Minutes of the 2 nd AHWG meeting (webinar) for the revision of EU Ecolabel criteria for the product group Lubricants

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN COMMISSION JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE Directorate B Grow th and Innovation Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership Minutes of the 2 nd AHWG meeting (webinar) for the revision of EU Ecolabel criteria for the product group Lubricants Held on Monday 09 th and Tuesday 10 th October 2017, 14:30-17:30 Attendees No Last Name First Name Organisation 09 th 10 th 1 Ardai Roland Axel Christiernsson International AB 2 Auranmaa Kirsi Ecolabel Finland 3 Batoon Audrey Lanxess solutions U.S 4 Beltran Lluís INDUSTRIAL QUIMICA LASEM, SAU 5 Bouillon Vincent BfB oil research 6 Broekhof Nico Quaker Chemical B.V. 7 De Boeck Lennart Oleon 8 De Nardo Caterina Studio Fiechi & soci Srl 9 Dewattines Carine Oleon 10 Dorosko Kristine DG ENVIRONMENT 11 Eastwood John Croda Europe LTD. 12 Enström Annamari neste 13 Favini Ottone AISPEC - FEDERCHIMICA 14 Fernandez Ruiz Moron Luis Repsol 15 Fuentes Natalia LEITAT 16 Galda Patrck PANOLIN Production AG 17 Gartiser Stefan Hydrotox GmbH expert EBB 18 Gervasioni Cécile AFNOR (French CB) 19 Hidalgo Carme LEITAT 20 Josa Jaume LEITAT 21 Kaps Renata JRC Dir. B 22 König Michael Lanxess solutions U.S 23 Koschabek Rene BASF Lubricant Solutions 24 Kofowoforola Oyeshola JRC Dir. B 25 Kraas Marco Evonik 26 Krkljus Ivana BASF Lubricant Solutions 27 Krop Hildo HKconsult

2 No Last Name First Name Organisation 09 th 10 th 28 Lawford Simon SIP Ltd 29 Luycx Johan Chevron 30 Macard Nina Ernst&Young 31 Mähling Frank-Olaf evonik 32 Medyna Galyna JRC Dir. B 33 Morales Blanca EBB/BEUC 34 Null Volker Shell 35 PLEE Benjamin Condat R&D Maintenance laboratory 36 Quintana Guerrero Cristina CEPSA S.A.U. 37 Riera Maria Rosa LEITAT 38 Roell Bernie RSC Biosolutions 39 Sahlberg Ulla Swedish CB 40 Schorpion Hannelore Belgian CB 41 Strittmatter Jan BASF Lubricant Solutions 42 Sumner Stephen BENJN R. VICKERS & SONS LTD. 43 van Baren Gilbert Quaker Chemical B.V. 44 Van Der Kaaij Ton Quaker Chemical Corporation 45 Vettel Paula Novvi 46 Vidal-Abarca Garrido Candela JRC Dir. B 47 Wholley Chris BENJN R. VICKERS & SONS LTD. 48 Wragg Mick Lubrizol 49 Zuccaro Domenico ISPRA (Technical suppor to the IT CB) 2

3 Agenda Day 1: 9th October, 14h30-17h30 SCHEDULE 1. Opening and welcome 14:30 14:45 2. Political objectives of the EU Ecolabel and process description 14:45 15:00 3. Scope and definitions 15:00 15: Criterion 1. Excluded and limited substances Criterion 2. Aquatic toxicity Criterion 3. Biodegradability and Bioaccumulative potential 15:30 16:15 16:15 17:00 17:00 17:30 Day 2: 10th October, 14h30-17h30 SCHEDULE 1. Short welcome 14:30 14: Criterion 4. Raw materials Criterion 5. Origin and traceability of renewable raw materials Criterion 6. Packaging Criterion 7. Minimum technical performance Criterion 8. Consumer information regarding use and disposal Criterion 9. Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Next steps and closure of the workshop 14:45 15:15 15:15 15:45 15:45 16:15 16:15 16:45 16:45 17:00 17:00 17:15 17:15 17:30 3

4 Welcome, introduction and background The 2 nd AHWG meeting was held by two interactive webinars. Webinar includes the option to participate in a chat to ask or provide opinions. The present minutes also includes those comments. After welcoming the participants of the webinar, European Commission JRC Directorate B Growth and Innovation presented the political objectives of the EU Ecolabel and the next steps of the criteria revision process for Lubricants. Stakeholders can provide comments on revised criteria proposals for EU Ecolabel until 31 st October. Comments shall be submitted via the BATIS on-line system. Stakeholders' feedback obtained during the AHWG meeting and current consultation will be considered for the next revision of the document. The 3 rd Technical Report will be published in February of 2018, and the definitive version in April. At the end of 2018 the new criteria for Lubricant product group will enter into force. General discussion: Scope and definition Main changes included in scope and definition and further research about environmental aspects of lubricants were presented. JRC presented the modification on the grouping of lubricants: new proposal supposes the reduction of the categories into three: Total Loss Lubricants (TLL), Partial Loss Lubricants (PLL), and Accidental Loss Lubricants (ALL). Also some definitions have been included in the criterion text; stakeholders are invited to send written comments about these definitions. Regarding lubricant environmental assessment further research focused on biodegradability and toxicity, not covered by LCA studies, have been included in the technical report. In general, it was mentioned that minor changes have been introduced in the newest revision of the technical report: only considerations in some details, wordings, thresholds, etc, all of them considering the comments received during the first consultation. After the presentation of this section, question time for stakeholders was open. Several comments were received about the scope and the new categorisation of lubricants. Stakeholders commented that some of the lubricant categories included are not able to comply with new thresholds values proposed, or that they are not in a suitable category. Stern tube lubricants and thrusters lubricants are the most conflictive families: "they should be PLL or ALL instead of TLL". Stakeholders were asked about justification for re-categorization of this family. JRC recommended to provide more information during the written consultation period, with justification. One stakeholder suggests to extend the biodegradation criteria OECD 301 from the 28days (> 20% non-biodegradable, 20-60% inherently biodegradable, > 60% biodegradable), to 60 days, as seen in some reports, in the sense of allowing a substance with >20% biodegradation in 28 days, to be classified as inherently biodegradable provided it reaches at least 60% within the 60-day window. JRC clarifieed it will be considered to take this extension into account and it recommends to send these comments in written form through BATIS. One stakeholder said that MWF are used also in open systems. Moreover, stakeholders asked about the accomplishment of the new threshold values for MWF and 2-stroke oils (which are linked to a high level of pollutant emissions and negative impacts). However, currently there are some products certified as 2-stroke oils, so they are proposed to be kept on the EU 4

5 Ecolabel scope. On the other hand, one stakeholder suggested to bring 2-stroke oils into TLL. One stakeholder suggested to create a new category of ALL for greases, because this would step out from the conventional bio markets. JRC suggested if there is this clear wish from the industry to have a seprate EU Ecolabel for a specific product, to make a formal petition to the Commission. Finally, one stakeholder strongly approved the exclusion of re-refined oils from the scope, since they have a bad environmental performance concerning biodegradability and aquatic toxicity. Moreover, no comments asking for the inclusion of these lubricants have been received. One stakeholder points a book providing information on a large portion (up to 70-80%) of Hydraulic fluids to be released into the environment; keeping this in mind, why to classify them as ALL and not as PLL instead? JRC clarifieed the information provided so far places the Hydraulic fluids as ALL and it is open to changes provided justification is provided from the industry in written form through BATIS. A stakheolder asked to clarify if the definitions would be included in the Commission Decision. JRC clarified that most important definitions will be included in the Commission Decision, and that other useful definitions could be considered to be included on the User Manual. A stakeholder said that in the technical report it is stated that more than 50% of lubricants are lost directly or indirectly to the environment during the use cycle. One stakeholder asked about this percentage of loss and the possibility to collect them again. Another question was about the compatibility with other ecolabel schemes and the possibility of recognition among the different schemes. JRC mentioned that this aspect is beyond the scope of current revision. However it was mentioned that the question would be discussed internally and that information on overlapping aspects with other schemes could be included in the User Manual. - JRC asked for written comments about the new definitions included in the criterion text. - Evidence and data for re-categorization of stern tubes and thrusters lubricants was asked. - Provide information about OECD test, and the biodegradability capacity. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants Revision of criteria proposal, rationale and discussion: Criterion 1. Excluded or limited substances Revised proposal for criterion 1 was presented by JRC. Minor changes has been included in this criterion, alignment with the Blue Angel approach has been considered, questions about hazardous substances and derogations required to comply with this criterion were asked. One stakeholder commented that asking to lubricants manufacturers about a total restriction of SVHC is difficult from an analytical point of view, since the tests methods used have a limit value of detection of substances and industry works with technical quality and not PA quality. The minimum level is going to be a challenge for the suppliers to certify this 5

6 substance requirement. A stakeholder mentioned that Blue Angel ecolabel has 4 categories to classify the lubricants (0,01%, half classification limit, full classification limit and special group on impurities) and that no relevant information about this issue has been included in the technical report. In addition, H317 and H334 have two classification limits and only the more restrictive limit has been considered in the technical report. It means the loss of half of the current licenses and also the substances included in the LuSC list. Moreover, it was added that there exist a problem to address differences in classification of the same substance. Moreover, Blue Angel approach includes new restricted hazards for final product and substances; and some hazards are derogated for total concentrations of substances in the final product up to a maximum of half of the relevant concentration that would lead to classification of the final product.the stakeholder added that it is important to examine in depth the reflection of these changes in the LuSC list, especially for additives, before the criteria revision process finalization. Several stakeholders mentioned that some toxic substances are absolutely needed in order to give functionality to the product. One stakeholder noted that the hazardous statements of emulsifiers have to be revised, especially in metalworking industry. Emulsifiability requires the presence of surfactants, which cause irritability; for this reason was requested to delete the H315 and H319 classifications from the table of Criterion 1. JRC asked for more information (derogation request) about this topic to identify the possibilities of improvement in the criterion. Stakeholders suggested that if the ambitious level is increased, the Lusc-List will need to be assesed including the new considerations. JRC commented that impact on LuSC List is expected due to the raise of ambition level and that revisions in most of the cases lead initially to a number of licences loses. In relation to information provided by Competent Bodies (representing 73% of licences) about 5 hazards profiles seems to be problematic, the rest of hazards present belong to hazards which have been relaxed due to the alignment with Blue Angel. JRC mentioned that further assessment of the LuSC list will be carried out, however it was highlighted that the assessment would be limited as the impact on the list is not only related with the hazardous statement, also for the concentration admissible that will depend on final formulation of lubricants. Regarding the self classification and harmonise classification, a subtask is developed in order to solve those problems, trying to agree among all the actors of the process, considering the involved actors and also the commission. The Article 6.6 of the EU Ecolabel Regulation 66/2010 was explained by the JRC. Non EU ecolabel products can contain SVHC. Products containing those substances cannot be ecolabeled. However, if they contain these substances below a specific concentration, derogation could be applicable. - JRC will study the possibility of create a sub-group of experts to treat in order to define a workable criterion. - Stakeholders to provide more information about current SVHC in lubricants. - Stakeholders to submit derogation requests to JRC for substances presenting any of the hazards profiles in table 1 (criterion 1) above 0.01%. JRC will treat data confidentially and will asses the possibility to derogate certain hazards for specific type of substances (e.g emulsifiers) if properly justified the need of the substance. 6

7 - JRC to carry out a deeper assessment on the impact on the LuSC List and a detailed exploration of Blue Angel approach. Criterion 2. Aquatic toxicity JRC presented the revised proposal of criterion 2. Few questions were presented to the stakeholders, in order to discuss and clarify some of the new points included in the criterion. First stakeholder s comment was about the chronic toxicity test: the proposal includes two trophic levels considering fish and daphnia, however the algae are also considered a chronic test and not being an animal test. In the last meeting the use of animal test to certify ecolabel products was questioned, so changing the trophic levels to algae and daphnia should be more convenient. Regarding the trophic levels, other stakeholder commented that the most two sensitive tests are used to determine the chronic toxicity and the acute toxicity, and that is why the current alternatives are used. He agreed with the use of the two most sensitive levels. Other comment related with the toxicity test was about the inclusion of a sentence like old test reports on fish are allowed, but new fish test should be avoided. A stakeholder noted that the proposed threshold values are not aligned with the lubricant lost classification: a higher fraction is asked in a lubricant that is ALL than for PLL. JRC answered that the revision of the threshold was based on the analysis of data received and also follows the pattern of the criterion currently in force. A stakeholder s concern about accreditation of laboratories appeared during the meeting.the stakeholder suggested that testing performed by accredited laboratories according to ISO (and not only under GLP) must be valid to conduct toxicity tests as well as biodegradability tests since they are technically competent to perform these tests for which they hold accreditation. In addition, the stakeholder highlighted that there are a very limited number of laboratories which are GLP for industrial chemicals type of product. Thus, it was suggested to include in the assessment and verification that: «Complicance testing according to acceptable protocols in a ISO accredited laboratory OR under GLP». JRC answered that this question is more for a competent body, who is able to answer about the procedure to recognise the accredited laboratories. Nevertheless, according to JRC in the general part of assessment and verification (first part of the annex) there is a procedure how to recognize the results from the accredited laboratories and also a way how other test results can be recognized. JRC commented that the criterion needs to be more specific, considering more aspects and going more deeply in the use of those tests. Also for the fish test, a second look will be done in order to clarify the issue. - JRC will discuss the use of animal or non animal test to define the limit values. - Alternatives to fish tests will be further studied. Criterion 3. Biodegradability and Bioaccumulative potential JRC presented the main changes in regard to this criterion in comparison to the first revised proposal and to the existing one. The most relevant change in the biodegradability part is the 7

8 increase of the threshold value for TLL. The main change in the bioaccumulation part is related with the K ow value, which was really controversial during the first consultation. Once the criterion was presented, several questions were presented in order to open the discussion with the stakeholders. The most controversial issues of this criterion are the 10-day windows test included in the definition of biodegradability, and the limit value for log K ow. It was discussed the concepts of 10-day window. One stakeholder commented in the chat that the existing version of EU Ecolabel has not considered the 10-day windows test and the inclusion of this concept in the definition seems too restrictive and it is unclear how a substance will be classified if it does not meet the requirement within 10 days. Regarding the 10-day window test, the JRC pointed that it is not a mandatory requirement. Other stakeholder validated the exemption included in the biodegradability definition and commented that the 10-day window test is not obligatory for UVCB substances. The change on the upper limit of K ow was criticised. An argument to mantain the upper limit of log Kow was that the OECD methods guidelines can only give reliable results up to 6 or 7, and all other values need to be calculated, so they are not in line with the proposed limit of K ow. Moreover, no test laboratory includes the standard up to 10. Different stakeholders supported these reasons. One stakeholder noted that the bioaccumulation criterion in Blue Angel is not similar to the revised proposal. They said that the Blue Angel indicates that the upper limit is 6 instead of 7. Moreover, a comment about the inclusion of the term organic in the criterion text was received: is redundant to introduce this concept in the text. JRC clarified that several comments received during the first consultation were about this issue, and for this reason the term has been included. A specific comment regarding greases was received: the criterion for TLL greases have changed very much since today 25% of non-biodegradable materials were considered, while with the 5% expected as a limit, it is almost impossible to certify a TLL grease. JRC asked to stakeholders to provide more information about this issue to analyse the technical data available. One stakeholder pointed that the problem with greases is that they react and create new substances in the formulated product. He want that the criterion will be applied to the final product, to the reacted product. Other comment was related with the inconsistency of including non-renewable synthetic lubricants, PAO and PAG because they will not comply with biodegradability thresholds. JRC clarified that according to the information included in the reports, the synthetic lubricants (renewable and non-renewable) are able to control and modify their characteristics, obtaining high biodegradability values and lower values of toxicity. For this reason, other alternatives to bio-based products have been suggested in the proposal. A general comment was received about the threshold values of this criterion asking whythe requirements for the PLL category are less though than those of the ALL category. JRC made the evaluation of the criteria according the data received from stakeholders and competent bodies and the thresholds were defined according this information. Finally, the test methods used to assess the criterion were discussed. One stakeholder commented that the OECD 306 test is much harder to pass than OECD 301 test. Despite both tests could be used as evidence of rapid degradability, the OECD 306 test should be used to 8

9 demonstrate both inherently and rapid biodegradability. Even though, other stakeholder replied to this comment, and said that if a lubricant comply with the OECD 306 test, it is able also to comply with the criterion. However, if a lubricant does not comply with OECD 306 test, could apply for OECD 301 accomplishment, and after comply with the criterion. This stakeholder demanded the use of only one method to verify the criterion: OECD 306 test. - JRC to revise wording and tresholds according to the received comments. - Further research will be done in relation to the higher limit of Log K ow and their relation with the existing tests. - Stakeholders to provide any additional relevant information about test laboratories to define the assessment and verification of the criterion. Criterion 4. Raw materials JRC presented criterion 4. The scope of this criterion is broader, not only renewable content is considered. Other non-renewable alternatives (with good biodegradability and low tocixity) to conventional mineral oils are proposed (e.g PAOs and PAGs). Current EU ecolabeled products have been analysed and most of them are able to comply with the revised threshold values. Questions to stakeholders were presented to know their views on the proposed criterion text and the views on the extension to other non-renewable raw material alternatives. A stakeholder asked to clarify if criterion would be of mandatory character. More related with the Criterion 5 (Origin and traceability of vegetable oils), a stakeholder was concerned about the burden on bio-based materials if an extra criterion is required for bio-based compare the suggested alternatives in criterion 4. Morevoer, the stakeholder added that the EU Ecolabel should refer to the biodegradability and toxicity of the substances; other impacts (as climate change, land use, lost of biodiversity, etc) do not have to be considered in the approach. JRC clarified that the revised proposal is not a promotion of only bio-based products; different alternatives which present a low toxicity and high biodegradability compare to conventional mineral oils have been included in the proposal. JRC claimed that the revised approach is more similar to the Environmental Acceptable Lubricants. The inclusion of synthetic lubricants from non-renewable sources is a controversial issue. Part of the participants of the meeting supported their inclusion on the scope of the EU Ecolabel, and others considered that these base fluids should not be a preferential basis for formulation of EU ecolabeled lubricants. On the one hand, the argument was that the non-renewable synthetic lubricants are not able to comply with the biodegradability and toxicity threshold values; and on the other hand, the limitation to renewable lubricants blocks the development of new lubricants from non-renewable sources more sustainable. Other alternatives that some stakeholders commented to include in this criterion are the gasto-liquid lubricants, which could be as environmental friendly as the new non-renewable synthetic oils included in the scope. JRC asked for more information about this type of lubricant (toxicity and biodegradability data) in order to study the possibility to include them in the scope. As more general comment, one stakeholder said that the Criterion 4 and 5 are disproportionable. Moreover, they mentioned that the no inclusion of renewability criterion is related with a higher dependence of fossil oils. 9

10 Additional comment was received about minor changes to do in the technical report: include re-refined base oils in the table of comparisons of biodegradability and toxicity between different base oils. JRC commented that two different approaches could be presented: delete the criterion as these issues could be already covered by previous criteria dealing with toxicity and biodegradability; or maintain it opening the scope to new non-renewable alternatives with good biodegradability and low toxicity aspects. JRC clarified that at TR2.0 it was decided to consider different alternatives to conventional mineral oils instead on focusing on bio-based oils. In addition Criterion 5 would ensure the sustainability of the bio-based alternatives. A final proposal will be defined considering the opinion of the majority of stakeholders participant in the process. - The table about biodegradability and toxicity of different base fluid alternatives will be actualized. - Stakeholders are asked to provide more information about specific formulation and suggestions regarding the biodegradability and toxicity of synthetic lubricants. - Written comments will be appreciated since it is a controversial criterion and a consensus is needed. Criterion 5. Origin and traceability of vegetable oils The revised proposal of criterion 5 was presented. The background information for the revised criterion presented different schemes that are able to be used; feedback on this criterion is needed to define the final version. The stakeholders were asked about two main points: the use of third-party sustainability schemes in the certification of bio-based lubricants and the sustainability schemes for the certification of renewable raw materials of current certified products. A stakeholder commented on the importance of differentiating between renewability and sustainability. JRC answered to this comment and said that despite there are different concepts, both are linked; in the revision it will be clarified. There is a general concern about the limitation in the use of renewable raw materials, an additional criterion for these base oils could affect the formulation of future products. Moreover, a wider diffusion of the certification schemes of vegetable oils is needed to develop the criterion. It is important to consider that the renewable energy directive is currently under revision. The discussion is broader than the EU Ecolabel, the EU Ecolabel should not be a precedent in the discussion, it is still early to refer to the directive because an overview of the result is not possible until the revision is finished. One stakeholder noted that this criterion is not reliable to ensure good requirements for sustainability. From the view point of important environmental organizations, the RSPO standard does not guarantee the sustainable origin of palm oil, because it is not preventing some of the impacts and the criteria for greenhouse gas emissions are not stringent enough. Different stakeholders pointed that the requirement of third-party certification will be impossible to meet by small and medium-sized companies, as obtaining these certifications from a third-party sustainability schemes is difficult. Moreover, there are not en enourmous 10

11 amount of licences, it is important to be attentition to do not put the limit to high for applicants, because they are concerned that this certification system are not really to find ot at least very realistic in practice. Reflecting a limit to high for renewable resources, then may be a push throwards the mineral oil. To certify renewable raw material is difficult since the market is not well developed. JRC replied that is not asking the companies to be certified. If the supplier chain is certified or the renewable raw material is certified, the producer only has to deliver the documents as evidene of the certification of the raw materials used. One stakeholder proposed only focusing on renewable raw materials, to require a percentage of certified products as an extra point of criterion 4. If a percentage of the renewable part is asked to be certified by third-party scheme, the EU Ecolabel will promote the innovation of the lubricant sector, since the possibility to improve the products are open. The final version of this criterion needs to be done with the collaboration of all the stakeholders. JRC considers the market on third-party certifications as independent and valid in the next few years. There is a market where third-party certified sustainable raw materials that have no link to the Renewable Energy Directive are being applied. - Clarification between sustainability and renewable concepts will be included in the next revised version of the technical report. - Another look to this criterion will be done internally, in order to consider the information and feedback provided during the meeting and the consultation. - Written feedback about why the written criterion is not workable or why the thirdparty sustainability schemes are not reliable will be useful to response the concerns of stakeholders. Criterion 6. Packaging requirements JRC presented revised criterion on packaging. Several questions were presented to stakeholders, in order to know the feasibility of this criterion. Stakeholders asked about the mandatory level of the criterion. JRC clarified that this criterion is proposed to be mandatory. One stakeholder pointed that, if the criterion is finally included, different aspects need to be considered: how to check the 25% of recycled material in a packaging and include a criterion about the quality of the plastic used in packaging. Existing schemes refers to these topic. Some stakeholders agreed to include a requirement of SVHCs in the packaging. A stakeholder mentioned that products where the packaging is needed to contain the mixture should also be considered as part of the product. It was mentioned that criteria about SVHCs in packaging are applied for other product groups of EU Ecolabel, like detergents. JRC clarified that specific test to determine the share of recycled material used is not available, for this reason the proposed assessment and verification of this criterion consists in the supplied information of the producer of the packaging, where the share of recycled and virgin material should be indicated. Other comments were about the take back system requirement in case of B2B products and products supplied in metal drums. A stakeholder asked about the requirement of products B2B, and the assessment of the criterion for products supplied in metal drums. With regard 11

12 tacke back system, JRC mentioned that the assessment and verification text for this subrequirement have not been included since is a new proposal that have to be discussed with stakeholders. However, JRC said that a declaration will be the minimum requirement and the final proposal if no other solutions are feasible. Finally, a stakeholder asked for a clear definition of private end consumers concept. JRC mentioned that more information about this concept will be included in the criterion text or the user manual. - Industry stakeholders to provide information on the recycled material shares of the packaging used. - Industry stakeholders to provide information about the take-back system implemented in the lubricant sector and ways of verification. - JRC to study the possibility to include the SVHCs requirement for packaging. Criterion 7. Technical performance JRC presented the revised criterion. It was explained that main aim of this criterion is to guarantee that the product meets certain quality requirements and that the criterion have been revised taking into consideration the modifications of the revised scope. It was mentioned that the testing laboratories confirming compliance with the requirements are suggested to be manufacturer s own laboratory which has a quality assurance system or independent third party testing laboratories. Some stakeholders said that the third party testing laboratory has to be certified according to ISO The 7 th Luxemburg report is no longer active, according to one stakeholder. One stakeholder asked what is meant by relevant OEM approval, specifically What is a non-relevant OEM? JRC clarified that relevant OEM means with expertise on the particular product group, for instance, if it is about chainsaw oils, it will have to be an OEM with expertise in this type of product. A stakeholders requested additional clarification on whether the tractor transmission oils are part of the hydraulic systems or not. JRC clarifies they are, as the tractor transmission are part of the same ISO standard as hydraulic systems, it will be double checked and feedback from the industry shall be welcome. Another stakeholder stated that there are differences between typical hydraulic fluids and the tractor transmission oils, which explains why the corresponding ISO for hydraulics does not define a specification for tractor transmission oils. Also, stakeholders required more clarification on what evidence will be required in order to prove that at least one OEM approval has been gained. A stakeholder raises the question whether the table is redundant, considering it does not address the ALL, PLL, TLL (as defined in the current scope), but rather specific lubricant types. A stakeholder asked: Is it possible in the criteria to use case studies based on market experience? According to one stakeholder, such studies are suitable to prove compliance. JRC 12

13 clarifies in the end, it will depend on the type of study, on whether it has been carried out by an independent laboratory or not. If fact, several stakeholdes agreed that, in order to run tests to prove compliance on a specific technical performance, only reports from third party independent ISO accredited laboratories should be accepted. It is not OK to be judge and part at the same time. One stakeholder brings the point regarding a company having commercial sales of a product for a specific application, shouldn t these sales be enough prove that the product complies with a minimum performance? JRC clarified this topic was also discussed during the 1 st meeting and, additionally, this is an internal prove, which is not able to be certified by a third party; it would also be very difficult to stablish a threshold sales value, for SME, for larger Coompanies; this is a good internal indicator, only. - Stakeholders to provide information on tests performed for technical performance of the different categories and their costs. - Stakeholders are asked to provide more information about specific documentation required for approval of a specific lubricant. Also they are asked to provide information on tractor transmission oils in relation to being covered under Hydraulic fluids or not, as well as the specific requirements for Tractor Transmission Oils. - Additional feedback is also welcome regarding the validity or not of field/case studies with regard to the demonstration of compliance by a specific lubricant product. - Criterion 8. Consumer information and Criterion 9. Information appearing on the EU Ecolabel Last criteria presented were the revised proposal for Criterion 8 and 9. Minor changes were included in the revised version of the criteria. Stakeholder views on the proposal were asked. About criterion 8, a stakeholder is concerned about if anyone that is not an expert on environment will understand what an authorised waste manager is. Moreover, the language was suggested by the stakeholder to be adapted based on B2B or B2C products to make it clear what concrete recommendations a consumer should follow during use and disposal. JRC agreed and they said that it is important to differentiate between B2B and B2C products in the criterion text. JRC mentioned that any comments or proposals to improve the wording of criterion 8 will be welcome in order to produce the final text. With regard criterion 9 a revised proposal was presented by JRC which have to be discussed: Verified performance or as effective as the average product on the market. Regarding this, one stakeholder suggested to maintain only the verified performance in the text box. JRC suggested that the wording options would be checked in order to align with other product groups. A comment was done referring to the importance of the outcomes of the criteria 4 and 5 to define the final sentences included in the criterion. Moreover, the first sentences were criticised since they could be equivalent. A comment was about that marketing strategy is not based on the sentences included in the packaging. JRC replied that the companies do not need to include those sentences to their 13

14 products. However, the goal of these three sentences is to highlight the environmental benefits of the product, so they have to be understandable to people who buys the product. - Any proposal received by stakeholders is welcome. - JRC will check the wording of current EU Ecolabel product groups. Next steps following on from this AHWG1 meeting Next steps were presented. Stakeholders were invited to provide their comments until the end of the month using the BATIS system. The planning includes a new version of the technical report by February 2018, which will include an open online consultation for final comments. The final report will be published in April JRC planned to vote the new criteria in June At the end of the meeting, several final comments and suggestions were received. A stakeholder provided information about their certified lubricants; resolving that 6 of 9 currently certified products will be out of the scope due to the revised proposal of criterion 1. Moreover, the other 3 products will not able to comply since they are not already compliant with the current criteria. Due to this inconvenient, the stakeholder wondered by another meeting after the third technical report. The impact on the LuSC List was mentioned, a stakeholder said that the SDS should be sent to JRC to analyse the threshold values according all data about substances available. JRC reminded that this information was asked during the revision process and was collected to reflect the impact of the changes in the current licences. In fact, the technical report includes all these information received from competent bodies and industry. More information about threshold values of current products certified will be welcome and considered in the revision of the second technical report. JRC said that an additional AHWG meeting is not planed. However since most of the work need to be done in the reword of Criterion 1 to make it feasible, probably after the consultation period the JRC will organise a sub-group of experts to discuss the proposal of Criterion 1. It was noted that it is important to consider that the current EU Ecolabel criteria are expiring at the end of 2018 and the revised criteria have to be published before. For this reason, the timing proposed for this revision has to be complied. JRC reminded that all comments and suggestions will be welcomed and considered in the revision. 14