirty-six percent of the industry plants
were located in the Midwest, with Michigan and Ohio containing the greatest number
of large plants. Michigan was the leading vehicle producing state with 34 percent of
total automobile production in 1969.
The rate of increase in the industry's overall productivity, expressed in man-hours
per vehicle produced, is declining. This trend is the basis of recent (1969) comments
by industry management that costs per vehicle have risen because of the lower rate at
which productivity is increasing.
In the peak production year of 1965, more than 9 million cars and 1.7 million
trucks were manufactured. The average number of hours worked per week by each
employee was 44.2. For the period 1970-1975, the industry's production is projected
to be 13 to 15 million vehicles per year.
Study Objectives
The objectives of the study were the following:
1. To determine the character and quantity of solid waste and scrap materials
generated by automotive plants
-------
2. To identify the sources of solid waste and scrap generation
determine handling, collection, storage, and disposal methods and
3. To
costs
4. To determine the effects of plant waste and scrap on the environment and
community
Procedures
The study was conducted in four parts as follows: (1) questionnaires were mailed
to 1,700 automotive industry plants; (2) questionnaires were mailed to 235 municipalities
in which automotive plants were located; (3) field visits were made to 74 plants and 11
municipalities; and (4) the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA) provided
questionnaires from a survey of 217 of its member plants. The information sought from
each plant included the following: types and quantities of product, solid waste and
scrap; waste management practices and costs; plant layout and process schematics; and
comments on anticipated changes in waste management practices. The municipal
authorities were questioned on industry waste problems and plant-municipal solid waste
management policies related to environmental quality.
Of 1,700 plant questionnaires mailed, 138 were returned, and 43 of these were
sufficiently complete for quantitative data analysis and an additional 29 were useful
in supplying qualitative data. Forty-eight responses were received from municipal
authorities, and seven of these contained useful information.
Results
The types and relative quantities, by weight (wet),* of solid wastes generated
in the automotive industry were estimated to be as follows (by percent): paper and
cloth (3.7); cardboard (4.8); wood (3.4); rubber (0.4); plastics (0.4); oils, paints,
and thinners (1.1); cans, bands, and wire (0.8); garbage (3.4); sludges and slurries
(30.5); and inert solids (51.6). Solid wastes amounted to 1,600 Ib per 3,694 Ib
average vehicle (car, truck, bus) produced in 1969.
The sources of the plants' solid wastes determined by the field survey (excluding
AMA member plants) were the following (by percent): machine and foundry operations
consisting of machining, forging, casting, drilling, and grinding (49.4); trimming and
cutting operations (3.5); offices (3.3); cafeterias (2.3); packaging and shipping (26.3);
and general plant operations (15.2).
The types and relative quantities, by weight, of scrap generated in plants
* All solid waste and scrap weights are described as received, i.e., wet weight.
-2-
-------
sampled* by the project engineer were the following (in percent): ferrous (97);
aluminum (1.65); bronze (0.6); and mixed copper, brass, and zinc (0.75). The weight
of scrap generated during the manufacture of a composite vehicle was 1,000 Ib.
The major nonmetal waste materials salvaged"1" were cardboard (26.7 percent)
and slag (57.9 percent) by weight of salvaged materials. Salvage materials amounted
to about 8 percent, by weight, of the solid wastes reported by AMA member plants.*
Waste- and scrap-handling equipment was used in 77.1 percent (54) of the 70
plants visited that supplied information.? Hand trucks, tow trucks, forklifts, industrial
trucks, belt conveyors, and vacuum systems were used to transfer materials.
Containers for solid waste and scrap located at the generation source and for
storage ranged from 2/3 to 80 cu yd capacity. Stationary storage bins located outside
the plant buildings ranged from 71 to 272 cu yd capacity. The most frequently used
containers were 55-gal drums, observed in 66 percent of the 70 plants. The 55-gai
drums are widely used because they are salvaged packaging containers and thus cost
nothing.
Magnets, shredders, shears, balers, crushers, centrifuges, and compactors were
observed in plants with estimated minimum values exceeding $300,000. Compactors,
the most widely used equipment, were observed in 23 percent of the 70 plants. The
motivation for compactor use was the reduced collection costs for transporting the
smaller solid waste volumes.
Solid waste segregation was practiced at the generation source in 20 percent of
the 70 plants and at the waste storage area in 11 percent. Scrap was segregated at
the source in 47 percent of the plants, and at the storage area in 13 percent.
Segregation both at the source and in storage areas was practiced for waste in 9 percent
and for scrap in 21 percent of these plants. Thirteen percent of the plants, all of
which employed fewer than 100 workers, did not segregate materials. Paper, wood,
cardboard, and plastic wastes were not segregated unless a salvage market existed for
them. Of 158 AMA member plants, 42 percent reported they salvaged materials. Of
the total 440,999 tons/yr of salvage, slag and cardboard comprised 58 and 27 percent,
respectively.
The major alternatives for disposal of solid waste were processing at the plant
and utilization of disposal areas outside the plant. At the plant, the methods for
* For purposes of this report, "sampled" refers to the sum of plants which were
visited by the project engineer's staff and responding to the engineer's questionnaire.
+ For this report, "salvaged" refers to solid wastes sold for reuse.
* Of 217 questionnaires received from the AMA, 158 contained usable
information.
§ Although 74 plants were visited, usable information was obtained from only 70.
-3-
-------
waste processing and disposal were incineration and landfill. With the exception of
foundries, where metal by-products were recycled for reuse, most plants sold their
scrap to private dealers. Incinerators, found in 28 percent of the plants sampled by
the project engineer, were the most widely used waste-processing equipment.
Twenty-four of the 32 incinerators were installed in large plants with values greater
than $1 million. Incineration was most prevalent on the fist Coast and in the Midwest.
Although air pollution regulations are becoming more stringent (1970), these large
plants tended to view incineration favorably.
The major factors influencing a company's solid waste management policy were
costs, air pollution regulations, and the quantities of waste generated. The greater
the waste quantities, the more feasible incineration became as a method of volume
reduction, despite the added expense of air pollution control equipment.
Of 271 plants (Including AMA member plants), 37 percent hauled their own
wastes, 76 percent used private collectors, 6.7 percent used public collectors, and
25.5 percent used more than one of the above collectors. Public collection was used
primarily for cafeteria garbage and office trash. The least frequent collection schedule
was twice a month. Combined costs of waste collection and disposal for the entire
industry decreased from an average of $80 per ton for 1 ton per month to $1.3 per ton
for 10,000 tons per month. Self collection at $24.48* per ton was the most expensive,
private collection at $22.98* per ton was the next most expensive, and public
collection was least expensive at $8.08* per ton, as reported by AMA member plants.
Landfill disposal costs reported by AMA member plants averaged $4.94 per ton of
waste. Thus collection costs comprised the bulk of solid waste handling expenses.
Plants using waste processing equipment had lower waste collection and disposal costs.
Scrap was handled as a resource and sold.
Waste disposal records were kept at 60 percent of the 70 plants visited that
supplied usable information. Sixty-six percent kept scrap records. The higher monetary
value of scrap provided the incentive for keeping records.
Municipal authorities generally lacked dependable information on industrial
solid waste management. There was little record keeping, especially regarding the
quantities and types of solid waste from the automotive industry, although communities
that charged for the use of their disposal facilities did have limited records. Private
contractors rarely maintained detailed records of solid waste sources, composition, or
quantities.
The automotive industry and the municipalities viewed each other's performance
in handling solid waste as satisfactory. The major problem, as cited by 23 percent of
the plants sampled, concerned lack of disposal sites. Of 18 municipalities that replied
* Average cost.
-4-
-------
to the question, only two reported air pollution to be a problem. The municipal
authorities did not indicate they planned to control air pollution. Even in Michigan,
where new (1969) State air pollution regulations are in force, plant personnel were
being encouraged by municipal officials to incinerate.
Most waste and scrap storage areas, and plant noise were not detectable from
access roads and the surrounding neighborhood. Seventy-seven percent of the plants
visited were located in industrial areas, 9 percent in commercial areas, and 14 percent
near residential areas. All the sampled communities that responded stated that industry
was responsible for managing their own wastes.
INTRODUCTION
There is rising public awareness of the importance of protecting the environment
from man-made air, water, and land pollution. Increasing population growth,
industrialization, and farm mechanization have made it necessary to identify the
sources and ascertain the levels of environmental contamination, pollution, and
nuisances. Even animal and plant life have been endangered by man's onslaught
against the natural environment. Solid wastes at present are a major concern
throughout the United States. Of the total solid waste products generated in the
United States from various sources, industry contributes approximately 30 percent J
In the future, increased solid waste generation will cause even more critical problems
that can be solved only by government's and industry's working together to provide
appropriate management systems.
The automotive industry is probably the largest business in the world and is
considered to be the major source of consumer spending. There is extensive published
information available from authoritative sources concerning technical, general
production, and employment trends. The automotive industry has developed standard
manufacturing processes, components, and materials in order to achieve efficient
production. This standardization is particularly relevant in studying the possible waste
and scrap sources and materials. The industry is geographically dispersed and includes
major parts and assembly plants with advanced manufacturing methodology and
materials. In addition, there are a large number of smaller specialty parts plants
whose basic processes are similar to those of the major plants, but whose management
tends to be less sophisticated.
The major objective of this study was to determine the character of solid waste
and scrap materials generated by automotive plants in the United States in order to
provide a valid base for predicting the waste quantities. To accomplish this objective,
the following tasks were performed:
-5-
-------
1. The capacities and capabilities of the automotive industrial plants in the
United States were determined.
2. The industry's production trends were analyzed.
3. Sources of solid waste generation in the plants were surveyed.
4. The locations of industry plants and their effects on surrounding communities
were identified.
5. Scrap and waste generation and disposal were classified by quantity and
type.
6. Scrap and waste production were related to plant characteristics.
7. Waste storage, collection, and disposal practices were identified.
8. The costs of scrap and waste management in the industry were determined.
9. Future waste and scrap management trends in the automotive industry were
analyzed.
The industry surveyed for this report consisted of the automotive parts and
accessories manufacturers, and custom truck and bus manufacturers. The major
automobile manufacturers who are members of the Automobile Manufacturers Association
(AMA) were surveyed by the AMA. The automotive parts and accessories manufacturers
were diverse and had large variations in many of their management practices; however,
because of strong competition, the basic manufacturing processes tended to be
standardized for the industry as a whole.
The study was performed in several chronological steps. The initial procedure
was to contact trade associations in the industry and conduct a literature search.
This was followed by a questionnaire survey to appropriate industrial plants and local
municipalities. The final step was a field study of the industry on a national basis.
The contacts with the trade associations and the literature search pointed out the lack
of accurate data on solid waste, not only for the automotive industry but also for
industry in general. Trade associations such as the AMA and the Automotive Service
Industry Association were cooperative in supplying available information. Trade
sources had, however, little specific data on waste management. The literature search
covered areas such as automotive industry scrap, wastes, and manufacturing processes,
with cross referencing between each area. There was a wealth of general information
on the functioning of the industry, its products, and the types of plants. However,
specific data relating to production, employees, and types and quantities of scrap
and waste for individual plants was not available. The questionnaire survey attempted
-6-
-------
to ascertain the quantity and types of wastes. The results Indicated that industry could
not supply accurate records on many items. The follow-up plant visits confirmed the
original questionnaire results. Plant waste quantities were often estimated by
management because accurate information did not exist. Data was subsequently
analyzed to evaluate the compiled field information and investigate relationships
between a general plant variable and plant wastes and scrap.
Contacts with municipal authorities followed steps similar to the plant visits.
Questionnaires seeking information on local automotive plants were mailed to
appropriate municipal authorities; they revealed the same lack of specific solid waste
data. Follow-up field visits to responsible municipal personnel were made in
communities in which automotive plants were studied. Again the results indicated a
lack of specific information since most municipalities did not directly collect automotive
plant wastes.
Visual observations of the plants were made to detect air pollution, assess general
property appearance and litter, and to determine if waste and scrap storage areas were
visible from the access streets.
The field interviewers were equipped with cameras, tape recorders, tape
measures, and questionnaires. Weights were obtained with in-plant scales. The
questionnaires and interviews were summarized in written form at the end of each day.
THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Definition of the Industry
This study consisted of a nationwide survey of automotive industry plant solid
waste management. The automotive industry is defined by Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) Codes 3711, 3712, 3713, and 3714.2 por genera| reference, the
Bureau of the Census has recently combined SIC Codes 3711, 3712, and 3714 into a
single Code 3717 for summarizing data in their 1963 Census of Manufactures. The
following industry definitions are, however, applicable in this report:
SIC 3711: Motor Vehicles
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing or assembling
complete passenger automobiles, trucks, commercial cars, and
buses; and special purpose motor vehicles such as campers, hearses,
refuse trucks, and fire engines, etc. These establishments may also
manufacture motor vehicle parts; however, plants manufacturing
parts but not manufacturing complete vehicles are classified in SIC
3714.
-7-
-------
SIC 3712: Passenger Car Bodies
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing passenger car
bodies but not engaged in manufacturing complete passenger
automobiles.
SIC 3713: Truck and Bus Bodies
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing truck and bus
bodies, for sale separately or for assembly on purchased chassis.
SIC 3714: Motor Vehicle Parts and Accessories
Establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing motor vehicle
parts and accessories but not in manufacturing or assembling complete
motor vehicles.
These definitions do not include establishments manufacturing tires and tubes,
storage batteries, sheet metal stampings, motorcycles, automotive glass, vehicular
lighting equipment, or off-highway vehicles, since these are classified under other
SIC Codes.
Industry Structure
Historical Background. During its infancy in the early 1900's, the automotive
industry consisted of many small vehicle manufacturers and parts suppliers. The structure
of the whole industry was similar to the structure of what is now labeled as custom
vehicle and parts manufacturers. The trend toward consolidation of companies began
in 1911. The installation of the first mass production assembly line at Ford Motor
Company in 1913 complemented the consolidation trend as management realized the
greater benefits realized by large (volume) production.3 In 1910, by conservative^
estimates, the number of vehicle-manufacturing firms was put at 52. General opinion,
however, estimated the number of companies as being closer to 1,000.4 The industry
as it is structured today presents a blend of the old and the new. There now exist only
four major automobile manufacturing firms since the most recent merger, which occurred
in 1969 between Kaiser-Willy Jeep Corporation and American Motors Corporation. In
addition, there are more than 2,000 parts and custom vehicle manufacturers, some of
whom supply the major manufacturers.
Competition among the manufacturers has led to the development of large mass
production facilities. The mass production assembly line was improved by the
standardization of parts for several vehicle models and colors, which allowed several
vehicle styles to be assembled sequentially on one production line. Additional
developments have occurred in the machine tools used to manufacture the vehicle parts.
Large automotive multistation transfer machines were initially installed at the end of
-8-
-------
World War II. These machines can automatically perform several simultaneous
machining operations and transfer the part to a new station for additional machining.
The history of solid wastes and scrap in the industry is not well known for the
period preceding World War II. The story of Henry Ford's requiring his suppliers to
ship their goods in wood containers made of boards of a specified size and quality and
then using the wood for floor boards in Ford cars is perhaps the first incidence of
planned reclamation of waste materials. During World War II, materials shortages
provided impetus for improved scrap and waste management. The large manufacturers
began installing chip conveyors, crushers, balers, and machine oil recovery equipment.
After the War, emphasis on reuse of manufacturing waste was reduced, and the industry's
concentration was shifted to production in order to satisfy consumer demand. The
period from the end of World War II to 1948 saw great changes in the industry that led
to the establishment of large-scale standardized-assembly manufacturing methodologies
that have been improved but are basically similar to those of today (1970).
Period of Study. The industry data presented in this report cover the period from
1948 to 1969. These years were relatively stable for the industry because no major
economic and military upheavals occurred. Of more importance for this study has
been the industry's stability, in terms of the number of major firms, and the utilization
of technologic advances developed after World War II. Large assembly lines for
producing automobiles have been uniformly installed at all assembly plants of the four
major firms. Transfer machines have been operated by the major parts manufacturers.
These manufacturing methodologies have been improved by the application of computers
to control the assembly line operations and to program the machining operations of
the transfer machines.
Five automobile manufacturers have dropped out of the market during the last
20-year period. However, they had essentially no effect on the industry structure,
because their share of yearly vehicle production was less than 10 percent. ^
Industry Distribution According to SIC Codes. The basic structure of the industry
has changed little since 1958. The total number of plants, for the past 10 years, in the
four SIC Codes studied is presented in the following list:0
SIC Code 1958 1963 1968-1969
3713 562 610 855
3711 142
3712 1,560 1,958 1,783 44
3714 1,597
Total 27122 2,568 2,638
-9-
-------
The figures for 1958 are lower, partly because of a revision In SIC 3714, to
which ignition systems were added in 1963. Figures 1 through 4 show the number of
plants in each state by SIC Code and give the minimum estimated total tangible assets
of the industry in each state.
The minimum total tangible assets for each SIC Code are as follows:
SIC Codes: 3711 3712 3713 3714 Total
Minimum tangible assets 112 20 369 1,194 1,695
(millions of dollars)
The greater value of plants in SIC 3714 reflects the fact that 60 percent of all
plants are classified in this SIC Code. These values are low (and therefore termed
"minimum1') because many plants are not valued individually in the Thomas Register
source, and large plants are listed only as "over one million dollars." These figures
have been adjusted upward to include plant values greater than $1 million using field
survey data.
Geograph?c Location. Thirty-six percent of the industry plants are located in
the Midwest with Michigan and Ohio containing the greatest number of large plants
(see Figures 1 through 4). The locations of the 48 major automobile assembly plants,
which produced 100 percent of the automobiles in 1969, are shown in Figure 5 with
production percentages for each state. In addition, trucks are manufactured in 47
plants,^ 23 of them being automobile assembly plants, but on separate production
lines. Michigan is the leading vehicle-producing state, with 34.94 percent of total
production, and Missouri is second with 10.76 percent. The maximum geographic
change in production since 1963 has been in Wisconsin which has experienced a 4
percent decline in percentage of total automobiles assembled. The lower Wisconsin
production reflects American Motors Corporation's decreased market position. Minor
changes reflecting local market conditions have occurred in other states.
The total industry production of automobiles, trucks, and buses during the
post-1948 period is given in Table 1. Bus manufacturing is quite low representing less
than one percent of total annual vehicle production.
Employment Trends. The post-1948 period may be divided into two eras: 1948
to 1959, and 1960 to the present. This division reflects the impact of computer
control of the manufacturing and assembly operations, which is indicated by the
productivity trend change in 1960. Figures 6 and 7 and Table 2 indicate this change
in trend in the man-hours required to produce a vehicle and supporting replacement
parts. The productivity is based on the average weekly hours worked listed in Table 2,
which have remained relatively constant. A linear least squares fit of the log
-10-
-------
transformed parabolic curve* was used for projecting worker productivity. The fitted
parabolic curve in Figure 6 shows that the rate of increase of worker productivity over
the long-term is decreasing. The indicated trend is the basis of recent comments by
industry management in various news media that costs per vehicle produced have risen
because of the lower rate at which productivity is increasing. These productivity
'Curves are also heavily weighted in favor of the major manufacturers, who employ more
than three-fourths of the workers.
Two additional significant points are the following: (1) the productivity increased
during years when industry production was highest; and (2) productivity decreased
during the years of military demand in 1951 and 1952, and in 1966 and 1967. The first
item indicates that the industry does not operate at maximum plant capacity and can
accommodate higher production levels without an additional number of plants. The
second point illustrates the influence of military production and related market
conditions on worker productivity.
Production Capabilities of the Industry. The peak production year was 1965,
more than nine million cars and 1.7 million trucks were manufactured. The average
number of weekly hours worked was 44.2, which was reduced to 42.8 in 1966, when
more workers were hired. The present industry capacity may be estimated at 13 to 15
million vehicles. Estimates of vehicle production for 1975 from industry news sources
predict about 13.5 million vehicles.^ Because the four manufacturers have not
indicated plans for major new automobile assembly facilities before 1975, their present
production capability should be sufficient to satisfy this expected demand. New-car
sales estimates by the industry are based on a second- or third-car market for a family,
the number of scrapped vehicles, and the increase in cars required to accommodate
population growth.' However, general economic indicators of buying power provide
a direct estimate of persons per car, which can be used with population predictions to
estimate vehicle production. A correlation coefficient of .98 was obtained between
the number of cars in operation and the Gross National Product. Figure 0 reflects this
buying capability of the public in persons per car, which was used to predict the
number of cars in operation through 1990.
New Plant Locations. The major criteria for determining the geographic
n
* The parabolic y = ax was log transformed to fit by minimizing £ [log y -
i—I
log a - b log x] . For total employment R2 equaled 0.67, and for production workers
R2 was 0.72.
-11 -
-------
location of new plants vary according to the sector of the industry characterized by
the plant. The major location criteria for assembly plants are market proximity and
transportation costs. All the major new assembly plants since 1948 have been built
in California, the South, and Missouri. The costs of transporting body sections have
been reduced by locating body fabricating plants in proximity to assembly plants. The
criterion for locating major parts plants has been proximity to raw materials and
customers. The manufacturers of engines, transmissions, chassis components, and
frames are largely located in the Midwest, where raw steel is readily available from
steel mills. A secondary consideration is the scrap market, which supplies these same
steel mil Is. 10
Manufacturers of smaller vehicle parts are more widespread. The secondary
replacement parts manufacturers are not closely tied to the vehicle manufacturers and
are located in the major vehicle market areas.
Thus, most parts plants are concentrated, as listed in Table 3 and as shown in
Figures 9 through 12, in major cities and in the Northeast-Central region of the
United States.
PRODUCTS AND PROCESSES
Industry Plant Types
The primary manufacturing operations used by plants in various SIC Codes may
be divided into major plant type subgroups. The primary products and plant types for
each SIC Code were defined previously (pages 7 and 8).
There are two types of plants in SIC 3711—assembly plants and integrated plants
that both assemble motor vehicles and manufacture parts. Most assembly plants of
SIC 3711 are large-volume, mass production plants of the major automobile and truck
manufacturer members of the AMA. These plants account for more than 99 percent of
all complete motor vehicles produced in the United States.
The integrated plants of SIC 3711 are of two types. The first type consists of an
assembly area and a manufacturing area, not necessarily in the same building. The
other type is comprised of custom vehicle assembly and component manufacturing areas,
in the same building. Vehicle bodies, parts, and some accessories may be manufactured
on the same production line in the latter type.
The body plants, SIC 3712 and 3713, are basically of two types—mass production
and custom assembly. They differ largely in their production rates. The primary
processes are sheet metal and structural fabrication.
-12-
-------
The parts and accessories plants, SIC 3714, differ markedly in products,
production rate, and processes. These plants utilize a wide variety of machining,
casting, forging, drilling, grinding, cutting, and trimming operations.
The differences between automobile, bus, and truck plants are primarily of
product size and product numbers rather than of basic plant operation or waste
management practices.
Automotive Industry Products
Automobi les. The highly competitive nature of automobile manufacturing results
in great emphasis on production costs. In turn, this emphasis leads each firm to use
the least expensive materials and fabrication processes available. Thus, the materials
utilized for major vehicle components tend to be standard for the four major firms.
The major variations among automobiles are size, equipment options, and luxury
(price) class.
Models. The term "models" refers to the number of different sizes, price classes,
and optional equipment combinations available. Table 4 lists the total number of
automobile models offered each year from 1948 to 1970. The number of models offered
in 1970 was 75 percent greater than in 1948, and yet the number of automobile firms
in 1970 was less than half the number in 1948. The number of models has remained
relatively constant since 1965 which indicates that consumer taste differences and
model costs have met at a mutually acceptable level of diversity.
Optional Equipment. The term "option" refers to the manufactured components
added to, or subtracted from, the basic model. The "basic" model varies for different
automotive price classes. For example, the least costly model in a given product line
might include automatic transmissions as optional equipment, even though the number
of installations sold as a percent of the total transmissions installed is greater than 80
percent. Thus, the frequency of installation of components in assembled vehicles may
not indicate that they are actually optional in usage. Table 5 indicates the increase
in use of various components that might affect the type and quantity of solid waste or
scrap generated. Some inconsistencies may develop in the future because certain
luxury models may list some items as standard equipment. For example, air conditioners
for less expensive models would be listed as optional, while expensive models would
have them as standard equipment.
Air conditioners have shown a dramatic growth because they are relatively new
to the automobile market. For example, in 1962, 11.3 percent of the vehicles
manufactured had air conditioners, but in 1969, the figure rose to 54.4 percent. The
increase in the use of air conditioners will generate additional copper and aluminum
scrap.
-13-
-------
Another option, vinyl tops, has gained in popularity. The percentage of
vehicles manufactured that had vinyl tops increased from 11.9 percent in 1966 to
41.4 percent in 1969. Vinyl can be either salvaged or disposed of as solid waste.
The V-8 engine presents a slightly different example. Installations of V-8
engines increased from 55.3 percent in 1962 to 89.9 percent in 1969. The amount of
scrap generated from the manufacture of engines has increased owing to the increased
number of cylinders. The percent increase in scrap may be less than the percent
increase in the number of cylinders, although the sizes of the engine block and head
were greater for the V-8 engines than for the older type of engines. In addition, there
were two more cylinders to be machined and four more valves and other parts to be
manufactured. "Optional" equipment thus affects both the quantities and types of
waste and scrap generated.
Trucks. Three basic truck types produced since 1960 are the following (by
percent): pickup (58), tractor cab (5), and special vehicle/van (37).
These basic truck models vary over a wide range of sizes and models and have
from 3,500- to 20,000-lb body weights. Truck tractors, for over-the-highway trailer
hauling, range up to 16,000 Ib net weight and are generally manufactured in the
integrated plants of SIC 3711, (see page 12). All truck models are classified into
eight standard sizes based on gross vehicle weight (GVW). ^ 1 The smaller 5,000-!b
GVW pickup trucks are generally mass produced in assembly plants of SIC 3711, (see
page 12). GVW classes above 40,000-lb, 3~axle combinations include the trailer
"weights and load, and thus GVW model designations are descriptive of the relative
truck tractor sizes available. Different sizes and models of truck tractors are
fabricated with similar parts and materials. The bodies are usually fabricated of steel
or aluminum sheet, although a small percentage has Fiberglas cabs.
The remaining truck models are termed "special vehicles" owing to the relatively
low production quantities and specialized uses of each type. "Special vehicles" include
utility, recreation, food delivery and refrigeration, tank, refuse, food vending, panel
delivery, van, and stake van trucks. These truck models vary widely in their body
materials, structure, and major accessories installations. Common body materials used
are Fiberglas, steel sheet, aluminum, wood, and canvas. The accessories installed
according to the vehicle's function include refrigeration units and hydraulic loading
and compacting equipment. Some of these accessories units are made with stainless
steel, copper, brass, bronze, or other metals.
The seats, cab paneling, and instrument panel constructions are similar for all
types of trucks and are not likely to vary greatly with truck size.
Buses. There is little difference among various bus models in terms of body
structure and materials used. Bus bodies are manufactured from sheet steel or aluminum
-14-
-------
and have standard equipment Installations. Interior paneling is usually plastic sheet
over fiberboard or wood backing material. The seat covers are generally plastic filled
with foam or cotton padding. The size of a bus is probably the most significant variable
that influences scrap and waste generation.
Bus sizes are classified two ways as follows: (1) by the GVW classes used for
trucks and (2) by the number of seats. Eighty-seven percent of the buses produced since
1965 were in the 16,000- to 19,500- and 19,500- to 26,000-lb GVW classes.1] Buses
in these two GVW classes have seating capacities ranging from 32 to 66.^2 Thus, a
34-seat, i.e., 106 percent, increase in seating capacity would cause a corresponding
increase in seat and interior panel waste material quantities per bus produced.
Vehicle Components^ Components refer to parts and accessories (see Glossary,
Appendix A) commonly used in motor vehicles. Table 6 lists the vehicle parts common
to all automobiles, trucks, and buses. Other components that serve special functions
are: wrecker booms, fifth wheels, hydraulic hoists and lifts, fire vehicle equipment,
and ambulance equipment. Fire and ambulance equipment, and hydraulic lifts are not,
however, classified in the four SIC Codes studied. The components in the engine,
transmission, differential, front end, and chassis groups are primarily manufactured
from ferrous metals. Body and miscellaneous vehicle component: may be metal, plastic,
fiberboard, or cloth. The basic manufacturing processes and materials are described
in detail in the section on methods and procedures.
Product TrencSs
Vehicle Size Trends. Two trends in vehicle size, based on weight, are evident,
as shown in Figure 13. The short-term trend shows weight increasing since 1960,
while the long term trend shows decreasing vehicle weight. Compact automobiles were
introduced in 1961, which accounts for part of the indicated decrease in co: weight.
Other factors were the introduction of lighter weight aluminum for cast iron in some
engine blocks, v/hich increased the aluminum consumption per car, as shown in
Figure 14; and increased plastic usage since 1960. The weight increase from 1961 to
1965 resulted from an increase in the size of compact cars as economic conditions
improved. Several new compact cars were introduced in 1970, that were similar in
size to small imported cars. Thus, the average vehicle weight should decrease in 1970.
The long-term trend for the weight of an average truck/bus, as shown in Figure 13,
exhibits the same general trend as the long-term .trend for cars. The following two
factors caused this: (1) an increase in production of lightweight pickup trucks used for
recreation and (2) the introduction of Fiberglas-reinforced plastics for truck cabs.
The short-term upward trend in truck/bus weight indicated from 1963 to 1967 results
from increases in vehicle load capacity demanded by commercial trucking firms. J The
combined weight of an average car/truck/bus trend is also shown in Figure 13. The
effects of lighter vehicle weights and materials substitutions are indicated in Figure 14,
which shows decreased ferrous metal consumption by the automotive industry.
-15-
-------
Product Materials Trend. The major trend in materials is away from ferrous
metals and towards plastic compounds, aluminum, and copper, as shown in Figure 14.
Fiberglas use in automotive vehicles was expected to rise 22 percent in 1969,
from 134 million Ib in 1968 to 164 million Ib, and 55 percent in 1970 to 255 million
Ib. Sixty percent of Fiberglas consumption has been in cars, 15 percent in truck cabs,
and 25 percent in commercial and recreation vehicles. 14 Tne growing recreation
vehicle market is expected to contribute further to the use of Fiberglas by the industry.
Fiberglas is used in vehicles primarily for: body sheet panels made of low-profile
polyester resins; Fiberglas-reinforced thermoplastic body trim, grills, and instrument
panel boards; and reinforced polyethylene fender liners. Among the newer plastic
products are gas tanks, fasteners, and bumpers, which were introduced on a few 1970
model cars. In the past, major use of plastics has been in interior ceiling panels,
insulation, seat covers, knobs, and handles. Plastics have displaced cast metals such
as aluminum and zinc. 15 Electrodeposition processes can improve the surface
appearance of thermosetting plastics so that they resemble metal, and thus impetus
is provided to the use of plastic in vehicle trim and grills that are not structurally
loaded.
Another recent innovation has been the use of rubber bumper guards and rubber
bumpers as safety devices. Rubber may, however, be displaced by plastic foam
bumpers owing to their greater nonelastic energy-absorbing properties.
Aluminum use has increased recently. Aluminum consumption by the automotive
Industry climbed dramatically from 514 million Ib in 1960^ to 791 million Ib in 1969.17
Most of the increased aluminum consumption has been for pistons and engine block
castings, grill work and instrument panel extrusions, floor brackets, and trim. However,
except for engine blocks and pistons, aluminum is in turn being displaced by plastics,
and thus its use appears to have reached a plateau, as indicated by Figure 14.
Effects of Technology on Products. The major direct effects on products that
technology causes are reflected in the capability of working with better, newer, and
less costly materials. The plastics trend previously cited was made possible by
advances in fabricating technology.
New technology has allowed printed electrical circuits to be substituted for
wiring harnesses in instrument panels. Printed circuits reduce the amount of copper
and wire insulation materials used while increasing fiberboard consumption.
Industry Cost Effects. The model stability previously discussed will be extended
!n the future by an increase in the time between model changes. Rising design and
tooling costs, and competition from stable foreign car designs that maintain higher
resale value are slowly affecting planned obsolescence, which was the basis for the
industry's "three-year cycle" design timetable. The "three-year cycle" consists of
-16-
-------
the following: first year—an all-new car is produced; second year—a minor facelift Is
given by changing grills, light fixtures, etc; third year—a major facelift in the external
sheet metal is made to give the car a new look. Then the process is repeated. This
cycle has been extended to four years by some manufacturers and may reach six years
for the newly (1970) introduced compact cars. The longer use of tools and dies will
reduce the scrap and waste resulting from tooling setups that produce many rejected
parts.
Government Regulations and Product Trends
Vehicle Safety Codes. The installation of seat belts on all new cars produced
since 1966 is the major example of how government, can directly influence industry's
products. Other highway-safety-inspired product changes include padded instrument
panels and seat headrests.
An air bag safety support system being tested by the National Highway Safety
Bureau may be installed on some 1970 model cars and by 1973 may be universally
installed. '8 These latter products are made of plastic materials.
Product Changes from Air Pollution Regulations. The Initial regulations
controlling vehicle emissions have resulted in new products such as crankcase vent
systems and proposals for exhaust gas afterburners and filters. The major effects of
air pollution regulations on vehicle products will, however, occur as a result of a
program to develop new and better vehicle power sources, announced by the United
States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare in December 1969. A five-year
plan has been formulated to help replace the present internal combustion piston engine
by sponsoring a $5 million product development program. A commercially feasible
replacement is expected by 1976. ^9 The new basic power sources to be investigated
are electric motors, gas turbines, steam engines, and hybrid engines that combine
two basic engine types. The introduction of any one or combination of these power
sources would measurably affect the manufacturing processes and materials used by the
industry. Electric motors are constructed of iron, copper, and plastic materials; gas
turbines and steam engines require high-quality steels to withstand high temperatures
and pressures, although some sections may be cast; and hybrid engines generally
combine these two. Gas turbines require large air intakes, protection against dust
ingestion, and exhaust heat deflectors. The basic processes and manufacturing waste
types and quantities will all be affected. Most likely, in the future, an increase in
metal sheet, tube, and plate scrap will occur together with a decrease in casting sand
wastes.
Plant Operations
Identification of Plant Operations Generating Solid Waste and Scrap. Plant
operations were categorized into the following five major groups: (1) office; (2) food
-17-
-------
services; (3) packaging and shipping, which includes receiving; (4) machine and
foundry; and (5) trimming, cutting, forming, and assembly. Waste materials comprised
31.4 percent and scrap 68.6 percent of all materials discarded during plant operations.
Combustible wastes comprised 51.4 percent of all waste materials. Plates 1 and 2
show the major types of scrap and solid waste observed in the plants that were visited.
Office Operations. Office wastes generally consisted of paper, light
uncorrugated cardboard, floor sweepings, paper and plastic cups, and some lunch
garbage. The variables tending to affect waste types and quantities were the number
of employees; the use of computers, which generated data card wastes; and the
proportion of office workers who ate lunches at their workplace. Office waste sources
were bond paper and carbon paper from typing, discarded correspondence, supplies,
wrapping, and discarded advertising literature. Office waste made up 3.34 percent by
weight of all plant waste in the automotive plants sampled. *
Food Service Operations. Cafeterias, in-plant food- and drink-vending
machines, and food-vending trucks were the three major food service operations.
Employees who brought their own lunch produced wastes and garbage similar to the
vending machine wastes, and these wastes will be discussed as such. There were
cafeterias in 45 percent of the plants sampled by the project engineer and in 47 percent
of the 217 AMA member plants. Cafeteria wastes were basically standard wet garbage
(see Glossary, Appendix A) with some food container wastes. The food container
wastes were, however, mixed v/Ith general plant wastes, and the garbage was usually
handled separately. The quantity of cafeteria v/astes varied greatly among plants and
within plants on different days, depending on the proportion of employees eating there
and on the weather. In the plants sampled by the project engineer, garbage wastes
amounted to 2.3 percent by weight of total plant waste materials. In AMA member
plants, garbage amounted to 4.1 percent of total plant wastes.
Packaging, Receiving, and Shipping Operations. Packaging wastes generally
consisted of cardboard boxes, wood crates, v/ood pallets and skids, paper, plastic
stuffing, tape, and metal banding. Packaging wastes averaged 26.3 percent of
wastes In the plants sampled. This average was comprised mostly of wood and cardboard
materials. Corrugated waste has been estimated to be about 50 Ib for each automobile
OfA
produced./u
The large mass production plants utilized reusable shipping containers with the
following usable life schedules (average number of trips): cardboard (3), wood (6),
rubber and plastic (10), arJ metal (60+).
* For purposes of this report, "sampled" refers to the sum of 70 plants visited by
the project engineer's staff and 43 that responded to the engineer's questionnaire.
-18-
-------
Obviously, these containers will reduce the quantity of packaging wastes in
proportion to their trip life. One major automobile manufacturer has utilized 23,000
reusable containers to ship parts to its 17 automobile assembly plants.21
Newer containers made of rigid wire mesh with disposable plastic trays
combine the basic elements of reusable containers with disposable inserts. The
packaging trend is towards reusable containers in the large plants with little change
forecasted for the small plants employing fewer than 400 v/orkers.
Processing Operations. The basic automotive plant manufacturing processes and
their relative material losses are listed in Table 7. Machining produces the most
material loss and welding/brazing/bonding produce the least. The results of the project
engineer's sampling indicated that machine scrap made up 46.7 percent by weight of
all plant waste and scrap and 66 percent of process scrap metals. The remaining 34
percent process scrap originated from the cutting, trimming, and forming operations.
Foundry waste sand and dust comprised 49.4 percent and general plant wastes 15.2
percent of total v/aste materials. A detailed description of the processes that generate
scrap and solid waste is given in Appendix D.
Casting molten metal and forging heated metals, v/hen used, are the initial
forming operations. Forging is illustrated in Figure 15. Then machining operations
are performed to finish the product to proper dimensions. Figures 16 and 17 show the
basic individual machining operations. A six-station transfer machine and its
operational sequence is illustrated in Figure 18. Fabrication processes such as cutting,
trimming, and forming are used primarily on sheet materials. The scrap generated by
these basic processes is shown on Plate 1.
Process Trends. The trend to transfer machines has already been discussed. In
addition, the basic process production rates have been increased substantially by the
use of new machine tool metals and computers to control their operation. Table 8
gives examples of percentage increases in machine tool productivity and cost savings
from 1950 to 1960. Increases in output ranged from 15 percent in broaching to 237
percent in sawing operations. Large, automatic sandcasting mold and core-forming
machines have been developed which can produce 16 molds or cores in one cycle.
The significance of these improvements is the increased parts production per sq ft of
plant floor area and per employee.
Process Choice. Several processes may often be used to manufacture one part.
The process choice may depend on the cost, severity of service, material, and
complexity of the part shape. Forging, casting, and machining are often
interchangeable as basic processes and are chosen for high-strength, low-strength, and
intermediate-strength applications, respectively. Machining and die casting are
required to form and finish complexly shaped parts. Some of the alternative
manufacturing processes encountered in the survey are discussed next.
-19-
-------
Product-Process Schematics
The process schematics in Figures 19 through 39 are arranged by the major plant
type and process groups as follows: (1) automobile, bus, and truck assembly; (2) body
fabrication; (3) machine, forging and foundry; and (4) miscellaneous parts fabrication.
Scrap, solid waste, and salvage materials are identified at their source, and the basic
raw materials and semimanufactured parts received at the plants are noted.
The percentages of scrap and waste generated in the plants sampled by the
project engineer are given to exemplify differences among plants. When accurate
data are available, the scrap generated per unit of product is given.
Mass Production—Automobile and Small Truck Assembly, SIC 3711. The
processes illustrated in Figure 19 consisted of assembling manufacturing parts to form
a vehicle. Occasionally, seat manufacturing and body section welding were
completed in the plant. The major solid waste component came from packaging
materials, which made up 93 percent by volume of the plant area wastes. The
remaining 7 percent consisted of rejected and damaged parts. Rejected parts were
returned to the supplier, and damaged parts were disposed of as scrap. All plant
materials discarded were deposited in bins at the points of generation c?i noted.
Special-Purpose Truck and Bus Manufacturing, SIC 3711. Two examples of
assembly plants for special-purpose vehicles are given in Figures 20 and 21. A custom
bus- and fire vehicle-manufacturing plant (Figure 20) was set up on a shop basis, where
each shop performed the functions as shown. The subassembly was then moved to
another shop and mated to another subassembly. The volume of solid wastes generated
was 94 percent of the volume of total material discarded, and the volume of metal
scrap 6 percent. Steel and aluminum scrap represented 87 percent by weight of total
disposed materials, with solid wastes comprising the remaining 13 percent. Waste
and scrap bins were located in each shop near the process equipment. Wood and paper
were mixed in the woodshop; masking paper and paint were mixed in the paint shop;
metal scrap was segregated at the source.
Custom truck body and vehicle manufacture is illustrated in Figure 21. This
plant was structured on an assembly line basis. The bodies were manufactured and
assembled and parts added on a production line to form a complete vehicle in sequence.
The scrap in this plant made up 72 percent by weight of the total discarded material,
paper 6 percent, and paint sludge 22 percent. .Metal scrap averaged 328 Ib per
vehicle produced. Waste and scrap bins were positioned next to the process equipment,
and wastes were segregated as they were generated.
Body and Trim Fabrication, SIC 3712 and 3713. Body manufacturing is
illustrated in Figure 21. The body parts include cowl tops, door panels, body pillars,
trunk lids, rocker panels, roof sections, and floor sections—all requiring similar
-20-
-------
processing. This plant differed from the other body and vehicle plants discussed, in
that conveyors were located under the fabricating equipment to remove scrap materials
from the plant. Wastes amounted to less than 2.5 percent by weight of total material
discarded; the remaining 97.5 percent consisted of ferrous sheet trim. The conveyor
system handled about 3,000 Ib of ferrous scrap per hr of operation.
A specie I-purpose truck body-manufacturing plant is shown in Figure 23. The
wastes included Fiberglas and plastic body sheet trimmings, in addition to metal sheet,
both of which were segregated at their source. Metal scrap made up 70 percent of
the total discarded material weight; plastics and Fiberglas 18 percent; and v/ood, paper,
etc, the remaining 12 percent.
The schematic for an exterior body trim plant is Figure 24. It includes fabricated
exterior trim, wheel well covers, and door and window moulding. Eighty-three percent
by weight of plant discards were scrap metal sheet trim and 17 percent paper and
cardboard.
Parts Manufacturing: Machine and Foundry, SIC 37H^
Engine Manufacturing. The process sequence shown for casting engine blocks,
heads, and camshafts (Figure 25) is applicable to cast iron and aluminum materials
used in manufacturing gasoline and diese! engines. The major waste material from the
plants sampled was burnt sand, which represented 90 to 99 percent by weight of all
discarded materials. All metal scrap was recycled back to the furnace and reused.
Sand losses averaged about 10 Ib per engine in the plants sampled.
The schematic for crankshaft and camshaft bearings is Figure 26. Ninety-nine
percent by weight of materials discarded were metals, of which 8 percent, consisting
of babbitt dross, was sold as scrap. The remaining 1 percent was paper. Approximately
0.235 Ib of ferrous and babbitt scrap were generated per bearing. The centrifugal
casting process used here did not require sand. These bearing plants did not create
significant waste problems.
The schematic for engine manufacturing and assembly is Figure 27.^^ The final
steps in manufacturing a complete engine are illustrated. The cast engine blocks,
heads, and camshafts were finish machined before assembly. These metal-cutting
operations produced, on the average, approximately 100 Ib of cast iron chips per
engine. In plants of this type, approximately 5 percent of the metal wastes were
aluminum chips from piston machining and the remaining 95 percent were cast iron
chips and ferrous turnings.
The schematic for flywheels and ring gears Is Figure 28. Ninety-eight percent
by weight of the discarded materials were found to consist of steel chips, turnings, and
metal sawing dust. The remaining 2 percent consisted of paper, wood, and cardboard.
-21 -
-------
Steel represented 91 percent by weight and cast Iron 9 percent of the scrap metals in
this plant. There v/ere approximately 2.4 Ib of steel scrap per ring gear, and 12 Ib
of cast iron scrap per flywheel.
Transmission and Parts. The schematic for transmissions is Figure 29. The plant
had three production lines to manufacture the major transmission parts and two lines
for various levers and brackets. Discarded materials consisted of 84 percent by weight
iron and steel chips, and forge flashing; 1 percent aluminum and brass; and 15 percent
waste paper, wood, and cardboard. The scrap generated per transmission in this plant
was 344 Ib.
The schematic for transmission and differential gear forging is Figure 30. This
plant forged gear blanks by an alternative process to the straight gear-machining
operations shov/n in Figure 29. In this plant, 16.2 percent by weight of discards were
waste paper, cardboard, and wood; 68.3 percent steel flashing; and 15.5 percent steel
scale.
The schematic for axles is Figure 31. It illustrates alternative processes for
manufacturing the same product. The process choice depends on the two following
criteria: (1) the expected stress loading on the axle and (2) the size and geometry of
the axle shaft with respect to the raw bar material size. Forging scale wastes
accounted for 13.5 percent by weight of discarded metal material with the remaining
86.5 percent consisting of steel machine chips (56.5 percent) and cut bar crops (30
percent). Metal scrap made up 97 percent of discarded materials, and paper and
cardboard waste 3 percent. Scrap and scale loss, 9.2 percent by weight per axle,
ranged from about 2.7 Ib per car axle to 8 Ib for a truck axle.
Front-End Assemblies. Front-end linkage and universal joints are illustrated in
Figure 32, and idler arm, yokes, and tie rod ends, in Figure 33. These two schematics
depict the major parts constituting front-end assemblies. Approximately 79 percent by
weight of discarded materials consisted of forging flash, 11.6 percent forging scale,
and 9.4 percent paper and wood wastes.
Chassis. Bumpers for cars and trucks are represented in Figure 34. This plant
reclaimed plating metals for reuse in the bumper processing. Metal sheet scrap
amounted to about 60 percent by weight of discarded materials, plating and buffing
sludge 8 percent, and general wastes 32 percent. On the average, 5 Ib of sheet metal
scrap and 0.7 Ib of sludge were generated per bumper.
Exhaust systems are represented in Figure 35. The plants sampled produced
primarily tail pipes and mufflers. Discarded materials averaged 95 percent by weight
metal trim and 5 percent waste paper, cardboard, and wood. Approximately 2.05 Ib
of scrap metal were generated per muffler.
-22-
-------
Miscellaneous Vehicle Components.
Automotive Springs. See Figure 36 for process schematic. This plant manufactured
springs for hood hinges, transmissions, clutches, doors, brakes, etc. Mixed metal
scrap made up 76 percent by weight of discarded materials, and waste paper and
cardboard 24 percent.
Seats. See Figure 37 for process schematic. Most of the burlap and wire were
sold as salvage, which represented 20 percent by weight of discarded materials. Paper,
cardboard, and wood wastes made up the remaining 80 percent. Approximately 0.1 Ib
of salvage was generated per seat cushion produced.
Air, Fuel, and Oil Filters/Cleaners. Figure 38 illustrates the processes. The
filter manufacturing process generated scrap and waste materials. For the plants
sampled, scrap averaged 54 percent, by weight, and wastes 46 percent of discarded
materials. The waste generated per unit produced varied greatly, depending on the
size of the unit.
Air Conditioner and Heater Units. See Figure 39 for illustration of the process.
This plant manufactured the main unit body and purchased most parts. Scrap metal
made up 77 percent by weight of discarded materials and paper and wood, 23 percent.
Copper and brass scrap totaled 33 percent of the metals. Approximately 1.1 Ib of
metal scrap were generated per unit produced.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
industry Sample Structure
Four automobile-manufacturing companies assemble about 99 percent of the
automobiles, trucks, and buses in the United States. These four major firms plus six
other vehicle and component manufacturers are members of the major industry trade
association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA). The remainder of the
industry consists of parts and accessories manufacturers who supply the AMA member
companies and the parts replacement market.
This study was conducted in the following three parts: (1) a questionnaire survey
and visits by the project engineer's staff to plants manufacturing parts and accessories
that were not members of the AMA; (2) a questionnaire survey of AMA member plants
conducted by the AMA, who in turn made the questionnaire available for this study;
and (3) a questionnaire and survey visits by the project engineer's staff to municipalities
where automotive industry plants were located.
-23-
-------
Sampling Methodology
Industry Visit Criteria^ The plant information available from literature and trade
association sources included plant products, the plant dollar categories, and, for a
limited number of plants, the number of employees. The value of large plants given
in the literature was listed as "over $1 million," and hence an accurate statistical
distribution of plants by value was not available. The relationship between listed
plant value and number of employees yielded a low correlation, and thus listed plant
value was not presumed to indicate plant employment. In order to obtain representative
industry data, a systematic procedure for selecting plants to be visited was developed
based on the following four variables: (1) product, (2) size, (3) employment, and
(4) location.
The automobile body and parts manufacturers included in SIC Codes 3711, 3712,
3713, and 3714 manufactured products that approximated 80 percent of the curb weight
of an average car.23 Plants selected for visits were chosen from these four SIC Codes.
The plants were located in cities across the United States, as shown in Figure 40, and
had a geographical distribution representative of that of the industry. The larger plants
were emphasized in order to cover the greatest number of products and employees,
though plants of all sizes were visited. The distribution with respect to the number of
employees of all plants sampled is shown in Figure 41.
AMA member plants being excluded, the remainder of the industry varied widely
In plant characteristics. Plants falling into SIC 3711, 3712, and 3713 used different
materials but employed similar fabricating processes. Plants in SIC 3714 varied widely
in accordance with the product, process, and materials used. The great variation in
plant size and products of the portion of the industry studied was expected to result in
large variations in waste-handling and management practices. Thus, a larger sample
size was required to compensate for extensive differences in the smaller plants studied
than would have been necessary for the large plants owned by AMA members with their
greater product similarity. Plants in SIC 3711 were classified into automobile, truck,
and bus plants. The ma}or automobile and truck plants were not visited, because they
were AMA members. Special-use truck manufacturers were grouped by truck type,
and body manufacturers (SIC 3712 and 3713) were grouped by body type (dump,
refrigerated, tank, etc). The parts and accessories manufacturers (SIC 3714) were
grouped into eight major vehicle component groups (see Table 6) containing 78 vehicle
components.
Statistical Methods^ The plants not members of the AMA accounted for a
disproportionately small amount of the total vehicle production being largely concerned
with automotive parts and accessory manufacturing and custom truck and bus
manufacturing. The sampling method used to determine which plants would be visited
was structured to provide an estimate of scrap for a composite automobile/truck, and
a representative sampling of the types of solid waste generated In the manufacture of
-24-
-------
major vehicle components (see Table 6).
The plants visited were chosen by stratified sampling from the population
of plants that were not members of AMA. AMA member plants were not included in
the sampled population because the AMA conducted a solid waste survey of its member
plants and made the data available for use in this study. The characteristics used for
stratification were plant product, size, and employment. The use of stratification by
product made it possible to obtain a representative sampling of types of waste and of
waste-handling practices and to derive estimates of scrap per component generated
in the manufacture of components comprising 85 percent of the curb weight of an
automobile/truck produced by the industry- (SIC 3711-3714). These scrap estimates
were then summarized to yield an estimate of scrap per automobile/truck. The use of
a stratified sample also enabled concentration on larger plants which presumably
account for more scrap and solid waste production in the industry's plants.
Although materials and processes used varied as did waste management practices,
within a stratum the choice was arbitrary. All major waste management practices were
represented in the portion of the industry visited. Twenty percent of the plants chosen
by the sampling procedure were not accessible for visits; when this condition existed,
an alternative plant representing the same product was chosen. The extrapolation of
the estimates of solid waste for the portion of the automotive industry sampled to the
entire industry should only be done for illustration purposes because of the existence
of large integrated manufacturing and accessory plants with their large employment
and production.
Plant Contact Procedure. The managers or presidents of plants selected for visits
were initially contacted by telephone in order to obtain permission for a site visit.
This approach resulted in cooperation from 80 percent of the plants thus contacted. The
project engineer's staff reported that the plant personnel were cooperative in providing
information for 90 percent of the plants visited.
Plant Data. The items sought at each plant included the following: (1) completion
of the industry questionnaire which had previously been mailed to the plant; (2) product
weights, weights of solid waste and scrap, contractor cost, recent or anticipated
changes in management, etc; (3) plant layouts and process schematics noting solid
waste generation and storage locations; (4) photographs of waste storage areas and
containers and of the types of wastes, when permitted; and (5) evaluation of plant
appearance with regard to litter, smoke and fumes, and degree of visibility of waste
storage areas from outside the plant property. Copies of the Industry Questionnaire
and Plant Visit Interview Information Sheet are included in Appendix B.
Most plants had scrap information available in terms of weights and dollar sales
because records were regularly kept. In the few remaining instances it was also
possible to acquire accurate scrap estimates because the plants called the collector
-25-
-------
when the scrap bins were filled. Thus, an accurate volume measure was obtainable
and the consistency in scrap type provided accurate weight estimates.
Ninety percent of the plants visited maintained records of solid waste collection
and disposal costs and cubic yards removed; however, many charges were flat monthly
charges that may not always have been directly related to actual solid waste weights.
The project engineer's staff made field estimates of the volume and weight of solid
waste and this data was checked against the plant records. The composition and density
of the waste in containers were measured when feasible, otherwise waste quantities
were estimated. The procedure for estimating the wastes and training the field survey
staff is briefly described in Appendix C,
Industry Coverage
Plant Visits. The portion of the automotive industry covered by on-site plant
visits may be expressed in terms of the following descriptive parameters: (1) geographic
location; (2) plant value; (3) employment; (4) products; and (5) production. As discussed
previously, with the exception of plant production, these parameters were utilized to
select plants for visiting. Since data on the total employment and production of parts
and accessories by plants that are not AMA members is not available, the coverage
will be presented in terms of the total industry.
Geography. The geographic distribution of plants visited is illustrated in
Figure 40. Most visits were made in areas having the greatest concentration of
automotive industry plants; additional visits were made in order to provide sufficient
geographic distribution. A summary of the number of plants sampled in each HEW
region and for the major pioduct/SIC Codes is shown in Table 9.
Plant Value. The minimum valuations of the plants sampled are listed in Table 10.
Approximately 24 percent of the minimum industry plant valuation, including AMA member
plants, v/as covered. Minimum estimates for the AMA member plants were made; thus,
the actual total industry valuation was much greater. The 217 AMA member plants that
responded to the industry questionnaire probably comprised the bulk of the difference
between the minimum estimated and actual valuations.
Employment. The number of employees sampled (AMA excluded) is listed in
Table 11. The employees in plants sampled comprised 6.1 percent of 1969 industry
employment. Employment data received from 158 of 217 AMA member plants listed
1969 employment at 673, 472, or 77.4 percent of total 1969 industry employment.
Thus, waste data are available from plants employing 83.5 percent of the workers;
hence, a reliable estimate of 1969 industry waste can be made when based on
employment.
Product Type. The type of products manufactured in the 74 plants visited
-26-
-------
comprised 70 percent of the curb weight of an average automobile; they manufactured
product types that comprised 85 percent of the types of products listed in SIC 3711
through 3714. The percentages of estimated 1969 industry production for most major
products in the plants sampled are shown in Table 12. The visit coverage for special
truck production was 14 percent, for bus bodies 20 percent, and for ambulances and
hearses 13 percent.
Response to Questionnaire Survey. Plant visits were supplemented by mailed
questionnaires (see Appendix B). The plants were listed on small tabs and randomly
drawn from a box until approximately 50 percent or 1,200 of the plants were selected
for the questionnaires. An additional 500 questionnaires were distributed separately
by the Automotive Service Industry Association to its manufacturer members. Thus, a
total of 1,700 questionnaires v/as distributed. Of these, 8.1 percent were returned.
The response to the questionnaire survey is presented in Tables 8 through 11.
The responses, classified according to HEW regions, are listed in Table 9 in terms of
plants responding. The replies to each question on the questionnaire are given in
Table 13. Forty-three mailed questionnaires were completed in enough detail to be
usable for technical quantitative and qualitative analyses. An additional 29 incomplete
questionnaires were usable for qualitative analyses (Questions G through L).
A large nurr.'>er of questionnaires was returned without answers to any questions,
The reasons for not answering are listed separately in Table 14. Of the 65 nonusable
replies, the majority (68 percent) replied they were not presently manufacturing items
in the four SIC groups being studied. These firms were not major producers according
to industry sources and apparently supplied parts to automotive plants on a short-term
contract basis.
AMA Survey Response^ The AMA supplied 217 questionnaires from Its survey of
members' plants. The 217 plants responding comprised about 96 percent of the AMA
member plants. Of this total, 158 were usable for investigating solid waste prediction
parameters and 59 were useful only for waste-handling cost analysis. Plant employment
with complete waste information was provided on 158 questionnaires and was the only
parameter available for predicting waste quantities on an Industry-wide basis. The
AMA member plant employment coverage of the industry is illustrated in Figure 41.
A summary of the AMA member plants' replies to questions on the questionnaire Is given
in Table 15. A sample questionnaire is included in Appendix B. The questionnaires
did not identify the plant products or location. All responding AMA member plants
supplied cost data for removal and disposal of their solid wastes. In addition, the
quantity and type of solid waste were supplied by all but one plant.
Community Sample
Survey Procedure. The survey of municipalities presented few problems because
-27-
-------
the plants were situated in a relatively small number of communities. A total of 235
communities with automotive industry plants was located in 185 Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas (SMSA) and 50 smaller towns spread across the United States (see
Table 3 and Figures 9 through 12). All these communities were contacted by mailed
questionnaires; additionally, in conjunction with the plant site visits, the responsible
municipal authorities in 11 municipalities were personally contacted. Copies of the
Municipal Questionnaire and Interview Forms are included in Appendix B.
Community Survey Response. Responses were received from communities in 48
of the SMSA's, or 26 percent of the SMSA's having communities with automotive
industry plants. The total response, of which about 15 percent had useful data, was
about 20 percent of the questionnaires mailed. Eleven municipalities were personally
contacted by the project engineer's staff to follow up questionnaire responses and
evaluate automotive plant solid waste management practices in relationship to
municipal waste management policies. A summary of mailed responses from and
personal contacts with these municipalities for each HEW Region is presented in
Table 16. A breakdown of the types of answers from questionnaire responses shows
one completed, six partially complete, and 41 incomplete questionnaires were
received (Table 17). The limited data sample was useful for comparison with plant
visit data.
Data Reliability
The plant data reliability was evaluated by three criteria as follows: (1) the
"percentage of the industry sampled based on the industry/plant parameters, (2) sampled
plant representativeness for the whole industry, and (3) accuracy and completeness of
the data sample acquired.
Industry Coverage. About 95 percent of the AMA member plants su|rp!ied
information. Assembly and large integrated plants were both represented In the
data. Some data was acquired for 85 percent of the major product categories, 83.5
percent of the total industry employment, and 13 percent of the total plant population.
Sample Representativeness. Since 20 percent of the parts and accessory plants
contacted for visits were not accessible, the data may have been biased if these
Inaccessible plants had major waste management problems. Industry estimates based
on the plant data were satisfactory since the industry coverage (including the AMA)
Is good. Thus, plant waste estimates may be low because of the possible bias.
Data Accuracy. The major problems in data accuracy were related to the
accuracy and completeness of plant records, estimates by the field interview staff,
and the questionnaires.
-28-
-------
Plant records contained accurate data on the types of solid waste, the associated
collection and disposal costs, and scrap sales by types and quantities. About 10 percent
of the plants visited did not keep records for waste and scrap quantities; at these
locations estimates based on measured volumes and listed costs were made by the field
interviewers.
The independent data estimated by the field survey staff included weight and
density (packing factor) for the solid waste and scrap. The volumes of scrap were
accurately estimated because the small companies had their scrap removed on call
when the containers of known volume were filled. Waste weight and composition
estimates were probably less accurate owing to variations observed in different
storage containers. The methods used to achieve uniform data accuracy are described
in Appendix C. Special training in estimating waste densities was given to the field
survey staff.
The plant value categories on the questionnaire (see Appendix B) may have
required the large plants to declare less than their real value. This factor may account
for some of the large variations observed in plant waste and scrap quantities for the
greater than $10 million plant value categoiy.
In summary, the reliability of the data cannot be defined in quantitative
terms. Information obtained from company records is assumed to be accurate,
particularly since money was involved. The reliability of AMA data cannot be proven
but can be postulated as high because the large plants selected their waste haulers
by competitive bidding based on expected large waste quantities and types.
DATA ANALYSIS
General Approach
Data analyses were designed with the following three objectives in mind:
(1) estimation of industry solid waste; (2) estimation of total industry scrap and scrap
per car produced; and (3) determination of general plant characteristics that would be
useful in predicting plant waste and scrap quantities for individual plants, groups of
similar plants, or regional areas. The analytical approaches used were developed to
provide estimates of waste and scrap production based on available data.
The solid waste data contained in the AMA questionnaires was good, and when
combined with the other study results, accounted for plants representing approximately
83.5 percent of total industry employment. Thus, a good estimate of total industry
waste in 1969 was made by computing the average waste per employee for the plants
responding and multiplying by the total 1969 industry employment.
-29 -
-------
The AMA members do not consider scrap a solid waste problem since it is
presently being reused. Thus, salvage data was provided by the AMA survey, but
specific scrap data was not included. Scrap estimates were, therefore, derived solely
from the plants sampled by the project engineer, and from published sources. Scrap
generation was obtained by estimating the scrap produced in the manufacture of a
composite car/truck. The procedure was to obtain, from the plants sampled, estimates
of the scrap generated in the manufacture of parts used to assemble an automobile,
truck, and bus and to combine these estimates to yield an estimate of scrap produced
in the manufacture of a vehicle composed of these parts. Although no direct
measurement of the accuracy of this estimate could be made as a result of the small
number of plants sampled for each product, a comparison with materials balance
estimates for the automotive industry, derived from Figures 13 and 14, provided high
corroboration.
Determination of general plant characteristics that would be useful in predicting
plant scrap and waste quantities was not possible owing to the incompleteness of the
available data. However, a study was conducted on the data from the plants
sampled, using stepwise linear multiple regression. The preliminary study indicated
that solid waste and scrap production could not be well predicted by the parameters
of manufacturing process, employment, plant value, or the number of items made in an
individual plant but that they might possibly be predicted for a group of plants with
similar characteristics within an entire HEW region.
Automotive Industry Solid Waste and Scrap Prediction
industry Waste Prediction. Initially, correlation studies were conducted to
investigate the relation between cafeteria wastes and the number of employees. The
results, based on 112 plants (including AMA) that supplied garbage information,
showed zero correlation between number of employees and garbage produced.
Office waste studies were conducted on 27 plants surveyed* and visited by the
project engineer. The correlation between office wastes and number of employees
was 0.73. However, office wastes were not reported as such in the AMA
members survey and thus were considered a secondary parameter.
A third investigation was made to relate total plant solid waste generation with
employment for all products and processes combined on an industry basis. The results,
based on 158 AMA member and 63 sampled plants, showed no correlation (0.00) for
the industry as a whole. A plot of the plant wastes per employee is shown in Figure 42
The data points that fall outside the range of waste quantities represent foundries,
which generate large quantities of waste sand and sludge.
* For the purposes of this report, "surveyed" refers to the plants that responded
to the mailed questionnaire.
-30-
-------
Automotive Industry Solid Waste Prediction. Industry data available from all
sources provided detailed information on quantities and qualities of 1969 solid waste
production in plants. In view of the high percentage (83.5) of total industry
employment covered, estimates of the 1969 industry solid waste production and
projections for 1975 were made on the basis of short-term trends as follows:
1. Waste estimates for 1969 v/ere computed by summing the wastes, by type,
for plants that supplied employment information and then multiplying by the following
factor:
Total 1969 industry employment (100 percent) _ . ^
1969 employment sampled (83.5 percent)
2. Vehicle production for 1975 was projected as 13.7 million.
3. Productivity in man-hours per vehicle for total industry employment was
projected from Figure 7.
4. The number of employees required to produce the vehicles in 1975 was
derived from productivity by assuming a 52-week, 41.7-hour-per-weak work schedule.
5. Wastes were then calculated for 1975 by using the ratio of derived 1975
industry employment to total 1969 industry employment.
Waste estimates for 1969 and 1975, by type, are presented in Table 18. Note
that foundiy sand comprised 83 percent of all inert solids generated and sludges f, >rn
foundries accounted for 79 percent of the total sludges and slurries. The large amounts
of sludge wastes are generated during the washing operation, where the cast part is
cleaned with water and liquid cleaning compounds. The solid wastes per vehicle
produced were 1,600 Ib in 1969 and are projected at 1,480 Ib in 1975. The decreased
unit vehicle wastes in 1975 reflect technology advances related to plant production
and operations.
Industry Scrap Estimates. The quantity of scrap generated by the automotive
industry varies between plants manufacturing the same product. This is the result of
the following: (1) the different sizes in which each product is available, (2) alternative
manufacturing processes, and (3) differing process efficiencies. Scrap estimates were
obtained by formulating a vehicle composed of parts manufactured in the plants sampled
(see the parts list in Table 6). The scrap estimate for each item was obtained by
dividing the amount of scrap produced per month in the manufacture of the item by the
number of items produced per month.
Table 19 lists the parts commonly used in an automobile and the quantity of scrap
generated during their manufacture. Table 20 contains estimates of the scrap generated
-31 -
-------
from the manufacture of a truck and bus. A common undercarriage and parts
composition was assumed for each truck type and for buses. Scrap projections for 1975
are based on the vehicle production projected for that year. The scrap estimates are
for metals only. Approximately 97 percent of the scrap metals generated in the plants
surveyed was ferrous material, 1.65 percent was aluminum, 0.6 percent bronze, and
0.75 percent mixed copper, brass, and zinc. This scrap materials composition is in
close agreement with the materials composition of a typical automobile listed in
Table 21.
Industry Materials Balance. A materials balance for consumption of meials by
the automotive industry was completed to provide an alternative estimate of metal
scrap. The materials balance was computed from the latest data available, 1966.
Production, employment, and productivity in 1966 each differed by from 0.5 to 1.7
percent from 1969. Thus, these 2 years were assumed comparable for scrap estimation.
The computational steps were:
1. Metal materials consumption of 4,445 Ib per vehicle produced (cars, trucks,
and buses) in 1966 was taken from Figure 14 and is presented in Table 22.
2. The weight of the average vehicle produced in 1966 was 3,694 Ib based on
data calculations illustrated in Figure 13.
3. The metal materials in a composite vehicle described in Table 21 (89.5
percent) was used to estimate the quantity of metal (3,306 Ib) in an average vehicle.
4. Scrap per vehicle and total industry scrap were calculated from 1969
vehicle production; it was assumed that the percent of material becoming scrap
remained constant.
The scrap estimate by type of material is given in Table 22. The estimated scrap
per average vehicle produced is 1,139 Ib, which is slightly greater than the 1,000 Ib
per vehicle derived from Tables 19 and 20.
Prediction of Solid Wastes and Scrap for Individual Plants, Plant Groups, and
Regional Area.
Model Formulation. Data from the plants surveyed and visited were studied to
determine the usefulness of plant characteristics as predictors of plant waste and scrap
quantities. The variables available as potential predictors in the study were product,
processing operation, plant employment, plant value, and quantity of items produced.
Owing to the large number and variety of products encountered, product groupings
were used. Each plant was assigned a product group and a processing operation by
determination of the major product manufactured by the plant and the predominant
-32-
-------
processing operation occurring in the plant. Thus, within any classification the
possible predictive variables were plant employment, plant value, and quantity of
items produced.
Since several plants did not give information on the quantity of items produced,
two model formulations were used, one that included the quantity of items produced
and one that did not. Four models were investigated, two for prediction of scrap and
two for the prediction of solid wastes. The linear models were as follows:
(1) Y. = b() + b1X1+b2X2+ £ . i = 1,2
(2) Y. = B()+b1X1+b2X2 + b3X3+ e i=1,2
where Y. = scrap produced (tons/month)
Y~ = solid waste produced (tons/month)
X.. = number of employees
X2 = estimated plant value (in $10,000)
X« = quantity of product made
and € is an error term with E(e) - 0
These models were first used for all the data available, without classification
by process or product. This first run on waste prediction was similar to the study
described above (see Industry Waste Prediction) and also showed no correlation (0.06)
(see Tables 23 and 24, Any Plant Type). Then the models were used on data satisfying
successively more restrictive classifications. This process of subclassification was
limited by plant sample size considerations, and only those subclassifications that
contained a large number of plants relative to the variance of the dependent variable
were used.
Stepwise Linear Regression. In order to predict a variable Yj in terms of X] and
Xo (and XQ) a "best fit" solution plane (hyperplane) was sought in three- (four-)
dimensional space. The technique used to find this plane was stepv/ise linear regression,
which introduces an independent variable into the linear model only if it will
contribute significantly (as measured by an F-test) to the explanation of the variance
of the dependent variable. This produces an approximate "best fit" solution, in the
least squares sense, and has the advantage that variables not contributing to the
explanation of the variance of the dependent variable are not used.
The general equations arrived at by this method are of the form:
-33-
-------
(1) WBlVB2X2
<2> VVBlVB2VB3X3
where the B| are estimates of bj, unless B| = 07 which was used to signify that
Xj had not been brought into the equation.
The results of the stepwise regression analysis are shown in Tables 23 through 26.
Presented along with the regression coefficients are the values of multiple R^ which is
a measure of the proportion of variance of the dependent variable accounted for by the
prediction equation, and the standard error,, which is the standard deviation of the
residuals.
Discussion of the Model. In almost all cases, even when the amount of variance
accounted for by the prediction equation was high, the standard error was too large to
permit accurate predictions of individual plant scrap and waste.
This is most likely attributable to the wide range of plant products comprising
one product group and to the fact that while a plant may have had an easily
discernible major processing operation, it often also had a large number of secondary
processing operations. A second source of error in these results was that the maximum
figure allowed for plant value was $10 million which may have been too limiting.
Waste Management in the Automotive Industry Plants Sampled
Handling and Collection Methods at the Plant Source^ Waste and scrap storage
methods were essentially identical in the plants sampled. Solid waste and scrap we/e
stored at the source in containers ranging in size from 55 gal drums up to 30 cu yd.
Containers less than 4 cu yd were used in 85 percent of the 70 plants visited for source
storage, of which 55 gal drums were the most common. Central storage areas located
outside the plant buildings contained containers varying from 55 ga! drums to 80 cu yd
compactors. Large stationary storage bins that v/ere built on the plant grounds varied
in size from 70 to 272 cuya1. Presented in Table 27 is a tabulation of the container
and bin sizes observed. Photographs of bins are presented in Plate 2c and d, and
several common containers are shown in Plate 3. The distribution of container and bin
sizes are presented graphically in Figure 43. The particular container size chosen
depended upon the type and quantity of solid waste produced. In particular, large
bulky wastes such as cardboard, sheet metal trim, .wood, and large sheets of wrapping
paper required the larger containers to allow longer periods between collection and to
reduce spillover. Office waste, steel chips and turnings, and food vending waste
(see Plate 3a) were stored In small containers such as 55 gal drums.
ln-p!ant waste collection involved six pickup methods used either singly or
in combination as fellows: hand truck, towing vehicle, forklift truck, small industrial
-34-
-------
truck, belt conveyors, and vacuum system conveyors. Of the 70 plants visited that
supplied information, 22.8 percent (16) used hand equipment only, 47.2 percent (33)
used both hand and mechanical equipment, and 30.0 percent (21) used only mechanical
equipment. Towing vehicles were used to tow wheeled containers, several of which
were hooked together, to the storage area for processing and collection. Plan's that
used conveyors or vacuum systems to remove waste from process areas required little
janitorial work in the process areas. Photographs of waste collection equipment are
shown in Plates 4 and 5. There were basically two types of handling methods at the
process waste generation source, as follows: (1) periodic removal, where collection
from containers was scheduled periodically, and (2) continuous removal where conveyors
or vacuum systems were used to remove wastes as they were generated to external
storage containers. A summary of equipment use in- the automotive plants visited is
presented in Tables 28 and 29.
Vacuum systems were used for removing light sawdust or plastics from manufacturing
areas where sawing or drilling occurred. They were present primarily in specialized
custom truck body plants. Vacuum systems were also used to remove grinding dust in
mass production operations and to remove paper from the vicinity of paper cutters.
Another use was in the manufacture of arm and hand rests for the interior of vehicles.
In these manufacturing areas, plastic and wood trim wastes were removed during the
trimming operations.
Of the 70 plants supplying information on waste handling equipment, 21.4 percent
(15) reported using conveyor systems. Conveyors were used primarily for the removal
of scrap from the vicinity of machines. Although conveyors were used for all types of
scrap, the bulk of the materials handled by the conveyors was made up of metal chips,
turnings, and stamping scrap. One plant used a conveyor to remove sand from the
casting shaking machines to an external storage area. Sometimes plants used conveyors
to remove scrap from the processing area and to feed balers or shredders. However, most
conveyors were part of complete scrap handling systems, which conveyed metal from
the plant source into waiting railroad cars, gondolas, compactor vans, trailers, or
stationary bins. They were used in mass production operations.
Overhead cranes v/ere used less frequently than were compactors, conveyors, and
vacuum systems. Next to incinerators, the most widely used item of equipment for
solid waste volume reduction was the compactor.
The compactor solid waste storage container .units in use in the 70 automotive
industry plants visited varied in size from 16 to 80 cu yd. The number of plants with
compactor containers of listed capacity is shown in the following list:
-35-
-------
Container capacity (cu yd) Number of plants
16 1
18 i
30 5
33 1
35 1
40 5
42 1
80 1
Except for two plants where compactors were used for scrap turnings, the
compactors were used for normal solid waste, i.e. compacting paper and cardboard.
Of two balers found, one was used to bale paper and corrugated packaging waste, and
the other to bale scrap metal. At other locations, the shredder and shear were used to
reduce sheet scrap to a smaller, denser, cleaner, and more easily handled size. One
skip loader was used to load grinding paste sludge. Two overhead cranes were used
primarily to load materials from the storage containers and bins into collection vehicles.
One of the cranes was also used to remove sheet meial from within the plant process
area to the outside storage area. Magnets were used to segregate ferrous from nonferrous
scrap and waste and to load scrap from the external storage area into the collection
trucks. In Michigan many of the private collectors utilized their own truck-mounted
magnets for separating ferrous scrap at the plants when loading it into their trucks.
Equipment Use Factors. Several factors influenced the usage of handling or
processing equipment in plants. Production volumes often influenced the choice of
waste-handling equipment. In particular, large multistation transfer machines with
high production rates generated large quantities of wastes per unit of operation time
(Figure 18). These machines were set up in such a way that a conveyor automatically
removed the metal chips, turnings, and grinding dust from beneath the machine and
transported them to a storage bin or to scrap-processing equipment. These costly
machines are used for high production rates and were encountered only in plants with
plant capital values greater than $1 million.
In one large body plant the scrap was automatically removed from the shop area.
The plant installed a conveyor unit capable of carrying 20 to 30 Ib per lineal ft and
of transporting 550,000 Ib of metal daily. This conveyor system was located under
shearing presses and fed a central conveyor that transported all scrap material to an
outside processing and storage area. The plant also segregated its steel scrap into the
following three categories at the outside processing area: (1) scrap suitable only for
sale, which was directed to the conveyor for processing by a baler; (2) large flat
pieces of irregular shapes suitable for reuse within the plant, which were separated for
storage and reuse; and (3) small fiat pieces, generally resulting from piercing operations,
which were stored loose in freight cars, and subsequently sold to mills.
-36-
-------
Oilier factors influencing equipment usage were safety and the need to prevent
product damage. In areas where large amounts of dust were generated/ which might
have damaged products and machinery, or become a hazard for workers, vacuum
removal systems were used. In areas where oil or water was employed as a lubricant
or coolant the oily mixture was cycled through filters and settling tanks.
The volume reduction accomplished by the compactors resulted in reduced costs
because collection and disposal costs were normally based on the volume of solid waste.
Thus, the use of compactors in plants that generated large waste quantities resulted in
significant cost reductions, even when the cost of the compactor equipment was
considered.
Labor Aspects of Waste Management. In larger plants a regular maintenance
department operated the equipment and collected the waste at regular intervals from
containers located throughout the plant. In the smaller plants, the cleanup services
were performed once or tv/ice a day by one person who emptied the containers at the
machines by har.d or by fork I iff. This diversity in the methods of plant maintenance
created a wide variation in labor costs. In plants with fewer than 50 employees, one
or two persons spent a few hours per day cleaning up in the area of the process
machines and then returned to other jobs. Cleanup costs v/ere not separated. Larger
plants that used highly automated waste-handling equipment employed labor to clean
up spills. These labor costs again depended primarily on the particular efficiency of
a system at a given plant.
Often the size of the containers located at a given station varied because
replacements after collection were made from available empty containers. Occasionally
large amounts of waste were generated at a station with a relatively small container.
To remedy this situation, the containers were exchanged during in-plant collection.
Less than 10 percent of the plants visited contracted for private cleanup services,
and most of these were restricted to office areas. Private janitorial services v/ere
commonly used to keep costs down. Cost and production records, however, could be
safeguarded by using company-operated janitorial services at extra expense. This
practice was followed in plants manufacturing prototype products, automobile bodies,
and wheel drums.
Waste Storage Practices. The majority of plants stored waste and scrap in open
metal containers or on open ground bins on the premises outside the building.
Photographs of storage areas and containers are shown in Plate 6. The storage volume
required depended on the quantity of waste generated and the frequency of collection
and was commensurate with the space available. More than 90 percent of the plants
visited maintained their waste storage areas satisfactorily and were given a fair to good
rating for neatness and cleanliness. Two plants provided periodic exterminator services
for the entire plant that included the waste storage area. Exterminator services were
-37-
-------
not used exclusively for waste storage areas in the plants visited.
Segregation of wastes and scrap of different types v/as completed in the plant or
in the external storage area, or both, as shown in Table 30.
The major segregation occurred inside the plants at the production point, where
it was easier to separate each type of waste and scrap by deposition in different
storage containers. Twenty-one percent of the plants segregated metals both at the
production source and in separate storage areas, and this finding suggests that source
segregation was not complete. Primary segregation was made between metals and
nonmetals. Twice as many plants segregated metal scrap as segregated nonmetal waste.
A second level of segregation existed between ferrous and nonferrous metals. This
was due to scrap collectors' requiring that ferrous and nonferrous metals be separated
for sale because most nonferrous metals normally command higher scrap prices than
ferrous metals do. A mixed metal scrap would often bring lower scrap prices.
The segregation of other solid wastes such as paper, wood, cardboard, and
plastics was not done unless there was a specific salvage market for them. In plants
where large quantities of wood and cardboard wastes were generated, compactors were
employed to process the materials to reduce their volume and therefore the collection
costs. This was also true for cardboard v/astes and other uniform paper products that
were salvageable for reprocessing in paper plants. Plants that combined cardboard,
paper, rags, and general plant solid waste into one bin, had them removed from
the premises by a collection agent as solid waste.
Office and cafeteria wastes v/ere usually combined with general plant solid waste
in the storage or disposal areas. Offices were usually cleaned once daily offer regular
working hours. In plants without cafeterias but with vending machines or vending
trucks, the food service wastes v/ere mixed with the general plant and office wastes
at the employees' work area. The cafeteria or other food wastes v/ere transported to
the storage area after the last meal.
Fifty-one percent of the plants reported that they owned the equipment used
inside the plant for handling, storing, and collecting wastes. The other companies
rented or leased large containers, or trailers with compactor units, for waste storage
outside the plant building. These large containers and compactor units were serviced
by the collector, who periodically removed the filled containers and replaced them
with empty ones.
Salvage Practices. Of the 158 AMA member plants that supplied information,
42.4 percent (67) reported they salvaged waste materials. The amounts salvaged,
classified by type, are presented in Table 31. Of the total 440,999 tons/yr, slag and
cardboard made up 57.9 percent and 26.7 percent, respectively. Of the 158 plants
that supplied information, 23.4 percent (37) generated cardboard salvage, and 14.6
-38-
-------
percent (23) generated paper salvage. Salvaged materials amounted to 8 percent of
the waste generated in AMA member plants.
The distribution of the number of the 67 plants according to the number of salvage
items generated is presented in the following tabulation:
Percent of plants
No. of salvage items No. of plants supplying information
1 37 23.4
2 20 12.7
3 6 3.8
4 3 1.9
5 1 0.6
Waste and Scrap AAanagement Methods. The major alternatives for management
of solid waste were processing at the plant or using disposal areas outside the plant.
The common methods for plant waste processing or disposal were incineration or the
use of landfill on the site, or both. Plant scrap was sold to private collectors. At
foundries, however, meial scrap was recycled for reuse. Foundry sand was recycled
several times, but the sand on the mold surface was burned by the molten metal when
cast and was finally disposed of as waste to landfills.
The major in-plant processing method was incineration; 28 percent (32) of the
"plants sampled burned some or all of their wastes. The total waste reported burned
was 5,280 tons per year. Twenty-four of the 32 burners and incinerators were installed
in plants with valuations greater than $1 million. A summary of burning in plants
sampled is shown in Table 32. Conical burners and square fire boxes without APC
equipment were used by small plants to burn small quantities of waste, usually records
from offices. Photographs of small burners are shown in Plate 7. One plant of
$1 million value burned in an open pit. Large capacity incinerators with APC
equipment to meet air pollution requirements were reported in Michigan which recently
(1969) enacted a strict air pollution code.
The geographic distribution of incineration in the plants sampled is presented in
Table 33. The East Coast States of Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Virginia, and
the State of Ohio had the highest percentages of incineration. For the East Coast,
incineration was 41 percent and for Ohio 46 percent. In Michigan and Illinois, the
incidence was one out of three plants. Plant interviews and mailed questionnaire
responses indicated that incineration had been considered, or was being investigated
for use by five additional plants.
Large plants visited indicated more interest in incineration than the small plants
did. Although air pollution regulations by the State and local governments are
-39-
-------
becoming more stringent, plants still viewed incineration favorably. In Michigan
several communities had encouraged large plants to incinerate their combustible waste.
Larger plants can better afford to install incinerators with air pollution control
equipment than can small plants. The reported costs of Incineration at the plants
sampled varied from $1.71 to $467 per ton of refuse, with an average cost of $83.40
per ton (based on 17 plants). This large variation in cost per ton was due to the
variety of incinerators, type and quantity of waste incinerated, and variety of
accounting practices. The small plants visited that used incineration were generally
located in rural or outlying areas. California did not have plants with incinerators,
because of its stringent air pollution requirements.
Field visits indicated that the major determinants influencing a company's solid
waste management policy were costs, air pollution controls, and the quantities of
waste generated. The larger the quantities of waste produced, the more desirable
incineration became as a method of volume reduction, even with the added expense of
air pollution control equipment and residue disposal.
Disposal cost a'aia reported by the AMA survey for four combustion methods are
presented in Table 34. Of the 158 AAAA member plants supplying information, 8.2
percent (13) used incineration, and 5.1 percent (8) used an open burning dump. Of
the methods listed, the conical waste burner had the lowest reported average cost,
$0.93/ton, and incinerators had the highest average cost, $34.53/ton. Nineteen of
the 20 AMA member plants with on-site incineration each employed more than 1,300
persons. One plant with an open burning dump employed 680 persons. Thus, most
incinerators v/ere located in the larger plants. The total quantity reported burned by
AMA member plants was 43,762 tons per year 0 969).
Additional in-plant processing and disposal methods as reported by AMA member
plants included lagoon (3 plants); waste treatment plant processing (1 plant); and
disposal of food waste in a garbage disposal unit (1 plant).
Information concerning the final disposal destination of solid waste was supplied
by 39 plants visited. Of these, 33 used off-site landfills and 2 used on-site landfills.
The small number of on-site landfills may be attributed to the high cost and the
unavailability of land. The two plants utilizing landfills were located in rural areas
in the Eastern United States, where inexpensive land was available.
Waste disposal off the plant premises was accomplished at public or private
landfills, dumps, or incinerators. Incineration was used by 5.7 percent of the receiving
communities. Privately operated incinerators v/ere not reported, other than those located
in plants. The final disposal destinations reported by the plants visited are tabulated
in Table 35. Public facilities were generally open for public and private disposal.
The use of dumps was found in visits to plants in small towns in Michigan,
Wisconsin, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Rural landfill operations were less stringently
-40-
-------
controlled than urban landfills. Dump disposal was not reported by the plants visited
in urban areas. In addition, landfill operating regulations were more stringent in the
states where air pollution was regulated.
Waste Col lection Practices. Of the 70 plants visited that supplied information
concerning waste removal from the plant, 78.5 percent (55) used only outside
collectors to remove the wastes from the premises; 11.4 percent (8) used both outside
collectors and self hauf; and 8.6 percent (6) used only self haul. Public collectors
were used by 11.4 percent (8) of the plants. Of these, 7 also used private collectors.
More than one removal agent was used by 21.4 percent (15) of the plants. Public
removal was used primarily for cafeteria garbage and office trash.
Of the 217 AMA member plants supplying information on plant waste removal,
76 percent (163) used private collectors; 46 percent (100) self hauled; and 5.5 percent
(12) used some public collection for cafeteria garbage and office trash. Twenty-seven
percent (58 plants) reported more than one collector.
Plant solid waste and scrap removal schedules in plants visited depended on the
following three factors: (1) the rate of waste generation; (2) the use or nonuse of mass
production or custom (batch) production manufacturing; and (3) the bulkiness of the wastes.
The removal schedules used in the 70 plants surveyed are summarized in Table 36.
All plants visited reported waste collection frequencies of tv/ice a month or
greater. Regular collection schedules were used for waste removal in 82.7 percent of
the plants and for scrap in 58.7 percent. On call collection to remove wastes when
storage containers we;e full, which occurred at least twice a month, was the practice
in 17.3 percent of the plants. The two plants scheduling twice monthly waste removal
did not have cafeterias and their wastes consisted of mixed waste and metal.
Most small parts ana' custom truck manufacturers had their scrap removed on call
when their scrap storage capacity was full. The most frequent scrap removal schedules
were found in large mass production plants that generated large scrap quantities and in
plants with bulky sheet metal. The more frequent waste removal schedules were
necessary to avoid health problems (vermin, rats, etc) from food service wastes and
other organic materials. Scrap accumulation did not present health problems owing to
its inert composition.
The Economics of Waste Management Systems^ In-plant handling and storage
equipment, capitalization base, and labor wages determined the costs at the plant.
The collection and disposal portion of the costs were generally determined by private
collectors. Scrap and waste are discussed separately because of their different disposal
destinations and economic values.
Scrap was handled as a resource; i.e., it was sold for recycling to the basic
metals industry. Scrap sales prices decreased as the distance of the plant from major
-41 -
-------
scrap markets increased. Moreover, the scrap sales income reported by the plants was
reduced by the haul COSTS. Manufacturers generating large quantities sold their scrap
to collectors through monthly or yearly competitive bidding lists based on estimated
scrap grades and tonnage. These plants tended to be consistent over the year in the
type and quantity of scrap generated because of their mass production operation.
Small producers and custom vehicle manufacturers were usually paid monthly for their
scrap, the pay based on the weight disposed of by the private collector.
Waste removal costs included collection and disposal costs, that were combined
in the fee plants pay to private collectors. Waste removal cost data for the entire
industry including the AMA, in dollars per ton, are presented in Figure 44 as a function
of the amount of solid waste generated in tons per month. Although there is
considerable data scatter, the trend is clear: as the amount of solid waste generated
increases, the removal cost per ton of waste decreases. The equation for the least
squares parabolic curve through the data points was found to be
y . 80.05 x -°'454
where y = disposal and collection costs, dollars/ton
x = amount of solid waste generated, tons/month.
This equation is plotted in Figure 44.
To obtain a measure of the data scatter, the correlation coefficient r, defined by
r =.
__ _ _
£) (log x. - log x) (log y. - log y)
i= 1 '
Irn
fc.
(log x.
- log x) J
[Z (log y;
2]
- log y) J
1/2
where n = number of data points
x., y. are as defined above
x = mean value of x
y = mean value of y
was computed. A value of -0.82 was calculated for r (data with no scatter have
a correlation coefficient with an absolute value of unity); hence there was good
dependence of unit collection/disposal costs on waste quantity generated.
-42-
-------
Collection costs reported by the AMA member plants are shown in Table 37„
The average reported costs for self hauling are greater than for public and
private collectors. In addition, the maximum and minimum cosfs for self haul are much
more extreme than for private collection. This indicates that factors other than cost
were decisive in selecting the method of collection.
Landfill disposal costs reported by 44 AMA member plants averaged $4.94 per
ton. Field studies indicate that this cost is considerably higher than the average
landfill costs reported in a national study.
The labor costs for janitorial services, pickup, and disposal, and equipment
operation were or were not recorded separately, depending upon the plant sizes. In
the plants visited, prices varied according to the geographic area, local v/aste
practices, and the type of equipment. The effect of equipment type on costs is
illustrated in the following tabulation.
Average waste-handling cost
Type of equipment ($/ton) ($/cu yd)
No special equipment 37.20 2.40
(12) (21)
Conveyor 27.80 1.49
(6) (5)
Compactor 28.90 2.06
(2) (8)
Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of plants that supplied cost information.
These figures indicate that the use of special equipment reduces waste removal costs.
The complex equipment required for processing a- ' '.andling waste v/as expensive.
For example, 1969 prices of balers for processing paper ,c! corrugated waste ranged
from $2,250 for 400-Ib capacity to $3,850 for 900-lb capacity. For metal scrap
processing, baler costs varied from $19,000 for a 125-lb bale capacity to $90,000 for
a 750-lb bale capacity. Additional handling equipment such as conveyors, magnets,
and cranes were obviously economically feasible only in large plants.
The costs of storage v/ere primarily based on the assessed property valuation for
the square footage used. Plants visited used less than 1 percent of their total plant
land area for external storage of waste and scrap. Thus the storage costs, containers
excluded, were relatively small and were usually not considered unless a large
equipment installation was planned.
Special Problems in Waste Management. Information on special problems and
-43-
-------
procedures was supplied by 41 AMA member plants and 15 sampled plants. Fourteen
plants reported that special handling was required for oils and sludges. Special
problems noted were segregating of flammable liquid from disposable sludges and
dewatering waste oils. Eight plants reported that chemical waste disposal required
special handling and permission for landfill dispo~al because of toxicity or flammability.
An additional 19 plants used special procedures to dispose of waste cardboard, paper,
wood, plastics, rubber, liquids, and cast iron. Three of these 19 noted extra
precautions were necessary to control srnoke from their incinerators when wastes were
burned. Future lack of landfill areas due to unavailability of close-in land was noted
by 12 plants. The high cost of disposal was mentioned as a problem by two plants.
Two foundries reported that special methods were used to dispose of inert solids and
foundry sand. In addition, it was reported that the.large quantities of disposed foundry
sand were using up the available landfill sites. Two plants cited undependable waste
collection pickup service schedules.
Efficiency of Waste Management Systems^ An in-depth study on efficiency
within the plant, concerning the handling and collection of waste from the generation
areas was beyond the scope of this study. However, observations wore made to identify
obvious inefficiencies.
Cost per ton for waste collection and disposal is one indication of efficiency.
These costs were discussed previously. The data indicated that large plants achieved
economically efficient operation with large amounts of waste when waste-handling
and processing equipment were used. The use of equipment such as conveyors,
compactors, balers, shredders, and crushers reduced the labor required for waste
management.
A subjective method of evaluating the overall efficiency of waste management
Is to request the plant personnel to rate their collection and disposal methods.
Questionnaires employing a rating scale from 0 (poor) to 10 (good) were completed
by plant personnel.
As shown in Figure 45, the results of the ratings indicated a cuive slightly
skewed towards the good side of the rating scale. Perhaps the good rating was
influenced by limited knowledge and the attention commonly given to more important
operating responsibilities. Nevertheless, most respondents indicated they were
satisfied with their collection and disposal methods.
Aesthetics of Waste and Scrap Management Practices. The outside storage areas
ln plants visited were not visible in their entirety trom publfc streets. The visible
portions were the walls of stationary storage bins, and fully enclosed compactors wh.ch
were located at the shipping dock. Where plants had open stationary bins they were
used exclusively for scrap storage. The heavy scrap was not wind blown and was little
affected by the weather. Also, metal scrap did not attract vermin and thus could be
stored uncovered.
-44-
-------
Twenty percent of the plants had open solid v/aste storage (Plate 6). In one plant
the solid waste was piled on the ground next to the scrap. When the plant representa'lve
conducting the plant tour noticed the piles, he immediately ordered the waste picked up
and deposited in 55 gal drums situated within the storage area.
The frequency of solid waste and scrap pickup at plant storage areas affected
their neatness end efficiency. Plants with a regular pickup schedule were cleaner
than those with on-call pickup because spills occasionally occurred before the hauler
was able to remove the solid waste and scrap. Of the plants sampled, only one
complained of the time required for the hauler to remove the solid waste from the site.
Another, similar situation noted was evident during a collectors' strike in one city,
which caused the solid wasie to pile up on the plant premises. The plant, in this case,
did not have a truck available to remove the solid waste, and the overflow created an
unsightly nuisance. However, the overall view of plant officials was that the
collectors were responsive to the plant needs; this included haulers contracted for
on-call collection. In fact, collectors required that scrap be segregated and solid
waste be properly stored.
Industry Management Attitudes.._ Eighty percent of the plant officials interviewed
were interested in solid wasie and scrap control. They generally saw solid waste control
as a management function requiring optimum economy to help keep an edge on their
competition. Many of the plants with adverse opinions regarding effective solid waste
management were probably eliminated from the survey during initial telephone contacts
(about 20 percent). Therefore, the plant cross-section studied was, as previously noted,
prejudiced towards the more efficient and cooperative plants, which rated themselves
fair to good in the solid waste-handling and disposal methods. Companies with little
v/aste tended to have less interest in the survey but were nevertheless cooperative. ^ Mass
production plant managers were very interested in solid waste and had studied, in depth,
the best disposal and handling methods.
Of the 70 plants visited that supplied information concerning whether they kept
records on solid waste disposal, 28 (40 percent) kept no records, and 42 (60 percent)
did Sixty-eight plants supplied information describing whether they kept records on
scrap handling. Forty-five (66.3 percent) kept records and 23 (33.7 percent) kept
none. The monetary value of scrap is the reason why more plants kept records on scrap.
Information on waste and scrap records were not provided by the AMA survey.
Nonetheless, the detailed waste quantities and collection/disposal cost data provided
in the AMA data indicates that reasonably complete records are kept by most plants.
Management in plants visited did not appear overly concerned with solid waste or
scrap after it was removed from the plant site. Their main concern was getting ,t
removed from their own premises, after which they had l.ttle contact w,th or knowledge
of the disposal or reclamation operation. Exceptions to th.s were the plants that had
-45-
-------
self-haul setups and disposed of their own solid waste, ana' AMA officials who reported
that member companies are "deeply concerned with ultimate solid waste disposal."
One plant official visited complained that his plant's waste hauler had a local
monopoly and charged excessively high rates. This was verified in subsequent studies
of the relation of costs to quantity of solid waste, which indicated that this plant's
costs were two to three times higher in comparison with other areas where competition
existed. Plants can become captive customers to collection monopolies if their
capitalization is not sufficient for acquiring their own hauling vehicles. Well
capitalized companies are less affected in this respect because they can usually afford
to acquire their own vehicles for hauling.
Three plants volunteered questions concerning whether or not this study would lead
to more Federal or other government regulation of their operations. It appeared that
plants of $1 million or more in value responded to government regulations more than
smaller plants, but tended to accept them with resignation. Plants under $1 million in
value appeared more independent, perhaps because the Federal government has tended
to ignore them in most surveys. Another reason for the independent attitude of smaller
plants may be that the Federal government can regulate through government contracts,
which were more commonly awarded to the laroc;r plan's than to the smaller plants.
Most plant personnel visited seemed aware of state and local government air
and wafer pollution regulations but were not cognizant of government regulations
concerning solid wastes. In general, management did not desire further government
regulation of their operations, but they anticrpaied further pollution control.
Waste Management Trends^ The automotive industry, especially AMA members
plants jTs becoming Increasingly aware of internal waste handling costs. In the
automobile assembly plants, this is exemplified by centralized monitoring of solid
waste costs and scrap sales. Centralized and automated materials control was
introduced to increase profits. The practices of separating scrap and waste cosis and
of studying the tradeoffs with respect to solid waste between alternative manufacturing
processes have become common.
Reuse of process scrap and waste packaging material was also found to be
increasing. The introduction of containerized shipping eliminated most disposable
shipping crates and reduced the amount of packing required because of the stronger
structure of the reusable containers. Much of the packing material was also reusable
and significantly reduced packaging waste.
One major assembly plant published 25 information on experiments with a waste
pyrolizer to reduce combustible waste materials to elemental charcoal and combustible
gases.
-46-
-------
Changes in waste management trends will have more effect on certain sizer and
types of plants. Plants with large capital value, with their greater needs, are in a
better capital position to use and benefit from the newer technologies. For example,
major assembly plants may reduce their solid waste quantities in the near future. The
overwhelming majority of their waste, estimated between 90 and 95 percent by volume,
consists of reclaimabie shipping and packaging materials. The use of metal containers,
which have a long life, will tend to significantly reduce total solid wastes because
the metal containers will be reused rather than become solid v/aste after each delivery.
In addition, plants can increase their salvage of corrugated containers. One example
was reported wherein a large plant spent $250,000 annually to dispose of its solid
wastes, and then, by segregating its packaging and other wastes, obtained a new
waste-scrap contract which resulted in a net yield of $100,000 annually.
The custom vehicle plants and the parts sector of the industry are not expected
to experience large changes in their waste and scrap quantity because they tend to
be limited by production rates ana1 material requirements. Furthermore, the small
producers do not have the capitalization base to invest in newer waste management
equipment. Thus they will tend to remain relatively unaffected by technology changes
in the near future. Custom body plants utilize a limited number of production processes
and generally operate with efficient v/aste and finished product control because they
can finish poorly trimmed body components by hand instead of rejecting them for
salvage. Limitations on changes in process and product tolerances tend to constrain
the amount of improvement which can be made in manufacturing to reduce the
quantity of scrap and waste. It is assumed thai most plants are operating at or near
such an optimum for competitive reasons.
Packaging by the parts manufacturers is related to the ultimate destination of
the product. Individual packaging is used for replacement markets, and bulk
packaging for shipment to vehicle manufacturers. The replacement market tends to be
relatively stable in its packaging requirements although there may be some trends
away from cardboard ana' paper to plastic. Problems can arise because the plastics
may be more difficult to handle in final disposal and they may not decompose in a
landfill.
Community Relations
Discussion of Specific Problems. Several problems were encountered that arose
from solid waste management practices and affected the communities in which the
plants were located. Air pollution was caused by open burning dumps at two
plants. Paint and grinding sludges from another plant were causing fires in the landfill
when they were being disposed. Elsewhere, several authorities reported that
automotive plant oils and greases required special handling when placed in landfills
in order to prevent seepage into groundwater or the creation of fire hazards. One
large automotive plant was disposing of waste vinyl sheets into a municipal landfill.
-47-
-------
The landfill authorities reported that compaction of the vinyf was difficult. Vinyl
sheets protruded from the earth cover, and the fill appeared somewhat more resilient
than typical landfills.
Of the total of seven municipalities that responded to the project engineer's
questionnaire and 11 municipalities interviewed by telephone, only two reported air
pollution problems resulting from burning automotive solid wastes. The municipal
authorities did not indicate any plans to control air pollution. Communities were
aware that plant wastes were burned in the summer and that this caused smoke and
other nuisances.
Municipal Disposal Costs. Two municipalities reported costs for public
collection of Industrial wastes of $1.43 and $10.26 per ton.
Municipal waste disposal costs reported by five communities varied from $0.72
to $5.00 per ton. The combined costs of municipal waste collection and disposal
reported ranged from $2.15 to $11.44 per ton. A limited number of municipalities
reported costs for industrial waste collection and disposal because most municipalities
do not collect wastes from industrial establishments. As seen from Figure 44, these
costs are within the range of costs reported by the plants.
Solid Waste Records. Municipal authorities contacted reported that they lacked
dependable industrial waste information. The degree of availability of recorded data
differed from community to community. There v/as little solid waste record keeping,
especially regarding the quantities and types of solid waste from the automotive
industry. Some municipal authorities estimated all the community industrial wastes.
The reliability of these estimates, which were often based on personal observation by
a landfill gateman, is open to question. Communities that charged for the use of
their disposal facilities and those that had problems finding landfill areas had more
complete records. Solid waste was seldom categorized separately for a particular
industry.
The difficulty of obtaining accurate data is illustrated by the project engineer's
experience with the waste-handling equipment manufacturers. Of ten manufacturers
contacted, only two replied, and only one provided usable information. The
manufacturer who provided the usable information supplied estimates of solid waste in
two automotive plants. Estimates, not precise figures, were supplied because the
automotive plants would not disclose their figures to the manufacturer even though the
manufacturer had contracted to install waste-handling equipment for the plants in
question.
Since the nature of the solid waste business is very competitive, private
collectors were hesitant to release any Information that might prove valuable to their
competitors. Even those contractors who did provide some information had little
-48-
-------
accurate data because they had not maintained accurate type, weight, or volume
summaries. Most collectors charged a fixed amount on a long-term or annual contract
basis.
9A
Genesee County, Michigan, recently completed a solid v/aste survey; however, the
automotive Industry was nor separately described. Three Michigan communities have
conducted studies for solid waste master plans. The total solid waste contribution
of the automotive plants was reported in the total for the region rather than separated
by individual types and quantities. Thus automotive plant solid waste could not be
separated from the total solid waste in a given community. In a recent study by the
State of California Department of Public Health,^' automotive industry solid v/aste was
estimated to be approximately 0.6 percent of all manufacturing wastes generated in
the State.
Community and Industry Views of Each Other Concerning Solid Wasje
Management. As a means of discerning the views of the community towards the
industry and of the industry towards the community concerning solid waste
management, plant and municipal authorities were asked to rate each other's
effectiveness independently by mailed questionnaires. The results are presented in
Figure 45. A comparison of the two ratings reveals very little difference in the
number of responses for each rating value. Both private and public authorities responded
with relatively high ratings, the combined mean rating being 3.5 on a scale ranging
from 0 to 5. A rating of 4 had the highest number of responses from industry. The
median rating was about 4. Municipal authorities rated industry at a mean of about
•2.5. Thus, the automotive industry and the municipalities viewed each other's
performance in handling solid waste as satisfactory. These ratings were based on
limited industrial solid waste information and more than likely were influenced by
the lack of specific automotive industry knowledge on the part of the municipal
authorities.
Automotive Industry Views of Government Roles. One of the questions on the
questionnaire mailed to the automotive industry asked whether adequate steps were
being taken by municipal authorities to alleviate industrial solid waste disposal
problems. Forty-nine percent of the 43 responses were In the negative, 19 percent
were noncommittal, and 7 percent were not applicable or contained an unconcerned
description of the role of municipal authorities. The affirmative responses represented
26 percent of the total responses.
The problems mentioned by industry were primarily concerned with lack of
disposal sites; 23 percent of the plants responding to the question mentioned in the
preceding paragraph noted the lack of readily accessible landfills, dumping areas,
and available land within the city limits.
Most contact between plants and public officials occurred because of violations
-49-
-------
of pollution and health code regulations. For example, the State of Michigan recently
enacted strict air pollution regulations to eliminate open burning and to increase solid
waste incineration disposal. There appears to be a need for better communications
betv/een plant and public authorities in order to solve industrial solid waste problems
as part of a regional program. If better solid waste management were provided, local
conflicts might be prevented such as occurred when a Midwestern plant, using a
landfill in a community, was subsequently prohibited by that community from that use
and was thus forced to begin a search for another disposal site.
Pollution and Aesthetics. Automotive plants may cause land, air, water, or
visual pollution. Air pollution is usually visible over a larger region than the other
types of pollution are and thus is regarded as a community or regional problem. Air
pollution problems at automotive industry plants were not noticed as being significant
except when an incinerator or other combustion unit was installed (Plate 7). In a few
small plants, open burning was observed. Open-pit incineration of waste oil was
occasionally practiced by several plants, and this resulted in air pollution complaints.
Open burning has, however, decreased in most areas. Several of the larger plants
burned confidential office and production records; however, the incinerators were
provided with their own air pollution control system.
In three of the Eastern States visited, the air pollution due to smoke from
incineration was noticeable in the neighborhood, despite reported emphasis on strict
regulation. Most small plants in the East that burned solid waste were in the rural
or semirura! areas and had few close neighbors. Most larger plants, especially in
'pollution-conscious States such as California, had stopped incineration or were
investigating alternative means of disposal. Where incinerators have been installed,
conformance to air pollution regulations has increased the operating expense.
There are problems even when incinerators do not contribute to pollution,
because inert wastes and combusted residues must be disposed of. Fly ash tends to be
easily wind blown and may create nuisances. Fortunately, rats and vermin are not
normally found in ash storage areas and disposal sites.
Large firms located in small communities exert an economic influence on the
area through the large number of residents employed. Thus, if they incinerated,
and comolaints were received, the complaints were seldom acted upon, be.ng usually
ignored by municipal officials in order not to disturb the economic base of the
community.
Water disposal is an alternative to burning (air pollution). Waste-water pollution
in the automotive industry is described in a recent study.^ As a result of increased
pressure to reduce water pollution, industrial solid wastes are be.ng separated, and
semisolid liquid concentrates are being disposed with solid wastes ,n landf.lls or even
by incineration.
-50-
-------
As a genera! rule, solid waste and scrap storage areas were located so as not to
be visible from public roads. Those that were visible were kept clean. The larger
corporations were well organized and used large, central containers and thus eliminated
wind-blown wastes and overflow (Plates 6a, b, and c). The plants without storage
containers and handling equipment tended to have ill-kept waste storage areas, and
one on-site dump was poorly managed (Plates 6d, e, and f). Noise was not a problem
outside of the plant areas. Most of the plants were located in noisy industrial areas.
This tended to reduce the relative nuisance effect of local plant noise below what
would exist if the plants were located near a quiet residential area. Of the 74 plants
visited, 14 percent were located in residential neighborhoods, 9 percent in commercial
neighborhoods, and 77 percent in industrial neighborhoods. Industrial trucks and
other motorized equipment of course generate extensive background noise.
The Role of Government in Solid Waste Management. On a local or regional
level, most government agencies reported little direct communication with the plants.
The government agencies did tend to be responsible for seeing that various codes and
regulations with respect to air and water pollution were met by the industry.
Concerning the regulations for solid waste collection, all the communities responding
stated that local industries were primarily responsible for handling their own waste
material through private contractors who ultimately disposed to privately or publicly
owned disposal facilities. Fifty percent of the private contractors used public facilities,
and 50 percent used private facilities to dispose of their automotive industry wastes.
State governments have recently become involved as a result of the Federal
solid waste program. They also traditionally are concerned when regional environmental
problems develop. Federal and State regulations have recently produced stricter
controls of air and water pollution. These recently enacted regulations and co Jes have
prompted industry to consider alternative modes of solid waste disposal.
The AMA member plants were asked, on the AMA survey questionnaire, whether
local government was concerned with their solid waste management activities. From
the 85 replies received, it was found that local governments were largely concerned
with disposal sites, collection, and disposal regulations. Disposal sites were provided
by the city for 34 plants and by the county for 19. One plant provided its own site.
The city provided collection service for 2 plants. Disposal procedures were regulated
by the city for 14 plants, by the county for 9 plants, and by the State for 9 plants.
Private contractors handled the collection and disposal for 12 plants.
In reply to the question whether local or State regulations affect solid waste
management activities, 12 affirmative replies were received. The regulations noted
concerned air pollution, littering, disposal sites, landfill procedures, and water
quality for sewerage systems.
Geographic Trends in Waste Disposal. Incineration regulations serve as
-51 -
-------
examples of variations in the local management of solid waste and in the local codes
for controlling pollution/ and in addition, illustrate National and regional differences.
In Ohio 18.2 percent of the 11 plants visited that replied to the questionnaire were
planning to incinerate in the near future. In Michigan, the corresponding figure was
6.2 percent, based on 32 plants studied. Conversely, in the Western States,
incineration is gradually being reduced and phased out in all the plants surveyed.
This indicated that State regulations have not yet completely affected incineration
practices. This is particularly evident in Michigan, where the new State air pollution
regulations may result in the proliferation of new plant incinerators.
Considerations of economic benefits resulting from the presence of industry have
tended to made local officials minimize incineration regulations. In Michigan and
California, however, there has been stronger enforcement. In these States, plant
authorities definitely enforced new, strict air pollution regulations, even if increased
expenses resulted. Tightened Federal regulations and additional State laws are
envisioned by the industry and may be expected to reduce or eliminate many geographic
differences by establishing uniform National standards in the area of land, air, and
water pollution. Application of recently enacted Federal and proposed government
air polluilon control standards will eventually eliminate the geographic differences
cited.
CONCLUSIONS
Industry Structure
Industry Plants. The number of majc American automotive firms has stabilized
at four. The existing automobile assembly .xicity appears to be sufficient to meet
the estimated vehicle demand through 197. , v/hen production is estimated to reach
13.7 million vehicles. Two new plants fc: nuck production have been proposed by
two major firms, one to be constructed in IS70 and one to begin full-scale production
in 1970. Some of the production capacity in these plants will be filled by transferring
operations from existing plants. The geographic distribution of vehicle assembly
facilities is expected to follow market growth.
A 38 percent increase in plants classified in SIC 3713 from 1963 to 1968 was
offset by a 9 percent decline in plants classified in SIC's 3711, 3712, and 3714.^The
increase in truck and bus body plants resulted from the increased demand for special
types of vehicles.
Employment^ The rate of improvement in employee productivity since 1960
appears to be approaching a limit. The large decrease in man-hours per vehicle from
1959 to 1960 appears to be due to technological improvements. As seen in Figure 6,
-52-
-------
the long-term productivity trend for total work force reached limiting values in the
years 1950, 1955, and 1959, when a 220 man-hour-per~vehicle minimum occurred.
A new minimum of about 174.5 man-hours per vehicle is indicated by 1965 and 1968
productivity (Figure 6 and Table 2). Thus, the long-term trend in productivity, while
fitting a parabolic curve, actually occurs in incremental jumps. The yearly
fluctuations reflect two factors as follows: (1) economic conditions and (2) war
dislocations (1951-1953, and 1966-1969). The 1959-to-1960 jump and relative
year-to-year stability since then appear to have resulted from the use of computers
for production scheduling, machining control, and inventory control. Major
productivity increases in the future are expected to result from new technologic
improvements as indicated historically from 1959 to 1960.
Product Changes^ The vehicle v/eight and materials trends discussed previously
ore the major product changes that will affect solid waste and scrap generation. As
the weight of an average vehicle decreases, materials consumption decreases. On
the assumption that a constant percentage of consumed metals will be generated as
scrap, the amount of scrap will decrease.
The increasing use of plastics will reduce the discarded scrap and waste
materials because plastics are primarily formed in molds or die cast. Die cast
processing results in negligible material losses. The thermoplastics are recoverable
for reuse; thermosetting plastics cannot be reused. Since thermoplastics are the most
widely used there can be reclamation of waste plastics.
Solid Waste btimation
Statistical Waste Prediction Parameters. Stepwise multiple linear regression
analyses using process and product as categories, and employment, plant value, ana'
number of units produced as independent predictor variables, v/ere made for solid
waste and scrap v/eight quantities. The results showed employment to be the dominant
plant variable for both waste and scrap prediction when regression was done for
individual categories (Tables 23 through 26). Note that regression without
categorization showed no correlation (0.06) for waste prediction (see Tables 23 and
24, any product and any process) as did simp-le regression on employment without
categorization (see Figure 42 and discussion on page 30). The variable "quantity of
product made" was the least significant contributor to improvement in multiple
regression R^ as can be seen by comparing Table 23 with 24 and 25 with 26. The
multiple-regression coefficient was most significant-for waste prediction in plants
machining engine systems, machining any products, and fabricating bodies. Scrap
prediction showed the highest multiple regression for machining any product, and for
fabricating body components. Thus, machining and body fabrication operations
appeared to be the most consistent for predicting weight quantities of solid waste and
scrap generated.
-53-
-------
Waste Estimation. Estimates of total industry solid wastes for 1969 amounted to
approximately 1,600 Ib per vehicle produced. Of this total, 1 ,310 Ib consisted of
inert solids and sludges, 59.5 Ib of paper, 76.5 Ib of cardboard, 54 Ib of wood, and
55 Ib of cafeteria garbage. An independent source has estimated corrigated cardboard
wastes at 50 Ib per automobile produced, which is in close agreement with the survey
results.
Scrap Estimation. The 13 percent difference between scrap estimates derived
from the plants ampled 0 /OOO Ib) and estimates based on materials balances 0 /139 Ib)
may be attributed to one or a combination of the following two factors: (1) products
listed in SIC Codes 3711, 3712, 3713, and 3714 that were not covered constituted 15
percent of the curb weight of an average vehicle; and (2) some of the materials
consumed by the industry are used for fabricating in-plant facilities and equipment.
Although employment was indicated to be a statistically significant predictor for scrap,
a more realistic scrap breakdown for a separate composite car and truck/bus was
achieved by a summation of scrap quantities generated during the manufacture of vehicle
components. This approach provided a method of comparing scrap estimates derived from
materials balances with plant sample estimates.
Waste Management
Salvage Operations_. There is great potential for improvement in reclamation,
i.e., salvaging operation's. Salvage amounted to 1 04 Ib per vehicle produced in 1969,
or 6.5 percent by wet weight of the disposed wastes. For example, salvaged cardboard
amounted to 30.3 percent by wet weight of waste cardboard, salvaged plastics
amounted to 10.3 percent of waste plastics, and salvaged oils and paints amounted to
13.5 percent of wastes. Other materials were salvaged in smaller proportions (Tables
18 and 30). The major reclamation determinant for some plants is the availability of
a salvage market. Small plants, with capital values of less than about $300,000, may
not salvage waste materials, because they generate very small amounts or lack the
capital base to install equipment required to process wastes for salvage. The industry
management is oriented to production and therefore often overlooks opportunities for
reclamation and salvage of materials.
Waste management practices vary widely in plants manufacturing the same
product. For example, two foundries were visited, both located in the same city and
therefore operating in the same economic and labor markets. These two foundries
produced about the same v/eight of castings (engine parts, blocks, and heads), but
sand (inert solid) wastes from one were 100 times greater than from the other. Thus,
effective waste management in one foundry through reuse resulted in a 100-fold
reduction in waste materials. Since foundries generated 54.5 percent of total industry
waste in 1969 (Table 18), 78.6 percent of which was sand, significant reductions in
automotive industry waste may be achieved by increasing reuse of sand. Foundry wastes
varied from 0.45 ton to 620.7 tons per employee per year. Thus, it is apparent that
many do not presently reuse or salvage their wastes. This variation in waste quant.ty
-54-
-------
existed for other types of plants (Figure 43), but the ranges were not as great.
If inert solia's and sludges are excluded, cardboard and wood comprise 45 percent
of the remaining 290 Ib of waste per vehicle. Cardboard and wood are primarily
generated from packaging materials; thus reusable containers can significantly reduce
noninert waste materials. In fact, the inert materials, though generated in large
quantities, do not affect the environment to the extent that noninert materials do.
Thus, concentration on the reduction of waste cardboard, paper, wood, garbage, etc,
will produce the greatest improvement in the environment. On an economic basis,
the greatest socio-economic value in waste management would be achieved by
concentrating on reducing noninert waste materials.
Scrap. All plants sampled sold their metal scrap or had it hauled away free of
disposal cost. Thus, scrap disposal is not regarded as an industiy problem.
Waste Management^Fffficijincy^ The salvage practices discussed in the previous
paragraph are one indication of efficient waste management. Costs are the major
factor associated with all measures of efficiency. The wide ranges of waste collection
and disposal costs are attributable to differences In geography and management practice.
The unit costs shown in Figure 44 vary by a factor of 10 for a given quantity of solid
waste generated. Since labor rates and equipment costs do not vary geographically
by this magnitude, the variation is attributed to differences In v/aste management
practices. For example, v/aste collection and disposal costs for plants sampled that
used compactors were below the unit cost curve shown in Figure 44. Thus, the use of
waste-preceding equipment improves the efficiency of waste management systems.
Automotive plants need to develop better Information concerning solid waste
quantities, types, and collection and disposal costs. It is apparent from the study data
cited that there is a large range in plant costs per unit of waste removed and disposed.
These differences are in part due to limited knowledge and cost control. Reduced
costs for industrial waste removal and disposal will result if better data evaluations are
made.
A definite relationship existed between plants with high capital values and the
use of waste-handling and processing equipment, larger plants will have the greatest
variation in waste quantities resulting from the introduction of new methods of waste
handling and disposal.
The smaller plants are not expected to experience large changes in the quantities
of waste and scrap produced, because they are not in a f.nanc.al pos.t.on to ut.l.ze
new equipment and receive the full benefit from technologic advances.
Envir
the
nmental Aspects of Automotive Industry Wastes., More than 90 percent of
lf^^ Qnd W6re 9'VGn
-55-
-------
a fair to good rating for environmental neatness and cleanliness.
Although quantitative noise level measurements were not made, observations by
the field staff indicated noise was not an environmental problem outside of the plant
boundaries.
In the Eastern and Midwestern United States, many plants used open-type burners
or incinerators without air pollution controls. The stringent air pollution regulations
and the large number of incinerators operating poorly indicate that there will be a need
for further enforcement. Incineration practices have been affected more by State
than by local regulation because local community regulations may not be enforced.
Solid wastes may affect groundwater quality primarily through disposal of toxic
chemicals, oils, and sludges. Most plants and municipalities were aware of the
potential problems; however, most private collectors refused to pick up and dispose of
chemical wastes because of costs for special handling equipment or lack of disposal
sites. Some of the plants affected reported that they dispose of these hazardous
materials on their own property.
Municipal Industrial Waste Management Policies. The automotive industry and
the municipalities viewed each other's performance in handling solid waste as
satisfactory. Since many plants cited lack of available landfill sites as a major waste
disposal problem the indicated community role is to develop long-range waste disposal
plans. There is also a need to develop new methodologies for handling and disposing
of solid wastes since part of the problem is that suitable close-in landfill property
is becoming scarce. Communities can also assist industry in arranging for disposal of
toxic wastes. At present, industry normally pays twice for collecting and disposing
of its waste; once for private and self collection and again in taxes to support
municipal collection and disposal.
-56-
-------
TABLE 1
UNITED STATES AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY VEHICLE PRODUCTION
Year
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
From:
1970.
1969.
1966
Automobiles*
3,911,335
5,118,293
6,658,510
5,330,594
4,337,443
6,134,823
5,508,637
7,942,125
5,801,865
6,115,454
4,244,045
5,599,471
6,703,086
5,522,004
6,943,470
7,644,359
7,744,888
9,335,208
8,604,726
7,412,610
8,848,507
8,224,267
* Automotive News. 1970 Almanac,
p. 56.
t Automotive News. 1969 Almanac,
Trucks'!
1,331,468
1,111,934
1,323,111
1,287,233
1,198,426
1,190,254
997,756
1,215,236
1,076,815
1,056,076
848,027
1,096,335
1,166,360
1,099,620
1,219,057
1,428,240
1,528,706
1,747,628
1,722,058
1,548,014
1,949,344
1,956,996
Detroit, Michigan,
Detroit, Michigan,
Bust
(Factory sales)
33,489
19,761
20,812
29,149
24,971
19,540
25,156
30,558
26,778
27,574
22,735
27,398
32,056
28,658
28,967
35,706
30,809
35,184
36,634
35,866
Not
available
Slocum Publishing Co.,
Slocum Publishing Co.,
p 56.
t Motor Truck Facts. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Detroit, Michigan.
to 1968 issues.
-57-
-------
TABLE 2
UNITED STATES AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY
Cn
oo
Productivity
Year
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
Total
employees*
(1,000)
780.7
751.3
816.2
833.3
777.5
917.3
765.7
891.2
792.5
769.3
606.5
692.3
724.1
632.3
691.7
741.3
752.9
842.7
859.2
809.3
843.2
. 869.9
* Bureau of Labor
Production
employees*
0,ooo)
631.9
613.4
677.1
681.8
618.7
739.4
601.5
718.3
619.5
601.7
452.5
537.5
563.3
479.1
534.0
573.6
579.2
658.9
668.4
621.7
727.7
676.1
Statistics.
t Automotive News, 1969 Almanac,
Average
weekly
hours*
39.2
39.4
42.1
40.4
4] .4
42.0
41.5
43.6
41.2
40.9
39.7
41.1
41.0
40.1
42.7
42.8
43.0
44.2
42.8
40.8
43.1
: 41 .7
Total
vehicles
produced"!"
(1,000)
5,276.3
6,250.0
8,002.4
6,747.0
5,560.8
7,344.6
6,531.5
9,187.9
6,905.5
7,199.1
5,118.1
6,723.1
7,901.5
6,650.3
8,191.5
9,108.3
9,304.4
11,118.0
10,363.4
8,996.5
10,797.9
10,181.3
Detroit, Michigan, Slocum
Total
man-hours per
vehicle
301.60
248.00
223.08
259.48
301.08
273.00
253.24
219.96
245.96
227.24
244.40
219.96
195.52
198.12
187.72
180.96
180.96
174.20
184.60
190.84
175.01
. 185.44
Publishing Co., 1969.
Production
man-hours per
vehicle
241 .30
202.80
185.12
212.16
239.72
219.96
198.64
177.32
192.40
177.84
182.52
171.08
152.36
150.23
144.56
140.40
139.36
136.24
143.52
146.64
151.04
144.21
p. 226.
-------
TABLE 3
MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PRODUCTION CENTERS
8
£
CO
_0
N
L.
«+T
"o
(J
"o
c
o
•
Index
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*
SMSA
Birmingham
Montgomery
Phoenix
Tucson
Fort Smith
Little Rock
Anaheim
Fresno
Los Angeles
Oxnard
Sacramento
Salinas
San Bernardino
San Diego
San Francisco
San Jose
Stockton
Denver
Pueblo
Bridgeport
Hartford
Meriden
New Britain
New Haven
New London
Stamford
Waterbury
Wilmington
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
721
200
664
266
135
272
704
366
6,039
199
626
198
810
1,033
2,649
642
250
929
119
338
549
52
129
321
171
174
186
415
Number
of plants
10
2
1
1
1
2
5
4
74
1
2
2
3
4
26
2
2
21
1
18
12
1
6
5
1
7
14
6
in
*j Index
£ No.
_D
U_
22
23
3 "
25
26
= 27
28
29
30
31
32
33
-o- 34
J£ 35
36
37
38
39
o 40
1 41
~ 42
43
in 44
C
:2 45
*
SMSA
Jacksonville
Miami
Tampa
Atlanta
Columbus
Ma con
Savannah
Chicago
Champaign
Davenport
Decatur
Peoria
Rockford
Springfield
Anderson
Evansville
Fort Wayne
Gary
Indianapolis
Lafayette
Muncie
South Bend
Cedar Rapids
Des Moines
Dubuque
Sioux City
Waterloo
Kansas City
Topeka
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
455
935
772
1,017
218
929
188
6,221
132
319
118
313
230
147
126
223
232
574
944
89
111
271
137
266
80
120
122
1,092
141
Number
of planis
1
1
4
6
3
1
1
187
1
8
7
3
11
2
3
3
6
8
24
3
3
10
3
4
5
3
3
7
2
-59-
-------
TABLES (Continued)
«/>
o
. -J-
o
CO
•
l/>
o
^
•
£
•
.3
0
£
•
-0
K
•
_c
o
••-
Index*
No. SMSA
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
Wichita
Huntingdon-
Ashland
Lexington
Louisville
Baton Rouge
Lafayette
Lake Charles
Monroe
New Orleans
Shreveport
Lewiston
Portland
Baltimore
Boston
Fall River
Fitchburg
Lawrence
New Bedford
Pittsfield
Springfield
Worcester
Ann Arbor
Detroit
Flint
Grand Rapids
Jackson
Ka la ma zoo
Lansing
Muskegan
Saginaw
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
382
255
132
725
230
85
145
102
907
281
70
139
1,804
2,595
138
81
199
143
77
494
329
172
3,762
416
462
132
170
299
150
191
Number
of plants
16
1
1
7
4
1
2
1
6
5
2
2
9
28
1
2
5
1
1
8
7
6
155
4
15
10
7
12
8
9
SI
O
•4-
m
•
c
c
»_
*
CO
O
• •— '
^
•
O
•*-
1
•
&_
_Q
O
z
*
— »
•
z
£
•
z
•
>-
•
z
Index
No.
69
70
71
(44)
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
*
SMSA
Duluth-
Superlor
Fargo-
Moorehead
Minneapolis-
St. Paul
Jackson
Kansas City
St. Joseph
St. Louis
Springfield
Billings
Great Falls
Lincoln
Omaha
Atlantic City
Jersey City
Newark
Paterson
Trenton
Albuquerque
Albany
Binghamton
Buffalo
New York
Rochester
Syracuse
Utica
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
277
106
1,482
221
1,092
91
2,105
126
79
73
155
458
161
611
1,689
1,187
266
262
658
284
1,307
10,694
733
564
331
Number
of plants
2
0
45
3
27
2
48
9
1
0
2
5
1
6
47
21
6
2
5
2
32
93
13
10
2
-60-
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
•g Index
<£ No.
89
U
Z 90
91
o 92
.
Z
93
94
95
96
97
98
^ 99
O
- 100
101
102
103
JO
6 i04
. 105
£106
0 107
108
£
1960
Popu-
* lotion
SMSA (1,000)
Charlotte
Fayetteville
Greensboro
Raleigh
Fargo-
Moorhead
Akron
Canton
Cincinnati
Cleveland
Columbus
Dayton
Hamilion-
Middletown
Lima
Lorain-EIyria
Mansfield
Springfield
Steu'oenville-
Weirton
Toledo
Youngstown"
Warren
Oklahoma City
Tulsa
Eugene
Portland
Salem
Allentown-
Bethlehem-
Easton
Altoona
317
148
520
169
106
605
340
1,268
1,909
755
727
199
161
218
131
168
631
590
512
419
163
822
147
492
137
Number
of plants
7
1
8
2
4
6
2
13
44
12
13
0
7
2
1
0
14
4
..
1
6
_ _ .
2
45
4
2
1
•£ Index
<£ No.
109
110
111
o H2
°- 113
114
115
116
---•'' '
-. 117
" V
co
118
c 119
"" 121
122
123
X
•" 124
125
126
127
128
129
*
SMSA
Erie
Harrisburg
Johnstown
Lancaster
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
Reading
Scranton
Wilkes-Barre
York
Providence
Greensville
Chattanooga
KnoxviHe
Memphis
Nashville
Abilene
Austin
Beaumont~Port
Arthur- Orange
Brownsville-
Harlingen
San Benito
Dallas
El Paso
Fort Worth
Houston
McAIIen-
Edinburg
Pharr
Odessa
San Angela
San Antonio
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
251
372
281
278
4,343
2,405
275
235
347
290
821
256
283
368
675
464
120
212
306
151
1,119
314
573
1,418
181
91
65
716
Number
of plants
1
3
3
2
35
11
7
1
6
3
3
1
2
2
11
5
1
1
4
7
1
7
10
2
2
2
9
-61 -
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
0
CO
.
o
-f-
£
U
.
,0
Index
No.
130
131
132
133
*
SMSA
Sherman-
Den ison
Texarkana
Waco
Wichita Falls
Salt Lake City
Lynchburg
Norfolk
Richmond
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
73
92
150
130
448
111
579
436
Number
of plants
1
1
2
1
5
1
4
5
«/>
•5 Index
to No.
_c" 134
| 135
^
. 136
£ 137
>
138
M* 139
5: 140
141
*
SMSA
Seattle- Everett
Spokane
Tacoma
Charleston
Huntington-
Ashland
Wheeling
Green Bay
Madison
Milwaukee
Racine
1960
Popu-
lation
(1,000)
1,107
278
321
253
255
190
125
222
1,278
142
Number
of plants
14
7
1
6
2
1
2
3
54
11
Index number refers to locations on maps, Figures 9 through 12.
-62-
-------
TABLE 4
MODELS OFFERED 1948-1969*
Year
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
* Automotive
Models offered
201
205
243
243
224
210
240
216
232
245
263
239
News, 1969 and 1970
Year
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Almanacs, Detroit,
Models offered
244
260
296
336
336
348
368
370
368
365
374
Michigan, Slocum
Publishing Co., 1969, p. 62, and 1970, p. 62.
-63-
-------
TABLE 5
SELECTED "OPTIONAL" EQUIPMENT INSTALLATIONS
Component
Automatic transmission
Air conditioners
Power brakes
Power seats
Power steering
Power windows
Vinyl tops
V-8 Engines
Safety Belts
* Automotive News,
Installations (% of vehicles produced)
1969* 1962t 1956^ 1950s
92.5
54.4
54.6
10.8
85.6
13.1
41.4
89.9
100.0
1970 Almanac.
74.1
11.3
25.7
6.4
42.7
9.8
NA
55.3
NA**
Detroit, Michigan,
79.0
3.0
33.0
11.0
30.0
10.0
0.0
79.5
6.0
S locum
30.0
i.o'
3.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
42.6^
1.0
Publishing
Co., 1970. p. 64, 66, 68.
t Automobile facts and figures. Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc.,
Detroit, Michigan, 1965. p. 14.
t Ibid. 1966. p. 13.
§ Ibid. 1958. p. 13.
\ Ibid. 1962. p. 12
# Automotive News, 1970 Almanac, p. 41.
** NA = Not available.
-64-
-------
TABLE 6
AUTOMOTIVE VEHICLE PARTS GROUPINGS*
1
Vehicles
(3711)
Cars
Buses
Trucks
2
Body
components
Body w/top
Roof trim
Front apron
Front fenders
Hood
Grill
Doors
Dashboard
Trunk deck
3
Engine system
(mach. & forge)
Head
Block
Valves, springs
& lifters
Rocker arm
assembly
Push rods
O?f pump
Pistons w/rings
& wrist pins
Connecting rods
Camshaft
Crankshaft
Flywheel
Clutch housing
Clutch plate
Water pump
Exhaust manifold
Intake manifold
Pulleys, fan &
water pump
Fuel pump
4A &4B
Differential
(rear end) &
transmission
Gears
Shafts
Housing
Pane fs, access
cover
Rods & levers
Ring gear
5
Suspension
& linkage
Drive shaft
Idler arms
Supports
Shock
absorbers
Steering tie
rods
Banfo housing Steering
Ring gear
carrier
gear
Steering
unit
"U" joint
Axles
6
Chassis &
components
Frame & motor
supports
Bumpers £
supports
Muffler &
tailpipe
Front frame
support
Rims, wheel
Gas tank
"A" frames
Springs, front
& rear
Brake drums
Back plates
Oil pan
Rocker box
cover
7
Misc
vehicle
components
Air condi-
tioners
Air filters
Seat belts
Ignition
systems
Heater core
Radiator
Seats
Oil filter
Heater
ducting
Floor
insulation
& padding
Roof insula-
tion &
padding
Rear interior
deck
Brake shoes
Clutch disk
8
Large cast
components
Block, engine
Head, engine
Camshaft
Transmission
housing
Diff. housing
Clutch
housing
Exhaust
manifold
Intake
manifold
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines memorandum, A dismantling time and motion study of a 1965
Ford Mustang two-door hardtop with a classification of metals and nonmetals.
-------
TABLE?
RELATIVE MATERIAL LOSS FOR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES*
Process
Relative
material loss'
Form of waste
Sand cast
Shell mold cast
Permanent mold casr
PlasfFcs casting
Investment casting
Die casting
Powder melaliurgy
Drop forging
Press forging
Upset forging
Cold headed parts
Extrusions
Impact forming
Roll forming
Spinning
Stamped and press
Formed parts
l
Electroforming
Machining
Weld/ braze, bond
Painting: Spray
Dip
r
Electrostatic
Mod
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Mod
Mod
Med
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
Mod
Lo
Mod
Lo
Hi
Lo
Mod
Lo
Lo
Foundry scrap/sand waste
Waste molding material
Reusable scrap
Reusable if thermoplastic
Reusable scrap
Reusable scrap
Practically nothing
Scrap, scale waste, depends
on geometry
Scrap, scale waste, depends
on geometry
Scrap, scale waste, depends
on geometry
Very little scrap
End trim scrap
Blanking scrap only
Edge trim
Edge trim scrap
Blanks and trim
Blanks and trim
Very little
Chips and turnings scrap
Little
Overspray chips and sludge
Drippings
Very little
* From Rusinoff, S. E. Manufacturing processes, materials and production.
Chicago, American Technical Society, 1962.
t Key to relative ratings: HNhigh; MecNmedium; Mod=moderate; Lo-low.
-66-
-------
TABLE 8
EXAMPLES OF INCREASED EQUIPMENT PRODUCTIVITY*
Type of equipment
Avg % increases in
output 1960 models
vs 1950 models
Avg % savings
on product
production cost
Abrasive belt grinders
Automatic screw machines
Bandsaws
Bending brakes
Broaching machines
Cylindrical grinders
Drilling machines
Gear-cutting machines (bevel gear)
Horizontal boring machines
Hydraulic presses
Internal honing machines
Mechanical presses
Milling machines-vertical
Planers
Punching machines
Shapers
Shears
* From Weinert, A. Making pro*
• 50
20
237
28
15
22
34
35
65
25
55
52
28
20
25
53
25
duction pay. Automotive
50
15
50
25
10
13
28
15
35
10
50
18
23
10
25
Industries, 123(5):
74-78, Sept. 1960.
-67-
-------
00
I
TABLE 9
AUTOMOTIVE 1NDUSTRY PLANTS: (VISITED/SURVEYED)/!NDUSTRY TOTAL'
HEW Total
region HEW region
1
"
111
IV
V
\ / 1
VI
VII
VH!
t\/
IX
Total
4/1
T33~
6/5
472
0/1
117
0/5
T6?
50/23
955
0/3
374"
0/1
130
3_/L
C A
54
11/3
239
74/43
2,638
1
3711
0
2
0
22
0
6
O/I
V// 1
7
2/0
49
0
27
0
3
0
1/0
23
3/1
T4"2
SIC Code
3712
0
0
I/O
7
0
3
0
3
0
T9
0
10
0
0
0
•^
I
0
T
1/0
"44"
SIC Code
3714
3713 21" 3 4a 4b 5 6
1/0 1/1 1/0
24
2/2 2/d o/i ;
132
0 0/1
60
7 8 Total
To 3/i
107
/2 3/3
— — rn T
311
0/1
48
O/I 0/10/1 O/I 0/3
9T
63
9/2 4/4 7/7 2/0 4/0 3/2 12/2 5/6 2/0 39/21
217
o/i o/L <
148
0/1
81
6/U
VJ_ 0/2
189
0
46
2/0 1/L IA
42
2/0 1/2 1/1 1/0 2/0 3/0 8/3
94
16/7 5/8 9/10 2/0 5/0 6/2 14/4 1_
855
i/j
1/11 2/0 55/35
1,597
Total plants ,
f Numbers 1 through 8 refer to product categories in Table 6.
-------
I
Ox
TABLE 10
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PLANT VALUES IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS:
(VISITED/SURVEYED)/INDUSTRY TOTAL*
HEW
region
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Total
Total
HEW region
22/10
102.32
23.5/4
257.68
0/0.3
41.07
0/13.3
43.63
234.7/91.2
989.91
0/0.61
106.19
0/1
61.60
1.6/1
12.5
5.2/1.85
91.9
287/122.26
1,693.9
1
3711
0
1.0
0
15.8
0
4.0
o/l
5.4
20/0
46.4
0
19.0
0
2.9
0
0.5
JZ2
16.4
21/1
111.4
3712
0
0
10/0
4.28
0
1.06
0
5.18
0
6.01
0
1.5
0
0
0
0.78
0
1.0
10/0
19.81
SIC Code
3713
JZ2.
8.95
11/1.5
62.1
0
19.4
0/10
15.04
24.9/1.1
149.5
0/0.3
34.52
M.
42.0
7.5/0
4.62
0.6/0
32.6
39/13.9
368.7
3714
21/10
92.37
2.5/2.5
166.5
0/0.3
14.5
0/2.3
18.15
189.8/90.1
788.0
0/0.31
50.6
0
16.6
0.7/1
6.5
3.6/0.85
40.75
217/107.36
1,194
-------
o
I
TABLE 10 (Continued)
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PLANT VALUES IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS:
(VISITED/SURVEYED)/!NDUSTRY TOTAL*
SIC Code
HEW 37U
region 2f 3 4a 4b 5 6
| 10/10 10/0
., 2/0 0/1
II - .. .,,_.,.
Ill 2&!
,v °/0-3 2ZL
%, 2.3/11.1 55.5/42.5 11/0 17/0 14/11 66/1.5
v
VI °A3
VI
VII
VII!
,„. 1/.35 .3/.5 .3/0 .5/0
I A — — — _- j — •.-". - -
, ,3.3/12.05 0 11/0 27/0 16.3/11 66.5/2.8
TolGl 63.8/54'
7
I/O
.5/1.5
2/L
4/24
0/.01
0.1/1
1.5/0
7.1/27.51
8 Total
21/10
92.37
2.5/2.5
166.5
0/0.3
14.5
0/2.3
18.15
20/0 189.8/90.1
788.0
0/10.31
50.6
0
16.6
0.1/1
6.5
3.6/0.85
40.75
20/0 217/107.36
1,194
-j- Numbers 1 through 8 refer to product categories in Table 6.
-------
TABLE 11
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT: (VISITED/SURVEYED)/INDUSTRY TOTAL*
HEW
region
I
1!
II!
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Total
Total
HEW region
5,720/1,045
17,370
4,315/665
91,850
0/12
30,387
0/1,196
,15,548
28,099/13,027
625,180
0/136
40,640
0/110
10,325
111/1,000
2,234
678/567
36,074
38,923/17,758
869,613
1
3711
0
3,950
0
39,950
0
13,600
0/338
4,870
925/0
281,000
0
17,390
0
4,490
0
470
300/0
15,000
1,225/338
380,900
SIC Code
3712
0
0
3,500/0
6,930
0
2,600
0
978
0
48,000
0
3,135
0
0
0
79
0
2,545
3,500/0
64,400
3713
70/0
9,440
431/216
4,570
0
2,137
0/350
3,110
3,071/105
13,180
0/80
2,605
0/110
1,305
8.1/0
210
44/0
3,424
3,697/861
40,000
3714
5,650/1,045
3,980
384/449
40,400
0/12
12,050
0/508
6,590
24,103/12,922
283,000
0/56
17,510
0
4,530
spy 1,000
1,475
334/567
15,110
30,501/16,559
384,600
-------
TABLET! (Continued)
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY EMPLOYMENT: (VISITED/SURVEYED)/INDUSTRY TOTAL*
HEW
region 2T
5,000=
SIC Code
3714
3 4a 4b 5 6 7
fc/ 1,045 250/0 400/0
„ 375/0 0/165 9/284
II — i— — — — _«_—_
HI °Zli
0/125 0/51 0/332
w 492/610 3,749/9,165 1,098/0 3,680/0 2,590/875 7,103/293 2,151/1,979
VI
VII
VIII
,v 45/26 3.
IX — *— — —
, 537/773 8,7&
Total ' ' '
30/1 , 000
5/40 34/0 42/0 178/501
1/10,301 1,098/0 3,930/0 2,999/875 7,145/470 2,768/4,140
8 Total
5,650/1,045
3,980
384/449
40,400
0/12
12,050
0/508
6,590
3,240/0 24,103/12,922
283,000
0/56
17,510
0
4,530
30/1,000
1,475
334/567
15,110
3,240/0 30,501/16,559
384,600
* Total plants visited/surveyed excludes AMA member plants.
t Numbers 1 through 8 refer to product categories in Table 6.
T" Includes all employees in two plants where automotive product workers could not be separated from other
production workers.
-------
TABLE 12
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY SURVEY—PRODUCTION COVERAGE
(EXCLUDING AMA SURVEY)
Product Production covered*
Engines — gasoline
(includes blocks)
Cylinder heads
Piston rings
Valves
Carburetors
Transmissions
Total (car;automatic and
standard, truck auto-
matic)
Truck and bus, standard
Power transmission system
Universal joints
Rear-axle shafts
Water pumps
Fuel pumps
Radiators
Oil filter elements
V-belts
Exhaust systems
Mufflers
Tailpipes
Wheels
Bodies, truck
Van
Utility
/
Tanks
Solid waste
Panel delivery and
pickup
Other
1,119,000
1,112,400
15,000,000
74,036,000
372,000
16,501,000
150,000
5,120,000
1,024,000
1,750,000
108,000
153,000
67,200,000
12,000,000
11,352,000
8,748,000
675,000
3,430
6,820
78
3,590
240
3,621
Total production'
6,690,000
14,910,000
788,900,000
193,400,000
16,300,000
9,135,00$
1,481,000
39,100,000
19,340,000
4,700,000
15,090,000
8,960,000
171,750,000
49,500,000
44,300,000
67,600,000
51,500,000
112,500
35,500
1,320
6,090
19,700
28,900
Covered (%)
16.7
7.5
1.9
38.3
2.2
—
9.6
13.1
5.3
37.2
0.7
1.7
39.1
24.2
25.6
12.9
1.3
3f\
.0
19.2
5.9
59.0
1.2
12.5
-73-
-------
TAB LEI 2 (Continued)
Product Production covered* Total production Covered (%)
Bus bodies
Bodies — truck, bus, and
other shipped to motor
vehicle manufacturers
3,120
19,100
17,240
89,500
18.1
21.3
Complete vehicle^
Ambulances
Hearses 480 3,500 13.0
Passenger cars 6,000 8,349,438 0.1
Passenger car chassis 144,000 6,900,000 2.1
* Based on production figures in plants visited and questionnaires received.
t Figures for the entire industry, based on 1967 Census of Manufacturers pro
duction modified by ratio of 1969 to 1967 vehicle production.
f This figure includes only major industry companies but not others who
manufacture in different industries.
-74-
-------
TABLE 13
INDUSTRY QUESTIONNAIRE DATA REPLIES*
Question
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Plant facilities:
Product identified
Production rate
Number of employees
Plant value
Quantity of solid
waste
Solid waste disposal
method
Monthly cost for each
method
Monthly sales of
salvage:
Description of salvage
Sales ($)
Rated present handling
and disoosal method
Replies to questions
Answer Kl _
No Comment
Yes No answer given
42/25t
74
40/22
65
43/23
74
43/19
74
43/22
73 "
43/28
73
37/11
67
35/14
65
32/10
56
42/20
72
1/4
0
3/7
9
0/6
0
0/10
0
0/7
0/1
6/18
7
8/15
9
11/19
18
1/9
2
-75 -
-------
TABLE 13 (Continued)
Question
H.
1.
J.
K.
L.
Provided schematic of
plant
Do solid waste disposal
problems exist?
Are municipal
authorities taking
adequate steps to
help?
Does waste generation
vary with production
process changes?
Are changes in waste
handling foreseen?
Replies to questions
Answer . .
No
Yes No answer
1 1/2
•^•^^^••w
51
2/0
2
13/2
12
12/0
3
5/L
3
33/29
59
17/21
44
26/29
57
31/28
53
32/25
23
0/0
0
4/3
8
1/0
1
0/0
2
Comment
given
0/2
0
10/0
13
11/8
10
4/0
13
9/1
16
* See Sample Plant Questionnaire in Appendix B.
a = number of plants from the total of 43 plants that returned complete
questionnaires.
b = number of plants from the total of 29 plants that returned incomplete
questionnaires.
c = number of plants from the total of 74 plants visited by the project
engineer's staff.
-76-
-------
TABLE 14
SUMMARY OF REASONS
FOR NOT ANSWERING MAILED PLANT QUESTIONNAIRE*
Reason for not supplying information
Not presently manufacturing items listed under
SIC 371 1-3714
Closed; operations transferred
Information not available; no record
No solid waste generation
Unable to provide intelligent, factual answers
Not interested
No serious problems with solid waste
Information withheld for competitive reasons
Total
Number
responding
45
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
65
Percent of 65 plants
supplying reasons
68.6
6.2
6.2
6.2
4.7
3.2
3.2
1.7
100
* Of 1,700 plants that received questionnaires, 65, or 3.8 percent, provided
reasons for not supplying information.
-77-
-------
TABLE 15
AMA QUESTIONNAIRE REPLIES
Number of plants that Number of plants that
Question answered question did not answer question
A. Plant facilities:
Type of plant identified 158* 0
59 0
Current production rate 96_ 62
given 0 59
Total number of employees 158 0
given 2 57
B. Costs of collection and disposal 158 0
given 59 0
C. Attached schematic of plant 144 ]£
1 58
D. Solid waste sold externally by:
Item identified 67 ?-!
11 48
Quantity given 67_ —
9 50
E. Special problems existing 47 111
3 56
F. Local governmental agency
concerned with plant's waste
management activities:
_ „ .. 9 149
Collection L. ~=7-
3 56
Disposal « |
-78-
-------
TABLE 15 (Continued)
Number of plants that Number of plants that
Question answered question did not answer question
G.
H.
Explanation
Do local or State regulations
affect solid waste manage-
ment activities?
Quantities and classifications
of solid waste listed
85
16
100
57
158
58
73
43
58
2
0
1
* The numerator refers to the 158 usable questionnaires. The denominotor
refers to the 59 unusable questionnaires.
-79-
-------
TABLE 16
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL SURVEY
HEW
region
1
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
Totals
Number of
communities*
with plants
23
31
14
17
90
21
18
5
16
235
Number of replies
Number of usable replies
7/0
1/0
3/1
4/0
12/4
5/0
4/2
0/0
5/0
41/7
Number of
field
contacts^
0
4
0
0
6
0
0
0
1
11
* All 235 communities with automotive plants were sent questionnaires.
t All communities contacted personally provided usable information.
-80-
-------
TABLE 17
SUMMARY OF MAILED MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
Number of A
municipalities
County is conducting an industrial solid
waste study 1
Industry solid waste collection and disposal
is the responsibility of the individual
plants 3
Do not keep records of industrial wastes 6
Not aware of automotive industry plants
in city 27
Incomplete 4
Partially completed questionnaire 6
Completed questionnaire '
Total mailed response 48
Percent of 48
responses
2.1
6.2
12.5
56.3
8.3
12.5
2.1
100
* Questionnaires were sent to 235 municipalities, and 48, or 20.4 percent
response ^^^ ^^ p,annlng Commission/ 115 S. Goesbeck Highway,
Mount Clemens, Michigan 48043.
-81 -
-------
TABLE 18
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY WASTE ESTIMATES*
Type of waste
Paper, cloth
Cardboard
Wood
Rubber
Plastics
Oils, paints, thinners
Cans, bands, wire
•Garbage
Sludges, slurries
Inert solids
Estimated total wastes for complete
industry
Total tons per vehicle produced
Estimated total wastes excluding
foundry waste
1969
(tons per year)
302,000
388,000
274,000
29,000
32,000
88,000
61,000
276,000
2,478,000
4,188,000
8,116,000
0.8
3,694,000
— • -
Waste quantity
(%)
3.72
4.78
3.38
0.36
0.40
1.08
0.75
3.43
30.50
51.60
100.00
1975
(tons per year)
373,000
479,000
338,000
36,000
40,000
109,000
75,000
341,000
3,059,000
5,171,000
10,021,000
0.74
4,560,000
From: * Data includes project engineer's sample and AMA information,
-82-
-------
TABLE 19
WEIGHT OF SCRAP PRODUCED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A COMPOSITE AUTOMOBILE*
Item Scrap weight (!b)
Body components
Locks 0.03
Body, with top 342
342.03
Engine system
Crankshaft and camshaft bearings 4.8
Engine block and head 10°
Flywheel 12
Exhaust headers i.2o
Carburetor °-38
Regulator 0.38
Valves 4
Mechanical controls (choke) °-°*
Governor °.82
Piston rings P"2!
Cylinder sleeves ^
Rocker arms °'67
Push rods 2
Retainers "-°'
Fan clutch plate *'
Water pump
,
Ball joints
Front-end linkage
. . 344
Transmission
Differential (rear end)
— j— | — - — -- 16
Axle r. ,.
n. 2'4
Ring gear .
No spin differential —
3.56
-83-
-------
TABLE 19 (Continued)
Item Scrap weight (Ib)
Power steering pump 1.78
Universal joints 1.10
8.22
Chassis and component^
Hub caps 0.34
Grease caps 0.34
Frame 54
Bumpers 10
Muffler 2.05
Exhaust brackets 1.28
Exhaust pipe 2.37
71.02
Miscellaneous vehicle components
Air conditioner and heater unit 1 • 1
Air filter 0.23
Fuel filter 0.23
Oil filter 0.23
Radiator 4-85
6.65
Total scrap weight, Ib 926
* Compiled from plants sampled by the project engineer within the four SIC
Codes.
-84-
-------
TABLE 20
WEIGHT OF SCRAP PRODUCED
IN THE MANUFACTURE OF A COMPOSITE TRUCK AND BUS*
Item Scrap weight (Ib)
Body components
Lock mechanism 0.03
Body 421
Fifth wheel 16
Door panels 1.5
438.53
Engine system
Crankshaft and camshaft bearings 4.8
Engine, block and head 150
Flywheel and ring gear 12
Exhaust headers 1.28
Carburetor 0.38
Regulator 0.38
Valves 6
Springs 0.05
Mechanical control (choke) 0.01
Governor 0.82
Piston rings 0.21
Diese! fuel injection pump 6.35
Diesel nozzle assembly 6.35
Diesel nozzle holders 6.35
Cylinder sleeves 0.67
Rocker arms 0.67
Fan clutch plate 2.55
Water pump .0.61
In-tank fuel pump 38.9
238.38
Transmission
Differential (rear end)^
Ring gear
Axle
Universal joints
No spin differential
344
48.40
-85-
-------
TABLE 20 (Continued)
Item Scrap weight (Ib)
Front end
Front-end linkage 1.78
Power steering pumps 1 .78
Ball joints 7.12
Air brake system 31.5
42.18
Chassis and components
Bumper 20
Muffler 2.05
Exhaust brackets 1-28
Exhaust pipe O-64
Hub caps °-34
Grease caps 0.34
Tailpipe ]-73
Frame ., ?* _
102.38
Miscellaneous vehicle components
- Air conditioner and heater unit '•'
Hydraulic tailgate lifters 30
Pintle hooks and couplers 32
Tow eyes 3
Air filter Q'H
Fuel filter ^S
Oil filter °'
Radlotor
o
1 *31 *ii
Total scrap weight, Ib '
* Compiled from plants sampled by the project engineer within the four SIC
Codes.
-86-
-------
TABLE 21
COMPOSITION OF TYPICAL AUTOMOBILE*
Material
Light steel
Heavy stee!
No. 2 bundle steel .
Cast iron
Zincf
Lead
Rubber
Glass
Other combustibles^ . .
jt
Other non combustibles
Total
(Ib) automobile (%)
1,309.5
1,222.4
2,531.9
511.4
31.9
54.2
50.6
20.4
145.0
87.2
127.2
14.8
36.6
34.2
70.8
14.3
0.9
1.5
1.4
0.6
4.1
2.4
3.6
0.4
Total Total ferrous
metal (%) metal
40.9
38.2
79.1
16.0 95.1
1.0
1.7
1.6
0.6
Total 3,574.6
100.0
100.0
95.1
Total metals 3,200.4
Year Make
Model
Year Make
Model
1954 Chevrolet
1956 Buick Special
1963 Dodge Polara
1957 Ford
1958 Rambler
1959 Pontiac
1963 Chevrolet
1962 Corvair Monza
4-door sedan 1956
4-door hardtop 1964
2-door hardtop 1965
4-door hardtop 1962
Station wagon 1958
4-door hardtop 1961
4-door sedan 1964
2-door sedan
Cadillac
Plymouth
Mustang
Falcon
Ford Fairlane
Oldsmobile
Chevrolet
Coupe
2-door convertible
2-door hardtop
2-door sedan
4-door sedan
4-door hardtop
Carry-all
* Dean, K.C., and Sterner, J.W. Dismantling a typical junk automobile to
produce quality scrap. Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
1969. p. 5, 7.
t Including zinc in brass but not copper in solid solution in steel.
f As zinc base die cast exclusively.
I As scrap sheet and cast aluminum.
If Cardboard, textiles, padding, plastics, petroleum products, etc.
# Dirt, glass wool insulation, body putty, and ceramics.
-87-
-------
TABLE 22
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY MATERIALS BALANCE SCRAP ESTIMATE
Material
Steel
Cast iron
Cu
Zn
Al
Pb
Total
Material
consumed*
(Ib/vehicle)
3,455.4
592.8
59.8
110.1
97.5
129. 4t
4,445.0
Material in
finished
vehicle'
(Ib/vehicle)
2,600.8
525.2
33.0
55.0
70.0
22.1
3,306.1
Scrap
(Ib/vehicle)
854.6
67.6
26.8
55.1
27.5
107.3
1,138.9
Total
scrap
(Ib x 10"6)
8,884.7
702.7
278.6
572.8
285.8
1,115.5
11,840.1
* Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. Automobile facts and figures.
Detroit, Michigan, 1956-1968; and Automotive Industries, July 1, 1961.
"I" Dean, K.C., and Sterner, J.W. Dismantling a typical junk automobile to
produce quality scrap. Washington, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines,
1969. p. 5, 7.
t Lead consumption includes paint pigment and products manufactured in other
SIC groups.
-------
TABLE 23
WASTE PREDICTION—STEPWISE REGRESSION
Plant type
Plant process Product*
Any
Any except
foundry and
nonmetal
Machining
Fabrication
Nonmetal
Machinery
Fabrication
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Engine system
Body components
Data
sample size
88
74
29
40
10
15
22
Bo
9.42
-1.49
-6.97
1.41
64.49
-.36
-.23
Bl
.05430
.07471
.08590
.04210
.24266
.07290
.03947
Regression resultst
Standard error
B« (tons/month)
. 14398
.01622
.02235
.02163
.02328
.01884
.02181
402.20
43.37
57.34
22.43
118.58
48.18
16.44
Multiple
R2
.06
.70
.75
.68
.36
.82
.85
* Product group refers to listings in Table 6.
t [Waste = BQ + Bj (employment) + B« (plant value)],
-------
TABLE 24
WASTE PREDICTION—STEPWISE REGRESSION
Plant
Process
Any
Any except
foundry and
non metal
i
o Machining
i
Fabrication
Nonmetal
Machining
Fabrication
type Data
Product* sample size B-
Any
Any
Any
Any
Any
Engine system
Body components
80
67
26
37
9
15
17
5.89
0.84
-0.23
-2.53
77.86
25.37
.17
Bl
.05208
.07587
.08727
.04111
.32946
.08330
.03965
Regression results"!"
Standard error
B B- (tons/month)
2 o
.14759
.01610
.02297
.02249
-.04043
0
.02116
.00001
-.00001
-.00002
.00002
-.00002
-.00003
-.00001
405.21
43.19
55.66
20.93
115.47
32.50
17.07
Multiple
R2
.06
.70
.78
.73
.51
.91
.85
* Product group refers to listings in Table 6.
t [Waste = B- + B. (employment) + B« (plant value) + B,, (quantity of items produced)].
-------
TABLE 25
SCRAP PREDICTION—STEPWISE REGRESSION
Plant
Process
Any
Any except
foundry and
nonmeta!
Machining
Fabrication
Machining
Fabrication
type
Product*
Any
Any
Any
Any
Engine system
Body components
Data
sample size
77
71
27
39
14
21
Bo
.50
11.09
7.64
12.48
76.97
6.04
SBBS3Sf!!f*'^"^T'^*^BS5
B1
.29194
.30581
.45893
.10056
.12853
.12793
Regression
B2
. 14767
.12761
0
.24473
.12705
.02240
results'
Standard error
(tons/month)
264.83
268.10
223.25
215.13
164.63
50.17
. .__. — • ' —
Multiple
R2
.53
.53
.83
.34
.61
.83
-
* Product group refers to listings in Table 6.
t [Scrap = BQ + B. (employment) + B2 (plant value)].
-------
TABLE 26
SCRAP PREDICTION—STEPWISE REGRESSION
Regression resultst
PIanttyPe Data Standard error
Process Product* sample size Bn B. B. B. (tons/month)
(j 1 /L
-------
TABLE 27
DISTRIBUTION OF CONTAINER SIZES
(VIS IT ED-PLANT DATA)*
Container size (cu yd)
0.67
1
2
2.25
3
4
4.5
5
5.5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
13.5
15
16
18
20
30
32
40
42
56
65
71
lilt
148t
210t
272t
— • — — •—
Number of plants
1
1
6
1
4
4
1
7
1
2
1
7
1
11
7
1
1
1
2
2
9
6
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Plants (%)
1.5
1.5
9.2
1.5
6.2
6.2
1.5
10.8
1.5
3.1
1.5
10.8
1.5
16.9
10.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.1
3.1
13.8
9.2
3.1
4.6
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
1.5
* Total number of plants visited supplying information on container sizes: 65.
Number of plants with 55-gaI barrels: 20.
1~ Stationary three-walled bins.
-93-
-------
TABLE 28
WASTE-HANDLING EQUIPMENT USE*
Number of plants with
listed item of equipment
Plant value
($1,000)
10,000
5,000
1,000
500
300
100
50
10
Total equip-
ment use
Percent plants
visited using
equipment
Fork
lift
17
2
17
5
1
1
0
_g
43
61.5
Hand
truck
6
0
4
1
2
0
0
_g
14
20.0
Tow
motor
5
0
1
1
0
0
0
JO
7
10.0
Indus-
trial
truck
1
0
2
0
0
0
0
_g
3
4.3
With
equip-
ment^
22
2
21
5
3
1
0
_0
54
Total plants
Within each
Visited plant value
in plant
value
category
23
2
28
9
6
2
0
JO
70
category v/ith
equipment
(%)
95.7
100.0
75.0
55.6
50.0
50.0
0.0
0.0
77.1
* The above information was obtained from 70 plants visited by the project
engineer's staff.
"f" Some plants use more than one item of equipment; thus there are fewer plants
than equipment totals.
-94-
-------
TABLE 29
EQUIPMENT USE BY PLANT VALUE*
o
o
o
v»
o
*- D-
J §
s: u
10,000 9
5,000 1
1,000 5
500 1
300
100
Total,
No. 16
Plants
using
equip-
ment^ 22.8
1
o
U
7
1
3
1
12
17.1
"c
o
•£ °-
o «, £ 2$
-n ® C *• C
. JJ o> n c nt;
E *• i_a5 R D — « — R
§/,,« «-o ^tita.EO-0
D ?- c »-j:"D J; i- — D. — (!)
" § g3 J2 3 £ 8 .S- | £'5 £^
•5 t» 3> ° c^ -^ ^ -* ."Jocroo
*"^ Vx -^ CQ V/ 1O l/> tO VX I— d> I— >•
1 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 .1 17 23
1 2 2
23 1 11 28
1 1 9
2 26
2
6422 1 1 1 1 ,1 33 70
8.6 5.7 2.9 2.9 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
I*
c ^
7§ °
c 8 |
— ® .9-
74
100
39
11
33
0
* These data are based on information from 70 plants visited by the project
engineer's staff.
-95-
-------
• TABLE 30
PLANT SCRAP AND WASTE SEGREGATION PRACTICES
(70 PLANTS)
Segregation point*
In plant at source
Outside storage area
Both in plant and storage area
Waste outside and scrap inside
Waste inside and scrap outside
Total*
Waste
(nonmetals)
Number
of plants (%)
4
1
1
NA+
NA
6
5.7
1.4
1.4
NA
NA
8.5
Scrap Waste and
(metds) SCraP Total number
Number Number of plants
of plants (%) of plants (%) segregating (%)
21
7
8
NA
NA
36
30.0 6 8.6 31
10.0 1 1.4 9
11.5 6 8.6 15
NA 5 7.1 5
NA _2_ 2.9 2
51.5 20 28.6 62
44.3
12.9
21.4
7.1
2.9
88.6
* Eight plants (11.4 percent) did not segregate any waste or scrap.
t NA = Not applicable.
-------
TABLE 31
AMA SURVEY SALVAGE*
Item
Cardboard
Paper
IBM cards
Tab cards
Loose cards
Wood
Cloth
Thermoplastics
Vinyl
Plastic
ABS film offal
Slag
Rubber
(including cured foam)
Oil
(including sludge and slurge)
Glass
Combustible rubbish
Coke breeze
Zinc ash
Total
salvaged
(tons/yr)
117,677
349
64
7,246
7,659
14,749
73
2,547
256
500
3,303
255,533
200
11,667
23,760
3,917
1,311
918
Percent
of total
26.7
•
0.08
0.01
1.64
1.73
3.34
0.02
0.58
0.06
0.11
0.75
57.91
0.05
2.64
5.39
0.89
0.30
0.21
Number
of plants
salvaging
item
37
13
2
8
23
17
6
4
2
1
7
4
5
4
1
1
1
1
Percent
of totalt
23.4
8.2
1.3
5.1
14.6
10.8
3.8
2.5
1.3
0.06
3.9
2.5
3.2
2.5
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
-97-
-------
TABLE 31 (Continued)
Item
Zinc pit cleanings
Grinding v/heels
Cyanide salt
Nickel salt
Totals
Total
salvaged
(tons/yr)
154
154
45
14
440,999
Percent
of total
0.03
0.03
0.01
0.003
100.0
Number
of plants
salvaging
item
1
1
1
1
Percent
of totalt
0.06
0.06
0.06
0.06
* Number of plants reporting salvage: 67.
"I" Based on 158 plants supplying information,
-98-
-------
TABLE 32
INCINERATION USE IN AUTOMOTIVE PLANTS*
Plant
value Number of
($1,000) incinerators
10
50
100
300
500
1,000
5,000
10,000
Total incinerator
use
1
0
2
3
2
9
1
14
32
Total number of
plants sampled
3
1
4
11
17
44
2
32
114
Percent of plants
with incinerators
33
0
50
27
12
21
50
44
28
Group
(%)
25
22
31
* Information was obtained from 44 questionnaires that provided information,
and 70 plants visited by the project engineer's staff.
-99-
-------
TABLE 33
MAJOR GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS REPORTING INCINERATOR USE*
Number of plants
Area w/incinerafors
East Coast
Michigan
Ohio
Illinois
Indiana
Wisconsin/Minnesota
South
Total
7
11
5
3
2
2
J_
32
Number of plants
sampled
17
32
11
9
11
10
_7
97
Sample with
incinerators (%)
41
34
46
33
18
20
29
33
* Data is grouped into the geographic regions having the greatest prevalence of
automotive industry plants that use incinerators.
- 100-
-------
TABLE 34
AMA SURVEY OF 1N-PIANT PROCESSING BY BURNING
Number of
Burning method plants
Incinerator
Open burning dump
Burned in boiler furnace
Conical burner
Combined'
13
8
3
1
5
Plants*
(%)
8.2
5.1
1.9
0.06
0.32
Minimum
10.50
2.02
2.02
0.93
9.23
Cost ($/ton)
Maximum
92.60
4.44
50.70
0.93
20.75
Average
34.53
2.86
18.41
0.93
13.01
* Based on 158 AMA plants supplying information; 20 of the 158 reported costs
for at least one of the listed disposal methods.
t "Combined" lists the plants which reported using more than one of the four
burning methods listed.
- 101 -
-------
'TABLE 35
PLANT SOLID WASTE FINAL DISPOSAL DESTINATION*
Landfill
Public
Private
Totals
Number of
plants
18
17
35
Plants (%)
46.2
43.6
89.8
Dump
Number of
plants
3
5
8
Plants (%)
7.7
12.8
20.5
Incinerator
Number of
plants
3
0
3
Plants (%)
5.7
0
7.7
* Based on 39 plants visited by the project engineer's staff that supplied information concerning plant solid waste
final disposal destination; 6 plants sent their solid waste to more than one final destination.
-------
TABLE 36
PLANT WASTE AND SCRAP REMOVAL SCHEDULES—PERCENT PLANTS
Twice Twice Twice
Item On call a day Daily a week Weekly a month
Wastes 17.3 5.8 42.3 15.4 15.4 3.8
Scrap 41.3 8.7 21.8 6.5 10.9 6.5
Monthly
0
4.3
TABLE 37
COLLECTION COSTS REPORTED BY AMA MEMBER PLANTS
Number of Collection cost ($/ton)
reporting
Collector plants Median Average Maximum
Public 1 - 8'08
Private 44 6.71 22.98 250.50
Self 34 7.40 28.48 414.00
Minimum
0.92
0.12
- 103 -
-------
TABLE 38
LIST OF PROCESS SCHEMATIC SYMBOLS
The symbols used in Figures 19 through 39 are identified as follows:
= SOLID WASTE
= SCRAP
= SALVAGE
= STORAGE
= LINE OPERATION, THE PRODUCT IS MOVED TO EACH
PROCESS IN A CONTINUOUS UNE
= SHOP OR SECTI ON OPERATI ON WHERE SEVERAL
FUNCTIONS ARE COMBINED, AND THEN THE PRODUCT
IS MOVED TO ANOTHER BUILDING FOR THE NEXT PROCESS
= PROCESS SEQUENCE—PRODUCT FLOW DIRECTION
-104-
-------
States Plants,
Alabama — — — -4
Ariion* — — — • — — 1
Arkuniiii — —
CnM*ftrnT. . 1 7
Colorado — ' 3
Connecticut
Florida 1
Hawaii 1
v i 9
Louisiana — - \
Maino • —
Mississippi— — — — - i
Nebraska T
Novadj — — — - —
New HampjMre — — c
New Mc.xlco — —
North Carolina 1
North Dofcota — 1
Ohio . . . 7
Oklahoma— —
Rhode fstand
SoulN Carolina —
South Ds!
-------
States Plants, No.
Alabama — — —
Alaska
Aritona —
Arkansas — -:
California '
Connecticut — ;
Delaware — —
Florida 1
How,,!!
Illinois ,
... 4
Inciiona ^
Iowa . '
Komi
Kentucky
Louisiana
Mamo — — — —
Maryland —
Massachusetts
_
Minnesota j
Mississippi 1
Missouri 2
Montana — — — —
Nebraska '
Nevada —
Now Hampshire — — «
New Mexico
New York - 4
North Carolina — — 1
North Dakota
Ohio 5
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania — — — '
Rhodo Island
SoulS Carolina
South Dakota
Tcnnessoo
Utah 1
Vermont — i
irgmia '
V/Aihlnfjton — —
West Virginia '
.,.. . 9
Wyonting — —
Total 44
_-
1
0.01
1
0.
•
1 MILLIONS$ ]-Q • . 10>
Figure 2. Minimum total tangible assets—SIC 3712. (From: Thomas Register, April 1968.)
-------
States Plants, No.
Alaska
Hawaii — \
Idfttio — c /
mots :*; ;
IF* 46
Nevflcfrt — — — — .
rm;~ ^
, I f
I
1
1
i
1
SoutS DakofA 3
Vermont — - — — —
NYyoming — —
District of Columbia
.—
i
i
!
i
]
j
i
i
i
i
1
.
!
i
I
i
!
Total 855
0.1 . 1.0 MILLIONS $ 10,0
Figure 3. Minimum total tangible assets—S!C 3713. (From: Thomas Register, April 1968.)
100.0
-------
States Plants, No.
o
00
• *ii
Alaska — — — - — -
Arizona — — - — — — , /
Arkansas — — — — ^
Florida 22
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois 186
Indiana / H
Mdino — 4
Maryland — — —
Massachusetts — — • 37
Michigan 225
"*"
—
Missouri 6Q
Montana — — — — 1
Novdda — — — — '•
Now Hampshire— — *-
New Jersey — ! 59
New Mexico—— — - 3
«w York -lob
North Dakota 11
Ohio — — -ll 1 2
Oregon 34
Pennsylvania — 112
Rliodo Island — 4
South Carolina — 1
South Dakota 1 1
— .
- •
exas — — i b
Utah 3
Vermont
West Virginia 5
Wisconsin— — — - 73
Wyoming
Total —1,597
-
1.0
1
i
10.
0 MILLIONS S 100.0 . 1000.0
Figure 4. Minimum total tangible assets—SIC 3714. (From: Thomas Register, April 1968.)
-------
FigureS. Major automobile assembly locations, 1969. (From: Automotive
News, 1970 Almanac, Detroit, Michigan, Slocum Publishing Co., 1970,
p. 58. Numbers represent State's percent of total.)
-------
y
:•-
• :
o
I
2
300
250
\
200
150
TOO
PRODUCTION WORKERS
R2=0.72
TOTAL WORK FORCE
R2= 0.67
300
250
200
150
150
1948 1950
1955
1960
YEAR
1965
1970 1975
PROJECTED |
Figure 6. Employee productivity long-term trend. The curve represents
a least squares fit of a log transformed parabolic curve (y = ax").
-------
200
L'J
_:
y
;;:
UJ
• •-:
.-.''
0
x
!
z
150
100
PRODUCTION WORKERS
1960
1975
Figure 7. Employee productivity—fitted linear short-term trend.
-------
z
o
a z
z3o
oy El
1— -
3 z<§
E5CC
0. £ £
O LLJ C\i
O O
CO 00
CN .—
O O
NO O
CN -^ r-
O O
^J* ^J"
CM r-
0 0
CS CN
CN CO i—
0 0
o o
§ 0
r- CN 00
*o o
•<* o
CN O
^- CN
O
— O O
\
V
v>
\
/
^
i
X
\£L
^
X
V
X.
»
PERSC
QV
"N
x
/
>NS/D
^^.
" -v
x
f*
^R
X^H
0
P
.
£
VCr
^ ^
OPUL/^
X
5
^
^^«.
TION
t
.
/^
"1
/
/
:
A
^ ^
/
-CARS
'--,
^
1950
1960 1970
YEAR
1980 1990
PROJECTED
Figure8. U. S. population/car use relationships.
(From: Automotive News. 1969 Almanac, Detroit, Michigan, Slocum Publishing Co.,
1969, 226 p.)
- 112-
-------
to
!
<^-xJ\
P ^*\ *• cr
* \ \ )Vs
Figure 9. Major automotive production centers—Northeast and Central.
(Map numbers refer to index numbers in Table 3.)
-------
. f.'l r\ ,^-~-,
^Wi^BasB*^^5l. /
Figure 10. Major automotive production centers—Southeast.
(Map numbers refer to index numbers in Table 3.)
-------
Figure 11 . Major automotive production centers—Plains States,
(Mop numbers refer to index numbers in Table 3.)
- 115-
-------
MONT.
/*/?
Figure 1 2. Major automotive production centers—West coast.
(Map numbers refer to index numbers in Table 3.)
- 116-
-------
Nl
I
5,000
4,500
I
4,000
3,500
3,200
\
_n
X
1956
-
o WEIGHT OF AVERAGE TRUCK
AND BUS
A WEIGHT OF AVERAGE VEHICLE
a WEIGHT OF AVERAGE CAR
A A A
-
D
-
A
n D
I
~
D
1960
1965
YEAR
1970
1975
PROJECTED
Figure 13. Weight of an average car and truck/bus.
(From: Automotive News Almanac, 1956-1969; Automobile
Facts and Figures, 1956-1968; Motor Truck Facts, 1953-1967.)
-------
5,000
E 1/00°
uu
o
I/I
2
O
.
i
|(
A A IRON
© LEAD
D ZINC
o ALUMINUM
A PLASTIC
COPPER
' • ' L.
1956
1960
1965
1970
YEAR
Figure 14. Material consumption. (From: Automobile Facts
and Figures, 1956-1968; and Automotive Industries, July 1 , 1961 .)
- 118-
-------
FORGING
SCALE
TONGHOLD
Figure 15. Forging a connecting rod
- 119-
-------
ROTATION
^WORK PIECE
TURN
TOOL
FEED
(A)
WORK PIECE
WORK PIECE
ROTATION
(B)
WORK PIECE
(C)
ROTATION
DRILL
(D)
WORK PIECE
(E)
Figure 16. Turning operations. (From: Hall, H. D., and H. E. Linsley. Machine
tools, New York, The Industrial Press, 1957. p. 151 .) Principal operations
performed on a lathe include the following: (A) turning an outside diameter,
(B) facing the end or squaring the shoulders between different diameters, (C) boring
or enlarging inside diameters, (D) cutting screw threads on the outside of the work,
as shown, or inside a bored hole, (E) drilling a hole in the end of the work.
- 120-
-------
DRILLING
SPEED
TURNING
SPEED
MILLING
SLOW SPEED
FAST SPEED
FEED
GRINDING
Figure 17. Basic machine tool operations. (From: Hall, H. D., and H E
Lmsley. Machine tools, New York, The Industrial Press, 1957. p. 151 .)
- 121 -
-------
STA. 1 ] STA. 2 ! STA. 3 STA. 4 STA. 5
1 ' 9SPLD. ANGULAR
1 ANGULAR TAPPING
| ! HEAD HEAD
r i
1 ' f ^1 If
1 '
1 1 ,
,|-i ^ r— rr
1 Ml H
^_I "
IT
sr^. I-*,
r if if ^ r ~ ) f "
ft- r r TT
, .1,1. 1 1
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1 I J
1 4SPLD. 1
j HEAD ITHREADI
I ..,_„
1
1
)
\ \
r r T
STA, 6
x— s.
3 L" ^
TT
1
| 1
! 4SPLD.
I MILLING
^G HEAD
1
STATION UNIT OPERATION
Figure 18. Six-station transfer machine for exhaust manifold machining. (From:
Automotive jndustries, January 157 1950, p, 99.) Station 1-Load. Station 2-
Drill (4) 13/32 in. dia. in center bosses, comb., drill and ream (4) 0.500 in. dia.
in end flanges. Station 3-Bore (2) 1-15/16 in. dia., drill for (6) 3/8 in.-16tap,
drill 11/64 in. and 0.180 in« dia. 0) "n *°P angular ports (l.h. head). Station 4-
Idle. Station 5-Tap (6) 3/8 in8-16 in. angular flanges (l.h. head), mill (4) slots
in end flanges (r.h. head). Station 6-Unload.
- 122-
-------
TAGS
LABELS
PLUGS
TAGS
LABELS
PLUGS
|AREA_
[RAGSX
TAGS
LABELS
PLUGS
"SALVAGI
TAGS
LABELS
PLUGS
I FRONT END ASSEMBLY
[REAR EKD ASSEMBLY""
BRAKE LINE A^D HOS¥"
ENGINE AND
POWER TRAIN
ASSEMBLY
FRAME BUILD-UP 1
BODY ASSEMBLY
UNDERCARRIAGE
PARTS ASSEMBLY
BUMPERS
BODY SPRAY CLEAN]
TIRE AND WHEEL
ASSEMBLY
{ INSTRUMENT PANEL
STEERING WHEEL)
ENGINE COMPARTMENT
ACCESSORIES
4 HOOD
-[FRONT GRILLJ
BODY TRIM
CO
W
M
g
CO
CO CO
H W
CtJ CJ
< O
53
O
W
CO
ENGINE AND TRANSMISSION
OIL, ANTIFREEZE,
GASOLINE, ETC
.
( TEST |
o
x;
o
8
0
H
CO
w
M
CO
CO
O
o
Q
CO
H
erf
g
3
ij
cd
w
8!
Oi
w
D
w
a
a
B-
w
Figure 19, Automobile assembly schematic.
- 123 -
-------
CHANNEL
BEAMS
EXTRUSIONS
CHANNEL
STOCK
ALUMINUM
SHEET
STEEL
SHEET
BODY
FRAME
ASSEMBLY
SHEET
METAL
PLYWOOD .
WOOD TRIM-
PLASTIC TRIM -
PAINT
MASKING
MATERIALS'
UNDER-
CARRIAGE
ASSEMBLY
VEHICLE
BODY
ASSEMBLY
1
'
INTERIOR
FINISHING
(WOOD, ETC)
i
'
PAINT
SHOP SHOP
i
r
TEST
WOOD
SAWDUST
PAPER
PLASTIC
PAINT CHIPS
PAPER
CARDBOARD
TAPE
Figure 20. Custom bus assembly plant.
.- 124 -
-------
PACKAGING
FERROUS, FIBER-
GLAS7 ALUMINUM S **~
SHEET TRIM
S H-
FLOOR
SWEEPINGS
SLUDGE
PAINT
WIRE, FIBERGLAS
RUBBER, STEEL
PAINT
PRIMER DROPS < $W
CUSTOMER PICKUP
PAPER, MASK-
ING TAPE
RECEIVING
FLAT STOCK
SHEARING
CUTTING & PUNCHING
FORMING & SHAPING
DRILLING
DECREASING
DRYING
PRIMER PAINTING
ASSEMBLY
PRIMER PAINTING
INSTRUMENT
BARE CHASSIS
„ ASSEMBLY
PURCHASED
PARTS
UNDERCOATING
WATER TESTING
PAINTING
Figure 21. Custom truck body and vehicle manufacturing—
SIC 3711.
-125-
-------
SHOT BALLS,
METAL SCALE,
DIRT
COIL SHEET
METAL
SHOT CLEANING
END CUT
OF ROLL
SHEARING
DRAVylNG & RESTRIKING
SHEET EDGES
d>
TRIMMING
PRESSING
SHEET EDGES
PUNCH OUTS
.-©*
PIERCING
RESTRIKING & FINISHING
WOOD
CARDBOARD,
PAPER
STACKING
Figure 22. Automobile bodies, mass production—SIC 3712.
- 126-
-------
BAR AND SHEET
STEEL
WOOD, SAW-
DUST
GLASS,
PLASTIC,
CARDBOARD
SHEET METAL
MISCELLANEOUS
TRIMMINGS
PAINT CHIPS,
OVERSPRAY
HEAVY GAGE STEEL SHEET
FRAME FABRICATION
BODY ERECTION
INTERIOR PANELING:
METAL AND WOOD
-©
SHEET
STEEL
EXTERIOR PANELS AND
DOOR ASSEMBLY
EXTERIOR TRIM
ASSEMBLY
REFRIGERATION UNIT
PAINTING
Figure 23. Custom truck body production process schematic
SIC 3713.
- 127-
-------
REJECTS, BANDING ( s
PAPER, WOOD SKIDS < SW
REJECTS, SLUGS
REJECTS
PLATING, SLUDGE
PAINT, SLUDGE
WOOD, CARDBOARD < SW
STEEL AND
ALUMINUM SHEET
ROLL FORMING
PRESS FORM-
PIERCE
NOTCH
TRIM
SKIV
POLISHING
PLATING
PAINTING
SHIPPING
Figure 24,. Vehicle trim production schematic.
- 128-
-------
PIG IRON,
5T / RAW SCRAP
SAND, BINDERS
CORE MFC
COKE
RECYCLED
METAL
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
MOLD MFG
OUR INTO
MOLDING
RECYCLED
SAND
BURNED
SAND
SHIPPING
Figure 25. Automotive engine block, head, and camshaft
casting schematic.
- 129-
-------
DISCARDED
CONTAINERS
BABBITT DROSS
BABBITT AND
STEEL CHIPS
BABBITT AND
STEEL SLUGS
BABBITT CHIPS
CONTAINERS:
PAPER, WOOD XSW
"717 RAW MATERIAL,
v ' STEEL AND BABBITT
CENTRIFUGAL
CASTING
SCREW
MACHINING
BABBITT AND STEEL
RECLAIMING
SHIPPING
Figure 26. Crankshaft and camshaft bearing process schematic.
- 130-
-------
CO
I
CONNECTING
ROD FORGING
SCRAP AL. TURNINGS
CAST PISTONS
0O
MACHINING
SLUDGE
SLUDGE
AND RING
STEEL
TURNINGS
0
MACHINING
SLUDGE
GRINDING
CAMSHAFT
CASTINGS
AND FORGED
^CRANKSHAFTS
C. I.
OIL AND
WATER PUMP
FLYWHEEL
CAST CLUTCH
^7 (
j-FINAL ASSEMBLY PISTON ASSEMBLY
O
N^J
PAINT,
SLUDGE
HOT
TEST
MACHINE
CASING
MACHINING
GRINDING
PUMP ASSEMBLY "
MACHINING
CLEANING
CYLINDER
BLOCK
ASSEMBLY
SLUDGE
INTAKE AND SLUDGE
EXHAUST MANIFOLD
^ST/ IGNITION SYSTEM,
FUEL PUMP,
CARBURETOR,
OIL PAN
STEEL(S
TURNING
CYLINDER HEAD
ASSEMBLY
GRINDING
MACHINE AND
DRILLING
VALVES, VALVE LIFTERS,
\sr7 ROCKER ARMS
;TCLEANING
C.I.
CHIPS
MACHINING
CASTENGINE
BLOCKS AND
HEADS
V
Figure 27. Engine manufacturing and assembly.
-------
METAL DUST
TURNINGS
STEEL CHIPS
PARTS, REJECTS
IRON, STEEL
BAR AND ROD
SAWING
WELDING
FURNACE
LATHES
HOBBINGS
HEAT TREATING
INSPECTION
SHIPPING
Figure 28. Flywheel and ring gear manufacturing.
- 132-
-------
SHAFT LINE
CASE AND HOUS1NG LI NE GEAR LIN E
FLASH,
SCALE
STEEL
SLUGS ,
STEEL
CHIPS
SLUDGE
-------
STEEL BAR AND
BILLET
SCALE
SCALE
FLASH
SCALE
HEATING
FORGING
TRIMMING
SLUDGE
SHOT PELLETS,
SCALE
-------
J5W
PACKAGING
STEEL ROD
BREAKAGE! S
STEEL
TURNINGS,
BORINGS
REJECTS
CUTTING
FORGING, UPSET END
FORGING,
SHAFT
STEM
STRAIGHTENING
MACHINING
SHOT
CLEANING
MACHINING,
SHAFT
SCALE,
SW>SHOT
PELLETS
STEEL
TURNINGS
HEAT TREATING
FINAL INSPECTION
SHIPPING
Figure 31 . Axle shaft manufacturing.
- 135-
-------
WOOD SKIDS7
PALLETS
FORGING SCALE
STEEL CHIPS
STEEL CHIPS
STEEL TURNINGS
STEEL CHIPS
REJECTED AND
DAMAGED PARTS
PAPER, CARD-
BOARD, WOOD
STEEL ROD
RECEIVING
FORGING
MILLING
DRILL AND TAP
MACHINING
BROACHING
ASSEMBLY
SHIPPING
Figure 32. Front end: linkage and universal joints.
- 136-
-------
RAW STEEL
SCALE
6
HEATING AND FORGING
FORGING ( S
FLASH
SHOT PELLETS,
SCALE
TRIMMING
REJECTS
o
©—-6
o
CLEANING
INSPECTION
PACKAGING AND SHIPPING
Figure 33. Front end: idler arm, yoke, and tie rod ends.
- 137 -
-------
SHEET ENDS
GRINDING
DUST
RECEIVING:
ROLLED SHEET
SHEARING
ROUGH FLAT
POLISHING
BLANK PRESSING
CHEMICALS
REJECTED PARTS
CHROME,
NICKEL,
COPPER _
CHEMICAL
SLUDGE
BUFFING
COMPOUND
PAPER
RECLAIMED
FINISH POLISHING
CLEANING AND
BONDERIZING
DRAWING
FORMING
DETAIL PRESSING
PLATING
BUFFING
PACKAGING
Figure 34. Bumper manufacturing.
- 138-
-------
END PIECES
STEEL
TUBING
SAWING
REJECTS
) BENDING
r
y TAILPIPE
X N.
V?F7 END PIPE
V STORAGE
. PUNCH- ^-^ '
CARDBOARD
CARTONS
REJECTS
REJECTS
PAINT
CHIPS
ING REJECTS
FIBERGLAS CARD-
WRAPPING BOARD
WOOD
PALLETS
STEEL
REJECTS
ASSEMBLY
WELDING
END ATTACHING
PACKAGING
V
Figure 35. Muffler and tailpipe fabrication.
WELDING
FIBERGLAS
WRAPPING
SHEET
STEEL
SHEARING
ROLL
FORMING
- 139-
-------
PACKAGING
WIRE ROLLS
ENDS ( S
COILING AND CUTTING
TRIM ( S
PUNCHING
FORMING
TRIMMING
COINING
HEAT TREAT ING
PAINT
SLUDGE
PHOSPHATING
PAINTING
INSPECTION
SHIPPING
Figure 36. Automotive spring manufacturing,
.- 140 -
-------
^ST
BURLAP,
WRAPPING
WIRE, BALED
BURLAP
ROLLING AND/
CUTTING ( S
BURLAP WOVEN
WITH WIRE AND
CORD
PAPER,
CARDBOARD,
WOOD
PACKAGING
PLASTIC BAGS,
WOODEN SKIDS
PAPER, CARD-
BOARD SPOOLS
Figure 37. Seat manufacturing.
- 141 -
-------
PAPER
0-
SCREEN,
PLASTISOL
PAPER
PAPER,
WOOD
PACKAGING AND
SHIPPING
Figure 38. Air cleaner/filter, oil filter fabrication.
-142-
-------
kST/ FLAT STOCK
STEEL,
BRASS STRIPS ( S
STEEL,
BRASS
STEEL,
BRASS
SHEARING
PUNCHING
INSPECTION
,ST>
SPATTER
PAINT CHIPS,
SLUDGE
WELDING
PAINTING
.ST/
CARDBOARD,
PAPER
^ASSEMBLY \ST / PURCHASED PARTS
INSPECTION
CARDBOARD,
BOXES
PACKAGING
Figure 39. Flow ^ process chart for
manufacturing of compact air conditioning and heater units.
- 143-
-------
Figure 40.. Plant- sites visited.
-------
ft
t
•
400 _
*
^•X •
£ 300-
10 .
i •
0- .
200 _
*
100_
.
.
•
— y—
0.14%
0.74%
— — — —
0.74%
1 ESTIMATED TOTAL
'///.,
.^-<-Z.
PLANT POPULATION
%OF
PLANTS IN AMA
SURVEY
%OF
PLANTS THAT
WERE VISITED OR
THAT REPLIED TO
QUESTIONNAIRE
T.*5%'
— — — —
D.44%
7.1%
0.19%
*9*2(&*
5.7%
XX X /
»'•——*• -*— i
17.9%
_, __ ^
13.3%
\^^5
tO* ON ON ON ON ON ON
1 i~ •* ON "4- ON ON
r— lf» 1 T 1 CNJ ^
-------
8
x
UJ
I
I
UJ
UJ
Q
_l
o
5
15
14
13
12
10
9
8
7
6
4
3
2
4 1 U620-7! I ' I
"86.5 36.0 402.6 27.7 123.1 69.4
i •
»• •*
& XV;4
90.4
68.4
AMA <»
PLANT VISITS +
OFF SCALE
19,773
11,816
15,054
16,124*
EH
20,802
_L_
10
3
6
-3
4 5
EMPLOYEES X 10
Figure 42. Waste production per employee in automotive industry plants.
-------
z.
1—
z
3
Q.
45-
40-
35-
30-
20-
15-
10-
5 -
0-
o o o
T i i
Con ft
o
i
uners — — ^
i i .,,i
ooooooooooo o o
*O SQ |s^ cO 0s O ' — CN CO "^ ^O •«— CO
I 1 1 1 1 •—•—•—'—•—••— CN CN
o
CN
BIN SIZE (cuyd)
Figure 43. Distribution of bin sizes in automotive plants.
(From information supplied by 65 plants visited.)
-------
-
J
FIELD SURVEY
o AMA DATA
1,000
SOLID WASTE (tons/month)
Figure 44. Solid wasfe collection-disposal costs
10,000
-------
30
25
^ 20
•
0
1 "5
l.o
5
\
0
POOR
\
t
} 1
3
4 56 78 9 10
RATING VALUE GOOD
Figure 45. Self-rating by plants of their waste-handling and
disposal methods.
- 149-
-------
40 _
30
L
in
Z
0
e
tn
\.' -
i1-
0
I -
Z
L :
L;
0
L
1
20
10
0
INDUSTRY
MUNICIPAL
0
POOR
RATING VALUE
GOOD
Figure 46. Industry/municipality cross rating of
present waste management
- 150-
-------
..
/
/
:
.
Q.
-
1
. -
--
!
I
i i '
.
I
.
_.
b.
i
•>._
• '-' •
*
' ;-^'i-»- t -.-.-:
- !
•
-
,
i
c.
d
Plate 1. Manufacturing scrap: (a) Sheet metal trimmings, (b> Machine turnings and
chips, (c) Metal stamping and cut ends, (d) Grinding sludge.
- 151 -
-------
c ,
'
:
;
-
,^' •
*. • "
• ;
// :
-
-
:
|
:
'
, -
•
• •- -
b.
•
1
I
'
-
" • ' "
.
c ,
:•¥:>
:- N
. & I { If-.,
.. -^ • '«^,-- -
;
-
-
I
*
~ ' - ; ;
X ; >
-
i
\ I'
•~ * . ^V '^ f- e
V.C^ .. ,
•
Plate 2. Typical plant solid wastes: (c) Floor sweepings, (b) Mixed bands, wire and
nonmeta! waste, (c) Paper packaging waste, (d) Mixed plant waste.
- 152.-
-------
0 -
'
. •
-
•
.
'
i
•
.
'
-
-
- . - -
-
' -
, V-
-
b.
- - -
.
d.
£ -
Plate 3. Typlco! in-plani wa^re and scrap containers: (a) Garbage cans in food
canteen area, (b) Plcmf waste drums, 55 ga!, (c) Plant scrap drum/ 55 gaL (d) Scrap
bin, 2 cu yd. (e) Poper packaging waste bin, 2 cu yd. (f) Waste container, 1 cu yd.
-153-
-------
0 .
!
.
]
'. ' • ••
.
"
-
i
I
-
.
c.
4. ln-p!anf waste- and scrap-handling equipment: (a) Overhead crane,
(b) Inclined conveyor, (c) Fioor conveyor.
- 154-
-------
-
; - . •
b.
= :
E .
.
C.
d.
Plate 5. V/aste- end scrap-handling equipment in ourside storage areas: (a) Crane
magnet. CD) Vacuum exhaust system, (c) Conveyor feed system, (d) Fork lift bin.
- 155-
-------
-
~-
-
:
a.
•-
-
-;
•;i-v!
^~ •+'-
'
c ,
I
._-*- - ^ -
,
-
•
;\ : • :
f.
Plate 6. External \vasfe and scrap storage: (a) Railroad gondola cars. CD) Waste
compactor, (c) Open storage bin, wheeled, (d) Storage barrels, 55 ga!. (e) Storage
on ground, (f) On-site plant dump.
- 156
-------
•
.
•
I
-
-:
,*j
-
i
.
s
' -«•«'.
-. A'
:
i
i
Piafe 7. Waste burners in small outomotive planfs.
- 157-
-------
APPENDIX A
Glossary
Accessories—equipment that Is not necessary for the operation of a vehicle, such as
air conditioners, power windows, etc. They are often called optional.
Blanking—the process of cutting metal blanks by a die and punch set in a press, or
by sawing or shearing.
Cast iron borings—clean cast or malleable iron borings and drillings, free from steel
turnings, chips, lumps, scale, corroded, or rusty material.
Clean auto cast—clean auto blocks; free of all steel parts except camshafts, valves,
valve springs, and studs; free of nonferrous and nonmetallic parts.
Component—any part, accessory, or other equipment, body section, or subassembly
on a vehicle.
Diced turnings—machine shop turnings reduced by hammer or cog mill attrition to a
length of less than 2 inches.
Discards—materials generated from all plant operations that do not become part of
the finished product and are removed from the plant for final disposal to another
industry. Includes scrap and solid waste.
Estimated minimum plant value—plant value based on questionnaires and plant visits,
and values of minimum total tangible assets from the 1968 Thomas Register of
American Manufacturers. The Thomas Register values are listed as minimal;
thus the data presented are expressed as minimum values.
Flash—the material lost in forging and casting operations; the material that overflows
between the forging dies and between the casting mold surfaces.
Garbage—all waste food materials. Also includes paper and plastic containers.
Approximately 70 percent moisture content.
Grindings—a conglomerate byproduct produced by the friction of a high-speed
grinding wheel and consisting of somewhat oxidized metal particles and
grinding wheel matter. The particles are usually less than 1/4 inch in screen
size and tend to curl and intertwine to form a clump. "Free flowing"
grina'ings signify that the grindings can be hand shovelled. "Frozen condition"
Implies that the grina'ings are wet and have become congealed or surface
crusted.
- 158-
-------
Heavy melting steel—wrought Iron and steel scrap, black ana1 galvanized.
No. 1: 1/4 inch thick or greater; less than 60 x 24 inches.
No. 2: 1/8 inch thick or greater; not suitable for No. 1.
No. 3: maximum size 36 x 18 inches. May Include all automobile scrap
properly prepared.
Machine shop turning—long streamers intertwined ana' interlocked in an unwieldy
clumplike mass.
Mating—the bringing together of body assemblies with chassis assemblies on a vehicle-,
assembly line.
Millings—metal streamers, which consist of particles of metal finer than turnings,
usually less than 3/8 inch in width, length, or thickness.
Optional equipment—the equipment Installed on finished vehicles (primarily
passenger cars) that the manufacturer designates as an extra item for pricing
purposes; bears no relationship to the actual percentage of vehicles equipped
with the item.
Parts—equipment without which a vehicle cannot be operated. Examples are engines,
steering wheels, seats, etc.
Piercing—the punching of holes in sheet or strip, or walls of shells.
Prepared scrap—scrap, the physical dimensions of which conform to trade practice.
Prepared scrap may be placed in bales or drums and be of crucible shape, open
hearth size, etc.
Refuse—any material discarded from a plant from sources other than manufacturing
processes. Refuse consists of floor sweepings, incinerator ashes, garbage,
office trash, v/ood and sawdust, rags, etc.
Residue—any material resulting from a manufacturing operation or process that is
not in itself a product. Scrap and waste are the major residues.
Runners—the metal removed from castings. Runners are metal feed tubes and channels
allowing air to escape from the product mold, which is filled with metal.
Scale—(1) heavy oxide coating on metals resulting from exposure to high temperatures
in an oxidizing atmosphere. (2) A product resulting from the corrosion of
metals.
Scrap—salable wastes, resulting from manufacturing processes, primarily metals such
- 159-
-------
as Iron, steel, aluminum, zinc, and copper but may also include plastics, paper,
cardboard, cloth, etc.
SIC—Standard Indus!rial Classifications.
Sludge—a mudlike residue material originating from chemical processes or grinding
operations.
SMSA—Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas; geographical regions defined by the
U.S. Bureau of the Budget to denote areas that are economically and
commercially integrated.
Solid v/astes—discarded solid materials having no use, resulting from a manufacturing
or support operation; any combination of process v/cstes; general plant packaging,
and shipping wastes; and office wastes.
Springs and crankshafts—clean automotive springs and crankshafts either new or used.
Standard equipment—the equipment installed on a finished vehicle that is designated
by the manufacturer as a basic item for pricing purposes; has no relationship
to the percentage of vehicles equipped with the item.
Trimmings—sheet metal, plastics, wood, etc, resulting from cutting, sawing,
shearing, blanking, and punching operations; usually refers to shearing and
cutting of metals.
Turnings—(also called borings and shavings) the residue from the machining operation
and processing of bars, rods, castings or billets, or the machine dressing or
finishing of any metal; appears as sliverlike or curlicue shapes.
- 160-
-------
APPENDIX B
Automotive Industry Plont- Questionnaire
Plant Visit Interview Information Sheet
Municipal Questionnaire
Municipal interview Sheet
AMA Questionnaire
- 161 -
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE INDUSTRY-WIDE SOLID WASTE QUESTIONNAIRE
FORM APPROVED
BUDGET BUREAU NO. 85-568021
PLEASE COMPLETE AND RETURN TO:
RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC., 10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025; Telephone: (213) 478-1501 and 879-1115
DEFINITION: INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE INCLUDES ANY DISCARDED OR
SALVAGED SOLID MATERIALS RESULTING FROM INDUSTRIAL
OPERATION OR PLANT ACTIVITIES
PLEASE ESTIMATE YOUR ANSWERS WHERE REQUIRED. IN RETURN FOR YOUR
COOPERATION IN ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS, YOU WILL RECEIVE A
SUMMARY OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATA. INDIVIDUAL INDUSTRIAL PLANTS
WILL NOT BE IDENTIFIED.
A. PLANT FACILITIES
List automotive parts or
assemblies produced:
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
TOTAL PLANT CAPITAL
(BOOK) VALUE FOR
AUTOMOTIVE PRODUC-
TION (Check Nearest $)
( )$
( )
( )
( )
( )
( )
10,000
50,000
100,000
300,000
500,000
1,000,000
( ) 10,000,000
Average
No. units
produced
per month
Average No.
workers employed
on this product
C. QUANTITY OF SOLID WASTE BY SOURCE
AND TYPE (AVERAGE Ib/month)
Source of
solid
waste
Machine &
foundry
operations*
Trimming &
cutting
Office
Cafeteria
Pkg &ship
Meta Is
-er~
rous
SI on fer-
rous
Nonmetals
Plas-
tics
* Include casting, forging, mac
and grinding operations.
Paper
Wood
Other
hining, drilling,
- 162-
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE INDUSTRY-WIDE
SOLID WASTE QUESTIONNAIRE (Continued)
D. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL METHOD FOR EACH SOURCE (% of TOTAL)
Source of
solid
waste
Machine &
foundry
operations*
Trimming &
cutting
Office
Cafeteria
_Ekg_& ship _
Re-
claimed
In
plant
Scrap
sales
Incin-
erated
In
Plant
Land-
fill
at
plant
Collection by
Pub-
lic
Pri-
vate
Other
* Include casting, forging, machining, drilling, and grinding
operations.
E. AVERAGE MONTHLY COST FOR
EACH DISPOSAL METHOD LISTED
Disposal method Cost/month ($)
1. Reclaimed in
plant
2. Incinerated in
plant
3. Burial by plant
4. Collection -
Private
Public
5. On-site storage
AVERAGE MONTHLY SALES OF
SALVAGED SOLID WASTES
Average total
Description of salvage monthly sales ($)
G. Rate your present method of GOOD:
handling and disposing of your FAIR:
solid wastes. (Circle POOR:
appropriate number)
I. Do you have any special solid waste
disposal problems? ( ) YES ( ) NO
Describe briefly
10 9 8 H. Please attach a sche-
7654 matic diagram of your
3210 plant(s) showing
locations of major
solid v/aste production.
J. Are municipal authorites taking
adequate steps to alleviate your solid
waste disposal problem? ( ) YES
( ) NO - Comment:
- 163-
-------
CONFIDENTIAL COOPERATIVE INDUSTRY-WIDE
SOLID WASTE QUESTIONNAIRE (Continued)
K. Does the generation of solid waste L. Do you foresee a significant
vary significantly with changes in change in your methods of waste
the production process? ( ) YES handling for the future?
( ) NO ( )YES (') NO
Comment: Comment:
PLEASE INDICATE IF YOU WISH YOUR IDENTITY KEPT CONFIDENTIAL:
( ) YES ( ) NO
IF YOU DESIRE A COPY OF THE REPORT ON THIS STUDY, PLEASE FURNISH YOUR
NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW:
Name of person completing questionnaire:
(Title)
Company name ;
Address ^ ,___
(Street) (City) (State) (Zip)
12/69
-164-
-------
Plant Visit Interview Information
A. Discuss the following aspects of solid waste management with responsible staff
members:
1. Are records kept of SW: sources types
handling disposal
2. Have SW management practices changed:
a. In the past: year type of change
b. Anticipated future changes: year
discuss
c. What factors contributed to these changes?
Past
Future
3. Identify SW and S processing and disposal problems related to municipal
agencies.
a. D isposa 1
b. Codes and Regulations
4. Approximate age: plant equipment
5. Obtain a sketch of the process sequence.
6. Obtain a copy of the plant layout.
7. Does the plant have its own waste treatment facilities?
No Yes Obtain layout sketch.
Capacity: Solids
Liqu ids
- 165 -
-------
B. Obtain the following data in the manufacturing/assembly area:
1. Sketch the manufacturing/assembly sequence of the product.
a. Identify the type of process or machine.
b. Designate the location and type of SW and S handling and storage
equipment.
2. Determine the quantity by weight and volume of the following:
a. The raw material stock for each product:
material weight
b. Finished product weight
c. type weight volume
SW
Identify major components purchased for assembly and their
packaging materials.
component pkg material approx size/wt
1)
2)
3) ZZZZZH
4) .
5) .
Identify packaging used to ship finished products.
product pkg material Quantity: Ib/month
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
- 166-
-------
f. Shop handling methods for SW and S
Pick-up: equip.
schedule
Processing: equip.
quantity
type of material
Storage of SW and S on plant premises. .
Size (cu ft) S-torage area (cu ft) plant collector
Containers:
Are storage areas fenced or enclosed?
Are rats, vermin, flies, birds, etc, in the storage area?_
comment
h. Private solid waste and scrap collectors:
Size of collector: large medium small
Rate collector good: 54321 0 :poor
- 167-
-------
MUNICIPAL QUESTIONNAIRE FORM APPROVED
BUDGET BUREAU NO. 85-568021
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE STUDY OF THE AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
RALPH STONE AND COMPANY, INC.
I. Name of city and State Population
II. Industry information
A. Number of industrial plants producing automotive components/ accessories,
or complete vehicles including trucks
(Please list names and addresses of plants on back of questionnaire.)
B. Total annual production of cars, trucks, vehicles, etc, and vehicle parts
in your city: Total annual
Vehicles Vehicle parts production
]. Number of units
2. Total weight (tons)
HI. Waste Information
A. Quantity, tons, of waste produced by these industrial plants per year:
1. Office waste (paper, garbage, etc )
2. Plant scrap and salvage
3. Plant wastes to private or public disposal
(other than 1 or 2)
4. Total tons
B. Plant waste disposal: Quantity (tons)
Office waste plant waste
1. Incineration
2. Landfill
3. Other
C. Waste collection agency: % of total waste
Office Waste Plant waste
1. Municipal
2. Private
Collection and disposal charges: Combined
Cost ($/ton) coil &
1. Collection and Collection Disposal disposal
disposal agency
a. Municipal
b. Private
2. Type of waste
a. Office waste
b. Plant waste
E. Please describe special problems in handling/disposal.
Comments —_
F. Are there any air pollution or liquid waste problems related to these plants?
NOTE: Please provide copy of solid waste and industrial waste ordinances.
Prepared By: Name_ Date
F.N. 106-0 Title Address
- 168-
-------
Municipal Interview Sheet
City State
City official ^ Position
C. Municipal solid waste role
1. Are records on SW disposal available? No Yes
Type of records
2. Collection agency:
Cost ($/ton)
Collection Disposal
Public
Private
3. Acceptability of automotive collection and disposal to:
Municipal agencies good: 54321 0 :poor
General public 543210
Comments
4. Are there any public health and safety problems directly attributable to
automotive industry SW and S such as water and air pollution, vermin,
flies, birds and fires at landfill, etc ? No Yes
Comment
5. Do any hazards or special problems result from automotive industry waste
generation such as landfill fires, waste seepage into streams, etc ?
No Yes
Comment
6. If the answer to 4 or 5 above Is Yes, is the industry taking appropriate
corrective action? Yes No
Why not? ^
- 169-
-------
AMA QUESTIONNAIRE
A. PLANT FACILITIES
Type of plant
Current production rate
Total number of employees
B. COSTS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL
METHOD AVERAGE ANN UAL COST
Collection (public)
Collection (private)
Collection (self)
Collection (total)
Disposal (dump or burial)
Disposal (incinerate)
Disposal (other or combined)
C. PLEASE ATTACH A SIMPLIFIED BLOCK DIAGRAM OF YOUR PLANT
SHOWING MAJOR MANUFACTURING PROCESSES.
D. PLEASE LIST SOLID WASTE SOLD EXTERNALLY EXCLUDING METALS AND
LIQUIDS (ITEM AND tons/yr)
E. PLEASE DISCUSS ANY SPECIAL PROBLEMS OR PROCEDURES YOU HAVE
IN COLLECTING, HANDLING, STORAGE, OR DISPOSING OF A
PARTICULAR SOLID WASTE AND SPECIFY THE WASTE.
- 170-
-------
F. IS A LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY CONCERNED WITH OR INVOLVED
IN EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS OF YOUR PLANT'S SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES:
Collection Yes No
Disposal Yes No_
PLEASE EXPLAIN (e.g., CITY PROVIDES WASTE COLLECTION; COUNTY
PROVIDES DISPOSAL SITE; etc)
G. DO LOCAL OR STATE REGULATIONS AFFECT YOUR SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES?
Yes No
H. QUANTITIES AND CLASSIFICATIONS
Tons Method of disposal Hauled by:
(see Code below) Self
Classification Per year On site Off site Other (specify)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
1. Garbage
2. Cardboard
3. Paper, cloth, grass, etc
4. Wood
Rubber
Plastics
Oils
8. Flammable liquids
9. Residues and tars
1(H Wastewater treat sludges
(a) Oily
7b) Lime bearing
~fcj Metallic hydroxide"
11. Inert solids
12. Cans, bands, wire, etc
13. Special wastes
METHOD OF DISPOSAL CODE:
a. Open burning dump d. Incinerator
b. Landfill e. Teepee waste burner
c. Burned in boiler or furnace f. Sold
- 171 -
-------
APPENDIX C
FIELD SURVEY STAFF-TRAINING PROCEDURE
The field staff-training procedure for standardized waste estimation in automotive
industry plants was developed from information gathered on preliminary visits to seven
automotive industry plants by the project engineer. Wide variations noted in waste
composition and waste and scrap container sizes necessitated previsit training to
standardize the observation methods of the field survey staff. The training program
consisted of the following: (1) instruction in developing standard waste density values
for common waste types noted in containers; (2) instruction in establishing interview,
measurement, and observation procedures; instruction in developing questionnaires;
and (3) field training on plant visits where two or more staff members were accompanied
by an experienced interviewer.
Weight Estimates. Standard waste densities for paper and cardboard were
established by pilot studies at the project engineer's headquarters. A 3-cu-yd bin was
filled with loose paper weighing 20.7 Ib/cu yd. Then the paper was hand compacted,
and this resulted in a density of 130 Ib/cu yd. The procedure followed for cardboard
was to fill a 3-cu-yd bin with cardboard boxes varying in size from 2 x 1-1/2 x 3 ft
to 2 x 3 x 4 ft. The loose boxes had a density of 17 Ib per cu yd. The boxes were
then broken down, compacted, and measured to determine their compacted volumes.
The broken-down density was 32 Ib per cu yd, and the compacted density was 170 Ib
per cu yd. Densities for wood, sawdust, ashes, plaster, sand, concrete, plastics, and
metals were obtained from standard weight tables. Packing factors were standardized
and applied in the field to estimate the volume filled by these materials. The resulting
waste and scrap densities were used for estimation when plant data were not available.
Questionnaires and Interview Procedure. Several sample questionnaires were
discussed with plant personnel during seven pilot visits. The pilot study visits were
conducted to establish a simplified questionnaire format, clarify terminology, use
industry definitions where applicable, and estimate the expected level of response.
The final questionnaire format was then submitted and approved by the Bureau of the
Budget. An interview format sheet was developed to standardize, for comparative
analysis, the plant interviewer's answers. Two experienced staff members then
instructed other field investigators in the use of the questionnaire and interview sheet
(Appendix B).
Field Training. Each field interviewer was accompanied by a trained staff
member to three automotive plants prior to conducting independent interviews. The
experienced staff member acted as an observer on these visits to monitor the trainee's
adherence to standardized practices and waste estimation procedures.
- 172-
-------
APPENDIX D
AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Casting
Cast mefal parts are normally produced from metal ingots or scrap purchased by
the manufacturer and melted down in foundry furnaces. Metal patterns formed in the
shape of the desired part are pressed into boxes of sand to form the mold. The molten
metal is poured into the mold, after the patterns have been removed, and allowed to
harden. Then the casting is taken out of the mold-and trimmed to remove the runners
and flash (excess metal sticking to the part). Sandcasting requires that the part be
cast slightly oversize and then machined down to final dimensions. Other casting
methods such as shell molding and die casting provide good dimensional accuracy and
do not require as much machine work as sand castings. Owing, however, to their
high cost, the latter two methods have been applied mainly to aluminum and zinc
parts requiring fine finishes.
The cast metal part is subsequently inspected and then sent to the machine shop
for finishing and painting. Rejected parts are accumulated in bins and recycled
through the foundry.
In addition, die casting is used to form plastic parts. The liquid plastic is
injected under pressure into close-tolerance metal molds that forms a product needing
only minor finishing to remove the flash.
Forging
Forging is a metal-working process used for parts requiring greater strength than
Is achievable in sand castings. This process alters the grain structure of steel so that
it is parallel to the direction of stress on the part.
Forging operations can be classified into five common forms as follows: hammer,
drop, press, upset, and roll forging. Only drop forging and press forging involve the
use of dies and provide excellent dimensional accuracy. The other methods are less
accurate and require that the part be made slightly oversize. The schematic diagram,
Figure 15, shows a connecting rod being drop forged. The flash and tonghold
materials are trimmed and sold as scrap. The scale is cleaned off and disposed as
waste. These losses vary with the complexity of the part shape and represent about
50 percent by weight of raw stock for connecting rods.
Following the forging process, the parts are machined to final form. The
machined parts are gauged and inspected. Rejects are sold for scrap.
- 173-
-------
Machining
Basically, machine shop operations consist of drilling, turning, milling, and
grinding (see Figures 16 and 17). Any or all of those operations may be applied to
cast parts, forged parts, or to raw material stock.
Drilling (Figure 17) is an operation in which round holes are cut through wood
and metal. This is usually accomplished in a drill press holding one or more bits
having hardened cutting edges that are spun rapidly into a stationary workpiece. Other
related operations carried out on a drill press include core drilling, which is the
enlargement of holes that have been cored into the casting; counterboring, which is
the enlargement of a portion of a previously drilled hole; reaming, which is the
enlargement of the full length of a hole previously drilled undersize; and tapping or
thread cutting into the walls of a drilled hole. Metal drilling chips are sold as scrap
and wood chips are disposed of as solid waste.
Turning operations are accomplished as a lathe that holds the work in a chuck
and rotates it while a cutting tool is brought to bear against it, removing metal in the
form of chips (Figure 16 and Plate Ib). Turning operations include the reduction of an
outside diameter; the facing of ends or the squaring of shoulders between different
diameters; boring or enlargement of inside diameters; cutting of screw threads on both
inside and outside diameters; and drilling (Figure 17).
In milling operations, the work is fed to a rotary cutter, generally for the purpose
of cutting flat surfaces at high speed. Rotary cutters may also be used to cut notches,
slots, shaped surfaces, and gears. The milling machine is one of the most versatile
machine tools used in industry. In high production automotive machine shops, however,
broaching has replaced milling in many operations. Broaching is a specialized
machining process involving a multitooth cutter that resembles a file. The broach is
capable of cutting a surface in a single pass, requiring only a fraction of the time
required in milling.
Hobbing is a generating process employing a number of straight-sided rack teeth
positioned helically around a cylindrical body. Gears are generally hobbed in the
automotive industry because rapid production and good accuracy are obtainable.
Grinding operations are metal-cutting processes similar to those previously
described with the exception that rotating grinding wheels made of abrasive material
such as sandstone are used as the cutting tool. Grinding produces a smoother finish
than other cutting operations and is usually used as a finishing process following rough
milling or turning (Plate Id). Grinding generates a sludge composed of metal and
abrasive particles in cutting oil that is disposed of as solid waste. Superfinishing is a
grinding operation using an extremely fine particled honing stone. This process is used
only when the highest dimensional accuracy is sought. When a shiny finish is required
without the need to maintain a close dimensional tolerance, the surface is polished by
a stacked leather wheel coated with special abrasives.
- 174-
-------
Cutting fluids are used to cool and lubricate both the part and the tool during
machining. Cast iron is generally machined dry to avoid clogging of cutting tools.
The high-volume production required by automobile manufacturers has led to
the development of automatic, multistation transfer machines that provide drilling,
tapping, reaming, and milling machines positioned on a common base with a conveyor
feed to transfer parts between each station. Several machining operations may be
completed at one station, and then the part is transferred to the following station and
positioned automatically. Figure 18 shows a six-station transfer machine and describes
its operational sequence on an exhaust manifold. Other transfer machines capable of
handling all the machine operations on an engine block at a rate of more than TOO units
per hour have also been developed for use by the major automobile manufacturers.
These transfer machines are often valued at more than $1 million and are highly
specialized equipment commonly built specifically for the handling of a single part.
Fabrication—Cutting, Trimming, and Forming
This category includes all parts fabricated from sheet metal by cutting,
pressworking, and welding. Large body-panel stampings are included in an SIC Code
of another industry and will not be considered here.
The general procedure begins with the shearing press, which cuts large sheets
or rolls of meial into rectangles of appropriate size. The sheet is then blanked on a
punch press. This operation cuts out a piece in the desired shape and leaves a
skeleton that Is placed in a scrap bin. Perforations, slots (skiving), holes, etc. may
be cut at the time the piece is blanked by use of appropriate dies. Often the blanked
part is the finished product, but more generally the blanked part is bent or drawn on
a series of power presses to form a three-dimensional part. Valve covers and oil pans
are examples of parts drawn from a flat blank. Embossing of patterns and textures
onto sheet metal is another operation carried out on a press (Plates la and c).
Drawn parts are usually made oversize and must be trimmed with a shearing die
on a punch press.
Sheet metal parts that cannot be stamped in one piece are fabricated by welding
two or more stampings together.
Following pressworking operations, most stamped parts require heat treatment
(annealing) to relieve the internal stresses induced during coldforming. This is
particularly critical for deep-drawn parts such as oil pans, which develop high
Internal stresses during forming.
- 175-
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
Ref. No.
1 California State Department of Public Health. Status of solid waste
management in California. Sacramento, California, Department
of Public Health, 1968.
2 Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical Standards. Standard
industrial classification manual. Wasghinton, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967. p. 180-181.
3 McGaughey, H. American automobile album (1st ed), New York,
E. P. Dutton and Company, Inc., 1954. 224 p.
4 Ford Motor Company. Ford At Fifty. New York, Simon and Schuster,
Inc., 1953. p. 19.
5 Automotive News. 1968 Almanac. Detroit, Michigan, Slocum
Publishing Company, 1968. 254 p.
Automotive News. 1969 Almanac. Detroit, Michigan, Slocum
Publishing Company, 1969. 226 p.
6 Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce. Census of
manufactures, v. 11, part 2. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1963.
7 Truck factory total tops 50 in U.S. and Canada. Automotive News,
(Oct. 20, 1969). p. 46.
8 Automotive News. (Oct. 20, 1969.) p. 2.
9 Roche, James M., etal, General Motors Corporation. Wall Street
Reports, (July 1968). p. 27-38.
10 Detroit Regional Planning Commission. Study of expansion trends in
the automobile industry. Detroit, Michigan, Detroit Metropolitan
Area, Regional Planning Commission, 1956. 35 p.
11 Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. Motor truck facts.
Detroit, Michigan, 1968. 59 p.
- 176-
-------
Ref. No.
12 Theisinger, E. F., ed. $230 million for new buses. Bus Transportation,
(Feb. 1966). 35(2):38-40.
13 Automotive News. (May 4, 1970.) p. 29.
14 Automotive News. (Dec. 1, 1969.) p. 16.
15 Automotive News. (Jan. 20, 1969.) p. 16.
16 Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. Automobile facts and
figures. Detroit, Michigan, 1962. p. 13.
17 Aluminum use in '70 cars highest ever, Alcoa says. Automotive _News_,
(Jan. 12, 1970.) p. 41.
18 Kahn, H. Safety bureau sees use of air bags on some cars in 1970.
Automotive News, (May 19, 1969).
19 Automotive News. (Dec. 22, 1969.) p. 1.
20 Editorial. Automotive industry waste materials. Material handling
engineering, (Sept. 1969).
21 Universal returnables. Modern material handling (March 1968). 23(3):
70-73.
22 Geschelin, J. Power and free conveyors in Canadian engine plant.
Applied Automation. p. 38.
23 Bureau of Mines, Staff, U.S. Department of the Interior, memorandum.
A dismantling and motion study of automobiles with a classification
of metals and nonmetals. Salt Lake City Metallurgy Research
Center, 1968.
24 Hickman, I., Jr. Characteristics of municipal solid wastes. Scrap Age.
(Feb. 1969.)
Personal communication. U.S. Public Health Service, solid wastes
information retrieval system, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969.
25 Fords wastes to be converted to usable items. Automotive
(March 18, 1969.) p. 4.
- 177-
-------
Ref. No.
26 Genesee County Board of Supervisors, Special Service Committee.
Solid waste disposal study. Genesee County, Michigan,
Board of Supervisors, June 1968.
27 Op. Cit. California State Department of Public Health. Status of
solid waste management in California.
28 Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department of
the Interior. The cost of clean water, Industrial Waste Profile
No. 2—Motor Vehicles and Parts, v. 3. Washington, U. S.
Government Printing Office, 1967. 116 p.
-178-
-------
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
American Foundryrnen's Society. Cast metals handbook (4th ed.)0 Des Plaines, Iowa,
1957. 316 p.
Automotive News. 1967 Almanac. Detroit, Michigan, Slocum Publishing Company,
1967. 260 D.
Barclay, W,, ed. Metalworking in the automotive industries. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Chilton Company, 1964.
Barringer, C. The story of scrap (rev. edition). Washington, Institute of Scrap Iron
and Steel, 1954. 144 p.
Brown, M. A., and J. Sasso. Plastics in practice (1st ed.) New York, McGraw-Hill,
1945. 185 p.
Bullard, D. Bullard's new reclamation system, Automotive and Aviation Industries,
vol. 3, (July 1942). 87(2): 44-5, 78.
Bureau of Mines, Staff, U. S. Department of the Interior. Automobile disposal, a
national problem. Bureau of Mines, 1967.
Bureau of the Budget, Office of Statistical Standards. Standard industrial classifica-
tion manual. Washington, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1967. pp» 180-
181.
Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce. The U. S. book of facts,
statistics and information (Statistical abstract of the United States, 88th ed.).
New York, Essandess, 1967. 1050.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. Employment and earnings
statistics for the United States, 1909-68, Bulletin No. 1312-6. Washington,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1968. pp. 363-373.
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare. Technical-economic study of solid waste disposal needs and practices,
Public Health Service Publication No. 1886. 4 vol. Washington, U. S0
Government Printing Office, 1969. p.
Custer, J= R.7 ed. Applied automation. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Chilton
Company, 1956. 236 p.
- 179-
-------
Development Department, Economic Research Division. 1968 directory of Ohio
manufacturers. Columbus, Ohio, Directors Office, State of Ohio, 1968.
Doyle, L. E0/ et. al. Manufacturing processes and materials for engineers.
EnglewoocTcTTffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1961. 797 p.
Economical production of parts in large or small lots. Automotive Industries, vol. 3
(June 15, 1950). 102(12): pp. 44-47, 102-106.
Edgar, C. Fundamentals of manufacturing processes and materials. Reading,
Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1965. 515 p.
Febel, D. C., and W. Naujoks. Forging handbook. Cleveland, Ohio, The American
Society for Metals, 1939. 630 p.
Friedman, W. F., and J. J. Kipness. Industrial packaging., New York, John Wiley
and Sons, 1960. 536 p.
Genesee County Board of Supervisors. Solid waste disposal study, Genessee County,
Michigan. Special Service Committee, June 1968. pp. 7, l-20»
Geschelin, J. Assembling the Eldorado. Automotive Industries, (Jan. 1967). 136(1):
59-69.
Geschelin, J. Buick's newest transfer line for machining cylinder blocks. Automotive
Industries, (May 1950). 102(10): 30-34.
Geschelin, J. Special equipment used to build Studebaker's automatic transmission.
Automotive Industries, (Aug. 1950). 103(3): 48-51, 62.
Geschelin, J. Making new V-8's. Automotive Industries, (July 1966). 135(2): 77--
81.
Geschelin, J. New Wixom plant. Automotive Industries, (Nov. 1966). 135(9): 67-
72.
Geschelin, J. Cylinder block machining at Oldsmobile. Automotive Industries,
(Jan. 1967). 136(1): 62-65.
I
Geschelin,J. Dana's new frame plant. Automotive Industries, (Apr. 1967). 136(7):
47-50.
- 180-
-------
Geschelin, J. Kalamazoo Fisher Body plant. Automotive lndustries/ (May 1967).
136(10): 83-85.
Hall, H. D., and H. E. Linsley. Machine tools. New York, The Industrial Press,
1957. p.
Lipsett, H. Industrial waste and salvage (2nd ed.) New York, Atlas Publication
Company, Inc., 1963. 406 p.
Metal Cutting Tool Institute. Metal cutting tool handbook (rev. ed.). New York,
1959. 750 p.
Nemerow, N. L. Theories and practices of industrial waste treatment. Reading,
Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1963. 557 p.
Refuse Removal Journal. Automobile Manufacturers Report 400 LB of Refuse per Car
Assembled, (Sept. 1963). 6(9):12 pp.
Regional Planning Association. Waste management. Report of the Second Regional
Plan, (Mar. 1968). p.
Rusinoff, So E. Manufacturing processes, materials and production (2nd ed.). 2vol.
Chicago, Illinois, American Technical Society, 1957. 1120 p. -
Simona's, H. R. A concise guide to plastics. New York, Reinhold Publishing
Corporation, 1957. 318 p.
Thomas Publishing Company. Thomas' register of American manufacturers (58th ed.)
7 vol. New York, Thomas Publishing Company, 1968. 9504 p.
Weinert, A. Making production pay. Automotive Industries, (Sept. 1960). 123(5):
74-78. "~
Wilson, F. W. and D. Harvey, eds. A. S. T. M. E. manufacturing planning and
estimating handbook (20 chapters). New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
Inc., 1963.
-181 -
------- |