environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsci

Environmental life-cycle comparisons of steel production and recycling: sustainability issues, problems and prospects
Mohan Yellishetty a,b,*, Gavin M. Mudd a, P.G. Ranjith a, A. Tharumarajah c
a

Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia Civil Engineering, SASE, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchil 3842, VIC, Australia c CSIRO Process Science and Engineering/CAST CRC, Highett, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
b

article info
Published on line 28 May 2011 Keywords: Iron and steel Recycling Life cycle Energy Residuals and policy

abstract
This paper reports on historical analysis of the steel industry in which crude steel production trends are quantied for the period from 1950 to 2006. On the basis of this analysis, the future production of steel for the world is estimated using regression analysis. The historical analysis shows that the world steel production increased from 187 Mt to 1299 Mt in that period. In addition, the paper also reports on historical (19502006) steel scrap consumption and was compared with crude steel and electric arc furnace (EAF) steel production. Since 1950, scrap consumption by steel industry worldwide has been growing at 12% per annum whereas the EAF share of steel production has been increasing at 66% per annum. Furthermore, since 1987 iron ore prices have increased at 24% per annum whereas scrap prices have grown by 13% per annum. From the analysis on environmental benets of steel recycling, it was established that there are numerous advantages of scrap utilisation. The major environmental benets of increased scrap usage comes from the very fact that production of one tonne of steel through the EAF route consumes only 912.5 GJ/tcs, whereas the BOF steel consumes 28 31 GJ/tcs and consequently enormous reduction in CO2 emissions. In addition, a discussion on various alloying elements in steel and their presence in residual concentrations in the scrap on steel properties is also presented. Finally, this paper presents a discussion on policy issues that could enhance the use of scrap in steel-making is also presented. # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Historically metals have been linked with industrial development and improved living standards, and thus play an important role in our modern societies. Human civilisations have been known after their concurrent metals use, such as the copper age, bronze age and iron age, etc. Metal recycling has several potential benets, primarily due to: (a) its ability to direct the end-of-life wastes (scrap) away from landlls and (b)

achieving resource stewardship through conservation (Chen, 1995). Metal recycling is undertaken mainly because of altruistic reasons, economic imperatives and legal considerations. Muller et al. (2006) argued that from an economic perspective it is always cheaper to recycle steel than to mine virgin ore and move it through the process of making new steel. Steel is the worlds most used and recycled metal, and in the US alone, almost 75 million tonnes (Mt) of steel were recycled or exported for recycling in 2008 compared with their total steel production of 91 Mt (Steel Recycling Institute,

* Corresponding author at: Civil Engineering, SASE, Monash University, Gippsland Campus, Churchil 3842, VIC, Australia. Tel.: +61 3 51227143; fax: +61 3 51226738. E-mail address: Mohan.Yellishetty@gmail.com (M. Yellishetty). 1462-9011/$ see front matter # 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2011.04.008

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

651

2010a). However, the critical limiting factor is the availability of sufcient steel scrap, as much steel remains locked in its current use (such as in durables, automobiles and bridges), compelling the steel industry to rely on mining virgin ore to supplement the production of new steel. The main objective of the paper is to evaluate the benets of recycling of steel to our society from technical, economical and environmental perspectives. By complementing the work done by Reck et al. (2010), McLellan et al. (2009), Johnsona et al. (2008) and Davis et al. (2007), this paper aims to advance our understanding about steel recycling. The paper is organised into two parts. The rst part of the paper will primarily focus on the world steel industrys production trends, trends in scrap consumption, recycling rates and environmental resource inventories and includes a review of different models used to predict CO2 emissions under different recycling scenarios. The second part will present a brief review on problems of quality in multistage recycling and nally a review of the policy on steel recycling.

(2001), Beer et al. (1998), American Iron and Steel Institute (1997) and Worrell et al. (1997).  World population and GDP statistical information: The World Bank (2010), United Nations (2010).  Prices of iron ore and steel scrap: OneSteel (2010), USGS (2010a,b), The Tex Report Ltd. (2008). In calculating CO2 emissions emanating from the steel operations, a full cradle to steel factory gate emissions approach was used. Furthermore, it was also assumed that primary steel was produced in an integrated steel mill (IM), which emits 2.1 t of CO2 per tonne of crude steel whereas the steel production at an Electric Arc Furnace mill (EAF) will result in 0.6 t of CO2 per tonne of crude steel.

3. Trends in world steel production and scrap consumption

In this section of the paper we discuss the methodology and results of the analysis focusing on current and future steel consumption and production trends of the world. Based on the historical production and consumption data, the future steel production projections were made by using regression analysis. In this analysis, we have projected the trends in steel production and consumption to the year 2030.

2.

Methodology and data sources

This section of the paper presents a brief overview on the methodology adopted and various data sources being used in this study. The production and exports data covers 1950 through to 2006 (in some cases to 2008 depending on availability or otherwise). Throughout this paper, the steel tonnages refer to their crude steel (CS) equivalents and are expressed in metric tonnes unless mentioned otherwise. The modelling of future production and consumption was done using regression analysis of the historical data. In this paper the discussions focus only on Australia, Brazil, China, Europe 36 (36 countries of the European Union), India, Japan, Korea, Russia, Ukraine, and USA. Because, in 2007 these countries together have contributed to more than 87% of worlds steel and hence are assumed to represent the trends of the rest of the world. For most of the modelling, regression analysis of the historical statistical data was used. The data on steel production trends, steel recycling rates, per capita steel consumption and environmental resource use and emissions was gathered using a range of sources including various government, industry supported associations and/or from research literature. Besides, the data was also sourced from a range of journals and Internet sites. Specics about individual data sources are explained below:  World steel consumption and production, steel recycling rates and scrap consumption statistical information: Steel Recycling Institute (2010a), USGS (2010a,b), World Steel Association (2010d), ISSB (2008), World Steel Association (2009), EUROFER (2006), Steel Statistical Year Book (1999), Fenton (1998), Wilshire et al. (1983) and CEC (1965).  Environmental indicators and energy use in steel industry: World Steel Association (2010a,b,c), UK Steel (2010), Steel Recycling Institute (2010b), Steel University (2010), World Steel Association (2008, 2010b), European Commission (2008), IPCC (2006), Lubetsky and Steiner (2006), Birat (2002), Kim and Worrell (2002), European Commission

3.1.

Steel production trends

Steel production can occur at an integrated facility from iron ore or at a secondary facility, which produce steel mainly from recycled steel scrap. Integrated facilities typically include coke production, blast furnaces, and basic oxygen steel making furnaces (BOFs), or in some cases open hearth furnaces (OHFs). Raw steel is produced using a basic oxygen furnace from pig iron produced by the blast furnace and then processed into nished steel products. Secondary steel making most often occurs in electric arc furnaces (EAFs). The steel production varied over the study period (1950 2006) in the selected countries/regions. Overall, apart from short-lived recessions, the worlds crude steel production has been climbing steadily ever since large scale production of steel began. Table 1 presents a comparison of steel production through different production routes and their respective rankings of different countries in the world. In 2007 China produced a maximum quantity of BOF steel (90% of total steel produced by China) followed by Europe 36 (55%), Japan (74%), Russia (57%) and USA (42%). The maximum steel through EAF route was produced by Europe-36 (44%) followed by USA (58%), China (9.5%), Japan (26%) and India (58%) (Table 1). In steel production through OHF, Ukraine ranks rst (45%) followed by Russia (16.5%) and India (1.9%) (Table 1). Fig. 1 presents historical trends in EAF steel production as a percentage of total steel produced (19502006) by selected countries (on left: Australia, Brazil, Europe 36, Japan, Korea and Ukraine; on right: China, India, Russia, USA and World). Using regression analysis of time series data (of the world), the trend of the worlds EAF steel production was established (right of Fig. 1). The coefcients of determination value

652

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

Table 1 World steel production through different routes in 2007. Country/region BOF Production (Mt)
Australia Brazil China Europe (36) India Japan Russia Ukraine USA World 6.41 25.13 450 133 21.2 89 41 2 41 900

EAF World rank

11 7 1 2 9 3 4 8 5

OHF World rank

24 10 3 1 5 4 7 23 2

%
81 74 91 55 40 74 57 51 42 67

Production (Mt)
1.5 8 45 106 31 31 19 1.6 57 416

%
19 24 10 44 58 26 27 4 58 32

Production (Mt)
0.57 0.1 0.69 1 12 19 33

World rank
5 8 4 3 2 1

Total Steel Production (Mt)

1.69 0.02 0.29 1.88 16.4 44.8 2.44

7.93 33.78 489.28 240.82 53.47 120.20 72. 38 42.83 98.10 1,346

Data sources: World Steel Association (2009).

(R2 = 0.94, linear regression) indicate a very high correlation between EAF share of steel production, particularly in the light of the large variation among different nations. Overall, it can be observed that the EAF steel production trends are on the rise. From the data presented in Fig. 1 an empirical relationship was established (Eq. (1)). This empirical relationship can estimate the percentage production of steel through the EAF route in any year. %EAF production C pY 1950 (1)

3.2.

Scrap consumption trends

where, C = constant based on 1950 EAF steel production (0.49); p = production coefcient (0.666) and Y = year. In order to estimate the future EAF steel production, we rst estimated the total crude steel (TCS) using the empirical model proposed by Yellishetty et al. (2010, 2011). Then, Eq. (1) was used to estimate the percentage of EAF steel production. Once TCS and % EAF were known the actual tonnage could be calculated. The estimated EAF steel production trends appear to have better correlation to actual EAF steel production trends (Fig. 2).

In this section of the paper we present a discussion of the trends in scrap consumption in the world, trends in scrap utilisation compared to crude steel production and recycling rates of steel end-of-life products. According to the available data on scrap (EUROFER, 2006; Steel Statistical Year Book, 1999; CEC, 1965), the worlds scrap consumption has increased by approximately 12% annually from 1950 to 2008 (left of Fig. 3). In the last two decades consumption of steel scrap has reached all time high due to strong demand for iron and steel internationally. Fig. 3 presents the historical and projected (Models I and II) trends of steel scrap utilisation (19502008). These projections (Model I) seem to correlate fairly well with the reported worldwide scrap consumption data (R2 = 0.87, linear regression). In another estimate of scrap consumption by the world steel industry (Model II, Fig. 3), it was assumed that the difference between total steel and pig iron is scrap consumption (in reality, scrap consumption would have been appreciably greater). This assumption is based on a similar study by Pounds (1959). However, the estimated (Model II)

60

60 55
USA

50
Korea

50 45

% Share of EAF Steel

% Share of EAF Steel

40

Europe-36

40 35 30 25 20 15 10
World trend y = 0.6661x - 1298.4 2 R = 0.9493

India World

30
Brazil

Japan

20

China

Australia

10
Ukraine

Russia

5 2009 0 1949 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009

0 1949

1959

1969

1979

1989

1999

Fig. 1 EAF steel production trends in the selected countries and the world (19502006).

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

653

1,800

1,600

Total Steel (Actual) EAF stee (Actual) y = 2E-21*EXP(0.0273*x) 2 R = 0.88

1,400

Total Steel (Predicted) EAF (Predicted)

Similarly, a regression analysis was also performed and a relationship was established between iron consumption and other steel production (R2 = 0.90, linear regression). From the above analysis a consistent trend was observed, which could be used to forecast future scrap consumption compared with steel production trends.

Steel Production (Mt)

1,200

1,000

4. Steel recycling a forward thinking approach

4.1. Current state of the art in recycling processes

800 y = 0.6661x - 1298.4 R2 = 0.9493

600

400

200

0 1949

1959

1969

1979

1989

1999

2009

2019

Fig. 2 Actual and projected steel production tends in the world.

scrap tonnages are slightly lower compared with the actual scrap utilisation data, although the trend seems to be in conformity with the actual trends of 19801998 (left of Fig. 3). Fig. 3 (right) also illustrates the relationships between scrap consumption versus EAF steel production as well as iron ore consumption versus other steel production (i.e. BOF and OHF steel) in the world. For the purpose of this analysis, it was assumed that 100% scrap was used in EAF steel making while 98% of iron ore is used for other steel making. From the available statistical data, a regression analysis was performed (EAF steel production versus scrap consumption) and the same exhibited a reasonably fair correlation between actual and predicted values (with R2 = 0.917, power regression).

Since there are numerous sources from where the scrap can arrive, there are different scrap collection, sorting and preparation techniques available. These techniques are mainly to remove contaminants and recover valuable materials from the end-of-life consumer goods. The current state-ofthe-art in steel recycling systems includes highly mechanized and efcient scrap-sorting technologies. At rst, an end-of-life product travelling through this system is dismantled for useful parts in demand for reuse. Parts that are not in demand and have very little reuse value remain on the hulk, which is then attened and bailed with other hulks. Later, the same is transported to a shredder where the entire hulk will be torn into pieces no longer than 0.1 m in diameter. These pieces then will undergo a variety of processes (see Table 2). Steels magnetic property makes it easy to pull it out of the waste stream for recycling. Nonmagnetic metal fraction (NMF) produced at the shredder is accomplished by separation based on magnetism, density, and electrical conductivity. Magnets remove ferromagnetic particles; air suction takes away nonmetallic nes plus low-density foam, paper, and textiles; then eddy current separation (ECS) repels non-magnetic electrically conducting metal particles out of the residue. What is left is NMF, a nonmagnetic metal concentrate which is sold to the sinkoat plants that separate the remaining non-

440

y = 6.489x - 12564 R2 = 0.8668

Iron Ore Consumption (Mt)

0 400
Scrap Vs. EAF Steel (Actual) Scrap Vs EAF Steel (Predicted) Iron Ore Vs Steel (Actual) Iron Ore Vs Steel (Predicted)

390

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500 1,200

Scrap Consumption (Mt)

340 300

1,000

290

240

EAF Steel (Mt)

800

200

600

190
Scrap consumption (Actual)

400 140
Scrap consumption (Model I) Scrap consumption (Model II)

100

90

Scrap Vs. EAF Steel y = 0.0013(x) 1.9888 R 2 = 0.9171

200

40 1949

0 1959 1969 1979 1989 1999 2009 50 150 250 350 450 550

Scrap Consumption (Mt)

Fig. 3 Scrap in steel production: consumption of scrap in the steel industry (left); scrap, iron ore consumption and steel production (right) (19502008).

Other Steel (Mt)

Iron Ore Vs. Other Steel y = 0.4061x + 154.64 R2 = 0.9002

654

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

Table 2 Scrap sorting and preparation techniques for recycling. Process name
Sorting and preparation or physical separation

Removal target/work accomplished

Metallic products from non-metallics

Means or mechanism
People using their hands through visual inspection of color, texture, density, etc. Portable optical emission spectrometers Computer image analysis technique (color sorting) Laser induced breakdown spectroscopy technology Bailing press: by using hydraulic rams to compress the scrap to make it denser (from loose) Briquetter: by using two counter rotating drums assisted by heat for compacting scrap Shear: by using hydraulic guillotine to shear the scrap into slices Pounding the hulk by hammer mills (strength, air classication, magnetic properties and hand picking)

Miscellaneous attachments Any other valuable and reusable items Size reduction Large sized scrap into small pieces for transport and feeding To enhance the density of scrap before feeding into furnace Shredding/fragmenting Convert huge hulks into ne sized pieces (automobiles and white goods) Produces: ferrous metal and shredder residue (SR) (light fraction and heavy fraction). Magnetic separation Separates ferrous scrap from non-ferrous

Belt or drum type permanent or electromagnets are used (magnetic properties of ferrous scrap and at times hand sorting is also preferred) Inclined ramp separator with series of magnets with a non-magnetic sliding surface (magnetism for magnetic products and electrical conductivity for non-magnetic products) Uses nely ground magnetite or ferrosilicon with water (specic gravity, relative density and viscosity) Using magnets, acids, grinding (for alloys) and X-ray spectrometers (ferromagnetism, acid reactivity, color and length of sparks, light spectra emitted) Using thermal methods, such as evaporators and incinerators (temperature differences and abrasion)

Eddy current separation

Removes non-ferrous metals from waste and SR.

Heavy media separation

Recovers non-ferrous metals from SR

Spark, magnetic, chemical and spectroscopic testing Decoating techniques

Separating and classifying different alloys of steel

Removal of zinc, tin, combustibles, oil, grease, paints, lubricants and adhesives, etc.

metals and then separate light metals from dense metals. They do this typically by three-step sinkoat separation in liquids of varying specic gravity. Metal particles are separated again from non-metallics by ECS. Table 2 presents the stateof-the-art methods, technology and processes available in the world for steel scrap collection, sorting and preparation with the type of work accomplished and mechanisms involved.

4.2.

Sources of steel scrap

The sources of steel scrap are many, but are classied by three main categories apart from imports; such as home scrap, prompt scrap and obsolete scrap (Fig. 4). Home scrap is generated within the steel mill during production of iron and steel and is therefore available within weeks. Trimmings of

Home scrap internally generated in the steel production process produced and consumed within factory gate available in very high quality accounts for 20-30% of total scrap accumulated New scrap is a function of industrial activity generated from manufacturing plants that make steel products chemical and physical characteristics are known transported fast from scrap dealers and therefore likely to contain residuals accounts for 15-25% of total scrap accumulated Old scrap largest source is from end-of-life vehicles/automobiles other sources being appliances,machinery,worn out railroad cars and tracks, demolished steel structures and other products likely to contain residuals elements from medium to high concentrations weighted average product life is 19 years accounts for approximately 40-55% of accumulated scrap

Sources of steel scrap

Fig. 4 Sources of steel scrap.

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

655

90 80 70 120

Construction (Srtuct) Automotive Appliance

Costruction (Reinforcement) Container Overall

100

Recycling Rate (%)

60 50 40 30 20

Recycling Rate (%)

80

60

40

20 10 0 Japan USA Australia Brazil Europe China 0 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006

Fig. 5 Steel can recycling rates in the world (2007) (left); recycling rates in USA (right).

mill products and defective products are collected and quickly recycled back into the steel furnace because their chemical compositions are known. The availability of home scrap has been declining as new and more efcient methods of casting have been adopted by the industry. New or prompt scrap is the scrap that it is produced from the manufacturing process of new steel products, and is available within months. Old scrap (obsolete) includes metal articles that have been discarded after serving a useful purpose. Obsolete scrap is scrap produced from steel products at the end of their lives and it may be decades before this scrap is available. Because of the wide variety of chemical and physical characteristics, old scrap often requires signicant preparation, such as sorting, de-tinning and de-zincing, prior to consumption in mills.

4.3. Present situation of steel recycling rates: a world perspective

The idea coined by Jacobs (1969) the cities of today are the mines of tomorrow assumes greater importance, particularly in the context of metals recycling. The proposition of the author has profound practical implications for our modern times, particularly in the context of the perceived mineral resources shortage and constraints due to climate change. The world steel industry has taken enormous strides over the past ve decades to reduce its ecological footprint through maximising the recycling rate (RR) of old steel (end-of-life steel products), which is dened as the consumption of old scrap plus the consumption of new scrap divided by apparent supply, measured in weight and expressed as a percentage. Almost all steel-producing countries are striving hard to improve their recycling performance, which has resulted in improved recycling rates in the recent past. Fig. 5 (left) presents the case of steel cans, which are difcult to collect and put back into the anthropogenic cycle due to their size and geographical spread. The example of steel can recycling can therefore be used to gauge our ability in scrap collection and recycling (overall steel recycling rates). This also exemplies

how different countries are embracing the economic and environmental advantages of steel scrap recycling. Fig. 5 (right) presents USAs steel recycling scenario where overall recycling rate was 68.7% in 2006, with total tonnage of steel recycled being slightly over 76 Mt (Steel Recycling Institute, 2010a). This gure is more than all other materials combined. From the data presented, it is evident that the automotive sector has the highest recycling rate whereas containers have the lowest. Even as sectoral RR was uctuating the overall RR remained steady, which is quite encouraging trend. The RR represents the extent to which scrap was used in producing a particular consumer good, however it does not indicate the efciency of recovery of available scrap material. So, RR is not the best measure to judge our ability to recover materials from anthropogenic engines before they dissipate into the lithosphere but could be used to gauge our ability to recover scrap from different sources and put back into new steel. On the other hand, recycling efciency (RE) can be dened as the ratio between the amount of old scrap recovered and reused relative to the amount of scrap actually available to be recovered and reused. Thus, RE is more appropriate measure to judge our ability to harvest (the potential of recovery) of material before its dissipation to the lithosphere (through losses such as corrosion and wear and tear). However, it is important to recognise the degree of difculty associated with sourcing the data in respect of RE of steel, which is globally traded and used commodity. It is therefore imperative for the steel industry to embark on the challenge of sourcing such information, which is vital in achieving steels material stewardship.

4.4.

Limits to recycling of steel

4.4.1. Availability versus residence time in anthropogenic engine cycles

Recycling is an essential component of our modern societies, which are trying to optimise their recycling performance and to contribute to sustainable development. This is even truer

656
45 40 35 30

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

Others

Distribution

25 20 15 10 5 0 1980

Construction

Transportation

Containers

produced steel products remains in use for long duration (on an average 1519 years) (Birat et al., 2006; Matsuno et al., 2007), and hence is unavailable for immediate recycling. This means that there is not enough quantity of recycled steel available to meet the growing demand of steel worldwide just by secondary steel making route alone. Thus, the demand for steel is met through a combined use of both the primary and secondary production routes (Yellishetty et al., 2010). Another important reason for the non-availability of scrap is the re-use of steel products without re-melting. Re-use of steel can be described as any process where end-of-life steel is not re-melted but rather enters a new product use phase (World Steel Association, 2010c). For example, steel barrels or drums have a typical life of six months. However, if they are used ten times, their lifespan could be extended to ve years. It is the durability of steel that enables these products to be reused thereby contributing to product stewardship.

Sectoral Steel Distribution (%)

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

4.4.2.

Cost competitiveness

Fig. 6 Sectoral distribution of steel.

for developed economies, which have had a long history of industrial activities. Further, recycling aims at facilitating the secondary use of products that are not considered suitable to perform their intended task when the products reach to the end of their productive life. There are several potential benets steel recycling can offer both economical and environmental but our reliance on scrap alone is limited by its availability. There are a number of reasons why there is not enough scrap available for recycling. One of the main reasons is that majority of steel products remain in anthropogenic engine cycles (remaining in use for decades) before they can be recycled. Fig. 6 illustrates the sectoral distribution of steel in USA (similar data from other countries were not readily available). Assuming that the other countries mimic the US (although in reality not), it could be said that much of the

There are several economic reasons for the use of scrap rather than iron ore (pig iron) in steel making. These economic reasons stems from the fact that steel scrap has already been rened and therefore requires minimum energy to be expended for further processing, which contributes enormously to a companys economy and consequently to the environment. Many researchers in the past have considered aspects of metals recycling and expressed their optimism about the future of metal scrap utilisation (Gesing and Wolanski, 2001; Tilton, 1999; Szekely, 1996; Fruehan, 1985; Stephenson, 1983; Pounds, 1959). According to Tilton (1999), the cost of minerals increases as mineral companies handle lower grades in remote locations, which pose difculties in the processing of ores. Tilton (1999) also observed that the rising costs of energy coupled with stringent environmental legislations and the consequent liability costs associated with mining would accentuate this trend. Thus, the author opined that metals recycling would attain prominence in the near future. In the recent past, the amount of scrap used to produce steel has been growing (Fig. 3). This makes the prices of scrap

525 475 425

Pig Iron Slabs Billets Scrap 200 Lumps Fines Pellets

Prices (US$/ton)

375 325 275 225 175 125 75 1989

Price (US$/ton)

150

100

50

1994

1999

2004

2009

0 1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

2008

Fig. 7 Prices of pig iron, billets, slabs and scrap in the world (left); iron ore fines, lumps and pellets in the world (right).

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

657

uctuate according to supply and demand in the international market. According to Papp et al. (2008), economic events such as wars, national industrial growth, the Asian nancial crisis (199798), recessions, and ination have also affected metal scrap prices. Further, even commodity-specic events, such as the construction of new production facilities or processes, new uses, unexpected mine or plant closures, or/and industry restructuring can also affect metal prices. For example, due to the high demand, mainly from China (20032007), the steel scrap prices were pushed to unforeseen heights (Fig. 7). The world market prices of iron ore (nes, lumps and pellets) and steel scrap suggest that the price of iron ore remained steady while the price of steel scrap has changed signicantly in the last decade and a half (in left of Fig. 7). In 2007, the average cost of iron ore was US$170/tonne (on left of Fig. 7); whereas the cost of steel scrap was US$510/tonne and pig iron (US$ 360) (on right of Fig. 7). The cost data are indicative of the cost of production of steel. This may be partly due to new technologies being made available to mineral industries worldwide thus keeping the production costs to a minimum. As a result, the real costs of minerals have remained steady for the whole of the 1990s thereby making primary production more attractive over secondary production. Fenton (1998) observed that RE is not expected to increase signicantly because ferrous scrap competes with directly reduced iron and pig iron as a raw material, both of which are readily available and tend to hold down scrap prices, thereby limiting scrap availability and recycling efciency. Furthermore, the cost of recycling is greatly uctuating it is not seen as a protable venture at all times (Fig. 7). This may be due to difculty in scrap collection, the wide geographical spread of scrap availability (making collection costs prohibitive) and the degree of treatment required. However, due to the sudden upsurge in the world economy, mainly due to the developing economies, there is a greater demand for steel and consequently the metal prices have soared in the recent past, thus making the collection and use of old scrap (recycling)

more economical. Therefore, the success of secondary metals markets depend on the cost of retrieving and processing metals embedded in abandoned structures, discarded products, and other waste streams, relative to the prices of primary metals (Wernick and Themelis, 1998; Chen, 1995).

5. Environmental issues in steel recycling a life cycle perspective

5.1. Environmental ows and modern steel making

Recycling has become a prominent issue and is often considered as environmental panacea due to sensitivities about resource usage. The concept of recycling gains more signicance in the present context of escalating costs of primary production and environmental considerations. Some indisputable facts make arguments for recycling arguments more convincing, many of which have already been discussed in the previous sections of this paper. The most promising advantage of recycling is resource conservation. In particular, with energy-intensive ore rening and iron making, the potential energy savings through the re-use of scrap are quite substantial. When compared with primary production, the steel recycling accounts for signicant raw material and energy savings. According to an estimate by World Steel Association (2010c) scrap recycling can offset the use of over 1200 kg of iron ore, 7 kg of coal and 51 kg of limestone for a tonne of steel scrap used. Besides conserving mineral and energy resources, the steel recycling also reduces mining and beneciation activities that disturb ecosystems. Table 3 shows the comparative performance of both the BOF and EAF steel-making processes. These methods have been compared based on their environmental resource and energy use and the associated emissions to air, water and solid waste generation. During 1970s and 1980s, a typical steel plant needed an average of 144 kg of raw material to produce 100 kg of steel, but the steel

Fig. 8 Steel production routes and energy intensities.

658

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

Table 3 Environmental input/output indicators for BOF and EAF steel making. Input Units
Raw materials Iron ore Pig iron Scrap Metallic input Coke Lime Dolomite Alloys Coal/anthracite Graphite electrodes Refractory lining Energy Electricity Natural gas Coke oven gas Steam BF gas Compressed air Gases Oxygen Nitrogen Argon Water kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t kg/t LSa LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS LS

Output EAF
Nil 018.8 10091499 10271502 15.419.4 25140 024.5 14.425.9 0.991 26 338 15842693 501500 Nil 33251 Nil Nil 565 5.912 0.791.45 3.7542.8 Products Liquid steel Emissions CO2 CO NOx Dust Cr Fe Pb SOx PAH Energy BOF gas Steam Solid wastes/by-products All types of slag Dusts Spittings Rubble Mill scale Waste refractories Ferrous sludge Waste water

BOF
0.0219.4 788931 101297 060 00.36 3067 028.4 1.333 Nil Nil Nil 35216 44730 058 13150 0.555.26 826.0 49.554.5 0.551.1 2.318.2 0.841.7

Units
kg kg/t LS kg/t LS g/t LS g/t LS g/t LS g/t LS g/t LS g/t LS mg/t LS MJ/t LS MJ/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS kg/t LS m3/t LS

BOF
1000 22.6174 3937200 8.255 10143 0.010.08 45.15 0.170.98 Nil 10 350700 124335 101206 0.7524 2.815 0.056.4 2.37.7 nil nil 0.36

EAF
1000 82.4180.7 0.055.5 10600 4500 0.0034.3 Nil 0.0752.85 3.2252 9970 Nil Nil 70343 1030 Nil Nil Nil 1.622.8 4.3 Nil

MJ/t LS MJ/t LS MJ/t LS MJ/t LS m3/t LS Nm3/t LS m3/t m3/t m3/t m3/t LS LS LS LS

Data sources: European Commission (2001, 2008). # output data reect the situation after abatement. a Liquid steel.

industry today uses only 115 kg of inputs which is a 21% reduction (World Steel Association, 2010c). This was only possible due to heavy investments that went into research and development which resulted in technology improvements may not be solely for environmental reasons but for economic consideration. This clearly exemplies how modern steel making technology has embraced cleaner production options in its day-to-day activities, and thus contributing to process stewardship. The EAF steel-making is far less energy intensive when compared with BOF steel making from both resource use and CO2 emissions perspectives, as the main energy intensive process in BOF is the blast furnace (BF) where the iron ore is reduced. Fig. 8 compares the energy requirement for producing one tonne of crude steel starting from ore and scrap (World Steel Association, 2010b). Steel produced from primary ore uses two and half times more energy than steel produced from melting scrap as one tonne of steel through the EAF route consumes 912.5 GJ/tcs whereas the BOF steel consumes 28 31 GJ/tcs (Fig. 8). Approximately 72% of the total energy (16.4 GJ/tcs) expended in steel production through the BOF route is consumed in the BF itself, thus making the EAF production of steel much more environmentally sensitive compared to the BOF route.

5.2.

Steel recycling and life cycle assessment

Sustainable development philosophy has resulted in increasing environmental pressure through improved efciency of resource utilisation and reduced waste generation and

emissions. These concerns have in turn forced the industries to focus their attention on the entire supply chains (McLellan et al., 2009) and life cycles rather than just each stage individually. Among the tools available as metrics to evaluate the environmental, economic and social performance of materials, including their impact on climate change and natural resources, life cycle assessment (LCA) provides a holistic approach. LCA is a technique used in environmental analysis in which the potential environmental impacts of any product or process over its entire life cycle, from raw material acquisition to ultimate disposal are quantied (ISO 14044, 2006). The International Organisation for Standardization (ISO) also presents a standard for LCA-ISO 14044-which includes an allocation procedure (ISO 14044, 2006). According to ISO 14044, open-loop recycling is dened as the recycling of a material from one product life-cycle into another whereas recycling within the product system is referred to as closedloop recycling. The traditional problem in current LCA is how to deal with open-loop recycling (allocation of credits to recycling). Several reviews of LCA are available (Yellishetty et al., 2009; World Steel Association, 2008; Atherton, 2007; Birat et al., 2006; Matsuno et al., 2007; Yamada et al., 2006; Russo et al., 2004; Scaife et al., 2002; Brimacombe and Shoneld, 2001), which consider aspects of integrating recycling into LCA. Yet, no consensus or standard has evolved to date. At present LCA practitioners are left with complete freedom in allocation and thus make subjective judgements on recycling and allocation of credits to recycling. This makes it difcult to compare the results of LCA studies conducted by two different practitioners

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

659

Table 4 Different models proposed integrate recycling into current LCA. Model No.
1

Model description
No recycling but coexistence of a virgin and recycling route

Empirical formula
CIM ! 2 EAF

Comments
Assumes that the impact between two routes (IM and EAF) is too large. But, fails to acknowledge the fact that recycling is in its highest possible level. Proposes to take into account both routes of steel production based on actual level of recycled material compared virgin material. Commonly used by LCA practitioners to account for recycling and assumes that if recycling is perfect (100%) then the IM route becomes equal to EAF. Gives due credit to recycling and recognises the fact that impact is lower when recycling is higher. It takes more pragmatic approach to mimic the real-life situation of recycling. This model takes into account the fact that steel is recycled several times. This recognises the fact that a credit needs to be accorded to saving brought about by use of scrap and thus giving rise to emissions with negative value.

Weighted average between virgin and recycling routes

Caverage = (1 /) CIM + / CEAF

Credits for recycling

Ccredit

steel engaged

CIM CIM CEAF rY

One-step recycling

C1 4

CIM CEAF r Y 1 rY

Multi-step recycling

Cn 5

CIM 1 rY CEAF rY rY n1 1 rY n1

Multi-step recycling and emission credits

2 Cn 6 CIM CIM CEAF rY rY L rYn

Source: Birat et al. (2006). Where: IM integrated mill; EAF electric arc furnace mill; CEAF specic CO2 emission of EAF route; CIM specic CO2 emission of IM route; / scrap intensity ratio of steel production (ratio between virgin and recycled iron units); r recycling rate (amount of steel recycled compared to steel engaged CO2 steel introduced in the system initially); Y dened as the ratio of steel to scrap yield; CEOL end-of-life CO2 emissions; Ccredit emissions per tonne of steel engaged (i.e. sold to downstream industry to make nal product); C1 CO emissions calculated by 4th model for a 2 4 n one-step recycling; Cn 5 CO2 emissions calculated by 5th model for a n-step recycling; C6 CO2 emissions calculated by 6th model for a n-step recycling; n = number of recycling cycle; and L life time of steel in products.

on the same processes. In order to bring consistency in reporting, the World Steel Association (WSA) has provided a few guidelines to help LCA practitioners conducting studies involving metals, particularly when metals recycling is involved. From the WSAs position on metals recycling, the view point on whether to consider steel recycling as closed or open loop becomes clear. One of the most important attributes of steel (or any other metal) is that it is innitely recyclable without the loss of key properties such as strength, ductility or formability. These are considered to be inherent properties of steel, thus making steel recycling closed-loop. For recycling, we need to account for changes in raw material acquisition and manufacturing processes due to the use of recycled rather than virgin materials. In most cases, acquiring and using recycled materials in manufacturing requires less energy and generates less solid waste and fewer air emissions and waterborne wastes than acquiring and using virgin materials. Hence, credits are earned for these reductions in energy, solid waste, air and water releases; these credits reduce the amounts of energy, waste, and releases assigned to the recycling option. Conversely, if more energy, solid waste or air or water releases result from using recovered materials, debits are assigned to the recycling option (Dension, 1996). In Table 4, a short review on different LCA models proposed/endorsed by the World Steel Association have been presented (Birat et al., 2006). These models attempts to integrate steel recycling in estimating CO2 emissions due steel production by giving due credit to each tonne of steel recycled (both integrated as well as EAF mills are included).

These models present different scenarios of steel recycling and the corresponding CO2 emissions from steel-making give rise to quite astounding results (Fig. 9). Since the eld of LCA is still in development state (particularly allocation issues), the authors recommend the use of the multi-step recycling method (Model 5) until a strong consensus is evolved.

6.

Effects of recycling on steel quality

The term steel refers to an alloy of iron that is malleable in some temperature ranges and contains manganese, carbon, and often other alloying elements. Therefore steel is not a single product. According to Javaid and Essadiqi (2003) there are currently more than 3500 different grades of steel with many different properties physical, chemical and environmental 75% of which have been developed in the last 20 years. These thousands of individual alloy specications known as grades have been developed to produce combinations of strength, ductility, hardness, toughness, magnetic permeability and corrosion resistance to meet the need of modern consumers by adding alloying metals. These metals may be added to steel in the form of elements or in the form of ferroalloys. Some of the major alloying elements and their major effects on various properties of steel are presented in Table 5. The Institute for Scrap Recycling Industries classies ferrous scrap into more than 100 standard grades or codes (Wernick and Themelis, 1998). These grades specify scraps gross physical characteristics, such as acceptable dimensions

660

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

IM credit (with 100% Recycling) IM credit (with 80% Recycling)

CO2 emissions (kg/t steel)

2100

Model 5: Multi-step Recycling Initial Produced by IM Route

1900

1700

IM credit (with 40% Recycling) IM credit (with 0% Recycling)

1500

1300

IM Baseline

1100

EAF Baseline

Model 4 Models 1 & 2

0 500 1000 1500 2000

900

700 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CO2 emissions (kg/t steel engaged)

Recycling Rate (%)

Fig. 9 CO2 emissions per tonne of steel according to: one-step recycling models (1, 2 and 4) (left); the multi-step recycling model 5 in Table 4 (right).

for individual pieces and densities for baled scrap. The presence of coated metals as well as threshold levels of residual alloying elements is also specied. But, the most critical and challenging step in a scrap recycling operation is identication and sorting of metals into groups of similar materials (based on the concentration of residual element in particular scrap). Another major issue is the separation of some of these metallic residuals or alloying elements costeffectively when recycling. In the last few decades, there have been several research studies which focused their attention on understanding the specic residual/alloying element, its effects on the recycling process, separation mechanisms and cost-competitiveness (Russo et al., 2004; Herman and Leroy, 1996; Hundy, 1963; Halley, 1957; Jacobs et al., 1954). All these studies have observed that each time a metal scrap was re-circulated; the concentration of residuals have gone up and thereby making processing more difcult.

Furthermore, these studies have led to categorisation of identied contaminants (residuals) as important in steel recycling. These categories are: (1) copper, tin, nickel and molybdenum; (2) chromium, manganese, zinc, and lead and (3) aluminium, silicon and titanium. The rst set of contaminants pose great challenge and are very difcult to extract from scrap by metallurgical processes. Their concentration increases during each subsequent recycling loop. The second group of contaminants are partially extractable through metallurgical extraction which may be incomplete and depends on rening conditions. In general, these metals are less critical because they are used as alloying elements and give special mechanical properties to steel. Finally, the third group of contaminants present no real problems since they are totally removed during renement. The effort to separate or remove a particular residual element often becomes prohibitively expensive and thereby primary production route becomes a preferred option over

Table 5 Effect of residual element on various properties of steel. Property of steel being inuenced Al
Deoxidant Austenite stabiliser Ferrite stabiliser Carbide farmers Graphitizers Hardenability Strength Impact strength Wear resistance Corrosion resistance Machinability 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0

Alloying element Cr
0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0

Co
1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0

Cu
0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0

Mn
1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1

Mo
0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1

Ni
0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

P
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

Si
1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

W
0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1

V
1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0

S
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Source: Stephenson (1983). 0 no effect; 1 positive effect and -1 negative effect.

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

661

recycling. As a result, it is not always possible to use secondary sources of steel in making new steel. Thus, it is desirable to use the primary route when there is a requirement for special product with specications that mandate low or no residual element contamination. This may be achieved more costeffectively through the primary production route than the secondary route.

Box 1. Best practice environmental policies for metals recovery programme in Canada (NRC, 2010) In many communities around Canada the following programmes have become extremely popular and their effective implementation has resulted in enhanced metals recovery over the last several years. More details about these programmes can be found at the above reference. Some programmes include: (1) Targeting small metal items. (2) Adding to an existing white goods drop-off program. (3) Adding to white goods curbside collection program. (4) A special pick-up once or twice a year. (5) Removing refrigerant, mercury switches, sensors and PCB capacitors. (6) Enhanced promotion and emphasis on other metals. (7) Financial incentives: (i) Paying cash or kind for scrap metal. (ii) User pays for waste collection. (iii) Tipping fees that favour source separation. (iv) Enhancement and encouragement of reuse activities.

7. Policy and legislative framework and steel recycling

Due to the imminent danger associated with various environmental issues and growing public awareness of associated health risks, the governments around the world have been forced to implement more strict environmental policies that have driven organisations to internalise recycling into their day-to-day operations. In general, all these policy initiatives proposed/implemented are aimed at cultivating recycling practice in the industry. According to Chen (1995) these policy initiatives on recycling can be broadly categorised into push and pull strategies corresponding respectively to supply and demand shifts. Primarily, the push approach is characterised by strategies such as take back mandates and landll bans (which address the supply side) and whereas the pull approach is characterised by material content and procurement policies (which address the demand side). Most states in the US as well as other developed countries like Japan and many European countries have already enacted laws aimed at increasing the recycling rates of metals (Chen, 1995; Winston, 1995; Cutter Information Corp, 1993; The European Community, 1990, 1992). These legislative measures complement the existing popular tools that lawmakers frequently use to sustain and promote recycling, such as tax credits, incentives and disincentives. By and large, these regulations, undoubtedly, force product recovery schemes to play a greater role in post-use management, regardless of costs involved. Although there are some policy initiatives that are in place to ensure recycling activities, the fundamental question remains is whether the perceived environmental benets of recycling exceed the recovery costs?. Regardless of the potential environmental benets of recycling, and the legislative compulsion, it is the economic feasibility that acts as a strong driver for the companies to undertake recycling. From Fig. 7 it can be argued that ferrous scrap competes with pig iron as a raw material for steel making thereby limiting scrap utilisation in steel making. Therefore, it is imperative for the regulators to keep the costs involved in recycling down, while enacting legislation so that the spirit of the statute is upheld (Chen, 1995). This can be accomplished by the way of establishment of scrap stabilization funds to which steel producing companies/countries (especially the developed countries) contribute when scrap prices are high and withdraw from when prices are low, so that scrap utilisation becomes a protable venture all times besides conserving resources through reuse. In Box 1, some examples of such policy-related programmes being practised in Canada are presented. These programmes to enhance metals recovery rates could be adopted by other countries to enhance their metal recovery rates.In developing and

underdeveloped economies, fewer policies seem to exist that are aimed at enhancing recycling activities. According to Medina (2008), in these countries almost 12% of the population makes their living by salvaging recyclables from the waste. These waste pickers/recycling peddlers gather and sell the valuable materials to scrap dealers, who in turn sell to industry. The efciency of waste collection is so high that at the end of waste collection by these peddlers there is hardly any metal that will go as landll other than organic and municipal solid waste.Furthermore, even today much of this waste-picking activity in these parts of the world remains an unregulated or non-formalised activity. Although some international organisations have been working to formalise and organise these waste-pickers, no formal legislative and economic policies exist as yet. Any such move to formalisation would contribute to enhanced employment opportunities for people in this sector, promote a cleaner environment and increase recycling activities. This necessitates a comprehensive policy framework to address the issue of recycling activities in general and metals recycling in particular so that industries can improve their competitiveness.

8.

Conclusions

Metals can be recycled nearly indenitely. Unlike wood and plastics, the properties of metals can be restored fully, although not always economically, regardless of their chemical or physical form. Nevertheless, the ability to recover metals economically after use is largely a function of how they are used initially in the economy and their chemical reactivity. Therefore, the success of secondary metals markets depends on the cost of retrieving and processing metals embedded in abandoned structures, discarded products, and other waste streams and its relation to primary metal prices.

662

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

In this paper we have presented the case of steel recycling in relation to its economic and environmental advantages with a quantitative assessment through statistical analysis. We have also presented a brief review on different models that can be used to calculated the impacts of steel recycling including that of multiple recycling scenarios. Review of key problems posed by residual elements and design for recycling has also been presented. Finally, a short review of current and future policy issues has been discussed including establishment of the scrap stabilization funds. Furthermore, a number of problems have been brought into focus and also has pointed to some forthcoming opportunities in steel recycling outlined. If the metals sector is to contribute to sustainable development it should maximise the percentage of recycling, which can minimise the ecological footprint of metals industry as recycling mimics a mine being continuously replenished.

Acknowledgements
Mohan Yellishetty would like to thank the following people and organisations in facilitating us with data on a number of occasions: Phil Hunt (ISSB Ltd, UK), Ross Davies (BlueScope), Phil Ridgeway (OneSteel), Clare Broadbent (World Steel Association), Robert New (ABARE) and Margrit Colenbrander (Australian Steel Institute). Finally, authors would also like to thank Pim Martens and the three anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions and comments in shaping the paper.

references

American Iron and Steel Institute, 1997. Energy policy-public policy issues. Available at http://www.steel.org/policy97/ energy.html (accessed 11.01.09). Atherton, J., 2007. Declaration by the metals industry on recycling principles. Int. J. Life. Cycle Assess. 12 (1), 5960. Beer, J., Worrell, E., Block, K., 1998. Future technologies for energy-efcient iron and steel making. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 123205. Birat, J.-P., 2002. The challenge of global warming to the steel industry, as seen from the standpoint of a European steel company. In: POSCO Conference, Pohang, Invited Lecturer, 2627 September. Birat, J.P., Prum, N., Chiappini, M., Yonezawa, K., Aboussouan, L., 2006. The value of recycling to society and its internelisation into LCA methodology. In: Paper Presented at SETAC North America 26th Annual Meeting, 1317 November 2005, Baltimore, MD, USA. Brimacombe, L., Shoneld, P., 2001. Sustainability and steel recycling. New Steel Construction 9 (2), 1921. CEC, 1965. Iron and steel and alloying metals. In: A Review of Resources, Production, Trade and Consumption. Published for Commonwealth Economic Committee (CEC), HER Majestys Stationery Ofce, London, p. 221. Chen, A.C., 1995. A product lifecycle framework for environmental management and policy analysis: case study of automobile recycling. PhD thesis. Department of Materials Science and Engineering, MIT, USA, p. 137. Cutter Information Corp, 1993. Status of proposed take-back regulation in Sweden and Germany. Business Environ. 1, 4.

Davis, J., Geyer, R., Ley, J., He, J., Clift, R., Kwan, A., Sansom, M., Jackson, T., 2007. Time-dependent material ow analysis of iron and steel in the UK. Part 2. Scrap generation and recycling. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 51 (1), 118140. Dension, R.A., 1996. Environmental life-cycle comparisons of recycling, landlling and incineration: a review of recent studies. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 21, 191237. EUROFER, 2006. Steel Recycling. Europe Confederation of Iron and Steel Industries (EUROFER), p. 2. European Commission, 2001. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) best available techniques reference document on the production of iron and steel, p. 383. European Commission, 2008. Integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) draft reference document on best available techniques for the production of iron and steel, p. 528. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ippc/ brefs/isp_d1_0208.pdf. Fenton, M.D., 1998. Iron and steel recycling in the United Sates in 1998. In: U.S. Department of the Interior, Flow studies for Recycling Metal Commodities in the United Sates, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA, 2008, p. 8. Fruehan, R.J., 1985. In: Taylor, P.R., Sohn, H.Y., Jarrett, N. (Eds.), Scrap in Iron and Steel Making Proceedings of the International Symposium on Recycle and Secondary Recovery of Metals and the Fall Extractive and Process Metallurgy, Fort Lauderadale, FL, December 14, pp. 1334. Gesing, A., Wolanski, R., 2001. Recycling light metals from endof-life vehicles. JOM (November), 2123. Halley, J.H., 1957. Effect of residual elements on the properties of metals. ASM, Metals Park, OH, 7187. Herman, J.C., Leroy, V., 1996. Inuence of residual elements on steel processing and mechanical properties. In: Presented at Metal Working and Steel Processing, Cleveland, October 1996, pp. 141715. Hundy, B.B., 1963. Metallurgical developments in Carbon Steels. Publication 81, Iron Steel Inst, London, pp. 7580. IPCC, 2006. In: Eggleston, H.S., Buendia, L., Miwa, K., Ngara, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas Inventories Programme. IGES, Japan. ISO 14044, 2006. Environmental management Life-Cycle Assessment-Requirements and Guidelines. ISO, Geneva. ISSB, 2008. Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau (ISSB) Limited Annual Statistics 19742007. Iron and Steel Statistics Bureau Ltd., Millbank Tower, London, UK. Jacobs, C.B., Elliott, J.E., Tenenbaum, M., 1954. Year Book of the AISI. , pp. 123149. Jacobs, J., 1969. The economy of cities. Randon House, New York. Javaid, A., Essadiqi, E., 2003. Final Report on Scrap Management, Sorting and Classication of Steel. Government of Canada, Report No. 2003-23(CF) , p. 22. Johnsona, J., Reck, B.K., Wang, T., Graedel, T.E., 2008. The energy benet of stainless steel recycling. Energy Policy 36 (1), 181 192. Kim, Y., Worrell, E., 2002. International comparison of CO2 emission trends in the iron and steel industry. Energy Policy 30, 827838. Lubetsky, J., Steiner, B.A., 2006. Chapter 4: metal industry emissions. In: Eggleston, S., Buendia, L., Wiwa, K., Nagra, T., Tanabe, K. (Eds.), 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, Industrial Processes and Product Use, vol. 3. p. 85. Matsuno, Y., Daigo, I., Adachi, Y., 2007. Application of markov chain model to calculate the average number of times of use of a material in society. An allocation methodology for openloop recycling. Part 2. Case study for steel. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12 (1), 3439.

environmental science & policy 14 (2011) 650663

663

McLellan, B.C., Corder, G.D., Giurco, D., Green, S., 2009. Incorporating sustainable development in the design of mineral processing operations review and analysis of current approaches. J. Cleaner Prod. 17 (16), 1414. Medina, M., 2008.In: The Informal Recycling Sector in Developing Countries: Organizing Waste Pickers to enhance their Impact. GRID Lines, Note No. 44, October 2008, p. 4. Muller, D.B., Wang, T., Duval, B., Graedel, T.E., 2006. Exploring the engine of anthropogenic iron cycles. PANS 103 (944), 1611116116. NRC, 2010. Fact sheets on residential metal recycling. metals and minerals recycling database. Natural Resources Canada (NRC) Available at: http://www.recycle.nrcan.gc.ca/ factsheets.htm (accessed on May, 2010). OneSteel, 2010. Strengthening OneSteel, 2009 Annual Report. OneSteel, Australia p.124. Available at: http:// www.onesteel.com/ (accessed on May 2010). Papp, J.F., Bray, E.L., Edelstein, D.L., Fenton, M.D., Guberman, D.E., Hedrick, J.B., Jorgenson, J.D., Kuck, P.H., Shedd, K.B., Tolcin, A.C., 2008. Factors that Inuence the Price of Al, Cd, Co, Cu, Fe, Ni, Pb, Rare Earth Elements, and Zn. U.S. Department of the Interior, Open-File Report 2008-1356. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. Pounds, N.J.G., 1959. World production and use of steel scrap. Econ. Geol. 35 (3), 247258. Reck, B.K., Chambon, M., Hashimoto, S., Graedel, T.E., 2010. Global stainless steel cycle exemplies chinas rise to metal dominance. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (10), 39403946. Russo, P., Usso, P., Birat, J.P., Prum, N., Tuchman, M., Gros, B., 2004. Do closed-loop recycling quotas help vehicle recycling? The example of steel. In: Proceedings of the International Automobile Recycling Congress, Geneva, Switzerland, March 1012.. Scaife, P., Nunn, J., Cottrell, A., Wibberley, L., 2002. Towards sustainable steelmaking an LCA perspective. ISIJ Int. 42 (Suppl.), S59. Steel Recycling Institute, 2010a. 2008 The inherent recycled content of todays steel. Available at: http://www.recyclesteel.org/en/Recycling%20Resources/$/media/Files/SRI/ Media%20Center/Inherent2008.ashx (accessed on May, 2010). Steel Recycling Institute, 2010b. North American steel industry: reducing energy consumption, Jim Woods Steel Recycling Institute. Available at: http://www.sustainable-steel.org/ energy.html (accessed on May, 2010). Steel Statistical Year Book, 1999. Steel statistical year book, Section F. , pp. 220221. Steel University, 2010. Compare electric arc furnace and integrated steelworks. Steel University, World Steel Association. Available at: http://www.steeluniversity.org/ (accessed on May, 2010). Stephenson, E.T., 1983. Effect of recycling on residuals, processing and properties of carbon and low-alloy steels. Metall. Trans.s A: Am. Soc. Metals Metall. Soc. AIME 14A, 343353. Szekely, J., 1996. Steelmaking and industrial ecology is steel a green material? ISIJ Int. 36 (1), 121132. The European Community, 1990. Discussion document on packaging waste, October 1990. The European Community, 1992. Draft council directive on packaging and packaging waste. Commission of the European Communities, com (90) 278 nal-Syn436, Brussels, July 15, 1992. The Tex Report Ltd., 2008. Iron ore manual 2008. The TEX Report Ltd., Japan, p. 417. The World Bank, 2010. Bulletin board on statistical capacity (BBSC). Statistical capacity indicator, Available at: http://

bbsc.worldbank.org/bss_life/SelectColorParameter (accessed on May, 2010). Tilton, J.E., 1999. The future of recycling. Resour. Policy 25, 197 204. UK Steel, 2010. UK Steel key statistics 2008. Available at http:// www.eef.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FAACF4A6-902B-44E6-BCB543AE7EB7A5C3/13743/UKSteelKeyStats2009.pdf (accessed on May 2010). United Nations, 2010. National accounts main aggregates database. united nations statistics division (UNSD) Available at: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/snaama/selbasicFast.asp (accessed on May, 2010). USGS, 2010a. Iron and steel statistical information. US Geological Survey Minerals Information, US Department of Interior. Available at: http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/commodity/iron_and_steel/ (accessed on May, 2010). USGS, 2010b. Mineral commodity iron statistics. comps. In: Kelly, T.D., Matos, G.R. (Eds.), Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 140 Available online at: http:// pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2005/140/ (accessed on May, 2010). Wernick, I.K., Themelis, N.J., 1998. Recycling of metals for the environment. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 23, 465497. Wilshire, B., Homer, D., Cooke, N.L., 1983. Technological economic trends in the steel industries. Monogrpahs in materials technology. Pineridge Press, UK, pp. 215251. Winston, P.J., 1995. Trash facts II. Waste Policy Centre, Sterling, VA. World Steel Association, 2008. In: Life Cycle Assessment in the Steel Industry A Position Paper Issued by the World Steel Association (Worldsteel). p. 4. World Steel Association, 2009. Steel statistical yearbook 2007, 2008, 2009, IISI Committee on Economic Studies-BRUSSELS, 2007. World Steel Association, p. 104. World Steel Association, 2010a. Raw materials. World Steel Association Available at: http://www.worldsteel.org/ ?action=storypages&id=221 (accessed on May 2010). World Steel Association, 2010b. Steel and energy-fact sheet energy. World Steel Association Available at: http:// www.worldsteel.org/pictures/programles/ Fact%20sheet_Energy.pdf (accessed on May 2010). World Steel Association, 2010c.In: The three Rs of sustainable steel. World Steel Association September 2009 p. 2. World Steel Association, 2010d. Global steel can recycling rate reaches highest recorded Level. World Steel Association Available at: http://www.worldsteel.org/ ?action=newsdetail&id=260 (accessed on May 2010). Worrell, E., Price, L., Martin, N., Farla, J., Schaeffer, R., 1997. Energy intensity in the iron and steel industry: a comparison of physical economic indicators. Energy Policy 25 (79), 727 744. Yamada, H., Ichiro, D., Matsuno, Y., Adachi, Y., Kondo, Y., 2006. Application of Markov chain model to calculate the average number of times of use of a material in society. In. J. LCA 11 (5), 354360. Yellishetty, M., Mudd, G.M., Ranjith, P.G., 2011. The steel industry, abiotic resource depletion and life cycle assessment: a real or perceived issue? J. Cleaner Prod. 19, 7890. Yellishetty, M., Ranjith, P.G., Tharumarajah, A., 2010. Iron ore and steel production trends and material ows in the world: is this really sustainable? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 54, 1084 1094. Yellishetty, M., Ranjith, P.G., Tharumarajah, A., Bhosale, S., 2009. Life cycle assessment in the minerals and metals sector: a critical review of selected issues and challenges. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14, 257267.