This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52012SC0065
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SWD/2012/0065 - COD 2012/0066 */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT /* SWD/2012/0065 - COD 2012/0066 */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a
DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Directive 2006/66/EC on
batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators as regards the
placing on the market of portable batteries and accumulators containing cadmium
intended for use in cordless power tools 1. Problem definition In the problem definition, the political and legal context are
important. The Batteries Directive[1] seeks
to make the use of batteries and accumulators, as reflected in the activities
of all operators involved in their life-cycle, less harmful to the environment.
It lays down specific rules on placing batteries and accumulators on the EU
market and on the collection, treatment, recycling and disposal of waste
batteries and accumulators containing cadmium, mercury and lead[2]. Concern about cadmium’s toxicity persuaded
the European Parliament and the Council to restrict the use of cadmium in
portable batteries to 0,002% of cadmium by weight, even though this restriction
was not included in the Commission’s proposal. The Commission was requested to review the
exemption in relation to cordless power tools (CPT) and to submit a report to
the European Parliament and the Council by 26 September 2010, ‘together, if
appropriate, with relevant proposals, with a view to the prohibition of
cadmium in (portable) batteries and accumulators’ (Article 4(4) of the
Directive, emphasis added). This exemption was included in the Directive at the
time of its adoption as there were doubts whether technical substitutes were
already available for this application. Article 4(4) does not require the
Commission to re-assess exemptions provided for (a) and (b)[3]. It was demonstrated that the availability of viable substitutes is
disputed for the emergency lighting applications for safety reasons and no
viable substitutes have been identified for the medical equipment applications[4]. The scope of this impact assessment is therefore solely limited to
a review of Article 4(3)(c) of the Batteries Directive and will not engage in a
debate about the costs and benefits of restricting cadmium in general nor will
it analyse impacts of the wider policy decision on the general prohibition on using
cadmium in portable batteries and accumulators. The most recent
studies prove that appropriate substitutes are commercially available on the
market and already widely used for CPT batteries. In fact, the EU market for
CPT in 2010 witnessed sales worth €3.2 billion and the share (by value of the
tools sold) of nickel-cadmium (NiCd), nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium-ion
(Li-ion) technologies was as follows: –
NiCd CPT: 34%; –
NiMH CPT: 6%; –
Li-ion CPT: 60%. A natural trend in the sales of these
alternative battery technologies used in CPT see the continued replacement of
NiCd batteries by existing NiMH and Li-ion technologies. It is estimated that the overall CPT market in the EU will grow by 5%
annually between 2010 and 2020. The market share of NiCd portable batteries is
expected to decrease by 50% between 2008 and 2020, which leads to a natural
annual decrease in NiCd batteries of 5%. It can be expected that the above
trends in the overall CPT market will continue. The question now is whether a removal of
the exemption can be justified on the basis of the economic, social and
environmental impacts. 2. Objectives The general objective is to help achieve
the objectives of the Batteries Directive, in particular to Article 4(1)
thereof, namely the development and marketing of batteries which contain
smaller quantities of dangerous substances or which contain less polluting
substances, in particular substitutes for cadmium. The specific objectives are to: –
Specific Objective 1: minimise environmental
impacts from portable batteries intended for use in cordless power tools; –
Specific Objective 2: minimise economic costs
for users of CPT, inter alia by ensuring that technically feasible solutions
are available. The operational objectives are to: –
reduce the introduction of cadmium into the EU
economy as a result of the use of portable batteries in CPT. –
reduce the emissions of cadmium in the EU
associated with the use of portable batteries in CPT. –
reduce the overall environmental impact in the EU
associated with the use of portable batteries in CPT. 3. Policy options The first possible option (the ‘baseline
option’) would consist in keeping the current legislation (Batteries Directive)
unchanged. This would essentially mean that cadmium-containing batteries
intended for use in CPT would continue to be supplied to consumers and
professional users but that these would be progressively replaced by the
existing alternatives, namely nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium-ion
(Li-ion) tools and battery packs. The second option (Option 2: ‘Immediate withdrawal of the exemption in 2013’) would consist of immediately (in 2013) withdrawing the exemption
in force, thus restricting the use of cadmium in portable batteries for CPT to
no more than 0,002% by weight. Compared to Option 1, under Option 2 as of
2013, the cadmium batteries intended to be used in CPT will be replaced by
Li-ion and NiMH batteries. Over the period 2013-2025 and compared to Option
1: –
the total amount of Li-ion battery packs
intended for CPT use placed on the EU market will increase from 610.70 million
units (Option 1) to 696.79 million units, which means an increase of 14%; –
the total amount of NiMH battery packs intended
for CPT use will increase from 157.45 million unites of battery packs (Option
1) to 178.97 million units, which means an increase of 13.6%; –
107.61 million units of cadmium batteries will no
longer be placed on the market, a decrease of 100%. The third option (Option 3: ‘Delayed withdrawal of the exemption in 2016’) would consist in withdrawing the exemption in force in 2016 thus
restricting the use of cadmium in portable batteries for CPT to no more than 0,002%
by weight. This option would allow the battery industry to further adapt the
relevant technologies to the new requirements were the current exemption for
the use of cadmium-containing batteries in CPT to be withdrawn. Compared to Option 1, under Option 3 as of
2016, the cadmium batteries intended to be used in CPT will be replaced by
Li-ion and NiMH batteries. Over the period 2013-2025 and compared to Option
1: –
the total amount of Li-ion batteries intended
for CPT use placed on the EU market will increase from 610.70 million units (Option
1) to 670.85 million units, which means an increase of 9.8%; –
the total amount of NiMH batteries intended for
CPT use will increase from 157.45 million units (Option 1) to 172.49 million units,
which means an increase of 9%; –
the total amount of NiCd batteries intended for
CPT use will decrease from 107.61 million units (Option 1) to 32.42 million units,
which means a decrease of 70%. 4. Assessment of impacts As recommended by the impact assessment
guidelines, the assessment has focused only on the additional impacts of the
other options compared to the baseline scenario. Available information sources indicate that
the emissions related to NiCd batteries would be small compared to the
emissions from oil/coal combustion, iron and steel production or phosphate
fertilisers. Thus NiCd batteries would only be responsible for 1.35% of the
atmospheric cadmium emissions, and 1.41% of the cadmium emissions into water
and 0.65% of the total emissions. NiCd batteries used in the EU in CPT are
responsible for 10.5% of all cadmium intentionally introduced into the economy.
The environmental impacts of the
three options are assessed on the basis of two approaches. First, on the basis
of the amount of cadmium introduced into the EU economy by CPT batteries. This
approach is chosen because the main reason the co-legislator decided to ban the
use of cadmium in batteries was to limit the amount of cadmium intentionally
introduced into the economy. Secondly, environmental impacts are also assessed
on the basis of aggregated environmental impacts which are based on the
conclusions of the comparative Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the three battery
types (NiCd, NiMH, Li-ion) used in CPT. This method was used to allow for a
meaningful comparison between the different environmental impacts assessed by
the LCA. Each policy option’s value for each environmental indicator was
normalised to its ‘inhabitant equivalent’ and an aggregation scheme was used to
calculate a value for the total environmental impact of each policy option. In Option 1, around 30550 tonnes of cadmium
will be introduced into the EU economy over the period 2010-2025 via the use of
portable NiCd batteries in CPT. The waste CPT batteries which are not collected
separately (for recycling) and instead are landfilled could lead to around 945
tonnes of cadmium emissions through leachate to water, potentially giving rise
to cancer and non-cancer diseases in around 405 people. In Option 2, around 8060 tonnes of cadmium
will be introduced into the EU economy over the period 2010-2025 via the use of
portable NiCd batteries in CPT. The waste CPT batteries which are not collected
separately (for recycling) and instead are landfilled could lead to around 300
tonnes of cadmium emissions through leachate to water, potentially giving rise
to cancer and non-cancer diseases in around 128 people. This is 68% less than
the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario (Option 1). In Option 3 around 14830 tonnes of cadmium
will be introduced into the EU economy over the period 2010-2025 via the use of
portable NiCd batteries in CPT. The waste CPT batteries which are not collected
separately (for recycling) and instead are landfilled could lead to around 520
tonnes of Cadmium emissions through leachate to water, potentially giving rise
to cancer and non-cancer diseases in around 222 people. This is 45% less than
the ‘Business as Usual’ scenario (Option 1). The aggregated environmental impacts were
assessed using the following environmental indicators: Global Warming Potential
(GWP); Photochemical Oxidant Formation Potential (POFP); Terrestrial
Acidification Potential (TAP); Abiotic Resource Depletion Potential (ARDP);
Particulate Matter Formation Potential (PMFP) and Freshwater Eutrophication
Potential (FEP). These environmental indicators were assessed in two scenarios:
a 25% and 45% collection target (future collection targets for batteries for
2012 and 2016 as required by the Batteries Directive – scenario 1) and a 10%
collection rate, which represent the current collection rate of CPT in the EU
as reported under the WEEE Directive (Directive 2002/95/EC on waste electrical
and electronic equipment – scenario 2). The annual environmental impact associated
with the use of CPT in the EU in Option 1 is equivalent to between 559831 (scenario
1) and 597896 (scenario 2) of its population, compared to 530581 (scenario 1) and
552781 (scenario 2) in Option 2. Accordingly, Option 2 results in a 5%
to 8% lower overall environmental impact when compared to Option 1. In Option
3, the aggregated environmental impact is 540460 weighted inhabitant-equivalents
(scenario 1) and 566374 weighted inhabitant-equivalents (scenario 2). In Option
3, the annual environmental impact associated with the use of cadmium batteries
in CPT is, depending on the collection rate, 3% to 5% lower when compared to
Option 1. Economic impacts were assessed for the
following stakeholders: mining companies, raw- material suppliers, battery-cell
manufacturers, battery-pack assemblers, CPT manufacturers, retailers,
consumers, recyclers and Member States. For Option 1, no economic impacts
could be identified or quantified for most of the stakeholders. The recycling
costs/benefits depend on various parameters such as the recycling technology
used, types of materials recovered, value of the recovered metals and economies
of scale. Currently, the recycling of Li-ion batteries is carried out at a net
cost. This is because battery recycling is still in a development phase; and as
the technology evolves and economies of scale emerge, the cost of recycling
Li-ion batteries is expected to decrease. For Option 2, it is estimated that
over the 2013-2025 period, no major economic impacts would occur for the mining
companies, raw-material suppliers or battery-pack assemblers. Currently there is no company with
production facilities in the EU for manufacturing NiCd, Li-ion or NIMH cells
for portable batteries intended for the use in CPT. All portable batteries used
in CPT are imported to the EU, mainly from Asia. The dominant NiCd batteries
manufacturers are located in Japan and the dominant Li-ion batteries
manufacturers are located in China. Even though most battery manufacturers
produce more than one battery chemistry, Option 2 could shift from Japan to
China the dominance of the sector producing batteries for CPT. Some battery recyclers claimed that Option
2 would lead to increased recycling costs as more Li-ion batteries would become
available for recycling, compared to Option 1 (estimated in the range of €13-
20 million for the period 2011-2025). EPTA (CPT manufacturers) claims that this
option will entail one-off technical costs consisting of research and
development (R&D), upgrading of production lines and operating expenditures
in the range of €40 – 60 million. It is however doubtful whether all these
costs should be attributed to Option 2, as even under Option 1 the amount of
NiCd batteries used in CPT will decrease by 50% between 2013 and 2025. Consumers may be affected by the higher
manufacturing cost of an alternative CPT battery technology based CPT. Over the
period 2013-2025, an average NiMH-battery based CPT will cost €0.8 more, whereas
an average Li-ion-battery CPT will cost €2.1 more to the consumer than the
average NiCd-battery CPT. Turning to the price of the CPT itself (including two
battery packs and a charger) in 2013, according to EPTA, a NiMH-based CPT would
then cost €66.90, and a Li-ion-based CPT €76, compared to a NiCd-based CPT
which costs €60.80. For Option 3, it is estimated that
over the 2013-2025 period, no major economic impacts would occur for the mining
companies, raw-material suppliers or battery-pack assemblers. As in Option 2, Option 3 could shift from
Japan to China the dominance of the sector producing batteries for CPT. Some battery recyclers claimed that Option
3 would lead to increased recycling costs as more Li-ion batteries would become
available for recycling compared to Option 1. These costs would be less than in
Option 2 (less than €13 million for the period 2011-2025). EPTA (CPT manufacturers) claims that this
option will entail one-off technical costs consisting of research and
development (R&D), upgrading of production lines and operating expenditures
in the range of €33 million. It is however doubtful whether all these costs
should be attributed to Option 3. Industry was in favour of increasing the
recycling rates. It was, however, not considered appropriate
to do so as the Batteries Directive requires that all
batteries collected should be recycled. In addition, the Directive specifies
minimum recycling efficiency levels that the battery recycling processes must
meet by September 2011.[5] Consumers may be affected by the higher
manufacturing cost of an alternative CPT battery technology. Over the period
2013-2025, an average NiMH-battery CPT will cost €0.4 more, whereas an average
Li-ion-battery CPT will cost €0.9 more to the consumer than the average
NiCd-battery CPT. As for the price of the CPT itself (including two battery
packs and a charger) in 2016, according to EPTA, a NiMH-based CPT would then
cost €64.10, and a Li-ion-based CPT €69.20, compared to a NiCd-based CPT which
costs €60.80. The administrative burden is limited for
all policy options and they should not lead to compliance issues. In principle, none of the
options has a direct impact on the EU budget. As regards the social impacts,
Option 2 could have slightly negative social impacts, as some stakeholders
reported some job losses in NiCd-battery recycling activity. They could be
compensated by job gains in NiMH and Li-ion battery recycling activity. Option
3 would have more neutral impacts in the short, medium and long term. One could conclude from the above that
under Option 3, the environmental benefits would be slightly lower than under
Option 2 but the costs would be much lower compared to Option 2. 5. Comparison of options The policy options have been assessed
against the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. From an effectiveness point of view,
Option 2 would seem the most attractive. Indeed, it offers the highest
potential level of achievement of Specific Objective 1 in the short term, while
Option 3 would be very effective only in respect of Operational Objectives 1
and 2. From an efficiency point of view,
Option 3 would be more efficient than Option 2. The economic cost could be
slightly negative for CPT manufacturers, consumers and recyclers at least in
the short term, whereas it would be marginal or neutral for other stakeholders.
Options 2 and 3 are coherent with
the overarching objectives of EU policy. They are also in line with similar requirements
on the prohibition of cadmium use in other Directives such as the End-of-Life
Vehicles (ELV) Directive and Restriction of the Use of Certain Hazardous
Substances in Electrical and Electronic Equipment (RoHS) Directive. Taking into account the political and legal
context, one could conclude that while it appears that none of the policy
options assessed emerges as a clear winner in terms of environmental benefits,
in relative terms Option 3 achieves almost the same level of effectiveness at a
higher efficiency and is therefore a good candidate for the preferred option. 6. Monitoring and evaluation Monitoring implementation if the current
exemption for the use of cadmium containing batteries for CPT were to be
withdrawn should be relatively straightforward, given that the use of cadmium in batteries in general is already prohibited by
the Batteries Directive. Progress indicators in this context could
in particular comprise: –
market trends for additional substitute
technologies for NiCd batteries used in CPT; –
trends in new recycling and treatment
techniques. Member States must submit a national
implementation report to the Commission every three years as set out in Article
22 of the Batteries Directive. A review of the Batteries Directive will be
carried out after the second round (2016) of national implementation reports
from Member States. During its evaluation of the reports, the Commission will
examine the appropriateness of further risk management measures, minimum
collection targets and minimum recycling obligations, and if necessary propose
amendments to the Directive. During this review process, data collected for the
monitoring indicators can also be assessed to evaluate the outputs and outcomes
of the proposed intervention and to assess its implementation process. Should compliance problems occur, further
actions could be undertaken at EU level under the Batteries Directive. [1] Directive
2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators
and repealing Directive 91/157/EEC (OJ L 266, 26.9.2006, p. 1). [2] In
this Executive Summary the term ‘batteries’ is used to mean both batteries and
accumulators. [3] (a)
emergency and alarm systems, including emergency lighting; (b) medical
equipment. [4] Extended Impact Assessment prepared by the Commission
services in preparation of the Batteries Directive (2006/66/EC), [COM(2003)723
final], see p. 27 and Annex V. [5] The minimum recycling efficiencies specified in the
Batteries Directive (Annex III, Part B) are the following: (i) Nickel-cadmium
batteries: recycle cadmium as far as technically feasible, and recycle a
minimum of 75 % of batteries by average weight; (ii) Lead-acid batteries:
recycle lead as far as technically feasible, and recycle a minimum of 65 %
of batteries by average weight; (iii) Other batteries: recycle a minimum of 50 %
of batteries by average weight.