COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2012-03-26
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cadmium, electricity storage device, electronic waste, environmental standard, hand tool, market approval, marketing standard, third country

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 26.3.2012  
SWD(2012) 65 final 

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 

{COM(2012) 136 final} 
{SWD(2012) 66 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
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 
Directive1 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 lead2. 

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 applications4. 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 

1 

2 
3 

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). 

In this Executive Summary the term ‘batteries’ is used to mean both batteries and accumulators. 

(a) emergency and alarm systems, including emergency lighting; (b) medical equipment. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
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  shar e  (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: 

– 

– 

– 

4 

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. 

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. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
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.  

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
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, 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
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,  compar
ed  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.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
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.  

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. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
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.  

EN 

8 

   EN