ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ANALYSIS
LIFE-CYCLE ASSESSMENT An Abridged Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric Vehicle Batteries NANCY L. C. STEELE California Air resources Board 9528 Telstar Avenue El Monte, CA 99731 DAVID T. ALLEN Department of Chemical Engineering University of Texas as Austin Austin, TX 78712-1062
Zero-emission mandates are opening commercial
111 u I i \ e LO f o r
UQlLwry
U U W v l C U e l v w i l lw
veIIi
cles. Miinuugh iricoc veincico do not produce
tailpipe emissions, recent assessments have raised concerns that emissions generated by recycling lead-acid batteries used in electric v e l l i c I U o lllay c r e a i c a IlldJor c I l v i r o l l i l l e i l L d l llll~
pact. We used an abridged life-cycle assessment, which produces easily comprehended information about each life stage of a product, to analyze environmental impacts associated with recycling and waste management of four battery technologies likely to be used in electric vehicles over the next 5-10 years. We ranked recycling and waste management impacts and emphasized environmental consequences associated with design factors. Our results suggest that nickel-metal hydride batteries are the most environmentally benign; however, an infrastructure for recycling these batteries does not exist. Although its toxicity is relatively low, the sodiumsulfur battery received the poorest ranking, because it is not recyclable. Lead-acid and nickelcadmium batteries are highly recyclable, but the question of significant toxicity remains.
4 0 A • JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Zero-emission mandates in California, New York, and Massachusetts are stimulating the expansion of commercial markets for electric vehicles (EVs). In California, a vehicle is certified as being in compliance with zero-emission requirements if there are no emissions of criteria pollutants under possible operating modes and conditions (i). In the context of available technologies, a zero-emission vehicle is most likely battery-powered. Despite a slowdown in the California program (2, 3), General Motors launched the Saturn EV1 in the fall of 1996, and it debuted in California on schedule (4). Over useful vehicle life, EVs have no tailpipe emissions. Studies have shown a net decrease in air pollutants from EVs in comparisons of power plant emissions attributed to charging EV batteries with tailpipe emissions from conventional vehicles (1, 5). Most analyses, however, have focused on in-use costs, those associated with driving and recharging (6). Environmental consequences of producing and disposing of EV batteries may be significant. Leadacid batteries contain lead, a toxic heavy metal associated with neurological damage in children, high blood pressure in adults, and other undesirable effects in humans and other organisms (7). Roque examined potential impacts from EV manufacturing and waste generation and suggested that significant local environmental and occupational impacts, different from those associated with conventional vehicles, could resultfromlead-acid battery manufacturing and recycling (6). Two more recent studies focused on the environmental consequences of producing and recycling lead-acid EV batteries and concluded that a 1998 model electric car would release up to 60 times lead per kilometer of use than a conventional car burning leaded gasoline and may result in adverse impacts greater than air quality benefits (8 9). All of the most commercially viable types of batteries that can be used in EVs contain corrosive and toxic materials and, when spent, are considered hazardous according to federal or California regulations. In view of potential life-cycle impacts associated with the use of lead-acid batteries in EVs, it is helpful to determine whether any competing battery technologies offer a more environmentally benign alternative. In this study, we compared potential health and environmental impacts of four battery technologies and focused on recycling and waste disposal life stages, with an emphasis on design factors that could prevent or increase impacts. We did not address battery material extraction and manufacturing. The battery technologies are lead-acid, nickel-cadmium (NiCd), nickelmetal hydride (NiMH), and sodium-sulfur (NaS). 0013-936X/98/0932-40A$15.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
Conceptually, the emphasis is on green design of EVs, a philosophy that treats environmental attributes as design objectives or opportunities rather than as constraints (10). Because of the hazardous constituents involved, designing EV batteries and their associated waste management systems for maximum recyclability and minimum waste generation is a major challenge. The assessment technique In this analysis, we used the abridged life-cycle assessment method: a multidimensional, systematic approach that provides comprehensive, qualitative, design-related, environmental data that are easily understood and used by the nonexpert. Data are developed for each life stage of a product. The technique is similar to methods developed by Allenby (11) and Graedel and co-workers (12). We chose this method for several reasons. It is product- and systems-oriented. It is qualitative, which has advantages over quantitative methods; data used in the latter are often contradictory and impossible to validate independently. Quantitative data often are considered proprietary, available only for in-house studies, thus preventing external assessments. The assessment is divided into four categories: manufacturing, political and social viability, environmental impacts, and exposure and toxicity potential (see box). For each issue pertaining to the first two categories, manufacturing and political and social viability, we asked, "What is the level of concern that this issue will present a roadblock to recycling or will contribute to increased disposal without reclamation of battery components?" For issues identified in the environmental impacts and exposure and toxicity potential categories, the question was, "What is the level of concern that recycling and disposing of each battery type will cause harm to human health and the environment?" In doing our assessment, we identified the level of concern for each issue numerically as follows: no concern (0), low concern (1), medium concern (2), and high concern (3). Where data are sparse, missing, or of uneven quality, associated uncertainties are higher than when data are available, abundant, and generally reliable. Correspondingly, the degree of uncertainty related to each issue is characterized as high, medium, or low, but is not further summarized. Because each major category does not have the same number of issues associated with it as do other categories, we averaged numerical scores to generate a comparative overall level of concern. This treatment facilitates representation of opinions. For each battery type overall recyclability and potential harm are resented by the average of catppory The conversion of qualitative judgments to semiquantitative scores is similar to Graedel's Environmentally Responsible Product Rating System (12) Assessment results are summarized in the tables that accompany this report. The relative merits of the battery technologies studied and the process, reliability, and limitations of the evaluation method are established from the data that are presented. In general, a battery that has fewer roadblocks to recy-
Issues evaluated in the abridged life-cycle assessment The assessment is divided into four categories, and the four battery types are evaluated in terms of 22 issues within these categories. Manufacturing issues Process and materials compatibility Availability and capacity Resource consumption Cost/economic feasibility
Legislative status Regulatory status
Local air Atmosphere
Political and social viability Community impacts Global impacts Labor impacts Environmental impacts Water Soil
Solid waste
Exposure and toxicity potential Community exposure Human carcinogenic toxicity Occupational exposure Other acute toxicity Environmental exposure Other chronic toxicity Human acute and chronic toxicity Bioaccumulation
cling, as assessed by considering each of these areas, is evaluated more positively. Conversely, within each category, the likelihood of a battery type being disposed of in a landfill, with or without treatment to reduce hazardous characteristics, is evaluated less favorably. Manufacturing issues We assessed the following manufacturing issues: • process and materials compatibility—recyclability of batteries in existing plants with available technology, • resource consumption—recyclability of battery component materials and likelihood that such materials are remanufactured into batteries or some other product, • availability—existing plant recycling capacity, and • cost—the likelihood that a battery will be recycled or disposed of when market costs and incentives are considered. Within this category, we judged that lead-acid batteries are superior, followed by NiCd batteries, NiMH, and NaS batteries (Table 1). The more positive leadacid batteries evaluation reflects the existing infrastructure for recycling vehicle batteries. Each year, 90-96% of scrapped lead-acid batteries are recycled (13). Component lead-acid battery materials are usually recycled into new lead-acid batteries (14), reducing resource consumption concerns. Lead-acid battery recycling is economically feasible, even profitable, and facilities are readily available in the United States, including two in California (15). The recycling of NiCd batteries is rated less favorably, primarily because of problems in resource consumption and cost. The United States relies heavily on imported nickel (16), a situation that recycling will not improve. Recycled nickel is not pure enough for reuse in manufacture of NiCd batteries; therefore, nickel recovered during thermal treatment of spent NiCd batteries is processed into a reJAN. 1, 1998/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 1
A
TABLE 1
Assessment of concern about manufacturing issues The evaluated level of concern and uncertainty about recycling and disposal of batteries (or components) in manufacturing processes favors lead-acid (PbA) and nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries over nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries. The level of concern is rated by a numerical score with " 0 " the lowest level of concern; uncertainty is described as low, medium, or high. PbA Issue Process & material compatibility Resource consumption Availability & capacity
NiCd
Recycle
Disposal
0 Low 0 Low
1 Low 1 Low
0 Low
Cost/economic feasibility
1
Recycle
1 Low 1 Low
Low 0 Low
Recycle
NaS
Disposal
0
1 Low 3 Med.
High 0 Med.
1
Low 0
Disposal
0
0
NiMH
1
Low
Low
1
2
Low 1
Recycle
Disposal
Med. 2 High
3 Med. 2 Med.
3
2 Low
2
3 Low
0
3
3 Med. 3
Low
Low
Med.
Low
Med.
Low
Low
High
Totals
0
4
2
4
3
6
11
11
Average
0
1
0.5
1
0.75
1.5
2.75
2.75
melt alloy (74% Fe, 18% Cr, 8% Ni), which is used to produce stainless steel (17). Dramatic price declines of nickel and cadmium introduce further concern about the economic feasibility of recycling NiCd batteries (16, 18). Lead-acid and NiCd battery disposal is a concern because of land disposal restrictions. The uncertainty of evaluation for both battery types is rated low; substantial, high-quality data are available. Notwithstanding high uncertainty associated with some issues, NiMH and NaS batteries were evaluated less favorably than lead-acid and NiCd batteries for recycling and disposal. The recycling evaluation for NiMH batteries reflects uncertainty about whether a dedicated recycling infrastructure, although possibly feasible, can be established {19). Small quantities of NiMH batteries are recycled in the same U.S. facility that presently recycles NiCd batteries. The product is a remelt alloy that can be used for stainless steel production. A dedicated recycling facility that produces ferronickel, nickel salts, ferrovanadium, and mixed rare-earth oxides could depress ket prices for these commodities {19). Th,s battery wiil likely be I3.nd.-d.ispos6cl.~0f for some time because
pecially lead-acid, NiCd, and NiMH. Battery construction should not add labor-intensive steps to battery disassembly for recycling; and materials used in batteries should be compatible with existing reclamation technologies, particularly in the case of leadacid and NiCd batteries. For example, polypropylene battery cases are easily recycled into new battery cases, but the use of any other case material complicates the separation process, the first step in reclamation. Batteries should be sized to fit automated battery-cracking machinery. Elements and polymer composites that cannot be processed in existing furnaces without reducing the purity of the desired product should not be used, and battery electrodes should be designed for easy disassembly (21).
Political and social viability issues
In terms of political and social viability issues, we evaluated batteries relative to how society addresses recycling and waste management at community, employment, and global levels within the political arena. Against this metric, no battery was clearly superior; although among battery types, some differences are noted (Table 2). For several issues, all of no the battery types were judged equivalent, because it federal standard exists for nickel toxicity that could force is likely that the public would view all spent batterreclamation Disposal of NiMH batteries CELT1 b e Xclcl ies similarly. Lead-acid batteries were evaluated as tively inexpensive except in California where nickel is being slightly preferable to NiCd and NiMH batterregulated as a toxic substance ies, which, in turn, were evaluated as being slightly Of the battery types we rated, NaS batteries are the better than NaS batteries. The uncertainty of the evalmost difficult to recycle. Complex battery construcuation for all batteries is judged low or medium betion presents process and materials compatibility probadequate information about relevant statlems. Few parts of this battery may be reusable in new utes and regulations is available Predicting how NaS battery manufacture (20); ;here ii no existing NaS communities will react to recycling and disposal fabattery recycling capacity; and disposal will consume cilities is a major area of uncertainty otherwise available hazardous waste landfill space. BeOne significant issue that we uncovered is the dicause the components are corrosive, reactive, and toxic, chotomy between legislation and regulations. Legislabattery disposal is costly. NaS batteries also were evaltion tends to favor recycling of batteries, whereas reguated very unfavorably, partly because battery disasulations tend to inhibit recycling. Spent batteries are sembly is labor intensive. considered to be hazardous wastes and are subject to Design criteria should be considered to enhance recyclability of the four types of batteries, es- strict regulation. The 1995 federal Universal Waste Rule -
4 2 A • JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
TABLE 2
Assessment of concern about political and social viability issues The evaluated level of concern and uncertainty about recycling and disposal of batteries (or components) with respect to these issues rates lead-acid (PbA) batteries most favorably and sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries as least desirable. The level of concern is rated by a numerical score with " 0 " the lowest level of concern; uncertainty is described as low, medium, or high. PbA Issue
Recycle
Legislative status Regulatory status
NiCd Disposal 0 Low
1 Low
Low 3
Labor impacts
Totals
2
Med. 6
1.2
6 1.2
removes some recycling barriers and should facilitate recycling of batteries (22). Existing recycling infrastructure and regulations favorable to lead-acid battery recycling give them a political advantage over other battery types. However, although communities opposed to lead-acid battery processing are unlikely to be able to close existing recycling facilities, they may be able to prevent siting of new facilities. As part of tiie final permitting process with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, a community survey undertaken for a California lead-acid battery recycling plant in 1992 identified significant negative public opinion (23). Generally, community attitudes about all battery types are negative, except those pertaining to labor issues, because of the long history of air and soil contamination from secondarymetal smelting facilities. Although the impact on labor from battery recycling may be positive because secondary-metal smelters generally pay high wages and have stable work forces, local community groups historically have been successful at blocking new hazardous waste facility development. At the global level, international commerce in spent batteries may result in unsafe management practices and lead to environmental and human health damage from purported recycling operations that are often no more than uncontrolled dump sites for hazardous wastes (24). Increased overseas recycling and disposal, especially of batteries that contain lead or cadmium, may exacerbate these effects if the batteries are not recycled in countries with strong environmental regulations.
Environmental impact issues Recycling and disposal management of spent batteries causes environmental impacts that must be mitigated. In California, atmospheric emissions of lead from recycling operations are declining, primarily because of environmental regulation (25). An in-
7 1.4
0
2
1.2
1
2 Low
2
3 Low
3 Low
1
3 Med.
1 High
1
0 Low
1 Low
1 Low
7 1.4
2 Low
Low
Med. 6
1
Med.
Low
Med.
Disposal
Low 3
1
2 Med.
2
Med.
Low
Recycle
Low
Low 1
0 Low
1
1
Low
NaS Disposal
Low
Low 3
1
2
1 2
Med.
Low
Recycle
Low
Low 1
0
Med.
0 Low
Low
Low Global impacts
Disposal
1
Med.
Averages
1
Low
Community impacts
Recycle
NiMH
6 1.2
1 Med. 9 1.8
1 Med. 8 1.6
crease in spent-battery recycling, however, could increase environmental releases of hazardous constituents. Expected harm to human and environmental health from recycling and land disposal should be examined comparatively. The environmental data we used in this analysis (of varying quality depending on battery type examined) were obtained from self-reporting by industry stakeholders (e.g., from the Toxics Release Inventory) or are estimates produced by government agencies. For leadacid battery recycling, substantial data are available from a variety of sources; thus, uncertainties are rated low to medium. For NiCd batteries, data are of lower quality, and uncertainty is rated medium in all categories. Data are lacking for NiMH and NaS batteries; uncertainty ranges from low to high. In a hypothetical scenario in which NiMH and NaS batteries are recycled, environmental impacts of recycling lead-acid and NiCd batteries, on a comparative basis, are rated less favorably (Table 3). This outcome arises from concerns about localized soil impacts and short-range and long-range atmospheric emissions impacts caused by pyrometallurgical smelting. High airpathway impacts, local and regional, result from battery smelting operations (25-31); consequently, ,eadacid and NiCd recycling produces greater impacts than recycling of NiMH and NaS batteries, which may be recycled or otherwise treated by using wet-chemical and electrochemical technologies. Reported environmental releases to bodies of water from spent lead-acid and NiCd battery management practices are low; most releases are to wastewater treatment plants (30). Spent NaS battery management is unlikely to produce significant water impacts, because reactive and corrosive constituents must be neutralized before disposal. Recycling batteries that contain heavy metals generates a significant amount of waste that cannot be reused in any new product; useful material content is JAN. 1, 1998/ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 3 A
TABLE 3
Assessment of concern about environmental impact issues The evaluated level of concern and uncertainty about recycling and disposal of batteries (or components) with respect to these issues rates sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries most favorably and lead-acid (PbA) batteries as least desirable. The level of concern is rated by a numerical score with " 0 " the lowest level of concern; uncertainty is described as low, medium, or high. PbA Issue
NiCil
NiMH
Recycle
Disposal
3 Low
1 Low
Atmospheric air
2 Med.
1 Low
Water
2 Med.
1 Low
3 Low
1 Low
Low
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Med.
Totals
12
7
11
7
9
8
8
8
Averages
2.4
1.4
2.2
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
Local air
Soil Solid waste
2
Recycle
Disposal
Med.
1 Low
1 Med.
1 Low
NaS
3
2
1
Recycle
Disposal
High
1 Med.
1 Low
1 Low
2
2
2
Recycle
Disposal
Low
2 Low
1 Low
1 Low 1 Med.
2
1
Med.
Low
High
High
Med.
3 Med,
1 Low
2 Med.
1 Low
Low
3
2
3
limited. It is unlikely that any amount of material recovered from NaS batteries will be recycled. Recycling of lead-acid and NiCd batteries in pyrometallurgical smelting operations produces undesirable soil impacts from deposition of heavy-metal emissions {32, 33). All four battery types produce adverse solidwaste impacts. Lead-acid and NiCd batteries are unlikely to be disposed of in landfills. Federal regulations prohibit the land disposal of lead-acid and Cd-containing batteries [40 CFR Part 268]. It is therefore expected that environmental impacts of battery disposal are minimal, and they are rated of low concern with low associated uncertainty. Some unrecyclable wastes and some slag will be landfilled, but these practices are considered unlikely to cause significant environmental harm {34). Were the NiMH and NaS batteries to be disposed of, it is unlikely that they would pose significant environmental impacts because of their lower constituent toxicity.
Exposure and toxicity potential issues Exposure can be controlled through safe engineering and work practices; toxicity cannot. Exposure is evaluated as it relates to community, workers, and the broader environment. In this evaluation, we examined toxicity in terms of acute, chronic, and carcinogenic effects on humans and other organisms. We gave toxicity the greatest weight and bioaccumulation the least weight. Within this framework, NiMH and NaS batteries pose a lower rated level of potential for harm to humans and the environment than lead-acid and NiCd batteries (Table 4). Although the evaluation considers toxic harm potential, we did not assert that recycling and disposal of EV batteries actually cause harm. Toxicity and exposure data relevant to each category suggest that there is greater potential for harm posed by lead and cadmium than that posed by 4 4 A • JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
2
1 3
3
1 Low 3
nickel, vanadium, rare-earth elements, sodium, sulfur, and other minor constituents of NiMH and NaS batteries. Although the constituents of NaS batteries are relatively nontoxic, potential acute and chronic effects could be significant if molten sodium and sulfur react, as might happen in a vehicle collision. The resulting reaction may generate heat, fire, and toxic, explosive, and caustic gases {35)) Exposures to communities, workers, and the environment associated with spent lead-acid battery management are severe. Secondary lead smelters have a history of contaminating surrounding communities {32, 33). Elevated blood-lead levels have been measured in area residents {36, 37). Although exposure data pertaining to recycling other EV batteries are unavailable, some reclamation activities can affect community and worker exposures. Hydrometallurgical reclamation techniques should cause fewer exposures than pyrometallurgical methods. Bioaccumulation data, although sparse, suggest that some constituents of lead-acid and NiCd batteries bioaccumulate in organisms but do not biomagnify. Lead accumulates throughout life in hard and soft tissues, as may cadmium. Nickel apparendy does not bioaccumulate. Consequentiy, in terms of bioaccumulation, lead-acid and NiCd batteries are evaluated less favorably than NiMH and NaS batteries. Our abridged life-cycle analysis suggests that NiMH batteries, potentially recyclable and relatively nontoxic, are preferred as the least environmentally harmful battery (Table 5). We therefore recommend that policy makers facilitate development of a recycling infrastructure for NiMH batteries. The California Air Resources Board estimates that these batteries are expected to be technologically and commercially available for EVs sometime in 1998 {38)) The overall recycling assessment ranks the batteries studied in the following preferential order: NiMH > lead-acid > NiCd > NaS. Significant toxic-
TABLE 4 Assessment of concern about exposure and toxicity potential issues The evaluated level of concern and uncertainty about recycling and disposal of batteries (or components) with respect to these issues rates sodium-sulfur (NaS) batteries most favorably and lead-acid (PbA) batteries as least desirable. The level of concern is rated by a numerical score with "0" the lowest level of concern; uncertainty is described as low, medium, or high. PbA
NiMH
NiCd
NaS
Recycle
Disposal
Recycle
Disposal
Recycle
Disposal
Recycle
3 Low
1 Low
3 Med.
1 Low
2 Med.
2 Med.
Med.
2 Med.
2 Low
1 Low
Med.
1 Low
High
2 High
2 High
2 High
Environmental exposure
3 High
1 Low
3 Med.
1 Low
2 High
2 High
1 :; High
1 High
Human acute & chronic
3 Low
1 Low
3 Low
1 Low
2 Low
1 Low
: 3Low
2 Low
Human carcinogenic
3 Med.
1 Low
3 Low
1 Low
Low
2 Low
2 Low
2 Low
2 Low
1 Low
2 Low
Low
Med.
Med.
Med.
1 Med.
Other chronic
3 Med.
1 Low
3 Low
1 Low
1 Med.
1 Med.
1 Med.
1 Med.
Bioaccumulation
3 Low
1 Low
2 Low
1 Low
1 Low
1 Low
1 Low
1 Med.
13
12
12
12
1.625
1.5
1.5
1.5
Issue C o m m u n i t y exposure Occupational exposure
Other acute
Totals Averages
2
22 2.75
ity and exposure potential issues are associated with lead-acid and NiCd batteries; NaS batteries are not recyclable. Although existing regulations prohibit land disposal of lead-acid and NiCd batteries, NiMH and NaS batteries can be land-disposed-of after minimal management. Consequently, in terms of disposal, NiMH and NaS batteries are of greater concern because of landfill impacts. Evaluating the assessment This assessment method is broad in scope and can be performed rapidly. A large body of data about leadacid battery recycling and disposal is available, but there is less information on NiMH and NaS. Nonetheless, we successfully produced a reasonably thorough, qualitative design-related comparison of products and processes. By reporting estimates of uncertainty, the utility of the generated evaluation is strengtiiened. In view of the need to integrate and synthesize large amounts of information that cover a broad range of knowledge and expertise, full assessments are best performed by a team of individuals with varied backgrounds. Abridged life-cycle assessments done in this manner have the advantage of the synergy created when individuals in different specialties are brought together. We found that the semiquantitative ranking system was a valuable tool for summarizing our evaluations of battery types within the range of environmental issues surveyed. In view of our evaluation requirements, we prefer this technique to quantitative life-cycle assessments, which avoid such qualitative issues as political considerations and soci-
2 1
21 1
2
2.625
1
1
Disposal 1
1
1
TABLE 5 Overall concern about recycling and disposal When the level of concern is averaged over all four categories, the nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) battery is favored in terms of recycling, lead-acid (PbA) and nickel-cadmium (NiCd) batteries are favored in terms of disposal, and greatest concern focuses on the sodiumsulfur battery. The level of concern is rated by a numerical score (average) with "0" the lowest level of concern. Battery types Issue
PbA
NiCd
NiMH
NaS
Recycling Disposal
1.59 1.15
1.68 1.15
1.39 1.45
1.91 1.86
etal attitudes. The information produced by this analysis is useful to • designers and developers of EV batteries—in planning production of environmentally benign units, • policy makers—in deciding which batteries to promote based on evaluation of EV battery options across different types of environmental issues, and • recyclers—in making changes that enable increased recycling and protection of human and environmental health. Depending on which issues are evaluated, strikingly different conclusions can be drawn about the comparative environmental suitability of battery types. From a systems perspective, it is just as important to understand engineering and policy issues as it is to understand environmental impacts and JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 4 5 A
toxicities. In projecting green design options, all four indicated categories of concern should be evaluated. This view provides a more comprehensive level of preparedness in planning for the eventual and inevitable generation of tons of spent hazardous batteries sure to follow extensive commercialization of electric vehicles. Whereas important concerns about environmental impact and toxicity and exposure potential are traditionally included in risk and life-cycle assessments, manufacturing or political and social viability concerns are not typical components of such analyses. Note, however, that if only environmental impacts, exposure, and toxicities of these battery technologies were examined, the NaS battery would receive the most favorable evaluation, because its least favorable evaluations fell under manufacturing and political and social viability issues. Such a limited assessment does not account for the likelihood that a battery will be recycled rather than disposed of in a landfill. It ignores the manufacturing and political and social issues that support leadacid and NiCd battery recycling In limiting the examination of concerns in this manner ciod ir\ riot con.sidering technical and legal issues that influence the actual final disposition of spent batteries an incomplete assessment is produced
(14)
(15) (16) (17)
(18) (19)
(20)
(21) (22) (23)
Acknowledgments
(24)
This research was supported, in part, by the Robert and Patricia Switzer Foundation. We acknowledge the helpful assistance of J. A. Roque, I. W. Suffet, and J. Feddema on an earlier version of this research. This article is dedicated to the memory of Julie A. Roque.
(25)
(26)
References (1) California Air Resources Board. Proposed Amendments to the Low-Emission Vehicle Regulations to Add an Equivalent Zero-Emission Vehicle (EZEV) Standard and Allow Zero-Emission Vehicle Credit for Hybrid-Electric Vehicles; preliminary draft staff report; Mobile Source Division: El Monte, CA, 1995. (2) Goeller, D. Environment Week 1995, 33, 451. (3) San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board. "Interview with John D. Dunlap III, Chairman, California Air Resources Board"; San Diego Union-Tribune: San Diego, CA, Jan. 14, 1996; p. G-5. (4) Goeller, D. Environment Week 1996, 34, 17. (5) Bevilacqua-Knight, Inc. 1992 Electric Vehicle Technology and Emissions Update; No. BKI-92-100; California Air Resources Board: Sacramento, CA, 1992. (6) Roque, J. A. In Electric Vehicle Manufacturing in Southern California: Current Developments, Future Prospects; Scott, A. J., Ed.; Lewis Center for Regional Policy Studies, Working Paper 5; University of California: Los Angeles, 1993; Chapter 5. (7) California Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead as a Toxic Air Contaminan:: Part B, Health Assessment; draft SRP version; Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, 1996. (8) Lave, L B.; Hendrickson, C. T.; McMichael, E C. Science 1995, 268, 993. (9) Lave, L. B.; Russell, A. G.; Hendrickson, C. X; McMichael, F. C. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30, 402A. (10) Office of Technology Assessment. Green Products by Design: Choices for a Cleaner Environment; OTA-E-541; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1992. (11) Allenby, B. R. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, 1992. (12) Graedel, T. E.; Allenby, B. R.; Comrie, P. R. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1995, 29, 134A. (13) Battery Council International. 1992 National Recycling 4 6 A • JAN. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
(27)
(28)
(29) (30) (31) (32) (33) (34) (35)
(36)
(37) (38)
Rate Study, Smith, Bucklin and Associates: Chicago, IL, 1994. Smith, R. C; Daley, M. R. Domestic Secondary Lead Industry: Production and Regulatory Compliance Costs; IC9156; U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Washington, DC, 1987. Lead Industries Association. 1992 Lead Recycling Directory; LIA: New York, 1992. Bureau of Mines. "Nickel," in Mineral Commodity Summaries; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1994; pp. 118-19. Kuck, P. H. "Nickel," in Recycled Metals in the United States (special publication); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Branch of Metals: Washington, DC, 1993; pp. 47-50. Bureau of Mines. "Cadmium," in Mineral Commodity Summaries; U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1994; pp. 40-41. Sabatini, J. C; Field, E. L.; Wu, I-C; Cox, M. R.; Barnett, B. M.; Coleman, J. T. Feasibility Study for the Recycling of Nickel Metal Hydride Electric Vehicle Batteries; NREL/ TP-463-6153; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 1994. Corbus, D. Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues of Sodium-Sulfur Batteries for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles. Volume II: Battery Recycling and Disposal; NREL/TP-2624680; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 1992. Steele, N.L.C. D. Env. Sci. and Eng. Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles, 1995. Fed. Regist. 1995, 60, 25492-551. Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc. Public Participation Plan: Chem- Tech Systems Incorporated and Gould National Battery Incorporated (GNB), Vernon, California; prepared for the California Department of Toxic Substances Control: Glendale, CA, 1992. Center for Investigative Reporting and Bill Moyers. Global Dumping Ground: The International Traffic in Hazardous Waste; Seven Locks Press: Washington, DC, 1990; Chapter 5. California Air Resources Board. Proposed Identification of Inorganic Lead as a Toxic Air Contaminant. Part A, Exposure Assessment; draft SRP version; Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, 1996. Buruss, R.; Koontz, M. D.; Nagda, N. L.; Norvell, M. J. LeadAcid Batteries for Electric Vehicles—Life-Cycle Environmental and Safety Issues; project 2415-38; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. Buruss, R.; Koontz, M. D.; Nagda, N. L.; Norvell, M. J. Nickel-Cadmium Batteries for Electric Vehicles—Life-Cycle Environmental and Safety Issues; project 2415-38; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, 1993. California Air Resources Board. "Proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Toxic Metals from NonFerrous Metal Melting"; technical support document to staff report; Stationary Source Division: Sacramento, CA, 1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lead Acid Battery Recycling Risk Assessment; draft; Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics: Washington, DC, 1991. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Toxic Chemical Release Inventory 92; read online Sept. 2 and 6, 1994. Fed. Regist. 1994, 59, 29750-779. Levallois, P.; Lavoie, M.; Goulet, L.; Nantel, A. J.; Gingras, S. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 1991, 144, 877. Wang, J.; Jang, C; Kwant, Y.; Chen, Z. Bull. Environ. Contamin. Toxicol. 1992, 49, 23. Socolow, R. H.; Thomas, V M. /. Ind. Ecol. 1997, 1, 13. Mark, J. Environmental, Health, and Safety Issues for Sodium-Sulfur Batteries for Electric and Hybrid Vehicles, Volume IV: In-Vehicle Safety; NREL/TP-463-4952; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, 1992. Landrigan, R J.; Gehlback, S. H.; Rosenblum, B. E; Shoults, J. M.; Candelaria, R. M.; Barthel, W E; Liddle, J. A.; Smrek, A. L.; Staehling, N. W; Sanders, J. F. N. Engl. J. Med. .975, 292(3), 123. Landrigan, E H.; Baker, E. L., Jr.; Feldman, R. G.; Cox, D. H.; Eden, K. V; Orenstein, W A.; Mather, J. A.; Yankel, A. H.; Von Lindern, I. H. /. Pediatr. 1976, fl9(6), 904. Air Resources Board. Draft Technical Document for the Low-Emission Vehicle and Zero-Emission Vehicle Workshop on March 25, 1994. Mobile Source Division: El Monte, CA, 1994.
