31. 7. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/21 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Directive on batteries and accumulators containing 
dangerous substances (]) 
(89/C 194/09) 
On 21 December 1988, the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, 
under Article 100A of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, on the 
abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Protection of the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Affairs was 
responsible for preparing the Committee's work on the subject. Mr Proumens was appointed 
as rapporteur-general for the Economic and Social Committee. 
At its 266th plenary session (meeting of 31 May 1989), the Economic and Social Committee 
adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 
1. General comments 
1.1. The Committee welcomes the Commission's 
proposal, as Community-level measures are needed in 
the field of batteries and accumulators. 
The Committee particularly supports the idea of tack­
ling at source environmental pollution by heavy metals 
(in this instance, by reducing the heavy metal content 
of batteries and accumulators wherever possible in the 
light of technical progress) and promoting the recycling 
of these metals. Thes two objectives go hand in hand. 
1.2. The Committee notes with interest that this 
initiative is in keeping with priorities established by a 
number of Member States, including Denmark, which 
has draft legislation in the pipeline. 
Voluntary agreements have been reached in Belgium 
(applicable as of 1 January 1988), the Netherlands and 
the Federal Republic of Germany. 
Legislation has been passed, or is being debated, in 
the countries of the European Free Trade Association 
(EFT A). 
1.3. The Committee is pleased that the proposal 
takes account of the ongoing efforts of Community 
industry to reduce the mercury content of primary 
batteries and to collect and recycle spent batteries and 
accumulators. 
The Committee would therefore urge the Commission 
to continue to encourage these initiatives. 
1.4. The Committee fully endorses the idea of intro­
ducing harmonized European marking of batteries and 
accumulators and notes with interest that an agreement 
(*) OJ No C 6, 7. 1. 1989, p. 3. has been reached between the Community and certain 
EFTA countries, notably Sweden. 
1.5. The Committee naturally supports the proposal 
for measures to prevent spent batteries and accumu­
lators being disposed of with other household refuse. 
The idea of a deposit system is very promising in 
principle, but its practical feasibility needs to be evalu­
ated more carefully. Another possibility would be to 
make the obligation to return spent batteries a condition 
of purchase, although this would also be difficult to 
operate in practice. 
The Committee therefore feels that there should be 
more emphasis on consumer information and education 
campaigns, particularly in schools, with the possible 
introduction of pilot schemes. 
1.6. As mentioned above, the Committee notes that 
the proposed Directive covers an extremely wide range 
of batteries and accumulators which differ in terms of 
marketing requirements, technical characteristics (with 
applications ranging from the purely professional to 
the ordinary consumer market) and potential for recyc­
ling and reductions in heavy-metal content. 
Obviously, in view of its objectives, the proposal is 
essentially concerned with batteries and accumulators 
for ordinary domestic use. 
Large, heavy accumulators designed exclusively for pro­
fessional use should be excluded from the scope of the 
proposed Directive, whereas 'mixed' accumulators (for 
use by both professional and ordinary consumers) 
should continue to be covered. 
1.7. Member States which do not have adequate 
collection, recycling and storage facilities will have to 
introduce the necessary provisions to allow the Direc­
tive to be incorporated into national legislation. 
No C 194/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 31. 7. 89 
1.8. In the Committee's view, storage and transport 
of spent batteries and accumulators for special disposal 
or recycling should be strictly monitored. Tough 
measures should be introduced to prevent storage or 
transport under conditions which fall short of the stan­
dards laid down by the Directives in this area. 
The problems facing islands and remote areas warrant 
special monitoring. 
1.9. The proposal is related to two other recent draft 
Directives, respectively amending Directive 75/442/EEC 
on waste and replacing Directive 78/319/EEC on toxic 
hazardous waste (^ (COM(88) 391 final), on which 
the Committee has delivered Opinions (2). This poses 
certain problems which require careful consideration. 
The present proposal recognizes that certain types of 
batteries and accumulators are environmentally accept­
able and are therefore not subject to the compulsory 
measures laid down. However, the other two draft 
Directives consider all types of batteries and accumu­
lators as waste, even as hazardous waste. 
Apart from the problem of the lack of consistency 
between these legal instruments, if batteries and 
accumulators are put in the same category, it will 
undermine, and even destroy, industry's efforts 
(whether voluntary or in response to the present pro­
posal) to reduce the heavy metal content of these prod­
ucts and to develop collection and recycling systems. 
The Committee would, moreover, reiterate the com­
ments made in its Opinions on the Directives on waste 
with regard to the choice of legal basis: although Article 
100A offers obvious procedural advantages, reference 
to Article 130 R/S would be more in keeping with the 
environmental implications of the current proposal. 
1.10. The Committee would reiterate that every 
possible step should be taken in compliance with Direc­
tives and national legislation, to protect the health of 
people working in approved units for the special dis­
posal or recycling of spent batteries and accumulators. 
2. Comments on individual Articles 
2.1. Article 1 
The objectives should be specified more clearly, particu­
larly the need to encourage recycling and to reduce the 
heavy-metal content as far as the state of the art allows. 
(') OJ No C 295, 19. 11. 1988, pp. .1 and 8. 
C~) OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, P. 2. Article 1 should specify that the Directive covers all 
batteries and accumulators (as defined in the Annex) 
put on the Community Market. This would place EC 
and non-EC manufacturers on an equal footing. 
2.2. Article 2 
In order to stress its importance, the term 'recycling' 
should be deleted form (c) and should appear only in 
(d). 
2.3. Article 3 
Industry has introduced a programme to reduce the 
mercury content of the most common alkaline manga­
nese batteries. The Commission's proposed limit should 
take account of this. Reference should also be made here 
to the Committee on adaptation to technical progress, 
mentioned in Article 12 of the proposal. 
2.4. Article 4 
As it said in its general comments, the Committee 
fully agrees that batteries and accumulators should be 
marked uniformly. However, it would ask the Com­
mission to reconsider, with industry, the practical and 
technical criteria for certain types of secondary bat­
teries. 
2.5. Article 5 
The reference to batteries and accumulators which are 
built into appliances must be amended, in the interests 
of consumer safety, to make it clear that it should be 
possible to remove batteries and accumulators only 
when disposing of the appliance containing them. 
2.6. Article 6 
The Committee fully endorses these objectives, but feels 
that the action to be taken by the Member States should 
be more clearly defined. 
It would also be advisable to specify for each objective 
the type of batteries and accumulators covered, since 
the characteristics and possible problems could differ 
considerably. 
31.7.89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 194/23 
Provision should also be made for Community and 
national funding of research aimed at reducing the 
heavy-metal content and optimizing collection and 
recycling of batteries and accumulators. 
2.7. Article 7 
Although it agrees with the idea expressed here, the 
Committee feels that there should be a parallel con­
sumer information education campaign which should 
be conducted with the assistance of industry. 
2.8. Article 8 
As already stated in the general comments, the Com­
mittee naturally supports these proposals; it neverthe­
less hopes that industry will be more closely involved 
in consumer-oriented action. 
The Committee nevertheless feels that Article 8(c) 
should be deleted. It is not the responsibility of Member 
States to inform consumers of the choice of products 
available. 
It is however their responsibility to guarantee the qual­
ity of consumer information. Article 8 should therefore 
begin as follows: 'Member States shall ensure that 
consumers, who have a choice of different types of 
batteries and accumulators, are informed about ...' 
2.9. Article 9 
The Committee fully supports the programmes out­
lined, but would like the various measures to be spelled 
out. 
The programmes should, for instance, include precise 
objectives and deadlines for the development of recyc­
ling. 
Done at Brussels, 31 May 1989. 2.10. Article 10 
The comments made in paragraph 1.7 are also appli­
cable here. 
Under Article 10, the cost of disposing of batteries 
and accumulators is to be met by manufacturers (or 
importers). Indirectly, however, it is the consumer who 
will end up paying. 
The extra cost should, however, be relatively insignifi­
cant, given the small proportion of personal expendi­
ture devoted to batteries and accumulators. 
2.11. Article 11 
The basic principle here is irrefutable, but should be 
strengthened by deleting 'with the exception of batteries 
covered by Article 3', i.e. only batteries and accumu­
lators which conform to the Directive should be 
immune to Member State action. 
2.12. Article 12 
The Committee welcomes this clause as it will mean 
that the Directive, and in particular the Annex, can be 
updated in the light of the latest technical progress. 
2.13. Article 13 (and Article 9) 
Whilst it is unarguably necessary to act rapidly, the 
proposed dates are somewhat over-optimistic and 
should be reconsidered, to take closer account of the 
ability of industry and the Member States to adapt to 
the terms of the Directive and its deadlines. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE