1. Revision of the EU Ecolabel criteria for the product group of indoor and outdoor paints and varnishes
JRC- IPTS
November 2012

2. Content 1. Project timeline and deliverables
2. Key Environmental Impacts – criteria proposal - stakeholders consultation
3. Update and discussion points with EU Ecolabelling Board members
Next steps on “Hazardous substances” criterion
Indoor Air Quality criterion
Criteria for paint End-of-life phase
Criterion on recycled content of plastic paint pot packaging

3. Project timeline and deliverables
Paints and Varnishes (indoor & outdoor) Ecolabel criteria
Project starts
1st consultation
Preliminary Report
& Criteria Working Doc.
1st AHWG Meeting
– 21th February 2012
Stakeholders feedback
Sub-AHWG on Hazardous substances
Background Report
& Criteria Proposal
2nd AHWG Meeting
– 24th September 2012
Work in progress towards 2nd draft proposal
Further stakeholder consultation
Stakeholders feedback
Criteria proposal for
ISC and RC
EUEB meeting
EUEB
vote
NOW

4. Key Environmental Impacts – criteria proposal - stakeholders consultation
Main input from technical analysis
Significance
Addressable in the Ecolabel?
In-use durability plays a key role in determining the environmental impact of paints as do periods between repaints.
Very High
Yes, through performance criteria but indirectly
Unused paint has a significant environmental impact
New proposal criterion through the requirement of take-back schemes
Solvent based paints have a higher environmental impact than water based paints and are also related to Indoor Air Quality.
High
Yes, indirectly by controlling the amount of VOC present in the paint
TiO2 manufacture has a high environmental relevance in paint LCA
Medium
Yes, reducing TiO2 use can be achieved
Additives have a wide range of health and environmental implications. No studies have quantified this effect but they are of concern.
Yes, encouraging manufacturers to use alternatives is possible.
Outcomes after 2nd AHWG and further working steps
Performance criteria
Low/no support by stakeholders in 2nd AHWG. Question to EU Ecolabelling Board
1. Criterion on VOCs
2. Criterion on Indoor Air Quality.
Question to EUEB
Criterion on TiO2
Additional consultation.
Amendments & moderate structure change ? ?
Overall summary of the key environmental considerations linked to the Ecolabel criteria development +
work

5. Ecolabel criteria overview and main areas of discussion
Life cycle stage
Impact
Old and New Criteria areas
Production
Raw material sourcing
1. White pigments
2. Titanium Dioxide
6. Dangerous substances (to be covered under New Hazardous substances criterion)
Use
Efficiency in use
7. Fitness for use
Emissions during use
3. Volatile organic compounds (VOC) and possible extension to indoor air quality criterion
4. Volatile aromatic hydrocarbons
5. Heavy metals
6. Dangerous substances
8. Consumer information
New Hazardous substances criterion which will supersede above criteria 4,5,6,)
Indoor air quality
Post consumer
(End-of-Life)
Unused paint disposal
Packaging material
1. White pigment and TiO2
- minor/moderate changes
2. Fitness for use
3. Volatile Organic compounds
and Indoor Air Quality -
4. New hazardous substances
5. Criteria for paint End-of life phase and recycled content
1. White pigment and TiO2 : we have changes towards stricter thresholds, and change of calculation
2. Fitness for use: many criteria but in general a few changes. try to capture indirectly paint durability
3. Volatile Organic Compounds and Indoor Air Quality discussion : we investigate stricter VOC values/ a proposal-discussion of a new IAQ criterion
4. New hazardous substances: blabla bla bla
5 Corporate criteria, consumer Information: ok
6. Unused paint disposal and take-back: Important ENVIRONMENTAL SAVINGS-10-25% of unused paints. Responsibility is shared among: manufacturer/ retailer/ consumer/ public authorites-infrastructure. Therefore we need to allow FLEXIBILITY and Practical solutions.
Input from stakeholders after the 2nd AHWG will be integrated in the criteria. In red are marked important points for discussion with EUEB members

6. Update and discussion points
1. Next steps on “Hazardous substances” criterion
2. Indoor Air Quality criterion
3. Criterion for paint End-of-life phase
4. Criterion on recycled content of plastic paint pot packaging
Update
Question
Question
Question

7. 1. Next steps on “Hazardous substances” criterion
Update
1. Next steps on “Hazardous substances” criterion
In general: if a substance will be derogated this will apply:
only for specific paint type and if additional requirements are fulfilled
2nd AHWG
1st Criteria Proposal
Amendments
and changes
Stakeholders input
1. Main body of criterion text remains unchanged
2. Structure of derogation table list changes:
- transition period will be removed (column 8)
either a substance is derogated or not
- information to which type of application will be completed (column 9)
- requirements presented in notes will be integrated in criteria text
3. List of derogated substances
- some substances will be removed
- some new substances may enter –additional requests prior 2nd AHWG were submitted
- if sufficient information is available on (named) substitutes for specific applications a derogation will not be proposed
Consultation
CBs and other stakeholders
Biocides suppliers
JRC/ IPTS
Binders suppliers
Paint
Manufacturers

8. 2. Indoor Air Quality criterion
Question
2. Indoor Air Quality criterion
Background:
-There is a general move towards Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) testing for construction materials including paints
-IAQ can give added value to EU Ecolabel. High consumer awareness on IAQ can improve further the label marketing
-There is not an EU wide harmonised standard for testing, there is concern that favouring a single standard would unduly benefit companies that are currently subscribing to that system
- IAQ test proposed is relative expensive. Industry commented on test reproducibility.

9. ? 2. Indoor Air Quality criterion Update:
Question
2. Indoor Air Quality criterion
Update:
Current criterion proposal refers to testing with ISO , ISO , ISO Criterion wording will be changed to refer to this standard
A testing protocol regarding the paint state prior the IAQ test is now available
2nd AHWG members had low support to a criterion on Indoor Air Quality
Question to EU Ecolabelling Board members:
Should Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) be specifically addressed in EU Ecolabel criteria for paints now?
If yes, is the current proposal test sufficient or which alternative IAQ test would you suggest in order to overcome concerns raised by stakeholders? ?

10. 3. Criteria for paint End-of-life phase
Question
3. Criteria for paint End-of-life phase
Background:
- There is a clear environmental impact from unused paint
This extends to both disposal of the paint and also the impact of production of unused paint.
- Conducted Life Cycle Assessment highlights potential environmental savings which are higher than those achieved by revising thresholds of several current criteria
- There are different options and actions that can reduce the environmental impacts like: reuse, recycle or set minimum recycled content, supporting reuse collection systems through third parties (take-back scheme).
- There is significant resistance from manufacturers to the implementation of a take-back or reuse scheme. They argue that the diversity of the waste collection regimes throughout Europe make developing a universal scheme impractical and schemes tailored to individual Member States are expensive as well providing limited control over unused paint

11. ? 3. Criteria for paint End-of-life phase Update:
Question
3. Criteria for paint End-of-life phase
Update:
Criterion proposal for unused paint should be flexible (give different options). Exploring a more appropriate threshold so as to reduce implementation burdens
Further consultation with retailers and applicants to explore options for setting up a take-back system that can be easily verified
2nd AHWG members had no/low support to a criterion on unused paint
Question to EU Ecolabelling Board members:
Do you consider that capturing environmental savings via a criterion on unused paint is premature or inappropriate for the EU Ecolabel criteria for paints at the moment?
Should further options be explored for working out a practical criterion on unused paint or is it an issue to recommend in the next criteria revision? ?

12. 3. Criterion on plastic packaging
Question
3. Criterion on plastic packaging
Background:
Based on the background report and the Life Cycle Assessment of paints the environmental impact of packaging is only a minor constituent compared to the production of the paint
- It is often found in Ecolabel criteria of other product groups a requirement on minimum recycled content of packaging material
-visibility of packaging waste is an important consideration
- Options to reduce the environmental impact of the packaging are:
1. Increasing the amount of recycled material within the paint pot
2. Decreasing the amount of material used per paint pot
3. Improving the usability and lifetime of the paint through changes in packaging design

13. 3. Criterion on plastic packaging
Question
3. Criterion on plastic packaging
Update:
Criterion proposal requires that plastic paint pots shall be made of a minimum 25% (w/w) post‐consumer recycled material
Stakeholders highlighted that there is not sufficient availability in the market of plastic pots –limited suppliers are found and large differences among MS.
license holders do not support this criterion: “high burden with low environmental relevance”
support of some Competent Bodies
Question to EU Ecolabelling Board members:
Should the current criterion proposal on minimum recycled content of plastic paint pot packaging remain and is the proposed threshold appropriate?
Can you provide any additional information/evidence of market availability for this requirement in your country? ?

14. Thank you very much for your attention
to be continued…
Thank you very much for your attention
Thank you very much for your attention