14.12.2012 Views

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

International Review of Waste Management Policy - Department of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

463<br />

� Countries where separate collection <strong>of</strong> NiCd batteries was well developed –<br />

Denmark and Norway (40-50% <strong>of</strong> spent NiCd batteries are collected).<br />

� Countries where separate collection was not developed (0-15% <strong>of</strong> portable<br />

batteries available for collection are estimated to be collected in these<br />

countries).<br />

25.2.3 Non-EU Countries<br />

There are, however, countries outside the EU that adopted similar measures, and<br />

these are evaluated in more detail in the following section.<br />

25.2.3.1 North America<br />

In the 1990s, as proposals were circulating in Europe to ban cadmium in batteries,<br />

several states in the US, including Minnesota and New Jersey, enacted manufacturer<br />

take-back requirements on NiCd rechargeable batteries. In 1994, as the state takeback<br />

requirements were being phased in, a producer responsibility organisation<br />

called the Rechargeable Battery Recycling Corporation (RBRC) was established by the<br />

rechargeable battery industry in response to a report by the Environmental Protection<br />

Agency that NiCd batteries were responsible for more than half the cadmium found in<br />

the municipal waste stream. In 2001 the RBRC began to accept all rechargeable<br />

batteries.<br />

At the time, the scheme, the first industry-wide voluntary take-back programme in the<br />

US and Canada, was hailed as a model <strong>of</strong> producer responsibility, though by 2000 it<br />

was apparent that it was completely failing to meet the original targets it had set. The<br />

RBRC anticipated collecting 14 million pounds <strong>of</strong> batteries per year by 2003, but by<br />

2005 only 5 million pounds were being collected, highlighting the lack <strong>of</strong> clout <strong>of</strong> what<br />

was a ‘weak’ voluntary system. 543<br />

The US Congress did pass the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Act in<br />

1996 and for these regulated batteries, the act requires the following:<br />

� Batteries must be easily removable from consumer products, to make it easier<br />

to recover them for recycling;<br />

� Battery labels must include the battery chemistry, the recycling symbol, and a<br />

phrase indicating that the user must recycle or dispose <strong>of</strong> the battery properly;<br />

� National uniformity in collection, storage, and transport <strong>of</strong> certain batteries;<br />

and<br />

� Phase out the use <strong>of</strong> certain mercury-containing batteries.<br />

Following this, many states passed legislation prohibiting incineration and landfilling<br />

<strong>of</strong> mercury-based and lead acid batteries.<br />

543 http://www.rbrc.org/docs/ProgramOverview.pdf<br />

<strong>International</strong> <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Waste</strong> <strong>Policy</strong>: Annexes

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!