cars, yielded higher human toxicity, acidification and eutrophication impacts than its

other manual counterparts.

 Like the EDIP method results, the CML 2000 method revealed that impacts from

the 100% Mechanical scenario were the highest when salvaging but no long-distance

transport of the salvaged materials was involved. The CML 2000 approach also showed

that the 100% Manual scenario yielded the lowest impacts in all categories except

acidification, which was lowest (and negative) in the 44% Manual scenario (Fig. 3-6). In

comparing only the impacts from the manual scenarios, the 26% Manual scenario was

largest in all cases and yielded no negative impacts using the CML 2000 method.

 Case 3: Salvaging and Transport to Austin, TX, for Reuse

 The impacts determined by the EDIP and CML methods for each of the four

scenarios that included transportation of the salvaged materials to the Habitat for

Humanity warehouse in Austin, TX, (approximately 885 miles) are shown in Figures 3-7

and 3-8, respectively. The 100% Mechanical scenario yielded the lowest impacts in all

instances because of its significantly lower transportation requirements. The

transportation of the salvaged material to Austin, Texas increased the environmental

impacts for each of the scenarios in which materials were salvaged. Likewise, impacts

increased with increasing manual involvement because of the greater emissions related to

fuel production and use during transportation accompanying the larger weight of

salvaged materials. The results of both the EDIP (Fig. 3-6) and CML 2000 (Fig. 3-7)

impact assessment methods showed that the negative impacts of transport distance of the

salvaged materials far outweigh the savings in emissions that occur by reusing the

materials.