Automotive Interior Material Recycling and Design Optimization for Sustainability and

End of Life Requirements

Steven R. Sopher
JSP
Industry trends will also be reviewed as they apply to
market demand for more environmentally friendly
materials. The pros and cons of using some of the new biobased materials will also be compared and contrasted.

Abstract
Advances in the field of polyolefin resins in the area of PP
copolymers, PE homopolymers, and PP & PE blends have
allowed for the creation of new and improved polyolefin
bead foams. These polyolefin bead foams are capable of
improved performance due to the advancements that have
been made in the area of polyolefin resin catalyst systems
and additives. The benefits of polyolefin bead foams allow
for lower densities to be used where higher density
extruded foams are currently being utilized.

Introduction
Like the consumer market, there is a drive within the
automotive market to implement sustainable materials into
component parts. There are several ways to approach this
issue.
The first of which involves increasing current levels of
incorporating renewal plant based products such as cork,
hemp, jute, bamboo, and other wood based products. These
products are usually used in conjunction with other natural
or synthetic resins and bonding agents used to contain and
bind the product in order to retain a specific shape. These
materials are also incorporated into fabrics for the purpose
of replacing traditional synthetic textiles. These types of
products have enjoyed continued success within the
automotive sector, particularly in the area of automotive
interiors. Many of these materials have also allowed for
substantial weight and cost savings and have withstood the
test of time.

There is a move in the automotive industry to promote the

use of sustainable products. Sustainability considerations in
automotive design must include a variety of factors. These
include:

Weight reduction
Commonization of materials
Use of more environmentally friendly materials
Ease of disassembly at vehicles End-Of-Life
Consideration of RoHS requirements
Compliance to OEM, Federal and Industry
regulations
Recyclability of materials and current recycling
stream
Component design and performance requirements
Vehicle and occupant safety

Another method of implementing sustainable materials into

automotive component parts is in the form of substitution.
While material substitution has been ongoing within the
automotive industry for many years, it has been driven
primarily by cost saving, followed by performance savings.
When reviewing and discussing previous cases of material
replacement, the use of new and improved types of plastics
dominate those discussions.

While evaluating all of these considerations when designing

for sustainability, it is necessary to understand the
allowances for performance and cost trade-offs as they
relate to meeting the needs of both the OEM and end user
(or customer).

As more and more types of renewable materials are being

used, coupled with the new and improved types of plastics,
(both traditional petroleum based, and bio-based), it is clear
that the level of complexity is growing relative to raw
material types. This is particularly complex in the area of
material recyclability. It is becoming extremely difficult to
categorize these increasingly complex material blends for
the purpose of compatibility issues, and vehicle end-of-life
collection. In some cases, these newer types of plastics and
plastic blends are truly hybrids, and justify creation of a
new class of materials.

This paper will explore the industry trends, particularly

those published by the OEMs as they relate to designing
for sustainability and recyclability.
This paper will
compare some of the newer industry recycling guidelines,
as well as vehicle End-Of-Life dismantling requirements.
This paper will also explain the intention of the newer
vehicle component part guidelines for sustainable
development as they relate to automotive component design
and ease of disassembly and recyclability. Case studies will
be presented to evaluate component part design and the
move toward the use of more commonly recycled and
recyclable products.

SPE GPEC 2008

The automotive industry is faced with the challenge of

balancing the use of renewable bio-based materials with the
increasingly stringent issues of weight savings, (relating to
1

fuel economy), cost savings, performance, safety, substance

restrictions, emission levels (relating to interior air quality)
and vehicle end-of-life issues such as dismantling and
recyclability.

Petroleum Based vs. Bio-Based Plastics and

Life Cycle Analysis
Materials produced from renewable resources are not
necessarily at low environmental impact. This is an
important fact, and should be considered when evaluating
the use of any bio-based material. Numerous studies have
been performed for considering evaluation of the
environmental impact with a cradle to grave approach.

Goals of Sustainability
Regarding the use of plastics produced from sustainable
resources, it is important to understand the goals of
sustainability as they apply to both raw material sources,
manufacturing processes, and resulting compound. This is
looked at from a biological and technical standpoint, and is
referred to as the Biological Nutrient, Technical Nutrient,
and eventual Biological Metabolism and Technical
Metabolism.

When specifying plastic materials for automotive interiors,

consideration must be made to:
1.
2.
3.

Biological Nutrient: Comprised of a biodegradable material

posing no immediate or eventual hazard to living systems
that can be used for human purposes and can safely return
to the environment to feed environmental processes.

These three basic issues act to define the materials fitness

for use; however, with the newer Industry standards being
implemented, a more concise approach must be taken when
considering the use of existing and new plastics and their
effect on component part design. They are:

Technical Nutrient: Material that remains in a closed-loop

system of manufacture, reuse, and recovery (the technical
metabolism), maintaining its value through many product
life cycles.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

Biological Metabolism: The natural processes of

ecosystems are a biological metabolism, making safe and
healthy use of materials in cycles of abundance
Technical Metabolism: Modeled on natural systems, the
technical metabolism is a term for the processes of human
industry that maintain and perpetually reuse valuable
synthetic and mineral materials in closed loops.

Compliance to RoHS standards

Compatibility with other materials
Life Cycle Cost
Ease of dismantling
Weight Savings
Emissions (Effect on Air Quality)
Recycling Stream

Of these concerns, most are easily quantifiable with the

exception of Life Cycle Cost Analysis.
Much has been written about material and component life
cycle analysis, but until recently, serious consideration has
not been given to using life cycle analysis for material
selection for automotive use as it applies to the cradle to
grave approach, or more importantly the cradle to
cradle approach for material sustainability through
continued reuse in a closed loop system.

When considering the types of plastics used in automotive

interiors, with the goal of sustainability, it is necessary to
capture the true cost of that material. Costs in the
traditional sense include production cost (raw material cost,
manufacturing cost, administrative cost, etc.) and profit.
All of these equal a specific market cost. One of the goals
of sustainability is to understand the true market cost. This
requires the consideration of the above costs in addition to
any and all externalized costs, which are defined as hidden
costs to society, traditionally borne by government and/or
risk to; or destruction of; our environment. While these
externalize costs are not typically considered, they are real,
and should be considered.

One of the comparisons made during material life cycle

analysis, especially when comparing traditional petroleum
based plastics with newer bio-based plastics (PLA, etc.) is
their total energy content.
Figure 2 illustrates the
differences between traditional petroleum based plastics
(Nylon, PC, PS, PET, PE, PP, etc.) to newer bio-based
plastics; specifically PLA. The chart indicates total energy
content, and breaks it down to both fossil fuel and fossil
feedstock. As the chart illustrates, there is a considerable
difference between many of these plastics.

To level the playing field, and to move these costs from a

level hidden to society to those borne by the consumer, it is
necessary to offer incentives for use of more sustainable or
more recyclable materials.

In addition to energy content, comparisons are also made

regarding contribution to global climate change for
traditional petroleum based plastics with newer bio-based
plastics. Figure 3 illustrates the differences between

Figure 1 illustrates the goals of sustainability related to

market pricing.

SPE GPEC 2008

Compliance to OEM performance standards

Cost
Recyclability

traditional petroleum based plastics (Nylon, PC, PS, PET,

PE, PP, etc.) to newer bio-based plastics; specifically PLA.
The chart indicates amount of CO2 per kilogram of
polymer, and also shows Methane and Nitrous Oxide (if
applicable).
As the chart illustrates, there are also
considerable differences between many of these plastics.

(Annex II of the Directive). Some uses of banned

materials are still under discussion; a special
technical committee will review this list and revise
Annex II as necessary. The RoHS list is being
updated annually.
Over the next decade as many as 1,500 new dismantling
plants for ELVs will be built in Western Europe. The goal
is to have vehicle dismantling move from a spare-parts to a
raw-materials business. This may result in further material
consolidation and even directed buys.

Recycling Considerations
Plastic materials produced from renewable resources are not
necessarily easily recyclable for several reasons. These
include: Lack of recycling stream, incompatibility with
other standard plastics, process limitations, and cost
considerations.

OEM Specific Requirements - GM

In response to this, GM Europe; Vauxhall, Opel, Saab and
our other affiliated companies operating in Europe formed a
global task force. The group works closely to increase the
use of recycled materials across the entire product range
and to establish markets for recycled material to make
recycling economically viable. On the dismantling side, the
European companies are part of the International
Dismantling Information System. They have adopted the
Design for Recycling (DFR) concept for all newly designed
vehicles. DFR includes, for example, reduced complexity
of materials and improved fixing technology (easy to
dismantle). All plastic components are marked to identify
the material content.

Prior to introducing a bio-based plastic or plastic blend,

consideration should be taken to determine the
cradle to cradle capability. In some cases, use of a
readily recyclable material such as PP, which can be reused
a number of times via existing recycling streams, will yield
a lower total energy consumption, thus offering better
value, and reduced environmental impact throughout its
multi-use life cycle.

End-Of-Life Vehicle Directive

In September 2000 the European Parliament passed a
directive to address this issue. The European Directive on
End-of-Life Vehicles (ELVs) requires final vehicle owners
to return ELVs to authorized collection networks to obtain
"certificates of destruction" required to deregister vehicles.
According to the Directive, the delivery of the vehicle to an
authorized treatment facility shall occur without any cost
for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle's
having no or a negative market value.

In response to the industry, GM has released their End-ofLife Statement as well as their own Recyclability and
Recoverability guidelines; GMW3116.
To meet the regional requirements on end-of-life vehicles,
GM has organized a global End-of-Life Vehicle Team. The
team ensures that the necessary data is provided to various
regions in a common manner. In North America, a
centralized effort was initiated to provide material and
disassembly information to the dismantling industry. A
system is in place to generate this information for all
vehicles that are marketed into regions that have special
ELV requirements.

The Directive (EU End-of-Life Vehicle Directive

2000/53/EC) has three major consequences for the auto
industry. They are:
1.

Obligation to cover "all or significant part" of the

costs for new cars put on the market as of July
2002 and all ELVs in 2007 (Member States may
bring this latter date forward if they wish).

2.

The Directive's target values for the recovery or

recycling of ELVs are: a) to be achieved by 2006
- 85% by weight re-use/recovery and 80% by
weight re-use/recycling, and b) to be achieved by
2015 - 95% by weight re-use/recovery and 85% by
weight re-use/recycling.

3.

In both Europe and North America, GM has continued

efforts to improve the end-of-life vehicle infrastructure
through appropriate consortia efforts. In 1999 this resulted
in eight vehicle dismantling manuals being completed for
North American export vehicles going to Europe. They
have committed to working with industries involved in
taking back, treating, and scrapping ELVs to reduce the
amount of automotive waste going to landfill from 5% (in
2000) of a car's weight to 25% over the next 15 years.
The highlights of GMW3116
Recoverability Guidelines) include:

Materials and components of vehicles put on the

market in July 2003 shall not contain lead,
mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium other
than in those cases defined in the exemption list

SPE GPEC 2008

(Recyclability

&

Select materials for which recycling technologies

are currently practiced

Consider recycling technologies that preserve the

greatest material value.

Thermoplastics are preferred over thermoset and

rubber materials.

Minimize the use of parts consisting of inseparable

assemblies of different materials.

Component assemblies (e.g. door trim panels) are

to be designed as a one material system.

If not possible, use component materials which are

chemically compatible in a joint recycling process
(refer to your polymeric materials department).

If not possible, make components easily separable.

If not possible, use material combinations that

could be separated.

Design for Disassembly INTEGRATE

Design assemblies so that they may be easily

removed, preferably without special tools, from a
vehicle for reuse or recycling.

Use integrated/compatible snap fits on plastic

parts, where possible, instead of separate clips.

Utilize mechanical attachments, which allow for

easy separation of components within an assembly.

Minimize the attachment of dissimilar materials. If

dissimilar materials must be joined, do it in a way
that they can be easily separated. Do not weld or
adhesively bond dissimilar materials.

Attach incompatible sound absorbers and

insulation material to plastic parts so they are easy
to remove. Mechanical attachments, vibration
welding or ultrasonic welding are preferred over
adhesives.

Pretreatment: There are various items that must, by law, be

removed from the vehicle as the first step in the ELV
treatment process. The laws vary around the world. A list
has been compiled that reflects legislation around the world.
All items from this list will be entered into the PreTreatment section of the Vehicle Recyclability and
Recoverability Calculation Sheet.
Dismantling: A dismantling for recycling suitability matrix
will be used to determine the dismantling and recycling
potential of a part. There are several design factors that
determine the potential of a part to be dismantled and
recycled. These factors include the number and types of
materials used and the way those materials are combined
and attached to the vehicle. These design factors are
assessed in the dismantling for recycling suitability matrix.
The standard includes a matrix that includes five classes
and three categories. Parts that receive a [category] D1
rating from the matrix will be placed in the first dismantling
section in the Vehicle Recyclability and Recoverability
Calculation Sheet. Parts that receive a D2 rating will be
placed in the second dismantling section in the Vehicle
Recyclability and Recoverability Calculation Sheet. The
D3 rating will be considered not dismantlable for recycling
and will be put into the residue treatment section.
[Metal] Part Separation: All metal content is considered to
be recyclable. The metal content of the vehicle will be
entered into the metal separation section of the Vehicle
Recyclability and Recoverability Calculation Sheet.
Residue Treatment: At this point in the process there is an
organic fraction and an inorganic fraction remaining in the
residue. The organic fraction at this point in time will be
considered for energy recovery and the inorganic portion
will be disposed of. In the future, technologies may
develop to recycle some of this material. The amount of
these materials remaining is calculated in the residue
treatment section of the Vehicle Recyclability and
Recoverability Calculation Sheet.
Figure 4 shows the entire Recyclability and Recoverability
process.
Figure 5 shows the Recyclability and
Recoverability process matrix.

The standard also includes provisions for material

recyclability and recovery calculations. It consists of a four
step process and includes:
1.

Pretreatment

2.

Dismantling

3.

[Metal] Part Separation

4.

Residue Treatment

SPE GPEC 2008

The following formulas are used to calculate the

Recyclability and Recoverability for each part:

In addition to the Recyclability and Recoverability

guidelines, each vehicle will be required to have a Vehicle
4

Dismantling Guide. The vehicle dismantling guide will

readily identify each recyclable and recoverable component
within the vehicle for use during the End-Of-Life
dismantling process. Most OEMs publish vehicle specific
dismantling guides. The US Federal Government as well as
many States it the US also publish vehicle dismantling
guides. Many of these are updated annually to reflect
industry changes, and regulatory compliance.

Future Considerations
The "2006 Automotive Plastics Report Card" focused on
three areas in which some automakers are making
significant progress. These include: Use of bio-based
materials, improving interior air quality, and reducing the
used of restricted materials included PVC. All three of
these considerations compliment the End-Of-Life vehicle
considerations, and will aid in industry sustainability goals.

Recently legislative discussions have taken place in both

the EU and in the US to discuss the possible mandating of
vehicle dismantling In the future, and to establish
standardized recyclability and recoverability rating systems
much like the ones described above. These rating systems
would be based on specific vehicle platforms, and would
address such issues as ease of disassembly, use of
sustainable materials, use of readily recyclable materials,
vehicle economy, vehicle emissions, and vehicle mass
reductions through the use of innovative materials and
technologies.

In order to prepare for the challenges facing the automotive

industry in the future designers and engineers must do the
following:

Take advantage of, and become familiar with

environmentally sustainable and recyclable (or
melt processable) materials.

Involve material suppliers early on in the design

process to understand how to take advantage of
these materials, and the proper incorporation of
them into the seat design.

Understand and exploit the benefits of utilizing

Sustainable materials in terms of performance,
effect of the environment, ease of use,
consumption costs, life cycle costs, and
compatibility with other components.

Design for ease of dismantling to facilitate the

End-Of-Life Vehicle dismantling and collection
process.

Capitalize on the benefits of using sustainable

materials from all perspectives, including
corporate social responsibility, recyclability,
economics, cost to the environment, component
standardization, consumer preferences, etc.

Part Design for Recyclability and Recovery

Many of the latest innovative automotive component
designs take into consideration ease of disassembly in
addition to primary considerations including performance,
cost saving, weight savings, and use of recyclable material.
An example of this type of product design evolution is
shown below. This example is for a Rear Seat bolster used
in a popular GM midsize sedan. Figures 6, 7 and 8 show
the evolution of the part design as follows:
Figure 6 shows the first generation part design, which
includes a semi-rigid molded polyurethane (PU) foam part,
which is over-molded onto a complex metal wireframe,
followed by a textile cover glued to the part, and stabled on
the backside for retention. In this case, the component part
is not only difficult to dissemble, but is not recoverable due
to the use of an encapsulated steel frame, over-molded by a
thermoset (PU Foam), and covered with adhesive.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank to my colleagues at JSP Japan, Europe,
US and Mexico, as well as my colleagues at GM for their
support.

Figure 7 shows the second generation improved part design,

which includes a solid Expanded Polypropylene (EPP)
foam part with an inserted wire frame, followed by a PU
pad, which is then covered with a cloth and textile cover.
This part is now recoverable, and can be dismantled;
however, some component parts must be scrapped due to
incompatible materials.

References
1. E.T.H. Vink, et. al., Polymer Degradation and Stability,
Volume 80, Number 3, 2003.

Figure 8 shows the third and final generation optimized part

design, which included a solid EPP foam part, with installed
plastic inserts (with no metal). It also incorporates a TPO
cover that is press-fit into the EPP foam. This part is easy
to disassemble, and the primary component part (EPP) is a
readily recyclable thermoplastic.

SPE GPEC 2008

2. J.L. Throne, Thermoplastic

Publishers, Hinckley, OH, 1996.

Foams,

Sherwood

3. Jason Pearson, Design for Sustainability, GreenBlue

Org., 2006.

4. General Motors Standard GMW3116, GM Corp., 2004.

FIGURE 3

5. GM Supplier Website; ELV Statement, 2006.

6. Sopher, Steven R., Advanced Processing Techniques for
Expanded Polypropylene Bead Foam. Proceeding of
SAE World Congress, March 2003, Detroit, MI, USA.
7. 2006 Automotive Plastics Report Card, The Ecology
Center, 2007.
8. JSP ARPRO Expanded Polypropylene, ARPAK
Expanded Polyethylene, and ARPEX Cross-linked
Expanded Polyethylene; Technical Literature, 2007.
FIGURE 4

Figures
FIGURE 1

FIGURE 5

FIGURE 2

SPE GPEC 2008

FIGURE 6

FIGURE 8

FIGURE 7

SPE GPEC 2008

2008
Global Plastics Environmental Conference
Sustainability and Recycling for a Greener Environment

Automotive Interior Material Recycling and

Design Optimization for Sustainability and
End of Life Requirements
Steve Sopher
Technical Director
JSP

March 10 - 12, 2008

Orlando, FL, USA

Overview

Industry Trends
Internalization of Costs
Recyclability and Vehicle End-Of-Life Issues
Petroleum Based vs. Bio-Based Polymers
Goals for Sustainability
Automotive Component Design for Disassembly
Material Compatibility

For reference sources, see paper for footnotes

Industry Requirements
Weight reduction
Commonization of materials
Use of more environmentally friendly materials
Ease of disassembly at vehicles End-Of-Life
Consideration of RoHS requirements
Compliance to OEM, Federal and Industry
regulations
Recyclability of materials and current recycling
stream
Component design and performance requirements
Vehicle and occupant safety

Traditional vs. Sustainable Polymers

Traditional vs. Sustainable Polymers

Vehicle Material Sustainability

Plastic Material Production Automotive Industry Recycling

Footnote Source 7.

Goal of Sustainability
Method of Internalizing of Costs

Footnote Source 9.

Goal of Sustainability
EU End of Life Vehicle Directive 2000/53/EC
In September 2000 the European Parliament passed a directive to
address this issue. The European Directive on End-of-Life Vehicles
(ELVs) requires final vehicle owners to return ELVs to authorized
collection networks to obtain "certificates of destruction" required to
deregister vehicles. According to the Directive, the delivery of the
vehicle to an authorized treatment facility shall occur without any cost
for the last holder and/or owner as a result of the vehicle's having no
or a negative market value.
The Directive has three major consequences for the auto industry:

Footnote Source 9.

Goal of Sustainability
EU End of Life Vehicle Directive 2000/53/EC
They are:
Obligation to cover "all or significant part" of the costs for new cars put on the
market as of July 2002 and all ELVs in 2007 (Member States may bring this latter date
forward if they wish)
The Directive's target values for the recovery or recycling of ELVs are: a) to be
achieved by 2006 - 85% by weight re-use/recovery and 80% by weight reuse/recycling, and b) to be achieved by 2015 - 95% by weight re-use/recovery and
85% by weight re-use/recycling.
Materials and components of vehicles put on the market in July 2003 shall not
contain lead, mercury, cadmium and hexavalent chromium other than in those cases
defined in the exemption list (Annex II of the Directive). Some uses of banned
materials are still under discussion; a special technical committee will review this list
and revise Annex II as necessary. The RoHS list is being updated annually.
Footnote Source 9.

Goal of Sustainability
EU End of Life Vehicle Directive 2000/53/EC

Summary

As of 2006 recovery of ELVs must be a

minimum of 85 % by weight, 80 % through reuse and recycling.

By 2015 this increases to 95 % with a

minimum of 85 % by re-use and recycling.

Over the next decade ~ 1,500 new dismantling

plants for ELVs will be built in Western Europe.

The goal is to have dismantling move from a

spare-parts to a raw-materials business. This
may result in further material consolidation
and even directed buys.

Goal of Sustainability
Automotive Specific Sustainability & End-of-Life Standards

GM End-of-Life Statement & GMW3116

DCX CS-9003 for Recycling Guidelines
Ford Guidelines for Sustainability

Footnote Source 9.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines






Select materials for which recycling technologies are currently practiced

Consider recycling technologies that preserve the greatest material value.
Thermoplastics are preferred over thermoset and rubber materials.
Minimize the use of parts consisting of inseparable assemblies of
different materials.
 Component assemblies (e.g. door trim panels) are to be designed as a
one material system.
1. If not possible, use component materials which are chemically
compatible in a joint recycling process (refer to your polymeric
materials department).
2. If not possible, make components easily separable.
3. If not possible, use material combinations that could be separated.
Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

 Design for Disassembly INTEGRATE
 Design assemblies so that they may be easily removed, preferably
without special tools, from a vehicle for reuse or recycling.
 Use integrated/compatible snap fits on plastic parts, where possible,
instead of separate clips.
 Utilize mechanical attachments, which allow for easy separation of
components within an assembly.
 Minimize the attachment of dissimilar materials. If dissimilar materials
must be joined, do it in a way that they can be easily separated. Do not
weld or adhesively bond dissimilar materials.
 Attach incompatible sound absorbers and insulation material to plastic
parts so they are easy to remove. Mechanical attachments, vibration
welding or ultrasonic welding are preferred over adhesives.

Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

 Entire Vehicle Recyclability/Recoverability Calculations
The End-of-Life Vehicle (ELV) treatment can be described as
a four-step process:
1. Pre-Treatment
2. Dismantling
3. Metal Separation
4. Residue Treatment

Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

Pre-Treatment:
There are various items that must, by law, be removed from the
vehicle as the first step in the ELV treatment process. The
laws vary around the world. A list has been compiled that
reflects legislation around the world. All items from this list
will be entered into the Pre-Treatment section of the Vehicle
Recyclability/Recoverability Calculation Sheet. (i.e. Fuel, Tires,
etc.)

Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

Dismantling:
A dismantling for recycling suitability matrix will be used to determine the
dismantling and recycling potential of a part. There are several design
factors that determine the potential of a part to be dismantled and
recycled. These factors include the number and types of materials used
and the way those materials are combined and attached to the vehicle.
These design factors are assessed in the dismantling for recycling suitability
matrix.
Parts that receive a D1 rating from the matrix will be placed in the first
dismantling section in the Vehicle Recyclability/Recoverability Calculation
Sheet. Parts that receive a D2 rating will be placed in the second
dismantling section in the Vehicle Recyclability/Recoverability Calculation
Sheet. The D3 rating will be considered not dismantable for recycling and
will be put into the residue treatment section.
Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

Metal Separation:
All metal content is considered to be recyclable. The metal
content of the vehicle will be entered into the metal
separation section of the Vehicle Recyclability/Recoverability
Calculation Sheet.

Footnote Source 11.

Goal of Sustainability
GM-Recycling Guidelines

GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

Residue Treatment:
At this point in the process there are an organic fraction and an
inorganic fraction remaining in the residue. The organic fraction at
this point in time will be considered for energy recovery and the
inorganic portion will be disposed of. In the future technologies
may develop to recycle some of this material. The amount of these
materials remaining is calculated in the residue treatment section of
the Vehicle Recyclability/Recoverability Calculation Sheet.

Footnote Source 11.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)

Footnote Source 11.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)
Part Dismantling for Recycling Suitability Matrix

Footnote Source 11.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)
Part Dismantling for Recycling Suitability Matrix

Notes:
All Thermoplastic: D1
Polyurethane: D2 with inclusions and D1 without inclusions
Fiberglass Insulation: D3
Shoddy Pad: D3
D1 parts are not included when determining accessibility.
Footnote Source 11.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
GMW3116; Recyclability & Recoverability Guidelines (cont.)
Part Dismantling for Recycling Suitability Matrix

Goals
% Recyclability = Over 50%
% Recoverable = As close to 100% as possible

Footnote Source 11.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
Part Dismantling for Recycling & Recovery

Footnote Source 12.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
Part Dismantling for Recycling & Recovery

Footnote Source 12.

GM-Recycling Guidelines
Part Dismantling for Recycling & Recovery

Footnote Source 12.

Sustainability
DCX Guidelines CS-9003 Plastic Compatibility

KEY

Footnote Source 13.

1 = Very Good Compatibility

2 = Good Compatibility
3 = Poor Compatibility
4 = Non-Compatibility
Blank = Data Unknown

Sustainability
Material Use in Seating New Materials & Technology
Seat Cushions:
Use of Thermoplastic Olefin Foams to reduce weight
and reduce component parts. Use of both soft and
rigid Olefin Foams.

xEPE
Use of Environmentally Friendly Foams including
Low Density EPP and EPP Foams, Soy based PU
foams, Bio-Based PO foams, etc..

(Soft Olefin
Foam)

EPP

PU Foam

Sustainability
Material Use in Seating CASE STUDY SEAT BOLSTER

Old Design PU w/Complex Wire Insert

Note:
Integration of multiple
materials including PU, Fabric,
[Metal] Wireframe, Staples.

Sustainability
Material Use in Seating CASE STUDY SEAT BOLSTER
Improved Design EPP w/Simple Wire Insert

Note:
Substitution of EPP for
reduction of use of [Metal]
Wireframe. Use of PU foam
for comfort only.

Sustainability
Material Use in Seating CASE STUDY SEAT BOLSTER
Latest Design EPP w/ Fasteners

Note:
Elimination of [Metal]
Wireframe. EPP incorporates
fasteners. Use of J-clips to
facilitate assembly and
disassembly. Elimination of
staples and any adhesive.

Sustainability
Material Use in Seating CASE STUDY SEAT BOLSTER
Future of Interior Components will require ease of disassembly. This will
require elimination in the use of staples and/or adhesives. It will also emphasize
the use of sustainable materials and common types of materials for ease of
collection and recycling.

Sustainability
Plastics Material Use in Automotive Interiors - Challenges
1. Take advantage of, and become familiar with environmentally sustainable and
recyclable (or melt processable) materials.
2. Involve material suppliers early on in the design process to understand how
to take advantage of these materials, and the proper incorporation of them
into the seat design.
3. Understand and exploit the benefits of utilizing Sustainable materials in
terms of performance, effect of the environment, ease of use, consumption
costs, life cycle costs, and compatibility with other components.
4. Design for ease of dismantling to facilitate the End-Of-Life Vehicle
dismantling and collection process.
5. Capitalize on the benefits of using sustainable materials from all perspectives,
including corporate social responsibility, recyclability, economics, cost to the
environment, component standardization, consumer preferences, etc.

Sustainability
Plastics Material Use in Automotive Interiors Challenges
(cont.)
6. Weigh the benefits of using a readily available and fully recyclable product vs.
introducing newer bio-based materials with no recycling stream.
7. When choosing a plastic material, consider the life-cycle cost analysis, and
total energy used to produce (fossil fuel energy and fossil fuel feedstock).
8. When choosing a plastic material, consider the carbon footprint vs. other
available materials over its life span.
9. Understand the benefit of using total weight vs. performance. It may be
advantageous to use a material with a higher total energy consumption but at
reduced mass vs. using a material with a lower total energy consumption at a
higher mass.
10. Consider potential for material End-Of-Life energy reclamation
(incineration or other energy conversion) to capitalize on available fuel
source.

QUESTIONS

Contact Information:

Steve Sopher
Technical Director
JSP
steve.sopher@jsp.com