Content uploaded by Jim Bowyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jim Bowyer on Apr 24, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Jim Bowyer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jim Bowyer on Jan 08, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
!
UNDERSTANDING STEEL RECOVERY
AND RECYCLING RATES AND
LIMITATIONS TO RECYCLING
DR. JIM BOWYER
STEVE BRATKOVICH
KATHRYN FERNHOLZ
MATT FRANK
HARRY GROOT
DR. JEFF HOWE
DR. ED PEPKE
23 MARCH 2015
Dovetail Partners Page 2 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
Understanding Steel Recovery and Recycling Rates and Limitations to Recycling
The Decoupling Concept
Recycling is receiving renewed attention these days. Based on rising concern about the dual and
reinforcing effects of continuing population growth and rising consumption, a program to
markedly accelerate progress toward greater recycling of resources has been proposed (OECD
2010, UNEP 2011, Smil 2014). Described by the term “decoupling,” the basic premise is that
economic growth and increasing consumption does not necessarily require parallel increases in
resource extraction and the environmental degradation that often goes with it. The idea is to
decouple consumption and resource use by making more efficient use of physical materials, such
as steel and other metals, in part through greater recycling. Given that recycling reduces the need
for resource extraction, typically requires far less energy consumption than when processing
virgin raw materials, and results in lower emissions and other environmental impacts, it is not
surprising that this is a key strategy in the decoupling effort.
Getting a Handle on Steel Recycling Rates
Given the goals of the decoupling model, a first priority is to examine those resources used in
greatest quantity and those linked to the greatest environmental impacts. Steel qualifies on both
criteria since annually used quantities are 8-9 times greater than all other metals combined, and
in view of the fact that five of the next nine most-consumed metals (manganese, nickel, titanium,
cobalt, and chromium) are commonly incorporated within steel products as alloying components
or coatings.
Iron and steel account for about 90% of the mass of all metals consumed in the United States
each year. This is also true globally. Iron is a basic element, and its primary use is as a raw
material for production of steel. The production of steel first requires the production of an
intermediate material called pig iron, which is produced by combining iron and carbon in a
Executive Summary
In an era in which waste recovery, recycling, and recycled content are high on society’s
agenda, improvement of recycling performance is on the radar screens of almost every
product manufacturer. Increased impetus for more extensive recycling is the focus of an
emerging environmental initiative to decouple increasing consumption from needs for
additional resource extraction. A central goal is to reduce environmental impacts of
consumption.
To achieve improvement in recycling rates first requires an understanding of what recycling
statistics mean and current recovery and recycling rates. In this report we examine recycling
rates for steel, the metal used in 8-9 times greater quantity than all other metals combined. We
found that commonly used definitions of recycling serve to obscure actual recovery and
recycling performance, that there are considerable losses of material with each use cycle, and
that the often cited claim that steel is continuously recyclable without loss of quality is not
true. We also found a much greater potential for steel recovery and recycling than is currently
being realized.
!
Dovetail Partners Page 3 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
smelting process involving use of a high carbon fuel, such as charcoal or coke in the presence of
limestone. Pig iron is then used to make steel, wrought iron or ingot iron. Wrought iron is used to
make lawn furniture and decorative fencing, and ingot iron is used in making cast-iron products
ranging from skillets and outdoor cookers to weight-lifting equipment.
In making steel, a majority of impurities in the pig iron are removed, particularly elements such
as silicon, phosphorous, sulfur and some carbon. The resulting steel has a consistent
concentration of carbon1 with the balance relatively pure iron. Steel is used to make a wide range
of structural and non-structural products. Other elements are commonly added to steel to create
alloys in order to increase such properties as tensile strength, hardness, melting temperature, and
resistance to metal fatigue.
Widely Differing Estimates
There is considerable steel recycling activity in North America, so much so that a casual
investigation of recycling rates suggests little room for improvement. For instance, steel recovery
rates as reported by the Steel Recycling Institute suggest opportunities for only marginal
improvement (Table 1). These percentages are often highlighted in promotional literature.
Table&1&
Steel&Recycling&Rates&in&North&America&as&Reported&by&the&Steel&Recycling&Institute&a/!!b/!&
Steel&Recycling&Rates&by&Year&
Steel&Recycling&Rates&by&Sector&–&2013&
2010!
!!88%!
Steel!containers!
70%!
2011!
!!92%!
Automotive!
85%!
2012!
!!88%!
Steel!appliances!
82%!
2013!
!!81%!
Structural!steel!
!!!97.5%!
a/!!!Steel!Recycling!Institute!(2014a)!
b/!!!!!Values!include!recycling!of!iron!
The steel recycling rate is an expression of the quantity of scrap reprocessed in any given
year as a percentage of the volume of scrap available. It does not indicate recycled content of
steel. Estimates of steel recycling rates differ considerably depending upon who is doing the
calculations.
The Steel Recycling Institute estimates shown in Table 1 were obtained using a liberal definition
of steel discards (scrap), and volumes of scrap deemed to be unrecoverable were excluded from
calculations. When a more strict definition of scrap is used, and all scrap steel discards are
considered in calculations, steel recycling rates are much less impressive.
For instance, consider the 2012 Steel Recycling Institute (SRI) reported recycling rate as shown
in Table 1, in comparison to iron and steel recycling rate estimates for the same year by the U.S.
Geological Survey (2014), and the Canadian Steel Producer’s Association (CSPA) (2015):
• 2012 steel recycling rate as reported by SRI: 88%
• 2012 steel recycling rate as reported by USGS: 59%
• 2012 steel recycling rate as reported by CSPA: ~60%
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
1 Up to 2% by weight.
Dovetail Partners Page 4 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
The differences lie in the definitions of recycling used as a basis for calculation, and in what is
and isn’t counted when considering the volume of scrap.
The recycling rate is only one measure of the efficiency with which steel is produced and reused
at the end of product life. Other measures include the old scrap recovery rate, recycled content,
and the end-of-life recycling rate. All of these measures yield values that are far below those
shown in Table 1.
To understand reported recycling rates and why they differ, it is necessary to have a cursory
understanding of the various types of steel scrap, and the basic steelmaking processes in which
scrap is used.
Definitions and Effects on Reported Recovery and Recycling Rates
Steel scrap (steel potentially available for recycling) is classified in three main categories:
• Home scrap – Home scrap, also known as runaround scrap, is material in the form of
trimmings or rejects generated within a steel mill during the process of producing iron
and steel. As this scrap never leaves the steel mill site, and has known physical properties
and chemical composition, it is typically immediately or quickly reprocessed. Home
scrap accounts for approximately 21% of scrap recycled in the U.S. (USGS 2014). In
2012, home scrap averaged 11% of ferrous inputs to steel manufacturing across the U.S.
industry as a whole (Morici et al. 2013).
• New scrap – New scrap, also known as prompt scrap, is generated within manufacturing
plants involved in fabricating steel products. This scrap is often returned directly to the
mill that produced the steel, usually within weeks or months. The chemical composition
of this scrap is generally well known. Also, this scrap is typically clean, meaning that it is
not mixed with other materials. New scrap accounts for approximately 22% of scrap
recycled in the U.S. (USGS 2014). The quantity of new scrap incorporated into U.S.-
made steel averages about 15% of total raw material inputs (Yellishetty et al. 2012).
• Old scrap – Old scrap, also known as obsolete scrap, is steel that has been discarded at
the end of product life. The greatest volume of old scrap is composed of junk vehicles,
old appliances and machinery, old railroad tracks, and steel from demolished buildings.
Steel in mixed solid waste also includes cans and other containers as well as a wide
variety of discarded consumer products. Because old scrap is often material that has been
in use for years or decades, chemical composition and physical characteristics are not
usually well known. It is also often mixed with other trash. For all of these reasons, old
scrap is the most difficult and costly form of steel to reuse. Incorporation into recycled
products may require cleaning, sorting, removal of coatings, and other preparation prior
to use. Old scrap accounts for approximately 57% of scrap recycled in the U.S. (USGS
2014).
In reporting recovery rates and recycled content the following methods of calculation are
commonly used:
[1] Recovery rate (%) = X 100
[2] Recycling rate (%) = X 100
quantity of scrap recovered
quantity of scrap available
quantity of scrap reprocessed
quantity of scrap available
Dovetail Partners Page 5 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
[3] Recycled content (%) = X 100
In equations [1] and [2] note the term “quantity of scrap available” in the denominator. This
means that discarded steel (i.e. old scrap) deemed unrecoverable is not included in the recovery
rate and recycling rate calculations. In calculating the recycling rate and recycled content
(equations [2] and [3]), the amount of scrap reprocessed includes home, new, and old scrap.
A number of green building programs provide recognition of recycled content, but often require
differentiation of pre-consumer scrap (also called post-industrial scrap) and post-consumer scrap.
The definition of post-industrial recycled content takes into account new scrap but most often
excludes home scrap. Therefore, the percentage of pre-consumer scrap is calculated as follows:
[4] Pre-consumer recycled content (%) = X 100
Post-consumer recycled content considers only the content traceable to reuse of old scrap. It is
calculated in this way:!!
[5] Post-consumer recycled content (%) = X 100
There are two reasons for the previously discussed large differences in 2012 recycling rates as
reported by the Steel Recycling Institute (88%) and those reported by USGS (59%) and CSPA
(~60%). First, calculation of the 88% rate includes home, new, and old scrap, whereas the USGS
and CSPA rates are based solely on the volume of old scrap recycled. Second, volumes of scrap
deemed unrecoverable were not included when calculating the SRI recycling rate.
Because all of the commonly used recycling formulas do not account for unrecovered discards,
there is an effort underway to focus instead on recovery and processing of old scrap for recycling
(UNEP 2011, Graedel et al. 2011, Reck and Graedel 2012). Reck and Graedel (2012) explain
that recycled content is meant to encourage an increase in the amount of old scrap that is
collected and processed for recycling. They also note that inclusion of new scrap (pre-consumer
scrap) in recycling rate calculations creates the possibility of manipulating recycled content
percentages. Use of new metrics for measuring recycling performance has been proposed (UNEP
2011), with “old scrap” defined as end-of-life scrap:
Old Scrap Recovery (OSR) (%) = X 100
The OSR metric provides a measure of what portion of end-of-life scrap is recovered for reuse or
recycling.
Recycled Content (RC) (%) = X 100
The RC indicates the extent to which end-of-life scrap is actually used in making new steel
products. Note that this is the same formula, though expressed in slightly different terms, as that
for post-consumer recycled content [equation 5].
End of Life Recovery Rate (EOL-RR)(%) = X 100
The EOL-RR is a measure of the extent to which ferrous metal contained in end-of-life steel
products is actually recycled.
quantity of scrap reprocessed
total quantity of material
quantity of old scrap used in steel production
total quantity of inputs to steel production
!
quantity of old scrap recycled
quantity of steel in old scrap
discards
quantity of old scrap recovered
quantity of old scrap generated
!
quantity of old scrap reprocessed
total quantity of material used
quantity of new scrap reprocessed
total quantity of material used
Dovetail Partners Page 6 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
Using these formulas to calculate iron and steel recovery and recycling rates again shows
considerable variation depending upon who is doing the calculating. And, as before, those
wanting to show high recovery and recycling numbers tend to exclude scrap losses when
performing calculations. Rates as determined in various studies are shown in Table 2.
Table&2&
Iron&and&Steel&Old&Scrap&Recovery&(OSR),&Recycled&Content&(RC)&and&EndGofGLIfe&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Recycling&Rates&(EOLGRR)&as&Determined&in&Various&Studies&(UNEP&2011)&
OSR&(%)&
RC&(%)&
EOLGRR&(%)&
54!1/!
52!2/!
52!3/!
52!2/!
41!3/!
67!4/!
66!3/!
28!4/!
78!5/!
65!4/!
!
90!6/!
Note:&References&are&reproduced&from&UNEP&(2011)&to&show&the&origins&and&dates&of&various&
estimates.&Full&citations&for&these&sources&do¬&appear&in&the&literature&cited§ion&of&this&
report.&
1/!UNEP!working!group!consensus!(2011)! ! 4/!Wang!et!al.!(2007)!
2/!Worldsteel!(2009)!!!!5/!Birat!(2001)!
3/!USGS!(2004);!estimates!for!1998.! ! 6/!Steel!Recycling!Institute!(2007)
As an addendum to Table 2, old scrap steel recovery from mixed solid waste in the U.S. was
only 33% in 2012 (EPA 2014). In addition, Rem et al. (2012) estimated recycled content for steel
production globally at 37%. The Bureau of International Recycling (2014) estimated the 2012
and 2013 global recycled content figures at 36.6% and 36.1%, respectively; these estimates and
those of Rem and colleagues are comparable to those shown in the center column of Table 2.
Regarding recycled content, the low RC values do not necessarily indicate poor performance on
the part of steel manufacturers. Globally, the percentage of reused scrap is partially a function of
scrap supply, which is typically limited in recently developed or emerging economies that have
only recently put large quantities of steel into use.
Steel Recycling Mills
The vast majority of scrap recycled in the U.S. is processed using one of two steel production
technologies:
• Basic oxygen furnace (BOF)
• Electric arc furnace (EAF)
As is discussed in more detail in subsequent paragraphs, EAF technology is limited to production
of large structural shapes such as bars, beams, and columns due to inability to totally remove
contaminants from the scrap steel processed. Contaminants create performance problems in
thinner, lighter products. BOF technology, in which the portion of old scrap steel used as input is
strictly controlled, is employed in production of flat products, such as rolled steel used to make
automobile bodies, steel studs, and numerous other products.
Steel produced in mills using these technologies is referred to as BOF and EAF steel. The
percentage of scrap that can be processed in a BOF mill is generally less than 30-35%. The
recycled content of steel from North American BOF mills is about 30%. In contrast, up to 100%
scrap can be used as input to an EAF mill. In the United States about 60% of steel is produced in
by the EAF process, with the average recycled content of EAF steel about 90%.
Dovetail Partners Page 7 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
Unrecoverable Discards
In an extensive examination of discarded and end-use steel products, Damath (2010) found that
end-use products discarded in the U.S. during the 2004-2009 period contained an average of
approximately 87.2 million tons of ferrous material. Of this, an average of 65 million tons were
recoverable scrap and 47.5 million tons were recovered, leaving 17.5 million tons of recoverable
but unrecovered scrap, and 22.2 tons of unrecoverable scrap.2 This translates to 54.4% recovery,
with 25.5% of total discards unrecoverable. Damath also estimated that 448.7 million tons of
obsolete ferrous scrap would be generated during the period 2010 through 2014, with about 104
million tons of this unrecoverable.
A surprising finding is that discarded construction materials generated more recoverable obsolete
ferrous scrap (33.2%) during 2004-2009 than any other end-use product category. Also
surprising with regard to unrecoverable discards is that 32% of steel construction material
discards are not recoverable.
The reason for the large quantity of unrecoverable discards, as explained by Damath, is twofold.
First, about 1% of steel in use is lost through corrosion, wear, and tear. Secondly, and more
important, is the reality that many end-use products are discarded in a manner or place that does
not allow for recovery of their ferrous material. He noted that such material includes much of
that sent to dumps or landfills, material destroyed in secondary use, and material in products
discarded in remote locations.
Steel discards (i.e., steel in landfills or steel scattered across the landscape in the form of obsolete
vehicles or equipment) are sometimes viewed as simply part of a large steel inventory that can be
mined at some future date. As of the end of 2009 this “inventory” was estimated at 1.18 billion
tons. Realistically, however, a portion of this material will never become available, in part due to
ongoing corrosion losses estimated at 0.36 percent per year, and low quality and/or retrieval cost
issues (Damath 2010).
Infinite Recyclability – Fact or Fiction?
In recent industry literature, steel is described as “100% recyclable at the end of its long life”
(Steel Recycling Institute 2014b), “100% recyclable without loss of quality” (Worldsteel
Association 2013), and “infinitely recyclable” (SSMA 2011). Infinite recyclability is echoed in a
recent OECD report (2010). These claims, however, are at odds with reality. As explained by
Reck and Graedel (2012), “Metals are infinitely recyclable in principle, but in practice, recycling
is often inefficient or essentially nonexistent because of limits imposed by social behavior,
product design, recycling technologies, and the thermodynamics of separation.” A major issue
with regard to steel is contamination that occurs with each round of recycling. Yellishetty et al.
(2012) put it this way: “Beyond the difficulty in recovering all steel for recycling, there are also
problems related to separation of various metals used in steel alloys and coatings.”
Approximately 10% of the steel scrap that becomes available globally each year (about 50
million tons) is post-consumer scrap that is contaminated with various metallic and non-metallic
mineral elements (Rem et al. 2012). Obsolete scrap may also be mixed with or coated with other
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2 87.2 – 65.0 = 22.2 million tons of unrecoverable scrap; 65.0 – 47.5 = 17.5 million tons of recoverable, but
unrecovered scrap; 47.5/87.5 x 100 = 54.4% recovery; 22.2/87.5 x 100 = 25.5% of discards unrecoverable.
Dovetail Partners Page 8 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
materials such as glass and plastics. Moreover, the chemical composition of obsolete scrap
fluctuates widely depending on its origin and degree of processing (Janke et al. 2000).
The major source of contamination of steel scrap is the steelmaking process itself. As reported by
Yellishetty et al. (2011), there are many different grades of steel with many different physical
and chemical properties made by adding various metals to steel in the form of alloying elements.
Metals introduced into the steelmaking process to create alloys include aluminum, chromium,
cobalt, copper, magnesium, nickel, silicon, tungsten, and vanadium. Metals are also sometimes
added as coatings to increase corrosion resistance, with zinc and tin the most common.
Phosphorous and sulfur are also often added to steel as part of the manufacturing process.
Problems posed by non-ferrous minerals in scrap steel recycling have been extensively studied.
As noted by Yellishetty et al. (2011) it is well established that each time scrap steel is re-
circulated the concentration of residuals rise, thereby making processing more difficult. The
presence of copper, tin, nickel and molybdenum in scrap steel have been found to pose the
greatest challenge, as they are very difficult to extract from scrap by metallurgical processes and
tend to increase in concentration with successive recycling. Copper and tin contamination is
especially problematic (Savov et al. 2003, Rod et al. 2006). Chromium, lead, manganese, and
zinc can also be difficult to remove completely. The main source of zinc contamination in scrap
is the recycling of zinc-coated steel (Janke et al. 2000). The buildup of residual elements over
time makes refining difficult, reducing the market value of recycled metal with each cycle of
recovery (Wernick et al. 1998, Yellishetty et al. (2011).
When steel is used to make large structural shapes such as bars, beams, and columns, and other
steel products that have more lenient residual element restrictions, the residual elements problem
resulting from use of scrap in steelmaking is minimized (Rod et al. 2006); in this case, problems
are simply buried within a large mass of material such that they have minimal impact on final
product properties. Such products are largely produced by the EAF process which uses a large
proportion of scrap as input. When making flat products, such as rolled steel used to make things
such as automobile bodies and steel studs, contamination must be carefully controlled; these
products are produced via the BOF process.
The EAF steelmaking process removes many contaminants in the re-melting process. However,
not all contaminants can be removed, and that is why the use of steel produced by this process is
limited to large structural shapes. In BOF steelmaking, contaminant removal is even more
difficult, a problem that is dealt with by strictly limiting the volume of scrap mixed with pig iron,
or in limiting scrap input to home and prompt scrap, the chemical makeup of which is better
known than that of old scrap. In this way, contaminants are minimized, allowing BOF mills to
produce flat products and rolled steel sheets where the presence of contaminants may present
significant problems.
In both the BOF and EAF steelmaking processes many of the alloying elements that are
successfully removed from scrap are lost through stack emissions or become incorporated into
slag that remains following re-melting. Only a small fraction of these are used in new alloys
(Sibley 2011). When very high percentages of scrap are used as input to the recycling process,
such as in EAF mills, about 1.085 metric tons of scrap is needed for each ton of steel produced
(steelonthenet.com 2014). Therefore, about 8% of the material entering the furnace is lost to the
steel production process, ending up either as recaptured contaminants, air emissions, or within
Dovetail Partners Page 9 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
slag. The primary metallic hazardous air pollutants from steel manufacturing in the U.S. are
manganese, chromium, lead, and nickel (USEPA 2008).
BOF and EAF steelmaking both produce slag, with EAF steelmaking resulting in about half the
volume of slag per ton of steel produced as in BOF processing. Slag production rates in the U.S.
are about 15-40% of the volume of steel produced, with the percentage varying by region. The
slag, which amounts to about 10-15 million tons in the U.S. each year, is either sent to slag
disposal sites (Yildirim and Prezzi 2011); or is used in highway construction in the form of
asphalt aggregate, granular base, embankment cover, or fill; or is used in making mineral wool
insulation (National Slag Association 2013). The ferrous content of slag can be as high as 40%,
representing another source of loss in the recycling process (Yildirim and Prezzi 2011).
The scrap steel contaminant problem is not limited to issues in steelmaking. Recovery and
recycling of other important metals is also negatively impacted by this problem. As reported by
Reck and Graedel (2012), “Unless these elements [those trapped in steel scrap] are required in
specialty steels, the steel serves as a sink for these valuable and potentially critical elements from
which future recovery is basically impossible.”
The contamination issue is likely to become more important over time, creating a barrier to goals
of closed-loop recycling. A recent study of the potential for closed-loop recycling of steel in
automobiles indicated that the goal will be very difficult to achieve because of the low tolerance
for impurities (Hatayama et al. 2014). Dynamic modeling revealed that, without development of
new technologies to either reduce impurities or increase impurity tolerance, more than half of old
steel scrap generated annually will have to be down-cycled by 2050 because of its high copper
content contamination.
Bottom Line
As society seeks to reduce raw material consumption and associated environmental impacts with
a goal of achieving closed-loop production-use-recovery-recycling systems for minerals and
other materials, it will be important to understand current recycling performance and limitations
of recycling and reuse. In the case of steel, by far the metal used in greatest quantity in the U.S.
and around the world, significant progress has been made in reuse of scrap. At the same time,
there is opportunity for considerable improvement in recovery and recycling processes.
The greatest need for logistical and technological progress in steel recycling is in recovery and
processing of scrap, including improvement in contaminant removal and recovery. Commonly
used definitions of recycling and methods of calculating steel recovery and recycling rates tend
to obscure realities of scrap recovery and reuse, perhaps deflecting attention from areas most
warranting investment. Adoption of suggested changes in reporting scrap recovery and reuse
may help to refocus on the promise of greater recycling performance.
Dovetail Partners Page 10 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
References
American Iron and Steel Institute. 2012. Steel Takes LEED with Recycled Content.
(http://www.recycle-steel.org/~/media/Files/SRI/Media%20Center/LEED_Oct2012.pdf)
Bureau of International Recycling. 2014. World Steel Recycling in Figures 2009-2013.
(http://www.bir.org/assets/Documents/publications/brochures/Ferrous-report-2014-
LightWeb.pdf)
Canadian Steel Producer’s Association. 2015. Steel Makes Canada Stronger.
(http://canadiansteel.ca/steel-facts/)
Damath, R. 2010. Iron and Steel Scrap: Accumulation and Availability as of December 21, 2009.
Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries/Nathan Associates. (https://www.isri.org/docs/default-
source/recycling-analysis-(reports-studies)/estimating-the-price-of-elasticity-of-ferrous-scrap-
supply.pdf?sfvrsn=6)
Graedel, T., Allwood, J., Birat, J-P., Buchert, M., Hageluken, C., Reck, B., Sibley, S. and
Sonnemann, G. 2011. What Do We Know About Metal Recycling Rates? US Geological Survey,
Research Paper 596.
(http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1605&context=usgsstaffpub)
Hatayama, H., Daigo, I. and Tahara, K. 2014. Tracking Effective Measures for Closed-Loop
Recycling of Automobile Steel in China. Resources Conservation and Recycling. 87: 65-71.
Janke, D., Savov, L., Weddige, H.-J. and Schultz, E. 2000. Scrap-Based Steel Production and
Recycling of Steel. Materials in Technology 34(2000): 387-399.
(http://mit.imt.si/Revija/izvodi/mit006/janke.pdf)
Morici, P., Price, A. and Danjczek, T. 2013. Melt it Here: The Benefits of Expanding
Steel Production in the United States.
Steel Manufacturers Association/American Scrap
Coalition.
(http://www.steelnet.org/new/20131219.pdf)
National Slag Association. 2013. Common Uses for Slag. (http://www.nationalslag.org/common-
uses-slag)
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). 2010. Material Resources,
Productivity and the Environment: Key Findings.
(http://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/MATERIAL%20RESOURCES,%20PRODUCTIVITY%20
AND%20THE%20ENVIRONMENT_key%20findings.pdf)
Reck, B. and Graedel, T. 2012. Challenges in Metal Recycling. Science 337: 690-695.
(http://www.mmta.co.uk/uploads/2012/08/29/144558_science_recycling_review.pdf)
Rem, P., van den Broeck, F., and Bakker, M. 2012. Purification of Post-Consumer Steel Scrap.
Ironmaking and Steelmaking. 39(7): 504-507.
(http://repository.tudelft.nl/view/ir/uuid:08b661bb-6bec-4fc8-890e-d19638e1a2c1/)
Rod, O., Becker, C. and Nylén, M. 2006. Opportunities and Dangers of Using Residual Elements
in Steels: A Literature Survey. Jernkontorets Forskning D819.
(http://www.jernkontoret.se/ladda_hem_och_bestall/publikationer/stalforskning/rapporter/d819.p
df)
Dovetail Partners Page 11 3/23/2015
!
DOVETAIL PARTNERS, INC. www.dovetailinc.org!
Savov, L., Volkova, E. and Janke, D. 2003. Copper and Tin in Steel Scrap Recycling. RMZ –
Materials and the Geoenvironment 50(3): 627-640.
(http://www.rmz-mg.com/letniki/rmz50/rmz50_0627-0641.pdf)
Sibley, S. 2011. Overview of Flow Studies for Recycling Metal Commodities in the United
States. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1196-AA. (http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1196-
AA/pdf/circ1196-AA.pdf)
Smil, V. 2014. Making the Modern World: Materials and Dematerialization. West Sussex, UK:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Steelonthenet.com. 2014. Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Costs 2014.
(http://www.steelonthenet.com/cost-eaf.html)
Steel Recycling Institute. 2014a. 2013 Steel Recycling Rates. (http://www.recycle-
steel.org/~/media/Files/SRI/Releases/Steel%20Recycling%20Rates%20Sheet.pdf?la=en)
Steel Recycling Institute. 2014b. Recycling Construction Materials.
(http://www.recycle-steel.org/Steel%20Markets/Construction.aspx)
Structural Steel Manufacturers Association (SSMA). 2011. Green Building - LEED.
(http://www.ssma.com/green-building-pages-7.php)
UNEP. 2011. Recycling Rates of Metals: A Status Report. International Resource Panel. Second
Report of the Global Metals Flows Working Group.
(http://www.unep.org/resourcepanel/Portals/24102/PDFs/Metals_Recycling_Rates_110412-
1.pdf)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Iron and Steel at a Glance. 1996-2005.
(http://www.epa.gov/sectors/pdf/2008/iron_steel.pdf)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2014. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling,
and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012.
(http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf)
U.S. Geological Survey. 2012.Recycling – Metals. 2012 Minerals Yearbook.
(http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/recycle/myb1-2012-recyc.pdf)
U.S. Geological Survey. 2014. Iron and Steel Scrap. Mineral Commodity Summaries 2014.
(http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mcs/2014/mcs2014.pdf)
Wernick, I. and Themelis, N. 1998. Recycling Metals for the Environment. Annual Review of
Energy and the Environment, Vol. 23. (http://www.seas.columbia.edu/earth/papers/aree98.pdf)
Worldsteel Association. 2013. Resource Efficiency. (http://www.worldsteel.org/steel-by-
topic/sustainable-steel/environmental/efficient-use.html)
Yellishetty, M., Mudd, G., Ranjith, P. and Tharumarajah, A. 2011. Environmental Life-Cycle
Comparisons of Steel Production and Recycling: Sustainability Issues, Problems, and Prospects.
Environmental Science and Policy 14(2011): 650-663.
(http://php.scripts.psu.edu/users/n/w/nwh5089/Steel%20Recycling%20Process.pdf)
Yildirim, I. and Prezzi, M. 2011. Chemical, Mineralogical, and Morphological Properties of
Steel Slag. Advances in Civil Engineering, Vol. 2011.
(http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ace/2011/463638/)
This%report%was%prepared%by!
DOVETAIL!PARTNERS,!INC."
"
Dovetail%Partners%is%a%501(c)(3)%nonprofit%organization%that%
provides%authoritative%information%about%the%impacts%and%tradeA
offs%of%environmental%decisions,%including%consumption%choices,%
land%use,%and%policy%alternatives.%
"
FOR"MORE"INFORMATION"OR"TO"REQUEST"
ADDITIONAL"COPIES"OF"THIS"REPORT,"CONTACT"US"AT:"
INFO@DOVETAILINC.ORG
WWW.DOVETAILINC.ORG
612=333=0430"
© 2015 Dovetail Partners, Inc.
!
!
!
!
!
