Early waste directives The first of the western European directives dealing with waste management was the "Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on Waste." It didn't mention batteries or chemicals but specified the regulation of "particular categories of waste," which was later referenced to by both Battery Directives as a legislative or legal basis. The first version of the
European Council Directive on Batteries and Accumulators 91/157/EEC was approved on 18 March 1991. It covered many battery types, including industrial, automotive, dry-cell, lead-acid, alkaline, nickel-cadmium, nickel-metal-hydride, lithium, lithium-ion, mercury, etc. The first program in the directive was set for a six-year duration, starting in 1993.
Provisions of the first directive The 1991 battery Directive's "Article 3; MI; Annex I" stated the prohibition (with
exceptions) of marketing: • Batteries on the market after 18 September 1992 with: • 1.A. more than 25 mg of mercury per cell, except alkaline manganese batteries • 1.B. more than 0.025% cadmium by weight • 1.C. more than 0.4% lead by weight • Alkaline manganese batteries placed on the market after 18 September 1992 containing more than 0.025% of mercury by weight • Batteries on the market after 1 January 1999 with more than 0.0005% mercury by weight Since battery recycling rates then were about 5% the directive sought to improve these rates. It set up recycling goals: separate collection and recycling, and provide recycling/collection information to the consumer. The responsibility for providing separated recycling collection was largely given to the manufacturers. Recycling requirements are found in Articles 4, 6, and 7. There were marking provisions, including manufacturer responsibility for marking on the battery products themselves the contained substances and recycling information.
Resistance Regulation was met with heavy resistance. Disputed were deadlines, target recycling rates, implementation dates, weight percentage limits, applicable product groups, financial responsibility for public information campaigns and waste management (and its financial impact), exclusions of financial responsibility given to small producer businesses, and personnel safety from decreased reliability of "greener" batteries. In a non-environmental battery marking question, automotive battery makers questioned markings on batteries relating to battery performance, arguing that the quantity of a car battery's electric current output to start a vehicle in extreme weather was a very good indicator of battery performance. After poor implementation of the first Battery Directive, work began on a new directive that would more emphasise battery end-of-life waste management through mandated and better-structured collection and recycling programs. It was also acknowledged that more research on certain substance was needed before harsher, more complete, and, arguably, unrealistic, bans. Thus the onus was on everyone in the waste management chain, from producer to the consumer, rather than affecting product design with substance bans that manufacturers claimed are unreasonable.
Conciliation Committee's compromise Consultations to revisions of the first battery Directive started in 1997, giving all interested parties a voice in legislation and policy, especially in assessing the directive's economic, environmental, and social impact. In February 2003 an open stakeholders consultation process was started, which published its findings online, and culminated in a meeting in Brussels, in July 2003. The waters were tested by asking for Extended Impact Assessments for different scenarios of proposed ranges of regulation. For example, what would be the impact in establishing spent battery collection targets of from 30% to 80% or the impact of SEPARATE spent battery collection of from 70% to 100%? Entities were asked how these goals could be met and to propose collection responsibility models. The "green" viewpoint (and perhaps that of the Conciliation Committee's) was that the previous Directive had been limited in scope, while groups on the other side set forth reasons for less stringency. Those arguing for broadening the scope claimed that if batteries with certain metals were not banned carte blanche then the waste management effort would be hurt by confusion and perhaps inconvenience to the public. There were at least six drafts the 2003 version, which was equivalent to a second battery directive. The 2003 revision, Council Directive 2003/0282/COD, a July 2006 "conciliation agreement," was a compromise between the European Council and European Parliament, and came after three years of draft revisions. It was welcomed by entities like the European Portable Battery Association (EPBA), that favoured less stringency. As in other models of European compliance legislation, a corporation or organisations like the EPBA participates in working groups with members that include, among other players, legislators, large enterprises—in this case, battery-makers—trade associations, and
non-governmental organisations. The Directive's overall stated objective was still to protect the public interest with a cleaner environment by minimising the negative impact on the environment of batteries, especially in their waste cycle. Depending on the viewpoint, it was also something of a compromise between 1. manufacturers and distributors, and 3. environmental proponents. ==2006 Battery Directive==