CEN-CENELEC JWG10 'Energy-related products Material Efficiency Aspects for Ecodesign'

Transcription

1 CEN-CENELEC JWG10 'Energy-related products Material Efficiency Aspects for Ecodesign' Proposed Project Teams: It is proposed that the following PTs be installed. The exact PT teams and the work they will undertake will be agreed during the kick-off meeting: PT1: Terminology PT2: Durability PT3: Upgradability, Ability to repair, Facilitate Re-Use1, Use or re-used components PT4: Ability to re-manufacture PT5: Recyclability, recoverability, RRR index, Recycling2, Use of recycled materials PT6: Use of Critical Raw Materials, Recyclability of Critical Raw Materials PT7: Documentation and/or marking regarding information relating to material efficiency of the product 1

2 2

3 CEN-CENELEC JWG10 'Energy-related products Material Efficiency Aspects for ecodesign' (Meeting ) Conversion of JWG 10 into a CEN-CENELEC joint TC: CEN and CENELEC BT's will decide on changing all existing JWGs into CEN-CENELEC Joint TCs (JTCs) on February 1st. CEN and CENELEC BT's are currently also deciding on changes to Internal Regulations Part 2, a guidance document and recommendations regarding CEN-CLC 3

4 joint Technical Committees. NWIs will first need to be approved at a country level within JWG10 (or its successor JTC, as applicable at the time) and then submitted to both BT's for final approval. In each instance the voting period will be contained in the final Internal Regulations document (as currently proposed this is 8 weeks for NSBs, by correspondence). Representation of the JTC will be on a country basis (as is within our JWG10 RoP). CCMC replied on a question, that there is no requirement to set up a mirror committee at national level corresponding to a JTC. It is up to the National member body. Work programme JWG10: It was clarified that the finalized work programme (agenda item 6C) shall include an indication of a lead organisation CEN or CENELEC for every NWI proposal. There was a discussion regarding how to decide which organisation should be the lead, because as horizontal NWIs, there is in principle no clear choice to be made on content (especially considering that, whichever organisation takes the lead, experts from both organisations are equally able to participate in the work and the final deliverable will carry both CEN & CENELEC logos). Some participants remarked that the lead organisation should not be made on the content of the end deliverable, since the intention was to cover all energy related products in a horizontal manner. Therefore, it was decided that the lead should be allocated per PT (each PT will choose the same lead organization for all its NWIs based on experience/knowledge of CEN or CENELEC procedures of the PTleader/secretariat). Should it be necessary to subsequently change the lead, it was confirmed that this could be done at the NWI proposal stage. Whatever is proposed by JWG10, at both the Work Programme and NWI stages, the final decision and approval will be the responsibility of the CEN & CENELEC BT's. Germany, supported by Italy, remarked that the decision to discuss the work programme (NWI's) was on the agenda but the decision of on the lead organisation was not explicitly identified: consequently they were not able to express an opinion on this point. After discussions and consideration of the very short deadline for preparation of deliverables required by M/543 it was agreed to send a questionnaire to each country member of JWG10 with a comment period of 3 weeks. Roll call: Countries with delegation: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden, Turkey, UK. Organisations as guests/observers: ANEC, CCMC, CECED, CEN/TC 406, Digital Europe, EC, ECOS, EHI, EUROFER, ECO-CG, CLC/TC 111X. Programme and merging items: The deadline for sending the work programme to be sent to the European Commission is PT's reports: Project Team 1: Item 2: Guide on how to use generic material efficiency standards when writing product specific standardization deliverables 4

5 Deliverable (1) TR Title: Guide on how to use generic material efficiency standards when writing energy related product specific standardization deliverables (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Provision of guidance on how standardisation deliverables for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair and re-manufacture of products can be applied to product-specific standards Publication March 2019 Lead: CENELEC, based on experience of PT leader (proposed for questionnaire) Item 1: Definitions related to material efficiency PT 1 proposed an EN instead of the initial TR. After a discussion JWG10 had a slight preference for a TR. Denmark, UK (however timing is important), NL: support PT1 on a EN Germany, France, Ireland, Turkey: For time aspect preferred a TR Finland: Belgium: no preference Austria: TR is fine Italy: no formal preference, personally the delegate prefers a TR to be transformed later into an EN. A quicker process of a TR was preferred over the authority of the proposed EN. The conclusion of the JWG10 plenary meeting was therefore that both PT1 items will be proposed in the Work Programme as a TR. Deliverable (2) TR (change into original agreed) Title: Definitions related to material efficiency Part(s) of the mandate covered: Common terms and their definitions Publication: June 2018 Lead: CENELEC, based on experience of PT leader (proposed for questionnaire) Project Team 2: Item 3: General method for the assessment of the durability of products Deliverable (3) EN Title: General method for the assessment of the durability of energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Definition of parameters and methods relevant for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair, re-use and re-manufacture of products Lead: CEN based on experience of PT secretariat (proposed for questionnaire) Item 4 (from PT3): General method for the assessment of the upgradability of products This item was trans Deliverable (4) EN Title: General method for the assessment of the upgradability of energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Definition of parameters and methods relevant for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair, re-use and re-manufacture of products Lead: CEN based on experience of PT secretariat (proposed for questionnaire) 5

6 Project Team 3: Item 5+6 Deliverable (5) EN Merge Agreed Title: General method for the assessment of the ability to repair energy related products (title item 5, change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Definition of parameters and methods relevant for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair, re-use and re-manufacture of products & Ability to access or remove certain components, consumables or assemblies from products to facilitate repair or remanufacture or reuse (change agreed, merged item 5+6) Lead: CENCENELEC based on PT leader/secretariat experience (proposed for questionnaire) Item Deliverable (6) EN (agreed) Merge Agreed, item 12 from PT 5 to PT 3 within this merging Title: General method for the assessment of the ability to re-use energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Definition of parameters and methods relevant for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair, re-use and re-manufacture of products & Ability to access or remove certain components, consumables or assemblies from products to facilitate repair or remanufacture or reuse & Reusability/recyclability/recoverability (RRR) indexes or criteria, preferably taking into account the likely evolution of recycling methods and techniques over time (change agreed, merged item7+8+12) Lead: CEN based on experience of PT secretariat (proposed for questionnaire) Project Team 4: Item 9+10 Deliverable (7) EN Merge Agreed Title: General method for the assessment of the ability to re-manufacture energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: "Definition of parameters and methods relevant for assessing durability, upgradability and ability to repair, re-use and re-manufacture of products" and "Ability to access or remove certain components, consumables or assemblies from products to facilitate repair or remanufacture or reuse" (change agreed, merged item 9+10) Lead: CENCENELEC based on PT leader/secretariat experience (proposed for questionnaire) Project Team 5: Item Deliverable (8) EN (agreed) Merge Agreed Title: Methods for assessing the recyclability and recoverability of energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Reusability/recyclability/recoverability (RRR) indexes or criteria, preferably taking into account the likely evolution of recycling methods and techniques over time" and "Ability to access or remove certain components or assemblies 6

7 from products to facilitate their extraction at the end-of-life for ease of treatment and recycling" and "Use and recyclability of Critical Raw Materials to the EU, listed by the European Commission" (change agreed, merged item ) Lead: CEN based on experience of PT secretariat (proposed for questionnaire) Item 12: Methods for calculating the reusability of an energy related products. Transferred to PT 3 agreed for merging with Item 7 and 8 (see earlier). Item 14: General method for assessing the proportion of re-used components in an energy related product. Deliverable (9) EN (agreed) Title No change Part(s) of the mandate covered: Method to assess the proportion of re-used components and/or recycled materials in products (no change) Publication March 2019 (change agreed) Lead :CEN based on experience of PT secretariat (proposed for questionnaire) UK preferred CENELEC lead because there was an IEC TR covering RRR requirements, so it seemed to them to be more logical to give the lead to CENELEC now. In addition, they were of the opinion that there would probably be more EEE than non-eee products covered by subsequent implementing measures. However, as discussed earlier in the meeting (agenda item 1), the lead should not be assigned on the content of the standard but on the experience of the PT leader. Consequently it was decided to keep the proposal for a CEN lead. Item 15: General method for assessing the proportion of recycled material content in an energy related product. Deliverable (10) (agreed) Title: No change Part(s) of the mandate covered: Method to assess the proportion of re-used components and/or recycled materials in products (no change) Lead: same as item 14 Project Team 6: There was a meeting in November 2016, items are moved to PT5 and PT 7. Project Team 7: Item 17: General method to declare the use of critical raw materials in energy related products. Deliverable (11) EN (agreed) Title: No change Part(s) of the mandate covered: Use and recyclability of Critical Raw Materials to the EU, listed by the European Commission (no change) Lead: CENELEC based on experience of PT leader (proposed for questionnaire) Item Deliverable (12) EN (agreed) Title: Methods for providing information relating to material efficiency aspects of energy related products (change agreed) Part(s) of the mandate covered: Documentation and/or marking regarding information relating 7

8 to material efficiency of the product taking into account the intended audience (consumers, professionals or market surveillance authorities) (no change) Publication: March 2019 (change agreed, merged item 18+19) Lead: CENELEC based on experience of PT leader (proposed for questionnaire) Decisión: The JWG 10 decided that each PT leader will prepare his/her NWI proposals before the end of February These will then be sent to the JWG 10 secretariat, who will send them out for a 8 weeks comments period within the JWG 10. Subsequently the secretariat will submit the NWIs for approval by the CEN and CENELEC BT's (4 week voting process) (decision 2). Inventory group meeting of CEN/CLC JWG 10/PT 2 DURABILITY ( ) Discussion and amendment of product list and standards: The product list was not discussed in detail and prosponed to the 2nd PT 2 meeting if necessary. Different presentations where held: Durability vacuum cleaners Study on durability of Ovens and Refrigerators: Provides a possible starting point for efinition of durability: Ability to perform its function(s) at the anticipated performance level for a defined number of service units under intended use and defined conditions including software updates provided by the manufacturer and performing the manufacturers required servicing and aintenance activities. The evaluation of the durability on a single component based on the most likely to fail approach doesn t mean the durability of the whole product due to possible different test conditions (i.e. vibrations, thermal conditions). So, the tests on the single components shall be properly evaluated. Definition of the components most likely to fail should take into consideration their real impact on the functioning of the device (i.e. the lamps don t impact on the primary function of the ovens). A specific analysis is requested for each product in scope due to the technological differences of the systems. It should be avoided to directly transpose the same requirements for different products, even if similar. The biggest environmental impact of an household appliance is often represented by the use phase. So, it should be evaluated if, in terms of sustainability, it can be more effective to replace a product with to another one more efficient than to assure a longer durability of one less efficient product, as demonstrated in the study for refrigerators. The study does not provide clear conclusions. This report cannot be a substitute for a full ecodesign preparatory study which takes into account all aspects related to a given product. Therefore, no additional requirements on durability for home appliances should be included in future revisions only based upon this study. Moreover, the findings cannot be simply passed on to any other product group under ecodesign. Assessments must be made on a product-by-product approach. Any new ecodesign requirement must have additional environmental benefit and thus be based on robust data and impact assessments. This is the reason why CECED call upon the European Commission to carefully assess the feasibility of using the results of this study in implementing product measures. 8

9 Energy Ecodesign and durability Discussion of Scope and Definitions: The group discussed mainly the scope of the standard and needed definitions. The standard should deal with a general method to assess the durability of energy related products. It should provide guidance for integrating assessment of durability in product specific standards, e.g. in the form of a decision tree. No agreement could be reached in how far test methods/standards should already be part of the horizontal standard. All existing standards with relevance for test of durability or reliability of products and especially components should be provides in a table, e.g. as Annex. A majority of the participants refused to integrate general principles for design of durability. This is no part of the mandate. Aspects to concider: Take into account differences between consumer and professional products, especially investment goods. For the last it is usual to take repairs into account to determine total durability. The relation between minimum and optimum life time to durability need to be discussed further. Need of a durability test to ensure that the product is functional for a proposed time frame (by the producer). Thereby a component approach seems an appropriate solution for relevant products. Taking into account the differences between consumer and investment goods three definitions of durability are necessary: Durability 1: time until first repair Durability 2: including rapier Durability 3: technical life time Further definitions needed for the standard Maintenance service unit components failure consumer products professional products investment products intended use conditions Drafting team meeting of CEN/CLC JWG 10/PT 3 The NWIP on reuse and reparability were discussed. The difference between the 2 forms was minimal. Several sections need input form the JTC10 secretariat. These formal issues are common to all PTs and JTC10 is best placed to give a coherent answer. Apart from the decision on split / merger of NWIT and resolution of any comments received by then, a discussion of the Draft standard will be on the agenda of meeting. It was 9

10 suggested by several participants it would be best to do a top-down approach starting from the ONR_ / outline. The document send in will be kept to serve later in making the Draft standard. Something should be send out to allow PT3 to read and prepare for the discussion. The idea is to launch the process and be able to disband the DT to avoid losing time reexplaining, re-discussing ideas and opinions from the DT again in the PT. CEN/CLC JWG 10/PT 5 (Meeting ) 10

11 Next steps: Drafting Teams installed for: Assessing the recyclability and recoverability of energy related products Assessing the proportion of recycled material 1st web meetingsin December, next web meetings planned for end ofj anuary Not enough experts for deliverable: General method for assessing the proportion of re-used components in an energy related product. Draft standard: General method for assessing the proportion of recycled material content in an energy related product. Points discussed and Decisions made: Kick-off Meeting of CEN/CLC JWG 10/PT 7 (Meeting ) 1. PT6 decided to suggest adding item 17 to the tasks of PT7, however CAG will have to confirm this. NEN suggested during PT6, that during the 2 nd JWG10 plenary (18/01/17) it should be clarified whether or not PT6 could continue to exist. It was decided to provisionally include item 17 with the proposed title, as PT6 did not find a chair to organize the work. 2. It was decided to merge the proposed items 18 and 19 in a single NWIP, as 19 appears to be a subtask under 18. No aspects from the mandate where eliminated during this process. So the NWIP proposal did not reduce the number of deliverables proposed. 3. It was decided to list item 17 as a separate item in the scope of the NWIP. Due to the sever time constraints and the need to coordinate with other project teams, there was no 11

12 objection to confirm the date of March The idea to start establishing a state of play on the subject as soon as possible was generally accepted, but also the need to ask for input from other PTs later on was acknowledged. The suggested date of item 17, December 2019, is beyond the deadline in M/543 (31/03/19). 4. A title and scope for the NWIP were decided. The title was changed to Methods for providing information relating to material efficiency aspects of products. The scope was defined as listed below: Definition of materials efficiency aspects (with PT1) Identification of target groups and related information need o Consumers o MSA o RRR-sector o Other downstream users Definition of documentation and marking (e.g. communication vehicles) Identification of the users of this horizontal document (at least the corresponding Technical Committees on Energy related Products) General method to declare the use of critical raw materials in energy related products. 5. The group debated on the status of the NWIP (EN/TS/TR). The subject is broad and existing documents, practices and experiences vary in degree of matureness. There was no sustained objection to go for an EN deliverable that could include normative and informative annexes, taking into account the state of play of particular methods and material efficiency aspects (e.g. existing EN 1402X series or ISO 1043; ISO 11469; ISO 1629). It was noted that the intention is to have a horizontal deliverable that would need accompanying or additional product specific standards to gain the status of harmonized product standard. 6. It was decided to test whether the drafting of documents could be done by the group as a whole. In this way, no drafting Team was set up. 7. No next meeting was planned 12