Ref. Ares(2022)871614 - 07/02/2022
DG ENVIRONMENT
Florika Fink-Hooijer
Director-General DG ENV
Meeting with Cefic
on chemical recycling and mass balance in the
framework of SUPD/PPWD
(BU 5 / Room to be defined, 07/09/2021, 11:30)
BRIEFING NOTE
Scene setter / Context:
You will meet Cefic
. It is likely that
their overarching objective is to convince you that industry urgently needs positive
policy signals to gain investment security related to the further development and
deployment of chemical recycling of plastics.
They likely will argue that chemical recycling can support ambitious recycling and
recycled content targets but that for it to work economically, industry must be allowed
to assign recycled content to any output of chemical recycling facilities they deem
suitable (so called “mass balance approach with free allocation”).
However, it remains unclear how it can be ensured that in line with the recycling
definition in Article 8 of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD) plastic waste used for
internal energy consumption or generating fuel products is not considered recycling.
This is relevant for the recycled content targets of the SUP Directive but also the
recycling and recycled content targets in the PPWD and for the calculation of the own
resource based on the non-recycled plastic packaging waste in MSs.
Overall, while the role of mechanical plastic recycling is relatively clear, many
questions remain open upon chemical recycling (CR), e.g. related to its environmental
profile and the conditions under which it can contribute to the achievement of current
and future recycling and recycled content targets.
Chemicals strategy for sustainability: Although supportive of the European Green Deal
objectives related to a circular economy and climate neutrality, CEFIC has been critical of
the Green Deal’s zero pollution ambition for a toxic-free environment. It has criticised the
Chemicals Strategy for sustainability for its regulatory agenda, strengthening chemicals
legislation to protect from hazardous chemicals. Their position is that Europe’s chemical
industry will be key to build the solutions needed for climate neutrality (e.g. for insulation
panels, wind turbines, electric batteries), for which certain toxic chemicals are needed, and
• Building on the potential advantages mentioned before, and inspired by the
discussions around the Taxonomy
1, currently our thinking is evolving based on
the following lines:
- Despite being a potentialy energy-intensive process,
CR has the potential to
complement mechanical recycling in particular
to deal with dif icult to
recycle and contaminated plastics streams.
- The Commission believes that CR can contribute to the circular economy
only
where mechanical recycling is not technically feasible in an
economically viable manner, and the
life-cycle GHG emissions of the
chemical recycling processes, excluding any calculated credits from the
production of fuels, are
lower than the life-cycle GHG emissions of the
incineration with energy recovery of the equivalent plastic
and of the
production of plastic from virgin resources.
- While
some kind of mass balance accounting wil be needed to take into
account CR in a balanced manner, the
exact calculation and verification
rules are still to be determined.
Transparency and traceability, e.g. via a
third party certification scheme, wil be key.
Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability
• The vision of the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability is to move towards a
toxic-free environment, where chemicals are produced and used in a way that
maximises their contribution to society; achieving the green and digital
transitions, while avoiding harm to people and the planet.
• The European Green Deal defines three pilars for a sustainable economy and
society: zero pollution for a toxic-free environment, climate neutrality, and
circularity. The way chemicals are produced and used is key to al three goals.
• These are the three pillars that drive the vision and objectives of the Chemicals
Strategy, and the basis for the need to phase out as far as possible the most
harmful chemicals and to produce and use all chemicals more safely and more
sustainably.
• We need to reduce the impact of chemical production on climate, and at the same
time we need innovative chemical solutions for achieving climate neutrality;
• We need safer chemicals in materials and products to enable clean circularity and
safe recycling. Reaching these goals requires a fundamental transition of our
production and consumption system towards chemicals and materials that are safe
and sustainable through their entire lifecycle, from design to end of life.
• The concept of ‘safe and sustainable-by-design’ lies at the very heart of this
multiple transition, as it aims to ensure that chemicals, materials and products are
1 Regulation (EU) 2020/852
4
designed, produced and used in a way that does not harm people and the
environment.
• We wil work with stakeholders and experts in the coming months and present
criteria for this concept next year. Those will help us steer policies, funding and
investments for safer and more sustainable chemicals.
• We are convinced that the transition we are aiming for in the CSS is fundamental
to making the EU industry the global leader in safe and sustainable chemicals and
regaining global market share.
• It is clear industry needs to do more to achieve the sustainability objectives that
we have set ourselves to meet for the EU and the world. Is chemical recycling
realy contributing to our sustainability objectives?.
(general: )
• The Chemicals Strategy is our offer to industry to collaborate and provide the
necessary help to industry to get there. The Strategy puts in place regulatory and
non-regulatory measures to promote and support this transition, including by
mobilising funding and investments for development, commercialisation and
uptake of safe and sustainable chemicals and materials.
• Several instruments devote ample funding also to greening production processes;
the Innovation Fund, in particular, promotes the transition to climate neutrality,
circularity and sustainability with a total amount of EUR 10 bilion until 2030.
• We wil cooperate closely with industry and al other key stakeholders, as the
transition needs a joint effort from al.
• We appreciate your interest in being involved in the high-level roundtable that we
have set up, as this will alow us to monitor progress together, to share best
practices and to exploit synergies.
Defensives points/Q&A
Question: If a large portion of plastic waste input into chemical recycling at the end
would not count towards recycling and recycled content targets, why should industry risk
investing in building large chemical recycling facilities in the first place? It would not be
economicaly viable to do so.
Answer: Also chemical recycling needs to comply with the relevant recycling definitions
of the Waste Framework Directive (WFD). Article 3(17) of the WFD clearly defines
recycling as not including
“energy recovery and the reprocessing into materials that are
to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations”. In the framework of the revision of the
WFD, the Commission wil consider whether a definition of chemical recycling is
5
necessary. We also need to ensure that we keep a level playing field between the
different recycling technologies.
Question: Industry knows best its processes. Why should industry not be alowed to
assign the plastic waste input to those output streams of a chemical recycling facility that
make most sense using a “mass balance approach with free allocation”?
Answer: The recycled content in plastic products cannot be measured. The flow of the
plastic waste input cannot be traced throughout a complex and large CR plant. Therefore,
we need to create the trust and confidence in that what is counted as recycling and
recycled content actualy has been recycled and not used as energy source during the
process or to generate output that ends up as fuel product.
Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability:
Why did the Commission not carry out an impact assessment on the overall impact
of the Chemicals Strategy before its adoption? (as CEFIC had asked for).
The Chemicals Strategy is based on extensive evaluations of the EU chemicals policy,
including a Fitness Check of al chemicals legislation, which looked into the
interlinkages and coherence of the interface between over 40 pieces of chemicals
legislation that regulate the way chemicals are assessed and managed. Those evaluations
identified the gaps, weaknesses, and overlaps of the EU legal framework on chemicals,
and the Chemicals Strategy announces actions to fil those gaps as wel as the challenges
chemicals policy needs to tackle.
Any legal proposals announced in the Strategy wil be subject to impact assessments as
per the Commission’s Bet er Regulation principles and guidelines.
6
How do you intend to develop the criteria for Safe- and sustainable-by-design?
We are currently putting in place the framework for developing further the concept of
safe and sustainable chemicals, closely in line with the ongoing work under the Circular
Economy Action Plan, in particular the upcoming initiative on sustainable products.
We are building on all the existing relevant concepts and initiatives, in particular those
related to green and sustainable chemistry promoted in the EU as wel as international y.
The involvement of stakeholders wil be key in developing implementable criteria, and
this is why we intend to establish an inclusive EU network of experts and stakeholders to
enable multidisciplinary design processes.
A first stakeholder workshop (at ended online by more than 500 participants) was
organised on 19 March, and another wil follow in the coming months, to present the
state of our reflections on the methodology for the criteria. The final criteria wil be
presented at the end of next year and wil help us to track progress on the Strategy’s
objectives, but and most importantly they wil support industry and authorities on driving
future funding and investments.
The chemical industry wants to work constructively towards realising the EU’s
Green Deal objectives, but is very worried about the cumulative impact of the
multitude of policy initiatives, which are not all coordinated.
The measures that we established in the CSS were based on extensive evaluations and
consultations of our legal framework on chemicals.
However, we know it is important to guarantee coherence and synergies during the
implementation of the Strategy and its various actions, and the High Level Roundtable
that CEFIC is also a member of will help us to regularly discuss this with stakeholders.
I can also reassure you that the Commission as a whole is highly commit ed to achieving
the goals of the Strategy across policy areas, and that internal coordination is fully in
place to ensure coherence and alignment of the upcoming initiatives announced under
various Commission strategies.
There are a lot of good ideas in the R&I area, but they do not seem to be integrate d
in the Commission's policy agenda.
To the contrary, the European Framework Programmes for Research and Innovation have
been supporting and wil continue to support the implementation of the European
Commission’s policy agenda and the delivery on its priorities, including the Chemicals
Strategy.
7
Some directly relevant examples include initiatives such as the public-private Research
and Innovation partnership on the Assessment of Risk of Chemicals (PARC), the
European Cluster to Improve Identification of Endocrine Disruptors or the European
Human Exposome Network that looks at how various sources of pollution impact human
health and wil develop a toolbox for evidence-based decision making.
Most importantly, the EU’s Research and Innovation programmes fully support the
transition to
Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design chemicals, materials and products. We
wil start by defining
criteria for Safe- and Sustainable-by-Design, and we wil create
an
EU-wide support network to promote the development and uptake of safer
chemicals and materials.
We will
mobilise our financial incentives - including
cohesion funds and recovery
instruments - to support industry in this transition and to reward frontrunners. Those
wil support in particular research and development in
advanced materials,
low-carbon
and low environmental impact production processes, innovative business models, the
re-skiling and up-skiling of the workforce and digital technologies (e.g internet of
things, big data, smart sensors).
Horizon Europe, the future Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, wil
support the implementation of the European Commission’s priorities more strongly than
previous framework programmes. A Horizon Europe Commission team has paid
special
attention to co-design and co-creation with all relevant stakeholders, strengthening
common ownership of the research and innovation policy.
This vision is fully reflected in the
Research and Innovation Strategic Plan 2020-2024 that focuses on the contribution the R&I activities to the Commission’s headline
ambitions.
8
Background information (max. 2-3 pages)
The European Coalition for CR, founded by CEFIC and PlasticsEurope
2, defines CR
as
: “converting polymeric waste by changing its chemical structure to produce
substances that are used as products or as raw materials for the manufacturing of
products. Products exclude those used as fuels or means to generate energy”.
There are different technologies, which fal under CR, but there is no general
classification system for CR. The following CR technologies can be listed from lowest to
highest degree of changing the chemical structure of the ingoing plastic waste (which
often correlates with energy consumption): solvent-based purification, depolymerisation
(e.g. solvolysis, enzymolysis), pyrolysis and gasification.
While a comprehensive and robust analysis of the life cycle impacts of the different CR
processes is lacking, some evidence points to advantages compared to the combination of
plastic waste incineration and virgin production of new plastics as well as to still
predominant down-cycling practices. In many cases, output from mechanical plastic
recycling does not replace virgin plastic input (because of quality issues), however, the
high quality output of chemical recycling can achieve this.
Many experts agree that the ambitious circular economy policy targets mainly regarding
recycling but also ambitious recycled content targets cannot be reached with mechanical
recycling only, as the quality of the plastic waste and the resulting recycled plastic is
insufficient.
CR could be a necessary complement, in particular for ‘difficult to recycle’ plastics and
in applications where mechanical recycling is currently not reaching sufficient levels of
quality, such as for food contact materials.
However, sustainability issues (mainly its high-energy intensity and GHG emissions)
need to be resolved.
New forms of chemical recycling can also lead to other products than feedstock for new
plastic: it can transform waste of high calorific value into hydrogen and industry grade
CO2 to be used in agriculture as wel as the generation of synthetic fuels.
Industry is working intensively on research and development on CR, involving many
plastic producing companies. These companies see the Commission’s initiatives on
plastics as an opportunity to develop these technologies further. They argue they need
investment security to continue.
There is a risk of negative impacts on the mechanical recycling industry. Once
investments in large scale CR facilities are done, the incentive to buy up large amounts of
plastic waste to feed the plant might divert valuable input material away from mechanical
recycling. Also, as CR can treat some currently mechanically unrecyclable plastic, there
is a risk to slow innovation in better design for recyclability.
Article 3(17) of the Waste Framework Directive defines recycling as
“any recovery
operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials or
2
http://www.coalition-chemical-recycling.eu/
9
substances whether for the original or other purposes. It includes the reprocessing of
organic material but does not include energy recovery and the reprocessing into
materials that are to be used as fuels or for backfilling operations”.
The JRC is looking into the need to amend the definition of recycling in the Waste
Framework Directive (WFD) and the related calculation rules (by 2022), which could
lead to proposals for the revision of the WFD in 2023. JRC is running a study on this
with wide stakeholder involvement.
The EC is preparing a position on this complex issue based on Life Cycle Assessment
impacts of this solution and robust traceability measurement of the inputs and outputs of
this process. Also, the results of pilot projects stil need to be expanded to provide a more
representative picture of the possibilities of this technology. We wil continue supporting
innovation through research programmes, including Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe,
including Life Cycle Assessment.
Implementing Decision (EU) 2019/665 describes a framework for mass balance
calculations in the context of the PPWD but no clear calculation and verification rules:
“Where packaging waste materials enter recovery operations whereby those materials
are not principally used either as a fuel or other means to generate energy, or for
material recovery, but result in output that includes recycled materials, fuels or
backfilling materials in significant proportions, the amount of recycled waste shall be
determined by a mass balance approach which results in taking account only of waste
materials that are subject to recycling.”
Major (existing and upcoming) policies wil be impacted by decisions on the role of CR:
• 2022: The SUP Directive is the first EU level legislation mandating a minimum
recycled plastic content, in this case for PET SUP beverage bottles 25% as of
2025 and for al SUP beverage bottles 30% as of 2030.
• 2022: The revision of the PPWD wil foresee recycled content targets at least for
some plastic packaging. Existing plastic recycling targets (50% by 2025, 55% by
2030) wil be affected as well.
• The CEAP 2.0 mandates the Commission to suggest further recycled content
targets for plastics in the areas of vehicles and building/construction.
• The plastic-based Own Resource contribution of Member States to the EU budget
(€0.80 per kilogram of plastic packaging waste that is not recycled).
10
BACKGROUND CHEMICALS STRATEGY FOR SUSTAINABILITY
Chemicals Strategy implementation – planning and timing
The Chemicals Strategy was released together with a detailed annex defining the main
actions announced in the Strategy, including their tentative timing and the pieces of
legislation concerned by each action.
CEFIC is very keen on
swift implementation of the innovation and enforcement
actions, while they believe that the regulatory actions announced wil have a strong
impact on the competitiveness of industry.
The most important deliverables for 2021 and 2022 wil be a balance of regulatory and
non-regulatory (supporting) actions, in particular:
Launch of the
High Level Roundtable: first meeting took place on 5 May, second
meeting scheduled for 25 November (topic: enforcement)
Opening of the
consultations for REACH and Classification, Label ing and
Packaging (CLP) revisions: Summer 2021 (CLP proposal expected by end 2021 and
REACH proposal expected by end 2022).
Launch of the ‘
One substance, one assessment’ process (to simplify assessment and
regulatory processes on chemicals): Q1 2021.
Definition of ‘
Safe and sustainable by design’, establishment of an EU-wide support
network and of key performance indicators to measure the industrial transition:
2021-2022.
Financial support for the development, commercialisation, deployment and uptake of
safe and sustainable-by-design substances, materials (integrated in
Horizon Europe,
smart specialisation and cohesion funds,
LIFE programme,
national recovery plans):
as of 2021.
Actions to step up
enforcement and surveil ance, including proposals to set uniform
conditions and frequency of checks for certain products (under the
Market Surveil ance
Regulation) and set up of an audit capacity on national enforcement systems (under
REACH): 2021-22.
Develop a
Research and Innovation agenda for chemicals: 2022.
Annexes: Let er from Cefic; CVs
11
Annex I: Letter from Cefic
Brussels, 29th July 2021
Dear
, Dear
Further to our meeting on the 27th of May 2021 on the topic of mass balance and Recycled
Content calculations for the 2025 and 2030 targets as set by the Single-Use Plastics Directive,
where we conveyed our position against the polymer-only model, we are now writing to
complement our feedback and further engage on your request for input on the proposals made
in the paper drafted by Eunomia and presented in the workshop on the 29th of April 2021.
Cefic supports the objective of a climate-neutral European economy by 2050 and the transition
to a circular economy wil be fundamental to achieving this, as wel as the broader goals of the
European Green Deal. Chemical recycling of plastic waste has an enormous potential to
contribute to this transition.
The industry is undertaking efforts and is investing to replace an
ever-increasing part of feedstock with waste-based secondary raw materials. To stimulate this
change of feedstock, legislation must undergo the paradigm shift from a waste orientation to a
resource orientation.
In the recent weeks, we have studied, together with our members, the ‘Recycled Content in
Plastic Beverage Bottles – Workshop Briefing Paper’ shared by Eunomia in April 2021.
We
appreciate the recognition of the contributions non-mechanical recycling can make, the
considerations of chain of custody approaches, and the role of a credit-transfer in achieving
the 2025 and 2030 targets.
Mass balance methodology can accelerate feedstock transition and enables rapid innovation of
processes and business models, provided it is reinforced by a solid legislative framework. In our
assessment, we consider the free attribution model as proposed by Eunomia to be the closest
to our mass balance position, based on the societal contributions it can make and its potential
to quickly increase the recycled content in our economy. Based on this model, Plastics Europe
recently announced investments in the scale-up of chemical recycling planned by member
companies amounting to €7.2 bil ion by 2030. 2
We stress our commitment to be more circular and thus to produce recycled feedstock and to
speed up the transition of a circular economy for plastics by using our existing fully integrated
production facilities. This matters when considering the overal sustainability impact. If needed,
to align a mass balance model with the presented reading of the current recycling definition as
per the Waste Framework Directive,
we can support the direction of Eunomia’s proposal for
the ‘fuel exempt’ model.
We propose to refine this model to ‘fuel use exempt’.
Our suggestion is driven by the understanding that the recycling step is corrected for (1)
system/process losses, (2) fuel generated and used by the process (auto-consumption), and (3)
substances generated and used as fuels. We believe the above supports the objective of closing
the economic material circle.
We thank you for considering our input on this important topic and we would welcome an
opportunity to further discuss, clarify and elaborate on our proposal. Would it be possible to
have a meeting at your earliest convenience so we can have your feedback and learn about the
next steps and the possibilities to contribute to your ongoing work? If we may, we wil contact
you to explore mutual y convenient dates. Looking ahead, we affirm our wil to work together
with you for a circular economy and a resource-oriented legal framework, enabling the
transitions to 2050.
Yours sincerely,
12
14
