For Peer Review END-OF-LIFE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT IN AN INDIAN CITY
Journal:Waste Management & Research Manuscript
ID:WMR-13-0042.R1 Manuscript Type:Original article: 35,000
characters Date Submitted by the Author:n/a Complete List of
Authors:Santhanam, Satakopan; Centre for Environmental
Studies,College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Department
of Civil Engineering Joseph, Kurian; Centre for Environmental
Studies, College of Engineering Guindy, Anna University, Department
of Civil Engineering Keywords: End-of-life vehicles management, ELV
management, Vehicle recycling, ELV, ELV recycling Abstract: Tamil
Nadu (TN) state in India, with 11.2 million registered two wheelers
(2Ws) and 1.18 million registered cars in 2011, has the second
highest vehicle population in India and stands first in the 2Ws
population. With 15 years as average vehicle on-road life in Indian
conditions, approximately 440,000 end-of-life 2Ws and 35,000
end-of-life cars are generated annually in the state, which must be
properly managed. This paper analyzes the vehicle-related Indian
legal framework to identify existing setup for end-of-life vehicle
(ELV) classification/management. In addition, it explores the
prevailing ELV management practices in the Metropolitan city of
Chennai, the capital of TN state. Also, material recovery potential
and energy savings have been estimated, based on the projected
annual ELV generation rate in TN and vehicle recyclability rate.
Based on inputs from key stakeholders and review of international
ELV management policies and practices, an ELV management plan has
been suggested.
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management ResearchFor
Peer ReviewRespected Reviewers, First, we would like to express our
sincere thanks to every one of you for carefully reviewing our
paper and sending us valuable comments, which will help to improve
the paper to a great degree. As this study is the first of its kind
carried out in Chennai City, we have tried our best to make the
changes suggested by you. We have highlighted the replies for the
reviewer comments below in red color for your reference. Reviewer
Questions: This article should really undergo a major revision.
There are many unclear statements and wrong conclusions. I will
name only some of them: Page 5, 3.2 Customer perception: When was
this survey done ? How was the respondents picked out ? Were they
still "owners" or were their two-wheeler/car an ELV ? This survey
was carried out as a part of the study itself. The survey was based
on set of questions asked to the vehicle owner.The respondents are
vehicle owners owning either a new vehicle or an older one.In the
past they had sold their previous vehicles to mechanics.But they
had no idea on the subsequent state of those vehicles. I assume
that "Rs" i Indian money - this should be transformed to dollars or
euro too. The US equivalent was incorporated as mentioned by the
reviewers assuming an average exchange rate of 1 USD = Rs. 60.
The references in the text should be written - as an example:
(Wang et al.,2011)References are cited as mentioned by the
reviewers at the appropriate places. Page 8, 3.3.1 Management
of..........: I believe this i s a description of the status i
Tamil Nadu State, but why then refer to a Chinese study (13) ? Page
9, line 25: Why refer to a Chinese investigation (11) when
describing Tamil Nadu State? The ELV management in India had many
common issues as in China. For example, absence of necessary
infrastructure, absence of tools, ELV waste management aspects etc.
In China, the ELV recycling policy had recently been implemented.
Hence, Chinawas considered in this study. The ELV management is
carried outinformally throughout India, as highlighted by Mr. Mohan
Ram (please see references in article). And Chennai is one of the
biggest cities in India where ELVs are processed in a large scale
as highlighted by Mr. Mohan Ram. Also the ELV recycling policy is
only in the evolving stages.Hence we referred to Chinese
investigation though our work was carried out in Tamil Nadu state.
Page 1 of 24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Review In line 46 the author refer to Figure 3b and says that
you can see spillage "like lead and mercury" - this is not correct:
You can see spillage, but not what it is ! Lead i found i
batteries, and mercury is not common in ELVs! Discussion with the
Automobile Demo Recycling Plant at Oragadam revealed that Mercury
switches were used in vehicles (in ABS etc.). Also dismantlers
mentioned that mercury was used in lighting applications in
vehicles. But, no separate management of mercury is presently
carried out. We have changed the figure caption accordingly as oil
spillage. In table 1 the no. of ELVs is said to be around
350000/year. OK lets say 300000 pc. - then something is wrong in
table 4, where the total quantity of tonnes is said to be app.
40000 tonnes ???The table 4 is the material recovery/energy savings
potential estimated for the year 2012. The calculation has been
explained as follows:For 2 Wheelers, the ferrous composition varies
from 64-77% and similarly aluminium composition varies from 7-15%.
For cars average ferrous and aluminium compositions were 68% and 6%
respectively. The average weights of moped, scooter, motorcycle and
car were taken as 66, 96, 115 and 900 kg respectively. Also from
the discussions with dismantlers and from recyclability study we
found the following: For 2 wheelers 50% of the total ferrous parts
are reusable and the remaining fractions sold for recycling. In
addition, about 40-55% of aluminium components are reusable while
the remaining fractions are sold for recycling. For cars only 40%
of total ferrous parts are reusable and the remaining 60% (mainly
car hulk) are recycled. As far as aluminium is concerned, 45% of
total aluminium parts are reusable while the remaining fractions
are sold for recycling. These details along with the ELV generation
rate are used to calculate the material/energy savings. An
example:In 2012, the numbers of ELVs are 84851 (motorcycles), 52701
(scooters), 214722 (mopeds) and 23313 (cars), respectively. Hence
the total % of ferrous fractions that can be recyclable
=(0.5*0.64*115*84851) + (0.5*0.7*96*52701) + (0.5*0.77*66*214722) +
(0.6*0.68*900*23313) = 18909 t The table title has been changed
accordingly to indicate its only for 2012. The conclusion section
has been added with the average values for material recovery and
energy savings potential. This is a few comments, but there are
many other vagueness . Reviewer(s)' Comments to Author: Reviewer:
1Comments to the AuthorComment:1. Add more facts in ELV recycling
in the context of all over the country of India.Page 2 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer ReviewAs indicated by Mr. Mohan Ram (kindly see reference
section in article), the ELV recycling in other parts are carried
out in informal way along the roadsides. Chennai is one of the
important cities where ELV recycling is carried out informally in a
large scale. The established the Auto Demo Recycling facility at
Oragadam near Chennai is the only authorized facility carrying out
ELV recycling for evolving a recycling plan for Indian conditions.
2. In Tab 4., it should be incorporated the following generic datum
as: (1) the benchmark energy consumption and CO2 emissions from
primary and secondary production of metals in INDIA (not UK), (2)
the determined annual ELV generation rate for Tamil Nadu State in
India, (3) the recyclability of ELV, as well as the results of
energy savings and CO2 reduction potential you have derived.At this
point of time, we are unable to find specific reports for Indian
scenario on energy savings and CO2 reduction during primary and
secondary material production. However, the processes involvedin
primary metal production from ore were the same in India too.
Hence, this data was used as baseline for calculation. 3. Does the
content of ELV management plan (in fig 4) and stakeholders
responsibility (in Tab 5) consult with government administration or
with SIAM? If not, my suggestion is to contact and discuss with
them, because to charge ELV recycling fee is not an easy issue.
Then, necessary update is required.After discussions with the
concerned people at the Auto Recycling Facility at Oragadam and
also with members from SIAM, we developed the ELV management plan.
However as ELV recycling policy is still in development stages
clear cut data on recycling fee to be charged is presently not
available. Reviewer: 2Comments to the Author(There are no
comments.) Reviewer: 3Comments to the Author The paper deals with
an extremely relevant topic for waste management, the recycling of
end of life vehicles in quickly developing countries like India.
The figures presented in the first chapters show that the amount of
ELV will dramatically increase in the next years and the
description of the current situation infrastructures shows a
significant lack of suitable collection, dismantling and recycling
infrastructures, from a technical point of view but also with
regard to the legal framework and economic incentives. The paper
seems to be based on an interesting case study with extensive
empirical results for the city of Tamil Nadu. Nevertheless it needs
to be significantly improved, especially with regard to the
scientific standard. Partly the paper is rather descriptive and
lacks a specific research question. In these descriptive parts
(e.g. page 10, line 1-24) the origin of these data has to be
clarified in much more detail. Surveys are mentioned and it is
absolutely not clear who has conducted them and why. Page 3 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer ReviewIn contrary the second part is quite normative and
proposes an ELV management plan. It should be elaborated in much
more detail how this plan has been developed, if it is just a
scientific proposal or how these stakeholders have been
involved.During the field study conducted, we observed that the
electronic parts were broken down into pieces. Also the same were
reported by Junjun Wang and Ming Chen in China (kindly see
reference 16). Surveys were conducted based on questionnaires by
the authors themselves. ELV management developed based on inputs
from SPCB, Demo Automobile recycling facility inputs, discussion
with manufacturers and review of international ELV regulations from
literature. We have accordingly modified the article with the
explanations. In order to be published in a scientific journal the
transparency and replicability of the results have to be improved
significantly. Also the English should be checked by a native
speaker.We have tried our best and rewritten the article
incorporating the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers.
Specific comments p. 2, line 36: the optimization problem should be
specifiedAs this was an initial study on this issue and also first
of its kind carried out, we do not have sufficient data to carry
out the optimization study. As a continuation, optimization problem
can be taken for further research as suggested by the reviewer. p.
3, chapter 2: as mentioned the methodology should be elaborated in
much more details: what was the role of the author?- what kind of
"discussions" have been analyzed?We performed the field study,
customer survey and recyclability study.As a part of the study,
discussions were carried out with ELV dismantlers, vehicle owners,
regulating authorities and manufacturers. The outcomes of the
discussions were discussed in each sections and they were analyzed
to bring out an ELV management plan. - what kind of "management
plan" was developed? is it in any way binding? Etc.Our ELV
management plan is only a suggestion based on our observations as a
part of this study. We have incorporated all the necessary points
at the initial stages to carry out proper ELV management. However,
further research is required on these points, which can be carried
out in the future. However, to make it binding an ELV recycling
policy is necessary. p. 5, line 20: the aspect of mandatory
technical inspections does not really seem to be picked up in the
later chapters on the ELV management planWe have changed
accordingly based on Reviewer comments. In addition, this was one
of our major conclusions. This is made a part of the ELV management
plan also. Page 4 of 24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste
Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Review p. 5, line 32: Especially the character of the survey
as foundation for the following conclusions should be specified:
Who did conduct it? Who has been asked? Are the results in any way
representative? Why do only consumers have been interviewed?We
developed a set of questionnaires and conducted the survey. The
vehicle owners were mentioned as consumers. Yes, the results were
used to develop the ELV management plan suggested by us. In
addition, we also had discussions with the regulatory authority,
manufacturers also. They shared the views of the customers in many
aspects. However recycling cost must be paid by first owner since
its their decision to purchase a vehicle. p. 6: How have the
results of the international comparison have been used for the
development of the ELV management plan? Why are these results
necessary for this paper?This gave an insight to link on-road
vehicle legislations with ELV management policy. Also, details like
auditing dismantling facilities, setting up of recycling targets,
management of hazardous wastes were all gained from the review of
these literatures. This was very helpful in developing the ELV
management plan. p. 7, line 15-17: what does that mean? what about
the other 65%?Others were of the view that vehicle life is less
than 6 years. p. 10, line 8-24: What are the sources for all these
figures?The literatures pertaining to ELV management in China
indicated a similar scenario. Also, all the numerical data were
collected by us by conducting the field study to know the
prevailing ELV management practices. p. 10, line 44: What is the
status of these recommendations? How do they differ from the ELV
management plan in chapter 4?The recommendations have been provided
by the Regulatory authority namely the SPCB based on their
observations of ELV management. These recommendations have been
incorporated into the ELV management plan. p. 11, chapter 3.4: The
calculation of benefits does not really seem to match with the
ecologic challenges described before. It is very focused on a
resource perspective, but it does not refer to problems caused by
pollutants (especially the fluids from ELVs)The recommended methods
for waste management obtained from the discussions with SPCB and
then incorporated in the ELV management plan. At present based on
the available data, we were able to focus on material recovery
potential alone, as a part of this initial study. As mentioned by
the author, we will focus on the environmental problems due to
pollutants as a part of future research. p. 13, line 24: The
assumptions for these calculations need to be specified! Do you
assume 100% collection and 100% recycling rates? Facing the
relevance of energy scarcities in India it should also Page 5 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Reviewbe discussed where these savings occur: Really in Tamil
Nadu (line 26)? Or somewhere else in the production phase?Yes we
have assumed 100% collection and 100% recycling rates because in
India, ELV management is labor-intensive and no specialized tools
and equipments were used.This figure is only a possibility if
everything is happening as per the ELV management plan. Presently
its not happening in reality. p. 13, chapter 3.5: As mentioned
above, please specify if this plan is something you wish to be
implemented? Or that stakeholders committed themselves to
develop?We developed this plan, keeping in mind the Indian
conditions and the suggestions from the stakeholders. This plan is
only an initial suggestion by us in the absence of any proper
system in place to manageELVs properly. p. 15: Although the paper
highlights the specific challenge of two wheelers, the plan does
not seem to differentiate between them and cars?We have also
incorporated the changes on management of wastes from cars. Since
TN state stands first in the 2 wheeler population, emphasis was
laid on to address them. p. 17, chapter 4: Only the first sentence
is really a conclusion, the rest is more like reasonable wishes
What is the questions that has been answered by this paper?
Especially the management plan and its potentials, barriers etc
should be mentioned. Wehave changed the conclusion section as per
the recommendations. Reviewer: 4Comments to the AuthorThe paper is
somewhat lightweight for an academic paper. It has a very brief
introduction (approx. 160 words), no review of any literature, a
very vague and brief methodology section, results that are
incomplete and poorly presented and a very brief conclusion. Below
are comments on each section in turn and recommendations for
improvement. Firstly, the title is inaccurate as the focus of the
paper is ELV management in an Indian state, Tamil Nadu, rather than
a city as suggested. The introduction is brief and superficial,
particularly since there is no review of literature or general
scene setting. In the introduction the authors state that they
assume the average on-road life of vehicles in Tamil Nadu State is
15 years, but there is no evidence to back up this assumption. The
reader only reads (on page 4) about the Indian AMP (2002)
recommendation that vehicles over the age of 15yrs should be
retired (which would make the average age of vehicles on the roads
much less than 15yrs), however, there was no evidence that this has
been enacted and enforced. Figure 1 then, is based on a
questionable assumption and further, the wording could be made
clearer that Fig 1 shows possible projected numbers of ELVs.There
is no specific vehicle on-road life as per the Indian legal
framework. As long as it passes the fitness test, it can run on the
roads. Discussions with Brake Inspector at RTO revealed that
average vehicle age is 15 years and Green tax concept brought to
retire old vehicles > 15 years, based on Page 6 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Reviewwhich we generated ELV rate. We have changed the figure
caption as mentioned. The method section is far too brief and
vague. There is no description (or basis given) as to how
comparisons were made with policy instruments and practices in
Japan, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. In addition,
two surveys were undertaken, one of the auto manufacturers and the
other of customers, however, neither survey instrument is provided
or detailed in the paper.There is no outline of how the surveys
were conducted, the number of each group surveyed, how many valid
responses were collected, response rate etc. Without this
information the results are very incomplete and not particularly
informative. This will be relatively easy to rectify as the authors
will have all this information. We developed a set of
questionnaires and conducted the survey. The vehicle owners were
mentioned as consumers. We were able to collect responses from 200
2-wheeler owners and 73 car owners. The results were used to
develop the ELV management plan suggested by us. In addition, we
also had discussions with the regulatory authority, manufacturers
also. The total number of collected responses were directly used in
the article. Interactions with manufacturers are through mail
discussions through which we got the necessary information. We also
visited the Demo Auto Recycling Facility to discuss and understand
more on the issues. Following on from this, the results are almost
meaningless when the reader does not know how many manufacturers
and vehicle owners were surveyed. Section 3.2 begins The response
from 200 two wheeler owners and 73 car owners Are these figures
your total number of consumer respondents or are these the ones
saying that higher maintenance cost was the main reason for vehicle
disposal?Yes. They are the total respondants. Out of the total
respondents, this much percentage indicated higher maintenance cost
was the main reason for disposal.Also the reader doesnt know what
alternative reasons for vehicle disposal were put forward to the
respondents. The same is the case for About 35% of surveyed
customers indicated the total on-road life of vehicles between 8-10
years is this 35% of respondents (not those surveyed) and what
other alternatives were they given, and what were the responses to
these? Another example: the reader does not know the alternatives
put forward as disposal channels for ELVs, we are only told that
52% preferred take-back by dealers/service centres. Nearly all
results are similarly vague, so that the reader feels like they are
being provided with only part of the story. The major reasons for
ELV classification were taken from literatures (kindly see the
reference Staudinger et al.). Some of the other options are poor
vehicle performance, poor parts reliability, etc. Also, the
disposal channels options from literatures of ELV manegement
systems in different countries being reviewed like disposal to
dealers, common collection centers, government authorized recycler
were used in the Questionnaire for which the responses were
recorded. I suggest that tables of the complete results from your
surveys need to be provided, which you can then discuss. Section
3.1 is similarly vague when making comparisons with other
countries, no clear Page 7 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Reviewoutline is given as to how this was undertaken, or were
you using the comparisons made by other authors? There is no
explanation as to what the authors mean by ELV norms or proper
management of ELVs. In 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 you are stating observations
about practices in Tamil Nadu whilst providing references to China
and then Japan. This is confusing, you would be better to make
statements like As in China *13+, in Tamil Nadu State I would also
suggest that the costs given (eg. in 3.3.2) are not necessary,
however, if they remain, there needs to be a year given for these
costs and the costs given some relevance for the international
reader (say costs in relation to the cost of a new vehicle).The ELV
mgmt in China has many common scenarios with Indian ELV management.
So they were considered. Proper management of ELV was used in the
context of ELV management according to the stringent ELV recycling
policy. We have changed the article as per the recommendations of
the reviewer. For Table 3, is the regulatory authority the State
Pollution Control Board? If so this needs to be stated. Only half a
sentence is devoted to Figure 4. The reader needs to know how it
was derived (if it is original work or adapted from elsewhere) and
also how to read it, as it seems to be a loop, starting and ending
at the RTO in the top left corner. We have explained the ELV
management plan completely. The figure starts from the last vehicle
owner who is the starting point of the ELV management chain. The
conclusion is also very brief and does not really say anything of
significance.Conclusion has been modified incorporating significant
findings from the study. A review of English grammar and tenses is
required, also sometimes words like a or the are missing. Regarding
the references, is there a reason why the references are not
numbered numerically throughout the paper? Also I was unable to
find reference to references [1] and [4] in the manuscript. Ref
[19] Cassells, S. should be 2004 not 2005. We have rewritten the
article as mentioned by the reviewer. Also the references are cited
as per the style conventions to be followed for this journal. The
year for the above reference has beenchanged as mentioned. Page 8
of 24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer ReviewEND-OF-LIFE VEHICLE MANAGEMENT IN AN INDIAN CITY
SATAKOPAN SANTHANAM*, and DR. KURIAN JOSEPH* *Centre for
Environmental Studies, Anna University, Chennai, India
[email protected] Abstract: Tamil Nadu (TN) state in India, with
11.2 million registered two wheelers (2Ws) and 1.18 million
registeredcarsin2011,hasthesecondhighestvehiclepopulationinIndiaandstandsfirstinthe2Ws
population.With15yearsasaveragevehicleon-roadlifeinIndianconditions,approximately440,000
end-of-life2Wsand35,000end-of-lifecarsaregeneratedannuallyinthestate,whichmustbeproperly
managed.Thispaperanalyzesthevehicle-relatedIndianlegalframeworktoidentifyexistingsetupfor
end-of-lifevehicle(ELV)classification/management.Inaddition,itexplorestheprevailingELV
management practices in the Metropolitan city of Chennai, the
capital of TN state. Also, material recovery potential and energy
savings have been estimated, based on the projected annual ELV
generation rate in TN and vehicle recyclability rate. Based on
inputs from key stakeholders and review of international ELV
management policies and practices, an ELV management plan has been
suggested. Keywords: End-of-life vehicles management; ELV
recycling; ELV management; end-of-life; vehicles.1. INTRODUCTION
Tamil Nadu (TN) state in India, with 11.2 million registered two
wheelers (2Ws) and 1.18 million registered cars in 2011, has the
second highest vehicle population in India, next to Maharashtra,
and stands first in
the2Wspopulation[DEAR2009].Chennaicity,thestatesCapital,havingahugeregisteredvehicle
population of about 2.58 million 2Ws and 0.57 million cars in 2011
[STA 2011], has been chosen for the
study.AccordingtoStaudingeretal.(2001),avehiclebecomesanend-of-lifevehicle(ELV)whenthe
vehicle owner discards it due to loss of structural/mechanical
integrity, poor reliability of parts/components
ordegradedvehicleperformance.TheaccurateELVgenerationrateintheStateisnotknownasthe
ELV,thoughscrapped,arestillaccountedinthestatevehicleregister.However,withtheexisting
scenarioofhaving15yearsastheaverageon-roadvehiclelifeinIndianconditions,theannualELV
generationrateinTNhasbeencalculatedanddepictedinFig.1.Oncethevehicleownerdecidesto
scrapthevehicle,itposesachallengingresourceoptimizationproblemfromaneconomicaswellas
environmentalperspective[Staudingeretal.2000,DEH2002].AsstatedbyMohanRam(2007),the
Page 9 of 24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Reviewexisting ELV management systems, dependent on
unorganized roadside operators, would not be able to cope up with
the increasing ELV scrap volumes. They require upgraded technology,
processes and setup
ofmodernfacilitieswithgreatercapacitytodealwithexpectedincreaseinvolumeofELVs,which
increases material recovery potential and conservation of depleting
natural resources [Mohan Ram 2007]. Figure 1. Projected annual ELV
generation rate in TN.
Thisworkinitiallyreviewsthevehicle-relatedIndianlegalframeworkforELVclassification
criterion. Next, the customer perception on ELV management,
obtained by means of conducting surveys with vehicle owners, has
been discussed. We conducted the field study to understand the
prevailing ELV management practices in the Chennai city. We
estimate and present the material recovery potential and
energysavingsfromELVmanagement.Finally,anELVmanagementplanhasbeensuggestedforthe
city.Necessarypolicyinstruments/practicesfrominternationalELVmanagementscenarios,obtained
from the review of literature, have been incorporated into the
above ELV management plan. 2. ELV RELATED LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND
POLICIES We reviewed the vehicle-related Indian legal framework,
namely, the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA) 1988, the
CentralMotorVehicleRules(CMVR)1989,theTNMotorVehicleRules(TNMVR)1989andtheIndian
AutomotiveMissionPlan(AMP)2002,toobtaintheexistingELVclassification/managementcriteriaand
summarizeinTable1.Presentlythevehicleownersdonotderegistertheirvehiclesbeforescrapping.
ThislackofformalELVderegistrationrequirementscontributestoinefficienciesincollectionand
treatmentoftheELVs[DEH2002].Also,thelegislationdoesn'tmandateaproperdisposalchannelfor
Page 10 of 24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer ReviewELV which are mostly sold to an informal dismantler, for
scrapping, in return for an incentive. There is a definite need for
enforcement of continuous vehicle licensing system that makes
owners liable to pay the tax until a certificate of disposal (CoD)
is presented to remove the vehicle from the motor vehicle register
[Cassells 2004]. To bridge the gaps (Table 1), the Indian AMP had
recommended measures to modernize
thevehiclefleetbyretirementofvehiclesmorethan15yearsofage,maketheperiodicfitness
certification compulsory for all vehicles and develop a centralized
registration system that will help in the enforcement of ELV
recycling policy in the future. Table 1. Indian legal framework
pertaining to ELV. LegislationCriteriaExisting PracticesComments
MVA ELV classification criteria and vehicle age Cancel registration
of vehicles beyond reasonable repair or incapable to use or not
satisfying legal requirements Central Government to fix age of
vehicle as per legal requirements No strict enforcement/ lesser
fines for defaultersNo enforced age limit for vehicles in practice
MVA, CMVR and TNMVR Validity of vehicle registration and its
renewal Initial vehicle registration valid for 15 years and
registration renewal extended for a period of another five years
Green Tax collected during renewal of registration to phase out old
vehicles > 15 years of age MVA, CMVR and TNMVR Technical
Inspection of vehicles Road-worthiness test annually conducted for
commercial vehicles and conducted only during renewal of
registration (after 15 years) for 2Ws and cars.Can be used as ELV
classification criteria
Necessarypolicyinstruments,fromliteratures,havebeenreviewedfromtheELVmanagement
policiesincountriesliketheNetherlands,Sweden,Denmark,Germany(Cassells2004,Forslind2003,
Smink2007)andJapan(Kanarietal.2007,DBJ2003,JED2006),comparedwiththeIndianscenario
and summarized in Table 2. As can be seen from Table 2, the
legislations governing the on-road vehicle usage in these countries
are integrated with the ELV recycling policy. Hence, the vehicle
owners are left
onlywithtwochoiceseithertoundergoperiodictechnicalinspectionoftheirvehicles,paytheperiodic
vehicletax,andrenewtheirvehicleregistrationortodisposetheELVtoauthorizeddismantlers,
inreturnforanincentive,andrelievefromthetaxliability. Page 11 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Review Table 2. Policy instruments for ELV management across
different countries.Policy
InstrumentNetherlandsGermanySwedenDenmarkJapanIndia ELV Recycling
Policy YesYesYesYesYesNo Authorization of ELV Dismantling
Facilities MandatoryMandatoryMandatoryMandatoryMandatoryNot
Required Monitoring of ELV Dismantling Facilities Auto Recycling
Nederland Independent auditors Admin body of local County Municipal
Authorities Japan Automobile Recycling Promotion Center Unorganized
facilities ELV Take-back responsibility ProducerProducerProducer
Producer and last vehicle owner ProducerNo responsibility
Recycling/Recovery Targets for ELV Recycling 86% by 2000 and 95% by
2015 Recovery 85% by 2002 and 95% by 2015 Recovery 85% by 2002 and
95% by 2015 Recycling 80% by 2003 and Recycling 85% by 2015
Recovery 85% by 2002 and 95% by 2015 No formal targets. Informal
recycling rate up to 85%Deregistration of ELV before scrapping CoD
issued after deregistration CoD issued after deregistration CoD
issued after deregistration CoD issued after deregistration
Permanent Deregistration done before scrapping Not performed before
scrapping of ELV Fluids and hazardous components removal from ELV
Mandatory pretreatment before dismantling Mandatory pretreatment
before dismantling Mandatory pretreatment before dismantling
Mandatory pretreatment before dismantling Mandatory pretreatment
before dismantling Fluids and hazardous components not managed
separately Payment of recycling fees/Product disposal charge First
vehicle owner Vehicle makers or importers Vehicle manufacturer or
importer Manufacturer or importer First vehicle ownerVehicle
Dismantler Incentives to the last owner of vehicle No incentives to
the last owner Paid for ELV with positive value Paid from the Car
scrapping fund Paid from the Recycling-fund Paid from the vehicle
tax Paid for ELV with positive value Page 12 of
24http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/wmrWaste Management
Research123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960For
Peer Review 3. CUSTOMER PERCEPTION ON ELV CLASSIFICATION AND
MANAGEMENT We have conducted surveys (questionnaire-based) with 200
2W owners and 73 car owners to know their
perceptiononELVclassificationandmanagement.About35%ofrespondentsindicatedtheaverage
vehicleon-roadlifebetween8to10years,whiletherestindicatedvehiclelife
