What Happened
California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) decided in December not to include lead-acid batteries as a potential priority product under its Safer Consumer Products Program.1 These batteries are commonly used to power starting, lighting, and ignition systems of cars and other vehicles, even in electric vehicles. They are 40-70% lead and 20-45% sulfuric acid and often have lower levels of antimony and arsenic. EPA estimates that 99% of lead-acid batteries are recycled.
DTSC recognized the serious concerns about the significant and widespread risks posed by lead-acid batteries, especially in communities where these products are manufactured or recycled, despite being “heavily regulated.” In its Decision Document, the department concluded that:
There is already significant public and private investment in reducing potential exposures and adverse impacts from lead acid batteries. For example, U.S. Department of Energy vehicle battery research and development funding is over $100 million per year, and annual venture capital funding related to lithium-ion batteries exceeded $1 billion in 2018. Due to the magnitude of current funding, technology is already rapidly advancing. Any potential regulatory response by DTSC to advance green chemistry and engineering is unlikely to meaningfully accelerate the development of safer alternatives beyond what is already happening.
DTSC said it:
Will continue to implement other programs within our authority to identify and clean up sources of contamination, and to prevent future contamination through effective permitting, oversight, and enforcement. We will also continue to monitor the status of lead acid battery alternatives and will take action if we determine we can accelerate the development or adoption of safer alternatives in the future.
The Department identified lithium-ion batteries as a likely replacement but raised concerns about their economic feasibility, safety, and sustainability. It specifically had concerns about cost, runaway thermal reactions resulting in fires, and insufficient infrastructure to recycle them. However, most of these concerns were based on documents from 2018 to 2021 and did not address the dramatic growth of the industry since then. In 2022, CalEPA released a report by its Lithium-ion Car Battery Recycling Advisory Group providing recommendations that included establishing a recycling infrastructure similar to the one for lead-acid batteries.
Why it Matters
In 2008, California adopted the Green Chemistry Law to “reduce the use of hazardous chemicals and accelerating the quest for safer products.” Five years late, DTSC established rules for its Safer Consumer Products Program implementing key provisions of the law designed to inspire a shift to safer chemistries for consumer products.
The program has been effective at drawing attention by consumers and industry to driving industry to act.
Our Take
We understand the reasoning behind DTSC’s decision. As we read through the document, it strikes us that the conclusion might have been different if the department had acted shortly after it held a public workshop in 2017 or the 2016 request by the state legislature and then-Governor Brown. We do not understand why the agency waited so long to make the decision and publish the report.
We appreciate that DTSC made clear that its decision was based on realization that a Safe Consumer Products Program listing was unlikely to meaningfully accelerate the development of safer alternatives beyond what is already happening. However, we are concerned that the decision could be misconstrued by industry that action is not needed.
From our perspective, safer alternatives to lead-acid batteries are sorely needed. Hopefully, after the lithium-ion recycling infrastructure is in place, it will be sufficiently flexible to accommodate batteries specifically designed to replace lead-acid batteries.
We are concerned that that recycling infrastructure will not happen without leadership by the federal government or a state such as California that is large enough to force action. With an incoming federal government that is promoting deregulation, it seems like states will need to step up.
- DTSC was responding to a request made in 2016 by the state legislature and then-Governor Brown. The agency held a public workshop on the issue in 2017. We have no idea why it took 7 years to make a decision. ↩︎