3DAYCAR PROGRAMME
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
OF THE 3DAYCAR
Joe Miemczyk
School of Management, University of Bath
Tel: 01225 323873
Fax: 01225 826135
E-mail: [email protected]
Ref: E4 – 03/02
March 2002
Confidential
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 4
1.0
BACKGROUND TO AUTO MANUFACTURING AND THE ENVIRONMENT........................ 7
1.1
THE RESEARCH QUESTION .........................................................................................7
1.2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF THE AUTO-SECTOR ....................................8
1.3
THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT ............................................................................10
2.0
SUPPLIERS ..................................................................................................... 11
2.1
BACKGROUND .........................................................................................................11
2.2
SUPPLIER PROCESS IMPACTS - BACKGROUND AND 3DAYCAR DATA ...........................15
2.2
IMPLICATIONS OF RESPONSIVE SUPPLY ....................................................................19
2.3
REDUCING SUPPLIER IMPACTS .................................................................................20
3.0
INBOUND LOGISTICS ........................................................................................ 22
3.1
TRANSPORTING MATERIALS TO MANUFACTURING ......................................................22
3.2
IMPACT OF FREQUENT DELIVERIES ...........................................................................23
3.3
REDUCING JIT TRADE-OFFS .....................................................................................24
4.0
VEHICLE MANUFACTURING .............................................................................. 26
4.1
VEHICLE PRODUCTION – IS IT FIT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT?........................................26
4.2
IMPACT ON THE PAINT PROCESS ...............................................................................28
4.3
BETTER AIR QUALITY FROM VEHICLE MANUFACTURING ..............................................29
5.0
OUTBOUND LOGISTICS .................................................................................... 31
5.1
IMPACTS ON THE CUSTOMER'S DOORSTEP ................................................................31
5.2
EFFECTS OF SHORTER DELIVERY LEAD TIME .............................................................31
5.3
CUSTOMER DELIVERY - NOT A GREEN COMPROMISE! ................................................33
6.0
3DAYCAR IMPACTS: THE VEHICLE LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE .............................. 34
7.0
FUTURE ISSUES WITHIN THE 3DAYCAR SCENARIOS ........................................... 35
APPENDIX A............................................................................................................ 38
REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 43
2
Confidential
The author would like to thank the following people for their help in prioritising the
environmental impacts of the automotive supply chain processes.
Ford Europe - Dr Hugo Clyster - Environmental Quality Manager
GKN Plc - Dr Michael Kennedy - Environmental Manager
Jaguar Cars - Dr Geraint Williams - Environmental Operations Manager
KPMG Sustainability Unit - Dr Kim Polgreen - Consultant
MG Rover - Neil Maycock MG Rover - Sheena Law - Senior Environmental Advisor
Nissan Manufacturing UK - Paul Fitchett - Homologation Manager
Nissan Manufacturing UK - Linda Barker - Environmental Engineer
Peugeot Motor Company - Mike Adams - Environmental Manager
The author would also like to thank the 3DayCar Team for help in understanding the
impact of a three-day car on these processes
3
Confidential
Executive Summary
This report summarises the overall potential impact of implementing a 3DayCar on the
environment and the possible means of minimising such impacts, many of which have
been detailed in other 3DayCar programme reports. Although there are few areas of major
concern overall, there are some activities which could cause greater environmental
damage than in the current situation.
A 3-day build-to-order system affects processes throughout the supply chain but the main
environmental impacts are at the vehicle painting stage and in delivery to the customer.
Given no change to current operating systems, the impacts at each stage are as follows Suppliers manufacturing processes can incur significant increase in environmental effects
in terms of energy use and waste production. Where batch sizes and processes have to
be reduced in a 3DayCar scenario, waste associated with changeovers would increase.
Sub-optimal use of capital equipment such as presses, injection moulding and machining
processes for metal components, due to greater variation in production volume over time,
can incur greater overall energy use. Small production batches would also lead to
increased frequency of material supply into 1st and 2nd tier suppliers, thus increasing
transport impacts.
The following actions can be taken to reduce the environmental impact of the 3DayCar on
suppliers. Operational measures can include maintaining current batch sizes and
increasing the inventory buffer to cope with demand variation as necessary. (Note.
Simulation to date has shown that with faster passage of more accurate production
requirements, component stock in general need not increase).
Suppliers have suggested that the most beneficial tools for process improvement are
•
Total cost accounting systems to accurately identify the environmental costs.
•
Environmental management systems to allow proper consideration of environmental
issues within manufacturing facilities.
•
Process mapping to identify wastes in processes
•
Management techniques for identifying cleaner alternatives to the present processes.
Technology should address waste reduction at changeover, and pollution prevention at
source is usually the best option. Input impact reduction should, for instance, cover the use
of water or high-solid/low-solvent paints rather than solvent based paints. Process
technology which has zero or low impact when not being utilised should be encouraged.
For example, machines which can be turned off without impacting on set-up times and
production quality
Inbound logistics to vehicle manufacturers will increase in frequency, due to shorter
cycle times. Unless greater load consolidation is implemented this will increase overall
truck distances from suppliers to vehicle manufacturers. Current impacts are related to a
travel distance of 100kms per car produced (30 litres of fuel per car) in the UK. Increases
to daily delivery of components to cope with short notice changes to schedules would
increase delivery distances by 83% (92km to 169km).
To reduce the impact of the increase in total annual mileage driven by heavy goods
vehicles within a 3DayCar, the following proposals are made:
•
Increase the use of consolidation and movement of components for different
manufacturers on the same truck. For example, where a Welsh supplier delivers parts
for 2 vehicle manufacturers in the same region, such as Rover and Jaguar, the
4
Confidential
logistics company should pick up parts for both VMs and take the parts to a crossdock. Here, parts are split between Rover and Jaguar and line-hauled to each plant.
This increases the capacity utilisation of the truck without increasing the distance
travelled, thus reducing the overall mileage to supply the two VMs.
•
Mix motor industry components with other industrial products on the same load to
enable better utilisation of transport capacity. This means that milkruns would require
less area to be covered to fill a truck.
It is widely believed that rail as an alternative mode of transport has a lower environmental
impact per tonne of product transported than road. The main negative issues with UK rail
tend to be:
•
Geographical infrastructure relative to access to suppliers and VM’s,
•
Excess cost given that road has often to be used at each end of the journey (Note.
This also adds time in transfers between modes of transport)
•
The bulk nature of rail, with small loads being uneconomic. Infrequent delivery results.
For rail to be a viable option, further research is needed to understand how these issues
can be overcome together with better reliability of service, tracing and tracking of in-transit
inventory and damage limitation.
The biggest improvement in environmental impact can be achieved through the use of new
technology. HGVs that conform to the next European emission standards applying from
2005 will more than compensate for the increase in emissions from greater annual mileage
using current technology .
Vehicle manufacturing impacts due to the 3DayCar result from changes in the vehicle
painting process. Overall both body and final assembly processes present few
environmental problems. The 3DayCar demands a more responsive paint process,
painting cars as they are required by incoming customer orders, rather than in large
batches of the same colour.
Even with a large painted body store to buffer the effect of the paint shop operation,
individual orders for certain coloured bodies will be desirable and the average batch size
for paint colours will have to reduce. The major environmental problem in the paint process
is solvent, which is used to clear paint delivery lines between each colour batch. It
releases volatile organic compounds on evaporation, which are regulated pollutants. As
batch sizes reduce, solvent use from changeovers increases and so the impact from these
changeovers potentially increases by 3 times.
This can be mitigated by introducing new technologies such as water-based and powder
based primer, base and clear coats. Alternatively, maintaining large paint batches reduces
this impact but also reduces responsiveness.
Outbound logistics will be affected because of the one day delivery requirement from UK
factories to UK dealers within a 3DayCar. This will lead to greater distances being travelled
between dealers. In delivering daily, dealers will actually receive only one car per
transporter load on average, based on current sales volumes and so current capaciyty
transporters would deliver to more dealers for each full load.
3DayCar research suggests this can increase truck distances by 30% with corresponding
increases in fuel use. A combination of improving truck technologies and operational
changes will decrease this impact to less than a 10% increase. Changes will include multifranchise delivery, smaller trucks within a mixed capacity fleet, delivery of vehicles to
dealers throughout the 24 hour day, better and more timely forward information from the
5
Confidential
VM for planning purposes, and integration with other vehicle flows such as ELVs or used
cars. Additionally the need for large vehicle holding compounds will be removed and this
will improve overall land use.
Vehicle technology can significantly reduce the impacts. The predominance of vehicle
deliveries being in urban areas means that low emission technology will have the greatest
benefit rather than operational improvements in reducing the impact of pollution. Such
technology includes fuel efficient tractor units, exhaust gas re-circulation units, particulate
traps and dual fuel engine capability. These types of technologies attract certain
compensatory grants in the UK, for example the powershift programme and the green fuel
challenge.
In order to maximise utilisation of capacity there are many opportunities in the field of
collaborative information system arrangements with other players, both between logistics
companies and between various users of transporters such as for direct delivery of new
vehicles, dealer transfers, used cars, and vehicle recycling. The potential of e-commerce
and open access trading systems would allow a combination of activities to be sold as
slots on transporters for a certain geographic area, and particularly increase backload
capacity usage after the initial load has been delivered.
These impacts are based on a 3DayCar built and delivered in the UK without significant
changes to industry structure and processes. It is possible to envision alternative
scenarios which would enable the global supply of BTO vehicles in short leadtimes. In this
radical 3DayCar scenario, environmental impacts could be further reduced through
changes in logistics system design and vehicle manufacturer paint processes.
This option requires significant changes to vehicle design which would include greater
modularity and standardisation in vehicle systems and body structures, including
spaceframes and coloured plastic panels. For all cars to be built to order in a short lead
time, local assembly plants in each market or region are necessary. However, breaking
current economies of scale would require a re-think from vehicle inception and design.
6
Confidential
1.0 Background to auto manufacturing and the
environment
There are four phases to a vehicle's life cycle - materials extraction and processing,
automobile production, vehicle use and vehicle disposal (Keoleian et al., 1997, DTI, 2000).
The material extraction and processing phase of the life cycle is responsible for several
environmental impacts such as the acidification of water and land, heavy metal
contamination and toxic and solid residual wastes.
The automotive industry is responsible for large amounts of material consumption. Data
has shown that the industry consumes 20% of all steel and 10% of all aluminium
worldwide. The plastics content of automobiles comprises 7% of the world total(Danholt
and Bragg, 1996, RCEP, 1994, Weber, 1991). The production phase also contributes
around 10-20% of the energy use in the whole life-cycle of a vehicle and significant
proportions of hazardous wastes and toxic emissions.
The last two phases of the vehicle life cycle have received the most attention with relation
to regulations and media interest. The use and end of life phases both contribute to the
majority of energy use and both result in significant emissions to the atmosphere while the
end of life phase contributes to waste going to landfill in the form of shredder waste. The
end of life issue is becoming more of an important concern as vehicle manufacturers find
themselves being legislated to take action on providing a free take back service, ensure
better recyclability and meet targets for quality and quantity actual recycling of vehicles.
This is seen as likely to result in much higher costs than the current process. The transport
of end of life vehicles (ELVs) is major cost to the process and itself causes impacts, so
actions to reduce this is seen as important.
This report is primarily concerned with the automobile production phase of the vehicle life
cycle as this is where the a 3DayCar has most affect in terms of changes to the car
distribution and production processes. With the background of huge resource use in
vehicle production, it is clear that the environmental impacts associated with this phase are
significant.
1.1 The research question
The research question is: "What are the likely environmental impacts of implementing a 3day car build to order system?"
In order to answer the question, it is important to understand what a 3-day car build-toorder (BTO) system would look like and which areas of the vehicle supply chain and lifecycle it will affect. From the main outputs of the 3DayCar programme, it is possible to
describe the key ingredients necessary and therefore what the possible environmental
impacts are on physical processes involved. These are documented below for each of the
major areas across the supply chain in terms of the conferences at which presentations
were given or reports and papers produced by the 3DayCar team.
Suppliers
In order to respond without holding stocks against demand variability, suppliers
should supply requirements within c.36 hours of the customer order being
sequenced on to the final assembly track; the precise assembly sequence being
determined on an hourly basis 36 hours ahead of this point. Those components
7
Confidential
which cannot meet this time scale due to lead times and/or frequency of production
and delivery will have to hold increased stock to cater for variability. However,
increased frequency of production and/or delivery to reduce overall lead times and
therefore stock levels required is encouraged where economically feasible. This
can be achieved by changing processes, locating closer to the VM and/or lateconfiguration of parts/assemblies at a supplier park.(Holweg, 2001, Holweg, 2002)
Inbound logistics
To meet the desired 36 hours response time it may in some cases be necessary to
increase the frequency of delivery from suppliers who are located within one day of
the factory. For shipments from further away (US Japan, Eastern Europe) more
stock will have to be held at the factory or supplier park/assembly area near the
factory. (Holweg and Williams, 2000, Howard and Miemczyk, 2000, Holweg et al.,
2001)
Vehicle manufacturers
The main impact on VMs is related to the direct booking of orders into the
assembly line daily sequence, shorter schedule lead times, increased flexibility and
increased reliability and changes in production and IT systems to enable a
3DayCar. It is suggested that the VM process should be de-coupled between the
paint shop and final assembly so that customer orders are not physically identified
with a vehicle until the entry onto final assembly. Body and paint would act as
internal suppliers to final assembly via a painted body storage tower. The paint
process needs better reliability and low batch size capability in order to minimise
the reliance on a limited capacity painted body store. Final assembly would not be
significantly affected except that more labour is needed to cover line-balancing
constraints. (Holweg and Jones, 2001, Holweg, 1999, Howard, 2000b)
Outbound delivery
One day delivery is required for all vehicles to UK dealers in order for a 3 day lead
time to be achieved. This implies more frequent shipment of vehicles to dealers
leading to increased distances to fully utilise current transporter capacity. (Holweg
and Williams, 2000, Howard and Miemczyk, 2000, Holweg et al., 2001)
1.2 Environmental impact assessment of the auto-sector
The impact of the motor vehicle on the environment has been widely discussed by policymakers, industry and academics. Most of this work has focussed on the vehicle use phase
and subjects such as vehicle emissions and use of resources, particularly fuel. It has
recently been recognised that it is important to understand the impact of the other stages
in its life cycle from cradle to grave. This has led to a considerable number of research
papers being issued on related subjects. ((EDF, 1999), Chul Kim et al., 2000, DTI, 2000,
Keoleian et al., 1997, Kincaid et al., 2000, MacLean et al., 2000, Sullivan et al., 1998,
Bickel et al., 1997, Emblemsvag and Bras, 2000). This research has shown that while the
use phase contributes most to energy use (e.g. 80%), other stages still use significant
amounts of energy, produce a great number of wastes and use large quantities of
resources. The end of life vehicle stage results in 8-9 million tonnes of landfill waste every
year in Europe and much if this is due to the types of material used in the car which can
not be reused or recycled economically at present. Therefore it is valid to investigate and
understand how changes to vehicle production processes can effect their contribution to
the overall impact of the vehicle life-cycle on the environment.
8
Confidential
Traditional life cycle analysis (LCA) is a tool used to examine the specific environmental
effects of products and processes and is tailored to suit a single product over a set of
specified circumstances. The 3DayCar programme has produced a broad strategic
process model for the auto sector, from which it was decided that a full scale LCA was not
the best use of resources at an early stage in the research.
It has been possible, though, to assess the current environmental importance of supply
chain processes by other means, and the likelihood that these will be affected by build-toorder in a short leadtime. This has been achieved through devising a scoring system in
order to understand the importance of various process impacts and weight these
according to the possible effect on them of short BTO leadtimes. The following method has
therefore been used.
♦ The automotive supply chain, as relevant to the 3DayCar build-to-order process, was
divided into its constituent transformational processes and these main processes
defined.
♦ Each process was then assigned a score of 1-5 according to the importance of the
environmental impact. This is then multiplied by the likelihood of it being effected by a
rapid build to order system. This is shown in the figure below.
Process
description
Process:
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score 1-5
used
Score
Score 1-5
used
Scores are
multiplied
♦ An expert opinion based survey (Delphi survey) was sent to key environmental experts
in the automotive sector, to obtain a score for the environmental importance of each
process described. This was combined with previous work in the programme to
quantify the current and possible changes in the environmental impacts of a 3DayCar.
♦ The scores were combined to obtain an aggregate score for each process.
♦ The processes were then be ranked in order of significance.
From this it was possible to prioritise research in order to propose ways of maximising the
reduction of impacts in the most important areas.
9
Confidential
The important areas identified and discussed in this report are:Process
Foundry - Sand
casting
Foundry - Die casting
Section referred to
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.0
Metal Fabrication
Machining
Metal finishing
Plastic moulding
Plastic fabrication
Supplier logistics
Inbound logistics
Body assembly
Vehicle painting
Final assembly
Vehicle delivery
End of life vehicle
1.3 The structure of this report
This report is based on research carried out over the three years of the 3DayCar
programme. It is an accumulation of data collected from diverse sources as a result of
surveys and personal interviews with industry experts and practitioners, as well as reviews
of the literature covering the environmental implications of vehicle production. In the case
of paint shop and distribution impacts, the reader is advised to consult two specific reports
written on these subjects for more details, since only the conclusions and main facts are
described here. (See the 3DayCar Paintshop Survey and The 3DayCar Logistics Study).
Section 2 describes the environmental implications of supply chain activities and the
impact of a 3DayCar on these activities.
Section 3 describes a case study of inbound logistics to vehicle assembly and implications
of build to order.
Section 4 describes the impacts of vehicle assembly from inbound logistics through body,
painting and final assembly.
Section 5 describes the effects associated with vehicle distribution
Section 6 ranks the impacts of a 3DayCar on the environment in order of importance and
suggests a prioritisation of actions to reduce such impacts
Section 7 suggests that there may be more than one approach to build to order in 3 days,
and that these may have differing environmental impacts. These different approaches are
described as Pre-3DayCar, 3DayCar and Radical 3DayCar and have also been simulated
using the 3DayCar model to understand their impacts on other issues such as finance and
systems.
10
Confidential
2.0 Suppliers
For the purpose of this study only 1st and 2nd tier suppliers and their processes have been
investigated. This is because the impact of a 3DayCar is most significant at these stages,
despite the large environmental considerations further up the supply chain.
2.1 Background
An example of the environmental attributes of a module is the instrument panel, which has
been studied extensively. It contains 17 different materials, including 15 types of plastic as
well as steel and magnesium. It weighs up to 25kg and involves many manufacturing
processes including metal fabrication, foundry operations and plastic moulding. The raw
material extraction and production consumes 37% of the total life cycle energy and
generates 32% of the solid wastes as well as accounting for 25% of the CO2 emissions
over its life through to disposal. This one part demonstrates the complexity of the analysis
needed to understand the environmental impacts of the automotive supply chain (EDF,
1999). The following sections describe the main processes which have environmental
impacts in the component supply chain. Alongside this the results of the survey of
environmental experts are presented, which was carried out to gauge the level of
environmental importance of the various processes within the complete life cycle,
Foundry operations
The foundry is used to form iron and steel parts, typically using sand casting methods,
whereas aluminium and magnesium are often formed using the die cast method.
a)
Sand casting
This process generates air releases and solid wastes. When poured into the pattern, the
extreme heat of the molten metal causes a portion of the binder to "flash off". These
binders can be toxic chemicals such as phenol or formaldehyde. The shake out also
releases fine particles of sand and clay into the air, which contribute to respiratory
problems in the locality. The waste sand mixture can be recycled as a solid waste stream
once the binder and clay have been removed.
Process: Foundry - Sand casting
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
b)
Score
4
1
4
Die casting
Die-casting is often used for moulding smaller metal parts such as transmission or
compressor castings. To prevent sticking, a releasing agent is often sprayed onto the die
before metal is poured in. Then the part is removed and water sprayed on and/or
circulated round the die to cool it down and remove releasing agent. Again this produces
air releases and waste water. A portion of the releasing agent vaporises when in contact
with the molten metal. This is a volatile release and can be toxic to an extent depending on
the exact material used. The cooling water can also be contaminated with releasing agent
and has to be treated before it is disposed of down a drain or re-circulated.
11
Confidential
Process: Foundry - Die casting
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
3
1
3
Machining
The machining process creates coolant and lubricant mist which can irritate the skin and
eyes, affect asthma sufferers and cause long term breathing disorders. Metal shavings,
fines and contaminated coolants and lubricants are significant wastes from the machining
process.
Process: Machining
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
3
2
6
Metal fabrication
This process generates few direct wastes. Metal fines, oils and other contaminants are
removed by a cleaning process and often the cleaning solutions such as water and
solvents generate are contaminated and difficult to dispose of at the end of the process.
Most metals are usually recycled within the process.
Process: Metal Fabrication
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
1
2
Plastic fabrication
Although this is a very common process in the supplier sector for handling plastics, fabrics
and foams, there are few wastes generated. In most cases the excess materials produced
are recycled.
Process: Plastic fabrication
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
1
2
Metal Finishing
Finishing processes provide a protective or decorative surface to various metal parts.
Painting is perhaps the most common finishing process. Others include anodising,
chemical-based plating, electroplating and chemical conversion coatings. In the supply
sector, electroplating is a common process used to coat a metal with a thin layer of
another type of metal. Zinc coating is normally called galvanising. The zinc can be applied
either electrolytically (which gives a thinner coating) or by dipping the steel in a bath of
molten zinc. Much of the sheet used to produce car bodies is zinc coated. This has
enabled thinner steels to be used for car bodies, thus saving weight and improving fuel
12
Confidential
consumption. Without this coating, the thinner steels would rust, shortening the car's life.
Organic coatings, such as plastic and paint, can be applied to extend the steel's life, while
at the same time giving it an attractive appearance. Aluminium coated sheet provides a
combination of corrosion and heat resistance ideal for car exhaust pipes.
In these processes, parts are immersed in a solution of metal ions. The parts are coated
within the process, rinsed with water, and proceed to other manufacturing steps. Metals
are commonly coated with brass, cadmium, chromium, copper, gold, nickel, silver and tin,
besides zinc. Liquid, including water, and hazardous wastes result from the metal finishing
process due to contamination by heavy metals and toxic chemicals.
Process: Metal finishing
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
4
3
12
Plastics moulding
Injection moulding is another typical automotive supplier process and is one of the most
widely used polymer conversion processes. It is capable of producing almost any
component. For injection moulding, the polymer resin is heated until molten together with
any additives and injected into a water cooled mould. Once solid, the mould is opened, the
component ejected, and the cycle repeated. Irrespective of the machinery used, the
sequence of events in the process can be represented by the following cycle: injection
time - filling the mould; dwell time - mould full and under pressure; freeze time - mould sets
to allow removal; and dead time - time to open mould, remove moulding and close again.
Air, water and plastics are the primary waste streams from the moulding process.
Chemical additives which are mixed with the plastic resin contribute to air releases and
some of these are toxic, such as lead as a heat stabiliser and antimony trioxide as a flame
retardant. As the resin is heated the additives are often vaporised and released into the
air. Water is used to cool the process and clean the surfaces of the product and
equipment. The waste streams can become contaminated with oils, organic compounds
and metals and so must be treated before disposal.
The energy contribution to this whole process can be broken down as follows with a total
of 119 Mega Joules (MJ) per kg1: On average a car contains 90 kilograms of plastic and so
the MJ per stage per car can be shown.
Life cycle stage
Polymer production
Polymer delivery
Processing
Space heating
Packaging
Energy contribution
64.39%
0.17%
22.78%
10.75%
1.91%
MJ per stage per car
6897
18
2439
1146
214
Assuming that plastic contributes 9% of a car by weight, then the total energy used in
plastic production for each car is 10,710MJ; equivalent to 166 litres of fuel, over 3 tanks full
of petrol, or typically 1000 miles of driving.
1
ECO-profiles - APME
13
Confidential
The air emissions associated with injection moulding 1kg of Polypropylene (PP) for a
bumper or dashboard compared with Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS), which is an
alternative engineering plastic used for more decorative interior trim parts, are as follows:
Emission per kg of component
produced
Dust
CO
CO2
SOx
NOx
Hydrocarbons
Methane
H2S
HCl
Aromatic -HC & other organics
ABS
process
emissions/mg
310
2,100
180,000
670
600
3,100
330
1
2
660
PP
Process
emission level/mg
36
67
19,000
70
120
1,300
650
2
1
2
The main differences between these types is that CO2 emission is much greater for ABS.
In fact ABS is generally worse for most emission types, apart from methane (which is also
a global warming gas) and H2S (Hydrogen Sulphide) which is a respiratory inhibitor and
readily combines with oxygen to produce Sulphur dioxide which is implicated in acid rain.
It can thus be seen that the injection moulding process contributes a significant amount of
energy use, in fact around 20-25% of energy used in the total production of a vehicle and
also releases significant air emissions, varying dependent on the type of plastic material
being moulded.
Process: Plastic moulding
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
3
3
9
14
Confidential
2.2
Supplier process impacts - background and 3DayCar data
Vehicle manufacturers work with suppliers to improve environmental performance
although the extent to which this happens varies considerably across car producers as
demonstrated in the following chart (Figure 1). High performing manufacturers are
indicated by 2, lower performing companies by 1 and those which have no type of supplier
environmental initiatives by 0.
2
Working with suppliers on environment
1
FI
AT
FO
R
D
G
H M
O
ND
A
BM
W
PO PS
R A
S
T O CH
Y E
H OT
YU A
N
D
M AI
A
M ZD
i ts A
ub
N i sh i
IS
R SA
EN N
A
U
SU L T
ZU
KI
VO
D
C
X
S
LK A
AB
S
W
AB AG
VO EN
LV
O
0
Figure 1: Source: UNEP 2000
Supplier actions on impacts
Background research into supplier impacts was carried out in the US by the University of
Tennessee for GM Saturn suppliers (Kincaid et al., 2000). This found that metal working
was the most commonly implicated activity of automotive suppliers in terms of
environmental problems, partly because of its scale of activity (see Figure 2).
15
Confidential
Processes which cause problems
Metal working
Plastics process
Painting/coating
Rubber process
Assembly
Metal Plating
0
10
20
30
40
Figure 2 : The percentage of supplier processes with environmental impacts (Kincaid
2000)
In terms of environmental impacts, air emissions were found to be by far the most
significant, with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which cause respiratory problems
probably the most common. For example, VOCs are released from the painting, coating,
and cleaning processes of such suppliers as those of bumpers and trim parts. Other
impacts include waste-water produced within processes and the cleaning parts. Solid
wastes are also a concern and, although often not directly toxic, can be costly in
management and disposal.
It should be noted that this data has been based on a sample of US suppliers only, and
that no similar data was available for the UK and Europe, which have a different regulatory
regime and therefore different environmental priorities.
Most important issues
Air emissions
Wastew ater
Solid w astes
0
10
20
30
40
50
Figure 3: Percentage of most important types of impact (Kincaid 2000)
Component suppliers actions on these impacts are driven by environmental regulation and
vehicle manufacturer material specifications. There are also some internal cost drivers
behind the reduction of these impacts as a result of the cost of
•
Meeting the requirements of regulation such as permits, license to operate, and
process authorisation
•
Capital equipment to reduce the impact of wastes such as incinerators and waste
storage equipment
16
Confidential
•
Waste disposal, particularly high for hazardous or toxic wastes such as those
containing heavy metals or acidic compounds.
3DayCar research on UK suppliers
In order to understand the impacts of UK suppliers, which could be different to those in the
US, part of the supplier survey for 3DayCar addressed environmental issues. In line with
the US study, suppliers were asked to detail their most significant environmental impacts
in terms of what they are and from which processes. The next chart (Fig 4) shows that the
majority of suppliers perceived they had significant impacts in several areas with different
levels of pollution impact.
100%
Percentage of suppliers with impacts
Low
80%
High
60%
40%
20%
0%
Haz waste High energy
Air
emissions
Water
discharge
High water
Figure 4: The importance of different environmental impacts to automotive suppliers
The most significant environmental issues from the 3DayCar suppliers survey are:
♦ In general, the level of consciousness of UK suppliers on environmental impacts is
much higher than in the US. Even the area considered to have the most impact in the
USA, namely air emissions, is considered to have a higher impact by UK suppliers.
♦ Energy use - Over 50% of suppliers have high impact issues related to energy use
and this is seen as a significant problem, which was not reflected at all in the US
research (probably due to the lower cost of energy in the US). This emphasis can be
explained by the fact that energy use is currently a top priority in the UK, with the
Government having introduced the Climate Change Levy which penalises users of
large amounts of energy with low labour requirements. Plastic moulding and paint
operations fall in this category.
♦ Air emissions – The high level of impact can also be put down to new regulations
requiring management of air emissions (IPPC regulations) which has a significant
effect on the type of processes seen in the supplier sample.
♦ Hazardous waste – While this affects over 80% of suppliers, the impact is less
important than energy or air emissions.
Chart 5 shows which of the supplier processes cause the most environmental impacts.
The number of impacts resulting from the main processes for each of the sample of 17
suppliers was calculated, enabling an assessment of the overall importance of each type
of process.
17
Confidential
Number & importance of impacts
BIW pressings
Assembly of running gear
HVAC units
Fuel tanks
Plastic components
Wire
Extrusions, inject mould, roll formings
Exterior trim - moulding
Driveshafts
Metal pressings
Engines
Interior trim - decorative
Coloured bumper
High impact
Powertrain gears
Low impact
0
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 5: The relative environmental effects of the main supplier processes.
The processes found to have the highest impacts are:
♦ Power train gear & engine manufacture - metal machining and heat treatment
♦ Coloured bumper production - moulding, forming and painting plastics
♦ Interior trim production - moulding and painting
♦ External trim - moulding and coating
♦ Extrusion and inject moulding and roll formings
Given these impacts, it is important to ask what the actual effects caused by these
processes are? Air emissions are of the greatest concern and cause significant local
issues for air quality. In particular respiratory problems arise from emissions of organic
compounds such as VOC, hydrocarbons and hydrogen sulphide. The tiny particulate
matter that arises from combustion processes is also implicated in the cause of cancers of
various types. These impacts have all been described in section 2.1.
Logistics to suppliers
Suppliers to UK vehicle assembly plants, particularly 2nd & 3rd tier and raw material, are
located throughout Europe or even globally. This clearly affects the distance that materials
are transported, the responsiveness of the total supply chain and the overall costs and
impacts of producing components and products.
Data from the 3DayCar supplier survey suggests that supplier logistics varies considerably
in that some rely on local supply while others have much longer supply chains. This is
demonstrated in figure 6.
18
Confidential
Total annual logistics kms
11
10
9
Engine assembly
8
7
6
5
4
Total annual distance covered for
sample = 2,585,920 Kms
3
2
1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Distance / km s 000's
700
800
900
1000
Figure 6: Logistics transport into suppliers
In Figure 6, the vertical axis (from 1-11) represents each supplier surveyed. The horizontal
axis shows the total annual distance covered by inbound supply to the supplier. In
particular, engine assembly relies on many parts sourced from Europe and delivered at
frequent intervals, meaning that the total road distance travelled is over one million
kilometres per year. On the other hand, an interior trim supplier requires a smaller quantity
of less specialised material from shorter distance suppliers. Although the frequency of
delivery is still high, only 16,000 kilometres per year travel is involved. Any statement on
the magnitude of this impact will depend on where raw material itself is sourced, but the
impact of inbound logistics is significant to suppliers and it is worth attention to reduce
costs and environmental impact. On the basis of only these 11 suppliers the total distance
of 2.5 million kilometres is significant, especially if this is multiplied up the total supply base
of 200-300 suppliers.
Process: Supplier logistics
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
3
3
9
2.2 Implications of responsive supply
Given the various types of process and the fact that certain products are highly dependent
on demand characteristics (i.e. colour keyed items that can depend on trim and option
level), the reduced schedule horizons of 3DayCar will have an impact on their production
planning and could possibly affect the magnitude of the environmental impact.
Most of these processes require batching operations to obtain production efficiencies and
economies of scale (i.e. painting bumpers in a batch of 50 or 100.)
Changing these batch processes to better match demand can increase change-over
frequency unless higher buffer stocks are held. This introduces additional waste into the
system such as, for instance, paint line purging waste fluids and solvent emissions for
evaporating purge wastes.
19
Confidential
Those suppliers on a weekly schedule can produce a week's batch over a couple of days
and then shut down equipment or re-allocate non-specific plant to other production for the
rest of the week. If supply is required on a daily basis with requirements changing every 12 days then daily production runs may be required which could sub-optimise plant usage.
This could particularly effect injection moulding especially if it implies extra capacity.
Energy use would increase as machines may be left on all the time to ensure availability,
despite the same volume being produced over time.
Quantification of these impacts will be on a case by case basis. It is suggested that further
research is needed to examine the exact process changes required and any resultant
increase in impact.
2.3 Reducing supplier impacts
The following actions can be taken to reduce the environmental impact of the 3DayCar on
suppliers
Operational measures:
♦ Maintain current batch sizes and increase the inventory buffer to cope with demand
variation as necessary. (Note. Simulation to date has shown that with faster passage of
more accurate production requirements, component stock in general need not
increase)
Suppliers have suggested that the most beneficial tools would be.
♦ Total cost accounting systems to accurately identify the environmental costs
♦ Environmental management systems which
environmental issues by manufacturing facilities.
allows
proper
consideration
of
♦ Process mapping to identify wastes in processes.
♦ Management techniques for identifying cleaner alternatives to the present processes
being used.
Technology needs:
♦ Changeover waste reduction: Pollution prevention at source is usually the best option.
♦ Input impact reduction: For instance, the use of water or high-solid/low-solvent paints
rather than solvent based paints.
♦ Process technology which has zero or low impact when not being utilised. For
example, machines can be turned off without impacting on set-up times and production
quality
Summary
Suppliers' manufacturing processes have significant environmental effects such as on
energy use and waste production. Where batch processes have to be modified for a
3DayCar, wastes associated with changeovers could increase. Sub-optimal use of capital
equipment such as presses, injection-moulding equipment and machine process
equipment can incur greater overall energy use due to increased variation in production
volume. Given an overall view of cost, more flexible production is also likely to lead to
increased frequency of material supply into 1st and 2nd tier suppliers. This will increase
transport impacts on the environment given the current methods of operating.
20
Confidential
The following actions can be taken to reduce the environmental impact of the 3DayCar on
suppliers. Operational measures should include maintaining current batch sizes and
increasing the inventory buffer to cope with demand variation as necessary. (Note.
Simulation to date has shown that with faster passage of more accurate production
requirements, component stock in general need not increase).
Suppliers have suggested that the most beneficial tools would be: total cost accounting
systems to accurately identify the environmental costs, environmental management
systems which allows proper consideration of environmental issues by manufacturing
facilities, process mapping to identify wastes in processes and management techniques
for identifying cleaner alternatives to the present processes being used. Technology
should address changeover waste reduction and pollution prevention at source is usually
the best option. Input impact reduction should, for instance, cover the use of water or highsolid/low-solvent paints rather than solvent based paints. Process technology which has
zero or low impact when not being utilised. For example, machines which can be turned off
without impacting on set-up times and production quality
21
Confidential
3.0 Inbound logistics
3.1 Transporting materials to manufacturing
Further downstream towards the vehicle assembly operations, materials and parts are
again subject to significant transportation. Although the parts have been consolidated and
wastes such as off-cuts removed, additional packaging and the architecture of the parts
(large assemblies may not provide the optimum use of trailer space) means that the weight
and volume of material transported is similar to that for inbound to the supplier sites.
Only road transport has been considered, but there are also considerable distances
covered by sea and air. Sea transportation is characterised by infrequent delivery, a bulk
nature and lower environment impacts and air is utilised by some high value parts. Impacts
are therefore on the conservative side.
A typical arrangement of inbound logistics is shown below.
Supplier
Supplier
RDC
Plant
Supplier
Overseas
Parts
Figure 7: Typical inbound logistics structure
The environmental impact of inbound supply is measured by the distance travelled by
HGVs and the consequent effect on energy usage, congestion, air emissions, and noise,
etc. A UK case study of inbound logistics which encompassed distances travelled by
trucks carrying components and materials found the following environmental metrics for
the total industry in the UK27.5 million kilometres are driven by HGVs in one year
92 kilometres are driven per car produced.
22
Confidential
37 litres of fuel are used per car produced (using 7mpg as a consumption figure for
HGVs).
3.2
Impact of frequent deliveries
Although many parts and materials such as painted body parts, seats, wheels, cockpits
and front-end modules already have delivery frequencies of daily or more, many are
delivered less frequently than daily. The trend will be towards more frequent delivery, even
hourly, and this will increase the truck distance covered by delivery vehicles.
Process: Supplier logistics
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
5
10
As already stated, components can be grouped into different priority classes A, B or C and
this will affect the delivery requirements from each supplier. Of the suppliers for the plant,
around half deliver daily on average. This leaves the other half of suppliers who deliver
every 2 days or less, with weekly deliveries being common for low volume standard or C
class components. Largely for these suppliers, as is common with most European vehicle
manufacturers, the supply of inbound components is split by region of supply, with a
collection scheme for each as shown in figure 8. Within each scheme there will be a range
of suppliers on different delivery cycles ranging from daily to monthly.
Case study of vehicle manufacturer inbound logistics
3. Regional supply
1. JIT/ synchro
supply
2. Local supply
4. North Europe
VM plant
5. South Europe
6. Other Europe
7. Global
Figure 8 : The organisation of inbound collection schemes for the case example
Although it is clear that not all components would have to be delivered on a daily basis
within 3DayCar, the more frequent the delivery, the more accurate that delivery should be
to the actual requirements of the build schedule. This will be decided with a very short lead
time and will vary from one day to the next. Therefore it is important to know what the
impact of more frequent deliveries would be on the overall environmental equation. For
this to be done precisely a component by component analysis would be necessary and
this would yield results very specifically tailored to the supply chain being studied. To
obtain a generic approximation, it was decided to analyse the broader level data of the
23
Confidential
plant inbound logistics operations of a typical manufacturer to understand the general
impact of greater frequency.
By calculating the average frequency of delivery and number of suppliers on each
collection scheme, average figures for supplier frequency were obtained. Of the 8
schemes studied for the VM, 4 already had daily delivery on average for all suppliers, so
increases here were not assessed. In the other 4 schemes, the average frequency was
calculated per supplier and then multiplied by a factor to increase the average to daily.
This was multiplied by the average weekly distance travelled per journey to gain a total
impact normalised per car produced (for confidentiality reasons) as shown in the table
below. It should be noted that this is one case study using data which is a snapshot in
time. In reality, each vehicle manufacturer will have a different supply logistics structure
and the number and location of suppliers will vary, as will the volume and mix of vehicle
production, but the indicative figures are of the correct magnitude.
Daily delivery Current
frequency of by all suppliers
delivery
Distance per car produced 92
(Km)
169
Litres of fuel used per car (Km) 37
69
Table 1 - Estimated increase in inbound logistics impact
Table 1 shows that the total distance per year could increase from nearly 30 to around 50
million kms if all suppliers were to go to an average of daily delivery. This assumes a
corresponding decrease in truck space utilisation which would be significantly less than the
current figure of 70%. In reality this is a maximum possible figure and would be mitigated
by better load consolidation and careful use of component stocks to reduce delivery
frequency. The reduction of this impact is described in the next section.
3.3 Reducing JIT trade-offs
Operational measures: In order to reduce the impact of the increase in total annual
mileage driven by heavy goods vehicles within a 3DayCar, the following proposals are
made.
Increase the use of consolidation and movement of components for different
manufacturers on the same truck.
For example, where a Welsh supplier supplies parts for 2 vehicle manufacturers
in the same region, such as Rover and Jaguar, the logistics company should pick
up parts for both VMs and take the parts to a cross-dock. Here, a significant
number of parts are split between Rover and Jaguar and line-hauled to each
plant. This increase the capacity utilisation of the truck without increasing the
distance travelled, thus reducing the overall mileage to supply the two VMs.
Mix motor industry components with other industrial products on the same load to
enable better utilisation of transport capacity. This means that milkruns would require
less area to be covered to fill a truck
24
Confidential
Consider rail as an alternative mode of transport. It is widely believed that rail has a
lower impact per tonne of product transported. The main issues with rail tend to be:
Geographical infrastructure relative to access to suppliers and VM’s
Excess cost given that road has often to be used at each end of the journey
(Note. This also adds time in transfers between modes of transport)
The bulk nature of rail, with small loads being uneconomic. Infrequent delivery
results
For rail to be a viable option, further research is needed to understand how these
issues can be overcome together with the following points Better reliability of service
Tracing and tracking of in-transit inventory
Damage limitation
Technology needs: Perhaps the biggest improvement in environmental impact can be
achieved through use of new technology. HGVs that conform to the next European
emission standards applying from 2005 will more than compensate for the increase in
emissions from greater annual mileage.
Summary
Operational measures: In order to reduce the impact of the increase in total annual
mileage driven by heavy goods vehicles within a 3DayCar, the following proposals are
made. Increase the use of consolidation and movement of components for different
manufacturers on the same truck. For example, where a Welsh supplier supplies parts for
2 vehicle manufacturers in the same region, such as Rover and Jaguar, the logistics
company should pick up parts for both VMs and take the parts to a cross-dock. Here, a
significant number of parts are split between Rover and Jaguar and line-hauled to each
plant. This increase the capacity utilisation of the truck without increasing the distance
travelled, thus reducing the overall mileage to supply the two VMs. Mix motor industry
components with other industrial products on the same load to enable better utilisation of
transport capacity. This means that milkruns would require less area to be covered to fill a
truck.
Considering rail as an alternative mode of transport, it is widely believed that rail has a
lower impact per tonne of product transported. The main issues with UK rail tend to be:
Geographical infrastructure relative to access to suppliers and VM’s, Excess cost given
that road has often to be used at each end of the journey (Note. This also adds time in
transfers between modes of transport) and the bulk nature of rail, with small loads being
uneconomic. Infrequent delivery results. For rail to be a viable option, further research is
needed to understand how these issues can be overcome together with the following
points - Better reliability of service, Tracing and tracking of in-transit inventory and damage
limitation
Technology needs: to address perhaps the biggest improvement in environmental impact
can be achieved through use of new technology. HGVs that conform to the next European
emission standards applying from 2005 will more than compensate for the increase in
emissions from greater annual mileage.
25
Confidential
4.0 Vehicle Manufacturing
Vehicle manufacturing as described here comprises of body assembly, vehicle painting,
final assembly (trim and inspection) and, for convenience reasons, end of life vehicle
recycling is included here. Body assembly, final assembly and end of life recycling are
relatively unaffected by the 3DayCar and so are discussed first. Vehicle painting which is
affected by the 3DayCar is then discussed in more detail.
4.1
Vehicle production – is it fit for the environment?
Body Assembly Process
Body Assembly has little environmental impact in comparison with other processes. While
energy use is significant due to the stamping and pressing processes in the precursor
stages and welding and framing in assembly, it is not generally viewed as a dirty process,
the main waste being steel and other metals which are recycled.
Process: Body assembly
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
4
8
3DayCar is not likely to have much effect on the production of vehicle bodies except in the
area of variable volume demand which may mean that equipment is used in a more
variable fashion over time. As long as non-utilised equipment is turned off this has little or
no effect on the per unit environmental impact .
Final assembly process
Process: Final assembly
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
3
6
Building and delivering the car in three days is likely to have an impact on the final
assembly process through shorter lead-times for meeting schedules and assembly as well
as increasing assembly line manning to cater for any reasonable mix of vehicle sequence
on the assembly track. These effects however are not likely to have a significant impact on
the environment.
End of Life vehicles
Process: End of life
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
4
1
4
A car built and delivered in three days will not have an impact on the process of vehicle
recycling unless the design of components and materials for ease of assembly is in conflict
with taking them apart in disassembly and in the recycling process (Howard, 2000a).
There may also be opportunities in the outbound logistics operation to take into account
end of life vehicles to increase scale and scope for logistics schemes which may reduce
the logistics impacts for a 3-day car as well as the logistics impacts (and cost) of end of life
vehicle collection and dismantling (ECG 2001).
26
Confidential
Vehicle painting
As shown in previous 3DayCar work, vehicle painting could be a serious inhibitor due to
process reliability problems as well as environmental concerns (Howard, 2000b).
There are three types of paint: solvent-based; water-borne; and powder. The first two
types include volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that the US Clean Air Act and the EU
VOC Directive aim to restrict. From an environment point of view, there should be a
movement from solvent through water towards powder based paints
Emissions have already dropped by 80% since 1975, but the costs of the sophisticated
pollution controls necessary to do this have been extremely high. When the paint dries the
solvent evaporates and there is a polymerization of the pigment: the small molecules bind
into larger molecules. This turns the solvent into volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which
are known to cause respiratory problems’ especially when they transform to ozone in the
atmosphere. Despite the improvements, VOC emissions are still a major cause for
concern and nearly all vehicle manufacturers report their performance in terms of Figure 9.
VOCs produced per vehicle / kg
7
VOC / Kg
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
BMW
DCX
Vauxhall
PSA
Figure 9: Showing typical average VOC pollution in kilograms per vehicle - based on
environmental reports for 1999/2000
There are three coats applied to a car in the painting process. The more solvent used in
these paint preparations the greater is the environmental impact. The bottom layer is the
primer surface, which can be any of the three types (powder, water- or solvent-borne). The
colour coat is the centre material in the sandwich of the surface of a painted vehicle and
can be either water or solvent borne. The top surface is the clear coat, which can also be
one of the three types, although water-borne clear coat is unlikely to be particularly widespread. There is possibly only one plant using a water-borne clear coat in Europe. This is
a GM facility in what was once East Germany (Vasilash, 1996).
Water-borne coatings require stringent control of both the temperature and humidity, much
more so than solvent-based coatings. Unless a new paint plant is built, it is likely that
water-borne clear coats will be the exception not the rule for the present.
Paint managers have stated that an ideal combination could be water-based primer; waterbased base coat; super high solids-clear coat. Totally solvent-free powder primers are
available, and powder clearcoats are on the way with BMW already using them. Instead of
adding waste to the floor, powder overspray falls to the bottom of spray booths like talcum
powder and is collected and reused, thus reducing pollution very considerably.
27
Confidential
In an "ideal" lean production 3DayCar scenario, the capability of painting bodies in a batch
size of one would be required. However, there are purging issues when changing colour
coats that must be addressed. Paint lines and guns must not contain residues from the
previous colour at batch changeover and this takes time, affecting productivity and
increasing environmental impact.
The trend has been towards 'block' painting 20 - 200 vehicles of the same colour2 & 3. But
3DayCar research shows that the average batch size is only 12 in our sample of 5 paint
plants. This is still far too large for 3DayCar unless a large painted body store is available.
Process: Vehicle painting
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
5
3
15
4.2 Impact on the paint process
The vehicle manufacturer paint process is the only area which is likely to be associated
with negative impacts from implementing a 3DayCar. The following section will describe
why this is the case.
In a 3DayCar, other than the requirement to paint customer ordered colours for each day,
which will be sequenced on an hourly basis, the priority is to build cars in batches for
efficient outbound logistics distribution and to comply with component restrictions etc.
before considering paint batches.
While 80% of the bodies will be painted in only 20% of the colour range, the last 20% of
orders will be a mixture of all other colours of which there are likely to be 10 or more. While
the popular colours such as red or silver can probably be painted in reasonable batch
sizes, the less popular colours will need to have the capability of being painted in batches
of 1 to ensure the 3-day car timing and scheduling flexibility.
There is some argument over the use of a painted body store (PBS)4 in order to solve
unreliability and batching of colour issues in the paint shop. The PBS stocks painted car
bodies but must hold all the possible variants of painted bodies to ensure final assembly is
supplied in line with each customer order requirement. This potentially large store is
considered to be waste and improvements in process and flexibility are required to
mitigate the need for such a store.
Therefore, the impact of 3DayCar would be to reduce paint batch sizes from the survey
average of 12 cars to probably around 4 cars. Improvements in the process are thus still
required since using more solvent will increase the pollution from the paint shop.
2
Gary S. Vasilash Automotive Production, April 1996 v108 n4 p38(4) Painting: a primer of the state of the
technology. (car and truck painting)(Cover Story).
3
http://www.afonline.com/snew.html
4
Also known as an Automated Storage and Retrieval Bank (ASR Bank)
28
Confidential
0.60
The impact of batch size on emissions
Purge solvent
emissions - kg/car
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Average batch size
Figure 10: Impact of reducing paint batch sizes due to purging solvent increase
For a typical paint shop, there is an average emission of 4kg (see figure 10) and an
average usage of purging solvent of 0.5kg for each purging cycle5. If the average batch
size for paint were to drop from the current 12 cars to 4 cars as might be expected for a 3day car, the amount of purging solvent needed would increase by 3 times. If the average
batch size were to reach 1 then the purging solvent use would increase by over 10 times.
In comparison to the total solvent emissions this is significant enough to review emission
authorisation and so to avoid this strategies for reducing solvent emissions should be
implemented.
Due to the highly specific and localised nature of assembly plant air pollution it is not
possible to estimate the total impacts of a generic facility since it depends on the following
factors:
•
Exact solvent emission reduction equipment (Such as thermal oxidisers) in place
•
Exact type of paint material used - high solid, water based, powder slurry, powder coat
•
Average batch size – the nature of the purging process and the quantity of solvent
used.
•
Vehicle area sprayed - m3 and total Kg solvent used
•
Location and sensitivity of local residential areas
•
Prevailing local climate conditions
4.3 Better air quality from vehicle manufacturing
The ideal process would be one with the lowest VOC content since this is the area of
greatest impact both overall and from a 3DayCar production process point of view. The
following chart (Figure 11) shows by how much an ideal process would reduce the
impacts. This type of strategy is comparable to that taken by BMW when replacing or upgrading paint plants.
5
From interviews with paint plant engineers
29
Confidential
Figure 11: Typical emissions from comparative strategies on painting, (Boustead et al.,
2000)6
The graph shows the impact on different types of emission7 from a paint plant.
In addition alternative body construction methods also some possible opportunities to
reducing the impacts of car body colouring (Howard, 2000c). In mould painted panels have
demonstrated less environmental impact compared with painted panels (Kelly et al., 1997).
Summary
The major impact due to the 3DayCar on vehicle manufacturing results from changes in
the vehicle paint process. While body and final assembly processes present few
environmental problems, the paint process presents the greatest challenges. The impact
of the 3DayCar is likely to be in terms of the demand for a more responsive process to
paint cars as they are required for customer order.
Even with a painted body store, individual orders for coloured bodies will be required so
that the average batch size for paint colours will reduce. Solvent is used between each
batch to clear paint delivery lines and this releases volatile organic compounds on
evaporation which are highly detrimental to the environment. As batch sizes reduce the
solvent use increases and so the impact increases as purging solvent emission could
increase by 3 times. This can be mitigated by introducing new technologies such as water
or powder-based primer, base and clear coats. Alternatively, maintaining large paint
batches will require a large painted body store to de-couple the paint shop from customer
orders being sequenced down the final assembly track.
6
SP1=solvent primer, WB1=water basecoat, SC1=solvent clearcoat, PP1=powder primer, PP2=powder
primer, PC2=powder clearcoat
7
CO = carbon monoxide, NOx = oxides of nitrogen, Sox = oxides of sulphur, PM = particulate matter and VOC
= volatile organic compounds
30
Confidential
5.0 Outbound logistics
5.1 Impacts on the customer's doorstep
Most of the results in this section have been previously reported in the 3DayCar Logistics
Report, so data will not be repeated here apart from some of the key charts and a
summary (Holweg and Williams, 2000, Holweg et al., 2001).
Given an average of 100km per car delivered to dealers in the UK, this means that an
annual production of 200,000 cars would result in 17 million miles driven by HGVs in the
UK from one plant. UK production actually equates to 1 million vehicles which means that
the total distance could reach 100 million miles driven by HGV due to car distribution This
equates to about 44 litres of fuel per car delivered8, almost twice that for inbound delivery
of components to a UK plant.
Plant
Plant
DC
DC//
Compound
Compound
Dealer
Dealer
3-4 days
Dealer
Dealer
Dealer
Dealer
Figure 12: Typical outbound logistics structure
5.2 Effects of shorter delivery lead time
Key facts
One of the key environmental impacts of transport is global warming. This can be
expressed in terms of the contribution of CO2 emissions from fuel combustion. Moving
from the current 3-4 day delivery to 1-day delivery means a significant increase in CO2
production as shown in figure 13 below. This represents a shift from 176,000 to 197,000
tonnes of CO2 produced each year from vehicle distribution in the UK.
8
This equates to about 43% of the total transport costs.
31
Confidential
Total UK CO2 increase with 1-day delivery
200
195
CO2/T '000s
190
185
180
175
170
165
Current
One day delivery
Figure 13: Global warming potential of vehicle distribution in the UK
Recent European research into the external costs of transport have produced figures per
truck kilometre of the impact on human health, ecology and global warming (Bickel et al.,
1997). For the 3DayCar this total impact is summarised in the following chart (Fig 14).
Total environment costs
£8
Total environmental costs per car for 1-day delivery
Non-urban kms
£7
Urban/inter-urban kms
£6
£5
£4
£3
£2
£1
£0
Current
One day delivery
Figure 14: The 'per car' environmental cost to society of vehicle delivery
The costs are seen to increase by around £2 or 30% per car produced.
Process: Vehicle delivery
Process Impact
3DayCar Impact
Total Impact
Score
2
5
10
32
Confidential
5.3 Customer delivery - not a green compromise!
Technology needs
Vehicle technology
The predominance of vehicle deliveries being in urban areas means that low emission
technology will have the greatest benefit (compared with operational improvements - with
85% improvement possible) in reducing the impact of pollution since the population is most
sensitive there. Such technology includes fuel efficient tractor units, exhaust gas
recirculation units, particulate traps and dual fuel engine capability. These types of
technologies attract certain compensatory grants in the UK, for example the powershift
programme and the green fuel challenge.
Information technology
In order to maximise utilisation of capacity there are many opportunities in the field of
collaborative arrangements with other players, both between logistics companies and
between various uses of transporters such as for direct delivery of new vehicles, dealer
transfers, used cars, and vehicle recycling. The potential of e-commerce and open access
trading systems would allow a combination of activities to be sold as slots on transporters
for a certain geographic area, and particularly increase backload capacity usage after the
initial load has be delivered (Waller and Howard, 2001).
Operational needs
As detailed in previous reports there are numerous opportunities to reduce the impact of
shorter delivery lead-times. These include multi-franchise movement of vehicles,
diversifying the transporter fleet, enabling 24 hour delivery and rationalisation of
import/export ports and are explained in other reports (Holweg et al., 2001).
Summary
Vehicle distribution will be affected by a 3DayCar due to the requirement for all vehicles to
be delivered in 24 hours. Delivering cars in one day from a UK factory to dealers in the UK
leads to more dealers being delivered to on each load, with consequently greater
distances travelled in total.. 3DayCar research suggests this can increase truck distances
by 30% with a corresponding increase in fuel use. A combination of improving truck
technologies and operational changes such as multi-franchise delivery, a greater mix of
transporter capacities utilising smaller trucks, more planning time and integration with
other vehicle flows such as end of life vehicles or used cars, will decrease this impact to
less than a 10% increase. Additionally the need for large vehicle holding compounds will
be removed and land use impacts improved.
33
Confidential
6.0 3DayCar impacts: the vehicle life cycle perspective
Putting the impacts of 3DayCar into perspective involves extensive reading of papers such
as those in the following references.(Chul Kim et al., 2000, Gibson, 2000, Harsch, 2000,
MacLean et al., 2000).
Looking at the main life cycle stages and ranking them in order of the importance of the
impact of 3DayCar, it is possible to take a view on which impacts should be addressed
first. The following table ranks the processes in descending order, the highest score
indicating the greatest impact on the environment.
PROCESS
Delphi
score
(1-5)
5
3DayCar
score
(1-5)
3
1
Vehicle painting
2
Metal finishing
4
3
4
Vehicle delivery
2
5
3
Inbound logistics
2
5
5
Supplier logistics
3
3
6
Plastic moulding
3
3
7
Body assembly
2
4
8
Final assembly
1
5
9
End of life vehicle
5
1
10
Foundry - Sand casting
4
1
11
Foundry - Die casting
4
1
12
Machining
1
4
13
Metal Fabrication
1
2
14
Plastic fabrication
2
1
SCORE
15
12
10
10
9
9
8
5
5
4
4
4
2
2
From this table it is suggested that the areas needing first attention will be vehicle painting,
metal finishing, and then logistics, to ensure that the environmental impacts associated
with a 3DayCar are minimised.
34
Confidential
7.0 Future issues within the 3DayCar scenarios
The table below outline the main environmental features of build-to-order processes from
the perspective of 3 scenarios. Although the 3DayCar has been discussed in general in
the previous sections it is important to consider the possible implementation stages
For definition of attributes of 3DayCar scenarios refer to simulation work in the 3DayCar.
Process
Production strategy
Industry structure
Vehicle delivery
Pre3Daycar
Build to order and
some locate and
amend to order
Supply chain
As now - but more
distance due to locate
to order (16)
3DayCar
Build-to-order
Radical 3DayCar
Build to order at local
assembly plants
Supply network
Consolidation and info
means impacts up 5%
(15)
Vehicle painting
As now (5)
Supplier logistics
As now (4)
Inbound logistics
As now (4)
More frequent delivery
needed (10)
Metal finishing
As now (4)
Plastic moulding
As now (4)
As now but Smaller
batches/ higher stock
(12)
Smaller batches/
higher stock (9)
Body assembly
As now (4)
(8)
Final assembly
As now (1)
(5)
End of life vehicle
As now (5)
As now (5)
Foundry - Sand
casting
Foundry - Die casting
Machining
Metal Fabrication
Plastic fabrication
Total score
As now (4)
As now (4)
Industry network
Low delivery impact due to
local assembly - as local
build and delivery less
intercontinental transport
(12)
In-mould colour panels - no
paint shop - reduced VOC
local emissions (4)
Highly consolidated
delivery to plants from
regional hubs - more
effective logistics and late
configuration at hubs more
T/km - (8)
Highly consolidated
delivery to plants from
regional hubs - Modules &
kits - high freq. & efficiency
so more T/km (8)
Only base finish - no colour
- poss. low emissions &
resource efficient (4)
Greater % of moulding,
plus in colour - energy up
slightly, some emissions,
no solvents (8)
Local kit assembly - As
now, more manual(?) - (3)
Modular assembly - as now
(1)
Re-use of kit parts and
modules - possible
refurb/re-marketing
possible (4)
Same as now (4)
As now (4)
As now (2)
As now (1)
As now (1)
59
As now (4)
Smaller batches ?(4)
No impact (2)
No impact (1)
Same as now (4)
At supplier sites (2)
At regional hubs (1)
At regional hubs (1)
Maintain batch size
through PBS impact
same (10)
More frequent
possible (9)
99
35
63
Confidential
The three scenarios in the table above represent a possible route from current practices
through delivery of a 3DayCar within the auspices of current supply chain production
configuration, to the ultimate of a radical 3DayCar with the lowest environmental impacts
due to a reconfiguration of the process. The pre-3DayCar represents a slightly lower
environmental impact because paintshop batches are not affected and the delivery leadtimes not reduced. In this case, 3-day order to delivery is not possible on a completely
stockless basis.
The 3DayCar scenario is in line with the process described within this report and is thought
of as the most feasible process framework at present.
The radical 3DayCar scenario shows how environmental impacts could be further reduced
through changes in logistics system design (location of suppliers, locations of satellite
plants and location of vehicle assembly plants) and vehicle manufacturer car colouring
processes. The radical 3DayCar option requires significant changes to vehicle designs,
including greater use of modularity and standardisation in vehicle systems and body
structures, including spaceframes and plastic coloured panels (Williams, 2001).
For all cars to be built to order in a short lead time, smaller local assembly plants in each
market or region are necessary. However, breaking current economies of scales would
require a re-think in vehicle concept and design.
The following chart suggests a possible scenario for the radical 3DayCar.
Possible Radical 3DayCar
scenario
Enables BTO of most vehicles in each
market. Using multi-model brand plants
multi-brand model (e.g. MPV or SUV)
modules and large supplier hubs
Multi-brand/model supply delivery
Supplier Hub
Multi-model brand assembly
Multi-brand model assembly
Capacity per plant would need to be 250,000 unit / yr
Figure 15 - possible arrangement of assembly plants, supplier parks and supplier
hubs
In this scenario it is possible to imagine a number of vehicle manufacturing sites in each
market which are served by local supplier parks. These plants could either offer assembly
of many models for one brand or single model types (such as minivans, MPVs or SUV) for
36
Confidential
a number of brands rather like AutoEuropa for the Galaxy/Sharan/Alhambra vehicles. The
supplier parks, as now, can late configure parts, modules and systems to the customer
order in a very short lead-time. These supplier parks would be served in turn by large
supplier hubs (or industrial parks) which would be the main sourcing point for the region or
market for all automotive components. Ideally, these should all be located in one place
within each region or, practically, at as few locations as possible. Rail distribution would
then be far more feasible due to the volume of delivery to the supplier parks around
assembly plants. Serving a number of plants from one site would also allow changes in
volume for one brand to be buffered by production for other brands so that sole supplier
implications (relying on only one customer for volume) does not adversely effect
economies of scale.
The exact configuration of the radical 3DayCar scenario needs to be simulated to
understand the benefits operationally and environmentally and further work in the 3DayCar
programme will address some of these opportunities.
37
Confidential
Appendix A
Environmental priorities survey
Automotive sector processes - environmental implications
This is a simplistic and subjective scoring of the environmental impacts of selected
industrial processes in the automotive sector. Please take no more than 5 minutes to
complete the table. It is an 'expert opinion-based survey' and not a detailed analytical
comparison. Participation ensures you receive a copy of the final report.
Please score these processes in order of the importance of their environmental impact.
1= not important (no regulations/no costs incurred), 5 = Very important (regulation/high
costs incurred)
Process
Score
(1-5)
Supply 1) Foundry - Sand casting
Supply 2) Foundry - Die casting
Supply 3) Metal Fabrication (cutting, slitting, not forging etc)
Supply 4) Machining (gears, transmissions)
Supply 5) Metal finishing (treating/coating)
Supply 6) Plastic moulding and coating
Supply 7) Plastic fabrication (cutting, shaping)
Log 1)
Logistics into suppliers (from 2nd/3rd tiers)
Log 2)
Logistics into VM (from all suppliers - local/global)
VM 1)
Vehicle Body assembly (framing, welding)
VM 2)
Vehicle painting
VM 3)
Vehicle final assembly
38
Confidential
Log 3)
Vehicle delivery - factory to customer (incl. Global
distribution)
Dis 1)
End of life vehicle - collection, dismantling & recycling
This data will be averaged across a number of respondents. Individual responses will not
be used. The ranks will be weighted according to the possible impacts of 'build-to-order' on
the process.
Please complete the table then email/fax back on [email protected]
01225 323398. Many thanks for your time.
39
/
Statistics of the sample for the restricted Delphi survey
Descriptive Statistics
N
Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
SANDCAST
6
3
5
4.00
.63
DIECAST
6
2
5
3.50
1.22
METALFAB
6
1
3
1.67
.82
MACHNG
6
1
4
2.33
1.21
METALFIN
6
1
5
3.50
1.64
PLASMOLD
6
1
4
2.83
1.33
PLASFAB
6
1
3
1.83
.75
LOGSUP
6
1
4
2.67
1.37
LOGVM
6
1
4
2.33
1.21
BODYASSM
6
1
2
1.67
.52
PAINTING
6
4
5
4.67
.52
FINASSM
6
1
3
1.83
.98
LOGDLR
6
1
4
2.50
1.38
ELV
6
1
5
3.83
1.60
Valid N (listwise)
6
Statistics
Confidential
SANDCAST DIECAST METALFAB MACHNG METALFIN PLASMOLD PLASFAB LOGSUP LOGVM BODYASSM PAINTING FINASSM
N
LOGDLR
ELV
Valid
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Missing
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
4.00
3.50
1.67
2.33
3.50
2.83
1.83
2.67
2.33
1.67
4.67
1.83
2.50
3.83
Median
4.00
4.00
1.50
2.50
4.00
3.00
2.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
5.00
1.50
2.50
4.50
Mode
4
4
1
1
4
4
2
1
1
2
5
1
1
5
Std.
.63
1.22
.82
1.21
1.64
1.33
.75
1.37
1.21
.52
.52
.98
1.38
1.60
Variance
.40
1.50
.67
1.47
2.70
1.77
.57
1.87
1.47
.27
.27
.97
1.90
2.57
Range
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
3
3
1
1
2
3
4
Deviation
a Multiple modes exist. The smallest value is shown
The criteria used to assess the impact of the 3daycar were as follows
1 - No impact
2 - Less time to plan operations
3 - Less time and more volume variability - mostly covered by current stock objectives
4 - Less time and more volume variability - must modify process (batch sizes, production and delivery frequencies)
5 - Strongest impact on the process due to volume variation, mix variation and less time to plan operations
41
References
Bickel, P., Schmidt, S., Krewitt, W. and Friedrich, R. (1997) External Costs of Transport in
ExternE, European Commission, Brussels,
Boustead, I., Yaros, B. R. and Papasavva (2000) Eco-labels and eco-indices: do they
make sense?, Proceedings of the total life cycle conference, Detroit, USA, April 2000
Chul Kim, H., Keoleian, G. A., Spatari, S. and Bulkley, J. W. (2000) Optimizing Vehicle life
using life cycle energy analysis and dynamic replacement modelling, Proceedings of the
Total Life Cycle Conference, Detroit, Michigan,
Danholt, A. and Bragg, G. (1996) Materials: a key to 100 years of automotive progress,
Automotive Engineering, 104, 93-99.
DTI (2000) The environmental impacts of motor manufacturing and disposal of end of life
vehicles, Report of the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force, London, DTI/Pub
4655/2k/2/00/NP,pp.
EDF (1999), Vol. 2001 Environmental Defense Fund.
Gibson, T. (2000) Life cycle assessment of advanced materials for automotive
applications, Proceedings of the Total Life Cycle Conference, Detroit, Michigan,
Harsch, M. (2000) Life cycle simulation as R&D tool, Proceedings of the Total Life Cycle
Conference, Detroit, Michigan,
Holweg, M. (1999) The system under the microscope & Enablers and inhibitors, 3DayCar
Conference, Stratford-upon-Avon, 6th December 1999
Holweg, M. (2001) Component supply - current and future processes, 3DayCar
Conference, DTI, London,
Holweg, M. (2002) The 3DayCar Component Supplier Study - Investigating the
implications of responsive vehicle supply on the component supply chain, 3DayCar
Programme, Solihull,
Holweg, M. and Jones, D. T. (2001) In Manufacturing Operations and Supply Chain
Management(Eds, Taylor, D. T. and Brunt, D. C.) Thomson International, London.
Holweg, M., Miemczyk, J. and Williams, G. (2001) The 3DayCar Logistics Study - How to
organise automotive logistics in a build-to-order environment, 3DayCar Programme,
Solihull, 05/01, SE4-5/01,pp. 81
Confidential
Holweg, M. and Williams, G. (2000) Mapping inbound and outbound logistics, 3DayCar
Conference, Bath, 26th June 2000
Howard, M. (2000a) The impact of vehicle design on rapid build to order, 3DayCar
Programme, Solihull, T4 - 12/00,pp. 49
Howard, M. (2000b) The Paintshop Survey, 3DayCar Programme, Solihull, 1/2000, T11/00,pp. 31
Howard, M. (2000c) Spaceframes, 3DayCar Programme, Solihull, T2-1/00,pp. 22
Howard, M. and Miemczyk, J. (2000) Key technology and environmental aspects, 3DayCar
Conference, Cardiff, Marriott Hotel, 11th December 2000
Kelly, K. E., Overly, J. G., Socolof, M. L. and Davis, G. A. (1997) Environmental evaluation
of molding exterior body panels in color, Society of Automotive Engineers Conference,
Keoleian, G. A., Krishnendu, K., Manion, M. M. and Bulkley, J. W. (1997) Industrial
Ecology of the Automobile: a life cycle perspective, SAE, Warrendale, PA.
Kincaid, L. E., Geibig, J., Miller, M. and Sparks, J. (2000) Life-cycle management in the
automotive supply chain: Results of a survey of Saturn Tier 1 suppliers, Proceedings of the
Total Life Cycle Conference, Detroit, Michigan,
MacLean, H., Lankey, R., Joshi, S., McMichael, F., Horvath, A. and Hendrickson, C.
(2000) Life cycle inventories of conventional and alternative automobile fuel/propulsion
systems: summary and conclusions, Proceedings of the Total Life Cycle Conference,
Detroit, Michigan, 26-28 April 2000
RCEP (1994) Transport and the Environment, Royal Commission on Environmental
Pollution, London, October, Eighteenth Report,pp.
Vasilash, G. S. (1996) Painting: a primer of the state of the art, Automotive Production,
108, 38.
Waller, B. and Howard, M. (2001) IT Systems requirements for 3DayCar: Organising
responsive information technology systems for a build-to-order environment, 3DayCar
Programme, Solihull, MT5-12/01,pp. 80
Weber, A. (1991) Plastics in Automotive Engineering: use and re-use, Materials and
Design, 12.
Williams, G. (2001) The Radical 3DayCar, 3DayCar Conference, DTI, London, 3/7/2001
44