Public consultation addressing the interface between chemical, product and waste legislation
1. In what capacity are you responding to this consultation?
As an individual in a personal capacity
|
|
As an individual in a professional capacity
|
|
On behalf of an organisation, business or institution
|
|
Industry or trade association
|
|
Business
|
|
Non-governmental organisation (NGO)
|
|
Trade union
|
|
Government or public authority
|
|
Intergovernmental organisation
|
|
Academic or research institute/educational institution
|
|
European institution
|
|
International body
|
|
Other
|
|
4. If a business or industry association, please specify the sector (select one or more answers):
Producer of primary raw materials (inorganic)
|
|
Producer of primary raw materials (organic)
|
|
Importer of raw materials (inorganic)
|
|
Importer of raw materials (organic)
|
|
Producer of manufactured products (articles)
|
|
Importer of manufactured products (articles)
|
|
Recycler
|
|
Other waste management activities
|
|
Other
|
|
If you represent a private company, what size is it?
Micro-enterprises: fewer than 10 persons employed;
|
|
Small enterprises:10 to 49 persons employed;
|
|
Medium-sized enterprises: 50 to 249 persons employed;
|
|
Large enterprises: 250 or more persons employed.
|
|
If responding on behalf of an organisation/association/authority/company/body, please provide the name:
Ecopreneur.eu, European Sustainable Business Federation. We represent over 3000 companies in 7 member states, mainly SMEs
5. Please indicate below if you want your contribution to remain anonymous
Please note that contributions from this survey, together with the identity of the contributor, will be published on the European Commission's website, unless the contributor objects to publication of the personal information.
I give my permission for my contribution to be published with my personal information: I consent to the publication of all information in my contribution in whole or in part including my name or my organisation's name, and I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent publication.
|
|
My contribution can be published provided that I remain anonymous: I consent to the publication of any information in my contribution in whole or in part (which may include quotes or opinions I express) provided that it is done anonymously. I declare that nothing within my response is unlawful or would infringe the rights of any third party in a manner that would prevent publication.
|
|
For further information on how your personal data and contribution will be dealt with, please refer to the privacy statement that is provided on the cover page for this consultation.
6. Is your organisation or institution registered on the EU Transparency Register?
Yes
|
|
No
|
|
Do not know
|
|
If yes, please provide your Register ID number:
495144126378-48
If you wish to view the EU Transparency Register, please refer to the link provided on the cover page for this consultation.
7. Please provide us with your full name:
Arthur ten Wolde
tenwolde@ecopreneur.eu
|
Fully agree |
Mostly agree |
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No Opinion
|
Option 1A
|
|||||
Option 1B
|
Option 2A: all substances of concern should be tracked by a set date
Option 2B: sector-specific tracking solutions: information on relevant substances of concern should be available to recyclers in a form commensurate to what is required.
Option 2C: tracking of substances of concern should remain voluntary.
Option 2D: tracking of substances of concern is not necessary or suitable because information on chemicals should be obtained directly by analytical means (incoming waste batches, including imported waste, and outgoing recycled or recovered materials).
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 2A
|
|||||
Option 2B
|
|||||
Option 2C
|
|||||
Option 2D
|
What would be the added value of introducing a compulsory information system in the Union that informs waste management and recover operators of the presence of sustances of concern?
All substances of concern should be tracked by a set date. To achieve this, sector-specific tracking solutions with information on relevant substances of concern should be available to all companies handling secondary raw materials in a form commensurate to what is required. The objective of EU regulation on SVHC is to prevent these substances from being used in products on the EU market. The sooner companies stop using them, the sooner we can create a circular economy, which consists of clean circles. And the sooner companies converting waste into secondary raw materials, or using secondary raw materials, are informed about the presence of SVHC in the input they receive, they can take measures to avoid them in the secondary raw materials used as input for products entering the EU market. N.B. Waste management companies in our membership disagree with Option 2A.
How should we manage goods imported to the Union?
Connected to Challenge 4: Goods imported into the EU should be managed in the same way as goods traded within the EU. To prevent the import of goods containing unregistered SVHCs, with unreliable paper trails, increased market surveillance of imported goods is urgently needed. We therefore urge the EU to carry out random, unannounced checks on the actual presence of SHVCs in imported goods, in combination with high fines for their presence above legal limits. The fine revenues by each agency should be added to their budget for market surveillance. The same principle should be applied to market surveillance of all environmental regulations in all member states.
Challenge 3: Level playing field between secondary and primary material
Uptake of secondary raw materials is governed, not only by price considerations but largely by the credibility of the material itself, which may be able to perform similarly to the equivalent comparable grade of the primary material and may ensure safe use. The current technical and economic feasibility of removing substances of concern is very case-dependent. In such cases where the recovered substance cannot fully match the quality of the primary substance, several options on how to proceed are possible.
To what extent do you agree with the statements made in the following options:
Option 3B: derogations from rules on primary materials could be made for secondary materials, subject to conditions and to review within a defined time period. Such decisions should be substance-specific and based on overall costs and benefits to society according to an agreed methodology. The methodology should include considerations of risk, socioeconomic factors and overall environmental outcome based on the whole life cycle of the material. In some cases, a careful analysis will have to be made, for example, on the trade-off between allowing the repair of equipment with spare parts containing substances of concern versus early decommissioning or obsolescence of that equipment.
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 3A
|
|||||
Option 3B
|
Challenge 4: Level playing field between EU-produced and imported articles
A very significant proportion of the products that become waste in the EU are imported from outside the EU, where often less restrictive chemical-related requirements apply. The difficulties in ensuring even minimal supply chain communication with non-EU suppliers and the legal impossibility to apply the REACH authorisation obligation to articles containing substances of very high concern manufactured outside of the EU clearly represents a barrier to achieving waste streams without substances of concern.
To what extent do you agree with the statements defining the following options:
Option 4B: The enhanced enforcement of existing legislation to prevent the entry of non-compliant products into the EU is necessary, not only to protect human health and the environment, but also to contribute to the availability of high quality material for recycling. Therefore, we propose to promote the enhanced enforcement of chemicals and product legislation at EU borders.
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 4A
|
|||||
Option 4B
|
Challenge 5: Design for circularity
To what extent do you agree with the statements defining the following options:
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 5A
|
|||||
Option 5B
|
|||||
Option 5C
|
|||||
Option 5D
|
Circular design can only be mainstreamed by introducing harmonised differentiated fees for ecodesign in Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes (5A). Also, the Ecodesign Directive should be extended with minimum requirements for circular design for all end products (5B) to ban the worst products from the market and prevent future problems with legacy chemicals. In addition, voluntary measures and approaches should be pursued as well, but only with ambitious targets, tight deadlines, and a parallel policy trajectory to develop regulations that can be invoked as soon as these approaches fail to do the job. We welcome the larger reflection brought by the EU Product Policy Framework Roadmap and are looking forward to participate in upcoming discussions about EU guidelines for EPR and about the Ecodesign Directive.
Recycled materials may be allowed to contain chemicals that are no longer permitted in primary materials only if: 1. Decisions are be based on a sound cost-benefit impact and risk analysis including full multiple LCA including health, environmental, social and economic impacts and risks of both options 2. The LCA should include end-of-life negative impacts of waste such as ocean plastics 3. In case of uncertainty about the risks, the precautionary principle is invoked 4. The recycled material cannot be in physical contact with people or the environment during normal use. 5. The products are guaranteed to be disassembled after use in a way that prevents the legacy material to come into contact with people or the environment 6. The part of the product containing the legacy materials will be recycled in a controlled way preventing hazardous contact in next cycles 7. A regular review and automatic transition to option 3A as soon as these strict conditions are not met.
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
(i)
|
|||||
(ii)
|
|||||
(iii)
|
Option 6B: take measures to ensure more consistency of practices at Member State level. Indicate which of the following approaches would best achieve this purpose:
i. End-of-waste status can only be achieved as a result of an ex-ante decision by a Member State competent authority (i.e. permit);
ii. A recovery operator can make his own assessment of whether end-of-waste status is achieved. This assessment is subject to an ex-post verification regime by competent authorities; or
iii. A combination of these approaches, e.g. distinguishing on the basis of the nature of specific waste streams.
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
(i)
|
|||||
(ii)
|
|||||
(iii)
|
End-of-waste criteria should be simplified and facilitate recycling. If no EU-wide criteria exist, rather than switching to private schemes, we prefer national governments to make the assessment. Strongly increased political will and clear new ideas are needed to break the deadlock in the endless 20-year discussion about the waste criteria and finally solve this issue, and also to step up market surveillance and introduce higher fines for transgressions. To ensure safe products, all recovered substances should in principle be registered under REACH and thereby achieve end-of-waste status. However to avoid excessive costs and red tape, especially for SMEs, we favour to retain an exemption for goods with relatively small waste stream impacts, i.e. restrict the mandatory registration under REACH to materials recovered from high-impact waste streams such as WEEE, plastics, pharmaceuticals etc. N.B. Waste management companies in our membership favor Option 6Bii if no EU-wide criteria exist.
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 7A
|
|||||
Option 7B
|
|
Fully agree
|
Mostly agree
|
Mostly disagree
|
Disagree
|
Don't know/No opinion
|
Option 8A
|
|||||
Option 8B
|
Concerning Question 3, we only recommend option 3B provided strict and severe conditions, a short time period to review and an automatic transition to option 3A if these conditions are not met for the goods in question. Otherwise option will provide a loophole in EU legislation of SHVCs.