An EU proposal to classify lithium as a 1a toxic material, the highest and most tightly regulated category, could deal a devastating blow to the bloc's green energy transition.

The European Chemical Agency (ECHA), which implements EU regulations on hazardous chemicals, has proposed classifying lithium carbonate, hydroxide, and chloride as a 1a toxic material.

This move would greatly increase the regulatory burden faced by lithium miners, refiners, and recyclers. At the same time, the bloc has been pushing to increase its share of the critical minerals supply chain and support domestic production.

Onshoring ambitions under threat

In a statement made in its publication The Lithium Voice in June of last year, the International Lithium Association (ILiA) said it was "gravely concerned" by the proposals.

The ILiA noted that the EU's approach was "considerably different from the views of Australia, Argentina, Canada, Chile, the UK and the US, all countries with a long history of safely producing and/or refining lithium products".

"These opinions demonstrate that there is no global scientific agreement on the classification and that other countries might reach different conclusions on the classification, with possible repercussions on trade relations and access to lithium in Europe."

"In light of the potential classification of lithium salts, opening a lithium mine, a lithium refinery, or a battery production plant in the EU would be more burdensome, with additional safety measures and uncertainties on permitting. "

"Some EU projects in the lithium battery value chain have already been relocated to other regions for various reasons, and the uncertainty created by the classification would be an additional reason against the re-shoring of industrial projects in the EU."

Science is unclear

Significantly, the 1a classification is not based on an assessment of the risk to health currently or potentially posed by a chemical, nor is it based on the estimated lethal dose or threshold for harm of the substance. Rather, it is based on an assessment of the strength of evidence for harm, with 1a indicating a substance that is "known to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic". 

Speaking to Mining Journal, ILiA Secretary General Roland Chavasse said that the scientific standing of the proposed reclassification, based on one study conducted on medical patients in the US and contradicted by others, was in question. 

"About 10 years ago, Elon Musk kicked off the western battery movement when he started work on the Gigafactory in Nevada. Up until that point, lithium was more or less a byproduct, literally and also in perception." 

"A lot of it still went into glass without ever being refined… and the total market was about a tenth of where it is today."

"Now the word lithium has been one which is familiar… which belies the fact that actually, lithium doesn't have this century of data behind it that you get with copper or aluminium."

"Lithium science, the science of lithium atoms in the environment, is a very young, data-poor field," Chavasse said. 

Blow to industry

Chavasse noted that the European lithium industry is still "embryonic". The EU has been clear in its ambition to grow its share of the critical mineral supply chain, reducing reliance on imports. At the same time, the bloc is pushing for rapid and widespread electrification of transport to reduce carbon emissions.

The only way to achieve these two aims simultaneously will be to develop a deep European lithium supply chain. Placing a higher regulatory burden on the industry would make this task much harder. 

Among the major impacts of the reclassification would be on the battery recycling industry. Batteries are recycled into a mixed product called black mass, which can be further refined into its constituent elements, primarily graphite and lithium.

Many common battery chemistries contain nickel or cobalt, which are already 1a toxic substances in the EU. But the low-cost lithium-ion phosphate battery chemistry, the fastest-growing battery technology worldwide, has no other 1a materials. A shift in lithium classification would, therefore, have a significant effect on the recycling supply chain for that material. 

"One additional concern, which arises as a unique result of the EU's regulatory framework, is related to the possible listing of lithium as a Substance of Very High Concern (SVHC) and the consequent unsubstantiated stigmatisation this would cause," the ILiA noted. 

Lithium has nearly 80 years of history as a widely prescribed psychiatric medicine, while the consumption of lithium-rich mineral water has been around for much longer. 

Although a change in classification would not affect the pharmaceutical regulation, which is covered by a different body, it could discourage the prescribing of a key medication.