EUROPEAN COMMISSION Joint Research Centre Directorate B – Grow th and Innovation Circular Economy and Industrial Leadership

Minutes of the 1st AHWG Meeting for the revision

of the EU Ecolabel criteria for

Lubricants

Thursday 09th February 2017, 09:30-18:00

JRC Directorate B. Growth and Innovation (Seville)

Edificio Expo, C/ Inca Garcilaso, 3

Room A30

41 092 Seville, SPAIN

Attendees No Last Name First Name Organisation

1 ANGULO Paul EY

2 ARDAI Roland Axel Christiernsson International AB

3 AVILA Luis Fuchs Lubricantes S.A.U.

4 BAUMGAERTEL Stephan Verband Schmierstoff-Industrie e.V.

5 BELTRAN Lluis INDUSTRIAL QUIMICA LASEM- SAU

6 BENEDICTO Elisabet Leitat Technological Center

7 BOTZ Otto Rowe MineralOlWerk Gmbh

8 BRAND Siegbert BASF SE

9 DE NARDO Caterina Studio Fieschi & soci Srl on behalf of Novamont SpA

10 DEMOMENT Pascale TOTAL LUBRIFIANTS

11 DOROSKO Kristine DG ENV, European Commission

12 DR. GALDA Patrick PANOLIN Production AG

13 EASTWOOD John Croda Europe

14 ESKELAND Marianne Ecolabelling Norway

15 FERNÁNDEZ RUIZ-

MORÓN

Luis REPSOL SA

16 FIESCHI Maurizio Studio Fieschi & soci Srl on behalf of Novamont SpA

17 FUENTES Natalia Leitat Technological Center

18 GARTISER Stefan Hydrotox GmbH

19 HAEKEL Sabine Klüber Lubrication München SE & Co. KG

2

No Last Name First Name Organisation

20 HOF Matthias Emery Oleochemicals GmbH

21 KAPS Renata Joint Research Centre, European Commission

22 KLEIN Thomas Lanxess Deutschland GmbH

23 KRKLJUS Ivana BASF SE

24 KROP Hildo krop-consult.comNS

25 LAWFORD Simon SIP Ltd

26 LESCOFFIT Anne-Elise Kuwait Petroleum Research & Technology

27 LININGTON Susannah BP Castrol

28 MEDYNA Galyna Joint Research Centre, European Commission

29 MORALES Blanca BEUC

30 NIELSEN Ian RSC BioSolutions

31 PENTCHEVA Tania European Re-refining Industry Association (GEIR)

32 PETERS Mike SIP Ltd

33 QUINTANA Cristina CEPSA S.A.U.

34 RODRIGUEZ

QUINTERO

Rocio Joint Research Centre, European Commission

35 ROELL Bernard RSC Bio Solutions

36 SAHLBERG Ulla Ecolabelling Sweden

37 SCHORPION Hannelore Federal Public Service Health Food Chain Safety

38 TOMA Maria-Daniela Ministry of Environment

39 VAN DER KAAIJ Ton Quaker Chemical

40 VAUGHAN Paul UK Ecolabel Delivery

41 VETTEL Paula Novvi LLC

42 VIDAL- ABARCA

GARRIDO

Candela Joint Research Centre, European Commission

43 WHOLLEY Chris Vickers Oils

44 WIRTH Olaf Ökopol - Institut für Ökologie und Politik

45 WOLF Oliver Joint Research Centre, European Commission

46 WOYDT Mathias BAM Federal Institute for Materials Research and

Testing

47 WRAGG Mick Lubrizol

3

Agenda

SCHEDULE

1. Opening and welcome 09:30 – 09:45

2. Political objectives of the EU Ecolabel and process description 09:45– 10:00

3. Summary of the preliminary report 10:00 – 10:45

Coffee break 10:45 – 11-00

4. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and discussion: Criterion 1. Excluded and limited substances

11-00 – 11:40

5.

EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and

discussion:

Criterion 2. Aquatic toxicity 11:40 – 12:15

6.

EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and

discussion: criteria Criterion 3. Biodegradability and

Bioaccumulative potential 12:15 – 12:45

7. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and discussion: criteria Criterion 4. Raw materials

12:45 – 13:15

Lunch break 13:15 – 14:15

8. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - New Criterion 5. Origin

and traceability of vegetable oils 14:15– 14:45

9. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - New Criterion 6.Exhaust

emissions 14:45– 15:15

10. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants – New Criterion 7.

Packaging 15:15 – 15:45

11. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and discussion: Criterion 8. Technical performance

15:45 – 16:15

Coffee break 16:15– 16:30

12. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants – New Criterion 9.

Consumer information 16:30 – 17:00

13.

EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Revision of criteria and discussion: Criterion10. Information appearing on the EU

Ecolabel

17:00 – 17:30

14. EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants - Conclusion, next steps and closure of the workshop

17:30 – 18:00

4

Welcome, introduction and background

JRC Directorate B. Growth and Innovation presented the political objectives of the EU

Ecolabel and the different steps of the criteria revision process for Lubricants.

The stakeholder feedback obtained during the AHWG meeting and current consultation will be used to identify technical issues for further investigation and to develop a revised version of the criteria proposal.

JRC Directorate B. Growth and Innovation then presented the summary of the preliminary

report including the scope and definition, market and technical analysis.

General discussion: Scope and definition, market and technical analysis

The main results of the preliminary report were presented.

With regard the market share, a stakeholder suggested that there is missing data about US Ecolabel products. He added that opening the scope to other products is good, but it would be

better to increasing the actual bio-lubricants market share, from 1-2% to higher volumes. Legislations like VGP in the US, could have significant contribution.

He mentioned that EU products are more expensive and manufacturers need an incentive. There is a need to push the EU biolubricants market, having more initiatives from the

Commission.

With regard to the scope extension and classification:

- The main role of 4 stroke lubricants is first, to reduce emissions and second, to

increase the performance. In addition, the quantity used is reduced and the fluid life

extended, reducing waste. There is no consensus on including and excluding the new

category of 4 stroke engine oils. On the one hand, some stakeholders suggested that

engine oils, as metalworking fluids, should not be included in the scope because of its

dangerous composition. In the other hand, there are also opinions supporting

inclusion, as it can give incentives to manufacturers to change the chemistry, and

modify old technologies to improve the new ones.

- One stakeholder suggested that 2 stroke engine oils should be also removed, because

they have high emission problems. The engine itself is the problem.

- Possibility of introducing metalworking fluids (MWF) as a new category in the EEL

faced different views:

1. Some stakeholders pointed out that MWF should be treated as dangerous

waste, like engine oils.

2. Other mentioned that it should be distinguished between water miscible and

non-water miscible MWF. Some stakeholders considered that water miscible

MWF fluids should not be included in the scope, because they contain hazard

5

substances as biocides and this goes against the biodegradability requirement.

However, non-miscible fluids could be included.

3. Some supported including MWF in the scope. There are diverse biocides, each

one with different environmental impacts, so this should not a problem for the

inclusion of MWF. It is an incentive for manufactures to try to formulate these

types of fluids with more environmentally friendly properties.

Other stakeholders suggested including transformer oils (for electronics) that are applied in

sensitive areas and other marine lubricants (apart from stern tube).

There was a general opinion that considering inclusion of re-refined oils could be critical,

because they are not environmentally friendly. The environmental impact of re-refined oil is

the same as of mineral oil. Contrary to this opinion, there are also some stakeholders that

affirmed that re-refined oils provide a lot of environmental benefits compared to virgin

mineral oils.

JRC clarified that EEL is not an exclusive label for biobased products. EEL is a label given to

best environmentally performing products (taking into consideration the entire life of the

lubricant) and should reflect best practices for as many lubricants categories as possible. JRC

mentioned the opportunity of synergy with GPP. E.g. for GPP transport, it may be valuable if

engine oils are included in the scope of EEL, as the GPP criteria could refer to them.

Actions:

Stakeholders to provide further comments on the feasibility to enlarge the scope.

Stakeholders to provide further information on basic lubricants formulations and

other information sources on re-refined oils and virgin mineral oils studies.

JRC will assess all the input received on the scope and will better clarify and define

the categories and subcategories proposed to be included in the scope.

JRC will better reflect new technologies in the revised report based on the input

received and additional research to be conducted.

EU Ecolabel criteria for Lubricants – Revision of criteria proposal, rationale and discussion:

Criterion 1. Excluded or limited substances

Proposal for criterion 1 (excluded or limited substances) was presented by JRC.

One stakeholder did not agree that ingoing substances covered by Article 2(7)(a) and (b) of REACH Regulation are exempted from point (a) (ii) of Criterion 1. This stakeholder stated

that this Article sets out criteria for exempting substances within Annexes IV and V to that Regulation from registration but not for downstream users and evaluation requirements. Potentially, there could be some natural substances that are hazardous, not exactly known

6

where they are used in lubricants but they have to be supplied by a SDS and they should be

treated like all the other substances.

Regarding the currently used interpretation of the grouping of hazards (as per Regulation (EC) No. 1272/2008 and the Task Force document), Group 3: Hazards to which greater

flexibility may be applied, the stakeholder suggest that the flexibility has been discussed for other product groups (e.g plasticisers) and he object to apply flexibility for lubricants for

group 3 if the fate is the aquatic environment. It was suggested that technical reasons has to be evidenced for an exemption for substances with hazards statements included in this Group 3.

A general comment was stated by stakeholders with regard to the setting of restrictions at

substance level. Stakeholders suggested that this would lead to an ambition level that is not currently achievable by candidates and therefore to a significant loss of licenses. Main reasons

suggested were based on the performance required by the market and the difficulties to formulate lubricant products without any hazardous substances. Main problem associated with this product category is that lubricants are multifunctional in getting the performance and

therefore a lot of different chemistries must be used in the formulation to get the performance required by the market.

Regarding the derogation process, one stakeholder commented that in the last revision there was a sort of derogation which is the LuSC-list. Some of the components that are already in the LuSC-list also have some hazardous properties, thus it was suggested to consider that if

this proposal is going forward. Moreover, in terms of the derogation process, one question was raised regarding harmonization of work between different CBs and the complexity of the

process.

Another stakeholder mentioned that MWFs preservatives are covered under Product type 13 according to the BPR. Currently, there are 28 active substances approved and included

according to article 95 of BPR. Eleven of them are formaldehyde releasers and the most widely used due to its effectiveness within such wide pH range is the mixture Chloromethylisothiazolinone (CMIT) and methylisothiazolinone (MIT) (CMIT/MIT 3:1).

However, there was a bit concern regarding this last biocide due to their sensitizing potential.

Some questions were raised about how to demonstrate by applicants if hazardous substances

or mixtures have changed their properties upon processing (become no longer bioavailable, undergo chemical modification) and therefore are exempted from criterion 1 (a)ii.

A general comment was stated by stakeholders with regard to maintaining the LuSC-list and

its principal classification, i.e. different restrictions depending on the class of hazardous substances. Some stakeholders expressed their concern about the LuSC-list, in the sense what

will happen to products currently ecolabelled if something is changed in the LuSC-list.

In the case the proposed criterion is implemented, one stakeholder suggested to carry out a study of impact regarding the formulation feasibility before changing anything in the LuSC-

list. An example was given by a stakeholder, only taking one or two additives of the LuSC-list, may impact the 20 or 30% of the finished currently ecolabelled products.

According to the new proposal, compliance with the ecological criterion is required for the final product and also for its constituent substances that are intentionally added. One stakeholder asked how the CBs are going to check this according to the application form.

According to the ECHA guidance, impurities can be present in a monoconstituent substance up to 20%; therefore, should applicants include and state impurities as well? And, how is this

going to be documented? Further clarification was requested in regard to this criterion including the assessment and verification.

7

In regard to nanomaterials, further clarification was also requested by stakeholders. Some questions were raised such as: what will the CBs need to be assessed: the nanoform or the bulk form? And what about soluble nanomaterials and insoluble ones? Should applicants

provide the size distribution?

From the market perspective, one stakeholder informed that according to the new proposal at

substance level, currently 40-50% of German EU Ecolabelled products would fail. This stakeholder clarified that a high percentage of additives used in soluble oil applications are immediately excluded and there is no much alternatives which does not contain such hazard

statement. Therefore, the existing criterion should be kept.

A CB stressed that they are aware that many products cannot be formulated without any of the

substances classified with one of this H-statements. Derogations are needed for this type of products. Regarding the derogation process, it was mentioned that there would not be difficult to get approbations for derogations if industry comes up with specific chemical and the

technical justifications for its derogation. It was mentioned that the derogation list must be different from what are used to, may be another approach that allows some “x” limit per

functional group but not specifying all substances, because it should be very difficult to identify all the substances to be derogated and it will be a shame if some current products fail taking into account that this could be an environmental benefit to improving these products as

well. CBs encourage Commission to have a presentation on the LuSC-list and know more information about that from the Member States side.

Another CB mentioned that if the LuSC-list is important for lubricants manufacturers, this could be the base for having discussions about derogations, in the sense that without these substances the products will not work technically. Nevertheless, it was suggested that the

rationale has to be provided from industry because this cannot be provided by JRC.

In Germany, the Blue Angel limits substances that would lead to classification in a specific hazard class up to a maximum of half of the relevant concentration that would lead to

classification of the final product in this specific hazard class. A CB stressed that this could be a solution since it has been very successful. This could encourage the market and support the

final formulation with the EU Ecolabel criterion.

It was remarked that the LuSC-list is not a method to derogate, but encourages the market and supports the final formulation complying with the Ecolabel criterion. A CB pointed out that

the LuSC-list has been very successful and is an example for other groups in the Ecolabel. So, it was suggested to focus on these successful factors in order to expand this successful product

group. The first key factor was the LuSC-list and the second key factor was that the classification of the product is at “final formulation level” not at substance level. We have to take into account the impact on the number of EU Ecolabel licenses across Europe.

One stakeholder mentioned that 95% of German licenses will fail with the new proposal at substance level. Clarification was requested by stakeholders on derogation list. One

stakeholder did not agree that industry must provide information on specific substances because the know-how of certain formulators is to use chemical substances for unconventional way and confidential issues. So, it was proposed not to list the substance

name but functional group for example.

A question was raised on what about black box packages (confidential lubricant packages)

companies do not have the full information provided by the additives providers.

Finally, it was clarified that substances included in the candidate list above 0,010% w/w are

8

already out of the EU Ecolabel according to REACH regulation and below 0,010% should not

be stated. Moreover, with the new proposal at substance level, the LuSC-list will lose 75% of the additives.

There was a general agreement that setting the restrictions at substance level would lead to

very high ambition level and to a significant loss of licenses. JRC mentioned that such criteria are established also for other complex product groups as paints and varnishes, so it is not

impossible but definitely it will require a lot of work.

Actions:

Written comments will be carefully assessed.

Stakeholders to provide further information/data on lubricants composition and

specific functional groups where hazardous substances are being substituted by safer

alternatives.

JRC will assess how to set a feasible requirement taking into consideration the input

provided. Other approaches will be considered (e.g Blue Angel).

Criterion 2. Aquatic toxicity

Criterion 2 was presented by JRC. This criterion suffered a modification compared to the

published version of the technical report. A single page summarizing these changes will be uploaded into BATIS.

One stakeholder commented that this criterion was not very clear and the arguments were hard to follow. Therefore, it was suggested to redraft this chapter and consider the ability to test mixtures for all product categories, not only for greases as in the current system. Different

reasons were given: firstly there is a guidance that encourages formulators and/or manufacturers to take different approaches in regard to classify according CLP and testing

mixtures does not go against the aim of this regulation. Secondly, several standards on the market, that most companies have to follow, are based on testing mixtures. Therefore, it will be better if lubricants manufacturers have the option of testing mixtures. Thirdly, a company

has to pay access for the data generated for REACH purposes. A lot of agreements that are in place today restrict this access purely for REACH uses and is not possible to use

environmental data for Ecolabel purposes, except if the company pays again. And this is a cost to the value chain. Finally, companies usually operate in different jurisdictions where testing of mixtures is perfectly acceptable. In summary, this could be a great cost trade barrier

to enter in the market for new products.

Another stakeholder who was not in favor to add the fish test, raised a question: how many

times does the fish test add a lower value than daphnia or algae test results? With regard to QSARs, the stakeholder mentioned that QSARs can only be used for pure chemical substances, therefore further clarification is needed if QSARs want to be applied. Finally, the

same stakeholder mentioned that there are several exemptions in the existing criteria like polymers but they are not covered in the proposal. It was suggested to include them in the

revised proposal.

One stakeholder suggested giving as much flexibility as possible for this criterion. According to the draft technical report, the obligation to test substances in all the three trophic levels,

may be probably inexpensive, but it was pointed out the testing mixtures can show toxicity

9

related to synergistic effects. If there is a higher toxicity in the mixture in oil matrices, this

will be covered testing the mixture itself.

Further it was discussed that CBs can also accept tests from the suppliers or lubricant formulators. As stated before, REACH registrants own rights to the tests, and other companies

have to potentially negotiate to use it also for other purposes such as the EU Ecolabel. This would double data and cause unnecessary costs.

Another stakeholder clarified that there is no obligation to share data outside REACH due to intellectual property rights of the company.

From the point of view of the market, one stakeholder mentioned that when the percentages of

different toxic substances are restricted too much, then the flexibility of the formulations is very restricted. Customers want products with highest performance and there are a lot of other

requirements to fulfil. Therefore, strictest performance requirements cannot be fulfilled with too lower content of active ingredients.

Another stakeholder commented that in the case of greases, if the threshold values for the

aquatic toxicity regarding the harmful part decrease from 25 to 20%, complex greases will be eliminated from the EU Ecolabel. According to the LuSC-list, both parts of the soap in

greases are harmful, therefore most of the suppliers of these greases will fail to meet the requirements of the EU Ecolabel and will apply for Swedish Standard because they still accept the 25% and this is ok for VGP. Thus, the EU Ecolabel will lose market share.

With regard to the chronic aquatic toxicity tests, several stakeholders expressed concern since also in the existing criterion is not very clear what is really needed. When you read the

criterion it seems that if you have chronic data you may submit that but you cannot support your application with acute toxicity data only. So, there is some confusion when reading the existing criterion. Again, several stakeholders agreed that testing mixtures should be allowed.

It was also mentioned that the criterion should not be changed adding the fish toxicity test normally used for classification and labelling purposes. Moreover, there is an agreement not to apply animal testing with vertebrates.

Actions:

Written comments will be carefully assessed.

The strictness of threshold values was evaluated based on the available data provided

for the current EU Ecolabelled products and some other products (information was

provided confidentially). Almost all products for which data was shares fulfil these

new thresholds. JRC asked to provide data especially on specific categories in which

companies would have difficulties to comply with the proposal in order to revise the

proposed thresholds.

JRC to further clarify the criterion formulation, regarding when the chronic data can

be provided.

It seems that there is a general agreement that both verifications ways for all the

product categories should be kept. Assessment and verification will be kept as it is in

the existing criterion in force and JRC will check the exemptions from testing and they

will be included in the new proposal.

10

Criterion 3. Biodegradability and Bioaccumulative potential

JRC presented the main changes in regard to this criterion.

One stakeholder said that the goal of the EU Ecolabel should be to promote environmentally-friendly technologies that can compete with non-environmentally acceptable lubricants on a

performance bases. This is the only way forward to expand adoption of the EU Ecolabel and to protect the environment. Therefore, it was suggested that the revision should contemplate

what is new and should not be restricted to what was available in the past. It was stressed that for the EU Ecolabel to success, industry has to balance following issues: complicated and expensive formulation processes even more when components are limited to the LuSC-list

and the highest technical performance to the consumers.

Another stakeholder was disappointed to see that the ultimately aerobically biodegradable

content has changed from 90 to 95%. In addition to the base oils, other components such as thickeners are required to formulate high performance lubricants. Therefore, it was stated that if the changes are introduced, industry would not be able to formulate efficiently, in particular

with use of thickeners and this is unacceptable for any lubricant formulator.

One stakeholder mentioned that the EU Ecolabel is very difficult to attain by industry and

unattractive to the end user. Moreover, a question was raised in regard to the removal of the 10 day window because it was in the published version but not in the power point presentation.

There was a general comment about the agreement of dropping out the 10 day window. Main reason was based on the retrograde step if JRC brings the 10 day window in. A stakeholder

added that a totally new technology was designed to perform the 28-day window. So, raising the percentage of biodegradable share will prevent use of this new technology.

Regarding the survey carried out in order to obtain reliable and representative statistics on

biodegradability and bioaccumulative potential, a stakeholder suggested that there is some information missing about how many products were vegetable based, synthetic ester based, other new technology based.

Some concerns were expressed about the upper limit of Log Kow (7) and if it was dropped out. Further clarification was requested by stakeholders in this aspect.

In regard to category 2 of greases, the threshold limit was decreased from 25 to 15, but it was mentioned that additives thickeners are also non-biodegradable and this could be very difficult to achieve specially for greases based on a formulation problem. According to a

stakeholder, 80 lubricant licenses will fail in Germany if this criterion is finally approved.

Actions:

JRC asked for written comments regarding the proposed thresholds values.

Regarding biodegradability criterion and in regard to the recently voted product

group of detergents, the 10-day window does not apply. JRC will further explore and

clarify if 10 day window is needed.

JRC will study Blue Angel approach for thickeners in relation to the difficulties to

comply with the high biodegradability thresholds proposed.

JRC asked to provide data to evaluate the proposed thresholds and the difficulties

11

associated to certain product categories.

Further research will be done.

Criterion 4. Raw materials

JRC presented criterion 4.

One stakeholder questioned the meaning of having renewable oils requirements as vegetable oils have problematic issues related to production. Controversy of oils for industrial purposes versus food production and in addition impact on local population was mentioned. The

stakeholder questioned if this is a good criterion at all. He added that the LCA scope is narrow because it is neither looking at mineral oil production not at agricultural production, so the

benefits of synthetic oils are higher. But if the LCA covers all the stages synthetic, these might be the same for the mineral oil and the vegetable oils, there should not be any difference. With regard to re-refined oils, recycling is a kind of improving a life cycle data

normally, but these oils should also keep toxicity and other requirements to qualify for the label. He proposes to exclude this criterion as a mandatory criterion.

Another stakeholder pointed out that synthetic products are usually made of naphtha which is a mineral (crude oil) product and group 3 is made from natural gas which is mainly based on crude oil, and therefore not made from renewable sources. It was mentioned that there are

some synthetic oils from renewable sources but they do not play a significant role.

One stakeholder presented a new technology brought to market regarding synthetic oils,

which address some of these concerns. Polyolefin is one of the key blinding blocks is a hydrocarbon that comes from sugar cane. This is a blend with petroleum olefins to make base oils 50% renewable. This is a new technology that can enable more favourable environmental

characteristics and contribute a lot to the EU Ecolabel. This example was presented in order to see where to put the threshold. It was suggested to not change to 60% and maintain the 50%

as in the existing criterion. Regarding the verification process, STM 6866 is absolutely reliable and easily verifiable. An LCA report was done by this company and it will be shared with JRC.

With regard to greases category, one stakeholder commented that the new threshold limit changing from 45 to 60% is a quite big step taking into account that 3% of business constitute

greases and therefore the environmental impact will be minimum making an extra difficulty for greases formulators.

One stakeholder mentioned that it was not possible to comment on the criterion 4 without a

link to criterion 5 and to the scope. The only existing certification is for Palm Oil (RSPO) and it does not offer guaranties of sustainable production and by setting mandatory requirements

the EU Ecolabel can contribute to push the production of something that is unclear, having some impacts on biodiversity and on the social communities. Therefore, it was suggested not to set a mandatory requirement on this criterion and completely delete criterion 4 and 5. It was

remarked that based on the biobased economy we have to choose for those applications with bigger added value and this is not the case. Nevertheless, a CB replied that currently the

problem is that the biomass is not being used and industry is offering it in biolubricants, so this could be an opportunity to include it in the criterion and then in the future it can be proposed to be used for other products.

The same stakeholder commented that biolubricants are not necessarily better than others if we are considering the way they are produced. It was stressed that EU Ecolabel is mainly

12

related to the impact of the product on the environment, when it is used or released, therefore

it should be focused on the biodegradability and toxicity of the product regardless of the origin.

Another stakeholder mentioned that for lubricant industry, it is difficult to obtain recycled oil

for an EU Ecolabel lubricant because it set requirements for biodegradability and low toxicity and conventional re-refined oils are not necessarily not biodegradable and not toxic.

One stakeholder commented that in the last revision, the criterion of renewability was included because other national Ecolabels refers to it and this was supported by the EU biobased economy. As a consequence, it was an incentive for innovation because some

synthetic esters were developed. Moreover, it was stated that there is a lot of confusion on biodegradation and circular economy. Re-using and re-refining only extend the lifetime of the

material, while renewable is a natural resource which replenishes in a finite amount of time. And this is not covered in the LCA. It was mentioned that the verification is also part of the criterion and should be covered. Further research was required by stakeholders regarding

assessment and verification.

Another stakeholder supported the inclusion of re-refined oils based on the rationale that is it

needed to look beyond the traditional approaches, look where the future is. Nevertheless, depending on the final decision of the scope, it will make sense to have a separate ecolabel only for engine oils.

Actions:

JRC asked to provide written feedback and additional information on LCA due to the

current LCA limitations. It will be relevant in order to keep this criterion or not.

Based on the overall feedback and additional research the possibility to extend the

scope partially, totally or keep it as it is and therefore the relevance of criteria 4 and 5

will be assessed by JRC.

New Criterion 5. Origin and traceability of vegetable oils

JRC presented new criterion 5. One stakeholder informed that in the application form, applicants have to indicate the type of

renewable material used, the source and the origin. Therefore, the origin of the palm oil where it comes from can be found by the CBs in the application form. Moreover, it was added that

the manufacturing phase is one of the problematic issues of the mineral oils; therefore this should be also reflected in the new proposal.

In regard to the certification schemes, Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) certification for Palm oil and BONSUCRO (a global multi-stakeholder non-profit initiative

dedicated to reducing the environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production and actively supported by the Brazilian Sugarcane Industry Association) were mentioned. These are some certifications schemes but one stakeholder pointed out to investigate better how they

are used. No certification for sunflower or rapeseed was reported and to complement the research done in the preliminary report, it was indicated that there is an ongoing project with case study lubricants with sustainable raw materials performed by IFO institute.

Another stakeholder did not agree with the results of the analysis of the LCA considering that the sunflower has more impact on the environment than other sources. It should be considered

13

that the LCA view is not complete and it will depend on where is produced and used.

A CB suggested to change the tittle of this criterion to Palm Oil, due to there is only a certification for RSPO. Nevertheless, taking into account that this certification is not providing any sufficient insurance that is reducing deforestation and it is only reduced to Palm

Oil, it should be considered that this criterion does not report any added value.

Actions:

JRC will evaluate all comments with regard this criterion and limitations and

feasibility of keeping this criterion.

JRC asked for relevant additional technical information reports on the performance

and characteristics of the latest lubricants technologies available in the market. These

new technologies are not represented in the LCA and there is a lack of information of

the new type of lubricants and their impact on the environment.

JRC asked for information on sustainable initiatives for this revision and for future

revisions, especially for sunflower or rapeseed, which are most commonly used in

Europe.

New Criterion 6. Exhaust emissions

With regard to the new criteria set for 2 stroke engine oils, various stakeholders suggested that the JASO test is not reliable at all, because it is mainly based on the engine design and the test

conditions. The tests results do not correlate with the performance from field tests. Apparently, there is no existing reliable test on emissions for two stroke engine. Moreover, 2T engine are being replaced by 4T engine, but not completely.

Any fluid lubricant displayed on the market has to pass special emission tests. So these parameters are already tested (regulated by Euro Emission Standards). Consequently, these

criteria duplicate the test and add additional costs to get an Ecolabel. Although there is only one product available in this category, that doesn’t mean that it should not be considered. There are opportunities for 2T products, but the criteria are too strict at the moment.

As some stakeholders said, this criterion is also considered in the technical performance.

A stakeholder claimed that 2T engine are very pollutant and so they should be replaced and

not considered in the EEL.

Action items:

Stakeholders to provide further information on other tests used for emissions measure

of 2T oils and their cost.

Further research will be done.

New Criterion 7. Packaging requirements

One stakeholder commented that for greases category, in case of metal containers, there is no problem for recycling again and again, but in the case of recycled plastic packaging (the used

14

ones) contaminated with greases, it is better to "thermally recover" this plastic, even if it is

contaminated with just a couple of grams of grease. For some big industry the companies have take-back systems for the packaging; however this is not the majority.

Another stakeholder mentioned that majority of products are delivered in IBCs (Intermediate

Bulk Containers) and drums. Both are recycled and reconditioned. Nevertheless, the problem is the B2B business. In many cases resellers deliver the pack and it could happen that the

same product is delivered as an ecolabelled or not depending on the packaging, because the packaging is done by the resellers mostly. 95% of the business is B2B approximately.

With regard to the take-back system and companies that sell products all over the world, one

stakeholder suggested a big problem, if these empty packages will have to be taken back for example from China to Europe.

Another stakeholder commented that drums are reconditioned later on but not necessarily taken back to the company. A large number of drums ends up in China and are reused for something else. Some consumers insist on having delivered the product in drums even if it is

cheaper to be delivered in bulk because the metal is used for another purpose (in fact it is a raw material).

Regarding the packaging material, Scandinavian countries like to have metal drums because they have to pay to keep plastic drums away and it is cheaper to have only small ones. In Switzerland there is a high percentage of recycling of metal within the market. Therefore,

drums are sometimes not only taken back to the company to be reconditioned but also to the collector of metal and to the metal producing companies. It was also pointed out that not all

packs can be reused again because a lot of damages can happen during the transport. Moreover, it depends on the additives used in the lubricant formulation, for example antifoam agents stick on the surface of the drum and this could contaminate another lubricant and

cannot be reused. Both last issues are crucial to be considered.

Another stakeholder mentioned that this criterion seems to be designed for 4T engine oils sold to consumers but if JRC wants to trace the materials used (where the materials are coming

from), traceability should be mentioned in the technical report.

In regard to the Waste Directive, according to article 11, there is an obligation to separate

collection for paper, metal, plastic and glass to facilitating recycling of these materials by 2015. One stakeholder pointed out that this is a legal requirement; therefore this criterion would be already covered.

JRC mentioned that with regard to the Waste directive, there are some places in which this is not fully implemented and different categories of waste are not separated, so this may be still

relevant.

Actions:

For the comments received it seems that packaging criterion may not be relevant

because most of the containers are metal, drums, and very low share of this EU

Ecolabel will be plastic bottles for consumers. Further research will be done.

Relevance of packaging criterion in Eco Mark Japan or NF Environment will be

explored.

Further research will be done.

15

Criterion 8. Technical performance

There is a general opinion that MSR (minimum stability requirements) is not well defined and do not have any important role. It should therefore be called “fit for purpose” like it used to be.

A stakeholder claimed that the main aim is to have good products on the market. On the one hand, there is a trend to establish “user tests”. For lubricants meant to professional use, a user

test could be more relevant than laboratory tests. Manufacturer should only provide the technical details and OEM guarantees that the lubricant works well. On the other hand, if the lubricant follows a standard like ISO or DIN, it doesn’t matter who manufactured the product,

it will work. Moreover, manufacturer should avoid recommendation from OEM, because they tend to specify their own requirements.

With regard proposed criterion 8. Total loss systems a stakeholder mentioned that the KWF-Test got revised together with the RAL-UZ 48 basic award criteria document, which is now

called RAL-UZ 178. The new KWF-Test document from June 2016 describing test for chainsaw oils should be assessed thoroughly.

There are no existing standards for wire ropes testing and its requirements depend on how the manufacturer built the wire rope and its alloy. They have their own test procedures and therefore a stakeholder suggested to change for “fit for purpose”.

Concerning proposed criterion 8. Concrete release agents, a stakeholder suggested to be

modified to “fit for purpose”. In relation to proposed criterion 8. Hydraulic fluid a stakeholder claimed that it is the largest

industrial segment in the lubrication market. DIN 15380 is segmented on different categories based on essentially, chemistry and performance. There are other ATS that have higher performance level that could be excluded from the EEL. Moreover, hydraulic fluid fire test

should not be mandatory and a stakeholder suggested to be removed, since in Europe fire resistant hydraulic fluids should meet the 7th Luxembourg Report.

Concerning proposed criterion 8. Metalworking fluids, a stakeholder suggested that there is no reliable performance test. An alternative is DIN 51485 “Lubricants - Processing fluids for

forming and machining of materials - Metalworking and forming fluids: Requirements and test methods” which describes a minimum set of information to provide to the end users.

With regard proposed criterion 8. Temporary protection against corrosion, a stakeholder suggested to be modified to “fit for purpose”.

Concerning proposed criterion 8. Turbines, a stakeholder suggested that stern tube lubricants

minimum technical performance should be closer to hydraulic fluids instead of ISO 8068:2006. There are some tests in ISO 8068:2006, that are not appropriate and which not even mineral based oil would pass. However, no alternative test is recommended.

Each OEM has its one requirement and should be categorised as “total loss lubricant” and therefore, it should be kept as “fit for purpose”.

Concerning proposed criterion 8. Greases, a stakeholder notes that in this category there are overlapping problems, and it is difficult to know where they are classified. Some greases are

multipurpose, and it is difficult to know which minimum requirement have to apply, there is a wide range of applications, and consequently requirements.

16

JRC clarified that grease requirements are only applicable if the grease is used in those

applications. E.g. grease should pass ISO/TS 12928 if it will be used as temporary protection against corrosion; otherwise, it will be “fit for purpose”.

Action items:

Stakeholders were asked to to provide further information on other tests used for

hydraulic fluid, as well as laboratories which can perform the tests and costs.

Based on feedback and further research, JRC will revise the proposed criterion.

New Criterion 9. Consumer information and Criterion10. Information appearing on the

EU Ecolabel

JRC presented the new proposal for criterion 9, consumer information, and 10, information appearing on the EU Ecolabel.

Some stakeholders suggested that if the information proposes to be presented in the label of the package is: “Lubricating oil may be harmful to health and environment.....” this is a bit

opposing to the main aim of the EU Ecolabel, due to criterion 1 states that lubricant will not be classified according to CLP. Consumer could be confused. It was supported the idea to inform the consumers but using another formulations for example terms like: do not put into

the sewer, keep away from children, or directly give them some instructions what they should not do. In regard to criterion 10, if you propose:

o Limited impact on the aquatic environment o Restricted amount of hazardous substances

That could be contradicting as well. It was also mentioned that the term “restricted amount” is

not clear and may be not the correct formulation just for terminology, because the EU Ecolabel has “limited amount of hazardous substances”. To be consequent, it was proposed to

include statements on resources efficiency since the EU Ecolabel has several criteria on that.

From the point of view of B2B, it was suggested to include this additional text in the SDS under section 7, safe handling procedures. More and more regulations required even more and

more information on the label already and the label text is limited, nevertheless in the SDS any number of statements could be stated.

One stakeholder commented that according to the consumer organization tests, consumers are not really interested in this type of products and therefore this could be not relevant for final consumers (B2C) so perhaps is better addressed the instructions for professional users (B2B).

Another stakeholder commented that is better to maintain the existing text:

o Reduced harm for water and soil during use o Contain a large fraction of biobased material

Because new phrases could be critical as already a lot of concerns were mentioned. It was mentioned that also the phrase test:

o Tested for lubricating performance

can give a wrong message to the consumer. It was suggested that the requirements should be more specific such as Meet ISO X or MSR XYZ, because for example for MWFs there is no

certain technical performance criteria.

JRC clarified that the rationale behind this is that environmentally friendly products were

17

accused of not being good performing and it was therefore suggested to clearly state in the

label that they have been tested and they are fit for purpose.

One stakeholder was also in favour of current statements but it was remarked that it will depend on what is going to happen with certain criteria. Therefore, based on the discussions

and depending on the final direction of some criterion, may be relevant to include an alternative statement such as: Based on mainly renewable material..., or based on

recycled...(or synthetic...). However, it was clarified that this is not really handy for an Ecolabel because it was not quite clear the Ecolabel stands for and it was finally proposed to be focused on aquatic toxicity and biodegradation which all the products have in common and

it is really the core.

Some stakeholders were in favour of deleting the sentence biobased material, because this is

not per se a benefit or environmental improvement. There is not a scientific agreement over the topic and then it is a political decision so the suggestion is to be focus on aquatic toxicity and biodegradation.

Actions:

Stakeholders to provide further written comments.

JRC to revise the text proposal once there a clearer picture of what the scope and

criteria set will be.