MEP ban on hazardous batteries rejected by Commission 

On 20 April, the parliament's plenary backed the position of the Environment Committee. Under the proposal as it currently stands, a ban is to be introduced on all batteries containing more than five parts per million (ppm) of mercury by weight, 40 ppm of lead, and/or 20 ppm of cadmium. 

However, a list of applications that are to be exempt from the ban is to be drawn up. These include products for which no substitutes are yet available, including batteries designed for aeroplanes, trains and cordless appliances.

These amendments will be rejected by the Commission in its modified proposal.

As regards targets for the collection of used batteries, the Parliament backed a Committee proposal to collect 50 per cent of ordinary household batteries sold in a given year. The Commission's initial target was more modest, at 40 per cent according to Parliament (160 grammes per inhabitant or four to five units per year). The Commission had also called for higher collecting targets of nickel-cadmium batteries, at 80 per cent of the units disposed of.

These too, the Commission said, will be rejected in its modified proposal.

A point where Parliament and Commission agree is on making producers contribute to the collection of all battery types.

The Commission says it "disagrees with some of the 87 amendments put forward by the EP" and announced that it would "stand firm" on its initial proposal. It said the amendments were "not supported by the results of the Extended Impact Assessment" which it considers as "the most cost effective proposal". A modified bill will be introduced that will accept some of the amendments and reject others, the Commission announced in a statement. 

The Green group in Parliament strongly supports the text voted by MEPs. Greens warned against Ni-Cad batteries as accounting for "more than 75 per cent of the use of cadmium, a known human carcinogen, which is also classified as 'very toxic to aquatic organisms'". The Greens criticise the Commission's proposal not to ban Ni-Cad batteries as a concession made to big business. "All this comes primarily as a result of pressure from one company – SAFT, the world-leading manufacturer of industrial nickel-cadmium batteries," said Paul Lannoye, a Belgian (Ecolo) member of the Environment Committee. The absurd thing, he says, is that SAFT actually produces and promotes alternatives to nickel-cadmium batteries.

The European Environmental Bureau (EEB) and Greenpeace congratulated the Parliament for resisting industry pressure not to ban Ni-Cad batteries. "Taking action at source to substitute the most dangerous chemicals, such as lead, mercury and cadmium, is by far the best way to protect our environment and health," the two said in a joint statement.

Before the vote, European battery manufacturers represented by EuroBat sent an appeal to the Plenary to reject th e Blokland Report. It said that such radical changes from the Commission's initial proposal could only be drawn up if new impact assessments were provided. "The main objection by our association is that the purpose of the directive is not the prevention of 'heavy metals' in batteries, but rather the end-of-life management. The proposed prohibition with exemptions on all lead-acid batteries is without justification and not workable," EuroBat warned. It prefers good collection and recycling practices based on voluntary agreements.