Executive Summary

The transition to new energy sources has repercussions throughout the lifecycles of lithium (Li), rare earth elements (REE), and other minerals that are important inputs into the technologies supporting this transition, such as electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, and electronic equipment. Growing demand for Li and REE puts pressure on supply chains and environmental performance, which is exacerbated by geopolitical realties and the traditional adoption of linear economic systems (from extraction to disposal). Importantly, there are finite natural reserves of these minerals, and they are concentrated in only a few countries. However, it is estimated that less than 1% of Li and REE were recycled in 2021 [1].

Sourcing Li and REE from any waste (be it from mining, manufacturing, or end-of-life products) should be carefully evaluated as an option to sustain and geographically diversify material supplies into the future. Because waste recovery and recycling options also impact sustainability and supply chain issues, other possible actions should also be considered, such as reducing consumption and reusing materials. Applying a circularity approach can address economic, sustainability, and supply chain considerations and can also facilitate decision-making. This systems approach can be applied to Li and REE lifecycles when developing standards that govern recovery and recycling from waste.

Through a lens of circularity, this research report investigates how standardization can facilitate the recovery and recycling of Li and REE from waste without obstructing overall sustainability or supply chain security and resilience. The research included a review of the current landscape and literature, supplemented by engagement with interested parties in the Li and REE lifecycles. The findings highlight that high capital and operating costs of systems for recovery and recycling are a key barrier. There are also logistical, environmental, health, safety, social, and governance barriers. Advances in data management, technology, and knowledge sharing will help bridge knowledge gaps regarding recycling and recovery. Additional policy considerations could include supporting a market system that accounts for sustainability and supply chain impacts and enables the circular flow of materials with process and product designs.

Key standardization gaps to consider are:

• Cross-sector collaboration: The Li and REE value chains are lengthy and have geopolitical divisions. Standards development must consider the needs of many participants.
• Systems approach: Economic, sustainability, and supply chain considerations throughout the lifecycles of Li, REE, and other materials are complex. A systems approach would benefit standards development pertaining to recovery and recycling of waste.
• Canadian leadership in standards development: Canada’s involvement in the Li and REE value chains, from extraction to recycling, is increasing rapidly. These value chains are global, and therefore active participation in global standards development is crucial.
• Health and safety risks of lithium-ion battery and magnet recycling: Based on interviews with interested parties, significant attention is needed to remove barriers to the growth of the EV battery recycling sector and to improve the regulatory framework in Canada. Canadian standards could address health and safety risks of battery and magnet recycling.

A roadmap of standards development for recovery and recycling of Li and REE from waste should consider:

• Analytical testing methodologies for industry sectors within material lifecycles;
• Traceability throughout Li and REE lifecycles;
• Cohesive material and industry sustainability standards, from extraction to recycling;
• Standardized nomenclature, material composition specifications, and product labelling; and
• Metrics/methodologies to quantify sustainability and supply chain impacts and support of processes and products with circular flow of materials.