CB Forum Meeting: Tuesday 14 April 2015

Transcription

1 CB Forum Meeting: Tuesday 14 April 2015 Avenue de Beaulieu 5, B-1160 Brussels, meeting room C 9:30-18:00 1. Welcome, adoption of agenda and November 2014 CB Forum minutes + AOB requests (Chair) (9:30-9:40) 2. Updates by the European Commission (EC- Carla Pinto) - (9:40-10:30) a. Update on the requested amendments on Lubricants b. Update on the requested amendment on paper product groups c. Statistics on "Facts & Figures" website page (Raised By Germany)-(see Annex) d. Termination of contracts (Raised By Germany) (see Annex) e. Publishing of prolongations (Raised By Germany) (see Annex) f. EU Ecolabel Logo Guidelines g. FAQ Sheet on Circa for all CB Forum outcomes? h. EU Ecolabel and new binding legislation (see Annex) i. Pre-discussion of all CB Forum issues via virtual? (Raised by Italy) j. ECat user interface for tourist accommodations k. Handling LuSC-List product integration requests (Raised by Helpdesk) (see Annex) 1

2 3. Presentation of the updated ECOLABEL TOOLBOX (ADEME) (10:30-11:30) (see Annex) 4. How to improve User Manuals (Denmark) (11:30-12:00) (see Annex) 5. CLP generic and specific limits for mixtures: an application to printed paper products (Denmark) (12:00-12:30) 6. Update on the conclusions taken at the Virtual CB Forum (Chair) (12:30-12:40) LUNCH (12:40-13:40) 7. Overall issues concerning handling applications (13:40-16:25) a. PAPER PGs Residual Monomers criterion (4e) in certain paper product groups and new classification of Sodium Acrylate (Finland) (13:40-13:55)-(see Annex) b. RINSE OFF COSMETICS (Decision 2014/893/EU): Criterion 5 When and how to provide certificates for Palm Oil and derivatives (Germany and France) (13:55-14:25) (see Annex) c. TEXTILE PRODUCTS (Decision 2014/350/EU) (14:25-15:25) i. Criterion 1a: Organic production standard and non-genetically modified cotton (Belgium) (see Annex) ii. Criterion 7a: Level of antimony in polyester fibres and the use of recycled and virgin PET (Germany) (see Annex) iii. Can textiles (or fibres) from Polylactid (PLA) apply for the EU Ecolabel? (Germany) (see Annex) d. APC (Decision 2011/383/EU): Are less dangerous H phrases implicitly derogated? (UK-Chair) (15:25-15:40) (see Annex) e. PAINTS & VARNISHES: Outcome of a French survey among the distributors of EU Ecolabel P&V (France) (15:40-16:10) f. PAINTS & VARNISHES: APEO definition (UK-IPTS) (see Annex) (16:10-16:25) 2

3 8. Follow-up on the tasks from last CB meeting (16:25-17:40) a. Update on the Paints & Varnishes criteria (IPTS-EC) (16:25-17:05) i. Voted amendment (see Annex for one more question) ii. 6 questions waiting for a definitive answer from last CB Forum (see Annex) iii. Possible corrigendum b. Update on TEXTILE PRODUCT: 2 questions waiting for a definitive answer from the last CB Forum (IPTS-EC) (see Annex) (17:05-17:25) c DID List: Phased out preservatives: Should the new DID list contain data of phased out preservatives? (EC outcome) (see Annex) (17:25-17:40) 9. AOB (17:40-18:00) 3

4 Annex / Notes to the agenda: 2.c Statistics on Facts & Figures website page (Germany) From the EU Ecolabel Helpdesk we got the collection of the latest statistics (September 2014). Question: why these statistics are not published until now on the EU Ecolabel homepage? There are still old statistics published 2.d Termination of contracts (Germany) How do you act when a new set of criteria is issued for an already existing EU Ecolabel product category? Do you terminate the existing contracts or do you just request verification proof for the new parts of the criteria? If you follow possibility 2 how do you handle the application? 2.e Publishing of Prolongations (Germany) We have many license holders who ask for information about possible prolongations. (They have to prepare amount of labels etc.). Nevertheless the official publishing of the prolongations are very late. Therefore we ask the Commission if an earlier publication (on the EU Ecolabel website) is possible. 2.h EU Ecolabel And New Binding Legislation How to behave whenever, as a consequence of a new binding legislation, an EU Ecolabel criterion is no longer met by products already awarded with the EU Ecolabel? 2.k Handling LuSC-List product integration requests (Helpdesk) How can we handle requests from companies that would like to have their products/ingredients included in the LuSc List? We are only aware that Hildo Kropp (consultant that is in contact with the Dutch CB) has information on this procedure, so for the moment we have been directing enquiries in his direction. The Helpdesk would like to know how to address these requests in a more general aspect, as we cannot advertise consulting services as the EU Ecolabel Helpdesk. The Helpdesk would like to know which CBs can advise on product-integration on the LuSC List so that we can create a standard answer that we will use to respond to enquirers. Draft response: Dear, Thank you for your interest in submitting your products to the LuSC-List. Please feel free to contact any of the following Competent Bodies to obtain general information about how to submit your products to the LuSC-List. - Dutch CB: Thank you. 4

5 3. Presentation of the updated ECOLABEL TOOLBOX (Ademe) Demonstration of the EU Ecolabel Toobox: online application edited by ADEME International to deploy internationally EU Ecolabel on tourism accommodation and camp site. The tool is a free application dedicated for accommodation wishing to obtain or to renew the EU Ecolabel licence. This tool will be available for all partner countries. This toolbox provides a public front office (delivering criteria, FAQ, extra tips to obtain the EU Ecolabel, the marketing guides, presentation form for accommodation, map of EU Ecolabel accommodations, ), a work front office (diagnostic application, proof models for each criteria, action plan management, cost analysis and business plan creation) and statistics application (for local governments, ADEME and Competent Bodies). 4. HOW TO IMPROVE USER MANUALS (Denmark) How to improve the quality of UMs and give more value for CBs and applicants? The UMs have improved lately but still there are several areas, which can be improved. We need to discuss how we as CBs can give clearer guidance to those making the UMs. And also to discuss how we can ensure that the experience from CBs are included in the UMs. Denmark will illustrate 3 good examples and 3 examples which can be improved. In the next CB Forum all the CBs will be asked to do the same. The output from this session will be a list of general recommendations to improve the content of EU Ecolabel UMs and a list of points to be improved for specific product groups. 7.a Residual Monomers criterion (4e) in certain Paper product groups and new classification of Sodium Acrylate (Finland) Criterion 4.e of Decision 2011/333/UE (Copying & Graphic Paper); Decision 2012/448/UE (Newsprint Paper); Decision 2014/256/UE (Converted Paper Products) states: 4(e) Residual monomers The total quantity of residual monomers (excluding acrylamide) that may be or have been assigned any of the following risk phrases (or combinations thereof) and are present in coatings, retention aids, strengtheners, water repellents or chemicals used in internal and external water treatment shall not exceed 100 ppm (calculated on the basis of their solid content) [ ] The competent body may exempt the applicant from these requirements in relation to chemicals used in external water treatment. In this case sodium acrylate, existing as a monomer in some polymer dispersions used in paper production, is now classified as H400/H410. Earlier it was not classified. Because of this classification change, it is no more possible to use polymer dispersions containing more than 100 ppm of sodium acrylate in paper production. A Finnish chemicals supplier Kemira brought up this question. The issue was encountered as the REACH registration data of Sodium Acrylate (CAS ) was published by ECHA. Once the information is published, it can be considered as binding and reliable since based on the studies. If a substance has not been classified earlier with any hazardous phrases, a material with monomers of such substance has been EU Ecolabel compliant. If, based on the registration data, the substance is re-classified as environmentally hazardous (H400/H410 in the case of sodium acrylate), the EU Ecolabel criteria for monomers gets strict allowing only levels of < 100 ppm. To a material that has been previously approved to the criteria with levels exceeding the 100 ppm limit, it is a drastic change and will take some time and effort to modify the material or the production process to reach the lower levels if possible at all. While considering options for modifications, we would like to have an opinion and guidance on the issue how to best proceed to comply with the EU Ecolabel criteria. Since the change in the substance data applies on a generic level and will impact more than a few companies, a generic rule on the issue would be appreciated. The Finnish CB supports the request of a major producer of raising the limit to 1000 ppm. 5

6 7.b Rinse Off Cosmetic Products (Decision 2014/893/EU) Criterion 5 When to provide certificates for Palm Oil and derivatives (Germany-France) Criterion 5 Sustainable sourcing of palm oil, palm kernel oil and their derivatives Palm oil and palm kernel oil and their derivatives used in the product must be sourced from plantations that meet criteria for sustainable management that have been developed by multi-stakeholder organisations that have a broadbased membership including NGOs, industry and government. Assessment and verification: the applicant shall provide third-party certifications that the palm oil and palm kernel oil used in the manufacturing of the product originates from sustainably managed plantations. Certifications accepted shall include RSPO (by identity preserved, segregated or mass balance) or any equivalent scheme based on multi-stakeholder sustainable management criteria. For chemical derivatives of palm oil and palm kernel oil (1), it is acceptable to demonstrate sustainability through book and claim systems such as GreenPalm or equivalent. When has the applicant to provide these certificates? In fact the manufacturer of a rinse off product (our applicants) has the following options: a) He buys surfactants (from an surfactant manufacturer) who use segregated or mass balance palm/palm kernel oil or b) He buys surfactants (from an surfactant manufacturer) who use palm/palmkernel oil (not segregated or mass balance) or c) He buys surfactants (from a surfactant manufacturer) who use no palm/palmkernel oil. For a) he has the option to provide e.g. delivery notes from the surfactant manufacturer. For b) he has the option to purchase certificates (in t) for the amount of palm/palmkernel oil which is used in the surfactant. (if the surfactant is made only from palm/palmkernel oil it is equal to the amount of surfactant, but the surfactant might be produced from crude oil and palm/palmkernel oil, in this case the value is lower). (the values (conversion factors) are mentioned in the decision (footnote 1). He has the option to purchase and sell certificates (it s like a stock exchange). For the production of one calendar year this trading ends at 31.March of the following year. (for 2015 on ). Therefore: Let us assume an applicant has not used (up to the application) surfactants using segregated or mass balance palm/palmkernel oil or has not purchased certificates from green palm. In this case he cannot provide delivery notes (from surfactant manufacturer) or certificates from green palm at the time of the application. This means: the proof can be made for these applications only subsequent to the application. Germany (for new Blue Angel RAL-UZ194) requests the proof 15 month after the signature of the contracts. How should we make the verification for EU Ecolabel Rinse off? ADDITIONAL INPUTS FROM FRANCE: Some producers for their cosmetics products buy surfactants which are derivatives palm oil and palm kernel oil. So they have to buy GreenPalm certificates according to their annual consumption of palm oil and palm kernel oil. One Greenpalm certificate corresponds to one ton of palm oil or palm kernel oil. For the new cosmetic range marketed and manufactured since January 2015, (these products didn t exist in 2014), they can t determine their consumption of palm oil and palm kernel oil and the number of Greenpalm certificates to buy. Furthermore, some providers can offer surfactants derived from mass balance palm oil or palm kernel oil but the amount given is far from the amount they consume. Moreover, surfactants derived from mass balance palm oil or palm kernel oil are 10 to 15% more expensive than not "mass balance" surfactants which penalize their prices against their non-european Ecolabel competitors so the consumer and their sales. Thus, how can they meet the criterion 5 of the commission decision 2014/893/UE? 6

7 7.c.i TEXTILE PRODUTCS (Decision 2014/350/EU)- Criterion 1a-organic production standard and non genetically modified cotton (Belgium) Criterion 1. Cotton and other natural cellulosic seed fibres (including kapok) Cotton and other natural cellulosic seed fibres (hereinafter referred to as cotton) shall contain a minimum content of either organic cotton (see criterion 1a) or integrated pest management (IPM) cotton (see criterion 1b). In addition to this: All conventional cotton and IPM cotton used shall comply with the pesticide restrictions in criterion 1c, For the production standard 1(a) Organic, all conventional cotton and IPM cotton used shall come from nongenetically modified varieties, All organic and IPM cotton shall be fully traceable in accordance with criterion 1d, Clothing for babies of less than 3 years old shall contain a minimum of 95 % organic cotton 1(a) Organic production standard [ ] Non-genetically modified varieties of cotton shall be verified in conformity with Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (2). The questions: Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 is only applicable to living GMO s like GMO-cotton seeds that can germinate. It is not applicable to dead GMO products like cotton yarn from GMO cotton used for the production of textile products according to our internal expert here in the ministry. This means that a traceability system for dead GMO cotton yarn is not installed (as suggested by the criteria). So this part of the criterion is confusing (we would be in favor that it is deleted for clarity) (Text indicated in purple) This is an even more confusing. At first we interpreted it as if when you have for example a bath towel that you want to apply for the EU Ecolabel. 10 % has to be organic and the other 90% can be IPM or conventional but cannot come from GMO s But since there is no traceability installed for dead GMO products like cotton yarn, in practice, GMO free conventional cotton or IPM cotton cannot be found on the market. Regulation (EC) No 1830/2003 does not apply to them. The only GMO free cotton that can be found is organic cotton (which also has to correspond to additional requirements to be labeled organic). The spirit of the criterion was to allow mixing between organic cotton yarn (10% in case of towels) and conventional or IPM cotton yarn (90% in the case of towels). Proposed approach: We read the document as a 3 part: 1a organic 1b IPM 1c the rest. We interpret 1a to be only organic period! This means that GMO is not allowed and hence the later assessment and verification is not relevant. 7.c.ii TEXTILE PRODUCTS (Decision 2014/350/EU): Criterion 7a Level of antimony in polyester fibres and the use of recycled and virgin PET (Germany) 7

8 7.c.iii TEXTILE PRODUTCS (Decision 2014/350/EU): Can textiles (or fibres) from Polylactid (PLA) apply for the EU Ecolabel? (Germany) Criterion 7. Polyester 7(a) The level of antimony present in the polyester fibres shall not exceed 260 ppm. Polyester fibres manufactured from recycled PET bottles are derogated from this requirement. Assessment and verification: the applicant shall either provide a declaration of non-use or a test report using the following test methods: direct determination by Atomic Absorption Spectrometry or Inductively Coupled Plasma (ICP) Mass Spectrometry. The test shall be carried out on a composite sample of raw fibres prior to any wet processing. A declaration shall be provided for fibres manufactured from recycled PET bottles. Question 1: If the polyester fibres is made 100% from PET bottles the requirement is clear. But how to proceed if only 95% is made from recycled PET bottles and 5% are virgin PET? Or (as an extreme example) only 5% is made from recycled PET bottles (and 45% is from other PET recycling and 50% from virgin PET) (because 50% recycling is minimum for staple fibres)? Question 2: We have been asked if textiles (or fibres) from Polylactid (PLA) can apply for the EU Ecolabel. They are not mentioned in article 2 (as synthetic fibres), but can be categorized as Polyester ( Nevertheless the criteria 7a/7b for Polyester are absurd for PLA, only the VOC emission might be a criteria for PLA. 7.d: All purpose Cleaners (Decision 2011/383/UE): Are less dangerous H phrases implicitly derogated? (UK) For all purpose cleaners there is a derogation for fragrances classified as H412 - R52/53 (harmful to aquatic organisms and may cause long-term adverse effects in the aquatic environment) which indicates that that the fragrance is not readily biodegradable and has an acute toxicity of mg per litre (LC50). Therefore can it be assumed that there is a derogation for fragrances classified as H413 - R53 (may cause long term adverse effects in the aquatic environment) on its own? > This issue had already been treated for some other PG in the past so June 2011 CB Forum minutes reported: a) Request from Italy to state clearly if it is possible to use Biocides in Hand Dishwashing detergents, if they are R 52/53 proven that they are not bio accumulative and that they are used only for preservative purposes. >> Since criterion 3.e on biocides clearly derogates for biocides which are R 50/53 and 51/53 (it means biocides more harmful than R 52/53), Italy wanted to have a clear position on this (legal service if requested) stating that the criterion, as it is written, implies that R 52/53 can be used too (which would seem to be obvious consequence). >> Conclusion and action: Commission >> Italy provided the Commission with the right reference (Directive 59/2001/EC) and EC will ask for a chemical legal advice from the Commission. > Then in the following minutes March 2012: >> a) Extension of the bioaccumulation clause to biocides that are 52/53 (and also 50 alone and 53 alone) derogated from exclusion in hand dishwashing detergents and cleaning products (EC) >> Discussion: >> At the last CB Forum and afterwards by , the EC circulated the EC interpretation on the derogation for biocides R 52/53 in criteria for Hand dishwashing detergents All Purpose Cleaners suggested by the relevant expert of DG ENV Chemical Unit: >> Indeed since criterion 3.e on biocides clearly derogates for biocides which are R 50/53 and 51/53 (it means biocides more harmful than R 52/53), this implies that derogation is also for biocides that are 52/53 (and also 50 alone and 53 alone). However, as it is not specifically written in the criterion, a derogation for biocides 52/53 (and also 50 alone and 53 alone) would be valid irrespective of the value of their bioaccumulation potential. >> Feedback received by the EC from CBs indicates that this interpretation is shared. However many CBs indicated that they would like the bioaccumulation clause to be extended to all the derogated biocides mentioned. 8

9 >> The EC Chemical expert informed us that extending the bioaccumulation clause cannot be done through a simple interpretation of the text (in the User Manual) but would require an AMENDMENT. > According to what written above, therefore, I think a derogation applies to R53 also in your case... UK was additionally noticing that for the new Rinse-off Cosmetics product group there is a derogation for both H412 and H413 in respect of fragrances. So do you think that, also for APC, a derogation for H413 - R53 should be "implicitly" considered or not? 7.e PAINTS & VARNISHES: Outcome of a French Survey among the distributors of European Ecolabel P&V (France)- France will give us an update on the survey conducted among the distributors of European Ecolabel paints and varnishes in order to get feedback on their constraints on the flow of inventory, the time between the tender / selection / availability of products in stores, as well as on their needs in terms of communication on the European Ecolabel. 7.f PAINTS & VARNISHES: APEO definition (UK-IPTS) When interpreting criteria for the Indoor and Outdoor Paints and Varnishes category, how do you define APEOs (Alkylphenol ethoxylates)? We assume that Nonylphenols/ethoxylates and octylphenols/ethoxylates would be included but how wide should we cast the net for others in the group? For example shorter chain phenol/ethoxylates like penta or butylphenols or longer alkyl chain phenols/ethoxylates like dodecylphenol ( ) and its ethoxylate ( ) or aryl phenol ethoxylates like tristyrylphenol ethoxylate ( )?. The criteria states that Alkylphenolethoxylates (APEOs) and their derivatives shall not be used, does this also include all alkyl chain lengths (both longer and shorter)? How about Aryl Phenyl Ethoxylates? Would be grateful for the IPTS opinion on this. 8a. Indoor and Outdoor PAINTS AND VARNISHES-: i) Question on the voted amendment Why in the Amendment Appendix 7. a) the requirement on formaldehyde on the limit 0,010% the methods HPLC / ISO are no more requested together and has been deleted (Question from the Chair) ii) 6 Questions waiting for a definitive answer from IPTS/EC from the last CB Forum: 1. Criteria 3 (e) Weathering (for outdoor paints and varnishes) For which colours (of tinting systems or for products with several fixed colours) the colour change has to be tested? (Outcome from the last CB Forum: on the base paint without colorants as reported in the UM? Or worst case colour as suggested by EC?) In the document is written: It is not applicable to varnishes and bases. What does this mean? (Outcome from the last CB Forum: the word transparent seems to be missing>>corrigendum?) 2. Criteria 3(a) Spreading rate 9

10 Should transparent/semi-transparent adhesion primers (and transparent primers with specific blocking/sealing, penetrating/binding properties properties) have a spreading rate of 6m²/l or not? (We assume that the ISO 6504 mentioned is not suitable for transparent/semi-transparent coatings). (outcome from last CB Forum: no, but on the amendment proposed only the word transparent has been deleted, does it mean that semi-transparent primers should be tested?)>> Corrigendum of the Amendment needed? + in table 2 of the Criteria document for spreading rate also ISO 6504/3 should be reported together with ISO 6504/1 3. European Polymer Dispersion and Latex Association (EPDLA) statement Statement was submitted to the German CB requesting an amendment to the new Commission Decision 2014/312/EU (concerning adipic acid dihydrazide H411 classified and the presence of methanol in polymer dispersions). (Update requested on this issue and on how to correctly identify classified substances on the Reach database. Some raw material producers in fact are telling to Eu Ecolabel applicants that ADH is not H411 classified and doesn t need to be reported in its SDS) 4. svoc Update requested on this issue, which test method, boundary conditions should be used now as the amendment has deleted table 4 from the Criteria document? 5. Why undercoats have been put under category (h) in table 2? (outcome from last CB forum: according to VOCs Directive 2004/42/EC they should be under category d as it was in the previous criteria) 6. Appendix -1: Preservatives added to colorants, binders and the final product. Why is it important that preservatives in binders are checked? Isn t it a mistake? Shouldn t it be Preservatives added to colorants, bases, and the final product? 8b. TEXTILE PRODUCTS: Questions waiting for a definitive answer from IPTS/EC from the last CB Forum: 1. Appendix 1- point f). ii) Surfactants, softners and complexing agents Is it correct that the whole raw materials which are fabric softeners, complexing agents and detergents/surfactants shall be at least 95 % by weight of fabric softeners, complexing agents and surfactants shall be: Readily biodegradable under aerobic conditions or Inherently biodegradable and/or Eliminable in wastewater treatment plants. (Outcome from last CB forum: Yes the User Manual makes reference to 95% of all the raw material, considering the percentage by its weight. IPTS will confirm this conclusion) 2. Appendix 1 (RSL), f). iii): Non-ionic and cationic surfactants All non-ionic and cationic surfactants must also be readily biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. -Is it correct that this means that the non-ionic and cationic surfactants that are in the raw material of fabric softeners, complexing agents and detergents / (surfactants) have to be biodegradable under anaerobic conditions? -Is it a mistake that there are written readily biodegradable under anaerobic conditions. In fact readily is normally used about biodegradable under aerobic conditions. (Outcome from last CB forum: yes to both questions: readily is a mistake; the EC will look into how to address this mistake). 8.c 2014 DID LIST: Phased out preservatives- should the new DID list contain data of phased out preservatives? (EC outcome) 10

11 (Outcome from the last CB Forum The EC will see if they can proceed to change the DID list and inform CBs on the topic.) 11