EU Ecolabel revision for hard coverings criteria - March... · 3 Part I. General update on HC...

The European Commission’sscience and knowledge service

Joint Research Centre

EU Ecolabel revision for

hard coverings criteria

Update following the 1st Ad-Hoc

Working Group meeting

Shane Donatello

2

Content

Part I: General update (approx. 30 minutes).

1. Current HC timeline.

2. Feedback on scope, scoring and criteria structure.

3. Feedback on horizontal issues.

4. Feedback on cement and concrete criteria and sub-groups.

5. Feedback on ceramic criteria and sub-groups.

6. Feedback on natural stone criteria and sub-groups.

Part II: Main discussion points (approx. 30 minutes).

1. Discussion on B2B labelling of (natural) ornamental stone blocks.

2. Discussion on agglomerated stone.

3

Part I. General update on HC project.


2. Feedback on scope and scoring structure.


4. Feedback on cement and concrete criteria and sub-group.

5. Feedback on ceramic criteria and sub-group.

6. Feedback on natural stone criteria and sub-group.

7. Green Building Assessment (GBA) schemes sub-group.

4


• 2nd ADWG meeting moved to Sept. Align with PP/CP meeting.

• March 2019: set up specialised sub-groups.

• June 2019: EUEB update, outcomes from sub-groups.

• Aug 25, 2019: publish TR 2.0.

• Sept 25-26: 2nd AHWG meeting in Brussels – room booked!

• Oct 2019: Deadline for feedback to 2nd TR and proposals.

• Nov 2019: EUEB updates and chance to discuss feedback and propose changes.

• Feb 2020: TR 3.0 ready by Jan. 2020, EUEB feedback.

• Feb-May 2020: ISC. Final legal text ready by May 2020.

• June 2020: EUEB and Reg. Com.

5


Criteria structure as follows:

• Common horizontal criteria for three/four sub-products (natural stone,

agglomerated stone, ceramics and concrete).

• Specific vertical criteria for each sub-product.

• A table can be inserted at the beginning of Annex that explains which

criteria apply to which sub-product and which have mandatory elements

and which are purely optional.

• So proposal is one act + one annex.

• Same code for all sub-products because same end functionality, only

difference is the material used.

6


• Feedback on scope generally positive.

• Feedback on scoring generally positive, but real discussion will come at

2nd AHWG once criteria are further researched.

• Plasterboard not to be investigated.

• Ceramics, concrete and natural stone to be maintained.

• Agglomerated stone future is in doubt.

• No interest expressed by the industry to date.

• Very little technical information publically available.

• Concerns about resins used & VOC emissions – an unknown quantity.

7


• Requirement on EMS a possible issue with PP. Fool-proof approach

would be to make this criterion optional only.

• Raw material extraction criterion needs to be reworked.

• Need to specify (and define) an SVHC management system for the

license holder in the criterion on hazardous substances.

• Considerable interest in the VOC emission criterion.

• To reduce number of mandatory criteria:

• Asbestos requirement proposed to go.

• Packaging requirement proposed to go.

8

4. Feedback on cement/concrete criteria and sub-group

Need for further sub-group discussion identified on following points:

• Data on CO2 emissions: Where did the GNR database go?

• Focus on main CO2 emission sources (i.e. the cement kiln) or go for a

full CO2 footprint at the level of the concrete?

• Understand what is "responsible sourcing" for virgin aggregate exactly,

how to define? Is it widely available or a niche/national thing only.

• Niche discussions: permeable paving and phtocatalytically active paving

(specifications and installation guidance).

9

5. Feedback on ceramic criteria and sub-group


• Clarify what are the main challenges with A&V for ceramics for existing license

holders and CBs.

• Energy consumption of driers? To address this too? If so, how exactly?

• Focus on main CO2 emission sources (i.e. the ceramic kiln & drier) or go for a

full CO2 footprint?

• Data collection exercise for energy consumption and emissions at least.

Serious need to nuance energy values for e.g. porcelain tiles & masonry units.

• Clarification about S emissions and how they should be expressed exactly.

• Investigate data available on public registers (in IT, ES and others if possible).

10

6. Feedback on natural stone criteria and sub-group


• Establish dialogue with other relevant schemes:

• NSC in the US.

• GECA in Australia.

• Fair Stone in Germany.

• The above schemes include social issues and chain of custody as well – is this

something that should be looked at for non-EU quarries? Or are we just adding

complexity?

• Explain in more detail how the landscape impact ratio could/should work.

• Gain a better understanding of the market dynamics, especially with secondary

materials and irregular blocks and relative importance of non-EU quarries.

11

7. Green Building Assessment schemes

• Initial contact made with BREEAM, VERDE, HQE and DGNB, LEED still

missing.

• Overall aim is for the schemes to recognise EUEL hard coverings with at

least the same points awarded for product specific EPDs.

• To explain to them how the EUEL (and ISO Type I labels in general)

compliment Type II and Type III environmental labels/declarations.

• To explore potential synergies between the EUEL and GBAs (i.e. EUEL as a

means of verifying compliance with certain GBA requirements such as VOC

emissions, recycled content and responsible sourcing).

• Possible recognition of wooden coverings and furniture too.

• May need some higher level discussions (e.g. Global Ecolabelling Network

and World Green Building Council).

12

Part I. Conclusion.

1. Do you want to form part of any of the sub-groups?

• All welcome to act as observers.

• Active participants may be limited by numbers (max. 8-12 is the usual).

• Especially for CBs with licenses.

• Especially for CBs with significant market share.

• Especially for CBs with potentially interested applicants.

2. Any comments on slides about the general update?

13

Part II. Main discussion points for EUEB.

1. Do you support having a B2B license for (natural ) ornamental stone blocks?

• No

• Not quite (list of inspected quarries at the most).

• Yes

2. Removal of agglomerated stone from scope.

• No

• Yes

14

1. B2B license for (natural) ornamental stone.

Company A Company B Company B

Company C*

*generally as intermediaries that specialize in transport and logistics and bulk

sale. (images from PhD thesis of Isabella Bianco "LCI inventory of cutting

technologies in the ornamental stone supply chain".

Simple scenario: 1 quarry to 1 processor

15

Finishers buy from lots of quarries

or intermediaries – need to offer a

range of products to consumers.

Q1

Intermediary

EUEL applicant


Q2 Q3More probable scenario: multiple

quarries to 1 processor

CB

Site visit

and info

Site visit

and info?

16


Arguments in favour of separate license

• In line with how the market works (international trade).

• Could help with serious issues with misleading claims about source

quarry.

• Important impacts at quarry as reflected by current criteria.

• Currently no incentive for quarry operator to provide data.

• CB needs to visit finisher & quarry extra A&V costs?

• Could streamline CB workload (especially quarries from other countries).

• Similar arguments to justify B2B labelling of Tissue Paper mother reels

17


Arguments against separate license / clarifications needed

• A change from the current approach....

• No explicit interest expressed by any quarry operator (but only one

license in EU right now – 1st step: see if we have EUEB green light).

• How to explain application fees, would fee be as follows?:

• 2 separate licenses: Quarry operator pays X, Processor pays X

• 1 final license only: Quarry operator pays 0, Processor pays 2X or X?

• Need to clarify if this can also apply to non-EU quarries or not.

• Need to clarify if a minimum score is needed or just compliance with

the minimum requirements for the quarry criteria.

18

2. Potential removal of agglomerated stone.

Arguments to support removal:

• Lack of technical information (complicates rationale for criteria)

• No licenses to date and no interest from industry so far (any contacts

from EUEB network?)

• Only sub-product that is not "inorganic" (uses organic binders, typically

polyester resins or epoxies – very little information about these chemistries,

also a significant potential source of VOC emissions from final product)

Arguments to support continuation:

• Growing market share in indoor coverings

• Highly relevant to kitchen countertops – possible link to EUEL furniture

19

Part II. Main discussion points for EUEB.

1. Do you support having a B2B license for (natural ) ornamental stone?

• No

• Not quite (list of inspected quarries at the most).

• Yes

2. Potential removal of agglomerated stone from scope.

• No

• Yes

ThanksAny questions?Email: [email protected]

Keep up to date with the project:

JRC website: http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Hard_coverings/index.html (for everyone)BATIS: http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/batis/ (for registered stakeholders only)

mailto:[email protected]

http://susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Hard_coverings/index.html

http://eippcb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/batis/

21

In case discussion on CO2 is raised…Choice between focussing EUEL criteria on

Main CO2 emissions:

• E.g. for cement: kiln & precalciner

• E.g. for concrete: cement content

• E.g. for ceramic: drier & kiln

Why?

• Follows previous practice for similar types of criteria (e.g. Graphic and Tissue Paper).

• Seems more in line with wording of EUEL Reg., specifically recital 5 and Article 8(4) not "disproportionate"

Full CO2 footprint (e.g. for cement):

• CO2 of raw material extraction

• CO2 of transport

• CO2 of electricity

• CO2 of fuel consumption

• CO2 of chemicals, additives & consumables

Why?

• Gives the full picture.

• More in line with GBA thinking.

• Could line up well with PEF work.

22

In case discussion on CO2 is raised…Generally accepted that the CO2 hot-spot of cement production is the cement kiln

(and any combined precalciner when used) ca. 85% of total emissions.

Generally accepted that the CO2 hotspot of concrete production is the cement

content ca. 75% total embodied carbon.

10

1.125

6.375

Total CO2

footprint of

concreteTotal CO2

footprint of

cement

Main CO2

emissions

reported from

cement kiln and

precalciner as

per ETS

requirements.

23

In case discussion on CO2 is raised…

Type of data available from the

GNR database:

• Weighted average: 821 kgCO2/t clinker

• 1st quartile: 788 kgCO2/t clinker

• 3rd quartile: 858 kgCO2/t clinker

Covers 90% of EU cement

production. Possible link to EUEL:

• 1st quartile or better EUEL (max. points)

• In between 1st and 3rd quartile (points in

proportion to how close to first quartile)

• 3rd quartile EUEL mandatory (0 points)

24

In case a closer look at concrete production needed…

Full footprint means calculating CO2 for all these steps, then apply cut-off rules.

Quarrying Crushing Grinding Blending Preheater / Precalciner

Kiln Cooler

GrindingStoragePackagingShipping

Cement production process:

Cement (8-16%)

Water4-8%

Aggregates + sand

(76-88%)

Vibro-compression StorageCuringMixing

Concrete production process:Plasticiser

0.1%

Gypsum3-5%

SCMs0-50+%

Shipping

>85% total cement CO2 emissions here

>75% total

concrete CO2

emissions here

Specific emissions approach means focussing on red parts only

25


Arguments regarding an intermediate approach

• Similar rationale to the "inspected pulps" list (but still not up & running).

• No explicit interest expressed by any quarry operator (but only one

quarry in Europe currently involved with EUEL).

• No minimum score needed, result would be a certificate with the

quarry score for the most recent completed calendar year.

• Still need to clarify if this can also apply to non-EU quarries or not.

• Still need to clarify the application fee situation, no EUEL result….

EU Ecolabel revision for hard coverings criteria - March... · 3 Part I. General update on HC...

Documents

Transcript of EU Ecolabel revision for hard coverings criteria - March... · 3 Part I. General update on HC...