Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL ENVIRONMENT Directorate C - Sustainable Resources Management, Industry & Air ENV.C.1 - Sustainable Production and Consumption

DRAFT AGENDA

Meeting of the European Union Ecolabelling Board (EUEB)

Committee of the Regions, Jacques Delors building,

Rue Belliard 101, room JDE 52

27-28 June 2012

Open meeting

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, ADOPTION AND FOLLOW-UP OF

THE MINUTES - PRESIDENT .................................................................................. 3

2. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: INDUSTRIAL AND

INSTITUTIONAL AUTOMATIC DISHWASHER DETERGENTS –

SILVIA FERRATINI, DG ENVIRONMENT (EC) ....................................................... 3

2.1. Presentation of changes to the document made since the last EUEB

meeting in March ............................................................................................... 3

2.2. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 3

2.3. Voting intentions ............................................................................................... 5

3. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: INDUSTRIAL AND

INSTITUTIONAL LAUNDRY DETERGENTS – SILVIA FERRATINI, DG

ENVIRONMENT (EC) ................................................................................................. 6

3.1. Presentation of changes to the document made since the last EUEB

meeting in March ............................................................................................... 6

3.2. Discussion .......................................................................................................... 6

3.3. Voting intentions ............................................................................................... 9

4. HORIZONTAL TASK FORCES: UPDATE ON THE WORK – SILVIA

FERRATINI, DG ENVIRONMENT (EC), ŁUKASZ WOŹNIACKI, (EEB

AND BEUC) ............................................................................................................. 10

4.1. Chemical taskforce (Silvia Ferratini) .............................................................. 10

4.2. Social taskforce (Łukasz Woźniacki) .............................................................. 10

5. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: SANITARY

TAPWARE – DAVIDE MINOTTI, DG ENVIRONMENT (EC) ............................... 11

5.1. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 11

2

5.2. Presentation by Davide Minotti addressing majority of the raised

questions and issues ......................................................................................... 13

5.3. Voting intentions ............................................................................................. 13

6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON EU ECOLABEL READ-

ACROSS APPROACH PROPOSED FOR OFFICE BUILDING PRODUCT

GROUP – ALICIA BOYANO, JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (EC) .......................... 15

6.1. Presentation ..................................................................................................... 15

6.2. Discussion ........................................................................................................ 15

7. SHORT OVERVIEW ON THE ON-GOING WORK: TEXTILES, SOAPS

AND SHAMPOOS, WINDOWS AND DOORS, HEATING SYSTEMS,

BED MATTRESSES, RENATA KAPS AND NICOLAS DODD, JOINT

RESEARCH CENTRE (EC) ....................................................................................... 18

7.1. Textiles ............................................................................................................ 18

7.2. Soaps and shampoos and hair conditioners ..................................................... 18

7.3. Windows and doors ......................................................................................... 18

7.4. Heating systems ............................................................................................... 18

7.5. Imaging Equipment ......................................................................................... 19

7.6. Toilets and urinals ........................................................................................... 20

7.7. Bed mattresses ................................................................................................. 21

7.8. Sanitary products ............................................................................................. 21

7.9. Paints and varnishes ........................................................................................ 22

3

1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA, ADOPTION AND FOLLOW-UP OF THE MINUTES -

PRESIDENT

Minutes were adopted after accepting comments from Denmark and EEB/BEUC

2. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

AUTOMATIC DISHWASHER DETERGENTS – SILVIA FERRATINI, DG ENVIRONMENT

(EC)

2.1. Presentation of changes to the document made since the last EUEB

meeting in March

2.2. Discussion

UK: I would like to know what scientific evidence the Commission now has that has led

to a change to a more restrictive criterion in respect of surfactants compared to the

criteria for domestic dishwashing detergents agreed in 2011?

Austria: What is the alternative to 600 cycles questioned by industry? I have seen

criteria from Nordic Swan, and if my interpretation is correct there might be 8 cycles. So

what is new proposal?

A.I.S.E: In professional dishwashing, the number of cycles per day changes a lot, from

30 for a small customer, to up to a 1000 for very big customers. However there is no

doubt on what one cycle means – it is one complete wash, which on average takes one

minute, there are wash processes of 20 seconds, there are wash process of 2 or 3 minutes.

But generally there is no misunderstanding there. I would prefer to have 400 cycles if

you aim at really small customer, e.g. really small pizzeria – 20 cycles a day, 5 days a

week, that’s 400 after 4 week, so that is more realistic. Lower is really not needed. Also

the issue of counting is not a problem. The customer knows how many washes it does a

day. The suppliers know how much product is used. It is all done automatically. Overall

the Industry would prefer not to have a specified number of cycles, but we can also

accept 400.

Finland: we can support this proposal.

EEB/BEUC (Helena Norin): we think these criteria should be valid for 3 not 4 years,

because many of the other detergents criteria are valid until 2015, and then you would

not need to prolong these criteria and you could make the revision of the detergent family

at the same time.

We would like to bring up the question of phosphorous. When we looked at the levels of

phosphorous we could see that for hard water you could use 0.5 grams per litter of

phosphorous, and if you have a dosage of 2 grams per litter of the detergents that would

mean that the whole detergent could consist of phosphates because the level of

phosphates is roughly 4 times the level of phosphorous. So we would really like to hear

about the background of setting the phosphorous level this high.

We would like to hear from industry whether this is really needed.

4

France: Concerning nano materials. The Commission introduced the new approach

regarding nano materials in the European ecolabel and we regret this change. In the last

provision it was stated clearly that nano forms intentionally added to the product shall

prove compliance with the criterion on hazardous substances for any concentration. With

this new proposal nano will be considered as all other substances in the product. And we

would like to see in the user manual, as a compromise, clear reference to nano materials,

to make sure that Competent Bodies are aware of potential nano materials presence in the

product.

Italy: we do not understand why there has to be such a high concentration of

phosphorous since we have provided information that there are products on the market

without phosphorous. So we insist on this aspect.

Other aspect is related to the test method fitness for use. It is supposed to be done in the

internal laboratory of the manufactory. We do not understand why for all the other

products the test has to be done in an independent laboratory, certified with ISO 1725,

but in this case it can be done internally. We find it difficult to accept that Competent

Body has to verify the test method used. We think it might be difficult for a CB to find

the means and capacity to verify the test.

COM: Response to the raised points:

– Restrictions of anaerobic surfactants – there are different studies and we decided to

take the precautionary principle, as we have checked the biodegradable surfactants

exist for both anaerobic and aerobic conditions so we decided to go for this option.

– Regarding the number of cycles – we will be happy to change the number to 400; we

received a suggestion not to put a number of cycles just duration of four to six weeks,

but in our opinion it would be more suitable to include the number of cycles.

– Validity of the criteria – we decided to extend it to 4 years, the new criteria may

require reformulating products, so we wanted to facilitate the possibility for applicants

to get an EU Ecolabel and have it for a while if they make the effort of reformulating

their products. This is also linked to our capacity of revising products; we already

have many other products scheduled for revision in 2015. We would like to revise the

detergents family together in 2016.

– Phosphorus – (explanation given by Danish CB) – this is the first set of criteria for this

product group, so we do not have a lot of experience with the specific components of

these products. We do have a lot of experience from Nordic Swan, where we have soft

water. We think the set levels for medium and hard water are realistic. We were given

this information by the industry and considered these values. Higher levels of

phosphates are needed in medium and hard water, but it is difficult to assess how strict

they are because we do not have the exact market information.

Industry: these levels are indeed set on lead formulations sent to the consultant. You can

make calculation of minimal values to prevent scaling. For soft water – it has to cover up

to 6 German degrees °dH (German degree of hardness, 10 mg CaO/l), medium up to 13,

and for hard water is above 14 but it could end 25 or 30 German hardness.

COM: coming back to the questions raised, we can certainly include references to the

nano materials in the user manuals.

5

Regarding the comments from Italy on phosphorus, what we put in these criteria is

already a step ahead from Regulation 200/59 2012 amending the detergents regulation in

regards of the use of phosphates and other phosphor compounds in consumer detergents.

This regulation is limiting the total phosphorous in consumer laundry detergents by June

2013 and consumer dishwasher detergents by 2017. It is true that alternative of

phosphates already exist, but they are not yet widely available and we do not have any

data on the market penetration of these products. Since the aim of the Ecolabel is to cover

10 to 20 % of existing products on the market, we decided just to limit the content of

total phosphorous without banning the phosphates.

Regarding the test method (Jacob) – for these products there are no standardised test

methods, we set a common framework described in the appendix criteria to this

document.

2.3. Voting intentions

Portugal positive

Belgium positive

France positive

Germany abstain

Austria positive

Denmark no position for now

EEB/BEUC negative

Norway positive

Finland positive

Sweden positive

Estonia positive

CEAPME positive

Business Europe abstain

Italy negative

UK positive

Czech Republic positive

Hungary positive

Poland positive

Romania positive

6

Slovak Republic positive

EuroCommers positive

Bulgaria positive

Spain positive

Netherlands positive

Ireland (mandate) positive

Cyprus (mandate) positive

Malta (mandate) positive

Luxembourg (mandate) positive

3. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: INDUSTRIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL

LAUNDRY DETERGENTS – SILVIA FERRATINI, DG ENVIRONMENT (EC)

3.1. Presentation of changes to the document made since the last EUEB

meeting in March

3.2. Discussion

UK: We are not aware of any scientific evidence against the use of optical brighteners in

terms of their negative environmental impact. Optical brighteners can contribute to a

longer life of textiles. We had this discussion during the development of domestic

laundry detergents criteria and we agreed they were important for that very reason. We

are very disappointed that the Commission’s previous decision has now been reversed.

The same argument holds for the derogation of R52 and R53 risk phrases in respect of

fragrances.

What we have now is a clear contradiction between laundry detergents for professional

and domestic use. We do not think it gives a very good message.

Denmark (in reply to UK’s comments): when we had a discussion on detergents for

domestic use, we had no information on non-classified optical brighteners, now the

situation has changed; we know that there are alternatives.

Regarding fragrances they are not excluded it is just that certain fragrances cannot be

used because they are classified as hazardous substances.

Industry: there are in the market some optical brighteners without any classification, but

we have tested them all and they are not effective for the professional laundry conditions.

The comments from the UK are right that optical brighteners extend the life of textiles,

especially hotel linen; otherwise they are thrown away much faster.

Regarding the fragrances, conditions in the professional laundry are different than

domestic. The wash cycle is much shorter and the key is drying cycle, which implies

7

much higher temperatures and therefore different type of fragrance. We discussed with

many fragrances producers and it is not possible to develop professional product without

R52 and R53. In Nordic countries the dosages of detergents are significantly higher,

because they do not use fragrances.

France: we welcome the ban of phosphates for laundry detergents; we also welcome the

introduction of the criterion on biodegradability of surfactants under aerobic conditions.

As expressed in several AHWG groups and EUEB meetings, the French Water Agencies

are concerned by surfactants which are non-biodegradable under anaerobic conditions for

several reasons that we explained many times. We would have preferred to have the total

ban of surfactants which are non biodegradable under anaerobic conditions.

Concerning the nano materials we have the same comment as for dishwashing detergents.

We would like to see in the user manual, as a compromise, clear reference to nano

materials, to make sure that Competent Bodies are aware of potential nano materials

present in the product.

Sweden: we cannot accept criterion 3a

Norway: I support Sweden and France about criterion 3 on biodegradable surfactants.

We are disappointed that you did not use the same formulation as in dishwashing

detergents. We propose the same phrasing in criterion 3 as we have in dishwashing

detergents. We are happy to see that the Commission starts to use the article 6.6 in a

positive way concerning the optical brighteners and fragrances.

BEUC\EEB: we would like to see a ban of nano materials in these criteria. Nano

materials have not been tested enough and are not proved to be safe. So in this product

group as in other product groups we are calling for a total ban of nano materias.

Italy: We are happy with the modifications in criterion 3 and 4. But again we do not

understand why it is not possible to have the test method carried out in an independent

laboratory.

Plastics Europe: I have a general remark on packaging. It seems that there is

overemphasis on this. Criterion 5 says that packaging should include 80 percent of

recycled material, for plastic this is not feasible. Also for this kind of packaging we use

polyethylene or polypropylene which is naturally soft plastic; we do not use PVC which

sometimes needs plasticizers, so the criterion on phthalates is completely irrelevant. Also

marking of the plastic is not necessary. In a recycling plant waste plastic is separated

automatically via laser and spectroscopy methods. It does not make any difference

whether packaging is marked or not.

Austria: We would like to support France on nano and we also support exclusion of

surfactants which are not biodegradable under anaerobic conditions.

Portugal: Why is the derogation on fragrances not aligned with the one that exists for

domestic laundry detergents?

COM: Regarding fragrances, we have the room for improvement of the criteria from the

environmental point of view. The final consumers of these two products are different.

With the domestic laundry detergents consumers chose a product and its fragrance. But

in the hotels and hospital consumers do not chose the detergents with which the linen has

been washed. So this is also why we decided it is not necessary to derogate these types of

fragrances.

8

I ask industry to comment on criterion 3.

We can delete the criterion on phthalates if everyone agrees, but perhaps we can keep it

for the precautionary principle, at the moment they are not used, but they might be in the

future.

Regarding nano – we make a reference to nano in the user manual. As it was explained

on several occasions, we cannot treat nano materials separately from other substances

because we do not have legal evidence of their differences in terms of hazardousness, so

we included the text that has been agreed by all of the Commission services and we are

obliged to use it for the time being.

Industry: regarding the role of anionic surfactants for washing applications, within

laundry we have different classifications, that is, different types of textiles to be washed.

In professional laundry there are 10 to 15 different classifications. Some of these textiles

deal with, what we call, particulates, those are particles in the textiles to be removed;

they can be dust, proteins (as you sometimes find in hospital textiles) can be sand or

rubber etc. Those stains are most electively removed by extracting these particles. It can

be done either by using phosphate or anionic surfactants. Since phosphate is banned we

can only use anionic surfactants to do it. (Denmark confirmed that in the Nordic Swan

criteria it is requested to anionic surfactants to be biodegradable as well, but little

quantities of phosphorus are allowed).

Denmark (CB): regarding the test for these products, there are no standardised test

methods. We set up a framework to help the CBs but also the producers to do this test. It

is important to keep in mind that it is a comparative test – we have to test the new

product and compare it to an old product on the market, so we can see that the fitness for

use is sufficient. There is a choice of using a certified lab or lab of the producer, if it is

documented that the lab is included in the company’s quality system and the quality of

the test is documented.

UK: a response to the Commission's statement regarding the non-derogation of r-phrases

for fragrances and the derogations, the process of establishing these criteria, led by the

Danes, meant that we discussed the technical background documents and the draft

criteria for professional detergents at the same time as the household detergents. We

discussed all the evidence there and then. So I still find it unsatisfactory for the

Commission to say that they are seeking improvement and are now coming up with

reasons to create differences between these two sets of criteria. We are very disappointed

that there can be such significant changes outside the process of criteria development.

Denmark: It is true that much of the work for these product groups are based on the

work for the domestic products, but when we talk about derogation, the revision of the

documents for the household detergents started before the new regulation was in force,

and it was explicitly mentioned when adopting criteria for household detergents that

argumentation for the derogations was not completely in line with the new Regulation.

And that was taken into account in these two product groups.

UK: we did have a full discussion on derogation for fragrances and optical brighteners at

the AHWG meetings. We find it very disappointing that there are changes outside the

process of criteria development. We had very good discussions and although there were

divided opinions there was a general consensus at that time. So I cannot accept that we

changethese key elements, which are going to determine whether these sets of criteria are

acceptable to a substantial section of the market.

9

Portugal: I think fragrance is a political, not a technical issue. The Ecolabel system is for

all Member States not for a specific region of Europe. Some labels were developed in the

Northern Europe and we want harmonisation with the different Ecolabel schemes, but

Ecolabel is a label for the whole European market. I think the Southern companies will

not be buying ecolabelled products probably because of this issue with fragrances. So it

means that we will not have this kind of ecological products in our market.

3.3. Voting intentions

Denmark mandate is not clear yet

Ireland positive

Austria positive, but we would like to see changes on nano

Germany positive, but concerned about anaerobic

biodegradability

France no mandate yet

Belgium positive

Luxembourg positive

Portugal positive, but we would like to see an alignment

between household and professional laundry

detergents criteria

Italy positive

Business Europe negative

CEAPME positive

Estonia positive

Sweden abstain because of crterion 3a

Finland positive

Norway we would like to see a change in the criterion 3a and if

necessary to allow a small amount of phosphates as we

do in Nordic Swan.

EEB/BEUC negative

Slovak Republic positive

Romania positive

Poland positive

Hungary positive

10

UK There should be an alignment between household and

professional laundry detergents criteria, we have not

decided yet what our vote will be on this set of criteria

Czech Republic positive

Netherlands positive

Euro Commerce abstain

Bulgaria positive

Spain positive

Cyprus positive

Malta positive

4. HORIZONTAL TASK FORCES: UPDATE ON THE WORK – SILVIA FERRATINI, DG

ENVIRONMENT (EC), ŁUKASZ WOŹNIACKI, (EEB AND BEUC)

4.1. Chemical taskforce (Silvia Ferratini)

Update on taskforce on chemicals – during the development and the revision of the

ongoing criteria the issue of chemicals is becoming more important.

Unfortunately, the meeting scheduled for June had to be cancelled because Michele

Galatola and Oliver Wolf could not attend, but the taskforce will continue working

through written exchanges. JRC IPTS will product and distribute a summary on the

feedback from the documents that are now circulated. Afterwards there will be a

teleconference probably in the beginning of September.

We do not have the capacity to start any other taskforce in 2012, but we are planning to

start in 2013 a new taskforce on fibers and this will be carried out with the revision of the

paper products. Timber fibers are addressed differently in different product groups so we

would like to have one horizontal approach.

As with other taskforces the idea is that the group of people involved in the taskforce is

small in order to achieve results. The Member States can rotate as members of the

taskforces and the idea is that they do not represent themselves but all the Member

States.

The model of this taskforce will be similar to the taskforce on chemicals.

4.2. Social taskforce (Łukasz Woźniacki)

First meeting took place in March since then we produced the summary of the meeting

and prepared a questionnaire that will be a base for further work of this taskforce both

documents will be sent to members of the taskforce.

Contract of EEB and BEUC with the Commission has expired therefore the organizations

will stop participating in AHWGs and providing technical input to the criteria

development process, as well as stop chairing the task force on social criteria.

11

The Commission has no capacity to lead the workforce on social criteria, so invites any

volunteers to lead the group.

France asked to circulate the minutes from the first meeting of the taskforce to all

Member States.

5. DISCUSSION ON FINAL CRITERIA DOCUMENT: SANITARY TAPWARE – DAVIDE

MINOTTI, DG ENVIRONMENT (EC)

The criteria will not be voted in the Regulatory Committee. The Commission received an

opinion from legal services that a specific criterion on hazardous substances needs to be

included.

Davide Minotti presented recent changes to the criteria.

5.1. Discussion

Norway: we are happy that we are not voting on the criteria, because do not think that

they are finished and we are not sure whether we should have these criteria at all.

It clear to us that it is very difficult to set any criteria on this kind of products. At the

moment we have one criterion on water flow and do not think this is sufficient.

The criterion 2 on materials does not contain any specific limits. Furthermore these

criteria are designed in such a way that we will have different levels in different countries

and we find it strange.

It is our opinion that we cannot afford this product group in the Ecolabel scheme. I would

ask member states to turn down this set of ecolabel.

Austria: we are very disappointed that the vote is postponed. I think the Reach

legislation is relevant for chemical products, but not always for finished product so we

think it is not relevant for this product group.

Portugal: We think this product group could help us in services product group and also

with criteria for buildings. The table 2 is interesting it can be used for assessment and

verification instead of standard text.

Denmark: we think that postponing the vote might is a good idea. We already said that

the material section of the criteria is insufficient. We think the material section should

have a higher quality in assessing the migration of heavy metals. I am sure that most of

us can agree that migration of lead and cadmium is relevant here.

Tap Aerator is a much cheaper solution for the consumer to save water than buying a

new tap, so we ask the Commission to take this on board for the next draft.

With regards to hazardous substances we will not be positive to a criteria document

without clear exclusion of hazardous substances.

Finland: three weeks ago I distributed comments from a Finish producer concerning

some technical issues sat of the lay time – they proposed 3 minutes of set time.

12

Then we discussed the warranty – what is meant by warranty and is the period of

minimum 4 years long enough for the long lasting items for repair and replacement. We

would prefer to have a longer time.

Regarding the hazardous substances in the criteria, we think a list of banned hazardous

substances should be included, but we should have derogation for nickel.

Austria: I would like to remind those member states who think that these criteria are not

necessary that it is a voluntary scheme. These criteria are relevant for services, like

tourist services, but also schools and office buildings. I think it is also a good idea to

introduce aerators, we think it is a good and cheap solution.

UK: we too are disappointed that we are unable to vote on this product group. We

recognized that dealing with the flow of hot and cold water through sanitary tapware has

a significat environmental impact and therefore addressing it with the voluntary Ecolabel

would have been very useful. We also recognize that there are difficulties interpreting the

regulation, in particular article 6.6.

We are disappointed that the maximum flow rate has been increased from 8 to 9 litres a

minute. We feel that is not very ambitious particularly in the UK market.

If we are going to reduce the minimum flow rate to 3 liters a minute for electric showers,

we think we should also make it as a minimum for any fueled showers.

In the UK 60% of consumers are in low water pressure areas and there is significant retro

fitting of showers and therefore to have 4.5 liters per minute as the minimum could

potentially be restrictive.

In respect of UK national water regulation, this is important under criterion 3.B, before

licensing a product the CB must ensure it is eligible to meet mandatory water regulations

the country in which they are being sold. I think we just need to improve assessment and

verification words here to make sure that product awarded an ecolabel in Germany, but

sold in the UK definitely meets the UK water regulation. We have a problem at the

moment where we do have water using products coming into the country that are not

compliant, so we need to make sure that ecolabel does not encourage that.

Sweden: we support the Danish comments on the heavy metal content in the drinking

water. And we are not very happy with the criterion 2 on materials. We would like to

have absolute limit on the heavy metal content in the drinking water that is coming out of

the tap. We would like to suggest the directive 98/83 EC as a basis for the water quality

coming out of the tap, there you can find absolute limits for concentrations of the heavy

metals.

We would like to have absolute limit for the criterion 3c and for the energy use, we are

also wondering what happened to the long list of H phrases.

Portugal: we welcome the criteria on spare parts and warranty. We also support

Denmark and Sweden on the materials criterion.

Netherlands: this product group has no priority in our country. We doubt that ecolable is

the most suitable instrument to minimize the environmental effect of sanitary tapware.

We would prefer other instruments like ecodesign, We do not think that GPP is a suitable

instrument because we should be looking at the building as a whole. Some people had

13

said that Ecolabel could fill in the gaps, but we do not feel it is a role for the EU

Ecolabel.

Belgium: we do not like the phrase 'extended lifetime' four years is not enough to say

that a product has an extended life time. We are not in favor of raising maximum water

flow for shower from 8 to 9.

Germany: we also have a problem with the hygienic requirement; nonetheless it seems

difficult to find something suitable for all the countries in the EU.

Norway: specific comments on the criteria:

We disagree from rising from 8 to 9 liters = we wanted to comply with the tourist

accommodation criteria, but it is better to have a lower figure here, because the hotel

criteria will be revised soon.

Criteria 1b – lowest available water flow rate – I am not sure it is relevant in all

countries, because water pressure is very different. I know all taps in Norway will

comply. I guess this is some sort of minimum criteria. It is the same case in 1c.

Austria: Why do we now have electric showers in the scope?

France: We think the list of hazardous substances should be included in the criteria

otherwise the criteria might not be compliant with the Ecolabel regulation. Secondly, we

should not use the phrase ‘extended lifetime’ because lifetime is not tested, so we would

like to delete this sentence.

5.2. Presentation by Davide Minotti addressing majority of the raised

questions and issues

Introducing the material requirement causes problems with the different legislations.

Extended lifetime is embodied in all of criterion 3

Temperature management:

Electric showers – in some countries they represent 60% of the market, so it would be

unfair not to include them. Electric showers can meet almost all of the criteria except 1b.

Product that meet requirement of one country but not others – Austria proposed a good

solution – declaration that if they plan to sell in other country they will declare that they

will meet the requirements of the national legislation.

5.3. Voting intentions

If there was a criterion on hazardous substances and suitable derogation would you

support the criteria as they are at the moment with two further changes, namely: a) max

litres for showers back to 8litres from 9litres and b) suitable text to address other relevant

natiaonl requirements (UK and AUT comment)?

Denmark a possible yes

Austria Yes, but Austria is not in favor of 8 liters for showerheads

(because no fitness for use criteria, possible negative implication

14

for tourism criteria document within next revision)

Germany possible yes

France possible yes, if we have criterion on hazardous substances

Belgium yes if we can remove the phrase extended life time

Portugal positive

Italy positive

Business Europe positive

CEAPME positive

Estonia positive

Sweden negative without limits for the heavy metals

Finland positive, provided our technical comments will be taken on

board, delay time 2s and preset time maximum of 3 minutes

Norway negative

EEB/BEUC we see savings but the Commission should remove phrase

extended lifetime, hazardous substances, national standards need

clarification, but we support these criteria

Slovakia positive

Poland positive considering proposed changes

Hungary positive considering proposed changes

UK positive with the two changes Davide proposed

Czech Republic Positive, supporting German position

Netherlands positive

Euro Commerce positive

Spain Positive – we have problems with water and all initiatives that

save water are welcomed

Bulgaria positive

15

6. PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION ON EU ECOLABEL READ-ACROSS APPROACH

PROPOSED FOR OFFICE BUILDING PRODUCT GROUP – ALICIA BOYANO, JOINT

RESEARCH CENTRE (EC)

6.1. Presentation

6.2. Discussion

COM (Davide Minotti): how much longer wills development of the criteria for office

buildings will take?

JRC: Option A where we would have to engage with the four main schemes which we

identified may be challenging, so we are talking about finalising the main criteria for

December with the view for a March vote. But that would be more challenging to engage

with the schemes and negotiate with them, almost impossible.

Option B where we just proceed with the work and create a read across alongside the

criteria might be more feasible within the December and then March voting timeframe.

UK: I would like to thank IPTS for going to the trouble of preparing this document. But I

have three concerns. First is, do we go ahead with this product group? We had a

discussion at the last EUEB which is reflected in the minutes. And that was the question

that Oliver Wolf put to the meeting and the meeting was divided but we never got a clear

answer. There was an idea of producing the read across document and looking at the

feasibility of it. But there were also number of comments including from ourselves which

questioned whether we should really go ahead with this product group. As we said many

times before there does not appear to be clear market for this. And the existence of other

schemes which are all international, as is recognised in the document before us, indicates

that the market is addressing the need, where there is one, for cross boundary office

building criteria in respect to sustainable buildings. The second question is how much

more time and expense do we invest in this product group? We have already had four

working groups in Italy, starting in February 2008 and we had two subsequent AHWG

meeting led by IPTS since they took over the development of the criteria. That is a

considerable investment of time on the part of Member States, Industry and organisations

leading the development of the criteria. So that is a real concern and what impact does

that have on the ambitious plans we have for the work plan for the Ecolabel to get the

number of product groups with criteria considerably higher than the amount we have at

present.

And finally, we should consider whether the gaps we have identified between the

proposed Ecolabel criteria and these existing schemes actually provide a signal to us that

we should not be addressing these issues.

So there are a number of criteria which appeared not to be addressed in this document –

hazardous substances is one, water management plan is another etc.

This analysis should provide an input into what criteria we should be addressing if we go

ahead. Although, as I said, we should not go ahead, but if we are going to, let us use this

as an opportunity to make those criteria more sensible as well as providing a different

route for verification.

Belgium: in your slides you mentioned that one of the risks would be that market would

not see the added value of the EU Ecolabel? But is there an added value for EU

Ecolabel? I do not think there is. There are a lot of tools already existing in the market. In

16

the current draft of criteria a lot of fundamental issues are missing and making them

inferior to the existing tools available in the market. If we go on how much more effort

do we have to put it, and what we will get out of it?

The Netherlands: we feel the same as our colleagues from the UK and Belgium. We do

not see the added value of Ecolabel at the moment although we support development of

the GPP criteria. We are also surprised by first question presented by JRC because we

would also like to point out that in the former EUEB meeting there was indeed a question

– should we continue and not which way should we continue. So I would like to stress

that we should address the fundamental issues first. We appreciate the effort of looking

into read across approach but it is clear that it is not the solution. We are not in favour of

continuing work on Ecolabel for office buildings. Our detailed position was sent to JRC.

EuroCommerce: we appreciate the attempt you have made. Mutual recognition between

different systems is very difficult to put into life. We welcome the approach of mutual

recognition, but I am not sure whether we should continue with it specifically for this

product group.

COM (Josefina): we would not like to call it mutual recognition. What say we should be

able to go from some existing schemes on the market and identify certain criteria which

would read across to the suggested EU Ecolabel for office buildings and of course

identify where read across is not possible.

Denmark: when we started the scope was broad, we always wanted to narrow it to make

it workable. Perhaps we should pick a different scope, something that is more

straightforward, for example renovation services for existing building could be

interesting. We put a lot of resources into this project, but we did have almost workable

draft, if we go back a bit we can still have good criteria. If you choose to proceed with

the office buildings, you should focus on finalising the criteria and then consider the read

across to include in the user manual to help applicants and perhaps gain market

advantage.

European Property Federation (owners, investors, developers and landlords of that the

private buildings): We are not at all satisfied with what is available in the market. There a

too many things and none of them are dominant, we want something dominant and

distinctively European.

Czech Republic: we would like to strongly support the position of the UK, Belgium,

Netherlands and Denmark.

BEUC/ANEC: we support comment from Denmark that maybe the scope was wrongly

defied we always said that residential buildings should be included in the scope. We are

against the read across criteria. We do not think it is technically feasible. There are We

do not see a reason why a company should apply for another label, and we do not see the

added value that the EU Ecolabel could provide here. We propose to base further work

on second draft of the EMAS reference document on best environmental management

practices in the construction sector from May 2012.

Cefic: we are in favour of read across for office buildings if an ecolabel scheme is applied. We appreciate JRC work for read across as the current various national schemes are difficult to handle for industry.

17

COM: We heard many comments. Appreciation for the work in the read across position

but also concerns whether we should go ahead with the product group as such. It would

be useful for whether this is the general opinion of the EUEB. Could we have some

hands raising to indicate whether we should go further? Should we go on with office

buildings?

In favour:

Portugal,

Cefic

Slovakia

Who is against this product group?

Belgium

France

UK

Spain

Bulgaria

Plastic Europe

The Netherlands

Cannot make up their mind

Germany

Austria

President: give some time to digest and give an indication what to do with this product

group

European Council of Materials for Constructions: I was surprised to receive this

document that is presented to EUEB. We have been part of stakeholder’s consultation,

and this read across approach was never proposed to the stakeholders. I wonder if it is not

necessary to have a discussion also with the stakeholders.

COM (Josefina Lindblom): the first time we talked about read across was last March,

where it was explicitly expressed that we, the Commission, and EUEB wanted IPTS to

investigate the possibility for read across. The idea was that they will come up on

substance on how it can work, and this is what they presented. We would like to hear

your views now on how to proceed and of course we should have time to reflect on this

so we do not expect to have a vote in one month, but we would like to have your written

comments. If you decided to go on we will keep putting resources into this project.

18

7. SHORT OVERVIEW ON THE ON-GOING WORK: TEXTILES, SOAPS AND SHAMPOOS,

WINDOWS AND DOORS, HEATING SYSTEMS, BED MATTRESSES, RENATA KAPS

AND NICOLAS DODD, JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE (EC)

7.1. Textiles

Austria: Do we really want antibacterial finishes in the Ecolabel? Other schemes like

Oeko-Tex Standard 1000 have steps in between so it is easier to get an Ecolabel for the

final product. I would recommend having an ecolabel for steps in between, for example

dying, etc.

Norway: we are also concerned about biocides and antibacterial finishes. We think we

should keep the requirement as it. I am also concerned about polyester and recycled

content. Is that the only criterion, or do you envisage that we should have a mandatory

recycled content in garments?

JRC: There were various opinions at the AHWG and one of the messages we got was to

look at what percentage content would be actually technically feasible for certain fibres

depending on availability and things like mechanical strengths etc. So we have been

looking which fibres it will work for and in what percentage level.

Using the LCA approach we have been looking at the main manufacturing processes that

have the most significant impact (for example dying), and I have been identifying the

state of the art production processes and what kind of reference values we can use. It is

very complicated and there are various combinations of dying, machinery and chemistry

printing as well, technology we have been looking at different processes that had the

most significant impact.

We have also been looking at BREF (Best Available Techniques for the Textiles

Industry) and Bluesign, because it has significant uptake from the industry.

Austria: but the question is could we certify products in the supply chain?

JRC: it is complicated to frame criteria as they are. We have been talking to a couple of

manufacturers trying to assess their dye houses and it is very complicated to create

benchmarks so it looks very challenging, we will put some proposals on the table in

September, but it is very challenging because we already have a complex set of criteria,

and messages we had from stakeholders is to try to simplify them.

7.2. Soaps and shampoos and hair conditioners

Denmark: why you say it is not possible to extend the product group scope to

cosmetics?

JRC: enlarging the scope so widely is not feasible within the time frame set for this

revision. It is something that should be eventually discussed at the EUEB.

7.3. Windows and doors

Short update on the criteria.

7.4. Heating systems

Denmark: what is the fate of criteria for heat pumps?

19

COM: the existing criteria for heat pumps will be amended according to the new criteria

on heating systems in order to avoid overlapping. We are aware of it and we are taking

care of consistency.

President: the slides should be distributed to Member States so everyone has time to go

through all the information. Next time it would be easier to receive the documents with

relevant questions in advance.

7.5. Imaging Equipment

President: What will the next steps?

JRC: Next steps are:

- waiting for final draft of the Energy Star document,

- we will send in the coming days our final draft asking you for the final comments,

- the final draft document will be presented at the next EUEB meeting

EC: as JRC indicated there will be another round of consultations, but only in writing,

not an Ad-Hoc Working group. With the last consultation we would like to close all

issues apart from Energy Star criteria. There we will have to wait, if the ES criteria are

good enough or we would like to go further. If we want to vote these criteria in

November, we have to have the final draft in September. Chances to achive that are now

very low. It is highly probable that this product will be delayed till March 2013. Energy

Star Criteria will be finalised in October/November, so we will have enough time to

decide till March, if the criteria are satisfying or not.

President: I would like to mention that the Blue Engel criteria document for this product

group has been recently voted and it will be shortly available in English as well.

Denmark: I was wondering if we could have the final discussion in the November

meeting and have all criteria, except energy, ready and as soon as the levels of Energy

Star are known (probably late autumn), we could have a written vote for this product

group.

BusinessEurope: Some representatives of the industry are concerned about the

verification system of the contents of chemicals. For a time being it is mostly based on

self-declaration. We wonder if it possible to have it based on the certification by the

accredited laboratory.

EC: Agree with DK, that we could have discussion in November on full set of criteria

(bar Energy Star if not ready) and then a written vote on of this product group.

On verification system of the contents of chemicals, we will look horizontally at this

issue through the Chemical Task and see, if there is any improvement that can be made

for the next revision of these criteria.

BusinessEurope: Chemical Task Force is dealing with chemicals and derogations, but I

think that certification depends on the material that you are going to check. Checking

shampoos or detergents is much easier than the computer or TV set. I am not sure this is

something to be handled by the Horizontal Task Force.

EC: Verification is one of the considerations that the Horizontal Task Force will deal

with. In any case we very much welcome your proposal for verification by the third party

and we will be happy to receive your comments to the next version of the criteria.

Norway: Hazardous substances and mixtures: my concern is that these criteria will not

cover PC, because of introduction of a ban on R52, R53 etc. In Nordic Swan we have

20

much shorter list of R excluded. We can get some declaration from the producers, but

products of parts are not tested for all R-phrases. Conclusion is that we will not get any

applicants, if we have this list of R-phrases.

President: Since it is the product to be voted, in November we should have 90 minutes

for discussion, so we will have time to discuss R-phrases issues as well.

EC: We would like to invite Norway to put this comment in writing for the next version

of the criteria.

7.6. Toilets and urinals

Denmark: In this product group we are focusing a lot on the water consumption.

Production is not included in the criteria, because there is a BREF note on ceramics,

which is not a good argument, because we do not know if all the products are certified

with that, we do not know what the import of these products to the EU is, etc. We should

look also at the production phase.

Norway: I suggest we stop working at this product group, because we are producing the

criteria, where there is only one environmental criterion: volume of the flush. It would

influence our credibility, because we would produce criteria with no big environmental

impact. It is not a multi-criteria document.

UK: We are concerned that the market penetration is going to be very small, especially

due to the fact that the low flush systems tend to be in new-build and not retro fitted. It

would be worth providing more information to the stakeholders on the improvement

potential. We should investigate whether there are other criteria that can deliver the

market penetration and improvement potential we want.

Germany: We would like to point out that the water scarcity is not a problem for all the

European countries. For example in Germany we have problems with the drainage

blockage, if there is no enough water running through the systems and also waste water

treatments are not working properly, if they do not have enough water supply. It is

difficult for us to agree with the water saving criterion, because it cannot be applied to all

European countries.

Plastics Europe: Criterion 4 on design for recycling says that the plastic materials shall

be marked correctly to ensure that they are recovered. It is the only criterion in the

chapter "design for recycling", which is not right. There should be focus on the main

parts of the urinal and toilets, which are the ceramics and not on plastic parts which are

minor in this kind of products. We would like al reference to the plastics in this criterion

to be taken out.

Finland: Article 6.6 is not included in these criteria

JRC: The comment of Germany could be linked to adjustment criteria I would like to ask

Germany to give us feedback what level of adjustment we need to comply with drainage

requirements.

On plastic components, it was the only one that we could focus on in terms on recovery.

EC: We received different comments from the EUEB. On one hand there was a remark

that we need more selectivity on manufacturing/production impacts, but we have seen in

LCA that this has not the major environmental impact. On the other hand I heard some

comments saying, that going down to 5 litres is so selective that only 3-5% of the market

can meet it and therefore we are not going to have enough benefit. There are two

opposite comments. At the moment, a compromise between them is that we do focus on

significant environmental impact (= water). It is quite selective if down to 5litres, but

21

what we want to achieve is to influence market in such a way, that in some years share of

the market will rise from 5% to 20%.

If about Article 6.6, we will add this criteria.

Denmark: In my opinion you cannot use LCA to rule out all other criteria. In this

product group we need to look at the water consumption, but if there is also potential

improvement in the production process, than that should also be considered.

7.7. Bed mattresses

France: What is included in the scope? Are the Scandinavian mattresses included or not?

JRC: They will be rather excluded.

France: It would be a pity to exclude them. Bed frames are usually made of wood, metal

and textile parts, so it would not be difficult to include them.

Denmark: I agree with France. It is strange to take out part of the market, while just a

few additional criteria would make it possible to include these products.

Norway: in the future it should be included in the product group "furniture"

7.8. Sanitary products

UK: The main question is what is the reasoning behind doing this product group? We

have spoken a lot about life-cycle impacts and the important areas that we need to focus

on, for example water-use. And I am not clear why this product group is given priority?

Denmark: I did not understand why incontinence products were taken out?

JRC: We have recently received information from DG SANCO, that the incontinence

products are considered medical products and they should not be in the scope of the

Ecolabel.

President: We would like to receive a more precise explanation from the Commission at

the next EUEB meeting, why these products have to be excluded.

Norway: We would like to support work on this area. We think it is a very good product

for the Ecolabel.

France: We also support this product group. We receive a lot of question from the

retailers and we are sure it will be a very successful product group. It is also a good way

to increase visibility of the EU Ecolabel on the shelves.

Portugal: There is a lot discussion going on referring to these products in relation with

waste management and landfills. For example for the nappies there is an alternative of

reusable, textile nappies. In that context, is this product group appropriate for the EU

Ecolabel?

Denmark: If we look at the Waste Directive, we see that landfill is not the option

anymore and should be excluded in the coming years. So that should not be the argument

against the EU Ecolabel for these products.

France: There are LCA studies which compares reusable nappies and disposable ones.

They could not provide clear conclusion which products are better for environment.

UK: I agree with France. Studies between reusable nappies and disposable nappies are

not conclusive. But if we have the Ecolabel on disposable nappies we are, in effect, not

having a label of reusable nappies. So we are making here some statement.

22

EC: Looking at the life-cycle assessment the material content is the most important

thing. That could be the area for potential savings. It can be also strategically wise to

choose products, which consumers have a strong connection with and that can be visible

on the shelf etc. These are just example of the benefits.

Denmark: the main issue is the waste collection and waste treatment methods.

UK: I would like to insist that we are given, maybe after the meeting, a clear explanation

as to why this product group is important and has been given priority.

7.9. Paints and varnishes

Denmark: I would like to refer to the new knowledge in this area, that proves that

biocides methyl isothiazolinone is probably very synthetizing ingredient, also in paints

and varnishes. It should be further analysed.

Point 3 Indoor Air Quality, I think that there are some new developments in this area

done by some Member States, e.g. UK, but also by JRC, so we should look how to deal

with that in the best way.

I have also a question about unused paint. What should paint manufacturer do about it?

Shall it be disposed in the facilities where consumers can deliver all unused chemical

substances or shall it be brought back to the manufacturer or retailer?

EEB/BEUC: We agree with Denmark, that it is important to find the solution for unused

paint.

On hazardous substances, we find that giving derogations to 80 chemicals is a lot, but the

most important is not to allow substances that are CMR and PBT.

On biocides, we would like to bring your attention to the fact that some biocides can leak

from the painted surface. I can provide you a reference to relevant studies. It is important

to set criteria on this.

Maybe it is a good idea to have different derogations for indoor and outdoor paints.

We also see a need for criterion on binding agents. JRC says it would hamper innovation,

but we think it is the other way around.

Portugal: We would like to ask if you have any list specifying how the individual

Members States deal with the problem of unused paints. The company that is awarded

the licence should be somehow obliged to deal with the waste paints, but it would be

useful to see how other Member states deal with that or if there is a EU legislation on

that.

EuroCommerce: Criterion on unused paint is very important. It says "approach to

facilitate take-back systems". It does not mean one has to create the system, but that he

has to be connected to the national or community system. This is approach of producer's

responsibility that we have in the Packaging Directive or in the WEEE Directive. So it is

obvious that we should have such a criterion and we, as the producers, have to take care

of it.

Norway: We very much welcome work done by JRC for this product group. Very

important are specially the reduced limits on VOC.

About isothiazolinone, it is very important that some isothiazolinones are allowed in the

paint to preserve product in the box and to reduce amount of unused paint (if it is dry

after a few weeks, it becomes certainly unused).

23

About the emission test for the indoor paint, we should go further with this. We also

think that the former formaldehyde test method could be replaced by the emission test

from the painted wall. We think it is much better that testing the amount in the box.

Denmark: The concentration of methyl isothiazolinone is 500 PVM in the criteria

document, but there is already a risk at concentrations above 200 or 300 PVM, so there is

an issue here.

France: We think that the residual criterion is very important. One way to deal with this

criterion could be to have the clear information for consumers regarding the fact that

non-used paint is not a waste and can be used in another way. And also to have clear

information on the quantity of paint needed for a certain surface. This could prevent

consumers to buy too large quantity of paint. Another way to promote the collection of

paint could be to have a criterion on recycled content of paint. However, this could be

difficult to implement and further research should be done on that.

Concerning the criterion on Indoor Air Quality, in France since the beginning of 2012, it

is mandatory to have the information on Indoor Air quality of the products. French

emission standard is based on 2 qualification procedures of construction products

considered as the most reliable in this area. You already have the European protocol of

1997 and German protocol, which is relevant as well. Concerning the problem of the cost

of the testing, we did a microeconomic study which showed that it should decrease in the

coming years, because of the commercial competition between laboratories.

We hope that the issue of nanomaterials will be taken into account in this criteria

document, because a lot of nanomaterials are used in paints.

Denmark: We would like to ask that the dates of the meetings are announced and

published on the website as soon as possible, so that all stakeholders can be informed in

time.

President: In the future more time should be dedicated to this part of the meeting.